The superdelegates will decide based on who they see as more electable. In most recent polls, national preferences have shown Hillary Clinton either even with or slightly ahead of Barack in national Democratic preferences since Pennsylvania. Also, in all of the head to head projected matchups with John McCain, Hillary does better than does Obama.
If the superdelegates were going to decide based on the most delegates, they would say so. They have made it a point NOT to say this. I know everyone on this board wants to say that the Wright thing is ridiculous... ridiculous or not it IS hurting him. There is absolutely no way around that.
If Hillary has all the momentum going into the convention (or end of primaries), then I don't think the superdelegates will think twice about putting her in. They want to win, and frankly I see their point that she is more electable. Another factor, more Democrats will switch to McCain if Obama is nominated than if Hillary is nominated.
Yet another factor is Michigan and Florida... of course these delegates cannot be counted, but I do believe that superdelegates will take it into consideration that she won both of these states.
All the rusted signs, we ignore throughout our lives, choosing the shiny ones instead...
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...
The superdelegates will decide based on who they see as more electable. In most recent polls, national preferences have shown Hillary Clinton either even with or slightly ahead of Barack in national Democratic preferences since Pennsylvania. Also, in all of the head to head projected matchups with John McCain, Hillary does better than does Obama.
If the superdelegates were going to decide based on the most delegates, they would say so. They have made it a point NOT to say this. I know everyone on this board wants to say that the Wright thing is ridiculous... ridiculous or not it IS hurting him. There is absolutely no way around that.
If Hillary has all the momentum going into the convention (or end of primaries), then I don't think the superdelegates will think twice about putting her in. They want to win, and frankly I see their point that she is more electable. Another factor, more Democrats will switch to McCain if Obama is nominated than if Hillary is nominated.
Yet another factor is Michigan and Florida... of course these delegates cannot be counted, but I do believe that superdelegates will take it into consideration that she won both of these states.
Disclaimer: I don't like Hillary anymore than Obama. I don't have to post about that fact as much because practically no one here likes Hillary, so what's the point, really...
But I just wanted to say that your post was very objective and fair. Obama supporters will not agree but they can't seem to get past their bias in this matter.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Disclaimer: I don't like Hillary anymore than Obama. I don't have to post about that fact as much because practically no one here likes Hillary, so what's the point, really...
But I just wanted to say that your post was very objective and fair. Obama supporters will not agree but they can't seem to get past their bias in this matter.
while some may see the support Obama receives as "bias", I see it as "a majority of people here support Obama"...
nah. for example, I tried debating with you about wright/hagee. when given solid examples to prove my point your response was bin blah bow or something childish along those lines. in most peoples eyes around here obama can do no wrong.
nah. for example, I tried debating with you about wright/hagee. when given solid examples to prove my point your response was bin blah bow or something childish along those lines. in most peoples eyes around here obama can do no wrong.
did your wittle feeling get hurt...?
honestly, I don't have the time or resolve to explain to you how they are similar...it's not like you're going to change you mind..cuz in your eye Mc100years can do no wrong...
honestly, I don't have the time or resolve to explain to you how they are similar...it's not like you're going to change you mind..cuz in your eye Mc100years can do no wrong...
again, how is this similar to the wright situation? obama sat in that church for 20+ years. was his spiritual adviser, mentor, married him, close friend.
mccain is using hagee to get some votes. they are not friends.
again, how is this similar to the wright situation? obama sat in that church for 20+ years. was his spiritual adviser, mentor, married him, close friend.
mccain is using hagee to get some votes. they are not friends.
and you see this as similar?
ok, you win, they're not "similar"...Hagee's a saint...and Wright is the Devil...the Deviiiiillllll.....
but, I guess pandering to the religious right is a good thing...embracing a hate-monger to get votes is good thing...
kissing the ass of a hate-monger to get votes is not a big deal...
I guess seeking out Hagee AFTER he's made those hateful comments in not a big deal...
ok, you win, they're not "similar"...Hagee's a saint...and Wright is the Devil...the Deviiiiillllll.....
but, I guess pandering to the religious right is a good thing...embracing a hate-monger to get votes is good thing...
kissing the ass of a hate-monger to get votes is not a big deal...
I guess seeking out Hagee AFTER he's made those hateful comments in not a big deal...
yeah, you're right they're not similar...
seriously do you have the ability to act like an adult for one post?
hagee is not a saint, he's a worthless piece of shit. but mccain is using him for votes. THATS ALL. thats the extent of their relationship. end over done.
wright/obama relationship is much deeper and his speeches and hate are 10 times worse. but you see no issue with that?
seriously do you have the ability to act like an adult for one post?
hagee is not a saint, he's a worthless piece of shit. but mccain is using him for votes. THATS ALL. thats the extent of their relationship. end over done.
wright/obama relationship is much deeper and his speeches and hate are 10 times worse. but you see no issue with that?
I guess the answer is no, you are only capable of being a little kid. ok yes they are similar. wright/hagee are both hate mongers. feel better now?
now, whats NOT similar is the extent of the relationship with these with the candidates. you seem to think they are the same. which is very far from the truth.
I guess the answer is no, you are only capable of being a little kid. ok yes they are similar. wright/hagee are both hate mongers. feel better now?
now, whats NOT similar is the extent of the relationship with these with the candidates. you seem to think they are the same. which is very far from the truth.
may you will get it now. good luck.
ok, let me get this straight...
A) you're upset at me because I'm not "mature" I agreed wright/hagee are not "similar" <---your original assertion
C) you're attempting to present yourself as an "adult" yet act like a scolded child
D) now you're saying wright/hagee are similar but not similar
I guess attending church for 20 years = bad
Pandering to a hate-monger after the fact, knowing damn well that person is a hate-monger = good
listen...at this time and date, wright's a nut...plain and simple...
I wonder, of those who sat in the pews on many a sunday morning, and later found out there trusted spiritual adviser was fucking alter boys, how many of those folks do you blame for not "leaving" the church...
my point is, you really never "know" someone...but when you do "know" someone and embrace them for votes, that not good...
no I'm not upset with you. more disappointed. all of your posts are very immature and condeseding. adults who like to debate important issues don't do that. get it?
no I'm not upset with you. more disappointed. all of your posts are very immature and condeseding. adults who like to debate important issues don't do that. get it?
you now agree with me? since when?
me calling you out being acting like a child has nothing to do with me acting like anything.
yes, and I CLEARLY stated why.
who said this?
who said this?
so now that obama has disowned him, you hop on board. typical.
scary and proves my point even further about bais around here. obama never really knew what wright was all about huh? wow.
typical...
so many words and so little content...
maybe if you weren't so sensitive, your comprehension would be better...;)
maybe if you weren't so sensitive, your comprehension would be better...;)
you've proved you maturity level time and time again. grow up man. or pick some new topics to debate. you seem to be in a little over your head on this section.
maybe if you weren't so sensitive, your comprehension would be better...;)
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
you've proved you maturity level time and time again. grow up man. or pick some new topics to debate. you seem to be in a little over your head on this section.
perhaps the pot is calling the kettle black....hmmmmm....;)
Really? How so?
I don't agree with the everything Nader has done. I don't like the stocks he's owned but I, myself, once had a 401k through fidelity and didn't check to see what it was going to. I already have explained my thoughts on unions inside non-profits and know that is a whole different dynamic that for profit employers. I posted some literature on the subject which no one responded to. Also, the two people who were supposedly organizing this union were fired by Nader for running a piece that he hadn't approved of yet...then all thisabout the union busting came out....it's not so clear cut. Plus Nader has given other of his organizations permission to start unions....so that point is moot. See, I actually look into the things people bring up and take them into consideration instead of giving unwavering support.
That being said Nader's platform best represents my own views. His work as a
consumer advocate and defender of the people has been more than impressive. People have drafted him to run for president based on his outstanding accomplishments. He doesn't have all these questionable instances where he has supported things like the war, nuclear power or financial institutes guilty of predatory lending.
His platform looks soooo much better to me compared to the other 3 candidates or any of the other 3rd parties...thus why he gets my support. And he gets my time as a volunteer and my voice whenever I speak highly of him because he deserves it and has proven to me that he is the kind of leader I'd like to get behind and I see him doing much more than just talking. He is a man who has proven time and time again that he wants to get things done. And against the odds, he has gotten things done....made some REAL change. It's there for anyone to read and become aware of.
These are most of my problems with Obama...not all of them, though. And from where I'm standing they are much more important than the things anyone here has brought up about Ralph Nader...no comparison:
Thanks for grasping the question. Here: How could the superdelegates go against the will of the people that make up the democratic party?
Because the primary process is so spread out it's a fucking joke. I guarantee there are people who voted for Obama in Iowa 16 years ago or however long it was that the primaries started, who wish they hadn't after this shit came to light.
I'm not saying they'd be right to give the nomination to Hillary, but what if Obama is unelectable? What if tomorrow he gets caught raping kids at that polygamist compound? Are the superdelegates STILL bound to give Obama the nomination, even though a bunch of people were forced to decide before they found out Obama was a kid rapist?
Obviously, this is an exaggerated hypothetical, and I'm not even saying I believe the superdelegates SHOULD give the nomination to Hillary. I'm just saying the system is pretty screwed up ...
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I don't agree with the everything Nader has done. I don't like the stocks he's owned but I, myself, once had a 401k through fidelity and didn't check to see what it was going to. I already have explained my thoughts on unions inside non-profits and know that is a whole different dynamic that for profit employers. I posted some literature on the subject which no one responded to. Also, the two people who were supposedly organizing this union were fired by Nader for running a piece that he hadn't approved of yet...then all thisabout the union busting came out....it's not so clear cut. Plus Nader has given other of his organizations permission to start unions....so that point is moot. See, I actually look into the things people bring up and take them into consideration instead of giving unwavering support.
That being said Nader's platform best represents my own views. His work as a
consumer advocate and defender of the people has been more than impressive. People have drafted him to run for president based on his outstanding accomplishments. He doesn't have all these questionable instances where he has supported things like the war, nuclear power or financial institutes guilty of predatory lending.
His platform looks soooo much better to me compared to the other 3 candidates or any of the other 3rd parties...thus why he gets my support. And he gets my time as a volunteer and my voice whenever I speak highly of him because he deserves it and has proven to me that he is the kind of leader I'd like to get behind and I see him doing much more than just talking. He is a man who has proven time and time again that he wants to get things done. And against the odds, he has gotten things done....made some REAL change. It's there for anyone to read and become aware of.
These are most of my problems with Obama...not all of them, though. And from where I'm standing they are much more important than the things anyone here has brought up about Ralph Nader...no comparison:
Where have I been biased without giving a reason or explanation so I can address it now?
here we go again..
you say: "You guys are not objective in your posts concerning him at all"
which implies that everyone here, including me, is drinking Obama-aid and blindly following him...
I say: that's not the case with everyone...you tend to paint everyone who supports obama with the same brush...you use the phase "you guys" a lot...
respectfully, I take issue with that...that's all...
It just so happens, for me personally, I feel Obama is a better choice over Clinton, McCain, and Nader....and yes, he has some flaws...and yes, he's not perfect...but, for me, he's the best option, in my view, right now...
Comments
Yesterday I was you!
It's been posed before but what if Hillary got the popular vote? Would you all be so worried about the will of the people then?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If the superdelegates were going to decide based on the most delegates, they would say so. They have made it a point NOT to say this. I know everyone on this board wants to say that the Wright thing is ridiculous... ridiculous or not it IS hurting him. There is absolutely no way around that.
If Hillary has all the momentum going into the convention (or end of primaries), then I don't think the superdelegates will think twice about putting her in. They want to win, and frankly I see their point that she is more electable. Another factor, more Democrats will switch to McCain if Obama is nominated than if Hillary is nominated.
Yet another factor is Michigan and Florida... of course these delegates cannot be counted, but I do believe that superdelegates will take it into consideration that she won both of these states.
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...
Disclaimer: I don't like Hillary anymore than Obama. I don't have to post about that fact as much because practically no one here likes Hillary, so what's the point, really...
But I just wanted to say that your post was very objective and fair. Obama supporters will not agree but they can't seem to get past their bias in this matter.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
there's bais for obama on this board?
I love how people whine about bias...
funny stuff, indeed...:D
she has a point. 98.9% of peeps on this board would defend obama if he used the word honky to describe white people.
really...?
I think you're making things up...
while some may see the support Obama receives as "bias", I see it as "a majority of people here support Obama"...
nah. for example, I tried debating with you about wright/hagee. when given solid examples to prove my point your response was bin blah bow or something childish along those lines. in most peoples eyes around here obama can do no wrong.
did your wittle feeling get hurt...?
honestly, I don't have the time or resolve to explain to you how they are similar...it's not like you're going to change you mind..cuz in your eye Mc100years can do no wrong...
anyhoo...give this a read...
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/24/mccains-televangelist-ally-believes-god-damns-america/
again with the childish statements. is everyone here in high school? I thought pearl jam would have some older fans by now.
o but you dont have time to debate. just make immature one liners and scram. got it.
again, how is this similar to the wright situation? obama sat in that church for 20+ years. was his spiritual adviser, mentor, married him, close friend.
mccain is using hagee to get some votes. they are not friends.
and you see this as similar?
ok, you win, they're not "similar"...Hagee's a saint...and Wright is the Devil...the Deviiiiillllll.....
but, I guess pandering to the religious right is a good thing...embracing a hate-monger to get votes is good thing...
kissing the ass of a hate-monger to get votes is not a big deal...
I guess seeking out Hagee AFTER he's made those hateful comments in not a big deal...
yeah, you're right they're not similar...
oh my, I guess you wittle fewwens did get huurt....
I'll try to do better, Mrs. Mature....:)
seriously do you have the ability to act like an adult for one post?
hagee is not a saint, he's a worthless piece of shit. but mccain is using him for votes. THATS ALL. thats the extent of their relationship. end over done.
wright/obama relationship is much deeper and his speeches and hate are 10 times worse. but you see no issue with that?
Here, I say it again:
read it slowly...you may get it this time...
good luck...:)
I guess the answer is no, you are only capable of being a little kid. ok yes they are similar. wright/hagee are both hate mongers. feel better now?
now, whats NOT similar is the extent of the relationship with these with the candidates. you seem to think they are the same. which is very far from the truth.
may you will get it now. good luck.
ok, let me get this straight...
A) you're upset at me because I'm not "mature"
C) you're attempting to present yourself as an "adult" yet act like a scolded child
D) now you're saying wright/hagee are similar but not similar
I guess attending church for 20 years = bad
Pandering to a hate-monger after the fact, knowing damn well that person is a hate-monger = good
listen...at this time and date, wright's a nut...plain and simple...
I wonder, of those who sat in the pews on many a sunday morning, and later found out there trusted spiritual adviser was fucking alter boys, how many of those folks do you blame for not "leaving" the church...
my point is, you really never "know" someone...but when you do "know" someone and embrace them for votes, that not good...
you now agree with me? since when?
me calling you out being acting like a child has nothing to do with me acting like anything.
yes, and I CLEARLY stated why.
who said this?
who said this?
so now that obama has disowned him, you hop on board. typical.
scary and proves my point even further about bais around here. obama never really knew what wright was all about huh? wow.
typical...
so many words and so little content...
maybe if you weren't so sensitive, your comprehension would be better...;)
you've proved you maturity level time and time again. grow up man. or pick some new topics to debate. you seem to be in a little over your head on this section.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
thanks for the tip....
ha ha ha....:D
and the laugh....
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
which creates a bias whenever people bring him up. You guys are not objective in your posts concerning him at all.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I take umbrage with this remark...
perhaps the pot is calling the kettle black....hmmmmm....;)
Really? How so?
I don't agree with the everything Nader has done. I don't like the stocks he's owned but I, myself, once had a 401k through fidelity and didn't check to see what it was going to. I already have explained my thoughts on unions inside non-profits and know that is a whole different dynamic that for profit employers. I posted some literature on the subject which no one responded to. Also, the two people who were supposedly organizing this union were fired by Nader for running a piece that he hadn't approved of yet...then all thisabout the union busting came out....it's not so clear cut. Plus Nader has given other of his organizations permission to start unions....so that point is moot. See, I actually look into the things people bring up and take them into consideration instead of giving unwavering support.
That being said Nader's platform best represents my own views. His work as a
consumer advocate and defender of the people has been more than impressive. People have drafted him to run for president based on his outstanding accomplishments. He doesn't have all these questionable instances where he has supported things like the war, nuclear power or financial institutes guilty of predatory lending.
His platform looks soooo much better to me compared to the other 3 candidates or any of the other 3rd parties...thus why he gets my support. And he gets my time as a volunteer and my voice whenever I speak highly of him because he deserves it and has proven to me that he is the kind of leader I'd like to get behind and I see him doing much more than just talking. He is a man who has proven time and time again that he wants to get things done. And against the odds, he has gotten things done....made some REAL change. It's there for anyone to read and become aware of.
These are most of my problems with Obama...not all of them, though. And from where I'm standing they are much more important than the things anyone here has brought up about Ralph Nader...no comparison:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5409414&postcount=21
Where have I been biased without giving a reason or explanation so I can address it now?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Because the primary process is so spread out it's a fucking joke. I guarantee there are people who voted for Obama in Iowa 16 years ago or however long it was that the primaries started, who wish they hadn't after this shit came to light.
I'm not saying they'd be right to give the nomination to Hillary, but what if Obama is unelectable? What if tomorrow he gets caught raping kids at that polygamist compound? Are the superdelegates STILL bound to give Obama the nomination, even though a bunch of people were forced to decide before they found out Obama was a kid rapist?
Obviously, this is an exaggerated hypothetical, and I'm not even saying I believe the superdelegates SHOULD give the nomination to Hillary. I'm just saying the system is pretty screwed up ...
for the least they could possibly do
here we go again..
you say: "You guys are not objective in your posts concerning him at all"
which implies that everyone here, including me, is drinking Obama-aid and blindly following him...
I say: that's not the case with everyone...you tend to paint everyone who supports obama with the same brush...you use the phase "you guys" a lot...
respectfully, I take issue with that...that's all...
It just so happens, for me personally, I feel Obama is a better choice over Clinton, McCain, and Nader....and yes, he has some flaws...and yes, he's not perfect...but, for me, he's the best option, in my view, right now...