droop224 I don't want to break up your two person debate but would like to chime in on the above.

You indicate that Obama can wave a magic wand and correct all of the above when it has been clearly pointed out earlier that no single candidate can do so. Obama has offered nothing to reduce the price of gas. I did hear McCain recommend that all federal gas tax be removed for this summer and for the administration to stop filling the strategic petroleum reserve earlier today. All candidates address health care and insurance and Obama only recommends non binding legislation on CEO compensation. There is no one in America with a good education that is willing to work with a minimum wage job. The job may be in another state but times, they are a changing. One person cannot fix all that is broke and if we start with oil and gas prices it is clear that Obama is not your savior nor is his political party.


It's unanimous, the folks in the SF fund raiser, the left elite, Adlai Stevenson, Obama and you all agree "fly over America" cannot see their true selves in a mirror. It seems if you can't take the logic and reason presented in the article about the Adlai Stevenson association then it is you that has a closed mind, I thought all closed minded Democrats like to dwell in the debate at Democratic Underground where a disparaging word isn't heard.

Maybe Hillary can say hey to the Obama girl when she goes to Hazelton for Obama?

Sorry Zack, but that quotation doesn't make sense. It's empty rhetoric.

"So," as scubatim would say, Mike Murphy compared Obama to Michael Dukakis and George McGovern on MTP and now some clown on a right-wing talk show is reaching back to 1952 and 1956 and comparing him to Adlai E. Stevenson. It seems some in both party are running more against ghosts of elections past than they are Obama.

Unanimous? Unanimity is rare. Try to find a thread with unanimous responses on .

Then how could anyone take Obama's statement he made at the SF elite-fest? The tolerant crowd there support releasing illegal immigrant MS 13 into neighborhoods to kill innocent American children. They, and Obama claim PA blue collar are clinging to anti immigration as part of their faults. The values are 180 degrees from fly over America, what he said was said to those who love the diversity of MS 13 and rational Americans in the heartland see things at the other end of the compass. His statement has no rational explanation and that is why he is waffling and falling in the polls to the point he is unelectable.

It was not a sociological analysis; it was rationalization. It's an effort to explain away why some people in the Midwest will not be voting for the candidate who is stating it.

Elitism? I don't know. But what Senator Obama said did seem as dismissive as it sounded sad. It sounded like a wise person shaking his head at erring children.

I am a Midwesterner who has been bitter about conditions in my state (Michigan) and the region as a whole. (Pennsylvania is not the only state that has been having hard times, although they have taken some serious hits. At least they have a primary--ours was nullified by the oh-so omniscient and omnipotent DNC) Yes, there are times when I have to "cling" to my faith. I do not own a gun, but I do not oppose the principle of the citizenry owning guns, whether for hunting or for personal protection. In addition, I do not tie these things to my desire to see Senator Clinton get the Democratic nomination at all.

I wish both sides would declare a "time out". Democrats do not need to have hard feelings about who ends up winning the nomination and who doesn't. We need to maintain, no, regain our focus and help ensure that the country doesn't suffer under an administration that is Bush-like or Bush Light, and not just for the sake of the Democrats but for the entire population.

Wow, 3 full pages of "mountain out of molehill". The double standards never cease to amaze. A Republican sticks his foot in his mouth (and oooh, lawdy, how many of those moments have there been in the last 7 years?) and all the conservatives are telling everyone else to just chill, quit being such a baby, etc. etc. Now that a Democrat has flubbed, it's oh my god, he should be drawn and quartered and dragged through the town square! The statement was clumsy; disappointing coming from an eloquent speaker, but that's all it was. His point was valid, though inappropriately expressed.

And Zack, your "neener, neener" posts are so incoherent and full of right wing hysteria, it's hard to see if you even have a point to make, other than your belief that no one other than a far right wing conservative could ever be correct about anything.

Zack

Sorry for indicating that obama has a magic wand. Be sure that is not the message I wish to convey.

My message is that Obama may be some one that stops handing the American people their daily glass at kool-aid.

Everyone is attacking Obama's words, splitting them, splicing them, disecting them, then adding some of their on speacial bottle of SPIN to those words. Yet your words fall in line exactly with Barack is talking about.

Obama can't and isn't going to change anything, so why vote him in? It's not that you wouldn't like the change Barack message talks about it, but it just isn't going to happen. Thus why not use your vote on a subject like gun rights or abortions or illegal immigration. This is exactly what Obama's "elitest" veiws were addressing.

In response Clinton and McCain have went on the attack telling American people..."everything is ok... you're proud, not bitter... you're just a little frustrated, but it's OK cause you're still American... and America is the greatest!!"

By the way... can you define what good education is??

P.E.



I actually agree with you P.E. and it is very hard to not sound like that at times when you believe people to be misguided... It's a little patronizing, not necessarily condescending, but it is much better than an unaccepting divisive line of "i'm right, you're wrong"

I don't think Obama is concerned what will happen in the general election. He clearly doesn't care that those that vote for him remain Democrats. And no, I don't think Rush and Obama are doing the same thing. They each have their separate reasons.





You got it about right. Yes, there are some people (somewhere) who think it's the government's fault that when their plant closed the government didn't provide them a job. But they are few and far between.

Are people proud of their government? Nope. But that doesn't mean they prefer one of the current pack of candidates over the others. I'm pretty mad that my Social Security deduction is being used for the current General Fund and there won't be anything for me to "withdraw" when I retire. I don't expect anything of my government except for it not to rob me. At least for the last few years, the tax burden has been lower (for me, at least).



My point is that I have no idea what Barack Obama believes nor do I know what he will do if elected. He says one thing in Ohio (he's anti-NAFTA) and another in San Fran (when people are bitter, they are anti-trade). He says he's deeply religious (Christian and deeply religious, in fact) and then he says that people turn to religion when they're bitter (I wonder if Mr. Obama is bitter?).




Find me one person, just one, who fits your scenario (minimum wage earner, paying 4 bucks per gallon of gas who's house in in foreclosure with astronomical medical bills) and I'll buy you lunch. My money is on you not finding this mythical person.

Pardon the intrusion, Amlord, but me thinks me detects a note of "bitterness" in your post.

Art thou bitter fair Lord?

Amlord


Why would Obama run for office to be President if he didn't want people to vote for him. To your second point... I agree. I don't think Obama necessarily cares if life long Republicans remain democrats, for those who had to change over to vote for him, but he does want them to vote for him in the general.



Provide them a job?? Pretty simplistic veiw... What about the other things war, political divisions, cost of living, job salaries, health care costs, fuel dependacies... the common people are happy??



But why wouldn't they be proud?? You just stated that they are pretty much happy with their government. Except those "far and few in between (somewhere)", of course. Funny most of us don't harbor any bitter feelings to our government, yet most of us aren't proud... amazing.



Yes Obama is bitter about some things, from what I hear from his words. And people do turn to their religion in times of strife, more so than in times of general prosperity.



You win I'll shelf the Hyperbole...

I share the view that this statement has received far too much attention. It is the reality behind the statement that should be examined. In that vein I offer This Article by Robert Reich, a former Secretary of Labor under Clinton.

1) Does hillary or McCain have a real "opening" to pile on Obama wit this "speech"?
They do have a real opening and have used it already by calling him an elitist and out of touch.

2) Did he say it badly, or did he say it right and folks didn't want to hear it?
3) Do you agree with what he said, yes or no, please explain?

A bit of both. He should have phrased it better. At the same time people don't want to hear this kind of statement even if it hold some truth. This sort of truth is the elephant in the middle of the room everyone wants to ignore. There are some parts of our society that will never vote for an African American and would rather vote for someone that is against their best interests because it is what they are comfortable with. Hillary and Obama aren't all that different when it comes to the major issues. So how can someone who supports either candidate then turn around and vote for the person that is dramatically different then both of them?

I still haven't had the stomach to sit through the whole of Obama's "elitist" speech, but I do need to address a couple of misapprehensions arising from my last post.


I'm addressing all the cries of "Obama won the popular vote! Obama won the popular vote!" I am not claiming that the Republican vote has been decisive in state-by-state primaries, I'm just pointing out that the battle-cry of the Obamabots is only true if the votes of registered Republicans are included (and that doesn't even take "Democrats for a Day" into account). Clinton has won "the popular vote" - among Democrats. In the Democratic primary. That's a fact, droop. That's not spin, it's raw data. You are welcome to characterize fixed, positive integers as being "out of control", but that sounds to me like, um... spin.


No, I'm another independent voter who would like to see the Democrats gain control of the executive branch (at least, if they have a capable candidate in the general). I think Senator Clinton has a better chance of doing that than Sen. Obama. Period. Of course, I also think Obama would be an even lousier president than Clinton would be. But, to the extent that I had any affinity for Democratic candidates in this race, I'd be a Gravelite, not a Clintonite. I would gladly have endorsed Biden - and possibly Dodd - or maybe even Edwards. Now, I'm reduced to the lesser of two poor choices - and I find Barack Obama the poorer of the two - by a long shot. Barack Obama and his golden tongue are simply luxuries the Democratic Party can't afford right now - and none of us can afford yet another novice in the Oval Office. That's all.

Oh, and for the record, Sen. Clinton has also had success in bringing independent votes to the Democratic Party - 2,167,905 of them in the primaries so far (75% as many as Obama), for what that's worth. This is isn't sour grapes speaking, droop - it's Cassandra.


Yes they do: whoever gets the most votes, wins (duh) - assuming, of course, that all the votes are counted. Strange, though, how many Democrats were opposed to the proposal that California proportionally distribute its electoral votes. I guess some Democrats only have "a greater sense of fairness" when it suits them. All I'm saying is that it would be nice if our electoral system had a bit of consistency - and if peoples' positions on how our elections should work weren't determined purely on the basis of partisan advantage. And that, if the Democratic primaries were consistent with the rest of our electoral process, Clinton would already have won.


Well, that certainly addresses my question about who's most likely to take Pennsylvania and Ohio or New Jersey and Florida. Not. If you think Obama can win the general election without Pennsylvania and Ohio (and God knows which other "lunch-pail" states he's in the process of losing), you might be in for a bit of a surprise. Clinton could take Pennsylvania and Ohio - and New York and California and probably Florida and New Jersey. Sen. Obama simply cannot - especially after the "bitterness" speech - make the same claim.


I'm neither spinning nor doing anything "for Clinton". I'm doing it for me. And for what I think would be best for my country. For me, this is not about personality worship. Clinton is, in many respects, a crap candidate. To me, Obama is much crappier. I don't "do" anything for individual personalities. I "do" things for principle - and to address issues that are of importance to me. Personal charisma, like age, sex, race, or any other demographic consideration, doesn't figure in my assessment of a candidate, except to the extent that they may affect a candidate's electability. If two candidates were otherwise identical, though, I'd probably lean toward the minority candidate, for mere diversity's sake. While there's considerable overlap in the policies of the remaining Democrats, they are not otherwise identical.


Because that's what they are. Obama isn't "reaching out to get Republicans to accept his message" (unless you accept that his "message" is nothing more than "vote for me in the primary"), he's "reaching out" to get Republicans to put him on the Democratic ballot. There is no evidence that he is expecting these voters to support him in November - and I suspect he doesn't give a damn whether they do or not, so long as enough others come forward to put him in the White House once he's on the ticket.

And his supporters are certainly following his lead. Here's a typical story:
That, my friend, is tantamount to fraud. It's perfectly legal, sadly, but there are no ethics at work here whatsoever. I see little difference between skewing the vote toward Obama because he wants to win and skewing the vote toward Clinton because Rush Limbaugh wants to prolong the fight. Skewing the vote is skewing the vote, no matter who's guilty - though, coming from one of the candidates (especially one running - hypocritically - as Mr. Clean), I'd say it's somewhat worse.


You need no longer be confused, then. I'm not upset that Obama might take someone's crown (though I have no doubt that Barack Obama would dearly love a coronation - the man's ego and ambition know no bounds), I am upset that Obama might get the nomination and lose the election for the Democrats - or win the election and prove to be a president every bit as ill-equipped for the office as George W Bush was, thereby losing Congress for the Democrats in 2010 and the White House in 2012. It has nothing to do with the sovereignty of the Clinton dynasty; it has to do with the future of the United States.

One can form the rational, considered opinion that Obama is a terrible candidate and that his presidency could be an unprecedented disaster without, at the same time, deifying Hillary Clinton, for God's sake. Why is it that Obama supporters can only see things as black or white? Many liberals used to criticize conservatives for having such a Manichean Weltanschauung.

You asked earlier why "clintonites [are] starting to sound like Republicans on FOX news". I don't know. Perhaps because, in this case, both are correct. Might I ask why Obama supporters have always sounded like Leninists?

1) Does hillary or McCain have a real "opening" to pile on Obama wit this "speech"?
Hillary may, at least as far as Pennsylvania goes. Whether its enough for her is another question entirely. McCain certainly does, although he'd be better advised to simply let it lay there and stew in its own putrid juices for a while, allowing Obama to blithely add more bile to the concoction before pulling the lid off and showing the American electorate exactly what B. Hussein Obama thinks of the average American voters who aren't gaga over him...

2) Did he say it badly, or did he say it right and folks didn't want to hear it?
How about option three? He said exactly what he meant to folks who wanted to hear it. What went "badly" is that it got out to people who weren't supposed to hear it.

3) Do you agree with what he said, yes or no, please explain?
No, I don't, and here's why. In model railroading, we have a saying, "for every wierd practice, somewhere there's a prototypical example." That's the defense taken by too many people for what Obama said. Sure, a very small number of folks, i.e. "some" could accurately be characterized as B. Hussein Obama done, just as a very small number of limousine liberals could accurately be characterized as liberals because they want Momma to see just how good and compassionate they really are, behind the lying, cheating, bullying and stealing they regularily engage in. However, when speaking to a private audience, nobody in their right mind would conclude that I really meant "a very small minority" if I were to characterize liberals that way. They would conclude that saying "some", or even "most" is simply my way of avoiding the trap of saying 'all' when 'all' is patently false, even though my feeling may be "all." That is what has B. Hussein Obama in a pickle, that people are evaluating the sentiment behind the words he said, and many of them are not comfortable with the results.

That's a fact supported by an excel spreadsheet from where exactly? What is the source of this "raw data", Wertz? Could you provide more info regarding that source?

And your argument regarding electoral votes is bunk. The primary is not decided by the electoral votes used in the general election. Perhaps you can show how, historically, a candidate winning in a party primary only won the states that they won in the primaries in the general election.

Also, while Pennsylvania or Ohio may be a must win, Obama may not need to win both.
Tim Russert's look at the electoral map.

You're already hedging Wertz. Obama HAS won more states than Clinton. And the primaries are not necessarily a prologue to the general election. Does any Democrat expect places like Montana or Wyoming or Mississippi to turn "blue" in November. No, and they've seen all of Obama or Clinton they're going to see for 2008. But going your way is to say, "Well, these states are out of reach and they always will be." But what if they're not? What if the Republicans and McCain are forced to spend scarce resources in a few key states they expect to go their way, but could be in contention if the Democrats don't just write them off as lost causes?

Clinton's strategy (and yours) is basically only to worry about winning the delegate-rich states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, New York and few others) and concede everywhere else to the GOP. That's silly. That basically tells those state Democratic parties, "Good luck. You're on your own." Any political party that considers itself a national party has to craft a national plan to elect its candidates. Clinton would consolidate her assets in the bulk of a handful of states rich with electoral votes and abandon whole sections of the nation.

The fundamental flaw in your observation is that the states that have traditionally gone "blue" for the Democrats still will go blue in November regardless of who they nominate. McCain is not going to win California and New York, but he could beat either Clinton or Obama in Ohio.




C'mon Wertz. You know polls are only a snapshot of the voter's mood for that day. I can find polls from April 2007 that say Clinton would slaughter Obama once the primaries begin or McCain was roadkill for the Rudy Giuliani juggernaut. Looking to polls for the infinite truth is writing in sand (and I do it too to bolster a point).

As far as negatives go, you were predicting the end of days for Obama over Tony Rezko. Where'd that go? He's survived the Jeremiah Wright controversy while we've yet to explore what exactly Bill Clinton did to go from almost dead broke in 2000 to worth over $100 million in under eight years. There may be some mighty slimy worms wiggling around in Bubba's dirt.

You may not see Hillary's negatives going higher, but that's only because the right-wing attack machine hasn't gone after her yet. She becomes the nominee and it'll be the bad old days with Jennifer Flowers, Monica and her stained blue dress, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," Vince Foster, Whitewater, Ken Starr, Hillarycare and the rest of the Greatest Hits of The Clinton Years all over again for a new generation of voters that may have been too young to remember and a older generation that would prefer to forget.



That's a few too many "ifs" stuck in there. The fact remains is that in open primaries where Republicans AND Independents can vote regardless of party affiliation, they're coming out for Barack Obama, right along with the new Democratic voters his candidacy has galvanized. It appears you're torturing numbers to make them say what you want them to.



Does that include Hillary Clinton? According to The Guardian article I cited, she's welcomed Republican mischief-making as long as they're voting for her.



Please, Wertz. If anyone has tried to change the rules mid-race, it's The Clinton campaign by trying to argue for the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations, despite all the candidates agreeing not to campaign in those states after they moved up their primaries in violation of the party's rules. Hillary still counts Michigan and Florida among her "wins" despite Obama not even being on the ballot in Michigan because he and John Edwards had removed their name from the ballot, but Clinton did not.

.


Here we go with the "IF" scenario again. IF my aunt had a deeper voice and penis she'd be my uncle. Let's not waste time on hypothetical situations even if the media wants to. They're paid to dream up these "woulda/coulda/shoulda" scenarios, but we aren't.



And maybe the Clinton supporters will stop plowing through boxes of Kleenex weeping crocodile tears about those poor disenfranchised Democrats in Michigan and Florida and how mean 'ol Obama and Howard Dean won't seat their delegations. The blame lies with those state Democratic parties that permitted the Republicans to put the screws to them.



Actually, it looks like you formulate some best-case scenarios for The Clinton campaign and selected "facts" to fit the result you'd already predetermined. That's a classic example of spin.



Since Hillary has been hanging out with the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife, "colluding" or "canoodling" with Rush 'Oxycontin' Limbaugh isn't beyond belief.

Of course, she is the same DINO (Democrat in Name Only) who suggested only she and the Republican candidate had the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief "ready from Day One" while her husband suggested only she and the Republican candidate were the only patriots in this campaign.

Now, Clinton jumps on Obama for his "bitter" remark and John McCain throws his two cents in as well. That supposed to be a strange coincidence?

Yet, you've suggested that it is Obama who is damaging the chances of victory for the Democrats in November.

Looking for any possible edge, the Clinton campaign has pressed uncommitted superdelegates to view Obama's remarks as a major debacle that could harm him in November. But as of yesterday evening, there was little evidence that the electability argument is resonating.

Rep. Mike Doyle (D), an undecided superdelegate who represents Pittsburgh and surrounding towns in the Monongahela Valley, said yesterday that he was not particularly troubled by Obama's comments.

"I don't disagree with a lot of what he said. My dad was a mill worker. My grandfather was a steel mill worker, and when the steel industry collapsed, nobody's family was hurt more than mine," Doyle said. "It's not inaccurate to say a lot of politicians have come through these towns, made a lot of promises and failed to deliver. I thought he was spot-on when he said how people feel."

He added that Obama's unexpected endorsement yesterday by Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney "carries a hell of a lot more weight" than the blowup over his comments about small-town residents.

Rep. David E. Price, an uncommitted Democrat from North Carolina, which holds its primary May 6, said his frustrations are with Clinton, for the potential damage she has inflicted.

"Senator Obama could have chosen better words, but it seems to me that he's stating the obvious," Price said. "People are feeling a great deal of economic stress, anxiety, and there is a certain amount of anger out there. . . . I think it's most unfortunate that opponents simply pounce, particularly opponents in his own party." link

I don't put much of anything above or below Hillary Clinton in her pursuit to become the Democratic Party nominee---or destroy it in the trying.

And the way you came to this conclusion was a spread sheet you linked. I will re-link it.

In this spread sheet it showed that Obama has had 528,443 votes from republicans. Clinton has had 376,199 votes from Republicans. Math tells us:

528,443 - 376,199 = 152, 234

Obama is beating Clinton by over 800,000 plus votes in the popular count. The math says

+800,000 - 150, 000 = 650,000

That means even without any Republican votes being counted, the popular vote still favors Obama. That means the statement that Obmama is winning the popular vote onluy if Republicans are added, completely and utterly false. You take away the republican vote Barack is still ahead of Hillary.



This may well be a fact. But that is what spin means Wertz. It's when you start with a fact. Clinton is ahead among registered democrats then you spin that truth into a falsehood, Obama would not be ahead without registered republicans voting for him.

And you just got called on it and anybody with one working eyeball can see that.



And Mrs Clinton wouldn't be a novice?? She has presidential experience?? On issues Hillary and Barack are not the same, but they are so similar. Why must we act like he is so vastly inferior to her... she's done exactly what?? So if you don't want a novice.... sorry to tell you but you are out of luck. Clinton is a novice. McCain is a Novice Obama is a novice. You can get Carter or Bush Sr... they are allowed another term and have presidential experience. There are a host of VP's out there.



Well if it is destiny... then it is destiny... sound more like self-fulfilling prophecy for the Hillary 2012 crowd. But I will say this, maybe Barack won't win the general, but when you compare him next to Hillary we know two reasons why that are not the reason he loses and she wins. Experience and Issues.



DUH where were you in 2000?? Al Gore got the most votes... he didn't win!! Do you know why he got the most votes and didn't win??? cause we are not a democracy and votes don't count in winner take all system we have.


Or.... what's the point of doing it in California if the rest of the State weren't willing to change.

AS to your second point you only prove my point. Let's address the fact that Clinton would already have won "if the Democratic primaries were consistent with the rest of our electoral process"...

Wertz, I completely agree!! Hillary would have already sewn this up. Of course she wouldn't have had more people vote for her... and of course, she would have lost most of the states.... but all that being said... who cares about the people votes or the number of states won... she would have received the crown.



Nor was I trying to address your argument. I was calling it irrelevant. Neither Clinton or Obama are at the 270 number. You arepoint at polls that a ) are predicting 7 months out b ) doesn't predict any winner or likely winner.

All you are doing is trying to insinuate that MAYBE Clinton has a better shot in the general.



Really... what are the greatest differences you see, policy wise, between Obama and Clinton that makes Obama MUCH crappier. This should be fun.



Again, the clear differerence is Obama doesn't just want a primary vote. The reason why he doesn't care if they return to Republican status is because in the General election a republican does not have to change his status to vote for Obama, that is not the case in all primaries.



And you are basing all this doom and gloom on what?? If we had to base our opinion on who is a more effective leader based on these campaigns Obama wins. Who's had more success at mobilizing people... Obama again. Who has had more success at getting the average person to spend his money in fundraising Obama(by far)... Who has had more crossover appeal... Obama... who is lower negatives... Obama who's got the Youth vote... Obama Who is getting more Independents... Obama

Clinton has.... oh that's right... clinton has the already democratic voters.

You know when my mama told me that as a Black man you have to work twice as hard to be considered just as good... she really wasn't lying was she?? (rhetorical... doen't need an actual response)

So all that Obama needs, that Clinton has, is the people that are in his own party. And when you compare Obama policies to Clinton Policies... and then you compare that to McCain's policies... well, we get what we deserve, right.

Putting on my raincoat here for the brief interlude in this intra-party foodfight (while I re-fill the beets in the salad bar, they make for great stains doncha know), I did hve to address this comment. Obama is "a wise person shaking his head at erring children"? And that's not elitism? Obama wants to be "the nation's dad"? And on top of that we're all unruly children? Sheesh!!! Now that's going to go over like normal human biological function involving gas in church come November. I can see the ad now. "McCain wants to be your President, Obama wants to be your daddy."

Ok, back to the foodfight people!


(lovin' this)

Aquilla

I figured you'd enjoy this, Aquilla. I'm not suggesting that Obama is suitable for that particular role, but it was a little patronizing. I guess for it to sound more like elitism he would have had to say something to the effect of, "those poor, ignorant Midwesterners who aren't going to vote for me." But he didn't go that far.

I don't know that Obama is a wise person. Don't read any more into it than is there, OK? Or I might have to surmise that if McCain doesn't want to be my daddy, he must want to be my granddaddy!

Actually, the problem here is that you're apparently using two different sources. I'm not sure where you're getting the "Obama is beating Clinton by over 800,000 plus votes in the popular count" but it is not from the spreadsheet to which we've both linked now. According to the totals there, Obama is only ahead - if one includes Republicans and Independents and excludes all votes in Florida and Michigan - by 309,527, not 800,000. I'm not sure of the provenance of the spreadsheet - I found it through a Google search and there was no source listed. I've found it extremely difficult to find a breakdown of votes by party anywhere. If whatever source you're citing for your "800,000" contains such a breakdown, perhaps we should be using that source. As it is, you're comparing the breakdown of figures on the spreadsheet with some totally unsourced figure of 800,000 that has nothing to do with that spreadsheet. I'd prefer comparing apples and apples. If you have another source with a party vote breakdown showing your 800,000 difference, I'd like to take a look at it. (A simple hyperlink will do - we needn't further derail this topic.)

On the basis of the only breakdown I could find, though, Obama only wins any of the "popular vote" permutations if the Republican vote is included. Use one of your working eyeballs on the spreadsheet without throwing in this 800,00 from... somewhere and you'll see what I mean - as would anyone else with the ability to read numbers and do simple sums.


The rest of the quibbling here is getting progressively further off topic - and should probably be taken up in another thread, if at all. A few quick points:

• Obama is a novice to national politics. Clinton and McCain are not.
• If there is a "Hillary 2012 crowd", I am most certainly not among their number - and I doubt Sen. Clinton is either.
• You are correct that we are not a democracy - and were never intended to be. We are a federalist republic. But the "winner takes all system" does work within the context of the electoral college. If Gore had only lost in 2000 because of the difference between electoral votes and popular vote, I for one would not have been bothered. But Gore lost, in part, because all of the votes - especially in Florida - were not counted. If they had been, he would have won the electoral votes as well as the popular vote. Do you not remember 2000?
• Why are you and other Obama supporters so obsessed with crowns? Barack Obama is not yet our president. The United States is not yet a monarchy.
• All Obama is trying to do at this point is win the primary - by any means necessary. And the means he is using are underhanded, unethical, and dirty - to say the least.
• As to your rhetorical point about black men having to work twice as hard to be considered just as good, that may well be the case in general (though I expect exactly the same thing can be said, with just as much validity, of women of any color). In relation to my opinion of Barack Obama, though, it simply does not apply. To impress me, Obama would not have to work twice as hard as Sen. Clinton, but it would be nice to see some evidence that he has ever worked half as hard as she - ever. With Clinton, there is evidence of hard work in abundance - and her colleagues on both sides of the aisle in Congress will attest to that fact.

We don't need a president who promises to "change the face of America" because no president can do that (and it is decidedly not their job to attempt to do so). It is the emptiest rhetoric that is humanly possible. We need an efficient bureaucrat who will put in a long, hard day's work and not screw too many things up. Between Clinton and Obama, that choice is clear and unequivocal.

Until I'm in a position to comment more fully on the actual topic, I'm done here.

Droop,

If this data is to be believed - and Wertz has yet to provide the source of this spreadsheet, and you remove Republicans all together, Clinton is leading in the popular vote.

Clinton:

10,713,244 - Democrats
2,167,905 - Independents
=12,881,149

Obama:
9,532,828 - Democrats
2,925,099 - Independents
=12,457,927

That said, it is absurd to remove the Republican votes because those are votes in which Republicans participated... and Republicans could have only participated in states where there are open primaries. So, these Republicans must have participated in open primaries where they didn't have to switch. In which case, it is clear that Obama is getting the majority of the Republican vote in open primaries - which is not something new and may say something about the possibility of winning Republican voters in the general election. So, if there is an effect of Democrat for a Day, it would be seen in the Democratic numbers. So, it could be argued that either Clinton is winning among Democratic voters because of Republican spoilers or Obama's Democratic numbers are heightened because of Republican spoilers. Essentially, this data does not point at all to where Republican spoiling is occurring or how much. It is evident that some Republicans are not happy with their party and are voting Democrat this year. Being that you can't quantify the amount of spoiling and the amount of true party switching, this argument that Clinton would be winning if it were only the Democrats voting is not supported by this data - wherever it may have come from.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because The Clintonistas have run such a mean-spirited, low road, groin-punching and race-baiting campaign where nothing is their fault, every victory for Obama can be spun as not really counting and despite your assertions that only Hillary Clinton can save America from John McBush, the majority of voters in this primary season ain't buying it.

One can form the rational, considered opinion that Obama is a terrible candidate and could be an unprecedented disaster without deifying Hillary Clinton. But you haven't done that. You first suggested that due to her gender she deserved to be POTUS over Obama because you're so "tired of testosterone." That's hardly a ringing endorsement. As if that wasn't enough, you also added that sexism in America is much worse than racism, so once again, Hillary is reduced to her token status as a woman as a primary reason for her election.

Why do Obama supporters only see things as Black or White? Better first to ask why Clinton supporters only see things as female and male?



Wow. THAT's pretty scary. "Vote for Hillary because Faux News thinks she's neat." That will go over real well with the Democratic base. Wertz suggesting Fox News is correct? This MUST be the silly season.

This Obama supporter doesn't sound anything like Lenin (or John Lennon either). Why do you as a Clinton supporter sound like Chicken Little?




An efficient bureaucrat? That's all the presidency is worth these days? Hell, I could get the lady down at the License Plate Bureau to run the country if a efficient bureaucrat is all it takes.

I'd like to think we want something more from the President of the United States than just keeping the ashtrays clean and making sure there's plenty of ice in the wet bar. Maybe all you want Wertz is someone to dot "i's" and cross "t's" but I want someone who wants to make things better for all Americans, and not just change the nameplate on the desk in The Oval Office. You suffer from low to no expectations, sir.



Gee, with the lack of Moderator posts suggesting we get back on topic, I though we were commenting on the actual topic.

Wertz

well i linked that info earlier but here are some more articles that mention this number...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...vote_count.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead...nomination.aspx
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=avQwUZdaU4C0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/12/o...-v_n_91118.html

Entspeak


Yeah If we can believe some obscure spreadsheet from photobucket....

Wertz

The math is not jiving, is my point. I don't know if there are some other group between Dem, Rep, and Ind that the spread sheet was not accounting for. So I went with what I did know. The difference between Obama and Clinton on that spread sheet, in terms of Republican votes is only 150,000, not including michigan and Florida. Obama is ahead by somewhere around 800,000 votes, not including Michigan and Florida.

So either the spreadsheet left something out in terms of voting groups, it is mistaken in it's breakup, it is flat out made up like the Clinton Bosnia story.

Either way you are completely off when you say Republicans are the reason Obama is ahead... as Entspeak alludes, it doesn't matter any way.

Well take your word for it i guess




Yes he had more votes... he lost.

Because Hillary's vast experience amounts to being the first lady. Her first office she ever ran for was a Senatorial seat of a State she just moved to. Her greatest asset has been her last name, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not saying she incapable,I think she is up for the job. But if the roles were reversed and Obama stood in the place of Hillary with no chance of gaining more Pledged Delegate, unlikely to win popular vote, and had lost majority of States, there is not a doubt that Obama would have been shown the door.



We'll take your word for it.



Really?? Maybe if she was willing to work twice as hard as Obama in fundraising, and campaigning we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Every one wants to paint this comeback kid picture in terms of Hillary Clinton. Some kind of Rocky fighter... who won't give up. The truth is this was HER election to lose... and she is losing it. She is more like Mike Tyson fighting Buster Douglas... She underestimated her opponents, she didn't work as hard as she should have, she cherry picked states, took votes for granted, didn't try to pull in new votes.

And now you understand why people not for Hillary talk excessively about crowns. Because it is an apt comparison of what Hillary was doing.... waiting to be crowned. She splurged, she smiled, she waved her hand to the crowds... Her greatest attributes... power and name recognition.



This coming from a party that put George Bush, arguably one of the most intellectually challenged Presidents ever because they wanted someone to give us safe from a boogie man... oh and let's not forget they don't believe in questioning.

Alright back to the inner-party bickering

I think the problem with Obama's remarks is that they are in fact based on an elite Marxism philosophy. I don't think he is religious and has used the church of Rev. Wright as a stepping stone along with the people of South Side Chicago to power in politics. He has denounced his pastor's remarks when it became politically convenient. He used them as a "ticket punch" to power in the federal government. Take a few minutes and look at these links that relate to his connection to Marxism. http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/01/barack...rxist-mole.html and http://www.aim.org/aim-report/is-barack-ob...a-marxist-mole/

He and Hillary support the Marxist doctrine that removes freedom from the working class as discribed below:
"Freedom is:

Being wild as in nature, a bird flies to territory of choice, a carnivorous beast allows the dominate male to conquer territory. In the nature of man in nature we dominate territory and live in large tribes that share similar expected norms. We are combative but have ability of reason and logic that cause us to create governments that establish laws to protect our "expected norms".

Governments vary to extremes but governments that rule closer to the meaning of the wild are the freest form of life. In the nature of man exist the love of art, the belief in spirits or god(s), the need for other people and power over other people. When government offer people more than the expected norm they remove power, allow me to explain:

A wild monkey has his freedom and territory in the jungle but a government desires to remove his freedom by placing a treat inside of a cage, the monkey cherishes the treat and places his hand through a small opening and fills his hand but can't remove his hand from the cage to escape to freedom he once had, the government strolls up and captures him under government control, monkey loses his freedom.

Read the lyrics of this song: http://www.lyrics007.com/print.php?id=TWpjd01qQTE they are contrary to mans nature and paint him as a bird. Man is combative and freest in a democratic republic that least impacts his freedom. Classical America as established as a social Darwinist democratic republic as it was founded is that freedom."

He claims to support the working poor and screams into the microphone it is the Republicans that are to blame for high gas prices and their condition but let's examine. He supports ethanol and gives treats to the Iowa farmers for votes in exchange. Ethanol harms the working class through higher commodity costs from milk to bread and gas, but he has the Iowa votes in his political trunk that he would not have had he opposed ethanol tax treats for Iowa farmers.

He claims he will fight for clean coal for those PA - WV voters that so desire to see coal exploited but where are his friends and party on the issue?



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/business...ml?ref=business

Glaring party oppositions to energy: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...FC-6EDFDBFC60FF

About education, I have a black friend with a poor work ethic that could not advance here competing with the majority with better work ethics that moved to Las Vegas where he now thrives, he works from his own home from a computer and earns overtime for writing less than I have on this post. He just bought a new flat screen TV and his employer gave him several thousands of dollars worth of stock. He definitely isn't bitter any more.

The problem is Obama has a hand full of treats to remove the freedom from the otherwise free people, he would take their religion and guns given the opportunity. He spoke the truth in front of the Marxist group where he spoke. Why won't the morons bite on the treat like the morons in Iowa? Why won't the morons take the treats and live like birds the way my Marxist master have taught me? Morons vote for treats offered by the master.

Let me get this straight, Zack. Obama is an "elitist." Does not calling people "morons" make you an elitist? Hypocrite?

Obama might push for gun control, but he wouldn't take people's guns away. He might criticize religion, I do that myself all the time. Neither of us would do away with 1st Amendment rights.
Zack, this is a debate board, not a depository for GOP spam.

BoF I've been blessed with a very quiet wife and I often have conversations with her and have to answer rhetorically for her in order to continue. When I used the word moron I was speaking for Obama and the far left he represents.

I also don't practice religion and find the Pope visit a spectacle. But, the far left George Soros crowd would have it gone, the elite university professors would have it gone, the ACLU would have it gone. Washington DC gun ban is the gun preference of the Democratic Party. Hollywood and broadcast networks/cable satellite programming brainwashes the masses into a PC tolerance while the Democratic Party unable to legislate their will installs judiciary that strive for the same goal of litigating and legislating love and understanding.
The following is a copy from another site I debate and is not my work but I do certainly agree with it.

Obama's platform is more in line with Democratic Socialists than modern liberals!

Issue: Progressive Taxation
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Yes

Issue: Strong skepticism for capitalism
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Somewhat

Issue: Immigration
Obama's Platform: Less Restrictive
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Less Restrictive
Modern Liberals: Mostly Less Restrictive

Issue: Abortion
Obama's Platform: Pro Choice
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Pro Choice
Modern Liberals: Pro Choice

Issue: More Public Education / Less Private
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Yes

Issue: Same Sex Marriage
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Yes

Issue: Universal Healthcare
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Yes

Issue: More Regulation
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Mostly Yes

Issue: Free Trade
Obama's Platform: Mostly No
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Mostly No
Modern Liberals: Mostly Yes

Issue: Lower Defense Spending
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Mostly Yes

Issue: Gun Control
Obama's Platform: Strict
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Strict
Modern Liberals: Strict

Issue: More Environmental Protection Laws
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Mostly Yes

Obama is more in line with Democratic Socialists than Modern Liberals... Then add in what the article says:



Then add this in:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its broadest sense, democratic socialism could refer to any attempts to bring about socialism through peaceful democratic means as opposed to violent insurrection. This can sometimes include social democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So instead of bringing in socialism via a revolution, democratic socialists attempt to do it gradually via the democratic process.

Read the DSA's FAQ at: http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I am going to devote time to politics, why shouldn’t I focus on something more immediate?

Although capitalism will be with us for a long time, reforms we win now—raising the minimum wage, securing a national health plan, and demanding passage of right-to-strike legislation—can bring us closer to socialism.

What can young people do to move the US towards socialism?

Schools, Colleges and Universities are important to American political culture. They are the places where ideas are formulated and policy discussed and developed. Being an active part of that discussion is a critical job for young socialists.

http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this one is very disturbing:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in the US, so why work towards socialism?

In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control.

http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if they say that in the short term they cannot eliminate private corporations, what does that say about the long term? Also, "greater democratic control" means more state control of corporations via regulations and taxation. That is their plan for the short term... Which also happens to be Obama's plan! Hmm....

If the goal of the Democratic Socialists is to bring about Socialism via democratic means, that certainly DOES make Obama a Marxist.

Zack, I am not entirely sure what your wife has to do with any of this. Further, just who in hell gave you the authority to speak for Barack Obama. Don't you think you are being a bit presumptive and arrogant?

EDIT