Obama running scared. Refuse to debate Clinton

[NEON DEON]

Guess BHO is afraid he will go backwards again.

"WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Sunday brushed aside a challenge from Hillary Rodham Clinton to debate before the May 6 primaries in Indiana and North Carolina."


Also of note: Dean says the Superdupers should vote on who is more electable.

"Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said superdelegates should make known their choices on the Democratic nominee for president by the end of June. Ultimately, he said he believes their decisions will be based on who is more electable, rather than necessarily who has the most pledged delegates, because that is what party rules stipulate."

I guess since he is head of the DNC he should know what he is talking about.

Repblicans are now using regional attack adds linking Democrats who have supported Obama using the WRIGHT FACTOR.

"Meanwhile, Obama has become a Republican target. The North Carolina Republican Party aired an ad, over McCain's objections, that uses remarks by Obama's former pastor to portray Obama as too extreme. The ad points out that the two Democrats running for state governor have endorsed the Illinois senator."

The bloom is off the rose!:D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080427/ap_on_el_pr/democrats


Clinton now holds the general election poll lead.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/042608DailyUpdateGraph3_hij8vz.gif



Obama is tied with Mcain and Clinton in General election and Demo race.

[Tchocky]

Obama is tied with Mcain and Clinton in Demo race.
:-?

[NEON DEON]

Obama is tied with Mcain and Clinton in Demo race.
:-?

Added general election. Thanks.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106825/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Obama-Tied-47.aspx

[Platapus]

And what will the benefit of twenty two debates that twenty one won't have?

I don't think Obama is scared (although I am sure that's what Clinton wants everyone to think). I think he would rather campaign in the state than have yet another debate.

I am sure he has been advised that he can garner more support by campaigning than by a televised debate.

Is there some issue that has not been debated in the past twenty one debates that will be addressed?

We know the similarities and differences between the two candidates.

[iambecomelife]

He's backing off again?! Doesn't he realize how bad this looks? If he wants to be President he's going to have to get used to defending substantive positions. I suppose the problem is that he's rarely been in an environment where his ideology was challenged; now that he's running for higher office he can't articulate to the public and his opponents why he holds his beliefs.

Also, his performance in the earlier debate seemed pretty subpar at times. Obama is a much less awkward speaker than GWB, obviously. He could be a perfectly adequate debater if he bothered to put forth the effort. Apart from the fact that it makes him look scared, does he think that avoiding debates will help him improve? For his sake he'd better hold all of those other debates - I doubt he can go from now until November throwing the fight like this every time suffers a setback. :roll:

[NEON DEON]

The main reason to debate is to prove to his own supporters that the last debate was boo hoo, unfair, awful. Clinton even offered to do it with no moderator roll up the sleaves and duke it out one on one style.

New excuse time. It would be better if I just campaigned. Hell yeah. He knows he is better when no one is around questioning him. Obama out spent Clinton over 2 to 1 in PA and still got beat by double digits.

I cant wait for the next excuse.

I am sorry I cant debate tonight the dog ate my notes.;)

[TDK1044]

Sure Hillary wants another debate....the only possible chance she has to steal the nomination is if he screws up. Like it or not, he's the nominee, and she's only sticking around to try and get her money back via contributions.

Even if you make the math the most favorable it could possibly be for Hillary with the remaining primaries, including a negotiated seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates, with proportional representation, Obama will still have about a 120 Delegate lead over her at the point the super delgates get involved.

She can't win unless he really screws up somehow. All he needs to do is ignore her and keep campaigning and he's the nominee.

[Tchocky]

The main reason to debate is to prove to his own supporters that the last debate was boo hoo, unfair, awful. Clinton even offered to do it with no moderator roll up the sleaves and duke it out one on one style. I think it was unfair to both of them, an absolute disgrace of an evening.

New excuse time. It would be better if I just campaigned. Hell yeah. He knows he is better when no one is around questioning him. Obama out spent Clinton over 2 to 1 in PA and still got beat by double digits. Clinton won by 9% in PA. 9.14% to be precise.
I don't mean to parrot Obama, but the closing from 20 points is an interesting indicator.
There was a debate in PA because of the long time gap between it and the previous contest. Indiana is on what, May 6th?

[TDK1044]

Obama's views on all the major topics are very well known. Hillary's views on all the major topics are very well known. Neither of them will change their position. So the real question is why we had 21 debates in the first place, not why aren't we having another one?

If someone here posted the same views 21 times, I would hope that a Moderator would delete 20 of them in the knowledge that the members here were intelligent enough to understand the OPs position the first time he posted.

[bradclark1]

Well, I'm watching Wright on CNN and he says that whats going on with his remarks is an attack on the Black Church and not on him. I haven't seen any attack on him or the black church. This is one of the main reasons I won't vote for Obama. If you don't agree with me you are a racist.

[Tchocky]

Well, I'm watching Wright on CNN and he says that whats going on with his remarks is an attack on the Black Church and not on him. I haven't seen any attack on him or the black church.There have been bomb threats on the church, brad. Check out Wright's interview with Bill Moyers.
This is one of the main reasons I won't vote for Obama. If you don't agree with me you are a racist. This is absolutely ridiculous. The same kind of grade-A BS that means if you don't vote for Hillary it makes you sexist.
You honestly believe that if you don't vote for Obama you will be labelled a racist?
Are you getting this from anything Obama said?

[TDK1044]

Just vote for the candidate who comes closest to representing your views and beliefs.

This time around for me the choice is between a grumpy old fart, a liar and a mirage.

We can choose the guy who thinks that being a war hero makes him the best candidate, even though the stress of the job would probably kill him in his first term. Mccain's VP is therefore a very important factor in my view. If you don't like him, then there's Hillary, who I'm sure will be under sniper fire from the Secret Service if she's the nominee because they hate her guts. Then there's Mister Mirage....I look cool, I sound cool, but I don't actually say anything.

"I'll take 'fuc*ed and far from home' for 200, Alex."

[Konovalov]

This is one of the main reasons I won't vote for Obama. If you don't agree with me you are a racist. This is absolutely ridiculous. The same kind of grade-A BS that means if you don't vote for Hillary it makes you sexist.
You honestly believe that if you don't vote for Obama you will be labelled a racist?
Are you getting this from anything Obama said?
It's called a wild imagination.

[NEON DEON]

Sure Hillary wants another debate....the only possible chance she has to steal the nomination is if he screws up. Like it or not, he's the nominee, and she's only sticking around to try and get her money back via contributions.

Dean:

"Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said superdelegates should make known their choices on the Democratic nominee for president by the end of June. Ultimately, he said he believes their decisions will be based on who is more electable, rather than necessarily who has the most pledged delegates, because that is what party rules stipulate."

2025 delegates gets you the win. Not one more delegate than the other guy.

And on the money thing. If that was true, she could have walked away this week when she made 10 million in contributions.

Stealing the election and she is only in it for the money?

Wow thats cracked.

BTW: The US has 50 states not 48.:D

Who is stealing what again?

[TDK1044]

Dean can say whatever he wants. The Super Delegates will vote the way they want when they're ready and Dean is irrelevant to that process. He can ask that they vote by the end of June....and they can ignore him if they so choose....as the rules allow.

Unless Obama really screws something up, it's over.

[DeepIron]

If Obama is smart, he'll keep his mouth shut (no more debates) and let his charisma win for him. Anyone who takes the time to check out his "plans for change" for the US is bound to find them "unworkable" at least in the short term, IMO. He's too "junior", hasn't got any political clout to speak of, and I feel that those politicos who are openly supporting him only do so for their own benefit. Just cynasim on my part really...

His next smart move would be to name Richardson as his VP running mate and garner support from the Hispanic community, IMO.

[TDK1044]

North Carolina carries more delegates than Indiana. Obama is well ahead in NC, and it's a dead heat in Indiana. If Hillary loses both then the pressure on her to pull out will be huge. His win in NC will wipe out the 10 delegates she gained in PA. With Indiana that close, whoever wins there will only gain 3 or 4 delegates. This 'nip tuck' delegate gain and loss will continue to the end.

The difference is that Obama is currently 135 delegates ahead of her. If it was a 20 or 30 delegate lead, it would be different. But at the end of the process, he will have won more states than Hillary, he'll have more of the popular vote than Hillary, and he'll have a delegate lead of about 120 with a lot of senior Democrats endorsing him.

I think even when the race is on between McCain and Obama, Hillary will still be out there campaigning!:D

[DeepIron]

I think even when the race is on between McCain and Obama, Hillary will still be out there campaigning!:Dyeah, her and Nader! ;)

[Platapus]

This time around for me the choice is between a grumpy old fart, a liar and a mirage.


These days it seems that all American elections consist of is "who do I hate the least?" :nope:

[DeepIron]

This time around for me the choice is between a grumpy old fart, a liar and a mirage.

These days it seems that all American elections consist of is "who do I hate the least?" :nope:What my friend Wes calls the "evil of two lessers"... American Idol has more going for it than our electoral process it seems. :damn:

[PeriscopeDepth]

The three candidates left standing are better than any serious candidates seen in a long while, IMO. And as for debates, I don't blame him. That last debate was a joke.

PD

[NEON DEON]

Dean can say whatever he wants. The Super Delegates will vote the way they want when they're ready and Dean is irrelevant to that process. He can ask that they vote by the end of June....and they can ignore him if they so choose....as the rules allow.

Unless Obama really screws something up, it's over.

The only thing over is the Obama love affair.

Dean is more relevent than you or I and apparently the AP thinks the same way:

"WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable than Democratic rival Barack Obama"



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_race_ap_poll


"Also on Monday, the head of the Republicans' House campaign committee said the party would rather face Obama in November because the GOP believes Clinton would be more of a threat to McCain among moderate voters."



Obama is playing prevent with the score tied.

[baggygreen]

what you guys dont want is Mr Public Image.

but thats what it looks liek you're getting, because the public is entirely uneducated and so easily misled.

We got Mr P.I. here, its been 6 months and just last week he made his first real step - raise tax on popular premixed alcohol to try make it tougher and less attractive to kids.

the rest of the time he's been telling us how great he is and how much he's going to do for us... without doing anything!

[Iceman]

If Obama is smart, he'll keep his mouth shut

His next smart move would be to name Richardson as his VP running mate and garner support from the Hispanic community, IMO.

You are so right here...if he does win his party...this would be a very very smart move.

IMO

[TDK1044]

Dean can say whatever he wants. The Super Delegates will vote the way they want when they're ready and Dean is irrelevant to that process. He can ask that they vote by the end of June....and they can ignore him if they so choose....as the rules allow.

Unless Obama really screws something up, it's over.

The only thing over is the Obama love affair.

Dean is more relevent than you or I and apparently the AP thinks the same way:

"WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable than Democratic rival Barack Obama"



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_race_ap_poll


"Also on Monday, the head of the Republicans' House campaign committee said the party would rather face Obama in November because the GOP believes Clinton would be more of a threat to McCain among moderate voters."



Obama is playing prevent with the score tied.


Wright's rantings can certainly hurt Obama a lot, but if the SDs were to ignore the candidate who won the most states, and who won more delegates and who won the popular vote, there would be anarchy within the Democratic party and screams of racism. Given the above, they will vote for Obama, even if they know that Hillary would stand a better chance against McCain. Such is politics.

The bottom line is that the Democrats have created a specific criteria by which their nominee is chosen. The DNC could form a comittee to sit in a room and choose a nominee who they believe would stand the best chance of beating the Republican nominee, and not bother entering into any kind of campaign based selection process. But if you have a democratic process for electing your nominee, then you must honor the winner of that process, even if you believe that another candidate would stand a better chance against the Republican candidate. To do otherwise would defeat the whole purpose of the process.

If the SDs were to steal the nomination and give it to Hillary, the damage to the Democratic party would be huge and the Reagan Democrats would certainly see to it that McCain was the next president.

[bradclark1]

There have been bomb threats on the church, brad. Check out Wright's interview with Bill Moyers.
No. In the verbal sense, not physical. He says the hoopla about him is actually an attack on the black church.


This is one of the main reasons I won't vote for Obama. If you don't agree with me you are a racist. This is absolutely ridiculous. The same kind of grade-A BS that means if you don't vote for Hillary it makes you sexist.
You honestly believe that if you don't vote for Obama you will be labelled a racist?
Are you getting this from anything Obama said?
Maybe I should have put it in quotes or something or spent moretime on the post. If you don't agree with what Wright says or if you don't like what he says you are attacking blacks. Thats the impression I get from him.

[bradclark1]

But if you have a democratic process for electing your nominee, then you must honor the winner of that process, even if you believe that another candidate would stand a better chance against the Republican candidate. To do otherwise would defeat the whole purpose of the process.
But it's in the rules that in the end the Party can choose who they think is the most electable. So much for democracy! Just goes to show voting doesn't mean squat. You can win the vote and still not be the Democratic nominee and you can win the vote and still not be president. :lol:
Myself? I was going to vote for McCain but it's to the point that his bs has turned me off also. I'm probably just not going to vote at all this time around.

[TDK1044]

For the first vote, all the pledged delegates must vote the way they did at the primary. The SDs can vote how they want. If there is no winner as a result of that vote, then all the delegates are free to vote any way they like.

[SUBMAN1]

Maybe its a case of Hillary running scared? Check this out - just developing:

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton to appear for first time ever on FOX NEWS' 'The O'Reilly Factor' Wednesday night... DEVELOPING...

http://www.drudgereport.com/

-S

[NEON DEON]

Maybe its a case of Hillary running scared? Check this out - just developing:

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton to appear for first time ever on FOX NEWS' 'The O'Reilly Factor' Wednesday night... DEVELOPING...

http://www.drudgereport.com/

-S

Obama, for the first time in two years, appeared on Fox this week and seems to have pissed off a lot of liberal bloggers. KEWL:D


Ok everyone sing it now!


"You've lost that lovin' feeling
Whoa, that lovin' feeling
You've lost that lovin' feeling
Now it's gone, gone, gone, wooooooh
Now there's no welcome look in your eyes when I reach for you
And now your're starting to criticize little things I do
It makes me just feel like crying, baby
'Cause baby, something in you is dying"

Thank you. Thank you very much




http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/obama-distanc-1.html

"Liberal bloggers are expressing outrage over Barack Obama's appearance this weekend on Fox News, accusing the Democratic presidential front-runner of kowtowing to the network's conservative viewers, and throwing his online supporters to the wolves."

So who is more scared?:hmm:

[bradclark1]

For the first vote, all the pledged delegates must vote the way they did at the primary. The SDs can vote how they want. If there is no winner as a result of that vote, then all the delegates are free to vote any way they like.
Here's a good rundown. http://jeffsadow.blogspot.com/2008/04/la-democrat-superdelegates-will-go-with.html

[TDK1044]

Neither of them is scared. She has the better platform and he has the better campaign. If Obama's campaign team had been working for Hillary, this would all have been over by Super Tuesday. Thankfully, this nonsense will all be over in a couple of months.....a lot sooner if Hillary loses NC and Indiana.

[NEON DEON]

What does winning more states have to do with anything?

Clinton:

California 55 electoral votes. 1 state.

Obama:

Mississippi 6

North Dakota 3

Alaska 3

Vermont 3

Wyoming 3

South Carolina 8

Hawaii 4

Maine 4

Nebraska 5

Delaware 3

Iowa 7

Kansas 6

Total 55 electoral votes 12 states.

Sheer numbers of states mean nothing.

[TDK1044]

What does winning more states have to do with anything?

Clinton:

California 55 electoral votes. 1 state.

Obama:

Mississippi 6

North Dakota 3

Alaska 3

Vermont 3

Wyoming 3

South Carolina 8

Hawaii 4

Maine 4

Nebraska 5

Delaware 3

Iowa 7

Kansas 6

Total 55 electoral votes 12 states.

Sheer numbers of states mean nothing.


This is a delegate race, and he has 135 more than Hillary, as well as more of the popular vote and more States. He'll have about 120 more delegates at the end of the process. He wins. she loses. Simple. Shout at the wind all you want. Obama is the nominee.

If you want to blame someone, blame Hillary. She made a massive error at the start of her campaign. She chose not to caucus. Obama knew how important the caucus states would be and she did not. Big mistake. At a caucus, he's articulate, eloquent and charismatic. He knows how to work the room. He talks to people and she talks at them. He sounds like a human being and she sounds like a politician.

If you look at all of the data, and not just the data you choose to display favoring Hillary, you'll see that in the primary states she did well, and in the caucus states, he blew her away. Had she have chosen to caucus, this would have been a head to head race.

As it is, the super delegates will give Obama the necessary votes. Not to do so would reflect very poorly on the Democratic party and its credibilty would be shot. Even Howard Dean gets that. What would be the point of the next democratic nominees going through six hard months of campaigning if a bunch of super delegates decide it all in the end based on who they think the best candidate would be?

She was the stronger candidate and he had a vastly superior campaign strategy.

He won. She lost.

[NEON DEON]

1) Number of states dont matter at all!

2) Clinton leads in the popular vote unless you plan on Florida and Michigan disappearing from the United States.

3) Regular Delagate lead means nothing if you dont hit 2025 with them.

4) Super Delagates dont have to vote for the candidate who has one more delagate than the other.

5) SDs were created to help decide who would be more electable.

IE: If they were there just to vote for who ever has the most delegates, they would serve no purpose.

6) At this point in time, Clinton is more electable.

7) Delagates dont get to vote in November but the people of Florida and Michigan do.:D

[TDK1044]

You don't get it and you obviously never will. Wait a couple of months and you'll be confronted with political reality. Any more discussion is futile.

[Jacky Fisher]

Obama lost the intative in PA at that asinine debate. Wright hurt him only in the sense that it reminded everyone that Obama is 'black' in a cultural sense, which is what makes some working-class whites uncomfortable with him. McCain would lose to both of them at this point, but his defeat would be comprehensive (-30%) against Obama, but a close shave against Hillary (-3 to -4%). Obama has at least made a case for VP with all of the new supporters he brings to the table. McCain has been turned down by Romney for the VP slot on the GOP ticket, which will hurt him in the mountain states where Romney is popular among conservatives. McCain also has problems on his right flank, with most grassroots rightwingers deeply distrutful of him for variety of reasons, which explains why the state GOPs are playing the race card in thier ads.

This election could get very ugly very quickly.

[TDK1044]

The McCain people privately refer to Hillary as "redundant noise" :D Also, they have made five commercials going after Obama and none at all regarding Hillary. It's easy to see who they believe the democratic nominee is.

Before we even get to the NC primary, Obama has already made up 5 of the 10 delegates that Hillary gained in PA, becuase of new SD endorsements. Each day a new SD endorses him. I think he'll take NC comfortably and he'll gain 7 or 8 delegates. Indiana is too close to call, and if she loses there then it's really over for her no matter how much cherry picked data is produced in her support.

As I said before, her decision not to caucus has cost her the nomination.

[JetSnake]

The McCain people privately refer to Hillary as "redundant noise" :D Also, they have made five commercials going after Obama and none at all regarding Hillary. It's easy to see who they believe the democratic nominee is.

Before we even get to the NC primary, Obama has already made up 5 of the delegates that Hillary gained in PA, becuase of new SD endorsements. Each day a new SD endorses him. I think he'll take NC comfortably and he'll gain 7 or 8 delegates. Indiana is too close to call, and if she loses there then it's really over for her no matter how much cherry picked data is produced in her support.

As I said before, her decision not to caucus has cost her the nomination.

Never count the Clitons out. This race isn't over yet at all. That used up old hag has managed to pick up a SD today. With the luster officially worn off of barrys seemingly unstoppable campaign I wouldn't be sureprised if she turns things around. The superdelegate thing can change drastically depending on who is most electable vs. the republican candidate. And polling data is showing the hildabeast as that person now due to recent events, and the fact that barry obama has been exposed as another flunky politician who is an opportunistic jackass like the rest of them. His "Hope and Change" message means less everytime he can't back it up with his record or what he actually plans on doing.:arrgh!:

[TDK1044]

I agree that he has yet to demonstrate any substance at all...he's the American Idol nominee. :D But he is the Democratic nominee. Even the corrupt Clintons won't turn this around.

[NEON DEON]

The SD picked up was the Governor of North Carolina.

Survey USA poll shows Obama ahead by only five in NC.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d4d1bc7e-32d4-438e-8143-75c8b25b3435

Clinton now ahead by 9 in Indiana.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=fbedb864-ec9d-47ab-87f2-c41203a87585&q=45558


In the case of the race being declared over :nope: by the republicans, I find that to be highly subjective. :D

[TheSatyr]

And the Obama campaign wishes it was over. Even when He outspent Hillary by a huge margin in PA he still lost. And don't try to tell me that Obama didn't expect to win there. If he was sure he was going to lose he never would have spent so much there...or else he just proved he is fiscally irresponsible.

The Obama people in various forums keep whining at Hillary to quit the race...because they fear their man is going to make more blunders and end up talking himself out of the democratic nomination.

Obama is nothing but an empty suit trying to get elected by using smoke and mirrors.

Obama has also shown a lack of judgement in those he calls friends. Rezko,Wright,Avery...that is why I'd never vote for that man. If he has such poor judgement in picking his friends than how can we trust his judgement when dealing with foreign leaders?

[TDK1044]

And the Obama campaign wishes it was over. Even when He outspent Hillary by a huge margin in PA he still lost. And don't try to tell me that Obama didn't expect to win there. If he was sure he was going to lose he never would have spent so much there...or else he just proved he is fiscally irresponsible.

The Obama people in various forums keep whining at Hillary to quit the race...because they fear their man is going to make more blunders and end up talking himself out of the democratic nomination.

Obama is nothing but an empty suit trying to get elected by using smoke and mirrors.

Obama has also shown a lack of judgement in those he calls friends. Rezko,Wright,Avery...that is why I'd never vote for that man. If he has such poor judgement in picking his friends than how can we trust his judgement when dealing with foreign leaders?


The Obama stategy in PA was to get a 21 point Clinton lead 8 weeks before the primary down to single digits. He got it down to 10 points and thereby cut her delegate gain to 10...most of which he has already got back with SD endorsements since then.

He hasn't called for Hillary to quit...many Democrats have though.

The next two primaries will show what effect Wright has had on the Obama vote. If Obama wins comfortably in NC and either wins or loses narrowly in Indiana, then he will be the nominee and you'll see a flood of SD endorsements for him. If on the other hand, Hillary does really well in both of those States, then at least some of the remaining SDs may consider voting for her.

[Von Tonner]

Why on earth would you run scared when this is your opponent? Let her stew in her own juice.

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/hillary-1.jpg

[Von Tonner]

Obama is nothing but an empty suit trying to get elected by using smoke and mirrors.


Ok, I am not living in the US but correct me if I am wrong. One candidate argues as a political gain point that she will suspend gas tax for the summer. If I am to believe the general top economists take on this, this will not even buy you a cup of coffee per day. Obama is against it.

So my question is: Who is the empyy suit and who REALLY is using smoke and mirrors to win the nomination?

[Von Tonner]

In the case of the race being declared over :nope: by the republicans, I find that to be highly subjective. :D

Well maybe not.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080501/NEWS0502/80501001

And the SD just keep on coming aboard for Obama. He is cutting into her SD on a daily basis - the ONLY lead she has.

[TDK1044]

Only the Rev Wright can defeat Obama. If people treat that fool with the contempt he deserves then the race will be over after the NC and Indiana primaries. If, however, his negative rhetoric has resonated with enough people, then Hillary could do well in NC, although probably not win it, and she could win Indiana. In that event, the race goes on. Obama will ultimately win, but it will have gone on way too long and John McCain will be the next president.

[Tchocky]

The idea that the current media focus on the Democratic candidates is helping McCain seems to make sense.
Does that imply that more attention on McCain will be bad for him?

[August]

Regardless of which one wins the nomination I predict a fair amount of GoP attacks will start with the words "But members of your own party claim that..."

[Tchocky]

I think there are enough anti-McCain Republicans to make that kind of strategy self-defeating :)

[August]

I think there are enough anti-McCain Republicans to make that kind of strategy self-defeating :)

Maybe, but what would they say that is worse than some of the stuff being tossed back and forth between the two dem candidate camps?

[mookiemookie]

And the Obama campaign wishes it was over. Even when He outspent Hillary by a huge margin in PA he still lost.
He is ahead by 140 delegates. Even more than before PA

...or else he just proved he is fiscally irresponsible.
His campaign has less debt than Hillary and McCains.

The Obama people in various forums keep whining at Hillary to quit the race...because they fear their man is going to make more blunders and end up talking himself out of the democratic nomination.
She cannot mathematically win given the number of delegates remaining. Her ego won't let her quit.


Obama is nothing but an empty suit trying to get elected by using smoke and mirrors.

I suppose an 18.4 cent gas tax holiday is the answer for our ills? Guess what? Artificially lower prices will only stimulate demand of a limited resource which will *gasp* make prices higher!

Obama has also shown a lack of judgement in those he calls friends. Rezko,Wright,Avery...that is why I'd never vote for that man. If he has such poor judgement in picking his friends than how can we trust his judgement when dealing with foreign leaders?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

And...

"I've always respected Karl Rove as one of the smart great political minds I think in American politics" - McCain

And...

"Two of Sen. John McCain's top advisers and fundraisers are among several Republican and Democratic presidential campaign officials whose lobbying firms have been paid more than $15 million by foreign governments since 2005." - http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080411/NATION/299288489/-1/RSS_FP

[TDK1044]

The SD picked up was the Governor of North Carolina.

Survey USA poll shows Obama ahead by only five in NC.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d4d1bc7e-32d4-438e-8143-75c8b25b3435

Clinton now ahead by 9 in Indiana.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=fbedb864-ec9d-47ab-87f2-c41203a87585&q=45558


In the case of the race being declared over :nope: by the republicans, I find that to be highly subjective. :D


She could win all of the remaining States, and with the pr system she'd still be over 100 delegates behind Obama at the end of the process.

Today, under the CNN headline 'Major Clinton backer switches to Obama (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/01/major-clinton-backer-switches-to-obama/)' another senior Democrat and former Clinton supporter switches to Obama. For every one SD she gets, he gets five or six. She needs those figures to be the other way around and it simply isn't going to happen.

As I said in my other post, if the Rev Wright fiasco has resonated to the point where Clinton wins in NC and Indiana, then we'll stumble on to the Denver convention where Obama will win by a slimmer margin.

[TDK1044]

By the way, NEON, I admire your loyalty if not your logic. Nothing personal here...we just have very different views. :D

[Sea Demon]

Regardless of which one wins the nomination I predict a fair amount of GoP attacks will start with the words "But members of your own party claim that..."

It doesn't help that the Republican nominee (McCain) has said some complimentary things about both Dems, where none of it was warranted. Of course consider the source. McCain is a loser himself and doesn't wish for the drawer to be opened on him. All three of these candidates are the bottom of the barrel with McCain only being a little better than the other two.

[TDK1044]

Hillary has nobody to blame but herself. At the start of this process, her campaign manager was busy telling anyone who would listen that she'd have it won by 'Super Tuesday'. They made a tactical decision not to caucus, which was a big mistake, and then they realized that they were up against a candidate who offered little substance, but who is very charismatic, eloquent and smart. Perfect for caucussing.

Obama played to his strengths and exploited her tactical errors. The end result is where we're at now. She can't win it, and he can only lose it if the 'Wright' affair loses it for him by frightening some SDs over to her side.

So far, there's little sign of that as the SDs continue to endose him and very few have chosen to endorse her, even in the light of her PA victory. The results of the NC and Indiana primaries will define how quickly this will be over.

[NEON DEON]

By the way, NEON, I admire your loyalty if not your logic. Nothing personal here...we just have very different views. :D

Thanks. I think;)

In keeping with the tone then, I offer this:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/050108DailyUpdateGraph2_bcor6s.gif


Obama electability is slipping away?:hmm:

[TDK1044]

Truthfully, I think McCain will probably beat either of them. It should be fun to watch though. :D

[NEON DEON]

Maybe its a case of Hillary running scared? Check this out - just developing:

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton to appear for first time ever on FOX NEWS' 'The O'Reilly Factor' Wednesday night... DEVELOPING...

http://www.drudgereport.com/

-S

And the result.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7635694&ch=4226716&src=news


Clinton slam dunk :yep: :up:

[Sea Demon]

Truthfully, I think McCain will probably beat either of them. It should be fun to watch though. :D

Oh, it will be fun to watch. But I'm not happy with the prospects of McCain in any way. I simply cannot get excited for his candidacy. The silver lining will be watching Democrats ripping each other apart.

[Von Tonner]

For the first vote, all the pledged delegates must vote the way they did at the primary. The SDs can vote how they want. If there is no winner as a result of that vote, then all the delegates are free to vote any way they like. Here's a good rundown. http://jeffsadow.blogspot.com/2008/04/la-democrat-superdelegates-will-go-with.html
In reading the above article by this associate professor of political science what I found interesting was the subjective tone of it. Not only does he parrot the Clinton line that a SD must go with the candidate best suited to beat McCain but he lets slip any facade of objectivity when he writes that OB "LIKELY" will have more pledged delegates but Clinton "WILL have received more popular votes".

The fact is, Obama WILL have more delagates. Whether or not Clinton will have more of the popular is not a given either way but OB having more PD's is a given.

[TDK1044]

In a sense, the Democratic Party will be on trial here. If, as I believe to be the case, Obama will have a delegate lead of about 120 at the end of the primaries, then a huge number of the remaining SDs would need to vote for Hillary solely based on the belief that she is more electable.

To me, that would totally negate the whole process of the primaries and caucusses. What is the point of a candidate giving up a year of his or her life and working 12 to 16 hour days in order to get a lead in the delegate count, only to find that the remaining SDs then say that your opponent is more elecatable?

I really don't see this scenario playing out here, but if it did, the Democrats would lose a significant percentage of the African American vote in November, because about 85 percent of that group have voted for Obama in the primaries, and they would feel cheated to say the least. I think many other fair minded Democrats would also not vote in protest at this policy.

Common sense needs to prevail.

[NEON DEON]

What is at stake is the Presidential Election in November.

You think Obama can win. The polls, Popular vote, and big states say No.

I find it increasingly hillarious (pun intended) that folks can claim Obama has more delagates then Clinton but not the popular vote therefore he wins. That is a silly argument for electability.

Just as inane is the statement that Obama has more states. Anyone can see that California is worth more than 15 Wyomings. Unless of course you regurgitate Obamaisms. Subsim analogy: What would you rather sink? The Queen Mary or 15 tug boats? ;)

In whos rule book? You have to have 2025 delagates to win. Obama will not have it. Clinton wont have it.

There are no rules showing on the books stating the SDs are tied to regular delagates.

The Poli Sci Professor from LSU states the reality of the situation. Dean the CHAIRMAN of the DNC says it too:

SDs are there to determine who is more electable in November.


Get over it and make your case for which candidate is more electable. Obama or Clinton.


Afterall, that is what it is going to come down to whether you chose to believe it or not.

[TDK1044]

What is at stake is the Presidential Election in November.

You think Obama can win. The polls, Popular vote, and big states say No.

I find it increasingly hillarious (pun intended) that folks can claim Obama has more delagates then Clinton but not the popular vote therefore he wins. That is a silly argument for electability.

Just as inane is the statement that Obama has more states. Anyone can see that California is worth more than 15 Wyomings. Unless of course you regurgitate Obamaisms. Subsim analogy: What would you rather sink? The Queen Mary or 15 tug boats? ;)

In whos rule book? You have to have 2025 delagates to win. Obama will not have it. Clinton wont have it.

There are no rules showing on the books stating the SDs are tied to regular delagates.

The Poli Sci Professor from LSU states the reality of the situation. Dean the CHAIRMAN of the DNC says it too:

SDs are there to determine who is more electable in November.


Get over it and make your case for which candidate is more electable. Obama or Clinton.


Afterall, that is what it is going to come down to whether you chose to believe it or not.


Obama has already won. Just about everyone except you sees that. As for the popular vote, Obama currently has 14,418,784 and Clinton has 13,917,318. To those of us with some level of mathematical ability, that means that Obama currently has more of the popular vote. Maybe this will make it a little easier for you to keep up. Only if you were to include Michigan, a State where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot, does the popular vote go in Hillary's favor.

Popular Vote Total14,418,78449.2%13,917,31847.5%Obama +501,466+1.7%Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 14,752,86849.3%14,141,18047.2%Obama +611,688+2.1%Popular Vote (w/FL)14,994,99848.3%14,788,30447.6%Obama +206,694+0.7%Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 15,329,08248.4%15,012,16647.4%Obama +316,916+1.0%


So, find it increasingly hilarious all you want, but at least get your facts straight. It's your position that's increasingly hilarious. Go and hunt for the Queen Mary...it'll be going slow enough that even you can hit it.

[NEON DEON]

What is at stake is the Presidential Election in November.

You think Obama can win. The polls, Popular vote, and big states say No.

I find it increasingly hillarious (pun intended) that folks can claim Obama has more delagates then Clinton but not the popular vote therefore he wins. That is a silly argument for electability.

Just as inane is the statement that Obama has more states. Anyone can see that California is worth more than 15 Wyomings. Unless of course you regurgitate Obamaisms. Subsim analogy: What would you rather sink? The Queen Mary or 15 tug boats? ;)

In whos rule book? You have to have 2025 delagates to win. Obama will not have it. Clinton wont have it.

There are no rules showing on the books stating the SDs are tied to regular delagates.

The Poli Sci Professor from LSU states the reality of the situation. Dean the CHAIRMAN of the DNC says it too:

SDs are there to determine who is more electable in November.


Get over it and make your case for which candidate is more electable. Obama or Clinton.


Afterall, that is what it is going to come down to whether you chose to believe it or not.


Obama has already won. Just about everyone except you sees that. As for the popular vote, Obama currently has 14,418,784 and Clinton has 13,917,318. To those of us with some level of mathematical ability, that means that Obama currently has more of the popular vote. Maybe this will make it a little easier for you to keep up. Only if you were to include Michigan, a State where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot, does the popular vote go in Hillary's favor.

Popular Vote Total14,418,78449.2%13,917,31847.5%Obama +501,466+1.7%Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 14,752,86849.3%14,141,18047.2%Obama +611,688+2.1%Popular Vote (w/FL)14,994,99848.3%14,788,30447.6%Obama +206,694+0.7%Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 15,329,08248.4%15,012,16647.4%Obama +316,916+1.0%


So, find it increasingly hilarious all you want, but at least get your facts straight. It's your position that's increasingly hilarious. Go and hunt for the Queen Mary...it'll be going slow enough that even you can hit it.


Only in obamas brain do projected votes get counted as real votes and Florida and Michigan have been annexed by Canada and Cuba.

Those are projected what if votes that were never cast.

Get a Grip:D

[Von Tonner]

What is at stake is the Presidential Election in November.

You think Obama can win. The polls, Popular vote, and big states say No.

I find it increasingly hillarious (pun intended) that folks can claim Obama has more delagates then Clinton but not the popular vote therefore he wins. That is a silly argument for electability.

Just as inane is the statement that Obama has more states. Anyone can see that California is worth more than 15 Wyomings. Unless of course you regurgitate Obamaisms. Subsim analogy: What would you rather sink? The Queen Mary or 15 tug boats? ;)

In whos rule book? You have to have 2025 delagates to win. Obama will not have it. Clinton wont have it.

There are no rules showing on the books stating the SDs are tied to regular delagates.

The Poli Sci Professor from LSU states the reality of the situation. Dean the CHAIRMAN of the DNC says it too:

SDs are there to determine who is more electable in November.


Get over it and make your case for which candidate is more electable. Obama or Clinton.


Afterall, that is what it is going to come down to whether you chose to believe it or not.

Obama has already won. Just about everyone except you sees that. As for the popular vote, Obama currently has 14,418,784 and Clinton has 13,917,318. To those of us with some level of mathematical ability, that means that Obama currently has more of the popular vote. Maybe this will make it a little easier for you to keep up. Only if you were to include Michigan, a State where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot, does the popular vote go in Hillary's favor.

Popular Vote Total14,418,78449.2%13,917,31847.5%Obama +501,466+1.7%Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 14,752,86849.3%14,141,18047.2%Obama +611,688+2.1%Popular Vote (w/FL)14,994,99848.3%14,788,30447.6%Obama +206,694+0.7%Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 15,329,08248.4%15,012,16647.4%Obama +316,916+1.0%


So, find it increasingly hilarious all you want, but at least get your facts straight. It's your position that's increasingly hilarious. Go and hunt for the Queen Mary...it'll be going slow enough that even you can hit it.

Only in obamas brain do projected votes get counted as real votes and Florida and Michigan have been annexed by Canada and Cuba.

Those are projected what if votes that were never cast.

Get a Grip:D

Here is an article which might be of interest to you Neon.

Larry J Sabato, professor of politics at the University of Virginia, takes a close look at Hillary Clinton's arguments that she deserves the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7371367.stm

[TDK1044]

What this whole thing comes down to is very simple. At the end of the primaries, will about 70 percent of the remaining Super Delegates decide that Hillary is more electable and vote for her? Because that's what she's going to need to happen. The answer to any rational thinking human being, including just about all of the political commentators, is no. Most doubt that she'll even get 50 percent of the remaining Super Delegates, and she'll be starting with a deficit of about 120.

Electability isn't just about who won key States like California, it's also about realizing that if you decide to steal the vote away from the real winner here, who happens to be African American, and declare the middle class white woman the winner, then guess what happens to your African American votes come November? They'll feel betrayed and angry and they will certainly not vote for Hillary Clinton. They will choose not to vote at all.

So now, from a Super Delegate point of view, how electable is Hillary with little or no backing from the African American community? Answer...she's not. Even Hillary knows that a Democrat can't win the White House without the African American vote.

So, as much as our mathematically challenged member would love to see this horrible woman elected, the reality is that she won't be. The Super Delegates will go with the flow and vote for Obama. He may not defeat John McCain, but at least the fight will have been an honest one instead of a 'cheated' one.

[NEON DEON]

So let me get what you are saying TDK.

You are saying that African Americans will be cheated out of their votes and therefore wont vote for Clinton in November

and

that the Democrats of Florida and Michigan wont feel cheated because their votes dont count according to Obama math and will vote for Obama in November?

and

You are saying you dont care if a Democrat wins if it is not Obama?

[TDK1044]

What I really dislike about Hillary Clinton is the fact that she is a compulsive liar. Lying is second nature to her.

How fondly we all remember her telling us that the unusual spelling of her name 'Hillary' is because she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the first man to climb Everest. Once researched, it was discovered that she was born in October 1947 and he made his famous climb in May of 1953. Nobody had even head of Edmund Hillary in 1947.

Move forward in time to 2008 and we have the 'Bosnia sniper fire' lie. She claimed she had come under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996 while she was first lady. Several news outlets disputed the claim, and a video of the trip showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter. They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger.

'Slick Willy' then tries to lie to help her out by claiming that it was 11 o'clock at night when she made the claim and she was exhausted. It was then pointed out to him that she made the claim at 10.30 in the morning and reiterated it at 2.30 in the afternoon.

It goes on and on, folks. The last thing this Country needs is the Clintons back in the Whitehouse.

[TDK1044]

So let me get what you are saying TDK.

You are saying that African Americans will be cheated out of their votes and therefore wont vote for Clinton in November

and

that the Democrats of Florida and Michigan wont feel cheated because their votes dont count according to Obama math and will vote for Obama in November?

and

You are saying you dont care if a Democrat wins if it is not Obama?



Florida and Michigan can blame their own actions and the Democratic party for their omission, NEON. As a punishment for their actions, the Democratic party struck their votes. It's as simple as that. Obama had nothing to do with that decision.

I think their delegates should be seated, with Michigan being a 50/50 wash because Obama's name was never even on the ballot, and Florida should be a 60/40 victory for Clinton because she clearly would have won easily there.

And yes, many African Americans, who live in the States you deem to be not important, will feel cheated if the clear delegate winner, who happens to be African American, turns out not to be chosen as the nominee.

As for the actual presidential race, I think McCain will probably beat either Obama or Clinton. The biggest worry the Republicans have is McCain's age. His VP choice will be cruical.

[NEON DEON]

So let me get what you are saying TDK.

You are saying that African Americans will be cheated out of their votes and therefore wont vote for Clinton in November

and

that the Democrats of Florida and Michigan wont feel cheated because their votes dont count according to Obama math and will vote for Obama in November?

and

You are saying you dont care if a Democrat wins if it is not Obama?



Florida and Michigan can blame their own actions and the Democratic party for their omission, NEON. As a punishment for their actions, the Democratic party struck their votes. It's as simple as that. Obama had nothing to do with that decision.

I think their delegates should be seated, with Michigan being a 50/50 wash because Obama's name was never even on the ballot, and Florida should be a 60/40 victory for Clinton because she clearly would have won easily there.

And yes, many African Americans, who live in the States you deem to be not important, will feel cheated if the clear delegate winner, who happens to be African American, turns out not to be chosen as the nominee.

As for the actual presidential race, I think McCain will probably beat either Obama or Clinton. The biggest worry the Republicans have is McCain's age. His VP choice will be cruical.

So let me see if I have this strait. Florida and Michigan voters are to blame for their votes not being counted?

Would you care to elaborate on why the voters themselves are to blame for the primarys being moved?

BTW:

I watched the John Stewart show last night on CC and Dean was on it. He flat out stated that Florida and Michigan voters will be seated at the convention. The penalty part of the equation was left incomplete at the time tho.

[mookiemookie]

I love the byline on this article:

"Can we please stop pretending she has a plausible chance to win the nomination?"

http://www.slate.com/id/2190556/

[TDK1044]

So let me get what you are saying TDK.

You are saying that African Americans will be cheated out of their votes and therefore wont vote for Clinton in November

and

that the Democrats of Florida and Michigan wont feel cheated because their votes dont count according to Obama math and will vote for Obama in November?

and

You are saying you dont care if a Democrat wins if it is not Obama?



Florida and Michigan can blame their own actions and the Democratic party for their omission, NEON. As a punishment for their actions, the Democratic party struck their votes. It's as simple as that. Obama had nothing to do with that decision.

I think their delegates should be seated, with Michigan being a 50/50 wash because Obama's name was never even on the ballot, and Florida should be a 60/40 victory for Clinton because she clearly would have won easily there.

And yes, many African Americans, who live in the States you deem to be not important, will feel cheated if the clear delegate winner, who happens to be African American, turns out not to be chosen as the nominee.

As for the actual presidential race, I think McCain will probably beat either Obama or Clinton. The biggest worry the Republicans have is McCain's age. His VP choice will be cruical.

So let me see if I have this strait. Florida and Michigan voters are to blame for their votes not being counted?

Would you care to elaborate on why the voters themselves are to blame for the primarys being moved?

BTW:

I watched the John Stewart show last night on CC and Dean was on it. He flat out stated that Florida and Michigan voters will be seated at the convention. The penalty part of the equation was left incomplete at the time tho.


Firstly; Every candidate knew before any vote in any State had been cast that Florida and Michigan would not be counted. All of the candidates knew it and they all agreed to it. The people of those States should contact the Democratic party if they need an explanation as to why.

Secondly; I'm sure their delegates will be seated as part of a necotiated deal between the DNC and the two remaining candidates. A small gain there for Hillary.

None of that will effect the overall outcome though. Tuesday's primaries on the other hand are very important, because if Hillary can win in Indiana and only lose by 3 or 4 points in NC....or maybe even win it, then she can start to sway some undecided super delegates in her direction.

It's all too little too late though. Even if you run a model where Hillary wins all of the remaining States, she still needs about 70 percent of the remaining super delegates to vote for her. It simply isn't going to happen.

[NEON DEON]

So you are not going to answer this question:

Would you care to elaborate on why the voters themselves are to blame for the primarys being moved?

[NEON DEON]

I love the byline on this article:

"Can we please stop pretending she has a plausible chance to win the nomination?"

http://www.slate.com/id/2190556/

The Wright Time for Obama to Consider Dropping Out


http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/4/30/the-wright-time-for-obama-to-consider-dropping-out.html


Just to keep up with Obama Fairy tales.

[TDK1044]

So you are not going to answer this question:

Would you care to elaborate on why the voters themselves are to blame for the primarys being moved?

They are not. In a nutshell, it went like this:

In 2007 the Florida legislature voted to move their primary date up to January 29 for the 2008 primaries.

February 5 was set as the earliest date for primaries. With a few exceptions, any state holding a primary earlier would be penalized.

The Democratic National Committee decided to penalize non-compliant states by stripping them of all of their delegates. Some Democrats in Florida attempted to amend the legislation they had passed, but the Florida Republicans blocked these amendments.

Michigan also decided to go ahead with a primary in January, despite the Democratic National Comittee's declaration that it would not seat any of the delegates.

Democratic candidates were not allowed to campaign in these states.

Both candidates had their names on the ballot in Florida. In Michigan, Barack Obama removed his name from the ballot in support of the DNC ruling. Hillary Clinton kept her name on the ballot.

So, like I said, Michigan should be a 50/50 wash because his name was not on the ballot and she should be awarded Florida.

[TDK1044]

I love the byline on this article:

"Can we please stop pretending she has a plausible chance to win the nomination?"

http://www.slate.com/id/2190556/

The Wright Time for Obama to Consider Dropping Out


http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/4/30/the-wright-time-for-obama-to-consider-dropping-out.html


Just to keep up with Obama Fairy tales.


The only place Obama is going is to a head to head race with John McCain. It's the lying Hillary who needs to pull out. She won't though. Her hunger for power won't let her. This will probably go all the way to Denver where she will be forced out of the race.

[NEON DEON]

Both candidates had their names on the ballot in Florida. In Michigan, Barack Obama removed his name from the ballot in support of the DNC ruling. Hillary Clinton kept her name on the ballot.


Ahh. Obama in support of the DNC ruling removed himself from Michigan but showing no support of the DNC ballot chose to remain on Floridas ballot?

:hmm:

Sounds like Obama removed himself from the Michigan ballot because he wanted to distance himself from an early loss.

[TDK1044]

Both candidates had their names on the ballot in Florida. In Michigan, Barack Obama removed his name from the ballot in support of the DNC ruling. Hillary Clinton kept her name on the ballot.


Ahh. Obama in support of the DNC ruling removed himself from Michigan but showing no support of the DNC ballot chose to remain on Floridas ballot?

:hmm:

Sounds like Obama removed himself from the Michigan ballot because he wanted to distance himself from an early loss.


I would have advised him to remove his name from both States. That way, should there be a challenge at a later time, he could have asked that both States be a 50/50 wash as his name wasn't on either ballot. That would have negated Hillary's obvious delegate gain in Florida with the Hispanic vote.

Lucky for you I wasn't there, NEON. :D

[JetSnake]

Why are obamas lips purple?

[Von Tonner]

I love the byline on this article:

"Can we please stop pretending she has a plausible chance to win the nomination?"

http://www.slate.com/id/2190556/
The Wright Time for Obama to Consider Dropping Out


http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/4/30/the-wright-time-for-obama-to-consider-dropping-out.html


Just to keep up with Obama Fairy tales.
I really cannot understand your logic Neon. To make any sense out of your on going posts that Hillary is going to win the DN one can only but assume that you are one of those voters who no matter what evidence is brought to the contrary you will support her.

For example. Mookiemookie posts a link to an article where the question could just as easily be put to you: " Go ahead and say, if you like, that Hillary Clinton retains a serious chance of winning the Democratic nomination. If you say this, however, youmust describe a set of circumstances whereby this could happen. Try not to make it sound like a fairy tale."

You don't challenge a single statement in that article. Your only response is to post a link to an article by Bonnie Erbe who writes inter alia:

"Obama's first self-destructive act was his secretly recorded remarks before wealthy San Francisco donors describing working-class white voters as "bitter" and "clinging" to guns and religion. That remark cost him dearly in the Pennsylvania primary among Roman Catholics and working-class whites."

It appears lost on Bonnie Erbe that Obama never was going to win PA. What he did do, and set out to do, was cut her double digit advantage to a singledigit. 2 weeks out she was running a 23 point lead. She won by 9 points, contrary to what the MSM will have you believe that she won by 10.

She further writes.

"Obama's second act of self-immolation was his delay in denouncing a man who blames whites for creating the AIDS virus to wipe out people of color and calls America a terrorist nation. Obama's denunciation of Wright yesterday and the time it took him to sever ties to Wright may well end up costing Obama large portions of the rest of the white voting demographic.We may soon start to see the defection from his campaign of superdelegate support."

Well, well, well. Here is the lie to her statement. Not only did more SD's endorse OB after his denouncement but one who had originally endorsed Hillary anulled his endorsement of her and moved his endorsement to OB because he thought Obama had handled himself pretty well in distancing himself from Wright.

But this is the statement that Erbe writes in her article that really takes the cake.

"As soon as polls start to show the extent of alienation Obama has produced among white Democratic voters, superdelegates won't be far behind. If Obama does not carry North Carolina next week by double digits, he will be in serious trouble. Look for calls by party leaders for him to drop out if his victory in North Carolina is not convincing."

In the above, change 'Obama' for 'Hillary', 'white' for 'black', and 'NC' for 'PA' and you have the exact same argument that was levelled against Hillary prior to PA. The difference was that that argument COULD be made because he WAS ahead in pledged delegates, in popular vote, in states won AND his campaign was not bankrupt!

But to get back to your own arguments. You state that Hillary must get the vote because polls show her doing better against McCain than OB. For you to have any credibility in your own statement you must tell me that you were in support of OB when polls showed him as winning against McCain. As far as I can tell, you have been against OB regardless. But I stand corrected if you can show me otherwise.

On your argument that Florida and Michigan have been dealt a bum deal and voters will stay away in their droves if OB gets the nomination. Does your argument then not also apply should Hillary get the nomination and all OB supporters in Florida and Michigan feel they got shafted?

And, much as you might want to think that the African American support base within the Democratic party is a given, believe me, as TDK104 has pointed out, shaft them and you might just as well go and get a set of keys cut for the front door of the White House for McCain to carry around in his pocket till January.

[TDK1044]

I would also add that if you want to blame someone for the Florida and Michigan fiasco then look no futher that Howad Dean. It was Dean and the DNC who set the rules here, and it's funny how Hillary had no problem with it at all until she strated losing. Then her true colors showed and she wanted the DNC position ammended.

Tuesday is crucial. Sadly, if she wins Indiana, it will be all her ego needs for her to continue a futile race. For me, the best possible outcome to Tueday's votes would be for the SDs to stand up and be counted. Whoever wins those two races, I wish the remaining SDs would cast their votes and let the chips fall where they may.

[Tchocky]

*Apparently* there's a rake of House and Senate SD's who have already decided to support Obama, but are holding off on an announcement until the primaries are over.
I keep reading this, but it's hard to tell if it's campaign posturing or actual news.

[TDK1044]

Hillary could get some momentum going if she was to do particularly well in the Tuesday primaries, but even if some of the SDs were swayed her way, it would never be the 70 percent swing that she needs. This farce would just stumble on to Denver where she would then be voted out of the race, having destroyed any chance for a Democratic victory in November.

[NEON DEON]

I find it a bit odd people claiming Obama closed the gap in PA when behind in the polls by more than 20 points

I get various accounts when this took place

2 weeks before and 8 weeks before seem to be the preference among the two people who supplied that info

According to RCP:

In the 8th week before the PA election the polls showed 9 point avg difference.

2 weeks before the elections the poll average was 7 points

And the last recorded Pa avg was 6.1 %

So Obama outspent Clinton 2 to 1 and went nowhere in the process.

Clinton won by 9.28 %

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

I also find curious that people claim objectivity when supplying this info.

[TDK1044]

Clinton was always going to win PA. Her own people were predicting a healthy double digit win right up to the primary. Obama was hoping to cut her lead to single digits...well, he just about did that. She'll do the same to him in NC. I think he'll win there...but only by about 4 points.

But, anyone can do the math here. Look at the remaining primaries and allocate the most probable outcome, but favor Hillary. Then add a healthy win for Clinton in Florida and either make Michigan a wash or give her a 5 point victory. The best case scenario for her still has him about 120 delegates ahead when it's all over. Now factor in the remaining SDs....she'll need about 70 percent of them to win.

Unless there is a new scandal even bigger than the 'Wright' scandal, Hillary simply can't win.

If Obama won against John McCain, Hillary would probably still be campaigning!

[NEON DEON]

Clinton was always going to win PA. Her own people were predicting a healthy double digit win right up to the primary. Obama was hoping to cut her lead to single digits...well, he just about did that. She'll do the same to him in NC. I think he'll win there...but only by about 4 points.

You could be right about NC being a four point swing.

I have noticed that after edwards dropped the polls have been about 2 points off the average in favor of Clinton.

So mombo jumbo crystal ball wise it could be obama +5 in NC and Clinton +8 in Indiana.

Of course NC has a lot of African American voters and the pollsters were way off in South Carolina. This might be offset because Edwards is not on the ballot this time tho.

What could end it this week would be if Obama crushes Clinton in NC and wins Indiana.

Zogby's latest poll shows Obama by 2 in Indiana and 9 in NC.

Zogby's numbers have an ally. Momentum and Gallop.

Gallop daily shows Obama has reversed Clintons lead with democrats today and now leads by four.

[TDK1044]

As I said earlier, NEON, I just wish the SDs would end this nonsense. Everything about these candidates is known. With every day that passes, McCain's chances in November improve.

On Tuesday, Obama will narrowly win in NC and I believe that Hillary will win in Indiana. This nip/tuck process goes nowhere. What are rhe SDs waiting for? If they honestly believe that Hillary should be the nominee, then step up to the plate and vote for her. If they think that they should respect the popular vote, then vote for Obama.

As a SD, what is to be gained by waiting to cast your vote?

[Von Tonner]

I find it a bit odd people claiming Obama closed the gap in PA when behind in the polls by more than 20 points

I get various accounts when this took place

2 weeks before and 8 weeks before seem to be the preference among the two people who supplied that info

According to RCP:

In the 8th week before the PA election the polls showed 9 point avg difference.

2 weeks before the elections the poll average was 7 points

And the last recorded Pa avg was 6.1 %

So Obama outspent Clinton 2 to 1 and went nowhere in the process.

Clinton won by 9.28 %

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

I also find curious that people claim objectivity when supplying this info.

A poll conducted 11th through to the 13th April by the American Research Group showed Hillary leading Obama by 20 points in PA.

[mookiemookie]

http://www.rall.com/uploaded_images/5-5-08-761045.jpg

[TDK1044]

Now that's funny!!! And not too far off the truth! :D

[NEON DEON]

I find it a bit odd people claiming Obama closed the gap in PA when behind in the polls by more than 20 points

I get various accounts when this took place

2 weeks before and 8 weeks before seem to be the preference among the two people who supplied that info

According to RCP:

In the 8th week before the PA election the polls showed 9 point avg difference.

2 weeks before the elections the poll average was 7 points

And the last recorded Pa avg was 6.1 %

So Obama outspent Clinton 2 to 1 and went nowhere in the process.

Clinton won by 9.28 %

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

I also find curious that people claim objectivity when supplying this info.

A poll conducted 11th through to the 13th April by the American Research Group showed Hillary leading Obama by 20 points in PA.


Oh ok then

A poll conducted in the same week showed Clinton ahead by 3%. So using your own reasoning then I will say this.

Two weeks before the PA primary Clinton was only up by 3% according to a Los Angeles Times Poll but Clinton won PA by 9% thus she increased her lead 3 times despite being outspent by Obama 2 to 1.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

:p :p :p

[NEON DEON]

As I said earlier, NEON, I just wish the SDs would end this nonsense. Everything about these candidates is known. With every day that passes, McCain's chances in November improve.

Well SDs are moving. I just would like to see some more coverage when it happens.

Everyone has heard the Clinton SD jumping ship this past week.

But has everyone seen these 6 in the last week?

SD endorsements for Clinton since 4/29/08

5/5 Democrats abroad SD Theresa Morelli

5/3 Maryland SD Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

5/2 Texas SD and DNC member Jaime A. Gonzalez Jr.

4/30 Pennsylvania SD Bill George the President of the AFL-CIO

4/30 Puerto Rico SD and Democratic Committee Vice Chair Luisette Cabañas

4/29 North Carolina SD and Governor Mike Easley

[Von Tonner]

As I said earlier, NEON, I just wish the SDs would end this nonsense. Everything about these candidates is known. With every day that passes, McCain's chances in November improve.
Well SDs are moving. I just would like to see some more coverage when it happens.

Everyone has heard the Clinton SD jumping ship this past week.

But has everyone seen these 6 in the last week?

SD endorsements for Clinton since 4/29/08

5/5 Democrats abroad SD Theresa Morelli

5/3 Maryland SD Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

5/2 Texas SD and DNC member Jaime A. Gonzalez Jr.

4/30 Pennsylvania SD Bill George the President of the AFL-CIO

4/30 Puerto Rico SD and Democratic Committee Vice Chair Luisette Cabañas

4/29 North Carolina SD and Governor Mike Easley

Compare it to a horse race Neon. The commentators tell you how the horse up front is doing - not the one at the back. When Clinton gets more SD endorsements in a week than OB does, then maybe the MSM will give coverage.

*** The weekend in delegates: Obama picked up four superdelegates over the weekend, to Clinton’s net of zero. Obama got the backing of New Mexico Democratic Party Chairman Brian Colon and three add-on superdelegates -- former Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening, former South Carolina Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum and Guam add-on Jamie Paulino (after Obama won the Pacific island territory by seven votes). Paulino beat out Clinton backer Cecilia Mafnas, who was previously the vice chair and counted into our superdelegate count. Evening things out, Clinton picked up the other Maryland add-on: former Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Obama is also expected to pick up the three Illinois add-on superdelegates today around 2:00 pm after the Illinois Democratic Party’s committee meets to officially name the trio. (Note: The Obama campaign announced Kalyn Free of Oklahoma as another super, but we’d already had her on the list as an Obama supporter.) The Delegate Counts: SUPERDELEGATES: Clinton 273-254; PLEDGED: Obama 1,492-1,338; OVERALL: Obama 1,746-1,611. There are 268 undeclared superdelegates. Since the Pennsylvania primary: It's Obama +17, Clinton +11; Since Super Tuesday, Feb. 5: It's Obama +84, Clinton +13; Since Junior Super Tuesday, March 4: It's Obama +41, Clinton +20.

[TDK1044]

The New York Times has a Delegate Calculator. If the percentages for the remaining States fall in line with the percentage results so far, then the NYT states that Hillary will need 78 percent of the remaining Super Delegates to win.

Now, realistically, she will do well in Indiana, and she will have success getting the Florida and Michigan Delegates seated. This will certainly help her, but it's not nearly enough.

The very best case scenario for her with the remaining States will leave her needing about 70 percent of the remaining SDs in my view.

[TDK1044]

He nearly beat her in Indiana ( 51/49)and he beat the pants off her in NC. It's over. Over the coming weeks, you're going to see SD after SD lining up behind Obama. Hillary will push as hard as possible for the Florida and Michigan votes to be counted, but even if she got her way there, which she won't, it still wouldn't be enough.

I wonder how long it will take her to put her party before her ego? I notice that she was begging for money again in her 'victory' speech. Pitiful!

[Von Tonner]

He nearly beat her in Indiana ( 51/49)and he beat the pants off her in NC. It's over. Over the coming weeks, you're going to see SD after SD lining up behind Obama. Hillary will push as hard as possible for the Florida and Michigan votes to be counted, but even if she got her way there, which she won't, it still wouldn't be enough.

I wonder how long it will take her to put her party before her ego? I notice that she was begging for money again in her 'victory' speech. Pitiful!

It actually reads better when you make the win of hers in Indiana more precise TDK1044: 50.9 Hillary, 49.1 Obama. It was a squeek. Notice she has already loaned her campaign another 6 million odd. This win and squeek by Obama now makes Florida and Michigan irrelevant. The results today also totally undermine her arguments that he cannot win big/swing states; that he has not got the fight to go against McCain - Obama has this last few weeks been to hell and back with Wright, bitter remark, but still comes back and knocks the crap out of her. Can't wait to see what Carville says about this. Oh, and lets not forget her other argument, the popular vote. Again, give her the votes in Florida and Michigan and he still wipes her clock. She is on life support. She has cancelled all morning show appointments and is meeting with SD. I predict that SD are going to come over to OB to give him his nomination total by not later than mid next week. Good on you OB:D

[TDK1044]

Yeah. The faster the SDs line up behind Obama, the faster this will be over. Dragging this on until June is a total waste of time.

[NEON DEON]

Yeah. The faster the SDs line up behind Obama, the faster this will be over. Dragging this on until June is a total waste of time.

You want it to be over now. Now is what you want. You dont want it to get to West Virginia, KY and Puerto Rico. Obama's best chance to end it early has a one week time frame to it.

[TDK1044]

She'll win KY, WV and PR, and in doing so she'll gain about as many delegates as he just won in North Carolina....maybe a few more because of Puerto Rico. He currently has a lead of 159 delegates and he'll take the other remaining States negating most of the gains she makes.

The fact of the matter is that many senior Democrats are just waiting for Hillary to do the honorable thing, but because there is nothing at all honorable about Hillary, she'll continue to put her ego before the needs of her party until they get to the point where they force her out of the race.

Michigan has now asked the DNC to sit 59 Delegates for Hillary and 59 for Obama, so she gets nothing there. She'll get a small bump when they seat the Florida Delegates and then it will be over.

[NEON DEON]

Clinton turned down the Michigan proposal which was 69 Clinton 59 Obama.

Clinton said it should be 73/55 and Obama says it should be 64/64.

In looking at the rest of the states, there is not enough African Americans in Oregon for Obama to win there. 2% of registered voters are African American.

In a race in the region earlier this year Obama won Washington by caucus 68% to 31%. In the non binding Primary, Obama won by gettin 51.14%.

Washington also has 3% African Americans plus 9% hispanic. vs. Oregons 2% African Americans and 10% hispanics. The election was held before Wright.

So after Kentucky and Oregon go Clinton's way it will be interesting to see if Obama will declare himself the winner.

BTW: Clinton will win the popular vote because there are no more black voters in the rest of the states and territories and no more caucases.

West Virginia 3%
Kentucky 2 %
Oregon 2 %
Montana less than 1 %
South Dakota 1 %
Puerto Rico 8%*

*Puerto Rico number is a % of entire population

It may not be PC but it is what is.

[Platapus]

"In looking at the rest of the states, there is not enough African Americans in Oregon for Obama to win there. 2% of registered voters are African American."

"Clinton will win the popular vote because there are no more black voters in the rest of the states and territories and no more caucases."

What a disturbingly racist statement to make.

[Tchocky]

Platapus, it's ok to make statements like that about minorities!

It's when people like that evil Wright fellow start picking on majorities that we become outraged :p

[TDK1044]

Clinton turned down the Michigan proposal which was 69 Clinton 59 Obama.

Clinton said it should be 73/55 and Obama says it should be 64/64.

In looking at the rest of the states, there is not enough African Americans in Oregon for Obama to win there. 2% of registered voters are African American.

In a race in the region earlier this year Obama won Washington by caucus 68% to 31%. In the non binding Primary, Obama won by gettin 51.14%.

Washington also has 3% African Americans plus 9% hispanic. vs. Oregons 2% African Americans and 10% hispanics. The election was held before Wright.

So after Kentucky and Oregon go Clinton's way it will be interesting to see if Obama will declare himself the winner.

BTW: Clinton will win the popular vote because there are no more black voters in the rest of the states and territories and no more caucases.

West Virginia 3%
Kentucky 2 %
Oregon 2 %
Montana less than 1 %
South Dakota 1 %
Puerto Rico 8%*

*Puerto Rico number is a % of entire population

It may not be PC but it is what is.


Continue to live in your own fictitious world if you wish. The rest of the Country, including Congress and the Senate, knows who the Democratic nominee is. The SDs are being courteous to Clinton by waiting until June 3 before the flood of support for Obama occurs.

Hillary's becoming more of a sad joke with each day that passes. Let her have her meaningless victories during the mopping up process if it helps her save face.

The real math goes like this:

There are only six contests remaining on the Democratic primary calendar and only 217 pledged delegates left to be awarded. Only 7% of the pledged delegates remain on the table. There are 253 remaining undeclared superdelegates, for a total of 470 delegates left to be awarded.
With North Carolina and Indiana complete, Barack Obama only needs 169 total delegates to capture the Democratic nomination. This is only 36% of the total remaining delegates.
Conversely, Senator Clinton needs 326 delegates to reach the Democratic nomination, which represents 69% of the remaining delegates.

[mookiemookie]

Platapus, it's ok to make statements like that about minorities!

It's when people like that evil Wright fellow start picking on majorities that we become outraged :p
For further proof of your rule about it being ok to pick on minorities, see Pastors Hagee, Robertson and Parsley. All McCain supporters, too.

[Tchocky]

Well, yeah.

Anti-Muslim bigotry on the parts of Hagee/Parsley goes unnoticed, because it's a part of the political culture. Politicians want the Christian Zionist vote. There's no chance at all that a Muslim is going to be running for President this year, so there's no backlash against Parsley, or McCain's ties to him. But there are plenty of white people running, and plenty of white people voting, so Wright is a dangerous and politically toxic figure. Wright plays badly in Peoria, you won;t find anyone avoiding McCain because of Hagee/Parsley. Certain types of bigotry are fine and dandy.


McCain went chasing after Hagee.

[TDK1044]

This is what you're going to see over the coming weeks:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/09/dems.wrap/index.html

A constant trickle of SDs endorsing Obama on a daily basis. He will have negated Hillary's undoubted delegate wins in WV and KY before those primaries even happen. The same will happen for Puerto Rico.

[Fish]

Interesting :o
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg&eurl=http://america.blog.lemonde.fr/

Fabricated.

[AVGWarhawk]

This is all you need to see about our good buddy Obama. Not fabricated nor contrived. Not photoshopped or dubbed.....the truth:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036

[PeriscopeDepth]

Do some of you people work for these political campaigns? Or is it just 'volunteering'? :o

PD

[Platapus]

This is all you need to see about our good buddy Obama. Not fabricated nor contrived. Not photoshopped or dubbed.....the truth:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036

Oh my. So they are poking fun at his middle name. How clever. Well I am swayed. I will be changing my voting practices based on the candidates middle name.

Because as the middle name goes, so does the candidate.:doh:

This is just one step above photoshopping a candidate's picture and adding a caption they never said.

I thought that stuff was very funny and clever... back in highschool

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh my. So they are poking fun at his middle name. How clever. Well I am swayed. I will be changing my voting practices based on the candidates middle name.


There was a big stink from his campaign folks about using his middle name. You make the call as to why.

Because as the middle name goes, so does the candidate.:doh:

This is just silly and I know you ment it to me silly

This is just one step above photoshopping a candidate's picture and adding a caption they never said.

Please, find anything in that clip that is a untruth. It is far and above one step over a photoshopped pick and caption. All of these clips and pictures have been in the national news.

I thought that stuff was very funny and clever... back in highschool

Wake up and smell the coffee. Not funny or clever at all...truth. Again, everthing in this video was on national news and not made up.

[TDK1044]

This type of video will be ever present in the Presidential race between McCain and Obama. I certainly expect to see Obama's core values challenged during those Presidential debates. The better Obama is doing in the race for the Whitehouse, the more of these videos you'll see.

[Tchocky]

AVG, that every clip was on the news does not make it an honest video.

It's a rather interesting showcase of the avalanche of bull**** that infects American political discourse. There are similiar videos, all equally useless, for McCain and Clinton.

[AVGWarhawk]

AVG, that every clip was on the news does not make it an honest video.

It's a rather interesting showcase of the avalanche of bull**** that infects American political discourse. There are similiar videos, all equally useless, for McCain and Clinton.


I view over 5 news entities daily. Each and every one with the same clip and same story. Looked at Snopes.com as a last resort. I'm not one to believe everything I see at first sight. I guess then we can presume that all clips on the news are dishonest? Pastor Wright clip was filmed at his church by his own people. The same happens at my church. You can watch any service on any given Sunday. Not taken out of context at all. Obama spent better then 17 years attending this church. The church doctrine was immediately changed after the release of this video. Pastor Wright is a con man. Funny how he is retiring to a 1.5 million dollar home. He is living in the lap of luxary but has the right to GD America and how bad it is. Similary I have the right to disagree with Pastor Wright. He has conned the congregation at his church to the tune of a 1.5 million dollar home spewing hate from the pulpit. Funny how Sharpton or Jackson has not defended any of this. As far as the other facts, Obama's book describes his parents and his upbringing. I do not discredit Obama but his speeches are nothing but talking of change, yet, what does he really stand for? No one has a clue. About the only people who have a clue are terrorists in Iraq concerning pulling out the troops and how long they have to wait until that happens.

As far as Hillary, there is a library full of video with her and Bills nonsense. She and Bill do nothing but attempt to twist the rules or just ignore them so the end result is what they want. Study the White Water case and see how a drummed up technicality was created to get her off the hook. Currently these two are attempting to twist the rules for delegates and or attempting to ignore the rules and continue a losing campaign. This issue is far from over. Lets review the video from the "SNIPER FIRE" nonsense she attempt to get over on the voters. Oh, sorry, video speaks truth on that matter....."I mis-spoke" No, you friggn lied through your teeth like you and Bill have been doing for years.

McCain is just as whishy whashy as the rest concerning his stance and not my favorite either. In todays world, America needs someone who understands the system better then Obama and Hillary. Hillary says she has the experience. If a wife stands next to her husband who is a brain surgeon conducting surgery, does this make her a brain surgeon also?

If all of these videos are bull*** as you feel, were are all the defamation of character lawsuits? Judging by your train of thought on the videos, Obama could have several cases going and just retire after he is awarded millions of dollars. Did Obama not go to Philadephia and spoke for hours concerning race in America after the Pastor Wright video hit the net? You bet he did because it was all true. He had to quietly tell Pastor Wright to shut up. Pastor Wright has done anything but shut up since then. It is highly unlikely that Obama disagrees with Pastor Wright concerning his sermons. No one would sit for 17 years in the pew listening to that and not have to agree. Birds of a feather flock together.

Sure, some video are infections and are usually discredited immediately. The Pastor Wright video is not an infection. This issue still goes on today about it. Pastor Wright still makes appearence about it. Therefore, there is a issue here of grave concern and needs to be addressed. The video clip with Edward going after Obama and his voting record was on live TV. No one can call this an infection of clipped video. Edwards was right, what has Obama actually done as a junior Senator? Not much of nothing. There are too many issues and unanswered questions concerning Obama. I hope the next round with McCain will bring this to light.

[Von Tonner]

AVG, that every clip was on the news does not make it an honest video.

It's a rather interesting showcase of the avalanche of bull**** that infects American political discourse. There are similiar videos, all equally useless, for McCain and Clinton.
Unfortunately there are many in the USA, Hillary has identified them as uneducated, blue collared hard working Americans who will never accept a black man as president. Live with it AVG, OB is your next president no matter how many news casts you monitor a day.

[TDK1044]

AVG, that every clip was on the news does not make it an honest video.

It's a rather interesting showcase of the avalanche of bull**** that infects American political discourse. There are similiar videos, all equally useless, for McCain and Clinton.
Unfortunately there are many in the USA, Hillary has identified them as uneducated, blue collared hard working Americans who will never accept a black man as president. Live with it AVG, OB is your next president no matter how many news casts you monitor a day.


The Obama/McCain race will be very interesting. One common pattern has come out of the Democratic primary race, and that is that there is a certain amount of hesitency about actually placing the vote for Obama rather than just saying you're going to vote for him. Exit polls often had him scoring higher than he actually did but they were usually accurate with Hillary.

If John McCain was ten years younger, I would say that he would win easily, but his age, and the fact that he comes accross as a tired old man, will be a problem for the GOP. Obama's problems are that he's lacking in substance and experience. You can play the JFK role, but you've got to be able to deliver.

VP choices will be crucial.

[Tchocky]

That something is true does not mean that is honest.
The things in the newsclips certainly happened. That isn't in doubt.
What's missing is explication and proper framing.

EDIT -
A single example - The video makes a sinister point about Obama not wearing a flag pin. In the service of finding out who he is, this would be a relevant piece of information is it served to distinguish him from the other contenders. But it doesn't. No-one else wears the damn thing either. Clinton doesn't. McCain doesn't.

EDIT #2 - Barely any of the candidates wore it from the start. Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Chris Dodd didn't wear one. No wonder these domestic insurgents didn't get any votes. Cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
Thank God (Christian, white, 2nd Amendment God) that the GOP candidates wore it. How else are we to know they're not commies?
Oh, that's right. Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee left theirs behind too.


Nevermind that it's a pointless non-issue to begin with.

[NEON DEON]

"In looking at the rest of the states, there is not enough African Americans in Oregon for Obama to win there. 2% of registered voters are African American."

"Clinton will win the popular vote because there are no more black voters in the rest of the states and territories and no more caucases."

What a disturbingly racist statement to make.

No those are the facts. Just facts. Show me where Clinton won the Black vote in a primary. Just one.

Not even in Arkansas did she win the black vote. 74% of black voters voted for Obama in Arkansas.

In Obamas home state of Illinois, 93% of black voters voted for Obama.

On the last election day, in Indiana and North Carolina, 89% and 91% of black voters chose Obama.

In my opinion the numbers are more racialy disturbing than the reporting of the numbers will ever be.


Typical liberal crap. When you cant handle the truth you call them a racist.

[Von Tonner]

AVG, that every clip was on the news does not make it an honest video.

It's a rather interesting showcase of the avalanche of bull**** that infects American political discourse. There are similiar videos, all equally useless, for McCain and Clinton.
Unfortunately there are many in the USA, Hillary has identified them as uneducated, blue collared hard working Americans who will never accept a black man as president. Live with it AVG, OB is your next president no matter how many news casts you monitor a day.

The Obama/McCain race will be very interesting. One common pattern has come out of the Democratic primary race, and that is that there is a certain amount of hesitency about actually placing the vote for Obama rather than just saying you're going to vote for him. Exit polls often had him scoring higher than he actually did but they were usually accurate with Hillary.

If John McCain was ten years younger, I would say that he would win easily, but his age, and the fact that he comes accross as a tired old man, will be a problem for the GOP. Obama's problems are that he's lacking in substance and experience. You can play the JFK role, but you've got to be able to deliver.

VP choices will be crucial.
Agree with you 100%. By nature people fear change. To stand in a voting booth where the choice is "change" or "old order" will be a gut wrenching descision for your average American. Obama's choice of VP has got to help them have the courage for change and that is why I fervently hope he asks Wes Clark to be his VP. Not only does Wes Clark have a 'change' view ["I'm running to bring back the core ideals of our democracy - personal liberty, open debate, and opportunity for all. These ideals have made us great. They will make us greater. They will make us safer and more prosperous. Join me. We can have a new kind of patriotism in America. We can have a new kind of America."] that dove tails with Obama's but he will help negate McCain's image as the militarily tough guy ["I am Hamase's worst nightmare"]

But there is also an added advantage to a Obama/Clark ticket. I don't like what I am hearing about Hillary settling for the VP slot. I know that Michelle would fight this tooth and nail but in the end, politics makes strange bed fellows. Clark is a very good friend of the Clinton's, he supported her in her campaign so my thinking is, is that with Clark as the VP you keep the Clinton's on board so to speak. Rather have them standing in the tent and pissing out than standing out the tent and pissing in - to paraphrase a past US president.

[AVGWarhawk]

AVG, that every clip was on the news does not make it an honest video.

It's a rather interesting showcase of the avalanche of bull**** that infects American political discourse. There are similiar videos, all equally useless, for McCain and Clinton.
Unfortunately there are many in the USA, Hillary has identified them as uneducated, blue collared hard working Americans who will never accept a black man as president. Live with it AVG, OB is your next president no matter how many news casts you monitor a day.

Oh, I agree with you Von Tonner! I would bet my next paycheck that Obama will be the next president. As I stated, I do not discredit the man at all. He is well educated and well spoken. The experience end of it has me concerned. Personally, I wish Colin Powell would run. I would vote for Powell in a heartbeat. At least I understand were he stands on issues. He has the experience. Powell did not run because his wife feared for his life. I do not blame her for that. It is a very real issue. At any rate, not monitoring news casts and following what is going would be a serioius lack of responsibility on my part. I do not wish to be lead blindly. All Americans should question, look, study and ask the question concerning who will Commander. It is unfortnate however that the media directs and puts in the limelight who they feel should win. This is why I look at a broad spectrum of new broadcasts and magazines as well. Hell, two weeks ago Time magazine should have been called Obama magazine. The entire magazine was nothing but Obama. The following week, Time plastered the cover with Obama's mother. Who and what she is contained in the articles. Ah, who cares about his mother at this stage? His grandparents took care of him into his adulthood. People always say the CNN is the Clinton New Network. Fox is always for the conservative. I look at all the news media that I can to get a well rounded perspective and answer. No doubt the media is very influential and can direct which way things such as campaigns can go. I'm willing to bet if 10 people on the street were asked who is running for president the answer would be Obama and Clinton. There would be no mention of McCain. He is barely if ever in the news. The media has him as beaten already by either Obama and or Clinton (whoever takes the nomination in June) so why bother showing anything about McCain?

At any rate, it is not wise to advise people to "get over it" and let it go because so and so is going to win. This is the reason there are campaigns. This the the reason for democratic process(all be it a bit screwy). Again, being lead blindly is not good form or advisable. As far as Hillary stating that many blue collar American do not want a black man in the White House is pure rubbish and you know that as much as I. Furthermore, she needs to substantiate that claim. But this is typical campaign tactic for the Clintons and we see were tactics such as this has gotten her.....still a senator and now broke after campaigning. Now the media is pushing for a Obama/Clinton ticket. Forget that, neither will take a back seat to each other. She never took a back seat to Bill and certainly will not with Obama.

Now that we agree Obama will make the White House(I need to hide my checkbook as taxes will go through the roof) who will be his running mate? I suspect his choice could make him or break him. I'm totally clueless on who would be running mates for all three of them. My choice for VP at this point would be Condolesa Rice. She is bright, well spoken and has a clue(although many do not think so) In retrospect, if Rice were running for President. She would get my vote. I think she has a large set of kahunas for taking on the position she has now in a world that is full of turmoil.

[AVGWarhawk]

Von Tonner:
Agree with you 100%. By nature people fear change. To stand in a voting booth where the choice is "change" or "old order" will be a gut wrenching descision for your average American

Most American vote with their heart and not their head (just my personal opinion). Others vote for a certain person because their friend, sibling, husband or wife are voting for that individual. Agreed, change does scare people. My thoughts here on that is this change will take up the entire 4 years for Obama and might go further than that. Do we bite the bullet and let him have at it? Stay stagnant for the next 4 years? Hard to say. Then again, we need to start somewhere because the "old order" or "good old boy" network is not working anymore. That is self evident at the moment. I just see a lot of brick walls for Obama. This is how I envision Obama's first few years. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Tiger Woods. One hell of a golf player by every right. When Tiger Woods came on the scene and literally kicked everyones butts on the golf course, sweeping the Masters and all the other tournements he was basically shunned. The other "good old boys" who have been playing for years did not recognize his skills. Just his color. It was a sad state of affairs really. But, Tiger kept at it, shrugged it off and kept going. One hell of a guy, father and golf player. Now the others look beyond his color and see a serious competitor. I envision Obama will experience the same deal. I would not be suprised if Hillary would be a thorn in his side. I do not put it past Hillary to be vindictive after losing. I can see here rallying the others in Congress to effectively undermine any idea or proposal Obama might have. The "good old boy" network is going to be a very large hurtle for Obama. I believe he has the stamina to do so but it will be tough.

[Von Tonner]

That something is true does not mean that is honest.
The things in the newsclips certainly happened. That isn't in doubt.
What's missing is explication and proper framing.
Precisely Tchocky. It is really sad how some people take a clip or sound bite or even falsehood (Obama is a muslim) without engaging their brains.

Take Michelle with her statement: "For the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American". Before any white American takes umbrage at her remark they should honestly ask themselves this simple question. What are the possibilities that Michelle has experienced discrimination either against herself, her family or her friends while growing up in the USA. Proudness of one's country is not a given, nor is it a measure of patriotism - hell, Wright for all his weird ideas is an ex Marine.

When I was living in the States and someone asked me where I was from I was too ashamed to be truthful and tell them I was from South Africa. Today, 10 odd years beyond apartheid I am proud to be South African.

Take a hypothetical example. A white American goes on a tour through Europe at the hight of anti-American sentiment over the Iraq war. He himself is also of the opinion the war is uncalled for. When he gets back state side, in the bar with friends, he recounts how ashamed he was to be an American. But hey, next day there just happens to be a change in government thinking and the troops are withdrawn and his country does right by its mistakes. Now he is proud of his country.

Being proud, embarassed, saddened, annoyed, disgusted, etc are emotional states ALL citizens go through in relation to their country at various stages of their lives. It matters not whether you are black, white or pink - what matters is how YOU personaly feel about a situation at a particular point in your life viz-a-viz your country. It is totally illogical to infer an individuals patriotism to his or her country by how they feel about their country at a given point in time. I served in the South African Defence Force during apartheid and though ashamed at what my country was doing to my fellow South Africans who were not white, I would defend her till death if called on.

Of course, not only is there no attempt at understanding by those who condem her remarks, but these bigots fail to appreciate the qualification she makes in her statement.

[AVGWarhawk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tchocky
That something is true does not mean that is honest.
The things in the newsclips certainly happened. That isn't in doubt.
What's missing is explication and proper framing.


Precisely Tchocky. It is really sad how some people take a clip or sound bite or even falsehood (Obama is a muslim) without engaging their brains.


In due time these are discredited or confirmed. That is what investigative reporting is all about.


Take Michelle with her statement: "For the first time in my adult life I am proud to be
an American". Before any white American takes umbrage at her remark they should honestly ask themselves this simple question. What are the possibilities that Michelle has experienced discrimination either against herself, her family or her friends while growing up in the USA. Proudness of one's country is not a given, nor is it a measure of patriotism - hell, Wright for all his weird ideas is an ex Marine.



I believe Michelle had a good thought here and not malicious when she said this. I believe the statement did not come out as she intended. This statement she made I but out of my mind as a result. Michelle is an accomplished women. You do not get into lead role of the health community in Chicago by being an idiot. Michelle is far from that. Michelle is bright women and strong. I do see her doing a hell of a lot more as a First Lady then the current one did over the last 8 years...which was basically nothing.

When I was living in the States and someone asked me where I was from I was too ashamed to be truthful and tell them I was from South Africa. Today, 10 odd years beyond apartheid I am proud to be South African.


That is a good thing to proud of your country. South Africa went through it's trials and tribulation. Now it is American turn.

Take a hypothetical example. A white American goes on a tour through Europe at the hight of anti-American sentiment over the Iraq war. He himself is also of the opinion the war is uncalled for. When he gets back state side, in the bar with friends, he recounts how ashamed he was to be an American. But hey, next day there just happens to be a change in government thinking and the troops are withdrawn and his country does right by its mistakes. Now he is proud of his country.


What does this mean? My folks traveled Europe the past 7 years. In fact, they were in Spain when 9/11 happened. There was no ill will against my parents from any country they visited. They went to ALL of them. Sure, they are of the opinion that the war is useless. Never once did my parents say they were ashamed to be an American. This statement is pure conjecture on your part and has no valid standing.


Being proud, embarassed, saddened, annoyed, disgusted, etc are emotional states ALL citizens go through in relation to their country at various stages of their lives. It matters not whether you are black, white or pink - what matters is how YOU personaly feel about a situation at a particular point in your life viz-a-viz your country. It is totally illogical to infer an individuals patriotism to his or her country by how they feel about their country at a given point in time. I served in the South African Defence Force during apartheid and though ashamed at what my country was doing to my fellow South Africans who were not white, I would defend her till death if called on.

Of course, not only is there no attempt at understanding by those who condem her remarks, but these bigots fail to appreciate the qualification she makes in her statement.


For someone who lives in South Africa, why such a concern about the next president in the US? In what context does this align with South Africa? Why such an interest? Does the US have South Africa in it's sights or is this just a clever way of drumming up some conversation? Could you clarify your interests on the next election for the US? Personally, I have about as much interest in South Africa as I do the temperture on Pluto. Hence my pointed question. I'm starting to see a recurring theme in your posts but can not put my finger on it at the moment.


I see the recurring theme in this post of yours as well:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=136593

[Tchocky]

In due time these are discredited or confirmed. That is what investigative reporting is all about. But this video ignores that. It asks the question - "Is it a good idea for America to elect a man with three Muslim names?"
It's obvious what's going on here.
Again, that something has happened does not meant it is, in itself, illustrative.


For someone who lives in South Africa, why such a concern about the next president in the US? In what context does this align with South Africa? Why such an interest? Does the US have South Africa in it's sights or is this just a clever way of drumming up some conversation? Could you clarify your interests on the next election for the US?
Interest in this election is not confined to the US. I consider myself rather well-informed on this race, and I'm not voting in it. Not living in America either.
Out of the candidates remaining, I've been to see Obama & McCain give speeches since declaring their candidacy, and I've seen Bill a couple of times in the past. It's a really interesting election that will have large repercussions across the world. There most likeyl isn't a South African angle for Von Tonner, or an Irish angle for me. We're interested. It's fascinating.
Personally, I have about as much interest in South Africa as I do the temperture on Pluto. There's your reason for our interest, really.

EDIT - Looking at Obama's VP choices, I'm not sure he should go with someone who is seen as "strong on foreign policy". Some people are touting the benefits of a "unity ticket" on CLinton's foreign policy experience. I guess being wrong on the biggest foreign policy issue of the decade qualifies as experience. That's a bit snide, but it's how I feel about this talk of experience. Dems, and the attendant media on both sides, tend to see "experience" being synonynous with "hawkish". Look at Gore's VP, Lieberman. Look at Clinton's comments about obliterating Iran. (The next time a US pol mentions that mistranslation about wiping Israel off the map, you can bet what Iran will have to say, and who they will quote. Well, a mix up between "obliterate" and "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" anyway.)
I guess that Clinton looks strong on foreign policy because voters can empathise with her story on it. Like most everyone else she supported the war, and now she doesn't. Voters can relate to that, they want to vote for someone who feels as they do.
Willingness to go to war doesn't do much for me.
Looking at Colin Powell, I wonder if he'd have the domestic ideas necessary to run the country. By all accounts he seems to be a stand-up guy. Wrong on Iraq, yes, but he now considers his briefing at the UN to be the low point of his life. Reading Bush At War, I see Powell saying exactly what would happen in Iraq, the Pottery Barn Rule, and not being listened to.

ANOTHER EDIT - While I'm thinking about VP choices, what of the VP role?
Will an Obama presidency, or a McCain presidency, continue the vastly expanded and powerful Vice Presidency that Dick Cheney has created?
Or will the role be shrunk to what it was pre-2000?

[Von Tonner]

For someone who lives in South Africa, why such a concern about the next president in the US? In what context does this align with South Africa? Why such an interest? Does the US have South Africa in it's sights or is this just a clever way of drumming up some conversation? Could you clarify your interests on the next election for the US? Personally, I have about as much interest in South Africa as I do the temperture on Pluto. Hence my pointed question. I'm starting to see a recurring theme in your posts but can not put my finger on it at the moment.


I see the recurring theme in this post of yours as well:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=136593

You ask why the interest. Maybe it is because politics was my profession, having degrees in it, taught it, born into it, G/father deported from SAfor his political views, family member a parlimatarian, lived and studied in the USAetc, etc

But really, to ask or wonder why anyone outside of the States should have an interest in its politics is breath taking in its naivety. I am sure you must have heard the expression. 'When the USA sneezes the world catches a cold'. To give you an economic example. In SA tourism has overtaken gold in foreign revenus for our country. Americans fall in at number 3 slot in foreign tourists. If you suffer economically, down the road we do too. So does the UK, Europe etc. Which then impacts on our number one and two spot. And that all comes together and effects how much the bread I put on my table costs.

That is why, apart from purely my interest in WORLD politics, is why I and the rest of the world are keenly interested in what happens. Nothing sinister in it at all.

[AVGWarhawk]

For someone who lives in South Africa, why such a concern about the next president in the US? In what context does this align with South Africa? Why such an interest? Does the US have South Africa in it's sights or is this just a clever way of drumming up some conversation? Could you clarify your interests on the next election for the US? Personally, I have about as much interest in South Africa as I do the temperture on Pluto. Hence my pointed question. I'm starting to see a recurring theme in your posts but can not put my finger on it at the moment.


I see the recurring theme in this post of yours as well:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=136593

You ask why the interest. Maybe it is because politics was my profession, having degrees in it, taught it, born into it, G/father deported from SAfor his political views, family member a parlimatarian, lived and studied in the USAetc, etc

But really, to ask or wonder why anyone outside of the States should have an interest in its politics is breath taking in its naivety. I am sure you must have heard the expression. 'When the USA sneezes the world catches a cold'. To give you an economic example. In SA tourism has overtaken gold in foreign revenus for our country. Americans fall in at number 3 slot in foreign tourists. If you suffer economically, down the road we do too. So does the UK, Europe etc. Which then impacts on our number one and two spot. And that all comes together and effects how much the bread I put on my table costs.

That is why, apart from purely my interest in WORLD politics, is why I and the rest of the world are keenly interested in what happens. Nothing sinister in it at all.

Yes, I understand the world watchs because if the US breaks wind, it blows in everyone direction. There is naivety in both directions being that as a person outside the US, sitting idly by looking in, does not have the same flavor as those sitting in the middle of it. Yet, we have a world that seemingly has shut it doors to the US. The "Bad Guy" as it were. There is more to it here in the US other than how South Africa might be affected and your world. More importantly it is how those that generate the dollars for the government to run. In short, the concerns in the US go far and beyond just world diplomacy that you are looking at and disecting. Do you really care about the local level of government for the US citizens? Do you care how the US citizen will be taxed so the US can be a world leader in diplomacy? After all, it is my tax dollars that world diplomcy is accomplished. There giant never ending cash machine in the US are it's people. Would you just throw your money into the government and hope it all just works out? I'm guessing not. You would look at each candidate with a fine tooth comb.

Concerning your posts, you seem to support Obama. I'm I correct? If so, what in Obama two years as a Jr Senator would lead you to believe that he can handle world diplomacy? What in the past two years can you find that Obama has done that would make him a good candidate to handle local diplomacy? Two years as a Jr Senator would in no way shape or form prepare me for world diplomacy nor local diplomacy. For that matter, what has he done for the state of Illinois? What in your mind would make Obama a worldly diplomatic force? I see none.

[AVGWarhawk]

Quote:
In due time these are discredited or confirmed. That is what investigative reporting is all about.
But this video ignores that. It asks the question - "Is it a good idea for America to elect a man with three Muslim names?"
It's obvious what's going on here.
Again, that something has happened does not meant it is, in itself, illustrative.




Even today no one in the national limelight is allowed to say his middle name because of the reference to Hussein in Iraq. Why is that? Just before Kennedy gave Obama his support, his middle name was uttered in the national limelight and the Obama camp went nuts. Why is that? Because, for the most part, image is everything in America. Of course it is obvious what is going on. Is he not proud of his middle name? Normally names of family members are past down from generation to generation for one reason or another. Why not come out and let America know how he got his name and put it to rest? Is there something to hide or is it just a name that is negatively viewed and that is all their is? More than likely. Personally, I do not care what his middle name is. It is all about what he stands for and how he plans on doing it. After getting over the middle name issue that took about three days, America is still at a loss as to what he stands for and how he plans on doing it.

But, you know, the stupidity comes from both camps. Just ask the folks in PA who "hang on to their guns and religion during trying times." Were did that spurn from? Got me, most of my family live in PA. They do not own guns and attend church when they can. In hindsight, we saw were comments such as this got Obama in PA.

[Tchocky]

The stuff about the middle name is the same as Wright and the flag pins. McCain has his dodgy religious associations, and no candidate is currently wearing a pin. Yet Obama gets the exit poll questions.
McCain and Clintn have middle names, too. But they're almost never mentioned, apart from NYT leaders and the odd campaign letter. Obama's middle name is rather different, and given the previous mess of Muslim rumours and "domestic insurgent" BS, is best left out. People are allowed say it, it just carries a lot of weight due to the previous attacks on his character.
Why not come out and let America know how he got his name and put it to rest? Is there something to hide or is it just a name that is negatively viewed and that is all their is? There's plenty of bio information out there. Seriously, last year you couldn'tmove for talk about The Audacity of Hope.

After getting over the middle name issue that took about three days, America is still at a loss as to what he stands for and how he plans on doing it.
Rasmussen tells me about 47% of Americans have a fair idea. I think you're quite wrong here. To find an answer check candidate websites, pay attention to speeches. CSPAN is good for this, they show full speeches rather than NBC/CNN snippets.

That question comes up quite a lot with Obama, what's he going to do?
Mostly, I think, because most of the coverage has been about a successful campaign, excellent speaker, or his associates. There aren't enough substantive policy differences between the two Democratic candidates to make it worth covering, and it doesn't make for great TV anyway. People get slightly suspicious of a smooth talker, concluding that that's all there is.

Clinton avoids this question because people think about Bill's presidency, and what happened there. She is also an uncomfortable public speaker, which gives the impression of formidable policy strengths.
McCain avoids this question because no-one is paying him any attention until the Dem nomination is wrapped up.

Seriously, it's just as easy to answer that question for Obama as it is for McCain, and just as difficult.

[AVGWarhawk]

The stuff about the middle name is the same as Wright and the flag pins. McCain has his dodgy religious associations, and no candidate is currently wearing a pin. Yet Obama gets the exit poll questions.
McCain and Clintn have middle names, too. But they're almost never mentioned, apart from NYT leaders and the odd campaign letter. Obama's middle name is rather different, and given the previous mess of Muslim rumours and "domestic insurgent" BS, is best left out. People are allowed say it, it just carries a lot of weight due to the previous attacks on his character.
Why not come out and let America know how he got his name and put it to rest? Is there something to hide or is it just a name that is negatively viewed and that is all their is? There's plenty of bio information out there. Seriously, last year you couldn'tmove for talk about The Audacity of Hope.

After getting over the middle name issue that took about three days, America is still at a loss as to what he stands for and how he plans on doing it.
Rasmussen tells me about 47% of Americans have a fair idea. I think you're quite wrong here. To find an answer check candidate websites, pay attention to speeches. CSPAN is good for this, they show full speeches rather than NBC/CNN snippets.

That question comes up quite a lot with Obama, what's he going to do?
Mostly, I think, because most of the coverage has been about a successful campaign, excellent speaker, or his associates. There aren't enough substantive policy differences between the two Democratic candidates to make it worth covering, and it doesn't make for great TV anyway. People get slightly suspicious of a smooth talker, concluding that that's all there is.

Clinton avoids this question because people think about Bill's presidency, and what happened there. She is also an uncomfortable public speaker, which gives the impression of formidable policy strengths.
McCain avoids this question because no-one is paying him any attention until the Dem nomination is wrapped up.

Seriously, it's just as easy to answer that question for Obama as it is for McCain, and just as difficult.

Fair enough. More will come to light on McCain and Obama after Hillary stops throwing money at a losing campaign. McCain said he will not run a dirty campaign. I hope he sticks to his word. In my minds eye, I would like to see Obama take the presidency to see what he can do with it. Again, he is bright and thinks deeply on the subject at hand. I believe his wife will be a better first lady then the beer distributor! Both you and Von Tonner said this election is very interesting and it is. So, the three of us can keep up this discussion for months to come. All, the same, very interesting to hear and discuss from those looking in. A different perspective is always good for the decision in the end.

I will check out CSPAN.

[TDK1044]

I'm not sure that Obama will beat McCain, because the Democratic primary exit polls have shown time after time that it's one thing saying you support Obama, and another actually pulling the trigger in the voting booth.

What I do believe has come out of the Obama v Clinton race is the fact that to some degree the American people are ready to trade the experience that comes with a traditional, established politician in favor of approaching some things differently.

Our foreign policy sees the USA more and more isolated in the world. The so called "experienced" politicians have got us to the point where we have little of no diplomatic relations with a Country like North Korea, where the weapons development program poses a real threat, or a Country like Venezuala, very rich in oil...none of which comes to the US because of poor diplomatic relations.

A McCain presiency would change nothing in those examples, but an Obama presidency....could be interesting in potentially breaking down those barriers.

If Obama won the presidency, and he was then smart enough to do what Bill Clinton did and surround himself with all the right people, his inexperience would not then be a big issue, and his charisma and charm might just win a few friends.

That's when we'd see if we got a JFK or a mirage. :D

[Von Tonner]

Yes, I understand the world watchs because if the US breaks wind, it blows in everyone direction. There is naivety in both directions being that as a person outside the US, sitting idly by looking in, does not have the same flavor as those sitting in the middle of it. Yet, we have a world that seemingly has shut it doors to the US. The "Bad Guy" as it were.
Believe me AVG I have never ever looked upon the US as the "Bad Guy" . In fact to take SA as an example. You might or might not know that SA was a prize to both the USSR and the US in the 70's during the cold war. Not only because of its mineral wealth, its strategic position i.e. sea route around the Cape of Good Hope, but its militarily strength in Southern Africa. In those days its army could march right through Africa to Cario without a problem. And the reason it felt secure in its environment was not only due to its own military strength but because the USA backed it (google Chester Crocker). I, at the time, argued that any SA should get down on their hands and knees when they prayed at night and thank the hard working American whose tax dollar went into securing our own safty against Marxism and Communism. [/quote]

Concerning your posts, you seem to support Obama. .
Yes, I do. But that does not make me a glass eyed fan. I have my concerns believe me. If I lived in the States I would be a registered Republican. But having said that, and to get back to much of your own arguments, the world has moved on, the US as the leader of this new world needs to lead and take the world with it. This is why I will give Obama the benifit of the doubt. In my humble opinion, regardless of his past experience, and what he has or not achieved in the Senate, he has a 'world view' given his upbringining and his mixed parentage. My belief in him might well be unfounded, but I will give him the chance to unite the US behind a common universal goal of justice, heal the racial wounds in your own country, and claim its legitimate role as leader of the free world without blemish.

[Platapus]

Take Michelle with her statement: "For the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American".

Just to clear up a common error. This was NOT what she said. She has been misquoted so many times that people forget what she really said.

Her statement was "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud to be an American."

That adverb "really" changes the whole meaning. Her statement never implied that she was never proud to be an American. Just the opposite. It implied that she was always proud to be an American but, in referencing the activity being discussed, now she was really proud to be an American.

You can't be really proud of being an American without first being proud to be an American or the use of the adverb "really" does not make grammatical sense.

When she is misquoted by taking out the adverb, it changes the meaning of the sentence. This is the purpose of adverbs, they further define the sentence.

Since the agenda was to ridicule Michelle. the quote was altered as to put her in the worst light. Repeat this lie enough times and people will believe the lie.

[AVGWarhawk]

Von Tonner:
Yes, I do. But that does not make me a glass eyed fan. I have my concerns believe me. If I lived in the States I would be a registered Republican. But having said that, and to get back to much of your own arguments, the world has moved on, the US as the leader of this new world needs to lead and take the world with it. This is why I will give Obama the benifit of the doubt. In my humble opinion, regardless of his past experience, and what he has or not achieved in the Senate, he has a 'world view' given his upbringining and his mixed parentage. My belief in him might well be unfounded, but I will give him the chance to unite the US behind a common universal goal of justice, heal the racial wounds in your own country, and claim its legitimate role as leader of the free world without blemish.

I like your thoughts here. Glassed eyed fan is what I'm affraid of concerning those that pull the voting arm in the booth. I to give Obama the benefit of the doubt as well but his inexperience is a concern. I would hope he surrounds himself with knowledgable people. I too had thought about his upbringing and parentage as being a possible advantage in the world view. I do not believe your beliefs in Obama are not unfounded. After all, he attended the finest schools, has demonstrated his mastery of the written and spoken word...and quite well. Some say he is arrogant when he speaks. I see confidence when he speaks. This is a excellent quality needed for negotiation. I too, would very interested if he could close some of the racial issues here. Will his winning the White House actually change the tune of many in this country or possible separate the country some more? This country still holds some nuts who just refuse to let it go...on both side of the race issue. It should be interesting and I suspect quite a few books on the subject are forthcoming. At this stage of the game, if there was anyone who could pull this off and have the confidence to get it done, it is Obama.

Nice talking with you Von Tonner! I will drop by here daily to see what you have and leave anything of importance for you to digest and respond.

[NEON DEON]

Take Michelle with her statement: "For the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American".

Just to clear up a common error. This was NOT what she said. She has been misquoted so many times that people forget what she really said.

Her statement was "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud to be an American."

That adverb "really" changes the whole meaning. Her statement never implied that she was never proud to be an American. Just the opposite. It implied that she was always proud to be an American but, in referencing the activity being discussed, now she was really proud to be an American.

Nope she never said really in that statement.

Minute 4 and 10 seconds on the film AVG put up shows what she said.

"For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country."

So based on your words then since the word "really" was not really there implies she was never proud of her country before. And that falls in with Wright's influence on her and her husband.

It is ok for Obama to call white american blue collar workers bitter but it is not ok to call Obama and his wife bitter?

[AVGWarhawk]

Take Michelle with her statement: "For the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American".

Just to clear up a common error. This was NOT what she said. She has been misquoted so many times that people forget what she really said.

Her statement was "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud to be an American."

That adverb "really" changes the whole meaning. Her statement never implied that she was never proud to be an American. Just the opposite. It implied that she was always proud to be an American but, in referencing the activity being discussed, now she was really proud to be an American.

You can't be really proud of being an American without first being proud to be an American or the use of the adverb "really" does not make grammatical sense.

When she is misquoted by taking out the adverb, it changes the meaning of the sentence. This is the purpose of adverbs, they further define the sentence.

Since the agenda was to ridicule Michelle. the quote was altered as to put her in the worst light. Repeat this lie enough times and people will believe the lie.


Read a few posts back. All agreed that this was out of context. Michelle had a thought that did not come out as she had planned. That is clearly evident. The first time I heard that sentence my thoughts were she delivered her idea in the wrong way. Currently, if a First Lady was to be picked this very day by me....it would be Michelle Obama. First of all, she is very bright and did not become a leading member of the medical community in the greater Chicago area because she is an idiot. Secondly, there is no doubt in my mind that Michelle would do a hell of a lot more then the current First Lady who did nothing for 8 years. Lets face it, she has done not one thing. There is no reason she could not have visited Walter Reed Hospital over the past 5 years....and I mean regularly. To further Michelles imput as a First Lady...the current healthcare system is not the best. Who best to put in charge of making a change for the healthcare system? She does it now in Chicago. I'm certain she learned and created some new things. No reason she could not put that to use on a grander scale.

[Platapus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WNGjawtP48

It shows her saying really the first time she said the quote.

It is important to listen to the entire quote and not just pick out the second speech when she did not say the word really

Yes it is true that the second speech she used the phrase she did not use the word really.

But the first time, when she was introducing the concept in to her speech she used the word really. The second time when she was referencing back to what she had previously said, she did not.

I do apologize for not quoting her exact words in my original post. (I guess I am guilty as everyone else for not remembering her exact words).

The quote is

"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country...."

[NEON DEON]

No she amended her speech the same day and it was the other way around.

Milwaukee: "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country"

Later that day in Madison she did damage control and ammended the speech to include really.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/19/michelle-obama-takes-heat-for-saying-shes-proud-of-my-country-for-the-first-time/

Now if you want to say stuff like: See there that implies she was proud of her country when she was a kid since she said adult life; I will buy that.

But then you would just get into the 20 years of adult life spent with Wright.

The word "really" was some "general semantics" damage control that you seem to have bit into hook, line, and sinker.

[AVGWarhawk]

@ Neon,

I think her thought just came out the wrong way and once it was out of the bag there was no turning back. Yes, I suspect she was proud of the country as a child but as she moved into adulthood and experienced inequalites, her opinion was formed all be it negative. Can anyone really blame her? Not really. But, at this juncture of her life, watching the democratic process at work, the support for her husband by both white and black alike, her opinion of the country was taking a tone of change and looking beyond color..taking a closer look at substance of the individual, not the color. Something she holds deeply apparently that pushed her into this speech. I find no fault with Michelle Obama.

[Platapus]

Ok you guys have convinced me. I am now seeing it your way.

I refuse to vote for Michelle Obama for President of the United States. :yep:
:)

[AVGWarhawk]

Ok you guys have convinced me. I am now seeing it your way.

I refuse to vote for Michelle Obama for President of the United States. :yep:
:)

Good Lord, the work "really" is getting as bad as Bill Clintons what is "is"? Oh really?:hmm:

[NEON DEON]

Ok you guys have convinced me. I am now seeing it your way.

I refuse to vote for Michelle Obama for President of the United States. :yep:
:)

Good Lord, the work "really" is getting as bad as Bill Clintons what is "is"? Oh really?:hmm:

???

How about "Oh really"

Isnt he that a conservative commentator on Fox?:D

[TDK1044]

So here's what's left:

West Virginia = 28 Delegates [13 May]
Kentucky - 51 Delegates [20 May]
Oregon = 52 Delegates [20 May]
Puerto Rico = 55 Delegates [1 June]
Montana = 16 Delegates [3 June]
South Dakota = 15 Delegates [3 June]


WV I would give to Clinton by a 70 to 30 majority.
KY I would give to Clinton 55 to 45
OR I would give to Obama 52 to 48
PR I would give to Clinton 60 to 40
MT I would give to Obama 55 to 45
SD I would give to Obama 55 to 45


She'll gain some delegates, some of which will be negated by the daily SD endorsements for Obama. He'll be well over 100 delegates ahead of her come June 3rd....maybe as many as 120, and then the SDs can finally do their thing and end this farce.

[AVGWarhawk]

Ok you guys have convinced me. I am now seeing it your way.

I refuse to vote for Michelle Obama for President of the United States. :yep:
:)
Good Lord, the work "really" is getting as bad as Bill Clintons what is "is"? Oh really?:hmm:
???

How about "Oh really"

Isnt he that a conservative commentator on Fox?:D

No sir, that would be O'Reilly:rotfl:

[AVGWarhawk]

So here's what's left:

West Virginia = 28 Delegates [13 May]
Kentucky - 51 Delegates [20 May]
Oregon = 52 Delegates [20 May]
Puerto Rico = 55 Delegates [1 June]
Montana = 16 Delegates [3 June]
South Dakota = 15 Delegates [3 June]


WV I would give to Clinton by a 70 to 30 majority.
KY I would give to Clinton 55 to 45
OR I would give to Obama 52 to 48
PR I would give to Clinton 60 to 40
MT I would give to Obama 55 to 45
SD I would give to Obama 55 to 45


She'll gain some delegates, some of which will be negated by the daily SD endorsements for Obama. He'll be well over 100 delegates ahead of her come June 3rd....maybe as many as 120, and then the SDs can finally do their thing and end this farce.
It is time for Hillary to throw in the towel. She is wasting everyone time at the moment. It is time to hear from Obama and McCain via a debate.

[Tchocky]

It is time to hear from Obama and McCain via a debate.
In yesterday's NYT, I read that both Obama and McCain are interested in holding many open-forum unmoderated debates across the country.
McCain proposed it, and Obama said it was a great idea. This is going to be a very unusual camaign. I can't wait.

hang on, let me find th'article

here we are - In a sign of what could be an extremely unusual fall campaign, the two sides said Saturday that they would be open to holding joint forums or unmoderated debates across the country in front of voters through the summer. Mr. Obama, campaigning in Oregon, said that the proposal, floated by Mr. McCain’s advisers, was “a great idea.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11strategy.html?bl&ex=1210737600&en=949dc013156ba36c&ei=5087%0A

EDIT - CLinton may not have won Indiana at all.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/dwindling-lead.html

[NEON DEON]

She'll win KY, WV and PR, and in doing so she'll gain about as many delegates as he just won in North Carolina

Landslide in West Virginia 72/28 took care of pledged delegates gained by Obama last week.

North Carolina: +15 for Obama
Indiana: -04 for Obama
West VA -12 for Obama

Which means + 1 for Hillary:yep:

Next drubbing is Kentucky:D 65/35

BTW: No way does Obama get 55% of the vote in any state that is left which means by the time Puerto Rico finishes its election even Obama math will not give him the popular vote.

And for all you change fanatics out there try and spin that one to the SDs who can change their vote anytime they want to.

[AVGWarhawk]

It is time to hear from Obama and McCain via a debate.
In yesterday's NYT, I read that both Obama and McCain are interested in holding many open-forum unmoderated debates across the country.
McCain proposed it, and Obama said it was a great idea. This is going to be a very unusual camaign. I can't wait.

hang on, let me find th'article

here we are - In a sign of what could be an extremely unusual fall campaign, the two sides said Saturday that they would be open to holding joint forums or unmoderated debates across the country in front of voters through the summer. Mr. Obama, campaigning in Oregon, said that the proposal, floated by Mr. McCain’s advisers, was “a great idea.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11strategy.html?bl&ex=1210737600&en=949dc013156ba36c&ei=5087%0A

EDIT - CLinton may not have won Indiana at all.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/dwindling-lead.html


Nice find! Should prove to be interesting.

[Tchocky]

BTW: No way does Obama get 55% of the vote in any state that is left which means by the time Puerto Rico finishes its election even Obama math will not give him the popular vote.

And for all you change fanatics out there try and spin that one to the SDs who can change their vote anytime they want to. Well, first I'd very much question your 4% win for Clinton in Indiana - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Democratic_primary,_2008#Results

Yes, and the superdelegates that Obama has picked up over the last week more or less cancel out Clinton's WV gains. Obama has gained 26 SD in the last week, and the total delgates from WV is 28, and Clinton didn;t get them all. This hasn't changed the race one bit. You're right in that superdelegates can change their vote anytime they like (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/13/pledged_delegate/index.html)

Point is, even with a victory margin that was a lot larger than anyone really predicted, nobody is taking this win seriously.
Popular vote? Primary season isn't about the popular vote, and it never was an issue until Clinton fell behind in delegates.

[TDK1044]

She'll win KY, WV and PR, and in doing so she'll gain about as many delegates as he just won in North Carolina

Landslide in West Virginia 72/28 took care of pledged delegates gained by Obama last week.

North Carolina: +15 for Obama
Indiana: -04 for Obama
West VA -12 for Obama

Which means + 1 for Hillary:yep:

Next drubbing is Kentucky:D 65/35

BTW: No way does Obama get 55% of the vote in any state that is left which means by the time Puerto Rico finishes its election even Obama math will not give him the popular vote.

And for all you change fanatics out there try and spin that one to the SDs who can change their vote anytime they want to.


You live in a little bubble world of your own. It's really quite amusing. The only reason that a massive flood of super delegates haven't yet come out for Obama is because they would much rather let Hillary get to the point where she pulls out. Be assured though, come June 3rd, Hillary will be dead in the water. She can have her meaningless victories before then. In the last two weeks, 30 super delegates have come out for Obama and two have come out for Hillary. Let her march proudly on the the meaningless state of Kentucky.
:rotfl:

[Tchocky]

John Edwards got 7% of the vote in WV.
Just like Huckabee and Paul are picking up +10% results in Republican primaries. The implication is rather obvious, the damn thing's over.

[TDK1044]

John Edwards got 7% of the vote in WV.
Just like Huckabee and Paul are picking up +10% results in Republican primaries. The implication is rather obvious, the damn thing's over.

Obvious to all but NEON, Tchocky. He'll proudly post her Kentucky victory as a sign that she's still in the race.....a race she hasn't been in for weeks.

[TDK1044]

Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1918)
Pledged: 1599
Superdelegates: 282
Total: 1,881

Hillary Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746)
Pledged: 1440
Superdelegates: 273
Total: 1,713

So, even after WV, she is 168 delegates behind. He's also now ahead of her in SD pledges. More SDs will pledge for him as the days go on, completely negating any gain she'll get out of KY. She'll make a little ground in Puerto Rico, but he'll win Oregon and Montana and the SDs will continue to trickle.

I guess we'll have to wait until June 3rd before Hillary finally gets it though. Pathetic really.

[Tchocky]

It's gotta be tough being a committed (no pun intended, yet) Clinton supporter at this stage.
She started as front-runner, but ran an incumbents campaign with a staff based on loyalty rather than competence.
It's gotta bite to have that kind of loooonnng but interminable turnaround.

I mean, at least the most spectacular political disaster of the last few years, Guiliani's campaign, was over quickly.

[TDK1044]

I agree with you. Hillary was the stronger candidate. But the fact of the matter is that Obama ran a brilliant campaign and she ran a very poor one.

While her campaign manager was busy telling all who would listen that this would all be over by Super Tuesday, it apparently didn't occur to anyone in the Clinton campaign that they were up against an eloquent, articulate, likable candidate who really knows how to work the room. So the Obama strategy was to work every caucus State hard and negate her gains in the bigger States. Clinton chose not to caucus at all...a mistake of monumental proportions.

Because of that mistake, this race has been over since Indiana.

[AVGWarhawk]

Perhaps she should change stratagies and run as a independent. :hmm:

[TDK1044]

That would be fun, AVG. :D

[AVGWarhawk]

Stranger things have happened. If she did that, McCain would be out for sure.

[TDK1044]

Better still...she could run in Canada...they'll let anyone in there :D
Is that RDP I see coming!!!:D

[NEON DEON]

Obama weakness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&feature=related

"I will slow our development of future combat systems"

Obama is the bubble boy:D:ping: :p

[TDK1044]

Hillary is now being totally ignored by everyone. She's simply not relevant. Obama picked up four more SDs yesterday, and John Edwards also endorsed him.

Hillary's only slight hope for success came on the night of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. She needed to do two things on that night in order to gain momentum and potentially attract super delegates.

She needed to win Indiana comfortably, and she needed to cut his NC victory to single digits. She did neither of those things. She won Indiana by the skin of her teeth and he won NC by 16 points. In the weeks since then, he has been endorsed by 34 SDs and she has been endorsed by 2.

As a result of her meaningless victory in WV, Obama has a 168 delegate lead over her...the biggest lead he's ever had. This pattern will continue. She'll win Kentucky and Puerto Rico, and she and NEON will be the only two people in the Country who think that it actually means anything.

Obama will win Oregon and Montana, and the SDs will continue to endorse him. Come June 3rd, she will finally be forced out of the race, and she'll go and prepare for another run in either 4 or 8 years.

[AVGWarhawk]

At this point, Hillary is wasting media time between the two nominees. It is great she is a fighter and such, but the numbers do not stack in her favor.....see you in 4 years Hillary.

[TDK1044]

Sadly, I think you're right. She will run again.

[NEON DEON]

Sadly, I think you're right. She will run again.

Yes she will run again as the incumbent President!:yep:

:/\\k:

TDK you are Quite entertaining yourself!:D

Come on who are you "really"?

Keith Olbermann?:lol:

[TDK1044]

Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1918)
Pledged: 1608
Superdelegates: 291
Total: 1,899

Hillary Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746)
Pledged: 1445
Superdelegates: 274
Total: 1,719


Today he's 180 delegates ahead. I'd say your incumbent needs a mathematical miracle, NEON. :D

[TDK1044]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/d0a842c3d2
:D

That guy is mild compared to Hillary during a rant! :D

[NEON DEON]

Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1918)
Pledged: 1608
Superdelegates: 291
Total: 1,899

Hillary Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746)
Pledged: 1445
Superdelegates: 274
Total: 1,719


Today he's 180 delegates ahead. I'd say your incumbent needs a mathematical miracle, NEON. :D

Pledged delagates TDK

Pledged delagates.

Obama is 400 or so short.

Race is not over. If it makes you feel better to add in SDs that can flip flop any old time they want, then go right ahead.

In the end, swings states, popular vote, and not enough pledged delegates will sink Obama.

[TDK1044]

I really don't think you understand the structure set up by the DNC. It's a total of pledged and super delegates, NEON. With pledged delegates alone, neither of them win this race. The SDs are just waiting for the appropriate time to push Obama past the post. He's actually about 130 votes short right now. Hillary needs over 300.....never going to happen.

[NEON DEON]

I really don't think you understand the structure set up by the DNC. It's a total of pledged and super delegates, NEON. With pledged delegates alone, neither of them win this race. The SDs are just waiting for the appropriate time to push Obama past the post. He's actually about 130 votes short right now. Hillary needs over 300.....never going to happen.

Oh I understand. Do the Sds understand is the question.

According to you they vote for who they want to win.

According to me they vote based on who can win in November.

If the SDs are charged with voting based on their own personal beliefs, then the numbers right now show Obama will more than likely win.

That, however, is a big if when you consider why they were created in the first place. To beat the republicans in November.

Thats me story and I am sticking to it:D

[August]

Isn't Bill Clinton one of the Super Delegates? He's for sure not going to vote for Obama.

[TDK1044]

I really don't think you understand the structure set up by the DNC. It's a total of pledged and super delegates, NEON. With pledged delegates alone, neither of them win this race. The SDs are just waiting for the appropriate time to push Obama past the post. He's actually about 130 votes short right now. Hillary needs over 300.....never going to happen.

Oh I understand. Do the Sds understand is the question.

According to you they vote for who they want to win.

According to me they vote based on who can win in November.

If the SDs are charged with voting based on their own personal beliefs, then the numbers right now show Obama will more than likely win.

That, however, is a big if when you consider why they were created in the first place. To beat the republicans in November.

Thats me story and I am sticking to it:D


What you don't seem to understand is that the SDs are first and foremost politicians at either local or National level. Their first instinct is self preservation. That is how they are voting. Here are todays numbers.

Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1918)
Pledged: 1612
Superdelegates: 292
Total: 1,904

Hillary Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746)
Pledged: 1443
Superdelegates: 274
Total: 1,717

There has been and will be a day to day trickle of endorsements for him and none for her....one or two maybe. An honorable candidate would have put the Party first and withdrawn by now, but there's nothing honorable about Hillary. She'll give a victory speech after her meaningless Kentucky victoy and ask the voters for more money.

[nikimcbee]

Isn't Bill Clinton one of the Super Delegates? He's for sure not going to vote for Obama.


...or is he?:hmm: That would be priceless if that ever slipped out. The plates would be a-flyin' at the Clinton house.:rotfl:

[TDK1044]

NEON is wrong when he says that the SDs will vote based on who they think will win against McCain in November. That is the theory behind the formation of the SDs sure, but in reality another game is in play.

Most of the SDs are local politicians of one type or another, and they are primarily interested in getting re-elected in their State, whoever ends up as President.

Take as an example Congressman John Lewis in Georgia. He is a staunch Clinton supporter. At the start of her campaign, he held a press conference, with her present, openly endorsing her. When Georgia went to the polls, Georgians voted heavily for Obama. Within a few days of the result, Lewis held another press conference endorsing Obama. He knew that if he didn't, he be voted out at the next election.

That scenario is what's playing out accross the Country now, and that's why the fact that Obama has won so many more States than Hillary is important.

The only reason that this farce isn't over yet, is because a large number of the SDs would much rather not be forced into showing their preference in a vote if they don't have to be. They don't want to piss off their constituents, and they don't want to piss off Hillary, but when push comes to shove, they will put their own interests first and vote the way their constituents voted.

Come June 3rd, Obama will be the nominee, even if Hillary does well in KY, Puerto Rico and Montana. Dean has put the word out that he wants votes from the remaing SDs on that day.

[NEON DEON]

TDK

How do you explain Richardson the Governor of New Mexico, or for that matter the Governors of North Carolina, Puerto Rico, and Massachussets?

Besides that theory of yours might just work against Obama since a lot of delegates are not elected officials and even more are from Non urban areas which heavily favored Clinton.

Indiana:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=IN

Missouri:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=MO

The best place for your theory would be large urban areas where there are a signifigant number of African American voters. Here I can understand how they would vote and yet the Mayor of Philidelphia endorsed Hillary Clinton.

So in the end the SDs will do what they are charged with doing.

With the exception of Bill who will vote for his wife even if she did not have the popular vote, swing states, and has the best chance to beat McCain based on the demographics.
:sunny:

[TDK1044]

Come June 3rd, we'll see who is right, NEON. :D

[NEON DEON]

Come June 3rd, we'll see who is right, NEON. :D

:/\\k:

YAY! :rock:

Everyone gets to vote afterall!:D

:()1: :sunny: :cool: :()1:

[TDK1044]

And it all went down exactly as I said it would. Obama got a flood of super delegates having reached the magic number, and Horrible Hillary is left whining about the popular vote.

We live in a Republic, not a Democracy.....although 90 percent of Americans don't know that because of our poor education system. The popular vote is cosmetic in terms of the presidential election, and the same is true for the Democratic nomination process.

Since the Indiana primary, Hillary's strategy has been to hang around long enough to damage Obama enough so that he will struggle to beat McCain. She would like to see McCain elected so that she can run against him in 2012, when he'll be 76 years old and looking and sounding even more frail than he does now.

Such is politics! :D

[AVGWarhawk]

We are not "We the people...." She is correct in the respect concerning the popular vote. In a way I sympathize with Hillary in this matter. IMO, the super delegates did not look at the popular vote, they went with who THEY liked. Not democratic at all. So, did we really have a vote that mattered? No. Did the media drive Obama to the nomination? Sure did.

McCain will be a one term president if elected.

[TDK1044]

McCain will be a one term president if elected.

Sure. He'll either die in office, or Hillary will run against him and he'll wish he was dead. :D

[Stealth Hunter]

Or somebody will kill him...

In all honestly, the Republicans are the last thing the citizens of the United States want in office. I doubt he'll be elected to begin with, but if he is, perhaps he'll either die of shock or be assassinated. I respect his military career, but I don't respect nor agree with his politics, which have included appearing with President Bush 95% of the time the man gives a speech.

McCain is old, frail, and doesn't appear to be in the best of health. Perhaps it will turn out to be a Fatty Arbuckle situation if he is elected to save us the pain of more Republican incompetence (Fatty Arbuckle lost his job with his movie studio and was eventually signed back into it a few years later; he was so excited that he died of a heart attack that night, brought on by his poor dieting options).

[TDK1044]

We are not "We the people...." She is correct in the respect concerning the popular vote. In a way I sympathize with Hillary in this matter.



no sympathy here. Hillary is a seasoned politician. She knew that this was a straight Delegate race. She ran a dreadful campaign, failed to caucus and totally underestimated Obama.

Only when she started losing did she start talking about the popular vote...something politicians do when they are losing by the specified criteria of the campaign they are running.

[Stealth Hunter]

You can pretty much tell that if they lose the primary elections fair and square, they wouldn't make that much of a good president.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g17/Sgt-Smithy/480px-Poll27s_closed.jpg

[August]

In all honestly, the Republicans are the last thing the citizens of the United States want in office.

Really? Why? I always do so enjoy foreigners telling me what i should or shouldn't want. :roll:

Seriously did you ever think that a Democrat controlled White House AND Congress is as bad as a Republican controlled WH and Congress? At least when the two branches are controlled by opposite parties neither is able to pass partisan agenda at will. This is a good thing. If Obama wins in November and control of congress doesn't change hands that will end up costing us a lot of money given the wealth distribution schemes already being touted by Pelosi and company.


Another thing, there's a lot of people on this board (not just you) claiming that the next president is going to be assasinated, something that hasn't happened in nearly half a century. Is that wishful thinking, or do you have an actual reason to believe this?

[Tchocky]

You can pretty much tell that if they lose the primary elections fair and square, they wouldn't make that much of a good president.

Oof, hardly. Most of the best people for the job wouldn't put up with the blatant pandering and piss-artistry necessary to get there.

[Stealth Hunter]

If they wanted to make drastic change for the good of the country like they've claimed so many times, they would.:yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

We are not "We the people...." She is correct in the respect concerning the popular vote. In a way I sympathize with Hillary in this matter.


no sympathy here. Hillary is a seasoned politician. She knew that this was a straight Delegate race. She ran a dreadful campaign, failed to caucus and totally underestimated Obama.

Only when she started losing did she start talking about the popular vote...something politicians do when they are losing by the specified criteria of the campaign they are running.


True. After watching the latest video of a pastor in Obama's former church, I some how believe he was correct when he believed Hillary thought this was in the bag oh so many months ago. Look at the poll we held, Hillary was at the top. Even so, the people voted in the majority for Hillary. This was the popular vote. Let me play the devils advocate here, Hillary was looking to get the peoples vote as this is a democracy and "every vote counts". In the race, none of them counted IMO. The decision was made by the super delegates. I strongly believe Hillary's past shananigans along with Bills swayed the delegates support to Obama.

[TDK1044]

As always, you make a valid point, AVG, but if the Democrats really wanted "democracy", then all they needed to do was scrap the delegates and the super delegates and say whoever gets the most votes accross the Country wins. Simple.

The reality is that we elect our President by Electoral College and the Democrats elect a Presidential nominee by delegate count. In both cases, the popular vote is interesting but not really relevant.

[Stealth Hunter]

In all honestly, the Republicans are the last thing the citizens of the United States want in office.

Really? Why? I always do so enjoy foreigners telling me what i should or shouldn't want. :roll:

I'm a legalized American citizen who has been living here for a good 20 years.:roll:

Seriously did you ever think that a Democrat controlled White House AND Congress is as bad as a Republican controlled WH and Congress? At least when the two branches are controlled by opposite parties neither is able to pass partisan agenda at will.

A Republican-controlled White House in conjunction with a Democrat-controlled Congress is going to do nothing more than hold the country in a legislative stalemate. Nothing is going to be accomplished to clean us up from the mess Bush has gotten us in, and we're going to continue to spin down in a stall. With a Democratic White House and Congress, at least we'd be able to get something done, despite the sacrifices we'd have to make.

Another thing, there's a lot of people on this board (not just you) claiming that the next president is going to be assasinated, something that hasn't happened in nearly half a century. Is that wishful thinking, or do you have an actual reason to believe this?

Something that hasn't happened in quite a long time? Yes. Something that isn't going to happen again? Definitely not. If Obama wins, I fear someone will try to assassinate him due to racist and intolerant feelings. If McCain wins, I think someone will try to assassinate him since a Republican president isn't in the interests of the American citizens.

Attempts to kill presidents have been made many times before. Bush was almost slain on May 10, 2005 whilst delivering a speech (you might recall the hand grenade incident?). The only thing that stopped it from successfully working was the fact that the grenade didn't detonate properly. Bill Clinton was shot at by a Mr. Duran with a semi-automatic rifle. Bush Sr. was almost blown to bits by a bomb.

Since John F. Kennedy's killing, every president since that time has had at least one assassination attempt made on them (save for LBJ). It's only a matter of time before one succeeds.

[August]

I'm a legalized American citizen who has been living here for a good 20 years.:roll:

My apologies. The way you're always talking about leaving led me to believe you weren't.

A Republican-controlled White House in conjunction with a Democrat-controlled Congress is going to do nothing more than hold the country in a legislative stalemate. Nothing is going to be accomplished to clean us up from the mess Bush has gotten us in, and we're going to continue to spin down in a stall. With a Democratic White House and Congress, at least we'd be able to get something done, despite the sacrifices we'd have to make.

Get something done, like what exactly? What exactly are the Democrats going to do that will "fix" the countries problems? The only real difference between the Dems and the Repubs is which half of your rights are going to be assaulted. I'd much rather have them at each others legisltative throats only passing laws that they both can abide with than either socialism or capitalism run unchecked.

If Obama wins, I fear someone will try to assassinate him due to racist and intolerant feelings. If McCain wins, I think someone will try to assassinate him since a Republican president isn't in the interests of the American citizens.

There is a vast difference between attempting and succeeding. I also love your attempt at moralizing such a heinous act. Obama might be assasinated by some evil racist hater but a McCain assassin is only a patriot looking out for the interests of his fellow citizens? :roll: Careful, your bias is showing...

[AVGWarhawk]

As always, you make a valid point, AVG, but if the Democrats really wanted "democracy", then all they needed to do was scrap the delegates and the super delegates and say whoever gets the most votes accross the Country wins. Simple.

The reality is that we elect our President by Electoral College and the Democrats elect a Presidential nominee by delegate count. In both cases, the popular vote is interesting but not really relevant.
Perhaps then there is a change in order. As of late, I do not believe my vote counts for much of nothing other then time wasted going to the polls. I do not feel this is representative of what the people want nor democratic.

[TDK1044]

As always, you make a valid point, AVG, but if the Democrats really wanted "democracy", then all they needed to do was scrap the delegates and the super delegates and say whoever gets the most votes accross the Country wins. Simple.

The reality is that we elect our President by Electoral College and the Democrats elect a Presidential nominee by delegate count. In both cases, the popular vote is interesting but not really relevant.
Perhaps then there is a change in order. As of late, I do not believe my vote counts for much of nothing other then time wasted going to the polls. I do not feel this is representative of what the people want nor democratic.

If you research the 'right to vote' issue in depth, you'll discover as I did that there is actually no right to vote in a Federal Election.

The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html) makes interesting reading. Take a look at Section II, Paragraph B. "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art.II, §1."

As a matter of law, there is no "right to vote" explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, but only that they cannot be denied based solely on specified qualifications.

15th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion) (1870): no law may restrict any race from voting
19th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) (1920): no law may restrict any sex from voting
23rd Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (1961): residents of the District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia) can vote for the President and Vice-President
24th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) (1964): neither Congress nor the states may condition the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other type of tax
26th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (1971): no law may restrict those 18 years of age or older from voting because of their age.

[Platapus]

Or somebody will kill him...




I find comments like this and other such comments on other boards to be deeply disturbing.

If you were trying to be funny and flippant I don't think you succeeded :nope: I find nothing funny or flippant about the assassination of one of our politicians.

If you were being serious, then shame on you. The United States is not proud of our history of assassinations. We have had and still have nut cases who attempt to use violence to remove an elected member of our government. We should be thankful that we have such a good Secret Service and we are lucky that for the most part none of our citizens considers this violent act.

One of the many things that makes America a great democracy is that while we may passionately disagree on politics, the assassination of our politicians remains a rare occurrence.

I will gladly accept the title of SUBSIM party pooper, but I do not think posting anything "predicting" the assassination of any American politician is anything to joke about.

Other joking is great. Joke about how old McCain is, or make fun at the way he speaks. There are tons of stuff to joke about all the nominees. Humour is great.

I just don't think joking about a nominee being assassinated is appropriate.:nope:

[JHuschke]

McCain has to win, Hillary Clinton will have us into war in no time and if we have Obama we will have a "Black Supremacist" dictating America.

[nikimcbee]

McCain has to win, Hillary Clinton will have us into war in no time and if we have Obama we will have a "Black Supremacist" dictating America.

What war would Hillary get us into? She said she "loaths" the military. I wonder if she has changed her opinion on the subject?

[Stealth Hunter]

McCain has to win, Hillary Clinton will have us into war in no time and if we have Obama we will have a "Black Supremacist" dictating America.

What war would Hillary get us into? She said she "loaths" the military. I wonder if she has changed her opinion on the subject?

Just because someone says it doesn't make it true.

Our president said he would track down Al Qaeda, but that never happened, did it? We were sidetracked with his own imperialistic conquest of Iraq, a nation which despised terrorists to begin with and kept them out with all means available. Then when Hussein was removed from power, the terrorists poured into Iraq since it had such a weak border defence and military defence system in general, making it incredibly easy to get in. They weren't in there to begin with, but they are now.

If he wanted Osama bin Laden as badly as he claimed, he had to look no further than the section of the Hindu Kush that runs through Afghanistan. Now, he's probably relocated to Pakistan, but we're not sure anymore (we were when the war began, but he's long gone by now for safety reasons).