home

More On Why Obama Needs To Fight To Seat Florida

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:06:59 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Courtesy of the Q Poll.

FLORIDA

Obama 41
McCain 45

Clinton 48
McCain 41

By Big Tent Democrat

< Once Upon A Time . . . | Clinton Conference Call On FL/MI >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    More On Why Obama Needs To Fight To Seat Florida | 125 comments (125 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    He. Won't. Do. It. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:09:04 AM EST
    What could he possibly do now that would persuade Floridians to come out for him the way they would for Clinton?  I'm serious, because no one seems to be able to answer this question.  How will he reach out to the seniors and the working class?  Send John Edwards into the Everglades?

    There is not enough time in the campaign to heal the damage he has done.  Obama has spent a lifetime burning bridges, and this is one that he cannot go back and rebuild.  You can fool some of the people some of the time...

    He can fight to seat the delegates (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:30 AM EST
    I am amazed that some fo you think that would not have a positive effect on how Floridians perceive him.

    Would YOU not feel better about him?

    Parent

    It's moot. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:19:03 AM EST
    He won't do it.

    If he were the type of person to do it, he would have done it by now.

    IMHO of course. ;-)

    Parent

    And Now The Jewish Community of FLA (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:24:13 AM EST
    is expressing their doubts about obama, per Jodi Kantor in today's NYT.  This will not help!

    Parent
    I live in Florida and I am seething mad at Obama (none / 0) (#124)
    by Mark Woods on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    I would still vote for him if Hillary were 1/2, any half of the ticket, but only then.

    Otherwise, I will vote for Democrats and either write in Hillary's name in protest or vote for McCain out of burning rage against Obama and the DNC.

    My neighbors are all Jewish, gay or Latino and none of us wants Obama -- we have all called Dan Gelber our State Senate president and local District 35 Senator to tell him that his support of Obama goes against his constituency here in Miami Beach.

    Will he listen? I doubt it.

    Parent

    I don't think it will change minds (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:24:32 AM EST
    Because people are not stupid.  They know that Obama will only accept FL being seated if he is certain he has won the nomination.  He is blocking it now because he knows that, should Clinton get the popular vote and close the delegate gap, he could lose.  This is political maneuvering, plain and simple.  Which is fine, because it's working for him right now, but people will not forget that Obama was willing to ignore their votes because it did not suit his narrative.  

    I say this with the utmost respect:  I don't know why you think that Obama has this magical power to just "heal" folks and bring the party back together.  You say that he needs to start appealing to Clinton's base, but I don't see how he can do this, nor do I see Obama making any effort to do so.  There has been nothing in his past that indicates he has the power to unite.  He talks a good game, but he cannot deliver the goods.  

    I also think folks are so entrenched right now that there is no going back.  Speaking for myself, the man could not pass wind without me thinking he'd done it incorrectly.


    Parent

    People actually are (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:28:43 AM EST
    very stupid.

    Parent
    You're such an elitist!! (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:30:30 AM EST
    No wonder you support Obama.. heh

    Parent
    even a dog remembers who beat 'em. (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:37 AM EST
    People don't vote purely on logic.  If they did, Gore would have won.  They vote with their hearts and their instincts.  They don't trust Obama.  They know he's trying to block their votes.

    But, again, what is Obama's grand plan for healing these wounds?  Making a new speech?  Sending John Edwards to rope them back in?  What is he doing right now to heal these rifts?

    Parent

    Lets see (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:41:10 AM EST
    the people he would start to appeal to are the people he was vehemently running to diminish.  He was sure that he could jump over these people, the Democratic base, they would obediently or through "subservience" come back for the GE, and he would then spend his jolly good time wooing the Indies and Republicans.  Well, he now has to spend all that free time he thought he had convincing a bunch to come back home.  I must say a bunch that does not believe anything he says because his brand is exposed.  

    Parent
    Dogs are smarter than voters apparently (none / 0) (#81)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:08:17 AM EST
    George W Bush pretty much started talking nice nice moderation in June of his 2004 campaign...essentially saying that his policies would be the reverse of what they actually had been up to that time.

    It worked like a charm.

    Armando is right, Obama should fight for Florida.

    Parent

    that was four years (none / 0) (#119)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    an attack on American soil killing thousands, and two wars declared later.

    And Kerry gave him a big assist by being almost as weak as Obama is now.

    Parent

    That's why I say (none / 0) (#120)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    dogs are  smarter

    Parent
    stupid, maybe (none / 0) (#83)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    Too busy with their lives to pay much attention until the election gets closer...definitely

    Parent
    That is how we are treated.. (none / 0) (#111)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:56:20 AM EST
    like cattle..prod 'em in, prod 'em out. Do as we tell you..Not this girl..when you're a chief, you're feather sticks out..Hillary is a chief, Obama's feather seems to be tucked somewhere.

    Parent
    That is how we are treated.. (none / 0) (#112)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    like cattle..prod 'em in, prod 'em out. Do as we tell you..Not this girl..when you're a chief, your feather sticks out..Hillary is a chief, Obama's feather seems to be tucked somewhere.

    Parent
    One thing it would do (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:43:21 AM EST
     is show that he can be gallant and big in the name of Democracy--but he boxed himself in with the rules are rules gibberish.  

    Parent
    Post-Partisan Politics Perhaps (none / 0) (#121)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    If Obama were to get behind seating FL & Mich delegations, he could have at least a colorable claim to believe his "post-partisan politics" mantra.

    Parent
    He's not going to do it. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:01 AM EST


    He has started his vp search (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:11 AM EST


    Any Republicans on that list? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:55 AM EST
    That's the way I predict he's going.

    Parent
    Hagel (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:15:21 AM EST
    Chuck Hagel is on his list.  Vocal war opposer, but with no votes behind his words.

    Parent
    Birds of a feather (n/t) (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:37:28 AM EST


    Parent
    nothing yet (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:16:22 AM EST
    but I don't like him floating that out with FL and MI unresolved. Finding a VP is more important than counting votes. Come on Obama, step up and show some leadership...

    Parent
    I don't believe obama would know leadership (3.00 / 2) (#100)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:33:41 AM EST
    if it came and bit him on the butt.  This VP is part of the perception scenario that he is the nominee already.  

    Parent
    Yes. Because coming this far in the (1.00 / 0) (#108)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:47:44 AM EST
    primary against Clinton requires nothing but a pretty face.

    (you may assume this is snark)

    Parent

    I am an obama supporter (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:44:41 PM EST
    and am highly disappointed in the lack of dialogue coming from him on this matter. At this point, the SD's are deciding the candidate and Clinton with all her political capital cannot move them in her favor? What does that say about her capital as potential president? He is not showing leadership and she is losing the SD battle. Both are failing in my opinion.

    Parent
    Not sure it is a valid argument since it is plain (none / 0) (#125)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    as the nose on your face that Hillary has had no help to speak of from the DNC.  Clearly, they are in the tank for obama.  So I would say this is a bit of a lopsided argument.

    Parent
    Here are his considerations. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:44:46 AM EST
    I am shocked that so many are Obama loyalist, clearly has to be Hillary person.  

    "Obama's campaign refused to talk about who was being considered, but possible options are Clinton; governors such as Arizona's Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Tim Kaine of Virginia; foreign policy experts like former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd or Delaware Sen. Joe Biden; or other senators such as Missouri's Claire McCaskill and Virginia's Jim Webb.

    He could look outside the party to people such as war critic and Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel or independent New York mayor Mike Bloomberg. Or he could look to one of his early prominent supporters such as former Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota or try to bring on a Clinton supporter like Indiana's Evan Bayh."

    So many of these are just terrible choices.  Not sure how they made the list.  

    Parent

    Hagel, I have heard n/t (none / 0) (#13)
    by Coral on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:11 AM EST


    Parent
    Should he win the nomination, (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:17:43 AM EST
    I bet you all that he will go with a Republican.

    Worst, most tone-deaf thing ever. But that's what John Kerry almost did.

    Parent

    Hegel is pro-life (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by ajain on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:19:41 AM EST
    I think that will just compound problems with women voters.

    Parent
    Hegel is also a philosopher (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:21:44 AM EST
    Sorry, I couldn't resist !  :-)

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#34)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:24:02 AM EST


    Parent
    Hagel is a terrible guy. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:23:47 AM EST
    He stole his own election from a very popular Democrat. He has no principles whatsoever AND is socially extremely conservative.

    Meanwhile, the country is sick to death of Republicans.

    A Hagel pick will garner the lurv of the Broders of the world, but I don't think the voters will be too thrilled.

    Parent

    But he owns a (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:26:45 AM EST
    voting machine company.  Can be an important asset at election time.  :-)

    Parent
    I doubt it. (none / 0) (#29)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:21:04 AM EST
    A republican or two in cabinet positions,  but not on the ticket.

    Webb or McCaskill would be my bets for VP.  The polling of VP matchups released a few days ago was interesting as it showed Obama was strongest when matched up with Edwards in the VP slot.

    Parent

    These two are never going to happen: (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:24:45 AM EST
    "Webb or McCaskill would be my bets for VP."

    I like Webb but he's a bit of a loose cannon.  Won't happen.  McCaskill would be a disaster of gigantic proportions.  

    Parent

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    I doubt Webb would go over very well with female voters - some controversial history there. But I guess it would shore up other things.

    As for McCaskill, she just seems kind of lightweight to me.

    Parent

    what if Obama picks Hagel (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:33:36 AM EST
    and McCain picks Hillary?
    that would make for an interesting election, no?


    Parent
    Hahahaha... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:44:22 AM EST
    never, ever happen.

    Parent
    But I wouldn't be surprised (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:06:34 AM EST
    if the McCain camp floats the idea to appeal to disillusioned dems and indies, along with a bunch of moderate reps (especially women) who hate Bush.

    Parent
    Works for me! (none / 0) (#70)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:46:17 AM EST
    The problem, tho, Cap'n, would be getting the conventions to confirm those nominations!

    Let's all remember the nominees get to recommend a running mate to the conventioneers...recommend is not the same as 'pick' or 'choose.'

    No Democratic convention is going to OK an R on the ticket...not even with magical O.

    And no Republican convention is going to allow a Clinton anywhere near their nominee!  A Clinton?  Puhleeze!  McCain would need a foodtaster after the election because I'd be sending the White House chef my best mushroom recipes!

    Parent

    John Kerry (none / 0) (#72)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:51:40 AM EST
    was pretty confident he could have gotten John McCain on the ticket somehow.

    Maybe JK was fooling himself about that, but he did extend the offer to McCain.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#85)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:10:56 AM EST
    WTF was up with that?

    Parent
    I have no clue. (none / 0) (#91)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:17:15 AM EST
    It was a massively stupid idea.

    Maybe he was hoping for the Two, Two, War Heroes In One! ticket.

    Parent

    Does anyone actually remember (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    that the VP has a leg up in the next election?

    Sheesh!!!

    Parent

    John Kerry (none / 0) (#114)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:10:51 PM EST
    is a demonstrable political moron.

    Demonstrable.

    Many times over.

    A Democrat.  Sometimes, even, a brave one.  But a political moron if ever there was one.

    And a loser.  Big time.

    Now he's sponsoring Obama as 'the answer.'  That alone should tell you something.

    Parent

    Further, VP's are more about rounding out the (none / 0) (#49)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:38 AM EST
    Party apparatus than bringing in voters because people vote top of the ticket.  I'd say it has to be Strickland or Rendell.  He'd be lucky to have either.  Rendell probably because in Rendell's case, given he would be an historical candidate as well, he'd be able to push up jewish support, which would help in FL.

    Parent
    The Lieberman strategy? (none / 0) (#60)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:36:54 AM EST
    I do think Rendell is in a whole different league than Lieberman, but it has been tried before.

    Parent
    Obama will need at least high 60's (none / 0) (#63)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:39:55 AM EST
    in Jewish support to win a GE, or at least every Dem since Woodrow Wilson has, a simple majority won't do.  Rendell is no Lieberman.  He's a far more appealing candidate.

    Parent
    You are right, but will he get that support... (none / 0) (#98)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:31:13 AM EST
    read on:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/us/politics/22jewish.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

    Parent

    And, to be fair, they won that election. (none / 0) (#71)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:50:56 AM EST


    Parent
    Rendell won't take it (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:53:18 AM EST
    He is a vocal supporter of the unity ticket.  He has said publicly that if Hillary wins Obama should be VP, and if Obama wins Hillary should be VP.  I think he would be almost offended to be offered in leiu of Hillary.

    Also, PA needs him...

    And I think he is a big part of the reason either dem would win PA.  Him and Bob Casey have already started joint fundrasing for the GE.

    Parent

    Yeah, Strickland said he doesn't want it either. (none / 0) (#75)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    But they are the best two possibilities.

    Parent
    Electoral Map (none / 0) (#122)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:38:03 PM EST
    Why would any ardent Hillary supporter who believes the risky nature of the Obama Fall electoral map want to hitch themselves to that ride?

    Parent
    if he picks Lieberman thats it (none / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:55:20 AM EST
    I am voting for McCain

    Parent
    McCain or Obama? (none / 0) (#113)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    I think McCain is much more likely to pick Lieberman.  I don't think Lieberman would even agree to be on the dem ticket against McCain, since he has already openly supported him for president.

    Parent
    Just what we need... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:19 AM EST
    a man who's afraid of the voters running against War Hero McMaverick McCain.

    Just Heard On CNN That obama Originally (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:22 AM EST
    wanted half of the delegates in FLA, but because Hillary won by such a large margin he would be willing to give her a few more than he originally proposed....I just feel like throwing up.

    He won't ever do it. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    He'll lose the nom if he counts florida. Which is what matters apparently. Cuz instead of FL in the GE, he'll get CO, VA, and "the west" Except he won't.

    With Florida included he is still winning (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:25 AM EST
    by a large margin.  I don't see any justification for your assertion that he would lose the nomination if Florida is counted.

    Parent
    It is my premise (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:15:14 AM EST
    that he will win with both FL and MI seated.

    The SDs are going his way no matter what.

    Parent

    Pretty much (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:16:47 AM EST


    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#24)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:18:39 AM EST
    There doesn't seem to be any appetite in the Rules committee for counting FL and MI in full.  I suspect the compromise will look something like FL and MI both being counted (with Uncommitted in MI going to Obama), and probably all at 50%.

    btw -  BTD have you seen Al Giordano's post at The Field where he claims some inside knowledge of a call between Hillary and Obama where she asked for the VP spot and he turned her down?  If true it would explain the harder edge to her rhetoric in the last day or two.

    link

    Parent

    I have not read it (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:22:57 AM EST
    and I can tell you I do not believe such a call took place.

    Al is a good friend but that is just silly.

    Parent

    That's nonsense. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    That would be a sign that she's conceding.

    Parent
    In the end (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:55:31 AM EST
    Hillary has enough support, votes and delegates to force herself on the ticket if she so chose.

    I doubt that call took place.

    Parent

    No she doesn't. (none / 0) (#77)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:59:17 AM EST
    Obama's people adamently oppose it.

    Parent
    Translation: (none / 0) (#92)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:18:35 AM EST
    Michelle says NO! ;-)

    Parent
    That may or may not be true. (none / 0) (#97)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:29:46 AM EST
    I doubt Hillary would want to get on the ticket in that manner though.

    Parent
    I believe if she wants it (none / 0) (#104)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:41:47 AM EST
    it's hers. I just don't think she will want it. why would she? It's a losing ticket and the party is going to need a saviour in 2012.

    Parent
    Your premise (none / 0) (#102)
    by Dave B on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:37:18 AM EST

    that he will win with both FL and MI seated. The SDs are going his way no matter what.

    I agree with you. The SD's are deathly afraid of the AA backlash if they choose Clinton over Obama. JMHO



    Parent
    I Think The AA Backlash Scenario Is B.S. (none / 0) (#105)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:45:35 AM EST
    ...and they are counting on people being paralyzed by it, fearing the AA's won't show up.
    It is time we gave the AA's a little more credit and stop letting obama use them as a shield for his ineptness.

    Parent
    this is for the General (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ajain on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:18:46 AM EST
    He needs them for the General and insulting voters will do nobody any good.

    Parent
    I'm talking GE. You know when it actually (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:25:24 AM EST
    MATTERS.  But as long as Obama wins the primary, he'll be all set. /snark

    Parent
    If that's what you meant then fair enough (none / 0) (#45)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:30:49 AM EST
    but it's not what you wrote.

    You wrote that he would lose the "nom", which I, not unreasonably took to be short for nomination.

    Even assuming that's what you meant, I don't see how it makes any more sense.  By allowing the Florida delegation to be seated at the convention based on the disputed primary votes, that means he will lose Florida in the GE?

    Parent

    Quinnipiac Poll (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ajain on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:17:39 AM EST
    The other battlegrounds also should Clinton stronger.

    Even though Obama wins Pennsylvania, Clinton is much better, and Obama loses Ohio while Clinton wins Ohio.

    There are no parties (none / 0) (#107)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:47:11 AM EST
    Obama's not a Dem, Repubs don't consider McCain a repub.  Bloomberg was not going to run because Obama is the Unity '08 candidate.  Both camps are relying on their base.  Are they not paying attention to Congressional approval?  Isn't it the lowest ever?  People are sick of this govt and sick of politicians.  Neither McCain nor Obama has a public persona.  It will all be made up for the GE.  Politician lie and will say anything to get elected so this will be a GE based strictly on character and personality.  It will be fun.

    Parent
    Look at this: (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:20:36 AM EST
    Plagued by a defection of Clinton supporters and white working class voters, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the leading Democratic presidential contender, trails Arizona Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican candidate, in Florida and Ohio, according to simultaneous Quinnipiac University Swing State polls released today. Sen. Obama is six points ahead in Pennsylvania. New York Sen. Clinton wins handily in all three states. No one has been elected President since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the Electoral College.

    In 1960 Kennedy was able get southern states which Obama can't. Gerald McEtee has gone public now about Obama's electability problem. And this is only going to get worse as the time goes by. I'm sure that the 6 points in PA will disappear too. With Clinton supporters having massive defections there's just no way Obama can win a general election.

    The Q poll (none / 0) (#68)
    by zyx on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:45:10 AM EST
    needs to get around to posting the cheery numbers supporting the Majick Obama Map that CNN's John King showed us, whereby Obama wins us Dems the WH by taking VA, GA, CO, NM and IA...maybe they release those good poll results tomorrow?

    Parent
    I Don't Think He Takes Iowa (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by creeper on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:06:50 AM EST
    In fact, I think if his association with Rev. Wright had been known at the time of our caucuses he wouldn't have won those.

    Wright and "bitter" completely changed the dynamic of this primary.

    Parent

    I'm skeptical (none / 0) (#84)
    by zyx on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:09:31 AM EST
    about most of 'em--at least, him getting the run of them, AND keeping Pennsylvania, too.

    I should have put a /snark tag on my rant, I guess.

    Parent

    Obviously not enough to stop him (none / 0) (#103)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:41:06 AM EST
    winning the nomination. /snark

    Parent
    Massive (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:23:43 AM EST
    defections from the party if Obama is the nominee. Seating FL and MI might help him somewhat but looking at those polls not enough to win the general election. He's toast.

    why is no one alarmed (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:27:46 AM EST
    that lifelong, yellow dog dems are so against Obama?

    Oh, wait, because we are women.  Nevermind.

    Parent

    The general (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:30:48 AM EST
    election news just gets worse and worse for Obama yet the party