Letters to the Editor
-
ljwalker.
TURN OFF YOUR BOLD. Your case isn't any stronger for being written in darker ink.
And, apparently, you didn't read the very first link I offered, of many. There's not a single superdelegate who will overturn the pledged delegate leader, as Alter reports. And why would they? Every poll has Obama doing better against McCain than Clinton would. Again, it's over.
-
KcM
You do not understand. The devil is not in the detail and the math. The devil now resides in perceptions, which Hillary Clinton is exploitin' to the fullest in the last week. Sure she is losin' Wyomin' tomorra and many other small states, that Hillary Clinton don't really care about. She wants ta score majority votes, not de number of delegates. Catch muh drift? Then she kin go to the super delegates and holler that she won de majority vote that counts over Obams's delegates which are higher than her's. Super delegates, she thinks, owe her a lot. She is countin' on entitlement which has worked for her in the past. Like runnin' and winnin' in New York that wasn't even her state. See what ah mean. She can do anythin', like disappear her war vote on Iraq and gettin' away with it.
-
Also, ljwalker...
"However, many states that held primaries and caucuses have yet to hold their state conventions, where these 'pledged delegate' totals will shift between candidates even before we arrive in Denver."
So, you're suggesting the Clinton campaign should try to steal delegates at the state conventions? Well, to borrow a line from Sen. Clinton: Shame on you. Really, if that's what you're putting your hope in, find a new hobby. (That being said, as the UAD link I posted recognized, Sen. Obama's campaign has already prepared for that contingency.)
See my earlier post. It's over. And, none too soon, if that's the type of thing you're resorting to.
-
@ little lord baltimore: Significant Policy? Significant Legislation?
I really don't see how calling the ACT to implement recommendations of the 9/11 Commission insignificant, or how a "No Confidence" vote against AG Alberto Gonzales isn't significant.
And frankly, the comment that Sen. Clinton's legislative accomplishments aren't "significant" simply blows my mind. I can understand that you're an Obama follower. However, and as I have posted before, you don't do yourself or Sen. Obama any favors by misstating, minimizing and downplaying Sen. Clinton's record. And if you want a complete record, I suggest you go to the Thomas legislative database.
Finally, in answer to the question about FISA: I thought I answered it. We have a disagreement, apparently, about what constitutes "significant policy measures", since you believe that Sen. Clinton's NVs on two FISA amendments constitutes more "significant" policy measures than others.
There doesn't seem much more to say. We agree to disagree...
-
and KcM
JLWalker is a paid Hillary Clinton feeder of irrelevant internet material. If you can't win 'em or blind 'em with smear blow, then fill Salon pages with urls of pro-Hillary Clinton blogsters to keep the smear from not dyin' down. She is takin' up where AKA Smith left off last night and today. You should read some of that corn passin' off as true informacion. Now it has to be in bold.
-
I hear ya, fauntleroy.
But the perceptions are all among we political junkies, who'll spend a Friday night posting on Salon. Obama has already won the Dem nomination, and he'll do swimmingly against McCain/Bush/Cheney in November.
If you disagree with my first premise, scroll down. If you disagree with my second...well, that's what the general election is all about, right? :)
-
@ KcM: It's Called Politics For a Reason
It's called "negotiation and persuasion." What do you think Obama followers are doing and will do?
Do you really think Obama's followers are going to go to county and state conventions and NOT persuade Clinton or Edwards supporters to change their status? Do you honestly believe that they or Clinton delegates won't be making phone calls to pledged delegates to persuade them?
This has been the case for, oh, about as long as the Democratic Party has been in existence.
And I thought you understood the political process, KcM!
-
And, fauntleroy.
I won't defend AKA Smith. That guy/gal's a joker of already ill repute. But ljwalker has been an honest broker on these boards throughout the primaries thus far. I expect she'll disagree with what I've recently posted, and our posts may even overlap, but I really don't think she's operating from bad intentions. She's just down with Clinton. So be it, it's not a bad thing. I just fundamentally disagree.
-
KcM
I am in complete agreement with you. Me and my kind, people who want representative democracy back, are mad as hell at Hillary Clinton for destroying the Democratic Party before she will let Barack Obama win the nomination. He has run a pretty clean campaign up to now. My only nit with him is that he is taking all this shit lyin' down. Hillary Clinton needs to take her hood off, get out of the closet and cross over to the Republicans. She will be welcome and then she too can be part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
-
@ madamfauntleroy: Got Much Hate?
Really, you seem not to be able to handle criticism. And to accuse me of being a paid HRC "shill" or whatever word you used is not only false, it's a smear and an ad-hominem attack.
This board does not belong to "Obama" or Obama followers. I have never engaged in low-blows toward Obama or his followers. I have always published factual information and informed opinions. I don't call people names and I really don't appreciate your innuendo or accusations. There is such a thing as civil debate and disagreement -- which I try to engage in. That you cannot tells me more about Sen. Obama and what an Obama presidency might look like. It isn't reassuring.
-
@ KcM: My Mistake
The BOLD was a mistake in html. I noticed that, too, right after it posted and wow, was I embarrassed!! Thus, it wasn't deliberate...
-
Ljwalker...
See, I knew we'd overlap. (And, as you'll see, I had your back.)
I do agree that the game is played on multiple levels, and, as I said about the UADs (unpledged add-on delegates -- see my earlier post), the Obama campaign understands this, and he's winning them, as they've won so many primaries and caucuses.
That's why it's over. Obama planned for a gutter fight. Clinton planned for a coronation. If you disagree, look at the caucus results.
And, with all due respect, if you understand politics as much as you (and the Clintons) claim to, then how did Obama blow out every caucus thus far? Mind you, I don't think that's what going to happen in Wyoming tomorrow -- the Clinton Machine finally caught on -- but that doesn't excuse the fact that THE RACE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION IS OVER, because Clinton sucks at caucuses, clearly. So, if you want to make a case on the rules, as you seem to be making, you'd almost have to lean Obama.