Wisconsin Primary

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ah. The smell of desperation.

I conceded that OBama would be the nominee a long time ago.

If there's a whiff of desperation about me, it's because I see the Democratic Party turning into a giant religious cult, with no room for unbelievers. Which leaves me with McCain, and gosh he looked old on Letterman last night!

The opinion journalists are simply in love with Obama. There is no other explanation for the collective looking-the-other-way at:
1) Obviously not telling the truth about his pastor's well known politics.
2) Said his wife's "not proud of America" speech was just expressing pride in Obama new politics.
3) Said he'd accept any fair resolution in MI-FL, all the while killing elections.

Normal politicians get drubbed-out for such malarky.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think for the betterment of the Democratic party in the 2008 election Clinton needs to drop out, and only say Clinton because she is trailing at this point. They are making McCain's job quite easy, he doesn't have to pay his staff to do any digging at this point. They are doing it for him.

Governor Cuomo floated the idea this week that Obama and Clinton agree to a shared ticket right now. If that happened, it would immediately cool the ugly politics. Obama would have a smooth glide path to nomination, in all likelihood. Party united and strong. Republicans pulverized in the fall.

The Obama crowd greeted this proposal with a collective "fuck you." The Obamaniacs think they are so strong and powerful and beautiful and "Yes We Can" that they don't need no stinkin party moderates. Why, they were against the war!

Why in the hell should Clinton and her supporters rally behind this movement? McCain is more appealing than these self-rightous, more-liberal-than-thou koolaide drinkers.

Fight on Hillary! We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the air, and on the land, and in Jeremiah Wright's church.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Clinton and Obama are one-in-the-same...two typical liberal politicians who will do anything to win their way to power.

The notion that Obama is somehow different and a candidate of "hope" and "change" is one of the biggest pieces of wool pulled over the eyes of Americans in some time.

I agree with what you say, except their zeal for power has nothing to do with being liberals.

I don't really know if Obama & Clinton differ from each other philosophically. I don't know what either, but especially Obama, will do in Iraq & Afghanistan.

I know for sure that their supporters are very different. Clinton's backers are more willing to compromise. And Clinton has a stronger reputation than Obama for working across party lines. Obama's message of being a "Uniter", and new-style politician is marketing.

[Joemailman]

Fight on Hillary! We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the air, and on the land, and in Jeremiah Wright's church.

Will you fight them at the Bosnian airport?

[Harlan Huckleby]

you betcha! and if you check-out the link I gave near Obama's fib list, you'll see that our forces are already hard at it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

A good man, that Howard Dean.

Dean spells out superdelegate rules
Stance seems to reject Obama camp's position
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON — Citing Democratic rules, national committee Chairman Howard Dean on Tuesday said the superdelegates who are poised to select the party's presidential nominee are free to back whomever they wish at the end of the primaries, regardless of who leads in the popular vote or pledged delegates.

"They should use whatever yardstick they want," Dean said in an interview at party headquarters. "That's what the rules provide for."

Asked about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's suggestion that superdelegates should exercise independent judgment and not feel bound by the standings after June 3 — the day the nominating season ends — Dean replied: "That's what the rules say, and I enforce the rules."

He also said superdelegates are free to weigh the disputed primary results in Florida and Michigan, two states Clinton carried in the absence of campaigning by rival Sen. Barack Obama. The two campaigns have spent weeks wrangling over a plan that would seat delegates from the states, which violated party guidelines by voting earlier than allowed.

Although his comments amounted to a restatement of party rules, Dean's stance undercut an argument pressed by Obama and his backers. They have said the candidate who is leading in the popular vote and has the most pledged delegates should automatically win the support of any uncommitted superdelegates after the primary balloting ends.

Earlier Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., appeared to back away from that view.

"These superdelegates have the right to vote their conscience and who they think would be the better president, or who can win," Pelosi said on ABC's Good Morning America.

Pelosi — who like Dean has remained neutral in the nominating fight — recently angered some Clinton supporters when she seconded Obama's position that superdelegates should be guided by the vote for pledged delegates. Several major Democratic donors sent Pelosi a letter last week objecting to that stance.

Speaking Tuesday on National Public Radio, Pelosi dismissed the letter as unimportant. Dean agreed, rejecting the characterization of those who had called it a political ransom note. "This is a democratic society," Dean said, "and they're going to use lots of different angles to get what they want. And that's their business."

With fewer than a dozen contests remaining, neither Obama nor Clinton appears likely to win the 2,024 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

That would leave the outcome in the hands of 794 superdelegates, party leaders whose standing gives them a say in picking the nominee.

[texaspackerbacker]

To a great extent, I don't have a dog in this fight.

I will, however, point out a couple of relevant facts or possibilities. Obama leads Hillary by around 700,000 in popular vote. Of that, 600,000 was in Illinois--Obama's home state. In fact, 400,000 was from Cook County--I wonder how many of those were Mayor Daley's well known Dems from the graveyards. Of course, if you discount those, maybe you should also discount Hillary's plurality in New York and/or Arkansas.

Also, the columnist Michael Barone, who has a reputation for competence, objectivity, and specialized electoral knowledge, projects that after all is said and done--after the Puerto Rico primary in June, Hillary will actually have a small popular vote lead, while Obama will have a delegate lead--something less than the 124 lead out of nearly 3,000 total now.

If that turns out to be correct, both could make a major case for deserving the nomination.

Actually, I sort of do have a stake in the Dem mess. Even before Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos, I was saying Republicans should vote for Hillary to keep her alive and keep the sniping back and forth going. Thus, I'd be pleased to see it drag on to the bitter end and have McCain win big in November--hopefully even returning Congress to the good guys.

[Harlan Huckleby]

my nipples are getting hard.

[SkinBasket]

Optimal Sex Takes 3 to 13 Minutes, Study Finds
Thursday, April 03, 2008

Associated Press

NEW YORK — Maybe men had it right all along: It doesn't take long to satisfy a woman in bed.

A survey of sex therapists concluded the optimal amount of time for sexual intercourse was 3 to 13 minutes. The findings, to be published in the May issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, strike at the notion that endurance is the key to a great sex life.

If that sounds like good news to you, don't cheer too loudly. The time does not count foreplay, and the therapists did rate sexual intercourse that lasts from 1 to 2 minutes as "too short."

Researcher Eric Corty said he hoped to ease the minds of those who believe "more of something good is better, and if you really want to satisfy your partner, you should last forever."

The questions were not gender-specific, said Corty. But he said prior research has shown men and women want foreplay and sexual intercourse to last longer.

Dr. Irwin Goldstein, editor of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, cited a four-week study of 1,500 couples in 2005 that found the median time for sexual intercourse was 7.3 minutes. (Women in the study were armed with stopwatches.)

It's difficult for both older men and young men to make sexual intercourse last much longer, said Marianne Brandon, a clinical psychologist and director of Wellminds Wellbodies in Annapolis, Maryland.

"There are so many myths in our culture of what other people are doing sexually," Brandon said. "Most people's sex lives are not as exciting as other people think they are."

Fifty members of the Society for Sex Therapy and Research in the U.S. and Canada were surveyed by Corty, an associate professor of psychology at Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, and student Jenay Guardiani. Thirty-four members, or 68 percent, responded, although some said the optimal time depended on the couple.

Corty said he hoped to give an idea of what therapists find to be normal and satisfactory among the couples they see.

"People who read this will say, 'I last five minutes or my partner lasts eight minutes,' and say, 'That's OK,' " he said. "They will relax a little bit.

[packinpatland]

To a great extent, I don't have a dog in this fight.
I will, however, point out a couple of relevant facts or possibilities. Obama leads Hillary by around 700,000 in popular vote. Of that, 600,000 was in Illinois--Obama's home state. In fact, 400,000 was from Cook County--I wonder how many of those were Mayor Daley's well known Dems from the graveyards. Of course, if you discount those, maybe you should also discount Hillary's plurality in New York and/or Arkansas.

Also, the columnist Michael Barone, who has a reputation for competence, objectivity, and specialized electoral knowledge, projects that after all is said and done--after the Puerto Rico primary in June, Hillary will actually have a small popular vote lead, while Obama will have a delegate lead--something less than the 124 lead out of nearly 3,000 total now.

If that turns out to be correct, both could make a major case for deserving the nomination.

Actually, I sort of do have a stake in the Dem mess. Even before Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos, I was saying Republicans should vote for Hillary to keep her alive and keep the sniping back and forth going. Thus, I'd be pleased to see it drag on to the bitter end and have McCain win big in November--hopefully even returning Congress to the good guys.

"To a great extent, I don't have a dog in this fight. "

Poor analogy to use these days........

[Harlan Huckleby]

Remember Ned Lamont!

Lamont was a guy in Connecticut who was able to organize college students and zealous, strident liberals to kill evil centrist compromiser Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Lamont was the internet king raising money, the toast of the Daily Kos. Best of all, he was against war!

Come the general election, Lieberman was able to beat him, even without Democratic Party support.

The Obama folks may regret giving the back of their hand to Clinton supporters. Everything is dreamy in a Dem Primary for a Daily Kos candidate.

[Joemailman]

Calm down Bluedog. Polls are getting tighter in Pennsylvania. This may be over sooner than we thought. She will back Obama, and her followers will follow suit. Hopefully it happens soon before Bill starts punching out Obama Superdelegates. Or Bill Richardson.

[The Leaper]

Obama leads Hillary by around 700,000 in popular vote.

That 700k does not include the results in MI or FL...where there will ultimately be no re-vote, so it is very likely the popular vote from the previous primary will stand toward each candidates total.

According to realclearpolitics.com, the total popular vote including the MI and FL primaries is:

Obama 13,931,423
Clinton 13,837,418

That is a difference of less than 100k.

So, the chances of Hillary being able to exceed Obama in the popular vote count aren't exactly out of reach...even if her chances of getting ahead in delegates is impossible.

That is the nightmare scenario for Dems...Obama leads slightly in delegates, Clinton leads slightly in popular vote.

[packinpatland]

Calm down Bluedog. Polls are getting tighter in Pennsylvania. This may be over sooner than we thought. She will back Obama, and her followers will follow suit. Hopefully it happens soon before Bill starts punching out Obama Superdelegates. Or Bill Richardson.

Somehow, if it were ever come to 'fisticuffs'...........Bill wouldn't stand a chance.......with anyone.......seems a bit of a 'wuss' to me.

[packinpatland]

Obama leads Hillary by around 700,000 in popular vote.

That 700k does not include the results in MI or FL...where there will ultimately be no re-vote, so it is very likely the popular vote from the previous primary will stand toward each candidates total.

According to realclearpolitics.com, the total popular vote including the MI and FL primaries is:

Obama 13,931,423
Clinton 13,837,418

That is a difference of less than 100k.

So, the chances of Hillary being able to exceed Obama in the popular vote count aren't exactly out of reach...even if her chances of getting ahead in delegates is impossible.

That is the nightmare scenario for Dems...Obama leads slightly in delegates, Clinton leads slightly in popular vote.

Obama wasn't on the ballot........of course she would have more votes!