*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (3 Viewers)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...In the end, I tihnk people like Maryland's Governor and Senator Mikulski are going to realize it would be political suicide - both in the 08 presidential race, and in their own subsequent statewide re-election bids - to thwart the will of the electorate that way.

Mikulski will stick with Hillary and no one will really care for obvious reasons. O'Malley and the rest of Maryland's elected super delegates don't have the same luxuries she will have here. And, they are already discussing this around the state house.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Go to his page, read. Come back if you still think he is "vague" There are a lot of things you can attack him for being, but this isn't one of them and I don't get why people keep using it.

Repeat a lie [or half truth] until the lie becomes common knowledge is on page 1 of the campaigning "dirty tricks" manual.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have to give it to Obama...buying the Superdelegates is "Out-Clinton-ing" the Clintons.

Obama Buys the Superdelegates

This really just exposes how bad the idea of superdelegates are. The money talked about in the article comes from Hilary's and Obama's PACs. This money was given to Democratic candidates over the course of 3 years to help other Dems win elections. John McCain does the same thing with his Straight Talk America PAC. The only difference is that all the Dems elected in the House of Reps are superdelegates, as are many other elected Dem officials. You could actually make the argument that Obama has done a better job of supporting Democrats than Hilary, and neither of them knew at the time that they would be facing this battle for superdelegates that we have today.

 

[Sweet J]

I have to give it to Obama...buying the Superdelegates is "Out-Clinton-ing" the Clintons.

Obama Buys the Superdelegates

This really just exposes how bad the idea of superdelegates are. The money talked about in the article comes from Hilary's and Obama's PACs. This money was given to Democratic candidates over the course of 3 years to help other Dems win elections. John McCain does the same thing with his Straight Talk America PAC. The only difference is that all the Dems elected in the House of Reps are superdelegates, as are many other elected Dem officials. You could actually make the argument that Obama has done a better job of supporting Democrats than Hilary, and neither of them knew at the time that they would be facing this battle for superdelegates that we have today.

Interesting. But also, couldn't they hire random superdelegates to be part of their campaign? Like Icles is a senior guy on Hillary's campaign, and theoretically he's getting paid a lot of money for his work. But he is also a Superdelegate.What's to stop one of them from hiring a 21 year old superdelegate to be a campaign "analyist" (thereby putting money directly into his pocket)? That would be legit under the rules, right? But it is also essentially buying the person off.

 

[timschochet]

I have to give it to Obama...buying the Superdelegates is "Out-Clinton-ing" the Clintons.

Obama Buys the Superdelegates

This really just exposes how bad the idea of superdelegates are. The money talked about in the article comes from Hilary's and Obama's PACs. This money was given to Democratic candidates over the course of 3 years to help other Dems win elections. John McCain does the same thing with his Straight Talk America PAC. The only difference is that all the Dems elected in the House of Reps are superdelegates, as are many other elected Dem officials. You could actually make the argument that Obama has done a better job of supporting Democrats than Hilary, and neither of them knew at the time that they would be facing this battle for superdelegates that we have today.

Interesting. But also, couldn't they hire random superdelegates to be part of their campaign? Like Icles is a senior guy on Hillary's campaign, and theoretically he's getting paid a lot of money for his work. But he is also a Superdelegate.What's to stop one of them from hiring a 21 year old superdelegate to be a campaign "analyist" (thereby putting money directly into his pocket)? That would be legit under the rules, right? But it is also essentially buying the person off.

As far as I'm concerned, why shouldn't they buy the votes of the superdelegates? They buy the votes of all the other delegates, anyway. Every major campaign promise by both Barack and Hillary amount to a bribe: free medical care, free jobs, free everything and somebody else pays. I know this has always been the Democratic playbook, but I have never seen it as blatant as this election. So why shouldn't they just bribe the superdelegates as well? Might as well be consistent.

 

[the moops]

I have to give it to Obama...buying the Superdelegates is "Out-Clinton-ing" the Clintons.

Obama Buys the Superdelegates

This really just exposes how bad the idea of superdelegates are. The money talked about in the article comes from Hilary's and Obama's PACs. This money was given to Democratic candidates over the course of 3 years to help other Dems win elections. John McCain does the same thing with his Straight Talk America PAC. The only difference is that all the Dems elected in the House of Reps are superdelegates, as are many other elected Dem officials. You could actually make the argument that Obama has done a better job of supporting Democrats than Hilary, and neither of them knew at the time that they would be facing this battle for superdelegates that we have today.

Interesting. But also, couldn't they hire random superdelegates to be part of their campaign? Like Icles is a senior guy on Hillary's campaign, and theoretically he's getting paid a lot of money for his work. But he is also a Superdelegate.What's to stop one of them from hiring a 21 year old superdelegate to be a campaign "analyist" (thereby putting money directly into his pocket)? That would be legit under the rules, right? But it is also essentially buying the person off.

As far as I'm concerned, why shouldn't they buy the votes of the superdelegates? They buy the votes of all the other delegates, anyway. Every major campaign promise by both Barack and Hillary amount to a bribe: free medical care, free jobs, free everything and somebody else pays. I know this has always been the Democratic playbook, but I have never seen it as blatant as this election. So why shouldn't they just bribe the superdelegates as well? Might as well be consistent.

Wow, you really have those dems pegged.

 

[timschochet]

I have to give it to Obama...buying the Superdelegates is "Out-Clinton-ing" the Clintons.

Obama Buys the Superdelegates

This really just exposes how bad the idea of superdelegates are. The money talked about in the article comes from Hilary's and Obama's PACs. This money was given to Democratic candidates over the course of 3 years to help other Dems win elections. John McCain does the same thing with his Straight Talk America PAC. The only difference is that all the Dems elected in the House of Reps are superdelegates, as are many other elected Dem officials. You could actually make the argument that Obama has done a better job of supporting Democrats than Hilary, and neither of them knew at the time that they would be facing this battle for superdelegates that we have today.

Interesting. But also, couldn't they hire random superdelegates to be part of their campaign? Like Icles is a senior guy on Hillary's campaign, and theoretically he's getting paid a lot of money for his work. But he is also a Superdelegate.What's to stop one of them from hiring a 21 year old superdelegate to be a campaign "analyist" (thereby putting money directly into his pocket)? That would be legit under the rules, right? But it is also essentially buying the person off.

As far as I'm concerned, why shouldn't they buy the votes of the superdelegates? They buy the votes of all the other delegates, anyway. Every major campaign promise by both Barack and Hillary amount to a bribe: free medical care, free jobs, free everything and somebody else pays. I know this has always been the Democratic playbook, but I have never seen it as blatant as this election. So why shouldn't they just bribe the superdelegates as well? Might as well be consistent.

Wow, you really have those dems pegged.

Thank you. Gotta call it as I see it.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Obama speaks about increasing taxes for the wealthy. I cannot find where he defines this term. Is wealthy earning 75k or more? 50k or more? Please help

 

[culdeus]

Got an email from the obama camp. They have me slotted to make a bunch of phone calls. My "goal" is 700. That's seven freaking hundred.

Not exactly what I had in mind. I hate getting random calls like that.

Plus the "training" is this weekend and I'm out of town.

I might be turning in my badge and gun.

 

[snitwitch]

Obama speaks about increasing taxes for the wealthy. I cannot find where he defines this term. Is wealthy earning 75k or more? 50k or more? Please help

200k or more, FBG metric.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Obama speaks about increasing taxes for the wealthy. I cannot find where he defines this term. Is wealthy earning 75k or more? 50k or more? Please help

200k or more, FBG metric.

Ohhh. Do you have a source for that?

 

[Clayton Gray]

I have to give it to Obama...buying the Superdelegates is "Out-Clinton-ing" the Clintons.

Obama Buys the Superdelegates

This really just exposes how bad the idea of superdelegates are. The money talked about in the article comes from Hilary's and Obama's PACs. This money was given to Democratic candidates over the course of 3 years to help other Dems win elections. John McCain does the same thing with his Straight Talk America PAC. The only difference is that all the Dems elected in the House of Reps are superdelegates, as are many other elected Dem officials. You could actually make the argument that Obama has done a better job of supporting Democrats than Hilary, and neither of them knew at the time that they would be facing this battle for superdelegates that we have today.

Interesting. But also, couldn't they hire random superdelegates to be part of their campaign? Like Icles is a senior guy on Hillary's campaign, and theoretically he's getting paid a lot of money for his work. But he is also a Superdelegate.What's to stop one of them from hiring a 21 year old superdelegate to be a campaign "analyist" (thereby putting money directly into his pocket)? That would be legit under the rules, right? But it is also essentially buying the person off.

As far as I'm concerned, why shouldn't they buy the votes of the superdelegates? They buy the votes of all the other delegates, anyway. Every major campaign promise by both Barack and Hillary amount to a bribe: free medical care, free jobs, free everything and somebody else pays. I know this has always been the Democratic playbook, but I have never seen it as blatant as this election. So why shouldn't they just bribe the superdelegates as well? Might as well be consistent.

Will you agree that the Republicans buy votes with cash (in the form of a tax break/rebate/etc)?

 

[urbanhack]

I have to give it to Obama...buying the Superdelegates is "Out-Clinton-ing" the Clintons.

Obama Buys the Superdelegates

It's also noted in the article that other primary contenders, Gov. Richardson as one, were recipients and, as a side note, the two front runners have donated to each others campaigns at times.This is a tracking from 2005 up to now and there was a major Congressional election in 2006.

Oh, and for perspective - $694,000 over three years averages out to $330,000/year spread out over a number of campaigns. And $195,000 over three years averages out to $65,000/year spread out over a number of campaigns.

Some of all that may have gone to 2006 races, no?

 

[HellToupee]

Got an email from the obama camp. They have me slotted to make a bunch of phone calls. My "goal" is 700. That's seven freaking hundred. Not exactly what I had in mind. I hate getting random calls like that. Plus the "training" is this weekend and I'm out of town. I might be turning in my badge and gun.

I did it for Mitt & its really not hard , kind of a party atmosphere but only you're making calls. Free food and a rousing speech as well.

 

[the moops]

Got an email from the obama camp. They have me slotted to make a bunch of phone calls. My "goal" is 700. That's seven freaking hundred. Not exactly what I had in mind. I hate getting random calls like that. Plus the "training" is this weekend and I'm out of town. I might be turning in my badge and gun.

I did it for Mitt & its really not hard , kind of a party atmosphere but only you're making calls. Free food and a rousing speech as well.

Those mormons sure know how to party.

 

[HellToupee]

Got an email from the obama camp. They have me slotted to make a bunch of phone calls. My "goal" is 700. That's seven freaking hundred. Not exactly what I had in mind. I hate getting random calls like that. Plus the "training" is this weekend and I'm out of town. I might be turning in my badge and gun.

I did it for Mitt & its really not hard , kind of a party atmosphere but only you're making calls. Free food and a rousing speech as well.

Those mormons sure know how to party.

Hey we had soda with caffeine

 

[Marc Levin]

The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.

Reliable or not, that is fan-freaking-tastic. If there is a poll showing him in the lead, then at the very least he must be within striking distance, which is remarkable this early in the game.Yes we can.

Especially considering the way she's been spending so much time in Texas, to the detriment of her Wisconsin efffort. What's up with Ohio, though? I still see huge Hillary margins there. She is basically the Huckabee of the Democratic party at this point, picking up votes from uneducated, white, rural voters. If you overlay a Virginia map of the counties that Hillary won and that Huckabee won, they're virtually the same.

Geez, most of my friends unfortunately support Hillary and most are professional, educated white women. It could be the "feminist" part of them supporting her -- I don't know. With one friend, I got into a detailed discussion and she is supporting Clinton because she thinks Clinton has more foreign policy experience (??), and remembers the 90's and the booming economy. She just wants Bill back into the White House even if he's the first lady. Clinton has the brand name in Ohio and that's why she's got the numbers here.IMO, I don't know why feminist would not support Obama because of Michelle and her juggling work and family.

ETA: Columbus is far from rural and Hillary has a strong presence here.

Hilary is gonna clean up in Ohio. Obama should count it as gone, and he should focus his efforts in Penn and on making Tx a tight race. He can definitely win Texas by appealing to latinos and independent voters.Labor is gonna go for Hilary.

It is bringing in new voters (something Kerry counted on in '04) that will pull Obama into a lead in Tx and Penn.

 

[Marc Levin]

Obama likely to get big union endorsement today with 69,000 members in Ohio and another 26,000 in Texas and also 19,000 members in Wisconsin

Obama poised to get big union nod

Barack Obama is expected to get a key union endorsement this afternoon, several news organizations are reporting.



The support of the 1.8-million-member Service Employees International Union could boost his efforts to overtake Hillary Clinton in Ohio and Texas, which vote March 4, and Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22. Those three states are looking more and more as the last stand for Clinton, who trails Obama in delegates, popular votes, states won, and campaign cash.

Clinton is moving to a more economic populist message as she appeals to blue-collar workers, so the union endorsements could help Obama rebut that argument.

One SEIU official, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, told the Associated Press that Obama was "99 percent" likely to get the endorsement. John Edwards, before he suspended his campaign, coveted the national SEIU endorsement, but never received it. State SEIU chapters, however, became active in key states, including Iowa and New Hampshire.

Thursday, Obama won the support of the United Food and Commercial Workers, a politically active union with significant membership in the upcoming Democratic battlegrounds.

According to the Associated Press, the 1.3-million member UFCW has 69,000 members in Ohio and another 26,000 in Texas and also has 19,000 members in Wisconsin, which holds a primary Tuesday. The union is made up of supermarket workers and meatpackers, with 40 percent of the membership under 30 years old. Obama has been doing especially well among young voters.

Wow - forget what I posted - he should battle hard for the unions if he is getting those kind of endorsements. Labor is Clinton's absolute last bastion of support. "Educated women" aint winning her the primary.

 

[HellToupee]

The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.

Reliable or not, that is fan-freaking-tastic. If there is a poll showing him in the lead, then at the very least he must be within striking distance, which is remarkable this early in the game.Yes we can.

Especially considering the way she's been spending so much time in Texas, to the detriment of her Wisconsin efffort. What's up with Ohio, though? I still see huge Hillary margins there. She is basically the Huckabee of the Democratic party at this point, picking up votes from uneducated, white, rural voters. If you overlay a Virginia map of the counties that Hillary won and that Huckabee won, they're virtually the same.

Geez, most of my friends unfortunately support Hillary and most are professional, educated white women. It could be the "feminist" part of them supporting her -- I don't know. With one friend, I got into a detailed discussion and she is supporting Clinton because she thinks Clinton has more foreign policy experience (??), and remembers the 90's and the booming economy. She just wants Bill back into the White House even if he's the first lady. Clinton has the brand name in Ohio and that's why she's got the numbers here.IMO, I don't know why feminist would not support Obama because of Michelle and her juggling work and family.

ETA: Columbus is far from rural and Hillary has a strong presence here.

He can definitely win Texas by appealing to latinos and independent voters.

He lost CA because Hillary cleaned up on the latino vote.Don't know why latinos went for her overwhelmingly but they did.

 

[Marc Levin]

I have to give it to Obama...buying the Superdelegates is "Out-Clinton-ing" the Clintons.

Obama Buys the Superdelegates

Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.

"While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.

Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.

 

[adonis]

I have to give it to Obama...buying the Superdelegates is "Out-Clinton-ing" the Clintons.

Obama Buys the Superdelegates

This really just exposes how bad the idea of superdelegates are. The money talked about in the article comes from Hilary's and Obama's PACs. This money was given to Democratic candidates over the course of 3 years to help other Dems win elections. John McCain does the same thing with his Straight Talk America PAC. The only difference is that all the Dems elected in the House of Reps are superdelegates, as are many other elected Dem officials. You could actually make the argument that Obama has done a better job of supporting Democrats than Hilary, and neither of them knew at the time that they would be facing this battle for superdelegates that we have today.

Interesting. But also, couldn't they hire random superdelegates to be part of their campaign? Like Icles is a senior guy on Hillary's campaign, and theoretically he's getting paid a lot of money for his work. But he is also a Superdelegate.What's to stop one of them from hiring a 21 year old superdelegate to be a campaign "analyist" (thereby putting money directly into his pocket)? That would be legit under the rules, right? But it is also essentially buying the person off.

As far as I'm concerned, why shouldn't they buy the votes of the superdelegates? They buy the votes of all the other delegates, anyway. Every major campaign promise by both Barack and Hillary amount to a bribe: free medical care, free jobs, free everything and somebody else pays. I know this has always been the Democratic playbook, but I have never seen it as blatant as this election. So why shouldn't they just bribe the superdelegates as well? Might as well be consistent.

 

[Joe Kidd]

The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.

Reliable or not, that is fan-freaking-tastic. If there is a poll showing him in the lead, then at the very least he must be within striking distance, which is remarkable this early in the game.Yes we can.

Especially considering the way she's been spending so much time in Texas, to the detriment of her Wisconsin efffort. What's up with Ohio, though? I still see huge Hillary margins there. She is basically the Huckabee of the Democratic party at this point, picking up votes from uneducated, white, rural voters. If you overlay a Virginia map of the counties that Hillary won and that Huckabee won, they're virtually the same.

Geez, most of my friends unfortunately support Hillary and most are professional, educated white women. It could be the "feminist" part of them supporting her -- I don't know. With one friend, I got into a detailed discussion and she is supporting Clinton because she thinks Clinton has more foreign policy experience (??), and remembers the 90's and the booming economy. She just wants Bill back into the White House even if he's the first lady. Clinton has the brand name in Ohio and that's why she's got the numbers here.IMO, I don't know why feminist would not support Obama because of Michelle and her juggling work and family.

ETA: Columbus is far from rural and Hillary has a strong presence here.

He can definitely win Texas by appealing to latinos and independent voters.

He lost CA because Hillary cleaned up on the latino vote.Don't know why latinos went for her overwhelmingly but they did.

I think most of those came from the early voting in Cali. As I recall it was much closer on the actual day of the primary.

 

[Marc Levin]

The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.

Reliable or not, that is fan-freaking-tastic. If there is a poll showing him in the lead, then at the very least he must be within striking distance, which is remarkable this early in the game.Yes we can.

Especially considering the way she's been spending so much time in Texas, to the detriment of her Wisconsin efffort. What's up with Ohio, though? I still see huge Hillary margins there. She is basically the Huckabee of the Democratic party at this point, picking up votes from uneducated, white, rural voters. If you overlay a Virginia map of the counties that Hillary won and that Huckabee won, they're virtually the same.

Geez, most of my friends unfortunately support Hillary and most are professional, educated white women. It could be the "feminist" part of them supporting her -- I don't know. With one friend, I got into a detailed discussion and she is supporting Clinton because she thinks Clinton has more foreign policy experience (??), and remembers the 90's and the booming economy. She just wants Bill back into the White House even if he's the first lady. Clinton has the brand name in Ohio and that's why she's got the numbers here.IMO, I don't know why feminist would not support Obama because of Michelle and her juggling work and family.

ETA: Columbus is far from rural and Hillary has a strong presence here.

He can definitely win Texas by appealing to latinos and independent voters.

He lost CA because Hillary cleaned up on the latino vote.Don't know why latinos went for her overwhelmingly but they did.

I know, I don't understand either. But the reason I posted what I did is the bolded part above. Hilary is camped in Tx, Obama hasn't even really started campaigning there, and there is only 2 points separating them.

 

[Statorama]

I'll leave my own spin out of it, I'm just posing it as a question to Obama supporters.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Obama is in bed with the Unions?

 

[Statorama]

I have to give it to Obama...buying the Superdelegates is "Out-Clinton-ing" the Clintons.

Obama Buys the Superdelegates

Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.

"While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.

Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.

Well....exactly. Obama out-clinton-ed the Clintons. You know, the $694,000 to $195,000 part.

 

[Marc Levin]

I'll leave my own spin out of it, I'm just posing it as a question to Obama supporters.Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Obama is in bed with the Unions?

Good.The Dem party's relationship with the unions is a cornerstone of winning in Penn, Ohio, Michigan and to a lesser extent WI, Ill, In and some southern states.

 

[Marc Levin]

Well....exactly. Obama out-clinton-ed the Clintons. You know, the $694,000 to $195,000 part.

Then why is his SD count less than Hilary's?

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

I'll leave my own spin out of it, I'm just posing it as a question to Obama supporters.Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Obama is in bed with the Unions?

Own opinions aside, how is he "in bed" with them? granted they have announced their support, but is their some sort of donation or kickback that we're not aware of?No sarcasm, just a legit question...ETA: I may have misunderstood your definition of "in bed". I take that to mean he has pre-arranged some sort of deal in exchange for their support

 

[adonis]

I'll leave my own spin out of it, I'm just posing it as a question to Obama supporters.Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Obama is in bed with the Unions?

To balance out the past 8 years or more, I think it's great that we're going to have a president who cares about the working class people instead of the rich, and focuses his energy on improving the lives of the poor and middle class."In bed with the unions" is a bit much, but it's great that he has their support.

 

[Statorama]

I'll leave my own spin out of it, I'm just posing it as a question to Obama supporters.Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Obama is in bed with the Unions?

Own opinions aside, how is he "in bed" with them? granted they have announced their support, but is their some sort of donation or kickback that we're not aware of?No sarcasm, just a legit question...ETA: I may have misunderstood your definition of "in bed". I take that to mean he has pre-arranged some sort of deal in exchange for their support

I didn't mean that at all. It's just that Unions are very calculated about whom they promote as a candidate. I doubt they would have thrown their hat Obama's way if they didn't feel it would help them in the end.

 

[Statorama]

Well....exactly. Obama out-clinton-ed the Clintons. You know, the $694,000 to $195,000 part.

Then why is his SD count less than Hilary's?

Stole 81 away from her that he might normally not have.I still say that in the end, he will end up with more superdelegates. There are plenty left "undecided" at this point.

 

[HellToupee]

I'll leave my own spin out of it, I'm just posing it as a question to Obama supporters.Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Obama is in bed with the Unions?

To balance out the past 8 years or more, I think it's great that we're going to have a president who cares about the working class people instead of the rich, and focuses his energy on improving the lives of the poor and middle class.

I'm curious as to where the lines are drawn $$$wise between the "working class & the rich"

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

I'll leave my own spin out of it, I'm just posing it as a question to Obama supporters.Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Obama is in bed with the Unions?

Own opinions aside, how is he "in bed" with them? granted they have announced their support, but is their some sort of donation or kickback that we're not aware of?No sarcasm, just a legit question...ETA: I may have misunderstood your definition of "in bed". I take that to mean he has pre-arranged some sort of deal in exchange for their support

I didn't mean that at all. It's just that Unions are very calculated about whom they promote as a candidate. I doubt they would have thrown their hat Obama's way if they didn't feel it would help them in the end.

Ah, ok. I have no doubt that they feel going with Obama will help them out in the end. I feel like that is human nature and also the whole purpose of the unions...to ensure the advancement of its member's cause(s).I hope that they also understand that this doesnt necessarily mean Obama will bow to their every whim. At the same time, i do trust Obama in that he makes decisions he truly feels are best and not based on who supported him and who gave $$$.As an Obama supporter, i obviously love the support from both a number standpoint, and also sue to the "blue collar" nature of their members

 

[Statorama]

I'll leave my own spin out of it, I'm just posing it as a question to Obama supporters.Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Obama is in bed with the Unions?

Own opinions aside, how is he "in bed" with them? granted they have announced their support, but is their some sort of donation or kickback that we're not aware of?No sarcasm, just a legit question...ETA: I may have misunderstood your definition of "in bed". I take that to mean he has pre-arranged some sort of deal in exchange for their support

I didn't mean that at all. It's just that Unions are very calculated about whom they promote as a candidate. I doubt they would have thrown their hat Obama's way if they didn't feel it would help them in the end.

Ah, ok. I have no doubt that they feel going with Obama will help them out in the end. I feel like that is human nature and also the whole purpose of the unions...to ensure the advancement of its member's cause(s).I hope that they also understand that this doesnt necessarily mean Obama will bow to their every whim. At the same time, i do trust Obama in that he makes decisions he truly feels are best and not based on who supported him and who gave $$$.As an Obama supporter, i obviously love the support from both a number standpoint, and also sue to the "blue collar" nature of their members

Thanks, I appreciate your reply.

 

[adonis]

I'll leave my own spin out of it, I'm just posing it as a question to Obama supporters.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Obama is in bed with the Unions?

To balance out the past 8 years or more, I think it's great that we're going to have a president who cares about the working class people instead of the rich, and focuses his energy on improving the lives of the poor and middle class.

I'm curious as to where the lines are drawn $$$wise between the "working class & the rich"

Maybe this table will help:Summary of William Thompson & Joseph Hickey Model, 2005:

Upper class - 1% - $500,000+

Upper middle class - 15% - $80,000ish up to a over $100,000

Lower middle class - 32% - $35,000-$75,000

Working class - 32% - $16,000 - $30,000

Lower Class - 14-20% - < $16,000ish

The problem with defining dollar figures is that dollar figures don't define your class really. Classes are fairly nebulous terms.

Although income thresholds cannot be determined since social classes lack distinct boundaries and tend to overlap, sociologists and economist have put forth certain income figures they find indicative of middle class households. Sociologist Leonard Beeghley identifies a husband making roughly $57,000 and a wife making roughly $40,000 with a household income of roughly $97,000 as a typical middle class family.[29] Sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey identify household incomes between $35,000 and $75,000 as typical for the lower middle and $100,000 or more as typical for the upper middle class.[5] Though it needs to be noted that household income distribution neither relfects standard of living nor class status with complete accuracy.[2]

 

[HellToupee]

Upper middle class - 15% - $80,000ish up to a over $100,000

hard to own a home up here and be considered upper middle at around 100k

 

[adonis]

Upper middle class - 15% - $80,000ish up to a over $100,000

hard to own a home up here and be considered upper middle at around 100k

Pretty easy in some places in the south. That's why numerical class distinctions are rather meaningless. It's a fluid designation that changes according to many things.

 

[HellToupee]

Upper middle class - 15% - $80,000ish up to a over $100,000

hard to own a home up here and be considered upper middle at around 100k

Pretty easy in some places in the south. That's why numerical class distinctions are rather meaningless. It's a fluid designation that changes according to many things.

I'll be honest , there are things I like about Obama but I'm scared to death of oppressive taxes

 

[Statorama]

I'll leave my own spin out of it, I'm just posing it as a question to Obama supporters.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Obama is in bed with the Unions?

To balance out the past 8 years or more, I think it's great that we're going to have a president who cares about the working class people instead of the rich, and focuses his energy on improving the lives of the poor and middle class.

I'm curious as to where the lines are drawn $$$wise between the "working class & the rich"

Maybe this table will help:Summary of William Thompson & Joseph Hickey Model, 2005:

Upper class - 1% - $500,000+

Upper middle class - 15% - $80,000ish up to a over $100,000

Lower middle class - 32% - $35,000-$75,000

Working class - 32% - $16,000 - $30,000

Lower Class - 14-20% - < $16,000ish

The problem with defining dollar figures is that dollar figures don't define your class really. Classes are fairly nebulous terms.

Although income thresholds cannot be determined since social classes lack distinct boundaries and tend to overlap, sociologists and economist have put forth certain income figures they find indicative of middle class households. Sociologist Leonard Beeghley identifies a husband making roughly $57,000 and a wife making roughly $40,000 with a household income of roughly $97,000 as a typical middle class family.[29] Sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey identify household incomes between $35,000 and $75,000 as typical for the lower middle and $100,000 or more as typical for the upper middle class.[5] Though it needs to be noted that household income distribution neither relfects standard of living nor class status with complete accuracy.[2]

Crap, I'm right in the wheelhouse of the people he's targeting (UMC)The rest of you 84% that I'll be footing the bill for....you're welcome.

 

[adonis]

I'll leave my own spin out of it, I'm just posing it as a question to Obama supporters.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Obama is in bed with the Unions?

To balance out the past 8 years or more, I think it's great that we're going to have a president who cares about the working class people instead of the rich, and focuses his energy on improving the lives of the poor and middle class.

I'm curious as to where the lines are drawn $$$wise between the "working class & the rich"

Maybe this table will help:Summary of William Thompson & Joseph Hickey Model, 2005:

Upper class - 1% - $500,000+

Upper middle class - 15% - $80,000ish up to a over $100,000

Lower middle class - 32% - $35,000-$75,000

Working class - 32% - $16,000 - $30,000

Lower Class - 14-20% - < $16,000ish

The problem with defining dollar figures is that dollar figures don't define your class really. Classes are fairly nebulous terms.

Although income thresholds cannot be determined since social classes lack distinct boundaries and tend to overlap, sociologists and economist have put forth certain income figures they find indicative of middle class households. Sociologist Leonard Beeghley identifies a husband making roughly $57,000 and a wife making roughly $40,000 with a household income of roughly $97,000 as a typical middle class family.[29] Sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey identify household incomes between $35,000 and $75,000 as typical for the lower middle and $100,000 or more as typical for the upper middle class.[5] Though it needs to be noted that household income distribution neither relfects standard of living nor class status with complete accuracy.[2]

Crap, I'm right in the wheelhouse of the people he's targeting (UMC)The rest of you 84% that I'll be footing the bill for....you're welcome.

You can thank all the little people who made the upper classes wealth possible by helping them afford health care

 

[adonis]

Upper middle class - 15% - $80,000ish up to a over $100,000

hard to own a home up here and be considered upper middle at around 100k

Pretty easy in some places in the south. That's why numerical class distinctions are rather meaningless. It's a fluid designation that changes according to many things.

I'll be honest , there are things I like about Obama but I'm scared to death of oppressive taxes

Does "oppressive taxes" mean "any amount of taxes more than I'm currently paying"?Our country currently has a huge debt, failing many people in education, not investing in scientific research...basically, we're borrowing money from ourselves and throwing it out the window. What Obama wants to do is to buckle down and actually focus our spending on things that will put us in good shape for the future. Reforming education, rebuilding infrastructure, driving down costs of health care, etc.I realize that for some people it might mean more taxes, but in addition to thinking of them as taxes, it might help to consider them under an Obama presidency as partly an investment in the future of America.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I'll leave my own spin out of it, I'm just posing it as a question to Obama supporters.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Obama is in bed with the Unions?

To balance out the past 8 years or more, I think it's great that we're going to have a president who cares about the working class people instead of the rich, and focuses his energy on improving the lives of the poor and middle class.

I'm curious as to where the lines are drawn $$$wise between the "working class & the rich"

Maybe this table will help:Summary of William Thompson & Joseph Hickey Model, 2005:

Upper class - 1% - $500,000+

Upper middle class - 15% - $80,000ish up to a over $100,000

Lower middle class - 32% - $35,000-$75,000

Working class - 32% - $16,000 - $30,000

Lower Class - 14-20% - < $16,000ish

The problem with defining dollar figures is that dollar figures don't define your class really. Classes are fairly nebulous terms.

Although income thresholds cannot be determined since social classes lack distinct boundaries and tend to overlap, sociologists and economist have put forth certain income figures they find indicative of middle class households. Sociologist Leonard Beeghley identifies a husband making roughly $57,000 and a wife making roughly $40,000 with a household income of roughly $97,000 as a typical middle class family.[29] Sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey identify household incomes between $35,000 and $75,000 as typical for the lower middle and $100,000 or more as typical for the upper middle class.[5] Though it needs to be noted that household income distribution neither relfects standard of living nor class status with complete accuracy.[2]

Crap, I'm right in the wheelhouse of the people he's targeting (UMC)The rest of you 84% that I'll be footing the bill for....you're welcome.

I don't think that's Obama's definition, but I'd like to see it. I think that's just some sociologists' definitions.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Does "oppressive taxes" mean "any amount of taxes more than I'm currently paying"?Our country currently has a huge debt, failing many people in education, not investing in scientific research...basically, we're borrowing money from ourselves and throwing it out the window. What Obama wants to do is to buckle down and actually focus our spending on things that will put us in good shape for the future. Reforming education, rebuilding infrastructure, driving down costs of health care, etc.I realize that for some people it might mean more taxes, but in addition to thinking of them as taxes, it might help to consider them under an Obama presidency as partly an investment in the future of America.

Philosophically, I'm not opposed to this attitude. However, the Fed govt as I understand it is not supposed to pick up all of those jobs. Can you explain to me why, using The Constitution or whatever SCOTUS rulings you wish the Fed govt is obliged or even allowed to pay for all of these things liberals in general want them to pay for? Maybe I can be a full blown liberal if this is the case, I just don't understand that part though and I cannot get past it to embrace the general liberal ideas.

 

[HellToupee]

Upper middle class - 15% - $80,000ish up to a over $100,000

hard to own a home up here and be considered upper middle at around 100k

Pretty easy in some places in the south. That's why numerical class distinctions are rather meaningless. It's a fluid designation that changes according to many things.

I'll be honest , there are things I like about Obama but I'm scared to death of oppressive taxes

Does "oppressive taxes" mean "any amount of taxes more than I'm currently paying"?Our country currently has a huge debt, failing many people in education, not investing in scientific research...basically, we're borrowing money from ourselves and throwing it out the window. What Obama wants to do is to buckle down and actually focus our spending on things that will put us in good shape for the future. Reforming education, rebuilding infrastructure, driving down costs of health care, etc.I realize that for some people it might mean more taxes, but in addition to thinking of them as taxes, it might help to consider them under an Obama presidency as partly an investment in the future of America.

doesn't sound so good for me with a mortgage , 1 college tuition, 1 hs tuition & 1 grammar school tuition

 

[Marc Levin]

Does "oppressive taxes" mean "any amount of taxes more than I'm currently paying"?Our country currently has a huge debt, failing many people in education, not investing in scientific research...basically, we're borrowing money from ourselves and throwing it out the window. What Obama wants to do is to buckle down and actually focus our spending on things that will put us in good shape for the future. Reforming education, rebuilding infrastructure, driving down costs of health care, etc.I realize that for some people it might mean more taxes, but in addition to thinking of them as taxes, it might help to consider them under an Obama presidency as partly an investment in the future of America.

Philosophically, I'm not opposed to this attitude. However, the Fed govt as I understand it is not supposed to pick up all of those jobs. Can you explain to me why, using The Constitution or whatever SCOTUS rulings you wish the Fed govt is obliged or even allowed to pay for all of these things liberals in general want them to pay for? Maybe I can be a full blown liberal if this is the case, I just don't understand that part though and I cannot get past it to embrace the general liberal ideas.

Congress' power to tax and levy for the welfare of the people down?Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Does "oppressive taxes" mean "any amount of taxes more than I'm currently paying"?Our country currently has a huge debt, failing many people in education, not investing in scientific research...basically, we're borrowing money from ourselves and throwing it out the window. What Obama wants to do is to buckle down and actually focus our spending on things that will put us in good shape for the future. Reforming education, rebuilding infrastructure, driving down costs of health care, etc.I realize that for some people it might mean more taxes, but in addition to thinking of them as taxes, it might help to consider them under an Obama presidency as partly an investment in the future of America.

Philosophically, I'm not opposed to this attitude. However, the Fed govt as I understand it is not supposed to pick up all of those jobs. Can you explain to me why, using The Constitution or whatever SCOTUS rulings you wish the Fed govt is obliged or even allowed to pay for all of these things liberals in general want them to pay for? Maybe I can be a full blown liberal if this is the case, I just don't understand that part though and I cannot get past it to embrace the general liberal ideas.

Congress' power to tax and levy for the welfare of the people down?Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.

Don't be condescending Levin. So you are saying "provide for the general welfare" means the govt can spend the money on anything they wish? I'm sorry, I have a hard time understanding the justification of that.

 

[Marc Levin]

Does "oppressive taxes" mean "any amount of taxes more than I'm currently paying"?Our country currently has a huge debt, failing many people in education, not investing in scientific research...basically, we're borrowing money from ourselves and throwing it out the window. What Obama wants to do is to buckle down and actually focus our spending on things that will put us in good shape for the future. Reforming education, rebuilding infrastructure, driving down costs of health care, etc.I realize that for some people it might mean more taxes, but in addition to thinking of them as taxes, it might help to consider them under an Obama presidency as partly an investment in the future of America.

Philosophically, I'm not opposed to this attitude. However, the Fed govt as I understand it is not supposed to pick up all of those jobs. Can you explain to me why, using The Constitution or whatever SCOTUS rulings you wish the Fed govt is obliged or even allowed to pay for all of these things liberals in general want them to pay for? Maybe I can be a full blown liberal if this is the case, I just don't understand that part though and I cannot get past it to embrace the general liberal ideas.

Congress' power to tax and levy for the welfare of the people down?Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.

Don't be condescending Levin. So you are saying "provide for the general welfare" means the govt can spend the money on anything they wish? I'm sorry, I have a hard time understanding the justification of that.

Yes - that is EXACTLY what it means.

 

[Marc Levin]

BTW, the Commerce Clause can be interpreted to allow Congress the power to nationalize health care.

 

[MrPhoenix]

BTW, the Commerce Clause can be interpreted to allow Congress the power to nationalize health care.

Lord help us.

 

[Marc Levin]

BTW, the Commerce Clause can be interpreted to allow Congress the power to nationalize health care.

Lord help us.

It gave them the power to punish drug offenders despite state regulation in the area, it can be perverted to allow the feds to regulate just about any industry