home

The Super Delegate Count

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:34:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

While it is true that Super Delegates can change their mind at any time up to the Convention, I have always supported counting the announced super delegates based on their stated public preference. Thus I think Chris Bowers' post on that is helpful. But I would be remiss if I did not note that Chris flip flopped on the issue of counting superdelegates:

Right now, with the exception of NBC news, most news outlets are counting super delegates in their running delegate total for the Democratic nomination. However, they should not be doing this, because it assumes something very negative about Democrats that has been consistently refuted by past Democratic nomination campaigns. Simply put, Democratic super delegates often change their minds, and have always lined up behind the popular vote winner in the primaries.

What is different now? Why counting super delegates is now beneficial to Obama. Sorry Chris, but it is pretty transparent what changed your mind. You were wrong in February (when your view on this was based on what was best for Obama) and the reason you are right now is because you see counting the SDs as favorable to Obama. This is what the blogs largely are now - the place to find out what benefits the candidate favored by those blogs. It is a shame.

< The Cuomo Dream Ticket Plan | The Credentials Committee Contest >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Super Delegate Count | 92 comments (92 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Kerry all over again (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:02:49 PM EST
    They were against it before they were for it. But don't worry, I'm sure republicans won't use this sort of thing in the general.

    I agree about blogs (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:07:02 PM EST
    I hope this isn't OT, but I do agree with part of what you write. Blogs now are largely about whoever supports whom. This is true of Bowers. I pointed out what you just said out to one Obama supporters- that the argument has changed from SD are anti Democratic by them to now it's okay because they know Obama can't win with delegates a lone.  I remembered when he wrote that he would leave the party if super delegates decided or some such argument.

    One of the ways, I can tell things have changed on blogs is that I now get it from both sides. On mydd, I was banned for questioning Armstrong's reasoning regarding the Wright situation.

    I asked the "offensive" question (according to some posters) of asking them to explain to me in non inflamtory terms what was offensive about the comments. To this day, other than being over the top, I don't see anything particularly extraordinary in what Wright said- ie, does anyone question blow back occured? What about the black genocide? Is this a matter of speculation. His conspiracy theories were over the top, but I don't understand why they were offensive.  I know this maybe OT, but at its heart the same issue- blogs lack reasoning. It was that I was questioning the thinking of supporters.

    I at this point- to be frank- don't care who wins so long as they beat McCain. I think either will be quantums better. But saying this, I do note how much blogs have changed from being independent voices. I don't expect them to help the Democrats win unless this changes.

     I mean I don't even bother to go to Daily Kos anymore. I am not one for being sheep. I know this is rude to say, but it's how the site feels to me. Like, follow, or be trampled.  I don't feel these various candidate endorsing sites will allow for me to remain a skeptic. To hold these candidates accountable.

    Dogma and personality seems to be the core approach. That's very frustrating. The danger as I keep saying is that it produces a lack of accountability.

    The thing the media (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by 1jpb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:11:59 PM EST
    really misses are the add-on delegates.  I can recall few discussions of this subset over the last couple months.  But, I recently came across the best evaluation of these delegates.

    The other thing that never gets mentioned is that the D primary (I don't know about the Rs) distributes the delegates to states based on how "blue" those states have been.  That is, it's not just population.

    prose and promise (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by demps on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:13:37 PM EST
    makes a very good point. I have been made to wonder, do supporters of Senator Clinton actually believe that she is greatly concerned as to the disenfranchisement of Florida or Michigan? I am myself uncomfortable with the idea of suppressing their vote, but at the same time I recognize that Clinton has assumed her position because it benefits her candidacy. Prior to her campaign being placed in jeopardy she was quite comfortable with the disqualification of these states. So I might wish that Michigan and Florida were allowed to vote, but I don't for a minute believe that Clinton is a sincere champion for this effort. And I also believe Obama's argument against has more legitimacy than is allowed on this blog. Though once again, of course he takes his stance because it benefits him politically. On another matter, I don't believe Clinton should drop out, but I do have concerns about bringing this to the convention. The superdelegate primary proposed has  tremendous appeal in my opinion

    Let's suppose Clinton isn't concerned at all (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:17:00 PM EST
    about the voters of MI and FL. Does that make Obama right in his anti democratic actions if she does feel that way? Why does what Clinton feel matter with regard to your beliefs in democracy? That's a little like me saying becuase I hate Bush, I think we should have denied his voters the right to vote in 2004. It's about the same level of logic. It sounds very much l ike you are saying the ends justify the means. That becuase you don't like Clinton, that should influence how some of us view the right to vote. An odd argument unless you are so partisan you can't even see what you are saying anymore.

    Parent
    The "Obama blocks revotes" (none / 0) (#89)
    by mattt on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:12:12 PM EST
    meme has been way, way overplayed, I think to the detriment of Dem chances in MI and Fl if he does carry the nomination.

    He did propose a means to count the vote in MI (at least; not sure about FL): a caucus.  But Clinton followers give him no points there because a caucus is seen as favoring his chances, so it was just a self-serving move.  Meanwhile, the quickie revote proposed by Clinton would be dominated by party insiders with little time for grassroots organization, and therefore favor her chances.  But nobody talks about how self-serving that proposal is.....not to mention her suggestion that the January primaries were "fairly decided" and should count as-is, despite the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

    They're both playing to win with the hands they're dealt.

    Meanwhile, nobody wants to talk about the 100 or so superdelegates Clinton had committed even before Iowa, before the voters in their states had a chance even to see the competition.  Take them away and Obama is leading in superdelegates, too.

    If you want a perfect world, max-democracy scenario: have fair revotes in MI and FL, with time to organize and campaign.  Wipe out any superdelegates who committed before the first votes were cast.  Poll the participants in caucus states that did not report popular vote totals, and add those numbers into the total PV.

    Clinton would probably win FL and MI, but certainly by smaller margins than in January.  Maybe much smaller, and MI might even be in play.  She'd lose about 100 superdelegates relative to BO.  And Obama would gain popular votes.  End result: Obama leads in every category, in most by wide margins.

    Parent

    How much does it matter? (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:21:10 PM EST
    I'm sure we can point to a ton of policy postions by both camps that are the product of political calculus. Are we now going to require that candidates not only espouse positions we support, but that thye prove to us that their support for those positions is based purely on what they really really believe is best for the nation? And how would we determine that?

    If I think Obama's self interested position is wrong, and damaging to the party, while Hillary's self interested position is the right one, I really don't care about the depth of Hillary's commitment.

    Parent

    Absolutely! (none / 0) (#49)
    by alexei on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:30:44 PM EST
    This is the right position and Clinton is also framing the issue the right way.  

    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#81)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:47:47 AM EST
    question of FL and MI is about citizens having their votes either counted or having a chance to re-vote.

    It shouldn't matter to anyone who benefits. Of course both candidates will try and maneuver to their benefit. They are Politicians and that's what politicians do. And supporters will huff and puff about whether their candidate is helped or harmed.

    It was and is up to the Democratic Party and the DNC to make this right. Unless they do, it will damage the party and will probably lead to a Republican victory in November. People don't like seeing Democrats trying to disenfranchise voters. They think that's what Republicans do. And doesn't matter much if you don't find it disenfranchising. It matters to the voters in those states and in many others that are needed for a Democratic victory in November by either candidate.

    Parent

    What matters is Nov (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:24:19 PM EST
    Sure, we can see that she needs their votes. But we can also see the end game. Nov. Obama's position (makes will of the people null and void) sure isn't going to help in Nov.

    Parent
    I have no reason to doubt Hillary's sincerity.... (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:30:32 PM EST
    ...but then I don't buy all the Republican and Obama talking points about her lack of character. I don't believe frankly that Obama is a sincere champion for party unity, either, except as it advantages him.

    Parent
    I just read this post on another blog, its (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:58:42 PM EST
    troubing for the party. Does anyone believe this to be a true representation of the party?

    We were loyal sodiers to a caused we believed in, and we still believe in the cause. Two Generals, in Hillary Clinton, and barak Obama was sent to battle. The leaders shook their hands and said may the best man or woman wins. Our leaders placed one of the generals on the front line and gave the enemy the guns to attack her with, these same leaders ambushed her on sevearl occasions in an attempt to destroy her. She fought for them, she defended them, she took abuse for them, but how did they repay her? They signedup with Moveon.org, The Huffington Post, Air America, reuters, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and all other outlets in an attempt to sabotage her by spreading lies and fears for the sole purpose of the benefit of the other general. She was told that it would be a fair fight, but it was a lie. Her sodiers in Michigan and Florida was told to SHUT UP AND BE QUIET, because their fight was in vain. The leaders betrayed their own, so her loyal sodiers will also betray these leaders and swear loyalty to the General. When Marx prophesied the revolt of the Proletariats he believed that it would of occurred in Eastern Europe, but the revolt will occur here in America and within the DNC. The African National Congress and Nelson Mandela revolted against their own to fight aparthied, DR. King revolted against his own to fight segregation, the french Peasants revolted against their own to fight unfair treatment, the Indonesians revolted againt their, Che Guevara revolted againt his own, the early fathers of america revolted against the throne, and everyone that revolted was heard and they won to some degree at the end. The Clintonians will revolt against an unfair process, against unfair attacks of their General from the same one she defended. When moveon.org, Huffington Post, most leftist blogs, all media outlets, unfairly attacked one candidate for the sole purpose of benefiting another candidate, who stands for the same things she stood for, her sodiers noticed. The Leaders gave the enemy ammunition to destroy her, and these same leaders ambushed her. These leaders betrayed their general, so now her sodiers will betray them. She was sent to Hades, while the other general was placed in a bed of roses, given lattes, and pampered daily, and they had the nerve to call it a fair fight. The Clintonians will rejoice when the enemy Mccain wins. we will betray our leaders so that they will learn the error of their ways. they will rethink their manner of thinking and say next time we must be fair. I will cry and laugh when enemy mcCain rules the land, then I will rise against him, but I will lay down my arms for this battle and let my brothers and sisters perish. I will justify my betrayal, because they betrayed us first. A great man once said "a kingdom divided cannot stand" and I agree. Today, there are Clintonians and the other democrats. We are a divided party and we will perish, but remember that we are not the ones that divided this party, it was the others, who we once loved, and who attempted to destroy our General. We will sing in defeat, and take pride in betrayal.oes anyone believe these words to be a true representation of the democratic party.

    Whew! (none / 0) (#48)
    by jpete on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:30:14 PM EST
    I have to say that while I rationally think this is way over the top, it deeply appeals to a sense of joint victimization with Hilary.

    I don't think that's a good thing.  But I think it could be something like contagious.

    Parent

    Popular Vote (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:17:11 PM EST
    Obama won't be a legitimate nominee uless he can win it convincingly (without an FL/MI revote) or actually win it (with revotes).

    He may very well win the nomination (the odds  are in his favor) but his legitimacy will be on par with Bush 2000.

    "The rules, The rules" is not a valid argument against this idea.

    The superdelegate system is not democratic (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by countme on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:13:53 PM EST
    at all but neither is the apportioning of the delegates. It is too confusing that delegate apportionments can change irrespective of the voting. It would be much easier to have a winner take all system like the republicans.  But we are stuck with what we have.  It is also crazy for anyone to doubt that Obama will be able to win the GE by winning red states.  He will need a combination that will include MI and/or FL. By not allowing FL and MI to have their votes count, the DNC is handing the GE to McCain.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by sas on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:48:37 AM EST
    If this contest gets even closer between Hillary and Barack, and if the Super D's select a nominee before Florida and Michigan are resolved, particularly Florida, I will be upset.  In my view, the 'fix' will be in.

    Further, if there comes a time when Hillary is out of the race, I'm out of the race also.
    There is no one Obama can select, other than Clinton, who will cause me to vote for him.  

    I fit the demographic of an older white woman.  I'm one of her base.

    I know the DNC is angered by my thinking, but I don't care.  The Democratic party has taken women for granted for too long.

    Good, sas! (none / 0) (#85)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:51:20 AM EST
    ...you should vote for McCain and show that you really care nothing about policy, ideology, or the future of the country and the world.  Go for it!

    As for me, I'll support Obama in the race for the nomination and vote for the Democratic candidate - no matter who he or she may be - in the general election.  You see, I care about ending the Iraq war, health care reform, a fairer tax system, the environment, all those things that Obama and Clinton essentially agree on. You, apparently, don't. You'd rather see John McCain win than vote for a Democrat who shares most of your values and worldview.

    Parent

    Don't worry. (none / 0) (#86)
    by sweetthings on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:53:02 AM EST
    If the contest gets closer, then the Supers will back off.

    The reason we're seeing Supers start to jump in greater numbers is because Obama appears to be pulling away. (And I say this as someone who will happily pull the lever for either candidate in the fall.)

    Hillary's campaign appears to be in real trouble. Obama now has a double digit lead in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, the first time we've see that kind of spread. Obama was badly hurt by Wright but quickly recovered, while Sniper-gate continues to drag Hillary down. Her negatives are now significantly higher than either Obama or McCain, and continue to grow, which runs counter to the theory that she's thoroughly vetted. And now there's word that her campaign is starting to walk away from it's bills, which suggests finances are a good deal tighter than Clinton has let on. Put all of this together and you don't get a very encouraging picture. And it's this picture, not some backroom 'fix,' that is causing Supers to throw their backing to Obama.

    The good news is, this picture can be turned around. If Hillary can raise more money and put Bosnia behind her, the momentum can once again be shifted. Getting an endorsement from Edwards or Gore or some other heavy hitters would really help. Anything to turn the media narrative around, really.

    Parent

    He's not posting an opinion (none / 0) (#1)
    by magster on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:39:30 PM EST
    he's just stating what's going on.  

    How absurd (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:41:00 PM EST
    He is completely flip flopped magster. You know it and I know it.

    And we BOTH know why he did it.

    Stop compromising your integrity to defend someone who gave his up already.

    Parent

    The real story is that (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by magster on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:52:02 PM EST
    4 more supers are going to Obama, and then from the TX caucus, matt at demconwatch said that:

    "We us AP for our pledged delegate count. The AP had Texas total at 92-92, which breaks down to 65-61 Clinton for the primary, and 31-27 for the caucus. So if the caucus ends up at a 38-29 split, the AP will give Obama +7 and Clinton +2, for a net gain of Obama +5. We'll update our numbers as soon as the AP does. Sometimes they're very quick, other times (see California), they're very slow." - Matt from DCW.

    So Obama + 9. That's the story.

    Parent

    And That's Why (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:35:01 PM EST
    Pledged delegates - who leads them, who doesn't - are a joke.  Will of the people, my backside.  The will of Texas was in its primary.  Not that you'll be able to tell it in pledged delegates.  What a horrible way to choose a nominee.  If the DNC wants to know why there's so many hard feelings, all they have to do is look at this crappy system they've set up.

    Parent
    SantaMonicaJoe (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:23:55 AM EST
    The caucus measures the will of a handful of party activists who don't have to get up and go to work the next day.

    The general election will not be a caucus.

    Parent

    So Hillary's support is more (none / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:53:57 PM EST
    widespread and his is deeper?

    Parent
    That's what she's saying! (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by joc on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:00:55 PM EST
    Now remind me again, is the general election like a primary or a caucus?

    Parent
    Obama's people had more TIME (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:30:56 PM EST
    to vote twice, so that makes them deeper, eh?

    Well think about this for a bit. Deeper ain't gonna do squat on election day when we go and vote ONCE. I'll take broader support any day.

    Parent

    Well, superdelegates measure support (none / 0) (#33)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:55:49 PM EST
    in an even deeper fashion. It would totally defeat their purpose if their votes were tied to the pledged delegate count.

    Parent
    If we want to look at 'real' deep support (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:33:27 PM EST
    maybe we should look at each delegate and how many voters they represent by state . . . could it perhaps start looking like 'wide' support?

    Parent
    Not indicative of depth of support (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by formerhoosier on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:42:18 PM EST
    Hogwash!!

    The caucus does not measure depth of support.

    Before this election the most they had in our district was 150 participants.

    They had to change to a high school auditorium to facilitate the crowd.

    It is also a big money drain, they requested donations because the cost is not borne by the democratic party.  The expense is on volunteers or state senate district.

    Primary election was supported by political infrastructure, not caucus.

    We were asked to donate to defray costs.

    Ours was one of the more orderly and took over 3 hours to get everyone signed in, others took much longer.

    We had elderly who could no longer stand, and I overheard party officials discussing bringing them into a separate room or they would lose participants.

    This was managed as well as can be expected but disadvantages anyone without a whole day to participate on Saturday.

    Think retail and shift workers.  Fast food and families with small chidren.

    Some did bring their children, it would have been chaos if many more had since there was no accomodation for them.

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#60)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:03:30 PM EST
    It is 'deep' support that matters...not democracy.

    Good to know ObamaMaMa is in favor of the donor funded primary revotes...for the big Dem donors are truly deeply committed to the party.  No?

    Parent

    Um... (none / 0) (#51)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:32:15 PM EST
    A handful of 'deep' supporters doesn't win elections.

    One person = one vote in the GE.  The key to winning elections is trying to con people who don't care about you into believing you will make a difference in their lives and do so much better than the other person.  The key is tapping into their self-interest.

    But I suppose you are right:  committment to the candidates is especially important now.  Because over 20% of Hillary's supporters are just so committed, so DEEP, that they won't vote for Obama in the upcoming GE.  

    We need to face this.

    PS:
    Clinton supporters were successful in Nevada.

    Parent

    Good thing we had a primary (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:47:51 PM EST
    if it had been a caucus, I would be in trouble as a supporter. Not 'deep' enough due to work deadlines and not having hours to spare . . .

    Parent
    13 - 12 (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:08:53 PM EST
    how were delegates distributed?  In some cases, by drawn straws.  Or in this case, cards.

    NV Caucuses

    A good effort by Clinton in NV.

    Again, caucuses suck.

    Parent

    Did they ever finish counting (none / 0) (#13)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:15:59 PM EST
    the original caucus?

    Parent
    OM, you appear to misunderstand (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:44:46 PM EST
    in stating that numbers now are resolved in Texas or any caucus state.  Not so; there still is another stage of yet more recaucusing, at state conventions, before national delegates are selected.

    And looking at the state of Texas secretary of state's site makes clear that there was an expectation of full and complete reporting of numbers from the first stage, but that the chaos then precluded that.  And some areas never had any report or count, even for themselves, per Texas papers, so will not be represented at all now.  

    As the chaos continued yesterday at many caucus sites, I suspect that there will not be a clear and complete report again . . . all of which plays well into Texas politics, allowing the state party to do as it will in the end -- in June.  Not until then will we know national convention delegate counts from Texas or any caucus state.

    Nice how that works for them.  I distrust it entirely, as do many Dems in those states per their reports.

    Parent

    Don't delegates represent people numbers? (none / 0) (#31)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:52:20 PM EST
    How do you select delegates for someone if you don't have a head count to back it up? It's beginning to sound like electronic voting without a paper trail.

    Parent
    Texas delegate count (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by formerhoosier on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:26:46 PM EST
    Not an expert.  

    Just observation from participation yesterday.

    The delegates are divided into State Senate districts.

    The senate districts hold meetings with division by precinct.  Smaller precincts are combined.

    From each group of 12 delegates (if I have the number correct) a delegate and alternate are chosen for the state convention in June.

    We had equal number of Obama and Clinton delegates
    in our precint(s). Tie-breaker was by match (per rules committe).  Coin flip determined whether the delegate was to be Clinton or Obama, winner would be delegate and loser alternate.

    Do not know how they can determine who won the caucus, since the delegates will go to the state convention to determine the national delegates.

    We had over 1,000 delegates to elect 64 delegates by the precincts and 23 at large delegates will be selected by the committee dependent on the proportion each received from the delegate votes.

    Overall, since our senate district is in two counties with two different locations, there will be 250 delegates just from this one district.

    How anyone can determine the 'actual' number of delegates at this point is beyond me.

    Parent

    Thanks. So how did they get the (none / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:43:29 PM EST
    original 1,000 though? Isn't there a paper trail on that? With things at some caucuses being a bit nuts and overcrowded, it seems like a system of checks and balances should be in place (and used!).

    One person, one vote. Easy math, easy to count lol!~ Oy, caucus and delegate math needs to become 'old math' imo  ;)

    Parent

    Delegate selection (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by formerhoosier on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:01:16 PM EST
    The initial process had sign in sheets.

    These sheets were signed by each person participating in the caucus, after the primary election that evening.

    Delegates were voted on from these participants.

    Any system relying on manual input is bound to have errors, even without malicious intent.

    The delegates from these election night caucus events are the ones who particpated yesterday.

    Essentially steps are:

    Caucus on election night for Senate District delegate.

    Caucus on March 29th to select State delegates for caucus in Austin in June (2 days Friday and Saturday)

    State Causus to determine national delegates.

    They do have a paper trail at each step, but since this is a continuing winnowing process, doubt it has any significance.

    Think the original primary vote is more indicative of overall support of candidates since the cross section is more representative.

    Parent

    the original primary (none / 0) (#76)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:49:07 PM EST
    totally agree. The caucus process makes my head spin. And the knowledge that I wouldn't always be able to be at one is disturbing to me. The difference in turnout is the first red flag. . . And then saying they represent the party activists, I also find false, see red flag #1.

    Thanks for your breakdowns, appreciate it.  :)

    Parent

    Indeed it is (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:07:06 PM EST
    And there was a SD story in February that Chris did not like so it did not count to him then.

    THAT is a real story too.

    Parent

    I'm concerned about consistency here... (none / 0) (#5)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:01:07 PM EST
    You believe that now Chris is right - superdelegates should be counted.  Before he was wrong.  And you believe he changed for political reasons, right?  This, in your mind, makes his opinion suspect.  Or as you say, he has given up his integrity.  On this point, I agree with you.

    Now, to consistency.

    You believe that Hillary Clinton is right - MI/FL should have a re-vote, or have their delegates seated.  Before she was wrong (when she said that MI/FL would not count).  We can agree she has changed for political reasons (we can even be charitable and assume that seating MI/FL was always her view, but that she was pandering to Iowa and NH - but we still conclude, she flip-flopped for political reasons).  However, interestingly, you don't think she has sacrificed her integrity on this issue.  Why is that?

    I see how you could support a re-vote, but I think that to be consistent, you would have to either give Chris some grace, or you must say that Clinton has no integrity on the MI/FL issue (and that the issue should be raised by those who have not flipped).  

    Ultimately, I think the most honest thing is to say that, no matter what we personally think about the MI/FL re-vote, Hillary has no leg to stand on with her "every vote counts argument."  There is just no integrity in that.  As you said so well, she "gave [hers] up already."

    Parent

    Not What Hillary Said (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:44:14 PM EST
    The "won't count" quote has been taken out of context.    In fact, it was said while she was expressing concern about not having Michigan count and what the effects of that could be in November.  From the Washington Post:

    "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

    [SNIP]

    "I did not believe it was fair to just say, 'Goodbye Michigan' and not take into account the fact we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009," she said.

    [SNIP]

    Clinton said she wouldn't campaign there, but isn't about to hurt her own chances.

    "If you look at the some of the states we have to win, the margins have been narrow. And it wasn't, in my view, meaningful, but I'm not going to say there's an absolute, total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won't come back to haunt us if we're not careful about it."

    The idea that Hillary Clinton just blithely went along with disenfranchising Michigan (and by extension Florida) while expressing no reservations about the effects it would have on Democrats in November is untrue.   It's true that she made the point of saying Michigan wouldn't count (keep in mind this was to New Hampshire voters), but to say she somehow agreed that that would always and forever more be the case based on this out-of-context snippet is pure spin.

    Parent

    Thanks for the info. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:48:53 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't understand why pointing out Clinton's (none / 0) (#8)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:08:33 PM EST
    inconsistency is relevant to Bowers and Obama's consistency? Do you think that two wrongs make a right?

    Parent
    No... (none / 0) (#15)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:17:36 PM EST
    I think both are in the wrong.  I think I said so clearly.  I agree with BTD on this issue with the blogger, but I want to know if this means BTD will address a crucial Hillary issue.

    Parent
    It seems your goal is to change the subject (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:29:33 PM EST
    which is quite frankly a common tactic by supporters online. I don't think BTD needs to address your point because its irrelevant to the issue of whether Chris was wrong because BTD is responding to Chris's post. Look, you can certainly do your contortions, but that's what they are. You should realize-- as Rosenberg over at openleft says of me- I don't deal well with such manipulations. I am going to call you on your stuff. That stuff here is trying to say "they both do it." I don't care if they both do it. He was responding to a specific example, and doesn't need to go through all other examples.

    Parent
    I haver addressed it (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:06:06 PM EST
    You seem to need me to address it in every post.

    Parent
    but but but... (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:42:57 PM EST
    don't you see? If you don't address it in every single post on the topic, you haven't actually addressed it...not really.

    You could be prevaricating.

    ;-P

    Parent

    You have addressed it... (none / 0) (#74)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:05:05 PM EST
    but your response has been mostly "so what."  As you say further down thread, "Pols will be pols."  Either this is inconsistent, given your response to this blogger, or you have a different standard for bloggers.  I hope that isn't the case.  I expect much more out of my president than I do out of Markos, or you, for that matter.

    Parent
    When did she say FL wouldn't count? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:27:01 PM EST
    I heard the one sentence about MI. I have no explanation for that because then why didn't she pander to Iowa like everyone else by taking her name off the ballot? I never heard any statement on FL.

    Parent
    She didn't (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:44:16 PM EST
    The pledge said nothing about counting delegates or not. That's strictly the position of the DNC itself.

    Course, it's their party so they can restrict them if they want to.

    Parent

    Sorry... (none / 0) (#75)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:06:39 PM EST
    I guess when that was what everyone else understood the thing to mean (including the DNC) I assume that is what she meant too.  I would hope this isn't precedent setting for the Clintons.  I wouldn't want to hear in 3 years from the White House, "When we signed that treated that you understood one way, we really meant...."

    Parent
    Yes Chris was wrong before (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:05:18 PM EST
    We should count the SD preferences as they are stated. Sure they can change their mind but they have stated their preferences. What is the big deal?

    I have said many times, so many times that it is hard to believe you missed it - that pols are pols and do what they do.

    What is your point? Straw seems to be your point.

    Parent

    You tied integrity... (none / 0) (#73)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:59:21 PM EST
    with flip-flopping.  I just want to know if Hillary has no integrity on the issue.  I have not seen where you have said that she has flip-flopped and treated her as you did this blogger.  Is there a different standard for pols and bloggers?

    Parent
    Yes, bloggers have their obvious preferences (none / 0) (#4)
    by demps on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:01:05 PM EST
    , as do you. It is frustrating to read the unbalanced reactions on BOTH sides. Neither candidate is entirely innocent, both make political calculations, as they should, as they must.

    Have you expressed this to Obama supporters too? (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:12:55 PM EST
    If so, could you link to it? I'd like to see your  concerned and concerted argument from both sides.

    If you don't have an explicit link, just direct off the top of your head. I'm curious to read it.

    Also, if you or anyone else with similar concerns about BOTH sides behaving "divisively" -- ambitiously, mendaciously, goal post shiftingly -- explain to someone who is not involved in insider baseball why the Dems have such a problem with simply counting vote-votes before opaque, backroom influence-peddling.

    Is it just the unwashed rabble who need to cast ballots and then have them counted or not depending on the upper caste who can choose to -- or not -- count those scores?

    Cause I'd really like to know where my money, support and time are going.

    Parent

    Firstly, please relax. (none / 0) (#17)
    by demps on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:22:10 PM EST
    Secondly, I already announced my preference that Michigan and Florida be represented. I was asking simply what supporters believed were Clinton's motives. I will say that these were the rules agreed to before the primaries, that there was ample opportunity to attempt to alter them. But, once again, I would actually prefer a re-vote.


    I think we're honest enough to (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:31:53 PM EST
    agree on what her motives are. The point is that she's on the right side of the issue regardless. He could have been on the right side but chose not to be.

    Parent
    what (none / 0) (#82)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:02:26 AM EST
    difference does it make what the motive is if it's  the right thing?

     We all like to preen ourselves at doing things for noble motives but that's usually drivel. Most of the time, we, as well as politicians, do the right thing because it works well for us.  

    Once in a while we rise above ourselves and do the absolutely right thing for the absolutely right reason. Just don't hold your breath until a politician does.

    Parent

    Obama SDs Can Make History: Nominate the First... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Exeter on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:36:38 PM EST
    ...person in the modern political era of either party that lost the popular vote, but still won the party's nomination!  

    and then (none / 0) (#69)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:44:14 PM EST
    partly because of that got stomped in the general. History indeed.

    Parent
    Joan In Va (none / 0) (#25)
    by demps on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:37:30 PM EST
    I agree with you on this. I do believe that he is on the wrong side on this issue, and it does disappoint me. I still find much cause to continue to support him nonetheless.

    Joan In Va (none / 0) (#26)
    by demps on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:38:05 PM EST
    I agree with you on this. I do believe that he is on the wrong side on this issue, and it does disappoint me. I still find much cause to continue to support him nonetheless.

    sorry it ended with betrayal. (none / 0) (#38)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:06:46 PM EST


    I understand your concerns about (none / 0) (#44)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:25:55 PM EST
    the anti-democratic nature of caucuses BTD, but how do you feel about the fairness of a system where a large percentage of the delegates who will select the nomineee -- the superdelegates -- haven't received a single vote from any voter in any state, primary or caucus?

    You do know many are elected officials (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:52:34 PM EST
    in their states?  I voted for a lot of my super-delegates.  Didn't you vote for yours -- governor, members of Congress, local officials, etc.?  If not, why not?  A new voter?

    I'm far more comfortable with officials for whom I voted -- and thus can vote in or out again -- as super-delegates compared to many delegates who are simply donors, frankly.  I think that makes many super-delegates more democratically selected and more accountable to us.  And I'm watching mine, you bet, to see what they do from now 'til November.

    (I already have written one super-d, one of my elected officials, about statements made that I found not good for the party, and favorable only to his candidate at the expense of the party and nominee come November.  But if pledged delegates are doing it, too, I don't know who they are, really -- and they're not accountable to me, don't need my vote, so don't need to open my letters.)

    Parent

    I voted for my senators and congresswoman (none / 0) (#65)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:16:53 PM EST
    to represent me in Congress, not to pick my presidential nominee

    Any suggestion that superdelegates are more democratic than persons selected through the caucus system, flawed though it might be, is ludicrous

    Parent

    So you didn't know you were voting (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:21:06 PM EST
    for them as super-delegates.  It is interesting to me how many didn't realize that's how it works (and has worked for almost a quarter of a century).  I think there has been quite a learning curve this year.

    Parent
    I hate it (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:27:33 PM EST
    I have said so forever.

    Parent
    It will be interesting to see (none / 0) (#52)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:32:52 PM EST
    how significant a move there will be  to reform the system for 2012

    Parent
    hope and change (none / 0) (#77)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:21:08 PM EST
    we can hope they will change this very broken system. We can write letters, and most importantly, we can withhold campaign (at least party) contributions until they fix this mess.

    Parent
    Demforpres in___ (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:06:44 PM EST
    You are suspended. Comment no further today.

    You are the one who interjected integrity into (none / 0) (#64)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:16:22 PM EST
    this thread, why can I not post a thread that is not favorable to your beliefs.  What I placed is a real concern, repaying Ohio by not paying your bills is definitely something that the Media and GOP will play.

    Parent
    You wil be banned from this site (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:18:46 PM EST
    I told you to comment no further today and you chose to disregard my comment.

    I am recommending you be banned.

    I am deleting all of your comments, past and future.

    Parent

    Then tell me how I have an honest dialogue on (none / 0) (#67)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:25:02 PM EST
    what is clearly selective sensorship of views that differ from your own.  I will respect your decision if you give me a method of discussing it with you further.  Your a lawyer you know that if you incorporate a defense or case then it's reasonable for the other side to interject their arguement and proof.  That was all I was doing.

    Parent
    Why Obama is unacceptable (none / 0) (#79)
    by bettym47 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:36:08 AM EST
    Why Obama is unacceptable
    by bettym47 on Thu 27 Mar 2008 09:03 PM EDT
    Today I watched a big discussion on CNN that Democrats will come together in the end even if Obama is the candidate. I disagree. The Gallup Polls are showing that 28% of Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain if she is not the nominee. Why is this? Well as I see it, there are several reasons, all of which make Obama completely unacceptable even as the Veep choice:

    1. First and foremost is Obama's association with Rev. Wright. I was taught that racism is wrong, period. There is no excuse for it. Yet Obama has found multiple reasons to justify Rev. Wright's racism and anti-semitism. I chose my place of worship so I could teach values to my sons. If I disagreed with its values, I would not be there. The fact that this racist pastor was Obama's mentor for 20 years and the person who married him means that Obama really does not have too much trouble mixing with him. Even though there are other issues that are important in this election, how we treat each other is more important than any other issue. I can't accept Obama's explanation at all. Wright is not right. It means to me that if the electorate in the Democratic party does not select Hillary as their nominee, then I have no choice but to vote for McCain.

    2. Obama's lack of experience is less than any president's in modern memory. At a time of great peril in the world, it makes Barack unacceptable. We need an experienced candidate. I would prefer Hillary, but again, if Obama is selected then I would vote for the experienced Republican, in this case, John McCain.

    3. I can't figure out why Obama is running when he's so young. What's wrong with staying in the Senate to get more experience? Does Obama really believe that it's time for him to run when we have so many other experienced Governors and Senators as well who would be wonderful choices? Barack says it's because of the fierce urgency of now, but his positions are similar to Hillary's so other than the fact that Barack is in love with himself, I don't see why he's running. Such a strong sense of ambition and glorification of his own ego is unattractive in any candidate even though all candidates have strong egos. Let's also remember that, but for Obama's ego that compelled him to run, we were united as party six months ago under Hillary. Obama screamed race during this campaign, it seemed to me, at every comment made which has divided us between young and old, rich and poor, black and white, male and female, and black and brown. He has torn us apart and smoothly blamed it on Hillary. This is not the mark of a uniter.

    4. His actions do not match his words. He says he's the candidate of a new type of politics yet he's been throwing the kitchen sink at Hillary as well. He's sent out discredited flyers. He makes speeches with words that are not his, and blocks the ability of voters in Michigan and Florida to let their voices be heard. He's been caught in several lies himself such as saying his aide didn't speak to the Canadians and then we find out they did. He said Rezko didn't raise a lot of money for him, and then said he did. He said his parents met at Selma, when he was born before Selma, and that his father was airlifted to the US with the help of the Kennedy family which is also not true. Obama claimed he didn't hear any controversial remarks by Rev. Wright, and then admitted he did, which proves to me Obama is as dirty as the next politician and will also say and do anything to get elected.

    5. Obama has too many connections with radicals. It's not just Rev. Wright; but, it's also James Meeks who is a delegate for Obama in Chicago who is another pastor with racist views. Meeks used the term "Hollywood Jews" and "House N-word". Then we've got Barack's friendship with Bill Ayers, the leader of the Weather Underground. This was a violent group who planted bombs in government buildings. Ayers said they didn't go far enough. Their mission was to destroy the US. Obama met with Ayers not as a youth, but as an adult as well, so he can't say he did crazy things in his youth. So how will Obama fight terrorism when he has friends who are terrorists? How will Obama stack up in a general election against the war hero, John McCain? Not good, and I haven't even gotten to Michelle Obama yet.

    6. Obama likes to say that Hillary's negatives will prevent her from winning the election. However, Mrs. Obama has said enough regarding being proud of her country for the first time, that her negatives are just as strong. I can't vote for the Obama's when Michelle would be the first lady. She's been aggressive and nasty at several points in the campaign.

    7. There's been a slow drip drip about Obama and his background. I don't think we've heard everything yet which worries me. There's a reason Obama wants Hillary to get out of the race, but I think he should drop out because he's become unelectable. If he doesn't lose the Democratic nomination, he will lose the general election and not by a little bit, despite what the polls say at the moment. And because Rev. Wright is so offensive, it gives superdelegates a moral reason why they should switch their support to Hillary.

    I say all this realizing that Hillary is not perfect either. I wish she was strong enough to ditch Bill a long time ago, and I wish she had picked better people to run her campaign, and I wish she had a better recollection of some events at times. Yet we are all human, and when I look at Hillary I see a gutsy, experienced, and smart individual who has worked all her life to help people and change the country. I like her. She fights for people like me, and she doesn't give up. So even though I have been a life long  Democrat, and have never voted for a Republican in my entire life, all of this means that it's not a matter of playing nice and patching up the party. It's Hillary or bust for me.

    How we got here is because the media refused to expose Obama's background early in this election cycle, because small states seem to have a larger voice in the nomination process than larger states in the Democratic party and because Obama's lawyers seem to have blocked, for now, revotes in Florida and Michigan. And ironically because we were the party that marched with Dr. King, we are in this position today because many are willing to excuse the inexcusable racism of Rev. Wright if a candidate from our party has a chance to win. No wonder people are furious. So despite the fact that Americans are fed up with Bush, McCain seems like a good alternative if Hillary is not picked as the nominee for the Democratic party.

    I figured that out without Hillary telling me, and I say this because Nancy Pelsoi will say that Hillary compared herself to McCain so we're now all voting for McCain. Wrong, Nancy. I've always thought McCain was a hero and the one Republican I could bring myself to vote for. It's just too bad he's picked a year to run when Hillary is running. And since I'm in the demographic of women who most consistently vote in America, you can bet that when I vote in November, it won't be for Obama. Superdelegates had better pay attention and come up with some other solution that doesn't involve Obama, because I'm sure there are other women like me who feel the same way.

    From http://www.bettysblog.net or http://www.elections2008online.com

    Vote for McCain, Betty! (none / 0) (#87)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:01:24 AM EST
    ...if you do, it will show that you care nothing about actual policy or the direction of the country. You only care about personality. That's fine, but admit what you care about: not health care, not the war in Iraq, not diplomacy, not the environment, not the unfair tax code.  Because on those things, Obama and Clinton largely agree. Basically, you don't care about change, but want four more years of Bush policies.  Fine, but you should come clean on this.

    It's people like you who will ruin us in November.

    Parent

    Speaking of superdelegates.... (none / 0) (#83)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:33:56 AM EST
    ...Obama just picked up (Monday) Minnesota Sen. Klobuch and appears to also be getting all seven more from the North Carolina congressional delegation.

    I'm increasingly confident that this is not going to the convention. Barring an implosion of his campaign, Obama will lead in pledged, popular, and superdelegate votes by May 7.

    More on Voting for McCain (none / 0) (#90)
    by bettym47 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:15:21 PM EST
    Another point, let's be honest, if Democrats really hope to get things done about issues they care about, they should not vote for Obama, because he and Pelosi will be too busy going to Syria or too busy making speeches to get him elected to his second term. John McCain and Hillary Clinton are pragmatic enough to compromise to get programs passed voters care about.

    Parent
    McCain over Obama (none / 0) (#88)
    by bettym47 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    Actually, if Hillary's supporters want things done, McCain has shown year after year that he will work with Democrats to find common ground and get things done. This Congress under Pelosi just does little or nothing. Hillary has shown she will work with Republicans to get things done so I don't think it's going against her style by voting for McCain. The person who says they are for change, but doesn't work with the other party on major legislation is Obama. He's too busy making speeches, and that's the problem. He says he'll get things done, but there's little evidence of that throughout his career. He's too buy worrying about his career to get things done. And some things you have to stand for. Racism in the white and black communities should not be tolerated. I have a huge problem with Obama's position on Rev. Wright. My step-father didn't just participate in the March on Washington, he helped to plan it. He marched in Selma. The Democrats are looking the other way just because they think they can win with Obama. I think it smacks of hypocrisy. You can try to change the subject, but it's hypocrisy.

    Vote for Him Then (none / 0) (#91)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:30:24 PM EST
    Good for you! Vote for four more years of Bush policy and deadlock in Washington.

    You simply care about "getting things done," not moving a progressive agenda forward. Both Obama and Clinton would do that.  Your hatred of Obama blinds you to that fact.

    You're not a Democrat and you're not a progressive. You're an independent who votes on personality, not policy.  That's fine, but admit who you are.

    Parent

    4 more years of Bush? (none / 0) (#94)
    by bettym47 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:23:23 PM EST
    4 more years of Bush is another myth Obama supporters like to throw out there. But will it really be true? Many say this is a do nothing Congress, but when things have been done, it's often because John McCain reached across party lines and found a way to compromise. Hillary Clinton has been quoted by many Republicans as also reaching across party lines to get things done. Obama has gotten a rep both in Chicago and in the US Senate as being absent during key votes or getting little done. He's voted present which is like voting no in Illinois many times. As a mother, I am outraged that he voted present (no) to abolishing strip clubs near schools where there are children. He voted present, meaning no, on certain measures helping crime victim rights, and women are often crime victims. He rants about the war against Iraq, and says his judgement is great, but he can't seem to do anything about winning the war in Afghanistan because he admits he's too busy running for President. He claims he needed to cozy up to Bill Ayers to network for his career. He said he needed to cozy up to Rev. Wright to network for his career. It seems to me he can't get anything done because he's networking for his career. He'll make a bunch of speeches during his first term to get elected for his second term, and by the time he's ready to finally do something, he may be a lame duck. So much for getting things done. Mark my words....

    Parent
    Four More Years of Bush (none / 0) (#99)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:32:37 PM EST
    ...is part of the Clinton campaign's rhetoric as well. Even Hillary advised her supporters the other day - and has said so repeatedly - that whatever the differences (and they really are slight in terms of policy, which again I'm not sure you care much about) between the two Democratic candidates may be, they are nothing in comparison to those separating them from McCain, and that it would be foolish to vote for him.

    But if you don't want to listen to the candidate you adore, be my guest.  You should feel free to vote for McCain or stay home.  If you care about actual policy, you'll make the right choice.  I suspect that at heart you're a good Democrat and will vote for the Democratic candidate in November, once you've cooled down a bit from the disappointment of seeing your candidate losing what was supposed to be an inevitable victory.

    Parent

    Voting for McCain again (none / 0) (#93)
    by bettym47 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:14:22 PM EST
    I don't base my opinion just on his pastor, although I think that's a big part of it. I base it on his history and the story he himself has woven for us. I base it on his Book "Dreams of my Father", which I believe is filled with a mindset all about race, and I don't mean that in a good way. I base it on his association with James Meeks another South Side Pastor who has used terms like "Hollywood Jews" and "House N-word". I base it on Michelle Obama's previous comments, etc., etc. I base it on Obama's association with Bill Ayers, the leader of the terrorist group, the Weather Undersgroun, whose mission it was to destroy the US. I base it on Obama saying no one has suffered worse than the Palestianians? Really? I can't believe that at all. The pattern is clear and it points to racism and radical views that are not healthy for America. Obama has not healed America during his campaign, he's divided us. We are so divided that we will vote for the other party because many voters are furious with him. You can buy into the myth that he will change America, but I just think as President he'll make more speeches while he runs for a second term and nothing will change. He'll scream race again so he gets elected again. There will be no healing and it will be worse with Obama. That's the myth about Obama.

    The race myth (none / 0) (#95)
    by bettym47 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:31:24 PM EST
    Let's also examine the myth that African Americans are objectively voting for Obama. Is that true? They are voting for him 80/90% of the time. Whites, females, men, Jews, Hispanics, and Seniors are at least splitting their vote which means even if Hillary wins some of them, they also are objectively looking at both candidates. So where is the racism? Whites were ready to turn the page. They voted for him in numerous states. It seemed like they had already moved ahead, until Bill Clinton made a historical statement about the South Carolina primary, that everyone screamed race to. Now we're divided, and I blame this on Obama's campaign even though they have smoothly blamed this on the Clintons.

    Your comment about Black voters... (none / 0) (#98)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:28:38 PM EST
    ...expreses a deep and total misunderstanding and really contempt of the Black experience in the United States. That you can't understand why African Americans would express solidarity with and show their support for an African American candidate, but instead call it a form of racism, speaks volumes about you.

    Parent
    A conversation about race (none / 0) (#100)
    by bettym47 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:37:39 PM EST
    Of course this speaks volumes about you. Again, whenever you disagree you throw the race card which shows the truth about Obama supporters which is that you don't want an honest conversation about race, which has to be a two way conversation, not a one way guilt trip which is really what you want. And by the way, I am married to a minority and my children are of mixed race and so am I so I see both sides, which you refuse to.

    The truth also is that Obama never intended to have true racial healing. Remember his run for the Senate? It included the "Yes we can" slogan even then. He was the first black candidate for the Senate in 100 years and pledged to bring racial healing, but in the two years he's been there, he's not healed a thing, as you can see. It's your way or the highway. Of course as President he won't heal a thing either, which is why he'll claim we'll need a second Obama presidency. He's not the candidate of hope and light and judging by your hate, his supporters are not either.

    Parent

    A deep understanding (none / 0) (#101)
    by bettym47 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:57:13 PM EST
    Let me add that my family includes whites, asians, blacks, and hispanics. It includes Jews, Christians, Hindus and Muslims. We marched with Martin Luther King. We marched in Selma and had rocks thrown at us. We picketed during the civil rights era in what was then racist establishments in Virginia. Our Jewish members have been chased out of Boston by gangs. Our mixed race members were threatened to be beaten up in Florida, California, Virginia and Boston. We fought on D-Day in World War II. Catholic Polish members of our family were in concentration camps in Europe. Before that we fought anti-semitism in Europe.  Our Indian members hid in neighbors houses during riots of ethnic cleansing in India. Other family members escaped Iraq under gunfire when Saddam launched his first war against Kuwait. We've been fighting and bleeding an sacrificing for years. Walk in someone else's shoes before you cast the first stone as we've seen racism and hate from all sides. If you really want an honest conversation, you need to have an honest conversation, not a guilt trip.

    Parent
    Thank God (none / 0) (#102)
    by bettym47 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:17:16 PM EST
    And let me add to this, we worked hard, we studied, people took jobs even if they started low on the totem pole, we kept going, we got up on time, and we stayed away from drugs and we said Thank God for America!

    Parent
    Policy (none / 0) (#96)
    by bettym47 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:46:39 PM EST
    Of course I care about policy, but I think Hillary or McCain have proven they will push real policy, while Obama has the rep of soaring speeches, but not implementing policy so a vote for Obama is like throwing away your vote. I think Obama throws out the race card to get elected. Has he dealt with the issue of race since he's been in the Senate? No! He could have. He has the ability to move people and make great speeches as we've seen, but he's too busy doing book tours.

    And I disagree with much of Obama's policy especially when he says he's going to talk to Iran, and when he says the Palestinians have suffered more than others? Really? What about those in Tibet, Somalia, the Holocaust, Cambodia during the killing fields, the Cubans, the Armenians, women in the third world, or people in Communist China or under Stalin, or blacks in this country during slavery? Hello! Earth to reality. But Obama's supporters have sunk so low and basically said "Let's blame Israel for everything and talk to Iran." I guess I don't agree with that policy. I feel Obama will be history's next great appeaser.

    You're out of control... (none / 0) (#97)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:22:02 PM EST
    ...really, go back and read your ranting, which simply does not reflect reality, especially in terms of Palestine.

    Perhaps you are better off with McCain.

    Parent

    The Super Delegate Count | 92 comments (92 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment