Piece of the action
It certainly looks today as if a large number of Republicans are turning out to vote in Indiana.
But not nessarily as spoilers - in fact, I suspect the hardcore spoilers will be outnumbered by those who just want a piece of the action, further evidence that this election has made politics sing again in America.
For those hungry for the next round and the next song, it is plainly to be found in Michigan and Florida, with the Clinton campaign working out a strategy that brings the two rogue states into play.
I bring urgent news from Patrick Henry College, where I have spent a pleasant few hours with some very earnest students talking about politics and culture: there is going to be a Democrats club on campus!!
Not sure quite how well attended it will be - the students giggled when I asked them if they were supporters of Obama or Clinton. But the tectonic plates of US politics are grinding...
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~42~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Of course Michigan and Florida delegates must be seated. I don't know how he arrived at the figure, but even Karl Rove said that 15 million voters simply could not be ignored just because local party figures broke the rules. If Jesus could forgive, then the two states should be forgiven, but possibly the party leaders should be sanctioned in some way. It doesn't seem fair to penalise the electorate which voted in such numbers. Justin foresaw that it might go to court, but might it not go to the floor of the convention?
Complain about this comment
Of course Hillary will fight to get them included. They are a big part of the reason she is still fighting. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and didn't campaign in Florida, so how exactly is it fair Mr. Cunard?
Complain about this comment
Justin,
It seems like every state that has been contested for the past three months has been billed as a final showdown, or a 'game-changer'. Everyone said Hillary needed overwhelming wins in Texas and Ohio (how long ago?)... she didn't get that at all but still used those results to claim she was back in the race.
Now Indiana and North Carolina are being hyped in the same way. Even the Michigan and Florida dispute is a bit pointless... Hillary could get a big boost if those votes are recognised but it still won't get her give her a delegate victory, neither candidate can achieve that. Even if it gives Hillary a higher popular vote it will be tainted because nobody campaigned in those states.
These all feel like non-issues. And I just can't help saying... it has to be Obama. Surely it has to be?
Is either of them more electable than the other? Who knows, it's too close to call. But surely we can see that there is one candidates who panders less, who speaks more like an adult, who offers at least some degree of hope that he'd be different. Yes he's said some things that have seemed a bit 'elitist', but surely no Democrat believes he actually cares less about the poor and downtrodded than Clinton does?
I suspect I'm like many Brits, of all political persuasions, who just can't understand why Obama isn't already the candidate.
Complain about this comment
Boo!
Complain about this comment
I suspect I'm like many Brits, of all political persuasions, who just can't understand why Obama isn't already the candidate.
Here is why Obama has won in most caucus states which do not reflect the voters as well as primaries. Clinton has won most of the large states which determine who will be the next President.
Most observors feel Obama can't be McCain
Complain about this comment
Ah, #3, you are expecting rationality in a system
which is too large to be rational. The only rule
is that there are no rules, only impediments.
I'll bet Hillary and Obama wind up in court over
this.
A better way to look at the whole (accidental)
process is one of theater. Here, in act 2, Hillary
has been cast as the underdog, a favorable
position. It's really a refinement of the old
Kabuki plays, but with a bigger stage.
Now, if I were conspiratorially minded, I would
look for a way to show that Wright has support
from the Clinton camp somehow. Perhaps
this could be developed into an urban legend
just to muddy the waters? I hope so.
Complain about this comment
#6 thanks. Certainly we're not much more rational in Britain. We've just had a mayoral election in London between a corruption-friendly egomaniac and a pandering buffoon, and everyone seemed to think this was a good idea. (Although I can't imagine anything dafter than focusing on what someone's pastor thinks.)
#3 who are 'most observors' and where do these 'feelings' come from? You're clutching at straws. There's no way to reliably guess who's more electable. Both have proven they have lots of electoral appeal, even the most vociferous of their supporters have to admit the difference is marginal if anything. Use some other reason to justify why you support Clinton, please.
Complain about this comment
AAlvinTwiningham #2 writes "Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and didn't campaign in Florida" Mr Obama was originally on the ballot but withdrew his name, and neither Mrs Clinton nor Mr Obama campaigned in those states. The results are there to see and I'd bet a nickel to a dollar that the delegates of both states will be seated. There simply cannot be a nomination made by only 48 states of the Union.
Richard Berry - no, it does not 'have to be Obama. Surely it has to be?' I wouldn't bet on it. With regard to the two naughty states "it will be tainted because nobody campaigned in those states." On the contrary, simply because there was no television advertising, voters were not swayed by sound-bites and accusations. The results there could quite well be a more genuine reflection of the voters' will than if they had been pressured by expensive advertising.
Complain about this comment
Oh well, here we go, democracy in action...
http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_story_127160436.html?keyword=topstory
And a campaign office was vandalised last night...
Complain about this comment
Call me a conspiracy nut, but I don't think the tables started turning when Hillary won PA or even when Jeremiah Right spoke again. As far as I'm concerned those are only results of what I believe tipped the balance. Something tells me that it was the "Obliterate Iran" comments that indicated a whole lot more what direction things were going to go.
Ask yourself this in light of the statement above: why haven't people like Al Gore spoken out? This is a very serious question that I think millions of people are asking around the world except in the US it seems: Why in the world would the almighty and, supposedly, "wise" superdelegate WAIT to see Rodham Clinton behave like Karl Rove is her campaign manager, say things that Bush HIMSELF hasn't said yet and garner HARDCORE REPUBLICAN votes??? Is this REALLY something worth waiting around for ?? Anyone in their right mind would not, and it almost sounds like the ones that have spoken out for Obama had to make certain "sacrifices" in order to preserve their integrity and dignity in doing so.
Again: Why is half of congress just WAITING. What exactly are they waiting for? The one and only thing that would give Clinton victory is a CHEAT. Is that what they're waiting for? Is anyone truly eager to simply confirm to the planet that America does no longer rhyme with free and fair democracy?
As a United States resident of the past 10 years, I can proudly claim: i'm moving to Canada if Clinton is elected as Democratic nominee, let alone in November. What a joke this is!
Complain about this comment
It looks as if the Democratic nomination will boil down to the upper echelons of the party deciding who is more electable.
Whilst not using the democratically questionable method of the superdelegates, the number of delegates allowed from Florida and Michigan will essentially be a direct indication of which of the two the Party Chiefs actually want to run for the top job.
It's still a really long way to Denver.
Complain about this comment
Justin (and others).
In view of the unsubtle bias that (it seems) some of the American TV channels have for or against a candidate, I thought that this story - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7385370.stm - might be an interesting comparison of how it's handled in the UK. (A guy was sacked for a radio show for telling people how to vote).
Is there anything analogous in the US?
Complain about this comment
Richard Berry (#7) writes '"Although I can't imagine anything dafter than focusing on what someone's pastor thinks."
Agreed, although you must keep in mind, its a political campaign. That phrase by its very nature suggests anything other than normal, clean, kind, only the subjects of importants for the nation being discussed. In a western political campaign, I think there is no escapeing at least the risk of something personally contriversial about a candidate/a candidate's past being brought up, in one way or another, for viewing by the public-its just a fact!! You in the UK are lucky-so far-to not have to endure such nonsense in the throws of an election campaign, but that's not to say that your party leaders haven't had their share of contriversies (Charles Kenidy's alcahal problem, the cash for honors scandle etc). And what do you mean '"There is no reliable way to guess who is more electable."? Sure there is!! Just look at who has won more states/deligates!! As you rightly said, '"It has to be Obama-it has to be?"
Complain about this comment
Stumo_ #12: I'm sure there is-though it, I'm willing to bet, is very grey-and not so black and white!! After all, it does encroach on freedom of speech, does it not? Its not as if those listeners in the UK were being forced to vote a certain way-the guy was just merely giving his opinion!! As far as I can tell there is nothing illeagle about that-either in the US or UK!! But then again, what the guy did wasn't, to say the least, very appropriate or professional!! So I completely understand why he was sacked/fired!! There are certain things everyone knows one just doesn't talk about in a public work environment too much, and politics is one of them!!
And as far as the US TV stations being "bias" accusations, again it is obvious and wrong!!! But again I ask you, in the UK during an election campaign, has there ever been a news paper/TV station that has expressed favor for a particular candidate over another even though it is technically undemocratic?As Ive said several times on here, it is very difficult for one to report on something that they feels very strongly about-that doesn't justify it, but it is simply true!!
Complain about this comment
O my God!!! Justin!!! You've done it again!!! You used the word "students" instead of "puples"!!! How ever will your British readers understand what you are talking about?
Complain about this comment
It has often been said that african americans overhelmingly tend to vote for Obama and that he has a problem with "white" voters.
In a contest between a woman and a man, women will vote disproportionately for the woman too.
That's no less true, but it doesn't seem to get covered in the same spin that Obama's "white problem" is in part a feature of (white) women voting for a woman.
Complain about this comment
As the exit polls indicate, both candidates scored a win - but what is fascinating is that the British press all lead with "Obama wins" and makes Mrs Clinton's victory of secondary importance; at least the CBS News site here puts the lady first. Mr Obama has again demonstrated his inability to land a knockout blow and the question must be why is that so? If he can't do it now, could he prevail in November? My gut feeling is that despite the possibility of upsetting African-American and younger voters, Mrs Clinton will be on the November ballot one way or another; despite the naysayers, there is still time and reason for "the dream ticket". Perhaps, as in 'The Gondoliers', they will operate as a shared presidency, even though the constitution doesn't provide for it.
Complain about this comment
Personally, I think this drawn out campaign is really damaging for both of them. Both looked like strong candidates a few decades back, when all this started.
But everyone I know who used to suport obama fervently has now cooled significantly.. and no-one I know who used to support obama has switched to clinton.
I guess it might be better to get all the dirty laundry out now, instead of when fighting mcain... but i'm not convinced.
Also, while its nice to see people getting involved.. the long drawn out process and the surreal system doesn't seem to do anyone any favors when it comes to choosing a good candidate.
Its easy to forget that we haven't even got to the democracy part yet... this is simply the internal party wranglings. So it's bizzare to see that there are no controls to stop republicans having their say in the democrat's candidate. It'd be like having lots of labour activists turning up to the conservative party conference to vote for conservative leader.
Frankly, this whole primaries thing is crazy... they should condense the whole thing down into 1-2 months max.
Complain about this comment
Ok it's time Clinton got out now. Obama will get beat. However she should bow out.
Complain about this comment
"~5. At 8:12 pm on 06 May 2008, MagicKirin wrote:
I suspect I'm like many Brits, of all political persuasions, who just can't understand why Obama isn't already the candidate."
I suspect I'm like many Brits, of all political persuasions, who just can't understand why Obama is the candidate.
I just don't get him.
I don't find him charismatic.
I think his speeches are turgid, repetiitive crap.
I think he his shallower than Clinton (and that takes some doing).
I could of course repeat the above and swap Obama for Clinton - neither candidate has great appeal for me.
It's a pity Al Gore did not run because he would have walked this against these two inexperienced nominees.
Complain about this comment
NoRashDecisions #14: I think that the TV and Radio stations have to try to stay neutral and balanced - yes this is very difficult to measure, but it avoids anything too extreme.
The same rules don't apply to newspapers, and I'm pretty sure some of them have told people which way to vote. Whether they have any effect or not is another matter.
Complain about this comment
Whose fault is it that Barrack Obama's name didn't apear on the ballot in Michigan and that he didn't even campaign in Florida?
I't's his own fault; he withdrew from the Michigan race, and he chose not to campaign in florida.
If the democratic national comitee continues to alienate the democrats in those states, they might just turn out to vote against the democratic nominee.
Complain about this comment
Yes, Obama bowed out of Michigan and Florida because the broke party rules. He chose to play by those rules and Hillary did not. That speaks volumes to me.
When this country went from Clinton to Bush we went from bad to worse. I can see the appeal for some to go back to bad, but I personally would like to gamble on a chance to actually get a good leader for a change. Call me crazy.
I also find it disturbing that so many people see Hillary as a strong leader. Her husban publicly cheats on her and she meekly takes it, knowing the party will reward her. She becomes Senator of a state she never lived in through a loophole. And now she is using questionable methods to try to secure the highest job in the nation. She has no concept of public service, only self service.
Complain about this comment
you see, it is said that charity begins at home and for a presidential candidate like Hillary it is very disaspointing she decided to go against the democratic party. Infact she should be penalized by the party for breaking the perty rules and regulation by going into a primary that was not permitted by the party OR SHE IS CALLING ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES STUPID AS WELL AS THE PARTY, that she is above them so not subjected to rules and regulation.
She is contesting what she should pray no body paid attention to bring it up for a penalty against her. Machigan and Florida break the rules and she went along with them. The democratic party needs somebody that will protray the principle of the party and the country atlarge but Hillary is the opposite. The superdelegates are so nice they still listen to her as well as the democratic party. SHE SHOULD BE PENALIZE FOR BREAKING PARTY RULES.
she says she wants to rle a country and starts by breaking party rules as well as encourageing other to do same SHAME!!!!!
Complain about this comment
SHE CAN NOT BE ELECTED:
1- THE CLINTONS ARE LIARS EVEN ON ISSUE OF NATIONAL INTEREST JUST TO GET THIER WAYS, without going back to history in the case of Monica pls!. I want to speak on the recent, Hillary Clintons lied about her being fired at Bosnia. This is a national issue that could cost the Government huge tax payers money to investigate or any other action on who wants to kill the wife of a president and don’t capitalize on the war zone issue, like the Iraq lies.
2- This kind of lies could cost inter-governmental problems or international conflict. She said she is more experience in international issue, Give me a break, Bosnia confirms how experience she is.
3- The Clintons don’t believe in regulations or rules of any kind, they believe they are above all. Shame when one breaks the rules and regulation and you say it ok! (Machigan and Florida). And that is a suppose presidential candidate, what is she encouraging? “right of those voters” as should call it. Give me a break.
4- What about “Paul vs. Clinton Fraud Case “, she is talking about Wright and Obama.
5 She will not unify the country not less your party.
6- The Republicans are waiting for her, then they will destroy her with all the scandals and facts, hence the party chance of having the next president.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS