Wisconsin Primary

[Joemailman]

Will be held February 19. Who is your choice?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Of course out of state people can play in your game, right mailman? they are people too.

[MJZiggy]

I don't know, there Harlan, I don't get to vote in my own state's primary so I may be less people than you think.

[Harlan Huckleby]

well, you need people, so you're one of the luckiest people

[Joemailman]

Of course out of state people can play in your game, right mailman? they are people too.

I figure all Packer fans are Wisconsin people at heart. :tup: :flag:

[Freak Out]

I wrote in Nader. :lol:

[oregonpackfan]

I don't know, there Harlan, I don't get to vote in my own state's primary so I may be less people than you think.

I feel your pain, MJZiggy. Here in Oregon, only registered Democrats and Republicans are allowed to vote. If you are a registered Independent or Libertarian, you are left out in the cold.

Again I ask: Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say the country should be limited to two political parties?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I find something a bit depressing about the race this year. IT really has turned into a census, at least on the Democratic side.

African Americans - Obama, Hispanics - Hillary
Women - Hillary, Men - Obama
Young - Obama, Old - Hillary
Working People - Hillary, > 50K income - Obama

It's sad, there's no focus on where the candidates want to take the country. There is no need to vote any more, you can tell how every state is going to fall based on their demographics.

Which brings me to this poll: this is the home of young men and relatively high-earning men. Its Obama-McCain country.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If you are a registered Independent or Libertarian, you are left out in the cold.

Again I ask: Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say the country should be limited to two political parties?

If you are a Libertarian, they have party conferences.

I agree that the two party reality is bad news. I just don't know how you change it when the two parties control the election laws.

But I have met very few independents who don't lean towards one party or the other. NOBODY fits completely into either box. There are pro-life people in the Democratic Party who have to deal with it, anti-war Republicans.

The Dems & Republicans have very different philosophies, even if they are sometimes similar in action. If you are truly in the middle, you're screwed. But I think most Independents just enjoy floating above the fray, not having to deal with the unpleasantness of being against their chosen party on some issues.

Come on ORegon, I bet you know whether you are more a Dem or Rep.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I just read a farewell to Mitt column that had this entertaining tidbit:

Worst of all, I’m going to have to get through the rest of the year without ever again referring to the fact that Romney once drove to Canada with the family dog, Seamus, strapped to the roof of the car.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/opinion/09collins.html?hp

[Joemailman]

I find something a bit depressing about the race this year. IT really has turned into a census, at least on the Democratic side.

African Americans - Obama, Hispanics - Hillary
Women - Hillary, Men - Obama
Young - Obama, Old - Hillary
Working People - Hillary, > 50K income - Obama

It's sad, there's no focus on where the candidates want to take the country. There is no need to vote any more, you can tell how every state is going to fall based on their demographics.

Which brings me to this poll: this is the home of young men and relatively high-earning men. Its Obama-McCain country.

I think this is because there are no major policy differences between Clinton and Obama. They both want to get out Of Iraq, provide universal health coverage, roll back part of the Bush tax cuts etc. The general election should be much different as you will have McCain equating getting out Iraq with surrendering to Al-Qaeda. Clinton or Obama will call it a strategic move needed because of threats elsewhere.

[GBRulz]

I have a ? - Since I'm out of state, how do I do an absentee ballot? Is that something that I have to take care of back home? I'm in BFE, Minnesota for a month for work.

[packinpatland]

I don't know, there Harlan, I don't get to vote in my own state's primary so I may be less people than you think.

I feel your pain, MJZiggy. Here in Oregon, only registered Democrats and Republicans are allowed to vote. If you are a registered Independent or Libertarian, you are left out in the cold.

Again I ask: Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say the country should be limited to two political parties?

Same here in CT. And I think it stinks.

[Partial]

Then you guys should make sure to vote for a constitutionalist come the actual electrion. Ron Paul is the right man for you.

[packinpatland]

Then you guys should make sure to vote for a constitutionalist come the actual electrion. Ron Paul is the right man for you.

That may not be an option.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23087158/

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't know, there Harlan, I don't get to vote in my own state's primary so I may be less people than you think.

I feel your pain, MJZiggy. Here in Oregon, only registered Democrats and Republicans are allowed to vote. If you are a registered Independent or Libertarian, you are left out in the cold.

Again I ask: Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say the country should be limited to two political parties?

Same here in CT. And I think it stinks.

You are all weenies. Oregon - weenie. Ziggy - Weenie. Patland - weenie. weenie, weenie, weenie.

Just register with the Democrats or Republicans. You will have some views that fall within the other party, so does nearly everybody. I know you think you are being SOPHISTICATED and FREE THINKING with your independent status, but most likely you are kidding yourself. Very few people truly have no stronger affinity for one party or the other.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think this is because there are no major policy differences between Clinton and Obama.

ya, this is probably true.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have a ? - Since I'm out of state, how do I do an absentee ballot? Is that something that I have to take care of back home? I'm in BFE, Minnesota for a month for work.

I'll be happy to send you one in time to vote. BTW, what do you think of that Obama fellow?

[MJZiggy]

I don't know, there Harlan, I don't get to vote in my own state's primary so I may be less people than you think.

I feel your pain, MJZiggy. Here in Oregon, only registered Democrats and Republicans are allowed to vote. If you are a registered Independent or Libertarian, you are left out in the cold.

Again I ask: Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say the country should be limited to two political parties?

Same here in CT. And I think it stinks.

You are all weenies. Oregon - weenie. Ziggy - Weenie. Patland - weenie. weenie, weenie, weenie.

Just register with the Democrats or Republicans. You will have some views that fall within the other party, so does nearly everybody. I know you think you are being SOPHISTICATED and FREE THINKING with your independent status, but most likely you are kidding yourself. Very few people truly have no stronger affinity for one party or the other.

Yeah, but since I'm not registered, I don't get political advertisements and backbiting hate mail...The only place I see political hatred is here. :lol: :shock:

[packinpatland]

"Very few people truly have no stronger affinity for one party or the other."

I have no affinity for one party or the other.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I believe you packinpatland, I certainly respect those truly in the middle.

Ziggy, I seriously doubt that registering is gonna get you a lot of harassment. They don't bug me, of course I don't give them any money, and I breathe heavily into the phone when they do call.

[MJZiggy]

I believe you packinpatland, I certainly respect those truly in the middle.

Ziggy, I seriously doubt that registering is gonna get you a lot of harassment. They don't bug me, of course I don't give them any money, and I breathe heavily into the phone when they do call.

There's a contentious state race going on here and I'm getting tons of calls and junk mail for my ex, but none for me and if they don't stop sniping at each other and tell me where they freakin' stand on the issues, I'm not voting for either one of 'em. That breathing heavy thing would be cool except that a lot of the calls I'm getting these days are computer generated. Bastards.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hucklebee won both the Kansas caucus and Louisiana primary.

he's a plucky little preacher. I don't think he is a contender, but what an impressive string he's put together.

[BallHawk]

"Very few people truly have no stronger affinity for one party or the other."

I have no affinity for one party or the other.

Two-party politics' stranglehold on America will come to an end in the next 25 years. People are finally speaking up against it and the rest will fall in order. While I still think Democrats and Republicans will be the core of the country, it will become possible for a 3rd party candidate to win the election.

[BallHawk]

Hucklebee won both the Kansas caucus and Louisiana primary.

he's a plucky little preacher. I don't think he is a contender, but what an impressive string he's put together.

He'll end up on the ticket with McCain because he's proved he can win the South and John cannot.

I like Huckabee as a person. Good talker, good with people, I like his attitude. However, I'm totally not in line with him on the issues. Religion plays way too much into his shtick and religion does not belong in politics. Sure, it will always be a factor, but Huckabee is succeeding because of his religion and his beliefs because of his religion, not because of his stance on the issues.

[Harlan Huckleby]

"Very few people truly have no stronger affinity for one party or the other."

I have no affinity for one party or the other.

Two-party politics' stranglehold on America will come to an end in the next 25 years. People are finally speaking up against it and the rest will fall in order. While I still think Democrats and Republicans will be the core of the country, it will become possible for a 3rd party candidate to win the election.

how will a 3rd party get a toehold? People have been speaking against the two parties forever. There was more third party talk back when Wallace ran in 70's than in more recent times.

Its gonna take run-off elections (winner must win majority) to get there from here. I'm not sure how we do that. I know there are reform movements, but how do you get congress to act when it is against their interests?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hucklebee won both the Kansas caucus and Louisiana primary.

he's a plucky little preacher. I don't think he is a contender, but what an impressive string he's put together.

He'll end up on the ticket with McCain because he's proved he can win the South and John cannot.

I like Huckabee as a person. Good talker, good with people, I like his attitude. However, I'm totally not in line with him on the issues. Religion plays way too much into his shtick and religion does not belong in politics. Sure, it will always be a factor, but Huckabee is succeeding because of his religion and his beliefs because of his religion, not because of his stance on the issues.

I'm willing to bet Huckabee won't be a vip.

Don't go against tyrone. Tyrone was first on this board to spot the Huckabee threat. Tyrone was the first to note how unappealing Giuliani was..despite many who thought ty was an idiot..not that i'm not, but not on this one.

Having Huck ain't gonna bring the anti mccain conservatives on board. Ain't gonna change those dobson clones. And, those southern states are red..you don't add a vp who can't help you win blue/red states...minny, penn, etc.

VP has to have the right profile for veep: loyal, hardworking, knows when to keep his mouth shut. Sound like Huckabee..no.

McCain needs someone with strong econ/biz background.
Candidates: tom ridge..longtime friend, strong domestic policy. Negatives...soft support for abortion rights and skeptic of big weapons systems.

Graham, old fav, who is probably out of it because he faces a tough primary re-election, since he has become too moderate for his party's right wing.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty., a moderate conservation and energy-reform Republican, who is the darling of the conservative press.

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar..tho two 70 year olds seems unlikely.

don't rule out condi or even mitt.

[Joemailman]

Hucklebee won both the Kansas caucus and Louisiana primary.

he's a plucky little preacher. I don't think he is a contender, but what an impressive string he's put together.

Huckabee has killed McCain in the south. I'm wondering if the combination of increased Dem participation in southern primaries, and McCain's unpopularity there, could mean that some formerly "safe" Republican states will be in play this year. Probably not states like Mississippi or Alabama, but maybe Virginia or Louisiana.

By the way Harlan, you spelled Huckabee as Hucklebee. A Freudian slip?

[SkinBasket]

"Very few people truly have no stronger affinity for one party or the other."

I have no affinity for one party or the other.

That's probably why they don't want you determining who represents said party. If you aren't French you don't get to determine the president of France. If you aren't a Democrat or Republican, why should you get to choose who represents Democrats or Republicans?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Having Huck ain't gonna bring the anti mccain conservatives on board. Ain't gonna change those dobson clones. And, those southern states are red..you don't add a vp who can't help you win blue/red states...minny, penn, etc.

I think you're right. The governor of Florida that endorsed McCain probably is near top of list.
Huckabee would be a decent choice for VP, but his appeal is in states where th GOP is already solid.


don't rule out condi or even mitt.

I don't see Mitt in politics anymore. Guy became the punchline to too many jokes. And the support he did have had the whiff of desperation to it - conservative people sorta kinda counted him as the only old school conserative available. Condi is possibile.

[Harlan Huckleby]

By the way Harlan, you spelled Huckabee as Hucklebee. A Freudian slip?

ya, I started to see a lot of myself in Huckabee when I heard that he cooked squirrel in a popcorn popper.

[Scott Campbell]

I wonder how many will vote for Obama just to piss of Harlan.

[Scott Campbell]

I wonder how many will vote for Obama just to piss of Harlan.

[Harlan Huckleby]

well, you voted twice. but your vote was predictable.

[Scott Campbell]

I can't vote in Wisconsin.

[b bulldog]

I will vote for Obama so Hill doesn't win WI. I am a conervative who is lukewarm on McCain but I don't hate him as many do. In regards to VP nominees for McCain, I wouldn't mind Joe Leiberman but really don't think that will happen, Huckaby would be very strong in the south as would Fred Thompson, Mitt won't be it imo cause he doesn't play well in the south either. McCain will have to pick a conservative who can play well in Ohio, pennsylvania and Missouri. Those three states along with an obvious state in Florida, will be the key states again.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I will vote for Obama so Hill doesn't win WI. I am a conervative who is lukewarm on McCain but I don't hate him as many do.

Aren't open primaries swell?

There is only one thing dumber than an open primary, and that's a caucus.

In caucuses, you only get about 10 to 25% participation of the party members. Obama has won 14 out of 15 caucuses because of the passion of his followers, and his superior money and organization. Similarly, Ron Paul would do disproportionately well in caucuses if he just had enough support to meet thresholds. Oh ya, thresholds, another undemocratic thing about caucuses.

Caucuses are bullshit, pure and simple. They are designed to put the wishes of the party faithful, the intelligensia, above that of the unwashed masses, much like the electoral college. Hogwash - just have a damn, transparent primary election where you can see exactly who the people support. Busy people who are not political junkies count too.

[BallHawk]

I think you're right. The governor of Florida that endorsed McCain probably is near top of list.

I doubt Crist would be chosen. McCain needs somebody that will excel where McCain does not. Charlie Crist has, IMO, done a great job so far as our governor, and I like him as a person. However, he doesn't bring anything to the table that McCain already has. Crist isn't as conservative as Huckabee, nor many other candidates for the VP spot.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think you're right. The governor of Florida that endorsed McCain probably is near top of list.

I doubt Crist would be chosen. McCain needs somebody that will excel where McCain does not. Charlie Crist has, IMO, done a great job so far as our governor, and I like him as a person. However, he doesn't bring anything to the table that McCain already has. Crist isn't as conservative as Huckabee, nor many other candidates for the VP spot.

All he has to do is help McCain win Florida, and he has done more than ANY VP has done for the ticket in 48 years.

[BallHawk]

I think you're right. The governor of Florida that endorsed McCain probably is near top of list.

I doubt Crist would be chosen. McCain needs somebody that will excel where McCain does not. Charlie Crist has, IMO, done a great job so far as our governor, and I like him as a person. However, he doesn't bring anything to the table that McCain already has. Crist isn't as conservative as Huckabee, nor many other candidates for the VP spot.

All he has to do is help McCain win Florida, and he has done more than ANY VP has done for the ticket in 48 years.

Good point.

[MJZiggy]

I think you're right. The governor of Florida that endorsed McCain probably is near top of list.

I doubt Crist would be chosen. McCain needs somebody that will excel where McCain does not. Charlie Crist has, IMO, done a great job so far as our governor, and I like him as a person. However, he doesn't bring anything to the table that McCain already has. Crist isn't as conservative as Huckabee, nor many other candidates for the VP spot.

I misread that as "I doubt Christ would be chosen..."

[BallHawk]

I think you're right. The governor of Florida that endorsed McCain probably is near top of list.

I doubt Crist would be chosen. McCain needs somebody that will excel where McCain does not. Charlie Crist has, IMO, done a great job so far as our governor, and I like him as a person. However, he doesn't bring anything to the table that McCain already has. Crist isn't as conservative as Huckabee, nor many other candidates for the VP spot.

I misread that as "I doubt Christ would be chosen..."

Believe me, there are a ton of people down here who think our governor's name is Christ. :lol:

[Joemailman]

I think you're right. The governor of Florida that endorsed McCain probably is near top of list.

I doubt Crist would be chosen. McCain needs somebody that will excel where McCain does not. Charlie Crist has, IMO, done a great job so far as our governor, and I like him as a person. However, he doesn't bring anything to the table that McCain already has. Crist isn't as conservative as Huckabee, nor many other candidates for the VP spot.

All he has to do is help McCain win Florida, and he has done more than ANY VP has done for the ticket in 48 years.

Bush won Florida pretty handedly in 2004. I think that stays Republican anyway. The danger zone for the Republicans are states like Iowa and Ohio which went Republican in 2004, but not by much. The Republican party in Ohio is in shambles largely due to corruption.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's starting. The most likely scenario looks like a close election, with Obama perhaps having more pledged delegates, and Clinton, so far at least, looking stronger with the super delegates.

Yesterday, Obama made a statement that if the super delegates voted contrary to the pledged delegates, "it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters."

Translation: Obama and his followers will consider it corruption if Clinton wins because of her edge with super delegates!

BUT IF THE SUPER DELEGATES CAN ONLY LEGITIMATELY FOLLOW THE WISHES OF THE ELECTED DELEGATES, THAN WHY WERE THEY CREATED!!??

The truth is the Super Delegates are an undemocratic mechanism by which party elites retain more power than the voters. Just like the caucuses. But Obama is fine with caucuses, because they are working dramatically in his favor.

Donna Brazile, a black (translation:Obama supporter) pundit on ABC TV stated today that she will quit the Democratic Party if the super delegates don't favor the same candidate as the pledged delegates. Ridiculous. She herself is a Super Delegate because she managed Al Gore's 2000 campaign.
Brazile said she wants Super Delegates to hold-off on announcing their support. Well, so far the announcements have gone Clinton's way, and Brazile wants them to wait until they are pressured by the likely Obama edge in pledge delegates.

The Obama blogs are talking like the Clinton Machine is at it again: "Super delegates choosing the nominee would be a complete perversion of this process." http://donklephant.com/2008/02/09/what-if-super-delegates-decide-it/

Add to all this the mess of the undecided delegates from Michigan & Florida. This is stomach churning. The Democratic Party is going to implode. This is not interesting or healthy, it's a horrible system much like the Florida 2000 voting infrastructure. A crappy system only works when the winner is far ahead.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Bush won Florida pretty handedly in 2004. I think that stays Republican anyway. The danger zone for the Republicans are states like Iowa and Ohio

Florida looks in play this year. The Democrats had more people turn out for their primary, and that was for an election that didn't count! The Republican primary was hotly contested.

[Joemailman]

If the number of people voting in the primaries is a precursor of what will happen in the general election, then the Democrats will win in a landslide. They've had more people showing up everywhere. In some states it's been as much as 3-1. I still think it will be a very close election though.

[BallHawk]

BUT IF THE SUPER DELEGATES CAN ONLY LEGITIMATELY FOLLOW THE WISHES OF THE ELECTED DELEGATES, THAN WHY WERE THEY CREATED!!?

They were created to actually keep unity within the party. The idea was that if a candidate had the highest amount of pledged delegates among all of the other candidates but not enough pledged delegates to obtain the nomination (in this case 2,025) Super Delegates were supposed to wait until after all the votes were cast and then throw their support behind the leading candidate, thus avoiding a brokered convention.

It makes sense on the surface, I guess, but somewhere along the line it went horribly wrong.

[Partial]

Bush won Florida pretty handedly in 2004. I think that stays Republican anyway. The danger zone for the Republicans are states like Iowa and Ohio

Florida looks in play this year. The Democrats had more people turn out for their primary, and that was for an election that didn't count! The Republican primary was hotly contested.

The lady folk says she has met very few if any democrats down there. She is pretty convinced the republicans have it on lock down.

[BallHawk]

Bush won Florida pretty handedly in 2004. I think that stays Republican anyway. The danger zone for the Republicans are states like Iowa and Ohio

Florida looks in play this year. The Democrats had more people turn out for their primary, and that was for an election that didn't count! The Republican primary was hotly contested.

The lady folk says she has met very few if any democrats down there. She is pretty convinced the republicans have it on lock down.

Well, if that isn't a convincing statistic than I don't know what is. :roll:

[Partial]

You can say its not but I would bet you 1,000 USD that the republican candidate takes the state. Pony up.

[BallHawk]

You can say its not but I would bet you 1,000 USD that the republican candidate takes the state.

You also said that Obama had no chance of being elected because he was black.

So you've already been wrong on one and if Obama gets the nomination you very well could be wrong again.

[Partial]

Obama hasn't been elected yet. And I still don't think he has a chance in hell. Don't go countin' your chickens just yet. Hillary is still winning after all.

[BallHawk]

Obama hasn't been elected yet. And I still don't think he has a chance in hell. Don't go countin' your chickens just yet. Hillary is still winning after all.

He's neck-and-neck with Hillary. If that doesn't qualify as a chance then what does? You didn't say he wouldn't get elected, you said he didn't stand a chance at being elected. He's proven he's got a chance.

He will win the Potomac Primaries on Tuesday and that will bring him, super delegates and all, right there with Hillary. Then he will win Wisconsin and the other states and he will take the lead. Then it will all come down to states like OH, PA, and TX.

[digitaldean]

I am voting for Huckabee. I have liked him more than any of the other candidates. That being said, there don't appear to be any JFK's or Reagan's in this bunch.

I know Huck's chances are virtually nonexistent for the nomination, but I am casting my choice as if the score was 0-0.

If Obama sweeps the Potomac primaries (Md, VA and DC) plus gets OH or TX, he's going to win the nomination.

WI's Republican contest is winner take all for delegates. Democratic delegates are rationed out on a percentage basis of the vote.

I do not want Hillary in the White House. This country has to get beyond the Bush-Clinton dynastical period we've been in.

If Obama wins in Nov., I may not be thrilled with it, but I could rally behind him more than I could another Pres. Clinton.

[Partial]

Obama hasn't been elected yet. And I still don't think he has a chance in hell. Don't go countin' your chickens just yet. Hillary is still winning after all.

He's neck-and-neck with Hillary. If that doesn't qualify as a chance then what does? You didn't say he wouldn't get elected, you said he didn't stand a chance at being elected. He's proven he's got a chance.

He will win the Potomac Primaries on Tuesday and that will bring him, super delegates and all, right there with Hillary. Then he will win Wisconsin and the other states and he will take the lead. Then it will all come down to states like OH, PA, and TX.

The election is 9 months away. You have no idea if he has any chance to win anything yet. Not only is he in 2nd place for the nomination now, but there is ZERO evidence that even the front runner will beat the republicans. McCain is a powerhouse of a candidate because he'll still get the republican votes yet steal some of the democrats.

[BallHawk]

McCain is a powerhouse of a candidate because he'll still get the republican votes yet steal some of the democrats.

Really, Partial?

Well, he's going to have to steal a helluva lot of Democrats to make up for the number of conservatives that are going to be sitting at home on election day.

[Joemailman]

Obama hasn't been elected yet. And I still don't think he has a chance in hell. Don't go countin' your chickens just yet. Hillary is still winning after all.

Obama leads in delegates from primaries and caucuses 981-910. Any lead Hillary has, and it is very small, is due to verbal commitments from super delegates. If Obama continues to win most of the primaries and caucuses, they will be under a lot of pressure to support the choice of the voters.

[BallHawk]

Obama hasn't been elected yet. And I still don't think he has a chance in hell. Don't go countin' your chickens just yet. Hillary is still winning after all.

Obama leads in delegates from primaries and caucuses 981-910. Any lead Hillary has, and it is very small, is due to verbal commitments from super delegates. If Obama continues to win most of the primaries and caucuses, they will be under a lot of pressure to support the choice of the voters.

If the candidate that won the pledged delegates did not win the nomination the party would fall and the Republicans would take the WH in '08. If you snub Obama you turn away Blacks, blue-collar males, and the young vote. If you snub Hillary you turn away the older vote and the female vote.

The Dems cannot win in '08 with any one of these core demographics sitting out. While I think Howard Dean is foolish for thinking Obama and Hillary will come to an "agreement" to have the election come down to the "smoke-filled rooms" as they were called, would be pure chaos.

[Joemailman]

Most of the super delegates have not committed to either candidate. What Dean needs to do is get these uncommitted delegates not to commit to anyone now. Then once the primaries are over, these delegates should back the candidate that won the most delegates in the primaries and caucuses.

Something tells me they will be changing this system once the election is over. :roll:

[Harlan Huckleby]

What Dean needs to do is get these uncommitted delegates not to commit to anyone now. Then once the primaries are over, these delegates should back the candidate that won the most delegates in the primaries and caucuses.

Huh? Why? The Super Delegates were created to act independently, not to rubber stamp the pledge delegates. They can decide whenever they want and for whoever they want. The idea is that they are extra wise people and can look out better for the party, act as a counterweight to popular passions.

If you are worried about democracy, throw out the caucus results and hold primaries to find out what the voters think.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama leads in delegates from primaries and caucuses 981-910.

You would think that would be a solid number, but different news organizations have different totals. I saw two with Hillary ahead.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The idea was that if a candidate had the highest amount of pledged delegates among all of the other candidates but not enough pledged delegates to obtain the nomination (in this case 2,025) Super Delegates were supposed to wait until after all the votes were cast and then throw their support behind the leading candidate, thus avoiding a brokered convention.

I think this is blarney. Show me a source.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If the number of people voting in the primaries is a precursor of what will happen in the general election, then the Democrats will win in a landslide. They've had more people showing up everywhere. In some states it's been as much as 3-1. I still think it will be a very close election though.

I think another factor going on in Florida is that it is no longer Jeb Bush's state. He was a popular governor, I expect he helped GW considerably in 2000, 2004.

I think Florida is a purple state, it could go either way. McCain would do well to pick up the Governor as VP, that Jesus Crist guy.

[Joemailman]

What could be more undemocratic than the super delegates reversing the wishes of the voters? It sounds like maybe you want the super delegates to hand Hillary a victory she can't win with the voters.

By the way, Obama is the projected winner in Maine.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23098411/

[BallHawk]

The idea was that if a candidate had the highest amount of pledged delegates among all of the other candidates but not enough pledged delegates to obtain the nomination (in this case 2,025) Super Delegates were supposed to wait until after all the votes were cast and then throw their support behind the leading candidate, thus avoiding a brokered convention.

I think this is blarney. Show me a source.

Chuck Todd, NBC's senior political director, was talking about it today on Meet the Press.

[Joemailman]

What Dean needs to do is get these uncommitted delegates not to commit to anyone now. Then once the primaries are over, these delegates should back the candidate that won the most delegates in the primaries and caucuses.

Huh? Why? The Super Delegates were created to act independently, not to rubber stamp the pledge delegates. They can decide whenever they want and for whoever they want. The idea is that they are extra wise people and can look out better for the party, act as a counterweight to popular passions.

If you are worried about democracy, throw out the caucus results and hold primaries to find out what the voters think.

What could be more undemocratic than the super delegates reversing the wishes of the voters? It sounds like maybe you want the super delegates to hand Hillary a victory she can't win with the voters.

By the way, Obama is the projected winner in Maine.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23098411/

[BallHawk]

Okay, maybe my explanation was a little off, here is an explanation from newsday.com


Super delegates were created as part of the Democratic Party reforms after the debacle of 1972, when a too-liberal candidate, Sen. George McGovern, made it to the head of the ticket. The reforms emphasized the proportional allocation of delegates in primaries and the selection of super delegates who could provide the ballast needed in close contests or could guide the party away from a disastrous choice. They were to be "a safety valve," as one super delegate put it recently.

So the super delegates had more uses than just one specific one.

[Partial]

McCain is a powerhouse of a candidate because he'll still get the republican votes yet steal some of the democrats.

Really, Partial?

Well, he's going to have to steal a helluva lot of Democrats to make up for the number of conservatives that are going to be sitting at home on election day.

You're crazy. You think the 30-70 people are not going to show up to vote?? They may not be crazy about McCain but they'll still pledge their republican vote proudly that day and make their voice heard. This is the age group that gets out in full-force every year. That was a really dumb comment to make man.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What could be more undemocratic than the super delegates reversing the wishes of the voters? It sounds like maybe you want the super delegates to hand Hillary a victory she can't win with the voters.

Well, first all, the "wishes of the voters" are not well indicated by all the caucus states that he won. I suspect Hillary would win the popular vote handily if full primary elections were held in all states.

I agree that superdelegates are undemocratic. Excluding the Florida voters was also undemocratic. Caucuses are undemocratic. All the chicanery is stupid.

The Super Delegates ARE voters. They should be able to vote any way they want, whenever they want, and by the rules they count as much as the pledge delegates.
Hillary wins if she gets the most delegates, super + pledge combined, and I certainly would expect Barak supporters to respect that result.

You don't think the rules should be changed midstream, do you?

[BallHawk]

McCain is a powerhouse of a candidate because he'll still get the republican votes yet steal some of the democrats.

Really, Partial?

Well, he's going to have to steal a helluva lot of Democrats to make up for the number of conservatives that are going to be sitting at home on election day.

You're crazy. You think the 30-70 people are not going to show up to vote?? They may not be crazy about McCain but they'll still pledge their republican vote proudly that day and make their voice heard. This is the age group that gets out in full-force every year. That was a really dumb comment to make man.

Jesus Chirst, Partial......

Yes, I do! Why do you think McCain is going around trying to shmooze the conservative base? Do you think it is a coincidence that we are seeing all of these conservative talk-show hosts speak out against McCain? Partial, the republican establishment does not want McCain. While he's not the liberal some paint him to be he still leans to the left on issues and has muddled across party lines.

Listen to a C-Span call in show. You will hear people, real people that don't have their heads in the cloud, show their skepticism about McCain.

Maybe in your little bubble you can skew the information to come out with logical statements, but the truth is that some conservatives will stay home on election day.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Okay, maybe my explanation was a little off, here is an explanation from newsday.com


Super delegates were created as part of the Democratic Party reforms after the debacle of 1972, when a too-liberal candidate, Sen. George McGovern, made it to the head of the ticket. The reforms emphasized the proportional allocation of delegates in primaries and the selection of super delegates who could provide the ballast needed in close contests or could guide the party away from a disastrous choice. They were to be "a safety valve," as one super delegate put it recently.

So the super delegates had more uses than just one specific one.

The Super delegates are a crazy idea. "ballast" means they are there to be a counterweight to the popular will.

I understand that Obama supporters are gonna be upset, but those are the rules of the game.

[Iron Mike]

What could be more undemocratic than the super delegates reversing the wishes of the voters?

Mmmmmm.......the electoral college voting in opposition to the popular vote?

[Partial]

I'm not going to bother responding to that. There is a lot more to voting than a presidential selection. That, and if you think they're going to give up their voice when they're at an age where plenty of their friends, coworkers, and family members fought for freedom and died, you're off your rocker.

Stats show everything you need to know. If you don't think the older voters are going to be out in full-force that day, then I don't even know what to say.

[Joemailman]

McCain is not the maverick he once was. He is now the establishment Republican candidate, and doesn't have the appeal among moderate Democrats he once had. Bush is now calling McCain a true Conservative. That should be enough to deter Democrats from voting for McCain.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What could be more undemocratic than the super delegates reversing the wishes of the voters?

Mmmmmm.......the electoral college voting in opposition to the popular vote?

No, that is not quite the analogy.

The Pledge Delegates are similar to the electoral college, they are SUPPOSED to follow the popular vote. (Actually I don't think they are bound either.)

The Super Delegates are BY DESIGN supposed to be independent of the vote. They are independent voters themselves who are free to choose who they think will be best for the party.

[BallHawk]

I'm not going to bother responding to that. There is a lot more to voting than a presidential selection. That, and if you think they're going to give up their voice when they're at an age where plenty of their friends, coworkers, and family members fought for freedom and died, you're off your rocker.

Stats show everything you need to know. If you don't think the older voters are going to be out in full-force that day, then I don't even know what to say.

Really, Partial? You think that voters are going to look at McCain and ignore the fact that he's weak on immigration and that he has not taken a stand on same-sex marriage?

That isn't even mentioning the fact that he's managed to piss of the evangelicals of the party! He's destroyed the votes that he needs to win, Partial. He's burned bridges, cut ties, whatever you want to call it he has pulled away from the people that put Republicans in the White House.

He will get independents, Partial, but he will not be able to make up the conservatives that he will lose. That is almost as good as fact.

[Partial]

Studies show that voters 25-64 come out in 91.1%

65+ is 98%.

You really don't think an older crowd is going to come out to vote?!?

I don't know whether they will or not, but these people hold voting as a far more important than your typical 18 year old and WILL be at the polls regardless of if they vote for Ron Paul, Obama or McCain.

[Partial]

The biggest problem with our country is too many people think in democrat or republican. What ever happened to looking at a track record and voting for someone who has actually accomplished things and displayed their ability to be a leader?

Our two party system sucks. I'm not a big Romney supporter since I don't agree with the way he views some social situatinos, but the cat has had success whereever he is gone. He and Richardson were the only two serious candidates with any experience in a leadership role. Governors come in with more experience typically than Senators.

[BallHawk]

Our two party system sucks. I'm not a big Romney supporter since I don't agree with the way he views some social situatinos, but the cat has had success whereever he is gone. He and Richardson were the only two serious candidates with any experience in a leadership role. Governors come in with more experience typically than Senators.

Sure, they come in with more experience, but that doesn't make them better suited for the job. GW Bush came in as a governor and that turned out great didn't it? On the other hand, JFK was a Senator.

What the person has done in the past matters little, nowadays. It's what they can do and what they will do.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sure, they come in with more experience, but that doesn't make them better suited for the job. GW Bush came in as a governor and that turned out great didn't it? On the other hand, JFK was a Senator.

What the person has done in the past matters little, nowadays. It's what they can do and what they will do.

I don't believe this at all. I think George Bush has created a distortion in our thinking. I think he is a once in a millenium disaster and should just be ignored, rather than using him to lower bars.

JFK was in Congress several terms before he became a Senator. He also was a war hero, and a commander of a naval vessel.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton ran as outside insurgents. But they had significant executive experience as Governors, Bill Clinton for 12 years?

Experience is good.

[BallHawk]

I'm not denouncing experience. Hell, myself I think Obama is a little raw. Experience, however, is not the be all and end all of a campaign. Hillary says she has 35 years of experience. 35 years of what? I'd take somebody doing 5 years of real-solid work than 35 years of fluff any day. I'm not denouncing Hillary, for she has done great work in her years as a politician, but how much time has she spent really working for the people? How much time has any politician really spent working for others and not themselves?

I would of been fine with Richardson to be honest, I would of been fine with Dodd or Biden. Actually, I want Biden to be the VP on either ticket to the White House. But experience is becoming less and less important and the emphasis is turning to likability and how good a person's smile is. Experience is great, but it's to applied when you have it and when you don't you BS.

[Partial]

Our two party system sucks. I'm not a big Romney supporter since I don't agree with the way he views some social situatinos, but the cat has had success whereever he is gone. He and Richardson were the only two serious candidates with any experience in a leadership role. Governors come in with more experience typically than Senators.

Sure, they come in with more experience, but that doesn't make them better suited for the job. GW Bush came in as a governor and that turned out great didn't it? On the other hand, JFK was a Senator.

What the person has done in the past matters little, nowadays. It's what they can do and what they will do.

Anyone can say they will do something. Hell, I declare right now that I will change this country. See? It's that simple. The question is will he actually do anything?

The scary thing is he probably will. Universal health care, aka make anyone who makes 50k or more pay for it twice, will probably get implemented. Businesses will continue to be taxed to hell and jobs will continue to move to developing countries.

On the plus side, the budget will probably get balanced. But, it will be at the expense of extreme taxation.

[Partial]

Sure, they come in with more experience, but that doesn't make them better suited for the job. GW Bush came in as a governor and that turned out great didn't it? On the other hand, JFK was a Senator.

What the person has done in the past matters little, nowadays. It's what they can do and what they will do.

I don't believe this at all. I think George Bush has created a distortion in our thinking. I think he is a once in a millenium disaster and should just be ignored, rather than using him to lower bars.

JFK was in Congress several terms before he became a Senator. He also was a war hero, and a commander of a naval vessel.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton ran as outside insurgents. But they had significant executive experience as Governors, Bill Clinton for 12 years?

Experience is good.

Correct.

[Harlan Huckleby]

By the way, Obama is the projected winner in Maine.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23098411/

Clinton has won only a single caucus, Nevada, and that was just because of large hispanic support. The Obama people obviously are aces at ginning-up caucus turn-out, I thought Clinton might have a shot in Maine.

It's amazing how different the followers of these two candidates are. Clinton people are better about voting, but they aren't the zealots who will spend half a day at a caucus.

Its interesting, in California where there was a primary, Hillary even won the majority of the youth vote.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I want Biden to be the VP on either ticket to the White House.

I would love to see Biden as VP. I'm not sure he has the personality for it. He likes to be in charge. I hope he at least becomes Secretary of State.

[BallHawk]

I want Biden to be the VP on either ticket to the White House.

I would love to see Biden as VP. I'm not sure he has the personality for it. He likes to be in charge. I hope he at least becomes Secretary of State.

If Hillary wins I would love to see her choose Wesley Clark as her VP. It wouldn't surprise me either. Both are Arkansas grown and I think Clark would compliment Clinton quite well.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Having Huck ain't gonna bring the anti mccain conservatives on board. Ain't gonna change those dobson clones. And, those southern states are red..you don't add a vp who can't help you win blue/red states...minny, penn, etc.

I think you're right. The governor of Florida that endorsed McCain probably is near top of list.
Huckabee would be a decent choice for VP, but his appeal is in states where th GOP is already solid.


don't rule out condi or even mitt.

I don't see Mitt in politics anymore. Guy became the punchline to too many jokes. And the support he did have had the whiff of desperation to it - conservative people sorta kinda counted him as the only old school conserative available. Condi is possibile.

Charlie Crist would certainly appeal to you. Single, white unmarried male.

As dylan sang, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Mitt would be ok as vip, plus would shore up the conservative vote, help on econ which is mccain's weak point. Always better to take a strong conservative from a blue state than a weak conservative from a red state.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think you're right. The governor of Florida that endorsed McCain probably is near top of list.

I doubt Crist would be chosen. McCain needs somebody that will excel where McCain does not. Charlie Crist has, IMO, done a great job so far as our governor, and I like him as a person. However, he doesn't bring anything to the table that McCain already has. Crist isn't as conservative as Huckabee, nor many other candidates for the VP spot.

All he has to do is help McCain win Florida, and he has done more than ANY VP has done for the ticket in 48 years.

Bush won Florida pretty handedly in 2004. I think that stays Republican anyway. The danger zone for the Republicans are states like Iowa and Ohio which went Republican in 2004, but not by much. The Republican party in Ohio is in shambles largely due to corruption.

Gonna be hard for florida to stay repub with the hardline immigration talk. More non cuban latinos in the state than cubans..that is a new factor.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

McCain is a powerhouse of a candidate because he'll still get the republican votes yet steal some of the democrats.

Really, Partial?

Well, he's going to have to steal a helluva lot of Democrats to make up for the number of conservatives that are going to be sitting at home on election day.

Ballhawk, arent' you in High School? You show more intelligence than someone in college.

[BallHawk]

McCain is a powerhouse of a candidate because he'll still get the republican votes yet steal some of the democrats.

Really, Partial?

Well, he's going to have to steal a helluva lot of Democrats to make up for the number of conservatives that are going to be sitting at home on election day.

Ballhawk, arent' you in High School?

Depends who you ask. :lol:

If you ask me I'm a 9th grader at Gulf Coast High School.

If you ask some other people I'm a confused 40-something.

Take your pick. :D

[Tyrone Bigguns]

McCain is a powerhouse of a candidate because he'll still get the republican votes yet steal some of the democrats.

Really, Partial?

Well, he's going to have to steal a helluva lot of Democrats to make up for the number of conservatives that are going to be sitting at home on election day.

Ballhawk, arent' you in High School?

Depends who you ask. :lol:

If you ask me I'm a 9th grader at Gulf Coast High School.

If you ask some other people I'm a confused 40-something.

Take your pick. :D

Well, either way you show some ability to think, and admit when you've missed something.

BTW, there is little chance Clark will be VP. He brings no voters to the table.

I still think Hillary wins the nom and takes barack as vp. Or could be vice versa.

Either way, it makes the prez assination proof. Kill barack and they are left with hillary. :oops:

Potential candidates:

Richardson: solidifies the latino vote and adds geographic diversity. negs, to close to the bill clinton era.

Mark Warner or Evan Bayh to play it middle of the road.

Rahm emannuel.

[BallHawk]

I still think Hillary wins the nom and takes barack as vp. Or could be vice versa.

I could see Hillary picking Obama as her VP. Helps her solidify the black vote and she picks up some of the younger crowd. However, I'm not sure how happy a lot of these first-time voters will be voting for their guy who ended up getting 2nd place.

If Obama gets the nomination he'd have no need for Hillary, IMO. She'd bring him the Hispanic vote, but the type of people she attracts will be at the polls, regardless of who the candidate is. Obama would be better picking a guy like Biden that makes up for the areas that he lacks in (foreign policy, namely).

Still, it remains to be seen whether any of the two are willing to accept 2nd.

[SkinBasket]

Ballhawk, arent' you in High School?

Depends who you ask. :lol:

If you ask me I'm a 9th grader at Gulf Coast High School.

If you ask some other people I'm a confused 40-something.

Take your pick. :D

I'm a 3rd grader at Showme Yourcock Elementary, so you know which one I pick.

[4and12to12and4]

I am not a republican or a democrat but I'd like to see Hillary win because it would be unbelievable for us to have a woman president. even though i'd hate for bill to be the first first man. Hilary yells alot and reminds me of my exwife so she would be good for me to watch at night while i fall asleep, hearing her yelling would make me feel at home. LOL. I'd vote for the black guy if he was REALLY black. 8-)


Where is Ross Perot when you need him?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Still, it remains to be seen whether any of the two are willing to accept 2nd.

Huckabee said today that the VP is the job that everybody says they don't want but nobody turns it down. A lot of truth to that.
Whether either nominee would ask the other is a big question. All in all, a long shot.

I'm afraid this close contest, with all the disputed delegates, is going to produce bad blood. I know I can already hardly stand to look at JoeMailman

[Joemailman]

What could be more undemocratic than the super delegates reversing the wishes of the voters? It sounds like maybe you want the super delegates to hand Hillary a victory she can't win with the voters.

Well, first all, the "wishes of the voters" are not well indicated by all the caucus states that he won. I suspect Hillary would win the popular vote handily if full primary elections were held in all states.

I agree that superdelegates are undemocratic. Excluding the Florida voters was also undemocratic. Caucuses are undemocratic. All the chicanery is stupid.

The Super Delegates ARE voters. They should be able to vote any way they want, whenever they want, and by the rules they count as much as the pledge delegates.
Hillary wins if she gets the most delegates, super + pledge combined, and I certainly would expect Barak supporters to respect that result.

You don't think the rules should be changed midstream, do you?

Well, of course there are no rules regarding how super delegates vote. They certainly can vote any way they want. I think it would not be wise for them to hand the nomination to a candidate who received a clear minority of the delegates from the primaries and caucuses. The only way they should do that, in my opinion, would be if there were special circumstances, such as a scandal, which would make a candidate clearly unelectable.



Obama leads in delegates from primaries and caucuses 981-910.

You would think that would be a solid number, but different news organizations have different totals. I saw two with Hillary ahead.

I think the news organizations showing Clinton ahead are using estimates of super delegates who have verbally committed to one candidate or the other. She is ahead in that regard. After this past weekend, I think Obama is clearly ahead in delegates from primaries and caucuses.

[Harlan Huckleby]

They certainly can vote any way they want. I think it would not be wise for them to hand the nomination to a candidate who received a clear minority of the delegates from the primaries and caucuses. The only way they should do that, in my opinion, would be if there were special circumstances, such as a scandal, which would make a candidate clearly unelectable.

You contradict yourself. You say they are free to vote any way they want. Then you say just as long as they rubber stamp what the pledge delegates decide.

Reminds me of women: they don't care a bit about penis size just as long as it is large.

When it comes to Super Delegates, there is no "they". Each super delegate makes a judgement. If most of those individuals think Clinton is more qualified to be President, I think you should just respect their decisions.

I think Obama has made two crude moves in this campaign: 1) when he said that Clinton's comments about MArtin Luther King were troubling, 2) recently he said it will be problematic if the super delegates don't agree with the pledged delegates. Both comments are designed to stoke feelings of victimization and invite accusations.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Dear Obama Supporters:

Please list 3 people you would rather see become president than Obama.

I suggest if you find this difficult or impossible, you may be a member of a cult of personality.

(A good friend of mine, a kindly 85-year-old lady/next door neighbor, always says that Jesus Christ is the source of her hope. That has always been her word, hope.)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Dear Obama Supporters:

Please list 3 people you would rather see become president than Obama.

I suggest if you find this difficult or impossible, you may be a member of a cult of personality.

(A good friend of mine, a kindly 85-year-old lady/next door neighbor, always says that Jesus Christ is the source of her hope. That has always been her word, hope.)

1. The head keebler elf. If he can run a company out of a tree, he can run a country.

2. Santa Claus. If anybody can unite the parties, it is Santa. Plus, who wouldn't love to see a man in a red suit meet foreign dignataries.

3. George Clinton. One nation under a groove. 'nuff said.

[sooner6600]

3 people


a) Ron Paul
B Less Paul
c)Barbara McCullsky

[MJZiggy]

(A good friend of mine, a kindly 85-year-old lady/next door neighbor, always says that Jesus Christ is the source of her hope. That has always been her word, hope.)

Depends what she's hoping for--question is, is the kindly neighbor happy?

See, I can't vote in the primaries, so what I'm hoping for is that y'all give me someone to vote for who's not an idiot like the last guy we had in office.

(and for the record, in the 2K election, I lived in Maryland, voted in Florida (because we'd just moved and were still registered there) by absentee and want it noted that I had my chad until we moved into this house and it got lost in the move. And I was gonna have it framed, too.)

[rdanomly]

I still think Hillary wins the nom and takes barack as vp. Or could be vice versa.

I could see Hillary picking Obama as her VP. Helps her solidify the black vote and she picks up some of the younger crowd. However, I'm not sure how happy a lot of these first-time voters will be voting for their guy who ended up getting 2nd place.

If Obama gets the nomination he'd have no need for Hillary, IMO. She'd bring him the Hispanic vote, but the type of people she attracts will be at the polls, regardless of who the candidate is. Obama would be better picking a guy like Biden that makes up for the areas that he lacks in (foreign policy, namely).

Still, it remains to be seen whether any of the two are willing to accept 2nd.


I doubt it would happen, but being stuck here in the Hoosier state, I would be pretty psyched about Obama reaching out to Sen. Lugar. He's got tons of credibility, has done quite a bit with non-proliferation, and is little 'c' conservative, not bull shitting, 'C' conservative. I think our country needs some big ideas, but there are also tough decisions (read: cuts in funding for non-performing/under performing programs) that a rational fiscal conservative would be well suited to work with a pie in the sky big thinker/dreamer. Just some thoughts from an out-of-stater.

[Harlan Huckleby]

(A good friend of mine, a kindly 85-year-old lady/next door neighbor, always says that Jesus Christ is the source of her hope. That has always been her word, hope.)

Depends what she's hoping for--question is, is the kindly neighbor happy?

She's as happy as a moonie. As serene as Tyrone with a fat crack rock.

She's a very together person, I understand that religion can be good for people. And one can't help but notice how cheerful Ballhawk has been since he invited Barack into his heart.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I would be pretty psyched about Obama reaching out to Sen. Lugar. He's got tons of credibility

That would be an awesome choice. Too good to be true, tho.

It's interesting to note that Obama currently has support among republicans AND among moveon.org types. How can this be? :wink:

[The Leaper]

It's interesting to note that Obama currently has support among republicans AND among moveon.org types. How can this be? :wink:

Because few republicans realize that Obama is a far left liberal. He's never been put under a serious evaluation in the media in terms of his views and agenda.

Most Americans want change...not just from Bush, but all the political crooks in Washington. Obama has touted change as his goal. That brings a lot of people to support you before they actually have to vote for you.

Obama, however, has very little practical experience in actually making change happen in Washington. If he becomes the nominee, his record and experience are going to be heavily attacked in a presidential campaign...items which he has been able to avoid to this point, outside of Bill Clinton diatribes.

By the time November rolls around, there won't be many Republicans supporting Obama/Hillary or many Democrats supporting McCain. The battleground will be over the moderates...which is why McCain actually stands a chance against whoever the Dems put out there.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It's interesting to note that Obama currently has support among republicans AND among moveon.org types. How can this be? :wink:

Because few republicans realize that Obama is a far left liberal. He's never been put under a serious evaluation in the media in terms of his views and agenda.

Most Americans want change...not just from Bush, but all the political crooks in Washington. Obama has touted change as his goal. That brings a lot of people to support you before they actually have to vote for you.

Obama, however, has very little practical experience in actually making change happen in Washington. If he becomes the nominee, his record and experience are going to be heavily attacked in a presidential campaign...items which he has been able to avoid to this point, outside of Bill Clinton diatribes.

By the time November rolls around, there won't be many Republicans supporting Obama/Hillary or many Democrats supporting McCain. The battleground will be over the moderates...which is why McCain actually stands a chance against whoever the Dems put out there.

McCain ain't picking up mods with his kowtowing to the religious right, immigration policy and stand on reproductive rights.

Whatever mods he does pick up will be less than the far right that won't vote for him.

[SkinBasket]

Most Americans want change...not just from Bush, but all the political crooks in Washington. Obama has touted change as his goal. That brings a lot of people to support you before they actually have to vote for you.

I remember seeing this while at Madison when Nader came to town and all the MTV watching hipster undergrads went to his speaking engagement all fired up about their newest counterculture hero. Then he started talking. And people started leaving. Some even booed when they finally learned what his stances where on certain issues.

Sometimes the idea is much different and sexier than the reality. Obama knows the answer is "yes we can." He just has no idea what the question is, but he's gonna ride out all these excited youth for all it's worth. Then, like ObamaGirl, they'll stay home and smoke a bong instead of voting.

[swede]

Skin,

for a twisted dude you certainly are insightful.

I read this whole thread and you've made the only two points worth noting--

...that unregistered voters have no business voting in the primary process as it is presently composed.

...Obama supporters will be home in November trying to text message their vote into the Obama website. You know, like, wow, he's so smart and everything.

The 3rd grader post was a little scary.

[BallHawk]

The 3rd grader post was a little scary.

High point of the thread, IMO. :D

[Partial]

...Obama supporters will be home in November trying to text message their vote into the Obama website. You know, like, wow, he's so smart and everything.


Bump for Ballhawk.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Skin,

for a twisted dude you certainly are insightful.

I read this whole thread and you've made the only two points worth noting--

...that unregistered voters have no business voting in the primary process as it is presently composed.

...Obama supporters will be home in November trying to text message their vote into the Obama website. You know, like, wow, he's so smart and everything.

The 3rd grader post was a little scary.

I resent your post.

Are you trying to say santa wouldn't unite all americans?

You'll be noting Tyrone's prognisticating powers regarding latinos the day after the election.

The repubs are shooting themselves in the foot over this. 2/3s of this country believe in a path to citizenship.

[BallHawk]

...Obama supporters will be home in November trying to text message their vote into the Obama website. You know, like, wow, he's so smart and everything.


Bump for Ballhawk.

Hey, the youth vote is going to have to step up sometime. Is this the candidate that finally gets them off Facebook and into the polling booth? I can't say for certain, but Obama certainly appeals to the youth more than Gore or Kerry could/did.

Of course, counting on the youth vote is pointless. It's a freakin' tease. Every year we say "This'll be the year we'll see the youth vote" and then, the day after election day, polling numbers show the youth vote was the same as it had been last election and elections before that.

I think Obama is more personable than candidates in recent memory, at least ones that appealed to the younger crowd. It's still possible, maybe even likely, that it won't make a damn of a difference, but Obama's got his fingered crossed, as do I, that the youth vote will finally wake up this year.

[Partial]

Certainly have changed your tune since last night.

[BallHawk]

Certainly have changed your tune since last night.

How have I changed my tune?

[swede]

The writers of the constitution disliked the influence of political parties and attempted to create an election process that marginalized their power.

Of course, parties couldn't be banned outright as such a ban inhibited free speech and freedom of assembly.

One constitutional idea was to give state governments the power to appoint a slate of electors that would convene and elect a President. Once our young country was underway a few things happened very, very quickly. First, two political parties immediately formed to support either a strong federal government (Democrats) or a greater emphasis on personal liberties and state's rights (Whigs). [Nice try at eliminating political parties founding fathers, but politicians need to unite to consolidate influence and political parties, apparently, are the inevitable result.] Second, in a rush to democratize the process, every state eventually ceded the right to choose the electors by allowing their constituencies to pick the choice of the electors in public Presidential elections.

(Remember in Florida in 2000 that the AG of FL called quits to the endless hanging chad debates because the constitution compelled her to either send a slate of electoral votes to the Congress or have the votes from Florida go uncounted. It is the electoral votes after all, constitutionally, that elect a President and not the popular vote of the nation. The Florida Supreme Court told her to desist, but the US Supreme Court, in a narrow decision, allowed her to quit counting and send Dubya's votes on up to Washington. Oh those were the days. The scales fell from my eyes and I saw who defended the constitution and who did not.)

[Joemailman]

They certainly can vote any way they want. I think it would not be wise for them to hand the nomination to a candidate who received a clear minority of the delegates from the primaries and caucuses. The only way they should do that, in my opinion, would be if there were special circumstances, such as a scandal, which would make a candidate clearly unelectable.

You contradict yourself. You say they are free to vote any way they want. Then you say just as long as they rubber stamp what the pledge delegates decide.

No contradiction at all. I concede there is nothing in the rules preventing super delegates from overturning the will of the voters. I still don't believe they should do it.

[Joemailman]

Dear Obama Supporters:

Please list 3 people you would rather see become president than Obama.

I suggest if you find this difficult or impossible, you may be a member of a cult of personality.

(A good friend of mine, a kindly 85-year-old lady/next door neighbor, always says that Jesus Christ is the source of her hope. That has always been her word, hope.)

Feingold, Edwards, Ed Rendell, Joe Biden.

[SkinBasket]

The 3rd grader post was a little scary.

Not as scary as BallHawk pretending to be a teenager.


(Remember in Florida in 2000 that the AG of FL called quits to the endless hanging chad debates because the constitution compelled her to either send a slate of electoral votes to the Congress or have the votes from Florida go uncounted. It is the electoral votes after all, constitutionally, that elect a President and not the popular vote of the nation. The Florida Supreme Court told her to desist, but the US Supreme Court, in a narrow decision, allowed her to quit counting and send Dubya's votes on up to Washington. Oh those were the days. The scales fell from my eyes and I saw who defended the constitution and who did not.)

The other way to look at that was that the vote was counted once, then Florida's Dem machinery did everything in their power to change the election rules post election including having the Democratic SSC ignore legislated law. All the US Supreme Court said, was first, by a 7-2 majority, that the whole fucked up process down there was not constitutional, and second, in the 5-4 decision that "no. you cannot unconstitutionally change the rules after the game's been played, especially when it involves ignoring the state legislature and the entire concept of checks and balances in the three branches of government."

Some people blame the US Supreme Court for handing Bush the election. All they decided is that the Florida Supreme Court could not act unconstitutionally in an effort to find 550 votes for Al Gore.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Some people blame the US Supreme Court for handing Bush the election. All they decided is that the Florida Supreme Court could not act unconstitutionally in an effort to find 550 votes for Al Gore.

Several investigations have shown that Bush was going to win even if a recount was done. So in that sense, the Supreme Court decision didn't matter.

The U.S. Supreme Court contradicted the Florida Supreme Court, saying 5-4 that doing a recount was unconstitutional. This was an outrageous, politically motivated action by the 5 members of the Supreme Court that fancy themselves as enemies of judicial activism.
The court disgraced themselves, it's a low point that will be remembered like the Dred Scott pro-slavery decision.

[Harlan Huckleby]

No contradiction at all. I concede there is nothing in the rules preventing super delegates from overturning the will of the voters. I still don't believe they should do it.

If the Super Delegates have an ethical obligation to rubber stamp the pledge delegates, then they serve zero purpose. This is NOT the purpose of Super Delegates, they were invented precisely to contradict the pledge delegates where their judgement deemed it necessary.

If the Super Delegates were created to be rubber stampers in a divided field, that pupose could have been accomplished more directly & simply by lowering the delegate threshold for nomination.

You are rewriting the spirit of the rules.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Some people blame the US Supreme Court for handing Bush the election. All they decided is that the Florida Supreme Court could not act unconstitutionally in an effort to find 550 votes for Al Gore.

Several investigations have shown that Bush was going to win even if a recount was done. So in that sense, the Supreme Court decision didn't matter.

The U.S. Supreme Court contradicted the Florida Supreme Court, saying 5-4 that doing a recount was unconstitutional. This was an outrageous, politically motivated action by the 5 members of the Supreme Court that fancy themselves as enemies of judicial activism.
The court disgraced themselves, it's a low point that will be remembered like the Dred Scott pro-slavery decision.

Right. Just ignore the voters purged from the system.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Feingold, Edwards, Ed Rendell, Joe Biden.

I would take Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein or Richard Lugar ahead of Hillary. I would have to get drunk and do an absentee ballot for Lugar, if I went to a polling booth and tried to vote for a Republican, I'm sure I would lose my nerve.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hate Springs Eternal
By PAUL KRUGMAN, Published: February 11, 2008

In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”

The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of “Before the Storm.” As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.

And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.

For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.

For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.

But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.

One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.

I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election.

[SkinBasket]

Some people blame the US Supreme Court for handing Bush the election. All they decided is that the Florida Supreme Court could not act unconstitutionally in an effort to find 550 votes for Al Gore.

Several investigations have shown that Bush was going to win even if a recount was done. So in that sense, the Supreme Court decision didn't matter.

The U.S. Supreme Court contradicted the Florida Supreme Court, saying 5-4 that doing a recount was unconstitutional. This was an outrageous, politically motivated action by the 5 members of the Supreme Court that fancy themselves as enemies of judicial activism.
The court disgraced themselves, it's a low point that will be remembered like the Dred Scott pro-slavery decision.

Don't be retarded. No matter how you try to spin what the US Supreme Court did, the fact is the Florida SC was trying to change established legislated law, for a very specific purpose, and with nothing more than partisan politics as the motivation. That is not their job and is the very definition of unconstitutional. Blame Florida and Federal law if you want, but you can't fault the US Supreme Court who simply enforced the law as written.

Yes, the prize was great, but that doesn't mean you get to cheat to win. Unless you wanted Al to win, then courts rewriting laws, usurping the Constitution, counting hanging chads, and "interpreting the will of the voter" were all fair game.

And they didn't say 5-4 doing a recount was unconstitutional. They said changing law, the job of the legislature, not the judiciary branch, was unconstitutional. They said 7-2 that the ridiculous attempt at a "recount" was unconstitutional.

Unless you were being tongue-in-cheek. It's hard to tell when you're just reading words posted by a semi-retarded mutt.

[Harlan Huckleby]

And they didn't say 5-4 doing a recount was unconstitutional. They said changing law, the job of the legislature, not the judiciary branch, was unconstitutional.

This is something you just made up. The 5-4 vote, the second vote, was that the recount had to be stopped and cancelled because there wasn't time to refashion a fair recount.
This was a truly arbitrary, capricious and political decision. Disgraceful.



They said 7-2 that the ridiculous attempt at a "recount" was unconstitutional.
You are right about this part, this was the first vote and I was mistaken about the margin.
The bizarre thing about this vote was that it was decided by the Equal Protection Clause (specifically, the court decided that voting and recounting had to be done in an identical manner all across the state to be fair. )
Well, the bizarre part is that the conservative members of the court were famously unwilling to apply the Equal Protection Clause in other cases. They hopped on board here because it suited their purposes.

[SkinBasket]

This is something you just made up. The 5-4 vote, the second vote, was that the recount had to be stopped and cancelled because there wasn't time to refashion a fair recount.
This was a truly arbitrary, capricious and political decision. Disgraceful.

Others would argue that this perfectly describes the Florida's Courts actions in their attempt to find votes for Gore. Or Judge Breyer's attempt to disregard Florida law regarding the Dec 12 deadline, which brings us to the 5-4 count to stop the recount process that could not possibly meet minimum standards in the 3 days remaining before the deadline.


It would require not only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. In addition, the Secretary of State has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a function for which the machines were not designed. If a recount of overvotes were also required, perhaps even a second screening would be necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the Secretary of State, as required by Fla. Stat. §101.015 (2000).

The remedy - changing or ignoring the Dec 12 deadline would have meant an unconstitutional change to legislated law by either the Florida or, as Judge Breyer suggested, US Supreme Court. I'm no lawyer, but the US Supreme Court disregarding state law would probably have been a poor precedent.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I just remembered why the Equal Protection Clause argument was so outragous.

Florida had this horribly discriminatory patchwork of voting mechanisms. The poor, predominantly black areas were discarding ballots at a high rate, I think it was 8% or something. The rich districts had electronic systems that counted all but a fraction of a percent of ballots.

Would the Supreme Court ever intervene to correct this blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause? Oh hell no! That would be liberal judicial activism. That's a local issue - state's rights.

Well, as soon as Republican power is in the balance, the court chooses to demand equal protection. Since the recount can't be done identically everywhere, can't do a recount.

I blocked this incident out of mind, had forgotten about it. But I've talked to fair-minded republicans about this ordeal, they agree the court went bananas. History is going to look at this as a terrible black mark on the Supreme Court, it really damaged their credibility.

[SkinBasket]

History is going to look at this as a terrible black mark on the Supreme Court, it really damaged their credibility.

:roll:

The pillars of justice are tumbling around us.

[Zool]

"Halls of justice painted green money talking
Power wolves feast at your door hear them stalking"

[Harlan Huckleby]

Clinton's waiting for Texas & Ohio strategy is starting to have the faint wiff of Giuliani's waiting for Florida master plan.

In a close election, I can't believe that people will stand for Michigan & Florida just not voting. The only way out is to redo the vote, or people won't accept the results, it will be like Florida 2000. What was the democratic party thinking when they thought they could just cancel the elections? Punish the voters to get back at the local party officials!!?? I'll tell you what they were thinking - they figured the election wouldn't be that close and nobody would care very much.

I was listening to Randi Rhodes bloviate about this on Air America yesterday, she's right on this one. EJ Dionne just wrote an editorial about the situation, maybe I'll plop it here and you can not read it you aren't interested.

[Harlan Huckleby]

A Party Divided by Sensibility
By E. J. Dionne Jr., Tuesday, February 12, 2008

It's come down to this: Who can beat John McCain?

Winning that argument could allow Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to reach beyond their respective demographic comfort zones. Only if one of them can build a clear majority will the party be saved from a descent into the mire of rules fights and backroom dealing. It will also take leadership to protect the Democratic village from chaos and recriminations.

For the moment, the world is moving Obama's way: He swept four states last weekend and is favored in today's primaries in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. Polling suggests that Obama can draw independents whom Clinton can't reach and can mobilize new and younger voters in a way Clinton never will.

Obama drove that perception by offering a brief against the politics of Clintonism: She "starts off with 47 percent of the country against her," he said in Alexandria on Sunday. Her husband presided over the Democrats' loss of Congress. It's hard to imagine that she can "break out of the politics of the past 15 years." The alternative: the antidepressant right there on the shelf in front of them. Its brand is Obama.

Yet there is another world in Democratic politics, a practical, mostly middle-aged and middle-class world that is immune to fervor and electricity. It is made up of people with long memories who are skeptical of fads and like their candidates tough, detail-oriented and -- to use a word Obama regularly mocks -- seasoned.

These are the Hillary people, and they gathered in Manassas last weekend in significant numbers at the Grace E. Metz Middle School, cozy schools being a preferred venue for a Clinton campaign aware that mammoth rallies are normally beyond its reach.

She does not lack for loyalists. Paulie Abeles of Derwood, Md., held aloft a hand-printed sign that did not mince words: "Talk Is Cheap. Mistakes Are Expensive."

Abeles explained that people who are being "swept along by the eloquence of Barack Obama's speeches" forget that at one time, George W. Bush was seen as "charming" and "inspirational." And electability was on her mind. If President Bush raised the terror alert level four days before the election ("I happen to be very cynical," she averred), the Democrats would want their most experienced candidate confronting McCain.

Clinton spoke directly to her audience's skepticism of good talkers -- ironic in light of her husband's oratorical gifts. "You're so specific," she quoted people as telling her. "Why don't you just come and . . . give us one of those great rhetorical flourishes and get everybody all whooped up?" The crowd actually whooped at that. But eloquence, she said, is not the point, since the election "is not about me, it's about us."

If Obama is passion, Clinton is bread and butter. If she needs more flourishes, he could afford to traffic a bit more in the staples.

Her speech is a well-crafted recitation of how government could ease the lives of those without health insurance, students burdened by college loans, homeowners facing foreclosure, veterans who have been abandoned, the working poor who deserve a hand up.

As she speaks, Doug Hattaway, one of her aides, notes that her practical litany is precisely what appeals to working-class and middle-class voters who respond to "tangible issues." They also rebel against the idea that they are not part of the cool, privileged masses for Obama. One of the signs at the Manassas rally defiantly touted "Well Educated High Earners for Hillary." This is a party divided not by ideology but by sensibility. Things have gotten very personal.

And that is why feelings would be so raw if this nomination were settled by something as grubby as a credentials fight over disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan. Two things are true. Delegations from those important states, currently in defiance of party rules, will eventually have to be seated. But if Clinton were to take the nomination because of her "victories" in primaries that all the candidates agreed not to contest, she would be seen by her adversaries as cheating.

The only solution is for the two states to agree to hold, before the process ends in early June, new rounds of voting that look as much like primaries as possible. Doing so would increase the chances that voters, not insiders, would pick the nominee. Democrats would not have to put up with invidious comparisons between their battle and the ugliness of Bush v. Gore. And one of these candidates might then actually be able to win in November.

A breakout, a fair deal or bedlam: Those are the Democrats' options.

[Harlan Huckleby]

History is going to look at this as a terrible black mark on the Supreme Court, it really damaged their credibility.

:roll:

The pillars of justice are tumbling around us.

The country didn't riot in the streets after the Dred Scott decision either. Or the "Seperate but Equal" travesty. But thoughtful people know the score.

[SkinBasket]

The country didn't riot in the streets after the Dred Scott decision either. Or the "Seperate but Equal" travesty. But thoughtful people know the score.

Yeah. They know there's a buttload of crazies like you equating things like this with a straight face.

[Freak Out]

The country didn't riot in the streets after the Dred Scott decision either. Or the "Seperate but Equal" travesty. But thoughtful people know the score.

Yeah. They know there's a buttload of crazies like you equating things like this with a straight face.

Harlan please stop with the "crazy" anti American babble. Fucking traitor.

[Harlan Huckleby]

:lol:

I'm not wise enough to put Gore vs. Bush into historical context, that's true. It sure seems collossal to me for a Supreme Court to take such an activist decision.

I did a google tour of opinions. Many people make the comparisons I did, guess there are a lot of crazies out there. A few scholars defend the court.

Skinbasket's attempt to sweep the whole thing under the carpet is funny.

[The Leaper]

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody.

I saw this article as well.

Once I saw the sentence I quoted above, I stopped reading because the author clearly has an agenda and doesn't bother to research facts.

The exit polling done by CNN recently showed that the CLINTON supporters overwhelmingly would be more unhappy if their candidate did not win than the OBAMA supporters...and less likely to support the nominee if it wasn't their candidate.

So, how can this person possibly suggest Obama's camp wants their candidate to win more than Clinton's?

[swede]

Some people blame the US Supreme Court for handing Bush the election. All they decided is that the Florida Supreme Court could not act unconstitutionally in an effort to find 550 votes for Al Gore.

Several investigations have shown that Bush was going to win even if a recount was done. So in that sense, the Supreme Court decision didn't matter.

The U.S. Supreme Court contradicted the Florida Supreme Court, saying 5-4 that doing a recount was unconstitutional. This was an outrageous, politically motivated action by the 5 members of the Supreme Court that fancy themselves as enemies of judicial activism.
The court disgraced themselves, it's a low point that will be remembered like the Dred Scott pro-slavery decision.

To contend that the 5 members of SCOTUS were acting as political hacks in that instance rather than acting responsibly in enforcing the ELECTORAL RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION is silly. The shame is that the other four justices actually were acting politically rather than enforcing constitutional law. The four dissenting justices are an enduring reminder to conservatives of the consequences of seating Supreme Court judges who consider themselves and their elite points of view as superior to the constitution they are supposed to consult and protect.

[The Leaper]

Clinton's waiting for Texas & Ohio strategy is starting to have the faint wiff of Giuliani's waiting for Florida master plan.

I would agree on that. Continual losses don't make you look like a better candidate.

However, Clinton's strength with the less educated/Hispanics does give her a very good chance of winning in Texas and Ohio...which hold a huge number of delegates. Obama's strengths with blacks and the highly educated make Hillary's chances in the Potomac region pretty slim.

It is amazing how split down the middle this country is...both overall and in both parties. There seems to be equal numbers of far left crazies, moderate Dems, moderate Reps, and far right crazies. I don't know whether this is bad or good, but it makes for interesting politics.

[The Leaper]

The U.S. Supreme Court contradicted the Florida Supreme Court, saying 5-4 that doing a recount was unconstitutional.

As others have pointed out...because it WAS unconstitutional.

I'm hardly suggesting that what happened in 2000 was proper, or that the entire electoral and voting process is fine and dandy. The election was screwed up...and so is the entire process still to this day.

However, allowing a court to overturn standing laws (i.e. LEGISLATE when that is not their role as defined by the Constitution) would have been a greater assault to the Constitution than the 2000 election was.

[SkinBasket]

The country didn't riot in the streets after the Dred Scott decision either. Or the "Seperate but Equal" travesty. But thoughtful people know the score.

Yeah. They know there's a buttload of crazies like you equating things like this with a straight face.

Harlan please stop with the "crazy" anti American babble. Fucking traitor.

It's not anti-American. It's just dumb.

[SkinBasket]

Skinbasket's attempt to sweep the whole thing under the carpet is funny.

Only as funny as it is sad that people like yourself just can't let the 2000 election go and feel the need to make out the court's decision as some great disaster in American history based on nothing more than your political views and beliefs. You ignore the facts of the case and try to use moral and emotional equivocations as smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that every suggested remedy was unconstitutional. But what's the Constitution when politics is on the line right?

Calling the actions of the US Supreme Court "activist' is also another classic example of ignoring the fact they were simply overturning actual unconstitutional activism by the Florida Supreme Court. You don't get to call striking down "activist" decisions by the Florida SC as somehow activist itself.

I haven't swept anything under the carpet. I explained the court's decision to you but you're happier making some kind of doom and gloom end-of-democracy Nostradamus event out of it. It's been 8 years Harlan. Where's the black cloud of death over the court?

It's time to let it go Harlan. Gore lost, and nothing the Florida Supreme Court attempted to do after the fact, and in blatant disregard of the Constitution, could help him.

[Zool]

Skinbasket's attempt to sweep the whole thing under the carpet is funny.

Only as funny as it is sad that people like yourself just can't let the 2000 election go and feel the need to make out the court's decision as some great disaster in American history based on nothing more than your political views and beliefs. You ignore the facts of the case and try to use moral and emotional equivocations as smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that every suggested remedy was unconstitutional. But what's the Constitution when politics is on the line right?

Calling the actions of the US Supreme Court "activist' is also another classic example of ignoring the fact they were simply overturning actual unconstitutional activism by the Florida Supreme Court. You don't get to call striking down "activist" decisions by the Florida SC as somehow activist itself.

I haven't swept anything under the carpet. I explained the court's decision to you but you're happier making some kind of doom and gloom end-of-democracy Nostradamus event out of it. It's been 8 years Harlan. Where's the black cloud of death over the court?

It's time to let it go Harlan. Gore lost, and nothing the Florida Supreme Court attempted to do after the fact, and in blatant disregard of the Constitution, could help him.

Edit

http://members.optushome.com.au/redknob/images/pwned.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

The four dissenting justices are an enduring reminder to conservatives of the consequences of seating Supreme Court judges who consider themselves and their elite points of view as superior to the constitution they are supposed to consult and protect.

except in these two decisions it was the dissenters who were acting as conservatives!

the argument to apply the Equal Protection Clause to halt the recount was thin at best. (A much stronger case can be made that the voting mechanisms themselves were unequal, but the court didn't invalidate the vote!) For a supposedly conservative court to intervene on this basis was political and hypocritical in the extreme.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's time to let it go Harlan. Gore lost, and nothing the Florida Supreme Court attempted to do after the fact, and in blatant disregard of the Constitution, could help him.

I said up front that I thought Gore would have lost had there been a recount.

The "blatant disregard for the consitution" was that the recount was not done in a sufficiently uniform manner across the state. Come on, you're not stupid, this is a technical and strained argument. And this in an enviroment where the supposedly constitutionally valid vote itself was collected in a GROSSLY flawed and unequal manner!

I have not agonized over this ordeal, in fact I pretty much forgot about it until I refreshed my memory today. I don't know how this malfeasance stacks up against other Supreme Court turkeys, but surely this one was a doozy.

[SkinBasket]

And this in an enviroment where the supposedly constitutionally valid vote itself was collected in a GROSSLY flawed and unequal manner!

This is true. But that doesn't give the courts, state or federal, the right to attempt to fix the system after the vote, violate the Constitution, and ignore legislated law, no matter how noble their stated intentions may be.

BTW, Zool, that's the best photo I've seen in months. I'm especially fond of the lady on the right. Big girls like to have fun too.

[Harlan Huckleby]

And this in an enviroment where the supposedly constitutionally valid vote itself was collected in a GROSSLY flawed and unequal manner!

This is true. But that doesn't give the courts, state or federal, the right to attempt to fix the system after the vote, violate the Constitution, and ignore legislated law, no matter how noble their stated intentions may be.

????? They weren't trying to fix the system. They were doing a recount.

Recounts are not an extraordinary event in elections. Halting a recount is.

[SkinBasket]

Recounts are not an extraordinary event in elections.

You're trying to tell me you blocked this out too?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/images/recount.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

BTW, one of the hall monitors here evidently deleted the Obamaway logo from my .SIG.

the joke has gotten tired, was planning on deleting it myself. But a PM would be nice when the censors wield their swords.

[SkinBasket]

Halting a recount is.

Stop editing while I'm responding. Anyway, most recount efforts don't run afoul of the Constitution, so yes you're right, halting one is unusual.

[SkinBasket]

BTW, one of the hall monitors here evidently deleted the Obamaway logo from my .SIG.

the joke has gotten tired, was planning on deleting it myself. But a PM would be nice when the censors wield their swords.

Just make a poll about it so we can all see it again. I didn't look at it. What was in violation of the imaginary rules?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Halting a recount is.

Stop editing while I'm responding. Anyway, most recount efforts don't run afoul of the Constitution, so yes you're right, halting one is unusual.

There is a (I would say thin) argument that can be made that the recount was unconstitutional.

There were reasonable arguments made that halting slavery was unconstituional; an even stronger constitutional argument for seperate but equal.

You have to look at the big picture. A conservative court intervened using an argument that they historically were reluctant to apply. Why? This was political. Smell the glove, my friend.

[Harlan Huckleby]

BTW, one of the hall monitors here evidently deleted the Obamaway logo from my .SIG.

the joke has gotten tired, was planning on deleting it myself. But a PM would be nice when the censors wield their swords.

Just make a poll about it so we can all see it again. I didn't look at it. What was in violation of the imaginary rules?

Its the stupid .SIG I put back in. Maybe it is a violation of Amway copyright. Or maybe it was a solar sunspot that caused a computer glitch. I don't give a shit, actually, just would have liked an email if it was necessary to delete it.

My feelings were hurt. :cry: :cry: :cry: :D

[SkinBasket]

You have to look at the big picture.

I would say you have to stop looking at pictures that aren't there. For you this seems like one of those pictures of blobs in the mall that if you stare at it without blinking long enough, a giant lizard pops out to eat your democracy.



A conservative court intervened using an argument that they historically were reluctant to apply.

A marginally conservative court prevented Florida's liberal activist court from intervening. There's a difference that you continue to ignore.


Why?

It's their job. Hearing cases. Determining Constitutional law matters. That kind of thing. It certainly isn't running a state's election for them or making sure all of their voting machines are up to date.


This was political.

The actions of the Florida Supreme Court were far more unabashedly political than anything the US Supreme Court did. At least they were relying on law instead of trying to change it. Again, the US Supreme Court simply said, "No. You can't do that."


Smell the glove, my friend.

I refuse. Try Partial.

[Freak Out]

The country didn't riot in the streets after the Dred Scott decision either. Or the "Seperate but Equal" travesty. But thoughtful people know the score.

Yeah. They know there's a buttload of crazies like you equating things like this with a straight face.

Harlan please stop with the "crazy" anti American babble. Fucking traitor.

It's not anti-American. It's just dumb.

It's never dumb when an American wants to talk about a decision of it's Supreme Court.

[Freak Out]

Speaking of the Florida recount....a friends son who was working for Don Young (R-Alaska) at the time, was sent along with many others from DC to Florida to "help the party in any way they could". He basically ended up rioting in various county buildings shutting down recounts and such.

Democracy in action baby.

The State of Florida totally dropped the ball and the whole thing had gotten out of hand....you can argue constitutionality till the cows come home (and we will) but the Supreme Court did what it had to do.

Gore and his dipshit advisers are ultimately to blame. They had options they refused to initiate.

[SkinBasket]

The country didn't riot in the streets after the Dred Scott decision either. Or the "Seperate but Equal" travesty. But thoughtful people know the score.

Yeah. They know there's a buttload of crazies like you equating things like this with a straight face.

Harlan please stop with the "crazy" anti American babble. Fucking traitor.

It's not anti-American. It's just dumb.

It's never dumb when an American wants to talk about a decision of it's Supreme Court.

It's not dumb to talk about court decisions. It's dumb to equate Gore v Bush to Plessy v Fergie, Scott, or Brown v Board of Edu-macation.

Our local Democrat politicians didn't riot in the last election, but they did send out their sons to slash the tires on a couple dozen vans used by the Repub party to transport people to the polls the night before the vote. Of course, instead of interfering with an election, the Dem DA decided it was just "a prank gone wrong."

[Freak Out]

Our local Democrat politicians didn't riot in the last election, but they did send out their sons to slash the tires on a couple dozen vans used by the Repub party to transport people to the polls the night before the vote. Of course, instead of interfering with an election, the Dem DA decided it was just "a prank gone wrong."

...and that's where it was left? That fuck should have been ran out of town on rails. Interfering with an election or voter intimidation at least.

Alaska has had it's share of political scandals and corruption but election rigging and that kind of crap is pretty rare to say the least.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's not dumb to talk about court decisions. It's dumb to equate Gore v Bush to Plessy v Fergie, Scott, or Brown v Board of Edu-macation.

Gore v Bush does not compare to those other decisions in terms of their impact on law & society. But it was more corrupt (arbitrary), and just as shameful as those other lowlights.

[SkinBasket]

Our local Democrat politicians didn't riot in the last election, but they did send out their sons to slash the tires on a couple dozen vans used by the Repub party to transport people to the polls the night before the vote. Of course, instead of interfering with an election, the Dem DA decided it was just "a prank gone wrong."

...and that's where it was left? That fuck should have been ran out of town on rails. Interfering with an election or voter intimidation at least.

Alaska has had it's share of political scandals and corruption but election rigging and that kind of crap is pretty rare to say the least.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/?id=386498

There was some legal wrangling but ultimately that's what the DA said, it was just a prank gone wrong. It involved the ex acting mayor of Milwaukee's kid and representative Gwen Moore's (think Aunt Jamima with Downs Syndrome) son, among others. Ended with some probation. It's embarrassing enough we sent Gwen to Washington, as she is confused or insane, I'm not sure which. I think the city just wanted to get her on her way and be done with it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody.

The exit polling done by CNN recently showed that the CLINTON supporters overwhelmingly would be more unhappy if their candidate did not win than the OBAMA supporters...and less likely to support the nominee if it wasn't their candidate.

Leaper,

Thanks for bringing the first bit of good political news I've heard in two weeks!

So Obama supporters like Hillary - they really like her! This runs contrary to every comment, every scrap of info I've read, heard or imagined.

Please provide a link to this story so I might continue to warm my chilly cockles.

[Joemailman]

I was watching the primary coverage on MSNBC. McCain really needs to get out there early and speak before Obama. Obama gives a speech before 18,000 people at the Kohl Center, and then McCain comes on in front of a much smaller, and older crowd to give a rather somber speech. The comparison was striking, and made McCain look very old. Following Obama right now is a tough job.

It's starting to look like the Dem nomination is Obama's to lose. He has over a 100 delegate lead among pledged (elected) delegates. He hasn't won it, but he'd have to screw up to lose it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's starting to look like the Dem nomination is Obama's to lose. He has over a 100 delegate lead among pledged (elected) delegates. He hasn't won it, but he'd have to screw up to lose it.

They are essentially tied in delegates, Clinton nearly closes gap with Super Delegates. They are only around half-way to the number needed to nominate. So the delegate count doesn't tell the story.

I think Obama will win because he has better organization, money, charisma, energy on the ground. That's obvious by his caucus performances. I think Clinton actually has more potential voters than Obama, but she lacks the sales force to solidify them. Obama is up 11 points in Wisconsin, a state the Clinton really should have been competitive in. Obama's people just out-spent and out-hustled Clinton in Maine, there was no reason for him to clobber her there, other than a sustained effort by his staff and followers.

Clinton will still win Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania. But I doubt she'll get the margins she needs, I think all the positive publicity Obama is generating with these February wins will reduce her future margins. But we don't know.

Lets review my predictions so far:
1) I thought Clinton was done after two weeks of bad publicity surrounding S.C. - wrong.
2) I thought Obama would surge and take California - wrong.
3) I thought winnner of CA would roll on to nomination - not looking so good.

So I don't trust my predictions (and I think even less of yours. :D )

[hoosier]

Clinton will still win Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania. But I doubt she'll get the margins she needs, I think all the positive publicity Obama is generating with these February wins will reduce her future margins. But we don't know.

If she wins those three how does she NOT get the nomination, or at least create a brokered convention? Granted, most Dem primaries aren't winner take all, but if she takes those big three what's left at this point for Obama?

[SkinBasket]

Clinton will still win Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania. But I doubt she'll get the margins she needs, I think all the positive publicity Obama is generating with these February wins will reduce her future margins. But we don't know.

If she wins those three how does she NOT get the nomination, or at least create a brokered convention? Granted, most Dem primaries aren't winner take all, but if she takes those big three what's left at this point for Obama?

Hillary is fucked in texas, Harlan. They split the delegates by county or district or whatever little units they use down there in Texas. The black people are going to vote Obama. The black people live in the heavily populated areas with more delegates. Hillary may win the majority of the land mass, but ol' Barak's taking home more Texas delegates than she is. In fact, it may be a southern slaughter for Hillary's white House dreams.

[Joemailman]

Hillary's problem in Texas and Ohio is that they are open primaries, so Independents and even Republicans can vote in the Dem primary. Last night in Virginia, 22% of the voters were Ind., and they went 7-3 for Obama.

Obama is making inroads in every demographis. The only group Hillary has left is white women. Last night in Virginia, 57% of the voters in the Dem primary were women, and Hillary still got clobbered. I think the only thing that can save her now is dirt on Obama.

[SkinBasket]

I think the only thing that can save her now is dirt on Obama.

If you mean killing him and burying him, you may be right. Even some unsavory history probably isn't enough to get the job done at this point.

[Patler]

The only group Hillary has left is white women. Last night in Virginia, 57% of the voters in the Dem primary were women, and Hillary still got clobbered.

Clinton's hold on a large portion of the white-female voting group has always been a bit tenuous, almost as if many were looking for a reason not to vote for her. Some polls indicate a strong, consistent shift toward Obama among white females. Your stats from Virginia give credence to that, although I'm not sure that Virgina was ever considered a strongly pro-Clinton area.

I think Clinton is starting to panic, not emotionally, but politically. She shelved Bill and replaced her campaign manager. Clearly she felt that what she was doing was failing, and significant changes were needed. That usually is not good for any campaign in midstream.

[Harlan Huckleby]

dp

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Clinton is starting to panic, not emotionally, but politically. She shelved Bill and replaced her campaign manager.

shelving Bill is not a panic move. the shift in leadership is no giant deal either, she had two senior campaign leaders that were in conflict.

I don't think the problem is strategy, they are simply outresourced by the Obama people. Obama has more volunteers and paid staff. That is a reflection of his popularity, but also the passion of his true beleivers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama is making inroads in every demographis. The only group Hillary has left is white women.

I think you are overreacting to the Potomoc primaries, a region where Obama is wildly popular.

I wouldn't bury the old girl yet. If she gets a large margin in the big three states, she can pull ahead. Who knows what kind of edge she can get in the Super Delegates? 100? 200? A lot of party regulars think Hillary would make a more effective president than Barack. And lastly, don't be shocked if there is a vote in Florida & Michigan, two states where she is likely to pick up net delegates. They really need to deal with that situation.
(And I've heard that much of the committee leadership in the Democratic Party,like the credentials committee, consists of former Clinton Administration people. Sweet. :lol: )

I still give Clinton a 30% chance of getting the nomination.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Clinton will still win Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania. But I doubt she'll get the margins she needs, I think all the positive publicity Obama is generating with these February wins will reduce her future margins. But we don't know.

If she wins those three how does she NOT get the nomination, or at least create a brokered convention? Granted, most Dem primaries aren't winner take all, but if she takes those big three what's left at this point for Obama?

Hillary is fucked in texas, Harlan. They split the delegates by county or district or whatever little units they use down there in Texas. The black people are going to vote Obama. The black people live in the heavily populated areas with more delegates. Hillary may win the majority of the land mass, but ol' Barak's taking home more Texas delegates than she is. In fact, it may be a southern slaughter for Hillary's white House dreams.

ever hear of hispanics? they are sort of like negroes, but talk faster.

[Patler]

I think Clinton is starting to panic, not emotionally, but politically. She shelved Bill and replaced her campaign manager.

shelving Bill is not a panic move. the shift in leadership is no giant deal either, she had two senior campaign leaders that were in conflict.

I don't think the problem is strategy, they are simply outresourced by the Obama people. Obama has more volunteers and paid staff. That is a reflection of his popularity, but also the passion of his true beleivers.

Silencing her husband, a former President, as a key campaigner is a fairly drastic step.

Every candidate always has several senior advisers, and smart candidates have advisers of differing viewpoints between which they pick and choose in outlining strategy. However, replacing the one "in charge" is a definite significant event, especially if, as you say, the two were in conflict.

So why does Clinton lag Obama in paid staff? For a long time she outpaced him in contributions, and has raised over $100 million. Paid staff should be no problem.

Volunteer staff is another issue. If a major candidate can't drum up volunteer support, it is a definite indication of a failing campaign.

[MJZiggy]

Clinton will still win Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania. But I doubt she'll get the margins she needs, I think all the positive publicity Obama is generating with these February wins will reduce her future margins. But we don't know.

If she wins those three how does she NOT get the nomination, or at least create a brokered convention? Granted, most Dem primaries aren't winner take all, but if she takes those big three what's left at this point for Obama?

Hillary is fucked in texas, Harlan. They split the delegates by county or district or whatever little units they use down there in Texas. The black people are going to vote Obama. The black people live in the heavily populated areas with more delegates. Hillary may win the majority of the land mass, but ol' Barak's taking home more Texas delegates than she is. In fact, it may be a southern slaughter for Hillary's white House dreams.

ever hear of hispanics? they are sort of like negroes, but talk faster.

She pissed off the hispanics when she switched campaign managers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Silencing her husband, a former President, as a key campaigner is a fairly drastic step.

he's travelling and speaking as much as ever, he just plays nice.


Every candidate always has several senior advisers, and smart candidates have advisers of differing viewpoints between which they pick and choose in outlining strategy. However, replacing the one "in charge" is a definite significant event, especially if, as you say, the two were in conflict.

I don't think the replaced woman (hispanic lady) was senior to the "new" gal. The new gal has been Hillary's chief of staff since Arkansas days. The hispanic woman and african american woman were in a co-leadership role.


So why does Clinton lag Obama in paid staff? For a long time she outpaced him in contributions, and has raised over $100 million. Paid staff should be no problem.

Clinton spent like the election would be won Feb 5. I read this is the reason that the Hispanic woman was demoted, she had her finger more on the finances. Hillary found out that the finances were shaky after New Hampshire. Also, Obama has been raising more money in 2008.



Volunteer staff is another issue. If a major candidate can't drum up volunteer support, it is a definite indication of a failing campaign.

Its not a case that Clinton is doing a bad job with volunteers or enthusiasm. It's more that the Obama Machine is a real phenomena that is hard for mere mortals to match.

[Patler]

Clinton spent like the election would be won Feb 5. I read this is the reason that the Hispanic woman was demoted, she had her finger more on the finances. Hillary found out that the finances were shaky after New Hampshire. Also, Obama has been raising more money in 2008.


Interesting on the Clinton finances. I had not heard that slant on the "demotion".

The amount of money pouring in to both campaigns, and particularly to Obama recently, is really quite staggering.

[MJZiggy]

They should pour some into my campaign. I won't even make promises I can't keep. I promise. 8-)

[swede]

Tyrone will vouch for you there, Zig.

[Harlan Huckleby]

She pissed off the hispanics when she switched campaign managers.

nah, that was just a little dust-up. I found it kind of funny that an African-American woman wins a power struggle with an Hispanic woman, and questions of ethnic descrimination are in the air.

IT reminded me of that Monty Python movie "Life of Brian" where the Judean People's Revolutionary Front are in a deadly power struggle with the People's Revolutionary Front of Judea.

[SkinBasket]

Clinton will still win Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania. But I doubt she'll get the margins she needs, I think all the positive publicity Obama is generating with these February wins will reduce her future margins. But we don't know.

If she wins those three how does she NOT get the nomination, or at least create a brokered convention? Granted, most Dem primaries aren't winner take all, but if she takes those big three what's left at this point for Obama?

Hillary is fucked in texas, Harlan. They split the delegates by county or district or whatever little units they use down there in Texas. The black people are going to vote Obama. The black people live in the heavily populated areas with more delegates. Hillary may win the majority of the land mass, but ol' Barak's taking home more Texas delegates than she is. In fact, it may be a southern slaughter for Hillary's white House dreams.

ever hear of hispanics? they are sort of like negroes, but talk faster.

And they live in the rural areas moreso than blacks. She can get a bazillion rural hispanic votes and it won't get her shit in delegates. That and Hispanics don't like Hillary nearly as much as she likes to think.

http://www.bbcarchive.org.uk/pmwiki/pub/localphotos/sinking_ship.jpg
AHOY! It be the SS Hillary!

[Harlan Huckleby]

That and Hispanics don't like Hillary nearly as much as she likes to think.

They vote for her about 70%. That's affectionate enough.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Knocked Off Balance, Clinton Campaign Tries to Regain Its Stride
By PATRICK HEALY and KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: February 14, 2008

SAN ANTONIO — The Texas and Ohio presidential primaries, on March 4, have become must-win contests for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, her advisers say. So why is she just opening campaign field offices across those states?
The primary in Pennsylvania, on April 22, is also a crucial battleground. So why is her campaign telling its most prominent supporter there, Gov. Edward G. Rendell, that there is not enough money now for his proposed piece of direct mail to voters?

And the Maine caucuses on Sunday were the one recent contest that Mrs. Clinton had hoped to win. So why did the campaign of her rival, Senator Barack Obama, have better political and Internet operations to energize its supporters there? (Mr. Obama won Maine.)

The answers go to the heart of Mrs. Clinton’s current political challenge. She and her team showered so much money, attention and other resources on Iowa, New Hampshire and some of the 22-state nominating contests on Feb. 5 that they have been caught flat-footed — or worse — in the critical contests that followed, her political advisers said.

She also made a strategic decision to skip several small states holding caucuses, states where Mr. Obama scored big victories, accumulating delegates and, possibly, momentum.

Her heavy spending and relatively modest fund-raising in January compounded the problems, leaving the campaign ill-equipped to plan after Feb. 5, advisers and donors say.

“It sure didn’t look like they had a game plan after Super Tuesday,” Mr. Rendell said in an interview on Wednesday. “What I would have done, knowing the line-up, I would’ve picked one or two states to make an all-out effort, whether Maine or Washington State or you name it, to really try to stop the Obama momentum.”

While Clinton fund-raising has rebounded, to about $1 million a day, her advisers acknowledge that Mr. Obama has been taking money in at a faster clip since January. They say his recent money advantage is one reason he was able to build stronger organizations and spend more on advertising than she did in several states this winter.

Several Clinton donors put the blame on the campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, and said that Ms. Doyle’s shortcomings as a long-range planner was a factor that led her to be replaced on Sunday by another longtime Clinton aide, Maggie Williams.

But Clinton aides said they were confident they would have enough money to prevail in Ohio and Texas. They plan to open a campaign headquarters in Austin this weekend, and to open field offices soon; more than 100 staff members have been redeployed to Texas.

They have a campaign headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, and are opening field offices now; an Ohio spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said there were staff members working in the state’s 18 Congressional districts.

Still, after eight straight losses by Mrs. Clinton since Feb. 5, and with finances only now stabilizing, the campaign is scrambling to build up its forces in both states. On Tuesday afternoon, it sent an urgent request for help to volunteers in California, New York and other states that have already voted, asking people to travel to Texas and Ohio “to spread Hillary’s message and help her win.”

“We are setting up field offices and are looking for volunteers to travel into these states and spend as much time as they can,” the campaign e-mail request stated. “Every phone call made and every person on the ground makes all the difference.”

The message did not mention assistance with travel costs.

If the Clinton organization appears a little improvisational, a review of its recent performances suggests that Mrs. Clinton was outmaneuvered by Mr. Obama, who won some of his victories by margins of two to one.

In Idaho, for example, Mr. Obama’s campaign started setting up nearly a year before the Feb. 5 caucus. By the day of the caucus, he had five offices in the state and 20 paid staff members. A few days before, Mr. Obama himself showed up in Boise, drawing 14,000 people to the Taco Bell Arena, the biggest in the state.

Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, sent one of her supporters, Senator Maria Cantwell of neighboring Washington State, to drop by just before the caucuses.

“Idahoans are not used to having attention paid, so when someone does, it’s a huge deal,” said Chuck Oxley, a spokesman for the state’s Democratic Party. Turnout in Idaho was four times what it was in 2000. Mr. Obama won Idaho by 62 percentage points and took most delegates.

In Minnesota, “the Clinton campaign was in triage mode,” said Lawrence Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. He said Mrs. Clinton appeared to have allocated her dwindling resources to New York and California, the biggest prizes in the Feb. 5 contests (and which she won), investing almost nothing in media advertising in Minnesota and leaving her campaign there “like a M.A.S.H. unit.”

At the same time, Mr. Jacobs said, Mr. Obama “had developed almost a new style of campaigning.”

“He merges modern campaign technology — he has the list of names, the follow-up effort, all the literature distribution — with these phenomenal rock-arena political revivals,” Mr. Jacobs said. “In a caucus state, it’s formidable.”

Mr. Obama won Minnesota by 34 percentage points.

In Washington State, Cathy Allen, a longtime Democratic strategist working for Mrs. Clinton, said the Clinton campaign had worked hard.

“Our people were there,” Ms. Allen said of caucus day, which was Saturday. “We got more of our people out than ever. They just did more.”

Mr. Obama won Washington by 36 percentage points.

Three months before the North Dakota caucuses on Feb. 5, the Obama campaign dispatched a staff member there to begin organizing. The campaign quickly expanded to include 11 full-time staff members, including one person solely for media outreach. And in Utah, in preparation for Feb. 5, Mr. Obama opened an office months before Mrs. Clinton did, said Rob Miller, the vice chairman of the Utah Democratic Party.

“Hillary did not set foot in the state of Utah,” Mr. Miller said.

Mr. Obama won both states.

In Maine, Arden Manning, chairman of the state’s Democratic Party, attributed Mr. Obama’s victory by almost 20 percentage points in Sunday’s caucuses to his superior organization, despite Mrs. Clinton’s apparent advantages with the state’s demographics of older, blue-collar, lower-income voters.

“A lot of the credit for what happened here goes to the Obama campaign, a grass-roots campaign, that was very well organized, with precinct captains and precinct leaders getting people out,” Mr. Manning said.

In addition, the Obama campaign was more adept at using the Internet.

“I got very little from the Clinton side,” said Amy Fried, a political scientist at the University of Maine, who signed up on both campaigns’ Web sites to compare them. “But I got a lot from Obama, urging me to come in and work and telling me about events, just giving me lots more.”

Mrs. Clinton has had her own share of big victories, like Arizona, California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Tennessee. Yet given the strong lead that she held in national opinion polls for much of 2007, and the image of inevitability that her campaign pushed so ardently, her organizational weaknesses — starting with her third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses — have been notable.

Guy Cecil, Mrs. Clinton’s field director, told reporters on Wednesday that Mrs. Clinton would not be outmatched again, committing to opening offices and dispatching staff not only to Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, but also other battlegrounds to come, like Kentucky, Mississippi and even Puerto Rico, which holds the final contest on June 7.

“We are recommitting and redoubling our efforts to not only have the best candidate in the race, but also have the most effective and largest grass-roots effort in the states going forward,” Mr. Cecil said.

While both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are only now expanding their operations in Texas and Ohio, some Clinton advisers expressed concern that she did not have a head start, given the importance of the two states.

Some Clinton allies and donors worry that Mrs. Clinton has left herself vulnerable after losing so many recent contests, but the candidate herself sounded cockier about her political fortunes on Wednesday than she has in recent memory.

At a news conference in McAllen, on the Mexican border, she noted that “the depth and breadth of my support is obvious” in South Texas.

“I want to congratulate Senator Obama on his recent victories and tell him to meet me in Texas — we’re ready,” Mrs. Clinton said.

[Harlan Huckleby]

That article explains very well why Clinton has done so poorly. They ran out of gas after Super Tuesday.

I think Clinton needs to pull an upset in Wisconsin to get back into contention. Otherwise they have to simmer in the juices of defeat for three weeks. Maybe her campaign is coming around to this view too, but it may be too late. Hillary's not appearing in WI until Saturday.

My waitress at a diner today said, "I think Obama will be good on health care becasue of his experience with his mom dying of cancer." (That is from the Obama TV ad that has been playing in WI) TV ads work.

[Joemailman]

Clinton is running an ad in Wisconsin calling out Obama for not agreeing to a debate in Wisconsin. I don't think the ad works with her being in Texas instead of Wisconsin when the ad is running. If she really wants to make an issue of it, she should be spending some time here. Maybe she just figures Texas has more super delegates, and she does better with them than she does with the voters.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Clinton is running an ad in Wisconsin calling out Obama for not agreeing to a debate in Wisconsin.

I haven't seen that ad, but I think its a good idea. I would do some sort of funny ad that catches people's attention rather than directly complaining. People can conclude that Obama is being evasive all on their own, and if the ad is clever it would get mentioned by media. The local press has nothing else to talk about, this is the quietest, most one-sided "battle" I've ever seen.

Obama has good commercials and they are everywhere.


Maybe she just figures Texas has more super delegates, and she does better with them than she does with the voters.

She's done well with the voters, she's been whacked when counting dedicated loyalists. I read that only 1% of registered democrats participated in the Washington State caucus.
I suspect Clinton would have rolled easily to the nomination if the voters selected delegates in every state. It could be that Obama has built a popular wave now, though, not sure.

I won't be shocked if Obama wins every remaining primary. But also think its still possible for Clinton to get nomination.

[Freak Out]

When the fuck do you folks vote or caucus or whatever the hell you do in the land of the green and gold?

[Harlan Huckleby]

When the fuck do you folks vote or caucus or whatever the hell you do in the land of the green and gold?

We have an unusual system in Wisconsin where they have a different day for different candidates. Clinton voters go to the polls next Tuesday, Obama supporters should report on Wednesday.

[swede]

When the fuck do you folks vote or caucus or whatever the hell you do in the land of the green and gold?

We have an unusual system in Wisconsin where they have a different day for different candidates. Clinton voters go to the polls next Tuesday, Obama supporters should report on Wednesday.

Get up, get out of here, GONE! Huckleby hit that one WAY out of here, folks!

[Freak Out]

When the fuck do you folks vote or caucus or whatever the hell you do in the land of the green and gold?

We have an unusual system in Wisconsin where they have a different day for different candidates. Clinton voters go to the polls next Tuesday, Obama supporters should report on Wednesday.

:lol:
Do you think the Obama supporters are paying attention?

[Harlan Huckleby]

a lot of Obama supporters are first time voters, it's important to help the next generation.


I didn't vote until I was about 30. (Guess I didn't know how to get to polling location from mom & dad's house. :) )

[Joemailman]

Clinton is running an ad in Wisconsin calling out Obama for not agreeing to a debate in Wisconsin.

I haven't seen that ad, but I think its a good idea. I would do some sort of funny ad that catches people's attention rather than directly complaining. People can conclude that Obama is being evasive all on their own, and if the ad is clever it would get mentioned by media. The local press has nothing else to talk about, this is the quietest, most one-sided "battle" I've ever seen.

Obama has good commercials and they are everywhere.

I thought the Clinton ad was mediocre. It wasn't funny, but not very nasty either. I saw it on MSNBC. I'm not sure where it's actually running locally.


Maybe she just figures Texas has more super delegates, and she does better with them than she does with the voters.

She's done well with the voters, she's been whacked when counting dedicated loyalists. I read that only 1% of registered democrats participated in the Washington State caucus.
I suspect Clinton would have rolled easily to the nomination if the voters selected delegates in every state. It could be that Obama has built a popular wave now, though, not sure.

I won't be shocked if Obama wins every remaining primary. But also think its still possible for Clinton to get nomination.

Obama leads in the popular vote 9.3 to 8.6 million without Florida; 9.9 to 9.5 million with Florida.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama leads in the popular vote 9.3 to 8.6 million without Florida; 9.9 to 9.5 million with Florida.

ya, but a popular vote wasn't taken in half the states.

to change the subject, electability is hard to measure by a national poll comparing Clinton or Obama with McCain. Obama's numbers are bolstered by non-democrats in red states that are useless votes. What matters most is which candidate can win big swing states like Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, etc.

[Joemailman]

The total includes the popular vote in all but 4 caucus states. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[Harlan Huckleby]

The total includes the popular vote in all but 4 caucus states. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

what does "popular vote in a caucus state" mean? there is no popular vote, just caucus voters counting as popular vote, I suppose. the caucus voters are not good indicators of true popular support. they exaggerate Obama's edge.

Clinton would have a lot of delegate momentum after Super Tuesday if Obama hadn't picked-up such a trove of caucus delegates. It would be a very different race.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I heard on Air America that John Edwards will be in WI Saturday to endorse Clinton.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Though he sometimes aligned himself with Obama — and against Clinton — as a candidate, several Edwards campaign insiders say the former senator began to sour on Obama toward the end of his own campaign, and ultimately left the race questioning whether Obama had the toughness needed to prevail in a presidential race.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4281404&page=1

[Harlan Huckleby]

Wisconsin Should Be a Showdown
The case for expecting Clinton to thrive in the green-eyeshade state.
By Jeff Greenfield, Friday, Feb. 15, 2008

On the night she fell victim to Potomac primary fever, Hillary Clinton was in El Paso, Texas. Her campaign promised that the Lone Star State, along with Ohio, would make March 4 the day Obamamentum was stopped in its tracks.

No mention of Wisconsin, where Barack Obama was that night and where the last primary before the March 4 showdown will be held on Tuesday. Why not?

Judging by the state's demographics and by its political history, Wisconsin ought to be prime territory for a strong Clinton showing. Indeed, its potential for Hillary is so promising that it's worth pondering whether the "on to Texas and Ohio!" battle cry of her campaign might be one huge head fake, designed to turn a strong Clinton showing—much less a victory—into one of those "Oh my God, what a shocker!" reactions that changes the whole tenor of the political conversation. Clinton is spending three days in Wisconsin before the vote, but her campaign says that's to ensure she gets as many delegates as possible, avoiding the kind of blowout that has cost her in the delegate count since Super Tuesday.

Obama is supposed to win Wisconsin because it's the home of modern progressivism, not to mention a perennially juiced-up student population and ground zero for the kind of "challenge to the system" campaign that Obama exemplifies. Well, yes and no. It's true that Madison—the home of the University of Wisconsin, where I more or less studied some time ago—is a town that appears at times to search the world for sister-city compacts it can form with leftist nations. And Wisconsin is the state that, a century ago, Gov. and then Sen. Robert La Follette turned into a laboratory for ideas like workers' compensation and the income tax that helped inspire the New Deal.

But that's only one side of the state. At the end of the 20th century, Wisconsin's principal political ideas were tax cuts, school choice, and welfare reform, championed by long-serving Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson. The state has been far more purple than blue in recent presidential elections: Gore beat Bush by only 5,000 votes in 2000; four years later, John Kerry edged out Bush by 1 percent of the vote.

Even within the Democratic Party, there's more complexity than unvarnished liberalism. Sen. Herbert Kohl votes a moderate-to-liberal line, according to the Almanac of American Politics; he supported the Bush tax cuts in 2001. Russ Feingold is rightly regarded as an ardent liberal on matters such as civil liberties and foreign policy, but he's also a deficit hawk and has angered liberals with votes to confirm John Ashcroft as attorney general and John Roberts as chief justice. (And remember Sen. William Proxmire, who during his long service from the late 1950s to the late 1980s invented the "Golden Fleece" awards for wasteful federal spending projects—the sort of award more likely to warm the hearts of the Chamber of Commerce than the AFL-CIO.) That kind of green-eyeshade liberalism seems well-suited to a figure like Clinton, who stresses her credentials as a detail-oriented, policy-wonk problem solver.

In Wisconsin, according to exit polls from the 2004 presidential primary, 57 percent of the voters called themselves moderates or conservatives. Seventy-five percent had incomes of $75,000 a year or less; 50 percent earned less than $50,000 a year. A third of the voters were Catholic. More than half had no college education and more than one in five were union members. This is the kind of electorate Clinton is counting on in Ohio and, in April, in Pennsylvania, because it's the electorate that favored her up until Obama's big victories in Maryland and Virginia.

True, there are countervailing factors. Wisconsin is a wide-open primary, and with John McCain now the presumptive nominee, independent and Republican crossovers may weigh in on the Democratic side of the ticket. (They made up nearly 30 percent of the 2004 primary vote.) Obama has the support of Gov. Jim Doyle and—perhaps more significant—the support of longtime Rep. David Obey, originally a John Edwards backer. Obey has been one of the strongest voices against the free-trade policies that so anger the unions.

But if the hopes of Sen. Clinton rest on the votes of white working-class voters, Wisconsin ought to be fertile ground for a campaign reset. Conversely, if Obama can produce another February blowout—in a primary state with a tiny African-American population—that will tell us something as well. After all, if Clinton cannot rally the beer-drinking Democrats in the state that gave us Pabst, Schlitz, and Miller, where can she?

[BF4MVP]

I got to meet Barack Obama today!

I was on the floor in the second row, about 10 feet from the stage..At the end of his speech, he went around to shake hands and talk with people. I really wanted his autograph so I took out my ticket and a pen..One of his secret service guys told me "put the pen away. He's got one." Then Barack got to me shook my hand and I asked him if he could sign my ticket..He smiled and said "I can't, because everybody's got one. I'd never get outta here." I told him that I understood, but now I'm pissed at myself because I was thinking about bringing my copy of his book..I'm convinced that he would have signed that, but I had no idea I would get so close and would get a chance to meet him.

As it is though, I am pumped that I got an opportunity to shake hands with, and talk to, the next president of the United States :D

[Joemailman]

Were you wearing Packer apparel? If so, that might explain why you didn't get an autograph.http://newsbusters.org/media/2006-12-12-NBCTodayObama.jpg

[BF4MVP]

Nope, I was wearing a UWGB sweatshirt 8-)

He did admit to the crowd that he was a Bears fan though..But then he said something like "But you wouldn't want a candidate telling you he was a Packers fan when he was a Bears fan, would you?...You've gotta stick with your team. Even when they don't break .500, and they don't make the playoffs, and they make you want to pull your hair out." Then he told us that he talked to Brady Poppinga (Poppinga was in the audience, that's how the whole thing started) about possibly letting the Bears have Brett Favre for a couple years because the Packers have had him for a long time, and Brady told him no..haha..

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why is Huckabee still in the race? The theory that he's running for VP has lost credibility, he's criticizing McCain sharply. I don't mind him staying in the race since he's not playing the role of spoiler now. But it is curious. Maybe he thinks he is building support for a future presidential election, but he's pissing off at least as many Republicans as he is attracting.

McCain has a very untimely (for him) 72nd birthday in late August. I expect the Democrats are going to have one giant birthday party for him. Hats, noisemakers, the works.

[Freak Out]

...and here I was thinking Powell might team with McCain.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/could_obama_be_colin_powells_c.html

[Partial]

History has shown time and time again that having a strong economy and having businesses thrive is necessary for a high quality of life for the majority of citizens. High quality of life is not necessarily achieved when a strong economy exists (industrial revolution), but it has shown that the only time it is possible is when business is strong.

With that in mind, how can anyone support a regime that has historically placed tariffs and high, unnecessary "innovation" taxes on companies, and penalizes those who provide jobs?!?

Miller indirectly came out and said they're going to leave Milwaukee for a place with lower taxes and lower cost of living than Milwaukee. Look for them to end up in taxes where they can trim 6% off their operating cost due to no state income tax, as well as being able to pay their employees 20% less to compensate for the lower cost of living.

Where is the line drawn?!? What happens when all the big employers say screw Milwaukee or Chicago and their high taxes and high cost of live and move to where they can operate for significantly less?

With all the "innovation" tax floating around these days, what would happen if the 50 biggest corporations decided they are going to shut down business, and they are going to take their money and go home because it isn't worth it to pay 40-50% of their income to the government. These people work their tales off and give the greatest thing back to society of all: Jobs! What would happen if they just closed up shop and said screw the millions of people who would immediately be unemployed. Would people vote for the democrats and their big government then?!?

Obama and Hillary Clinton are two of the biggest tools around. Obama should know better than to pump more money into the ghettos being a former social worker. He knows first hand where that money goes. They're both going to raise taxes to the point that the 50k a year worker ends up paying for health care twice to support those who don't want to work hard. I for one have no desire to ever see my income taxed 40-50%, especially when I will not see any additional benefits out of it.

A fact that says it all about Obama is that 85% of people who do not have a high school diploma voted for him. All these uneducated people think the Dems are the next coming of christ because they make all these grand promises to improve their life on average Joe's dollar.

I am not convinced that all these democratic supporters are intelligent enough to know how an economy works or have ever taken an economics class. Clearly they are more concerned with social issues than with the big picture. Personally, I don't think gay rights or the right to get an abortion are going to mean a whole lot when there aren't any jobs available and the standard of living has gone down the toilet.

Make the right choice on Tuesday and vote for minimal government, minimum taxation, and minimum spending.

[Harlan Huckleby]

...and here I was thinking Powell might team with McCain.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/could_obama_be_colin_powells_c.html

It's begun. I'm telling you, the black people will be slitting our throats while we sleep if we let them get a toehold. First Obama gets in, then all the rest of them will be taking over. Fight back, Caucasion Warriors!

[Freak Out]

History has shown time and time again that having a strong economy and having businesses thrive is necessary for a high quality of life for the majority of citizens. High quality of life is not necessarily achieved when a strong economy exists (industrial revolution), but it has shown that the only time it is possible is when business is strong.

With that in mind, how can anyone support a regime that has historically placed tariffs and high, unnecessary "innovation" taxes on companies, and penalizes those who provide jobs?!?

Miller indirectly came out and said they're going to leave Milwaukee for a place with lower taxes and lower cost of living than Milwaukee. Look for them to end up in taxes where they can trim 6% off their operating cost due to no state income tax, as well as being able to pay their employees 20% less to compensate for the lower cost of living.

Where is the line drawn?!? What happens when all the big employers say screw Milwaukee or Chicago and their high taxes and high cost of live and move to where they can operate for significantly less?

With all the "innovation" tax floating around these days, what would happen if the 50 biggest corporations decided they are going to shut down business, and they are going to take their money and go home because it isn't worth it to pay 40-50% of their income to the government. These people work their tales off and give the greatest thing back to society of all: Jobs! What would happen if they just closed up shop and said screw the millions of people who would immediately be unemployed. Would people vote for the democrats and their big government then?!?

Obama and Hillary Clinton are two of the biggest tools around. Obama should know better than to pump more money into the ghettos being a former social worker. He knows first hand where that money goes. They're both going to raise taxes to the point that the 50k a year worker ends up paying for health care twice to support those who don't want to work hard. I for one have no desire to ever see my income taxed 40-50%, especially when I will not see any additional benefits out of it.

A fact that says it all about Obama is that 85% of people who do not have a high school diploma voted for him. All these uneducated people think the Dems are the next coming of christ because they make all these grand promises to improve their life on average Joe's dollar.

I am not convinced that all these democratic supporters are intelligent enough to know how an economy works or have ever taken an economics class. Clearly they are more concerned with social issues than with the big picture. Personally, I don't think gay rights or the right to get an abortion are going to mean a whole lot when there aren't any jobs available and the standard of living has gone down the toilet.

Make the right choice on Tuesday and vote for minimal government, minimum taxation, and minimum spending.

I'm going to use my mighty liberal intellect to tell you to....go fuck yourself.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama should know better than to pump more money into the ghettos being a former social worker.

That's what I'm talking about! The negroes are coming! The negroes are coming!

[Partial]

History has shown time and time again that having a strong economy and having businesses thrive is necessary for a high quality of life for the majority of citizens. High quality of life is not necessarily achieved when a strong economy exists (industrial revolution), but it has shown that the only time it is possible is when business is strong.

With that in mind, how can anyone support a regime that has historically placed tariffs and high, unnecessary "innovation" taxes on companies, and penalizes those who provide jobs?!?

Miller indirectly came out and said they're going to leave Milwaukee for a place with lower taxes and lower cost of living than Milwaukee. Look for them to end up in taxes where they can trim 6% off their operating cost due to no state income tax, as well as being able to pay their employees 20% less to compensate for the lower cost of living.

Where is the line drawn?!? What happens when all the big employers say screw Milwaukee or Chicago and their high taxes and high cost of live and move to where they can operate for significantly less?

With all the "innovation" tax floating around these days, what would happen if the 50 biggest corporations decided they are going to shut down business, and they are going to take their money and go home because it isn't worth it to pay 40-50% of their income to the government. These people work their tales off and give the greatest thing back to society of all: Jobs! What would happen if they just closed up shop and said screw the millions of people who would immediately be unemployed. Would people vote for the democrats and their big government then?!?

Obama and Hillary Clinton are two of the biggest tools around. Obama should know better than to pump more money into the ghettos being a former social worker. He knows first hand where that money goes. They're both going to raise taxes to the point that the 50k a year worker ends up paying for health care twice to support those who don't want to work hard. I for one have no desire to ever see my income taxed 40-50%, especially when I will not see any additional benefits out of it.

A fact that says it all about Obama is that 85% of people who do not have a high school diploma voted for him. All these uneducated people think the Dems are the next coming of christ because they make all these grand promises to improve their life on average Joe's dollar.

I am not convinced that all these democratic supporters are intelligent enough to know how an economy works or have ever taken an economics class. Clearly they are more concerned with social issues than with the big picture. Personally, I don't think gay rights or the right to get an abortion are going to mean a whole lot when there aren't any jobs available and the standard of living has gone down the toilet.

Make the right choice on Tuesday and vote for minimal government, minimum taxation, and minimum spending.

I'm going to use my mighty liberal intellect to tell you to....go fuck yourself.

Really good logic there... Typical liberal. You cower away with a mean spirited statement instead of addressing the issue head on.

[Freak Out]

I am not convinced that all these democratic supporters are intelligent enough to know how an economy works or have ever taken an economics class.

This is not mean spirited?

[Freak Out]

And when you say Miller you must be talking about http://www.sabmiller.com/sabmiller.com/en_gb/News+and+media/News+releases/Group+news/SABMiller+and+Molson+Coors+to+combine+U.S.+operati ons+in+joint+venture.htm

It's to bad the high taxes and the high cost of living are forcing them out of business.

[Partial]

Right, they are choosing a neutral third party site. They won't outright say it, but it is to the high cost of living and the high taxes in both states.

[pacfan]

I have to say that fiscal responsibility isn't something the Republicans should be toting right now. Labeling Democrats and as the ony party that expands government and government spending is ignoring the last 8 years of federal spending.

[sooner6600]

We all know that left leaning liberal types have Wisconsin and Colorado
by the short hairs.

I would move it all to Ft Worth where Miller has a almost modern
brewery.

Texas has no income tax; but a heavy sales tax.


Sooner;

Where can I get some good cheap Linnie's?

[Partial]

I have to say that fiscal responsibility isn't something the Republicans should be toting right now. Labeling Democrats and as the ony party that expands government and government spending is ignoring the last 8 years of federal spending.

Agreed. The republicans of today are not as conservative as I'd like.

The post below the quoted one is dead on. They'll move to Texas. Business' are exempt from sales tax for business related expenses.

Cost of living is exponentially cheaper. My house is worth only slight less than a good friend of mine's from Austin that is a mansion with several pools, 2 waterfalls, and a brand new gorgeous all brick palace.

[Joemailman]

Delivered lots of Hillary mail on my route today.
Should I vote for her because she's helping my job security?
Also got phone messages from McCain and from Tommy Thompson
on behalf of McCain.
My union has invited me to a Hillary event in Wausau tomorrow.
I might go just to see what it's like.

[digitaldean]

Obama just announced a stop at Kaukauna High School Sunday. It's about 4 miles from my place and might just make it out there.

McCain and Huckabee are going to be in Appleton Monday. Hoping to see one of them too if possible.

Though I am not a Democrat, this election is theirs to lose. With the lack of a real dynamic candidate that be substantive AND catch people's attention I don't see them winning more than a dozen states in November.

if you go to JSOnline they have a series of videos that Obama and Huckabee had with the Journal editorial board. Most enlightening, I must say.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Delivered lots of Hillary mail on my route today.

good man, you're doing the lord's work.

Listening to Hillary's speech in Milwaukee right now on CSPAN, Obama up next.

Tomorrow is supposed to be Clinton's big Wisconsin campaign day before she leaves Monday morning. Speaking in Madison, Lacrosse, etc.
RIGHT. Like she's gonna be zooming around the state in the middle of a blizzard. Those dopes, puttting all their eggs in a one-day basket.

I don't know why the hell the Clinton campaign has not put in a better effort. Obama is ahead 4 points in the polls lately, that's not much.

[hoosier]

Delivered lots of Hillary mail on my route today.
Should I vote for her because she's helping my job security?
Also got phone messages from McCain and from Tommy Thompson
on behalf of McCain.
My union has invited me to a Hillary event in Wausau tomorrow.
I might go just to see what it's like.

Nah, do what teenagers have been doing with circulars for generations and dump the Hillary mail in the storm sewer.

[Joemailman]

Delivered lots of Hillary mail on my route today.

good man, you're doing the lord's work.

Listening to Hillary's speech in Milwaukee right now on CSPAN, Obama up next.

Tomorrow is supposed to be Clinton's big Wisconsin campaign day before she leaves Monday morning. Speaking in Madison, Lacrosse, etc.
RIGHT. Like she's gonna be zooming around the state in the middle of a blizzard. Those dopes, puttting all their eggs in a one-day basket.

I don't know why the hell the Clinton campaign has not put in a better effort. Obama is ahead 4 points in the polls lately, that's not much.

She'll be appearing about a mile from my house tomorrow. If the forecast is right, she might have to scrap the plane for a snowmobile. I agree she made a mistake in not spending more time in Wisconsin. She needs to stop Obama's momentum. I thought she gave a good speech tonight. Not a rousing speech, but darned effective. I heard a lot of positions staked out in that speech that would be effective in a debate with McCain. Obama's speech was well delivered, but I thought it was more of the same.

[Scott Campbell]

Delivered lots of Hillary mail on my route today.

good man, you're doing the lord's work.


Just like Judas. :D

[Harlan Huckleby]

Watched some Sunday morning talking heads. I don't think the Democrats are in danger of being split over the rules fights, it's already happened.

Governor Doyle says that it will be disaster if the super delegates don't follow pledge delegates, compares to Chicago '68 convention. Ex-Governor Wilder threatens rioting in the streets by blacks if super delegates don't follow pledges. Republican pundit Kate O'Beirne says that the result will be tainted if Obama has even one more pledge delegate, and the supers go other way.

I can't support Obama. The efforts by Obama and his supporters to intimidate the Super Delegates have already invalidated the nomination process. They've made it clear that they are not going to respect the rules if things don't go their way.

The Obamalites make an excellent argument on overall fairness grounds. OF COURSE the voters and caucuses should decide the nomination, anything else leaves a sour taste. The problem is this is an argument against having Super Delegates!! The SD's were created for one reason only: to act independently and vote their conciences. They are supposed to be knowledgable people looking out for the party interests. I think on balance Super Delegates are a bad idea, precisely because of what we see this year. But too late to change the rules now.

I would have no problem with the Obamalites arguing that the Super Delegates should strongly weigh the choice of the voters. This is just common sense. But they've gone well beyond this point, they've made threats.

The issue with Florida & Michigan is much the same. On fairness grounds, OF COURSE it is ridiculous to exclude their delegates, especially since Florida had both Clinton & Obama on the ballot and there was a record turnout. But the agreed rules have to followed, even terribly unwise rules. NO WAY can either of those votes be used to affect the outcome. (There is a way to resolve this problem within the rules - have another primary vote - but for reasons I don't understand that option is not being pursued.) To my knowledge, Clintonites have not said they will not respect the nomination results if those delegates are excluded - that would be crossing the line in my view.

I won't be able to vote for McCain because of the 'R' word. I'll just not vote.

[MJZiggy]

You could always go and write her in on principle...

[Harlan Huckleby]

nah, I would end up voting for Obama and walking home in tears.

[RashanGary]

I've seen many stubborn, irrational right wingers. Maybe I'm sheltered but I've never met a stubborn, irrational liberal. You are the first crazy lib I've met, HH :) And I'd consider myself more conservative than liberal so it's not like I havn't looked for crazy libs.


For fucks sake, just do what you think is right. Is that so hard? And for all of your obama sucks crap, he's the best chance you have because Clinton is an unlikable bitch. The longer she's out there the more I can't stand her and I'm sure I"m not the only one (just look at the polls). She's going to sink herself just being herself.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Any assertive, powerful woman is a bitch. Nancy Pelosi is regularly called a bitch. Hillary is a bitch. MEN DO NOT LIKE ASSERTIVE FEMALE LEADERS. It takes a very, very tough person to successfully run for president.

I prefer to think of Hillary as a Battle Axe. I like that quality, I want a tough person (and an empathetic core.)

Hah! My mom, who dislikes Hillary, says that she was mean to Obama during the debates. :lol: :lol: As if Obama is a little boy, and Hillary is a nasty old lady - she should be sweeter.

The prejudice against women is FAR greater than racial prejudice. We don't think about it much because it is so ingrained. Woman are, after all, very different from men, so it seems reasonable to view them differently.

[RashanGary]

And as an independant voter, I was leaning toward McCain but now I'm damn near ready to pull the lever for Obama for almost no good reason at all except that he seems like the least slippery, lying, corrupt dirt bag that's out there. At least a bunch of his money comes from people who want a black president. I'd rather he owe allegance to them than to big interest lobbiests.

I have almost no confidence in the system. It's supposed to protect the interests of the people, but it ends up protecting special interests. Obama will probably suck too, but he's the guy that I have the least skepticism about and from what I see, that would be enough for me in most elections because I think the majority of candidates of full of shit and on missions other the ones outlines in their lying campaigns.

[RashanGary]

Well, you go on being a good liberal, standing up for the cause of women. For your irrational sake, I hope she wins on superdelegates and takes the party down with her so you can sit around dealing with a shitty fucking health care situation and wish the big bad republicans hadn't won their third term in a row while at the same time wondering how it happened.

Fuck, sometimes you do what you have to do. I can guarantee you having that screechy bitch yelling about the republicans not doing enough in congress isn't going to do a damn thing for the advancement of women. Barack, on the other hand, seems like a guy who could get up and dispell every black stereotype in the book.

[Harlan Huckleby]

what black stereotypes do you think are in need of dispelling?


i don't care about electing a woman or a black. that is of minor importance.

[GrnBay007]

that screechy bitch yelling

LOL!! That just made me laugh.

[Harlan Huckleby]

that screechy bitch yelling

LOL!! That just made me laugh.

you have a screechy laugh, bitch.

[GrnBay007]

that screechy bitch yelling

LOL!! That just made me laugh.

you have a screechy laugh, bitch.

LOL that's funny too!! I've been told my laugh is similar to a cackle. ...whatever that means. :P :D

[Harlan Huckleby]

i think a cackle is hot!

Hillary 08!

[RashanGary]

Oprah would be a good woman candidate. When she believes in something she sounds confident and inspired (not to mention she earned everythign she has and people love that). As a leader, those are good qualities. Hillary sounds rehearsed, uninspired and just unlikable (which speaks more to her electablity that anything else). I just don't see how Hillary does a damn thing for women by getting nominated. It's going to happen some day. With the advancement of baby formula and breast pumps, women (who still perform the life renewing responsiblity of bearing childeren) are far less tied down to the task of nurturing a new born baby. They don't have to give up their job. It will change more and more over time, eventually women will have more power than they have now and now they have more than they had 50 years ago. It's evolving. We don't need Hillary to get up and be the spokeswoman for powerfull women. In fact, I'd say there is a very strong impression that she's riding the coattails of her husband and stuck through life with Bill just so she could have this power. She's hardly a special woman candidate. She's XX verion of a slippery, lying politician who doubles as a walking stereo type that women have to sleep their way to the top.

Barack for now. Give me a great woman candidate and I'll enjoy watching that wall get broken down too.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Barack has many more election cycles where he can run for president.

I am very turned-off by the Obama campaign, it appeals to people who would vote for Oprah for president.

Obama himself - I was against him before the campaign because he doesn't have a good grasp of issues. I'm not talking about just knowledge, his reasoning seemed really raw. There is no reason why he has to be president now. I would have preferred most of the other Dem candidates to Obama.

[GrnBay007]

i think a cackle is hot!

Hillary 08!

horndog!!


:P :wink: :P

[Harlan Huckleby]

I largely agree with this curmudgeon:

The Audacity of Selling Hope
By Charles Krauthammer, Friday, February 15, 2008

There's no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity. Like the genius who figured out how to get people to pay for water: bottle it (Aquafina was revealed to be nothing more than reprocessed tap water) and charge more than they pay for gasoline. Or consider how Google found a way to sell dictionary nouns-- boat, shoe, clock -- by charging advertisers zillions to be listed whenever the word is searched.

And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.

This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity -- salvation -- for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival with, as writer James Wolcott observed, a "salvational fervor" and "idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria."

"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country -- nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."

And believe they do. After eight straight victories -- and two more (Hawaii and Wisconsin) almost certain to follow -- Obama is near to rendering moot all the post-Super Tuesday fretting about a deadlocked convention with unelected superdelegates deciding the nominee. Unless Hillary Clinton can somehow do in Ohio and Texas on March 4 what Rudy Giuliani proved is almost impossible to do -- maintain a big-state firewall after an unrelenting string of smaller defeats -- the superdelegates will flock to Obama. Hope will have carried the day.

Interestingly, Obama has been able to win these electoral victories and dazzle crowds in one new jurisdiction after another, even as his mesmeric power has begun to arouse skepticism and misgivings among the mainstream media.

ABC's Jake Tapper notes the "Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities" of "Obama worshipers," what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls "the Cult of Obama." Obama's Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience -- to such rhetorical nonsense as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek."

That was too much for Time's Joe Klein. "There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism," he wrote. "The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is."

You might dismiss as hyperbole the complaint by the New York Times's Paul Krugman that "the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." Until you hear Chris Matthews, who no longer has the excuse of youth, react to Obama's Potomac primary victory speech with "My, I felt this thrill going up my leg." When his MSNBC co-hosts tried to bail him out, he refused to recant. Not surprising for an acolyte who said that Obama "comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."

I've seen only one similar national swoon. As a teenager growing up in Canada, I witnessed a charismatic law professor go from obscurity to justice minister to prime minister, carried on a wave of what was called Trudeaumania.

But even there the object of his countrymen's unrestrained affections was no blank slate. Pierre Trudeau was already a serious intellectual who had written and thought and lectured long about the nature and future of his country.

Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real and painful trade-offs and that have eluded solution for a generation. Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war -- with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow.

Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude.

[GrnBay007]

While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck
and dies.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a
problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not
sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says
the man.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you
spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend
eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to
be in heaven," says the senator.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down,
down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green
golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all
his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake
his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the
expense of the people.

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and
champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good
time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he
realizes it, it is time to go.

Every one gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is
waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit heaven."

So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls
moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time
and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your
eternity."

The senator reflects for a minute,
then he answers: "Well, I would
never have said it before, I mean
heaven has been delightful, but



I think I would be better off in hell."

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator
and he goes down, down, down to hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land
covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in
rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from
above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't
understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf
course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced
and had a great time. Now
there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.What
happened?"

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning...



Today you voted."

:twisted:

[rdanomly]

I think the author is missing the difference between Obama and recent candidates. The author (and others) are mistaking a messianic atmosphere for someone that listens. I'm for Obama not because he is promising to provide solutions. I'm for him because he seems willing to listen to others and enable them to work toward solutions.

I want to be a part of those solutions. I'm willing to work for that, I don't want someone else to do it for me. Call me young & naive, but the other alternatives seem like more of the same that has gotten our country into the messes we are in now.

That being said, if Hillary somehow does win enough delegates, I'll support her as well.

[Joemailman]

that screechy bitch yelling

LOL!! That just made me laugh.

you have a screechy laugh, bitch.

LOL that's funny too!! I've been told my laugh is similar to a cackle. ...whatever that means. :P :D

Is it something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxZUFzGWzkY&feature=related

[Joemailman]

I largely agree with this curmudgeon:

The Audacity of Selling Hope
By Charles Krauthammer, Friday, February 15, 2008

There's no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity. Like the genius who figured out how to get people to pay for water: bottle it (Aquafina was revealed to be nothing more than reprocessed tap water) and charge more than they pay for gasoline. Or consider how Google found a way to sell dictionary nouns-- boat, shoe, clock -- by charging advertisers zillions to be listed whenever the word is searched.

And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.

This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity -- salvation -- for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival with, as writer James Wolcott observed, a "salvational fervor" and "idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria."

"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country -- nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."

And believe they do. After eight straight victories -- and two more (Hawaii and Wisconsin) almost certain to follow -- Obama is near to rendering moot all the post-Super Tuesday fretting about a deadlocked convention with unelected superdelegates deciding the nominee. Unless Hillary Clinton can somehow do in Ohio and Texas on March 4 what Rudy Giuliani proved is almost impossible to do -- maintain a big-state firewall after an unrelenting string of smaller defeats -- the superdelegates will flock to Obama. Hope will have carried the day.

Interestingly, Obama has been able to win these electoral victories and dazzle crowds in one new jurisdiction after another, even as his mesmeric power has begun to arouse skepticism and misgivings among the mainstream media.

ABC's Jake Tapper notes the "Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities" of "Obama worshipers," what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls "the Cult of Obama." Obama's Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience -- to such rhetorical nonsense as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek."

That was too much for Time's Joe Klein. "There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism," he wrote. "The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is."

You might dismiss as hyperbole the complaint by the New York Times's Paul Krugman that "the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." Until you hear Chris Matthews, who no longer has the excuse of youth, react to Obama's Potomac primary victory speech with "My, I felt this thrill going up my leg." When his MSNBC co-hosts tried to bail him out, he refused to recant. Not surprising for an acolyte who said that Obama "comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."

I've seen only one similar national swoon. As a teenager growing up in Canada, I witnessed a charismatic law professor go from obscurity to justice minister to prime minister, carried on a wave of what was called Trudeaumania.

But even there the object of his countrymen's unrestrained affections was no blank slate. Pierre Trudeau was already a serious intellectual who had written and thought and lectured long about the nature and future of his country.

Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real and painful trade-offs and that have eluded solution for a generation. Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war -- with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow.

Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude.

Anyone who has read Krauthammer the last few years knows he prefers a President who sells fear. Selling hope? We need to be protected from that guy.

[Partial]

I am certainly hoping its "lets hope the hell not" instead of "yes we can"

[Harlan Huckleby]

Anyone who has read Krauthammer the last few years knows he prefers a President who sells fear. Selling hope? We need to be protected from that guy.

Associating Krauthammer with fear serves the same purpose as tagging the hope label to Obama: sway emotions, ignore arguments.

Krauthammer is very conservative, thoughtful & provocative. He can be extreme on foreign policy, but I would never dismiss him. I don't think he has an axe to grind with Obama.

Bill Kristol is another right-wing pundit whose intelligence I respect. He is on the Obama bandwagon, or at least has been promoting his prospects. Kristol says the fall election is going to be focused on national security, and I believe Kristol is pushing Obama because he thinks he will be an easy mark for McCain.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Clinton, Obama Supporters Say Fight May Hurt Party
By Susan Decker

Feb. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Supporters of Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say they are concerned that a protracted Democratic presidential nomination fight over delegates may hurt the party's chance to win in November.

Obama and Clinton are vying for votes before Wisconsin's Feb. 19 primary, and are gearing up for nominating contests in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. With the pledged delegate count close, they are also sparring over whether so-called superdelegates, members of Congress, governors and party leaders, are free to back either candidate.

``The goal is that at the end of the day we don't have such an internecine battle that we lose the general election,'' New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Clinton supporter, said today on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' program. ``We are on the edge of victory here.''

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, an Obama supporter, said that if the convention appears to have been decided ``in the backroom'' by the party elite, ``that isn't any good for the Democratic Party.''

To win the Democratic nomination, a candidate has to receive 2,025 delegates. Obama, an Illinois senator, has accumulated 1,037 pledged Democratic National Convention delegates to Clinton's 953, according to an unofficial tally by thegreenpapers.com, a nonpartisan Web site that compiles election statistics. The count doesn't include the almost 800 superdelegates.

Superdelegates

Clinton has been leading among the superdelegates who've expressed a preference. One, Georgia Congressman John Lewis, a prominent black supporter of Clinton, told the New York Times he now plans to give his vote to Obama.

Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said on CBS's ``Face the Nation,'' today that the campaign isn't losing many of the superdelegates who earlier pledged their support to the former first lady.

``Our superdelegates are staying with us,'' he said. Obama has about a 1 percent lead over Clinton on the delegate count, he said. ``That's essentially a tie.''

Clinton supporter Ohio Governor Ted Strickland said today that his responsibility as a superdelegate is to ``vote my conscience'' if the state primaries and caucuses don't determine the nominee. Wisconsin Governor James Doyle, an Obama supporter and superdelegate, said they should cast their votes for the candidate who gets the most votes in the nominating contests.

`Absolute Disaster'

``It would be an absolute disaster for the Democratic Party for the superdelegates to undo the will of the people who have been selected in the primaries and in the caucuses and by the rules that were set out,'' Doyle said on Fox News Sunday.

The campaigns also continue to clash about allowing delegates from the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries that Clinton won to participate in the nominating convention vote.

The Democratic Party stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates to the convention as punishment for holding votes before the sanctioned date of Feb. 5. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, head of the Democratic National Convention, has said delegates from those states shouldn't decide the nominee.

Clinton supporter Strickland said on Fox that party rules allow the credentials committee at the August convention to make that decision. Allowing the Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated and help choose the nominee is ``basically unfair,'' Obama backer Doyle said. ``The rules are the rules. They were very clear.''

[GrnBay007]

that screechy bitch yelling

LOL!! That just made me laugh.

you have a screechy laugh, bitch.

LOL that's funny too!! I've been told my laugh is similar to a cackle. ...whatever that means. :P :D

Is it something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxZUFzGWzkY&feature=related

Mine is much more authentic! :D

[Harlan Huckleby]

``It would be an absolute disaster for the Democratic Party for the superdelegates to undo the will of the people who have been selected in the primaries and in the caucuses and by the rules that were set out,'' Doyle said on Fox News Sunday.

Doyle's comment set me on the warpath. Well, that and Gov. Wilder talking about blacks rioting in the streets.

Governor Doyle convienently ignores that Superdelegates were created to thwart the elected delegates when they saw fit. Otherwise they would serve no purpose. Superdelgates are part of the rules too.

[Joemailman]

My sense is that the super delegates were created to prevent someone who would have little chance in the general election from getting nominated. But do either Clinton or Obama fall into that category? It's not like Al Sharpton or Michael Moore have a chance at the nomination.

[SkinBasket]

I'm voting for Hillary Tuesday. She's much more defeatable.

[BallHawk]

A fact that says it all about Obama is that 85% of people who do not have a high school diploma voted for him. All these uneducated people think the Dems are the next coming of christ because they make all these grand promises to improve their life on average Joe's dollar.

I am not convinced that all these democratic supporters are intelligent enough to know how an economy works or have ever taken an economics class. Clearly they are more concerned with social issues than with the big picture. Personally, I don't think gay rights or the right to get an abortion are going to mean a whole lot when there aren't any jobs available and the standard of living has gone down the toilet.

1. Show me the statistic.

2. If that stat is true how does it say it all about Obama? Sure maybe it shows that lesser-educated voters are more likely to buy into the "we can change Washington" shtick, but there are plenty of Obama supporters that are blue-collar, non-religious, religious, upper class, etc. That's Obama's strength, he can pull from all demographics (though he is weak with Latinos).

And, last time I checked, Partial, you don't have to be Alan Greenspan to know how the economy works. I don't expect voters to know the economy inside and out. However, voters do know that gas prices are up, the housing market blows, and it's getting financially harder to raise a family.

It's easy for you to sit there on your mighty throne and look down on all the "uneducated voters." However, Partial, most of these people have actually lived life, tried to raise a family, try to pay the bills. You haven't.

[Scott Campbell]

WSJ

Democrats' Attacks
On Business Heat Up
By LAURA MECKLER and KRIS MAHER
February 16, 2008; Page A1

As the Democratic presidential contest moves to the distressed industrial Midwest, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have ratcheted up their antitrade, anticorporate rhetoric.

The candidates have made broad attacks on corporate wealth and tax cuts they say tilt toward the rich, along with more specific attacks against health insurers and oil companies, among other industries. On Friday, Mrs. Clinton began airing a TV spot in Wisconsin in which she says, "The oil companies, the drug companies, have had seven years of a president who stands up for them.... It's time we had a president who stands up for all of you."

Both candidates increasingly sound like former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as they pursue his endorsement and the voters -- particularly union members -- who were drawn to the populist candidate before he dropped out last month. Illinois Sen. Obama got a boost toward that goal Friday with the backing of the Service Employees International Union, one of the most politically powerful labor organizations.

SEIU long was too divided to make a national endorsement, but Mr. Edwards's withdrawal and Mr. Obama's momentum made a choice easier. Now the union has organizers on the ground working for the Obama campaign in Wisconsin, which holds the next primary Tuesday. "It has now become clear the members of our union and the leaders of our union think that it is time to become part of an effort to make Barack Obama the next president of the United States," said Andy Stern, the union's president, during a phone conference with reporters.

One factor in the endorsement is the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and blamed by many unions for sending jobs to Mexico. Sen. Obama has increasingly hit Mrs. Clinton on Nafta.

"People react very strongly against Nafta," said Anna Burger, head of SEIU's political program, in an interview. "We've seen job loss in this country as a result of Nafta. She's speaking out against Nafta now, but she has ties to it. That's been a high hurdle for her to overcome."

Wisconsin offers a test for the antitrade rhetoric, as a state where the number of well-paid manufacturing jobs has steadily declined over the past decade. Two recent polls have given Mr. Obama an edge there, and he is widely expected to carry the state.

Battered Ohio, which votes March 4, offers an even bigger test. It currently stands as the No. 1 state for home foreclosures in progress, with 3.7% of homes with outstanding mortgages affected, according a recent report by National City Corp. in Cleveland. The state is a must-win contest for Mrs. Clinton, who has lost a string of contests to Mr. Obama since Feb. 5. She has a large lead in recent Ohio polls.

Besides wooing voters, both candidates are trying to win favor from Democratic leaders in these states who serve as superdelegates. Superdelegates -- members of Congress and other prominent party figures -- aren't bound by the results of the primaries or caucuses in their states. They could help decide who wins the nomination.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio), one undecided superdelegate, won election in 2006 with a populist message and said he is pleased that the presidential candidates are now following suit. "They were both a bit slow to get there, but they both have genuine beliefs about the middle class and working families and they're going exactly in the right direction," he said.

Business groups are dismissive of the Democratic attacks. "They should be talking about ways to grow the economy such as deregulation and lessening burdens on employers, rather than criticizing them with simplistic politically driven rhetoric," said Randel Johnson, a vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Obama's growing backing from labor leaders may help him more with the working-class voters being wooed by those appeals. Beyond Wisconsin, SEIU's endorsement could help him in Texas, which also has a primary on March 4. The union organized 5,300 janitors in Houston in the past few years and is expected to call on its strong staff there to mobilize voters.

SEIU's backing came on the heels of an Obama endorsement Thursday by the United Food and Commercial Workers, which has 1.3 million members. Overall, though, the labor movement remains divided between the two candidates. Mrs. Clinton has far deeper support from unions representing government workers, teachers and machinists, among others.

Substantively, the two Democrats agree on most economic issues. Even as they debate whether Mrs. Clinton supported Nafta too strongly in the past, for instance, both promise to try and renegotiate the agreement to get better terms.

Their rhetoric, too, is remarkably similar.

In Cincinnati Friday, Mrs. Clinton described herself as the "candidate of, from and for the middle class of America" to roundtable of voters in Cincinnati.

"We're going to end every single tax break that still exists in the federal tax code that gives one penny of your money to anybody who exports a job. Those days are done," she said. "It is wrong that an investment money manager in Wall Street making $50 million a year gets a lower tax rate than a teacher, a nurse, a truck driver, and autoworker making $50,000 a year."

She has taken a number of opportunities over the last week to denounce corporations. On Thursday, she responded to reports of possible airline mergers. "We will have to take a hard look at the potential effects on workers and consumers," she said in a statement. "It is also vitally important that any proposed merger preserve the jobs and worker protections on which thousands of families rely." A spokeswoman for Delta Air Lines Inc., which people close to the matter say is in merger talks, said any merger decision would be made with the long-term interests of employees and customers in mind.

On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton jumped on news that Blue Cross of California was asking doctors to provide personal medical information about their patients that could make them ineligible for insurance (a practice the company has since reversed). "This is only the most recent example of how insurance companies spend tens of billions of dollars a year figuring out how to avoid covering people with health insurance," Mrs. Clinton said in a statement.

Mr. Obama's language has the same ring. On Tuesday night, as votes were being counted in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., Mr. Obama (who won all three of those contests) was in Madison, Wis., denouncing Nafta for shipping jobs overseas and, he said, forcing "parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart."

"That's why we need a president who will listen to Main Street, not just Wall Street, a president who will stand with workers not just when it's easy, but when it's hard," he said.

The next day, he was at a General Motors assembly plant in Janesville, Wis., to deliver an economic address in which he again denounced free-trade agreements. "Decades of trade deals like Nafta and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear," he said.

He has repeatedly accused Mrs. Clinton of supporting Nafta in the years after her husband signed it into law. Mr. Obama has sent a flier into Ohio homes that shows a locked gate, presumably to a factory, with a large "Closed" sign hanging. It says, "Hillary Clinton believed NAFTA was 'a boon' to our economy. See inside..."

It seems that Mrs. Clinton never used those exact words, and Mrs. Clinton has accused Mr. Obama of peddling "all sorts of false claims."

[MJZiggy]

All these uneducated people think the Dems are the next coming of christ because they make all these grand promises to improve their life on average Joe's dollar.



Maybe they all just think Bush sucks and want something better than what he offered. The dems could probably win on a "no more Bush" platform alone. What's his approval rating lately?

(and yes, I know Bush can't run, but if the Republican nominee can get compared to him at all...)

[Partial]

However, Partial, most of these people have actually lived life, tried to raise a family, try to pay the bills. You haven't.

And Obama's biggest supporters (yourself included) haven't either. He is extremely unpopular with the crowds of people who will wait hours to vote. Don't talk to me with your cocky ass 13 year old attitude. Once you start getting a paycheck and watch 25% get flushed down the toilet for nothing, than we can talk.

[Partial]

All these uneducated people think the Dems are the next coming of christ because they make all these grand promises to improve their life on average Joe's dollar.



Maybe they all just think Bush sucks and want something better than what he offered. The dems could probably win on a "no more Bush" platform alone. What's his approval rating lately?

(and yes, I know Bush can't run, but if the Republican nominee can get compared to him at all...)

Bush' approval ratings are bad because he was put into a tough situation.

If Bill Clinton didn't slice and dice our defense budget, do you think we would have been attacked and had our economy crippled? Do you think we would have been over in Iraq and Afghanistan avenging our fallen brothers and preventing future attacks?

Don't go counting your chickens yet, the Democrats haven't won anything and probably won't come the election. I am not confident their candidate will still be living by that time anyway. Sad thing to think about, but you don't think there are a lot of yahoos out there who would rather see Obama in a crosshair then on TV?

I can understand why you and Joe would want a democrat elected for your own agenda (growing government, the inevitable massive pay increase to government employees) but that is a horrible thing for everyone else. A prime example of inefficient government spending is a friend of mine with only a high school degree and virtually no experience was paid 1750 USD a week to do construction. Yes, that is a 93k (after 2 weeks of vacation that were added on as hourly wage, not actually taken) a year job for someone who only has a high school degree without any experience, who was not very good at his job. 93k. For a skill-less labor worker. 93 thousand dollars. Is that not insane?!?!?!?!?!

[Partial]

If a democrat gets elected, they better not hesitate to use force if we are attacked again. I would bet my bottom dollar a nuclear bomb goes off in this country in the next 5 years. If that happens, they had better be prepared to wipe the country and all of its people off the face of the earth that is responsible.