Puerto Rico Open Thread

The polls in Puerto Rico are open for another 3 hours. Honestly, I have no information at all to provide you. My sources are, not surprisingly, otherwise engaged.

But as I get any news, I will provide it here. This is an Open Thread.

Apparently, Obama's most important endorser in Puerto Rico is expecting a bad result for Obama:

Pedro Pierluisi, co-President of Obama's Puerto Rico campaign [and the Statehood Party's candidate for Resident Commissioner] accepted that he will have a difficult time explaining to Obama the reason why the Puerto Rican people do not favor him. “My job has turned a bit more difficult. I will have to explain why he was not supported by the Puerto Rican people. . . . [Pierluisi] expects Obama to win at least 20 delegates [out of 55].

(My translation.) Pierluisi expects a wipeout it sounds to me.

< Unity | Turnout in Puerto Rico May Be Low >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think it is kickin that Puerto Rico (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:09:53 AM EST
    is getting this attention and their voters are getting this attention!

    Yes! And I have learned a bit about them (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:14:11 AM EST
     which is a good thing for me.

    CNN just said low 50% turnout.. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:11:40 AM EST

    I think that's just low for PR (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:12:15 AM EST
    only 50% was expected (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:23:51 AM EST
    because iirc there are no or fewer candidates and issues on the ballot.
    And was expected CNN and other Obamedia would omit that bit of info.

    50% turnout is 1.2 million (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:24:32 AM EST
    that wouldbe amazing!!

    yeah, if you do the calculations, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:33:07 AM EST
    Assuming 1.2M votes, and that Obama wins only 20 of 55 delegates, Hillary wins 64-36%, and wins by 336K votes.

    All big assumptions of course.


    I meant 50% of the what used to be in the past. (none / 0) (#42)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:39:57 AM EST
    Geraldo was down there this morning (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:37:36 AM EST
    showing the protests going on and saying the turnout is very low for voting. His commentary said PR wants the US to go away and let them be their own country. Signs at the protest supported that thought. But, it was Geraldo and he could have found one small group to make his story interesting.

    I know nothing about PR, so no idea if his commentary was near accuracy.


    big O said early morning people are the (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by thereyougo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:59:31 AM EST
    church goers, so low turnout.

    I wanted to say this on the prev. thread,

    The "progressives" at the Big orange, were spreading lies about the marchers at the RBC meeting today saying they were 'hired' McCain and Huckabee supporters,by Hillary and that anyone who votes for McCain is a mccainocrat and that they're republicans anyway.

    I find this funny b/c Obama was asking for Republican votes for HIM in the primaries, for a day. Shows what deep thinkers those folks  over there are not to mention hypocrits.


    That's a dynamic no one (none / 0) (#100)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:00:10 PM EST
    has mentioned before, that I know of.

    I had never heard that one of the two major factions in PR might be actively discouraging voters from voters.

    If true, it would not be good news, though I suppose the other party might favor Hillary more anyway (I just don't know).


    Wasn't that BTD's prediction? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:15:22 AM EST
    I might be wrong but (none / 0) (#23)
    by theprosecutrix on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:31:13 AM EST
    I think BTD predicted a turnout of about 500K.

    CNN's Jessica Yellin (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:15:34 AM EST
    just now reported live from PR and said the turnout today is down to about 50% and "it doesn't look for Sen. Hillary Clinton."

    I've seen CNN shift to a more negative slant on Clinton, but I do hope they are wrong about this. Yellin did say that Clinton will win, despite the smaller turnout.

    I didn't really understand her reasoning for it; something about voters wanting to be independent in November. I thought, at least now, PR doesn't vote in the GE?

    BTD, anyone, some clarification, education on this matter would be appreciated.

    Oh, and CNN is the only network that will have Exit Polls in PR. The network shelled out more than $100K of its own dough to finance the effort.

    It doesn't look good for Hillary because... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:19:30 AM EST
    ...it has now become standard Democratic party procedure to award all the uncast votes to Obama. He wins big!!!!

    So does this mean (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:25:34 AM EST
    if I don't vote in November, my vote will automatically be counted for Obama?  

    Talk about a new kind of politics!


    That's the way it works now (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:30:48 AM EST
    Because Obama's Psychic Friends Network aka the DNC can clearly discern how you WOULD have voted and thus hand him more votes.

    heh (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:31:56 AM EST
    I know they were tired yesterday but I can't imagine how they justified what they did in their own minds.

    IAAO. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:35:08 AM EST
    (It's all about Obama.)

    What a pathetic bunch of fools the DNC revealed themselves to be. They threw legitimacy under the bus.


    They want a new party (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:43:34 AM EST
    and they want power. They don't want any one in there who might actually make people do things and get things accomplished. Money talks...

    I am even more certain than ever that the timing of Obama's rejection (or whatever word he used) of the TUCC was no coincidence.

    And just to bring things back on topic, Viva Hillary! Viva Democracia! The fix may be in but at least it's good to see not everyone has lost their frakking minds.


    According to the Michigan precedent... (none / 0) (#166)
    by NotThatStupid on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:50:21 PM EST
    ... if you don't want your vote to go to Senator Obama, you have to vote for Senator McCain.

    Simply voting for Senator Clinton isn't enough, apparently, to keep your vote out of Senator Obama's column.


    Voting for HRC means part of you voted for Obama (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:52:54 PM EST
    Not voting at all means you would have voted for Obama but HRC made you not vote for him.

    C'mon, didn't the DNC clear that up yesterday? :-/

    (Delayed kvetch: I knew the fix was in when the loudest applause was for well-chewed prObama talking points rather than focus on actual rules, and the second loudest was for lunch.)


    Debbie Dingle (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    said that FL and MI are continuing to fight and still expect their delegations to be seated at 100% at the convention.

    Someone said on an earlier (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:41:19 AM EST
    thread that Obama said that at the convention, he will seat them at 100%. Can't see how, again,maybe he waives that magical hand.

    That's funny (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:44:44 AM EST
    he sure has a lot of power for a jr senator who won't be the nominee unless the delegates cast their votes in the majority for him - won't that be too late? And, what powers actually belong to a nominee?

    He's such an arrogant incompetent.


    java....you forgot pompous a$$ opportunist (none / 0) (#173)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    Sure they'll be seated... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:41:54 AM EST
    after their votes did not count and Obama coronated.

    What a disgrace.


    Sen. Clinton will fight @ the convention (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by wurman on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:47:35 AM EST
    Maggie Williams, Campaign Manager  5/31/2008 9:33:30 PM
    Hillary has consistently stood up for the voters of Michigan and Florida.  She, like you, has insisted that the voice of all Americans be heard.  Today, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws
    Committee announced their decision on seating Florida and Michigan's delegations. In recent days, almost 350,000 of Hillary's supporters wrote in to the committee to make clear what an important principle it is for our party to count every vote.

    Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy made the following statement:


    The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.
    We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan's delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

    Yes, yesterday was discouraging...but it ain't (none / 0) (#163)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:47:26 PM EST
    over babeeeeee, it ain't over.

    CNN has always been negative (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:23:48 AM EST
    on Sen. Clinton.  They're marginally better than MSNBC but that ain't saying much.

    Clinton needs high turnout (none / 0) (#47)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:42:55 AM EST
    and a large spread to take over more metrics in the popular vote.  I think she needs nearly 200k to have 4 of the 6 on RCP to get the media off her back.

    If turnout is 500k and her pt spread is 20... she gains 100k.  Once you deduct MT and SD it will be lower.

    The party that wants to stay independent is protesting today.  They are tellling people not to participate because the primary is a sham.  It looked to me that they were near polling places which, to me, would discourage voters.


    PR doesn't vote in GE (none / 0) (#107)
    by thereyougo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:02:57 PM EST
    but its a numbers game for Hillary, she wants to get as many popular votes on her column.

    Any boost to Hillary's popular vote lead (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:17:04 AM EST
    ...is welcome. Hopefully, it will be a significant boost.

    Royalty (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:17:17 AM EST
    I agree with Ickes - how many unearned delegates would be enough for Obama?

    Unearned delegates?  They have to be kidding.  Hey - I wasn't on the ballot either.  Where's my votes?

    No wonder we are looking at a coronation - this is a prince, not a candidate.  

    And they complained about the Clintons being royal.

    Republicans are gonna have such a field day ... (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:22:09 AM EST
    with this.

    "He should take his name off some states in the GE, then get the RBC to grant him electoral votes."


    The commercials (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:30:05 AM EST
    write themselves.

    The Democrats have lost the moral high ground on vote-counting.

    I hope Obama is worth it.


    He Isn't (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:13:16 PM EST
    They Already Did (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:43:10 AM EST
    George Will today on ABC - staring at Donna Brazile and stating:

    "This ends any argument against what the Supreme Court did in 2000.  They just make it up."

    Donna was willing to throw out all the hard work in 2000 for cheap partisan gain for Obama and a putdown for Hillary.  As was the committee and Howard Dean.


    Effin' brilliant. (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:48:00 AM EST
    The shock jocks will be yucking it up on Monday.

    Thanks DNC.


    Donna Joins Gang of 5 (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:52:56 AM EST
    And Donna said nothing to counter that, knowing that she had signed on with gang of 5 on the Supreme Court and its official efforts at electoral fraud.

    Justice Brazile, thanks for counting our votes.


    Don't worry (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:53:02 AM EST
    the Right wing meme will soon be that Obama got his nomination illegitimately unlike McCain and how this proves the Republicans are more trustworthy and more for the people in the long run.

    The sad thing is that there's no counterargument even if some of us had the inclination to respond. Well, other than Teh ROOLZ, Teh ROOLZ!11!

    At this point, I'm just sitting back and watching. They broke it, they can fix it.

    I think Brazile's new theme song should be "When you're good to Mama". from Chicago. It suits her.


    George Will (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:16:26 PM EST
    I agree with George Will once or twice a year. This is the second time I've agreed with him this year.

    He's ahead of last year's pace.


    Will: specious Republican (1.33 / 3) (#135)
    by seesdifferent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:19:09 PM EST
    a primary is part of a selection process, it is not an election in the constitutional sense of the word.   George Will's opinion notwithstanding. And those on this site who continue spreading and perpetuating bitterness under that false flag have some agenda other than finding the truth and a fair solution.  It is time to admit that the "legal" arguments made on behalf of Hillary were deficient.

    Time for you to admit that the fix was in long (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:32:17 PM EST
    before any arguments were made.

    I havnt heard this (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    much righteous, petty bourgeouis tsk, tsking since the Daughters of the American Revoloution discovered Jerry Lee Lewis.

    Meanwhile all the criminals in their coats and their ties are free to drink martinis and watch the sunrise. As the feller said.


    Well, on Saturday the Dem leadership (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:27:05 AM EST
    was exposed as criminal also. The most important right we have is the right to vote. They don't get to take that away.

    Unfortunately... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:31:41 AM EST
    we never had a right for our vote to be heard.  The founding fathers didn't trust us, and the DNC followed their lead.

    Government by, of, and for those in government is what we have.


    They did (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    take it away.  Right in front of God and everybody.

    there was nothing criminal (1.00 / 1) (#140)
    by seesdifferent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:23:28 PM EST
    you don't help the cause of HRC or anyone but Republicans with that kind of purely inflammatory talk. I hope that whoever is moderating this thread would correct your thinking on that.

    I know you might find this hard to believe (none / 0) (#165)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:50:13 PM EST
    but some of these SD's and pledged delegates for obama are fair-minded and may suffer buyer's remorse after yesterday's debacle.  

    Does anyone know where CLinton is? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:27:35 AM EST
    will she give PR victory speech there or is she on the trail in MT or SD?

    She is in PR (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ajain on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:30:15 AM EST
    She will be giving a victory speech in PR at around 3:30.

    Todd Beeton from MyDD is in PR and will be there at her victory speech.


    thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:30:54 AM EST
    The young man with the red boxing gloves (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:48:14 AM EST
    who is often seen sitting behind her at the victory speeches (Dee something) will be there today, too. He comments at Taylor Marsh and the group over there took up a collection to send him to this one, as well.



    Get that shape-shifter... (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:33:22 AM EST
    a daquiri:)

    She's in San Juan n/t (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Coldblue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:31:37 AM EST
    When is the Unity Train (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:28:21 AM EST
    scheduled to leave the station?

    Geez Louise, I can't believe this.  We are almost done with the primaries and IF Obama is going to be the nominee he needs to get. to. work. courting the votes for the GE.

    And that means talking to all Those Voters who didn't vote for him.  Better yet, LISTENING TO those  voters who didn't vote for him.

    I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.  Only problem is, I got a whole lotta doubts that he isn't addressing.  His Very Vocal Supporters being the top of the list of things I wish he would address.

    Yeah - he wants to be the party leader, but (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:38:14 AM EST
    insists that other people must lead?

    Now because I am a Democrat, I want Clinton to work hard for him if he does get the nod, but I think it is a little much when his team want the nod, but won't take responsibility for the task of winning over all Democrats.


    And that (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:32:05 PM EST
    should tell you that he's unsuitable.

    Obama is SOOO like GWB - the great (none / 0) (#185)
    by thereyougo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    delagator. and when someone goofs up he blames them.

    shows little to no responsibility and if its his pastor he'll throw'd them under the unity bus.

    sorry couldn't help it. ;-)


    You just don't understand.. (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:43:52 AM EST
    On Tuesday, when Obama declares himself the nominee, we are all supposed to "see the light" and fall into line like good little voters. At least, that seems to be the spin from the Obama camp. I expect a packet of Kool-Aid in the mail any day now. I won't drink it, of course. But that seems to be the idea, that once Obama tells us he is the nominee, we all fall in line behind him. Methinks Obama is in for a shock. He is going to look behind him and the only people he is going to see are the AAs, the kiddies who won't vote the undercard, some rude and vociferous bloggers, and a couple of guilt-ridden liberals. The rest of us will be elsewhere. Looking for our pens to write in Hillary. You know, he may even get to make more history. Imagine losing to the first write-in winner of the Presidency. Obama would really be one for the ages then. Heh.

    How is this different.... (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:50:27 AM EST
    than any other primary?  The Democrats pick a piker, and all the working class schmucks are supposed to fall in line.  The only thing special about this year's farce is that the Democrats are having trouble picking their piker.

    kdog, you are extremely consistent.... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:58:52 AM EST
    ...and I salute you for that. May not agree with you, but I was raised to always admire an honest person!

    That means a lot... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:14:12 PM EST
    Thank you Maria.

    I was raised the same...probably why I can't in good conscience vote for any of the 3 stooges:)


    Write-Ins (none / 0) (#120)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:08:02 PM EST
    The rest of us will be elsewhere. Looking for our pens to write in Hillary.

    I cannot say this enough, hence a repeat of this for the second and last time today. (Promise!) I feel very strongly about this, and hope that all Hillary-supporters are aware of the implications.

    I am seeing it said in many comments here, and several YouTube videos of people at the RBC Meeting yesterday said they would write-in Hillary too.

    All readers of TalkLeft who intend to write-in Hillary in November should check the rules of your state. Unless Hillary registers as a write-in candidate, a write-in vote for her goes automatically to the Democratic nominee on the ballot i.e. Obama.

    FlaDemFem, this is not specificially directed to you, but as you mentioned it, I just took the opportunity to address it.

    I hope that BTD or Jeralyn would address this down the road, because it is would be fair to Hillary supporters, who do not want their votes to go to Obama, to know the implications. Thanks.


    I know, and I have already written (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:22:59 PM EST
    the letter I will send if Hillary doesn't get the nomination asking her, begging her, to put her name on all the states that require it, as FL does, for the write-in votes to count. FL doesn't give away votes to people they haven't been cast for. In FL, write-ins are counted as protest votes, not allocated to another candidate, if the write-in candidate has not notified the state that they want to be a write-in candidate.  Otherwise, they will be just protest votes. Which is ok, but votes that count are better. Right?

    Thinking ahead a bit (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:27:14 PM EST
    if Obama wins the nomination, and if you are one of the folks who intentionally wants to not-vote for Obama, the only safe things to do are to stay home or vote downticket only.

    Downticket is probably the better bet, since Obama et al do not seem to have turned their psychic vote stealing powers toward 'lower' races (yet).  Use your (diminished) power to vote on the non-presidential races.  Also, they must be able to count how many blanks there were for Presidential races, so we're more likely to see stats for that (not v. likely imo but slightly more likely).

    My state allows write-ins but I haven't been able to find anything either way about how they're counted, so I figure on voting downticket only.


    Go here and see.. (none / 0) (#164)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:48:45 PM EST
    Check out the rest of the site too. It's great..WriteHillaryIn.com

    if there is a consolation prize in this (none / 0) (#188)
    by thereyougo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:57:07 PM EST
    its that both houses in Congress will go blue, so in a sense, McCain's power would be very limited.

    I think that is what people are thinking if Mc gets their vote.

    Astrology says Obama is not going to have an easy road as we've seen his pastor problems, and his summer will be filled with huge challenges according to the stars, if anyone believes in the cosmos.

    There is going to be a eclipse that will last longer than usual, like 6 hours that will make a huge impact on Obama whose birthday falls within days of this unusual event.

    I'm believing that somehow Hillary will prevail, like the Phoenix who rise out of the ashes!

    Rise Hillary rise!  


    ah, astrology (none / 0) (#194)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:42:58 PM EST
    my forte.

    Look at Hillary's Secondary Progression picture:  SP Moon waxing toward Progressed Full Moon Phase with her Progressed Sun, Progressed Venus square her Sun (and Solar Arc Jupiter = her Sun as well), Progressed Jupiter trine her Mars/Pluto.

    It's all power, success, unbelievable dogged determination and hitting the heights of one's career.  Saturn over her Midheaven in late-June/early-July will be very good for her despite what some in-the-tank astrologers might say otherwise.

    Obama has NOTHING like thiw in his Progressed Picture.  He peaked in early March with his Progressed Jupiter trine his Progressed Sun and now it's just down, down, downhill from here on out.

    So I'm fully expecting Hillary to shock everybody, be the Nominee and become our 44th President.


    I'm an amateur, student, but I love to (none / 0) (#200)
    by thereyougo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:09:19 PM EST
    read up on this stuff, its actually very accurate in many ways
    I go to a few sites that are interesting, those have kept my sanity through all this.

    Hillary has yet to disappoint me, and I'm not giving up on her.

    What sites do you visit?  I go to Nancy'sblog, astrodynamics,


    Nancy at Starlight News? (none / 0) (#201)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:50:47 PM EST
    if that's the one, I avoid it like the plague now.  Too in-the-tank for Obama and has a penchant for saying that the "astrology" says Hillary will drop out.  By her estimation, she would have dropped out after NH, then Super Tuesday, then Ohio, then PA and now in late-June when Saturn moves over her Midheaven.

    (note:  Hillary responds well to Saturn, btw -- it hit her Midheaven by retrograde before the March 4th Primaries severely restricting her cash flow and she buckled down, put nose to the grindstone and STILL won Ohio, Texas and Vermont -- that's the kind of work Saturn rewards.  I doubt very much Saturn will "reward" her this time by forcing her to drop out)

    As for blogs, it's hard to find one that's not ObamaTown.  Or ones that are discussing the race at all.  I did some Posts at DU which are still accessible, but left when I started getting "death threats" via PM.

    Oh well.  I still think she's gonna win.  Barack has Uranus opposite his Mars right now, so expect some surprises and unpleasant news.  Uranus upsets the apple cart and doesn't work well -- especially in opposition -- with Mars' glory-driven goals.  They're both energetic, but in vastly different ways.


    wow, thanks for lifting my spirits! (none / 0) (#204)
    by thereyougo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:13:57 AM EST
    Yeah Nancy @ starlight news is sort of biased but some psychic astrologers post over there -- a real treat.

    blogger Pat C. posts some interesting sites. The psychic twins took down their prediction of a Hillary win and they're pretty accurate. Maybe they got threats too.

    DU is awful and scary the way they think Obama is the best thing since chocolate milk! :-)

    Hey in 1988 according to digby Jesse Jackson went to the convention behind 1200 delagates!  So these people who want to shout Hillary out are paid kids for under 200 votes are just ridiculous.


    Yeaterday (none / 0) (#167)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:52:39 PM EST
    my vote in the primary was arbitrarily given to Obama and he wasn't even on the ticket.

    A good point JimWash08 but the laws vary state to state.

    In Michigan a write-in, if I remember correctly, is separate and not related to party.  Even at that (in Michigan) a potential write-in must file an affidavit before the election to be eligible to receive write-in votes.  I'm not sure if Clinton's appearance on the primary ballot would qualify.

    That's why it was such a joke when someone (was it Donna Brazile) suggested that the 30,000 odd write-ins in the primary should be considered.  None of those write-ins were legal. No candidate had filed an affidavit to receive write-in votes.

    So I may have to leave my Presidential vote blank.


    You need to give Obama more (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:01:40 PM EST
    than just the benefit of the doubt.  

    You need to give him your heart, your soul, your liver, your vote.  You need to give him everything.  Forget about that "courting" thing.  Ain't gonna happen this year.

    If the party had been listening to the voters, Hillary would be the nominee.  Instead, they decided that they knew better than we did exactly what we wanted.  So that's what they are giving to us:  Obama.  We are what we have been waiting for.  Obama is we (or maybe Wii).  

    Unity for all!  Peace out.      


    Obama Will Begin His Lectures Soon n/t (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:07:18 PM EST
    Yeah, I know. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:13:10 PM EST
    Why YOU should vote for ME!

    You ask the questions in a tightly controlled focus group, then you regurgitate the sound bites that get the best responses.


    Nah, more like here is what you need to do (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:18:12 PM EST
    for me. I am the ONE. Don't be stupid and miss the opportunity to jump aboard the Unity pony.

    Sigh...again with the pony.. (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:38:29 PM EST
    I don't think anyone but Obama will be on the Unity Pony. The rest of the "unified" people will be walking along behind, picking up the piles of manure that the pony drops. I hope they bring their shovels, doing it by hand is no fun at all.

    I'm curious as to what you would have him do? (none / 0) (#32)
    by His Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:36:04 AM EST
    Specific actions he should take in regards to people who didn't vote for him.

    Also, what should Hillary do at this point? Should she make a demand that he adopt her health care plan for instance in exchange for conceding?

    Just wondering.


    UHC would be a good start ... (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:38:05 AM EST
    but if Obama doesn't know how to unify the Democratic Party ... he really shouldn't be the candidate.

    Just clarifying (none / 0) (#59)
    by His Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:46:36 AM EST
    Well, the original comment asked for Obama to listen to Hillary Clinton supporters. I was curious as to what would be said.

    Obama's plan to unify the party has yet to be stated. But then so is Hillary's. With no concession speech yet, and with both candidates in it (at least publicly) to the finish, unity plans if not moot, aren't at the forefront of the game.


    That is a lie. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:49:18 AM EST
    Hillary has pledged to campaign her heart out for Obama.

    What has Obama pledged to do?


    Well, he did say that her voters (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:42:22 PM EST
    would vote for him, although his probably wouldn't vote for her.
    Is that unity??? Or arrogance???

    That was (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    about the same time he called her divisive and polarizing and before he trashed the prior Democratic Administration which was about the time he trashed working people.

    New politics and all.


    Step One (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:43:21 AM EST
    Figure out WHY they didn't vote for him.

    Figure out WHY they voted for someone else.

    What has Clinton got that Obama doesn't have?


    I have yet to see (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:48:41 AM EST
    one single Obama supporter who can state an affirmative, factual reason why we should vote for him.

    I include my family in this. My father, a very intelligent man, was reduced to imitating Hillary's tone of voice when I asked him why he was voting for Obama and why he didn't like her.

    It's quite pathetic.

    The candidate himself certainly hasn't convinced me to do so with his bumper-sticker, right-wing, sneaky, lying, smearing, George Bush-lite campaign.

    That's what happens when you campaign on personality alone, and voters don't like your personality.

    What happens then?

    President John McCain happens.


    Yesterday my otherwise briliant... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    ...sister-in-law was almost reduced to tears by the plight of the nonvoters in Michigan. Even given those 4 extra delegates to Obama wasn't righteous enough in her mind. Love her dearly, didn't know what to say.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:00:38 PM EST
    and now they are starting to say Don't vote for McCain but never say why Obama should get my vote

    Because Obama is not McCain. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:10:28 PM EST
    That's the logic I've seen.

    Of course, Clinton isn't McCain either.  Nor is McKinney.


    I have yet to see.... (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:54:45 AM EST
    an Obama or Clinton supporter with good reasons to vote for their candidate.  I read on TL all day long how much Clinton loves working people and yada yada yada but where is the evidence?  Not in her Senate record, I can tell ya that.

    They both support occupation and the drug war and high prison populations and high taxes and the nanny state and the police state and the military imdustrial complex.  What good are either of them? All they've got going for them is they aren't John McCain...and that don't impress me.


    Kdog... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:58:59 AM EST
    the reasons are there.

    A person like Hillary, who has a 91% progressive voting record, incredible qualifications, a great platform, and a long history of fighting for women, children and the working class isn't good enough for you. That's your choice.

    But we Hillary voters certainly have good, factual reasons for supporting her.

    Nor do we say "check her website" when asked about her positions.



    Fair enough.... (1.00 / 0) (#134)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:19:05 PM EST
    though I don't think you should be so dismissive of Obama supporters, who most surely believe their reasons are just as legitimate.

    I think you're all wearing rose colored shades...but that's just my knuckleheaded opinion:)


    I understand... (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    I've just not encountered any Obama supporters who give fact-based reasons, as I just did.

    I'm sure they're out there, though. This is just my experience. And I was shocked to hear my own father reduced to babbling about how divisive HRC was, but not to be able to specify one single thing she had said that was divisive. He actually used the words "blah blah blah."

    Quite the eye-opener for me. Sigh. ;-)


    Actually.... (1.00 / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:39:22 PM EST
    that wasn't all that factual madam, sounds more like talking points to me, though I don't doubt you could find votes here and there to back it up.

    Two votes stick out to me more than anything...Patriot Act and Iraq War.  2 major f*ck-ups.  Though I don't doubt Obama would have voted exactly the same way.  Whick leaves me looking for alternatives...


    As sad as this is going to sound (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:01:33 PM EST
    Her failed healthcare plan is one good reason to vote for her.  


    Because she learned things when she put it together the first time.  Failure is always a learning experience.  People learn from their mistakes.  Having tried and failed once, I'm sure she would have a much better plan this time around.  

    Neither Obama or McCain have a failed healthcare plan.  They don't have a successful one either -- so I think Hillary is one-up on both of them regarding healthcare.  


    What I don't understand is why (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:31:35 PM EST
    Obama supporters can support someone who cannot articulate his own policies. Who has used people and tossed them aside throughout his political career, and that includes his constituents in Chicago when he was state senator. The housing situation, and the fact that Obama was on the defense team for Rezko when his own constituents sued Rezko for heat and repairs just about says it all for me. How can anyone claim he is "for the people" when he has neglected those people for his own self-interest? Any candidate who cannot explain, in detail, their own policies, and who cannot present them properly in a debate shouldn't be running for President. Why Obama supporters think he is a suitable candidate simply baffles me. And two of my sisters are Obama supporters. I think they are out of their minds, and I told them so. They told me that I would "see the truth" and come to vote for Obama. I looked, I see no "truth".

    He cannot anatomically (1.00 / 0) (#68)
    by independent voter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:49:06 AM EST
    please everyone

    You do realize what you have said (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:52:40 AM EST
    don't you?

    Well, that's true. (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:54:05 AM EST
    But I'm sure Science can fix that.  If all it took was a sex-change operation to win the White House, I wonder how many male pols would do it?

    [uncontrollable giggling at the thought]

    No offense but.... (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:43:26 AM EST
    ...this is like the umpteenth time that this question has been asked in one form or another this morning. (Not by you, not meaning to be rude, just saying.) My response is that why should I have to answer that question? If the Obama campaign is so great at uniting, they should be able to figure it out without my help. And my answer is, I'll know it when I see it. And btw, I have no intention of voting for McCain. I shouldn't be that hard of a sell.

    Maria, it's just a form of trolling ... (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:46:44 AM EST
    in my opinion.

    The "give me the answer" troll.


    Really a very classic type of troll... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:48:35 AM EST
    ...three questions and all. If we answer them correctly, we can cross the Unity Bridge. Our ponies await on the other side.

    Sheesh, I ask a question. (none / 0) (#112)
    by His Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:05:15 PM EST
    I was curious as to what Fabian wanted to say to Obama. I wasn't expecting Fabian to create a magical unity pony or whatever.

    I'm not taking offense (none / 0) (#91)
    by His Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:57:08 AM EST
    In fact, I agree with the consensus that it is incumbent on Obama to unite the party. How best to do that, I don't know. I hope he does. And the original comment had wanted Obama to listen, so I wanted to know what the poster wanted to say to him. Dialogue is a necessary part of unity, though not sufficient for it.

    Yep! (none / 0) (#142)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:24:37 PM EST
    If Obama is so great at uniting, he should be able to talk us Clinton supporters into it.  

    Perhaps if he looked at us Clinton supporters as "domestic terrorists," he'd be able to get into it more?    


    Domestic Terrorists (none / 0) (#179)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:16:33 PM EST
    only if from a very  rich family. Others need not apply.

    I wouldn't take Obama's word (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:45:29 AM EST
    for anything. And I doubt Hillary will either. He is simply not loyal or trustworthy. So any promises he makes aren't worth the ink it takes to write them.

    I wish more of the ... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:00:41 PM EST
    so-called "anti-war" people knew this.

    Obama's cleared out a nice space for them under the bus.


    he did tell his supporters not to confront anyone (none / 0) (#143)
    by seesdifferent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:25:25 PM EST
    at the meeting yesterday.

    So who will Obama (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Coldblue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:34:15 AM EST
    trot out in an attempt to stem the good press for Hillary?

    I am not sure they will give her good (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:40:06 AM EST
    press.  The media is perfectly happy erroneously claiming that PR doesn't count and that any win on Clinton's part is some sort of insult to Obama and the Democratic Party.

    Pfleger and wright. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    other than those two? he'll bring them all out.

    He won't even acknowledge it. (none / 0) (#35)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:36:59 AM EST
    Maybe she'll get a message on her cell phone.

    Or a psychic brainwave n/t (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:46:11 AM EST
    Maybe (none / 0) (#115)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:06:10 PM EST
    Michelle will give an historic speech on "Unity" so Clinton's victory speech will be pre-empted by the MSM?  

    Quote as MYIQ2XU's sig line over at Corrente: (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:36:14 AM EST
    "Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

    Do not lose this quote! Might make a brief and telling email to James Roosevelt and the entire Roolz Committee membership.

    Worth remembering for the long term.

    Feel the Unity! (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:38:02 AM EST

    I usually don't answer these types (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:38:18 AM EST
    of posts, but you are ridiculous. Go back, re-read your talking points and try another one, one with substance please.

    No I want to hear from people like these to keep (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:45:15 AM EST
    reminding me why Obama is THE Candidate that I should vote for...

    thanks. keep up the good work.


    Another voice of unity indeed. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:52:24 AM EST
    Obama aide Anita Dunn, per ABC News:
    When asked if Obama would wait to get a concession call from Clinton before claiming the nomination, Dunn said:

    The onus was on Clinton now that the Democratic Party has firmed up the number of delegates needed to claim the party's nod. He's not going to wait by the phone like a high-school girl waiting for a date. That's not Barack Obama.

    I truly want Hillary is not offered the VP so that I can rejoice while voting for McCain.


    Lord love a duck.... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:55:53 AM EST
    ...and I guess its okay she said that because she's a woman!!!! I mean sure I believe in free speech and all, but this is a statement that a professional makes to the media????? Okay, I am now officially old. Hell, I'm ancient.

    It's a legitimate analogy.... (2.00 / 1) (#103)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    Personally I much prefer common American vernacular, including figures of speech and analogies, to boring proper Old English.

    Charles Bukowski speaks to me more than Skakespeare ever could.


    I don't think its such a great analogy.... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:03:37 PM EST
    ...for this day and age, actually. If my son is any indication, high school girls don't sit by the phone and wait for dates anymore.

    Ya gotta point there... (1.00 / 0) (#139)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:23:10 PM EST
    it is a dated analogy.

    I've got no game whatsoever, if it wasn't for women making the proverbial "phone call" I'd never get laid:)


    To paraphrase Homer Simpson.... (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:07:37 PM EST
    ...Troll, be more funny.

    It is no more fair to judge (3.00 / 2) (#79)
    by independent voter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:53:25 AM EST
    Obama based on his lunatic fringe than it is to judge Hillary on hers.

    How about his own words or from his pastor, (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:01:48 PM EST

    Can we judge him based on his own words or the words from his pastor, spiritual friends, her wife, close friends....

    No we do not have the right to judge him .. we have only one option.. take him as our SAVIOR.. THE SAINT OF THE NEW TYPE OF POLITICS. THE MESSIAH.



    pastors words. Do you suppose Catholics that had a priest molest a child in their parish wish to be judged by that individual? How about not JUDGING him at all, but just evaluating his proposals with an open mind. I realize that is asking a whole he// of a lot around here, but it might be wise considering where we are in this primary race.

    You know (none / 0) (#187)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:37:31 PM EST
    independent voter, you seem to forget what's tumbled out of Obama's own mouth: Hillary is divisive, polarizing, previous Democratic administration ineffective, etc.

    You've forgotten his high level surrogates injecting racism into the contest.  High level surrogates who are still part of his campaign.

    I'm not going to hang his pastor around his neck but I will hang his 20 year membership in a church that from time to time veered away from the message of Christ. His claim that he was unaware is an insult to the intelligence of every person in the nation.

    But evaluating him based on his proposals is what caused me to reject him in the first place. The rest of it has only caused me to be repulsed by him.


    Totally false analogy (none / 0) (#190)
    by gandy007 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:02:20 PM EST
    on many levels.  Most obviously, I'm a Catholic and if I were to know that my priest was molesting children, I would instantly report him to the authorities, police and church.

    Further, I would instantly change churches, still Catholic, if by some circumstance he were allowed to continue being my priest.

    The point is that the words were just the catalyst.

    It is more so the association for many years, here as with others, that is damning and upon which he is being judged.  It strains credulity that Obama didn't have a clue as to what kind of men these were and what their beliefs were.

    It is especially disturbing to consider that he likely permitted his children to be exposed to such venom. To call it bad judgement is greatly understating the case.


    Ooops (none / 0) (#191)
    by gandy007 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:03:45 PM EST

    72 % Clinton supporters not happy with Obama (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:55:02 AM EST
    59% of Obama supporters not happy with Clinton.

    Exit poll of PR

    Sadly (none / 0) (#92)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:58:01 AM EST
    they can't vote in the GE so we can't find out how many of them won't vote for the other come November.

    On PR... (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by mattt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:58:22 AM EST
    I have a lifelong friend from PR (now living in San Diego) and he tells me his family and friends back home are excited about getting to vote in a national contest that matters.  Whatever your position on statehood, I think it's great that the Dem party gives Puerto Ricans a say in our nominee.  From what I know of the candidates' past attentions to PR it sounds like Hillary has earned a win there.

    F#cking Obama... (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Mrwirez on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:04:01 PM EST
    the guy makes my skin crawl, and his wife is even worse, she radiates hate towards the Clintons and my people, the blue collar types. I hope Senator Clinton cleans his clock, and makes him look even weaker than he is with the Latinos. Funny, how this block of voters does not like him either. Obama went from the uniter to the decider yesterday. I am even more mad today than yesterday. I have been Mexico and I find the Latino people so friendly, why do they dislike the democratic "presumed" nominee so much??

    McCain looks better every day (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Prabhata on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    At first I thought ANY Democrat would do.  That was back in February.  Then SC rolled and other less than acceptable acts by Obama and I decided that I didn't think I could vote for Obama.  Then I decided there was no way I could vote for Obama, I would skip voting for POTUS in November.  Then I decided that I needed to protest the DNC and send a message to them by voting for McCain.  Now I see that McCain is a good candidate.  He has served the US with distinction.  He loves his country and will do just fine as president.  McCain will not only get my vote, but I'll be happy to have the best candidate win the presidency.

    perhaps you need a refresher on McCain (none / 0) (#160)
    by seesdifferent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:41:12 PM EST
    endless war, more war, repeal Roe v. Wade, corporate lobbyists running the White House, permanent control of the Supreme court by corporatist judges, bankrupting the country with tax cuts, forget about social security or health care.

    Obama (none / 0) (#192)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:22:49 PM EST
    is a bigger threat to Social Security than McCain.

    When Bush tried to destroy SS the Democrats in Congress seized a chance to make sure his foot felt the effects of stepping on the third rail. Congress will do as much if McCain gets after the same issue. But what if a Democratic President gets cute with Social Security as Obama's economic advisor Jeffrey Liebman would want. What happens then? Will Republicans speak up? Of course not, they'll be ecstatic.  Will Democrats align with a President of their own party? Will some Democrats want to put the issue behind them and cave to show a united party?

    Explain to me how McCain will appoint radical right judges. Democrats in the Senate with a larger majority could find the spine to force McCain into more moderate choices as the GOP did with Clinton. And since Obama appears to squirm when Roe v. Wade comes up (didn't he vote present in the Illinois legislature on related matters) who's to say what sort of judges he'll nominate.  Obama saw nothing wrong with Roberts and would have voted to confirm had not his top aide explained. If Obama wants Republicans at the table what will his White House staff look like? What of appointees to federal agencies?

    Tax cuts?  They expire in 2010 and McCain can do nothing to stop that that.

    Lobbyists.  Obama's biggest bundlers are lobbyists. Don't tell me you believe all that crap about all that dough from the little people.

    Health care.  Obama is against UHC, he's said so repeatedly in the campaign and when he returned from a trip to Iraq he said he his viewpoint was different. He voted against a funding bill  amendment that demanded troop withdrawal.  He wants to retain Blackwater. You really think he's going to pull outb the troops?

    Obama wants to change the Democratic Party, move it away from a party promoting activist government and into a role promoting passive government.


    Sad isn't it? (none / 0) (#183)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:24:06 PM EST
    I feel just like you do.  

    Originally I thought I could vote for Obama too, but I've seen too much and read too much.  I can't vote for him.  I don't believe he's qualified to be President of this country.

    I don't think I've ever voted Republican for President in my life but I'll have to this time.  McCain is qualified.  I may disagree with a lot of his positions but he's the only qualified option who actually could win.  


    Thanks (none / 0) (#189)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    McCain will not only get my vote, but I'll be happy to have the best candidate win the presidency.

    Agree 100% and I'll do everything I can to make that happen.  Obama is just too much like Bush and that's the real waiting disaster.


    Shout out to Rico: Rise up! (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:17:32 PM EST
    Got my fingers crossed: the more voters turn out, the harder it is for ALL voters to stop being shabbily treated under the whims of Obama's courtiers on the DNC.

    C'mon Mica get your big ass off the lounge and do your duty. The group's not PRn but they're doing a remake of the Boogalu/Latin Soul classic, and both are roots of salsa music and dance.

    TIP for people who claim they can't dance latin: learn to boogaloo first, it's really easy. Beginners get a hula hoop and work it while hold your arms at chest level, one, then the other, and then upwards as if pulling down ropes. Then incorporate fancier arm and footwork and turns as you progress.

    Time zone (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:21:40 PM EST
    PR is the same time zone as Eastern Daylight right?  That would be the same time zone I'm in right now.  The polls are only open until 4pm?  Seems like a small window for voting (compared to here where they are open from 7am to 8pm).

    I guess I'm not surprised about low turnout, if the media there is anything like here, it's all being presented as a done deal for Obama.  I suppose that  many voters, if they are pro-Clinton, must be figuring "why bother?"  I wish they'd vote anyway though.

    low voter turnout (none / 0) (#197)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:51:52 PM EST
    I posted this on the other thread-but why not here too. Apparently the local Democratic Party has reduced voting places on the Island by a thousand. That's a lot for an Island. If people have to go a long way to vote, and then queue when they get there and there isn't a local issue-
    turn out will be low. As easy as that.



    Reflecting (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by mattt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:24:28 PM EST
    on my recent posts and the replies to them...

    I am voting for Obama, but I'm not, as has been suggested a couple of times, one of his more devoted fanboys.  I've engaged here at TL, most often defending the Obama side, in order to hear all side sof the issues and also in an effort to stick pins in a few anti-Obama memes that I consider fallacious.  Not because Obama is TEH GREATEST!!! but because I've believed since Texas that he's our likely nomineee, and I want the Democrats to win in November.

    I am not saying Clinton's supporters are nutz or being deceived - there are some good arguments to make against Obama.  But there have also been some arguments offered that are not fact-based, and it bothered me to sit quietly and watch them solidifying into an obstacle to Democratic prospects.

    But I know I'm relatively ineloquent, have a bit of a short temper, and my information isn't as good as people who've spent more time following all these issues.  And, in reflecting on some posts here yesterday and stuff I've read elsewhere, I've been reminded what it's like to really have an emotional investment in a candidate.  That's not how I feel about Obama, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that kind of enthusiasm and have felt it myself in the past for other candidates (I'm not going to date myself by saying who).  On the whole, despite best intentions, I've probably done more harm than good for the health of the "unity pony."

    Jeralyn, BTD and the community: please accept my apologies for any comments you found offensive or improperly argumentative.  Please don't associate my poor arguments with the Obama campaign, or other Democrats at large....I don't represent either.

    I'm not signing off; I'll be staying around to keep hearing those opposing viewpoints and perhaps jump in the mix now and then.  But out of respect for the deep feelings a lot of good Dems have about the candidates I'm going to take a step back from engaging on all the little points about the nomination process.  Late, yes, I know; hopefully better than never.

    Thanks,  Matt T

    meh (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:34:29 PM EST
    I don't know what went on in terms of you and TL, but I do know - as a former Obama supporter - you all are a day late and a dollar short. I'm so disgusted by what I've seen from the Obama supporters, I don't want anything to do with you all.

    And I'm far from alone.

    I think the reality of what the Obama campaign is really about is illustrated perfectly by Meteor Blades' post.

    Sad. So much potential p$ssed away.


    When the Dems lose, he'll be among the gang trying to lay blame on everyone but himself.

    Um, no. The likes of him have successfully alienated how many potential voters at this point?

    Yeesh. What children they are.

    Waldenpond has lots of good things to say. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:38:39 PM EST
    You, skepti, have nothing of interest to say.  So I say GO AWAY.  You are a pest.

    Posted on another thread (3.00 / 2) (#31)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:35:26 AM EST
    but I think it's important. Houston Chronicle today about woman who had had a c-section previously, who applied to an ins. company for coverage. They denied her because of the likelihood of having another c-section. Told her if she were over 45 or had been sterilized during prev. c-section, they would have taken her. Tell me Sen. Obama how your health care plan works again?

    Why don't you tell us? (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:48:40 AM EST
    Since you're the Obama expert, please enlighten us. I'm still waiting to hear one Obama supporter explain even one position that BO has on anything. Other than "hope, change and new politics".

    So in other words, (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:54:14 AM EST
    you don't know.

    Thanks for playing.


    "Try his website". (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:55:11 AM EST
    Thanks, sweetie.

    I know his position, if you cannot give (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:58:39 AM EST
    me a reason, position, other than "change", then don't waste my time. I've done my homework, I know his plans (or lack thereof) and being a leader, not a blind follower, I can determine for myself who I wish to vote for. Please read, please investigate, please read all the issues, then make an informed decision based on your ideals. If then he is your candidate, then the american way says vote for him.

    if you think his plan is parroting Hillary's (none / 0) (#146)
    by seesdifferent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:28:32 PM EST
    isn't that a good thing?

    Why will his healthplan (none / 0) (#178)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:14:42 PM EST
    cost twice as much as Hillary's yet insure less people?  

    As an Obama expert, you surely know the answer to this.  


    Close examination of the policy (none / 0) (#193)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:39:08 PM EST
    and agenda of the Obama candidacy would lose him a considerable amount of support among Democrats.

    I've been to his website (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:56:45 AM EST
    All I see is a lot of Me!Me!Me! on it. As for his positions, again, I ask you to explain the differences. Whenever he's been asked, all I've heard is "me too" and a parroting of whatever plans HRC already formulated for herself.

    Every time I ask an Obama supporter these questions I either get a) go to his website or b) read his books. No. I'm asking YOU to articulate these things to me. Why is that so difficult?


    Maybe (none / 0) (#186)
    by gandy007 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:36:06 PM EST
    you would do better to go do the other things that you have to do on Sunday than to keep posting here.

    Your comments, in my estimation, have as little substance as those of Obama.

    If I didn't believe you are sincere in your support of Obama, I would be convinced you are a McCain supporter.

    You are doing your candidate more harm than good as  far I'm concerned and have only reinforced my decision not to vote for Obama.

    a/k/a DownBallotDem


    What is his position, skepti, on (none / 0) (#82)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:54:18 AM EST
    appointing judges...

    P.S. I'll wait for you to go to (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:56:00 AM EST
    his website..

    Read His Books (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:09:17 PM EST
    I'm sure he said something about it there. <snark>

    Hillary's plan, skepti, covers (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:51:26 AM EST
    EVERYONE who wants insurance, just like they have in the Senate of the United States....Barack's plan makes it mandatory for only children to be covered, which is a good thing, and then he says he will work w/ins. companies to better themselves, which could take years, decades, or many decades.

    Hillary's plan made provision for affordability: (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:04:12 PM EST
    Capped premiums, no higher charges for preexisting conditions, and an overall cap on the percentage of a person's income which could go toward healthcare costs.

    I do not believe Obama or his economic advisers have that provision.

    Believe me, that is very, very important. Right now, for very high charges, most things will be covered. Except most can't afford that kind of cost.


    Go check Obama's speeches on (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:07:29 PM EST
    the subject of health plans along with his debates.I think what his website says, is not in
    agreement with the position you state. Their plans are similar, but not the same. Please do not guess, please be an informed voter for either candidate, just be as informed as you can be, that is what keeps our country great!!

    An aside on O'care (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Pacific John on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    The most telling thing for me was that, in the dark of night, Obama updated his website when his public insurance option came under fire.

    Both the Edwards and Hillary plans guarantee an option of government coverage (either Medicare, or a clone of Medicare), but the Obama plan only had a public option as a pilot program limited to people who are currently uninsured. Sometime along the line, with little fanfare, Team Obama opened up the public option.

    Now, the public option is the structural nail through the heart of price-gouging private insurers, who would not be able to compete with the low overhead of Medicare.

    So, as casually as Team Obama inserted an open public option, I would expect them to casually negotiate it away in the face of any heat from the insurance lobby.

    This lesson suggests to me that any reform under Obama would look like the the ineffective free market insurance pools passed by Pete Wilson in CA that helped get us into this mess.


    The Insurance Industry (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:51:37 PM EST
    has invested in Obama for a reason.  The last thing the insurance industry wants is 'the nose of the camel under the tent.'

    Read somewhere Obama has added provision (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:51:36 AM EST
    to his plan requiring companies to cover preexisting conditions. No right to refuse for preexisting conditions, iow.

    We shall see. And, anyway, it's the cost for coverage with preexisting conditions which is the final and most difficult denial to overcome. If Obama goes along with his Un. of Chi economists' love of the magic hand of the market, they'll just price preexisting conditions out of their plans. Same diff.

    I write as someone with cancer, which must be watched for the rest of my life but seems to be under control. I cannot move out of my insurance company's coverage area...until I'm Medicare eligible, since no other company will cover me for the cancer. I pay a few dollars under %1,500 a month. I was told my by oncologist that my company has been denying a test he thinks is important for tracking any possible new cancer sites.

    (Individual coverage in NJ is governed by the state insurance board, but they only review rates once every 5 years--which they did last year, and my company was forced to revise its plan, lowering the rate, and increasing the co-pays. This year they increased their rate 25%--and can do whatever they want for the next 3 years, with a review only affecting their 2012 rates. So, once every 5 years the state can exercise some control--but then they just increase enough to make up for their "loss" from the year the state affects their profits. What a racket. Can't live with 'em, and sure couldn't live without coverage. Would my tests cost $18,0000? Oh, yes, bcz the rates for the uninsured are much higher than what the insurance company negotiates.)

    Question: Was the silly (well, stupid) move of getting the rules committee to steal 4 delegates from Hillary in MI part of a power play to ensure she has less power in the Senate than she might otherwise have had? So he won't have a gadfly on his left affecting his Repub Lite plans should he be elected president? Hhhmmmm....

    My retirement is going to the execs at my health insurance company, and the company still sees ways to cut its costs to its insured. Way to run a healthcare system. NOT.


    It doesn't sound good. (none / 0) (#44)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:40:11 AM EST
    I think they meant only about half the turnout that was expected.  :(

    let me put on my Brazile-like mind-reading hat... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    those voters would have supported Obama, so give him half of the delegates!

    -- was channeling,not my thoughts...


    Re: Pfleger--Most MCMers I've heard do not (none / 0) (#98)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:59:58 AM EST
    mention he has been a friend and supporter of Obama since his earliest community organizing work in Chicago. Obama, iirc, has known him as long or longer than he knew Rev. Wright.

    Father Pfleger is just some guy who spoke at Obama's (former) church in most reports. NPR did mention Pfleger had been on Obama's list of spiritual advisers.

    Exactly (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:09:18 PM EST
    Tweety, on some sunday am show, referred to him as "some clown" who spoke from the pulpit of Trinity church....no mention of his involvement in the campaign.

    "Yesterday's news" (none / 0) (#125)
    by zebedee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:13:01 PM EST
    Just watching the cable news, While there were many disappointing aspects to the RBC result, it's still galling to hear the networks go on that "yesterday's news" was a bitter blow for Hillary. Their coverage previously of the horse race not only ignored FL and MI but it was as if there was something deranged about Hillary mentioning them, let alone count their votes or delegates. Now it's as if she had 100% in the bag but was just abanded by the democratic party in this "blow".

    Except for Fox, where Karl Rove (1.00 / 0) (#195)
    by cymro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:43:49 PM EST
    ... is pointing out that Obama should have conceded everything that the Clinton campaign wanted instead of splitting the Party for the sake of a handful of delegates, and suggesting that he may not be feeling as secure about the nomination as everyone is claiming.

    I hate it when I find myself agreeing with Karl, because I'm sure he somehow had a hand in architecting this entire primary disaster for the Democrats. But you have to respect his knowledge and insights, even while opposing his political objectives.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#199)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:02:02 PM EST
    I despise Rove but he's no dummy and he's on the mark concerning this issue.

    There are times when an outsider even a hostile outsider has a clearer less obstructed view.

    This morning George Will, someone who really infuriates me 95% of the time, drilled Donna Brazile with a clear unobstructed view.


    Gabriel must be a Karl Rove fan ... (none / 0) (#203)
    by cymro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:34:39 PM EST
    ... as well as a troll.

    name calling doesn't add to the discussion (none / 0) (#148)
    by seesdifferent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:29:55 PM EST
    I hope the moderator will take note.

    I agree seesdifferent (none / 0) (#181)
    by gandy007 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:19:06 PM EST
    I'm glad we think alike.

    Skepti should be tossed for their insulting and adversarial posturing.

    Take note monitors!


    Trouble?.... (none / 0) (#182)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:21:36 PM EST
    Look in the mirror pal.

    You realize, to the casual observer, that you sound like the flip side of the same coin you rail against.

    Pierluisi was insulted by almost everyone (none / 0) (#202)
    by TomLincoln on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:01:28 PM EST
    commenting on news appearing in the online edition of El Nuevo Día reporting a statement by him to the effect that for anyone in Puerto Rico to vote for Hillary was really wasting one's vote.

    As to the 20 or so delegates reportedly expected, tonight they were saying it had been a victory because they had "figured this was what Obama needed" in terms of delegates from Puerto Rico. Ha!