Three Days Out: Open Discussion

With just three days to go until the primary election, there's news breaking every hour it seems. Use this post to post links to news stories, make comments, and discuss anything you want.

(One request: If there's another recent post that's more appropriate, comment there. Let's use this space to talk about campaigns that aren't getting enough coverage. We're looking at you, people obsessed with Merkley/Novick and Obama/Clinton.)


  • LT (unverified)

    Interesting telephone call today reminded me of something much reported on in 2004.

    The report was that Republicans recruited locals to do all their campaign work, while Democrats came in (or phone banked in) from other states, and it showed.

    Our ballots were dropped off at County Elections yesterday.

    This morning there was a call from a Hillary Clinton volunteer.

    I said, "Sorry, already returned my ballot. But that was cool to see that Hillary had stopped at the Salem HQ at the Reed yesterday".

    The voice on the other end sounded puzzled, so I said I'd been involved in the 1984 Hart campaign and knew how important it was for the candidate to visit.

    "Well, thank you for being an active citizen, and thank you for your support".

    The SJ had the story this morning.

    Anyone from Salem would have recognized the reference to the Reed Opera House, anyone from the Oregon campaign should have known she was in Salem.

    My guess is that the phone call came from an out of state phone bank (or a very tired volunteer not very quick on the uptake).

  • ray (unverified)

    Go to you want to know another side of obama---the drug (crack/cocaine) using, gay sex, side to the corrupt and lying obama.

  • Marcus Brody (unverified)

    Hey Ray, I also heard that Obama is Black. Do you know of a blog that can confirm that devastating rumor?

  • Audrey (unverified)

    Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who can win the general. Obama hasn't won the democratic blue states. How ironic. And now Oregon, you are going to make sure McCain wins. Please reconsider and vote Hilary. Oregon is going to put the nail on our coffin. Now is not the time to be pioneers.

  • Z (unverified)

    Looking at the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet...

    Blue Oregon already highlighted the error of the McCain campaign in not getting the Repub Prez frontrunner in there, but where is Ron Paul? He's listed at the front as a Republican candidate. It would have been awesome to see an ad in the OVP for Paul for prez, but not McCain.

    And where is Cynthia McKinney and the Greens?

  • TroyB (unverified)

    Audrey, The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

  • Audrey (unverified)

    Troy, You think the sky is falling? Maybe Obama will save you. He's all about change.

  • M Jordan (unverified)

    Oregon, don't be fooled by Obama's charm. he is pro-nuke! Big-time pro-nuke in Illinois. He voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill. How can you vote for someone so out of touch with the environmental values of this great state. Please stop this sure loser in November. She's not perfect, but please vote for Hillary. Check out her very specific 10-point plan for Oregon and tell me you don't agree with every single point! Please!

  • redcellpolitical (unverified)

    Hillary is anti-nuke? Don't think so. No policy maker can be against exploring nuclear energy. To do so would be foolish.

    Agnosticisim rocks!

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)

    M. Jordan, it is a distortion to say Obama is "pro nuke". He is pro researching how nuclear power can used safely and how the waste can be stored safely. I guess you can call that "pro research." In light of the climate change issues we are facing, he is not willing to write off any form of alternative energy.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)

    Ray, how credible does Sinclair look, especially after failing 3 lie detector tests. Puleeeze.

  • Alberto (unverified)

    Hillary Clinton will be a great president. Hillary will bring prosperity to our country.

  • Alberto b (unverified)

    Hillary Clinton will save our democratic system and will put order in Washington.

  • (Show?)

    when did Clinton's campaign get purchased by spam companies? Is that how she's paying off her debt? The trollbots are forgetting to include the clickthrough URL half the time; she can't even get that right.

  • Audrey (unverified)

    Oregon Obamanites, I am afraid it is too late. You will never be deprogrammed before your primary on Tuesday. Hillary won't win Ohio in the GE. Kerry who had far less baggage than Obama couldn't even win it. He won't win PA. He won't win Florida. He won't win WV. He won't win the solid South. What were you guys thinking? I am no political analyst obviously but even if he gets the popular vote, how can he get enough electoral votes?

  • Ryan (unverified)


    Why don't you pull your head back out and look at the numbers one more time.It is too late for the Clintons sweetie,maybe if she could have won the most states, the most votes or the most delegates and superdelegates. But Hill can't win any of them, no matter how emotional you get about it. (Feel free to stomp your feet and huff and puff, because I think you need to go sit in time out)

    Obama's already our nominee, Oregon is a mere formality at this point.

    So why can the Clintons win? Is it because she lost the most states? Because she lost the most votes? Because she lost the minority base? I got it, its because she lost the most delegates.Is that the one that sealed the deal for her?

    Give up the electability arguement.

  • Katy (unverified)

    Ryan, I see you've utilized your candidate's use of the word "Sweetie" when referring to women. Nice work. Obama would be proud.

  • LT (unverified)

    The insult level will have no effect on the voters who already returned ballots, and might turn off those who haven't.

    As an old friend has said of such insults, "when they act like that, you know they know they are losing".

  • (Show?)

    Katy, I see you've still ignored your candidate's use of the word "obliterate" when referring to entire other nations.

    Ryan's out of line, but so's the claim that "Obama would be proud." He apologized, clearly isn't proud of his own words. What evidence is there that he'd be proud of Ryan's?

    If you're going to attribute Ryan's words to Obama, do I get to attribute all of the scurrilous lies by Clinton supporters (anti-Muslim big lies, racisms subtle and crude, "ray" up above still retailing a debunked put-up big lie smear about sex and drugs) to Hillary?

    I don't think so, in either case, not for me, not for you.

  • becky (unverified)

    Chris Lowe, let it rest. Your candidate's response to the same question was "massive retaliation." There is no functional difference.

    Ryan, have you heard of the electoral college? Did you know that in November it doesn't matter who wins the most states? That it's winner take all for each states' delegates? Did you know that in November there are no superdelegates for Obama to buy off?

    Ryan, can you explain to how it's relevant to a November victory that Obama won democratic primaries in states that will vote Republican in November?

  • Katy (unverified)

    I just posted this on an earlier thread so my apologies if you're seeing this twice. I think this is a really great article, it expresses exactly how I've been feeling throughout the course of this campaign. I'm clearly not as eloquent as the author (thank goodness for good writers. Please please please read:

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)

    Matthew Sutton:

    M. Jordan, it is a distortion to say Obama is "pro nuke". He is pro researching how nuclear power can used safely and how the waste can be stored safely. I guess you can call that "pro research."

    Bob T:

    He'll just have it studied for four or eight years and then leave the White House. We already know how to use it safely and how the waste can be stored and/or reconstituted. The problem that remains is merely politics as usual. In the meantime (and for about 30 years now) the policy of the alleged pro-environmentalists is too keep dirtying the air with coal burning plants which put more radiation in the air than any nuclear power plant ever will. Thanks, people.

    Bob Tiernan

  • (Show?)

    Sorry Becky, there is a difference.

    I'm quite critical of numbers of Senator Obama's foreign policy positions, including have said here on BlueOregon numbers of times that he is too bellicose toward Iran. As is Senator Clinton.

    On the other hand he is right to favor direct diplomacy with Iran, which Clinton, like McCain and Bush, rejects.

    The question that Hillary chose to answer with "obliterate" was a far-fetched hypothetical, since Israel has nuclear weapons while Iran does not, nor the capacity to acquire them any time soon.

    So a genuinely sophisticated answer to it would have rejected the premise and said that the point is to avoid getting anywhere near the situation hypothesized (Iranian nuclear attack on Israel). And avoiding that means talking to Iran -- a large and complex country that cannot be reduces to its president or his statements.

    Also because I am a historian of Africa and have spent some considerable time thinking about how the genocide in Rwanda came about, which was very much through the application of dehumanizing language through mass media (primarily radio there) and making what ought to be unthinkable thinkable, I strongly believe language matters in the area.

    "Massive retaliation" is not the same a "obliterate." Not literally, and not in dehumanizing implications. Although Obama too remains too bellicose toward Iran.

    Anyway, my shorter versions of this have been more about the point that if we're going to single out particular troubling individual words, "sweetie" is not the only one.

    That was wrong and rude, as Katy has pointed out correctly, and as Barack Obama has acknowledged, and for which he has apologized.

    Hillary Clinton has not expressed any regret or even clarification or modulation of her expressed willingness to obliterate another people.

  • (Show?)

    Katy, as I said on the other thread, that is a good article and thanks for the reference.

    In a loose way it's a bit reminiscent of things that have been written about certain of the roots of very late 1960s-1970s feminism in the experiences of women in the Civil Rights movement and anti-Vietnam War movement.

    Interesting food for thought. I wonder of parallels to older issues within feminism and at its margins about race an class in the movement may also be implied by the article.

    In any case, misogynist attacks and innuendoes against Hillary Clinton should be rejected, just as racist and anti-Muslim ones against Barack Obama should be.

    <h2>And "electability" concern trolling about either the race or gender of the candidates should be treated with the contempt it deserves.</h2>
open discussion

connect with blueoregon