home

Second Tuesday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:00:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Our other threads are full (and I still haven't made it to the jail but I'm trying) so here's another one.

Blogcloggers don't bother, your comments will be erased when I return.

  • South Dakota thread here
  • Montana Thread here

< Clinton Campaign Denies AP Report That She Will Concede Obama Has Won | Montana And South Dakota Predictions Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Second Tuesday Open Thread | 149 comments (149 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Go ARG!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:03:06 PM EST


    Have we seen any (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:06:37 PM EST
    other polls?

    It's very odd how there seems to be so little information about how they think people will vote today. Maybe they were spooked by how wrong they were about PR...

    Parent

    They probably just (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:14:54 PM EST
    way overspent their budget for this primary season ;-)

    Parent
    News and polling organisations seem (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:21:44 PM EST
    to have been conserving their polling budgets for the GE matchup.

    The ARG poll is interesting,  given that most of the predictions for SD from the likes of Kos, Poblano, Al Giordano etc seem to be around a 3 - 6 point win for Obama.  It's difficult to see how ARG could get it so wrong though, if Obama does actually win SD then they will have egg all over their face.

    Parent

    You know what, a 3-6 point win in 2 states (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:29:42 PM EST
    that were "solidly in his corner" just 2 weeks ago, and which he was to win by double digits, proves how unelectable he is. Not, if it turns out that way, the press will report it as such. Heck, if Hillary wins either one or both, the press still will not report it that way.

    Parent
    If Obama wins Montana and South Dakota (none / 0) (#58)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:32:18 PM EST
    by 6 points then that proves how unelectable he is?

    I'm trying to understand your logic?

    Parent

    I will watch the margins (none / 0) (#84)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:43:15 PM EST
    of the contests.  If he loses it is a concern, but if he wins while still bleeding demographics, it's a problem for him at the convention.  People seem to be hardening for him and against him.

    Parent
    Aren't these two states homogeneous? (none / 0) (#103)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:47:41 PM EST
    Which particular margins will you be looking for? Income and education?

    Parent
    No not homogenous (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:56:17 PM EST
    for MT think... wealthy ranch owners etc.  The state has had some demographic changes.

    Yes, I am watching to see what changes he experiences from his trends.  Are they increasing or decreasing.  I like exit polls.  The more polls going in and coming out, the more fun I have.

    Parent

    I think Hillary will win SD (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    But not by that huge margin.  I've been reading about a Daschle backlash, plus the demographics there are more working class than Montana.

    Parent
    Re. story: Hillary Campaign Not Suspend (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:21:48 PM EST
    Jeralyn, the first paragraph of your post ends with a crucial question:

    "So now the AP is falling for a story the only effect of which would be voter suppression in two states? How do these things happen?"

    Consider the SOURCE: the first source for the story is not the AP: it is Ben Smith at Politico, who posted it on June 2, at 12:15am EST.

    Remember the false story that Edwards was suspending his campaign when he learned that Elizabeth's cancer had returned? That story began with Politico, it spread like wildfire, and undermined support for Edwards (see Media Matters).

    Now, Politico has done it again with a false story about Hillary suspending her campaign. Andgarden linked to the story here at TL on the overnight thread on June 2 and vouched for Ben Smith's veracity. I wrote this reply:

    I don't have a 'unity pony'; I have a 'hobby horse' and I call it: Is Politico a GOP Shill. In addition to this article, Media Matters has done extensive documentation of their misdeeds.

    Politico has been on the bleeding edge of the most damaging anti-dem smear campaigns since they came out of the gate back in January, 2007. In fact they started with an article that coined the fatal  term "slow-bleed" to characterize John Murtha's plan to de-escalate funding of the Iraq war [see Media Matters]. Ben Smith contrived the term "kitchen sink strategy" to make it sound like Senator Clinton was/is desperately, she-devilishly, throwing all manner of garbage at poor Obama [see Media Matters].

    Lat week, on May 23/08, [to the best of my knowledge] Politico ran the first story (with a verifiable time stamp) that made a false issue of Senator Clinton's RFK remark.

    Politico excels at whisper/smear campaigns that start small and go viral. Take nothing they say at face value.

    Update: Politico Editor, John Harris, subsequently wrote about an unapologetic story about their role in the RFK debacle: Media Hype: How Small Stories Become Big News (May 25/08).

    Parent

    AP article came out, per my link, at 11:07AM-- so (4.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    not sure Politico was first.

    But it still is amazing that the AP didn't contact the compaign for actual responses from those willing to have their names used before running with the anonymous quotes.

    But, it's how journamalism is done nowadays, right?

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:30:32 PM EST
    If I could change anything in journalism, that would be my first wish.  Unless speaking on the record would put someone in serious jeopardy, they should not be allowed to do so.  Off the record and not for attribution is now the default, as I believe Russert helpfully pointed out in his Libby deposition.

    Parent
    Ooops (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:31:55 PM EST
    I meant of course: Unless speaking on the record would put someone in serious jeopardy, they should not be allowed to be off the record.

    Parent
    A journalist's privilege in protecting his or her (none / 0) (#78)
    by KristenWinters on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:40:50 PM EST
    anonymous sources is one of the protections inherent in our first amendment's freedom of speech in my opinion.

    Parent
    That doesn't mean it's good (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    journalistic practice to use an anonymous source for a particular story.

    Parent
    True, but it is then up to me to consider (none / 0) (#145)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    how much - if any - credibility I want to give to a story based on information from people who wish to remain anonymous.

    I have no doubt that there are some unattributed sources that are credible, but when reporters started opting almost exclusively for the unattributed source for Bush administration propaganda, it went out of control.  Even the later addition of excuses like, "speaking anonymously as he is not authorized to speak for..." or "declined to be named because he did not want to be discovered leaking information he was not authorized to give," failed to do anything other than highlight the reason such sources should never form the basis for a story.

    As I said earlier - if one cannot verify, one cannot trust.

    Parent

    This is incorrect (none / 0) (#148)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    ...and a widespread misconception.  The 1st Amendment does not protect journalistic sources.   Some states and the feds are discussing journalistic shield laws, but those would not be constitutional rights.

    Parent
    Jawbone, Politico date is June 2: AP is June 3rd. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:49:12 PM EST
    The most amazing thing is that, there's a pattern whereby, Politico starts a TOTALLY FALSE story and then more 'legit' news orgs follow suite. Their 'source', whether stated or not, is the Politico story.

    Parent
    Thank you! I completely missed the date! (none / 0) (#157)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:40:24 PM EST
    Wow--Drudge and Politco. Beyond belief.

    Parent
    Michelle Obama warns us of the bloggers (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by stefystef on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    She tell us, not to trust the bloggers.

    http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/06/02/news/local/16-obama.txt

    Now this is interesting because it is the internet and the bloggers who build her husband's political career.

    If not for the internet and the bloggers like Atrios and DailyKos and Huffington websites, Obama would not be here he is today.

    The dog is biting the hand that fed it. I wonder how the Obama followers will spin this speech.

    Michelle is turning into Lady Macbeth quite quickly.

    Well, I guess she ought to know (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:07:11 PM EST
    how much the bloggers have puffed up her husband.

    Parent
    She knows (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:18:39 PM EST
    She also knows that the blogospher can turn on a dime when it suits them. Today's Obamaites may be his worst critics in 6 months.

    Parent
    hehe.. wait til McCain's paid bloggers (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:20:08 PM EST
    invade DK---if they haven't already.

    Parent
    They are there (none / 0) (#73)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:40:13 PM EST
    Astroturfing doesn't work very well when you wait until the last moment to create an account. Everybody but the newbies at Daily Kos know how to check the user number. I was often accused ot being a concern troll when I posted negatives about Obama, but all I had to do was reference my user number (below 20,000) and my posting history to shut them up. Rove's people know that they need to have a user number that's at least a few months old as well as a long posting history to be taken seriously. There are still probably accounts from the last primary that they could activate.

    Parent
    On dkos I figured out how to recommend, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:42:36 PM EST
    but not how to give a minus rating...then it became too awful to even stick around.

    Parent
    You don't get to troll rate... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:58:27 PM EST
    ... until you get "trusted user" status. This status us based on a mysterious formula that takes into account how many posts you have made recently and how many recommendations you received for those posts, along with the number of troll rating you received. In the current environment, it is difficult for a Clinton supporter to achieve TU status, since any pro-Clinton comment is likely to receive few recs and at least a few troll ratings. However, if you don't publicly support Clinton it is easy to get TU status by posting on the "mojo diaries", most of which come up on weekends. These are diaries which discuss light topics, such as gardening or personal problems, in which the posters freely give out recs. You an also get lots of "mojo" by posting pro-Obama comments. It was always an easy system to game, but now it is even easier.

    Parent
    When he's up, it's only his efforts and charm (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:22:53 PM EST
    when he's down, it's always someone else.

    She's trying to lay the expectations for how we are to respond to the things she isn't sure could be available against the both of them.


    Parent

    My husband (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:07:45 PM EST
    has always thought she was Lady Macbeth.

    He thinks she was behind Obama's run after such a short time in office.

    Just an impression of course.

    Parent

    Mornin' Madamab....after this rough primary (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    season we could use some nice music to soothe our jangled nerves...maybe like an aria or sumpin' :)

    Parent
    The blogs are going to be shoved under (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:08:43 PM EST
    soon enough. Once the purpose is served.

    The ranting against Mccain will be similar to that directed at Clinton. Obama will be forced to dissassociate himself from Dkos MyDD and other sites.

    Th ehowling insanity will not be stoppable.

    Parent

    You can't be implying an act of (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    political expediency.  Surely it will require much deep soul-searching.

    Parent
    It'll be a "cultural and stylistic gap" (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:21:12 PM EST
    between Obama and bloggerboyz, wait and see.  That is how he described his reasons for leaving his church, as a "cultural and stylistic gap" -- in other words, Obama had no problem at all with the content of what Wright, Pfleger, et al., say but only with the way they say it.  And that will be another problem for Obama, when that is scripted into a 527 ad.

    Parent
    That was such a bizarre excuse. Sometimes (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:22:39 PM EST
    I wonder if Obama likes to see what he can get away with, in terms of nonsense.
    He's conditioning his supporters.

    Parent
    Or take it at face value. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:25:26 PM EST
    He has no problem with it because he agrees with it... hmmm

    Parent
    He was torn apart on dKos (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM EST
    Of course, this was a year ago, before it became his netroots campaign headquarters. I doubt that Obama will be posting anything there anytime soon. Have you seen the kind of things they say? The last thing he needs is to be associated with that kind of anger and hatred. Other sites are no better. Very few blogs are moderated effectively enough to be safe for Obama personally, although he probably has staffers directing traffic on every one. There is enough distance that he isn't associated with them directly, but enough closeness that he can use them to manipulate public opinion.

    Parent
    I so agree (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by livesinashoe on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    Th ehowling insanity will not be stoppable.

     I'm afraid that the rise of authoritarianism on the right has evoked a rise of authoritarianism on the left.  

    Parent

    Will he give them their own bus? Please! (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:40:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Salo, I never thought of that (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by MMW on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:53:41 PM EST
    But I do believe you hit that one out of the park.

    Parent
    thx (none / 0) (#149)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:28:19 PM EST
    To some extent the blogs are only useful for internal squabbles and censoring fellow Dems to keep damaging information suppressed.

    Parent
    Just a reminder (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:09:23 PM EST
    We are holding to our policy announced a few days ago that there will be no references on this site to an anticipated smear of Michelle Obama that is being promoted on right wing sites and other blogs. No links, no mention of it.

    Steer clear of personal and character attacks on everyone if you want your comment to stay up.

    Parent

    Ooops! Truly sorry, Jeralyn, I forgot. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:20:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Would you include that in the post (none / 0) (#45)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    I don't think I violated with my comment about anything future that comes out against either or both of them, but I posted it before I got to your reminder.

    If the warning could be at the bottom of the post, the reminder to us would be helpful.

    Thanks :)

    Parent

    Actually, I think the most interesting part (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:20:17 PM EST
    of the Michelle Obama quote is this:

    "The way this campaign has been run is the way we need to be forever," Obama said.

    That could have all sorts of interesting implications for how an Obama administration would be run....

    Parent

    Yeah - I'm trying to figure out (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM EST
    what she means by that without listening to the whole speech.  I may have to give in and do it.  That is intriguing.  Is she saying their campaign has been so clean that it is the new standard?

    Parent
    I would like michelle to be Lady MacGone (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:38:06 PM EST
    off the political landscape and back to Chicago with barack in tow...jmo

    Parent
    I'm not crazy about Michelle Obama (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by litigatormom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:55:38 PM EST
    but I cringed when I saw the "Lady Macbeth," given how many times Hillary Clinton was called by that name during the last 16 years.

    Parent
    Me too n/t (none / 0) (#136)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:12:08 PM EST


    Parent
    The comments (none / 0) (#59)
    by suisser on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:32:50 PM EST
    were interesting.  Not a whole lotta love out there for Michelle.

    Parent
    This Is A Fun Story To Read (none / 0) (#133)
    by daring grace on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    for me as an Obama supporter. I love the anecdotes about the organizing efforts of his grassroots supporters.

    For the record, I also love reading these stories about Clinton's supporters too.

    The energizing of the party as evidenced in both campaigns in this cycle has been inspirational.

    Thanks for the link.

    Parent

    Anyone going to Europe to see Euro 2008? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:07:08 PM EST
    Any soccer fans?

    (change the subject for a bit)

    My son is a huge fan but no budget. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:12:26 PM EST
    He watches on cable sports tier add-on. Don't know how he'll survive when he goes to college soon.

    Parent
    When is it? (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    Just curious as I've been working on product for Euro soccer the past couple weeks  :)

    Parent
    It starts this coming Saturday. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:56:56 PM EST
    I'm in Europe (as Scot), but as we were cruelly denied qualification from the Group of Death (involving the finalists from the last World Cup Italy and France) my team will not be taking part.  

    Not sure who I'm going to support yet,  but I will certainly be watching ... when I'm allowed to.  As I'm getting married on the 14th I suspect my hands might be a bit full and free time a bit scarce.

    Parent

    Thanks! I'll have to tune in (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:14:35 PM EST
    while I'm working. Makes it more fun :) Is Juventus or Barcelona playing?

    Congrats on your upcoming nuptials! And you just reminded me my parents anniversay is coming up. 54 yrs!

    Parent

    nycstray - Euro 2008 is a competition (none / 0) (#144)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:21:02 PM EST
    between national sides.  link

    It's held every 4 years and this year is jointly hosted by Switzerland and Austria (who qualify automatically as hosts), and there are 16 teams/countries taking part.

    Juventus and Barcelona are Club teams from Italy and Spain so they would not be a part of the European Championship,  though they are almost every year involved in the Champions League, which is a Europe wide club competition.

    Parent

    Thank You! (none / 0) (#150)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:28:50 PM EST
    Ok, so it's like us putting together a nation team vs leagues. I'll be doing some quick study before the weekend! Thanks for the link :)

    Parent
    Reminder to NJ voters-There is a US Senate primary (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:09:25 PM EST
    for Dems. Between incumbent Lautenberg and Andrews (US Rep) and Cressitello (mayor of Morristown, who signed up to use local police to work with Immigration to turn in undocumented arrestees.

    Voting is slow bcz many aren't aware of second primary here in the Garden State.

    And, of course, NJ voters who read this blog don't need reminding!

    You have to wonder (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:28:19 PM EST
    if Lautenberg really should remain.  He will be 91 years old at the end of his term.  

    Andrews is a guy that has had a lot of buzz for the past few years.

    As long as they don't pick another Hudson County crony.  

    Parent

    How can they not be aware?! (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:47:49 PM EST
    I could almost recite the commercials word for word, and I'm in NY!

    Parent
    Grrr... (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:12:05 PM EST
    Got a response back from Lakoff...and naturally, where I tried to keep the whole discussion away from the candidates and focused totally on the voters and the caucus process, her turns it around and states that if HRC thinks that the caucus process is troubled, she should've said something about it back  between 1992 and 2004.

    ::sheesh::

    I wasn't even talking about the candidates.

    Can I use the word "git"?

    Happens all the time here now (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by CST on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:15:19 PM EST
    I feel like I have a target on my back.  Yesterday I said something someone didn't like about SCOTUS votes so they went through and troll rated all my other comments, including one about the situation in Gaza that had nothing to do with the election.

    Also, caucuses are terrible and need to be done away with immediately.

    Parent

    yeah but... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:17:33 PM EST
    This is in email...one academic to another.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by CST on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:19:01 PM EST
    That's a lot worse.  

    Parent
    Here's a 5 for ya. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:21:07 PM EST
    I find you very non-troll-like, personally. :-)

    Parent
    that's the frustrating part... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:40:04 PM EST
    I wasn't discussing the campaigns...just the basic problems with access and the caucus process.

    Parent
    So annoying! Everything's about them! (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:16:34 PM EST
    Nothing can be discussed unless someone is accused of ulterior motives on behalf of their chosen candidate. That really hacked me off about the RBC meeting. It was supposed to be about the stated rules not about one or the other. Yet, Obama is given much praise for his "concessions". Grrrr.

    Parent
    thought the same last Sat (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:24:38 PM EST
    while watching the rules cmte meeting.  I noticed at the very end one man who was supporting Obama (I don't remember his name)  just had to throw in his little speech a big note of THANKS for the leadership Obama had provided on this.....

    What leadership does it display to steal votes?

    I was shocked....

    Parent

    But he magnanimously (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:34:26 PM EST
    declined to steal more votes. Such leadership!  I believe that was MacDonald, who, not surprisingly, endorsed Obama yesterday.

    Parent
    It did lay the decision (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:38:02 PM EST
    at Obama's feet. He will find it more difficult to say that the results of Saturday's meeting had nothing to do with him when the voters respond negatively.

    Parent
    I was in a meeting most of Saturday (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by litigatormom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    and therefore did not watch the committee meetings. Indeed, I have been lying low in general lately; off the blogs, off TV news, barely reading the NYT.

    But during a break I did catch a bit of a video clip of the RBC meeting, in which Donna Brazile responded to someone protesting the denial of votes to MI and FLA voters by saying "and we're giving you some of those votes back."

    I was so appalled. I shut the TV off and went back into the meeting, only to discover (after complaining about the Brazile clip) that someone in the group who had been supporting Clinton had switched to Obama.  I discovered this when he unexpectedly disagreed with my assertion that it was dishonest to split the MI delegates 50/50. The last time I'd seen him, he'd been in favor of seating the delegates in full, and awarding Clinton delegates in proportion to the percentage of the Michigan votes she'd won.

    I'm still appalled.

    Parent

    Unity???? (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:20:10 PM EST
    I think if the dems and Obama want to start to patch up the differences and unite the party, they sure aren't going about it the right way at all.

    First there was the debacle ofthe rules committee stealing votes last Sat.

    Now I read on another blog yesterday that AmericaBlog has received blogging credentails for the Convention in August.  AmericaBlog is one of the biggest offenders of posting Clinton bashing articles that I have seen.  And, their comments there have been some of the most vile anywhere on the new.  There is nothign wrong with having an opposing viewpoint and even supporting one candidate over another.  But, the outright vitriol from that site (and others) has been way over the top.

    So, instead of condemning sites like that, the dem party and the Obama campaign have rewarded their behvior by giving them one of a limited number of bloggin credentials for the convention.

    Is this what they think looks like a unifying action?

    both the party and the campaign should have speaking out against this type of stuff during the entire campaign.  But instead, they chose to benefit from it and now are going to reward it.

    You've really hit the nail (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:26:45 PM EST
    on the head there.

    It is far too obvious that the Party elites condone and approve of the Obama camp's desire to excommunicate all things Clinton from their New Plutocratic Party. No action is too unprincipled, no smear is too vile, as long as they throw the Clinton Dems (Bubbas according to Chris Bowers) out.

    How they expect us to unify behind people who don't want us, and don't care about the same things we care about, is just mind-boggling to me.

    Hi, I'm madamab, I'm a 40-year-old Jewish Manhattanite female with a Master's Degree.

    I am a Bubba.

    Parent

    I want a t-shirt! (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by A little night musing on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:31:25 PM EST
    Jewish Manhattanite female with a Master's Degree.

    I am a Bubba.

    We need a whole family of "I am a Bubba" shirts...

    Parent

    I used to be called bubba... (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:35:23 PM EST
    some years ago, of course.

    To me the term isn't derogatory.

    Parent

    I love that.... (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:44:58 PM EST
    Hi, I'm madamab, I'm a 40-year-old Jewish Manhattanite female with a Master's Degree.
    Hi Madamab

    I'm BarnBabe, I'm a 45 plus years old bitter Catholic rural Pennsylvanian female with a Bachelor's Degree and a working class white voter.

    I am a Bubba.

    Bubba Annonymous 1 step peogram.

    Parent

    Huh? Sorry, you're no where near Bubba (none / 0) (#97)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:46:09 PM EST
    I'm a 40-year-old Jewish Manhattanite female with a Master's Degree.

    Nope, definitely not what the term "Bubba" refers to.

    Parent

    No kidding! (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:49:35 PM EST
    Try telling that to Chris Bowers.

    A bit irony-impaired, are you not?

    Parent

    You don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by tree on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:16:11 PM EST
    Ich bin ein "Bubba".

    Parent
    That's what we called my grandma (none / 0) (#156)
    by splashy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:21:02 PM EST
    Who was from Sweden or Germany, or one of the other Scandinavian countries. Apparently it means Grandmother, and is a term of endearment.

    I didn't hear the term used as a redneck/southern term until much later.

    Hmm, maybe it came from the Scandinavians and was altered or something...

    Parent

    TalkLeft got credentialed too (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:35:20 PM EST
    as did Taylor Marsh so they are not limiting them to blogs that have supported Obama.

    Parent
    I understand that.... (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:46:29 PM EST
    But a point I have been trying to make over the last few days is that the Obama campaign and the DNC should have been speaking out about the more blatant Clinton bashing that was going on at some sites.  But, they didn't.

    The dem party and the DNC certainly were on record over and over again talking about and denouncing anything perceived as terrible on the net about Oabma such as the Muslim email smear.  But, never one word about DEMS trashing Clinton with the most hateful and vile language you could ever imagine.

    For the sake of UNITY, I'm still waiting for the apologies to Clinton that should be coming from Rev Moss and the congrgation of TRinity church for their enthusiastic response to the Father Pfleger(sp) address.

    Parent

    Jeralyn, you, BTD, and others might (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:49:49 PM EST
    find interesting an analysis of the pivotal role and pivotal point of ad spending in the campaigns, an analysis front-paged in my morning paper today.  This is a study that will be cited and significant, I would bet, in books to come about this campaign.

    It turns out that I was wrong to call Obama the Six-Week Wonder for winning from January through mid-February and then sliding downhill ever since.

    Obama really was only a Ten-Day Wonder -- ten days in which the public was pummeled by his ads at a rate that subsided since, and therein lie interesting questions as to his funding for future scrutiny.  And what this analysis also doesn't do, not being done by media scholars, is make the crucial connection and complicity between spending on advertising and "free publicity" in news columns.  The once-inviolable wall between those departments in news organizations, if still spouted by media, is gone in practice.

    But this analysis does do a lot in pulling together previous reports of the unconscionable rate of ad spending and in pinpointing their impact.

    Parent

    I'm organizing the Garage in my Junk today (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:23:16 PM EST
    No Bo, No Garage. Check out The Dutchess at the right, slapping her guitar.

    I've been going about my business and playing all my Bo Diddley. Gawd, I love Hambone.

    Why do you neeed a garage ... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by cymro on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:31:36 PM EST
    ... on a boat?

    Parent
    Anyone that floats my boat like that is Fierce! (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:46:24 PM EST
    I love navigating past the no-profanity rule! :-D

    Leisure boating at its finest.

    Parent

    117 (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:28:25 PM EST
    That's the number of pledged (elected) delegates that currently separate Clinton and Obama.

    I think it's clear why Obama thought it was so important to snag as many delegates as he could out of Michigan.

    Yes...and HRC was "lucky" (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:30:47 PM EST
    to prevent a 50/50 split.

    Absolutely outrageous.

    Parent

    I believe the argument is that (3.00 / 0) (#89)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:43:57 PM EST
    the Obama campaign had the votes to get a 50:50 split for Michigan.

    Besides,  the splits that were approved in both Michigan and Florida were proposed by the local parties, not by Obama's campaign.

    Parent

    yes, Obama proposed stealing more (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    than 4 delegates. Big whoop.

    Parent
    They had a majority of only one vote, (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    so they backed off their 50/50 stance.

    And by the way - your argument is simply untrue. This is exactly what Obama wanted. Any idiot could see that.

    Or are you attempting to claim that MI and FL wanted their delegates to be seated with only 1/2 a vote?

    LOL!

    Parent

    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    Major Garrett on FOX says the Obama campaign knows senior Clinton campaign advisors have a grievance about the Miohigan decision and that they agree the decision was not based on any rules even though the RBC did it anyway... says the Obama campaign is waiting to know what the Clinton campaign decides to do.

    How about showing some leadership? (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:43:39 PM EST
    Maybe Obama could lead once if the issue concerns him. Not wait for Clinton to point the direction he ought to go.

    Since he now has been given the right to handpick 59 delegates from MI, he could say the decision was against the rules and give Clinton the pick for four delegates. That would be real diplomacy and leadership, though. He doesn't possess those qualities.

    Parent

    I am sure you would have to explain the (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    meaning of leadership to obama.

    Whatever that supposed bombshell is coming their way, it needs to hurry up and get here.  

    And looks like obama has another pastor problem...
    Rev. Willie Barrows who is on his team and been a friend of many years...don't know if this is as big as Wright and Pfleger though.

    Parent

    Non-election thought of the day (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by CST on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:29:50 PM EST
    I am really annoyed at Dunkin Donuts.  Pulling the Rachael Ray ad because of a possibly Muslim scarf is so bigoted it's not even funny.  Now it's not okay to wear clothes that might be worn by Muslims????  I get that they are dunkin donuts and their purpose is to make money not political statements, but cmon.  Caving to bigots isn't a good pr campaign at the very least, not to mention just wrong.

    You know the "...is a Muslim" meme? (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:43:41 PM EST
    The best thing for Obama to have done, would be to stand up for American Muslims.

    Of course, he would have to actually associate himself with a non Christian religion, which would be risky.  Not really an Obama trait.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#132)
    by CST on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    That kinda annoyed me too.

    Parent
    They need to take a walk in NYC (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:53:44 PM EST
    Many of us have those scarves. You can buy them on the street. readily available. Yes, I have one, lol!~

    Parent
    It's not even a muslim scarf.... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:59:19 PM EST
    which makes it extra ridiculous.

    Anybody and everybody wears them in the Middle East to keep their domes from baking in the desert sun.

    Parent

    Journalistic Standards (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by santarita on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:34:40 PM EST
    NY Times has an article up :As Clinton Campaign Winds Down , A Spouse Remains Wound Up" that highlights issues that journalists ought to think about when it comes to professionalism and professional ethics:  The article talks about the June Vanity Fair article on Bill Clinton, that relies "...primarily on anonymous sources..." and speaks to his judgment, company he keeps and spending time with other women.  The article then discusses Bill Clinton's reaction on the campaign trail when a reporter (from Huff. Post) who didn't identify herself as such, asked him about the "hatchet job" referring to the Vanity Fair article.  In other words, the reporter was baiting him.  

    I read the article and thought it sadly reflects the state of American journalism.

    McCain is sending Valentines (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    "Yes, Sen. Clinton is still in the race," McCain acknowledged to scattered laughter among the conservative crowd.   "I have known Sen. Clinton, I admire her and I respect her.  She has inspired generations of American women to believe that they can reach the highest office in this nation and I respect that."

    McCain's praise drew a nice if not boisterous round of applause --  but he wasn't done.

    After noting that he and Clinton had "stark differences" on issues, McCain continued: "But I admire the campaign she has run and I think she deserves a great deal of credit."

    source:
    Next I suspect he'll label Obama as an ungrateful and disloyal Democrat who can't be trusted by the American people because he has stabbed the last successful Dem president in the back.

    I fear you're right... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by A little night musing on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:37:56 PM EST
    This could be a theme McCain could use (if not quite so starkly) - unless Obama heads it off.

    Parent
    Why not? (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    He would only be telling "the truth" like Obama did about the "bitter...clinging" folks.  

    Don't even have to dig for that nugget.

    We'll have to coin a new meme "gaffe-tastic" just for Obama.

    Parent

    LatinoVoter, agreed. (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:10:57 PM EST
    If it's McCain vs Obama, McCain will SHRED Obama on his maltreatment of Senator Clinton. It's a genius tactic because it allows McCain to be in attack mode but still have the perceived moral high-ground, for which he is already widely-credited.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:15:04 PM EST
    Well, at least there's one candidate in the race who understands Hillary has supporters who will vote in November.

    Parent
    AP Has just put out a Breaking News Alert (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    that Obama is officially the nominee with his delegate count.

    They are DETERMINED to end this before Hillary can knock him out of the primary. She can, and they know it. Why else would they use every trick available today to insist we all throw the rules away and believe what they say.

    I can't wait to hear Hillary's speech today. She's going to knock him right back down.

    Well, I am sure it will have (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:40:05 PM EST
    the desired effect.  Now I'm certain she would have won SD.  Otherwise, why not just wait out the vote?

    Parent
    Wow, the lying (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:41:34 PM EST
    never ceases to amaze me.

    I see a b1tch slap coming soon from Ickes.

    Parent

    AP again. Twice in one day (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:49:08 PM EST
    Who does Obama own there?

    Reminds me of Bush's cousin at FOX that forced the calling of FL to set the perception Bush had won and Gore was looking for ways to steal the election.

    They desperately want to depress today's primaries.

    Parent

    Murdoch and Sam Zell (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by trillian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:16:07 PM EST
    Murdoch and Sam Zell went on to the AP board of execs right in time to influence election news... April 14 2008

    HuffPo

    In case you forgot... Murdoch's NY Post and London Times endorsed ...Barack Obama. (and his daughter threw a huge fundraiser for O!)

    Sam Zell's Tribune company newspapers endorsed... Barack Obama.

    And Zell is a longtime Clinton hater who has called Hillary a C-word in public.....

    Poached comment from a friend at SA

    Parent

    "effectively clinched" (none / 0) (#76)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:40:29 PM EST
    is the phrase AP is using

    Parent
    In other words... (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:44:29 PM EST
    he hasn't.

    Really, this is quite astonishing.

    Parent

    Has AP retracted their false story (none / 0) (#137)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:12:24 PM EST
    about Hillary suspending her campaign?

    Parent
    Michelle Obama is calling us LIARS (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:39:59 PM EST
    Wow, wonder how the Big Orange and HuffHo's and Obamablog/Americablog feel about that statement.  

    What about that army of paid Obama bloggers hmmm?

    http://tinyurl.com/5nay7m

    she used a broad brush there (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    Maybe she should have said don't trust Larry Johnson.  Not sure why else she is picking on the bloggers who have been more of a help to Obama than anything else.

    Parent
    They are basing this on (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    interviews with SDs, I don't think it should be official until they publicly announce their support for him.

    He can't win until the convention (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    But that won't stop them from making the announcement. Even McCain is "the presumed nominee", and he has a very clear delegate lead. Nonetheless, this is not good news for Clinton, or the Democratic Party.

    This is so wrong, I would like to be really (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:47:17 PM EST
    Happy that the first African American is the presumptive nominee, but this is crap, let the SDs say who they are for PUBLICLY!

    Parent
    Stunning...obviously slapping back at Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    With this tally?!?!

    The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.


    Parent

    Guaranteed? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:51:44 PM EST
    There are no guaranteed delegates unless they are breaking the rules again. Of course, as a practical matter, he will break the 15% threshold to qualify for delegates but there are no guaranteed delegates.

    Parent
    Right.. one of the reasons Obama (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:49:15 PM EST
    doesn't want this to get to the convention is, I am sure, that many SD's who have declared for him now have little enthusiasm in actually voting for him.
    He doesn't want them to suffer the pressure of committing to a vote.

    Parent
    Margin of 92 (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by zebedee on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:50:38 PM EST
    Until he gets clear by 92 delegates (what he got from RBC ruling vs delegates actually won) this will be a tainted nomination

    Parent
    I hate the press. (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:48:39 PM EST
    If you go to the source you see

    The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.

    So it's an estimate in addition to what some anonymous SDs told them. Gosh I hope they get a Pulitzer for that special reporting.

    How do you get guaranteed delegates (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:49:45 PM EST
    before a race is over?!?!

    It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.

    Parent

    Maybe they know something :D (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    How do you get delegates your opponent won in a race when you weren't even on the ballot?

    Parent
    From AP (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:50:32 PM EST
    "The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day."

    Guess they have been asking people off the record, but that is not official.  What a scam.

    Is there anyone more spineless than a Superdelegat (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:51:58 PM EST
    who will commit to the AP but not go public?  I want names.

    As an Obama supporter I think he (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:53:24 PM EST
    really doesn't need or want this type of article right now.  He would like to pickup enough Superdelegate endorsements during the day so that his votes in SD and Montana put him over the top.

    I certainly don't think this AP article does him any favours.

    Well than maybe he should have told (none / 0) (#147)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:22:20 PM EST
    his SDs not to talk to the press.  Or is he not a strong enough leader to pull that off?

    Parent
    Here's why it matters (none / 0) (#151)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:33:56 PM EST
    I'd be willing to grant you that Obama did tell them to hold off on announcements until the polls close.  But these are Senators and Congressman who want the upper hand.  That's why I call for their names in my post above.  I'll bet my dinner that they are some of the most conservative Bush Dems in Congress.  Obama will be needing them to push his agenda in Congress, and they will hold it up and extract compromises at every turn. They are already signaling they will do it their way.

    I know, paranoid huh?  ;-)

    Parent

    It seems to be coming from the AP (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by stefystef on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:58:14 PM EST
    about Obama clinching the nomination.

    I think Hillary should wait a couple of days before giving any speeches.  Let him stew for a few days...

    I suspect a serious schism in the Democratic Party coming up... At least 1/2 the Hillary supporters will not go to Obama.  

    I don't see unity in the future...

    Jeralyn, love your term-blogcloggers- but did make (none / 0) (#13)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:10:53 PM EST
    me initially think of the dancing type cloggers!

    Me too. Wooden shoes. Clackety clack. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:11:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Does that make BTD (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:12:32 PM EST
    The Lord of the Dance?

    Parent
    We also defined blogfloggers (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    and blognoggers and blogtoggers.  And maybe more in a thread last night.  Enjoy!

    Parent
    blognoggers. Christmas bloggers? (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:19:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Thank Cream City (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    she coined it. I love the term.

    Parent
    Clogger rock (none / 0) (#25)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:16:36 PM EST
    I saw a show at our county fair last year, and they were very impressive. Look it up on youtube. It's a very impressive dance form. Not ballet... but art nonetheless.

    Parent
    Per AP Obama clinches nomination (none / 0) (#61)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:33:51 PM EST
    Per Fox:   Obama clinches Democratic Nomination

    I just see it on the screen, I am not listening so I don't know the details.

    I read the AP story (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:44:53 PM EST
    and didn't even see a total much less an explanation of where these delegates came from. Maybe they are magical delegates who appear before or during a primary and then POOF disappear afterwards. I hate the press.

    Parent
    This is going to go down well on here. (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:46:35 PM EST
    The actual text of the AP article doesn't show Obama clinching anything.

    Its based on public endorsements, and "more than a dozen private committments" from superdelegates  + projected minimum pledged delegates he should win tonight.

    Not sure that I think much journalism was being practiced in this article.

    Parent

    link to AP article (none / 0) (#101)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:47:11 PM EST


    Parent
    FOX showed (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:13:12 PM EST
    Obama giving a speech somewhere, surrounded by middle-aged and older white women.  

    I can already see what kind of campaign this is going to turn out to be.  

    Why doesn't Obama offer me money for my vote?  Isn't that how they do it in Chicago?  

    Parent

    WNYC, NY Public Radio just (none / 0) (#82)
    by suisser on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    announced that Obama has clinched the nomination.

    Did anyone else hear that?  Am I losing my mind here????

    It's entirely possible that the Clinton campaign (none / 0) (#115)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:49:58 PM EST
    released the first report in order to come out and correct it.  That gives them two advantages:

    1. The ability to make a strong statement today about her staying in the race and continuing to fight (could be a motivating factor for voters today).

    2. An excuse in case of a big loss in ND and/or MT due to media voter suppression.

    Her campaign manager(s) blew it for Hillary by designing a campaign focused on only the states they deemed important.  I guess I just don't trust them.

    (sorry for repost, got delayed in last thread)

    Superdelegates know they need to end this (none / 0) (#131)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    before the convention.  If you take a look at NY, for instance, where the electorate voted 57% for Hillary vs. 40% for Obama.  Even with Obama getting two votes for every three of Hillary's, forty five of NY's Superdees declared for Hillary and only one for Obama (still 3 or 4 uncommitted).  That's a huge political fallout if Obama wins and they stuck with Hillary, who in their superior judgment was the better candidate.  Worse, if she finds a way to win the nomination and then loses the GE (not saying she will, I still think either of our candidates can beat McCain), they'll look even worse to the voters.  
    And if they come out for Obama (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by tree on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:21:57 PM EST
    and he loses the GE, they'll look really idiotic as well as unrepresentative of the voters of NY. Or is the Obama meme that superdelegates should reflect the will of the voters in their state no longer operable? Or maybe its just another one of those Clinton Rules, where supers should reflect the will of their state's voters, unless those voters chose Clinton, in which case they should reflect the will of Obama voters.

    Parent
    Scahill on Obama and Blackwater (none / 0) (#154)
    by splashy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:32:58 PM EST
    I found this interesting:

    "What's interesting--and you raised this with him--is that he won't take the step toward actually trying to ban these companies. Representative Jan Schakowsky and Senator Bernie Sanders have put forward legislation called the Stop Outsourcing Security Act in the Congress, and Barack Obama has said he's not going to come onboard and support that legislation.

    Interestingly, when I reported in The Nation that Obama would not support that legislation, which seeks to ban the use of these companies in US war zones, Hillary Clinton, five days before the Texas and Ohio primaries, the day my piece comes out, she responds by putting a statement on her website saying that she's going to endorse Bernie Sanders' legislation, and she becomes the single most important US political figure to come out for a ban. Now, I'm glad that Hillary Clinton did that, and I look forward to her making this one of her top legislative priorities after the primary season is over. "

    Another reason to support Clinton. I DON'T want to be associated with mercenaries.

    Oops, for got the link (none / 0) (#155)
    by splashy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:34:06 PM EST
    Go here

    I apologize.

    Parent

    Second Tuesday Open Thread | 149 comments (149 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment