U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Bill plays our Panzer Jaeger-identified "traitor" card (link), while speaking to vets:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

---

"...all this other stuff...". Right. That other stuff like truth, honor, self-respect. That stuff, instead of the distracting/intruding stuff, like "I NEVER had sex with that woman...", etc.

Is he trying to sabotage her candidacy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

In other words, if the superdelegates overturn the expressed will of the voters, Clinton can win. If the superdelegates nullify the candidate who will end the race with more delegates and more popular vote, Clinton can win.

Think about that and let's talk about it tomorrow.

---

I think that the current setup of the Democratic nomination is poorly constructed, and waiting for a scenario like this to happen. Why do the superdelegates get a say in it at all if they're not supposed to change the popular outcome?

Quote:

---

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory.

---

I thought that the Democratic nomination process was proportional, i.e. winning the popular vote = getting the most delegates?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

I thought that the Democratic nomination process was proportional, i.e. winning the popular vote = getting the most delegates?

---

Afaik no. You can get the popular vote in a state but still have fewer delegates if you didn't win the popular vote in each district that assigns delegates. Similarly, some counties count more than others within a state.

On the big map, you can win more delegates but lack behind in popular vote due to this reason and also if you win say the big states but lose all the small states.

It's proportional, in a district with 4 delegates they will be split 2-2 unless one of the candidates gets over 66% (not sure on the number), then it will be slit 3-1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

....in a district with 4 delegates they will be split 2-2 unless one of the candidates gets over 66% (not sure on the number), then it will be slit 3-1.

---

Then you could say it's proportional for that district, but not for the statewide level (let alone national). Proportional statewide would mean that the state itself is one district in wich all delegates are chosen based on % of the vote.

Senator Clinton on her experience in Bosnia:

I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

Now watch this news video from the time.

There's nothing left to say. Senator Clinton, it is with regret that I inform you that your pants are on fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

There's nothing left to say. Senator Clinton, it is with regret that I inform you that your pants are on fire.

---

That sounds dangerous to everybody involved *thinks of Clinton's comment about wearing asbestos pants*

There must be something in the DNA of the Clintons that compels them to lie.

Makes you worry about Chelsea.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Senator Clinton on her experience in Bosnia:

I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

Now watch this news video from the time.

There's nothing left to say. Senator Clinton, it is with regret that I inform you that your pants are on fire.

---

I call it, "pulling a Romney". :beam:

That's to say, it was a baffling stupid lie that was easily checked up on and was told needlessly.

Heh. Maybe the "...but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." part actually happened on her return to D.C.

It'll be interesting to watch her wriggle/spin her way out of this one.

Any bets she'll say that that was the only way to have people investigate it, bring up evidence that it didn't happen but at the same time prove that she was in Bosnia on official mission?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Any bets she'll say that that was the only way to have people investigate it, bring up evidence that it didn't happen but at the same time prove that she was in Bosnia on official mission?

---

Hillary Clinton's bout of sensationalism pales in comparison to the foreign policy lies of the incumbent President. Hillary's lies never cost so many lives. Maybe they will if she becomes President, though. The same applies to John McCain. His unnecessary and ridiculous stunt visit to Iraq proves it. On a press conference he said his visit proved that 'you can walk freely in certain areas of Baghdad'. Sure you can - if you have a bulletproof vest, a 100-strong security detail surrounding you, three Blackhawks surveilling the area and two Apache gunships overhead, to the tune of one and a half million dollar a day. Most Iraqis don't have that kind of money. Luckily, the American taxpayer does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If you have anything to back that up, please share.

---

I don't have time to go over his entire campaign with you. Please do keep up. :book:

I just read a great article in this morning's paper about the Democrats bashing NAFTA and how they are lying through their teeth about the stats. The article said that not only is Canada the US' biggest trading partner, but that 7,000,000 jobs in the US are directly tied to Canadian purchases.

The article listed over a dozen US states, big ones (Pennsylvania, New York, etc.), that showed more of their exports going to Canada than to many if not all of their other export customers combined.

I was never a big fan of NAFTA, but we're pretty much tied at the hip now and it would create huge problems to undo it.

(Unless NAFTA forces us to export bulk water to the US, which some US lawmakers says it does, in which case we'll tear it up ourselves and use it for toilet paper.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I just read a great article in this morning's paper about the Democrats bashing NAFTA and how they are lying through their teeth about the stats. The article said that not only is Canada the US' biggest trading partner, but that 7,000,000 jobs in the US are directly tied to Canadian purchases.

The article listed over a dozen US states, big ones (Pennsylvania, New York, etc.), that showed more of their exports going to Canada than to many if not all of their other export customers combined.

I was never a big fan of NAFTA, but we're pretty much tied at the hip now and it would create huge problems to undo it.

---

NAFTA has been a net benefit to all the countries involved. It's shameful union pandering on the part of the Democrats to claim otherwise. Allegedly, the Obama campaign already assure the Canadian government that his anti-NAFTA rhetoric is a pack of lies and although nothing has leaked about it yet, I doubt Clinton is serious about repealing it either. While that's good, I don't think it speaks well of either candidate's character. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I don't think it speaks well of either candidate's character. :no:

---

politicians have character? :inquisitive:

you hear the weirdest things everyday :smash:

Heh, you should read some democrat blog posts about Obama - they almost worship the guy, they beleive he 'transcends' being just a politician. It's like they believe he's a savior of America.

See: this video.

CR

Up here in Canadaland, most people do see Obama as a saviour. Compared to how we see Bush, which ain't none too kindly (a mix between Joseph and Charlie McCarthy), Obama is seen as intelligent, well spoken, and far less likely to invade other countries for fun and profit or sell his soul to Exxon.

Whether Obama is good or bad, I'm not sure yet, what I can tell you is if Obama wins and pays a visit north, he'll get a reception here unseen since JFK or the Beatles came a' calling.

So if all fails in the US, he can always give Canada a try?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Heh, you should read some democrat blog posts about Obama - they almost worship the guy, they beleive he 'transcends' being just a politician. It's like they believe he's a savior of America.

See: this video.

CR

---

Nice. :laugh4:
Know what band that is? Sounds like Cake.

Is it just me, or do other Americans wake up in the morning, pop on CNN, listen to campaign news about the three stooges, and think to themselves "Awww, crap". Maybe Ron Paul isn't all that bad after all. Sure, the man is a kook, and his economic policies, beyond being foolish would be downright dangerous if enacted. But presidents don't have the power to enact 20% of the laundry list he's tossed on the table. And one thing about him.... While you may not believe in his ideas, you could be confident that HE at least does.

I have no idea who I'm voting for. But of the three, shockingly, Hillary is probably the safest bet for the future security of the country.

Quote:

---

Know what band that is? Sounds like Cake.

---

I believe it is.

@ Don C - why? :inquisitive:

CR

Why Ron Paul, or why Hillary?

I'm not endorsing her. I think she'd be disastrous for the moral fiber of the country. I just think unlike Obama, who would be viewed as weak internationally and will encourage groups like Al-Queda, or McCain, who seems to have a chip on his shoulder with everyone, she'd be smart enough to not rock the boat that much. Her domestic agenda... maybe not so good.

But surely you've noticed by now that we have 3 Democrats running for President.

A bad omen for the Clinton campaign, courtesy of LaGuardia Airport:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...illarysale.jpg

-edit-

This is too good to not post: It's Raining McCain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Why Ron Paul, or why Hillary?

I'm not endorsing her. I think she'd be disastrous for the moral fiber of the country. I just think unlike Obama, who would be viewed as weak internationally and will encourage groups like Al-Queda, or McCain, who seems to have a chip on his shoulder with everyone, she'd be smart enough to not rock the boat that much. Her domestic agenda... maybe not so good.

But surely you've noticed by now that we have 3 Democrats running for President.

---

Oh, I totally understand the Ron Paul thing. I don't have the perception McCain would be viewed as weaker than Hilary.

At least he'd be better than Hilary. :dizzy2:

And Lemur, have the words 'good' and 'terrible' switched meaning where you live?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Oh, I totally understand the Ron Paul thing. I don't have the perception McCain would be viewed as weaker than Hilary.

At least he'd be better than Hilary. :dizzy2:

And Lemur, have the words 'good' and 'terrible' switched meaning where you live?

CR

---

Oh, I'm not worried about McCain being perceived globally as weaker than Hillary, that's my beef with Obama. I'm worried about McCain having a big 'Wheel of Misfortune' with all the countries of the world on it and spinning it every morning to figure out who he's going to go medieval on next. If you think Bush entering Iraq was shortsighted and ill-planned, don't get your hopes up for a McCain presidency. I really do fear the man's temper.

Not to mention, he's opposed to free speech and he's opposed to the rule of law when its' not convenient for him. Say what you want about Hillary, at least she's smart enough to lie. He yells at his own people and tells us how stupid we all are for focusing on something silly like the law and not listening to him and following him blindly.

Sorry, I'm not impressed. The more I see, the more I like Ron Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonCorleone

Is it just me, or do other Americans wake up in the morning, pop on CNN, listen to campaign news about the three stooges, and think to themselves "Awww, crap".

---

Believe me: you are not alone.

Except that I 'pop on' Google News v CNN. Unless GN show's a reported event going on, real-time; then Turner's boys (and Rueters' raw newsfeed) get my eyeballs.

Still, most days, same result: "Awww, crap."

---------------------------
On the other hand, I've looked at my presidential votes since I got the franchise, and realize that in nine elections, I've only ever voted for the winner twice:

72 McGovern Dem
76 McCarthy Ind
80 Anderson Ind
84 Reagan Rep
88 Lewin P&F
92 Perot Reform
96 Feinland P&F
00 Nader Green
04 Bush Rep

The '88, '96 & '00 votes, I admit, were born of frustration and anger over the mealy-mouth-ness of the major party candidates at the time. I literally "threw away" my votes there.

McGovern in '72 was a girlfriend vote. God forgive me, for I knew not what I was doing..

The other ones, I take responsibility for (McCarthy, Anderson, Reagan, Perot), and explain Bush as: an 'institutional memory' vote; at war (declared, or not) don't change leaders. I'll be relieved when he and Dick retire.

So, with a 2:9 win/no-win record (that's a .222 batting average), fully eight months out from the actual election: I pick... Hilary. Not cuz I like her, but cuz she can fight dirtier than the other two, and still survive.

I dread what happens to my america if I'm correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Still, most days, same result: "Awww, crap."

---

So you're saying American politics are as stupid-based as Canadian politics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Not to mention, he's opposed to free speech and he's opposed to the rule of law when its' not convenient for him. Say what you want about Hillary, at least she's smart enough to lie. He yells at his own people and tells us how stupid we all are for focusing on something silly like the law and not listening to him and following him blindly.

---

I like it. How do I get citizenship/vote?

Quote:

---

So you're saying American politics are as stupid-based as Canadian politics?

---

Canada isn't really that bad. Three viable political parties in federal elections (four for you, since you're in Quebec), a minority government (which I like), and the Prime Minister shows a good bit of capability and common sense. If he lacks anything, it might be charisma. Even then, he's not a boring speaker, just not a captivating one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

So you're saying American politics are as stupid-based as Canadian politics?

---

Ahhh, yup. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

McGovern in '72 was a girlfriend vote. God forgive me, for I knew not what I was doing...

---

But was your campaign for acceptance more successful than George's?

:devilish:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

So you're saying American politics are as stupid-based as Canadian politics?

---

How DARE you even question the collective ignorance of the US electorate?!!!

Perhaps if I could find Canada on a map I'd come and thrash you for that slur!






:devilish:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

But was your campaign for acceptance more successful than George's?

:devilish:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

How DARE you even question the collective ignorance of the US electorate?!!!

Perhaps if I could find Canada on a map I'd come and thrash you for that slur!

:devilish:

---

You doubleposting Republican, you. :whip: :smash:

Mrs. Clinton "misspoke" about being under sniper fire.

:inquisitive:

Barack Obama and his wife made 1.2 million dollars from 2000 through 2004 (His wife speaks of noble public service and the like, but they she was certainly well paid for her time). And they gave only $10,770 to charity over those same four years, or less than 1% of the over a million dollars they earned during that time.

And the excuse?

Quote:

---

Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman, said the Obamas gave as much as they could afford.

``As new parents who were paying off their large student loans, giving $10,000 to charity was as generous as they could be at the time,'' Burton said.

---

Pathetic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...IcI&refer=home

CR

It's 3am. The phone is ringing in the White House. Who do you want mis-speaking into it?

:shocked2:

One would have thought that after her husband's notoriously casual relationship with the truth, La Clinton would have been scrupulous about such things. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Barack Obama and his wife made 1.2 million dollars from 2000 through 2004 (His wife speaks of noble public service and the like, but they she was certainly well paid for her time). And they gave only $10,770 to charity over those same four years, or less than 1% of the over a million dollars they earned during that time.

---

I do not believe that setting a threshold for charitable giving is a good benchmark for evaluating a politician. It is my personal belief that charity is a duty as well as a virtue. Mandating it, however, does not seem appropriate.


Yes, I understand your point that the Obamas should practice what they preach. However, his voting record suggests that he is doing so. After all, his voting record says he favors increasing my taxes to pay for "charity" managed by the government -- I have little doubt that, if elected, he will attempt to follow through on that agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It's 3am. The phone is ringing in the White House. Who do you want mis-speaking into it?

:shocked2:

One would have thought that after her husband's notoriously casual relationship with the truth, La Clinton would have been scrupulous about such things. :wall:

---

That depends on what your definition of "snipe" is. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Pathetic.

---

Hey, look on the bright side -- at least you're allowed to read their tax returns. Don't even try to get them out of Hillary or Johnny Mac.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

That depends on what your definition of "snipe" is. ~D

---

:laugh4:

I'm just grateful that she solved the Northern Ireland problem over tea and cakes. I've always thought that the Middle East could do with a nice slice of Battenburg.

My god, it turns out that Senator Clinton is some sort of android. Or an alien. Or part octosquid. Or something. Whatever the case, clearly she is not 100% human:

Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else.

So what is she the rest of the time?

Somewhat related: has anybody of you ever watched Primary Colors?

Yeah, I watched it a year or two ago. Travolta playing a Bill Clinton-like figure going through the Primaries.

And it's excellent.

Is that a crowbar in your hand, or are you just happy to see me?

The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.

The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?

What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.' " the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.

It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn't get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold.

Neither of the two Dems is really morally better than the other.
I mean Obama did tried to get an earmark for his wife's employer, which seems rather scummy morally if there are more deserving corps.

Both are going negative and their surrogates are razing the other down to the ground. Both either "misspeak" (Clinton and Obama) or are "misunderstood" (Obama) when they are asked tough questions.

Can't blame those who stay home rather than vote or vote for some 3rd party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

But was your campaign for acceptance more successful than George's?

:devilish:

---

Yes. Bedded, engaged, married. (Game, set, match)

Then divorced, when we both "woke up" a few years later. (So I plead again: "Forgive me, for I knew not...").

Idle observations: Neither Hil nor Barry would last 2 "day" cycles in one of our mafia games. J-Mac might make it to night 3, cuz he knows how to lay low.

Are none of them gonna try to explain what's wrong with the US econ and provide anything like a bold vision for fixing it? Or are we gonna end up with 3 befuddled senators taking pot-shots at each other for the next 9 months? Gonna be a painful pregnancy. I'm opposed to abortion, but I'm all for destroying this 'clump of (political) cells' now, in favor of the mother's life. Get a new slate. This one's terrible.

I mean, all the Dem's or Repub's hafta do is find a: Spanish-fluent, war-widowed, Episcopalian, 35+ year old, born in the US, Black Woman who never took drugs or welfare. The only words she'd have to speak are: "I declare my candidacy", "I accept the nomination", and "I swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states from all enemies...". A shoo-in. There have to be a million of them. Hell, I work with 2 of 'em myself.

Anybody heard any word on whether or when R.Paul might go Indy? I'd hate to throw my useless/frustrated vote to Nader again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I'd hate to throw my useless/frustrated vote to Nader again.

---

Pleas, please, please don't vote Nader. It just encourages that egomaniac. If you need to lodge a protest vote, there are all sorts of weird little third-party candidates who could use your love. Just ... not him, okay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Pleas, please, please don't vote Nader. It just encourages that egomaniac. If you need to lodge a protest vote, there are all sorts of weird little third-party candidates who could use your love. Just ... not him, okay?

---

Well, Nader managed to prevent a Gore presidency.

So instead of a liberal wonk we ended up with a....

:inquisitive:

well the tax cuts were good and....

:inquisitive:

well....

Oh bother.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

There, that helped.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Hey, that Paul fellow :rolleyes3: is seeming a bit better.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Much better.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

:dizzy:

:laugh4:

Well summed, Seamus!

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Pleas, please, please don't vote Nader. It just encourages that egomaniac. If you need to lodge a protest vote, there are all sorts of weird little third-party candidates who could use your love. Just ... not him, okay?

---

OK.

For you: I promise.

Wanna get married?




:clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown:

No, really, I promise: No Nader. I'm sure my '08 Califexico ballot will have 3 or 4 other candidates.

For the record, I owned and drove 3 Corvairs after his "Unsafe at Any Speed" screed, being a native Detroiter (and invincible young man) at the time. T'was cool how a single bolt un-assed the engine; my friendship with local motor-heads made swapping them (engines) out a Saturday beer-drinking event, of notorious proportion. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Anybody heard any word on whether or when R.Paul might go Indy? I'd hate to throw my useless/frustrated vote to Nader again.

---

Paul has stated that he will not run as an independent. Been there, done that, I guess. I think he wants to build a more constitutional/libertarian faction within the GOP. Supposedly, the Libertarian Party will ask him to be their candidate, but he said he would refuse.

I voted Bednarik in 2004, and assuming the Libertarians don't nominate a complete nutjob, will probably vote for them again. Unless Hillary gets the Dem nomination, in which case McCain will get my vote.

:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Anybody heard any word on whether or when R.Paul might go Indy? I'd hate to throw my useless/frustrated vote to Nader again.

---

Here.
Interviewer: A lot of your supporters want you to continue on with this campaign. I’ve heard personally from some of your supporters, they want you to run as a third party candidate. if you can’t get the nomination for the Republican candidacy, they want you to break out as a third party. Is there a chance and if not, why not?

Paul: Not likely, I have no plans to do that—and it’s rather sad.

Interviewer: Will you back McCain when he gets the nomination?

Paul: Probably not, unless he changes his philosophy.

[later in the interview]

Interviewer: And finally, just to confirm, you said you’re not dropping out of this race and you’re not going to break out as a third party?

Paul: No plans to do that, whatsoever. We will be in this race. And as long as the supporters want me to do it and more join us every day, which they do—and they continue to send in the money…

There's something both admirable and bone-chilling about watching Senator Clinton twist arms, break legs, defecate where she eats and kidnap children in her quest to keep her 5% chance of winning the nomination alive. Now she's gotten a bunch of high-profile donors to threaten Nancy Pelosi for suggesting that superdelegates should respect the will of the voters by going along with whichever candidate obtains the most pledged delegates. Linky.

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker of the US House of Representatives

Office of the Speaker

H-232, US Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

As Democrats, we have been heartened by the overwhelming response that our fellow Democrats have shown for our party’s candidates during this primary season. Each caucus and each primary has seen a record turnout of voters. But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier:

"I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility.’”

Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election.

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

Sincerely,

Marc Aronchick

Clarence Avant

Susie Tompkins Buell

Sim Farar

Robert L. Johnson

Chris Korge

Marc and Cathy Lasry

Hassan Nemazee

Alan and Susan Patricof

JB Pritzker

Amy Rao

Lynn de Rothschild

Haim Saban

Bernard Schwartz

Stanley S. Shuman

Jay Snyder

Maureen White and Steven Rattner

So what are they gonna do? Throw their support behind Cindy Sheehan? :laugh4:

Not exactly Obama girl.

A look at the money:

In the month of February, [John McCain] raised just under $11 million, compared to $34 million for Clinton and $55 million for Obama.The numbers get worse when you look at the whole election cycle: in total, McCain has raised just $64 million, less than half of Clinton's $170 million, and a third of Obama's $193 million.

But what's most striking is the debt. The Clinton campaign has amassed a staggering $8.7 million worth, double McCain's $4.3 million. Obama, on the other hand, owes only $625,000. By campaign standards, he's debt free.

I think that says better things about McCain than the rest, to be honest. Despite a relative lack of funds (still large amounts by most standards!) he has won his primaries convincingly. Does that say more about him or his opponents, I wonder?

Wow. Obama owes more than he's ever given to charity. :laugh4:

There isn't much of a doubt in my mind that McCain will lose this election, but the Democratic debacle allows us to entertain the thought of a win, no matter how unlikely.

McCain needs more money, but I won't send him a penny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

There isn't much of a doubt in my mind that McCain will lose this election, but the Democratic debacle allows us to entertain the thought of a win, no matter how unlikely.

McCain needs more money, but I won't send him a penny.

---

:laugh4: I don't like him much but you anti-McCain people would let Rome burn just to get rid of a few Demo...Christians!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

:laugh4: I don't like him much but you anti-McCain people would let Rome burn just to get rid of a few Demo...Christians!

---

I want him to win, but not enough to spend a dime. Are you going to give money to his campaign?

I'm not a Republican.

McCain is not raising much money, but he's not really spending it either. The Democratic candidates are in a bitter fight to the convention, they are going through that cash like congressmen.

Isn't McCain also hamstrung by campaign finance reform, at least until the conventions are over?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I want him to win, but not enough to spend a dime. Are you going to give money to his campaign?

I'm not a Republican.

---

Yea, I'll give him my :2cents:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Isn't McCain also hamstrung by campaign finance reform, at least until the conventions are over?

---

You better laugh when you say that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

You better laugh when you say that.

---

The irony of his situation does make one chuckle. ~D

Relations

I was shown this by a friend of mine today. Skipping past the Brangelina part (they only put that there for the teenagers to read), read how the canidates are related, and who to. It's interesting just for the entertainment value.

Yet another great article by Peggy Noonan. Man, if I were only 30 years older... ahumanahumanahumana!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

DECLARATIONS
By PEGGY NOONAN


Getting Mrs. Clinton
March 28, 2008

I think we've reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don't, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.

That's what the Bosnia story was about. Her fictions about dodging bullets on the tarmac -- and we have to hope they were lies, because if they weren't, if she thought what she was saying was true, we are in worse trouble than we thought -- either confirmed what you already knew (she lies as a matter of strategy, or, as William Safire said in 1996, by nature) or revealed in an unforgettable way (videotape! Smiling girl in pigtails offering flowers!) what you feared (that she lies more than is humanly usual, even politically usual).
[Getting Mrs. Clinton]
AP

But either you get it now or you never will. That's the importance of the Bosnia tape.

Many in the press get it, to their dismay, and it makes them uncomfortable, for it sours life to have a person whose character you feel you cannot admire play such a large daily role in your work. But I think it's fair to say of the establishment media at this point that it is well populated by people who feel such a lack of faith in Mrs. Clinton's words and ways that it amounts to an aversion. They are offended by how she and her staff operate. They try hard to be fair. They constantly have to police themselves.

Not that her staff isn't policing them too. Mrs. Clinton's people are heavy-handed in that area, letting producers and correspondents know they're watching, weighing, may have to take this higher. There's too much of this in politics, but Hillary's campaign takes it to a new level.

It's not only the press. It's what I get as I walk around New York, which used to be thick with her people. I went to a Hillary fund-raiser at Hunter College about a month ago, paying for a seat in the balcony and being ushered up to fill the more expensive section on the floor, so frantic were they to fill seats.

I sat next to a woman, a New York Democrat who'd been for Hillary from the beginning and still was. She was here. But, she said, "It doesn't seem to be working." She shrugged, not like a brokenhearted person but a practical person who'd missed all the signs of something coming. She wasn't mad at the voters. But she was no longer so taken by the woman who soon took the stage and enacted joy.

The other day a bookseller told me he'd been reading the opinion pages of the papers and noting the anti-Hillary feeling. Two weeks ago he realized he wasn't for her anymore. It wasn't one incident, just an accumulation of things. His experience tracks this week's Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showing Mrs. Clinton's disapproval numbers have risen to the highest level ever in the campaign, her highest in fact in seven years.

* * *

You'd think she'd pivot back to showing a likable side, chatting with women, weeping, wearing the bright yellows and reds that are thought to appeal to her core following, older women. Well, she's doing that. Yet at the same time, her campaign reveals new levels of thuggishness, though that's the wrong word, for thugs are often effective. This is mere heavy-handedness.

On Wednesday a group of Mrs. Clinton's top donors sent a letter to the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, warning her in language that they no doubt thought subtle but that reflected a kind of incompetent menace, that her statements on the presidential campaign may result in less money for Democratic candidates for the House. Ms. Pelosi had said that in her view the superdelegates should support the presidential candidate who wins the most pledged delegates in state contests. The letter urged her to "clarify" her position, which is "clearly untenable" and "runs counter" to the superdelegates' right to make "an informed, individual decision" about "who would be the party's strongest nominee." The signers, noting their past and huge financial support, suggested that Ms. Pelosi "reflect" on her comments and amend them to reflect "a more open view."

Barack Obama's campaign called it inappropriate and said Mrs. Clinton should "reject the insinuation." But why would she? All she has now is bluster. Her supporters put their threat in a letter, not in a private meeting. By threatening Ms. Pelosi publicly, they robbed her of room to maneuver. She has to defy them or back down. She has always struck me as rather grittier than her chic suits, high heels and unhidden enthusiasm may suggest. We'll see.

What, really, is Mrs. Clinton doing? She is having the worst case of cognitive dissonance in the history of modern politics. She cannot come up with a credible, realistic path to the nomination. She can't trace the line from "this moment's difficulties" to "my triumphant end." But she cannot admit to herself that she can lose. Because Clintons don't lose. She can't figure out how to win, and she can't accept the idea of not winning. She cannot accept that this nobody from nowhere could have beaten her, quietly and silently, every day. (She cannot accept that she still doesn't know how he did it!)

She is concussed. But she is a scrapper, a fighter, and she's doing what she knows how to do: scrap and fight. Only harder. So that she ups the ante every day. She helped Ireland achieve peace. She tried to stop Nafta. She's been a leader for 35 years. She landed in Bosnia under siege and bravely dodged bullets. It was as if she'd watched the movie "Wag the Dog," with its fake footage of a terrified refugee woman running frantically from mortar fire, and found it not a cautionary tale about manipulation and politics, but an inspiration.

* * *

What struck me as the best commentary on the Bosnia story came from a poster called GI Joe who wrote in to a news blog: "Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy." Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. "She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself." Then she turned to his wounds. "She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood."

Made me laugh. It was like the voice of the people answering back. This guy knows that what Mrs. Clinton said is sort of crazy. He seems to know her reputation for untruths. He seemed to be saying, "I get it."

Again, interesting and well written article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peggy Noonan

This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't.

---

What astonishes me is that she still appears to be ahead in Pennsylvania. How? What kind of person would vote for that kind of person? The world has had eight years of dealing with a President that only hears what advice he wants to hear, but one that makes up reality on the hoof? I'm beginning to believe our right-wing friends when they maintain the Democratic party is comprised of drug-addled fantasists, because let's face it, only someone with a serious substance abuse problem could vote Hillary towards the nomination. McCain would crucify these claims of hers, and rightly.

Can anyone explain why Pennsylvanians would still vote for her? When I lived there, they were such down-to-earth people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Again, interesting and well written article.



What astonishes me is that she still appears to be ahead in Pennsylvania. How? What kind of person would vote for that kind of person? The world has had eight years of dealing with a President that only hears what advice he wants to hear, but one that makes up reality on the hoof? I'm beginning to believe our right-wing friends when they maintain the Democratic party is comprised of drug-addled fantasists, because let's face it, only someone with a serious substance abuse problem could vote Hillary towards the nomination. McCain would crucify these claims of hers, and rightly.

Can anyone explain why Pennsylvanians would still vote for her? When I lived there, they were such down-to-earth people.

---

Probably because Pennsylvanians tend to be more conservative and want to sabotage the national Democratic party? Who knows.

Well, the other choice is a guy with no experience, some shady business connections, and who calls the church of the bigot Wright, who spouts hatred and lies, "traditional and conventional". He defends the antisemite Wright by comparing him to his own grandmother.

And, all his policies are very far left (on the American scale), nowhere near the moderate tone of his speeches, which lack substance.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Again, interesting and well written article.



What astonishes me is that she still appears to be ahead in Pennsylvania. How? What kind of person would vote for that kind of person? The world has had eight years of dealing with a President that only hears what advice he wants to hear, but one that makes up reality on the hoof? I'm beginning to believe our right-wing friends when they maintain the Democratic party is comprised of drug-addled fantasists, because let's face it, only someone with a serious substance abuse problem could vote Hillary towards the nomination. McCain would crucify these claims of hers, and rightly.

Can anyone explain why Pennsylvanians would still vote for her? When I lived there, they were such down-to-earth people.

---

Democrats in Pennsylvania are mostly card carrying Union members, Hillary's turf. Obama's support comes from the more well-to-do Democrats and the non-working poor. Hillary's got women, unions and a few pet causes that feel she represents them better than Barrack.

I don't know how unions in the UK or the rest of Europe work, but this may be one of those situations where we all think we're speaking Spanish, but in reality half of us are speaking Portugese. I know Europe tends to think of Americans as rabidly anti-Union, and you attibute it to ignorance (unions represent the people, why would the people resent unions).

More and more, as with abortion, I think we're talking about 2 very different things. In the U.S.A., when your IBEW local 173 boss (or whatever your local chapter is) tells you to vote, you vote. If he walked in and said "vote for Louis Farrakahn", you do it. There's no choice, there's no dissent. If you try to buck the flow, you're silenced pretty quickly. :smash:

And as CR rightly points out, it's not like there are more palatable alternatives. You've got 'head in the clouds' who wants to talk about Hope and how we'll spend your newly conscripted taxes, or Johnny "I'm so tough, I'll declare war on the UN itself" McCain who seems to think that the only problem with American Democracy is too many voters are allowed to have a say.

I surrender. Choice isn't worth a damn when you're options are all worthless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Democrats in Pennsylvania are mostly card carrying Union members, Hillary's turf. Obama's support comes from the more well-to-do Democrats and the non-working poor.

---

What?! :inquisitive: Obama is the rich, white man's candidate? I don't think so.

Union leaders are also loosing control of their member's votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

What?! :inquisitive: Obama is the rich, white man's candidate? I don't think so.

---

Read the polls, friend. Obama does extremely well with affluent white people, both male and female. Oh, and Clinton's support among women is attenuated to the +50 crowd. Think of a blue-haired biddy smoking Virginia Slims, and you've got her base.

Looks like Senator Clinton's throw everything at him strategy is not working:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...dategraph1.gif

Here are some details on Clinton's base:

White Democrats who hold unfavorable views of Obama are much more likely than those who have favorable opinions of him to say that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far; they also are more likely to disapprove of interracial dating, and are more concerned about the threat that immigrants may pose to American values. In addition, nearly a quarter of white Democrats (23%) who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a Muslim.

Less educated and older white Democrats, who have not backed Obama in most primary elections, hold these values more commonly than do other Democrats.

-edit-

Amusingly, Slate has instituted a Hillary Deathwatch. They're pegging her odds at 12%, which is quite generous.

Rorschach test:

Read the following paragraph. Imagine that Obama has said it. Gauge your reaction. Then imagine Condi Rice said it, and gauge your reaction again.

"Black Americans were a founding population. Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding." As a result, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."

Source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

...the only problem with American Democracy is too many voters are allowed to have a say.

---

I've heard that argument made, and actually have some sympathy.

How about this:

You can exercise the federal franchise whenever you can document that, in the preceding tax year, you paid more in federal taxes than you received from federal government checks in any form.

...just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You can exercise the federal franchise whenever you can document that, in the preceding tax year, you paid more in federal taxes than you received from federal government checks in any form.

---

What about those below the poverty line? They suddenly have no say in their own future. That system would only have the voice of the middle and upper classes heard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I've heard that argument made, and actually have some sympathy.

How about this:

You can exercise the federal franchise whenever you can document that, in the preceding tax year, you paid more in federal taxes than you received from federal government checks in any form.

...just a thought.

---

And a fine thought, but one that eliminates the franchise for fed employees, including soldiers.

I liked your other Heinlein-esque idea better: 2+ years of honorable service to the country = citizenship. You do, you get; from whatever station in life you started.

@Lemur: nice find on the Condi thoughts. Talk about cutting to the core issue and making it stand up and salute... She may be a factor/player down the road, after all. He loyalty to her boss will prevent her playing any part this election cycle, I guess. (She already speaks Russian, German, French, and Spanish, and is Presbyterian. If she can prove that she never took drugs or welfare, and marries a GI who dies heroically, she meets the Kukri criteria for presidential shoo-in. In any year.) Sadly for us, all she says she wants is to be NFL commissioner.

IMO, J-Mac's smartest move (if he could pull it off) would be to court and name Condi as his VP. The wailing and gnashing of Dem-party teeth would be audible in Sydney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

What about those below the poverty line? They suddenly have no say in their own future. That system would only have the voice of the middle and upper classes heard.

---

To which the classic counter is: "why give the franchise to those with a vested interest in selecting leaders solely on the basis of their willingness to increase the voters' own largesse?" Should employers let the employees decide their own wages? Should we let prelates of a given faith decide whether or not there should be a state religion?

Don't mistake me, I'm not declaring myself an opponent of a broad suffrage, but I'm not sure that the current "18 and breathing" status is appropriate either. It wasn't the intent of the founders certainly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

To which the classic counter is: "why give the franchise to those with a vested interest in selecting leaders solely on the basis of their willingness to increase the voters' own largesse?"

---

But that's exactly what you have right now.

No candidate even gets before the wider franchise unless they are hand-picked and supported by the corporates and rich interests - for the precise purpose of maintaining and increasing their largesse.

It's not universal suffrage that is at fault, but the way western democracies provide the "choice" to that franchise - alongside the continuing campaign to dumb down the electorate through poor education, control of media and information, and providing shiny toys as distractions.