I'm not sure he comes out of this the worse for wear.
I know some people who were not sure whether to vote for Obama or Hillary who were pushed off the fence by this maneuver of hers. There just isn't any good way to spin it.
If something happens because of her pushing, it is more likely to be a caucus re-do than just seating "her" delegates. Obama has bought both time and a format that is more beneficial to him, if that's the case.
Re: superdelegates, what I'm most hoping for is that Obama gathers more and more momentum and gets the lead even when superdelegates are included.
Right now, on CNN:
Obama (pledged only): 986
Clinton (pledged only): 924
Obama (pledged + superdelegates): 1,121
Clinton (pledged + superdelegates): 1,148
Colin Powell interview is very interesting. He says he hasn't made up his mind about who he'll support. He's considering endorsing a Democrat. One of the criteria he considers important is party unity.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/wolf-blitzer/
sozobe wrote:Yes, we know.
We're all kool-aid drinkers.
We don't know better.
We're blinded by the bling that is Obama.
We're in love.
He's bypassed our critical faculties with that ol' Obama magic.
He's cool.
He's hot.
He may or may not make a good president, but who cares? Not us! We just want to see his face on the cover of every magazine and at the top of every newscast.
Does that about cover it? If so, can we maybe move on rather than reiterating it a few times a day?
you mean the way you reiterate the same pro obama statements constantly? The way you state over over ad nauseum about how finally we have a candidate for change and hope based on the fact that he says so?
In this brave new enlightened world, do I get to state my opposite belief as many times as you get to state yours without fear of constant scolding or being banished from the tribe? That's a rhetorical question.
real life wrote:sozobe wrote:real life wrote:snood,
first of all he was dealing with the Clintons, so he shoulda known better IMHO
second, no sensible person devises a rule, or expects one to be adhered to that disenfranchises two of the largest states
Quote:the Dems have put themselves in a position of nominating either a liar or a fool.
what will they choose?
I am of the opinion that it will come down to a brokered convention and neither Hillary or Obama will be nominated
Leaving... who? Gore?
About MI and FL --
The DNC made the decision. Or more to the point -- the DNC warned MI and FL about the consequences of flaunting the rules by moving up the primaries to before February 5th, and MI and FL did it anyway. They then suffered the consequences.
I think it's unfortunate, but I think that MI and FL deserve a big part of the blame, there. They knew moving up their primaries would have this effect -- they moved up the primaries anyway. <shrug>
Once that happened -- between MI, FL, and the DNC -- the candidates all pledged solidarity with the DNC. If Hillary had a problem with disenfranchising those poor MI and FL voters,
that was the time to do something about it. That was the time to say, "I want the voters' voices to be heard and I disagree with your decision, DNC."
She didn't.
that's exactly my point, soz
she pledged solidarity with the party, watched all the other candidates remove their names from the ballot, and left hers on there.
she cannot be trusted even by those in her own party.
Obama, on the other hand, could not even see through the smoke and mirrors of the Clinton Triangulation team.
who would want to send him up as our man against the America-haters in the world?
he's not ready for prime time.
How do we know that she "watched all the other candidates remove their names from the ballot?" I haven't seen enough about exactly what happened. Did she secretly keep her name on? How would she have hidden that fact? All the candidates had the option to leave their names on the ballots. I don't think it was a secret.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:you mean the way you reiterate the same pro obama statements constantly?
The same? Or specific responses to specific issues?
Quote:The way you state over over ad nauseum about how finally we have a candidate for change and hope based on the fact that he says so?
Again, do I actually say this generalized stuff? Or am I talking about superdelegates, and MI and FL, and polls, and...
You're just saying variations of the same thing over and over again. Cult. Kool-aid. Creeps you out.
Gotcha. Anything else to contribute?
Of course you can say whatever you want. You're not out of any "tribe" (what does that mean, anyway? Everyone has to agree all the time to be in the same tribe?). I've passed over many iterations of the same exact sentiment from you without comment (seriously, do you want me to go copy and paste them all?), and this time I commented.
Lola, from Frank Rich yesterday:
Quote:The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at little. That's why you now hear Clinton operatives talk ever more brazenly about trying to reverse party rulings so that they can hijack 366 ghost delegates from Florida and the other rogue primary, Michigan, where Mr. Obama wasn't even on the ballot. So much for Mrs. Clinton's assurance on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall that it didn't matter if she alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot because the vote "is not going to count for anything."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html
sozobe you are the picture of reasonableness and civil discourse. Please excuse me.
<examines post closely for sarcasm>
I think you're serious!
If so, no problem at all, oh fellow tribesperson. :-D
perhaps if I had an ever so slightly darker skin hue and Dumbo ears you would take me at my word without question.
I feel so put upon and misunderstood. I'm going to go hunt down a baby seal. I need comfort food.
[size=7](now that dear, was sarcasm)[/size]
:-D
And a nice bracing dose of it too, clears out the cobwebs.
sozobe wrote:Yes, we know.
We're all kool-aid drinkers.
We don't know better.
We're blinded by the bling that is Obama.
We're in love.
He's bypassed our critical faculties with that ol' Obama magic.
He's cool.
He's hot.
He may or may not make a good president, but who cares? Not us! We just want to see his face on the cover of every magazine and at the top of every newscast.
Does that about cover it? If so, can we maybe move on rather than reiterating it a few times a day?
The truth is one can find the same tiresome sameness in the rhetoric for and against Obama -- and the other candidates as well. I'll agree to move on and abandon it when you do as well.
georgeob1 wrote:sozobe wrote:Yes, we know.
We're all kool-aid drinkers.
We don't know better.
We're blinded by the bling that is Obama.
We're in love.
He's bypassed our critical faculties with that ol' Obama magic.
He's cool.
He's hot.
He may or may not make a good president, but who cares? Not us! We just want to see his face on the cover of every magazine and at the top of every newscast.
Does that about cover it? If so, can we maybe move on rather than reiterating it a few times a day?
The truth is one can find the same tiresome sameness in the rhetoric for and against Obama -- and the other candidates as well. I'll agree to move on and abandon it when you do as well.
Not that I am against people's right to post whatever they wish, wherever they wish, but this IS the Obama '08 thread.
If you don't want to see support for him, which will often fall among similar lines as previous exhortations of support for him, don't read the thread.
Cycloptichron
In what schoolyard did you learn that familiar, but very stupid stance? The thread by the way is titled "Obama 08?", not "pro Obama".
Did you ever post on any of the George Bush or Republican threads? (We both know the answer.)
I'll read and post wherever and whenever I choose.
Interesting that those who are unable to answer arguments offered contrary to their own, so often seek to silence the opposition. That reveals nothing flattering about them. However, narrow-mindedness, intolerance, and unreasonable fear of disagreement are never flattering.
georgeob1 wrote:In what schoolyard did you learn that familiar, but very stupid stance? The thread by the way is titled "Obama 08?", not "pro Obama".
Did you ever post on any of the George Bush or Republican threads? (We both know the answer.)
I'll read and post wherever and whenever I choose.
Interesting that those who are unable to answer arguments offered contrary to their own, so often seek to silence the opposition. That reveals nothing flattering about them. However, narrow-mindedness, intolerance, and unreasonable fear of disagreement are never flattering.
Please, enhance your calm.
You will note the first line of my last post again:
Quote:
Not that I am against people's right to post whatever they wish, wherever they wish, but this IS the Obama '08 thread.
I am a long-standing proponent of poster's rights to post what they wish, where they wish. I was merely advising you of an easy way to avoid the problem of reading redundant arguments for Obama.
I'm fine with you posting whatever you like about Obama or his supporters.
Cycloptichorn
No shortage of calm here - bemusement perhaps at your remarkable ability to combine mutually exclusive ideas in a smug little cliche.
Note that it was Sozobe's post expressing weariness of anti Obama posts here - and proposing that they stop - that excited the response. I pointed out the all-to-obvious truth of the equal applicability of her point and argument to the pro Obama rhetoric, hers included.
You responded assuring us all of your continuind dedication to the freedom of posters here to write what they wish, and in the next breath affirmed the exclusivity of this thread for Obama supporters.
Many adjectives come to mind that are suitable for describing this, however I will let them pass.
georgeob1 wrote:No shortage of calm here - bemusement perhaps at your remarkable ability to combine mutually exclusive ideas in a smug little cliche.
Note that it was Sozobe's post expressing weariness of anti Obama posts - and proposing that they stop -here that excited the response. I pointed out the all-to-obvious truth of the equal applicability of her point and argument to the pro Obama rhetoric, hers included, here.
You responded assuring us all of your continuind dedication to the freedom of posters here to write what they wish, and in the next breath affirmed the exclusivity of this thread for Obama supporters.
Many adjectives come to mind that are suitable for describing this, however I will let them pass.
Please link to the part where I affirmed the 'exclusivity' of the thread. Because, I'm pretty sure that I didn't do that.
I merely stated that this is the Obama thread, you are likely to find Obama supporters making pro-Obama arguments. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone and it shouldn't be tiring to read them; it's a self-selection process on the part of anyone who comes here.
And yes, most of these arguments have stayed the same over the last few weeks and months. You want us to find completely new reasons to support the guy just to keep things interesting?
Cycloptichorn
Krugman Claims Obama Supporters Are Cult-Like
Krugman Claims Obama Supporters Are Cult-Like
by Jason Linkins, The Huffington Post
February 11, 2008
Over the weekend, at his eponymous blog at The Atlantic, Matthew Yglesias warned of "the anti-Obama backlash brewing in the press" that was poised to hit "full stride." I remember wondering how that was going to take shape. It should have occurred to me: Paul Krugman was going to manufacture it!
In a long screed in this morning's New York Times, Krugman fulminates far and wide on the sins of the Obama camp. "I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody." He believes that the Obama campaign is "dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. (Oh, really?) He finds it "saddening" how "many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of 'Clinton rules'" which is, "the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent."
Well, it's a good thing he's not faking evenhandedness here! Krugman makes a lot of bold claims, and then fails to substantiate every single one of them. As to his claim that "most of the venom" is emanating from the Obama camp, he provides not a single shred of evidence. He provides no example of the Obama supporters, evincing the behavior that "saddens" him. Frankly, he fails to pull off the whole "cult of personality" charge as well, but my wife, having earned a deep dislike of chanted mantras from her work at elementary school, finds the constant "Yes we can!" refrain deeply grating, so I'm happy to sympathize with Krugman on that point.
The only thing that passes for evidence in Krugman's piece is "the way the press covered Whitewater" back in the 1990s, and the recent remarks of David Shuster - who a) is not a member of the Obama camp, b) was punished swiftly for his remarks, and c) hardly represents the tip of the iceberg of unfair Clinton commentary on MSNBC, which d) has not escaped the attention of the press or similarly aggrieved protesters. Clinton has, admittedly, more than her fair share of nemeses among those who cover the news - Chris Matthews and Bill Kristol come most clearest to the mind. But by and large, their enmity was in place long before Barack Obama arrived on the scene and emerges independently of the Obama campaigns actions. What's more, should Obama quit the scene today, those who bare their anti-Clinton bias are not likely to ease up.
In short, a strong case can be made that Clinton's been roughly treated by the press. The case that cannot be made is that the Obama campaign is culpable for this treatment. The fact of the matter is, the Obama campaign has already been famously cited for the extent to which they avoid courting the press. Writing for the Washington Post, media critic Howard Kurtz complained only weeks ago that the Obama campaign "makes only spotty attempts to drive its preferred story lines in the press," and that is "aloof," "not obsessed with winning the news cycle," and not given to launching campaign "charm offensives." Ironically, the reason the Obama campaign gives for their tactics was the hard lesson they were dealt when an example of the "venom" Krugman describes leached into the press:
But ever since Obama was embarrassed by a staff memo that assailed Hillary Clinton as the senator from "Punjab" (over her contributions from Indian Americans), he has ordered his team to steer clear of pejorative attacks not based on public actions.
Kurtz, by the way, notes a point of comparison between the Obama and the Clinton campaigns. The Clinton camp "aggressively lobbies journalists around the clock." And this is how kindergarten essays make it into the news cycle. This is how questionnaires and false concerns over a candidate's liberalism fuel fervor one week while neutral observations of Ronald Reagan's presidency inflame false concerns over the same candidate's conservatism the next. This is how an A-list columnist - typically zealous about leaving no claim unsupported by evidence - very breezily and comfortably abandons those standards one morning to write a hit piece on those who've hit not. But none dare call this venom.
You are nit picking and attempting to defend the indefensible. Better to acknowledge the facts and let it go.
I proposed to Sozobe that if the opponents of Obama on this thread (which is labelled simply, "Obama 08?", ostensibly inviting both pro and con commentary) are asked to give up their arguments and "move on" then so should the supporters. What conceivable objection could you have to that????
georgeob1 wrote:Note that it was Sozobe's post expressing weariness of anti Obama posts here - and proposing that they stop - that excited the response. I pointed out the all-to-obvious truth of the equal applicability of her point and argument to the pro Obama rhetoric, hers included.
No no no wait a minute.
I was saying something very specific about Bear's repetitions of one idea -- the whole cult, kool-aid, Obama-creeps-him-out aspect. He says that over and over and over and over again. (And responded very graciously when I pointed that out.)
Even within that context I didn't say that he couldn't say such things -- I said, "Gotcha. Anything else to contribute?"
It was about repetitiveness much more than about negativity per se.
I am not for a minute saying that people can't say negative things about Obama here. Go ahead. I will likely argue if I disagree, but my response to Bear was not about that.
I have to disagree with this, though, too:
Cycloptichorn wrote:And yes, most of these arguments have stayed the same over the last few weeks and months. You want us to find completely new reasons to support the guy just to keep things interesting?
There are definitely large-scale issues that keep coming up. But what interests me most about this thread -- and what keeps it fresh -- are all the new twists and turns, and people giving their takes on them and providing new info. What do gay people think about Obama? Should Hillary go after MI and FL at this point? What's the deal with superdelegates? Should they keep their mouths shut until further on in the process? What will happen if superdelegates decide this? Will superdelegates decide this?
Etc.
I love that stuff, keep it coming. I'm more interested in substance than whether the person is for or against Obama. It's the substanceless stuff that gets boring fast.
