<p>janie,
Personally, I don’t view Obama as a saint. I view him partly, though, as a symbolic figure, which ain’t all that bad. Yes, he’s motivational, & that’s very important – again, in a representative democracy. We do not have a monarchy. If we did, I might be more inclined to “vote” (to use an oxymoron) for the “experienced” (read, insider) HC.</p>
<p>Obama has a shorter past, therefore a less entrenched past, therefore a more open future. It seems to me that the message is not that Obama the man is the changer, but rather the change icon, encouraging the ELECTORATE to care about change.</p>
<p>A populace that is not energized & hopeful is weak at effecting change.</p>
<p>Obama’s shorter past might hurt him. Right now he is the candidate with the highest liberal voting record. He also accepted money from the Healthcare industry. Obama has already taken 90 mil., in pork barrel spending.</p>
<p>I will truly make my decision about him to see if he does stick with his promise of only using 85 mil for the election. If not, isn’t he already going back on promises?</p>
<p>It seems that Hillary can not win unless she goes back on a major promise.</p>
<p>All the candidates agreed that Michigan and Florida delegates would not be seated and that the primaries in those states would not count if they were held prior to Feb. 5.</p>
<p>Now, Hillary is back pedaling big time! There is no denying that she and her surrogates have flip-flopped on this important issue in an attempt to benefit her, not the party! :mad:
I agree with many Obama supporters who state, “The Clinton campaign just said they have two options for trying to win the nomination – attempting to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters or change the rules they agreed to at the eleventh hour in order to seat non-existent delegates from Florida and Michigan. The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result of elections.”</p>
<p>"attempting to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters "</p>
<p>but also the rules of the game were, superdelegates can vote anyway they like.</p>
<p>Isn’t Obama campaign trying to change the rule by making superdelegates vote according to ‘will’ of the people? They know they can win this way or by buying them. As of yesterday about $600,000 bought them about 70</p>
<p>I get very confused at that line that Obama’s supporters keep pedalling:</p>
<p>It is fine that since the rules of the game were early = no delegates, Florida and Michigan Democrats do not get their votes counted.</p>
<p>Yet is is not fine that superdelegates could potentially be the deciders in the outcome of the primaries, despite the fact that they are just as much part of the rules as the removal of Michigan’s and Florida’s delegates?</p>
<p>You can’t have your cake and eat it too.</p>
<p>The same goes for Hillary, though I think that she is more in the right on this matter, since the Democrats really can’t afford to disenfranchise 2 huge states. The best solution would be to hold new primaries… hopefully they will do that.</p>
<p>Is it backpedaling or merely business as usual where no lies nor tricks are off limits? Rules are for everyone except if your name happens to be Clinton.</p>
<p>I think it’s politics as usual, and I think Obama is just like all the rest. Again, he’s not lived as long as the rest of them, and he hasn’t had anywhere close to the public scrutiny that older politicians (in the public eye much longer) have had. Just give him time, though. He’s really no different from all the rest.</p>
<p>1of42: I think they should discount Michigan and Florida altogether-- stand by the decision that was initially made when these states broke the rules.</p>
<p>xiggi: Or Obama, as his recent grousing about superdelegates shows. Clinton is more conniving, but it’s not like Obama is anywhere near as saintly as everyone makes him out to be. Not anywhere near.</p>
<p>janieblue: I see no reason to punish 2 states’ worth of Democrat primary voters merely because the upper party officials in those states gambled. Everyone refers to the “states” jumping their place in line. No such thing - it was the upper Democratic officials in those states jumping their place in line; the primary voters had absolutely nothing to do with that decision, and I see no reason to punish them for it.</p>
<p>"“Republican special interest PACs would eat him for breakfast.”</p>
<p>No different than special interest Democratic PACs. Moveon.org come to mind?"</p>
<p>When, dear friend, did Moveon.org eat ANY Republican for breakfast? (last I heard, Moveon was a bunch of weird liberals, NOT a special interest group. Have I missed something?)</p>
<p>"the primary voters had absolutely nothing to do with that decision, and I see no reason to punish them for it.</p>
<p>Me neither. But in Michigan, a vast number didn’t vote at all because there were names not on the ballot, and in Florida a vast number didn’t vote because they were TOLD it doesn’t count. </p>
<p>So I agree: let the primary voters have their say. When’s the primary?</p>
<p>(I’m absolutely fine with the superdelegates voting any way they like.)</p>
<p>How could we possibly seat Michigan and Florida delegates when all the names weren’t even on the ballots and many didn’t vote? I’ve got no problem with them holding a second primary with all the remaining names.</p>
<p>I think that Obama’s Illinois record show that he’s more of a tactical politician that he likes to come across as. Unlike many supporters, I’m inclined to think this is probably a good thing not a bad one. :)</p>
<p>The funny thing is…a month ago everyone was saying that the republicans were doomed because of the party not being ale to unite. On tv today, (Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace), the two dems satated that they believe neither Obama or Hillary will have enough delegates at the convention and it may come down to the superdelegates. </p>
<p>Both were concerned that the dem party maybe disenfranchised. Mara Frist (?) and Juan Phillips said the dem party now has to address if Obama gets the nod and the delegates were close to get behind Obama. Hillary has to convince Obama voters to get behind her if Mich. and Fla. delegates are counted.</p>
<p>This is going to be fun to watch…let the games begin.</p>
<p>Yes, but their “upper Democratic officials” were told not to do this. From what I can tell, and from a story on NPR, those in Michigan who wanted to vote for Obama were told to go vote “undecided.” Now they’ve been told those votes aren’t going to count. So, yes, it seems unfair. Then again, I don’t know why Michigan and Florida did this when they were told not to do so. </p>
<p>Frankly, I wish all states had just moved their primaries up-- then nobody could be punished. I still don’t get why all states can’t have their primaries at the same time. Honestly. Can someone explain this to me? What is the downside?</p>
<p>“When, dear friend, did Moveon.org eat ANY Republican for breakfast?”</p>
<p>I guess it depends on your definition of “eat for breakfast” </p>
<p>Dishonest might be more appropriate. Both sides are guilty.</p>
<p>“Congresswoman Nancy Johnson (R-5th-District) has been under an unfair, biased and inaccurate attack from the extremist advocacy group MoveOn.org. This attack, so inappropriate and misleading that NBC would not even air it”</p>
<p>“The Senate voted Thursday to condemn an advertisement by the liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org that accused the top military commander in Iraq of betrayal.”
[Senate</a> Condemns “General Betray Us” Ad](<a href=“Breitbart News Network”>Breitbart News Network)</p>
<p>First of all, I think General Betrayus DID betray us. I have posted his deceitful testimony from 2004-2005 betrayed the public trust and resulted in the deaths of additional hundreds of American lives, and thousands of Iraqis. And now that he has ethnically cleansed Baghdad, with 600,000 people - mostly pro-Western, many Christian, almost all educated - fleeing for their lives (more people, by the way, then ever fled Kosovo) - he has taken friends and turned them into enemies, a breeding ground for terrorists for a generation. He has become a posterboy for terrorist recruitment.</p>
<p>But he isn’t a Republican, as far as I am aware. </p>
<p>As for Nancy Johnson, I ask AGAIN, when did Moveon eat Nancy Johnson for breakfast? Your very quote makes it clear that they didn’t. In either case, they might be weird, or not to your taste, but hardly a special interest group. (What “special interest group” that stands to gain privately from an election do they represent?)</p>
<p>Meanwhile, it’s been fun to watch “Dear friends…100-year-war” McCain flipflopping in the breeze.</p>
<p>“An interest group (also advocacy group, lobby group, pressure group or special interest group) is an organized collection of people who seek to influence political decisions and policy, without seeking election to public office.”</p>
<p>“I ask AGAIN, when did Moveon eat Nancy Johnson for breakfast?”</p>
<p>And again, I’m saying dishonest might be a more appropriate accusation.</p>
<p>I have had enough of primaries, I think we should demand both parties have their primaries on 1 day…June would be good, no more of this getting a bounce crap. Everyone in the nation votes on the same day, pull your lever and let the chips fall where they may. This would also get rid of people voting against someone, instead of for their candidate. It would also get the states that allow voting for either/or party make a decision and call it a day!</p>
<p>well, Obama finally met with Edwards today. Of course, every political pundit is trying to read a decision (if there even is one) into the 20 seconds of video shot by a news copter as Obama was leaving. While I respect Edwards decision to handle this however he wants, I wish he would just endorse someone so both candidates could move on and focus on other issues. Even if he endorses Clinton (I’m an Obama supporter), we could move forward with that information instead of continually speculating.</p>