*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

[adonis]

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.

Right now, he has the delegate lead, the states lead, and the popular vote lead by over half a million. The super delegates, if they had to decide today, would support Obama enough to give him the nomination. That's what I mean.

 

[adonis]

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?

She's very far behind in pledged delegates, and she wants to believe she has the support of super delegates, but in reality, if Obama ends up with the lead in all three categories like he has now, and it's not a whole lot closer, then super delegates will support him.

 

[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.

Right now, he has the delegate lead, the states lead, and the popular vote lead by over half a million. The super delegates, if they had to decide today, would support Obama enough to give him the nomination. That's what I mean.

Delegates is all that matters. Hillary already has you guys using her terms. The "popular vote" and "number of states won" isn't what picks the DNC candidate, the delegates are. And you are assuming that last part and you should know by now that you can't.

 

[Marc Levin]

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.

Because the superdelegates have more or less agreed not to "thwart" the will of the people - if Obama has both the pledged delegate and popular vote majority heading into the convention, they will throw their support behind him.With the race in doubt, they can stand on the fence and throw their endorsements wherever.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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?

She's very far behind in pledged delegates, and she wants to believe she has the support of super delegates, but in reality, if Obama ends up with the lead in all three categories like he has now, and it's not a whole lot closer, then super delegates will support him.

You think. But there is no proof or set in stone policy there. No matter what happens in this race, unless one of them drops out and throw all their support to the other, the convention will have to pick a candidate likely based on something alighlty to alot more then just the primaries and caucuses. Why are either of them wrong for continuing the fight when neither have been blown out ala McCain Huckabee?

 

[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.

Because the superdelegates have more or less agreed not to "thwart" the will of the people - if Obama has both the pledged delegate and popular vote majority heading into the convention, they will throw their support behind him.With the race in doubt, they can stand on the fence and throw their endorsements wherever.

Have they? Is there a law or contract in place to enforce that?

 

[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.

J

If Hillary had won the 11 states after Super Tuesday, there would have been no conversation except why Obama hasn't conceded. What's hard to understand about that? The only reason this is still going on is because of the "Never count out the Clintons" attitude within the party and the press.

 

[Marc Levin]

Is there a law or contract in place to enforce that?

No there isn't. So what?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

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?

She's very far behind in pledged delegates, and she wants to believe she has the support of super delegates, but in reality, if Obama ends up with the lead in all three categories like he has now, and it's not a whole lot closer, then super delegates will support him.

You think. But there is no proof or set in stone policy there. No matter what happens in this race, unless one of them drops out and throw all their support to the other, the convention will have to pick a candidate likely based on something alighlty to alot more then just the primaries and caucuses. Why are either of them wrong for continuing the fight when neither have been blown out ala McCain Huckabee?

Because her only path to the nomination has the potential (probability IMO) to tear the party apart.

 

[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

If Hillary had won the 11 states after Super Tuesday, there would have been no conversation except why Obama hasn't conceded. What's hard to understand about that?

Maybe because there is zero chance it would have ever happened?J

 

[Marc Levin]

BTW Yankee - I am with you.

NEITHER candidate is wrong for continuing the fight. HRC did what she needed to do - she took Ohio convincingly and has spun Texas into a victory (even if she will actually ultimately lose that state).

Taking the last big fish in the barrel (Penn) will be enough to make her fight on until the convention.

 

[adonis]

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.

Right now, he has the delegate lead, the states lead, and the popular vote lead by over half a million. The super delegates, if they had to decide today, would support Obama enough to give him the nomination. That's what I mean.

Delegates is all that matters. Hillary already has you guys using her terms. The "popular vote" and "number of states won" isn't what picks the DNC candidate, the delegates are. And you are assuming that last part and you should know by now that you can't.

While it's true, if the delegate lead is slim, super delegates could go either way.Currently, Obama has 1406 pledged delegates and clinton has 1246. That's a 160 delegate difference. Those are the delegates that represent the will of the people, which the super delegates will not vote en masse against.Counting super delegates, which likely won't be used to make arguments to superdelegates about the will of the people, Obama still has a commanding lead with 1618 to Hillary's 1494. A difference of 124.The popular vote totals are equally convincing, with Obama having a lead of over 700,000 votes with 13,280,770 to Clinton's 12,577,044.Most realistic predictions of how the election will turn out do not predict much of a change in the leads of any of these categories.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Is there a law or contract in place to enforce that?

No there isn't. So what?

So you guys are assuming something that might not happen, and as a result are demanding that a viable candidate drop out of the race because you like the other guy more. Why should she? What happens if she wins Pennsylvania? What happens if more negatives about Obama come out between the convention and now and actually knock him down enough pegs where it's a whole new ball game? It's not these things are out of the realm of possibility here. This isn't Ralph Nader hanging on to get some PR time. She has enough support - and the democratic party is probably assuming that any candidate wins the White House after Bush - that they are playing this game like it's the Super Bowl, not the general.It might be wrong to do it, but I don't see why it should just be assumed that he is required to get the nomination based on things right now. And because of that, I don't see why she should drop out.Granted, I don't want Satan in the White House so if she disappeared today I'd be ok with it, but I'm curious about the topic in general.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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?

She's very far behind in pledged delegates, and she wants to believe she has the support of super delegates, but in reality, if Obama ends up with the lead in all three categories like he has now, and it's not a whole lot closer, then super delegates will support him.

You think. But there is no proof or set in stone policy there. No matter what happens in this race, unless one of them drops out and throw all their support to the other, the convention will have to pick a candidate likely based on something alighlty to alot more then just the primaries and caucuses. Why are either of them wrong for continuing the fight when neither have been blown out ala McCain Huckabee?

Because her only path to the nomination has the potential (probability IMO) to tear the party apart.

Who is to say Obama won't do that by telling the millions who support her that they need to give up?

 

[adonis]

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?

She's very far behind in pledged delegates, and she wants to believe she has the support of super delegates, but in reality, if Obama ends up with the lead in all three categories like he has now, and it's not a whole lot closer, then super delegates will support him.

You think. But there is no proof or set in stone policy there. No matter what happens in this race, unless one of them drops out and throw all their support to the other, the convention will have to pick a candidate likely based on something alighlty to alot more then just the primaries and caucuses. Why are either of them wrong for continuing the fight when neither have been blown out ala McCain Huckabee?

I don't think it's wrong for her to continue at all, it's the way in which she's fighting that I take issue with.I said before, she has every right to be in it, even if I wish she'd drop out. You're right, it's relatively close, and she still has a shot. It's how she's campaigning and the attacks she's throwing at Obama that I don't like. They're tearing him down in purely political ways, while he's attempting to stay on topic with her.Let her stay in the race, but run a more clean campaign. That's all I'm saying. No need to tear each other down to win the nomination.

 

[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.

Right now, he has the delegate lead, the states lead, and the popular vote lead by over half a million. The super delegates, if they had to decide today, would support Obama enough to give him the nomination. That's what I mean.

Delegates is all that matters. Hillary already has you guys using her terms. The "popular vote" and "number of states won" isn't what picks the DNC candidate, the delegates are. And you are assuming that last part and you should know by now that you can't.

While it's true, if the delegate lead is slim, super delegates could go either way.Currently, Obama has 1406 pledged delegates and clinton has 1246. That's a 160 delegate difference. Those are the delegates that represent the will of the people, which the super delegates will not vote en masse against.Counting super delegates, which likely won't be used to make arguments to superdelegates about the will of the people, Obama still has a commanding lead with 1618 to Hillary's 1494. A difference of 124.The popular vote totals are equally convincing, with Obama having a lead of over 700,000 votes with 13,280,770 to Clinton's 12,577,044.Most realistic predictions of how the election will turn out do not predict much of a change in the leads of any of these categories.

Again you are assuming the supers do something you want them to do and are using Hillary's terminology to get there. You are helping to fight her fight by even giving credit to the non delagate count arguments of popular vote and total states.You guys are alowing her to define the race. Why should she drop out?

 

[adonis]

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.

Right now, he has the delegate lead, the states lead, and the popular vote lead by over half a million. The super delegates, if they had to decide today, would support Obama enough to give him the nomination. That's what I mean.

Delegates is all that matters. Hillary already has you guys using her terms. The "popular vote" and "number of states won" isn't what picks the DNC candidate, the delegates are. And you are assuming that last part and you should know by now that you can't.

While it's true, if the delegate lead is slim, super delegates could go either way.Currently, Obama has 1406 pledged delegates and clinton has 1246. That's a 160 delegate difference. Those are the delegates that represent the will of the people, which the super delegates will not vote en masse against.Counting super delegates, which likely won't be used to make arguments to superdelegates about the will of the people, Obama still has a commanding lead with 1618 to Hillary's 1494. A difference of 124.The popular vote totals are equally convincing, with Obama having a lead of over 700,000 votes with 13,280,770 to Clinton's 12,577,044.Most realistic predictions of how the election will turn out do not predict much of a change in the leads of any of these categories.

Again you are assuming the supers do something you want them to do and are using Hillary's terminology to get there. You are helping to fight her fight by even giving credit to the non delagate count arguments of popular vote and total states.You guys are alowing her to define the race. Why should she drop out?

What? What terminology is that? This is actual election terminology, not hillary terminology. I get my numbers, and terms, from early on in the election, as well as real clear politics. Using the names for the delegates is the proper way to refer to them.This entire race has been about delegates. There's a magic number of delegates to get, just like for republicans. Obama has 1618 total, but only 1406 of them are pledged meaning they cannot be changed (realistically). THe super delegates can be changed. This isn't Clinton terminology, it's been around since day 1 of the race.She can stay in the race, but stop being so divisive, and put all smear tactics and comments about race out of the campaign.

 

[Marc Levin]

Is there a law or contract in place to enforce that?

No there isn't. So what?

So you guys are assuming something that might not happen, and as a result are demanding that a viable candidate drop out of the race because you like the other guy more.

Link to where *I* said that?

 

[Joe Bryant]

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

Hi Juggernaut,What specific incidents are you speaking of when you talk about the "negativity, mud-slinging, race-baiting, and general divisive methods" that are offensive to you?J

 

[bigbottom]

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

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.

This is an extremely valid criticism. It's time for high profile Democrats to show some courage.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

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.

Because the superdelegates have more or less agreed not to "thwart" the will of the people - if Obama has both the pledged delegate and popular vote majority heading into the convention, they will throw their support behind him.With the race in doubt, they can stand on the fence and throw their endorsements wherever.

I'm not sure about that really. And what is "the will of the people" to the super-delegates? Do they vote with the people of their state? Their congressional district? The over all popular vote? Who won the most states in their region or overall? etc etc.

 

[Marc Levin]

Just some FYI on superdelegates links

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

 

[Marc Levin]

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.

Because the superdelegates have more or less agreed not to "thwart" the will of the people - if Obama has both the pledged delegate and popular vote majority heading into the convention, they will throw their support behind him.With the race in doubt, they can stand on the fence and throw their endorsements wherever.

I'm not sure about that really. And what is "the will of the people" to the super-delegates? Do they vote with the people of their state? Their congressional district? The over all popular vote? Who won the most states in their region or overall? etc etc.

There's the rub.Some SDs said each superdelegate should vote as their constituency did. Some say they should vote as a bloc based on how the people voted. Confusing the issue are the number of superdelegates who have taken money from one candidate or the other or who have publicly endorsed one candidate or another - contrary to the will of their constituency (Ted Kennedy is a superdelegate, but Mass went to Clinton).

ETA: FWIW, the public line for the DNC is that "superdelgates will not decide this election contrary to the will of the party" One SD said, publicly on either John Stewart or Colbert (can't remember which), that whoever is in the lead of pledged delegates will be the one that gets his vote.

 

[bigbottom]

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

Hi Juggernaut,What specific incidents are you speaking of when you talk about the "negativity, mud-slinging, race-baiting, and general divisive methods" that are offensive to you?J

Not sure what Juggernaut is referring to but I'd say, off the top of my head:1) Clinton's New Hampshire campaign co-chair trying to make an issue out of Obama's admitted drug experimentation as a youth and intimating that he may have been a drug dealer.2) The Clinton campaign trying to paint Obama as a liar based on something that he wrote when he was in kindergarten.3) Bill Clinton's attempt to marginalize Obama's campaign and paint him as the "black" candidate by comparing Obama's South Carolina win to Jesse Jackson's.4) Repeated suggestions by supportor and Clinton finance committee member Ferraro that Obama owes his success to race, and Hillary's tepid response.5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.6) The "alleged" distribution of the picture of Obama in traditional African garb.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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

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 would be nice I guess if they could all pick one but this is nowhere near a McCain situation. Of course everyone will rally around McCain. He clearly won the nomination through the primary process. This is politics. Where careers are made or broken based on who you hitch your wagon to. I don't see how anyone could possibly expect anyone to rally around either candidate until things are MUCH more clear. Maybe they would for the student council elections but this is big boy politics. Nobody is moving very far until this gets a lot more clear.

J

 

[Abraham]

From Post Secret.....good stuff.

 

[aardball44]

Separated At Birth...?



:never-the-twain-shall-meet:

 

[bigbottom]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

 

[whitem0nkey]

DNC Email.

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

Thanks, I will email them one.---------------------------------------------------

Thank you for taking the time to read my email.

I'm a registered democrat that happens to support Obama. 6 months ago I was going to vote for whomever would win the primary for the DNC. And now I'm beginning to question myself if I would actually support Hillary if she got the nomination the way she has been campaigning. It is becoming more clear that Senator Clinton is putting herself before the party.

This was the first time I contributed money to any campaign, this is the first time I voted in the primary, and this is my first email to the DNC. My wife who does not follow politics is actually paying attention to the campaigns. If Hillary continues her way of campaigning it will make it hard and embarrassing to identify my self with the party.

Thanks you again,

Mr M0nkey

Edit: I did not yet send it, if you think I should change or add anything let me know, I will send it out after i get back from lunch.

 

[ericttspikes]

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?

You think that if Obama lost 11 states in a row he'd still be in this????????? Come on. The pressure would of been HUGE to have him gone.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

DNC Email.

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

Thanks, I will email them one.---------------------------------------------------

Thank you for taking the time to read my email.

I'm a registered democrat that happens to support Obama. 6 months ago I was going to vote for whomever would win the primary for the DNC. And now I'm beginning to question myself if I would actually support Hillary if she got the nomination the way she has been campaigning. It is becoming more clear that Senator Clinton is putting herself before the party.

This was the first time I contributed money to any campaign, this is the first time I voted in the primary, and this is my first email to the DNC. My wife who does not follow politics is actually paying attention to the campaigns. If Hillary continues her way of campaigning it will make it hard and embarrassing to identify my self with the party.

Thanks you again,

Mr M0nkey

Edit: I did not yet send it, if you think I should change or add anything let me know, I will send it out after i get back from lunch.

Looks good to me.

 

[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.

J

If Hillary had won the 11 states after Super Tuesday, there would have been no conversation except why Obama hasn't conceded. What's hard to understand about that?

Maybe because there is zero chance it would have ever happened?J

What the hell are you talking about? You really think Obama could have possibly stayed in at that point? Superdelegates would be jumping ship like Obama had the plague. Uncommitteds would have flocked to Clinton. Undecided voters would have lined up to vote for the inevitable Hillary. No way could he have stood up to that pressure...nor would he try, IMO.

 

[ericttspikes]

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

Hi Juggernaut,What specific incidents are you speaking of when you talk about the "negativity, mud-slinging, race-baiting, and general divisive methods" that are offensive to you?

J

Not sure what Juggernaut is referring to but I'd say, off the top of my head:1) Clinton's New Hampshire campaign co-chair trying to make an issue out of Obama's admitted drug experimentation as a youth and intimating that he may have been a drug dealer.

2) The Clinton campaign trying to paint Obama as a liar based on something that he wrote when he was in kindergarten.

3) Bill Clinton's attempt to marginalize Obama's campaign and paint him as the "black" candidate by comparing Obama's South Carolina win to Jesse Jackson's.

4) Repeated suggestions by supportor and Clinton finance committee member Ferraro that Obama owes his success to race, and Hillary's tepid response.

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

6) The "alleged" distribution of the picture of Obama in traditional African garb.

The email sent by Clinton staffers saying that Obama studied in a Madrassa was kind of offensive, at least to me. Some people may dig Clinton's tactics and don't think stuff like this is offensive. I have no idea what is offensive to most people, but this kind of crap really makes me hate politics in general and want to tune out. http://mediamatters.org/items/200701300007

 

[adonis]

Just found out that I was wrong for being hard on Hillary for her response when asked whether Obama was a muslim or not. I thought she just replied with something like "not as far as I know." but the exchange was much more to her credit than those few words out of context appear:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

She's claiming the Obama camp is calling her racist.

 

[aardball44]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

She's claiming the Obama camp is calling her racist.

On Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show last night, an Obama-supporting panelist did use the words "racist" and "racism" to describe Ferraro's statements. I'm not sure how closely connected he was to the Obama campaign, but he was an insider with a pro-Obama bias.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

She's claiming the Obama camp is calling her racist.

She is a racist.She can take that apology and shove it in her salty ******.

 

[adonis]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

She's claiming the Obama camp is calling her racist.

On Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show last night, an Obama-supporting panelist did use the words "racist" and "racism" to describe Ferraro's statements. I'm not sure how closely connected he was to the Obama campaign, but he was an insider with a pro-Obama bias.

Obama himself, which is where the campaign comments should start and end, did not say the comments were racist, and he actually refrained from doing so when asked a followup question on whether they truly were racist.He chose the word "wrongheaded" and chose to point out that he didn't feel that being named "Barack Obama" and being a black man would prove to be an advantage in the election, and if she thinks so she's simply wrong. But he doesn't want to throw around the word "racist" lightly. Those were his words.

 

[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

If Hillary had won the 11 states after Super Tuesday, there would have been no conversation except why Obama hasn't conceded. What's hard to understand about that?

Maybe because there is zero chance it would have ever happened?J

What the hell are you talking about? You really think Obama could have possibly stayed in at that point? Superdelegates would be jumping ship like Obama had the plague. Uncommitteds would have flocked to Clinton. Undecided voters would have lined up to vote for the inevitable Hillary. No way could he have stood up to that pressure...nor would he try, IMO.

If the roles had been reversed, Obama would have absolutely stayed in just like Clinton. Absolutley no question about it. And for good reason. As it's turned out, she still has a huge say in how this plays out. Nobody knows what will happen.Because of where she is today is exactly why she didn't throw in the towel back then.

The same works for Obama.

It would have been absolutely the wrong thing for her to quit back then after Super Tuesday. And it would have been wrong for Obama to quit had the roles been reversed.

Honestly, anyone that plays the "Obama would have 'done the right thing and been classy and stepped aside' had the roles been reversed" thing comes off at best as intellectually dishonest. This is big time. Clinton shouldn't have quit back then when she had a real chance at a huge comeback. Obama wouldn't quit either had the roles been reversed.

J

 

[adonis]

Clinton shouldn't have quit back then when she had a real chance at a huge comeback.

Do you believe Clinton has a real chance at a huge comeback?If so, how does the most likely scenario play out that you envision?

 

[Mark Davis]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

She's claiming the Obama camp is calling her racist.

She is a racist.She can take that apology and shove it in her salty ******.

What action has she taken to make you believe she is a racist? I don't know about the woman I'll admit, but from all the comments I've heard and from my recollection of her over 20 years ago this comment and one made about Jesse Jackson's campaign back in '88 are the only questionable things I've ever heard brought up about her. It appears her record was always one of being a supporter of civil rights. I just think to call her a racist you need to have more than a comment she made, which was only an opinion, that you don't agree with.

 

[shining path]

As much as I want Clinton to step aside, her staying in the race in and of itself isn't a horrible thing. It's the scorched earth tactics that she's using.

Though of course you could argue that lenghtening the race just makes those tactics inevitable, and the bad blood that'll make it hard to unite against the GOP.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

What the hell are you talking about? You really think Obama could have possibly stayed in at that point? Superdelegates would be jumping ship like Obama had the plague. Uncommitteds would have flocked to Clinton. Undecided voters would have lined up to vote for the inevitable Hillary. No way could he have stood up to that pressure...nor would he try, IMO.

If the roles had been reversed, Obama would have absolutely stayed in just like Clinton. Absolutley no question about it. And for good reason. As it's turned out, she still has a huge say in how this plays out. Nobody knows what will happen.Because of where she is today is exactly why she didn't throw in the towel back then.

The same works for Obama.

It would have been absolutely the wrong thing for her to quit back then after Super Tuesday. And it would have been wrong for Obama to quit had the roles been reversed.

Honestly, anyone that plays the "Obama would have 'done the right thing and been classy and stepped aside' had the roles been reversed" thing comes off at best as intellectually dishonest. This is big time. Clinton shouldn't have quit back then when she had a real chance at a huge comeback. Obama wouldn't quit either had the roles been reversed.

J

I don't think there's any way he could have stayed in the race. It's not just about doing the right thing for the party...I don't think it would even have been possible.

 

[shining path]

I'm sure this has been proposed, but does anyone think that Hillary knows she can't win, and is just extending the race to wreck Obama's chances, so she can run again in 2012?

 

[Jeremy]

DNC Email.

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

Thanks, I will email them one.---------------------------------------------------

Thank you for taking the time to read my email.

I'm a registered democrat that happens to support Obama. 6 months ago I was going to vote for whomever would win the primary for the DNC. And now I'm beginning to question myself if I would actually support Hillary if she got the nomination the way she has been campaigning. It is becoming more clear that Senator Clinton is putting herself before the party.

This was the first time I contributed money to any campaign, this is the first time I voted in the primary, and this is my first email to the DNC. My wife who does not follow politics is actually paying attention to the campaigns. If Hillary continues her way of campaigning it will make it hard and embarrassing to identify my self with the party.

Thanks you again,

Mr M0nkey

Edit: I did not yet send it, if you think I should change or add anything let me know, I will send it out after i get back from lunch.

You might want to put something in there in regards to her lack of sufficient response to Ferarra's comments being the tipping point against Hillary. Having the party associated with racism has to scare the crap out of them.

 

[Joe Bryant]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

 

[Mark Davis]

As much as I want Clinton to step aside, her staying in the race in and of itself isn't a horrible thing. It's the scorched earth tactics that she's using.Though of course you could argue that lenghtening the race just makes those tactics inevitable, and the bad blood that'll make it hard to unite against the GOP.

I think the DNC really needs to look at these proportionate delegate counts going forward. At the very least, they need to eliminate the whole "superdelegate" plan. In any tight race, having so many superdelegates in proportion to total delegates is going to make it very difficult for a candidate to win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. I don't know if winner take all primaries and caucuses is the answer, but it would settle a nominee much earlier and would have prevented a lot of the divisiveness that is now occurring.

 

[adonis]

I'm sure this has been proposed, but does anyone think that Hillary knows she can't win, and is just extending the race to wreck Obama's chances, so she can run again in 2012?

Not me. I think she truly believes she can win. And she's willing to frame the contest in whatever method best suits her to win it.Only the states she wins are significant, Michigan should be counted because she had an opponent and it was "not her", florida should be seated although no one campaigned there, super delegates should not be concerned about who the majority of the people voted for, caucuses are unfair and biased, etc.If you buy into those arguments, she has a case, and there are likely enough people who like hillary, who might buy into some of them, to convince a few people to go to her. So, she probably still sees a little light at the end of the tunnel, but as each state votes, that light gets dimmer.

 

[Joe Bryant]

What the hell are you talking about? You really think Obama could have possibly stayed in at that point? Superdelegates would be jumping ship like Obama had the plague. Uncommitteds would have flocked to Clinton. Undecided voters would have lined up to vote for the inevitable Hillary. No way could he have stood up to that pressure...nor would he try, IMO.

If the roles had been reversed, Obama would have absolutely stayed in just like Clinton. Absolutley no question about it. And for good reason. As it's turned out, she still has a huge say in how this plays out. Nobody knows what will happen.Because of where she is today is exactly why she didn't throw in the towel back then.

The same works for Obama.

It would have been absolutely the wrong thing for her to quit back then after Super Tuesday. And it would have been wrong for Obama to quit had the roles been reversed.

Honestly, anyone that plays the "Obama would have 'done the right thing and been classy and stepped aside' had the roles been reversed" thing comes off at best as intellectually dishonest. This is big time. Clinton shouldn't have quit back then when she had a real chance at a huge comeback. Obama wouldn't quit either had the roles been reversed.

J

I don't think there's any way he could have stayed in the race. It's not just about doing the right thing for the party...I don't think it would even have been possible.

I think we're talking about different things.I'm saying if the roles had been reversed (meaning Clinton had Obama's numbers and Obama had Clinton's numbers) he absolutely would have done exactly as she did after Super Tuesday.

J

 

[adonis]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."