oh.. i think Hillary thought it was all hers, the fight between them is real. the way the media picks the stories de jour is choreographed. the whole "Do over" is staged. the election process is a joke.... filth at every level. diebold... the parties... the sec of states. the media reporting... all fixed. and yes... the official story of 9/11 is the biggest nut job conspiracy i have ever heard.... please tell me you aren't that stupid. only a fool would swallow that wad... do you swallow it? i hope you at least spit. my gosh boy.. don't be so gullible your whole life.
I agree with you on the media. I absolutely think any conspiracy with 9-11 is ridiculous. That belief of yours right there explains everything, but that is for other threads. I think I am pretty much done with this discussion. Cheers, Jay
. March 7, 2008 SouthAmerica: If the members of the Democratic Party decide not to participate on the primaries of future elections â that would be a great decision since the primary system is undemocratic, and stinks. They should have only primaries and not caucus, the primaries for all states should be run on the same day, and the winner should be the candidate with the most popular vote. Then you start having something close to a real democracy. You also need at least 3 or 4 major parties to better represent most of the people. Yesterday I saw Tom Daschelle a former senator, on a television program and he said that he is a superdelegate. He also said that part of the reason they created the superdelegates was to block the nomination of a candidate that the party bosses where not happy with. On February 25,2008 when I was reading the enclosed article on The New York Times I realized that there is light at the end of the tunnel for the Democratic Party after all. As Geraldine Ferraro mentioned on her article: "the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country." If that is the case then, the superdelegates have the power to draft Al Gore to be the Democratic Party nominee for the November 2008 presidential election. Again, if the purpose of the superdelegates were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. After reading Mrs. Ferraroâs article it became clear to me that: "If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. Thatâs hardly a grassroots mandate." At the end of the day this is what the Democratic Party primary has accomplished: "we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. Thatâs hardly a grassroots mandate." As of January 2004 the Democratic Party had 72 million registered members â that means that we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats (about 11 million Democratic Party members). Thatâs hardly a grassroots mandate. Compare that with the result of the presidential election of 2000 Popular vote: Al Gore = 51,003,926 George W. Bush = 50,460,110 Note: I am sure that there are more than 11 million Democratic Party registered voters who would prefer to vote for Al Gore in November 2008. If I had to make an educated guess about the result of the 2008 presidential election I would guess that this time around Al Gore would get over 65 million votes and would be elected president of the United States with a solid mandate. ****** Let me quote parts of Mrs. Ferraro article because these facts are important to the point that I am trying to make on this diary as follows: "...After the 1980 presidential election, the Democratic Party was in disarray. That year, Senator Ted Kennedy had challenged President Jimmy Carter for the presidential nomination, and Mr. Kennedy took the fight to the convention floor by proposing 23 amendments to the party platform. When it was all over, members of Congress who were concerned about their re-election walked away from the president and from the party. The rest of the campaign was plagued by infighting. In 1982, we tried to remedy some of the partyâs internal problems by creating the Hunt Commission, which reformed the way the party selects its presidential nominees. Because I was then the vice chairwoman of the House Democratic Caucus, Tip OâNeill, the speaker of the House, appointed me as his representative to the commission. The commission considered several reforms, but one of the most significant was the creation of superdelegates, the reform in which I was most involved. ... Today, with the possibility that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will end up with about the same number of delegates after all 50 states have held their primaries and caucuses, the pundits and many others are saying that superdelegates should not decide who the nominee will be. That decision, they say, should rest with the rank-and-file Democrats who went to the polls and voted. But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. ... Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this yearâs primaries â clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the partyâs membership â but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated. If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. Thatâs hardly a grassroots mandate. More important, although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses. In the Democratic primary in South Carolina, tens of thousands of Republicans and independents no doubt voted, many of them for Mr. Obama. The same rules prevail at the Iowa caucuses, in which Mr. Obama also triumphed. He won his delegates fair and square, but those delegates represent the wishes not only of grassroots Democrats, but also Republicans and independents. **** If you want to read the entire article go to the following website: "Got a Problem? Ask the Super" By GERALDINE A. FERRARO Published: February 25, 2008 - The New York Times Source: http://www.nytimes.com/... Geraldine A. Ferraro, a lawyer and a former member of Congress, was the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 1984. .
. March 7, 2008 SouthAmerica: Reply to Jayford By the way. regarding the 2008 presidential election in November. In January of 2004 the estimated number of registered voters in the United States were around. Democratic Party = 72 million voters (42 %). Republican Party = 55 million voters (33 %). Independents = 42 million voters (25 %). Total registered voters = 169 million voters (100.0 %) 2004 election: Then we had the vote driver during the year 2004 before that election 2006 election: By the election cycle of 2006 â The number of registered voters in the US was close to 197 million. (see http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf ) 2008 election: After the voter drive before the presidential election of 2008 â The number of registered voters in the US will be around 200 million eligible voters. Democratic Party = 84 million voters (42 %). Republican Party = 66 million voters (33 %). Independents = 50 million voters (25 %). Total registered voters = 200 million voters (100.0 %) In 2008 there will be at least 50 million independent votes up for grabs in the general election â The year for the 3rd party independent. The Democratic Party is split along gender and color of skin line â around 42 million voters for either candidate. The Republican Party also is split and many Republicans probably would support a 3rd party candidate. In a Nutshell: the 2008 presidential election is up for grabs, and might be the year of the 3rd party candidate. With the Democratic Party split into two pieces neither candidate can win in November of 2008. Besides millions of disgruntled voters are going to vote for Ralph Nader as a protest vote. But Ralph Nader is going to get a lot more votes from the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. Most of the democrats are going to be happy with their political party experiment - the nomination of the first woman or the first black man - but also the first defeat in the general election. After the election, and after they realize the tremendous mistake that they made - we will need to survive at least another 4 years of a Republican administration. But the Democratic Party experimentit will not go to waste - it will become a major case study for future generations a lesson on how to lose an election that your party was supposed to win. .
I never said Gore couldn't win SA. I just said he won't be the Dem nominee. This is what I have been arguing with you about from the beginning. If he threw some of his own money at it, I think he could be the first to win as an Independent, although he is showing no signs of having any interest in the job. I also agree that he has way more than 15% support in the Dem party, but the fact of the matter is that he actually has exactly zero delegates, and will have zero. That's no where close to 15%. The number of people who are believed to support him is irrelevant. Its the number that actually voted for him this time around that matters. Also, the super delegates actually like BOTH Hillary and Obama, and polls show that either of them would win. Its not an issue of the Supers dumping someone they don't like. Its an issue of what one do you pick when they are basically tied. You should be rooting for him to run as an Indy. I bet he'd have a better chance that way. People are sick of both parties now. And as you said, we need more parties.
. SouthAmerica: reply to Jayford I wrote a piece that you might find interesting regarding the Democratic Party and the 2008 election: Divide and Conquer the Ultimate Strategy. By SouthAmerica February 1, 2008 at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/1/722/40380/1013/447486 I started that article saying: Divide and conquer was a successful military strategy long before it became an algorithm design paradigm. Generals observed that it was easier to defeat one army of 50,000 men, followed by another army of 50,000 men than it was to beat a single 100,000 men army. Thus the wise general would attack so as to divide the enemy army into two forces and then mop up one after the other. On January 29, 2008 I wrote another piece that will answer your question âHere is why the other candidates are afraid of Al Gore at the Democratic Party Conventionâ you can read at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/29/4248/16929/208/445232 Quoting from that article: What should we do to make this election even more exciting and go all the way? Democratic party rules allow anyone to stand for the presidential nomination in the August convention, irrespective of whether they have fought the primaries. If the delegates fail to provide an absolute majority for one candidate, a second round of voting is held, and delegates are free to vote as their conscience dictates. And the Democratic Party can come out of its August Convention with the only candidate that can win the November 2008 election â Al Gore. .
sorta odd that youtube would pull this video but leave a bunch of other family guy clips up..... where is the violation of terms? why don't they want us to see this? In this Family Guy episode, Death allows Peter to go back in time, but when he returns to the present he discovers he is married to Molly Ringwald and Lois is married to Quagmire. An alternate version of the world is presented in which Al Gore is president, Osama is no longer a problem, flying cars run on vegetable oil, universal healthcare exists, crime is virtually non-existent, education is well-funded, and Dick Cheney the chairman of Haliburton shot Supreme Court Justice Scalia and the bullet went right through him and killed Karl Rove, and Tucker Carlson. Basically, it's paradise on earth. Enjoy the fantasy. <a href="http://www.videosift.com/video/Family-Guy-Al-Gore-as-President">videosift.com/Family-Guy-Al-Gore-as-President</a> <strong>YouTube Dead Link of Gore as President Episode</strong> <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gbI0CWGWjrU&rel=0&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gbI0CWGWjrU&rel=0&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>