.

You've stated it very eloquently. I put it like this...

The DNC has baked a sh!t cake and Hillary Clinton is making them eat it.

Id...you missed your calling. You should be a political commentator. You summed up the whole thing in a sentence. lol.

My guess is that before the convention The Clintons will involve lawyers in the election and drop a personal-type bombshell on Obama. She's making nice now, so watch out!

Or they'll just pull a Vince Foster on him.

I think your instincts are right. She sure is looking like the cat that ate the canary. But I don't think it will be so public, and I think the person she (and Bill) will drop the bombshell on is Howard Dean. I also think it will be behind the scenes.

I've felt all along that all she has to do is stay within 150 or so pledged delegates then she'll get at least 500 of the 800 superdelegates leaving him 50 or so short. If lawyers get involved at all it more than likely will be about MI and FLA and will be someone else leading the charge.

Whatever happens it's already the most interesting primary in my lifetime.

Hahaha... gearing up already are we? Admit it, you know you guys really want her to win. That way you can pay is all back for the last 8 years. I'm actually looking forward to it.

OMG! Dkos and the other liberal blogs are in meltdown. It appears that the big O cult was ready to pop the champagne Tuesday night. They've replaced the "hope" and "change" rhetoric with Ken Starr and Vince Foster.

Read this article this morning. It makes it all that much more interesting.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/page/1

I was coming to post something similar. With all the rhetoric about Clinton's big win, she has her own poop cake to deal with, the mathematics of the delegate count. I'd much rather be in Obama's position than hers.

Plus, when CA certified their election results this week, Clinton lost 4 delegates and Obama gained 4.

That's a deceiving statement. When people read it they assume that whichever candidtate is leading in pledged delegates will get all the superdelegate votes. If that were true why would they even have SDs?

This is how I think it's going to work. The SDs are congressmen, senators, governors and other party big wigs. They're allocated by state just like the pledged delegates are. California for instance has 441 total delegates, 370 pledged and 71 super. They also have 56 congressional districts, most of them currently held by Democrats.

Clinton won California. Let's say Obama ends up with more pledged delegates when this is all over. Are those SDs in CA going to vote with the "will of the people" in CA or the "will of the people" of the country in general? Keep in mind that all of them are running for re-election in November also. If they want to be re-elected, and what politican doesn't, my guess is that they'll vote with own constituents.

Now look at the states Clinton is winning, large blue states with lots of Democratic congressmen. Obama is winning small red states with mostly republican congressmen.

That math isn't good for Obama.

I just saw it this morning at MyDD. I tried to find it but it wasn't a diary, it was just a comment. It showed each state. As I recall Clinton had about a 200 delegate lead.

On another forum I visit, a poster did a spreadsheet with the winner take all scenarios and came out very close to where we're at now with Obama slightly ahead.

I make no claims to it's accuracy because the methodology used to reach the conclusion made my brain hurt. I just looked at the final results.

I see there is a buzz in the news that MI is going to get to caucus and have it count.

I would think that both candidates would have to agree and I doubt that Clinton would ever agree to a regular caucus. I wouldn't if I were her. She may agree to what they call a firehouse caucus. I'd never heard of such a thing until the other day. Evidently it's like a primary only the polling places are open fewer hours.

And it looks like Obama's not going for a primary.





The problem Obama has with primaries is they make it too difficult to suppress votes. That's his whole schtick, the Chicago style political campaign theme. His political activists with the help of the college kids they've got all worked up shout down everyone else in the caucuses. Who the hell would ever want to participate in a caucus?

Yeah, I'm not down with the whole caucus thing. Plus, the word sounds too much like the noise you make when coughing up a loogie.

A break-down of exit polls by ethnic/racial groups for the Democratic primaries and caucuses so far.


Clinton leads Obama by 53% to 39% among white voters.

Clinton leads Obama by 58% to 39% among Hispanic voters.

Clinton leads Obama by 71% to 25% among Asian voters.

Obama leads Clinton by 80% to 17% among black voters.


In Presidential elections, black voters typically make up approximately 11% of the electorate. This means that Clinton has a substantial advantage among ethnic groups that comprise 89% of American voters.

With those kind of numbers if I was Clinton I'd seriously be considering an independent run if I didn't win the nomination. At the very least I would make Howard Dean think I was.

You don't think that 11% will be substantially higher this time because Obama is black? You've made your case pretty well that he hypnotizes people so maybe turnout will be higher.

Good point, I'm sure it will be. But the Hispanics will turn out in record numbers too. For that matter so will whites I think.

Wouldn't the high turnout among African-Americans already be taking place in the primaries since the Democrats have the majority of the black voters? Supposedly, 8 out of 10 are voting for Obama, so far it hasn't been enough to help Obama win the big states.

I think the presidential race will be wide open because if Obama gets it, I seriously doubt the previous Hillary primary/caucus voters are going to vote for McCain. Same if Hillary gets the nod.

Some of those Hillary primary voters in Ohio used to be Reagan Democrats. Some will vote for the Democratic nominee, some may vote for McCain, and some will just stay home.

Regardless of who wins the Dem nomination there is going to be some deflation on the part of the supporters of the non-nominee. They may not vote for McCain but the question is how many will decide to not vote at all. And of those Dems that are deflated the DNC has to decide which are more important to the general election.

I also don't see a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket happening.

I used to think so too but I'm not so sure now. My wife is a die-hard Democrat who in 32 years has only voted for 1 Republican. (I goaded her into voting for Ellen Sauerbrey for governor a few years back.) She is adamant that if Obama is the nominee she'll vote for McCain. I almost fell off my chair when she said it the first time. I think a lot of women, especially those over 50 feel that way. And I think that because of his immigration views John McCain will get a lot of Hispanic votes if Obama is the nominee. I'm also sure that some Blacks won't vote if Hillary is the candidate.

We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

interesting...


Democrats prefer HRC/BHO to BHO/HRC 58%-33%. They also say SDs should be free to vote their conscience 52%-36%. That's what Clinton's been saying.


Florida re-vote.


81% say they'll vote for the same person. Again in Hillary's favor.

Not us old farts, we would never stay home. Hillary's supporters tend to be older too. There's also congressional candidates and local issues to consider.

I based my assessment on the two candidates rather than what the Dem voters might want to see.

Both candidates want the top spot. I don't think Obama would want Clinton as a VP. I think Clinton would take Obama as a VP but I don't see Obama as wanting the VP spot.

Both Obama and Clinton can go back to the Senate and finish their terms. Obama can then run for Governor of IL and Clinton might be the first woman to lead the Senate. Either is potentially a more powerful future than VP.

All good points.

Aye Crumba, What is obvious is that in this country the democrats are walking the path to self destruction. The meltdown within the Clinton campaign HQ is significant. Obama still does not seem to have a strategy other than he is young and represents change. Together they have concluded the best way to win is trench warfare. The true winner if they are not careful will my McCain who, if he can keep Bush away, will be able to show himself as calm and focused. In my country these things are much easier. The opposition is simply arrested, tortured, and killed. Keeps the arguments down.

From the Pew Research Center.





"A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama."


That's huge. Personally, I feel good about the election. First of all, we're getting rid of George W. Bush. Hallelujah! And secondly, I don't think Obama can win. I'll gladly settle for McCain (preferably) or Clinton over another experimental party favorite with no experience.

Clintons push a Hillary/Obama ticket.



Looks like the Clintons are still interested.

Aye Crumba, in this country I think the Clinton/Obama ticket would have significant problems being electable. Though individually either might be able to beat McCain together I think the majority of Americans would consider it too far a lean to the left. Within the Democrat party the combination might be closer to center but across America it would likely lose to McCain who is already near the idealogical middle. In my country not such a problem, it is who counts the votes that matters not how the people actually vote.

It looks like they really like Hillary in PA


Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama by 19 points, 55% to 36%, in Pennsylvania according to SurveyUSA. They have been the most accurate pollster this primary season.

The two are effectively tied in Southeast PA, which includes Philadelphia, but Clinton leads everywhere else.

Clinton is up 2:1 in SW PA, which includes Pittsburgh.

Clinton is up 5:4 in South Central PA, which includes Harrisburg.

Clinton is up 4:1 in West Central PA, which includes Johnstown.

Clinton is up 5:3 in NE PA, which includes Wilkes-Barre.

Clinton is up 4:1 in NW PA, which includes Erie.

Clinton leads 2:1 among whites.

Obama leads 3:1 among blacks.

Clinton leads by 5 among men.

Clinton leads by 30 among women.

Clinton leads by 12 among those under age 50,

Clinton leads by 26 among those age 50+.

On the Economy, which is most important to Democratic voters in PA, Clinton leads by 24 points.

On Health Care, next most important, Clinton leads by 32 points.

Among voters focused on Iraq, the two are effectively tied.



I doubt that lead will hold but even if she wins by half that it doesn't look good for Obama How can he expect to win in Nov if he can't win one big Democratic or swing state except for Illinois? I think that's what the SDs are going to be looking at.

Sounds like Obama supporters are getting a bit anxious. Perhaps they've been reading the same polls as idiot.

The Rodhams are from Scranton, PA.

Well, another reason I'm glad I moved out of there.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's self-proclaimed "spiritual advisor" and "moral compass".


I never knew that Jesus was a poor Black man. Did he also own a $1.65 million house?

More Rev. Wright.





As much as I bashed George W. Bush I never once accused the US of being responsible for 9/11. You can look up Simmons' thread on the topic and see where I challenged him on such claims. This is over the line. And Barack Obama has continued to belong to that church for over 20 years? Doesn't that say something about his judgment?


Btw, according to his tax records Obama gave $20,000 to Rev. Wright's church last year.

Did you say the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama's pastor, has a link to Rosie O'Donnell's website?

Geez, I have a pastor and I have no idea what she up to. Seems ok at Church though, but she is a woman.
Hmm, now Id has me all turned around.

(Just kidding around, its late in my day.)

What do you think about this ch?





Duke Cunningham is in prison for doing things not too much different than this.

[quote name='Idiot' date='Mar 13 2008, 08:45 PM' post='102205']
What do you think about this ch?

OK, now I have to actually read the stuff, I see my name.

Yup, I see the connection to other miscreants. I totally agree Id, I see the Duke Cunningham analogy.

But sadly, Senator Obama is not a lone ranger in this behavior. It is institutionalized in Congress. I agree enough is enough. I want reform across the nation not just from the Illinois Senator. There are ear marks benefitting many family members and business acquaintances. I agree, it needs to be addressed.

CBS, Dec. 7, 2007__Then there's the First Ladies Library in Canton, Ohio, started by Mary Regula - as in wife of Rep. Ralph Regula, D-Ohio, whose committee paved the way for the Library to get $1 million in taxes a year. The First Ladies Library is truly all in the family. No only was it founded by congressman Regula’s wife, and paid for with your tax dollars thanks to the congressman, but guess who the director is? Regula’s daughter. The next year, Regula added a bonus: a $130,000 earmark. He refused to talk to CBS News and folks at the Library weren't very helpful. The day we visited, they locked up early. CBS News did find tax forms showing Regula's daughter pulls in about $70,000.

When the city of Columbia, S.C., built a brand new fitness center, it was thanks in part to a $1 million earmark from Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C. And who was among the early hires? The Congressman's daughter, CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports. Back in South Carolina, an encore from another Dad. The next year Clyburn earmarked $235,000 more to that fitness center where his daughter works. She got a raise.

(The Republicans were asked to reel in these high spending Democrats.....CH)

an 24, 2008, Business as Usual GOP, By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When House Republicans convene behind closed doors today (Thursday) at the Greenbrier in White Sulphur Springs, W.V., they have a chance to make two bold moves to restore their reputation for fiscal responsibility. First, they could declare a one-year moratorium on Republican congressional earmarks. Second, they could name anti-earmark reformer Rep. Jeff Flake to a vacancy on the House Appropriations Committee. In fact, almost surely they will do neither.

Instead, the retreat is likely to adopt some limitation on earmarks with no public impact and exerting no pressure on the earmark-happy Democratic majority.
.................................

Where does it end? Did the Republicans declare a moratorium? I can't remember. Did they name anti-earmark reformer Rep. Jeff Flake to a vacancy on the House Appropriations Committee. I did not keep up. I kind of thought it was all a lost cause, reform that is. I admit to loosing interest after a few too many bridges to nowhere & airport runways w/ no planes coming in.
It is dysfunctional.

My point is he's no different than the rest. But he IS a lot less experienced so why would people think he'd be the best choice? He was in the Senate for 20 minutes before he started running for president.

Just so we know Obama isn't the only candidate with a nutbag "spiritual advisor"...

OMG, like this Ear Mark thread, and the Conspiracy thread, is helping me figure out who to vote for. It is making me want to go back to my mother's people in Canada. But I do not speak French and my mom's relatives are uptight about that. I will be a mess by November. I am not feeling it for McCain or the Dems.

Ugh! You really should put a warning on links to sites like that. Now I gotta go take a shower.


j/k SMan.


Do you really think he's the same to McCain as Wright is to Obama?

Unless more comes out about their relationship, probably not. But I also hold the minority opinion (around here) that it's disturbing any political candidate feels the need to even discuss their spirituality or their personal religion gurus.

BTW, I've been struggling for a week now with a leaky toilet that I can't seem to fix. I clicked the link in your sig several times and the toilet still leaks.

Don't give up hope... Change is gonna come... Yes he can!


You may be choosing a religious guru without even knowing it.

I demand you change your sig for accuracy!

Suggested edit:

SMAN:...."But I also hold the minority opinion (around here) that it's disturbing any political candidate feels the need to even discuss their spirituality or their personal religion gurus." Agree, they all need to stop marching these characters out.

Thank you, half the time it is all fake anyway. Or it is divisive when a candidate dwells on it. Which serves no purpose when trying to win the crowd or focus on meat and potato issues.
No problem with one being religious or spiritual, but it does not drive my politics.

I.E. Issues relating to the Economy are important to me.