home
Friday Morning Open Thread | 235 comments (235 topical)
I really think that Hillary (none / 0) (#44)
by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:56:30 AM EST
should not get into saying pledged delegates are not really pledged.

They are called Pledged Delegates,  and are bound to , in all good conscience,  reflect the will of the voters that selected them.  That's my understanding,  and while the Democratic Party rules mean that they can vote for whoever they want,  they are still not the same as Super Delegates who can vote for whoever the hell they want based on electability, who's got the best haircut, popular vote etc etc.

It was just stupid politically on Hillary's part to even bring up the idea that pledged delegates aren't pledged.

[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#55)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:08:32 AM EST
I know what she is saying, and it is right ont he facts, but she does not need to be saying it in public.

[ Parent ]
Yeah... (none / 0) (#64)
by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:17:02 AM EST
I don't understand why she keeps saying this.  Her political style is strange.  Sometimes I think she's too straightforward and people generally don't like that in their politicians.  Hillary's obviously in love with details and little rules that nobody wants to bother with.

I emailed them.  But I don't think it's going to make much of a difference.  It doesn't bother me so much that MSNBC is entirely in love with Obama (besides Scarborough) but more that they are reporting his talking points and wallowing in misinformation.  This isn't the first time I've seen this from them.

[ Parent ]

The misinformation kills me too (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:08:51 AM EST
If we can stay informed, can't we expect the same of those whose job it is to be informed?  The only conclusion is that they deliberatly stay misinformed so they can make a story last another news cycle or two, and bash the candidate they don't like. Willful ignorance is no better than falsification.

Wish I could think of an example, but I stopped watching so long ago that I can't!

[ Parent ]

What did Mark Twain say...? (none / 0) (#170)
by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:17:14 AM EST
"Don't read the newspaper and you're uninformed
Read the newspaper and you're misinformed."

[ Parent ]
Mark Twain quote, (none / 0) (#198)
by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:45:14 AM EST
Here, here!

[ Parent ]
LOL Alert (none / 0) (#65)
by Athena on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:26:56 AM EST
This one is good for a laugh:

Just saw a commercial for KO's program tonight on MSNBC:

"How Hillary Can Win" is the title.

LOL - Keith must be feeling the heat - could it be Rendell asking whether he's on the payroll for Obama?

[ Parent ]

That is funny, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:45:29 AM EST
because he'll probably say there is no way....

[ Parent ]
Saw that KO ad myself (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:45:35 AM EST
and was thinking, "what the heck?" KO talking about how HRC can win? April Fool's day was earlier this week!

Could be enough disgruntled emails might be making a difference, although I doubt it... I don't care for KO's stridency any more.

[ Parent ]

I feel sure (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:47:39 AM EST
Tanya Hardings name will come up.
any bets?

[ Parent ]
Hey, maybe it is his way (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:10:30 AM EST
of announcing his retirement!!! Or MSNBC going off the air.

[ Parent ]
I thought Rachel Maddow was (5.00 / 1) (#136)
by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:35:44 AM EST
standing in for KO tonight?

[ Parent ]
Rachel Maddow? (none / 0) (#220)
by kenoshaMarge on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:03:19 AM EST
One more reason not to watch MSNBC

[ Parent ]
The reason he is doing this (none / 0) (#129)
by Lena on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:30:09 AM EST
is so that he can show that, when it comes right down to it, in his opinion, (i.e. according to the "facts") there truly is not a snowball's chance in hell for her.

I'm sure he'll show a tortured, cheatin'-ridden path for her to sew up the nomination, and he'll say something like, "so if HRC is willing to lie, steal, and kill, here's how she'll get the nomination."


[ Parent ]

How Hillary can win: (none / 0) (#206)
by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:50:23 AM EST
Methinks, is KO's way of attracting audience he has alienated for his blatant bias; but then will spin it in a negative way by probably making the argument that she will not be able.

[ Parent ]
Morning Joe (none / 0) (#186)
by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:39:53 AM EST
I agree with you on this; however, watching the program this morning, I was surprised that Scarborough actually made what sounded as a compliment about Hillary: that he admired her for her strength and toughness (the "ness" is mine). In the latter, he likened her to Dick Cheney,but I sensed some respect. Hum, one minute of accolades.


[ Parent ]
Well that does seem to be the current (none / 0) (#194)
by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:43:53 AM EST
line of attack that has been sent out to the conservative pundits by overlord Rove.  i.e. That as Obama is looking like the nominee, it's time to start praising Clinton and comparing Obama negatively with her.  Maybe I'm being cynical.  The impression I have had recently,  and this is primarily from blogs, and youtube + clips from Crooks and Liars,  is that Scarborough seems to have taken a hard turn to the right as the election has gotten closer.

[ Parent ]
I've been watching Morning Joe since it started (5.00 / 1) (#213)
by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:55:26 AM EST
And Joe's always seemed impressed and very respectful toward Hillary.  Last summer he used to say that she was politically savvy and the only candidate that came off as presidential.  It has gotten more intense lately, but I really think it's because the Hillary hate has gotten more intense and he wants to be a foil.  The night she won TX and OH Tweety and KO started going on about how she's dividing the party and Joe inquires about why they're trying to sweep her out despite the fact that she just won two big states.  He compared their behavior to the way a disgusted homeowner would sweep out a nasty rat or a huge creepy bug.  He basically told them that they were being ridiculous.

But it does worry me that only Republican talking heads are saying positive things about Hillary.  Wtf is going on?

[ Parent ]

See my previous post (none / 0) (#223)
by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:04:14 AM EST
They'd the like the Democratic race to continue as long as possible, to take heat off McCain. Rush Limbaugh has even made it an explicit strategy.

[ Parent ]
Well, Scarbarough is a conservative, (none / 0) (#199)
by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:45:30 AM EST
so it's not surprising he'd want the Democratic race to continue as long as possible. The longer Clinton and Obama supporters are using their resources to fight each other, the less time there is to turn those resources against McCain. Rush Limbaugh was overtly running a cynical campaign to encourage Republicans to vote for Hillary to continue the fight within the Democratic primaries as long as possible.

[ Parent ]
Rush's "Operation Chaos" (none / 0) (#230)
by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:11:59 AM EST
program yesterday was encouraging more participation of the Republicans in the up coming primaries to do this. He credits himself with a degree of success due to how the Reps. & Indeps. have disingenuously voted for Obama.
He did bring up an interesting point a couple of days ago about Obama's popular vote lead. He said that 300,000+ lead only comes from Chicago, IMPLYING, AS RUSH DOES that there was 'funny' business conducted here. Does anyone know anything about this? How could this be confirmed ? Verification of the votes could give an insight into wrongdoing (or not).

[ Parent ]
Well, it's generally wise to expect (none / 0) (#242)
by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:26:05 AM EST
shenanigans in Chicago.  Based on its history  -- see, e.g., the Dem win in 1960 -- if Chicago ran a valid and reliable election, that would be news.

It's called the "Chicago Way."  Google that and "Obama" to see some local media's discussion of this.  Btw, you'll see that they're proud of it.

[ Parent ]

The Aren't Pledged (none / 0) (#159)
by flashman on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:01:16 AM EST
I read recently where some of Edward's "pledged" delegates have announced that will vote for Obama.  This proves Hillary is correct, IMO.

[ Parent ]
They are "pledged" to reflect the will (none / 0) (#180)
by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:31:34 AM EST
of the voters that selected them.  Now you can argue the toss over whether the Edwards delegates should have stuck to him, despite the fact that he was not in the race,  but it is a huge jump from them moving to Obama or Hillary, and suggesting that Obama or Hillary delegates should disregard the will of the voters selecting them.

I don't think the Iowa situation with Edwards delegates shows anything one way or the other.

[ Parent ]

I Suggested All Of That? (none / 0) (#228)
by flashman on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:09:47 AM EST
There is a tendency to read alot into people's statements.  Nowhere did I suggest that Obama's delegates switch to Hillary, not has Hillary herself suggested that.  But the circumstance that a delegate that was 'pleadged' to Edwards announces that (s)he will vote for Obama invalidates the whole process of electing delegates.  A pledge is a pledge, and I don't give a hoot for whom it was originally pledged.  

I'll also point out that Hillary's statement on the matter was a sort of "shopping list" of various ways she can pick up delegates, the elected ones only being a single item.  Niether did she suggest that should change from Obama's to hers.

[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0) (#188)
by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:40:17 AM EST
Edwards dropped out of the race. Of course his delegates can support other candidates. The question is whether delegates pledged to Obama could switch to supporting Clinton or vice versa.

Now perhaps technically they can. But she was being asked why she was staying in the race when she was so far behind, and that's when she threw out that even the elected delegates could switch their vote. So she was at least suggesting that she might win the election because delegates that had been allocated to Obama in the primaries might switch their vote to her. Read here and see for yourself.

One doesn't have to have a case of CDS to see that and wonder, what the heck was she thinking when she said that?!?

[ Parent ]

Disagree (none / 0) (#235)
by flashman on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:15:49 AM EST
Delegates should support who they were pledged to support.  No candidate should count votes they did not recieve, and when delegates vote for any other candidate than the one they were alloted, by the vote, then they are awarding that candidate votes that weren't earned.  The very fact that this is allowed invalidates the whole delegate process.

[ Parent ]
No, Edwards didn't drop out -- (none / 0) (#246)
by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:31:22 AM EST
he suspended, since you're talking technically.  That means he retains his funds and his delegates to re-enter at any time . . . like at the convention.  Or, more likely, to negotiate with both.  

So his delegates still are pledged to him, as much as are delegates to Obama or Clinton -- pledged to the voters, too.  In this case, Edwards delegates switching now are negating his negotiating power, and that could be for his platform that they claimed to support, such as universal health care.

I.e., yes, pledged delegates are only pledged and can switch -- but by doing so, they are switching stands on issues, too.  That means that those Clinton delegates switching to Obama backed down from her stronger demands for change on some issues.  Their call, their conscience, but I'd sure like to talk to some of them about such issues and what the heck they're thinking.

They're probably thinking only about "electability," of course -- winning at all costs.  I don't approve of people who abandon principles.  That is, if they had them.  Maybe they were voting on candidates' hair styles or something. . . .

(Btw, I still think Clinton is more electable than Obama in the GE.)

[ Parent ]

Friday Morning Open Thread | 235 comments (235 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft