posted
When Bill Clinton pulls the conspiracy card it looks eerily similar to a death throe.
It's kinda funny that CNN has to point out that even with Florida and Michigan being counted as is, Hillary would still be behind Obama.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The always classy FOX news chimes in, to support Obama's assassination:
To be correct, FOX news did not state this, someone being interviewed on Fox News stated this which is a huge difference. I'm going to assume there is no difference to you though
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, blaming a vast conspiracy for their political troubles worked for the Clintons before. I'm not surprised they are trying it again.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The always classy FOX news chimes in, to support Obama's assassination:
To be correct, FOX news did not state this, someone being interviewed on Fox News stated this which is a huge difference. I'm going to assume there is no difference to you though
And the FOX news guy who was interviewing her laughed and joked as though he shared the sentiment. At the very least, he showed no sign that he found the comment offensive or even inappropriate.
And BTW, legally I'm not sure there is much difference. Stations are responsible for what they broadcast. An Indy radio station I work with was fined because someone who called in to one of their talk shows made a comment that could have been interpreted as a threat against Pres. Bush.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"An Indy radio station I work with was fined because someone who called in to one of their talk shows made a comment that could have been interpreted as a threat against Pres. Bush."
Are you serious? How'd that work, exactly? I might grant you that pre-screening callers counts as some kind of basic creator of liability, but I'm not sure that something some caller randomly blurts out on the air without anyone's prior knowledge could be a fineable offense.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And the FOX news guy who was interviewing her laughed and joked as though he shared the sentiment. At the very least, he showed no sign that he found the comment offensive or even inappropriate.
He didn't laugh, he said why don't you talk about how you really feel which is a comment about her and not a comment about what he thought. If anything that was a slight comdenation of her words while moving onto what ever the next question was.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: He didn't laugh, he said why don't you talk about how you really feel which is a comment about her and not a comment about what he thought. If anything that was a slight comdenation of her words while moving onto what ever the next question was.
I listened to it again and I hear it differently. He gives a slight laugh and then says in a very joking tone "Why don't you talk about how you really feel". To it sounded like he shared the sentiment. His joking tone certainly didn't sound a bit like condemnation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it wasn't about Obama, was Clinton drawing a comparison between Bobby Kennedy and herself?
I can only imagine Bill Clinton is trying to rally Limbaugh's operation chaos in hoping Hillary will do well in Montana. They don't mind at all if their victory comes from Republican shenanigans, because they only need to turn Ohio to win the general. Limbaugh is so going to hell.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "An Indy radio station I work with was fined because someone who called in to one of their talk shows made a comment that could have been interpreted as a threat against Pres. Bush."
Are you serious? How'd that work, exactly? I might grant you that pre-screening callers counts as some kind of basic creator of liability, but I'm not sure that something some caller randomly blurts out on the air without anyone's prior knowledge could be a fineable offense.
I'm serious. I know first hand that the station was fined and the comment in question was in my opinion more innocuous than the one made on FOX news. As I remember the caller began a diatribe with the preface "If Bush was assassinated", which was interpreted by some as a threat.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are there any recent polls for Montana and South Dakota. The most recent one I could find was from last December.
Montana politics can be unpredictable at times. It is less hard core republican than the neighboring states. Still I expect its more likely to vote like other states in the region (i.e. strongly for Obama) than it is likely to follow the trend set in West Virginia and Kentucky. Interestingly Montana had its republican primary months ago. I certainly hope that those who already voted in the republican primary can't switch now and vote in the democratic primary as well.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama was carrying the mountain states early in the cycle and I am pretty sure will win amoung legitimate democrat voters. But it's a red state, and lately, those break for Hillary.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not quite fair to say Montana is a red state. Though it went for Bush in the last two elections, the Govenor and both senators are democrats. And unlike the other red states that have held primaries recently, republicans will have a hard time participating in this one since the republican primary was held in early february.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to stick my foot out and predict that both Montana and South Dakota will go for Obama with a wide margin.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The popular vote gambit is actually quite interesting. He doesn't give any numbers, and if Obama tries to refute with numbers, he has to go into the territory of either acknowledging the MI and FL votes or not.
Though I guess there is the Caucus issue. But saying caucuses shouldn't determine the nominee while superdelegats should is bass ackwards.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm serious. I know first hand that the station was fined and the comment in question was in my opinion more innocuous than the one made on FOX news. As I remember the caller began a diatribe with the preface "If Bush was assassinated", which was interpreted by some as a threat.
Do you have links about this?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, no links. I only know about this because I was doing some work with the station at the time.
If this had been a larger corporate station with a lawyer on retainer, they probably could have fought it and won. As it was, they figured the fine would cost them less than legal fees so the paid up and banned the caller in question from future shows.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to stick my foot out and predict that both Montana and South Dakota will go for Obama with a wide margin.
I assumed South Dakota would go big for Obama because of Daschle's early and unwavering support. Half of Daschle's office became Obama staff when Daschle was voted out and Obama voted in in '04.
Montana, well, I just don't think those folks like Clintons.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This Weekly Standard article seems to be making the case that Condoleeza Rice is too soft on the axis of evil. It was interesting to read, at any rate.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Montana, well, I just don't think those folks like Clintons.
Well we Montanan's (or at least a plurality of us), did vote for Bill in '92.
Still I suspect you are right. The Clinton's popularity in Montana has been on the slide pretty much since that time.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: This Weekly Standard article seems to be making the case that Condoleeza Rice is too soft on the axis of evil. It was interesting to read, at any rate.
The link just takes me back to hatrack.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The last poll I saw for South Dakota was a month ago, actually almost two months ago, and had Obama ahead by 10 or so points. The last poll I saw for Montana has Obama ahead by almost 20, with a dozen undecided points, and that was a few days ago.
The last Puero Rico poll I saw was a few months ago and had Clinton ahead by a dozen points with as much up for grabs.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The DNC rules committee meets on Saturday to decide the fate of Michigan and Florida delegates. Many options are being discussed, and even how many delegates we'll even get. As I've said before, I don't see why three other states were given full waivers but Florida and Michigan got the hammer dropped on them. They should get full delegations and full votes at the convention, using whatever deal the two states work out amongst themselves.
Some are now saying that this won't wrap up on Tuesday, and that Clinton will push all the way to the convention. I think in practice though, it'll be over on Wednesday. I fully believe that Clinton is self absorbed and selfish enough to sacrifice the party for her own sake. But I think Obama will have the delegates he needs to secure the nomination, and once that happens, Obama will declare victory regardless of her protestations and her support will dry up.
I think most of us are over the primary and are ready for this to move on to the next stage.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting question. Let me look into that one.
If I had to take a guess...the Rules Committee can decide the sum total of how many delegates the states get. In other words, will the dock half or let them keep them all? And the Credentials Committee actually accepts the apportionment, meaning that Clinton could harp on the way the delegates are apportioned, but I don't think she can touch how many there are total.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, here is how it works from what I just read:
The Rules Committee will figure out what it wants to do on Saturday and will come to a decisions. The Credentials Committee won't actually be formed until the middle of the summer, and if any problem is brought before them, it's unlikely to be until the convention when the delegates and their votes and size are all brought before the convention floor. At that time, the states (but not, from what I've read, the candidates) can make official disputes on the floor, as the voted for and superdelegates must approve whatever the Credentials Committee puts forth.
Now the Credentials Committee is chosen on a state by state basis on a hybrid population vs voting performance basis. The general feeling I got from it was that Obama would probably have more support on the Committee because of the states he has won, but that ultimately control of what they decide could be in Howard Dean's hands, since he chooses 25 at large delegates. In the past these 25 delegates were chosen basically by the presumptive nominee, or at least under his guidance, but Dean chose his early this year, back in January, so really he has the most sway with them, and in the end he could push them to vote for whoever he wants, which really will be whoever he thinks is the most viable candidate.
In other words? The whole thing is an overcomplicated clusterfrick of stupid rules. It's no wonder the Democrats lose so damned often.
The Rules Committee will make a choice on Saturday that probably will end up standing, but that decision can still be questioned on the convention floor if someone decides to dispute it, unless, apparently, they actually amend the DNC Rules charter to change the rules entirely. It's possible that the decision they make on Saturday will satisfy both campaigns, but really I have to wonder how much it even matters. There are still a couple hundred Superdelegates left, and I think at least a 70/30 split will go to Obama, and there's still three more places to vote, at least two of which will likely also go for Obama. She'll be down nearly 200 delegates by the time the voting is over, if not dramatically more when the Supers all put their votes in. There are like 350 votes up for grabs in Michigan and Florida, and if the Michigan vote was delegated as is, which would probably be a 55/45 split, she'd only pick up like 20 or 30 delegates on him, and maybe another 50 in Florida.
I don't see what loophole, other than a major behind the scenes smoke filled room effort to totally flout the delegates' power, is possibly going to get her the nomination. I think once June 3rd is over, enough people will come together to smother whatever hope she has of stealing the nomination away. And I think at that point she'll have to fade into the background.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a bump to point to this editorial from one of the UCC ministers regarding the Pfleger sermon.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pelosi and Reid are talking about stepping in to put an end to the bickering in early June. They plan to force the Supers to declare, with Pelosi saying this can not go to the convention.
Meanwhile, Clinton is making her case to the rules committee that Florida and Michigan should be seated in full, and that Obama shouldn't get ANY delegates from Michigan. That's a tough pill to swallow I think. Many, if not most of us in Michigan voted uncommitted in Michigan knowing that it was a vote for Obama in essence if not in fact, and either we, we all voted specifically NOT for Clinton, so who gets the delegates? No one? Meh.
I still think Obama is going to cruise to official victory, but this thing might get a little more interesting before it's over.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Meanwhile, Clinton is making her case to the rules committee that Florida and Michigan should be seated in full, and that Obama shouldn't get ANY delegates from Michigan.
Yeah, I read about that one today and really, really don't agree with the arguement Clinton's lawyer is making there. I also think her campaign's "Every vote counts and the will of the voters is all that matters" is pretty ridiculous when set beside her repeated claims that certain states don't really count, caucuses don't really count, and trying to get superdelegates to go her way regardless of the actual votes.
quote:In a startling manuever aimed at clinching the Democratic Presidential nomination, sources indicate that Hillary Clinton and General Zod are talking seriously about an alliance.
Okay... I can sort of sympathize with the argument that the will of the people demands that the states' delegates be seated in spite of whatever foolishness the state parties might have gotten up to. But when you add "and don't give Obama any of the Michigan delegates", you throw the "will of the people" argument right out the window, and basically put me in the attitude that the arguers should go perform an anatomical impossibility upon themselves.
Fortunately, as near as I can tell, the likelihood is that there's no way in heck that Clinton is going to walk away with the full delegate count in Michigan and Florida.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was certainly unfair to the Michigan and Florida voters to rule that their primaries wouldn't count. But you can't simply fix that by ruling retroactively that they count.
On the day of the election, Michigan and Florida voters were told that the primary would not be counted. Prior to those elections the candidates knew that they would not count.
Those factors unquestionable influenced the outcome of those primaries.
How fair would changing the rules now be to all the people who didn't vote because the election was only symbolic but would have voted if they knew it was for real?
What about all the people who chose to vote in the republican primary but would have voted in the democratic primary if they had known it was more than just for fun?
What about all those voters who would have voted differently if the candidate had campaigned in their state.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't put nearly as much research and thought into a vote that was just for show as I would in a real election.
The whole situation isn't fair to the Michigan and Florida voters but I can't think of anything they could do now short of turning back the clock that would make it fair.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There isn't a way. This year is a wash. It was ruined when the first told us it wouldn't count, and the DNC threatened Clinton and Obama into not campaigning here, and threatened the lesser known candidates into removing their names from the ballot.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is my simplistic solution to the Mi and FL delegate mess. Sine Florida was influenced to move it's primary because of the RNC and because both Obama and Clinton were on the ballot, their votes should all be counted.
Since MI broke the rules of their own accord, their delegates should not be counted. What good are the rules if breaking them has no consequence? Let the voters be mad at the party and elect new people or switch sides.
These are the rules of the DNC. Let the voters respond to the consequence of the rules their party established. Maybe there will be real reform.
Plus Obama wasn't even on the ticket. Awarding Clinton delegates seems wrong when she pre-agreed to the rules. Obama acted out of an appropriate understanding/agreement of DNC decision at the time MI pulled a fast one.
If there is too much of an outcry, I would understand/support if a compromise was worked in MI where Clinton got half her delegates and Obama got half the undecided and/or independent delegates.
I am dispassionate about the DNC or their nominee. I am either going to write in Ron Paul or vote for whomever he endorses. The republican party has become the big government party I politically disagree with.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That sets a double standard. Others can break the rules but Michigan alone gets punished? How do you figure that's fair?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that the DNC had no choice but to move the convention because the RNC moved their convention--which should absolve them of some responsibility.
If that is not the case, then I think the rules should be strictly adhered in Florida.
The reason I think the rules should be strictly enforced is because it is the best way to shine light on bad policy so that there will be an impetus for fundamental changes when the policy is unfair.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Three other states, other than Florida and Michigan, broke the exact same rule, and were given a total exemption by the DNC.
The DNC is meeting as we speak and should announce tonight what their decision is. The leadership wants this over with today.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dunno if this has been posted yet or not. It's a video compilation of statements McCain has made on tape where he contradicts himself, blatantly, obviously and repeatedly.
posted
Latest: Florida and Michigan are both being seated, but their delegates will only count for half.
There's still arguing over how Michigan delegates will be allocated.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Dunno if this has been posted yet or not. It's a video compilation of statements McCain has made on tape where he contradicts himself, blatantly, obviously and repeatedly.
posted
It's not exactly something I need or want to know as an average citizen following the presidential campaign.
I mean, really, who cares? It's exactly this kind of crap that convinces the already ignorant general public that they were right in assuming "politics" is evil, corrupt, and not worth the trouble to get involved.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obama's resignation reminded me of his apology for his "bitter" comments; it missed the point. He seems to be resigning from the church not because he disagrees with the doctrines and sermons, but because he feels its a distraction and because he feels the news is mistreating congregants. To me it seems politically expedient, but nothing more; I didn't see any genuine disapproval, for the sermons or the congregants who added their amens.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yikes. There's really no good way out of the church thing for Obama. If he stays there, then every single thing that Wright, or a visiting commentator says, is an automatic mark against Obama and he has to comment on it. If he leaves, I suspect that he'll be attacked for leaving because of politics. Ultimately leaving is an attempt to put this behind him. I don't know if it'll be that easy, but doing it at the end of May means he might not have as much to deal with in October so, it might be a good political move.
That McCain video is pretty bad for him. There's a lot more he's said recently that I think could be used in the same sort of video, but I think pooka is right, I've seen a couple videos just like that for Clinton, though not quite as much about Obama, though I think something similar though less damning would be feasible as well.
It looks like Florida and Michigan, for now, will be seated in full with half votes. Clinton has vowed to take it to the convention, but I'd be really surprised if it came to that. I think the party has come to a realization, one way or the other, that Obama won, and back room dealings I think will seal it, and come June 3rd, a flood of Supers will start to fall his way. Reid, Dean and Pelosi I think will act the part of DNC Whips and get the people in line. The question at that point I think will be for Clinton's political future. If she really takes it to the mat and fights on, I think she'll burn so many bridges that she'll be over in national Democratic politics. The highest I think she could go from there is Governor of NY. If she steps back to help Obama out with campaigning, I think she could mend a lot of fences for herself, but only she can make that choice.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama will be in the city I work tomorrow. Tickets were available a couple blocks from where I live, but the DNC office opened at 9am, until 12pm, Saturday and Sunday, and they were out of tickets by 9:15am on Saturday. By the time I found about it, tickets were gone. I don't think tickets sold out that fast for some concerts that have sold out recently.
People were lined up outside the building in a line six blocks long that stretched around an alley and down Main Street in downtown since before 6am to get tickets.
posted
He'll be here Tuesday. I got an email and rsvp'd yes, forgetting I'll be out of town for work. There are no advance tickets, but they asked you to rsvp if you were coming or not and said it was first come first serve, but it's at a pretty big venue.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
There are no advance tickets, but they asked you to rsvp if you were coming or not and said it was first come first serve, but it's at a pretty big venue.
