Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

Good AFternoon

the funny thing to me is how they managed to get a bunch of perfessional politician type people to have a meeting on a saturday.......

Holy Cow. First hurricane of the season? Guess it couldn't wait for the end of Cyclone cycle.

COLORADO BOB LIVES!!!

I just spoke with one of the owners of the Tornado Gallery, who told me that C'Bob is doing very well. He's no longer housebound, and has developed a number of new interests, including gardening, recycling, wind power, etc. So...his focus has shifted away from the computer because he's pretty active in the things he's doing.

I asked that he pass along to C'Bob that we miss him and would love to hear from anytime, but that we're most happy that he's alive and having fun!

Thought all of you who know and care about C'Bob would want to know the good news....

Posted by: harborwoman Author Profile Page | May 29, 2008 11:49 AM

Was afraid someone might miss this that wasn't around on the last thread.

Senor Pescado said, "the funny thing to me is how they managed to get a bunch of perfessional politician type people to have a meeting on a saturday......."

simple lots of free do-nuts and coffee

¡yo soy Horsedooty!

Blame to Share in Primary Farce
"In the mind-numbing saga of the botched primary schedule, there is plenty of blame to be shared among all the participants, from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and their surrogates to Howard Dean and the party apparatus in Washington."

http://www.creators.com/opinion/joe-conason.html

Sturge , they won't be in on Monday. LOL!

Here is today's big news in West Michigan:

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8395273

Craig,

Excuse the cranky tone of this post but how dare you expect that the Democratic party follow its stated rules or use any semblance of common sense when applying them. If you maintain your current heading, next thing you know, you'll demand the the sun rise in the east or something...

I think Craig could be right and no decision will be made on Saturday. Has anybody else heard any other talking head say that no decision could be made.

Craig, you be a law'er, although you don't practice. If the DNC rules were laws - and I know they aren't - and FL & MI appealed the DNC's rules chiefs' enhanced punishment - and I know they can't - the court would have to reverse, probably with directions, since the 50% reduction is mandatory by its terms and not a minimum threshold.

HD, that might get cops to a meeting on the weekend, but I'm guessing the answer is OPEN BAR. BTW, I'm sure that off duty fuzz was more impressed with himself than the chickadees with him - who I bet recognized that he was just scared of your pup.

"I think Craig could be right and no decision will be made on Saturday. "

Wishful thinking on Craig's part, he knows the wake begins Saturday and the funeral is on Tuesday and the thought of Hillary being out of the race is just too bitter a pill for him.

tick tock

Corey, I guess that if you're gonna be in a chopper crash, a hospital is about the best place to be in one.

Craig, what bear said - :-)

God damn these repugs are really trying to rip Scott McClellan a new one.

Has anything gone by the book in this primary season. Why would you think that Saturday will be anything different. They have had weeks to prepare for that meeting and it could be over in a few minutes instead of it dragging out all day and possible no decision made. But of course they could use it as a big media day and knock McCain off the front page.

HD, that might get cops to a meeting on the weekend, but I'm guessing the answer is OPEN BAR. BTW, I'm sure that off duty fuzz was more impressed with himself than the chickadees with him - who I bet recognized that he was just scared of your pup.

After considering your answer and your experience, I yield to your take on the matter. Open bar it is.

again your take is probably right on wrt Rance the Internationally Famous Cow Dog. (I let a photo magazine in England use a picture of Rance and I in an interview I did) :)
He is a very gentle dog ask Dog's Eye View or Sheila as they have met both he and Maddie the cute dog.

¡yo soy Horsedooty!

hmm - thoughtful observation = wishful thinking? Since when?

Oh good the Ruppert Murdoch story is getting air play. So funny.

HD, responsible dog owners (which I assume you are) don't let their vicious animals sniff up cops while they are talking cows and cow dogs. I can only guess that Rance is a typically good natured dog - unlike the overly playful, suspicios mutt of mine.

Hillary Clinton..Our best chance to defeat the GOP in November!

Howdy, OD - how's tricks?

They have had weeks to prepare for that meeting and it could be over in a few minutes instead of it dragging out all day and possible no decision made. Posted by: vadaryl

I get the feeling that the decision has already been made. And that the reason we may not hear Saturday is a strategic reason to not tell us until the last vote is in. What that strategy is, I have not idea. But don't they always know how a vote is going to go before it's formally taken.

*scratches his head*
Now how could someone be the best to win the general when they can't even win the nomination?

tick tock

Chloe,

Out of respect for Anon-p I am going to repost what I did on the last thread. If you already read it, My work is done.

Anon-p is a great human being. He tends to stick up for his friends though. just like you and I.

I first met Anon...three years ago? When the blog first began. He was very afraid and all of us spent a lot of time calming his nerves about the state of the country and he in turn made some predictions that had us in awe.

I woud say again, that if you and I reread most of this stuff, we would be able to see that most of the offense taken was not ment as such.

Anon-p is a very good human being.

Hi Pogo..I'm doing two hours of South Dakota phone work this afternoon. Oregon volunteers are a lot like Hillary..We don't give in easily!

Donna Brazille said that she didn't expect a decision to be issued on Saturday.

Well Brian, Hillary's magic.

Thanks Sheila

*scratches his head*
Now how could someone be the best to win the general when they can't even win the nomination

Once again demonstrating a lack of knowledge that makes real discussion impossible

Chloe

On the left hand side of this blog under "links" is the "blogroll". You can take a tour of some of the regulars who have blogs. If you have one of your own, Craig will add it to the group.

"Whatever decision is made during a party meeting Saturday delays a resolution of the Democratic contest, just as Obama is within reach of the 2,026 delegates needed to win the nomination.

"Our magic number could increase kind of at the 11th hour here," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Wednesday. He told reporters: "If it's raised a little bit based on the Rules Committee, we'll have to go get some more superdelegates. But at some point we're the nominee."

http://www.kansascity.com/449/story/638744.html

Donna Brazille said that she didn't expect a decision to be issued on Saturday.

Posted by: Jamie | May 29, 2008 3:18 PM

Hide your eyes, plug your ears, hand over mouth.....lets just not think of it until next Monday. let's spend time on Scott McClellan and his 'AHA" moment.

I say he was always a patriot, just misguided and that when he resigned, it took time for the Grape Koolaid to wear off. But now he sees the light

Better late than never and just before the General. Every little bit helps.

OD, good for you. Keep up the good work.

Clintonian (@ 3:22), nope, it's just sophistry.

Sorry folks I find this argument about her being the better candidate just absurd. In order to be a candidate you have to win the nomination. She's ran one of the most dreadful campaigns in the history of modern politics. Every one ooed and ahhed over her winning in NY. She ran unopposed for the nomination in the state, and in the general she ran against a 3rd rate candidate. Her first time at bat against a skillful politician she failed.

Sheila, he may have been a patriot - but I rather think he was just a useful idiot.

Craig is spot on here. I think Bear made the comment that the brouhaha from this nominating process has raised consciousness about the need to change how it is done.

A long time ago Jamie made a comment that I particularly liked regarding this. She advocated that there be a rotation of states that have the right to be the first to hold primaries and/or caucuses, instead of always laying that golden egg on the laps of the corn husks in Iowa and the people of New Hampshire. Another possibility would be a lottery system. I think you'd have to divide the lottery into 3 tiers: 1) the states that get the right for earliest primaries/caucuses.

2) If not of the largest states win the lottery, at least one would have to win the right to begin in the next tier. I assume the reason states are spread out is so that candidates can evaluate how they are doing and be available to campaign in between primaries.

3) All other states are lotteried out... a certain percentage could be the Super Tuesday voting contest and then the rest spread out over time.

It might be messy, but it might just work. I wonder what others think?

Obama ran against Alan Keyes

Unlike Hillary running for the Senate was not Obama's first time seeking public office.

You know the running against Alan Keyes comment is relevant. Obama's opponent was MAYBE one step about the Phelps family from Westboro Baptist Church.

Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from the 13th District, which then spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[18] Once elected, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.[19] He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[20] Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained.[20]

Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, and again in 2002.[21] In 2000, he lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.[22][23]

In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[24] During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, police representatives credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.[25] Obama resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the US Senate.[26]

Tom,
I think that sounds like a better plan than the way it is done now. And regarding what you said about the larger states, couldn't you have three separate lotteries with the largest populations included in one lottery, on down to medium and small (in comparison to one another). . And take the first picks of each group to combine into each part of the election cycle.

Obama lost to Bobby Rush.

Every other opponent since has been very weak.

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"

In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story

Sounds like he's got what it takes to win, aren't you happy?

Like bush?

Hillary's campaign made its mistakes - failing to see Obama coming until it was too late to stop him and failing to campaign in the caucus states as a consequence are the major ones (to say nothing of a big dem/swing state strategy that did not include even half-hearted campaigning in red/caucus states), but I'd say Edwards beat her out for most dreadful campaign in modern history - with name recognition to beat the band, a tremendously helpful spouse and two years shaking hands with every Iowan with an address, he got just enough support in the first 4 contests to cause him to drop out of the race. I wouldn't throw stones about Hillary's initial senatorial run against a sitting congressman when the withering opposition Obama faced after Ryan withdrew was perennial losing candidate Alan Keyes.

Sounds to me like all that Chicago Politics shaped his distaste for dirty politics and reshaped his message into what it is today.

Change.

I think Clinton and Obama are apples and oranges.

That is why we are all differant in our choices. I think we should stop comparing their campaigns and runs for office. Its all just a moot point and has nothing to do with the future.

Obama does not represent change
He is skilled at the appearance of change.
He says he doesn't take money from lobbyists -he takes it from their lawyers.
What would be different?

Hillarys politically life started long before her run for the Senate!!! Why do so many Obama supporters want to minimize what this Woman has stood for and done in her life?? Why not just promote your own Canidate by stating all the good deeds he is responsible for? Unless maybe there isn't much to tout so you turn your rage on Hillary.Not Smart and Not Enough to win a general Election.

sturg - nice comparison, but that's yet to be seen.

"Politics shaped his distaste for dirty politics and reshaped his message into what it is today. "

Now he stands above it all and lets his campaign minions do all the sleeze and dirty emails to every media rep everywhere. I've seen uglier campaigns but never a more hypocritical one.

Just got back home and caught up with today's comments....

Patsi...Thank you for the kind words! Dang...almost makes me want to write again...and those words mean a lot, coming from a writer as prolific as you!

Brian...You know I love you, bud, but I think your clock needs cleaning! It keeps ticking very loudly! And Corey better watch his clock, too.... (Just kidding...please don't anybody get exercised!)

Well, if it's a 50-pct solution, then penalize Mrs Clinton 50-pct in each state, Mr Obama an additional 50-pct for his news conference in Florida, and disallow any votes for him in Michigan because he removed his name from the ballot.

That would be equitable, and, so far as I can tell, completely within the existing DNC rules. (Remember, we are a country of rules, not law.)

And, so far as the Saturday meeting goes, many of the members have day jobs other than the party.

Sheila, a great idea. I'm betting it won't happen until Hillary suspends her campaign, though - and I bet you could guess why I say that.

flatus, good point about the day jobs. I still say it was the open bar.

Sorry tony, but Hillary repeatedly claims that she's the best candidate for the general, I refute that. And state my reasons for believing she is in fact not the best we have. Sorry if that's a problem for you.

HW said "(Just kidding...please don't anybody get exercised!)

Harborwoman, I would settle for a simple exorcism. :)

*scratches his head*
Now how could someone be the best to win the general when they can't even win the nomination?

tick tock

Posted by: BrianInNYC | May 29, 2008 3:14 PM

Ally can you show me any time in history where the results of the Democrat primaries were indicators of the results in the general. It's an absurd argument!

Posted by: BrianInNYC | May 1, 2008 9:39 PM

dick tawk......

The well crafted image of Hillary as a master of the universe has proven to be nothing more than a myth. The empress has no cloths.

tick tock

Oh Wow,

Madmustard,
Tighten up your chin strap and hold on. Another 24 hour tornado alley run about to start. .....what a spring.

sturg, LOL.

"Democrats have a rare opportunity in 2008 to finally erase their long-running deficit on security. One of the things they should consider is changing some of the terminology they use to discuss foreign policy."

" In every presidential election since 1968 where national security has played a major role Republicans have won......... Democrats have a rare opportunity in 2008 to finally erase their long-running deficit on security. The war in Iraq has undermined the public's confidence in conservative national-security policy and people are open to new ideas, although they are still waiting to see what Democrats will have to offer."

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=its_time_to_stop_talking_about_soft_power

STurge

That is obviously the source.

jamie, I rather thought it might be a different, but close, source.

Can you imagine this gang here ever all getting on the same side. The Democrats would be unbeatable.

Time for matthews on McClellan

Hey Clinton folk, you got one today, congrats:

Added DNC Eileen Macoll (WA) for Clinton

Good afternoon one and all ...
As a general observation relative to the McClellan thing ...
1. His mother is / was / has been a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent
2. His brother, while in a position of authority at SSA is the man who ordered the chief actuary to lie about the actual cost of the prescription drug bill
3. Several on-air persons have stated that McClellan found himself unable to get a job after he left the WH, something that has not proven to be a problem for other press secretaries.

Generally speaking, I tend to have more respect for people who resign when they know they are being used, made a fool of, lied to than for people who find their consciences after the fact.

Finally, Paul Wolfowitz stated clearly and unequivocally in response to a question from Jesse Jackson Jr at a Congressional Hearing that we had to invade Iraq because we needed to get our military bases out of Saudi Arabia. I saw the Hearing, I heard the man speak ... maybe three people have ever reported on it.

Clinton Issues Post-Primary Schedule (Yes, Post-Primary Schedule)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/clinton-preps-p.html

Going to be interesting to see if the networks are going to be willing to foot the bill for covering her after Tuesday. My guess would be probably not, leave it up to the locals and if anything interesting comes up they'll play it.

Suddenly the image of wind tossed tumble weed comes to mind.

Chloe: With regard to the Democratic deficit on national security ... I have been reading an article in the New Yorker about our invasion of the Philippines ... about how we promised them we were liberating them but actually started fighting them, used water torture and other barbaric techniques...and how Wm Jennings Bryan spoke out against McKinley's policies and tactics...to much criticism, so rabid was the desire to establish the country as part of the rush to Empire.

Brian: What in the world is the point of all this gloating? D'you hope to win hearts and influence people?

"D'you hope to win hearts and influence people?"

Not really.

And as long as she continues to campaign she's fair game. And I think her continued presence on the stage is bad for our side. Trust me as soon as she suspends campaigning ( and all talk of her being the VP stops) you're unlikely to ever hear me mention her name again.

Trash talk is just that.

Brian: If you were discussing or even attacking Sen Clinton your posts might be valid -- but what I read (although perhaps not what you intend) is you taunting those who support Senator Clinton. At least, so it seems to me.

Chloe: With regard to your earlier post ... if we all agreed with each other all the time, we wouldn't be Democrats. Remember what Will Rogers said ... :-)

Here's something we may all agree on ... what d'you suppose Nancy Pelosi thinks she's going to do to settle the nomination herself? Who does she think she is, Boss Tweed?

In order to crush the general you have to crush her troops first. It's a blood sport.

"Who does she think she is, Boss Tweed?"

Yep, it's good to be the Speaker. Don't forget under the Constitution it's the second most powerful office we have.

Brian: Oh, silly me ... I thought we were all trying to nominate and elect the best person to be President of our country. I hadn't realized we were taking part in a Hemingway novel.

Maggi, if I'm right, I think you're talking about this;
"SPLENDID LITTLE WARS,"
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1986/01/13/1986_01_13_050_TNY_CARDS_000344815

I'll read it.

Brian: So what she's Speaker of the House. That doesn't give her license to decide to shut down the nominating process all by herself. I think even non-Hillary supporters might find such an attempt excessive.

We are maggs, which is exactly why Barack Obama is our nominee. And getting back to your Nancy question. Who would you rather be on the bad side of, the Speaker of the House, or 63rd ranking senator?

Oh we will Chloe. We will. Even for those voting third party and still Democrat down ticket, I doubt it will make a difference.

Barring something really, really extreme, I just don't see McCain even coming close. I think no matter who the Dem nominee (Yes Brian I know, I know), I think Murdoch is right about it being a landslide year. Bush is just too hated and McCain too weak.

Chloe: The article is called The Water Cure by Paul Kramer from the February 25, 2008 issue ... I don't have the online reference, but it should be easy to find.

maggs she supporting the winner, isn't it time you excepted that basic fact. Barack Obama has more delegates, this is a delegate race. We don't need to overturn the accepted rules to win. Your side does, we have the moral upper hand, and we have the delegates. End of story.

Thanks Maggi

Well something we agree on Jamie, the Murdoch story is really big news, and I'm sure it sent seismic shock waves through the McCain camp. It's also going to hurt his ability to raise cash.

And BTW when I saw Murdoch descrbed Obama as a rock star I almost giggled with glee!

Michigan to DNC

http://thepage.time.com/full-letter-from-michigan-dems-to-dnc-members/

"While Michigan Democrats were disappointed that our state was not selected for one of the pre-window contests, we appreciated the new rule for adding a bit of much-needed diversity to the early nominating process, and as a first step toward breaking the Iowa-New Hampshire lock on the process. We notified the DNC that we would abide by the new calendar and its sequence provided that other states did the same. To be clear – the key issue which the new rule resolved was the sequence of the pre-window states, not just the number of pre-window states.

But at a press conference in Dover, New Hampshire last August 9, the New Hampshire Secretary of State indicated he was going to schedule his state’s primary before the date specified in the DNC rule, clearly defying the sequence and timing the Rules and Bylaws Committee had set. Michigan Democratic leaders wrote to Governor Dean asking if the DNC intended to enforce the rule against New Hampshire, but the DNC refused to act or even to answer our letters for months."

Obama is the only one trying to change the rules
The Obama campaign uses the big lie technique

Brian: Funny thing about politicians ... each one of them considers himself / herself important in his / her own right. If that were not the case, one wouldn't have Blue Dog Democrats voting with Republicans and forcing the most powerful woman in the House to take legislation off the floor.
Ms Pelosi has only as much power as the other Congressional Democrats wish her to have ... and I have enough faith in Democrats to believe that they will not, on the one hand, argue for having a democratic process while at the same time allowing Ms Pelosi to single-handedly dictate the terms of the process.

more from Michigan
"The Democratic National Committee then proceeded to selectively enforce its calendar rule. On December 3, the Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to give New Hampshire a waiver to move from third to second place in the sequence. Michigan requested a waiver and was denied. When the Rules and Bylaws Committee itself decided not to follow its own newly adopted, hard-fought for rules and granted a waiver to New Hampshire, it set the stage for the present situation."

yeah the rules are the rules except when they are not

maggs how much you want to bet Nancy will still be Speaker come next Jan? She's done a rather masterful job of securing up her support in the House. I think there is a very good chance she will run opposed when the 111th is seated.

wow.....my head is spinning from trying to figure out your cryptic Clintonian Brian.....

Think you could define it a bit?

Brian ... that is exactly what I am doing ... I am excepting the notion that Pelosi has the power she ascribes to herself.
Now, if you mean I should accept that Sen Obama has won the nomination ... I do accept that as things now stand he is 154 pledged delegates ahead of Sen Clinton. I also accept that he likely has SDs in reserve ... waiting to roll them out as need dictates so that South Dakota will push him over the top ... I am also willing to accept that Donna Brazile will move heaven and earth to keep the DNC rules and bylaws committee from taking any step that will change the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination.
But just do remember that all the positive media attention can just as quickly turn negative if the media begin to see a story in the notion of a backroom deal engineered by the Obama campaign. I see no positive benefit either to the Party or Sen Obama that can come from Speaker Pelosi throwing her weight around.

Can't find the posts now, but Obama posters were crowing about how well he was going to do in Puerto Rico and inviting others to come and celebrate.

Hope they got refundable tickets

Nancy is an elder of the party, she is not "throwing her weight around", she is taking seriously her responsibly to insure the process is respected and that no one attempts to steal the election. You see on this you and I will never agree, I think Hillary is trying to steal this nomination.

....hmmmm....Definitely don't remember anything about Puerto Rico today,,,,any chance its from a different Blog?

BrianNYC: Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. I see no reason why she would not ... although I would note that she has failed to appoint any other woman as part of the Leadership team in the House -- something I find troubling.
What I am saying is that I should think even the most fervent Obama supporter would not like to see her artificially trying to bring the nomination to a close.
How would she do that? By barring Clinton delegates from participating? Or what? Wouldn't even an Obama supporter, knowing he had the needed delegates anyway, object to such a high-handed move? If Nancy Pelosi can single-handedly bring the process to a close, why not just do away with both primaries and caucuses?

Rep wasserman- Schultz just conceded that Obama is the nominee.

Steal the nomination?

Obama doesn't have the nomination no one does.

The Obama campaign suffers from the need of early end of election due to inability to go the distance.

Brian: What does your belief about Sen Clinton have to do with Nancy Pelosi's promise ... or threat. She can certainly ENSURE that the nominating process on the convention floor is carried out appropriately, that the delegate counts are accurately vetted, etc ... but how can she "bring the process to a close"? and why should she.
My concern is not the result ... the result will be what it is...my concern is that Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, not the Dictator of the Democratic Party.

I don't think Pelosi would do anything like that prematurely. She's just to smart and savy to bring this to a close unless All the delegates were appropriated and the race was effectively over.

And it is not.....all though it is about done.

Did anyone just see the Catholic Priest on Fox ridiculing Hillary at the Trinity Church (recently )? It's on tape and it's ugly.

BrianNYC: It certainly looks as if he will be ... but not until August. Until then he is the presumptive nominee ... just like McCain on the other side. That's the point I'm trying to make ... there's nothing Speaker Pelosi can do to make things official until August and she should not further damage the Party by trying ... it's bad enough that our nominating process, the way delegates are assigned, etc, make us look like idiots ... without Speaker Pelosi throwing her weight around.

Sorry Chloe,

If it makes it to Obama's channel then I'll see it. Except for Shepard Smith, I don't watch FAUX News any more.

Lets keep some reality in our premises maggs. She is not shutting down the process. But after Tuesday there is nothing left of the process, everything after Tuesday is a formality. Once Obama has the necessary delegates the process will be over, he will have them Tuesday, perhaps Wend.

"although I would note that she has failed to appoint any other woman"

I understand that's a very big issue for you, and I respect that, but you have to understand I am not electing a president to right the wrongs that have been done to woman. That is not to say that I don't think wrongs have been done to woman, I do (Patsi feel free to chime in at any time, I'm sure after reading this you're head is spinning and projectile pea soup is spewing from between your lips), that just doesn't happen to be my priority in this election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y

More like Father Coughlin

Sheila: I was just idly wondering what she meant by her promise to bring things to an end herself. It sounds very dictatorial.
You are undoubtedly correct about the race being effectively over ... and, if it is, why should Ms Pelosi have said what she did?
Is she thinking of using her power to assign persons to committees to browbeat SDs to declare for Obama or change sides? I really think that even supporters of Sen Obama would find that questionable ... don't you?

Because Maggs a lot of people are very troubled by the things coming out of the Clinton campaign and they are trying tell her to knock it off.

On "fair and balanced" they think Hillary will 'suspend' her campaign after Tuesday, to stop the financial hemorrhaging, and then she'll buy herself enough time to take her argument to the super delegates (if the supers don't immediately jump ship). Keeping in mind that's northing's pledged until the Convention. As someone there said, in case he steps in a big pile before August.

BrianNYC: Leaving aside the question of whether women's issues are a priority with me personally, I just think it is odd that Ms Pelosi's first act upon achieving her position was to crush Jane Harman (the two have never gotten along, apparently) and that ... of all the many Democratic women in the house, including many many African-American women that she could find no women and only one African-American to ask to stand for a leadership position ...

A lot of people are concerned with what crawls out when rocks from the Obama campaign are turned over like the good father.

I was just idly wondering what she meant by her promise to bring things to an end herself"

maggi, Don't you think she has enough super delegates for Obama in her pocket and can drop them when she's ready.

ps That Trinity Church video is a You Tube video, so guess we can view it as much as possible if we want.

If anyone finds it, would you please link it? Thanks

BrianNYC: And an almost equal number of people are troubled by things that have come out of the Obama campaign. Not to mention the dysfunctional system by which we choose our nominee.
I would again just point out here that the two candidates are currently separated by 154 pledged delegates out of a total (currently) of 4050 ... although that total may change. That does suggest an almost equal division, does it not? (Note that I said almost equal).

Rove's oped in today's Journal talks about Mr Obama's Obama speak. Not Rove's best work, but still worth a read:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121201747075327643.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y

the good father preaching hate

Maggi,

I think the party is very nervous. A lot is riding this year and since Senator Clinton's stance is so strong and relentless, my take is that Pelosi was re-assuring Americans that the race would be over and so to chill out.

I am possitive she has talked to both campaigns and got some consensus before saying something like that in public.

Or one of the candidates would have publicaly objected. THAT is very telling.

Rove's oped in today's Journal talks about Mr Obama's Obama speak. Not Rove's best work, but still worth a read: Flatus

He usually is. Like him or not, he's smart.

I can understand your disappointment with nancy on that score. However that doesn't mean she isn't doing what she thinks is in the best interest of the nation and party. And I'm sure in her own best interest too.

chloe: Ms Pelosi has the absolute authority to appoint Congresspeople to committee assignments or not -- that is her one weapon. The only thing I can see her doing is promising (or threatening) Congressional Democrats to strip them of their commitee assignments if they do not come out as SDs for Sen Obama.
Of course, it is those same Democrats who vote for Speaker of the House. And, such a move on her part would certainly not remain a secret. I just don't see why she would risk it and what would be gained by it.

BrianNYC: I have a sneaking suspicion that Ms Pelosi enjoys being the most powerful woman in the country ... perhaps a little bit too much. She has certainly not done a good job when it comes to counting votes ... seems unable in some situations to accommodate the Blue Dogs or those Dems in conservative districts ...

"Not to mention the dysfunctional system by which we choose our nominee."

You should take that up with Harold Ickes, he was one of the authors other of the current system, he also voted to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates.

The only thing I can see her doing is promising (or threatening) Congressional Democrats to strip them of their commitee assignments if they do not come out as SDs for Sen Obama.
Posted by: maggisd Author Profile Page | May 29, 2008 6:06 PM

Maggi, I don't think she has to threaten them. I think the supers going for Obama have already decided, but notcommitted themselves publicly yet. I firmly believe she know's she has enough delegates for him to achieve her goal once the Saturday meeting happens and only after that decision is made of the committee will they know what the total delegates needed will be. Until that meeting, the delegates needed to clinch this can change.

Sheila: I think the former President is speaking out ... although not mentioning anyone by name. Chris Matthews keeps denying that the media are pushing her out but -- as usual -- he's got it all wrong. It's not the media .... it's people within the party ... McGovern, Carter, and ... even though she claims to be neutral (Ha!) Pelosi.

Karl Rove and Obama Speak...honestly trying to find it and can't.

can someone link it for me?

I have a sneaking suspicion that Ms Pelosi enjoys being the most powerful woman in the country ... Maggisd

Maggi, I agree.
She's another that I don't like and I don't trust.
That's just me, and I don't expect anyone else to agree with me.

chloe: The SDs can change right up until the moment they cast their votes on the convention floor.
So, too, for that matter, can the ordinary pledged delegates, although most of them would not do so. The rules and by-laws do not require any delegate .... pledged or super ... to vote as they have promised. Moreover, the way the delegate vote is done, only the totals for each candidate from each state are announced ... with no differentiation made between pledged or superdelegates.

Maggs I take exception to this entire concept of "pushing her out". Asking why she's still in the race when there is almost no mathematical possibility of her winning is very valid.

Brian
You have free speech.Hillary has free speech.OK you say every nasty thing you can about her and her supporters because you say its necessary to take her and us down forgeting about the negative Karma you create for yourself. Again your so smart we need more from you Like the summer of love post but please leave HIllary out of it.Will everyone forgive and forget? What a gamble you take!!!

chloe: I have never really cared for her. Actually, I don't care for Harry Reid, either ... two of the most inarticulate politicians I've ever run across.
And, again, she has not run the House well ... I would be interested to find out if any Speaker in recent history has had to pull so many bills from the floor because of being unable to garner enough votes from his own party.

I agree with Brian,

This "pushing her out of the race" stuff is nonsense. If the tables were switched and Obama were behind *245* to 45, nobody would take him or his candidacy seriously. In fact, given her unparalleled egotism, I'm sure HRC would have already declared victory by now.

Brian: I believe the term "pushing her out" is an invention of the media. Pres Clinton and Sen Clinton have used the phrase "telling her to quit" ... there is a difference. Again I would point out that from a mathematical standpoint, neither of them can reach the necessary delegate total (if FL and MI are even partially included) without the Super Ds ... and, if there weren't weighted delegate assignments, the difference between them in pledged delegates would be even less ... although Sen Obama would likely still be ahead.
I do not, for the life of me, see what's wrong with Sen Clinton being allowed to come to the Convention and have her name placed in nomination and let her delegates vote for her ... what does it really hurt? And, it might do more for party unity than anything else ... more to assuage the feelings of her supporters, at least.

Utopia ... 245 to 45? What does that mean? The two candidates are separated by 154 pledged delegates ... Sen Clinton cannot overcome this deficit, but it is a very small difference when stacked against the total available delegates.

Utopia: BTW, I am old enough to remember 1960 (a long time ago, I'll admit). JFK and LBJ came to the convention almost tied ... they didn't really know who was going to win until the last moment, although the Kennedys had a pretty good idea they had enough support to win ... I do not remember JFK ever calling for LBJ to all it quits, however.

maggisd wrote:

I do not, for the life of me, see what's wrong with Sen Clinton being allowed to come to the Convention and have her name placed in nomination and let her delegates vote for her ... what does it really hurt? And, it might do more for party unity than anything else ... more to assuage the feelings of her supporters, at least.

Really? I mean, really? You don't understand how this will *irreparably* damage the party? You Clinton folks are really selfish. There must be some deep-seated angst or something. Why do you seek validation in your support for a candidate who is positively calculating, evil, and damaging to the party?

It isn't about winning for you people. I'm sick of playing nice with the HRC folks. It's one thing to be an idiot, which many of you are, but it's another to become so consumed with your self-righteous bullsh*t that you're willing to take the party down with you. Jesus!

"I do not, for the life of me, see what's wrong with Sen Clinton being allowed to come to the Convention and have her name placed in nomination and let her delegates vote for her ... what does it really hurt?"

Frankly because I and many others think she can't be trusted. I know you don't like me saying that, but is the way I feel about her.

*high fives Utopia*

I think people were inferring that Brian was a dog in the last thread. A watchdog , anyway. But , he goes *tick tock* after each post. Maybe he's a clock? Maybe we could ask him nicely to stop being a clock? The I could stop saying *tick tock* too, HW. LOL!

"I do not, for the life of me, see what's wrong with Sen Clinton being allowed to come to the Convention and have her name placed in nomination and let her delegates vote for her" Posted by: maggisd Author Profile Page | May 29, 2008 6:22 PM

You and about 17 million other people agree on that Maggi

Utopia: Thanks for the kind and complimentary words. Sitting in my office here I am able to look at a number of degrees and diplomas, as well as an announcement of my [unsolicited] appointment to Pi Sigma Alpha National Political Science Honorary Fraternity....whatever else I may be, sir or madam, I am not an idiot.

tick tock

maggisd wrote:

Utopia: BTW, I am old enough to remember 1960 (a long time ago, I'll admit)

Well there you go. That explains it. The elderly are the only segment of the population who support HRC. Get over it. Your time is over. Sad but true. You had a great run of things, but now it's time to let the younger generation take control. Bob Herbert had a great op-ed about this recently that you should take a look at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13herbert.html

Chloe: Are you loving the hypocrisy of the bashing I took this morning compared to the oh so witty banter banded about this afternoon?

I have to agree, maggs is not an idiot, actually she's one of the few Clintonites who's pleasant to spar with around here.

And tony for god's sake stop being such a cry baby, oh boo hoo.

maggisd,

I was not implying that *you* are an idiot. But as an education person, you must surely know that intellegence does not equal book-smarts or education. I say this as a college educator.

It's one thing to be an idiot, which many of you are, but it's another to become so consumed with your self-righteous bullsh*t that you're willing to take the party down with you. Jesus!

You are too smart and wonderful for us. We understand completely if you leave.

Well, you people (always wanted to say that, but good manners prevailed until now) better get beyond your angst at how fragile Mr Obama's candidacy is, and much you feel threatened by Mrs Clinton's persona.

You folks will come to love her once she's been in office for a while and has started fulfilling her campaign promises.

Sitting in my office here I am able to look at a number of degrees and diplomas, as well as an announcement of my [unsolicited] appointment to Pi Sigma Alpha National Political Science Honorary Fraternity....maggisd

Maggi,

Reading your posts and experiencing your kindness and generosity, I am not at all surprised at those degrees, diplomas and appointments.

Idiot is just something they say around here to shut you up.

Please don't let them do that.

Brian
I wish you could trust Hillary but you can't and thats ok I'm sure with most Hillary supporters its ok.In the few posts I have done I have said I don't like or trust Obama.Wished as a life long Dem I could feel the Love but I have seen to much here.I don't think i am being direspectful of Sen. Obama and his supporters.

Brian: You are certainly free to distrust Senator Clinton ... I would not even argue that case with you. I just don't see what you think she can do to damage the Party, or even Sen Obama. It's an argument that never made sense to me...

Well, you people (always wanted to say that, but good manners prevailed until now) Flatus | May 29, 2008 6:35 PM

Flatus,
I need to repeat from earlier post:
"Always be nice until it's time not to be nice."

Well maggs that would get into rehashing the history of the last 6 months, and lets face facts, on that score your accounting of what has taken place and mine will never jive.

maggisd,

It's damaging to the party because the party *needs* to select a nominee in order to get the ball rolling for the general election. It's the simple. Obama is the favorite, and nearly every national poll will tell you this. It's not that we want to push her out, it's just that she needs to realize that barring a technicality, she has lost the race. Going to the convention may have worked for, say Kennedy and Carter, but in this day and age the party mechanisms have changed. A brokered or contentious convention would be devastating for the party. Also, the longer she stays in, the more she continues to foment seeds of division and hatred within the party. We can see that play out here. I apologize for my outburst earlier, it was disrespectful to HRC fans here (whom i do not agree with intellectually) to call them "idiots"; however, sometimes trying to talk logic and reason to you guys is like talking to a brick wall.

Nick
You are so great to read!!! laughing

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

Utopia: My time is most certainly not "over" ... with age comes the wisdom to know that there is nothing new under the sun and that the old saying "And this too shall pass" is as true as it ever was.
Youth brings with it optimism, idealism, and hope. Age brings the knowledge that change comes slowly, as the result of hard work, the clashing of wills, and the hammering out of compromise.
If Utopia were possible, we would find it boring beyond belief