I personally love the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket. Because what we are hopefully doing here is selecting our nominee for 2016. I would be adamantly opposed to any military man being offered the position.
And if you paid attention to McCains speech last nite he threw in a line about serving imperfectly but always being proud. The "really" ; whether there or not, doen't help. The takeaway is that she is only now proud of America. Not a good thing.
p.s. And yes I understand what she meant, but the dogwhistle republicans won't want to. Something that shouldn't have been said.
Well if rules are rules, then the DNC should be stripping the delegates from Iowa, NH and SC any day now. Then we can all join hands and sing Kumbaya because, although we have disenfranchised millions of voters, its ok because they don't have any constitutional right to a primary vote anyway. That will make things all better. Enough ranting, on to the fix.
My proposal would be to strip 50% of the delegates from all five states and prohibit the seating of any of their suprdelegates. In the same proposal to the credentials committee I would ask that ALL superdelegates be divided based on proportions of the popular or caucus vote and be required to vote accordingly on the first ballot beginning with this years convention. That should address most concerns and make everyone equally unhappy which is the essence of every good compromise.
What a bunch of crap. David didn't apologize, he just said he was sorry if he upset anyone. The classic non apology apology. And of course he was mad that he was called on this by the campaign. Because ANYTHING you say about the Clintons is ok, why should this be any different? David has always been a smug, prissy little man so I can't quite imagine how anyone could find his reporting excellent. And to address the point that he didn't think that the language would be offensive is just ludicrous, if anyone believes that he would have said that Sen. Obama was "pimping out" Michelle or his daughters they live in a far from reality based world.
And lastly, as for KO, its not an apology (heartfelt or not) if you preface it by extolling the virtues of the person you are apologizing for.
I would bet that the strategy was that Hillary would win big in the primary states and the caucuses would follow on there own without any organization needed. Unfortunately, this became more contested than was thought and her campaign never revisited the strategy for caucus states. It has cost her, we will hope it hasn't cost her too much.
Excellent work as always. My only question/comment is, with Obama on the ticket the Illinois races all become more competitive? Or maybe not. My thought process here is that turnout should be through the roof in Illinois and that should help team blue. The extra high turnout should mean an extra 3 to 5 points for our candidates and down ballot issues. Or maybe you already accounted for that in your analysis.
What is the Hillary count on Superdelegates from Michigan? If she controls most, or even a good portion of those votes I would think that the uncommitted delegates would be led to vote for her. It would stand to reason, the largest group of delegates would be committed to Hillary, the second largest group would be uncommitted (these delegates to be named later by the Michigan party leaders) and then the Superdelegates who will become the de facto leaders of the uncommitted group. Look for the battle to be there. I would expect Hillary to pick up a lionesses share of the uncommitted group if she keeps the Michigan party leaders on board. This strategy would also keep the power in the hands of the party leaders which they always like.
p.s. I don't subscribe to the developing CW that she has to win by more than 50% of the vote.
p.p.s. I do agree with the developing CW that the Michigan and Florida delegations will be seated in their entirety at the convention.
There are no, repeat no valid studies which support an increase in negative secondary effects caused solely by adult bookstores. As far back as the Meese Report and even back to the Nixon administration the studies show no negative secondary effects. No increase in rapes, no decrease in property values, no increased drug sales, no increase in molestation, nothing. So if we could just get the government out of the sex business, that'd be great. Thanks.
Would have liked to see more detail of the bill. Is it just linkage (i.e. if Congress gets one then everybody gets one or is it the same kind of percentage)? Does this eliminate the abominable tip differential? How is this phased in? Is there a link available to the text of the proposed legislation?
P.S. Good for HRC. Call it pandering or whatever else you want, this is good for working class Americans.
Shouldn't AG Cuomo be initiating an investigation into the fraudulent use of state funds by Rudy and the failure of Bloomberg to prosecute or even investigate when he found out? When Rudy billed all those obscure city agencies for the love nest crap, well they all get state funds somehow. Seems to me there is a criminal case there just waiting to blow up on Mikey. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
I would hope that Sen. Dodd would rise and request to table the motion. He should explain that he had asked to have this item "held" and request other Senators to vote accordingly to uphold Senatorial privilege. Not really much chance of this I suppose.
On a related note, so the Senate will not be honoring holds any longer? Great, now maybe we can get a few things accomplished next year. Hahahahaha. Some holds are more equal than others.
I couldn't agree more. I already have major concerns about Hillary controlling the military. Put that together with a General as VP and I see no way at all for the civilians to reassert control. If she wins, it would be bad enough to put Clark in as SecDef, which I have always expected.
My other concern in this area is that our nominee will feel compelled to nominate a Republican as SecDef, my worst nightmare. Well, other than a Republican winning the Pres.