home

Late Night Open Thread: Oprah's Back

By Jeralyn, Section Democratic National Convention 2008
Posted on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:45:38 PM EST
Tags: Denver National Convention, DNC protests (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Late Night Denver Convention News:

  • How well received was yesterday's announcement that 1/2 the tickets for Obama's acceptance speech will be reserved for Coloradans? 60,000 tickets were requested in 24 hours.

This is an open thread.

< Bill Clinton to Speak at Democratic Convention Weds. Night | When Will Obama Make His VP Pick? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Late Night Open Thread: Oprah's Back | 131 comments (131 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    As to allocation of tickets for (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:00:02 AM EST
    Obama acceptance speech?  Neither here nor there.  Question to me is whether it is even a good idea, in light of McCain's ad onslaught, to persist in the stadium venue for acceptance speech.

    Next question:  should the Dem. party extort a renounce AND reject from Edwards in exchange for his speaking at the convention?  What is this, the GOP?  

    Yes, we can script the pundits (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:32:48 AM EST
    covering the closing night of the convention.  The poll today that says that the public has Obama fatigue will be brought up again and again, as the pundits wonder whether The Greatest Rally Ever ought to have been held.

    Keeping in mind the media reports, immediately upon the announcement that The Speech was being moved to the stadium, of much distress (understandably, actually) about media budgets and media setup costs and more for them to cover the extra venue.  

    They were ticked, they may yet be ticked, they may be ticked that night.  Depends, I suspect, upon whether the ratings are good the previous nights.  

    And that is why two Clintons, two nights in a row, just might be what Obama needed to make the media happy.  Ratings -- plus getting to blather again about how bad, bad, bad the Clintons are, etc.  The media never get fatigued doing that.

    [ Parent ]

    I've been thinking back to what I (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:03:48 AM EST
    thought was the pivotal, defining moment of the 2004 campaign--and I don't mean the Swiftboaters.
    I think Kerry had Bush on the ropes when his team made an ad out of the 2000 SC Republican debate, where Bush was grinning like a fratboy a**hole over the dirty tricks that were played on McCain, while McCain was almost in tears.
    It was a tremendously effective ad, showing the real Bush in a way that no one could deny.
    Then he pulled it, at McCain's request.
    Obviously, McCain did not like an ad showing him in an almost Muskie-like breakdown, but Kerry was under no obligation to withdraw the ad.
    He could have praised McCain to the skies, and kept running the ad. It would have been a twofer: damaging to Bush, and even more devastating for McCain's Presidential ambitions.

    Bah.. now we will probably have President McCain, and Kerry will STILL suck up to him

    According to Huff Post, Kerry is (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:10:14 AM EST
    the best Obama surrogate ever.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought Wes Clark was the best (none / 0) (#5)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:17:25 AM EST
    I guess they don't need/want him any more

    [ Parent ]
    Depends, doesn't it? (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:21:37 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Depends? All of the surrogates (none / 0) (#34)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:29:28 AM EST
    are incontinent?  I had no idea.  

    (Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.  ;-) )

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe Kerry donated the remnants of (none / 0) (#8)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:24:17 AM EST
    his killer instinct to Obama, when he gave his blessing to him.

    [ Parent ]
    Steve Cohen (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:16:16 AM EST
    crushes Nikki Tinker. Good.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:23:33 AM EST
    Sure sends a positive message to see that in a 60% African-American district, an African-American candidate using vicious race-baiting attacks against a white candidate gets thrashed so conclusively.

    Someday we'll have no more of that style of politics, from candidates of any color.

    I wonder if Obama enjoyed his role today as "Official Denouncer of Black People Who Do Bad Things."  I mean, first he had to condemn Nikki Tinker's ads, and then he had to comment on Kwame Kilpatrick's trip to jail.  That must be fun.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, at least he avoided (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:26:18 AM EST
    taking sides on sentence of bin Laden's driver.

    [ Parent ]
    It occurs to me that, if Obama wins this election, (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:31:17 AM EST
    we're going to have a very interesting redistricting discussion in 2011. The argument for black majority (especially supermajority) districts in most places will be considerably weaker. Not as weak as many people think, though. Outside of the deep south (Alabama and Mississippi), a black candidate stands an even chance at winning if a district is more than about 43% black. (this book takes a fascinating look at the topic http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691010102].)

    [ Parent ]
    During Ohio and during that (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by weltec2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:12:15 AM EST
    argument about Hillary's position on NAFTA, Obama made the statement that "America needs to move away from a blue collar economy to a white collar economy." It is my opinion that the AA community is going to be among the hardest hit by a BO administration. BO's economic advisors are Chicago School, not total Friedmanites. I am not trying to say they are neocons but they were educated and influenced by the Chicago School.

    See Naomi Klein's article Obama's Chicago Boys.

    I know. I've had this argument here before and I don't mean to rehash old stuff, but I do believe that the AA community will suffer greatly over the next four years. They will not vote for him twice.

    [ Parent ]

    We could have a blue collar (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:14:37 AM EST
    economy: start paying for the trillion dollars of infrastructure work that needs doing.

    [ Parent ]
    That would be nice (none / 0) (#35)
    by weltec2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:30:58 AM EST
    but I don't think we're going to see much concern for infrastructure under an Obama administration. I hope I'm wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    we're going to need SOMETHING because (none / 0) (#94)
    by thereyougo on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:05:19 AM EST
    if jobs keep being hemorrhaged, like this deal with DHL that threatens 10K jobs in Ohio and McCain's past as Commerce Chairman comes back to haunt him and will not get him votes in this must win state.

    my husband works for Dhl and worked for airborne, both companies were subjected to lobbying that lost jobs for Americans. About the few jobs left that can't be outsourced.

    I'm not happy about it, but this is what is bad now about political influence peddling.

    [ Parent ]

    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/ (none / 0) (#95)
    by thereyougo on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    don't know why the link didn't work.

    [ Parent ]
    Try it like (none / 0) (#131)
    by weltec2 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 02:44:09 AM EST
    this.

    [ Parent ]
    If we (none / 0) (#105)
    by tek on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:14:54 AM EST
    have a blue collar economy, you can bet it won't put legal Americans to work.

    [ Parent ]
    I can't believe he said that. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:04:43 AM EST
    There's absolutely nothing wrong with skilled labor - blue collar and white collar.  And telling anyone in the Rust Belt that we need to move to away from blue collar jobs (We did that already, thankyouverymuch.) and to white collar jobs (Yeah, that worked soooo well in the past.) is somewhere between a punch to the gut and living in rainbow pony land.

    Just because people work with their hands doesn't make them ignorant.  They don't want anyone to wave a magic wand and make everything all better, they just want to hear that the future isn't going to be more of the same.

    [ Parent ]

    A really good black candidate can win (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:38:53 AM EST
    almost anywhere, the key words being "really good."  If you look across the country, there are (and have been) many black leaders in areas that weren't particularly black.  

    I loved Tom Bradley, ex-mayor of LA.  I don't know if LA ever had a really large black population.  (LA has had a really vocal black population, but percentage-wise, I don't think it's ever been that large.)  Bradley was really good for the city and he was mayor for about 20 years.  

    I liked the black police chief in New Orleans after Katrina.  I can't remember his name but he struck me as a guy who got things done.  If he ran for office, I'd vote for him.

    I don't think color is that big of an issue for most people.      

    [ Parent ]

    I wish this were the case (none / 0) (#96)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:06:31 AM EST
    But you don't see black representatives winning white districts in this country as a general rule (we might not live in these districts either?).  Is the assumption they are all not very good candidates (certainly could be- given that most candidates white, black, men, women, etc. are probably lacking in some respect), but to think that color does not play a LARGE role think is incorrect.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:15:40 AM EST
    It's not like we get to theorycraft these maps in a lab, though.  In the real world, you have to offer those entrenched incumbents something pretty enticing to get them to give up large chunks of their district.

    Also, it's questionable from a progressive standpoint whether we even want to draw the lines so as to maximize our majority, as opposed to creating a smaller number of ultra-safe districts where we might get someone more liberally-inclined.  When you already have a strong majority there's not so much to be gained by adding a few extra DINOs.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, Georgia Dems experimented in 2001 (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:25:08 AM EST
    you can see the map here. In theory, AAs were supposed to be able to win districts 2, 4, 5, 12, and 13, with only 4 and 5 actually having an AA majority. (Incidentally, white Dems were supposed to have been able to carry 3 and 11) It almost worked, and if Dems hadn't nominated a fatally flawed candidate in 12, and the national climate hadn't been so bad for Dems in 2002, it would have been brilliant. Of course, that was the same year you know what happened to Max Cleland.

    In any case, you can look at what Dems drew in Maryland and get a picture of what I have in mind. Ideal Dem drawn maps look really ugly, but that's because Dems and minorities tend to live close together. Maps that "look good" tend to produce natural Republican gerrymanders.

    It's a fascinating subject, and worth more discussion.

    [ Parent ]

    The further address your point about (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:32:18 AM EST
    the desirability of having simply "more Dems." Well, there's clearly a spectrum of districts that you can draw. In my Maryland example, Where Dems grabbed one more district than they would probably be entitled to in a fair map, I don't think you can say that conceding that district would produce better Democrats. Indeed, a better Democrat could already win in Steny Hoyer's district.

    The counterexample is the Georgia map I point out above, where the overreach produced Jim Marshall in 2002, and John Barrow in 2004. Obviously Democrats we could do without.

    In states like New York Illinois, Virginia, and Florida, better maps could easily produce more and better Democrats. Two Ron Kleins are worth one Corrine Brown or Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for example. And a better map could make that possible.  

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, he's the lesser of two evils (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:26:12 AM EST
    but still evil for equating Clinton with a deranged, murderous, adulterous wacko.

    That "Fatal Attraction" comparison came up again on tv tonight.  Begala called the a**hole on it this time.  But it was a wingnut saying it tonight.

    When a Democrat said it, I decided that Cohen is not a good Democrat or a good person.  

    [ Parent ]

    Ah, that Steve Cohen. (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:27:34 AM EST
    andgarden, you left out a relevant fact here.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:30:39 AM EST
    I was happy when EMILY's List endorsed his primary challenger after that sexist joke, but after seeing her campaign I'm no longer as happy.  Still, hopefully at least a message got sent.

    [ Parent ]
    Honestly, I already knew who Tinker was (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:32:22 AM EST
    and knew who Cohen was.

    Even after the comment and before these ads, Cohen would have gotten my support.

    [ Parent ]

    He's a good Democrat who said something (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:33:24 AM EST
    that he should not have said.

    [ Parent ]
    Did he ever apologize (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:45:09 AM EST
    to his constituents, to the public, and to Senator Clinton -- as a good Democrat would?

    I may have missed something, anything, that suggested that he had any realization of how offensive he was to women -- and good men, no matter their party.  

    He fed the frenzy.  And he thought it was funny.


    [ Parent ]

    As I recall, he did apologize-- (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:55:31 AM EST
    after McCain called him on it.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain did. Not Obama (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:23:34 AM EST
    not Dean, not a Dem.

    Well, it won't make me a Republican, no way.  But thank heavens that someone said something.

    But it makes me happier by the day to be an Independent and no longer a Dem.  

    [ Parent ]

    He apologized almost immediately (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:58:44 AM EST
    It's in the archives here somewhere.

    [ Parent ]
    Only after being called on it (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:24:54 AM EST
    and shamed by a Republican on it, says a commenter above.  Jeesh.  I will go look up more on this -- more material for my women's history archives. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Link: (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:50:50 AM EST
    Talk Left

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks. I just found it and reread it (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:00:44 AM EST
    and see that Cohen apologized -- to BTD.  Not finding anything by googling that shows a more public apology.  So I still say . . . pffffft.

    And rereading the thread is interesting.  First, Bill Clinton worked hard for Cohen's win, against the odds.  So I'll add that Cohen is an ingrate.

    Even more interesting in rereading the thread is seeing the difference then and now among commenters.  There were a lot of Fighting Dems then -- fighting for the hope of real change.  Now, not so much.

    [ Parent ]

    Honestly CC, the emailed statement (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:07:05 AM EST
    was obviously intended for publication. His apology was public. Some people in that thread (Kathy, for instance) do not have much to be proud of.

    I stand behind my contemporaneous reaction.

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:21:25 AM EST
    Emailing an apology to a bunch of random people is not the same as intended for publication.  It's not even clear he sent it to Clinton.

    Intended for publication would be sending it to media outlets with some juice.  Or to some publications.

    Emailing a lot of people just means he didn't mind if it made its way to larger publication.

    Rereading the apology, I think it was aimed more at deflecting/protecting Obama than a real apology.  Why else the disclaimer that takes up 1/3 of the apology?

    Not sure which Kathy comment you refer to but the one where she notes that Obama flags without the media full on at his back is coming true.

    [ Parent ]

    He made the first statement on the air (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:09:02 PM EST
    and that calls for the apology to be on the air, too.  It's a basic of PR.

    [ Parent ]
    Apparently we had two bad Democrats (none / 0) (#93)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:02:58 AM EST
    running for that office.

    People always like to talk about if we're "good Democrats" we'll vote for....

    Well good Democrats support party members a little better than THAT, wouldn't you say?

    [ Parent ]

    lesser of two evils? that is the best (none / 0) (#119)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:23:56 AM EST
    we can do? i think not.

    [ Parent ]
    Following up on Miri's comment (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by blogtopus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:31:09 AM EST
    Here

    I think Miri's using quite a broad brush here, comparing Obama to Bush IN GENERAL.

    As far as campaign 2000 is concerned, however, let's put it to you this way:

    Suppose Bush had gamed the system so that his supporters bullied / intimidated / outright cheated voters into staying away from the polls, or not having their votes counted?

    What if Bush had the media on his side, day and night, telling people how cool and down-to-earth he was, compared to the 'bookwormish, stiff leftover from an era of shame'?

    What if people ignored Bush's lack of experience, lack of curiosity, lack of sense of humor, and lack of humility, and instead paid attention to a media narrative that turned him into someone he was not?

    What if there were disturbing aspects to Bush's past that were being completely ignored by the press and his supporters, if not actively suppressed and/or hidden?

    And, just suppose, certain powers that were supposed to stay out of the voting sphere intruded in order to make sure that Bush won the election, despite having lost the popular vote?

    Does all of this ring a bell?

    I have no idea what Obama will be like as a President, but I know darn well how he got to where he is now, and it is not an encouraging sign. At All.

    You're spinning a false narrative (3.25 / 4) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:58:16 AM EST
    Obama didn't win the nomination because he gamed the system. If anyone should have understood the nominating process it was the Clinton team. Hillary lost because the brain trust behind her campaign never grasped that there was a primary to win before the General. They were raising money for the GE before the first primary vote was cast instead of knuckling down and winning the first round first.

    I feel very comfortable saying the people pulling the campaign strings let Hillary down tremendously. They assumed she would win and their gameplan (or lack thereof) got shot to hell right out of the starting gate. Her campaign staff got caught looking ahead and it cost Hillary the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama clearly gamed the system (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:59:53 AM EST
    Or, more specifically, Obama won on points.

    [ Parent ]
    Whatever makes you happy (3.25 / 4) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:09:02 AM EST
    It really is a case of someone not knowing the system. A newcomer shouldn't walk in and beat a candidate with a machine in place. The problem is the Clinton machine didn't realize they were in a contest until the second half. They should have known the system, and if they didn't they should have a hard time looking in the mirror because they failed their candidate.

    Obama won mostly through the help of those laying out the groundwork for Hillary's campaign. If it makes you feel more comfortable you can say Obama gamed the system, but in reality Hillary's campaign staff failed her.

    [ Parent ]

    Please stop. The caucuses were (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:11:54 AM EST
    a total travesty. Obama's people did NOT play by the rules. He definitely gamed the system.
    It's over, he won---despite losing the popular vote, and despite getting creamed in unprecedented fashion in the late primaries.
    Move along now.

    [ Parent ]
    Honestly, I still don't know who can rightfully (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:15:07 AM EST
    claim a "will of the people" argument. I do not accept that Hillary won the poplar vote, but neither did Obama. It was a wash, and Jay Cost presents the situation nicely.

    [ Parent ]
    Granted that it was a wash, Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:16:20 AM EST
    should have been the nominee by acclamation, because Obama had lost all momentum by the end of the primaries. Anyway, it's all over. President-to-be McCain thinks CG for his/her input.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree in part (3.00 / 4) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:26:59 AM EST
    I don't like delegates. I don't like caucuses. And I don't like the electoral college. But until someone decides to set new rules you play by the rules in place. We got George Bush as a president and the rules haven't changed. I'm all for the popular vote. It makes every vote equal and you wouldn't be listening to people say their vote doesn't matter because they live in California or New York or Texas.

    I don't like the system anymore than you do but when my candidate loses because their staff screwed up, sorry I'm not putting the blame on the winner. Gore lost because he never opened a single office in South Florida. It wasn't because Bush gamed the system that he won, it was because Gore's staff was clueless... Likewise Hillary's staff for the primary. Both were good candidates with staffs that let them down.

    [ Parent ]

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:33:24 AM EST
    Now you are reduced to claiming that the Republicans were right in 2000.

    [ Parent ]
    Republicans were right? (3.33 / 3) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:42:12 AM EST
    Right in 2000? They won the Electoral Votes. Of course they won. It has nothing to do with being right. We have eight years of a miserable president to show we have a flawed system. We can bark all day that Bush lost the popular vote but that doesn't matter. It's not the way a president is chosen.

    [ Parent ]
    Talk about avoiding the issue!! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:42:54 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Bush gamed the mechanics (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:43:30 AM EST
    all the way to the Supreme Court. QED.

    [ Parent ]
    Hello! (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:48:01 AM EST
    were you alive in 2000?  Able to watch and process television?  The S.Ct. decided Florida, not the voters and not the EC, except under and extremely twisted interpretation.

    [ Parent ]
    You're new here, but you really (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:38:31 AM EST
    don't want to suggest that Obama played by the rules.  Not at the end, and not from the start -- precisely with the caucuses.  Read archives re what went on at caucuses from Iowa to Nevada to Texas to . . . Chicago machine politics, all the way.

    But being new here doesn't excuse your take on the election in 2000.  Another false dichotomy.

    I.e., all of the following occurred: Clinton's campaign was poorly managed and Obama gamed the system.  And Gore needed an office in South Florida and Bush gamed the system.

    [ Parent ]

    Cream City (2.00 / 2) (#52)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:54:44 AM EST
    Like you I hate the way 2000 went down. There are a dozen ways for Gore to have won Florida and only one way for Bush and that's the way it played out. Sorry I can't say a Supreme Court ruling is gaming the system. It never should have come to that but a ruling from the highest court isn't gaming the system. (Although I'm sure more Dem president appts to the high court would be better)

    As for your small acknowledgment that Hillary's staff didn't do a stellar job, I think we can both agree that she would be the candidate today had they been on top of their game. And we would both be happier for it.

    [ Parent ]

    Allow me to open your eyes (none / 0) (#97)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:09:58 AM EST
    Sorry I can't say a Supreme Court ruling is gaming the system.

    Oh boy have I got a book you need to read. The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President.

    The title says it all.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton lost (1.00 / 0) (#82)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:29:14 AM EST
    because her campaign NEVER anticipated a first-term senator being able to take 90% of the black vote from a Clinton.  She didn't need to win the caucuses to take the nomination.  If she had done 40% of the black vote every contest that she did win, she would have won by more and garrnered many more delegates than she did.  She would have won the ones like MO that were close and she would not have gotten blown away in the south.  Remember, the main reason that Obama was able to keep it as close as he did in the states Clinton won, was because of the way delegates are assigned to districts based on past performance.  So, districts with a heavy black population had more delegates than their population alone would have given them.  That's why her wins in TX, OH and PA weren't larger.  Same in NY, NJ etc.  This fact alone gave Obama MORE delegates in areas where he was strong and Clinton fewer delegates in areas where she was strong.

    Is he had carried more of the black vote, she would have had a sizeable lead in pledged delegates after super tuesday, and there would not have been a string of 11 straight losses after that either.  

    [ Parent ]

    She could have invested more in caucus states (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:13:22 AM EST
    but it is unclear that she would have done much better. The Democratic delegate apportionment and assignment system is fatally flawed because a) it allows inherently undemocratic caucuses; and b) it does not count each vote equally. Hillary could have won 500,000 more votes and still lost the nomination. Had there been a more vigorously fought contest in Florida, it could have happened.

    Some of us followed this contest very closely, and if you're going to come in here and say that we're creating "false narratives," you had better be prepared to acknowledge the reality of the mechanics of the contest, and not just to pontificate idiotically about Hillary's campaign staff.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes Florida may have changed the outcome (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:37:48 AM EST
    The mechanics of the contest would be the proper term, not gaming the system.

    I would agree that the Michigan and Florida primaries also may have altered the outcome making my suggestion that Hillary's staff screwed up moot. Short of there never being an issue with either state, or a new vote in both states which I supported, we'll never know.

     We can chalk that up to each state being permitted to choose their own method for allocating delegates. Remember primaries are a fairly new approach. In 1968 only 13 states held primaries. Hopefully soon all 50 will hold popular vote primaries with no delegates involved at all.

    [ Parent ]

    andgarden, What If...? (none / 0) (#124)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:30:18 AM EST
    You're right that it's always unclear in retrospect what might have happened had Clinton more seriously contested the caucuses.

    But I think--in that what-if landscape--if she had cut into his landslide totals in the period when he was winning state after state after state, it might have made a crucial difference in the ultimate migration of the SDs.

    Maybe some who started to break for him then might have hesitated if he wasn't starting to look so...inevitable. And, then when HER momentum started kicking in more and she was winning important places like PA, and OH etc. the SDs might have been in a mindset to frame his losses then differently and might have stayed uncommitted or even moved to her.

    Who knows? Even as an Obama supporter, I'm shocked Clinton didn't win this. It was hers to lose and she deserved a better organization around her. She really did.

    [ Parent ]

    This is no different than saying (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by FemB4dem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:54:29 AM EST
    Bush (and his pet Supreme Court justices) did not game the system in 2000, rather Gore's team of lawyers/advisors failed him by not having him contest all votes in Flordia rather than a subsection of the votes.  Cheating is cheating.  Bush did it in 2000.  Obama has done it in 2008.  No person who attended a caucus and saw first hand what a joke they became this year, or who paid any attention to the Florida/Michigan debacle, could say Obama and his DNC minions did not game the system.  

    [ Parent ]
    there are two different (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:36:25 AM EST
    charges going on here and CoralBables is only adressing the fact the caucuses exist and that Obama understood that fact and organized better to gain those delegates.

    But CoralGables is not addressing the fact that there have been many charges of actual "foul play" going on at many of the caucus sites.  And apparently the dem party is going to pretend that didn't happen either as they have totally ignored all of the submitted documents of proof that those activiteies occurred in Texas at the very least.

    [ Parent ]

    not to mention the vaunted 'Obama message' (none / 0) (#101)
    by thereyougo on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:34:45 AM EST
    that was hailed him as thee ONE and why soooo many people followed him - according to his supporters who came to be known as obamatons, because they marched in lockstep to a tune that resonated little among those who saw and now more people see Obama for what he is NOT! His positions contradict themselves within days. Should I want to give this guy a chance knowing this?  

    His message of hope and unity is still a big -O- question mark.

    Makes me wonder,gosh McCain is a horrible candidate, but Obama isn't much better.Well, maybe just a little just because he hasn't been in DC as long.

    But not doubt Hillary's people recognized that Obama was out for himself and when she was being pummeled with the sexist jokes and insults to drop out, Obama said little or nothing.

    [ Parent ]

    The worst part is (none / 0) (#73)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:53:57 AM EST
    the inequities in terms of delegates between majority black and majority Latinos districts.  That's why the whole "yes we can!" thing was all the more offensive.  It was kind of like rubbing it in.  In a primary, everyone's vote should be equal.  By giving different districts different numbers of delegates we are creating and inherently unequal and unfair system.  

    Of course, all you have to do is ask Obama supporters to find out about how it was Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta who stole the phrase from Obama.  I'm sure there's a group of spoiled 16 and 17 year old rich kids (Obama lovers) watching a documentary on the United Farm Workers and going "see, they copied from Obama!".  

    [ Parent ]

    yes he did game the system, period. (none / 0) (#120)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:24:36 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not quite clear (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:45:00 AM EST
    How well received was yesterday's announcement that 1/2 the tickets for Obama's acceptance speech will be reserved for Coloradans? 60,000 tickets were requested in 24 hours.

    All 60k were for Coloradans?  I thought the field only held 75k, and most of the remaining 15k were for delegates and entourages.

    I'd be curious to see (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:51:35 AM EST
    how many of those tickets end up being for sale on eBay and other websites.  

    Lots of ticketed events get a zillion requests for tickets these days -- because it's easy to resell them on the internet.  (Even if they are free tickets.)

    [ Parent ]

    Can't remember where I read it (none / 0) (#56)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:04:06 AM EST
    but the tickets have some sort of computer chip/bar code thing going on with them which is registered to the recipient.  Supposedly they'll be monitoring ebay and such and deactivate anyone's ticket gotten online.  (although I didn't quite understand how they'd know which bar code to deactivate).

    I don't really attach all that much importance to the number of tickets or how fast they sold out.  People like to go to events, period.  And this will certainly be an event, period.  Obama has already shown he can attract a crowd, it was his biggest selling point during the primaries.  But the large numbers of undecideds in the polls shows that his ability to fill a stadium is not really what people have questions about.

    [ Parent ]

    I requested one (none / 0) (#98)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:14:54 AM EST
    but I don't know if I'll use it if I get it. I have no big desire to be corralled in a stadium with 76,000 OFBs. Now, if Hillary gets a roll call vote, that's different, and I'll be all set.

    I had to proved name & address, so I assume they're not transferable. I was also asked to provide name & address for a guest.

    But I imagine many who requested tickets don't plan on using them personally. I'd just as soon see a lot of empty seats.

    [ Parent ]

    i am wondering how many of those (none / 0) (#121)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:25:20 AM EST
    so called tickets will end up in trash cans.

    [ Parent ]
    Many requests unfulfilled(wait listed). (none / 0) (#86)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:54:45 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm suffering from Obama induced ennui. (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:47:16 AM EST
    I love that word "ennui."  I don't get to use it enough.  I decided I'm suffering from Obama ennui.  It's bordering on narcolepsy, but I'm still awake.    

    Hmmmm, then maybe I have (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:50:54 AM EST
    Obama Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (OCFS).  I've been afflicted for months.

    I'm going to run out to the doctor now while I can still afford health insurance....

    [ Parent ]

    COFS would sound better (none / 0) (#59)
    by weltec2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:09:06 AM EST
    For more on this horrible condition, go here. -:

    [ Parent ]
    Does anyone ever ask themself this question? (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:58:06 AM EST
    "If Obama were white, would I vote for him?"  

    And (second question):

    "If Obama were running for Senator in my state, would I vote for him?"  

    I actually believe the second question is harder to answer than the first one.  I don't believe I would vote for Obama to be a Senator in California since we usually get some pretty good choices and people with good resumes.  I don't think his would hold up to others that are typically offered.  

    As for the first question, I think I would be hard pressed to vote for him.  I might, but I might not too.  "Little experience" scares me an awful lot when I think of past people who have won.  

    Answers (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:32:48 AM EST
    1.  No, because my objections are less about him than the purge of FDR Dems from the party, the deafening silence on sexism from Dem leaders during the primaries, and the appalling disregard for democratic procedures vis a vis MI/FL and the RBC.  He could be green, purple, puce, magenta or any color in the spectrum.  Wouldn't matter, not about him but larger issues.

    2.  Not sure, since my state has a lot of v. strong Dems with a lot of experience, plus the kind of Fighting Dem spirit which seems extinct elsewhere.

    Plus, with Deval Patrick, we got the same hopey-changey messaging to win the Governorship, but he has not been able to translate it into a successful agenda so well.  And he had more genuine legislative experience than Obama going in (relative to the position he was campaigning for).

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, gender matters, too -- and he (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:15:04 PM EST
    would have gotten more votes from white guys -- a group in which Obama is not doing well at all.

    But no, he would not have gotten my vote.  Not with his inexperience -- and not with his gendered behaviors.  I don't vote for white guys who behave that badly, either.  Not that, I have to say, I ever have seen any guy behave as badly as Obama has done, wiping the girl germs off his shoulder and shoe.

    [ Parent ]

    Oprah again? (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by FemB4dem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:04:03 AM EST
    Is this a good idea for Obama?  My guess is not. The more celebs who are shown at the convention, the more bite to McCain's new ad campaign, IMO.  Obama's team seems incapable of seeing that the celebrity thing has turned against him.  Then again, what else has he got?  Expect lots of coverage, too, about George Cloony raising money for Obama from the Swiss. McCain could not ask for better free media.

    Wow! Obama really is a celebrity! (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:20:12 AM EST
    Wait until the papparazzi get his photos at the beach, romping in the waves (those seem to sell well)!  

    I expect to see an ad any day now, (stolen from "Jesus Christ, Superstar") "Barack Obama, Superstar."

    I read a piece in the LA Times today that likened Obama's tire gauge idea to Jimmy Carter's sweater and "turn your thermostat down" idea.  The reporter spent an hour in a automotive parts store waiting for someone to buy a tire gauge.  It was a cute story.

    Unfortunately, the reporter was spot on when he equated tire gauges to cardigan sweaters.  Both ideas were simply too small.        

     

    [ Parent ]

    Not too small. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:57:29 AM EST
    The ideas were under sold.

    I bought my family Smartwool wool socks for Christmas last year.  We live up north and snug, warm socks make it a little easier to keep the heat turned down.  No one complained.  Heck, my brother's socks kept ending up in his son's drawer!

    There are no "small ideas" because when you multiply any change by millions of people, you end up with a big number.  When millions of people drive less as the price of gas rises, demand falls and the price falls as well.  As people buy less gas, gas taxes generate less revenue.  These things are facts.  You just need to make the connection between small individual actions (not ideas) and large overall impacts.

    Al Gore has already said it.  Make energy policy more than national policy.  Make energy policy a part of national identity and national pride.  Make the initiative Big! Bold! and Dramatic!.  Put it on billboards.  Buy ad spots.  Create PSAs.

    People will whine and moan and give excuses.  Don't let them.  

    Can you check your tire pressure?  Sure you can!  Does it take time?  Sure - and how many people take the time check gas prices online before they leave?  If people can spend a few minutes to save five cents a gallon, they can spend a few minutes to increase their vehicle's fuel efficiency.

    Why?  Because it is good for your pocketbook and your country and your world.  

    Sell the ideas!  Elections are mostly about marketing and public relations campaigns and selling the candidates.  Why not use a fraction of that to sell something else as well?

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I think calling people stupid (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:01:14 AM EST
    helps.. no, really!
    When it comes to conservation, point out all the money people can save, and have public service ads where average people talk about how foolish they were, and how they have extra money to spend now.
    Of course, industrial energy conservation is where it's at, but you want to change peoples' mindsets. That starts at home.

    [ Parent ]
    It helps as much (none / 0) (#69)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:25:15 AM EST
    as it does to tell them to clip coupons.  

    Most people won't.  Or they'll clip the coupons and forget they have them.  

    Energy conservation only works when it is forced:  Rolling blackouts, that kind of thing.  

    Under Carter, we could only fill up our gas tanks on Even/Odd days.  Maybe they should institute that again -- along with 55 mph speed limits.  

    [ Parent ]

    I agree people won't conserve on gasoline, (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:27:50 AM EST
    but other kinds of conservation,I think they will.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well, where I live it's been (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:46:00 AM EST
    around 90 to 100 degrees everyday so if you think I'm going to cut back on electricity, you are wrong.  It aint' gonna happen.  The only way to make me cut back on electricity is to cut my electric off.  I'm going to use it as much as I need it.  

    I can conserve on gasoline much more easily.  

    I refuse to conserve on electric.    

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry to hear that. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:25:59 AM EST
    I've been enjoying a very moderate summer here in the Rust Belt and rain fall is currently 7 inches over the average for this year.  I have no AC so I am SOL if it does get hot.  Saves a bunch on the electricity bill, however.

    Sounds like the west and southwest is suffering this summer.  Is it Climate Change or not?  That's what I ask myself a lot.  We've gotten 2-3 unusual storm fronts this summer.  The Dog, who never barks at nothing and doesn't even flinch at the normal thunderstorm, does not like the storms where lightning is so frequent that it looks like a strobe light and the thunder rolls almost continuously.  Even the radar signature for these storms isn't normal.  Instead of tight focused cells, the fronts are large, red streaks with orange and yellow streaming back from them.

    Climate Change?  Climate Crisis?  Anthropogenic Global Warming?  I don't know.  But I would truly like a little leadership on the whole Energy/Economy/Environment front.  Right now, Gore is the only one I trust on it.  He backs Obama of course.  Hillary backs Obama.  Bill backs Obama.  But even with all those worthies backing Obama, I still feel like The Dog during one of those storms - anxious, unsettled, unhappy.

    I truly would like a proactive, effective policy.   The little people are trying to make a difference, but as long as policies are in place that encourage waste and overconsumption, that's what the norm will be.  If Obama is all that, he could sell people on what they need and not what they want.  If.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry, but Jimmy (none / 0) (#68)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:20:15 AM EST
    Carter turned his thermostat down many years ago and it has done nothing to solve our energy problems.  

    Not only that, it's proven to be a comic image of him standing there in his sweater asking people to turn their thermostats down.  

    Now, it appears you would like Obama to hold up the tire gauge and ask people to check their tires.  

    This isn't going to work.  

    We live in the city.  We take the bus pretty often because it stops less than a block from where we live and it only costs $.25.  (On top of that, our parking spots are hard to get so once you get a great parking spot, you hate to give it up!)  We only buy gas every couple of weeks.  We actually could go months without buying gas, but it's not good to leave your car just sitting there that long.  

    All these little "logical moves" don't really do much.  Everyone drove 55 mph for years and suddenly the USA said everyone can drive as fast as they want -- and that wastes gas.  Why did they do that?  

    You can brag about Obama's energy plan, but I find it comical.  

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not bragging. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:57:46 AM EST
    But people need to stop expecting Superman come down in a flash of red and blue and Save The Day!

    It ain't going to happen.  The little people need to do their small every day part and the big people need to implement the big plans like infrastructure and policy changes.

    Voters are a superstitious and cowardly lot.  (apologies to Bob Kane)

    [ Parent ]

    I guess the GOP has been successful (none / 0) (#81)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 06:54:59 AM EST
    Tire gauges are NOT Obama's plan. Unlike Carter asking people to turn thermostats down and wear sweaters, Obama didn't ask people to check their tire pressure. Some asked Obama what could people do right now.

    Obma isn't president, the energy plan he proposes has not been enacted and I repeat, tire gauges are not the Obama plan.

    Yet somehow the GOP has convinced you that tire gauges are Obama's plan and you go about repeating this GOP talking point as though it were true and aid the GOP in their effort to lie.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Why would Obama run away from (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:50:06 AM EST
    tire gauges being part of his energy plan? Why not have educating people about the ways they can help the energy crisis by conserving the resources we have be part of the plan? Checking your tires would be a good symbol to choose. I know that for some of us it would harken back to the days of Jimmy Carter, but not everything about Carter was bad. Why is Obama allowing McCain to chase him away from something that the average person can do that actually works?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama has challenged McCain (none / 0) (#87)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:09:23 AM EST
    on this issue, he has not run away.
    Here is a link


    [ Parent ]
    My local news said that Obama (none / 0) (#88)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:22:00 AM EST
    had backed away. I'm glad they're wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    Wait, what is this about Clooney raising (none / 0) (#57)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:05:19 AM EST
    money from the Swiss?

    [ Parent ]
    Oops, I should have said (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by FemB4dem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:28:23 AM EST
    raising money in Switzerland, not from the Swiss.  This plays right into the celeb theme.  Maybe McCain will cut a new ad with George and Oprah.

    [ Parent ]
    That's better than money from the Swiss (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:35:18 AM EST
    but an overseas fundraiser by a big celebrity does seem to contribute to McCain's points.  Hmmmm.

    [ Parent ]
    So, how many American citizens (none / 0) (#76)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:06:22 AM EST
    are living overseas in Switzerland? Because those are the only people permitted to contribute to this kind of fundraiser. It's still illegal for any foreigner to contribute to an American presidential campaign.

    More fodder for McCain to equate Obama with celebrities...

    [ Parent ]

    Marc (none / 0) (#80)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:51:55 AM EST
    Rich, I bet he or his wife contributes.

    [ Parent ]
    My Mother (none / 0) (#78)
    by DA Burgher on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:11:51 AM EST
    switched to Ellen because of the Oprah politics... Her ratings have fallen since she dabbled with politics, and pushed for Obama. Most of her audience is older white women.... go figure.

    [ Parent ]
    I haven't been an Oprah fan ever, (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:52:24 AM EST
    but I became someone who speaks out against her when she encouraged women to go on a fasting diet. A good friend of mine followed her advice and almost died.

    [ Parent ]
    Under a doctor's care ONLY! (none / 0) (#89)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:35:43 AM EST
    Criminy.  When your blood sugar drops, you can become pretty danged loopy.  It's great if you want a potentially fatal altered mental state.  

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#99)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:18:04 AM EST
    I heard on the radio a few days ago that Oprah called the Brown Palace to book a suite and they told her sorry, no room at the inn.

    I'm surprised she didn't just buy the hotel.

    [ Parent ]

    frankly i am sick of oprah. (none / 0) (#122)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:26:29 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    NObama bounce ?? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by DA Burgher on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:06:27 AM EST
    Here is an excellent article from Real Clear Poliitcs, explaining why McCain and Obama are basically tied. Its Obama fatigue and Hillary Clinton. This is a quote that is right on target: "If the polls are right, a public tired of Republicans is beginning to think an increasingly bothersome Obama would be no better -- and maybe a lot worse." and another one.. long-suffering liberals convinced their party to go with a messiah rather than a dependable nominee -- and thereby they probably will get neither.

    http://tinyurl.com/5jv4nk

    Finally got