Comments for en-gb 30 Fri 28 Nov 2014 19:35:43 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at dennisjunior1 Keeping the supers, were the best way to keep everyone happy! Fri 26 Dec 2008 02:58:55 GMT+1 neilmurg At this stage of the contest the Democrats inability to grow a pair (of balls) and declare Obama the winner is making them, not Obama, look weak and vacillating. It will weaken their case in the upcoming Presidential campaign. Someone needs to step up and do the brave, kind thing, pull the plug on Hillary.Does Hillary think that an inability to face the truth makes her look presidential? Fri 09 May 2008 20:49:33 GMT+1 AAlvinTwiningham Obama+Clinton=President McCain. Most of the independents and moderates I know are of the ABC ilk (Anyone But Clinton). Fri 09 May 2008 14:14:13 GMT+1 peterm99 I expect that Obama will forego the "help" of a Clinton vice-presidential candidacy.He faces enough of a problem overcoming his own not insignificant shortcomings. Taking on Clinton's baggage would make the ticket completely unpalatable to a very large fraction of the electorate.One of the biggest things going for the Democrats this election is that neither the Republican base, nor many independents, are thrilled with McCain and will likely not turn out in enthusiastic droves to vote for him. Clinton on the Democratic ticket, in either position, will totally reverse that scenario.Obama has a reasonable chance of beating McCain if he (Obama) selects a competent but non-polarizing running mate, but I doubt he stands any chance at all if he pairs with Clinton. Thu 08 May 2008 23:31:24 GMT+1 OnlyHereForTheFood I can understand why my second post was deleted, not sure why my first was - I just pointing out that Obama is keeping his delegates just as sweet as Clinton is - and why they've continued to fall his way.This explains it a lot better than I can. Thu 08 May 2008 21:55:10 GMT+1 ronaine I'm beginning to agree with david_cunard, I think Sen. Clinton is still in it to win the running mate job, or vise versa - her inevitability is now is that she will have to work with Sen. Obama.Which would explain her logic - generally. Thu 08 May 2008 21:53:42 GMT+1 Moon0nAStick Er... Is this bribery? Thu 08 May 2008 21:36:22 GMT+1 peterm99 The Ybarra attitude should surprise no one, American or Brit.Whether it is the selling peerages in the UK, getting special treatment in return for campaign contributions in the US, or receiving favorable court verdicts through bribery in the Roman Republic, the dirty business of politics and politicians has not, and likely will not, ever change.I know of no (currently legal) solution to the problem, since, if the current crop of politicians could somehow be removed, the next one will comport themselves in the same way.As Ronald Reagan observed: "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." Thu 08 May 2008 20:46:49 GMT+1 watermanaquarius Check out Ben Smith on Politico.Hillary is making a move for Florida and Michigan.David, your wish might be coming true.2+2=5, 3+6= 7 Just the way it should be Thu 08 May 2008 20:25:14 GMT+1 proles It has sometimes been suggested that it might save alot of time and trouble to dispense with the effort and expense of show elections in America and decide the coronation contest between two/three like-minded elitist candidates with a 'focus group'. The 'super-delegates' probably come closest to this goal in the current context, with about 20% of the delegate total this year and the inordinate attention paid to them. One can hardly imagine a humble primary voter asking one of the regal candidates for $20 million in "assistance" to work out their mortgage problems. But that could be one surefire way to get more ordinary voters to go to the polls than the paltry turnout in the primaries recorded so far, bribe them. Or maybe there's another less expensive way. Perhaps there are some parallels to America's 'election' with the recent London mayoral race. Seumas Milne, The Guardian columnist and son of former BBC Dir. Gen., Alasdair Milne had a thoughtful interpretation of the London election that might just as easily be applied to the American political scene, in which he opined, "immigration aside, there's little sign of any underlying shift to the right. On the contrary, when it comes to issues such as inequality, taxes on the rich, privatisation, rights at work, and foreign wars, public opinion is clearly to the left of both major parties." "...that doesn't mean the Tories can't capitalize on hostility to New Labour to return to power. But it does lay the basis for a new, progressive coalition, inside and outside Labour." Substitute, Bill Clinton's DLC for New Labour and simmering dissatisfaction with both major parties in America - with the majority of eligible voters staying away from the polls - may make fertile ground for a similar coalition here. Thu 08 May 2008 19:57:39 GMT+1 David Cunard Isn't it possible that very quietly the staff of both candidates are meeting to discuss how to resolve the issue? Clearly Mr Obama does not not now and will not have enough delegates to ensure his nomination, and thus Mrs Clinton is the keeper of the keys - he can neither win by the delegate count nor, in November, without her supporters. In a perverse way, Mr Obama needs Mrs Clinton rather more than she needs him. If she should concede at some time before the Convention - and it's a big if - perhaps there would be an announcement of a major role for her to play now and in the future. Certainly she will not give up of her own volition without being offered something in return. The obvious office, considering how closely their proposals run, would be the Vice-presidency, and even those who have had no affection for each other can work together. Supposedly Lyndon Johnson and JFK were not the best of friends, but LBJ delivered his constituency for Kennedy. For a long time Ronald Reagan refused to consider George Bush, about which there is a fascinating account at it remains possible for Mrs Clinton to prevail, she's smart enough to plan ahead and, other than making an early exit (graceful or not) I have no doubt that both sides are considering how they can work together to ensure victory in November. Thu 08 May 2008 18:45:44 GMT+1 Stakopopolips Wow, and here I was thinking that it was just Nick Robinson provoking a tirade of moderated comments.I think Clinton would be better served giving the funding to Obama for the battle against McCain, to be honest, which is to say, what she's doing seems largely pointless and doesn't do much for her image. Thu 08 May 2008 18:00:02 GMT+1 watermanaquarius Thank you Justianus,I was planning to have them and others stuffed. Thu 08 May 2008 17:06:07 GMT+1 Justianus Well, I've no idea what all those other guys were up to when their comments got scrapped, but it seems simple enough to me.The only thing you have to watch out for is that you don't just need your superdelegates sweet, you want them to keep as well.Given that, the best solution would be to pickle them.Here's what to do:Take a very large bowl (The Orange Bowl would do nicely). Add the superdelegates. It is best to have washed them thoroughly beforehand and them pop them into a refrigerator for a few hours, as this renders them reasonably sluggish. Add about 3,000 lbs of sugar, some 4,000 gallons of vinegar, a generous sprinkling of musterd seed, some celery and turmeric. The easiest way is to add the ingredients in the bowl with a one or two helicopters, but ordinary water bombers will work fine too.I would suggest also adding at least a year's worth of The Onion for some spice.Bring the bowl to a boil and boil for ten minutes or so. Remove the supers and place them, fifty or so at a time, in very large jars. Seal the jars firmly and pasteurize for another ten minutes or so.Ideally, you should let the supers pickle for a least four weeks or so before use. However, if they've been sitting on the fence for a while before they were pickled, they should be sweetened up in no time.Well, I hope that's helped. Thu 08 May 2008 16:55:30 GMT+1 watermanaquarius Dear Moderator,Hereby a list of words that could be used in a comment on the blog. I will leave you to place them in any sentence you feel benifits your own individual leanings. It may be a good idea in case this comment is being viewed/ moderated in England or America to employ moderators that understand both American English and Oxford English.They are :-Obama, Clinton, Justin , Hillary, Californian Wine, dear, cook , sweet , sour , bitter[ sorry thats a new one] Chinese, Indian, spice, pepper, super, supper, last meal, blackmail diplomatic , private[ or personal] discussion, riot , laugh, heat, bodies, superdelegate, rumour, possibility, decisionCombine these with is, was, should, buried, could, have, hold,{{ forever and ever[ thats a joke sorry]}}and "Cooking on Justin's blog" and you have everything for the mix.Perhaps as is being now considered on Washington Post you should make a non-moderated sin bin area,[ of course not available for people of a nervousl and closed eyed disposition] to be accessed with a special code.My apologies to OnlyHereForTheFood and Board Stupid whose simple comments have also been now deleted.I would suggest you also wipe the original comment by that Justin Webb character for starting many down a road that it appeared he wanted investigating and commenting on.Thank you for enroling me in the Ed Inglehart elite club of people who can boast a "Comment banned by the BBC"star on our CV.You are going completely against the BBC policy of the House rules on this blog and I hope to see this answer on the blog for others to make their own deductions.I would also hope you would place an explanation on the blog that explains the BBC's hands tied approach to subjects that our electoral candidates feel must never be broached. Thu 08 May 2008 16:10:02 GMT+1 Streathamite The superdelegate system strikes me as a near-flawless means of ensuring a future grassroots v party hierarchs showdown. i can't think of anything more likely to handle the elction to the GOP on a plate.With so many people above and beyond Dem activists voting in the Dem primaries, it's also difficult to portray them ALL as unrepresentative of mainstream merican thinking; they ARE the mainstream! Thu 08 May 2008 15:36:00 GMT+1 jacksforge what did watermanaquarious say?I'm curious now.PsC linton's help for the economy... will she lend us all some money? Thu 08 May 2008 15:23:39 GMT+1 watermanaquarius This post has been Removed Thu 08 May 2008 14:04:15 GMT+1 OnlyHereForTheFood This post has been Removed Thu 08 May 2008 14:03:27 GMT+1 watermanaquarius Not for use on the blogDear Justin,Perhaps if you could substitute the word personal for private in my comment that is being now moderated it should pass muster. I see my comment could have a double entendre meaning that was not my intention.The word riot also was my hope for a deeper discussion a la Board Stupids' blackmail approach to the super question.Sincerily WMAq Thu 08 May 2008 13:24:10 GMT+1 Reuben33g It's all about the money.If you look deep enough into this mess you'll find that the motive behind this whole crazyy mess. Thu 08 May 2008 13:22:27 GMT+1 felixdare The superdelegates were introduced to enable senior Democrats to intervene in the primary contests to stop the party faithful from selecting a populist but ultimately unelectable nominee. Yet, at the risk of stating the obvious, any candidate in any year who won a presidential nomination battle against the popular vote through winning a majority of the superdelegates would always be completely hamstrung by a lack of democratic legitimacy and thus be doomed to fail in the national poll. It seems, therefore, that giving so much power to unelected party grandees can only have two effects on a presidential nomination campaign; (1) to select a candidate who cannot win; or (2) encourage with false hope a candidate who cannot win to persist in dragging out his or her campaign to the point where its only effect is to damage the eventual nominee. Either way, the Democrats would be well advised to scrap this arbitrary and unhelpful franchise. Thu 08 May 2008 13:08:05 GMT+1 watermanaquarius This post has been Removed Thu 08 May 2008 12:48:04 GMT+1 JcnBrown Justin - greatly enjoying your blog!Surely now Hillary must be looking to a dignified exit strategy rather than building a perception of "bribing" the super delegates.If her campaign offers of cash were true and (surely it is inconceivable such a strategy could work) her campaign would implode on accusations of stealing the nomination, alienating African-American voters for Obama, indelibly enhancing an existing perception of untrustworthiness and giving McCain a huge lift-off given his (admirable) anti-pork barrel credentials.Strategically this policy cannot work - and indeed practically, as her campaign no longer has the funds; I doubt that even her most ardent supporters would be willing to donate substantial $ required to pull-in super delegates whose only interest is an eye on the "main chance".Ted Devine's analysis is a forensic destruction by hard numbers of any self-delusion that her campaign team may still have on her ability to win the nomination ( )The only question now is the manner of her exfiltration from the shooting match that this has become - a glowing endorsment of Obama and a sincere offer for her, Bill and her campaign team to work night and day to win in November would ensure her legacy and, conceivably, a platform for 2012.However, if she does continue to run - great news as this is the most fascinating political run-off in decades and will keep us political "pointy heads" entranced for several more months! Thu 08 May 2008 12:30:17 GMT+1 Board Stupid This post has been Removed Thu 08 May 2008 12:16:42 GMT+1 Candace9839 Clinton being skint if she's lending her campaign money from her personal fortune might sour it a bit. Thu 08 May 2008 11:47:32 GMT+1 johnnybliss This post has been Removed Thu 08 May 2008 11:33:28 GMT+1 rupertornelius Ybarra sounds smart. Thu 08 May 2008 09:39:45 GMT+1 OnlyHereForTheFood This post has been Removed Thu 08 May 2008 09:10:12 GMT+1