Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Maybe the Michigan/Florida issue won't be a huge in the GE, but unless Michigan voters get a say in the election (no evenly splitting the delegates crap) my Michigan vote is going to McCain or Nader.

Can I ask how many states you have votes in, and where your votes in other states are going?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Maybe the Michigan/Florida issue won't be a huge in the GE, but unless Michigan voters get a say in the election (no evenly splitting the delegates crap) my Michigan vote is going to McCain or Nader.

I'm of two minds there.

One, I think the DNC needs to stand by "tough shit" on this, given the potential for greater shenanigans in 2008 if Florida/Michigan are allowed to whine their way to relevancy after they broke the party rules that were established.

Two, okay, let them go ahead and re-do their process, but there needs to be some kind of penalty in place so that they (and the other 48 states) don't take the wrong message from a re-vote. Maybe dock 'em a significant percentage of the delegates they otherwise would have had. Take away 50% and split the rest normally so that they don't go "Oh, hey, this was a great idea, let's do this again next year."

Just saying "oh, we didn't really mean it" and letting them re-vote with no penalty, or seating them as originally "voted" upon are both bad ideas, though, IMO.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'm of two minds there.

One, I think the DNC needs to stand by "tough shit" on this, given the potential for greater shenanigans in 2008 if Florida/Michigan are allowed to whine their way to relevancy after they broke the party rules that were established.

Two, okay, let them go ahead and re-do their process, but there needs to be some kind of penalty in place so that they (and the other 48 states) don't take the wrong message from a re-vote. Maybe dock 'em a significant percentage of the delegates they otherwise would have had. Take away 50% and split the rest normally so that they don't go "Oh, hey, this was a great idea, let's do this again next year."

Just saying "oh, we didn't really mean it" and letting them re-vote with no penalty, or seating them as originally "voted" upon are both bad ideas, though, IMO.

The problem really is that no matter WHAT decision is made, it will be seen to benefit either Obama or Clinton. Also the fiasco completely neuters competency as a positive issue for the Dems, which I expected to be one of their trump cards.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The problem really is that no matter WHAT decision is made, it will be seen to benefit either Obama or Clinton. Also the fiasco completely neuters competency as a positive issue for the Dems, which I expected to be one of their trump cards.

The thing I think that tempers that somewhat is the fact that the RNC also penalized Michigan and Florida for moving their primaries up. It just so happens that the 50% penalty isn't a factor on their nominee.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by cartman

The thing I think that tempers that somewhat is the fact that the RNC also penalized Michigan and Florida for moving their primaries up. It just so happens that the 50% penalty isn't a factor on their nominee.

I don't think that's remotely the same thing. Was that done to ensure McCain's nomination? That's the question that will be asked of any decision the Democrats make, regardless of what decision, and possibly even regardless of which nominee they end up picking.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Along this same line, I found this story to be pretty amusing this morning:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...143263249/1001



To put this into context, the city of Philly has been pushing to pass a crapload of gun control laws for the past couple of years, but the law in Pennsylvania is that the state legislature is the body that deals with firearm laws. The Philly Dems have tried going through the legislature, but there is little to no public support for the gun control laws. They can't even get them out of committee.

So now the Philly leaders will try to make it an issue, and will likely alienate a lot of Democrats outside of Philly who are gun owners. What makes it even MORE amusing is that through a procedural move, the PA House was set to vote on one gun control bill last week, but had to adjourn because the Philly delegation stayed in Philly to attend Obama's big speech on race, rather than go to Harrisburg to do their job.

My cousin was telling me about this at easter dinner. He's a state rep, and he thought the philly dems were pretty amusing with the way they were acting. You are going to have a nearly impossible time getting any kind of anti gun bill through PA, due to the extreme amount of hunters here.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by cartman

The thing I think that tempers that somewhat is the fact that the RNC also penalized Michigan and Florida for moving their primaries up. It just so happens that the 50% penalty isn't a factor on their nominee.

Also the republicans didn't completely boycott Michigan and Florida. The voters still had some say even if it was 50% of what they should of had.

[CamEdwards]

Interesting (I thought) post from Jim Geraghty.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.c...I1ZWNlZjc4NmQ=

I concur with James Joyner that of all the measuring sticks being used to determine who has the "real" lead in the Democratic primary (since neither Hillary nor Obama will finish with enough delegates to clinch the nomination), one of the oddest is the raw vote totals. A couple of problems with using this metric:


* As many have noted, if you don't have a few hours to commit on a winter's night, you can't participate in a caucus. So lumping in those results with the primary results is comparing apples and oranges. Team Hillary contends they perform better in primary states than caucus states. Whether they're right or not, the raw vote totals would look quite different if people could go any time of day and just mark a ballot.

* Ironically, the states that are voting later in the process are having the most impact on the "binary" choice that has been clear since Edwards dropped out. States that voted earliest "wasted" a portion of their votes on candidates who departed the race. How would those who voted for Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, etc. cast their ballots if they had known their choice would come down to one of these two?


* The Barack Obama we see today looks very different than the guy who won Iowa back in early January. If Iowans had known about NAFTA-quiddick, the Rezko trial, Samantha Power saying the Iraq plan was tentative, Jeremiah Wright's sermons, etc.; would they have voted the same way? (For that matter, would New Hampshire and Nevada Democrats have rescued Hillary if they could see how her campaign would get increasingly negative and tougher on Obama in the following weeks?) The voters who are deciding today have a lot more information to base their decision on, not least of which knowing that the Democratic nominee will have to match up well against John McCain.

* Do you count Florida and Michigan? In Michigan, Obama and Edwards weren't on the ballot. But they were in Florida.

Most of the various versions of the raw vote counts have Obama up. And superdelegates are free to take that into account, or any other factor they deem relevant. But if Barack Obama carries 47.5 percent and Hillary carries 47.2 percent (which is how it currently breaks down with Michigan and Florida included), is it really that much of a win? Can any superdelegate look at that and say, "well, clearly Obama is the more popular choice?"

[timmynausea]

So if you include the two states where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot and he still beats Hillary in raw votes, the superdelegates should decide that his margin of victory is too small to actually count? Interesting stuff.

[JPhillips]

Cam: When the primaries end it's all but certain that Obama will lead in total votes, primaries won, and total delegates. It will be very close, but Obama is going to be ahead narrowly. At that point the Supers can choose to do whatever they wish, but giving the nomination to Hillary will guarantee a split in the party.

It's telling that all of Hillary's arguments eventually come down to ignoring all of the ways Obama is narrowly ahead.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

So if you include the two states where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot and he still beats Hillary in raw votes, the superdelegates should decide that his margin of victory is too small to actually count? Interesting stuff.

If there is an obvious swing to Clinton and the numbers narrow between now and the convention the super-delegates could justify taking Clinton over the top by arguing that the advantage Obama holds comes from the time when little was known about him and had the full knowledge been there from the start he would not have had that advantage.

If they had to make their decision at this point the super-delegates would be between a rock and a hard place - give it to Clinton and they antagonise Obama supporters, give it to Obama and they give it to a candidate who may be unelectable in the Presidential race. It's a lose-lose situation for them.

I think they'll be keeping a close eye on how sentiment towards Obama moves over the next few months both within the Democratic community and the population as a whole and hope that things become clearer one way or the other and make life a little easier for them.

On this gun law point - has a nationwide, independant poll been taken on the population's attitude towards gun laws in recent times? If so what were the results? The assumption in the above posts seems to say the results are overhwelmingly against such laws. Would restricting laws to, say automatic weapons only, significantly affect the results?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I read in Time.com (I think) recently about the demographics of the voters (always a favorite topic of mine). They talked about the impact that they White Male voters will have and said that the 25% that makes up that demographics is more than the combined black and latino voters. Ok, if we add 30% for White Female, that still leaves about 20-25% for something. What am I missing? Were they just talking about a segment of the White Male voters since the article was focusing on the OH-PA blue-collar voters?

Anyone know about this?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Cam: When the primaries end it's all but certain that Obama will lead in total votes, primaries won, and total delegates. It will be very close, but Obama is going to be ahead narrowly. At that point the Supers can choose to do whatever they wish, but giving the nomination to Hillary will guarantee a split in the party.

It's telling that all of Hillary's arguments eventually come down to ignoring all of the ways Obama is narrowly ahead.

And that's the argument that Obama's sure to be making now. But given that the most likely scenario is that neither Obama nor Hillary will have the magic number of delegates by the time Denver rolls around, Hillary gets to make the argument that Mac made above.

I still think a brokered convention would be the most fun to watch, even if it resulted in Al Gore as the compromise candidate with Obama as VP.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

On this gun law point - has a nationwide, independant poll been taken on the population's attitude towards gun laws in recent times? If so what were the results? The assumption in the above posts seems to say the results are overhwelmingly against such laws. Would restricting laws to, say automatic weapons only, significantly affect the results?

Cam's the one to talk to on this, but I'm pretty sure automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Cam's the one to talk to on this, but I'm pretty sure automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934.

They are not illegal. They require a special license.

[Jas_lov]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

CBS catches Hillary in a lie about her trip to Bosnia.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

CBS catches Hillary in a lie about her trip to Bosnia.

about time someone backdoors a clinton.

[lungs]

Just a general thought, and this has more probably to do with the general election but:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7312078.stm

Let's say that Moqtada al-Sadr ends the cease fire and the Mehdi Army starts fighting again. Could this have any effect on our politics? I'm no expert but one of the main reasons the surge has been successful is that the Mehdi Army has stood down (did we bribe them?). Looks like things are starting to heat up again.

If we see an upswing in violence, will this help somebody like Obama who wants to get out sooner rather than later? Likewise, if the cease fire ends and the Mehdi insurrection is squashed, it could just as well help McCain a ton and keep the electorate's focus off Iraq.

Not that I'm hoping for violence, but anybody that thinks al-Sadr and his army will hold to the cease fire is crazy and I dont' think our electorate can stomach another round of violence, whether that is right or wrong.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by lungs

Just a general thought, and this has more probably to do with the general election but:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7312078.stm

Let's say that Moqtada al-Sadr ends the cease fire and the Mehdi Army starts fighting again. Could this have any effect on our politics? I'm no expert but one of the main reasons the surge has been successful is that the Mehdi Army has stood down (did we bribe them?). Looks like things are starting to heat up again.

If we see an upswing in violence, will this help somebody like Obama who wants to get out sooner rather than later? Likewise, if the cease fire ends and the Mehdi insurrection is squashed, it could just as well help McCain a ton and keep the electorate's focus off Iraq.

Not that I'm hoping for violence, but anybody that thinks al-Sadr and his army will hold to the cease fire is crazy and I dont' think our electorate can stomach another round of violence, whether that is right or wrong.

I think it could swing both ways. If the violence starts back up again, it might play into McCain's hand as the whole "military C-i-C" thing. I know that's one reason my grandma has decided she's voting for McCain, is because my brother recently joined the military and McCain's got the military background. There will be some for whom something like that would either make the decision for them or further solidify it.

And as you point out, it might push some folks into Barack Obama's camp.

I tend to think it would be an issue of "what was their inclination on the issue to start with?" Folks who support remaining in Iraq are probably more likely to vote McCain in the first place, and less likely to change their minds if violence starts up again. Folks who want out are more likely to support Obama, and violence would only harden their resolve.

Can't imagine there are too many left who are undecided on the issue of the war at this point.

[lungs]

All good points. Then you also have people like many moderate McCain supporters I know. They want to get out of Iraq, but it's simply not one of their priorities. Not allowing Democrats unchecked power is their highest priority.

[Ksyrup]

March 25, 2008
Gore-led ticket good compromise for Democrats?
Posted: 02:15 PM ET




FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:
A Florida congressman is suggesting that a brokered convention for the Democrats could lead to some pretty unexpected results. In other words, forget about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Representative Tim Mahoney says he wouldn’t be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket. He says a compromise candidate could be someone like Al Gore.

In a newspaper interview, Mahoney said if the convention is deadlocked and either Clinton or Obama suggested a Gore-Obama or Gore-Clinton ticket, the party would accept it.

Mahoney is one of the almost 800 superdelegates who would get to cast a vote at the convention. He hasn’t endorsed either Clinton or Obama yet, but has been wooed by both.

It’s an interesting idea. It’s not clear if Democrats really know what they’re in for if this nasty battle continues all the way to the Denver convention. The way things are going, there could be enough acrimony by the time it’s over that neither Obama nor Clinton would any longer be viewed as electable.

Al Gore has insisted he won’t run and that he has “no plans to be a candidate”, although he’s also said “I see no reason to rule it out entirely.” And, it’s worth pointing out that the former vice president and Nobel Prize winner has not yet endorsed either Clinton or Obama. So stay tuned.

[st.cronin]

I was very surprised that Al Gore never sought the nomination, but I think its exceedingly unlikely that he gets the nomination without even campaigning.

[Young Drachma]

Apparently, Gore's finances are such that he'd not risk running and having to expose who is giving him cash. Dunno what the story is on that, but that's what I've heard.

[JPhillips]

Denying Obama the nomination when he'll be ahead in every way you can count it will guarantee a lose in November. Clinton may figure out a way to make it happen, but I see no reason why Gore would want to jump headfirst into that shitstorm.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Arles

I was trying to drive people to the logical conclusion: If Wright is not a big donor, then that means that something Wright says or stands for resonates with Obama. And, given Obama's statement of hope and unity are somewhat at odds with many of Wright's statements, suddenly this relationship does have some relevance.

In trying to determining who Obama is, we only have 3 sources of information:
1. His words
2. His actions in political life
3. Who he chooses to have close relationships with

If you don't buy completely into 1 and feel item 2 is not enough to get a full picture of what he stands for. I think it's fair for people to look at item 3 when trying to determine who Obama will be as a president.

Exactly.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by stevew

I've been wondering why nobody has reported on the Clinton almost ZERO chance of winning the standard delegate count. Even if she takes 60 percent of remaining delegates, she can't beat Barack. And the re-votes would do nothing but further solidify Barack, and may just give him enough votes to clinch the nomination. The rest of the supers aren't going to break 100 percent to her, I mean there's basically no reason she's still in this race. It makes her look more like the egotistical whore that she is.

Obama has no chance either. It's gonna come down to the supers or a brokered agreement.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's not what I'm saying, and if you read again what Obama said when he disavowed Wright's comments, that's not quite what he's saying. I don't want to speak for Obama, but I think what he's saying is that you need to at least try to find a piece of common ground with those with which you disagree, and bring them to the table based on that common ground in an effort of shaping a common vision for the future.

How is white, Midwestern America going to find middle ground with Wright's comments? Please explain the specific common ground they are going to find with someone like Wright.

You have to start at the middle and work your way out. You don't get the radicals on your side first. You follow the "Remember the Titans" plan and get liberal leadership from both sides to show unity and slowly bring others along. Maybe that's what Obama was trying to do, but Wright blew that paradigm out of the water.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

Obama has no chance either. It's gonna come down to the supers or a brokered agreement.

Just how many delegates are yet to be declared and how many of those are super-delegates?

[miked]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

How is white, Midwestern America going to find middle ground with Wright's comments? Please explain the specific common ground they are going to find with someone like Wright.

You have to start at the middle and work your way out. You don't get the radicals on your side first. You follow the "Remember the Titans" plan and get liberal leadership from both sides to show unity and slowly bring others along. Maybe that's what Obama was trying to do, but Wright blew that paradigm out of the water.

Since you are an expert in Wright, pleas tell us his specific policies, other than the 5 clips you've been watching on Foxnews for the past week. I have a feeling that in 2 months, it won't really be an issue, of course until some conservative group swiftboats some ads. I'd tell you watch the whole sermon, but I guess you get your info in 30 second sound bytes instead of 5 minute in-context clips. Point is, only the foolish partisan types really believe that Wright's views represent Obama's views. I've heard my rabbi say some pretty interesting shit I don't agree with about Israel, but in the A, we don't exactly get a wide variety of choices on where we can go.

[Grammaticus]

Why are so many people upset about the coverage of Wright and the scrutiny on Obama for his choice to associate with him?

Obama is running for President of the United States. I don't care what color he is, he needs to be vetted and scrutinized just like everyone who runs for president.

If people don't care about his choices around Wright, let them decide for themselves. For some it will be a meaningful issue about who he is and who he chooses as influential mentors and advisors. For example, one person in an earlier post responded to concerns of inexperience, saying they thought Obama would surround himself with smart competent people to advise him on foriegn policy, etc. For others it will simply be a case of one mans Bigot is another mans Hero.

I would think most of you would appreciate the idea of an informed populace.

[Ksyrup]

Obama a distant cousin of Bush

It has emerged that Barack Obama is a tenth cousin, once removed, of the man whose job he wants - George W Bush. They are linked by Samuel Hinkley of Cape Cod, who died in 1662. Mr Obama is also a distant cousin of the actor Brad Pitt while Hillary Clinton is related to Mr Pitt's girlfriend, Angelina Jolie. The ties of the US Democratic rivals were established by a respected US genealogical organisation after three years' investigation. Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama can also boast a long list of other famous relations.

Christopher Child, from the New England Historic Genealogical Society, says that the politicians' ancestries show they have more in common than they think. The Society, founded in 1845, is the oldest and biggest non-profit genealogical organisation in the United States. The research, conducted by Mr Child and Gary Boyd Roberts, came up with some extraordinary family connections.

Mr Obama is the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya. He was previously identified as a distant cousin of US Vice-President Dick Cheney. His political lineage includes not just President Bush but also Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S Truman, Dick Cheney and Winston Churchill. The connection made with Hollywood star Brad Pitt adds a welcome splash of glamour to his family tree.

But Mrs Clinton's kin has much more of an exotic feel. Her distant cousins include the singers Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morisette, as well as the beatnik author Jack Kerouac and Prince Charles's wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles. She and Angelina Jolie are ninth cousins, twice removed. They are both related to one Jean Cusson, who died in St Sulpice, Quebec, in 1718. If the Hollywood couple, collectively known as "Brangelina", decide on a very extended family gathering, it could provide the perfect Opportunity for the two Democratic presidential rivals to get together.

[Ksyrup]

From Jake Tapper, ABC News correspondent:

"l just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight. The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.

The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?

What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.

It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn't get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold."


I have to say, this has the potential of not only completely screwing the Democratic Party's shot at the White House in 2008, but if Clinton somehow manages to convince enough people to switch their votes (not just superdelegates, but regular delegates, too, since she's made statements recently suggesting that they aren't really tied to anything and can change their votes) and captures the nomination despite having fewer popular votes, less delegates from the primaries/caucuses, and winning less states than Obama, they could be responsible for a race-fueled protest/riot.

And I gotta believe that being the genesis of a racial incident would be devastating to the Democratic Party, given how it has positioned itself with the black community compared to the Republicans. And all because the Clintons are so self-centered, and Hillary knows this is her last shot at the Presidency, that she's apparently willing to screw her party over in order to get there. Maybe Obama wins Pennsylvania and a couple other states and Hillary throws in the towel. But if not, all indications are that she's willing to shoot her party down in flames to get to the GE against McCain.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

Since you are an expert in Wright, pleas tell us his specific policies, other than the 5 clips you've been watching on Foxnews for the past week. I have a feeling that in 2 months, it won't really be an issue, of course until some conservative group swiftboats some ads. I'd tell you watch the whole sermon, but I guess you get your info in 30 second sound bytes instead of 5 minute in-context clips. Point is, only the foolish partisan types really believe that Wright's views represent Obama's views. I've heard my rabbi say some pretty interesting shit I don't agree with about Israel, but in the A, we don't exactly get a wide variety of choices on where we can go.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you live on the East Coast. In the south and midwest, this Wright issue is going to haunt Obama for a long time. Right, wrong, or indifferent, these kinds of things resonate with voters in these regions.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

From Jake Tapper, ABC News correspondent:

"l just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight.

Why do you need anonymity to speak candidly?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you live on the East Coast. In the south and midwest, this Wright issue is going to haunt Obama for a long time. Right, wrong, or indifferent, these kinds of things resonate with voters in these regions.

By resonate with voters do you mean resonate with you? Or do you have anything to back up your assertion?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Why do you need anonymity to speak candidly?

Because he's giving a backroom version of what's going on that the Party likely doesn't want out there, and if this person's name was attached to the statement, he/she would be in hot water. That's pretty much standard in every facet of life - sports, law enforcement, you name it. Reporters get more information if they promise not to divulge names. This is news?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

By resonate with voters do you mean resonate with you? Or do you have anything to back up your assertion?

In general, states in the South and Midwest tend to have more rural voters than most states. Although it greatly pains me to state this, people in those rural areas aren't quite as advanced in their thinking as people in the urban areas. Plainly speaking, comments like the ones from Rev. Wright will be attached to Obama and, whether it's right or not, will serve as a stigma against his presidential bid because of their race. I wish that were not the case, but sadly, it is. I wish there wasn't ignorance involved, but it does exist whether we admit it or not.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Because he's giving a backroom version of what's going on that the Party likely doesn't want out there, and if this person's name was attached to the statement, he/she would be in hot water. That's pretty much standard in every facet of life - sports, law enforcement, you name it. Reporters get more information if they promise not to divulge names. This is news?

No, it just makes me sad.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

In general, states in the South and Midwest tend to have more rural voters than most states. Although it greatly pains me to state this, people in those rural areas aren't quite as advanced in their thinking as people in the urban areas. Plainly speaking, comments like the ones from Rev. Wright will be attached to Obama and, whether it's right or not, will serve as a stigma against his presidential bid because of their race. I wish that were not the case, but sadly, it is. I wish there wasn't ignorance involved, but it does exist whether we admit it or not.

In other words, there is a sizable group that will consider this an issue and another sizable group that wish it would all go away and doesn't know why it's not completely swept under the rug.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

In other words, there is a sizable group that will consider this an issue and another sizable group that wish it would all go away and doesn't know why it's not completely swept under the rug.

Yep, that's pretty accurate.

[Young Drachma]

Hilary Clinton in a Time interview.

A snippet:

Last question Senator. Some people look at the current state of the delegate counts and say the only way you can win the nomination is at the convention, with a convention where delegates move around perhaps, and you'll make your case side by side. Are you comfortable if that's the way you win the nomination, going all the way to Denver and winning it there? Is that a comfortable outcome for you?

You know it's the same thing for Senator Obama. Neither of us will reach the number of delegates needed. So I think that that is, you know, the reality for both of our campaigns. And all delegates have to assess who they think will be the strongest nominee against McCain and who they believe would do the best job in bringing along the down-ballot races and who they think would be the best President. And, from my perspective, those are all very legitimate questions, and as you know so well, Mark, every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose. We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment. And, you know, I'm just going to do the best I can in the next 10 contests to make my case to the voters in those elections and then we'll see where we are.

[JPhillips]

Well the South doesn't matter as it's now the base for the Republican party. The Midwest is a much bigger problem as that's likely to be where the general election is decided.

I don't want it swept under the rug, but I do want to know why association with Wright is so unacceptable while association with Rev. Moon is fine. If this is the road we're going to go down let's expose radicals on both sides.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This Gallup poll result has to be a nightmare for the Democratic party. There were concerns that this drawn-out battle may have this effect on the electorate..........

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03...t-to-november/

Gallup Poll: Many Democrats Ready to Vote McCain if Their First Choice Doesn’t Make It to November
by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, March 26, 2008


Many Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters are ready to spurn the Democratic party and vote for John McCain in November if their candidate doesn’t win the presidential nomination, according to a new poll out Wednesday.

Among people who identified themselves as Hillary Clinton supporters, 28 percent said they would vote for McCain if Obama is his opponent, the March 7-22 Gallup Poll Daily election tracking survey found.

The same poll found that 19 percent of Obama supporters would switch sides and cast ballots for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

The survey interviewed 6,657 Democratic voters nationwide and had a margin of error of 2 percent.

Gallup analysts note that the results could change by November, by which time Democrats will have made great efforts to unify the party.

Gallup analysts also noted that voters tend to threaten party desertion but don’t necessarily do so. A recent Gallup survey found that 11 percent of Republican voters said they would vote for a different party or not at all if McCain doesn’t pick a running mate who is more conservative than he is.

Historically, the party-switch factor has shown to be less dramatic, Gallup analysts said. Less than 10 percent of Republicans and Democrats crossed party lines in pre-election Gallup polls from 1992 to 2004.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Hilary Clinton in a Time interview.

A snippet:

That's what I was referring to in my post above. She's made it clear that all the delegates are up for grabs.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Well the South doesn't matter as it's now the base for the Republican party. The Midwest is a much bigger problem as that's likely to be where the general election is decided.

I don't want it swept under the rug, but I do want to know why association with Wright is so unacceptable while association with Rev. Moon is fine. If this is the road we're going to go down let's expose radicals on both sides.

I agree 100%

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you live on the East Coast. In the south and midwest, this Wright issue is going to haunt Obama for a long time. Right, wrong, or indifferent, these kinds of things resonate with voters in these regions.

No, I live in Atlanta, but I'm from New York and New Jersey. I think everyone involved has their own character issues, but in the grand scheme of things, I really don't care about this sort of thing. I care about actual issues, not who's got mean friends. I'm fairly certain Hilary and McCain have "friends" or allies I would consider to be repugnant for different reasons. I'm not an Obama supporter, but I just don't really care about whether he's a uniter, I am in favor of an intelligent leader who will take this country in a different direction. I don't think Wright's comments (which most people agree were taken out of context) were really that far off from what a lot of people believe.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

I don't think Wright's comments (which most people agree were taken out of context) were really that far off from what a lot of people believe.

The heavy backlash would indicate otherwise. There's a lot of people in the Midwast who are big on patriotism (including several large military installations) and they don't take kindly to a radical black pastor who screams 'God Damn America!' into a microphone, especially just after 9/11. Add in that he's been tied to Obama in the past and it can do nothing but hurt Obama's campaign.

[Young Drachma]

Chelsea Clinton tells someone during a Q&A that Lewinsky questions are off-limits.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The heavy backlash would indicate otherwise. There's a lot of people in the Midwast who are big on patriotism (including several large military installations) and they don't take kindly to a radical black pastor who screams 'God Damn America!' into a microphone, especially just after 9/11. Add in that he's been tied to Obama in the past and it can do nothing but hurt Obama's campaign.

Like I said, context is important. But you are correct, those people who just hear he said "God Damn America" and nothing else will believe Obama to be unpatriotic because his pastor said that at the end of a 5 minute speech about the God vs. Government. I actually feel for the future of our country that these people may ultimately decide its direction.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The heavy backlash would indicate otherwise. There's a lot of people in the Midwast who are big on patriotism (including several large military installations) and they don't take kindly to a radical black pastor who screams 'God Damn America!' into a microphone, especially just after 9/11. Add in that he's been tied to Obama in the past and it can do nothing but hurt Obama's campaign.

Caricatures do not the sum of America make.