To restate my earlier comments...

There is a clear process established by the Democrats for selecting their presidential candidate. It is involves every state and ends with a convention. Delegates are selected by primary or a caucus process. These delegates gather at a convention to at last select the presidential candidate. The states hold their primary/caucus are scattered times in order that all each state will have a bit of a chance to meet all of the people in their party who are candidates. By scattering the state elections, candidates will have amble time to discuss issues and policy. At this point in time, not all states have concluded their delegate selection process, much less hold the convention.

The media, which I do call shallow, has decided the process is too long. The media has done little to explore issues and policy. The media treats the selection process as a popularity contest or an advertisement campaign. Issues and policy are given slim coverage.

The pundits have taken it upon themselves to be the buffer between us and the candidates. They do not believe they need to be exploring the candidates to help voters know them, their policies, or principles. The pundits see them as king makers. They love the power. Policy issues are not important compared to the ability of candidates to play the game. If you (as a candidate) do not pander to the owners of the media or those who influence them, you are out. Even if you do, that is just hurdle one. You have to prove you are a good story and a good advertiser. What are you trying to sell? Catchy enough and we will go with you. It is so shallow.

nighttimer has a point that I probably should not participate in a thread I consider to be about trivial. I am disappointed so many here at AD have treated it like it is important. Does everyone really think that media and pundits have it right and they need to echo their drivel? Other country will continue to deteriorate if those who pay attention can not rise above the smoke and mirrors.

While I do not think that the Hillary vs. Obama contest is trivial, I do agree with Gray Seal when he says "Does everyone really think that media and pundits have it right and they need to echo their drivel?"

Why can't the media focus on other things that are happening in the country and the world? It's as though they are taking a Jerry Springer approach to the Democratic nomination process. I'm tired of it.

If Hillary isn't going to win, then it will become apparent in the process. This he said/she said stuff isn't newsworthy. Too many pundits and news commentators have been making money from this, and the already substandard news reporting has gone down the tubes as whoever edits this stuff forsakes real news for political gossip and sniping. It's like a soap opera, only less interesting.

Yes, it is probably over for Hillary Clinton, but geez, people, why go on and on and on and on about it? Let her finish what she is doing to her satisfaction so that she can truly say she took her best shot.

And Barack Obama does not constitute the Second Coming of Jesus (nor does he herald the advent of the antichrist, as some Republicans might think). He is not the panacea. He is a good speaker who has some good ideas. But he has less of a demonstrable track record than Hillary Clinton does; we know more about her, good and bad.

Neither "we" nor the talking heads of the network and cable programs know what is going to happen in the Democratic party and elsewhere in the next few months. Life has a way of providing surprises every now and then. Why not fill in the hours and days with real news until something newsworthy actually develops regarding the Democratic nomination for the Presidency? Or why not cover Congressional races a little better, providing some information on the candidates?

As far as some of the comments go about Hillary and Barack being the same because they both want big government, I really wonder about anyone who voted for George W. Bush castigating the Democrats for that. It seems to me that the pot is calling the kettle black when George W. Bush has so magnanimously enlarged the government at our expense while giving tax cuts to the people who need them least. That is very offensive to some of us. Tax and spend, indeed. With this guy it's cut taxes and still spend and let China and Japan fund a disastrous war. Nobody, nobody who voted for this Yahoo in the White House has credibility when harping on Democrats spending money or making government bigger.

How about this: We Democrats only want bigger government if it means that our government would be more effective in serving the needs of the American people, not just corporate fat cats and cronies who contribute to political campaigns or line pockets.

How about this, PE. Democrats only want bigger government when it benefits them? When it creates a dependent class that gets just enough doled out to them to survive, but not to thrive. That's how your party operates, PE, they think they know better how to spend the peoples' money than the people do. They view income as a "loan" from the government and resent it anytime makes good with that loan and accomplishes something the "smart people" didn't tell them to do. "Big government" means so-called "entitlement programs" that don't bust a budget for a year or two, but for generations, and PE, that is precisely what your two candidates want to do. Bush tried to reform Social Security and actually allow the people a decision on how their money should be invested. Your party said not only no, but HELL NO! Why? Because people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama think they know better. So don't be lecturing me on credibility.


Aquilla

How about this, Aquilla. Democrats feel that government, if it governs all the people, should be there to serve all the people. Do you think that all people who are wealthy are that way because they deserve to be? If so, look at Mr. Born-With-A-Silver-Spoon-In-His-Mouth George W. Bush. Are you going to say that he did a wham bang slam dunk job of making his company Arbusto Energy succeed? If you're going to say no, you're right. Daddy had to bail him out. How about his stint as manager of a baseball team? Not a great job, either. Ask anyone who knows about Sammy Sosa.

Nothing there to recommend him for the job of President except the Bush blue blood and wealth. And oh, yeah, his term as governor of Texas where the legislature only meets part time so he therefore only worked part time. Certainly he didn't qualify because of exemplary service in the National Guard, a plum assignment that was, again, thanks to Daddy.

And how about the no-bid contract with Halliburton? Oh noooooooo, Cheney had nothing to gain from that, he says. It was just a coincidence that he was on the board. And the famous energy task force meeting where Cheney refused to identify who attended? Of course, things were totally on the up-and-up then too...

Republicans seem to think they know better about who deserves to get assistance and who doesn't. They choke at the idea of helping folks who might not get them a return on what they view as their money, even though all working Americans, not just Republicans, pay taxes. They try to put themselves in God's position judging just who is worthy and who isn't. And the more return they get on the "welfare" they dole out (usually to corporations), the more "worthy" they consider the recipients. What kind of spin do they place on that kind of behavior? "Enlightened self-interest" would be euphemistic.

Remember, if you have no boots it's hard to pull yourself up by the boot straps. There is a greater possibility of succeeding in life if provided the basics when your family can't provide them.

And what do the neocons do in office? What you're seeing--"bigger government when it benefits them", as you said it when referring to the Democrats. Yeah, tell me about it.


Just two words here, Aquilla: Prove it.


No. Because they know that there are people who will not have the scratch to invest their money in a private account for Social Security (and not necessarily through any fault of their own), and there are people like me who have to depend on it as a lifeline because of chronic illness.

I don't see John McCain not collecting his Social Security even though he doesn't need it being married to a beer distribution heiress. Do you think Dubya is going to turn down getting his Social Security? Yeah, right. It's okay for the rich old flatulents to get it, why not the poor old farts?

Obama wants to end the war in Iraq and actually allow the people a decision on how their tax dollars and lives should be spent. But your party said not only no, but HELL NO! Why? Because people like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney think they know better.

So spare me the angry emoticon.

Now how about getting back to the topic we're supposed to be discussing?

Oh please....

First of all I was on the topic until you barged in here with another typical rant about Bush and Conservatives and corporations. What I was talking about to Moif was the fact that both Clinton and Obama's politics aren't that much different from each other. They are both big government liberals as evidenced by their tax proposals, government-provided healthcare, etc.... Now, you might like big government liberals and that's your right and most certainly you can vote for that in the fall. (Of course yur vote doesn't count during the primaries, but that's ok, the "party" knows better who to select than you anyay I suppose).

So, on topic, no, it's not over. Hillary fights on, and goodness knows what she might do next.... Or what Barack might for that matter.

Aquilla

This is what I was responding to in my "rant," Aquilla, to what you had written in response to moif's post. So I guess I can blame you for pushing my buttons the same way you are holding me responsible for pushing yours. Moif is right; you are biased.

There are nuanced and not-so nuanced differences in the policies of Hillary Clinton versus the policies of Barack Obama. And you can ask Wertz and nighttimer, respectively, if you want evidence of this. This is why there are still two camps in the Democratic party as to who should be the nominee. Of course, if you reject both of them outright it makes no difference at all to you.

LEt's talk in bullet points.

Longest Record
•John McCain (20 years in the legislative branch, thousands of votes cast)
•Barack Obama (12 years in a legislative branch, thousands of votes cast)
•Hillary Clinton (a mere 8 years in the legislative branch, in the senate, a place that receives far less up or down votes than the average state senate)
•George Bush (6 years in an executive branch at time of his 2000 campaign)

Most Executive Experience
•Hillary Clinton (8 years at the helm of power)
•George Bush (6 years as the executive of one of the world's largest states, one that shares hundreds of miles along one of the world's most contentious borders)
•John McCain (two decades in the senate)
•Barack Obama.

You can tweak this however you please -- maybe you count being first lady for less than being governor, fine, though would be that that first lady had her hands on the gears of power. She had something to do with say, our Bosnia policy, and we all know about healthcare. So I actually give the gal credit.

The larger points are:

1.) Experience and Record are not the same thing. Obama has a lengthy, lengthy record, much less experience.
2.) I think the whole question of experience is a canard. Woodrow Wilson was an academic for decades, and a governor for a piddly two years that he mostly spent angling for a shot at the presidency. An academic. And you know what? That was good for america. As a president, Woodrow Wilson dreamed with the idealistic broad strokes of an academic, and we might not have had such an institution as the League of nation without a president of his background. He might have been able to better work congress out of it's isolationist stance, and even prevented the second world war, but we wouldn't have even had the question posed to us from the start.

Today, Woodrow would be chomped up by a media that somehow insist a candidate be able to bowl at least an 80 before seeking higher office. We have a climate in which academic is a pejorative term. But that's a side point. The larger point is that the whole question of experience is maybe out of wack with the historical reality. I mean, some of you guys voted for a guy who couldn't pass a world capitals quiz. So you know better than anyone how illusive that inspirational quality of leadership is. If you see it Obama or McCain, you see it, and there's not a lot a resume can do to convince you otherwise.

Quick:


If Blacks are in love with the concept of a black president and "getting even", then why don't they marry it? Why don't you marry it?

Let's get married. Quick, I just wanna get married.


Grey Seal:



I'm getting tired of arguing this point: the process is no less clear for republicans than it is for democrats. But they have a presumptive nominee! How is that possible? Have the republicans somehow broken their own rules? Have the republican voters of every state since Texas been disenfranchised? Have a cabal of elders somehow kicked Mike Huckabee out of the race?

No! John McCain reached a point where he could not realistically lose the nomination. So has Barack Obama.

Upon hearing this news, what did the GOP do? They fell in line. I sometimes admire them for this.

For a crowd obsessed with the idea that Obama can't win, that obsession with winning doesn't carry over very far. Republicans have been a disciplined, astoundingly-coordinated party for the past 28 years. They have united behind one candidate after another, sowing up wounds with the quickness of a sweatshop seamstress, appearing on cable tv in droves, all repeating talking points from the same page issued down from on high. This is partly how they've won elections.

So here we are in a year where the republican tent is fissuring at the contradictions within the party, from social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives, and isolatioists, and neocons -- the party is so fractured that the only candidate they could plausibly run is sincerely hated by a huge swath of the party.

So why can't we unify, clinton guys? Either show me how Clinton could possibly win the nomination -- and I wanna see math, numbers, statistics -- or answer that question. Because all you guys are saying is "technically, we have to wait for puerto rico." That's like telling me: We still don't know if in the 1996 World Series the Yankees beat the Braves -- I mean, technically, they swept 4 games straight out of 7, but we still haven't seen who won games 5, 6, and 7. So we'll have to wait and see.

This is goofy. Let's do it democrats, let's take it to McCain, it's time, we've suffered under Bush-Reagan-Bush-Reagan world too, too long!! Our time has come, anyone ready yet? Can I get a roar if you're ready for the general???

I'm sorry. I need to make a small distinction here. There's a difference between mathematically eliminated, and probably eliminated.

The Sox couldn't catch the Yankees in any possible situation because the Yankees took the majority of all the games availible. Even if Sox swept Games 5, 6, and 7 they still would have been short 4-3. The situation you just described was the plight of Mike Huckabee whom couldn't get the nomination no matter what the outcomes all the races. He was truly mathematically eliminated. McCain won by winning a majority of all possible (legal) delegates and therefore is the winner in the mathematical sense. Obama has not done such a feat at this time and therefore cannot be declared the winner at least not in a mathematical sense. That can only happen when his total reaches 2024, the majority of total delegates in play. Any other situation, and Hillary Clinton can still mathematically win. It's Statistics and Probability that can say Obama is the winner. Mathematics presents facts and does nothing more. It's statistics and probability that presents the interpretations from those facts from which people base opinions off of. Obama has 1850, Clinton has 1700. Those are mathematical facts. When people interpret/predict things based off of those facts, then it's not the math thats against her, it's probability/statistics. It would be nothing short of hypocritical to elect a candidate if they did not win the popular vote. It undermines the very democratic principles we complained about in the 2000 Election. If the DNC wants to get mad at someone, get mad at themselves for having setting the rules that make it possible for this to happen. You cannot blame someone who wants to win the game for playing it even when they're chances of winning are very low.
Clinton still has a mathematical path, albeit a very small one to still win. As I've said before, her method of victory is not the delegate count. It wasn't ever since Obama won 11 straight in February. It's possible for her to overtake him in the popular vote therefore making a stronger argument. It all depends on:

a) the margins in KY/WV/PR (yes PR, because when it comes to politics, they're more politically active than we are*)
B ) how well she can nullify SD/OR
c)Getting those delegates seated in FL/MI A.S.A.P.

*-I don't see it coming to and end before the primary is over, especially when they can save/kill Clinton's campaign.

First, this is a process created and driven by the DNC, so it's over when they say it is. Is this idle speculation, or are we setting odds? I'll pay at 5 to 1 against Hilldog to win today. Takers please PM me.




I was trolling along, and ran across this (Thanks, entspeak!), and it occurred to me that it might be interesting to check of the member of this committee, see if there any I recognized.

I was half right.

Here's a link.

I'm not good with names, so you guys can maybe shed some light. Is this pack of goofs gonna override the previous rulings, and keep stomping this horse, or let it rest at last?

You're guess is as good as mine.

Also, for our disturbingly large Ohio contingent (I'm an Ohio ex-pat myself, marooned in California), we have our own Most Honorable Mayor of Columbus, OH, Home of THE OHIO STATE BUCKEYES, ol'Whatsizname.

This guy I know something about. He loves business, and they love him right back.

For whatever that's worth.

Hillary comes with infinitely more baggage than Obama... many more skeletons in the closet.



But they aren't choosing Hillary.



Because Obama stuck by his word not to participate in Michigan, Hillary did not (despite a signed pledge not to participate in that primary)... she justified her participation by claiming that it didn't count anyway. It would be absurd to seat these delegates.

Not to be a stickler, but are there sources that say she explicitly/actively campaigned in Michigan. If there is evidence of this then she shouldn't get jack from MI in my opinion.

EDIT:
nvm, this kills her argument pretty well.

http://hyerstandard.com/hillary-accidental...e-to-democrats/

According to her signed pledge she wasn't even supposed to participate. The only reason Obama was on the Florida ballot was because Florida State Law prevented him from removing it.

The problem is there are no merits to your argument.

You cite no sources. You offer no confirmation. All you offer is an opinion. An opinion stoked by equal parts fear, anger and hatred of Black people.

You did offer up an a ridiculous children's story about a Black child saying when Obama wins Whites would be slaves to Blacks. How utterly charming (and more than a little despicable) to use the adolescent babbling of children to buttress a racially paranoid smear.

Blacks are in love with the concept of a black president and getting even? Women are knee-jerk in love with concept of a woman president and getting even?

Interesting. Paranoid as hell, but interesting.

Logically, it must follow White men are in love with the concept of a White male president and getting even. With all this "getting even" is anything actually getting done for America.

Ordering more ammunition? What's that for? To shoot all the Blacks obsessed with getting even or all the women obsessed with getting even? Or maybe it's for both of them?

What a strange and sad little man you are, quick. I feel sorry for anyone that is so fearful of change they would rather kill than accept change. But not sorry enough to think you're

However, have no fear. There is a candidate out there who feels your pain and panders to your fear of being a Cro-Magnon being replaced by the next stage of political evolution.

Her name is Hillary Clinton and playing the race card is her game:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. "These are the people you have to win if you' re a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that." link

Yeah, there's a pattern emerging here all right.

I would like to say I'm disappointed and surprised by Senator Clinton's decision to race bait, but that would be a lie. The truth is, I don't there's any blow too low, any shot too cheap and any fear that can't be exploited by Hill and Bill. They have made it clear time and time again they are only concerned with what's good for Hillary and Bill; Barack Obama and the Democratic Party be damned.

Before the last six primaries are over and done it is obvious we are going to see the Clintons unleash a scorched earth campaign. If it takes destroying Barack Obama to deny him the nomination, they will do it. If it takes wounding Obama so badly it hands the election to John McCain, so be it. If it taints, shreds and tears apart the last remnants of the positive aspects of The Clinton Presidency, who cares? Hillary Clinton doesn't.

She just wants to win. How she wins is unimportant. Standing between a Clinton and their ambition is like getting between a hungry Rottweiler and it's food.

And if she can't win, she'll do everything she can to make sure Barack Obama doesn't either.

Aquilla, you had better hope Obama gets the nomination. If Hillary should be successful in her rampage she'll go after McCain for being part of The Keating Five, suggest he dumped his first wife and imply he was "programmed" by his Communist captors in North Vietnam as some kind of sleeper agent "Manchurian Candidate."

NEVER doubt the lengths the Clintons will go to get what they want.

Cheer up quick. There's still hope for you and Zack. You may have found a candidate just as terrified of a Black president as you are.

If fairness to both sides in this argument. There is ample exit polling data that suggests that both small segments of the white and black populations make a decision based partly off the merits of race. Take Indiana and North Carolina.

NC Exit Polling Data (Source:CNN)
Was Race of Candidate Important to You
Whites Who Say Yes (8% of total electorate)
Clinton - 62%
Obama - 36%

Blacks Who Say Yes (9% of total electorate)
Clinton - 7%
Obama - 92%

(On a personal note as a NC native, I'm very disappointed in these numbers.)

IN Exit Polling Data (Source: CNN)
Was Race of Candidate Important to You
Whites Who Say Yes (10% of total electorate)
Clinton - 78%
Obama - 22%

Blacks Who Say Yes (5% of total electorate)
Clinton - N/A
Obama - N/A

I also chose the "whitest" and "blackest" states in America to further prove my point.

State with the highest percentage of White people
ME Exit Polling Data (Source: CNN)
Was Race of Candidate Important to You
Whites Who Say Yes (13% of total electorate)
Clinton - 42%
Obama - 58%

Blacks Who Say Yes (0%) Not enough to measure...
Clinton - N/A
Obama - N/A

State with the highest percentage of Black people
MS Exit Polling Data (Source: CNN)
Was Race of Candidate Important to You
Whites/Blacks* Who Say Yes (36% of total electorate)
Clinton - 36%
Obama - 62%

So while Obama will have his racial problems with Whites, so will Hillary Clinton with Blacks. Also note the significant portions of the white community that support Obama because of his race indicating that there is a very small percentage of the population that feel a sense of white guilt or at least faith in the misguided notion that a black president would automatically solve the racial tension in America. I feel an Avenue Q song coming on.

*-Can't speculate how this broke down racially, but I would think nearly right down the middle 18 a piece.

I'm not aware of what BET is, but otherwise, fair enough.




I think you are right that blacks have thus far voted their colour, but I don't believe that you can say Hillary Clinton was 'betrayed'. People don't owe politicians allegiance.




Perhaps so, but I'll wager very few people are much impressed by the differences between being Governor of Texas and Jnr Senator of Illinois. Most Americans are so indifferent to record that they vote according to charisma, the ones that bother to vote that is, and time and again we see the important factors that determine who will be president of the USA are popularity, funding and screen presence which is why I say I have a feeling that John McCains record won't count for anything. Barack Obama already has a solid base in 90% of the African America population. He only needs to charm a proportion of the remaining population (something he seems far more capable of than John McCain) and he's in.

John McCain by contrast, may be the better man for the job, but since when did that make any difference?




Yeah, we call that 'nuance'. Its a bit hard to explain to an American what political nuance is. I'm sure you must have nuances though, even if you can't see them yourself.

In Denmark we call what you have 'block politics'. As it happens, we have block politics as well as nuance, we have the various conservative parties and the socialist parties and they form across the same left right political divide as in all other countries, but in having the various political parties representing those political differences that actually exist in the population, we get a more representative government through better representation.

Not all socialists are the same by the way. The social democrats share many of the same positions as the conservatives, radical liberals or liberal conservatives creating a political difference between them and the socialist peoples party and far left unity party. It might sound confusing but thats only because your not used to it.

And thats my point. Your not used to political nuance so you deride it. Your used to things being the same as they always were with just two ancient party's (as if they were the Tories and the Whigs) being the only choices on offer. You are conservative in the true meaning of the word. And of course you are biased since you are a conservative. Any opinion you hold on Clinton and Obama is going to be influenced by that.

I know very little about these two candidates compared to you but even from where I'm sitting, I can see political differences, the most obvious being their position on Iraq. Judging by that metric, Obama would be a socialist and Hillary Clinton would be a social democrat. Not the same thing.

Obama comes with unknown baggage.

More super delegates have chosen Hillary.

You sound like Hannity and to get Clinton's response watch Hannity and Combs Hillary Democratic supporters explanations. I think Hillary will have an overwhelming popular vote majority when the primaries are over if 50 states are properly seated. Check out this site and pencil in Hillary wins in WV, KY and 1.2 million votes for Hillary in PR. PR has 2.4 million registered voters and Hillary is well over 50% and the voter turnout will be nearing 90%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...vote_count.html

Not really. You seem to forget that he's already been locally vetted in both state races and in a run for the Senate. The Tribune raked him over the coals for Rezko and still nothing has stuck. The best people have today is Ayers (which is a joke), a lapel pin (see previous), and one comment from Obama's wife, Michelle.

That's part of why the above have been played so much, they have nothing else left to work with.


Not a very convincing argument given that her current margin on that count is 8 (according to RCP), the trend since February has been decidedly Obama in this category, and more will come in the next few weeks.


And you sound like Terry McAuliffe. Counting Florida or Michigan in the popular vote is illegitimate. Save for a few exceptions, when Obama campaigns in a state, the margins of victory narrow considerably. Had he done so in Florida, Clinton likely would have still won there, but by a smaller margin. Obama likely would have won Michigan (or at worst a narrow loss like Indiana) if he had campaigned there. The people of those respective states have their legislatures to blame. They knew the rules, they agreed to them, and then they decided to break them.

If you leave out Michigan and Florida, Obama still wins the popular vote by an considerable margin. Had Florida and Michigan played by the rules, I suspect the end results would have still left Obama with a significant margin of victory in popular vote.

I know you want Hillary as McCain's opponent, Zack, but it ain't gonna happen. Nor should it. Obama has won (or will soon), fair and square.

The trouble with this claim is that it is difficult to prove the existence of unknown baggage. He has unknown baggage? Really? So, what exactly is this baggage that is as yet unknown? Oh, right, you wouldn't be able to tell me, because it's unknown. It's either baggage or no baggage - unknown falls into the latter category.



And she is actually losing superdelegates... it's not just that Obama is gaining more uncommitted, he is also gaining her formerly committed superdelegates.

Real Clear Politics is now reporting a 7 superdelegate lead for Clinton. My guess is that before the end of the month, she will be behind in the popular vote, in the delegate count and the superdelegate count.

Clinton would have to win the 87% of the remaining delegates in order to even close the gap in delegates - just to make it even. Just not going to happen. Obama could completely tank in the remaining primaries and still be the delegate leader.

Well no Obama hasn't been fully vetted because there is a degree of restraint within the Democratic Party to talk about Marxism or other aspects that may apply to both contenders. I haven't heard about Obama and his wife's memory problem when he attended a formal reception with an Iraqi billionaire, dollars earned from Saddam's Oil for Food program? Do you think you would remember if you attended such an event that happened in 2004? It really isn't every day that a billionaire from another nation comes to the hood to help fund your former district now is it?

Hillary supporters will see any and all actions by Obama to eliminate or marginalize FL & MI as an unfair tactic. If they are left out of the loop then many Hillary supporters will be bitter and feel they were treated unfair and either stay home or watch videos like these (please take time to watch the bottom youtube vid on post 1) http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=13948

You are very confused if you think I support a weak Hillary against McCain, I support Hillary because she can beat McCain and in doing so will cause such a fight within the Democratic Party it will split apart. If Obama is the nominee McCain will win, and that is a bad thing. If Hillary is the nominee she will win and that is a great thing because that would be good for at least two years of payback within the party and total stalemate.

Have you wondered why the Black Caucus demand zero dollars for war funding and Obama reserves the right to stay in Iraq for a couple more years? They stopped Nancy Pelosi yesterday from bringing the supplemental war funding to the floor, they won't play her game. Obama will play her game but the representatives of the Black folks in America say not one more dime for war. Why do blacks support Obama and not Hillary? Is the Black Caucus out of touch with the black community or is Obama? Something doesn't add up unless the Afro American community see Obama as the Undercover Brother?

These two missing states have been in the mix for some time now and I think Obama has a "Houston, we have a problem!" moment as this thing spirals down to the finish line. Watch all the videos, you might see how others see Obama.

You've got to be kidding, right? The information about the percentage of black vote for Hillary, and the black vote for Bush in the last two elections, is available all over the web. NT, learn to use your browser. I do not have time to look for sources for such common knowledge. I only cite sources when they are needed. As for my observations based upon these common facts, why do I have to cite some other pundit? I am at least as qualified to make such an assessment as anyone else.



My friend, for a black kid to say this to a white kid, in public, in the South where I was raised, is akin to a 10-plus Richter earthquake in Kansas. As young kids typically mimic what they hear (I am citing no source--unless you are a complete moron, you know this), it provides a nice example of what HC has been dealing with and why Obama is getting 91% of the black vote.



Strange? Nah. Extraordinary? Yes. Sad? Rarely. Little? 6 feet, 190 lbs. Hardly little. You know, the moderators sure are slow to edit your ad hominem abusive crap. Oh, well. I don't post here to be loved, just to educate the lobotomized, flaming liberal masses.



My comment about buying more ammo is a figure of speech, and in context with the schoolgirl's comment about blacks enslaving whites, totally understandable. I guess you couldn't make the connection.



Good for her. Now that the black electorate clearly has deserted her in droves, she doesn't owe them much, now does she? The black electorate had better hope she doesn't find a way to secure this nomination, as both of the Clintons, who now feel betrayed by them, will probably lay a big can of legislative whoop-azz on the black electorate if she gets elected.

And I can assure you, your man Obama is just as hungry....and whatever hunger he lacks is complemented by that of his, uh, charming wife. I'd almost vote for Obama just to watch Michelle, my belle, co-host her first state dinner. With her mouth, she'd probably start a shooting war before the appetizers were cleared.

Oh, I just read Shelby Steele's book about Obama, A Bound Man. Very interesting. If only someone would write anything credible about why Obama would be a good president, rather than simply a symbol of change. The reason is, of course, no one can write such a book with a straight face....not even Obama. I am so glad he wrote Dreams. It makes his communist/socialist, black nationalist leanings so clear.









This is pretty common knowledge here, but may not be so in Denmark:

Below is a quote from Toni Morrision's piece in The New Yorker where she declared Bill C the "first black president"

"African-American men seemed to understand it right away. Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. And when virtually all the African-American Clinton appointees began, one by one, to disappear, when the President's body, his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of the persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and bodysearched, who could gainsay these black men who knew whereof they spoke? The message was clear "No matter how smart you are, how hard you work, how much coin you earn for us, we will put you in your place or put you out of the place you have somehow, albeit with our permission, achieved. You will be fired from your job, sent away in disgrace, and--who knows?--maybe sentenced and jailed to boot. In short, unless you do as we say (i.e., assimilate at once), your expletives belong to us." "

The Clintons entertained black pastors in the White House; Bill huddled with black pastors over his adultery; Bill's post-pres office is in Harlem; and on and on. The Clintons earned the black vote years ago, even more than a typical Democratic politician might have, so that is why I use the term, "betrayed", and to get less than 9% of the black vote in this primary is, indeed, betrayal. 50-50, 60-40, I could understand, but not this one sided mess.

And, of course, this shows the black electorate's true colors, ahem.

This may be because the Democratic Party doesn't categorize either candidate as Marxist.



Well, then... the question is, did it happen? Right now, it's "he said, she said".



Hillary Clinton beating John McCain will cause a fight within the Democratic Party? Are you high? The Democratic Party has no interest in McCain winning whoever the Democratic nominee is.

NT, I'm well aware of the slash and burn brand of politics practiced by the Clintons. As you may recall, the two of us discussed this at the beginning of the primary campaign. Your guy has held up pretty well all things considered. Should he gain the nomination I look forward to a more respectful debate between he and McCain themselves on the issues although no doubt the 527s on each side are sharpening their knives. I think McCain can defeat Obama on the issues. I think that's the only way McCain can win actually against Obama.

Now, should Clinton somehow win the nomination the campaign will be much different unfortunately. It'll be a knife fight and as good as Clinton is at that, I don't think even she's a match for John McCain. He is one tough old guy. The Keating Five thing is a legitimate issue that McCain has addressed before and will again. The first wife thing would be a very dangerous thing for the Clintons to broach as would the "Manchurian Candidate" thing (which has been used before by the way without success). Both of those "bombs" would only serve to remind people about McCain's extraordinary military record. From that record detailing his 17 military commendations.....



Now I don't know about you my friend, but were I running against this guy I sure as hell wouldn't want to remind people about things like this.

The first wife story has been out there for quite some time.

Aquilla

Rahm Emanuel is calling Obama the “presumptive nominee”.

It’s all over but the shouting, stick a fork in her, she’s done, the fat lady has sung; whatever your favorite saying, Clinton is DONE. But of course she fails to admit that. Yeah, it’s her right, but to what advantage? If she were truly committed to a Democratic White House in 2008, she would concede to Obama. If her ego and narcissistic view that the presidency being hers was somehow pre-ordained, then she will continue doing what she’s doing. And I think we all know which choice she will make. It’s really rather sad and pathetic. And please, let her keep making statements like this:

Because some white Americans sees this for what it is; a cheap shot, designed to pit races against each other, and shows her desperation.

All South Chicago politics are tied to Marxism.

Did it happen? Check out this linik http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3433485.ece and there are many more if you Google ... Obama Iraqi Billionaire ...

Am I high? Are you assuming that the Afro American community would say, oh well at least we won the election and support the "party" as they expect the Hillary supporters to support Obama? Who's high? Well what do you think the pucker factor would be on a 1 to 10 scale of political super delegates that are on record of supporting Obama if Hillary would get the nomination. It might be a good thing to defeat McCain but it would definitely be a bad thing for anyone who supported Obama! Hillary and Bill will reach out and touch a few folks politically where it hurts! Lots of payback!

Say wha'???? Sources, please?

The incoherence of your posts is becoming staggering. The whole hysteria of "the world will come to an end if a Democrat wins" is getting really OLD. As is the double standard.

Here is a source http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2007/03/barack...ist-mentor.html view all sub links and then key in any Democrat elected official from South-side Chicago name and Google this site and see if you don't get a hit every time.

Zack, you are such a tease. How I wish Obama was a Marxist in any meaningful way. Unfortunately, he's another corporate whore in the Clinton centrist mold.

Perhaps 10 years from now bloggers will debate neoconservative influence on Chicago area politicians and the political and economic taint of Straussian ideology on conservative and liberal candidates running for office.

After more than 16 long months since Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton announced their candidacies for the presidency, has the democratic primary come to an end?
It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings.

Has she? There's something we need to ponder. Those rooting for Obama are evidently inclined to say yes. I'm indifferent. After Iraq, the Patriot Act, Department of Justice scandals, etc., I think my cynicism has drowned all my enthusiasm for the political process and I find myself wondering what in the hell is everyone so giddy about this time. I'm thankful I feel apart from everything. Just an outsider checking in.

Is the party healthy, are its November prospects good?
Yes and yes for the most part. Declarations of "Clinton needs to drop now" bug me as much as ever. You'd think there was a civil war going on in the party. Rubbish.

Hillary Supporters: What's on your mind? Tell us your frustrations, let's talk it out.
She never had my support like Obama never did, but I am saddened it looks like a black man will beat a woman to the Oval Office. Same as it ever was.

Thanks, but I've been pretty handy with a browser for sometime now, quick. If you don't have the times to look for sources, you should expect your opinion to be doubted. If you have time to post, you have time to back up your some of your more absurd assertions.

Saying preposterous drivel like, Blacks are in love with the concept of a black president and "getting even", just as so many women are knee-jerk in love with the concept of a woman president and "getting even" is all well and good as it's just your "observation." If you expect anyone to take it seriously though, you need to go beyond being inflammatory to substantial.

You seemed to find time to look for sources several months ago when you were trying to prove Thomas "Jungle Fever" Jefferson wasn't a bigoted slaveowning rapist.

"Common knowledge" and "common facts" are hardly "common" at all and are no substitute for backing up an opinion riddled with absurdities.

To say, "I do not have time" is a lazy way out of defending and justifying a over-the-top remark that slams Blacks and women. Don't be lazy, quick.





Oh, so does that mean the Black kid was being "uppity" to make that remark to the White kid?

You call it a nice example. I call it pretty damn desperate to elevate playground chatter into an dissertation of how Hillary Clinton lost the Black vote.





Wow. "Educate the lobotomized, flaming liberal masses?" You sure picked yourself a hobby.

Ad hominem according to Merriam-Webster means:

1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made link

I would daresay a remark such as "Blacks are in love with the concept of a black president and "getting even", just as so many women are knee-jerk in love with the concept of a woman president and "getting even" falls under the realm of the first definition quite well, wouldn't you, quick?





Actually, I did. I just couldn't fathom how someone so "extraordinary" could mistake a schoolgirl's adolescent taunting as a precursor to racial war.



She already has been elected---to the U.S. Senate---and as she's now playing the race card as she plays out the string and sinks ever deeper in debt, Hillary Clinton looks like just another sad and failed candidate lashing out in equal parts desperation and frustration.

Which probably explains your sudden bonding with her.



Communist/socialist, black nationalist leanings?

Yet another ad hominem attack, quick? Instead of whining about the moderators, you'd really be better served by pointing your browser to the board's Survival Guide:

The use of unsupported blanket statements does not add credibility to your position.




How exactly is the possibility of a Black man in the Oval Office that's not cleaning it or serving coffee, "same as it ever was?"

Does it matter if a Black man beats a woman to the Oval Office, if he's the better candidate, Lesly or should it be based upon which group has a greater historical grievance?

I would like to think we're still choosing between the best person for the job. Not which one has had it tougher.

Black men got to vote first. Black men got to break glass ceilings in the workforce first. Hell, even with more black women than black men enrolling in four-year colleges for three decades and counting, black men on average make more than black and white women. Same as it ever was for women, NT.

I don't begrudge the accomplishment. It would just be nice to see second coming in first for one glass ceiling moment.


Better candidate, of course. But I can sin and inject gender politics into the conversation if I want to. So there.

Comparisions like this (your link) are meaningless unless you control variables (theme of the week, it seems). Its a bad aside into gender politics.

Buts thats a whole nother thread...

Discussing variables isn't as straightforward as a chart. Although I agree a census is a census with a mean and a median, the totals have been studied by the GAO, variables accounted for and

There is a substantial gap in median earnings between men and women that is unexplained, even after controlling for work experience (to the extent it can be represented by age and presence of children), education, and occupation. (p. 21, pdf)

Maybe the 80 percentile has increased since the last census. I hope so. But um, yeah. Slicing and dicing my "grievance" is a whole 'nother thread.

So, let me get this straight... you are admitting that you're high? Because this entire post seems to indicate that and you have yet to deny it, so I'm going with either doped or crazed.

Duh, you didn't respond to being called high either. So if suddenly there would be a turn around outing Obama the party would be intact? There would be no retaliation towards Obama super delegates? No I wasn't high, I was applying logic, logic also when I asked why Afro Americans support has increased when he outed his pastor? Check this out, one of the 9% doesn't agree with Obama http://bwi.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=1541...890&style=2

And again I ask why do 91% of Blacks support Obama when he wants to remain in Iraq for two or more years while all of the Congressional Black Caucus don't want to spend another cent on the Iraq War. Why do they not support Hillary who has a policy to match the Congressional Black Caucus?

What spin will be put on Hillary's 70-30 win in WV on Tuesday to justify Obama's November future?

Is this the voting block you want to select the leader of the free world? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRbgRffXvHk

What, as opposed to the Christian coalition that elected Reagan Zack? Yep, I would take any black church leader like rev wright over pat robertson or Jerry Falwell or any of those "white" church leaders any day, any time.

Remember- Reagan's good friend Falwell called the civil rights movement the "civil wrongs".

Hillary Supporters: What's on your mind? Tell us your frustrations, let's talk it out. Why does the press not ask Black Caucus super delegates supporting Obama why they are refusing to vote for war funding in congress yet support Obama who clearly states he will remain in Iraq for up to two years?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080506/pl_af...bU3cSmuV.IDW7oF

The Congressional Black Caucus shut down the House of Representatives Thursday when the entire caucus vowed not a penny for war funding.

Why is the press trashing Hillary's odds when the two candidates are tied?



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...-obama-wa.html

What your not realizing is that you just can't magically make all of those soldiers teleport from iraq back to the us. You have to withdraw in a sensible way that prevents anarchy. As for congress they would probably support a funding for a timed withdraw.

More indications of not needing a Weatherman to know which way the wind's blowing:

So, again, what's the possiblility of her pulling a win out of this? A snowball's chance in hell? A camel passing through the eye of a needle? When pigs fly?

You are missing the point entirely, the Congressional Black Caucus has consistently voted to end the war now, that means they want to cut off funding to the point the mission cannot continue. That was their position on Thursday when they closed down the House of Representatives along with the Blue Dog Democrats that do not want to fund the war without paying for it with offsets. How can either group of Democratic Blocks identified by caucuses support Obama, they clearly hold Hillary's position on the war. The two groups look stupid arguing in congress that the war ends immediately, IE funds will only be authorized to ship troops and equipment to their home stations while supporting Obama that wants to use "your" sane logic. Their position is Clinton's position and Obama and your position is the opposite.

President Bush will not agree to any time frames or other restraints on the mission and will veto any offered. If, in fact the congress would agree that they will only fund the war with deadlines for with