-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/slate-can-we-please-stop-pretending-she.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
i like it.
So tell me again. How many delegates does Obama have? How many is he projected to have after all the primary votes are counted? Gee math sure is hard.
"I will not consider anyone the winner until a candidate achieves 2,025 delegates"
So tell me again. How many delegates does Obama have? How many is he projected to have after all the primary votes are counted? Gee math sure is hard.
What a radical thought... The One actually winning the required delegates.
Expect incoming fire from supporters of The One.
If Hillary steals this nomoination... we should "Black out the vote" and combine across racial and ethnic lines to protest the outcome. We can effect what happens in this country... and I do not care what anyone tells me "what is important"... nothing..., nothing trumps the racial divide in this nation. This nomination is a testament to how deep it is... and just how much power brokers will use it to leverage us.
BLACK OUT THE VOTE!
Even that pitiful hack Charlie Gibson appeared on Diane Sawyer's mourning nooz this week to bravely say, with nary a sniffle, his asinine debate questions were not the ravings of a hack hand puppet...And, if you can't take the word of a two-faced hack hand puppet at one-face value, what's good journalisming going to do???
(old slang meaning 'drunk' for a certain generation, hahah)
http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uBGyuYKlxIg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fJR44p1yESg
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14335
Like I said before, if the Democrats refuse to investigate vote fraud now during the primaries, they won't be able to do so later in November. :-(
There's going to be hell to pay if they nominate Clinton and piss off all those voters.
I really don't think voters give a damn about Obama's ex-pastor Wright, yet he's the only topic of concern to TV pundits. The neocon-corp media promoted this illegal war and the media remains complicit in our being stuck in Iraq. I hope most voters don't get their news from mainstream media, especially Fox News, whose owner is a hack for China.
Dumb down 300 million American viewers, and gain 1.3 billion Chinese viewers.
Politics aside, Murdoch is a media man. Viewers are viewers.
Hillary's the Toughest Guy on the Block
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14311
----------
Larry Johnson's a piece of work; so is Valerie Plame's husband.
They don't just endorse or praise Hillary, they try to attack Obama every chance they get.
I'm sure they've both been promised jobs by Billary.
Because she has already lost by the math!
Because she is polarizing figure!
Because she is a divisive person!
Because of her “anything to win” tactics!
Because of her dirty and smear campaign against her rival!
Because she is typical Washington double-talker!
Because she thinks Presidency as her birth right!
Because she voted for the shameful war in Iraq!
Because she lies often!
Because she is countable being!
Because she unifies all the Republicans against her!
Because she can’t bring the independent votes!
Because she can’t bring any republican votes!
Because she represents the big money!
Because she represents the special interests!
Because she takes money from the lobbies!
Because she is “business as usual”
Because she is the establishment in Washington!
Because she is not the “CHANGE” we are waiting for!
Why Barack Obama is our next President:
Because he says “We” than “I”!
Because he did it – he created a movement for Change!
Because he is true and warm person!
Because there is nothing fake about him!
Because he is intelligent!
Because he is not involved with the big money!
Because he is not involved with the special interests!
Because he is great orator!
Because he was against the shameful war from the beginning!
Because he excites the young people!
Because he is energizing youth for service!
Because he is most likeable outside US!
Because all the world want him to be President of USA!
Because he is the best personality for this job!
Because such person comes once in every 40 years!
Because he is the real Change in Washington!
Because he is an exceptional human being!
Because Yes He Can!
Because Yes We Can with him!
If Hillary is the nominee she's 100% lost against GOPs!!
If Obama is the nominee he’s the Next President of USA!!
About McSame….No Comment! After GWB-Lost Card!!
Please, do realize this simple fact....
VOTE OBAMA-END THE DRAMA, MAKE ALL THE WORLD BETTER WITH BARACK OBAMA AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!
A White, Male, Obama supporter & Hungry For Some PRINCIPLES!!
Your cite yesterday about stephanopolis considering suicide if clinton didn't win really got me. What a loser the little turd is...
It's quite simple.
Clinton has 1332 pledged delegates.
Add 198 more delegates (55% of remaining -- a stretch but doable)
Add 17 delegates from John Edwards' 26 delegates
That gives her 1547.
Then, add 60% of the Superdelegates (478), and you get 2025.
Remember, there is no such thing as a pledged superdelegate -- they are free to change their mind at any time.
It's a bit of a stretch, but it's not quite a fairy tale. And it's definitely doable. If it was mathematically impossible, Clinton would not stay in the race -- and Howard Dean/DNC would tell her to stop.
(Of course, throw in MI and FL and it's even easier for her).
that will only help Obama.
HILLARY HAS LOST THE ENTIRE BLACK VOTE....POSSIBLY FOREVER !!!This is the message currently being sent by blacks to the DNC (and the superdelegates)in great numbers. There is NO WAY Hillary will defeat McCain without the support of Black America aka the guaranteed Democratic vote. Please read Huffington Posts story on how the Hillary Camp has been feeding Obama attacks TO THE GOP !!!!! What a traitor to the Democratic Party !!!!!!!! For those who didn't know, Hillary started her campaign with 82% of the black support. But as Blacks learned more about her (Goldwater Girl...possibly Against Civil Rights Act '64....It was LBJ...Not MLK....etc) combined with Bill's (...fairy tale....Jessie Won S.C. too...etc.)...blacks were shocked beyond repair. (remember....we luved Bill so much we called him 'The First Black President')....but never again....WHERE'S THAT STORY.
And if the DNC thinks.....'ohhhhhh....the blacks will be angry at first...but they'll come around'.....then they don't know the severity of what the Clinton's have done....This has nothing to do with Obama !!!! We (blacks) have awakened to the truth about the Clintons......and with more exposure like the recent Huff story re: Hill's feeding the GOP Obama smears...our friends of ALL races will awaken soon !!!!!!!!!...THAT'S THE REAL STORY !!!!
Greg Jones
www.Blacks4Barack.org
(A Multi-Racial, Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth)
p.s. Blacks4Barack.org was started in Feb. 2007 (by Greg Jones) because of the fact that VERY few blacks were for Obama at that time.....they were ALL for Hillary !!!!! We knew that Obama was the best person to run our country and bring our troops home and that is why we started our grassroots organization with a mission to increase black voter registration and to invigorate support for Obama. (Not because he's black...but because he's most qualified) The more black voters learned about Obama...the more they liked him....and the more they learned about the Clintons....the angrier they got !!!!!!!!!!!!!! We are appreciative of our friends of ALL races....who are working together....for the very best candidate....to put America on the right track.....Barack Obama ! THANK YOU !
As a white Independent, I stand with you. I'm sure many other Americans do as well.
OBAMA 2008. YES WE CAN!
Since January, the Clintons have pummeled Barack Obama with racially tinged comments and questions about his character.
The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much.
On the other hand, black Democrats’ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).
While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways.
If Hillary Clinton should defy the odds (and the current math) and secure the nomination, she would be hard-pressed to defeat John McCain without the enthusiastic support of black voters, stalwarts of the Democratic base.
Getting that support could now be tricky.
It is no wonder then that McCain is making a place at the table for possible defectors, however unlikely. He began his “forgotten places” tour in Alabama’s Black Belt by literally dancing into the arms of an elderly black woman as she sang the gospel hymn “Do, Lord, Remember Me.”
Remember that moment if you ever see a bumper sticker that reads, “Repulsed into voting Republican.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/opinion/03blo...
And so, I just wanna close by saying a little bit of something about my values, my character, why I'm here. You know I was born to a teenage mother. My father left when I was two. So I was raised by a single mom and my grandparents, grandparents who were born in a small town in Kansas, during the Great Depression. They didn't have a lot. And when Pearl Harbor was bombed, my grandfather joined the army and left my grandmother with a new baby and she worked on an bomber assembly line while he fought in Europe in Patton's army. And when he came back, part of that arsenal of democracy--there was a government there who understood that if we invest in these young GI's coming home, we might build the middle class. So he got a GI bill that allowed him go to college. And there was a government that understood that if we loan families enough money to buy their own home, that will boost the economy, and it won't just be good for the economy, it will be good for families. And so they bought their first home with the help of an FHA loan. And as that little baby, my mother, got bigger, and she was ready for college, there was financial aid there to make sure that even though they didn't have a lot of money, she could get a good education. And when I got a little bit older, even though my mother didn't have a lot of money herself, she was able to provide me with the best education possible. And when after school I met my wife, it turned out she had the same story--a father who worked as a shift worker for the city and never went to college. A mother who worked as a secretary for the city and never went to college. And yet somehow they were able to support two children and buy a home and send their kids to college and retire with some dignity and respect.
And so I understand that I am here before you today, just as my wife would be, as the beneficiary of everything that is good about this country. My story is not possible except in the United States of America. I could not be here were it not for the fact that somebody, somewhere stood up for me. And because one person stood up, a few more stood up, and then a thousand stood up, and then a million stood up. That's why Hillary Clinton can run for president. That's why I can run for president. Because somebody stood up, and the question now is, will the Democratic party stand up for the next generation? That's my patriotism. That's why I'm running for President. Those are my values; those are your values, North Carolina. That's what we're fighting for in this election, and if you'll stand with me, if you'll vote for me, I promise you, we will not just win this nomination, we will win this general election. And you and I together will change this country and change this world. God bless you. God bless America.”
Obama's Closing at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner
What an exceptional man…..
A White, Male, Obama supporter & Hungry For Some PRINCIPLES!!
I'm was registered as an independent for more than 20 years. However I registered as a dem too vote for Obama in the PA primary.
I will proudly vote for him again this November. I sincerely hope the DEM establishment doesn't screw things up.
New Photos Reveal Atomic "Obliteration" Of Hiroshima
(GRAPHIC IMAGES)
http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/smalloy/atomic_trag...
Too bad it did not work out for her;
like it did the horse trainer Dutrow, who called it and just won the Kentucky Derby. Usually this is very hard to pull off and then people think you are just an overconfident ass.
Just as an aside, I could not pretend to know the varried reasons why people visit this site. Perhaps it is to connect with other die-hard supporters of Mr. Obama, which is completely valid. Perhaps it is to connect with others who are primarily against Mrs. Clinton in their dispostion. But it is clearly not for political discourse or an actual discussion of what is going on in the Democratic Party, or with democrats themselves. You continually ignore, belittle and attempt to marginalize HALF-AN ENTIRE HALF-of the party you belong to, and deem them unfit voters or bewildered elderly people or, the best one, racists. Why you you want to belong to a group who you feel so vhemently opposed to half, not a small fraction or passive minority, but a statistcal half of the group is beyond me.
The entire tone here is so Orwellian. I am seriously just waiting for stories to be posted that say nothing but: Breaking News! Obama Good. Hillary Baaaaaaad.
Given the rules set out by the DNC, in tandem with the current public view of superdelegates voting in a manner that overturns the popular vote, the scenario described by you does equate stealing the nomination. Just because you want to believe Sen. Clinton should win the nomination doesn't make it true. Nor is it Orwellian for one to wonder why people support her or her policies when they, under close scrutiny, do not serve to protect our better interests or truly align with democratic principles. It's the same question many asked when the masses voted against their better good by re-electing George Bush.
For instance, Sen. Clinton's promise that her health care plan provides universal coverage doesn't make the claim true, and when examined by those of us in the healthcare industry it becomes blatantly obvious that not only is it NOT universal coverage, but it doesn't serve to protect individuals from the escalating cost of health care. That's a problem that NEEDS to be discussed; however, her supporters call it Hillary bashing. The gas tax holiday is symbolic of the same problem - it is a bad idea, it's been done many times before, and we know that historically the savings is not passed on to the consumer, and it's a step that ultimately leads to an increase in the cost of gas and oil. Her campaign would like Amerians to believe it's a gesture of good faith meant to show her compassion towards our struggles, but it's a stop-gap bandaid approach that allows the deeper wound to fester. Discussing the reality of the proposal and its consequences is, again, necessary and vitally important, but her supporters thrash those of us who try to discuss it.
Oh, I see. It depends on what the definition of "can't" is? Or "can't" means "won't?" But isn't that really just the same thing?
And I think it's just classic that you sum it all up by impling that Mrs. Clinton is a "bad guy" bent on destroying the party and that her campaign is about destroying hope and change. You made my point for me: Whether you want to admit it or not, just as many democrats think Mrs. Clinton would be as good a president as Mr. Obama. That fact is clearly lost here.
"“I’ll be out across the country. We’re beginning to run out of time, but I’ve been campaigning and traveling,” Kennedy (D-Mass) said at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library yesterday. “I’m hopeful of what the outcome will be in those states.”"
""blackantiamericanmuslimelitist"-Hillary"
Unfortunately, that's the tactic that the GOP will use, to much greater effect.
Actually, she's been doing pretty well lately. Seems to be on the rise.
"Stealing" would be if the superdelegates plumped for Sen. Obama before the convention delegates even have a chance to cast their first official vote.
I must agree that too often this blog has become little more than a contest to see who can say the outrageous thing about Sen. Clinton. Particularly egregious is the "she voted for Iraq" statement used against Sen. Clinton. She has also voted for all the appropriations since, as has Sen. Obama since his election. So, please, don't go all "he's a different type of politician" on me, he's shown that he isn't. He does give very good speeches, though.
Again, commenters here make my point for me over and over again. I have never once said that I support Mrs. Clinton or "want to believe" that she should win the nomination. The great thing about Disqus is that you can actually go back and check--I'm not just making that up. However, you are not the first poster here to label me pro-Clinton, just because I recognize the reality that she could legitimately win the nomination.
And if the superdelegates vote in a way that goes against the "current public view" of what their role should be, why do they even exists? Souldn't the nominee just be then whoever has the most delegates at the end of the last primary? That, however, is not the system in place. My point is that both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, in order to secure the nomination, have to win the superdelegates. I have never mentioned word one about the pledged delegates, other than the mechanism and mathematics to choose them seem, to me, to be pretty arbitrary. I can honeslty see the superdelegates, the leaders of the Democratic Party, looking beyond any marginal delegate or popular vote lead (of either candidate) to other factors when deciding who should be the leader of the party. This is not a general election. This is a social group/political party having its own internal contest. If one candidate wins one more vote than the other, I don't think any serious leader would look at that statistic and call for it to be outcome determinative.
And I think your analysis of two of Mrs. Clinton's policy suggestions is great. Topical, on point, and based in facts. However, the foucus here has not generally been on such topics, but rather "botched" photo-ops, perceived "lies", accusations of racism, and the general demonization of one candidate over the other. This has included a complete 180 in terms of the gay issue, which is most important to me. Not too long ago this entire blog was up in arms over Mr. Obama's association and promotion of an ex-gay gospel singer at his own rally. All of that has been magically forgiven, yet we've now been called to arms over a "pansey" comment by a Clinton surrogate, and are supposed to believe that the Clintons are somehow anti-gay.
I think what my overall problem with this is that I find it supremely hypocritical coming from the "hope and change" people to engage in the same exact behavior they decry. Personally, I have no problem with tough politics. It's a tough world. People have to fight for what they want in this world, and politicans or nation-states are no different. We have been witness to tough politics since the birth of our democracy. Why is it now such a bad thing? It is the same kind of hypocracy that I detest in the religious right and all the rethugs who claim one thing and do another.
I agree with you that intelligent discussion is the way to go. I just don't think that is the tone set here anymore. I mean, for Ablog to claim that Mrs. Clinton should pull out, be ashamed of herself, is destroying the party, can't feasibly win--it's just not an intelligent conversation. It's propoganda.
the democratic party can survive all this.
she can't.
Actually, I realized I lumped my response to you with a response to another blogger who expanded on your original post - so, my apologies. You are absolutely correct that you didn't say half of what I attributed to you.
In point of fact, I agree with most - if not all - of what you said about the focus here and on other blogs, and I perceive it as a problem on BOTH sides of the fence. Obstinate refusal to concede any good points about the other candidate is rediculous, and harms the dem party unity greater, as does obstinate refusal to admit when the candidate you support makes a huge gaffe. I do not support Obama b/c I love everything he does, says or proposes. I support him b/c he makes me think, and often when I dislike a policy proposal of his, with further analysis I can see how it would garner bipartisan support and GET something done. I am sick of living in a stalemate and watching our country die due to inaction! We are suffering from decades of the consequences of default decisions b/c our two parties refuse to work together.
The point of Slate's comment, IMHO, is pertinent and relative to the whole bitter comment and the idea that politician's and the media distract us with emotion laden Civil rights issues. The more the MSM portrays the idea as valid that she has an arguable chance of catching up to and surpassing Obama in the race for delegates, the more they promote the politics of old. What a refreshing and novel thing it would be if they simply stated the truth - she can't catch up and it's all about the superdelegates - nuff said.
So let's deal with reality in terms of the superdelegate vote. I didn't suggest the supers weren't created to 'vote their conscience' and pick who they felt exemplified the better candidate; I simply stated that party leaders have suggested the public backlash the party will experience makes that more than unpalatable and should NOT happen. I happen to agree with that sentiment, and given elected officials' tendency towards politically expedient voting - I don't think it will happen. My agreement with the sentiment doesn't make it true, I get that, but the geeky, mathematical statistician side of me says it's pretty unlikely that ENOUGH of the superdelegates won't vote against political sentiment - sure it's possible, but unlikely.
I did think your reference to delegates included both pledged and supers, and perhaps that's a result of what's been happening here in Colorado. (Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.) At the county, congressional district and state levels her campaign is actively pursuing pledged delegates to switch their vote. I'm an Obama delegate to state, and I find the calls to switch reprehensible. I sat down and did the math - my vote at county represented the votes of 20 people in my precinct, at our cd and state conventions exponentially more. In what world is it ethical or moral for me to switch my vote, thereby disregarding the votes of many? What does it say about her campaign, and her notion of how to conduct herself politically, that she feels good about this practice? I made my decision about who to support based on policy issues, but find the longer this campaing goes on that I dislike her for her political practices as well.