2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otVGjh0zSDc

gaaaaaahhhhhh !!!!!

find your inner whiteness.

aint no party like a clinton party

mitt-romney-who-let-the-dogs-out.mpg

unwatchable

note she attempts to stop it half way through like hey guys that was great omg i pray no one sees this

LOL at NO black folks appearing in crowd - except for a secret service guy - during telecast of HRC's rally at some high school in Scranton, PA last night

I live not far away from there and I know we're a SERIOUS minority in these parts, but, you know, LOLOLOLOL

-- Beatrix Kiddo, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 19:38 (3 hours ago) Bookmark Link

it looks like that video had been digitally darkened. someone should look into it.

Riffing off of S Club 7. wau

http://thepage.time.com/geraldine-ferraro-on-fox-news-channel/

major major stfu

i am shocked, shocked, that a rich old white lady could say things like this

Did we forget about Hilary4U&Me already? (wtf @ lyrics -- did they forget that Hil voted for Iraq?)

wow so this sort of thing happens to her pretty much everyday>=?

That is the main reason why I am envious of Hillary Clinton.

Did Ferraro learn that finger wag at the end from Bill's Monica Lewinsky denial?

Even Hillary's gays are lame!

she seems pretty fucking crazy huh

ferraro's just testing to see if she still has enough name rec to turn Mississippi into South Carolina 2: The Repeatening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeqvEYptjoA <- lol@anime hillary dance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA8Wy51Ionk <-- ok this is a real video, gross

lol, click & hold down yr mouse button at 0:51 in that band video

obama wins mississippi (in a landslide based on how early they called it)

hil vs obama has been useful in erasing my respect for dozens of people i previously liked

Sad but true.

wistful mostly but no disrespect

i left a nasty comment on that band video... something tells me it will not be approved

the memo is very strong, i think he can attack away if all of his statements come as stately as this.

Right. That's what I'm hoping: Obama's finding the narrow path that allows him to attack without losing his aura of dignity and grace.

Lol, should I RSVP for Gerry Ferraro award reception and speech on "Women in Politics" - Y, N, Maybe?

This VP pick could carry Oklahoma:

http://a872.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/78/l_db44827593e59164cd7bab474710d217.jpg

lol wayne doesn't even know how he got there.

ferraro: "Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Wow. I'm used to hearing the old "they get to wear their 'X', how come I can't wear mine?" argument from old stupid Southern white men, but I never expected to hear it from a Yankee liberal woman who was one of the biggest milestones this country ever experienced.

Okay, so can someone from America explain me this: why are Florida and Michigan still an issue in the Democratic race? Wasn't it known, on forehand, that the voting in these states wouldn't lead to any delegates being appointed? That it, basically, was a farce ?

Sure, I can understand why the Clinton team would want to bring those delegates in, but wasn't it clear that they wouldn't? How can this issue drag on so long?

Someone from the HRC team on CNN just said Obama should be carefull 'not to alienate the voters in Florida and Michigan' from him by opposing to letting those states enter the race after all.

Isn't that the world upside down? Weren't the rules - how strange they may be - clear from the beginning? Or, in even other words: Why doesn't anyone say to Hillary, concerning this issue: give it up, you knew about this before you bulged into this race, these are the rules that were set, quit whining about it!

I just don't get why this is still an issue. Is it HRC-camp clinging to some scrape?

scrape=scraps

yeah but because of our electoral college system, winning specific states is much more important than the overall vote in the General Election. Michigan and Florida are considered swing states, meaning they're up for grabs in the G.E.

the race between Hillary and Obama is A) so close and B) so historic, that a lot of people are saying it would be really dumb to A) have two whole states be absent when it comes to deciding who gets nominated and B) get disenfranchised towards the Democratic party who really needs their votes in November.

xpost: Sure, here's an American perspective...

I share your perspective on the Florida-Michigan problem, but I think it's an issue because the overall nominating race is so unexpectedly close. If either Obama or Clinton were running away with the nomination, it wouldn't be a problem, but every delegate counts right now, and writing off two big states is going to be controversial (especially since it's looking like Clinton might lose by a close margin, and those are Clinton-friendly states). The last thing the Democratic Party needs is a large sector of the party claiming that their candidate was denied the nomination because of a legal technicality.

I hope the party sticks to its guns - after all, rules are rules - but I'm not unsympathetic to the argument that the voters shouldn't be punished because the state party leadership did something stupid.

Alright, I can see that. But then still, it seems like people are questioning a - admitted - questionable decision of not letting these two states into the race. Now that's fair, but since the people have voted in these states, it's being made into a political issue now. Because the results are now known: HRC won, and obviously wants those delegates, whereas Obama couldn't care less, frankly.

It just seems to me that what really is the G.E. Party's problem is being made into a political problem now. And that doesn't look right to me.
Shouldn't the party just stand up, and back up the decision they have made earlier - again, how strange it may be - that they excluded these two states?

To me, it seems the Democratic Party is letting it linger, leaving it for Obama and Clinton to fight about it. Does the Democratic Party want to bring yet another thing in this race - between two democratics - to fight about?

xp

at the time it didn't seem like it would become an issue. few people saw a protracted battle at the outset.

Ferraro also argued that the campaign had shown sexism to be more pernicious than racism. "It's OK to be sexist in some people's minds. It's not OK to be racist."

DEMS CAN ALSO DO SHELL GAME. Yippee.

Memo to Geraldine: your appraisal of what equals racism and sexism is what's provoked this, not Obama's race or Hilary's gender. As to the 'race split' in the Dems the Guardian is talking about, pffffft.

did we mention CNN projects Obomber TX Caucus win yet?

xpost

The problem is that the votes probably weren't fair representations of how things would have turned out in a normal primary election. In Michigan, Obama wasn't on the ballot. In Florida, no one campaigned, and Clinton's name-recognition probably added a lot of votes that wouldn't have gone her way if both campaigns had toured the state (polls have shown a general trend of early leads by Clinton which diminish steadily as the voters are exposed to Obama).

If the race stays this tight - that is, if the votes are close in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and other upcoming states (and they probably will be) - Obama will care very much about a chance to get some of the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Both candidates need to convince the convention that they're the best pick to be President, and without a more convincing delegate lead, that will be a tough case for either of them to make.

The reason the Democrats aren't just letting the decision stand - and why it's going to keep lingering around - is that they can't afford to effectively cast off the voters in two big, important swing states. Democrats in Michigan and Florida want to have a voice in the primary, because it's one of the closest and most exciting in the party's history. If the national party denies them that voice (even for a good reason), they might just be angry enough to stay home on Election Day. That's the fear, anyway. The Party is trying to figure out if it should take that risk.

6 weeks and 6 billion news cycles later, i wonder how many voters in those states will switch candidates.

at the time it didn't seem like it would become an issue. few people saw a protracted battle at the outset.

-- Cosmo Vitelli, Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:05 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

exactly.

its been pointed out more than once on this thread how ironic it is that these two states moved up their dates in an effort to be more important in the nominating process and it only ended up making them pretty much the only UN-important states in the whole race.

also, the Republicans made a v v smart move by punishing the same states for the same rule-breaking by stripping them of only half their delegates, which makes the Dems look even more stupid now.

obama should call for a revote in fl and mi right now. Seize all that disenfranchisement mumbo jumbo

open up new theaters of combat to pour his money and organizational strength into while it still counts for something

xxxpost

@Nathan, thanks, I can see your point.

So the Democratic Party's issue with believability/reliability probably weighs less than re-entering the two states, in order to get a - votes wise - most honest election as possible. I can see that.
Long after this race, people will mostly remember the big highs and lows, who won and who lost, rather than some complicated party-problem regarding two states. So ultimately it won't hurt the party as much as this whole race will hurt the loser of the race.

(I come from a country with multiple parties. A change of rules like this would seriously damage the reliability of one party, with many other parties eager to dig into this and take away votes. But ofcourse, Clinton vs Obama is a battle within one party))

(Typing up the word party this much sure makes me want to put on some music and drink wine)

Ben Smith posts this Ferarro Flashback. She's talking about Jesse Jackson:

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."

RIP

Repeat after me: Barack Obama is not Jesse Jackson.

Regardless of who wins the nomination, can we even hope for Democrats to unite as a part after what is already appearing to be a very hotly contested and bitter race? I have heard so many people say that they will not vote if their preferred candidate does not receive the nomination. Given what little hope I have of seeing both of them on a split ticket, I really think that both Obama and Clinton (and their advisers) need to take great pains to avoid splitting the party and allowing that old geezer to win.

Hillary might seriously regret the day that she said that only herself and McCain were ready to lead the country, especially if she does not win the nom.