• I am sorry but this is the man who would be our president, who would go and speak to belligerent world leaders, to take their measure, to make treaties with them ...

    ... and here he is essentially saying that he was wrong about his pastor who he has personally known for 20 years ...

    ... this speaks terribly badly for his judgement as a leader and hence is fair game politically (as Obama has said himself).

    ]{

    PS. I do feel bad for both Obama and Wright personally but as they say 'politics ain't beanbag'

  • The problem for Obama is what will Wright say next. If he comes out and 'denounces' Obama this circus will continue throughout the week.

    One point I will make ...

    If Wright says something like 'Obama was in my church for 20 years and now he claims he does not know me'? It's going to look real bad for Obama (or worse than it already looks).

    ]{

  • on a comment on Open Thread over 6 years ago

    ... or they will go with their states.

    The problem is that the popular vote number is going to be very fuzzy:

    Do you count the caucus states (how given what happened in texas)?

    Do you count Florida (probably)?

    Do you count Michigan (what to do with the undecideds)?

    ]{

  • on a comment on Open Thread over 6 years ago

    I am Clinton supporter and I don't even hate current Republicans.

    I don't really think you can be committed to a democratic while 'hating' people who hold a different political position.

    It's why I am anti-Kos, incidentally. It's the center of progressive hate.

    ]{

  • on a comment on Open Thread over 6 years ago

    Obama bought a house from this man, Obama's side yard is still owned by him (a side yard you cannot enter except through Obama's property), Obama helped him get a government contract, he raised hundreds of thousands for Obama's campaign, etc.

    Hillary had her picture taken with him.

    Do you see the difference or are you still blinded by the light?

    ]{

  • on a comment on Open Thread over 6 years ago

    If he has an 'endless' number of super delegates why don't they just come out and end the nomination battle?

    Does Occam not suggest to you that, perhaps, the super delegates are either undecided or otherwise uncommitted.

    ]{

  • Honestly, you don't think that an African American minister, Obama's would be 'uncle', spouting off about how the US government is responsible for AIDS, Al Queda, 9/11, is not going to cost Obama in IN and NC?

    ]{

  • on a comment on Open Thread over 6 years ago

    It's drama and hope, the best kind of movie (not!)

  • on a comment on Open Thread over 6 years ago

    We're talking politics here, logic has nothing to do with it.

    If what you say is true why are there 300 undecided super delegates? Obviously because no one want's to alienate anyones supporters to their personal detriment (firstly) and to the party.

    So what is needed now is a knock out of Clinton (like a loss in IN and NC) to give those super delegates justification in moving to Obama.

    In the quite likely event that no knock out will occur and Clinton goes on to win everything but NC and OR, there will not be a resolution until the convention where there will be a democratic apocalypse.

    ]{

  • on a comment on Election Thread over 6 years ago

    The trouble with this argument is that, you know, February, was a great month for Obama and he lost Ohio by 10+ points.

    Also, Obama has not won ANY battleground state despite his huge primary wealth and his victories in numerous caucuses.

    Finally, I hate to tell you but a 10-12% margin of loss is not a comfortable margin when your the presumptive nominee and have a huge cash advantage.

    ]{

  • on a comment on Actual Results Thread over 6 years ago

    Yeah, there is the one candidate with the very high negatives, and then there is the candidate she beat in every battleground state (by a healthy margin, no less).

    (McCain said that during a fund raiser.)

    ]{

  • on a comment on Election Thread over 6 years ago

    The results are unweighed and with the size of the turnout there could be significant swing to either candidate.

    ]{

  • on a comment on Election Thread over 6 years ago

    Your just perpetuating the usual Obama argument for why he can't win in a big state. Honestly, I was supportive about California but it's practically May. He spent 11 million+ in that state, he is the presumptive nominee, and he still can't beat Clinton.

    ]{

  • Pat may be right of center (very far) but he is not stupid. He makes insightful and well considered comments, which is more then you can say for the majority of the MSNBC people.

    ]{

  • I don't understand why people 'x% win is a disaster for Clinton'.

    If she wins by 0.1% that means Obama has lost another large battleground state even though he outspent his opponent by a margin of 3:1.

    He has the name recognition now, he has an unlimited amount of money, he is the presumptive nominee, what exactly does he need to actually win a battleground state?

    ]{

Diaries

Advertise Blogads