*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (1 Viewer)

[phthalatemagic]

Anyone in this thread willing to post what line of work they are in?

I'm a community organizer

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Anyone in this thread willing to post what line of work they are in?

Sure.Why do you ask?

I'm just curious.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Anyone in this thread willing to post what line of work they are in?

I'm a public servant with 30 years of experience.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Anyone in this thread willing to post what line of work they are in?

I'm a public servant with 30 years of experience.

Naturally.

 

[phthalatemagic]

How would you all feel if Obama had to pick HRC as a running mate so as not to fracture the party?I hope this isn't a honda

Well, it has been discussed, but probably will be for the next 6-12 weeks in even more depth. And many people's opinions may change on the subject in that time. For me, its the same as it was a couple weeks ago. If Obama is at the top of the ticket, then i could live with it. I certainly dont wish for it to happen. I will not encourage it. But, if it happens, so be it. After the last discussion on this topic in this thread, i tend to agree with a common point from other posters. Specifically, HRC as a VP choice compromises Obama's main message of changing Washington. While i think that ticket would win in the fall, it would certainly water down his message.

I said this in the Randi Rhodes rumor thread, but I'll expound here.THIS NEEDS TO END NOW.There I said it. At this point I really don't care who's on the top and who's on bottom. But this campaign is dangerously close to killing any chance either has to beat McCain in Nov. The latest NBC poll now has both behind him eventhough a generic Dem is up 15%. This is not good. The 3 grown-ups left in this mess, Dean, Pelosi, and Reid, (I guess 4 if you count Gore), need to step in and tell these two to come to some accomidation NOW instead of beating each other up for the next 5 months (since there's no way either campaign will give up before the convention). This "process" has taken the party into the gutter and quite frankly as much as I don't like her, the only way the supporters of each side will feel satisfied is if both these people start acting like adults and more importantly LEADERS, heal the wounds of the past 2 months, and come together.Really its that simple.Oh and Dean...please reform this idiotic system where any nomination contest with 2 strong candidates is thrown to the convention floor.

It is rather ironic that one of the primary bashing-points of Bush43 has been that he has been a divider instead of a uniter. And here we have 2 democrat candidates that are dividing their own party. The left can't even unite themselves.

A clear indicator to me that both are in this for at least some of the wrong reasons. If either of them truly wanted to lead they would realize that a leader isn't always the name on the door and compromise. THAT would be refreshing. THAT would be something even I could support.

WTH are you talking about?

It's a sort of thread-turrets.

Like on a tank?

 

[Pai Mei]

Sen. Clinton, speaking today at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, argued today that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated, in some form or another:

"If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote. The nearly two and a half million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process and I think that's wrong. The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored. Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do to ensure that the voters in Florida and Michigan are counted.

"In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don't see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states. Whether voters are clamoring for solutions to the challenges that we face or not, or whether people are coming out in droves to be heard, we have a basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts.

I hope that Senator Obama's campaign will join me in working to make that happen. I think that that is a non-partisan solution to make sure that we do count these votes."

Yeah OK, Ms. Monster.

Except for the bolded part I agree with her here. Redo the vote. She may win but it will still result in Obama leading the delegate count and it will remove the one last thing she can spin.

The other thing her campaign has been doing this week is trying to float this idea that there are really three categories of delegates; "automatic" delegates, which is their interest choice of terminology for superdelegates, pledged delegates, and "caucus" delegates. The idea being that if they redo the votes in FL and Michigan she might be ahead in delegates from the primary states (she isn't currently), and that somehow the caucus votes shouldn't count as much.Fortunately this doesn't seem to be getting any traction, but is another example of their attempts to keep re-writing the rules until they get a favorable result.

It will get traction, she's just laying the groundwork now. I heard her on NPR this morning (her voice is much more tolerable in one-on-one interviews than when she's speaking to a crowd) and she went through the "three types of delegates" thing very calmly and matter-of-fact and I thought "OK, what the hell is she up to?"

The interviewer didn't follow up and she didn't elaborate so I think she's prepping her "case" to the supers in order to give them something to justify supporting her.

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way. If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

How would you all feel if Obama had to pick HRC as a running mate so as not to fracture the party?I hope this isn't a honda

Well, it has been discussed, but probably will be for the next 6-12 weeks in even more depth. And many people's opinions may change on the subject in that time. For me, its the same as it was a couple weeks ago. If Obama is at the top of the ticket, then i could live with it. I certainly dont wish for it to happen. I will not encourage it. But, if it happens, so be it. After the last discussion on this topic in this thread, i tend to agree with a common point from other posters. Specifically, HRC as a VP choice compromises Obama's main message of changing Washington. While i think that ticket would win in the fall, it would certainly water down his message.

I said this in the Randi Rhodes rumor thread, but I'll expound here.THIS NEEDS TO END NOW.There I said it. At this point I really don't care who's on the top and who's on bottom. But this campaign is dangerously close to killing any chance either has to beat McCain in Nov. The latest NBC poll now has both behind him eventhough a generic Dem is up 15%. This is not good. The 3 grown-ups left in this mess, Dean, Pelosi, and Reid, (I guess 4 if you count Gore), need to step in and tell these two to come to some accomidation NOW instead of beating each other up for the next 5 months (since there's no way either campaign will give up before the convention). This "process" has taken the party into the gutter and quite frankly as much as I don't like her, the only way the supporters of each side will feel satisfied is if both these people start acting like adults and more importantly LEADERS, heal the wounds of the past 2 months, and come together.Really its that simple.Oh and Dean...please reform this idiotic system where any nomination contest with 2 strong candidates is thrown to the convention floor.

It is rather ironic that one of the primary bashing-points of Bush43 has been that he has been a divider instead of a uniter. And here we have 2 democrat candidates that are dividing their own party. The left can't even unite themselves.

A clear indicator to me that both are in this for at least some of the wrong reasons. If either of them truly wanted to lead they would realize that a leader isn't always the name on the door and compromise. THAT would be refreshing. THAT would be something even I could support.

WTH are you talking about?

It's a sort of thread-turrets.

Like on a tank?

Priceless.

 

[the moops]

What part don't you understand? It's pretty simple really. This fight is about their egos. How do you not see that?

Politicians, with egos? You dont say.

 

[Jeremy]

Fortunately this doesn't seem to be getting any traction, but is another example of [the Clintons] attempts to keep re-writing the rules until they get a favorable result.

I never cease to amaze at how the democrats finally see the Clintons for what they are after all these years.

And is it my imagination, or are Republicans finding her less repulsive then they used to?

 

[phthalatemagic]

How would you all feel if Obama had to pick HRC as a running mate so as not to fracture the party?I hope this isn't a honda

Well, it has been discussed, but probably will be for the next 6-12 weeks in even more depth. And many people's opinions may change on the subject in that time. For me, its the same as it was a couple weeks ago. If Obama is at the top of the ticket, then i could live with it. I certainly dont wish for it to happen. I will not encourage it. But, if it happens, so be it. After the last discussion on this topic in this thread, i tend to agree with a common point from other posters. Specifically, HRC as a VP choice compromises Obama's main message of changing Washington. While i think that ticket would win in the fall, it would certainly water down his message.

I said this in the Randi Rhodes rumor thread, but I'll expound here.THIS NEEDS TO END NOW.There I said it. At this point I really don't care who's on the top and who's on bottom. But this campaign is dangerously close to killing any chance either has to beat McCain in Nov. The latest NBC poll now has both behind him eventhough a generic Dem is up 15%. This is not good. The 3 grown-ups left in this mess, Dean, Pelosi, and Reid, (I guess 4 if you count Gore), need to step in and tell these two to come to some accomidation NOW instead of beating each other up for the next 5 months (since there's no way either campaign will give up before the convention). This "process" has taken the party into the gutter and quite frankly as much as I don't like her, the only way the supporters of each side will feel satisfied is if both these people start acting like adults and more importantly LEADERS, heal the wounds of the past 2 months, and come together.Really its that simple.Oh and Dean...please reform this idiotic system where any nomination contest with 2 strong candidates is thrown to the convention floor.

It is rather ironic that one of the primary bashing-points of Bush43 has been that he has been a divider instead of a uniter. And here we have 2 democrat candidates that are dividing their own party. The left can't even unite themselves.

A clear indicator to me that both are in this for at least some of the wrong reasons. If either of them truly wanted to lead they would realize that a leader isn't always the name on the door and compromise. THAT would be refreshing. THAT would be something even I could support.

WTH are you talking about?

It's a sort of thread-turrets.

Like on a tank?

Priceless.

Like on a rare tank in a museum?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sen. Clinton, speaking today at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, argued today that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated, in some form or another:

"If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote. The nearly two and a half million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process and I think that's wrong. The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored. Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do to ensure that the voters in Florida and Michigan are counted.

"In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don't see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states. Whether voters are clamoring for solutions to the challenges that we face or not, or whether people are coming out in droves to be heard, we have a basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts.

I hope that Senator Obama's campaign will join me in working to make that happen. I think that that is a non-partisan solution to make sure that we do count these votes."

Yeah OK, Ms. Monster.

Except for the bolded part I agree with her here. Redo the vote. She may win but it will still result in Obama leading the delegate count and it will remove the one last thing she can spin.

The other thing her campaign has been doing this week is trying to float this idea that there are really three categories of delegates; "automatic" delegates, which is their interest choice of terminology for superdelegates, pledged delegates, and "caucus" delegates. The idea being that if they redo the votes in FL and Michigan she might be ahead in delegates from the primary states (she isn't currently), and that somehow the caucus votes shouldn't count as much.Fortunately this doesn't seem to be getting any traction, but is another example of their attempts to keep re-writing the rules until they get a favorable result.

It will get traction, she's just laying the groundwork now. I heard her on NPR this morning (her voice is much more tolerable in one-on-one interviews than when she's speaking to a crowd) and she went through the "three types of delegates" thing very calmly and matter-of-fact and I thought "OK, what the hell is she up to?"

The interviewer didn't follow up and she didn't elaborate so I think she's prepping her "case" to the supers in order to give them something to justify supporting her.

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way. If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

I wish someone besides you had posted this so people would take it seriously. It's a point probably worth discussing.I think it shines some light on what kind of leader people want. And I see that fairly divided. I see it often times in the discussions about what the rest of the world thinks of us. With some caring very little and some caring very much. I think there's some connection there to the styles and appeals between Clinton and Obama.

J

 

[the moops]

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

Would you say the same about McCain?I mean, he hasn't convinced Huckabee or Paul to drop out of the race. By your logic, he must not have any leadership skills.

 

[djcolts]

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

Would you say the same about McCain?I mean, he hasn't convinced Huckabee or Paul to drop out of the race. By your logic, he must not have any leadership skills.

I think he would say that. Pai Mei is not a fan of McCain, to put it mildly.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

Would you say the same about McCain?I mean, he hasn't convinced Huckabee or Paul to drop out of the race. By your logic, he must not have any leadership skills.

The difference there of course is that Huckabee and Paul aren't affecting McCain. J

 

[Pai Mei]

Sen. Clinton, speaking today at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, argued today that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated, in some form or another:

"If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote. The nearly two and a half million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process and I think that's wrong. The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored. Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do to ensure that the voters in Florida and Michigan are counted.

"In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don't see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states. Whether voters are clamoring for solutions to the challenges that we face or not, or whether people are coming out in droves to be heard, we have a basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts.

I hope that Senator Obama's campaign will join me in working to make that happen. I think that that is a non-partisan solution to make sure that we do count these votes."

Yeah OK, Ms. Monster.

Except for the bolded part I agree with her here. Redo the vote. She may win but it will still result in Obama leading the delegate count and it will remove the one last thing she can spin.

The other thing her campaign has been doing this week is trying to float this idea that there are really three categories of delegates; "automatic" delegates, which is their interest choice of terminology for superdelegates, pledged delegates, and "caucus" delegates. The idea being that if they redo the votes in FL and Michigan she might be ahead in delegates from the primary states (she isn't currently), and that somehow the caucus votes shouldn't count as much.Fortunately this doesn't seem to be getting any traction, but is another example of their attempts to keep re-writing the rules until they get a favorable result.

It will get traction, she's just laying the groundwork now. I heard her on NPR this morning (her voice is much more tolerable in one-on-one interviews than when she's speaking to a crowd) and she went through the "three types of delegates" thing very calmly and matter-of-fact and I thought "OK, what the hell is she up to?"

The interviewer didn't follow up and she didn't elaborate so I think she's prepping her "case" to the supers in order to give them something to justify supporting her.

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way. If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

I wish someone besides you had posted this so people would take it seriously. It's a point probably worth discussing.I think it shines some light on what kind of leader people want. And I see that fairly divided. I see it often times in the discussions about what the rest of the world thinks of us. With some caring very little and some caring very much. I think there's some connection there to the styles and appeals between Clinton and Obama.

J

I describe Barack Obama as the Great Press Secretary in the Universe. He can give a fantastic speech. I think there is a real difference between that and a leader. That is why I believe an Obama administration will be a train wreck.

 

[the moops]

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

Would you say the same about McCain?I mean, he hasn't convinced Huckabee or Paul to drop out of the race. By your logic, he must not have any leadership skills.

The difference there of course is that Huckabee and Paul aren't affecting McCain. J

But it is ridiculous to think with the race being as close as it is, that Hillary would just drop out, or be forced out magically by Obama.

 

[adonis]

How would you all feel if Obama had to pick HRC as a running mate so as not to fracture the party?I hope this isn't a honda

Well, it has been discussed, but probably will be for the next 6-12 weeks in even more depth. And many people's opinions may change on the subject in that time. For me, its the same as it was a couple weeks ago. If Obama is at the top of the ticket, then i could live with it. I certainly dont wish for it to happen. I will not encourage it. But, if it happens, so be it. After the last discussion on this topic in this thread, i tend to agree with a common point from other posters. Specifically, HRC as a VP choice compromises Obama's main message of changing Washington. While i think that ticket would win in the fall, it would certainly water down his message.

I said this in the Randi Rhodes rumor thread, but I'll expound here.THIS NEEDS TO END NOW.There I said it. At this point I really don't care who's on the top and who's on bottom. But this campaign is dangerously close to killing any chance either has to beat McCain in Nov. The latest NBC poll now has both behind him eventhough a generic Dem is up 15%. This is not good. The 3 grown-ups left in this mess, Dean, Pelosi, and Reid, (I guess 4 if you count Gore), need to step in and tell these two to come to some accomidation NOW instead of beating each other up for the next 5 months (since there's no way either campaign will give up before the convention). This "process" has taken the party into the gutter and quite frankly as much as I don't like her, the only way the supporters of each side will feel satisfied is if both these people start acting like adults and more importantly LEADERS, heal the wounds of the past 2 months, and come together.Really its that simple.Oh and Dean...please reform this idiotic system where any nomination contest with 2 strong candidates is thrown to the convention floor.

It is rather ironic that one of the primary bashing-points of Bush43 has been that he has been a divider instead of a uniter. And here we have 2 democrat candidates that are dividing their own party. The left can't even unite themselves.

A clear indicator to me that both are in this for at least some of the wrong reasons. If either of them truly wanted to lead they would realize that a leader isn't always the name on the door and compromise. THAT would be refreshing. THAT would be something even I could support.

WTH are you talking about?

What part don't you understand? It's pretty simple really. This fight is about their egos. How do you not see that?

It's just chocked full of contradictions.You seem to be saying that it's a clear indication that they're in it for the wrong reasons because both are trying to win, to become the ultimate leader. Then you seem to say that if either of them REALLY wants to be a leader, then they should stop trying to become the leader. Then you seem to say that once they stop trying to be a leader, then you could support them as a leader.Of course they're both in this because they want to lead. They both want to lead the US. Obama has won more delegates, more states, and more popular votes than clinton, yet you're suggesting that he should give up his frontrunner status and let Hillary have the top spot, because whose name on the door isn't important, and that somehow, by him doing that, it'd be showing characteristics of a good leader?Obama is winning, and he's doing it in most every category not fabricated by the clinton campaign. As I said, he has the most votes, the most delegates, and the most states, and he is running a clean campaign, he's upholding the standards of integrity and honor, trying to elevate the public discourse...but on the other side of the desk you have HIllary who is losing in all reasonable aspects of the election, who engages in smear tactics, who is trying to reframe what "winning" really means, who is trying to seat delegates from a state where OBama's name wasn't even on the ballot, and another state where Obama never even campaigned in, who doesn't immediately distance herself from comments from within her campaign or team of advisors that are idiotic and meant to bring race into the discussion as a dividing issue...You have two people, a clear frontrunner with a clean message and who distances himself immediately from all negative in his campaign...and you have hillary, who is losing, who is trying her best to frame her losing status as "winning", who will smear who she needs to, not distance herself from comments made by her supporters that make obama's race an issue, who says Obama isn't ready to be president one day but suggests maybe he'd be ready if he were second on her ticket *wink wink*,...you have these two people, and you seem to imply that by Obama not stepping down from his leading position, that somehow he's exhibiting qualities of a leader that you don't like...and only if he was willing to take the 2nd or lower place position would he truly be leading?That's what the WTH was for.

 

[Autumn Wind]

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

So grasping at straws is now considered leadership?

 

[Marc Levin]

How would you all feel if Obama had to pick HRC as a running mate so as not to fracture the party?I hope this isn't a honda

I'd feel that I should start getting used to a McCain administration.

Yep.Obama will let the party fracture if thats what it takes to help fix America.

I agree that there is no way Obama would accept HRC as his Veep. But I don't think that was the hypothetical.1 - I dispute the hypo. McCain is not pressured to accept Romney as his Veep, though he may have to accept a conservatrive to avoid fracturing the party. For Obama, accepting Richardson would be the same thing as accepting HRC. 2 - If he were somehow forced to accept HRC as his Veep, they would crush McCain. I know many here would switch their allegiance from BO to McCain b/c of that, but tons more Democrats would be in the polling booths voting for those two united. I hate to admit it, but I believe it would sweep the Dems into the white house if that happened.NOW - before you blast me - I think the best thing for this country is a Barak Obama-Bill Richardson ticket. I love Richardson and I actually though he was the most qualified candidate out there to be president - Barak included - so I am a bit biased.

 

[Gopher State]

Public, media losing sight of Iraq, study finds

Only 28 percent know that nearly 4,000 U.S. troops have been killed

The Washington Post

By Karen DeYoung

Twenty-eight percent of the public is aware that nearly 4,000 U.S. personnel have died in Iraq over the past five years, while nearly half thinks the death tally is 3,000 or fewer and 23 percent think it is higher, according to an opinion survey released yesterday.

The survey, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, found that public awareness of developments in the Iraq war has dropped precipitously since last summer, as the news media have paid less attention to the conflict. In earlier surveys, about half of those asked about the death tally responded correctly.

Related Pew surveys have found that the number of news stories devoted to the war has sharply declined this year, along with professed public interest. "Coverage of the war has been virtually absent," said Pew survey research director Scott Keeter, totaling about 1 percent of the news hole between Feb. 17 and 23.

The Iraq-associated median for 2007, he said, was 15 percent of all news stories, with major spikes when President Bush announced a "surge" in forces in January of that year and when Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, testified before Congress in September.

"We try not to make any causal statements about the relationship between the absence of news and what the public knows," Keeter said. "But there's certainly a correlation between the two. People are not seeing news about fatalities, and there isn't much in the news about the war, whether it be military action or even political discussion related to it."

Although Iraq topped the list of the public's most closely followed news stories in all but five weeks during the first half of 2007, according to Pew's research, interest fell rapidly in the fall, and Iraq has not held the top spot since October. That corresponded with a sharp drop in the rate of U.S. casualties in Iraq and increased news coverage of the U.S. presidential campaign.

More track Ledger than war

During the last week in January, 36 percent of those surveyed said they were most closely following campaign news, while 14 percent expressed the most interest in the stock market and 12 percent in the death of actor Heath Ledger. In contrast, 6 percent said they were most closely following coverage of Iraq.

Compared with those Americans surveyed who correctly identified U.S. casualties at around 4,000 (3,975 as of yesterday morning, according to the Pentagon), 84 percent identified Oprah Winfrey as the talk-show host supporting Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) for the Democratic presidential nomination, and 50 percent knew that Hugo Chavez is president of Venezuela.

All education levels in the recent survey were similarly uninformed, Keeter said. The Pew "Political Knowledge Update" was based on nationwide telephone interviews of 1,003 adults conducted Feb. 28 through March 2. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

What interests me about this story is that 36 percent of the people stated they were mostly closely following campaign news (has to be the Hillary/ Obama battle) while only 6 percent were following coverage of Iraq.

The war is suppose to be strong point for the Dem's on getting out etc., but I think this crazy battle with Hillary has pushed it aside. The Dem's need to bring the war back to the front page, or McCain will just sweep it under the carpet. I sure once Hillary gets out of the picture their will be more focus on the war and make it an issue.

But the question is will Hillary ever leave and will she support Obama 100 percent in the end.

I don't agree with Hillarys negative attacks, but if I was in a knife fight I would want her on my side

 

[Jeremy]

Sen. Clinton, speaking today at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, argued today that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated, in some form or another:

"If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote. The nearly two and a half million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process and I think that's wrong. The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored. Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do to ensure that the voters in Florida and Michigan are counted.

"In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don't see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states. Whether voters are clamoring for solutions to the challenges that we face or not, or whether people are coming out in droves to be heard, we have a basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts.

I hope that Senator Obama's campaign will join me in working to make that happen. I think that that is a non-partisan solution to make sure that we do count these votes."

Yeah OK, Ms. Monster.

Except for the bolded part I agree with her here. Redo the vote. She may win but it will still result in Obama leading the delegate count and it will remove the one last thing she can spin.

The other thing her campaign has been doing this week is trying to float this idea that there are really three categories of delegates; "automatic" delegates, which is their interest choice of terminology for superdelegates, pledged delegates, and "caucus" delegates. The idea being that if they redo the votes in FL and Michigan she might be ahead in delegates from the primary states (she isn't currently), and that somehow the caucus votes shouldn't count as much.Fortunately this doesn't seem to be getting any traction, but is another example of their attempts to keep re-writing the rules until they get a favorable result.

It will get traction, she's just laying the groundwork now. I heard her on NPR this morning (her voice is much more tolerable in one-on-one interviews than when she's speaking to a crowd) and she went through the "three types of delegates" thing very calmly and matter-of-fact and I thought "OK, what the hell is she up to?"

The interviewer didn't follow up and she didn't elaborate so I think she's prepping her "case" to the supers in order to give them something to justify supporting her.

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way. If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

I wish someone besides you had posted this so people would take it seriously. It's a point probably worth discussing.I think it shines some light on what kind of leader people want. And I see that fairly divided. I see it often times in the discussions about what the rest of the world thinks of us. With some caring very little and some caring very much. I think there's some connection there to the styles and appeals between Clinton and Obama.

J

I describe Barack Obama as the Great Press Secretary in the Universe. He can give a fantastic speech. I think there is a real difference between that and a leader. That is why I believe an Obama administration will be a train wreck.

We've had the kind of leader you're talking about for the past 7+ years. How's that working out? This "I'll get my way by hook or crook, and force my will upon others" mentality is not what Obama is about. That does not mean he can't be an effective leader. I think what Joe said is basically correct. What kind of leader do you want? I'll take the Obama kind.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Sen. Clinton, speaking today at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, argued today that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated, in some form or another:

"If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote. The nearly two and a half million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process and I think that's wrong. The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored. Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do to ensure that the voters in Florida and Michigan are counted.

"In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don't see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states. Whether voters are clamoring for solutions to the challenges that we face or not, or whether people are coming out in droves to be heard, we have a basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts.

I hope that Senator Obama's campaign will join me in working to make that happen. I think that that is a non-partisan solution to make sure that we do count these votes."

Yeah OK, Ms. Monster.

Except for the bolded part I agree with her here. Redo the vote. She may win but it will still result in Obama leading the delegate count and it will remove the one last thing she can spin.

The other thing her campaign has been doing this week is trying to float this idea that there are really three categories of delegates; "automatic" delegates, which is their interest choice of terminology for superdelegates, pledged delegates, and "caucus" delegates. The idea being that if they redo the votes in FL and Michigan she might be ahead in delegates from the primary states (she isn't currently), and that somehow the caucus votes shouldn't count as much.Fortunately this doesn't seem to be getting any traction, but is another example of their attempts to keep re-writing the rules until they get a favorable result.

It will get traction, she's just laying the groundwork now. I heard her on NPR this morning (her voice is much more tolerable in one-on-one interviews than when she's speaking to a crowd) and she went through the "three types of delegates" thing very calmly and matter-of-fact and I thought "OK, what the hell is she up to?"

The interviewer didn't follow up and she didn't elaborate so I think she's prepping her "case" to the supers in order to give them something to justify supporting her.

I agree that she's preparing her case, and I'm sure it will play to her hardcore supporters, but I don't think it is going to work on superdelegates who are on the fence and concerned about being re-elected. This is too transparent and easily turned, just like the VP deal. The bottom line is that every prominent superdelegate that has spoken about this issue have said that they will not vote against whoever has the majority of pledged delegates, period. Not a persuasive but ultimately rhetorical and fallacious popular vote plea, not some re-writing of the delegate rules that undermines nearly 25% of the states that happen to use a caucus format. At this point the only way she can really win is by convincing the superdelegates that Obama is unelectable and that she will do more to carry their votes in November, this positioning they are doing may give them a rationale but on their own I don't think they are persuasive.

 

[flufhed]

Joe, to answer your inquiry, I think the jury is out or his leadership skills. The reason is that this campaign is forcing him to fight with one hand tied behind his back because of the sympathy/ gender card that has been played. Further complicating matters is his brand as a guy that is a new kind of politician. But no doubt he Would govern very differently from Clinton.

 

[adonis]

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

What you and others mistake for leadership is ruthlessness, and a willingness to do anything to win. Political games is not leadership.Think back to times in history where people exhibit true leadership. It's not the times where people shout the loudest, or pitch the biggest fits to get their way, who fight tooth and nail to get what they want no matter who they hurt...that's not leadership, that's desperation.

Leadership is the civil rights movement, where you had a strong leader, who inspired people with words to stand up to oppression peacefully, to showcase the indecency of the oppression. There were people standing up all over america, sitting at counters for "whites only", where they were dragged out and beaten, offering no resistance. There were people marching through towns, who had firehosese turned on them and dogs set on them, who did not fight back. All over america you had true leadership demonstrated by the desire and ability to do the RIGHT thing, not just whatever it takes for one person to get their way.

What you have here in Obama is someone who IS showing true leadership, but you cannot see it for whatever reason. He is standing up to a dirty campaign and not engaging Clinton in that area. If that's weakness to you, how sad. It's leadership. He's setting a new tone, he's trying to engage in a new type of politics that isn't slash and burn or mudslinging. He's leading america in a new direction, and of course people don't understand, just like people didn't understand when people in the civil rights movement weren't fighting back.

What it has done is highlight the true nature of the clinton campaign, and while not everyone realizes this, many do. But don't mistake ruthlessness for leadership. Clinton is ruthless, Obama is a leader - big difference.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Sen. Clinton, speaking today at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, argued today that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated, in some form or another:

"If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote. The nearly two and a half million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process and I think that's wrong. The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored. Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do to ensure that the voters in Florida and Michigan are counted.

"In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don't see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states. Whether voters are clamoring for solutions to the challenges that we face or not, or whether people are coming out in droves to be heard, we have a basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts.

I hope that Senator Obama's campaign will join me in working to make that happen. I think that that is a non-partisan solution to make sure that we do count these votes."

Yeah OK, Ms. Monster.

Except for the bolded part I agree with her here. Redo the vote. She may win but it will still result in Obama leading the delegate count and it will remove the one last thing she can spin.

The other thing her campaign has been doing this week is trying to float this idea that there are really three categories of delegates; "automatic" delegates, which is their interest choice of terminology for superdelegates, pledged delegates, and "caucus" delegates. The idea being that if they redo the votes in FL and Michigan she might be ahead in delegates from the primary states (she isn't currently), and that somehow the caucus votes shouldn't count as much.Fortunately this doesn't seem to be getting any traction, but is another example of their attempts to keep re-writing the rules until they get a favorable result.

It will get traction, she's just laying the groundwork now. I heard her on NPR this morning (her voice is much more tolerable in one-on-one interviews than when she's speaking to a crowd) and she went through the "three types of delegates" thing very calmly and matter-of-fact and I thought "OK, what the hell is she up to?"

The interviewer didn't follow up and she didn't elaborate so I think she's prepping her "case" to the supers in order to give them something to justify supporting her.

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way. If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

I wish someone besides you had posted this so people would take it seriously. It's a point probably worth discussing.I think it shines some light on what kind of leader people want. And I see that fairly divided. I see it often times in the discussions about what the rest of the world thinks of us. With some caring very little and some caring very much. I think there's some connection there to the styles and appeals between Clinton and Obama.

J

From this week's Time Magazine:

If Obama's history is any guide, losses tend to speed him up, not slow him down. As a state senator in 2000, he took on the Cook County machine to challenge a sitting four-term Congressman and lost — a pre-emptive strike against the political establishment and a cocky signal that he wasn't going to wait his turn. Valerie Jarrett, a friend and now a top adviser, recalls hosting a small brunch at her house at the end of 2002, when Obama was weighing a bid for the U.S. Senate. "It was Michelle, Barack, myself and maybe two or three others," she says. "All of us came in lockstep to convince him not to run. For all of our arguments, he had a [counter] argument ... and by the end of brunch, he'd convinced me to chair his finance committee." She remembers warning him, "'You could lose, and if you lose, you've lost two races in a row — you're done.' And he looked at me and said, 'If I'm prepared to take that risk, aren't you?'"

[when he was still way behind in the Fall] To the pros, the fix was obvious: "All of the experienced hands gave the same advice: 'You gotta get down, get dirty, get tough,'" said one, who echoed them too. But Obama pushed back, more willing to fight his advisers than to fight his opponents. A heated showdown in Chicago, attended by a core group of only half a dozen or so, took place over Labor Day weekend. "But he wouldn't do it," says one of the attendees. "Against all punditry, against the advice, against the history ... It shows he understood his persona and the qualities that were implicit in it." And he understood what he stood to lose if he changed his game. "If I gotta kneecap her," he told them, "I'm not gonna go there."

This wasn't decency or chivalry at work; it was an understanding that the rationale for his campaign would fade if he became just another grubby politician — or angry black man.

This is the kind of leader I want. The only way to "force" Clinton out is to play her game, and he's got too much class to do that. He's proved it time and again.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

How would you all feel if Obama had to pick HRC as a running mate so as not to fracture the party?I hope this isn't a honda

Well, it has been discussed, but probably will be for the next 6-12 weeks in even more depth. And many people's opinions may change on the subject in that time. For me, its the same as it was a couple weeks ago. If Obama is at the top of the ticket, then i could live with it. I certainly dont wish for it to happen. I will not encourage it. But, if it happens, so be it. After the last discussion on this topic in this thread, i tend to agree with a common point from other posters. Specifically, HRC as a VP choice compromises Obama's main message of changing Washington. While i think that ticket would win in the fall, it would certainly water down his message.

I said this in the Randi Rhodes rumor thread, but I'll expound here.THIS NEEDS TO END NOW.There I said it. At this point I really don't care who's on the top and who's on bottom. But this campaign is dangerously close to killing any chance either has to beat McCain in Nov. The latest NBC poll now has both behind him eventhough a generic Dem is up 15%. This is not good. The 3 grown-ups left in this mess, Dean, Pelosi, and Reid, (I guess 4 if you count Gore), need to step in and tell these two to come to some accomidation NOW instead of beating each other up for the next 5 months (since there's no way either campaign will give up before the convention). This "process" has taken the party into the gutter and quite frankly as much as I don't like her, the only way the supporters of each side will feel satisfied is if both these people start acting like adults and more importantly LEADERS, heal the wounds of the past 2 months, and come together.Really its that simple.Oh and Dean...please reform this idiotic system where any nomination contest with 2 strong candidates is thrown to the convention floor.

It is rather ironic that one of the primary bashing-points of Bush43 has been that he has been a divider instead of a uniter. And here we have 2 democrat candidates that are dividing their own party. The left can't even unite themselves.

A clear indicator to me that both are in this for at least some of the wrong reasons. If either of them truly wanted to lead they would realize that a leader isn't always the name on the door and compromise. THAT would be refreshing. THAT would be something even I could support.

WTH are you talking about?

What part don't you understand? It's pretty simple really. This fight is about their egos. How do you not see that?

It's just chocked full of contradictions.You seem to be saying that it's a clear indication that they're in it for the wrong reasons because both are trying to win, to become the ultimate leader. Then you seem to say that if either of them REALLY wants to be a leader, then they should stop trying to become the leader. Then you seem to say that once they stop trying to be a leader, then you could support them as a leader.Of course they're both in this because they want to lead. They both want to lead the US. Obama has won more delegates, more states, and more popular votes than clinton, yet you're suggesting that he should give up his frontrunner status and let Hillary have the top spot, because whose name on the door isn't important, and that somehow, by him doing that, it'd be showing characteristics of a good leader?Obama is winning, and he's doing it in most every category not fabricated by the clinton campaign. As I said, he has the most votes, the most delegates, and the most states, and he is running a clean campaign, he's upholding the standards of integrity and honor, trying to elevate the public discourse...but on the other side of the desk you have HIllary who is losing in all reasonable aspects of the election, who engages in smear tactics, who is trying to reframe what "winning" really means, who is trying to seat delegates from a state where OBama's name wasn't even on the ballot, and another state where Obama never even campaigned in, who doesn't immediately distance herself from comments from within her campaign or team of advisors that are idiotic and meant to bring race into the discussion as a dividing issue...You have two people, a clear frontrunner with a clean message and who distances himself immediately from all negative in his campaign...and you have hillary, who is losing, who is trying her best to frame her losing status as "winning", who will smear who she needs to, not distance herself from comments made by her supporters that make obama's race an issue, who says Obama isn't ready to be president one day but suggests maybe he'd be ready if he were second on her ticket *wink wink*,...you have these two people, and you seem to imply that by Obama not stepping down from his leading position, that somehow he's exhibiting qualities of a leader that you don't like...and only if he was willing to take the 2nd or lower place position would he truly be leading?That's what the WTH was for.

I suppose what I was saying, and what I should have just said plainly, was these two people have every opportunity to take this country to new levels. I believe we as a country are primed for a marked turn-around socially and politically behind the right leaders. It is unfortunate that they have to run against eachother because together they COULD bring great change. But they won't. They will not work together for the common good. What we are seeing now is about their own egos and their own high opinion of their ability to be great. I don't believe either one of them thinks the other would be necessarily bad for the country, it's just that neither one of them is willing to let the other one take the lead because it would be accepting defeat. If they are truly both dems then where does the opposition come from? If they truly both want change, then why does it matter which one has the title? Is one going to disappear when the other wins the nomination? No. So why the fighting? Support the cause and lets move onward and upward.

 

[The Juggernaut]

I just shot an email off to the DNC stating my feelings and intentions in regards to this back and forth with the campaigns. Maybe we can apply some pressure.

First, I'll give a little backstory. When I first registered to vote as an sheltered, small town Oklahoma boy, I registered as a Republican. After gaining life experience in undergraduate and medical school, I felt that I wasn't really a Republican. So I changed my registration to Independent. Over the past several years, an energetic politician by the name of Barrack Obama showed up on my radar screen. After researching his stances and history, and rewatching/reading his past speeches, I changed my affiliation to the Democratic party so I would have a chance to vote for Mr. Obama in the primaries. My first vote in a primary ever. I also have donated money to his campaign, another first for me. I've discussed Mr. Obama with friends, family, and strangers, and have won their support for him on a few occasions. In short, I've become interested/excited in the political process. I imagine my story is not much different than a lot of other peoples' across the USA.I'm writing you now because the last few weeks of the Democratic party's primary campaign has taking some of that excitement away. I'm disappointed in Mr. Obama's losses, but that's not what has lessened my excitement for the process. The culprit is the negativity, mud-slinging, race-baiting, and general divisive methods that Mrs. Clinton's campaign has begun. Her "Kitchen Sink" as it has been called. If these tactics are continued, or, as I expect to see in the next few weeks, are intensified, I fear I will lose all interest in this race. Resulting in me withdrawing from the Democratic party and refraining from voting and donating for them in the future. Again, I imagine my story is not unique. Get this settled.Thanks,The Juggernaut

 

[Clayton Gray]

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

So grasping at straws is now considered leadership?

BGP has supported Bush for years, so he has forgotten what leadership really is.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I just shot an email off to the DNC stating my feelings and intentions in regards to this back and forth with the campaigns. Maybe we can apply some pressure.

First, I'll give a little backstory. When I first registered to vote as an sheltered, small town Oklahoma boy, I registered as a Republican. After gaining life experience in undergraduate and medical school, I felt that I wasn't really a Republican. So I changed my registration to Independent. Over the past several years, an energetic politician by the name of Barrack Obama showed up on my radar screen. After researching his stances and history, and rewatching/reading his past speeches, I changed my affiliation to the Democratic party so I would have a chance to vote for Mr. Obama in the primaries. My first vote in a primary ever. I also have donated money to his campaign, another first for me. I've discussed Mr. Obama with friends, family, and strangers, and have won their support for him on a few occasions. In short, I've become interested/excited in the political process. I imagine my story is not much different than a lot of other peoples' across the USA.I'm writing you now because the last few weeks of the Democratic party's primary campaign has taking some of that excitement away. I'm disappointed in Mr. Obama's losses, but that's not what has lessened my excitement for the process. The culprit is the negativity, mud-slinging, race-baiting, and general divisive methods that Mrs. Clinton's campaign has begun. Her "Kitchen Sink" as it has been called. If these tactics are continued, or, as I expect to see in the next few weeks, are intensified, I fear I will lose all interest in this race. Resulting in me withdrawing from the Democratic party and refraining from voting and donating for them in the future. Again, I imagine my story is not unique. Get this settled.Thanks,The Juggernaut

Nicely done.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

So grasping at straws is now considered leadership?

BGP has supported Bush for years, so he has forgotten what leadership really is.

 

[whitem0nkey]

I just shot an email off to the DNC stating my feelings and intentions in regards to this back and forth with the campaigns. Maybe we can apply some pressure.

what email did u use?

 

[Sweet J]

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

That, actually, is a fantastic point.

 

[Marc Levin]

From this week's Time Magazine:

She remembers warning him, "'You could lose, and if you lose, you've lost two races in a row — you're done.' And he looked at me and said, 'If I'm prepared to take that risk, aren't you?'"

This is the kind of leader I want.

Hell to the yeah. I practically choked up when I read these quotes.

 

[Sweet J]

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

Would you say the same about McCain?I mean, he hasn't convinced Huckabee or Paul to drop out of the race. By your logic, he must not have any leadership skills.

different issue. He didn't need to convince them to drop out, because they really weren't liabilities (not the same way that Hillary is to Obama).

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Sen. Clinton, speaking today at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, argued today that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated, in some form or another:

"If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote. The nearly two and a half million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process and I think that's wrong. The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored. Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do to ensure that the voters in Florida and Michigan are counted.

"In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don't see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states. Whether voters are clamoring for solutions to the challenges that we face or not, or whether people are coming out in droves to be heard, we have a basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts.

I hope that Senator Obama's campaign will join me in working to make that happen. I think that that is a non-partisan solution to make sure that we do count these votes."

Yeah OK, Ms. Monster.

Except for the bolded part I agree with her here. Redo the vote. She may win but it will still result in Obama leading the delegate count and it will remove the one last thing she can spin.

The other thing her campaign has been doing this week is trying to float this idea that there are really three categories of delegates; "automatic" delegates, which is their interest choice of terminology for superdelegates, pledged delegates, and "caucus" delegates. The idea being that if they redo the votes in FL and Michigan she might be ahead in delegates from the primary states (she isn't currently), and that somehow the caucus votes shouldn't count as much.Fortunately this doesn't seem to be getting any traction, but is another example of their attempts to keep re-writing the rules until they get a favorable result.

It will get traction, she's just laying the groundwork now. I heard her on NPR this morning (her voice is much more tolerable in one-on-one interviews than when she's speaking to a crowd) and she went through the "three types of delegates" thing very calmly and matter-of-fact and I thought "OK, what the hell is she up to?"

The interviewer didn't follow up and she didn't elaborate so I think she's prepping her "case" to the supers in order to give them something to justify supporting her.

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way. If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

I wish someone besides you had posted this so people would take it seriously. It's a point probably worth discussing.I think it shines some light on what kind of leader people want. And I see that fairly divided. I see it often times in the discussions about what the rest of the world thinks of us. With some caring very little and some caring very much. I think there's some connection there to the styles and appeals between Clinton and Obama.

J

From this week's Time Magazine:

If Obama's history is any guide, losses tend to speed him up, not slow him down. As a state senator in 2000, he took on the Cook County machine to challenge a sitting four-term Congressman and lost — a pre-emptive strike against the political establishment and a cocky signal that he wasn't going to wait his turn. Valerie Jarrett, a friend and now a top adviser, recalls hosting a small brunch at her house at the end of 2002, when Obama was weighing a bid for the U.S. Senate. "It was Michelle, Barack, myself and maybe two or three others," she says. "All of us came in lockstep to convince him not to run. For all of our arguments, he had a [counter] argument ... and by the end of brunch, he'd convinced me to chair his finance committee." She remembers warning him, "'You could lose, and if you lose, you've lost two races in a row — you're done.' And he looked at me and said, 'If I'm prepared to take that risk, aren't you?'"

[when he was still way behind in the Fall] To the pros, the fix was obvious: "All of the experienced hands gave the same advice: 'You gotta get down, get dirty, get tough,'" said one, who echoed them too. But Obama pushed back, more willing to fight his advisers than to fight his opponents. A heated showdown in Chicago, attended by a core group of only half a dozen or so, took place over Labor Day weekend. "But he wouldn't do it," says one of the attendees. "Against all punditry, against the advice, against the history ... It shows he understood his persona and the qualities that were implicit in it." And he understood what he stood to lose if he changed his game. "If I gotta kneecap her," he told them, "I'm not gonna go there."

This wasn't decency or chivalry at work; it was an understanding that the rationale for his campaign would fade if he became just another grubby politician — or angry black man.

This is the kind of leader I want. The only way to "force" Clinton out is to play her game, and he's got too much class to do that. He's proved it time and again.

Thats is 5 star posting HJS.

 

[whitem0nkey]

Thats is 5 star posting HJS.

I give it 7 diamonds

 

[Running with scissors]

I describe Barack Obama as the Great Press Secretary in the Universe. He can give a fantastic speech. I think there is a real difference between that and a leader. That is why I believe an Obama administration will be a train wreck.

We've had the kind of leader you're talking about for the past 7+ years. How's that working out? This "I'll get my way by hook or crook, and force my will upon others" mentality is not what Obama is about. That does not mean he can't be an effective leader. I think what Joe said is basically correct. What kind of leader do you want? I'll take the Obama kind.

To Beej there is only one type of leader. Pretty much just what you described, as if someone had read "The Prince" one too many times.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Sen. Clinton, speaking today at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, argued today that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated, in some form or another:

"If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote. The nearly two and a half million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process and I think that's wrong. The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored. Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do to ensure that the voters in Florida and Michigan are counted.

"In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don't see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states. Whether voters are clamoring for solutions to the challenges that we face or not, or whether people are coming out in droves to be heard, we have a basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts.

I hope that Senator Obama's campaign will join me in working to make that happen. I think that that is a non-partisan solution to make sure that we do count these votes."

Yeah OK, Ms. Monster.

Except for the bolded part I agree with her here. Redo the vote. She may win but it will still result in Obama leading the delegate count and it will remove the one last thing she can spin.

The other thing her campaign has been doing this week is trying to float this idea that there are really three categories of delegates; "automatic" delegates, which is their interest choice of terminology for superdelegates, pledged delegates, and "caucus" delegates. The idea being that if they redo the votes in FL and Michigan she might be ahead in delegates from the primary states (she isn't currently), and that somehow the caucus votes shouldn't count as much.Fortunately this doesn't seem to be getting any traction, but is another example of their attempts to keep re-writing the rules until they get a favorable result.

It will get traction, she's just laying the groundwork now. I heard her on NPR this morning (her voice is much more tolerable in one-on-one interviews than when she's speaking to a crowd) and she went through the "three types of delegates" thing very calmly and matter-of-fact and I thought "OK, what the hell is she up to?"

The interviewer didn't follow up and she didn't elaborate so I think she's prepping her "case" to the supers in order to give them something to justify supporting her.

Here's the NPR link. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=88165077Listening to it now and I want to punch someone. Preferably Hillary.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Thats is 5 star posting HJS.

I give it 7 diamonds

12 shiny things? I'LL TAKE 'EM!!!

 

[The Juggernaut]

I just shot an email off to the DNC stating my feelings and intentions in regards to this back and forth with the campaigns. Maybe we can apply some pressure.

what email did u use?

DNC Email.I used the "Issues" button and selected "Honest Leadership" to send my message.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Sen. Clinton, speaking today at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, argued today that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated, in some form or another:

"If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote. The nearly two and a half million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process and I think that's wrong. The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored. Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do to ensure that the voters in Florida and Michigan are counted.

"In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don't see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states. Whether voters are clamoring for solutions to the challenges that we face or not, or whether people are coming out in droves to be heard, we have a basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts.

I hope that Senator Obama's campaign will join me in working to make that happen. I think that that is a non-partisan solution to make sure that we do count these votes."

Yeah OK, Ms. Monster.

Except for the bolded part I agree with her here. Redo the vote. She may win but it will still result in Obama leading the delegate count and it will remove the one last thing she can spin.

The other thing her campaign has been doing this week is trying to float this idea that there are really three categories of delegates; "automatic" delegates, which is their interest choice of terminology for superdelegates, pledged delegates, and "caucus" delegates. The idea being that if they redo the votes in FL and Michigan she might be ahead in delegates from the primary states (she isn't currently), and that somehow the caucus votes shouldn't count as much.Fortunately this doesn't seem to be getting any traction, but is another example of their attempts to keep re-writing the rules until they get a favorable result.

It will get traction, she's just laying the groundwork now. I heard her on NPR this morning (her voice is much more tolerable in one-on-one interviews than when she's speaking to a crowd) and she went through the "three types of delegates" thing very calmly and matter-of-fact and I thought "OK, what the hell is she up to?"

The interviewer didn't follow up and she didn't elaborate so I think she's prepping her "case" to the supers in order to give them something to justify supporting her.

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

I kind of agree with this but I think you're confusing manipulation for leadership. They both possess leadership skills (or they wouldn't be where they are) it's just very different leadership styles.

 

[adonis]

Sen. Clinton, speaking today at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, argued today that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated, in some form or another:

"If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote. The nearly two and a half million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process and I think that's wrong. The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored. Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do to ensure that the voters in Florida and Michigan are counted.

"In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don't see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states. Whether voters are clamoring for solutions to the challenges that we face or not, or whether people are coming out in droves to be heard, we have a basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts.

I hope that Senator Obama's campaign will join me in working to make that happen. I think that that is a non-partisan solution to make sure that we do count these votes."

Yeah OK, Ms. Monster.

Except for the bolded part I agree with her here. Redo the vote. She may win but it will still result in Obama leading the delegate count and it will remove the one last thing she can spin.

The other thing her campaign has been doing this week is trying to float this idea that there are really three categories of delegates; "automatic" delegates, which is their interest choice of terminology for superdelegates, pledged delegates, and "caucus" delegates. The idea being that if they redo the votes in FL and Michigan she might be ahead in delegates from the primary states (she isn't currently), and that somehow the caucus votes shouldn't count as much.Fortunately this doesn't seem to be getting any traction, but is another example of their attempts to keep re-writing the rules until they get a favorable result.

It will get traction, she's just laying the groundwork now. I heard her on NPR this morning (her voice is much more tolerable in one-on-one interviews than when she's speaking to a crowd) and she went through the "three types of delegates" thing very calmly and matter-of-fact and I thought "OK, what the hell is she up to?"

The interviewer didn't follow up and she didn't elaborate so I think she's prepping her "case" to the supers in order to give them something to justify supporting her.

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

I kind of agree with this but I think you're confusing manipulation for leadership. They both possess leadership skills (or they wouldn't be where they are) it's just very different leadership styles.

And he's run a more effective campaign, put in place excellent people and systems, and is beating Hillary. That he's leading hillary seems to indicate at this point that he definitely is better at some aspects of leadership than she is, namely, winning an election.All the jockeying for position she's doing isn't because she's a leader, or because she has great leadership qualities, it's because she's losing. Her hand is being forced, and we all know how even a meek looking dog, when backed into a corner, can look like a ferocious warrior when all other options are gone. This is just Hillary scratching and clawing in every way she can to survive...Obama doesn't have to prove anything, or trick anyone into believing he's winning. He doesn't have to reframe what "winning" means because by almost everyones standards, he's winning. And he doesn't have to ensure that rules are changed, or situations are changed, to get his way, because if things stay the same, he'll be the nominee.

 

[Sammy3469]

Sen. Clinton, speaking today at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, argued today that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated, in some form or another:

"If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote. The nearly two and a half million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process and I think that's wrong. The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored. Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do to ensure that the voters in Florida and Michigan are counted.

"In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don't see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states. Whether voters are clamoring for solutions to the challenges that we face or not, or whether people are coming out in droves to be heard, we have a basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts.

I hope that Senator Obama's campaign will join me in working to make that happen. I think that that is a non-partisan solution to make sure that we do count these votes."

Yeah OK, Ms. Monster.

Except for the bolded part I agree with her here. Redo the vote. She may win but it will still result in Obama leading the delegate count and it will remove the one last thing she can spin.

The other thing her campaign has been doing this week is trying to float this idea that there are really three categories of delegates; "automatic" delegates, which is their interest choice of terminology for superdelegates, pledged delegates, and "caucus" delegates. The idea being that if they redo the votes in FL and Michigan she might be ahead in delegates from the primary states (she isn't currently), and that somehow the caucus votes shouldn't count as much.Fortunately this doesn't seem to be getting any traction, but is another example of their attempts to keep re-writing the rules until they get a favorable result.

It will get traction, she's just laying the groundwork now. I heard her on NPR this morning (her voice is much more tolerable in one-on-one interviews than when she's speaking to a crowd) and she went through the "three types of delegates" thing very calmly and matter-of-fact and I thought "OK, what the hell is she up to?"

The interviewer didn't follow up and she didn't elaborate so I think she's prepping her "case" to the supers in order to give them something to justify supporting her.

Here's the NPR link. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=88165077Listening to it now and I want to punch someone. Preferably Hillary.

Geez...I'm trying to be resonable about this, but the audacity of this woman is breathtaking.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

Would you say the same about McCain?I mean, he hasn't convinced Huckabee or Paul to drop out of the race. By your logic, he must not have any leadership skills.

The difference there of course is that Huckabee and Paul aren't affecting McCain. J

But it is ridiculous to think with the race being as close as it is, that Hillary would just drop out, or be forced out magically by Obama.

I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying if the roles were reversed and Clinton had the lead, she'd be a lot more forceful in trying to "close the deal" and take him out. Whether she'd be successful isn't really the point. It's that she'd be taking the alpha role forcing the issue as opposed to more passive tactic.

J

 

[Homer J Simpson]

From a reader on Andrew Sullivan's blog. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...assin.html#more

Watching the Democrats self-immolate during this election, which should have been a slam-dunk for the party, has really made me question its abiity to lead this country at all, ever again. If someone, anyone, could explain to me how this party is fit to lead, please, let them explain. From its ineffectual performance in Congress since the midterms to its fratricidal primary warfare, the Dem party seems determined to prove that it has outlived its usefulness. Now, gifted with a candidate who represents a new start for the future--who offers an attempt to show the country how we can at least attempt to transcend the most divisive elements of racism, prejudice and partisanship (no, not get rid of them completely, but at least kick them a ways to the curb in the name of progress and solving this country's very serious current challenges), it has instead chosen a fight to the death to re-install a desperate, discredited monarchy that is taking refuge in the last century's cultural and identity wars.

What the hell?

And where is the party's leadership? Cowering in the shadows. Unlike the Republicans, who are at least attempting to unite around their candidate and present a grown-up face--and whose candidates were Emily Posts compared to the Clintons in their effort to maintain some of the party's dignity during the primaries--too many Dem leaders are standing around watching this ridiculous spectacle hands in pockets.

Gore? Edwards? Biden? Richardson? If they really backed the Clintons they'd have said so by now, but rather than come out and stand up for the future, they're hedging their bets. Hoping for Cabinet posts? The Republican drop outs, meanwhile, immediately moved to unity, endorsing McCain quickly.

Dems will say this is healthy. Democracy is messy! Oh, please. Maybe it WAS healthy. Now it's just nuts. No offense to the Palestinians, but you know that saying that "they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity?" Well, the Dems have become the Palestinians of U.S. politics.

This election will signal the end of my identification as a Democrat. I've had it. And I can't imagine I'm alone in thinking and feeling this way. Can't the party see this?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

And he doesn't have to ensure that rules are changed, or situations are changed, to get his way, because if things stay the same, he'll be the nominee.

How? Neither will have the delagate count necessary under the DNC rules. If things stay the same, the convention will pick the nominee based on criteria above and beyond the simple counted votes of the primary and caucus system.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

Would you say the same about McCain?I mean, he hasn't convinced Huckabee or Paul to drop out of the race. By your logic, he must not have any leadership skills.

The difference there of course is that Huckabee and Paul aren't affecting McCain. J

But it is ridiculous to think with the race being as close as it is, that Hillary would just drop out, or be forced out magically by Obama.

I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying if the roles were reversed and Clinton had the lead, she'd be a lot more forceful in trying to "close the deal" and take him out. Whether she'd be successful isn't really the point. It's that she'd be taking the alpha role forcing the issue as opposed to more passive tactic.

J

If the roles were reversed, Obama would have dropped out weeks ago. Slash and burn ain't his style.What you might see as passive, I see as classy.

 

[Sammy3469]

From a reader on Andrew Sullivan's blog. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...assin.html#more

Watching the Democrats self-immolate during this election, which should have been a slam-dunk for the party, has really made me question its abiity to lead this country at all, ever again. If someone, anyone, could explain to me how this party is fit to lead, please, let them explain. From its ineffectual performance in Congress since the midterms to its fratricidal primary warfare, the Dem party seems determined to prove that it has outlived its usefulness. Now, gifted with a candidate who represents a new start for the future--who offers an attempt to show the country how we can at least attempt to transcend the most divisive elements of racism, prejudice and partisanship (no, not get rid of them completely, but at least kick them a ways to the curb in the name of progress and solving this country's very serious current challenges), it has instead chosen a fight to the death to re-install a desperate, discredited monarchy that is taking refuge in the last century's cultural and identity wars.

What the hell?

And where is the party's leadership? Cowering in the shadows. Unlike the Republicans, who are at least attempting to unite around their candidate and present a grown-up face--and whose candidates were Emily Posts compared to the Clintons in their effort to maintain some of the party's dignity during the primaries--too many Dem leaders are standing around watching this ridiculous spectacle hands in pockets.

Gore? Edwards? Biden? Richardson? If they really backed the Clintons they'd have said so by now, but rather than come out and stand up for the future, they're hedging their bets. Hoping for Cabinet posts? The Republican drop outs, meanwhile, immediately moved to unity, endorsing McCain quickly.

Dems will say this is healthy. Democracy is messy! Oh, please. Maybe it WAS healthy. Now it's just nuts. No offense to the Palestinians, but you know that saying that "they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity?" Well, the Dems have become the Palestinians of U.S. politics.

This election will signal the end of my identification as a Democrat. I've had it. And I can't imagine I'm alone in thinking and feeling this way. Can't the party see this?

That is what I was trying to say earlier, put in a much more eloquent way.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

Would you say the same about McCain?I mean, he hasn't convinced Huckabee or Paul to drop out of the race. By your logic, he must not have any leadership skills.

The difference there of course is that Huckabee and Paul aren't affecting McCain. J

But it is ridiculous to think with the race being as close as it is, that Hillary would just drop out, or be forced out magically by Obama.

I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying if the roles were reversed and Clinton had the lead, she'd be a lot more forceful in trying to "close the deal" and take him out. Whether she'd be successful isn't really the point. It's that she'd be taking the alpha role forcing the issue as opposed to more passive tactic.

J

If the roles were reversed, Obama would have dropped out weeks ago. Slash and burn ain't his style.What you might see as passive, I see as classy.

What roles? Hillary isn't THAT far behind in "pledged" delegates and seems to beleive, based on whatever, that she has all the supers on her side. IF the roles were reversed why would he drop out?

 

[Joe Bryant]

The real concern overshadowing this is that once again it is Hillary that is acting like the lead dog, while Obama is being relatively passive. That underscores the lack of leadership skills Obama possesses. It is HILLARY that is whipping up all kinds of ideas to get her way.

If the tables were turned, and Hillary had more votes and delegates, I don't doubt for a second she would be actively crafting all kinds of plans to convince Obama to drop out to make sure nothing went wrong that caused her to lose the edge. She would assert her leadership role.

But with Obama, it just seems he doesn't have that skill. He's not trying to force Clinton out. He's not a leader.

Would you say the same about McCain?I mean, he hasn't convinced Huckabee or Paul to drop out of the race. By your logic, he must not have any leadership skills.

The difference there of course is that Huckabee and Paul aren't affecting McCain. J

But it is ridiculous to think with the race being as close as it is, that Hillary would just drop out, or be forced out magically by Obama.

I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying if the roles were reversed and Clinton had the lead, she'd be a lot more forceful in trying to "close the deal" and take him out. Whether she'd be successful isn't really the point. It's that she'd be taking the alpha role forcing the issue as opposed to more passive tactic.

J

If the roles were reversed, Obama would have dropped out weeks ago.

J