Democratic Party Implodes

[Harlan Huckleby]

Methinks Harlan has lost his sense of humor.

Nothing funny about the FL-MI fiasco.

The Obama supporters cried "rules are rules" in opposing a democratic resolution in March. And then they turned around and supported a totally arbitrary move last weekend to award Obama more delegates than he earned through voters, and to paper-over the dirt.

You've accused me of opposing Obama out of sour grapes. This is untrue, I prefer McCain. But the last straw for me with the Dem lefties was their oppostion to revotes for MI-FL.

[hoosier]

Methinks Harlan has lost his sense of humor.

Nothing funny about the FL-MI fiasco.

The Obama supporters cried "rules are rules" in opposing a democratic resolution in March. And then they turned around and supported a totally arbitrary move last weekend to award Obama more delegates than he earned through voters, and to paper-over the dirt.

You've accused me of opposing Obama out of sour grapes. This is untrue, I prefer McCain. But the last straw for me with the Dem lefties was their oppostion to revotes for MI-FL.

I think I remember you yourself opposing revotes a while ago. I forget if it was out of principle or because you thought it was impractical. Probably impractical. So Obama's supporters have gone from opposing revotes to supporting a resolution that favors their candidate. Hillary's campaign has followed a similar trajectory. I mean she has been similarly calculating in her proposals, and she even began calculating earlier than Obama as soon as it became clear that she'd need full delegate counts from both states. I really don't understand why you're blaming all of this on the Obama campaign, except that you seem to be blaming them for everything. When Obama campaign calculates it's cynical, corrupt and malignant, but when Hillary calculates that's just how politics works?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I never was against the revotes. I just acknowledged the reality that they weren't totally fair, and that there was a legitimate argument against them.

As far as calculating: I see all the candidates and campaigns as lawerly. I have never said any candidate has been more devious than any other. Look to the Huffington Post for those theories.

If I were an Obama supporter, I would have supported revotes. The other options are just too crazy.

Obama gained a lot by blocking revotes, it nearly sealed his nomination. But the price was he alienated some people in his party. Count me among them.

[hoosier]

I never was against the revotes. I just acknowledged the reality that they weren't totally fair, and that there was a legitimate argument against them.

As far as calculating: I see all the candidates and campaigns as lawerly. I have never said any candidate has been more devious than any other. Look to the Huffington Post for those theories.

If I were an Obama supporter, I would have supported revotes. The other options are just too crazy.

Obama gained a lot by blocking revotes, it nearly sealed his nomination. But the price was he alienated some people in his party. Count me among them.

Nah, you've been alienated for some time now, I doubt MI/FL changed that too much. My hunch, which is admittedly backed up by nothing substantial, is that most Hillary supporters will in the long run lose their vitriol and choose party loyalty over personalism or whatever other factors are motivating them for Hillary and/or against Obama. I'm no longer so sure about you, though. :P

[bobblehead]

gotta agree with you there hoosier, I was one who was never gonna vote for mccain, but now that I realize just how left and socialist obama is, I'm reconsidering. I wouldn't care if I thought he would have trouble moving his agenda, but i don't think he will, the dems will unite behind him big time.

I don't give a rats ass about rev. wright (he did his time in the military, served his country, he is entitled to feel disenfranchised), but I do care about radical UN taxes, doubling capital gains taxes and stuff like that.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, did you see this lady, Harriet Christian, a NY Dem who supports Hillary, that was ranting on TV today?

She said, among other things, God DAMN the Democratic Party. She's voting for McCain. Harlan, you aren't by any chance, a sixtyish lady with a heavy New York accent, are you? Harriet, Harlan, it sorta sounds the same.

[retailguy]

Nah, you've been alienated for some time now, I doubt MI/FL changed that too much. My hunch, which is admittedly backed up by nothing substantial, is that most Hillary supporters will in the long run lose their vitriol and choose party loyalty over personalism or whatever other factors are motivating them for Hillary and/or against Obama. I'm no longer so sure about you, though. :P

I realize that you and Harlan have quite a debate going over this, but your point above piqued my interest. I used to think that this was the case, but the longer this goes on the less likely it is to happen.

Losing is hard enough, but when there are feelings of bitterness, which there have to be in Mi & Fl, among others, people do strange things. I'm not sure Obama can win without at least one or the other.

This whole battle may turn into a bigger deal than most realize before it's over. Don't count out the Clintons. Many have made that mistake.

[bobblehead]

the real beneficiery of all this is mccain, he could NEVER win the republican base, he can only get their vote by an extreme liberal getting nominated, and he can only win because now too many liberals are bitter and will stay home or vote for mccain.

[texaspackerbacker]

Speaking of counting out the Clintons, Bill was on TV today responding to the Vanity Fair article accusing him of philandering without doing much to hide it, said that TODAY might be his last day ever on the campaign trail.

That has several implications. First of all, he may know that Hillary is pulling out after the South Dakota and Montana primaries tomorrow. Secondly, he may know for sure that her getting the VP nomination is not gonna happen. And third, he may be implying that if Hillary is still in the picture in 2012 or 2016, he won't be with her--divorce. That would be a shame, as the two of them deserve each other so much.

[hoosier]

the real beneficiery of all this is mccain, he could NEVER win the republican base, he can only get their vote by an extreme liberal getting nominated, and he can only win because now too many liberals are bitter and will stay home or vote for mccain.

Neither of the Dem candidates are "extreme liberals," whatever that means. Hillary is a hawk on foreign policy, Obama is fairly centrist (compared to most Democrats) on most issues, and--as someone suggested earlier--is more likely to disappoint his base among the Left than anything.

Retail, you're probably right that if both Michigan and Florida go to McCain because of lingering bad feelings, then Obama is in serious trouble in November. Not because he's too extreme, as bobblehead suggested, but because the number of states in play for presidential elections these days is so limited.

[texaspackerbacker]

Bhead, it depends what you mean by "win the Republican base".

Obviously he won't all or the usual extremely large percentage a Republican would get. I think it's safe to say, though, that there are enough pragmatists that he will get 80-90% of them.

Combine that with the healthy share of moderates, as well as some kind of a slice of disenchanted Dems, and I'd say it's looking very good. I doubt that a lot of Hillary supporters will actually vote for McCain, but I'd expect a helluva lot of them to just stay home.

[texaspackerbacker]

the real beneficiery of all this is mccain, he could NEVER win the republican base, he can only get their vote by an extreme liberal getting nominated, and he can only win because now too many liberals are bitter and will stay home or vote for mccain.

Neither of the Dem candidates are "extreme liberals," whatever that means. Hillary is a hawk on foreign policy, Obama is fairly centrist (compared to most Democrats) on most issues, and--as someone suggested earlier--is more likely to disappoint his base among the Left than anything.

Retail, you're probably right that if both Michigan and Florida go to McCain because of lingering bad feelings, then Obama is in serious trouble in November. Not because he's too extreme, as bobblehead suggested, but because the number of states in play for presidential elections these days is so limited.

Hoosier, Hillary may have a few (damn few) issues where she is not an extremist, but Obama is an all out Marxist.

Are you aware of the ONLY piece of legislation he authored in his time in the Senate? How could even a left winger like you possibly defend Obama's showcase item, the Global Poverty Act? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It is not just empty rhetoric to say he is the vilest America-hater to come along since at least McGovern. It also is no understatement that he is labeled even by the mainstream media as the most liberal person in the Senate.

[hoosier]

the real beneficiery of all this is mccain, he could NEVER win the republican base, he can only get their vote by an extreme liberal getting nominated, and he can only win because now too many liberals are bitter and will stay home or vote for mccain.

Neither of the Dem candidates are "extreme liberals," whatever that means. Hillary is a hawk on foreign policy, Obama is fairly centrist (compared to most Democrats) on most issues, and--as someone suggested earlier--is more likely to disappoint his base among the Left than anything.

Retail, you're probably right that if both Michigan and Florida go to McCain because of lingering bad feelings, then Obama is in serious trouble in November. Not because he's too extreme, as bobblehead suggested, but because the number of states in play for presidential elections these days is so limited.

Hoosier, Hillary may have a few (damn few) issues where she is not an extremist, but Obama is an all out Marxist.

Are you aware of the ONLY piece of legislation he authored in his time in the Senate? How could even a left winger like you possibly defend Obama's showcase item, the Global Poverty Act? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It is not just empty rhetoric to say he is the vilest America-hater to come along since at least McGovern. It also is no understatement that he is labeled even by the mainstream media as the most liberal person in the Senate.

You mean that bill he coauthored with Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator from Nebraska? Obama is as much a Marxist as JFK or LBJ. If you can't or won't differentiate between someone who opposes capitalism on principle and someone who tries to smooth out capitalism's rougher edges, there's no point in having these conversations with you.

For you the world is divided into two camps: those who angelically think the American way of life and everything that comes with it (McDonalds, Walmart, etc.) is heaven on earth, and those who demonically oppose the American way with every last ounce of their strength.

[hoosier]

the real beneficiery of all this is mccain, he could NEVER win the republican base, he can only get their vote by an extreme liberal getting nominated, and he can only win because now too many liberals are bitter and will stay home or vote for mccain.

Neither of the Dem candidates are "extreme liberals," whatever that means. Hillary is a hawk on foreign policy, Obama is fairly centrist (compared to most Democrats) on most issues, and--as someone suggested earlier--is more likely to disappoint his base among the Left than anything.

Retail, you're probably right that if both Michigan and Florida go to McCain because of lingering bad feelings, then Obama is in serious trouble in November. Not because he's too extreme, as bobblehead suggested, but because the number of states in play for presidential elections these days is so limited.

Hoosier, Hillary may have a few (damn few) issues where she is not an extremist, but Obama is an all out Marxist.

Are you aware of the ONLY piece of legislation he authored in his time in the Senate? How could even a left winger like you possibly defend Obama's showcase item, the Global Poverty Act? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It is not just empty rhetoric to say he is the vilest America-hater to come along since at least McGovern. It also is no understatement that he is labeled even by the mainstream media as the most liberal person in the Senate.

You wouldn't be able to provide a source for this, now, would you?

[bobblehead]

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

here is a source....the global poverty act is an extremely liberal program and pointing out that a republican co authored it doesn't prove otherwise...its a program to take 845 BILLION extra dollars over upcoming years and hand it to the UN...an orginization that has proven where it stands. He also is for drivers liscences for illegals and raising capital gains taxes from 15% to 28% despite every study ever known to the USA shows this is damaging to the economy. I could go on for more specifics on his stances, but I shouldn't have to. Will meet with foreign leaders without preconditions is just one more that jumps to mind.