agree completely. let's go for the throat. enough playing nice against the f*ckwad lying republicans.
i did like when Hillary asked whether we were in it for her or for america. only she diluted that great line by asking if we were in it for her or for Little Timmy, which is the formulation that grates the hell out of me (see above).
but i didn't think it was that great. number one, she didn't really make a case for obama, just said that she supported him fully. i wish she'd taken on some of the things she said in the past, said he was ready to lead, etc.
number two, i am tired as hell of the sacharine rhetoric we get in all these convention speeches about how we are in favor of jobs, education and health care for everyone, opportunity for all, and a happy wonderful america. this stuff is just not inspiring and is boring as hell. i also get pretty tired of the Little Timmy anecdotes i.e. "I will always remember Little Timmy from the campaign and how he inspired me and how we're all in this for him." 98% of the time the anecdote is empty of feeling.
Same with Warner. How about some semi-substance at least about how McCain will trample the right to choose, flip flopped on drilling and tax cuts and a million other things, doesn't understand the economy and wants to dig the deficit hole even deeper, doesn't inspire anyone, is a dangerous hothead who loves war, etc. How many empty speeches are we going to get about the laundry list of Things We All Like?
I liked the Harriet Tubman part though, that was actually inspiring.
Why does the liberal blogosphere get so cranky when the media downplays or ignores Obama's lead? Who cares? The lead is what it is. Lots of liberals also worry that Obama is under-performing, but again, why does that hurt Obama? I guess it's kind of annoying because it's dumb, but if the point is that the media's election coverage is dumb, there are about three hundred more annoying examples every day.
And I'm happy he won. But Clinton supporters, rest assured that many of us are also sad to see such a wonderful leader defeated.
My happiness at Obama winning the nomination is about 1% of the happiness I will feel to see a Dem win in November. If it had been Clinton, the same would have been true.
I hope you who have supported Clinton can overlook the sore winners and grating personalities that infect Obama's supporters. let's be honest, there are irritating asshats supporting every candidate, unfortunately. Lets put the intraparty bickering behind us and unite for an incredibly important victory in November.
Although I generally am quite respectful of Republicans, I think there is a fine line between avoiding insults (good idea) and being pushovers (bad idea).
For years I think the Dems have been pushovers to the right and it has been our worst problem. For instance, we bought into the "Dems are soft on security" nonsense and became GOP light, voting for the Iraq war. The right throws ludicrous insults at the Dems, but the Dems sometimes respond not by pushing back hard but rather by trying to appease the right wing critics. "Well, the GOP has a point..." Sometimes that isn't the right answer. Sometimes the right answer is, "the GOP is bankrupt and corrupt."
All I'm saying is, there is a way to be respectful and even open to bipartisanship while still strongly criticizing the wrongheaded and incompetent ideas of the GOP. I think for too long Dems have confused comity and respect with asskissing and "me too"-ism.
in both campaigns and everyone who pays attention enough to visit a site like this knows Hillary has lost. She has a theoretical path to the nomination (winning an overwhelming number of remaining super delegates) but that path is obviously not in the cards.
So why are we still talking about the popular vote, the unfairness of MI and FL, and how Hillary would be a better candidate? All of these arguments are perfectly legitimate attempts to persuade superdelegates. The problem is the vast majority of undeclared superdels are obviously rejecting these arguments.
Everyone on this site knows that Obama has won. What purpose is being served by continuing to complain that he is a weaker candidate? Do you think that some magical turn of events will suddenly lead the superdelegates to switch in massive numbers? Or is it some sort of placeholder to say "I told you so" later if Obama loses?
Whatever the merits of this argument, you must realize that the superdelegates aren't buying it. Are you hoping that they will suddenly see the light? if not, why are you clinton supporters still making this argument instead of joining forces behind our nominee?
Obama's numbers vs. McCain are way below reality because of Clinton supporters who say they won't vote Obama. Obama supporters aren't disappointed about losing and so don't do the same back to Clinton.
Most Clinton supporters will come around. In some early 2000 polls, 51% of McCain voters in the GOP primary said they would support Al Gore. That didn't even come close to happening and it won't happen for Clinton supporters this year, either.
I don't agree that Hillary is the better general election candidate, but maybe you're right. Obviously some people like her better than Obama and I don't doubt that she makes some states competitive that he doesn't.
But here's the thing: So what? She has lost the nomination. I don't understand what purpose is being served by Hillary supporters griping about Obama being a bad candidate or behaving like a jerk during the campaign. he is our nominee. Let's help him win.
This graph is just another way to say "I don't like caucuses."
The contest is for delegates. Each state chooses a delegate selection process that is different. This is why adding the popular votes is incoherent, it isn't what the contests were designed to add up.
Obviously if one candidate did a lot better in caucuses than the other candidate, that candidate will have relatively more delegates-per-vote. This statistic is totally meaningless. Why not put up a graph of delegates-per-caucus-victory to show how Hillary has more delegates than she should have.
The intellectual dishonesty of these arguments is really amazing.
Adding up vote totals when some states have caucuses and some states have primaries is flawed as a matter of statistics and common sense. The contest is for delegates. The states aren't running comparable delegate selection processes. Adding up votes is simply incoherent.
If you're point is that Clinton came very close to winning, obviously that's correct. You don't need silly math to reach that conclusion.
I think you're massively overstating the case here. Number one, the idea that Obama cannot close the gap is based on what? Dukakis was up 17% on Bush in June 1988.
Perhaps more importantly, look at the national Obama/McCain and Clinton/McCain polls on RCP. He is actually doing better than she is, or its basically even.
So while it is arguable that she would perform better, it certainly isn't obvious. And I continue to believe a lot of this is sour Clinton supporters claiming they will vote McCain even though that won't turn out to be true for most of them.