home

Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:16:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your turn. This is an Open Thread.

Comments over 200, thread now closed.

< Ignoring "The Problem" | Hillary Picks Up N.C. Superdelegate, Will Stay Until There's a Nominee >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 218 comments (218 topical)
    Obama joins the pander (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:28:05 PM EST
    parade?

    Envirowonk

    Not new, he has said this all along. (none / 0) (#15)
    by 1jpb on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:34:36 PM EST
    He also qualifies by referring to carbon sequestration.  And, we have a lot of coal, it needs to be some part of our energy answer.  

    If anything, HRC has pandered by her weak answer about mountain top coal mining.

    Parent

    Was this (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:40:34 PM EST
    before or after he voted for Cheney's Energy Bill?

    Parent
    I wonder how (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:46:45 PM EST
    his buddies at Exelon feel about him cozying up to coal... oh never mind, I'm sure they sit on each others boards.

    Parent
    Didn't read the article did you (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:56:03 PM EST
    He's not only pandering, he's lying...

    There's a lot not to like about this flyer, starting with the fact that "clean Kentucky coal" is a total oxymoron. Yes, there are coal plants that use Integrated Gasification Combine Cycle (IGCC) technology to capture and store emissions underground. The problem is there isn't a single carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant in all of Kentucky.

    What?  Is he going to use MY tax dollars for Corporate Welfare and Development?  I don't think so.

    Parent

    I think his plan is to store the gas (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:02:13 PM EST
    in one of the KY Great Lucks.  Hopebegone, maybe?

    Parent
    I wonder how (none / 0) (#179)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:22:29 PM EST
    Oregon feels about that.  :)

    Parent
    Obama today hits lowest poll average ever (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:29:55 PM EST
    on RealClearPolitics.com's daily averaging of polls (the best roundup of polls I've seen and the one most cited by media and other political observers).

    From 10 points up on average over Clinton in lots of polls logged in and averaged in there daily and even hourly, he's now down to a tenth of one point:

    RCP Average    04/28 - 05/06    --    Obama +0.1

    He better hope for a post-NC bounce.  Clinton still is coming up on him.  Hmmm, that oughta be another reason for her to get out.  It's sorta humiliating -- for him.  And for Dean, Brazile, Dems, et al.

    He did not do as well (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:48:17 PM EST
    as he was supposed to in either NC or IN. And the voting shenanigans with the mayor of Gary were reprehensible.

    I'm not thinking he's going to get any kind of bounce at all. His support is maxed out, whereas hers can be built upon and expanded.

    Can you imagine how she'd slice and dice McCain in a debate? Can you imagine how easily she'd trounce him on the economy?

    I wanted a landslide this year. I think I'm getting one - but not the one I wanted.

    Parent

    contrast is key (none / 0) (#63)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:53:49 PM EST
    I think you are 180 degrees off re: support and growth.  But that's political debate for you!

    Debates are almost never decisive.  Kerry beat Bush in the debates according to almost all polls.  But Kerry was up against not being positioned well on the war (he was for it, just a better version of it) and a not yet formed consensus that the war was a mistake.

    Hillary was poorly positioned on this war. It cost her greatly.  It will be a strength for Obama that will more than outweigh the relatively minor things cited here, like Wright and "clinging" and Ayers.  

    The economy sucks and Iraq sucks and the current admin stinks. The greater the contrast with that the better in November.  

    Parent

    Obama opposed the war when he couldn't vote (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:15:06 PM EST
    but voted FOR war funding when he could vote.
    Then flip flopped again when he became a presidential candidate.
    Yes - Obama is a fairy tale on the war.


    Parent
    How racist of you to point that out! (none / 0) (#161)
    by abfabdem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:17:55 PM EST


    Parent
    they all flip flop (none / 0) (#181)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:22:49 PM EST
    So i assume you disqualify candidates when they flip flop.  I disagree - the war vote is the war vote, but let's look at the flip side.

    So Hillary never flip flopped?  Because you seem to be implying that.

    In the end, this is a silly gotcha game.  


    Parent

    I respectfully disagree. (none / 0) (#95)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:02:06 PM EST
    HRC is a huge contrast with McCain economically. Clearly, her health care plan is far, far better. In addition, should there be some kind of manufactured crisis (bombing Iran), she will not look weak next to McCain. She has worked hard to strengthen her national security credentials, and she has shown she can be "tough" by voting for the AUMF.

    Obama pretends to have been anti-Iraq war on the basis of a speech, but his actions once in the Senate say differently. He's trying to have it both ways, and that didn't work so well with John Kerry, now, did it?

    HRC's position on the Iraq war is much more mainstream than Obama's. She's where most Americans are, and always has been.

    I just can't be optimistic about this. Maybe if Obama's the nominee he will suddenly figure out how to gain the voters he needs, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Parent

    What about leadership? (none / 0) (#217)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:37:57 PM EST
    "HRC's position on the Iraq war is much more mainstream than Obama's. She's where most Americans are, and always has been."

     Not exactly leadership, though, is it?

    "Obama pretends to have been anti-Iraq war on the basis of a speech, but his actions once in the Senate say differently."

     I assume when he spoke in 2002 he was not "pretending" to be against a war that was popular enough at the time to gain support from half of the Democratic senators.  And the position one takes against a war is very much unrelated to strategy and funding for the execution of a war.  

    "She has worked hard to strengthen her national security credentials, and she has shown she can be "tough" by voting for the AUMF."

     That has always been a problem with her for me.  I wonder sometimes if she overcompensates, at least on rhetoric, because she is female and a Democrat.  I am uniniterested in leaders who feel they need to have "tough" policies with respect to crime and war because that is what Americans want.  That attitude leads to disastrous policies.  See, for example, our prisons and criminal justice system, the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, as well as the debate over FISA.  

    Parent

    Register as Independent (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:31:24 PM EST
    I should think 10% of Democrats in FL and MI should be registering "Independent" sometime soon.

    Not everyone.

    Basically, if you do happen to be any of the folks who feel like the DNC has handled this primary inappropriately, the one way you can take a stand on that (short of not voting for Obama in November) is to register "Independent".

    Vote for Obama in November if you must.

    Just don't do nothing.  They'll do it again in a second if nothing happens.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Cate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:37:22 PM EST
    that is a stand that someone might notice. I mean, what else could it mean to the DNC but extreme dissatisfaction.

    Parent
    I'm waiting until (and if) she suspends (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jes on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:38:04 PM EST
    then I'm out. As to if Obama gets my vote, I'm flipping and flopping all over the place.

    Parent
    Me, too (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Nadai on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:43:45 PM EST
    I plan to do it on the day she concedes (assuming, of course, that she does).  Maybe if enough people do it, the DNC will get the message.

    I won't hold my breath, though.  They're pretty slow learners.

    Parent

    me too (none / 0) (#177)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:22:18 PM EST
    I plan to do it on the day she concedes (assuming, of course, that she does)

    would be great if enough ppl did that

    Parent

    I am absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:39:17 PM EST
    going to do this.

    I've had it.

    Parent

    I'm thinking about it (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:43:48 PM EST
    The only thing is, living in NY, which is a closed primary state, I won't be able to vote in the primaries.  It's a pretty ironic state of affairs for me, since just this year I persuaded my son who lives in PA to change his registration from Independent to Democratic so he could vote for Hillary in the PA primary.

    But I am so mad and disgusted right now, and my Obama-supporting mother's mocking e-mails aren't helping any!  

    Parent

    I know - I'm in the same situation... (none / 0) (#41)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:45:53 PM EST
    but since the Democrats don't care about my primary vote, they won't get it.

    Parent
    The back of the voter registration (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:49:07 PM EST
    form says you must have your application in 25 days before the election. I always thought it was a year. Did they change something? The website says that also, but I could have sworn it said something different . . .

    Anyway, you can be Independent and then change before upcoming elections if there is someone you want to support?

    Parent

    The answer is (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:05:30 PM EST
    new registrations have to be in a month before the election.  If you're already registered, though, changes in party registration have to be a year in advance.

    Parent
    In PA (none / 0) (#141)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:13:32 PM EST
    Yes We Can - change back to Independent from Democrat,  (or Republican for that matter).  And even though we have closed primaries, you still get to vote on any questions on the ballot, so it's still in your interest to keep track of what's going on in the primaries

    Parent
    I say change and hurry (1.80 / 5) (#65)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:54:16 PM EST
    and when the seniors on medicaid are struggling to make ends meet they can eat cat food to stay alive. I love them republican policies!

    you can eat cat food or crow, your choice.

    Parent

    Your line is getting tired (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:01:42 PM EST
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:59:59 PM EST
    and no negotiation on medicaid rates.  Go right ahead florida, enjoy the cat food for dinner.

    and the older folks (none / 0) (#148)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:15:15 PM EST
    who have no bargaining power from their elected officials with pharmaceuticals will be eating cat food.  

    great move (none / 0) (#198)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:25:57 PM EST
    Cat food or crow?  

    If you were actually worried about srs eating catfood, you would have paid attention to the polls that said more Clinton supporters would never vote for Obama than vice versa.  If the srs end up eating catfood, it will be the fault of everyone who voted for Obama in the primary while stubbornly refusing to realize he is unelectable.  If you think he's electable, then the srs will get to eat top ramen.


    Parent

    hey ramen is good food (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:13:10 PM EST
    If you think he's electable, then the srs will get to eat top ramen.

    thirty bucks a month it costs for top ramen, or so I've heard.

    Parent

    I am staying on message (1.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    you missed the three other posts that had it.

    Cat food or Crow, your choice ongoldenpond.

    Parent

    Here close your eyes and sing (1.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:18:22 PM EST
    Michael row your boat ashore hallelujah, michael row your boat ashore.

    Do this ten times.

    Keep eyes closed.

    Breathe deeply.

    Take a few minutes and breathe.  Feels good don't it.

    see, that's all you needed.

    Parent

    You're off message (none / 0) (#172)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:20:30 PM EST
    your campaign theme song is Kumbaya and you must be riding a unity pony.  I recommend you do it with your eyes open unlike you did when you voted.

    Parent
    oooh, eyes closed (1.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:23:49 PM EST
    like when i voted.  Very clever.  

    Really, if the breathing doesn't work try some valium, nothing wrong with a little chemistry to get you through the rough times.

    "cat food or crow, your choice."

    Parent

    Nope, beer (none / 0) (#186)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:25:10 PM EST
    I'm working on my low knowledge, bitter, clinging Clinton bona fides.

    Parent
    oh yeah (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:26:55 PM EST
    my two boys love kum-by-ah, sing it to em every nite at bedtime since they was born, great tune, can't really dance to it much but gives em a warmth in their bellies.

    Parent
    Colors (none / 0) (#211)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:34:23 PM EST
    Red and yellow
    Pink and green
    Purple and orange and blue
    Baby, I can sing a rainbow, sing a rainbow, sing a rainbow for you.
    Listen with your eyes, just listen with your eyes and sing everything you see.
    Red and yellow
    Pink and green
    Purple and orange and blue
    Baby, I can sing a rainbow, pretty rainbow, pretty rainbow like you.

    Parent
    now that's what i'm (none / 0) (#218)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:38:11 PM EST
    talkin bout.

    Parent
    This trolling attitude (none / 0) (#191)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:26:38 PM EST
    Seems very familiar, the language, the cadence....I have seen this before I think....

    Parent
    really marvin? (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:29:03 PM EST
    how long have you been at this site?  do you remember Patrick?  PPJ's original moniker?  When SUO was not SUO?  When Cliff was considered more evil than PPJ?

    lol, methinks not.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#205)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:31:56 PM EST
    Make sense much? Sorry stupid question, I withdraw.

    Parent
    lots of anger (none / 0) (#216)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:37:26 PM EST
    I hope you don't bring that home with you.  that message wasn't supposed to make sense to you short-timer, but for the few who do get, they are smiling ear to ear.

    Parent
    Jl's still got that fire in his belly! (none / 0) (#227)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:51:18 PM EST
    Good to see.

    Marvin, you are very much barking up the wrong tree here.


    Parent

    You obviously haven't priced pet food (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:08:38 PM EST
    lately. You can do better buying cheap processed food.

    Next!

    Parent

    I just switched to "no party" (none / 0) (#165)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    I feel much cleaner now.

    Parent
    I am glad that Sen. Clinton is continuing the (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by FLVoter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    fight and I will continue to contribute to her because I admire her and the democratic ideals she stands for. Now that I am now an official Independent voter (or as we are known in FL a NPA - No Party Affiliation) I may be courted by both the Republicans and the Democrats for my GE vote.  My husband has been a NPA for a long time now.  Both parties are now free to convince me that their platforms are better for my own self interest.  It is good to feel wanted again, since Sen. Obama, the DNC (and Donna Brazile) did not want me as a dem.

    Here's a nice (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:39:10 PM EST
    "good sportsmanship" story.

    Very Nice! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:40:48 PM EST
    thanks for posting!

    Parent
    I would happily (none / 0) (#209)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:34:03 PM EST
    help carry Obama off the field.

    Parent
    I'm going to GOTV training tonight. (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by liminal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:40:49 PM EST
    Yeah, for HRC.  It's mostly because I already said I would, yesterday, before things seemed so bleak.  I suppose there are positives in all this: instead of canvassing over the weekend, I can spend it in the garden.  I'm looking forward to it; that's what I did last night until it got so dark I couldn't see - I planted snaps and zinnias and pulled weeds and watered.  Maybe I'll expand the vegetable garden - grow some hops and barley for the coming global beer shortage.

    Bill Clinton is touring small towns in West Virginia - Phillipi and Fayetteville and Sutton.  Barack Obama should consider doing the very same thing: a listening tour a la HRC's rural listening tour in upstate NY in 2000.  

    Of course, listening to rural voters in the second poorest state in the country might be too boring for him...

    These "new Democrats" aren't Dems (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:41:42 PM EST
    They are Obamicans. They are voting Democratic because they love Obama's message of "hope" and "change", not because they think that the Democratic Party is superior. They don't even know what Obama's positions are, much less care where he stands on the political spectrum.

    I realized back in the Dkos days that there were two kinds of Democrats. Democrats like me chose the party because I agreed with it's general philosophy and wanted to support the ideals, even while recognizing that no political party will ever perfeclty represent me. The other kind of Democrats hate the Democratic party as it exists. They want to tear it down and reshape it into their ideal party. This group includes disaffected Republicans and Libertarians, Greens and Socialists who got tired of being in the minority, and idealists who are simply unwilling to compromise.

    They are the left-wing equivalent to the Christian Conservatives who think that if they vote for Republicans then the party will eventually give them what they want - a theocracy. Of course, the rebel Dems won't ever get what they want because they don't agree on anything. As long as Dems are out of power, they can agree on fighting Republican rule. As soon as the Dems get any kind of power they expect change and they want it now. But few of them agree on what kind of change they want, so Dems end up being damned by various subgroups no matter what action they take. As a result, the party elders are reluctant to make decisions, because they know that no matter what decision they make it will be the wrong one for somebody. They are hungry for a unified party, the kind of unity Obama promises, the kind of unity shown by black voter's in this election.

    It's too bad that Obama's voter's aren't more interested in the Democratic Party. As soon as we run a candidate who isn't about "change", they will return to their sniping.

    While I disagree w/the first sentence (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    not from a, I disagree w/the sentiment perspective but from a, let's avoid the beef perspective (as assumedly folks w/"more experience," IMO we should avoid at all costs, antagonistic language to those who don't agree w/us,) i agree with this poster's sentiment.  Folks from the "other" camp gotta get real.  We need to win, the feel good candidate just ain't gonna do it.  Politics has a competitive, sport-like side to it that u folks just ain't getting.  I would love to support the candidate that's gonna move us toward Utopia, but right now, that's not the candidate that's gonna win.  Folks need to understand, we have to get in the door first before we can control the dialogue.  I like most Dems, was like WTF!! after O's speech at the Dem Convention last prez election but, now's not time for that.  We need tough, push-our-agenda-thru-regardless type leadership right now.  We have to give our principles/ideals/plans a chance to get out there to the nation as they are before we water them down based on a compromise.  I'm a Hillary supporter who looks forward to the day when an Obama-type candidate can capture the nations attention - I'd support him/her, but, I ask you, look at ALL the facts right now, do you really want to gamble w/all that's at stake?

    Parent
    with all the facts? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:13:31 PM EST
    That Hillary CANNOT beat him in the popular vote, the electoral vote and sd's.  Shameful i tell ya, shameful.

    For all the talk of Obama not having the KO punch, the same is true for Mrs. Clinton.  

    It is almost comical to me that the democratic party who has cried foul over the "fear based" campaigning is trying to incorporate "fear" in its own party in this election.  Do I fear John McCain, not in the least bit.  Do I fear that Hillary will LOSE to John McCain, HELL yeah.

    Hillary would lose to McCain, no question in my mind.

    Parent

    Re: All the facts (none / 0) (#207)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:32:28 PM EST
    What I was referring to was not just the current back and forth over who's more electable.  I'll admit, an argument can be made for either.  The strength of each argument however, I don't think is the same.  All the facts, means knowing how the politics game has been played between repubs and dems over the last two election cycles.  You shouldn't need to "like" the president.  It's a job interview, w/someone who u don't work next to daily.  You don't need to see them, you don't have to be cool w/them.  It should be about who, based on the current climate, is best prepared to handle what's happening in the US and the world.  You fear that Hillary will lose to John McCain, I don't.  I'll tell u why, I'm a Dem, but I KNOW John McCain ain't stupid, and he understands the BIG issues that are happening today.  He doesn't need advisers to tell him what they are.  I may not agree w/his principles, but at least he KNOWS the reality of the US and the world today.  B4 u go there w/the SCOTUS, forget abortion rights, no prez is gonna take that away from women (who make a HUGE part of the electorate,) the US would look like the middle ages to the rest of the world, our rep is already messed up, ain't gonna happen.  Here's the deal w/SCOTUS: most people don't care.  The people who care are those who have a case that might be impacted by what the SCOTUS does.  Sorry, but this isn't the majority.  I'm tellin you, u gotta be in it to win it.  We have a chance of being "in it" w/Hill and Bill.  Ask yourself, who since Jimmy Carter has held the top slot?  Did they run alone?  Hasn't the DNC/Dem Part ran who they thought was the best shot every election since?  What's been the outcome?  Who was the last dem president to be re-elected?

    Parent
    wow that really hits it on the head (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:15:20 PM EST
    hate the Democratic party as it exists. They want to tear it down and reshape it into their ideal party. This group includes disaffected Republicans and Libertarians, Greens and Socialists who got tired of being in the minority, and idealists who are simply unwilling to compromise.

    That's what Obama is offering. Democrat-hate.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by livesinashoe on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:21:32 PM EST
    They are the left-wing equivalent to the Christian Conservatives who think that if they vote for Republicans then the party will eventually give them what they want - a theocracy.

    EXACTLY so.

    Same psychology, same true believing, same vitriol towards anyone who challenges the one true faith.


    Parent

    oh,ps (none / 0) (#193)
    by livesinashoe on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:27:00 PM EST
    this is my first post here although i have been reading for months.

    i have been a dem for 40 years, and have been a family preservation activist for the last 15.

    i believe the dem party is experieincing a hijacking by true believers much as the r party did, starting in 1980.

    i now consider myself an independent with true democratic principles.

    Parent

    well 50% of the "dems" (3.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:57:56 PM EST
    voted for Obama.  And in my group of friends all with at least 5 pres voting cycles under their belts and most with 6 or more, i don't think any of them consider themselves "new" demos being that they voted dem in all dem cycles.

    I thought Hillary gave an appropriate speech, it is too bad that some of her followers who can type are so angry.  

    I think Obama and Hillarys platform are so radically different that if Hillary won there is no question i would have to vote for that McCain fellar.  lol

    Parent

    I was referring to the kids (none / 0) (#160)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:17:33 PM EST
    The hope of the new Democratic generation. I was not suggesting that the people who voted for Obama were not Democrats. That's a game for Obamabots, as far as I'm concerned. But the new Obama voter's are not Democrats. They might become Dems at some point, but their loyalty is to Obama, not the party.

    Parent
    more than 2 kinds (none / 0) (#98)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:02:42 PM EST
    I think your "2 kinds" thing is flat wrong. I've got elements of both. I know many people who do.

    Change is a dynamic in a landscape that exists or doesn't exist. It depends on the times.  It's up to a candidate to grab it or not.

    And I was a strong Bill Clinton supporter.  And I was never for Hillary this time around.  

    It's not as simple as you think.  I'm pragmatic to the core...the opposite of an idealist. And I am for Obama, post Edwards.  That seems to not be computable for you.

    Parent

    You're the one who is not computing (none / 0) (#175)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:21:19 PM EST
    You're filtering my words to imply that I said that nobody who wants to change the party can be a Democrat. I'm talking about people who literally want to hijack the party and remake it into a different party. Have you spent any time on Daily Kos? If you have, then you have seen what I'm talking about. They hate the leaders of the party, they think the principles are wrong, they think the implementation is wrong, they think that all Democratic politicians are "spineless" and "corrupt" and that the party itself has sold out so badly to corporate interests that there is no way to save it. Do you feel that way?

    Parent
    don't agree (none / 0) (#185)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:24:46 PM EST
    Yes, I have spent time on Kos, and I disagree completely with your assessment. So we won't agree on much.  I could also make blanket characterizations of this site as well.

    Parent
    I remember (none / 0) (#184)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:24:05 PM EST
    when Edwards merely spoke up in defense of Hillary's non-racist remark re LBJ/MLK. Kos called Edwards an "ass."
    We need to remember all these Obama bloggers who have fueled the bogus racist charges against the Clintons. Playing the Race Card was the only way Obama could get the Black vote and the media and left blogs played along.
    Perhaps some other Black candidates will implement Obama's winning racist strategy.

    Parent
    racist? your opinion (none / 0) (#195)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:28:42 PM EST
    I don't know anybody who sees the race thing the way you do.  I'm not saying they're not out there, but I know blacks and whites and less wealthy non winedrinkers alike who like Obama and don't think his campaign is racist.

    What I am saying, is that you're trapped in campaign land.  Neither Hillary nor Obama is a racist.  They're both trying their damndest to win a campaign, walking up to the line and you're taking everything literally.

    I think if most people thought he was racist, he'd get crushed.  Instead, he's won this thing.

    Parent

    Nobody said Obama is a racist (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:33:49 PM EST
    But it is obvious to anybody who has been paying attention that Obama's campaign has been using charges of racism to inspire voter's to oppose Clinton. People hate racism, which is why this technique works so well. That's what the "racist" strategy is. Not using racism - using the hatred of racism. It's rather brilliant anyway. Except that the side effect is that it divides the party. Oh well, as long as he wins the primary, right?

    Parent
    Irony is not a strength here (none / 0) (#144)
    by dem08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:14:31 PM EST
    Most of Talk Left's Posts suggest a basic equation:

    Democratic Party = Hillary

    and so many here profess they won't vote for Obama under any circumstance.

    Maybe you should ask Hillary and Bill to form The Real Democratic Party, since Obama's backers are all Cultists.

    I can understand why people do not like Obama and I can understand why people do not like Hillary. I also understand why people who like them do like them.

    But I cannot understand how someone can say, "My candidate is so great that only Cultists like her/his opponent."

    Parent

    You're filtering (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:29:44 PM EST
    I have yet to see anybody here suggest that Obama is not a Democrat, or that, in general, the people who support him are not Democrats. I said that the "new" voter's who are supporting Obama are not Democrats. They are not voting for the existing Democratic Party, they are voting for "change". What do you think "change" means? They think that the existing political structure is broken and that voting for Obama will change it.

    As for the "cult" meme - it's true, but Obama supporter's have distored it through their filter so badly that they have no idea what it means. Many of Obama's supporters are not really interested in politics. They are part of a "personality cult" (look it up - it fits). Nobody ever said that all Obama voter's were cultists, in the general sense of the word.

    Parent

    Post of the month right here (none / 0) (#174)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:20:47 PM EST
    Nicely said and without all the antagonism that I like to use.  Much better to be above the fray, but I am a bit bored these days.

    Parent
    O isn't proud to be a Democrat, is he? (none / 0) (#198)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:29:24 PM EST
    Most of Talk Left's Posts suggest a basic equation:

    Democratic Party = Hillary

    and so many here profess they won't vote for Obama under any circumstance.

    When the Democratic party does not need or want the working class, women, minorities other than blacks, gays and lesbians, etc. then it isn't anything I recognize as the Demcratic party.

    When the Democratic party rejects and even slanders the values and the issues and the leaders and the principles that drew me into this party in the first place, and instead praises Republican ideas and leaders and values, and promotes Republican issues, I don't recognize that as the Democratic party.

    You're free to disagree with me, of course. But I don't see Obama as a Democrat. It isn't like he calls himself one - the only time he uses the word Democrat, it's in a sentence about what's wrong with America

    Parent

    Upcoming landslides? (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by stevenb on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:44:05 PM EST
    What I want to know is why the upcoming primaries in W. Virginia and Kentucky aren't looked at as major landslides for Clinton, just like Obama in NC?  Shouldn't these upcoming contests bode well for Clinton?  Why is it that NC is the "big deal," especially since Penn. went for Clinton, Indiana went for Clinton (a hard-fought battle) and Clinton has a real chance to pick up wins in the near future?

    I guess winning primaries, winning key demographics and having momentum just isn't worth as much anymore...

    Because (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:49:44 PM EST
    Since they have anointed The One as the nominee already, the narrative is going to be that Hillary has to win both states by 150% to get close.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#83)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:59:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Upcoming battles (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by zebedee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:01:47 PM EST
    The latest polls for KY and WV show her around 30% ahead. There are as many dem voters in these combined as in Indiana. These 30% wins will count for more in pledged delegates but perhaps more imprtantly in allowering her to gain the lead in popular vote (with FL and MI counted).

    Parent
    Popular vote... (none / 0) (#67)
    by smott on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:55:13 PM EST
    EVen with say 20+ point wins in KY and WV how much will HRC gain in the pop vote?

    Parent
    Gains in upcoming battles (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by zebedee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:05:49 PM EST
    With 20%, around the 230,000 he picked up in NC, assuming similar turnout to IN/NC. With 30%, a lot more.

    Parent
    show me the math (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:02:54 PM EST
    even if we include mi and fl, and assume that the uncommitted went to obama in mi since obama was not on that ballot, obama is still leading by nearly 400k.  which is a couple of percentage points at best but still leading in the pop vote.  

    Electabilitiy smectability.  Two words - John Kerry.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#112)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:06:51 PM EST
    NC is one of the 10 largest states, so it's bad to get blown out there.

    Parent
    NC is a much, much bigger state (none / 0) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:10:34 PM EST
    with many more delegates.


    Parent
    But NC will not go Democratic in November (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:18:15 PM EST
    It is a republican state and the republicans are going to work very hard to bring back people to the fold, if they left for a brief "affair" with Obama.

    Most of the states Obama won will NOT go Democratic in November.  I dare say a couple of "blue" states are at risk, including MI and FL.

    A Obama nomination will be frothed with problems.

    Parent

    Kerry blaming 'operation chaos' (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by jjsmoof on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:45:50 PM EST
    per Rawstory Kerry is blaming HRC win in IN on operation chaos.  <shaking head>

    And this is the same jerk (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:48:51 PM EST
    who was too wimpy to contest the obvious voter fraud in Ohio in 2004.  Figures!

    Parent
    John Kerry (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:49:41 PM EST
    and a dollar would buy you a cup of McDonald's coffee.

    He's a doofus.

    Parent

    To the extent that any McDonald's (none / 0) (#116)
    by liminal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:08:08 PM EST
    cashiers might recognize Kerry, they might charge you double.  

    Parent
    Kerry is working harder for Obama then (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:50:50 PM EST
    he did for himself.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:10:31 PM EST
    Contributing to divisiveness in the party AND helping to promote Rush Limbaugh's importance!  John Kerry, you are truly a Democrat's Democrat.

    Parent
    kerry? blaming? (none / 0) (#170)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:19:42 PM EST
    Kerry blaming someone for something?

    I thought Democrats were the party of "personal responsibility".

    No wait...that's what they're opposed to. I keep forgetting...must mean that I'm a Truman Democrat....

    OMG I just realized why my dear old dad used to go all googly over the phrase "the buck stops here"...

    Parent

    Recharge Time! (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Chimster on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:54:23 PM EST
    We need to stand firm. We need to fight harder than before. NOTHING has changed in my mind since last night's primary election. Go ahead and take today off and let the "I've got the Hillary Blues" last for the rest of the day. Then, let's get back to tearing the BO campaign another one tomorrow. The delegate count is only a small part of the Superdelegates thought-process.

    By the way, I think it was McCaskell or someone who said the Superdelegates are all supporting Barrack. Oh, really? If so, why don't they all come out now and endorse him. They would be able to push Obama over the top. The problem is, they won't. Why? Because nothing has been decided yet. The Dem party is still divided.

    This race is far from over. The media once again is crowning their prince. So what else is new? They've been doing it since the race began. Let's keep fighting for Hillary! Because if we don't, we're gonna be stuck with old man McCain for the next 4 years.

    Silver lining (long...sorry) (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Fultron on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:07:59 PM EST
    I'm not happy with last night's result. I'm not quite sure how IN ended up being so close in the end, and I choose to turn a blind eye to whatever it was that happened up in Gary. The end result is that I'm convinced it's (ultimately) over for Clinton. The tie doesn't go to the runner.

    Anyway, with all of these calls for Clinton to drop out early for the "good of the party", I think the exact opposite. I think she best serves the party (and indeed, has no choice) by staying in the race until the end, even though there is no little to no chance of winning.

    Consider it this way...if the Obama camp and elders force her out NOW, before the convention, her supporters will go with her. It would be tantamount to the party telling elderly, white blue collar/middle class, and Latino voters that they aren't wanted. Obama is not the great uniter he claimed to be. The only hope to reunite the party is for Clinton to fight to the end and to lose graciously and democratically. I think members of Clinton's base can accept a fairly settled loss over being bullied out and trampled on. Going to the convention split 51/49 sends the message that a large chunk of the party cannot be ignored by Obama. Giving up early validates the Obama camp's opinion of that remaining 49% (ie: we don't need them, don't want them, and now the party is ours).

    Despite the claims that prolonging the race hurts the party, I could see this actually working in the Dems favor. They can run ads against McCain and the war for two straight months to try to redefine his candidacy. Without Clinton and Obama trying to tear each other down and given some chance to rest and recover from hardcore campaigning, they are bound to improve in the polls. Further, if the nominee hasn't been settled, how does McCain respond? Who does he attack? Obama AND Clinton at the same time?

    My opinion is that the DNC should keep the 2210 magic number and go to the convention. Neither candidate will win outright, so the vote will go to a second ballot. On the second ballot, the delegates can be released and MI and FL can be seated. This avoids disenfranchisement and opaque superdelegate deals. If Obama is still the strongest nominee (ie: no more big screw-ups, rebounds from his 60/40 loss of the white vote, not trailing McCain, still leading popular and pledged vote), he will be confirmed. If there is a disaster, Clinton will still be around as a viable back-up candidate. In August, we'll be 4 months closer to the general election. Let's see how things look then.

    Sorry for being so long-winded, but I need to vent after last night and hopefully find some silver lining here.

    You vent all you want (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:14:43 PM EST
    We're cheaper than therapy here. :)

    Parent
    Ha! Not when... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Fultron on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:20:23 PM EST
    I take an extra 30 minutes at lunch to post here!

    Parent
    I think you're (none / 0) (#229)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:58:32 PM EST
    right on this:  in order to have a legitimate result, the Obama supporters have to be willing to risk losing the nomination at the convention.

    Parent
    Welcome! (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:17:30 PM EST
    Have you thought about running for President?  You have a much stronger resume than some people....

    Since the 'problem" post is full up (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by davnee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:31:44 PM EST
    What does Obama do about these exit poll results?

    IN -
    He lost white women by 26 points.
    He lost white men by 16 points.
    He lost all seniors by 42 points.
    He lost self-identifying "moderates" (44% of the electorate) by 8 points (I thought this was his voter that Clinton could never get).
    He lost late deciders (last week) by 24 points.  

    NC -
    He lost white women by 30 points.
    He lost white men by 14 points.
    He handily lost all whites over 30. With whites between 30 and 45 favoring Clinton by 7 points and whites over 45 favoring Clinton by over 30 points.
    He lost white independents (16% of the electorate) by 20 points.
    He won the suburban vote (all races) by only 7 points.

    How do you make that crash and burn sound fx (none / 0) (#213)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:36:26 PM EST
    In text format? Is it:

    EEeeeeeeeeeeeooooooooooccccckckkkkkbboooooooommmmmm?

    Coming to a general election near you!

    Parent

    Obama pick up an endorsment (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:36:55 PM EST
    "I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees"
    - RushLimbaugh

    What now? (4.33 / 6) (#5)
    by Cate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:27:20 PM EST
    I am so sick of being on the losing side. First Gore, then Kerry and now Hillary. Each time I tell myself that I am finished with politics but something  - maybe the ghastly outcome of seeing what happens BECAUSE my candidate didn't win - brings me back to fight again.

    I feel so 'out of sync' with the flow of the planet - like a terminal round peg in a square world. I want a new party that I fit into - in the interim, once BO is nominated, I will probably go Independant - is that what is going to happen? All we Hillary supporters will become Independent and leave "Democrat" to the eggheads and Blacks?

    Console yourself by noting (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:31:37 PM EST
    that Obama and Hillary differ very little on policy and that, should Obama lose, Hillary will be in great shape for 2012 (she probably woulda been a one termer this round anyway given the likely Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton fatigue).

    Parent
    I have trouble consoling myself on that (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:42:00 PM EST
    score because health care has been the number one issue for me from day one, even back in September when I was officially leaning Obama.

    Obama's plan, unlike Hillary's and Edwards', does not provide for universal coverage (which is an entitlement and the first step to a single payer system).  

    Obama's Harry and Louise ads have only confirmed to me that me will not push the Congress to provide universal health coverage.  And his campaign's right-wing talking points about Hillary's plan infringing on freedoms by creating an all-pay, all covered system (Social Security anyone?) have convinced me that Obama's "new politics" is neither progressive nor liberal.

    My sole consolation is that Obama is not McCain.

    Parent

    That's not a done deal (none / 0) (#44)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:47:05 PM EST
    I think that campaign promises are only relevant in the campaign.  Once someone takes office, everything changes.  

    If Obama goes to a D congress with 60 D senate seats and proposes a non universal bill, and they send him back a universal bill, I bet you anything he'd sign it.

    His positioning was strategic.  Everything is strategic and not to be taken literally in a campaign.

    And without 60 seats in the Senate, there may be no real HC reform regardless of who the President is.

    Parent

    Oh, stop that (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:49:00 PM EST
    crazy Unity talk! ;)

    Parent
    yes, Obama's "unity" is just talk (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:52:14 PM EST


    Parent
    sarcasm? (none / 0) (#76)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:58:16 PM EST
    Can't tell. "Talk" wins campaigns.  The opposite of unity is fascism. "Unity" is an appealing idea to a lot of Americans.  Campaigns are about such high minded ideas that connect with emotions.   Obama just doesn't say what you personally want him to say, that's all.  But he knows how to communicate.

    Parent
    Actually, (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:04:23 PM EST
    I was attempting to be funny.
    I thought at first you were trying to be
    kind and conciliatory.
    But now you're starting to annoy me
    with your lectures on politics and history.

    Parent
    my apologies. (none / 0) (#142)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:13:37 PM EST
    Sorry.  How crazy of me to express an opinion in a blog comment thread.

    I'm really not good with sarcasm.  

    Parent

    (Shrugs) (none / 0) (#153)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:16:50 PM EST
    I'm sorry too.  I regret to say I find you
    a bit patronizing.  It's probably just me.
    My opinion only, of course.

    Parent
    what is and isn't patronizing? (none / 0) (#167)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:19:30 PM EST
    You should challenge me then. Thats what this is all about, right?  I'm having fun talking politics at this key time.  And procrastinating at work.

    But just passively tossing an insult at me - "you're patronizing" - is pretty weak.  

    Or am I being patronizing again?  I like it when people slam me back.  So go for it.

    Parent

    real unity comes out of respect, not disrespect (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:32:17 PM EST
    The opposite of unity is fascism.

    Um...no.

    When unity starts becoming required/enforced, and those who can't or won't unify are not welcome anymore, it's fascism.

    Parent

    "Facts are stubborn things.": (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:02:22 PM EST
    Now, that's some crazy talk.

    The soothing whispers (or shrill demands) for unity will not make me suspend my critical faculties.

    I will vote for the nominee, but I will not become a willing dunce for Obama or Hillary.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:59:49 PM EST
    The idea that Congress will come up with something MORE progressive than what the President proposes seems a bit wishful.  If they were that inclined to do it, it would have happened already.

    Parent
    No, policy promises are the starting point (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:59:55 PM EST
    in any bargain.

    Obama starts off giving up universal coverage.

    Did you see the recent statements by Schumer et al downplaying hopes for universal health care?

    The initiative will not be taken by Congress, even a more Democratic one. The President has to lead, and if Obama will not even run on that notion of universal coverage -- and in fact uses right-wing rhetoric to undermine the very ideal -- he will not push for it.

    Sorry, but a call for unity will not lead me to suspend my knowledge of the facts.  For example, I no longer participate at Daily Kos because reality is what I am interested in.

    Parent

    faith and facts (none / 0) (#110)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:06:25 PM EST
    YOUR reality. You don't know what he'll do. Nobody  does. Nobody knows what Hillary would do either. It's all faith, not facts.  

    Everyone who hits Obama on universality assumes that universality was truly possible in the next 2 years.  80 or 90 percent coverage - and higher quality coverage - would be a massive improvement, no?

    Tactical? Sure.  But not dispositive.  

    Those are facts.  What candidates say is strategic and self serving...ALL candidates.  I think that's a fact.

    Parent

    The facts are what Obama has said, and (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:10:58 PM EST
    what Hillary has said, on health care. I laid that out accurately.

    Faith is hoping BO will act differently from how he has said he will act.  Foolish faith, I might add.

    Parent

    I agree noone knows what Obama (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:17:17 PM EST
    will do, except I'm certain it won't include pushing for universal health care.

    Parent
    So you're saying (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Nadai on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:03:14 PM EST
    we can't trust anything he's said.  And since he doesn't have much of a record, we can't rely on that to know what he really thinks.  But we should definitely vote for him because he'll be a great progressive President.

    Parent
    I said I console myself because he is not (none / 0) (#111)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:06:40 PM EST
    McCain.

    Big difference.

    Parent

    My reply (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Nadai on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:12:01 PM EST
    was to contrarian1964 at #44 up the thread, not to you.  I have absolutely no problem with what you wrote.

    Parent
    for any candidate, yes (none / 0) (#122)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:09:09 PM EST
    We can't trust any politician re: rhetoric because reality changes (congress, economy, public opinion).

    We can only try to understand what their values are and make our choices. I think both HRC and BO have values that are fine with me.  I have my opinions over who is better positioned to win, and who has run a better campaign.

    The alternative is to make choices based on spin. That's what most of the blogosphere comment debate seems to be.  

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Nadai on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:14:44 PM EST
    The real alternative is to make choices based on a candidate's record.

    Parent
    now we see why 'character' is viewed as important (none / 0) (#220)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:38:44 PM EST
    We can't trust any politician re: rhetoric because reality changes (congress, economy, public opinion).

    Personally, I put my faith in a thing called probability. But if you don't - then how can you have an opinion? After all, you are essentially saying that all candidates are inherently and equally unknowable.

    Parent

    Sorry. (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    I don't buy it. When has Congress ever done anything that big without the president aggressively pushing for it? Why would all those Democrats put themselves on the line for something that risky when they don't even have cover from their own president? What behavior by congressional Dems over the past eight years should encourage us to think they'll suddenly do something like that?

    I also don't buy the excuse of needing 60 Senate votes. With the president and 55 Democratic senators and a full-scale public relations blitz, we'd have a chance. It will take party unity and determination. With the president on record as being opposed to it, well, then it's hopeless.

    Parent

    the probem is (none / 0) (#183)
    by po on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:24:03 PM EST
    the Dems in Congress do not necessarily want universal healthcare.  there was a story about this somewhere last week.  The lobbyists have them as well.  the GOP is not the only one sucking on that $ train.  Therefore, Obama's plan, sans the mandatory universality, might actually be more likely to pass, even a democratically controlled congress.  Bill had a D Congress for his first 2 years and it didn't get him much.  


    Parent
    the problem with your solution (none / 0) (#204)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:31:50 PM EST
    is that half-a*sed healthcare like what is proposed would be the death knell for universal healthcare.  The prices would be astronomical, and they they could always say, "well, it didn't work back in 200X, it won't work now."

    A bad healthcare solution is bad forever.  

    Parent

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#225)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:48:38 PM EST
    Incremental approach is the only way we are going to catch up to the rest of the civilized world (we are alone on that score.) The insurance co's have a solid grip on our congresscritters and they are not about to let go.

    Hillary's plan in 1993 under Bill had almost no support in a Democratic controlled congress.

    U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan qualified his agreement that "there is no health care crisis" by stating "there is an insurance crisis" but also indicated "anyone who thinks [the Clinton health care plan] can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it."[22] Meanwhile, Democrats, instead of uniting behind the President's original proposal, offered a number of competing plans of their own. Some criticized the plan from the left, preferring a Canadian-style single payer system.

    wikipedia

    By your logic Hillary should not even be presenting any Health Care Plan because her earlier one failed so dismally.

    Parent

    it's not my solution (none / 0) (#228)
    by po on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:55:33 PM EST
    and i'm not advoacting half-a##ed, but half-a$$ed appears all that congress is willing to do per  what's been reported as not doable.  i agree half-a$$ is not good, but that's what happens when lobbyists control congress.  

    Parent
    I wouldn't bring Social Security up as an example (none / 0) (#154)
    by mm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:17:00 PM EST
    And his campaign's right-wing talking points about Hillary's plan infringing on freedoms by creating an all-pay, all covered system (Social Security anyone?) have convinced me that Obama's "new politics" is neither progressive nor liberal.

    This is one of the biggest reasons I cannot support Senator Obama.  I don't trust him and his advisor regarding Social Security.  

    I fear that if he won, he'd start messing with SS and compromise with Republicans to prove his unity shtick.  Democratic congress will be forced to go along to support him.  

    With McCain, I'm pretty confident that Dems would fight him on any SS reform.

    Only Nixon could go to China and I fear only a Dem can put us the road to SS privitization.

    Parent

    I know how you feel (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by abfabdem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:33:40 PM EST
    The electorate keeps preferring the candidate with the lighter resume to the one who is wonkier and knowledgeable about how to get stuff done.  What am I missing?  I guess we keep getting the leadership we deserve but not sure I can take it much longer!!

    Parent
    I really thought we'd return to preferring... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by smott on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:41:31 PM EST
    ...the wonks, after they decided the guy they'd like to have a beer with would make the best CIC and we saw how that worked out.

    But no, the light resume wins again.  

    Parent

    What is and what is not (none / 0) (#28)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:41:08 PM EST
    I know what you're missing. I agree.

    But elections are, sadly, as much about appearance and squishy stuff as they are about anything else.  And liberals are far more issue and policy oriented than less partisan D's, I's, or certainly conservatives.

    That's why criticism of Obama's seemingly vague style is completely off the mark.  It is entirely strategic.  

    For example, Bill Clinton used to use the word "change" incessantly in the 92 race.  it's just good strategy if the campaign landscape demands it - it did then and it does now.  Hillary had a different playbook this time out.  Obama's wasn't even the same as Bill's, but he decided to grab that "space" in the race.

    Hillary should have run, IMO, as the change candidate and boxed Obama out.  

    Parent

    I feel your pain (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:47:54 PM EST
    The only winning candidate I've ever backed was Bill Clinton (unless Hillary miraculously pulls it off).   The difference is, this year I'm not going to hold my nose and vote.  As far as I'm concerned, Obama is not worth the effort it would take to walk 3 blocks to my polling place, stand in line and pull the lever.  IMO, the Unity Pony is as dead as poor Eight Belles (RIP).

    Parent
    don't despair (none / 0) (#17)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:37:13 PM EST
    I wrote this in a prior thread.  I'm new here, but have been on blogs since blogs were born.

    I supported a lot of losers.  It just happens.  I supported Hart, Babbitt, Bradley, and Edwards.  I was not a Hillary supporter this time ever, even though I was a strong Bill supporter in '92.

    Don't fall into despair or polarization.  I'm guessing you're relatively young.  Anyone who supports Obama or HRC should be happy that the other could be the nominee...they are both liberals.  They both roughly believe in the same major things re: the role of government.  The contrast with the other side is stark.  Dangerously stark.  Don't fall prey to the polarization of blog comment talk.  

    NonJunkies  are very, very different from us junkies.

    Parent

    Obama is a liberal? (5.00 / 8) (#38)
    by trillian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:44:48 PM EST
    The guy who thinks that Republicans are the party of ideas....who says he'll model his FP on that of GWB,  and who has torpedoed any chance for universal healthcare?

    Parent
    of course (none / 0) (#50)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:49:01 PM EST
    Sure he's a liberal.  He occasionally uses conservative talking points...to my dismay. As does Hillary (e.g. gas tax).  As did Edwards (Katrina, health care)

    I long ago stopped judging politicians so absolutely. They are flawed, the system is flawed, etc.  We'll never get perfection.

    If Obama were a conservative, he could have become a Republican.  

    Parent

    A black Republican in Chicago (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    wouldn't get very far.

    Parent
    Hillary used RW talking points on the gas tax? (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:09:06 PM EST
    Quite the reverse.  

    To Obama, short-term help for the poorest when prices are high is "pandering."  

    You can argue about Hillary's position on the gas tax, but economic populism is hardly a right wing tradition in America.

    Parent

    No, you're wrong. It's economics (none / 0) (#132)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:11:11 PM EST
    A gas tax holiday is Republican anti government, anti tax to the core.  It's bad policy to boot.  

    At this level of demand the price would just rise to its pre tax level and oil companies would make more profit. The gov't would lose revenue.  Consumers would pay the same. It's a gimmick.

    You're trying to play "gotcha" - I'm saying everybody does it.

    Parent

    A friend who supports Obama told (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:22:29 PM EST
    me today Hillary really hurt her chances w/the gas tax holiday idea.  I sd., well, Obama voted for it in the IL. state senate.  She sd., but he changed his mind because it didn't work.  Then I sd., . . .

    Parent
    No - I am in despair (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by smott on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:47:39 PM EST
    After 2004 I actually put my resume on Monster in Canada...I still get the email job opps. I'm in PA so a move 5 hrs north to perhaps TO is not so big a deal, outside of leaving my family.

    I'm certainly not young...I am 47. But increasingly this is not a country I want to live in. I was born in England, kept my green card for years, and finally changed my citizenship so I could vote for Kerry.

    I believe first that Obama has an extremely slim chance of beating McCain, but that even if he does, he will be a weak and ineffective president. The bi-partisan unity schtick is a substitute for non-confrontation. It will not get anything done. Bill Clinton had to ram home the budget with GOre providing the tiebreaker vote. That kind of thing will never happen with Obama.

    And I need things that will meet huge resistance from the GOP, like universal health care. I am a 2-time cancer survivor who is self-employed and I will not be able to afford to insure myself indefinitely.

    The move to Canada will probably become necessary for insurance reasons with either McCain or Obama.

    So yes I am in despair.


    Parent

    I feel for (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    you smott.
    Pre-existing condition, 600. bucks a month.
    And grateful to have any insurance at all,
    at the moment.

    Parent
    Yes I've got pre-existing (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by smott on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:58:56 PM EST
    Breast cancer, thyroid cancer (probably from the radiation) and now abnormal EKG (probably from the chemo).

    Uninsurable, basically.

    Well - uninsurable in this country.

    Parent

    Oh - and.... (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by smott on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:00:30 PM EST
    No history of cancer in my family. And I'm a skinny, rabbit-food eating, non-smoking gym-rat who works out 6 days a week.

    It would be funny except it's not.

    Parent

    Hey, cmu? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by smott on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:01:01 PM EST
    You in Pittsburgh? Me too!

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#114)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:07:23 PM EST
    "CMU" is for Central Michigan University,not Carneige Mellon :(

    But I was there last week when my sister got her Master's from the University of Pittsburgh. My whole family is from around there!  :)

    Parent

    Oh well - (none / 0) (#120)
    by smott on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:08:41 PM EST
    GO PENGUINS!!!  :-D

    Parent
    Gotta disagree with you there (none / 0) (#168)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:19:35 PM EST
    GO RED WINGS!!

    Parent
    Funny. (none / 0) (#138)
    by liminal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:13:20 PM EST
    I always assumed that your moniker meant Carnegie Mellon, too!

    My dad was born in Pittsburgh, and I have family enough up there to feel connected.  

    Parent

    As I Said Before...... (none / 0) (#194)
    by michitucky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:27:49 PM EST
    Go Fire Up, Chips!!!  

    What year did you graduate???

    Parent

    Oh my. (none / 0) (#84)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:59:38 PM EST
    You're in my prayers.

    Parent
    Oh my gosh. (none / 0) (#155)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:17:04 PM EST
    Best wishes for a strong recovery.

    Parent
    How can we know that? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:53:01 PM EST
    Obama has just followed Hillary's lead from the very beginning. I don't think he has any solid policies of his own. He only trashes his opponents, and he doesn't have a thing of substance to offer as a solution to anything the people feel is a high priority issue.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 8) (#82)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:59:12 PM EST
    He is so in love with Republicans and "unity.  I know this sounds childish, but after 8 years of L'il Bush, I want a Democrat in the WH with a strong majority Democratic Congress so we can push a huge Democratic agenda through. I don't want to play nice and have bi-partisanship, and hold hands around the campfire.  

    I want them crushed so they are insignificant and Democratic ideals and programs get put in place.

    No chance of that with Obama.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by smott on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:06:18 PM EST
    F-ck bipartisanship.
    They don't need to be reasoned with, they don't need to be in a Democratic administration, they don't need cabinet positions, they don't need kumbaya.

    They need to be in jail.

    Parent

    You bet. (none / 0) (#201)
    by alsace on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:30:26 PM EST
    I remember after the '94 election when Clinton tried, out of necessity, to reach a middle ground with the GOP.  Every time he moved toward their position, they moved away to the right.  Even when he adopted their position, they complained, "He's stealing our programs!" and continued to back away to the right.  These are the folks about to become Obama's best buds.  He'll win them over with one of his speeches, I suppose.

    Parent
    Funny (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:01:06 PM EST
    I have not found a single Bradley supporter who supports Hillary this year, not one.  Why do you suppose that is?

    Parent
    BTD observed a couple of weeks ago, (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:13:25 PM EST
    and I agree, that one of the possible reasons why Al Gore hasn't endorsed Obama is that Obama reeks of Bill Bradley.

    Parent
    He didn't much care for being (none / 0) (#169)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:19:38 PM EST
    characterized as a "party elder" either.

    Parent
    This breaks the cycle for me... (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimotto on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:37:33 PM EST
    First Bradley, then got stuck with Gore.
    Then Dean, then stuck with Kerry.

    It will be nice to be enthusiastic about a candidate for once.  

    Parent

    Oh come on... (none / 0) (#166)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    Gore wasn't so bad, was he?

    And you didn't get stuck with Gore or Kerry. You, and the rest of us, got stuck with Bush.

    Parent

    Foot injuries (none / 0) (#24)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:40:28 PM EST
    it is hard to want to remain a democrat with how enthusiastically the party seems to aim the gun at their feet. Switching from Hillary to Obama doesn't appear to be the way to change the trend, either.

    I think we just need a couple of days to let Hillary get the positive energy built up again.

    Parent

    Given the quality of our last President... (none / 0) (#52)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:49:29 PM EST
    ...I wouldn't feel too bad about being on the losing side. Sometimes the loser's are smarter than the "winners".

    Parent
    I didn't vote (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:14:03 PM EST
    for Bush... :)    I have always been able to brag about that.

    Parent
    Neither did McCain, per Adrianna. (none / 0) (#173)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:20:31 PM EST


    Parent
    In 2000 (none / 0) (#210)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:34:12 PM EST
    Supposedly,  but he voted for Bush in 04. I do not believe that he did not vote for Bush, though. He endorsed Bush both in 2000 and 2004.

    Parent
    Super movement so far. (none / 0) (#4)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:26:04 PM EST
    Obama picks up 4, Hillary gets 1.

    Unfortunately, one of Obama's gains is another Clinton defector, so he effectively closes the gap by 4. However, given the results last night, this kind of movement is hardly catastrophic or even unexpected. It's certainly not the flood Zogby was predicting.

    Of course, it could just be the start. I have no real idea.

    I wonder how smart (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:33:23 PM EST
    it is for the superdelegates to grandstand their votes. They are feeding the talking heads, adding to Obama's courageous arrogance, and potentially impacting their own re-election efforts in November (those who are hoping for re-election this year, at least).

    Parent
    Get rid of Superdelegates (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:43:12 PM EST
    That is one lesson the Democratic party should take from this flawed process.

    Parent
    I see your elimination of superdelegates and (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:05:21 PM EST
    raise you elimination of caucuses in favor of secret ballot primaries.

    Parent
    Some have suggested that (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by 1jpb on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    BO won't roll out an immediate avalanche because that would look like HRC was being bullied.  Makes some sense, but who knows.

    Parent
    Sorry, but that's pretty stupid (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:57:13 PM EST
    what "some" are suggesting.  If BO had enough SDs to finish this thing, he wouldn't trickle them out to "save" Clinton's honor.

    Do you see how not only idiotic but condescending that remark is?

    "Some" people should shut up.

    If O had this thing wrapped, it would be wrapped and we'd be talking about how Clinton dropped out.  She has not dropped out.  She is pushing on.  She WON Indiana, a state she was slated to lose as recently as two weeks ago, a state Obama himself said was a tie-breaker.

    "Some" people told me that she's going to come roaring back with WV, KY and straight into Oregon.  See how that works?

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:58:30 PM EST
    That's been the standard excuse for like 2 months now for why Obama hasn't rolled out a zillion superdelegates all at once.  You'd think people would start to rethink the theory at some point.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#124)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:09:28 PM EST
    If he could have rolled them out and finished her off, they would have done that so we wouldn't be hearing the cries of "Hillary's hurting him for the fall!"

    Parent
    SDs afraid of being hampered by Obama connection (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Ellie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:40:15 PM EST
    ... if they come out publicly in support of Obama's campaign. He's potentially an anchor who will drag down other candidates for congress and at the state level.

    Obama's Harriet Meiers-like one woman cheerleading squad Claire McCaskill virtually guaranteed that the best candidate EVAH had all these superdeez locked up.

    No, they're not signed, sealed, delivered by any stretch.

    The whispering campaign was part of Obama's super-genius strategy (Surrender Hillary!) that has successfully propelled him forward with a CV that's even more meagre than Bush's. (Obama's record in using the shameful tactic of eliminating more qualified, more experienced women is good, though ... for him.)

    Once again, if he's won, he should hold a press conference to declare it unequivocally with the Dem leadership standing behind him. He should show the math, complete with an official explanation of why he purged voters the same way our last unelected president, GW Bush did to game his way into the White House, and officially say why he repeatedly stood in the way of a MI revote and an early acceptance of and FL.

    I'd also like to hear his apology to the millions of voters that matter less to him than the Repug hardliners that he's kissing up to.

    Then he can get to work honestly earling the considerable REST of the voters he's alienated.

    You can go back to prior threads for links and discussions on McCaskill's hooey and perhaps catch up on other issues as well while you're there.

    Parent

    Has anyone seen Glenn Greenwalds post today? (none / 0) (#9)
    by kindness on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:30:20 PM EST
    It's over at Salon & it's titled: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power.

    I'm curious what others here think.

    I'd like to get away from the Hillary/Barack fights and hope we can at least agree that bush43 & McSame are pretty awful.

    Yes, I saw it. (none / 0) (#32)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:42:28 PM EST
    Very scary.

    Parent
    I just don't think McCain is that radical (none / 0) (#39)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:44:56 PM EST
    I know that he is talking the talk, but he hasn't exactly been a right wing activist for the last 20 years, and it's hard to believe that he has changed that much recently. I think that a lot of people are trying to scare Dems into voting for McCain by saying that he is far right, and McCain is trying to convince right wingers to support him by saying things that are far right, but that doesn't make him far right any more than Bush running as a "compassionate conservative" made him compassionate.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    Appointing conservative judges is the easiest way to win over the Republican base.  Unless he's got some deep-seated opposition to the concept, which this speech certainly doesn't suggest, he's going to give the base what they want on judges just like Bush did.  I doubt Bush cares very much about issues like judicial philosophy, but he knew how to keep the base happy.

    Parent
    Once he is elected... (none / 0) (#130)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:10:55 PM EST
    ...he doesn't need to win over the base. Even McCain can't believe he would be a two term President. And those judges will have to be approved by a nominally Democratic Congress. If they actually show any, er, testicular fortitude, they will be willing to do what the right did and hold up any appointments that aren't acceptable.

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#133)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:11:34 PM EST
    He nominated Harriet Miers, remember?  The base went bats**t crazy.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#190)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:26:28 PM EST
    but he learned from that mistake.  The base killed that nomination.

    Parent
    I used to believe (none / 0) (#43)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:47:02 PM EST
    every word Glenn wrote.
    Not so much anymore.
    IMHO he fell down on defending
    Hillary against sexism in this campaign.
    It's not his issue. But I think it should be.
    (shrugs)

    Parent
    Every word he wrote? (none / 0) (#178)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:22:29 PM EST
    I like Glenn, but my goodness does he write a lot of words. I feel like he says everything at least three times in each post.

    Parent
    You don't believe him when he says that stuff? (none / 0) (#59)
    by kindness on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:52:27 PM EST
    These are McCains own words.

    Parent
    I believe he said the words (none / 0) (#117)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:08:27 PM EST
    I just don't believe he means them. Politicians routinely stretch, distort, and outright fabricate in order to win elections. That's why I tend to judge them less on what they say than on what they have actually done. McCain has a long record of standing up to the extremists in the Republican Party. That's why so many right-wingers hate his guts. He has wanted to be President for so long that he would say anything to get elected, but I don't think he'd be as far right as he talks.

    I'm not actually trying to promote McCain, by the way, even though it may sound as if I am. I know he is almost certainly more conservative than Obama, and that a Republican President will not move the nation in the direction I would like to see it move. I won't be rooting for McCain in the general, but I will not be horrified if he wins. The one exception might be if he chooses a far right wing VP.  Given his age, that VP might end up in his spot.  

    Parent

    Dianem (none / 0) (#187)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:25:31 PM EST
    McCain has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate.  Don't go by what he says, you're right, look up what he's actually done.

    Parent
    Not according to some (none / 0) (#224)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:43:06 PM EST
    Here is a link.

    Sorry for citing American Thinker, but I don't have time to do a lot of research. A lot of right wingers think of McCain as a liberal. That isn't true, but he is certainly not even close to the most conservative member of the Senate.

    Parent

    Two Words (none / 0) (#125)
    by Chimster on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:09:52 PM EST
    Conservative Judges.

    If he's not as conservative as we think, then he shouldn't go around stating we need more conservative judges. He should now how checks and balances work. We need repersentation from the left and the right to make the judicial system work the way it was intended. Sticking more conservatives on the Supreme Court would be stacking the odds to one party. That's not Democracy. That's partisan garbage. He cannot be President. Cannot!

    Parent

    he has to get the base behind him (none / 0) (#137)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:13:19 PM EST
    Remember - part of his problem during the primary was that the base was not in love with him because they didn't think he was conservative enough.

    Now, I'm not saying he isn't being truthful when he says stuff like this, but remember his fight for the nomination.

    Parent

    He may gain more conservatives (none / 0) (#189)
    by Chimster on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:25:55 PM EST
    But he's certainly not winning himself any more independents with his more-of-the-same conservative Bush talk.

    Parent
    as contrarian says above (none / 0) (#77)
    by jes on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:58:29 PM EST
    in reference to Obama and the primary, it is all just strategic. Don't vote based on what they say - dontcha know nuttin?

    Parent
    Florida Ballot Rules (none / 0) (#21)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:38:45 PM EST
    Since there is so much misinformation about whether the candidates could remove themselves from the Florida ballot and it matters when considering the uncommitted delegates in Michigan, I thought I should post this.

    Florida Statutes if you care to read them instead.

    2008 Federal Qualifying Handbook (pdf) from the Florida Division of Elections - same info but easier to read

    October 9, 2007 Some candidates remove their names from the Michigan ballot on the last day they are allowed in that state.

    October 28, 2007 the Florida Democratic Party finalized their candidate list for the ballot. Any candidate can ask the FDP not to put them on the ballot. There is no affidavit required to be removed from their list. This occurred nearly 3 weeks after they had removed their names from the Michigan ballot.

    October 31, 2007 the FDP candidate list must be submitted to the Secretary of State. I'm unsure exactly which day between the 28th and 31st they actually submitted the names but they made it by the deadline.

    November 6, 2007 The Secretary of State submits the lists from both parties to the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee. Per the handbook:

    The Presidential Candidate Selection Committee is composed of the Secretary of State (who shall be a nonvoting
    chair), the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate, the minority leader of each house of the Legislature, and the chair of each political party required to have a Presidential Preference Primary.

    They can remove any candidate only through the unanimous vote of members from the same party (only Dems vote on the Dem list). Any candidate could have asked to have their name removed at this point and had a vote occur to remove their name. Again no affidavit is required at this point to remove a candidate from the ballot.

    November 7, 2007 The list is now submitted by the PCSC to the Department of state. They mail each candidate to inform them they are on the ballot. If a candidate does not wish to be on the ballot they must submit an affidavit saying they will not be a candidate at the convention. It is only at this stage that the candidates can not get off the ballot unless they will submit the affidavit.

    They had 4 weeks and 2 different groups to attempt to get off of Florida's ballot after they removed themselves from Michigan's ballot. Only between Nov 7 and Nov 12 (the deadline for removal) was an affidavit stating they weren't a convention candidate required.

    Al Sharpton Arrested (none / 0) (#68)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:55:18 PM EST
    breaking news...

    anything to get his name in the news!

    Probably caught (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:00:29 PM EST
    lurking by an unattended microphone.

    (sorry, couldn't help it.)

    Parent

    have a link yet? (none / 0) (#75)
    by jjsmoof on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:58:04 PM EST
    linky?

    Parent
    Is that why (none / 0) (#81)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:59:11 PM EST
    there was a demonstration in downtown Brooklyn on my way home?  Helicopters are circling as I type this (my kitty Raoul loves helicopters and is extremely fascinated).

    Parent
    They are at 5 locations (none / 0) (#101)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:03:37 PM EST
    trying to close bridges and main exits I guess. Didn't succeed at the Brooklyn Bridge.

    So nice that I work from my couch!

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#129)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:10:54 PM EST
    I just barely missed them b/c I walked home on Atlantic Avenue instead of State Street.  I'm no fan of Sharpton, but I was disgusted by the verdict.

    Parent
    leaked McCain slogan memo (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:58:48 PM EST
    my personal fav:

    McCain: He has an american flag pin lodged in his colon

    and McCain: Hes NOT black

    HuffPo

    caution: not for the faint of heart.

    Hahaha! (none / 0) (#103)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:04:31 PM EST
    I just donated $250 to Hillary under my husband's name. I'm maxed out, but he's not.  Thank Goddess for joint credit cards!

    Rise, Hillary, rise!

    got cats? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:10:07 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#135)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:13:00 PM EST
    I have two. Raoul a/k/a President Catstro, and Mia the B*tchcat.  They're both fervent Hillary supporters, of course!

    Parent
    might want to leave out Mia's middle name (none / 0) (#158)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:17:19 PM EST
    when she donates...

    Parent
    and Raoul "Catstro" (none / 0) (#196)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:28:59 PM EST
    probably wouldn't be too good, either.  Still, he is a strong Hillary supporter.  He likes women much better than men, and he hisses at people (like my mom) who support Obama.

    Parent
    Uh, you probably don't want to admit to that. . . (none / 0) (#150)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:15:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Hey, he signed the piece of paper (none / 0) (#157)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:17:18 PM EST
    from Hillary's finance committee saying that my overage could be credited to him.  Anything wrong with that?

    Parent
    Hmm, I actually have no idea (none / 0) (#163)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:18:21 PM EST
    Never mind.

    Parent
    I was a little worried (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:25:37 PM EST
    b/c actually he's not a citizen  (he's English).  But he has a green card and I gather from the stuff you have to check off on the online contribution form that it's OK for permanent resident aliens to contribute.  

    I am embarrassed to admit that he actually Googled me (yep, my hubby is a cyber-stalker) and found out how much I'd contributed to Hillary.  He thinks I'm nuts, but like most English people, he's tolerant of eccentrics.  :)

    Parent

    How long to go until he can apply (none / 0) (#200)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:29:50 PM EST
    for citizenship? (Or does he even want to?)

    Parent
    ambulance chaser! (none / 0) (#212)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:36:11 PM EST
    :-)

    Parent
    I think it's kind of romantic (none / 0) (#223)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:41:53 PM EST
    in a twisted kind of way.  :)  He's actually tracked me here, as well.  The thing is, we've been married for 25 years and he always tells me I'm an insane tinhat, and then ultimately admits I was right.

    My most recent triumph was when he literally bowed down to me last week and admitted that Obama was unelectable. We're both Aries, so it's all about the power struggle.  =)

    Parent

    He doesn't want to (none / 0) (#215)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:37:20 PM EST
    He's been here for years, but he thinks he might want to visit Cuba some day (that's his excuse - I think he's just sentimental about England, even though he b*tches about it every time we go to visit).  


    Parent
    Well, he can keep his British passport (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:40:45 PM EST
    no matter what. Dual Citizenship is no problem. It's probably worth talking him into--unless you've tried. . .

    Parent
    This is how STUPID the DNC/MSM is: (none / 0) (#152)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:16:35 PM EST
    They make these BIG stinks about NC and IN.  Neither of which have gone to a Dem in the GE in over 30 years.

    Cut to KY and WV:  Two states that Bill Clinton carried TWICE and it's nothing.  It's not a stretch that she would take these states.

    The DNC is on the Orwellian bus to oblivion.  I see all the posts here and elsewhere.  I am an independent so I have NO loyalty to the Democratic party.  I will def be writing HRC's name in Nov if she's not the nom.  I used to be a Dem but I got really tired of the blatant sexism against HRC.  It's appalling.  

    And after seeing Brazille on CNN and basically not giving a flying flip about white blue collar voters and Latinos, let all the elites and AA's carry BHO to the WH.  They sure as hell don't need my money or vote.

    Here's your chance! (none / 0) (#202)
    by Chimster on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:31:35 PM EST
    On the CNN website, Wolf Blitzer is looking for questions from voters to ask Barack Obama:

    Blitzer: What would you like me to ask Barack Obama?

    You should take a minute out of your life to pose a question. Here's your chance (albeit a slim one) to make a difference in this race by asking the tough questions that moderators couldn't/wouldn't ask.

    Nice to meet you and thanks (none / 0) (#219)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:38:29 PM EST
    for having made great choices in your life.  

    The New Democratic Party is corrupt (none / 0) (#226)
    by lily15 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:49:37 PM EST
    And what about this talk of Chris Matthews running as a Democrat against Arlen Spector?  It makes my blood boil.  Hostile Takeover.  For sure.

    Hillary should demonstrate resolve and fight (none / 0) (#230)
    by lily15 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:02:34 PM EST
    and take this to the convention.  John Kerry would never fight. And Gore started fighting too late...as Brazile steered him away from Clinton to his detriment.  Hillary should lose her caution and fight on principle.  This is about what the Democratic Party stands for. She already knows the party screwed its most loyal members who have raised milions of dollars for Democratic campaigns and good causes.  Now that she knows they are disloyal, she should fight for her loyal supporters and the middle class of this country.  She should not bow down the villagers or the weak Nancy Pelosi crowd or the lefty blogs.  I hope she fights for principle.  She's the only fighter we have left in the Democratic Party.  The elites just proved how weak they are, how corrupt they are...and how they have been taken over.

    Also, I hope the TV ratings crater for this phony propaganda.  But we must keep fighting for our values and not be steamrolled by the elites.  Give a little money to Hillary...even $25.00..for true progressive policies and a fighter in our corner.

    Don't lose hope...don't let the spin weaken you (none / 0) (#231)
    by lily15 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:13:42 PM EST
    I was depressed at first.  But now I am defiant like Clinton.  Democrats haven't been known as a defiant and fighting bunch.  Maybe this will inspire others.
    We have been hoodwinked by propaganda, pure and simple.  Only a heavy black turnout pushed Obama to the top, along with the media as propaganda organ.
    Why isn't it racist for blacks to vote on race alone? Or is it just liberation politics with a black nationalist hint?  Clearly, whites are tarred if they vote on race alone, let alone if they vote on gender. I'm sick and tired of hearing the Clinton half of the party will just follow along because they have no choice.  You know on principle alone, I respect what Lieberman did in his Senate race. He fought back after being tarred by the left.  And guess what, he won?  Now look at his payback.  And the Democrats haven't hurt him at all in the Senate.  So why shouldn't Clinton fight back? She would be the leader now but for the DNC hatchet job and dirty politics of race and the interests of the villagers.

    Don't you guys get it???? (none / 0) (#232)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:45:11 PM EST
    I'll say it again:

    THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS ALREADY BEEN BOUGHT.  Literally.

    See Mark Halperin's column entitled "Obama-DNC Fundraising Deal" Google it.

    The DNC is hard up.  They need to pay the rent. Obama's miracle fundraising machine and Rolodex is what they've sold out for.

    It's over.  The SDs aren't free.  They've been bought.  This happened WEEKS ago.

    Could anyone correct me if there's something I've missed?  If you're taking money from one of the candidates, it's not a "free" election.

    The link (none / 0) (#233)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:47:25 PM EST
    http://thepage.time.com/obama-dnc-fundraising-deal/

    Where is the reminder to donate to TalkLeft? (none / 0) (#234)
    by lily15 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:59:06 PM EST
    Wasn't the drive for today and tomorrow?  Please promote it.  You are a rarity in the blogosphere...and many people know it and appreciate it.  An island of sanity and common sense...you are invaluable.

    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 218 comments (218 topical)