Obama seems like such a phony to me. I wasn't for Obama or Clinton to start with, but there is no way I could support Obama now.

Go - Hillary!

i really dont know what all the fuss is about Edwards. i cant see how he matters, to be sincere, i mean he was wacked out of the race by a Black man and a white woman. if he's so great, he should still be in the race

I believe John Edwards will make a well thought out decision. He has been very patient, not in any rush at all to choose. I definitely respect and admire him. I expect no more or less a well thought out decision.

Go Edwards =) I absolutely understand. I just can't believe he dropped out. I just knew he'd be in all the way.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

Results Now Posted Instantly! Barack Obama In the Lead!

Like It? Don't Like It? Vote.

BTW, I read that late-deciders break for Clinton. I've always thought she was the major issue in the campaign. If you hate her and want the Clintons gone, you voted Obama. If you didn't, you voted Clinton. But everyone knows Clinton by now; it takes a Bosnia gaffe to create more antipathy for her. So unless she's done something to annoy you lately, you're probably going to go for her, as she's the known quantity. And that's Obama's biggest handicap: he's not known, and because of his race, name, etc., its easy for others to define him. Basically, his campaign has been, I was right on Iraq, and I'm not Clinton (which is shorthand for, he's not a liar like she is, he's not divisive, like she is, etc.). At this point, he needs a little more.

"Interestingly, the 44 percent of voters who said each candidate attacked the other unfairly gave Clinton 65 percent and Obama 35 percent ..."

and this is why Obama can't go negative. if it's the black guy beating on the white lady, he loses. He HAS to take the high road.

How come women going 66-34 Clinton is a winner, but Rendell is ALSO a winner for allowing Obama to go 65-35 in Philly? Seems to me the organization Dems who backed Clinton got some 'splainin' to do.

All you people commenting on Hillary only winning by 9.2%, I don't know about you, but that has always been considered a good win to me. Look at it this way, he lost by 9.2%, any better for you?

John Edwards is not the loser in all this, he is the winner because Obama needs him more now than ever to connect to down scale, rural voters. If I was Obama, I would try to convince John Edwards to take the vp slot so the ticket can give voice to the frustrations of the working class in the Midwest and stop the flow of them to McCain.

ATTENTION JACKSMITH :-)

If you think you can make people listen to and believe your poorly-phrased, poorly-reasoned partisan attacks on Barack Obama,

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think Barack Obama's EXTENSIVE experience as a civil rights attorney, activist, community leader, state legislator, and U.S. Senator (MORE years in elected office than Hillary) is outweighed by her 35 years as a lawyer for WalMart (a few years), political wife (35 years), and U.S. Senator (a few years, during which she lay down for W on Iraq!) (see the difference?)

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama, facing an economy on the verge of collapse, could not handle the situation at least as well if not better than Hillary Clinton. Who also has no experience, and Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) lucked into the greatest economic expansion and prosperity in American history (due primarily to the advent of the Internet which he didn't invent, and the end of the Cold War with which he had nothing to do) - largely irrelevant because HE IS NOT THE CANDIDATE

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama's realistic approach to health care is not as good as Hillary Clinton's poll-driven election year contrivance - she, Who delayed this current health care debate back in 1993, when she - alone, because she would accept neither advice nor criticism from anyone, let alone Democrats in Congress - failed to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama, with the experience of having been one of only a few political figures to appreciate the disastrous mistake we were making in Iraq, cannot better manage that situation than can Hillary Clinton, Who voted to invade Iraq when Bush asked so that she would look strong enough on defense to run for president, and Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced by polls that the American people thought he absolutely had to - and who, once again, IS NOT AND CANNOT BE THE CANDIDATE

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama cannot be at least as effective at saving the environment as Hillary Clinton - with no experience saving the environment, and Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office having presided over the most dramatic increase in carbon emissions in American history, and who did not raise mileage standards for his entire Administration

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama, graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law (where he was President of the Law Review) and sometime professor at the University of Chicago, is not substantially better-informed than Hillary Clinton, Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) presided over yearly increases in the cost of higher education which were much greater than inflation -

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no federal experience but a first-class mind will not be FAR better than Hillary Clinton, who spent 8 years on the right hand side of the bed of President Bill Clinton (OK, more like 6 1/2) Who is one of only two Presidents in American history ever to be impeached

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with the narcissism and political cynicism of two people who have never worked other than as politician (well, one mostly as a politician's wife) but who still want you believe they are ON YOUR SIDE, like Hillary and Bill Clinton, rather than with inspirational ideas and conversations from and with Obama, ..

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think all those Republicans voting for Clinton in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are NOT doing so at the suggestion of Rush Limbaugh...

Best regards

Jacques Smith

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the ego to try to drum up massive amounts of new business for the health insurers in the name of "affordable, universal" health care for everyone, ignoring the research - which she had to have seen - which said that the only useable and effective model for universal coverage is SINGLE-PAYER... NOT a giveaway to Aetna, Met, etc.

Yes...add Senator Casey to that list. His vendetta against the Clintons for snubbing his dad 16 years ago failed and again the Clintons got the best of his family. NE Penn went heavily for Clinton as did Catholic. Casey's endorsement might have helped marginally with 1 or 2 points, but that was it.

Can I point out something about caucuses?
It's not like they just started doing them in this election cycle.
They were in place back when WJC ran for prez....Um..do believe that was 16 years ago..so it's not NEW to either of them.

This just proves that Madam Clinton was ill prepared for her run for office.
She obviously thought her name rec would vault her to the nominee spot.
This is why we say never ASSUME anything...
We know what happens when you do that..now don't we?
Pure fact is these are empty excuses from a known name in politics...
Caucuses are actually more Democratic if you look at how the founding fathers started this fine nation.
They voted caucus style.
BTW...HISPANA... You should read up on caucuses and how the representation is calculated. If we translated the caucus numbers ..Obama would be creaming her in the pop vote..
I'll find a link for you..I know most people are too lazy to do actual research regarding facts...and some times even when presented with facts it's an uphill battle.

For the latino's I don't understand why your supporting Hillary Clinton. Obama is universial and wants to represent all people fairly. If Obama win that opens the door for other minorities to run for government and president. He would open the doors for other minorities. If Hillary Clinton wins what is that going to do for your children that want to run for office one day?

Let's face it, Hillary Clinton is not going to provide universial healthcare to all americans. Universial healthcare has been her pet project for 15 years. When she was First Lady she has the opportuntiy to provide universial healtcare, but it was either senator of Tennesse, or Bob Doles,and because it wasn't hers, she killed the deal. So If Hillary Clinton really wanted to provide universail healthcare to all Americans why wasn't she able to do it in 15 years. Give me a break. The problem is, Hillary Clinton. She can't work across the party's to get anything done. The truth is 60% of Americans don't trust her and 40% of congress don't dont like her. If she makes a big fuss with Obama and steals this election from him, she would never get anything passed through congress as the president. It's obvious that the supperdelegates are trickling down to Obama. After she won Pennslyvania, Obama got another supperdelegate and 29 legislators from Indiana. Mostly because of Hillary Clinton and her moto, " I'm a fighter," the problem is she's fighting against her own party,and they do not like it. So that's what we can expect with Hillary Clinton as president.

Obama supporters are like little kids.

They cover their eyes and ears to try to block out things they don't want to see or hear.

Kruez, you make me laugh.

What are you, nine years old?

Do you really think that Grand Theft Auto (the Felony, not the game) and repeated use of HARD DRUGS are something that middle Americs is going to feel is "no big thing?"

We send people to the state pen to do "hard time" for those crimes.

Maybe multiple felonies aren't a big issue with the people you hang out with but they're "deal-breakers" for mainstream Americans.

Keep believing in Obama's chances, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy.

Your Parrot isn't "resting"

Your Parrot is DEAD.

Small point, but still slowly driving me crazy as I try to read these blogs/posts:

"its" - possessive of "it" e.g., "We won't see its like for a long, long time." (Shame on you, CC -- nice Italian boy like you who didn't learn his grammar!)

"it's" - a contraction of "it is" e.g., "It's about time Hillary saw the handwriting on the wall."

Thank you for your attention.

Here's a simple math lesson. Yesterday, Hillary had 1504 delegates, Obama 1648 (CNN data). Today it's 1586 and 1719. The goal is 2025, so in 24 hours, Obama has made up 20.4% of the delegates he needs, while Hillary only has picked up 15.7% of those she needs. Hard to argue that she did a lot of good for herself.

Posted by: | April 23, 2008 6:04 PM - ...and you are Spectator2, the original hysterical feminist twit.

Cillizza wrote: "Much like in Ohio and Texas, the Pennsylvania exit polls suggested that Clinton won late deciders overwhelmingly; among the 11 percent who made up their mind on primary day, Clinton bested Obama 59 percent to 41 percent, while among those who made up their mind in the final three days, Clinton won 58 percent to 42 percent. Does all of that late movement have do to the bin-Laden ad? No. But, it was surely a factor."

Whaaaa? What evidence is there that the ad was a factor? There's no data to support that assertion.

And even if it was a factor, 58% of 11% comes to about 6.4, so the difference from a 50-50 split would be 2.8. If the ad were responsible for only a part of it, we may talking about a percent or less. Hardly impressive, if it's true at all.

As for "Money" being in the loser column, I don't know what else Obama was expected to do with his huge cash advantage. Moreover, Clinton was forced to spend just about everything she had, leaving that much less for upcoming contests. So to the extent that Obama forced Clinton to spend more, it may have been a good strategic move with NC and IN in just two weeks.

Edwards isn't holding back an endorsement or a VP play. He's waiting. There's a rumor Elizabeth Edwards will endorse Clinton, and a slew of Edwards backers just went with Obama. I would keep an eye on his in-state, behind-the-scenes activity as we run up to North Carolina, including the way everyone handles the Willie Hortonization of this race.

I am developing an internal consensus of feeling about white women, Ed Rendell, and both bin Laden and the politicians who use him (speaking, mind you, as a middle-aged white woman who knows what it's like to 'live' in central PA).

"Kruez, you make me laugh. What are you, nine years old?"

Hmm, one person writes in a logical, coherent manner and clarifies real issues, and another goes on rants, refusing to sign a consistent name for any accountability, and constantly changes grammar and case throughout his diatribe. Who is the nineyearold here??

To Elme....

And I thought they caught the Uni-bomber..

To all these "not ten point margin" posts, calm down.
It's close enough. He lost. Obama is my guy, but accept the loss. Splitting hairs over a margin of victory is one thing if it's 52-48, but let it go. He lost. It wasn't a huge blowout, but a decisive victory for Hillary Clinton. June 3rd is what, six weeks away? Big deal. Let all the states vote. Obama will wrap this all up by the 5th of June. I predict that Hillary Clinton will concede by the 9th of June.
This notion that Hillary voters won't support Obama is childish. There will doubtless be defections, but nothing of the sort that Republicans will need. Obama will definitely carry Pennsylvania, mark my words. Obama will hold every state Kerry won in 2004, and likely win Missouri, Colorado, Virginia ,New Mexico and Iowa. He can lose Ohio & Florida. If Obama carries those five states, he takes the White House. Don't fear John McCain. I know more about the economy than he does. He's going down.

New York City Secession 2010

my referece was to HC supporter Charlie Rangel not Dingel the point being that there are many prominent and honorable African American congress ppeople supporting HC

Austan Goolsbe, Obama Economics advisor is, in my Grandpa's words -an educated idiot.

Goolsbee, who must have several degress in economics, says we must be careful to identify the cause of - the rich getting richer and everybody else getting poorer.

Goolsbee says the cause is: dramatically increased returns to skill i.e. college degrees are paying off better and better all the time.

Uh, huh, yeah but that does nothing to explain the rise of the super rich, nor the increasing poverty of everyone else.

The cause is simple: Reagan cut the top tax rate down from the 70%'s to the low 30%'s AND Corporations all over America trotted out the "Two-Tier Wage Structure" - - right after Reagan was elected. i.e. pay everybody at the top a whole lot MORE, pay everybody else a whole lot LESS.

The rich are getting richer, and have been doing so at a faster & faster rate for the past 30 years - because of RADICALLY INCREASED RETURNS to CAPITAL.

Everybody else has been getting poorer and poorer over that same time span because its been CORPORATE POLICY to pay everybody else a whole lot less; (not to mention the fact that -everybody else has been Paying a Lot More Taxes - to make up that portion of the Federal Budget no longer being paid by the wealthy/not currently being "borrowed" from our children and grandchildren.)

My grandpa was a farmer, son of a share cropper. In his later years he worked for an experimental farm operated by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. The people who ran the farm had degrees in agriculture. My grandpa had a LIFETIME of EXPERIENCE.

When the ...educated idiots... wanted to get some plants to actually GROW & prosper IN THE REAL WORLD they had to have my Grandpa SHOW THEM and TELL THEM
HOW to do it.

Condoleeza Rice & the whole gang of "Vulcans" that gaggle of neocons ... are educated idiots, along with Zbigniew Berzinski, one of Obama's "foreign policy" advisors.

All they've ever DONE is ... write, postulate, publish their latest hare-brained claptrap & Wait ... for applause and compliments from the same "'highly' specialized literary" ilk as themselves.

Paying those at the top a Whole LOT MORE has paid off handsomely for the corporations and politicians...because... those at the top - responsible for things like morals, ethics, obeying the laws, are ALREADY Paid off to ... look the other way ...incentivized... to sell their fellow humans down the river.

Case in point: Howard Fineman of Time magazine, and, a MSNBC "News Analyst" ... plaintively whining to Chris Matthews on Hardball last week: They shouldn't be complaining about US - they shouldn't be blaming US for our coverage ... We're JOURNALISTS --- reporters --- we just report the facts.

NO. They are highly paid Propaganda Operatives who would make Goebbels (Hitler's Propaganda Minister) PROUD.

Ge, 2nd largest corporation on the planet, Westinghouse, Excelon Corp of Illinois, Entergy w/utilities in the Southern States have been planning since 2005 When the Cheney Energy Bill was passed - to build 29 new nuclear power plants. (licensing hearing for the first few have already been scheduled).

GE owns MSNBC & NBC. Westinghouse owns CBS. AND they have Billions of Advertising $$$$ to spread around in all forms of media. Obama & McCain are PRO-Nuclear. Clinton says nuclear can be considered in the future IF they make it CHEAPER and find a way to SAFELY and PERMANENTLY dispose of the nuke waste.

i.e. the Cause of the Media Propaganda Blitz Pro-Obama & McCain / Anti-clinton is the result of GE, et al's desire to gain $$billions in profits RISK-FREE by building 29 new nukes AND higher electricity rates for the next 30-40 years.

The Mainstream Media (the most blatant offenders being MSNBC & NBC) are busy selling We the People and Democracy in America ... down the river.

The media is holding a lid on all the bad news about Obama ... until AFTER he gets the nomination. Then, the full force of their Propaganda BARRAGE will be directed against him, instead of FOR him.

Thereby, leaving nobody but McCain ACTUALLY running for President.

Starting out the campaign season with the consensus of opinion being that a large majority of voters were all in favor of electing Hillary Clinton President w/Any Republican nominees chances of being elected standing at virtually NIL ... what was the nasty party of the BAD/GREEDY contingent of the rich & super rich TO DO?

Same thing they Always do Pinky ... Divide & Conquer! (HOW ELSE can a very small minority CONTROL a much larger majority?)

Can YOU think of anything better to DIVIDE the Democratic Party than ... to run a black man Against THAT WOMAN?

Contrary to the Media's BIG LIES:

Obama started the negative campaigning several months ago during the first Philadelphis debate. He began with NAME-CALLING - with him & his wife endlessly repeating ... disingenuous...Hillary's disingenuous ... while his campaign staff and surrogates went on TV yelling ... She's a Liar, a Liar, a liar.

Next, the Obama campaign pushed those ... totally absurd ... accusations of "racism" to the press because they were LOSING the South Carolina primary.

The LYING & Propaganda have continued to this day ... Obama's the negative dirty campaigner --- Hillary gets blamed for it. Neither one can gain enough delegates to get the nomination ON THE BASIS OF DELEGATES, but DELEGATE COUNT, having FAILED to get the job done ... the Media Proclaims that Delegate Count should be the ONLY criteria to get the job done.

First the Obama camp INSISTS on Playing by the RULES:(FL & MI delegates DON"T COUNT); but, NOT Playing by the RULES: SuperDelegates are ENTITLED to and CHARGED to: SELECT the BEST, most Electable candidate --- that's the RULES --- But NO, don't do THAT!

Obama claims he has special "talents" for working across the aisles, bringing people together to get good new progressive legislation passed (--- CHANGE --- We can Believer In ---) as EXEMPLIFIED - by the 26 wonderful Bills he got passed WHILE in the ILLINOIS legislature.

But ... according to a hometown Chicago news reporter - all 26 Bills were passed in ONE Year because the Democratic legislative leader .... gave Obama .... all the good legislation OTHER Senators had been WRITING, CRAFTING, and WORKING to get passed .... during all the years when the Republicans had majority control.

One year to get 26 bills passed would leave .... suspiciously little TIME for .... working across the aisles, bringing people together to get them passed .... & given a Democratic Majority .... how much NEED to "work across the aisles" to get the bills passed actually existed? Obama's claim appears to be FALSE. He has little to NO accomplishments or experience that would in any way qualify him to be President of anything --- or --- give him much more than a CLUE about how to get legislation passed in the U.S. Congress ... absent ... a party leader willing to Falsely give him credit for other people's work.

Things that DON'T ADD UP: The Obama campaign has been bragging to the compliant media parrots since January that he has raised 2X, 3X, and now 5X as much money as the Clinton campaign .... from .... we the little people, but if that's the case then ..... why hasn't he been getting 2X, 3X, 5X MORE VOTES in the primaries from all us little people who support him to the extent of giving him money?

If, as Obama keeps repeating - Clinton is the "establishment candidate", the candidate of corporate controlled America, the candidate financed by Washington Lobbyists for the corporate controllers of our economy & government ---- Then, WHY is Clinton's campaign chronically running out of money ... WHILE .... the Obama Campaign has been full up to the gills with cash since January? Why is it the Clinton campaign that has been financed the past several months by .... WE the People?
WHY does the media keep on allowing Obama to tell the BIG LIE that he does not accept money from LOBBYISTS?

He used to say .... I don't take money from REGISTERED FEDERAL Lobbyists. Technically, True. But, he does take money from STATE Lobbyists and the husbands, wives, law partners, aunts, uncles and cousins of REGISTERED FEDERAL LOBBYISTS.

I found that information, (including plenty of details), with very little searching on the internet, so you would think the media could, and would, find it too .... you would think that .... only IF you had not been watching the media very much this campaign season.

For those millions of us who HAVE been watching - the Outright Propaganda and brainwashing put out all day everyday by the MSM -- quickly becomes repetitive, boring, DRIVEL. We stopped watching it and went searching the internet for REAL Information.

The MSM sold you Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 TWICE. The MSM sold you the Iraq War. Are you going to just sit there and let them Sell you Obama/McCain/ 29 nuclear power plants? i.e. the NEXT Big Cheney Energy MONOPOLY RIPOFF just waiting in the wings?

Going to let The Media Sell You, Your Children and Grandchildren Down the River? Democracy down the tubes - again?.

Or, are YOU going to get THE WORD Out .... copy paste .... & email to everyone on your email list .... paste into blogs on the internet, in newspapers, magazines, radio & TV stations .... nationally and locally.

WE the People are in the same situation as the Russians during the days of Samidzat .... when they made Xerox copies & passed them around as the only means available to get the word out about their govt & its govt controlled media ---- but, we've got a LOT BETTER TECHNOLOGY than they had.

kreuz_missle: My point is some believe if Hillary is elected, then the country would revert back to the policies of the former President Clinton. Why is that such a bad idea? Just because he was caught in an affair with someone other than his wife is a reason for impeachment? This President has appointed Cabinet members who have perjured themselves in front of Congress and curtail civil liberties that have been hard won over two hundred years. Hillary Clinton is a moderate Democrat who will work for middle America. The Obama supporters want a liberal who will alienate most Americans by November. If you want to continue with a Bush third term, then vote for Obama.

Dwayne is out by over 40,000 voters. But what is new, Obama supporters want to ignore the millions of voters of Michigan or Florida.

Obama supporters are like little kids.

They cover their eyes and ears to try to block out things they don't want to see or hear.

Kruez, you make me laugh.

What are you, nine years old?

Do you really think that Grand Theft Auto (the Felony, not the game) and repeated use of HARD DRUGS are something that middle Americs is going to feel is "no big thing?"

We send people to the state pen to do "hard time" for those crimes.

Maybe multiple felonies aren't a big issue with the people you hang out with but they're "deal-breakers" for mainstream Americans.

Keep believing in Obama's chances, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy.

Your Parrot isn't "resting"

Your Parrot is DEAD.

"they don't we all know that but neithercan Obama win with low numbers of women, blue collar Reagan Dems, elderly or Catholic voters(less than 30%) so they both have their deficincies."

But that's my exact point, and just as Clinton has plenty of black supporters, Obama has plenty of White catholic supporters with strong working class creds (Gov Henry added today). The argument she is trying to make would be compelling, if it were stronger than it is. Right now, she is behind in all the metrics, but showing that each candidate is really about equally suited going into the general election with different strengths and weaknesses. I think to convince the Supers to vote en mass for Clinton despite the vote totals, even demonstrating a probability that you're a slight favorite in Novemeber still won't do the job, you need to remove all doubt that you will be a much stronger candidate. So far, meeting expectations and preventing Obama from sealing the deal won't be enough to do that. She's doing what she needs to do to stay in the game, but the gam isn't changing while the clock continues to run out.

""Mr Obama how many times did you purchase or use hard drugs such as Cocaine?"

What will his answer be?"

Probably something similar to George W. Bush's. Using is for the most part a non-issue today, trying to have it both ways is what got Clinton in trouble the most (even though I believe his explanation, tried but didn't inhale, was probably accurate it just wasn't percieved that way). Just as Obama's writing points to minor drug use, McCain's points to prostitution and involvement in human trafficing. Both will probably have some behind the scenes agreement between the campaign to leave those issues off the table is my guess.

This is why arguing now to simply ignore all those contests is crazy. Just like with the Big State strategy, if winning only those "important" contests was the goal, he would have pursued a different strategy from the beginning. He shouldn't be penalized for having a better plan and making it work to perfection (the actual results have nearly mirrored their projections leaked by "accient" back in January).

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 23, 2008 5:57 PM
--------------------------------------
No one here is trying to argue to discount the caucus results now, but certainly the way this process has been conducted created much criticism because the tactics employed by the participants appear to have been in many places, intimidating and coercive. The process was dominated by a small number of people who came prepared to argue using questionnable techniques and many complaints have followed. Many people left these cites because of all of these happennings or could not participate. Voters have a right to privacy when they are voting and many found this process too manipulative. End result is MISTRUST of the process, specially when the popular vote in the state favors another candidate.

So, I have said my piece and will continue my quest for reform through the appropriate channels.

The point is that there could be consequences at the end of this contest in that many people felt out of the process and discriminated by individuals who manipulated this process in the Obama camp!!!

I would challenge you to show where I have ever said those caucuses are not legitimate and that they shouldn't be counted and acknowledge your side outmaneuvered the HC campaign, and that those were the rules agreed to, but I also argue that the deck was stacked against HC in the caucuses b/c they favor younger voters and especially students and are stacked against the elderly, the infirm, nurses and many teachers and basically the base of her supporters. i asked if you could vote by absentee ballot in any caucus state which might have dealt with that problem curious if their are absentee caucus votes. But realistically the demographics were definitely skewed again HC supporters and I doubt any objective Obama person could deny that. But again those are the rules but they should be understood in their actual context not in some theoretical world. I also feel that the actual direct voters better reflect state voter's sentiments but that cannot be argued to supers b/c those were not those state's rules, but they need to be change in 2012 and I am guessing might be one of the first orders of dnc business once a nominee is settled upon.

mibrooks -- the original 'bitter white male' -- textbook case. point made.

OBAMA FELONY HARD DRUG HISTORY MAKES HIM UNELECTABLE.

Nothing can change that.

Read Obama's books. Its all there in his own words.

Obama's unelectable for an host of reasons, but there are several "sure-kills" that Hillary hasn't used but Republicans will.

Among the most powerful are his self-admitted history of Grand Theft Auto and Repeated purchase and use of hard drugs --specifically cocaine, which he braggs that he did "as often as he could afford it" in his books

When he gets asked in a debate with McCain --

"Mr Obama how many times did you purchase or use hard drugs such as Cocaine?"

What will his answer be?

How many people would vote for him after that?

His own words make him unacceptable to the majority of Americans.

The only reason it hasn't been show-stopper so far is that the kids that support him seem to think its cool, and adults that support him don't know.

To mainstream America, its unacceptable.

Even just rumors of it almost sunk Bush.

In Obama's case, he admits, in fact, braggs about it, in his books.

Supascience - So? We all know that Hillay can't win. I've been saying that since the second week into this campaign, after the 2734th attack from some feminist ratbag because I supported John Edwards. Look the venomous "wymen" that appear to compose Clinton's core attacked/attack anyone with hysterics and shrill language that have sunk her candidacy, once you get outside of the protected Democratic primary system. Obama, my original second choice, blew it completely with his "bitter" comments. Evidently, and the exit polls in PA show this, as do the pre-primary polls in Oregon and Indiana, he pretty much blew it with gun owners, working class men and women, anyone who is opposed to free trade. So, the Democrats have flat out no chance in November barring a miracle like a deadlocked convention and Edwards walking out with the nomination.

smashed all turnout records.Yes which still represented a small % of actual voters. Here in Texas our caucus was on a Tues night. Those there were predominately under 25 years old. My 92 year old WWII veterans couldn't leave their nursing home to attend. The front page of the Houston Chronicle also reported that teachers complained they had TASKS test to administer on Wed and couldn't attend. Teachers, nurses, the elderly make up a large % of the HC voters. Our actual early voting went on for 2 weeks 7-7 pm sun-sun that certainly sounds fairer then a limited caucus system. caucuses at least in Texas do not allow for absentee voting for the elderly or infirm unless you can show me they do so in other states where they have caucuses. If there was an election system that favored our voters like your demographics I would be arguing like you how great it is so in that sense I don't blame you for making that argument as specious as that argument is. In reality its antidemocratic, but you know my opinion by now. It is what it is and somehow the Clinton campaign should have cancelled those durn student efficiency tests on Wed or wheeled my elderly parents out of their nursing home to attend, that would have been the smart thing for the campaign to have done. The caucus will be toast here in Tx in 2012 b/c a leading Obama state rep pledges to end it here.
-------------------------------------------
The Clinton campaign has no power to affect any of these states decisions. These problems should have been reported to your state functionaries.

So, the point is that there must be an effort by the DNC leadership to work with each state that has the Caucus process to eliminate it and replace it with transparent and simple primaries to encourage 100% participation from the voters. This intimidation is not well liked by many voters and they are uniting to lobby to come up with a better process. I am certain that in the 21st Century we can make our voting process much more effective and less opened to fraud as it has been.

Obama's campaign today made the decision that he has to be more negative, saying that they think it will not affect his national image, which has already been cast. Think again, all you Obama supporters that talk about Obama being a new kind of politician. Here is your NEW motto "He changed, and you better believe it" You got suckered by your own candidate.

Posted by: Bud Curtis | April 23, 2008 5:27 PM

Really? Did Obama come out and say this? Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said exactly the opposite this afternoon, that they campaign hasn't used those tactics and isn't going to start now.

"We're not gonna do that," Plouffe said. "We have not talked about those issues in the campaign, and won't."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/plouffe_rules_out_use_of_white.php

"Clinton has been abysmal with black voters. How does a Democrat win without the black vote?" they don't we all know that but neithercan Obama win with low numbers of women, blue collar Reagan Dems, elderly or Catholic voters(less than 30%) so they both have their deficincies.

I presume that don't agree with some of the posts here that the Clintons who 1. have an office in Harlem 2. gave a moving eulogy to Coretta King and 3. Lowered African American poverty to a 100 year low are racists and that African Americans won't vote for her in large numbers if she is the nominee. I truly doubt you would honestly believe that or that you would think there is a racist bone in either of their bones. Sheila Jackson Lee, Congresswoman Tubbs, Maxine Waters, and Charles Dingle would disagree with that theory. My guess is that if it was currently HC vs any other Democcrat, Biden, Kerry,Dodd, Richardson etc that she would be receiving a large number of African American votes. That is certainly the perogative of that community and no one faults them for their loyalty to Sen Obama, but in a general election matchup imho it would be different but certainly there is likely anger with H.C. b/c she is opposing the nomination of the first African American President, and their response is undertstandable. But please lets not go there it is what it is and we should respect the integrity and understand the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.

Is anyone analyzing the impact of 160,000 republicans who allegedly chose to change their registration to democratic to vote in this primary? Were they converts or were they voting for Hillary Clinton who is the republican "choice" because they think she is easier to defeat.

"The caucus will be toast here in Tx in 2012 b/c a leading Obama state rep pledges to end it here."

Which is fine, because again, strategies are based on the rules in advance. the Obama campaign aimed to get as many delegates out of OH and TX as possible, and set up a strategy to emphasize organization in the TX caucuses as a way of running up that vote. They spent most of their money and effort towards building that organizationa and getting people out. Had there not been a caucus, all that effort likely would have been turned to the voting strategy, which relies on different org and advertizing strengths, and he probably would have shifted his schedule to focus more time and effort in Texas and accept a few percentage points of losses in OH as a trade off for an overall win in Texas. If that had been the way the game was played, the strategy would have reflected it, bu the was focused on delegates, which is what decides the nomination in the end, and tailored his campaign accordingly. This is why arguing now to simply ignore all those contests is crazy. Just like with the Big State strategy, if winning only those "important" contests was the goal, he would have pursued a different strategy from the beginning. He shouldn't be penalized for having a better plan and making it work to perfection (the actual results have nearly mirrored their projections leaked by "accient" back in January).

One of the biggest losers was Casey. She clobbered Obama in Casey's home county 74 - 26. Just like Kennedy, Kerry, Patrick...can't deliver their own home. When will they learn? Obama = unelectable. There are no caucuses in November.

"The goalposts on Hillary moves up while everyone else's is moved down? She won the PA primary with a 9% to 10% margin. Those of you who hate the Clintons need to remember a few things about the Clinton presidency. 1) time of relative peace, 2) prosperity, 3) balanced budget, 4) government suplus, 5) no inflation, 6) did not use military to get the nation into a protracted war in the Middle East, 7) sound fiscal policy, 8) international respect, 9) roadmap to peace between Isreal and Palestine Authority, 10) turned welfare into workfare. I would take 10 out of these 10 anytime. I would like to even see 3 to 5 of these to be happening right now. Think about it!"

Wait, is Hillary running, or is Bill?

Add to the winner: Mayor Nutter
Add to Loser: Sen. Casey, Sen. Obama, These crazy Obama supporters.

Obama's campaign today made the decision that he has to be more negative, saying that they think it will not affect his national image, which has already been cast. Think again, all you Obama supporters that talk about Obama being a new kind of politician. Here is your NEW motto "He changed, and you better believe it" You got suckered by your own candidate.

Posted by: Bud Curtis | April 23, 2008 5:27 PM

----------------------------------------
Short and to the point. BRAVO!!!

We know that Obama has just being playacting a scripted rhetorical game and now we are getting to see the real Obama. My question is I don't think he has the grits of a great fighter.

"The Clinton campaign made a strategic error by not having a plan for those states but I presume you don't seriosly think a Dem will spend any time or money in any of those states in the fall, and the rest of Obama's delegate advantage comes primarily from large numbers in Illinois that HC should have done a better job of offsetting with a better effort in New York, which they didn't."

I hope they do, because it certainly wouldn't be "wasted." We have downticket races there which need our orgaanizational supprt, free media, etc. That's beenthe problem with the Democratic Party for the last 30 years- we've been fixated on a map to 270, not on growing the party. We don't have a farm team, we don't have a lot of national influence, we lose control of state legislatures which leads to gerrymandering in the Republicans favor, etc. This is why many Dems still have issues with the Clintons in the 90's, they didn't channel their election victories toward growing the party, they didn't have any coattails, all the emphasis at the DNC in those years was aimed at the White House. We need a 50-state strategy both to keep Republicans on the defensive, to establish a working majority for future Democratic presidents, and to improve the Democratic brand nationwide. Replaying the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 elections ad nauseum only hurts us in the long run. We pick up seats in Congress, we make some small states palyable, we force them to defend their home turf. Until we seize the initiative there, we are stuck playing defense, and that's no way to win elections.

smashed all turnout records.Yes which still represented a small % of actual voters. Here in Texas our caucus was on a Tues night. Those there were predominately under 25 years old. My 92 year old WWII veterans couldn't leave their nursing home to attend. The front page of the Houston Chronicle also reported that teachers complained they had TASKS test to administer on Wed and couldn't attend. Teachers, nurses, the elderly make up a large % of the HC voters. Our actual early voting went on for 2 weeks 7-7 pm sun-sun that certainly sounds fairer then a limited caucus system. caucuses at least in Texas do not allow for absentee voting for the elderly or infirm unless you can show me they do so in other states where they have caucuses. If there was an election system that favored our voters like your demographics I would be arguing like you how great it is so in that sense I don't blame you for making that argument as specious as that argument is. In reality its antidemocratic, but you know my opinion by now. It is what it is and somehow the Clinton campaign should have cancelled those durn student efficiency tests on Wed or wheeled my elderly parents out of their nursing home to attend, that would have been the smart thing for the campaign to have done. The caucus will be toast here in Tx in 2012 b/c a leading Obama state rep pledges to end it here.

The goalposts on Hillary moves up while everyone else's is moved down? She won the PA primary with a 9% to 10% margin. Those of you who hate the Clintons need to remember a few things about the Clinton presidency. 1) time of relative peace, 2) prosperity, 3) balanced budget, 4) government suplus, 5) no inflation, 6) did not use military to get the nation into a protracted war in the Middle East, 7) sound fiscal policy, 8) international respect, 9) roadmap to peace between Isreal and Palestine Authority, 10) turned welfare into workfare. I would take 10 out of these 10 anytime. I would like to even see 3 to 5 of these to be happening right now. Think about it!

"Its an uphill battle, but Obama does not have a lock on 2025(4) either. Right now he is damaged goods, he did very poorly among blue collar and Catholic voters, less than 30%. He is potentially another Michael Dukakas in the fall and if I were you I wouldn't be thrilled with that possibility."

Clinton has been abysmal with black voters. How does a Democrat win without the black vote? See, this is exactly why pulling these exit poll numbers is absolutely worthless as everything can be negated depending on how we read the stats.

"Its an uphill battle, but Obama does not have a lock on 2025(4) either."

Agreed, the door is still open, but I honestly still think it's closer now to being shut than it was a week ago. Obama, despite demographics more favorable to Clinton than Ohio and having all this negative coverage the past two weeks, didn't lose significant ground and in fact gained some on many key demographics. Meanwhile, she only closed the gap by 12 superdelegates with only just over 500 remaining. I said last week, a win over 6 points keeps her alive, but anything less than 20-25 doesn't help her much. she's in that grey area and is living week-to-week. She must win Indiana to stay in the shape she is today, but I think she really needs to either win that in a landslide (about 20) or win NC for the consensus to truly be that there is a game-changer and Hillary stands a real shot at pulling nthis out. Otherwise, the status quo will just continue until June when all votes have been cast and the Supers will finally end it, and unless there is a major reason to overturn the pledged delegate count, I just don't see it happening.

There's about 350 Supers out there uncommitted, and many of which seem to be wiating to follow Pelosi's lead of crowning the eventual pledged delegate winner. Based on current projections, he won't be at 2025, but he'll only be about 100 short and about 130-150 ahead of Clinton. Like I say, unless something earth-shattering happens, I don't see her getting the nomination.

As I have said in other threads we have 2 very strong candidates with ardent supporters.

I just voted for Obama (by absentee ballot) in the South Dakota primary because Hillary is to Hawkish for me. Her Iran-Nuclear umbrella comments make me very uptight. I have no illusions that Obama does not have flaws. He has had a hard time attracting blue collar voters with another Dem in the race. She has had a hard time attracting young voters and African Americans. I also see that Clinton has flaws and a few skeletons in her closet (fair or unfair from the 90s right wing smear machine).

Having said that I will support whichever candidate comes through with the nomination. The thought of McCain in the white house is too bitter a pill to swallow.

Nothing as totalitarian as a community getting together in person to hammer out its choice for a candidate...

over a 2 hour period where we discourage teachers, the elderly, the infirm, and nurses and night shift workers from attending in favor of students who have all the time in the world to attend. That certainly sounds like democracy to me. Lets make sure we get the fewest zealots to replace the entire primary vote. It was created to save money period. But that is what some of our states have idiotically chosen and which we must now follow at least for 2008 and which many local Obama supporters now wish to end.

-----------------------------------------
I fully understand that there is nothing that can be done during this election cycle to end this caucus process, but after the elections there are many petitions being filed to the DNC on this issue as well to the states who sponsor it. To replace it with a fair and transparent Primary process. That way the abuses that were underhandedly done by the Obama deployed teams will not happen away. I grant you that has been a way to steal a nomination. This could still end up being litigated in Court as I have heard.

"you seem to brag about states like Ga, Alabama, Utah, Alabama, Miss and Wyoming where he racked up most of his delegate advantage."

Don't forget Texas.

kruez you seem to brag about states like Ga, Alabama, Utah, Alabama, Miss and Wyoming where he racked up most of his delegate advantage. The Clinton campaign made a strategic error by not having a plan for those states but I presume you don't seriosly think a Dem will spend any time or money in any of those states in the fall, and the rest of Obama's delegate advantage comes primarily from large numbers in Illinois that HC should have done a better job of offsetting with a better effort in New York, which they didn't.

"over a 2 hour period where we discourage teachers, the elderly, the infirm, and nurses and night shift workers from attending in favor of students who have all the time in the world to attend."

This post is anon, so it must be Leichtman, hiding because I'm about to say for the thousandth time to him that, despite the inconvenience you allude to, the caucuses were held at night and on weekends, and despite how hard you paint it for people to make it, this year's caucuses smashed all turnout records.

In Nevada (I'll fill you in on this one more time), every effort was made to ensure that the lower income and under-represented could attend, by opening up hotels and casinoes for caucuses. How did the Clinton camp respond? THEY BACKED A LAWSUIT FILED BY TEACHERS (!) TO SHUT THE CASINO SITES DOWN! So Leichtman, explain: more people should be able to attend caucuses, and the solution is to ... shut them down? You haven't responded to that question in the past, and I don't expect you to start now.

Here's the real reason the Clintons are pushing this fairy tale about caucuses being undemocratic: when other candidates were in Iowa, strategically arranging volunteers and resources, husbanding their money, the Clintons spent all their money and time buying sidewalk salt and donuts. Not only did they blow their roll on a lost Iowa cause, they were bankrupted for the remaining contests. Worse, it forgot about the TX contest, a flub which cost it the state.

And you wonder why she has problems raising money? Giving to the Clinton campaign is like flushing your money down the toilet.

"Excuses, excuses, excuses to try to make Hillary's win insignificant. It is true that sometimes this so called intelligence of a good number of people vacates the brain and go somewhere else in your body.

The fact is that her win in Pennsylvania was quite significant by the percentages shown in the various counties and the various groups. Obama only won 2 cities and 2 suburbs and of course the black constituency"

It is significant, just like Obama's wins in Georgia, Alabama, Mississipi, South Carolina, Maryland, etc. Why is it, when Obama has an overwhelming black vote in his favor, it's all just the race vote and that makes those wins insignificant, but when Hillary has an overwhelming white women's vote carrying her to victory (who made up a greater share of the overall vote than the black vote made in most of those other states), it's a major sign that the election has suddenly turned around? If you want to talk about logical people spinning the facts and ignoring significants, let's at least keep our logic consistent.

Leichtman, you kind of missed my point. I did not say Obama won every state with open primaries, but that he has done well in or won most of them by capitalizing on the independent vote. Concentrating on two states that he happened to lose does not debunk my point - you're missing the forest for the trees. The point is that Clinton can do well in closed primaries. That's one sign of strength. But in the general election, anyone can vote for any party. That's where Clinton loses. She cannot pull the independents and moderate or disenchanted Republicans away from McCain. In fact, I think it's clear that her candidacy on the ballot will invigorate those depressed GOP voters in a way that Obama cannot do. You really have to look at the whole picture for the GE, which includes independents who have carried each of the past presidential candidates to victory. They won't carry Clinton.

Wake up!... Hillary's still can not win. SHE CAN NOT and WILL NOT WIN! She should have won PA by 20% she only won by 9%. People keep on talking about the big states. Well unless Hillary will be running as an independent counting her wins in the big states as Obama losses in the general election is just stupid. STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID... So much stupidity being tossed around I see how these stupid people elected Bush twice... Obama stands on his own. Billary is standing on the shoulders of her HUSBAND... Maybe Obama should let his wife run and after she is president for two terms then he will be qualified.... Hillary and Bill are just spoiled brats... By the way no body has yet to mention the quagmire the whole country will be stuck in if Hillary wins and the Right wing nuts start to dig in... It will be the last two years of the Clinton administration all over again... Nothing will get done just investigations after investigation after investigation until they get her on something trivial...May she just wants to get her xxxxx ate in the oval office to get back a Bill... Who knows... bottom line is she can't and will not win. Like it or not Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

Add to the winner: Mayor Nutter
Add to Loser: Sen. Casey, Sen. Obama, These crazy Obama supporters.

Obama's campaign today made the decision that he has to be more negative, saying that they think it will not affect his national image, which has already been cast. Think again, all you Obama supporters that talk about Obama being a new kind of politician. Here is your NEW motto "He changed, and you better believe it" You got suckered by your own candidate.

I think the problem people have with caucuses is pretty reasonable. I.e. it favors the young and the healthy. Elderly people don't have the juice left to argue about their beliefs for hours on end. Should this disqualify them from having their voice heard, or should they be disenfranchised? The same is true for sick young people as well.

Also caucuses disenfranchise voters whose work hours conflict with the caucus. Casting a vote is quick and can be fit into a busy schedule. Caucuses take a bit longer. This can effect people from any demographic, but typically effects people in the service industry disproportionaltely. Should they not be allowed to have their voice heard.

Also caucus states need to make the hours of the caucus a holiday, so that all members of the community can participate.

In short, traditional voting enfranchises a larger selection of the community and therefore is more in tune with the values of the democratic party.

"the they you unfortunately forget to mention are Charlie Crist and The Fla Republican state legislature"

Not to mention the Democratic Party of Florida, their delegation in the state legislature, and Senator Nelson, all who were emphatically behind moving the date forward despite the Clintonists' recent historical revisionism.

...

.

.

.

why isn't AMERICA fighting back against it's own dictatorship ???

they are busy trying to "get by,"

look at the empty factories

look at customer service overseas

look at computer jobs, overseas

look at medical jobs going overseas

look at foreigners controlling formally AMERICAN countries and making decisions based upon what is best for their "families," while not considering what is best for AMERICA at all...

globalization ???

sure if you consider MAFIA a governing body

bushCO and CRONYs und families is ~= mafia

"~=" means is "approximately equal to"

give it up for ORGANIZED CRIME, that is what bushCO and CRONYs are...

.EXAMPLEs:
1. Scooter Libby

2. IRAN CONTRA in the whitehouse

3. bush family collusion w/nazis, with no repurcussion...teaching the children that treason is alright as long as no one prosecutes.

.

She'll lose most of what she gained in NC, and Indiana says kruez. So Indiana has already voted. Somehow I thought that is 2 weeks away and where several polls before last night showed her with a small lead. HC is also ahead by almost 30% in Ky, West Va and Puerto Rico which you ignore and may close NCarolina to 10% or less then your projections simply disappear.

Its an uphill battle, but Obama does not have a lock on 2025(4) either. Right now he is damaged goods, he did very poorly among blue collar and Catholic voters, less than 30%. He is potentially another Michael Dukakas in the fall and if I were you I wouldn't be thrilled with that possibility.

"Hillary has now won 9 of the largest 10 states. To those of you who don´t want to
include Michigan and Florida, that´s 7 out of 8. Out of these, Obama has only won his own state. Most of the large states are crucial for a Democratic win in November."

Um, no. Obama won Illinois (#5), Georgia (#9), they split Texas (#2), North Carolina (#10)hasn't voted yet, but Clinton's practically conceded that, but since they haven't voted yet, Virginia (#11) is #10 of those that have voted, and he did win there.

But besides that, here's my big problem with that logic- HILLARY HAD A BIG STATE STRATEGY FROM THE BEGINNING.

http://www.observer.com/2008/why-clinton-s-back-against-wall-nobody-prepared

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/02/04/the-super-tuesday-strategy-review.aspx

She planned to go to California, New York, etc., the big states with lots of delegates and expensive media markets, and win big there, mounting an insurmountable delegate lead. Meanwhile, Obama went everywhere, kept the margins close in the states Hillary put all her efforts into, and won everything else. Now, they want to negate that entire strategy by saying that those other states and delegates don't matter. If we had said at the beginning that CA, OH, TX, PA, MI, etc (I'll leave NY and IL off 'cause they pretty much offset each other)- the big states, were to decide the nominee, the strategies would have been radically different. That's not how this works, and to redefine success now based on that argument is just dumb. She's lost the election by at least 100 pledged delegates and the popular vote by at least 400,000 unless something completely unforseen intervenes, the likes of which will be so extreme that even someone like me will rally behind Clinton. That's really the only way she gets the nominaton now.

This only shows me that there is vested interest in eliminating this state because it affects Obama. This is the truth undeneath it all. It is quite convenient to shut it down with follow the rule excuse!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 23, 2008 5:07 PM

The truth underneath it all...doubtful. And we might as well include Leichtman in this question too: Where was Hillary's outrage prior to the start of primary season, when she was the "inevitable" nominee? She (and most of her supporters) only began caring about the "poor disenfranchised" voters in Michigan and Florida when it became convienent for her. I don't buy Republican shenanigans and a vast right wing conspiracy.

"Have other states changed the rules and were they penalized like these 2 states? "

No.

And stop making us giggle with this notion that the process by which the DNC kept the primaries under control was "arbitrary." Because there is nothing arbitrary about handing the nomination over to the candidate with fewer states won, fewer delegates, and fewer popular votes. John Edwards has just as much right to the Dem nom as Hillary. Ditto Kucinich, Gravel, Biden, etc.

Hell, why stop with the Dems. Go show up at the GOP convention and demand that HRC get their nom over McCain. FL and MI Republicans didn't get to vote for Hillary - can she have those delegations also?

A big winner in this election is also Clinton's big reason for the nomination. Being the ability to carry the big swing states: Ohio & Pennsylvania. A big loser is Obama's key weakness: his ability to close the deal through winning big swing states. Obama has won mainly caucuses & Clinton wins the big primaries. Now that all the biggest states have voted, and they have all voted for Clinton, she must now convince the superdelegates to vote for her over Obama. She also must win Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky & Puerto Rico. If she wins these 4 states, coupled with winning the big ones she has won, she has a good shot of being the nominee. Obama needs to win North Carolina (my home state) and maybe 2 more. Then he needs to convince just enough delegates to vote for him to clinch the nomination.

Personally, as a Republican, I hope Obama wins the Democratic nomination. Not b/c I would vote for him, but b/c I think he will be the easier victim of Republican smear tactics & easier for McCain to beat. Against Obama, McCain can win states Clinton would be competitive against him in: Arkansas, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio & Michigan. Either way, the big winner here is John McCain.

"Nothing as totalitarian as a community getting together in person to hammer out its choice for a candidate...

over a 2 hour period where we discourage teachers, the elderly, the infirm, and nurses and night shift workers from attending in favor of students who have all the time in the world to attend. That certainly sounds like democracy to me. Lets make sure we get the fewest zealots to replace the entire primary vote. It was created to save money period. But that is what some of our states have idiotically chosen and which we must now follow at least for 2008 and which many local Obama supporters now wish to end.

"The Caucus system violates the democratic process in this party. "

You got that right. Nothing as totalitarian as a community getting together in person to hammer out its choice for a candidate.

You know what else is undemocratic? Voting. Get rid of it.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 23, 2008 5:01 PM
-------------------------------------
When that community is comprised of only a segment of the population disenfranchising many others, I say that it is descriminatory and anti democratic. Look at who participates in this process.

This is a minor point, but the word data is plural. There are data to sift...

why isn't AMERICA fighting back against it's own dictatorship ???

they are busy trying to "get by,"

look at the empty factories

look at customer service overseas

look at computer jobs, overseas

look at medical jobs going overseas

look at foreigners controlling formally AMERICAN countries and making decisions based upon what is best for their "families," while not considering what is best for AMERICA at all...

globalization ???

sure if you consider MAFIA a governing body

bushCO and CRONYs und families is ~= mafia

"~=" means is "approximately equal to"

give it up for ORGANIZED CRIME, that is what bushCO and CRONYs are...

.EXAMPLEs:
1. Scooter Libby

2. IRAN CONTRA in the whitehouse

3. bush family collusion w/nazis, with no repurcussion...teaching their children and now your children

that treason is alright as long as no one prosecutes.

George H.W. Bush and Robert M. Gates have commited treason, against a sitting president

.JIMMY CARTER.

.

.

Leichtman-

They are "UNOFFICIAL" returns because they aren't official until certified by the Secretary of State at the end of the count. Those are the numbers that everyone else is counting, drawn from that very website. The other numbers just quote from earlier in the day. Furthermore, I didn't post that as an excuse or anything of the sort, merely to say that the election met my expectation fully. Where does Hillary go from here? She'll lose most of what she gained in NC, and Indiana will be borderline. She'll still be forced to argue that Superdelegates need to vote for her on a 2-1 basis to win the nomination on the theory that she may or may not be the better candidate in the fall. I don't see anyone buying that argument, and it's oone that she only gets to make if she dominates much of the remaining contests. The pledged delegate race is over and Obama won. To overturn that would require a pretty darn compelling argument that she could sell even to moderate Obama supporters, and this whole "I won blue states in primaries" ain't gonna cut it.

"The Caucus system violates the democratic process in this party. "
Posted by: Hispana | April 23, 2008 4:58 PM

I'm sure that kind of logic would go over swimmingly with voters in Caucus states. And I am fine with you making that argument but don't complain now about the rules once the process has started. The time to amend the system was before caucuses took place.

A few months ago, when some courageous scribes had the unmitigated chutzpah to notice a significant fall-off in Obama's performance when he didn't have a teleprompter feeding him the words to say, the left protested in outrage. Since then, it has become conventional wisdom to note that Obama struggles when speaking extemporaneously.

The Obama campaign itself has acknowledged this fact by making Obama unavailable to the press and canceling any future debates with Hillary Clinton after his calamitous performance in Pennsylvania's last tussle.

(And, of course he won't dare answer questions from Chris Wallace. Can't he just eat his damned waffle?)

The credulity of the most ardent Obama supporters is unbecoming. Their hostility to those who refuse to share their credulity is even less attractive.

Yet perhaps the ultimate irony is that their shrill advocacy actually damages their candidate.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/020phhvb.asp?pg=1

jnoel said "They" were told not to move their primaries;

the they you unfortunately forget to mention are Charlie Crist and The Fla Republican state legislature who told the AFL-CIO and Wexler that if they wanted the voting reforms they so desperately sought since the 2000 Fla debacle they also had to agree to the Republican mischief the Repubs in Fla knew would once again mess with the DNC by moving up the primary date. Blame Crist and Dean for allowing the Jeb Bush and Harris remnants to create this debacle. Should we once again let the corrupt Fla Republican party decide what the Democratic party does? Did we learn nothing in 2000 from Fla Repubs?

Obama could be wishing for this vote in Florida and Michigan to be dismissed but this is totally wrong because these voters have a right and no one in our party should pretend to violate this right.

Posted by: Hispana | April 23, 2008 4:40 PM

Their rights aren't being violated. You should scroll up at read bonjedi's comment @ 3:47 PM. They were told not to move their primaries; when they did they got punished, exactly as the DNC said they would. Case Closed.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 23, 2008 4:47 PM
--------------------------------------
I still beg to differ because the will of the people is being violated by arbitrary rules from the DNC and Democratic party. You have 2 significant states and millions of voters and sometimes it calls for good leadership to see through these situations and work out a solution that is best for our party and its future. To dismiss these 2 states would be a major disaster come November and could result in another loss election. The problem with a DNC leader like Dean is that he is a ZEALOT and would ruin our chances this November. Have other states changed the rules and were they penalized like these 2 states? This only shows me that there is vested interest in eliminating this state because it affects Obama. This is the truth undeneath it all. It is quite convenient to shut it down with follow the rule excuse!!!

Oh SV, you bad boy... OK, but only if you dress up as Hillary again, and use the action figures.

"The Caucus system violates the democratic process in this party. It is archaic and inhibits full participation of the voters."

Yeah, I agree. You would think that this year's caucuses had record turnouts and generated enthusiasm in both Democratic candidates.

Why doesn't Clinton try to avoid that, and work some backroom deal instead? Oh, you say that's what she is doing? Good for her!

Hispana

How someone will treat you to your face is far different from what they will say sitting around the pool with like thinking friends or the safety of a voting booth. These people are a product of a different generation. My mother in law was a Hitler youth. You should hear the stuff that comes out of here mouth. After 60 or more years or more that stuff is still there and I am afraid so it is with many older Americans about deep seeded hate and bigotry. It is naive to think it is not and also that one can't tap into it for your own purposes. Bill Clinton has already tried to in an subtle way and done it. Regardless what side you are on, there are some things that just are and can't be ignored. I don't think Hillary is really a bigot but she is more them willing to exploit it.

"The Caucus system violates the democratic process in this party. "

You got that right. Nothing as totalitarian as a community getting together in person to hammer out its choice for a candidate.

You know what else is undemocratic? Voting. Get rid of it.

Double standard, FTL. Seriously, Clintonistas...

You say Obama can't "close the deal." What about Clinton? Let's be completely fair here and apply the same standard to her. What does that end up looking like? Has Hillary "closed the deal?"

Certainly not. A state that, 6 weeks ago, was polling a 25% difference for Clinton was reduced to a little over a 9% lead through sheer force of will and on the ground campaign smarts by the Obama team. If that's a deal closer for Clinton, then I'm really not sure what deal we're talking about here.

Why is it that Obama needs to blow out every contest from here on out, even though he is clearly winning when you measure it with any legitimate yardstick? Clinton supporters are advocating an obvious double standard here, and it's too bad the media are giving them a pass on that.

The deal that all Democratic candidates signed up for is pretty simple. Get enough delegates to win the nomination, within the rules of the party set forth before the first vote is cast. There is now no way that Clinton can possibly pass Obama in the elected delegate count, without breaking those rules that all the candidates agreed to before the race began.

Obama doesn't have to meet the Clinton standards to win the nomination, he has to meet the Democratic Party standards. It sure would be nice if people would stop confusing the two.

In looking at this election and the rules that the Democratic Party has I see that the party needs to reform majorly because it is full of archaic and unreasonable rules:

1)The state Delegate apportionment formula is too complicated and results in a long protracted campaign. As an example, Philadelphia apportionment in proportion to the state. Why cannot this be changed to a more simple rule that is more 21st Century?

2)The Caucus system violates the democratic process in this party. It is archaic and inhibits full participation of the voters. It is subjective and seen as a process opened for intimidation and coercion by a group over others. Why can't this be eliminated to make it more transparent, accessible and comfortable for all voters?

To attract more people to the party and maintain, it is imperative that our process gets a fresh look and that all activities are within a good spectrum of acceptance by the constituency. The time for meaningful change is way over due!!!

To Bondjedi: Facts are not dumb, they are just stubborn things.

proudtobeGOP is probably a hoori

working for Karl Rove, hoping some of the stench of

GOP dancing in public restrooms for supper

rubs off on someone else too...

flush them , take them out of the gene pool legally...

take away their money, they'll lose the will to live.

thanks so much.

.

Here is what we should be worried about in the general election. Suppose that Obama is the nominee. My guess is that he will lose two big states that John Kerry and Al Gore both won, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Thats 38 eletctoral votes, which is a ton. Where is Obama going to make up those votes. One obvious wrong choice is everybodies favorite swing state, i.e. Florida.

If we look at the states he won in the primary, one solid choice is Missouri. Thats 11 electoral votes.

Possibilities:

1, the west. Obama getting a big push here is very very unlikely. McCain's independent streak is to my mind going wo win him most of the western states that went to GW in 2004. Also there is a big problem for Obama, the populations of these states are so small the number of electoral votes he can pick up here are very small even if he does win.

2, The south. Obama ran great in the south, but is unlikely to run so well in the general election. Why? African americans make up a very large % of voters in the democratic primaries here. So why can't Obama win here? The answer is the green part of Obama's black and green coalition. There are very few 'starbuck's intellectuals' or if you prefer NPR-bots in the south. The white community is largely poor and rural, Obama's weak point. On top of that they tend to actually go to the polls and vote. McCain might have had a hard time with this demographic in the primary, but trust me he won't in the general election.

What alot of Obama supporters don't get, is the workings of the electoral college. This makes the general election a series fo micro contests. For Obama that is a bad thing.

"Obama could be wishing for this vote in Florida and Michigan to be dismissed but this is totally wrong because these voters have a right and no one in our party should pretend to violate this right."

You have as much right to vote in the FL and MI primary as you do to vote for the local country club president or the National League MVP.

I know that your head is spinning from the conflicting narratives the Clintons keep devising, but the same argument that she is trying desperately to make, that the ultimate choice of the party's nominee belongs to the convention, is at odds with the "right" of the states to pick the nominee. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.

Obama could be wishing for this vote in Florida and Michigan to be dismissed but this is totally wrong because these voters have a right and no one in our party should pretend to violate this right.

Posted by: Hispana | April 23, 2008 4:40 PM

Their rights aren't being violated. You should scroll up at read bonjedi's comment @ 3:47 PM. They were told not to move their primaries; when they did they got punished, exactly as the DNC said they would. Case Closed.

the so called patron you refer to is protecting Israel. And you have a problem with that why?

the Bill Clinton initiative you criticize was to go help Al Gore's cable channel and to rebuild urban-based minority or female-owned businesses.

But I guess its just easier to just parrot right wing talking points to attack HC who had zero to do with this project and has said she knew nothing about it.

So the Clintons are now racists and antisemites. laughable.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=1985

Iraq of Bush and Cheney

by a Turk, Abdel Wahab Badrakhan

Tuesday , 21 March 2006

On the third anniversary marking the start of War on Iraq, and after all what happened since the occupation, it is yet to be known if another people is willing to hand in its fate to the US soliciting liberation from a blood-thirsty dictator, only to cast it into the mazes of a fierce civil war. It is true that the sway of Saddam's governance created an apparent "stability," a seemingly "unified" country, as well as a people more incline to "secular" behavior, also apparently.

However, the architects of the invasion and occupation considered the possibility of using "the positive fundamentals" of the previous regime; they rather relied thereon as encouraging elements for war.

Once the invaders arrived to Baghdad and overthrew the regime and its statues, they started to destroy everything, the State, the Army, and the institutions (except for the part related to oil).

The occupation authority ended up standing on the ruins of a country, to the extend of uprooting police centers even in regions where it was not even present.

There was no one left to call in case of emergency.

this is what the world sees, a bushCO und CRONERStag

_________O_C_C_U_P_A_T_I_O_N___________

hey Katie Kouric, get your head out of Georges but...

.

.

WHY WOULD GEORGIE WORGIE DO SUCH A THING ????

destroy an entire country, and it's infrastructure ??? cast 4,000,000 REFUGEES into other countries....

LISTEN CLOSELY: people just trying to survive, don't fight back...

they let themselves be told what their choices are....and they don't contest them...thier lives are hanging by a string as it is...they don't need no fricking "liberation," they need food, water, clothing, electricity, a job

and the bad guys to disappear...

Hispana
The funny thing about the race card, sometimes the one playing it is right, like in this case. Old white women are for the most part bigots. Just live in a place like Florida for a while and you will see what I mean. Not just blacks, they hate everybody that isn't like them. Obama can never get those votes, the best he can do is hope they don't vote. Hillary was just good at getting them out this time but nothing to do with her as much as to vote against him. I am sorry that may seem like the race card but it is also true.

Posted by: | April 23, 2008 4:30 PM
------------------------------------------
I vacation to Florida often and I beg to differ because I never experience that. I live in Maryland and when I came here I saw a lot of that and realized that it was because people are usually afraid of the unknown. Once people got to see me and saw my qualifications, people appreciated me. So, it is up to each one of us to break through barriers.

Obama could be wishing for this vote in Florida and Michigan to be dismissed but this is totally wrong because these voters have a right and no one in our party should pretend to violate this right.

We may conclude three things with absolute certainty after the Pennsylvania primary.

The first is that Hillary Clinton is a formidable campaigner, and as her deadpan consumption of a shot of Crown Royal attests, possesses the requisite combination of nerve and psychosis to run for president, serve, and thrive.

This is the fourth cycle in which we have been assured that Mrs Clinton is a dead duck, and speculation has been rife about who would be delegated (Vernon Jordan? Dianne Feinstein? Hugh Rodham?) to persuade her to withdraw from the race--only to be followed by a decisive victory in an important state for the Democrats.

The second conclusion is that, despite the soothing affirmation of the media--especially after his 'historic' speech on race--Barack Obama has been grievously wounded by the Reverend Wright and Obama's 'bitter . . . cling . . . guns . . . religion' comments about the great unwashed to an appreciative cocktail audience in San Francisco.

Suddenly Obama does not seem so much a national treasure as a callow freshman senator who, after a lifetime of being told how remarkable he is, finds himself stunned and angry to encounter resistance.

The third conclusion is that Sen Clinton's prospects for the nomination have risen from the 10 percent universally ascribed to her before Pennsylvania to something