Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

Susie-- I do know how idiotic the iranian president is about gays, jews and almost everything else except Bush. I don't like the guy, I don't trust the guy, I don't respect the guy, I don't anything the guy except know it would be better to have him with us than against us. Not talking to him is no "punishment" to him, it's a possible one to us. We don't know if it'll work unless we try is my only point. I don't see how, if the current/next president doesn't show him some diplomatic respect how can s/he expect any back. This whole carrot/stick approach-- the way that it's phrased is akin to a parent/child approach superpower/underling approach and I see that as part of the reason we have so many enemies. Did you see the 60 minutes report from the CIA guy who's job it was to get info from Sadaam? He patiently talked to Sadaam, gaining his trust and "friendship", listening to his poetry (which were really bad according to this guy) until Sadaam trusted him with his secrets. Why waterboard/torture when the more humane approach got the answers? As blundin said, diplomacy takes time and patience and while the Iranian president and a jailed Sadaam are different scenarios, the same principles apply.

Shirley, Dan Rather is a frequent guest on the Chris Matthews show Sunday mornings on NBC so if you haven't heard him speak lately  and are using 4 year old information to get your opinion you might be pleasantly surprised. The reason you'll find positive and negative things on MSNBC and other stations is because they're much more fair and balanced than (as Bill Maher calls it) FIXED news.

Katie you crack me up. I was going to post about this. I think it's pathetic that the Clintons are so arrogant they're trying to shape free press. I think it's more about free press and Hillary in the victim role again-- because she gets more sympathy and donations when she appears that way (the tears in NH because she was tired, the tears in MA when her law school professor introduced her, poor me I loaned my campaign money etc.) As the first woman with a chance of being president running she may be judged more harshly and held to a higher for being a woman whether fair or unfair until a later time in the future when women presidential candidates are the norm. As she frequently lets us know that she is change for being a woman, she's gotta take the positives and the negatives of this argument.  I found it ridiculous that she threatened to "boycott" MSNBC debates and I hope that if she does, the debates go on with Obama alone giving him the free air time she gave up in an attempt to manipulate the press.

Tender,

Grazie.

Joy...this link should answer all of your questions

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html

click on "Who are the Delegates"  

....or read this...it's even better

796 Insiders May Hold Democrats' Key

By Matthew Mosk and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 10, 2008; A01

For months, Patsy Arceneaux sat on the fence as key aides to the presidential campaigns of Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama made gentle but persistent inquiries. Ann Lewis, a close Clinton adviser, called weekly. The 2004 Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), called, urging her to jump behind Obama.

They all wanted to know the same thing: how she planned to vote in her role as a superdelegate at this summer's national convention.

Last week, the Baton Rouge party loyalist, one of 796 Democratic insiders who may well determine the eventual nominee, got the call that finally persuaded her -- from former president Bill Clinton, the man who 10 years earlier gave her husband a job.

"When the president called, I said to him, 'I guess I've moved to the top of the food chain,' " Arceneaux laughed. "He was very persuasive."

The calls were just one aspect of the aggressive campaign underway to win what could be the most important and least understood contest in the race for the Democratic nomination. As a group, the "superdelegates," a category created by party leaders in 1982 to give elected officials more clout in the nominating process, constitute a prize worth twice as much as the state of California.

Though Clinton and Obama have pursued the support of superdelegates for a year, the courtships have intensified in recent weeks as it has become clear that the two are locked in a virtual dead heat for delegate support. Party insiders say this could be the first campaign in more than two decades that reaches the national convention in August without a clear nominee, making the votes of superdelegates -- a group made up of current and former top elected officials and Democratic National Committee (DNC) members from around the nation -- potentially decisive.

"Right now, everyone is busting their chops to try to get the remaining superdelegates to commit. And they're having a real hard time of it," said Mike Berman, a Clinton supporter who worked on Walter F. Mondale's 1984 campaign, the last one in which superdelegates were a factor.

So far, 213 superdelegates have publicly committed to backing Clinton and 139 have pledged their support to Obama, according to a survey by the Associated Press.

The potential for superdelegates to play a critical role has some party leaders worried that the situation could lend the appearance that the nominee will be selected by insiders rather than by rank-and-file voters.

That appearance is not helped by the fact that so many superdelegates have clear allegiances. Bill Clinton, for instance, is a superdelegate by virtue of his tenure as president, as are Clinton campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe and longtime Clinton ally Harold Ickes. Though Hillary Clinton has a clear edge, former senator Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), a strong Obama supporter, and Alan Solomont, Obama's Northeast finance chairman, are superdelegates as well.

Some have significant financial ties to the campaigns. The Clinton campaign paid Ickes's company, Catalist, a broker of voter contact lists, more than $125,000 last year. Obama's campaign also paid Ickes's firm, spending $25,000 to rent a mailing list.

A company run by Mark S. Weiner, a Clinton supporter who became a superdelegate by virtue of his party leadership role in Rhode Island, has been paid more than $800,000 for campaign bumper stickers, signs and other paraphernalia.

Both said in interviews that their company contracts will not influence their votes as superdelegates. "We're not in anybody's pocket," Ickes said.

Within the Clinton and Obama campaigns, though, the only concern has been amassing support.

At a recent House Democratic Caucus retreat in Virginia, members who had already committed to a presidential candidate used every spare moment to lobby their colleagues.

"There's a concerted effort in both camps to talk to as many people, as many superdelegates, as possible about your candidate," said Rep. John B. Larson (Conn.), who was originally a supporter of Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.).

Larson and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), another former Dodd supporter, officially endorsed Obama on Feb. 2 and joined a growing network of members of Congress who are organizing an outreach effort to line up more superdelegates for him. With Clinton ahead in superdelegate endorsements so far, Obama supporters are making lists of undeclared House and Senate Democrats and setting up meetings to pitch their candidate.

"It will be a door-to-door campaign on my part with my colleagues," DeLauro said, adding that she has set up about a dozen meetings with House Democrats for the weeks ahead. "It will be a formidable operation."

Democratic operatives not affiliated with either campaign consider Clinton's operation in the superdelegate race much more formidable. Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.), the longest-serving member of the House, never received a call from the Obama campaign, according to a source close to the Energy and Commerce Committee chairman. Last week, Dingell endorsed Clinton.

And some superdelegates can be worth more than others, particularly those who have the ability to bring along others with them.

Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), who endorsed Clinton last year and is viewed as a vice presidential possibility, is trying to lock down the five DNC members from Indiana who are superdelegates on behalf of Clinton, according to a source close to Bayh.

Obama's campaign is working hard to catch up.

While three members of Connecticut's congressional delegation have endorsed Obama, the state has six DNC members who are also superdelegates. Two days after Dodd's campaign flamed out in Iowa, Obama was on the phone, telling Larson about his bid and the high-minded effort to refashion the way campaigns are waged.

"Obama made the best pitch himself. Sometimes seeing is believing," Larson said, recalling that both candidates and Bill Clinton called the weekend after the Iowa caucuses. "I heard from him. I heard from Hillary. I heard from Obama. . . . It's not as if they were beating down the path to me. They were beating down the path to everyone."

The calculation of whom to endorse can be complicated: Superdelegates must think not only about their personal views but also about how their votes will be viewed by constituents, said Ickes, who has chased their support on behalf of candidates since 1988.

"You try to figure out, what factors influence them? Who do they talk to about presidential politics?" Ickes said. "Sometimes, it's two or three close confidants, sometimes it's a chief of staff, or someone who raises money for them. Maybe there's an issue that's important to them."

One adviser helping to oversee Obama's superdelegate efforts said the Clintons entered the contest for support with a significant edge, by virtue of Bill Clinton's ability to get on the phone and "try to call in all the chits that they believe they have."

The Obama adviser thinks those delegates are all spoken for at this point. "They got all of the low-hanging fruit. The ones left are the ones much harder for them to reach," he said, referring to the Clinton campaign.

With more than half of the superdelegates unclaimed, both campaigns remain hard at work. And even those whom they believe are secure could move. Arceneaux, the Baton Rouge delegate whose husband was named by Clinton in the 1990s as head of Sallie Mae, the nation's largest student loan company, said she is well aware of the fact that superdelegates are not firmly bound to a candidate until they stand up at the convention in August.

"I always have the option of changing my mind," she said.

Research director Lucy Shackleford and research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Saluki....Complimenti!

Joy, et al...take a peek at this...http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html 

Actually, Amy, I do not care for Bill Maher.  That's not to say I care whether or not you like him, watch him or whatever.  I don't care from who you get your information.  It is your choice.  So, please grant me the respect for whatever "fixed" news I so choose to watch. 

My vote will go to McCain.  Obama's a nice enough guy, speaks well, is charismatic, a smart guy, but I'm not impressed.  I want someone who knows what the hell is going on in this world.  I'm afraid he's a bit naive.

May the best man/woman win.  I can see a hell'uva fight coming.  Should be interesting.

Shirley

Marilyn, thanks for that interesting article on the superdelegates.  Up to now, I'd figured that the superdelegates wouldn't want to alienate the voters so I was thinking that they would likely to go in whatever direction the voters went, i.e. if Obama is leading going into the convention, most superdelegates would vote for him to get him over the top.  I know that more superdelegates have committed to Clinton, but they do have the option to change their vote up to the last minute so I figured they'd swing whichever way the voters had gone.  What I didn't consider, and what your article points out, is that Obama didn't really court the superdelegates and they might not be real happy with that.  If one candidate clearly wants you and the other seems not to care, you're certainly more likely to go with the one who wants you.  And now, if Obama considers those who've declared for Clinton to be off the market and he's not trying to shift them, he's basically giving up those votes.  So maybe that means that those who've declared for Clinton will stick with her.  That could make a big difference if it all comes down to the convention.

Similarly, I suspect that the situation in Florida and Michigan favors Clinton, because of how Obama handled it.  I doubt that their primary results will be allowed to stand but I'm sure that the Dems will want both of these large states engaged and involved with the process. So I'm guessing that they'll eventually agree to a new caucus.  Although Obama generally does much better than Clinton in caucuses, I suspect that the voters in these two states will be pretty ticked off with Obama - while neither candidate campaigned in their primaries, Clinton showed support for those states while Obama didn't.  And it's Obama who's forcing the new caucus which the states don't want.  So particularly if Obama has more delegates going into these caucuses, I can see the voters of these states deciding that they want the ultimate revenge by giving a big win to Clinton.  It would make sense, particularly since both these states are more naturally inclined towards Clinton anyway.

I'm sure that the Obama supporters will say that all this - the superdelegates and the possible inclusion of Florida and Michigan - is unfair politics on the part of Clinton, if any of it comes to be.  But really it just shows that she understands the process better; she knows how to play the game.  These are advantages to having been around and having experience. Obama misstepped in how he's handled the superdelegates and in the way he approached Florida and Michigan, and it might end up being a costly mistake.

In the same way, I fear that Obama's lack of experience will show, if he's nominated and elected, in how he runs his foreign policy.  He's so determined to do it differently than how Bush has done it that I fear he will go full speed ahead, possibly missing or dismissing key signs that it's time to change the approach because diplomacy and negotiation aren't working.  Susie, the article about the candidate's foreign policy experience and advisors is really interesting.  My uneasiness with Obama on the foreign policy front was mostly based on gut, but now I see that my concerns have a base in reality.  I can't say I'm happy about that.  I'd preferred if it was just gut, and my gut turned out to be wrong!  Does Obama really think that he can successfully negotiate with terrorist organizations and reach an agreement that will stick?  I know lots of people here support Obama, for many good reasons, but does anything really think that negotiation with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran will work? 

Tender, you are too sweet.  My dear, you have enough brains for three of us.    You certainly don't need my "insight."  LOL

Shirley

Shirley, information is only as good as the source of that information. News is only news if it doesn't have a bias behind it- -it's commentary and editorializing. I may quote Bill Maher because I agree with him 90% of the time, but that doesn't mean I take what he says as news.

Joan, 2 of the supreme court justices are over the age of 70 and the next president may appoint as many as 3 justices. Justices usually serve at least 20 yrs and as many as 30-40 if they're young. McCain said he wants to appoint more justices like Alito (even though he previously said he was too conservative) and Roberts. I worry about women having to go back to using  back alleys and wire hangers if they don't want to be pregnant. I worry about gay rights. I worry about this country alienating itself more and more by using strong arm tactics against the rest of the world. I respect that you don't want to vote for Hillary--I hope you'll think about  not voting against her incase the worst happens and Obama isn't the democratic candidate.

I worry about the USA & all of her people too. I worry about having a President that will continue the polarization of citizens just like the current President.



I worry about the children in this country who are not getting a proper education and are dropping out in record numbers.



I worry about a country that places so much importance on the entertainment and sports industries in this country; and how we place such little importance on teaching our young people the importance of helping each other and not just striving for the "me."



I worry about the inequality gays experience in our society on a daily basis. I worry about young women forced to bear a child by a decision made by white men--a woman's body is her own and does not belong to any man and she should have the right to decide if she wants to carry a baby to term or not.



I worry about the low income families that live in violent communities because they can afford no other.



I worry about the young men and women we have sent into a war as cannon fodder that we cannot "win." I agree that we need to be careful in making a plan to bring them home safely.

I worry about the disabled veterans of this war that don't receive the best medical care, and in my opinion they deserve the "cadillac" plan--whatever congress gets so should they. AND when will we get a real list and numerical information on the number of injured who have returned to the US and still need a great deal of rehab?



I worry about the large corporations that get the huge tax breaks and make the largest footprint on the environment.



I worry about the middle income people in this country that are quickly disappearing.



I worry about the elderly left in substandard nursing homes.



I worry about the families gone from New Orleans and unable to rebuild their houses & return to keep their communities viable; and a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT SEEMS UNABLE AND UNWILLING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT ALL OF THIS.



Parties and nominees aside. This is our chance for change. There is a momentum in this country of people who are unwilling to accept the status quo. The only candidates who seems to reflect the interests of the citizens to change the status quo are Ron Paul and Obama Barack. I have no idea how this election will turn out. I am just delighted that the young people of this country have found someone they can listen to and excite them about the politics of the USA. I fear we cannot survive another 4 or 8 years with a President who behaves like a dictator and refuses to come to the table and behave in a bipartisanship manner for the good of the people of the United States. A President may want to "do what he thinks is best" and listens to a cabinet that is only willing to tell him what he wants to hear, and proceeds to put us into a war that should never have happened; and ultimately is unwilling to stand up and say he made a mistake. IMO Bush is the lead character in the Emporer's New Clothes. He is standing naked, and no one is willing to tell him the truth. I'm sure he is a nice person. In fact, I've said many times I would love to sit down and have lunch with him in my home so he could see how one of his minions lives. He needs to drop the arrogance & attitude, and then I think there would be less negativity surrounding his term in the White House.



So, I believe we need to challenge each of the candidates running for President of the United States on all these points. And I think we need to keep insisting that we get answers. I want to know exactly in very concrete terms what each of these candidates intends to do about my worries, and the worries expressed by others on this board.



I do watch "conservative" and "liberal" news reports because I want to make a good decision for my country. I still haven't really made up my mind. I too have concerns about Hillaryx2 and McCain.



I live in Santa Cruz County--land of the majority of left wingers in california! We'll see. As others have said this will be an interesting race!



grace

Well, Amy

I guess You cant have every thing!

do You have any Idea of the Good  the USA Does???

Puppy  

Amy, not true!

I Really wonder, because you never say anything good about Our Country!

Puppy

Dear All,



Ever since 2000, when a state and a supreme court decision changed the majority will of the people regarding the next president, I began worrying about our country.



When September 11, 2001 occurred, at which time I was receiving the Red Devil Adriamycin intravenously, I worried about past heads up ignored that a problem was brewing, and obvious terrorist hatred regarding US foreign policies.



Then, when President Bush and Congress agreed to invade Iraq I really began worrying.



Now, I worry ALL the time about our countries future, our children's, for the reasons Grace so eloquently stated.



I read antidepressant use in America is at an all time high. So are anxiety reducing drugs.



I do not doubt the link between their increase use and our countries current state of affairs.


I do not know who the next President will be, but I do know that our beloved country, it's people, it's congresspeople, it's justices, and it's President must work together to restore that which we have lost over the last eight years.


Please realize these are just my opinions, and I fully respect others have differing views. I just hate to worry so much, on top of worrying about breast cancer.



With great respect,

Tender

I am very excited about this election, because I really do think it is time for a change and for the first time in decades, we have a candidate with determination, talent, and integrity who can offer us change.  Caroline and Ted Kennedys' endorsement of Obama was a very dramatic and exciting development. 

My only concern about Obama is that he is just a little too fair-minded and innocent to survive the presidency...as Jim Kunstler said last February:

I like Obama pretty well. What I like best about him is that he seems to be a genuinely normal human being. He wasn't born with any advantages and he doesn't resort to any false claims of disadvantage either. There's nothing puffed up about him, which is to say, nothing presidential. His popularity so far is based on this genuineness combined with an exceptional ability in writing and public speaking. He appears capable of talking straight. It's even possible he can see straight. He looks very young compared to his rivals, but in 2009 he'll be older than John F. Kennedy was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. The ominous note is struck because such a clear-eyed individual would seem to be naturally fated, in this nation of dangerous cranks, for assassination. Were he to get elected by some miracle, and then rubbed out by some cunning tattooed moron, you could probably kiss this nation farewell. 

I didn't know anything about Obama until my 84-year-old mother, a life-long broken glass-eating Republican, brought him up in a telephone conversation last spring.  She had seen him on TV and had completely fallen in love with him.  She had a stroke last September, and has just been learning to talk again and her favorite topic of conversation is the coming election....it's become something for her to live for.

He's got my vote.

Mizsissy 

just want to chime in again and say how much I am enjoying this thread!  Your insights, comments, quotes have enabled me to do some extra research and contemplating!

I just have two comments:

one--there was a brief trailer on CNN today that Obama was going to meet with John Edwards today...have heard nothing else yet, but it will be interesting to hear the results of that meeting.   An offer to Edwards for the VP or a request that he vocalize his support of Obama...will be interesting.

two--the input of non-US residents here is invaluable!   I have a friend since kindergarten (55 years long friendship!) who has lived abroad for the last 30 years.   She  is more in tune with the political climate in the US than I ever have or ever will be.   I find her comments to be insightful, educated, and well-balanced.  I welcome her comments on this election.   And, I enjoy hearing from other non-US residing people on this thread.   Please keep contributing!

One last thing that disturbs me greatly, and others have touched upon--our image abroad.   I was in Italy several years ago and happened on an anti-Bush/American demonstration--very low key and peaceful--it was done by grade school children!   Protesting something Bush was proposing (and, of course I can't remember what it was!) and they had written letters to him.   They were posted publically and then were going to be bundled up and mailed to him.    I just remember feeling rather humbled--and a little scared that from the top of my head to my feet, I shouted U.S. TOURIST to everyone.

Whoever is elected will have hard work ahead of them to repair the damage abroad--it will take years.   And so much damage to repair and work to be done right here at home.   I don't envy whoever is elected to the task to begin the big change!

huggggsssssss, junie