Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Perhaps fixed?

Yeah. I just didn't hear the whole story. I figured as much.

[Young Drachma]

Hillary at a rally in Rhode Island today

At least they're getting this out of the way early: Obama fights back on questions about his patriotism

[Vegas Vic]

Uh oh. He's baaaaaaaack!

[Young Drachma]

Meh, Nader is a shell of himself at this point. He's like the Titanic and proves that campaigning is more lucrative than working for real.

[Big Fo]

Liberals who live in swing states have already learned their lesson, I don't anticipate this having any impact.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Liberals who live in swing states have already learned their lesson, I don't anticipate this having any impact.

Agree.

[Young Drachma]

SNL does the Dem debates

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Liberals who live in swing states have already learned their lesson, I don't anticipate this having any impact.

What? Didn't they say that after 2000? And what happened in 2004? It was even worse. Lame electorates (read: democratic voters) tend to stay lame. If a democrat is going to win a swing state, it will be from independents and weakly republican voters changing sides.

In 2004, it was story after story about how energized the under-21 voters were, how they were going to set records for voter turnout and be a force in the election. Well, they set records all right. They stayed away from the polls in droves and there is nothing to suggest they won't do the same this year.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

In 2004, it was story after story about how energized the under-21 voters were, how they were going to set records for voter turnout and be a force in the election. Well, they set records all right. They stayed away from the polls in droves and there is nothing to suggest they won't do the same this year.

Actually, under-21 voters had a record turnout in 2004. In the end, it didn't make any difference.

[Big Fo]

I don't recall Nader doing near as well in 2004 as he did in 2000 and figure his share of the votes are more likely to decline than improve from 2004 levels.

As far as overall Democratic turnout goes I am less certain (everything is trending towards a bigger turnout in primaries but we'll have to wait and see in November...) though the fact that we aren't relying on the stale loaf of bread known as John Kerry to inspire the voters can't hurt.

[Big Fo]

Under 21's have to be what, like 2-3% of voters? That's not that important. It's more like the 18-29 group that matters.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

As an Obama fan, doesn't really worry me one bit that Nader is running as an independent, because of what happened in 2004.

Nader popular vote in 2000: 2.74 % (with the assistance of the Green Party)
Nader popular vote in 2004: 0.38% (as independent)

And the vote in 2000 only mattered because Florida was so close. I doubt we will see that perfect storm again.

[Young Drachma]

I heard a report today that 25% of the potential November electorate are under the age of 30. Voter turnout is higher this year than it's ever been during a primary season and that's with the Presidential race having started last year.

I think this is the millenials coming out party in the form of one of their own running for President.

[Young Drachma]

Geraldine Ferraro giving a glimpse into what might be a revolt by the party elites to tip the election to Hillary.

I may be a cynic, but I’m a fairly knowledgeable political cynic. If Mr. Obama wins the nomination, those members are undoubtedly concerned that they would be inviting a primary challenge in their next re-election campaign by failing to support his candidacy.

But if they are actually upset over the diminished clout of rank-and-file Democrats in the presidential nominating process, then I would love to see them agitating to force the party to seat the delegates elected by the voters in Florida and Michigan. In those two states, the votes of thousands of rank-and-file party members will not be counted because their states voted on dates earlier than those authorized by the national party.

Because both states went strongly for Mrs. Clinton, standing up for the voices of grassroots Democrats in Florida and Michigan would prove the integrity of the superdelegate-bashers. The people of those states surely don’t deserve to be disenfranchised simply because the leaders of their state parties brought them to the polls on a day that had not been endorsed by the leaders of our national party — a slight the voters might not easily forget in November.

As it happens, the superdelegates themselves can solve this problem. At this summer’s Democratic national convention in Denver, the superdelegates could assert their leadership on the credentials and rules committees. That is, after all, one of the reasons they were created in the first place in 1982

[yacovfb]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Geraldine Ferraro giving a glimpse into what might be a revolt by the party elites to tip the election to Hillary.

Eh, I don't see it. If Hillary wins by seating the Florida and Michigan voters, there's going to be some irreparable damage to the party and she won't win in November. Only way that Hillary can win and still hope for a shot in the general is by winning big in both Texas and Ohio...which, unless something big happens in the next few weeks, doesn't look like that will happen. Ideally for the party, Obama finishes this thing as quickly as possible and the delegates from Michigan and Florida are seated, but without any effect on the outcome.

[bhlloy]

I'm no lawyer, but surely Obama would have a great shot at challenging that in court, seeing as he withdrew his name from the ballot in both states in line with what the party instructed him (and Hilary) to do

I'm also a huge cynic, and I'm sure there are a lot of the Democrat elite that would much rather see Hilary win the nomination, but I'm not sure they are that stupid. It would be complete and utter political suicide. I don't see how that would be any less controversial that if the superdelegates just came out and sided with Hillary to begin with. At least then Obama wouldn't have any legal recourse.

[lungs]

Hillary's staff is circulating this picture. Desperate at all? Yup... he must be a Muslim.

[lungs]

I guess Hillary is one too!

[ISiddiqui]

According to drudge (where the story came from), the reason it was circulated was:

"Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

So, it seems its about media bias rather than "Obama is a Muslim!!!1!"

[CraigSca]

Hey, Louis Farrakhan just endorsed Obama - that should help clear up this whole Muslim issue!

[lungs]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

According to drudge (where the story came from), the reason it was circulated was:

[/font][/b]

So, it seems its about media bias rather than "Obama is a Muslim!!!1!"

This is true, but honestly, who cares that Obama was dressed like that? The media probably didn't make a big deal of it precisely because it's not a big deal.

Like I said, it's reaks of desperation.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, most inner campaigns make a big deal that they aren't being treated fairly by the media. Yes, I may have worked for Republican campaigns in Northern New Jersey, but every one of them were saying similar things internally (if we did what he's doing, the media would be all over us).

I don't really see it as desperation.

[lungs]

I guess I see it as desperate because the campaign is whining like little a little school girl about things not being fair and then digging up pictures that are almost two years old to prove it.

I doubt this even registers even a small shockwave either way because the only people who give a shit aren't voting for Obama anyway.

[ISiddiqui]

I think that the culture inside a campaign is far different than that outside of it. Those inside a campaign see slights and biases in every single direction, where those outside of it wonder what in the Hell those people are talking about. Republican campaigns have a little bit more it (due to concerns about the "liberal media"), but it isn't just a Republican thing.

Though sometimes you get some good info well before it is well known, like when I worked for the Bret Schundler for NJ Governor campaign. He was running against Jim McGreevey and there were BIG time rumors that McGreevey was gay and was cavorting around with men in cars and whatnot... and how if it was Schundler the media would have been on him like a ton of bricks in an instant. I kind of shrugged that off, but a few years later... well, you know.

[albionmoonlight]

I wonder if Clinton, knowing that she is going to lose, is doing her best to hurt Obama on the way out--figuing that if he does not win in 2008, she would like McCain to win so that she can run again in 2012.

[ISiddiqui]

While I do think that if McCain wins the Presidency, the loser of this nomination immediately becomes the Democratic favorite in 2012, I don't think Clinton has gone to that strategy (deep sixing Obama). I think she still believes she's got a shot to take this thing.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by lungs

Hillary's staff is circulating this picture. Desperate at all? Yup... he must be a Muslim.

That might be the political equivalent of pulling the goalie in the last minute.

[Galaril]

boy tomorrow nights debate really will be "There will be blood."

[Young Drachma]

Obama is up 51-39 in national democratic polls

Story

A flap erupted when some Internet sites on Monday posted a photo of Obama in Somalian garb, including a white turban. When the Obama campaign charged that Clinton aides had leaked the photo - taken during a 2006 trip to Africa - the Clinton campaign manager, Maggie Williams, tried to turn the matter back at the Obama team, even though her camp has not denied any role in distributing the photo.

"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed," Williams said in a statement. "Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely."

In what her aides billed as a major speech on foreign policy, Clinton renewed her charge that Obama lacks the seasoning to lead the country. "We have seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience or the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our nation," she said at George Washington University in Washington. "America has already taken that chance one time too many."

Clinton said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, changes in Cuba, Kosovo's declaration of independence and other events demonstrate "how essential it is we have sound strategy and sound leadership," Bloomberg News reported.

She's going down guns blazing, as we expected. I don't think it'll help. If they'd done this shit six months ago, maybe. But now? Too little, too late.

[-apoc-]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I'm no lawyer, but surely Obama would have a great shot at challenging that in court, seeing as he withdrew his name from the ballot in both states in line with what the party instructed him (and Hilary) to do

There is nothing for lawyers or courts to be involved in, the party can choose its nominee however it wants and by whatever rules it wants.

[cartman]

Obama is picking up steam in Texas. He seems to have locked down the mariachi vote!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by -apoc-

There is nothing for lawyers or courts to be involved in, the party can choose its nominee however it wants and by whatever rules it wants.

But they can't change the rules. That's where a lawsuit would come in. The candidates agreed to a set of rules and seating the FL and MI delegates would be contrary to the agreed upon rules.

[SackAttack]

Was this debate earlier in the evening than the last one? I remember watching the tail end of the last one on CNN while at the gym, but when I went tonight, all CNN was showing was some special on Iraq (at least, I'm assuming the Iraqi flag indicates that, as there's no sound and I was too far away to read the captioning).

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Was this debate earlier in the evening than the last one? I remember watching the tail end of the last one on CNN while at the gym, but when I went tonight, all CNN was showing was some special on Iraq (at least, I'm assuming the Iraqi flag indicates that, as there's no sound and I was too far away to read the captioning).

It was on MSNBC with Tim Russert and Brian Williams as the moderators, so I am guessing it was exclusive to that channel.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by -apoc-

There is nothing for lawyers or courts to be involved in, the party can choose its nominee however it wants and by whatever rules it wants.

Not when certain promises or representations are made, on which someone relies to their detriment. Never underestimate the reach of the law.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by -apoc-

There is nothing for lawyers or courts to be involved in, the party can choose its nominee however it wants and by whatever rules it wants.

Not when certain promises or representations are made, on which someone relies to their detriment. Never underestimate the reach of the law.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by -apoc-

There is nothing for lawyers or courts to be involved in, the party can choose its nominee however it wants and by whatever rules it wants.

Not when certain promises or representations are made, on which someone relies to their detriment. Never underestimate the reach of the law.

[Buccaneer]

From CNN and NY Times:

It seems like Hillary Clinton is not only running against Barack Obama these days, she’s also running against the news media.

Early on in last night’s debate, Clinton referenced a “Saturday Night Live” skit that showed reporters fawning over Obama and showering him with softball questions. She said, “Maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow.” Clinton also whined about getting asked the first question more often in the last several debates.

The Clinton campaign has been complaining recently – more so since she has fallen behind – that the news media is tougher on her than Obama. It’s a tactic as old as politics: things aren’t going well, blame the media.
In today’s column in The New York Times, Maureen Dowd questions Clinton’s line of attack against the media.

She writes: “Beating on the press is the lamest thing you can do. It is only because of the utter open-mindedness of the press that Hillary can lose 11 contests in a row and still be treated as a contender.”

She has a point. If Barack Obama had lost the last 11 races in a row since Super Tuesday, we wouldn’t even remember his name.

Clinton really said or believes that???

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

From CNN and NY Times:



Clinton really said or believes that???

Yup. She been getting the benefit of the press her whole career (CNN does stand for the Clinton News Network, right? I mean you can't be a democratic political commentator unless you worked for the Clintons), but now feels they aren't bowing to her enough.

[Galaril]

This chick is deader than disco as far as this election goes. I see her lossing though slimly in Texas, Oh, and Vermont next Tuesday.

[ISiddiqui]

Hillary Clinton has gotten the benefit of the press her whole career?! Which press are we exactly talking about?

[Buccaneer]

Imran, serious question. Where were you and what were you doing from 1992-1999?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Imran, serious question. Where were you and what were you doing from 1992-1999?

Are we talking about the same press that hammered her for the entire Clinton administration? I don't remember anyone saying anything nice about her. They liked Bill, no doubt, but didn't like her at all.

[Buccaneer]

Imran, I'm still interested in knowing where we you during those years, not questionning your perception.

Another perception was that she was the martyr, first as the cheated-upon wife of Gov. Clinton (and its aftermath during the campaign) and then later getting all of the sympathies during the Monica affair. She had huge, huge vocal allies among the feminist, gay and soccer moms contigencies.

[ISiddiqui]

I was in school during those years. All the way up to college. And it wasn't like my parents were big time Democrats who were feeding me those lines, they were (and still are) Republicans.

[Buccaneer]

You followed the media attention while in jr. high and high school, including the run-up to the 92 election?

[ISiddiqui]

Of course... though Hillary Clinton was better treated until 1993... I think people forget that a lot of the good press for Bill Clinton during the 90s didn't exactly flow to Hillary Clinton (though sometimes his bad press did... with the cheating scandels). Why else do you think the polls show Bill to be vastly more popular than Hillary?

[Malificent]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why else do you think the polls show Bill to be vastly more popular than Hillary?

Because Bill has charisma and Hillary has none and is starting to approach negative charisma levels?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why else do you think the polls show Bill to be vastly more popular than Hillary?

As a politician (regardless of ideology), Bill Clinton has a lot more in common with George W. Bush and Barack Obama than he does with Hillary, Al Gore and John Kerry. On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton, GWB and Obama genuinely connect with their audience, and people gravitate to them.

Hillary, Gore and Kerry do not have this quality, and when they try to imitate it, it comes across as "forced".

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Of course... though Hillary Clinton was better treated until 1993... I think people forget that a lot of the good press for Bill Clinton during the 90s didn't exactly flow to Hillary Clinton (though sometimes his bad press did... with the cheating scandels). Why else do you think the polls show Bill to be vastly more popular than Hillary?

She was completely blasted up and down over the health care debacle (and rightfully so)

SI