And the latest...

Peter Daou: Three Myths About the Democratic Race. Hmmm, just look at all that name-calling. By the end of the voting, its a good bet that the math will show whatever you want to see, leading back to a circular argument over FL & MI.

Maybe four: The 2012 Theorem, and Newshoggers.  '12 talk seems like something we could take up during this famine as we wait for, but calling Clinton's base "shrinking" while she's energized the biggest bloc of growing voters in Latinos, and increased the turnout of women to about 60 percent on average of the total vote, seems very odd.

Newsweek: When Barry Became Barack. A good "old friends" article.

The GOP viewpoint on Democrats' Obama Dilemma. I don't get all this talk about how the Democrats cannot afford to not choose Obama, because of fear of alienating the African-American vote. It's not like we don't have an opposite reaction if Democrats don't choose Clinton, among segments of Latinos, perhaps part of the Jewish and Catholic vote, certain women and working-class Democrats... That ship has already sailed.

MI Dems: They've postponed until April 19th for selecting delegates. It's said (conference call) that the Obama campaign's starting position for negotiations is that only a 50-50 delegate split is acceptable, and no distribution from the votes (this deserves follow-up). I don't understand why either of the candidates even have a say, or a veto, in how the state decides the formula of how they will attempt a DNC-sanctioned election.

Evan Bayh: the electoral votes as "another guage" for SD's to consider. It makes as much sense as does counting individual states. I'd add to the list the delegate/popular vote ratio. Overall, comparing the ratio of their totals, how many votes has it taken for each candidate to win a delegate? This is especially important if the popular vote becomes an measure of difference.

Josh Marshall: He runs smack dab into an epiphany about the situation, but comes out stating that: "My take is that whatever the arguments, the superdelegates aren't going to go against a clear pledged delegate leader." He must believe that there's an un-spoken moral argument to be made that a "pledged delegate leader" trumps everything, even though it'd only be a plurality lead, not the majority that grants the nomination. Unfortunately for his logic, this take would be exactly the sort of "rule change" he's saying leads down the rabbit hole into a "different set of rules" than the one that exists.

Obama's Iowa co-chair: Has to apologize for blogging, and since deleting, "B. Clinton should never be forgiven. Period. This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress." Heh, no biggie. And the Clinton campaign responds, "...don't know why he would apologize as its quite in keeping with the tenor and tone that the Obama campaign is running right now."

Does anyone even care if either Obama or Clinton release their tax returns while they were in public office?  I don't, but it does seem like it should be a "two-way street" if the Obama campaign thinks it matters so much.



Display:


Re: Jerome are you serious? (2.00 / 0)

You do not fear alienating the democrats most loyal voting block of African-Americans? I posted a diary about how a democrat simply cannot win without 80% or more of the AA support.  This includes new latino voters and white working class voters.   I thought you were a democrat.


by kristannab on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:25:50 PM EST

Re: Jerome are you serious? (2.00 / 0)

Why would latino voters refuse to vote for Obama if he is the nominee?  He's not latino but then neither is Hillary.  I think the Clinton supporters claims of such a thing are baseless unless they are trying to drive a wedge between two ethnic groups, in which case their claims are divisive.

Clinton will always have an edge with women, Obama will always have an edge with AA voters.  That's all I'm willing to stipulate to.


Republicans = Borrow and Squander
by GFORD on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:43:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome are you serious? (2.00 / 1)

So when Obama supporters claim that African American's won't vote for Hillary thats okay. But when a Clinton supporter states Latino's won't vote for Obama then they're driving a wedge between the races?

That makes no sense.


by world dictator on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:56:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome are you serious? (none / 0)

It's not the same comparison. Clinton is not a latina


by poserM on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:01:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome are you serious? (none / 0)

She isn't Latino, but she receives support from the Latino community as though she is. Maybe that should tell you something about her appeal.


by LakersFan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Latino decision making (none / 0)

Maybe that should tell you that the Latino community tends to line up behind the endorsements of its leaders.  If those leaders endors Obama they will line up behind him.

It will be interesting to see what impact Richardson's endorsement will have.


by upper left on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:51:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Latino decision making (none / 0)

She's getting the support of Latinos and endorsements for a reason -- a long history of support for and relationships with the Latino community.

(But unlike you, I don't see the Latino community as a monolithic bloc that lines up behind its "leaders".)

Richardson couldn't get the Latino vote himself, I highly doubt his endorsement will have much impact.


by LakersFan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:00:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Latino decision making (none / 0)

Disculpa me.  No estoy seguro que usted sabe nada de lo communidad hispana.

Vivia por un ano en el Peru, y aprendi hablar Espanol aya.

I don't know if you, with all your insight into the Hispanic community, can speak Spanish.

The reality is that HRC is doing well with older Hispanics and with naturalized immigrants precisely because many are somewhat cut off by language.  They know the Clintons from BC Presidency and they are not familiar enough to be comfortable with Obama.  As they get to know him better his numbers will improve.  It will be interesting to see if Richardson makes a difference in the short run.


by upper left on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:26:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Latino decision making (none / 0)

Obviously you speak speak Spanish.  Why would you state it when you're writing in Spanish?


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Latino decision making (none / 0)

I'm a Californian. Speaking spanish doesn't impress me.

Thanks for explaining why so many Latinos support Senora Clinton, although we already know that since that's the way they overhwhelmingly voted. The groundswell of Latinos becoming comfortable with Obama hasn't happened yet, so you're just theorizing. You think Richardson will make a big difference, I doubt it because he hasn't gotten that support yet. I'm dealing with the facts that have actually occurred, you're speculating.


by LakersFan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:36:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Latino decision making (none / 0)

The reason I used a little Spanish was your statement about lumping all Hispanics together.  I'm afraid it struck me as pretty condescending and I wanted to indicate that I do have some knowledge having travelled across much of Latin America.

I think it is a process.  My point is not to denigrate the substantial support that Clinton has, but to put it in some context.  Immigrant voters, particularly those whose first language is something other than English are somewhat cut off from the MSM.  They tend to be more reliant on leaders within their community to give them direction about which candidates to support.

I am not trying to suggest that Obama is going to get a huge bump from Richardson.  I am saying that if Obama wins the nomination and the endorsements of a large spectrum of Hispanic leaders, he is positioned to do well in the fall.

I do not think that Hispanics have a deep emotional tie with Hillary in the same way that many women have a tie to HRC and many AAs have a tie to Obama. I don't think Hispanics are going to stay home if Obama gets the nomination.


by upper left on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:42:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Latino decision making (none / 0)

Nice try, but I never lumped all Latinos together, nor was I condescending. In fact, I was the one who disputed that they would "follow their leaders". I think Latinos don't vote as a bloc, but in general they are more loyal to Clinton than they are to the Democratic party. And because they are the fastest growing demographic in the nation, we can't take their votes for granted or they will vote Republican. Schwarzenegger had huge Latino support in our gubernatorial election.

Not sure why you question the loyalty of Latinos for Hillary so much. If you look at the coverage of her campaigning in CA, TX and NV, I think you'll discover there's a lot of love for her in the Latino community.

Here's one good example:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me- lopez10feb10,1,6474408,full.column

And while it's great that you've travelled and speak spanish, there are plenty of fluent spanish speakers that don't know jack about Latinos in the U.S. There's a huge lack of understanding about Latinos, especially by people who don't live in the west and don't understand that many Latinos are not immigrants at all, are not outsiders in their communities, and already know how to wield political power.


by LakersFan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Latino decision making (none / 0)

Certainly I agree with you that Latinos are not a block.  There are differences based on county of origin; generational differences; and length of time in the US.  Obviously Latinos in New Mexico who have lived in the same community for generations have a different take that someone who is recently naturalized.

My point about Hillary is that while she has won their support by large margins, I do not see that as a reflection of hostility towards Obama.  I see it more as a matter of unfamiliarity, and that gives me hope that, if he is the nominee, he will be able to win over a large percentage of Latinos. McCain is certainly a threat to take a good chunk of the Hispanic vote. OTOH, he is now pretty tied to the Repubs on immigration and on economic policy.  I think most expect whomever is the Dem nominee to do better than Kerry did in 04.


by upper left on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:56:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Latino decision making (none / 0)

I don't know how Kerry did with Latinos in 2004, but I can't imagine that he would be an attractive candidate to them.

You think that Latinos do not support Obama because of unfamiliarity. I think Latinos support Clinton because of familiarity and true affection. With any luck (as far as I'm concerned) we won't ever find out how Latinos feel about Obama v. McCain.


by LakersFan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:07:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Latino decision making (none / 0)

What are your thoughts on how Hillary has run her campaign?  In particular, are you comfortable with the volume and intensity of her attacks on Obama?


by upper left on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Latino decision making (none / 0)

I think the attacks have been of similar volume and intensity on both sides and I am totally comfortable with it. I expect politicians to lie, cheat and steal to win elections, and no one has failed to live up to these expectations.

(FWIW...I don't feel this way about all people. I expect/demand honesty and integrity from people around me. I just think politics is a dirty game that should only be played by people who want to roll around in the mud.)


by LakersFan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome are you serious? (none / 0)

A quibble: to my knowledge of the language, "she" will never be "Latino." "She" may only be "Latina."
by Jay R on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:15:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome are you serious? (none / 0)

You are correct. I noticed my error right after I posted.


by LakersFan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:40:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome are you serious? (2.00 / 1)

I'm voting for whomever the democratic nominee is.  However, I cannot say that for all AA's which is a problem. They will support whomever is the nominee unless it looks like it was "stolen" from Barack.  If there is a sense that it was stolen when he played by all the rules, then there is going to be a major problem.   I do not doubt that latinos would vote for Barack.  Eva Longoria made very clear that although she supports HRC that she is a democrat first and that she will be voting democrat in the fall.  I think it is important that everyone realizes that. I would also like for the negative tone of the campaign to go away.


by kristannab on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:03:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome are you serious? (none / 0)

You do understand that Eva Longoria is not a typical Latina voter, right?


by LakersFan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome are you serious? (2.00 / 1)

Don't you think it makes a difference that one has more elected delegates (and more votes) and the other has less of both?  Everybody is happy (or should be happy) to vote for the legitimate winner.  But to give the nomination to the person who got beat in the electoral contests will spur a backlash, period, irrespective of race.  Which is why its not going to happen.

I mean, haven't you found it strange that the Clinton backers criticize the notion that superdelegates should support the winner of the pledged delegates, and to a lesser extent the popular vote, claiming that such SD voting would undermine "the rules," yet never suggest any alternative criteria by which superdelegates should exercise their judgment? Its because they haven't thought of an alternative criteria, yet.  I mean, what should the SD's do, flip a coin?  (I'm sure the Clintonistas would be fine with that, so long as there was a picture of Hillary on both sides of the coin...)


by davey jones on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:07:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome are you serious? (none / 0)

You're missing part of the equation.  HRC is very popular with the Latinos.  Obama is not.  But JOHN MCCAIN can also get Latino votes.  Translation - very big problem for Obama.


by cmugirl90 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:59:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome are you serious? (none / 0)

I don't disagree with you that Obama needs to reach out to the Latin American community.  It will be easier to do when he is the nominee since he won't have another candidate attempting to undermine any gains he makes.

That's not a Clinton bash, the same would be true in the AA community with her if Obama wasn't in the race.


Republicans = Borrow and Squander
by GFORD on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:11:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Iran war GOP campaign issue: (none / 0)

Marjorie Cohn

Marjorie Cohn became president of the National Lawyers Guild in October 2006. She also was recently recognized as one of San Diego's Top Attorneys in Academics for 2006. She lectures throughout the world on international human rights and U.S. foreign policy.

A news consultant for CBS News, and a legal analyst for Court TV, she also provides legal and political commentary on BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NPR and Pacifica Radio. Co-author of the book Cameras in the Courtroom: Television and the Pursuit of Justice, Professor Cohn has published numerous articles in such journals as Fordham Law Review, Hastings Law Journal and Virginia Journal of International Law, as well as The National Law Journal, Christian Science Monitor and Chicago Tribune.

Professor Cohn is a contributing editor to Jurist, MWC News and Guild Practitioner. She has been a criminal defense attorney at the trial and appellate levels for many years, and was staff counsel to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board. Professor Cohn is the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. The recipient of the San Diego County Bar Association's 2005 Service to Legal Education Award, she sits on the Advisory Board for the Haywood Burns Memorial Fellowships for Social and Economic Justice, and serves on the Roster of Experts at the Institute for Public Accuracy. Professor Cohn was a legal observer in Iran on behalf of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers in 1978 and she has participated in delegations to Cuba, China and Yugoslavia. She lived in Mexico and is fluent in Spanish. Professor Cohn has taught at Thomas Jefferson since 1991.

Posted November 23, 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-c ohn/preventing-the-impending-_b_73927.ht ml

Preventing the Impending War on Iran

Marjorie Cohn was on radio this morning again saying Cheney/administration is planning war with Iran


by dearreader on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:53:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 1)

I don't care to see their tax returns.


The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:30:40 PM EST

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 0)

I do care to see their tax returns.


What's wrong with mydd?
by pitaholereturns on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

Regardless, I'm sure that McCain would want to do so, so they might as well get this out of the way now.


by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 0)

Ah, linking directly to the Clinton campaign website. Why is it that people are thinking that there is coordination between Jerome and the campaign?


by wasder on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:31:22 PM EST

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 1)

Who does Markos work for? Where's you're complaining? Thought so.


by world dictator on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:00:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 0)

Markos works for progressives and Democrats.  That's why Dailykos has kept up the work of getting them elected, getting Republicans defeated, getting good bills passed, and bad bills defeated the entire primary season while this site has sunk further and further into pointless campaign bickering and tit-for-tat diaries like this one.  


by Brillobreaks on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:06:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 0)

very well said brillo. there has been very little but process pieces here in a long time, and snarky ones at that. I don't post over at DK so I don't know if Markos ever links directly to Obama's page. Pretty lame if he does, and lame for Jerome to do so.


by wasder on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:10:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 0)

I don't know if you visit the site at all, but go check the front page right now, and then compare it to Jerome's post.  Pretty damn instructive.  

Continue on to the recc list for an even starker comparison.  

For all the talk of 'DailyObama', one of these sites is pretty damn focused on actually getting things done instead of just propping up and tearing down our presidential candidates.  


by Brillobreaks on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, but to KOS, a "progressive" is just a Clinton-hating anti-war libertarian who works to elect a "certain type" of Democrat...but that type of Democrat is the one HE likes, regardless of whether said Democrat is REALLY a progressive (Obama isn't).


by Sensible on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

Clinton-hating anti-war libertarian?  Sounds like Ron Paul.  He got tons of support from Kos.  Tons.  


by Brillobreaks on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:24:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 0)

Yes.  Kos supports anti-establishment, grass-roots Democrats.  He is a Deaniac.  He is for Obama because Obama represents the 50-states faction and because Obama is winning.  It is a justification of everything that he wants to see in the Democratic party.  It is also nearly everything that the Obama supporters want to see as well.  

I find it particularly strange that you would claim that Obama is not a progressive given that the nearly identical voting records of both Clinton and Obama.  Maybe neither of them are progressives.  


by zadura on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:29:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

Maybe?  I can guarantee you that neither is a progressive, and neither was Edwards.  A progressive campaign for President right now at this point in America would get totally stomped into the ground.  


by Brillobreaks on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:36:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

How is it an acceptable argument to create a false equivalence between the two websites?  We're here, not there.


by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:33:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

If the Obama camp posted something even half as interesting on their blog, I'd link to it too.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:24:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

I think its less that the campaign have vetoes, but that they have operatives, who DO have a say in the process and thus can either endorse or forstall it if the candidate doesn't like it.

like in MI, Obama's supporters wouldn't vote for the revote since it wouldn't allow democrats who crossed to the GOP primary (the democratic one wasnt suspose to count) to vote in the re-vote.

thus the re-vote in MI died


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:32:42 PM EST

Re: And the latest... (1.75 / 4)

Are you kidding me?

Considering everything else that we have been through as a people, do you think that we would forget that our first Viable African American candidate, despite winning the popular vote and the majority of the pledged delegates, would have to take the back seat? Go to the back of the bus, as it were?

And yes, that is ABSOLUTELY how that would spread about our community.

Considering that we, as a people have been the most steadfast and dependable voting block that the left has, that would be a betrayal that would take YEARS and YEARS to get over.

You would chose a couple blocks of voters that every once in a while go for a Democrat over the guts of the party's voting bloc just to get your favorite candidate in?

Madness, sir. Madness.


If you are not voting Obama, please let me know so I can replace your sorry ass with another new voter.
by Darknesse on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:33:49 PM EST

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

I've been saying this all along.  Jerome and others just refuse to understand this. I'm seriously thinking of changing my party affiliation after this contest.  


by kristannab on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:40:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 3)

I'm an Obama supporter - by all means, register as independent. But you absolutely, positively must vote for Hillary if she somehow wriggles out the nomination. "President John McCain" is a phrase that must never become a reality.


What's wrong with mydd?
by pitaholereturns on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:53:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 1)

I'm not speaking for all blacks but you cannot ignore the facts.  Recent polling showed that she is only getting 50% of black support if she is the nominee.  I am very involved in the black community and there is a lot of resentment towards the Clintons right now.  It is as if your best friend just stabbed you in the back and then ran you over.


by kristannab on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:06:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

I understand and fully empathize with the dilemma you are faced with in the event that Hillary gets the nomination thru skullduggery. I don't want Hillary to be president. I'm just saying that I want McCain as president a whole lot less. I sincerely doubt that Hillary will be the nominee this cycle (she lost after WI).

All I'm saying is if, by some stupendous stroke of luck for Hillary and her supporters, she manages to get the nomination, everyone who cares for America and this world that we share with others needs to work hard to ensure that McCain never becomes president.


What's wrong with mydd?
by pitaholereturns on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:02:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

But The Clintons have told me John Mccain is an American hero who loves his country.


by ArkansasLib on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:51:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

It's interesting that you say that, because many die-hard Democrats feel the same way about Obama.  He was uplifting at the 2004 convention, but then waltzes in with a paper thin resume and is trashing the Clintons and praises Republicans and is eager to work with them, Yes, the Clintons - who have done more for the Democratic party than anyone. They are by no means anywhere near perfect, but we look at this absolute ADORATION Obama supporters show, and we don't understand.  No one is even allowed to dare question or criticize a weakness in the Anointed One (sounds a lot like GWB - can't disagree with him).

THAT,my friend, feels like your best friend has stabbed you in the back.


by cmugirl90 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:05:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rough math (2.00 / 1)

The question comes down to, how many people who are put off by Clinton not winning can be drawn back into the fold, vs. how many that are put off by Obama not winning can be drawn back into the fold.

If you insist on voting with your anger vs. your head, I'm going to trust the guy that wins over crowds of 20,000 to be able to bring you back.

That's if we're getting cynical.  Which I'm not.  I think you'll come around on your own when you realize that we all have a responsiblity to protect our country from more Republican defilement.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:05:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't our candidates have (none / 0)

a responsibility not to actively attack segments of the party?


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:08:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"attack" is a broad term (none / 0)

It's called a "contest" for a reason. Of course there going to be attacks within the party... the question is whether the attacks remain respectful and on-the-issues.  Sometimes segments of our party need a wake-up call, like those who perpetuate the Fox News smear on Reverend Wright.

We can only do our best to make sure that we don't let the opposition goad us into doing anything further that is ill-advised for the party's well being.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:41:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What I'm referring to is saying that (none / 0)

certain types of Democratic voters aren't that important.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:50:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, like Wisconsinites. I get ya :P (none / 0)

Fair enough.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:39:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep. Or the Volvo driving latte liberals (none / 0)


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:40:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rough math (2.00 / 1)

Well said Dracomicron.

In this campaign, Hilary Clinton has lost my respect. But in a head-to-head match-up with McCain, she will never lose my vote.


Voting for John McCain is not God bless America.
by SFValues on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

America (none / 0)

The great thing about our nation is that a person who has fallen from grace can still find redemption.

I have faith that losing this primary will not cause Hillary Clinton to fold into nothingness.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:43:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 1)

Thank you for speaking for the entire black community. I don't even know why I bother talking at all


by world dictator on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:01:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well at least 35% of us black voters so far... (2.00 / 0)

HRC is only getting 55% of the AA vote in the GE when matched up against McCain. She gets the nomination without having more pledged delegates and I have no doubt that number will drop more.

My church going relatives were already talking about how HRC was using Rev. Wright against Obama so that's going to slowly turn into a bigger problem for her.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:07:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

How did I get a TR for this? Just curious...


If you are not voting Obama, please let me know so I can replace your sorry ass with another new voter.
by Darknesse on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:54:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

Actually, counting electoral votes makes absolutely no sense, unless of course you're saying that the other metrics likewise make no sense.


by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:33:59 PM EST

That's easy (2.00 / 1)

Any metric makes sense if you can finagle it to match your candidate.

Sadly for all of us number-crunchers, only one metric matters, the final pledged+super delegate count.

Most currently unaligned superdelegates have little interest in going against the pledged delegate count, from all I've heard.  If they felt strongly about either candidate, they'd have probably gone one way or the other already.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 1)

Hey, he's not here to make sense. He's here to push Hillary for el presidente - come what may. She's inevitable remember? And so the countdown clock to my banishment from this site has begun.


What's wrong with mydd?
by pitaholereturns on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:36:16 PM EST

Jerome, not a word about Clinton's Tuzla trip... (2.00 / 1)

... (the subject of diary after diary) or Obama's use of neocon tactics the subject of diary after diary)?

And no take on the 4,000 U.S. service member death?

Do you think either Obama or Clinton would get us out of Iraq during their first terms?


by Bob Johnson on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:36:24 PM EST

Re: Jerome, not a word about Clinton's Tuzla trip. (none / 0)

"Clinton's Tuzla trip..."  I only have so little time for covering things that matter, must have slipped...

4000 deaths is a very sad result of a war that didn't need to happen.

First term?  I want first year. I believe that Clinton has been much clearer about it. In fact, I've never been able to see what Obama's date is, he's moved it, as have his advisors. I have Clinton on tape saying it'd be one year and she's out. If she's not, I would turn against her hard.  Obama?  Because its so unclear when he's committed to pulling out, I think it'd be much more difficult to hold him to it-- just my take.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:29:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nah (none / 0)

Obama wants out of there desperately.  He just realizes that international powderkegs are not known for stability, and anything could happen.

He'd draw down forces responsibly, but we'd get out almost certainly within the year.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:42:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome, not a word about Clinton's Tuzla trip. (none / 0)

I believe both are committed to pulling out, however taking them at their word right now makes no sense. In a perfect world we pull out 2 brigades a month. Sadly, this is no perfect world, and less so since Dubya took us into Iraq.

I'm an Obama supporter Jerome. It seems you align yourself with Clinton's ideas/solutions/proposals. Honestly, it's super fine by me that you present pro-Clinton arguments. Kos does the same for Obama.  

I would like to make one additional point. It bothers me very little that Senator Clinton remains in this race as she has every right to. What bothers me a whole lot are all the unorthodox routes that are presented to grant her the nomination. We got the pledged delegates, then we have the supers, and I say let them vote as they may, for these are the rules. The conclusion in my opinion will be less than dramatic as (barring a scandal) the supers will be split 50%-50% between the two candidates.

Cheers


_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents
by lizardbox on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:49:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome, not a word about Clinton's Tuzla trip. (none / 0)

I hope you're right about Obama getting out asap. I'm sure we'd both be there putting his feet to the fire to make it so.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:07:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was kidding about the Tuzla trip, Jerome. (none / 0)

There were about four or five repetitive diaries up about that non-story already.

I note that last Friday, you wrote a guidelines post that included this:

Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.

When someone here cites rightwing hate/smear cites in their posts as an indicator of a fault with a Democratic candidate (and, yes, there is plenty of this sort of attack on either one of our current candidates), isn't that, in effect, "bashing the Democratic Party" and doing the work of a "Republican troll?"


by Bob Johnson on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Chris Bowers has a very different take... (none / 0)

....on which candidate most wants and intends to take our troops out.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jse ssionid=524D65F25260DBC7C728623BCB8242D5 ?diaryId=4745

Thoughts?


by wasder on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:48:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

Though I may not like the Clinton campaign, the use of electoral votes as a metric they're winning on is brilliant.

I give them a D on how they've run their campaign, but an A++ for creativity.


Voting for John McCain is not God bless America.
by SFValues on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:39:16 PM EST

electoral votes (none / 0)

just making up new ways to judge whos winning since they've lost all the official ones.


HRC for Majority Leader
by omar little on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:42:52 PM EST

Actually (2.00 / 0)

THE official one.

Delegates are all that matters.  Obama just includes the popular vote and number of states to try to make Clinton realize how silly she sounds.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:58:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And the latest...Armstrong Pro-Clinton Rant (1.00 / 1)

Yet another Armstrong diary to prop up the flailing Clinton campaign.  This is sad really.  

Moving the goal posts yet again. It used to be delegates were everything (which is correct).  Now Armstrong is pushing the "electoral vote" argument and even the corny "ratio between delegates and popular vote."  Ridiculous.

Armstrong's diaries are becoming more and more desperate.  This latest one should have at least showed a modicum of evenhandedness by including Clinton's lies regarding the Tusla, Bosnia trip.  Outlandish to say the least.  


by Lawdawg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:44:12 PM EST

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

Is any Clinton supporter willing to come forward with a metric upon which a superdelegate should base his/her vote?  I understand that there's a desire to keep this secret formula as close to the vest as possible, for fear that it will never withstand scrutiny, but I am genuinely curious as to what objective factors Clinton supporters think that the superdelegates should consider, and the respective weights of those factors.  Inventing new metrics as we go along isn't terribly convincing.


by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:46:42 PM EST

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 1)

SDs should vote based on electability and no other consideration.  That's the whole reason for their existence...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:02:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

So they should just vote based on the Gallup poll released during the Democratic convention?


by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:20:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

No. They are party insiders and Democratic activists who should be very knowledgable about the electoral politics of their state and the nation, and should use their best judgement to vote for who they believe will be the best candidate in the GE.


by LakersFan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:50:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (1.00 / 0)

Clinton is winning both popular and delegate counts if you count Michigan and Florida.  How's that for a start?


by jelyfish on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:11:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (2.00 / 0)

Not a very good one, since Obama wasn't on the MI ballot and both it, and Florida went ahead with their primaries when it was clear they would be stripped of delegates if they did so.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:16:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

The question asked was "Is any Clinton supporter willing to come forward with a metric upon which a superdelegate should base his/her vote?"

And I don't believe that Michigan and Florida will be completely stripped of their delegates.  


by jelyfish on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:30:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

It's not a very good start, because you didn't specify any criteria.  Ignoring for the moment all of the problems with including those states as is, what if she won one of those categories but not the other?  


by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

I think that is how it will most likely end going into the convention.  

Hillary probably will have the popular vote lead going into the convention.  Obama will probably have the delegate lead going into the convention.  

How super delegates feel about MI and FL may be the deciding factor.


by jelyfish on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:36:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

there is no way this is undecided going into the convention.  it just won't happen.

On June 4th we WILL know who the nominee is.  It is complete suicide as a party to let go through all of June, July and August without a nominee.


by bawbie on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:42:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

RE: Clinton and the Popular Vote (none / 0)

Actually, this analogy/analysis sucks.  Clinton was pretty much the only one running in MI, and barely got over 50% of the votes cast.  What would happen to her "popular vote" if she actually ran against someone.

And counting on the two states that ignored the DNC rules and created this whole mess is silly.  Hardly what I would call a fair election.


Carla
by hillsboroughrules on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:20:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

"I don't understand why either of the candidates even have a say, or a veto, in how the state decides the formula of how they will attempt a DNC-sanctioned election."

Familiar with the Credentials Committee at the convention? If the pledged delegate leader doesn't sign off on the re-election or allocation (and let's make it clear, that is and will be Obama), the MI/FL delegates won't be seated.


by gcensr on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:48:35 PM EST

WTF? (2.00 / 1)

Josh Marshall: He runs smack dab into an epiphany about the situation, but comes out stating that: "My take is that whatever the arguments, the superdelegates aren't going to go against a clear pledged delegate leader." He must believe that there's an un-spoken moral argument to be made that a "pledged delegate leader" trumps everything, even though it'd only be a plurality lead, not the majority that grants the nomination. Unfortunately for his logic, this take would be exactly the sort of "rule change" he's saying leads down the rabbit hole into a "different set of rules" than the one that exists.
THE VERY NEXT THING JMM WROTE AFTER THE ONE SENTENCE YOU QUOTED:
"And I think they'd be extremely ill-advised to do so. But the superdelegates do have this power under the rules."
Congratulations, you've officially reached the Michelle Malkin level of blogging--anything that makes your position stronger, even inexcusable truncations and quoting out of context, is now acceptable. Way to go.
by Jay R on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:52:51 PM EST

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

Thanks for beating me to this.  It's a page straight out of the GOP playbook.  Take a quote out of context, assign meaning to it that it doesn't have, then lambaste the person for saying it.  He says EXACTLY Jerome's point in the part that was cut out, but Jerome doesn't bother to include that and attacks JMM for making an argument that JMM doesn't actually make.


by ThinkerT on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (2.00 / 1)

I think you misunderstand, Michelle.

Josh has epiphany.... whatever it is.

Josh says: "My take is that whatever the arguments, the superdelegates aren't going to go against a clear pledged delegate leader. And I think they'd be extremely ill-advised to do so. But the superdelegates do have this power under the rules."

I say: "He must believe that there's an un-spoken moral argument to be made that a "pledged delegate leader" trumps everything, even though it'd only be a plurality lead, not the majority that grants the nomination. Unfortunately for his logic, this take would be exactly the sort of "rule change" he's saying leads down the rabbit hole into a "different set of rules" than the one that exists."

ie, there's nothing in the rules that states that SD's need to follow what Josh thinks should happen. There's no rule. He, and many, just make it up as some sort of logical leap that you'd condemn others for not seeing the bridge. He finds it "ill-advised". That's fine. Whatever, still its built on thin air to assume that what he proposes has any basis in the rules for the nomination, when it doesn't.

Follow, or do you need more explanation for logical comprehension for your name-calling?


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't understand (none / 0)

Arguing that Superdelegates should follow the lead of the pledged delegates is in NO WAY a rule change.

How do you make that leap in logic?


by bawbie on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:23:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't understand (none / 0)

Really?  They it should be an easy cut and paste for you to show me that rule... waiting.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:38:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't understand (none / 0)

You are an intelligent person, this should be really easy to understand:

Arguing that someone SHOULD do something it not the same thing as arguing the rules should be changed to make them do it.

Come on.  Use your brain!


by bawbie on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:01:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't understand (none / 0)

What part of the "He must believe that there's an un-spoken moral argument to be made that a "pledged delegate leader" trumps everything" part did you miss?


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't understand (2.00 / 0)

The part that demonstrates what Josh said equates to a rules change...I think we missed that part. I think you did, too.

As best I can tell, you were looking to accuse someone of trying to change the rules mid-game, regardless of the fact that he specifically cited the rules and agreed that they didn't mandate what he was suggesting. What you wrote would easily qualify for the old "Inexcusable Misquote Contest" that campusprogress.org ran a few years ago.

by Jay R on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:28:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't understand (none / 0)

Not changing the rules mid-game, just making it up as we go. Look, there's no easy way out of this quagmire, but anyone who claims that there's a argument has the high road without explaining why that's the case, like Josh does, is open to being criticized for making up the rules to fit the candidate they want to win.

I've said all along that the popular vote total means more, especially in regards to the delegate to vote ratio if there's a different leader of that and the pledged delegates. It's a moral argument based on one person one vote, and being the most democratic.

In short, we all know that the SD's were not created to rubberstamp the leader of the pledged delegates. Josh concedes that, but makes it seems like  if they do differently, it's "ill-advised", according to some sort of moral authority I guess, who knows.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:00:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't understand (none / 0)

its arguable certainly but I think that its accurate to say that it would be ill-advised for the superdelegates to hand the nomination to Clinton if Obama had won more states, more pledged delegates and more of the popular vote. As I said somewhere else in this diary it doesn't look like its going to be possible to determine the winner of the popular vote to everyone's satisfaction given the FL and MI situations and the difficulties in determining the popular vote in the caucus states. Still I think a good case could be made that there would be more uproar and internal strife within the party if the superdelegates gave the nomination to Clinton in the above stated situation, than there would be if they ratified the pledged winner. arguable yes, and I am sure we will all continue to argue, but Josh Marshall is saying something that has a good basis in logic.


by wasder on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:04:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't understand (none / 0)

This reads like you were just looking for something to complain about, and decided to try by attacking people for paying attention to something that's patently absurd to ignore if the superdelegates are at all interested in electability arguments. It's ill-advised because anyone who has any political acumen whatsoever can game out how it will be played within the media and the party. I think you have more than a modicum of acumen yourself, so you probably understand that point perfectly well, and you also understand that limiting the fractious elements of this primary is a legitimate concern. But the real problem is that you chose to frame this as an attempt to change the rules, which it plainly isn't. That's where it went from being a slightly absurd claim to being an inexcusable attempt at sliming Josh Marshall for no apparent reason.
by Jay R on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:03:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't understand (none / 0)

Isn't there a rule on here that limits the number of diaries a member can post in one day?

Just curious.


Carla
by hillsboroughrules on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Electoral Votes (2.00 / 1)

Based on who won the popular vote:

With FL/MI

Clinton: 263
Obama: 219
Undecided: 73

Without FL/MI

Clinton: 219
Obama: 202
Undecided: 117

Clinton, PA, KY, WV; Obama, NC, ID, OR, MT, SD (without FL/MI)

Clinton: 253
Obama: 241
Undecided: 44

Clinton, PA, KY, WV; Obama, NC, ID, OR, MT, SD (with FL only)

Clinton: 280
Obama: 241
Undecided: 17

Clinton, PA, KY, WV, NC, ID; Obama, OR, MT, SD (without FL/MI)

Clinton: 279
Obama: 215
Undecided: 44

Clinton, PA, KY, WV, NC, ID; Obama, OR, MT, SD (with FL only)

Clinton: 306
Obama: 215
Undecided: 17

It does not matter though. Electoral votes and delegates are two different things and calculated differently. Though, it could make an argument.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:53:18 PM EST

Yeah (none / 0)

A very specious argument.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:55:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electoral Votes (2.00 / 0)

Not only are they calculated differently, but they are measured against two completely different opponents, which is probably the largest flaw in such an analysis.


by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:58:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In order: (2.00 / 0)

"disingenuous," "divisive," "untruthful," "dishonest," "polarizing," "calculating," "saying whatever it takes to win," "attempting to deceive the American people," "one of the most secretive in America," "deliberately misleading," "literally willing to do anything to win," and "playing politics with war."

All of those things are true.  I don't see what you have a problem with.  If you'd included the "monster" bit, then I could buy it, but that's already been taken off the table.  

How is it character assassination if it's completely accurate?

Okay, I'll grant you one: "literally willing to do anything to win" is exaggerated.  I'm sure she wouldn't murder Obama in cold blood.

I can't read the 2012 Theorem stuff from work, so I won't comment on that.  I know the Mayan calendar ends, and the antichrist is also supposed to show up.

Barry becomes Barack: I admire people able to effectively change my name.  In college I used to try and go by my middle name, but it would end up just confusing people who knew me from before.  My admiration goes to both Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, for whom it must've been very difficult for an old-school feminist to change her name from her maiden "Hillary Rodham" to closer association with her husband as "Hillary Clinton." I get why it was necessary, though.

Obama Dilemma: If this is a dilemma, I wish I could have problems that good in my normal life.  Damn, we've got an intelligent candidate with broad appeal and fierce resiliency that is winning by all rational metrics whom we may have a problem with if we don't choose.  I DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO!?!!!

Michigan: Obama has said on the air to Larry King that he'd go with the DNC/Michigan decision.  It's not his call.  I don't see why anyone is even consulting him, unless its requesting his advice as a well-respected constitutional law scholar.  You said it yourself, the 50/50 split is a "starting position" and is rather generous, considering the results of a primary would probably heavily favor him, as it did in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

State totals: You're right, it is just as moronic to consider the electoral votes as it is counting the states & contests individually.  We should stop doing both.

Iowa co-chair: Obama has some imperfect people with his supporters.  Join humanity.

I care that my public officials release their tax returns, especially if they're self-funding their campaigns.  Obama gave himself $1,000 for one of his early campaigns.  This is public knowledge, and his returns are available.  Clinton gave herself $5 million and hasn't made them available.  For all we know, she could be funding her campaign with a vast porn enterprise.  Probable?  No.  But possible.  We won't know until we pop the hood and check it out.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:54:59 PM EST

Damn Right I Care about Tax Returns (2.00 / 1)

Why should we let any "secret" about Hillary's Tax returns wait for the GOP to use against Her?

Hiding these returns only makes it look bad.

"Tax Returns - Transparency You Can Xerox"

Also consider this :

Obama will get more AA's out to the Polls that have never voted before. If there is no Obama to vote for they probably won't.

Woman who are democrats are "pro-choice" before "pro-woman". They won't vote for McCain.


by Pissoff on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:00:29 PM EST

Re: Damn Right I Care about Tax Returns (2.00 / 1)

Obama will get more AA's out to the Polls that have never voted before. If there is no Obama to vote for they probably won't.

Race card?


by world dictator on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Damn Right I Care about Tax Returns (none / 0)

No - we won't vote for McCain, but we won't vote for Obama either.

Keep a Dem Congress, and the SC is safe from wackos anyway.  That is not a good enough reason to vote for Obama.


by cmugirl90 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:10:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That ship has already sailed. (none / 0)

Ok. Then McCain has already won. Let's move on to congressional races.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:02:44 PM EST

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

Damn Jerome,

How many diaries are you allowed to post each day?  Shouldn't there be a percentage of negative bs and happy bs if you do more than one?


Carla
by hillsboroughrules on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:02:44 PM EST

Re: And the latest... (none / 0)

His site, his rules.
by Jay R on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

a dozen comments (2.00 / 2)

Before a single Obama supporter bothers to engage any of Jerome's arguments. I know this is the DKos standard, but how long before you guys get bored and go back?

It is possible to disagree with a person, even disagreeably, and still engage them. There are two sides to this contest, pretending the other side has no merit is self-defeating. At least try to engage in the argument, most Obama supporters here do a pretty good job of it.


by souvarine on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:04:18 PM EST

engage in his fantasy? (none / 0)

Sorry, I'm still a member of the Reality Based Community.

I don't debate illusions.


by Pissoff on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:08:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a dozen comments (none / 0)

Actually... you may want to go back and check out the very first comment...


by Brillobreaks on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:09:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a dozen comments (2.00 / 1)

The one that ends with "I thought you were a democrat?" That attempts to completely change the subject? Yeah, I read that. She has an argument, but she isn't engaging the argument of the post.


by souvarine on