BS: Primaries

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 01:00 PM

I dunno' Ebbie......I think I'd prefer to hold myself..............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 01:10 PM

He's too short to bite anything else, you know...hell, he wouldn't even be able to bite his tongue if it wasn't already in his mouth.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 01:34 PM

lol

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 01:47 PM

For a clean statistical take on Obama's campaign relative to Hillary's, take a look at this graph from USA Today in which his trend is much stronger than hers event hough her past numbers are higher than his. Click on the USA tab for the composite graph, or any individual state for regional statistics.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 02:27 PM

Seems to have been a virtual tie between Clinton and Obama: "CNN estimates that, across the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama got 48% of the popular vote and Hillary Clinton 49%."

True enough it's not votes that matter directly but delegates - but if over the next few weeks Obama continues to build support, and ends with significantly more popular votes than Clinton that will put pressure on "super delegates" to go with him.

The point is, the indications are that Obama has succeeded in bringing in people to vote for him who otherwise wouldn't dream of voting for anyone. And if he can do that, it's an awfully big pool of potential votes - non-voters far exceed those who have ever voted for any candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 02:34 PM

How can a so called superpower take 2 years to elect an idiot president? It takes just one day in the UK!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 02:43 PM

Amos - The USA Today graph is interesting. It would also be interesting to know what they will do with the delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 02:51 PM

Stick in the "undecideds" in that graph Amos gave, by clicking in the appropriate square, and it becomes even more interesting...

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 03:01 PM

I honestly wish that CNN (My American news source) could give a more balanced report on all candidates.
I have a natural tendency to support the underdog and have watched them slander Hillary's campaign at every turn while at the same time, rolling out the red carpet for Obama.
I don't trust CNN.
Under these circumstances I find it extremely difficult to see the good in Obama & the not so good in Hillary Clinton.
I'm guessing that for the same reason, Hillary's numbers will only strengthen while Mr. Obama's surge peaks out.
It's really difficult to keep students motivated for the long haul.

On another point. In a recent thread, I pointed to Hillary's response on the last debate re Immigration.
She gets it and it really looks like California heard her. I believe that her answer gave her that state.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 03:05 PM

Wow. As McGrath noted, looking at Undecided makes it even more interesting. 'Undecided' has basically not budged. If or when anyone energizes that group, that person's got it made.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 03:08 PM

I would be delighted to see Barack hit the vagus nerve in that Undecided population.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: freightdawg
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 03:18 PM

Some random thoughts from the 'Dawg.

Advantage Clinton: She "won" the biggies, kept her leaky boat afloat, did some damage to Obama by splitting MO, and taking AR, TN and OK by relatively big margins, and she spanked Uncle Ted and crew in MA.

Advantage Obama: He did some serious damage in NY (Clinton only won about 40 more delegates), polled extremely well in CA - again doing some serious damage to the Clinton "victory", and took most of the interior of the country by storm. Latest count I saw on MSNBC is that Obama has 838 delegates to Clintons 836. He will get a new surge of money, and possibly some more endorsements (btw, endorsements are not about getting additional votes, they are primarily about fundraising, as Uncle Ted, et.al., can raise a ton of greenbacks)

Re voicing a question already asked: If Clinton really wants to be president, she is going to need the votes from Michigan and Florida. If Obama really wants to be president, he cannot let those delegates go to Clinton. If it comes down to those delegate totals, how will they settle the debate without (figurative) bloodshed?

From reading the comments on a MSNBC link: it appears that the election in Nov. will come down to a "mean little troll" vs. a "whiny little bitch." (NOTE: NOT the 'Dawg's words!) Is this really the best that the US can offer?

My own take: Obama cleaned Clinton's clock. She needed Super Tuesday to give Obama a knock-out punch, and all she did was rope-a-dope. Now he has momentum, can claim electability, and he has really put the screws to her in terms of fund raising. It appears she is banking on Ohio and Texas - a huge gamble given Texas' independent streak. On the other hand, she trounced Obama in OK, so I guess anything is possible.

It's all over on the Repub. side. Dead Man Walking better start writing some checks to Clinton, or his fairy tale will crash and burn in Nov.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 03:26 PM

"If Clinton really wants to be president, she is going to need the votes from Michigan and Florida. If Obama"

If the Democrats wait for Hillary to fight for those delegates in court, it's over for them.
You cannot call yourselves Democrats and demonstrate a complete disregard for democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: kendall
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 03:31 PM

Has anyone noticed how much Obama sounds like M.L. King jr?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 03:33 PM

Jim:

You have made a couple of leaps in discourse which are not clear to me.

1. Has anyone implied that either side would wait and try to capture those delegates in a court battle? Why would they not just negotriate for them at the DNC or before?

2. WHo is it you are saying has a disregard for democracy? In what way?

Jes' tryin' tuh unnerstan.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 05:35 PM

"Has anyone noticed how much Obama sounds like M.L. King Jr?"

His preacher style rhythm is certainly modelled on Dr. King but the substance isn't there. He also tones it down a bit with regards to pitch.
Note his most recent ads which include black & white footage of himself, JFK & MLK. Voiced over by Teddy Kennedy & approved by Obama.
Both of those men had vision and were able to impart that vision even to us, as children outside of the USA.
He manages to say that he has plans to help the poor but doesn't say what those plans include.
He says he wants health insurance for all but comes up with a plan for those who can afford it.
These are motivational speeches which seem to work well within your own culture but come across as hollow & insincere to many nationalities outside of the U.S.
In the meantime, with the exception of blacks & students, his votes & donations are coming from the higher income brackets while the poor are voting for Hillary.
The latter a quote from one of the other networks, last night.

Amos: Yes they are leaps but looking at the inevitable.
Hillary Clinton and the people of Michigan, Wyoming & Florida (is there one more?) all have it in their interest to see that their votes are counted. That is how democracy works.
To ignore millions of votes which could change the outcome of a race would be political suicide for the Democrats.
In a general election, they would stay home in droves.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 05:51 PM

Well, I found plenty of substance and details in his St. Louis event, so I am not sure if the lack you cite is not a flaw in your own data-gathering, not in his ability to present.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 05:52 PM

The primaries in Michigan and Florida were ruled out in advance because of the way they had been scheduled. This means they were defective as a way of selecting delegates. Surely the democratic thing now would be to run them again, rather than retrospectively moving the goal posts.

Why would there be any problem in doing that?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 06:05 PM

"not sure if the lack you cite is not a flaw in your own data-gathering"

If you read one of my earlier posts, you'll see that I have alluded to that.
But I do try.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 06:08 PM

I agree that Delegates from Michigan et al. will be seated at the Convention. Their make-up will depend upon negotiations, but to leave them out moves votes to the Republicans. Also unconstitutional? I'll plead ignorance on that, but would like to hear what the legalities are. It also should be pointed out that the decision was taken by the Party executive and, I have seen in reviews, must be confirmed at the party convention.

Obama has cultivated the technique of the old time political orator (with, I agree, a nod toward Martin Luther King - the latter he turns on and off depending on his audience).

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 06:20 PM

It would be grossly unfair to count the votes in FLorida and Michigan because people were told they weren't really voting for delegates...and they agreed, in writing in at least one of the states ...the candidates...not to campaign etc. I think they need to have a mail-in ballot for those who did not vote already, or say screw it and start over for those states..talk about disenfranchising people...it is a major screwup but somehow it needs to be straightened out..if they have to sue, then sue. If it takes the supreme court, then let them solve it..but the votes were not taken in a free way and should not stand because the states were told their votes did not count. If they don't count, they don't count. Start over. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 06:23 PM

"Why would there be any problem in doing that?"
That would be a quagmire.
Could do it and draw an aggregate score between the two, I suppose. Still if the results are vastly different from the first vote then you haven't solved your first problem which is "Disenfranchised Voters".
The whole scenario was an awful blunder.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 06:49 PM

"That would be a quagmire."

Why? I'd have thought running a primary which hadn't been ruled out of order in advance would be a pretty simple thing to do.

Why should there be any need to take into account the defective earlier vote?

How would anybody who had "voted" in the earlier one be "disenfranchised" by being given an opportunity to vote in a fully valid one. Apart from the ones who had died in the meantime, and I'm sure they wouldn't object.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 07:30 PM

Neither party has any means of holding a primary, either in a state or nationally.
Primaries (or caucuses)are scheduled by the state. They set the date. They are exclusively state-run. The state has rights under the Constitution- political parties do not.
Under this system, it seems to me that legally the parties (they are not government bodies) cannot enforce their decision. The national committees decided that primaries before Feb. 5 would be invalid, unless already scheduled and sanctioned by tradition- like NH. MI et al. The states are free to set the dates, which involve state machinery. The National parties cannot enforce their executive decisions at their National Convention without a vote.
Not only that, the parties, in the case of the Republicans, accepted a lesser number of 'delegates' while the Democrats scrubbed them all. This is discrimination, whether by government, institution or individual, and is subject to federal law.

McGrath, simple it ain't. I don't know how the parties are governed in the UK. Perhaps the systems there are more straight-forward. I know it couldn't be as convoluted as the American.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 07:51 PM

McGrath of Harlow
To those who won, it was a legitimate reflection of the voters at that time and should be recognized.
To those who did not win (and some of their candidates are gone) it was as you said a "Defective" vote.
Now that John Edwards is gone and other votes have been counted in other states there is no way to duplicate the circumstances.
Not the same race at all.
Now I know that other than the impact that the U.S. has on an international level, you and I have nothing invested in this but can you just imagine the potential for unrest among those who are involved.
As it stands, you will have a hard time finding an Obama or Clinton supporter whose opinion on this is not driven by their choice of candidates.
It was an incredibly stupid decision made by people who should have known better and who may well have known which party these states favoured.
I really don't see, given the numbers, how the Democrats cannot take the vote into account.
Now I haven't looked up the definition of "Quagmire" but I do think that Dirty Harry had hyphenated word for similar circumstances and a second vote would qualify under both terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 07:56 PM

Q, I honestly wish I could understand your last post. Really. I tried.
Why can't you just count folks and go by the popular vote?
You put their names on a piece of paper and mark an X against the one you like.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:18 PM

It doesn't sound that complicated to me. If the mechanism exists to run a primary in the first place, rerunning it is no more complicated. And if there are fewer candidates, that just makes it simpler, and provides fro a more meaningful choice.

If the will is there, of course.

But though people talk about how important is to be democratic, that does seem more often than not to take second rank to calculations of political advantage.

Maybe with all that talk about "change" something could be done about that, rather than accept it as a rule of life.

And our system here is in a whole lot of ways less democratic, that goes without saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:29 PM

What the states are doing in the primaries, I believe, is finding the public will with which to inform their delegates to the national conventions, nothing more. The removal of that sacrament by the national conventions means the delegates will go to the convention anyway, by law, but without the party brief that the primaries would have primed them with. So they will be loose cannons, under the sway of back-room mechanics and the weight of will expressed by other delegates. That's my interpretation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:39 PM

It just wouldn't be cricket to include the delegates from the "sooner" states of Michigan and Florida. Those candidates who abided by the National Democratic Committee's decision did not actively compete for votes in these states.

I certainly hope this particular set of tainted delegates will not represent the balance of power atr the Convention.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:51 PM

The very idea that people are spinning yesterday as a victory for Obama is just bizarre.

And as to whether or not it goes to the convention--it could happen, but I think it is unlikely. For that to happen, Obama would have to win every state out of the next month's worth of primaries, which include some very large delegate count states (OH, TX, PA). That doesn't look very likely.

He also lost "the Big Mo" last night, as many pundits noted.

But the mainstream media is extremely sexist and prejudiced against Hilary Clinton. Hell, even Republican pundits like David Brooks of the NYT acknowledges it!

If the situation were actually reversed, and Obama had won what Clinton did, they'd all be screaming it was all over.

Really, really stupid to try spinning yesterday as a victory for either of them, but it especially was NOT a victory for Obama. The only big state he carried was his home state, and that doesn't bode terribly well for him in the upcoming races, despite a strong showing in some areas.

The big news of the night was that McCain didn't clinch it, and that Huckabee swept the south. The big news was all on the Republican side.

Obama has plenty of money to go the distance, and the biggest money vacuum on either side. But he will likely lose at least some of the momentum he had carrying him into yesterday, and you won't likely see Democratic office holders leaping on his bandwagon in droves, either.

Everyone in the party will now be much more cautious about their support for Obama, especially because it is clear that African Americans almost exclusively cast their votes based on race. That could really end up biting the Dems in the ass if Obama gets the nom, and has to go forward with a racially divided party base in the general.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:26 PM

"...support for Obama, especially because it is clear that African Americans almost exclusively cast their votes based on race. That could really end up biting the Dems in the ass if Obama gets the nom..."

                      I think that's what Bill was doing in South Carolina. Now that Obama has been cast as the "black" candidate, the rift between the blacks and the Hispanics has driven the latter into Hillary's camp. It might be nasty politics, but it seems to be working.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:30 PM

Folks, are we making the assumption that Black people don't know HOW to vote for the best candidate?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:32 PM

No. We are listening to the exit polls telling us the vast majority of black voters went for Obama because of his race.

It's a loyalty thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: pdq
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:39 PM

And if Obama fails to get the nomination (he will fail, it's rigged) these same people will stay away in droves this November. there will be fewer Blacks voting this time than were were in 2004. The Hillary and "the yawn factor".

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:11 PM

Sadly, it has come down to race and gender. Obama is not the first African American to take a run at this and I don't know whether Hillary is the first woman to do so but for some reason that is all that some people see.
I too was alarmed at the high percentage of African American votes for Obama.
You can now expect there to be a White backlash in favour of Hillary and   that is no less discriminatory than Mr. Obama's votes.
What a sad statement that in 2008 people can not see past race & gender.
Bruce:
      "Folks, are we making the assumption that Black people don't know HOW to vote for the best candidate?"
We may not be but there are those who are counting on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:21 PM

I hear you, Jim. It is SAD!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:32 PM

I think that's horse-pucky.

They voted for him because he is the only one saying what they are hungry to hear -- that a spark ofg promise, better ways, more honest government and ahope for a better life is possible. With real suggestions on how to do it.

It really pains my butt to see people like GG run this crap. They are missing the whole story, ignoring his trends and shooting off their mouths without assessing the scenario as it is going on.

That is not to say Obama is a shoo-in. He's not. But for the last six months his market share has been rising steadily on trend, while Hill's has been sagging. See the WaPo graphic linked above.

Obama is not really the man for the pundits (or "pundants" as some of them call themselves) because he is more than they can get their wits around.

That said, it is still anyone's guess how these trends will end up. They could go dfor a dive. I don't think it is likely but you never know.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:52 PM

Spaw-

Sorry for taking your post seriously. I just don't like the charge of racism--even in fun. You've made a few cynical comments recently--sometimes, it appears, you are in fact serious. And there was no emoticon to tip me off--at least I didn't see one.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:53 PM

Jim Lad? Popular vote? Don't know what you are talking about, I never mentioned that. I was trying to point out to McGrath why it is difficult, with only a few months to go to convention time, to set another vote. The voting machines, the people to do the counting, the securing of polling places, etc. is not something that can be arranged overnight. Also the state party sets the primary, not the national executive. If the state party is intransigent, no one can make them move. Our system is complex; I may be wrong about the legalities, but I don't think the answers are clearcut.

Canada can set up a vote, if called for by the prime minister, in a short time. Can the UK? That sort of thing is unheard of in the States, and thus no way of carrying it out. The Canadian system has the advantage of not being encumbered with all the legalities and primaries, etc., of the American. A vote was called today by the premier of Alberta. It will take place March 3. Impossible in the States.

Amos, you may be right come convention time, if no other settlement is reached. "Loose cannons"? I hate to think about that.
And what happens with the 'superdelegates'? These include the state's members of Congress, big shots party people raising the funds, etc. The national party can't tell them to go home and take the other delegates with them.

Some figures- looking at CNN tonight, CA delegate split is 64 Clinton, 35 Obama.
Totals overall, Clinton 823 and Obama 741, which means neither will garner enough delegates in the remaining primaries-caucuses to go into the Convention with a sure majority.
On the Republican side, McCain has 680, Romney 270 and Huckabee 176.
Interesting times ahead!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:08 PM

I STILL think Obama will be the next President of the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:18 PM

I balloted for Obama. I'm not African-American, I'm neither male nor terribly low income. I'm an elderly (gulp! white woman who thinks he has the potential to unite us - those of us who matter to me.

I voted for him because I like what he says. I like even more what he writes. I like the high energy hope and clarity he sparks in us.

I am not alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:18 PM

You think it's rigged by the insiders already for Hillary to win, pdq? I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that were the case. My impression was even as long as 1 year ago that it had been pre-ordained by the powers that be to put the Clintons back in the White House at the conclusion of Bush's 2nd term. That it was already a done deal then. They switch chairs from Rep to Dem and back again whenever they sense that the public has become totally fed up. This gives people the illusion of renewal and choice to cling to...the illusion of a working democracy.

I hope it's not completely rigged like that. But I wouldn't be surprised. I think the rest...the primaries and the whole darned hoopla...is all for show.

But I still have a shred of hope that it's not quite that well under control.

We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:28 PM

I agree with you, Amos, in your last posting.

And, even though gg thinks she knows all, now, no one can predict which way this is all going to pan out. There is an unrest among the people which is calling them to back Obama just because...they are for him because he is the only one who stands out, sounds different, seems to understand, is willing and open to change, etc. just because.

The folks I spoke with last night said they thought Hillary was too strong-willed in her stance on issues, i.e. her way or no way, and tainted by Bill. I don't happen to agree with them. I think Bill will go down in history as one of the best and most brilliant presidents we've ever had. I think she is being judged harshly because people still don't like it when a woman aspires to an historically man's position AND sticks by her guns, so to speak. Or, maybe it's just people don't know how to act about a woman who might actually be president. Maybe they only know how to judge as if she were a man?

It pisses me off, royally, that people are even considering that she might not be the one to make decisions. I am sure other white house spouses have consulted, conferred, advised, opined, etc. was it a problem? No, they were all wives, doing their "duty." Heaven forbid a woman might get in there with a brilliant, experienced husband whom she might consult. So what! She has made it clear she is her own woman and can handle him.

So, you see why I am torn...as a feminist I want to vote for Clinton, but my heart says go with Obama because of what I *hear*.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:30 PM

Go with the better person, Kat. Trust yourself on that. It was wrong to make gender such abog issue over the centuries, and likewise making it a counter-issue would just perpetuate the thing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: freightdawg
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:38 PM

Well stated, Mr. Amos.

What GG is absolutely clueless about is the ground that Obama made up in the weeks leading up to Super Tuesday. If the polls were to be believed Clinton should have virtually wrapped up the nomination on Tuesday. As it was Obama made New York a contest, and was steadily improving in CA. Clinton may have won the states with the largest delegate totals, but she won with a smaller percentage, meaning a strong Obama hurt her significantly.

If what Q said is true (and I am not doubting, I was wondering what the delegate totals remain) then this will be a convention for the history books. I seriously doubt whether Clinton can win any state remaining with a large majority. Perhaps neither can Obama, but he has won far more states with a 65+% than has Clinton.

By the way, I just read an article on MSNBC that some Clinton staffers are foregoing their salaries. I knew her funds were tight, but for staffers to work gratis this early in the game speaks of dire circumstances. The same article pointed out that Clinton loaned her campaign 5 million dollars with the hopes that she could get it repaid quickly. Obama raised over 31 million dollars in January alone. ONE MILLION dollars a day.

Who has momentum, GG??

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:54 PM

Kat, I think the feelings you describe are in the minds of many women. I think many men are of two minds also, but for different reasons. The Democrats have two candidates fighting for the nomination, both honorable, Clinton perhaps the better horse trader, Obama not really known to a lot of people and sometimes short in diplomatic finesse. I prefer Clinton, but that does not mean I consider Obama unsuited to the office.

The alternative is McCain (no way Romney can catch him), who has said he will cut business taxes by 10% and is against universal health care. He supports anti-abortion legislation to a degree I can't support and seems to espouse creationist doctrines. In the Bush mold no matter how much he denies it.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:42 AM

Just can't figure out this "Woman" thing.
I've had one woman or another telling me what to do since I was born.
Come to think of it, we all have.
Why shouldn't one of them get paid for it?

Q: The Popular Vote thing was my suggestion to you. After you mark the ballots you put them in little boxes and somebody counts them up.
The one with the most votes wins. It's actually quite simple and can be set up in no time.
Mind you, that would involve "Change".

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 03:53 AM

I agree that this race has been reduced to a gender/race competition. Many feminists have stated that a black man has more power than a white woman. I believe that to be true and I think it will determine the winner. I think it is very timely and shrewd of the Democrats. Either way, a minority will win the Democratic nomination.

Having said that, Obama would be a great president and Hillary would make a great V.P. Thats the ticket I'd like to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:03 AM

I've got a friend who would like them to be co-presidents with Clinton focussing on domestic issues (not household!) and Obama on diplomacy with the rest of the world. I love the idea of a co-presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 05:56 AM

Either way, a minority will win the Democratic nomination.

A minority? Aren't there as many women in the USA as there are men?