• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Hootie said:
I still can't believe Hillary actually lost a delegate going from 15 to 14 :lol
Click to expand...
It's quite ironic, after her talk of going after Obama's pledged delegates. One of hers just left on their own, I don't see her winning over anyone else's. :lol
 
S

syllogism

Member
Well it could have just been purely a mathematical thing as thousands of district delegates, not pledged delegates, participated in these conventions. In some cases Hillary supporters probably just didn't show up and in several congressional districts Edwards failed to meet the 15% threshhold (some switched to Obama, some perhaps didn't show up), significantly changing the state delegate allocation. These 2500 state delegates will go on to participate in the state convention in April where finally the pledged delegates will be allocated.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
syllogism said:
Well it could have just been purely a mathematical thing as thousands of district delegates, not pledged delegates, participated in these conventions. In some cases Hillary supporters probably just didn't show up and in several congressional districts Edwards failed to meet the 15% threshhold (some switched to Obama, some perhaps didn't show up), significantly changing the state delegate allocation. These 2500 state delegates will go on to participate in the state convention in April where finally the pledged delegates will be allocated.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming that's what happened. Doesn't make it any less ironic. :p
 
S

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
GhaleonEB said:
I'm assuming that's what happened. Doesn't make it any less ironic. :p
Click to expand...

so obama picked up more delegates in a two month old primary yesterday than clinton did on March 4th. :lol

10 delegate pick up is huge.. its basically like obama won an extra medium sized state.
 
H

Hootie

Member
StoOgE said:
so obama picked up more delegates in a two month old primary yesterday than clinton did on March 4th. :lol
Click to expand...

It's too bad the general public, for the most part, won't here anything like that.
 
C

Cheebs

Member
Hillary will probably use Iowa to further her claim pledged delegates aren't "democratic" and the popular vote total should count. :lol
 
S

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Cheebs said:
Oh and RCP finally added in those 3 missing caucus's. Obama's popular vote lead is now +813,747
Click to expand...

clinton is giving up on this.. her surrogates on the sunday morning shows were talking about superdelegates looking at big states and experience. i think the 100k pickup in mississipi was a kick in the teeth to that plan

basically her strategy is now 'voters dont know what is best for them'
 
C

Cheebs

Member
StoOgE said:
clinton is giving up on this.. her surrogates on the sunday morning shows were talking about superdelegates looking at big states and experience. i think the 100k pickup in mississipi was a kick in the teeth to that plan

basically her strategy is now 'voters dont know what is best for them'
Click to expand...
I think it has more to do with the fact the FL revote plan died. If they count as .5 delegates there is strong cause to continue not counting its popular vote. She needed that revote and it looks like it wont happen so her popular vote argument is likely dead as well.

To be fair there have been times in the parties history where the nomination did not go to the one who won the most pledged delegates & popular vote (most recently 1968). But not one time when that happened did the party win the white house so there you go.
 
S

Slurpy

*drowns in jizz*
For all you Rezko lovers, Obama sat down to have an exhaustive interview with the (conservative) Chicago Tribune Editorial board about it, where he set to put everything on the table. This seems like THE definitive Rezko piece. I think its safe to throw the 'there's still more to this Rezko thing' black sheep in the toilet now.

Its all here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story

The entire audio interview is here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-080314-obama-full-mp3,0,3030882.mp3file

This is their conclusion:

Obama fleshed out his relationship with Rezko -- including the disclosure that Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought. But Obama's explanation was less a font of new data or an act of contrition than the addition of nuance and motive to a long-mysterious relationship.

We fully expect the Clinton campaign, given its current desperation, to do whatever it must in order to keep the Rezko tin can tied to Obama's bumper.

When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.

Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.
Click to expand...

Again, this is a conservative newspaper who has never endorsed a candidate. They had every motivation to nail him if they believed there was anything worth nailing.
 
C

Cheebs

Member
Slurpy said:
For all you Rezko lovers, Obama sat down to have an exhaustive interview with the (conservative) Chicago Tribune Editorial board about it, where she set to put everything on the table.

Its all here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story

The entire audio interview is here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-080314-obama-full-mp3,0,3030882.mp3file

This is their conclusion:
Click to expand...
On Meet The Press they basically declared Rezko a non-story and moved on quickly from it. Thats good for Obama.

The only way for it to gain traction is if its a slow newsweek and the media uses it to fill the void.
 
S

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Cheebs said:
On Meet The Press they basically declared Rezko a non-story and moved on quickly from it. Thats good for Obama.

The only way for it to gain traction is if its a slow newsweek and the media uses it to fill the void.
Click to expand...

on the other hand the story could be 'look how transparant obama is vs clinton disclosing nothing'. between rezko and the earmarks
 
C

Cheebs

Member
Malk Halperin of Time Magazine (he also runs The Page blog) said on Chris Matthews Sunday show that Edwards will endorse Hillary before NC, perhaps before PA. But he is sure it will be Hillary.
 
M

maximum360

Member
It's turning from a week that almost killed his chances to Obama picking up more delegates, increase his popular vote lead, and sticking a fork in the Rezko issue. Not bad. If he can be that transparent upfront with all the issues, instead of letting things fester, it will be to his benefit in the long run. If Obama can play up his biracial heritage and expand upon the fact that he acknowledges the past but strives to rise above and bring people together, it could actually work to his advantage.

I still think a good ticket is Obama on top with Hillary in veep spot as his attack dog. :D
 
The Lamonster

The Lamonster

Member
Cheebs said:
Malk Halperin of Time Magazine (he also runs The Page blog) said on Chris Matthews Sunday show that Edwards will endorse Hillary before NC, perhaps before PA. But he is sure it will be Hillary.
Click to expand...
fucking weak
 
C

Cheebs

Member
maximum360 said:
It's turning from a week that almost killed his chances to Obama picking up more delegates, increase his popular vote lead, and sticking a fork in the Rezko issue. Not bad. If he can be that transparent upfront with all the issues, instead of letting things fester, it will be to his benefit in the long run. If Obama can play up his biracial heritage and expand upon the fact that he acknowledges the past but strives to rise above and bring people together, it could actually work to his advantage.

I still think a good ticket is Obama on top with Hillary in veep spot as his attack dog. :D
Click to expand...
Hillary wont be his VP.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
StoOgE said:
on the other hand the story could be 'look how transparant obama is vs clinton disclosing nothing'. between rezko and the earmarks
Click to expand...
And on that note -

On a conference call with reporters this morning, Obama's top aides reiterated their demand for more information from the Clintons on four fronts: tax returns; earmark requests; White House records; and a list of library donors (all but the third of which could easily be released).

Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, also intensified his criticism of Clinton's tactics, and what he described as their opportunistic view of how to count the votes.

"They are literally willing to do anything" to win the nomination, he said.
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Axelrod_They_are_literally_willing_to_do_anything.html
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Cheebs said:
Malk Halperin of Time Magazine (he also runs The Page blog) said on Chris Matthews Sunday show that Edwards will endorse Hillary before NC, perhaps before PA. But he is sure it will be Hillary.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'd love to know how and when he came to this stupid decision. I've always felt Edwards was the biggest fraud in the democratic race and this merely confirms it. Sure his health care plan is more in tune with Hillary's but on nearly every other issue he's in line with Obama.

He's not a dumb guy, and should know that Hillary has no chance to overtake Obama in pledged delegates; supporting the wrong horse (again) would really damage Edwards. So how was he convinced to join Hillary?
 
S

syllogism

Member
Cheebs said:
Malk Halperin of Time Magazine (he also runs The Page blog) said on Chris Matthews Sunday show that Edwards will endorse Hillary before NC, perhaps before PA. But he is sure it will be Hillary.
Click to expand...
That was a prediction, not even a very strong one. Of course he probably knows something, but that doesn't mean Edwards has already made the decision.
 
M

maximum360

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Interesting. I'd love to know how and when he came to this stupid decision. I've always felt Edwards was the biggest fraud in the democratic race and this merely confirms it. Sure his health care plan is more in tune with Hillary's but on nearly every other issue he's in line with Obama.

He's not a dumb guy, and should know that Hillary has no chance to overtake Obama in pledged delegates; supporting the wrong horse (again) would really damage Edwards. So how was he convinced to join Hillary?
Click to expand...

This Edwards move would be very perplexing. He'd be better off just staying neutral.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Cheebs said:
Malk Halperin of Time Magazine (he also runs The Page blog) said on Chris Matthews Sunday show that Edwards will endorse Hillary before NC, perhaps before PA. But he is sure it will be Hillary.
Click to expand...

Nooooooo! And Mark Halperin knows what he is talking about too :( Damn you Edwards!

Looks like Hillary is trying to throw everything she can in the space between Penn and NC to gain momentum.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
maximum360 said:
Unless some real disaster befalls the Obama camp, I don't see her getting the top spot. Will she decide to run again in four years? I'm thinking no.
Click to expand...

Hillary won't be his VP
 
H

Hootie

Member
Cheebs said:
Malk Halperin of Time Magazine (he also runs The Page blog) said on Chris Matthews Sunday show that Edwards will endorse Hillary before NC, perhaps before PA. But he is sure it will be Hillary.
Click to expand...

You know what? Fuck mills.
 
M

maximum360

Member
I don't think that would be Obama's choice personally. Dealings behind the scenes might prompt this though.

If Edwards does this though, it will only prolong things and push more of the white vote towards Hillary. This could have disastrous ramifications in the long run. Most of the superdelegates (plus Pelosi and possibly Howard Dean) seem to be leaning towards the leader in all the categories (Obama) and most of the previous democratic candidates seem to be leaning Obama's way as well. Edwards endorsing Obama might have just about put the last nail in the coffin for Hillary but this turn of events......great for the media and republicans but disastrous for the democratic party.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Democratic Party projections said the results mean Obama increased by seven the number of delegates he collects from the state, getting a total of 23 compared to 14 for Clinton and seven for Edwards, with one to be decided.

Twelve automatic delegates bring the state's total to 57. Obama has been endorsed by four of those and Clinton three, with the remainder uncommitted
Click to expand...
Twelve automatic delegates bring the state's total to 57. Obama has been endorsed by four of those and Clinton three, with the remainder uncommitted
Click to expand...
Twelve automatic delegates bring the state's total to 57.
Click to expand...
Twelve automatic delegates
Click to expand...
automatic delegates
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080315/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_iowa

aonec1.gif
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Tamanon said:
Hey! Clinton's rebranding of superdelegates worked!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that at TPM this morning. Hilarious.

Catching On?

A while back we noted that top Clinton advisor Harold Ickes had admonished the press not to use the phrase "super delegates" but instead to employ what he claims is the more accurate "automatic delegates." The Clinton campaign has pushed for this change of phrase on the thinking that calling them "super delegates" carries a negative connotation that somehow they're more powerful or privileges than other delegates. And that's important because their path to the nomination will almost certainly have to rely on super delegates going overwhelmingly for Clinton despite Obama's having the majority of pledged delegates.

Got that?

Anyway, has the AP gotten the message? In tonight's AP report about Obama's new delegates in Iowa reporter Mike Glover has adopted the Clinton campaign "automatic delegate" formulation.

Now, sometimes spinning campaigns come up with phrases that are so heavy-handedness and tendentious that it's just ridiculous -- the "death tax", "personal accounts" for Social Security privatization, etc. In this case, I think you've probably got to have your head pretty deep in the delegat-ology weeds to have any sense of whether it matters to use one term over another.

But I think it's a good journalistic principle not to switch terminology in the midst of an election campaign or public policy debate at the bidding of one party or another, unless someone makes an extremely good case that the existing word choices are patently misleading. And doing it at the behest of one party to the dispute is almost always bad practice. Otherwise the journalists whose job it is to sift through the spin become its messengers, wittingly or not.

--Josh Marshall
Click to expand...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/183723.php
 
A

Alcander

Member
I really don't understand Edwards rationalization of endorsing Hillary. Like mentioned earlier, most of his policies fell squarely inline with Obama, save for health care.

He also must realize that Hillary's chances of winning are fairly slim now, so "selling out" for a VP slot seems like a strange move.

I guess he must personally just like her more, or maybe he's bitter that Obama performed much better with similar stances on the issues.

In any case, what would be the general consensus for the reason of his endorsement?
 
S

Slurpy

*drowns in jizz*
Wow, fuck Edwards, if this is true.

Hes clearly not acting in the best interest of the country or democrats. There must be some self-benefitting reason he's doing this, but its pretty sick. Anyone who has watched any of the debates has seen how hard Edwards was reprimanding Hillary, and how closer his views were to Obama's than hers. He certainly didnt seem to have any affinity towards her, and much ore hostility towards her than towards Obama. Seems like he would like to see this extended and to muddy the waters, for whatever reason.
 
B

Beer Monkey

Member
Cheebs said:
Malk Halperin of Time Magazine (he also runs The Page blog) said on Chris Matthews Sunday show that Edwards will endorse Hillary before NC, perhaps before PA. But he is sure it will be Hillary.
Click to expand...

Edwards is obviously smart enough to realize the resulting damage to the party, so this would mean that he wants to damage the party.

Color me skeptical.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Alcander said:
I really don't understand Edwards rationalization of endorsing Hillary. Like mentioned earlier, most of his policies fell squarely inline with Obama, save for health care.

He also must realize that Hillary's chances of winning are fairly slim now, so "selling out" for a VP slot seems like a strange move.

I guess he must personally just like her more, or maybe he's bitter that Obama performed much better with similar stances on the issues.

In any case, what would be the general consensus for the reason of his endorsement?
Click to expand...

Well Edwards was insulted before that Obama wasn't courting him as heavily as Hillary was, so maybe.....
 
M

maximum360

Member
Fox News is still trying hard to push the issue about Obama's preacher. They even got Dodd (supporting Obama) and another democrat supporting Hillary on the show to tell the host to blatantly move on from the issue citing Obama has already explained himself enough. The host wouldn't give up though and got his last word in at the end. He then brings on a panel of yes-men for the most part to continue the discussion for another 15 minutes.

Fair and balanced. :lol :lol :lol
 
A

AmishNazi

Banned
siamesedreamer said:
Doesn't matter. Nobody can really argue with Obama's message. I'm not. But, because of his deep ties to a racialist church, he has no moral authority to deliver it.

Anyway, the claws are out, so I'll back off a bit.
Click to expand...


Which is more racist... Saying that god should damn America, or that implying that anti government rhetoric is racist?

Oh and back to the majority topic: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK MILLS.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
icarus-daedelus said:
Those are all caucus delegates anyway, so do they even really count?
Click to expand...

Only pledged delegates from caucus and red states don't count. Superdelegates (automatic delegates :( ) still count regardless of where they are from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Most Commonly Spoken Foreign Languages in Each State (Besides Spanish)
2 3
121
15K
Mr. Wedgewood replied
  • Locked
USA Today: Clinton in commanding position for 270 EC votes
2 3 4 5
228
39K
Already Torn replied
  • Locked
Gallup: LGBT Identification Up, Vermont Highest (5.3%), South Dakota Lowest (2.0%)
49
7K
poppabk replied
  • Locked
Is it known as the RMV or DMV in your state?
2
72
9K
Desi replied
  • Locked
Fivethirtyeight: The Rust Belt has been turning red for a while.
2
62
12K
Foffy replied
Top Bottom