Defection of longtime superdelegate jolts Clinton
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Australia's most populated state lifts uranium mining ban
( 2 )
-
Israel blames Iran for series of blasts
( 21 )
-
Obama: Strong U.S.-China ties help rest of the world
( 6 )
-
Santorum surging in Republican presidential race
( 13 )
-
Private funeral Saturday for Whitney Houston
( 2 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
44 Comments
Login to comment
0
SezWho2
In an irony-deaf statement Bill Clinton says,
The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it’s by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules.
He would know.
To the extent that this remark is directed against Obama, Bill is just surfing the waves of criticism that he and Hillary stirred up. However, the once-and-maybe-future first couple have no grounds for accusation of Obama that cannot be equally turned against themselves.
0
Sarge
Sez - Why, that sounded like a criticism of our former 2-term president Bill Clinton!
0
SezWho2
Sarge,
It was. Why should that surprise you?
In my opinion, Bill Clinton was hounded by prosecutors and subsequently pilloried in the press and elsewhere for an action that diverted the national attention from issues that were truly more important.
We as a nation don't seem to have grown up much since the blue dress episode. Neither, it would seem, has finger-wagging, "is"-parsing Bill. Quite simply, he is the wrong messenger to speak about the evils of elitism.
0
WhiteHawk
Even before the blue dress, Slick Wilie didn't have a reputation for focusing on the job.
Drat! They're onto us! ;)
Anyway, I wonder how long before all the superdelegates who've invested the past 3 or more years of their lives schmoozing Hillary in attempts to be her VP will come out for Obama.
And start schmoozing him.
0
redacted
I'm luvin it.
Voters be damned, the party must unify behind the bright shining fraud with the most liberal voting record in the Senate.
0
SushiSake2
I'm loving this - every minute of it.
Obama looks set to get the Democratic party nod, and then he'll be up against a geriatric divorcee who can't seem to decide whether he is for or against Bush's tax cuts, or whether he is for fighting climate change or for implementing a gas tax holiday which will...um...go directly against his claim to fight climate change.
And McCain supporters like redacted and SuperLib must still be smarting that their only man left standing wasn't even their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice for Republican candidate.
Bring. It. On!
0
SushiSake2
News Just In:
[www.cnn.com] "Bush disapproval rating highest on record - "A new poll suggests President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history. The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job."
ha ha ha!! This proves all us 'Lefties' were right all along!! LOL!
This is awesome news for the Democratic party and will make it even easier for Obama to walk into the Oval Office as President come Janauary 2009.
0
redacted
"[www.cnn.com] "Bush disapproval rating highest on record - "A new poll suggests President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history. The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job."
ha ha ha!! This proves all us 'Lefties' were right all along!! LOL!"
LOL, indeed. It was an article of faith on the Left that CNN helped "BushCo" steal the 2000 election.
0
RomeoRamenII
"The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted by telephone from Monday through Wednesday among 1,008 adult Americans."
Heh, 1,008 out of what, 300,000,000? If anyone believes that number represents the masses, they are fooling themselves.
RR
0
RomeoRamenII
"This is awesome news for the Democratic party and will make it even easier for Obama to walk into the Oval Office as President come Janauary 2009."
Heh, looks like George Soros hasn't told those suffering from Battered Liberal Syndrome (BLS) the news that Mr. Bush is not running for re-election.
RR
0
SushiSake2
redacted - "It was an article of faith on the Left that CNN helped "BushCo" steal the 2000 election."
Um. that's still not going to stop the Republican party you so ardently support from being totally buried in Novemeber.
Romeo - "Heh, 1,008 out of what, 300,000,000? If anyone believes that number represents the masses, they are fooling themselves."
But Romeo, most of your countrymen bought into Bush's lies about the WMD. What makes you think they won't believe the polls? :-)
0
SushiSake2
"Defection of longtime superdelegate jolts Clinton" - this looks like it will be the beginning of the end for Clinton and divorcee flip-flopper McCain.
0
RomeoRamenII
Wonder how many of barak's SuperD's are receiving a share of Rezko money? Heh, it seems his staff is having problems remembering just how much Rezko contributed.
RR
0
SushiSake2
Romeo, heh, yep, bring up Rezko or Obama's pastor when you've got nothing of substance to bash him for.
America will be far, fgar better off under President Obama.
Clinton knows her luck is running out (she lost Joe Andrew and only gained 3 SuperD's this week compared to Obama scoring 8, and last time I checked, Obama is only 19 or so behind her).
And where's John McWho?
0
RomeoRamenII
It is great to know the United States accept the idea of a black president. A person of color has never even gotten close to ruling any white-dominated europeon nation.
Unfortunately, barack is the wrong black person.
RR
0
RomeoRamenII
The democrats are in the thick of it now. Every decision they will make must be made solely on the color of skin; otherwise, they are racists.
For the dems, it's strictly a black and white choice now thanks to barack, heh, "The Great Uniter".
RR
0
SushiSake2
I'm glad Obama knows exactly who he is.
BTW, I also envy how quickly you tend to buy into any spin that erupts out of the White House on such a regular basis. :-)
0
redacted
"Romeo, heh, yep, bring up Rezko or Obama's pastor when you've got nothing of substance to bash him for."
How else are we to judge someone of such limited political accomplishment and vague policy than by who he surrounds himself with?
HRC and her minions might be responsible for some of it but basically it's his own fault that all we really get to know of Barack Middle Name Unmentionable Obama is his wacko black liberation pastor, his bitter black nationalist wife, shady Syrians and Iraqi expats whose "contributions" should be the object of Senate Ethics Committee inquiries, and former and unrepentant terrorists like Bill Ayers and Berandine Dhorn.
At any rate, they ain't fainting in the front rows anymore when Barack comes to town...
0
SushiSake3
redacted - "all we really get to know of Barack Middle Name Unmentionable Obama is his wacko black liberation pastor, his bitter black nationalist wife.."
Heh, the desperation at the coming End Of An Error (20 January, 2009) is palpable :-)
0
redacted
"Heh, the desperation at the coming End Of An Error (20 January, 2009) is palpable :-)"
You can say that again. If history is any guide the Dems should be waltzing into the WH. 8 years of Republican rule. But as it is they are on the verge of sundering their hapless party. Could be the best thing for them, and the country.
And what's good for America is good for the entire world.
0
SushiSake3
redacted - "And what's good for America is good for the entire world."
Like the current U.S. recession and the failed Iraq war pushing up the cost of oil?
Your blanket statements do little to hide a fundamental lack of understanding about reality, not to mention economics and the outside world.
One of the fundamental differences between Obama and the current Idiot In Chief you support is that the former has more than a handful of functioning braincells.
I look forward to congratulating President Obama on whumping the Republicans back to the Stone Age in..what is it now - only 6 short months? :-)
That's real good and only gives you 36 weeks more to deny that little Voice Of Reality inside your head that keeps taunting you with the words: "You got it wrong."
Happy Golden Week :-)
.
0
SushiSake3
Romeo - "Heh, looks like George Soros hasn't told those suffering from Battered Liberal Syndrome (BLS) the news that Mr. Bush is not running for re-election."
I never said he was.
Please try to stay focused.
Thanks.
0
Sarge
Heh, Hillary's probably going to get jolted a few more times before she wraps up the nomination.
SushiSake3 - Hey, there's a SushiSake2 that's been posting on this thread. Know him?
0
SushiSake3
Yeah, I cloned myself so I can have twice the fun bashing Republicans twice as bad, ha ha :-)
0
USNinJapan2
SushiSake3
Yup, nothing at all of substance remains when you take away Rezko or the good reverend. Glad to see you realize that...
0
redacted
sushi sake wrote:"Like the current U.S. recession and the failed Iraq war pushing up the cost of oil?"
Recession is traditionally defined as 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth.
You do know that, don't you?
Where do you get your news? The BBC reported last year that Iraq oil output now exceeds the pre-war levels.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7144774.stm
So how do you figure it is the war in Iraq that is "pushing up" the price of oil?
0
SezWho2
Maybe the confusion arises because of different bases being used. The NYT reported in 2004 that production was 2.3 to 2.5 million barrels per day as opposed to 2.8 before the war.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E5D6163FF932A35750C0A9629C8B63
The BBC article claims superior oil production to pre-war levels but only shows current as of publication in 2007 (2.3) versus the figure at the start of the year (1.9).
Nonetheless, I've read several experts who contend that the war has not pushed up the cost of oil. Most of the people I've read blame it on speculation. Nonetheless, if people are speculating because of the uncertainty surrounding global unrest and its effect on commodities, I think that the war must have had some effect.
As for whether the US is in recession or not, I think it depends on whether we are talking about businesses or people. Businesses can grow "the economy" without a corresponding effect on individuals. Consumer spending is lagging and the credit that has driven it is going to be more difficult to obtain. I think when non-economists use the term recession, some leeway should be given.
Hillary doesn't have solutions to oil prices or to the economy. Neither does Obama. Nor McCain. I like it that Obama is seen as being policy-weak. I think the important thing is what you do when you are in office and have learned the job--not what you say you are going to do before you take office.
Platform policies are seldom implemented as they tend to run into Congressional buzz-saws. After all, that is what all the 51%/49% vote is perceived to be about. Neither side is inclined to give in. The best thing is to get someone with a good focus and let them do what they can when the opportunity arises. I think Obama has that focus and that the others do not.
0
unscrejects
Rezko? Are you guys dim witted or pretending to have no memories? Clinton's super-duper Asian 'fund' raiser is in jail - Colorado is it? The phoney speeches Bill does as a guise for Hils 'contributions' from Punjab... Heck were are the receipts for the speeches anyway? Come on for crying out loud. He gets paid by the Colombians for a speech in Bogota, Cuidad Mexico and Costa Rica???? Then there is Ferraro spewing racist drivel at Obama and nobody gripes. ANd now the Revs "if you have white folks... they'll be clapping like this y'all..." being played minus the "Black folks'll be clapping like this..." illustrating the Europe vs Africa music timing...
America will take a long time to recover from the damage Clinton is causing by 'reminding' whites that they're backing a black.
0
usaexpat
I have to say the longer this goes on the more I realise that Obama isn't ready. I have been pretty hard on Hillary but my allegiance is changing the more I see. I feel more comfortable with her at the helm than Obama now. Just look at some of his hesitation in the debates when asked the hard questions.
0
unscrejects
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.
0
usaexpat
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.
0
unscrejects
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.
0
Madverts
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.
0
WhiteHawk
“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?
0
SuperLib
Sorry, Sushi, I wasn't aware you were waiting to "get back" at me. I guess I ticked you off without even trying. ;)
0
redacted
"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...
0
adaydream
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.
0
SezWho2
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.
0
redacted
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.
0
Madverts
"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.
0
usaexpat
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.
0
WhiteHawk
Madverts:
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?
0
SezWho2
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.
0
usaexpat
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.
Back to top