Obama is screwed in any revote in Florida anyway. Clinton has tied her campaign to whether or not the delegates get seated -- making a vote for her appear equivalent to a vote to seat the delegates. What's Obama going to say to that mother of all campaign promises? "I was just playing by the rules"? Not going to fly. The water is already poisoned.
Bear, nobody's talking about it because there's not much to say. She insulted Hillary, she stepped down. What else do you want? Her head on a stick?
FreeDuck, I think Obama would do well if Florida revoted. He would have a chance to campaign unlike the first vote. At worst he'd walk away with a fair share of delegates.
I'm disturbed by what I'm reading about the Power situation -- not here but blogs and stuff. They're talking about the Obama campaign giving in, blinking, etc., etc. As far as I can tell, what happened is:
1.) Power made her statement
2.) Obama spokesman Burton said, "Sen. Obama decries such characterizations, which have no place in this campaign."
3.) Hillary's campaign called for Powers' resignation
4.) Shortly thereafter, Powers resigned -- she says that was her own idea.
I think too much is being made of three-then-four. That it was some sort of a capitulation. It sounds like Power realized that she was becoming a focus in a bad way, and that the message was a detriment to Obama's campaign as a whole, so she got out of there. I really think that would have happened whether Hillary's campaign issued a call to resign or not, and that letting it fester would likely have been worse. This all seemed to happen pretty fast.
blue wrote-
Quote:As the central government remains essentially powerless, and religious fundamentalism continues to grow across Iraq, it appears that the plight of Iraqi women will get worse
What else can you expect if you try to have "regime change" in a country of 26 million on a shoestring budget. Iraq has similarities to a headless chicken. You really didn't ought to be surprised.
Most of Europe was devastated and bankrupt by war.
We are not really "at war". There isn't even balloted conscription. The Russians have conscription full stop.
I certainly think a chance to campaign would give him more delegates, but Clinton has already tried to lay the blame for the delegates not being seated at his feet. If you remember, when she flew in for "fundraising" before the vote she all but accused Obama of wanting to silence the voters -- as if it was his decision. I think a lot of people would be susceptible to that argument.
Clinton, Genocide and a Campaign Gaffe
link
blueflame wrote: maporsche, thankfully I aint Clinton. She wont accept a caucus but she would accept a vote where Obama was not even on the ballot. She's proven herself to be purely on a power trip imo. I'm hugely disappointed in both her and Bill. Hillary has long played the suffragette and what a noble cause. But she's proven herself to be merely using that cause for her own personal pursuit of power. Her incredible statement that we've brought freedom to Iraq certainly is not what a true suffragette would be saying at all. Reality renders her claims of Iraqi freedom to be shamelessly shameful politicking. "Iraqi Women More Oppressed Than Ever"
I agree with your analysis on Hillary; she's in it for the "power" and not much else. It's not only the women of Iraq who are oppressed, but those children orphaned by this war. Why can't they see the obvious?
Answer: power trip.
FreedUck, yes a lot of people would be susceptible to that argument. Those willing to lie along with Hillary. But Obama will pull his fair share of delegates out of Florida and it's that delegate count that matters. He could pulll enough to put him over the top at that point.
A couple of Power points (heh) from First Read:
First, and given the Huffingtonpost article blueflame linked to, (which was good), wanted to get my source for why I thought it was her idea (and not that she was forced out):
Quote:Power, who was unpaid, initiated the move, according to the Obama campaign.
[...]
"She notified the campaign sometime this morning," Psaki added.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/07/742434.aspx
Meanwhile, good point from Mark Murray and one reason why I think a quick resignation + apology is best:
Quote:On the conference call in which the Clinton campaign -- through their congressional supporters -- called for Obama to dismiss Samantha Power from his campaign, a reporter asked this question: What about how the Clinton campaign handled Bob Johnson's controversial remarks about Obama?
Remember, in January, Johnson -- the founder of BET and a Clinton backer -- made a comment about Obama and his youthful drug use before introducing Clinton at an event in South Carolina. Referring to the controversy about whether Bill and Hillary Clinton were injecting race into the Dem contest, Johnson said, "As an African American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues, when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing but he said it in his book." Johnson also compared Obama to Sidney Poitier's character in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner."
On the very day that Johnson made that comment, the Clinton campaign issued a statement from Johnson. "My comments today were referring to Barack Obama's time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else," he said. "Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect."
[...he finally apologized for his "very inappropriate remarks" four days after he made them...]
On the conference call today, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said there was a difference between Johnson and Power. "Bob Johnson is a supporter of ours," he said, "but he is not someone who advises [the campaign] on a daily basis." Wolfson added, "There is a difference."
There is also a difference of the speed in which the two campaigns responded to the two controversial comments.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/07/742579.aspx
If Florida ends up somewhat similar to Texas for delegates, Hillary will still have an uphill battle that will be difficult at best.
Her "wins" in Ohio and Texas didn't do much for her delegate count.
FreeDuck wrote:Bear, nobody's talking about it because there's not much to say. She insulted Hillary, she stepped down. What else do you want? Her head on a stick?
not at all... I'm just amused by and predicting the predictable which is how the Obama camp will deal with it. Minimize and rationalize, minimize and rationalize.
I'm going to post this Eric Alterman column from the Nation in full.
Quote: (Some) Jews Against Obama
Eric Alterman
During the past few months a small group of neoconservative Jews, many of whom hold key positions in the world of official Jewish institutions, have been working to undermine the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama with a series of carefully planted character assassinations and deliberately misleading innuendo. I noticed this trend when Debra Feuer, a counsel for the American Jewish Committee, sent a confidential memo to her counterparts at other organizations criticizing Obama's views on the Middle East, Iran and Syria and attacking him for having once appeared at a fundraiser headlined by the late Edward Said. The memo, reported by the Forward, was immediately disowned, but not denied, by AJC executive director David Harris.
Also throwing his hatchet into the ring was Morton Klein, who heads up the Likud-loving Zionist Organization of America, complaining that "Barack Obama doesn't understand the continuing Arab war against Israel" and terming the notion of an Obama presidency "frightening." He was joined by Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the umbrella group that professes to speak for all American Jews. Hoenlein told the Israeli daily Ha'aretz that Obama's talk of "change" could prove "an opening for all kinds of mischief" and gave voice to what he termed "a legitimate concern over the zeitgeist around the campaign." The Tennessee Republican Party issued a news release noting what it claimed was "a growing chorus of Americans concerned about the future of the nation of Israel, the only stable democracy in the Middle East, if Sen. Barack Hussein Obama is elected president of the United States."
Let us note first of all that, like every American politician for the past half-century or so with nondelusional presidential aspirations, Obama views the crisis of Israel/Palestine largely through an Israeli lens. He asserts that he would not even be in politics at all were it not for the support he has enjoyed from his local Jewish community. He called Israel one of "our most important allies" and added, "I think that its security is sacrosanct and that the United States has a special relationship with Israel, as I myself do with the Jewish community."
Thanks in part to statements like those, the neoconnish campaign against Obama was not able to gain much traction. Perhaps as a consequence, as the Forward has editorialized, "the attacks on Obama have metastasized into a wide-ranging assault on his associations." These attacks, as blogger Matthew Yglesias notes, have largely amounted to the following: "First Obama was an anti-Semite because Zbigniew Brzezinski is an anti-Semite. Then Obama was an anti-Semite because Robert Malley is an anti-Semite. And now according to [Commentary's Noah] Pollack it's Samantha Power who's tainted by Jew-hatred."
The surrogate slurs have come from many sources. Writing on AmericanThinker.com, right-wing blogger Ed Lasky argued that Malley, an Obama adviser and former Clinton national security official, "represents the next generation of anti-Israel activism." CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, took this a step further by investigating Malley's roots and declaring that "Malley's parents were rabidly anti-Israel" and that Malley's articles on Middle East issues "demonize Israel only slightly less than his father." This is nonsense, naturally. Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and former State Department officials Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Aaron David Miller and Daniel Kurtzer, all of whom worked with Malley, signed a letter denouncing "a series of vicious personal attacks" against him. Regarding the much admired Ms. Power, neocon foreign policy wonk Max Boot has taken his colleague Pollack to task for his misleading attack on her views in Commentary's blog "Contentions," where the attacks originally appeared.
According to a report in Newsweek, Ann Lewis, a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton, made reference during a conference call with Jewish leaders to Brzezinski, whom she falsely labeled Obama's "chief foreign policy adviser." (In fact, according to Brzezinski, he has advised Obama on a total of one occasion.) While Brzezinski did anger some Jews with his endorsement of the controversial Walt/Mearsheimer book, his views are not only well within the foreign policy mainstream; they are also completely consistent with those expressed by a majority of American Jews--far more so than those hawks who profess to speak in their name.
In a remarkably stupid line of questioning during the final Democratic debate, Tim Russert demanded over and over that Obama reject Louis Farrakhan's kind words for him so that Jews might feel a bit more comfortable with him. (In fact, according to exit polls, Obama has beaten Clinton among Jewish voters in California, Connecticut and Massachusetts, while she has bested him in New York, New Jersey and Maryland.) When Obama decided to indulge Russert and "reject and denounce" Farrakhan, Russert kept up his lunatic line of questioning by demanding that Obama reject Russert's misstated version of his Protestant minister's views as well.
What is it that these neocons and their media mouthpieces really fear about an Obama presidency? Perhaps it is honesty about the issue. Speaking to a largely Jewish audience in Cleveland, Obama explained, "There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel." Then came his kicker: "One of the things that struck me when I went to Israel was how much more open the debate was around these issues in Israel than they are sometimes here in the United States." No wonder he scares them so...
Anyone who takes the time to read the Israeli press and to talk politics with jewish people here understands that the passage in red gets it exactly right.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Bear, nobody's talking about it because there's not much to say. She insulted Hillary, she stepped down. What else do you want? Her head on a stick?
not at all... I'm just amused by and predicting the predictable which is how the Obama camp will deal with it. Minimize and rationalize, minimize and rationalize.

Right. You let me know when your prophecy is fulfilled.
they're doing it on the news right now.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:they're doing it on the news right now.
Doing what? Making it out to be the not-so-big deal that it is?
This is what happens when there's no underlying narrative to drive a campaign, no inspiration: the candidate and the supporters latch on to whatever 'outrage' of the day they can gin up and try and milk it for all it's worth. Just like you're doing right now, BpB. Pathetic
Cycloptichorn
trying to egg me on? You can't.