politico.com
Dems' suspense may be unnecessary
By ELIZABETH DREW | 4/25/08 4:47 AM EST
Text Size:
The torrent of speculation about the end game of the Democratic nomination contest is creating a false sense of suspense - and wasting a lot of time of the multitudes who are anxious to know how this contest is going to turn out.
Notwithstanding the plentiful commentary to the effect that the Pennsylvania primary must have shaken superdelegates planning to support Barack Obama, causing them to rethink their position, key Democrats on Capitol Hill are unbudged.
"I don't think anyone's shaken," a leading House Democrat told me. The critical mass of Democratic congressmen that has been prepared to endorse Obama when the timing seemed right remains prepared to do so. Their reasons, ones they have held for months, have not changed - and by their very nature are unlikely to.
Essentially, they are three:
(a) Hillary Rodham Clinton is such a polarizing figure that everyone who ever considered voting Republican in November, and even many who never did, will go to the polls to vote against her, thus jeopardizing Democrats down the ticket - i.e., themselves, or, for party leaders, the sizeable majorities they hope to gain in the House and the Senate in November.
(b) To take the nomination away from Obama when he is leading in the elected delegate count would deeply alienate the black base of the Democratic Party, and, in the words of one leading Democrat, "The superdelegates are not going to switch their votes and jeopardize the future of the Democratic Party for generations." Such a move, he said, would also disillusion the new, mostly young, voters who have entered into politics for the first time because of Obama, and lose the votes of independents who could make the critical difference in November.
See Also
* Obama has a new problem: Punctuation
* Obama won't change game plan after loss
* GOP objects to bill allowing recounts
(c) Because the black vote can make the decisive difference in numerous congressional districts, discarding Obama could cost the Democrats numerous seats.
One Democratic leader told me, "If we overrule the elected delegates there would be mayhem." Hillary Rodham Clinton's claim that she has, or will have, won the popular vote does not impress them - both because of her dubious math and because, as another key Democrat says firmly, "The rules are that it's the delegates, period." (These views are closely aligned with Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement earlier this year that the superdelegates should not overrule the votes of the elected delegates.)
Furthermore, the congressional Democratic leaders don't draw the same conclusion from Pennsylvania and also earlier contests that many observers think they do: that Obama's candidacy is fatally flawed because he has as yet been largely unable to win the votes of working class whites. They point out something that has been largely overlooked in all the talk - the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries were closed primaries, and, one key congressional Democrat says, "Yes, he doesn't do really well with a big part of the Democratic base, but she doesn't do well with independents, who will be critical to success in November."
What a powerful argument for Al Gore to be forced to stand and wipe the floor with the OAP with the pushy Mrs.
Foxfyre wrote:Obama assumes there must be a 100% reversal in the capital gains tax cuts implemented during the Bush administration.
You mean if Bush changed something, and Obama now would change it
back, it's
Obama who's a radical who wants to move 100% away from the status quo? How's that even make sense?
Foxfyre wrote:He assumes there must be a 100% reversal in people choosing how they will be or whether they will be insured for healthcare.
No he doesnt. Under Obama's health care plan, people who want to stay with their current insurance plan are free to do so.
Foxfyre wrote:He has suggested a 100% reversal of NAFTA as it currently exists.
No he doesnt. He has said there have to be some adjustments. How "some adjustments" comes down to a "100% reversal" must be one of those mysteries of political spin.
BPB, " a sociopathic homicidal maniac that people fear because they don't know what he might do next... ". I know you didn't steal that from that idiot Hagee but it sounds something like what that idiot Wright is saying. Man he was great on Bill Moyers just now.
nimh wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Obama assumes there must be a 100% reversal in the capital gains tax cuts implemented during the Bush administration.
You mean if Bush changed something, and Obama now would change it
back, it's
Obama who's a radical who wants to move 100% away from the status quo? How's that even make sense?
"Radical" is your word and not mine, and that IS a straw man because I have never considered Obama to be a radical nor labeled him as such. The key word here is 'change, remember? And yes, if Obama was successful in removing the pre-Bush-tax advantage from capital gains that will be a 100% change that I think is far far worse than the status quo. Lower the tax and that would be a good change.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:He assumes there must be a 100% reversal in people choosing how they will be or whether they will be insured for healthcare.
No he doesnt. Under Obama's health care plan, people who want to stay with their current insurance plan are free to do so.
I'll give you the first part up to a point--insurance will be mandatory for kids even if the parents want to assume the cost themselves. People will lose a good deal of choice in how they will be insured as the existing plans will be changed unless he has varied his initial plan. But if his plan is not a 100% reversal of current free market health insurance in the USA, it sure veers way WAY over onto a much different path.
Quote:You know that this issue hits the jugular when liberal columnist Paul Krugman weighs in. He points out that under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance -- then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn't turn them away, because Mr. Obama's plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone.
LINK
I think removing the free market aspect from healthcare is a change that is worse than the status quo as well as taking away personal freedoms from the American people.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:He has suggested a 100% reversal of NAFTA as it currently exists.
No he doesnt. He has said there have to be some adjustments. How "some adjustments" comes down to a "100% reversal" must be one of those mysteries of political spin.
Quote:Both Obama and Clinton have said they would seek to unilaterally end NAFTA if Canada and Mexico did not agree to renegotiate portions seen as unfavorable to U.S. workers. Obama has repeatedly taken Clinton to task for initially supporting the trilateral pact, which her husband signed as president.
LINK
I wouldn't have a problem with taking a good look at NAFTA to see if any tweaking might be beneficial, but to toss it out if Canada and Mexico don't agree with what the USA wants? That is pretty much a 100% change that I also think would be much worse than the status quo.
cjhsa wrote:No matter who gets elected, and Obama's the worst of the bunch on this talking point, your constitutional rights are about to be compromised, and your taxes are gonna go up to pay for illegal "immigration".
Lock and load.
You should talk! They were compromised the day the Supremes decided, instead of the voters, who the President would be! Surprise, surprise, it was George Dubya and nothings been right or made sense, since that day! I'll never forget the inaugural, where "garbage" was thrown at those black 4 by 4's and the pickets and jeering along the parade route, where for the 1st time, an incoming President couldn't walk down Pennsylvania Ave. Portents, of events to come! Well, you get what you deserve! 8 years of thievery!
teenyboone wrote:cjhsa wrote:No matter who gets elected, and Obama's the worst of the bunch on this talking point, your constitutional rights are about to be compromised, and your taxes are gonna go up to pay for illegal "immigration".
Lock and load.
You should talk! They were compromised the day the Supremes decided, instead of the voters, who the President would be! Surprise, surprise, it was George Dubya and nothings been right or made sense, since that day! I'll never forget the inaugural, where "garbage" was thrown at those black 4 by 4's and the pickets and jeering along the parade route, where for the 1st time, an incoming President couldn't walk down Pennsylvania Ave. Portents, of events to come! Well, you get what you deserve! 8 years of thievery!
Only 8 years? That's insignificant compared to Cook County ( home of Obama ) in Illinois, where thieves have ruled the roost for more than 100 years.
Miller wrote:teenyboone wrote:cjhsa wrote:No matter who gets elected, and Obama's the worst of the bunch on this talking point, your constitutional rights are about to be compromised, and your taxes are gonna go up to pay for illegal "immigration".
Lock and load.
You should talk! They were compromised the day the Supremes decided, instead of the voters, who the President would be! Surprise, surprise, it was George Dubya and nothings been right or made sense, since that day! I'll never forget the inaugural, where "garbage" was thrown at those black 4 by 4's and the pickets and jeering along the parade route, where for the 1st time, an incoming President couldn't walk down Pennsylvania Ave. Portents, of events to come! Well, you get what you deserve! 8 years of thievery!
Only 8 years? That's insignificant compared to Cook County ( home of Obama ) in Illinois, where thieves have ruled the roost for more than 100 years.
So ask YOURSELF. "Who was RULING Cook County, 100 years ago, which was 1908? Certainly NOT, anyone, that LOOKED like Barack Obama! Who were the thieves, then? In 1908!
Let's first look at Sam Giancana and then, time permitting, move to addition crooks connected to the year, 1908, in Cook County, Illinois
Quote:Gilorma (Sam) Giancana was born in Chicago on 24th May, 1908. At the age of ten he was expelled from Reese Elementary School and was sent to St. Charles Reformatory. This did not have the desired effect and in 1921 joined the 42 Gang. Over the next few years he was arrested for a variety of different offences.
In 1926 Giancana was arrested for murder. However, charges were dropped after the key witness was murdered. He was later sent to prison for theft and burglary. On his release he went to work for leading gangster Paul Ricca. By the 1950s Giancana was one of the leading crime bosses in Chicago.
In 1960 Giancana was involved in talks with Allen W. Dulles, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), about the possibility of murdering Fidel Castro. It is claimed that during the 1960 presidential election Giancana used his influence in Illinois to help John F. Kennedy defeat Richard Nixon. The two men, at that time, shared the same girlfriend, Judith Campbell Exner.
After becoming president John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert Kennedy, as U.S. Attorney General. The two men worked closely together on a wide variety of issues including the attempt to tackle organized crime. One of their prime targets was to get Giancana arrested.
On 22nd November, 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated. Rumours began to circulate that Giancana and other gang bosses such as Santos Trafficante, Carlos Marcello, and Johnny Roselli, were involved in the crime.
In 1975 Frank Church and his Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities discovered that Judith Campbell had been involved with both Giancana and John F. Kennedy. It emerged that during the 1960 presidential election Campbell took messages from Giancana to Kennedy. Campbell later claimed these messages concerned the plans to murder Fidel Castro. Kennedy also began an affair with Campbell and used her as a courier to carry sealed envelopes to Giancana. He told her they contained "intelligence material" concerning the plot to kill Castro.
Giancana was now ordered to appear before Church's committee. However, before he could appear, on 19th June, 1975, Sam Giancana was murdered in his own home. He had a massive wound in the back of the head. He had also been shot six times in a circle around the mouth.
On 14th January, 1992, the New York Post claimed that Hoffa, Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello had all been involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Frank Ragano was quoted as saying that at the beginning of 1963 Hoffa had told him to take a message to Trafficante and Marcello concerning a plan to kill Kennedy. When the meeting took place at the Royal Orleans Hotel, Ragano told the men: "You won't believe what Hoffa wants me to tell you. Jimmy wants you to kill the president." He reported that both men gave the impression that they intended to carry out this order.
In 1992 Giancana's nephew published Double Cross: The Story of the Man Who Controlled America. The book attempted to establish that Giancana had rigged the 1960 Presidential election vote in Cook County on John Kennedy's behalf, which effectively gave Kennedy the election. It is argued that Kennedy reneged on the deal and therefore Giancana had him killed.
In his autobiography, Mob Lawyer (1994) (co-written with journalist Selwyn Raab) Frank Ragano added that in July, 1963, he was once again sent to New Orleans by Hoffa to meet Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello concerning plans to kill President John F. Kennedy. When Kennedy was killed Hoffa apparently said to Ragano: "I told you could do it. I'll never forget what Carlos and Santos did for me." He added: "This means Bobby is out as Attorney General". Marcello later told Ragano: "When you see Jimmy (Hoffa), you tell him he owes me and he owes me big."
www.spartacus.schoolnet.com.uk
Some cool information on Cook County, since I was asked.
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/335.html
There's also a political graveyard site, that tells EXACTLY who was born there, like Walt Disney and who was serving around that time, (1908), 100 years ago. :wink:
One of the reasons I am a conservative, and generally resist attempts to impose legislative or government mandated bureaucratic solutions to social & economic problems on the country, is my conviction that the usually earnest and well-intentioned designers of these "solutions" usually fail to anticipate all their side effects. The operational result in the real world is, as a result of these unanticipated side effects, usually the opposite of what their framers intended and promised. The evil results of the several European attempts at the perfection of mankind and society through authoritarian socialism is the classic example of this. The collapse of our old (and unlamented) welfare system is a good example in this country.
The Democrats have given us all another vivid example of unanticipated consequences with their decision to create a tribe of "superdelegates" for their convention and candidate selection process. The "superdelegates", who comprise about 20% of the total delegate count, are comprised of Democrat Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and other party & elected officials, while the others are elected in individual state processes. The rationale for this structure was that the "superdelegates" would temper the excesses of popularly selected delegates and add an element of long-term party strategy to the candidate selection process.
However, as the thing has played out in the real world it appears the Democrats have, once again, outsmarted themselves. Now Democrat officialdom is obsessed with the fear that, if for any reason the "superdelegates" were found to have contributed to overturning the selection of a certain new candidate, enthusiastically favored by many in the party, a permanent fissure will have been created between the party and an important part of its base. As a result they now frantically insist that the superdelegates must not follow the role they themselves prescribed for them, and instead follow slavishly the patterns set by the elected delegates - in short, the "superdelegates" no longer exist.
This sad comedy itself is a wonderful example of the fundamental reason why Americans should not trust or rely on the government operated "solutions" to health care, environmental, energy production, and economic issues, designed and proposed by these same inept practicioners of ever bigger government. They can't even design an effective process for the selection of their own leaders.
Next thing you know, democrats will create "super-super delegates." LOL
Tickets for Obama's Wilmington appearance on Monday were gone before I could get there.
cicerone imposter wrote:Next thing you know, democrats will create "super-super delegates." LOL
I've never seen such an articulate looking bunch of people, beat the hell out of themselves! I just don't get it!
Aw, I'm sorry, engineer!
Maybe just go anyway? There's usually some sort of overflow appearance...
sozobe wrote:Aw, I'm sorry, engineer!
Maybe just go anyway? There's usually some sort of overflow appearance...
That's an idea. I'm only five minutes away at work. My daughter had a soccer game at the same time the Obama headquarters opened. The place was packed when I got there. No bumper stickers even and a line to put your name on the standby list.
Hey, if you're that close anyway...
Good luck!
engineer wrote:sozobe wrote:Aw, I'm sorry, engineer!
Maybe just go anyway? There's usually some sort of overflow appearance...
That's an idea. I'm only five minutes away at work. My daughter had a soccer game at the same time the Obama headquarters opened. The place was packed when I got there. No bumper stickers even and a line to put your name on the standby list.
When Obama came to Evansville In they announced it the day before he came here.
That made it tough to make plans to go, but I went anyway.
It was at a local stadium that held 10,000 people, and there were at least that many people there.
DTOM posted something in the Wright thread that's stuck in my head and that I keep remembering when I read the posts of the more sycophanthic conservatives here. I think he's spot on.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:the wright comments were stupid. on their own, they haven't hurt obama much. the gop will sieze on it again later though.
i'd imagine that they'll have fun with barack's "association" with a member of the weathermen too.
forget about the characterization of kerry and gore as "most liberal" this and that.
when the gop has a full obama nomination to play with, they're gonna come at him as a "leftist radical". and america will listen.
It helps that Obama is black of course, that makes the tack in question appeal more easily to subconscious fears & prejudices - the "black radical" is an iconic enough figure in the American imagination, and the same tack is harder to attach to a white woman from Arkansas, say.
Not saying this is a reason to prefer Hillary over Obama - she's got more than enough strategic downsides herself, and thats even aside from weighing their respective programs and personalities. Just saying, be prepared, keep this in mind, and remember it whenever you see another of that kind of post pop up... cause DTOM is right.
Will enough Americans listen to give the Republican in the race a foot up over Obama? That I doubt... the fundamentals are unfriendly enough for anything Republican to give Obama the edge anyhow, plus he's an extremely skilled politician. But the onslaught of "black leftwing radical" insinuations will come, and it will substantively be different from the "effeminate weakling liberal, liberal, liberal" type of lament that faced Kerry and Dukakis.
