You know Bats, I'd have thought your election predictions would have ended after you announced that John Kerry would have the biggest landslide victory since Reagan in Nov 2004. I guess not. Let's look at some facts: 1) Many of Obama's states were caucuses, which we now know is a flawed process that disproportionately benefitted him by disenfranchising Hillary's base. 2) All of Obama's wins were pre-Jeremiah Wright scandal. He has been severely damaged since then among independents and cross-overs. 3) We have 10 more states to vote! Including PA, where Hillary is mopping the floor with Obama. Momentum... 4) The Supers have a voice! They can vote however they'd like, and to prematurely shut down their voice based on some arbitrary measurement like today's pledged delegate count, is foolhardy. 5) Obama does not fare well in General election polls. Don't you think those delegates and supers want a candidate that can win in November? Wright has stripped Obama of his support from independents. Interesting though, that his hard core supporters don't have a problem with Obama supporting and honoring a racist, bigot and anti-semite... but that's a digression... Hillary's comments have become increasingly adversarial towards Obama. Don't expect her to lay down and accept defeat. The internecine struggle is just beginning, friend.
You know, I actually think it isn't. Or at least not as long as she thinks it is. Superdelegates want a Democrat to win in November. They can do math. They know it's almost definitely going to be Obama and they're not going to stand for Hillary kneecapping him for five more months. If she keeps this up, she can expect to see supers endorse Obama in droves no later than June. If she wins by less than 10 in PA or loses NC and/or IN by significant margins, they could endorse him as soon as April 23 or May 7. She could keep this going until the convention, but only if she eases up on the scorched earth stuff. The supers won't let her run that game all summer when they know how it's ultimately going to turn out.
I don't reply to you or texxx or basso anymore, Jorge. It's a waste of time since every time someone kicks your ass on the facts you just pretend it didn't happen. But I'm going to make one small exception here since your post is so rich. Typical lie. Corrected about twenty times now (after which you always go poof) but here it is one more time. I didn't announce Kerry would have a landslide or even win; I said that IF the exit polls were accurate he would win in a landslide. They weren't and he didn't. It's telling that you have to rely on lies for every single argument you make. The Wright thing is another example. You can repeat "20 YEARS, 20 YEARS!!!" all you want. Obama was entirely unaware of the controversial comments for every one of those 20 years. As soon as he was aware of the comments, he denounced them immediately. But you already knew that. It's funny how the caucus system has been A-OK for time immemorial and suddenly it disenfranchises voters when Clinton loses. Funnier still that you've taken up all of her talking points. It cracks me up how terrified you guys are of an Obama ticket. Actually he hasn't. He rebounded better than anyone expected and saw his numbers against Hillary and McCain increase in the last day or so to pre-Wright numbers. Wishing doesn't make it so, Jorge. (See: Iraq) Actually her numbers are dropping in PA. But even if she wins by 20, she still needs significant victories in NC and IN to even get close in pledged delegates OR popular vote. They're tied in IN and the last two polls show Obama running away with NC. That's not to mention Oregon, South Dakota and other states that favor Obama. It's funny you would mention momentum. Not one single serious person would argue today that momentum's in Hillary's favor. Are you living in a week ago? It's impossible to "shut down their voice." You're not even making sense. Maybe you didn't read my last post, but the strong conventional wisdom is that the remaining supers favor Obama right now. Even if they didn't, an even split among remaining pledged delegates would mean that Hillary would need about 70% of remaining supers to Obama's 30% JUST TO TIE. Nobody in the world believes she has 70% or even 50% of the remaining supers. It would take Obama being led away in handcuffs to change that. You keep saying this as though it's based on anything at all; it isn't. Every recent poll has shown Obama doing as well or better than Hillary against McCain. And every day the polls look better for him and worse for her. Wright = pretty much zero damage at all. You're too lame and boring to be my friend. I spoke to the rest of this fantasy in my previous posts. You're going to get about one reply per month from me, at best, going forward by the way. Choose your inquiries carefully.
Batman, although I favor Obama over McCain (and anybody over Hillary), I still find Obama's being "entirely unaware" as less than plausible and somewhat disturbing. Did he sleep through every Sunday sermon for 20 years or did he just hold church membership and played golf on Sunday mornings? Is he secretly suffering from hearing loss in noisy places? He obviously didn't buy any of his church's taped sermons. I don't know. What I do know is that this one won't play in Peoria. My clients, for example, are still up in arms about the Idiot Wright's comments and Obama's refusal to excoriate him for saying the stupid stuff previously noted.
The original post from the thread starter was a column written by an Obama supporter and submitted without a link. Pretty lame, if you ask me. Impeach Bush and Send Him to Tibet.
Regardless of the validity of the article, the Clintons are lynch men....they've shown their true colors over the past few months. They're a pretty nasty bunch, but if that floats your boat then so be it. To me, their arrogance and sense of self-entitlement is a MAJOR turnoff. I am leaning more and more towards either McCain or Obama. Right now McCain has a slight edge though, at least he hasn't -- as of yet -- disowned his father and life-long spiritual guide and in a few short months.
I like Obama and Clinton. I just don't like the "Obama Fanboy" attitude some have around here (with an apology to the chicks). Like he's next to Jesus and doesn't put a pair of pants on like the rest of us... one leg at a time. Obama is playing the political game like everyone else. He's just more sophisticated at it. I'd say slick, but it would bring to mind another Clinton. McCain would be a disaster, in my opinion. Impeach Bush and Send Him to Tibet.
Next to Jesus... Better than actually thinking he's Jesus, like Carville and other Clinton disciples. Judas? Really?
I posted one article from the Washington Post. Here is another... http://www.reuters.com/article/poli...Type=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true Clinton backers warn Pelosi on superdelegate rift Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:03am EDT By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of prominent Hillary Clinton donors sent a letter to House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday asking her to retract her comments on superdelegates and stay out of the Democratic fight over their role in the presidential race. The 20 prominent Clinton supporters told Pelosi she should "clarify" recent statements to make it clear superdelegates -- nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who are free to back any candidate -- could support the candidate they think would be the best nominee. Pelosi has not publicly endorsed either Clinton or Barack Obama in their hotly contested White House battle, but she recently said superdelegates should support whoever emerges from the nomination contests with the most pledged delegates -- which appears almost certain to be Obama. "This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party's intent in establishing superdelegates in 1984," the letter from the wealthy Clinton backers said. "Superdelegates, 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," said the letter signed by some of Clinton's biggest fund raisers. Superdelegates have emerged as likely kingmakers in the fight between Clinton and Obama. The letter was another sign of growing Democratic tension over their nominating battle. Neither candidate is expected to have enough pledged delegates won in state-by-state contests to clinch the nomination when voting ends in June, leaving the choice in the hands of the superdelegates. Both candidates have wooed them heavily, with Obama contending they should follow the will of Democratic voters and Clinton arguing they should vote for the candidate with the best chance of winning the presidential election in November -- which she says is her. Among the signees of the letter were prominent Democrats and Clinton supporters like Robert Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television; Bernard Schwartz, former chairman of Loral Space and Communications; and venture capitalist Steven Rattner. The signees reminded the House leader from California of their support for the party's House campaign committee and said "therefore" she should "reflect in your comments a more open view" about superdelegates. "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," the letter said. The Obama campaign said the Illinois senator would support the election efforts of House Democrats no matter what the outcome of the nomination fight. "This letter is inappropriate and we hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said Clinton had made the case superdelegates should exercise independent judgment about who would be the best for the party and the country. "Few have done more to build the Democratic Party than Bill and Hillary Clinton. The last thing they need is a lecture from the Obama campaign," he said. (Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
He does actually make a point though. How can Obama be expected to unite the nation when he cannot even hold his own party together?
I agree, I am not necessarily "anti-Clinton" (I certainly wasn't when this whole thing started). I am, however, turned off by many of her 'antics' as well as her husband's (a guy whom I used to respect a lot, even though I disagreed with him on quite a few topics). As for Obama, yeah he's slick alright...very slick! That in and of itself worries me...he's the teflon candidate. Oh, and did I mention the 'Thatcher Syndrome' ? His stubbornness is both concerning and endearing...it's part of his 'charm' as a candidate especially given his past history of repeatedly breaking with the 'party line' when he thought it was the right thing to do. His Iraq policy is probably the most troublesome to me, but I still think he's closer to Bush 41/Colin Powell than he is to Bush 43, which is something I like and would prefer in a presidential candidate during the 'War on Terror' era of American politics. Perhaps more than anything else, I find his fiscal conservatism and stance on this whole crazy/catastrophic idea of government bailout of irresponsible lenders/home buyers very appealing. I understand my views may not agree with your personal philosophy on what a president should do as well as what the role of government should be -- I respect that. But besides his views on "completing the mission" in Iraq (which I know is a problem for many on the left) I honestly think he's far and away the most 'centrist' candidate on the ticket. In the end, I think the Iraq issue is a 'wash' because NEITHER Democratic candidate will withdraw troops within the time frame many of you view as 'acceptable'. I think the sooner Americans accept a near-permanent presence in Iraq -- regardless of who's in office -- the better everyone will be for it, because then we can change the terms of the debate to something more suitable to 'reality'.
So these 20 are wealthy, non-elected, Dem "fund raisers" who are threatening Pelosi. Dangerous. If elected, these very large Hillary donors will give her a very long wish-list. Political dynasties are a bad thing and that concept (and the fear factor it generates) is the only reason Hillary is still contesting the nomination. At first I thought she would automatically be Senate majority leader if she lost. Now, I wonder if she even wants to go back to the Senate. Hillary's whole Senate stint was simply a platform to launch for president. If she doesn't make president, maybe nothing else is relevant to her. As she said before the NH primary, it is indeed "personal".
I used to think much the same way you do about John McCain. I was a fan of his and said as much here a few years ago (somewhere!). He's really let me down during his campaign for the nomination, however, sucking up bigtime to the worst of the far-right fundamentalists (for example). He's really shocked me. I agree that there is no logical way to pull all our troops out within 60 days or a few months without putting them, our civilians there (I have a relative in Baghdad that I've been worrying about), and the general population at severe risk. We certainly can pull them out quickly, using a realistic time table. It just may not be as quick as some believe. However, McCain has this fantasy that Iraq is going to be another South Korea, another Japan, another West Germany. That simply isn't going to happen. Japan, Germany, and Korea have essentially homogeneous populations. They aren't fractured by ethnic, religious, and tribal rivalries going back many hundreds of years. They aren't an artificial construct of former colonial powers. Yet McCain believes we can have the same outcome in Iraq, with nothing to base that on but his fantasies. Don't get me started on who he would pick as lifetime Federal judges. Impeach Bush.
With a Dem congress and public opinion staring him in the face, McCain won't be able to try and fulfill his fantasies about Iraq. If he had a GOP congress, I'd be more scared of him.
He said this in his speech: I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. It sounds like he knew, but I don't care much if he didn't publicly disagree against Wright. This whole 20 years schpeal assumes that people unequivocally agree with their spiritual leaders on everything they say. That's not exactly the purpose of going to church, at least that's not from what I understand from it.
First of all, all of my points stand. You refuted none. The caucuses are inefficient measures of the voters' will, Wright destroyed Obama's support amongst independents, Obama is trailing bigtime in the battleground states versus McCain, and the biggest lie of all was that you didn't trumpet your prediction that Kerry would win in a landslide. All of those points stand and all of your points are swimming around in the turd lagoon in your communal lib-hippie village. After your latest string of insults and hatred, I must tell you that our close friendship is in peril. I'm sorry, but I simply can not let you tell bald faced lies to this BBS. I simply will not allow it, and let this be a stern warning to you that such balderdash will not be tolerated. We must elevate our dialogue to make any progress here. Lose the insults. Now to the point -- you have really pushed the limits of your kook fringe lunacy with the post above. Are you that naive? Are you aware of how close of a relationship Wright and Obama had? He married them. He baptized their kids. He blessed their fraudulent house purchased by Iraq. He was named to Obama's spiritual leadership team. He was like Obama's long lost Muslim father, except he probably isn't Muslim. The bottom line is the Obama was intimately aware of Wright's racism, bigotry and anti-semitism. There is absolutely no way that he wasn't. He was a part of that church for 20 years. He admitted himself that he heard 'controversial statements' while in church. So that destroys your argument right there. Second, take off your lunatic fringe kool-aid googles and take a look at the outrageous double standard here. You telling me that if a Republican attendend 20 years of KKK rallies and then came out and denounced the words, that the slate would be wiped clean? No harm no foul? You telling me that after 20 years of KKK rallies, that Republican would have been blissfully ignorant of any pernicious words exchanged at those rallies? You must be joking. I mean, your cred is on the line here. This is the HEIGHT of naivete by you, OR, you have totally sacrificed your morals and ethical standards. You pick, amigo. ' If you believe that Obama didn't know about Wright's racism, bigotry, and anti-semitism, then maybe you also believe in the guy below: HO HO HO INDEED
This is a brazen attempt at extortion. Of course, Hillary has no problem with it. Is it so hard to see the difference between what this dangerous, unelected "group of 20" is doing and elected members of the Senate publicly endorsing the candidate of their choice? Is there any wonder why Hillary's poll numbers have tanked the last week or so? Is there a better time to be thankful that Clinton Inc. won't be moving into the White House next year. Whew! Oh, and I suppose this writer has to be an Obama supporter. Uh huh. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...hillary_clintons_wealthy_pals_warn_nancy.html Hillary Clinton's wealthy pals warn Nancy Pelosi on superdelegates BY MICHAEL McAULIFF DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU Thursday, March 27th 2008, 4:00 AM House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Egan-Chin/News House Speaker Nancy Pelosi WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton's megabucks donors picked a fight with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday, pitting the most famous woman in politics against the most powerful. Angered that Pelosi wants Democratic insiders to follow the will of voters when they cast their own "superdelegate" votes in the nomination race, 20 of Clinton's top fund-raisers issued a veiled threat to Pelosi and warned her to change her tune. "We have been strong supporters of the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee]," they wrote, referring to the House fund-raising arm overseen by Pelosi. "We therefore urge you to clarify your position on superdelegates and reflect in your comments a more open view." Sources said Pelosi was infuriated by the implied threat the donors would quit giving cash to the committee. Clinton's supporters pounced on Pelosi for telling ABC this month that the party would be damaged if "superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections." Clinton trails Barack Obama in the "pledged" delegates that have been selected by voters - and almost certainly cannot catch up. But she hopes superdelegates catapult her ahead of Obama. The House speaker was not backing down, however, and is still insisting that superdelegates respect "the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted," her aide Brendan Daly said. The brazen move by Camp Clinton stunned veteran Democrats, particularly because at least eight of the letter's authors have not donated to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee since Pelosi became speaker. "[Clinton] looks desperate," said one. "There is no way they should have threatened to do this. It is terrible. ... I am sure Obama is raising money off of it already." Obama's campaign said the letter was inappropriate. "We hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it," said Obama's spokesman Bill Burton. But the Clinton team stood by its moneymen. "Sen. Clinton has been vocal in stating that superdelegates should exercise independent judgment about who'd be the best for the party and the country," said spokesman Phil Singer. "Few have done more to build the Democratic Party than Bill and Hillary Clinton," Singer added. "The last thing they need is a lecture from the Obama campaign." Clinton's team had hoped uncommitted superdelegates would stay that way through the April22 Pennsylvania primary, in which the New York senator is expected to do well. But one senior Democratic operative said, "If they were hoping to put a freeze on the superdelegates, they just blew the cork."With Kenneth R. Bazinet mmcauliff@nydailynews.com With Kenneth R. Bazinet
A Republican candidate who had been criticized for being too liberal, to the point that the far right wing considered running their own candidate, getting cozy with the far right wing...shocking? Not really. It's smart politics. It is uniting the party. It does not change who John McCain is. Getting cozy with the current administration...a little bothersome. I do believe that this is more about lip service to keep the far right wing happy. It does not change who John McCain is. What McCain has been able to do is keep the party from fracturing. In the Southern District of Texas, the District judges have a 7 year term, with a re-approval process. I am not sure how it is in other districts, but I assume that it isn't that different. The Supreme Court, OOTH, is a lifetime appointment. I doubt that there will be more than one seat come open during his term...barring a very unfortunate event.
It's possible....granted he didn't get elected often.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=david+duke
