Obama, Clinton say Democratic race likely to go on for weeks
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 1 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 1 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
18 Comments
Login to comment
0
RomeoRamenII
"This means the decision will likely come down to superdelegates, the nearly 800 party leaders and others who may side with whomever they like at the August convention."
Yep, personal popularity over who can best serve the entire nation. Heh ... the democrats' mascot is the jackass for a reason.
0
adaydream
The really kewl thing about this campange season so far is with no particular candidate selected, it keeps the republicans off base. They can't put out their assault dogs if Obama or Clinton isn't picked. Heh Heh Heh!!!
0
super delegate
"They can't put out their assault dogs if Obama or Clinton isn't picked."
Yeah. Makin lotsa sense there, zday. If Obama has skeletons in his closet any worse than the racist Rev Wright or the unrepentant failed terrorist William Ayers I think even that 1/3rd of the Democrat party which basically loathes its own country will abandon the guy.
Identity politics is killing your party and poisoning political debate in America.
0
adaydream
Actually I've been enjoying it. Makes the candidates explain more before the choice is made.
0
RomeoRamenII
Makes the candidates explain more before the choice is made.
Heh, waiting for barack to explain why he's surrounding himself with friends/political financial backers like Bill Ayres; a guy who still has no problem descecrating the American flag:
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/
RR
0
skipthesong
Man, Hillary is hitting below the belt. She is going real low class
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
0
skipthesong
Hey Romeo: friends/political financial backers like Bill Ayres; a guy who still has no problem descecrating the American flag" Yeah but c'mon, Bush was buddies with the Bin Ladins and Rumsfield was chummy with Saddam..
0
skipthesong
RR: I can understand you detest for what a guy Bill Ayres has advocated.. but let's at least be appreciative that we are allowed to make statements such as that regardless of who it offends. There have been times in our country's government when it has turned its back and even hurt people..
0
SezWho2
RomeoRamenII,
How well do you know Bill Ayers? Would you say on the basis of the depth of your knowledge that you are a better or worse judge of his character than Obama is? You could be remarkably intuitive, but I'd have to guess that Obama is the better judge of who Ayers is now.
As for desecrating the flag, "desecrate" has two basic meanings. The primary meaning is to violate the sacredness of something. Ayers can't do that because our flag is not sacred--nor should it be.
The secondary meaning is to treat irreverently or with disrespect. I don't think anybody should have a problem with that although I know that some do. Legislation to punish disrespectful treatment of the flag is a violation of free expression. The flag is a symbol, not the thing itself and treating it outrageously harms no one who is not confused. I don't think we should be making laws to validate our confusion.
Much too much has been made of Obama's choice of friends. And it strikes me as nonsense. I can understand that McCain supporters would much prefer to run against Hillary and the reason for that is that she is a known quantity. I think all McCain has to do to defeat her is to make sure that husband Bill is prominently displayed in the attack ads: "It's 3:00 a.m. and the phone rings. Who will answer?" Stuff like that.
McCain supporters do not want to run against Obama precisely because he is an unknown and he is tremendously popular. Their best bet not to have to run against him is to make sure that Hillary gets the nomination. But that doesn't really excuse the guilt-by-association game that they (and Hillary) are playing and in the long run it hurts America and Americans.
0
proxy
I think the DNC has a secret plan to take it to the convention floor. They are gaining a lot by dragging it out. Millions and millions of dollars worth of free media. That other guy hardly gets a mention anymore. Just as valuable are the donor lists they are building. How many donors is McCain lining up in Indiana? And all of the new people being registered as democrats will help them in November. When convention tome comes around the media will do standard coverage of the republican convention but pour into the democratic convention and give it wall to wall coverage if it goes to the floor.
0
RomeoRamenII
Sez:
Good to know that as a progressive you are willing to turn the other cheek when discussing barack's terrorist buddy, Bill Ayers.
However, the more that's found out about barack and who he coddles up to, the less likely he will be accepted by traditional Americans; folks who view the American flag as something other than a piece of cloth or a door mat.
McCain supporters do not want to run against Obama precisely because he is an unknown and he is tremendously popular.
I disagree that Mr. McCain's supporters worry about him running against the empty suit.
The Wright thing is hanging out there like a storm cloud. Deep down, the DNC knows he is unelectable now. But they don't have the guts to make the hard call.
Tremendously popular?
That may have been a true statement at the turn of the year, but after winning 11 primaries in a row, barack has not won a primary of significance since late February. Indiana and North Carolina are red herrings as neither state will go democrat in the General Election.
hillary could be ahead in the popular vote at the end of this, and if you count Florida and Michigan, she will be. That means more people voted for her.
Since neither will reach the needed delegates to nominate the convention decision will be based on many factors.
Those include the overall popular vote, delegate-rich states won and real-time exit poll results. None of these variables favor barack. Therefore, he wants her to quit now. If I were him, I would too, but it ain't gonna happen. It's going to Denver.
Unless the SDs commit prior to all voters having their say, the democrats are begging for another John Kerry-type albatross hanging around their neck in the upcoming general election.
There are other inconvenient truths for the man-whose-middle-name-cannot-be-mentioned such as the Washington State primary that didn't count put hillary as the winner, yet the state counted the "caucus" votes instead of the more representative primary.
Republicans will run ads saying the DNC ignores voters. The thing is, it will be true.
Sez, I firmly believe it's already over for the dems this time around; even nominating hillary now has major drawbacks. As I posted at the old site, the biggest one is America does not want a Clinton Reunion Tour.
So, who's to blame?
Party elders for siding with barack way too early and refusing to vett him;
The media for fawning over barack early on. It was the SNL comedy skit before the Texas primary that turned out to be their Morning After Pill;
Moveon.org and all the other liberal mafia groups who have hijacked the jackass party;
Howard "The Screamer" Dean for letting the Florida and Michigan issue spin out of control.
If nominated, I believe Obama will lose McGovern style. Can't win a national election without the God-and-guns-hugging lobby, which barack lost when he dissed them in San Francisco. And you can't win it dissing Florida and Michican.
RR
0
WhiteHawk
adaydream:
Not quite. Any Republican (even one who is only mildly conservative like McCain) can campaign against the ideals and policies of any American leftist/socialist/Marxist. In this election especially, you would already be campaigning against both candidates.
Have to agree with you there. Not that it will exactly help either of the DNC candidates. It will just be more time for Hillary to get caught lying again, or more of her corrupt past to be exposed (unless the Clinton library can keep her papers sealed), or for Bill to give us another slip-of-the-tongue gem.
For Obama, it either will give him time to add substance to his campaign, or be exposed as an inexperienced rookie.
I actually wish the Republican primary had carried on a bit longer, so the nominee wasn't picked before the majority "red" states had held their primaries.
RomeoRamenII:
Right, and it's because they've fallen into their own Identity Politics trap. To date, any conservative who has dared to be critical of Obama -for any reason whatsoever- has been reflexively branded a racist. So if the DNC dares drop their support for him now, guess what they'll be called by the more outspoken members of the NAACP...
0
RomeoRamenII
WhiteHawk:
Yeah, the democrats outdid themselves this time. The barack folowers think Wright and Ayers won't be issues in September. It must be nice to be so uuummm controlled.
RR
0
SezWho2
RomeoRamenII,
You didn't answer the question. Perhaps it was inconvenient.
Ayers? I think you don't know him. I think you do know that a lot of Americans confuse the flag with the country. It's true, and more's the pity. Sometimes you have to do something outrageous to get people to think and sometimes when you do something outrageous people use that as an excuse not to think. The flag is a symbol and symbols exist to be operated upon.
Democrats don't care that much about the Wright thing. They may wonder about Obama's electability after the Wright thing but that is a different matter. You don't have to have purple hearts to be swiftboated and that is exactly what is happening now. Whether these particular smears will be successful or not remains to be seen.
I think Americans are tired of candidates who make issues of non-issues and who prefer mud to authenticity. But certainly not all Americans. You seem to think that the mud that has been thrown Obama's way would prevent him from becoming President. You could be right. But I don't think so.
As for Obama's popularity, the last poll I saw from Indiana showed Hillary with a lead in prospective votes--something like 49% to 43%. When it came to "popularity", however, Obama polled over 50%. I still think the McCain people want to run against Hillary. Too many people just don't like her and too many don't think she's honest.
0
adaydream
But gentlemen,
No matter your disaggreements with Barack or Hillary, a democrats will be the next president.
0
WhiteHawk
SezWho2;
I'll remember that the next time a left-leaning pundit complains about a right-wing American "wrapping themselves in the flag".
adaydream:
You're almost correct. A liberal will be the next president. All of the conservatives were eliminated in the GOP primaries.
0
WhiteHawk
If anyone is wondering how the DNC has found themselves in this quagmire, Doug Patton has spelled it out in this excellent column:
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dpatton/2008/dp_05061.shtml
0
SezWho2
WhiteHawk,
Well you should remember it. Remember also the freedom to point to the inanity of doing so.
I think it might have been Samuel Johnson who said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." He's talking about the flag-wrapping sort of patriotism rather than the patriotism which seeks to criticize one's country for its betterment.
Back to top