Deal: Clinton's Name Will Be Placed in Nomination at Dems Convention
August 14, 2008 11:09 AM
ABC News' Kate Snow reports: A deal has been brokered between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that will allow Clinton's name to be placed in nomination at next week's Democratic nominating convention, sources close to the Clinton camp told ABC News.
"Both sides agree that it is in the best interest of party unity and making sure that everyone's voice and vote is honored to make sure her name is put into nomination," a person close the negotiations said. "It's to honor everyone who worked so hard on both sides."
The two sides have been jockeying over how to win over Clinton supporters who were bitterly disappointed by her loss and the chance of seeing the first woman to win the presidential nomination of a major political party.
It is also apparent that Clinton is not being seriously considered as a running mate for Obama.
The deal to allow Clinton to be nominated is meant to help mollify those hurt feelings.
It was unclear, however, whether the Obama and Clinton will make the announcement jointly or separately.
The details still being worked out, but Clinton's name will be put into nomination at the Denver convention on Wednesday. That will be one day after Clinton addresses the convention.
"This truly was a joint decision," according to the Clinton source. "This wasn't something she was itching for, looking for. But so many of her supporters said it was important to them. And the Obama people got how important it was to smooth over any tensions and that it was the right thing to do."
What also hasn't been settled yet is who will nominate Clinton and whether she will stand up with the New York delegation when they are called on.
What has been settled, however, is that after both Clinton and Obama names are placed into nomination there will be a roll call vote.
What has also been hashed out is that at some point during the convention, Clinton will release her delegates officialy to Obama and that she will make it very clear that she is voting for Obama, the source said.
One more thing...
As of last night, there are still no decisions on whether Chelsea Clinton will speak at the convention, although a Clinton source said, "I wouldn't be surprised if she did" introduce her mother.
That would make the convention a true family affair with Hillary, Bill and Chelsea Clinton all having podium time.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...clintons-n.html
Hillary Clinton taps her own video production team for Democratic convention
By THOMAS DeFRANK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
Thursday, August 14th 2008, 1:56 AM
WASHINGTON - She's already snagged plum speaking gigs for herself, her husband and their daughter, so what else does Hillary Clinton want at the Denver convention?
Her own production team for the introductory video.
Democratic officials told the Daily News Wednesday that the video preceding Hillary's Aug. 26 prime-talk talk will be produced by Arkansas pals Harry Thomason and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, best known for creating the TV sitcom "Designing Women."
These officials said that while many other convention speakers will also rate videos, Clinton negotiators insisted on Hillary having her own video team instead of letting Barack Obama's convention planners handle the production.
Thomason and his wife aren't exactly strangers to the convention game; they produced "The Man from Hope," the widely-acclaimed video biography of Bill Clinton premiering at the 1992 Democratic national convention.
Harry Thomason is the more controversial of the pair: he was involved in the firing of White House travel office employees in President Clinton's first term, testified before a grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal and lobbied Bill Clinton to pardon two Arkansas men in the final hours of his presidency.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...ideo_produ.html
2012 anyone ?
By THOMAS DeFRANK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
Thursday, August 14th 2008, 1:56 AM
WASHINGTON - She's already snagged plum speaking gigs for herself, her husband and their daughter, so what else does Hillary Clinton want at the Denver convention?
Her own production team for the introductory video.
Democratic officials told the Daily News Wednesday that the video preceding Hillary's Aug. 26 prime-talk talk will be produced by Arkansas pals Harry Thomason and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, best known for creating the TV sitcom "Designing Women."
These officials said that while many other convention speakers will also rate videos, Clinton negotiators insisted on Hillary having her own video team instead of letting Barack Obama's convention planners handle the production.
Thomason and his wife aren't exactly strangers to the convention game; they produced "The Man from Hope," the widely-acclaimed video biography of Bill Clinton premiering at the 1992 Democratic national convention.
Harry Thomason is the more controversial of the pair: he was involved in the firing of White House travel office employees in President Clinton's first term, testified before a grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal and lobbied Bill Clinton to pardon two Arkansas men in the final hours of his presidency.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...ideo_produ.html
2012 anyone ?
I don't mind this.
Although, it may have been best if they created a deal before hand to be a coming together of a show of two firsts. As it is a historic primary where it was the first time a Black Man and a woman were head to head on having a very good shot at being the President.
Glad to know that a deal has been reached.
Although, it may have been best if they created a deal before hand to be a coming together of a show of two firsts. As it is a historic primary where it was the first time a Black Man and a woman were head to head on having a very good shot at being the President.
Glad to know that a deal has been reached.
the fix is in
Hillary deals like Bush does
YOu do this 100% the way i say, and I will say we compromised
Hillary deals like Bush does
YOu do this 100% the way i say, and I will say we compromised
Now we see just how sincere she was when she declared Obama to be the nominee back when...
This is pure BS... and tells exactly how egocentric, self-absorbed, powerhungry and selfish the Clintons are. It has been apparent since that time as Hillary has been almost conspicuously absent on the campaign trail. Maybe she will do more after the convention, but so far that has been an empty promise and one very easily seen through.
This will be played as "giving her voters a voice"... but the writing is already on the wall and this is more likely to continue the divisiveness rather than healing the wounds and she should have already begun the healing process instead of perpetuating the unspoken promise of a convention battle or presence. As far as issues she there is no substantial difference in positions between herself and Obama so that voice is for nothing but Hillary and sexism.
Sorry folks... if I'm wrong, but I see this as being a pure Clinton political move and aimed solely at benefiting Hillary at the expense of the Party.
Looks like she still doesn't get it.
Flame away folks... flame McCain right into the White House.
This had better not backfire...
I wonder if this has anything to do with it?
Print E-mail August 13, 2008
Gender Gap Among White Voters Bigger Now Than in 2004Obama loses to McCain among white men, ties him among white womenUSA Democrats Election 2008 Republicans Americas Northern America by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- John McCain continues to have a significant advantage over Barack Obama among non-Hispanic white males while doing much less well among white females -- winning among the former by a 20-point margin, while only tying Obama among the latter.
This finding, based on Gallup Poll Daily tracking interviews with more than 8,200 non-Hispanic white registered voters conducted between Aug. 1 and Aug. 11, shows that McCain now does slightly better among white men compared to George W. Bush's final position against John Kerry in the 2004 election. But McCain is doing worse among white women. The net effect of this expanded gender gap is to give Obama a slightly better position among whites than was the case for Kerry in 2004.
The Gender Gap Among Whites in Historical Perspective
Democratic presidential candidates have generally done less well among white men than among white women in recent elections. But the gap between the two genders among whites is significantly larger this year than it was in 2004. In Gallup's final poll of registered voters in late October 2004, Kerry trailed Bush by 9 points among non-Hispanic white women and by 16 points among non-Hispanic white men. That produced a 7-point gender gap, about one-third the size of this year's 20-point gap.
McCain's relative advantage among men is slightly better this year than was Bush's in 2004. But McCain has lost ground to Obama among white women; Bush's 9-point lead over Kerry among this group four years ago has evaporated.
The larger gender gap overall is giving Obama a modest boost compared to the final positioning of the 2004 candidates. In Gallup's late October 2004 poll, Kerry was behind Bush by 12 points among non-Hispanic white registered voters. This year, Obama is down to McCain by a modestly smaller 9-point margin. Obama's gains among white women more than compensate for his slight loss of positioning among white men.
Education
The impact of education in patterns of support for Obama and McCain plays out differently between white men and white women.
Among men, McCain leads regardless of education. He does particularly well among white men with some college and those who are college graduates, slightly less well among those who have high school educations or less, and least well among white men with postgraduate educations (among whom he wins by just 6 points).
The pattern is somewhat different among non-Hispanic white women. Obama trails McCain by 7 points among white women with high school educations or less, and then does progressively better among those with higher levels of formal education. Obama beats McCain by a slight margin among white women who are college graduates. Remarkably, Obama has a very large 25-point margin among white women with postgraduate degrees.
Implications
The slightly weaker position for McCain vis-à-vis Obama among whites is not a major shift, but does represent a loss for McCain compared to his fellow Republican's performance among whites in 2004.
The data reviewed here show that the explanation lies with Obama's stronger showing among white women. Whereas Bush led Kerry by 9 points among white women in 2004, McCain and Obama are now tied among this group. This gain by Obama is partially mitigated by the fact that he does slightly less well among white men than did Kerry, but the net impact of the widening gender gap overall is a gain for Obama among whites.
There has been much talk about Obama's relative problems this year in reaching white men, particularly those with less than a college education. The data reviewed here from early August show that Obama in general does indeed trail McCain significantly among white men, particularly those who have a college degree or less. This white male deficit appears to be slightly larger than it was for Kerry in 2004. But Obama's relative strength among white women, particularly those with postgraduate educations, has to this point more than made up for his deficit among white men.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 9,817 registered voters, aged 18 and older, conducted Aug. 1-11, 2008, and 8,208 registered voters who are non-Hispanic whites. For results based on both of these samples, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point, with larger margins of sampling error among subgroups.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
To provide feedback or suggestions about how to improve Gallup.com, please e-mail feedback@gallup.com.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109456/Gender-G...-Than-2004.aspx
FACTBOX - Race as a factor in the U.S. election
Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:12am EDT
(Reuters) - The issue of race has been at the centre of a series of disputes during this year's U.S. presidential election because Democratic candidate Barack Obama is black and would be the first African American president.
-- Obama told an audience in July his rival, Republican candidate John McCain, was trying to scare voters by pointing out he had "a funny name and he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five-dollar bills."
McCain said that by falsely presenting him as racist, Obama was shamelessly employing an underhand tactic to appeal for votes. McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said Obama had "played the race card."
-- A July cover of the New Yorker magazine showed a cartoon of Obama wearing a turban and his wife, Michelle, holding a gun. Obama said the cover could encourage misconceptions about him. The magazine said the cover was intended as satire.
-- Then-Democratic contender Hillary Clinton referred in May to Bobby Kennedy's assassination in June 1968 as an example of how Democratic nomination campaigns sometimes stretch into June. Critics said she was implying Obama might be assassinated, an interpretation that Clinton rejected.
-- In May, Clinton cited a poll she said showed her appeal among white voters would be crucial to defeating the Republican Party in November's election. She said Obama's support was weakening "among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans." She denied the remark was divisive.
-- Sermons by Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright in which he said "God damn America" and castigated the country for its racial policies rocked Obama's campaign when they were repeatedly played on television in March.
Many voters said Obama's long association with Wright put his judgment and trustworthiness in doubt. Obama gave a wide-ranging speech on race in a bid to dispel concerns.
-- Former President Bill Clinton compared Obama's win in South Carolina's primary in January to the victories of black civil rights leader Jesse Jackson in the state in 1984 and 1988. Critics said Clinton was playing down Obama's victory and belittling black voters. Clinton said that interpretation was unfair.
-- Hillary Clinton said in January that the civil rights movement would not have had the successes it had if Lyndon Johnson, president from 1963 to 1969, had not pushed crucial legislation. Prominent blacks said the remark was dismissive of Rev. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement.
-- Prominent businessman Robert Johnson, a Clinton supporter, made an apparent reference to Obama using drugs as a youth. Obama has said he used drugs but Johnson was criticized for highlighting a divisive issue.
-- In February 2007, then-Democratic hopeful Joseph Biden described Obama as "articulate and bright and clean." Critics said his words were patronizing and suggested he was surprised a black man could be articulate and clean. Biden apologized.
(Writing by Matthew Bigg; editing by Michael Christie)
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...435279820080814
I wonder if this has anything to do with it?
Print E-mail August 13, 2008
Gender Gap Among White Voters Bigger Now Than in 2004Obama loses to McCain among white men, ties him among white womenUSA Democrats Election 2008 Republicans Americas Northern America by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- John McCain continues to have a significant advantage over Barack Obama among non-Hispanic white males while doing much less well among white females -- winning among the former by a 20-point margin, while only tying Obama among the latter.
This finding, based on Gallup Poll Daily tracking interviews with more than 8,200 non-Hispanic white registered voters conducted between Aug. 1 and Aug. 11, shows that McCain now does slightly better among white men compared to George W. Bush's final position against John Kerry in the 2004 election. But McCain is doing worse among white women. The net effect of this expanded gender gap is to give Obama a slightly better position among whites than was the case for Kerry in 2004.
The Gender Gap Among Whites in Historical Perspective
Democratic presidential candidates have generally done less well among white men than among white women in recent elections. But the gap between the two genders among whites is significantly larger this year than it was in 2004. In Gallup's final poll of registered voters in late October 2004, Kerry trailed Bush by 9 points among non-Hispanic white women and by 16 points among non-Hispanic white men. That produced a 7-point gender gap, about one-third the size of this year's 20-point gap.
McCain's relative advantage among men is slightly better this year than was Bush's in 2004. But McCain has lost ground to Obama among white women; Bush's 9-point lead over Kerry among this group four years ago has evaporated.
The larger gender gap overall is giving Obama a modest boost compared to the final positioning of the 2004 candidates. In Gallup's late October 2004 poll, Kerry was behind Bush by 12 points among non-Hispanic white registered voters. This year, Obama is down to McCain by a modestly smaller 9-point margin. Obama's gains among white women more than compensate for his slight loss of positioning among white men.
Education
The impact of education in patterns of support for Obama and McCain plays out differently between white men and white women.
Among men, McCain leads regardless of education. He does particularly well among white men with some college and those who are college graduates, slightly less well among those who have high school educations or less, and least well among white men with postgraduate educations (among whom he wins by just 6 points).
The pattern is somewhat different among non-Hispanic white women. Obama trails McCain by 7 points among white women with high school educations or less, and then does progressively better among those with higher levels of formal education. Obama beats McCain by a slight margin among white women who are college graduates. Remarkably, Obama has a very large 25-point margin among white women with postgraduate degrees.
Implications
The slightly weaker position for McCain vis-à-vis Obama among whites is not a major shift, but does represent a loss for McCain compared to his fellow Republican's performance among whites in 2004.
The data reviewed here show that the explanation lies with Obama's stronger showing among white women. Whereas Bush led Kerry by 9 points among white women in 2004, McCain and Obama are now tied among this group. This gain by Obama is partially mitigated by the fact that he does slightly less well among white men than did Kerry, but the net impact of the widening gender gap overall is a gain for Obama among whites.
There has been much talk about Obama's relative problems this year in reaching white men, particularly those with less than a college education. The data reviewed here from early August show that Obama in general does indeed trail McCain significantly among white men, particularly those who have a college degree or less. This white male deficit appears to be slightly larger than it was for Kerry in 2004. But Obama's relative strength among white women, particularly those with postgraduate educations, has to this point more than made up for his deficit among white men.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 9,817 registered voters, aged 18 and older, conducted Aug. 1-11, 2008, and 8,208 registered voters who are non-Hispanic whites. For results based on both of these samples, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point, with larger margins of sampling error among subgroups.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
To provide feedback or suggestions about how to improve Gallup.com, please e-mail feedback@gallup.com.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109456/Gender-G...-Than-2004.aspx
FACTBOX - Race as a factor in the U.S. election
Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:12am EDT
(Reuters) - The issue of race has been at the centre of a series of disputes during this year's U.S. presidential election because Democratic candidate Barack Obama is black and would be the first African American president.
-- Obama told an audience in July his rival, Republican candidate John McCain, was trying to scare voters by pointing out he had "a funny name and he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five-dollar bills."
McCain said that by falsely presenting him as racist, Obama was shamelessly employing an underhand tactic to appeal for votes. McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said Obama had "played the race card."
-- A July cover of the New Yorker magazine showed a cartoon of Obama wearing a turban and his wife, Michelle, holding a gun. Obama said the cover could encourage misconceptions about him. The magazine said the cover was intended as satire.
-- Then-Democratic contender Hillary Clinton referred in May to Bobby Kennedy's assassination in June 1968 as an example of how Democratic nomination campaigns sometimes stretch into June. Critics said she was implying Obama might be assassinated, an interpretation that Clinton rejected.
-- In May, Clinton cited a poll she said showed her appeal among white voters would be crucial to defeating the Republican Party in November's election. She said Obama's support was weakening "among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans." She denied the remark was divisive.
-- Sermons by Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright in which he said "God damn America" and castigated the country for its racial policies rocked Obama's campaign when they were repeatedly played on television in March.
Many voters said Obama's long association with Wright put his judgment and trustworthiness in doubt. Obama gave a wide-ranging speech on race in a bid to dispel concerns.
-- Former President Bill Clinton compared Obama's win in South Carolina's primary in January to the victories of black civil rights leader Jesse Jackson in the state in 1984 and 1988. Critics said Clinton was playing down Obama's victory and belittling black voters. Clinton said that interpretation was unfair.
-- Hillary Clinton said in January that the civil rights movement would not have had the successes it had if Lyndon Johnson, president from 1963 to 1969, had not pushed crucial legislation. Prominent blacks said the remark was dismissive of Rev. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement.
-- Prominent businessman Robert Johnson, a Clinton supporter, made an apparent reference to Obama using drugs as a youth. Obama has said he used drugs but Johnson was criticized for highlighting a divisive issue.
-- In February 2007, then-Democratic hopeful Joseph Biden described Obama as "articulate and bright and clean." Critics said his words were patronizing and suggested he was surprised a black man could be articulate and clean. Biden apologized.
(Writing by Matthew Bigg; editing by Michael Christie)
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...435279820080814
obama has the female vote in the bag
obama creams mccain in hispanic vote
white males haven't voted democratic since LBJ
obama creams mccain in hispanic vote
white males haven't voted democratic since LBJ
DA FIX IS IN G$A.
They are going to nominate Hillary in the first round.
They are going to nominate Hillary in the first round.
their seems to be a common misrepresentation on the terms
A regular roll call will just be a formality for Obama
It cannot lead to a different person. Period. End story.
Obama haters will be disappointed...
though why the Obama haters want Hillary - did she hump a chick or whatever those words are? Bill and Hll never served.
So why would they be alreight if Obama isn't? makes one wonder.
A regular roll call will just be a formality for Obama
It cannot lead to a different person. Period. End story.
Obama haters will be disappointed...
though why the Obama haters want Hillary - did she hump a chick or whatever those words are? Bill and Hll never served.
So why would they be alreight if Obama isn't? makes one wonder.
"Hump a clic"
Only person to ever use this phrase appears to be IH.
A google search returns only 4 results for the whole internet... and every single one of them is from a post by IH on this and other forums.
So... hump a clic, a duck, a frog, your chick, or whatever.
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Aug 14 2008, 12:44 PM) 
their seems to be a common misrepresentation on the terms
A regular roll call will just be a formality for Obama
It cannot lead to a different person. Period. End story.
Obama haters will be disappointed...
though why the Obama haters want Hillary - did she hump a chick or whatever those words are? Bill and Hll never served.
So why would they be alreight if Obama isn't? makes one wonder.
A regular roll call will just be a formality for Obama
It cannot lead to a different person. Period. End story.
Obama haters will be disappointed...
though why the Obama haters want Hillary - did she hump a chick or whatever those words are? Bill and Hll never served.
So why would they be alreight if Obama isn't? makes one wonder.
Keep believing that G4A, the delegates can go to who ever they want too. It would give me a good chuckle to see that huckster Obama out weaseled by a couple a old politicians like the Clintons.
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 02:03 PM)
"Hump a clic"
Only person to ever use this phrase appears to be IH.
A google search returns only 4 results for the whole internet... and every single one of them is from a post by IH on this and other forums.
So... hump a clic, a duck, a frog, your chick, or whatever.
Only person to ever use this phrase appears to be IH.
A google search returns only 4 results for the whole internet... and every single one of them is from a post by IH on this and other forums.
So... hump a clic, a duck, a frog, your chick, or whatever.
Good detective work niteowl!!!
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 09:25 AM)
Now we see just how sincere she was when she declared Obama to be the nominee back when...
This is pure BS... and tells exactly how egocentric, self-absorbed, powerhungry and selfish the Clintons are. It has been apparent since that time as Hillary has been almost conspicuously absent on the campaign trail. Maybe she will do more after the convention, but so far that has been an empty promise and one very easily seen through.
This will be played as "giving her voters a voice"... but the writing is already on the wall and this is more likely to continue the divisiveness rather than healing the wounds and she should have already begun the healing process instead of perpetuating the unspoken promise of a convention battle or presence. As far as issues she there is no substantial difference in positions between herself and Obama so that voice is for nothing but Hillary and sexism.
Sorry folks... if I'm wrong, but I see this as being a pure Clinton political move and aimed solely at benefiting Hillary at the expense of the Party.
Looks like she still doesn't get it.
Flame away folks... flame McCain right into the White House.
This is pure BS... and tells exactly how egocentric, self-absorbed, powerhungry and selfish the Clintons are. It has been apparent since that time as Hillary has been almost conspicuously absent on the campaign trail. Maybe she will do more after the convention, but so far that has been an empty promise and one very easily seen through.
This will be played as "giving her voters a voice"... but the writing is already on the wall and this is more likely to continue the divisiveness rather than healing the wounds and she should have already begun the healing process instead of perpetuating the unspoken promise of a convention battle or presence. As far as issues she there is no substantial difference in positions between herself and Obama so that voice is for nothing but Hillary and sexism.
Sorry folks... if I'm wrong, but I see this as being a pure Clinton political move and aimed solely at benefiting Hillary at the expense of the Party.
Looks like she still doesn't get it.
Flame away folks... flame McCain right into the White House.
Obamas camp could have said no, so why did they agree to it?
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Aug 14 2008, 12:44 PM)
their seems to be a common misrepresentation on the terms
A regular roll call will just be a formality for Obama
It cannot lead to a different person. Period. End story.
Obama haters will be disappointed...
though why the Obama haters want Hillary - did she hump a chick or whatever those words are? Bill and Hll never served.
So why would they be alreight if Obama isn't? makes one wonder.
A regular roll call will just be a formality for Obama
It cannot lead to a different person. Period. End story.
Obama haters will be disappointed...
though why the Obama haters want Hillary - did she hump a chick or whatever those words are? Bill and Hll never served.
So why would they be alreight if Obama isn't? makes one wonder.
Hmmm................according to all the smear Hillary sites she probably has.
QUOTE(Marine @ Aug 14 2008, 02:05 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Aug 14 2008, 12:44 PM)
their seems to be a common misrepresentation on the terms
A regular roll call will just be a formality for Obama
It cannot lead to a different person. Period. End story.
Obama haters will be disappointed...
though why the Obama haters want Hillary - did she hump a chick or whatever those words are? Bill and Hll never served.
So why would they be alreight if Obama isn't? makes one wonder.
A regular roll call will just be a formality for Obama
It cannot lead to a different person. Period. End story.
Obama haters will be disappointed...
though why the Obama haters want Hillary - did she hump a chick or whatever those words are? Bill and Hll never served.
So why would they be alreight if Obama isn't? makes one wonder.
Keep believing that G4A, the delegates can go to who ever they want too. It would give me a good chuckle to see that huckster Obama out weaseled by a couple a old politicians like the Clintons.
Well lots of people have their own fantasies, don't they Marine?
QUOTE(Terra @ Aug 14 2008, 02:06 PM)
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 09:25 AM)
Now we see just how sincere she was when she declared Obama to be the nominee back when...
This is pure BS... and tells exactly how egocentric, self-absorbed, powerhungry and selfish the Clintons are. It has been apparent since that time as Hillary has been almost conspicuously absent on the campaign trail. Maybe she will do more after the convention, but so far that has been an empty promise and one very easily seen through.
This will be played as "giving her voters a voice"... but the writing is already on the wall and this is more likely to continue the divisiveness rather than healing the wounds and she should have already begun the healing process instead of perpetuating the unspoken promise of a convention battle or presence. As far as issues she there is no substantial difference in positions between herself and Obama so that voice is for nothing but Hillary and sexism.
Sorry folks... if I'm wrong, but I see this as being a pure Clinton political move and aimed solely at benefiting Hillary at the expense of the Party.
Looks like she still doesn't get it.
Flame away folks... flame McCain right into the White House.
This is pure BS... and tells exactly how egocentric, self-absorbed, powerhungry and selfish the Clintons are. It has been apparent since that time as Hillary has been almost conspicuously absent on the campaign trail. Maybe she will do more after the convention, but so far that has been an empty promise and one very easily seen through.
This will be played as "giving her voters a voice"... but the writing is already on the wall and this is more likely to continue the divisiveness rather than healing the wounds and she should have already begun the healing process instead of perpetuating the unspoken promise of a convention battle or presence. As far as issues she there is no substantial difference in positions between herself and Obama so that voice is for nothing but Hillary and sexism.
Sorry folks... if I'm wrong, but I see this as being a pure Clinton political move and aimed solely at benefiting Hillary at the expense of the Party.
Looks like she still doesn't get it.
Flame away folks... flame McCain right into the White House.
Obamas camp could have said no, so why did they agree to it?
I would assume they must see alternatives as being worse...
I don't see where there is anything to gain. Those who oppose Obama aren't likely to change their mind just because of a smoke and mirrors charade at the convention. Maybe I'm wrong... and that some will be appeased and feel that somehow their views (?) were represented. This is all just personal bias and emotion and nothing else imho. But... as IH would say... that's just me.
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 12:03 PM)
"Hump a clic"
Only person to ever use this phrase appears to be IH.
A google search returns only 4 results for the whole internet... and every single one of them is from a post by IH on this and other forums.
So... hump a clic, a duck, a frog, your chick, or whatever.
Only person to ever use this phrase appears to be IH.
A google search returns only 4 results for the whole internet... and every single one of them is from a post by IH on this and other forums.
So... hump a clic, a duck, a frog, your chick, or whatever.
It is as I explained it before...except I thought a clic was a mile and its a km
Its hiking a kilometer...
So we can all be on the same page...with IH...
Its not "clic" --- its really a "klick"...
http://www.1stcavmedic.com/glossary.html
klick: kilometer
hump: grunt term to march or walk carrying a rucksack in the field.
http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML...r%20'K'
klick
kilometer
http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML..._Gloss_D_J.html
hump
march or hike carrying a rucksack; to perform any arduous task
http://members.aol.com/usmilbrats/glossary/h.htm
HUMP
ROTATION PERIOD, USUALLY 25 DAYS IN FIELD [VN]
I missed it before... but not now. Thanks for the clarification Taz.
I had my own interpretation of what it meant.. and was off by about a click or two.
QUOTE(Terra @ Aug 14 2008, 12:06 PM)
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 09:25 AM)
Now we see just how sincere she was when she declared Obama to be the nominee back when...
This is pure BS... and tells exactly how egocentric, self-absorbed, powerhungry and selfish the Clintons are. It has been apparent since that time as Hillary has been almost conspicuously absent on the campaign trail. Maybe she will do more after the convention, but so far that has been an empty promise and one very easily seen through.
This will be played as "giving her voters a voice"... but the writing is already on the wall and this is more likely to continue the divisiveness rather than healing the wounds and she should have already begun the healing process instead of perpetuating the unspoken promise of a convention battle or presence. As far as issues she there is no substantial difference in positions between herself and Obama so that voice is for nothing but Hillary and sexism.
Sorry folks... if I'm wrong, but I see this as being a pure Clinton political move and aimed solely at benefiting Hillary at the expense of the Party.
Looks like she still doesn't get it.
Flame away folks... flame McCain right into the White House.
This is pure BS... and tells exactly how egocentric, self-absorbed, powerhungry and selfish the Clintons are. It has been apparent since that time as Hillary has been almost conspicuously absent on the campaign trail. Maybe she will do more after the convention, but so far that has been an empty promise and one very easily seen through.
This will be played as "giving her voters a voice"... but the writing is already on the wall and this is more likely to continue the divisiveness rather than healing the wounds and she should have already begun the healing process instead of perpetuating the unspoken promise of a convention battle or presence. As far as issues she there is no substantial difference in positions between herself and Obama so that voice is for nothing but Hillary and sexism.
Sorry folks... if I'm wrong, but I see this as being a pure Clinton political move and aimed solely at benefiting Hillary at the expense of the Party.
Looks like she still doesn't get it.
Flame away folks... flame McCain right into the White House.
Obamas camp could have said no, so why did they agree to it?
Did you read my post above...
Obama is doing poorly among white voters...particularly males, but better with females...
He feels that he needs a united party to win in 2008 and the best way to get that is to accede to the demands of Hillary Clinton...and her supporters.
Its all below...and above...
The Obama camp is nervous. They want to win. This is the bottom line.
August 13, 2008
Gender Gap Among White Voters Bigger Now Than in 2004Obama loses to McCain among white men, ties him among white womenUSA Democrats Election 2008 Republicans Americas Northern America by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- John McCain continues to have a significant advantage over Barack Obama among non-Hispanic white males while doing much less well among white females -- winning among the former by a 20-point margin, while only tying Obama among the latter.
This finding, based on Gallup Poll Daily tracking interviews with more than 8,200 non-Hispanic white registered voters conducted between Aug. 1 and Aug. 11, shows that McCain now does slightly better among white men compared to George W. Bush's final position against John Kerry in the 2004 election. But McCain is doing worse among white women. The net effect of this expanded gender gap is to give Obama a slightly better position among whites than was the case for Kerry in 2004.
The Gender Gap Among Whites in Historical Perspective
Democratic presidential candidates have generally done less well among white men than among white women in recent elections. But the gap between the two genders among whites is significantly larger this year than it was in 2004. In Gallup's final poll of registered voters in late October 2004, Kerry trailed Bush by 9 points among non-Hispanic white women and by 16 points among non-Hispanic white men. That produced a 7-point gender gap, about one-third the size of this year's 20-point gap.
McCain's relative advantage among men is slightly better this year than was Bush's in 2004. But McCain has lost ground to Obama among white women; Bush's 9-point lead over Kerry among this group four years ago has evaporated.
The larger gender gap overall is giving Obama a modest boost compared to the final positioning of the 2004 candidates. In Gallup's late October 2004 poll, Kerry was behind Bush by 12 points among non-Hispanic white registered voters. This year, Obama is down to McCain by a modestly smaller 9-point margin. Obama's gains among white women more than compensate for his slight loss of positioning among white men.
Education
The impact of education in patterns of support for Obama and McCain plays out differently between white men and white women.
Among men, McCain leads regardless of education. He does particularly well among white men with some college and those who are college graduates, slightly less well among those who have high school educations or less, and least well among white men with postgraduate educations (among whom he wins by just 6 points).
The pattern is somewhat different among non-Hispanic white women. Obama trails McCain by 7 points among white women with high school educations or less, and then does progressively better among those with higher levels of formal education. Obama beats McCain by a slight margin among white women who are college graduates. Remarkably, Obama has a very large 25-point margin among white women with postgraduate degrees.
Implications
The slightly weaker position for McCain vis-à-vis Obama among whites is not a major shift, but does represent a loss for McCain compared to his fellow Republican's performance among whites in 2004.
The data reviewed here show that the explanation lies with Obama's stronger showing among white women. Whereas Bush led Kerry by 9 points among white women in 2004, McCain and Obama are now tied among this group. This gain by Obama is partially mitigated by the fact that he does slightly less well among white men than did Kerry, but the net impact of the widening gender gap overall is a gain for Obama among whites.
There has been much talk about Obama's relative problems this year in reaching white men, particularly those with less than a college education. The data reviewed here from early August show that Obama in general does indeed trail McCain significantly among white men, particularly those who have a college degree or less. This white male deficit appears to be slightly larger than it was for Kerry in 2004. But Obama's relative strength among white women, particularly those with postgraduate educations, has to this point more than made up for his deficit among white men.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 9,817 registered voters, aged 18 and older, conducted Aug. 1-11, 2008, and 8,208 registered voters who are non-Hispanic whites. For results based on both of these samples, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point, with larger margins of sampling error among subgroups.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
To provide feedback or suggestions about how to improve Gallup.com, please e-mail feedback@gallup.com.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109456/Gender-G...-Than-2004.aspx
FACTBOX - Race as a factor in the U.S. election
Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:12am EDT
(Reuters) - The issue of race has been at the centre of a series of disputes during this year's U.S. presidential election because Democratic candidate Barack Obama is black and would be the first African American president.
-- Obama told an audience in July his rival, Republican candidate John McCain, was trying to scare voters by pointing out he had "a funny name and he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five-dollar bills."
McCain said that by falsely presenting him as racist, Obama was shamelessly employing an underhand tactic to appeal for votes. McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said Obama had "played the race card."
-- A July cover of the New Yorker magazine showed a cartoon of Obama wearing a turban and his wife, Michelle, holding a gun. Obama said the cover could encourage misconceptions about him. The magazine said the cover was intended as satire.
-- Then-Democratic contender Hillary Clinton referred in May to Bobby Kennedy's assassination in June 1968 as an example of how Democratic nomination campaigns sometimes stretch into June. Critics said she was implying Obama might be assassinated, an interpretation that Clinton rejected.
-- In May, Clinton cited a poll she said showed her appeal among white voters would be crucial to defeating the Republican Party in November's election. She said Obama's support was weakening "among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans." She denied the remark was divisive.
-- Sermons by Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright in which he said "God damn America" and castigated the country for its racial policies rocked Obama's campaign when they were repeatedly played on television in March.
Many voters said Obama's long association with Wright put his judgment and trustworthiness in doubt. Obama gave a wide-ranging speech on race in a bid to dispel concerns.
-- Former President Bill Clinton compared Obama's win in South Carolina's primary in January to the victories of black civil rights leader Jesse Jackson in the state in 1984 and 1988. Critics said Clinton was playing down Obama's victory and belittling black voters. Clinton said that interpretation was unfair.
-- Hillary Clinton said in January that the civil rights movement would not have had the successes it had if Lyndon Johnson, president from 1963 to 1969, had not pushed crucial legislation. Prominent blacks said the remark was dismissive of Rev. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement.
-- Prominent businessman Robert Johnson, a Clinton supporter, made an apparent reference to Obama using drugs as a youth. Obama has said he used drugs but Johnson was criticized for highlighting a divisive issue.
-- In February 2007, then-Democratic hopeful Joseph Biden described Obama as "articulate and bright and clean." Critics said his words were patronizing and suggested he was surprised a black man could be articulate and clean. Biden apologized.
(Writing by Matthew Bigg; editing by Michael Christie)
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...435279820080814
Taz - I would have read your post first except it wasn't there when I started typing. We must have been posting at about the same time.
So - in essence, his camp must feel it is of some benefit to them or they would have said No? Even though many here say it's a landslide just as it stands right now...
So - in essence, his camp must feel it is of some benefit to them or they would have said No? Even though many here say it's a landslide just as it stands right now...
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 12:10 PM)
QUOTE(Terra @ Aug 14 2008, 02:06 PM)
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 09:25 AM)
Now we see just how sincere she was when she declared Obama to be the nominee back when...
This is pure BS... and tells exactly how egocentric, self-absorbed, powerhungry and selfish the Clintons are. It has been apparent since that time as Hillary has been almost conspicuously absent on the campaign trail. Maybe she will do more after the convention, but so far that has been an empty promise and one very easily seen through.
This will be played as "giving her voters a voice"... but the writing is already on the wall and this is more likely to continue the divisiveness rather than healing the wounds and she should have already begun the healing process instead of perpetuating the unspoken promise of a convention battle or presence. As far as issues she there is no substantial difference in positions between herself and Obama so that voice is for nothing but Hillary and sexism.
Sorry folks... if I'm wrong, but I see this as being a pure Clinton political move and aimed solely at benefiting Hillary at the expense of the Party.
Looks like she still doesn't get it.
Flame away folks... flame McCain right into the White House.
This is pure BS... and tells exactly how egocentric, self-absorbed, powerhungry and selfish the Clintons are. It has been apparent since that time as Hillary has been almost conspicuously absent on the campaign trail. Maybe she will do more after the convention, but so far that has been an empty promise and one very easily seen through.
This will be played as "giving her voters a voice"... but the writing is already on the wall and this is more likely to continue the divisiveness rather than healing the wounds and she should have already begun the healing process instead of perpetuating the unspoken promise of a convention battle or presence. As far as issues she there is no substantial difference in positions between herself and Obama so that voice is for nothing but Hillary and sexism.
Sorry folks... if I'm wrong, but I see this as being a pure Clinton political move and aimed solely at benefiting Hillary at the expense of the Party.
Looks like she still doesn't get it.
Flame away folks... flame McCain right into the White House.
Obamas camp could have said no, so why did they agree to it?
I would assume they must see alternatives as being worse...
I don't see where there is anything to gain. Those who oppose Obama aren't likely to change their mind just because of a smoke and mirrors charade at the convention. Maybe I'm wrong... and that some will be appeased and feel that somehow their views (?) were represented. This is all just personal bias and emotion and nothing else imho. But... as IH would say... that's just me.
You are probably right that in reality there is probably little to be gained -- but superficially -- Obama can say I did all I could to get your vote...all you asked -- so if you do not support me -- that is your problem because I went the extra mile -- I gave you the respect you demanded...now if you have any loyalty to the Democratic party and the values it stands for you will have the courage it takes to pull the lever for me in November...
QUOTE(Terra @ Aug 14 2008, 02:41 PM)
Taz - I would have read your post first except it wasn't there when I started typing. We must have been posting at about the same time.
So - in essence, his camp must feel it is of some benefit to them or they would have said No? Even though many here say it's a landslide just as it stands right now...
So - in essence, his camp must feel it is of some benefit to them or they would have said No? Even though many here say it's a landslide just as it stands right now...
Like two ships...
Hey -- I thought it was a landslide too. But the more I read about maybe white voters are not being honest in their polling the more concerned I am that maybe there are some voters who are being dishonest and do not want to be seen as having color affect their vote...
I think there is a benefit.
Obama went the extra mile. He reached out. He gave them the respect and the focus and attention that they wanted to place HRC's name on the ballot.
Now, will they accord him the same respect that he has accorded them?
I do not know.
I guess I'm just a little too cynical but there has been little positive from the Clinton camp since the end of the primaries to suggest that they are wholeheartedly supporting the Party and Obama.
Support has, to this point, been little more than empty rhetoric and a few complimentary statements.
The Clintons seems to still be hanging onto and pushing for a lot of involvement in the convention. While I agree that they should be involved, I'm concerned that it is going to be too heavily "Clinton".
I guess we'll see soon enough...
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 14 2008, 04:45 PM)
QUOTE(Terra @ Aug 14 2008, 02:41 PM)
Taz - I would have read your post first except it wasn't there when I started typing. We must have been posting at about the same time.
So - in essence, his camp must feel it is of some benefit to them or they would have said No? Even though many here say it's a landslide just as it stands right now...
So - in essence, his camp must feel it is of some benefit to them or they would have said No? Even though many here say it's a landslide just as it stands right now...
Like two ships...
Hey -- I thought it was a landslide too. But the more I read about maybe white voters are not being honest in their polling the more concerned I am that maybe there are some voters who are being dishonest and do not want to be seen as having color affect their vote...
I think there is a benefit.
Obama went the extra mile. He reached out. He gave them the respect and the focus and attention that they wanted to place HRC's name on the ballot.
Now, will they accord him the same respect that he has accorded them?
I do not know.
Taz the eternal diplomat.
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 02:52 PM)
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 14 2008, 04:45 PM)
QUOTE(Terra @ Aug 14 2008, 02:41 PM)
Taz - I would have read your post first except it wasn't there when I started typing. We must have been posting at about the same time.
So - in essence, his camp must feel it is of some benefit to them or they would have said No? Even though many here say it's a landslide just as it stands right now...
So - in essence, his camp must feel it is of some benefit to them or they would have said No? Even though many here say it's a landslide just as it stands right now...
Like two ships...
Hey -- I thought it was a landslide too. But the more I read about maybe white voters are not being honest in their polling the more concerned I am that maybe there are some voters who are being dishonest and do not want to be seen as having color affect their vote...
I think there is a benefit.
Obama went the extra mile. He reached out. He gave them the respect and the focus and attention that they wanted to place HRC's name on the ballot.
Now, will they accord him the same respect that he has accorded them?
I do not know.
Taz the eternal diplomat.
Bring Ahmadinejad on... I'll talk him till he's blue in the face...
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 14 2008, 04:56 PM)
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 02:52 PM)
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 14 2008, 04:45 PM)
QUOTE(Terra @ Aug 14 2008, 02:41 PM)
Taz - I would have read your post first except it wasn't there when I started typing. We must have been posting at about the same time.
So - in essence, his camp must feel it is of some benefit to them or they would have said No? Even though many here say it's a landslide just as it stands right now...
So - in essence, his camp must feel it is of some benefit to them or they would have said No? Even though many here say it's a landslide just as it stands right now...
Like two ships...
Hey -- I thought it was a landslide too. But the more I read about maybe white voters are not being honest in their polling the more concerned I am that maybe there are some voters who are being dishonest and do not want to be seen as having color affect their vote...
I think there is a benefit.
Obama went the extra mile. He reached out. He gave them the respect and the focus and attention that they wanted to place HRC's name on the ballot.
Now, will they accord him the same respect that he has accorded them?
I do not know.
Taz the eternal diplomat.
Bring Ahmadinejad on... I'll talk him till he's blue in the face...
or blue in the morgue. LOL
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 02:58 PM)
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 14 2008, 04:56 PM)
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 02:52 PM)
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Aug 14 2008, 04:45 PM)
QUOTE(Terra @ Aug 14 2008, 02:41 PM)
Taz - I would have read your post first except it wasn't there when I started typing. We must have been posting at about the same time.
So - in essence, his camp must feel it is of some benefit to them or they would have said No? Even though many here say it's a landslide just as it stands right now...
So - in essence, his camp must feel it is of some benefit to them or they would have said No? Even though many here say it's a landslide just as it stands right now...
Like two ships...
Hey -- I thought it was a landslide too. But the more I read about maybe white voters are not being honest in their polling the more concerned I am that maybe there are some voters who are being dishonest and do not want to be seen as having color affect their vote...
I think there is a benefit.
Obama went the extra mile. He reached out. He gave them the respect and the focus and attention that they wanted to place HRC's name on the ballot.
Now, will they accord him the same respect that he has accorded them?
I do not know.
Taz the eternal diplomat.
Bring Ahmadinejad on... I'll talk him till he's blue in the face...
or blue in the morgue. LOL
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 04:50 PM)
I guess I'm just a little too cynical but there has been little positive from the Clinton camp since the end of the primaries to suggest that they are wholeheartedly supporting the Party and Obama.
Support has, to this point, been little more than empty rhetoric and a few complimentary statements.
The Clintons seems to still be hanging onto and pushing for a lot of involvement in the convention. While I agree that they should be involved, I'm concerned that it is going to be too heavily "Clinton".
I guess we'll see soon enough...
Support has, to this point, been little more than empty rhetoric and a few complimentary statements.
The Clintons seems to still be hanging onto and pushing for a lot of involvement in the convention. While I agree that they should be involved, I'm concerned that it is going to be too heavily "Clinton".
I guess we'll see soon enough...
i am worried about the perception in the press the next 2 weeks
It might sound like a mutiny before its finished spun
beware things like this
This is all because the Clinton's place people in all areas, and then some negotiating for the other side are actually Clintonites
Push the proverbial stake in, and never let it rise again like Dracula...but they don't.
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 03:50 PM)
I guess I'm just a little too cynical but there has been little positive from the Clinton camp since the end of the primaries to suggest that they are wholeheartedly supporting the Party and Obama.
Support has, to this point, been little more than empty rhetoric and a few complimentary statements.
The Clintons seems to still be hanging onto and pushing for a lot of involvement in the convention. While I agree that they should be involved, I'm concerned that it is going to be too heavily "Clinton".
I guess we'll see soon enough...
Support has, to this point, been little more than empty rhetoric and a few complimentary statements.
The Clintons seems to still be hanging onto and pushing for a lot of involvement in the convention. While I agree that they should be involved, I'm concerned that it is going to be too heavily "Clinton".
I guess we'll see soon enough...
As Senator Clinton volunteered during one the debates, she, "believes in Coercive negotiations."
She gave Obama the choice, You can deny my supporters request for my name on the ballot and be guaranteed a big bad convention fight or you can allow my name on the ballot and take a chance
that I will be cooperative and try to make you look as good as possible during and after the convention.
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 14 2008, 05:19 PM)
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 03:50 PM)
I guess I'm just a little too cynical but there has been little positive from the Clinton camp since the end of the primaries to suggest that they are wholeheartedly supporting the Party and Obama.
Support has, to this point, been little more than empty rhetoric and a few complimentary statements.
The Clintons seems to still be hanging onto and pushing for a lot of involvement in the convention. While I agree that they should be involved, I'm concerned that it is going to be too heavily "Clinton".
I guess we'll see soon enough...
Support has, to this point, been little more than empty rhetoric and a few complimentary statements.
The Clintons seems to still be hanging onto and pushing for a lot of involvement in the convention. While I agree that they should be involved, I'm concerned that it is going to be too heavily "Clinton".
I guess we'll see soon enough...
As Senator Clinton volunteered during one the debates, she, "believes in Coercive negotiations."
She gave Obama the choice, You can deny my supporters request for my name on the ballot and be guaranteed a big bad convention fight or you can allow my name on the ballot and take a chance
that I will be cooperative and try to make you look as good as possible during and after the convention.
"chance" seems to be the operative word here...
While always willing to take a gamble... this isn't one I would want to lay odds on.
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 14 2008, 02:19 PM)
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 03:50 PM)
I guess I'm just a little too cynical but there has been little positive from the Clinton camp since the end of the primaries to suggest that they are wholeheartedly supporting the Party and Obama.
Support has, to this point, been little more than empty rhetoric and a few complimentary statements.
The Clintons seems to still be hanging onto and pushing for a lot of involvement in the convention. While I agree that they should be involved, I'm concerned that it is going to be too heavily "Clinton".
I guess we'll see soon enough...
Support has, to this point, been little more than empty rhetoric and a few complimentary statements.
The Clintons seems to still be hanging onto and pushing for a lot of involvement in the convention. While I agree that they should be involved, I'm concerned that it is going to be too heavily "Clinton".
I guess we'll see soon enough...
As Senator Clinton volunteered during one the debates, she, "believes in Coercive negotiations."
She gave Obama the choice, You can deny my supporters request for my name on the ballot and be guaranteed a big bad convention fight or you can allow my name on the ballot and take a chance
that I will be cooperative and try to make you look as good as possible during and after the convention.
In my wildest dreams, I can never see Axelrod quivering under any 'coercive negotiations' from Hillary. If you think Barack did, then we might have a problem.
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 11:03 AM)
"Hump a clic"
Only person to ever use this phrase appears to be IH.
A google search returns only 4 results for the whole internet... and every single one of them is from a post by IH on this and other forums.
So... hump a clic, a duck, a frog, your chick, or whatever.
Only person to ever use this phrase appears to be IH.
A google search returns only 4 results for the whole internet... and every single one of them is from a post by IH on this and other forums.
So... hump a clic, a duck, a frog, your chick, or whatever.
Dubya was right, being the decider is hard work!
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 05:24 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 14 2008, 05:19 PM)
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Aug 14 2008, 03:50 PM)
I guess I'm just a little too cynical but there has been little positive from the Clinton camp since the end of the primaries to suggest that they are wholeheartedly supporting the Party and Obama.
Support has, to this point, been little more than empty rhetoric and a few complimentary statements.
The Clintons seems to still be hanging onto and pushing for a lot of involvement in the convention. While I agree that they should be involved, I'm concerned that it is going to be too heavily "Clinton".
I guess we'll see soon enough...
Support has, to this point, been little more than empty rhetoric and a few complimentary statements.
The Clintons seems to still be hanging onto and pushing for a lot of involvement in the convention. While I agree that they should be involved, I'm concerned that it is going to be too heavily "Clinton".
I guess we'll see soon enough...
As Senator Clinton volunteered during one the debates, she, "believes in Coercive negotiations."
She gave Obama the choice, You can deny my supporters request for my name on the ballot and be guaranteed a big bad convention fight or you can allow my name on the ballot and take a chance
that I will be cooperative and try to make you look as good as possible during and after the convention.
"chance" seems to be the operative word here...
While always willing to take a gamble... this isn't one I would want to lay odds on.
I'm with you NO. She still wants everything about her. How does this give Obama the bounce out of the convention ? Its a Clinton fiesta. And Obama is damned if he agrees or if he disagrees.
Its typical and in line with dragging out the primaries, refusing to aclnowledge he had won the night he did as she cloistered everyone in a bunker and now the convention which is all about Hillary.
Interpretation .. if I can't have it , no way is anyone else getting it !
That is why we need INVESTIGATIONS ON EVERYTHING
and war criminals and their abetters need to be investigated, tried, sentenced, and then sentence carried out
America will NEVER be better with any Clinton or Bush in office EVER again, or any of their flakes
and war criminals and their abetters need to be investigated, tried, sentenced, and then sentence carried out
America will NEVER be better with any Clinton or Bush in office EVER again, or any of their flakes
QUOTE(ConcernedObserver @ Aug 14 2008, 04:44 PM)
I'm with you NO. She still wants everything about her. How does this give Obama the bounce out of the convention ? Its a Clinton fiesta. And Obama is damned if he agrees or if he disagrees.
Its typical and in line with dragging out the primaries, refusing to aclnowledge he had won the night he did as she cloistered everyone in a bunker and now the convention which is all about Hillary.
Interpretation .. if I can't have it , no way is anyone else getting it !
Its typical and in line with dragging out the primaries, refusing to aclnowledge he had won the night he did as she cloistered everyone in a bunker and now the convention which is all about Hillary.
Interpretation .. if I can't have it , no way is anyone else getting it !
Assuming all goes as expected, I don't think it does any harm to Obama at all. It used to be common practice for losing candidates' names to be placed in nomination, and I don't think it ever hurt the nominee.
And it would probably even less so now, as the major TV networks are unlikely to show that anyway.
Maybe this is makeup for the decision to let Warner have the main speaking spot on Tuesday instead of her.
QUOTE(dggfwtx @ Aug 14 2008, 06:38 PM)
QUOTE(ConcernedObserver @ Aug 14 2008, 04:44 PM)
I'm with you NO. She still wants everything about her. How does this give Obama the bounce out of the convention ? Its a Clinton fiesta. And Obama is damned if he agrees or if he disagrees.
Its typical and in line with dragging out the primaries, refusing to aclnowledge he had won the night he did as she cloistered everyone in a bunker and now the convention which is all about Hillary.
Interpretation .. if I can't have it , no way is anyone else getting it !
Its typical and in line with dragging out the primaries, refusing to aclnowledge he had won the night he did as she cloistered everyone in a bunker and now the convention which is all about Hillary.
Interpretation .. if I can't have it , no way is anyone else getting it !
Assuming all goes as expected, I don't think it does any harm to Obama at all. It used to be common practice for losing candidates' names to be placed in nomination, and I don't think it ever hurt the nominee.
And it would probably even less so now, as the major TV networks are unlikely to show that anyway.
Maybe this is makeup for the decision to let Warner have the main speaking spot on Tuesday instead of her.
Assuming. Operative word.
You may well be right but the way its being orchestrated is not like past years . Its shaping up as a Clinton convention in many respects. Just look at the papers. Its supposed to be Obama's show but he may well be weakened by the Clinton fiesta. He's damned if he gives them the show and he's damned if he doesn't.
My concern is the general election and the effect this convention will have on it. I may be dead wrong but time will tell. All I know is I really want to see the GOP out of the White House. Ignore me... I'm a cynic where the Clintons are concerned this year. They don't do losing well. I'm just afraid they will sabotage the Dems chances if they can. Bill wants back into the White House so badly he can taste it and I put nothing past him. I'd bet money he is already planning the 2012 campaign.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude or mean spirited. I just have serious reservations. Not about the roll call.. the entire scenario which may play out.
QUOTE(ConcernedObserver @ Aug 14 2008, 04:18 PM)
QUOTE(dggfwtx @ Aug 14 2008, 06:38 PM)
QUOTE(ConcernedObserver @ Aug 14 2008, 04:44 PM)
I'm with you NO. She still wants everything about her. How does this give Obama the bounce out of the convention ? Its a Clinton fiesta. And Obama is damned if he agrees or if he disagrees.
Its typical and in line with dragging out the primaries, refusing to aclnowledge he had won the night he did as she cloistered everyone in a bunker and now the convention which is all about Hillary.
Interpretation .. if I can't have it , no way is anyone else getting it !
Its typical and in line with dragging out the primaries, refusing to aclnowledge he had won the night he did as she cloistered everyone in a bunker and now the convention which is all about Hillary.
Interpretation .. if I can't have it , no way is anyone else getting it !
Assuming all goes as expected, I don't think it does any harm to Obama at all. It used to be common practice for losing candidates' names to be placed in nomination, and I don't think it ever hurt the nominee.
And it would probably even less so now, as the major TV networks are unlikely to show that anyway.
Maybe this is makeup for the decision to let Warner have the main speaking spot on Tuesday instead of her.
Assuming. Operative word.
You may well be right but the way its being orchestrated is not like past years . Its shaping up as a Clinton convention in many respects. Just look at the papers. Its supposed to be Obama's show but he may well be weakened by the Clinton fiesta. He's damned if he gives them the show and he's damned if he doesn't.
My concern is the general election and the effect this convention will have on it. I may be dead wrong but time will tell. All I know is I really want to see the GOP out of the White House. Ignore me... I'm a cynic where the Clintons are concerned this year. They don't do losing well. I'm just afraid they will sabotage the Dems chances if they can. Bill wants back into the White House so badly he can taste it and I put nothing past him. I'd bet money he is already planning the 2012 campaign.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude or mean spirited. I just have serious reservations. Not about the roll call.. the entire scenario which may play out.
This is the thing, CO... Axelrod and his crew are pro's. He wouldn't give up 1 minute of time to anybody, let alone a Clinton, unless he felt there was a need. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes - but there has to be a reason, and it must be of benefit to the Obama camp or Axel wouldn't let it happen in this manner.
You're going to have to trust Obama and his team to make the right decisions - because he has many larger decisions to make than this after/if he's elected.
QUOTE(Terra @ Aug 14 2008, 10:34 PM)
QUOTE(ConcernedObserver @ Aug 14 2008, 04:18 PM)
QUOTE(dggfwtx @ Aug 14 2008, 06:38 PM)
QUOTE(ConcernedObserver @ Aug 14 2008, 04:44 PM)
I'm with you NO. She still wants everything about her. How does this give Obama the bounce out of the convention ? Its a Clinton fiesta. And Obama is damned if he agrees or if he disagrees.
Its typical and in line with dragging out the primaries, refusing to aclnowledge he had won the night he did as she cloistered everyone in a bunker and now the convention which is all about Hillary.
Interpretation .. if I can't have it , no way is anyone else getting it !
Its typical and in line with dragging out the primaries, refusing to aclnowledge he had won the night he did as she cloistered everyone in a bunker and now the convention which is all about Hillary.
Interpretation .. if I can't have it , no way is anyone else getting it !
Assuming all goes as expected, I don't think it does any harm to Obama at all. It used to be common practice for losing candidates' names to be placed in nomination, and I don't think it ever hurt the nominee.
And it would probably even less so now, as the major TV networks are unlikely to show that anyway.
Maybe this is makeup for the decision to let Warner have the main speaking spot on Tuesday instead of her.
Assuming. Operative word.
You may well be right but the way its being orchestrated is not like past years . Its shaping up as a Clinton convention in many respects. Just look at the papers. Its supposed to be Obama's show but he may well be weakened by the Clinton fiesta. He's damned if he gives them the show and he's damned if he doesn't.
My concern is the general election and the effect this convention will have on it. I may be dead wrong but time will tell. All I know is I really want to see the GOP out of the White House. Ignore me... I'm a cynic where the Clintons are concerned this year. They don't do losing well. I'm just afraid they will sabotage the Dems chances if they can. Bill wants back into the White House so badly he can taste it and I put nothing past him. I'd bet money he is already planning the 2012 campaign.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude or mean spirited. I just have serious reservations. Not about the roll call.. the entire scenario which may play out.
This is the thing, CO... Axelrod and his crew are pro's. He wouldn't give up 1 minute of time to anybody, let alone a Clinton, unless he felt there was a need. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes - but there has to be a reason, and it must be of benefit to the Obama camp or Axel wouldn't let it happen in this manner.
You're going to have to trust Obama and his team to make the right decisions - because he has many larger decisions to make than this after/if he's elected.
We shall see...I hope so.
Bob Shrum was a pro too.
Don't you find it interesting that it was Obama, not Clinton who insisted on this deal? Hillary had to be convinced, apparently she has moved on. Bill on the other hand has not. Oh well, maybe Hillary can be the kind of Senator Ted Kennedy became after the party got over the Carter thing.
BTW, this is a very shrewd move by Obama.
BTW, this is a very shrewd move by Obama.
QUOTE(real_democrat @ Aug 14 2008, 10:49 PM)
Don't you find it interesting that it was Obama, not Clinton who insisted on this deal? Hillary had to be convinced, apparently she has moved on. Bill on the other hand has not. Oh well, maybe Hillary can be the kind of Senator Ted Kennedy became after the party got over the Carter thing.
BTW, this is a very shrewd move by Obama.
BTW, this is a very shrewd move by Obama.
your statement here is why the VP could indeed be John Kerry
Because if Hillary is going to become Ted, it would mean John Kerry isn't.
Meaning he would be receptive to a change...
it would be a bold, controversial move, but one that is in the face of the repubs...and with the former(or current)
friendship of McCain and Kerry, it would be a move to keep McCain honest
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Aug 14 2008, 07:54 PM)
QUOTE(real_democrat @ Aug 14 2008, 10:49 PM)
Don't you find it interesting that it was Obama, not Clinton who insisted on this deal? Hillary had to be convinced, apparently she has moved on. Bill on the other hand has not. Oh well, maybe Hillary can be the kind of Senator Ted Kennedy became after the party got over the Carter thing.
BTW, this is a very shrewd move by Obama.
BTW, this is a very shrewd move by Obama.
your statement here is why the VP could indeed be John Kerry
Because if Hillary is going to become Ted, it would mean John Kerry isn't.
Meaning he would be receptive to a change...
it would be a bold, controversial move, but one that is in the face of the repubs...and with the former(or current)
friendship of McCain and Kerry, it would be a move to keep McCain honest
oye oye.... not Kerry for VP please. That is one sure way that Obama could cause himself a loss.
My sincere apologizes to those that adore Kerry, but man o' man that just won't fly, IMO.
QUOTE(ConcernedObserver @ Aug 14 2008, 07:18 PM)
........................
........................
....................
My concern is the general election and the effect this convention will have on it. I may be dead wrong but time will tell. All I know is I really want to see the GOP out of the White House. Ignore me... I'm a cynic where the Clintons are concerned this year. They don't do losing well. I'm just afraid they will sabotage the Dems chances if they can. Bill wants back into the White House so badly he can taste it and I put nothing past him. I'd bet money he is already planning the 2012 campaign.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude or mean spirited. I just have serious reservations. Not about the roll call.. the entire scenario which may play out.
........................
....................
My concern is the general election and the effect this convention will have on it. I may be dead wrong but time will tell. All I know is I really want to see the GOP out of the White House. Ignore me... I'm a cynic where the Clintons are concerned this year. They don't do losing well. I'm just afraid they will sabotage the Dems chances if they can. Bill wants back into the White House so badly he can taste it and I put nothing past him. I'd bet money he is already planning the 2012 campaign.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude or mean spirited. I just have serious reservations. Not about the roll call.. the entire scenario which may play out.
Good points, you have to at least be wary.
QUOTE(Terra @ Aug 14 2008, 11:19 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Aug 14 2008, 07:54 PM)
QUOTE(real_democrat @ Aug 14 2008, 10:49 PM)
Don't you find it interesting that it was Obama, not Clinton who insisted on this deal? Hillary had to be convinced, apparently she has moved on. Bill on the other hand has not. Oh well, maybe Hillary can be the kind of Senator Ted Kennedy became after the party got over the Carter thing.
BTW, this is a very shrewd move by Obama.
BTW, this is a very shrewd move by Obama.
your statement here is why the VP could indeed be John Kerry
Because if Hillary is going to become Ted, it would mean John Kerry isn't.
Meaning he would be receptive to a change...
it would be a bold, controversial move, but one that is in the face of the repubs...and with the former(or current)
friendship of McCain and Kerry, it would be a move to keep McCain honest
oye oye.... not Kerry for VP please. That is one sure way that Obama could cause himself a loss.
My sincere apologizes to those that adore Kerry, but man o' man that just won't fly, IMO.
This may surprise everyone as I haven't been reticent about the high regard I have for JK , but I agree Terra. It would be a serious error. Not that I don't think he would make a great VP.. I still think he would have been a superb POTUS, but because even Dems don't respect him as he deserves.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.