Wed, 07 May 2008 18:00:03 -0400
I am watching Hardball and the total nonsense is amazing. They are discussing how the white working class issue disappeared. Specifically, Chris Matthews, with the once respected Chuck Todd nodding vigorously, said Pennsylvania was the past and North Carolina was the future on race relations. This is simply counterfactual. Let's review the data.
In Pennsylvania, Clinton won whites 18-29 (52-48), 30-44 (58-42), 45-59 (63-37), 60+ (68-32). In North Carolina, whites 18-29, just 8% of the vote, went for Obama 57-41. But whites 30-44 went for Clinton (52-45), 45-59 (64-33), 60+ (69-29).
Barack Obama is almost certain to be the nominee, and Tweety is ebulliant about his guy looking like the nominee. But let's stick to the facts please. On the demographics, nothing got better for Obama. The difference between North Carolina and Pennsylvania is there are a lot more African American voters in North Carolina. She never had a chance to win it. Ever.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Dormie, this one's for you! :D
Posted on May 7, 2008 by litigatormom @ The Confluence
Last night Barack Obama boasted that he was within 200 votes of clinching the Democratic nomination. He’s wrong. That boast is premised on the assumption that the “magic number” for clinching the nomination is 2025.
But the “magic” of 2025 is the magic of fake disappearances, conjuring and pulling rabbits out of hats. Obama’s faux magic number constitutes a majority of the Democratic delegates only if you don’t count MI and FLA’s alloted delegates. The real Magic Number is 2209 — 50% + 1 of all the delegates, pledged and SDs, alloted to the 50 states, Guam and Puerto Rico. But by excluding MI and FLA, Obama and Dean and Brazile and the MSM talking heads, not to mention The Blog That Must Not Be Named, seem to think they can lower the bar for clinching the nomination. In other words, excluding MI and FLA kills two birds with one stone: it excludes Clinton delegates, and it lowers the magic number for Obama. How conVEEEEEEENient.
Obama, of course, vetoed, stalled and squirmed his way out of permitting a re-vote in MI and FLA back when there was time to do so. Not only did he fear a repeat of Clinton’s victories, he also feared the daunting task of securing 2209 delegates, rather than a mere 2025.
The DNC and the talking heads all say that “MI and FLA will be seated in some fashion.” That’s doublespeak for “MI and FLA will be seated in a manner which makes permanent the disenfranchisement of MI and FLA voters.” If, for example, the DNC awards Obama the nomination at 2025 delegates, then the MI and FLA delegates will have been rendered meaningless, whether they are “seated” before or after the DNC hands the trophy to Obama. You can’t say you’re seating MI and FLA, and then permit Obama to claim victory based on a magic number that doesn’t count MI and FLA’s delegates.
Yet this is precisely the sort of sleight of hand that the DNC and now Obama himself are trying to perform. There are only two solutions to this problem, now that Obama has made it impossible for re-votes to be held. Seat MI and FLA as is, and seat them now. Or not. But in either case, the DNC must make clear to everyone — the candidates, their supporters, the uncommitted SDs, and the MSM talking heads – that there is only one “magic number,” and that number is 2209. Obama can win it with or without actually giving MI and FLA their tickets to the convention hall. But he can’t win the nomination with only 2025 delegates.
Even Albus Dumbledore doesn’t have enough magic to turn 2025 into 2209.
We’ve all wondered today what to do about supporting Hillary, and forcing the DNC to understand the magnitude of the errors it has made during this campaign season. Spreading this fundamental fact — that Obama can’t win the nomination with 2025 delegates — is one such thing. When you talk about seating MI and FLA, too many talking heads, not to mention Obamabots, just tune you out with intonations of “The ROOLz, the ROOLz.” We should short-circuit talk about The ROOLz, and just talk about The Math. The Math is simple. Nomination = 2209 delegates. Period. Get them however. Pledged, SDs, seat MI and FLA, don’t seat MI and FLA. But get 2209 delegates.
Spread the Mathematical Truth far and wide. Maybe then Dean and Brazile will get their heads out of their arses.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
I just opened up my word program, make my page a landscape, and typed 2209 in the big baddest and bluest font I could.
Voila! Cryptic message sign. It's a mini-movement! You can do it too! Put in in your window, car and house! Boldly state your desire to see all votes count. The number is 2209 - and it stands for what's right.
~ snip ~
So, what now? Local variations will give supporters on either side arguments about relative strength, but the larger picture is that Obama is losing 60% of white voters within his own party, let alone across parties. His scorched earth campaign to claim white racism as the sole and overwhelming cause of his losses puts the party between the Devil and the deep blue sea. He has alienated voters of all ethnicities by forcing the campaign into a black/white racial divide, angering Democrats who are voting against his lack of substantive policies, not his skin color (in truth, at this point, the only things about him that appeal to me are his skin color and his proposed Cuba policy), and antagonizing AAs with his claim that white politicians are conspiring to deny him the nomination, which will make a significant number stay home if he is not the nominee. The political question for me is whether, should he lose the nomination, will he support Hillary? If he does, Democrats win. If he doesn't, Democrats lose.
The party is at a stalemate now. Neither candidate will win with just pledged delegates. Super delegates will break it in favor of one candidate or the other.
Do we want to win in November or not?
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
http://www.prleap.com/pr/119161/
Excerpt
(PRLEAP.COM) Orem, UT - Phytobase, US leader in indulgent and healthy organic dark chocolate has created the perfect Mother’s Day gift designed to keep mothers young at heart.
Amoriss ™ combines rich dark chocolate infused with healthy superfoods. These bite-sized organic dark chocolates are infused with red wine extract, resveratrol (the “French Paradox”) and an exotic blend of antioxidant-rich superfoods, namely açai, mangosteen, pomegranates, goji and rhodiola rosea. The Phytobase chocolatiers designed them to promote a healthy heart, longer life and stronger immune system; a perfect gift for a perfect Mom. With just 56 calories, Amoriss is also a delicious guilt-free indulgence. Each chocolate is individually wrapped in festive purple-red foil.
"How long would we have to hold Iraq before we could flip it for profit" Jon Stewart asks Sen. Harry Reid.
Hillary Clinton has run a very tenacious campaign and proven she's a real fighter. Here's 7 reasons why she should stay in the race.
7 Reasons Why Clinton Should Stay In The Race**
07 May 2008 02:00 pm
1. Florida and Michigan. Clinton, not Obama, is identified with the cause of seating those delegations. Since FL and MI won't decide the nomination now, Clinton has every reason to push for a negotiated settlement. It way well be that Clinton refuses to officially drop out until she is satisfied that the voices of Florida and Michigan are heard.
2. Her voters. Almost half of those voting in the Democratic primaries chose Clinton. Certain parts of her support base -- older women, for example -- are as fervently in her corner as Obama as college kids are in Obama's corner. For these women, Clinton has succeeded in convincing them that her candidacy is just as historic as Obama's. Forget about the nomination: Clinton has a much deeper political base than when she started to campaign for the presidency. She needs to tend to this base whether she continues to represent New York, becomes Senate Majority Leader, becomes the vice presidential nominee, or runs in 2012.
3. Embarrassment. If she drops out tomorrow and winds up winning in West Virginia and Kentucky, Obama will be mightily embarrassed. Having her in the race gives him an excuse for losing those two states. (I ran this by an Obama adviser who said, "We'll take our chances.")
4. The Ask. Does Clinton want to be Obama's vice president? Who knows? But does Clinton want to be asked whether she wants to be his vice president and this be in a position to decline it? Surely. The more Obama is reminded that Clinton cannot not be dispensed with, the more pressure he will feel to at least solicit her views on the subject of the vice presidency.
5. The Party. David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, said again this morning that he is confident that the entire party will unify around Obama. If that's the case, then giving Democrats in the remaining states the chance to exercise their vote -- and by exercise, I mean it in the conventional sense -- to practice voting -- will be a boon for Democrats in the fall. 1.5 million Democrats voting in Indiana is spectacular; the primaries are serving as a dry-run of sorts for the entire party. It wouldn't hurt to extend those dress rehearsals to West Virginia and Kentucky either, not to mention Oregon and Montana.
6. Superdelegates. If they're so eager to end the race, they can end the race. They haven't.
7. Unity. If Clinton campaigns appropriately, she can help Obama begin to help heal the party.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/reasons_why_clinton_should_sta.php
I agree nobody should drop out of the race until the primaries are over in June. And now I will leave until that time, and I will not be responding to this post. Good luck to all of us.
The Clintons have run a great campaign.
It seems to me that those are all valid points. Number 1, Florida and Michigan, were mentioned on the CBS Evening News tonight.
Last night during a discussion on the BBC point number 4, the VP nomination, came up with a different twist. The possibility was raised that if Clinton decides to pull out, and they stressed the if, she might use her strength from the campaign to influence who Obama names as his VP rather than going for it herself.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
Just you watch
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
I could see him pick Bloomberg. BTW, everyone, my internet service has been down at home. We're waiting for a new modem to come from the ISP, which is supposed to fix the problem with the wireless at my house. I'm at the library blogging now. I just couldn't take being offline anymore. I was at a watch party last night with a friend who also supports Hillary. Everyone else there was for O, so we both were in a funk. They had MSNBC on and you know how that was for us.
If O wins the nomination, I have to buy one of my Republican friends a beer to settle our bet. I'm waiting for the last minute before I concede defeat. I'm not one for betting. It's not as bad as when Wes dropped out in 2004, but it still sucks. There is so much at stake and all people can focus on is "hope," "change," and Bob the Builder, "yes we can." OK, I'll stop banging my head against the wall now. It always feels so much better when I stop headbanging.
Given they are both supported by roughly half the voters, she certainly has an argument (if she loses, that is) that the only way they can truly represent all the Dem voters is by being on the ticket together. It doesn't matter if they like each other - as others have pointed out quite rightly, Kennedy and Johnson couldn't stand each other, and Reagan and Bush, Sr, certainly weren't bosom buddies - it matters that they get moving fixing problems.
They can flip a coin, if it comes to that, so long as neither blows off the voters in any state.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
The two senators have different and complementing strengths and weaknesses. They would be an unstoppable force if combined. My two cents.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
..."She Should Stay in the Race" meme is nothing more than them realizing that every time they screamed that she should get out, she got more votes.
What a bunch of wankers.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
"If Clinton campaigns appropriately...." That last word is a loaded one. What's the definition of "appropriate" in this context? Geez.
....Today's words of wisdom, courtesy of George "I lost 49 states" McGovern. Because no one knows more about winning. Take a good look at that map. By and large, the “McGovern coalition” was rather similar to the one Sen. Obama has put together; that may prove to be the winning bloc in the primaries but, in the general election, Democrats don’t get to the Oval Office thanks to the support with liberals and minorities alone.....
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27624
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
CA, FL, OH, PA. Those states alone loses him the election. (I don't say "us" because I am among those who will no longer be a Democrat if he is the nominee. I sent my letter of why I won't vote for him to the WAPo writer asking for feedback:
Washington Post reporter wants feedback from Dems who won't vote for Obama.
williamsk@washpost.com
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
Wow! Hot! Taylor Marsh's letter to Timmy - scalding - hope he gets to read it!! He deserves every word!
Good stuff. Loved the opening and these two lines especially:
Then quit unloading your rhetorical turds on television. No one cares about your predictions.
Wes Clark Democrats...let the Clinton campaign know who sent you
Explains a lot:
Don't be fooled by the name; it's one of the best, most lucid analysis of the race out there.
http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/05/new-american-disenfranchisement.html
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
narrative of how the primary has been manipulated. Plenty of BO's skeletons have come out, and I'm surprised the author doesn't account for how all this info hasn't deeply impacted the DNC/Elite game plan. Thanks for the link.
Anybody remember, back during the 04 convention, there was some sort of survey circulated, it was in all the news over several days, that showed that convention delegates were way more liberal than the "typical" Democratic voter? I don't remember how they determined that exactly... it had something to do with surveying opinions on Iraq and a whole slate other issues. But in any case, on average the delegates were much farther to the left than almost any serious candidate would ever admit to.
It occurs to me that these are the people who are running the party now. Maybe they always were at some level, but kept in check by politicians who had actually run for office and had some idea about what it takes to win an election, and who made sure that the top leaders were professionals who had managed real campaigns: people like Terry McAwful and Donnie whatzits (from SC, whose son was with WKC for a while). We can debate how effective these people were, but for sure they were not ideologues.
But in 2005, there was no one from on high to appoint a DNC chair. So the party regulars, the type of folks who were Kerry delegates to the convention (which in itself shows they were not too astute about practical politics), chose instead. And they chose Dean. And they also, with Dean's help no doubt, put people in key positions, committee chairs for example, who reflected their opinions of the direction the party should take.
Now, Dean has won elections... but only in Vermont. I would submit that you can get away with a lot of things in Vermont that will never sell in a fly-over state, or pretty much anywhere else. And Dean believes with all his heart that he would have won in 04 if he'd been nominated, so of course he believes he knows what he's doing.
Ok, that's it, I guess. I don't know where else to go with this, except that maybe it explains, at least to some extent, why the party today seems to stupid and out of touch with reality.
I remember sitting in a pub with Arky Sue in Boston during the 2004 convention, reading this to her from the Boston Globe. I think this is the poll you refer to...
Poll: Delegates, Kerry Differ on Key Issues
reprinted at CommonDreams
They are united in their dislike of President Bush, and overwhelmingly confident that their candidate will defeat him in November.
But delegates to this week's Democratic National Convention differ with the presumptive nominee, John F. Kerry, in some key ways. Unlike Kerry, who opposes same-sex marriage, 62 percent of the delegates say gay and lesbian marriages should be allowed by law. And only 26 percent of delegates share the view expressed by Kerry -- a supporter of abortion rights -- that life begins at conception.
The delegates are also deeply critical of the war in Iraq. Kerry initially supported the war, but now questions the Bush administration's handling of it.
Eighty percent of those polled said they opposed the decision to go to war against Iraq at the time it began, and 95 percent say they now oppose the war. A majority of 63 percent want US troops out within two years; only one in four say the United States should stay as long as it takes to achieve administration goals.
No doubt the Deaniacs did a good job of getting into politics at a local level (ref your local DFA). But I think Dean was installed to get him out of the way, more than anything. Now Dean has to get behind his 50-state strategy, not the O! 48-state strategy and get FL and MI seated with full voting rights.
Good points, hf jai!
www.mccainsfreeride.com
but I would argue that Dean is any kind of far-left liberal! I think mostly for Dean it is more hatred of the Clintons than anything else. And for Brazile it is definitely all about race. As for Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Daschele (sp?) I get the impression they've never been fond of the Clintons either, but that may have to do with them being Arkansas hicks who crashed the elite Washington party, or something, in which case the argument he makes holds up. But I don't think it does in Dean's case.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
But he plays one on TV.
Seriously, it is precisely the "far left liberals" that he identifies with, and who identify with him -- the typical Deaniacs of the 03/04 campaign season. True, many of his policies as governor were not all that liberal. But he is perceived as VERY liberal, by Democrats as well as Repubs. Then too, liberal in Vermont is not the same as liberal in, say, Indiana or North Carolina.
...identified with Dean did so for one reason only....he spoke out forcefully against the war, at a time when other politicians were afraid to.
Dean's policies were actually to the right of our General. They were drawn to the man, not his policies. I see the same thing with O. He's certainly not Far Left. In fact he is running as a Republican Lite.....but all that is forgiven because they are enamored by the personality.....or simply driven by Hillary Hatred.
It's very sad. Because, if the unthinkable happens and he does make it to the WH, he's going to break his followers' hearts.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
You also contradict yourself.
On one hand, you say they identified with Dean "for one reason only": because of the war. But then you say they were "drawn to the man, not his policies." My point is precisely the latter, and I agree that the Obama-phenomenon is the same.
The "far-left liberals" component of Obama's followers don't care about actual policies. Many of them don't even know what his policies are. They identify with him for the same reason they identified with Dean. They are drawn to them both because they PERCEIVE them as the same as themselves (or how they would like to see themselves). Intellectual, well educated, "spiritual," untarnished by the compromises that come with real life... what we would call elitist.
Maybe "liberal" (or "progressive") is the wrong word, but it is the word we've been using here to describe the followers, and you can't convince those followers that Dean and Obama aren't really as far to the left as they are. That's why I said Dean (but it applies to Obama too) plays a liberal on TV. They both USE the perception to keep their followers marching along behind.
Fwiw, I consider myself a liberal. I don't think it's a bad word. I even like lattes. ;)
I bookmarked it. Wow what a great analysis of the race. I agree completely. Compelling !!!
DONJO MAKE THIS A BLOG! I THINK IT WILL GET LOST AND PEOPLE NEED TO READ IT.
Jam Packed my a**!!! Go see the pictures.:D
http://noquarterusa.net:80/blog/2008/05/07/obama-jam-packed-rally/#more-2425
Obama “Jam Packed” Rally
By Uppity Woman on May 7, 2008 at 2:35 PM in Bamboozling, Barack Obama, North Carolina
Those of us who recognize Moose Poop when we see it, already know that Barack Obama is a media creation and a con. Everything he says and everything he does is part of the special effects and The Show - including his “packed” rallies.
“Reynolds Coliseum on N.C. State’s campus seats 12,400 people. It did not seat that many tonight.”
Maybe next time they could do it like the fake town in Blazing Saddles...
Wes Clark Democrats...let the Clinton campaign know who sent you
signed by those who state they will not vote for BO if he is the nominee has some really spot-on comments. Unfortunately, there are a few racist a$$es who've tried to sabotage the petition and a few juveniles let loose, but otherwise worth a look. I only scanned a few pages.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/pledge-to-vote-against-obama-in-the-general-election
John McCain sought to burnish his conservative credentials Tuesday with a broadside against "the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power" and a promise of "better judges" in the mold of Supreme Court Justices John G. Roberts and Samuel Alito.
drsusan
...thought that voting for Roberts was just hunkey dorey until a staffer told him it would hurt him politically.
I have no expectation that O would nominate a Progressive to the SC.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
descend on this blog with their advocacy for another candidate. Have they no other place to go and discuss the great things they see in their candidate? What do they intend to do here? I think it exposes either some deep insecurity or some unresolved anger with the world. It sure is not educating anyone here or helping anyone see things the way they see it. Have some decency and stay silent or go away.
EXCERPT
Dear President Cheney: Your Numbers Are Nicely Fudged
Wednesday May 7, 2008
http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/2007fisa-ltr.pdf
"How long would we have to hold Iraq before we could flip it for profit" Jon Stewart asks Sen. Harry Reid.
Really. I mean it. No snark. Been a lovely day of debate, but canvas is beckoning. Night lovely peoples and see ya shortly.
;-)
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
Why Did Obama Do Worse in N.C. Than Virginia?
TwinMom at MyDD has an interesting diary up comparing Obama's win in Virginia to North Carolina:
Obama won Virginia by 28 points and North Carolina by 14. What's different, given the similar voter demographics?
Using exit poll data here and here from the NY Times, TwinMom shows the percentages of white men, white women, black men and black women voters were very similar but the results were not:
- In Virginia, Obama won 67% of White Men. In North Carolina only 40%
- In Virginia, Obama won 45% of White Women , in North Carolina only 33%.
- In Virginia, Obama won 93% of Black Men and 85% of Black Women. In North Carolina, he won 91% of Black Men and Black Women.
The conclusion:
Obama lost ground among all but black women:
- White Men (-27)
- White Women (-12)
- Black Men (-2)
- Black Women (+6)
What to take from it:
In fact, Obama's showing in NC last night is CONSIDERABLY weaker than his showing in neighboring VA 3 months ago. In my opinion, we should all be asking WHY and also wondering about what this decline in numbers means in terms of the GE?NC and VA make an excellent, nearly ideal side-by-side comparison in terms of demographics. These 2 contests clearly show a significant increase in support for Sen Clinton and a marked decrease in support for Sen Obama.
The voting demographics:
- White male: VA 28%, N.C. 27%
- White female: Va 35%, N.C. 35%
- Black Male: VA 13%, N.C. 13%
- Black Female: VA 17%, N.C. 20%.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Lawrence O'Donnell said this on MSNBC today
drsusan
Some thoughts after the day's events.
First and foremost, I really resent whichever Obama-supporting jerk it was who started the rumor that Wes is trying to get Hillary to leave the race. Gotta love the way those folks operate...Oy!
I still also resent the Obama campaign for trying to stir up that "NY money people" ridiculousness all over again.
And I resent the Obama folks that keep throwing around Wes' name for VP as if the possibility is somehow supposed to alleviate the doubts and fears of those who think the mighty O! is vastly underqualified to be President. I just don't see it happening. I get the impression that O! doesn't have much use for our General. He's got the whole foreign policy thing covered, right?
Finally, when I see the way O! supporters behave on the internet, I am just mystified that a campaign and candidate that's supposed to be bringing such hope and change makes people so mean, nasty, obnoxious, narrow-minded and bitter. I see the way these O! supporters act and I think, there's no way in hell I'd ever want to be like that.
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
As Democrats coalesce around Sen. Barack Obama, one of Hillary Clinton's must outspoken supporters is not mincing words: the party is walking needlessly and unaware into a general election buzzsaw.
/snip/
"You're the guy who wants to lead the country and you have to have courage to stand up and lead your own pastor. He did not exhibit that. But the fact that the Democratic constituency doesn't seem to care is a shock to me, but I'm certain that the overall constituency voting in November will care and that it will make the difference in the adverse way to his candidacy."
/snip/
"I believe that when the voting is over that the vast majority, not all, on both sides, will vote for the [Democratic] candidate," said Koch. "But that applies only to the Democrats who have been participating. I believe that the vast majority of voters will look at all of these allegations, which nobody disputes, as related to Wright and his comments, and that they will have an enormous impact on the vote and on those Independents and others who will make a decision in the general election. I just think he is a loser because of that."
Sorry to give HuffPost the hits, but that's where it is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/07/ed-koch-obama-is-a-sure-l_n_100697.html
...about someone here this evening who is acting like a vandal.
According to her history, this person has contributed to the conversation only 7 times in the 1 year and 25 weeks since registration. It's okay to be a lurker; that's not the problem.
But tonight, without comment, she has given that many 0 or 1 ratings to long-time posters, some even on old threads that I happen to be checking for other reasons.
While it may not reach the seriousness of drive-by shootings, it is like keying a car as you walk by it.
This is "hope" and "unity"? Sound like Chicago-style enforcement.
Comes on line and troll rates everyone and leaves. It's her modus operandi. It's also pathetic.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
that was rating down ms in la.
I see who it is. They should have their rating
privileges revoked. Kat??
Jake Tapper has a To-Do list for Clinton. A few of the items will seem familiar to some of you:
4. Argue that Obama should have won Indiana; a post-game recalibration of expectations5. Point to ugly exit poll data from Indiana showing 50% of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama in the Fall
6. Push back on Obama "achievement" in Indiana that he lost white women by only 61%-39% -- as opposed to larger losses in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Argue: What kind of crazy worldview is this?
8. MICHIGAN and FLORIDA ...The number 2,025 no longer exists. 2,209...2,209...2,209... Make it a civil rights issue
-------------
Gosh, if only Sen. Clinton could think about doing any of that. And if only, when she did, the media were responsive, as opposed to ridiculing, and then didn't pretend to come up with a To-Do list as though the items were original.
Craig Crawford asks the obvious question:
If Democratic superdelegates truly want Hillary Rodham Clinton to quit the nomination race, why don’t they just publicly endorse Barack Obama and get it over with? There are more than enough of them to make up the difference needed to give him the winning majority.Until she officially loses, Clinton has no reason to drop out. And if this fight goes all the way to the convention floor because Obama doesn't have the required number of votes on record to formally claim the nomination, the blame falls on wimpy superdelegates -- not her.
----------------
Finally tonight, I want to end with a post by our very own Scan. He’s written about Sen. Clinton: very movingly, very effectively, and I think that today is a good day to take another look at The One I’ve Been Waiting For.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
I've created a new type of 'user category". One that allows for all the privileges available here except the ability to 'karma rate' comments.
Any user who abuses the rating system may find themselves without the abiility to rate posts or comments at all. If there is a complaint, please send it directly to me at
.
Please include links to the comments that the user has downrated in your email to me. In particular, downrating "old" comments -- which effectively implies that the ratings abuser has made a concerted effort to 'stalk' a CCNer -- is not fair use of the ratings system.
Likewise, downrating every post from a CCNer from the opposite side of the presidential contest just because they support another is not acceptable either.
Restraint is an adult attribute.
and though he/she has downrated few comments in the last couple of days, there's no evidence today or yesterday that it was used to either go back in history to downrate old comments or as a blunt force object to hammer every comment.
The tracking tool doesn't go back very far in history, and it's a look up by username, but it does display the ratings history sorted by the date the user 'rated' a post.
Glad you've got that tool. I'd never noticed before so many in one night from one person who rarely posts--and mostly aimed at one person. Passive/aggressive stuff.
I was just getting ready to mail you my list when I accidently closed the program without saving! One tired klutz here.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1648Excerpt
By Joshua Hill Thursday, January 31, 2008
Not satisfied with providing us with a horde of smiling hostesses and an Opening Ceremony that is being billed as spectacular, the Chinese are looking to weather control to ensure a rain-free ceremony.
With seven months until the 2008 Olympic Games get under way; the Beijing Meteorological Bureau has developed a method to minimize rain on the day.
The Bird’s Nest stadium, home to the opening ceremony, the chance of a dampened start to the festivities was considerable. Thus, a plan was devised.
“Our experiments with rain mitigation have been aimed at light rain,” said Zhang Qian, head of weather manipulation at the bureau. “With heavy rain it is more difficult. The results with light rain have been satisfactory.”
There are two strategies that are being used to control the rainfall, and according to Ms. Qian, both are doing absolutely no harm to the environment.
“For cold clouds below zero degrees, we use a coolant made from liquid nitrogen to increase the number of droplets while decreasing their mean size,” she said."As a result, the smaller droplets are less likely to fall and precipitation can be reduced.
“For clouds above zero degrees we use the seeding agent silver iodide to accelerate the droplets’ collision and coalescence, producing a downdraft which suppresses the formation of clouds.”
Despite the somewhat futuristic picture painted by controlling the weather, China has been using weather manipulation for some time, in an effort to increase rainfall in the north of the country. Using anti-aircraft guns, they fire seeding agents in to the clouds.
The processes involved are very complex, and Wang Yubin suggests another method to ensure a dry start to the Games. These methods, while aimed at stopping the rainfall, can also induce the rainfall. Thus, if a front is approaching, they hope to induce it before it gets to the stadium.
"How long would we have to hold Iraq before we could flip it for profit" Jon Stewart asked Sen. Harry Reid.
Contribution Details
Date: May 08, 2008 7:56 AM EDT
Contact: Marti
Crystal Lake, IL
Amount: $50.00
Through Gen. Clark's page, of course! :)
GOOOOO HILLARY!!!!! Don't let the media beat you down!!!!
and feel I have nothing left to contribute to this board. If General Clark ever runs for office again, I'll be there to help. Otherwise, best of luck everyone. May Hillary be our next president.
Proud to be an American.
We enjoy your posts. Even if it's less frequent, please be one of the regulars in the CCN (or we're going to send Arky Sue over to you with one of her beefsticks). ;)
http://www.californiahealthline.org/
EXCERPT
May 06, 2008
Health Care Providers' Lawsuit Aims To Halt Medi-Cal Pay Cuts
On Monday, a coalition of health care groups and providers filed a lawsuit that seeks to block California from reducing reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal and Denti-Cal providers by 10% on July 1, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. Medi-Cal is California's Medicaid program, and Denti-Cal is the branch of the program that provides dental care (Fernandez, San Francisco Chronicle, 5/6).
Officials said the $1.3 billion in cuts, including more than $500 million in federal matching funds, would push more physicians to stop participating in Medi-Cal, which has more than six million beneficiaries.
The cuts were approved by the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) in February as a way to help reduce a state budget deficit, currently projected at nearly $20 billion (Robertson, Sacramento Business Journal, 5/5).
The Los Angeles Daily Journal reports that this is the second lawsuit challenging the Medi-Cal reimbursement cuts, coming after a case filed by a group of independent pharmacists and advocates for people with disabilities last month (George, Los Angeles Daily Journal, 5/6).
Plaintiffs
Coalition members that filed the suit include the:
California Association for Adult Day Services;
California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems;
California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians;
California Dental Association;
California Hospital Association;
California Medical Association; and
California Pharmacists Association (Sacramento Business Journal, 5/5)
The case is California Medical Association v. Sandra Shewry (Los Angeles Daily Journal, 5/6). Shewry is the director of DHCS (California Healthline, 3/28).
"How long would we have to hold Iraq before we could flip it for profit" Jon Stewart asked Sen. Harry Reid.
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/05/prop_98_a_cardb.html
No-Prop 98 ( it would end rent control in all of CA and more )
Excerpt
Prop 98: A Cardboard Box for Your Troubles
By Brian Leubitz
Founder and Publisher
Calitics
By this time, I hope you've heard about Prop 98. But that's not the case everywhere, so much attention has been paid to getting the word out about the really negative effects that Prop 98 would have upon California. A great group of people came together to talk about the Landlords' Scheme to eliminate rent control, tenant protections, and affordable housing regulations.
Several folks came with cardboard boxes to make the point that many people living in rent controlled units would be forced to the streets. Many units would be converted to luxury condo conversion projects and housing supply in San Francisco would dwindle further. Affordable housing is already tough enough to come by (just look at Craigslist if you don't believe me), the last thing we need is Prop 98 eliminating much of the affordable supply.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgYK7kjORAc&feature=PlayList&p=5D1A0B6AF0470CDF&index=0
"How long would we have to hold Iraq before we could flip it for profit" Jon Stewart asked Sen. Harry Reid.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-raises-megabucks-for-the-gop-2008-05-06.html
Excerpt
Bush raises megabucks for the GOP
05/06/08
President Bush’s approval ratings may be down, but they haven’t affected his ability to raise money for Republicans.
Bush is on pace to raise significantly more money in 2008 for the Republican campaign committees than he did in 2007, according to Republican officials. Through the first four months of 2008, Bush has already raised more than half of what he took in last year for GOP candidates.
"How long would we have to hold Iraq before we could flip it for profit" Jon Stewart asked Sen. Harry Reid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HPLWps7Fqg&eurl=http://www.wtprn.org/
We the People vs. U.S. Government
"How long would we have to hold Iraq before we could flip it for profit" Jon Stewart asked Sen. Harry Reid.
...
Hillary today said she's staying in until there is a nominee. Good for her.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/7/165516/6045