(OK, this is from an earlier e-mail between Tony and I...)
I still stand by my convictions. Whoever wins this time is in for a world of hurt. I do love Hillary's ploy of acting like it's sewn up and offering Obama the VP slot. How typical that they do that, I truly love it. And the kicker is, she has always been the smarter one. I wonder why she wants it now, when 2012 looks sooooo much more promising.
If I was at the RNC, I would let the winner from the 2 of them run unopposed. Why beat up the war chest when you don't have to?
Of course, there is also always the chance of a republican win? That would probably serve the Democrats better than a victory in '08. Let a republocrat take the fall for the economy/war and then clean house. Trouble is, politicians are never that far sighted.
Reminds of Heinlein's starship troopers. Only let veterans vote. You can only get the franchise if you have done something to earn it. ??
Poor Hillary, if she wins, she loses the court of public opinion. She'll be endlessly beat up for anything she says/does all because her plumbing is inside. She's a freaking genius and capable political mind. Worse yet is Obama, if he wins, he will most likely die in office. It sickens me to say it, but I fear it with every fiber of my being. America is not ready for a black president, sad to say. Too many NASCAR fans.
<sigh> the waters in the political arena have muddied recently, and there is nought to do but see who can buy more super delegates. Nice thing about the democrats is that they do their scandalous, back room politics in front of everyone. I wonder how much money is, right now, changing hands all over the DNC. The republicans are lucky, we don't have to do that this time. but if they did, it would all be back room, hush-hush stuff, and nobody would notice mike wallace and his camera crew...
I do love a country where the leadership is up to who ever has the most money. Perhaps the ultimate expression of capitalism?
(I haven’t posted Tony’s Reply, because I don’t have his permission.... yet :)
Who else, your friendly moderator
I posted that without edit, btw...
Losing Mississippi, a shocker for Hillary.
Geraldine Ferraro - Proving you can be very stupid in several decades worth of news clips.
Can Hillary actually do more to make a mockery of this than she has already? We all know Ferraro's slip (err comments) were not unguarded, any more than the VP offer was a slip. But come on, she is starting to sound like a republican who gets caught in a scandal - very shrill and hypocritical.
And all the while, money is being spent on ad buys and superdelegate bartering.... <sigh> BTW - heard a rumour that Hillary is buying ads at a 15% margin while Obama is getting in at 11%. Over the course of the campaign, that's HUGE... Purely unsubstantiated though...
Thursday, March 13, 2008 - 04:33 AM
The VP "offer" wasn't even a slip. This is one of those cases where my compatriots in the media made a story out of nothing.
The story started like this:
Good Morning America question:
Could we see a Clinton-Obama or Obama ticket?
Anything's possible, but first we have to find out who's going to be on the top of the ticket.
That is what the media has called Hillary offering the VP spot to Barack. All of the successive comment has, likewise, been in response to questions.
My pet peeve is the Obama camp -- only because they currently lead the delegate count -- saying the role the superdelegates should play is simply ratifying the pledged delegate count. Clearly, that is not the role they were intended to have. If they were merely a rubberstamp, why bother having them at all? The pledged delegates could decide it on their own. No, the superdelegates were created as a check for just such an instance as what we see this year.
Remember, the superdelegates are elected officials and party leaders, who would bear the brunt of local efforts across the country to get out the Democratic vote in November. Giving them a voice at the convention safeguards against them having to stump half-heartedly for a candidate they don't really like who had only a small margin of victory in the primary process.
By the way, what's up with these caucuses? A handful of people gathering in someone's living room gets to decide for tens of thousands of voters who their state will support at the convention? And while the caucuses may be a quaint form of grass roots democracy, we pick the eventual winner in an actual election, not caucuses. Using caucuses to choose a nominee makes about as much sense as using the results of batting practice to determine which teams make the playoffs.
In a similar vein, it's interesting to note that Clinton still leads Obama in the number of electoral votes represented by the states she has won, and electoral votes are the only stat that will count come November (or December or January, whenever it is that the College gets together).
Glad I'm not a Democrat (though I technically am for the next 90 days because I voted in their primary).
OK, end of rant. That felt good.
Thursday, March 13, 2008 - 05:42 AM