From the Times:
Still, for all the millions of votes Clinton has won, simple math is still her enemy. She now needs to use Tuesday night to persuade superdelegates — the hundreds of party leaders who have a vote on the nomination — to stop abandoning her for Obama.
So the stark reality remains — even in this best-case scenario, Clinton only chipped Obama’s pledged delegate lead from 159 to 148. Yet last night offered more than 1/3rd of remaining delegates, 370. Only about 560 remain in the contest.
If Obama can show he’s not collapsing under the weight of Clinton’s assault, there will be no reason for the super delegates to overturn the will of the voters (in both pledged delegates and the popular vote).
Yeah, Clinton won last night, but she didn’t win by the margin needed to really “clean up” the way she needed to in the delegate apportionment. Even though she won two big states, she’s not going to win all of their delegates.
What her victories will do is keep her super delegates loyal for the time being, which is important for folks like Jay Inslee. I bet that guy’s phone is ringing like crazy these days from angry Obamatrons.
Goldy asked last night if the race continuing like this was “good for the party.” I said that it was, but it can’t go on indefinitely. Somebody has to win, or more importantly, somebody has to lose, and soon. But as long as Hillary does the winning, she’ll have no reason to quit, even if the math gets uglier for her.
Maybe Clinton will have to go more negative in order to win. In her negative TV ads against Obama, she darkened his face and widened his nose to make him look more “Black”. If Clinton can try a little harder on this, maybe she can convince more racist White voters not to vote for Obama? The sort of disgusting smear tactic by Clinton is unquestionably obvious, and something her campaign cannot deny or pass blame on. Clinton is clearly responsible for the TV ads that her campaign pays for, while she could always disavow the distribution of the “turban” pictures and the “Muslim” e-mails.
She has no reason to quit. The DNC has plenty of reason to pressure ONE of them to quit, and my guess is that they see Obama as the more viable candidate against McCain.
I hear a lot of outcry from women who hate Obama because they think he’s denying Hillary the chance to be the first woman candidate.
This may be understandable in a personal sort of way, but it ought to occur to them that a lot of us would be equally pleased, maybe more pleased, to see a first African American president!
It’s an embarrassment of riches…
“Only about 560 remain in the contest.”
Actually exactly 611. How can Kos get that number so wrong?
In an interview in Austin, Texas, Clinton said that the next contest was in Pennsylvania. Look at about 1:20 into the following clip:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hLhe-ld9mrs
However, the next state is Wyoming on Saturday, March 8, followed by Mississippi on Tuesday, March 11. Obama will kick ass in both of these states, and more than make up the 12 net delegates (at most) that Clinton gained in yesterday’s contests.
I guess Clinton doesn’t think that Wyoming and Mississippi voters even count. Probably because both states usually vote Republican for President in general elections, and possibly because the large majority of Democratic voters in Mississippi have darker skin than even the Obama caricature in the negative TV ad that Clinton has been airing.
Daniel K @ 3
Also, Kos used some Texas precinct caucus figures from CNN, which seem to be off by several percent and have no documentation. The Texas Democratic Party has Obama leading Clinton by about 55% to 45% in precinct delegates, which would give Obama a 37-30 caucus advantage, and a 98-95 overall advantage in Texas.
There may be a silver lining in this cloud for the Democratic Party. If the outcome isn’t clear until the convention, they can be assured that far more people will be watching than would have been otherwise. In that case, the party leadership will have a golden opportunity to present a clear message to the American public. Let’s hope they don’t blow it.
Richard Pope: it’s about time someone on your side admits the truth: “maybe she can convince more racist White voters not to vote for Obama”.
Since these are donkey primaries, these are donkey racists!
Waaaaa haaaaa haaaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaaa
Thank you Richard for that succinct commentary.
@ 3
Broadcast from the basement of the science building much?
Richard Pope@4: Yes, blacks in Mississippi and whites in red state Wyoming flyover country don’t count to Heilary. These people are not part of her “makeup”.
Puddy @ 7
White Republican voters tend to be far more racist than White Democratic voters.
Richard are you saying you can’t trust the Kos Kool-Aid today?
@10: Yup -if you want to find the real racists – go to the Republican party.
Willie Horton was an ad by what party?
The southern strategy of Ronald Reagan pretty much summed up what the republicans do: Use code words, alienate white voters from the democrats and appeal to the lowest common denominator.
too bad they didn’t have a bed on the white house lawn today – John McCain basically jumped in bed with Bush today.
Onward and upward for the third bush term….
Here is some wonderful news from Texas. In November 2004, John Kerry received 2,832,704 votes for President in Texas in the general election. Yesterday, at least 2,857,301 voters cast ballots in the Democratic presidential primary in Texas. Pretty impressive?
Not only that, but this was more than twice the Republican primary turnout of 1,380,907. In historically Republican (not anymore!) Dallas County, Democratic turnout more than tripled Republican turnout. In the outer suburban counties of the Dallas metroplex, which Bush carried by nearly 80% in 2004 (such as Denton, Collin and Rockwall), Democratic turnout also exceeded Republican turnout, albeit by small margins in those counties.
Incumbent GOP U.S. Senator John Cornyn also fared miserably. While he won renomination against a token GOP primary opponent, over 70% of the Texas voters yesterday chose someone other than Cornyn as their preference for U.S. Senator.
The Barack Obama campaign website projects a Clinton net pickup of only 4 delegates from yesterday’s results:
http://origin.barackobama.com/resultscenter/
My projection of 12 net Clinton delegates gained may be closer to the mark, but is the maximum possible upside for Clinton from yesterday in any event.
The Barack Obama campaign website projects a Clinton net pickup of only 4 delegates from yesterday’s results:
origin.barackobama.com/resultscenter/
My projection of 12 net Clinton delegates gained may be closer to the mark, but is the maximum possible upside for Clinton from yesterday in any event.
For those of you who are doing the hard math:
Do the 561 “open” delegates include the unpledged superdelegates? I’m trying to sort out how many remain “in play” in primary elections vs. caucuses vs. “superdelegates”.
Or to put it another way: can Hillary still trade primary election states at 55% to 45% each way, and rely upon the superdelegates at a brokered convention to make up the difference?
If we get to a brokered convention, there might be a serious fight for delegates who are pledged to support one candidate or another, but not legally bound to vote for them.
I remember in the 1972 Republican Convention, there was one poor candidate who announced that he was, reluctantly, bound by law to cast his vote on the first ballot for a candidate other than Richard Nixon. The convention hall filled with boos, because that meant the nomination was not unanimous. What were those who were doing the booing thinking – that this delegate was going to violate the law just for the appearance of unanimity? Of course, after Nixon was nominated, there was an immediate motion to make the nomination unanimous, which was approved by acclimation.
Pope: I had to take a re-certification course in handling air shipments of dangerous goods materials, held about this time last year. The instructor was a fellow from Texas, a tall, big Texan who had a deep and abiding disgust of Bush. He felt that Bush’s performance as President was the ultimate sin: it was an embarrasment to the State of Texas, and all that it stood for. If he is any indication, then the phrase “Don’t Mess with Texas” might take on an entirely new meaning, one the national Republican Party won’t appreciate very much.
Leave it to Tricky Dickie to be involved in trying to violate the law right off the bat – that’s the GOP way.
Clinton doesn’t have a chance if Obama’s supporters keep cheating like they did in Texas.
Just an honest question here…please no referring me as being a “troll”
We all elected Dem Congress and Senate to takeover in 2006. We elected them based off their promises of “change”. What happened? Why are we actually in an even worse spot now than then? I voted for them in the hope of change by giving control to the dems in Congress and Senate, yet nothing new has really happened?! Does anyone worry this will be the same after dems take over in ’09?
@1 Clinton doesn’t have to go negative. She does, however, have to get a fair delegate count. And that may require suing the Obama campaign to keep them from:
A) Locking Clinton delegates out of caucuses,
B) Filling in delegate lists ahead of time, and
C) Reporting delegate totals to the state party at the beginning, not the end, of caucuses.
22 – RR is that really happening????? if so…OMG! Same ol’ politics!
In short, Obama’s supporters are behaving like Republicans, which I have to admit will be a good thing for the fall campaign, because once we have a nominee we must start fighting fire with fire. The last thing I want is for our candidate to be a wimp or give the Republicans an even break.
RR – I understand BUT the basis of his campaign is “change”….I don’t want him playing the same games that have been played all these years. That makes his basis of change seem like false hope if he continues to play the game.
Even if he thinks he has to fight dirty, well polls show he doesn’t! By a large margin, he is out-polling McCain.
@23 Clinton Campaign Accuses Texas Obama Supporters of Cheating
“The Clinton campaign held a last minute ‘emergency’ conference call with reporters tonight …. Among [their] allegations: Obama supporters ‘locked out’ Clinton supporters from caucuses, filled out sign-in sheets before caucuses started, and called in caucus results before the 7 p.m. starting time.
“The call quickly dissolved into a heated war of words between Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and an Obama campaign lawyer, Bob Bauer, who joined the call surreptitiously. …. When dumbstruck reporters asked Wolfson who had interrupted the call, Wolfson identified Bauer ….
” … Clinton lawyer Lyn Utrecht alleged that [Clinton’s campaign] has received hundreds of complaints from supporters …. ‘We’ve identified witnesses and spoken to them,’ Utrecht said. ‘There are numerous locations across the state where Obama supporters have taken over caucuses and locked out Clinton supporters…. We have lawyers all across the state observing all of this.’
“Utrecht refused to rule out a lawsuit …. ‘All options are open at this point,’ she said, when asked about the possibility of legal action. Wolfson added: ‘There is always a somewhat chaotic quality to caucuses. That is normal. What is happening in Texas today, throughout this evening, is … quite extraordinary.’”
Quoted under fair use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://www.newsweek.com/id/118 854
@25 I think you need to distinguish between Obama and his overzealous supporters. There’s no information at this point to indicate Obama knew about this or approved it.
@26 – that cheating right there alone could cost Obama big time, touting change, personal responsibilty and all…then this????
@25 (continued) I think what we have here is Texans behaving like Texans.
Well, Rog, do you know this to be the case, or are you using the common Republican technique of choosing to believe a rumor and propagating it as widely as possible?
@28 agreed and very possible. Then again if he has campaign managers that set up these caucuses, then there are some questions. If he becomes President, he will get to appoint members. If he can’t appoint honest campaign managers, well how can we trust his Presidential appointee decisions. Bad news for Obama on this one. Although, I will still support him til the facts are all out!
RR @ 26, etc.
Maybe you have the Clintons behaving like Clintons, instead of the Texans behaving like Texans. The issue wasn’t people being “locked out” of caucuses. The issue was that far more people attended caucuses than there was space for them. Hundreds of people per precinct in some instances. So some of the people had to stay outside, while others went inside. Or they held the whole things outside. The caucuses weren’t supposed to start until the polls were closed and the precinct returns completed. But there were so many people, that they circulated the sign-in sheets right away, so everyone could get signed in.
Hannah @ 21:
The reason we haven’t seen as much change since Jan. 2007 as we wanted:
(1) Although the Democrats control the House and have the slimmest of all possible leads in the Senate, it is not enough of a majority to overcome
(a) a filibuster in the Senate (requires 60 votes to cut off debate), or
(b) the occassional defections from the ranks in case of some Senate votes (such as Lieberman voting with Republicans on Iraq issues), or
(c) a Presidential veto (requiring a 2/3 majority to override).
Therefore, we have to rely upon the occassional Republican who is willing to cross the aisle and compromise, plus Republican leadership and the Bush administration who are occassionally willing to put the needs of the nation above politics to compromise on important issues.
But almost always, the GOP is willing to go to the wire, allowing serious adverse consequences to the nation’s best interest if they think they can force the Democrats to surrender, or they can blame the Democrats for the resulting problems. They have refused to compromise on virtually every important aspect of every issue, leaving to the Democrats to the choice of having the nation’s business grind to a halt, with perhaps serious consequences. Thus they are unwilling to discuss serious timetables for withdrawing from Iraq, preferring to keep U.S. troops in harms way or blame the Democrates for any consequences of cutting off funding for the war. They are willing to see the FISA bill expire and blame the Democrats for “endangering the safety of the U.S. from terrorist attack”, rather than argue on what is essentially an unrelated issue of Telcom immunity from lawsuits over illegal wiretapping.
The rare exception to cooperation was the negotiations over the tax rebate – the Republicans never saw a tax cut they didn’t like, and they didn’t want to be in a position of being accused of obstructing or delaying it.
Unfortunately, the Democrats who took office in 2006 are very timid in areas where they are concerned that they can be made to look weak on anti-terrorism issues, so they are a bit too willing to throw in the towell when faced with determined opposition by the Republicans. Once they become aware that the political landscape has irrevokably changed, they may be less afraid that the Republicans can brand them as “terrorist lovers” every time they don’t give in to Republican demands.
At least Clinton had a good stage manager for her victory speech – the photo of her on the front page of the Seattle Times this morning showed her waving to the crowd, with an enthusiastic black woman applauding by her side.
I will vote for McCain before I vote for Hillary since I feel she went negative. I will not reward her for being just as bad as all my Republican friends told me she was.
@30 “Well, Rog, do you know this to be the case, or are you using the common Republican technique of choosing to believe a rumor and propagating it as widely as possible?”
Rumor? Whom do you think you’re kidding? This was reported by a reputable news organization (Newsweek) after the Clinton campaign called a press conference based on field reports from lawyer-observers and hundreds of complaints from supporters. Do you really believe they’re making this up and lying to the news media about it? If you do, you’re as crazy as the wingnuts who automatically disbelieve everything the MSM publishes.
A lot of Texas Republicans crossed party lines (at the urging of Rush Limbaugh) to vote for Hillary yesterday. Then they’re claiming they were disenfranchised because the Democratic ballot didn’t have the other Republican candidates on them, just the Democratic ones.
Well, duh, it was the Democratic primary, not the Republican primary. It’s like crashing a bar mitvah party and complaining that no ham being served.
@30 (continued) No, I don’t have personal knowledge of what happened in Texas — I wasn’t there. Neither do I have personal knowledge that (a) the earth is round, (b) the price of crude oil jumped $5 today, or (c) you will die if you drive a car into a tree at 90 mph. I don’t have time to personally investigate everything, nor do you, or anyone else. We know very little from personal knowledge; most of us (including you) rely on others for most of what we know about what is happening in the world around us. How dare you compare me to Republican trolls; I get my information from reputable sources. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Nothing’s stopping you from reading the Newsweek story yourself and drawing your own conclusions.
@31 When was the last time we had an honest president? I like our crooks better than their crooks.
@32 I’m reporting the complaints, Richard — exactly as it was reported by MSM. I wasn’t there. Were you? No, I don’t think so, in which case you are speculating. Presidential campaigns don’t call press conferences to complain about crowded caucuses. The Clinton campaign used the phrase “locked out.” Let’s not parse words here, it means exactly that. It’s up to you whether to believe the complaints, and to decide what burden of proof the Clinton campaign has to meet to satisfy you, but it seems to me they’d be running a huge risk of calling a press conference and telling this to the media if it wasn’t well-documented. Their lawyers are involved and they’re threatening to sue, so I’m inclined to believe they have evidence that will stand up in court. By their actions, they’ve certainly demonstrated they believe they have enough evidence to take their case to the media. This isn’t any fucking rumor or unsubstantiated allegation; with this much smoke pouring out of Texas there’s gotta be a fire somewhere down there. Use your head, Richard.
@37 That’s not the issue I’ve been commenting on. I have no sympathy for Republican complaints about not being able to vote for Republicans in a Democratic caucus. Are they really that stupid? Well, yes, when you look at the Republicans they vote for.
@37 (continued) The issue is whether Obama supporters rigged Texas caucuses by (a) keeping Clinton supporters from voting for Clinton, (b) filling out delegate lists before the caucuses, and (c) submitting names of delegates supposedly elected at the caucuses before the caucuses were scheduled to start. All of this adds up to delegate-stealing. It’s immaterial who the Clinton supporters were; the only thing that matters is whether they were entitled to attend the caucuses and have a say in picking Democratic delegates and the Democratic nominee. If they were, and if these things happen, the delegates “elected” by these means were not legitimately or legally chosen and shouldn’t be counted.
@35: blue John – I agree that clinton has gone negative and is screwing things up – but I will still vote for her over that hypocrite McCain. Her policies and Obama’s don’t differ that much. Really – the major difference is that Obama can attack McCain at his weak points – the Iraq war and lobbyists – and Clinton can’t.
Clintons “experience” campaign won’t work on McCain – but Obama’s change campaign will. Obama does better against McCain than clinton and right now Clintons best demographics are older women who just want a female president. When Obama hit her on not even reading the NIE on Iraq – she had nothing to come back with.
Watch her Senate speech on Iraq – Dick Cheney could have given it…replete with all of the al Qaeda in Iraq references. That is why Obama can call out McCain and Clinton can only make up stuff about NAFTA and Canada that turns out to be totally false.
ROGER@24HOPEFULLY YOU WILL BE DEAD AND BURRIED BY THEN
HANANH @25 THE ONLY THING OBAMA IS GOING TO CHANGE IS THE MONEY IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNT.LOOK UP EMPTY SUIT AND YOU WILL FIND A PICTURE OF OBAMA.
Whatever happens, Hillary’s path to the nomination has to include Florida and Michigan. How’s that going to happen? Well, the rules will need to change.
And yet, Terry Mcauliffe, her campaign manager, when asked today on MSNBC’s “Hardball” whether the “automatic delegates” should be able to override the popular vote, answered: “The rules are the rules. When you get in, you gotta apply the rules as they are.” Remember that quote as Hillary advances her argument on changing the rules as they apply to Michigan and Florida.
Richard and correctnotright:
Ummm… what you both wrote was non sequitors to my response to Richard’s original postulation. Heilary ain’t convincing Republicans to NOT vote for Obama. Where do you guys come up with this crap?
Duh! What a crock!
Twilight Zone Time Machine visit?
Ah, Roger. I remember you telling me that I should be careful about attacking fellow Democrats, as it has been one of the traditional ways we manage to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.
No, you didn’t use those words, but that was the gist of the message.
I have serious difficulties with Senator Clinton as a Presidential candidate. Some of her campaign tactics have been less than honest or honorable.
She has made unsubstantiated claims about the Texas caucuses. Apparently in a few of them, her folks showed up late and felt “locked out” of the process.
And while nobody can be sure that there weren’t any problems, none of the outside observers saw anything like that. Only the Clinton campaign seems to have had any hint of that sort of problem.
The last time we had a Clinton in the White House, we also had control of both houses of Congress. In her one, actual attempt at being involved with legislation, she managed to not only lock out any Republican that might have been willing to work with her, but also any Democrats that didn’t toe her mark.
Hence, we’re still trying to get a decent health care plan passed.
Then, in the fashion that you suggest we use again, President Clinton managed to insist on such a partisan style of governing that the Republicans came back and took control of Congress. And not just any Republicans, but the neo-cons with their “contract on America”.
Senator Obama is willing to work with reasonable Republicans. I realize that many Democrats would prefer to be in the minority than to give anyone with an “R” after their name any credit for anything.
But my own view is that the Clintons, together, were in large part responsible for the far-right takeover of the Republican party, and for the twelve years of neo-con Republican control of Congress.
No wonder the far-right radio talkers are lining up to support her. She did such a great job for them the last time.
Hannah – Indisputable facts found on the Internet vs. crap from his ass –
BULLSHITTIUM ALERT rhp6033@33 wrote:
Donkey Senator Jay Rockefeller no friend to us whom think right said “This is needed for our national defense”. There was no filibuster, no back room deal. Yet rhp6033, the old revisionist he is, can’t deal with the truth.
END OF rhp6033 BULLSHITTIUM ALERT.
So John Barelli, not to gloat about the Clitons and their scorched earth tactics but
Gennifer Flowers and Kathleen Willey have a story for you!
Oh, and your comment about reputable news agencies reporting about the “irregularities”.
Yes, they are reporting that the Clinton campaign has made complaints.
That is all they are reporting. Not that there were actually any problems, just that the Clinton campaing is complaining.
Let’s see. The campaign complains (which is a legitimate story, whether or not the complaint is justified).
Then you claim that the fact that the story was covered is proof that the claims were valid. If the parties were switched, I would expect that kind of argument out of Mark the Redneck.
You really do want to see Senator Clinton use Republican tactics, don’t you?
Yes, Puddy, I do hold the Clintons responsible, at least in part, for letting the neo-cons loose on the country.
Of course, that doesn’t excuse the lies, hypocrisy, abuses of power, violations of the Constitution, etc… that you neo-cons perpetrated, nor does it make you neo-cons any less culpable for your actions.
It simply acknowledges that, through strict partisanship and an unwillingness to work with the more reasonable people in your party, we Democrats marginalized the moderate Republicans and opened the door to the worst, most radical-right Republicans to both take over your party and hold power for twelve years.
My hope is that those reasonable folks left in your party manage to retake control, and become a voice for honest conservatism.
My fear is that we’ll do the same things we did before, allowing the far-right to retain control of the Republican party, while giving them the opportunity to point to legitimate greivances as a way of regaining power.
Then we’ll get another dozen years of lies, abuse of power and trampling on our Constitution, with another Clinton happily presiding over it.
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. – George Santayana
Rogers’s comments above illustrate the surest path to killing whatever momentum the Dems gain from the Obama charisma tour. Squabbling when Clinton and her gang “lawyer up”, even if merely to (yawn) allege caucus irregularities, paints a pretty ugly picture to independents and those legions of “hope and change” Obama fans.
@37 Rog
When I first heard the news on the teewee at the crack of dawn, it sounded pretty speculative.
If they did it, it needs correction and disavowal, pronto; and a strong message to other venues not to do it. But after the Nevada dog and pony show, I’m not taking anything the Clinton camp says without supporting evidence.
You may very well be justified in assuming you have the correct version (I didn’t know about Newsweek) but it’s not unknown for MSM to amplify a story to near-unrecognizable dimensions in the feeding frenzy to outdo the competition.
And the Clinton campaign has had some unfortunate incidents with the truth, after which various personages uselessly, symbolically “resigned”. Plausible deniability, don’t you know.
Zip:
Good point. It’s taking me, as an Obama supporter, more than a bit of effort to retain some hope that Ms. Clinton will be an improvement over her husband. I hope she learned something from all that “experience”, but judging from her campaign so far, and the actions of some of her supporters, it seems more and more unlikely.
I’m of the impression that the Clinton legacy so far is to give the neo-cons control of the Republican party, then give control of Congress to them.
And, as a final parting gift, embroil the Presidency in a series of stupid controversies and stunts, which put the Presidency within reach of Bush II, even though he was pretty obviously unfit to run a pencil sharpener, and his opponent was both smart and capable.
Yes, the neo-cons lies and “irregularities”, along with a compliant Supreme Court were what put them over the top, but they wouldn’t have had the opportunity without the really stupid stunts that President Clinton pulled.
And here we are again, with Ms. Clinton doing her best to make sure that Senator Obama is such damaged goods that the party has to give her the nomination.
And then we get to start all over again.
If she gets the nomination, I’ll end up voting for her, or more realistically, voting against Senator McCain. But that will be it. My efforts will go to getting Governor Gregoire, Pat Lantz and Larry Seaquist reelected.
It’s tough to get excited about a choice between bad and worse.
John Barelli, another traveling to the Twilight ZOne Time Machine?
I am talking about today’s Cliton scortched earth tactics. Since you donkey like to go back in time I guess we on the right will continue now.
Question…ok so when the CHIP was veto’s by Bush, is it true that the reason was because the bill has so many “pork barrels” (ad ons having nothing to do with CHIP) attached to it? I am hearing and reading that the reason the prez has veto’d so many bills presented to him is because the bills have multiple issues added to them. Here in Washington I695 was overturned deemed unconstitutional because it had more than one issue involved, correct? So if my question is indeed tru, why is that Congress and the Senate can include multiple issues on a bill, but a state initiative writer can not?
Hannah @ 58
Our state constitution in Washington prohibits having more than one subject in legislation. This can be creatively done, so that a truck can drive through a given bill, but does impose a number of practical constraints to how much crap can be contained in a single piece of legislation.
By contrast, the federal constitution has no restraints as to the amount of unrelated garbage that can be streamrolled into a single Act of Congress. (Act of Congress as in a piece of federal legislation, and not as in the extracurricular skills of Hillary’s husband.)
@60
Don’t do lines like the last one without posting a warning notice first, Richard.
I had a mouthful of liquid, and it’s a toss-up which suffered more: my lungs, or the keyboard.
Ah Puddy. I understand why you on the right don’t want to discuss recent history. “Pay no attention to the fact that we’ve lied and cheated in order to enrich ourselves at the low, low cost of thousands of American lives!” seems to be the word of the day over in the Republican camp.
Like Senator McCain trying to say “It doesn’t matter how we got here, nor how many folks died in the process. Vote for me and I’ll do more of the same!”
Part of the reason I’m so annoyed with Senator Clinton is that she is running a Republican-style campaign, in an apparent attempt to make sure Senator Obama is so damaged by the time the convention rolls around that we have to go with her.
Even so, I’ll still vote for her over the man that has recently decided that torture is ok, as long as we’re the ones doing the torturing.
There was a time I had some respect for Senator McCain. He was willing to publicly state that the reason we shouldn’t torture was simply because we’re Americans, and we’re better than that.
Apparently he’s decided that we really aren’t any better than our adversaries. The elections in November will show whether or not he’s right about that.
It’s been a depressing day, and a Clinton supporter telling me that I’m naive for thinking that I should actually keep my given word to support Senator Obama in the upcoming caucuses has soured me more than a bit.
The argument was that since there was no legal penalty for breaking my word, that it was ok. The concept of being bound by nothing more than a promise seemed entirely alien to the individual.
A very neo-con sort of argument.
@ 61 John Barelli
“a Clinton supporter telling me that I’m naive for thinking that I should actually keep my given word to support Senator Obama in the upcoming caucuses has soured me more than a bit.
You have my sympathies JB! Personally, I’m still ‘sitting on the fence’ since Edwards stepped down, not crazy about ANY of the remaining candidates. Will pinch clothespins on my nose when I vote for the remaining Dem. But it has been refreshing not having to get into the mud & muck. My other Dem blogs that I visit have turned into a virtual brawl. Tired of the Obama supporters telling us uncommitted Edwards supporters that we are “stupid” since we don’t jump on the bandwagon. Yeah, I know they’re often young and new to the game. Finesse is a word they can’t spell or probably can’t even read (yet, they could call us STUPID? Huh?).
Stick by your own integrity because YOU have to look in the mirror and like the person you see in the mornings! Good luck.
@ 38 – You do realize Obama won the “Republicans voting in the Democratic primary” vote handily right?
John Barelli: We on the right have been saying this about the Clintons since 1992. You on the left are now shocked, shocked, shocked over her campaign actions?
These two haven’t changed, you changed by having your eyes opened. Remember this passage John? “Then Elisha prayed and said, “O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” And the LORD opened the servant’s eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.”
Your eyes have been opened.
DustinJames: Repubs voted for Heilary. Remember, we are mind numbed automatons and we listen to our right-wing radio masters.