State of the Democratic Party

[William Haskins]

how's it looking?

[John Paton]

This is a most crucial election.

I like the fact we are learning more about the O man every day and giving people more of an idea whether they want him as President or not.

OK some superdelegates may be worried about some in-fighting but this is politics. I think the Democratic Party are doing alright out of this.

I have no problem with it and they need to get it right. Love her or hate her - you have to admit that Hillary is one heck of a fighter!

[MattW]

If the super-delegates go against the actual vote counts and go instead for Hillary (pre-supposing her success in larger electoral count states), the party will dissolve into bickering 100 times worse than the electoral vs popular whining we've heard since 2000.

[billythrilly7th]

If the super-delegates go against the actual vote counts and go instead for Hillary (pre-supposing her success in larger electoral count states), the party will dissolve into bickering 100 times worse than the electoral vs popular whining we've heard since 2000.

I agree.

If the super delegates go with the voted delegates, all will be well.

If not, it's gonna be a bloodbath at that convention and they will damage the party for years to come.

My favorite gal, nancy P agrees with me and MattW.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aDF5JjBBppXw&refer=us

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the Democratic Party might be hurt if leaders fail to nominate the U.S. presidential candidate preferred by voters in primaries and caucuses.

``If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party,'' Pelosi said in an interview taped two days ago and aired today on ABC's ``This Week'' program.

[blacbird]

Amazingly, I agree with both Matt and Der Triltzscher here. And there's absolutely no whiff of an indication that any substantial number of the SuperDupers are interested in voiding the pledged delegate results. Which leaves Clinton (or, as is more commonly phrased these days, The Clintons) pretty far out on a limb over the rushing whitewater (so to speak). The math is extremely bleak for her at this point, and "momentum", even if she can claim some of that elusive entity, is less important than it was some weeks ago. Obama, incidentally, just picked up a net of seven more pledged delegates from Iowa, a result of John Edwards delegates pledging new commitments. Clinton needs to pull back something like 150 delegates now, just to get relatively even with Obama, and any clear-eyed analysis of the remaining state contests makes that number very hard to find.

I have a sneak suspicion that a couple of Dem bigwigs, including notably the redoubtable Mr. Gore, are on the verge of taking the bull by the horns and settling the issue very soon. It's just too uncomfortable a prospect to let this growing rancor run on all the way to the end of August, providing John McCain with new ammo every step of the way.

Speaking of John McCain, for all you folks who are so insistent about the liberal media bias and all, he's right now getting the freest of free rides from that liberal media, as they all concentrate on the Dems.

caw

[billythrilly7th]

Speaking of John McCain, for all you folks who are so insistent about the liberal media bias and all, he's right now getting the freest of free rides from that liberal media, as they all concentrate on the Dems.

caw

It's not a free ride. His issue has been settled and the democrats are of much more interest.

It's like saying Demi Moore is getting a free ride from the paparazzi because all the concentration is on Britney Spears.

Or maybe it's absolutely nothing like that at all.

But you get the picture.

Thanks.

[whistlelock]

Other: Honestly, it's been a long time since the Democratic party has had to go this long without an candidate for the job. And the super delegates, meant to avoid this exact problem, have prolonged it. We're accustomed to the era of good feelings now. We have one set of candidates, and they run around the country doing soundbytes and mugging for the camera.

But this is general election stuff. We're not used to this. I honestly believe that Obama has something right- America wants to change. If he can survive his scandals, and get enough candidates to pick up his message in the following election cycles things can change.

What that change is, I don't know exactly. And what that change should be I don't really know either. But I know the old way, Clinton and McCain- that's not what the "people" want. The Democratic party is on the verge of a Paradigm shift similar to what happened to the Republicans with Reagan.

The majority of my family are amateur political junkies. Meaning, they're really into their issues, and like to talk about the candidates without doing a lot of research. Standard American voter kinda people. And they all talk about one guy.

Obama.

Even my republican Aunts, my independant Uncles, and my hyper-conservative Father talk about him. they like his message. They all want the world to change. In the words of my Democratic Father-in-Law, "I sure like what he says, and I hope he can make it happen. I want the world to be different."

So, my vote is other. What that other is I don't know yet. But it's something else, alright.

[small axe]

http://http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/


For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

...

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."


Once I had my heroes
Once I had my dream
But all of that is changed now
They've turned things inside out
The truth is not that comfortable, no

And mother taught us patience
The virtues of restraint
And father taught us boundaries
Beyond which we must go
To find the secrets promised us, yeah

That's when I reach for my revolver
That's when it all gets blown away
That's when I reach for my revolver
The spirit fights to find its way

--Mission Of Burma

:)

Yeah, just when we were afraid there wasn't enough hard feelings and confusion in the party, let's really shake things up by adding more sabotage-at-the-voting-booths!

[brokenfingers]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the Democratic Party might be hurt if leaders fail to nominate the U.S. presidential candidate preferred by voters in primaries and caucuses.

``If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party,'' Pelosi said in an interview taped two days ago and aired today on ABC's ``This Week'' program. I think if that happened it might not necessarily be a bad thing in the long run. It might help to finally break the deathlock of the two-party system on America’s political system.

Hopefully, it would energize efforts to create an alternative third party that was more representative of a larger-growing percentage of American people.

Other: Honestly, it's been a long time since the Democratic party has had to go this long without an candidate for the job. And the super delegates, meant to avoid this exact problem, have prolonged it. We're accustomed to the era of good feelings now. We have one set of candidates, and they run around the country doing soundbytes and mugging for the camera.

But this is general election stuff. We're not used to this. I honestly believe that Obama has something right- America wants to change. If he can survive his scandals, and get enough candidates to pick up his message in the following election cycles things can change.

What that change is, I don't know exactly. And what that change should be I don't really know either. But I know the old way, Clinton and McCain- that's not what the "people" want. The Democratic party is on the verge of a Paradigm shift similar to what happened to the Republicans with Reagan.

The majority of my family are amateur political junkies. Meaning, they're really into their issues, and like to talk about the candidates without doing a lot of research. Standard American voter kinda people. And they all talk about one guy.

Obama.

Even my republican Aunts, my independant Uncles, and my hyper-conservative Father talk about him. they like his message. They all want the world to change. In the words of my Democratic Father-in-Law, "I sure like what he says, and I hope he can make it happen. I want the world to be different."

So, my vote is other. What that other is I don't know yet. But it's something else, alright.



Very interesting Whistlelock, I am seeing the same thing. This is the state of our nation.

Voters are people and people are different - naturally. So there are many differing perspectives and beliefs and ideas on the candidates and this election etc.

Some vote along party lines regardless, some vote based on faith and many vote only for the person who promises to deliver on whatever core belief or issue they hold dear, no matter how it’s implemented or what other negatives might accompany it.

But I think, or like to think, that the majority of voters are like me, and that they recognize that, right now at this particular juncture in time, the future is too important to decide on a few relatively minor issues.

This country is at a crossroads.

And many feel this election isn’t about who’s going to get to change the radio station to which channel, whether the heat will be turned on or the A/C, whether to use the cruise control, who gets to sit in the front seat etc.

Many have come to realize that the road we’ve been driving on must be changed; that it’s grown evident that the course we’re on is no longer the right road, that it doesn’t seem to be leading us where we thought we were going or where we should be going.

Many realize that whoever the new driver is, they must be able to, not only choose the new course, but be able to navigate it successfully and carry us safely across it. All of us, regardless of whether the individual wanted a country, hip-hop, classical or rock station.

This election has to do with who’s hand will be upon the wheel. And whether that hand will be able to guide the country, and all the passengers aboard, through the demanding terrain ahead. I think we can all agree that the terrain ahead is fraught with peril, both abroad and at home.

So I agree that many people are, at this time, are willing to set aside their minor differences and quibbles for a figure they feel will unite this country and at least try to get it back on the right path, and not just continue with politics as usual.

I think that’s why the message of change is resonating so strongly with many and that this is a large part of Obama’s appeal.

[small axe]

This country is at a crossroads.


In southern black communities it was a well-known notion that one could go to the crossroads and sell one's soul to the devil. The concept dates back to African Folklore. The diety Esu was believed to be the guardian of the crossroads, and was an intermediate between gods and humans. When Christianity was brought to African Culture, these pagan gods were labeled as being similar to the devil. Hence, the concept that one could find the devil at a crossroad. In celtic tradition, the bodies of the unholy were buried outside of town near crossroads to preserve consecrated ground.

Witchcraft and the devil are prominent topics in early blues. [Robert]Johnson's lyrics are no exception.

http://www.deltahaze.com/johnson/legend.html

At a crossroads indeed, with hellhounds up on our trail ...

[poetinahat]

I voted 'other'. I think the fractious Democratic race signals a shift away from the two-party system -- not to three parties, but to one. There's been a 'dissent suggests treason' atmosphere for several years now anyway.

Sure, there's hyperbole in that statement, but there appears to be a bigger divide between the two Democratic camps than there is between either camp and the Republicans. It's not about issues so much as it is about personality and character: as often happens in close relationships, the biggest fights often arise out of the smallest events, and the language gets hurtful in a big hurry.

If, as it seems, so many voters would rather cross party lines than support the Other Candidate of their own party, then could political parties lose their relevance altogether?

[NikeeGoddess]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the Democratic Party might be hurt if leaders fail to nominate the U.S. presidential candidate preferred by voters in primaries and caucuses.

``If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party,'' Pelosi said in an interview taped two days ago and aired today on ABC's ``This Week'' program.notice the dilemma - obama's superdelegate kennedy would have to vote for hillary b/c she won his state of massachusetts.

Honestly, it's been a long time since the Democratic party has had to go this long without an candidate for the job.actually it seems long because they started campaigning way too early and we're tired at long the process seems to be taking. ie - bill clinton didn't get enough delegates until june during his election year. the length can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your chosen candidate is doing in the race. short would have been sweet for obama b/c he came out of nowhere with a bang and passed the clinton frontrunner. he's been leading the race for a couple of months but she is gaining her momentum back and over time she may pass him... especially if he keeps tripping over his own feet. most likely it will be a photo finish come convention time and the superdelegates will be the deciding factors. knowing this the clinton campaign has been telling the remaining superdelegates to not make any decisions now and just wait... wait... wait... believing time is on her side.

[robeiae]

State of the Democratic Party


New Jersey?

[talkwrite]

If there were no contention, no "he said she said" I wouldn't recognize the Democratic Party. " Dys" is how they function. I find it very entertaining.

[blacbird]

About the demise of the Democratic Party, to quote Mark Twain: "Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

All the attention right now is focused on the Presidential race. And the polls on that issue right now are about as meaningful as the ones in early summer of 1988, showing President Dukakis's pending victory.

Beyond that, however, is the near-certainty that Democrats will increase their margins in both the Senate and House of Representatives this fall. If McCain is elected, he'll need to deal with a much tougher legislative situation than W has had the past year+.

caw

[billythrilly7th]

Beyond that, however, is the near-certainty that Democrats will increase their margins in both the Senate and House of Representatives this fall.

Just great.

Here comes the Superb Depression.

[dgiharris]

The thing that worries me most about all of this Super Delegate stuff is the egos of those involved.

Take the egos of the Florida and Michigan genuises who knowingly violated the rules. The other week, the Florida governor was on CNN: AC 360 spinning their position like a spider weaves a web. He was very good at trying to dodge the obvious questions AC was nailing him with.

I fear the egos of closed door politics may be strong enough to go against the Popular Vote. I hope that is not the case. But time will tell.

Mel...

[blacbird]

The thing that worries me most about all of this Super Delegate stuff is the egos of those involved.

Take the egos of the Florida and Michigan genuises who knowingly violated the rules. The other week, the Florida governor was on CNN: AC 360 spinning their position like a spider weaves a web. He was very good at trying to dodge the obvious questions AC was nailing him with.

But remember, the governor of Florida is a Republican. In fact, Republicans in Florida are largely responsible for the Dem primary mess there, as the Republican-controlled legislature, at the eleventh hour and with the Gov's enthusiastic approval, mandated the moving of the primaries to the early date.

caw

[blacbird]

It's like saying Demi Moore is getting a free ride from the paparazzi because all the concentration is on Britney Spears.

You're correct. She is.

Exactly my point.

caw

[Joe270]

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.


This is why there should not be any open primaries. Although the possible gop sabotage is minimal compared to votes cast, the demos will blame the gop for their cluster fuck.

If so many people want another party, start one. With so much discord between the parties which, judging from AW and my friends and nieghbors, no one likes or agrees with, now is the perfect time.

Let's start the "Wild Party", and use Alice Cooper's 'Elected' as our theme song. I say we put forward our own 'top prime cut of meat' for the next boondoggle.

[small axe]

But remember, the governor of Florida is a Republican. In fact, Republicans in Florida are largely responsible for the Dem primary mess there, as the Republican-controlled legislature, at the eleventh hour and with the Gov's enthusiastic approval, mandated the moving of the primaries to the early date.

caw

I'm not swearing I heard this right, but this is what I believe I heard (on CNN, I think): they were investigating that exact claim "The Florida GOP forced the Dem primary to happen early against the Dem Party's wishes" -- (and I agree I've heard the claim stated ten times on TV, and the contradicting investigation only once ...) -- and a high official in the Dem Party in Florida told the reporter:

1) That he (a DEMOCRAT) was the one who suggested early primaries, so that Florida could have greater voice in the Primary selections ...

2) That while it's true that the GOP backed the early primary idea, and COULD have forced it through by their majority of votes against the Dems' wishes -- in fact most of the Florida Democratic politicians VOTED YES to make the primaries early also.

And that now, since it blew up on them, the "official" version was that it had been forced upon the Dems against their will.

Now, I could be WRONG, and could have heard it WRONG, or the Dem they were interviewing could have had "sinister Democratic agendas" in saying it (I seem to recall that our word "sinister" comes from the Latin word for "left" or "left-handed") --

But I offer that I think I heard it stated as fact, that in fact, the Florida Dems also played their part in the fiasco.

Perhaps our word "fiasco" comes from the Latin for "Florida voting rites" ... Because their "rites" too often don't get things "right" anymore

[billythrilly7th]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080319/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc

The poll showed Arizona Sen. McCain, who has clinched the Republican presidential nomination, is benefiting from the lengthy campaign battle between Obama and Clinton, who are now battling to win Pennsylvania on April 22.

McCain leads 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll.

Matched up against Clinton, McCain leads 48 percent to 40 percent, narrower than his 50 to 38 percent advantage over her in February.

"It's not surprising to me that McCain's on top because there is disarray and confusion on the Democratic side," Zogby said

Go Johnny go.

[William Haskins]

whoopsie:

Among Obama supporters, 20 percent said they would vote for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, if Clinton beats their candidate for the nomination. Among Clinton supporters, 19 percent said they would support McCain in November if Obama is the Democratic nominee. (See poll) (http://edisk.fandm.edu/FLI/keystone/pdf/keymar08_1.pdf)

The significant number of potential defectors underscores how divisive the Democratic primary has been.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080321a.html

[maestrowork]

I told you -- McCain is going to win because the Democrats can't even unite and back their candidate!

President McCain -- there's a nice ring to it.

[SC Harrison]

whoopsie:



http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080321a.html

This is one of the reasons I haven't sided with either candidate yet. Not because I'm even contemplating voting for McCain (hell would freeze over, thaw, then freeze over again), but because I don't want to contribute to the often immature bickering going on within the Democratic party.

In the last year or so, I've become a lot more involved in politics than I ever thought I would, going from a registered Republican (of decades) to a registered Democrat on the left side of the party. I'm not on the fringe per se; but I can see the fringe from where I'm standing. :)

Many supporters of both Democratic candidates (and the candidates themselves) have engaged in extremely reckless rhetoric, dating back to the middle of last year. Tempers are still flaring, which is where those 19 & 20% numbers come from. But once the nomination is settled, we'll see which party has energized the voters more.

I hope you folks like the color blue.

[maestrowork]

With the DNC held late in August, they'd better ramp up the "energize" part since they only have two+ months or they're lose once again to the GOPs.

[WarrenP]

The whole superdelegate thing is so interesting to watch. The entire reason for having superdelegates in the first place was so the party power-brokers could nominate the candidate of their choice, regardless of the popular vote. So to suggest now that they cannot do that removes the purpose of the superdelegate in the first place...

[SC Harrison]

With the DNC held late in August, they'd better ramp up the "energize" part since they only have two+ months or they're lose once again to the GOPs.

Voter turnout was at historically high levels in the 2008 primaries and caucuses, with many contests setting all-time records for turnout. Voter turnout on Super Tuesday was at 27% of eligible citizens, breaking the previous record of 25.9% set in 1972.[123] Turnout was higher among Democrats than Republicans, with Democratic turnout surpassing Republican turnout even in traditionally red states where the number of registered Democrats is proportionally low.[124] Many states reported high levels of Democratic voter registration in the weeks before primaries.[125] From January 3 through February 5, Democratic turnout exceeded Republican turnout, 19.1 million to 13.1 million.[126]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_prim aries,_2008

Republicans were not engaged (heavily) in the selection of their nominee, which is why a thirteen percenter was able to zoom past the others to claim victory. If anybody needs to work hard to engage voters, it's McCain.

[William Haskins]

the punchline, of course, is going to be how many of the 19.1 million "democrats" flooding the polls are republicans engaged in mischief.

[SC Harrison]

the punchline, of course, is going to be how many of the 19.1 million "democrats" flooding the polls are republicans engaged in mischief.

Well, if they are Republicans, they're bound to be engaged in mischief. :)

That's a damned funny word right there. I just said it outloud like seven times, and now I'm saying, "mischievous". I'm way too easily distracted...

[maestrowork]

the punchline, of course, is going to be how many of the 19.1 million "democrats" flooding the polls are republicans engaged in mischief.

And there's that.

But how many of the republican voters are actually mischievous democrats? do we have a count?

[InfinityGoddess]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

Man, I wish the media would just face the reality; Clinton's just not going to win the delegate count in these primary races.

[William Haskins]

can you point to any DNC rules that prohibit her from continuing the race?

[maestrowork]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

Man, I wish the media would just face the reality; Clinton's just not going to win the delegate count in these primary races.

Isn't that a little one-sided? It's not like Obama is going to have the delegate count to cinch the nomination either. So, your point?

[William Haskins]

the subtext of her point is, "jesus, please let her drop out before my guy fucks it up so badly the superdelegates have no choice but to select someone with a chance of winning."

[small axe]

Another perspective would be those who fear Hillary Clinton will stay in the race, trying one desperate ploy after another, allowing (knowingly or not) her underlings to release more-and-more desperate comments and accusations ... to which Obama has to distract and lower himself to answer ... until both campaigns are crippled by in-fighting.

Today, Bill Clinton (the First Loose Cannon, that charming quipster) made some comment to the effect that it would be nice if it were a Hillary vs McCain race ... so it could be between "two candidates who love their country, and not be distracted by all this other stuff outside" (I paraphrase, cannot find his exact coment)

Gee, that's not divisive to the Obama supporters, since no Obama supporter loves their country, right Bill?
I'm not saying that's a major attack, but it is an underhanded cheapshot, in some folks' ears ...

So I guess you don't need those Democrats to vote?

I hope it doesn't get worse and worse, in the months to come, because there will indeed NOT be a simple, clearcut solution ... leaving the result open to political dirty deeds and sabotage, and charges of sinister backroom deals (from both sides)

There's the hope of the Superdelegates deciding things very soon after the last primary in Puerto Rico.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Flag_of_Puerto_Rico.svg/60px-Flag_of_Puerto_Rico.svg.png

(Which is ironic, since Puerto Ricans, though US citizens, still don't get to vote for the USA President)

[blacbird]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

Man, I wish the media would just face the reality; Clinton's just not going to win the delegate count in these primary races.

The "media" pretty much have come to this assessment. At this point there's just no way she's going to finish even equal with Obama in pledged delegates at the end of the primary process. Ergo her desperation about getting those pseudo-primaries in Michigan and Florida counted.

The Michigan situation is particularly instructive and damaging to Clinton. When she slipped in to get her name on the ballot (after promising she wouldn't), she dismissed the vote as "meaningless" anyway. Lest you doubt this, I've seen the clip of her saying exactly that. Now, however, it's different. She needs those pseudo-delegates, waaaaay bad, so now the rules need to be changed for her benefit. Her rhetoric about "disenfranchising" the Michigan votes is nothing short of hilarious. She would be perfectly happy to disenfranchise Obama supporters in Michigan (and Edwards supporters as well, considering he was still in the race at the time of that bogus vote), and accept all those pseudo-delegates from the one-candidate Cuban-style election to her camp.

Not going to happen. And the Clintons finally seem to be realizing it. So now the strategy is to woo the SuperDupers into reversing the pledged delegate lead Obama seems certain to wind up with.

Didn't work real well with Bill Richardson today.

Basically, Hillary Clinton now needs to come up with a compelling argument to overthrow the primary voting results. Right now she doesn't have one (she has plenty of arguments, but none are compelling, and some are plain silly).

The only other alternative is pure vindictiveness, doing what she can to destroy an Obama candidacy. If she does that, her chances of ever being a major player in the Dem Party again will be down the toilet. I'm still trying to believe she wouldn't do that, but I'm beginning to have my doubts.

caw

[small axe]

The recent attempt by Hillary for a Michigan re-vote is a good example of how her words and efforts can be seen (rightly or wrongly) by many as damaging the integrity of the Democratic Party:

First she suggested that Obama was somehow TRYING to dis-enfranchise the voters of Michigan and damage the democratic process (and Obama is still the Party's frontrunner, so she's spreading doubt and suspicion on her Party's frontrunner) ... when all Obama's campaign had said was they's accept the plan arrived at by the DNC.

Then, Clinton in a letter made public, is seen to have been supporting a privately-funded re-vote ... which (according to the accounts I heard on TV) was not only illegal, but would have given (if allowed) the appearance of possible wrong-doing, that is, figuratively if not literally "buying an election"

It looks bad, it damages the appearance of integrity of the Democratic Party.

Jeez, many people already fear and assume ALL Politics Is Dirty.

The Democratic nominee better not look as Dirty as the rest of Washington DC ... or what's the point of CHANGE?

If I were just voting according to "backstory" I'd vote for the WAR HERO, not the WIFE or the UNKNOWN NEWCOMER.

I wonder if most voters are deeply into actual ISSUES. They seem awfully caught up in some video of a nutcase preacher's 20 seconds of sermon.

"Yeah, America got sucked into another Oil War and the USA economy collapsed ... but at least we didn't vote for Reverend Jeremiah Wright!"

:( That Wright guy ... wasn't he a Muslim?!

[William Haskins]

and you think the obama campaign occupies some hallowed moral high-ground?

obama gave a poetic speech this week where he basically said it was unfair to deem him guilty by association for his 20 year relationship with rev. wright.

you want to know what they did after that? they provided the new york times with a photo of bill clinton shaking hands with rev wright that their opposition research team dug up.

so if obama is the victim in the wright thing, hillary was even more wronged because the obama campaign was not only trying to score points by showing a photo depicting a standard presidential photo-op, but one not even of her, but of her husband.

spin that in the context of your good guy/bad girl scenario...

[blacbird]

That Wright guy ... wasn't he a Muslim?!

Even more amusing are the nitwits who find a reason to oppose Obama because his middle name is Hussein. And want to vote for Ralph Nader.

NADER is an Arabic name. I have an Iraqi friend. professor at the University of Mosul, named Amer Nader. Ralph Nader is of Lebanese ancestry. There are plenty of reasons to oppose his candidacy, too, but his name isn't one of 'em.

caew

(Typo, that sig line. I must be feeling Welsh tonight.)

[small axe]

and you think the obama campaign occupies some hallowed moral high-ground?


As if that is impossible?

I only hope you weren't addressing that to me. :)

Certainly, I don't have to hide behind falsely characterizing someone's campaign in such strawman ad hominem terms.

See, there are people who -- while claiming to represent "reality" and "objectivity" -- lower and debase themselves and their intellects (if not their spirits, but probably they debase their spirits too) by attacking Obama's campaign and message as "empty words" and "mere inspiration" and need to characterize his followers as if they are a deluded "cult."

But those characterizations and attacks are themselves unrealistic and deluded and empty. Obama followers are not a "cult" and they are based in very real very mundane political facts -- and they are leading in votes and delegates and states won.

THERE is "reality" -- Obama is WINNING. :)

Clinton is summoning up spectres of doom to frighten the superdelegates, of course: BOO! BOOGEYMAN! Oh, I know you Superdelegates weren't scared ... but imagine how afraid the average white voters will be! They're scared soooo easily, you know. BOO!

His attackers are increasingly reduced to merely picking apart words, or judging him by the sermons he chose to hear or not hear.

Those who failed with their "wrong race" attacks now focus on futile "wrong church" attacks. :D

Later, perhaps someone can try a corrupt backroom "wrong political machine" effort with the superdelegates!

(I've seen the 1968 Democratic National Convention riots on TV -- How exciting to be able to capture it all again, replacing grainy B&W film with hi-quality HD video! I hope they keep the traditional tear gas motiffs alive though ... what a drag if the Pigs get their "pain ray" crowd dispersal weapons up & running in Denver!)

No, I'll assume it wasn't addressed to me, and answer as a polite eavesdropper.

[NikeeGoddess]

obama gave a poetic speech this week where he basically said it was unfair to deem him guilty by association for his 20 year relationship with rev. wright.

you want to know what they did after that? they provided the new york times with a photo of bill clinton shaking hands with rev wright that their opposition research team dug up.

so if obama is the victim in the wright thing, hillary was even more wronged because the obama campaign was not only trying to score points by showing a photo depicting a standard presidential photo-op, but one not even of her, but of her husband.sounds just like the somalian garb situation.

to me though - it's the media that's causing most of the problems. if obama is attacked people blame hillary. if hillary is attacked people blame obama. but it's really not so. the media blows things up and way out of proportion; over-scrutinizing and causing more problems than necessary.

[InfinityGoddess]

Isn't that a little one-sided? It's not like Obama is going to have the delegate count to cinch the nomination either. So, your point?

My point is that it's next to impossible for her to get the lead over Obama. He's still going to lead in the count, no matter if she wins a few more states or not.

[NikeeGoddess]

My point is that it's next to impossible for her to get the lead over Obama. He's still going to lead in the count, no matter if she wins a few more states or not.with 10 more states to go this is entire speculation and guesswork on your count.

with a month to go before the next primary anything can happen -- but it's almost a certainty that the superdelegates will be the decisionmakers and they will use information and stats and personal incite to vote any way they want. unfortunately for obama, delegate count is only one factor.

[Bird of Prey]

FOX News Poll: Both Clinton, Obama Tie McCain in Matchups
by FOXNews.com
Thursday, March 20, 2008

By Dana Blanton

In head-to-head matchups both Democratic contenders essentially tie Republican John McCain. Hillary Clinton has a slim advantage over McCain - 46 percent to 43 percent. While McCain has a razor-thin edge over Barack Obama - 44 percent to 43 percent, according to a FOX News poll released Thursday.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from March 18 to March 19. The poll has a 3-point error margin.

The bottom line - the race is tight. These horserace numbers have shifted a bit, but essentially show little real change from February. At that time, McCain topped Clinton by 3 percentage points, and Obama had a 4 point edge over McCain. . . .
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/20/fox-news-poll-both-clinton-obama-tie-mccain-in-matchups/

[donroc]

I'd prefer to see polls showing how those percentages reflect ELECTORAL votes, who is ahead and behind in each state.

[William Haskins]

sounds just like the somalian garb situation.

to me though - it's the media that's causing most of the problems. if obama is attacked people blame hillary. if hillary is attacked people blame obama. but it's really not so. the media blows things up and way out of proportion; over-scrutinizing and causing more problems than necessary.

In providing the photograph to The New York Times, the Obama campaign appeared to be trying to divert some attention to the Clintons after a week in which Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Wright has left him facing one of the biggest challenges of his campaign.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/photograph-of-bill-clinton-and-rev-wright-surfaces/

[InfinityGoddess]

with 10 more states to go this is entire speculation and guesswork on your count.

with a month to go before the next primary anything can happen -- but it's almost a certainty that the superdelegates will be the decisionmakers and they will use information and stats and personal incite to vote any way they want. unfortunately for obama, delegate count is only one factor.

It's not speculation; Chuck Todd (who has been really good at his analysis) has said that even with those 10 more states, Hillary will not be able to surpass Obama unless she tops 60%. It's just not probable to achieve, unless some electoral miracle happens (which I doubt will happen).

And if the superdelegates go for Hillary in spite of what the voters want in Barack Obama, there would be chaos. They won't do it if it means their political skins. Right now, I think they're hesitating because of what the Bill Clinton years brought the Democratic party - the loss of Congress to the Republicans.

[maestrowork]

My point is that it's next to impossible for her to get the lead over Obama. He's still going to lead in the count, no matter if she wins a few more states or not.

"Leading in votes" does not a nomination made. I still fail to see your point, other than some personal opinion no doubt driven by your fevered Obamarama. Besides, it's not over yet. Pennsylvania is the big prize on April 22, plus others.

I'm not saying Clinton is not in trouble, but the old lady is not finished yet. I find the whole idea of "she should quit now" a huge insult on our democratic process. Why bother to have the primary then, if we could just tell a candidate to "drop out now" because 50.2% (so far) like the other guy better?

Even though I'm not a Clinton supporter, at this point I'd like her to stage a "come back" and just shut the naysayers up once and for all. Now, that would be an American story.

[billythrilly7th]

I'm not saying Clinton is not in trouble, but the old lady is not finished yet. I find the whole idea of "she should quit now" a huge insult on our democratic process. Why bother to have the primary then, if we could just tell a candidate to "drop out now" because 50.2% (so far) like the other guy better?

I agree.

I don't think she should drop out.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

No.

There will be a time for her to drop out. If and when it's TRULY over. A lot of states left and anything can happen.

Quite a show.

[InfinityGoddess]

"Leading in votes" does not a nomination made. I still fail to see your point, other than some personal opinion no doubt driven by your fevered Obamarama. Besides, it's not over yet. Pennsylvania is the big prize on April 22, plus others.



I do not have fevered "Obamarama". I'm speaking realistically. She would have to perform an electoral miracle at this stage to surpass him in delegates. This is not about popular votes at all. Even if she gets Pennsylvania, it's doubtful she'll win by more than 10-15 points, and the delegates will be allotted according to which districts swung more either way.

And that's just not going to cut it. She would have to stage a coup via superdelegates which would cause an interparty war in order to win. And most sensible Dems don't want that to happen.

[William Haskins]

She would have to stage a coup via superdelegates which would cause an interparty war in order to win. And most sensible Dems don't want that to happen.

a more likely scenario (more likely than clinton "staging a coup", but far less likely than obama securing the nomination, just to be clear) is that obama—in the long months between now and the convention—reaches a tipping point of unelectability, at which point the superdelegates step in and perform the function they were created for, which is to save the party from certain defeat in november.

[NikeeGoddess]

I'm not saying Clinton is not in trouble, but the old lady is not finished yet. I find the whole idea of "she should quit now" a huge insult on our democratic process. Why bother to have the primary then, if we could just tell a candidate to "drop out now" because 50.2% (so far) like the other guy better?

Even though I'm not a Clinton supporter, at this point I'd like her to stage a "come back" and just shut the naysayers up once and for all. Now, that would be an American story.at this point it really is a photo finish marathon race. and if you've ever watched the final mile of a marathon race then you know that no one close to the leading runner would ever drop out. that's just ridiculous. he might trip or run out of steam and the runner in 2nd place might have a kick. that's my prediction and it's just as valid as any other prediction the other way around.

She would have to stage a coup via superdelegates which would cause an interparty war in order to win.with a race so close you could hardly call it a coup. but anyhoo - there was a poll (oh, the endless polls -- and i don't know where to find it now but) it said that if the nominee was selected by the superdelegate votes then more obama supporters would be upset if hillary came out on top than hillary supporters would be if obama came out on top.

[blacbird]

with a race so close you could hardly call it a coup. but anyhoo - there was a poll (oh, the endless polls -- and i don't know where to find it now but) it said that if the nominee was selected by the superdelegate votes then more obama supporters would be upset if hillary came out on top than hillary supporters would be if obama came out on top.

A more difficult argument for Clinton to make than for Obama, however. Currently, by most estimates, Obama has something on the order of a 150 pledged delegate lead over Clinton. Close, true, but hardly razor-thin. 150 represents about 6% of the total pledged delegates so far, which is about 80% of the overall total to be had by the end of the primaries. Clinton needs to win close to 2/3 of that remaining 20% of available pledged delegates, in every state left, just to catch up. And while she leads in polls in Pennsylvania, it isn't near a 2/3 lead, and in the next biggest state, North Carolina, she trails Obama. After those two, it's la smattering of smaller prizes, none of which will materially affect the delegate math.

Clinton recognizes this. Which is why she's trying to establish a SuperDelegate argument, and why she so badly wants 100% of those Michigan pseudodelegates she "won" in the original Michigan vote. She won't get those.

In short, if Obama has a pledged delegate lead at the end of the primary process, barring some kind of unforeseen Gary Hart or Eliot Spitzer debacle, he's on pretty righteous ground.

Clinton, on the other hand, would be really stretching to claim she merits the SuperDupers changing that outcome. In fact, I think that result would likely wind up electing John McCain without much trouble.

Remember also that matters are looking pretty good for the Dems in Senate and Congressional races this fall, and many of the people running in those races are SuperDelegates. They aren't going to want to risk those potential gains in trying to defend a deeply flawed Presidential nomination result.

caw

[William Haskins]

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/20080326democrats1.gif

[robeiae]

So...Clinton supporters are more likely to be bitter and hold a grudge?

[William Haskins]

Twenty-two percent (22%) of Democratic voters nationwide say that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. However, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that an identical number—22%--say that Barack Obama should drop out.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/22_of_democrats_want_clinton_to_drop_out_22_say_ob ama_should_withdraw

[robeiae]

...and both groups are equally as likely to whine.

[William Haskins]

So...Clinton supporters are more likely to be bitter and hold a grudge?

i dunno... given obama's lead, the 28% vs 19% could be close to the same number of bodies.

the dems are in a pickle, here.

the republicans will nominate by far the candidate with the most appeal to independents, a demo obama sorely needs to win the general. couple that potential erosion with a significant number of democrats crossing over to vote for mccain, and it's a recipe for a landslide loss.