Superdelegate supporting Hillary Clinton, Emmanuel Cleaver, tells the CBC that he “will be stunned if [Obama]'s not the next president of the United States.”
He’s not switching his support to Obama, likening it to still rooting for a football team even though you know they’re outmatched and won’t win. But at least he’s willing to make an honest assessment of her chances.
It’s really amazing that any party-faithful politician is, while continuing to support Clinton, speaking outside the lines. “Here’s what I’m supposed to say, but here’s how I really feel”…it kind of has a passive-aggressive tone to it. Like “I owe the Clintons way too much (money, gratitude, political favors, etc) to actually go against them, but they didn’t buy my conscience, so here’s how I really feel”.
This is getting dangerously close to a hijack but anyway here’s my recollection: it was a split decision, yes (having gone 15 rounds, which was Rocky’s goal), but Creed was declared winner.
I am among those who believe that if the Democratic contest goes 15 rounds (so to speak), it will not be good for the Party’s chances in November.
Clinton cannot win. She needs to figure out that out, and graciously withdraw her candidancy. Then she can retain dignity within the party, and get on with the business of becoming the first woman Majority Leader in the Senate.
More important than the party’s chances n November, is the indisputable fact that the country cannot afford four more years of Republicans in the White House.
Increased gains in the Senate and House will be nice, but I have to look on them as gravy.
Personally about Obama vis a vis Imus, I disagree with his calling for Imus to step down. It was done earlier in his campaign, and I think he made a mistake by saying that. Imus was dumb to say it, but what really pissed me off even more was the reaction to it. Prejudice can be funny. Imus has gotten loads of laughs out of misogynistic jokes, yet when he makes a black joke he is torn down. I’m not saying that I think it’s a good thing, I just don’t like how everyone acts so appalled that “such a monster could dare think of it.” That’s not a quote, just putting it in quotations to show it’s not my sentiment.
It’s just that we in America are too immature to have an intelligent discussion about race and therefore have to react in completely immature ways when thorny issues come up. We all get up in arms when someone says something racist. Who hasn’t had prejudiced thoughts cross their minds once in a while. We know better to say them, but to pretend one is without prejudice is pretty much BS. I don’t care if you have adopted kids with 8 different races, there will always be an “other.”
Same thing with Elliot Spitzer. After it came out that he’d been with hookers, I realized, “well, this guy is going down.” But on the other hand I did really appreciate the fact that he did do some good things in his career. Now if he’d simply just cheated on his wife, I’d have hoped that he wouldn’t have had to resign, as that is not illegal. But something just doesn’t sit right, the instant media justice, before we’ve all had a chance to calm down and look at the facts. Does that not bother anyone either? I thought that Spitzer probably had to go, but I’d have liked it to appear a little less like a political witch-burning. I realize his using prostitutes is a bit hypocritical, but surely the man did a few things that were good too, right?
So this is why I think Rev. Wright shouldn’t be a big deal. I don’t agree with what he said, but categorically denying the existence of such thoughts as a monstrosity is really just to deny human nature. And if you do that you’ll never really get anywhere with race relations in this country. It’s about time we took a serious look at human nature. We as humans are designed to find patterns, and we are also designed to categorize people between “us” and “them.” Pretending that we don’t do that anymore is a joke.
Feinstein, Boxer, Dodd, Biden, Inouye, Akaka, Durbin, Harkin, Landrieu, Mikulski, Kennedy, Kerry, Levin, Baucus, Reid, Bingaman, Schumer, Conrad, Dorgan, Reed, Johnson, Leahy, Murray, Byrd, Rockefeller, Kohl, and Feingold all have more seniority than Hillary. Why should she get to pass them all and be majority leader?
You know, Obama ought to make a deal with Clinton about MI and FL. That way we can bar any kind of convention fight.
If you give Obama the unpledged votes in MI and keep Florida as-is you’ll end up giving HRC another 56 delegates. Obama still leads by 113 in pledged delegates that way and it shuts the door on credentials committee shenanigans by Clinton. That’s without PA. If she wins only 13 delegates and that’s not unlikely, she’ll still lag by 100 pledged delegates. She’d then need to win the remaining pledged delegates by 62 percent to catch up in pledged delegates.
If Obama can catch up with Hillary in Super-delegates between now and NC, and he offsets her victory in PA with a win in NC then I guarantee you’ll see him agreeing to seating FL and MI on those terms. Clinton will probably agree too, believing that she can still get super-delegates to help her win. The truth is that FUD is hillary’s weapon, and any effort by Obama to make things more certain only hurts Hillary.
So no, as long as Hillary gives Obama the unpledged delegates in MI then he’ll settle this sooner rather than later assuming he keeps PA close. I’d consider 13 delegate loss to be close. That actually represents something like 9 percent loss according to Slate’s delegate calculator.
Because that may be her price.
Why should she get to be president?
Anyway, of course not right away. But she has a few terms more she could spend in the Senate at least, and she could be building a power base to achieve Majority Leader. Frankly, I think the Senate is a better place for her.
Well, she’s now 2 delegates further away from the dream, anyway.
Mississippi just certified their primary results and took 1 delegate away from Hillary and gave it to Barack. The count went from 19-14 to 20-13.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGBtl3
Nothing relevant to the question. Do you see it as not being hypocritical because of the time frame? I don’t understand that.
My point is that Obama seemed to be willing to overlook the comments Rev. Wright made even though he strongly disagreed with some of them because he knew that the man was much more than few sound bytes? fair enough. I agree Wright is more than that. Isn’t Imus allowed equal consideration? Having already experienced and considered controversial statements by Wright why wasn’t Obama a little more understanding toward Imus since he knew that a man was more than a sound byte?
Listening to the Imus apology and explanation doesn’t it seem sincere and adequate? If you don’t want to listen because you think he’s an ass then fine.
I don’t think the difference in detail you’re pointing out eliminates what I see as hypocrisy. Wright wasn’t just talking to his family he was a public figure speaking for years. It was after Obama had heard controversial remarks that he got Wright to work on his campaign,…months after he called for Imus to be fired over a single remark that he apologized for.
Imus was more than sound bytes? Really?
Personally, I know nothing of Imus, but it was my understanding (an understanding derived entirely from dribs and drabs that I encountered during last year’s controversy) that his entire career was built on the premise that he could be counted on to provide sound bytes day in and day out.
Is there some kind of cite somewhere that Senator Obama was likely to have been aware that Don Imus was more than a collection of sound bytes?
Equivocation. You do not know that anything Wright ever said in Obama’s presence before his campaign rises to the level of Imus’s comment, merely that they were ‘controversial’. In fact, when Obama was made aware of those recent comments of Wright’s, he cut professional ties with Wright then said they crossed a line Wright had not crossed when Obama knew him.
You can decide Obama is lying if you like, or you can decide Obama cutting professional ties is simply political expediency, but his behavior remains consistent. Imus talked a lot of shit on his radio show, but it was only when he crossed that line that Obama felt the need to speak up. Wright may have talked a lot of shit in the church, but his recent comments crossed a line and that’s when Obama needed to speak up.
Point is, she’s comparing herself to Rocky. First, pompous, just a bit? Second, Rocky loses in the end. That’s what he’s famous for! He’s the hero who loses. Why would anyone in a campaign compare herself to Rocky?
Wow. I finally made it all the way through. This thread just keeps going and going, doesn’t it? Interesting stuff, though, mostly. I mean, a co-worker did ask me why I “keep getting that look” on my face, which I realized only seemed to happen when I was reading one certain poster’s infuriating offerings, but anyway…
I know this was all the way back on page one, but I’m still kind of chuckling. This story was so small that I nearly overlooked it in the Harrisburg paper - and Camp Hill is just two miles away from Harrisburg. It boasts a whopping 7,600 people. Talk about a killer endorsement! 
My Obama bumper sticker is the first thing I’ve slapped on a car I owned since the “GWB - Born With a Silver Spoon Up His Nose” sticker I had in 2000.
Hey, give me a break! I was only 22! 
ETA: Forgot to add - one thing I’ve noticed when talking to people around here who support Hillary and asking them why is the all-too-frequent answer of “I want to see a woman in the White House.” It doesn’t even seem to matter who that woman is. It’s kind of depressing, but if people like that make up any kind of significant portion of voters here, then I guess I can see why Hillary will likely win my state.
My favorite reply to this is “So if Ann Coulter were running, you’d vote for her?”
Setting herself up for '12, maybe?
Of course. He’s a radio personality who makes his living by making fun of everyone which he said in his apology. This is not the first time he’s made bad jokes people have objected to. That’s his job not his whole life. He also donates or raises millions for charity the Imus Ranch being the most notable. Perhaps Obama wasn’t aware of this. What I might expect is that given his experience with Wright and how politics and media love to exploit a sound byte he might have realized that particular objectionable comment didn’t reveal all of what Imus is about. If he knew very little about the man then he could have said so when asked about the comment rather than calling for him to be axed. Perhaps he felt the Imus’ comment was especially heinous. I don’t know. I imagine it’s very challenging to balance personal convictions with political expediency at that level.
Powers resigned after her “monster” comment. Wright eventually left Obama’s campaign eventually although Obama wouldn’t say whose idea it was but IMO that was political pressure not personal conviction. I liked his defense of Wright. It’s true that the pastor is much more than a few sound clips selected especially to shock and distort. My question is why didn’t he also react that way about Imus?