why are you people so Anti-Obama?
Posted by John Abrams at February 4, 2008 05:50 AMI agree I was shocked at the response I got when I wrote something to counter
the Clinton supporters posts. Namely her vote for the Iraq war Resoultion giving GWB (explicitly) the right to go to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11), I am reminded of the Republicans who slammed anyone against the war as unpatriotic. I call it undemocratic!
Sliming personally an Obama supporter is the name of the game here.
My question is why? We could very well lose in the GE when McCain and HIllery are both the prowar candidates (she did not come out aginst the war until 2006 and has NEVER said her war vote was wrong). Then there is Bill and Monica and the impeachment some vote for change.
So now, a generic post on the nuts and bolts of the votes is anti-Obama? I guess if you're not praising with great praise, you're against him. Don't you guys realize what you sound like? Sheesh, it's like living in an obviously non-Christian neighborhood and having fookin' Baptists knocking on your door every five minutes trying to convert you. Obama's not the problem, it's his goddam missionaries telling people they believe in the wrong god that's the problem.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 06:00 AMI thought the delegates were apportioned proportionally, so the more popular votes you get, the more delegates you get. The electoral college is winner take all, so I don't get the analogy. How does this delegate stuff work?
why are you people so Anti-Obama?
How was that anti-Obama? He says that Obama may come out way ahead in the popular vote, but behind in delegates, but hopes that the delegate count tracks with the popular vote. In other words, he's hoping that whoever wins the popular vote wins the delegate count, whether it's Obama (which he seems to think likely) or Clinton. Real anti-Obama.
I was over at dailykos reading a really long diary entry on why Obama would be a better nominee and president. Still not sold. He's saying that Obama could win in a landslide, and bring along more down-ticket candidates, but I'm just not seeing it. I think whoever our nominee is, it's going to be a very close general election.
I think that people who vote on fear may trust McCain more, but desire to end the war in Iraq will push them toward Hillary. And even if they're fearful of terrorists, they may go with Hillary because they believe she can protect us as well as McCain AND get us out of Iraq. They won't trust Obama to keep us safe.
People who worry about the economy will trust Hillary over McCain, but may not trust Obama (who doesn't claim any legislative or other experience in this area) over McCain. The third big issue is healthcare and both Clinton and Obama are so far from McCain on the issue (does he have a plan??) that it doesn't matter which one is our nominee. So the way I see it is that Hillary can beat McCain on Iraq and the economy and Obama can't. Am I wrong?
Posted by CG at February 4, 2008 06:12 AMI know a lot of people have a big big problem with Clinton's vote for the AUMF, but you know, I just don't. To me it was a threat, a stick. A necessary one. If I recall correctly (and maybe I don't) it kinda worked. Saddam started cooperating. The problem is that a) GWB was already hell-bent on going to war and b) you can't prove a negative so no amount of cooperation or lack of evidence for WMD was good enough because of a). I know I'm in the tiny minority here, but I just have no problem with her vote, didn't have a problem with it at the time and I'm glad she hasn't apologized for it.
Posted by CG at February 4, 2008 06:17 AMHillary agreed with the rules when they were written and she was considered “inevitable.” Now she is challenging that Florida and Michigan won’t seat delegates. She won Florida on name recognition and Michigan because Edwards and Obama were not on the ballots. Get over it!
CG:
We are both Dems but we are diametrically opposed. I have a hellofva problem with her vote! I am sure you are like most Americans who don’t give two craps about the men and women who died in IRAQ. Over 3600 plus dead and 50,000 maimed and wounded. At least Edwards had the guts to admit it was a big mistake. Thirty-six hundred plus Americans sure as hell won’t be voting in this election.
I think of poor Cindy Sheehan’s pain and how she was vilified by that bastard Bill O’Reilly and PISSED ON BY THE DEM CONGRESS. Yes I have BIG _UCKNG problem with her _ucking VOTE! NOW YOU KNOW WHY I AM ANGRY!
Why don't I like Obama? Maybe it's because I think he's pretending to be a D while doing everything in his power to destroy the D brand (e.g. Harry & Louise, bringing out right wing talking points about the Clinton years, etc) in order to win "independents".
And maybe it's because his followers think that's just fine.
Posted by NYGiants!Woohoo at February 4, 2008 06:51 AMwell, I am anti-Obama. I have no respect for a candidate who cannot admit a lose (e.g. in Nevada). I don't think Democrats should tolerate demagoguery such as "change" and "hope" are especially from a candidate whose "present" vote as cowardly. I think Obama used the racist card to win South Carolina. I think his campaign is ugly, nasty, full of lies and very Rovian. I think he is more to the right than Hillary (who I don't plan to vote for).
I also think that as long as we nourish and practice hate of the Clintons, as the Netroots are guilty of, we are not better than the worst Republicans. Supporting hate is the lowest one can get.
So yes, I think we would all be better off without Obama!
Posted by Koshembos at February 4, 2008 06:58 AMKoshembos:
What planet are you on? Why are Dems so cynical that we can't hope that things will change? Granted, things probably want change, but at least people can hope for change. On the race issue: Don’t take anyone’s word for it; read what African Americans said about South Carolina. Do you think that Obama could win the Nomination with 12 percent of the electorate? Please explain how playing the race card would help Obama? If he did that he would be cutting his own throat. Why do you think Ted Kennedy came out for Obama?
Before you post, read what your fingers have typed because there is an obvious disconnect.
Should we talk about how fundamentally undemocratic the superdelegates are, and how Hillary currently has a 2-1 lead in those, which make up 20% of the total delegates?
Posted by Brian Bell at February 4, 2008 07:31 AMBrian:
I have heard that the superdelegates are as high as 40%. I have been looking for the DNC rules on the net.
Posted by angryman at February 4, 2008 07:38 AMWhy do you think Ted Kennedy came out for Obama?
Because he had a whiny snit-fit because he believed the shit about Hillary's comment that it took a president to sign civil rights into law, maybe? If he was so worried about the Kennedy brand being tarnished, he's a little too late, dontcha think? Or maybe because his reaching across the aisle on NCLB worked so well, he's aching to try it with Obama. Funny how everyone was so anti-dynasty until the Kennedys came out for Obama, huh?
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 08:30 AMTeddy is still pissed that Bill would not give him Monica's phone number.
Oprah and Maria Shriver are stumping for Obama today with Stevie Wonder.
Barak uses women to prevent a woman from being elected! Brilliant!
I thought Stevie saying "You would have to be blind to vote for Hillary" was a bit on the tacky side.
Superdelegates: About 20% of the delegates needed to win the nomination are superdelegates. If Clinton and Obama come down to each having 50% of the regular vote, then the total % of their superdelegates to their delegates as a whole needed to win is 25%.
I think...
I thought Stevie saying "You would have to be blind to vote for Hillary" was a bit on the tacky side.
He didn't!!
The delegates in California are even more complicated than other states because they are divided by even/odd districts, and the votes are distributed differently in the two districts. Good grief.
Posted by jmac at February 4, 2008 10:39 AMI find it amusing the way some pro-Obama websites are pushing the "win" meme regarding California by touting polls that show Obama tied with or ahead of Hillary.
The fact is that the candidates will split California's delegates, with some delegates not affected by tommorrow's vote.
As you point out, one candidate could win the overall vote but get fewer delgates.
Several websites yesterday were raving about how "huge" the endorsement of Maria Shriver will be. I can't imagine anyone making up their mind (or changing it) because of Arnold's wife.
Even her husband is unimpressed, he's endorsing McCain.
Posted by myiq2xu at February 4, 2008 11:36 AMIf you actually look at the even/odd distribution, you'll see that it's not entirely favorable to Clinton. Most of the heavily Latino districts are an even number and likely to yield an even split; the three African American-heavy SoCal districts are odd-numbered, along with places like George Miller's district and several in the Bay Area. Practically no district in Orange County, which I believe is a Clinton stronghold, is odd-numbered.
It's actually somewhat likely to see a delegate lead for Obama with a popular vote win for Clinton.
http://d-day.blogspot.com/2008/02/junkies-guide-to-tomorrows-california.html
Representation by congressional district ensures minority representation. That may even be the reason they did it.
Posted by 4jkb4ia at February 5, 2008 10:21 AM