TODAY'S SHOW: WEDNESDAY, MAY 21ST, 2008
Rachel will unveil her countdown clock today and it's set for 10 days. The Democrats have 10 days to anoint a candidate before they fall on their own sword. What do you think? Rachel will be taking your calls, so call us! (866) 303-2270
MENTIONED ON TODAY'S SHOW
Huffington Post reports on the latest audio finding from the Pastor John Hagee, McCain endorser
One umpire spells mea culpa with just four letters...
The Burmese junta is afraid that if it lets in American military ships to help out with disaster relief they will try to topple the government
- May 21, 2008








Taking it to the convention
"...She's taking it to the convention, I don't know how many times she has to say it before we start believing her"
That's what you said on 'Race for the Whitehouse'. It's not her choice. Obama will have clinched the nomination with the support of just a few more super delegates and the party will not entertain Hillary's insane ambition. Once Obama has 2025 delegates he will declare victory if Hillary doesn't bow out. If she doesn't bow out she will lose all credibility and lose anyway.
My headline: Clinton can make waves but she can't change the tide.
- Email this page
By pdxgeekMay 21, 2008 - 6:46pmPopular Vote
Jonathan Alter outlines the popular vote in his article today-
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138109/output/print
Some of what the article says...........
The popular vote was not counted in Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and Washington.
238,168 uncommitted votes in Michigan were for Barack Obama. Everyone in Michigan knew
on January 15th that a vote for "uncommitted" was a vote for Obama. But Hillary Clinton does not want these votes counted.
- Email this page
By seattleclockMay 21, 2008 - 7:49pmsilly ...
2,026 delegates is less than half, didn't you know?
;->
(Frankly, I can see Florida; they were both on the ballot but neither campaigned. But the Michigan thing just reminds me too much of people like Saddam, Castro, Noriega, Kruschev, declaring victory after unopposed elections. Icky.)
- Email this page
By palepinkMay 21, 2008 - 7:58pm"...and a pony" Ha!
I for one don't think that there is much sexism going on at all in this race. We express ourselves with gender roles and when we are mad at a person some of those expressions of discontent may take on a gender form.
Frankly I was very surprised to hear Rachel tack on to the statement "Hillary wants to get out gracefully" the reference to a girlish wish: "and a pony".
I think its funny and not sexist, but I could also see how some more sensetive liberal types could get upset by such a statement. Of course coming from you Rachel I don't think you'll take any flack ;)
- Email this page
By pdxgeekMay 21, 2008 - 6:57pmhmmm...
Do boys not like horses? I get that they're less thrilled by the My Pretty Pony versions with the clouds of curly pink mane, but I'm thinking about John Wayne here, and I don't see equestrian dreaming as girly. And a pony would be the right choice for a short boy-person, just as it would for a short girl-person -- Rachel's saying the wish is childish, not feminine.
- Email this page
By palepinkMay 21, 2008 - 7:55pmAnd anyway, I don't like ponies.
Have you ever ridden them? They're mulish. If I have to ride, I'd rather have a horse.
AC
More liberal media at The Sideshow.
- Email this page
By AvedonMay 21, 2008 - 9:54pmPopular Vote
I've yet to hear a political pundit mention that the candidates' four-state pledge included not just a pledge to not campaign in Florida/Michigan, but also a pledge to not even participate in the primaries in those states. That's why the candidates were supposed to remove their names from the ballot in Michigan ... they promised to do so.
Hillary broke her promise.
Again, I've yet to hear a pundit/commentator mention that the pledge covered both campaigning AND participation.
- Email this page
By frumkeMay 21, 2008 - 6:57pmThey didn't promise to take their names off the ballots.
Obama decided to and he talked some of the others into it. A lot of people saw it as convenient grandstanding in a state that he knew he couldn't win. (At the time, even Kos said so - and that Edwards was a jerk for falling for it.)
What they promised not to do was campaign, which is not the same thing. And not all of them even agreed to that. Hillary did not campaign in Michigan.
AC
More liberal media at The Sideshow.
- Email this page
By AvedonMay 21, 2008 - 9:57pmRead what they pledged
They pledged not to camplaign OR PARTICIPATE. Edwards and Obama stuck to the pledge and dropped their names off the ballot in Michigan. They tried to do so in Florida (where I live), but Florida refused. Hillary ... said "never mind."
"THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC."
- Email this page
By frumkeMay 21, 2008 - 11:53pmYou're starting to worry me, Rachel.
I realize you're frustrated that everyone hasn't united behind Obama and come out punching, yet, and you're worried that we'll lose if that doesn't happen before the convention.
But you're announcing every night that we've already lost the November election.
That's not good. And it's wrong. Listening to you tonight, you sound like you're in a panic. It's counterproductive.
And I'm sure there are people who are gleeful to hear you slam Hillary as someone who won't stop for anything and whose only purpose in wanting Michigan and Florida's delegates seated is to get her to the convention, but you sound a bit over the top when you say there can be no other reason for her to want them seated but to get her to the convention.
I really think you need to be reminded just how angry FL and MI Democrats are about their primary votes not counting. And they are going to keep right on being angry until their delegates are seated.
And without them, we have a good chance of losing this election no matter what else happens.
Here's how they see it: Six states broke the rules, but only their states are being punished.
Florida Democrats in particular are furious about this since they feel they are being punished for voting for a law requiring paper ballots, something they'd been pushing for since 2000. The party leadership knows perfectly well that the Republicans screwed them by attaching the poison pill of changing the primary date; why aren't they taking that as mitigation? Why does Donna Brazile refuse to seat any of the Florida delegation, when the rules say by default that only half the delegation should lose its votes, and that even that can be challenged? Why do Obama supporters insist that using the challenge which is explicitly in the rules is breaking the rules? And why is Clinton the bad guy when Obama bought national ads that would be shown in Florida just before its primary after he had pledged not to campaign in Florida?
Clinton voters see Michigan this way: Although there was no requirement to do so, Obama took his name off the MI ballot and convinced some others to do so, but he knew he was going to lose MI and it was a way to make sure it wouldn't count. Hillary Clinton (and some others) did not agree to remove their names from the ballot, but Obama's supporters claim that by failing to do so Hillary broke a pledge not to campaign in MI. But she had never pledged to remove her name.
Right now these states look like losses, but one reason is that many of Clinton's supporters feel that the Obama team is disenfranchising them.
That's a good reason to seat the delegations. It's a really good reason for Obama to ask for them to be seated as soon as possible, because he needs to mend those fences.
You know, I never wanted Clinton in this race, but I've been astonished at how easy it's been for people to accept any anti-Clinton meme that gets thrown at HRC. Even you are doing it. Will you please calm down?
AC
More liberal media at The Sideshow.
- Email this page
By AvedonMay 21, 2008 - 7:11pmIf only
I voted for and gave money to Clinton. I would be all too happy to believe that she has a non-self-serving reason for wanting to seat Florida and Michigan delegates.
I sent an email to the DNC complaining about how the Florida and Michigan situation was handled long before either state voted. I felt it would be a bad idea to tick off the voters in those states.
However, Clinton went along with the plan at the beginning. She was fine with disenfranchising those voters until she needed them to win the nomination.
As a native West Virginian (been in California for 10 years) I wish the media would just move on from talking about the poor, uneducated, racists in Appalachia... but I digress.
- Email this page
By ashbMay 21, 2008 - 11:13pmFlorida voter pissed off ... at Hillary, not the DNC
I live in Florida, and I am indeed pissed off. But I am not pissed off at either Obama or the DNC.
Mostly I am pissed off at our stupid state legislature. The DNC and the GOP told our legislature that the state would be punished if our primary date was moved. Voters in our state were pissed off at the legislature way before the punishment was announced. All the noise now about being fed up with the DNC is just grandstanding, and a little bit of rationalization.
I'm also pissed off at Clinton for being so willing to continue to change the rules, and for stirring up trouble in my state, and for being so willing to dismiss my state when she thought it didn't matter but for deciding that she cares greatly about my state when it became clear that she couldn't win without us.
I'm not pissed at Obama or the DNC, because they have both stuck by the rules, and the same rules, all along the way. I'm pretty big on the idea of telling the truth, keeping promises, etc. Something we haven't had in D.C. for a long time.
- Email this page
By frumkeMay 22, 2008 - 12:02amA little pandering music, please
Yesterday, Rachel pointed out the lack of non-white Republican Congressmen, Senators (6 year drought in Congress) and Governors.....the only one being Bobby Jindal recently elected Governor of Louisiana....and now today, apparently he's being interviewed for McCain's list of VPs......
Hank in Albuquerque
- Email this page
By nmhankMay 21, 2008 - 7:12pmFundraising
The RNC is traditionally the Republicans Cash Cow. The DCCC and the DSCC I believe have been vastly out performing their Republican counterparts. Furthermore I think Obama and Clinton's campaigns have further sucked funds that would have been donated to the DNC. Remember Obama targets the DNCs normal donors. Finally Dean gets a hard deal from Democratic insiders because he's not an insider.
I read the same articles today you did Rachel but instead of repeating them verbatim a little bit of analysis would have been nice. The pundits at MSNBC are making you dumber by assocation (not saying you're dumb, but on this particular topic you might have been huffing the N2O)
- Email this page
By pdxgeekMay 21, 2008 - 7:26pmWhat TK & Atwater have in common ... CAUSE OF DEATH.
A malignant glioma tumor killed Republican political consultant Lee Atwater in 1991.
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/21/MNI710PS9Q.DTL&type...
Lee Atwater RNC Chairman, 1988-90
New Instruments of Surveillance and Social Control: Wireless Technologies which Target the Neuronal Functioning of the Brain
Yes the DEMS are committing hari kari but that aint what's gonna doom them in Nov.

- Email this page
By SingSingMay 21, 2008 - 7:32pmThe pellet with the poison's
The pellet with the poison's in the vestle with the pestle! The chalice from the palace holds the brew that is true!
- Email this page
By Buxtehude_BarbarossaMay 21, 2008 - 7:45pmI know I have been hitting this blog hard
But I can't believe how off base you are!
Let me start with this: I agree with you, if the fight goes to the convention the party is screwed. As I have stated before, this is not going to happen.
You also said that McCain has had a 3 month head start. You could not be more wrong. This primary season had 2 major effects: it shook out the 'Scandals' for Obama and he's still going strong. Voter registration for Democrats has been through the roof.
My prediction: LANDSLIDE Democratic victory ... due to these factors:
- Huge democratic registration
- Voter turnout in the primary is at record levels.
- 50% of Americans self identify as democrats compared to 37% as Republicans (to the best of my recollection) (this was roughly equal in 2004)
- Democratic fundraising is slaughtering republicans when viewed across the board
- Religious Right is not enamored with McCain... he will not be able to get out his base
I think this victory will be so big Texas is in play, McCain might even need to campaign in Arizona.
- Email this page
By pdxgeekMay 21, 2008 - 7:39pmRachel, Is this your way of
Rachel, Is this your way of "threatening" the Democratic leadership? Because, explain to us how Hillary Clinton can win this at the convention? Don't you think the leadership understands that if this goes to the convention, that the Dems won't win. Are they really that stupid? If they are then they deserve to lose in November. Because if Hillary takes this from Obama, there is no way she will win, and I just cannot believe the democratic leadership would allow this to happen!!
- Email this page
By meljomurMay 21, 2008 - 7:42pmToo be less polite . . .
Yes. The Democratic Party's leadership is that stupid. Most of it is operating as if the DLC is correct. Our party's inbreeding is showing . . .
RLA
- - - - - - - - - - -
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
- Email this page
By rladlofMay 21, 2008 - 8:15pmIt's not about her winning the nomination.
It's not about her winning the nomination. It's about her campaigning all the way to the convention. And unless Obama get's enough superdelegates to stop her, she'll keep going.
It doesn't matter what the Democratic leadership thinks or does. What are they gonna do, physically hold her down? She's going to keep campaigning and her followers are going to keep their hopes up.
This gives them less-to-no time to slowly realize that they have to get behind Obama if they don't want a conservative Supreme Court. They'll vote out of malice or not vote at all. This needs to be over soon and the only way is for enough supers to go to Obama.
- Email this page
By dottedzebraMay 22, 2008 - 2:43pmClinton To Convention on HuffPost just now (5/21 7:40pm)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/clinton-says-shes-willing_n_102...
- Email this page
By tnj128May 21, 2008 - 7:43pm"Scorched earth"
A blog commenter described HRC's presidential bid as a "scorched earth" campaign.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/05/clinton_obam...
- Email this page
By Buxtehude_BarbarossaMay 21, 2008 - 7:53pmVoter fraud
I'm worried about cheating at the polls this fall. Diebold voting machines, and wasn't there a story about moving unmarked ballots from outlying districts around in Ohio?
- Email this page
By Buxtehude_BarbarossaMay 21, 2008 - 7:48pmStay The Course
Hillary's "Stay the course" mentality is not much different than Bush's blundering of the Iraq war. Do we really want more of that crap in the Whitehouse?
- Email this page
By kenny_bunkportMay 21, 2008 - 7:46pmHRC is holding the Democratic Party hostage
So it looks like the Democratic Party is being held hostage by one person. Leave it to the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot. I am so disappointed in the DNC leadership. This has turned into a never ending nightmare.
- Email this page
By JackyNNYCMay 21, 2008 - 7:50pmContact the DNC
http://www.democrats.org/contact.html
You can contact the Democratic party and let them know how you feel about this situation!!
Come on they can't be that stupid, can they??
- Email this page
By meljomurMay 21, 2008 - 7:53pmINQUIRY
Dr. Maddow,
Given Hillary Clinton’s . . . What word am I looking for . . . “Evilness(?)” . . . No, that’s overly accurate . . . “Tenacity,” if she looses the DEM nomination in Denver, do you think that she goes all Lieberman on the Party?
Inquiring minds wanta know,
Richard Adlof
- - - - - - - - -
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
- Email this page
By rladlofMay 21, 2008 - 7:57pmAnother way to resolve this
Rachel is right when she says that the superdelegates can decide this race right now. But I approach this from the standpoint of the SD's, not the Obama campaign. Sure, if Obama can convince enough superdelegates to declare for him, it's over. But if I were a superdelegate, I'd try to get 100 other SD's to agree to pledge that no matter what the outcome of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, we would declare in the opposite direction in order to nullify their decision. In this way, the SD's can effectively remove the decision-making power from the DNC and save the Party 10 days of waiting.
What do you think of the idea?
- Email this page
By nfurlongMay 21, 2008 - 8:06pmMAY 9TH THE DEMOCRATICS FELL ON THEIR SWORD!
MAY 9TH THE DEMOCRATICS FELL ON THEIR SWORD!
On May 9th the Democratic Party fell on its sword and allowed (D-NY) US/Senator Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton, to prove the "Black Guy Can't Get Elected, "Senator Obamas support among working class, and hard working American, (WHITE) Americans is weaking, and how the, you know, (WHITE's) in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." (Source: (D-NY) US/Senator Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton).
And, racism didn't play a role in (West Virginia, and Kentucky)? If you believe that then I have a bridge in across a river in Seattle with a little wind damage I, could sell you.
So, now Hillary has her change to take the entire summer and a bank of lawyer to fight the (DNC) Democratic National Committee about the seating of Florida and Michigan, the way Hillary want's it seated, running Hillary into the Democratic National Convention in Denver for a 2nd ballot stealing of the nomination from (D-IL) US/Senator Barrack "Barry" Hussein Obama.
The arguments will be simple one's (1) The Black-Guy with the funny sounding name will never win in the "General Election", (2) According to the New Math "Clinton" Math, Hillary as won the "Primary", (3) Poor, Poor Hillary, has also been the victim of decrimination, "Sexism" and the Good-Old-Boy, Glass Ceiling, after having been elected to the US Senate twice, having over a ($100M), One hundred million in the bank, two mansions one in New York State, and one in Washington, D. C. that is some victim of "Sexism", but all the women have to vote for the "Sisterhood".
I'm (INDEPENDENT) and right about now the Republicans (GOP) Grand Old Party are starting to look pretty good. Ya! they screwed it up the last (8) years, but after the loss of (3) three special elections they seem to have gotten the message. And, (R-AZ) US/Senator John Sydney McCain III, have been a torn in their backside for a long time and is a "Maverick". The Republicans don't fall in love with their candidate's but do support and fall in line behind them.
This whole Democratic "Primary" makes one stop and wonder, if they have an (11%) Legislature now, can't get passed the (GOP) on anything, and they run a "Primary" as disfunctional as this one, running it into a Racism Vs Sexism Convention, Give Me A Break!
Hillary is going to the Democratic Convention, and its only going to be a lose, lose Change Vs Status Quo, The Black Guy Vs The Split Tail, Unity Vs Division, etc. etc. etc. Good Luck With That!
- Email this page
By D. L. GRAHAMMay 21, 2008 - 8:06pmThat's interesting
What have the R's done since the Mississippi special election that makes you think they've gotten the message? I haven't heard anything about changing tactics or policies.
- Email this page
By palepinkMay 21, 2008 - 8:18pmYou know I listen to your show on headphones...
... And you keep on playing clips of Hillary's insane bloviation about her campaign.
Its making me cringe. My work is BORING. I listen to air america to stay sane. Please let me keep my headphones on.
Who cares what Hillary says? You keep on saying every pundit has been wrong however every pundit has been right about this being locked up, starting with Ed Shultz when he said it in February. Each domino is falling exactly how we expect it to fall.
The next Domino? with just 10% of the super delegates remaining and the final contests at even conservative margins Obama will have 2025 delegates. The Democratic party will acknowledge him as the nominee. Clinton will be given a final chance to exit gracefully. IF SHE DOES NOT... the supers will PUSH her out by moving over to Obama's side. Ted Kennedy will make sure this happens, and due to his recent illness he will move those senatorial super delegates.
I for one believe Hillary will not allow herself to be pushed out, and she will leave even if it is reluctantly. Her credibilty will be ruined if she keeps on fighting and it will end well before the convention. She will be given this choice privately by her peers in the senate and the party. If she doesn't listen to them... PUSH!
- Email this page
By pdxgeekMay 21, 2008 - 8:07pmHILLARY - LIEBERMAN TICKET TO WIN!!! THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS
Hey superdelegates, it's time to OVERRULE the populous for their own good.
- Email this page
By SingSingMay 21, 2008 - 8:08pmShould be...
..."populace".
You're welcome.
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman
- Email this page
By capn_crustyMay 21, 2008 - 8:21pmYOU HAVE IDENTiFIED EXTORTION
Yes she WILL take it to the convention in order to extort the VP slot. Once she is president, Obama's days are numbered. Scandal, violence, right wing conspiracy, whatever, but she WILL be president, as surely as Johnson succeeded Kennedy.
- Email this page
By mb from chicagoMay 21, 2008 - 8:11pmdemocrats yanked the football away from me for the last time
I still don't see going to the convention as a big problem, however I take Dr. Maddow's concerns seriously because she is THAT kind of doctor, and I'm a lowly economic research assistant.
I think in the absence of massive media failure and election fraud, any democrat, including Dennis Kucinich, could beat any republican, including Ronald Reagan, in a landslide. We can count on massive media failure propping up McCain, and massive election fraud is already going on. I am so disgusted by the previous two democratic nominees conceding the elections they won before the votes were counted, I am voting for Nader.
The problem is the media, republican election fraud, and democratic failure to deal with either.
- Email this page
By minecritterMay 21, 2008 - 8:28pmThank you, Thank you, Thank You...etc.
I have been driving my partner nuts because I won't stop ranting about this.
While I do respect Senator Clinton and ,until recently, supported her in her presidential bid, I think that this needs to be done with and we need to focus on McBush...I mean Mccain.
My worry is that there is a bigger problem with all of this. I believe that she has to know that if she is chosen by a committee it will backfire and she will lose, I mean we just lived through eight years of a stolen presidency. If there is even a hint of some backroom dealings that result in her taking (read stealing) the election from Sen. Obama, I believe, Rush Limbaugh's wet dream will come true. We will lose the presidency either way if this goes to a committee. Rant on Rachel!!!
Marc
- Email this page
By Marcus56May 21, 2008 - 8:30pmYou are completely 100% wrong
Rachel: I've been a fan for a long time but my respect for you has dropped tremendously today with your shrill hysteria on something that isn't even real. And what I am most afraid of is you are going to say this so many times, over and over again, that you will actually make it happen.
The date when we get a candidate is irrelevant. The three times you mention where the dems were late and lost are absurd. They lost because they had crummy candidates that couldn't have won if they had a year's head start. The fact that they picked the candidate late is meaningless. In 1968 the candidate was Hubert Humphrey!! He couldn't have won if he didn't have an opponent! In 1972 it was George McGovern! The worst candidate the dems ever had except for Mondale and Dukakis (OK-McGovern was worse than them). And 1980 had Jimmy Carter against Reagan after the Iran Hostage fiasco. Every one of those was a slam dunk for the pubs and the timing of the nomination had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Today we have a very different candidate, the Ronald Reagan of our era, and the opponent is the Dukakis of the Republican party. Frankly, I think the most dangerous thing for the Democrats right now is YOU! Keep saying this and it will become a self-fulling prophecy, so stop it right now. It's just about impossible for the dems to lose this one unless you keep saying what you are saying. If people start thinking the dems can't win then they won't. And they will think that because you are telling them that.
Kevin
http://dailybbg.blogspot.com/
- Email this page
By KevinBBGMay 21, 2008 - 8:36pmMichigan, Florida
The one thing everyone is tiptoeing around it that Mich and Fla are GOING to be an issue with Hillary and with her supporters. The ONLY thing that can mitigate that potentially-disastrous situation is to do a re-vote. YES the rules were stupid--basically disenfranchising all those voters--, and YES, regardless of stupidity (as well as repugnican deviousness) BOTH Hillary and Obama AGREED to follow the stupid rules. They SHOULD have contested before the election, but did not, so YES the stupid rules SHOULD BE FOLLOWED-- B U T !!! This will be the one real sticking point for the Hillary supporters that MUST transfer over to Obama when he gets the nomination. SO--both candidates have TOO MUCH $$$, and should, together with DNC fund the RE-VOTE! Do it quickly, with N O more campaigning waste of $$, only put out information about the election, and GO WITH THOSE RESULTS, seating those states. I truly believe this is the ONLY WAY to get this over with before the convention.!
- Email this page
By bernice14May 21, 2008 - 9:28pmDelegates after Florida and Michigan
If you take the delegates that Hillary won, by percentage, in Florida and Michigan and award her with those, and give the rest to Obama...Obama clinches the nomination in Florida. Then goes well over in Michigan. Do the math, it's right there. Hillary? Still about 70-80 off from clinching.
If they don't add in those two states, if you take half of the remaining 212 supers as well as the delegates from Montana, Dakota, and Puerto Rico...Obama's got it easily. He's only about 60 off from clinching right now.
- Email this page
By rdnblueMay 21, 2008 - 9:48pmSpeaking the obvious truth means you are nut
Thank you Racgel for seeing the white elephant in the room.
I actually said to Ron Reagan on the air last week that Hillary is going to steal this at the convention and he kind of cringed.
I call this presidential election the "President and Bernie's election" even a dead body being dragged across the finish line will win this November's election as long as the party in not divided. This was supposed to be Hillary's coronation. I have not doubt that is why she moved from her beloved home-state of Arkansas and landed in her new home-state of New York after Bill's terms were over. Carpet bagging for the Oval Office. She has so far put over eleven million dollars of her own money into her campaign to keep this thing going. That is chump change compared to the ultimate return in power from being president. worth every last penny.
The unintended benefit of this strategy is exactly what Rachel talked about tonight. She has the smallest chance of stealing the nomination at the convention, by making big promises to super delegates and throwing money around, and begging the pledged delegates to switch on the floor and give her the nomination. If she loses the nomination then Hillary divideds the party potentially causing a loss in November. Making her look like the "fighter" that she proclaims herself to be not a power hungry person willing to do anything to win! Now she can be the nominee in 2012.
Do nothing and nothing will happen!
- Email this page
By jimthompson69May 21, 2008 - 10:32pmHas McBush FIRED his campaign poll watcher too?
WASHINGTON, (Reuters) - A majority of Americans want the United States to increase diplomatic efforts over Iran's nuclear ambitions, while 70 percent oppose the use of U.S. troops to thwart Iran, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll.
Asked the best course of action for the United States in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions, 45 percent said Washington should join with allies to increase diplomatic efforts and another 17 percent said the United States should step up diplomacy on its own.
One in four respondents, 26 percent, said they supported the use of U.S. ground troops in Iran, while 70 percent opposed it. Nine percent favored air strikes on selected military targets in Iran. ...
http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN27288539.html
- Email this page
By SingSingMay 21, 2008 - 10:35pmconvention tension
I’m afraid I have to agree with rachel on this. there is definitely a game being played here. hill is having a hissy fit. she's lost but will not accept it, because she is due. how dare this black guy come in a take her place. she will not win so he can't either. spoiler is not strong enough a term.
thankfully obama is not being pressured to add her to the ticket, which i feel would undermined his campaign of a new direction. it would be a total disaster.
hillary cares nothing about the democratic party. hillary cares very much about hilary. i would not be at all surprised if she ran with mcbush. of course he too would have to hire a tastier, because hill will be president. she would also at some point if he won to declare him incompetent, well he is, but she would start a push for that , and guess what? she becomes president. i come to the conclusion as she and mcbush have seen eye to eye against obama for awhile now.
i find it totally stupid at this late date for all these super delegates not to have decided whom to back. you either get on the bandwagon for the front runner or you stand firm and back the loser. make a stand already!! then i guess it's hard to make that phone call with your arm being twisted, your neck being stepped on, or other threats being offered. i put nothing past the clintons. i used to like bill, but i never liked hillary. he's toast now also.
dems will lose in november if they choose hillary. dems will lose if they force hillary on obama. dems might win if hillary runs with mcbush.
don't let hillary anywhere close to an obama cabinet!!! if he has to place her let it be as sec of health and education. she cares so much for the uninsured and kids, put her where she has to do something.
this is not about the party, or the country, or the people. or anything but hillary. she will be president and damn everybody else.
- Email this page
By dihi548May 21, 2008 - 11:18pmThe 10-day thing
Here's what I see:
Clinton has enough pledged delegates that Obama cannot win on pledged delegates alone.
If all 800 superdelegates announce tomorrow that they're backing Obama, and she wants to keep fighting, she makes a speech declaring that she won't let this antidemocratic maneuver silence the voters of America and that all we know now is how many supers she needs to switch (or switch back). Then she spends the summer stumping, asking people to put serious pressure on their local supers.
She goes to the rules and bylaws committees -- and heck, the committee in charge of decorating for the prom, if she can find one -- with the objective of minimizing the number of switches she needs.
So: Absolutely nothing that can happen in the next 10 days (or, for that matter, before the delegates pick a nominee) could give the party or anybody else the authority to tell her, "You can't take this to the convention."
We have to wait for the party leaders to get united, call her in and tell her (maybe have Ted Kennedy deliver the news for added impact), "You really, really don't want to take this to the convention."
And I'm thinking that this year, they'll be inclined to let South Dakota vote before they do that, on the grounds that half a week's wait is not too much to pay for two benefits: the goodwill of actually letting everybody actually have a chance to vote, for the first time in forever, in a meaningful competition (potentially useful as a contrast to the R's -- and I bet all the ballots have been printed anyway), and the fact that basic negotiation says it ought to be easier to help her figure out she really, really doesn't want to fight in Denver if you give her the dignity of having carried her oft-repeated point of wanting to let everybody vote.
Also, a friend of mine says there's an obscure FEC rule that puts her in a better financial position if she sticks it out until June 4 versus withdrawing before the end of the primaries -- which makes absolutely no sense to me, but he's pretty smart and has extensive experience in politics, so I'm not just assuming it's baloney.
It's my impression that even if she files an appeal on June 1, she can still withdraw it before Denver -- surely there isn't a rule against that, is there? She could, like Edwards did, do and say everything as if she were planning to fight on to the convention right up until her announcement that she's withdrawing (although she really won't have the luxury of waiting as long as he did afterwards before speaking in support of Obama). I mean, I don't think she has some inherently deeper honesty that would forbid her to present as determined a face as Edwards' even while she was contemplating a change.
So I'm not convinced that the pressures available to people trying to nudge Clinton off the podium change on May 31, but I think they might well on June 4.
(My darling wife should have some credit for helping me work out this analysis, but since she doesn't bother to post here, I cheerfully claim it as mine.)
- Email this page
By palepinkMay 22, 2008 - 2:34amThe Rapture Scares ME
Not because I am one of those will be instantly vaporized or sent to hell, but because there are people making policy for the United States that think it is their duty to create the conditions in which they believe The Rapture will occur.
Hank in Albuquerque
- Email this page
By nmhankMay 22, 2008 - 1:48pmHillary won't stand down
Hillary won't stand down until the Super Delegates stand up.
Hillary has told us this, and Rachel has underscored it in her reporting.
To eliminate any convention shenanigans 92 delegates must stand up.
Game over.
If not, the goal posts will continue to move.
The clock is ticking.
- Email this page
By steven fMay 23, 2008 - 12:17am