<p>“well, Obama finally met with Edwards today.”</p>
<p>For the second time.</p>
<p>bulletandpima: while you are wishing, why not wish for the caucuses to go away too. They are nothing but circuses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The first time this week, and the first after Edwards meeting with Hillary last weekend. They were supposed to meet earlier this week, and it was postponed.</p>
<p>bulletandpima: I agree. I think all states should have the primary on the same day. June 1 is fine with me, too. That also prevents people from changing their choice based on who is in the lead, or gaining momentum, at any given point. </p>
<p>simba: Yes, I’m up for eliminating the circuses- uh- the caucuses, too. :)</p>
<p>I have no idea why Edwards is doing this. All I know is, he hasn’t given away his supporter list yet. We’ll know who he’s endorsing when those of us who were Edwards’ supporters start receiving unsolicited emails from either the Clinton or Obama campaign. So far, nothing.</p>
<p>Erewhon, your posting of an opinion piece by Kareem Mohni as “proof” that Move-on.org is “dishonest” is hardly what I’d call solid evidence. Mr. Mohni - a member of the campus republicans at UConn and apparently an Anne Coulter fan - disagrees with the implications of an ad sponsored by Move-on, but if you actually read the substance of his commentary it’s mighty thin on actual specifics as to what is “dishonest” and what is simply a disagreement as to the reasonable interpretation of events. For those interested, here’s Mr. Mohni on another topic of interest: the “liberal invasion” of college campuses, by virtue of the formation of - clubs!
Geez - what next? “Liberal” Ultimate Frisbee?</p>
<p>(Apparently Mr. Mohni had no problem with taking his own liberties with the comments of those who disagreed with him, however. Check out the “Controversies” of 2006 described in this Wikipedia article: [The</a> Daily Campus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Campus]The”>The Daily Campus - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Remember that in the general election. :)</p>
<p>" your posting of an opinion piece by Kareem Mohni as “proof” that Move-on.org is “dishonest” is hardly what I’d call solid evidence."</p>
<p>I would agree but for the fact even NBC ascertained the ad was dishonest. I can only assume NBC did due diligence before they took the unusual step of refusing to air the ad…Freedom of speech and all that ;)</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>It would have been wiser to have used the nonpartisan opinion of prestigious Annenberg Foundation. </p>
<p>“A MoveOn.org Political Action ad campaign says four House Members have been “caught red-handed” accepting money from energy companies, and voting “against bills that would have penalized those companies for price gouging.” The ads compare the four with convicted former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
In fact, none of the four members have done anything illegal. They opposed Democratic legislation that would have made it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to charge an “unconscionably excessive” price for gasoline, whatever that means.”</p>
<p>[FactCheck.org:</a> Caught “Red-Handed?”](<a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/article383.html]FactCheck.org:”>http://www.factcheck.org/article383.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree. I like being able to watch a presidential candidate under months of stress, see how they react when they’re tired or under fire or gleeful (Howard Dean anyone?), see them develop as orators and debaters and observe how they manage their campaigns. Its allows us to glimpse what they might be like under the pressure of the top job and it gives enough time for something special to sometimes happen, like the Obama movement, which can change not just the course of an election but perhaps the nature of the political scene. Additionally, it allows candidates to travel around the country and listen to very diverse constituents… which candidate would ever go to Wisconsin otherwise? Even in California we never used to see them when our primary was in June (and you can bet we won’t see them for the general election because California is “already decided.”) I also think it’s prudent to give the press enough time to dig up whatever skeletons are in closets before we narrow the field. And a long primary season with varying elections is good for the economy. Oh, and small bonus: in a year with a writers’ strike a long exciting primary season makes up for all the reruns on TV. :)</p>
<p>Wouldn’t you see all of that anyway.</p>
<p>I am not proposing that they declare candidacy the day before the primaries. What I am saying is too many people follow the sheep, and vote that way. Why can’t we say election cycle starts 365 days prior to the national. Hillary has been campaigning since last summer! Everyone votes on the same day and the votes are calculated and you get your party leaders. They can still campaign and have the debates, but to hear candidates say we need to fix poverty, but spend 1 million per week in advertising is sick and disturbing. You want my vote, take that million do not spend a dime for the week and walk into a food bank and hand it over. Go to New Orleans and hand it over, go spend it somewhere, that it makes a difference. Obama and Hillary made 45 million in contributions for January…can you imagine how that could change inner city schools, with a direct influx of money? That was just one month. By the time this election is over we are probably talking about 1/2 billion in advertising alone. Am I the only one disgusted by hearing the rhetoric of lets fix something, but yet they keep accepting money. That 1 million for 1 week by handing it over to a food bank would get more gooddwill, more credibility and more national airtime than any 30 second ad they run!</p>
<p>This will be the longest election cycle in history and we have not even made it to July yet.</p>
<p>Well unfortunately most people don’t follow an election cycle until very shortly before they are supposed to vote. I know for example, that Obama started his campaign last February in Illinois but most people hadn’t heard of him in our state until relatively shortly before the Feb. 5 primary. So, say we had a national primary in June… the last three weeks leading up to it would be a frenzy where everyone in the country (who even cares about it) would pay attention… that’s when all the stress would start – not much time to see how they respond – and small things could set off a media firestorm that might cripple a candidate and give him/her no time to recover (for example after Bill Clinton’s remarks in South Carolina, Hillary needed time to regain ground). Take McCain, for example, if we had all voted in January when Iowa did, he wouldn’t even be our nominee. His campaign had been declared dead. He was able to rebound because there were many more caucuses and primaries in which to prove to the voters that he was the best choice.</p>
<p>^^^ At least Obama’s money comes from private donors only, most of them from ordinary citizens who will get no payback except perhaps the satisfaction of being part of the “movement” he has started. Obama does not take money from federal lobbyists, special interest groups, etc so perhaps he will be less influenced by their pressure. </p>
<p>I do feel bad about all the money being spent, but then I realize that much of it is being spent in grassroots efforts, precinct by precinct. Money is being spent in communities for things like renting space, paying people for campaign expenses, and yes, some TV ads. </p>
<p>Consider it a form of “stimulus package” to combat the recession!</p>
<p>Exactly, VP… the money is not all going to national TV buys but to local printers, TV stations, landlords, etc… as the campaign moves from state to state. I’m not saying it’s better than giving money to the poor… but I think most people would see that as pandering for votes, unfortunately.</p>
<p>Haven’t read the whole thread so I don’t know if this was posted before but it sure is interesting.</p>
<p>“Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlems 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.”</p>
<p>[Unofficial</a> Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote - New York Times](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html?em&ex=1203397200&en=e372c818e048cf87&ei=5087 ]Unofficial”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html?em&ex=1203397200&en=e372c818e048cf87&ei=5087 )</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read somewhere the other day he has received money from the health industry.</p>
<p>Wasn’t it only a few weeks ago that the media discussed how he got his home for a sweet deal through one of his campaign donors? I think he got it for 1/2 price</p>
<p>Bulletandpima, $45 Million dollars is about 8 hours worth of profit for one American Corporation - Exxon/Mobil. Think what that one company could do to “fix poverty” or “change inner city schools.” Are you “disgusted” with Ex/Mob? </p>
<p>I’m continually nonplussed by the attitude that anyone who wants to change things for the better has an obligation to make personal sacrifices, while the greed-heads are perfectly within their rights to sneer and do nothing. If I point out that our tax rate is too low to pay our bills, so we keep borrowing our kid’s money to make ends meet, some yahoo will inevitably smirk “OK, you pay higher taxes. Heh-heh, heh-heh, heh-heh.” John Edwards is a successful man, who lives in a big house. When he tried to accomplish societal change that will help the poor - people sneer.</p>
<p>Get this: Just because someone is in favor of accomplishing change for the betterment of everyone in America - and not just themselves - that doesn’t mean they have an obligation to wear sackcloth and ashes. Idealists who want to help others need to be able to use the means of persuasion that you can only access with lots o’ cash. If you want to criticize them for doing their job, you need to criticize everyone else who has more than two nickels to rub together, too.</p>
<p>I never said anything towards that manner.^^^^</p>
<p>I think you read too deep into what I was saying. I am saying the amount of money being spent is disgusting to me. When candidates are spending 1 million per week per state, it just makes me question if this process has gotten out of control.</p>
<p>As far as Exxon is concerned I am disgusted.</p>
<p>Hondu, did you read the whole article? It says that on primary night, results were estimated to be 141 to 0 in favor of Clinton. But, later investigation reveals that the results are 261 to 136 in favor of Clinton. Same thing happened in Brooklyn where a 118 to 0 HC lead is down to 118 to 116 <- Obama could gain a few delegates if this happened anywhere else.</p>
<p>bulletandpima: He received money from health industry lobbyists in IL when he was a state senator. He has admitted that. He took money from state lobbyists but perhaps that experience taught him not to take money from federal lobbyists now. In the quote you cited, I specified “federal” lobbyists and he also clarifies that. </p>
<p>As to the sweet deal he got for his house, yes, I have also heard about that. I don’t know how bad that story is but it seems that the press and Hillary have examined it and decided not to press too much on it.</p>
<p>
For the most part I’m okay with it, but I haven’t sat down and analyzed or given a great deal of thought to every vote. The fact is I’m one of the I’ll vote for Obama for my mental health voters. He’s good enough on the issues. Not perfect.</p>