Where Do We Go From Here?

Kristin Teigen

Dear Senator Clinton,

How are you? I hope that you’re enjoying traveling around with the family. Are you getting enough sleep? It seems like Chelsea is turning out well. Is Bill taking care of himself? Boy, I really miss him sometimes.

Yeah, anyway. So, I just have a question for you. Don’t want to seem, you know, snarky or anything, but uh, what are you doing? Seriously. What are you doing?

After some of the most horrendous times in this nation’s history, Democrats have had a critical opportunity to define a unified vision for our collective future. And, uh, it’s not going so well. There are many Democrats who are already exhausted. From the comments on another blog, MOMocrats, it’s clear that the extended campaign is wearing us out. Here’s a sampling.

“I am EXHAUSTED! And so weary of the incessant bickering.”

“I am tired. In the beginning, I was excited, but now I just wish it were over and we could focus on the real enemy.”

“I'm tired. At this point, I just want to fast forward to the poll in November, open my eyes, see a name next to D and punch it. I'm spent.”

“I'm throwing in the towel. Turning off the set. Getting off the bandwagon. I'm thinking about turning in my Dem card and going Indie.”

Senator, is this what you really wanted?

I’m guessing since you are wicked smart, you did pretty well in math. So, let’s look at where we’re at. Delegate count? You’re behind and stand basically no chance at catching up. Congrats on the influx of money after Pennsylvania, but despite that, you are so very outranked when it comes to money.

In terms of the popular vote, even if you count Florida, you are behind. The only way you can win on this score is if we count Michigan, where Obama was not even on the ballot. Remember those silly “rules?” He followed them. Kind of a nice trait in a president, don’t you think?

The only thing you really have right now is your electability argument. Despite your claims that you’re the only one who could beat McCain, a poll out today by Rasmussen puts Obama ahead of McCain by two points, while you’re behind by two. That poll was taken yesterday, after your win in Pennsylvania. So much for momentum.

So, again, Senator Clinton, ma’am, with all due respect, what are you doing? Where do we go from here?

Comments

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary Clinton- "Make it as ugly, as stupid, with as many Republican attack Ads and right wing talking points as I can muster before I lose. That way people will really respect me as a fighter and want me to run again in 2012 when Obama loses in the General Election to McCain."

    Steve Colbert had it right, when Hillary runs out of states, she can create more, and finally emerge triumphant winning the "State of Denial."

  • Nick from Eugene (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Clinton is gonna have to have chutzpa to claim winning the popular vote, considering that the only way she is going to wind up ahead in that category is if you count Michigan where Obama was not even on the ballot AND Puerto Rico! That's right, she is going to try to convince people that Puerto Rico should tip the balance of this election.
    I don't see her winning the popular vote without it. She will win Kentucky and West Virginia by hefty margins, but she is going to get routed in North Carolina. Add in likely victories for Obama in South Dakota, Montana and Oregon and Obama keeps the popular vote lead. Now Indiana will be close, and won't really make a dent in the popular vote either way. So, Puerto Rico is the only way Clinton can close the gap and take that lead. We all know that it is a joke to count Florida and Michigan. Clinton and Obama both agreed that those elections would not count for anything...but to claim the popular vote based on Puerto Rico...I wanna see the Clintons spin that to the American people. If they can do that, they are geniuses.

  • M jordan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kristin -- If you are serious, then read the just-releasted Agenda for Oregon by Hillary Clinton. It is amazing, specific and detailed. Why on earth would a web site like this NOT have this up and active for comment and discussion? I wonder. Eugene Register Guard wrote about it today so you can go there or Hillaryhub.com. Obama's broad strokes of change cannot come close to Hillary's specific plan. And remember, Obama voted FOR Dick Cheney's energy bill and Obama IS an advocate of nukes. Please Oregon, don't be hyptonized. Obama is not who is says he is. Go read Hillary's Agenda for Oregon. How can you not be impressed. And please, whoever is in charge of this website, post it for discussion.

  • MJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here is the link to Hillary's Agenda for Oregon:

    http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=96203&sid=1&fid=7

  • (Show?)

    Jordan, Why don't you do as the facilitators of this site repeat ad nauseum and submit a nifty article of your own for posting here?:)

    As for being hypnotized, I could go off about that again, but I have a real, and definitely unhypnotized life to get back to.

  • MJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Clinton focuses on Oregon issues Thursday, April 24, 2008

    <hr/>

    Hillary Rodham Clinton issued a debate challenge Wednesday to fellow Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama: two debates in Oregon, with one focusing on rural issues.

    Clinton’s throw down came a day after her 10-point win over Obama in Pennsylvania Tuesday — a win that was preceded by a Philadelphia debate that pundits scored as a win for Clinton.

    The debate challenge is one of several signs pointing to Oregon’s emergent role as one of the few remaining states in the never-ending slog of a democratic nomination fight. Clinton also released an 11-point “Oregon Compact,” in which she promised action on the following:

    • Bringing green jobs to Oregon;

    • Supporting Oregon on its path to energy security;

    • Protecting Oregon’s rights in siting of liquified natural gas terminals;

    • Partnering with Oregon to provide affordable health care

    • Restoring county payments for Oregon’s rural communities;

    • Standing up for Oregon’s soldiers and for military families;

    • Creating sustainable jobs by thinning forests

    • Reversing the depletion of wild salmon;

    • Protecting old growth and roadless areas;

    • Defending Oregon’s “Death with Dignity” law from federal meedling

    Her campaign issued the most detailed, on-paper description to date from any of the presidential candidates on their intentions for Oregon. The 13-page document gave specific descriptions of how she intended to deal with each issue. On Tuesday, the Clinton campaign announced that former President Bill Clinton, would come back to the state Friday and Saturday to campaign a second time for his wife in Oregon. The campaign still has not released specifics on locations or times.

    Obama’s Oregon spokesman Nick Shapiro said “there have been 21 debates in this lengthy primary process. Sen. Obama looks forward to spreading his message of change to the voters of Oregon. We will review and consider the best ways to do that.”

    Read more in Thursday’s Register-Guard.

    Copyright © 2007 — The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA

    <hr/>
  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here's Hillary's real agenda,2012, and here's what it's doing to the Dem. party. The Dem. party is unravelling thanks to Team Clinton and Josh Kardon:

    From Reuters Blog: http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/04/24/top-house-democrat-denounces-clinton-campaign-tactics/ Top House Democrat denounces Clinton campaign tactics

    Posted by: Richard Cowan Tags: Tales from the Trail: 2008

    WASHINGTON - “Scurrilous” and “disingenuous” were among the words a top Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives used on Thursday to describe Hillary Clinton’s campaign tactics in her bid to defeat Barack Obama for their party’s presidential nomination.

    House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, of South Carolina and the highest ranking black in Congress, also said he has heard speculation that Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.

    rtr1w3w5.jpg“I heard something, the first time yesterday (in South Carolina), and I heard it on the (House) floor today, which is telling me there are African Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they’re hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win” in November, Clyburn told Reuters in an interview.

    Obama holds a sizable lead in delegates won in state-nominating contests which could be hard for her to overcome.

    The purported theory is that an Obama defeat in November against Republican presidential candidate John McCain would let Clinton make another presidential bid in four years, Clyburn said.

    Clyburn has not yet declared whether he supports Clinton or Obama. But in January, he raised his concerns about the heated exchanges between the two campaigns before the South Carolina primary.

    On Thursday, Clyburn took Clinton and surrogates to task, complaining that they want the popular votes in Michigan and Florida counted, even though both states violated party rules for the early scheduling of their nominating contests.

    “I think it’s so disingenuous … (adviser James) Carville and Sen. Clinton were all on TV. I’ve seen them two or three times this week, talking about counting Florida and Michigan.”

    Obama did not campaign in those states because the Democratic Party said Florida and Michigan wouldn’t be included in the formal tally for the nomination. “Her name was the only one on the ticket in Michigan and still 42, 43 percent of the vote was against her,” Clyburn said.

    Still, Clyburn said “I don’t think she ought to drop out.”

    But he added, “There’s a difference between dropping out and raising all this extraneous scurrilous stuff about the guy (Obama). Just run your campaign … you don’t have to drop out to be respectful of other people.”

  • M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary Clinton is tearing our party and country apart for no reason. I am a son of the Phila area. I am a son of the white, irish catholic working class culture(coal mines of Penn and south jersey tradesmen). The majority of this community is bitter,racist, pro-life,pro war and believes women are essentially property. Before they were Reagan democrats they were Wallace democrats, Remember him.The vast majority of them are not going to vote for Obama or Hillary in the General election. To even think so is harboring on insanity.It is better to build a democratic movement based on young people, people of color, progressive women and Yes,60 year old white men like me. That really is our only hope and I honestly believe Obama will lead that movement given a chance. Sadly, Hillary has now thrown that chance away for herself.This is reality folks and we all know it. Otherwise we will remain defeated, tearing each other apart and nothing will change. Please, Please join me and other Oregonians in making the right choice for our children and their children. Lets end this insanity and stop tearing each other apart on this and other blogs

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary Clinton has gone insane. I mean, she and reality no longer live in the same universe. I wish she would retire to NY and stay there and never bother any of us again. Go away Hillary. GO.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Geez. How many new Democrats are there because these two candidates are still campaigning? Not sure if I'd call that "tearing our party apart." The argument is insanity to me. What worries me most right now is that my fellow democrats are so very willing ot tear down a Democratic presidential candidate because their chosen candidate can't seal the deal. If anything is going to "tear this party apart" that's it. I'm feeling mighty un-welcome supporting Senator Clinton, a Senator who supports all the progressive policies that I support.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't trust Hillary so no matter what her position paper says, it's immaterial. She just lies and panders. Don't waste my time.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary caught lying about campaign debt:

    Hillary Clinton's campaign debt at the end of March was bigger than it appeared because she didn't list the $5 million she loaned herself, a campaign finance watchdog group reported this afternoon. Clinton, in her filing with the Federal Election Commission, reported that her campaign had $9 million in cash on hand as of March 30, and $10 million in debts. "The Clinton campaign itemizes its debts to vendors, totaling $10.3 million by the end of last month, but since January, when Clinton infused her campaign with $5 million, the campaign hasn't been adding in that loan when reporting its overall debt to the Federal Election Commission," the Center for Responsive Politics said. "An FEC representative tells us Clinton's debt to herself, even if she won't be paying it back, should be lumped in with the campaign's debts to others on the first page of the monthly filings, not just listed deeper within her disclosure forms -- that's how the other big self-funder in 2008, Mitt Romney, reported the $42 million he lent himself." Including the loan would put her debt as of March 30 at $15.3 million, the nonpartisan group said.

    And it's April 24 today! Oregon companies - DO NOT do business with Hillary unless you get CASH UP FRONT. Her campaign is dangerously out of financial control and she is lying about it. No wonder she wants those debates. She really really needs the free air time.

    LINK

  • (Show?)

    Please don't post entire news articles (or even the bulk of one). It's bad netiquette and can run you into copyright problems.

    Please post a short intro from the article and then the link.

  • (Show?)

    Katy, for whatever it's worth, I'm about as strong an Obama supporter as you'll find, and I generally find your comments insightful and thought-provoking. Whatever little part of the community I represent is glad you're here.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Great post, Kristin!

    Especially this: In terms of the popular vote, even if you count Florida, you are behind. The only way you can win on this score is if we count Michigan, where Obama was not even on the ballot. Remember those silly “rules?” He followed them. Kind of a nice trait in a president, don’t you think?

    People in many walks of life (even if they are not politically inclined) can understand the concept "Rules are rules". People who are working with children (parents, child care employees, teachers, etc.) who deal with real life situations like arguments over ball game rules, who was next in line, etc. don't have to buy into the "fairness to Michigan and Florida" argument. Rules are rules!

    As I recall, the press had almost crowned Hillary the nominee before the first caucus votes were cast, and she was using sentences like "when I am president". Inevitability arguments can rub people the wrong way, as if their votes don't matter. And her campaign folks had a tin ear (as did those for Gulliani, Fred Thompson, and other "inevitable" candidates---how DARE Huckabee have won the Iowa Caucus and be the last Republican standing!).

    The arguments of Terry McAuliffe sound like the reasons some people were thrilled he was replaced as DNC Chair by Howard Dean. "Small states don't matter"? Ever listen to the Ed Schultz Show on AM 620 broadcast from Fargo N. Dakota?

    Sorry, Hillary, you may have great experience and great ideas. But you seem to hire political hacks (not my sentiment, but something I heard on the radio on the way to work today) while Obama seems to hire people who are expert at getting things done without a lot of fanfare.

    I live in a legislative district where the incumbent is a former Chamber of Commerce First Citizen---and got a real scare from an underfunded candidate from another part of the district who had a lot of community support. This legislator's "popular in the community" sheen was tarnished by condescending remarks she made about her opponent and those who campaigned for that opponent.

    Sorry, folks, this is not about DLC Democrats or anything like that. It is about someone who remembers that votes of ordinary folks win elections (and who raises money in small amounts from lots of people) running against someone pushing hard very early for $2300 contributions from old reliable donors. Those donors have money, but only one vote each.

    Hillary made major miscalculations---including the idea that people who attend church regularly are not bitter because they have their faith to back them up. How many people does she know personally who have considered themselves lucky to find part time work after months of unemployment? Does she think every Oregonian who wants full time work has a full time permanent job with benefits? Those people with part time jobs are not bitter because the process of job hunting can be uplifting if only one has religious faith and regularly attends church?

    This does not sound like a member of the family which in 1992 so connected with ordinary folks. This is a US Senator who will do anything to win and doesn't seem to have much connection to ordinary folks.

    Josh, Ron Wyden does have that connection--or he wouldn't have had a standing room only crowd at Chemeketa not that long ago, and wouldn't impress people who go to the town hall meetings in whichever county they live in.

    Signing an "Oregon compact" is one thing. But if Hillary did a town hall meeting of the type Ron does in every county every year, how would she respond to an Oregonian asking, "Let me get this straight--I'm lucky to have a part time temp. job after months of unemployment. It seems the Democratic Party which was once the party of working people doesn't care about people like me anymore. But if I attend church regularly I shouldn't be bitter? Exactly what rarified world do you live in?"

    Bill Clinton did a great job connecting with ordinary folks in 1992, but it seemed that with all the good things which happened in his presidency, the "money is all that matters and only professionals know how the game is played" mentality also crept into the Democratic Party while he was President. Early this century, along came the Oregon Bus Project (not left, not right, but forward with young people who were not old enough to vote in 1992) and then the Dean movement (first Deaniacs, then the 50 State Strategy of DNC Chair Dean). Some Democrats embraced this change, others never saw it coming.

    The debates I have heard in recent years haven't been "progressives vs. DLC" so much as the McAuliffe "professionals know how to target" mentality vs. Dean's YOU HAVE THE POWER book and 50 State Strategy.

    Seems to me that Hillary is reaping the whirlwind of misjudging that movement. She seems increasingly harsh and shrill. To quote what an old friend (who works for an elected official now supporting Obama) said decades ago, Hillary sounds more and more like "when they act like that, you know they know they are losing".

    I have no problem with women supporting Hillary. But after 30 years of supporting women OR men in primaries depending on qualifications (yes, I am so glad Peter DeFazio won his original 4th Dist. primary over a female legislator), I reserve the right to choose the candidate I think would be best for the job.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I find Katy's comments snarky and mean-spirited. And I'm sure that is exactly what she intends.

  • (Show?)

    I find Katy's comments snarky and mean-spirited. And I'm sure that is exactly what she intends.

    And yet, you lack the common decency to attach your personal attack to your own name.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Should I know who Katy is? Is she some famous person?

  • Linley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kristen,

    It appears that when you hold the problem at arm's length and factor in ALL of the various ways Democrats have shown approval for one or the other of the two candidates, Sen. Clinton and Sen.Obama have essentially received an equal level of approval by the country's Democrats. Given that reality, have you given any thought to resolving the situation by asking Sen Obama to withdraw? In many ways, that's as logical as asking Sen. Clinton to do so.

  • admiral_naismith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Where we go from here is, essentially, Obama v. McCain in November. A pretty easy choice, if you ask me.

  • (Show?)

    Linley,

    Good question, but no. Why? Because this is a race -- imagine in your head a track meet. The person in front (delegates, popular vote, number of states won, money, momentum) does not slow down in order to let Ms. Second Place Runner win. While you say it's equal, it really isn't, actually. There is a clear front-runner.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    They are not even. Barack is winning in popular votes, delegates, number of contests won, number of donors, money raised and number of supers who endorsed in the last 3 months.

  • Steve Bucknum (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you Kristin.

    At my house, I have the "Jean meter". If the news is upsetting, she starts to talk back to the television, or starts to throw around the paper. But if its bad, she will actually scream at the TV or paper.

    Everytime Hillary Clinton comes on TV, or there is something in the paper about her - well, we've been at scream level for about a month now. Peak "Jean meter" action.

    I hope Hillary drops out soon. Ear plugs aren't enough.

  • backbeat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So, how many of you Clinton supporters marched against the illegal invasion before it began? Do you have children that may be drafted when she bombs Iran?

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The electability issue is a phony red herring.

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080424/NEWS0502/80424082 This poll in IN, next primary state in less than two weeks. Obama over Clinton 41-38, Obama over McCain 49-41, Clinton tied with McCain 46-46. Rated strongest in the GE- Obama over Clinton 49-35.

    No, this is not about electability, it's about Hillary's personal entitlement. And the new voters, the new democrats, they are coming out for Obama, not Clinton. In Pa.m(62%) and elsewhere the newly registered Dems are 2-1 Obamites.

    It's not so much about longevity of the race, it's about the Tonya Harding destruction tactics. That's what James Clyburn referred to. And Josh's response that we will all join hands when it's over and walk into the sunset together is pure hogwash. For the Clintons themselves they are finished in the AA and much of the progressive electorate. Her electability is now the one in question.

    Bill Clinton never won the majority of the white vote in this country.No Dem. president since FDR has ever won without an overwhelming vote from the AA community. And with her George Wallace wedge politics she's turned off a good share of the Dem. electorate. And they have given a new carte blanche for cynical "anything goes" racialized wedge politics hoping they can trash Obama enough so they can come back for 2012. They got some temporary advantage in Appalachia but in the rest of this electorate she is the one with the highest negatives. Josh Kardon's participation and consent in this will only tarnish his name in Oregon politics.

    Given the level of cynicism displayed by Team Clinton a good many are now looking seriously at the Dem. party and if it really stands for anything at all. Even cynical Chris Mathews said Hillary was giving out "free passes for white voters to be racist." When you hear the top ranking AA member of Congress calling the Clinton tactics disingenuous and scurrilous,and divisive, it should be given attention. I think many of us are looking at this party and thinking it's time to change to Independent and stop giving the party our loyalty, our money, our time, and give it instead to individual candidates who really reflect progressive values of integrity. What we're seeing now from this party is a sewer. At age 60 and a lifetime as a Democrat I'm done with the Clinton wing of this party. I thought we were done with George Wallace but we see his resurrection now again, thinly disguised and legitimized in Hillary Clinton. If there's anything left after this demolition derby, we'll see.

    (My apologies for publishing the entire article above from Reuters.)

  • (Show?)

    Steve Bucknum:

    I think my husband has something similar - the Jenni meter.

  • (Show?)

    This is a very nice explanation of the difficulty Clinton will have in even winning the popular vote, which by her calculation, will be the main argument for overturning the delegate count.

  • m (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Katy: While I have not posted on this blog more than once or twice I do read it.

    Shame on you. I'm trying to express my feelings and your response is a passive agressive attack!. Your comments are always so glib, embracing victimization. If you really just want to fight I am capable of that also, but I'll pass. I would like you to think about a few things related to your comments. How many Democrats would there be right now and how much money for the General election if we were not being treated to the spectacle of Hillary's vicious attack machine for the past several months. Unable to win on issues she has embraced Richard Mellon, Fox News,and allowed racist attacks like the one by North Carolina republicans yesterday to go unchallanged.

    She is becoming like Bush. How many democratic bodies must be demoralized, how much money must be spent to satisfy her Ego!. IT IS over Katy and I would say the same thing if it were Obama. I realize how important this election is to WOMEN, including my wife, my mother, my daughter, my sisters and all the other AMAZING, Strong Women in my life. That's why we are ALL voting for OBama. Join us Katy. Let's unite and stop tearing eeach other apart, before its too late. let's stop the destruction of this world and our country by those who embrace Bush.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm not sure how you can "unite" by calling your fellow democrats, who happen to support a different candidate, (or maybe it's just me you're referring to?)"glib?" I'm simply trying to make the point that this campaign has highlighted the issues that are important to Democrats (how many times have we heard about universal healthcare over the past months? this would have been un-heard of even a year ago!)and I happen to think that this will do us all a heck of a lot of good come November. Not to mention the number of new Democrats we've registered because this campaign has gone on so long. I find it exciting, especially now that Oregon will be highlighted. Call me what you like, but just try to understand that there are a so many people in your Party who happen to favor a different candidate, and I don't think that's going to harm your chosen candidate at all. I think it will only change the debate come November and American's will be talking about universal healthcare the same way they talk about education; that it's a right every American should have. The more we debate it, the more the press covers it and the more it becomes part of our vocabulary - the better off the Democratic candidate will be. Same goes for ending the occupation of Iraq, and of course I could go on with the crazy issues of the Republican party...my apoligies for any mis-spellings, it's late.

  • (Show?)

    SDG:

    There are a number of us who have met Katy and know who she is... so she's not really anonymous.

  • (Show?)

    "I'm simply trying to make the point that this campaign has highlighted the issues that are important to Democrats"

    Just one of them. The other would like us to talk about bullshit like flag pins.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Breaking News - the Wall Street Journal says Barack is the nominee.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I know this is totally off-subject but I find it fascinating: Got a blast from NOW about the fair pay act that failed, they're saying Harry Reid will bring the legistation up again and we should all call our Senators, you know the drill. They list Gordo Smith as one to call, as if he's swinging. Interesting: It is significant to note that six Republicans voted yes, and of those six, four of them have tough reelection races this year, facing strong, progressive challengers. In an attempt to keep their seats, these senators may have voted yes in order to appeal to much-needed moderate voters but they failed to bring along enough of their colleagues to make their vote truly meaningful. We also have no commitment that they will actually vote yes on the main bill when it does finally come up for a vote.

    If your senator is: Norm Coleman (Minn.), Susan Collins (Maine), Gordon Smith (Ore.), or John Sununu (N.H.) let them know that this vote was just the beginning of the effort to restore fair pay and add: "In addition, I urge you to encourage your colleagues to support the Fair Pay Act so that the bill can come to the floor for a vote and your support will be truly meaningful."

    Write to your senators NOW.

    Sorry for changing the subject! Think it's super interesting though. And yes, Torridjoe and SDG, I know I'm a piece of crap, yadda yadda.

  • (Show?)

    Katy,

    Thanks! I was actually gonna post on this tomorrow. I used to work for NOW -- Kim Gandy is a great friend. So, yes, there are NOW folks are supporting Obama.

    But yes, thanks for highlighting this...time to stay on Smith.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm sorry to shift things from the original post Kristin, but I just got the e-mail and couldn't keep my mouth (or my fingers)shut. Too good to pass up! Whatever happens in November, making sure Smith is defeated might be the most important thing that comes out of this election.

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Does this response make sense to anyone?

    Posted by: Paddy McGuire | Apr 24, 2008 11:48:42 AM Okay anon (if that is your real name), I didn't answer because your premise is so silly and you are mixing apples with oranges. My point was about the general election and the truth be told, California with 55 electoral votes is more important than Oregon with seven electoral votes. Just as Oregon with 7 is more important than Wyoming with 3. These are winner take all contests (except NE and ME, IIRC), so size does matter. Primaries are a completely different matter, because both size and margin matter as does timing. So you did not manage to score some big point. For the record, even though I volunteer for the Hillary campaign, I do not speak for the campaign, only myself.

    ........................................................................ Here is the question:

    Posted by: Paddy McGuire | Apr 23, 2008 1:11:28 PM Charlie, Here's how I see it happening: She wins Indiana (despite him being from next door), loses NC by single digits and splits the last seven states. Then the superdelegates do their job and decide who is the best candidate to defeat John McCain, taking into consideration the fact that she has won a large proportion of the big states that are critical to victory in the fall.

    Is Oregon "a big state that is critical to victory in the fall"?

    IF YES, what are you going to say when Hillary loses Oregon?

    IF NO, why push for debates?

    According to Paddy, the superdels make the decision, and they DO NOT take Oregon into consideration for that decision.

    When a member of Hillary's Oregon steering committee says Oregon doesn't matter, he has no credibility to call for debates, and voters have no reason to vote for Hillary.

  • Linley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obviously, I find Hillary the least objectionable of the two candidates, but I am not wildly in favor of either of them. She is sharp and harsh but he is a wimp. If he wins, when he tries his "new politics" routine on the Republicans, he will be taken to the cleaners (probably also by some Democrats, like Bill Clinton was).

    I am a politically aware 66 year old. Over the years, I have heard the "new politics" line far too often to believe it any more, regardless of how inspiring the speaker is. The political system always forces "new politicians" to do politics in the old way. I have been watching Obama for two or three years now. He apparently has organized an effective campaign which makes me feel that he might have reasonable executive skills, which is good. But, in that time he has yet to DO anything that shows the quality of leadership he keeps talking about providing us. As a senator, his actual actions have always reeked of avoiding anything controversial. Even his great disapproval of the war didn't seem to come into focus until the country pretty much had turned against it. Oratory alone does not a good leader make.

    Given that these are the only two candidates I can choose from, I will probably vote for the experienced fighter rather than the inexperienced nice guy. But, this being a democracy, I am quite willing to accept the will of the majority. And, I too would like it if this situation could be resolved soon. And yes, looking at the totals, Obama currently does have a slight advantage over Hillary in most of the stats. But look at the totals, don't focus only on the small difference between the two columns. Like it nor not, Hillary is virtually as well liked as Obama by the public at large.

    In answer to a comment above, I will note that Hillary is being attacked for building bridges to her political enemies just like Obama says he will do (apparently after he is elected). She has charmed many of her critics, a necessary skill in an effective president. I cannot understand why is she being blamed for doing what Obama says must be done. I also note that Hillary is also unable to overcome Obama's campaign for many of the reasons other commentaries have given. But, given the outcomes, I cannot blame her for not quitting.

    The big question is, if Obama is such a great candidate, just why has he failed to decisively overcome Hillary's campaign? He wildly overspent her in PA and apparently didn't change many votes one way or the other. Further, as time goes on, his coalition of supporters seems to be getting smaller and he is loosing the luster of being an "above it all" candidate. In the past, having only the intelligencia for you was a good way to loose the election. You must have a general appeal.

    His supporters tend to blame Hillary for having the temerity to run against his "overwhelming" advantage. But, any way you look at it, it's NOT overwhelming. If it were, she would have quit by now. Thus my question: Since neither of them can really prevail, why shouldn't he be asked to withdraw as often as she is?

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I thought that Hillary was mocking Obama for what she says is his naive call for "unity" (i.e., building a coalition that can get things done!) - you know, "the heavens will part, choirs will sing" and all that:

    Everyone says how they're going to do a better job than Bush of reaching out to the opposition and the Congress. Who are some of the Republicans you can pick up the phone and talk to? CLINTON: It would depend on the issue. If I were concerned about defense or foreign policy, I would talk to Republicans [such as] John Warner and John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins. I don't always agree with their perspective, but I find it very important to hear and try to factor in my thinking. On health and human-services kinds of issues, Mike Enzi's been a partner. Again, we don't always agree, but I believe he's trying to do what he thinks is right. If it's on environmental issues, it could be as unusual [a] pairing as Jim Inhofe [or] George Voinovich, whom I've worked with trying to cut diesel emissions. Obviously, I have a great deal of respect for Dick Lugar and Gordon Smith. I am more than willing [to work with them].

    link

    Oh yes, defeating Smith is top on Hillary's list of priorities. Gordon Smith is McCain's BFF, and Hillary is McCain's BFF (he's passed the Commander in Chief threshold, don't ya know). Hell, Hillary will probably endorse Gordon Smith.

    Notice how I use the word "mocking". Because Hillary definitely did engage in non-substantive, petty, personal mean-spirited mocking. Classy. That is why Hillary has lost the privilege of being able to call for debates.

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gosh, remember those silly rules? nowhere in those rules did it say you had to take your name off the ballot..A rookie mistake, you suppose thats why he decided to leave his name on the ballot in fla? And when you only win 6 out of 67 counties in penn. pretty hard to make a case as mr. electibility, and almost every demographic went for hillary, we can give him mr. congeniality and give her madam president-shes in it to win it.

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    M Jordan, there is no one in charge at blu oregon, the zoo keeper has fled the building, but be advised to get a rabies shot before you try to post here, it is a very "closed society" and not as democratic as one would have thought

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    But given that his name was not on the ballot, no one could vote for him, so clearly Michigan does not count by anyone's standards. Well, maybe in a Saddam Hussien-rules election. But not by anyone else.

    (I have seen that exact language posted on my.dd - did the campaign give that to you and tell you to astroturf the blogs with it?)

    And then there is this:

    <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2xHRqi8nsvI&amp;hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2xHRqi8nsvI&amp;hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

    LINK TO YOUTUBE VIDEO

    Transcript: Hillary discusses Michigan primary:

    HILLARY: "I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."
  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Sandra - you did watch the video, correct, where Hillary says Michigan is "not going to count for anything"? Did Hillary make a rookie mistake by telling the truth?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xHRqi8nsvI

    LINK TO YOUTUBE VIDEO WHERE HILLARY SAYS IN HER OWN WORDS THAT THE MICHIGAN PRIMARY WILL NOT COUNT FOR ANYTHING.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wherein Blue Oregon delves into yet more anti-Democrat and dull, insipid, and overwrought writing.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama made a rookie mistake thinking that Hillary had one ounce of integrity! We all know better now, of course!!!!

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Make no mention of the poll that shows that 15% of whites will NEVER vote for a black candidate. Make no mention of the fact that Obama has lost pretty much every swing state. Make no mention of the fact that Obama has been losing white blue collar voters and Hispanics. Make no mention of the fact that Obama, the man from hope, struck out on his own negative campaign recently. Make no mention of the fact that Obama is far more of an unknown than Clinton, that things like the Wright issue, his unhinged wife, and his peculiar family history will serve to alienate him from middle America. Make no mention of the fact that Portland, Oregon is not electing a President; rather, Cleveland, Ohio is. And on and on and on.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am unpersuaded by your lies, Peter. Did you really think I would believe anything you say?

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What is a lie, Sir?

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Everything you posted.

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I swear if yu say liar liar pants on fire-i am going to get hiccups...

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Supreme Court Justice John Yoo thanks you!

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)
    [Obnoxious name-calling deleted. -editor.]
  • Gordon M. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Katy: Your repetition of the "seal the deal" line is, indeed both glib and highly annoying.

    I thought Hillary was the "inevitable" nominee. I thought it was "all about the delegates," as evinced in numerous quotes visible at http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/24/132543/942/817/502592 -- so the REAL question is, why can't HILLARY "close the deal?"

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sandra, did you watch the video?

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    hillary closes the deal in Penn.-Obama closes the deal in WYO. hillary closes the deal in Ohio-Obama closes the deal in Idaho-are you getting my drift? I personally don't know any democrats in those states

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sandra, did you watch the video?

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    you refered me to a porno site you pervert!!@@@

  • Gordon M. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sandra, sadly, the numbers just don't add up. The fact is, she's NOT "closing the deal" or she'd be ahead in at least ONE metric. And no, the 'popular vote' when you add in Michigan where Obama wasn't on the ballot, AND Puerto Rico (LOL!) doesn't cut the mustard.

    John Cole said it best:

    If Barack is such a bad candidate, and he is so unelectable, and it is such a bad idea to have him as the Democratic nominee, why can’t Hillary beat him?
    
    Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don’t insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday?
    
    Why to those questions and a hundred more like them. If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?
    
  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sandra, let's throw the down ticket races into the gutter. Great strategy.

    Also, I like how you purposely lie by pretending to ingore the difference between a primary and a general election. Or don't you understand the difference?

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nope, it's a youtube video of Hillary. I just checked it.

    You do realize that anyone who goes to that link will discover you are lying?

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think perhaps you don't know the difference, the number of states doesn't matter , the popular vote doesn't matter delegate count matters in the primary-and since this IS the primary-and neither can win in delegates-its up to the superdelegates-who WILL consider who has electability in the general-and everything points to hillary-who at this time is holding a lead in superdelegates

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think you don't realize that Barack is winning in the delegate count - and certainly the loser of the delegate count will not be the nominee! That's just nuts.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why did you lie about my link?

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    According to the RULES of the democratic party if you don't reach 2025 delegates in a contested race-you cannot be declared the WINNER even if he had 2024-all the super delegates cast their votes at that point to decide the winner-then-if he gets 1 more than hillary-he wins

  • (Show?)

    All of the candidates were asked to pull their name from the ballot in Michigan. Obama was not the only one to do so - all but Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel did. When Senator Clinton was asked, she said the vote wouldn't matter anyway, so there was no reason to pull her name from the ballot.

    There have been states where Obama did much better than Clinton.

    Clinton's county/parish wins in each state:

    Alabama: Clinton won 31 out of 67 counties Alaska: no county by county info, Obama won 75% to 25% Arizona: 13/15 Arkansas: 72/75 California: 39/58 Colorado: 14/64 (plus one tie) Connecticut: 2/8 Delaware: 1/3 DC: 0/1 Florida: 48/67 Georgia: 48/159 Hawaii: 0/5 Idaho: 1/44 Illinois 14/102 Iowa: 25/99 Kansas: no county by county info, Obama won 74% to 26% Louisiana: 20/64 Maine: no county by county info, Obama won 59% to 40% Maryland: 8/24 Massachusetts: 9/14 Michigan: 81/83 Minnesota: 15/87 (plus 3 ties) Mississippi: 21/82 Missouri: 4/114 Montana: not yet Nebraska: no county by county info, Obama won 68% to 32% Nevada: 6/16 New Hampshire: 5/10 New Jersey: 5/21 New Mexico: no county by county info, Clinton won by 1,709 votes New York: 61/62 North Dakota: no county by county info, Obama won 61% to 37% Ohio: 83/88 Oklahoma: 76/77 Pennsylvania: 60/67 Rhode Island: 5/5 South Carolina: 1 out of 46 Tennessee: 86/95 Texas: 226/254 (1 tie, 3 no results) [Caucus: Obama: 56%, Clinton 44%] Utah: 7/29 Vermont: 0/14 Virginia: 27/95 Washington: 0/39 West Virginia: not yet Wisconsin: 10/72 Wyoming: 6/23

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)
    it does NOT matter how many states you win, BUT how many delegates you gather, the delegate # is the deciding factor in who wins the demo. nomination to run against McCain

    The delegate number is the deciding factor.

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I told that lie just to screw with you and see if you had a sense of humor?????

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'll post the Hillary Michigan video again tomorrow, since you don't want to watch it tonight.

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jenni, you don't find it a bit odd that this late in the game, in a state that is a cross section of america-with a blitz of adds-like we are already seeing here, that he couldn't do better, the late deciders went to clinton,and did so based on her experience, the regan democrats, those attending church regularly went for her-those attending once in a while went for him. He didn't make inroads on the middle class blue collar workers, his demographics are shrinking-the age of his voter got younger-lost some of his 30 somethings-nothing good came out of penn. for him-no big Mo.

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jenni, you don't find it a bit odd that this late in the game, in a state that is a cross section of america-with a blitz of adds-like we are already seeing here, that he couldn't do better, the late deciders went to clinton,and did so based on her experience, the regan democrats, those attending church regularly went for her-those attending once in a while went for him. He didn't make inroads on the middle class blue collar workers, his demographics are shrinking-the age of his voter got younger-lost some of his 30 somethings-nothing good came out of penn. for him-no big Mo.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    See Bill R's post above.

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    thanks SDG, you are so sweet!!!!!

  • (Show?)

    Make no mention of the fact that Obama has lost pretty much every swing state.

    That is a complete lie. People make it really easy when they lie about results, which are easy to find on the net.

    According to Wikipedia, the swing states for 2008 are considered to be: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Link

    According to Gallup, they are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Link

    Here are the results for all those states:

    Arkansas: Clinton (70% to 26%) Colorado: Obama (67% to 32%) Florida: Clinton (C:50%, O:33%, E:14%) Iowa: Obama (O:38%, C:29%, E:30%) Michigan: Clinton (55%, 40% uncommitted) Minnesota: Obama (66% to 32%) Missouri: Obama (49% to 48%) Nevada: Clinton (51% to 45%) New Hampshire: Clinton (C:39%, O:37%, E:17%) New Mexico: Clinton by 1,709 votes (49% to 48%) Ohio: Clinton (54% to 44%) Oregon: not yet, although polls show Obama winning Pennsylvania: Clinton (55% to 45%) Texas: primary- Clinton (51% to 47%); caucus- Obama (56% to 44%) Virginia: Obama (64% to 35%) West Virginia: not yet, although polls show Clinton winning Wisconsin: Obama (58% to 41%)

    It's hard to say he's lost just about every swing state according to those numbers.

  • (Show?)

    Sandra:

    No, I don't. Pennsylvania had a really high number of women voters (58%). With them voting at nearly 60% for Clinton, that really helped boost her numbers.

    In other states, Obama has picked up the bulk of the church attending people, blue collar workers, etc.

    You really can't just rely on one state, especially one where the exit polls show the voters don't accurately reflect the make up of the country. It was only 4% Latino (U.S. Census shows 15% of the country was Latino in 2006). Women was at 58% (USA: 50.7%). 22% were over 65 (USA: 12%). 27% made more than $100K (USA: 18%). 41% made under $50K (USA: 51%). 72% were college educated (USA: 52%). Other numbers in the exit polls were off from the average numbers you'd see across the U.S. as well.

    Also, everyone always brings up Ohio as a state that you have to win to be President. Missouri is the same, as they've only missed once and that was in 1904. Clinton won Ohio by 10% and Obama won Missouri by 34%.

    I think that this election is so different than anything we've seen in the past that you have to look at the entire set of results and not rely on just one state or another.

  • Nick C. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'll let John Stewart speak for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi6mP6l6nBI&eurl=http://www.democraticunderground.com/

    We're so done for... If the Clinton supporters are really hanging on like this after the outrageous antics that would have NEVER been tolerated by a Democratic candidate in the past, there's no way they'll let go after the convention.

    Think back a year and then imagine if you would ever put Hillary Clinton and Fox News in the same sentence... well I mean if they were bashing her again... nevermind.

    I've got a synonym for "fighter"... THUG!

    And now we have a party half full of thug sympathizers. Look how easy it was to swallow. All it took was half-truths and semi-reason, as contradictory as it was to last weeks talking points, and we could keep supportin'.

    Listen to the way she talks about voters, or caucuses, or super dels, or the media. Everything sucks when it is against her, but as soon as one turns, it's a miracle of democracy. It's the definition of egoism. Good is what benefits Hillary.

    They just make it up as they go, too. And I can't believe the way her supporters just repeat it like it is fact. I thought Obama's supporters were supposed to have been the cult.

    "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." Translation: "if you aren't willing to abandon every personal and party principle, you can't be president." Guess what, folks. That's how Republicans think. Do we really want another completely unprincipled president?

    What do you think will happen if Hillary Clinton's popularity is low when she's up for re-election? She would bomb the shit out of a country in a heartbeat if it won her the election. Think about it. She will do or say anything to win.

    Make the madness stop!!!!

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The sole Clinton strategy remaining, a coups by SDs that will permanently split apart the party. Wonderful strategy! Great for the future of the party, especially when you consider this reality:

    <hr/>

    Harvard Poll: Young Voters Favor Obama According to a new Harvard Institute of Politics poll, young voters "overwhelmingly prefer" Sen. Barack Obama to Sen. Hillary Clinton, 70% to 30%.

    "A big turnout among young voters could be critical for either Democrat, especially in states where McCain can attract older, conservative Democrats and conservative-leaning independent voters."

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wall Street Journal: "The Democrats have a Nominee" http://online.wsj.com/article/wonder_land.html

    WONDER LAND By DANIEL HENNINGER
    The Democrats Have a Nominee April 24, 2008; So what? Other than ensuring the Greatest Show on Earth will continue, does it matter that Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama Tuesday in Pennsylvania by nine-plus points? Barack Obama is the nominee.

    No matter how many kicks the rest of us find in such famously fun primary states as Indiana and South Dakota, it's going to be McCain versus Obama in 2008.............

  • kmg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No one is arguing that HRC isn't a smart, savvy women. Instead, more people want BO. At this point, in order for HRC to win, she has to tear apart that party by convincing super-dels to overturn the popular vote. In the meantime, she bloodies our best chance to beat McCain.

    I'm sorry this isn't her time, but it isn't. She needs to recognized that.

  • Oregon Eyes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    FIRST: Hillary would not be doing this if her monied powerbase did not want her to, so you can begin by looking at who those people are and ask yourself what their motives might be.

    SECOND: Hillary represents the foreign policy view that the Middle East (the Caspian Sea region, Iraq, Israel, the whole damn mess) is where the balance of world power must be negotiated argumentum ad baculum . Obama's view is more that of his foreign policy advisor, Zbig Brezinski (clearly detailed in his books like "The Grand Chessboard") that a Cold War style of foreign policy focusing on the emerging (thanks to Bush Admin blunders) superpowers of Russia and China. Obviously, there are some super powerful interest groups interested in the Middle East approach. A Hillary vs McCain ticket is a win-win for them.

    THIRD: As BBC journalist and Chicago School economist, Greg Palast, has pointed out, they can't steal an election unless it's close or appears to be close. Now what should be a slam dunk for the Democrats has a hundred excuses for being close--race, gender, and the protracted in-fighting in the Dem primary. If McCain wins, the angry 70% of the electorate will be conveniently fighting amongst themselves over whether to blame Obama or Clinton. Hillary could be being used or she's fulfilling an obligation by doing this.

    All of the comments here seem to accept in faith that all is visible on the surface when any open inquiry into history or the anthropomorphic nature of politics and society tells us it rarely is. Attributing the whole Obama-Clinton show and the outrageous nature of things like the ABC debate to the individual personalities is like making up stories about jealous and angry gods. Like FDR said, nothing in politics is an accident.

    Everybody who cares about democracy and justice for all should familiarize themselves with Project Censored from Sonoma State University. Google. Read.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A couple of interesting editorial items today. First, Paul Krugman in the New York Times. I'm still irked at him for descending to talking about "the cult of Obama" a couple of months ago, but overall he has good insight. An excerpt:

    "Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.

    "From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.

    "Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme."

    Seems entirely sensible criticism to me.

    And a Huffington Post article:

    "Obama is described in newspapers as unelectable, in magazines as incapable of connecting with working class voters, and on television as someone who might be uncomfortable with patriotism. A debate about whether Obama is more similar to McGovern or Stevenson is not one he wants pundits to be having. Obama is being defined by others. It's time for him to do the defining.

    "Obama must do a better job of wrapping his story around ours. His background is one of the few that is actually one-of-a-kind; how many other Americans were born into an interracial marriage in 1960s Hawaii and raised in war-scarred Indonesia? Because Obama's story is so dramatically different than literally everyone else's, it would appear that some voters are having trouble understanding how his stories relates to theirs.

    "Obama has always been a master of weaving the story of his life into the greater American experience. The speech that launched his political career on a national stage got some of its greatest applause lines when describing his origins. But now, when Obama speaks of his background, it often takes the form of a list: his father was from Kenya, his mother from Kansas, born in Hawaii, raised in Indonesia, a half-Indonesian sister, and family members who resemble the UN General Assembly. It lacks the punch, that intimate feeling that he empathizes with voters because he understands them. But this need not be the case.

    "Obama understands what it means to be poor, to be an outcast, to be different. Having spent his early career working everyday with working class Americans who had been laid off, he understands better than Hillary or McCain ever could, what it means to be told your job is leaving forever. Having been raised by a single mother, he knows what it means to be a struggling woman in the workforce. It is Obama's very background that answers the questions being asked of him.

    "It's time for him to say so."

  • (Show?)

    Jenni,

    My God, you rock. What an amazing amount of info...thanks!

  • Buckman Res (unverified)
    (Show?)

    “I am EXHAUSTED! And so weary of the incessant bickering.”

    Oh please! This is the best political theater the country’s had since the Clinton impeachment!

    A historic clash of two political titans when everyone expected a Hillary cakewalk to the nomination complete with enough political calculation and machinations to make your head spin.

    The campaign also provides a valuable vetting process for two candidates seeking the most powerful job in the world. Who's the toughest, the smartest, who wants it the most.

    Let all the voters have their say, let the process play itself out, let the show go on!

  • (Show?)

    Kristin:

    Not a problem. It bugs me to no end when people lie about numbers that can be very easily pulled off sites like the www.census.gov or from election results.

    And these things are being repeated all over the place. Hopefully me pulling the info together will help others to be able to point out the falsehoods as well.

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    joel, i would like to give you an award of some kind-it is the first obama post i have read that honestly and forthrightly presents a good case for their candidate with out trying to bail their candidate by smearing Hillary-you rock!!!!!!You are a worthy opponent, and have my respect.

  • (Show?)

    And now, Sandra, if you would just retract your anti-Muslim smears against Obama, so that your claimed dislike of smears would have more credibility :-), everything would be copacetic.

  • PunditMom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks for the mention of MOMocrats. But it's not just Hillary that's making us tired -- it's the whole campaign!

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)
  • WB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What happens if a voter casts the ballot that has their old registration? The state’s centralized database will catch the error automatically (the ballot envelope bar code contains the voter’s ID and ballot style), and that

    This issue is addressed at the Secretary of State's web site with a May 1 press release, found here:

    http://www.sos.state.or.us/executive/pressreleases/2008/0501.html

    From the article's Q & A I copied and pasted this verbatim:

    What caused this scenario? In order to prepare and mail out more than 2 million ballots on time, county elections offices begin preparing their ballots up to two weeks in advance of the mailing date. If a voter changed their registration after that date, they’ll receive the one that has already been prepared for them, followed by a new ballot reflecting their party change. This happens in every election, but it’s never before impacted so many voters.

    How many people are affected? It varies from county to county, depending on when county officials started preparing their ballots, but the statewide number will be in the thousands.

    What happens if a voter casts the ballot that has their old registration? The state’s centralized database will catch the error automatically (the ballot envelope bar code contains the voter’s ID and ballot style), and that ballot will not be processed. Instead, it will be set aside until all other ballots are processed. If the second, updated ballot is cast, only that one will be counted, and the old one will not be counted. If the voter sends in only the out-of-date ballot, only their votes in non-partisan contests will be counted. Again, under any circumstance, only one ballot will be counted per voter.

    For reference, this process is laid out in the Vote By Mail Procedures Manual, which can be found on the Oregon Elections Division’s website.

    <h2>My take: there must be a way to work arund this obvious and foreseeable problem. It's just a shame it happens when people are truly excited first-time voters and want to believe the system is reliable. We can do better.</h2>

connect with blueoregon