|
On May 08 2008 21:50 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2008 14:06 Superiorwolf wrote:On May 08 2008 13:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:But Clinton's team acknowledged that even if both states' delegations were seated, she would still not close the gap with Obama, who leads Clinton by about 150 delegates. Clinton said Wednesday that she would be sending a letter to Obama and Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean expressing her view that seating the Florida and Michigan delegations is a civil rights and voting rights issue. Am I reading this right, if she believes this why did she sign acknowledging the Democratic rules to rule out Michigan and Florida. Think she would give two craps about all 50 states if she was still front running or cared 9 months ago. No. Look dude, you have to consider not only from that point of view but from the GOP overall democratic strategy. Florida is a MAJOR swing-state, and if voters are pissed off that they weren't counted, it could be detrimental to the GOP nominee's presidential campaign. Thus, allowing a possible re-vote would be a nice compromise. Do you know what GOP means? Grand Ol' Party = Republicans As for whether FL/MI voters are pissed off about their votes not counting, they'd be more pissed off if it was given to Hillary, because no one else of importance was on the ballot. EDIT: So I applied to Obama's fellowship program for a summer internship and I've gotten two emails in two days asking for donations. >:|
Don' t worry, you'll get way more in no time! Yeah, I given to him twice, and once your are on the mailing list they ask for $25 about every day.
It is really just one step above spam, but I'm ok with it. I'll probably give again sometime soon.
|
On May 09 2008 00:07 NovaTheFeared wrote:Politico reporting Obama plans to declare victory on May 20th. LinkI hope the story is wrong because this seems like an unnecessary risk to me. Declaring victory with a majority of the pledged delegates without getting the actual victory of a majority of total delegates (2025 discounting MI,FL) would antagonize Clinton supporters who Obama will need in the fall. yeah i read that yesterday as well. he's planning to declare victory in the pledged delegate metric, not the overall contest.
but they are also planning to line up enough supers so that on may 20 he will announce he has won the pledged delegate metric and then simultaneously announce the endorsement of enough supers to clinch 2024.5 delegates.
|
drudge is also reporting about 30 new superdelegates over the next few days. Not sure how much I trust it, especially since there have been rumors of this twice before and nothing happened
|
Updates:
McCain raises $9mil in 2 days. His wife won't release tax returns.
AND:
Apparently the gas tax fiasco which Clinton's own party wouldn't even touch proved to be a boost for Obama in the last primary.
"The game changer in the last week was when Clinton went after him on the gas tax," said Simon Rosenberg, head of the Democratic advocacy group NDN. "Obama pivoted very well to the economy and figured out how to talk about the struggles of everyday people."
|
|
|
|
Yeah I just saw that on yahoo too. I can't stand loading up my FF and seeing my optimum page come up with 'CLINTON URGES SUPPORTERS TO FIGHT ON!'
ugh. die bitch.
|
if obama wins democratic nominations that will be really interesting to see so Obama vs McCain. Youngest ever president or the oldest one?
|
On May 10 2008 01:01 k0ziol wrote: if obama wins democratic nominations that will be really interesting to see so Obama vs McCain. Youngest ever president or the oldest one?
Obama would not be the youngest ever. JFK would still have him by 3-4 years.
|
|
AP is now saying Obama has nine superdelegates now which means he is only behind by .5 in previous article.
|
On May 10 2008 01:01 k0ziol wrote: if obama wins democratic nominations that will be really interesting to see so Obama vs McCain. Youngest ever president or the oldest one? it's ironic, but it's a lot like Bush Sr. vs Clinton in '92
RCP seemingly hasn't caught up on the superdelegate count - they still say Clinton holds a +7 lead
|
I just saw an article reporting that as well. I knew he'd catch up by the end of the weekend I didn't know it would be today.
Link
|
Found this article at RCP from WSJ, pretty funny.
Link
Full article + Show Spoiler +
This is an amazing story. The Democratic Party has a winner. It has a nominee. You know this because he has the most votes and the most elected delegates, and there's no way, mathematically, his opponent can get past him. Even after the worst two weeks of his campaign, he blew past her by 14 in North Carolina and came within two in Indiana.
He's got this thing. And the Democratic Party, after this long and brutal slog, should be dancing in the streets. Party elders should be coming out on the balcony in full array, in full regalia, and telling the crowd, "Habemus nominatum": "We have a nominee." And the crowd below should be cheering, "Viva Obamus! Viva nominatum!"
Instead, you know where they are, the party elders. They are in a Democratic club on Capitol Hill, slump-shouldered at the bar, having a drink and then two, in a state of what might be called depressed horror. "What are they doing to the party?" they wail. "Why are they doing this?"
You know who they are talking about.
The Democratic Party can't celebrate the triumph of Barack Obama because the Democratic Party is busy having a breakdown. You could call it a breakdown over the issues of race and gender, but its real source is simply Hillary Clinton. Whose entire campaign at this point is about exploiting race and gender.
Here's the first place an outsider could see the tensions that have taken hold: on CNN Tuesday night, in the famous Brazile-Begala smackdown. Paul Begala wore the smile of the 1990s, the one in which there is no connection between the shape of the mouth and what the mouth says. All is mask. Donna Brazile was having none of it.
Mr. Begala more or less accused the Obama people of not caring about white voters: "[If] there's a new Democratic Party that somehow doesn't need or want white working-class people and Latinos, well, count me out." And: "We cannot win with eggheads and African Americans." That, he said, was the old, losing, Dukakis coalition.
"Paul, baby," Ms. Brazile, who is undeclared, began her response, "we need to not divide and polarize the Democratic Party. . . . So stop the divisions. Stop trying to split us into these groups, Paul, because you and I know . . . how Democrats win, and to simply suggest that Hillary's coalition is better than Obama's, Obama's is better than Hillary's -- no. We have a big party, Paul." And: "Just don't divide me and tell me I cannot stand in Hillary's camp because I'm black, and I can't stand in Obama's camp because I'm female. Because I'm both. . . . Don't start with me, baby." Finally: "It's our party, Paul. Don't say my party. It's our party. Because it's time that we bring the party back together, Paul."
In case you didn't get what was behind that exchange, Mrs. Clinton spent this week making it clear. In a jaw-dropping interview in USA Today on Thursday, she said, "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on." As evidence she cited an Associated Press report that, she said, "found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
White Americans? Hard-working white Americans? "Even Richard Nixon didn't say white," an Obama supporter said, "even with the Southern strategy."
If John McCain said, "I got the white vote, baby!" his candidacy would be over. And rising in highest indignation against him would be the old Democratic Party.
To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical "the black guy can't win but the white girl can" is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.
"She has unleashed the gates of hell," a longtime party leader told me. "She's saying, 'He's not one of us.'"
She is trying to take Obama down in a new way, but also within a new context. In the past he was just the competitor. She could say, "All's fair." But now he's the competitor who is going to be the nominee of his party. And she is still trying to do him in. And the party is watching.
Again: amazing.
Who can save the situation? The superdelegates.
You know them. They're the ones hiding under the rock, behind the boulder, and at the bar.
They are terrified, most of them. They want the problem to go away. They want it handled, but they don't want to do it. They don't want to tell Hillary to stop, because they would likely pay a price for it, and not just with her.
They are afraid of looking as if they're jumping on a train that's speeding down the tracks and is about to roll over the damsel in distress.
Which is how Hillary -- and her supporters -- will paint it. Even though she's no damsel, and she causes distress.
Some insight from a superdelegate I spoke to Thursday:
It's not math anymore, it's psychodrama. If she can't have it, no one can have it. If she has to tear the party apart, she will.
Nancy Pelosi can't make her drop out. The Clintons think the speaker is for Obama anyway, her San Francisco district went for him 70% to 30%; they'll dismiss her. Chuck Schumer can't do it, he'd offend women in New York. Harry Reid can't do it, he'll offend women, period. If black political figures go to the Clintons and make a plea, they'll be dismissed as Obama partisans.
So who, I asked, can do it?
White women have been Mrs. Clinton's most reliable base of support and readiest crutch, the superdelegate said. And maybe they're the only ones who can break through, both to Mrs. Clinton and to the country, and tell her to stop. "If it's a man, she goes back to gender: Men are always picking on me, you just don't want women in power. If it's a black, it's You betrayed us, how can you call on me to get out after what I've done for you?"
Sen. Dianne Feinstein made a feint in the direction of stopping Hillary this week. Mrs. Clinton should offer a rationale for her continuing the campaign at this point, Ms. Feinstein said.
The superdelegate mentioned Maryland's Barbara Mikulski. "I can assure you that Sen. Mikulski is 100% behind Clinton," her office told me. The superdelegate mentioned Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List, the No. 1 political action committee in the country. "They can say, 'We've stood with you, you've got true grit, but now you have to go.'"
The question "Who will tell her, who can make her go?" is really the question "Who will save the Democratic Party in 2008?" It cannot be doubted at this point that real damage is being done to its standard-bearer and to all those who will be on the ticket with him.
Maybe the superdelegate is right, and maybe saving the party this year will be women's work. Maybe the Democratic Party establishment, such as it is, men and women, black and white and all other colors, will rise up together. Maybe that would be a perfect rebuke to race-baiting and gender-gaming.
It will be amazing if someone doesn't start up that train, someone doesn't get in the cab, someone doesn't shout, "All aboard!" But then it's been an amazing year.
|
i've enjoyed a lot of peggy noonan's articles 
EDIT: here's another good article from WSJ:
The separation now under way between the Clintons and the Democratic Party.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121028913821779151.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
+ Show Spoiler + The Clinton Divorce
No, we don't mean Bill and Hillary. We mean the separation now under way between the Clintons and the Democratic Party. Like all divorces after lengthy unions, this one is painful and has had its moments of reconciliation, but after Tuesday a split looks inevitable. The long co-dependency is over.
Truth be told, this was always a marriage more of convenience than love. The party's progressives never did like Bill Clinton's New Democrat ways, but after Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis they needed his epic political gifts to win back the White House. They hated him for their loss of Congress in 1994, but they tolerated Dick Morris and welfare reform to keep the presidency in 1996. [The Clinton Divorce] AP
The price was that they had to put their ethics in a blind Clinton trust. Whitewater and the missing billing records, Webb Hubbell, cattle futures and "Red" Bone, the Lincoln Bedroom, Johnny Chung and the overseas fund-raising scandals, Paula Jones and lying under oath, Monica and the meaning of "is." Democrats, or all of them this side of Joe Lieberman and Pat Moynihan, defended the Clintons through it all. Everything was dismissed as a product of the "Republican attack machine," an invention of the "Clinton haters," or "just about sex."
Democrats and the media did make a fleeting attempt at liberation when Bill Clinton left office after 2000 amid the tawdry pardons. Barney Frank, the most fervent of the Clinton defenders throughout the 1990s, even called the pardons a "betrayal" and "contemptuous." More than a few Democrats also noticed that George W. Bush's main campaign theme in 2000 was restoring "dignity" and "honor" to the Oval Office, and that Al Gore had somehow lost despite two-thirds of voters saying the U.S. was moving in the right direction.
But Hillary Clinton had also won a Senate seat that year, and she had presidential ambitions of her own. So the trial separation was brief. Democrats acquiesced as the first couple put their own money man, Terry McAuliffe, in charge of the Democratic National Committee. As the Bush years rolled on and John Kerry lost, they watched Hillary build her machine and plot a Clinton restoration. They watched, too, as the New York Senator did her own triangulating on Iraq, first voting for it, then supporting it before turning against it as the election neared. Party regulars fell in line behind her, and her nomination was said to be "inevitable."
Then something astonishing happened. A new star emerged in Barack Obama, a man who had Bill Clinton's political talent but Hillary's liberal convictions. He had charisma, a flair for raising money, and he held out the chance of a 2008 Democratic landslide. Something more than a return to the trench warfare of the 1990s seemed possible – perhaps the revival of a liberal majority, circa 1965.
More remarkable still, Democrats supporting Mr. Obama had a revelation about Clintonian mores. David Geffen, channeling William Safire, declared that "everybody in politics lies," but the Clintons "do it with such ease, it's troubling." Ted Kennedy was shocked to see the Clintons play the race card in South Carolina. The media discovered their secrecy over tax records and Clinton Foundation donors, while columnists were appalled to hear her assail Mr. Obama for his associations with radical bomber William Ayers. Listen closely and you could almost hear Bob Dole asking, "Where's the outrage?"
By the time Mrs. Clinton made her famous claim about dodging Bosnian sniper fire, Democrats and their media friends no longer called it a mere gaffe, as they once might have. This time the remark was said to be emblematic of her entire political career. The same folks who had believed her about Whitewater and the rest now claimed she never tells the truth about anything.
As the scales suddenly fell from liberal eyes, the most striking statistic was the one in this week's North Carolina exit poll. Asked if they considered Mrs. Clinton "honest and trustworthy," no fewer than 50% of Democratic primary voters said she was not. In Indiana, the figure was merely 45%.
Slowly but surely, these Prisoners of Bill and Hill are now walking away, urging Mrs. Clinton to leave the race. Chuck Schumer damns her with faint support by saying any decision is up to her. Columnists from the New York Times, which endorsed her when she looked inevitable, now demand that she exit so as not to help John McCain. With Mr. Obama to ride, they no longer need the Arkansas interlopers.
If the Clintons play to their historic form, they will ignore all this for as long as they can. They will fight on, hoping that something else turns up about Mr. Obama before the convention. Or they'll try to play the Michigan and Florida cards. Or they'll unleash Harold Ickes on the superdelegates and suggest that if Mr. Obama loses in November she'll be back in 2012 and her revenge will be, well, Clintonian.
The difference between now and the 1990s, however, is that this time the Clinton foes aren't the "vast right-wing conspiracy." This time the conspirators are fellow Democrats. It took 10 years, but you might say Democrats have finally voted to impeach.
|
|
no really? I thought this was the ABC numbers that had obama on top with supers.
|
On May 08 2008 21:50 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2008 14:06 Superiorwolf wrote:On May 08 2008 13:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:But Clinton's team acknowledged that even if both states' delegations were seated, she would still not close the gap with Obama, who leads Clinton by about 150 delegates. Clinton said Wednesday that she would be sending a letter to Obama and Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean expressing her view that seating the Florida and Michigan delegations is a civil rights and voting rights issue. Am I reading this right, if she believes this why did she sign acknowledging the Democratic rules to rule out Michigan and Florida. Think she would give two craps about all 50 states if she was still front running or cared 9 months ago. No. Look dude, you have to consider not only from that point of view but from the GOP overall democratic strategy. Florida is a MAJOR swing-state, and if voters are pissed off that they weren't counted, it could be detrimental to the GOP nominee's presidential campaign. Thus, allowing a possible re-vote would be a nice compromise. Do you know what GOP means? Grand Ol' Party = Republicans As for whether FL/MI voters are pissed off about their votes not counting, they'd be more pissed off if it was given to Hillary, because no one else of importance was on the ballot. EDIT: So I applied to Obama's fellowship program for a summer internship and I've gotten two emails in two days asking for donations. >:| Only Michigan did not have Obama on the ballot. That's very unfair for both states though anyways, so which is why I think a revote would be the best course of action.
But still, Clinton, though she's pretty much lost, should not drop at. Being the first African American presidential candidate and the first woman candidate, it's really been an election that's broken new records and drawn out a lot of new voters. At this point she knows she's 99% lost and is staying in for the women.
|
there's nothing wrong with clinton finishing out the primaries if she plays nice.
obama is going to be the democratic nominee so as a fellow democrat she should not do anything to harm him.
|
|
|
|