CBS is now projecting the Hillary only picked up 9 pledged delegates in PA. 82-73. So if we had about 15 more PAs, she still wouldn't catch Barack. http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/d_delegateScorecard.shtml
She should pick up around 54 delegates when Florida and Michigan are seated. That, plus her popular vote lead, plus Obama's balloon popping, put her in a very defensible position...
So this is a yes or no question. Your credibility is on the line. This answer is very important to your credibility on the board. I don't need another question in response just a yes or no answer. Should people or governments that sign off on official agreements be held to the terms of those agreements? It looks like you are saying no that they should not he held accountable for those agreements, but I just want to be sure.
I don't answer questions. The landscape has changed since the DNC made their ruling on Florida and Michigan. We should adapt to the times. Are you in favor of staying the course in Iraq, since Congress approved the war? If not, then you should recognize that decisions, once made, are not to be held up as gospel no matter what happens next.
If you don't answer the question we are left to judge that you don't believe govts. and people are held accountable to agreements they've made. Your credibility has been blown. Since Saddam wasn't really obligated to show that he got rid of his WMD's because the landscape changed since then. There were inspectors on the ground to verify that so Saddam didn't really need to. After all the landscape changed. That's not my logic, but your own. As for staying the course, I'm fully aware that resolutions would have to be passed to withdraw the troops, and I'm in favor of those rather than just having the troops hitchhiking to the nearest intl. airport and hopping on plane back to the U.S.
I just don't think voters are that stupid. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me, it's clear gamesmanship. On the issues that matter, these two have continually been in sync and complimentary of one another. As such, I have a hard time believing that the two candidates' supporters, with ideologies that are so remarkably similar, would overlook the night and day difference between Clinton/Obama and McCain and instead focus on squabbling over the vote count. Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I really don't want to believe America is that stupid.
I used the wrong numbers by mistake. It doesn't change my point at all, which is that Obama has a very narrow lead over Clinton in the popular vote, less than 2% points, and if you counted the states' electoral votes, excluding Florida and Michigan, she would actually be ahead. If we still used "winner takes all" in our (Democratic) primaries, she would be ahead. Again, going by your own vitriol towards Clinton, what does that say about all the Democrats who voted for her? Nearly half the total. As for your old "points" that you keep bringing up, we discussed that several weeks ago and agreed, as I remember it, to just blow it off, because we couldn't have a decent political discussion when you would constantly bring that up whenever I posted something you disagreed with or simply didn't like. Guess what? You are still doing it. Say what you like about me, but in my opinion, that certainly says a lot about you. You have a lot of nerve posting something like this in reference to me... "And it's a shame you have to make this personal too saying I have nothing better to talk about when what I'm talking about is the election and where I'm doing it is in the forum where we discuss those things. I haven't done that with you except to complain that you have completely failed to address the substance of a single point I've made (bullet pointed for your convenience above). I swear to god it's like arguing with basso." By bringing up old crap whenever you want to "score points" in a discussion with me, you don't see that as being personal and a personal attack? I see it as you having decided to toss the "kitchen sink" at Deckard because you haven't anything better to add to your comments. Ironic, because that's what you accuse Hillary Clinton of doing. This is the last time I'm addressing this. You can have political discussions with me without posting the BS you have decided is in your political quiver, or you can have your discussions with someone else. Frankly, I'm tired of dealing with you. Your choice. I can function here very well without the aggravation. Impeach Bush.
From today's Bob Novak column: For the first time, Democratic loyalists not necessarily committed to Clinton are wondering whether the party's system for picking a nominee is the problem. If all caucuses were eliminated and only primaries used in picking nominees, Obama's lead of 130 in delegates would become an advantage for Clinton of 45 delegates. When you stop and think about how corrupt and flawed the caucus system is, and how many voters it disenfranchises, you start to see how Hillary will have a strong case for the nomination at the convention. Especially when coupled with her popular vote lead. That's a VERY strong case.
And if you only counted votes that were cast for Clinton instead of Obama she would have a 100% lead.
<object classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="390" height="320" id="Redlasso"><param name="movie" value="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="embedId=abc238bd-7e27-4ee7-ac64-b54b86b9ace3" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf" flashvars="embedId=abc238bd-7e27-4ee7-ac64-b54b86b9ace3" width="390" height="320" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" name="Redlasso"></embed></object>
And if we made it so only people 65 and older could vote, Hillary wins! She also wins if we only let women vote (oh and men who get a permissions slip from a woman), she would win then too. And lets not forget she would win if we only let people vote who make $50,000 or less. Then she would really win! (thanks Huffpo)
OK, so for those of you who claim that it's a rules violation to seat Florida and Michigan, please tell me what your opposition is to letting those states re-vote? Why is Obama resisting this move? How can it be for any other reason than to disenfranchise those voters because he feels like they will support Hillary? Can anyone answer that?
He's not resisting it. Florida determined it would not do it, and MI couldn't figure out an affordable way to have an equitable do over. Again it was the states decision.
And Obama has said on several occasions that he will abide with any decision the states and the DNC decide to do.
I'm sorry I pissed you off so bad. I really just wanted your opinion on my various, actual complaints about Hillary's campaign in addition to the scolding you keep giving me for having complaints. In this thread, I'd have liked it if you weighed in on the FL/MI thing in particular. But whatever. I like you and I'm sorry I played rough enough to make you mad. I'll drop it now.
