Greg,
You seem well intentioned, but if you desire party unity, which it seems you do, please stop these posts. Whatever good you do is easily undone by the vile ignorance displayed by the kool aid drinking Obama supporters. Everyone needs to move on. Obama extorted the nomination out of the superdelegates by using the threat of the African American community going ballistic if the superdelegates didn't hand Obama the nomination. Most candidates are required to earn a majority of all delegates to lay legitimate claim to the nomination, but not our friend Barack. All he needed to do was game the undemocratic caucuses and work to ensure two large swing states were excluded from the process by blocking revotes to ensure he could obtain more pledged delegates, and then have his friends in the press drive the narrative that if the superdelegates actually performed their intended function and exercised independent judgment that they would be stealing the election from him. The superdelegates had no choice but to choose Obama lest they risk upsetting the most loyal voting bloc in the Democratic Party. Now Obama will be able to extort the votes of the half of the party who have flatly rejected him by larger and larger margins as the primary unfolded because the Republicans are so evil and those voters are now stuck with him. Obama learned that Chicago style politics well, and now we are stuck with him. I am also afraid we are stuck with having to listen to his deranged and dispicable followers spread their vile posion, but there is no need for you to give them threads like this to do that.

Posted at June 10, 2008 2:51 PM in response to Hillary Privately Urging Her Pledged Delegates To Vote For Obama At Convention

It should be clear to anyone who has actually read both Senator Clinton's and Obama's remarks, as well as Mr Krugman's colum; that your understanding of this issue is a best weak, or at a worst deliberately distorted to make your favored candidate come out looking better.

The crux of Mr Krugman's argument is that Mrs Clinton's plan to deal with foreclosures goes further than Mr. Obama's, and therefore while Mr. Obama's rhetoric might be high flying, his policy prescriptions are lacking. Mr Krugman argues that we ought to look at policies as the best indicator, an argument you seem to ignore in your rush to gush over Mr. Obama's speech.

You attempt to equate Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama's approach by claiming both support Frank-Dodd What you leave out is that Mrs Clinton makes clear in her speech the need to go beyond that measure, something Mr Obama does not. To quote Mrs. Clinton:
,i>But given the severity of today’s housing crisis, simply facilitating this auction process might not be enough to get our economy moving again. That’s why I believe the Federal Housing Administration should also stand ready to be a temporary buyer - to purchase, restructure, and resell underwater mortgages.

Just as it has in the past, this kind of temporary measure by the government could give our economy the boost it needs and families the help they certainly need. It would not require a single new federal bureaucracy, it would be designed to be self-financing over time - so it would cost taxpayers nothing in the long run.

It is a sensible way for everyone - lenders, investors, mortgage companies and borrowers - to share responsibility, keep families in their homes, stabilize communities and the economy.

I find it hard to believe you could have missed this considering it comes right after the part where Mrs. Clinton discusses the Frank-Dodd proposal, but I guess acknowledging it would make it impossible for you to float this garbage out in defense of Obama. It is clear both support the Frank-Dodd proposal, it is also clear that Mrs Clinton wants to go a step further. You may see little difference between the two plans, but that to me seems to say a lot more about your bias than the actual facts. How you could make an argument that you see little difference as a response to Krugman and then not even address the major difference between the two plans that Krugman points is simply intellectually dishonest.

Posted at March 28, 2008 7:02 PM in response to JB on PK vs BHO

You might have noticed that the number of states that use primaries now compared to historically is greater than it has ever been. Less and less states use caucuses and more use primaries, precisely because people have realized that caucuses suck and disenfranchise people. That is why we see many people calling for a national primary all the time, but no one caliing for a national caucus. And just because people may have objected to superdelegates 30 years ago when they were established, they have become accepted since then, and no one has made proposals to eliminate them accept Obama supporters back dooring that into existence.

Funny that I haven't heard one Obama supporter demanding that at the Texas Convention that the delegates that Obama won switch over to Clinton in order to avoid having the results of Texas overturn the will of the people as expressed by the votes of millions of people in the Texas primary. If the will of the people matters then caucuses should not count more than primaries. If we don't look at it that way, then you have no basis for claiming that the superdelegates can't go against the pledged delegate leader because you are only selectively applying the principle of the popular will.

The way the process was set up you don't get jack crap because you have a lead in pledged delegates. If Obama can't get to 2024 without extorting votes out of the superdelegares with his empty hyporcritical appeals to the will of the people, then he has zero claim to the nomination. Since he and his supporters seem to have little interest to respecting the rules of the process except when it benefits him, don't be suprised when voters in droves defect for the guy who almost twice became a democrat.

Posted at March 28, 2008 2:18 PM in response to Bill Clinton: Hillary Will Win The Popular Vote In Primary States

But what I want to know is this: was anyone making any serious arguments against caucuses BEFORE 2008?

Was anyone making serious arguments against the autonomy of the superdelegates BEFORE 2008. No. good- so Obama can take his plegeded delegate lead and take a flying leap.

Posted at March 28, 2008 10:21 AM in response to Bill Clinton: Hillary Will Win The Popular Vote In Primary States

Everyone knows that the only part of the process that we are allowed to essentially alter during the middle of the election is the superdelegates. Obama and Pelosi and their friends in the media have basically made it so that having a lead in plegded delegates, even without the required number of 2024, has to be the nominee. This basically guts the whole concept of the superdelegates by denying them the autonomy to make independent judgments as they were created to do. This is supposedly justified by the undemocratic nature of the superdelegates, but if that is the case, then the same reasoning would apply to caucuses which are also undemocratic, and clearly no where near as clear a reflection of the will of the people as primaries are. The hypocrisy from Obama supporters will never cease to amaze me. If you want to stop hearing the caucuses bashed, start by stopping your attempts to undermine the legitimate role of the superdelegates.

Posted at March 28, 2008 10:10 AM in response to Bill Clinton: Hillary Will Win The Popular Vote In Primary States

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

Give me a break. I guess his defintion of divisive is that which hurts him politically.

Posted at March 18, 2008 12:32 PM in response to Full Text Of Obama's Big Race Speech: A Big Break With Political Precedent

Why are people so afraid of the truth? What Ferraro said is true, and I for one am happy it is true. Obama becoming the first African American President would be a HUGE deal. It would be good for the country. It is about damn time. I am not OK with the fact that there have been 43 white men as our presidents. That is not right. It is not consistent with what this country stands for, it is an affront to our values. We are LONG OVERDUE for this barrier to be broken. All of these things are also true of Hillary's candidacy. She is helped by the fact she represents a historic first.

People's reaction to this statement is a disgrace. She never said the ONLY reason Obama is where he is is because of his race- there are many reasons. But that one should not be downplayed. That is an important one, but not the only one. The Spurs wouldn't have won 4 NBA titles without Tim Duncan- that doesn't mean he is the only reason they won them. Obama's immense skill combined with the advantage of representing a historic and important first have made him quite formiable. One or the other won't do it. Al Sharpton would have represented a historic first, but he lacks Obama skills. There were many very fine very skilled candidates in the Democratic race who could not compete with Senators Clinton and Obama because they didn't represent those important and historic firsts.

People want to see these historic firsts. I am proud of that fact as an American. This is a big reasons these two candidates are where they are. It is not the only reason, but no one has suggested that. It is disgusting for people to suggest otherwise, but that seems to be par for the course among the press and certain very ardent supporters.

Posted at March 11, 2008 8:04 PM in response to Clinton Campaign Manager Suggests Obama Campaign Is Playing Race Card With Ferraro Comments

Barack Obama has argued for this entire campaign that Hillary Clinton can't be an agent of change. That she is part of a corrupt system in Washington. That she is too divisive. Basically that she cannot be the kind of President the country needs. These are all areas where John McCain can claim to be very strong. He has been a Senator for a good while, but he has worked to reform the system and worked across the isle often. I didn't hear any of the people on this thread complaining then. So basically you need to shut up now.

We lost the election in 2004 to the worst most incompetent candidate in history on the issue of national security and yet many here seem to be arrogant and stupid enough to believe that it would not be an issue just four years later. If Barack Obama can't win a national security debate with Hillary Clinton he sure as hell isn't going to win one with John McCain. If Democratic primary voters are swayed by this type of argument, then how can we honestly believe that Republicans and independents wouldn't be. And this non sense that Hillary making these arguments makes him vulnerable on this issue is ridiculous. He is weak on this issue and it is better for her to point it out now and see if he can withstand it, then to pretend the issue doesn't exist and let it sink the party in the general. No one is going to think that Obama is qualified to be commander in chief because Hillary Clinton said so, and at the same time if people don't feel he is qualified it is not because one of his opponents claim that. It is because the facts support that conclusion. Obama claims his lack of experience is a strenght. If you believe that, then great, vote for him. But don't complain and moan when others reject him on that very basis. Democrats never seem to learn. Our first priority should have been to pick a candidate without any questions in this area. Just because we won Congress in 2006 didn't mean the national security issue was no longer the elephant in the room. No one goes around saying the Congress has kept us safe the last six years. Lots of people for better or worse talk about the President having kept is safe the last six years.

Posted at March 7, 2008 12:21 AM in response to Hillary: McCain Has Crossed "Commander In Chief Threshold"

Obama has been attacking Hillary for months claiming she couldn't be trusted and had no integrity. He did it in a very non specific way, just sort of stating these things, not making specific charges. He didn't have to, it was just playing into and reinforcing the narrative the right wing and the press have tried to poush forward for years. Now he is not just going to ride off others attacks of Hillary and exploit them to his advantage without having to look like the bad guy, but make those attacks himself. He will show himself for the petty, do anything to get power kind of politican he is. Maybe he try to start getting people kicked off ballots by questioning signatures like he did back in Illinois. Now we will see him have to do his won dirty work and the true Obama will be exposed.

And Donna Brazile should be expelled from the Democratic Party for her stupidity in stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates, and in general her incompetence and ineptitude. She is a disgrace and she should just go away in shame.

Posted at March 5, 2008 12:39 PM in response to Brazile: Howard Dean And Other Party Leaders Should Be Prepared To Step In

They need only be apart by 1 delegate for Obama (or Hillary) to win. Percentages are meaningless. How does one measure how close a candidate is to winning if we say they're only 0.000493% apart? (1/2025).

No. The delegate count gives a far clearer picture because it provides the ability to count delegates needed to win.

With each state primary that passes, and Hillary's delegate deficit doesn't shrink, that win becomes increasingly mathematically impossible. The percentages wouldn't reveal that.
This statement is highly misleading. The number of delegates apart is irrelevant- the question is do they have the 2025 needed to secure the nomination. The fact is neither side will get that without the superdelegates. The Obama camp is trying to steal the election by coercing the superdelgates to vote for him on the basis of his lead among pledged delegates. My point was that his lead among pledged delegates is statistically insignificant and that the superdelegates should be under no pressure to vote for him because of it. The superdelegates should wait until the enitre process is done and vote for the candidate they feel is best positioned to win in November and be the best president for America. Considering the way the delegate selection process works- IE you can win the popular vote somehwere but get less delgates- it is not some sort of mandate of the voice of the people and the Obama camp needs to stop lying and saying it is. Everyone needs to let the people vote, all of them. Let there voice be heard. If after that there is no nominee so be it. At that point the superdelegates should step in and make their choice, but not until then. And that should only happen after the public is able to see a clear analysis of the votes of all the states, how the delegates shake out,etc. I personally would like to see a system where the superdelgates from each state get together and distribute their votes so that the final delegate count from that state is as close to reflective of the percentage breakdown of the popular vote as possible. In other words, if Obama won 50% of the vote and Clinton won 50% of the vote in that state, but Clinton wound up with 55% of the delegates and Obama 45% (that is possible) then the superdelegates in that state distribute themselves so that the delegates from that state are reflective of the popular vote. In other words they even it out so both Clinton and Obama wind up with 50% of the delegates from that state.

Are you a crazy person? You are talking like a crazy person. Since when do parties wait until the last state (or territory) has voted before lining up behind a presumptive nominee?
They do that when none of the nominees has sufficent delegates to wrap up the nomination. It is called democracy in case you were unaware. Are you an ingnorant person or just plain stupid? My sincere condolonces either way.

Posted at March 4, 2008 5:37 PM in response to Browkaw: Obama has 50 super delegates ready to Announce