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

[Cringer]

hump

[Cringer]

Mrs. Clinton seems to be a little agitated because no one recognizes her 30 years of change.

[Joe]

I am voting for Obama.

[Young Drachma]

35 years? Ha. Just because you boinked the President and piggybacked your way into the White House, doesn't make you qualified Hil. Her public policy experience effectively began as the junior Senator from New York. That's it. All of this other b.s. is just that.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Ha. Just because you boinked the President and piggybacked your way into the White House, doesn't make you qualified....

So, I guess Monica is out of the question.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

35 years? Ha. Just because you boinked the President and piggybacked your way into the White House, doesn't make you qualified Hil. Her public policy experience effectively began as the junior Senator from New York. That's it. All of this other b.s. is just that.

If people are going to be honest with themselves, I think they'll admit that Hillary had a massive effect on the Clinton Administration. I mean she didn't get to present the universal health care plan because she had nothing better to do.

There was a reason that Bill campaigned on the "Two for the Price of One" slogan.

[Jas_lov]

Hillary never expected this to be a race and now she's bitter and scared. Obama has NH wrapped up and very well could win SC too as the polls show him even with Clinton. I wouldn't vote for Obama, but it's nice to see him run circles around Hillary.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Obama has NH wrapped up

Huh? Did I miss something? Latest I saw, Obama's bump from Iowa's win made him even with Clinton in NH.

[Jas_lov]

Obama came off way better in tonight's debate. ARG poll has him up by 12, Rasmussen has him up by 10, CNN has the two tied, and Concord Monitor has Obama up by 1. Depends what poll you look at I guess. I feel confident that Obama will get a boost from NH independents and defeat Clinton in NH. I know you're Hillary's biggest fan, but it might be time to move on.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Mrs. Clinton seems to be a little agitated because no one recognizes her 30 years of change.

After she finished talking about 2 tiny examples of "change" over 35 years, I would have loved Edwards to have said, "Well, all your 35 years of experience in trying to make change shows that you failed miserably."

Seriously, I don't dislike Hillary Clinton, and I am sure she would do fine as president, but she has a few things going against her that I now think will sink her for sure. (1) you can't run on change when you represent a throwback to politics of 10-15 years ago, she simply isn't fresh; (2) there are doubts about her electability against a republican, especially if it's McCain; (3) she made a tactical decision trying to work her Senate career to right of center on some issues to help in a general election, which unfortunately for her is not what the electorate is looking for at this time.

[Schmidty]

I thought Edwards was awful. He just seems like a weasel. How many times did he bring up his "-down-home, so-sad" roots? Ugh. What fucking political fucktard.

Hilary wasn't much better, although she didn't shy from her past and try to "connect" with the "little" people. She was more transparant than Edwards. I despise that guy after this debate.

I would never vote for him (or anyone else other than Ron Paul), but Obama continues to impress me with his (seemingly) honest strength.

[Schmidty]

Dola.

I was just talking with my wife, and I had a wierd thought. Since I doubt that Paul is going to be the republican candidate, and I always make sure to vote, if it was a choice between Obama and Huckabee or Romney, I might actually vote Obama. Of course, if it was any other dem, I would just write in Paul even though it was a wasted vote.

My wife slapped me, but I'm keeping my mind open.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Dola.

I was just talking with my wife, and I had a wierd thought. Since I doubt that Paul is going to be the republican candidate, and I always make sure to vote, if it was a choice between Obama and Huckabee or Romney, I might actually vote Obama. Of course, if it was any other dem, I would just write in Paul even though it was a wasted vote.

My wife slapped me, but I'm keeping my mind open.

I will likely be in the same position. I voted Paul in the Iowa caucus and he's the only Republican I would cast a vote for in the general. Since he's unlikely to get there, I can not in good faith vote for any of the other sell outs, crooks, and liars. Obama seems like a decent guy, but I just cannot sell my small government principles down the river like the Republicans have and vote for Obama. In the end, it doesn't matter what party wins the Presidency as we'll just end up with more big government.

[Jas_lov]

But at the debate right before the clip that Vinatieri posted, Hillary did expose Obama pretty good when she brought up his YEA votes for the Patriot Act and funding for the Iraq war. Edwards of course came to Obama's defense and it's obvious that he's just sucking up so that he can get a VP spot.

[Big Fo]

It was great to see Edwards and Richardson gang up on Clinton last night. They must think that if they can kill the best while she's weak their chances against Obama will be imporved after she's gone.

Edwards after Clinton criticized Obama's position on health care:

"I didn't hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead," Edwards said. "Every time he speaks out for change, every time I fight for change, the forces of status quo are going to attack -- every single time."

Lastest polling has Obama and Clinton tied in NH, and when asked who is more electable there has been a big shift since the last pools conducted December 27-30.

Clinton 45 -> 36
Obama 23 -> 35

Poll source on CNN.com

Edit: Just saw the new Rasmussen poll for NH: Obama 37, Clinton 27, Edwards 19, Richardson 8

I don't get the appeal of Ron Paul, quotes like this scare the hell out of me: "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

But anyway I hope he does cause some Republicans like Jas_lov and Schmidty to stay home, the more Republican voters staying home in November the better off our country will be.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

I don't get the appeal of Ron Paul, quotes like this scare the hell out of me: "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

Technically speaking, there isn't anything about a "wall" between church and state in the constitution.

Originally Posted by Big Fo

But anyway I hope he does cause some Republicans like Jas_lov and Schmidty to stay home, the more Republican voters staying home in November the better off our country will be.

Where in the blue hell have you ever heard me say I'm a "republican"? I would never affiliate myself with one head of the two-headed monster that is running our country into the ground. Yuck. Don't ever say that again, k? Thanks.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

I don't get the appeal of Ron Paul, quotes like this scare the hell out of me: "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

I'm not a huge Paul fan, but he is right on this issue. The whole debate is about separation of church and state is simply that there is no state sanctioned religion. This whole crap about you can't have any Judaeo-Christian references anywhere is starting to drive me nuts. I mean we can't have a moment of silence in some schools for kids to use as they want (heck, we had one, but you couldn't pray) but we can force everyone to learn about Islam in public school all for the sake of diversity there is something wrong.

Now, if suddenly tomorrow it was decreed that the Southern Baptist Church was the new state religion and you could only hold office if you were part of the SBC delegation, that would be something different.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

I will likely be in the same position. I voted Paul in the Iowa caucus and he's the only Republican I would cast a vote for in the general. Since he's unlikely to get there, I can not in good faith vote for any of the other sell outs, crooks, and liars. Obama seems like a decent guy, but I just cannot sell my small government principles down the river like the Republicans have and vote for Obama. In the end, it doesn't matter what party wins the Presidency as we'll just end up with more big government.

you do realize the republicans aren't the party of small government either, right??

what's the stat...the federal government has expanded more under bush than under any president since like...fdr?

[Calis]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Technically speaking, there isn't anything about a "wall" between church and state in the constitution.

Correct, it's not in the constitution anywhere, but to say it's not in the writings of the founding fathers is incorrect. I mean, Jefferson originated the term.

I can't imagine a school allowing a moment of silence and disallowing prayer. That's completely nonsensical. They told you that you couldn't pray silently to yourself? I've never understood why people need a set school prayer, I seem to remember there being plenty of time during school where you'd have the opportunity to pray.

Anyway, I'm sure we've beat that subject to death time and time again here, but I do think Paul is frightening to some with regards to Religion/State, and I've read some things that would lead one to believe he's really pushing for the church to be more of a focus, and I thought I read something to the effect of how the church is more important than the state.

I don't really have a horse in the race. I'm partial to Obama, but to be fair that's purely from a charismatic perspective. I think he has potential to be a nice figurehead for us, and I think we really need someone with charisma and a "vision" after the last 8 years. I don't know enough about the Republican candidates to know if there is anyone like that on their end, but the ones I do know aren't.

Then again, I'm ignorant when it comes to politics, which I guess probably puts me in line with the majority of the population.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

you do realize the republicans aren't the party of small government either, right??

what's the stat...the federal government has expanded more under bush than under any president since like...fdr?

That's what I said! More big government! The Bush Administration has doubled the size of the department of edcuation, started a massive beauracracy known as the Department of Homeland Security, a needless war costing hundreds of billions of dollars, prescription drug bill, etc. etc! Didn't you read my post? That's why I'm not voting for the Republicans this year! I am techincally a registered Republican, but only because I had to in order to vote in the Iowa caucus. And I agree with the others about the church and state argument. Ron Paul is right.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

I feel confident that Obama will get a boost from NH independents and defeat Clinton in NH. I know you're Hillary's biggest fan, but it might be time to move on.

Unfortunately I feel that Clinton is the best in terms of electability. Yes, I did actually say that. I think that regardless of Obama's or Edwards' numbers, you'll get similar unfavorables to Clinton as the general gets closer as Republican voters rally around their candidate and paint the opposition as evil, regardless of who it is.

I think Clinton will get as down and dirty as the Republican will. I don't think Obama will, and that's where he'll lose.

[Young Drachma]

Article about Obama from 1995 from the Chicago Reader. Interesting stuff.

[mrsimperless]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Unfortunately I feel that Clinton is the best in terms of electability. Yes, I did actually say that. I think that regardless of Obama's or Edwards' numbers, you'll get similar unfavorables to Clinton as the general gets closer as Republican voters rally around their candidate and paint the opposition as evil, regardless of who it is.

I think Clinton will get as down and dirty as the Republican will. I don't think Obama will, and that's where he'll lose.

Actually, the whole "getting down and dirty" tactic that Hillary has seemingly tried to employ on Obama and also some on Edwards looks to have backfired on her. I think that is precisely the kind of politics that the public is tired of and part of the reason they seem to be looking for change. Obama also used the attacks by Hillary as fund raising opportunities via the internet which is how he got my money.

Bush won the election on 04 IMO by focusing everyone's attention on the problems with the dem candidates (for which there was ample reason to focus) It distracted everyone long enough from how horrible Bush had been for the past 4 years and what a mess we were in to allow him to get enough votes from the right and also those in the middle who didn't like the candidates the dems could come up with.

I think most of us are at our tipping point with the state of things today and we need a fresh face, which Hillary certainly isn't. Not to mention all of the people (dems and republicans alike) who would either vote for her opposition or not vote at all simply because she's Hillary.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by mrsimperless

I think most of us are at our tipping point with the state of things today and we need a fresh face, which Hillary certainly isn't. Not to mention all of the people (dems and republicans alike) who would either vote for her opposition or not vote at all simply because she's Hillary.

That's pretty much where I am. I was a Bush supporter in 2000. 2004 presented mostly the same old crap, Bush vs. Kerry. I sat out the Presidential race in '04 by voting Libertarian. This year the Republican field is pretty much crap, and if Hillary were to get the nod for the Democrats I'd probably be writing myself in or something. I just don't like the way she operates.

Obama is my guy. The more I read about him, the more I like him. The more I read his positions, the more I like him. Of course my whole worldview has changed in the last eight years from pretty far right, to where I'd now consider myself left of center.

[flere-imsaho]

Someone commenting on NPR this morning said that the significance of Obama's Iowa victory was to convince people who wanted to vote for him but were not going to because they felt he "couldn't win" that he could, in fact win, and that this is translating directly into changing polling numbers, most specifically in NH.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by mrsimperless

Actually, the whole "getting down and dirty" tactic that Hillary has seemingly tried to employ on Obama and also some on Edwards looks to have backfired on her. I think that is precisely the kind of politics that the public is tired of and part of the reason they seem to be looking for change.

This type of thing (the public is tired of personal attacks) has been said in just about every single Presidential election, but as 2004 showed, personal attacks STILL work. The swift boat thing may have been utterly horrible on an ethical level, but they worked splendidly. That, more than anything, perhaps, got Bush re-elected to the White House.

If someone like Guiliani wins, the dirt digging will be immense, and in certain portions of the country, certain implied charges against a black man will sink him. Maybe not in the Dem primary, but definately in the general.

While I think nominating Obama would be quite a statement (one of the big two parties nominating a racial minority candidate), I don't think he'll be able to win and part of that could be the reason why he'd be a historic candidate.

Though, in the end, Edwards is really the key. If he sticks it out, it'll help Hillary, because you know more Edwards' supporters will back Obama if Edwards drops out early.

[path12]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Someone commenting on NPR this morning said that the significance of Obama's Iowa victory was to convince people who wanted to vote for him but were not going to because they felt he "couldn't win" that he could, in fact win, and that this is translating directly into changing polling numbers, most specifically in NH.

I agree with that. I think there are/were a lot of Democrats who are/were looking for a reason not to vote for Hillary but skeptical that Obama could effectively compete -- and his early debate performances bore out the wisdom of that approach. He has gotten much better at that however, and I think the important thing about Iowa was that he proved to some extent that he could draw from many different groups (youth, independents, etc).

IMO that was what many Democrats (and Independents, I dare say) were looking for. I think that Obama's surge and performance has got to greatly trouble the Republicans who still think that McCain or someone else on their side can capture the center.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

That's what I said! More big government! The Bush Administration has doubled the size of the department of edcuation, started a massive beauracracy known as the Department of Homeland Security, a needless war costing hundreds of billions of dollars, prescription drug bill, etc. etc!

That's the reason why his numbers and approval rating are so low. Basically the only people that are satisfied with Bush are the right wingers who detest the left and rally around him for that. Regardless of what the left will say, Bush has not been a right wing president. He has actually been very moderate.

What this election is really going to be about is change. That is why Obama and Huckabee are doing so well. They are not your average polished Washington politician. I do not think that the general population is necessarily going to embrace Obama's positions on the issues, but they will embrace him.

Why is change so important? Which body of the government has a lower approval rating than Bush? Congress. This cycle reminds me a lot of 1992. Clinton was elected not because he was a moderate Democrat, he was elected because he was a change from the prior 12 years. People got disgusted with the government and in 1994 the Republicans took Congress because they ran on and represented change. After 12 years of power, the Republican led Congress outstayed its welcome and was kicked out on its ear. The result was a Democrat takeover of Congress. They didn't do anything any better. I would not be surprised to see Huckabee or Obama get elected, but I will say that if either does, they will not have any coattails that you typically see in a Presidential election.

[Dutch]

I think that Obama's surge and performance has got to greatly trouble the Republicans who still think that McCain or someone else on their side can capture the center.

Obama doesn't concern Republicans. We need a good candidate to run and we don't have one.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We need a good candidate to run and we don't have one.

I wonder if it is too late for someone (Newt?) to jump into the race? There is a lot of GOP money still on the sideline. If someone can come in with a credible chance to win, then perhaps s/he could catch fire and end up taking the nomination at the last minute.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I wonder if it is too late for someone (Newt?) to jump into the race? There is a lot of GOP money still on the sideline. If someone can come in with a credible chance to win, then perhaps s/he could catch fire and end up taking the nomination at the last minute.

Newt? Uh, he should probably be thinking about getting a decent haircut first. I think it's too much money to just jump in now, right? Not sure.

Anyway, McCain seems to be surging a bit, he might be the dark horse to grab the nomination, but the Presidency is clearly a fight between Obama and Hillary. Of course, Hillary looks like she's about to self-destruct as I watch her crying on ABC.

[Jas_lov]

The Republicans could put Ronald Reagan up as their nominee this year and they'd still lose. Obama has a 10% lead in NH according to the RCP average and I expect him to beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination and defeat whoever the Republican nominee is by a comfortable margin. Hillary's next best chance to win a state is in Nevada, but can she stop Obama's momentum? The establishment will rally around McCain over Huckabee and push him to the nomination as I think McCain is their best chance against Obama. They can tout his experience and ability to get independents. McCain said the other day that the U.S. would be in Iraq for 100 years. With the majority of the country against the Iraq war, Obama will coast to a victory. Hillary is bitter and scared right now. She'll try anything, including crying to get sympathy.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Hillary is bitter and scared right now. She'll try anything, including crying to get sympathy.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Of course, Hillary looks like she's about to self-destruct as I watch her crying on ABC.

Give me a break... I watched that clip. She had an emotional moment. It happens to folks when they're tired. Bitter and scared? Crying to manipulate?

Blow it out your collective asses.

Jeeze Louise...

Dutch, do you think you're writing for the AP all of sudden or something?

[Warhammer]

I really don't think that this election will be a slam dunk for the Democrats like so many think. I actually think that Romney would be the best bet for the Republicans. The big thing that they could do is tie Obama to Congress. Congress doesn't exactly have the highest approval rating and Obama is apart of that. He hasn't been able to get people there to buy into his vision, why will he do any better as President?

If the Republicans take that approach, they stand a chance. If they run a normal campaign and attack the candidate, they lose.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I really don't think that this election will be a slam dunk for the Democrats like so many think. I actually think that Romney would be the best bet for the Republicans. The big thing that they could do is tie Obama to Congress. Congress doesn't exactly have the highest approval rating and Obama is apart of that. He hasn't been able to get people there to buy into his vision, why will he do any better as President?

If the Republicans take that approach, they stand a chance. If they run a normal campaign and attack the candidate, they lose.

I don't know about Romney. Silly as it all is, I really think him being a Mormon is a complete non-starter for a lot of the religious right. I could be wrong about this, but that's the impression I have.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I don't know about Romney. Silly as it all is, I really think him being a Mormon is a complete non-starter for a lot of the religious right. I could be wrong about this, but that's the impression I have.

100% right. The more I think about it, he is the only candidate that I think can really run effectively against Obama. In an environment where the electorate wants change, McCain is the last candidate the Republicans should run. The only real thing he can say is that he was ultimately right on Iraq.

[Young Drachma]

Watching Brit Hume on FOX News Sunday, it was strange to watch him get such a passionate, almost angry reaction to Juan Williams insistence that Americans are frustrated, concerned about the economy and all of that. Hume pointed to all of the polls saying the economy is great, that economic indicators are all pointing up and that he didn't really believe that Americans were as frustrated as the (liberal) media was reporting.

This election will let us know whether that's the case or not, honestly.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Why is change so important? Which body of the government has a lower approval rating than Bush? Congress.

I think there is a factor to the Congressional approval rating that you're missing, and that is that the polls I've seen rate the congressional Republicans lower than the Democrats, suggesting that people are aware of the stall tactics being used by the Republicans in Congress. Also, many folks on the left are very unhappy with what they see as the continued capitulation of Pelosi and Reed to the filibuster/veto threats. I think there will be coattails for the Dems this time around, but who knows, I've certainly been wrong before.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Obama doesn't concern Republicans. We need a good candidate to run and we don't have one.

He doesn't concern Republicans? A Democratic candidate that draws from independents and moderate Reps? I think we'll disagree there.

Though we will certainly agree that the Republicans do not have a good candidate at this point.

[Young Drachma]

Obama worries the GOP because they want to somehow stop his surge before they swept up into the tide. Obama is no Kerry and so 2004 bears no resemblance to this race at all. Even all of the talk about him being all talk and no substance just isn't true. The guy is wonkish and has more than an affinity for spending too much time in the minutia of boring issues that don't fit well into soundbites.

From a straight policy perspective...I have a hard time getting behind the guy, because he's just too populist for me in his rhetoric and his desire to "change lives" using government. That's just too much overstepping and too any good intentions that could lead us to a host of New Deal-esque policy decisions that my generation will have to pay for the rest of our working lives.

As it turns out, the Republicans have done a terrible job of marketing themselves as people who really could appeal to all Americans. Hell, I can't even see that they can appeal to a broad base of moderate right-of-centre people.

I would hope that Obama's surge would induce moderate, freedom loving right-of-centre people to consider running for Congress and the Senate, to rise above the polarization and silliness that have dominated the political debate.

As for Hil's crying "moment"..it's bull. It was a staged question and she handled it flawlessly. But the fact that she's so robotic that her attempting to cry is newsworthy, shows that the wheels are coming off of that freight truck a lot faster than conventional wisdom.

The real question going way further and assuming Obama would win the nomination, who would he pick as his running mate to diffuse the debate about him being "inexperienced."

[Buccaneer]

That's just too much overstepping and too any good intentions that could lead us to a host of New Deal-esque policy decisions that my generation will have to pay for the rest of our working lives.

Hmmm.

[Young Drachma]

Just to touch on the race thing for a second. Politically active blacks I've talked to or communities online that I frequent are taking a huge wait and see attitude. I think Iowa surprised a lot of folks and if he wins tomorrow, that it will be interesting to see how much of a boost he gets down south as a result. A lot of (black) folks that I've seen are just not convinced that he'll get elected because of the race issue, beyond any of the other stuff.

But his lack of a "traditional" campaign in that regard is making him so intriguing and that his base of support goes beyond liberals, beyond blacks, beyond moderates even..that he's really doing something we haven't seen in a long time by a candidate.

I hear the Kennedy comparisons more and more and yet, I feel as if none of that stuff really speaks to the complexity of this race to some degree.

I think the real issue here is, this is such an unknown thing to so many people that the entire complexion of this race is overwhelming the pundits who can't quite be sure what to make of it.

My sense is, a lot of people -- young and old -- seem exasperated with the "business as usual" sort of activity politics has become. Obama's ascendancy has a lot more to do with the lack of upstarts and change agents who have a seat at the table and I think they feel like he represents a 'new day' in American politics.

I'm glad that David Gergen just said on CNN that Hilary's crying thing earlier is showing a woman who is "frustrated and feels like it's her turn and this young guy Barack Obama has come from nowhere to take it from her."

And that, to me, is the problem. It's not a coronation, it's supposed to an election and just because we "know her" already, doesn't mean that she doesn't have a responsibility to tell folks why she'd work and "experience" just doesn't cut it.

[Buccaneer]

Dark Cloud, as much as I can understand the appeal of Obama because his name is not Hillary Clinton, do you think he will run as a moderate, esp. when he has to support the traditional Democratic platform? He will be forced to answer the race issue unless he wants to keep a noticeable percentage of voters at home. Also, I have said frequently that McCain will be the safe choice for the GOP but Obama, in today's poll, show him even with him despite the wave (he is well ahead against the other candidates, which is no surprise). Finally, I just saw that Hillary will likely win Michigan (they're saying 85% chance) - that might erase IA and NH.

[Buccaneer]

One other thing. Every generation gets on board with a new politician in thinking that he will be the one to finally change things in Washington DC. Obama is certainly charismatic enough to run a good campaign and while I know this has been beaten to death, experience does count for something, esp. in foreign policy nowadays.

[Jas_lov]

I would hope that Hillary would win Michigan considering that Obama, Edwards, and Richardson won't even be on the ballot! LOL! It'd be hilarious if Obama supporters came out in mass and voted for Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel instead! That would really sink Hillary! Even if she wins, Michigan had its delegates stripped! She needs to win Nevada to stop the momentum.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

I would hope that Hillary would win Michigan considering that Obama, Edwards, and Richardson won't even be on the ballot! LOL! It'd be hilarious if Obama supporters came out in mass and voted for Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel instead! That would really sink Hillary! Even if she wins, Michigan had its delegates stripped! She needs to win Nevada to stop the momentum.

Ok, I'm not really up on th is primary stuff.

Why the heck would Obama, Edwards, and Richardson not be on the ballot?

[JPhillips]

Obama is now polling at 50% in SC and is tied with Hillary nationally.

I believe that's a fat lady singing.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Ok, I'm not really up on th is primary stuff.

Why the heck would Obama, Edwards, and Richardson not be on the ballot?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...DATE/801040426

It says here that they're "fulfilling a pledge not to compete in Michigan as punishment for the state's breaking primary scheduling rules." Michigan was stripped of all of its delegates. Florida too.

[Buccaneer]

Forgot about that.

[wade moore]

Interesting.

Is there any thought that this would make people in Michigan bitter and hold it against them in the General Election?