I still think Hillary has a chance, because Obama has so many flaws that I don't think he can win, and Hillary arguably can.
My concern is, that Obama probably won't implode until it's too late. (Although for McCain, that's a good thing, that will hand him a victory.)
The difference between Hillary and Obama is about a 1% difference, and since Obama can't clearly win without superdelegates, supporters of either will feel cheated if their candidate loses, because ultimately the superdelegates will be handing victory to one or the other in a backroom deal that bypasses the will of Democrat voters.
One other thing that I thought was summed up well in this editorial, as quoted by Hillary herself:
As she visited the Pennsylvania polls the morning of the election Hillary Clinton taunted her opponent, asking “Why can’t he close the deal?” She got going early in the spin wars, commenting:
“A win is a win, especially under the circumstances when my opponent has outspent me probably 3 to 1, maybe 4 to 1, an enormous effort on his part on TV and radio on the phone, every way that is imaginable try to win Pennsylvania.”
But she needn’t have fretted about the margin of victory. With over 75% of the vote tabulated, she had built an impressive ten point lead and cleared the hurdle most of the self-appointed pundits in the MSM [mainstream media] had set for her, no doubt hoping their favorite son candidate Barack Obama could have at least managed to keep his loss to low single digits.
When you consider the margin by which Obama is outspending Hillary, she should be throughly trounced. But she's not. Which indicates that all the money in the world can't push Obama over the top.
The same situation as McCain vs. Romney. Except I think Romney, despite all his money, took too long to figure out what to campaign on, and reach voters with that message. Whereas Obama going forward is just hypocritical and scandal-laden. And in light of Obama's series of contradictions and gaffs, it is truly him that has kept Hillary going, and no one else.
It was a 9 point lead she ended up with. that's down from a roughly 20 point lead in a state that she had long ago been predicted to win big.
People can try to minimize Obama but when it came own to it, he halved her victory in a state where everything demographic-wise was heavily in her favor. And that was no small feat. At the end of the day, this 'victory' doesn't improve her chances, it just drags this thing out even longer. Even if Hillary loses every other contest, and even if she does pretty good, it's not going to change the fact that Hillary is going to take this to the convention no matter what in hopes that she can change the rules to her favor.
An over 9% (or 9.2 %, to use your numbers) vs. a 10% victory is a very thin and piddly distincion.
That Obama was spending "three, maybe four times" the campaign funds that Hillary won with, I think demonstrates --again-- that Obama cannot buy victory, no matter how much he spends.
An over 9% (or 9.2 %, to use your numbers) or 10% victory is a very thin and piddly distincion.
That Obama was spending "three, maybe four times" the campaign funds that Hillary won with, I think demonstrates --again-- that Obama cannot buy victory, no matter how much he spends.
I seriously doubt that the Democratic Party is going to tell the black voters who voted for Obama that their votes aren't going to count.
it's not as if they are from michigan or florida!
But Michigan and Florida voters were told before hand that their votes wouldn't amount to anything because their delegates weren't going to be seated. That's vastly different from deciding after the fact to ignore votes that were legitimate and supposed to decide the nomination.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
I seriously doubt that the Democratic Party is going to tell the black voters who voted for Obama that their votes aren't going to count.
it's not as if they are from michigan or florida!
But Michigan and Florida voters were told before hand that their votes wouldn't amount to anything because their delegates weren't going to be seated. That's vastly different from deciding after the fact to ignore votes that were legitimate and supposed to decide the nomination.
so as long as youre told ahead of time your vote doesnt matter it's okay?
so as long as youre told ahead of time your vote doesnt matter it's okay?
The debate about whether it was right or wrong of the DNC not to seat the delegates from those states is another matter. But I'd have to say that you have a greater chance of damaging your constituency by alienating a crowd that spans the entire country by discounting their votes afterwards than you do by pissing off voters in just two states who were told ahead of time that their delegates weren't going to be seated.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
but Democrat's have known for years that Super Delegate's aren't bound by any results and are given their votes to do as they choose, so by you logic no one should be upset, because their votes will count for seating delegates, it would just be that they were out voted via the super delegates.
The problem for the superdelegates is that many, if not most, of them are politicians in their own right. For example, until he had to resign, Eliot Spitzer was a superdelegate. Their own livelihoods depend on staying in the good graces of their own constituents.
A superdelegate from a state or district that voted for Obama (or vice versa) has a perfectly legal right to vote for Hillary (or vice versa). However, by doing so, he or she risks pissing off his or her own constituents, regardless of whether that ire is justified.
MI and FL are a different situation. There, the superdelegates aren't the ones making the call. It's the DNC leadership (ex: Howard Dean). The leadership doesn't have to answer to a voting constituency. The people who might get pissed off (that is, the voters in those states) have no direct say about Dean or anyone else running the DNC.
Superdelegates were really an unknown to the public until this election. It wasn't until it looked like noone was going to get the magic number of delegates from the primaries and caucuses that the media began to discuss and reveal the whole superdelegate scene. Besidee, as unpopular as the Michigan and Florida decisions are, you can't compare the fallout from publicly rejecting elections before they're held due to violations of party rules to the cluster fuck the DNC will have by kicking to the curb the black candidate who won the most primaries/caucuses and popular votes (even if you count Michigan and Florida) in backroom deals. That'd be a clusterfuck on an epic scale. Forget the 2000 Florida debacle. This'd be a shitstorm that'd fuck the DNC good.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Doc your not making sense. In my opinion there shouldnt be super delegates. If there is they should be required to vote with the majority of voters.
On the same token the voters of Michigan and Florida should have their votes count.
But for you to say it's fair to not count their votes because of party rules, but not fair for super delegates to vote for who they choose according to party rules is a bit hypocritical dont you think?
You talked about votes not counting, and actually in your scenario only Florida and Michigan wouldn't count.
Your opinion supposedly is based on the party rules, yet you only want to apply it to Michigan and Florida and not the rest of the country.
The problem for the superdelegates is that many, if not most, of them are politicians in their own right. For example, until he had to resign, Eliot Spitzer was a superdelegate. Their own livelihoods depend on staying in the good graces of their own constituents.
A superdelegate from a state or district that voted for Obama (or vice versa) has a perfectly legal right to vote for Hillary (or vice versa). However, by doing so, he or she risks pissing off his or her own constituents, regardless of whether that ire is justified.
MI and FL are a different situation. There, the superdelegates aren't the ones making the call. It's the DNC leadership (ex: Howard Dean). The leadership doesn't have to answer to a voting constituency. The people who might get pissed off (that is, the voters in those states) have no direct say about Dean or anyone else running the DNC.
So, what doc says makes a lot of sense.
you misunderstood my point or maybe ignored it, i wasnt talking about what made political sense for a super delegate but commenting on the fact that doc said that the "black" vote wouldnt count when in fact it would, it's just they would be out voted.
Doc your not making sense. In my opinion there shouldnt be super delegates. If there is they should be required to vote with the majority of voters.
I agree 100%
Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts
On the same token the voters of Michigan and Florida should have their votes count.
I don't deny that either.
Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts
But for you to say it's fair to not count their votes because of party rules, but not fair for super delegates to vote for who they choose according to party rules is a bit hypocritical dont you think?
You talked about votes not counting, and actually in your scenario only Florida and Michigan wouldn't count.
Your opinion supposedly is based on the party rules, yet you only want to apply it to Michigan and Florida and not the rest of the country.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the DNC has a better position to rebound from the fallout regarding Michigan and Florida. They can use the rules as their shield, especially since it is contained to only those two states. However, if they choose Clinton over Obama, it goes beyond the rules with that. Yes, the superdelegates are part of the rules, but then the DNC will have to justify why the superdelegates went with Clinton over Obama. It becomes more than just rules. It becomes a race and class issue. Considering the DNC is supposed to be for the 'common man' and minorities, it'll fuck the party over big time. So, again, it's not just about the rules; it's about how the public will perceive the actions of the DNC.
Personally, I think that primaries (not caucuses) should be the standard for every election and that all 50 states and US territories and commonwealths should hold their elections on the exact same day. Get it all done at once and prevent the common occurrence of candidates just campaigning in the early voting states while ignoring the rest of the country.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
I believe so. I'm not giving the DNC the okay for not seating Michigan and Florida. In fact, I don't want to touch that subject. All I'm saying is that they will have a much harder time justifying giving Clinton the nom over Obama than they will not seating those delegates. The act will seem more as a stab in the back to the black voters that have helped them so much over the years.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
on the flip side, Florida has been very very close the last 2 elections, and if that alienates even 2% of the democrat voters that could tip the electoral win for the Republican candidate.
On a funnier note, I was listening to a 'political analyst' who said that Hillary was winning the suburban, white mothers and that Obama needed to find a way of taking the white women.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
All I'm saying is that they will have a much harder time justifying giving Clinton the nom over Obama than they will not seating those delegates. The act will seem more as a stab in the back to the black voters that have helped them so much over the years.
Blacks have been the most reliable demographic supporters of the Democrats for decades, and consistently vote about 90% Democrat, in election after election, so I guess that shouldn't surprise me. So I do agree that Democrats would be very reluctant from this perspective to alienate black voters by not picking Obama for the nomination.
the DNC has a better position to rebound from the fallout regarding Michigan and Florida. They can use the rules as their shield, especially since it is contained to only those two states. However, if they choose Clinton over Obama, it goes beyond the rules with that. Yes, the superdelegates are part of the rules, but then the DNC will have to justify why the superdelegates went with Clinton over Obama. It becomes more than just rules. It becomes a race and class issue. Considering the DNC is supposed to be for the 'common man' and minorities, it'll fuck the party over big time.
Dem: Clinton Dooming Us. Top black congressman slams Bill Clinton, warns racially-charged Democratic race could hurt party in November
Heh. "The First Black President" and his wife are destroying the party to stop the 'second.'
I don't think "the using the rules as a shield" rational would really make a Hillary supporter from Florida or anywhere feel better. It may sound workable to a Hillary hater or an Obama supporter but past that I don't think so.
In the end, it's going to come down to a gut call for the DNC.
Obviously, I'm not a DNC delegate, superdelegate or even supporter. But my gut tells me that more people in that party will be pissed off if Hillary ends up 'stealing' (their perception) the nomination from Obama than if the DNC continues their existing, if not wholly settled, position of not seating the FL or MI delegations.
If nothing else, the capacity for people like Jackson and Sharpton to stir up the perception of "keeping the black man down" would seem to guarantee that emotions will be more enflamed by a Hillary win through superdelegates than by some sort of technical debate over the seating rules.
I could be wrong. But the argument being made by Hillary, and her supporters, just seems to run contrary to the way that party's played race politics for the past forty years.
"At the end of the day, all she had to do was open her mouth for me not to believe her"
The Washington Post has an article, with two major developments about the ongoing primary battle and the fallout from the negative campaign of Hillary Clinton is running. One part of the article deals with the impact Clinton's approach is having on key constituencies in the Democratic party -- starting with African-Americans. Rep. James Clyburn does an interview with the Post reiterating what he's been saying this week:
Quote:
"If this party is perceived by people as having gone into a back room somewhere and brokered a nominee, that would not be good for our party," House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the highest ranking African American in Congress, warned yesterday. "I'm telling you, if this continues on its current course, [the damage] is going to be irreparable."
The other part of today's Washington Post article deals with the anger Clinton has generated among her own supporters, particularly donors. There are some choice quotes about Clinton's campaign from people who used to support her. As you read these statements below, keep in mind, they came from people who supported and donated to the Clinton campaign. Gabriel Guerra-Mondragón was also a major fundraiser for Clinton:
Quote:
"I think she is destroying the Democratic Party," said New York lawyer Daniel Berger, who had backed Clinton with the maximum allowable donation of $2,300. "That there's no way for her to win this election except by destroying [Obama], I just don't like it. So in my own little way, I'm trying to send her a message."
And:
Quote:
"We're just bleeding each other out," [Gabriel] Guerra-Mondragón said when asked why he had decided to join Obama's finance committee. "Looking at it as coldly as I can, I just don't see how Senator Clinton can overcome Senator Obama with delegates and popular votes. I want this fight to be over -- the quicker, the better."
And:
Quote:
"However much one might have supported the Clintons, or one might support the usual suspects in the Democratic Party, I began to believe Obama represents a new approach. He gives off such a sense of relevance that he's sort of irresistible," [William] Louis-Dreyfus said.
He also expressed, as did other big givers who crossed to Obama, exasperation about the tone of the Clinton campaign and frustration with the candidate herself.
"At the end of the day, all she had to do was open her mouth for me not to believe her," Louis-Dreyfus said.
Again, those are former Clinton supporters on-the-record. All of these folks are now, no doubt, on the growing Clinton enemies list, but they're in good company.
Hillary got quite a bump in donations after her 10 point win in PA so losing some donors who already donated the max amount to her really matters? It's a nice pro-Obama piece by the WP but it's superdelegates like the last one that I posted about that really count. It showed that Obama with plenty of time & money still couldn't beat Hillary.
Hillary "wins" pennsylvania after she was long expected to...
BUT wins it with less than half of what she was initially expected to and MEM is crowing about how unstoppable she is against Obama.
Which is why she's behind in delegates and states won I suppose....
The PA win is significant though. He outspent her by a huge margin & had plenty of time to win over those voters. It's a state I doubt he can win in a general election against McCain. Another big state the Dems can flush down the toilet right along with Florida. His wins in Idaho & other GOP strongholds via caucuses hopefully won't confuse to many superdelegates.
Phil Attey asks why Obama keeps mentioning gays and lesbians in his speeches - speeches he makes to the public at large, not just gay audiences - and Hillary never does. Phil writes:
Quote:
Last month, a gay Philadelphian LGBT publisher raised the issue that Senator Obama, though often addressing LGBT issues and including us in his major speeches, was not granting his publication an exclusive interview. Senator Obama quickly addressed the issue and granted an exclusive interview to the national LGBT publication, The Advocate.
Tonight, following the Pennsylvania Primary, Senator Obama once again showed his commitment to our community by including us in his address to the nation. Senator Clinton, speech, once again, did not include us, and it brings up the issue that hers never do.
But Obama speaks movingly of gay equality, and not just before gay audiences. He has raised the issue among white farmers and in black churches, where the message is both unwelcome and needed.
Clinton, by contrast, rarely raises the issue on her own, never does so before unfriendly audiences, and seems reluctant even to say the word “gay.”
Obama “gets it” in a way that no previous candidate for president has. Part of this is generational, but it is nonetheless real.
Obama mentions gays in his speeches, a lot. And yes, Hillary will say those are just words. But you know, Obama was willing to chastize his own community for their homophobia in a speech given on Martin Luther King's birthday in MLK's own church to thousands of black leaders. Those are words that matter. Here's to hoping that Hillary can find it in herself to utter the word gay (and even lesbian) in a setting that isn't limited to a gay audience.
One more thing, watch this interview Hillary did with the gay cable network, Logo. First, the issue comes up about her never using the g-word, and she does use it, once during an entire 5 minute interview with a gay station about gay issues, while mentioning "gay organizations." But notice how repeatedly in the interview Hillary hesitates and stumbles at places where you would naturally expect her to say the word "gay" - she doesn't say it - she kind of stops, doesn't say gay, then moves on. Watch the video for yourself. She's not comfortable saying the word. Obama is. I think that tells you something about how they feel about the issue inside. It's likely generational - he's in his 40s, my generation, she's 60. A transcript of the worst part follows the video, below - note particularly the question and her answer 1 minute and 2 seconds in:
Quote:
1:02 LOGO: "Your opponent, Senator Obama, regularly mentions gay people in his stump speech... You don't mention gay rights all the time in your stump speech, you do when you're in front of gay audiences, why is that?"
1:21 CLINTON: "Well I do mention, uh, from time to time, um, you know I don't mention, you know, everything in every speech that I give, but uh people, you know, know how committed I am and they know what I've done, and that I led the efforts uh to try and defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment, working with you know all of the major uh gay rights organizations, uh, so you know I'm gonna continue to not just talk about what I will do but demonstrate by my actions what I have done and will do."
i think it's admirable of Obama. as president he will no doubt stick it in america's ass, so he should support the gays in their daily effort to do the same!
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said superdelegates should make known their choices on the Democratic nominee for president by the end of June. Ultimately, he said he believes their decisions will be based on who is more electable, rather than necessarily who has the most pledged delegates, because that is what party rules stipulate.
Phil Attey asks why Obama keeps mentioning gays and lesbians in his speeches - speeches he makes to the public at large, not just gay audiences - and Hillary never does. Phil writes:
Quote:
Last month, a gay Philadelphian LGBT publisher raised the issue that Senator Obama, though often addressing LGBT issues and including us in his major speeches, was not granting his publication an exclusive interview. Senator Obama quickly addressed the issue and granted an exclusive interview to the national LGBT publication, The Advocate.
Tonight, following the Pennsylvania Primary, Senator Obama once again showed his commitment to our community by including us in his address to the nation. Senator Clinton, speech, once again, did not include us, and it brings up the issue that hers never do.
But Obama speaks movingly of gay equality, and not just before gay audiences. He has raised the issue among white farmers and in black churches, where the message is both unwelcome and needed.
Clinton, by contrast, rarely raises the issue on her own, never does so before unfriendly audiences, and seems reluctant even to say the word “gay.”
Obama “gets it” in a way that no previous candidate for president has. Part of this is generational, but it is nonetheless real.
Obama mentions gays in his speeches, a lot. And yes, Hillary will say those are just words. But you know, Obama was willing to chastize his own community for their homophobia in a speech given on Martin Luther King's birthday in MLK's own church to thousands of black leaders. Those are words that matter. Here's to hoping that Hillary can find it in herself to utter the word gay (and even lesbian) in a setting that isn't limited to a gay audience.
One more thing, watch this interview Hillary did with the gay cable network, Logo. First, the issue comes up about her never using the g-word, and she does use it, once during an entire 5 minute interview with a gay station about gay issues, while mentioning "gay organizations." But notice how repeatedly in the interview Hillary hesitates and stumbles at places where you would naturally expect her to say the word "gay" - she doesn't say it - she kind of stops, doesn't say gay, then moves on. Watch the video for yourself. She's not comfortable saying the word. Obama is. I think that tells you something about how they feel about the issue inside. It's likely generational - he's in his 40s, my generation, she's 60. A transcript of the worst part follows the video, below - note particularly the question and her answer 1 minute and 2 seconds in:
Quote:
1:02 LOGO: "Your opponent, Senator Obama, regularly mentions gay people in his stump speech... You don't mention gay rights all the time in your stump speech, you do when you're in front of gay audiences, why is that?"
1:21 CLINTON: "Well I do mention, uh, from time to time, um, you know I don't mention, you know, everything in every speech that I give, but uh people, you know, know how committed I am and they know what I've done, and that I led the efforts uh to try and defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment, working with you know all of the major uh gay rights organizations, uh, so you know I'm gonna continue to not just talk about what I will do but demonstrate by my actions what I have done and will do."
Hillary Clinton has a long history of publicly supporting gays. She & her husband reached out to gays in a way that I never saw a campaign do before. Nothing against Obama but it was the Clinton's who made it safe for him to include gays in his speaches now that he's running for President. Hillary's been there & done it back when it was risky to be so publicly supportive of gays. I find the attempts by Obama supporters to now stab her in the back in return frankly insulting.
But, remember, it was Bill Clinton that signed the ban on gay marriage into law.
It's the same ban Obama supports btw. As we discussed earlier, I also understand that with out that ban President Bush probably would have had the constitution amended banning gay marriage.
That's a good scare tactic to justify the Clintons reading the political winds and selling out your people but a President can't just "have...the constitution amended" to do anything.
That's a good scare tactic to justify the Clintons reading the political winds and selling out your people but a President can't just "have...the constitution amended" to do anything.
Yes I think we all recognize that there is a process to amending the constitution. I hope we can all recognize that President Bush worked hard with the support of many in the GOP to work that process. They may have been succesful in their efforts too if their hadn't been the federal law in place. I think considering that Obama & other democrats are not proposing to change it pretty much says it all. Right now there just isn't a better deal that my fellow Americans will settle on.
