You may also want to inform Obama of the difference, I’ve heard him say more than once that his opponents authorized the war in Iraq.

And I've said more than once that the only reason he didn't "authorize" it was because he wasn't in office at the time.

Oops, that was a harsh personal jab, wasn't it? :p

Don't let the rubber snakes scare you.:D Those I can outrun.

Hilary Clinton’s chief advisor was known as the comeback kid during his political career, so I just don’t see her getting out of the race until either Obama has the required delegates to win (impossible) Impossible? Extremely unlikely maybe, but his odds are significantly better than Hillary's and she's still in the race. But of course the SDs could decide things right now if they wanted to.

or the DNC makes another decision about what to do with Florida and Michigan (not going to happen). So I guess that leaves when she hears Obama make his acceptance speech at the convention. Well, just Florida now. Michigan was told yesterday that they won't be seated (for however long that lasts).

Oh, I agree, but it is amazing how many wars the United States has been in when compared to how many time Congress has actually declared war. You may also want to inform Obama of the difference, I’ve heard him say more than once that his opponents authorized the war in Iraq. Excellent point :)

The cookie verdict stands! You sir, hedged your bet by saying WWII or possibly Korea. *sigh* You are right. :(

Since Korea had no declaration of war or even a congressional authorization for military engagement I determined that you only deserved half a cookie.If I had cheated and used Google, I would have known that. I remember a time when honesty stood for something, sir! :D

Now if you want to take this decision further I suggest we get a mediator, I suggest stoffe, as I believe she can be completely impartial (however, I would rather have Jae, considering the resent debate between you and her in another thread). :lol:

However, in the interest of peace and in the name of friendship. Here are your cookies (http://www.kattitudes.com/pix/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=6605&g2_serialNumber=1). :D*hands one to mimartin and another to JCarter426*

And I've said more than once that the only reason he didn't "authorize" it was because he wasn't in office at the time.

Oops, that was a harsh personal jab, wasn't it? :p It's possible. But then again lots of things are possible. Seems to me that he was taking a pretty big risk speaking out against it, so it's not as though he was trying to score some quick political points by doing so. Not sure how we go from that to "he probably would have voted for it", but everyone is entitled to their opinions. :)

Well, just Florida now. Michigan was told yesterday that they won't be seated (for however long that lasts). Now that is the problem with only getting my news from a weekly television program, I did not know that. Not my fault, blame those capitalist pigs at HBO for only putting Bill Maher on once a week.

Besides I’m in training for the March of Dimes walk held this weekend in Houston, I don’t have time to be depressed by watching a real news program and I been a good boy lately so I haven’t to punish myself by watching FoxNews. That and you did not PM about that developement.
If I had cheated and used Google, I would have known that. I remember a time when honesty stood for something, sir! :D Is that an accusation against my good name? :D

I knew the Korean War was not authorized by Congress. For the past 32 years I’ve heard my stepfather say he was not a soldier, he was a cop, as the Korean War was a police action. I did google it, as you get old, it is always a good idea to double check your facts when possible.

That and you did not PM about that developement. I only PM stuff that I find alarming or that I think you'll find interesting. ;)

Is that an accusation against my good name? :D I don't see a moderator post, so I think my message is still allowed to exist as I intended it. We'll see.

I knew the Korean War was not authorized by Congress. For the past 32 years I’ve heard my stepfather say he was not a soldier, he was a cop, as the Korean War was a police action. I did google it, as you get old, it is always a good idea to double check your facts when possible.I suppose I could have double checked as well, but I wanted to test my memory more than I wanted to provide the correct answer. Good thing we didn't have money riding on that one :)

*hands one to mimartin and another to JCarter426*

Mmm...cookie... :D

It's possible. But then again lots of things are possible. Seems to me that he was taking a pretty big risk speaking out against it, so it's not as though he was trying to score some quick political points by doing so. Not sure how we go from that to "he probably would have voted for it", but everyone is entitled to their opinions. :)

That's true. Still, I think he would have voted for it just like everyone else. It would have been an even bigger risk to speak out against the war back then.

I wish we had good candidates for once... None of these candidates are really that great at all... But sadly, there's nothing we can do about it...

(BTW, the CEO of cookie factory is wondering where all of his cookies are going... :xp: )

With the way the primaries have been turned into a circus, I would not be surprised at all if the noncommitted delegates chose Edwards and Huckabee to be put on the November ballot.

Now if you want to take this decision further I suggest we get a mediator, I suggest stoffe, as I believe she can be completely impartial (however, I would rather have Jae, considering the resent debate between you and her in another thread).


I get the cookie--I knew it before anyone answered (though I couldn't post fast enough from a smartphone), and without having to look it up. :xp: However, I'll break it into pieces and share with anyone who attempted to give an answer. :D

Huckabee can't win--McCain already has well over the number of delegates needed to win the Republican nomination, and the Republican party doesn't have the same super-delegate craziness that the Democratic party has.

The only two candidates worth voting for have dropped out of the primaries: Huckabee and Edwards.

I get the cookie--I knew it before anyone answered (though I couldn't post fast enough from a smartphone), and without having to look it up. :xp: However, I'll break it into pieces and share with anyone who attempted to give an answer. :D
Remove Jae from possible mediator list as cookies clearly outweigh impartiality. :D. Perhaps stoffe or tk102 may be a better choice when Achilles and I have our next disagreement. Although I have my doubts about tk102 not taking the cookie for himself too.

The only two candidates worth voting for have dropped out of the primaries: Huckabee and Edwards.
In your opinion, in your opinion. In my personal opinion, the three remaining candidates are the best options we have had in my lifetime. All three seem to me to be better than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave or at least can’t be any worst.

Never say it couldn't get worse. ;)

Never say it couldn't get worse. ;) All three seem to me to be better than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave or at least, I hope with all my heart and pray to God that it does not get any worst.Fixed

Is that better Totenkopf? You were indeed correct it could always get worst. I don’t see how, but I felt the same way 8 years ago when I cast my vote for the current guy up there.

It could be worse. For example, there's still Jeb Bush and his son who are very much interested in politics. Or you could see Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton win on a united platform of all they have in common, which is extremism.

The only two candidates worth voting for have dropped out of the primaries: Huckabee and Edwards.I would vote for Edwards. People who say they would vote for Huckabee either didn't read his FairTax proposal, didn't understand his FairTax proposal, or are wealthy enough to benefit from his FairTax proposal ;)

Remove Jae from possible mediator list as cookies clearly outweigh impartiality. :D. Perhaps stoffe or tk102 may be a better choice when Achilles and I have our next disagreement. Although I have my doubts about tk102 not taking the cookie for himself too.


In your opinion, in your opinion. In my personal opinion, the three remaining candidates are the best options we have had in my lifetime. All three seem to me to be better than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave or at least can’t be any worst.


If you want to vote for one of the Three Stooges, I would agree. From what I've seen lately with Obama, Clinton, and McCain, Larry, Moe, or Curly could do a better job running the country.

If you want to vote for one of the Three Stooges, I would agree. From what I've seen lately with Obama, Clinton, and McCain, Larry, Moe, or Curly could do a better job running the country.


What about Shemp or Joe, the "forgotten" Stooges? :xp:


Never say it couldn't get worse.


All three seem to me to be better than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave or at least, I hope with all my heart and pray to God that it does not get any worse.

Fixed

Is that better Totenkopf? You were indeed correct it could always get worse. I don’t see how, but I felt the same way 8 years ago when I cast my vote for the current guy up there.

NOW it's fixed. :lol: Seriously, though, I agree that Bush has made a mess of things on a number of fronts.

If the three running are the Three Stooges, then Bush and Cheney must be Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne. What about Shemp or Joe, the "forgotten" Stooges? :xp: I liked Shemp, but there was a reason Joe Besser and Curly Joe DeRita were forgotten.

If the three running are the Three Stooges, then Bush and Cheney must be Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne."Oooo. That's warm."

Shemp and Joe are already living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

We clearly need a Three Stooges thread. Curly is better! :D

I'm annoyed with Dean and Pelosi right now saying one of the two Dems should drop out to get it over with. Shouldn't people in the states that remain to vote have their say on the matter? I understand not wanting a '68 style convention and wanting to get this resolved to focus on going after McCain, but those two could be a little more adroit about it rather than implying 'screw the last states, we're going to decide it now'.

We clearly need a Three Stooges thread. Curly is better! :D

I'm annoyed with Dean and Pelosi right now saying one of the two Dems should drop out to get it over with. Shouldn't people in the states that remain to vote have their say on the matter? I understand not wanting a '68 style convention and wanting to get this resolved to focus on going after McCain, but those two could be a little more adroit about it rather than implying 'screw the last states, we're going to decide it now'.
I'm annoyed by Dean, Hilary, Obama, and McCain. I think all of the candidates are seriously flawed, inexperienced, and untruthful. None of them deserve the presidency. Obama's racism, Hilary's control issues and emotional swings, and McCain's Democratic run as a Republican. It is almost as if the system was hijacked by the Democrats, and each of them are bringing out the worse in our country. Grrr...

I'm annoyed by Dean,QFT
Obama's racism, I haven't seen any racism on Obama's part, unless you mean him saying the words "those people." Now if you are talking about people Obama associates with, namely Rev. Wright, then you may have a point, but I for one don’t know if Rev. Wright is a racist from a 30 second sound bite. I watch Rev. Wright’s comments on CSPAN yesterday morning and judging strictly by those comments I would say he was not a raciest. I’m just not willing to label someone a raciest, without some comprehensive proof. I cannot see into a man’s heart as clearly as some of the talking heads on television can.
Hilary's control issues You have a point there.
and emotional swings, People are not allowed mood swings now? I’d actually like to have someone that showed some emotion in the White House. I’d like to actually know they cared about the young men and women coming back home in flag draped coffins. I would like to see any emotion out of the President beside anger for eight straight years. Or was this just a way of saying she is a woman?

McCain's Democratic run as a Republican. He is more moderate than the typical Republican that makes it this far in the election process, but look at his voting record (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/key-votes/) he is a Republican. Besides he is the Republican candidate for President, that make him a Republican be default.

...each of them are bringing out the worse in our country. Grrr...Something like war, high gas prices, unemployment, strained allied relation, huge deficit, mortgage crisis, bipartisan bickering...?

People are not allowed mood swings now? I’d actually like to have someone that showed some emotion in the White House. I’d like to actually know they cared about the young men and women coming back home in flag draped coffins. I would like to see any emotion out of the President beside anger for eight straight years. Or was this just a way of saying she is a woman? I can't speak for Mr. The Source, but I know that many people are put off by the perception that her "emotions" are being faked in the name of opportunism. Of course no one can say for certain what Hillary really thinks and feels, but to those of us that are a little skeptical of her rhetoric and cynical about her campaign, the timing of some of her "relevations" is a little too convenient. My 2 cents.

I can't speak for Mr. The Source, but I know that many people are put off by the perception that her "emotions" are being faked in the name of opportunism. Of course no one can say for certain what Hillary really thinks and feels, but to those of us that are a little skeptical of her rhetoric and cynical about her campaign, the timing of some of her "revelations" is a little too convenient. My 2 cents.
You hit it on the nail man. :lol:

When it comes to Obama, I think he is a liar, racist, and inexperienced. He is also no JFK. Before JFK was in office, he fought in a unpopular war. Obama gave tickets to people who didn't feed their car meters.

Why racist and liar? Since this is a strong subject, I should at least give you my interpretation.

#1 - His mentor-reverend was caught on several occasions spewing racial comments and unpatriotic garbage.

#2 - Obama was married by Rev. Wright.

#3 - Obama's children were baptized by Rev. Wright.

#4 - Obama gave a donation of $30,000 to support Rev. Wright's congregation. Why? He believes in his message.

#5 - Instead of addressing his own beliefs, Obama's racial speech was more like a lecture. He got away with not answering the question.

#6 - Obama's wife, "For the first time in my adult life, I feel a sense of hope in America." Why? Because her husband is winning in the Democratic race. If he was loosing in the race, how would she feel?

#7 - Obama and his family were hiding his middle name. Brock Husein Obama. After someone had mentioned his middle name, Obama's wife yelled, "You should not use his middle name." Why not? Do they have something to hide? Of course they do.

#8 - Obama's wife called her fellow Americans sloths, fat, and lazy. Yeah, we know we may have this problem, but what type of leader comes out and degrades people.

#9 - Instead of leaving Rev. Wrights congregation, Obama stays for 20 years. Why? Obama believes in the racist spew his reverend is selling.

#10 - Obama's wife, "Only Obama can heal your souls". No offense psycho. Only myself, Jesus Christ, and God can do that. And they call themselves Christian. Bull Shnite!

#11 - Obama's father and step father are Islamic. His mother was an atheist. Are you telling me that Islam had no impact on his life? The question to Obama, "What type of influence has Islam had on your life?"

#12 - "Hope and Change" - Why does he not fill us in on his plans? Hope for who? What type of change? Why does he not have substance? All he does is make speeches with words, which he does not explain or fill with meaning.

HERE ARE SOME CLIPS (http://wtkk.everyzing.com/viewMedia.jsp?dedupe=1&res=226358454&index=1&col=en-aud-pod_wtkk-ep&e=19758113&il=en&num=10&s=PZSID_0000701953;Jay+Severin%2C+WTKK%2C+Boston%2) C+MA&start=0&expand=true&match=query,channel&filter=0&y=0&x=0)

FULL LIST OF AUDIOS (http://wtkk.everyzing.com/results.jsp?s=PZSID_0000701953;Jay+Severin%2C+WTKK) %2C+Boston%2C+MA&start=0&num=10&col=en-aud-pod_wtkk-ep&filter=0&dedupe=1&expand=true&match=query,channel&x=0&y=0&il=en)

Since it would take too long, just click on Jay Severin's comments. He is the man!

#1-4, 9, 11: Five words--separation of church and State. His religious beliefs, whether they are the same as Mr Wright's or not, have absolutely nothing to do with whether he would be a good (or bad) president.
#6, 8, 10: Mrs Obama isn't running for president. Though she does appear to be a psycho. Still not the point. ;)
#7: Of course they have something to hide. If I had a name like that and lived in a racist, fear-mongering country, I'd have something to hide too. Also, it's Barack, and Hussein has two Ss.

Can't argue with #5 or #12, though.

#1-4, 9, 11: Five words--separation of church and State. His religious beliefs, whether they are the same as Mr Wright's or not, have absolutely nothing to do with whether he would be a good (or bad) president.
#6, 8, 10: Mrs Obama isn't running for president. Though she does appear to be a psycho. Still not the point. ;)
#7: Of course they have something to hide. If I had a name like that and lived in a racist, fear-mongering country, I'd have something to hide too. Also, it's Barack, and Hussein has two Ss.

Can't argue with #5 or #12, though.
Very untrue. Very foolishly untrue. Since we live in a post-911 world, his Islamic influences should be at the center of questioning. Also, the people around him reflect the man. If he didn't believe in any of those racial remarks, he wouldn't have surrounded himself with those people.

"Its not who you are on the inside, its what you do that defines you."

"Its not who you are on the inside, its what you do that defines you."

Do I really need to point out the hypocrisy of that argument? You're saying that Obama's "Islamic influences" are what define him, not his attempts to change the country for the better.

Beliefs have NOTHING to do with anything.

That's a bit naive. We're dealing with an election cycle here and politicians often say what they think will get them elected. What Obama believes will impact his decision making on HOW he intends to pursue his real objectives. It might be better to say that SOME of his beliefs have no bearing on what he will or won't do.

Well, they do, obviously. They're not supposed to, though, which is what irritates me the most.

I hate Obama with a passion, and even I know Obama has no Islamic influence whatsoever. I mean, his calls to target Pakistan without asking for the government's premission? Wheter you agree with it or not, that policy doesn't sound like someone that would favor Muslims to me.

Beliefs have NOTHING to do with anything.

Bah? Of course they do. Beliefs are exactly how you justify how you do something. I mean, if a person is an Atheist, and he is a President, it would be reasonable to see that Atheist push policies that would benieft his 'non-religion'. For example, he would likely be pro-stem cell research, because of his trust in science and his distrust of religious arguments.

Bah? Of course they do. Beliefs are exactly how you justify how you do something. I mean, if a person is an Atheist, and he is a President, it would be reasonable to see that Atheist push policies that would benieft his 'non-religion'. For example, he would likely be pro-stem cell research, because of his trust in science and his distrust of religious arguments.

Doesn't matter; the President's job isn't to make laws, but to enforce the ones that are already there. Even if religious beliefs do matter, with the President they don't.

I hate Obama with a passion, and even I know Obama has no Islamic influence whatsoever. I mean, his calls to target Pakistan without asking for the government's premission? Wheter you agree with it or not, that policy doesn't sound like someone that would favor Muslims to me.

By that rationale, many Muslims aren't pro-Muslim either. However, I think it interesting that he'd "openly" attack Pakistan (making Pakistani cooperation virtually impossible), a country of >160 million people when he obviously thinks we can't handle Iraq, a mere 25 million or thereabouts. Yeah, I want this guy's finger on the bomb. :rolleyes:

Doesn't matter; the President's job isn't to make laws, but to enforce the ones that are already there. Even if religious beliefs do matter, with the President they don't.

The President, being an influential person, however, can issue Executive Orders, which in a way can operate like laws, send the budgets over to Congress for approval (meaning he can choose to divert money from Absitence Programs over to the National Science Foundation), and being a rather powerful figure in his own party, can convince certain Senators and Represenatives to introduce 'laws' that he himself supports. The President weilds a ton of soft power, and he can (attempt to) ram down his beliefs if he so chooses.

Doesn't matter; the President's job isn't to make laws, but to enforce the ones that are already there. Even if religious beliefs do matter, with the President they don't.


On the other hand, the president does usually choose the people who head the bureaucracies that make all the "little laws" by fiat that affect much of what we do. A president would be unwise to say..."God told me to ignore this law and leave it unenforced", but that doesn't mean that his beliefs about particular laws might not impact how he goes about enforcing them. Take immigration as an example. We already have leaders who are ignoring the laws for a number of reasons. Who's to say that one of them might not be a religiously influenced belief about dealing with poor people.

The President, being an influential person, however, can issue Executive Orders, which in a way can operate like laws, send the budgets over to Congress for approval (meaning he can choose to divert money from Absitence Programs over to the National Science Foundation), and being a rather powerful figure in his own party, can convince certain Senators and Represenatives to introduce 'laws' that he himself supports.

The wonderful system of checks and balances...well, if only it actually worked. ;) The President doesn't actually have much power, as enumerated in the Constitution, but since Congress seems to have given up 75% of its authority, that's no longer the case.

However, a president's beliefs have only as much importance as the voters give them. If they didn't make such a big fuss about whether a president was against abortion or for stem cell research, then it would be quite a different country. Sometimes those checks do actually work, and even these days there are some things beyond the president's reach.

Bah? Of course they do. Beliefs are exactly how you justify how you do something. I mean, if a person is an Atheist, and he is a President, it would be reasonable to see that Atheist push policies that would benieft his 'non-religion'. For example, he would likely be pro-stem cell research, because of his trust in science and his distrust of religious arguments. I agree with this statement for the same reason I believe a Christian President would push his/her perceived religious agenda regardless of the facts. I once believed religious beliefs had nothing to do with the ability of someone to do their job. Then Achilles and ET Warrior pointed out to me if a politician felt that judgment day was in the near future, why worry about the environment. It sounds logical to me. A President represents all the people and the only agenda he/she should be pushing is the peoples’ agenda. Yea, I know politics does not work that way, special interest rules the world…yada yada yada.

Doesn't matter; the President's job isn't to make laws, but to enforce the ones that are already there. Even if religious beliefs do matter, with the President they don't.The President does the budget, which is approved by Congress, so he had tremendous power in what gets funded and what dies. Without money Congress can pass anything, but it may never be funded. Operation Head Start anyone?

I once believed religious beliefs had nothing to do with the ability of someone to do their job. Then Achilles and ET Warrior pointed out to me if a politician felt that judgment day was in the near future, why worry about the environment. It sounds logical to me.
Not necessarily. I think Christ could come back in 3 minutes if he wanted, or in another 3 million years. However, I think that even if we knew he was coming back in 3 years or whatever near-future time you want to use, it would not absolve us of our duty to take care of the environment. We have one earth and we need to take care of it, regardless of the timing of Christ's return.


Source: There are lots of people with the name "Hussein", and not all of them are Muslims, as if that mattered anyway. One of my favorite people in Ohio has an Arabic name. He happens to be an Arab Christian from Nazareth, Israel.

Obama converted to Christianity. I think his exposure to Islam can only be a benefit. He'll hopefully have a better understanding of how the religion shapes and defines the Middle East, because whoever wins is going to have to work a lot with the issue of Iraq in particular and the Middle East in general.

Not necessarily. I think Christ could come back in 3 minutes if he wanted, or in another 3 million years. However, I think that even if we knew he was coming back in 3 years or whatever near-future time you want to use, it would not absolve us of our duty to take care of the environment. We have one earth and we need to take care of it, regardless of the timing of Christ's return.It would be nice if everyone thought that way :)

Unfortunately, a lot of prominent conservatives don't share your viewpoint :(

Not necessarily...Oh I think the same way, but it is oblivious not everyone shares that view. Since I thought that way I never considered it an issue at least until the non-believers brained washed me. :D

Well, yesterday's primaries were in NC and IN. Obama won easily in NC, and Clinton won very narrowly in IN. Clinton canceled her morning appointments apparently, though last night she mentioned she was going on to campaign in WV. Will she withdraw or continue on?

Oregon's primary is on May 20. We all vote by mail and my ballot arrived yesterday. If she does drop out, I will be slightly pissed off. This would be the first time in 12 years since I've been here that my vote might actually count for something. I've been waiting so patiently to vote against her. :(

Oregon's primary is on May 20. We all vote by mail and my ballot arrived yesterday. If she does drop out, I will be slightly pissed off. This would be the first time in 12 years since I've been here that my vote might actually count for something. I've been waiting so patiently to vote against her. :(lol votes that matter, tk you so crazy.

I think it's nice that Howard Dean has just come out and acknowledged that the popular vote won't decide this.

Anyway, tk I recommend you fold your ballot into an origami swan and FedEx it back to them. Logically, that should count as one thousandth of a wish.

Well, yesterday's primaries were in NC and IN. Obama won easily in NC, and Clinton won very narrowly in IN. Clinton canceled her morning appointments apparently, though last night she mentioned she was going on to campaign in WV. Will she withdraw or continue on?
I am in no way a pure Democrat or Republican. However, I think Clinton should stay in for the long haul. Since Brock cannot close the deal himself, I think this needs to be fought to the end. At this point in the game, there would be no reason why she should call it quits. I love the media, "Should she quit now" - "If she doesn't win here or there, she will have no other choice but to call it quits.". You know how many times I witnessed the media's incompatence. They act as if they control the proccess. Plus, who the hell really knows what the percentages are. Every time the media opens their mouths about 'polls', they allways get the numbers wrong.

Plus, Obama's position as a canadate occured before the 'Rev. Wright' issues, and before he started to define himself. Who knows how many of his previous supports have jumped ship. Lol...

According to this morning's headlines, she's vowing to stay in to the end. Realistically speaking there is no less reason for her to drop out than there was a month ago, so I don't see why the nth acknowledgment of the impossible odds she's up against will make a difference.

What I think will make a difference is the money. At some point the donors will figure out that they are throwing their money away and stop. The fact that Hillary lent her campaign $6.4 million last month (bringing to total to $11.4) leads me to suspect that this might already be happening. Then the question becomes, how much of her own money is she willing to spend on a race she can't win?

@ Source--The number of pledged and super-delegates is not subject to opinion polls, however. So far Obama is ahead in popular vote and pledged delegates. Neither can win the party's nomination outright right now--it's going to come down to the super-delegates' votes, and the only question is if it's going to get cleared up early in the summer or if the fight is going to go all the way to the convention. Clinton's only advantage is that she has a greater political machine in place with the super-delegates, and so she could conceivably swing those votes enough in her direction to win the nomination. That would create a firestorm of controversy, however, if Obama's won the popular vote, as it appears he will do.


@Achilles--I agree on the money--Obama's outspent her and received a lot more donations than she has. Clinton's major donors have already maxed their donations, and Obama clearly has the advantage in grass-roots donations. If you can predict who's going to win based on donations at this point, Obama will win hands down.

Edit--didn't see your post above til after I had replied to Source. :)

Don't forget that he is within 40 delegates of having the majority of pledged delegates (he currently has the lead but neither candidate has the majority). Also the incredible amount of money he is raising. These two things will also help his chances with the super delegates.

Well, that was an interesting night. For a while there it looked like Clinton could actually lose Indiana. She may still be in the race, but she has even less of a chance to win the nomination than she did a week ago.

Yep, er, I feel like I'm intruding on this thread, but there is something I can't help but keep wondering about those Primaries in America.

From what I read or hear, there is a rough 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans in America. Fine. So each side has fair chances to win those elections.

Now Democrats have been split in two, between Obama and Clinton. 'K. Wouldn't be a problem if the choice has been made quickly, Democrats would now stand with one leader that would be more than a match for McCain.
But the choice has not been done... And the struggle goes on and with each day passing Obama and Clinton keeps bashing each other so that now Democrats are bashing themselves within their ranks.

So what I'm wondering is, once that Clinton or Obama shall have been chosen to represent the Democrats, one half of them will be thrilled, but what is the other half going to do? Get sulky? Seeing how they are fighting against each other, I just can't imagine them eventually voting for "the other guy". So it's going to be 25% for Democrats and 50% for Republicans...

So, do I just miss something very important (highly probable) or did Democrats just already lose before the votes even began?
Thanks for helping me to figure that out!

So what I'm wondering is, once that Clinton or Obama shall have been chosen to represent the Democrats, one half of them will be thrilled, but what is the other half going to do? Get sulky? Seeing how they are fighting against each other, I just can't imagine them eventually voting for "the other guy". So it's going to be 25% for Democrats and 50% for Republicans...

As a Democrat/Republican, I'm going to offer the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

Good News for Democrats: The vast majority of Democrats will not vote for a Republican. Only a minority of people (say, around 10-20%) would be willing to cross over and vote for McCain if their favorite Democratic candinate loses the nomination. And that small minority will shrink once McCain and the Democrat start attacking each other. The base will unite.

Bad News For Democrats: Every vote counts, especially in swing states. So if that small minority defects to McCain, and if that small minority lives in competitive states, McCain could very well win the election.

Ugly News For Democrats: McCain is suffering from the same problem, true, with the base upset, but it is done on a smaller scale, and they are more likely to boycott the polls rather than vote for the Democrats. McCain however is known of actually being a likable guy, trusted more than the Democrats on several issues, even that of Iraq (even though many Americans do disagree with McCain's plan). So cross-over votes are more likely for the Democrats, because McCain is not associated with Bush as much as, say, Chency. The Democrats need to start defining McCain, but in the end, McCain has a better trackrecord than both Clinton and Obama, so it is a hard thing to do, even if they unite.

EDIT: Hopeful News For Democrats: At least several 'attack ads' have been aired already, allowing for the candinates to weather them out before the actual general election. If Obama was nominated early, the Wright episode would have ruined him and the Democrats greatly. If Clinton was nominated early, then her organization would really need to be boosted to compete with McCain (because her organization could not handle Obama's grassroot efforts effectively). Plus, if one candinate really is seen as bad to general election chances, that candinate can easily be thrown under the bus.

Citations:

I'm trying to dig up articles to back up my view, but all I got right now is one, I'll add in more later.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx) (If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain)

EDIT4: Oh sod it. Is Clinton's knockout blow going to come in...West Virginia?

(2) I am very interested in next week's election in West Virginia. Everybody expects Hillary Clinton to win, but I can't help but wonder if they'll be surprised by the size of the margin.

We can reasonably expect it to be enormous. From a socioeconomic standpoint, West Virginia is almost entirely comprised of the sort of counties that Obama has done poorly in. The median white income in West Virginia is about $30,000 per year. African Americans comprise roughly 3% of the state's population. This puts it somewhere between Belmont County, Ohio and Greene County, Pennsylvania. Clinton won 72% of the vote in Belmont and 75% in Greene. From another angle, we see a similar situation. If we take the counties of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia that border West Virginia, we see that Clinton won on average 63.5% of the countywide vote. However, if we exempt the counties in Maryland and Virginia that border the eastern panhandle of West Virginia, her share of the vote jumps to 70.1%.

So, how would this be surprising? To date, you'd have to look closely to see Obama's poor results among working class whites in Appalachia. If you only take the 55-45 margins in Ohio and Pennsylvania, without drilling down a bit deeper, you might think, "That's not so bad." That probably will not be possible next week. The whole state of West Virginia should mimic what we saw in southern Ohio, southwestern Pennsylvania, and southwestern Virginia.

How will the press and the superdelegates react if Clinton wins by 30 points, 40 points, even 50 points? Remember that John Kennedy essentially wrapped up the 1960 nomination with a win in West Virginia because it proved that he had crossover appeal. What happens if Obama "proves" the opposite? Psychologically speaking, are people prepared for a loss of this magnitude, having fully absorbed the countywide details of previous results, or will this come as a shock to them?

Obama's impending loss in West Virginia might reinforce the previous point - an Obama electoral college victory might look different than anything a Democrat has ever put together. A Democrat has won the White House having lost West Virginia just once. Woodrow Wilson did it in 1916. Again, this is not a sign of any impending electoral doom for Obama should he win the nomination. States can and do move into and out of a party's voting coalition. Take Delaware and New Jersey, for instance. Both usually supported the GOP when it won the White House, but this is no longer the case. The point here is simply that an Obama victory might look like something we've never seen before.

Everything else in that article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/reflections_on_the_democratic.html) favors Obama though. :)

Yep, er, I feel like I'm intruding on this thread, but there is something I can't help but keep wondering about those Primaries in America.

From what I read or hear, there is a rough 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans in America. Fine. So each side has fair chances to win those elections.

Now Democrats have been split in two, between Obama and Clinton. 'K. Wouldn't be a problem if the choice has been made quickly, Democrats would now stand with one leader that would be more than a match for McCain.
But the choice has not been done... And the struggle goes on and with each day passing Obama and Clinton keeps bashing each other so that now Democrats are bashing themselves within their ranks.

So what I'm wondering is, once that Clinton or Obama shall have been chosen to represent the Democrats, one half of them will be thrilled, but what is the other half going to do? Get sulky? Seeing how they are fighting against each other, I just can't imagine them eventually voting for "the other guy". So it's going to be 25% for Democrats and 50% for Republicans...

So, do I just miss something very important (highly probable) or did Democrats just already lose before the votes even began?
Thanks for helping me to figure that out!
If I am repeating some of SilentScope001 is saying, please forgive me for any repetition.

First, some of the media is waking up to another conundrom. If Obama wins the nomination, 14-20% of Hillary voters have a great chance of defecting. If Hillary wins the vote, 10% African Americans will not vote at all.

Second, the democratic party has another issue. According to some of the analysis I have been hearing, Obama can't make the vote. Why? He has been elected by college students and African Americans. Obama is unable to obtain enough caucason male and female voters.

Third, what the media is not talking about is something interesting. Why is Hillary staying in the race? There is a massive amount of unpledged delegates in which have the potential to sway her way. The media is trying to keep that under-wraps.

Fourth, Hillary has gotten all the votes, which in a general election make a difference. Even though Brock has the most popular vote, Hillary has every state she needs to win the election.

Fifth, if the Democrats do not allow the Florida and MIchican votes count, there will be major backlash in the general election. Since they have not been added to Hillary's total yet, Hillary seems to be having issues with delegate. Brock Obama was asked by Hillary to do a recount in Florida and Michican, and he said, "No way man." Brock is in the way of the recount. Florida and Michican are essential to winning the presidency. Backlash is sure to come.

Sixth, in order to win the primary, you have to obtain 2,025 delegates. Since Hillary knows this is the case, no one has the right to tell her to quit. The race is still on. The number of unpledged delegates is estimated around 200.

Brock is winning only by 149 votes. If you really think about that number, that is not the majority vote.