Jae Onasi Posted May 15, 2008 Author Share Posted May 15, 2008 Oh, I knew he'd give an endorsement to someone--that was a political inevitability given the delegates he held. A small number, to be sure, but in a race with this relative level of closeness, no delegate is unimportant. I think he's timed it to blunt the impact of Clinton's double-digit win in WV yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 With either one winning the primary it's going to hurt the winner. If Obama wins then he has disenfranchised the voters of FL and MI. If Clinton wins(by including FL and MI) she cheated the election by using delegates that were not supposed to be used. I'm an Obama-ite, but seriously? How can you say that the delegates in MI and FL were not supposed to be used? They made mistakes there, sure. But IMHO it is not in this country's best interests to completely remove two states from the process. We'll have to pull out our old 48-star flags for the convention. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Oh, I knew he'd give an endorsement to someone--that was a political inevitability given the delegates he held. A small number, to be sure, but in a race with this relative level of closeness, no delegate is unimportant. More than a few of them had already made their endorsements, so I don't think Edward's blessing was a necessity. I think he's timed it to blunt the impact of Clinton's double-digit win in WV yesterday.Could be. Considering just how little impact Clinton's predicted win had, I don't think it likely though. Personally, I think he was too chicken**** to endorse before the North Carolina primary which was held last week. Oh well I'm an Obama-ite, but seriously? How can you say that the delegates in MI and FL were not supposed to be used? Well, MI clearly violated the rules, so I don't think they should be allowed to flaunt guidelines without having to face the consequences. They made mistakes there, sure. But IMHO it is not in this country's best interests to completely remove two states from the process.Is it in the Democratic party's best interest to set a precedent that the rules can be ignored without having to worry about the clearly-stated repercussions being enforced? It's not as though the states are being kicked out the union or invited not to participate in the general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 I found John edwards speech today be quite inspiring. I only hope that Obama lives up to what he says. If not... I'll be sorely disappointed. It sounds very much like it is meant truthfully, but, sadly, being a sceptic somewhat, I have to realize that it may all be just said to get people to vote... I won't know until after the oath of office is taken. And if Mccaine wins due to electoral college I would expect a huge protest to ensue... Who's really better? I don't know. I'd say I'm pretty one-sided about being against Mccaine, and Hillary I simply don't trust- just an instinct that she doesn't really mean what she's saying, that 'little voice in my head' telling me there's something not right about her... But.. Barack... I hope he lives up to his words and the words of his endorsers. Or else my sig change will have been in vain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted May 15, 2008 Author Share Posted May 15, 2008 More than a few of them had already made their endorsements, so I don't think Edward's blessing was a necessity.Maybe not an absolute necessity, no, but certainly not unimportant. Could be. Considering just how little impact Clinton's predicted win had, I don't think it likely though. Personally, I think he was too chicken**** to endorse before the North Carolina primary which was held last week. Oh well I thought I saw him at a Clinton rally before the NC primary, too, though that could have been old footage. He gives me the impression of being a 'go the way the political winds blow' kind of guy. He also could be maneuvering for a VP spot. Who knows. Well, MI clearly violated the rules, so I don't think they should be allowed to flaunt guidelines without having to face the consequences.I agree. All the Democrat candidates knew the rules ahead of time, all of them initially agreed to abide by the party leaders' decision on MI and FL. If the Dems are going to let MI get away with it, I'm going to petition the WI Dem party to move up the primary date so we can have more of a say in the primary decisions. It's annoying to have a primary after super-Tuesday because my vote usually makes no difference other than letting the presumptive winner know how I feel about him/her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/15/johnmccain.uselections2008 McCain is planning to declare victory and withdraw in 2013. Meh. So all the candinates (even the Libertaraian President candinate, Mr. Bob) is calling for withdrawal from Iraq. So much for change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Maybe not an absolute necessity, no, but certainly not unimportant. You're right, Jae. It would appear that Edwards' endorsement is having some impact (Link). I have to admit that I'm a little shocked. I really did think his endorsement was just about useless at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Useless in the perspective the experienced politician, inspiring and encouraging in the perpective of the average voter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Well, regardless of who ends up winning the primary, there's still the general election. Have to wonder how disaffection with the end choice will play in November. Given that a sig % of potential voters in the primary have indicated that they'd vote for McCain rather than the other candidate, it'll be interesting to see if they maintain that position or just opt out of voting altogether. Of course, there's always the democrat penchant for rigging elections (illegals, animals, mulitple vote casting, etc...) to offset that problem down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Useless in the perspective the experienced politician, inspiring and encouraging in the perpective of the average voter...Perhaps, but again I doubt it. Edwards' captured a very small percentage of the vote before he dropped out, so where would his endorsement carry the most weight? His home state of North Carolina. Therefore proclaiming that he would not endorse, period, and then turning around and endorsing after his home state voted... He lost a lot of credibility with me when he ran on a platform of challenging the status quo then failed to endorse Obama after dropping out the race himself. Perhaps if he had not spent so much time attacking Hillary for representing the status quo, I could cut him some slack, but IMO he simply revealed himself as a typical opportunistic politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted May 31, 2008 Author Share Posted May 31, 2008 15 May: They're all pretty much opportunistic, the only question is 'how opportunistic are they'. The only ones who I ever met/studied who weren't like that (at least to the usual degree) were Bill Proxmire and Paul Simon. 31 May: DNC meeting news The DNC has agreed to allow FL delegates to each have half a vote per the agreement at the by-laws meeting today. At this time, they're still arguing about what to do with the MI delegates--Obama wasn't even on the ballot in that state so the situation is not quite so clear there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 So pretty much it's still at an impasse. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Yes and no. Hillary got the sweeter deal out of FL but not the exact scenario that she wanted. Re: Michigan, I think the most equitable options won't favor either of them (which kinda sorta ends up favoring Obama since he doesn't gain anything but doesn't lose anything either). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 At this point, I think that, assuming that Michigan won't be recounted, Florida's delegates are borderline-worthless. If I'm correct, there are one hundred fifty delegates in Florida. Now, for Hillary Clinton, I think that seventy-five delegates would help, but it wouldn't assure her a win at all. I might be completely wrong, but, at this point, it seems that Obama will be the Democratic Presidential Candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted May 31, 2008 Author Share Posted May 31, 2008 Obama only needs about 40 more delegates before this meeting, while Clinton needs 200 or so to win. Even if she gets a lot of those votes and he only gets a few, he doesn't need that many more to secure the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 I might be completely wrong, but, at this point, it seems that Obama will be the Democratic Presidential Candidate.Pretty much. Hillary knows that no matter what she won't be able to catch up to Obama on the delegate count. Her goal was to get the FL and MI "wins" validated so that she could use the bump in popular votes to improve her case with the remaining superdelegates. Right, wrong, or indifferent the democratic nominating process is determined by the number of delegates. This is something that Hillary has acknowledged (quite forcefully at times) when it was convenient for her to do so. Now that this metric isn't working to her favor, she's changed her focus to popular votes. EDIT: Based on the new numbers, if Obama averages 50% in the 3 remaining contests, he'll only need 20 superdelegates to secure the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 I hesistant to put too much into this until I actually hear a fat lady singing, but this might finally be the end. Link Snippet: Hillary Clinton has summoned top donors and backers to attend her New York speech tomorrow night in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 No f***ing way! After all this talk about her taking it to convention, that's what she better do. Keep your word, HRC. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Does this mean she got something in return? VP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 I hesistant to put too much into this until I actually hear a fat lady singing, but this might finally be the end. Link Snippet: Wow. That's amazing, despite the fact that it should have happened weeks ago. Perhaps we should have a thread dedicated to the possibilities of a Vice President for Barack Obama? Anyways, I wonder what she'll get (or what she thinks she'll get) in return... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Normally, the VP slot is used to boost the credentials for an incumbent run. Since Hillary doesn't need this and there are more powerful positions that she would be a good fit for, I don't see why she would even want the Vice Presidency. I think we'd see some place in the Cabinet or maybe a position of higher authority in the Senate before we saw this but I'm not taking any wagers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravnas Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Personally, I think if Obama puts Hillary anywhere in his cabinet, it should involve working on healthcare because that has been one of the issues she really has pushed for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Normally, the VP slot is used to boost the credentials for an incumbent run. Since Hillary doesn't need this and there are more powerful positions that she would be a good fit for, I don't see why she would even want the Vice Presidency. I think we'd see some place in the Cabinet or maybe a position of higher authority in the Senate before we saw this but I'm not taking any wagers Yes, but those postions are not one beat of the heart from the office of President. The VP is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 I think the last thing Hillary needs after her three references to RFK's assassination is for anything to happen to Obama while he's in the Oval Office. The people behind the Vince Foster (et cetera) stuff would lose their flippin' minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 The people behind the Vince Foster (et cetera) stuff would lose their flippin' minds. First you caused food to get all over my monitor at home, now I have Dr. Pepper all over my monitor at work. Either I'm going to have to stop reading your post or I need a monitor shield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.