Is it something about the way the laws themselves are written?
Or is it related to all the other reasons we in DC are relegated to second-class citizen status (like not getting the Congressional representation to which we are entitled as Americans, not having true home rule, etc.)?
Obama tried to pass some healthcare, and Steele said "no, no, no."
Yes, they're both black, but Steele ain't got his back, sayin' "no, no, no."
All these folks are dyin'
But the Republicans think they're fine,
If Republican's keep on blockin' health care, time for them to go, go, go.
I'll be here all week. Tip your waitstaff. Try the veal, it's delicious.
Lamont couldn't have been saved in the general by Obama heavily campaigning for him; he ran a great primary campaign but a lousy general-election campaign. And Obama was much more use to us in other places in '06.
The prosecution withheld evidence from the defense! Even if he were found guilty, the conviction would have been overturned in seconds by a higher court, and rightly so. The Constitution protects defendants' right to see and contest the evidence presented against them.
Radio and broadcast TV news? Sure. They use the public airwaves, and the deregulation of the use of these airwaves--most importantly, the elimination of ownership limits--should be rescinded.
But cable channels like CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg, etc. - to which I think the diarist is referring - have never been and can't be regulated, as they don't use a public resource (the airwaves). To suggest regulating cable networks is to suggest a massive (and probably unconstitutional) expansion of federal power.
I don't think a lottery is the way to go. I think we do need a strategic vision, if for no other reason than that having a state like California or New York at the head of the line would all but ensure that any candidate who didn't have massive funding behind him/her from the get-go wouldn't be able to compete. We do need to put at least some small states first, in order to create a situation where less-well-funded candidates can try to build some momentum going into the big states.
I do agree, though, that it's past time Iowa and New Hampshire be bumped from the head of the line.
I would like to point out that at the time the 2008 rules were set, Barack Obama had very little power in the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton had a great deal of it. To suggest that the rules were rigged in favor of Barack Obama is rather laughable on its face given this political reality. Obama learned to effectively maneuver within the rules as written in order to secure more delegates than Hillary Clinton, but that was due to the relative strategies of the two campaigns, not to any predetermined "rigging" process.
Just like this time it will all be done with some particular candidate in mind.
I disagree with your assessment of the 2008 primary, but I agree that this will be done in 2012 with the understanding that Barack Obama will be renominated. In my opinion, this creates a situation where we're more likely to see major reform, since reform can't be perceived as a political maneuver to work in a particular candidate's favor; as it's all but a foregone conclusion that the incumbent president will be the nominee, and the 2016 election is still seven years away, we might see some actual change.
We need to get back to the original concept of Democracy where 50% + 1 is all that's needed to pass legislation, to elect officials, or make the rules.
I disagree. There are some things that should require a stronger majority in order to happen. Amending the Constitution is difficult, and rightly so; if all it took was 50%+1 to add an amendment, our Constitution would probably have a nationwide ban on gay marriage. We saw this in California, too, where just 52% of the voters were able to strip civil rights away from that state's LGBT citizens.
50%+1 for everything is an invitation to demagoguery and mob rule.
Now, in this case, I think 50%+1 should be all that's required to become a union shop... and if we can pass that, I will be all for it. But if we can't get that, and we can get a 70% measure, I'll take that too over the mess we have now.
Don't be embarrassed. 99% of Hillary supporters were and are good, solid Democrats, patriots whose support for one candidate over another did not translate into obsessive, relentless, and irrational hatred of the candidate who won the primary.
This troll was no true Hillary supporter; if it was, it would have followed her lead when she enthusiastically endorsed, supported, and worked her ass off for Barack Obama. Instead, it has demonstrated that its hateful obsession with President Obama is completely counter to the honorable way in which Hillary Clinton comported herself after losing a tough primary.
This thing does not represent you, or canadian gal, or the many other honorable Clinton supporters who joined her in throwing their support behind the Democratic nominee. It represents a small, bitter, loathsome minority, a group of irrational haters who have allowed their personal resentments to overwhelm any desire for the good of the Democratic Party or the United States of America. Our party is much better off without the PUMAs; you and your fellow Clinton supporters remain invaluable friends as we seek to further a progressive agenda.
Wow. You're pretty ignorant if you think the First Amendment has even the slightest bit to do with this.
The First Amendment states only that government cannot restrict speech. It does not entitle you to spout your irrational, delusional, and obsessive hatred of Obama on someone else's website. If Jerome chooses to ban you--which I sincerely hope he does, though I'm not optimistic given his penchant for allowing PUMA scum like you to run rampant over this once-respected site--he has in no way violated your First Amendment rights.
Please go away and don't come back. Your only success has been in uniting the community against you and your rather pathetic PUMA hatred.