Why live in fear on an issue that's good for us? McCain is a hypocrite, like most of the GOP in Congress. His serving has nothing to do with the issue, and in fact, can be used by a skillful politician against him. More than Bush, or Cheney, he should know better, and still he decided that some things were too good for veterans. To top it off, he decided to openly oppose the plan, but was too much of a coward to actually vote against it. His charge of political opportunism is weak, especially when it's easily demonstrable what an opportunist he is.
One can be white and Hispanic. In the U.S., the term is often perceived to be a racial designation, but it denotes more a sense of cultural heritage than anything else.
There are white Hispanics, indigenous Hispanics, and black Hispanics. . . and more, to be honest. However, in this country, that's pretty much how we break them down, so as to fit in to our own rather narrow definitions of race/racial difference.
minnesotaryan - I actually agree with you on pledged delegates being a fairer metric, I just wanted to point out that this post by Todd wasn't necessarily a value judgment towards one metric or another, simply that they were both talking points, as neither the popular vote nor the pledge delegate majority will secure the nomination (this year). That the latter is a stronger argument, and the former has no formal sanction in the process--well, you'll get no argument from me on either.
The electability and popular vote arguments offered by Clinton, however debatable, are part of an effort to sway delegates (super and pledged) to support her. In the end, the only thing that will matter is how a majority of all the delegates vote in Denver. As of now, the only thing that is likely to "end" this before Denver is if a clear majority of delegates pick one candidate over the other. It's much more likely that Obama will be the one, but Clinton is still (technically) viable.
Personally, I think we all need to calm down on this issue. Obama supporters (me included) need to be less impatient. Clinton supporters can still be good advocates for their cause(s) but might want to dial back the aggression. It isn't nearly as dire as some want to believe. The republic and the party are not going to fall over this . . . at worst we'll have some bruised egos and broken hearts. More than likely, in 2-3 weeks, this whole thing will be over. It would be great if we could get there still believing that we're among friends.
Is a tricky argument, mostly because there's very little evidence anyone can cite that has any real sway. This far out in 2004, Kerry looked pretty darn electable. Dukakis looked like a sure winner for a good portion of 1988 too.
I happen to believe that either Obama or Clinton would destroy McCain this year (which is why they both are fighting so hard to secure the nomination), but that remains to be seen. Also, if either loses, it's not probably--or even likely--that the other would have won.
The same could be--and was--said for having a majority of the pledged delegates . . . which I think was the point of the post. Both are, of themselves, meaningless, as neither will get someone the nomination. What matters is how effective these talking points are at swaying the remaining supers. The pledged delegate lead/majority just happens to mean that Obama needs to sway fewer superdelegates in order to win the nomination.
I have many problems with Clinton's claims about the popular vote, and the seating of MI & FL based on the January votes, but that doesn't mean that her arguments are totally devoid of logic or moral suasion.
This question sort of presupposes that the SDs are all of the same mind on this. I'm sure that many of them would love to end the contest as early as possible . . . though one might assume these people have already declared for their candidate. Others might just want to jump in as soon as possible so that they perceive they could gain influence with the candidate and could care less how their decision is perceived by others.
Also, it assumes that they've all been chosen by May 31. How many SDs have yet to be assigned by their state delegations (or, will yet to have been assigned by the end of the month)?
Silence is complicity? Do you really think Obama pours over the political blogs each night, policing them for content? Do you think he should? I'd rather he work on his rather sorry excuse for a health care plan myself, or get cracking on beating McCain in November.
Also, it's sad that you chose to use a press release from a Republican candidate to justify your position. Perhaps you can find something a little less partisan and full of spin?
BTW, has anybody else noticed that McCain's people took this as an obvious swipe against McCain's age, when I immediately thought it was rather clever word play for someone to use with regard to a former Navy man?
Your post seems to imply that Clinton can win Oregon by simply asking Obama a series of questions relating to water rights and the environment. If these issues are as central to turning Oregon in to a big win for her, would it not be better to have Clinton push her plans for dealing with these issues?
Clinton was engaging in some carefully crafted language that her camp determined could best be employed to play on some fears (among SDs?) that Obama is not running strong enough among white Democratic voters. I think she was obviously uncomfortable doing so, and in the process stepped all over her talking points.
In the end, she seemed to equate "hard working" with "white Americans," which is a disturbingly racist notion. Do I think she meant it to come out that way? No. But, it did. The fact that she was so blatantly attempting to play on racial fears or uncertainties while doing it doesn't score her any benefit of the doubt with me.