Competent tech support could be first!

Howard Dean is first!

Just want to thank Annilo and all who have been lighting candles for my grand-niece, Ally, who was diagnosed on Valentine's Day with stomach cancer, just two weeks after her first birthday.

She is in the Pediatric ICU and had a very uncomfortable day.  They may start the chemo even before all the tests are back.  The complication is that the tumor is pressing on her aorta and causing high blood pressure.

Again, just wanted to thank everyone for the prayers, good vibes, and candles.

Ally's Candle Page:
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=ALLYS

Howard Dean is Vermont's most super superdelegate!  ;-)

listener,

♥

Howard Dean is #1!  Don't let Clinton steal the election Howard!

Why didn't my comment show up?

Beertap also talks about this.  Clinton shouldn't win if she isn't able to win the majority of the regular delegates.  Take a look at Beertap's comments.

The longer you have been an established figure in your party, the better for where you stand with these super delegates. Advantage...Sen Clinton

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

these are the people with loyalty to the long term survival of the party and hold it together between candidates and they all know how much easier that is if you win, so my thinking is that they would be most susceptible to "electability" and also have been around long enough to know how much of a polarizing firgure Hillary Clinton is, so I just don't think that is a true statement.

they are much closer to fifty fifty

if you start changing rules however mid stream then how can you argue against seating Florida and Michigan?

and then ..... Advantage ...Sen. Clinton

if Obama can win the next few states like he has the last ones this contest is over, and the superdelegates will go along

if Clinton wins a completely different story

so Obama supporters need to start working on what really matters right now, winning the "pledged" delegates

A super delegates vote on the average, is the equivalent of 9,538 voters

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

a US Senator might well represent millions of voters, big city mayors hundreds of thousands

as a group they represent more voters each than do the pledged delegates

7:12pm EST

Pat, I honestly haven't seen anyone call Obama names. If you mean Obamamaniacs, or Oba..something or other stuff, I suppose you could call it childish but I've honestly seen no really mean-spirited commentary about him here. That is not true of Hillary. Some real Hil haters here that rival the freeper blogs.

Questioning his readiness for the Oval Office is not mean-spirited and that's the most consistent criticism I've seen. I tend to pop in and out so perhaps I've missed something.

Anyhoo....JRE and BO had a biggol' man-hug and apparently THAT is news;0

just kiddin' ya, Annilow.


bunions.

update on Ally at baby

http://eatapyzch.blogspot.com/

Thanks chili.  ♥

♥ listener ♥

my little guy (grandson) is doing well after almost a year in the ICU and now at home and passing tests, and the day that feeding tube comes out is a day you will never forget

his odds got into the single digits at the bottom, and he made it, Ronald McDonald house was the great blessing for my daughter in law who never missed a day of his care at the hospital

keep the faith and take any help, it is a long road

ringworm

7:44pm EST

did rae make it to Toledo?

flying has become difficult in the midwest with this weather

nervous perspiration

cChalfonte,

That's good that you haven't seen mean spiritedness.  I have.  But words mean different things to different people.

Questioning someone's fitness for office, credentials, votes, all the evidence that shows how that person is and how that person thinks  and what that person has done is not only fair, but necessary.  

I guess I'll stop my criticism now.  I've tried to make my point, and if I haven't been convincing, okay.  

I don't hate Hillary, don't even hate George Bush.  I question Hillary's ethics, wonder why after 8 years of Bill in office, she wants 8 more.  I wonder if she and Bill Clinton aren't part of the polarization that occurred in the 8 years.  I felt she was made of steel and admired her composure after the Monica Lewinsky incident.  Then I have to ask, why did she put up with his philandering all these years, actually take his part against the women: Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Wiley, etc ?  What kind of personal dynamics are going on here?

I think we have to question the candidates on their actions and statements.  What grinds me is the labeling, the predicting, the declaring what's in someone's mind, and not knowing anything at all about a candidate and thinking it's not necessary to know anything. Dumber and fatter, who was the pundit who said that? 

But, off my soapbox.  Thanks for the dialogue. 

♥ Kemo

& 

♥ Paine

 { Thank-you }

Phil wrote "The longer you have been an established figure in your party, the better for where you stand with these super delegates. Advantage...Sen Clinton."

A point of order. Don't I recall correctly that I was accused of being on some kind of Clinton payroll for airing my discontent with the Edwards candidacy, on the assumed premise that Edwards helped keep Clinton from obtaining a majority in a three way race? And didn't you argue somewhat strenuously with Sitka and others about the value of the superdelegate system to the health of the party? And aren't you now letting us know that between the two candidates, Clinton has the advantage, as the most established figure in the party, with superdelegates?

So, is it therefore logical, according to your thinking, to assume that you are being paid by the Clinton campaign to post comments here?

if you start changing rules however mid stream then how can you argue against seating Florida and Michigan?

I've read most of the comments on this blog and don't remember anyone saying the superdelagate rule should be changed now. It's the future we're debating. And if we don't do it now there won't be sufficient momentum to change anything before 2012. 

What's going on here is not an attempt to change the rule now, but pressure the politicians to cast their votes with the majority, however it turns out. They're feeling the heat and know that it may be rerun of the 1984 disaster if they disillusion the voters by casting their will aside in the name of politics-as-usual..

cC wrote "Questioning his readiness for the Oval Office is not mean-spirited and that's the most consistent criticism I've seen."

In your opinion, how would Obama's readiness for the Oval Office compare with, say, John Edwards?

What grinds me is the labeling, the predicting, the declaring what's in someone's mind

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

it is what is called "making a judgement" and every voter does

less than one in ten thousand will read the book, but since no one can know the future, every vote is based on a "hunch"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama discusses the turmoil himself in the chapter called Opportunity where he is critical of globalization

"It will mean an America that's more politically polarized  and more politically unstable, as economic frustration boils over and leads people to turn on each other."  .p.149

this boiling over is a fact of life in American politics

Actually, Phil just changes his positions and arguments as they are successively undermined and debunked.

Phil wrote "The longer you have been an established figure in your party, the better for where you stand with these super delegates. Advantage...Sen Clinton."

~~~~~~~~~~~

I didn't write that. Jeff did in the main post. I haven't seen any real evidence that Clinton has a majority of the super delegate's votes

I keep lighting candles for Ally but they never shows up. I did want to do so, i can't imagine the trauma for the family of a baby with cancer.

Delegate selection rules have been changed if Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have their delegates certified at the national nominating convention, because each of these state's selection processes were in violation of the party's rules and none have been sanctioned as Michigan and Florida were.

This is a good time to have a discussion of the next cycle's rules because once there is a nominee they will have a preponderance of the say in the matter.

Obama would probably be favorable to an Iowa start to the calendar, I doubt Hillary would be so kind to the Hawkeye State

Phil wrote "I didn't write that."

Thanks for clearing that up. There is literally no way from your post to determine whose sentiment it is being publicized.

20.

Tom wrote: In your opinion, how would Obama's readiness for the Oval Office compare with, say, John Edwards?

Or Hillary Clinton who has less experience than Obama in all categories except being a first lady whose only office is next to the WH chef's, not the oval office.

Thanks for clearing that up. There is literally no way from your post to determine whose sentiment it is being publicized.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

there would be if you had read the post at the top by Jeff Morris

Phil wrote "there would be if you had read the post at the top by Jeff Morris"

Yes, or if you attributed the fragment in any way as a quote, but I didn't read the post at the top by Jeff Morris, did I?
You, however, recognized that I quoted a fragment of your post, didn't you?

Uh Uh, Phil,

You can't possibly know what's in someone's mind.  Labeling is stereotyping, and it is fallacious, and predicting is mostly pointless if it is the basis for a judgment.  I can't agree with your reasoning at all.

Do we have opinions, of course. Do we like some people and dislike others? Yes.  Do we prefer chocolate ice cream to mint? Sure.  But, dumbness is not acceptable, nor is fallacious and specious thinking worth anything at all.  A judgment based on nothing is worth nothing.

You've hit it on the head.  We are saying dumb is okay, acceptable, the reality.  Dumb isn't okay, and we've got the dumbest president along with the dumbest administration and the dumbest stubbornness and self destriveness this country has ever seen. We've only got our own dumbness to blame for this.

self destructiveness, and I can't spell anymore according to my fingers.

Phil,

♥

So happy that your little guy is doing well.

Fix the blog, HQ.

Writer's block

We've only got our own dumbness to blame for this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

privatize the schools with vouchers and let the free market make it all better, lol

in the days leading up to 911 it was shark attacks

the media is complicit

the voters are turning out in droves for Barack Obama, Pat, I would think you would be extolling their insightful brilliance

Phil wrote: "I haven't seen any real evidence that Clinton has a majority of the super delegate's votes."

I may be unaware of what constitutes "real evidence" but notwithstanding that, the running total has her lead in the range of 75 to 78 superdelegates.

s m

thanks

for Christmas I gave him a cuddly stuffed rabbit and a exquisite hand carved wooden tortise and I figure by the time he grows out of the cuddly stage and appreciates the carving I will be able to teach him the fable, and to plug along. He may never quite get that year full of tubes back in his development, physically, he didn't do a lot of running around and playing on all those machines , a minor point though.

Tom

undeclared super delegates outnumber supporters two to one

"So, is it therefore logical, according to your thinking, to assume that you are being paid by the Clinton campaign to post comments here?"

I hear the Clinton campaign is short of cash.
I continue to believe she is better prepared to be the next POTUS
than is Obama.
Tell the HRC campaign to keep the change.

Phil wrote "undeclared super delegates outnumber supporters two to one."

True.  Since they're uncommitted, I can't take the superdelegate counts very seriously.  I think we'll see wild vacilations in these figures until the day of the convention.

This one's for Chalfonte, who wanted to see the anti-Obama e-mail that's making the rounds.

You can read it here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/mus...

Chalfonte, I fail to understand the tone of your reply. First of all, I never said Clinton's campaign was responsible for the e-mail. What I said was, I don't understand why the only people who are protesting this piece of garbage are either Obama supporters or unpledged superdelegates.

(I mean, another person on the DL when I received this particular bit of crap a month ago was even quicker off the mark than I was to tell the original sender to can it, and that person was neither an Obama supporter nor even a Dem. This is a big issue, and a no-brainer. The party should rise as one to condemn it, "IMHO", as you might say. And yet many sit there and say nothing.)

Now frankly, I have every right to raise any issue here just as you do. I should be able to do this without being name-called by your good self or anyone else (just as you should).

I have had a ringside seat for HC's entire Senatorial career, since she is my Senator. Her accomplishments, other than waiting to run for President, bave been very few, and you can pick a New Yorker at random and ask what she's ever done for our state and you will most often just get a puzzled look. "IMHO."

-- volney

Ron wrote "I continue to believe [Clinton] is better prepared to be the next POTUS than is Obama."

Can you give any reason for this belief?

9:30 PM EST

fyi - new Front thread

Senator Clinton's points in the New Hampshire debate were valid.

Specifically, the contrast between talking about change and actually
making it happen.

The Clinton budget act of 1993 was BIG CHANGE, transforming a
steadfast deficit into a surplus befiting a strong nation steading itself
for leadership into a second American Century. 

It required a tax increase of a few cents on each high income dollar.
An honest media would cite the proven fiscal effects of Clinton's budgets
against Reaganomics and the Bush tax cuts each time McCain and Bush and
any other Republican begins the looney liturgy about how tax cuts are so
great for the economy.

If you are a political animal, and HRC is, then the experience you
gain helping someone else win and hold office counts even if
you were not the candidate.

I will support Barack Obama after he wins the nomination and look for him
to grow into the challenge.  But the emotion and positive coverage of his
Camelot II campaign has not convinced me that he is capable of slaying the
dragons of globalization nor those of the vast right wing conspiracy.

That would be a shame so far as the VRWC goes.  It is ripe for the coup de
grace - couldn't even keep the GOP title away from McCain.
I know Howard has the killer instinct to finish them off.
HRC has every reason to finish them.
Don't  see that in Obama.

Phil  ~ I just saw your post.   11:12pm EST

Thank you so much for the kind words. ♥

I sort of think if Ally can make it through this week, and through
the first chemo then she might be out of the *deep* woods.

They are surrounded with excellent support, have coots in Ally's ICU room,
and have a very nice room at a special place called David's House, which
is a Victorian house with 15 bedrooms, 2 kitchens and 2 livingrooms...and
a wisely supportive staff.  

Every little bit helps. 

Thanks.  Stay tuned. 

11:14pm EST 

Phil  coots = cots

(My "o" key is exciteable.) 

I'm off for the night...verrrry tired.  XOXOXXX

On thread topic: If Obama moves ahead at some point in "super-delegate" support, will we suddenly start hearing his supporters call for counting SD's? And Clinton saying they shouldn't matter?

The "debate" over SD's has been too driven by partisans for or against Clinton and Obama. As has the "debate" over including Florida and Michigan.

We need to get back to discussing principles behind nominating a Democrat rather than taking a position based upon the current delegate count.

  To Phil:     I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm by no means stumping for Hillary! She does have an advantage in the Super Delegate Dept.(75-80, differing counts) Some of these Super Delegates committed to her a while back when she led in the polls by 25+ percent. My how things can change. I'm saying it wouldn't be right if the Super Delegates were to ignore the will of their constituents and opt for Clinton even though the majority of the Dem Primary voters prefer Obama. I go on to state how I feel he is the more electable candidate in 08 due to his ability to win in the North, South, East, West, and in the Heartland!( Still not sure Hillary can win there) I'm a bit perplexed by how anyone could conclude that my post here is stumping for Hillary? Quite the opposite actually! I'm stumping for the will of the majority of the Dem Primary voters to not be over-ruled by the parties own Super Delegates.    Jeff M.- NY