Hillary vs McCain would turn to a ugly war of the sexes and McCain would win because Hillary is weak so weak she can't even stand up to her own man cheating on her.
For the first time, CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS were Clinton's best ideological group: She won them 53-43.
Clinton won the Texas primary by about 98,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. If the exits are right, about 252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives. Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners.
i think in a couple days, we will all go back to how it was before.
Ohio and texas aside there are a few things to remember.
Though hillary won both key states, she made a net gain of 21 delegates.
Barack Obama is expected to announce 50 more super delegates over the course of the next several weeks, and will likely pick up at least half of Hillary's gains in pledged delegates by the time Pennsylvania arrives.
In order for Clinton to win the nomination, she needs about 60/40 splits in EVERY PRIMARY here on out, and we all know that is not going to happen. In fact, she will likely lose the majority of the primaries from here on out.
Obama will still be the nominee / or Hillary will crap on the dems chance of victory and wrangle out a Bush vs Gore type win defying the popular vote: which will in the end favor Obama.
I would be really interested to hear from a Clinton supporter what their legitimate path to victory is. There is no chance to win the pledged delegate count or popular vote, is winning on the backs of political insiders the correct message? How does that do anything but hurt the Dems chances of beating a very formitable Jon Mccain in the general election.
Lets for a moment grant the benefit of the doubt that at first there was no coordinated effort to use Obamas race and the collective undercurrent of bigotry in this country against him. Lets pretend that the 1st or 2nd or even 4rth instance when Clinton surrogates employed racial and ethnic stereotypes to disparage him personally or otherwise raise concerns about his candidacy were nothing but innocent slips of the tongue. Lets even imagine that throughout the most blatant appeals to Americas inner bigot, raising concerns about the ‘Bradly effect’, stirring racial tensions between the black and latino communities, using race as the sole explanation for losses in South Carolina and Georgia and Louisiana, using Obamas race to marginalize him as a Jackson-like figure despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that it was Mark Penn or some misguided underling and not Hillary herself who was coordinating this campaign of systematized race-baiting. What is STILL unforgivable is that Clinton made no concerted effort to renounce publicly this dialog nor made any organized effort whatsoever within her own campaign to stay on message and stop it from happening. Elections are all about context and perception, and no one is more aware of that fact than the Clintons. With Obama emerging as such a potent public symbol of race transcendence in a generation, in the wake of Bill Shaheen and the myriad of other subtle but nefariously subversive messages being leaked by her campaign, I find it dubious beyond credibility that Clinton was capable of such racial insensitivity as to compare Obama to Martin Luther King, the most important figure in civil rights and racial politics in american history, to compare herself to LBJ, perhaps the most begrudgingly compliant force of the same era, and to make that comparison in order to denigrate and marginalize the importance of both Martin Luther King and Barack Obama.
It may be historically accurate that LBJ signed the Civil Rights act. Its also historically accurate that Hitler made the trains run on time, but I think most people would have serious concerns about a person who would bring this up a at a holocaust memorial. None of the above has been lost in the slightest on the black community in this country, and no one should have illusions that they will so easily forgive come November.
And let me continue to express to all of the Hillary people on this board what sincere contempt I have for you and your own demonstrated failure of vision, morality and principal, to acquiesce to a person who could so callously employ this kind of systematized bigotry and untruthfulness as the basis for her campaign. Let me pray for you that you are simply a product of failed imagination and failed education, that you are somehow unaware that there is no math calculated by which the nomination will be wrested except by the subversion of the democratic process, that there is no math by which your candidate can end this election process with a lead in either delegates or popular vote, that the only prayer for victory admitted by her own campaign will be through a manipulative fucking bloodbath of superdelagate nepotism in an august convention resulting in the absolute demoralization and ultimate destruction of the democratic party and democracy itself as a principal in the united states. Let me pray for you that your morose lack of vision has failed you to understand that your candidates plan for victory includes the absolute demoralization of an entire generation of americans in the democratic process, a disaffection with the political process and the future of democracy in America from which we will never recover, a blow that will end the democratic party and will effectively end this country. You will spend your waning years witnessing and languishing in the utter and final collapse of the united states and its sorrowful descent into the graveyard of historiy's failed empires, crushed by its own failure of principal and meaning. We will, by the subversion of truth and civil justice and our own democracy, finally and completely have sacrificed our core reason for being.
I just cant believe after everything weve been through in the last 8 years that so many Americans are once again demonstrating themselves to be such a slobbering gaggle of imperceptive, unimaginative fucking cretins that the future of our country may rest in the hands of either a warmongering fucking nutcase or a lying race-baiting fraud who has yet to find a value or principal whatsoever she isnt willing to burn at the altar of her own ego and political ambition.
Can't someone support someone because of the stances they take on issues? I am neither racist nor obtuse to not vote for Obama because he's black. I'm voting for her because there are key issues that I agree with her and other issues i disagree with Obama. Just because my vision for this coutry is different from yours doesn't make me unimaginative or imperceptive.
There are people that are voting for issues and there are people that are voting for integrity. I personally can't discern enough of a difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues to care enough about voting for that. I am voting for integrity, which Clinton hasn't seemed to display much of throughout this campaign, and many of her supporters seem to lack it as well, including Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, apparently. In fact if I stick with integrity and Clinton wins the nomination, and its her versus McCain.....I have to default to McCain. It's that simple.
"Can't someone support someone because of the stances they take on issues?"
Not if that person holds no respect whatsoever for truthfulness or the principals which inspire those issues.
If I seem like Ive flown off the handle, thats because this the genuine future of this country is at stake here. This is the world my children will grow up in. If we cannot stand by our most basic principles, of truth and civil justice and equality, of peaceful and democratic resolution of conflicts, how on earth are we to reassert ourselves as a voice of moral clarity in this world? How on earth will we raise the standards of civil and political discourse for ourselves? Campaign promises mean nothing if you dont have the moral fiber to stand by them.
I think oe's point is that if someone is willing to sacrifice a core tenet of our country (that everyone is 5/5th a person, not 3/5th) is valid (did I just say that?) Given that, who's to say she won't ditch every position you agree with her on the way to her coronation?
Nothing.
Hillary's quote when asked if she thought Obama was a muslim should have been "That's a ludicrous. He has gone to the same church for twenty years. These rumors are meant to be decisive, and if I find anyone in my organization spreading these rumors I will have them out on the street." - And then, if anyone gets found doing that, she cans them and makes them pariahs.
Short of that, I am convinced that she not only throw anyone under the bus if it makes her more powerful, and that the republicans can essentially control her through her willingness to throw people under the bus for her own aggrandizement.
"The Obama we know is no rhetorician; he shines not because he can move people, but because of his problem-solving abilities, his creativity and his attention to detail.
In recent weeks, his speaking talents, and the cult-like atmosphere that occasionally surrounds him, have led people to wonder whether there is substance behind the plea for "change" - whether the soaring phrases might disguise a kind of emptiness and vagueness. But nothing could be further from the truth. He is most comfortable in the domain of policy and detail."
the right sure has some fantastic people on its side...
why how could you not be proud of such patriots like glenn beck, pat robertson, ann coulter, bill oriely and rush limbaugh. real american hero's! each and every one
Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 1186
Superdelegates: 238
Total: 1,424
Uhhh j, she's a hundred points BEHIND. Leave it to a clinton supporter to declare her the winner when she has less point on the board than her opponent.
Hey man, this is not Clinton's fault: she's running a race, which is what you're supposed to do - I guess the Patriots should have just folded when the Giants went ahead, and the Giants the same with a few minutes left. IT'S A CAMPAIGN, you're supposed to fight as hard as you can, give it all you've got (and enough of the "demon Clinton" stuff: their fight has been relatively clean, practically a love fest, so should quit with the "ooo, she published a picture of him with a turban, ooo......ooo, she says he has no experience, ooo...please). If you want to blame anyone, blame the Democratic party for not putting in a winner take all system: Obama would have it wrapped up by now.
As far as this crap:
"And let me continue to express to all of the Hillary people on this board what sincere contempt I have for you and your own demonstrated failure of vision, morality and principal, to acquiesce to a person who could so callously employ this kind of systematized bigotry and untruthfulness as the basis for her campaign."
that's just more of "if you disagree with me then you're a lesser human being than I am". I do disagree with you, oe but I think you have a right to believe what you want. I think she would actually make a good president, definitely better that Bushie, and better than McCain - and at least as good as Obama. But no need to insult Archinecters, most of whom probably don't fit your description (unless you've met a lot of architects who have no intelligence, vision, or morality: I have not).
now i know why architects are architects, math is our one weak spot. on what fucking planet do any of the clintonistas see that she will win 65% -70% of any of the remaining states? where? please tell me the states she will win 65-35 or 70-30? name them! that's what it will take, even if they re-vote fla or mich...her only chance, and i mean only chance is to somehow convince - read: sue - the democratic party to give her the delegates in the two states she won, and if that happens - EMPTY COLORADO CONVENTION - guaranfuckingteed!
Actually, I'm a Clintonista/Obamista: I'm going to vote for whoever wins this brawler in November. Yea, yea, Hussein, I know the numbers: I just like a good political fight between two historically unique contenders (but I do agree that a floor fight at the convention only favors the other party).
Wow, oe, IMHO you pretty much just did a Hillary move by completely insulting the other side. I'm a Barack supporter but I must say when it comes to to Foreign Affairs/Diplomacy Hillary does have a greater understanding of what needs to be done. She does understand how to walk that very fine line between BSing, finessing, negotiating compromising and mediating with other nation-states and for that she almost got my vote, as it is no easy task. Just look at the mess Bush put us in.
Don't stoop to her level... take the high road, like Obama has done and cease the mudslinging. There are many people out there with far more knowledge than you and I have combine, that support Hillary. They aren't stupid, they aren't unimaginable and they aren't uneducated, they just have a different view point and that's okay. It's what makes this world go 'round.
"I do disagree with you, oe but I think you have a right to believe what you want. I think she would actually make a good president, definitely better that Bushie, and better than McCain - and at least as good as Obama. But no need to insult Archinecters, most of whom probably don't fit your description (unless you've met a lot of architects who have no intelligence, vision, or morality: I have not)."
I am sorry to be so insulting. It just kills me to see so many working so hard to make this world a better place, to make a new future for us, only to be held back by the hesitation and lack of faith in basic decency in others. I feel like my entire generation has found a reason to rise up and make a new and better world only to be held back and smothered by the cynicism and the lack of backbone of all these dinosaurs above us. Its crushing.
Yes, and by the ignorance of so many "beneath us" -- who have their rightful vote. And to what do we owe that ignorance ? Poor education, wilful "religious education," and the endless opportunities for distraction and empty fulfillment offered by the entertainment media of today. Bread and circuses -- remember ? That's McD and xBox, isn't it ? Cheap sweet and salty calories and glitter and violence.
20% of Americans polled believe the Sun revolves around the earth. And that's without "Creationism." How can we expect our fellow citizens to know which leaders they need ?
SDR thats complete bs. And those that do support creationism or other deeply evangelical or fundementalist views are inteligent enough to seperate real life from religious metephor believe it or not. A very slim faction of the religious right are truely nuts but 20% of America. C'mon now.
SDR you are forgetting though, that the electoral college are still the ones that vote our leaders into office. It's not the populous that does so. Thank God for the founders of our country, they had no faith in the average Joe.
Also I encourage you and oe to find and read the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs. This will give a little bit more perspective of both McCain and Clinton's view on the US's role as a diplomatic world leader. Really sheds some light on where they're coming from in this realm of their campaign.
Oh and one last point. I am sure there are plenty of uneducated, Xbox playing, "Lost" and "Idol" loving people that are voting for Obama just because it's the "In" thing to do. Seriously people, there are ignorant people supporting all the candidates, so find a better argument.
Look I dont have a problem with first-time political involvees getting exited even if they dont know very much yet. I dont even really get mad about republicans who think critically and end up with different convictions. Though I think its misguided and incomplete, I understand the pro-life argument and small government and the need for a military. I do have serious problems with people who espouse themselves to be progressive liberal thinkers yet are unbothered by Clinton ditching the principals that inspire those positions out of political convenience. I mean they played the fucking race card for gods sake! It just drives me crazy. Maybe I just think people who are reading the papers and really thinking about these things should know better.
Yes, the point was that we have enough ignorance without the addition of fundamentalist interference with the science education of our descendents.
I would have thought that anyone would agree with the argument, despite its elitist tone, that "our" side has intelligence and discrimination on its side. Isn't the point of any discussion about social choice, that better decisions are made by those who are better informed ? It isn't just a matter of tossing a coin, is it ?
I agree SDR, better choices are made by the better informed and it pretty much is a toss of the coin
oe I agree with you too. The race card was indeed intolerable and was ultimately the straw that broke the camel's back for me. But the people out there that are supporting Hillary are supporting her for diplomatic savvy, her experience, the memory of the good years when her husband was in office. Yeah I know, I know, the whole experience thing is debatable and all but she did spend 8 long years kissing other leader's wives' asses, travelling the world as the first lady, visiting third world countries (that can't be easy), participating in some amazing peace keeping conventions/conferences, blah-biddy-blah, blah, blah. It's truly amazing how much one can learn by observation alone.
But anyhoo I digress. I guess the point I'm trying to make is all anyone's opinion around here is via stuff we've read, stuff we've heard, stuff we've seen. Who's really to say we're the intelligent ones? We're all worked up into this he said, she said frenzy and what everyone REALLY needs to do is look at the issues and understand them. Don't cheapen your argument by slinging mud and calling people names or telling them they are stupid or ignorant (even when they are). Many are not. Learn your opponent's thoughts, views, opinions. Understanding all the things will make your convictions all the more intelligent and motivating. So many people in the country are sick and tired of the fighting, the bantering, the name calling. I believe that's another reason why Obama is gaining so many votes. He isn't playing that game... neither for that matter is McCain.
It's late and I'm tired. I'll just leave you with one more thing to chew on... you catch more flies with honey.
The Clinton Campaign's post March 4th message is to forget about the delegate count and nominate Hillary because she can win the big states Democrats need in November. That argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
I haven't been able to find any updates/explainations for the Texas caucus. I don't understand why/how the counts were stopped and then resumed. Don't they count the people when they are there?
they do, but as you know math is not a strong suit in TX and once you get past the digits on your hands and feet there are only but a few teeths to go around....but i kid.
i think the idea of a caucus in such a big state, and populous to boot, is rather difficult because the locations are many and far apart...
Does anyone think that Florida and Michigan should count? And does anyone think that it means that Obama is somehow contradicting himself about "the people's" candidacy?
I have to say that I think its bullshit. He didn't even campaign in FLA and MI becuase of the Democratic Party's regulations. It isn't like Obama decided to move FLA and MI primaries earlier than they were supposed to.
FL and MI defied party rules and shouldn't count. You can't change the rules halfway through the game. I suspect that the people who led the rule-breaking in those states were probably Clinton supporters at one time and wanted to get her "inevitable" candidacy started ASAP. And Obama didn't campaign there, rightfully because of those rules....I also suspect that had his operation been on the ground in those states, the outcome might have been different.
I don't agree with this article's conclusions, but it provides some background about how Florida and Michigan each got into this mess in the first place.
1. The Heck With Them Option: Michigan and Florida broke the rules and should suffer. If they are not made to pay for moving up their contests, 2012 will be even more chaotic than 2008. Strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates, and let the chips fall where they may.
2. The Kumbaya Option: Can’t we all just get along? Let’s seat Michigan and Florida the way the voters voted, and if this helps Clinton, that’s the way the nomination crumbles. The major problem with this, however, is that neither primary was exactly normal. Clinton was the only person on the Michigan ballot, and all the candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida.
3. The Split the Baby Option: Give 50 percent of the delegates to Obama and 50 percent to Clinton. At least this way, the voters of Michigan and Florida will not be insulted and will not punish the Democratic nominee in November.
4. The Mulligan Option: Do it over. Hold new contests. Maybe a caucus in Michigan and a primary in Florida. (Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, has said he would support a do over in his state.) This option seems to be gaining in popularity within the party. The new contests could be held on the first Tuesday in June, along with Montana’s and South Dakota’s. Sure, this would cost millions, but nobody ever said democracy was cheap.
5. The Lone Ranger Option: Just wait for somebody to ride into town and save the day. Maybe Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean will be able to negotiate a settlement between Obama and Clinton. Except that a source at the DNC told me Dean is in no hurry to intervene. “He wants to let the voters have their say,” the source said. “We need to take a step back. We still have 10 states [plus Guam and Puerto Rico] left to vote and 600 pledged delegates to be determined.”
If I were Obama's campaign, I'd make sure this becomes front-page news in every newspaper in the country. It goes to the heart of Hillary's hypocrisy and corruption. Let the vetting begin.
I prefer number one without the condescension and negativity. The reason for having the DNC regulations is to keep order. Florida, Michigan and all candidates agreed that there would be no campaigning there and it seems counter-productive to go back on this now. If they do go back on this decision, they undermine the integrity of their own regulations and it only makes their party weaker.
"1. The Heck With Them Option: Michigan and Florida broke the rules and should suffer. If they are not made to pay for moving up their contests, 2012 will be even more chaotic than 2008. Strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates, and let the chips fall where they may."
VOTE OBAMA
I've lived in Philly PA the home of the constitution, Hillary is not pro constitutional Obama is she will loose.
Hillary vs McCain would turn to a ugly war of the sexes and McCain would win because Hillary is weak so weak she can't even stand up to her own man cheating on her.
Proof that Rush Limbaugh gave TX as a little gift to Hillary:
http://reason.com/blog/show/125327.html
For the first time, CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS were Clinton's best ideological group: She won them 53-43.
Clinton won the Texas primary by about 98,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. If the exits are right, about 252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives. Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners.
Bonus Track: Bill Clinton speaks to Rush Limbaugh's substitute host yesterday:
http://www.wbap.com/Article.asp?id=606119&spid=6051
i think in a couple days, we will all go back to how it was before.
Ohio and texas aside there are a few things to remember.
Though hillary won both key states, she made a net gain of 21 delegates.
Barack Obama is expected to announce 50 more super delegates over the course of the next several weeks, and will likely pick up at least half of Hillary's gains in pledged delegates by the time Pennsylvania arrives.
In order for Clinton to win the nomination, she needs about 60/40 splits in EVERY PRIMARY here on out, and we all know that is not going to happen. In fact, she will likely lose the majority of the primaries from here on out.
Obama will still be the nominee / or Hillary will crap on the dems chance of victory and wrangle out a Bush vs Gore type win defying the popular vote: which will in the end favor Obama.
I would be really interested to hear from a Clinton supporter what their legitimate path to victory is. There is no chance to win the pledged delegate count or popular vote, is winning on the backs of political insiders the correct message? How does that do anything but hurt the Dems chances of beating a very formitable Jon Mccain in the general election.
You know what trumps experience? Morality.
Lets for a moment grant the benefit of the doubt that at first there was no coordinated effort to use Obamas race and the collective undercurrent of bigotry in this country against him. Lets pretend that the 1st or 2nd or even 4rth instance when Clinton surrogates employed racial and ethnic stereotypes to disparage him personally or otherwise raise concerns about his candidacy were nothing but innocent slips of the tongue. Lets even imagine that throughout the most blatant appeals to Americas inner bigot, raising concerns about the ‘Bradly effect’, stirring racial tensions between the black and latino communities, using race as the sole explanation for losses in South Carolina and Georgia and Louisiana, using Obamas race to marginalize him as a Jackson-like figure despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that it was Mark Penn or some misguided underling and not Hillary herself who was coordinating this campaign of systematized race-baiting. What is STILL unforgivable is that Clinton made no concerted effort to renounce publicly this dialog nor made any organized effort whatsoever within her own campaign to stay on message and stop it from happening. Elections are all about context and perception, and no one is more aware of that fact than the Clintons. With Obama emerging as such a potent public symbol of race transcendence in a generation, in the wake of Bill Shaheen and the myriad of other subtle but nefariously subversive messages being leaked by her campaign, I find it dubious beyond credibility that Clinton was capable of such racial insensitivity as to compare Obama to Martin Luther King, the most important figure in civil rights and racial politics in american history, to compare herself to LBJ, perhaps the most begrudgingly compliant force of the same era, and to make that comparison in order to denigrate and marginalize the importance of both Martin Luther King and Barack Obama.
It may be historically accurate that LBJ signed the Civil Rights act. Its also historically accurate that Hitler made the trains run on time, but I think most people would have serious concerns about a person who would bring this up a at a holocaust memorial. None of the above has been lost in the slightest on the black community in this country, and no one should have illusions that they will so easily forgive come November.
And let me continue to express to all of the Hillary people on this board what sincere contempt I have for you and your own demonstrated failure of vision, morality and principal, to acquiesce to a person who could so callously employ this kind of systematized bigotry and untruthfulness as the basis for her campaign. Let me pray for you that you are simply a product of failed imagination and failed education, that you are somehow unaware that there is no math calculated by which the nomination will be wrested except by the subversion of the democratic process, that there is no math by which your candidate can end this election process with a lead in either delegates or popular vote, that the only prayer for victory admitted by her own campaign will be through a manipulative fucking bloodbath of superdelagate nepotism in an august convention resulting in the absolute demoralization and ultimate destruction of the democratic party and democracy itself as a principal in the united states. Let me pray for you that your morose lack of vision has failed you to understand that your candidates plan for victory includes the absolute demoralization of an entire generation of americans in the democratic process, a disaffection with the political process and the future of democracy in America from which we will never recover, a blow that will end the democratic party and will effectively end this country. You will spend your waning years witnessing and languishing in the utter and final collapse of the united states and its sorrowful descent into the graveyard of historiy's failed empires, crushed by its own failure of principal and meaning. We will, by the subversion of truth and civil justice and our own democracy, finally and completely have sacrificed our core reason for being.
I just cant believe after everything weve been through in the last 8 years that so many Americans are once again demonstrating themselves to be such a slobbering gaggle of imperceptive, unimaginative fucking cretins that the future of our country may rest in the hands of either a warmongering fucking nutcase or a lying race-baiting fraud who has yet to find a value or principal whatsoever she isnt willing to burn at the altar of her own ego and political ambition.
What oe said.
[applause]
Can't someone support someone because of the stances they take on issues? I am neither racist nor obtuse to not vote for Obama because he's black. I'm voting for her because there are key issues that I agree with her and other issues i disagree with Obama. Just because my vision for this coutry is different from yours doesn't make me unimaginative or imperceptive.
There are people that are voting for issues and there are people that are voting for integrity. I personally can't discern enough of a difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues to care enough about voting for that. I am voting for integrity, which Clinton hasn't seemed to display much of throughout this campaign, and many of her supporters seem to lack it as well, including Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, apparently. In fact if I stick with integrity and Clinton wins the nomination, and its her versus McCain.....I have to default to McCain. It's that simple.
"Can't someone support someone because of the stances they take on issues?"
Not if that person holds no respect whatsoever for truthfulness or the principals which inspire those issues.
If I seem like Ive flown off the handle, thats because this the genuine future of this country is at stake here. This is the world my children will grow up in. If we cannot stand by our most basic principles, of truth and civil justice and equality, of peaceful and democratic resolution of conflicts, how on earth are we to reassert ourselves as a voice of moral clarity in this world? How on earth will we raise the standards of civil and political discourse for ourselves? Campaign promises mean nothing if you dont have the moral fiber to stand by them.
I think oe's point is that if someone is willing to sacrifice a core tenet of our country (that everyone is 5/5th a person, not 3/5th) is valid (did I just say that?) Given that, who's to say she won't ditch every position you agree with her on the way to her coronation?
Nothing.
Hillary's quote when asked if she thought Obama was a muslim should have been "That's a ludicrous. He has gone to the same church for twenty years. These rumors are meant to be decisive, and if I find anyone in my organization spreading these rumors I will have them out on the street." - And then, if anyone gets found doing that, she cans them and makes them pariahs.
Short of that, I am convinced that she not only throw anyone under the bus if it makes her more powerful, and that the republicans can essentially control her through her willingness to throw people under the bus for her own aggrandizement.
This article should be required reading for all who think Obama is "all talk and no substance":
Cass Sunstein: The Obama I Know
"The Obama we know is no rhetorician; he shines not because he can move people, but because of his problem-solving abilities, his creativity and his attention to detail.
In recent weeks, his speaking talents, and the cult-like atmosphere that occasionally surrounds him, have led people to wonder whether there is substance behind the plea for "change" - whether the soaring phrases might disguise a kind of emptiness and vagueness. But nothing could be further from the truth. He is most comfortable in the domain of policy and detail."
good piece, gin.
:)
Damn, he's not the antichrist? I guess we'll have to keep looking.
wow...nobody has called Hillary the Anti-Christ yet.
glenn beck was asking that in jest
yet i'm sure it won't stop keith olbamamann from listing him as the worstest personist in the worldests
the right sure has some fantastic people on its side...
why how could you not be proud of such patriots like glenn beck, pat robertson, ann coulter, bill oriely and rush limbaugh. real american hero's! each and every one
The real #'s (from CNN)
TOTAL DELEGATES / Delegate Definitions
Barack Obama
Pledged: 1321
Superdelegates: 199
Total: 1,520
Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 1186
Superdelegates: 238
Total: 1,424
Leave it to a Hillary supporter to say they are the winner with less points on the board. Nice.
The real #'s from CNN
Barack Obama
Pledged: 1321
Superdelegates: 199
Total: 1,520
Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 1186
Superdelegates: 238
Total: 1,424
Uhhh j, she's a hundred points BEHIND. Leave it to a clinton supporter to declare her the winner when she has less point on the board than her opponent.
Hey man, this is not Clinton's fault: she's running a race, which is what you're supposed to do - I guess the Patriots should have just folded when the Giants went ahead, and the Giants the same with a few minutes left. IT'S A CAMPAIGN, you're supposed to fight as hard as you can, give it all you've got (and enough of the "demon Clinton" stuff: their fight has been relatively clean, practically a love fest, so should quit with the "ooo, she published a picture of him with a turban, ooo......ooo, she says he has no experience, ooo...please). If you want to blame anyone, blame the Democratic party for not putting in a winner take all system: Obama would have it wrapped up by now.
As far as this crap:
"And let me continue to express to all of the Hillary people on this board what sincere contempt I have for you and your own demonstrated failure of vision, morality and principal, to acquiesce to a person who could so callously employ this kind of systematized bigotry and untruthfulness as the basis for her campaign."
that's just more of "if you disagree with me then you're a lesser human being than I am". I do disagree with you, oe but I think you have a right to believe what you want. I think she would actually make a good president, definitely better that Bushie, and better than McCain - and at least as good as Obama. But no need to insult Archinecters, most of whom probably don't fit your description (unless you've met a lot of architects who have no intelligence, vision, or morality: I have not).
thats because the anti christ is a lie used after the fall of the roman empire to better control the masses
now i know why architects are architects, math is our one weak spot. on what fucking planet do any of the clintonistas see that she will win 65% -70% of any of the remaining states? where? please tell me the states she will win 65-35 or 70-30? name them! that's what it will take, even if they re-vote fla or mich...her only chance, and i mean only chance is to somehow convince - read: sue - the democratic party to give her the delegates in the two states she won, and if that happens - EMPTY COLORADO CONVENTION - guaranfuckingteed!
she won't win outright but can keep obama from winning
brokered convention will be FUN!
keep fighting!
Actually, I'm a Clintonista/Obamista: I'm going to vote for whoever wins this brawler in November. Yea, yea, Hussein, I know the numbers: I just like a good political fight between two historically unique contenders (but I do agree that a floor fight at the convention only favors the other party).
Wow, oe, IMHO you pretty much just did a Hillary move by completely insulting the other side. I'm a Barack supporter but I must say when it comes to to Foreign Affairs/Diplomacy Hillary does have a greater understanding of what needs to be done. She does understand how to walk that very fine line between BSing, finessing, negotiating compromising and mediating with other nation-states and for that she almost got my vote, as it is no easy task. Just look at the mess Bush put us in.
Don't stoop to her level... take the high road, like Obama has done and cease the mudslinging. There are many people out there with far more knowledge than you and I have combine, that support Hillary. They aren't stupid, they aren't unimaginable and they aren't uneducated, they just have a different view point and that's okay. It's what makes this world go 'round.
Another Obama Supporter and Diplomacy Lover
LO
"I do disagree with you, oe but I think you have a right to believe what you want. I think she would actually make a good president, definitely better that Bushie, and better than McCain - and at least as good as Obama. But no need to insult Archinecters, most of whom probably don't fit your description (unless you've met a lot of architects who have no intelligence, vision, or morality: I have not)."
I am sorry to be so insulting. It just kills me to see so many working so hard to make this world a better place, to make a new future for us, only to be held back by the hesitation and lack of faith in basic decency in others. I feel like my entire generation has found a reason to rise up and make a new and better world only to be held back and smothered by the cynicism and the lack of backbone of all these dinosaurs above us. Its crushing.
Yes, and by the ignorance of so many "beneath us" -- who have their rightful vote. And to what do we owe that ignorance ? Poor education, wilful "religious education," and the endless opportunities for distraction and empty fulfillment offered by the entertainment media of today. Bread and circuses -- remember ? That's McD and xBox, isn't it ? Cheap sweet and salty calories and glitter and violence.
Grumble grumble. . . Fast food nation. . ."Idol". . ."Lost". . .
20% of Americans polled believe the Sun revolves around the earth. And that's without "Creationism." How can we expect our fellow citizens to know which leaders they need ?
SDR thats complete bs. And those that do support creationism or other deeply evangelical or fundementalist views are inteligent enough to seperate real life from religious metephor believe it or not. A very slim faction of the religious right are truely nuts but 20% of America. C'mon now.
SDR you are forgetting though, that the electoral college are still the ones that vote our leaders into office. It's not the populous that does so. Thank God for the founders of our country, they had no faith in the average Joe.
Also I encourage you and oe to find and read the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs. This will give a little bit more perspective of both McCain and Clinton's view on the US's role as a diplomatic world leader. Really sheds some light on where they're coming from in this realm of their campaign.
Oh and one last point. I am sure there are plenty of uneducated, Xbox playing, "Lost" and "Idol" loving people that are voting for Obama just because it's the "In" thing to do. Seriously people, there are ignorant people supporting all the candidates, so find a better argument.
AMEN EVILP!!!!!
Look I dont have a problem with first-time political involvees getting exited even if they dont know very much yet. I dont even really get mad about republicans who think critically and end up with different convictions. Though I think its misguided and incomplete, I understand the pro-life argument and small government and the need for a military. I do have serious problems with people who espouse themselves to be progressive liberal thinkers yet are unbothered by Clinton ditching the principals that inspire those positions out of political convenience. I mean they played the fucking race card for gods sake! It just drives me crazy. Maybe I just think people who are reading the papers and really thinking about these things should know better.
Yes, the point was that we have enough ignorance without the addition of fundamentalist interference with the science education of our descendents.
I would have thought that anyone would agree with the argument, despite its elitist tone, that "our" side has intelligence and discrimination on its side. Isn't the point of any discussion about social choice, that better decisions are made by those who are better informed ? It isn't just a matter of tossing a coin, is it ?
Maybe I misunderstand your point(s). . .
amen oe
The Clinton Plan for Victory:
(This is what they did to the picture of Obama on their website)
That's interesting. Did they really give Obama a make-over ?
How about "Do-over in Michigan and Florida?"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble
I agree SDR, better choices are made by the better informed and it pretty much is a toss of the coin
oe I agree with you too. The race card was indeed intolerable and was ultimately the straw that broke the camel's back for me. But the people out there that are supporting Hillary are supporting her for diplomatic savvy, her experience, the memory of the good years when her husband was in office. Yeah I know, I know, the whole experience thing is debatable and all but she did spend 8 long years kissing other leader's wives' asses, travelling the world as the first lady, visiting third world countries (that can't be easy), participating in some amazing peace keeping conventions/conferences, blah-biddy-blah, blah, blah. It's truly amazing how much one can learn by observation alone.
But anyhoo I digress. I guess the point I'm trying to make is all anyone's opinion around here is via stuff we've read, stuff we've heard, stuff we've seen. Who's really to say we're the intelligent ones? We're all worked up into this he said, she said frenzy and what everyone REALLY needs to do is look at the issues and understand them. Don't cheapen your argument by slinging mud and calling people names or telling them they are stupid or ignorant (even when they are). Many are not. Learn your opponent's thoughts, views, opinions. Understanding all the things will make your convictions all the more intelligent and motivating. So many people in the country are sick and tired of the fighting, the bantering, the name calling. I believe that's another reason why Obama is gaining so many votes. He isn't playing that game... neither for that matter is McCain.
It's late and I'm tired. I'll just leave you with one more thing to chew on... you catch more flies with honey.
I buy that -- and that. We'll have to go on with what we have. Whoever comes out of the convention will get my vote and my hopes and expectations.
Robert Creamer: Clinton's "Big State" Myth: Why Barack Obama Remains the Most Electable Democrat This Fall
The Clinton Campaign's post March 4th message is to forget about the delegate count and nominate Hillary because she can win the big states Democrats need in November. That argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
I haven't been able to find any updates/explainations for the Texas caucus. I don't understand why/how the counts were stopped and then resumed. Don't they count the people when they are there?
they do, but as you know math is not a strong suit in TX and once you get past the digits on your hands and feet there are only but a few teeths to go around....but i kid.
i think the idea of a caucus in such a big state, and populous to boot, is rather difficult because the locations are many and far apart...
Does anyone think that Florida and Michigan should count? And does anyone think that it means that Obama is somehow contradicting himself about "the people's" candidacy?
I have to say that I think its bullshit. He didn't even campaign in FLA and MI becuase of the Democratic Party's regulations. It isn't like Obama decided to move FLA and MI primaries earlier than they were supposed to.
FL and MI defied party rules and shouldn't count. You can't change the rules halfway through the game. I suspect that the people who led the rule-breaking in those states were probably Clinton supporters at one time and wanted to get her "inevitable" candidacy started ASAP. And Obama didn't campaign there, rightfully because of those rules....I also suspect that had his operation been on the ground in those states, the outcome might have been different.
Barack's on the cover of Rolling Stone this week and they've got a pretty good article on how his ground-breaking grassroots campaign works...
Different takes on the MI/FL situation in today's Huffington Post:
Joe Vogel: With Michigan and Florida, Obama Will Win Nomination by May 20th
I think there's a faulty assumption in his argument (see comments below the article), but it's still an interesting argument.
Jackson Williams: Howard Dean, Tear Down This Wall!
I don't agree with this article's conclusions, but it provides some background about how Florida and Michigan each got into this mess in the first place.
And on Politico.com:
Roger Simon: Five Options for Florida and Michigan
Basically, the DNC has five options.
1. The Heck With Them Option: Michigan and Florida broke the rules and should suffer. If they are not made to pay for moving up their contests, 2012 will be even more chaotic than 2008. Strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates, and let the chips fall where they may.
2. The Kumbaya Option: Can’t we all just get along? Let’s seat Michigan and Florida the way the voters voted, and if this helps Clinton, that’s the way the nomination crumbles. The major problem with this, however, is that neither primary was exactly normal. Clinton was the only person on the Michigan ballot, and all the candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida.
3. The Split the Baby Option: Give 50 percent of the delegates to Obama and 50 percent to Clinton. At least this way, the voters of Michigan and Florida will not be insulted and will not punish the Democratic nominee in November.
4. The Mulligan Option: Do it over. Hold new contests. Maybe a caucus in Michigan and a primary in Florida. (Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, has said he would support a do over in his state.) This option seems to be gaining in popularity within the party. The new contests could be held on the first Tuesday in June, along with Montana’s and South Dakota’s. Sure, this would cost millions, but nobody ever said democracy was cheap.
5. The Lone Ranger Option: Just wait for somebody to ride into town and save the day. Maybe Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean will be able to negotiate a settlement between Obama and Clinton. Except that a source at the DNC told me Dean is in no hurry to intervene. “He wants to let the voters have their say,” the source said. “We need to take a step back. We still have 10 states [plus Guam and Puerto Rico] left to vote and 600 pledged delegates to be determined.”
If I were Obama's campaign, I'd make sure this becomes front-page news in every newspaper in the country. It goes to the heart of Hillary's hypocrisy and corruption. Let the vetting begin.
I prefer number one without the condescension and negativity. The reason for having the DNC regulations is to keep order. Florida, Michigan and all candidates agreed that there would be no campaigning there and it seems counter-productive to go back on this now. If they do go back on this decision, they undermine the integrity of their own regulations and it only makes their party weaker.
"1. The Heck With Them Option: Michigan and Florida broke the rules and should suffer. If they are not made to pay for moving up their contests, 2012 will be even more chaotic than 2008. Strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates, and let the chips fall where they may."
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.