When free Obama placards were being handed out . . . I felt like I was in the middle of a disbursement of flour in the Gaza strip

Not sure whether to say "wow," or "ouch"! ;-)

Small steps it is.. good luck! abhi for 2020!!

whew! Thanks texas and ohio. this is the best case scenario for republicans. the odds of clinton winning via pledged delegates are low, as j. alter explains, but this result gives clinton a chance to convince superdeligates to go for her, perhaps even try to steal some of obamas pledged delegates (as they have hinted). this, along with seating the Michigan and fl delegates, could give her the nod.

but she risks disenfranchising many democrats and killing her ability to bring out the base. i suspect she's already lost blacks, who'll choose to stay home if she's the candidate just for the racism coming from her campaign alone. and the attacks are likely to get worse.

however, obama surviving the clinton assault will make him stronger, and considering mccain will most likely be playing a bad hand (presidential elections are about peace and prosperity) obama will be unstoppable.

great election though. high drama.

Who did the Caucasoids caucus for? (Sorry, couldn't resist)

What's the rationale for the two-step?

3 · Manju said

but she risks disenfranchising many democrats and killing her ability to bring out the base. i suspect she's already lost blacks, who'll choose to stay home if she's the candidate just for the racism coming from her campaign alone. and the attacks are likely to get worse.

Not if she picks Obama as her running mate, which she may be compelled to do.

5 · Seahawks fan said

Not if she picks Obama as her running mate, which she may be compelled to do.

oh yeah. didn't think of that. pretty sure obama won't offer the vp slot to her, but she may conclude this is the only way to make ammends with black voters, who she needs.

its still obama's to lose though.

6 · Manju said

its still obama's to lose though.

True, but I don't see why people are expecting her to (or calling for her to) bow out. She's behind by only 100 or so delegates. Why should she throw in the towel? She needs to fight to the end, if only to give us a little excitement.

True, but I don't see why people are expecting her to (or calling for her to) bow out

the math.

If Jindal can win in Louisiana why not I in Texas ? Baby steps like these are a way in which desis can get more politically active on a small scale while keeping their day jobs. Plus…I’m power hungry.

I am taking a screenshot, printing it out, and getting it notarized. When you start campaigning in 2020, I guess there would be some money to be made by blackmailing you :D

"If Jindal can win in Louisiana why not I in Texas ? Baby steps like these are a way in which desis can get more politically active on a small scale while keeping their day jobs. Plus…I’m power hungry".

Just stay away for ice sculptures. :)

Who did the Caucasoids caucus for? (Sorry, couldn't resist)

White men-->Obama; White women-->Clinton

>>I don't see why people are expecting her to (or calling for her to) bow out

If she's arm-twisted to bow out, she should pull a Lieberman stunt and run as an independant. With a strong VP candidate, she'll hurt both Obama and McCain really bad - so much that she could even pull off a razor-thin victory.

That'll be something!

M. Nam

The results for Obama in Ohio are pretty devastating. He lost all counties except for 5 and only won in and around Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati. He will also lose all counties in Pa outside Philly and Pittsburg and all counties in Indiana outside Indy and South Bend. He will also probably lose Kentucky and West Virginia. At best he will be able to split the remaining states with Hillary. This cant be good news for the Democrats.

Abhi wrote: >>The vast majority of people want to believe in someone other than themselves

Are you sure you're not turning Libertarian?

M. Nam

The biggest loser of the night was actually the Zogby Poll who had Obama and Hillary tied in Ohio. SUSA of course nailed it again.

Stage may be setting up for a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton combined ticket.

Stage may be setting up for a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton combined ticket.

I know this is very tempting, but if this continues until the convention the amount of vitriol that she pours on him will reach a critical level and make it all but impossible to put the ticket together. After all, given the math pointed out on this thread (and elsewhere on all the political sites), he would be the presumptive Pres. nominee, with Hillary playing the veep. How can she justify supporting a man who she has savaged as weak on national security (3am phone call ads) as the "Commander-in-Chief"?

As for Obama, what he needs to do is just keep plowing away. If this turns into a war of attrition, that's fine... he wins barring a catastrophic turn of events for him which doesn't seem likely at this point (any skeletons in the closet would have made their way out by now), and he goes into July with more popular vote, more elected delegates and more primaries won (by probably over a 2-1 margin).

John McCain must be getting some awfully good sleep these days...

I know this is very tempting, but if this continues until the convention the amount of vitriol that she pours on him will reach a critical level and make it all but impossible to put the ticket together.

Bush Sr. did team up with the vodoo economist Reagan.

Stage may be setting up for a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton combined ticket.

I don't think either is capable of having the other as a VP. Neither the passive-aggressive, and now peevish Obama, nor the insecure Clinton. But, politics makes strange bedfellows.

How can she justify supporting a man who she has savaged as weak on national security (3am phone call ads) as the "Commander-in-Chief"?

Clinton can do anything, she's a Washington insider, very well versed in doublespeak. if she can one day say , "I'm honored to be here with Obama" and the very next say, "Shame on you Barack Obama". She can easily spin the narrative, the deeper the wounds go, into May? into June? into July? the harder the spin, but she could do it none-the-less.

But, she might just as Obama, to lock the black vote.

Obama would never in a million years choose Hillary, there's a myriad of other choices he could make that would serve the same purpose (get the older, white male vote) - for example, John Edwards is one choice.

Plus, Obama doesn't want Bill hanging around the White house.

chanakya writes: >>it does not matter if obama, clinton or mcain win.

You should post more...

>>Obama doesn't want Bill hanging around the White house

That's not true. Obama has given no indication that he doesn't trust his wife.

M. Nam

I found the county breakdown interesting, the cities went to Obama by a lot, except for San Antonio (Hispanic majority), but most of the "square counties" (generally rural and small town areas) were with Clinton, by a lot. Ron Paul also managed to get 17% of the Rep. vote in Travis county (Austin), which if you've been there shouldn't be surprising.

That's not true. Obama has given no indication that he doesn't trust his wife.

His wife appears to have standards though.

Good to see your caucusing experience in TX went far better then those I observed in Vegas. All the same, I think caucusing sucks butt. :-)

Good to see your caucusing experience in TX went far better then those I observed in Vegas.

Taz: What happens in Vegas?

Taz: What happens in Vegas?

Stays in Vegas.

"The exit polls prove that Rush tilted Texas for the Clintons."

I understand that Latinos and older White women (and O.W men?) generally lean towards the Clintons, enabling HRC to win the primaries in Texas and Ohio respectively, but surely her record on NAFTA would have disillusioned the the more conservative Texans or the primarily blue-collar Ohio-ans? Can anyone explain?

but surely her record on NAFTA would have disillusioned the the more conservative Texans or the primarily blue-collar Ohio-ans? Can anyone explain?

obama blew his nafta advantage with the canada fiasco. serves him right as he was demagoging the issue not unlike the outsourcing/d-punjab flap. truth is both clinton and obama are free-traders but know protectionism sells in tough economic times. pat buchanan, however, belives his own rhetoric.

obama blew his nafta advantage with the canada fiasco. serves him right as he was demagoging the issue not unlike the outsourcing/d-punjab flap.

WHAT? Obama? Doublespeak? NOOO!!!! First, the shocking demise of the Huckabee candidacy shatters my hope that my miracle major will get me jobs, and now this? Is there nothing sacred in this world anymore?

serves him right as he was demagoging the issue not unlike the outsourcing/d-punjab flap.

Can we please stop with this uninformed nonsense? He was not "demagoging" the outsourcing/D-Punjab issue; if that was his intention he wouldn't have apologized and said that the memo was a mistake and did not reflect his views. Leave the misinformation about Obama to the McCain/Clinton tag team, please.

Can we please stop with this uninformed nonsense?

I dunno. tough call, remember who you're asking.

I caucused for Obama last night and worked a voting precinct during the day. The caucus I attended broke similarly as Abhi's - 28 for Obama and 8 for HRC. The attendees were 95% minority - black (probably 60% of the total), Asians and some Latinos. The suburb of Houston where I live, the whites are overwhelmingly Republicans. The 5% liberal white caucus goers were all for Obama, most of them older men. The Asians and Latinos went overwhelmingly for Hillary. The few Asian supporters of Obama (including me and my husband) were all South Asians - not a single East Asian on our side. One African American couple was on the Hillary side. We were able to convince the wife to cross over. The husband stood his ground sullenly. At the voting precinct where I worked the election desk, several white Republicans voted Democrat. Don't know if they were doing so on their own volition or answering Rush Limbaugh's call.

I have a suspicion that Obama is more afraid of the Clintons than he is of the Republicans. Unless he has the gumption to go negative, he is going to get wiped out even if he keeps his lead in popular votes and delegates. The Clintons are already sharpening their rhetoric and their knives to convince party elders that Hillary's wins though fewer, are the ones that matter. The Obama campaign has to go after Hillary regarding the Clintons' joint tax returns, the source and method of their wealth accumulation since they left the White House nearly indigent and in debt and Hillary's White House papers which implausibly, she is now blaming George Bush of holding up. If Obama thinks that he can take the "high ground" with the Clintons and succced, he may as well commit political suicide right now by throwing himself under McCain's Straight Talk Express.

If the Democratic nomination process goes on for long, as now looks likely and barring something utterly unexpected, we are going to have to say hello to Prez McCain. I just don't see the party coming together after the blood letting that will occur. The Kitchen Sink doesn't even scratch it. It will be the whole toxic dump that will be splattered over this campaign. Supporters of neither candidate will have much motivation to vote for the other.

Interestingly enough, one of my neighbors, an older liberal white gentleman who attended the Obama caucus with me last night, said that he will vote for McCain if Hillary ended up as the Dem nominee. I initially thought that it was the typical sexist reluctance to vote for a woman until he added :"I would vote for her if she was divorced or widowed! I don't want Bill back in the White House." So his reason for not supporting Hillary Clinton is no different from mine.

>>I would vote for her if she was divorced or widowed!

Funny - this is exactly how it has played out in India! Married women have rarely made it in politics (or business). It's the single, widowed or divorced woman who's come out on top (no pun intended!). Indira Gandhi picked up big after Feroze's death. Mamata Banerjee and Mayawati never married. Jayalalitha rose to the top after MGR's death (I know - she was not his wife but people saw her as "his" woman). Maneka Gandhi prospered only after Sanjay's death. Sadhvi Ritambara is unmarried.

The exception is Sushma Swaraj, who's really never made it that big.

Is there a sub-conscious hesitation on part of men that keeps them away from a woman who "belongs" to another man? They don't want anything to do with her until she becomes available (through divorce, widowhood etc) - and that includes voting for her? Is there a millennia-old tribal instinct at play here?

M. Nam

Funny - this is exactly how it has played out in India! Married women have rarely made it in politics (or business). It's the single, widowed or divorced woman who's come out on top (no pun intended!). Indira Gandhi picked up big after Feroze's death. Mamata Banerjee and Mayawati never married. Jayalalitha rose to the top after MGR's death (I know - she was not his wife but people saw her as "his" woman). Maneka Gandhi prospered only after Sanjay's death. Sadhvi Ritambara is unmarried.

Yes, and No.

You are playing it out with a skewed prism.

a) Indira Gandhi rose after Feroze Gandhi, and Nehru were dead, and she was a "compromise" candidate when she became PM, and before that she was "gungi guriya" (silent doll) Information and Broadcasting Minister, and before that a very laconic, uneventful Congress President. She used Feroze Gandhi's (an independent MP) constituency to become Lok Sabha (from Rae Barielly, in 1970s-80s, briefly also elected from TN), and was always seen as Bahu (wife) of Feroze Gandhi in Rae Barielly.

b) Jayalalitha rose because of MGR, and was his heir.

c) Jaya Prada, an MP, and once an actress (in Satyajit Ray's word the most beautiful face in India during peak acting career, but not a big player in politics) is married.

Kush,

Be that as it may, the fact remains that only after losing their husbands did they really start their meteoric rise. Maybe sympathy was also a factor.

Another example: Didn't Bhindranwale's widow also get elected soon after Operation Bluestar?

M.Nam

Be that as it may, the fact remains that only after losing their husbands did they really start their meteoric rise.

Maybe the question that should be asked is whether they had started a political (or any) career at all when their husbands were alive?

Moornam:

My neighbor's (age 77)reply was nothing so deeply psychological as you suspect. He just doesn't want to see Bill Clinton back at (or close to) the seat of power calling shots and ruining the Democratic Party with his self centered antics.

34 · MoorNam said

The exception is Sushma Swaraj, who's really never made it that big.

Sushma Swaraj did not make it big? Chief Minister of Delhi. Twice member of the Union Cabinet. The BJP considered her the only person who could stand up to Sonia Gandhi in Bellary (where she lost by a margin of 7% which is pretty freaking good if you're running against a Gandhi). While I'm not SS's fangirl, she was a major player in the BJP at least in the late 90s (spokesperson until Pramod Mahajan's rise, pet of Vajpayee), when I was more into desi politics.
Shiela Dixit is married, and also a Congress bigwig. Nandini Satpathy. Vijayaraje Scindia. Ambika Soni is quite powerful too, don't know about her marital situation.
In general, nepotism, wealth and proximity to powerful people allows people to move forward in Indian politics (politics anywhere I'd venture) - be they men or women.

missed renuka chodhary on that list.

He just doesn't want to see Bill Clinton back at (or close to) the seat of power calling shots and ruining the Democratic Party with his self centered antics.

again, who cares who sucks his thing.

This is one desi who is in favor of Obama. As a biracial canidate with one parent and several relatives (including half siblings) either from or with roots in other countries, I feel that he is more representative of me than any other canidate. He seems to be the only truly global canidate. As american desis, we all hold in our hearts a culture and a country that is elsewhere. We are global people. And I feel that a global canidate is a very good idea.

I have a suspicion that Obama is more afraid of the Clintons than he is of the Republicans. Unless he has the gumption to go negative, he is going to get wiped out even if he keeps his lead in popular votes and delegates. The Clintons are already sharpening their rhetoric and their knives to convince party elders that Hillary's wins though fewer, are the ones that matter. The Obama campaign has to go after Hillary regarding the Clintons' joint tax returns, the source and method of their wealth accumulation since they left the White House nearly indigent and in debt and Hillary's White House papers which implausibly, she is now blaming George Bush of holding up. If Obama thinks that he can take the "high ground" with the Clintons and succced, he may as well commit political suicide right now by throwing himself under McCain's Straight Talk Express.

I believe this is known as the Kitchen Hope platform.

Bush Sr. did team up with the vodoo economist Reagan.

Point taken, as I've conceded to many a friend over the last few days when discussing this issue, but it's one thing to attack an individual's economic strategy/ health care plan/ foreign policy plan. What Hillary is doing is attacking the actual character of Obama, suggesting not only that he is wrong on the issues but that he has character flaws that are potentially disastrous for the country. I understand that in politics all is fair game, but usually that's saved for the general election, not a primary where one of these candidates is going to (like it or not) have to support the other one who wins when all is said and done.

Hillary's use of the now infamous "turban picture" along with her hedging on the "what religion is Obama" question just follows up on previous emails alleging that O is a Muslim (which she was "shocked" to find out came from her camp). It's character assassination by a thousand cuts. Obama ought to start using Vince Foster in his campaign spots :)

Kyrial:

You are absolutely right. It is possible to team up with an opponent when the differences are on issues. When aspersions are cast on one's character and background, that is a whole different ball game. In all polls, it is Clinton who scores low in the category of "trustworthiness." So it is not a surprise that she is trying to level the playing field in that area. I for one, do not wish to see a Clinton - Obama ticket (or the reverse).

Hillary is not just planting suspicions about Obama with words, innuendos and pictures. When the picture does not lend itself to slander and blatant manipulation, she is photo shopping!

No depth is too low to plumb if it helps realize one's life long lust for power.

When the picture does not lend itself to slander and blatant manipulation, she is photo shopping!

I've been reading about this laughable story for the past few days. I think this allegation says more about the perceived persecution and paranoia of the accusers than the accused.

What Hillary is doing is attacking the actual character of Obama, suggesting not only that he is wrong on the issues but that he has character flaws that are potentially disastrous for the country.

Given that he hasn't a record and that he has not done anything, for example, on Afghanistan in the senate - an issue he pretends to care about - even when he had the opportunity because he was too busy trying to realize his lifelong lust for power desire to serve the people, all he is running on is character and inspiration as tools to get the job done. Attacking his readiness and credentials is fair game.

No depth is too low to plumb if it helps realize one's life long lust for power.

Lets not diss life long lust for power. You need fire in the belly to fight the GOP machine. You think Hillary is too tough on Obama? Wait till the GOP takes on Obama if Obama is the nominee.

I actually do believe that Hillary should have dropped out after losing 11 straight because of the delegate math. However, Obama is wilting under standard attacks by the Hillary campaign. I am concerned (along with countless others) that Obama might not be up to the challenge of running for President against the GOP.

No, he cant.

Attacking his readiness and credentials is fair game.

Again, I won't deny that attacking the person rather than the issues is indeed fair game. My general point was simply that a) this sort of an attack (personal rather than issue-oriented) bodes terribly for a potential Obama-Clinton ticket (which was why I posted on this topic in the first place) and b) it is something that should be saved for the general election, not a primary where you run the risk of tearing one candidate down considerably before he or she faces the opposing party in the fall.

Hillary, IMO, is playing a very Solomon-esque game here only instead of the usual reading of the story she's saying: we can do this two ways, either you stop this and give me the nomination and I'll take Obama as my second, or we can split this party right down the middle because I'm going to campaign until the convention and if you think I've gone negative now, you aint seen nothing yet.

Statistically, the race for elected delegates is all but over. If this was any other candidate but a Clinton, the DNC would have stepped in already and stopped this in the best interests of the party there's too much clout from her end for the DNC to do anything.

Its lovely to see Clinton apologists on SM out in full form.
Quick to deride Obama as Hoprah but nary a word is said about Hatery.
She has borrowed some pages directly out of Rove's playbook, be afraid be very afraid, she tell us.
Why run on hope when you can run on fear and hatred.

The truth of the matter is there is no way she can win without tearing
the party apart. Then McCain wins, and she can run again in 4 years.

But angelic Clintons won't do it right, they won't hold the country and the party
hostage to their selfish ambitions.
Oh no wait, they have already done that..

Rahul sez:

Given that he hasn't a record and that he has not done anything, for example, on Afghanistan in the senate - an issue he pretends to care about - even when he had the opportunity because he was too busy trying to realize his lifelong lust for power desire to serve the people, all he is running on is character and inspiration as tools to get the job done. Attacking his readiness and credentials is fair game.

You've long demonstrated a penchant for recycling talking points without bothering to delve further into them, but as was discussed on MSNBC's fact check segment and as people who know about these subcommittees know, it would be highly unusual for a Subcommittee on European Affairs to hold a hearing on oversight of the NATO role in Afghanistan. Such a prominent issue would ordinarily be dealt with at the full committee level, by the foreign affairs committee chaired by Sen. Biden.

And really, this "no record" nonsense should stop. Obama has a record -- he's been a Senator since Jan. 2005, has been in elected office for 12 years (4 longer than HRC), and was involved in public service before that as a civil rights lawyer, community organizer, and Constitutional Law professor (the last may or may not fit one's definition of public service, but it is certainly closer to the mark than, say, partner at a private law firm or board of WalMart). If you want to know about Obama's record as a Senator, start here. Assuming, of course, that you're interested in intellectually honest discourse. I can understand that someone who doesn't follow politics too closely would think Obama has no record since he hasn't been around in Washington for too long, but if one is going to post like one knows what one is talking about, some background research would be nice.

ruchira & rahul:

re: darkened ad. mandy grunwald has denied the ad is theirs, though fox news says it is, though they also say it wasn't darkened. a clinton spokesman also says the ad was darkened, but that's part of a normal process necessary for production. i recll time mag going thru this re OJ.

Attacking his readiness and credentials is fair game.

I agree. But the issue here is hypocrisy.

You've long demonstrated a penchant for recycling talking points without bothering to delve further into them

I can understand that someone who doesn't follow politics too closely would think Obama has no record since he hasn't been around in Washington for too long, but if one is going to post like one knows what one is talking about, some background research would be nice.

And really, this "no record" nonsense should stop. Obama has a record

If one wants to passive aggressively changefully insult one, one would use this strategy (directly taking on one's record, on the other hand, is called whining). Also, one might want to read one's posts before dissing one. Anyway, one is tired of the gazillion go-arounds on this, so one is going to stop now.

ut as was discussed on MSNBC's fact check segment and as people who know about these subcommittees know, it would be highly unusual for a Subcommittee on European Affairs to hold a hearing on oversight of the NATO role in Afghanistan.

Even Obama has copped to inaction on this one because he was too busy running for president. Maybe he should check his own talking points.

I actually do believe that Hillary should have dropped out after losing 11 straight because of the delegate math. However, Obama is wilting under standard attacks by the Hillary campaign. I am concerned (along with countless others) that Obama might not be up to the challenge of running for President against the GOP.

I agree. The first time he's running against a credible candidate who's not a nutjob or a domestic abuser, his limitations are shown up. If he can't run a convincing campaign when his halo is strong, how is he actually going to get anything done in 4 years when he is constantly under the lens?

I agree. The first time he's running against a credible candidate who's not a nutjob or a domestic abuser

speaking of dirty tricks, the one pulled on jack ryan ranks pretty high up there. to release private details about a marriage, details both spouses wanted kept secret (no he didn't hit her as far as i know; he liked to watch her have sex w/ other men) when a child was involved strikes me as worse than nixonian or clintonian.

i wonder who was behind it. maybe the liberal judge did it on his own. maybe alan keyes. maybe obama, in which case he will have won PAfDs and rahuls respect.

i wonder who was behind it.

Oh Manju, surely you know it was the vast left-wing conspiracy that infiltrated the judge's mind. I agree that it should not have been, but trying to finger Obama or the liberal judge ("This judge was appointed by Jerry Brown, the most liberal governor of California in history," the campaign talking points maintained. That claim was incorrect. Schnider, who in 2000 received the Los Angeles County Bar Association's Outstanding Jurist Award, was first appointed to the bench in 1981 by superior court judges in Los Angeles. He was named a full judge only two years ago by Gov. Gray Davis, a moderate Democrat.) is quite a great touch. You win my respect.

no he didn't hit her as far as i know; he liked to watch her have sex w/ other men

Against her consent.

Jeri Ryan said her then-husband took her on three "surprise trips" in the spring of 1998 to New Orleans, New York and Paris, during which he took her to sex clubs. She said she refused to go in the first and went into the second at his insistence.
"It was a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling," she said in the court document, adding that her husband "wanted me to have sex with him there, with another couple watching. I refused."
She said on arriving at the third club, in Paris, "people were having sex everywhere. I cried. I was physically ill. [He] became very upset with me and said it was not a 'turn on' for me to cry."

Don't know about you, personally, domestic abuse is not something I look for in my reps.

Although, I agree: if all it was was just sex clubs or orgies or whatever, it should be politically irrelevant.

56 · Rahul said

Although, I agree: if all it was was just sex clubs or orgies or whatever, it should be politically irrelevant.

a man forces ("against her consent") his wife (in your view) to perform sex acts and you don't think its politically relevant?

a man forces ("against her consent") his wife (in your view) to perform sex acts and you don't think its politically relevant?

I thought I made it clear, but I will restate: The problem with the Jack Ryan situation is that it was against her consent, if it is consensual, it should be irrelevant (although it probably isn't, in practice).

I thought I made it clear, but I will restate:

you're clear. if its private consensual behaviour between a republican and his wife you'll figure out a way to imply it was non-consensual or a crime (domestic abuse), but if its a rape or sexual harassment charge against pres clinton its a vicious personal attack on his private sex life. i get it.

you're clear. if its private consensual behaviour between a republican and his wife you'll figure out a way to imply it was non-consensual or a crime (domestic abuse), but if its a rape or sexual harassment charge against pres clinton its a vicious personal attack on his private sex life. i get it.

Thanks for correctly representing the "facts". My respect for you grows by the minute :)

60 · Rahul said

Thanks for correctly representing the "facts". My respect for you grows by the minute :)

well you're not being clear. we know the facts. they're unsealed. at first you say it was against her consent (55) and therefore, like sexual harassment, open to public scrutiny. then in 56 you say "if all it was was just sex clubs or orgies or whatever" then its not fair game. but all it was was sex clubs and orgies.

kyrial @48, I agree with most of your comment, especially the following:

. My general point was simply that a) this sort of an attack (personal rather than issue-oriented) bodes terribly for a potential Obama-Clinton ticket (which was why I posted on this topic in the first place)

If this was any other candidate but a Clinton, the DNC would have stepped in already and stopped this in the best interests of the party there's too much clout from her end for the DNC to do anything.

If the roles had been reversed, the pressure on Obama to step down by now would have been immense and the "party elders" would most likely have stepped in to end the primary battle by now. At some level, I just think that it is unfortunate that two such strong candidates have to be pitted against each other, especially when the Republicans are so short on quality leaders.

As an aside, 2000 exposed the weakness of the rounding scheme of the electoral college - as well as the duplicity of the supreme court, and 2008 is showing up the primary process, at least on the democrats' side. Yes, Obama might get the lead on delegates, and yes, I am inclined to say that, given the current system, that is the best indicator that he should be the Democrats' candidate, but the fact is that his lead will end up being small, and the primary process is so noisy and imperfect that I don't know how meaningful that lead in delegates really is.

That Rahul and Manju are hogging up the dance floor. You two dance like a couple of long-tailed cats in a room full of rockin' chairs.
I tell ya, what's a girl gotta do to get a little two-step action? Cut in?

I don't know how meaningful that lead in delegates really is.

primary process is so noisy and imperfect

Perfect process: lets just anoint Hillary as the President and do away with primaries and elections altogether,
then she along with her husband can rule over us benevolently and keep us safe at night, bring Universal health care to all,
and all will be well in the world and when her 8 years are up, Chelsea can run and claim that she has 35 years of experience,
since she has been in public service the day she was born, being born to the two greatest presidents the US has ever had.

Popular vote will matter. she's behind by like 600k right now, excluding fl and mich. if she wins the pop she can make a "will of the people" argument, but that still necessitates 60-40 blowouts the rest of the way, so unlikely.

i think her strategy is to keep it close and damage obama so much that she'll argue to the supers that he unelectable.

good times ahead.

what's a girl gotta do to get a little two-step action?

bessie mae, is that what the kids are calling it these days?

Popular vote will matter. she's behind by like 600k right now, excluding fl and mich. if she wins the pop she can make a "will of the people" argument, but that still necessitates 60-40 blowouts the rest of the way, so unlikely. i think her strategy is to keep it close and damage obama so much that she'll argue to the supers that he unelectable.

I agree. Not pretty in the least, and potentially not good for the dems in November. And while it is not good that Hillary is doing this, and her motivations are (clearly) not altruistic, I think that even if Obama is the dem nominee, he's going to get beaten up by the republicans in all these ways and worse, and tested in a way that none of his campaigns so far have. And he's not going to win purely with the high ground posturing and passive aggressiveness that have been his game so far.

I read an article that argued that the fact that Hillary won the TX primary but lost the caucus works in her favour.

For instance, the numbers in each were something like 2.5 Million vs. 100K. So, she can argue (to the Supers) that the caucuses are not very representative. Since Obama has won a lot of caucuses, it can be argued that if those states had held primaries, the results may have been different.

Could someone explain the rationale for a caucus? It seems unfair to people who cannot make it at a particular time...

Now, the Hillary camp is comparing Obama to Ken Starr for asking legitimate questions. Delicious!

Libran 38:

Caucuses were set up (particularly in less populated rural areas) to encourage participatory democracy. Whether or not it makes sense (it certainly doesn't in big urban areas like Houston where caucusing descended into chaos in some precincts on March 4) is really not the point here. Everyone knew the rules before the race started and a single vote was cast. None of the Democratic candidates (including Hillary who believed then that she had victory in her pocket) at the starting line had a problem with the campaign set up, including penalizing MI and FL if they didn't follow party directives. You can question crappy rules but not AFTER you've agreed to play by them.

It was only after Iowa and successive dominoes falling for Hillary in caucus states that we started hearing grumblings about caucuses from Bill Clinton and the rest of the Clintonites. Now, they are not only moving the goal post with every victory and defeat but also re-setting the clock. According to Hillary & Co. Ohio is now the new Iowa and Texas the new NH. Whatever it takes to change the narrative - nothing matters unless she wins.

Just a comment about the "popular vote" argument: It think the popular vote argument only really holds water if you also have a lead in some other major area because elections in this country on the presidential level are not strictly a popular vote issue (just ask Al Gore). Obama, for example, will most likely have the elected delegate lead when all is said and done (baring blowouts the rest of the way), so he can say "look, I've not only got the popular vote but I've got the delegate vote as well" and, might I add, he can throw in for good measure "plus I've beaten her 2-1 in actual primaries/ caucuses".

If Hil wins the popular vote, it does give her some weight to throw around in the convention but again Obama has shown himself able to draw from the middle ground (independents/ liberal republicans) and THAT is where the battle will most likely be this fall. Clinton, by virtue of the very name, is polarizing: there are many Americans who would come out and vote against her in an election whereas Obama doesn't really have too many people who consider him an unsavory character.

Again, this bodes very poorly for the democrats this summer/ fall because they a) face a split at the convention and the possibly fracture of the party (new guard vs. old guard) and b) the withering attacks are going to take their toll, and if Obama starts firing back which he probably will, it's going to seriously damage both candidates. It's quite ironic that after 8 years of a republican president who has launched a very unpopular war, seen the economy go into the tank and eroded civil liberties there's as good a chance as not that we're going to see his party continue in the White House come 2009.

I am not arguing about changing rules, nor am I commenting about MI & FL. I am sure that the party will sort it out.

I was just curious about the rationale of caucuses. If the parties want more people to participate, then in future, they should just do away with them and just hold primaries. In a general election, these rural areas don't caucus, they just vote like everyone else does. I agree that in the past it may have made sense to have caucuses, but now it just seems like an idea whose time has gone.

71 · libran38 I was just curious about the rationale of caucuses. If the parties want more people to participate, then in future, they should just do away with them and just hold primaries.

Primaries cost more than caucuses, so some state parties prefer them for that reason; also, some factions within any party prefer that "high-intensity" preferences be (over)represented, so that's another reason you'll find some support for caucuses.

Libran 38:

I agree with you about the usefulness (or the lack thereof) of caucuses. While we are at it, let us get rid of the antiquated electoral college too in the presidential elections in November. I would like to see the president of the United States elected directly by a majority (or plurality) of popular votes irrespective of states and delegates won. After all, the presidential election is the only one in which all Americans vote for the same office.

As for proportional representation of states, the House takes care of that. Protection of smaller states is ensured by Texas having the same number of US senators as Wyoming. The president on the other hand, represents the whole nation. It will be refreshing to see the office of the president decided free of regional influences and red - blue color coding.

Sheep *bleat*. Hounds bay.

Now, the Hillary camp is comparing Obama to Ken Starr for asking legitimate questions. Delicious!

brilliant move. admitting that the vrwc was right about the Clinton's is too hard a pill to swallow for many democratic partisans. they'll rather throw obmama under the bus than admit they're wrong.

obama's in a pickle. if he retaliates he risks undermining his entire narrative. while half the clinton supporters think he lacks toughness, the other half think he's a nixonian racebater. damned if does, damned of he doesnt. even the faln pardons, a low hanging fruit in a time of terror, is off-limits b/c of peurto rico and the fact that its precisely the type of thing many dems don't want to believe about the clintons. what to do?

Ruchira: I once read a book called "The American Constitution: A Biography", where the author, Akhil Amar Reed, a Yale law professor, went through the Constitution line-by-line and put it into historical and political context. It is a bit of a dry read, especially at the start, but once it gets going, it is fascinating.

Anyway, he had an interesting take on the electoral college. His argument was that when the Constitution was written, Southern (slave) states counted its slave population for representation purposes, i.e., number of seats in the house, but did not allow them to vote. So, when it came to the presidential elections, they were in a pickle. They didn't want to allow them to vote, but they wanted them to be counted. Thus, they hit upon the idea of the Electoral College; its strength is equal to the sum of House+Senate seats.

I can't see why the smaller states will give up the advantage they have under this system. If it was a straight popular vote, no one will bother campaigning in states like WY, ID, etc.

Rob: Yeah, I also read that it is cheaper to hold caucuses. But, by that argument, it is even cheaper not to hold anything at all ;-)

vivek

p.s. His take on why Wyoming was one of the first states to give women the right to vote, is that WY had a very lopsided male-female ratio (6:1 or something like that), and to attract women to move there, they "bribed" them with the right to vote!

re: MI&FL, etc.

Obama is running on a post-partisan platform, i.e., he can negotiate with the other side without the usual rancor. Let's see his skills in negotiating with the Clinton campaign. What will he give up in order to reach a compromise.

This is one thing that bothers me about him. He has a very progressive voting record (more power to him), but he talks a centrist game. It's not clear how he will go about satisfying the progressives as well as the centrists/conservatives. If he gives up too much, the progressive base will be upset (witness the bitter feelings over Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy), but if he doesn't give up enough, then why would the other side be interested?

vivek

Obama is held to some ridiculous standard of perfectness, while Clintons always get a pass for
their fear mongering,race-baiting and outright lies.
He is passive-aggressive, hoprah, he is not to be believed, he is nothing but a charming snake-oil salesman
according to some on SM. To some on this board and the country, he will never be good enough no matter what he does,
I wonder how much of it has to with his being black?

77 · libran said

Obama is running on a post-partisan platform

if this results in a hillary nomination, he'll have post-partisan depression

Manju:

if this results in a hillary nomination, he'll have post-partisan depression.

Not if he designs a few campaign ads based on this image of Hillary.

But then again, may be he doesn't have the gumption after all. We of course know that the Clintonites suffer from no such compunctions.

Obama is held to some ridiculous standard of perfectness, while Clintons always get a pass for
their fear mongering,race-baiting and outright lies.

I commented on this as well in a previous thread, but yes, Obama's higher standard are dually influenced I believe, one due to his own comments, and two, his race.

yogi, I don't think it has anything to do with his race, but rather to his statements like "we are ones we have been waiting for", or his supporters, e.g., Oprah declaring "He is the One" (or something to that effect).

I was just curious about the rationale of caucuses.

to add to what rob, ruchira , and libran have said, many of these anti-democratic curiosities that we see in the american system go back to classic liberal thinkers and their fear of "tyranny of the majority." ironically, the great democratic thinkers were obsessed with the idea of restricting democracy, b/c they saw the conundrum: the majority using democracy to oppress a minority or even overturn democracy itself...a problem we see muslim nations grappling with as they inch toward democracy.

so we have a senate, an electoral and caucus system, a bill or rights, ie restrictions on democracy so an elite can maintin liberty, though they themselves are restricted by a seperation of powers. liberals were particularly concerned about religion, b/c they knew the irrational power it held over men, thus you get an establishment clause for example. extremism and sects are discouraged, though allowed to operate as long as they adhere to the social contract.

classic liberal were practical thinkers, trying to establish a system that worked. philosophical consistency be damned.

I agree with you about the usefulness (or the lack thereof) of caucuses. While we are at it, let us get rid of the antiquated electoral college

something for the Hillary-haters ;-)

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4771/hillaryobamawarsgr0.gif

I don't think it has anything to do with his race, but rather to his statements like "we are ones we have been waiting for", or his supporters, e.g., Oprah declaring "He is the One" (or something to that effect).

How are you so sure? I have had more desi friends/acquaintainces express reservations about Obama than my non-desi friends,some of them
have admitted to being somewhat apprehensive because of his race.
On the other hand, desis are very forgiving about Hillary's tactics, her lies, her padding of her resume.
I don't understand this love desis have for Hillary, consider a thought experiment if Obama was Desi American say one of the bloggers on the mutiny does anybody have any doubt that Hillary would invoke every negative stereotype there is about desis to throw him/her under
the bus?
As for the other points you have mentioned. If Obama has many more supporters than Clinton, how is that to his detriment? If he speaks well why is that a bad thing? and what exactly is wrong with relying on yourself to make changes instead of trusting someone to solve your problems?
Oprah's comment is over the top but I am sure if you dig enough you could come up with outlandish statements made by her supporters
about her too. Oh wait, she makes these statements herself, to wit 35 years of experience, vast foreign policy experience and on and on it goes.

What I meant re: statements like "We're the ones we are waiting for" is that they sound very messianic; he probably meant, "I am the one you've been waiting for". Well, that's how I read it. And, he wants to get away from "politics as usual" and lift the conversation to a higher plane. That's all well and good and very noble, but I am guessing that's why he is being held to a higher standard. If he goes negative, then he will be just another one-term senator running for president...

I don't have a clue why desis tend to support Hillary (as I replied on a different blog, it must be the self-loathing ;-)).

Anyway, maybe it is because Hillary and Bill are well-known back home, and are quite popular. I remember when Bill went to India and spoke in the Parliament, he was mobbed by the MP's...

Anyway, maybe it is because Hillary and Bill are well-known back home, and are quite popular. I remember when Bill went to India and spoke in the Parliament, he was mobbed by the MP's..

Anyway I have to go now, so last post on this thread.

mine too.

According to Strobe Talbott in his book "Engaging India", where he talks about his conversations with the Indian govt., in particular, Jaswant Singh, post-1998 nuclear explosions, Bill Clinton had a huge role in ending the Kargill war. Clinton read the riot act to Nawaaz Sharif. According to Talbott, this was the first time, and Indian PM, Vajpayee, trusted a US president to do the right thing on an India/Pakistan issue, and Clinton didn't disappoint. Maybe that's what the desis who came here in the 60's and 70's are responding to. Also, it could be a generational thing.