So in the last season of "West Wing," while the Democratic party was splintered in a divisive struggle between two contenders--one of them a long-time DC operator and the other an idealistic minority candidates--while the already decided white-haired GOP candidate, unpopular within his own party because of some of his policies waited patiently...
The President serving the second term of his presidency was busy organizing a wedding for his daughter.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at May 5, 2008 02:33 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingDoes this mean that George W. has a son we didn't know about somewhere who's into hookers, wife-beating and blow?
PAD .. does this mean that, if all goes as scripted, the Santos/Obama administration will go "off the air" after being elected? No renewal for the new season?
Peter, have you read Lawrence O’Donnell's script for how the whole thing might play out, West Wing style?
http://nymag.com/news/politics/45786/
Pretty entertaining, though the real thing hasn't exactly lacked for that either.
Wow. That really makes me realize how much I miss The West Wing.
I didn't watch West Wing. Was there a "Rush" organizing an "operation chaos" to keep the two candidates fighting? Or did he steal the idea from West Wing? Or are we actually in the Twilight Zone?
I didn't watch West Wing. Was there a "Rush" organizing an "operation chaos" to keep the two candidates fighting? Or did he steal the idea from West Wing? Or are we actually in the Twilight Zone?
No, something as over-the-top as a blowhard media figure openly trying to throw a Party's election process in to disarray like that is so ridiculous that it could never have been tolerated on a major Network show. Even the show's loyal fans would have thought that that was a transparent straw-man of an opponent for the show's characters. It's so obviously wrong that it wouldn't have worked. Sometimes fiction has to be more realistic than fact, or your audience won't swallow it.
When someone told me that Jenna was marrying Hagar, I thought the wedding would rock. Then I discovered I was hearing the name wrong.
And president Bartlett was starting a conflict in the Middle East--with no exit strategy, leaving that to his successor.
-- Ken from Chicago
Well, as remarked in previous thread, I'd sure think twice about becoming Obama's VP...
I never watched West Wing when it originally aired - not only politics, but American politics, so guess how interested I was...
Then, last year I caught on to Studio 60, partly, I must admit, due to the mentions in this forum.
Loved that, so picked up a cheap box set of WW season one from E-bay. Was so impressed with that, that I got the family the whole seven season set at Christmas and we've all sat and watched the whole series in the last 3-4 months.
Then we watched The American President and our heads collectively imploded in the temporal anomaly that caused...
Sigh. I miss intelligent TV.
Cheers.
I wonder if they will bring back Commander and Chief repeats to show what a woman President is capable of (besides getting her show cancelled).
After re-watching season 6 & 7 and the whole Farscape series I can only imagine that the Republicans and Democrats have no original ideas and have decided to just copy the West Wing. They have monthly meetings to decide what will happen next for their little "show".
I am now beset by mental imagery of Dubya as Scorpius and Hillary as Rygel...
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
Thanks for that!
Cheers.
You know, anyone who is following the West Wing playing out in the real world would never agree to be Obama's running mate because that be a be a death sentence.
Nah, Dubya as Scorpius just doesn't work. Scorpius could actually speak in coherent sentences.
Hey,
Looks like NBC is calling NC for Obama and Indiana is leaning heavy for Clinton though its too early.
Whatcha think? On to Puerto Rico?
--Captain Naraht
He cleaned her clock here in NC.
What's interesting is that the exit polls are saying that the bitterness between the camps is increasing. While I don't buy it when they say they will vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win--these are probably the same folks who said they'd move to Swaziland if a Bush got elected yet here they stay--it would probably be a good idea for someone to tell Hillary she made a great run but it's not going to happen. The only way she wins it all now is if something incredibly bad about Obama comes out and if there were anything like that I'd expect they would have found it by now.
Clinton will lose more ground tonight in the delegate count, and yet I full expect her to talk about another great 'come from behind victory' in Indiana.
Oh, the humanity!
The Indiana numbers are truly fascinating so far. It's down to a 52-48 game, and northwest Indiana (i.e. fairly close to Chicago) is the bulk of what's still to come in.
I suspect that Clinton's going to hold on and win Indiana, but in a squeaker.
North Carolina is looking like a pretty textbook rout.
TWL
This is going to be soooooooooooooooooooo bloody before the end finally comes.
Isn't there a Santos line, regarding the long running infighting to get the nomination, about "being part of the democratic party"?
Certainly it looks as though come 2009 you're going to have the leadership you deserve.
(Commenting, not criticising. The UK is in the same boat)
Out of interest, what kind of voter turnout is happening at this stage? Over here, New Labour just took a right royal kicking in the May local council elections, but that's on a turn out of as low as 35%.
Cheers.
It's bad enough that I think Clinton is unelectable to begin with. But if they go to the convention and the superdelegates place her in over Obama, gainsaying the popular vote, the Democratic party will have its own equivalent of Gore winning the popular vote but a (relatively) small group making the final decision. It will undermine the legitimacy of her candidacy and assure that a sizable portion of Obama supporters will drop out, not only from this election, but from any future political endeavors because they'll feel disenfranchised and betrayed.
PAD
Well, she isn't dropping out--she is apparently loaning her campaign more money.
I guess she figures there's no point now in dropping out--what can anyone offer her? But this is becoming a Hail Mary pass with the home team down by 10 and only 8 seconds left on the clock.
The hell of it is, I've no doubt she's convinced that she's operating in the best interests of the party. That she genuinely believes that she has a better shot at beating McCain than does Obama.
PAD
I can think of 3 good reasons why she might decide to stay in.
1- She thinks that Obama is another McGovern. Avoiding that possibility is the whole reason they went to the superdelegate plan.(of course, they didn't exactly figure out just HOW the superdelegates were going to be able to thwart the will of the voters and be able to show their faces again).
2- She thinks he can beat McCain. She thinks ANYONE can beat McCain. And if that anyone isn't her its going to be a looooong 8 years before she gets even the possibility of another shot. By that time she's almost as old as McCain is now.
3- She wants the Obama campaign to agree to pay off all of her debts in return for her agreeing to tell her delegates to jump ship and give the nomination to him without any trouble, ensuring a huge post convention bounce. Also, she goes back to the senate with some major plum committee assignment from a grateful party.
She thinks that Obama is another McGovern.
Well, if it's that, she's going to have her case bolstered by the fact that McGovern himself just switched his endorsement to Obama.
TWL
Peter David: It's bad enough that I think Clinton is unelectable to begin with. But if they go to the convention and the superdelegates place her in over Obama, gainsaying the popular vote, the Democratic party will have its own equivalent of Gore winning the popular vote but a (relatively) small group making the final decision. It will undermine the legitimacy of her candidacy and assure that a sizable portion of Obama supporters will drop out, not only from this election, but from any future political endeavors because they'll feel disenfranchised and betrayed.
I've been waiting a long time for someone to ask Clinton about that very point.
Funny, you think she's unelectable and I think you've said the same about Obama. I, a guy who votes republican, thinks that McCain is unelectable. So, when all choices are unelectable, where does that leave us? (Well, given the skyrocketing gas prices and the domino effect that's going to bring about, this will probably be a one term president, no matter who is in office.)
Bill Mulligan: "I can think of 3 good reasons why she might decide to stay in."
How about:
1) She thinks that Obama will be hit by a bus.
2) She thinks Obama will be hit by a taxi.
3) She thinks Obama will be crushed by a falling star.
Hey, those have better odds than her winning any other way at this point.
Now, not being a total sarky fool, this is just getting sad. She can't win and she should know by now that she will not be allowed to win through the superdelegates since it'll turn the party into a battleground.
Her hanging on like this is making her look pathetic. She's fast becoming the girl in high school who kept saying that she was going to the prom with the school's #1 jock right up until the moment he walks into the prom with the head of the cheerleading squad.
I wonder if she'll even have that look on her face at the convention?
Maybe she's hoping that Obama will commit the one sin that (traditionally) cannot be forgiven: be caught with a dead girl or live boy.
Honestly, short of being run over by a bus, hit by a meteorite, etc, I think that's what it's going to take for Obama to lose the nomination.
I never really saw WEST WING. Was their ever an episode where two staes were denied their right to participate in an election? Nah....couldn't have been because NO ONE would believe something like THAT could ever happen in the U.S.
I never really saw WEST WING. Was their ever an episode where two staes were denied their right to participate in an election? Nah....couldn't have been because NO ONE would believe something like THAT could ever happen in the U.S.
Jerry, you're right but from her point of view what does she have to lose? At the very least she may want to wait until the next tuesday election where, if I recall correctly, West VA and some other likely Clinton-friendly state votes. If she wins she can quit with her head held a bit higher.
There's also the additional possibility I hadn't considered--she is willing, even eager to take the VP slot and have at least a chance of assuming the presidency. Me, if I were Obama, I'd seriously avoid choosing someone who wants it that badly...hey, if I were him I'd pick someone that people were genuinely afraid of becoming president. Dick Cheney. Boy would that get some notice!
(I note that a similar strategy did not work out so hot for JFK)
I sort of expected more superdelegates to jump by now. Maybe this weekend?
The scary thing is that she has nothing to lose here. Whether you like her or or you don't, it's becoming clear to even the most politically inept that Hillary has had the goal of sitting in the Oval Office as something other than the first lady for a long time now. She wants the presidency and anything else is a means to that end.
I don't see her going back to a senate seat and waiting patiently for the next four/eight/twelve years and going at the job again. If this doesn't go her way she is, in her mind, out of the game. She's got to get it now or there is nowhere else for her to go. If that's the case, then she'll be more than happy to get as dirty and as bloody as she needs to be to pull this out.
The reason that won't play well is that it's starting to smell less like confidence and more like desperation. Not a good smell when you want people punching your chad in the voting booth. It's also just not going to work if she turns the convention into the SCOTUS and this into Bush v. Gore. The Democrats get away with playing the race card waaaaaaay too often and they have a large voter block amongst the black population in the US. They cut the knees out from under Obama and they can kiss the card and a lot of that voter block good-bye for a long, looooooong time to come.
I don't like or greatly trust Obama, but Hillary is well on her way to living down to so many of the negative things that have been said about her.
Clinton is only 60, which means in 2016 she'll be younger than McCain is now. She might be thinking that it's all or nothing today, but 6 years from now she'll be sitting in the Senate and thinking about another run. So she might believe she has nothing to lose, but in a few years she'll regret that.
(Does anyone else still feel weird when writing dates like "2016"? Numbers like that still feel very sci-fi to me.
By the way, two states were *not* denied the right to participate in the election. Those states (one of which I live in) were given the same chance to participate as every other state. The state elected officials (both Democrat and Republican) screwed that up. So the leaders of the states threw away that right, it wasn't taken from them.
Since then, those state level politicians have been talking about about disenfranchisement non-stop, essentially telling their constituents, "We took your votes away from you in the primary, so you should take your votes away from yourselves in the general election." I hope the citizens of Michigan and Florida hold them responsible when their elections come around.
Bill Mulligan wrote: "I sort of expected more superdelegates to jump by now. Maybe this weekend?"
I expected that, too. MSNBC.com had an interesting article about why the remaining Supers are waiting. Basically, a lot of the undecideds are elected officials and they're afraid that endorsing Obama will piss off all the Clinton suporters in their constituencies. That's how bitter this campaign got, some of the people who need to vote are afraid to because it could keep them from getting re-elected.
I think the best thing for Hillary to do is to stay in the race, but completely change the tone. No more negative ads, nothing bad said about Obama under any circumstances, occasional *compliments* of Obama, and every third sentence she says should be about unifying the party. Basically, she drops out without actually dropping out. If she does that for the rest of the campaign, she can make it seem like the whole thing was a friendly competition, not a death match where 50% of her supporters feel the need to swear allegiance to McCain because they hate Obama for winning.
Question about superdelegates. i know many have made commitments to one canditate or the other canadate. But is there any requirement that they can't all switch their vote between now and then? Because if there is nothing focing those delegates to vote the way they annouced, then doesn't Hilary still stand a dismally small chance, if she can convince them to change their vote (or if Obama crashes and burns)?
Correct, there is no requirement that they can't change their minds. All they've done so far is indicate who they plan to vote for. Until they actually vote at the convention, nothing is official.
In fact, some superdelegates have already switched sides. Since Super Tuesday, there have been a handful that have switched from Clinton to Obama. There haven't been any that have switched from Obama to Clinton.
As for the chance that a significant amount would switch to Hillary, yeah, it's possible. The chance is just so small that scientists need special microscopes to measure it. Unless Obama is found having sex with the corpse of Adolf Hitler, they're not going to abandon him at this point.
Correct, there is no requirement that they can't change their minds. All they've done so far is indicate who they plan to vote for. Until they actually vote at the convention, nothing is official.
That's not entirely true. I believe that they have until the last primary date to change their mind. Once it's past that date, whomever they've pledged their vote to, they must vote for them on the first vote at the DNC. If there's a second vote, then ANY delegate can change who they want to vote for and it'll be pandamonium.
That's why it's very important for Obama to have 2,025 delegates locked into place before the DNC. This way Clinton can't do an end around to gain the nomination.
No, there's absolutely no requirement about the last primary. That's when the DNC would *like* to have this all wrapped up by. Howard Dean has been telling everyone who will listen that the superdelegates *should* make their decision by then, but that's it.
The supers haven't "pledged" their votes in any legal sense yet. They've made promises, but those aren't binding in any way. Nothing binding actually happens until the convention. So if Hillary absolutely wanted to, she could continue asking them to change their votes after June 3rd.
Jason is correct. The super delegates can change their mind at any time until the actual vote at the convention. Remember, the purpose of the supers was to intervene if it looked like the leading candidate was going to be a loser.
If Hillary is seriously still in the race, she should put her focus on courting the supers.
My gut feeling is that Hillary does not really know what she is going to do at this time. I do not expect her to be consistent in her conduct for the next week or so until she decides what she is going to do: concede or fight to the convention.
It's also just not going to work if she turns the convention into the SCOTUS and this into Bush v. Gore. The Democrats get away with playing the race card waaaaaaay too often and they have a large voter block amongst the black population in the US. They cut the knees out from under Obama and they can kiss the card and a lot of that voter block good-bye for a long, looooooong time to come.
I don't like or greatly trust Obama, but Hillary is well on her way to living down to so many of the negative things that have been said about her.
Obama is winning in the white territories. He's beating Hillary with the independents, with the youth vote, with the new voters who are pushing the primary numbers to record levels, and in small states that are almost exclusively white. He's a smart accessible guy who owes his success to small donors, and his winning his party's nomination isn't casual.
Obama's second place finish in Indiana pulled in more votes than John Kerry did in the 2004 general election. Even if the 25% of Hillary voters who say they're going to refuse to vote for Obama in the general election are true to their word, that's still like double the second highest presidential election total in US History.
All Hillary's extended campaign seems to be accomplishing is beating the Wright issue to death, which means Obama can rightfully call McCain on playing the "Wright card" if McCain resorts to doing just that. Not a luxury Kerry could indulge in when he was swift-boated.
Obama's vulnerability is with the older boomers. I think the best candidate should alienate the segment of the population who shelters our remaining severe problems.
Pertaining to my post of "two staes being "denied" their vote"....
I understand "why" they were stripped of their seats at the DNC...what I can't fathom is the fact that more people aren't up in arms about it. Think about it....if another nation had something like this happen, all of our political leaders would be makeing speeches condeming such an action. Seems to me like this is a HUGH civil rights violation. (Even though the DNC is considered a private organization...not public).
Which adds a point: Just because a delegate (not super delegate) was appointed to vote for a candadite by their states primary...they are not BOUND to vote for that person.
Can everyone say "Florida 2000"?
Seems to me like this is a HUGH civil rights violation. (Even though the DNC is considered a private organization...not public).
How have you not reconciled your own concern?
The rules the FL and MI democrats broke were their own rules. They both refused the opportunity to approve do-overs. There are no civil rights against the direct outcome of your own corruption.
Ok, I'll bite. I know I'll regret it, but I'll bite.
Mike, since nothing you just posted up there really had anything to do with what I said and didn't support or refute it....
Why'd you go and quote me before posting your little screed? Did you just miss having me smack your "logic" around the last few months while I've been mostly away from the blog or was I supposed to get something out of it?
How does my post qualify as a screed?
You brought up race where it wasn't relevant, and I cited the facts that demonstrated it. The appropriate reply from you seems to be "thank you" -- or no reply at all since I didn't asked for any.
Jerry: "I understand "why" they were stripped of their seats at the DNC...what I can't fathom is the fact that more people aren't up in arms about it. Think about it....if another nation had something like this happen, all of our political leaders would be makeing speeches condeming such an action. Seems to me like this is a HUGH civil rights violation. (Even though the DNC is considered a private organization...not public)."
I think the difference between private and public is much more significant than that. I really can't imagine the US calling this a civil rights violation if another country had done this. I have never heard a news story about another country's primaries. This an internal party matter.
Also the punishment was only on the race for one position. All the state primary elections that were held that day still count. So plenty of people still went to the polls that day and had their counts voted on other races.
Another thing to remember, usually the nomination is decided by about 20 states. The fact that 48 states and a handful of territories will decide this time is actually a gigantic improvement. I grew up in North Carolina and their primary just mattered for the first time in my life. The people of NC are hardly going to shed a tear for two states that are crying about going through the same irrelivance that NC *always* goes through. Especially when it was those states' own fault.
I think there isn't more outcry simply because it is the states' fault. They broke the rules, they got the consequences. It's hard to feel sympathy for a basketball player who intentionally fouled the other team. Plus, the focus has been on how this affects the candidates more than the people, so the actual voters of Florida and Michigan seem pretty faceless in all this.
That could be the name of a band: Hugh Civil and the Rights.
Yeah, I think Jason has it right. The DNC can do this any way they choose. There's no law that says they HAVE to have primaries at all. They could go to the convention and release a statement saying they appreciate the input but they're going with Elliot Spitzer.
Now, jerry's right that the voters will take it as a dis, which, given the importance of Florida and Michigan, is a pretty dangerous game to play.
Especially since their "crime" was to dare challenge the "right" of Iowa and New Hampshire to have such influence on the result. Now I don't know if the average person is all that bothered by this. The Democrats better hope not since now they have a good reason to feel disenfranchised. The counter argument that they brought it on themselves for daring to think they should have the influence of sacred Iowa may not win too many hearts and minds. But they'd better do something; losing Florida and Michigan and winning the election is a difficult task.
Of course, the irony is that both states would have had more influence if they HAD waited, since the early contests only got rid of the marginal candidates like Edwards and Biden.
FL and MI weren't encroaching in IA's or NH's influence, they were encroaching on SC's influence.
Candidates have more access to the totality of IA and NH's populations, so reporting on those states is more telling of the campaigns' effectiveness and competence. Then following up with SC diversifies the campaign audiences. Those are virtues other than vanity, and I haven't heard anyone say why that isn't as good a primary set-up as we can systematize.
FL and MI could hold their primaries now, and they could have as much an influence on this race as they could hope to have. They passed on the opportunity to conduct redos. No one is entitled to civil rights protections against the direct and equal outcome of their own actions.
Well, I'd probably pick two states that were a little closer to the actual demographics of the country as a whole. Given that both are something like 96% White that shouldn't be too difficult. Even South Carolina hardly makes up for that (and Hispanics seem very underrepresented in all 3).
At any rate, I suspect that the folks in Michigan and Florida might not be swayed by these arguments, if they are truly sore about this situation. Sadly, I don't think even Howard Dean will be able to keep their electoral votes from counting in the general election.
But Obama is smart enough to know he has some work to do there and it isn't an insurmountable hurdle by any means--Florida might be the tougher nut to crack.
At this point the only thing standing between Obama and the White House would be some of his nuttier supporters scaring off folks who are on the fence. I look at McCain and I see Bob Dole, with much the same end result.
There have been a couple of proposals to limit the number of primary days. One was to have all the primaries split evenly across 6 days, the other plan was 4, I think. Both went nowhere, but maybe after all this is over they can try again with better results.
I hope something like that happens. If nothing changes then the next dozen elections will go the usual route, with the first 20 or so primaries deciding the whole thing. That sucks for the later states, they get very low voter turn out, which affects the local races.
Or maybe more states will move their primaries to Super Tuesday, which is the earliest date the rules say they can move to. If everything other than those earlier states did that, then maybe the rest would concede and move their dates to Super Tuesday also. Even if they didn't, it would still shorten the process. I hate how long this is taking. I also hate how states were trying to leap frog to get earlier and earlier, so I support the exitence of the rule that Florida and Michigan violated. We don't need primaries happening a full year before the actual election, which is what we'd be headed for if there were no rules.
At this point the only thing standing between Obama and the White House would be some of his nuttier supporters scaring off folks who are on the fence.
There I totally agree with you Bill (though I'm not so sure I agree it's a fait accompli and Michelle should start picking out curtains yet....) The more I hear from some of his more deluded supporters, the more the bloom comes off his rose. Honestly, I think they're more a danger to his chances than anything his enemies could do.
FL and MI will be a problem, hopefully a solution will be found. However much some people like to bany about that it's all thier own fault, so they can't complain, the fact is that is was not the voters in those states who decided to move things around. The state leadership did, so however you slice it, the voters had thier rights taken away by the actions of others. So telling them 'tough noogies' and blaming them for it doesn't strike me as a particularly wise strategy if you want them in your corner come election time...
At this point the only thing standing between Obama and the White House would be some of his nuttier supporters scaring off folks who are on the fence.
There I totally agree with you Bill (though I'm not so sure I agree it's a fait accompli and Michelle should start picking out curtains yet....) The more I hear from some of his more deluded supporters, the more the bloom comes off his rose. Honestly, I think they're more a danger to his chances than anything his enemies could do.
FL and MI will be a problem, hopefully a solution will be found. However much some people like to bandy about that it's all thier own fault, so they can't complain, the fact is that is was not the voters in those states who decided to move things around. The state leadership did, so however you slice it, the voters had thier rights taken away by the actions of others. So telling them 'tough noogies' and blaming them for it doesn't strike me as a particularly wise strategy if you want them in your corner come election time...
Patrick: "...the fact is that is was not the voters in those states who decided to move things around. The state leadership did, so however you slice it, the voters had thier rights taken away by the actions of others. So telling them 'tough noogies' and blaming them for it doesn't strike me as a particularly wise strategy if you want them in your corner come election time..."
I'd like to say that you are right, it is not the voters' fault. It is definitely the fault of the state lawmakers and they should be held accountable at election time. Earlier I said that other states wouldn't shed a tear, but that was a little too strong. I only meant that this is not such a severe issue that it constitutes a civil rights violation. It is unfortunate, though.
Personally, I do think there should be some punishment, but you are right that things will be smoothed over if there is a compromise. Perhaps cutting their delegates in half would be enough.
One thing about seating those delegates. For all of Hillary's talk about the horror of disenfranchisement, she's already rejected Michigan's proposal for seating the delegates while the Obama campaign has indicated that they're okay with it. So he wants a 50/50 split but seems willing to compromise while she wants the full count with her getting the full advantage from the votes but she's unwilling to compromise.
"You brought up race where it wasn't relevant, and I cited the facts that demonstrated it."
Ok, just because it's a slow day and I could use a laugh...
I stated that that Hillary won't get the nod over Obama, who in the full context of the conversation is identified as the candidate with the most votes and voter support, at the convention because the Democrats are going to be mindful of the fact that putting her over him by a backroom deal would fragment the party and drive away a large portion of the black vote for quite some time. This would be bad in and of itself for them, but they would also see that as losing one of their best smokescreen weapons, the race card, for some time to come as well.
Are you saying that you think that Democrats aren't considering this possible outcome when looking at the choice that they may be faced with making by convention time? Are you saying that you feel that there would be no repercussions of that nature if the Democrats did a backroom deal at the convention and put Hillary and her fewer overall votes up as the nominee over Obama and his majority of the votes and voter support?
Or are you saying that an observation based on race and politics is not relevant here because the Democrats, owing to the voter stats you pointed out for Obama, don't need the black vote anymore?
"At this point the only thing standing between Obama and the White House would be some of his nuttier supporters scaring off folks who are on the fence. I look at McCain and I see Bob Dole, with much the same end result.
That's the one saving grace to this election. I'm not fond of Obama and only slightly more, if at all, truly fond of Hillary at this point. But there is really almost no way that McCain is getting into the Oval Office as anything other than an official visitor or with the guided tour. His attempts to gain favor with the far right aren't working and it's just losing him some of his moderate support and the bones he throws to his moderate supporters keep ticking off the hard right supporters.
McCain was never the RINO that so many on the Right labeled him and so many on the left seemed to believe him to be and this race is finally driving that point home to some of the denser political followers out there. It's a lose/lose thing for him since the libs and moderates are just going to be disappointed in him and a majority the people on the Right that have hated him all these years aren't going to let go of that hate soon enough to do him any good.
Actually, when really looking at it, I think it's possible that he'll end up making Dole's run for the Presidency look good.
By the way Bill, did you guys make it through the storm front in the new house ok? Some of the news footage from the Carolinas this morning looked pretty bad.
It's not just the kooks that will hurt him--every politician has some nutty acolytes--but Obama's seeming lack of desire to distance himself from them.
It's understandable, in the case of Wright. The guy was practically a surrogate father to him and as long as enough of the true believers were telling him it was no big deal and the media wasn't making a big deal of it he thought he could avoid the ugly breakup. But this is the internet age and news WILL get out. He lost the chance to get ahead of the game.
Obama hasn't been able to put Hillary away, even after it has become all but impossible for her to win. I see in him someone who has gotten much much closer to the prize than he thought possible at the beginning and is very afraid of blowing it at the last moment. He can afford to play that way for the nomination but he's going to have to take chances in the election.
By the way Bill, did you guys make it through the storm front in the new house ok? Some of the news footage from the Carolinas this morning looked pretty bad.
The only problem I had was that the yellow rat bastards who run the networks kept interrupting LOST and SURVIVOR at the absolute worst times to tell us over and over again that there was a tornado watch in counties other than my own.
That may seem petty but when you are watching the all time dumbest person ever to play Survivor get voted off you want to savor every moment. And for all I know the 45 seconds I lost on LOST might have explained every question I ever had...45 seconds on LOST is like a whole season on most shows.
As far as I can see, the only effect the weather had on us was to knock off most of the ripened mulberries from our mulberry tree before I had a chance to compete with the squirrels for them.
Hi All,
Does anyone else think that, when the Dems get to the convention, they are going to let the first round go through, with the supers being careful to NOT vote so that there is a decision made, so that this gets to go to the second round. Then, all bets are off, and the delegates get to go crazy and look for a new candidate, and Al G. steps in as a party unifier, and collects on that debt that Bill and Hill owe him... ;-)
Charlie
No, I don't think that's going to happen.
It wouldn't unify the party. The people who have voted for Obama would be *pissed*. It would be the absolutely epitome of backroom deals.
Charlie--it's hard to imagine that, in a year when a woman and a Black man have gathered the most votes, they would then give it to a White guy. A coin flip would have more legitimacy.
And to tie things back to the West Wing
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080509/pl_bloomberg/aokvep53z0n0
Check out the names in the next to last paragraph.
David
Obama is winning in the white territories. He's beating Hillary with the independents, with the youth vote, with the new voters who are pushing the primary numbers to record levels, and in small states that are almost exclusively white. He's a smart accessible guy who owes his success to small donors, and his winning his party's nomination isn't casual.
Obama's second place finish in Indiana pulled in more votes than John Kerry did in the 2004 general election. Even if the 25% of Hillary voters who say they're going to refuse to vote for Obama in the general election are true to their word, that's still like double the second highest presidential election total in US History.
All Hillary's extended campaign seems to be accomplishing is beating the Wright issue to death, which means Obama can rightfully call McCain on playing the "Wright card" if McCain resorts to doing just that. Not a luxury Kerry could indulge in when he was swift-boated.
...
You brought up race where it wasn't relevant, and I cited the facts that demonstrated it.
[Hijacking the democratic nomination] would be bad in and of itself for them, but they would also see that as losing one of their best smokescreen weapons, the race card, for some time to come as well.
Are you saying that you think that Democrats aren't considering this possible outcome when looking at the choice that they may be faced with making by convention time? Are you saying that you feel that there would be no repercussions of that nature if the Democrats did a backroom deal at the convention and put Hillary and her fewer overall votes up as the nominee over Obama and his majority of the votes and voter support?
Or are you saying that an observation based on race and politics is not relevant here because the Democrats, owing to the voter stats you pointed out for Obama, don't need the black vote anymore?
Taking steps to making a topic irrelevant is not mutually exclusive of thinking of that topic. Denying they may be inclusive is a denial of privilege, not of reason. Thank you for confirming that Obama has avoided playing the race card in winning his white voters.
Mike, you're even more of a brick wall than the last time I was here regularly. Ah the comedy gold I must have missed while I was gone.
Mulligan, glad to hear that the only thing you lost was jam ingredients.
you and the misses are welcome to come visit anytime. You can take pictures and compare them with the one Bill Myers took and discover that we haven't unpacked a damn thing in the last month...
Yes, Jerry, don't let reality stop you from simply setting a quota on accuracy, by playing the "brick wall" card without invalidating anything I've said.
Mike, yer a brick wall cause nothing I said in the post you responded to, and certainly nothing you quoted from it, was about Obama's qualifications or achievements, Obama using the race card or Obama doing anything at all. I was talking about Hillary's quest to be president and how she may feel she has nothing to lose by pulling what she's pulling and, and this is key, about how the Democratic Party will not cut the knees out from under Obama at the convention and give her the nod. One issue, one large issue, that the Democrats would face by doing that would be alienating a huge chunk of the black vote for a long, long time. Another issue would be their inability to effectively play the race card if they cut the political throat of a black candidate who is riding a majority of the popular vote into his party's nomination at the convention. Both issues would weigh on some of their minds and dissuade them from screwing Obama over.
I was talking about the Democratic Party and its power brokers and what they would or would not do at the convention and how it would not work in Hillary's favor. You immediately went to Planet M and starting arguing about what Obama was achieving and how he wasn't using the race card. An odd tact to take since I never said that he was doing so, but that's why you're Mike and you can't get past the brick wall of your own making I guess.
Have a nice weekend.
~8?)`
It's also just not going to work if she turns the convention into the SCOTUS and this into Bush v. Gore. The Democrats get away with playing the race card waaaaaaay too often and they have a large voter block amongst the black population in the US. They cut the knees out from under Obama and they can kiss the card and a lot of that voter block good-bye for a long, looooooong time to come.
I don't like or greatly trust Obama, but Hillary is well on her way to living down to so many of the negative things that have been said about her.
Obama is winning in the white territories. He's beating Hillary with the independents, with the youth vote, with the new voters who are pushing the primary numbers to record levels, and in small states that are almost exclusively white. He's a smart accessible guy who owes his success to small donors, and his winning his party's nomination isn't casual.
Obama's second place finish in Indiana pulled in more votes than John Kerry did in the 2004 general election. Even if the 25% of Hillary voters who say they're going to refuse to vote for Obama in the general election are true to their word, that's still like double the second highest presidential election total in US History.
All Hillary's extended campaign seems to be accomplishing is beating the Wright issue to death, which means Obama can rightfully call McCain on playing the "Wright card" if McCain resorts to doing just that. Not a luxury Kerry could indulge in when he was swift-boated.
Why'd you go and quote me before posting your little screed?
You brought up race where it wasn't relevant, and I cited the facts that demonstrated it.[Hijacking the democratic nomination] would be bad in and of itself for them, but they would also see that as losing one of their best smokescreen weapons, the race card, for some time to come as well.
Are you saying that you think that Democrats aren't considering this possible outcome when looking at the choice that they may be faced with making by convention time? Are you saying that you feel that there would be no repercussions of that nature if the Democrats did a backroom deal at the convention and put Hillary and her fewer overall votes up as the nominee over Obama and his majority of the votes and voter support?
Or are you saying that an observation based on race and politics is not relevant here because the Democrats, owing to the voter stats you pointed out for Obama, don't need the black vote anymore?
Taking steps to making a topic irrelevant is not mutually exclusive of thinking of that topic. Denying they may be inclusive is a denial of privilege, not of reason. Thank you for confirming that Obama has avoided playing the race card in winning his white voters.Mike, yer a brick wall cause nothing I said in the post you responded to, and certainly nothing you quoted from it, was about Obama's qualifications or achievements, Obama using the race card or Obama doing anything at all.
You implied Obama benefits from the race card, then you say you didn't refer to his qualifications at all. Jerry, that's just stooooopid with fiiiiiive ohs.
The words "race" and "black" didn't even appear in this thread until you introduced them three days in. You accuse me of foisting non-sequiturs for responding to issues you introduced here in the first place. I don't have to play anything like the brick wall card with you, because you're simply wrong with no room for ambiguity.
Gosh, you worked that hard to twist logic into a pretzel just to make up some silly argument for me when I starting posting here again? You really missed me that much, Mad One?
Thanks, but no thanks. It's been fun watching you again create Planet M versions of what I or others have said and what we actually meant when we said it, but that's enough nostalgia for the next month or three.
Spin on, Planet M, spin on...
*****[Shrouded]*****
Also, unripe mulberries are said to have a mild hallucinagenic effect. haven't tested that myself but it would explain the behavior of the squirrels, who lope around here like they own the place and are oddly unafraid of my greater mass, brain power and opposable thumbs.
You heard it here folks: hijacking the election is wrong not only because It Isn't Nice,™ but because hijacking it from the black candidate will disenfranchise blacks. With their Extra Special Black Outrage™
And holding Jerry to evidence he's a racist? That's Extra Hard Pretzel Logic.™ You go ahead and keep setting your quotas on accuracy, whether you call it shrouding, or you play the brick wall card, or you call others for playing the race card preemptively or for breaking the taboo of mentioning there's even such a thing as racism.
And, Bill, thanks for picking the perfect time to shelter your racist friend. My residency here has only gotten better and better.
I'm not sure that they do. We had several mulberries trees in our yard before the tropical storm and the squirrels never seemed to loopy. Now, they did act unafraid of most people, but I think that was from the guy who lived here before me feeding them every day and treating them like pets.
Thank you for not denying my last post.
Just to spell things out for those here who haven't been on the receiving end of your bullying: Declaring war on someone who's demonstrated only a resolve to be decent is only evidence the resolve to be decent isn't a part of your intuition. Being decent is alien to you. Being decent is only something you've been faking for your own purposes all along, person- who- accepts- a- salary- for- upholding- the- law.
Well I for one am not used to lower life forms being so bold as to look at me with their beady little eyes and not scamper away to the safety of a tree. Luckily our new neighbor has an akita so they are about to get one huge effing surprise.
We also have bats living in our chimney. Amazing how moving into a house in the middle of the town has increased our exposure to the local fauna.
As far as mulberries, I'm amazed at how tasty they are. Apparently the native species (Red Mulberry) is being threatened by hybridization with an invasive Asian species (White Mulberry) which have less tasty berries. I guess ours is a native Red. In fact i'm going out on the roof now to gather some more. If I don't post in the next two weeks call 911.
To anyone who hasn't been the recipient of your bullying it might be a small thing to thank you for, Bill, but thank you for not invalidating my not-at-all casual criticism of you. This demonstrates how for you, if it's deniable, it can't be too indecent. That's why you have no reservation against bullying someone who has interacted with you armed only with a resolve to be decent.
Your bullying has been tougher to react to than Jerry's, because you're slipperier than he is for me to simply set "it's a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I've said" as my default reply to you. But after today, what possible evidence could you give whatever guardian angels the universe provides you that my account of you is untrue?
Crispy Mulberry Cobbler
1- fight off the squirrels to get the mulberries. You'll need 3 cups so you might want to take a stout club or pointed stick. Do it during the day; the flying squirrels only come out at night. I had a flying squirrel jump on my back one night and let me tell you, it wasn't a whole lot of fun.
2- Ok, wash the mulberries in cool water and toss with a combination of 1 tbl flour, 1tbl sugar.
3- In another bowl add 1 cup flour, 1 cup sugar, 1 tsp baking powder. cut in 1/3 cup butter until coarse and crumbly.
4- add one beaten agg, mix to moisten.
5- put berries in greased 8 inch square pan, crumble the topping over it, bake at 350 for about 30 min or until golden.
6- serve with whipped cream or ice cream (Hey! Why not both!). Take some over to that elderly shut in down the street. Sit on your porch with your arm around your wife and make faces at the squirrels as they shake their tiny little fists in impotent rage.
What form of impotence is more prevalent than denial and passive aggression?
Here I am doing the math on how you've had no reservation against bullying someone who has interacted with you armed only with a resolve to be decent. The accusation is severe enough for you to deny, but still true enough that your denial can only take an implicit form.
Now look at you taking shut-ins hostage to shelter your dysfunction. Your generosity is only stoked with the resolve you get from feeding off of others anyway. I seems like fruit of a poisonous tree but, hey, I'm only the recipient of your bullying. Why the hell should that mean anything to anyone else (hostile to any decency that gets in your way)?
Wow. I thought everyone liked crispy mulberry cobbler.
Thank you for admitting your reading my posts you aren't invalidating. You're Monty Hall today.
Should have gone with Sweet-Hot Mulberry Jam.
Spicy jams are all the rage these days. One of them won the Grand Prize at the 2003 Scovie Awards.
3 cups mulberries
2 cups water
1 package powdered fruit pectin
1 tablespoon red chile powder
1 cup sugar (or more to taste)
Crush the berries thoroughly in a bowl and then transfer to a saucepan.. Add the water and fruit pectin. Stir until the pectin is dissolved. Add the chile powder and stir. Heat to boiling. Boil 5 to 10 minutes. Add the sugar and stir until dissolved. Boil 3 to 5 minutes, stirring frequently, or until thick. Allow to cool, place in sterile jars, and refrigerate.
Maybe you should have gone with Mulberry Cider. A nice drink that works well with the warmer days coming on and, if spiked with the right... uhhh... flavoring... you won't care if you like it or not.
~8?)`
You can also make a good wine but it takes a year for it to age to the appropriate sweetness.
Sadly, I don't drink. My solution to the warmer days a'comin is to go work in the basement.
Jerry: "Maybe you should have gone with Mulberry Cider. A nice drink that works well with the warmer days coming on and, if spiked with the right... uhhh... flavoring... you won't care if you like it or not."
Yeah, I'll take the spiked Mulberry Cider, but hold the Mulberry Cider and go heavy on the spike. No ice. Thanks.
Bill Mulligan: "Sadly, I don't drink."
Yeah, having spent the evening at your house earlier this year, I know you rely on your scintillating personality rather than any "social lubricant."
Next time, I'll bring you a six-pack.
No wonder I haven't been able to teach them any tricks.
Bill Myers, you don't agree with Jerry on Obama. Since you've demonstrated an indifference to my observations of Jerry and Bill, by the standards of debate as it's known to western civilization, I get to ask: What evidence could be be given to whatever guardian angels the universe provides them to mitigate that:
Don't even bother, Bill. He enjoys playing the victim just as much as he enjoys arguing. He'll continue responding to this in the same way that he'll continue arguing with anything else. Just don't bother responding to him.
By all means, no one respond. But I'm not playing the victim, because I'm literally not asking anyone to take my word on anything.
"Mike is a bad witness" has nothing to do with my observations.
And so a promising thread dies a lingering painful death.
Yeah, it's a wonder Jerry got so touchy when he was caught implying that hijacking Obama's nomination will only lose the the democrats support because he's black. And that Bill felt the need to lead another flood of nonsense into a thread to smother dissent, and stand back and watch his pack-followers blame me for it.
Been on vacation for the last week, but I'll try and bring this back on topic.
Now, maybe this is simplifying things a bit too much, but wasn't it stated recently by the Clinton campaign that she's the best candidate to beat McCain based on the fact she's got the white vote, and thus is the most well-rounded. However it was worded, it came across as playing the race card by the Clintons, imo.
Unfortunately, this campaign has been far too much about race. Clinton says she can get more whites, blacks are voting at a pace of like 90% in some states for Obama, and Clinton also basically expects to get the Hispanic vote due to the race problems between blacks and Hispanics. It's rather sad, really.
Craig, I can see why you think it is a sad situation, but I don't feel that way. I actually feel really good about the place we're in right now.
Even though this election is partly about race, it is *less* about race than it has ever been before. Obama won Maine. *Maine*. That's a 98% white state. There are places where Obama's white support is particularly bad, but that's not the general rule. Even though Clinton is generally beating Obama among whites, Obama is actually slightly ahead of McCain with whites in the national polls.
As for Blacks, just because they're supporting a Black candidate doesn't mean they wouldn't' support a white one. They've spent their whole lives voting for white candidates. This is the first time they've had a chance to vote for a Black candidate who had a chance to win, so I don't think it's so bad that they're pushing hard for it. I think having a Black President in office, especially this particular man, would change the way people talk about race. So this is a legitimate place for race to be an issue.
As for Hispanics, the race problems exist, but that's not nearly the main factor that's supporting Clinton. She's befitting from the years that her husband spent building up a relationship with the Hispanic community. She has an advantage with them for the same reason she won Arizona, the people know her.
So yes, race is an issue. But it was an issue in every Presidential race before this, it just wasn't as noticeable because all the candidates were white. Right now we're seeing race be less an issue than it has ever been before, and I find that very exciting.
Obama won Maine. *Maine*. That's a 98% white state. There are places where Obama's white support is particularly bad, but that's not the general rule. Even though Clinton is generally beating Obama among whites, Obama is actually slightly ahead of McCain with whites in the national polls.
As for Blacks, just because they're supporting a Black candidate doesn't mean they wouldn't' support a white one. They've spent their whole lives voting for white candidates. This is the first time they've had a chance to vote for a Black candidate who had a chance to win, so I don't think it's so bad that they're pushing hard for it.
Gee, Jason, all you had to do was to refer to Jerry's comment you contradict, and your post would have qualified as a screed. It's a wonder you felt the need to challenge what I say.
@Craig: "Unfortunately, this campaign has been far too much about race."
I agree with Jason: Obama's success is indicative of progress. Buried in all the fractiousness of the race for the Democratic nomination is this fact: either a woman or an African-American man will win the nomination. And whoever wins has a real shot at becoming president. That's historic. It shows that barriers are beginning to crumble in this country.
Yes, there is still much work that needs to be done. There is still much bigotry in this country. But denying the progress that has clearly been made does nothing to help solve the problems that remain.
Moreover, I believe anything that stimulates talk about race is a *good* thing. A great deal of bigotry has gone "covert" and needs to be "outed."
But denying the progress that has clearly been made does nothing to help solve the problems that remain.
My father had to adjust to mid-life. Everyone's dad gets to have a mid-life crisis. US History wasn't a sterling example of egalitarianism for its first century and a half.
Why shouldn't the civil rights movement have some slack to go through something of an end-of-youth crisis? How does quarantining civil rights issues to the deadness of our reasoning -- and denying it access to our intuition, by denying it its end-of-youth adjustment -- benefit it in addressing its remaining concerns?
Yes, there is still much work that needs to be done. There is still much bigotry in this country. But denying the progress that has clearly been made does nothing to help solve the problems that remain.
Which is why some of the people you would think might be on Obama's side--Wright, Sharpton, etc--seem to be instead doing things that are going to make it harder for him to get elected. If he gets elected it will be that much harder to convince people that they have little hope of succeed in life and their best chance is to give their support to people like...well, Wright and Sharpton.
Personally, I think it's Obama's to lose. There's no great passion out there for McCain, even among those who like him. If Obama can avoid any scandals, (And I think any skeletons would have been dragged out of the closet by the Hillary team long ago), keep his nuttier supporters under control and throw them under the bus if they won't get in line (his belated but ultimately thorough repudiation of Wright indicates he is willing to do that), not get sick (a worrisome issue--the race has taken a lot out of him and is would be potentially disastrous to have him appear to be the more tired candidate in a debate with McCain), then you have to give him the definite edge.
Yes, there are those who will vote against him because of his race. He can afford to lose West Virginia. There others who have been looking forward to having the chance to vote for a legitimate minority candidate and I think those folks are found in the states that have more electoral votes. I think it will balance out, more or less, and even if it brings out the racist vote that should be more than offset by a huge increase in the youth vote and black vote. And there is no reason to even believe that the white vote is going to go against him; he certainly was able to get plenty of whites to go his way so far. Granted, it was against the an increasingly desperate Hillary and the feckless Edwards campaign but I haven't seen anything from McCain that makes me think he's going to be much more effective.
He will have a lot more money to spend than McCain. That is no guarantee of success but I don't know any candidate who would not rather be the one with the most money.
There are x factors. If McCain beats him in the debates. If Wright or some other "supporter" cuts him off at the knees. He has to be careful not to do or say anything that reinforces the negative picture that the Hillary campaign has tried to paint--snobbish, out of touch, etc. And who knows what outside events might happen, though anything that makes things worse usually makes people want a change and Obama is more of a change than McCain, so... I'm going to assume that the Hillary supporters who say they won't vote for Obama are mostly just venting and the ones who want her to pursue an independent campaign are sniffing paint fumes if they think there's ANY chance of that happening.
Nader will be lucky to get .2% of the vote. I'd expect either Bob Barr and/or Ron Paul to get more votes and those will almost all come out of McCain's side.
In short, McCain would have to do everything right and Obama would have to do a lot wrong and have a string of really bad luck. It could happen--Dukakis was waaayyy ahead of Bush I and blew it but is there anyone who looks at Obama and thinks "Dukakis part deux"?
To me, at this point, the only question is will Obama merely enjoy the luxury of having his party control both the house and the senate by a majority or will it be by a veto proof majority.
Jason M. Bryant: "As for Blacks, just because they're supporting a Black candidate doesn't mean they wouldn't' support a white one. They've spent their whole lives voting for white candidates. This is the first time they've had a chance to vote for a Black candidate who had a chance to win, so I don't think it's so bad that they're pushing hard for it."
Under most circumstances I would agree with that statement. However, I do believe that if the Democratic party were to do a backroom deal at the convention and give the nod to Hillary over Obama, the clear and rightful frontrunner, that there would be a backlash by some in the party and that a large portion of the black voting block would walk out on the Democrats in 2008 and for some years to come.
I'm hardly alone in this thought either. The usual and expected rabble rousing idiots like Sharpton have made such threats, but other prominent black speakers, politicians and journalists have voiced such concerns as well. It also wouldn't be an undeserved rebuke of the Democratic party if they did refuse to vote for Hillary after watching the party cut the knees out from under Obama. After all, it's been the Democratic party and its more left leaning voices in the media that have been saying that it's the evil Republican Party and its supporters who want to suppress the black vote, keep blacks down and would never allow a black man to be president. How do you think that things would play out if the Democrats then turned around and refused to allow the rightful frontrunner the nomination?
It's also a concern that some in the Democratic party have as well. It's one of the main reasons that I think Hillary is carrying on a pointless crusade at this point. She can do everything in the world to try and convince the superdelegates that she's their candidate, but it's not going to play with the backlash they might be facing. There is no way that they're going to cut the knees out from under Obama with the popular support he's getting from all voter demographics just to feed the Hillary ego trip and cut their own throats.
Bill Myers: "I agree with Jason: Obama's success is indicative of progress. Buried in all the fractiousness of the race for the Democratic nomination is this fact: either a woman or an African-American man will win the nomination. And whoever wins has a real shot at becoming president. That's historic. It shows that barriers are beginning to crumble in this country."
I agree. I said much the same about the race here, elsewhere and on my on blog as far back as Obama winning Iowa.
What I said on my blog:
"There’s also a nice little comment on race here that’s been mentioned a little in the last few news blips and that I’m sure will get plenty of discussion time in the next 24 hours of news cycles. Obama, a black man, won in “corn fed, white bread” Iowa. While racism and its ill effects still exist in some small pockets of America and should not be discounted as a negative force in people’s lives, I think that this says a lot about how colorblind the nation really is. At least, one can always hope so."
But the truth is that there is still racial anger and resentment to be found in many quarters and held by every color of man. If that were not the truth, then many of the rabble rousers would have no power or influence whatsoever and we would not see protests, backlashes and sometimes riots based almost purely along racial lines. We've come a hell of a long way, but the ghosts of our shared sins still haunt us. Rev. Wright, completely separating him from Obama in this statement, would not have been getting the loud cheers and slaps on the back for his racial demagoguery that we all saw him getting in his church. People like David Duke wouldn't still be making money on the fact that they're @$$holes and people in conservative radio wouldn't be able to foment hatred against Muslims or play their asinine "Barack Osama Obama" or "Barack Hussein Obama" games.
I'd love to be able to believe that we're beyond all that. I'd love it if the things I see everyday from all sides in the racial issues didn't give my pause, rightly or wrongly, about Obama's membership in Wright's church. But I see too much garbage going on in my own community and in the city I work in.
We're a thousand light years better off than we were 40 years ago and heading in the right direction, but we're still a thousand light years from where we ultimately need to be.
Bill Mulligan: "To me, at this point, the only question is will Obama merely enjoy the luxury of having his party control both the house and the senate by a majority or will it be by a veto proof majority."
Aye, that's another reason that the Democrats cannot let themselves strategically screw the pooch here. They've got a lot of talking to live up to after having there last pre-election big talk turn into a lot of hot air. If they, as a party, screw this up then they could very well be back to facing a Dem president with a Rep House and Senate in the following election. Not always a bad thing to have the checks and balances, but I think the Republicans need a good long time out to remember what some of the things they're supposed to stand for actually means.
@Jerry: "We're a thousand light years better off than we were 40 years ago and heading in the right direction, but we're still a thousand light years from where we ultimately need to be."
The journey of a thousand miles... or light years... begins with a single step. And then another, and another, and another... and eventually, we get there.
Jerry: "Under most circumstances I would agree with that statement. However, I do believe that if the Democratic party were to do a backroom deal at the convention and give the nod to Hillary over Obama, the clear and rightful frontrunner, that there would be a backlash by some in the party and that a large portion of the black voting block would walk out on the Democrats in 2008 and for some years to come."
Of course there would be a backlash. It would be a completely justified backlash. What's wrong with getting upset about a bad situation?
It's a moot point, though. There isn't going to be a backroom deal. Superdelegates have been steadily flowing towards Obama. So while it *would* be a bad thing if they refused to give him the nomination, it doesn't really matter because that isn't actually happening. So talking about the hypothetical backroom deal is essentially saying that if the country was more racist, then the country would be more racist.
You're right in that we're not where we need to be. But you know what? We're not yet at the point where a *Catholic* can be elected President without some grumbling. It can happen, but there would still be some very angry people. The simple existence of racist people isn't the litmus test for the country, it's the degree of influence they have. So while there's still a lot of room for growth, I'm very happy about how things are going.
Who knows, someday the idea of an Atheist in the White House may not be laughable. Not in my lifetime, but someday.
Under most circumstances I would agree with that statement. However, I do believe that if the Democratic party were to do a backroom deal at the convention and give the nod to Hillary over Obama, the clear and rightful frontrunner, that there would be a backlash by some in the party and that a large portion of the black voting block would walk out on the Democrats in 2008 and for some years to come.Of course there would be a backlash. It would be a completely justified backlash. What's wrong with getting upset about a bad situation?
I know. Thank you. It's a wonder Jerry felt the need to preempively attack the playing of the "race card" in the first place.
Jason M. Bryant: "It's a moot point, though. There isn't going to be a backroom deal. Superdelegates have been steadily flowing towards Obama."
I know there won't be. That's what's getting lost in people looking at my end of the discussion about Hillary and this games's ultimate outcome. There won't be a backroom deal and she has no hope of pulling off an upset win here. There are very substantial reasons for why neither of these things will happen. That's why I can't see why Hillary thinks that this garbage is doing her any good in the long run.
She cannot win and she will not be allowed to pull a fast one because of the damage that it would do to the party. The only thing she could be hoping to do here is damage Obama enough so that he can't win and she has another shot at the brass ring in four years. But even she can't be so blind as to see that actions such as that would guarantee that she never sees the nomination come close to being in her grasp again.
The only thing I see here at this point is a woman who thinks she has nothing to lose and believes that she is either going to win, which ain't happening, or believes that she is going to go down hard and try to take everybody down with her. This tactic might have worked against Edwards, but the damage that the Democratic party knows it would inflict upon itself by undercutting Obama is too great for her to pull off a backroom coup here.
Hillary has no reason to keep this up (while flushing even more of her own money down the toilet) other than wanting to destroy as many other people as possible or just being too damned blind to see the political reality of the situation. Either way, that damages her career from here on out and likely ensures that she's not getting a shot at this particular prize ever again.
Fresh, hot mulberry cobbler with fresh, homemade whipped cream and a scoop of home churned vanilla ice cream.
Jason M. Bryant: "Of course there would be a backlash. It would be a completely justified backlash. What's wrong with getting upset about a bad situation?"
Uhm... Nothing. I never said that there was. I actually think it would be the right thing to do if the Dems were dumb enough to do something that stupid.
Again, not the point I was making and not even close to it.
We're not yet at the point where a *Catholic* can be elected President without some grumbling.
Well, there's always grumbling. It's just become something that increasingly tars one as being low class when the grumbling is about the race or religion of candidate, though I was pretty surprised at how some people felt free to attack Romney on being a Mormon.
So let them grumble. Bigots are becoming marginalized. Even in the unlikely event that Obama loses the general election it will be a significant event in our history. Yeah, the Wrights of the world would use his loss to say they were right and no Black can make it in this rascist country (assuming Wright is willing to stick his head out of his million dollar home in his gated community to comment on the hopeless plight of Black people) but it's going to ring a bit hollow. It's really going to be hard to make that argument when Obama wins. If I were Al Sharpton, I'd be seriously worried about that. Why would anyone want to talk to him for the supposed "black perspective" on the issues of the day when the most pwerful man on earth is a black man? Where does that leave Rev. Al?
Bill Mulligan: "If I were Al Sharpton, I'd be seriously worried about that."
Yeah, no kidding.
~8?)
And you know he just has to hate this even more since Obama is winning his party's nod and will likely win the race itself come Nov. without getting down on his knees and kissing Sharpton's ring.
Sharpton and Rush have a lot in common in this election. Both are be exposed for the toothless tigers that they have become with the passing of time.
The Greeks thought that mulberries stained your hands red to commemorate the blood of Pyramus and Thisbe, two young lovers who died under typically tragic circumstances involving a lion. Greek mythology is chock full of these stories--misunderstandings and coincidences that lead to all manner of wacky hijinks. It's like THREE'S COMPANY, only with lions.
It's also just not going to work if she turns the convention into the SCOTUS and this into Bush v. Gore. The Democrats get away with playing the race card waaaaaaay too often and they have a large voter block amongst the black population in the US. They cut the knees out from under Obama and they can kiss the card and a lot of that voter block good-bye for a long, looooooong time to come.
Of course there would be a backlash. It would be a completely justified backlash. What's wrong with getting upset about a bad situation?Uhm... Nothing. I never said that there was. I actually think it would be the right thing to do if the Dems were dumb enough to do something that stupid.
Again, not the point I was making and not even close to it.
Yeah, if by playing the race card waaaaaaay too often, what you really mean is nnnooot oooffftennn aaat aaallll. Thank you for the lesson on how someone can express an authentic notion of decency by backpeddling, Jerry.