quote:It seems more ethical to me to unseat the "super-delegates" than to disenfranchise Morida & Flichigan.
I read your article, but unfortunately it gives no information about the split of delegates re: the actual vote. I’d really like to see a tally with those included.
One more thing: Are the "un-pledged" delegates pledged or declared? Or have they just been submitting to polls that allow the pundits to compete in their own race for the Holy Grail of Punditry -- being the first to declare the iron-clad winner?
They have been keeping pretty good totals of where the pledged delegates stand - certain states have different rules regarding this, which makes it a bit confusing. The super-delegates technically can vote for whomever they want, but usually vote for the front runner. This year, that will be difficult. http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/2008delegates.html
quote: Super delegates were created by the Democratic Party following the 1980 presidential election as a means of ensuring that party officials were given a substantial voice in the nominating process. Since 1984, they have made up 15 to 20 percent of the Democratic delegation and have historically supported the front-runner at the convention.
There will be 795 unpledged delegate votes cast at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008 if the penalties against Florida and Michigan hold.
quote: I’ve read the history behind "super-delegates", but to me their institution seems a travesty against democracy. And it is beyond me why their existence is not being questioned more in this presidential race.
You're right! (for once.. ) It is definitely being questioned in the news and political circles, but I think most regular people really don't understand how the process works. It is a real problem for the Democrats come Convention time, but it could be fun to watch!
Adding my agreement.
I view the "superdelegates" as the Party's hedge against being hijacked by its unruly Left-wing, which has come to have a larger influence during the past two decades. In fact MoveOn.org now boasts that it controls the Democratic Party and, indeed, it's difficult to conceive of a candidate getting elected without their backing.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why this strong "hate Hillary" sentiment in the US of A? I really don’t understand it. After all, Bill Clinton was a far greater president than Ronny Reagan, and Hillary made a significant contribution to that
Many people like her, and but many dislike her. With regards to the dislike, it is not just a "conservative" thing. A lot of people in her own party obviously don't like her or the whole "Clinton" machine. Just look at the endorsements from the Democrat leadership - it will be interesting to see who AL Gore backs.
With regards to the Clinton years, I for one did not subscribe to the somewhat irrational obsession to hate Bill Clinton. There were definite highlights and lowlights, like with any of the Presidents. That being said, it is probably a stretch to rank him ahead of Reagan. I
Posts: 417 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see we were cross posting, Phil - re: Hillary. I think all the stuff you stated definitely has an impact on people's perception of her.
Posts: 417 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you're seeing the Clintons in action now, smearing Obama any way they can and magnaminously suggesting that he could be Hilary's VP. Problem is, he's still ahead, even after her recent big victories in OH and TX, which netted her a whole 9 delegates.
So stay tuned, dear friends. We are watching history unfold before our eyes. It's difficult to imagine a scenario where the Dems don't end up tearing themselves apart, especially if Hilary pulls off the nomination via superdelegates, who are already (inexplicably!) pledging for her in significantly greater numbers. If they end up over-riding the popular vote and Pledged Delegates, it will be mayhem -- not that Hilary will refuse the nomination under such circumstances. This is HER moment, for if she loses, she's done. Obama, on the other hand, could well return another day to run again.
All McCain needs do is not shoot himself in the foot and choose a good VP.
[ March 10, 2008, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:All McCain needs do is not shoot himself in the foot and choose a good VP
I think he has to make sure that he is staying in public view, as well. He could easily be overshadowed and "forgotten" by the ongoing race between Clinton and Obama. He needs to pick his spots.
Posts: 417 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by AMH v2.0:
quote:All McCain needs do is not shoot himself in the foot and choose a good VP
I think he has to make sure that he is staying in public view, as well. He could easily be overshadowed and "forgotten" by the ongoing race between Clinton and Obama. He needs to pick his spots.
Exactly! Which is one (of many) reasons why I think there’s no hurry to decide the Democratic winner.
What is important is that the Dems avoid a sore and acrimonious loser. But I have confidence that Obama and Clinton, with good help of the voters, will be able to settle this amicably.
In the meantime, of course, would-be President McSame is likely to a large degree to be out of the news...
IP: Logged |
quote: Spitzer, a Clinton supporter, is under pressure to resign. He remains a superdelegate only as long as he is governor, according to Democratic National Committee rules.
If he quits, he would not be replaced as a superdelegate. Lt. Gov. David Paterson would become governor and he already supports Clinton, meaning the New York senator would lose one superdelegate.
posted
Good general overview of the top economic advisors to the 3 remaining candidates. No surprise here, and all 3 sound pretty good. My pick is McCain's guy (big surprise ) with his emphasis on deficit and entitlement reduction.
posted
I don't think it's "hate Hilary" as much as "don't trust Hilary" for reasons just stated. Folks driven by overweening ambition make me nervous because they are almost always folks for whom the ends justify the means. We're seeing that here.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The less a government does, the fewer reasons there are for individuals, businesses, universities, and state and local governments to petition their government for special favors. When government is small, congressional barons don’t hold the fate of entire industries in their well-greased palms. Federal bureaucrats don’t wield unbridled regulatory power to break CEOs. Big decisions are made by private actors in private settings, and obey the will of the marketplace.
posted
The problem, of course, is that "Big Decisions" to a large degree are made by monopolistic actors. Which is the opposite of Free Trade...
One of my key complaints against the series of recent American Conservative Administrations is that anti-trust efforts have been so lax.
I want a Free Market, and I want the marketplace to decide. That means a Government that has the Vision and Courage to prevent an un-free monopolistic market.
Unfortunately, there is little evidence that Republican-led Administrations have that vision and courage.
And by his own admission, the economy is one of McSame’s weakest cards.
IP: Logged |
quote:Do you have a family member, close friend or colleague that suffers from Obam-a-ddiction? Are you worried that the mere mention of “Change”, “Real Change” or “Change they can believe in” might cause them to pass out from excitement? At Getoverobama.com, we offer products that will keep the Obamaholic in your life healthy and sane.
and this,
quote: Excerpt from "12-Step Recovery Guide for Obamaholics"..... Step 8: I shall make a list of all the people my blind infatuation may have harmed, including future generations who might be left with nationalized healthcare, bankrupt social security, a chaotic Iraq, and a defeated and dispirited military.
The article used health care as an example of distortions brought by Big government control and involvement in an industry that would be better served by the private market place. It also tried to show that the role of lobbyists is directly proportional to the size of the government, and how that role creates its own market distortion effect.
What anti trust issue is there? Posts: 417 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
LOL! I hope he checks in sometime and sees this link.
- - -
What do you all think of Geraldine Ferraro's comment to the effect that Obama wouldn't be doing so well if he were a white man? She's since resigned her connections to the Clinton campaign. This is not a mean-spirited woman, and there may be some truth in what she says. A young white man recommending the same policies as Obama and with similar intellectual/oratorical skills would no doubt be giving Mrs. Clinton a run for her money, but even a few percentage points in this kind of contest can make a huge difference. Do you think Obama's race is more an advantage or disadvantage to him?
[ March 13, 2008, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you all think of Geraldine Ferraro's comment
I think that Obama has handled himself extremely well and that he is clearly different from everyone else that was running on the Democratic side. I agree that he would be giving Hillary a great battle regardless.
That said, there seems to be an advantage for Obama in today's era, that would not have been there even 20 years ago. And when the race issue flares up, it tends to give the advantage back to [URL=http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer011808.php3 ]Obama[/URL].
quote:Clinton is no doubt shocked that a simple argument about experience vs. inspiration becomes the basis for a charge of racial insensitivity. She is surprised that the very use of "fairy tale" in reference to Obama's position on Iraq is taken as a sign of insensitivity, or that any reference to his self-confessed teenage drug use is immediately given racial overtones.
But where, I ask you, do such studied and/or sincere expressions of racial offense come from? From a decades-long campaign of enforced political correctness by an alliance of white liberals and the black civil rights establishment intended to delegitimize and marginalize as racist any criticism of their post-civil-rights-era agenda.
Anyone who has ever made a principled argument against affirmative action, only to be accused of racism, knows exactly how these tactics work. Or anyone who has merely opposed a more recent agenda item — hate-crime legislation — on the grounds that murder is murder and that the laws against it are both venerable and severe. Remember that scurrilous preelection ad run by the NAACP in 2000 implying that George W. Bush was indifferent to a dragging death of a black man at the hands of white racists in Texas because he did not support hate-crime legislation?
The race issue also clearly plays to the white liberal mindset that it would be a "good thing" for the US to elect a black President - just the fact that this comes into play tells you that it is a positive factor.
In addition, the black vote, which has been disproportionate for him, would have been most likely in the CLinton camp. There is clearly a double standard at play - no one blinks an eye with regards to the black vote issue, but it is unlikely anyone (McCain) will run on a "white vote" platform.
Posts: 417 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since we're sort of on the subject, how much of a negative impact will Obama's "spiritual advisor" have : from Rod Dreher's blog:
quote: True, Hillary ain't never been called a n---er, but she also ain't got a racialist, Farrakhan-loving, crypto-Marxist goof as her closest spiritual advisor. That's some baggage to carry into the fall election. Obama has this reputation of being a conciliator, an irenic figure who can move us past the divisive politics of the past. The rap on him is that beneath that 1000-megawatt smile and his massive charisma is a politician who holds views on the hard left of the mainstream US political spectrum. Fair or not, Rev. Wright's big mouth, and the paramount importance he plays in Obama's spiritual life, serve to validate that criticism.
Rhetoric like that doesn't belong in a Church. It's dismaying to hear the congregation shouting Amen to this vitriol! Hard to believe Obama has hung with this guy for so long. Of course, when one considers his wife's previous remarks about how she finally feels good about being an American, it's not hard to make the connection.
I doubt Obama buys any of these sentiments, but he really needs to distance himself from them in the strongest way. Hard to believe that kind of preaching would feed his spirit -- or anyone's!
[ March 13, 2008, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As expected Obama has distanced himself from Rev. Wright's inflammatory rhetoric:
quote:Later Friday, Obama told FOX News that he could no longer lay low as he heard more of Wright’s remarks.
“Once I saw them I had to be very clear about the fact that these are not statements that I am comfortable with,” Obama said. “I reject them completely - they are not ones that reflect my values or my ideals or Michelle’s.”
I don't think he'll shake it off that easily, however. This is likely to be a smelly albatross tied around his neck and an ongoing source of suspicion concerning just how far to the Left his views really are. It's also an excellent example of how religion and culture interplay, especially, here, in the realm of politics.
Personally, I reject the view that Rev. Wright's rhetoric can be excused when considered in the context of African-American Christian worship. My wife attends a community that is predominantly Black and there's nothing remotely like this kind of rhetoric. There's also nothing about it that can be construed as some kind of prophetic Christian message. Obama is right to condemn it in the strongest terms. The only problem is that it's difficult to believe he isn't doing so now out of expedience rather than principle, as he's known Rev. Wright (and attended his church) for years and must surely know by now his views on the issues at stake.
[ March 15, 2008, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the enthusiasm here for McCain misses an important point: Bush endorsed him. Kiss of death in my view.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bluenose, most Republicans won't vote for Obama or Clinton and neither will a lot of independents and conservative Democrats (there are a few). It looks to me like the election is McCain's to lose, and the Democrats might help him even more if the Obama-Clinton race ends up being divisive. People know that McCain is not Bush and that Bush was sure to endorse the Republican nominee. Who else was he supposed to endorse?
[ March 16, 2008, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a good example of the duplicity of the MSM in covering Obama vs. their coverage of Bush:
quote:In the 2000 campaign George W. Bush spoke once at Bob Jones University; it was an event used to bludgeon Bush with for the rest of the campaign and into his presidency. And, of course, Bush did not attend Bob Jones University, financially support it, or consider Bob Jones to be his spiritual mentor or close friend for 25 years. Yet these things mattered not at all. Bush spoke at Bob Jones University — and so to many in the press, he was joined at the hip with it. The association between Reverend Wright and Senator Obama is far deeper in every respect.
All in all, this piece summarizes the concerns awakened in me from the revelation of Pastor Wright's anti-American views.
I don't know who reads this forum any more, but ask yourself if you'd like our President to have as his/her pastor and spiritual advisor Louis Farrakhan? I sure wouldn't! That in itself would be a disqualifier, imo. Rev. Wright seems to be a man with similar viewpoints:
quote:This is a pastor, after all, who traveled to Libya in 1984 to visit Muammar Qadhafi with Louis Farrakhan and presented a lifetime achievement award to Farrakhan only last year, calling the Nation of Islam leader a man of “integrity and honesty” and referring to him as “one of the 20th and 21st century greats of the African-American religious experience.”
Obama had to have known all this years ago and still he has stuck with his pastor. There's something about this that ought to be cause for great concern to anyone hoping for a President whose message of "change" doesn't mean a turn to the far-Left.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great article, Phil - with a great comparison to the Bob Jones story that the media was all over back then. The MSM is grudgingly covering the Wright story now. ----- I don't think it will affect Obama with regards to the far Left - they agree with Wright. Where it will help Clinton or McCain is with the Reagan Democrat type of voter.
Posts: 417 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) It is definitely being questioned in the news and political circles, but I think most regular people really don't understand how the process works. It is a real problem for the Democrats come Convention time, but it could be fun to watch! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
This is HER moment, for if she loses, she's done. Obama, on the other hand, could well return another day to run again.![[Cool]](cool.gif)
) with his emphasis on deficit and entitlement reduction.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
