The Brand New Respectful Presidential Campaign Thread

Ivylane

Good morning all:  I have to say that I am getting really fed up with this Florida and Michigan fight....  Why am I not surprised that this is going on?  When these two states broke the rules by having their primaries too soon they were told that the votes would not count.  Clinton promised not to campaign in FL and Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan....now that there is a close race the rules are changing.  If this goes all the way to the convention floor I am going to be really ticked off...

As far as the gender and race bias, boy I sure hope that the majority of voters don't think this way...  it is NOT (or shouldn't be) about the first "Black" or first "Female"  president.  It should be about who can get the job done.  Case closed.  I have voted across party lines many times but this time it is going to be a dem for sure.  That is, assuming someone actually gets the NOMINATION!!!!  Geesh!!!

shokk

Oh my freaking goodness..........just heard on Fox News (assuming my liberal friends have not heard this) that Vanity Fair has an article being released on Wednesday (but ex certs are being released to news organizations) that Bill Clinton is whoring his way through the campaign (on the campaign trail)......supposedly he has not been the same since his bypass in 04 (?).....not sure how this behavior is considered different except maybe he is not trying to hide it..............but what in the heck does this have to do with anything............I swear that there is some kind of mass media conspiracy to not let Hillary even make it to Denver..........it like this prefect storm that is lining up with Obama..........he cannot even think like an adult.......he says the most asinine things like Iran cannot be as big a threat as Russia because it is physically smaller......wth?..........that is what a child thinks.............Anneshirley and Cherryl I know you guys are upset and you should be............Obama is going to end up being a total embarrassment..............what in the holy heck is the Democrat party thinking?.........this was suppose to be your year............if thing get really rough in the fall with Obama y'all may net even pick up the senate and house seats that is being predicted...............Shokk

saluki

Nice thought Shokk-

".if thing get really rough in the fall with Obama y'all may net even pick up the senate and house seats that is being predicted...."

 

I love the thought of Obama's very vocal shill in Florida -Robert Wexler possibly being defeated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's official: The Obama campaign is supporting a compromise for Florida that would seat all the delegates at half a vote each -- giving Hillary a net gain of 19 delegates.

Obama's representative at the Rules meeting, Florida Rep. Robert Wexler, just endorsed the idea during his presentation.

"Senator Obama should be commended for his willingness to offer this extraordinary concession," Wexler said, adding that he's offering this concession "in order to promote reconciliation with Florida voters."

---------------------------------------

That statement alone makes me want to hurl.

 

Jaybird627

Anneshirley, I'm with you! I'm either not voting or I'm going to write-in Hillary's name. I cannot vote for either McCain nor Obama, I just can't.

I have friends who will vote for Obama even though they prefer Hillary but I won't do that. Let's see where this country goes with the new president and all I'll be able to say is "see, I told you - you should have voted for Hillary!" 

Anonymous

Although I totally agree with you about the "rag on Hillary" bandwagon, Anneshirley, I have to set you straight fact wise about Black men being getting the right to vote via the 15th Amendment: Great law  - too bad it was primarily in name only as many men couldn't vote thanks to grandfather clauses and poll taxes. It wasn't until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - 43 years after the ratification of the 19th Amendment - that most Black men actually could cast a vote without worrying about it actually being counted or not.

Onto the issue at hand: Voting this year will really be a hard issue for me - not because I'm a Black female Democrat, but because this will be the second national election in a row where I'm not real crazy about the choices and will end up either settling for the better of two really weak candidates or not voting at all. I'm only a generation removed from all the '60s protests (yep, my parents, aunts and uncles risked life and limb to take a stand in the pre Civil Rights south) and am very much aware that folks got their heads split open, attacked by dogs and even died so I could have the right to cast my ballot - so not doing so doesn't even feel like an option. Haven't quite figured out what that will mean for me in November, though...

Perhaps people are supporting Obama for the same reasons folks supported Reagan: he's a fresh face with some interesting ideas, so the consensus is why not give him a shot? Could he be much worse than what we've had?!? We like pretty faces with smooth timbred voices. Any yahoo with a radio voice and movie star looks could get elected to public office in this country because the American people are just that damn shallow...

I'm hearing lots about how the Dems are afraid of alienating African American voters (which, they've been doing for years, btw) and now talk about how they need to be concerned about alienating women - all the while dismissing Black women totally. The truth is we are not all flicking levers for Obama or giving Hillary standing ovations like some giant homogenous bunch who think, act and react in exactly the same way. Wouldn't it be funny if the real swing votes were cast by African American women tired of being so totally discounted?

Of course this election should be about the better candidate winning, but if the last few elections are any indication, it won't be. There are still lots of folks riding around with bumper stickers from '00 telling anyone who will listen that they should have voted for Gore - oh wait, most people did...

Whomever wins this puppy will unfortunately inherit a bloody mess on so many fronts - economic, foreign policy-wise, etc. If the new pres doesn't turn this ship around with a quickness, he/she won't be around for long because the backlash in the complete other direction will be swift.

Yep, we're a fickle bunch, we Americans... 

Anonymous

Shokk, I saw the same thing.  What's new?  LOL

As far as Obama vs McCain, well do what you want.  Butcha better think long and hard.  Who would you like to see int he WH?  Neither one.  But who would you RATHER see in the WH?

I think Obama knows NOTHING about what he's doing.  He makes more gaffes than anyone I know.  The little gaffes mean nothing to me.  But when it comes to foreign policy and the security of our nation...you better think long and hard.  I would MUCH rather see Hillary in the WH than Obama.  I'm afraid that's not going to happen. 

This year (I'm so disgusted) I'm pulling a straight ticket...Repub.  I always vote for the individual, but this year I'll do what I have to do.  Well, I may have to vote for a couple of dems.  Damn, that ruins MY plans!

Shirley

I'll reiterate...McCain is NOT a Bush.

Rosemary44

Susie,

I'd love to see 2 women fighting for the nomination of their party in 2012.  What an idea!  It's time has come.  Now I want McCain to pick the Alaskan Governor.  And it will be twice as important to get him elected this year.  I like it.  This thought came from Dick Morris or you? 

Meanwhile, Hillary has the lead in the popular vote today.  We'll see after Tues. if that holds, and wouldn't we all fall over if the superdelegates actually took a real look at her chances?  Nah, what am I saying?

anneshirley

Blue: You write, "It should be about who can get the job done."  Well, that's certainly the tag for why no one should vote for Obama, no matter what other factors are involved.  What has he ever done?

Also, the thing about Florida and Michigan is not as you state it, although it's the spin put on it by every Obama supporter. " Florida and Michigan broke the rules and should be punished." First, whose rules by the way? Do you really think it fair that Iowa and New Hampshire should decide our nominee every year, which is about how it happens most years.  But aside from that, the situations are quite different in both states, which I won't go into again--as I wrote about it extensively a while ago. You might want to read up on this--the early primary in Florida was forced on the Dem's by Republicans.  And Obama did not have to take his name off the ballot in Michigan--he did so because he knew he would lose so decided to make sure he could say, later, that his name wasn't on the ballot (short version, because I don't want to write more on it again).  Also, he did campaign in Florida; Hillary didn't.  So he broke the rules there, and the reason given by his campaign is the most ridiculous of any I've heard.  And if his campaign had gone along for a second primary in both states, there would have been one!  So the argument doesn't wash!

Felicia--I see your point but I must echo Bessie.  It's always been 'women will accommodate.'  I won't ever again--getting too old and I'm at a time in life where I refuse to accommodate ever again.  I'll probably be one of those  old women (if not already) that tells everyone how she thinks it is.  So be it!  And yes, I am aware that black men were screwed out of their voting right in many states until the Voting Rights Bill; nonetheless, they were given the vote fifty years ahead of women--all women, black and white.  I can't speak for anyone else, but at this point in my life, gender rules all other aspects of who I am, aside, of course, from being human.  (And even there, I wonder why we feel we have the right to subject and use every other animal ont the planet!)

But I really won't know what I'll do until I'm inside a voting booth, but I could never have said this at any other time of my life.

saluki

My wish----

Morris couldn't care less about a two woman race--- He just is out to demonize Hillary any way he can.

---------------------------------

If any of you are scratching your head like I am about how Obama did it

I think this is a wonderful and highly enlightening article about the election from Outside The Beltway

------------------------------------

Why Obama Beat Clinton

James Joyner | Sunday, June 1, 2008

AP’s Stephen Ohlemacher explains why Barack Obama, the young upstart, is going to be the Democratic Party nominee for president while Hillary Rodham Clinton, the hands-down favorite, is getting a set of steak knives.

Unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton, rival Barack Obama planned for the long haul. Clinton hinged her whole campaign on an early knockout blow on Super Tuesday, while Obama’s staff researched congressional districts in states with primaries that were months away. What they found were opportunities to win delegates, even in states they would eventually lose.

Obama’s campaign mastered some of the most arcane rules in politics, and then used them to foil a front-runner who seemed to have every advantage—money, fame and a husband who had essentially run the Democratic Party for eight years as president. “Without a doubt, their understanding of the nominating process was one of the keys to their success,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist not aligned with either candidate. “They understood the nuances of it and approached it at a strategic level that the Clinton campaign did not.”

Careful planning is one reason why Obama is emerging as the nominee as the Democratic Party prepares for its final three primaries, Puerto Rico on Sunday and Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday. Attributing his success only to soaring speeches and prodigious fundraising ignores a critical part of contest. Obama used the Democrats’ system of awarding delegates to limit his losses in states won by Clinton while maximizing gains in states he carried. Clinton, meanwhile, conserved her resources by essentially conceding states that favored Obama, including many states that held caucuses instead of primaries. In a stark example, Obama’s victory in Kansas wiped out the gains made by Clinton for winning New Jersey, even though New Jersey had three times as many delegates at stake. Obama did it by winning big in Kansas while keeping the vote relatively close in New Jersey.

[…]

The system enables strong second-place candidates to stay competitive and extend the race—as long as they don’t run out of campaign money. “For people who want a campaign to end quickly, proportional allocation is a bad system,” Devine said. “For people who want a system that is fair and reflective of the voters, it’s a much better system.”

[…]

A more subtle change was the distribution of delegates within each state. As part of the proportional system, Democrats award delegates based on statewide vote totals as well as results in individual congressional districts. The delegates, however, are not distributed evenly within a state, like they are in the Republican system. Under Democratic rules, congressional districts with a history of strong support for Democratic candidates are rewarded with more delegates than districts that are more Republican. Some districts packed with Democratic voters can have as many as eight or nine delegates up for grabs, while more Republican districts in the same state have three or four.

The system is designed to benefit candidates who do well among loyal Democratic constituencies, and none is more loyal than black voters. Obama, who would be the first black candidate nominated by a major political party, has been winning 80 percent to 90 percent of the black vote in most primaries, according to exit polls. “Black districts always have a large number of delegates because they are the highest performers for the Democratic Party,” said Elaine Kamarck, a Harvard University professor who is writing a book about the Democratic nominating process. “Once you had a black candidate you knew that he would be winning large numbers of delegates because of this phenomenon,” said Kamarck, who is also a superdelegate supporting Clinton.

In states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, Clinton won the statewide vote but Obama won enough delegates to limit her gains. In states Obama carried, like Georgia and Virginia, he maximized the number of delegates he won. “The Obama campaign was very good at targeting districts in areas where they could do well,” said former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a Clinton superdelegate from South Carolina. “They were very conscious and aware of these nuances.”

But, Fowler noted, the best strategy in the world would have been useless without the right candidate. “If that same strategy and that same effort had been used with a different candidate, a less charismatic candidate, a less attractive candidate, it wouldn’t have worked,” Fowler said. “The reason they look so good is because Obama was so good.”

It’s supremely ironic, though, that the legacy candidate, with every resource imaginable available to her, didn’t understand the rules while the neophyte mastered them from the outset.

About those steak knives: Tim Shipman, writing for the London Telegraph reports that Obama is offering Clinton a “negotiated surrender” at a level far, far less lucrative than is ordinarily awarded to close second place finishers.

The former First Lady would get the chance to pilot Mr Obama’s reforms of the American healthcare system if she agrees to clear the path to his nomination as Democratic presidential candidate. Senior figures in the Obama camp have told Democrat colleagues that the offer to Mrs Clinton of a cabinet post as health secretary or to steer new legislation through the Senate will be a central element of their peace overtures to the New York senator.

[…]

After today’s primary election in Puerto Rico and Tuesday’s final contests in Montana and South Dakota, the remaining super-delegates will come under huge pressure from fellow party grandees to declare their hands. The Obama camp, however, remains nervous about Mrs Clinton’s intentions and ambitions, and is preparing a face-saving package that will allow her to continue to play a role in health care reform, which has been her signature issue for more than a decade. Despite pressure from some Clinton allies, Mr Obama and his advisers do not wish to ask her to be his vice-presidential running mate. “They will talk to her,” one Democrat strategist close to senior figures in the Obama camp told The Sunday Telegraph. “They will give her the respect she deserves. She will get something to do with health care, a cabinet post or the chance to lead the legislation through the Senate.”

Another Democrat who has discussed strategy with friends in the Obama inner circle said that Mr Obama was openly considering asking Mrs Clinton to join his cabinet, alongside two other former presidential rivals: John Edwards, who is seen as a likely attorney general; and Joe Biden, who is a leading contender to become Secretary of State.

Edwards and Biden together won essentially the same number of delegates as my cats, Scamp and Henry. Yet they’re being considered for far more prestigious posts than Clinton, who has taken Obama to the wire. I’m guessing that such an offer would actually serve to stoke her desire to keep fighting to the bitter end.

Her campaign’s feigned outrage over a rather generous settlement yesterday in the dispute over the Florida and Michigan ballots is another indicator of that intention.

To jeers and boos that showcased deep party divisions, Democratic Party officials agreed Saturday to seat delegates from the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries at the party’s convention in August but give them only half a vote each, dealing a setback to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The agreement, reached by the rules committee of the Democratic National Committee behind closed doors and voted on publicly before a raucous audience of supporters of the two candidates, would give Mrs. Clinton a net gain of 24 delegates over Senator Barack Obama. But this fell far short of her hopes of winning the full votes of both delegations and moved the nomination further out of her reach. She now lags behind Mr. Obama by about 176 delegates, according to The New York Times’s tally, in the final weekend of campaigning before the nominating contests end. Mrs. Clinton, who led the voting in the Michigan and Florida contests, which were held in defiance of party rules, picked up 19 delegates more than Mr. Obama in Florida and 5 delegates more than Mr. Obama in Michigan.

The deal prompted one of her chief advisers, Harold Ickes, a member of the rules committee himself, to declare that Mrs. Clinton’s fight may not be over, even though Mr. Obama’s advisers say he is only days away from gaining enough delegates to claim the nomination. “Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee,” Mr. Ickes said before the final vote, raising the specter of a fight until that committee meets. His words drew cheers from Clinton supporters, including many who yelled, “Denver! Denver! Denver!” — implying that the fight could go all the way to the convention in that city.

Or beyond.

anneshirley

Susie--I agree, his campaign used arcane rules to win, and the rules are ridiculous at best.  But in the end, it's not some type of game (or is it?) and Obama has most of his delegates from states that will most likely go Republican in the fall and Clinton has delegates from states that will go Democrat (Obama or Clinton) but also from the all important swing states, and many of them will now go to McCain.  I've lost all faith in Democrats. I once wrote here, partly to irritate, that it's well known that Democrats are smarter than Republicans.  Well, i certainly got a rise from some on the thread, and I now sincerely apologize to all who protested.  Obviously, I was wrong!

Paulette531

Anneshirley...I must have missed your comment about Democrats being smafter than Repubs...you said you wrote it "partly to irritate"...what was the other part? I am really curious from a purely psychological view.

shokk

(((Anneshirley))) you cannot lose faith in your Democrats...........everyone knows that Democrats are smarter then Republicans ......we as Republicans just don't realize it because we are do busy clinging to our religion and guns........Anneshirley you are a very intelligent woman whom happens to be a writer..........are you writing in to the editorial pages to the major newspapers..........your party has been hijacked by some far, far left independents that aren't even good enough to be Democrats and believe me I feel your pain because my party has been hijacked my moderates..........this is ridiculous that any of us is having to put up with this.........Anneshirley even if you have to vote for Nader or their must be someone on the Democrat or independent ticket you can vote for on the New York ballot..........maybe this can be a topic of your next book.........Shokk

djd

I really don't understand all the grief over Obama being the presumptive nominee.   The Dems had a great field of candidates this year, in my opinion.  My first choice was Edwards, but I will be pleased with Hillary or Obama.   They are both thoughtful, well-read, insightful and demonstrated leaders.

McCain is stubborn, ill-tempered and out of touch.

I can't wait until January, 2009, when I can wake up with optimism instead of despair about the direction of this great country (maybe I am naive to think the next president will be effective in changing our course, but I know McCain has no intention of changing a damn thing!)

I just don't "get" all the anger in this thread. 

shokk

Well djd it's because in the general Obama is going to be unelectable and I am not going to speak for Anneshirley but I have a feeling she is feeling more despair at this point then even anger because she is going to have to put up with four more years of a Republican........I may be off track but her despair is on display in her posts........and one more thing is the way Hillary has been treated by the media and political pinheads that think they are smarter then the American people in general.............Obama will never win in the swing states were Hillary actually could...........if you think for one minute that you are going to get rid of the Republicans at least for 4 years whether its Obama or Hillary running on the Democrat ticket I personal think you will be wrong......Shokk

junie

...waving an olive branch...

so, someone tell me Who (which candidate) Is Smarter Than a 5th Grader???

I'm still straddling the fence on all this but so enjoy reading this thread!

In my heart, I want the Dems back in--have always been a Dem, but my boy isn't there again (I was an Edwards fan, this time and last).   I have much respect for McCain but cannot be sure that he won't be a Rep puppet.

Granted, Obama is still wet behind the ears, but I listen to what he says, gaffes and all.   And, it makes me think...

I was all for Hillary--finally, blast that glass ceiling to bits!   But, she chilled me with her being shot at, run for cover tale...shot my air right out of that balloon.   And, even if she is somehow the nominee and wins, that damn glass ceiling is only going to be cracked...

Sorry, but have always felt that any "Change" can't come from the top--it has to trickle up--more attention should be paid to the Reps and Sens that we elect from our states.   JMHO!!!

...still waving the peace branch!

junie

Rosemary44

"I just don't "get" all the anger in this thread."

WHAT ANGER?  Dammit!

Myself, I'm just dissappointed.  What shoulda, coulda, just isn't.  It's all spinning out of our control, we never really had any control anyway, but it feels like we lost it.

I'm still all ears if anyone can tell me how Obama has shown leadership qualities?  Or can tell me what date he said he'll pull troops out, or can explain why his universal health care program leaves 15 million people out?  Which leads to another question:  How then is it considered to be universal?   

Anyone?

saluki

If anyone finds this whole caucus business mysterious you may find this

interesting.---- Hard lesson learned by Hillary but, what could she have done differently considering her demographics?

http://www.talkleft.com/media/caucusjune2.pdf

Anonymous

Susie, my brain won't let me read all 14 pages. LOL  However, just watching the dems and how they elect their nominee...this should teach them a lesson...CHANGE IS NEEDED!  Hmmm..have I heard those worlds somewhere before?

I'm getting more and more depressed the more I watch TV coverage of this primary and know who's going to be the dem nominee.  I need to take a pill!

Shirley 

spar2

I don't  understand how anyone would want Obama as President when he abandoned his church due to pressure, what else will he quit just because lots of others don't agree with him. 

CherrylH

Hi Shokk,

I'm back, girlfriend. Just spent a week away from the fray. Mu niece was married on Saturday afternoon and I've been too involved in Bridemaids' Luncheon, Rehearsal, Rehearsal Dinner, Wedding, Reception and Family Breakfast to care about politics. See, even left leaning liberals have family values!!!!!

Cherryl

shokk

(((((Cherryl!!!!!))))...........jeez girl I was a bit worried............good for you.....we all need to take a break from politics every once in a while.......we should all try and get together say in Vegas the weekend after the election in November......we can all drown our sorrows.............the whole political thread........you left leaning liberals can show us stuffy shirt conservatives how to have some fun...............nothing more beautiful then a wedding except for one thing.......I love it when babies get baptized................getting back to politics the rumors are that the whole Fleger (sp) was a set up so Obama would have the excuse to leave his church........it is interesting that they would choose a white Priest to say something so outrageous to make Obama and family leave.........hmmmmmmm.........I do have a question and Susie if any one can find the answer you can.............so Obama leaves Harvard and decides he is going to find a needy community and help in outreach programs....which is fine......so he finds himself on the South Side of Chicago that is notorious for far left leaning politics.........where would he had officed?.........Would he had worked out of his home or would he had worked say in a church office at Trinity?  Community Activist always have some kind of office right?  Just curious.........he has said the reason he was attracted to Trinity was because of their wonderful community outreach programs...........didn't someone have to teach Obama how to be a Community Activist..........it's not an easy job.........does anyone have any clues?...........Shokk

saluki

After he Graduated Harvard he worked for a law firm. 

Maybe Linda has more answers

---------------

1991	Obama graduates from Harvard Law School and receive his Juris Doctor law degree.
1991	Obama moves back to Chicago where he takes a job with the civil rights law firm, Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland.
1993	Over the next several years, Obama represents victims of housing and employment discrimination and works on voting-rights legislation for a small public-interest firm. He also began teaching at the University of Chicago Law School, although he declined to pursue a tenure-track post, hoping to save time for politics.

djd

I was born on the left coast, grew up in the mid-west, and have family from the southern US.  My current life gives me the opportunity to meet people from all over the world on a regular basis.

Nothing was more eye-opening to me than last weekend when I visited some relatives from Tennessee - Aunts, Uncles and cousins I haven't seen in 30 years.   Nothing, and I mean nothing, has changed since the last time I was there...

1.  They all live in modest, small homes within a mile or two of one another;

2.  My Aunt's house is FULL of knick-knacks;

3.  There is a mean dog in the yard that is ready to tear you to pieces if you aren't a "local" to the household

But the political views are incredibly complex...

A few of my cousins are dyed in the wool Republicans

My, but my Aunt and Uncle are dyed in the wool Democrats, who have been at odds with the minister of their church (sound familiar?) who, in 2004, stood in the pulpit and said a Democrat could not get to heaven!  But, they never stopped going to that church, because they have been members for 55 years and they go there to worship and praise the Lord, not the preacher.

But most of them will never vote for an African American, regardless of his party.

It saddens me that there is a part of the country (and part of my family!) who still lives in the past.  I can privately pass judgment on them, I guess, but I can't stand the thought of turning my back on members of my family that have been so supportive and wish nothing but the best for me. 

Their world is so small, to them, California is a foreign country!

I learned some things last weekend about some parts of this country and how far they have yet to come since the Civil War.  But I do believe the number of people gets smaller everyday, and when Obama gets elected in November, many more people (hopefully!) will learn that it's time to move on...

shokk

Why in the world would you pass judgment on them?  Just because they would never vote for a black person or maybe a woman?  After all this is a free country.......I am sure that there are thousands of black folk that are voting for Obama just because he is black.........not necessarily what he stands for.............of course for us Republicans its always just the older white guy but I would be thrilled if the Republican was conservative regardless of their color..........yes there are many people in this world that are set in their ways..............I cannot even imagine a Preacher in the back woods of TN saying that a Democrat could never get into haven........he's lucky he didn't get salt in his tea.............maybe he was referring to pro life instead of pro choice but of course there are many conservative Democrats that are pro life..........don't know but I doubt that your relatives want your pity........their lives are probably very simple, they probably live within their means, your Aunts nicknack's probably bring her great pleasure......I doubt that they are perfect but none us are........you should be proud of your southern kin folk........these are the type of people that have made our country great.....working in factories, farming, mining..........working hard their whole lives for very little in return except to be proud Americans......this is what Obama doesn't get and many faculty loungers on the left and east coast.........jmo..........Shokk

Rosemary44

Yesterday I was listening to some man talking about how Obama has to dumb down and do mundane things to impress the least educated in our country so they'll understand him better, and see him as one of their own.

Before I heard that, I was nodding off for a nice nap, but instead I almost came out of my skin.  I hope and pray more people are paying attention.  And then, sure enough, there was Obama catching pancakes from afar.  Here's to the dumbing down of Obama for all of us country bumpkins.  

Ivylane

good morning everyone....

well today SHOULD be the day to end this democratic nominee battle.... I think I can safely say that we ALL want to move on from this....

Rosemary:  I would love to know who made the "dumbing down" comment... do you recall who said that?

Anne Shirley:  I agree with you that New Hampshire and Iowa should not have a "lock" on the early primaries every year.  Florida and Michigan (although out of line by both DNC and RNC rules) decided they had been left out too many times and thumbed their noses at the primary calendar.  While commendable in their efforts, they STILL broke the rules of both parties. Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida led the charge for this effort to have the primaries early.  Both parties knew the consequence of doing this ...  Lisa Miller of the RNC  "any state that holds their primary outside the recommended date will be penalized 1/2 their delegates".  DNC held their party to the penalty and the RNC did not.

As far as the Michigan ballot, all contenders (Biden, Edwards, Richardson, Obama, Clinton and Dodd) pledged not to campaign there and everyone  EXCEPT Sen. Clinton removed their name from the ballot. Senator Clinton said it was "unnecessary" and that she intended to honor the pledge she made.   As for Florida, I don't believe that Sen Obama made a campaign appearance there till AFTER the primary.   Sen. Clinton on the other hand had a rally in FL as the polls were closing on Primary night.

I don't know why the parties don't change it up and let all states have a go at an earliy primary.  Maybe a lottery system or something. 

Beesie

A rally that is held as the polls are closing cannot influence the vote.  Clinton said that she would not campaign in Florida and she did not; having a rally after the voting is complete was her way of showing support and appreciation for the Florida voters.

Obama, on the other hand, advertised in Florida prior to the date of the primary, contrary to the agreement of all candidates that they would not campaign there.  He ran national television ads that played in Florida.  Perhaps that was accidental but since virtually all other advertising during the primaries was very focused locally, it seems a little suspect.

Paulette531

DJD...I believe most people have moved on, but then there is always the faction that will not move on for whatever reason and then there are the people like you, byGrace, Amy, Anneshirley (to name a few) who are perpetually stuck in the "people need to learn to move on" and then there are the people like Wright, Jackson and Sharpton who will not let people move on because they are agitators. What puzzles me about people who think they have moved on because they constantly harp about the people in their opinion who have not moved on is why they think they are so far above everyone else in their haughtiness? And I agree with Shokk, why in the world would you be passing judgement on your relatives? Do they judge you? Do you judge everyone in this manner, people who are not up to your standards? It is interesting watching the people on this board who are pro-Obama, they appear to be as elitist as he is, hmmm...hence the connection. It almost seems as though it is seriously not about his politics but rather there is a "I am better than you are connection".

And one last thing, if you believe that people will "move on" if Obama is elected, you are sadly mistaken. It is human nature to not be forced into anything and that includes thoughts, actions, etc. (psych 101). I think there are a handfull of people who don't like Obama because he is half black, I think the majority of people who are against his being elected is because of his voting record (present), his lack of experience, his take on the war, the economy and his health plan as well as his take on abortion and let us not forget his constant flip flopping on the issues and his arrogance where middle class gun toting church going bible thumping people are concerned. Obama is an elitist and that has been shown over and over in his campaign and how he relates to people. I would even suspect he has disdain for whites and blacks equally who he thinks are not up to his stature.    

shokk

One thing that is for sure if I had to be "dropped" into the wilderness of Alaska with one of djd's relatives or with Obama with nothing but a shotgun, a pack of matches, and a bible I would pick djd's relative any day of the week......there is book smart and then there is real life smart and basic human survival.....when it comes to being President of this great land book smart is not going to get you very far.........jmo............Shokk

saluki

The final insult and slap in the face.

The View is reporting that the AP says Clinton will concede tonight.  The

Clinton campaign is vehemently denying this.  But now that millions of viewers have heard this without checking with the campaign on the day of 2 major primaries--Why should anyone go out and vote for her?

The last act in a disgustingly biased media campaign.