Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: InsiderAdvantage Mississippi


Insider Advantage

National
Obama 46, Clinton 40

 

Comments
Chris:

Just doing it now (in advance of another stupid comment from John in Spokane):

John.....put your helmet on kid! You are going to be late.....the short bus is outside waiting to take you to school!


____________________

RS:

The difference between IA and ARG is largely the distribution of the African-American vote.
ARG says AA votes go 87-11 for Senator Obama (in keeping with earlier trends).
IA says Obama 67-16, with 17% of African-Americans undecided.
If we assume Senator Obama gets 80% of the African-American vote and re-do the IA survey, Obama gets 53% overall - closer to ARG.

Guess ARG pushed their respondents harder to make a choice.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:


Chrissy,

Is that the best you can do ? The short Bus just went bye and said you got the last seat !
Its OK Chrissy, when Hillary's elected, you'll be able to go back and finally graduate from the every child left behind program AND her Health Care will help you get that Therapy that you obviousley have been needing. Touchet Pussy Cat !!

____________________

Dom:

John, insults aside, here is a pretty reasonable question which I'd like to hear an honest and reasonable answer to:

Clinton will need to win 62% of all remaining delegates to move ahead of Obama. This number will likely rise to above 65% by next Wednesday. Considering Arkansas is the only state where she has won by this margin what exactly is her road to the nomination, aside from tearing the party apart and handing the presidency to John McCain?

____________________

RS - I should say so! IA's finding is really off the mark in terms of what we saw in Texas and Ohio. ARG's numbers make more sense. I wonder if their turnout models were very different as well. I just can't imagine Hillary not getting trounced in MS.

I still wonder how the different pollsters are handling the gender issue with these calls. I mean, I am very curious about whether you get different responses when the caller is a man calling a woman, a woman calling a woman, woman calling a man, or man calling a man. I wonder if its randomized and the differences, if there are any, nullify each other. But then again, maybe not.

Unfortunately, I can't remember if I already asked this question and whether or not I got an answer. Which is pretty embarrassing, really.

Chris, was that comment really so clever that you needed to post it two different threads? For pete's sake, already.

____________________

Matt:

Am I misunderstanding the RULES? The way I see it, whoever passes the 2025 threshold secures the nomination. Isn't that so?

____________________

Cwer:


I'll answer that for you Dom,

She hopes she and Bill can strong-arm the SDs to vote for her, based on bogus claims of "momentum" and "big-state wins" (Like California and NY would go red!)

What a joke. She has no problem tearing the party apart to become president. What a monster indeed.

____________________

richard Pollara:

Just curious if anyone has seen this. MSNBC has been reporting all hour that a new Quinnipac poll shows Obama closing the gap in PA. from 16 (52-36) to 6 (49-43). The only polls I can find were from the end of February. Am I missing something?

____________________

Harris:

Complete Ignorance! Do you think that Obama could actually win the nomination without winning a single big state? I don't think so! If you read between the line, this is what I see. Hillary has made comments in the past few days indicating that she will pick Obama as her running mate. Therefor, and as a way of uniting the party, those superdelegates who are very conserned about Obama inexperience will be all for that and will support Hillary. That is how she is going to become the nominee and all parties will be happy. Don't you all agree?

____________________

Adam:

"Am I misunderstanding the RULES? The way I see it, whoever passes the 2025 threshold secures the nomination. Isn't that so?"

Yes, Matt - however, it is mathematically impossible for either candidate at this point to reach that number.

No matter what happens, Obama stays ahead in pledged delegates, and most likely the popular vote.

Apart from a brokered convention - you know, where the Elites decide who will be President, and NOT us? - the only option is to re-do the Michigan and Florida primaries entirely, or simply split the delegates.

Either way, Obama's still ahead in pledged delegates.

Hillary Clinton can SPIN this any way her camp wants to - but they're not living in reality.

Her only chance to win the nomination is to either destroy the Democratic Party by ignoring the will of Americans - or...well, yeah, that's it.

____________________

Matt:

1.Gore loses wins the popular vote but loses the presidency: Not following the will of the people, but those are the rules.

2. Hillary wins the popular vote in Texas but Obama is awarded more delegates. Not following the will of the people, but those are the rules.

Unfortunately, the "will of the people" is subverted ALL the time in politics. Hillary is well within her right AND the rules to break the threshold with a combination of pledged and super delegates.

Those are the rules both candiates agreed to and understood.

____________________

Certh:


Adam -


RIGHT ON!

And don't think for a moment she wouldn't destroy the party and it's chances in the general to get nominated. She is a POS, and the whole world now knows it.


Harris - I GUARANTEE you Cali and NY will go blue, no matter who the dems put out there. Obama can make many red states blue. Hillary simply CAN NOT. She has to HOPE that Ohio or Florida turn blue. Obama can get Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, North and South Carolina, perhaps even Georgia - in addition to winning Florida and Ohio. The big state argument is BS and you know it.

The new SUSA shows the beatdown that is in store for McCain once Obama becomes the nominee.


____________________

RS:

Ciccina:
Both ARG and IA have African-Americans at 55% of the electorate. ARG says 18-49 is 32% while IA says 18-45 is 41%.
Weirdly, only 2/3 of the IA respondents chose either male or female (women IA 52%; ARG 57%). IA has Clinton leading among men 46-41 and trailing among women 35-51, while ARG has Obama leading among men 49-42 and leading among women 65-28. Maybe that's close enough.

Both IA and ARG have Senator Clinton leading among independents/Republicans - guess Rush is having an effect!

For whatever reason (!), ARG nailed Texas and Ohio... So maybe the gender of the person calling doesn't matter, though I've heard something about the racial aspect, so it's possible gender does. Maybe they have some mysterious fudge factor...

____________________

I wonder how the decision by Puerto Rico to switch from a caucus to a primary could affect the popular vote final totals for each candidate. I guess it would be useless to speculate until Pennsylvania is done. I imagine most residents are Dems; I wonder what their highest turnout numbers have been (in primaries / generals, that is).

Adam - "Her only chance to win the nomination is to either destroy the Democratic Party by ignoring the will of Americans.." My oh my, aren't we very dramatic today!

Certh - strangely, your posts look (the spacing) and sound exactly like those from Chris.

____________________

Adam:

It's my time of the month, you have to excuse me

____________________

Alex:

It's a myth that Obama can do well in red states. He only has a slight chance in Virginia and Iowa. But he will loose Ohio, Florida and possibly New Jersey, where McCain is polling well. So do your math.

____________________

illinoisindie:

As Hillary would say Lets Get Real. I have looked at the polled demographics and obama getting mid 60s of the AA vote is pretty weak, why even publish this poll. For those of you who like numbers, from all of the contests so far... his mean is 80% of the AA vote and his median is 82%. So without partisanship I can say this poll needs all the salt in the dead sea

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

How is it a myth he can do well in red states?

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

He picks up NM, CO and a couple others in the current electorate.

Hillary wins as well but only picks up a big state like Florida.

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

____________________

Marc:

ARG is actually right here and IA is wrong. Obama will win this one handily (at least by 20%), not by the 6% that IA is reporting. I expect the AA turnout to be over 55% also, it was nearly 64% in 2004 when John Kerry ran and was nearly 57% for Al Gore in 2000 (see: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/134837/6835/131/469717), so I expect turnout to be around 60%.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/


Oops forgot to put Obama's link. He clearly makes some inroads to some purple states that Hillary cannot.

____________________

Alex:

I've seen that SurveyUSA map, it's competely useless same as general election polls that swing by 15-20 points every other day. Look at the actual results from 1996, 2000, 2004 and you will see a pattern. I like both Clinton and Obama, but I like the idea of having a Democrat president even better, so I'm being realistic.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

As easy as it is to discredit a major polling operation like SurveyUSA which by the way accurately predicted Ohio and was within margin of error for Texas Alex, your "realism" is based off of a random and static methodology that for some reason its all just going to be the same. This is probably most likely why you aren't paid for this type of work.

____________________

swoosie:

Look...it took FDR to go four ballots at the convention to gain the nomination. We are definitely looking at that sort of scenario and it really isn't a bad thing folks. It is what it is. In the end, the idea of Obama not being formidable enough to win big states will gnaw at the superdelegates. They will start to worry about the downside to Rezko trial that will play out like WaterGate during the campaign. They will begin to edge over to Clinton because she really has been there --through the thick and thin of campaigning and isn't likely to be making any missteps at this point (now that Bill is on the proverbial leash) and that will be low risk for them. In politics, as in life, most people will take the path of least resistance. Hillary will work the room and make it easy to see why a Clinton/Obama ticket is the safe and sound bet for competing against McCain. Also, it is the best ticket because of the immense organizations that both candidates bring to the table. The volume of volunteers and their committment will simply be too much for McCain to deal with.

____________________

Alex:

Andrew you can spin this all you want. In fact Obama will loose this election because of the radical left wing movement behind him. I'm posting my opinion, which is not critical of neither candidate and in return I get "This is probably most likely why you aren't paid for this type of work.". How can a candidate win when he is riding on the wind of radicals who are ready to crush people in their own party to get some momentum.

____________________

Anonymous:

swoosie you're right, but you're waisting your time, as all the dailykos and moveone.org people will once again hand this election to the Republicans.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

Spin? Spin? How is posting data from SurveyUSA spin? How is he more radically left than Hillary Clinton? I think your opinion is pretty critical of Obama by the fact you connect no logic to your argument. Obama has been very dynamic. He's been endorsed by the most radical of democrats and the most conservative of democrats. He's not riding on Moveon.org or the Heritage Foundation. People endorse him and he doesn't have to take their endorsements just like he said in the debate he can't say, "don't like me." There's a reason that Obama is pulling in more far left voters AND far right voters than Hillary. Hillary has been quite good about getting moderates. Make it sound as melodramatic as you want that he's out to crush people, but frankly WTH are you talking about?

____________________

Lisa M:

Does Andrew S in CA have a job? Or is posting here his job? Typical liberal. Sit online all day pretending to work.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

Nice one Lisa. You seem as intelligent enough to think you won the Spanish Lottery.

____________________

Dom:

Matt,

Re: your 3:48 post. I am not arguing that it is in any way against the rules for Clinton to overturn the elected delegates with super delegates. If she is able to do that then she will and should be the nominee. My point is that if that should happen there will be a huge amount of disillusionment among Obama supporters and those new voters who have swollen the ranks of the party will likely turn away in November.

Also, you refer to "the rules both candiates agreed to and understood". I agree with this but what then is the basis for arguing that the rules should be changed with regard to Florida and Michigan?

____________________

Alex:

Andrew I'm not talking about Obama, I'm talking about your comments. I'll vote for Obama if he is nominated, I'm a true democrat, I live in NJ, I'm 30 years old, and I like both candidates. But I have noticed from reading posts and blogs that Obama supporters are just brutal when it comes Hillary. I see no major differences between the two and may the best candidate win, but insulting people for their opinions is a sure loser in my book.

____________________

Matt:

Alex - Well said. That's been by biggest disappointment during this whole process: Obama supporters who savage Hillary.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

That's a good point Alex. There are alot of people who are very happy with accepting either candidate. I probably used to be one of those people when Edwards was back in the race a couple of months ago. I'd say at least for me (if there can be anything said about the trend of one person) that I've gotten more peeved with Hillary's kitchen sink tactics like when she was sarcastic or saying "shame on you" or Bill Clinton's "give me a break, this is the biggest fairy tale" speech. Now I don't mind when she is critical of his Rezko dealings or not showing up to vote. That stuff is good and needs to be transparent.

I'd think that there is a small grouping of people who just seem anti-Hillary and could care less about Barak Obama. It's a small moderate and independent group that have been turned off by her by whatever the horrible lies of Fox News has spit out about her or simply her own record. I think Obamaites represent this grouping. They either just really love Obama or just really despise Hillary. Hillary supporters I think mainly just really like her as the media has only been on Obama for less than a year really.

And as far as Obama supporters not liking Hillary I do think the "American Idol" thing that's being thrown around is starting to take effect of some newer voters. Politics to them can be taken like a football team where you can act like a fan or soccer hooligan to champion your candidate. Its a sad truth to politics. Obama seems to be picking up more of these types of supporters that haven't voted before.

Although if Mrs. Lisa is any indication you get those immature freaks of nature in any side of the spectrum and age group. :)

____________________

Dom:

I agree with Alex and Matt, democrats and their supporters should not be attacking each other. Neither should they suggest the Republican opponent is superior to their democratic colleague

____________________

jr1886:

Nonsense, nonsense!! I hope IA don't publish a new poll before Mississippi so they can be ridiculed.

The deep south votes along racial line this primary cycle. In Mississippi, it will be no different. Here's one important fact to mull over: The AA population vote as a monolithic group in MS and they should be expected to make up 60% of the primary electorate because favorite son Obama is running.

Obama is poised to get 92% of the AA votes and will net 30% of White voters.


So crunching these numbers in using the amazing pollster.com spreadsheet, here are the predicted final result for MS:

AA making up 60%: Obama 92%-08%
White 36% : Clinton 70%-30%
Latino 04% :Clinton 67%-33% getting her usual share.

Result:

Barack Obama 67.3%

Hillary Clinton 32.7%

After rounding:

Obama 67%[corrected for above erroneous 68%]

Hillary 33%

Insider Advantage can copy these numbers for their pre-redemption poll!!

____________________

Alex:

The bottom line is, as a Democrat I'm very nerveous about this election. Not because of who leads in Democratic race, but because Republicans are once playing better politics. They nominated the most likable guy they could find among them, pretended like he wasn't conservative enough, and then quckly united behind him. So now he is raising money for the general election, RNC is already way ahead of the DNC in fundraising for Senate and Congressional candidates, while the democrats will spend the next 4 months throwing mud at each other. What will be the end result? Most likely it will not be as good as Democrats hope.

____________________

I think the simplest way to think about November is this:

Based on the dynamics of this election, which are more favorable to Democrats than in 2004, it is reasonable to expect that whomever the nominee is will win the Kerry states, except perhaps NH (4 EVs).

I don't mean to be insulting to Kerry people, but if he could win it, any Dem can win it this time around given the improved environment. Remember Kerry didn't carry New Mexico and Iowa, which Gore did. And neither won Ohio.

Kerry won 252 EVs, 18 short of 270. Back out New Hampshire, which I think was kind of flukey, and the deficit is 22 EVs.

Therefore, the nominee will need to flip

(1) Florida - 27 EVs, OR

(2) Ohio + NM for 20 + 5 EVs, OR

(3) Neither Ohio nor Florida, but a combo like CO (9) + VA (13) for 22 EVs, OR

(4) some constellation of CO (9), VA (13), NM (5), AR (6), NV (5), NH (4), IA (7) or some other state that I missed.

But certainly the simplest scenario is to win the Kerry states except NH, but pick up Florida, or win the Kerry states except NH, but pickup Ohio plus either NM or AR.

(Therefore, Andrew S. in California, in the sentence "Hillary wins as well but only picks up a big state like Florida" the word "only" doesn't belong. Winning the basic blues plus Florida would work just fine).

Now, maybe I'm off by two or three EVs, but really the point is simply this: there are realistic scenarios for both nominees to succeed in the general.

(And please, spare us the useless anecdotes like "everyone I know hates Hillary." "Everyone you know" probably loved Bradley and hated Gore, but Gore still pulled basically the same scenario as Kerry).

Related to the issue of Obama flipping Virginia or another southern red state, the question I have is this - I assume that overall voter turnout will be higher for the general than the combined turnout of both primaries. However, since Af-Am voters are overwhelmingly Democratic, and given the enthusiasm, I wonder if that segment performed near full capacity in the Dem primary.

I know that Obama the nominee would bring even more enthusiasm, but is it feasible to drive up the Af Am turnout by the same percentage as the non-Af Am vote will increase (and in particular enough to compensate for the unaffiliated / swing belligerant white male vote that the Dems keep losing)? Can the Af-Am vote get high enough to change the playing field?

And before someone refers to the SurveyUSA 50 state chart, that's a really fun toy but past performance is a much better predictor than head-to-head snapshots taken 8 months out. IMHO. If the proportion of Af American voters is similar to that in a previous elections, there's no reason to think the end result will be any different.

So that's my question. I could probably look up all the numbers and come up with a guess, but as I've stated before, I'm lazy and not good at math.

But it would be really good if someone could figure out whether this scenario is valid and if it is, figure out the answer. Yep, that would be good.

Really good.

Hint, hint.

____________________

Dom:

I think it is fair to say that thinking about this election in terms of recent elections is somewhat flawed based on both who the Democrat will be but also the Republican. Obama's ability to pull independents and Republicans combined with a relatively unenthusiastic Republican base for McCain could bring all sorts of states into play.

____________________

John Grillo:

It's kinda strange to hear comments about Hillary from the Democrats, what we Republicans have known for years about the Clintons. The last thing on their mind is the Democratic Party or the train wreck they leave behind...talk about Drama Queens...why in the world would anyone want to put up with this Tabloid crap for 4 years? The only way she can win (surpass Obama)is to strong-arm super delegates.

As retired military, she had the nerve to say she brings "along with John McCain, a lifetime of experience as Commander in Chief."

____________________

illinoisindie:

I have been singing the same song on this posting board. Hillary being the "experience" candidate and the national security expert pales in comparison to John McCain who is she kidding. This republican for once will vote Democratic if Obama is on the ticket, without him, she loses us moderate republicans that vote for Obama. Hence why her rhetoric has changed to a Joint Ticket... even her advisors know that. With the right VP pick, Edwards maybe, Obama will carry the "working class" democrats in OHIO and PA in the general election. Rational people can see that right???

____________________

Tyler:

MSNBC & FOX proved that many of Obama, including a State Senator representing Obama on national TV, don't even know of any of his legislative accomplishment that would qualify him as president.

It is a national disgrace that foreigners have learned the truth before Americans do about their candidate's true intention. Despite Obama's campaign rhetoric on Iraq withrawal and NAFTA renegotiation, his key policy advisors on those issues have already told foreigners, Canadian and European, that he really doesn't know if he want to withraw or not, and NAFTA will stay as it is. The sad part is that many of Obama supporters wouldn't even know the diffence because they're so "inspired". ****ing joke...!

____________________

nope:

It is a national disgrace that foreigners have learned the truth before Americans do about their candidate's true intention.

"I can categorically say that no one has contacted our embassy or our ambassador," said Canadian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andre Lemay. "None of our officials at the embassy discussed anything with the runners up in the presidential campaign. We realize that one of the Canadian networks mentioned yesterday that such a call had been made. The report is untrue."

When asked whether Ambassador Michael Wilson, the Canadian emissary to the U.S., had received a call from anyone in the Obama campaign, Lemay said he had not.

Now go away and stop sprouting unmitigated, proven false crap.

____________________

The Ghost of HHH:

I've seen that SurveyUSA map, it's competely useless same as general election polls that swing by 15-20 points every other day. Look at the actual results from 1996, 2000, 2004 and you will see a pattern. I like both Clinton and Obama, but I like the idea of having a Democrat president even better, so I'm being realistic.

While you're being realistic, chew on this.

Obama has no reason, and should not, accept the VP spot to a candidate he gathered more of the popular vote than, gathered more pledged delegates than, and has a broader based appeal than. When he declines in the event this screwjob occurs, the core of his appeal will stay home or switch affiliation come GE time.

This will, frankly, be problematic for several reasons. First, this screwjob will leave the AA base disenfranchised. Second, the bulk of the youth vote will evaporate. Third, independent centrist and right leaning males who like Obama and are willing to give the party a shot will also leave or defect to McCain. Fourth, as Hillary's negatives outpoll her positives, the same people who kinda sorta like Obama (fundamentalist evangelicals) will turn out in droves to vote against Hillary.

One need look no further than Ohio to see how this is destined to play out. The AA community in Cuyahoga and Lucas counties takes their ball and goes home. The heavily religious community in SW Ohio turns out in droves to vote against Hillary in 2008, just as they voted against Kerry in 2004. Kiss 20 electoral votes goodbye.

Want to try this in Michigan? OK. The AA community in the city of Detroit sits it out. While she does well in what's left of the Union households in SE Michigan, she's likely to lose a fair amount of the latte set, who will sit it out also. McCain wins a sizable amount of Candace Miller's district in Macomb and Oakland counties, along with the rest of the state.

We can keep going, if you'd like. You can't win Maryland without a sizable percentage of the AA community in Baltimore County.

Regardless of what SUSA says, she will be lucky, as a candidate at the top of the ticket, to paint the coasts blue (East Coast from the District north), take Arkansas, and most of the DFL.

If this party goes the Humphrey route with Hillary it will pay for it with a loss in the GE, along with seats elsewhere. Do you think Al Franken can beat Norm Coleman in Minnesota with a candidate devoid of coat tails at the top of the ticket? Or Foster can beat Oberweis without an Obama up top in the fall? Seriously?

Do you think putting Hillary, with a cadre of advisers who will pull the plug on the 50 state strategy four seconds after they're handed the keys to the DNC is that good of an idea? Is setting the party back another 12 years Congressionally speaking really worth watching Hillary lose a general election?

As for Mississippi, I'll second Marc's assertion. The AA turnout will be very high and swing closer to 85% toward Obama.

____________________

Arjun:

When the Lord intervenes, no one knows the real reson for defeat or vistory. That is what is baffling the Obama camp and has stunned the Obama supporters who believe that their cult leader is invincible.

Polls are generally wrong in these situations. Obama supporters look out for more stunning news in the days to come. All the polls will show the race tightening up where Obama currently leads and the lead will expand where Clinton leads.

I have a strong feeling that Clinton wil score a tremendous victory..maybe 80 - 20 in Pennsylvania and lock the nomination with the most popular votes. She wil not need FL and Michigan.

Brace youselves for this development and accept that Hillary will be the next President and vote for her .

____________________

shockdoctrine:

I totally agree that the only way Hillary Clinton can win the nomination is by a combination of 2 things: 1) continue throwing a kitchen sink of gutter politics up against the wall and hoping as much sticks as possible..basically trying to say that the two best qualified canditates to be "commander in chief" (As if the only job of president was to make war), are her and McCain..yes she has said that she considers herself to be the best qualified and mccain after her, and obama comes in third (amazing).This tactic alone is highly divisive and turns off people, and 2) She hopes to be close enough in delegates to make the bogus claim that even though she might 100 or so pledged delegates behind,that she deserves the nomination because she has a) momentum (lol), and that she has won the big states (lol). In other words changing the rules away from the democracy aligned policy that the person with the most votes wins. It is clear that the clintons place their own quest for power over the entire democratic party's fate and the goal of winning the presidency for democrats. Slash and burn politics for sure. We can only hope 2 things a) that in the coming primaries that american people give the clintons their comeuppance for their dastardlyness and that the superdelegates in their wisdom will understand that the worst thing they can do to insure a republican victory is to piss off all those millions of people who voted for in the primaries only to have their will overridden by the elite of the party. It would be a big stink, and nothing good will come of it. I know personally if such an injustice happened, I would abstain from voting as a protest. This is coming from someone who is amongst one of the biggest despisers of president Bush and feel that he and his rubber stamp GOP congress have basically messed up our country for the next 20 years.

____________________

Rasmus:

@Arjun: That was a REALLY good joke.
Clinton winning Pennsylvania 80-20 because the Lord intervenes?
You sure did not mean

"Huckabee will win the nomination because he will win all remaining primaries 500% to 5% for McCain with the Lord intervening"?

Go back to church and stay there- better for you- internet is a devilish thing...

____________________

Rasmus:

"All the polls will show the race tightening up where Obama currently leads and the lead will expand where Clinton leads."

Well, yes, together with "Polls are generally wrong in these situations." you mean that Obama�s lead is expanding while the polls show a tightening race?

____________________

Uri:

@The Ghost of HHH

So what you are essentially saying is that if AA do not get a nominee of their race (and this is a racial vote, reverse racism, whatever you want to call it in PC terms), they are going to say "screw the dems, we'll punish them by going with McCain or not going at all".

The rules of the game were set long before (1982?), everyone knew the rules coming in. I think Obama will win easily, but if he does not, and this is the response, maybe we do deserve a Republican.

What about all the HRC voters? Is it as legitimate for poor lower-middle class white women to decide that since "fluff won" thanks to those making 100k+ a year or whatever, that they're going with McCain?

____________________

Jonathan:

Clinton will be the nominee whether if its after the superdelegates flock to her after she wins Pennslyvania or after the Florida and Michigan re-vote, or seated delegates. We are all bickering, but the truth is at the end of the day Clinton and Obama will be tosing wine glasses together.

____________________

The Ghost of HHH:

So what you are essentially saying is that if AA do not get a nominee of their race (and this is a racial vote, reverse racism, whatever you want to call it in PC terms), they are going to say "screw the dems, we'll punish them by going with McCain or not going at all".

The rules of the game were set long before (1982?), everyone knew the rules coming in. I think Obama will win easily, but if he does not, and this is the response, maybe we do deserve a Republican.

What about all the HRC voters? Is it as legitimate for poor lower-middle class white women to decide that since "fluff won" thanks to those making 100k+ a year or whatever, that they're going with McCain?

Yes. There is so much acrimony being created at this point, that either subset of supports of the two candidates are, to some extent, going to sit it out or switch teams if the other candidate loses and passes on the ticket. And the longer this goes on, the worse it will be.

And, just as AA supporters of BO have every right to feel disenfranchised, so do the female supporters of HRC have every right to feel disenfranchised, regardless of how irrational you and I may think it is.

But the problem is, if you take Clinton, you lose AAs, anti-war liberals, and the independent males who like BO but will not vote for HRC under any circumstances. You also lose his support among the formerly apolitical Gen Yers for whom, again, Clinton has no appeal.

All parties are coalitions. The Reps are no different. Think about Fundamentalist Evangelicals who dislike McCain, but HATE Clinton. They would rather hold their nose and vote against Clinton, than vote for McCain. Irrational? Maybe but it is what it is, so we need to acknowledge that reality.

As far as who will sit out if Clinton misses, I think you're half right. I don't think the income dividing line will ultimately be the determiner, provided the campaign does a better job of campaigning in Appalachia. I think the defection schism that will develop involves Obama losing some portion of the over 40 or over 50 female vote - those most susceptible to the CiC/experience line of thought. He'll also not likely do quite as well with Hispanics as HRC would, but Hispanics, as a group have some enmity toward the GOP having been scapegoated on immigration.

All told, Obama is a better choice for the long term health of the party - he can bring in new voters in addition to being able to hold on to more of the base, whereas HRC can only erode the base because of the tactics of what she would have to do to earn the nomination and her lack of appeal to crossover independents.

And this is before we get into who represents the 50+1 strategy, proven over Congressional races from 1994-2002 to be bad for the party, to who represents the 50 state strategy.

The rules of the game, ironically where setup to ensure that the conflict of 1968 did not repeat itself (though the far left of the party sure tried hard in 1980) though they've left the party in such a position that it just may if the Superdelegates go against either the pledged delegates, popular vote or, most likely, both.

____________________

delegatefromTexas:

The bias from most of you is pretty obvious. Rather your buying into Obama's "dog and pony show" or Hillary's "high school principal lectures", this is only going to get more polarizing. I've actually been to the caucus's and will have to attend yet another. And I'm seeing everthing BUT bringing people together as every one keeps promising. What I'm reading here is what I am seeing there. The fluff vs stuff is going to continue. And thats why we have this process. Eventually either charisma or experience will prevail. Unfortunately we probably won't have both. And even more sad it's no longer a matter of who has the best resume anymore. I hear alot of "were going to make history". Out of all the voters I have seen and been with I noticed this, In the past 20 years that I've been apart of these proceeding's I have never seen so many "African Americans" turn out. And don't get me wrong, That in itself is truely fantastic. If it was just because they wanted to get involved in American politics. But where the #&^* were you guys 8 years ago, or even 4 years ago. Let's face it the majority of the voters now are voting for race and even gender. Voting for a man just because he's black makes about as much sense as voting for a woman just because she's a woman. and know this, if you put the wrong person in office for the wrong reason's, you'll get some history all right. So to all of you let the process play out and learn to play nice with each other. the world IS a big sand box, and most of us ARE acting like a bunch of Big A-- kids. Oh and in closing, it does take a village to get done what we need to get done!!!!!!

____________________

The Ghost of HHH:

Eventually either charisma or experience will prevail.

The classic false dilemma. This assumes that Obama is all charisma (despite eight years of legislative experience) while HRC is all experience with, well, eight years of legislative experience. (Unless you want to count the health care debacle, and USO tours with Sheryl Crow disguised as foreign policy experience).

But where the #&^* were you guys 8 years ago, or even 4 years ago.

Well, let's see, the AA community voted in excess of 64% for John Kerry, and 58% for Al Gore. So I think they were there. I don't think popular vote was the problem in 2000.

A better question to ask might be where those under $50k people who voted for Hillary were voting for in 2000 and 2004, what the independent males who like B. Obama voted for in 2000 and 2004, where the security moms who like Hillary because she's a woman were in 2004, where the apolitical Gen Yers were in 2004, where the anti-war liberals who support Obama were in 2004, where the whites who would never vote for a black candidate in Ohio were etc. etc.

And after all that, I don't think that "where were you" question has any relevance with people passionate enough to be debating this issue right now. We were all here.

if you put the wrong person in office for the wrong reason's, you'll get some history all right.

Um, that lesson was made apparent eight years ago, but thanks for telling us something we already know.

So to all of you let the process play out and learn to play nice with each other.

Thanks mom. Can we have some milk and cookies once HRC disenfranchises our votes and her compatriots set the party back another three election cycles so she can lose a federal election? Can the negroes have their comfy seat back in the back of the bus? Should us anti-war progressives shut up and go back to being the party's quadrennial ATM machine so you can go chasing after Reagan Democrats for four more years with an unelectable pseudo moderate who 47% of Americans wake up in the morning hating?

Oh and in closing, it does take a village to get done what we need to get done!!!!!!

The bias from most of you is pretty obvious.

Indeed.


____________________

delegatefromtexas:

Let's get some info straight. There has never been 64% or even 54% of any race gender or party that turned out to vote for anything in this country. The only thing you are passionate about is wanting people to give you and your ideas merit. I've been voting long before you could spell vote. I'm not sure ghosts are aloud to vote. But delegates are however. And that's what I'll be doing again in Denver. I'll send you a post card. Now run along son, it's a school night and it's obvious you havent been doing your homework. The only one disinfranchised here is you. And the whole mommy and cookie thing. Well, I might have known your momma, and with all the anger and spite in your voice you could be.... however we should leave that alone for now. For all of you who actually read the editorials for the opinoins of others. Here's mine. We have a delegate threshold of 2025 for a reason. And yes, if it were a winner take all delegate race, than Sen. Clinton would be prevailing over Sen. Obama. However, the sadness derives from the fact that it's no longer about who has the best resume anymore. It's about charisma and color versus gender and perception. Let me share a question and/or point with you for a moment. In all of the years that I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED with this process, I have never once seen the turn out from the black community that I have seen in this particular election. And that in of itself is fanatastic! However to vote for a man just because he's black makes about as much sense as voting for a woman just because she's a woman. And you cant tell me its about bringing people together. I was in the last caucus room with all of the other delegates. Unity was anywhere but there. And this whole dog and pony show, for example" you got to believe in change and believe in this campaign, and get on the gravy train" and ya ta ya ta ya ta is a great pitch but nothing more. And don't get me wrong, Sen. Clinton's highschool principal lectures are getting old too. Trying to remind me of this and remind me of that. But it is also true that if you look at just the resumes (that's what I do when I have to hire an additional employee) we all truely know who is better prepared for the job. Please remember the old saying, "life is not a bowl of cherries, and who ever tells that is or can be, is trying to sell you something." The last thing we need is for someone to remind us of whats wrong with our leaders in Washington. If you have to be reminded of that than I would prefer you do some homework be fore you vote. Which is not a bad idea for some of you here as well. It's very easy to get folks to agree with you when all you say is what they already know. It's called commissiration. The hard thing is to convince everyone that it does "take a village" to get it done. And here's the funny, the Obama camp doesnt want us to remember that she wrote that book 14 years ago. Long before Sen. Obama was even apart of any of this. I'm not saying Sen. Obama doesn't mean well and isn't sincere in his intentions. And I'm not saying that Sen. Clinton is the be all to end all. I'm saying regardless of all this rhetoric, just learn to play nice and let all of this play out. Just because we live in a big giant sand box, doesn't mean we have to act like a bunch of big a-- kids. So everyone just dig yourself and try to be an American and instead of just a Democrat or Republican. United we will stand and divided we will fall. And if you think that the boys in the old province of Persia (a.k.a Iraq and Iran) aren't licking their chops right now, think again. They are in fact celebrating Barack's chances and hoping that we will all pull out immediately. Because they will percieve that as a surrender and defeat on our part. And if that happens, and they really start to get brave, you can bet we'll all be apart of history. Just not the history were so quick to boast for. Good night ghost, don't forget if you haven't set your clock an hour ahead you should now. We wouldn't want for you to be late for the bus. And you can sit where ever you choose to. Oh and that comment about the bus thing. Rosa Parks was twice the man you will ever be son. For a minute there you thought I was white didn't you? You might not even know whether or not I have fought for this country and where. You can probably guess that it wasn't at your school ground or campus pub. Kids, they forget that we were once their age too.

____________________

PDXgirl:

So...delegatefromtexas...since you seem so sure you have all the answers, why don't you enlighten us about HRC's so called experience. I'd love to know how you come up with a vast difference between the two. After that, please let us know how much foreign policy experience Bill Clinton had when he ran in '92. Personally, I think buying into that experience idea is about as crazy as buying into a good speech without the meat to back it up. I happen to believe it's about the issues. It also doesn't hurt to have someone who is a skilled negotiator. I can't imagine HRC trying to negotiate with tough world leaders...will she show them her softer side for pity or play the wounded victim to argue America's interests? If that doesn't work, maybe she can put on the boxing gloves and really piss them off. I think Obama's got all the substance and experience that he needs. Oh and I'm the other side of the coin -- the woman voting for Obama.

____________________

delegatefromtexas:

PDXgirl, did you fall and bump your head, or did Oprah give you a refridgerator? Were you even aloud to vote in '92'? A good speach without the meat to back it up? That's exactly what is the point here. Foreign Policy? Skilled negotiator? Tony Rezko, there's your skilled negotiator. That guy can negotiate with the best of them. Let me ask you, have you ever lived in Chicago, or even spent more than a week there? If so, then you already know what politicians are capable of. Boxing gloves, pissing people off. Well, I would hope that she would piss off some people, she can start with the oil companies, the insurance companies, the drug companies, and the oil producing countries, and the foriegn interest lobby, (didn't know they existed did ya) just to name a few. I would hope she would, because they have been pissing me off for quite sometime. Now that I think about it, it would be nice to have some one stand up to these conglomerates. And lets face it, she's twice the man Obama is. Now Michelle Obama, she's pretty tough too, in fact she scares me sometimes. Really. but you child, you scare me too. When I was in my twenties I once heard "youth is waisted on the young". But I tell you what, I'm probably wrong. Did you know that I have been to three different Obama rallies. Thats right three. And word for word did I hear the same. His speech (you know the one that has the meat) was exactly the same in three different rallies and in two different states. Really word for word. He wasn't talking to us, We're not sure who he was talking too. (when I mean us I mean us as in this part of this districts delegation) It started off How we have to "stop the special interests", (no sh-t)"we have to believe in change", (no kidding) "we have to believe in this campaign" (wow it even rhymes),and "we need to send a message", but after all of this rehtoric there was NO MESSAGE! So I attended another rally, still nothing but hoop la and ra ra. The third one I went too, the crowd was so fired up, that when he blew his nose they were cheering. He had them so riled up and happy to BUY, they weren't even listening to what was being said anymore or what was being sold. Which was the same old sh-t different day. So when you hear some one say he gives nothing but speeches, guess what child, I was there to tell you thats true. Now unless your knowledge of this election goes beyond what you see on the T.V. or read on the internet, then lets debate for real. But if not, get off the band wagon and do some real research. And buy the way, you mentioned world leaders. How many can you name. I bet it's about as many as Obama can. Sen. Clinton on the other hand has already met, dined with, and spoken to many of them in several different settings. She nows there histories, preferences, families (like children's names) and a host of other details. No Sh-t she already does. Get a clue child. I will say this, it's great to see all of you young folk involved in all of this. When I was eighteen, voting wasn't really the thing to do. I am so happy to see that change. Really. I want to see everybody get out and vote. Just do the research first, not the internet chat room research, or the MSNBC research, these folks are controlling what research you are and aren't getting. You can start with the ACTUAL CONGRESSIONAL RECORD AND REPORT. Its made public. Did you know that child? Do you know where to find it. All you have to do is ask me and I'll tell ya.

____________________

delegatefromtexas:

Listen everyone. Hers an example. I've been preaching about homeowrk and reaserch. As a delegate, I have been going over a ton of voting records and attendence records from the floor of the Senate. My vote represents thousand, so its the least I should do. Lets look at one that was very popular. A bill to amend title XXI of the social security act to extend and improve the children health insurance program, or otherwise known as H.R. 3963 vote 00401. this vote took place on oct 31st 2007. How do you think Sen. Clinton voted you guessed it YEA. How do you think Sen. Obama voted, well he didn't vote. He wasn't in attendence. He was to busy doing a spot on SNL. this bill was vetoed by Pres. Bush. The fact of the matter is Sen. Obama didn't feel that vote was important enough to show up for. If Congress had enough votes to override that veto, the motion and bill would have been successful. But it didn't. The record DOES speek for itself.
Please do your reaserch.


____________________

delegatefromtexas:

Sorry there were a couple of misspellings in that last editorial. Its late and i feel I should share some info with you. The bottom line is this, I've done a butload of research on both candidates and their actual records. Feel free to ask me the voting record on any of these two candidates and issues voted on. I dare you, really. I even know McCains voting record as well. My vote represents thousands literally thousands next August. I've got to get it right. Listening to you guys spout rehtorical crap is very dishearting. Do your research people!

____________________

PDXgirl:

Hi there, delegatefromtexas. You really do wear your age on your sleeve and you're pretty testy about all this too. Yes I was able to vote in '92 and WAY before that too. I really don't have a problem with the Rezko situation. What I do have a problem with is Peter Paul -- I'm sure you know about him and the trial HRC just testified in (that the news did not cover at all), since you claim to know everything -- it far outweighs any associations and a land deal with a sleazebag. Then let's add White Water -- 2 of the Clinton's partners were convicted of 24 counts of fraud, the fact that 5 of her fund raiser has been convicted or plead no contest to crime, then there's her NAFTA support (there is plenty of footage to prove it) and then denial, her voting to authorize the war and then not being able to admit she made a mistake (sounds a little like Bush, doesn't it?) and then of course, there is the fact that HRC also met with the Canadians right after that debate. I was a victim of Katrina and waited for her to stand up to Bush and his botched response (as well as many other things that were going on at the time) -- she did nothing -- shook hands hands with Trent Lott (which she is now touting) one of the biggest racists out there and the guy Bush said he looked forward to sitting with on his porch again in Mississippi once his multi-million dollar home was rebuilt -- let's not worry about how the 9th Ward still looks the same NOW after the hurricane. And I'm not saying you shouldn't be a hard line negotiator, only that you catch more flies with honey than when vinegar...and she is pretty acidic. And of course I am aware of the drug companies and the oil companies etc. and the power they have (so you don't need to patronize me and insult my intelligence) and I also know she talks a good game, but she won't be able to make a real difference. She tried to get her health care plan through already and failed miserably because she did it behind closed doors and alienated potential allies. Oh and I already have looked into Obama and Clinton's Senate records. I commend HRC for her work, but I don't think I could come up with 35 years worth of experience, try 8. And just in case, you think this is all about young people (I am not that young by the way) then you might want to know that my 90 year old grandmother who has always been Republican, a window of a WWII Lt. Colonel, voted for Obama. Oh and I am still waiting for an answer to Bill's foreign policy experience when he was running and HRC "experience" as well -- I don't count first lady. I don't have experience doing my husband's job, just because I'm married to him. And HRC has stated that her biggest crisis she had to face was Monica. But, you seem like you are more interested in staying in the clouds than seeing this for what it really is, so unless you want to give me concrete facts -- I'd rather not get patronized and treated like a child when I am a grown woman with a college education. I don't fault you for being a black man and voting for HRC -- I appreciate that you are voting on the issues -- and I am doing the same. So please, give me the facts and spare me the insults.

____________________

PDXgirl:

delegatefromtexas...I did dare you to give me the records, but you didn't offer them up. I've already done my research -- I don't see a Grand Canyon of difference between their voting records. Feel free to "enlighten" me, just try to be a little nicer please. You don't know me. There is no need to attack me. I'm open to hearing why you love HRC...I just think you are overlooking a lot of facts...facts that McCain is betting on to assure his election if she is the nominee.

____________________

Narik:

What if.. Obama will end up with more pledged delegates (which will be the case any which
way) and Clinton will end up having popular support(possible if Florida will be re-done). Who will have moral high ground among super delegates???

____________________

Tomagam:

Hilary - NO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE FOR PRESIDENT

Please see following
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml
It shows that Hilary clinton, despite being
in senate for about 5 years, HAS NO FOREIGN
POLICIES EXPERIENCE.
I have posted this note to foxnews.com,
and it has appeared. Is there any conspiracy.
I feel that OBAMA organization should CLINTON
ORGANIZATION FOREIGN POLICY and NATIONAL EXPIRENCE experience claims. CLEARLY HILARY HAS
NOT GOT ANY RELEVANT experience TO think she is
better than BARACK. Fellow americans, Stand back and think about it.
Hilary has no experience apart from emotionally supporting her husband bill clinton
during his presidency. Obama compain team should examine the ludicrous claim of 35 years experience !
Please see following
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

Dont worry Narik, When Hillary wins PENN, the revotes in MICH & FLORIDA plus the Supers that are about to jump on board - SHE WILL BE IN THE CLEAR LEAD.

____________________

delegatefromtexas:

PDX, I am sorry about being so condacending. I don't know you like that, and thats not right. However that revelation about H.R.3963 is rather troubling. and hyou cant say it doesn;t bother you. can you? For someone who claims to be a poor black child from the ghetto, he sure left alot of kids hanging on that one. And you and I both know how the public would react to this knowledge. I am sorry about your plight regarding Katrina. Do you know who and how they voted in regards on appropriations on the matter. I highly doubt any senator caused such a disaster, or even held the FEMA trucks up or diverted aid in any actual way. Blame the entire system not just one or two individuals. We here in Texas did all that we could and would again. However being a legislator is all about the votes the ones like H.R. 3963. This is a prime example of all talk and little to no action. Before this campaign, most of Americans had never heard of Sen. Obama. But we all knew how much effort the former first lady and now Sen. of New York has been making for close to 2 decades. Take care PDX, I've got to get back now. God bless.

____________________

PDXgirl:

delegatefromtexas...I did dare you to give me the records, but you didn't offer them up. I've already done my research -- I don't see a Grand Canyon of difference between their voting records. Feel free to "enlighten" me, just try to be a little nicer please. You don't know me. There is no need to attack me. I'm open to hearing why you love HRC...I just think you are overlooking a lot of facts...facts that McCain is betting on to assure his election if she is the nominee.

____________________

Janna:

Hi everyone. When talking about Hillary supporters do not forget that she won Florida and Ohio without AA. And most AA do not dislike her at all they just see the opportunity to elect their candidate. Understandable. In contrast to Spanish, they will not vote for Obama if he is a nominee specially in Florida ( I mean Cuban- they are very angry at Obama, watch Spanish TV). Obama will definitely loose Florida. In case of Ohio, if Obama-McCain ticket will be in November, certainly McCain will win, I am from Ohio and I know more what people think. A lot of white Democrats will go to McCain if Obama is a nominee. At last reading people opinion on the website, I see more Hillary's supporters are willing to vote for McCain if Obama is a nominee. Thus do your math.

____________________

Janna:

Hi everyone. When talking about Hillary supporters do not forget that she won Florida and Ohio without AA. And most AA do not dislike her at all they just see the opportunity to elect their candidate. Understandable. In contrast to Spanish, they will not vote for Obama if he is a nominee specially in Florida ( I mean Cuban- they are very angry at Obama, watch Spanish TV). Obama will definitely loose Florida. In case of Ohio, if Obama-McCain ticket will be in November, certainly McCain will win, I am from Ohio and I know more what people think. A lot of white Democrats will go to McCain if Obama is a nominee. At last reading people opinion on the website, I see more Hillary's supporters are willing to vote for McCain if Obama is a nominee. Thus do your math.

____________________

Janna:

Hi everyone. When talking about Hillary supporters do not forget that she won Florida and Ohio without AA. And most AA do not dislike her at all they just see the opportunity to elect their candidate. Understandable. In contrast to Spanish, they will not vote for Obama if he is a nominee specially in Florida ( I mean Cuban- they are very angry at Obama, watch Spanish TV). Obama will definitely loose Florida. In case of Ohio, if Obama-McCain ticket will be in November, certainly McCain will win, I am from Ohio and I know more what people think. A lot of white Democrats will go to McCain if Obama is a nominee. At last reading people opinion on the website, I see more Hillary's supporters are willing to vote for McCain if Obama is a nominee. Thus do your math.

____________________

michael:

Bill Clinton (and Jimmy Carter) ARE great examples of the experience argument in action - or rather, the first two years of their administrations are. Clinton lost control of congress for the first time since the 1950's, Hilarycare was a flop, and they really dropped the ball on Somalia. Clinton failed to deliver in his critical first two years.

Jimmy Carter, similarly, had a lousy first two years, followed by a lousy second two years and, unlike Clinton, didn't get a honeymoon from a rebounding economy.

This is ironic, but Bill Clinton's failure early in his first term, and Carter's utter failure throughout came from lack of experience. They both blew their honeymoon period - Carter by doing nothing (Carter ran an extremely undisciplined white house dominated by his cronies from Georgia), and Clinton by pushing too hard on a doomed healthcare proposal and an unwise deployment of US troops (Bosnia was where the human rights and national interest lay, moreover, it was a place where air support could have done the job).

Hillary Clinton lived those failures - and in the process, was also part of an administration that turned things around from a very low point. In doing so, she gained connections in DC and loyalties from many, from whom she can call in favors. That is where experience counts - it isn't that you are right all the time, but more that you have made mistakes and learned from them.

Most great leaders had terrible failures in their past. Winston Churchill as first lord of the admiralty championed the disastrous Gallipoli attack. As chancellor of the exchequer he put Britain's exchange rate at its pre-WWI levels, pricing British exports out of the market and starting the Great Depression in 1924. FDR was a failed vice presidential candidate. Abraham Lincoln was an electoral failure for most of his life as well (while, like Obama his congressional CV is thin, he spent his time out of office building the Republican party which ended up replacing the whigs, and for that credit is surely due). George Washington was a terrible general.

Do Hillary's 35 years count? If you are talking about Whitewater, if Obama is accusing her of supporting NAFTA and if people are using the word Billary, then the answer is clear: yes. Is Clinton's experience one devoid of failure? No, but at least she has one.

____________________

PDXgirl:

delegatefromtexas...I did dare you to give me the records, but you didn't offer them up. I've already done my research -- I don't see a Grand Canyon of difference between their voting records. Feel free to "enlighten" me, just try to be a little nicer please. You don't know me. There is no need to attack me. I'm open to hearing why you love HRC...I just think you are overlooking a lot of facts...facts that McCain is betting on to assure his election if she is the nominee.

____________________

PDXgirl:

delegatefromtexas...I did dare you to give me the records, but you didn't offer them up. I've already done my research -- I don't see a Grand Canyon of difference between their voting records. Feel free to "enlighten" me, just try to be a little nicer please. You don't know me. There is no need to attack me. I'm open to hearing why you love HRC...I just think you are overlooking a lot of facts...facts that McCain is betting on to assure his election if she is the nominee.

____________________

PDXgirl:

delegatefromtexas...I did dare you to give me the records, but you didn't offer them up. I've already done my research -- I don't see a Grand Canyon of difference between their voting records. Feel free to "enlighten" me, just try to be a little nicer please. You don't know me. There is no need to attack me. I'm open to hearing why you love HRC...I just think you are overlooking a lot of facts...facts that McCain is betting on to assure his election if she is the nominee.

____________________

PDX:

delegatefromtexas...thanks for your apology. It is appreciated. Sorry for posting my message over and over, this site keeps jamming up. I am very interested in this vote you talk about and I will look into it further. I know there have been other votes during this campaign that Obama and McCain have showed up for and HRC has not. Personally, I don't think any of the candidates should miss a vote. Thank you for your wishes about Katrina. We actually went to Houston and everyone was really wonderful there. I am not blaming HRC in any way for the response to Katrina. I just wanted her to stand up against Bush, stand up for us and she was more concerned with playing the middle so she didn't do anything to hurt her presidency chances. Then now to align herself with Trent Lott? Scary. The woman who really has spoken out? Barbara Boxer. She acted in the way I was hoping HRC would.
Tomagam...thanks for the link to the article. Always nice to get an international perspective.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR