Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest 2smart4u

Defeatocrats Imploding

Recommended Posts

Guest Truth Squad
No, our primary is Feb 5. Read your sample ballot!

As to the super delegates, most of them are already committed to Clinton which is why Clinton is ahead in the delegate count. You mean the at large delegates, which will remain uncommitted until the convention. But for them to make a difference, Obama and Clinton would literally have to split the remaining elections.

No, the relationship between Obama and Rezko is not just representing him as an attorney. Here's an NBC news excerpt from a TV news report:

MYERS: This is Senator Barack Obama's stately home in a pricy Chicago neighborhood. Inside the iron fence that surrounds his home is a vacant lot that lies at the heart of the controversy over Obama's relationship with his friend and campaign contributor Tony Rezko. When Obama bought the home in 2005, the seller insisted that the house and the lot be sold at the same time. But Obama says he couldn't afford the lot. Here's the Realtor for the seller talking about the Obamas.

DONNA SCHWAN (real estate agent): They were not interested in the lot at any point. It wasn't even on the table for them.

MYERS: That's where his longtime friend Rezko comes into the picture. In June 2005, Rezko's wife bought the lot for $625,000 -- full price. And on the same day, Obama bought his home for $1,650,000 -- 300,000 below asking price. He says because the house had been on the market for months. At the time, it had been widely reported that Rezko was under scrutiny in various investigations for possible political corruption. Rezko was later indicted for bribery and fraud, unrelated to the Obama sale.

JAY STEWART (executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association): What looks bad about the transaction is the fact that the transaction occurred at all. Tony Rezko was headed for trouble. He was clearly in the crosshairs of the federal government.

Give me a freaking break. Is this the best you got?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud ameerican
No, our primary is Feb 5. Read your sample ballot!

As to the super delegates, most of them are already committed to Clinton which is why Clinton is ahead in the delegate count. You mean the at large delegates, which will remain uncommitted until the convention. But for them to make a difference, Obama and Clinton would literally have to split the remaining elections.

No, the relationship between Obama and Rezko is not just representing him as an attorney. Here's an NBC news excerpt from a TV news report:

MYERS: This is Senator Barack Obama's stately home in a pricy Chicago neighborhood. Inside the iron fence that surrounds his home is a vacant lot that lies at the heart of the controversy over Obama's relationship with his friend and campaign contributor Tony Rezko. When Obama bought the home in 2005, the seller insisted that the house and the lot be sold at the same time. But Obama says he couldn't afford the lot. Here's the Realtor for the seller talking about the Obamas.

DONNA SCHWAN (real estate agent): They were not interested in the lot at any point. It wasn't even on the table for them.

MYERS: That's where his longtime friend Rezko comes into the picture. In June 2005, Rezko's wife bought the lot for $625,000 -- full price. And on the same day, Obama bought his home for $1,650,000 -- 300,000 below asking price. He says because the house had been on the market for months. At the time, it had been widely reported that Rezko was under scrutiny in various investigations for possible political corruption. Rezko was later indicted for bribery and fraud, unrelated to the Obama sale.

JAY STEWART (executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association): What looks bad about the transaction is the fact that the transaction occurred at all. Tony Rezko was headed for trouble. He was clearly in the crosshairs of the federal government.

Actually, as of yesterday, Obama had more delegates than Clinton. I believe he has 64 and she has 53 and John Edwards had 13. I believe that the Super Delegates don't vote until the convention although there are some who will support one candidate or another. With regards to the purchase of the house, if there had been any impropriaty or even the hint of something wrong the right wing bloggers would be all over it. Since the housing market has been in free fall for sometime now, a discount of this type on a home worth that much wouldn't necessarily be out of line. And since they wanted the home sold purchasing the lot to close the deal isn't improper.

Obama is too smart a person to open himself up to charges. As an attorney I'm sure they represent all kinds of people, some honest and some not so honest. But that doesn't make Obama guilty of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Also Proud
Actually, as of yesterday, Obama had more delegates than Clinton. I believe he has 64 and she has 53 and John Edwards had 13. I believe that the Super Delegates don't vote until the convention although there are some who will support one candidate or another. With regards to the purchase of the house, if there had been any impropriaty or even the hint of something wrong the right wing bloggers would be all over it. Since the housing market has been in free fall for sometime now, a discount of this type on a home worth that much wouldn't necessarily be out of line. And since they wanted the home sold purchasing the lot to close the deal isn't improper.

Obama is too smart a person to open himself up to charges. As an attorney I'm sure they represent all kinds of people, some honest and some not so honest. But that doesn't make Obama guilty of anything.

As to delegates, no you're not right; here's the count as of February 4, 2008 (copied from CNN.com):

The Race for Delegates

Democrats Needed to Win = 2,025

Candidate Pledged Superdels. Total

Clinton 48 184 232

Obama 63 95 158

As to his real estate purchase from Rezko, your take is not believable. So the (small) lot is sold at FULL price of 625,000 at the same time that the next door house is sold at a 20% discount at the PEAK of the real estate market in mid 2005? Whoa, if you believe that, I've a bridge to sell you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest How daring of you
Predicting is a tricky game. Haven't seen you make any ... good stratagy on your part. However, I guess I've allowed what I want to cloud what I predict.

Since you asked though... I'm picking St. McCain to seal the Republican nomination on 2/5. The Democratic nominee will still be unclear on 2/6.

Really going out on a limb there, Radagast, with your McCain prediction? Like every poll has him leading. Also another daring prediction on the Dem side by saying things will be undecided when polls are predicting a split. Ho hum.

It appears your strategy is to predict what the prevailing wisdom and talking heads say will happen. You may be right at the end of super duper Tuesday, but a broken clock is also right two times a day.

Dearest Radagast, yes, I've made predictions before. I'll take a real risk (again) and say Clinton will win enough delegates on 2/5 that would be very difficult for Obama to overcome. The strategizing by Obama to become VP will then begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Great response that was
Give me a freaking break. Is this the best you got?

Is that the best defense of that shady real estate deal you can come up with?

The hillarious part is that Sharpe James said the exact same thing before he got indicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast
Really going out on a limb there, Radagast, with your McCain prediction? Like every poll has him leading. Also another daring prediction on the Dem side by saying things will be undecided when polls are predicting a split. Ho hum.

It appears your strategy is to predict what the prevailing wisdom and talking heads say will happen. You may be right at the end of super duper Tuesday, but a broken clock is also right two times a day.

Dearest Radagast, yes, I've made predictions before. I'll take a real risk (again) and say Clinton will win enough delegates on 2/5 that would be very difficult for Obama to overcome. The strategizing by Obama to become VP will then begin.

Well Dearest 'How Daring of You' ... Welcome to the wrong side of predictions. Here's another one from old Radagast ...

On March 1, 2008, Barack Obama will have more delegates than Hillary Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest How Daring of You (Again)
Well Dearest 'How Daring of You' ... Welcome to the wrong side of predictions. Here's another one from old Radagast ...

On March 1, 2008, Barack Obama will have more delegates than Hillary Clinton.

My dearest Radagast! How daring of you (yes, again) to pick March 1 which is just prior to the next big delegate-rich primary elections (March 4) in the States of Ohio and Texas, in which Clinton is strongly favored. So you hew closely to the tree trunk by going with the prevailing punditry that Obama wins the smaller delegate states of Maryland, District of Columbia and Virginia in the next few days. Why don't you be truly bolding by announcing who will have the most delegates on March 5 (after Texas and Ohio)? I say Clinton will be circling third base on March 5.

As to me, yes, I wasn't quite right, but not by much. The delegate count (per CNN) as of February 8 is 1033 for Clinton and 937 for Obama, with 2025 needed to win. That's way better than your predictions favoring Edwards and Giuliani!

That was then, this is now and now you're on the Obama-band-wagon and I'm still a Clintonista. I'll say that even your tepid prediction won't come about. Why? With proportional allocation, Obama has to win the Maryland-Virginia-DC clam bake and the Washington State / Maine elections very decisively to overtake Clinton. I think she has enough brittle to withstand that kind of a thumping. But if I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll let me know dearest Raddie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast
My dearest Radagast! How daring of you (yes, again) to pick March 1 which is just prior to the next big delegate-rich primary elections (March 4) in the States of Ohio and Texas, in which Clinton is strongly favored. So you hew closely to the tree trunk by going with the prevailing punditry that Obama wins the smaller delegate states of Maryland, District of Columbia and Virginia in the next few days. Why don't you be truly bolding by announcing who will have the most delegates on March 5 (after Texas and Ohio)? I say Clinton will be circling third base on March 5.

As to me, yes, I wasn't quite right, but not by much. The delegate count (per CNN) as of February 8 is 1033 for Clinton and 937 for Obama, with 2025 needed to win. That's way better than your predictions favoring Edwards and Giuliani!

That was then, this is now and now you're on the Obama-band-wagon and I'm still a Clintonista. I'll say that even your tepid prediction won't come about. Why? With proportional allocation, Obama has to win the Maryland-Virginia-DC clam bake and the Washington State / Maine elections very decisively to overtake Clinton. I think she has enough brittle to withstand that kind of a thumping. But if I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll let me know dearest Raddie.

How much or little Clinton is ahead depends upon how you count the super delegates. They can vote for who they want and they can change who they want prior to the convention. If you count only elected delegates, she's behind.

As far as Texas and Ohio go, she's ahead like she was ahead in most states before Feb. 5th. when Obama caught up. If you're a Clintonista, as you say, you had to be disappointed by the results on Super Tuesday. The momentum is with Obama for now. I'm not saying it's going to stay there but for now he's got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud american
How much or little Clinton is ahead depends upon how you count the super delegates. They can vote for who they want and they can change who they want prior to the convention. If you count only elected delegates, she's behind.

As far as Texas and Ohio go, she's ahead like she was ahead in most states before Feb. 5th. when Obama caught up. If you're a Clintonista, as you say, you had to be disappointed by the results on Super Tuesday. The momentum is with Obama for now. I'm not saying it's going to stay there but for now he's got it.

As you now know, Obama took every Caucus and election over this weekend. Tommorow Maryland, Virginia and D.C.have their primaries. He should win in Md although it will depend on the turnout in Baltimore, Prince Georges County and Montgomery County and D.C. Although he is ahead in Virginia in the Roanoke are they have a huge fire burning which may change the outcome. Hillary should win in Texas and Pennsylvania, but Ohio may be a toss up.

Both campaigns have been in touch with Edwards to try and get his support. He could either release his delegates or hold them until the convention. But I would not be surprised if he doesn't end up endorsing Obama. Since MSNBC isn't a favorite of the neo-cons if you watch Chris Matthews, they have a person who is tracking the delegate count including the super delegates and has been doing the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest How Daring of You
How much or little Clinton is ahead depends upon how you count the super delegates. They can vote for who they want and they can change who they want prior to the convention. If you count only elected delegates, she's behind.

As far as Texas and Ohio go, she's ahead like she was ahead in most states before Feb. 5th. when Obama caught up. If you're a Clintonista, as you say, you had to be disappointed by the results on Super Tuesday. The momentum is with Obama for now. I'm not saying it's going to stay there but for now he's got it.

Yes, in theory superdelegates have the power to vote for who they want. However, most superdelegate are elected Democratic Congressmen/women, Senators, Governors, former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents who have publicly taken sides. Do you think Senator/super delegate Bob Menendez will switch from Clinton to Obama? or that Ted Kennedy will switch from Obama to Clinton? If it's close, of course not. Most those supers are spoken for, that's why every major news service tries to allocate them. (Everyone except for the New York Times but they're supposedly about to change their policy.)

You're right, the big Mo is with Obama. However, Super Tuesday was not a disappointment. Clinton won California when polls had them tied, won Mass notwithstanding the Kennedy/Kerry/Deval endorsements of Obama, as well as NJ and NY. It's just that everything since Super Tuesday has been a big dud for Clinton.

But, dearest Raddie, why not answer the question asked, who will have the most delegates on March 5? Whether you want to include or not include the superdels is up to you. Will you be daring enough to make a call?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Truth Squad
Yes, in theory superdelegates have the power to vote for who they want. However, most superdelegate are elected Democratic Congressmen/women, Senators, Governors, former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents who have publicly taken sides. Do you think Senator/super delegate Bob Menendez will switch from Clinton to Obama? or that Ted Kennedy will switch from Obama to Clinton? If it's close, of course not. Most those supers are spoken for, that's why every major news service tries to allocate them. (Everyone except for the New York Times but they're supposedly about to change their policy.)

You're right, the big Mo is with Obama. However, Super Tuesday was not a disappointment. Clinton won California when polls had them tied, won Mass notwithstanding the Kennedy/Kerry/Deval endorsements of Obama, as well as NJ and NY. It's just that everything since Super Tuesday has been a big dud for Clinton.

But, dearest Raddie, why not answer the question asked, who will have the most delegates on March 5? Whether you want to include or not include the superdels is up to you. Will you be daring enough to make a call?

It's unpleasant enough when people verbally assault each other over moral and ethical questions. Do you really have to pick fights and diminish people because they support a different political candidate --- in your party, no less?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest How Daring of You
It's unpleasant enough when people verbally assault each other over moral and ethical questions. Do you really have to pick fights and diminish people because they support a different political candidate --- in your party, no less?

Picking fights? Diminishing people? It's a respectful "political parlor" give and take with a good dose of predictive ability prowess thrown in. Good Democrats and good democrats and political junkies love the election process and engaging in debate. If you put yourself out there, as both Radagast and I have, you have to defend your opinions and challenge shortcomings in reasoning or facts of others. There was no personal attack in any of the back and forth. If you're suggesting a milquetoast forum, the internet or the Democratic Party (or even the Republican Party) is not for you.

--By the way, that reference to moral and ethical assualts in your opening sentene has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Tying it to this thread is unfair. (Please don't tell me that your opening of 'It's unpleasant enough' makes it okay and you were only speaking generally; it was an inappropriate reference point.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Picking fights? Diminishing people? It's a respectful "political parlor" give and take with a good dose of predictive ability prowess thrown in. Good Democrats and good democrats and political junkies love the election process and engaging in debate. If you put yourself out there, as both Radagast and I have, you have to defend your opinions and challenge shortcomings in reasoning or facts of others. There was no personal attack in any of the back and forth. If you're suggesting a milquetoast forum, the internet or the Democratic Party (or even the Republican Party) is not for you.

--By the way, that reference to moral and ethical assualts in your opening sentene has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Tying it to this thread is unfair. (Please don't tell me that your opening of 'It's unpleasant enough' makes it okay and you were only speaking generally; it was an inappropriate reference point.)

So to you this is an exercise in manliness. It's about putting yourself out there and taking the heat - because by God, if you can't take the heat, then get off the internet. After all, there are important decisions being made here, and it's not for milquetoasts.

The internet is what people make of it. I find your language unnecessarily aggressive. That tone does not add anything of substance to the discussion, but on the contrary diminshes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast
Yes, in theory superdelegates have the power to vote for who they want. However, most superdelegate are elected Democratic Congressmen/women, Senators, Governors, former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents who have publicly taken sides. Do you think Senator/super delegate Bob Menendez will switch from Clinton to Obama? or that Ted Kennedy will switch from Obama to Clinton? If it's close, of course not. Most those supers are spoken for, that's why every major news service tries to allocate them. (Everyone except for the New York Times but they're supposedly about to change their policy.)

You're right, the big Mo is with Obama. However, Super Tuesday was not a disappointment. Clinton won California when polls had them tied, won Mass notwithstanding the Kennedy/Kerry/Deval endorsements of Obama, as well as NJ and NY. It's just that everything since Super Tuesday has been a big dud for Clinton.

But, dearest Raddie, why not answer the question asked, who will have the most delegates on March 5? Whether you want to include or not include the superdels is up to you. Will you be daring enough to make a call?

First off, I've read the posts in between and let me say that I agree with 'How Daring of You'. If I did not want to debate and take the heat, I wouldn't be here. While I'm at it, I don't take any offense to Bryan either.

Look folks, 'How Daring of You' and I will likely be voting for the same person in November. 'Bryan' and I will likely not. However, in spite of differences both great and small, we DEBATE. We aren't simply insulting each other. I have never felt 'insulted' at any time on this board. My skin is a bit thicker than that.

In any event, to answer the question... Barack Obama will be ahead on Hillary Clinton in elected delegates on March 5th. Depending upon how much 'mo' Obama gets, he may even be ahead of her in Super Delegates.

And ... OK ... 'How Daring', I'll give Obama the Radagast kiss of death ... I will predict right here and now, Barack Obama will win the Democratic nomination for President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest How Daring of You
So to you this is an exercise in manliness. It's about putting yourself out there and taking the heat - because by God, if you can't take the heat, then get off the internet. After all, there are important decisions being made here, and it's not for milquetoasts.

The internet is what people make of it. I find your language unnecessarily aggressive. That tone does not add anything of substance to the discussion, but on the contrary diminshes it.

No, a good internet forum is about intellectual rigor in both expressing an opinion and defending one's views. A good dose of wit also helps by making it more interesting. If you can't defend your opinions and facts, then you will be called on it. On the other hand, a sign of a bad forum is a bully who tries to stop you from having a discussion. If it's not a personal attack and it's not violating anyone's privacy, why censor any discussion?

I was enjoying a good, intelligent and fun exchange with Radagast, who's obviously a political junkie like me. If you don't like that intellectual debate or can't keep up with the debate, then don't read the postings and move on to another thread. No one is forcing you to read this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest How Daring of Your
First off, I've read the posts in between and let me say that I agree with 'How Daring of You'. If I did not want to debate and take the heat, I wouldn't be here. While I'm at it, I don't take any offense to Bryan either.

Look folks, 'How Daring of You' and I will likely be voting for the same person in November. 'Bryan' and I will likely not. However, in spite of differences both great and small, we DEBATE. We aren't simply insulting each other. I have never felt 'insulted' at any time on this board. My skin is a bit thicker than that.

In any event, to answer the question... Barack Obama will be ahead on Hillary Clinton in elected delegates on March 5th. Depending upon how much 'mo' Obama gets, he may even be ahead of her in Super Delegates.

And ... OK ... 'How Daring', I'll give Obama the Radagast kiss of death ... I will predict right here and now, Barack Obama will win the Democratic nomination for President.

Well Radagast, I've had to eat alot of humble pie this past week. There's a Titanic-pall setting in on the Clinton side but I think alot of it is driven by the talking head pundits on TV who need to overdramatize and prove how smart they think they are. We're as good as any James Carville or Cindy Crowley or Wolf Blitzer!

I'll stick to my guns. I say Clinton picks up enough delegates on March 4 in Texas and Ohio to re-gain her edge over Obama on the delegate calculation. I think Obama's current approach of acting as if he's already won the nomination will turn off alot of voters in the upcoming primaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
No, a good internet forum is about intellectual rigor in both expressing an opinion and defending one's views. A good dose of wit also helps by making it more interesting. If you can't defend your opinions and facts, then you will be called on it. On the other hand, a sign of a bad forum is a bully who tries to stop you from having a discussion. If it's not a personal attack and it's not violating anyone's privacy, why censor any discussion?

I was enjoying a good, intelligent and fun exchange with Radagast, who's obviously a political junkie like me. If you don't like that intellectual debate or can't keep up with the debate, then don't read the postings and move on to another thread. No one is forcing you to read this.

It's not a matter of censorship. We all censor ourselves in some way.

I agree with how you frame the issue: we want to have the most engaging and useful discussion possible. I just disagree with what you think is useful. There's a difference between wit and taunting. There's no intellectual rigor in the latter, any more than cowboy diplomacy is being cautious in defense of our country. On the contrary, taunts and insults are cheap substitutes for wit and wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Well Radagast, I've had to eat alot of humble pie this past week. There's a Titanic-pall setting in on the Clinton side but I think alot of it is driven by the talking head pundits on TV who need to overdramatize and prove how smart they think they are. We're as good as any James Carville or Cindy Crowley or Wolf Blitzer!

I'll stick to my guns. I say Clinton picks up enough delegates on March 4 in Texas and Ohio to re-gain her edge over Obama on the delegate calculation. I think Obama's current approach of acting as if he's already won the nomination will turn off alot of voters in the upcoming primaries.

"humble pie" ??? You're dating yourself, that expression hasn't been used in 40 years. BTW.... it

will be Obama vs McCain with McCain winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest How Daring of You
It's not a matter of censorship. We all censor ourselves in some way.

I agree with how you frame the issue: we want to have the most engaging and useful discussion possible. I just disagree with what you think is useful. There's a difference between wit and taunting. There's no intellectual rigor in the latter, any more than cowboy diplomacy is being cautious in defense of our country. On the contrary, taunts and insults are cheap substitutes for wit and wisdom.

Can you point out the specific language of any of my exchanges that mocks (which is the definition of taunting) or insults Radagast? Radagast was not insulted but if you think Radagast should have been insulted, then point out where you think the line was crossed.

The dictionary definition of censorship is to suppress or delete as objectionable. Your position is censorship because you are telling me what I should or should not say. When a third party wishes to censor what I have to say, then you better be able to come up with a very good reason. Your peculiar opinion that Obama supporters shouldn't be debating Clinton supporters on delegate counts and election results is not a poor reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
No, a good internet forum is about intellectual rigor in both expressing an opinion and defending one's views. A good dose of wit also helps by making it more interesting. If you can't defend your opinions and facts, then you will be called on it. On the other hand, a sign of a bad forum is a bully who tries to stop you from having a discussion. If it's not a personal attack and it's not violating anyone's privacy, why censor any discussion?

I was enjoying a good, intelligent and fun exchange with Radagast, who's obviously a political junkie like me. If you don't like that intellectual debate or can't keep up with the debate, then don't read the postings and move on to another thread. No one is forcing you to read this.

And no one is censoring, either, just calling for a higher level of dialogue. Doesn't mean you have to be Buckley-on-paper. I just don't find anything witty in "my guy will beat up your guy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
"humble pie" ??? You're dating yourself, that expression hasn't been used in 40 years. BTW.... it

will be Obama vs McCain with McCain winning.

I thought Guiliani was going to win, 2dim? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
I thought Guiliani was going to win, 2dim? :lol:

Goes to show, someone as smart as me can misjudge the intelligence of the voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Goes to show, someone as smart as me can misjudge the intelligence of the voters.

Shouldn't it be "someone as smart as I , or someone as smart as myself"?

Smart indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Goes to show, someone as smart as me can misjudge the intelligence of the voters.

Well, I think I've proven it now.

It was "Patriot" who actually made that prediction. I believe 2dim just unwittingly admitted that he and "Patriot" are the same person.

Sucker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Truth Squad
Goes to show, someone as smart as me can misjudge the intelligence of the voters.

Happily, no one has misjudged your intelligence. Only you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...