home

Tuesday Open Thread

I'm sure there's lots of news today, but I won't be around to write about it for several hours, so here's a place for you to fill us all in with what's going on and your thoughts.

As always, please keep it civil.

NOTE - Comments closed.

< Judge Weinstein: Juries Should Know If Mandatory Minimum Applies | SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 18 >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    SUSA: Clinton Up by 18 in Pennsylvania (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:46:40 AM EST
    Interesting and thanks for the link. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:48:58 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Qpac showing it within 6 points (none / 0) (#6)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:52:35 AM EST
    I would want to see another poll or two confirming that SUSA movement, as all the polls in the last week apart from this seem to show dramatic tightening in the race in PA.

    [ Parent ]
    Hilarious... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:55:02 AM EST
    Daily Kos has the SUSA national numbers in a story on the front page, but no mention of the PA poll. It's like the North Korean News Bureau.  

    [ Parent ]
    It's natural to a degree. (none / 0) (#72)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:32:46 AM EST
    The Hillary supporting commenters on here were hardly shouting the Qpac numbers from the rooftops either.  In fact it was comments about Obama supporters plugging "faux" poll numbers.

    The front page at Kos has a pro Obama bent,  just as the front page here has a pro Clinton bent.  Mydd is probably split down the middle (at least for the front page posts).   If you want impartial coverage of the primary you should not be expecting it from either Dailykos or Talkleft.  

    [ Parent ]

    what is Qpac's reliability history? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:46:06 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Couldn't comment on the reliability of Qpac (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:51:03 AM EST
    though I understand they are a well respected outfit.  However their numbers are well in line with other recent polls,  whereas the new SUSA numbers are bucking the trend.  It may well be that the new SUSA numbers are picking up a new dynamic with voters breaking back to Clinton . . .  or it could be an outlier.  

    e.g. polls in the last week,

    ARG - all square
    Qpac -  Clinton by 6
    IA - Clinton  by 3
    Muhlenberg - Clinton by 10
    PPP - Obama by 2
    Rasmussen - Clinton by 5

    pollster.com

    [ Parent ]

    Surprising (none / 0) (#18)
    by willie on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:05:17 AM EST
    poll to be sure. If this poll is accurate and holds up through the primary, I will admit that Sen. Clinton has every right to stay in this race.
    I got to tell you though, that living in Pa. it sure does not feel like Clinton has regained the momentum. Also, a Quinnipiac poll was released today which shows Clintons lead srinking from 12 to 6%, which is consistent with most other polls, and also consistent with Obama's increasing lead nationally.
    As I said, if she wins Pa. big, she should definitely stay in. On the other hand if she  ekes out a victory and is crushed 2 weeks later in N.C., she should really get out of the race.

    [ Parent ]
    No, she shouldn't.. (none / 0) (#118)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:00:05 AM EST
    If Obama can't fight to the finish for the nomination, he has no business being in the GE. It's about being able to go the distance, and so far he hasn't had to do that in an election. He managed to get his opponents in the Dem primary for Senator disqualified, and his election opponents self-destructed. So, he needs to prove he can win a campaign fair and square, without people dropping out to give him the win. So far, he hasn't gone the distance in any election. Except the one he lost for Congress.

    [ Parent ]
    do you know anything about (none / 0) (#122)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:01:26 AM EST
    states holding later primaries receiving 30% more delegates?
    Supposedly the May 6 primaries are in this category.


    [ Parent ]
    I'm hope you are feeling clever today (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:32:21 AM EST
    Because this is the pdf of that rules. Pages 1 and 2 cover what you are looking for. Good luck!

    The short answer (if you don't feel like reading that) is it depends when your primary is this year and when it was in 2004 as to how many bonus delegates you receive.

    [ Parent ]

    thank you! (none / 0) (#197)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:52:14 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It might be an outlier, it might be (none / 0) (#36)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:14:44 AM EST
    catching a reversal in the trend.  It's too soon to say without another poll or two confirming the reversal in the trend.

    [ Parent ]
    SUSA Internals of Pennsylvania Poll (none / 0) (#186)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:43:24 AM EST
    Link

    [ Parent ]
    interesting internals on that poll. (none / 0) (#210)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:00:12 PM EST
    one thing i found almost fascinating: there are actually still "undecideds". at this point, what else could you possibly need to know about either candidate, to enable you to make a decision?

    perhaps, they might consider adding a dartboard to the voting booths, just in case. lol

    [ Parent ]

    Watching the Petraeus hearing... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:47:32 AM EST
    Levin is pressing him hard, especially regarding actions of Iraqi leaders in Basra.

    Clinton is up now (none / 0) (#178)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:37:27 AM EST
    Asking about long-term stationing of forces agreement.  Asked if Iraqi parliament has to ratify - "yes".  Will administration put it before congress - "no plans to".  

    Now moving on to lack of progress by Iraqi government.

    [ Parent ]

    I just have to say I'm diappointed with Daily Kos (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Universal on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:03:01 AM EST
    Not that it will come as a shock to anyone.

    I have only been by there once in the last few weeks for any amount of time, since the Hillary Bloggers' strike/boycott of the site.

    Anyways, I heard that people were cheering that Charlton Heston died, and with little dignity or restraint at the site.

    People, grow up. I know that DK has sunk to all-time nadirs as it has been overrun with Obama brownshirt imitators, but that's the kind of thing which gives all blogs and bloggers a bad name.

    Charlton Heston marched with Martin Luther King and voted for JFK before he became the 2nd Amendment Moses. Heston also had a long, debilitating bout with Alzheimer's before his death at 84.

    Look, I didn't like the guy either. But throwing parties when someone dies makes you look like the Miami refugee community holding parades when they heard that Castro caught a cold.

    Have some respect, please. If not for your fellow man, at least for yourselves.

    .

    Here is a post I made over at my brother's site with two videos I shot after seeing Bill Clinton speak in PA about 2.5 weeks ago. The discussion is about Clinton vs Obama. It isn't anything revelatory, but some might enjoy it. I also discuss why I chose the blog name "Universal" (some of you know why) and how that relates to Hillary in the second video:

    http://www.villarrealsports.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=349

    Hope everyone's having an excellent day.

    :)

    I'm not going to say I spend lots of time (none / 0) (#30)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:11:10 AM EST
    on dailykos,  but I tend to read almost everything on the front page and skim the recommended diaries.  I haven't seen anything along the lines of what you describe about Charlton Heston, and having a browse just now I still don't see anything.  That doesn't mean there isn't something on there somewhere given that anyone can post a diary,  and that in such a large community there will always be some who take it a bit too seriously.  

    [ Parent ]
    Do a search, read the comments. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Burned on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    The jokes aren't too original, but there are a ton of them.


    [ Parent ]
    After New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, and (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by FLVoter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:06:38 AM EST
    Ohio and Texas polls, I stopped following polls.  When Sen. Clinton wins, its a rush to discuss how the polls could be so wrong. Since I was living in Florida in 2000, I do not even follow exit polls.  All I care about are the actual results, which in this race seem to vary from alot of the polls.  BTW, HBO is airing "Recount" next month addressing the 2000 Florida vote.  Since I lived it, should be interesting to see HBO's take on it.

    I'm looking forward to seeing that. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:21:13 AM EST
    Hope it doesn't upset me all over again. Guess 8 years is enough to come to grips with it.

    [ Parent ]
    I know what you mean. I was one of those (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by FLVoter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:41:36 AM EST
    protestors outside of the Broward County Courthouse.  The only good thing that came out of that is that I met alot of good people and that incident kept me politically active.  Thanks to that incident the alot of democrats in my district (which are out numbered by the republicans) have been able to actively work to replace republicans.  I think our best win was ousting Rep. Clay Shaw and replacing him with Ron Klein.  Now if we can oust the Florida House Whip Ellyn Bogdanoff that would be great.

    [ Parent ]
    SUSA has had the best polling this season overall (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:07:53 AM EST
    Still, who cares about polls? Let's wait for the vote before we declare winners and losers.

    since Obama has won the contest in the internet (none / 0) (#55)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:24:47 AM EST
    his starry eyed supporters only WISH it was so in the REAL WORLD. BTW, what was the projection in Texas? Hillary won the popular vote but of course, he won the caucuses.

    Who can blame Obama's quixotic supporters when he floats ideas that a win for him would be to come in under 10%!  Only in his world is a win a loss. Oy !

    Hillary has been speaking each week about what she'll do on jobs, breast cancer, while Obama is so preoccupied with the numbers its all that we hear.

    Plus, I'm wondering if any of his 30 sec. ads have some kind of subliminal messages in them. Outrageous? not really.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is losing ground in the black community.. (none / 0) (#102)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:52:21 AM EST
    This is a copy of the comment that I made on another thread, relating how the black community in CHICAGO feels about Obama, or at least Michelle.

    I was having a conversation just now with my friend Margaret, and she told me about free screenings for black patients across the country, it's a concerted effort by the black community to enhance the health care in their communities. At the screenings in Chicago, Michelle Obama wanted to come and be there, it wasn't the hospital where she works. She just wanted to get the free publicity for caring about black health care. She was told not to come by the black organizers. Hillary had already made appearances at several screening sites and will go the one in Memphis when she gets there today. Hillary has already stated what funding she will try to get for this program. This is what the black community is looking for in a candidate, not flowery oratory and opportunism.

    So, Obama may be gaining in the blogs, but his support in the black community is starting to erode. They seem to have woken up and looked at him as a person, not a black man, and they don't like what they see, or hear. And it didn't go over well at all that he "dissed" Martin Luther King by not going to Memphis. Here in FL, Hillary is the preferred Dem candidate in the black community that I am in touch with. They know what she has done for them over the years, and what Obama hasn't.

    [ Parent ]

    The longtime AA Illinois Legislators (none / 0) (#130)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:09:48 AM EST
    aren't too fond of him either. Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, took legislation that many AA legislators had worked on FOR YEARS and gave it to Obama to present as "his own" legislation just so Mr. Hope could have a record of passing legislation when he ran for President. Emil Jones GROOMED Mr. Hope for his presidential run. Needless to say, many of those legislators whose bills were taken by Mr. Hope, aren't very fond of him. Bobby Rush had "issues" with him also....until Jesse Jackson changed his mind for him. Mr. Hope tried to take Bobby Rush's House seat in 2000, but LOST.

    [ Parent ]
    And that was the only election where he ran (none / 0) (#228)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    without having his opponents eliminated in the primary by Obama's finding faults in their nominating petitions, or done in by revelations of misconduct. It's the only election where Obama has had to go to the wire, and he lost. No wonder his supporters keep telling Hillary to drop out, it's how Obama is used to winning..by default.

    [ Parent ]
    he's not only gaining on the blogs, (none / 0) (#149)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:23:13 AM EST
    they have had their inaugural day, crowned him,and passed around kool-aid.

    TPM held the bible while DK swore him in and the others cheered from the blaechers.

    /snark/

    [ Parent ]

    thanx for sharing that (none / 0) (#173)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:34:01 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    An Interesting History Lesson (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:59:56 AM EST
    You have to read the whole thing, start to finish, or it won't make sense. Please try

    The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet,
    8.5 inches.  That's an exceedingly odd number.

    Why was that gauge used?  Because that's the way they built them in
    England, and English expatriates built the US railroads.

    Why did the English build them like that?  Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

    Why did 'they' use that gauge then?  Because the people who built the
    tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building
    wagons, which used that wheel spacing.

    Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?  Well, if
    they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on
    some of the old, long distance roads in England*, because that's the
    spacing of the wheel ruts.

    So who built those old rutted roads?  Imperial Rome built the first long
    distance roads in** Europe (and England) for their legions.  The roads have been used ever since.

    And the ruts in the roads?  Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts,
    which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon
    wheels.  Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.  Therefore the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Bureaucracies live forever.

    So the next time you are handed a Specification/Procedure/Process and wonder 'What horse's ass came up with it?' you may be exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two warhorses.  (Two horses' asses.)  Now, the twist to the story:

    When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank.  These are solid rocket boosters, or SRB's.  The SRB's are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah.  The engineers who designed the SRB's would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRB's had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site.  The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRB's had to fit through that tunnel.  The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.

    So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass.  And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important?  Ancient horse's asses control almost everything...and-----*CURRENT Horses Asses are controlling everything else.


    i thought this sounded familiar................... (none / 0) (#226)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    go to www.snopes.com, this is lifted, almost in its entirety, from an article there on this very subject.

    however, it turns out to not be quite true. according to snopes, up until the end of the civil war, there were actually three different sized rail guages in use, mostly in the south.

    this failure to standardize contributed to the confederacy's loss, because it made logistics that much more difficult.

    interesting article. i wish i could put the link here, but this seems to be the only site i have a problem doing that with.

    [ Parent ]

    Since here we are divided on who should be (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by FLVoter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:08:18 AM EST
    at the top of the ticket, why not focus on down ticket races?  Let's increase our seats.  I know in Florida the Dems are trying to pick up at least 5 new seats.  Of which are Vern Buchanan, Ric Keller, Dave Weldon, Tom Feeney and CW Bill Young. All held by these republicans. Each may be ousted and are vulnerable in their own way.  Further, we need to keep the seats gained last time by Tim Mahoney (remember Mr. Foley? This was his dem replacement) and Ron Klein.  They are both in republican districts.  For those of you who say that Florida not being counted is not important, here are at least 7 reasons why Florida matters.  Let's try to make sure that Dems do not stay home in Florida come November since the consequences extend to more than the Presidency.

    Tweety's College Tour and Hillary... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:19:07 AM EST
    Has anyone heard if Hillary told Tweety to take a hike on his invitation to appear on his College Tour show? I heard him say that Mr. Hope and McCain were given 1 hour of the "limelight" and he wanted her to have that time in the limelight too! ROTFLMAO! SUUUUUUURE you do, Tweets.

    May I suggest that Hillary do a one hour interview on another network? Maybe even with Joe Scarborough who LOVES Hillary and her toughness.:)

    She should NEVER agree to do Tweety's show though. Go read Mathews' Monitor.com and you'll see why....or Media Matters has written great pieces about Tweety's misogynist comments about Hillary and many other women he's had on his show.

    Has anyone heard anything about Hillary and the College Tour show? Did she tell him where to go? :)

    I'd say do the Tweety College thing (none / 0) (#166)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    Because she'd handle it and handle him.

    And then he'd just spend the next two months being bitter about it.

    So I don't know.

    I do think yearlykos was ultimately a mistake.

    We're talking about people who can't deal with Clinton, period.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary was on Morning Joe... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:36:22 AM EST
    this AM, actually. i often sleep with the tele on and I woke up to their discussion. Sadly, it was so fricking early, I nodded off so i couldn't tell you how it went.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw the interview. Here's a link: (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:56:27 AM EST
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22556249#22556249

    The interview was great. Joe was a hoot and Hillary was AWESOME, as usual.:) Joe LOVES Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    SUSA vs. Ras/Quinnipiac (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by mike in dc on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:57:03 AM EST
    ...they have +18 for Clinton, while the other two have it +5 and +6, respectively.  Wondering if SUSA pushed leaners.  Should have about 4 more polls out by Thursday, so we can see if this one is an outlier or not.  The range of possible outcomes should be reflected in the last crop of polls before the primary.  

    Unfortunate (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Traven on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:22:08 AM EST
    Too bad.  I suppose more right-wingers on the Supreme Court and 100 years of occupation in Iraq don't bother you.  I dislike Clinton intensely but if push comes to shove, I will hold my nose very, very tightly and vote for her before I sit home and/or vote for McCain.  Unfortunately, a lot of the moderate Republicans and independents who will vote for Obama over the GOP won't make that same move -- the only person they hate more than McCain is Hillary.

    Yes it is unfortunate, but to many HIllary (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by FLVoter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:31:08 AM EST
    supporters this is a "reap what you sow" matter and not just to Sen. Obama but to the Democratic Party.  Regardless of who the Democratic Party chooses as its Presidential Candidate, do not underestimate Sen. McCain.  He still has a very favorable rating among republicans, independents and some democrats.  He is still seen as a "straight shooter."  Not all voters will focus on the Iraq War, and I personally believe that much of the damage in the Supreme Court has already been done by the appointments of Judges Roberts and Alito.  My plea is, if you cannot support the Presidential candidate, please vote for dems on the down ticket. Don't stay home.

    [ Parent ]
    Certainly in the Senate (none / 0) (#231)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:02:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh absolutely (none / 0) (#234)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:22:31 PM EST
    I would never stay home and will vote down ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    There's other options.... (none / 0) (#167)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:32:11 AM EST
    granted they are uber-longshots, but you don't have to just accept tyranny and corruption and imperialism by voting for Obama/Clinton/McCain.

    Nader is running, Kubby is running....heck, write in a vote for Mickey Mouse.  

    It breaks my heart that my fellow Americans have all but accepted tyranny as the status quo, and are resigned to merely picking a brand of tyranny.  

    Not me babe, I'm voting none of the above.

    [ Parent ]

    There have (none / 0) (#203)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:56:10 AM EST
    been several items on Obama's position on the Supreme Court.  His votes, comments and associates show him to be unreliable on this issue.  Do you really think Obama is going to end the war?  I don't.  Stating he would still have 80,000 troops in Iraq would indicate to me that something more than rebuilding schools will be going on.  Also, doesn't he want to bomb Pakistan?  someone else posted he wants 100,000 additional troops (I'm not looking it up for you, if you're that interested, use the search).  I wonder what he wants to do with those.

    [ Parent ]
    Both Hillary and Obama have talked about (4.00 / 1) (#227)
    by RickTaylor on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:16:32 PM EST
    keeping residual troops in Iraq. There's not much difference in their proposals. Both candidates are emphasizing what we Democrats want to hear during the primaries, we're getting out of Iraq, and both of them are leaving in fine print that expresses we still have an interest in the region and will have some troops at least nearby.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary and the war (none / 0) (#212)
    by Traven on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:00:29 PM EST
    And you think Hillary is going to end the war?  Hillary who, in a most craven way, voted for the war to prove how "tough" she is?  She's always going to be proving how tough she is -- frankly, I think she's a lot more likely to nuke Iran than McCain!

    [ Parent ]
    You're both correct.... (none / 0) (#223)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:06:46 PM EST
    Hillary and Obama both support the occupation wholeheartedly.  Part of the reason I can not vote for either of them in good conscience.

    I'm amazed any American who is against the occupation can vote for either of those con-people without a serious dose of self-delusion.

    [ Parent ]

    Petreaus Testimony (none / 0) (#2)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:47:19 AM EST
    What are the bets that he is alot better prepared this time around . . . and that there won't be any further outbreaks of honesty either.  I think he is going to be much more "on message".

    Andrea Mitchell Should be Fired... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:52:20 AM EST
    For what she said last night. Not only was it absurd to be interviewing Dee Dee Myers on her absurd and sexist book, but this comment was the latest in a long line of sexist, anti-Hillary comments that she apparently feels she needs to say to be "one of the boys" at NBC.  


    Well you know (none / 0) (#44)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:19:10 AM EST
    her husband just endorsed McCain...

    [ Parent ]
    That makes sense... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:41:04 AM EST
    ...Every time she is covering Hillary she looks like she is in the Raiders of the Lost Ark snake pit.

    [ Parent ]
    She is really boring (none / 0) (#101)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:52:00 AM EST
    She talks in a flat monotone.  I think NBC has tried to give her her own show a couple of times but she can never pull it off because she is anti-charisma.  Nora O'Donnell is much better and more objective.

    [ Parent ]
    MSNBC Russert et al are just bad at what they do (none / 0) (#232)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:08:13 PM EST
    not sure who seems less talented KO or AM.

    [ Parent ]
    Firefox (none / 0) (#7)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:52:39 AM EST
    I'm a little slow, but I just noticed Firefox 3 beta 5 is out.

    Obama will use Penn issue (none / 0) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:54:12 AM EST
    They will say if she cannot run a campaign how will she run the country?  Audacity all over the place.  As if he is running his campaign.  

    Politico article

    In the days and weeks ahead, the Barack Obama campaign is going to pose a simple question to the undecided voters and undeclared superdelegates who will decide the Democratic nomination for president: If Hillary Clinton can't run a good primary campaign, how is she ever going to run a good campaign against the Republicans?

    And while she says she is ready from Day One to be president, she is at something like Day 430 into being a presidential candidate and her campaign seems to be going from bad to worse to train wreck.



    Nice (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:03:22 AM EST
    they fail to note the fact that she is still in this because she keeps winning.

    If we had a fair and balanced media ("If monkeys flew outta my butt") then they would point out that Obama isn't running that great of a campaign considering he's had chance after chance to end this thing and simply cannot close it.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep knew it... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:15:34 AM EST
    New poster...welcome to TL.  What part of not closing the deal do you not understand?  Should his leads not be in the 20's right now?  No they are not.  So, hold on and let the people vote.  

    [ Parent ]
    American Samoa is a lovely spot (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:32:33 AM EST
    but it and its ilk -- states that would not go Dem if you resurrected FDR, states with few electoral college votes -- do not matter.

    Tell us when the Constitution was amended to say that s/he with the most states wins.  

    [ Parent ]

    You are of course completely correct (none / 0) (#89)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    Likewise,  I don't believe Puerto Rico get to vote in the actual presidential election.  How about we don't count their delegates or votes within any popular vote totals?

    [ Parent ]
    In other words (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by badger on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:08:04 PM EST
    because the rules for the primary don't favor Obama, we need to change the rules. But when the rules disenfranchise voters in MI and FL (who do vote in the election), then we need to stick to the rules.

    I understand.

    [ Parent ]

    Everything new (none / 0) (#45)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:19:12 AM EST
    is old again.

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:21:32 AM EST
    He should have closed her out after Iowa - he didn't.

    He should have closed her out after Super Tuesday - he didn't.

    He should have closed her out after his big wins in caucus states - he didn't.

    He should have closed her out after Texas and Ohio - he didn't.

    He should have closed her out after Mississippi - he didn't.

    And now she's leading in 7 of the 10 states that have upcoming primaries.

    [ Parent ]

    And with the help of (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Suma on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:28:52 AM EST
    media, money and some DNC Elders! HA!

    [ Parent ]
    the corporate media is Obama's friend (none / 0) (#145)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:20:42 AM EST
    These are the same pundits that sold us Bush in 2000, the Iraq War - and now Obama.
    Obama supporters who've complained about the media's compliance for the past 8 years, don't see the disconnect.
    The media hasn't changed and always promotes their best interests - even creating a rockstar for president.


    [ Parent ]
    She should have (none / 0) (#73)
    by magster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:33:05 AM EST
    ...closed him out in Iowa.

    ...closed him out on Super Tuesday.

    ...closed him out by having anything better than a totally pathetic February.

    Going into this campaign, Clinton should have crushed, and that Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee is stunning.

    [ Parent ]

    Only in some Bizarro world (none / 0) (#153)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:24:30 AM EST
    does the loser get to be the winner because the winner didn't win by enough!

    [ Parent ]
    Does this (none / 0) (#192)
    by Lena on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:49:49 AM EST
    apply to Pennsylvania?

    [ Parent ]
    I know facts stink (none / 0) (#27)
    by willie on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:09:52 AM EST
    but where does she   "keep winning" she last lost 15 of the last 18 contests, many by a huge amount.

    [ Parent ]
    She keeps winning (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:14:50 AM EST
    in the states that we need for the ge.  I'm sorry, but O's "big wins" in Utah, Alaska, GA, MS, etc won't make a bit of difference come the ge.  Also, caucus wins are taken with a grain of salt for obvious reasons.

    If what we were counting was the number of states won, then he'd be winning, but there is a reason we don't do that--mainly because many of them don't matter in the ge.  And I say this as a long-time dem living in the heart of Georgia.  

    We need swing states like MI and FL.  You know, the big states that O can't win so chooses to disenfranchise instead.

    [ Parent ]

    Well yeah (none / 0) (#53)
    by willie on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:24:28 AM EST
    if you only count places she wins, like in Mich where she ran essentially unopposed, its pretty easy to construct a fictional win streak, in the real world though, she has dropped 15 of 18. Even my beloved Pirates don't lose with that degree of regularity.

    [ Parent ]
    That's a stretch. (none / 0) (#57)
    by ctrenta on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:24:52 AM EST
    We need swing states like MI and FL.  You know, the big states that O can't win so chooses to disenfranchise instead.

    I'm not necessarily a fan of Obama either but do you really think he's out to disenfranchise voters? Sounds like that's what you're implying. I'm not for Obama one way or the other but what evidence can you provide that this is his intention? Just wondering.

    BTW, is this the same Kathy from Blue Hampshire? Wouldn't surprise me.

    [ Parent ]

    I am not implying (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:32:45 AM EST
    I am stating in plain words the same thing that many others here at TL have stated: Obama is seeking to disenfranchise voters of both FL and MI.  No equivocation here whatsoever.  If you want to know the reasoning behind my position, then you should consult the archives of this site as they have been explored ad nauseum.

    And I have no idea what Blue Hampshire is, but I gather the implication is not flattering.  Could you explain yourself, please?  Are you comparing me to an idiot or a reactionary?  What is the nature of the insult?

    [ Parent ]

    Wow, um. OK. (none / 0) (#79)
    by ctrenta on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:37:02 AM EST

    And I have no idea what Blue Hampshire is, but I gather the implication is not flattering.  Could you explain yourself, please?  Are you comparing me to an idiot or a reactionary?  What is the nature of the insult?

    I'll stay away from you then.

    [ Parent ]

    Get off the pious high horse.. (none / 0) (#113)
    by willie on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:58:23 AM EST
    The most maddening thing about Clinton supporters on this site is the absurd B.S. air of moral superiority so many assume.
    Be honest, you want a re do in Fla. and Mich. because delaying  things is your preferred candidates only chance.

    Instead we get all this silly talk about voters in Mich. being disenfranchised. Meanwhile, Clinton herself was in N.Dakota arguing that there is no such thing as pledged delegates. Apparently, she intends to argue that elected delegates there and elsewhere, can and should , ignore the results of elections and switch to her.

    Now there is some classic disenfranchisement, simply ignore the voting results in openly contested campaigns. Campaigns in which , and here is a novel idea, the candidates were actually on the ballot.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    Please engage the facts and leave out the sermons.

    It is fact, documented in this site, that Obama blocked the revote in MI.

    It is a fact that Clinton's position, no matter her motive, is most closely aligned with the interests of FL and MI voters to have their vote count.

    It is a fact that Obama is unlikely to achieve a clear victory (knockout) before the convention.

    It is a fact that pledged delegates are a poor meassure of popular will because a caucus is an undemocratic way to pick delegates.

    It is fact that both Obama and Clinton will need superdelegates to win.

    It is a fact that superdelegates can use their judgement in deciding whi to support.

    It is a fact that Obama's legitimacy as a candidate will depend on how FL and MI are handled unless he is able to achieve a clear victory.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn said play nice.... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:15:26 AM EST
    ...when she gets back I think there will be lots more room on this open thread.

    [ Parent ]
    Respectfully, willie... (none / 0) (#235)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:39:45 PM EST
    pledged delegates can change candidate preference. This applies to primaries as well as caucuses and it happens in the caucus rounds (just happened this past weekend in the 39th---I was there and I saw it). Thats is why whips are assigned to the delegation to keep your candidate's delegates in line.

    See Mr. Super for info. You'll have to go looking for his answer to this one, but it's worth poking around there. He's got a lot of interesting insights as he is an undeclared superdelegate posting anonymously.

    Whether the pledged delegates should switch is a different question. But strictly from my POV, the primary process is about selecting, not electing, the candidate who will win in the fall. Not everyone agrees with my POV and I'm fine with that.

    And I believe pledged delegates can switch after the first ballot at the convention. But I'd have to look that up for the exact rule.

    I'm just sayin'.

    [ Parent ]

    His little states wins are wiped out (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:44:15 AM EST
    by Hillary's large statates wins and the reasoning is they will vote R in the GE, if history is correct. Everyone that wants to shout Hillary out are quiet the day after she comes in strong the next contest. Obama is flat now, his messages are repetitive and just lost the zip it once had.

    I still want to see him win 1 big state.
    His wins are frustrating because of
    Hillary's toughness

    [ Parent ]

    We remember that Al Gore (none / 0) (#140)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:17:22 AM EST
    won the popular vote in 2000 and the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush. The number of states each candidate won is significant when you consider how close the election was.

    Election Map 2000
    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/map.htm

    Electoral votes needed to win: 270
    Bush votes: 271
    Gore votes: 267

    And with all the monkeyshines by the Republicans, Bush won the electoral vote by just 4.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure, (none / 0) (#84)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    and the new Clinton arguments being made are that "once Puerto Rico votes Hillary will have won the popular vote".  
    Slightly contradictory arguments being made there if you will believe all the hand wringing about how unfair it is that Obama has done so well in Red states which won't vote Democratic in November,  given that Puerto Rico do not vote in the GE at all.  Maybe Blue state votes should count for 1.5,  Red States for 1,  and swing state votes for 2.  Of course in terms of the GE you would have to discount the votes from PR completely.  Anyone in the Clinton camp want to run some numbers and find out if that kind of PV calculation would have her coming out ahead?

    [ Parent ]
    oops sorry (none / 0) (#32)
    by willie on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:12:13 AM EST
    got an extra "last" in that post

    [ Parent ]
    Well.... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Traven on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    Well, Hillary can't close it, either.  Obama was supposed to be finished by Feb. 5, according to the Clinton machine.  The fact that he is still standing -- and winning -- is in itself telling.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's put it this way: (none / 0) (#221)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:05:43 PM EST
    If Clinton's campaign was in such a shambles and Obama's a shining example of political perfection, then Obama should have reached 2025 delegates by now.  Instead, neither he nor Clinton are going to reach that number based off of state wins and will have to rely on Super Delegates.  If her campaign was so horribly unsuccessful then she wouldn't be able to compete in the upcoming primaries.  But she's proven time and time again that she's a fine competitor.  Same with Obama.  Neither have closed the deal.  They have different game plans and it's up to them to use these next ten contests to make their cases to the SD's.  Either we're going to go with Hillary's successful big swing state strategy.  Or we're going to go with Obama's successful small caucus state strategy.  Both campaigns have failed to make much headway in the other's demographical support.  And whichever gets the nomination will have their work cut out for them in both gaining the support of the other candidates supporters and defeating the GOP attack machine.  Barack may be making more money and holding bigger rallies; Hillary may be great at appealing to working class voters in these big swing states, but neither has made a game changing victory.

    [ Parent ]
    I hope Politico got that wrong (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:06:42 AM EST
    It doesn't seem to me to be a good strategy. Too easy to turn around to him. Quick example:

    If he can't manage to close the deal against a bad campaign what does that say about his campaign?

    [ Parent ]

    Agree, seems like a bad strategy (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:11:50 AM EST
    But if he talks about her as a formidable opponent, it gives her campaign more strength right now. They're trying to kill her first, then they'll praise her. Same strategy as FL/MI: win the nomination first, try to clean up the mess afterwards. Don't know whether it will work or not.

    [ Parent ]
    Well Obama made the case to donors (none / 0) (#47)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:20:10 AM EST
    and supporters that they should judge his ability to be president on how he runs his campaign.  

    e.g.  Quote from an interview with Marc Andreessen (ex ceo of Netscape)discussing a meeting he had with Obama in early 2007

    We asked him directly, how concerned should we be that you haven't had meaningful experience as an executive -- as a manager and leader of people?

    He said, watch how I run my campaign -- you'll see my leadership skills in action.

    Hillary had all the inbuilt advantages of incumbency, name recognition, establishment support etc.  How each campaign has been run and the contrasts in the relative success of their strategies DO reflect well on Obama and poorly on Clinton.  

    [ Parent ]

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:23:34 AM EST
    makes him seem kind of pathetic that he can't close the deal against such a crappily run campaign.  You've raised a very good point.

    [ Parent ]
    You want to make the argument (none / 0) (#92)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:44:32 AM EST
    that Hillary has had a brilliantly run campaign with a wonderfully executed strategy then?

    Be my guest.

    [ Parent ]

    I think the point here is (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:52:39 AM EST
    that strategically, it's not a good idea for Obama to stress how "bad" her campaign has been so far, since the race is, despite all Obama's wins in red caucus states, essentially a tie.

    This is the best he could do against a terrible campaign? is the spin that could come out of such an attack.

    [ Parent ]

    I take your point (none / 0) (#119)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:00:33 AM EST
    however I don't think that it's spin that Hillary or her surrogates can really make effectively.  
    "We ran such a godawful campaign that you should have won it in February" is hardly an inspiring message to get people to vote for you.

    Politically you are probably correct that it's not a smart argument for Obama's camp to make in terms of the optics,  having said that I do think that such an argument holds water.  And just because Clinton has run a bad campaign,  doesn't automatically mean that Obama is a failure for not having wrapped this up already.  Nobody gave him a chance at the start of the campaign and he was running against a formidable candidate with deep support within the base of the party and the establishment.  Hence the fact that Clinton started out with endorsements from about 150 superdelegates before things even started.  He has done brilliantly to get to where he is just now and the fact that he hasn't formally sewn the race up yet doesn't reflect badly on him, IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    It's okay, we disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:11:14 AM EST
    I just don't see Obama as having run a brilliant campaign. He had to get rid of Samantha Power because she called Hillary a monster or because she leaked to the press that his commitment to getting out of Iraq was a "best-case scenario."

    I also see that the media has enabled his run to the point of utter ridiculousness, while manufacturing screw-up after screw-up in Hillary's campaign.

    Some may say that she shouldn't have ignored the little states and thought that Super Tuesday would clinch it for her. Well, as Atrios said, it almost worked, and probably would have if Edwards hadn't suddenly dropped out.

    All I'm saying is that people can disagree on the "brilliance" of either campaign, and since it's such a subjective measure, I'd rather base my assessment of a candidate on his/her record and experience.

    And I don't think the voters care at all about how good either candidate appears to be at marketing, frankly.

    [ Parent ]

    the media has run a brilliant campaign (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:27:25 AM EST
    FOR Obama.
    If Hillary had LIED about her father in order to obtain a key endorsement - the numerous videos of her lying would be airing nonstop on teevee and web.
    But IOKIYBO!


    [ Parent ]
    No The argument would be (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:59:27 AM EST
    that she has shown again and again that she can handle adversity and won't quit when things go against her.  All we have seen from Obama are calls for people to get out of his way when he is unable to clinch the deal.


    [ Parent ]
    Manuel, If by handling adversity, (none / 0) (#126)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:05:06 AM EST
    you mean losing elections,  then Hillary has proven masterful and handling adversity.

    Since Solis Doyle was canned the Hillary campaign has been much lighter on it's feet and effective,  despite the best efforts of Mark Penn.  I just think it's too little too late and barring an upset in NC I can't see how she is going to win the nomination.   A 10 point win in PA will not be enough,  the recent SUSA numbers must be encouraging for her campaign,  as I think she realistically needs to post that kind of win and somehow leverage that into a tight win in NC.  Otherwise a 10 point win for Hillary in PA is offset by a probably 18-20 point Obama win in NC and the delegate spread comes out as a wash.  In the current dynamic with Clinton significantly behind that's the same as a win for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    It is more than just elections (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:30:48 AM EST
    Let's see

    Unfair media bias.
    Non neutral DNC leadership.
    Unwarranted calls to drop out of the race.
    Personal mistakes.
    A charismatic opponent with a solid base of support.

    Really, any other candidate would have been toast by now.  It is a testament to Hillary's toughness that she is still hanging in there.

    [ Parent ]

    The most brilliant thing that Obama did in this... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:21:00 AM EST
    ...campaign was demonize anyone who dared criticize how he was running his campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    What are you referring to? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:25:28 AM EST
    David Shuster by any chance?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, he and the media played the race card. (none / 0) (#177)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:36:53 AM EST
    Obama himself did it again on NBC news with Brian Williams. On the day of MLK's assassination, he used the occasion to say that we need leadership that understands race in this country. He also said that the young people have made remarkable progress in overcoming their racism, but it's the older generation that still needs to work on it.

    My husband's and my jaws just dropped.

    I wish I could find the video, but I'm not YouTube-gifted. It was between 6:30 and 7 PM last Friday on NBC Nightly News.

    [ Parent ]

    What if we are of 'his' generation? (none / 0) (#188)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    Do we only understand it if we support him?

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe here (none / 0) (#191)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    Not on YouTube that I saw but on their site here.

    You need to scroll down to the date and then click on the video you want.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the tip... (none / 0) (#220)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:05:33 PM EST
    I found it. The more subtle slap was at 5:33, but then he goes on to discuss how we all have unconscious biases against people that don't look like us.

    The kicker was this: "We need leadership that is not trying to exploit those biases..." and implied, as always, that only if you elect him can we all move forward in unity and solve the great issues like poverty, health care, etc.

    It was worse than I remembered. I just about fell off my couch.

    [ Parent ]

    So, based on that (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:24:30 AM EST
    we will have speeches to keep us "joyful";only 8 questions will be asked and they will be too many;   he will blame staff for mistakes, he will accuse everyone of being a racist when he is criticized; the official Obama propaganda organs: Kos, TPM etc, will shut us all up if we have differences; he will tell us one thing and his policies will actually be something else; he will bomb Pakistan;  the mob will be called on to rallies to prove that he is popular.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    To you perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:58:58 AM EST
    To you it reflects well on Obama and poorly on Clinton. This isn't about convincing you. It's about convincing undecided voters.

    People love an underdog. Which is why calling on Clinton to quit is never a winning strategy. It plays well to those who already want her to quit, but it doesn't play to those who aren't as personally invested in the race. It makes her an underdog who everyone is lining up against.

    To say that she has run a terrible campaign means that she should be easy to beat. Yet it seems as if every month I hear (I don't watch news so its just newsbreaks) how Obama has outraised her. And how some famous politician is now backing Obama. And yet, the race is still close. If he has the money and support AND she has run a terrible campaign why is the race so close?

    That is why its a terrible plan. It gives her a chance to paint herself as an underdog while reminding people that despite Obama's advantages he still hasn't won. And she could also bring up that Obama isn't used to actually running against an opponent so this may be new to him. Is that a meme he wants to have out there?

    You need to play to the preconceived notions people have, not against them. A halftime interview with a team that is barely winning, would never have the winners saying the losers obviously aren't playing well. Because it doesn't reflect well on them to only be barely beating them.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it was the competing strategies (none / 0) (#98)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:50:41 AM EST
    50 state vs. trad. run campaign or top down strategy.

    It only says there is value in both. Nothing more.

    If they merge it would be a huge force in the future.