Defection of longtime superdelegate jolts Clinton

Friday 02nd May, 06:58 AM JST

By David Espo

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 44 Total Comments Show All

unscrejects at 11:49 PM JST - 2nd May

usaexpat - the questions he hesitated on were the ones that he could never answer as a black man. The Rev did and look what they've done to him. Heck I have not seen a US flag on McCain or on Hillary.
usaexpat at 11:58 PM JST - 2nd May

unscrejects: the question that bothered me was the "if America was attacked what would you do as president" I believe Hillary gave a one word answer "retalliate" Obama fumbled and said it would depend on the circumstances etc. That question only has one right answer if you're running for president.
unscrejects at 12:11 AM JST - 3rd May

Usaexpat: I'd go on reading "My pet Goat". Yeah I hear you but we have to realize that the debates were unfair - Clinton's Whitehouse staffers on the panel? Even all the CNN commentators are Clinton staffers... It's like home court advantage even when playing away.
Madverts at 12:54 AM JST - 3rd May

Heh......and the election hysteria continues it´s shrieky and childish course, though it seems some aren´t managing to source enough amphetamines to continue the priceless Denial here.

This battle is clearly not helping either candidate or the party. But it clearly doesn´t matter after the manner Bush Co have driven the GOP into the ground.

And Bush´s approval is hovering in the twenty percents....heh, some of us have waited 8 long years for this desperately needed enema.
WhiteHawk at 02:23 AM JST - 3rd May

“I was elected yesterday. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I’ve never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I’m immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn’t make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years." - Barack Obama, 11/4/04

John Andrew left a liar for a liar. Redacted is right that the Democrats are squandering what should be a cakewalk for them. Bush's approval ratings may be in the 20's, but the senate as whole is somewhere around 11. And all three remaining candidates are from the senate! Hello, is anybody paying attention? There were governors with years of executive experience in each party, and neither made it through the primaries. Now look what we've got to choose from: A Republican version of FDR, an empty-suit socialist, and Stalin in a pantsuit.

Republicans may be trying to find their next Reagan, but what are Democrats trying to find? Their next McGovern? Their next Carter? Their next Marx?
SuperLib at 02:39 AM JST - 3rd May

And McCain supporters like redacted and SuperLib

Sorry, Sushi, I wasn't aware you were waiting to "get back" at me. I guess I ticked you off without even trying. ;)
redacted at 03:04 AM JST - 3rd May

"And Bush´s approval is hovering in the twenty percents....heh, some of us have waited 8 long years for this desperately needed enema."

How thoroughly French you have become, madverts...
adaydream at 04:41 AM JST - 3rd May

I love it. We've got an election going on and groups like the Swift Boat Liars haven't come out of the woodwork yet.

It's refreshing to see a relatively clean campaign season.

Must be just killing the republicans.
SezWho2 at 09:57 AM JST - 3rd May

usaexpat,

The question you are referring to may have only one right answer if you're running for president. Unfortunately, if you are president, the right answer may be different and may be a lot more like Obama's than Hillary's.

Retaliate? Yes, but retaliate how? Websters defines "retaliate" as to "return an injury in kind". Hillary's definition of retaliate is in doubt what with her threatening to obliterate Iran if Iran mounts a nuclear attack on Israel. What would be the return of an injury in kind in that case? Should we nuke Syria?

We did not simply retaliate when the World Trade Center was destroyed. We have destroyed two countries in an attempt to vent our rage and in a vain effort to make sure this never happens again. Perhaps if we had worried a little more about the circumstances and not so much about the fact that someone dared to injure us we would not be in the mess that we're in today.
redacted at 11:00 AM JST - 3rd May

As might be expected, El Rushbo sums it up best:

The Democrat superdelegates have a problem. Obama cannot win, but they are afraid to take the nomination from him because they think the black vote won't show up in November and vote Democrat. I tell them not to worry. There's a 50-year history showing that they have done far worse — destroying the black family, for example — and blacks still vote Democrat.
Madverts at 05:44 PM JST - 3rd May

"Republicans may be trying to find their next Reagan"

Don´t think so. John McCain is the Republican old timer the party have put forward because he is a) old and finished and more to the point b) they know the GOP have zero chance of winning this election after the last disaterous eight years of republican ruin via Bush Co. and would rather attempt a run in 2012 with a candidate that wasn´t actually alive when America still had wooley mammoths on the continent.

Heh. And it´s fun to watch.
usaexpat at 11:47 PM JST - 5th May

SezWho2 I might throw you here but a nuke might have been a better answer after September 11th as we may actually have gotten Bin Laden and not gone to Iraq. You're correct that the mess we are in now is related but Iraq was not in vengence, that was Bush's own little Neo-con experiment that should never have happened. I stand by my last post, the only reason America remains a super power is because even the mullahs are afraid we just might go nuts.
WhiteHawk at 02:12 AM JST - 6th May

Madverts:

Don´t think so. John McCain is the Republican old timer the party have put forward because he is a) old and finished and more to the point b) they know the GOP have zero chance of winning this election after the last disaterous eight years of republican ruin via Bush Co. and would rather attempt a run in 2012 with a candidate that wasn´t actually alive when America still had wooley mammoths on the continent.

Actually, McCain was picked in a GOP primary process that started with majority "blue" states. In other words, he won the nomination (and other candidates dropped out) before the majority of America's conservatives had the chance to vote. The party didn't have control of the primary process, so the GOP cannot be blamed for McCain's success.

Also, McCain is very much like Bush (strong on protecting the country from a threat originating half a world away, soft on protecting the country from the threat next door) and yet still has every chance of beating either DNC candidate - and he still hasn't picked a VP. If he were to pick a strong conservative for a VP, he would regain much of the right-wing vote he lost with his senate voting record and neither DNC candidate would have a chance against him.

Yes, we're looking for our next Reagan. Haven't found him yet, but we're looking. What are the Democrats looking for? They've backed themselves into the Identity Politics corner, and can't choose which Marxist-socialist they want to destroy America as it was intended to be, because they're afraid of being labeled as sexists or racists. Clinton and Obama are spending their campaign money attacking each other while McCain is campaigning against their ideas. Is this really what the Democrats wanted?
SezWho2 at 06:59 AM JST - 6th May

usaexpat,

I think a nuke would have been a terrible idea. We might have gotten bin Laden, but we would have indiscriminately taken many more lives as well while using the very weapons we were expressing concern about elsewhere.

But be that as it may, I'm puzzled as to why you say that if we had done so we might not have had to go to Iraq and then go on to say that Iraq had nothing to do with our reaction to 9/11 but was simply a neo-con experiment. If it was just an experiment, it seems to me that it was going to be conducted anyway.

I don't think that it was the administration's lust for revenge that got us into Iraq. But, in order to get us there, I think that the administration very much capitalized on American insecurity and the continuing sense that the injuries of 9/11 had not yet been requited.
usaexpat at 11:56 PM JST - 6th May

Sez in around about way I think we agree on most of this. You are right that the administration needed the fear machine to go into Iraq. I think you are also correct that this failed administration was hell bent on conducting their Iraq experiment and just needed the excuse. I was not seriously advocating the use of nuclear weapons as that is reserved for the "final solution" if we are ever attacked with nuclear weapons. As we all know if that day ever comes life on this planet will probably be over.