News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[Ivan Seeking]

Hillary, who has obtained money the old fashioned way, and who was thought to be unbeatable due to the extensive money machine and network that the Clintons enjoy, has been outspent by as much as 5:1 by Obama.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Hillary, who has obtained money the old fashioned way, and who was thought to be unbeatable due to the extensive money machine and network that the Clintons enjoy, has been outspent by as much as 5:1 by Obama.

See see? Obama will just end up spending us into another Depression! I'm the only candidate that can win and be the best ever!

http://www.redstaterascals.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/hillary-bug-eyed-smile-thumb.jpg

I'm getting a pony!

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/05/obama_speaks_ou.html


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03072008/watch.html

I think people can make judgments accordingly.

Just to be clear, are you saying Hagee and Moyers are terrorists and if Obama were President he'd hunt them down and kill them?

 

[Poop-Loops]

I wish.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just to be clear, are you saying Hagee and Moyers are terrorists and if Obama were President he'd hunt them down and kill them?

Yes.

 

[lisab]

Just to be clear, are you saying Hagee and Moyers are terrorists and if Obama were President he'd hunt them down and kill them?

Don't be foolish.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes.

Ok, thanks. Good to know. Do you have any references for that position of Obama's, though? It might be a tough platform for him to run on in the flyover states.

Don't be foolish.

Just wanted to be clear on the parallel Ivan was drawing. Otherwise, his post doesn't make any sense. It looked like an apples to pears comparison to me without that clarification he gave.

 

[Vanadium 50]

90% of his donations or 90% of his total money came from donations that were <$100?

According to the AP, 90% of his 1.5M donors and 45% of his $226M. Also, 20% of the money comes from people giving the maximum $2300. That works out to:

• 1.35M donors giving less than $100 and an average of $75.33.
• 130,000 donors giving at least $100, less than $2300, and an average of $606.84.
• 19,700 donors giving the maximum of $2300.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ok, thanks. Good to know. Do you have any references for that position of Obama's, though? It might be a tough platform for him to run on in the flyover states.

It is not appropriate for staff members to troll the forums. You should try having a little class sometime.

 

[chemisttree]

I believe it is 90% of his money, but either way, donations are limited to $2500 per person, so the two numbers shouldn't be that far apart. And it doesn't leave much room for bundlers.

That's how bundlers work. They don't themselves hand over the checks. They come in from the individual. Obama is not releasing the exact amounts his bundlers have raised and from whom.

From Obama's website:

This campaign is about building a different kind of politics. We don't take money from lobbyists or political action committees, and we're going to build a broad base of individual donors to ensure that this campaign answers to no one but the people. That starts with you. Make your donation online using the form below.

No lobbyists? A lie! He has 14 bundlers who are registered as lobbyists.
http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2008/02/06/bundlers-for-barack-obama-who-have-registered-as-federal-lobbyists/
http://www.citizen.org/documents/LobbyistsFinal.pdf
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/index.cfm

The 90% number that Obama gave in the debate is wrong somewhat. (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_obama_correct_to_say_90_of.html ) Over two thirds of money comes from donors that give more than $200. All the rest must give way less.

Obama seems to be going back on his word that he would opt into the Presidential Financing System. http://citizen.typepad.com/watchdog_blog/2008/02/will-obama-opt.html

 

[chemisttree]

Obama told the group he had a "fundamental disagreement" with Carter, who was rebuffed by Israeli leaders during a peace mission to the Middle East this week.

"We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction," Obama said. "We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements."

but later in the same story...

Obama also said he's willing to make diplomatic overtures to Iran even though has funded Hamas and other militant groups.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/16/obama_reassures_jewish_leaders_on_hamas_wright/

So I guess it's okay to meet with the true leaders of Hamas but not Hamas?

 

[chemisttree]

Obama appears to be bribing Superdelegates...

Obama leads Clinton in giving money to superdelegates

...In cases where superdelegates received money from Obama's Hope Fund but none from Clinton's PAC, Obama got the superdelegates' support 85 percent of the time. And in cases where superdelegates received money from Clinton's Hillpac but none from Obama's PAC, 75 percent backed Clinton.

Some superdelegates, such as Democratic Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, received $10,000 from both Obama and Clinton. Neither senator has endorsed a presidential candidate.

The superdelegates include nearly 800 members of Congress, governors and Democratic Party leaders who could be the tiebreakers in the close race between Clinton and Obama. The study noted that many of them are the candidates' friends, colleagues or financial beneficiaries who have much closer ties to the candidates than regular delegates.

"And while it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $904,200 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the study said, adding that both Clinton and Obama "will be calling in favors."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/31905.html

Oh yeah, that's change we can believe in...

 

[Astronuc]

No lobbyists? A lie! He has 14 bundlers who are registered as lobbyists.
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/index.cfm

Or not. Apparently none of those 14 is currently a registered lobbyist. Last Lobby Report indicates the last year registered as a lobbyist.

      Name          State       Employer             Last Lobby Report 
Timothy M. Broas      MD     Winston & Strawn                2000
Frank Clark           IL     Commonwealth Edison             2000
Howard W. Gutman      MD     Williams & Connolly             1999
Scott Harris          DC     Harris Wiltshire and Grannis    2006
Allan J. Katz         FL     Akerman Senterfitt              2004
William T. Lake       DC     Wilmer Cutler Pickering 
                             Hale and Dorr                   2001
Robert S. Litt        MD     Arnold & Porter                 2002
Kenneth G. Lore       DC     Bingham McCutchen               2001
Thomas J. Perrelli    VA     Jenner and Block                2002
Thomas A. Reed        VA     Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 
                             Preston Gates Ellis LLP         2006
Paul N. Roth          NY     Schulte Roth & Zabel            2005
Alan Solomont         MA     Solomont Bailis Ventures        2006
Robert M. Sussman     DC     Latham & Watkins                2006
Tom E. Wheeler        DC     Core Capital Partners           2003

Compare those 14 with those for Clinton (22) and McCain (69).

 

[Art]

but later in the same story...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/16/obama_reassures_jewish_leaders_on_hamas_wright/

So I guess it's okay to meet with the true leaders of Hamas but not Hamas?

Most of Hamas' funding comes from Saudi Arabia who western leaders meet with regularly.

David Aufhauser, general counsel to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, said in congressional testimony that despite some success in curbing terror financing, "by no means have we crossed the bridge of the issue of terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia." Aufhauser noted that not only is it donating to Hamas not a crime in Saudi Arabia, but Hamas raises "enormous amounts of money" during the month of the Hajj alone -- a period so lucrative for Hamas that it sends its political director to the Kingdom.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2378

Hamas are a Sunni group, Iran is Shi'ite. You seem to be confusing Hamas with Hezbollah.

 

[Astronuc]

It would appear that Obama and/or the reporter confused Hamas with Hezbollah. There is also a Hezbollah (Hizballah al-Hejaz) group in Saudia Arabia and the Gulf States, but it is considered a terroist group by the Saudi government.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obama appears to be bribing Superdelegates...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/31905.html

Oh yeah, that's change we can believe in...

The donations cited appear to have been made before Obama even agreed to run. One was for the 2006 election, and the rest were only cited as:

And if that's the case, it's good news for Obama. Since 2005, his PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates,

What's more, when I tried to check the link for the list [at the bottom of the page that you linked], it was dead. So either provide evidence that this is a bribe or retract your statement. Intentionally posting misinformation merits 3 of the 10 points needed for a member to be banned.

The fact that people of like mind support each other isn't surprising.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

and McCain (69).

How about that.

 

[Astronuc]

Obama overtakes lead in superdelegates for first time
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90310310

WASHINGTON May 10, 2008, 07:07 pm ET · Barack Obama erased Hillary Rodham Clinton's once-imposing lead among superdelegates Saturday when he added more endorsements from the group of Democrats who will decide the party's nomination for president.

Obama added superdelegates from Utah, Ohio and Arizona, as well as two from the Virgin Islands who had previously backed Clinton. The additions enabled Obama to surpass Clinton's total for the first time in the campaign. He had picked up nine endorsements Friday.

The milestone is important because Clinton would need to win over the superdelegates by a wide margin to claim the nomination. They are a group that Clinton owned before the first caucus, when she was able to cash in on the popularity of the Clinton brand among the party faithful.

Those party insiders, however, have been steadily streaming to Obama since he started posting wins in early voting states.

 

[mathwonk]

i thought it interesting that our poll showed as much optimism for huckabee as for mccain.

to me it is sad but illuminating that in this primary process i have gone from respecting all three currently viable candidates, to respecting only obama.

politicians who are losing, even courageous and intelligent ones, seem sadly susceptible to throwing mud and appealing to low instincts and bluntly offering money to buy voters.

obama to me is the only one who has shown integrity from first to last in this regard.

 

[mheslep]

i thought it interesting that our poll showed as much optimism for huckabee as for mccain.

to me it is sad but illuminating that in this primary process i have gone from respecting all three currently viable candidates, to respecting only obama.

politicians who are losing, even courageous and intelligent ones, seem sadly susceptible to throwing mud and appealing to low instincts and bluntly offering money to buy voters.

obama to me is the only one who has shown integrity from first to last in this regard.

Where did Senator McCain fail you in this regard?

 

[turbo]

Where did Senator McCain fail you in this regard?

I don't know what mathwonk thinks, but when McCain demonstrated that he is incapable of absorbing information on Iraqi factions and al Qaeda in Iraq, spoke of his willingness to stay 100 years in Iraq, spoke on his intention to extend the Bush administration's economic "policies", etc, he stopped looking like a decent alternative to Clinton. Then when he claimed Hamas was rooting for Obama, he lost all the respect that I had for him.

 

[mheslep]

Mathwonk?

 

[mheslep]

...Then when he claimed Hamas was rooting for Obama, he lost all the respect that I had for him.

Hamas leadership has stated they favor Obama and "hope he wins the election."

 

[mathwonk]

sorry to drop out. when senator mccain went to liberty university to court jerry falwell, he pretty much started a downward trend that to me is very sad.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

McCain lost me when he failed to reject Bush and his policies. If he treated Bush like Senator Webb does, I would still be open to considering McCain - the only way that I would vote for a Rep this fall would be if he completely rejected the Bush administration, all that they have done, and many of those who supported him, esp on the radical religious right.

I had a fairly high opinon of McCain - esp when he spoke out against the use of torture - but he has sold out to appease the conservative base. And beyond that, I have serious doubts about his competency at this point. The age question is completely legitimate as are questions about his temperament. Nor does he impress me as being particularly bright. In short, I don't trust him to make good decisions.

 

[lisab]

I don't know what mathwonk thinks, but when McCain demonstrated that he is incapable of absorbing information on Iraqi factions and al Qaeda in Iraq, spoke of his willingness to stay 100 years in Iraq, spoke on his intention to extend the Bush administration's economic "policies", etc, he stopped looking like a decent alternative to Clinton. Then when he claimed Hamas was rooting for Obama, he lost all the respect that I had for him.

I don't know if his slip-ups are 'senior moments,' but the president needs to know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite, and Shi'ite from Shinola.

 

[mathwonk]

i love it!

lisab for speechwriter.

 

[OmCheeto]

It would appear that Obama and/or the reporter confused Hamas with Hezbollah. There is also a Hezbollah (Hizballah al-Hejaz) group in Saudia Arabia and the Gulf States, but it is considered a terroist group by the Saudi government.

I did the same thing while arguing with a young Jordanian last year at my other forum.
Because of that minor faux pas on my part, I would not hold that error against anyone.

 

[Art]

Here's a very funny video 'Hillary's Downfall' linked to from the BBC's Justin Webb's America Blog. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/



Warning contains strong language!

 

[BobG]

And beyond that, I have serious doubts about his competency at this point. The age question is completely legitimate as are questions about his temperament. Nor does he impress me as being particularly bright. In short, I don't trust him to make good decisions.

I think that's a fair concern. Before candidates even declared to run, I felt he'd already missed his only real shot. He could have endorsed someone younger (like Chuck Hagel) and still had a major impact on the race.

I still have a lot of respect for McCain (and maybe more likely to vote for him than Obama), but it's still fascinating to see how politicians change over time (or scary since everyone gets older?). Both McCain and Bill Clinton have shown signs that they've past their peak. Even if Hillary Clinton still had any chance of winning the nomination, Bill Clinton has reached the point where he wouldn't be a great asset even after the election.

No matter how sharp a person is at their peak, eventually his physical body is going to have an effect on his other abilities. Probably just a matter of genes, but I'm kind of surprised Bill Clinton seems to be getting older faster than McCain, especially considering the physical abuse McCain has gone through.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Shi'ite from Shinola.

I understand the desire to say negative things about McCain, but I don't consider it to be sufficient cause for this unfortunate comparison.

 

[lisab]

I understand the desire to say negative things about McCain, but I don't consider it to be sufficient cause for this unfortunate comparison.

it's a joke

 

[mheslep]

I don't know if his slip-ups are 'senior moments,' but the president needs to know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite, and Shi'ite from Shinola.

And the difference between Iran and Iraq, on which Sen. Obama slipped up in this year's Crocker/Petraeus hearings.

 

[mheslep]

sorry to drop out. when senator mccain went to liberty university to court jerry falwell, he pretty much started a downward trend that to me is very sad.

Alright then I assume you were referring to associations when you said

...Obama to me is the only one who has shown integrity from first to last in this regard.

which sounds like a zero tolerance policy. If so, then how do you square that with Obama and Wright?

 

[mheslep]

McCain lost me when he failed to reject Bush and his policies. If he treated Bush like Senator Webb does, I would still be open to considering McCain - the only way that I would vote for a Rep this fall would be if he completely rejected the Bush administration, all that they have done, and many of those who supported him, esp on the radical religious right.

Sen. Web has also not done any total denunciation of the current administration, as you define it, either.[/QUOTE]

 

[Astronuc]

which sounds like a zero tolerance policy. If so, then how do you square that with Obama and Wright?

Obama didn't go courting Wright.

 

[mheslep]

Obama didn't go courting Wright.

'Courting' is a bit ambiguous. McCain gave a speech on Falwell's turf. Exactly what is it that Obama did not do w/ Wright in the same sense that McCain did do w/ Falwell? McCain certainly never wrote a biography which he claimed was 'inspired' by Falwell as Obama did with Wright.

Follow-up: Let's explore basic principles here. Do you support Obama's contention that the "United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like." That instead, "Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe." Do you support dialog internationally with "friend and foe" alike while castigating McCain for talking to Falwell.

 

[mathwonk]

anybody who compares the visit of mccain to liberty university and the reversal of his denunciation of that rascal, with obama's bold attempt to open a cross racial dialogue after wright's incendiary videos, obviously does not want to really discuss anything reasonably.

 

[mheslep]

anybody who compares the visit of mccain to liberty university and the reversal of his denunciation of that rascal, with obama's bold attempt to open a cross racial dialogue after wright's incendiary videos, obviously does not want to really discuss anything reasonably.

Strawman. That is not the comparison put forward at all. This has nothing to do with whatever to do with what Obama did post video.

 

[chemisttree]

Or not. Apparently none of those 14 is currently a registered lobbyist. Last Lobby Report indicates the last year registered as a lobbyist.

      Name          State       Employer             Last Lobby Report 
Timothy M. Broas      MD     Winston & Strawn                2000
Frank Clark           IL     Commonwealth Edison             2000
Howard W. Gutman      MD     Williams & Connolly             1999
Scott Harris          DC     Harris Wiltshire and Grannis    2006
Allan J. Katz         FL     Akerman Senterfitt              2004
William T. Lake       DC     Wilmer Cutler Pickering 
                             Hale and Dorr                   2001
Robert S. Litt        MD     Arnold & Porter                 2002
Kenneth G. Lore       DC     Bingham McCutchen               2001
Thomas J. Perrelli    VA     Jenner and Block                2002
Thomas A. Reed        VA     Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 
                             Preston Gates Ellis LLP         2006
Paul N. Roth          NY     Schulte Roth & Zabel            2005
Alan Solomont         MA     Solomont Bailis Ventures        2006
Robert M. Sussman     DC     Latham & Watkins                2006
Tom E. Wheeler        DC     Core Capital Partners           2003

Compare those 14 with those for Clinton (22) and McCain (69).

Significantly, the Center’s lobbyist sector excludes in-house lobbyists who work solely for one company, union, trade association, or other group. These people may lobby, but their contributions are grouped in the totals for the various industries they represent, along with contributions from other employees in the sector, their relatives, whatever PAC money has been raised, and donations from trade and professional associations which, of course, carry lots of weight in the horse trading that occurs when legislation is drafted. (Corporations cannot contribute directly to candidates.)

Contributions made by the various industry sectors tell the real story in a presidential race. And Opensecrets.org shows that Obama is picking up gobs of money put on the table by these special interests—including those involved in health care, which will surely have a lot riding on the outcome of the election and will expect to be heard after the election is over.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.php

This is what I meant. You can't see the effect of lobbists nowadays due to the changing nature of the way money is collected by so-called 'bundlers' and former lobbists.

Comparing numbers to McCain and Clinton isn't my point either, but it is a good point especially in McCain's case. Obama says that he doesn't get money from lobbists but they do work on his behalf. Since they don't hand the check over personally, they don't have to register as lobbyists. But their efforts are noted in his disclosure information.

He does employ lobbyists in his campaign but he didn't say that he is taking money from them. Obama's goal is to break the link between lobbyists, their money and their petitioning of the government but he employs them in his campaign as advisors - not contributors per se. McCain's campaign is practically run by lobbyists as well, so the straight talk express can't really claim the high ground on this issue. That said, this isn't really change at all. Just more lipstick on the pig.

Daniel Shapiro, who advises Sen. Obama on foreign policy issues, is registered to lobby on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute and other corporate clients. Broderick Johnson, a friend and informal political adviser, heads up the lobbying arm in Washington of the Bryan Cave LLP law firm, where he represents Verizon and Shell Oil, among other clients.

Mr. Johnson sees no conflict in Sen. Obama seeking lobbyists' advice while declining their donations. "Sen. Obama's overriding objective is to break the link between lobbyists, their money and their petitioning of the government," Mr. Johnson said. "It doesn't matter to him if you're contributing through your personal efforts."

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120433642148104761-uMpNDvKEAFnulL5UqrgCcKfZRIY_20090301.html?mod=rss_free

 

[chemisttree]

Hamas are a Sunni group, Iran is Shi'ite. You seem to be confusing Hamas with Hezbollah.

No, I'm not. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-funds.htm

Do you have any information that the government of Saudia Arabia is funding Hamas?

 

[chemisttree]

The donations cited appear to have been made before Obama even agreed to run. One was for the 2006 election, and the rest were only cited as:

They have been made since 2005, which includes this election.

What's more, when I tried to check the link for the list [at the bottom of the page that you linked], it was dead. So either provide evidence that this is a bribe or retract your statement. Intentionally posting misinformation merits 3 of the 10 points needed for a member to be banned.

The links from Open Secrets have all died. There are multiple sources referencing them, however. This is the appearance of a bribe, by the way.

Obama's Hopefund Inc. distributed more than $180,000 in donations to political groups and candidates in the early presidential voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and more than $150,000 to federal candidates in other states with primary dates through mid-February. The donations accounted for nearly three-quarters of the money the PAC has given out since this summer.

An Obama campaign spokesman last week said that "there is no connection" between the PAC donations and the presidential campaign.

But Bob Bauer, the private counsel for both Obama's campaign and Hopefund, said yesterday that campaign workers were involved over the summer in identifying and recommending possible recipients when Hopefund was deciding how to spend its remaining money. In particular, Bauer said, senior campaign strategist Steve Hildebrand was consulted "multiple times" on potential donations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112902229.html

I'll admit that it was published in the Washington Post, so it could all be a pack of lies.

 

[Astronuc]

This is what I meant. You can't see the effect of lobbists nowadays due to the changing nature of the way money is collected by so-called 'bundlers' and former lobbists.

Comparing numbers to McCain and Clinton isn't my point either, but it is a good point especially in McCain's case. Obama says that he doesn't get money from lobbists but they do work on his behalf. Since they don't hand the check over personally, they don't have to register as lobbyists. But their efforts are noted in his disclosure information.

He does employ lobbyists in his campaign but he didn't say that he is taking money from them. Obama's goal is to break the link between lobbyists, their money and their petitioning of the government but he employs them in his campaign as advisors - not contributors per se. McCain's campaign is practically run by lobbyists as well, so the straight talk express can't really claim the high ground on this issue. That said, this isn't really change at all. Just more lipstick on the pig.

We have a three pig race. Which pig has the least amount of lipstick?

I think lobbyists are all over all three campaigns, and the bundler issue is a great concern. Whether or not a lobbyist hands over personal money, doesn't seem to matter, since in theory each candidate knows who directed/bundled the money. I would imagine that even if former lobbyists are not currently registered as lobbyists, they still have connections and they use them.

The system stinks.


As for Hamas vs Hezbollah, I would imagine that Iran is playing all sides, in order to put Israel and the US off-balance.

 

[Astronuc]

Do you have any information that the government of Saudia Arabia is funding Hamas?

3. The Financial Assistance Infrastructure

The Hamas has an extensive network of financial sources, operating within the framework of Dawa activity, with a total value of tens of millions of dollars a year.


Gulf States - A considerable proportion of the aforementioned funds originate from various sources in the Gulf States (The Gulf Cooperation Council States). Most of the funding is from Saudi Arabian sources, with a total value of $12 million a year.

Iran - Its contribution is estimated at $3 million a year.

The Financial Sources of the Hamas Terror Organization - July 2003

Of course one would need some pieces of paper with signatures and/or fingerprints to provide absolute proof.

The majority of Hamas funding and logistical support is provided by a number of states, including Iran and Syria. Neighboring Arab states, including Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, also contain well-established charitable groups that fund Hamas activities.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=194942

Clearly there is a link between Iran (and Syria) and Hamas. The link to Saudi Arabia, or the government, would be tenuous or rather impossible to discern.

 

[mheslep]

The Financial Sources of the Hamas Terror Organization - July 2003

I wonder if that is direct from the SA government or individuals in SA. At that level one person in SA could be responsible for the funding. I'm more interested in who's supplies weapons to Hamas, as one could argue (weakly, I think) that Hamas has legitimate political operations in Lebanon - that is they win fair elections.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'll admit that it was published in the Washington Post, so it could all be a pack of lies.

First you accused Obama of bribing superdelegates, and now you cite his donations to campaigns as evidence. Since when is it a crime to support people of like mind? There appears to be a point of distinction to be made in the rules, but no one is claiming bribery, except you. Not to mention the fact that $150,000 is chump change; and over how many candidates?.

How much money has Obama raised?

 

[lisab]

Wow. I had the strangest conversation with my uber-conservative Texas sister-in-law. She loves Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity...and more conservative talkers that I've never (thankfully!) heard of.

She and I are worlds apart politically, but I love dearly. We always - no, usually - manage to tip-toe our way around political issues.

She's had enough, she says. The gas prices, the price of milk, the Iraq war...she said she worries for her two sons, in the face of a war that doesn't seem to be winding down any time soon. She says she just has a bad feeling that things aren't going well for America.

She said that she could never have voted for Clinton, but then she hinted she will vote for Obama...I'm just in shock!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, I have met many converts over the last couple of years. Even my relatives in Orange County [notoriously conservative and Republican] are considering a vote for Obama.

In the end, the price of milk and gas speak louder than Limbaugh.

 

[BobG]

In the general election, the most important big states are going to be Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and even Michigan.

Michigan is probably going to go Democratic regardless of the nominee just because we have a Republican President and their economy is dying (it's going to keep dying regardless of who the President is, but that's beside the point - voters will still want change in leadership).

Florida is probably going to go Republican regardless of the nominee. They have a very popular Republican governor that pushed McCain to an upset win in the primaries. He'll deliver Florida in the general election as well.

That means Obama has to win both Ohio and Pennsylvania so Clinton can make a case that she performs better in the two most important states this election. Ohio and Pennsylvania have different demographics than Michigan, but otherwise are in the same boat as Michigan so both are tough wins for Republicans.

Of course, if Obama wins both of those states, the electoral vote is so close (272-266) that some smaller states come into play. McCain could pull in either (or both) New Hampshire or Wisconsin. Winning either would squeak out the general election for him. Obama was stronger in Wisconsin than Clinton and Clinton barely squeaked by him in New Hampshire.

Then again, some of the states Bush won in 2004 will be close enough that Obama could pull them in. Obama could pull in Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, and/or Colorado. Winning any two of them (unless it's Nevada and NM) would squeak out a win regardless of WI and NH. Obama has a much better chance of winning Iowa and Colorado than Clinton and they have about equal chances of winning Missouri. Clinton is the only one of the two that could steal Arkansas from Republicans. Winning NM and Nevada in McCain's backyard is probably a long shot for either (unless Richardson were the VP).

I think the Democrats have a small advantage, regardless of the nominee, since I think it would be tough for McCain to take both Wisconsin and New Hampshire. But, if McCain wins either Ohio or Pennsylvania, it's just about over for the Democrats. They would have to hold Wisconsin and New Hampshire, plus win both Iowa and Colorado and would still need one more state (most likely Missouri, but that would be a tough win).

If Clinton has any case left to bring up at the convention, Ohio and Pennsylvania are going to be her biggest selling points. Ohio and Pennsylvania also make Ted Strickland and Ed Rendell possible VP candidates, since Ohio and Pennsylvania are absolutely critical to both parties this November.

(McCain could counter Strickland or Rendell by making Bob Taft his VP? After his conviction, Taft's approval rating as governor was 6.5% - surely a new national record. McCain could choose Arlen Specter or Rick Santorum, but neither of those would really be viable VP candidates - especially a McCain-Specter ticket. Obviously, McCain needs to win Ohio or Pennsylvania by some other means than his VP choice.)

 

[chemisttree]

First you accused Obama of bribing superdelegates, and now you cite his donations to campaigns as evidence. Since when is it a crime to support people of like mind? There appears to be a point of distinction to be made in the rules, but no one is claiming bribery, except you.

I claim the appearance of bribery. Perhaps I should have said something like 'quid pro quo'.

Not to mention the fact that $150,000 is chump change; and over how many candidates?.

The chump change amounted to $8000 per vote for 34 superdelegates who have declared for Obama. Where did you get only $150,000? His fund has donated $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005.

How much money has Obama raised?

Enough to donate at least $8,000 per superdelegate it seems.

For those elected officials who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25, the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegate received the endorsement 82 percent of the time.

http://www.capitaleye.org/capital_eye/inside.php?ID=338

Pretty effective "support".