• on a comment on Becoming what you hate over 5 years ago

    From what I read, while McCain let assorted reporters go through his medical papers from the doctor, Obama's doctor released a certification that Obama's health is fine.  At most it was a summary saying that.  As a result, it might be more invasive for the Dems to demand her medical history.

    By the way, I saw a very informative, unusually balanced note about Palin from one who has watched her rise from the perspective of a council-member attendee and has plenty to say.  While it gives even more ammunition to those against her nomination, and in a better way than going after the famiy, it also leaves Palin some credit.  But as for what she's done and how she can(mis)handle her power, it's eye-opening.  This was almost lost in scrolling comments so I took it out and put it in its own page at
    http://www.andrys.com/palin-kilkenny.htm l

  • on a comment on Becoming what you hate over 5 years ago

    From what I read, while McCain let assorted reporters go through his medical papers from the doctor, Obama's doctor released a certification that Obama's health is fine.  At most it was a summary saying that.  As a result, it might be more invasive for the Dems to demand her medical history.

  • on a comment on Palin? Yikes! over 5 years ago

    There's an alarmingly hysteric quality in her speaking manner.

     On paper, she was quite a threat, but I think she will lose McCain a lot of votes.

  • When they announced the plans, I wrote that this was a high-risk, hard-to-control situation, precisely because of racists and the difficulty in controlling seating and line of sight with lots of advance time for planning.  We've had real and very devastating  problems with this, and I don't think people on his team are thinking this out.  

  • on a comment on He Hasn't Won Yet over 5 years ago

    He's lost nearly all the big states that are basic MUSTs for Democrats in the General Election, and exit polling as well as electoral-college-based polling shows him NOT winning those states (at this point) from McCain while Clinton does.

     This is not a cute game of nyah nyah - my candidate won.  

     The only way he can close this down is to win Indiana tomorrow and win North Carolina big.

     It's a possibility though not a probability, so until then enough with the games already since THEY are what is divisive among supporters.

  • on a comment on He Hasn't Won Yet over 5 years ago

    Face it, he hasn't won a large primary since late February or so.  He keeps losing the big states.
    One after the other.

     This is serious stuff.  You can post as if Obama has won, but the ugliness coming daily for Clinton "to quit or get out" since BEFORE Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania merely displayed the anxiety Obama supporters felt because they do know it's not over when neither has the pledged delegates required to automatically gain the nomination.  And THAT IS the ruling mechanism.  

  • on a comment on He Hasn't Won Yet over 5 years ago

    ...penalties due to evidence the state parties tried to move the date to Feb. 5.  Florida did try to do that but the Republican-ruled legislature voted against the Dem's amendment to move that vote to be in compliance with DNC rules.

     The Repubs knew what they were doing there and Dean fell for it, mainly because he does, for his own reasons, want Obama to win.  Carville was unfair to him after Dean was successful with the 50-state strategy.  Dean's arbitrary control-freak rules and his stupendously unethical handling of the penalties, ignoring the modifications possible which were built into those rules have all but  ensured our defeat in Florida and Michigan.  That is beyond stupid.

     It also makes "The will of the people" a laughing matter, because after the lessons of yr 2000 he would punish the voters for actions by the Republican legislature.  

  • on a comment on He Hasn't Won Yet over 5 years ago

    He bought national ads as a bundle, and they aired in Florida several times a day for almost two weeks before Florida's primary.

     He also spontaneously crossed the street to hold a press conference and did until reminded that was against 'campaigning' rules, at which time he stopped.

     They each did about 15 fundraisers each in Florida as that was considered okay and not 'campaigning' (search me why).   They also held a debate there.  People saw both of them as much as I have here in California, not having gone to a rally for either but able to read newspapers and online articles and discussions and watch them both carry on via youtube as well as daily on my more old-fashioned tube.

     So, in essence, he was the only candidate who did campaign in Florida.

     Also, he himself removed himself from the Michigan ballot, as did Edwards.  At the time they were polling lower than Hillary.  Then Obama himself asked Michigan voters to vote for "Uncommitted" -- his campaign staff repeated that, and other Democrat bigwigs advised the voters to do the same, so there WAS an anti-Hillary vote by Obama's urging (one might call that participating in the election).

     My preferred position would be to give Obama all the Uncommitted votes, even if Edwards would have gotten about 15% or so of those.  

     

  • on a comment on That famous 2002 antiwar speech. over 6 years ago

    In the Dem minority?  No -- more Dems voted for the Resolution than against it.

     Among the Dem leaders voting FOR the resolution were: Kerry, Edwards, Biden (normally a tough one), Daschle, Dodd, Schumer, Feinstein, Reid, Harkin, Rockefeller, Bayh, Cleland, and others.  

     The Dem vote was something like 29 Yea, 22 Nay

  • on a comment on That famous 2002 antiwar speech. over 6 years ago

    Obama has throughly agreed with you, especially in his clear statement in The New Yorker in 2006.

    http://andrys1.blogspot.com/2008/03/that -iraq-war-vote-and-judgment-factor.html

  • Well, an analysis was done of the Texas voting in the primary and they found that the new, young Obama supporters were by far the most likely not to vote below the presidential boxes at all.

    They just wanted to vote for the one person.  The celebrity.  No interest in the other issues.  No interest in the party itself.

     So what does that do re that threat?  Too many of them are not interested in the down ticket anyway.  No glamorous stuff there.  Real political work is drudgery, in a dullish atmosphere unless you love the nitty gritty and give and take (not take take take) of politics.  Obama has a habit of wanting his opposition to drop out -- if they don't he will do all he can to invalidate them and this is just more of the same.  

     http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit ics/obama/chi-0704030881apr04,1,7336556. story?ctrack=1&cset=true&page=1& amp;coll=chi_news_politics_util

  • Rasmussen as of yesterday:

    Most interesting portions to me:

    Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
    "McCain leads Barack Obama 50% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 48% to 43%"

    "Obama's reviews are 46% favorable and 52% unfavorable.
      For Clinton, those  numbers are 45% favorable, 52% unfavorable"

     [ Who would have expected his unfavorable ratings to match Clinton's?
        It'll be harder for him to rag on about hers. ]

    "In the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it's Clinton 46%, Obama 43%."

    "The division in the Democratic Party is highlighted by the fact that just
    71% of Democratic Primary voters now say they will vote for Hillary Clinton
    in the general election campaign.

    If Barack Obama is nominated, 64% of Democratic Primary voters are ready to
    vote for him."

    "Clinton is currently viewed favorably by 74% of Democrats nationwide,
    Obama by 67%.  By way of comparison, McCain is viewed favorably by 83% of
    Republicans."

    (The tv channels mainly discuss their own poll results.)

  • If you count leading us off a cliff in November, they are leaders.

  • It's a myth that his money comes from 'the people' in the way he likes to say that.  

    Obama does well when it comes to industry-$. He's not as young as he looks, though definitely younger than Clinton. :-)

    See http://opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp
    That's the umbrella page for presidential elec2008
    Clicking on names will get you how much they
    got from various industries and sectors.

    ~~~ Clinton -
    -Top industries
    http://opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp? id=N00000019&cycle=2008

    -Top contributors
    http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.as p?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

    -Sector totals
    http://opensecrets.org/pres08/sector.asp ?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

    ~~~ Obama -

    -Top industries
    http://opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp? id=N00009638&cycle=2008

    -Top contributors
    http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.as p?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

    -Sector totals
    http://opensecrets.org/pres08/sector.asp ?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

    ~~~ For Selected Sector totals to each, for
    the money-focused areas:

    -Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
    http://opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.as p?sec=F
    -Misc Business
    http://opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.as p?sec=N

    ~~~ For Selected Industries for each, for $-entities

    -Commercial banks
    http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp ?Ind=F03
    -Insurance
    http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp ?Ind=F09
    -Securities and Investments
    http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp ?Ind=F07

  • I meant to type "What's hurt him is a sense of no actual leadership...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads