home

Tuesday Open Thread

This is an open thread? You can pick the topics, just keep it civil.

< Hillary in PA: Rocky Wouldn't Quit, Neither Will She | New Polls Out Today >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    How Spitzer's dates never were noticed (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:40:43 AM EST
    by his security detail:  they noticed, but they merely saved the information for future use.

    It's finally coming into the open*, that which has been "known" for a long time - the New York State Police have compiled information on political and other prominent persons, and have used it to further both the NYSP's interests and the interests of those whom the NYSP might have reason to favor.  In other words - they've been acting as a species of secret police and political hit squad.

    Within hours of the NYP article I linked to above, the new Governor - Patterson - took action to authorize the NYS AG (Andy Cuomo) to go after the NYSP.

    So, a few more questions:

    Does anyone seriously believe that, given the NYSP example of likely misuse of private or confidential information to b*tch-slap politicos into line, the feds (with, um, say, warrantless wiretaps of all of everyone's electronic emissions) would be similarly inclined to similarly misuse that sort of information to serve their own purposes?

    Does anyone seriously believe that the revelations against Spitzer were not a political hit job first, last and always?

    Does anyone seriously believe that the adultery questions the new Governor Patterson had to face and discuss within hours of his inauguration started from leaks from the NYSP or its friends, just to keep him in line?

    -
    *  I know - it's the Post.  But, it's written in complete sentences and the governor acted on it really quickly, so I'll give it credence.  At least enough to post a comment here.

    It was only a matter of time (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:42:24 AM EST
    before somebody got the Rocky theme song.  

    It's interesting to read the NY Times coverage - moaning and groaning today about PA food combinations.  Oh, the NY Times.

    Edwards would've done really well in PA I think.

    So, What's wrong with Pennsylvania food? (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:24:08 PM EST
    Seriously.

    You know you're in Pennsylvania when:
     - seven sweets and seven sours comprises a balanced diet;
     - chow-chow is a favored side dish in the diner;
     - apple butter and cottage cheese is also a diner side;
     - pickled cantaloupe is a treasured delicacy;
     - sausage forms one of the four basic food groups;
     - you can tell which meal it is, by what is served with the scrapple;
     - dunking anything into your coffee is not only accepted, but expected;
     - donuts are properly known as fastnachts;
     - your waitress comments intelligently on the distinctions between the chef's wet bottom and dry bottom shoo-fly pies;
     - hot bacon dressing is the house's salad dressing;
     - there's first breakfast and second breakfast.

    And, oh, yeah.  You work so darn hard, you're still skinny even after eating all that and more.

    Parent

    Don't forget... (none / 0) (#107)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:59:08 PM EST
    Tasty Kakes and Wise potato chips!  Oh, and the pretzels too...

    Parent
    This will show my age! (none / 0) (#28)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:16:37 PM EST
    We used that song in marching band - it's made for it, with all the horns.  Lots of fun and it was something that kids could relate to instantly.

    Parent
    Shows you are pretty young. (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:18:27 PM EST
    When I was in marching band we were playing Col. Bogey et al.  A little known fact:  there is no practical lyre [music holder] for the piccolo player.  

    Parent
    We were forced to memorize! (none / 0) (#36)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:27:54 PM EST
    Oh, the cruelty we endured...wah, sob!

    It's a lot easier to march when you aren't reading the music and we would look down on bands that didn't - especially if their band was bigger than ours.  (That was almost everybody - only one school fielded a smaller band than us.)

    Parent

    Got any good band camp stories? (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:29:13 PM EST
    Jeralyn, there is an extremely (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:45:52 AM EST
    offensive comment in the Rocky thread below.  Please delete.  

    I think I just did (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:47:07 AM EST
    let me know if there's more than one or I picked the wrong one.

    Parent
    You got it. Thanks. (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:52:08 AM EST
    God forbid..... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:03:26 PM EST
    somebody get offended by written words.

    Parent
    get over it. (none / 0) (#99)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    Politeness Rules.

    Parent
    Politeness by gagging.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:14:26 PM EST
    isn't very polite.

    But you're right...rules are rules.  And they are made to be broken.

    Parent

    not here (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:57:09 AM EST
    Censor software at law firms are strict and if the site gets banned, it's a national thing. We have zero tolerance for profanity.

    Parent
    Anglachel's Bunker Mentality.. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:50:27 AM EST
    Anglachel's Bunker Mentality, post is wise and frames the phenomenon of Senator Clintons supporters as a new coalition of voters correctly, there is a theme I sense of Peoples who value pragmatic governance that is competent, ethical, socially economical not sexy and who as a group are unaffected by manufactured Party wedgies that have been so effectively wielded to inflame against and shield elected officials by Party who fail to perform for the People. This is a force of diverse people who hold similar deep beliefs and hail from a previous not so loud loosely aligned middle that has now coalesced like concrete against predatory extremes and extreme governance and for Clinton.  This is a change that Democratic elected officials need to understand and be aware of, there is power in this new coalition, it is as well a group who will not suffer fools for Party nor move with a nose ring jerk of a grievance and will not rally when called unless they choose.  Clinton gets this, lets hope is not to late, the Party is changed.
    The DNC, I belive is not aware that they are now at war with this Base of support and they are.

    It'd be nice (none / 0) (#16)
    by badger on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:02:44 PM EST
    but I think that's been a major demographic since the late 70s at least. I've felt that way that long, and I get the feeling from some commenters here that I'm not alone in feeling that way long before this election.

    For example, look at both the activism and turnout for Perot in 1992. I wasn't a Peroista, but supported Bill Clinton for many of the same reasons you cite above.

    I just want government that does what it's supposed to do, what the majority of the electorate wants it to do, is measured based on how well it accomplishes those things, and isn't wrapped up in ideology and dogma from the left or the right.

    Parent

    Clinton challenges Obama to a bowl-off (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:52:31 AM EST
    Hillary's April 1, challenge:

    -- It's time for him to get his campaign out of the gutter.
    -- Let's strike a deal.
    -- There's no time to spare.
    -- I'll even spot him two frames.
    -- Let's make sure ALL the pins are counted.

    It's good to see she can still joke about things!

    too funny! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:13:51 PM EST
    i caught sen. clinton on the daily show a while back. she's hilariously low-key. she also scared the daylights out of jon by inviting him to visit with her campaign.

    on a completely different note: has anyone seen the article about the saudi billionaire who plans to build a mile-high tower, in the middle of the damn desert? it's going to cost just over 5 billion dollars. its main function seems to be just being the tallest man-made structure in the world.

    god forbid he should use some of those funds to help out his fellow arabs in the middle east.

    Parent

    I hear that.... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:07:35 PM EST
    I thought we had wealth distribution problems here at home....the Middle East makes us look like hardcore socialists.

    Then again, it will provide a sh*tload of jobs.  Better to build a skyscraper than an army...or a nuclear bomb.

    Parent

    Greenwald Book (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:56:30 AM EST
    Glen Greenwarld has a new book about the Republicans creating "mythological personality " candidates to win elections.  I have been trying to understand my visceral reaction to the Obama campaign.   Looking at how purposefully Axelrod ran a campaign of personality, trying to outdo the Republicans in their game.  The only problem is that I have this nagging feeling that Americans were ready for something else, like policies.  So, now if Obama wins vs. McCain it will be dueling personalities.  
    The Right has perfected the art of creating mythical cults of personality around their leaders. They are strong, courageous, honor-bound, protective, morally upstanding salt-of-the earth Everyman-warriors -- contemptuous of elitist prerogatives, and oozing traditional masculine virtues and cultural normalcy. As important, if not more so, is the corresponding character demonization of liberals, Democrats and a growing group of miscellaneous right-wing opponents -- those weak, subversive, conniving, appeasing, gender-confused, elitist freaks, whose men are as effeminate and cowardly as their women are angry, threatening and emasculating.


    "their women are angry, threatening" (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:08:48 PM EST
    "and emasculating".

    I used to get unhappy with that characterization, but I've decided I'd rather be portrayed as a threat than someone who can be ignored or taken for granted.

    Besides, I like that it makes Republican men look like they are a-skeered.

    Parent

    If our Democratic women can emasculate ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:46:39 PM EST
    ... those Republican men who've been ruining the country, then I'll be cheering them on.

    Emasculate away!

    More!! More!!

    Parent

    I think that's why I like Hillary (none / 0) (#111)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:58:55 PM EST
    If takes a few figuratively crushed testes to get the job done, so be it.  What would have Tom DeLay been called if he had been a woman, not "The Hammer" surely!

    Parent
    Good vs Bad (none / 0) (#17)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:03:00 PM EST
    is an easy sale.  Folks are doing the exact same thing with Clinton vs Obama (no doubt because they learned how during their many years as republicans)

    Parent
    Welcome back, Kathy. (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:12:44 PM EST
    Today I read Clinton's demographic is working class older women.  We are no longer just low info voters!

    Parent
    heh. nice to know (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:14:36 PM EST
    I'm now a working class older woman. I guess my wife  and students will be surprised...;-)

    Parent
    I acutally am a working class older woman (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:17:54 PM EST
    and proud of it.

    Parent
    Hi Kathy (none / 0) (#56)
    by Lil on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:50:57 PM EST
    Where have you been? I missed your optimism.

    Parent
    I was in London (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:44:26 PM EST
    educating our allies!  They are as puzzled by Obama love as some of us on TL are.  "Didn't America learn anything with Bush?"  Article after article demanding why exactly Obama has gotten this far and how on earth anyone thinks he can win.  And I won't even bore you with the cocktail party questions.  They are more educated on issues than most Americans (of course, I have always contended that it matters much more to the world who our president is than it matters to the US.  They are the ones who really feel our policies close to the bone.  The housing crisis, unemployment, suspension of various civil rights, healthcare, etc--all are devastating the UK now.)

    And thank you--it's good to be back!

    Parent

    Those p.r firms attract (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:14:37 AM EST
    some very clever people. Or is the desired quality
    something more accuratly described as animal cunning?

    It is nothing short of mind boggling how in 2008 there are still those who havnt grocked that the automatic equation of violence and idealized masculinity is a sign of essential cowardice.

    Parent

    thought spring break was over (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:58:51 AM EST


    Kostaway (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:59:05 AM EST
    You are done for the day. If you return, no more chattering and you are limited to 10 comments in 24 hours. You've way been exceeding that and your comments have become one line quips and attacks that are intended to annoy other readers here. Goodbye.

    Thank you. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:03:57 PM EST
    I do so enjoy not feeling compelled to respond to trollish comments.  And it's nice to have a site that isn't flooded with them.

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:12:56 PM EST
    The comment in the other thread made me livid.  Thank you, again, for removing it.


    Parent
    Polls have been interesting (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by spit on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:14:13 PM EST
    both gallup and rasmussen are tightening up again for the moment. I really am wondering what it would take for a clear leader to emerge in that sense -- every time one or the other breaks much out of standard noise, they get pulled back in within a couple of days.

    It's endlessly fascinating to me, actually, even though I don't think national polls mean much for the nomination at this point -- it seems like there's some kind of resistance on a broad scale for the softer support solidifying much either way.

    MSM (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:23:49 PM EST
    Bloomberg story of Obama 10 point lead.  So, people read this and it sounds like he is gaining.  Article is dated April 1.  

    To be sure, this flies in the face of most polls taken after Obama's widely praised March 18 speech on race and the Wright controversy. In a March 30 Gallup survey, he had widened his lead over Clinton among Democratic voters to 10 points. A week earlier, he was also up 10 points in a


    Parent
    Which Could Well Mean (none / 0) (#41)
    by The Maven on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:30:20 PM EST
    that despite protestations in the traditional media that Democrats nationally are growing increasingly weary of the prolonged contest, Democratic voters actually want this all to play out to a full conclusion.  It could be that there's a nucleus of 10% or so that doesn't want to see either candidate begin to pull away too much and prefers to see the race remain neck-and-neck.

    Aside from all the destructive negativity, I'm certainly among those who don't want to see the process shut down in any way before all (emphasis on the "all") the votes are counted.  And if that means we end up going into the convention with it all still up in the air, resulting in horsetrading and backroom dealmaking, so be it.  That's what politics is all about, boys and girls.

    Parent

    Rasmussen (none / 0) (#50)
    by Lil on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:46:35 PM EST
    had Obama down 5 in Pa. Talk about tightening. I thought she'd have a crushing lead there, but that doesn't sound that way now.

    Parent
    Different subject (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by spit on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    that's also a one day, not a tracker.

    Which is certainly not to say it's incorrect, just that the noise to signal works out a little differently.

    On the state by states, SUSA remains my standard, with other polling worth looking at but far less reliable IMO -- currently, I view the Rasmussen PA poll as an outlier, but it's also always possible that it's catching a solid trend earlier than the others. SUSA shows PA tightening a bit, too, but not as dramatically so far -- I expect the race will be closer than early polls predicted, which follows this year's pattern, and the question really is one of the level of tightening, and whether the polls find some sort of change-resistant equilibrium as IMO we're seeing in the national polling.

    Still three weeks for movement there, but you can't just draw a straight line from the last two points to know where things are going (not that you're doing this, necessarily, but I've seen it happening all over the blogs for months, and it drives me insane).

     

    Parent

    Why time is important in the nomination process. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:22:42 PM EST
    Time is an important factor in determining a nominee.  IMO no super delegate should commit until all the primaries are over.  However, several black SD who are also running for office in 08 and who are for Hilary  have been politically threatened if they do not switch to Obama Link  You can listen to it if you like.

    You also want the time factor so all the voters really get to know the candidates.  As time trickles the more we find about each candidate the better.   That knowledge could makes us feel stronger for our candidate, or weak about our candidate.  Knowing more about each candidate just  might make the difference if you switch to the other candidate. For those states that have not had their primaries it could make a very big difference.  You never know what facts might pop up as time goes on.  There could be a big scandal on one of the candidates that could switch the momentum and ultimately the nominee.  That why the SD need to hold their fire and disregard all pressures to come out early.

    I think the political threats (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:29:01 PM EST
    are wrong. If you're going to primary someone, do it. But don't go around threatening SDs with primaries to coerce them to vote your way.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:36:50 PM EST
    However, several black SD who are also running for office in 08 and who are for Hilary  have been politically threatened if they do not switch to Obama.

    Outrageous that any politician should be held accountable by voters, for their political decisions.

     

    Parent

    Their legislative actions? Yes... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    Their lack of action with regards to policy and such? Absolutely.

    But the threat of a primary for choosing between two Democratic candidates?

    "Change your position on the candidate...we'll back off a primary challenge" smacks of quid pro quo.

    This isn't someone turning around and saying "we don't like what you're doing for our district." It's something else altogether.

    I feel the same about those folks who were out there sending death threats to folks like Tavis Smiley.

    Parent

    Call It Whatever You Like (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:57:09 PM EST
    Superdelegates receive many many phone calls a day urging those already decided to change their support and those undecided to place their support.

    To think that they are not warned about political retribution is naive. Many here at TL predicted that Ted Kennedy is toast for supporting Obama. NOW sent him a caustic letter, which amounted to them saying that they will campaign against him in the future as retribution, unless he were to change his mind.

    Voters are entitled to cast their vote for the representative that most matches up with their own agendas. Do you really think that any of this is strange or unusual? Or are you pulling out the fainting couch to score points for your favored candidate? My guess is that it is the latter.

    Parent

    Only in dreams (none / 0) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:30:06 PM EST
    Ted Kennedy is not going to be "toast" in Massachusetts for supporting Obama, or for any other reason than obvious senility, and maybe not even then.  He is now part of the fabric of Massachusetts.  It's also quite impossible for another Dem to run to the left of him, running to the right of him won't work in Mass., which leaves attacking his character, which is a sure and certain road to defeat and disgrace.

    Parent
    I Agree (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:44:28 PM EST
    Ted Kennedy is not going to be "toast" in Massachusetts for supporting Obama....


    Parent
    Urging support... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:18:47 PM EST
    is a whole different ballgame than threats to oust someone for supporting one Dem candidate over your (being the person doing the threatening) particular choice.

    Voters are entitled to cast their vote however they see fit. However, we aren't talking about the voters. We're talking about people calling someone up and saying "You don't change your vote, you will be challenged in your next election."

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:10:29 PM EST
    If the candidate is making his or her constituents happy it shouldn't matter who is running against them.  I do not see this as anything different from business as usual.

    Parent
    If the SDs are saying that (none / 0) (#120)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:20:40 AM EST
    they're getting called and told that if they don't switch their endorsement, they'll be primaried, that's a form of extortion.

    Parent
    NOW (none / 0) (#102)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:33:12 PM EST
    If the organization called up Teddy and said "We're going to enter another candidate into the race to challenge you because you support someone other than our chosen candidate," I'd say that the same thing I said earlier.

    But NOW isn't in the business of locating candidates to challenge incumbents...is it?

    However, the caustic letter your talking about came from one state-level NOW chapter head...not the National NOW operation, which BTW wrote a pretty decent response to Ted's endorsement.

    In this case, the her opinion |= national NOW position.

    Parent

    I Thought It Was National NOW (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:25:51 PM EST
    That wrote the letter, but I was mistaken it was the NY chapter. And, thanks for the heads up, I just read the national chapter's response and it was quite mitigating.

    In any case if a candidate if something illegal is being done then there should be an investigation. Short of that I do not see the fine distinctions that you do. It seems like politics is a dirty business, and those who are truly above playing hardball could not survive.

    Not sure you are but, If you are arguing that Obama is a dirty player and Clinton is a Saint you need to check into rehab.

    Parent

    I'm arguing that if party operatives (none / 0) (#123)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:26:27 AM EST
    (or folks who can and do make 'challenge the incumbent' decisions) are wandering around threatening SDs with primaries unless they change their support from one candidate to the other, then they need to stop.

    Generally speaking, those folks aren't the constituents. And they aren't organizations like NOW. NOW supports the candidate after the candidates are chosen or decide to run.

    And no, I don't think this "threat" thing is coming from either of the candidates.

    Parent

    Hill has tough row to hoe (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by nellre on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:50:35 PM EST
    'A man who gets angry at work may well be admired for it but a woman who shows anger in the workplace is liable to be seen as "out of control" and incompetent, according to a new study presented Friday.'
    ...
    '"As Senator Clinton's experience suggests, however, for a professional woman anger expression may lead to a decrease rather than an increase in her status," Brescoll wrote.'

    Workplace anger -- who wins

    'Overall, women are expected to feel comfort in expressing happiness, sadness, and fear and to feel reluctance in exhibiting anger and pride; men are expected to display the obverse pattern (Kelly & Hutson-Comeaux, 1999; Plant, Hyde, Keltner, & Devine, 2000).'

    Issues of anger in the workplace: do gender and gender role matter?

    I should be posting this over at dailykos but I always feel a need for a bath after going there.

    It's Still The Media, Stupid! (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:23:00 PM EST
    As has already been pointed out, CNN hosted an informal and unscientific survey last night, the question being, has the news media treated Hillary Clinton unfairly?  Respondents overwhelmingly voted "YES"  Then, of course, they went right back to treating Hillary unfairly.  That reminds me of back, long ago, when I used to watch MSNBC.  Dan Abrams had a segment that ran several nights where he would argue forcefully his notion that the media is treating Hillary unfairly.  He would then run his segment on "Missteps and Miscues" where he would assign demerits to the candidate for that day's misstatements.  Almost without exception, Hillary would end up with 3-1 more of his demerits.  Not so much because she makes more misstatements, mind you, but because the threshold for her statements making the segment were much lower than Obamam's.  For BHO to make the list, he would pretty much have to out-right lie or make a completely inaccurate and indignant statement, whereas Hillary routinely made the list for much lesser transgressions.  It is hypocrisy run wild.

    Lately, the news media is doing everything is it's power to keep the Tusla non-story alive, while at the same time, giving Obama every excuse and pass for his misstatements about his parents, the Selma march, etc.  A steady stream of OBH supporters are being presented to make the case that Hillary is a lying, conniving, pandering, evil witch, and Obama is a truth-telling saint.  The latest excuses for BHO's misstatements are that he wasn't alive during his parent's first meeting, so he doesn't know the story is false when he tells it (same for his other stories)  What a sham!  Are they telling us that he is incapable of doing the math?  Do they suggest he believes the stories are important enough to tell us, but not to think about logically?  

    I have always supported Hillary, but my support becomes stronger with every BS slanted news story I see or read.  I mean, the same organizations that brought us the great war to spread democracy throughout the Middle East are engaged in the assassination of one of our candidates.  Something it very wrong about that.


    Gitmo Detainee (none / 0) (#3)
    by The Maven on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:43:56 AM EST
    To me, the salient point here is that this detainee was indicted by regular civilian courts (I hate having to use that back-formation to distinguish them from these military tribunals) nearly ten years ago, and he was captured in Pakistan in 2004.  Wasn't one of the Bush Administration's key reasons for the tribunals that they would be able to move far more speedily than regualr criminal trials?  Of course, that's proven to be completely specious because of the legitimate challenges that have been brought against the CSRTs, several of which are tied up at varying levels of the federal courts.
    In an interview, General Hartmann said officials were aware of the 1998 civilian indictment, but were proceeding with a military case at Guantánamo. "That's the avenue the president, the Congress and the Department of Defense" established, he said, "to deal with alleged war crimes in connection with the global war on terror."
    So the GWOT has now been backdated so that it began more than two years before Bill Clinton left office, and rules put in place in 2005 and 2006 (the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Tribunal Act) are now applicable for crimes committed in 1998.  What was that little thing in the Constitution about ex post facto laws?  I suppose we can't worry about that pesky ol' Constitution, since it's not a suicide pact, after all.

    Delegate Math: Hillary Has a Decent\Chance (none / 0) (#13)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:58:28 AM EST
    Certainly better than the "5%" ridiculous number that is being bandied about in the media.

    Here is the delegate scenario if Michigan and Florida are not counted:

    Below, numbers go like this: Existing delegate total + estimate that they split remaining delegates in the final states + Hillary picks up the winner-takes-all Puerto Rico delegates + estimate that they split John Edwards' 18 delegates = total + remaining super delegates needed to win and in parentheses, the percentage of remaining supers needed to win:

    BO  1627+ 258 +  0+9 = 1,894 + 131SDs Needed(40%)
    HRC 1497+ 258 +55+9 = 1,819 + 206SDs Needed(60%)

    This is assuming that at the end 333 super delegates are still undecided and used to reach the necessary 2025 delegate victory margin.

    Here is the delegate scenario if Florida and Michigan are included and assuming that Hillary wins those by a total margin of 41 delegates:

    BO  1627+258+ 0+9+136 = 2030 + 178 SDs Needed (46%)
    HRC1497+258+55+9+177 = 1996 + 212 SDs Needed (54%)

    This is assuming that at the end, 388 super delegates are undecided and used to reach the "FL and MI included" magic number of 2,208.

    So, worse case scenario is that Hillary will have to convince 60% of the super delegates to vote for her. If she wins the popular vote and is leading Obama in the national polls, this doesn't seem that difficult -- especially with Bill Clinton, a President that many of these supers owe big favors, making a personal sales pitch.  

    Is that last part true? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:12:37 PM EST
    especially with Bill Clinton, a President that many of these supers owe big favors, making a personal sales pitch

    I know there is a real split in the party on Bill Clinton.  There are people who love him but plenty who don't.  I have no idea how that split is reflected in the superdelegates. Even those who theoretically owe him may not come through (see, e.g., Bill Richardson). Anyone have any insight?

    Parent

    There should be no need for arm-twisting ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:24:20 PM EST
    If she wins the popular vote and is leading Obama in the national polls ...

    ... then the superdelegates should do their job and pick the candidate with the best chance of winning the GE.

    Parent

    I have a sense that... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:34:41 PM EST
    ...the remaining undecided supers have serious doubts about Obama and are looking for cover to vote for Clinton. That cover would include the popular vote argument or Hillary having meaningful momentum. If that occurs, there is no question in my mind that the supers will break for Hillary, but it will be close.

    Parent
    I don't know if anyone has done a... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:29:15 PM EST
    ...comprehensive break down of where the super delegates stand. In Iowa, for example, it is Clinton with four supers, Obama three, and four still undecided. However, of those four undecided Harkin is a longtime Clinton ally, newly elected Rep. Braley had both Clintons in too campaign for him, and Gronstal is a longtime Clinton guy. So, it varies from state to state, but if other state's are like Iowa's then Clinton has got a reasonable chance to win.  I will also say, at least in Iowa, none of the four undecided super delegates would be swayed by "Obama won more delegates" argument or vote for Obama for any other ridiculous reasons being circulated for why Clinton has "no chance."

    Parent
    I believe demconwatch (none / 0) (#66)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:11:01 PM EST
    is the closest you will find for tracking the superdelegates.  Link

    Parent
    Awesome! I'm going to send an email to as many... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:45:06 PM EST
    ...as possible asking that they not consider the pleged delegate count and consider other things including Michigan and Florida, overall popular vote, and electability it battleground states in making their decision.

    Parent
    The biggest thing (none / 0) (#49)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    you're ignoring is that HRC will never have the elected delegate lead.  Even you're best case scenario assumes that HRC uses SD's to beat BO.  At that point you will have told the single most loyal Democratic voting block, "too bad for you, the party powerful have decided to go in a different direction, we know what's best, you'll just have to trust us."

    Second, look at what SD's would be required.  1)She would need party insiders, not just elected government officials.  Yes, I know the HRC line is that these non-government insiders are elected within the party, but that definition of elected won't hold up.  2) Don't forget there are many more outstanding SDs in states won by BO than there are in HRC states.  3) Add-on SDs favor BO.

    Third, FL will not be having a revote.  The Chair of the FL D Party said it was impossible, regardless of anything BO or HRC may want.

    Fourth, MI is very unlikely to happen.  There are a lot of logistical and legal problems that are not unlike the issues that derailed FL (The DNC did not sign off on an MI plan, they gave a you can proceed to the next phase thumbs up.)  And, if there is some miracle revote, the contest will need to be as fair as possible to both sides, which is a challenge since the first unauthorized vote does have a residual impact.  

    The reason people talk about HRC having little chance is because of the details.  If you ignore the details things look a lot better for her.  

    Parent

    Where does single most loyal Democratic (none / 0) (#67)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:12:48 PM EST
    voting block come from?

    Parent
    White Women are Democrats Largest... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:32:42 PM EST
    ...voting block. Do we risk alienating them by not awarding the person that got the most support?

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#80)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    Yes, the DNC  did sign off on a Michigan revote plan.

    Parent
    Documentation? (none / 0) (#91)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:49:35 PM EST
    Read the whole thing.  You'll see a final sign off was not achieved.

    Parent
    I'll agree to disagree... the point is that... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:38:33 PM EST
    ... Hillary has got a very reasonable chance of winning and the "5% meme" is a case of the pundits reporting on themselves and creating an impression with the voters-- and possibly the super delegates-- that Hillary winning is an impossability and that she is on some sort of delusional power trip that will destroy the party. That is simply not true.

    Parent
    Howard Dean (none / 0) (#20)
    by Lil on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    I just caught him on the Ed Schultz radio show. He's sounds pretty adamant (stubborn) that the "rules are the rules". Doesn't sound too good for Fla. and Michegan being counted. I can't believe the DNC wants to alienate those voters. It seems nuts to me.

    Plans (none / 0) (#27)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:15:07 PM EST
    I think he plans for the delegations to be seated at the convention, which means after the nominee is chosen.  That's BS, of course, and I hope he and the DNC won't get away with it.


    Parent
    If he does this at the convention (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:34:32 PM EST
    And BHO is the nominee, you disenfranchise both states and women voters.

    Some Democratic strategists have warned of damage to the party's chances in November if women -- especially the older, white working-class women who are Clinton's base -- sense a mostly male party establishment is unfairly muscling her out of the race. Women make up the majority of Democratic voters nationwide.

    I found that interesting on the Yahoo A/P story. That is why there is an about face of the elders wanting her to quit. It didn't go well. But why do they think women have short memories? We sometimes ignore slights but we remember.

    Parent
    He was on MSNBC too... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    O'Donnell was asking him something.

    Parent
    has anyone seen videos on TV of Obama (none / 0) (#29)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:18:15 PM EST
    "misspeaking" about his father's connection to the Kennedy family?
    I didn't expect headlines shouting "Obama bamboozles Kennedy family" but this is about Obama creating a false narrative about his life - not just one event - assisting in obtaining the Kennedy endorsement.

    The Selma speech (none / 0) (#64)
    by anniethena on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:09:56 PM EST
     at least, part of it, is here

    The Kennedy lift and his personal claim on Selma comes near the end.

    Parent

    but have the videos been on TV? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:35:11 PM EST
    The media aired the Bosnia videos 24/7.

    Parent
    Ok, here is a REALLY different question, (none / 0) (#31)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:19:52 PM EST
    which has little to do with the race. It's about the death penalty and the ethics and morality of being a political leader.
    I oppose the death penalty primarily on pragmatic grounds. The cost is high and the benefits are very limited, if any. I believe a society which does not kill its own citizens for crimes has taken a step forward, just as with socities that do not torture.. (sigh.
    However, I have no problem in principle with the government taking lives. Obviously any decision to go to war involves agreeing to kill people, and in a war, the deaths are not "just" at all, compared with meting out the death penalty.
    The larger point is that many government decisions have demonstrable life and death consequences, far more extensive than the effects of the death penalty. I'm thinking about decisions such as where to locate coal-fired power plants, or where you set the allowable levels of mercury or lead.
    I want a Presidents who understand that the decisions of the Federal government on a whole range of questions are really life and death matters.
    Who is the candidate who most embodies this value?


    You can take that premise (none / 0) (#43)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:34:43 PM EST
    and run all over the place with it.

    Climate Change is my primary concern because frankly, it has the potential to kill billions in the coming century.  Droughts, famines, resource wars, natural disasters are all probable consequences of Climate Crises.

    And you can frame almost anything in terms of lives lost - but can you quantify it?  Can you say that Action A will cost X lives and Action B will cost Y lives?  What about saving 1 life now which will cost 10 lives in ten years?

    And we haven't even touched quality of life...

    Parent

    Sure. In some cases, though, the (none / 0) (#46)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:37:39 PM EST
    effects are quantifiable and predictable---with coal  burning power plants, for example.

    The GOP treats these questions with a great deal of flippancy, IMO. They only care about directly measurable life and death decisions, which means the death penalty and war.

    Parent

    No, you are wrong there. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:46:54 PM EST
    The GOP concerns itself with Moral Superiority.

    The appearance of being on the side of Justice and Good - not on how many people live or die.

    I argued with someone on dk once about the bias inherent in "innocent victims".  Victims are victims - they are neither "innocent" or "guilty".  (Heard anyone talk about "guilty victims" much?)  It's a right wing meme - the death penalty is okay because the the criminal is Guilty.  War is okay because we are the Good Guys and they are the Bad Guys.  Abortion is bad because it kills millions of innocent proto-humans, er, Babies.

    Read Glenn Greenwald's latest post.  He doesn't cover those memes particularly, but he does cover the rightwing mindset and framing.  

    Parent

    I don't see how we are disagreeing. (none / 0) (#78)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    I didn't say that Republicans care about minimizing death in war or with the death penalty---obviously the reverse is true.

    Parent
    The GOP selectively counts deaths. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:02:42 PM EST
    They'll raise the roof over one child killed by a sexual predator, but ignore hundreds more killed by criminals on the street or lack of medical care.  Environmental fatalities?  Very low on their list.

    And poor brown people in those Other Countries?  Generally, not Our Problem.

    So my question is - how do you count deaths caused and lives saved?  

    Parent

    Neither candidate (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:48:47 PM EST
    will oppose the death penalty. They both support it. They both have good records on legislation aimed at reducing the chances an innocent person will be sentenced to death. Obama pushed death penalty reforms as a state senator and Hillary was an early supporter of the 2002 Innocence Protection Act -- the good one before Leahy and others agreed to water it down which resulted in a weaker modified version being passed.

    In 2004, for the first time in years, and at the insistence of John Kerry, support for the death penalty was removed from the Democratic party platform. It will be interesting to see if it stays out this year.

    Parent

    The death penalty (none / 0) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:25:10 PM EST
    argument cannot be won in this country on the basis of its basic immorality.  No politician with national ambitions can advocate outright abolition.  The stronger argument by far is the impossibilty of applying it correctly and fairly.  If it has to be applied correctly and fairly, it can't be applied at all because that's impossible.  So I'm inclined to give pols who say they support the death penalty "if" a break.

    Proponents of the DP can't bring themselves to believe anyone truly innocent of the crime could ever be executed, yet we know it's surely happened just by the odds.

    The first time somebody is completely exonerated posthumously for the crime he/she was executed for, I think the shock waves will have a huge effect on suport for the DP.
     

    Parent

    No brainer Mark.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:48:41 PM EST
    Ralph Nader is the candidate who most embodies the values you mentioned.  

     

    Parent

    Wel, he used to. Since he supported Bush (none / 0) (#96)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:04:01 PM EST
    over Gore in 2000, I would say he embodies their antithesis now.

    Parent
    I think Nader.... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:12:00 PM EST
    voted for Nader, not Bush.

    Only if psuedo-progressive Al Gore hadn't stolen all of Nader's votes back in 2000...oh what might have been!

    Parent

    fabian, that isn't very hard to do: (none / 0) (#40)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:30:02 PM EST
    Besides, I like that it makes Republican men look like they are a-skeered.

    drop a book in a room, and they'll mostly wet their pants. when you pretty much hate everyone, being scared is probably a good survival technique! lol

    aw geez jeralyn, i find him entertaining, in that "gee, isn't it amazing that a dog can do that without having opposable thumbs?" kind of way. plus, he's soooooooooooooo easy! lol

    ......that are intended to annoy other readers here.

    exeter, an intangible that could well happen: sen. clinton blows sen. obama out of the water in most of the remaining primaries, building popular vote, delegate #'s and, most importantly, momentum going into the convention.

    more negative sounding tidbits come floating out of sen. obama's closet in the meantime. it's not a completely unlikely scenario that previously pledged superdelegates change their endorsement to sen. clinton, adding to her tally.

    as i understand it (please, someone correct me if i'm wrong), those delegates can change their minds up to the actual convention votes.

    AFAIK (none / 0) (#47)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:38:18 PM EST
    Until those votes are tallied and recorded, nothing is official.  That would be at the convention proper - but there would really be hell to pay if all 50 states vote, SDs choose and then the apparent decision is reversed at the convention.

    I think the only reason that the SDs are being pressured to choose is to get Hillary to. drop. out.

    Parent

    Cleaver talking out of both sides of his mouth (none / 0) (#44)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:34:58 PM EST
    Cleaver's bluntness

    He made a football analogy of his support for Clinton.

    "Even though I don't expect the Kansas City Chiefs to beat the Indianapolis Colts, I cheer for the Kansas City Chiefs," he said, and goes on to cast it in terms of friendship and personal loyalty.

    What a great Clinton supporter!

    Updated Mississippi delgate count (none / 0) (#54)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:50:06 PM EST
    20-13 Obama over Clinton.

    MS was not a pyrrhic victory. (none / 0) (#60)
    by halstoon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:57:51 PM EST
    Before the MS primary, I went out on a limb and said Obama would win MS soundly in delegates, unlike in AL where his 15-point win only got him 2 extra delegates.

    I was right. Obama ended up with a 20-13 delegate margin, making MS decidedly not pyrrhic.

    DNC rules question? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    Does anybody know or can they quote if there is a specific official written DNC rule that describes who wins a nomination if neither candidates reaches the required delegate goal after all the primaries are over.  In other words is there an official rule by the DNC that says whoever got closer to the required delegates will be considered the winner.      I find it very hard to believe that all the SD will automatically switch to the leading candidate even after all the primaries are over with.   Is there also an official DNC rule that looks at electability  in deciding the nominee.

    From Wikipedia (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:47:18 PM EST
    "Delegate selection rules

    Under the Democratic Party's Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention,[12] delegates are awarded by proportional representation, with a minimum 15% threshold required in order to receive delegates. Each state party is required to publish its own state level delegate selection plan and take public comment. The plans indicate how each state will select delegates at the congressional and statewide level, how the delegation will implement the party's affirmative action policy, and how the delegation will ensure an equal balance between women and men. Those plans were adopted at state conventions and forwarded to the national party in mid-2007.

    In caucuses, the viability threshold (15.2% or higher depending on the caucus) must be met at each level in the process, from the precinct level upwards. This puts enormous pressure on the remaining candidates to gain the support of voters whose chosen candidates fall below the 15% threshold.[13][14] The focus on viability is designed to weed out small, divisive factions from gaining delegates to disrupt the national convention. However, this can result in candidates gaining viability in some precincts but not in others, and a complicated "caucus math" is required to allocate delegates to the county and state conventions for each precinct.[15] (The exception is Washington, whose delegate selection plan does not include thresholds at the precinct level.) In the primaries, the viability threshold is set based on statewide and congressional district votes. At-large and PLEO (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) delegates are allocated based on statewide votes, while district-level delegates are allocated by district votes.[16]

    Although journalists at several news outlets[17][18] have indicated that Puerto Rico's 63 delegates will all be awarded to a single candidate rather than proportionally, the party's Delegate Selection Plan states that delegates are to be allocated in a manner similar to other state caucuses.[19] The Washington Post Fact Checker has determined that the "winner take all" Puerto Rican primary is a myth.[20] The misconception is derived from the fact that by the time Puerto Rico votes, late in the primary season, there is often only one candidate still on the ballot."

    ===========

    "Brokered convention

    In most modern United States presidential primaries, the Democratic nominee is known well in advance of the official nomination at the Democratic National Convention. Typically, a presumptive nominee emerges when one candidate receives a majority of the available pledged delegates and superdelegates, and all other candidates drop out of the race.

    If no candidate receives a clear majority of delegates, the party may head into the convention without a nominee. This is known as a brokered convention. The nominee is then determined by a series of floor votes at the convention, which may be preceded by negotiations among the party leaders and candidates. Pledged delegates and superdelegates may switch their support, and negotiations continue until one candidate receives a majority of votes. The last brokered Democratic convention was in 1952.

    Sometimes the term "brokered convention" is used loosely to refer to any process by which party leaders negotiate among themselves to bring an end to the nominating process. For example, in 2008, if neither of the candidates were to receive a majority of delegates by the final primaries on June 3, party leaders could step in to broker a deal by which superdelegates could come together to provide clear support for a candidate before the August 25 convention."

    Parent

    Nobody officially wins (none / 0) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:36:10 PM EST
    the nomination until the votes are formally cast at the convention and all the balloons come down from the ceiling.  However, it's been a very long time since that convention vote was in doubt, hence the term "presumptive nominee."

    Parent
    Still don't know how you determine the winner. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:50:13 PM EST
    If no one gets to the magic number then how does the convention determine the winner if the delegates from each state are going to stick to their original pledge. At the convention don't they ask each state how they their delegation votes, Hilary or Obama?  After all the voting at the convention is over by each state what happens if no one has the required magic number.  Looks like after this election is over the DNC needs to make new rules just to make sure this never happens again.  One of the rules that should be enacted after this election is there will be no more SD.  Another rule should be every state needs to have primaries only with no caucuses.  

    Parent
    You're leaving out the supers (none / 0) (#114)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:41:02 PM EST
    Their votes are cast with their state delegations.  Everybody votes, somebody comes out the winner.  It's really very straightforward once it gets to the actual convention, and I think you're making it a lot more complicated than it is.

    Each state delegation leader in turn steps to the microphone and announces the vote totals for his/her state.  When a candidate reaches the "magic number," there's a great hoo-hah, balloons fall from the roof, everybody cheers and parades up and down the aisles, blah, blah, blah.

    Parent

    In a regular election yes (none / 0) (#116)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:13:29 PM EST
    but not in this one.  No one at the convention will get the to the magic number of 2023 even after all the states vote  Both candidates will be short even if you count the SD votes.  The SD are not going to vote in one block to one candidate.  They are going to be the Obama SD and the Clinton SD. Neither candidate will reach  the magic number after all the voting is done.  So the questions remains how do you determine the winner at the convention in this election.

    Parent
    Saul, I don't know (none / 0) (#118)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:26:13 PM EST
    what the hang-up here is, but you must have some piece of info stuck in your head that isn't right.  The "magic number" is the majority of the total delegates.  Total delegates equals pledged delegates plus superdelegates, no more and no less.  A majority of that number is the "magic number."

    The Dem Party may be a bit crazy, but not so crazy they'd set up a system where nobody can win.  The system is that whoever gets a majority of the delegates wins the nomination.

    Parent

    Not trying to be difficult here (none / 0) (#119)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:05:50 PM EST
    but I think you are wrong on what constitutes a majority.  I did some checking and  according to the rules the magic number must be 2025 not just a plain majority or whoever has the most pledge and SD votes like you say.  Only this number is what is acceptable as a majority or the magic number at the convention. Without 2025 you do not have a nominee. Many have said that neither candidate will reach this magic number at the convention so then you have to have a broker convention which then involves back room dealing with the candidates and the brokers  trying to make some of the delegates to change their mind in order for one candidate to get to that magic number.  Haven't had a broker convention since 1952.

    Rules

    On February 2, 2007, the Democratic Party published 'Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention'[4], the rules governing the convention. There will be 3,253 pledged delegates, those committed to vote for a particular candidate, selected by primary voters and caucus participants. There will be about 795 unpledged delegates, those free to vote for any candidate, colloquially known as superdelegates, for a total of about 4,048 delegates, requiring 2,025 votes to constitute a majority of the convention. (This figure includes zero delegates for Michigan and Florida, which would have 313 pledged delegates and about 54 unpledged delegates, so if those states are awarded delegates, the total number of delegates to achieve a majority will be greater than 2,025

    Brokered convention

    With the number of delegates being extremely close between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the possibility has arisen that this may be the first brokered convention in over half a century, something DNC chairman Howard Dean has warned against.[16] The hypothetical situation of a brokered convention and a dispute over seating the delegates from the two disqualified states has led some commentators to compare it with the 1968 Democratic National Convention, which ended in a divided party and unhappiness over the outcome.[

    The Democrats should have a better way in their rules to make sure there is never a broker convention.

    Parent

    A "brokered convention" (none / 0) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:23:44 AM EST
    simply means that there are superdelegate hold-outs who haven't declared one way or the other and the difference between the two candidates is within the margin of that number.  If nobody has reached the "magic number" before the convention, then madness ensues as the two sides try to make deals to get those remaining supers to vote for them, while not losing the support of others.

    Trust me, we will not have a convention where nobody wins. :-)

    Bear in mind, too, that the "magic number" depends on whether you count all the FLA and MI delegates or none or half.  That hasn't been decided yet.  Maybe that's the missing piece in your math?

    Parent

    You may be missing the key phrase (none / 0) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:25:57 AM EST
    in the Wikipedia entry you quote, "With the number of delegates being extremely close."  That's the scenario I'm talking about.

    Parent
    What is the point of posting? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:35:02 PM EST
    Other than race baiting?  

    It's race baiting and will be deleted. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:50:08 PM EST
    Thank you... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:04:00 PM EST
    Ickes and rules are rules (none / 0) (#83)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:43:42 PM EST
    While I support Obama I'm sympathetic to Clinton supporters complaints that the framing of the MI/FL issue by the media and many blogs has been way off.  The rules did not require stripping all delegates, the default penalty was stripping half.  So I just don't understand why Harold Ickes is going around saying stuff like this in explaining why we voted for stripping the delegates as a member of the DNC:

    Ickes explained that his different position essentially is due to the different hats he wears as both a DNC member and a Clinton adviser in charge of delegate counting. Clinton won the primary vote in Michigan and Florida, and now she wants those votes to count.

    "There's been no change," Ickes said. "I was not acting as an agent of Mrs. Clinton. We had promulgated rules, and those rules said the timing provision . . . provides for certain sanctions, automatic sanctions as a matter of fact, if a state such as Michigan or Florida violates those timing provisions.

    "With respect to the stripping, I voted as a member of the Democratic National Committee. Those were our rules, and I felt I had an obligation to enforce them," he said.

    Someone is going to say, if they have not already, that he was for stripping the delegates before he was against it.  Clinton needs to figure out a better way to deal with this problem and get Ickes out of this part of the discussion.

    Guess what? (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:48:49 PM EST
    People in Michigan and Florida don't care who was for what and when they were for or against it.  They just want their d*** votes counted.

    Parent
    What happened to The Agonist?... (none / 0) (#103)
    by desertswine on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:36:54 PM EST
    I can't seem to find it.

    Murdoch's Daughter Hosts Obama Fund-Raiser (none / 0) (#104)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:38:55 PM EST
    Guess all the Hillary had a Murdoch fundraiser can now be squelched.  

    link (none / 0) (#105)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:40:01 PM EST
    It's called hedging your bets.... (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:55:59 PM EST
    Murdoch wants favors from our govt....the best way to guarantee that is to give to all 3 of the stooges.

    If he hasn't held one for McCain, he will.

    Parent

    Anyone care bout this letter (none / 0) (#112)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:13:58 PM EST
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/substance_abuse.html

    Lies being floated about how great he is v/s Hillary
    It's been reported on Ben Smith .. is it 1st April Joke?


    My Favorite Video (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:23:11 PM EST
    Of the day, or even the week. Flying penguins.

    HAH!! Thanks. (none / 0) (#127)
    by desertswine on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:16:38 PM EST
    What is black liberation theology? (none / 0) (#115)
    by countme on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:48:37 PM EST
    I'm a little confused about the tenents. Obama in his speach that we should engage in an open discussion so we can gain a better understanding about racism. However I think the discussion is not so much about racisim but the basis of his  theology in which his church is founded.

    10 questions for Obama (none / 0) (#124)
    by thereyougo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:37:44 AM EST
    that will be asked by the Rs should he become the nominee.

    http://tinyurl.com/2moown