I guess soon all they'll have left is the claim that Obama BEATS Hillary :)

[symbolman]

The words sound scary out of context, don't they? Sounds really mean when amplified, magnified, made into a mountain from a molehill.. But think about it, much like Clinton, either one, her followers PARSE words, if not outright "MIS-speaking".. That's what their heroine does, so the bar is lowered, all symantics being tweaked and exaggerated by them..

Meanwhile, Obama is maintaining a RATIONAL conversation, which is exhillerating after all the LIES we've been listening to for 8 Presidential Terms...

Obama is playing by the rules, which seems strange to the old style politics the Clintoon teams practice, and there must be something "sneaky" going on according to their dirty minds :) "Shame on you!" shame on him for WHAT? So Obama folks feel put upon by those who refuse to even COUNT, Do the Math, like HE HAS while running his campaign, AND Winning, BUT, They demand that FL & MI votes BE Counted!! Strangely enough they claim that Clinton WON MI, when Obama wasn't even ON the Ballot, yeah, that's "fair", eh?

At this point Obama needs to take McCain on full bore, ignore Clinton, and so should we.. Let them have a circle-jerk here Obama backers.. Don't let them waste our time here, or Obama's run for Presidency..

The FREE Ride is OVER Clinton, same for the supporters with their same old sorry conjecture, let's not engage them anymore and keep the hard feelings to a minimum.. Remember, after it is brutally apparent to them that Clinton has lost, a lot of them ARE democrats, tho led astray, and they will need a safe place to lick their wounds, like The DU...

Let's keep the big tent open, it may take us all to win :)

[Champion Jack]

1. Agreed

[aquarius dawning]

2. You guys are really desperate to end this thing before the upcoming contests, aren't you?

Let's just wait until after WV, KY, and IN before we discuss group hugs and reconcilliation, mmkay?

[virtualobserver]

4. anyone who tried to smear Obama with Farrakhan in the last debate (as Hillary did)..................

.....wasn't going to be invited to the group hug anyway.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. The margin is 68%.

Good luck.

[soulcore]

14. Even is she wins 75% of all those states she still loses.

It's over, face it. There is no way, mathematically, for her to win.

[Benhurst]

3. If we're going to play by the rules, then neither Clinton nor Obama

has attracted enough support to reach the agreed upon 2025 (higher if Michigan and Florida are counted) number of elected delegates to claim the nomination outright.

Our nominee will have to be dragged over over the finish line by unelected super delegates, no matter who he or she is.

Under the rules, anything short of 2025 is a loss, and to claim otherwise is similar to saying a lottery ticket holder has a moral claim to the jackpot because his numbers are "close," but not exactly the right ones. If "the people have spoken" through our highly flawed primary process, they have said, at most, that neither Clinton nor Obama deserves the nomination outright and the party leadership will have to decide.

Under the agreed upon rules, supported by both Clinton and Obama, the super delegates are free to chose between them or go for a third party as they see fit.

Short of Clinton or Obama amassing 2025 elected delegates, neither has any more claim under the rules agreed upon for the nomination than any other person the convention might chose to consider.

[symbolman]

7. well then it would seem to most folks

that if two sprinters clutched their leg and fell to the ground short of the finish line with cramps (and we won't even include that the one far behind was throwing lawn darts at the one in front and behind by five laps), that the judges would pick the one leading by those five laps as the winner..

Let's use a horse race metaphor since the media has been calling all important races that for years now, whether true or not.. In a horserace analogy just because the horse that comes in second has passed a lot of other horses, it still is not the winner... Especially when its five lengths behind..

So this is a Loser Take None race if Hillary can't get all the marbles?

Isn't the Point about who leads by MORE and has earned it? Its just nonsensical to claim that the Loser is the "Winner", America has had enough of that Orwellian bullshit and have regained their senses.. Clinton cannot win because Obama HAS, its just that simple, anything else is Pollyanna pie in the sky garbage.
C'mon, is she going to reach a point where she claims the last State is going to put her over the top while Obama has a triple digit lead?

If wishes were fishes and all that... :)

[Benhurst]

9. Under the present system, reaching 2025 elected delegates is what counts.

Obama is slightly ahead of Clinton in a close race, complicated by the difference between elections and caucuses, and an unfair system of handing out delegates which at times gave more to the loser than the winner, hurting Clinton at times, Obama at others.

What if the pie had been divided more or less evenly between three or four candidates? Or five or six? Would you still think a plurality based on less the 30% or 18% of the vote would dictate the winner?

Unfortunately we are stuck with the system we have. And Obama's "victory" is the turnip he proudly wears at his side for a watch, as Clinton rides off the the convention on her wishes.

2025 (or more if Michigan and/or Florida are counted) elected delegates was the agreed upon goal. If no candidate reaches that goal, then the super delegates are brought into play. Their job is to decide what they think is best for the party -- based on nothing but their own best judgment. Whatever most folks think is fair, if that could be determined, is irrelevant under the agreed-upon process, a process about which most folks know absolutely nothing at all. The super delegates have the sole right to make the decision, based on whatever they think is best for the party. Democratic with a small "d"? Hardly, but that is the system we have.

I think both candidates are so flawed and unable to bring the party together at this point it would be better to go for a third choice, hardly a radical move in view our party's long history, a history which predates both Clinton and Obama, and the posturing of their respective campaigns.

But I am not a super delegate, so under the rules my opinion matters no more than those who now claim the prize should go to whichever candidate did better, but not well enough to claim the nomination outright, or the one who might do better according to the most recent elections and the polls.

It is for the super delegates to decide. They can go with either of our fatally-flawed candidates or pick a third one, who might very well be cut off at the knees in the general election by angry partisans committed to Clinton and Obama, just as the angry supporters of each may do to the other if the super delegates go against their candidate.

Nowhere in this does "the will of the people" count because the primary system was so flawed it prevented a fair reflection of whatever that was or may be. The only thing the process has told us is that neither Clinton nor Obama was sufficiently supported by those Democrats who bothered to participate in the primaries to be given the nomination outright.

Undoubtedly, win or lose, the rules for 2012 should be debated and reformed shortly after the general election.

In the meantime, we're going to have to put up with the dubious claims coming out of both camps. Where in the hell were Clinton and Obama when the rules for 2008 were being written?

It's a fine mess they both have gotten us into, not to mention the other "leaders" of our party.

But not to worry. In all likelihood we are being set up for our third stolen presidential election. The talking heads are undoubtedly practicing their delivery of their election-night cover-up, "When all was said and done, America was not ready for an African American," "for a woman," or "for a last-minute compromise candidate," as the case may be, "when it came to selecting a president of the United States."

Since 2006 we have controlled Congress. Why have our "leaders," including both Clinton and Obama, done squat to prevent our third stolen presidential election in a row?

[davsand]

12. I can't decide if I should call you Eeyore or agree with you.

Am I correct when I summarize that you feel the two remaining candidates in the Dem Primary are not viable in the General Election? I think I got that out of your post.

Further, am I correct when I say that I think I understood you to say that the Dem party must (for the sake of a win) put a third person (A player to be named later, so to speak) forth as the nominee if we are to have any chance of beating McLame in the General? Is that a fair summation?

Finally, am I correct when I extract the idea that no matter WHO the Dems run the GOP will win anyway?

Assuming I am not missing something, your post (essentially) says, "If the Dems want to be sure of losing this election we need to piss off both the women AND the African American voters by putting some old white guy (that nobody voted for except the party select) forth as the nominee."

Are we in agreement here?

I really DO think the one certain path to a Dem loss in the General would be to "...piss off both the women AND the African American voters by putting some old white guy (that nobody voted for except the party select) forth as the nominee."



Laura

[Benhurst]

16. You missed my saying that the third alternative might very well

alienate both factions.

The only sure way out of this might be for Clinton and Obama to reach a compromise, but they would have to put the interests of the party and the nation above their respective egos, which seems unlikely at this time.

Neither has won the nomination outright, but both have followers who will not accept that and may very well bolt the party once the other or a third choice is dragged over the finish line by unelected super delegates.

As for the potential of our third stolen presidential election, how many does it take for our "leaders" to see a pattern? One wasn't sufficient. The second was ignored. Maybe three will be the charm. But isn't it sad, assuming they might be brought to reality by three stolen elections in a row, that it will have taken so long.

[davsand]

17. It is part of the reason I think they both need to stay in the race.

Ben, (I am assuming that is your first name, so forgive me if I got it wrong! No slur intended by my use of it--ok?)) I do not advocate for anyone to drop out of the race at this point in time simply because there are still questions remaining about electability for either candidate. Once that is resolved, however, as a party we have GOT to unite behind the nominee, and some of what has been said by supporters of either side is gonna make that difficult to do.

I have a distrust of the electronic voting systems. Can't help it--I want a paper trail simply because I see the voting process as something that MUST stay above question at all times if our system is gonna work.

I dunno what it is in other places, but I do know that locally I can walk into the place where the votes are counted and I can feel pretty confident that it is accurate and most of all, {b]legitimate. Oddly enough, our local County Clerk's office (where our election results happen) is run by a Republican. I disagree with him on virtually EVERYTHING politically, but I also work with him and his staff on a daily basis.

My point in saying this, is we have to (as a society) address the issue of voting at a local level. I can't think of a single reform that could be made at a national level that would guarantee the sanctity of our votes when they are counted. Paper tail is probably the only thing, and even THAT can be a local issue for people determined to make a difference.

Ohio, Florida, Illinois--pick a state--they all can be cleaned up IF the voters act locally. I just can't lay this off on solely on the national level folks.

Please don't give up. None of us can afford to.



Laura

[Benhurst]

18. Thanks for your reply, Laura.

I think we are pretty much in agreement. I am probably more pessimistic, though, perhaps for having been at this so long, starting as a child whose parents were on the right side of a crime fight, volunteering to work for for local campaigns and then JFK before I was old enough to vote, and finally being able to vote for the first time in 1968, hardly an auspicious year for an enthusiastic young Democrat who had worked for Gene McCarthy.

You are lucky to have a person whose basic honesty you trust in your County Clerk's office. Here, our County Commissioners (redneck Republicans all) overrode the recommendations of the Board of Elections (the head of which is a computer programmer) and went with one of the worst machines in the country. We have a paper trail, but an often unreadable one printed on a ribbon of paper similar to that of an old-time adding machine. But the money has been spent. We tried and failed on the local level. It will be years before we can effectively challenge the method for counting of our votes again.

The absurdity of business-oriented Republicans pushing for computers which are used at most four or five times a year never ceases to amaze me. Can you imagine a business which had so little use for any piece of expensive equipment buying its own?

I, too, hope the party will be united going into the general election. But I'm not one of the HOPE crowd, and I fear we've had enough CHANGE under George W. Bush (the shredding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the illegal and immoral invasion and continued occupation, with the support of our own party, of Iraq and corruption on a scale U.S. Grant's most dishonest officials would have found appalling)to last a lifetime. As for EXPERIENCE, I find it lacking in both our most likely candidates.

We need to restore the Republic and those rights which not only we, but our ancestors living under British rule in the colonies, took for granted. Anything short of that will leave us with nothing but more of the same.

Ben

[Swamp Rat]

5. The few who are NOT Democrats are stirring up a lot of trouble.

Those few troublemakers, who have not rightfully received their granite cookies, will be laughed out of the tent. :D

The rest will be forgiven (by me at least), as they are friends. Also, we need as many warm bodies as possible to defeat the lizards. :)





:kick: for symbolman!

[symbolman]

8. Thanky!

gotta LOVE a Commie Limbaugh, one of my favorites!

[Swamp Rat]

19. dupe

:kick:

[Swamp Rat]

20. nahm! nahm!

:kick:

[barack the house]

6. Brilliant post seeing the big picture is the only place we need to be right now.

[futureliveshere]

10. Yup..agreed..Obama will win NC handily and IA will be a narrow result.

This will not change the primary in any way. So Obama will be the nominee..

[aquarius dawning]

13. IN.

and Hillary will win it decisively.

[futureliveshere]

15. Oops IN it is.. Well the polls are all over the place, so we will see...