Poor Lee, whining about the lifestyle of a self made millionaire.

Go vote for McCain, who has real issues regarding wealth (not his own).

No, I don’t think it’s at all a ‘pattern’ since I’ve witnessed far too much of the exact opposite from Obama. More than any other politician in recent history, Obama has been overwhelmingly supportive of women...the ones he knows, and the ones he doesn’t.

I think more of a ‘pattern’ is with the Wonkette, coming up with the film clips/sound bytes.

Bah, i wasn’t trying to make a point...i was only pointing out how stupid the WV point is.  And so many other points just like it.

But the fact stands, it seems that if a Dem can’t win Minnesota then they can’t win the WH...at least historically.

Hey, maybe Clinton would have won MN if people were willing to go out of their way for her.  Oh, wait, that’s right...they’re too busy working 17 jobs and drinking beer and duck hunting to be bothered with going out to fight for the candidate who’s a fighter for them…

P.S. You Clintonistas fall for it every time; you’ll bite unbaited hooks...too easy, but still fun.

Honestly, you are going to spam a vague, rhetorical personal attack on Obama and Edwards, which makes unsubstantiated claims of which lack any validity whatsoever? Are you serious?

Last time I checked, a family of four needs a good 200 a week for food these days. That is, of course, unless you only eat foodstuffs from Hostess and Frito-Lay.

You lack touch with the American people, Lee.

Cyrena:

Thank you for your measured post, and informative comments.  I appreciate both, and accept your assessment in toto.

Still, I can’t help thinking that the Democratic Party’s self-destructive behavior over the past couple of decades has caused it more problems than needed be: e.g., switching from a winner-take-all primary system to a proportioned system - which seriously complicated matters, and necessitated the highly UNdemocratic superdelegate system in the first-place - to allowing “party rules” to disenfranchise the primary voters in two states.  And there is no question that it is these two factors that are responsible for making Obama the front-runner over Hillary.  And it is not just Hillary: this system could (and probably will) create the same confusion in the future for other candidates.

In this regard, I thought the following article was apropos:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillar y/index.html?source=rss

Peace.

Edwards is a hypocrite ... does he actually expect us to believe his commitment to poverty, when in reality he flaunts his huge multi-kazillion dollar compound
(house) directly across the street from poor people ... not to mention his $400 hair cuts, which could feed a family of four for four weeks! Then he waits till Obama is way in the lead, before endorsing him. What weak character ... or, rather lack of character. I doubt his endorsement has any value ... and, anybody who values his endorsement, doesn’t have any values.

^ cluster fuck.  Hilary is the anti-christ, I swear.  Never have so many been influenced by so few that will affect so many.  We’re screwed and there is no hope!  God save the earth!  Fuck everything else!

MN is a caucus state and you cannot make many, if any, predictions about the General election from a Democratic caucus. Just consider the following:

According to the NYT 214,066 TOTAL Democrats voted in the MN caucus. (link below)

According to the MN Secretary of State there are 3,091,748 total registered voters in MN. (link below)

The percentage of those voting in the primary caucus is less than one-tenth of one percent. Shows you the limitations of a caucus wins Vs primary win.

So your use of MN to try and make your point is vapid.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/result s/states/MN.html

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=531

Wonkette has a film clip today of Obama touring an auto manufacturing plant and refusing a female reporter’s question as to what he would do to improve things for the American auto workers.  He called her “sweetie” and showed complete disdain for her and the question.  He comes accross as arrogant.  Is this a pattern for him?

I can’t wait for November!

All the “real” Democrats are going to go out and vote for McCain.  All the “real” Republicans are going to go out and vote for someone other than McCain.  Who knows who the fundamentalist Right will vote for.  And the ideological “progressives” might just break for Nader.

And if all goes well, no one will collect the requisite number of electoral college votes...then, after G.W. decides to stick around a while longer, we can raise this finger pointing game to a higher level.

BTW (and i’m not a Democrat), all of you “real” Democrats who plan to vote for McCain are only proving why the Democratic Party sucks as bad as it does.  The “herding cats” metaphor doesn’t go far enough...maybe herding three legged, retarded cats who are blind in one eye and deaf too.  (oh, i forgot mangy...)

What about Minnesota?  No Democratic candidate has won the presidency without winning Minnesota since 1912...that would make MN more important than WV, right? 

How’d Clinton do in MN?  If she can’t win MN then she doesn’t have a chance in the GE.

How stupid does the above sound, Maani?  Pretty fucking stupid, no?  Does it sound any less stupid than the WV talking point?

Because “superdelegate” is a euphemism for American politician of the Democratic variety.  The leotards and capes are purely for show.  These folks have no spine.  They’re sitting in their offices licking their finger and holding it up in the air.

If they were truly leaders, this issue would be small potatoes...and barely worth their time.  If they were real leaders, they’d be standing up for civil rights in America and the like.

They aren’t leaders, they’re just politicians.  And the only people who confuse the two terms are politicians.

You can’t use the electoral college argument because it doesn’t make any sense (and you’ve said the same thing before).  You’re assuming that Obama wouldn’t/couldn’t win states like NY and CA.

If the Dems had winner take all...ok, well, that’s fine, except that they don’t.  So what does that matter?

If Hitler had launched Barbarossa three weeks earlier and hadn’t spent time dithering around with mopping up operations in Ukraine, then he probably would have conquered Russia and damned near ruled the world.  But he didn’t...see my point?

In all honesty Dr. Know it all, (and not because I claim to have a crystal ball or anything) but I don’t believe that McSame apparently has a chance.

I believe that the repugs will obviously try to play it off like he does (have a chance) but my own thoughts have been that the repugs don’t have much of a chance even at Thursday night bingo at this point.

So, IF he has a chance at all, it would only be if the democratic voters of America give it to him out of spite. Some of that will happen, as you can see based on a few of the comments on this thread. In other words, there are some who will vote, not FOR McCain, (in the proper context of it) but AGAINST Barack Obama.

But, we can’t really blame that on the candidates. We have to blame that on the party members. HOWEVER, they are negliable in this count, because they are the ones that have been around a long time, and the party has added enough new blood, untainted by these ideological biases, to far outnumber the old crowd who either hate black folks, or hate men.

It’s an odd thing that we’re seeing this time around, that’s never really had a way to surface before now. We already knew that there would be people who would not vote for HRC, JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN. And of course we’ve ALWAYS known that there are die hard racists that wouldn’t vote for Obama, just because he’s black. BUT, what a lot of us don’t often consider, is that there are a whole bunch of WOMEN, who won’t vote for Obama because they don’t particulary like ANY men, and now that they’ve finally had at least a chance to support a woman, would be perfectly willing to support the other party’s MAN, before they support Obama.

As far as they’re concerned, this was SUPPOSED to be Hillary’s time, and THEIR time, (as women) to get back at all of those men they’ve hated for so long, and if it falls apart...then LOOK OUT. Hell hath no fury like a woman pissed off that her woman didn’t get the prize.

I’m just saying. Even I stay out of their way. And I’m a woman! But then, I’ve been ‘liberated’ all of my life. I didn’t need to wait on Hillary (or any other woman) to come along and liberate me, or ‘even any scores’.

Just my 2 cents.

Well Cathy, you must just be waking up, because the deal is that Barack Obama HAS committed to fighting poverty, and this isn’t the first time that he and Edwards have hooked-up to accomplish exactly that. It’s been an ongoing theme for both of them for at least a year, back when Edwards was still in the race.

BUT, something tells me that like SO MANY OTHERS, you probably weren’t paying any attention to Barack Obama back then. I mean, who thought some unknown jr Senator black guy could ever be noticed? I mean, didn’t everyone just ASSUME that Hillary would be the winner? SHE did.

So now, we’ve got a whole bunch of pissed off white people mostly man hating white women)who are just really annoyed that they didn’t notice.

But, just out of curiosity, can you give us a clue as to why he, and other ‘good old boys in his network NEED TO KNOW, that there is a whole lot of anger toward Obama in the Democratic Party? I really am curious about where it might be coming from, (this anger) and even more curious about the basis of it. (this whole lot of anger that is).

I’m curious because Obama is obvious NOT of any ‘good old boys network’ (a really simple search would indicate that). So, who exactly has all of this anger, and why?

It’s hard to discern that based on the support that he’s received from the overall constituency of the Democratic party, in the MAJORITY of the states in the USA, so we’ll need some specifics to help us figure out who all of these angry people are. I guess they didn’t participate in the primary contests.

That’s even MORE amazing, because the numbers of people participating in the democratic process of this election are PHENOMENAL. Like, nothing we’ve seen for literally decades. In other words, whereas the ‘good old boys’ and mostly the ‘elite’ have decided who our presidents should be in the past 3 or 4 decades, (in other words, a ‘minority’ of the US constituency) this is the first time when an actual MAJORIAtY of Americans are joining the process, and they are mostly joining it on the Democratic side.

So, you can say that you are a ‘kneee jerk liberal’ but you’re not really a democrat. Just voting that way for many years doesn’t make you one, at least not in light of your comment here, that you actually would not support the democratic nominee if it was Obama.

So, maybe you should change your affiliation. That’s far more in line with a repug mindset.

If democrats will vote for McCain over Obama they should stay with the Republican party as it has very few members left. 

They all can sink with that war mongering manchurian candidate of Israel, John McCain.

Ron Paul is a far better candidate than either of them and a true republican too.

50% of the democrats in your neighborhood and 50% of the republicans too.

Waaa....reminds me of someone who would go down with the ship.  Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead.

Well, how’s this for more creative speculation...It wouldn’t MATTER who was beating the pantsuit off of her. She STILL wouldn’t accept defeat!!

It could be one of Non Credo’s creations, a left-handed black lesbian sanskrit scholar with one leg shorter than the other, and she STILL wouldn’t accept defeat. Not even a stake to the heart or a cazillon crosses shined upon her from all directions would make her wither.

She’s a FIGHTER damn it! And she’ll still be campaigning this time next year, maybe in Mexico. Now I don’t know how New Yorkers are gonna feel about that, since they hired her to be one of their Senators.

Is that better?

• “The superdelegate system was put in place to consider OTHER factors as well, including (among other things) who would better “weather the storm” of a general election campaign, and who has a better chance overall of beating the Republican candidate.”

Maani,

I wish so much that you could have heard from ‘Da Mayor, Willie Brown earlier this evening, because he addressed this very subject at length, during a question period after an excellent talk that he presented here in my area. If you’re not familiar with him that’s understandable, since his very long career in politics has been here in California. That said, he’s been very much a part of the political scene in the DEMOCRATIC party, for many years, as our legislative assembly speaker for 15 years, and then as Mayor of San Francisco for 8.

And, he agrees with your assessment here, up to a point, but of course you miss the greater point. You said it was NOT about ‘the math’ and then proceeded to talk about what would have happened if it was a ‘winner take all’ formula, WHICH IT USED TO BE. (even I remember that). But, I think you miss the most important part of why these superdelegates where selected, and what their main purpose is, because it was intended to be up to them to use their own discretion to decide who WAS BEST FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, and to use their own presumably good judgment, based on the principles of the party. It’s about party politics, and there’s not a damn thing wrong with that, because that is their purpose! To utilize their best judgment, based on who best represents the ideals of the party, and yes of course, who can best win the election.

Most importantly, (in reference to the whole thing about choosing in line with the constituency) is their presumed wisdom in avoiding what may be a ‘fad’ or other short lived enthusiasm for a candidate, based on what has historically been a lack of real knowledge about the candidates or the issues, for the MAJORITY of the body politic. Say like a bunch of people voting for a candidate because he seems like a nice person to have a beer with, or because he ‘talks Texan’.

So indeed, there certainly could be times when a party loyal, who has displayed this party loyalty for an extended period of time, and can be presumed to exercise good judgment, may in fact NOT cast their own decisions in line with the constituency, because it is THEIR OWN DECISION! Lord knows that’s been beat into our heads often enough on this forum from the likes of bert and others. So, if it means anything, Willie Brown agrees. On the other hand, I’m not so sure that if the tables were reversed, that YOU would. Consequently, I’m not sure that you understand the real basis for the claim that you’re making, because what these delegates are called upon to exercise is integrity and loyalty to the principles of the PARTY, and maintaining the success and the cohesiveness of the party.

In reality, I think we all know that nearly ANY Democrat could and will beat nearly ANY republican in this election, and the republicans know it too. Either HRC or Obama will win against John McCain and anybody he chooses to run with him. What I think you aren’t willing to accept is that when these particular delegates DO make their commitments, to vote for Obama, or to SWITCH their support to Obama, it IS their decision, based on those purposes. It’s because they DO believe that Obama is the better candidate, for ALL of those reasons. Obama is the future, and HRC is yesterday. (and quite frankly, HRC is far closer to the Repug side than she is to the Dems). Maybe that hasn’t always been the case, but things change.

Again, the talk was excellent. I did take notes but I wish I’d recorded it.

A few random comments.

-What does John Edwards have in common with Hillary?  Only the fact that her health care plan is FAR closer to his than Obama’s, and that, as someone else here pointed out, Hillary has done as much or more re poverty than Obama has.

-The superdelegate system was NOT created to simply ratify the pledged delegates and/or popular vote.  Indeed, if that were the case, why would we even NEED the superdelegates?  It is a LIE that it is “all about the math.” The math is only ONE factor.  The superdelegate system was put in place to consider OTHER factors as well, including (among other things) who would better “weather the storm” of a general election campaign, and who has a better chance overall of beating the Republican candidate.  Re the latter, given that Hillary’s numbers have been going UP versus McCain while Obama’s have been coming DOWN, this issues answers itself.

-The states that Hillary has won represent more electoral college votes (256) than those that Obama has won (217).  And the electoral college is, for better or worse, the ultimate “decider” of a presidential election.  Even we remove those states that traditionally go “red” (though this could change), Hillary STILL has more electoral college votes than Obama.

-If the Democrats had a “winner take all” system of pledged delegates like the Republican do, Hillary would have LONG AGO clinched the nomination, and we would all be saying “Barack WHO?”

Peace.

He doesn’t have a chance in hell against Barack Obama.

We musn’t forget the Dem’s ineptness at winning elections.  Our current administration has squandered just about everything of value the US had before they took office.  They’ve run the infrastructure into the ground, fouled the environment, cost the taxpayers untold billions, even trillions conducting an illegal, immoral war, killed three or four thousand American kids and ruined the lives of thousands of others and their families.  They’ve made a mockery of the constitution and bullied a congressional majority into submission.  I could go on.

You would think, wouldn’t you, that the Dems are a shoe-in in Nov.  Why is everyone so nervous?

A ticket with Goofy and Fudd could win this election, hands down, against John McSame.

But alas, McSame apparently has a chance.  Doesn’t it make you sick?

Had both these men been on the MI Primary Ballots- Hillary would have eaten dust!That is why the State “Dem leaders’ Tricked them out off the Ballot. Eat SH*T MI Dem Politicians!
This is also Why We Michignaders would rather have NO delegates counted then give even One Unjustly earn Delegate to Hillary!She and the State ‘Dems’ did NOT Play by the Rules Intentionally so to be a n Ace in her Pocket!
Glad to See Edwards realize a DLC Member MUST first & foremost be a Democrat to gain the Base!Gore couldn’t pull out a landslide (but it was close enough to steal by Bush) and Kerry could Not inspire Us Either - We hate Neo CONS in any color. Michiganders have been battling the covert Operatives dressed in Blue longer than any other State- We know the Difference- NO SUCH THING AS A ‘REAGAN DEMOCRAT’ IN MICHIGAN!.
Perhaps it’s time the rest of the DLC supers get the Clue- Gore. The DLC Must work for the Base- The real Ol’ School Dems=Jobs/ Worker Rights,Equal & Civil Rights, Education, Healthcare,Diplomacy....Not Inc’s interests- Trickle Down is NOT a Dem Value, nor is ‘obliterating’ Anything!
Go Obama Go Obama...this Kucinich Voter is fully behind you Too!Good Bye DLC interference in our party- join US or Get Out!

Hell, Cyrena, I was so impressed by the people Barack got on board just to do his campaign that I am 100% certain he will fill the government with extremely capable, qualified and semi-progressive individuals. That was partially the reason I liked him to begin with.

If Obama made good on his promise to continue investigations of the current administration after he is elected… Oh my goodness, I would salivate watching John interrogate Dick Cheney and King George. Oh.. Oh! I would tear up, cry for joy and wave an American flag were I to see such a sight!

I couldn’t agree more Aegrus, and no...I don’t expect to see (or even want) a blue collar worker in the Oval office, since the average blue collar worker hasn’t had time to learn the stuff that folks in the Oval office should know.

Then again, there’s no guarantee that a college graduate can perform the job either. (see GWB - ZERO experience in ANY job, and ZERO common sense or integrity, or even the ability to select good advisors)

No, my only point was just to say that Barack Obama and John Edwards have both addressed the needs and concerns of the working class as well as the needs of the poor, from the beginnings of their campaigns, and that IS what Obama did even long before that, in his extensive grass roots organization.

So I was annoyed at the ‘politics as usual’ comments from Hillary’s campaign, as well as from these so-called ‘senior democrats’ who are suggesting that the endorsement by John Edwards will ‘bring the worker vote’ to Obama. My own feeling is that he connected with the working class long ago, which is why he’s leading the race by leaps and bounds.

When has Hillary Clinton OR ANY OTHER REPUPLICAN, ever done anything for the working and/or middle class? There’s nothing in my memory that suggests she has, aside from her long ago attempts at a health care plan, which would then, (as it would now) still leave out the poor and the unemployed.

So, that was really my only point. Obama may be an ‘elitist’ as a result of being a politician, but that is relatively new. He hasn’t been raking in any big bucks from the same corporate paymasters (or wall street) as most others have. And, Hillary has NEVER been anything other than an elitist, REGARDLESS of the ‘small house’ where her grandfather allegedly taught her how to shoot firearms.

And, Edwards may not be the best situated in the VP slot anyway. He’d probably be better as the Attorney General. Then again, there will be ALL KINDS of jobs available for the good guys come November, and Obama has a large selection to choose from in filling them. For that, I’m grateful.

Typical Hillary Feel-Good because you’re voting for me statement. You know, she had her UNPAID staffers give out posters and had commands for the crowd on when to applaud? Her victory speech was also held in a space only two-thirds full. Overwhelming victory? Sure sounds like it. };>

Pfft, the only question about Obama’s candidacy is who his running mate will be. I’m not going to speculate to the sincerity of John’s endorsement, which would be rude, but I will say he has nothing in common with Hillary Clinton from a political standpoint. In that respect, yes, he’s playing politics.

Obama’s loss in WV is a blip because he’s already made up more than enough in super delegate support to destroy Hillary’s campaign. The race is over.

We let Hillary play her silly games for months for everyone’s advantage. She brought people in, who will vote for Obama in the Fall, and the extended campaign has only served to bring Obama out to the majority of Americans to familiarize themselves with him, his character and his campaign.

“a state which no Democrat has won the presidency without”

Until now.

Although I don’t doubt the sincerity of Edwards’ endorsement, his timing STINKS of political gamesmanship.  It is no coincidence that he made this announcement immediately after Obama lost - HUGELY - in West Virginia (a state which no Democrat has won the presidency without), and before his expected loss in Kentucky, and possibly elsewhere.

No coincidence that his endorsement comes just as new and serious questions are being raised about Obama’s candidacy, particularly vis-a-vis Hillary’s recent successes - in the primaries, vis-a-vis their respective ability to beat McCain (with Hillary’s numbers going up as Obama’s have been coming down), and as a candidate in general.

Yup, “politics” is being played here - by two people who claim to eschew “politics as usual.”

Peace.

I’d never vote for someone who is “working class” into the executive office unless the person could really convince me they have incredible judgment and understanding of policy effects for all Americans.

No one really wants someone who paves roads to be their president, but they do want the president to be able to identify with them on a personal level. It’s a strange quality, but I can see the validity of the issue.

Funny thing is, when they vote with guys like Bush who obviously have no good policy ideas, and disenfranchise poor people at the drop of a hat… it’s pretty obvious we don’t have an ‘in-touch’ barometer, and the only reason the issue exists is so neo-conservative elites can grab no-nothings who love the idea of patriotism to foist upon impoverished and information starved Americans for election into corporate office.

Up there with Carter on my personal integrity meter.

“But he’s a trial lawyer” my lifetime Republican parents would say about him, making him seemingly evil.

You have to be sincere in order to sway a jury and pick the right cases, his success is evident.

The Dems is a party adrift already, savage jackpine

Agreed, none of these people are “blue collar”...not even Edwards.  It might be kind of fun to start electing real “working class” people for a change, but it probably won’t happen.

Also agreed on the running mate, though Edwards might have just sewn up the AG spot...and that would be a good place for him.  (If he was a real attack dog, such a high profile AG might take some pressure off of an Obama administration early too.)

Yes, but will they chew through the moorings before they make their getaway?

Its the boys’ club..... and rank opportunism (like rats leaving a sinking ship).....

To be fair, cyrena, though Barack Obama did not grow up with the benefits of being in the elite class, there is no one in politics who isn’t part of the elite now. He’s not a Rockefeller, but he’s grown out of the working class.

Still don’t know about Edwards in a VP slot, either. James Webb seems cool, but I think Obama will come up with a surprising decision as to who will be his running mate.

This is good, and for some reason, I just always expected it.

I wish we (or at least the media) didn’t have such a very short term memory. There’s this comment from the Clinton’s about Edwards bringing the working class to Obama, and that annoys me, because he STARTED OUT with the working class, and a platform that DID address poverty! He and Edwards have both worked that from long ago, both individually and together, when Edwards was still in the race.

But, as we know, the Clintons have decided to paint Obama as an Elitist, which he’s NEVER been, in order to pretend like Hillary is all ‘pro working class’ when SHE had never been before! Her huge participation in putting NAFTA through should make THAT perfectly obvious!

That’s why stuff like this just annoys me to no end…

“...in a dramatic attempt by the Obama campaign to answer concerns regarding Obama’s appeal to working-class voters, several senior Democratic sources tell ABC News...”

Obama has been addressing these socio-economic issues, SPECIFICALLY on the poor and the working class, since day one. Now all of a sudden this is a ‘dramatic’ attempt to answer question regarding his ‘appeal’ t working-class voters? Oh please! There wouldn’t be any ‘concerns’ if the Hillary-Rove sink hadn’t tried to label him as something he isn’t.

Who the hell do they think has been voting for him to put him so far ahead now? The WORKINING CLASS.

Geeze…

Anyway, I’m glad Edwards is doing the right thing. I’d hoped that Obama would ask him to join on as a running mate. Maybe he will.

Oooh daamn! It’s gunna hit the fan, folks. Watch for heads exploding. haha

I’m not sure if I think this is good or bad, but I had always suspected he would do this when it was convenient.