<p>Electoral College and Caucuses, I am not sure which is a bigger sham.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did Clinton even get more delegates from Texas? More interesting is that an “insignificant” state halved the gains in the “critical” state of Ohio. </p>
<p>Amazing how losing 11 (or 12 in you counted the early result of VT) in a row is dismissed by the Clinton camp as unworthy results but winning three states that deliver just a small delegate advantage is consider a CHANGE in momentum. Then there is the next future where her campaign counts on stopping the devastating hemorrhaging of superdelegates and counts on the positive news of winning 3-4 of the remaining states while losing the rest as POSITIVE news. The reality is that she will lose more states than she will win and that Obama will increase his pledged delegates as well. The other reality is that she has lost a ton of delegates and that more are defecting to Obama’s camp. At one time she had an advantage of 100 in the SD count and it has dwindled to around three dozens. Yeah, what a change in momentum. </p>
<p>Since it is obvious that this fight will continue to the end, Clinton won’t be able to count on the Rush voters who support her at the primaries because they hate her so much. </p>
<p>If she ends up winning through shenanigans, the negatives will be so numerous that a reconciliation with Obama will be impossible, and the cost to her image so great (what a surprise) that McCain will have to spend little in negative ads. Already hated by most republicans, she’ll add a majority of the democrats to her scorecard. </p>
<p>No matter what a great turn of events for the Republicans!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How? Why?</p>
<p>The electoral college - We have popular votes within each state, and the winner of each state goes on. Why does that work? Because Nader is on a ballot in New Jersey, and not in Texas, or some other similar thing. Also, what about the time zone differential that can heavily manipulate turnout and percentages. We use the electoral college to have a standardized method of election. To have a national popular vote is the only way to use a nationaly popular vote. And that is in direct conflict with the founding documents of this country.</p>
<p>And with Caucuses - why should the states have to pay for a primary, rather than the parties themselves? Why is attending and speaking out less democratic than simply voting, as democracy was centered around the ideals of communication and reason being used to find the best course of action?</p>
<p>Caucuses and Primaries are flawed. Our smartest often don’t vote, and our most clueless might. Caucuses make it harder for the homebound and those with inflexible work schedules. Primaries have a history of manipulated vote totals, dead people voting, and so on(just look at the LA and New York things this year).</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>If that is the goal of the Electoral College then it has failed. Thanks to the electoral college, a vote by a citizen in South Dakota is carries nearly 2.8 times as much weight in determining the next president as does the vote of a citizen in California. That’s not what I’d call very standardized.</p>
<p>Besides her tax returns, why won’t she release her White House Papers. Rather than all this “experience” she claims, I think her papers will simply show dozens and dozens of “tea and cookie trips”. </p>
<p>I think her trip to Bosnia with Sinbad and Sheryl Crowe is the typical example of what she really engaged in.</p>
<p>well bullwinkle she has rubbed flesh with more world leaders on those tea and cookie trips that the number of countries Obama can identify on a world Atlas.</p>
<p>Simba, I respect your opinions, but I don’t see the point of post #46. First, neither of us knows what Obama could identify on an Atlas. But the real point is that you could say that Cheney has “rubbed flesh” with many world leaders too, and probably more than Clinton over his years. But I wouldn’t want him to be president.</p>
<p>hayden - last time I looked, Cheney wasn’t running for POTUS, nor has he lauded his “experience” as qualifications of his candidacy.</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t think Clinton OR Obama has the experience for the job, but Hillary CAN say that she has a greater understanding of the manner in which the WH functions. </p>
<p>One thing to consider regarding Hillary’s so-called “experience” during Bill’s WH years is, just how much info WAS she privvy to, and how much WAS she included in Bill’s decision making? If it was a “team effort”, then she can claim a bit more “experience”, but does that suggest that it would be a “team effort” again were she to be elected?</p>
<p>bz, you totally misunderstand my point, but that’s okay.</p>
<p>What I’m saying is that there is no previous experience that qualifies a person to be president of the United States of America. Not meeting world leaders, not being in the room when decisions are made. Nothing. You inherit the briefcase with the nuclear codes, you become c-in-c, you sit in the president’s chair at national security meetings - and no one job or set of jobs could tell you in advance how to make good decisions.</p>
<p>After all, Bush has been president for 7 years, which is pretty good experience, and almost 70% of the country thinks he’s doing a bad job.</p>
<p>I think the point was that when Bush was running the fact that his family was practically in bed with the Bin Ladens was no problem, but now Clinton’s alleged business dealings with Dubai are a big deal. </p>
<p>Nobody yelled conflict of interest in 04 when Bush ran for president.</p>
<p>“I think the point was that when Bush was running the fact that his family was practically in bed with the Bin Ladens was no problem”</p>
<p>I’m sure you can document that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I remember quite a few people having problems with the Bush family’s ties to the Bin Laden family. Michael Moore made it the centerpiece of his movie.
I think that’s one of many reasons why Bush won by less than 600 votes in 2004.</p>
<p>"I remember quite a few people having problems with the Bush family’s ties to the Bin Laden family. Michael Moore made it the centerpiece of his movie. </p>
<p>Now THERE’S a credible source.</p>
<p>“I think that’s one of many reasons why Bush won by less than 600 votes in 2004.”</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>Here’s a link to a website which details an investigative report done by the CBC a few years ago, which provided a fairly substantive report of the longtime connections between the Bush and Bin Laden families. There’s a lot of information provided on the site about the investigation itself and related links which could keep one busy for quite some time. It’s a start.</p>
<p>[CBC</a> News: the fifth estate: Conspiracy Theories](<a href=“http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html]CBC”>http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html)</p>
<p>You could probably discover more information by googling James Bath, Frank Carlucci, the Carlyle Group.</p>
<p>It’s hard to take any site that claims 9/11 was a conspiracy credibly.</p>
<p>Lax, did you bother to read anything there? It doesn’t appear so if your post #55 is any indication of what you think the link was all about. The fifth estate is a very well-known and well-regarded, award winning investigative reporting show on the CBC which has been around for 30+ years.</p>
<p>Zoozermom - my mistake. Bush’s small lead in Florida, which I was referring to, was in 2000. </p>
<p>I do think people were discussing the Carlyle Group connections to the Bin Ladens during 2004, partly due to Moore’s film, although he was not the first to report it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the NYT is the most celebrated newspaper in the world and has been around for over 100 years yet I, along with numerous others, often question its credibility</p>
<p>Just for clarification, is the Bush/Bin Laden connection troublesome because of Osama’s genetic link to the Bin Ladens, because of questionable oil dealings, possible conflict of interest on the part of GW, or something else entirely?</p>
<p>Someone correct me if I’m wrong on this, but hasn’t Osama been a family embarrassment, and estranged from the Bin Laden family for many years?</p>
<p>Please note that I am NOT making excuses for GW’s dealings with this family. I’m just trying to understand what is he is being accused of and whether or not Osama figures into the equation.</p>
<p>“Someone correct me if I’m wrong on this, but hasn’t Osama been a family embarrassment, and estranged from the Bin Laden family for many years?”</p>
<p>That’s what the Bin Ladens say, but who really knows.</p>