<p>The best thing for Obama to do is to take the high road. If Hillary gets too negative, she’ll just give fodder to McCain to use against Obama in the general election. What a dilemma for the Democratic “establishment”.</p>
<p>Would the “establishment” want one of their own to help sink the Democratic party in the general election?</p>
<p>This can be a real danger for Hillary. Remember, there are no more Bushes for the Clintons to hide behind…:D</p>
<p>I’m more offended on my own behalf as a voter by Rendell’s comments than I am on behalf of Obama. Rendell makes it seem like voters cannot look beyond color, like we see all black candidates as the same. There is a clear difference between candidate Lynn Swan and candidate Barack Obama in terms of their messages. That’s what I respond to, not gender or race. If he were my governor, I would be insulted. He is living in the dark ages and should retire.</p>
<p>If I were white and heard him say that, I’d be so insulted. Kind of like I am that I’m supposed to vote for Clinton because I’m Hispanic.</p>
<p>This is the first time in my life that I can remember Texas being in play, so I am enjoying seeing the campaign commercials that those of you in earlier states must get all the time.</p>
<p>I am bummed, however, that the debate at UT is invitation-only and so won’t get to see it. I was willing to stand in line for hours, but alas …</p>
<p>momof2inca and I think alike!</p>
<p>A more likely flash point will come if Hillary attempts to have “her” delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention. Yesterday, before the returns from the Potomac primaries began drifting in, Clinton flacks were all over the airwaves pushing the idea that the people of Michigan and Florida had spoken and that it would be wrong to deny the voters in those states at seat at the party. Last night pro-Obama and non-declared African-American leaders denounced this idea – most forceful was Al Sharpton (who has not endorsed either candidate), who suggested that a move to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates would mean war in the streets, or words to that effect. HC and Company will not go quietly and, as a Democrat, I am very concerned that this may all be setting up for a repeat of Chicago 1968. Hope I’m wrong and this can be settled before the convention.</p>
<p>“Maybe Pennsylvanians are reluctant to vote for Republican former football players.”</p>
<p>Could be. Jack Kemp must feel fortunate he ran in NY.</p>
<p>If the Michigan and Florida Delegates are seated and give HC the win it might win her the battle (nomination) but lose the war (presidential election). You can’t change the rule book half way through the game because it suits you. The only way it would work would be if both States ran new primaries (expensive).</p>
<p>On thing I find interesting - both Clinton and McCain are on the attack and both are targeting Obama. Seems they both think he is a real threat?</p>
<p>Good point mini. I found a January 2008 Boston Globe editorial that talked about an ex- football player in the 1976 Presidential election and his experience in PA.
(This really illustrates your point for those of us (like me) who didn’t get it.) </p>
<p>“The Reagan campaign made a very dramatic last-minute maneuver by making an early choice for vice president - Senator Richard Schweiker from Pennsylvania. But Reagan not only didn’t get the Pennsylvania delegation, he actually came out of Pennsylvania with one vote fewer than he had before choosing the senator.”</p>
<p>“most forceful was Al Sharpton (who has not endorsed either candidate), who suggested that a move to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates would mean war in the streets,”</p>
<p>Black leaders have been whispering the aforementioned for some time believing Blacks would be disenfranchised.</p>
<p>In the end, Michigan or Florida could be irrelevant.</p>
<p>Chickens come home to roost. By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press Writer </p>
<p>"For years, Bill and Hillary Clinton treated the Democratic National Committee and party activists as extensions of their White House ambitions, pawns in a game of success and survival. She may pay a high price for their selfishness soon. </p>
<p>If (Barack) Obama continues to win … the whole raison d’etre for her campaign falls apart and we’ll see people running from her campaign like rats on a ship," said Democratic strategist Jim Duffy, who is not aligned with either campaign.
Obama has won 23 of 35 contests, earning the majority of delegates awarded on the basis of election results. The remaining 796 delegates are elected officials and party leaders whose votes are not tied to state primaries or caucuses; thus, they are dubbed “superdelegates.”</p>
<p>And they are not all super fans of the Clintons.</p>
<p>Some are labor leaders still angry that Bill Clinton championed the North American Free Trade Agreement as part of his centrist agenda.</p>
<p>Some are social activists who lobbied unsuccessfully to get him to veto welfare reform legislation, a talking point for his 1996 re-election campaign.</p>
<p>Some served in Congress when the Clintons dismissed their advice on health care reform in 1993. Some called her a bully at the time.
Some are DNC members who saw the party committee weakened under the Clintons and watched President Bush use the White House to build up the Republican National Committee.</p>
<p>Some are senators who had to defend Clinton for lying to the country about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.</p>
<p>Some are allies of former Vice President Al Gore who still believe the Lewinsky scandal cost him the presidency in 2000.</p>
<p>Some are House members (or former House members) who still blame Clinton for Republicans seizing control of the House in 1994.</p>
<p>Some are donors who paid for the Clintons’ campaigns and his presidential library.</p>
<p>Some are folks who owe the Clintons a favor but still feel betrayed or taken for granted. Could that be why Bill Richardson, a former U.N. secretary and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, refused to endorse her even after an angry call from the former president? “What,” Bill Clinton reportedly asked Richardson, “isn’t two Cabinet posts enough?”</p>
<p>And some just want something new. They appreciate the fact that Clinton was a successful president and his wife was an able partner, but they never loved the couple as much as they feared them.</p>
<p>[ON</a> DEADLINE: Chickens come home to roost - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/on_deadline_clinton]ON”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/on_deadline_clinton)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read the DNC is encouraging Florida and Michigan to hold caucuses… much less expensive apparently. </p>
<p>But really if they had just followed the party rules and held their elections later their states would be in play now and would be incredibly important to the results… ironic.</p>
<p>I voted for Obama, and I’m fine with ad. :)</p>
<p>Ed Rendell was a blowhard twenty years ago when he was District Attorney in Phila (I was living there at the time). Seems like nothing has changed. He likes stirring up the pot, if for no other reason that to tout him own importance. 
(And I’m a D, too.)</p>
<p>I voted yesterday and 40% of the people in the building were young adults voting for the first time. That’s when I knew there would be a sweep.</p>
<p>Hillary will have to be EXTREMELY careful before running negative/attack ads against Obama. She risks alienating the MOST IMPORTANT voters- the Superdelegates.</p>
<p>I think Obama could run a very simple, very high impact ad as a counter to anything she comes up with.</p>
<p>He would only have to ask two questions. “Why hasn’t Hillary released her tax forms? What is she hiding?” 
</p>
<p>What is she hiding?" </p>
<p>50 million.</p>
<p>I think that it may be possible that being black is less of a barrier to being elected president today that can be for being elected to a lesser office. I may be wrong, but I think white Americans, even those with racial issues, have had enough experience – real and fictional – with successful black people in positions of power that they’re willing to accept that extraordinary talents and ability transcends race. It’s not just Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice - think of Jack Bauer’s “24” - the “good president” was black, the “bad president” was a Richard Nixon lookalike.</p>
<p>Lynn Swann may well have suffered the effects of lingering racism in a state race, but that doesn’t mean that Obama would in a presidential election. And it’s starting to look like we may find out if I’m right about that or not.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The convocation…perhaps:)</p>
<p>SHARPTON CALLS ON THE DNC TO NOT SEAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA DELEGATES
Wed Feb 13 2008 09:42:14 ET </p>
<p>Dear Governor Dean: </p>
<p>I write this letter as a former Democratic candidate for President of the United States and a civil rights leader who has fought his entire life for fairness and justice for all people regardless of the color of their skin. I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic party’s rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice. </p>
<p>As former Presidential candidates we both know that, whether we liked them or not, we adhered to the rules set forth by the Democratic party to select its nominee for president. For example, I would have much preferred starting the nominating process with caucuses and primaries in South Carolina and Washington D.C. than Iowa and New Hampshire. Nonetheless, I knew the rules, abided by them, and ultimately accepted the consequences. Changing the rules in the middle of a presidential contest is patently unfair both to the candidates (including Senator Edwards) and to Democratic voters everywhere. </p>
<p>Some have said that not seating delegations from Florida and Michigan disenfranchises Democratic voters – especially African American voters – from those two states. That claim, if true, should have been made many months ago before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates, and, once the decision was made, it should have been vigorously objected to and contested by those who felt it disenfranchised voters. To raise that claim now smacks of politics in its form most raw and undercuts the moral authority behind such an argument. </p>
<p>As a civil rights leader who is neutral in this presidential primary season and who highly respects both remaining Democratic candidates, I think we have a responsibility to protect both candidates from charges that the process was tainted so that our eventual nominee does not start the general election campaign under a cloud. Clearly, the justifiably proud and intense passions of each candidate’s supporters will be on full display in the months leading up to the convention. However, the Democratic Party and independent voices within must temper over enthusiasm by either side and the party must be resolute in ensuring that there is one set of rules by which we select our nominee. </p>
<p>In Progress, </p>
<p>Reverend Al Sharpton, President of National Action Network</p>