Late Night: The Long Run

Who is gonna make it?
We'll find out in the long run

....Well, we're scared, but we ain't shakin'
Kinda bent, but we ain't breakin'
in the long run

This race isn't over. 12 million voters will weigh in between April 22 and June 3. Hillary will go the distance, until the votes are in and Michigan and Florida are resolved.

This is a late night open thread.

< Why Edwards Didn't Endorse Obama, Superdelegates and More | Obama To Blame If The Dem Contest Goes To The Convention >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    In my mailbox this afternoon (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:33:58 AM EST
    arrived my Philadelphia absentee ballot. As soon as I figure out how I'm voting on a few of the down-ticket races, I will mail it in.

    Because of the Demographics, I expect Obama to dominate my Congressional District, but he will not get 100% of the vote. I am about to guarantee that.

    Yay andgarden. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:47:10 AM EST
    At least you live in a Democratic district. The last Democrat to represent me was in 1855.

    To his credit, though, John Duncan voted against the war and still doesn't support it.


    Living in a solid Democratic district (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:58:55 AM EST
    isn't all it's cracked up to be. My rep is, charitably, an incompetent boob. (I can say that here, right?) At least he votes well.

    My votes in national elections have far more significance, though. PA is a swing state, after all.


    I might pop over and lend (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:10:05 AM EST
    some GOTV support in April. Depends on what is up on the work front. And if she's the nom, I'll def be doing it cause she'll have my state in Nov  ;)

    Yes, please. (none / 0) (#129)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:20:27 AM EST
    Every vote in PA counts.  Every one of them.  

    Mine is competent, just on the wrong (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:10:40 AM EST
    side (except for the war). From what I've heard, he is extremely responsive to any requests for help from his office. I guess that's worth something because I will have to move from Knoxville to ever have a Democrat to represent me. We don't even have anyone run against him.

    My vote for Clinton in the primary and my two votes for Bredesen are the only votes I've cast on the winning side since 1996.


    I like my Congressman (none / 0) (#92)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:41:47 AM EST
    Ed Towns, a lot.  He's sticking with Hillary even though he's come under pressure to switch to Obama since he's AA and Obama carried my district.  I also like him b/c he's solidly against the war and voted to impeach Cheney.  

    we can handle some resistance (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:44:45 AM EST
    if our love is a strong one.

    Suggestion to Jeralyn, you can stop worrying about her dropping out if WaPo Article - Clinton Vows to Stay in Race Until Convention

    Just sayin'

    Pat Leahy...suck on it

    I love this quote. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:16:10 AM EST
    Asked whether Obama could win in November, Clinton deflected the question. "I'm saying I have a better chance," she said. "You cannot as a Democrat win the White House without a very big women's vote. What I believe is that women will turn out for me."

    Women Will Elect Hillary (none / 0) (#112)
    by Athena on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    So well said - this is her secret weapon - and I've long believed that not only Dem women, but many GOP women, will want to put a woman in the White House. That's a lot of votes, and they would be impossible for McCain to match.

    Leahy set a new low for Dem invertebracy (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:00:08 AM EST
    When as the ranking Dem vetting SCOTUS noms he caved to stonewalling and other Bush League tactics and swipecarded a clearly unsuitable, improperly vetted activist ringer. He at the very least should have stood on principle.

    How awful that a "leading" Dems would be terrified to call a human a person in the horrible Bush era, whether those persons simply exist in a free range and female state outside the uterus or those persons happen to be GLBT ones existing outside of a cramped uncomfortable closet.

    Sen Pat should have supported people's right to start and maintain their own families and lives to their own choosing -- not the political opportunism of rabidly religious strangers or pathetic cowardly Dems afraid of looking bad in a news cycle or three.

    A shameful position literally to dehumanize people whose rights he swore to uphold and defend.


    Obama again blames dems (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:45:14 AM EST

    Did he ever hear of Iran Contra?

    There were serious foreign policy differences when the AUMF was passed, there were serious differences four years ago when Kerry ran, and there are serious differences now.  I can tell the difference even if Obama cannot.

    Saw this earlier today (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:03:17 AM EST
    and it confirms what I thought I heard him say the other day. You know that reaching out he likes to do? Yes, he said he would reach out to 41. Also referenced the 'tour' he and Bill did after the Tsunami. Can't remember if he said he would reach out to Bill though . . .

    I know you have to prove intent (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:13:35 AM EST
    To say someone is lying, but I can't believe he's that dim.  He's a harvard grad, right?

    Reagan, Bush Sr., Kennedy, none of them would have met with rogue world leaders without preconditions.


    And I do wonder what Kerry thinks (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:16:15 AM EST
    When Obama is out there accusing Kerry of voting for a war because Kerry lacked the courage of his convictions.

    Kerry is a broken man, I know.


    Obama said Clinton can stay in (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:03:42 AM EST
    "My attitude is Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants," Obama said.


    I'm so glad he's allowing her to stay in the race. (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:50:59 AM EST
    That's so nice of him. Can you say arrogant patronizing #$*&^%$!. :-)

    Arrogant (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:59:19 AM EST
    The guy is so arrogant it's beyond words, even when he tries to be nice he sounds pompous and full of himself.  I just don't get the mythology.  

    No, no, no (none / 0) (#113)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:29:13 AM EST
    You took it the wrong way...  What Obama Really Meant.... is it gave Carville a chance to go after the Obama campaign this morning.  

    For once, the young black male Obama supporter (Jamal) was uncomfortable.  ( He does say it has to be done by June 7.) I can't wait to see the clips of that show.  I missed some of it.

    Wolf is going after Carville for 28% of Clinton's voters not voting for Obama and 19% vice versa.
    Carville answered that how they ask and how they treat that person will.... it's a matter of mutual respect, Chicago crowd (Carville brings up Chicago quite a bit), it is making this more difficult, it takes political skill, 50/50 exciting but...  Carville suggesting that the Obama campaign is turning of Clinton voters.

    Jamal disagree it's not a 50/50 contest (Carville-if you don't count FL/MI)  Bush was ahead (IMO bad idea to invoke Bush,) being ahead counts, Clinton had Bosnia so she brought up Wright, stoked the flames because of her own controversy.

    Carville says 49.5 not an overwhelming lead, if they think these Repub etc, etc, are not going to bring this up and a 100 other things, they are living in a fantasy world.

    Jamal, again, not about the internal fight, there is a certain way to fight inside the party.

    Carville, this has been a fairly mild campaign, Nothing out of bounds by either side except Judas comment.  (At which pt Obama is not Jesus Christ)


    The word arrogant doesn't do justice (none / 0) (#154)
    by mm on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:12:09 PM EST
    He should be required to take a pledge that if he's elected President he'll actually serve out the full four years before he begins running for Emperor of Universe.

    Interesting article in WP (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:07:04 AM EST
    Fact Checker that talks about Obama's truthiness in re his Father's association with the Kennedy Scholarships for African students to attend college in US.

    <em>It is a touching story -- but the key details are either untrue or grossly oversimplified.</em>per Michael Dobbs.

    I can't do links..sorry

    Do you have a date for the (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:11:38 AM EST
    Fact Check? I can grab it and link it for ya :)

    It is a great story actually (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:16:38 AM EST
    I am sure that Obama's family told him that Kennedy was the reason why his father came to America but that isn't correct.  

    The WaPo story is even better than what Obama was lead to believe.  

    I really liked that story how Obama Sr came to the U.S.  


    WaPo exposes myths (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:36:39 AM EST
    about Obama's father that Obama could have easily verified - prior to making the myth a part of his campaign.
    Surely Obama videos of his "misstatements" will be aired by the media 24/7.

    LOL or writing a book about it.... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:21:44 AM EST
    ...so much for research.

    It's today's Washington post (none / 0) (#86)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:16:09 AM EST
    I regard this (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by magisterludi on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:36:12 AM EST
    as the height of "bamboozling". Obama has been re-writing his family history to suit the image. Hillary re-wrote the history of one day. She also publicly fessed up when confronted. Has Obama done the same? Not his spokespersons, mind you, but The Man himself?

    Yup, read it. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:32:17 AM EST
    That was an extraordinary program.  

    Obama Sr was both talented and deeply flawed - painfully so.


    Trapper on ABC (none / 0) (#122)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:07:03 AM EST
    has a peice on this.JFK-Obama Myth Not True

    What I found fasinating was a post by countallthe votes... listed the year and event of foggy information bye Sen Obnama. Looks like they deleted the list. I copied the list... most of the list has already been addressed on here....and verified.

    As a geneologist, I beleive he should have done more research before writing his "Dreams". Looks like some attention to details was missed. Matching history to family events is an important step that was missed.


    Hillary will end when someone has (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:13:51 AM EST
    reached 2054 delegates.

    I predict that by the end of the primary season in June, that the superdelegates will look at who has the most pledged delegates and/or popular vote and swing their votes towards that person so that that person reaches that magic number of 2054.

    It will NEVER go to the Dem convention.  Superdelegates know that will be SUICIDE.  Reid and Dean will make sure of that.

    A Dem nominee will be determined in June.

    Remember my prediction.  

    It's all unofficial (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:22:14 AM EST
    Until the convention because the only official place, by rules is the convention and the fact that neither the 'pledged' delegates nor the 'automatic' delegates are bound to any candidate until they actually do vote at the convention.

    It will end because either (none / 0) (#20)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:26:51 AM EST
    Obama or Hillary will reach 2054 in delgates in June.  At the end of the primary season, the superdelegates will swing towards either Obama or Hillary to reach that magic number.

    Reid said that it will be easy.  I believe him.


    After the primaries in (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:47:39 AM EST
    Indiana and North Carolina, either Hillary's comeback is working or it isn't.....

    Pelosi has confirmed June (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Rainsong on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:45:18 AM EST

    Nancy Pelosi has confirmed that a decision will be made in June:

    ABC news - Pelosi speaks


    Yep it appears that the superdelegates (none / 0) (#44)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:11:23 AM EST
    will either chose Hillary or Obama in June.

    Now it is official.  Pelosi, Dean, and Reid have all said the same thing.

    June we all will know who has won.


    the big three (none / 0) (#74)
    by teachermom on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:07:10 AM EST
    Pelosi, Reid and Dean speak -- gee, and that makes it happen? Why don't they "speak" to the Iraq war and do something the voters want for a change?

    So (none / 0) (#79)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:33:42 AM EST
    that will give me five months to decide whether I will vote for Hillary, or vote on election day for Hillary as a write in.

    What if Hillary asks you to vote for Obama? n/t (none / 0) (#130)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:21:56 AM EST
    Well, yeh, of course -- they can't know (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:26:46 AM EST
    the count of the delegates until June.  That's when the caucus states finally finish their several stages of recaucusing, recausing, recaucusing (my, but it makes my walk to the polls look like nothin').

    Until then, no one really knows what the delegate counts are for either candidate -- but especially the candidate who most counted on caucus states, basing so much of his strategy on exploiting their weaknesses with the plan to wrap it all up almost two months ago on Stupid Tuesday, so hat there would not be a closer look at those counts.

    The party leaders know, the super-delegates know, and now an increasing number of people know that we just don't know the delegate counts that candidate and the media claim for him.  When it's those close, it just has to be wait-and-see until the caucus states' conventions in June.


    lets throw Hillary some scratch (none / 0) (#106)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:19:05 AM EST
    to reach her weekend goal of 3mil.



    Been there, done that, this AM (none / 0) (#110)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:23:57 AM EST
    Already did so, too -- youbetcha (nt) (none / 0) (#152)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:09:20 PM EST
    2054? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:13:03 AM EST
    I thought the number was 2025, sometimes its 2024.

    It's eben higher if they seat FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:47:21 AM EST
    I live in Texas (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:16:50 AM EST
    and the place is wall-to-wall republican nightmares.  To top it all off, BHO won in my county.

    ugh.  I need to move to NY where my girl won her state AND it is reliably Dem.

    The last great Democrat I voted for here in Texas was MY governor, Ms. Ann Richards.

    I miss her and Molly Ivins....so much.

    How did your state give us Ann and (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:19:22 AM EST
    mine gave us Gore? What happened to us?

    I couldn't tell ya (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:25:42 AM EST
    Texas went wrong in the 80s.  Used to be a pretty Democratic state.

    I felt bad for Gore when he lost TN back in 2000.  Ann Richards fell victim to the cowardly Rove machine.  The line she gave when she lost made me realize the great politician she was:  "This isn't the end of the world, it's the end of a campaign."

    She was a towering figure of a woman.  We were lucky to have had her for four years.  I am proud to say that I voted for her twice.  Just as I am proud to have voted for Bill Clinton twice and Hillary this year in the TX primary.


    I guess Gore fell victim to the same (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:35:35 AM EST
    thing. They both lost to Bush/Rove. I was a huge Ann Richards fan and hated to see her lose.

    Loved Ann... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:40:51 AM EST
    one hell of a great lady.

    What y'all said, and now you're making me (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:32:33 AM EST
    go to my shelves -- yep, 'way up here almost to Canada, you Texans -- and get Ann Richards' bio and reread it.  When we had yet to ever have even a woman lieutenant governor or woman in Congress here, I took great comfort (and got great chuckles) from  reading Richards' story and knowing that women can win anywhere! And I always got great chuckles from Ivins' work.  Thanks, Texas . . . and you gave us the great Barbara Jordan, too.  

    It doesn't get better than that trio, and I bet they're watching what's happening down here this year.  I just hope heaven has well-insulated walls, as some of those saints might hear some words. . . .


    I (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:37:10 AM EST
    miss them too. Everytime I think of how much Texas sucks politically, I remember that it gave us Ann Richards, Molly Ivins, and Barbara Jordan. I live in PA.

    And Remember Ann Richards (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:27:20 AM EST
    When asked by GW how does she address the Lt Gov. What does she call him. And her one word answer: "Darlin" in her Southern Drawl. Great Lady.

    Proposal for Clinton speech (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:46:15 AM EST
    "If you've been watching TV, or reading the paper, you know that some people are telling me to drop out, to quit. Quit working for universal health care. Quit working to end the war. Quit working to the economy. They think it's gone on too long, that they don't need to hear your voices in this process.

    Maybe they're right. I can quit. [Audience: Nooooo!] I'll be okay. But how does the middle class quit? How are you folks supposed to quit? How do you quit when you're sick and you don't have health insurance? How do you quit when you're doing everything you can but you can't save your house? How do you quit when you can't afford to send your kids to college?

    There is so much at stake in this election. We have so many challenges facing our country. But there isn't any problem the American people can't solve if we put our hearts into it. I know the middle class will never quit, and you deserve a president who won't quit either. If you honor me with your vote, I will work my heart out every day to bring solutions to America. And I will never, ever--ever--quit working for you.

    wow...and double wow!!! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:52:32 AM EST
    THAT is the GREATEST thing I have read in FOREVER.

    Someone get that over to HRC....STAT!


    End the war??? (none / 0) (#147)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:48:03 AM EST
    Ha!!  When either of these candidates actually ACTS like they will end this war, I'll believe it.  She would have to evidence ten times the brass she has so far to even come CLOSE to energy and courage she would have to muster to face down the military industrial complex.

    We need Howard Beale screaming out the window, and everyone joining in.

    Short of that, we'll stumble along with largely more of the same.


    Sticky situation (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:08:11 AM EST
    Now I've been drinking so bare with me, but I'm about to give you a breakdown of why we are in the predictament we are currently in.

    Truests of the Democratic party, yes Hillary Clinton should be the nominee of the Democratic Pary.  She is the answer we have been looking for since before 2004(which we all would have wish she would have ran instead of Kerry) of the political denial to follow the will of the people for the last eight years of the administration.  She is tied to the greatest President in recollection, she is the hero the pride of our part with her unbending determination to fight for the people.  She had me and I suspect many of you salavating at her potential to overcome the Republican domination of our Congress, Senate and Executive branches.  She was the visual for lack of better words that the USA was finally at a point where they could overcome the racist, sexist exlucivity of the greatest position in America.  And we where ready we knew for years now that she would be the great hope.

    Now Obama steps in out of no where, a speach in 2004 put him on the map.  And while I agree that he is the future of the Democratic party I also agree that he is way to ambitious.  This is not his time, place or position.  Not for any other reason but we had a winning strategy and now his trajectory towards the position has now almost nullified our prospects of winning it.  The problem being a pop culture where the winner of American Idol and MTVs best dance crew have more Americans engaged then our political system.  While scary it does explain why a younger, good looking and well spoken leader appeals so many people who otherwise would rather be reserved and either vote on party lines on election day or just not vote at all.  He is less experienced but a thousand times more marketable.  You could go so far as this is reverse GOP with Bush who won the marketing campaign and clearly not the issue campaign in 2004.  

    Now we find ouselves in this conundrum a place where truists fight for the the campaign of destiny and newer engaged voters fight for their campaigns of destiny.  Either way let it play out, let Clinton stay in the race until the last delegate accounted for in the convention and the FL and MI are alloted in some way.  But don't throw this away over differences.  We have two solid candidates either of who will reflect our will our principles and that will not continue to infringe on our consitutional rights, support a war based on faulty intellegence, support an economy highlight by record salaries for CEO and taxbreaks for those CEOs, Healthcare policies that support prescription corporations more interested in prolonging life then curing diseases, supreme court nominees who could change fundamental rights on abortion and civil liberties.  I could go on but I think you get my drift.

    We are all in a bad position where our ways of life can be irreplitaly altered.  It's time to stand up and be united and defeat those who wish to act outide our interests.

    The bottom line is that Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:31:47 AM EST
    who is the seasoned campaigner should have beaten Obama with the most pledged delegates and popular vote by now regardless of Florida and Michigan sinc they weren't suppose to count any ways.

    Hillary just didn't get the jot done when she should have.  She has no one to blame but herself.

    Obama just has run a better campaign.


    The same could easily be said of Obama (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by kiosan on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:25:07 AM EST
    Had he run a truly significantly better campaign, he would have knocked her out by now.  He hasn't.

    So if we're talking about "not getting the job done," your guy is right there with my gal, only  he outspends her 2 or 3 to 1 and his campaign emails smear her at every turn, while her hers mention only his financing and spending.  Please don't bother to deny it.  I subscribe to both campaigns, and Plouffe will use any excuse to say "unlike Hillary Clinton and John McCain."

    As if the "Unity" candidate should have the overwhelming need of such blatantly divisive tactics.

    Given his funding, he should have pout her away a long time ago.  That he hasn't bespeaks the real and abiding support she has, irrespective of the particular regard you may hold for it.


    Shouldn't (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:32:08 AM EST
    he have been able to close the deal considering that he has his own cable news television station aka MSNBC? Shouldn't he have been able to close the deal with most of Left Blogostan supporting him? Shouldn't he have been able to close the deal when every word he utters is considered as pure gold and Hillary just tells...fibs?

    All in all, considering that the playing field has been tilted in his favor  shouldn't he have been able to throw a knock out punch a long time ago?

    But there's Hillary. Still standing. Still smiling. Still able to discuss in great depth nearly any subject that is brought up. Still taking the punches from him, the media, the DNC, Speaker of the House, and other Democrat's that she thought were friends and supporters.

    It must be really frustrating to be so sure that you're the winner when your opponent refuses to be a loser. And when the so-called leaders of your party are telling your opponent to throw the fight. And she won't.


    The bottom line for me is (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by felizarte on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:24:43 AM EST
    I won't vote for Obama in the GE especially after the way he has gone after Hillary; the drip, drip, drip of information about him that makes one terribly suspicious of who he really is and how he stands on issues; I do not like his proposal on healthcare; and I resent the ageism, racism, sexism he has nuanced into the campaign. And I resent the way his supporters have acted in the various blogs and the things they have said.

    So you are willing to cede the Supreme Court? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:26:39 AM EST
    I just don't get Obama supporters who say they won't vote for Clinton and vice versa.


    Just say that to yourself over and over. Seriously, another Scalia and Thomas pairing and we are well and truly screwed.


    Where were all these Dem concern trolls when (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:40:30 AM EST
    ... the party leadership were telling MoveOn and NARAL not to make trouble and quietly let scAlito and Roberts get stonewalled, greased and uncostitutionally fast-tracked onto the SCOTUS?

    Oh, it must be an election year and those same hand-wringing Dems need those pesky human rights advocates to tote water and fetch stuff for the party.

    Sorry I can't move to the back of the bus today. I'm simply tired and I'm keeping my seat.

    Dems who risk losing theirs will have to find some other solution.


    Charming response (none / 0) (#155)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:16:23 PM EST
    You swing the "troll" response around like a kossack responding to a reasoned Hillary supporter.

    I didn't support Roberts or Alito to the SCOTUS. I blame Nader for being an idiot in 2k and not recognizing that the SCOTUS alone was a reason not to play spoiler to Al Gore (the two parties are the same my ass).

    If you want to stick your head in the sand this time around that's your right. But BHO and HRC supporters that claim progressive values but prefer John McSame are not thinking correctly. That's my view and if that makes me a troll, then this site is considerably less civil than I thought.


    She's not the one vowing to unite with the hard RW (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:25:02 PM EST
    Obama's the "progressive" candidate who has vowed to "unite" with the right. BO is the one who has promised post-partisan new politics and become one with the One Party fanatics, remember?

    HRC is the rare Dem who has been fighting them -- and beating them -- for years and vowed to continuing doing so.

    According to TeamO, she's "divisive" for doing so.

    I happen to disagree that she's the one being difficult or divisive, but rather, her usual gaggle of attack-bots with whom BO is reaching out to (as they are currently so helpful in cutting down the main obstacle to his ambitions right now while he maintains the appearance of being above such dirty, nasty politics.)

    Nope, not buying that schtick for a second.


    Those are all good reasons (none / 0) (#161)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:49:32 PM EST
    For being pro Clinton and anit-Obama. But should Hillary fail to win the nomination then you will be left with Obama vs McCain. However centrist Obama might turn out to be he's not going to be as bad as McCain. If you think he will be then I suppose then you might as well abstain from voting should he be the nominee.

    You consider the Casey endorsement (none / 0) (#166)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:37:50 AM EST
    of Obama a good thing, I suppose?  To some of us who know who's who on this issue, it is yet another cause for concern in addition to Obama's waffling on women's issues when he was a state Senator.

    So re SCOTUS, I see more and more reason to wonder how different Obama's and McCain's appointments would be.  And to figure that my best bet is to work hard for a stronger obstacle course to Obama or McCain appointments, i.e., to work on my Senators (since even "progressive" Feingold f'd this up).


    Foolish Fears and Hidden Facts (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Tacitus Voltaire on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:42:05 AM EST
    unbelievable to me that the obama partisans are so fearful of hillary being allowed to compete, and, gasp! - possibly winning the popular vote. certainly obama's limpness in failing to push for a fair revote in florida and michigan speaks volumes about his insecurity

    i have never in my life witnessed such a blatantly anti-democratic and unfair campaign as this clamor for hillary to drop out.

    anyway, please check out the electoral maps for obama/mccain and clinton/mccain, updated daily with the results of all the head to head matchup polls for each state, at


    you will find the links right under the main map on the front page, and you can look back into the past since the links to these pages is changed everyday with the date clearly encoded into the URL.


    the media, with its blatant obama worship, keeps this very quiet

    The probem with your post is that it incorporates (none / 0) (#56)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:48:54 AM EST
    what should be and not what is.  Obama regardless of your opinion is winning.  Like it or not!

    The other error is that it does not include (none / 0) (#57)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:53:17 AM EST
    obvious Democratic States Obama will win NY and CA he is actually polling better.  A better arguement would be OH, PA, MI and FL (I might add polling in each state show McCain closely beating Obama or beating or slightly behind Clinton) but then counterparts could argue OR, WA and other small but important states.  A campaign is only good if it wins, there can be no moral victories or ambiguities and Obamas is superior.  The only hope is that either 60+ % of remaining voters feel the way you do or Superdelegates step in assuming continued scrutiny deems Obama unable to secure the GE.

    just a simple fact (none / 0) (#165)
    by Tacitus Voltaire on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:42:18 PM EST
    that the results of polling are that hillary does much better in the electoral college. if you say that polling is unreliable, and it is, then you have to accept that we should get real votes from all states, in this democratic promary season, including florida and michigan

    of course obama is ahead right now, but in this country we normally wait till all the votes are counted before declaring victory.

    the principle of counting all the votes before declaring the victor is one that the obama partisans should contemplate


    My family is mostly pro Obama (none / 0) (#146)
    by nellre on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:47:47 AM EST
    Their argument is that while Obama and HRC duke it out McCain is getting a free ride. They think that might cost the dems in November.
    I actually agree.
    While this tight race runs it's course, they both need to focus on McCain and not each other. If they did that there wouldn't be any argument that made sense to cut the process short.

    The SDs could use the effectiveness of each campaign against McCain as a data point in making their decision. It might blunt the frustration and anger of FL and MI voters too.


    Why shouldn't we (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:41:22 AM EST
    Allow it to be?

    It was Obama's idea that what Clinton went through in the 90s makes her unelectable now.

    So it will equally legitimate that what Obama is going through right now will make him equally unelectable.

    i see no reason to rush to his defense after he's picked apart republican leftovers.

    Final word is in -- Obama WAS NOT a law prof. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Universal on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:00:15 AM EST
    It's official -- Obama WAS NOT a law professor at the University of Chicago. The Chicago Tribune has confirmed. See details here:


    Obama lied his tail off. Period. And the Obama supporters have to deal with it.

    The WaPo (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by magisterludi on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:07:56 AM EST
    has an interesting story debunking Obama's Kennedy-Selma-etc, narrative, calling it "either untrue or grossly over-simplified". It's a top-rated story.

    Politics being a game of tit for tat, I give you one Camelot backfire for one Bosnia misfire.


    Difference (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:37:34 AM EST
    is that one(Bosnia) was showcased on media day after dreary day and the other (Kennedy-Selma) will warrant little more than a mention.

    Obamamann will never mention it, Tweety may allow one of his pin-headed pundit guests to comment briefly about it before talking over them and it will be back to attacking Hillary and calling her a liar again and again.

    When you have your very own cable network channel, MSNBC, like Obama does it can work as well for you as having his very own cable news channel FOX worked for GeeDubya.


    I agree with Kenosha Marge below but... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:28:08 AM EST
    ...appreciate your sentiment. ;-)

    If it looks, walks, quacks... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Lora on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:55:41 AM EST
    From your linked article:

    The University of Chicago released a statement Thursday saying Sen. Barack Obama "served as a professor" in the law school

    So Obama can't put "professor" on his resume.

    For everyone else he's a professor.


    parsing words (none / 0) (#139)
    by nellre on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:39:53 AM EST
    Let's not be guilty of what the "other side" revels in, parsing words to make them fit our needs.
    He said "law professor". They said "professor of law". If he taught classes in law and was a professor, he did not lie or even exaggerate.
    Professor of Law means something very specific.

    I see no lie here.


    Oh, c;mon, parsing it down to a preposition (none / 0) (#167)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:50:51 AM EST
    or not is really too much.  He "served as," had status "resembling," and was "similar to" a prof, per all the U of C reports.  Translated, as the link says, that means he wasn't a prof, period, for purposes of resumes -- and campaign bios, which a candidate and his staff can control for accuracy.  

    That's different from media messing up on this.  They never get such stuff correct, even when they're students -- usually also in professional schools, journalism schools, that like law schools also are a lot looser on titles than most of academe.  It's part and parcel of the media's pretense that they're not wowed by pretensions.

    But again, a candidate can be more careful about such claims in his own campaign puffery -- and it also would be wise to show sensitivity about titles, if he ever gets to other countries, where correct titles matter immensely in diplomacy.


    David Brooks (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:50:09 AM EST
    On Meet the Press today (yeah...I watched)

    David Brooks made the following comment...

    The reason she has to pull out is that she will win PA and a lot of the remaining states and would go to the convention 'strong'

    He actually earns a living with this type of incisive analysis.

    Mind-boggling (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:01:22 AM EST
    Hillary can't win for losing.  She should drop out b/c she's strong or b/c she's weak.  

    I just heard Bill Richardson on CBS News Radio (I think he was being interviewed by Bob Schieffer) state that the duty of the Superdelegates is to make their decision based on the popular vote.

    Funny, I thought they were supposed to vote for the good of the party and prevent the Dem Party from driving itself off a cliff.  


    sort of like the Bush doctrine (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:20:11 AM EST
    we can't leave Iraq because:
    • the surge is working
    • because it's not working

    thus it's not a stretch for Brooks to say that Hillary has to leave the race because she will finish strong.

    thus the push by Obama surrogates everywhere to try to force Hillary out of the race because they too fear that she will finish strong

    It's a little wonder why Democrats can't get us out of Iraq because the same defeatist thinking exists when picking the nominee of our party.


    did he really say popular vote? (none / 0) (#103)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:10:46 AM EST
    If so that would be a pro clinton statement. Because if you consider MI and FL either directly or with a added margin for what obama has to win, the clinton will win. And of course this begs the obvious question, um, NM popular vote went to clinton, what the hell is he saying. I guess that means he's switching to clinton. Woo hoo! (snark)

    further proof... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:23:39 AM EST
    why Bill Richardson's candidacy never went anywhere

    He totally did! (none / 0) (#105)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:18:53 AM EST
    Even my husband, who is mildly pro-Obama, noticed it and thought it was a ridiculous statement.  

    Other early morning mistakes (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:06:44 AM EST
    reading NY Times commentary while waiting for coffee.  Kristoff has this in his column.  

    His readers were aghast that 30% of the AA community believe that AIDS was started by the US. Govt.  He goes on to talk about this does not make Wright out of the mainstream.  But talks about lack of education being the reason Americans believe so many silly things.  

    But at no point does he say, ok, here is a preacher with the power and the education, a PHD, to educate rather than inflame his congregation.  What is wrong with people.  Are they so idiotically racist that they cannot hold a black man to the same standard that you hold another man in his position?  How paternalistic to not have the same standard.  

    Liberal racism is about the most disgusting form of racism cause it seeped in paternalism.  


    I think it was last week (none / 0) (#131)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:21:58 AM EST
    someone at dk posted a diary touting what Brooks said.


    If Brooks said anything that I agreed with, I'd check my reading comprehension a few times and then check the date to make sure it wasn't April's Fools.  Brooks isn't quite as low on my list as Jonah Goldberg, but he's down there.


    Another Misleading AP Headine... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by sonderling on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:29:56 AM EST
    "Obama says Clinton should keep running" - AP Headline

    No, what he said was: "'My attitude is Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants,' Obama said."

    What he actually said is a masterpiece of sneering condescension -- oh, great, she has his PERMISSION! -- and what this headline cheerfully does is help him look much better, like a good sport, if you will.

    Throw it on the pile with "You're likeable enough, Hillary."

    Smooth he's not.

    He said her name (none / 0) (#120)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:00:24 AM EST
    is on the ballot!!!!!  What a jacka$#.

    Mr. Orator/Writer (none / 0) (#121)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:01:46 AM EST
    Speaks like Bush.  Absolutely no clarity. I find that people who have nothing to say, usually ramble and lose their thought pattern.   Between the uhs and the droning it's a dreadful prospect if he is elected.  But, it will smell like roses to them.  

    Secret weapon: (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:47:15 AM EST
    The Clinton's secret weapon is edurance.

    BO is already getting tired, he needed a vacation and is now actually complaining on the trail that this race has gone on too long.  Yesterday he had one event, HRC had four--and it looks like she is just getting started. [And let's not forget Bill who often does more events in one day than BO and HRC combined].

    Anyway, this thing will go to June and HRC still has the fight in her, BO does not.  Then there's the 'drip drip' effect that will further put BO on the defensive.  Not to mention that one typically makes mistakes when tired.

    Perhaps BC won in June '92 b/c he was the last man standing?  I think this scenario bods well for Hillary too.  Thoughts?    

    Premature withdrawal is no substitute for choice (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:10:25 AM EST
    This no doubt unintentionally ironic headline at HuffiPo made me laugh:

    Hillary Clinton Deluged With Calls For Her Withdrawal

    If TeamObama are such fans of unity, let them press for him to withdraw prematurely -- or gracefully, as it were -- rather than sidle up to ultra-conservative parties that intend to suppress and oppress women away from our full franchise.

    I'm bordering on trollishness on this point, but Obama's new BFFs include leaders who advocate the incarceration of women who choose to exercise their right to seek information and services involving contraception and abortion.

    Leading Repugs which whom Obama hopes to unite have been explicit about advocating incarceration for pro-abortion rights advocates and service providers.

    Normally it's only the risk of disease, poverty, oppression and death the fanatics CHOOSE to dump on women.

    What is it about global human rights that these nutters do not understand?
    Run, Hillary run!

    What new BFFs (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:14:42 AM EST
    advocate incarceration?  That is appalling.

    BTW.. check out your subject line.


    Repug Prez candidates Thompson, Romney et al (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:46:56 AM EST
    ... ntm other "leading" Repugs with whom Obama is on public record as hoping to "unite" with.

    Indeed, No. 41 himself -- God's current choice to occupy the PEOPLE's White House -- is another  no-choice deadbeat I don't want to "unite" with at the cost of my full franchise.

    "Leading" Repug Tom DeLay is on the record as saying that forcing women to bring pregnancies to term (and become parents against our choice and will) can "solve" the problem of undocumented workers by creating an entire race of indentured servants. (Search YouTube for DeLay's address to the last Young Republican convention.)

    This information, which Team Obama and his supporters should know cold, was on the house.

    Do your own research next time.


    I was aware of his (none / 0) (#162)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:29:20 PM EST
    general intent to unite with the Repugs.  I do research.  It just so happens, I come to this site to get additional info.  I would not have known about the pro-life background of Obama's new endorser Casey if not for this site.  I appreciate this site for the INFO it provides which I understand it it's PURPOSE.  If you don't want to respond, DON'T.

    Psst Media: Obama's Unanswered Questions (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by Exeter on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:40:43 AM EST
    1)Recently on "The View," you said that you would have quit the church had Reverend Wright not acknowledged that what he said was wrong. Your Church has repeatedly promoted and collaborated with Louis Farrakhan, recently gave him a Lifetime Achievement Award, and said that he "epitomized greatness."  Louis Farrakhan has repeatedly called the Jewish and White race "Devils" and "Satanic" and the organization he heads has been classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League, and others as a hate group. Do you take the same position with your church as you did with Rev. Wright-- if they do not acknowledge that their promotion and collaboration with Louis Farrakhan is wrong?

    2) Your campaign has attacked Hillary Clinton as a "serial exaggerator." How do you respond to your own exaggerations:

    *You say in your stump speech you were "raised by a single mother" and that you "didn't have money" growing up. Yet, the time that your mother raised you alone, was only from the time you were two years old to the time you were four years old, when she married your stepfather. In addition, your step father was a wealthy oil executive and your grand parents, with whom you lived with from age 10 to 18, owned a furniture store and were upper middle class.

    *After an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, they charactorized your time in Jakarta, Indonesia as you being a "nomad" and a "street urchin" on the "mean streets," while in fact you lived with your step father, who was a wealthy oil executive.

    *You say that you suffered through much racial acrimony at the private prep school you attended in high school, yet your best friend at the time, categorically calls your account "bullsh#t."

    3)Putting everything else aside about the, vacant lot Rezko purchased next to your home in Chicago, the fact remains that this yard next to your house has remained vacant since you bought the property in 2005. If this neighboring yard is and has not been for your benefit, why have you paid to have the yard mowed and landscaped? Has Rezko paid you back for these expenses?  

    4) You like to say that, unlike Senator Clinton, you passed up the "corporate job" to help the people. Yet, you once worked for a corporate law firm and your family has been the beneficiary of your wife's salary from a corporate board and her work as a corporate attorney. Are these attacks on Senator Clinton really fair?

    Good points, but... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:59:26 AM EST
    Hillary has just as many areas of shady bullsh*t.  Everyone, all of us, can do one thing pretty well: propagandize ourselves.  This issue is, at best, a push, and a complete waste of time.  Dems should ONLY be focusing on McCain right now, his dismal record, his flip-flopping and malevolence.  Any Dem who keeps clinging to, say, the Wright issue is in the wrong.  Everyone, on every side of the political spectrum, damns their nation at some point -- conservatives for their reasons, liberals for theirs, fence sitters for theirs.  The entire issue is grounded in the hypocrisy of the gallery.  There is not nearly enough substantive difference between Obama and Clinton to merit the b.s. being focused on now.  Clinton can no more tout her experience than Obama can tout his "new politics" -- Clinton's experience MUST be put into context (economically with the dotcom illusion, for example) while Obama's entire schtick is untested on any national GE scale.  

    Other Dems are not the enemy.  Those who would continue this war and continue our economic destruction are.  The trouble is, right now, neither of our candidates has convinced me to any degree that they will really end this war, and without that the economy will continue its drive into the grave.  Unless, of course, they can magically make the American people, en masse, buy into the war like Americans did WWII.  That would certainly revalue the dollar, whose value is ONLY determined by people's belief it has value.  Short of magically turning public opinion completely around, which we obviously know will not happen, then the only thing that will save the country from complete social catastrophe...is ending the war NOW.  

    But neither shows the courage that will be necessary to do so.  


    If Obama is the nominee... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Exeter on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:43:34 PM EST
    ...these questions will all be asked and I would rather that they be asked in the spring of 2008, rather than the fall of 2008.  His associations with Farrakhan alone will be enough to sink him in the general.

    This will NEVER go to the convention (none / 0) (#18)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:24:39 AM EST
    Reid, Gore, Dean, etc will shut this down in June.  Superdelegates will swing one way or the other to make sure that a nominee will have been chosen in June.

    Dems don't want to commit suicide by having a fight on the convention floor.  

    The Dem convention is to UNITE the Dems not to drive them apart.

    this denies the reality (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:34:50 AM EST
    that it ain't over until we say it's over (Animal House reference)...but it's true.

    Hillary stays in as long as she wants and there's no other determinant. Reid is meaningless, Dean can't say anything and Gore would never go public with a pronouncement because by doing so, he would forever anger a bunch of people.

    This notion that Hillary can be forced to drop out is a rather self-defeating notion and it has drastic consequences to Obama's campaign because it will so completely alienate Hillary's supporters.

    The convention is designed to elect the candidate and I simply didn't realize that there were so many stupid Democrats that believe that they can game the system and change the rules.


    The reality is that this process ENDS (none / 0) (#26)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:40:23 AM EST
    when a nominee has reached 2054 delegates.  It could happen in a month or in June.

    Whenever that happens it is over.  Who cares what Hillary tries to do.  If Obama has reached that number in June than he wins period.  The Superdelegates all know this.  There is no way will they let this go to the convention.  

    If by June, Hillary or Obama has the most pledged delegates and/or popular votes and is a strong candidate than the superdelegates will swing towards that person so he or she will have enough delegates to have the nomination.

    Reid said that this process can be resolved easily and I believe him.


    the super delegates (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:46:00 AM EST
    are as divided as the rest of the population and without FL and MI, neither of them will reach the number necessary with certainty.

    Then there's the issue of who's doing the counting.

    Then there's the issue that these delegates can change their minds.

    Reid also has allowed Republicans to put holds on legislation while denying the same to Democrats.

    Reid won't be the Senate majority leader after the next election.


    Again -- the same comment over and over (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:15:58 AM EST
    Actually if it is forced to stop in some way (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by hookfan on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:59:43 AM EST
    it is merely the beginning of the end-- most likely of the democratic party as we know it. And most likely of Obama's chances in the GE. Why you don't get that, I don't know.

    They may decide in June but I wouldn't (none / 0) (#32)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:46:41 AM EST
    be 100% sure it will be Obama. If Clinton wins the majority of the upcoming states, what does that say about how strong of a candidate Obama is? Shouldn't the assumed nominee be racking up big wins by the end? If she catches him in the popular vote (including MI and FL whether or not the delegates are seated), I wouldn't want to be a Super Delegate making that decision.

    I doubt that Hillary will win the majority (none / 0) (#41)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:07:00 AM EST
    of the remaining states.  I think she may win 5 of the remaining 10 states (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and possibly Indiana).  I think that Obama will win Oregon, North Carolina, Montana, South Dakota, and Guam.

    If Obama wins both Indiana and North Carolina than I predict that this race will be OVER.

    Michigan and Florida will be seated but that won't happen until the convention in August.  What is probably going to happen is that either Hillary or Obama will get the vast majority of the remaining superdelegates in June so it puts one of them over the top in terms of total delegate count reaching 2054.  

    That will then essentially END the Dem primary.


    Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:49:47 AM EST
    and Florida must be resolved before the nominee is chosen so Hillary gets her due.  If they try to pull that underhanded stuff, they can kiss my vote goodbye.

    Sure-count them when it doesn't mean anything.  KMA


    How many times are you going to post (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:14:32 AM EST
    the exact same comment?

    LOL, somebody should have told Kennedy that. (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:40:46 AM EST
    ....in 1980. And he was trying to wrest the nomination away from a sitting Democratic President. Tried to steal Carter delegates even.

    let's hope (none / 0) (#21)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:28:35 AM EST
    but I can tell ya right now I am NOT voting for BHO in the general.  Besides, I live in TX.  Electorally college speaking, my vote wouldn't count anyway.

    Democracy....gotta love it!


    Vote for who you want to vote for (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:34:21 AM EST
    I live in California so my vote will count.  I will definitely vote for the winner of the Dem nomination.

    I have a 4 year old child.  The thought of a supreme court filled with conservative judges who have replaced the liberal ones scares the CRAP out of me.

    I will support Hillary or Obama.  No way would I ever vote for McCain or not vote.  This election is too important for my child's future.


    Do you think CA is def (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:52:20 AM EST
    a Blue State? Seems there's talk, McCain is going to try and make it a contest?

    I'm not even sure at this point my state is. We've been more red than blue state wide. Turning more of a solid blue, but not sure how it will play in Nov. For Hillary's re-election, she turned red blue, but who knows where that support will go in Nov.

    Guess I'm just scared as heck about Blue State Assumptions. :)


    California is safely blue (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:17:16 AM EST
    It hasn't gone for a Republican since Bush I beat Dukakis by 2 points in 1988.

    Pro-life candidates cannot win statewide elections here.....

    That being said a recent poll showed Hillary beating McCain here by only 3 points, while Obama was beating him by 9, which is about what Kerry won by.


    That's good to hear (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:24:43 AM EST
    Native CA gal here. But been gone for 20yrs and family is Repub, so not as good for feed back. Mom's more balanced, but still ;)

    I spent some time cruising old election maps and it can shake the Blue State Assumption theory. When I hear they will "NEVER!" turn red, my red flag goes up, lol!


    well, with luck, (none / 0) (#54)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:36:29 AM EST
    he won't have joe lieberman or mitt romney there to remind him that CA is a state! lol

    Seems there's talk, McCain is going to try and make it a contest?

    I will never vote for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by felizarte on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:14:47 AM EST
    just because he is a democrat; that goes for four other friends of mine who are for Hillary. I am from California.

    My (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:45:24 AM EST
    vote will definitely count, as I live in PA.

    Many Democratic friends have said they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.  They are Hillary supporters all the way.  I have Republican friends and family who changed registration so they could vote for Hillary.

    At times I've asked them to sit out rather than vote for McCain.  I'm not sure yet what I'll do, but I don't see how I could vote for McCain.

    I really think McCain will win PA if it is Obama, and Hillary will win PA if she is the nominee.


    Amazing how many will not vote (none / 0) (#117)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:48:12 AM EST
    for Obama.  Several of my family and friends won't vote for Obama.  We're life time Dems.  Some are perfectly content to vote for McCain.  For some reason McCain is popular here.

    It's odd how some think that because your state is predictably blue that a vote doesn't count.  I don't think that Obama will win the GE, he might be able to squeak by on delegates, but he would look less popular if he didn't sweep the popular vote.  I'm positive he could care less.


    How do you know (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by hookfan on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:06:50 AM EST
    what supreme court judges obama would appoint? With his constant reaching out to republicans, his dissing of Democratic history, how do you know he wouldn't reach across the isle there too if it would benefit him (not you) politically? Unity, after all, can be a dangerous thing if untethered from Democratic commitments.

    I find your conviction towards the Democratic (none / 0) (#28)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:41:53 AM EST
    party wanting, and yes the race is open people give H. Clinton a 5-10% I say it's close to 40%.  Still it's more reallistic Obama will win the election. I only pray that the sensibility of either candidates supporters comes to fruition and they reallize the personal attacks on either one where to determine what can possibly be the greatest President of modern time.  Not to disqualify the other candidate from consideration.  If you say you will vote for McCain if your candidate is not chosen then your DEMOCRATIC conviction must be a pure mirage.  Clinton and Obama both agree thier stances are not too differenct on policy.  Why can't we see that it's ok to scratch, bite and claw during the primary but that what it is.  A primary to choose a candidate for the Democratic party.  So hate whoever you may hate but don't loose site of the goal.  To elect a demcroatic President.

    "obstacle are the things you see when you take your eyes off the goal"


    I find Obama's convictions wanting (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:03:12 AM EST
    The talk of Reagan and postpartisanship has me worried.  His lack of support for enabling the voters of FL and MI to participate in the process is troubling.

    I will support him in the GE if he is the legitimate nominee of the party.  I don't care what the delegate count is.  He needs to have a popular vote lead than could not be overcome in FL and MI without a revote.


    Obama is just following the rules (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:08:35 AM EST
    that the DNC had about Michigan and Florida and all the Dem candidates including Hillary agreed to.

    Sigh. No, not quite so. (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:34:25 AM EST
    But too tired to go through it all again. . . .

    Give up Cream (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:28:15 AM EST
    They will continue to repeat this until everyone is too sick and tired of hearing it to even bother to refute it. Misinformation repeated often enough becomes "common knowledge."

    I am no longer a Democrat, after 39 years of being one so as an Independent I can say, without being accused of "disloyalty" to the Party, which I never gave a rat's patootie about anyway, that unless the FL and MI situation is settled in a way that has the votes of those citizens counted I will find it difficult, if not impossible to vote for ANY Democrat. Acting like Republicans isn't the way to get this old libs vote.


    Is it rude (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:51:11 AM EST
    to just quit responding to certain people?  I hope not.

    Principles are as imprtant as rules (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:23:53 AM EST
    You don't get legitimacy just by following the rules.

    e.g.  2000 POTUS.


    Obama is a wildcard as a Prez (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Mari on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:18:04 PM EST
    I used to believe he would be a reasonably liberal POTUS, but I am seeing more and more red flags. Willing to violate a pillar of democracy (one person, one vote) for his own political expediency makes me wonder what other Bush type behaviors he has in him. I just can't vote for Obama. I don't trust his values or his judgment to do the right thing. That's why if he is the Dem nominee, I won't vote for him. I'll vote the third party candidate.

    I'm not convinced that's the real goal (none / 0) (#104)
    by hookfan on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:15:18 AM EST
    Perhaps the real goal would be to elect a person that would lead to implementing real Democratic policies. I'm not convinced Obama would do that instead of his initiating republican lite policies under the guise of a democratic veneer and pretty speeches. His oft praise of republicans, and his conservative leaning advisors do not give reassurance.

    Your votes will count (none / 0) (#97)
    by Lora on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:59:33 AM EST
    Only if the votes are counted honestly and correctly.  We are a very long way from that in most if not all states.

    Prescription (none / 0) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:35:41 AM EST
    Take two grappas and call me in the morning.  So much for leadership.  

    I got 5 of these from republican family folks (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:47:47 AM EST
    During the '04 campaign, I would invariably get one of these kinds of emails from a conservative republican co-worker, friend or family.

    Of course it'd be similiar for Clinton with the exception of the drivers licenses for immigrants line item.

    Maybe they'd insert a line about Clinton forcing Health Care onto everyone, even the people who don't want it.

    What I find interesting is that they don't go after his inexperience here.  They go after the unification movement.

    The Obama Tidal Wave

    We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude. His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of 'Change' or that he says he will be a 'Uniter'.

    The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham had charisma and both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions. On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions and the results were catastrophic.
    Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans out there feeling just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, the real story is what happens when it hits shore.

    Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:

    He voted against banning partial birth abortion

    He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

    Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.

    In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing

    Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as a minimum wage affair.

    Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.

    His religious convictions are very murky.

    He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.

    Opposed the Patriot Act

    First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.

    Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.

    Supports universal health-care.

    Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

    Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

    Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.

    Voted NO to making English the official language of the USA.

    Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.

    Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.

    Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.

    Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.

    Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.

    Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.

    He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.

    He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax

    He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.

    Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.

    He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.

    If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's and you think that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy the ride and not forward this Email.
    If you are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great Country.

    We have limited time to save America or the Supreme Court as we know it. Inaction is action.

    If you agree this is important, please pass it on. The mainstream media will not do it for you!?

    get real (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:58:52 AM EST
    conservatives don't read that much.  that's why they hate the NY Times.  They have Fox.  All they gotta do is play good ol' Rev Jeremiah Wright and BOOM! Election won for McCain.

    One misconception about republicans (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:11:51 AM EST
    At least the ones I know is that they don't read things.

    my favorites are (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:03:12 AM EST
    Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.
    Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.

    If your audience goes along with thinking these are bad things, then these are not people who will vote for a democrat no matter what.

    What are these republicans smoking anyway?


    That is pretty pathetic (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:00:12 AM EST
    It will only afffect the true believers....and even most of them seem pretty perfunctory in their support....

    Toss a few reverse wedge issues their way:  McCain's support of Global Warming, Immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship, not drilling in ANWAR, waterboarding is torture, etc.  McCain loses either way.  If he agrees again, then the wingers will implode again.  If he changes, bye, bye Maverick.



    New diary about Nutter, Wright & Obama (none / 0) (#58)
    by Universal on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:06:49 AM EST
    Mayor Nutter taking on the hateful Jeremiah Wright and the pusillanimous Barack Obama:


    It's a fairly long diary with a lot of analysis and rebuttals to expected counterarguments against Nutter.

    Please read and recommend if you like it. Thanks.


    Garbage I read it and the fundamental (none / 0) (#61)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:16:48 AM EST
    aspect missing is that Rev. Wright didn't preach this message of hate so many people buy into after interpretting 20 years of actions into three minutes of sound bites.  Polling shows that likely voters are not buying into the lies that you are perpetuating as well.  I've listend to the sermons in question and more because unlike so many I reserve my opions until I can verify with factual evidence instead of buying into media hype.  You can latch onto it if you like and hate Obama or Rev. Wright but you do yourself a disservice along with other by assuming that "oh look an AA politician has bought into" is a legitamate arguement.  Please stop trying to tear people down.  But do your thing I know I am in no place to judge what I perceive as divisive hatefilled actions,

    What about the writings? (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:24:41 AM EST
    and what we haven't heard/read yet?

    Obama admitted/didn't admit he heard 'stuff'. Dude can't quite keep his story straight on this one. And until he can, it will bite him in the bum in the GE.

    The demanding Hillary quit was a quick diversion, but not a long term one. Methinks the 'condensed so it's ok' version isn't going to play too well in the future.


    "Not big on quitting" (none / 0) (#71)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:46:22 AM EST
    This was the subject on a email I got from the Hillary campaign today.

    Think that says it all.

    The Issue of Michigan and Florida (none / 0) (#77)
    by bob h on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:29:05 AM EST
    is simple; either we get revote-primaries or allocation of delegates based on extensive polling, or Hillary forms a new Party.

    We all know that Hillary would prevail in both places, but probably not by enough to remove Obama's pledged delegate lead.  For this, Obama is willing to destroy his legitimacy in the eyes of half of Democrats.

    Obama (none / 0) (#84)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:58:31 AM EST
    had a chance to demonstrate his leadership qualities by actively working to have revotes in Michigan and Florida.

    That is, have a revote and let the chips fall where they may.  Show courage.  Do the right thing.

    Instead, he dragged his feet, and his friends in the legislatures helped him.

    As badly directed politically as John McCain is, people admire him and vote for him because he does what is right, even against his party.

    Sadly, this is a quality Barack lacks.

    Obama will be held to account. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Radix on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    Unfortunately, the MSM wont do it unless he becomes the nominee. I assure when it's him versus McCain all his dirty tricks and laundry will be in full public view. Downside, it will cost us four more years of a Rethuglican in the WH.

    Donna Brazille said today that (none / 0) (#119)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:57:24 AM EST
    Hillary cannt win in the rules committee as EVERY state gets 3 votes and Barack won more states. Anyone know if this is true? North Dakota=Calif.?

    That's what I've read. Another case (none / 0) (#123)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:09:56 AM EST
    of stupidity on our part.

    My understanding is that (none / 0) (#125)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:11:07 AM EST
    she won't have enough votes but neither will Obama as it takes a super majority.  I thought this is why this would always go to the convention.

    I'm a little confused by her statement.  I thought that the Rules committee would have handled approving/disproving a re-vote (I thought she had enough on the Rules committe and that the MI plan would have been approved by them so Obama had to stall to prevent it) plan and that the credentials committee handled the delegates.

    Ask SQUEAKY.  If I see Squeaky posting, I'll ask. I know some of this has been discussed but not this particular detail.


    I think what she means (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:26:03 AM EST
    is that the voters of MI and FL can't win because Obama has the edge in the rules committee. And thus HIllary can't win the issue of seating MI and FL in a way she would like.

    But that says nothing about what the super-delegates will or will not do. The SD's are free to take the MI and FL vote among other things into consideration. They are free for example to consider Clinton the real winner of the popular vote assuming the rest of the states go well. They are of course free to use their judgement of who would be the stronger GE candidate. They are free to make political judgements on how their vote will look. They are of course free to make political judgements of who they will piss off with their vote.

    I think they will mostly be politicians and will make political decisions. Sadly I think if MI and FL are not counted for real, they will probably not take that into consideration, and they will more likely vote for Obama. And as I've said before, I think that is a recipe for failure for the dems in the GE. Dean, Donna, Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson, et al, will have their way, and McCain will be president. And sadly, I actually think those folks will like that better than Clinton being president. Is that cynical or what. But that's what I think.


    Largely correct in my view. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:41:52 PM EST
    I think the best way to think about the situation at this point is that the superdelegates are going to be a bit like a jury examining evidence before the court.

    Essentially if there is no revote in MI and FL they (the SDs) will be under instructions to ignore that evidence (the evidence of the current vote tallies) in their deliberation. They are of course free to ignore that advice since this isn't an actual court but a metaphor :P

    In any case either way it is likely that both MI and FL WILL be seated it's simply a question of timeframe. If they are seated after the supers decide then they will be counted but irrelevant unless the supers specifically point to them as part of their reason for deciding.

    I think it is an open question what the fallout will be if they are counted but not consequential if you get my meaning. There are too many variables to be certain how it will be percieved.

    In any case this is only the scenario if neither candidate disrupts the demographic patterns that have been so stable throughout the campaign. If one of them has a big break then things could change to the point where there is no more ambiguity one way or another.


    if you actually believe this, (none / 0) (#127)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:15:37 AM EST
    As badly directed politically as John McCain is, people admire him and vote for him because he does what is right, even against his party.

    then you are in serious need of serious professional help. i'm not sure which profession exactly, but one of them.

    sen. mccain does what he perceives to be right for sen. mccain. should it happen to correspond with the actual right thing, that's just icing on the cake. sen. mccain is a transparently rank opportunist, who doesn't let  little things like ethics or morals get in the way of personal and political expediency.

    sen. mccain the "maverick" and "straight shooter" is purely a media creation, much like "batman, the dark knight", but lacking the philosophical heft of "batman".

    McCain does have a record which (none / 0) (#145)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:47:25 AM EST
    could be construed to show he votes against his party when he disagrees.  Can you point me to similar positions of courage or conviction for Obama?  If not, maybe you better up your meds if you don't think it will bite in the fall.

    Unfortunately this is true (none / 0) (#151)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:07:39 PM EST
    of all politicians.

    I've come to realize this primary season that our side is no purer than the other side. We just have better ideas and policies.


    Gene Lyons (none / 0) (#128)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:17:52 AM EST
    Donna Brazile says (none / 0) (#132)
    by americanincanada on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:23:08 AM EST
    the DNC has an 'exit strategy' for the primary. WTF does that mean?

    abandoning democracy (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:35:11 AM EST
    John Kerry on this morning (none / 0) (#136)
    by americanincanada on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:27:02 AM EST
    vs. Ed Rendell also said that Hillary's healthcare plan is a "non-starter in the senate" because of the mandate.

    Is he insane? What is he trying to say?

    Just when you think Kerry can't be more (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:33:41 AM EST
    embarrassing, he reaches down deep and comes up with another way to screw his own party. I'm so glad he has such good health care in case he or his family have any health issues. I wish we had a candidate who thought the rest of us deserved a similar health care plan. Oh wait, we do. And he wants her to drop out of the race. I'll be sooooo motivated to vote in that case. Not.

    Honestly!! (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:41:44 AM EST
    We started this election season with an almost guaranty that the Republicans were on their death bed.  Then we get the Dem leadership doing a Dr. Kevorkian on the Dem party, if they have kept their big mouths shut and let the candidates fight it out.      

    It's Horrendous for Democracy (none / 0) (#148)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:52:09 AM EST
    That millions and millions of Republicans in the remaining primary states are being deprived of their chance to vote for Mike Huckabee.  

    It should be of concern to the Party whether those Republicans -- resentful of being deprived of their chance to vote for Huckabee -- will vote for McCain in the general election.  

    They might defect to a third party -- Alan Keyes -- or even pull the lever for Obama.

    I believe Hillary should go after Obama's (none / 0) (#149)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:53:08 AM EST
    strongest credentials, which are the bills he claims as his own, but which were actually handed to him to  pad his resume in 2003.

    USN&WR Michael Barone projection (none / 0) (#153)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    that Clinton will win popular vote, while Obama retains delegate lead.


    This is (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by joyce1 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:31:12 PM EST
    the reason why they want her to drop out, they know that there is a possibility that she will win the popular vote after all the remaining states have voted. I hope she does, and she deserves the nom cause she is the real fighter for the people!

    Joe Scarborough likes Clinton (none / 0) (#157)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:24:35 PM EST
    Was over at Corrent and they had a link to Riverdaughter... anyhoooo, here you go.  (this is my first link, it better work)


    It worked! (none / 0) (#164)
    by joyce1 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:38:14 PM EST
    Thanks for the link, I had not seen this. Scarborough can be fair sometimes...he is a better human being now than he was while in congress. Good for him!