- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm #617592
dinazinaMembercharlabob and beachdrive girl, thanks very much for your support.
As I understand it from my research into the Old Guard of the Democratic Party in DC and in some states (not WA) – this is the continuation of a major inter-party power struggle that began during the Dean campaign and escalated when the state party leaders elected him DNC Chair.
The Old Guard doesn’t want this change in the power structure, in spite of their deplorable lack of political effectiveness in recent decades.
In my opinion, this upcoming reversal is mostly due to the power of the Internet in connecting citizens – and savvy, visionary campaigns that take advantage of it, as with the Obama campaign.
April 7, 2008 at 3:49 pm #617593
walfredoMemberhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/03/pennsylvania-primary-poll_n_94943.html
I don’t buy the polling yet, but I do believe the trend is real, that Pennsylvania’s are moving to Obama- like they have done in every state that had there own primary date…
It would be so cool if he could do what he did in Texas and turn a 20% deficit in a big state, into a toss-up that won’t allow her to gain more then a handful of delegates… Even Ohio where he turned a 20% deficit into a 10 point race… The only scary part in the polls, is that the pollsters actually had him closer in Ohio then in Texas (oops…)
Let’s hope these trends keep up!
April 7, 2008 at 4:05 pm #617594
charlabobParticipantDina — if you need help with campaigning for delegate, this would probably be a good place to recruit :-) We’ve been known to be activists when something piques our imagination.
Same obviously goes for other delegate candidates. I’m psyched that there seems to be actual campaigning and competition even at that level.
Sounds like there may be enough interest to create a horserace.
Are there any superdelegates who can be run against? (Ie, union reps versus union presidents?) At least we can make clear that SDs who don’t represent the will of the people will have that on their permanent records when they come up for relection. I wouldn’t advocate voting against them strictly on that basis, but I would certainly figure it into the equation.
April 7, 2008 at 4:12 pm #617595
dinazinaMemberAlso, at the 34th caucus, Obama picked up a couple more delegates…this has to be because members of the Clinton or UnCommitted delegations switched to Obama or failed to show up.
If this realignment happened in many districts in WA and other caucus states, it could potentially tilt the proportion of pledged delegates toward Obama.
April 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm #617596
beachdrivegirlParticipantHere is more information on teh Superdelegates Charla.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
I acutally am getting the pleasure of meeting a non-committed superdelegate tomorrow and I cant wait! :)
Also great news about Obama possible picking up a few more delegates, by chance do you know where the information is found?
April 7, 2008 at 4:39 pm #617597
JoBParticipantbeachdrivegirl…
i think it is exciting that you are getting the chance to meet an uncommitted superdelegate tomorrow.
Take WsMom’s advice and think through what you want to say to him/her so that what you have to say is effective.
speak from your heart… not from the campaign rhetoric.
Anyone can read the campaign literature.. but there is only one you to speak from your heart…
dinazina..
welcome.. it’s good to have another voice here.
charla:
surely you realize that there is a great difference between having your name on a bill and authoring one. did you not watch the factcheck video?
April 7, 2008 at 4:43 pm #617598
JoBParticipanti too would like to know where the +2 Obama delegates came from.
i do know that one was alloted to the undecideds.. who were mostly Obama supporters using the undecided ploy to add to their delegate count.
I wasn’t aware that there were so many Clinton delegates who didn’t show… I certainly didn’t hear about that at the caucus and i was often sitting where i think i would have… so i am very curious where that bump came from.
April 7, 2008 at 4:45 pm #617599
c@lbobMemberJoB — Of course I realize the difference; I’m simply saying that, whether you author or have your name on, the difference is in what the bills actually say and do and accomplish. As far as I know, no one has posted an actual list of the bills. So, to me, it is a meaningless metric. I would say the same if the numbers were reversed.
April 7, 2008 at 4:46 pm #617600
JoBParticipantI am going to wait till i have more time and clarity to reply to the many erroneous characterizations of the Clinton campaign.. and i am sure there will be more by the time i do…
i have guests coming and need to clean my house…
But i want to reassure you.. i am still here and will be weighing in..
April 7, 2008 at 4:46 pm #617601
c@lbobMemberobviously, that was from charlabob — didn’t realize catlbob was logged on.
April 7, 2008 at 5:45 pm #617602
AnonymousInactiveThis article on factcheck gives the real *substance* and senate records of both candidates. Be sure to scroll down to the chart.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/substance_abuse.html
April 7, 2008 at 5:50 pm #617603
dinazinaMemberJoB,
I was one of the Uncommitteds, and I switched to Obama when I signed in.
From what I can tell, the 34th’s Uncommitted Delegates were former supporters of Edwards (like me) or another candidate, who were not ready to switch their allegiance at the time of the precinct caucus. Enough other attendees agreed to elect us delegate in 15 precincts.
Fifteen is an insignificant number at the LD caucus, though, so all of us must have joined another delegation.
April 7, 2008 at 6:00 pm #617604
charlabobParticipantEdwards got 12 delegates in Iowa — 9 switched to Obama and 3 stuck with Edwards (which they can).
Thanks, JT. I’ll look when I get time. Since I never clean, that won’t be long :-)
April 7, 2008 at 6:13 pm #617605
AnonymousInactiveBDG, you state one of your reasons for supporting obama is income to charity ratios. Why do you give the amount bill/hillary made in 8 years and compare it to only 1 year of obama’s? In addition, you correctly state clintons’ charity giving at 10% but list obamas’ at 25%. All accounts show him as giving 1% until he decided to campaign and then that amount increased to 5-6% per year, not 25%. And a large portion of that is to his church, which you don’t say, but criticize where bill/hill gave theirs to.
Also, both you and BDG have stated he’s passed more bills of more substance and that is simply false. Have you read the facts yet?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/substance_abuse.html
By the way, I still don’t have a preference yet, but you should use the truth in your arguements.
April 7, 2008 at 7:06 pm #617606
dinazinaMemberJT,
I never wrote about income-to-charity ratios, nor bills of substance passed. You’re confusing me with other posters.
I wrote about bottom-up grassroots political movements versus top-down. ~Dina
April 7, 2008 at 7:06 pm #617607
beachdrivegirlParticipantI think that substance means different stuff to different people, and yes I find more substance in Obamas bills than in Hillarys. He has stepped out on a limb risking relationships in China (stopping lead paint in children’s toys), healthcare, and the mortgage industry. I think that it is important to reaed from numerous political sources and I do follow nearly every link that is poseted.
April 7, 2008 at 7:10 pm #617608
AnonymousInactiveSo sorry dina, it was beachdrivegirl. I fixed it.
April 7, 2008 at 7:21 pm #617609
charlabobParticipantWe have a new supporter — maybe he didn’t ever find the Clinton delegation :-) (I’m sorry — I think this is funny and I would if it went the other way. So it’s not necessary to “bomb bomb bomb bomb charlabob”
Shamelessly stolen from the front page of the blog:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/clinton_man_has_obama_moment.html
April 7, 2008 at 7:32 pm #617610
AnonymousInactiveBDG, you didn’t address the false info you gave about income. And then earlier you said about obama, *He has a higher success rate with the bills he has written. He has a higher margin of support too*. When I pointed out that falsehood, you decided his bills had more substance you liked. You don’t address again, that the facts you share are not true.
It’s OK if you say you just like him better. Which is what it sounds like. But to let false statements continue to stand, doesn’t seem fair.
April 7, 2008 at 7:44 pm #617611
beachdrivegirlParticipantI did not give false information about income and I will find the link to prove it. He gave an additional $200K of his book royalties last year.
Here is an additional liink that addresses the bills.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
And I am sorry I dont just check factcheck for my information and that is why sometimse it may differ from there postings. and lets not forget tha their postings are not always going to be 100% true.
April 7, 2008 at 7:53 pm #617612
AnonymousInactiveYou compared 8 years of clintons income and 1 year of obamas.
April 7, 2008 at 7:56 pm #617613
JoBParticipantfactcheck actually researches their postings and are equal opportunity when it comes to bull detection…
As for terry being a Clinton supporter.. probably not.
If he worked the crowd, he would have found roughly 25% of it pro Clinton and that left 75% Obama.
Why Obama supporters wanted to have their picture taken with terry would be unclear except for the postings in the Baltimore Sun. Apparently someone arranged those photos…
When you add innuendo to innuendo.. you still get innuendo.
amazing isn’t it.
April 7, 2008 at 8:02 pm #617614
beachdrivegirlParticipantSo you are right he did donate roughly 4-5% of his income previously, but he also gave a couple of speeches for free one of which raised $150,000 for a Omaha girls club and he volunteered much of his time to many other Chicago based philanthropies. And if you really want to go back and be nitpicky lets go to 1992 when it came out that Bill Clinton had actually included in his charitable donations $75 deduction for donating a suit with ripped pants to the Salvation Army, as well as $2 for a pair of used underwear and $9 for six pairs of used socks. You still never adderssed why more than half of the Clintons donations went to their own charity… and that money hasnt been used yet.
April 7, 2008 at 8:04 pm #617615
JoBParticipantbeachdrivegirl…
are you aware that when you psoted a defense of obama’s charity spending, you linked to the blog comment that was the basis for the email that was debunked by factcheck this week on his senate record?
half way through it i realized i had seen it here before.. and having seen the email that was debunked .. realized it was the basis for that email.
again. adding innuendo to innuendo just produces more innuendo.
April 7, 2008 at 8:07 pm #617616
charlabobParticipantOK, since we’re not going to have a sense of humor about anything, and we’re going to postulate innuendo, Terry McAuliffe is the ultimate opportunist. He was when he was chair of the national committee, he was instrumental in trying to keep Dean from being chair, he’s DLC all the way, and Clinton will have bus tracks all over her pantsuit the minute he senses a wind change.
I thought the pix were funny — assuming he can read, I now think he was just being prescient. OK? UNHUMOROUS enough for you????
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.