American Moment | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)
Bowel Moment (none / 1)
Are you for real? Let me educate you 

They found their issue? The MSM has know about this issue since Obama announced his nomination.

You liken the last 6 weeks to the revolutionary war, I guess that means Clinton (who has been hammered for over the last year) should be likened to WWII? how about Iraq (its lasted longer).

Obama crushed those primaries? Let's see he lost OH, PA and lost the popular vote in TX. He did win big in NC (I wonder why Wright wasn't an issue in NC). Oh I forgot 1 he lost Ind. a state where the voters are familiar with him and a state he once held the lead. Forgot to mention Obama outspent Clinton by susbstancial amounts in all those states. Wins like those really put Clinton away didn't they. Wow what a moment!


Yup we have really showed the MSM


You are so well educated that you didn't realize that Obama lost Indiana? You are so educated that you can't figure out why "Wright" didn't matter in NC? You were offended by Begala? Must have hit a nerve because he is right. You should have been offended by Brazile. She stated that this is a new dem party and the the new party didn't need white voters or hispanics. this is the same "lady" that drove Gore's campaign into the ground. She is also the same lady that is directly responsible for the fiasco that is Fla & MI.

Superdelegates not overturning the "will of the people" O.K. supergenius what is the purpose of the super delegates? Why were they created. is it a) to rubber stamp the delegate leader or b) pick the best candidate for November.

If you clicked B we have a winner, tell him what he has won Johnny. A smart guy like you should realize that there is no reason to have SDs at all if the delegate leader automatically gets the nod.

Allow me to let you in on a little secret, Obama is the MSMs hand selected  DEM candidate.

by LORD FOUL on 05/10/2008 12:40:20 PM EST

Fine, what if we concede all of the above? (none / 0)
At this point, let's say the process plays out, and meteor from the sky never comes and Obama wins. Even if everything you say above is true, even if Obama is the love-child of CNN and the Washington Post and that 90% of the whites in the south and great plains states won't vote for him. Once he is the nominee what are you going to do?

Vote McCain? Really?

Nader?

There is no point for Obama supporters in countering the arguments presented by Lord Foul anymore. This is practically over, and soon it will be completely over. If the superdelegates do not decide Hillary is a better nominee, do you abandon the entire argument of our side? Do you prefer the destruction of the rule of law, concentration of power into the unitary executive, corporate-favored economic policies, socially conservative laws & judges & more wars? Do you want us to continue to alienate our allies and increase the numbers of our enemies through INSANE foreign policy?

I would just like you to consider what you will do if and when Hillary concedes, Lord Foul (and other Hillary supporters)?

by Weapon X on 05/10/2008 02:08:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 1)

There is as much point in arguing against Lord Foul's Hillary arguments as thier is in arguing against Dodd, Biden, Richardson or Edwards supporters. (I was an Edwards supporter, he lost, he is a better General Election candidate than Hillary and Barak, I let it go).

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 12:31:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wright & wrong (none / 1)
I didn't liken Obama's NC victory to an "American Moment"

I didn't refer to crushing primary victories that Obama didn't win.

You are right Obama will probably be the nominee

It doesn't change much though, Why?

If liberals continue to act like 16 year old school girls with a crush, it will hurt Obama. for example Clinton won nearly 50% of Dem votes, rubbing your so-called crushing victory in thier face is not wise. Calling them racists is not wise. Telling them they are not part of the new party and to get out is unwise. pretending his past is irrelevent is unwise.

AND UNDERESTIMATING THE REPUBLICANS IS SUICIDAL.

My personal opinion is that the SD should do their job and pick the best candidate to beat McCain. That is Clinton.

If they choose Obama fine. I will support him but many won't.

Have you considered the consequences of running the wrong candidate? What happens if McCain wins? What happens if Obama loses because of all of those racist white swing voters?


I remember 4 short years ago, liberal bitching and moaning about how their candidate wouldn't fight back. How he quit to soon.


4 years later and the Liberals ridicule the candidate who won't quit, they demonize the candidate who will fight back. They support the new type of politics, the same politics that cost them the election just 4 short years ago.

We never seem to learn.

by LORD FOUL on 05/11/2008 10:36:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
God damn the stupid (none / 0)
I don't mean u or even Hillary supporters, Lord Foul. I mean God damn the idea that we should always take care to support only those issues or nominate only those candidates who are "ok" by the misinformed, underinformed, brain-dead or just plain prejudiced. And Democrats have been painfully bad at judging who will be ok by those folks, anyway. We should really not factor "electability" into our voting decisions because we suck at it. Just vote for whoever the fuck you want to.

By the way, one of your arguments above was "Clinton won nearly 50% of Dem votes, rubbing your so-called crushing victory in thier face is not wise. Calling them racists is not wise. Telling them they are not part of the new party and to get out is unwise. pretending his past is irrelevent is unwise."

Of course, Obama won more than 50% of Dem voters, but rubbing Hillary's "victories" in their faces apparently is wise? Calling them elitists, sexist and "16 year old school girls with a crush" is wise?


Whatever, I will let all of you terrified little children remain terrified of the big bad Republican attack machine. Go and cower in the corner hoping we go along with what they want instead of what we want.

How about voting for what you believe in and for whomever you believe would do the best job?

At any rate, you had a very long answer and only one sentence was relevant to the questions I had posed above.

"If they choose Obama fine. I will support him but many won't."

Okay. That's really all that's relevant now. If you want to make your pitch to superdelegates to ignore the will of the people as well as the established rules, that is fine.  The rest of us aren't superdelegates and we should focus on McCain and the Republicans running for Congress. I've already wasted too much time on arguments I just said we should ignore until and unless they become relevant.

by Weapon X on 05/11/2008 04:54:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Racer X (none / 0)
Electability: is really important. Do you like losing? How did you feel about Nadar supporters in 2000? I like Gravel (I think he's hysterical) I would not vote for him as President.

What did you call GWB when he claimed a mandate with 51% of the vote? What happens when you brag about "crushing" victories that you lost? What was factually acurate about that article? If Obama is the nominee he will need the other half of the Dem party. You can't seem to read and comprehend, the article claims crushing victories that never happened and correcting the facts is BAD? Did I call any one an elitist in this article? or sexist?

Yes I compared the article to a crush (read the article, consider the true facts, you will find that I was actually being polite)


You need to read the rules. The superdelegates were created for the express purpose of over-ruling the delegate count (in the event that the magic number was not reached). Also remember the delegate count is not necessarliy the "will of the people", Caucuses only represent a small (far left) minority of a states voters. Weighted districts (rewarding certain districts with extradelegates) is also not representative of the people.

I wonder how opposed you would be to MI & FLA, if the were NC & SC instead.

by LORD FOUL on 05/13/2008 04:55:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whose opposed to MI and FL? (none / 0)
Count 'em. Won't make a shits bit of difference.

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 06:23:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 1)
"...the same lady that is directly responsible for the fiasco that is Fla & MI."

I don't really have any concern over Brazile one way or another. I DO have concern over this entire primary season and the tendency to throw blame where it doesn't belong. She is not to blame for Florida and Michigan moving up their primary dates - that's on the citizens of those states.

Every time I hear Hillary or a Hillary-bot say "Bill didn't nail the nomination down until June," I want to reach through the screen and slap the person they're spouting this crap to for not saying, "Yeah, but the primary season is a heckuva lot different than it was then. Apples and tangerines."

If you want to get on my bandwagon to get the season down to a reasonable time frame by outlawing any elections prior to March 1st, the more the merrier! This spread out insanity is too damn long. No reason for it to start 8 months before the convention/11 months before the general election.


by MedfordTim on 05/10/2008 02:33:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tim (none / 1)
You are familiar with her role in the fiasco don't you. It was she who pushed for the so-called "death penalty" for MI & FL (when the rules called for cutting their delegates in half.)

I didn't mention Bill and I am not a Hillbot (I supported Edwards, he would be my choice over both of them)

I agree we need to fix our primary system so that it is more reflective of the actual voters. (no caucuses and no SDs)

by LORD FOUL on 05/11/2008 10:44:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You are a Hillbot, (none / 0)
Why? Because you support Hillary and we so no logical reason to do so at this point. It is the same reason why Hillary supporters say we are all "Obama-bots." It doesn't matter if we supported, as I did, Edwards at first and even if we then were leaning towards Hillary when Edwards first dropped out. At any rate, that is just something to say to piss people off on both sides ;)

As far as the process goes, I agree that they have to do something to shorten the amount of time between the first and last primaries. I don't think it's necessary to do away with caucuses, they are just as democratic if not more so because the results of caucuses are more open and less subject to mechanical issues. But that's a smaller issue, you say we should do away with super-delegates (admirable view, considering they are the only way your candidate could win). I think they just need to restructure things a bit.

How about making it so elected delegates HAVE to vote for the person they were selected for, and can only switch if the candidate releases them? As for superdelegates, the idea is sound. What if some disastrous thing were to happen to the candidate, or some absolutely shocking revelation about them were to come out? We may not still want to run that candidate even though we voted for him/her (though the judgment of party leaders on what constitutes "shocking" I don't have much faith in). But... it should be that the "magic" number of delegates should be determined only by elected delegates. A candidate who wins the majority of elected delegates is the nominee. The only role for superdelegates would be if they want to disqualify the nominee at the convention. It should be worded that way too. To actually come out in the convention and disqualify the nominee of the party would take one hell of a revelation, imo.

by Weapon X on 05/11/2008 05:08:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]

American Moment | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)