BS: Primaries

Subject: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:45 PM

Any results beginning to show?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jeffp
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:07 PM

ABC has called New Jersey and Connecticut, winner-take-all states, for McCain. Romney is taking Massachusetts.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:15 PM

Huckebe took West Virgina at a statewide convention. The first vote did not result in a winner. So delegates from McCain and Paul switched to Huckabe. Romney was not pleased.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jeffp
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:16 PM

CNN has called Illinois and Georgia for Obama and Oklahoma for Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:45 PM

Sen. Barack Obama surged into a large 3:1 lead in the first returns from very early Democratic Party primary voting.

In Indonesia.

Where Obama spent four years of his childhood.

At midnight Tuesday Jakarta time, about 100 members of Democrats Abroad began voting at the Marriott Hotel. Unofficial first returns gave Obama 75% of the vote to Hillary Clinton's 25%. "There is a bit of rooting for the hometown boy," Tristram Perry, a public diplomacy officer at the U.S. Embassy, told the Associated Press.

"It's the first time someone who grew up in Indonesia is running for president," he added. Probably a pretty safe statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:03 PM

Magrath of Harlow has posted a link to CNN exit polls (but I am finding them hard to figure out, hardly surprising as it is 2 am here)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jeffp
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:13 PM

www.cnn.com has a ticker with check marks as the states are projected as won by one or another candidate. You may have to select the American edition. I just checked: the International Edition has it too.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: freightdawg
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:19 PM

MSNBC is calling Massachusetts for Clinton.

Boy, Kennedy really helped Obama there.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:35 PM

I've been calling Obama to take California. When will we know?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:08 PM

I believe it's probably not reasonable to say anybody "takes" anything on the Democratic side--it's proportional. Delegate count and general trend are probably the important aspects.


And we may not know much about California til tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:24 PM

Overall, so far it looks like a close delegate split on the Demo side. So they both move on.
California probably will be close, perhaps a few more delegates to Obama than to Hillary. Another split in Texas, so it's on to the Convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:31 PM

Right now there are ten states tending over 60% of votes cast on the Obama side, and seven ending over 50% for HC.

It looks like Obama will end up ahead. California may be key, though and it will be last in with results, except for Hawaii.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:35 PM

Massachusetts was a desperate fight for Hill, and she outspent Obama severalfold in order to fight it. Looks like she did so.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:39 PM

As of an hour ago (AP):

WASHINGTON (AP) Ñ Sen. John McCain led the Republican delegate race over Mitt Romney in early results on Super Tuesday, while Sen. Barack Obama was ahead of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
McCain won 97 delegates in early voting Tuesday to 0 for Romney and 18 for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. A total of 1,023 delegates are up for grabs in 21 states.
Overall, McCain led with 199 delegates, to 93 for Romney and 61 for Huckabee. It takes 1,191 to win the nomination at next summer's convention in St. Paul.
Obama had 18 delegates in early voting Tuesday, while Clinton had 11. ..A total of 1,681 delegates are at stake in 22 states and American Samoa....

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:42 PM

From what I read, as long as Obama holds his own today, the schedule from now on favors him.

And the Democrats should realize that many, perhaps most, of the new voters supporting Obama, are not generic Democratic voters--they are Obama voters. They will not come out to support Hillary in the fall if she were by some chance to be picked as the nominee.

Whereas, as I've said elsewhere, the Republicans, now snarling at each other, will come together in November at the perceived common danger: President Hillary Clinton.

On the other hand, Obama will unite the Democrats, get many independent votes, and even some Republicans--Susan Eisenhower is not alone--and get scads of new voters.

None of which Hillary can do.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:49 PM

10:20 p.m. | More Calls: The Times is calling New Jersey for Mrs. Clinton. The Times is calling Alabama, North Dakota, Minnesota and Kansas for Mr. Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 11:24 PM

11:14 p.m. | Connecticut: The Times is calling Connecticut for Mr. Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 11:55 PM

Ron Davies wrote: "From what I read, as long as Obama holds his own today, the schedule from now on favors him."

Please don't make racial remarks here Ron. I can le it go this time, but that's two tonite! I saw you had also posted to the now defunct "Mary Jo Kopechne Thread" and now this. You really should be ashamed of yourself..............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: freightdawg
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 11:55 PM

All Obama had to do was not get clobbered, and he could focus on the next round of primaries and caucuses. He did far better than that (right now CA is leaning toward Clinton, but even if she wins overall, he will get a sizeable number of delegates).

In states where he won, he uniformly pulled 60-70% of the vote. In states where Clinton won, she pulled mid 50 to 60%. Since the delegates are awarded proportionally, she could win all the battles and statistically lose the war.

Her victory in NY was only 17 percentage points. The only clear blowout she had was in AR, and TN was pretty good to her as well.

Bottom line, Clinton should be very, very worried. This is NOT going according to her game plan!

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:18 AM

Spaw-

Have you never heard the expression--hold his own--as meaning stay even?

Physician, heal thyself.

You are reading racial reference--absurdly-- into a perfectly objective statement.

And you are also incorrect on the short-lived Mary Jo thread--where my point was that the thread itself was yet another smear by our resident master of the art. It would require quite an imagination to read race into that.

Please simmer down a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:31 AM

What I've said is a far cry from a real racist statement, as for instance stating that Obama is "white on the inside"--which was said by one of our illustrious posters, for which I took him to task.

We have to be able to distinguish between racist remarks and other language: ordinary English--and satire and sarcasm, for that matter. And if we're not sure about an expression, we should look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 01:23 AM

LMAO..........and if we're not sure about another 'Catter we should look him up as well(;<))..........Its a joke Ron, relax......just a joke. Almost ten years and 24,000 posts and most of them making lame ass jokes or ragging on someone unmercifully............Ask around and I'll send you a free grain of salt and a whooppee cushion!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 01:28 AM

Unless I am badly mistaken, Ron, Spaw was doing his own off the wall thimg. Not to worry.

Tonight I participated in a Democratic caucus (The Republicans held their primary at a different location at the same time). For us in Alaska this is a largely symbolic activity- our primary is not until May.

I have no idea how the rest of Alaska balloted; Juneau is much more liberal than most of the state.

But out of 1171 ballots cast in the Juneau caucus, 62& of them went to Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 02:48 AM

Obama got 62 Ampersands? Really Ebbie? Seems to me that it doesn't bode well for him at all if he can't put up any real numbers and only gets 62 Ampersands. Course when you figure that if Ron up there is right, the guy holds himself which probably puts some folks off so an Ampersand may be the best he's capable of under the circumstances. Come to think of it, why do y'all give out Ampersands anyway? You're supposed to be voting ferchrissakes...........

Well Ebbie, let me know if anything changes huh?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 03:18 AM

The focus on Obama here is absolutely incredible.
He's second in a two horse race.
Isn't that where Bush was when he won his election in the courts?
So where's the "Change"?
C'mon guys.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:18 AM

MN went 2 to 1 for Obama, and gave Romney the nod on the Repub side.

I still say it will be Clinton v McCain in November.

As Ron has correctly pointed out, Obama isn't winning the Democratic base. Which is why he won't be the nominee.

"New" voters ain't all they are cracked up to be either. Here in MN they gave the governorship to Jesse Ventura. In case anyone is wondering, that one didn't work out too well. And his "new" voters have since slithered back into their snake holes.

You see, so-called Democrats like so many here don't get how to vote. They play prima donna with the whole voting thing.

Want to get the Republicans out of the White House and Congress?

Then shut up, and get in line behind Clinton.

If you don't care if Republicans remain in power, keep cheering for Obama. He has zero chance of beating McCain in November.

To me, the demographics are telling. Democrats are far more sexist than they are racist. But that didn't surprise me. I feel vindicated.

The venon towards Clinton here by the men is the perfect example of what I'm talking about--especially from the Boberts and Rons among us.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jacqui.c
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:20 AM

Jim - if you had been following this over the past few months it would be clear. Obama has come from being an unlikely candidate to being a real threat to Clinton.

Locally I had been hearing that a 'black man' had no chance in this race, particularly against the likes of Clinton and Edwards, and the pundits, in general, didn't really take him seriously for some time.

To see him as such a front runner is historical - he did not have the advantage of a presidential name to give him a lift either.

Also, as has been said, with the figures to hand he could win more delegates than Clinton, which would put him in a much better position.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:30 AM

jacqui.c, I don't know where you are getting your information that Obama came out of Super Tuesday as the "front runner". No news organization is reporting anything even remotely close to that declaration.

The Clinton and Obama camps both got to declare a non-defeat. That's it.

You may have heard that people wouldn't elect a black man. See my post above yours. Obama captured the male vote--black and white. Black voters are voting for the black candidate. There is simply no other way to interpret their votes.

But Clinton captured the base of the Democratic party, and I am actually encouraged for the first time in a long time, because there is one bloc of male voters that stuck by Clinton: Latino men, whom everyone has said would never vote for a woman.

I am thrilled to see Democratic support still so strong in the Latino community in general (they came out in big numbers too, but they aren't as sexy a voting bloc as Obama's voters, apparently).

Latino voters have a lot riding on this election. Obama's stand on immigration sucks to the point where even McCain's stand on immigration is more progressive by comparison.

The way that will translate in November is, if it Obama v McCain, Latinos are going to vote for McCain and you will see them referred to in future elections as "McCain Democrats".

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:35 AM

Hey, it's time to wake up again, gang!

It does look as if Super Tuesday has proven an excellent test for Clinton and Obama, and they've both survived from what I see. The next round of states should favor Obama but Clinton should catch up when it comes to the big states of Texas and Ohio. If Obama can overtake Clinton in Ohio he'll gain the nomination. Obama needs someone else than Clinton as VP to reinforce his Presidential campaign. But if Clinton wins the nomination, she would be foolish not to invite Obama to be her running mate, and she certainly is not foolish.

On the other hand, with regard to the Republicans, it looks like a decisive defeat for Romney even if he now has more delegates than Huckabee. Huckabee shows a regional strength and a consistent ideological support that Romney has failed to mobilize. That makes Huckabee an easy pick as a running mate for McKain.

Did I miss anything else in my reading of the coffee grounds this morning?

Maine's Democratic caucuses come up this Sunday. The race is expected to be close here as well.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

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

"McCain"

Sorry about that.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:40 AM

And Ron is wrong about Obama's voters refusing to go to Clinton if she wins the nomination. They will, especially the black vote, which will remain firmly in the Democratic column. As a voting bloc, they are going to be badly weakened though, if Clinton comes out on top. If that is the case, the Latino bloc will hold much more power in the Democratic party than ever before--and within the next one or two election cycles, they will be much more powerful than the current Black Leadership Caucus, et al. Their power in the party is beginning to wane.

If there is any message from last night, it is that Clinton has a solid hold on the Democratic base, which either candidate MUST have in Nov to win. Obama? Weeeellll...maybe yes, maybe no.

Here is the thing. Obama is doing brilliantly among the highest educated and richest Democrats--the ones who tend to vote in primaries and go to caucuses. In the general election, that demographic holds far less sway.

MN's Obama victory last night shows exactly that. MN overwhelming supported Obama because they perceived him as an anti-war candidate. MN is extremely anti-war, but loves the warriors. MN hasn't voted for the winning presidential candidate in the general election though, since god left for Chicago. That is the conundrum. MN is very progressive among progressives. But we aren't terribly mainstream.

Or feminist, I might add. Politics is largely a male sport in our state, and the ladies fetch the coffee.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:43 AM

Yeah, and how about those Kennedy endorsements for Obama, and knighting him the new JFK.

Not so much, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 08:58 AM

GG-

But why would MN Republicans line up behind Rumney? I was surprised that McKain didn't get the lion's share of votes in that race. Instead Rumney got 42% of the vote versus 22% for McCain and 20% for Huckabee. Interesting state!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:05 AM

MN Republicans are insane, that's why. We have a Republican gov, who is quite popular & teflon-ish. He is McCain's campaign co-chair.

And when I say insane, I truly mean it. The Repub party here has been dominated for nearly 3 decades by rabid anti-abortionists. Seriously rabid. They went for Huckabee.

As to why Romney instead of McCain? It is pretty easy to see he got the "moderate" business Repubs. We have lots of Fortune 500 companies here.

And nobody knows how to vote their own self-interests better than so-called "moderate" big business Repubs. The recession ain't hurtin' any MN millionaires, I assure you. And we are a pretty affluent state.

Also, MN votes like Mass. does.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:47 AM

We got little for news here.

??

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:23 AM

Just read the news. But it made no mention of California. Did it go for O or C?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:27 AM

GG-

The "real you" does appear to be embedded in MN. LOL

I do believe there have been some "GG clone posts" on Mudcat threads that may not have been yours. Why not sign up as a Mudcat member, minimize such confusion, and stand tall!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:49 AM

The basic situation, Peace, on Weds morning: McCain is breaking into a clear lead, but not a complete wrap yet, with Huckabee and Romney nipping at him as he runs.

Hillary Clinton has the current lead but the margin is slim enough that it is still a one-on-one battle which will probably not be entirely resolved until the Democratic National Convention. Still in play, a number of states still have Dem primaries or caucuses to go, and there are also a lot of "superdelegates" who may slide one way or the other at any time, sustaining the uncertainty of a final resolution until the final pick at the Convention.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:04 AM

Thank you, Amos. (I was in California way back during '68 when Kennedy was killed, so my understanding of the primaries--despite having campaigned for McCarthy for over a half year--is not as good as it should be.}

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

Well, it ain't over by a good margin. I will be interested to find out how the situation changes when the good people of the United States learn that Hillary is in the early stages of a late-in-life pregnancy, carrying the love-child of John McCain. So far, the Clintons have managed to keep a complete blanket of silence on this information.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jacqui.c
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:09 AM

GG - I said Obama was A front runner - not THE front runner. Makes a lot of difference if you read it correctly.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:16 AM

You really have to dig deep into the news articles to discover that Hillary in fact, won.
The media has giving Obama Rock Star status, compared him to JFK and completely downplayed & twisted the fact that he is not winning.
Do not make the same mistakes all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:32 AM

Amos-

Is that astounding news true?

The Clintons certainly have been discrete about this. Maybe Bill doesn't know yet.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:33 AM

If I correctly read the Guardian of today, and combine it with a remark above it is starting to look as if the policy litmus test between Obama and CLinton is whether the democratic voter places more importance on the war or a health service. The rich democrat can afford health insurance, but does not want to get conscripted. The poor democrat knows he runs the risk of conscription, but needs a health service.

I am getting to think that if I were eligible to vote, I'd be voting Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:02 PM

well...it seems as if this (the Democratic side) might not be decided by primaries alone, which means that the "super delegates": party leaders and insiders, who are allowed to change their votes at the last minute, may decide it all by back-room deal making. I sure hope not, as we NEED the general electorate to feel like they made a real difference.

The most interesting statistic I heard last night was that a poll of Democrats nationwide said that when they were asked: "Would you be 'satisfied' if Clinton won?", 72% said 'yes'...and when asked: "Would you be satisfied if Obama won, 71% said 'yes'.

Those statistics are sure reflected in voting as Democrats try to wrestle with the 'problem' of having 2 candidates they mostly like.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:07 PM

Jim Lad:

The reason the media do not declare that she is winning is that the istuation is still too indeterminate. Every story I have read on the subject gives her the lead in presently defined delegate votes; but the undone primaries and the still undetermined disposition of superdelegates leaves the story unfinished.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:14 PM

I woudl like to add this one remark: the reason Obama supporters flock to his campaign is not based on a single issue, such as compared health-care plans or stances on Iraq.

It is because they believe they have found a better human being to support. A person of more integrity, less duplicity, and a higher grade of public honesty than any of the predecessors in play.

They reason, quite correctly, that the most important attribute of the next PResident will not be how he resolved problems posed in 2000 or even 2007, but what kind of mettle he will show when faced with new world developments. None of us can easily forget the dazed, uncomprehending look on W's face as he sat their trying to read "My Pet Goat" and understand 9-11 at the same time. Frankly he looked like someone who had forgotten his lines.

When he did act, he acted unwisely, planned badly, followed through weakly, and lied about the whole thing from both sides of his head.

The BIG lack in the White House for the last eight years has been integrity and vision. Hillary borrows both factors from who ever is nearest or brightest on her radar.

This is what makes Obama a preferred candidate. We need someone with a driving soul, a standard of honesty and the ability to think through bullshit without falling into it. On THESE criteria he is far and away the better candidate of the two.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:15 PM

I don't find it difficult to hear that Clinton 'won'. It's on MSNBC as well as other mainstream news. Last night Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert discussed the implications of the divided votes. They agreed that a clear winner could hang in the balance well into July (after Montana and South Dakota's primaries) and that it is possible that the contest will continue to the convention itself.

They are saying this morning that Obama garnered 76& of Juneau's Democratic vote last night. (Someone moved the % sign, Spaw)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:26 PM

Thanks for that update Ebbie. He is really collecting those Ampersands! I bet no one else has as many. But if he continues to hold himself that may be all he gets....................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:57 PM

Bite thy tongue, M'sieu Spaw.

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:45 AM

Nice one Kevin!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:45 AM

Look people, I'm not the one to argue against, I won't vote for either Obama or Hilary. And I'm not saying I'm right about anything--in fact I've said repeatedly I could be wrong about my assessment of the situation.

But I did spend a lot of years working for the Democrats and their party, I pay attention to politics, and I listen to what people who hold different opinions to me say.

There is a real echo chamber effect here at Mudcat, where the vast majority of posters are not only vehemently anti-Bush to the point they believe all Republicans are evil--not just bad politicians, but evil (which I don't agree with), but they are also highly partisan Democrats that follow the Democratic party establishment, and tend not to think very independently. I get the same reaction in my work place, which is a similar sort of demographic to Mudcat, except the racial makeup there is roughly half African American and Asian American, and about 3/4 women.

Some people I spoke with this week, when asking me who I was going to caucus for, became angry when I told them I was an independent and didn't caucus. They insisted I could caucus if I wanted to, and why wasn't I going to caucus? I explained to them I don't caucus because I don't wish to participate in party politics. That upset them too.

People are really pressured to conform to the two party system.

Now, that said, please believe I have no investment emotionally, as many of you and my work colleagues have, in who wins the Democratic nomination. I am simply making observations based upon my personal experience and knowledge like everyone else.

But because I have not participated in party politics or been invested in "my party's candidate" or "the lesser of two evils" voting choices for two decades now, my way of thinking and perceiving the political landscape doesn't reflect a conventional Democrat or even the mindset of a voter who has been opposed to the Republican side more than the Democratic side on the issues.

And look, I'm really sorry your boy didn't have a landslide victory the way some thought he would, and I'm really sorry you haven't figured out yet that the Democratic Leadership Council, along with Big Money and Big Media are backing Obama. While at one time, Clinton was the establishment candidate with all those things behind her, the one and only reason why Obama is being touted as having The Big Mo, is because the DLC (Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle, et al), Big Money and Big Media are handing it to Obama.

Now that is quite an interesting shift in the political landscape. There are a lot of Somebodies (we don't know who, but the way the endorsements by members of the DLC in the past month revealed all) have decided, for whatever reason, they don't want Clinton.

This is a huge shift of the power at the top of the Democratic party, and I think it is because the Clintons had been amassing more power than some traditionally "most powerful" players in the Democratic party. And that their legacy would overshadow the Camelot/Kennedy legacy. Hence the Kennedy full court press.

I don't think, at the top of the party, it is about Clinton being a woman. I think it is about the Clintons amassing more power than the DLC wants to give them.

As to the Big Money, that had been going to Clinton for years, and now has suddenly shifted to Obama. That, I don't think has anything to do with race or gender. I think it has to do with who is the more conservative politically of the two (Obama), and who is easiest to manipulate (again, Obama as he doesn't have the depth and breadth of power and connections nationally and internationally that Clinton does).

Finally, Big Media hates Clinton, always has, and the coverage of her is prejudiced in the same way it was against Kucinich and Edwards, and Huckabee on the Republican side. But in the case of Big Media, it is about sexism, and fighting very hard to keep a woman out of the White House, IMO. There are other factors, but it is mainly that one.

My analysis, which has been forced to shift and change as the establishment moved it's might to back Obama over Clinton, is really very recent, as are the developments in the race.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:16 AM

Yes, I believe Republicans are evil.

I believe that UK conservatives are evil too.

Anyone whose primary objective is to steal from the poor to give to the rich is evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:27 AM

And I have a problem with that sort of absolutist/black & white thinking. Nothing in politics, or life, is that simple. Nothing.

To me, there is still hope there are enough non-Reagan/Bush Republicans (and there is still a little less than 1/3 of the Republican elected politicians nationally who aren't Reagan/Bush Repubs, and many more at local levels) left to take back their party.

I do view the Reagan/Bush Repubs as evil. But I also view the Democratic Leadership Council and conservative Democrats as evil too.

One party doesn't have a lock on being evil. There is plenty of corruption and amorality going around the political spectrum, on both sides of the fence in the US, and among all the parties in the UK/Ireland. Evil and corruptability isn't partisan--it is quite democratic, in fact.

So to me, when I see someone trying to reduce politics to this absolutist formula of us good them bad, I consider the source.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: kendall
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:05 AM

Most of us vote with their wallet. I'm no different. The republican party has never done a damn thing for me or any other working man. That's basically why I am a democrat.
McCain is a war monger, anti choice, and he is now in favor of Bush's windfall for the upper class. He also failed to show up for the vote on the stimulus vote which would benefit the middle class. The class that the republicans have been working to eliminate.

Our Senator Collins has announced that Rep. Tom Allen, who is running against her for "her" Senate seat has taken money from Move On. That's probably true, but I hope he will counter with, she took $70,000 from the drug industry in her last re election campaign. We all know what has happened to the price of drugs. This is another example of why should I vote for a republican?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:16 AM

GG:

That may the most ratioanl and communicative post you've made here. Thanks for the interesting perspective.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:09 AM

Superb post, GG. Very interesting.

Yes the DLC may have felt that the Clintons were becoming too powerful. There is always infighting and jockeying for advantage within these political power groups.

Kendall, I think it's true that most people vote "with their wallet", but I don't think I do. My main concern is usually foreign policy...meaning I want to see the Iraq War ended, no war with Iran or anyone else, no permanent American bases in Iraq, and the troops brought home.

Not because of my wallet. Because of powerful moral reasons of right and wrong in international law. That's more important to me than having a few more dollars in my wallet, I can assure you.

Now, after that pressing matter...yes, then I also have concerns about domestic issues, the economy, etc...but for me the so-called "War on Terror" is the primary matter of concern.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 01:13 PM

Of no importance, but the outcome in New Mexico still uncertain. The provisional ballots (those cast by people at the wrong polling place, etc.) will be counted this week. There are enough of them to change the result, which gave the nod to Clinton by a whisker.

CNN has a nice summary chart of declared delegate counts for each state that has held its primaries-caucuses. They update if there are any changes (superdelegates are not tied). The pledged totals remain Clinton 823 and Obama 741. Some of the splits are interesting (reflecting, as they do,the district votes rather than total popular vote).

Election scorecard

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:14 PM

An excerpt from The Audacity of Hope:

"No blinding insights emerged from these months of conversation. If anything, what struck me was just how modest people's hopes were, and how much of what they believed seemed to hold constant across race, region, religion, and class. Most of them thought that anybody willing to work should be able to find a job that paid a living wage. They figured that people shouldn't have to file for bankruptcy because they got sick. They believed that every child should have a genuinely good education–that it shouldn't just be a bunch of talk–and that those same children should be able to go to college even if their parents weren't rich. They wanted to be safe, from criminals and from terrorists; they wanted clean air, clean water, and time with their kids. And when they got old, they wanted to be able to retire with some dignity and respect.

"That was about it. It wasn't much. And although they understood that how they did in life depended mostly on their own efforts–although they didn't expect government to solve all their problems, and certainly didn't like seeing their tax dollars wasted–they figured that government should help.

"I told them that they were right: government couldn't solve all their problems. But with a slight change in priorities we could make sure every child had a decent shot at life and meet the challenges we faced as a nation. More often than not, folks would nod in agreement and ask how they could get involved. And by the time I was back on the road, with a map on the passenger's seat, on my way to my next stop, I knew once again just why I'd gone into politics.

"I felt like working harder than I'd ever worked in my life.

"This book grows directly out of those conversations on the campaign trail. Not only did my encounters with voters confirm the fundamental decency of the American people, they also reminded me that at the core of the American experience are a set of ideals that continue to stir our collective conscience; a common set of values that bind us together despite our differences; a running thread of hope that makes our improbable experiment in democracy work. These values and ideals find expression not just in the marble slabs of monuments or in the recitation of history books. They remain alive in the hearts and minds of most Americans–and can inspire us to pride, duty, and sacrifice.

"I recognize the risks of talking this way. In an era of globalization and dizzying technological change, cutthroat politics and unremitting culture wars, we don't even seem to possess a shared language with which to discuss our ideals, much less the tools to arrive at some rough consensus about how, as a nation, we might work together to bring those ideals about. Most of us are wise to the ways of admen, pollsters, speechwriters, and pundits. We know how high-flying words can be deployed in the service of cynical aims, and how the noblest sentiments can be subverted in the name of power, expedience, greed, or intolerance. Even the standard high school history textbook notes the degree to which, from its very inception, the reality of American life has strayed from its myths. In such a climate, any assertion of shared ideals or common values might seem hopelessly naive, if not downright dangerous–an attempt to gloss over serious differences over policy and performance or, worse, a means of muffling the complaints of those who feel ill served by our current institutional arrangements.

"My argument, however, is that we have no choice. You don't need a poll to know that the vast majority of Americans–Republican, Democrat, and independent–are weary of the dead zone that politics has become, in which narrow interests vie for advantage and ideological minorities seek to impose their own versions of absolute truth. Whether we're from red states or blue states, we feel in our gut the lack of honesty, rigor, and common sense in our policy debates, and dislike what appears to be a continuous menu of false or cramped choices. Religious or secular, black, white, or brown, we sense– correctly– that the nation's most significant challenges are being ignored, and that if we don't change course soon, we may be the first generation in a very long time that leaves behind a weaker and more fractured America than the one we inherited. Perhaps more than any other time in our recent history, we need a new kind of politics, one that can excavate and build upon those shared understandings that pull us together as Americans.

"That's the topic of this book: how we might begin the process of changing our politics and our civic life. This isn't to say that I know exactly how to do it. I don't. Although I discuss in each chapter a number of our most pressing policy challenges, and suggest in broad strokes the path I believe we should follow, my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete. I offer no unifying theory of American government, nor do these pages provide a manifesto for action, complete with charts and graphs, timetables and ten-point plans.

"Instead what I offer is something more modest: personal reflections on those values and ideals that have led me to public life, some thoughts on the ways that our current political discourse unnecessarily divides us, and my own best assessment–based on my experience as a senator and lawyer, husband and father, Christian and skeptic–of the ways we can ground our politics in the notion of a common good."

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:38 PM

For insight into Hillary, read "Living History," which she wrote about four years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:06 PM

Thanks, Q. I just finished reading 11 pages of her book- googling 'Living History excerpt'. Very interesting.

I haven't said it here but I do tell my real-life friends that I could support Clinton if something should happen to Obama. She is a bright, articulate, aware person with flaws but also with great potential.

The main thing that worries me about her is something that I have rarely seen discussed: Will the next president of the United States be willing to abrogate and repudiate the unprecedented power that the Bush Administration has established as its norm.

I think that Obama may. I'm not sure about Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:23 PM

Women are a minority both in the workplace and in government.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: kendall
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:28 PM

LH in this particular election I agree. My disgust of the war is topmost with me. However,generally, the economy is more important. We are on the verge of bankruptcy, we are going into a recession, and we are being bled dry by this illegal war.
In my opinion, a vote for McCain is a vote for another 4 years of Bush. No thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Azizi
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:28 PM

Regarding African Americans voting for Senator Barack Obama, I agree with Oprah Winfrey's comments at the UCLA rally. Oprah said that people were "trying to play me small by saying that I'm voting for Barack Obama because he's Black. Don't play me small. I'm not voting for Obama because he's Black. I'm voting for him because he's brillant."

-snip-

In other words, qualifications and positions trump race.

And for those who are unfamiliar with this saying "play me small" means "to belittle" a person.

Here's a link to a YouTube video of that Oprah Winfrey speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfzFmYoZajY

[The video isn't great quality, but the sound is good]

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:41 PM

And eveyone should listen to Oprah because... er because...
Damn!
I knew it when I came in here!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:57 PM

If, as seems likely, McCain wins the Republican nomination I hope he chooses Huckabee as his running mate. :)

Azizi, I like what you say, and I like what Oprah says. From time to time she is belittled by people who are ignorant of her but my response is that she is a woman with vast experience in dealing with the human condition, she is courageous, supremely well informed, a person willing to use her resources in support of her beliefs and conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 05:50 PM

Well I was only joking but Wow!.
Didn't know a talk show host could have that much power over some folks.

Seems there are far more dynamics at play here than meets the eye.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 06:30 PM

I dunno, Ebbie. If McCain has Huckabee as his running mate, wins the election (not impossible, with Huck bringing in the conservative and evangelic vote), then dies (he is 71, after all), then we get Pres. Huckabee. That's far scarier to me than Pres. McCain. I'd rather consider McCain/Romney or even McCain/Lieberman.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 06:34 PM

McCain/Lieberman is the absolute scariest combination I could think of.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:05 PM

I agree with Rig. I do NOT want Lieberman a heartbeat from the presidency. I think there is something seriously scary about him.

McCain/Huckabee is a different animal, imo. Huckabee, I understand, is a personable person (in person. ha!) and a wonderful speaker but I think he, in his views, would be vulnerable to ridicule and aghast response. I very much doubt that enough Americans, outside the South, would accept him or even take his views seriously. William Jennings Bryan comes to mind-Americans didn't accept him and that was in a much more overtly religious age.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:27 PM

The Washington State caucuses are being held this Saturday, but I am informed that all they are going to do is choose delegates for the National Convention, and since I will be unable to go (fascinating experience though I'm quite sure it would be!!) there is hardly any point in my attending my neighborhood caucus, even though I usually do.

The primary here is on February 19th, and I have already received my ballot in the mail. Obviously they were printed some time ago, and several of the candidates on the ballot have since dropped out. Dennis Kucinich is still listed. Since this is a primary and not for the whole pot, I think I'll check his box. So I can still make a statement, but unless a whole batch of people do the same thing, it'll be sort of a hollow gesture.

When the national election comes along in November, it's all sliced-and-diced by then. We get what they want to give us.

Damned hard to change a system when it would have to be changed by those who benefit the most from it as it is.

Ptui!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:39 PM

"Damned hard to change a system when it would have to be changed by those who benefit the most from it as it is."

Yup. That is the problem, in a nutshell, and it is always so in any established political order. That's why fundamental change usually can only come in the wake of a revolution...or a national defeat of gigantic proportions in time of war...or some great social emergency, like the Great Depression.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:01 PM

Well, at the rate we're going, we may very well get there. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:29 PM

Of course Oprah don't vote race, Azizi. You don't either. And I'm sure the other 92% of African Americans who voted for Obama last Tuesday didn't even give Obama's race a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:55 PM

McGrath - Very funny.

Women are a minority in the political arena.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:21 PM

It is fortunate that Azizi is well equipped to fight her own battles especially against someone so well known. psst, Azizi. You need anyone in your corner?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:32 PM

I'm waiting to see who Dr. Phil endorses.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:43 PM

Little known fact--when Oprah made her first appearance in SC w/Obama in December, his poll numbers among black women jumped 12%, literally overnight.

There truly is an Oprah voter this year, bizarre as it seems to many.

The Oprah voters are African American women who likely would have gone for Clinton. But then this dreamboat came floating down Oprah's river of money. He was all Harvard Law, shiny and new, and almost as pretty as his trophy wife, who publicly got away with bitch slapping Hilary for not being able to keep her man at home.

Well, you know that's true! You got no business being in the White House when you can't keep your own house! (The Gospel According to Michelle)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:48 PM

Can't believe that she said that and he's still in the race.
You're joking, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:55 PM

GUEST,Guest's main schtick is just to yank someone's chain. Offers only gloom and doom. Has nothing to suggest. In internet parlance, I believe that's called a "troll."

Best ignored.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:05 PM

Nope, no joke. It's on You Tube, taken from a local Chicago newscast.

If you go to You Tube & put "Obama vs Hilary" not only will you be able to view the charming "Move Bitch" anthem, but you can also search for "Michelle Obama takes a shot at Hilary Clinton" to see how the girl "gets back to her roots".


"Roots" Michelle

"Move Bitch"

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:24 PM

Guest, Guest: Not to worry. There are some here who, when their opinions are challenged, resort to name calling. Think yourself lucky that as a guest, you will not be subjected to the PM's that the rest of us receive. I among others have congratulated you on your unbiased & informative perspective.
However. this thread seems ready to self destruct at the hands of these three so I will be leaving before the cat calling gets too personal and would advise you to follow suit.
I will check out the "You Tube" link but must say that her statement, if she made it, sounds a little too contrived to be "Off the cuff".
Thanks again. I am always interested in foreign politics and it is nice to hear informed opinions from within.
Cheers!
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:28 PM

Yeah Jim, it's time to move on. Any thread over 100 posts just generates heat in the dark.

Check out the videos though. Gotta love You Tube!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:31 PM

What's this "Bypass" thing though?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 07:00 AM

Oprah's involvement makes it harder to vote for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 07:44 AM

Oops.

My bad for posting the link with Bypass, I forgot I was using it. It is the web anonymizer I use.

I dunno, the Oprah Factor (tm) at least allows for some comic relief.

Here is what Roseanne had to say about it:

"Oprah has given us Swartzenegger [sic] and Dr. Phil," Roseanne writes. "If that was not offensive enough to decent thinking people, now she brings us Obama."

Roseanne also "tells" Winfrey, "You are a closeted republican and chose Barak [sic] Obama because you do not like other women who actually stand for something to working American Women besides glamour, angels, Hollywood and dieting!"

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 08:46 AM

Well, we have heard from Roseanne and Winfrey. Is Ann Coulter gonna be quoted next?

It is possible that some folks voted based on race, just as it seems some folks here are seemingly willing to vote based on gender. However, that aside, what rationales are there for seeing Hillary as a better candidate than Obama?

(Please don't anyone toss in the term, viable. That has currency only in rhetoric, imo.)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:01 AM

She's a better dancer?

Group hug!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:01 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:02 AM

Being female and a little on the feminist side I would be delighted to see a woman as president. However, from what I have seen of her, I do not like Hilary and do not think - in my own opinion - that she will be the best president. I also think that she could set back the womens cause quite considerably if she did get in.

My opinion has been formed over many years - didn't warm to her when Bill was president.

Being white I do not have an axe to grind about a 'black' president. I am ashamed that, in the day and age, there are still so many people who put race before all other considerations. From what I have seen and heard my own opinion is that Obama would be a good choice as president, definitely preferable to me, if I could vote, over the other candidates still in the race.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:10 AM

Omigodomigod a Mudcat woman who admits to being "a little on the feminist side"? Sounds like I need to move on over to that girlfriends tweezin' twatties thread.

You are looking at this lot, and trying to decide who would make the president? Well, picking any of them is easier than worrying our pretty littles heads, innit?

Personally, I think we need some cozy time in our pink fuzzie jammies, drinkin Ghiardelli cocoa, and sangin some pages out of the "I've Got a Crush on Obama" songbook.

And on "being white". Omigodomigod. Congrats on that home girl! You are one lucky star.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:44 AM

GG - go boil your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 10:10 AM

Which one?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: PoppaGator
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 12:24 PM

Louisiana primary tomorow.

I thought it might be all over after Mardi Gras, er, oops, I mean, Super Tuesday ~ and for the Republican side, apparently, it IS all over. But we soggy, bedraggled, despised, and forgotten flood victims will apparently have something to say about the still-up-for-grabs Democratic race.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 12:43 PM

SUggest y'all double down on Obama's side if you want some compassion in the Administration next time 'round, there, Poppa! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:50 PM

Clinton is the only one proposing universal health care. Obama supports some extention of the same old, which leaves millions still outside the doctor's office, and continued pressure on charity wards.
Clinton, if she wins the nomination, might be able to convince congressional members that universal health care is cheapest in the long run.

The next Congress will still be closely divided. Obama is defensive when opposed and whether he can form coalitions is doubtful.

McCain's proposal to cut the business tax by 10% looks good to small business men, and he will get a large share of their votes in an election.

McCain has removed the roadblocks to his run for candidacy and has a good chance of holding the White House for the Republicans. He will be crowned by acclamation at the Convention and likely will have Huckabee as running mate.

'Change,' the catchword, sounds good, but will be slow and restricted regardless of who wins the Democratic Convention, and providing their candidate wins the election.

Them's my views at present (not quite as changable as the weather, but subject to wind shifts).

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 02:11 PM

Q-
Clinton's health care proposal is apt to set up a treasure chest for private insurers--who haven't been performing particularly well as is, except financially.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 02:18 PM

Washington Governor to Endorse Obama
By Jeff Zeleny


SEATTLE – At a rally here later today, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire intends to announce her endorsement of Senator Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, adding another governor to the ranks of his supporters.

The decision places her at odds with the state's two senators, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, both of whom have endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. On the eve of the caucuses here, the governor conceded, it was a difficult choice to make.

"Lots of people said, 'Just stay out of it,'" Ms. Gregoire said in an interview with David Ammons, a political reporter for The Associated Press in Olympia. "But all of my friends are going to caucus on Saturday and will be asked to make up their mind, so why shouldn't I? It was time for me to make up my mind."

Endorsements, as the results on Super Tuesday indicated, don't always mean that the beneficiary will carry the state. (Mr. Obama, for example, lost Arizona and Massachusetts, both states where he was endorsed by governors and senators.) But as the Democratic nominating fight devolves into a madcap chase for delegates, suddenly the endorsements from elected officials could matter a lot more.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:14 PM

Endorsements are a mixed blessing- often the endorser has as many detractors as supporters- Oprah and Teddy Boy being two who are poison to many.
Swartzenegger, on the other hand, is on a roll in California, but next year? he might lose the magic.

Can't comment on the Washington governor's endorsement, dunno know anything about the political climate there. If it is anything like British Columbia on the other side of the border, it can be a wildcard.
To vote in the Washington caucus, voters must sign a declaration pledging allegiance to the party. Will this depress the vote?
Independents will stay home or have to lie. Half of registered supporters expected to turn out, acc. to WA Sec. of State.
Pollsters are picking Obama, saying the caucus format favors him.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:29 PM

GG-

Or GG-clone-

You're losing credability here fast on this thread, and it has a lot to do with your lack of empathy with anyone's reasoned decisions other than your own. I have to agree that you're achieving classic troll status.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:34 PM

Well blokes over 70 are a minority for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: PoppaGator
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 04:03 PM

Clinton's health plan is similar enough to Obama's to my mind. Both of them give too much continued participation to the current crooks who control the "health insurance" industry, and who spend so much of their payroll and other expenditures in their efforts to deny medical care to people.

Also, Hilary's history of bungling a previous attempt to improve health coverage makes me a bit doubtful of her. Of course, she should have, and may have, learned from her mistakes back then.

John Edwards had proposed a healthcare plan that allows the status quo approach to continue, but in direct competition with a single-payer federal plan. If the single-payer deal proves to work, as many believe it would, the old-fashioned profit-making care-denying system would eventually fall by the wayside.

At first, Edwards was the only candidate to offer ANY concrete health-coverage plan; the other Dems came up with their "alternatives" only in response to his proposal. Eventually, assuming the Democrat wins, perhaps we can hope for a solution that turns out to be similiar to Edwards', if not identical.

Contrary to what some have been saying, it seems to me that supporters of both Obama and Clinton will vote Democratic in the general election, and do so quite enthusiastically, regardless of which candidate eventually gets the nomination. Virtually everyone who cares for either Democratic contender is going to be very anxious to end eight years of neoconservative misrule, and most will take the very real possibility of a McCain victory seriously enough to come out and participate, voting against the GOP even if the eventual Demoratic candidiate was not their first choice in the primaries.

It's the Republicans who have to worry that their more partisan and ideologically-driven members will sit out the election in protest and/or disinterest.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:00 PM

In Alaska, a caucus requies one to to declare to a party. As a registered Non-Partisan I had to switch to the Democratic ticket in order to vote. I, of course, was able to switch right back. Which I haven't done yet- it was so crowded and the lines were so long that I'll probably wait until close to the next election time.

Unless I stay in the Democratic Party. I tend to vote for the candidate wo I've been known to vote for someone in the opposition party or when I'm casting strictly a protest ballot.

Nowadays, and for the last couple of elections, I think the stakes are so high there is no way I'd vote Republican.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:18 PM

Ebbie-

I've considered briefly voting for Ron Paul as a protest but then I did some homework about his record and decided that his social priorities were reactionary in the extreme. I'm sorry but I support the concept of public education, even if it is a badly flawed system, and even if some people don't have children. But some will vote for Paul simply because he has challenged the Bush Administration as a Republican on the wisdom of their discreationary and outrageously expensive war in Iraq.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:46 PM

Q--

I have unlimited respect for your scholarship on folk music issues, and I've enjoyed and learned a lot from your historical vignettes of Canadian history.

So I was quite dismayed at your total mischaracterization of Obama's health plan. It will not, as you say, "leave millions still outside the doctor's office". I trust your statement was made in ignorance and not in malice. It will cover anybody who wants to be covered--by subsidizing those who need financial assistance to get coverage.

Hillary's plan, you may not be aware, is not in fact "universal health coverage" as in Canada--it is not a single-payer system. She admitted this in her debate with Obama--and you can easily confirm it.. Her plan would still have a big role for insurance companies.

Also, her plan will supposedly "mandate" that all participate. No enforcement mechanism would be possible--except garnisheeing wages of those who do not want to participate. This would cause a huge storm in the US---there is very strong feeling against any coercive requirement of individuals by government. And therefore it will never fly politically.

And you can bet McCain has noticed this vulnerability of Hillary--and, like the Woodstock museum proposal and so many other issues, he will exploit it to the hilt, in the unfortunate event that she becomes the Democratic nominee.

Yet another reason to prefer Obama, who does not believe in a "mandate".

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 11:50 PM

My remarks on health proposals are based on an analysis of the health schemes of Clinton and Obama, made by Johnathan Gruber, professor of health economics at MIT, and published on the editorial page of the NY Times. I published a synthesis of those findings in another thread on the primaries and debates.

Thread 108237: Clinton-Obama debate
Paul Krugman, NY Times, Feb 4, 2008.

I stick by what I said; Clinton's plan covers everybody, and as a result would be cheaper (less cost per taxpayer) than Obama's.

I am not too optimistic about the chances for health coverage in Congress even if Hillary Clinton is elected; I think Congress will continue to be closely divided.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:01 AM

"Well blokes over 70 are a minority for that matter." McGrath

Thats probably true but...

In the political arena:

How many blokes over 70 and how many women?

CEOs of large corporations:

How many blokes over 70 and how many women?

Drs? Lawyers? Dentists?

Politcally, women are underrepresented and so are African Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 07:57 AM

Neither women or African Americans are as under-represented as Asians and Latinos.

So what's the point?

In 1988, Jesse Jackson came out of Super Tuesday the front runner. That is when the serious race baiting began--nowadays you would call it "swift boating". But in 1988 it was all race baiting.

Obamarama peeps don't want to see a repeat of that, hence them putting so much distance between Obama and the African American voting bloc.

Except when he is buying their votes.

Which is being done using clever racial coding in TV ads, and sending The Trophy Wife out to campaign about how to keep your man at home to audiences of predominantly African American women--the Oprah voters.

In fact, I vote we call the African American princess vote "the Oprah's Girlfriends Club". (Cue the angels)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:17 AM

Being under represented isn't the some thing as being a minority. Otherwise it would have been appropriate to talk about black Africans as being "a minority".

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:18 AM

Being under represented isn't the some thing as being a minority. Otherwise it would have been appropriate to talk about black Africans as being "a minority" in apartheid South Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:20 AM

"That is when the serious race baiting began--nowadays you would call it "swift boating". But in 1988 it was all race baiting."


                Bill Clinton proved in South Carolina that race baiting won't work anymore. I still think if Obama is the candidate the issue will be religion baiting in the general election. The ground work is already being laid.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:37 AM

As I have pointed out on another thread, GG... Obama has more to be concerned about with the DNC rigged "super delegate" deck than he has with either McClinton, McWar or the race card being played...

Jessie Jackson was a big target becuase Jackson made race an issue... Obama not so... That's why Obama is doing so well with white voters... Even Southern white voters??? Go figure???

Plus, progressives have had some time now to consider how to counter Swiftboating... One of the best things they have done is seize on the term much the way the Repubs once used "liberal" as derogatory...
"Swiftboating" is now a derogatory term in most people's minds and so it is now not only part of the progrssive's arsonal but ready to be fired swiftly and often should the McWariers come close to playin' the race card, no matter how subtle the playin'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:00 AM

GG-

I really don't think your use of the term "Trophy Wife" is the appropriate term to desribe Michelle Obama. You may not like some of what she says, or how she says it, or you may be attempting sarcasm, but you're way off base.

Here's the working definition from Wikipedia for your edification and that of others concerned:

"A trophy wife is commonly used to describe any wife of an (usually) older man; and who is considered a status symbol.
The term trophy wife was coined by Julie Connelly, a senior editor of Fortune magazine, in a cover story in the issue of Aug. 28, 1989[1] and immediately entered the language. Although it often has a pejorative spin, the term originally meant the second (or third) wife of a corporate titan, who was younger, beautiful and—equally important—accomplished in her own right.[2]
The marriage of former Playboy playmate Anna Nicole Smith to oil magnate, J. Howard Marshall, was widely followed by the U.S. media, as an extreme example,[3] as at the time of their marriage: he was 89 years old and she was 26.
Some sources claim the term was coined earlier (for example the Online Etymology Dictionary cites 1984 [4]) but that seems incorrect. The Oxford English Dictionary confirms Aug 28, 1989 as its first use. [5]"

Find another term. Or better, clarify what you find objectionable about her as a person and as a partisan wife.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:02 AM

Yeah Bobert, your racial memory is extremely selective. Jesse made race an issue in 1988 by being black. His campaign strategy differed very little from what Obama's is today--it was called the Rainbow Coalition, and it's theme was unity and change.

Let us not forget, Bobert, even though your Obamaramas all want us to, that Jesse Jackson was standing right next to MLK when the bullet hit him. OK? Don't try and paint Jackson as some radical like that. Homey don't play dat tune.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:06 AM

True Blue Charley, because you don't think Michelle Obama qualifies as a trophy wife, doesn't mean that I should agree with you.

She has all the trappings of a politician's trophy wife, IMO. And my opinion is the one to which I am entitled, not you.

Stop telling me what to say and how to say it, just because you disagree with me. You don't have that level of control over other human beings, and frankly, you seem extremely passive aggressive in that regard.

Glad I ain't eatin' yo cookies and drinkin yo punch at yo caucus today.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:10 AM

Bobert, the ONLY reason Barak Obama is the front runner today, is because of the progress we have made regarding racism in this country in the past 50 years.

If only that were also true of sexism, classism, and religious bigotry.

How about we work on a few of those while we sing Kumbayah with Obama, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:15 AM

No, it's not that, GG... It was Jessie Jackson's history that made race a part of the campaign... It wasn't anything that Jessie did overtly but somehting that he carried with him by default... That is what I meant and that is why Jessie was a large target than Obama is today...

Yeah, I'll admit that it took Jessie's run to clear the way for Obama to run the campaign he is running today but for look back at '88 and say that the playing field in terms of race was the same then as it is today is, IMO, inaccurate...

Call it bagage if you like but Jessie was carrying it whetehr he wanted it or not...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:20 AM

"Carried with him by default"? What does that mean, exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:29 AM

Jesse Jackson arrived at the 1988 Democratic National Convention in black limo with none other than Rosa Parks. He healed a huge rift among the Black Caucus when Coretta Scott King through her vote to Dukakis.

Your historical revisionism is just as racist as the damn Obama/Oprah machine's revisionism. Shirley Chisholm must be turning over in her grave.

From the Frontline/PBS website of their program "The Pilgrimmage of Jesse Jackson":

When he delivered this speech in Atlanta on July 19, 1988 just before 11 p.m., Jackson was at his highest. He had arrived at the convention with over 1200 delegates--second to Michael Dukakis. Only a few months earlier, his upset win in Michigan's primary had opened the possibility he could eventually achieve the Democratic nomination.

This speech, too, was hailed as one of the greatest ever made at a convention--comparable to William Jennings Bryan's 1896 "Cross of Gold" speech, said some observers. There were eighteen standing ovations. In the fifty-minute address, Jackson touched upon his origins in poverty, and affirmed to supporters that his presidential quest had not been futile. One supporter remarked, "Jackson in 1984 was an improbability. In 1988, it's totally possible....."

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:34 AM

And BTW, I heard Obama's speech in 2004, and my first thought was "he ain't no Jesse Jackson".

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:42 AM

And here is what I wonder. Who would Barbara Jordan and Shirley Chisholm have endorsed?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:52 AM

I think GG is a trophy wife herself, in some deeply troubled game.

Whyncha chill, there, GG? Charley asked a reasonable question and you got all snippy. What exactly do you object to in Michelle Obama?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:10 AM

Q--

You "stick by what you said". You said Obama's plan would" leave millions outside the doctor's office." You are totally wrong-for the reason I cited. His plan would do no such thing. And I hope you are not spreading that poison to Americans you know.

Is it ego that prevents you from acknowledging this? Or something else?

Why is slander perfectly fine if Obama is the subject?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:28 AM

Amos, I hereby dub thou TruBluII.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 12:17 PM

Oh, I bleed!! Not so deep as a well, nor wide as a harlot's door, but 'tis enough, 'twill serve.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:26 PM

"...the ONLY reason Barak Obama is the front runner today, is because of the progress we have made regarding racism in this country in the past 50 years."

The only reason the colour of Obama's skin is any more of an "issue" than the colour of his hair, and that GG is rabbiting on about it here, is because that progress still has a long way to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:37 PM

Amos et al -

GG evidently likes to play fast and loose with language, i.e., "Trophy Wife", and then gets all hot and bothered when I point out that he is misusing the term as it's generally understood. I didn't realize fully that the only important meaning to words are what they mean to him.

I regret his current attitude. Much of what he was posting before made sense to me and I was even forwarding it on to other folks struggling to make a choice between Clinton and Obama.

Whatever!

And he even turns up his nose at my offering of cookies and cider for Sunday's Democratic Caucus in my home town. There's just no accounting for taste.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:45 PM

Dude, if you gotta go to wikipedia to look up trophy wife, I'm guessing you aren't too clued in to the vernacular use of it among boomer women of a certain age.

Just a wild ass guess on my part.

And imagine how crushed I am that a True Blue Believer doesn't like what I'm saying about their candidate brand.

Listen Amos, Ron, and Charley. Everybody knows you three wise men are Obama boys and Knows Whats Best For Everyone.

Thank you very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:54 PM

Charley-

It's fairly well established that GG is female--probably named Janet.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:43 PM

Some people read, investigate, seek educated opinion and come to their (personal) conclusion. Others just excrete the muddled steaming diarrhetic bolus they erroneously label brains and expect applause.

I have slandered neither Democratic candidate; I have merely voiced my opinion, based on the analysis of a noted health care professional, reported in the NY Times, that the Clinton plan would be superior and less costly in the long run to the one outlined by Obama.

PoppaGator, on the other hand, brought up a valid point- the insurance companies who have carte blanche to decide who gets what under the present system. I presume that any plan, to receive approval in Congress, would involve both insurance and government money. Clinton hopes to extend the umbrella so that the insurance companies cannot leave anyone outside of it. I agree that controls should be imposed on the private insurers. How, and to what extent they should be involved and integrated into a system, would be determined by Congress.

Without professional health care background, my view must rely on opinions of those health care professionals who have studied the problems and pitfalls of health insurance. With a doctor in the family, I hear perhaps more than I want to hear, but it does help to keep me informed to some degree.

A common misconception of the Canada Health Plan in the United States press is that it leaves out the insurance companies- true for the lowest income earners but not for many employed (and retired) Canadians. Like them I have some private coverage from my Company plan, which goes a long way toward covering drugs and other medical supplies. On the drugs I receive, the Alberta government pays part, the insurance company pays part and I pay a small part (I understand the federal government re-imburses the provincial government, but it may not be 100%). Québec and Alberta elected to have their own plans (of course largely supported by the federal government) which differ somewhat from plans in other provinces.
Is the Canadian system universal? Yes, but lots of 'footnotes.'

(Parenthetically, I could have retained full coverage under the Company-private insurer plan, continuing to pay my share, but elected to withdraw when I retired).

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:45 PM

Let's see if I get this right. If we back Kucinich, or perhaps Paul, then we are honsest adherents to clear intellectual principles. If we back Obama we have been hypnotized into being his "boys" by his wave of popularity.

That is an asinine position, GG, and I believe in your heart you know it; you are lashing out again and it becomes you not at all.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:26 PM

Q--


Leaving "millions of people outside the doctor's office". Sorry, that's slander of Obama. No surprise you refuse to acknowledge it. Must be your ego, after all. Perhaps you'd like to talk to Teribus. He has the same problem.

Obama's plan, as I've explained earlier, will not leave millions outside the doctor's office--for the very good reason that it provides for subsidies for those who cannot afford health insurance.

And you have provided no evidence to the contrary.

You're welcome, however, to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 05:27 PM

Ho hum.
To re-quote from the analysis by Gruber at MIT, but quoting the Krugman article in the NY Times directly-

"...a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102B per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured- essentially everyone- at a taxpayer cost of 124B. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4400 per newly insured person, the Clinton plan only $2700. ..."One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80% as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured."
The analysis results are ..."consistent with the results of other analyses, such as the 2003 study, commissioned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, that compared health reform plans and found that mandates made a big difference both to success in covering the uninsured and to cost-effectiveness."
"...the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates- most recentlyt in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters... similar to the "Harry and Louise" ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine the last chance at getting universal health care."
"If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he'll find that it can't be done without mandates- but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him."
The bottom line- if Clinton gets the nomination, there is some chance that universal health care might come to pass. "If Obama gets the nomination,it just won't happen."

Going back to the figures at the top of this post, the Clinton plan covers 45 million uninsured, while the Obama plan covers 23 million, leaving some 20 million uninsured.

Who are the uninsured and where do these uninsured end up? Many are currently healthy people who can afford their medical bills, and have not signed for any program- if they get a serious and costly illness, where do they go? To the free clinics which are already overburdened by the poor who are uninsured or inadequately covered, which translates to-
"millions outside of the doctor's office and in the charity wards..."

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 06:02 PM

Kansas population 2.7 million.

In the Republican caucus today, the total vote was approx. 19,000.
Huckabee picks up 36 delegates, McCain 2.

In the Democratic caucus, total vote approx. 37,000
Obama 26 delegates, Clinton 10

How is the caucus system set up in Kansas?
That vote total is miniscule. Does it mean the Kansas folks don't give a damn about the caucuses?

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

I'm guessing everyone figured it was pretty anti-climactic, just like this thread.

The Kansas total still isn't enough for Obama to pull ahead of Clinton, I don't think.

So.

Big yawn.

Remember, at least a third of registered voters in any given state are non-affiliated with either party, and most of them these days are neither Demopubs or Republicrats.

They are, like moi, fedupophiles.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 06:10 PM

A neologism which means "people who really enjoy feeling fed up, and telling others how fed up they are."



A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 06:52 PM

What I mean, GG, in that Jessie carried bagage is that he had been so much the part of the civil rights struggle... Yes, he was with Dr. King im Memphis the night that Dr, King was killed...

Sometimes when there is a struggle there are negative associations in that those who came out on the loosing side subconsciously harbor... And, yes, to many southern whites there was, and still is, a feeling that they lost...

This is what I think was going on in '88...

Yes, Jessie get all the credit in the world for the good fight but with his history it was impossibile for Jessie to escape "race" in his cmapaign...

Obama does not have that problem to that extent for which Obama has Jessie to thank...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 07:39 PM

Maybe "trophy wife just means the same as "wife" for "boomer women of a certain age".

Though since a "boomer" is a male kangaroo...

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:48 PM

Damn! GG's just not satisfied with the definition of "Trophy Wife" from Wikipedia. I did first check in my Oxford Unabridged dictionary and Webster's to no avail. What's a fella supposed to do with this contemporary slang? There are several interesting links I've found on-line to acquire such a wife, some from Asian countries. But I don't need one, nor can I afford one.

You don't suppose that GG is actually a trophy wife, and that is why she feels that she has the personal experience to define Michelle Obama as one?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:52 PM

a wife who is an attractive young woman; seldom the first wife of an affluent older man; "his trophy wife was an asset to his business"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Trophy wife is a highly pejorative term, usually applied to a physically attractive younger woman married to a man who has obtained a high level of success, be it physical, financial, or otherwise. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy wife



Where's Janet's definition?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:54 PM

Well, I am thrilled no end that y'all have had a good time on this thread discussing the reproductive cycle of the tsetse fly. Thank you for your contributions.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:31 PM

"Say goodnight, Gracie."

"Goodnight, Gracie."

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Azizi
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:28 PM

Clean Sweep!

Obama won Nebraska, Washington, Louisiana, and the Virgin Islands Democratic caucuses or primaries!

Whoo Hoo!!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Azizi
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:42 PM

Obama sweeps three states

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent


"WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama swept the Louisiana primary and caucuses in Nebraska and Washington state Saturday night, slicing into Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's slender delegate lead in their historic race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Illinois senator also won caucuses in the Virgin Islands, completing his best night of the campaign.

His winning margins were substantial, ranging from roughly two-thirds of the vote in Washington state and Nebraska to nearly 90 percent in the Virgin Islands. With returns counted from more than one-third of the Louisiana precincts, he was gaining 53 percent of the vote, to 39 percent for the former first lady"...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080210/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:42 AM

Go TEAM!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:59 AM

There are caucuses in the Virgin Islands??? What the heck?

Say, check out this wonderful picture of Billary:

Billary in 1970!

Isn't that just the coolest? ;-) Man, they looked just like so many people I was hanging out with at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 08:24 AM

Congrats to the Obamarama folk. Well done, fairly played.

I shudder to think of a presidency under any of the three remaining standing. But there you have it. Your man won a couple more, and that's all he needed to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 08:38 AM

Q--


"broadly resembling the Obama plan" won't cut it. We have no idea what the final plan will look like. He will not be leaving 20 million more than Hillary out. That's pointless speculation. And if Mr. Krugman thinks he will because of cost, that's your answer right there. The plan will cost more than Mr. Krugman assumes. Obama knows this, and will adjust the cost as necessary.

1) What is the date of your NYT article?   Direct source is needed.

2) Hillary's "mandate" plan is a guaranteed crash-and-burn.   Why? She has recently admitted it will involve garnisheeing the wages of those who do not want to participate. That will never fly politically, as I've noted.

Reason:

Mainly the US cult of the individual--as opposed to in Canada.   Why do you suppose gun rights groups are so powerful?   And Ron Paul's fund-raising strength was not just based on opposition to the Iraq war--the Libertarian party feeds on this feeling against the government.   Pressure against red-light cameras is another manifestation. There's even considerable sentiment to scrap the income tax.

This fits right in. The Republicans-- and the Democrats recently elected on pro-hunting, anti-abortion. etc., tickets--will never accept government coercion of individuals to participate in Hillary's program.

I think it's likely she knows this--but has made the cynical calculation that it doesn't matter--all she wants is a nice simple slogan--"universal healthcare" to run on.

It is however possible that just the "garnisheeing" element she has admitted will sink her plans and keep her out of another stay in the White House--as I say, government coercion--and that's how it will be portrayed--is electoral poison.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:46 AM

All taxes are "government coercion", when you come down to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 10:02 AM

Today the National focus should be on the Democratic caucuses in Maine, not a lot of delegates to compete for but they're all ours! We got another six inches of snow last night and we're expecting more this afternoon and evening when most of the caucuses are scheduled.

Maine voters are a hardy lot but it will be a challenge for some to get to these caucuses. Both Clinton and Obama gave major speeches in the State yesterday, and everyone is wondering what the results will be.

We should know our results by 7:30 pm or so.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:00 AM

The eyes of the nation will be on Maine, Charley.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:04 AM

As Maine goes, so goes the Nation.

I trust you folks will send Obama in with flying colors.


It's what we-all need, methinks.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:27 AM

A rather charming anecdote about the primaries from columnist Armando Ianiucci in the Observer today:

"Final confirmation last week that Everything's Just Rubbish came from what everyone told me was the highly efficient Clinton campaign machine. Polls are about to take place in Virginia and Maryland, so her campaign team arranged for automatic telephone calls to every voter containing a message from her beginning 'Hi, Maryland' or 'Hi, Virginia' and urging them to get out and vote. Unfortunately, someone pressed the wrong button and every elector in Virginia got 'Hi, Maryland' and every Marylander got 'Hi, Virginia'.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:31 AM

Actually, that is a fallacy, Amos. It is now "as Missouri goes..."

And this year, that ain't gonna work, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:52 PM

You're right, Kevin. All taxes are considered coercion--in fact that's one of the WSJ's perennial favorites. They have an amazing number of creative riffs on that theme--and they must have managed to convince somebody. Republicans have been running on that for quite a while.   And voting against Bush's tax cut once--or twice-- upon a time is considered McCain's worst heresy--a long trip to Canossa is probably in the offing. It evidently doesn't take much to get conservative Republicans apoplectic on the subject of taxes. There are already quite a few strong forces in US politics always on the alert for even the whiff of a new tax.

But the main problem here is that those who do not want to participate in Hillary's plan will consider themselves singled out for a special tax. So they will portray the government coercion as worse than usual.

And they will get a very favorable hearing from many in Congress--very likely a majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM

I've heard both, Janet. And you might note it's a bit premature to be sure about MO or ME--"and the nation".

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 01:08 PM

It is obvious that neither Clinton nor Obama will go into the Convention with a workable majority of delegates.
According to CNN Election Central this morning, Clinton has 1108 (885 pledged plus 223 superdelegates) and Obama has 1049 (918 pledged plus 131 superdelegates).
The 26 Edwards delegates could become important. The superdelegates may have to decide which candidate is electable.

The stage is being set for a long and bitter Democratic Convention.

www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/
__________________________________
The Krugman article in the NY Times was dated above in a post and in another thread. Again, it was published Feb. 4, 2008, "Clinton, Obama, Insurance," by Paul Krugman.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 01:21 PM

Constitutional lawyers speak of the compact between the government and the governed, for we know that a government cannot endlessly enforce its will on the people. If elections do not palliate, revolution will solve. The USA should know that. How does it go, "No taxation without representation"?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 01:44 PM

It's not really fair to say that all taxes are coercion unless you are prepared to admit that all laws are also coercion. Not to mention the compulsory educational system. ;-) (and that it is coercion is clearly evident to most children)

Now what would happen if we had no such coercion whatsoever? No laws. No courts. No police. No schools. No libraries. No telecommunications systems. No roads. No utilities. No armed forces. No rules of conduct whatsoever....

I think that is what Shane dreams of, and Shane is an idiot. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 01:46 PM

GUEST,Guest, Janet, GG, or whoever or whatever you are, I am curious about something.

It's easy enough for people who don't want to bother with such inconvenient processes as thinking—or especially for those who don't wish others to take the trouble to think—to invent a pigeon-hole, slap a label on it, and then try to stuff anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint into that pigeon-hole, thereby dismissing anything they have to say from that point on, no matter how accurate and to the point it may be.

I might add that it's a little difficult to agree with you because other than indicating that you don't like anybody, you're fed up, and you think everyone should just give up (or possibly that you are trying to pave the way to urging bloody revolution), you haven't been at all clear about what your viewpoint actually is.

(Are you intellectually up to following those sentences?)

You have used the epithet "true blue" (with a variety of spellings) on several occasions and on several threads now.

How, exactly, do you define "true blue?"

Or do you actually have a definition, beyond "someone who doesn't agree with me?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 03:06 PM

Washington State- pop. 6,400,000 approx.

Election 2000*
2,400,000 votes cast
(*last I have complete figures for)

Primaries 2008
Total votes 45,457 (approx. D-32000, R-13500)

Questions about the primaries-
Is this vote representative?
Did the people of Washington have any interest in the primaries?
Can such a small turnout be skewed by an active, partisan minority?

I think the answers are obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 03:54 PM

I'm afraid you have the wrong end of the stick, Q.

This was not the Washington State primaries. Saturday was the day the neighborhood caucuses met. What you have there are the attendance figures. These are people who either want to be delegatss, or want to choose delegates.

The Wahington State primary election is on February 19th.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 04:07 PM

The point needs to be made. Those who are good at getting elected are not always the
best at governing. They are two different talents.

Hillary seems like more of an executive type than Obama but either one of them is so
much better than what we have now. Obama is more of an orator. Hillary probably keeps a clean desk.

I will vote for neither of them but will vote against McCain, who I believe would be a disaster for this country.

Huckabee's Christian Nationalism is a dangerous precedent as well.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 05:23 PM

Don, you are right, my confusion about Washington-
but CNN says Obama got 35 delegates and Clinton 15. Delegates also assigned to McCain et al.
What happens in the Primary? The Democrats say that they go with the caucus on delegates (report in Washington Post), while the Republicans may change in the Primary. CNN says the primary is non-binding. Is it just a popularity contest? Would you please explain this?

Change me to totally confused.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 06:04 PM

Looks like a total of 3500 or so voters in the Maine Democratic caucus will select 24 delegates to add to their 10 superdelegates.

Maine has 1,275,000 people.
3500 caucus voters select the Democratic delegates?
4540 caucus voters selected the Republican delegates?

Only in U. S. A.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 06:55 PM

You'll notice today that Hillary's campaign manager turned over her duties to a friend in the team, and stepped back into a senior consultant role.

"Patti Solis Doyle has stepped down as Senator Hillary Rodham ClintonÕs campaign manager, the campaign announced on Sunday.

She will be replaced by Maggie Williams, a senior adviser to the campaign.

Ms. Solis Doyle will stay on as a senior adviser and Òwill continue to be a key part of the campaign,Ó said Mo Elleithee, a spokesman." (NYT)

In the comments of readers, following this story, two stand out:

"Out with a Latina, in with a Black. Hmm.

One thing this campaign shows is that Obama is a much better organizer than Clinton.

Ñ Posted by joe"

and:

"Patti Solis Doyle is sister of Danny Solis, alderman of ChicagoÕs 25th ward.
ObamaÕs honchos, e.g. David Axelrod and others are also quintessential Chicagoans.
The difference - Solis is a part of the Daley ÒmachineÓ and old school Democratic Party. Axelrod was part of the movement that propelled Harold Washington in as ChicagoÕs first black, and first independent Mayor.
Just an observation.

Ñ Posted by susan"

A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 07:04 PM

17 minutes ago
AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) Ñ Barack Obama has won the Maine Democratic caucuses.

(AP_)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 07:08 PM

Wow! We have our Richmond, Maine, results ahead of 7:30 pm.

The turnout was incredible. Three times as many people showed up as we've ever had. They filled up the Town Office and we had to shift over to the Fire House community room, 109 people plus a few observors and babies in arms. And there was snow incoming all afternoon and evening.

We get 7 delegates to the State Democratic Convention, held at the end of May

5 will be for Obama
2 will be for Clinton

When I reported the results to State headquarters they said that turnouts were record-breaking all over the State.

Richmond is a relatively conservative town evenly split between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, with a few Green Party members in addition.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 07:11 PM

AP beat me to it!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 07:21 PM

GReat news, Charley, and my warmest congrats to all Maineacs.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 08:03 PM

3500 people (approx.) selected the delegates at the Maine caucus. Turnout incredible???? Yes, incredibly insignificant considering the state's population.

CNN gives Obama 15 and Clinton 11 as of 5 minutes ago (34 total; 8 yet to be counted).
______________________________________________

Clinton finally was given the nod in New Mexico. The delay mostly was the result of difficulties in counting provisional ballots, and heavy snows making delivery of ballots slow, for hand counting.
Clinton 13, Obama 12.
At the Convention, New Mexico will have 5 electoral votes; Maine 4.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 08:51 PM

Q-

"At the Convention, New Mexico will have 5 electoral votes; Maine 4."

I think you mean at the Electoral College, not the Democratic National Convention.

So many ways we have to count votes!

And that's not even counting the Super Delegates!

So here's a more detailed explanation for those who live to know the inner working of our allocation system in Maine:

Saturday 31 May 2008: State Convention. 24 of 34 delegates to the Democratic National Convention are allocated to presidential contenders based on the presidential preference of the delegates in attendance at the State Convention. A mandatory 15 percent threshold is required in order for a presidential contender to be allocated National Convention delegates at either the congressional district or statewide level.

16 district delegates are to be allocated proportionally based on the delegates presidential preferences in each of the State's 2 congressional districts.
CD 1: 9
CD 2: 7
In addition, 8 delegates are to be allocated to presidential contenders based the support for the presidential contenders in the State Convention as a whole.
5 at-large National Convention delegates
3 Pledged PLEOs
The remaining 10 National Convention delegates consist of

9 Unpledged PLEO delegates:
4 Democratic National Committee members.
2 Members of Congress (0 Senators and 2 Representatives).
1 Governor.
2 Distinguished Party Leaders (former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and former DNC Chairman Kenneth Curtis).
1 Unpledged "add-on" (selected during the State Convention).
These 10 delegates and will go to the Democratic National Convention officially "Unpledged".

Now you know!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:03 PM

I am sorry but I have no idea what a PLELO is. Pretty largely endowed leonine oliphant?

Just a wild guess.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:12 PM

No, Q, you again have the American terminology wrong. There are no "electoral votes" at the convention. That is specific to the Electoral College--and to the fall election.

I'm glad to hear the NYT article is very recent. At least you have not pulled a favorite trick of some Mudcatters--to post an article about a supposedly significant development or quote--which turns out to be seriously out of date.

But it does not change the fact that "broadly resembling the Obama plan" won't cut it--much as you like to denigrate Obama, for whatever reason--who knows why.

Just as you've just denigrated the Maine results--again who knows why.

At any rate, Obama's plan will be adjusted to include far more people than you and Mr Krugman seem to think--he is not about to leave 20 million without coverage. I wonder if Mr Krugman has endorsed Hillary--or what the connection there might be. I may check into that.

And I note with interest that you have no counter to my explanation of why Hillary's plan is DOA--and she probably knows it.

Of course your dislike for Obama may have something to do with your evident conviction that the US should not "cut and run" from Iraq--and Obama, in contrast to Hillary, says he will withdraw all combat troops within 18 months of taking office. But it would be good to know from you just why we should stay--except in "Kurdistan" where they want us. We are constantly threatened by McCain etc. (and you?) that if we leave Iraq, al-Qaeda will take over in Iraq. However the Iraqi Shiites hate al-Qaeda, the Iraqi Sunnis hate al-Qaeda (having been thoroughly alienated by al-Qaeda's conduct), and the Kurds hate al-Qaeda. So exactly how, with very few sympathizers in Iraq, is al-Qaeda going to take over in Iraq?


And if the danger of this is virtually non-existent, the threat that McCain etc. hold over our heads is hollow. And Obama is perfectly justified in removing US troops--to let the Iraqis sort out their secular problems themselves--and stop the steady drain of troops and funds to Iraq. In fact, Afghanistan is a far more reasonable place for US involvement--except as I said, in "Kurdistan", where we are wanted.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:14 PM

Amos

I do like your interpretation of PLELO but it how the Democrats in Augusta (our capitol) refer to Party Leaders and Elected Officials or "Superdelegates" in Nartional Speak.

Now what does PLELO rhyme with?

Yes a few grey PLEOs say
They could of endorsed him any day
They only let him go so long
Out of kindness, I suppose.

Cheerily,
Charley "Lefty" Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:19 PM

"sort out their sectarian problems themselves"

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:25 PM

Frankly, Q, I don't know what the hell the Washington State board of elections think their doing. I had thought, judging from local news a few days ago, that the neighborhood caucuses were going to be turned into informal discussion groups and generally disregarded (much unlike previous elections) and that the party's delegate commitments would be based on the results of the primary. But—it seems that it's just the other way around!

I didn't go to my neighborhood caucus, which I normally do, because of this, assuming that I would make my will known in the primary (I already have my mail-in ballot). But now it seems that the deed is already done and they are just going to count the votes in the primary for curiosity's sake, but that will have no effect on the allocation of delegates.

But apparently it was an equal-opportunity screw-up. Same deal for the state's Republicans.

Then why go to the expense of having a primary at all!??

A lot of people assumed as I did, didn't go to the caucuses, figuring they'd make their will known through the ballot, and are suddenly very ticked off about this.

In my opinion, the whole state elections board needs a good, solid dope-slap!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:31 PM

Yes, Charlie, I skipped a cog there. I knew the figures ended up at 5 and 4 at the end and that was about all.
Thanks for the explanation- I know many of the other states go through similar exercises. Boggles the mind. I now understand the system less than before, which understanding was lower than a Dach's belly anyhoo.
I was hoping also to get an explanation of the Washington state caucus-primary set-up, but I probably would be happier if I remain ignorant.

Maybe I'll watch the Democratic 3-ring circus and maybe not- it looks to be protracted and painful. If it is not handled carefully it could hand the election to McCain.

PLEO- I take it these are what the press calls 'superdelegates.'

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:32 PM

Don-

"Washington State"

Ugh! I suppose someone mentioned something about reading the "fine print" wherever it was posted.

I'd certainly be pissed.

Was the Board of Elections trying to undermine the party caucuses by holding the "beauty contest" primary?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 10:09 PM

Don - Re: Washington. It really does seem like there is something weird going on with these caucuses, all the way around.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 10:18 PM

I have a friend in the state legislature. I'm going to try to check with him and see if he knows who's trying to do what to whom.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 10:09 AM

They all be trying to do what to each other. They are the aristocrats.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 12:31 PM

Many of the states seem to hold small primaries or caucuses at which a miniscule number vote, and, like the ones in Maine and Washington, seem to be skewed to express the views of the party elite. I can't see that the public has much representation in these exercises, or should believe the results.

The press reports fail to remark the singular lack of public participation.

The American system puports to be something it isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 01:26 PM

Q - I've noticed the same thing. And now the same people are suggesting that they go back to Michigan and Florida and hold "caucuses" to come up with a decision. So they want to eliminate the working people from those states as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 01:52 PM

Q, I don't see how the neighborhood caucuses can be "skewed to express the views of the party elite," because anyone who lives in the precinct is able to come. Indeed, is urged to come. If you, as an individual, want to make your views known as to which candidate you prefer or issues you want addressed, this is the place to do it. It's about as "grass roots" as it can get. A lot of discussing, arguing, and arm-twisting goes on, but you still get to express yourself and try to influence other people.

You can't "fix" a precinct caucus. And you can't limit who goes to them. They're open to the public, and anyone who wants to can come and participate and have their say.

At the risk of being called "naïve," what happened here in Washington State, I think, is less a matter of hanky-panky than one of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

Due to the rather bizarre, and as far as I know, unprecedented early scheduling of caucuses and primaries around the country, by the time the Washington State elections board got their socks pulled up, primaries in other states were already winnowing the candidates down. By the time ours came along, several people had dropped out—such as Kucinich (blatantly and obviously ignored by the media), for whom I was prepared to argue in my neighborhood caucus.

Frankly, I rather lost interest in going to the caucus because I knew that it was going to be either Hillary or Obama, and with no Kucinich in there, I figured either one will be better than another Republican in the White House.

Okay, if somebody wants to sneer and call me "True Blue," I say go right ahead if it makes you feel smug. But would you rather I vote for McCain or Huckabee? Well?

Since the state has already gone pretty solidly for Obama, I think I can live with that. In the meantime, since the primary isn't going to count, other than as a sort of poll, I can go ahead and vote for Kucinich (ballot printed before he dropped out) without fear that I'll be taking a vote away from the leading Democratic candidate. At least make my real wants know. If others do the same thing (vote for who they really want), it will be interesting to see the results.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 02:26 PM

Don - I think what you are saying is true in theory, but the people I know who carry lunch boxes would never go to a place like that and speak out in public. If they go there, and there are college professors and attorneys voicing their opinions one way or another, they would probably just leave.

                     On the other hand, if you hold a primary where they can simply go in and cast an anonymous ballot, they'd be happy to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 03:05 PM

Maine has recently tried both primaries and caucuses. Last weekend's caucus turned out more than 46,000 Democratic voters. The previous record turnout was in 2004 when 17,000 Democrats participated.

About 175,000 Democrats voted in the 2004 General Election, for a turnout of more than 70%. Therefore the caucus turnout was about 18%.

Whichever way one looks at it, caucus participation has substantially improved in Maine during the last four years, thanks primarily to the abysmal record of the Bush Administration.

Conventional wisdom, as reflected in the above posts, might need to be adjusted.

Of course there is still room for improvement, but all the tinkering in the world by party and election officials doesn't affect turnout as much as good candidates, reaction against the previous administration, and specific issues. All three were on voters minds in the caucuses last Sunday, and those of us responsible for running them tried hard to adapt to the demand.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 03:23 PM

Riginslinger: "Don - I think what you are saying is true in theory, but the people I know who carry lunch boxes would never go to a place like that and speak out in public. If they go there, and there are college professors and attorneys voicing their opinions one way or another, they would probably just leave.

"On the other hand, if you hold a primary where they can simply go in and cast an anonymous ballot, they'd be happy to do that."

I can't say what it would be like in your community (I agree that citizens of southern Oregon may have reasons to be secretive) but in my community, the working man and woman feels free to speak up.

Unlike a ballot, one thing that a caucus is NOT is secret You stick your neck out so you can be counted. Ino, that is the American way. Fear ain't becomin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 03:24 PM

These little caucuses (Maine, Washington) attract the people mentioned by Riginslinger, but put more broadly, the people who are active in politics, canvassing for candidates, writing to the papers, attending political discussion clubs, kaffeeklatchers, eating and sleeping politics during election years- the activists.

Contrasting with Louisiana-
Although percentage relative to possible voters not very large, the Louisiana primary vote does seem large enough to be fairly representative.
Looking at Democrats alone, 358,000 turned out- and we are able to see the demographic splits in all their divisiveness.

[Louisiana- 4.5 million, 64% white. Last election, Gore 792,000; Bush 928,000 (total 1,720,000).
2008- 1,500,000 registered Democrats (but perhaps only 50-60% vote)]

2008 Primary Total- 358,000
Whites- 70% voted for Clinton
Blacks- 82% voted for Obama
Female- 60% for Clinton (exit poll figure)
Youth vote- Obama (can't find percentages)
Voters over 40- Clinton (   ")

For Maine and Washington, the numbers are too small to take the pulse of the State, and I can find no demographics on those attending (age, race, sex).

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 03:52 PM

In other news, Ann Coulter has gone bonkers on the subject:

Unhinged Coulter Uses Hitler Analogy To Bash McCain

February 8, 2008 05:26 PM


Ann Coulter wasn't officially invited to speak at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference -- many on the right were still upset at the bad publicity she brought last year after calling John Edwards a "faggot." But to no one's surprise, she showed up anyway, commandeering the spotlight.

Speaking before the Young America's Foundation, who invited her over CPAC's objections, the conservative author spent most of her time viciously attacking her party's new presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain.

No topic was out of bounds, including the five years McCain spent as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

"I know that [he was a POW]," Coulter declared, "because he mentions it more often than Kerry mentions he was in Vietnam. There were hundreds of POWs and we are not going to make all of them president. Can't we find a POW who doesn't want to shut down Guantanamo."

That was mild. Take Coulter's rationale for supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton's candidacy over McCain's:

"A serious case could be made to support Hillary Clinton," she declared, offering the analogy of Winston Churchill backing Stalin in the fight against Hitler in WWII. "I'm not equating Hillary Clinton to Stalin, and if I did I apologize to Stalin's descendents... I'm not comparing McCain to Hitler. Hitler had a coherent tax policy." Later, she added, "The only way I can promise that I won't vote for Hillary Clinton is if John McCain appoints her as his vice president."...

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:10 PM

Ebbie - the concept of the secret ballot is essential for Democracy to work. This today in the "USA Today."


                  Sorry, I can't seem to bring it up, but there was a column today making that exact point.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:13 PM

Here it is!


Our view on presidential nominating process: Caucuses are no way to choose a candidate
Flawed method produces lower turnout, allows for intimidation.
This year's presidential nominating caucuses have featured large numbers of voters coming together in crowded rooms, arguing vigorously for their presidential candidates and voting for their choices. On TV, the process looks like the very model of democracy.

Except that it's not.

Caucuses in Washington, Iowa and the more than a dozen other states that use this method are a flawed way to choose presidential candidates. They're run by the political parties, not state election agencies that typically oversee primary elections. And their purpose has always been more to help organize and strengthen the parties than to give as many voters as possible a fair way to pick candidates. Among the flaws with caucuses:

* Turnout is much lower at caucuses than at primaries. The caucuses in Washington state on Saturday drew fewer than 50,000 people. That's about 1.3% of the state's registered voters.

This isn't just a Washington phenomenon. In the more than 20 Super Tuesday contests, average turnout at caucuses was only about 6% of eligible voters, while primaries averaged about 29%, nearly five times as many, according to the U.S. Elections Project at George Mason University.

* Caucuses disenfranchise some voters. Attending a caucus can be prohibitively difficult. Caucuses are typically held for a limited time on a specific day — an hour or two on a Thursday evening in Iowa, for example. Though some states make provisions for those who can't show up, caucuses usually exclude people who are working, out of town or serving in the military overseas. By contrast, primaries allow voting from early morning until the evening, and provide ample opportunities for absentee ballots.

* Caucuses violate the tradition of the secret ballot. Though some caucuses allow a private ballot, others require participants to publicly "vote" — by standing in a designated part of the room in Iowa's caucuses, for example. For anyone worried about pressure or retribution from spouses, friends or colleagues — or, more ominously, from bosses or government officials — it's a significant disincentive. Former president Bill Clinton claimed he witnessed union officials pressuring workers before Nevada's caucuses last month, threatening to change their work schedules so they couldn't attend the caucuses unless they promised to vote for Barack Obama.

The disadvantages of caucuses are important not only for future presidential races, but also for this one. Democrats and Republicans each have three caucuses yet to come. Meanwhile, Democratic party officials are wondering whether to offer Michigan and Florida "do-overs" after both states held their primaries before party rules allowed, causing officials to disqualify their delegates. Those delegates now might be crucial to determining a Democratic nominee. Any redo should be fair to both candidates — and accessible to large numbers of voters.

There's no reason Democrats and Republicans everywhere can't schedule party-building exercises around presidential nominating votes, but the caucuses shouldn't be the vote. There's a perfectly good alternative that maximizes the number of people who can attend, guarantees higher turnout and respects the tradition of the private ballot. It's called a primary.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:18 PM

the concept of the secret ballot is essential for Democracy to work

But not necessarily in all situations involved in the democratic process. People involved in public demonstrations or pickets, for example, do not generally wear disguise. Nor when it comes to discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:29 PM

Well, here's the scenario: Hillary's constituency seems to consist mainly of poor working people and women, while Obama's constituency seems to consist of blacks and professional people. When a primary is held in an industrial area with fewer black voters, Hillary usually wins. When a caucus is hald in an industrial area with fewer black voters, Obama usually wins. The difference in these cases seems to be caucus vs. primary.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:39 PM

Riginslinger, thanks for the article. It states the objections to caucus that I was arriving at, clearly and succinctly. I didn't realize just how undemocratic they were until the insignificant vote totals for Maine, Washington, triggered that 'light bulb'.

They must be replaced by open primaries. And our media must publicize their inadequacies.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:49 PM

Q - Yes, they seem problematic to me too.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 05:51 PM

I beg to disagree. The turnout of 18% for Maine may seem insignifant to you but 46,000 voters are a hell of a lot more than are posting on this thread.

Of course the Republican caucuses in our state attracted only 5000 attendees. That was a pathetic turnout by any measure given that there are, or were, equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats registered to vote in Maine.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 05:58 PM

That doesn't reflect my experience, Rig. In the caucuses I have attended, there were plenty of my neighbors there, which include lunch box toters, college students, Microsoft employees, a minister or two (non-fundamentalist), grade school teachers (my precinct caucus was held in the lunchroom of the Lowell School, two blocks from where I live), a couple of bookstore owners, and, all-in-all, a pretty fair cross-section of the people who live in this neighborhood. No one was at all shy about speaking their mind, nor was anyone the least intimidated by any college professors or attorneys they encountered.

A couple of officials from Washington Democrats convened the meeting, then retired while we took it from there. And the meetings are held on a Saturday, starting at 1:00 in the afternoon. Since you have to choose some time, that would probably be the most convenient for the most people.

No, what I have seen in such neighborhood caucus meetings is either grass-roots democracy in action, or a damned good imitation.

I attended the caucus in 2004, and found that when I spoke, people listened. And others had plenty to say, to which we all listened. I spoke pretty strongly in favor of Kucinich, and as a result, the Kucinich group nominated me to be sent as a delegate to the regional convention, but in my wheelchair, I don't travel very well these days, so I declined with thanks. But the young woman who was elected in my place shared my views and was quite outspoken herself.

I wish I had gone to this last one. Had I been there, I would have been able to find out who the Kucinich supporters were going to go with, since he had withdrawn. I have heard that the place was jam-packed, and when I asked, I was informed that had anyone tried anything untoward with that crowd, they would have been dope-slapped until dizzy.

I know that crowd. They weren't about to let anyone cram someone down their throats that they didn't want. They may have preferred a different candidate, but they wouldn't accept anyone unless they deemed then "acceptable."

How many of you have actually attended a caucus meeting!??

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: PoppaGator
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 06:00 PM

As noted earlier, I spent 14 hours on Saturday helping to run the election in Ward 8, Precinct 16, New Orleans, Louisiana.

We're a small precinct, and served a total of 69 voters between 6am and 8 pm. 69 Democrats, 0 Republicans. 67 African-Americans, 2 European-Americans (my wife and I).

60 votes for Obama, 9 for Clinton. The missus and I voted for Obama, so Hillary's 9 supporters were all black folk, and I'd guess most if not all of them female.

***************

I haven't checked into this thread since before the weekend, so please pardon me for bringing up something that may have been forgotten by now, BUT:

Barack Obama is not OLD enough to HAVE a trophy wife. Also, since Michelle is the mother of his children, and (I assume) his first and only wife, the term "trophy wife" is completely inappropriate.

I think that particular remark was the final proof that "GG" is completely around-the-bend nuts. She has posted a few scattered rational comments over the last week or so, and I began to soften my position as to her insanity, but the trophy-wife comment reaffirmed for that GG is a hopeless nutcase.

What could her problem possibly be? Is it just that Mrs. Obama is attractive? Most politicians, and most politicians' spouses, are reasonably good-looking. They wouldn't have gravitated to public life otherwise ~ although extreme good looks are not required, and politicians are generally not quite in the movie-star category. (Some politicians, indeed, have characterized politics as "show biz for homely folks.")

I'm sure that no attractive spouse of a white candidate, male or female, Democratic or Repuiblican, would have prompted such a response. Are black (or even half-black) officeholders, in contrast to white ones, expected to marry homely partners lest they be accused of "trophy marriages"?

If anyone in the race is open to criticism on the "trophy wife" front, it's that old geezer McCain. I don't know Mrs. McCain's age ~ maybe she's not as young as she looks ~ but she could certainly pass as ol' John's daughter if she wanted to.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 06:01 PM

"...take the pulse of the State," That is what I think a caucus is good for. I agree that when it comes to an actual election a secret ballot is essential. Not so much so no one knows who I voted for but to protect those who may feel intimidated, whether by someone in their own home or by their own government.

But before then, a populace that is afraid to let anyone see who they are working for is a fearful people, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 06:15 PM

"How many of you have actually attended a caucus meeting!??"

                Frankly, I would never attend a caucus meeting, but I've voted in every primary for which I was qualified.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 07:18 PM

Well then, Rig, sorry to say it, but you are not qualified to say what goes on in caucus meetings. But unfortunately you're not alone. There seems to be a lot of that going around these days.

At a caucus meeting, you get a chance to exchange opinions, learn things about the candidates that you might not find out any other way, and try to persuade others to your view. Of course, that means you open yourself to the possibility of being persuaded by others.

In comparison to participating in caucuses, simple voting in primaries is a pretty passive way of participating in the political process.

Don Firth

(Re-reading my last sentence, that compares with "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers." Sorry about that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 07:53 PM

YOU won't have heard of her, but Christine Samuels, a New Jersey politician, has assured herself a footnote in the history of the United States's primary election process. This weekend she became the first so-called super delegate of the Democratic Party to swap sides, announcing that she had switched from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.

Ms Samuels' move has highlighted the controversial role these unelected delegates play in the primary process Ð and the nightmare scenario that is unfolding for the party top brass.

Unlike regular delegates, the 796 super delegates are not elected by the voters. They are appointed by the party itself, accounting for a fifth of the delegates who vote at the summer convention in Denver to elect the presidential nominee.

And the nightmare for the party leaders is what happens if Mr Obama wins the popular vote, but Mrs Clinton wins the nomination thanks to support of these supers delegates. Present trends make this ever more likely. Mr Obama is winning in the ballot box, but Mrs Clinton has a nearly two-to-one superiority in super delegates, partly thanks to the influence of her husband, former president, Bill.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. Super delegates were appointed in the 1960s to give the party bosses a trump card in the primary process. "The super delegates were supposed to represent the institutional interest of the larger party, as opposed to the crazies in the street," said Phil Noble, a Democratic pollster.

Super delegates include all Democratic members of Congress and governors, as well as ex-presidents and assorted party officials.

In most primary contests they remain in the shadows, as a clear winner soon emerges. Even on the one occasion when they made a difference, in electing Walter Mondale against Gary Hart in 1984, Mr Mondale had won the most regular votes. Never have the supers had to go against the popular vote.

All that could change this summer. The Associated Press says that 213 super delegates are for Mrs Clinton and 139 for Mr Obama.

Already this has created a bizarre situation where Mr Obama has won more states, has more regular delegates and 200,000 more voters, yet is behind Mrs Clinton when all delegates, regular and super, are totted up.

Mr Obama has now warned super delegates to consider carefully how to vote. "My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged (regular] delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters," he said. Translation: The party top brass can expect trouble from the millions of youngsters who have backed Mr Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 08:09 PM

No final figures yet for New Mexico - and the usual suspects are all playing the blame game. Sen. Clinton is about 1100 votes ahead of Sen. Obama. Since the delegates are awarded proportionately to the vote, of the 26 total she will get (at least) 13 and he will get (at least) 12 - the final one essentially depends upon the 15,000 or so "provisional" ballots. So far, as of earlier today, only about a third of those have been identified with registered Democrats.

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

Charley, you say 48,000 voted. There are 308,000 registered Democrats so really not too bad, but as the article posted by riginslinger points out, the method is fatally flawed.

Please explain these Maine figures from CNN Election Center. Not familiar with the system.
Obama 2079
Clinton 1396
They are marked *State Del.
How do they fit into the caucus vote?
(For states with primaries, e. g., Louisiana, figures in that column are the actual voters.

Poppagator, of course that 'trophy wife' business is nonsense. Only trolls would pick up on it.

MCain's wife is 54, 17 years younger than he, so she ain't no spring - oops, scrub that! They have been married 27 years. Apparently it was one of those love at first sight things.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:21 PM

"Well then, Rig, sorry to say it, but you are not qualified to say what goes on in caucus meetings."


                   Possibly not, but every other gathering of that nature I've been to has been dominated by blowhards. Of course, blowhards never seem to realize they are blowhards, so...

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:27 PM

So McCain was 54 and his wife was 37 when they were married. That's not exactly within "trophy wife" territory, but it's close enough that you could see it from a tall step ladder.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:39 PM

Q-

The Maine caucus system is probably not that dissimilar to that of other states:

"Please explain these Maine figures from CNN Election Center. Not familiar with the system.
Obama 2079
Clinton 1396
They are marked *State Del."

The short answer is that the above "delegates" are representative delegates.

Here's a longer answer about the relationship between Delegates to the State Democratic Convention and the Caucus attendees. Each caucus is assigned a number of Delegates to the State Convention based on the Democratic turnout in our town from the previous Presidential General Election. That's how the 109 of us who gathered together last Sunday ended up being represented by 7 delegates based on our proportional preference for Clinton, Obama, or Undecided; the actual delegates are selected from their Caucus subgroups. If every Democrat in town had showed up, we still would have only gotten 7 delegates. If only seven of us showed up, each one of us could have been a delegate. So the system ain't perfect.

Each delegate is also backed up by an "Alternative" who's selected as well within each Caucus subgroup.

CNN may not have adequately explained what we were busily doing.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 10:07 PM

The problem is the concept of the "caucus" itself. You can't participate if you're not there. If you fell like you are going to be talked down to, you probably won't be there.
                   If you're at work, or stuck in traffic, or picking up the kids, you can't be there. Professional people and retired people have no trouble getting to the caucus. College students can get there--even if they cut class, they'll probably be excused.
                   So the causcus provides a means of making decisions to help everybody except the people who need the help the most.
                   It's an elitest process.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 10:33 PM

Exactly. So it's interesting that Hillary's campaign protested so vehemently when an attempt was made to make the caucuses more accessible to a large group of workers in Vegas, who otherwise could probably have not participated.

And if I recall correctly, her campaign had in fact agreed to the arrangement months before, but faced with a possible loss, decided it wasn't such a good idea after all.

Basically the flip side of her charming maneuver in FL and MI, where after having agreed months before that those votes would not count, now that she has "won" in both states, she wants them counted. Not that her "winning" in MI has anything to do with the fact that she was the only one of the major candidates who did not withdraw his or her name. Of course not.

If anything can alienate the superdelegates--to the extent they have some choice-- that sort of attitude stands a good chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:26 PM

Rig, one can outblow the blowhards, and if it's an elitest process, it's because you let it be.

If some blowhard tries to dominate the meeting (which is not really easy to do, because in a caucus, you spend a fair amount of time split up in different groups), I've found that if one person interrupts and challenges them, that one person will suddenly have a chorus of a couple dozen people also challenging the blowhard.

Been there. Done that.

Think we need leaders? Okay! BE a leader!

Don Firth

(If you sit back and say "Let George do it . . . well, as we have seen over the past seven years, George might be the one who's doing it!)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:32 PM

BTW, the latest on the Florida Democratic primary:

Plan A: Seat the Florida delegation, splitting the delegates proportionally just as if we Floridians had never been told that our primary wasn't going to count for anything. (Why do I get a mental picture of Howard Dean saying, "Surprise! Fooled ya!"?)

Plan B: Seat the Florida delegation, splitting the delegates 50%/50% between Clinton and Obama. (Why there should be any difference between splitting 210 delgates 105/105 or splitting zero delegates 0/0 is a mystery to me.)

Plan C: Ignore the primary results and hold caucuses some time in March. (There's no way the state is going to foot the bill for a second primary.)

Anyone care to bet on which plan wins out? Anyone care to bet that it's not going to be a shit-storm regardless of which plan wins out?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:44 PM

Dig this soul, brothers and sisters.

Fired up, and ready to go.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:45 PM

And judging by the caucuses I've been to, held, as I said, on a Saturday at 1:00 p.m. in an easily accessible elementary school's very large lunchroom, and by the number of people who come, I'd say that (with the exception of people who work that day, at that hour) it's no hardship for anyone who is really interested to be there.

Oh, sure, a lot of people didn't come. The usual response when asked "why not?" was not, "I had to work that day," or "I was stuck in traffic" (neighborhood caucuses are usually within easy walking distance. I usually go. And I'm in a wheelchair--self-pushed), or "I had to take the kids to tiddly-winks practice." It was, "Oh! Was that Saturday?"

Now, what was that Thomas Jefferson said about the survival of democracy depending on an informed electorate?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:46 PM

Seating the Florida delegates- More fun, more people killed, etc.
Same problem re that state up near the Canadian border somewhere.

Caucus? Oh, gods, please NO!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 12:23 AM

Amos, re. the video you linked to in your 11 Feb 08 - 11:44 PM post:

I posted a link this evening to that video on your Popular Views on Obama thread.

That YouTube video is made up of several John McCain speeches and is called "john. he. is."

I think it's a really creative, and funny spoof {if that's the correct word} on will i am's Obama video "Yes I Am".

Check it out!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 01:19 AM

Don - I can see that there is an advantage to a caucus for the people who can and will attend. And I never would have given it a thought, I don't think, if it wasn't for the way this primary season is playing out. Usually, the whole thing would be over by now and these issues never would have materialized.

                But what we are seeing is this: in primaries, where the working poor participate, Hillary often wins. In the caucuses, where the working poor seldom participate, Obama often wins. The people who would vote for Hillary in the primaries, do not participate in the caucuses.

                Like I said earlier. I don't think I could or would ever participate in a caucus. It would be something I would find very intimidating.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:34 AM

Rig-

"You can't participate if you're not there" (in caucuses)

Not that you'd pay attention but in Maine, and maybe some other caucuses in this universe, one can participate by absentee ballot. About 10% participated in that way in our local caucus. Of course they could only indicate their preference and could not debate or change their preference after debate but they had the option of participating. Of course they did have to plan ahead and request the absentee ballot, fill it out, and mail it back by the deadline. It's a tough and rigorous procedure but some managed to execute it.

Two of our "absentees" decided to show up in person anyway and we had to void their absentee ballots.

IIn my opinion, your generalizations about caucuses reflect your inexperience in caucus participation. But I must confess that a poorly attended caucus is a boring experience, like the ones we had in the late 1990's. Since 2004, the process has been reinvigorated.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:43 AM

Apologies--I meant to post the link to this Soul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyJ72iZ3tW4

called "Fired Up and Ready to Go".



A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:44 AM

Well, that might be a solution, Charley. I'm in Oregon, and of course, we have "mail in" elections. So everybody who wants to vote has to fill out a ballot and mail it in. That's the only way to do it. If the caucus states would automatically mail a provisional ballot to every registered voter, and then let them attend, or not attend, the caucus if they wanted to, that might fix the problem.
                  Like I said earlier, this would nor have become an issue in any other election. You have to have a close election for these kinds of problems to surface. But when you see the results of Clinton winning primaries, and Obama winning caucuses, and it's widely known how the demographics break down, the process screams out for some attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:58 AM

Clinton Campaign Manager Out

Sen. Hillary Clinton replaced her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, after Barack Obama swept four state primaries this weekend. What do you think?


Dick Ystremski,
Museum Guard
"She did a fantastic job to date, but running a 15-plus-year presidential campaign is bound to take its toll eventually."

Shannon Lee,
Perfume Salesperson
"There are plenty of capable, talented women out there with three names that can take her place."

David Lewis,
Teacher
"This is exactly the kind of minor reshuffling that Hillary Clinton needs to do in order to revitalize her campaign...".


(From The Onion)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 12:00 PM

The logic of a caucus system, as against a primary, is that in principle anyway it seeks to ensure that decisions are made on the basis of discussion and the sharing of information rather than merely on pre-judged and pre-packaged opinions.

There is some analogy with a jury system - and a jury system that relied on people coming in and voting "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" on the basis of what they had read in the papers would not be a very desirable one.

The difference is that juries are not self appointed. Perhaps a system of citizens juries for selecting candidates might have some merit.

But seen from the perspective of British politics the caucus idea does have a lot of appeal. We generally don't get any say at all in picking (or rejecting) candidates in advance of the election itself. That even applies to people who are member of political parties, as often as not.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 01:26 PM

In this poignant and keen article, the author throws away the "Beulah" myth and argues that HC will not draw the woman's vote from African AMericans for good reason.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 01:40 PM

Like Riginslinger, No way I would participate in a caucus.

Looking at demographics for the 12th-

Virginia- 7.7 million
Black 20%
Hispanic 6%

Maryland- 5.6 million
Black 29.5%
Hispanic 6%

Texas- 23.5 million   (March 4)
Black 12%
Hispanic 36%

Looking at past primaries, MD and VA will go for Obama, based on some 80% black vote for Obama; the white vote favoring Clinton but the young people for Obama. Many D. C. whites associated with the government live in VA; I have no idea who they will support but I don't think there are enough of them to strongly skew the results. Many of those associated with the military will be McCain or Huckabee supporters.

Texas will be extremely close, depending on the degree of participation by Hispanics. Candidates have not appealed to them directly, which is difficult because many, if not most, Hispanic Texans speak Spanish at home. The state has strong divisions. Based on California, I think the margin will be Clinton's.

I am posting my guesses (Democratic primary only) so that I can compare with the primary results and previous trends; they do not necessarily reflect how I would vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 01:54 PM

With the exception of DC, I fail to see why Clinton should view Virginia and Maryland as races she is unable to win, unless she is no longer a viable candidate. The population statistics alone don't seem a compelling argument, unlike in DC.

I do concede that Texas and Ohio will be much tougher states for Obama to win. But his campaign has already presented a series of surprises, exceeding many a veteran's prediction.

I finally joined the Obama supporters last Sunday at our Maine caucus. It will be an interesting campaign and with more surprises to come.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 02:08 PM

"It was substantial, sustained opposition from organized African American women and the black press that killed the Mammy monument proposal." from the article that Amos linked to.

In 1923, were African American women all that organized? Was the 'black press' at that time that influential? It doen't sound factual.

That article raises several questions in my mind. I realize the author is a professor so she may be correct in all of her assumptions but to me it sounds like opinion. I'll have to do some research.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 02:13 PM

That's cool, Charlie. You may get to meet Chongo at the Democratic Convention. He's easy to recognize...the tough-looking chimp in the fedora and the "Frank Sinatra" suit with a rose on the lapel. He has put aside the old trenchcoat now that he's politicking for the Obamarama instead of sleuthing the back alleys of the Windy City.

If he suddenly yells, "KREE-GAH!!!" and reaches inside his jacket...hit the deck! (he's a good shot, and he will not hit you, but you can never tell about the opposition)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 02:36 PM

Q says "Candidates have not appealed to them {Hispanics} directly, which is difficult because many, if not most, Hispanic Texans speak Spanish at home." Interesting comment - in the neighboring state of New Mexico, most second generation and thereafter (and some are 10th generation) people of Spanish or Hispanic descent speak only a little Spanish (or none at all), inside the home or otherwise. Almost all, with the exception of new arrivals, are completely fluent in English.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: PoppaGator
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 02:52 PM

In 1923, black women may not have been all that organized, BUT ~ the black press was very much alive and well. The fact that white folks were not especially aware of it doesn't mean squat; black folks all over the country regularly read newspapers (many of them weeklies rather than dailies, I believe) based in Chicago, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, New York (Harlem, of course) and other cities.

The great African-American migration from southern farms to northern factories was largely prompted by articles and ads in these papers, alerting propective migrants to job opportunities. The papers also reported national news of special interest to their readership, and of course took editorial positions and published opinion pieces.

Segregation was certainly not a good thing, of course, and had to end sooner or later; however, the flawed Jim Crow system did create a separate and unequal society that provided opportunites for black individuals and institutions that,in some cases, are less available in today's imperfectly integrated society. The editors and columnists at those nearly-forgotten newspapers are one example.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:09 PM

Rig's criticisms of and antipathy toward the caucus system are those of someone who is simply not acquainted with it, as he admits.

First of all, the precinct (neighborhood) caucuses are held in some public location, such as a neighborhood school (generally within easy walking distance), and in a large room, such as the school lunchroom or cafeteria. And it is scheduled on a day and at a time to make it convenient for as many people as possible. The ones I've gone to have been at Lowell Elementary School two blocks from where I live, on Saturdays beginning at 1:00 in the afternoon. Hard to find a time that would be more convenient for most people, and anyone who wanted to come could have, and indeed, was urged to come, through the local media, mailings, posters, and those annoying phone calls you get from political parties ("We need your input! Can you be there? Please try!").

The routine, at least in the caucuses I have attended (most recently 2004, although now I wish very much I had gone last Saturday), is that when you arrive, you sign in the same as when you go to the polls to vote, so they can check the books and make sure that you are a registered voter.

This does not violate one's right to a secret ballot any more than going to a polling place and signing in before you actually mark that secret ballot. Of course, these are party caucuses, and if you go, it can be assumed that you are interested in that party's candidates, although a few members of the opposition party often go just to see what the other guys are up to.

A party official then convenes the meeting and gives a brief explanation to newcomers to caucuses as to what to expect. First, those who already favor a particular candidate gather in groups so they can become acquainted if they aren't already, and discuss things among themselves. "Kerry folks over in the corner by the windows, Dean folks over there" (pointing), Kucinich people in the back corner by the windows. . . ."    And on through the list of those who have declared their candidacy.   Those who are undecided can wander from group to group, listen, and ask questions.

After about half an hour or forty-five minutes, people begin moving from group to group and some of the more confrontational discussions begin as a couple of, say Howard Dean advocates join the Kucinich group and another couple of Dean folks join the Kerry group,   And some of the Kucinich group moves over to the Kerry group, the Dean group, etc. The main bodies of each group stay in their original locations, but there is a general milling around as the Dean folks try to talk the Kucinich folks into shifting over to Dean and vice versa. You get the picture.

This goes on for some time. Then, after some shuffling of people from group to group, the hard-core Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, etc., folks reconvene in their original groups and elect the person or persons from within the group whom they feel will best represent them as delegates to the regional convention. Depending on the extent of the hierarchy in any given state, some Joe Schmoe such as myself, by being elected at a neighborhood caucus as a delegate, could end up as a delegate to the National Convention. That's pretty "grass roots."

As I mentioned in a post above, in 2004, the Kucinich group wanted to elect me as their delegate, but for reasons explained, I had to decline. I think one of the reasons they wanted to choose me was that I had come to the caucus pretty well informed about Kucinich's positions (I had downloaded and printed off a copy of Kucinich's "Ten Key Points" from his website—someone borrowed my copy, dashed off to find a copy machine, and made copies for the rest of the group) and some of his history, particularly when he was mayor of Cleveland and refused to sell a local public utility to private interests. By doing this, he incurring the wrath of a lot of people which cost him the re-election, but who later realized that he'd done the right thing. Personal integrity and the guts to stick to what he knew was right, even when he knew it would cost him—a rare commodity in politics! Oddly enough, most of the Kucinich folks didn't know all this, so I was able to give them some talking points. We gained a few folks from other groups simply by being well-informed.

Kucinich didn't make it, of course, but the caucus was my chance to spread information—and talking points—that I had to the others, who, in turn, became better advocates for the candidate that they wanted. And I learned a great deal about all the candidates that I probably would not have learned any other way. Enough, for example, that when it finally boiled down to John Kerry, I still would have preferred Dennis Kucinich, but I didn't feel all that bad about supporting and voting for Kerry.

This is one of the major values of caucuses. You get to express yourself, exchange information, and learn a lot that you didn't know before about the various candidates, most of which you aren't going to learn from the media.

And during the whole afternoon, we didn't have anyone—party officials—trying to dominate the meeting or cram anything down anyone's throat. There were plenty of heated discussions, but these were between the people on the floor, strongly advocating for their favorite candidate and trying to give reasons why someone else should change their position.

To me—and I think to the other people who were there—it was a very educational, informative, and generally well spent Saturday afternoon.

Don Firth

P. S. If you ignore the caucuses and only vote in the primary, all you have to go on is what the media tells you, plus whatever other information you can pick up, provided you are sufficiently motivated to actually investigate.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:16 PM

Don, our (New Mexico) caucus was indistinguishable from a primary - that is, we stood in line, checked in, filled in a box on a paper ballot, put it in a box and left. I wish I had had your experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:31 PM

"Candidates have not appealed to them {Hispanics} directly, which is difficult because many, if not most, Hispanic Texans speak Spanish at home."

What's so difficult about learning Spanish? I'd have thought that a combination of basic courtesy and self-help would ensure than any serious candidate for political office, in a country where there is a very sizeable Spanish speaking population, would have a fairly good acquaintance with the language.

It's probably about the easiest foreign language for an English speaker to learn, because it is so regular. Much easier than French or German. And far easier than English is for Spanish speakers, which must be a nightmare.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:38 PM

Q - Most the blue collar workers I know would feel the same way about participating in a caucus. It wouldn't happen.
                      If they could vote-by-mail, though, in lieu of participating in a caucus, that should take care of it. The thing is, they should have the ballot maile directly to them, so they don't have to request it weeks in advance.

                      The way it's described above, the caucuses seem to work for everybody except for the people who are supporting everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:50 PM

Art, that sounds less like a caucus and more like a primary.

I had always thought that the word "caucus" came from the Latin (it sounds Latin), but apparently not. One theory holds that it comes from an ancient Greek word for "drinking cup," implying sitting about at a symposium and discussing things political. Another says it's a North American Indian (probably Algonquin) word for a person or group who pushes for or advocates a particular position or idea (many eastern Native Americans tribes, it seems, had remarkably democratic systems of government). Be that as it may, Webster's defines a caucus as

A meeting, especially a preliminary meeting, of persons belonging to a political party, to nominate candidates for public office, or to select delegates to a nominating convention, or to confer regarding measures of party policy.

A caucus—by definition—is supposed to involve discussion, not just marking a ballot and sticking it into a box. That is a primary election.

Maybe the New Mexico Democratic Party needs to check a good dictionary. As, apparently, should the political parties in a number of states!

Maybe you need to get a few like-minded people together and all go yell at somebody.

Don Firth

P. S. I just watch "Sick-o" (got it on NetFlix) a few evenings ago, and that great philosopher, Michael Moore (!) makes the point that the reason France has an excellent government-supported national health system—excellent care, no doctor or hospital bills, and doctors make house calls—is because the people demanded it, and because elected officials are basically afraid of the voters.

Like him or not, Moore makes a lot of sense.

For anything you feel needs changing, locally is a good place to start. Visit the appropriate elected official, look him or her straight in the eye and tell them what you want. Nose to nose if need be. Make him or her a little bit afraid of you.

Think nationally. Act locally.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:51 PM

But surely most people generally don't take part in these caucuses anyway, whatever their collar.

The published figure indicate it's a minority who choose to do so, but the assumption that "blue collar workers" can't be expected to be in that minority is an assumption; the fact that Trade Unions exist suggests that just possibly it might not stand up to close examination.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:57 PM

I know the quote is usually "Think globally. Act locally," but I think we need to launder the skid-marks out of our own shorts before we start trying to tell the rest of the world how to live.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:13 PM

Kevin--and Rig--I belong to two unions, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) and the Comunications Workers of American (CWA), and my wife, who works for the Seattle Public Library, belongs to the Seattle city employees' union, and we received mailings from all three unions urging us to attend our precinct caucuses.

Most unions have candidates that they endorse, and they urge their members--generally "blue-collar" workers--to attend caucuses and support those candidates.

And there were plenty of "blue-collar" workers at the caucuses I have attended.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:16 PM

McGrath - I don't know where you are, but the concept of a trade union in the US is almost laughable any more, with the exception of the public unions--teachers and etc.

             I think there is something troubling about a small number of people making the primary decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: freightdawg
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:21 PM

Amos, that is an incredible article. I wonder if anyone emailed it to camp Clinton. Whew!

Don, "Maybe the New Mexico Democratic Party needs to check a good dictionary." HA! I nearly busted a gut on that one! I orter send that quote to his highness the exalted King of Richardson.

New Mexico is a strange and wonderful state. We seem to like to alternate governors, going from a wacked out lefty like Toney Anaya to "Gov. Veto" - the last Repub. governor whose name completely escapes me right now, but who was elected to two terms. Now Richardson, and if the trend continues we will go back to a Repub. when its time to change the linens in Santa Fe.

Likewise, we typically keep our senatorial delegation to one Dem. and one Repub. That will probably change this year, if the Dem. presidential candidate has long enough coat tails. Sen. Domenici was a favorite of both parties for a long time - Dems may discount that statement, but they never really mounted much of a charge against him.

Locally, however, the Democrats meet in a huge conference room and the Republicans meet in a broom closet. The Democrats have it exactly as they want it, and no dictionary is going to change anything.

Here is one sure fire prediction: the rest of the nation will know within hours of the closing of the polls on election night in Nov. which presidential candidate won the electoral votes from their state. For New Mexico it will be days, if not weeks. I guarantee it.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:40 PM

Out of date, I guess- my Webster's Collegiate (10th ed. 1996) defines caucus ("origin unknown") as "a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political or faction usu. to select candidates or to decide on policy; also: a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause."

OED- alleged to have been used in Boston as early as 1723; "Already in 1774 Gordon (Hist. Amer. Rev.) could obtain no "Satisfactory account of the origin of the name.""
The word has been transported to England and New Zealand and has been used in various ways; see OED.

I am not blue collar, but I avoid meetings of that type, especially political. If I did attend, it would be as a silent observer. My vote is nobody's business but my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 06:07 PM

Yeah, Freightdawg, no problem. My old home state of New Mexico will complete its primary count of provisional ballots before the Conventions- what's the hurry?

The split is so even that the delegate count will remain close to 13 all, so doesn't make no nevermind anyways. The superdelegates will determine convention attendance and how soon the pledges are re-assigned after the first vote, so everything hotsy totsy as usual!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 06:14 PM

Q - I feel the same way you do.

               Another piece of it is, some people have a lot more time to devote to this process than others.

               Young people with small children probably have the least amount of time, but they are probably impacted the most by the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 06:54 PM

Ok,,,I just voted today in Maryland. First time in ages that my primary vote has a chance of meaning something.
It was cold and windy and there is now icy conditions on many roads. Polls were pretty quiet where I was. We'll see soon how it went.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 07:21 PM

A lot of people must feel that way. This is the first time I can recall when everything wasn't decided in the first few weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 07:54 PM

Yikes, Bill! You should not have revealed that you are located somewhere in Maryland. Don't forget...George W. Bush (aka King Arthur reincarnated) is still lookin' for that sucker out there called "Bill D" who doesn't believe in him (the King Arthur part, I mean), and you have now provided a valuable tip which will allow his minions to narrow the search! The reason you ain't been hearin' so much about Condi lately is cos G.W. is ticked at her for not finding you so far. You have now given her the clue she needed.

Lie low, man. Watch for black helicopters.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:05 PM

Obama is tops in Virginia primary. Haven't heard the exact percentage yet. Virginia is an open primary, and theory I'm hearing is: since it's obvious McCain has the Republican nomination---(despite Huckabee's dragging it out)--- many Republicans--especially moderates to liberals--(and of course independents) are voting in the Democratic primary. Obama is lopsidedly getting the benefit.

I've also heard on the call-in radio show (CNN?) several voters say they voted for Ron Paul--but will vote Obama in the fall. Iraq war stance was cited, as was ability to unite the US.

Maryland primary closing time has been extended to 9:30 (from 8), due to traffic problems influenced by the "wintry mix" we are enjoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:14 PM

And, by the way--in anticipation of the inevitable coming contribution to this thread-- no, Rig, for the n'th time, it is not a plot by Republicans to get the weakest Democrat nominated.

Your wonderful theory fails for the obvious reason that Obama is actually by far the stronger of the two remaining Democrats for the fall.

He will be able to unite the Democrats, and will get far more independents and Republicans than she could dream of.

Her main achievement would be to unite the Republicans.

Sorry, it's back to your conspiracy drawing board. You'll have to think of something better.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:18 PM

Obama's victory in Virginia appears solid, on the order of 60/40.

McCain is building up a lead now that the urban votes are coming in. Huckabee was beating McKain by embarrasing margins in the early returns from rural districts.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:27 PM

So, the results are exactly what was predicted, in other words.

That's thrilling news.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:31 PM

Glad you like it, Janet. The only goal of the voters is to please you, as you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:05 PM

It strikes me that the loudest complainers about the political system in this country are those who maybe do manage to summon up enough energy to mark a few boxes, stick the ballot in the envelop provided, and lick a stamp, but can't be bothered to get up off the couch and go to a meeting or two and speak their minds. I guess they regard elections as a "spectator sport."

You know, I don't really have the time either.

But I take the time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:06 PM

Maryland results: AOL News.

Obama    72%
Clinton    26%

Precincts reporting: 1%

They're declaring Maryland an Obama victory. It may well be but how they can declare anything on 1% of the vote is beyond me. I'm sure that lop-sided ratio can't last.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:13 PM

I know it is hard for you to grasp this Don, but one third of the US electorate doesn't vote in primaries or caucus, because they are not members of either political party.

We still vote and participate in our democracy, we just do it in a very different way than you do.

So why are you so harshly judgmental about that?

Exercising our democratic freedoms through voting, petitioning the government, organizing protest movements to work for change, fighting through the courts--all of these are ways Americans participate.

I do jury duty too, BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:22 PM

Percentage of languages other than English spoken at home-
*New Mexico 36.5% (Spanish)
Texas 31.2% (Spanish)
California 39.5% (Spanish, Asian- 12.4%)
*Those who belong to the old families do speak English to a large extent, but the more recent immigrants from Mexico, etc., are quite different.
______________________

Obama made it look easy tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:34 PM

Q - I can see that you're on to something with this caucus problem.

               I was watching "This Week" with Georege Stephen-whatever, this weekend, and Sam Donaldson piped up with, "I was with a group of Democrats last night, we were drinking Chardonnay, and everybody there supported Obama."

               I don't know if you saw it. But I would submit, if the people he was with were drinking Budweiser, I don't think very many of them would have supported Obama.

               I see this as a major problem in November.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:50 PM

Art's point, as I understand it, was that many Hispanics can speak and understand English--especially those who've been here for quite a while. And they are by definition the most likely to be citizens and therefore able to vote. Many recent arrivals are not citizens, so Q's point about recent arrivals is not germane---and I am not saying they are illegal, just not citizens.

There was a huge Hispanic voter drive recently--but now it seems those who signed up to become citizens as a result of that will not finish the process til after this fall--so will have no impact on the vote.

Kevin, do you really find Spanish easy? I can understand it fairly well in reading but it's hard to follow conversations. I find German much easier to get along in. I suppose it depends on what training you've had in a foreign language. But I don't think it's a reasonable assumption that Spanish would be the easiest foreign language for an English speaker. It really depends on the individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:57 PM

Rig: This is the first time I can recall when everything wasn't decided in the first few weeks.

Has 2000 slipped your mind? lol

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:01 AM

Rig--

So now it's the wine vs beer indicator, eh?

Actually, it's bit more complex than that.

If the wine drinkers come out to vote and the beer drinkers don't, that will tell the tale. So if your Bud drinkers don't feel a compelling reason to support their candidate they don't have to vote for the opposition--just stay home. The result will be the same.

And there are plenty of Democratic beer drinkers--and wine drinkers-- who will support the Democratic candidate--rather than see another Republican get in.

What's more, independents and some Republicans will also support the Democrat--if he is Obama. They will not support Hillary.

Your oh-so -subtle class division fails.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:26 AM

Rig-

Your generalizations above about Obama supporters appear to be out of date.

In yesterday's Potomac Primaries Obama's support increased across the board in all major groups by about 10 percentage points. All groups include senior citizens, women, white men, young adults, Mexican-Americans, and blue-collar voters. The only group that maintained support for Clinton appeared to be rural voters in Virginia.

It's boring, I suppose, to actually look at or listen to voting statistics before saying what you'd like to say but why not give it a try!

Charley Noble, who knows how to Goggle

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:43 AM

It's occurred to me that the primary process needs to be constructed as close as possible to the general election process. i.e. primaries should not be caucuses.

                This is very probably why the Democrats have continued to nominate a long string of unelectable candidates. It looks like they're doing in again.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:45 AM

"Rig: This is the first time I can recall when everything wasn't decided in the first few weeks. Has 2000 slipped your mind? lol..."


          Ebbie - As I recall, Al Gore was the anointed candidate in 2000.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:05 AM

and had it not been for the antiquated electoral college system, Gore would have BEEN president, and we would never have invaded Iraq.

(In November, I intend to start a thread noting your prediction about "unelectable candidates")

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:20 AM

It seems to me that either of the Democratic options are eminently electable, especially if (as seems possible) the "very conservative" and evangelical voters stay home in droves come November 4th.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:10 AM

Art - I think when blowhards like Speedy Cheese and Sean Hannity start talking about Supreme Court Justices, the witchdoctors will find the calling to drive their flocks to the polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:14 AM

"(In November, I intend to start a thread noting your prediction about "unelectable candidates")"


                        Bill - I'd be happy to be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 01:21 PM

GG/Janet, there is nothing much here that I don't grasp. But there are several things that you don't grasp. One of those things is that several times here I have said that I do not belong to the Democratic Party, nor do I owe them any allegiance. DO try to read more carefully.

I am an Independent.

Believe me, I have done my share of organizing, petitioning the government, and protesting. And I belong to a couple of organizations, independent of the political parties, that are working for change—and with a measure of success so far.

I have also said that, of all the candidates, I preferred Kucinich, not because he is a Democrat, but because of what he, personally, stands for. But he has been cut out of the race.

Right now, there are no independent or third party candidates who even come close to having a chance of being elected this November. And I don't like ANY of the candidates currently in the running. So, disgusting as the situation is, I am NOT going to just throw up my hands and not bother to get involved, or even vote, which is what your defeatist attitude says everyone should do.

I DO NOT WANT TO SEE ANOTHER REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION ELECTED TO OFFICE IN 2008.

I feel like a doctor with a very sick patient, and I am trying to do whatever I can to save the patient's life. I note, however, that in every thread you have started and in every post you have posted, you are preaching negativism and defeatism. "The system is totally corrupt! Give up! Give up! Give up!"

I'm trying to save the patient's life, even though it may be a vain attempt. In the meantime, you want to perform an autopsy before the patient is dead!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:26 PM

Rig--

"The witchdoctors" will "drive their flocks to the polls"--if the Democrats are stupid enough to make homosexual marriage and removing 10 Commandments plaques from courthouses pillars of their platform, as some Mudcatters evidently would like.

Something tells me Obama is not stupid. Hillary--well, you never know--she's been rather tone-deaf lately.

And there will be no Cheney riding the circuit this year predicting that if the Democrat is elected "a dirty bomb may be exploded here in...."

Also, the current rumors from your "Smears R Us" outlets are somewhat threadbare.

Added to which, Bill is still, through his business connections, diligently devising more scandals for his allegedly "thoroughly vetted" partner to deal with. With the Clintons there are always more rocks to peer under.

And McCain can hardly wait to bring up Hillary's Woodstock museum again--with all the 60's baggage attached. None of which will work on Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:39 PM

By older Hispanics, I was referring to those who came in the period 1590-1900 or thereabouts and settled in the southwest.
Many others came from Mexico, esp. northern Mexico, mostly after 1900. The border was not a barrier, a typical example is Lydia Mendoza and her family, Tejano musicians who worked and lived on both sides of the border.

The Census provides a few figures-
Of the 39 million Latinos in the U. S., 67% are of Mexican origin. Mexican immigrants account for 38% of the Mexican origin population. About 1/5 have gone through the naturalization process.
77% of farm workers in the United States are Mexican immigrants. Many others are in service and construction industries.

The populations of several of the large farming-cattle-fruit counties in south Texas are predominantly Mexican immigrant. San Antonio is 41% Mexican immigrant, 16% other Hispanic (older inhabitants, etc.), El Paso is 64% Mexican immigrant (total 77% Latino).

Over 4 million of the citizens of California are Mexican immigrants.
Some 2.5 million of the citizens of Texas are Mexican immigrants.
Most of these citizens received their papers on length of residence, children born to Mexican parents working in the U. S. (1/2 of all Latino children in the U. S. have one parent who is a Mexican immigrant), service in the U. S. armed forces (for many years a route to citizenship for 'illegal' immigrants- no formal immigration procedure required).

In 1986, 2 million Mexican immigrants were 'legalized.' Currently, it is estimated that the undocumented population from Mexico is 5.3 million (2002). A pathway to citizenship for these immigrants should be provided by Congress.

They have proved to be good citizens. 44% of Mexican immigrants are home owners. They pay their taxes. They respect their Mexican roots, speak Spanish at home, celebrate Cinco de Mayo (defeat of the French army, 5 May 1862 by Texas-born General Zaragoza. Incidentally, this kept the French occupied and prevented them from providing supplies to Confederate forces during the Civil War). We should add it to our American holidays.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:48 PM

As to who is "electable" and who is not...I think we'll have to wait and see about that. Much can change between now and November.

The media can make or break any candidate. It depends on how they choose to do their coverage, and it can depend sometimes on a single incident or a single rumour, and how that incident or rumour is played upon in the mainstream media.

The tail does wag the dog, unfortunately, most of the time. So keep an eye on what the tail is doing. That can change quite quickly sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:56 PM

"The media" are neither as monolithic, all-powerful, nor potentially malevolent as just pictured.

How anybody could include the NYT and Fox News as part of the same monolithic "media" is beyond me. And with the Net, "the media" is even more fragmented.

Why is everything a potential conspiracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:18 PM

"Conspiracy"???? Ha! Ha! There is that word again, a word which has become a standard way of casting doubt upon virtually any argument, it seems, but without meeting that argument through anything but innuendo.

Who is talking about a conspiracy? I'm talking about clever marketing. I'm talking about a $ySStem of Big Business that looks after its own present and future interests. There are a few people, a few very rich people, who own the main media outlets (meaning TV and radio and the press). Those main media outlets are not totally disinterested in the process of reporting "the News" because their owners are not totally disinterested in how it affects the status quo. They'd rather not see someone like Kucinich, for instance, get equal coverage in debates or in the News, because they don't like his policies one bit! So he gets shut out.

Is that a conspiracy? Or is that just some very well-positioned business people doing business in the way that they feel will benefit them most?

Anything that is organized behind closed doors by more than one person, and which the public is NOT fully informed on at the time is technically a conspiracy. (that doesn't necessarily mean it's BAD, but it's still a conspiracy) It fits the literal definition of a conspiracy. So any business decision which is made behind closed doors by two or more people is technically a conspiracy, as is any military decision or any other decision made behind closed doors by two or more people. There are probably at least a trillion conspiracies happening in the world RIGHT now, and you may be engaged in one or two yourself! ;-)

But when you question someone's theory by calling it a "conspiracy theory" you are simply engaging in a kind of manipulative rhetoric which is a bit like playing the "race card" or pulling the "anti-semitic" card. It obfuscates the discussion by treating the other person's premise as if it automatically was in the realm of wearing tinfoil hats and believing in lizard-people who secretly control the government from underground bases beneath Greenland.

In short, it's a mild form of implied ridicule. That is not a legitimate way of discussing anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:32 PM

Sorry, LH, your $ystem cannot be monolithic if it includes both Fox News and the NYT. Face it, "the media" always were fragmented, and with the advent of the Net, are even more so.

And since "the media" are not one force, "the media" do not pick the president. The various outlets play a role--contradicting and competing with each other for readers and viewers.

And to make dark predictions of the power of " the media" just shows a mindset that can only be described as a prisoner of conspiracy theory obsession.

Competition precludes many conspiracies you seem to believe in.

However, congratulations, you get the last word for today--I have to go do other tasks.

See you tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:01 PM

Who ever said it was monolithic?

I am not saying that at all. There are various factions within the moneyed status quo who constantly vie against each other for the most influence, and they do not necessarily agree on all policies. Hardly. But what they do pretty much agree on in a general sense is which people and which stories are given big coverage in the media...and which are downplayed, marginalized, or ignored. They also agree on just how far outside the usual political box you can go and still get treated with any respect...and that is not too far. Some truths cannot be stated. If you state them, you are tuned out of the media from then on. (but you can still get on the Internet) Scott Ritter is someone who has been tuned out of the MSM for a long time now, but he's got some great stuff on the Net.

In other words, some people don't get a ticket to enter the great public media show, while others do. The way to get your ticket is to stay within certain unofficial guidelines. Kucinich was denied his ticket on numerous occasions...as is the case with anyone who really seriously challenges the status quo.

It's also necessary to maintain opposing points of view if you want to play the Great Game: Divide and Conquer. A public that can be divided into...

Left vs Right
liberal vs conservative
Black vs White
Hispanics vs Whites
Religious vs non-religious
Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice
Democrat vs Republican
Male vs Female
Straight vs Gay

and a whole whack of other such dichotomies...

That is a public that can be easily manipulated and controlled by turning their combative energies mostly against one another rather than against the very basic power structure of the $ySStem itself.

And that's why the game is played the way it is. It keeps people mesmerized with divisive issues, and keeps them chewing over old history and old conflicts.

This again is not so much a monolithic conspiracy as it is a generalized way that has evolved over centuries of coping with the ongoing maintainence and perpetuation of established political power. Sometimes it grows more corrupt, sometimes less so.

The same things were done in Imperial Spain or Elizabethan England in the 1500s, for heaven's sake, only the outer details were different! The powerful find, by trial and error, all the ways that they can best maintain and enlarge their power, and keep the public in support of the ruling system. You can call it a conspiracy if you want, but what it really is...it is simply a set of standard modus operandi for the power brokers of this world, and the power brokers are and always have been those with the most money and weaponry.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:30 PM

"How anybody could include the NYT and Fox News as part of the same monolithic "media" is beyond me."


                      Ron - I think all you have to do is to get out a pencil and paper and write two columns. (1) What does the NYT and Fox News have in common, and (2) What does the NYT and Fox News have that separates them. You will soon find the first column growing much faster than the second.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:52 PM

Right.

And the differences that exist between them aid in maintaining the illusion of a genuinely open-minded media that offers real choices and alernatives.

What they offer is stylized black hat /white hat choices within a rather constricted mental box of general conformity, conformity to various forms of virtually unquestioned national myths and illusions such as the assertion that "this is the greatest country in the World".

And that's utter nonsense, unless you mean great in the power of destructive weaponry or space missions...but when people are taught such things from the time they are toddlers, they grow up believing them. It becomes an unquestioned dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:41 AM

Many of us saw Kuchinch (sp?) on CNN or somewhere or another, but although he seemed like a pretty smart guy, there is no way that the public, the press, or the gods would ever install him as a leader.

Tear up the status quo? That's a security blanket for most of us; we might open a hole here and there to get rid of some particular elements that we object to, but we don't want any part of tearing it up. The press mirrors us (the majority) and it is quite diverse.

I don't believe in being policeman to the world and it is obvious that Bush is a moron for trying, he has wasted a fortune and the lives of a lot of young people and got no forwarder; but that doesn't mean that we should back off into a corner. You've got to maintain your position vis-a-vis the other big guys or get shoved away from the feeding trough.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 01:31 AM

Yes, you're quite right that the press mirrors the majority, and, yes, it's quite diverse. No question about that. The majority of people do support the status quo in almost every society...that can only change if and when the status quo becomes absolutely unbearable for the majority of people, and that's quite rare. It can happen when a war is decisively lost or an economy is in a shambles. Or both.

It takes great visionaries in positions of leadership to break the status quo. It is the job of such people to lead in making a breakthrough in understanding. The public will respond if their leaders are willing to inspire them. They will remain generally complacent and passive with leaders who are unwilling or incapable of inspiring them.

You could not have had the American Revolution without a small group of visionary leaders to inspire and lead it. Same goes for any other revolution.

Now, we got public health care in Canada starting out shortly after WWII because a socialist visionary, Tommy Douglas, dared to try something brand new in a single western province where he was premier at the time (it's like being governor of a state). He made the breakthrough, he showed people it was possible and workable, and he was bitterly opposed by the medical establishment, but he got it done anyway. Then the rest of the country followed suit in not too many years. Now it IS the status quo, and people take it for granted that we have universal health care.

It would not have happened without one inspired man to lead the way.

I hope that Americans find such an inspired man or woman shortly. The inertia in the system that opposes such people is simply tremendous, but sometimes it can be overcome.

******

I am not suggesting an isolationist foreign policy for the USA. I am suggesting a policy of not attacking other nations militarily, of NEVER attacking anyone "pre-emptively", but instead working with other nations through mutually beneficial trade and negotiation. A win-win scenario is a far wiser course in human affairs than a win-lose scenario can ever be, and win-win scenarios can always be found by those willing to look for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 09:22 AM

It takes great visionaries in positions of leadership to break the status quo. It is the job of such people to lead in making a breakthrough in understanding. The public will respond if their leaders are willing to inspire them.

THis concept is what is driving the Obama resurgence. People are betting he might be such a one.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:43 PM

Who said the press was monolithic?   Well, somebody recently said "The media can make or break any candidate".

This implies:

1) "The media" will all write about the candidate the same way. Sounds rather monolithic to me.   And more and more out of date--if it ever was true--which is doubtful. Especially, as I've noted, with the advent of the Net. Not only do we have the NYT, Fox News, and the WSJ, for instance, but now we have Daily Kos, for instance--and programs like Jon Stewart. There are any number of prisms these days through which voters can receive their news.

Therefore "The media can make or break any candidate" strikes me as absurdly simplistic.

"Some truths cannot be stated". Unlikely. Some evidence please--please specify a "truth" that all the "media" refuse to acknowledge.

2)    There are no countervailing forces---- such as a person's built-in negative--or positive-- feeling about a candidate--especially the degree to which they identify with a candidate.