Delegate Counts: Where We Stand Now

Comments (58)

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 9:29 AM:

Why the discrepancies? The sources differ by much as 30 points.

awrbb wrote on January 20, 2008 9:34 AM:

Greg,

You can count superdelegates if you like, but CNN has the good sense to count pledged delegates only on its main Election 2008 page:

Obama 38
Clinton 36
Edwards 18

Romney 66
McCain 38
Huckabee 26
Thompson 8
Paul 6
Giuliani 1
Hunter 1

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 9:46 AM:

For the record, here are the totals w/out superdelegates from CNN:

Obama: 38
Clinton: 36
Edwards: 18

These do match CBS's numbers but strangely, not ABC, which has:

Obama: 43
Clinton: 39
Edwards: 20

notgop wrote on January 20, 2008 9:47 AM:

So what if Hillary has less delegates now? The first few states don't have many delegates anyway. Let's wait until Super Tuesday. Also McCain has much less delegates than Romney for now, but nobody questions his front-runner status. It's so funny that Obama people even started this.

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 9:47 AM:

Oops, I'm too slow.

annevilla wrote on January 20, 2008 9:52 AM:

"OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!

For those of you who still have not heard:

There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O."
You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties and fundraisers. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama.
The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.

So please, SPREAD THE WORD!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM

YES WE CAN

Anne

colonpowwow wrote on January 20, 2008 9:59 AM:

Yeah, Obama supporters.

Obama is REALLY winning. Whatever gets you though Super (delegate) Tuesday, I guess.

I see it a bit differently, obviously. I see another hard fought, momentum building win for Clinton and a sour loss for the Obama Kumbaya Train after losing a state he had very expertly placed himself in position to win.

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 10:03 AM:

I'm so sorry that I watched that video. I feel dirty now. I'm for Obama, but this cult of personality stuff by some supporters is freaky.

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 10:08 AM:

Why does announcing the state delegate totals without the superdelegates make people Obama supporters who are desperately clinging to Obama's 4 point lead? No one presented any pro-Obama analysis or predictions. The pledged totals are just more interesting.

Some people just need to pick a fight, I guess.

Malia wrote on January 20, 2008 10:08 AM:

Colonpowwow, you're a loser. I'm a former Hillary Clinton supporter but I will never back her after the open race-baiting and accusations against Obama of playing the race card, and above all, the VOTER SUPPRESSION which she attempted in Nevada.

That lawsuit by the Clinton-backed union, to try to shut down the caucus sites, is one of the most fraudulent things I've ever witnessed. FRAUDULENT.

When that failed, the Clintons began giving false directions to the caucus sites to Obama supporters, along with acts like shutting down the caucus sites early and practically tossing out registration cards!

IOW, the Clinton campaign was only able to "win" (if you want to call it that) in Nevada by DISENFRANCHISING VOTERS!

This is unacceptable-- the Clintons are not attacking and insulting Obama supporters, they are attacking voters and the very foundation of our democracy itself!

FWIW I am in the John Edwards camp now, but I will not be supporting Hillary under any conditions now. None of us in my household, none of us, would vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election if she were the nominee. Period.

Perhaps you should notice, Colon, that Hillary's lead of almost 25% over Obama only a month ago evaporated-- and even then, the Clintons had to resort to fraud and voter suppression there?

Voter disenfranchisement and race-baiting are supposed to be tactics that Democrats fight against, not employ themselves. The Clintons are going to reap Hell for this.

John wrote on January 20, 2008 10:09 AM:

Huckabee is headed to Texas? Isn't the Texas primary in March some time? Weird.

awrbb wrote on January 20, 2008 10:09 AM:

Thanks, Greg. Sorry if I was pissy about it. It's just that, under the circumstances, the decision to include or exclude superdelegates in the count has political consequences.

Greg wrote on January 20, 2008 10:26 AM:

not a prob. awrbb. thanks for the link

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 20, 2008 10:30 AM:

What I find interesting is the Giuliani doctrine of denial. I think that Hunter staked his name with immigration and has generated national standing with that cause, can go on to run in a border state or work in that arena.

There was some discussion of Thompson stepping out of the race, and I think that that leaves him as a net plus for running, creating more name recognition for himself and quite possibly setting the scene for 2012.

But the Giuliani doctrine of denial is what I find amazing, he has trailed pariah votes from Paul 3:1 where there is almost a surrogate issue on 911 and the legacy of that event. I think that that leaves Giuliani as the clear loser, similar to Howard Dean, Gore (due to the contesting and loss), and even Dukakis! Simply a repudiated candidate.

The Doctrine of Denial and the meltdown coming will be a historical moment in politics.

There was also some talk of an examination of Romney's business dealings on CNN last night that will not be favorable, or so was implied. That will be interesting.

But I think that you will see McCain, MIT, Huckabee, and Paul still in the GOP race after FL and Giuliani tossed on the ash-heap of history. I also think that NY might be favorable to McCain as well with 'moderate votes' and that McCain will be able to maintain a viable candidacy through the remainder of the primary but not enough votes to avoid the decision being made at the GOP convention as the eventual winner and quite possibly having to run with either MIT or Huck against an Obama Edwards ticket.

That is my bet, McCain takes FL, and takes NY (beating MIT) in the North East as MIT is targeted for his business history in the next campaign cycle and the focus goes more to economics and the NY vote is tied to National Security which MIT has no claims.

I think Huck will get enough votes in the South with Thompson's departure to force some GOP platform issues that the evangelicals want.

colonpowwoww wrote on January 20, 2008 10:37 AM:

Malia:

Well, I guess us real progressive Democrats will just have to elect the first woman President in the glorious history of the United States without you. (And one with a lifetime 95% plus Senate voting record on liberal and progressive issues per the ADA).

The Republican nominee thanks you, and those of us who care about the makeup of the Supreme Court thank you.

I understand Mr. Nader is thinking of taking some time off from managing his stock portfolio online and making another go. Maybe the progressiver-than-thous like you can repeat the success of 2000. You know, defeating that politics-as-usual holdover from the Bush-Clinton dynasty, Al Gore.

colonpowwow wrote on January 20, 2008 10:48 AM:

Oh, and Malia:

Call it a hunch, but I don't think you were ever a "Hillary Clinton supporter" anyway. Try to use fewer CAPS to make your rightwing talking points if you want to make a better effort at fooling anybody here.

Abroadabroad wrote on January 20, 2008 11:07 AM:

colonpowwow wrote: I see another hard fought, momentum building win for Clinton and a sour loss for the Obama Kumbaya Train after losing a state he had very expertly placed himself in position to win.

Would that be a reference to an upcoming, hard-fought win in SC that is carried on the momentum of the "you-go-girl" train that Hillary tried to hijack during that mawkish gender & race pandering interview with Tyra Banks? 10 years on she decides to talk about how she felt during the Lewinsky affair? Do you think that African-American women are that gullible? I don't.

Consider, if you will, that Oprah came out with an endorsed for Obama without requiring him to cough up a heartfelt confession of some sort to "connect" with her audience. It wasn't about ratings, it was about principle and her beliefs.

Just a couple of weeks or so ago Hillary had around a 20 pt lead in Nevada and no worries about the Nevada delegate count. Same in New Hampshire up to one week before that primary. I guess Obama did manage to "expertly" place himself in a position to win by eroding Hillary's sizable lead in those states. That can somehow be considered a sour loss?

Dan wrote on January 20, 2008 11:42 AM:

Make sure to read Campaign Diaries's analysis of why the race is now a McCain-Romney showdown, with Huckabee and Giuliani showdown.

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 11:51 AM:

As I noted on an earlier thread, a quick scan of the headlines on major media outlets today reveals that the MSM has decided Nevada was a big win for Clinton. No surprises there. The arcana of caucus-based state delegate vs. CD-based national delegate allocation and pledged vs. unpledged delegate counts, being a little too murky to make a good headline, they've decided to call it for the person who got the most votes. And of course when you're talking 12 or 13 delegates out of 2000+ needed for the nomination, the real prize in this contest was the buzz.

awrbb wrote on January 20, 2008 12:02 PM:

The only buzz out of yesterday's contests is for McCain.

BlueDog wrote on January 20, 2008 12:04 PM:

"A black church in Atlanta"?

I think you mean Ebeneezer Baptist Church, a sacred site in the history of the civil right movement. You might have heard of its former pastor. I think his birthday is this week...

FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 20, 2008 12:28 PM:

Far and away the best site for this stuff is (demconwatch.blogspot.com). Not only do they list each of the major delegate counts, they also have tallies with and without the two outlaw states (MI and FL), and their own tally based on publicly available information that discloses who they are and are not counting. It's that last tally which is particularly valuable, given that voicing a preference to someone who calls from CNN is not nearly as binding a commitment as issuing a public statement.

colonpowwow wrote on January 20, 2008 12:45 PM:

Abroadabroad:

Tucked in the snark of my last post was a genuine compliment (I thoght) of Obama's excellent campaign in a state I wouldn't have thought he could win.

I'm sorry that you took my post to be a platform on which to launch another tiresome sexist Hillary-bashFest,

BTW - If the honest and fine Democrat, Senator Obama, wins the nomination, I'll be pleased and proud to support him wholeheartedly in the GE.

Anonymous wrote on January 20, 2008 12:54 PM:

Dan wrote on January 20, 2008 11:42 AM:

analysis of why the race is now a McCain-Romney showdown, with Huckabee and Giuliani showdown.

Laughing, I agree on the MIT MAC contest, but cannot imagine why anybody imagines that Giuliani is viable?

The Hartford Courant has a new poll out of Connecticut voters. And John McCain is, well, crushing Rudy Giuliani -- 39% to 16%. Hillary's solidly over Obama, but not by as big a margin -- 41% to 27%.

I'll bet vegas odds that Ron Paul has higher odds of being president than Giuliani.

The Giuliani narrative is such an unfounded and frankly 'framed' proposition, I mean how can rural America, the bible belt, have a connection with Giuliani? I mean honestly, you have to be NY myoptic (where incidently most of the MSM is based) to 'imagine' that the rest of the US connects to Rudy.

I have actually been wondering if when Fred and Rudy drop if Paul gets some accrual and actually gets to speak at the GOP convention, which ought to be damn well entertaining, or get this... if they all Rudy to speak instead, now that ought to be interesting.

My bet is Rudy is an embarrasment to the GOP in less than 10 days. My bet is that some campaign will craft something along the line of 'humor' and capitalize on the disconect between what the MSM framed as a candidate and what the voter supports.

The best line to date was Bidens, and I bet that is eclipsed by somebody running in FL and that is oft enough played to amount to a free ad.

I'm awaiting that Zeigeist moment.

coonsey wrote on January 20, 2008 1:20 PM:

Please explain why Hillary would have some many Delegates 210 and Obama 123 when only 3 States have voted?

For those not in the KNOW!

NCSteve wrote on January 20, 2008 1:22 PM:

And one with a lifetime 95% plus Senate voting record on liberal and progressive issues per the ADA

Colon, you say this over and over and over and over again. And my response is "so what?" The ADA voting statistic is based upon a bundle of twenty or so domestic votes on things like confirmation votes on Bush cabinet and court appointees and funding bills for particular social program. Further, the Republicans controlled the Senate for most of Hillary's Senate career, meaning that they controlled what bills got to the floor. Racking up a 95% rating under those circumstances is hardly a big deal. Joe Lieberman consistantly ranks 75% or so with the ADA.

Since 2002, I would respectfully submit that the votes that were most important for the "liberals/progressives" have been on issues of foreign policy. Specifically, although I know you Hillarites think its ancient history and terribly, terribly tedious, to keep bringing it up, let's talk, once again, about AUMFAI.

There are a lot of people who are willing to give her a pass on that vote because, as a woman contemplating a historic run for the presidency, she couldn't afford to look "weak" on an issue of war and peace. These people truly seem to believe that her AUMFAI vote was forgivable because deep inside, there is a "real" Hillary was actually against the war.

Think about that with me for a second, please, Colon, because prone as you are indulging in partisan smack (as am I and as are we all), you do often seem like a thoughtful person. She cast a vote for something that she was really against because she thought voting her conscience would damage her political viability. Under most circumstances, I'll give a politician a pass for doing something like that once in a while. Politics is politics and moral compromises are the grease on the skids of legislation. I even gave Joe Biden a pass for voting for that abominable bankruptcy bill (you remember, the one she voted for in 2001, missed the vote on in 2005 and yet said she was against now, in 2008).

But this was not just any vote. It was not a swapped vote with a Republican for water projects in their respective states, or an act to give a tax break to the Crackerjack prize museum back in NYS, or a resolution condemning Move On for being big stinky meanies to General Patreus.

It was a vote to start a goddamned war.

Half a trillion dollars borrowed from China and flushed down the toilet that our children and grandchildren will have to repay with interest over the next thirty years. Our international reputation in ruins, every erg of the vast goodwill we had after 9/11 squandered. All of our most important alliances strained to the breaking point. Our Army strained past the breaking point and so damaged that it will take a decade to recover, assuming we can find the money somewhere to put it right. An entire Arab country shattered and broken and a Middle East situation growing worse by the day because we let the Taliban and Al Qaeda fester rather than finishing the job when we had a chance. Hundred dollar a barrel oil that's pushed us into a recession that will accelerate the loss of manufacturing jobs to China.

And that's the trivial part.

The part that isn't trivial: four thousand young men and women shipped home in the dark of night in flag covered metal boxes. Most of them eighteen to twenty years old, barely more than children but for the things they saw and did before they died.

Four thousand U.S. families--parents, spouses and children--grieving losses from which they will never truly recover.

Close to thirty thousand wounded, many horrifically, others less so. Tens of thousands of families adapting to the strain of loved ones who returned with missing limbs or burns or traumatic brain inuries.

Even for those with no outward injuries, the accumulation of stress hormones and toxins caused by four and five fiteen month deployments into a combat zone are causing irreversable brain and organ damage. In years to come, there will be yet another expensive legal battle over whether "Iraq War Syndrome" is real or not. Tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of cases of PTSD are headed our way. And, btw, the generals and senior seargents of tomorrow are among those who'll be carrying this physical and psychological legacy, with incalculable consequences for the future.

And how many dead Iraqis? No one seems to have bothered to count, so we're left with estimates. Fifty thousand, half a million or a million? God alone knows for sure. Tens of thousand more maimed physically and psychologically. An entire county likely to be gripped by sectarian violence and hatred for years to come.

Spare me the rationalizations and eqivocations. Yes, Obama, with Clinton, repeatedly voted to fund the war after he got to D.C. As he alluded to in his 2002 speech, anyone with any knowledge of history knows that wars are much harder to get out of than they are to start. Especially when you have a petulent sociopathic religious fanatic for a President who as much as told Congress "if you don't give me what I want, I'll cut off food, ammo and protection for the troops and leave them to get slaughered and I'll tell everyone its your fault." He wasn't bluffing and it wasn't about politics, it was about the troops. And don't tell me he would have done it regardless of her vote. The time to stop a war by cutting off its funding is before the troops are deployed. And don't try to sell me the "she wasn't voting for a war she was voting for more diplomacy." As it happens, I was actually alive in 2002 and as I recall, everyone knew they were voting for war. Hillary made it perfectly clear in her speeches after the vote that she knew she was voting to start a war.

Spare me the rationalizations and consider how foreseeable most of these consequences were at the time AUMFAI. There were plenty of people who foresaw all of them but even the best case scenario involved hundreds of dead Americans and thousands of dead Iraqis.

When it came time to stand up and be counted, her ambition and perceived political self-interest was more important than the absolute certainty that she was voting to enable a course of action that would lead to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of human lives being extinguished.

Add to that, the most bitter irony of all: even from the standpoint of cold, Machiavellian political calculation, it was the wrong call. If Hillary had had the foresight and the moral courage to stand up and oppose the war in 2002 and 2003, like Al Gore did, even at the cost of a certain shitstorm of of wingnut raving and at the risk of her ambition to be president, as God as my witness I would be here today as one of her strongest supporters.

She didn't.

So, here's my question and I ask it in all earnestness, because I genuinely want to know: knowing that she put her own ambition ahead of a course of action that was sure to kill hundreds and likely to kill thousands, do you truly believe that all you need to to is give her more power in order for the "real" Hillary, the liberal, nurturing, progressive Hillary, to bloom forth?

More power will make her a better, and wiser, human being? And you guys call Obama's supporters "naive?"

If Hillary is elected, she will be a unique in human history in that power will make her a better person? And you guys call Obama's supporters messianic?

Seth H. wrote on January 20, 2008 1:36 PM:

How is it that Obama has won the delegate count in both Nevada and New Hampshire without the popular vote in either?

CalD wrote on January 20, 2008 1:55 PM:

awrbb wrote on January 20, 2008 12:02 PM:

The only buzz out of yesterday's contests is for McCain.

You've just got to love an optimist.

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 2:37 PM:

coonsey wrote

Please explain why Hillary would have some many Delegates 210 and Obama 123 when only 3 States have voted?

Many states have "superdelegates", officeholders and party officials who don't answer to any voters. Many of them have already committed to supporting certain candidates. Clinton racked up many such commitments before the Iowa primary, so she's been way ahead in the delegate count for some time. In the the end, the votes of these superdelegates will be overwhelmed by the votes of regular delegates, though I suppose that they could make a difference in a tight race.

What I wonder is why there are such big discrepancy's between the various networks' estimates of committed superdelegates? ABC even has a different estimate of the regular delegates, which is stranger. I asked this question early on, but it seems that everyone would rather rant about their favorite candidates, as usual. Sigh.

Kefa wrote on January 20, 2008 2:42 PM:

The Madem Prez to be is just kicking ass like my Celtics. After Feb 5. These conversations will be about if Obama will take the 2ns slot or not. You good folks inside know that. SC or not. She just might steal SC from you if Bill gets off and takes enough of the Black vote after the Church to Church and Door to Door Tour and the MLK Day Speech. Obama is gonna today and we will see how that plays but Bill will get a shot on Monday to top him the day after. Gonna be good. Anyways, She's got this thing sewed up. BO missed his chance at NH.

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 2:47 PM:

Interesting, there are many more superdelegates than I thought:

Here's a nice primer from the Tahlequahok, OK paper, of all places: http://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/features/local_story_009141211.html?keyword=topstory

In 2008, a total of 2,026 delegates are needed to secure the Democratic nomination this summer at the party’s national convention in Denver. The Democratic National Committee has allotted states a total of 797 superdelegates to the convention.

Here's a clearer explanation for you coonsey:

In the Democrats’ system, all delegates determined by primaries or the caucus process are called “pledged delegates.” All delegates who serve by virtue of party or political office, past or present, are called “unpledged” or “superdelegates,” and include the entire Democratic National Committee, all Democratic members of Congress, and governors of states or territories, the mayor of Washington, D.C., and 21 “distinguished party members.”

And interesting comment on the undemocratic nature of superdelegates:

“The essential purpose of superdelegates is to maintain some control of the nominating process by establishment party elites,” said Northeastern State University Assistant Professor of Political Science Dr. Ron Becker. “It is purely undemocratic, but the reasoning makes sense because primary elections and caucuses are dominated by party activists, as the typical voter does not turn out to vote.”

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 2:51 PM:

The Madem Prez to be is just kicking ass like my Celtics. After Feb 5. These conversations will be about if Obama will take the 2ns slot or not...She's got this thing sewed up. BO missed his chance at NH.

Political trash talk. Like wearing face paint and screaming at a Celtics games.

Angry Vet wrote on January 20, 2008 2:59 PM:

I'm so tired of various political supporters bickering back and forth.

What is really required here is a reasoned estimate of how things will play out.

Personally, I think HRC will get the nomination. But its gonna be close. What is interesting, is that all polls seem to be tightening across the board (look at California, and even Connecticut).

BHO has a prayer, but little more.

Here's my GBCW:
Too many activists are out here trying to ruin the other guy. This is not healthy for our democracy, as you may note from the small turnouts (relatively speaking) across most of the USA (note: turnout figures from 2000/2004 are barely above/below 50% of the electorate).

That is not the sign of a healthy democracy. And most of it is because so many people are turned off by the emotion and petty bickering involved.

I'm no better, I realize that, but I to try to abstain from the many derogatory comments available out there referring to HRC. Others also refrain from derogatory comments of that like towards BHO.

Unfortunately, however, too many here think an emotional appeal would sway my vote. Instead, it offends me and makes me not to want to vote for HRC were she the nominee.

That's not healthy for democracy.

And hence, I sign off, if only to ensure I DO end up voting for a Democrat in November.

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 3:06 PM:

Angry Vet, I second. That's the internet for you. I try to read the intelligent comments and filter out the screaming. Unless it's funny.

Why do you think Clinton's going to win? I predict Obama, mainly because I think that Edwards will ultimately endorse Obama and perhaps join his ticket. If the race stays as close as it is now, his support could push Obama over the top. I also note that Clinton has only squeaked by in NH and NV, whereas Obama cleaned up in IA and is heavily favored in SC.

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 3:07 PM:

I would add that the trend lines favor Obama.

Angry Vet wrote on January 20, 2008 3:37 PM:

Trend lines favor Obama, but not enough. He had his chance after Iowa, and into NH, but apparently five days wasn't enough to reverse the double digit pre-Iowa lead HRC had.

The Edwards to Obama line just doesn't seem to work in my mind. Unless Obama is able to keep the average vote for HRC below 40%, her delegate take is going to be enough to put her over the top.

Besides, Edwards supporters, demographically, seem to mirror HRC supporters.

I don't have time to prove these assertions, but with a little work, I know you can find the stats.

Of course, this isn't stopping me from being a precinct capt. for BHO in Minnesota. Not one bit. But I still understand the reality of the situation.

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 3:56 PM:

Angry Vet. True, Obama would have to break 40%, but latest nat'l polls show Clinton-Obama-Edwards 40-33-13 (AP) and 42-33-17 (CNN), with the trendlines in Obama's favor. That's still iffy, since Obama certainly won't get all of Edwards voters or delegates, but it's pretty damn close.

I posted this yesterday from:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/13710361.html?pt=y" rel="nofollow">http://www.startribune.com/nation/13710361.html?pt=y

Edwards voters in Iowa favored Obama over Clinton as their second choice by a nearly two-to-one margin in caucus-night surveys. And Edwards supporters in New Hampshire reported they had a far more favorable impression of Obama than of Clinton, according election-night surveys there

That said, there is other data suggesting that Edwards supporters break closer to 50-50. But all of this is without an Obama endorsement from Edwards or, more significantly, a place on the ticket. If Edwards comes out big for Obama, there will also be a lot of press which could generate significant momentum.

NCSteve wrote on January 20, 2008 3:57 PM:

Just a note on delegate math I keep seeing thrown around here.

Everyone keeps saying Hillary only has to get 40% of the vote in the primaries in order to win because 20% of the delegates will be superdelegates, i.e. politicians and party hacks who are made delegates ex officio.

Without commenting on the complexities of superdelegates (who have a habit of losing their commitment if the wind changes), or claiming to know what percentage of the total they'll actually be at the convention this year, I think this math is wrong.

If 20% of the delegate seats are reserved for party hacks, er, I mean superdelagates, that means 80% are up for grabs in the primaries. This, in turn, means that in order to come to the convention with 40% of the non-super delegates, she has to win half of the delegates that are winnable in the primaries, not 40% of them (half of 80%= 40%).

If she only gets 40% of the 80% that are winnable, that means she comes into the convention with only 32% of the total. Which, in turn, would mean she'd need roughly 90% of the supers to win the nomination. She doesn't have that many supers in the bag.

Am I missing something? I have never claimed that math was my strong suit, nor do I have any first-hand information about the ratio of supers to regulars at the convention. But the math doesn't look hard to me.

Another interesting thing about those superdelegates. Endorsements may not mean diddly to the average Joe Voter, but they mean a lot to your average party hack.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 20, 2008 3:59 PM:

Angry Vet,

Edwards supporters tend differ from Clinton supporters in two ways. Edwards supporters can read and have branches on their family trees. Clintonians . . . Not so much on either.

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 4:01 PM:

Just to summarize, if Clinton reverses the trends and pulls further ahead of Obama, I don't think that Edwards can make a difference. But this race has been getting closer and closer since last fall, so I don't see that why that would change now. If the gap continues to narrow, Edwards could play kingmaker, and based on his past comments, I think that he favors Obama.

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 4:02 PM:

Richard L. Adlof, insulting supporters of candidates you don't like adds nothing of value to this discussion.

kjoe wrote on January 20, 2008 4:08 PM:

So---Obama "hits" a black church. Here is what he hits them with---an inspiring speech, with a subtle reminder that nowhere in the scriptures does it speak of Bill Clinton walking on water. While hillary was talking about how martin Luther King's speech inspired her right before she became a goldwater girl.....................................

The Great Need of the Hour
Ebenezer Baptist Church
Sunday, January 20th, 2008
Atlanta, Georgia

EMBARGOED for Delivery

The Scripture tells us that when Joshua and the Israelites arrived at the gates of Jericho, they could not enter. The walls of the city were too steep for any one person to climb; too strong to be taken down with brute force. And so they sat for days, unable to pass on through.

But God had a plan for his people. He told them to stand together and march together around the city, and on the seventh day he told them that when they heard the sound of the ram’s horn, they should speak with one voice. And at the chosen hour, when the horn sounded and a chorus of voices cried out together, the mighty walls of Jericho came tumbling down.

There are many lessons to take from this passage, just as there are many lessons to take from this day, just as there are many memories that fill the space of this church. As I was thinking about which ones we need to remember at this hour, my mind went back to the very beginning of the modern Civil Rights Era.

Because before Memphis and the mountaintop; before the bridge in Selma and the march on Washington; before Birmingham and the beatings; the fire hoses and the loss of those four little girls; before there was King the icon and his magnificent dream, there was King the young preacher and a people who found themselves suffering under the yolk of oppression.

And on the eve of the bus boycotts in Montgomery, at a time when many were still doubtful about the possibilities of change, a time when those in the black community mistrusted themselves, and at times mistrusted each other, King inspired with words not of anger, but of an urgency that still speaks to us today:

“Unity is the great need of the hour” is what King said. Unity is how we shall overcome.

What Dr. King understood is that if just one person chose to walk instead of ride the bus, those walls of oppression would not be moved. But maybe if a few more walked, the foundation might start to shake. If a few more women were willing to do what Rosa Parks had done, maybe the cracks would start to show. If teenagers took freedom rides from North to South, maybe a few bricks would come loose. Maybe if white folks marched because they had come to understand that their freedom too was at stake in the impending battle, the wall would begin to sway. And if enough Americans were awakened to the injustice; if they joined together, North and South, rich and poor, Christian and Jew, then perhaps that wall would come tumbling down, and justice would flow like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

Unity is the great need of the hour – the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it’s the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.

I’m not talking about a budget deficit. I’m not talking about a trade deficit. I’m not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans.

I’m talking about a moral deficit. I’m talking about an empathy deficit. I’m taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother’s keeper; we are our sister’s keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.

We have an empathy deficit when we’re still sending our children down corridors of shame – schools in the forgotten corners of America where the color of your skin still affects the content of your education.

We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months; when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit; when mothers can’t afford a doctor when their children get sick.

We have a deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others; when our children see nooses hanging from a schoolyard tree today, in the present, in the twenty-first century.

We have a deficit when homeless veterans sleep on the streets of our cities; when innocents are slaughtered in the deserts of Darfur; when young Americans serve tour after tour of duty in a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged.

And we have a deficit when it takes a breach in our levees to reveal a breach in our compassion; when it takes a terrible storm to reveal the hungry that God calls on us to feed; the sick He calls on us to care for; the least of these He commands that we treat as our own.

So we have a deficit to close. We have walls – barriers to justice and equality – that must come down. And to do this, we know that unity is the great need of this hour.

Unfortunately, all too often when we talk about unity in this country, we’ve come to believe that it can be purchased on the cheap. We’ve come to believe that racial reconciliation can come easily – that it’s just a matter of a few ignorant people trapped in the prejudices of the past, and that if the demagogues and those who exploit our racial divisions will simply go away, then all our problems would be solved.

All too often, we seek to ignore the profound institutional barriers that stand in the way of ensuring opportunity for all children, or decent jobs for all people, or health care for those who are sick. We long for unity, but are unwilling to pay the price.

But of course, true unity cannot be so easily won. It starts with a change in attitudes – a broadening of our minds, and a broadening of our hearts.

It’s not easy to stand in somebody else’s shoes. It’s not easy to see past our differences. We’ve all encountered this in our own lives. But what makes it even more difficult is that we have a politics in this country that seeks to drive us apart – that puts up walls between us.

We are told that those who differ from us on a few things are different from us on all things; that our problems are the fault of those who don’t think like us or look like us or come from where we do. The welfare queen is taking our tax money. The immigrant is taking our jobs. The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant.

For most of this country’s history, we in the African American community have been at the receiving end of man’s inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays – on the job, in the schools, in our health care system and in our criminal justice system.

And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community.

We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.

Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation.

So let us say that on this day of all days, each of us carries with us the task of changing our hearts and minds. The division, the stereotypes, the scapegoating, the ease with which we blame our plight on others – all of this distracts us from the common challenges we face – war and poverty; injustice and inequality. We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late.

Because if Dr. King could love his jailor; if he could call on the faithful who once sat where you do to forgive those who set dogs and fire hoses upon them, then surely we can look past what divides us in our time, and bind up our wounds, and erase the empathy deficit that exists in our hearts.

But if changing our hearts and minds is the first critical step, we cannot stop there. It is not enough to bemoan the plight of poor children in this country and remain unwilling to push our elected officials to provide the resources to fix our schools. It is not enough to decry the disparities of health care and yet allow the insurance companies and the drug companies to block much-needed reforms. It is not enough for us to abhor the costs of a misguided war, and yet allow ourselves to be driven by a politics of fear that sees the threat of attack as way to scare up votes instead of a call to come together around a common effort.

The Scripture tells us that we are judged not just by word, but by deed. And if we are to truly bring about the unity that is so crucial in this time, we must find it within ourselves to act on what we know; to understand that living up to this country’s ideals and its possibilities will require great effort and resources; sacrifice and stamina.

And that is what is at stake in the great political debate we are having today. The changes that are needed are not just a matter of tinkering at the edges, and they will not come if politicians simply tell us what we want to hear. All of us will be called upon to make some sacrifice. None of us will be exempt from responsibility. We will have to fight to fix our schools, but we will also have to challenge ourselves to be better parents. We will have to confront the biases in our criminal justice system, but we will also have to acknowledge the deep-seated violence that still resides in our own communities and marshal the will to break its grip.

That is how we will bring about the change we seek. That is how Dr. King led this country through the wilderness. He did it with words – words that he spoke not just to the children of slaves, but the children of slave owners. Words that inspired not just black but also white; not just the Christian but the Jew; not just the Southerner but also the Northerner.

He led with words, but he also led with deeds. He also led by example. He led by marching and going to jail and suffering threats and being away from his family. He led by taking a stand against a war, knowing full well that it would diminish his popularity. He led by challenging our economic structures, understanding that it would cause discomfort. Dr. King understood that unity cannot be won on the cheap; that we would have to earn it through great effort and determination.

That is the unity – the hard-earned unity – that we need right now. It is that effort, and that determination, that can transform blind optimism into hope – the hope to imagine, and work for, and fight for what seemed impossible before.

The stories that give me such hope don’t happen in the spotlight. They don’t happen on the presidential stage. They happen in the quiet corners of our lives. They happen in the moments we least expect. Let me give you an example of one of those stories.

There is a young, 23-year-old white woman named Ashley Baia who organizes for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She’s been working to organize a mostly African American community since the beginning of this campaign, and the other day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

So Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we begin. It is why the walls in that room began to crack and shake.

And if they can shake in that room, they can shake in Atlanta.

And if they can shake in Atlanta, they can shake in Georgia.

And if they can shake in Georgia, they can shake all across America. And if enough of our voices join together; we can bring those walls tumbling down. The walls of Jericho can finally come tumbling down. That is our hope – but only if we pray together, and work together, and march together.

Brothers and sisters, we cannot walk alone.

In the struggle for peace and justice, we cannot walk alone.

In the struggle for opportunity and equality, we cannot walk alone

In the struggle to heal this nation and repair this world, we cannot walk alone.

So I ask you to walk with me, and march with me, and join your voice with mine, and together we will sing the song that tears down the walls that divide us, and lift up an America that is truly indivisible, with liberty, and justice, for all. May God bless the memory of the great pastor of this church, and may God bless the United States of America.

colonpowwow wrote on January 20, 2008 4:11 PM:

NCSteve:

I just wanted to comment on your earlier post. First of all, it is a fact that she carries that 95% plus rating from the ADA, right. Now that you've explained that it's a "so what" moment, I stand corrected, thank you.

Senator Clinton has a record of 35-plus years of experience as an activist advocate for women, the poor, children, and healthcare - to name a few. Admittedly, just a pile of domestic stuff, but important to some of us.

Also, her first speech on the Senate floor in 2000 was on healthcare. She outlined 5 healthcare reform issues (in front of a hostile Congress filled with her political enemies) that she could support.

The fact is that she's a liberal progressive with an outstanding lifetime record on supporting actively, progressive issues.

Of course, that's probably overshadowed in many people's minds by her vote on Iraq authorization. But even though I also disagree(d) on that, the discussion of it has tended to become hyperbolic as if she was responsible somehow for us invading Iraq. If you're intellectually honest about it, Bush was going ahead no matter what the Senate did.

So, on balance, her lifetime record (including her 95% plus rating by the ADA) - stands by itself. Now, exactly how does her and Obama's current position on Iraq, and their recent voting records, differ from each other?

Obama in 2016!

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 4:13 PM:

NCSteve, there are 3,252 pledged delegates and 797 superdelegates, for a total of 4,049, so a candidate needs 2,025. (Elsewhere, I saw 2,026, so I may be off by one.)

Assuming that the committed superdelegates keep their commitments, there are 386 committed delegates so 3,663 up in the air. Clinton has 210, so she needs 1,815 more to cinch the nomination, which is almost 50% of the remaining delegates. So by my math, I agree with you. But if most of remaining superdelegates go Clinton, she needs a smaller percentage of the popular vote. Though I don't know why they would. Obama seems to be racking up endorsements as well as Clinton.

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 4:15 PM:

kjo, please just post links rather than quoting full articles. Otherwise, you clutter the discussion.

kjoe wrote on January 20, 2008 4:21 PM:

nc steve----one more factor. Among those 4049 delegates---366 are from Florida and Michigan---and unless some strong-armed rules changes are made (yes, that is possible)the 2025 will have to come from 3683---is that about 55 percent?

kjoe wrote on January 20, 2008 4:25 PM:

sorry Genghis. I do not know how to post links in this format. and i try to avoid doing what i did---there was something about the disdainful tone of Obama hits a black church that inspired me to make an exception.

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 4:28 PM:

Good point, kjoe, but w/out FL & MI, the number for a majority will be smaller, so the percentages should be about the same. Interestingly, w/out those states, the superdelegates have more sway than usual. But do superdelegates from FL & MI get their vote counted?

Ron Paul 2nd in Nevada wrote on January 20, 2008 4:33 PM:

A Ron Paul surge in Nevada
Boy, oh, boy! Hidden behind all the hoopla, headlines and the Nevada caucus victories of Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton is one little-noticed but stunning political development and number:

Ron Paul, the one-time Libertarian candidate and 10-term Republican congressman from Texas, was in second place. That's right, Second Place. The 72-year-old ob-gyn who's always on the end of the line at GOP debates or barred altogether, was running ahead of John McCain, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, in fact, ahead of....

all other Republicans except Romney, who easily captured his second state in a week after Michigan.

Now, Romney and Paul were basically the only Republicans who actively campaigned and advertised in the desert state. But a win is a win. And second place is second place. When Romney won Wyoming a couple of weeks ago, Paul won zero there.

In Iowa, Paul also beat Giuliani and he topped Thompson in New Hampshire, where Paul was excluded from the Fox News debate, which only energized his fervent followers. His jump in GOP election standings comes despite recent reports about a long series of newsletters from the 1990s carrying Paul's name and numerous racist and anti-Semitic remarks. Paul has denied writing them and denounced their contents.

Thanks to those passionate and tireless supporters, Paul, the only Republican to oppose the Iraq war and favor significant dismantling of the federal government, won about 10% of the vote in Iowa and 8% in New Hampshire, coming in just behind the former New York mayor in the Granite state.

But in Nevada today with a poor Republican turnout of less than half the Democrats (just under 45,000 vs 115,000) and with 99.7% of the precincts reporting, Romney had 22,644 votes, or 51%. Paul had about a quarter of that, 14%, or 6,084 votes.

Paul built a slow steady lead of about 400 votes over the veteran Arizona senator's 5,648 total.

Huckabee sneaked past Thompson into fourth place with 8%, or 3,613 votes, a tiny vote lead over the former Tennessee senator, who had 3,518. Both had 8%. Giuliani, who's counting on a late-state surge to salvage his one-time now-faded national front-runner status, had only 4% of the Nevada Republican vote with 1,910 ballots. And California's retiring Congressman Duncan Hunter was last again with 2% or 890 votes.

Now, of course, comes tonight's South Carolina primary vote results where Paul needs to be a bit more realistic perhaps. He's got three campaign offices there and has advertised and campaigned actively. But McCain is well-known there, has been ahead in polls, relying heavily on his strong support in the state's large active and retired military population.

And, as in Iowa where he won the caucuses, Huckabee is counting on another large turnout among South Carolina Christian evangelicals. Polls showed the Baptist preacher narrowing McCain's lead in recent days and Thompson, the former senator who's got the most riding on a strong South Carolina showing to invigorate his sagging campaign, also gaining some.

It was reported to be snowing heavily in the state's Piedmont region, where the evangelicals are concentrated, and that could depress turnout, while McCain's coastal territory was getting some cold rain. Now, whose crowd gets more depressed? And can Thompson make a strong enough showing to stay in the race? He planned to return home to ponder the future with no campaign activities planned for coming days.

The results tonight will show whether Ron Paul's fine morning and afternoon turn into a nice all-around day or not. Either way, he was likely the top GOP fundraiser in the fourth quarter, raising nearly $20 million, and his website reports gathering in another $1.34 million so far this month. So while Giuliani stopped paying his top staff this month, Paul is likely to linger long.

Paul's crowd plans another "money bomb" on Monday when thousands will deliver new donations on the same day. One previous time they did this, the Paul campaign set a new one-day online record of $6 million.

--Andrew Malcolm

Genghis wrote on January 20, 2008 4:35 PM:

Clarification for kjoe. 4,049 has already subtracted out MI & FL.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/

Giuliani humor wrote on January 20, 2008 4:46 PM:

"Did you hear that Dick Cheney and Barack Obama are cousins? It's strange, isn't it? In a related story, 20 years ago, it turns out Rudy Giuliani was briefly married to himself." --David Letterman

"Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani says he's going to try to follow Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment that a Republican should never attack another Republican. Let's hope he has better luck with the 11th commandment than he did with the 7th commandment." --Jay Leno

"Here's what I don't understand: Rudolph Giuliani had three wives and he's not the Mormon candidate?" --David Letterman

"After the debate they go into these spin rooms -- all the people from the various campaigns -- and tell you how their candidates won. Like Fred Thompson's people said he won because he didn't fall asleep. ... Mitt Romney's campaign said he won because he had two positions on every issue. ... And Rudy's campaign said he won because he lasted the entire time without one cell phone call from his wife." -Jay Leno

"Last week during a speech to the NRA, Rudy Giuliani was interrupted by a cell phone call, which he stopped his speech to answer. Giuliani then told the audience, 'That was my wife reminding me to pick up some milk at the 9-Eleven.'" --Seth Meyers

"While what he just said doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever with regard to the events of Sept. 11, it does speak to the tragedy that is '9/11 Tourette's.' Won’t you, 9/11, help us 9/11? Because 9/11 is a terrible 9/11 to 9/11." –Jon Stewart (Watch video clip)

On Rudy taking a cell phone call from his wife while talking to the NRA: "I'm sorry, what's that honey? You want me to bring home some bullets? Armor-piercing, hollow-point Cop Killers. Alright. Okay, shoot ya later, 9/11′" –Jon Stewart (Watch video clip)

"This kind of seems like bad taste to me. A Giuliani fundraiser is now charging $9.11 in reference to 9/11. ... Isn't that inappropriate? I mean, isn't it like a Bill Clinton fundraiser charging $69 a head?" --Jay Leno

"Iran's president ... wanted to lay a wreath at Ground Zero, but his critics said, 'No, no. You are trying to exploit Ground Zero for political gain, and that is Rudy Giuliani's job.'" --Bill Maher

"Did you see Britney Spears at the Video Music Awards? I don't want to say that that performance was a disaster, but after the show, I saw Rudy Giuliani having his picture taken standing on her." --Bill Maher

"Oh, I kid Rudy with love, because he is on the attack against Hillary Clinton. Have you seen this? He accused her of spitting venom at General Petraeus, and he paid for a full-page ad in the New York Times. He must miss the days when he was the mayor of New York, and the New York Times would have to print his bulls**t for free." --Bill Maher

"According to a new AP poll, the most popular presidential candidate among registered Republicans is 'none of the above.' At the moment, Rudy Giuliani is running third, just behind 'Good Lord, not him.'" --Conan O'Brien

"In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Rudy Giuliani said he is guided by Jesus and the Bible, and he doesn't want people to judge his private life. He then said, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' And then Mitt Romney hit him in the head with a rock" --Jay Leno

"In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said his dreams of becoming a priest ended when he realized he couldn't give up having sex. Ironically, that's also what ended his first and second marriages." --Jay Leno

Daily Show correspondent John Oliver, on lightning striking when Rudy Giuliani was speaking about abortion at the GOP debate: "No, it was not a coincidence. That was divine endorsement. Or, in this case, God saying, 'Vote for anybody but Rudy Giuliani.' And God said onto the people of New Hampshire, 'a thrice-married New York City cross-dresser, oh, for the love of me.'"

"Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani says he believes in a woman's right to choose, and he's shown that time and time again when it comes to choosing women. He's likes to have his choice. I think this is his third one." --Jay Leno

"Other frontrunners tried to turn a blue background into a red bona fide [on screen: Rudy Giuliani saying, 'According to George Will, I ran the most conservative government in the last 50 years in New York City']. Wow. You ran the most conservative government in 50 years in New York City? Congratulations on being the thinnest guy at fat camp." --Jon Stewart

"When reporters of the Associated Press recently asked some of presidential candidates what their favorite reality shows were, Mitt Romney said 'American Idol.' Joe Biden said he didn't have a favorite show. And surprisingly, Rudy Giuliani picked 'Wife Swap.'" --Jay Leno

"Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is paying his wife $125,000 a year to help him write his speeches. She's writing his speeches for him ... and you can tell. Like last week, he gave a speech about what awful bitches the first two wives were." --Jay Leno

"Rudy Giuliani ... now leads Senator McCain in the latest polls by 22 points. 22. Or, as Giuliani himself might phrase it, 'Twice the number of points as the day of the month on which the World Trade Center was attacked while I was mayor. Did I mention I was mayor ... when the world was attacked ... on 9/11?'" --Jon Stewart

"In a speech in Alabama, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said the one thing about him that you can count on is that we he makes a decision, he sticks with it. You don't believe him? You can ask either of his two ex-wives." --Jay Leno

"Giuliani said he wants to make it clear he is not in favor of gay marriage. He believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, no matter how many times it takes them to get it right" --Jay Leno

"Rudy Giuliani says the press can attack him all they want, but they should lay off his wife. Giuliani added, 'I just mean this wife. It's open season on the first two.'" --Conan O'Brien

"Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is lashing out at the press, asking the press to lay off his wife. The press responded today. They said, 'Okay. Which one?'" --Jay Leno

Edwardstakesconvention--betonit wrote on January 20, 2008 6:26 PM:

Note that the ONLY dem candidate to most soundly defeat all repug candidates is EDWARDS. And he's really not that far from it. Even if he were--expect some delegates to show up at the convention and cast their votes for him. Do you think dems are gonna give up this time?
Don't bet on it.

ElectoPundit wrote on January 20, 2008 6:39 PM:

I've done an analysis of the Republican delegate race and what could happen in the remaining states. This nomination looks like it's definitely McCain's to lose... but it was interesting to map out on a spreadsheet and see where the important contests are likely to be.

I predict McCain will have a strong February 5th and then wrap things up on March 4th in Texas and Ohio. If Romney is doing better than expected, it could make Pennsylvania on April 22nd pretty important.

Here's the link to my analysis:

http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/republican-delegate-race.html

I've also done the Democratic race:

http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/democratic-delegate-race.html

Michael A wrote on January 20, 2008 11:39 PM:

Excellent posts NCsteve. The problem is that I have posted similar posts over the last almost 6 months and colonpowwow ignores them. She/he doesn't care about the death and destruction rained down on iraq in the name of politics. Oh, it was no big deal, who cares, she has a 95% voting record on 20 votes a year, which I am gd sure that she got the heads up on what votes to vote on, so she is just so wonderful.

Unfortunately, give it up NCsteve, the clinton personality cult people like colonpowwow cannot be reasoned with. Bottom line, if you are not worshiping clinton and part of the cult you are a left wing loonie, spouting republican talking points or are sexist. It really is pathetic, but it is what it is. The way it is going I guess we have president mccain in 08 and then who knows what happens in 12, but at least hopefully the dynasty is over. Clinton will never get in the white house and ruin our country any more, like bush II did.

mike wrote on January 21, 2008 12:27 AM:

hey Michael A~ I thought I had probably read some of the most immature babbling incoherent anti-Clinton crap ever written and then I found you! A nearly perfect liberal voting record in the US Senate means setting yourself up in direct opposition to nearly everything the republican/bush/nazichristians have tried to do. Clinton and Obama have nearly identical positions on every major issue. So what you are saying is you hate someone..... personally.... and then proceed to rationalize that into a political position. If you actually cared about moving liberal issues forward you would welcome anyone with the power to help.

MonaL wrote on January 21, 2008 1:29 AM:

Excuse me while I gloat :-*

colonpowwow wrote on January 21, 2008 10:02 AM:

Michael A.:

Please stop trying to forge an identity-alliance with NCSteve's well-thought-out and well-stated posts. I'm sure you're embarrassing the heck out of him and other rational Obama supporters - good people backing a good candidate.

Yes, I know you hate Hillary and don't care for me so much. But Michael, it's nothing personal. Well, for me anyway.

Obama supporters are fine Democrats (unless they are ABHers), backing an excellent Democratic candidate.

Likewise re Hillary. I'm busy fighting for my candidate to win (as I will if Obama takes the nomination). Stop being such a hater. You'll live longer.

BTW - thanks for making my point about people going hyperbolic about Hillary's Iraq authorization vote (that I also disagree(d) with) like I pointed out in my post.

If that's your reason for supporting Obama over her, that's a perfectly legitimate reason IMO.

The irrational hate, not so much.

Dianne Pearce wrote on January 25, 2008 12:37 AM:

Isn't it interesting that Mitt Romney says he is TOTALLY AGAINST POLYGAMY - yet he lives his life looking forward to an afterlife where he'll be a SUPER POLYGAMIST with his own planet and his own Goddess Wives.

Mormon men are taught that after death (and if they are righteous) they will live forever as GODS over THEIR OWN PLANET - having unlimited sexual relations with MULTIPLE GODDESS WIVES so as to populate their own planet.

How can Mitt Romney say he is against something he believes is one of the greatest rewards in the afterlife. DO YOU really want a PRESIDENT who disavows something in his earthly life that he covets and aspires to in the afterlife?

Are you aware that Mitt Romney has performed death oath rituals hundreds of times in which he has drawn his thumb across his throat from side to side as if he were slitting his own throat and another where he has drawn his thumb across his abdomen as if he were disemboweling himself?

I am a former Mormon. I graduated from BYU. I was married in the Wash, DC temple.

I vehemently believe in freedom of religion. However, I am concerned that someone who professes questionable beliefs and who has participated in cult-like rituals involving grisly death-oath might become our President.

This information is not widely available to the general public. Mormons profess - what goes on in the temple is "sacred, not secret." Well if they are so sacred and "not secret" then why was I asked to make death oaths swearing I would not divulge what I had seen and experienced in the temple?

Visit my blog at http://justicefreedom4all.blogspot.com/ to see video re-enactments of the actual temple rituals and interviews with other individuals who also experienced the Mormon Temple rituals.

After participating in these rituals myself, I could no longer hold the Mormon faith in my heart and in my mind. As I exited the Wash, DC Mormon temple after going through the rituals for the first time I was asked by other Mormon's who accompanied me what I thought about what I had seen and experienced.

My response was that if those ceremonies/teaching were indeed of God, then I would rather go to hell with non-Mormons.

I feel that this information needs to be disseminated immediately. Voters must have this "sacred, not secret" information so they can make their own decisions about whether a practicing Mormon would be their choice under all
circumstances of national security.

How meaningful will an oath of office be for someone who makes death oaths to their God in the name of their religion?

And what I find even more frightening - why is mainstream media treating these Mormon issues like the naked Emperor is marching by?

I can longer live in fear of the millions of Mormons who have taken the death oaths. Citizens of America have a right to the facts.

Dianne Pearce
Phone: 636-675-5232
Email: dpearce@erols.com

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)