Well, so far it looks as though Obama has won both states big margin in Wisconsin, smaller in Washington Two more, total of nine straight states decided that they wanted Obama to run for President..... Nine states where the popular vote is Obama Yes, Hillary No...... Hillary is down to two more chances Texas, Ohio....If she doesn't win big in both......Hillary, her irritating voice and her big polyester pantsuited ass are.........gone.....
Maybe, maybe not. The delegate race is still very close, as almost all the states are proportional rather than winner take all. The superdelegates will decide this. I don't understand the argument that they are bound to follow the popular vote. The whole reason they created super delegates was to give the party hacks the power to decide who the nominee would be. Why have them if they must simply ape the popular vote? The super delegates will be under intense pressure. I wouldn't want to be a super delegate who stiffed the Clintons if they manage to get the nomination and win the election. They also have to worry that the Obama infatuation may pass in a few months, leaving the party with a clearly unqualified candidate with the most liberal voting record of any Senator.
umm...because you live in a fucking democracy? or would you rather the supreme court step in and decide the primaries also?
Here's your Democracy...Democratic style From:http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336 "And while it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $904,200 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics." Though it might seem undemocratic to allow elected officials who have received money from the candidates to have such power in picking their party's nominee, the process was not meant to be democratic, Arizona State's Herrera said. "If anything, it was meant to take it out of the democratic process. In 1982 [the party] said they needed to have some professionals making decisions here to blunt the potential effects of what they perceived as amateur delegates making decisionsâthose who vote with their heart and not their head." ____________________________________ The Donkeys have no idea what they are in for at the convention. Hillary will never give in, This is the last hope for her and Pres.Bill. Obama can run again. Superdelegates is all about getting hooked up with jobs or future contracts. Hillary will whore out the whole exective office to win. There is NO WAY, NO WAY she will ever agree to step aside
Do you understand the parties, republican and democratic are private institutions. The people running for office agree to follow the rules of the party. The "state" has no jurisdiction over the parties. There is cooperation between the state and the privates parties. The state has agreed to use the private parties to help in selecting candidates. In turn the state offers public access, and some regulation, just like any other small business would need to follow. The supreme court could not just step in, unless one party or another is violating the rights of another.
I'm waiting to see how low the Clintons are willing to stoop. I mean...it isn't like they have their reputations to protect. But I do think it will be impossible--even for the Clintons--to hijack the nomination. There would be a flood of democrats voting for McCain just to spite them. Better to go with the flow, and let the repubs defect to vote for Obama.
Quote of the night: "The problem that we face in America today is not a lack of good ideas; it's that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die." -- Barack Obama
Another empty Obamaism. I think a zero percent cap gains rate is a good idea. Is he upset because that good idea died? There are vast philosophical differences between the parties and between the right and left in america. It's not a matter of one side's ideas being "good" and the other's "bad." In a democracy, we are allowed to disagree.
You're kidding, right? You can't be that naive. A senator from a liberal state with whopping 2 years of experience ( having spent 1 of these 2 years running for president), with the most liberal voting record in the senate... Who does it remind me of? Oh, John Kerry of course. Except that John Kerry was a war hero with dozens of years of experience and he was running against a very unpopular president in the middle of a very unpopular war. Obama on the other hand will run against a [perceived] moderate republican and a [perceived] maverick. And if that was not enough it will be race between a black Barak Hussein Obama who stopped wearing American flag lapel pin and a Vietnam war hero and POW who shed his blood defending this country. Granted that McCain has serious problems too (party base, age, the war in Iraq, weak on economy...) Obama is the worst candidate by far to run against him. The republican smear machine has not yet even gotten started on Obama and he is ahead of McCain by mere 2-3% (and not in the states where it matters). Can you imagine where his numbers are going to be when a 527 "<strike>Swift Boat Veterans</strike> Islamic Militants for Truth" group accuses him of anti-American pro-jihad statements and positions while he lived in Indonesia and studied in a madrassa. It won't even matter whether it's true or not, just like it did not matter for John Kerry. Ohio: McCain - 42%, Obama - 41% Florida: McCain - 53%, Obama - 37%