Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Obama's Mentor for 20 years
Comments
-
daver wrote: [quote=jeffrey]Yeah, good point. Major blanket statement error there, not fair to the rest of everyone that are playin' nice.
Additional context would be that it appears that she is walking out of the meeting where they decided the Michigan mess? In the scheme of things, it really doesn't make any difference, BUT... What was this magic formula they used? I can understand giving Obama _all_ of the uncommitted delegates, but I'm unclear how they decided to take four of Clinton's delegates and give them to him too. She obviously felt a bit betrayed and screwed over.
Should have been directed just at Clinton No-Bama holdouts or something like that.
Not that it makes it OK.
I think it has something to do with the fact that both candidates names were not on the ballot since the primary was agreed in advance by all to be invalid.
Who is to say how many would have voted for each candidate were both their names on the ballot, we will never know.
And, prior to this weekend, zero delegates had been awarded to either candidate in what is the equivalent of a primaries mistrial.
So claims that one candidate hijacked some of the other delegates votes is in itself invalid, as per the above and how this played out.
The point of this weekend was to find some way to
a) respect the fact that the election was invalid (as agreed up-front by all candidates) and some manner of consequences should be invoked
b) but still somehow come to terms for how to still be inclusive of the wishes of the people and their representatives
So what happened this weekend?
1) Clinton pushed for Obama to get zero undecided delegates. Yep, zero.
2) The MI representatives themselves actually had the votes present to split the delegates 50%-50%
3) Obama instead insisted on giving Clinton 10 more delegates than him instead of splitting 50%-50% as per the will of the people of MI as represented at the meeting, in the hopes that still giving Clinton a majority there would be the more diplomatic, co-operative, inclusive and respectful approach.
I have a hard time reconciling items 1-3 above with the notion that anyone out there should feel that Clinton was robbed. -
jeffrey wrote: 3) Obama instead insisted on giving Clinton 10 more delegates than him instead of splitting 50%-50% as per the will of the people of MI as represented at the meeting, in the hopes that still giving Clinton a majority there would be the more diplomatic, co-operative, inclusive and respectful approach.
Oh, Obama insisted, did he? Well, now that you explain it like that, I can totally see why no one should think that the black man was throwing the old white woman a bone.</sarchasm>
I have a hard time reconciling items 1-3 above with the notion that anyone out there should feel that Clinton was robbed.
And "will of the people?" Who are the representatives of which you speak?
</devil'sAdvocate> -
alafairnadia wrote: I still don't understand why the repubs are doing all-or-nothing and we're doing this percentage b.s. in the dem party. it's a fucking stacked deck. we should all be doing one or the other - if it were percentages across the board, the repubs would still be duking it out, if it were all-or-nothing, clinton would have the nod. this party rules crap makes me want to scream. it's so fucking annoying, and, obviously, makes the dem party look more indecisive than we already (obvi obvi obvi) are.
Wasn't the whole point of this system to avoid a mess like that which was experienced in '68? And what is the deal with the caucuses some of the states have instead of voting? As long as we are questioning and shit. -
daver wrote: [quote=alafairnadia]I still don't understand why the repubs are doing all-or-nothing and we're doing this percentage b.s. in the dem party. it's a fucking stacked deck. we should all be doing one or the other - if it were percentages across the board, the repubs would still be duking it out, if it were all-or-nothing, clinton would have the nod. this party rules crap makes me want to scream. it's so fucking annoying, and, obviously, makes the dem party look more indecisive than we already (obvi obvi obvi) are.
Wasn't the whole point of this system to avoid a mess like that which was experienced in '68? And what is the deal with the caucuses some of the states have instead of voting? As long as we are questioning and shit.
I've got this awesome idea. it's called the popular vote. I know, I know. how can we trust the population??? -
alafairnadia wrote: I've got this awesome idea. it's called the popular vote. I know, I know. how can we trust the population???
See, and that brings in a whole 'nother mess. Because depending on how you count those caucuses, Clinton has the popular vote right now.
Just ask her.
-
daver wrote: [quote=alafairnadia]I've got this awesome idea. it's called the popular vote. I know, I know. how can we trust the population???
See, and that brings in a whole 'nother mess. Because depending on how you count those caucuses, Clinton has the popular vote right now.
Just ask her.
*cough*. just a suggestion from a totally not-interested party. -
daver wrote: [quote=jeffrey]3) Obama instead insisted on giving Clinton 10 more delegates than him instead of splitting 50%-50% as per the will of the people of MI as represented at the meeting, in the hopes that still giving Clinton a majority there would be the more diplomatic, co-operative, inclusive and respectful approach.
Oh, Obama insisted, did he? Well, now that you explain it like that, I can totally see why no one should think that the black man was throwing the old white woman a bone.</sarchasm>
I have a hard time reconciling items 1-3 above with the notion that anyone out there should feel that Clinton was robbed.
And "will of the people?" Who are the representatives of which you speak?
</devil'sAdvocate>
Daver,
It's funny, it's almost like you think I'm making these items up.
Have you not been watching and reading reports of who held the meeting, attended it, said and did what this weekend?
And It's a bit curious that you left out the first item, that Clinton was pushing hard for Obama to get zero. Yep, they were pushing to "strip" him of 59 delegates, as per your logic.
Some balance, please? -
jeffrey wrote: It's funny, it's almost like you think I'm making these items up.
Nah, I'm just giving you shit because the crazy lady don't post here.Have you not been watching and reading reports of who said and did what this weekend?
Er, I don't have TV or internet. I po' folk. But I try to catch up on Mondays at work.
And It's a bit curious that you left out the first item, that Clinton was pushing hard for Obama to get zero. Yep, they were pushing to "strip" him of 59 delegates, as per your logic.
Hey, _that_ is what I am doing!
Some balance, please?
I don't think Clinton's plan was fair at all. I think it is reasonable to give Obama all the uncommitted delegates. I don't understand the decision to take four of hers and give them to him, and have yet to find an explanation of that makes sense. They did that because in a vacuum someone decided that Hill should get ten more than Barack? WTF kind of Mickey Mouse shit is that? -
alafairnadia wrote: I've got this awesome idea. it's called the popular vote. I know, I know. how can we trust the population???
Hallelujah! Please forward your memo to the FEC.
The electoral college is a joke and a travesty left over from the days when black people counted as 3/5ths of a vote. -
daver wrote: [quote=jeffrey]It's funny, it's almost like you think I'm making these items up.
Nah, I'm just giving you shit because the crazy lady don't post here.
Okay, now this made me laugh.
Not sure why it might be directed at me in particular, but touché.daver wrote:
Heh, okay.Have you not been watching and reading reports of who said and did what this weekend?
Er, I don't have TV or internet. I po' folk. But I try to catch up on Mondays at work.daver wrote:
At issue there is the fact that you're already starting with the assumption that the numbers without Obama on the ballot were a valid reflection of the same process on the same day with both candidates' names on the ballot.And It's a bit curious that you left out the first item, that Clinton was pushing hard for Obama to get zero. Yep, they were pushing to "strip" him of 59 delegates, as per your logic.
Hey, _that_ is what I am doing!
Some balance, please?
I don't think Clinton's plan was fair at all. I think it is reasonable to give Obama all the uncommitted delegates. I don't understand the decision to take four of hers and give them to him, and have yet to find an explanation of that makes sense. They did that because in a vacuum someone decided that Hill should get ten more than Barack? WTF kind of Mickey Mouse shit is that?
Given all the shades of strong/medium/mild/indifferent/undecided voter preferences involved, how are we to account for those that
1) were of mild or indifferent preference or just undecided altogether, and voted Clinton because she was the only one of the major two candidates actually on the ballot
1) any folks that opted not to vote that day because their candidate was not on the ballot
..or any of a number of other reasons why not having both candidates on the ballot may effect significantly different results.
So right off the bat, your premise starts with the assertions that the primary that occurred was fair and was therefore actually reflective of results obtained from a fair vote, and that Clinton is entitled to an award of delegates that is nothing less than what those results would imply.
But actually, those factors are exactly what was at the heart of the debate. -
Barry can never leave that church. He's been involved with those racist radicals for over 20 years, it's in his blood. Why was barry involved with this church in the first place? barry "quits" the church after a white radical priest rants his filth? Radicals, embezzlers, racists, nice group of friends barry has been friends with for years and years.
In more anti-whitey news a pro-Hillary blog is reporting on the tape of michelle obama and farrakhan taking on whitey.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/02/michelle-obama-and-louis-farrakhan-take-on-whitey/#more-2847 -
eggcream wrote: In more anti-whitey news a pro-Hillary blog is reporting on the tape of michelle obama and farrakhan taking on whitey.
Been hearing about that tape for a few weeks now. I know the reasons they are claiming that it hasn't been shown yet, but I am pretty skeptical.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/02/michelle-obama-and-louis-farrakhan-take-on-whitey/#more-2847
As a larger point, I have no problem with laying off Michelle, as Obama has requested. But ONLY if they stop having her making public political speeches. As long as she is a public spokesperson, she is fair game. -
Heh, consider the source.
-
daver wrote: [quote=eggcream]In more anti-whitey news a pro-Hillary blog is reporting on the tape of michelle obama and farrakhan taking on whitey.
Been hearing about that tape for a few weeks now. I know the reasons they are claiming that it hasn't been shown yet, but I am pretty skeptical.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/02/michelle-obama-and-louis-farrakhan-take-on-whitey/#more-2847
As a larger point, I have no problem with laying off Michelle, as Obama has requested. But ONLY if they stop having her making public political speeches. As long as she is a public spokesperson, she is fair game.
Yet another dramatically important news story waits to get its legs.
Meanwhile, McSame is going to lead us into war with Iran that will result in the deaths of 10,000's of innocent Iranians.
but hey!?! where's Michelle's flag pin godd*mn it!?!
that is what we were talking about, right? -
daver wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]Been hearing about that tape for a few weeks now. I know the reasons they are claiming that it hasn't been shown yet, but I am pretty skeptical.
Yet another dramatically important news story waits to get its legs.
As a larger point, I have no problem with laying off Michelle, as Obama has requested. But ONLY if they stop having her making public political speeches. As long as she is a public spokesperson, she is fair game.
Meanwhile, McSame is going to lead us into war with Iran that will result in the deaths of 10,000's of innocent Iranians.
but hey!?! where's Michelle's flag pin godd*mn it!?!
that is what we were talking about, right?
Well, my only point regarding Michelle is that I think it is disingenuous to on one hand personally call for people to leave her alone, while at the same time putting her forth as a speaker for the campaign. *shrug*
Which really has nothing to do with McCain, non sequitur.
P.S. I can't believe that you would even bring up the Iranians with thousands of children starving to death in Africa. -
daver wrote: As a larger point, I have no problem with laying off Michelle, as Obama has requested. But ONLY if they stop having her making public political speeches. As long as she is a public spokesperson, she is fair game.
Totally. Can't have it both ways, that's nonsense. -
daver wrote: Well, my only point regarding Michelle is that I think it is disingenuous to on one hand personally call for people to leave her alone, while at the same time putting her forth as a speaker for the campaign. *shrug*
I actually agree, but my point is that I don't think its a very significant issue in the campaign one way or the other.P.S. I can't believe that you would even bring up the Iranians with thousands of children starving to death in Africa.
hahaha. I tried so hard to take that seriously. I really did. -
Speaking of the press etc. "laying off" first spouses...
They didn't exactly lay off Hillary when she was in that capacity, did they?
That doesn't make it right, just customary, for better or for worse.
So I don't think Obama should expect that they are going to give a pass to Michelle...or [pill-poppin', drug stealing, recipe-rippin'] Cindy, for that matter.
Heh, sorry. Got carried away. As you were. -
alafairnadia wrote: [quote=daver][quote=alafairnadia]I still don't understand why the repubs are doing all-or-nothing and we're doing this percentage b.s. in the dem party. it's a fucking stacked deck. we should all be doing one or the other - if it were percentages across the board, the repubs would still be duking it out, if it were all-or-nothing, clinton would have the nod. this party rules crap makes me want to scream. it's so fucking annoying, and, obviously, makes the dem party look more indecisive than we already (obvi obvi obvi) are.
Wasn't the whole point of this system to avoid a mess like that which was experienced in '68? And what is the deal with the caucuses some of the states have instead of voting? As long as we are questioning and shit.
I've got this awesome idea. it's called the popular vote. I know, I know. how can we trust the population???
Michigan aside, where Obama wasn't on the ballot because he held to the agreement he and Clinton had, Obama is still leading in the popular vote by 166k votes, so the outcome wouldn't be any different.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/06/clinton_puts_up_popular_vote_a.html?hpid=topnews -
Carnivore wrote: Michigan aside, where Obama wasn't on the ballot because he held to the agreement he and Clinton had, Obama is still leading in the popular vote by 166k votes, so the outcome wouldn't be any different.
It would be if you count Iowa Maine Nevada and Washington (follow the RealClearPolitics citation.)
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/06/clinton_puts_up_popular_vote_a.html?hpid=topnews -
daver wrote: It would be if you count Iowa Maine Nevada and Washington (follow the RealClearPolitics citation.)
Incorrect, check the link again daver. With MI excluded but counting the Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington estimates, Obama still has almost a 135k edge. -
Carnivore wrote: [quote=daver]It would be if you count Iowa Maine Nevada and Washington (follow the RealClearPolitics citation.)
Incorrect, check the link again daver. With MI excluded but counting the Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington estimates, Obama still has almost a 135k edge.
Yer right. That's what I get for trying to scroll that shit on my phone. OK. It looks like WITHOUT MI, and exluding the caucus crap, Obama currently leads popular vote by 24,586, right? Which she would be unlikely to make up in Montana & South Dakota tomorrow. I think. But if you add in MI, she trounces Obama, even if you give him all the uncommitted vote. Except how many that voted for her would have went for him? Another murk. And then the caucus mess. Unity, motherfuckers! This is fucking keystone kops!
Anyways. It has all just ended up a fucked up mess, IMO.State Date Obama Clinton Spread
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Popular Vote Total 17,389,253 48.1% 17,364,667 48.0% Obama +24,586 +0.1%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,723,337 48.2% 17,588,529 47.8% Obama +134,808 +0.4%
Popular Vote (w/MI) 17,389,253 47.3% 17,692,976 48.1% Clinton +303,723 +0.8%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,723,337 47.4% 17,916,838 47.9% Clinton +193,501 +0.5%
Popular Vote (w/MI
Uncommitted to Obama)** 17,627,421 48.7% 17,692,976 48.9% Clinton +65,555 +0.2%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,961,505 48.8% 17,916,838 48.7% Obama +44,667 +0.1% -
daver wrote: And then the caucus mess. Unity, motherfuckers! This is fucking keystone kops!
Yup. There are two entities I blame:
Anyways. It has all just ended up a fucked up mess, IMO.
The Democratic Committees of MI and FL. They screwed their own voters. The National Committee told them not to move their dates, told them the penalty, and they did it anyway.
The primary system is severely broken, but that doesn't in any way excuse the pomposity of the MI & FL committees.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds