Clinton, Michigan, Obama and Bishop

Friday's bad news (4.00 / 2)

Friday's bad news day for Obama could also convince some superdelegates in purple states to lean Clinton's way. I feel like the ball of yarn. Bishop and his pals will have a lot of fun toying with the Michigan voters about the do-over.


What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?

---

by: janeenr @ Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 19:02:05 PM UTC

Sorry (4.00 / 2)

but if she doesn't win the state by the same margin she did before, she will have failed...

And as far as the state organization, that was all in place before and the best she could muster was a paltry 55% against uncommitted.

Don't expect a walk for Clinton in Michigan (or Florida) if their is a re-do.

In fact, I am willing to bet the results won't do anything to narrow the margin on delegates, and Clinton will still be behind.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 20:27:48 PM UTC

But couldn't she pick up (4.00 / 1)

some of the Edward's votes that went in the uncommitted column? If so she could improve on that 55%. I don't know if that will happen I just see it as a possibility.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:16:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Barack could pick those votes as well (0.00 / 0)

No way will she get 55% again. I don't know what will happen either but the stench of this is becoming appalling.

My hope, which is probably foolish, is that Obama wins Pennsylvania, putting a dagger into this thing.

Barack has ran an upbeat positive campaign. The Clinton's and all their supporters cannot say the same.

I voted for Bill Clinton twice, would do it again if I have to but a lot of us dems are going to vote for Old Man McSame if Hillary is annoited by superdelegates.

I am tired of dirty politics and I am tired of talking about the schemes of the Clinton wing of the democratic party.

Run clean, stress your strong points and stop the damaging dirt throwing BAMN campaigning.

Eliminate superdelegates now. This is the single most appalling thing to me, that Barack could have more votes/delegates but then the super delegats may hand it to Clinton.

---

by: doxie53 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 15:14:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dangerous talk (4.00 / 3)

This is the kind of talk that's going to cost Obama the election in November assuming he ends up winning the nomination.  It's ironic that you say Obama has run an upbeat positive campaign in the same post you attack Clinton and her supporters and then threaten to vote for McCain.  Don't you realize how counter-productive this is to Obama?

---

by: Brady @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 15:25:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How's that ironic? (4.00 / 2)

Obama can still run an upbeat campaign even while his supporters make dumb statements.

As far as counter-productive to a given candidate, perhaps it is having gone through all this idiocy in 2004...but what you or other posters say or do on the internet is going to have f*ck-all to do with what happens November...

You'll understand this as soon as you gain distance from the fever you have developed from the primary.

Don't believe me...I give you Kerry 2004. Immediately after he secured the nomination he raised huge sums of cash online and had more people showing up to help campaign than at any time in recent memory.

All the Hillbots and Obamiacts need to take a deep breath and realize that all you are doing on the internets doesn't mean a damn thing, and is most likely being done by people who won't get up off their ass to help even their candidate.

The true movers and shakers don't have time to be on the internets arguing over how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 17:26:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no attack and other points (0.00 / 0)

Fact: If super delegates give this thing to Clinton, and Obama has won more delegates, yes my friend, people will cross over and pull for McSame.

Exactly where is my so called attack. I did not mention Feraro or Bill's famous give me a break speech.

Read the post again and you tell me where I said I would cross over. I said a lot of us dems. I did not say I am going to cross over. And it will happen if this thing is ripped by the super delegates.

US DEMS = Liberal Democrats

US DEMS is not equal to what ever I would do. I clearly stated that I voted twice for Bill Clinton and that I would again and that means Mrs. Clinton for clarity. The winner of this fubared thing will get my democratic vote.

Please read closer and watch your own dangerous rush to judgement.

And Nazgul is correct, no race will be won on these intertubes.

The race will succeed with a clean fair race. I do think that the super delegates are unneccessary, unfair and make me think of a "caste" system where you have classes of voters. It is strange and divisive.

How can you not think that defying the will of the people = popular vote, will not alienate, divide and send away votes?

---

by: doxie53 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 21:57:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If BO loses the nomination do you think he will vote for McCain? (3.00 / 3)

Some Democrat you are!

---

by: Cole6015 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 18:35:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

But many others may stay home and wait four more years for a chance to get a different candidate.  Not that I will but some may if Obama is seen as having the nomination "stolen".

---

by: flivverking @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 19:17:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

38 years of democratic votes (0.00 / 0)

You cannot see the larger picture.

You also are wet behind the ears if you think that no one would cross over.

38 years of pulling the stick for the democrats makes me 100% democrat and you insolate.

---

by: doxie53 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 22:01:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think we're beginning to forget (4.00 / 4)

that 'Uncommitted' actually had somewhat of a movement and some form of ground work going on.  Clinton stayed good on her pledge to not campaign in the state, so keeping that frame of mind, she won without campaigning against an opponent who technically did a little campaign work.  Just my two cents, and believe me: I realize the issue is more complicated than this, but I think she deserves some credit.

---

by: nmudem21 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:01:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

She'll want to win in PA, MI and FL (4.00 / 1)

enough to catch up to Obama in total number of votes cast -- that way she can say she's on a roll, that she won most of the key states (Blue states and swing states), and that she got the most votes, even if the arcane delegate count is slightly in Obama's favor.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 00:16:28 AM UTC

Considering how far behind (4.00 / 1)

she is on every single one of those metrics, it would take a miracle at this point.

A very astute blogger points out that the indecision of Florida and Michigan's fates is what is keeping her campaign alive...once it is resolved one way or the other, the wheels come off very quickly.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:19:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It depends (4.00 / 1)

 

the indecision of Florida and Michigan's fates is what is keeping her campaign alive...once it is resolved one way or the other, the wheels come off very quickly.

If they re-do FL and MI, and she was able to win them 55-45 she'd probably net close to 60 delegates in the over-all count (once FL and MI "supers" are factored in).

I'd hardly call that "the wheels coming off".

(Of course, obviously, the re-dos and margins--in the event of a hypothetical re-do--are all speculation at this point.
But, dismissing out-of-hand the possiblity of any resolution, of the FL/MI situation, that would help Clinton, is premature.)  

"Those who attempt to censor free speech by filtering the Internet, are... the... TRUE... "tiny cats" of cyberspace."

---

by: detroit tiger @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 16:43:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So (4.00 / 1)

she cuts a near 200 delegate lead to 150...

Warm up the champagne...and there have already been people pouring over these numbers and you are way off on the percentage she would need to get to close a gap that large.

Quite frankly, the Super delegates are going to vote for whomever has the most delegates...and barring a complete collapse, that's going to be Obama, with or without Michigan and Florida re-dos.

You need to acknowledge the very steep hill Clinton has to climb to make her spin a reality.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 17:30:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're wrong (4.00 / 3)

she cuts a near 200 delegate lead to 150...

According to RCP the current delegate count is:
Obama 1628 (1415/213)
Clinton 1493 (1245/248)

It's all based on assumptions, obviously, the operative word being IF

A net of 55-60 out of FL/MI would cut the gap to around 75-80. (of course, this doesn't include PA or other states.)

there have already been people poring over these numbers and you are way off on the percentage she would need to get to close a gap that large.

Simply put, if FL/MI combined have 313 pledged delegates, a 55/45 split (obviously, hypothetical, BUT, what she would need to make a big dent), would net her about 32 delegates.
(Most estimates have her netting between 25-30 "supers" out of FL/MI), those are my numbers. (Obviously her best case--and still a thousand IFS)

Quite frankly, the Super delegates are going to vote for whomever has the most delegates

This is far from decided

...and barring a complete collapse, that's going to be Obama, with or without Michigan and Florida re-dos.

TOO early to rule out "complete collapse"

You need to acknowledge the very steep hill Clinton has to climb to make her spin a reality.

I agree, a VERY STEEP HILL--but, not as "impossible" as the Obama spin machine makes it out to be.


"Those who attempt to censor free speech by filtering the Internet, are... the... TRUE... "tiny cats" of cyberspace."

---

by: detroit tiger @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 18:20:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

obama "spin" machine? (0.00 / 0)

You are kidding?

---

by: doxie53 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 22:11:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In August the candidate who appears most likely to win the WH will take it. (4.00 / 2)

Forget the current delegate counts ... if either BO or HRC damage their reputation and fall into disgrace, those special 700+ delegates can move their votes around as needed and save the nomination.  

---

by: Cole6015 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 18:51:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Republicans cross over, (0.00 / 0)

Hillary wins a in a landslide.    

---

by: dkmich @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 16:51:08 PM UTC

Republican crossovers? (4.00 / 2)

 "dkmich" wrote:

If Republicans cross over,  
Hillary wins a in a landslide.    

Certainly, Hillary would probably benefit, somewhat, from a "mischief vote".
But, I don't think it would be quite as one-sideded as you might suggest. (A month ago, I would have agreed with your premise whole-heartedly).

However, there seems to be increasing evidence, that certain factions of the GOP party--especialy in light of the "preacher thing", his wife's percieved "anti-patriotic" statement, other things that serve up fodder ripe for a negative "527-swiftboat" campaign in the fall, etc...--are coming to the conclusion that they would rather run against Obama.

"Those who attempt to censor free speech by filtering the Internet, are... the... TRUE... "tiny cats" of cyberspace."

---

by: detroit tiger @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 17:19:44 PM UTC

Would you provide (4.00 / 1)

links to that "evidence?"

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 17:32:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just a sampling (4.00 / 2)

This kind of stuff that's been out there for a few weeks:

Barack Obama answers Democrats' longing for a candidate who is above politics, but he would probably lead them to disaster in November.
The nation's Obama swoon has eased, arrested by Hillary's swell of tears. But the force behind it gathers for resurgence....

Republicans would not necessarily share such qualms. What might their campaign look like? You needn't be a political consultant to imagine a pretty effective one. The natural point of approach, of course, would be the name. Can we acknowledge that no contemporary Trollope or Allen Drury seeking to dramatize the emergence of a talented half-African presidential contender would consider burdening his hero with a name that evokes both of America's best-known enemies in the War on Terror? It would be far too over the top for social realism.

As the Democratic presidential nominee, Obama could quickly become known as Barack Hussein Obama. Republican commercials and talk radio would guarantee it. Negative TV spots could be relatively banal, pointing to some liberal highlights from Obama's state legislature record-one very strong pro-abortion vote and another against people who used unregistered guns to protect their homes against intruders would do the trick. And then, a voiceover, intoning something like "Barack Hussein Obama-Right for America?" A colleague asserts that this would be seen as no more than a childish playground taunt, that by autumn Americans will be so acclimated to Obama's name that no repetition of it could weaken him. I doubt this. The political class, far more cosmopolitan than the rest of the country, has been intrigued with Obama for years. But by this summer, both parties will be playing to a broad electorate, in most cases more than twice the percentage of voters who turn out for a contested early state primary. Compared to primary voters, November voters are lower on the political awareness scale, less educated, less prosperous, less tuned in. Many will be forming an opinion about Barack Obama for the first time during and after the conventions, and branding him could be done comparatively quickly. Democrats in 1988 were astonished at how rapidly Michael Dukakis was "defined" by Willie Horton and how fast the Duke's double-digit lead in national polls evaporated. They of course knew that Dukakis was a competent and tested governor, a proven debater, no slouch on law and order. How could blue-collar voters not see this? Similarly, John Kerry's team found the Swiftboat charges so ludicrous they didn't deign to answer them. But, to the campaign's remorse, many voters found them believable enough. On what basis should we assume that white working-class voters (precisely those most resistant to Obama's electoral appeal thus far) would be completely unmoved by a campaign geared to question Obama's "American-ness"?

There is another vulnerability to Obama that his Democratic opponents would never exploit. Shelby Steele is right that America is more than ready for a black president and that Obama, in his present persona, does indeed embody "something that no other presidential candidate possibly can: the idealism that race is but a negligible human difference." Like Tiger Woods, the nation's most popular sports figure, he is a child of two races, embodying racial reconciliation in his very person. Hybridity, to use the fashionable academic term, is a growing phenomenon in America, driven by a burgeoning number of interracial marriages, visible in every large American city and even more so on elite college campuses. Obama is a natural beneficiary of this trend.

But while the quest for black identity is interesting on a human level, it is not necessarily the fodder of a mainstream presidential campaign. One of Obama's major stepping stones toward blackness was his membership in Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, a sprawling Afrocentric enterprise on Chicago's South Side. Obama first became involved with Wright as a poverty organizer and later joined the church, with its "black value system," "black freedom," black this and black that. Trinity United is an atavism of the 1960s, with all the ties anyone would care to find to Louis Farrakhan and Muammar Quadaffi.

Identity politics is always understandable and often forgivable. I know of no evidence that Trinity United Church harmed anyone, and it probably did many attendees a lot of good. Nevertheless, Obama's long-time membership gives rise to Steele's impassioned and eloquent question:

That he would join a church so steeped in blackness, with so many other churches available, only underscores his determination to be transparently black. How else to reconcile this church membership (and for over a decade) with the fact of his own family-his white mother, grandmother and grandfather. It was not a 'Black Value System' that prepared Obama so well for the world. Nor was it 'black community' or 'black family.' It was not black anything. One could more easily argue that his good luck was to be born into a white 'family,' 'community,' and 'value system.' ... So how can Barack Obama sit every week in a church preaching blackness and not object-not stand and proclaim that he was raised quite well, thank you, by three white Middle Westerners?
If that might be difficult to answer; the politics of it are not. Presumably they explain why, at the last moment, Obama cancelled plans to have Reverend Wright give the convocation at his campaign kickoff. A great part of Obama's appeal is his blend, his hybridity-a brand in danger of being undermined by his very biography. If Republicans want to link Obama to the kind of black nationalism that would make many of his would-be supporters (and not only them) uneasy, they have only to make Jeremiah Wright and his preachings well known in the months leading up to November. This would be denounced as race-baiting, and may indeed be unfair. My guess is that the present-day Obama has moved beyond the young man searching for ways to be authentically black and is now more in synch with the Ivy League intellectuals who have flocked to his banner than with Afrocentrists of the South Side. But politics is often unfair.

Perhaps the Republicans have so internalized political correctness that it would be unthinkable for them to chip away at Obama's character. But political parties, by their nature, want to win. John McCain has already opined, "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong," foreshadowing a campaign that emphasizes personality more than issues, terrain hardly favorable to Obama.

Obama's backers seem strangely overprotective of their man, as if they can't conceive how any fair-minded person would not adore him. The few times questions like those raised above have been posted in the comments section of the highbrow progressive blogs, the reaction has been visceral, immediate, strident: it is racist even to mention this stuff, a point pounded home in vitriolic terms. The intense repudiation of Bob Kerrey's rather innocuous observation about Obama's name and background was astonishing, suggesting not confidence but fear that a very tender area was being exposed. It would seem that they too worry that their poetic and exciting candidate may actually be far weaker than the polls show.

Mitt Romney on Sean Hannity Mar. 12, 2008

HANNITY: You are obviously still following the race closely here. Do you think that it is more likely at this point, this juncture, that Barack Obama gets the nod for the Democratic Party?

ROMNEY: I think so, and I hope so.

HANNITY: Why?

ROMNEY: I think he is more likely, just based on the delegate count, and I do not think that the super delegates would, in the final analysis, decide to turn away from the votes of the committed delegates that came to the electoral process.

And I am not a Democrat steeped on the ways of their voting, but it does look to me that at this stage Barack Obama is the more likely. I think he is the better match up for Senator McCain because the public recognizes just how inexperienced he is.

With Senator Clinton there is some confusion in perception, that somehow being there while her husband was president made her a foreign-policy, national security person. She is not. She does not have any more experience really of a significant nature than Barack Obama does.

But in Barack Obama's case, people recognize this guy was a state senator, and before that he was a community activist. He has been a United States Senator for a short, short period of time. He is in no significant way qualified to lead the country at a time of war, to lead the country out of an economic challenge. This is not a person you can stand up to Senator McCain.

HANNITY: What is interesting is that Hillary Clinton has been making the case to the media and to anyone who will listen that he has not had the scrutiny that most other candidates have had.

I think every candidate has been tested, and it is only in the last couple of weeks that there has been added scrutiny to Barack Obama.

I do this little thing both on television and radio, and I will go out and ask people, do you know the theme of Senator Obama's campaign. Almost every person will answer yes, it is about change.

Do you know one accomplishment he has ever had in his live, and not one person can answer the question. And in that case, I do not think there has been the scrutiny for Senator Obama that the other candidates have gotten.

Do you agree with that assessment?

ROMNEY: I think you hit the nail on the head, which is he really has not accomplished anything, not in the life prior to becoming an elected official. And then as a state senator, he was undistinguished as a U.S. senator, he has been undistinguished.

Now, he is an inspirational speaker, and that has given him a great deal of following and support. But in terms of accomplishment, there is not much there.

And so when you said, let's scrutinize his record, there is not much there to scrutinize. If you chose a college senior to be a nominee of their Party and you say let's scrutinize their record, well, there is no record. There is not much to look at.

And so in his case, the absence of a record means there is not a lot to poke at. But it is the absence of a record that I think will make it very clear to the American people you do not turn over the largest, most powerful nation on the earth to someone who has been unproven and untested.

HANNITY: It is interesting, because you are suggesting that he is the easier candidate to beat. But if you look at the polls right now, the polls would say that Hillary is the easier candidate for Senator McCain.

So you are saying that over time, this perception and this mantra of change is going to evaporate away and that there is going to be some real analysis of some significant issues, and the differences and distinctions between Senator Obama and Senator McCain.

ROMNEY: Yes, I think it will come down to the red phone. I think Hillary Clinton did the nation a big favor by reminded us of the significance of being the president of the United States.

And whether it is foreign policy, war, or our economy, people are going to recognize that you do what an inspirational speaker to motivate us from time to time, but the president of United States has to be a personal action, not just a person of words.

(Believe me, if this stuff is coming fron MItt Romney, just within the last few dats, it's a poiint of view shared by a significant portion of the GOP).

________________

As far as any other "evidence", I suggest you do your own research. I'm sure you've heard of google.

"Those who attempt to censor free speech by filtering the Internet, are... the... TRUE... "tiny cats" of cyberspace."

---

by: detroit tiger @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 18:05:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tell you what (4.00 / 1)

you keep letting the Republicans get inside your head about which candidate they would want to face...

They played this nonsense in 2004 and are doing it again...

Unfortunately there are enough Dems stupid enough to fall for it.

Here's an idea...and it just might work...stop listening to Republicans to consider the "electability" of the Democratic candidates.

The truth is, either one of them will kick McSleepys ass in November

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 15:34:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

During the Keith Oberman interview on Friday, BO admitted that he expects 527s to jump on the Jerimah Wright problem. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 18:55:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

527s (0.00 / 0)

If not the Jerimiah Wright issue then they will jump on the "Muslim" issue.  If not Obama then it's Whitewater, or "How long did she know Bill was cheating?" or "It's 3am" and footage Clinton crying.  If we are afraid of 527s then no Dem will win.

---

by: flivverking @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 19:11:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree (0.00 / 0)

Where's the facts?

---

by: doxie53 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 22:05:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

See if MSNBC has a clip of the BO interview with Oberman. BO is expecting 527 ads about Rev. Wright. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 22:55:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama, Clinton vs McSame probably isn't relevant in Big Picture (4.00 / 1)

No matter which of our Dems is nominated the GOP attack machine will exploit the soft spots.  With Obama it's name, race etc. With Clinton it's Billary, health care fiasco, gender etc.  Probably a tossup either way.  Obama would likely be stronger for downticket candidates, particularly those in districts with significant African American voters in typically low turnout precincts like CD9 (Pontiac).  So I would give him the edge overall in terms of turnout pluses for Dems. So the choice for me really comes down to which candidate works best for my particular values, and that's Obama hands down.    

---

by: LiberalBubba @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 19:53:56 PM UTC

How are Obam's values (4.00 / 4)

so different from Clinton's that it's no contest to you? While I see a big difference in their personalities I do not see that great a difference in their values. For me the differences in their takes on the Iraq war, abortion, health care, environment, education are quite small.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 21:04:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hillary values are... (0.00 / 0)

1.  Voting to send thousands of Americans and Iraqis to the grave in an immoral war without even bother to read the NIE report. Somehow 22 other senators got it right, but Clinton's vote was a political calculation.  Barack Obama, while not having the opportunity to vote on the war, spoke out loudly against it.  I would call that a difference in values.

2. Voting in support of the bankruptcy 'reform' bill favored by the banking and credit card industries who ply her campaign with hefty contributions. That law has predictably resulted in gouging by credit card companies using usery level interest rates to generate cash flow to cover their failed subprime mortgage investments.  Obama voted against the bill.  I would call that a difference in values.

3. Doing anything--whatever it takes, even using race--to win because power is the driving value in your politics.  

I don't want to engage in Dem bashing, michmark, but you did ask.  

---

by: LiberalBubba @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 23:07:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If there is a video of Obama in church during inflammatory sermon....its over (4.00 / 2)

  You can be sure that the right media is scouring the past 20 years of video right now to see if Senator Obama was there during Rev. Wright's rants damning America. I think that if they find it they will wait until after the convention when he gets the nomination.
 Then the 527's ads will sprout up and it will make the swiftboating seem like a love fest. This has me greatly concerned.
 The angry message that Rev. Wright puts forth is so different from what Obama has said during his campaign. It could be devestating to Obama and the democrats

---

by: tom in dexter @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 22:13:39 PM UTC

Yeah...it's over (4.00 / 1)

Look how much it hurt McCain hugging an anti-catholic, anti-semitic evangelical minister...

It will only "work" if you are willing to base your decision to support a candidate for president on something as stupid as what a minister may or may not have said.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 15:36:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

that's the WHOLE point (4.00 / 1)

It will only "work" if you are willing to base your decision to support a candidate for president on something as stupid as what a minister may or may not have said.

There are a boatload of mis-informed idiots prepared to do just that.

"Those who attempt to censor free speech by filtering the Internet, are... the... TRUE... "tiny cats" of cyberspace."

---

by: detroit tiger @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 18:41:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then be mad at them (0.00 / 0)

and not Obama...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:15:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're all missing the BIG picture (0.00 / 0)

Any idiot can go on a blog and regurgitate the daily spin of the communications director of their preferred candidate.

The trick is to apply some ORIGINAL ANALYSIS to how you see things playing out.

That fact is NIETHER Obama nor Clinton can win the general election.

(If either is nominated, a core constituency is alienated, and, their positions irreconcilable.)

The "Supers" better be praying that Gore is willing to consider the nomination to save the party, or, the Dems lose in November for certain.

Both Hillary and Obama are probably fatally-flawed candidates at this point.

The opportunity in November is TOO fragile to throw a non-traditional candidate on the top of the ticket.

NEWSFLASH--
If Obama is the nominee White Male Democrats flock to McCain using race as a factor.
If Clinton is the nominee White Male Democrats flock to McCain using gender as a factor.

The Dems will lose the crucial swing vote, and, the election.


"Those who attempt to censor free speech by filtering the Internet, are... the... TRUE... "tiny cats" of cyberspace."

---

by: detroit tiger @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 23:20:54 PM UTC

Uh, No (4.00 / 2)

White Male Dems aren't that important for a Dem victory, to begin with.

Second, McCain is a terrible national candidate:  short, bald, old, with melanoma and a bad temper.  Oh, and he wants US troops to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

Third, come November, we'll be waste-deep in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  There is simply no way the Republicans hang on to win with $4/gallon gasoline.

The opportunity isn't "fragile".  Gore will not be the nominee.    Obama will be the president in ten months.

---

by: JB2 @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 00:00:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

White male Democrats (4.00 / 1)

NEWSFLASH--
If Obama is the nominee White Male Democrats flock to McCain using race as a factor.
If Clinton is the nominee White Male Democrats flock to McCain using gender as a factor.

If you really believe that then it would seem to me that you are saying that white male Democrats(of which I am one) tend to be misogynistic racists. Please correct me if I took that wrong. If that is true then God help us. Does anyone else believe that is true?

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 00:53:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama will win Michigan (0.00 / 0)

I've seen a lot of handwringing about Rev. Wright, but no evidence that this issue has made or will make a difference for Senator Obama.  Al Giordano has argued persuasively that this will be a net positive, given that a significant number of people out there still think Obama is a Muslim.

As far as the 527's and all that - well who cares?  If it wasn't this, it'd be something else.  And if there was nothing real to slime Obama with, then the Rethugs would just make something up.  They've done it before.  The important part is, how skillfully does the candidate (and his campaign) respond?  So far, it appears that Obama and his team are the best we've ever seen.

As far as a Michigan Primary in June - can someone explain to me how Clinton could ever win a fair fight in Michigan?  Assuming that Obama wins his usual 90% of the A-A vote, and a sizable chunk of the upscale liberals who've delivered the state for Gore, Kerry, and Granholm (twice), I don't see how Obama doesn't win by 10 or more.  Michigan just doesn't have the Appalachian-type Dems that Ohio does.

---

by: JB2 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 23:52:53 PM UTC

Appalachian-type Dems (4.00 / 2)

Hey JB2 time to tone it down. You can be all excited about your candidate but really bashing Ohio voters to prove your case, come on. Why doesn't your candidate just win PA and end the race? Or does PA have Appalachian style Dems too?

What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?

---

by: janeenr @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:38:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If by (1.00 / 1)

Appalachian style Desm he means racists Democratic voters (AKA Reagan Democrats, Blue Collar Democrats, SOuthern Democrats), than yes...Pennsylvania has its fair share of these folks...as it's own governor suggested.

Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh and Philly with Mississippi in between.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 15:39:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hey (4.00 / 2)

booooooooooo you can't label all Reagan Democrats, Blue Collar Democrats and Southern Democrats as racists. All white voters in Mississippi aren't racists. Come on. My folks grew up in rural PA. I know it well. Not much different than rural MI. Are you going to tell me rural MI democrats are racists too?

What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?

---

by: janeenr @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 17:11:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope (0.00 / 0)

but if I had to pick a petri dish where they bread, I would pick those elements, as I too spent a considerable amount of time in PA...

But some of the more strident areas of racism are located in the North (Boston)...so it is hard to pick one group other than whites that are responsible for racist attitudes toward minorities.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:14:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bishop's right about the financing (0.00 / 0)

The state of Michigan shouldn't lend the MDP money.

So, how much does it cost?

Where does the money come from?

When is it paid, and to whom?

---

by: China Mig @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:56:42 AM UTC

If the $$ isn't in the coffers well in advance ... no primary. No loans. No IOUs. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:59:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This delayed nomination of Obama may be a good thing for him ... (4.00 / 1)

may help him get better prepared for the snot the Republicans will fling.

Hillary still doesn't have a chance in hell - thank God.  Those DLC hacks that the Clinton's birthed ruined the Democratic Party for over a decade.

---

by: jimwhitaker @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:17:56 AM UTC

Too Many Obsticles to Redo (0.00 / 0)

So who gets to vote in a Michigan do-over anyway?  All voters from last round?  Dems from last round only?  Is is wide open for all registered voters, even if they voted in the Republican primary already?  The answers to these questions will prove to be the undoing of the "re-do."  

---

by: Bluesman Johnson @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 15:56:10 PM UTC