Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat

The floor is yours. Go Gators!

This is an Open Thread.

< ABC Blog: Is Obama Using Sexist Language? | Independents May Play Key Role in Rhode Island >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A Canadian friend (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jen on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:37:24 PM EST
    who turned me on to The Real News, posted a link to 2 short videos there, with Pete Escobar discussing the FP advisors of the candidates. Each video is about 3 min. long -- one is on McCain and the other on Clinton and Obama. Worth a listen! If you click on the title in the short description on the left side of the page, the video will play, and the transcript will be on the left.

    I can't say I feel completely comfortable with any of them, most especially Crazy Train McCain. But because Wes Clark is one of Hillary's FP advisors, and I know Hillary respects and loves him (she said that, not me) and because listening to her discuss FP it's obvious she's been listening to him --  you can hear echoes of Wes in her words -- my decision to support her is confirmed.

    And for anyone interested in promoting fair, unbiased, non-corporate media, support The Real News!!

    Yes, the Real News is Great (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:10:53 PM EST
    The Real News. It's CEO, Paul Jay, is a very good guy. I spent weeks with him  a few years ago in many cities filming a TNT movie about wrongful convictions -- he was the director -- really a class act and talented.  Got a lot of emails from him as he was starting Real News, he was very excited. He also used to produce a "hardball" type show in Canada at the time.

    OMG!! (none / 0) (#71)
    by jen on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:07:42 PM EST
    That is thrilling to hear about! I'm not quite sure why they aren't more widely know in the netroots.

    My friend turned me on to the effort when it was first gearing up and I immediately became a supporter. $10/mo. is nothing when one considers the consequences we pay for not having a free and independent press.


    Hey, what happened (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:38:21 PM EST
    to the comments on the ABC thread?

    They're all gone.

    Invaded by Martians probably. (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:43:49 PM EST
    I had to do that (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:44:44 PM EST
    to get people to stop commenting.

    I put them back on.

    But I will turn them off again if people try to comment again.

    That thread is definitely closed.


    Gotcha (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:45:45 PM EST
    I think this thread needs... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Plutonium Page on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:42:38 PM EST

    That video always makes me laugh.  It's almost as awesome as Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch.

    Indeed It Does (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Randinho on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:11:38 PM EST
    Talk about unfair: he acts completely wacky and gets richer, while Howard dean tries to get heard above a crowd and it wrecks his campaign.

    Compare that to Steve Jobs... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:32:34 PM EST
    The "Oprah-ization" (none / 0) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:18:19 PM EST
    of our country.

    Letters to NYT (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    re Maureen Dowd's latest op ed re Clinton's campaign:


    Go Met Broadcast.  Manon Lescaut is in the desert of Louisiana!

    Just to set the mood (none / 0) (#4)
    by blogtopus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:42:49 PM EST
    Frank: It's the same old story. Boy finds girl, boy loses girl, girl finds boy, boy forgets girl, boy remembers girl, girls dies in a tragic blimp accident over the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day.
    Jane: Goodyear?
    Frank: No, the worst.

    Puerto Rico is not winner take-all? (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:45:51 PM EST
    I have read a couple of articles (by the Prince of Darkness, and someone else) that suggests that Puerto Rico is winner take-all....But the website for the caucus say that it is to be proportional.

    Anyone really have a different view....Winner take all as the last contest could result in a dramatic finish....  

    BTD knows all but reveals nothing (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    re PR primary.  Maybe later though.  

    The Governor of Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:00:29 PM EST
    has endoresed Obama, so any custom of having the entire delegation vote for one candidate would seem to work only if the nomination has been decided.....I don't think Hillary would be able to take all the delegates from Puerto Rico.

    I have been unable to find (none / 0) (#29)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    anything specific to Puerto Rico.

    However the DNC delegate selection rules require that states have proportional elections.

    Also in 2004 John Kerry did not win all of the delegates.  He won 51 of 57 with 6 going to undeclared.

    I suspect the reason that people think it is a winner take all primary is because they tend to go heavily for one candidate if you look at the results.  However the truth is that they are always one of the last voting places to have a caucus. As such there is usually only one candidate left on the ballot by the time they vote.  

    In 2004 NJ was also a June primary.  Their results were even more lopsided than Puerto Rico.

    So while I haven't found anything definitive it seems exceedingly unlikely that the Puerto Rico caucus is winner take all.

    Are there ANY caucuses that are winner take all?


    Found it: Puerto Rico is proportional (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:32:39 PM EST
    Here is the Puerto Rico delegate selection plan:

    Here is a quote:

    The Delegate Selection Plan for Puerto Rico provides for its pledged delegates to be allocated proportionally to presidential preferences based on
    Senatorial District Caucuses on June 7, 2008.

    Some no-good Republican columnists have said Puerto Rico by custom is winner-take-all....Not so.


    Apparently not necessarily (none / 0) (#44)
    by Saul on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:44:46 PM EST
    true.  Looks like you are right technically on 63 delegates being proportional but the fact on the ground according to past history is whoever the governors endorses is who all the 63 delegates go to after the caucuses. Here is a section I found on this very topic.  


    Also found this and  looks like a Puerto Rican with first hand  hand knowledge of the reality of the process:

    O.K. To all you folks out there that don't know what you are speaking of, by placing false facts, let me set the facts straight here: Puerto Rico is a commonwealth and as 63 Delegates that decide the nominee of each party, but CANT vote in the Presidential election because they aren't part of the union (i.e. not the 51st state). Therefore, they have control over how those delegates get allocated due to their own sovereignty and they SAY that their 63 delagates are awarded NOT on proportional representation but on an ALL OR NOTHING basis. Further, it is said to be believed that the governor of PR, which is Vila, influences the way his constituents vote. So, him endorsing Obama SAYS that PR, which operates on caucuses not primaries, will throw ALL 63 delagates to Obama and Hillary will get ZERO. Now..lets hope it doesn't come down to that because the individuals of PR might not go with who the gov. endorses, as I would hope they have independant thoughts like we do here. But I'm an Obama supporter so I would want him to win. Not happy that the governor has corruption charges against him though :-(...


    Obama needs to come out of (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:48:55 PM EST
    Puerto Rico with a proportional share of the delegates....

    Puerto Rico has published the rules of the caucus--if it doesn't follow its own published rules in order to benefit Hillary, then the delegates should not be seated.....

    More opportunity for mischief.....


    The Governor of Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#47)
    by rebecca on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:34:53 PM EST
    has endorsed Obama.  So if anyone is going to lose under the scenario written above it will be Hillary.  I wonder if anyone with more knowledge of Puerto Rico could enlighten us as to how accurate that post is.  

    2004 (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:58:53 PM EST
    In 2004 Puerto Rico gave John Kerry 51 delegates out of 57.  By that time he was running unopposed.  

    Green Papers on 2004 caucus

    There is also WaPo blog post that puts this myth to rest.

    It is a proportional caucus.  It is REQUIRED to be proportional based on DNC rules.  


    According to BTD, the governor's (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:13:08 PM EST
    endorsement is not good for Obama.

    first of all (none / 0) (#62)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:22:20 PM EST
    Celebrating caucuses in PR?  Boy and i thought I had seen the stupidity of the DNC at its worst.  Secondly there is a great divide in the PR Democratic party.  Thirdly voters in PR do not register by National  Party preference they register according to local parties breakdown.  So if I go to PR tomorrow present my old registration card which has not expired last I checked for some reason I have not been purged from the registration lists, I just have to sign that I am a Democrat on June 7 and I would be able to vote in the Democratic caucus.  Think about that I am a Registered Republican who has been living in Fl for the last 5 years.  The ex-governor of Puerto Rico has more mobilizing power than the current governor.  Since McCain has it in the bag it would be very easy for Republicans to vote in those caucuses since the Democrats in Puerto Rico are divide between the two mayor parties and there is no way you can proof they are not Democrats.

    Now that is bad enough but my friends tell that a few weeks back some Man punched an ex-governor for saying something bad about Bush.  I would love to have a ring side seat to some of those caucuses.


    The unreliable youth vote (none / 0) (#10)
    by Hypatias Father on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:58:20 PM EST
    Hiya, everyone.

    Many posters here and elsewhere have raised the issue of Obama's popularity being unduly influenced by college-age voters.  Or, maybe voters is a misnomer.  I too am a little nervous about relying on a demographic which as proven feckless in the past re. GE voting, but am also guardedly optimistic.  

    My question is:  does anyone have any examples (real data) of youth-voters turning out in significantly high numbers during a primary, but then turning out in significantly low numbers during the subsequent GE.

    While I can find plenty of examples of their merely not showing up to vote in GEs (state and  national), I can't find examples of there ever being a an inverse relationship between primary youth vote turn-out and their GE turnout.


    Not a clue (none / 0) (#17)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:21:55 PM EST
    though I've heard the same thing.  Probably an unsubstantiated rumor.  If the '04 primary had been really contested past NH, that might be a good place to look.  But wasn't the youth vote really up in '04 overall?

    With a high youth turnout, doesn't seem Bush could have had a convincing victory, unless he got quite a few of them.


    '04 is what causes me to pause (none / 0) (#21)
    by Hypatias Father on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:32:12 PM EST
    What I remember from youth in '04 is that the turn out was modestly higher nationally than... (I don't remember what it was higher to in comparison, actually.)--But, in any case...  there was a lot of noise about how (internal--DNC) polling had revealed that youth turn out was going to be truly outstanding.  The meme was that the big pollsters had not properly accounted for the fact that many college-aged voters in that cycle relied on cell phones entirely, and that somehow the DNC had a formula that allowed them to extrapolate that missing demographic, and proclaim that it would be significant.

    It was not.  But, neither was their turn out in the primaries, which the data clearly shows.


    Already posted the data (none / 0) (#18)
    by SandyK on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:24:51 PM EST
    to MM. Check my comments.

    The Neglection PDF shows the data about the 2000 election Super Tuesday turnout. It shows proportionally they don't show up in great numbers -- and even with this surge, it's still less than other age groups (it looks big now, because the average in 2000/2004 was around **9%* of their age group).

    The real truth that the youth vote will mean anything is if they show up for the GE, *and will vote in local and state elections. Until then, the skeptism will remain (especially since there's always a higher turn out for presidential elections, than off year state elections).


    SandyK, quick request (none / 0) (#23)
    by Hypatias Father on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:35:52 PM EST
    Can you please post the link to that PDF? Mucho appreciated.

    From what you are saying, I'm still not sure it answers my question, but I will be happy to check out the source to clear up my confusion.  If the data show that they didn't turn out in similar measures to how they have turned in the current election cycle, then I'm not sure how the situation can be compared.  Essentially, we'd be comparing different trends, and what we need is a comparison that captures the current trend.


    Follow the link... (none / 0) (#26)
    by SandyK on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:45:01 PM EST
    Have 2 PDFs on that thread. This is the thread...


    The issue is overall numbers and the history of participation. Even with the idea there's a surge of youth voters, it's still below population numbers of their age group (and will remain...just read the PDFs for the reasons).

    Suprised that in this election, with the increased youth interest, that such a link is buried in the archives.



    SandyK, Thanks. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Hypatias Father on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:21:45 PM EST
    I looked at this interesting document very carefully.  It's filled with very good specific information about the 2000 primaries.  However, it does not supply a good point of comparison with current voting trends in the primaries, which is what we really need, because the situations are markedly different between today and 2000.  

    Here is what I took away from the data in this pdf:

    1.  For the 2000 primaries, youth turn-out (18-29 y.o.) in every state lagged the average turn-out for all adults, and in most cases was dismal (range 2%-25%, with mean-% the single digits).

    2.  Neither Republican candidates nor Democratic candidates spent significant amts. of money in attempts to reach this demographic (significantly lower ad dollars and other forms of outreach), despite all candidates uniformly proclaiming the importance of the youth vote.  

    The authors' of this document announce summarize their findings:

    If this trend continues, we should expect low voter turnout among young adults in perpetuity. ...  By avoiding youth markets, campaigns are guilty of neglecting the same people they claim to be embracing.

    So, this basically is the same situation that we had in 2004, i.e. low youth voter turn-out in BOTH the preceding primaries AND the general election.

    Since we (Democrats) currently have modest increases in primary voting for the 18-29 demographic, there is no reason to assume that they will not turn out in commensurately larger numbers during the GE.  

    Did I miss something?


    Compare to today (none / 0) (#66)
    by Hypatias Father on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:46:02 PM EST
    So, according to the pdf. given by SandyK, the overall youth (18-29) turn-out was slightly less than 6.5 % of their eligible population.

    I wasn't able to find overall data (Republican + Democratic) for the same demographic, but I did easily locate several sources quoting Democratic data--though, not %-eligible, just % of total electorate.  

    And here is the story:  as represented by results (up to the  Potomac primaries), the current season's voters (18-29) have constituted 14% of the combined Democratic voting electorate. Looking backward for comparisons, in 2004 they were 9%; in 2000 they were 8%.

    So, it's not the best we could hope for, but it surely represents a nice increase.  If they DO follow the trend and vote in the GE by similar increases, we will be in good shape!--and that's re. both candidates.


    You can go out to CNN (none / 0) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:29:44 PM EST
    and look at primary and general election exit polls from 2000, 2004 and 2008.

    I did a comparison, yesterday, of Virginia between 2004 and 2008 and it appeared (unless I was reading things wrong) that BO didn't turn out the African American vote in any greater numbers than usual.  I was going to post the information here, but figured I was probably the only one who found it intersting <I'm a little nerdy about these kinds of things>.

    I didn't look at the youth vote, even for Virginia, but the data is certainly there.

    I can't remember any other candidate who's taken claim to bringing out the youth vote, so I doubt you'll find such a thing...but that's just me.

    I have found that it appears, that if BO brings out more of the youth vote, he certainly isn't moving mountains or anything.


    I will check CNN. Thanks! (nt) (none / 0) (#25)
    by Hypatias Father on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    Great if someone would test this -- (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:06:50 PM EST
    and I think a way to at least pretest it would be to look up the top states in youth vote turnout in 2004  (as I recall, Minnesota was first, Wisconsin second -- although Wisconsin then came in first in 2006, I read -- and there were many media reports at the time with more rankings) and then look at the primary turnouts then, too.  Same for tracking back to other contests, such as 2000 (youth for Nader!).

    NYT column on Super Ds, (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:00:35 PM EST
    who will have 796 votes at the Dem. convention:


    Could Puerto Rico possibly (none / 0) (#13)
    by Saul on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    determine the outcome of the nominee.  It is the last delegation on the calender if I am not mistaken.  They have 63 delegates and I believe it is winner take all. Sort of a super super delegate category.   Obama went there some time back for a fund raiser.  Had no talks with media and left rather quickly.  He took ,if I am not mistaken a neutral stand on the conflict of Statehood vs Colony.  Many Puerto Ricans have expressed dissatisfaction with this stance since it endorses the staus quo and he is suppose to be all about change.   Many Puerto Ricans use the analogy what if a Latino presidential candidate went to the southern states looking just for votes  and stayed neutral on how AA had been treated in the past. The AA would be outraged if that happen.  One of the blogs I read said that he came down to PR  for the money and that he should have take a stance in favor of statehood. Moreover I believe he got the endorsement of the governor of PR who I understand currently is under a federal grand jury investigation for corruption and other items.  Looks like if I was Obama I would be careful to take that endorsement for fear of looking bad especially if governor is indicted before the PR caucus or primary.  (I don't know which one they have.)    I do not know if Hilary had been there but I heard she is for statehood. Correct me if I am wrong about that.  I also do not know if there are any similar issues against Hilary from other Puerto Ricans like they expressed against Obama

    PR oughta bargain with it, if so (none / 0) (#31)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    and finally get statehood.

    Puerto Rico is proportional (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:11:55 PM EST
    Here is a quote from the official delegate selection plan for Puerto Rico:

    The Delegate Selection Plan for Puerto Rico provides for its pledged delegates to be allocated proportionally to presidential preferences based on
    Senatorial District Caucuses on June 7, 2008.

    Florida suggestion (none / 0) (#15)
    by Hypatias Father on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:13:15 PM EST
    Dan Gelber, a FL House Democrat, has offered up an interesting compromise on Florida.  I like it, because it's inclusive AND won't break the bank to implement.  But I'd really like to know what Floridians think.

    I don't have much problem with the vote (none / 0) (#20)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:30:21 PM EST
    by mail, but why include Independents in the "new" primary. Florida has closed elections and I would be very angry if they allowed Independents to vote in any second chance primary.

    I'm not in Florida but I can't imagine the Democrats there (except the Obama supporters) would go along with that.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Hypatias Father on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:26:26 PM EST
    I agree (at least as presented in his current proposal) that caution is better, and that the indies should not be invited to participate.  But, surely this wouldn't be a deal-breaker.  FL Dems should simply say they're on board as long as the mail-in remains exclusive to Dems.

    He did call Obama Starship Obama (none / 0) (#65)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:43:45 PM EST
    Last year.

    California (none / 0) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    Well, we pushed up our election to be in the early group of making the decision but I guess we could have been somebody, now we just ended up with the rest of the palookas in the Super Tuesday mosh pit.

    New reading (none / 0) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:57:07 PM EST
    Since I have cleaned out my bookmarks, what are some of the new go to blogs that keep you from going nuts. Like with the first cup of coffee, where do you go so that your spirits don't get squashed.

    I know the feeling. I gave my dogs a bath (none / 0) (#32)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:10:44 PM EST
    because, except for here, I'm not doing as much reading. The Left Coaster where Turkana posts is good and I've also been reading a lot more media blogs, something I never did before. The comments on the media blogs sound like they are all DKos posters though.

    Stellaaa, you would like this new blog: (none / 0) (#34)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:15:30 PM EST
    riverdaughter. This lady is a fabulous ex-poster at DK and some of her former readers there are just starting to post. She's kind of snarky like you and Kathy and I think you'd like it if you haven't seen it before.

    Thanks.... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:18:58 PM EST
    This is great..new voices.

    My kind a Women riverdaughter (none / 0) (#55)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:13:30 PM EST
    And I agree competely..

    From my bookmarks: (none / 0) (#52)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:10:44 PM EST
    How to solve the Super Delegate (none / 0) (#28)
    by Saul on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:57:45 PM EST
    fiasco.  First option, just flat get rid of it.  2nd Option make it a rule that if you are nominated to be a super delegate you MUST cast your  vote for  candidate who got the most popular vote after all  the caucuses and primaries are over with.  

    What popular vote? (none / 0) (#56)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:18:29 PM EST
    Does that include independents and Republicans who crossed over? Just registered Democrats who voted in primaries? How do you determine the popular vote from caucuses?

    The only way (none / 0) (#58)
    by Saul on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:31:42 PM EST
    I know of in this current election is just flat out total actual votes collected by each candidate after all primaries and caucuses are over with. I don't like caucuses and wished that all states had primaries with the ability to cross over in every state.  That would even the playing field IMO.

    I won't support that (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:55:37 PM EST
    I had to "vote" in a caucus. No way was it fair. You don't end up with votes, you end up with delegates.

    I also don't like the idea of non-Dems having a say in the Dem nominee. You want to have a Dem primary vote, register as a Dem. Otherwise, none of your business. No crossovers, no indies.


    Clinton giving up in WI? (none / 0) (#35)
    by magster on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:16:04 PM EST
    so says Milwaukee newspaper.

    Obama's campaign should tell Wisconsinites (Wisconsinders? Wisconsinonians?) that Clinton doesn't think they matter because they're not a big state.

    It does not say that (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:19:23 PM EST
    It SAYS she is cutting her Monday schedule short.

    Now, here is a question for you? Did you tell an untruth on purpose?


    See the question mark (none / 0) (#38)
    by magster on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:24:36 PM EST
    That's my interpretation.  

    If she wants to win WI, she wouldn't be leaving early.


    So is Obama giving up on WI?H (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:36:29 PM EST
    He is leaving early too.

    Sorry, you do not get to play games here.

    ANY false statements, about Obama or Clinton will be deleted.

    Now you know why your comment was deleted.


    MyDD had same post (none / 0) (#78)
    by magster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    You really have an anger control issue. Mix that with self-righteousness, and it's really really obnoxious.

    Again with this (none / 0) (#49)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:01:32 PM EST
    Oy, she doesn't NEED to win Wisconsin. She needs to be close and get delegates.

    And (none / 0) (#40)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:32:41 PM EST
    I believe she may be leaving WI early b/c of a major storm coming through which would have canceled her evening rally.    

    It's Drudge that is (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:38:26 PM EST
    pumping that story as Hillary cutting back on Wisconsin.

    Catching up on some reads here. (none / 0) (#50)
    by KevinMc on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:07:49 PM EST
    I was busy earlier... I'm a Commodore season ticket holder.  Sorry BTD I couldn't resist.

    It was a great game, Gators are always tough and I'm surprised we escaped with the win today.  Tomorrow the Lady Vols are in town...

    My Lady Vols coming off a loss... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:11:25 PM EST
    we're gonna make you pay Kevin.

    Hehehe (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by KevinMc on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:24:45 PM EST
    That's what I'm afraid of.  Our women are playing great ball right now; but do the Lady Vols EVER lose two SEC games in a row?  We haven't beaten them in the last 18 tries.  I'm looking forward to seeing Candace Parker, I was amazed last year with her talent.  If we don't win, I hope we keep it close.

    Actually, they aren't playing very well (none / 0) (#74)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:11:24 PM EST
    right now. LSU is always tough on us, hasn't Sylvia Fowles been there like six years already? I'm not counting on a win until I see it. Good luck Kevin.

    Sylvia Fowles (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by KevinMc on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:20:55 PM EST
    Sylvia Fowles is a Senior but I'm not sure if she is a fifth year or a four year senior.  They beat us earlier this year and it was the worst game of the year for us.  She, Fowles, is a maniac.

    The game tomorrow is sold out so it should be loud but the Vols have a lot of fans here also. Nothing better than SEC basketball!


    She is just awesome against us. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:54:05 PM EST
    I hope it's a good game for you. Remember when they used to always come down to the last few seconds? Our record against Vandy is very misleading because they play us closer than anybody until this past year.

    Our men's game will be something else. Do you realize that we have three top 25 teams in Tennessee? Pretty good for football state. Though I guess Vandy, TN and Memphis are officially basketball schools now since we are awful at football lately.


    Harold Ickes (none / 0) (#64)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:43:32 PM EST
    Has laid out the Clinton campaign is some not so pleasant language....

    Ickes predicted Clinton and Obama would run "neck and neck" in the remaining states and that there would be a "minuscule amount of difference" between the two in pledged delegates.

    But he said superdelegates -- who "have a sense of what it takes to get elected" -- would determine the outcome and side in larger numbers for Clinton.....

    "Hillary will end up with more automatic delegates than Obama," Ickes said, and the number of elections won by Obama is "irrelevant to the obligations of automatic delegates."

    So he doesn't really think the superdelegates should follow the will of the people in any way.  They should vote for Hillary because of some nebulous sense of what it takes.

    Oh and he thinks that Florida and Michigan should have their delegates seated even though he voted against them being seated last year.

    He also said Michigan and Florida, which voted for Clinton, should have delegates seated at the convention, even though he originally voted with the national party last year to strip the delegates because the states violated party rules by holding early primaries.

    Ickes explained that his different position is due to the different hats he wears as both a Democratic National Committee member and a Clinton adviser in charge of delegate counting.

    Honestly, couldn't the Clinton campaign find someone else to make this argument?  He thought they should be stripped of their delegates last year but now he thinks they should get them anyway?  WTF?

    "They are closely in touch with the issues and ideas of the jurisdiction they represent and they are as much or more in touch than delegates won or recruited by presidential campaigns," Ickes said.

    Apparently not a big of that whole "Will of the people" trope.

    Apparently Howard Dean agrees (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:53:34 PM EST
    I disagree with both of them.

    David Axelrod seems to agree with Ickes too.


    I don't understand your point (none / 0) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:57:55 PM EST
    How does David Axelrod agree with Harold Ickes?  I honestly don't see that.

    For that matter how does Howard Dean?  

    I haven't seen a word from him suggesting that either state be given their delegates EXCEPT in the case that the nomination has been decided.  I think everyone is in agreement in that situation.

    So you find nothing wrong with Ickes' comments?  


    superdelegates aren't bound to the (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:14:45 PM EST
    will of the voters. They were created to be a check or "brakes" on it...they can vote their conscience, they can vote on who they think is most electable, who is the biggest vote getter nationally, or in their state, or any number of other considerations.

    If you have a problem with that, change it for 2012. Get yourself elected a delegate and attend the relevant committee meetings.


    Believe it or not (none / 0) (#77)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:12:15 AM EST
    I do understand the rules and what superdelegates mean. I know that they CAN vote for whomever they choose.  

    You are right that the superdelegates aren't bound to the will of the voters.  They can do whatever they like.  I guess that's ok, huh?


    Democratic voters' preferences Barack Obama (none / 0) (#72)
    by Aaron on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:08:44 PM EST