December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003

« How Many Countries Can You Name in Five Minutes? | Main | The Unfairness of it All »

March 06, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Even if Clinton wins Penjn, it doesn't matter. She can't make up the delegate lead.

Make no mistake, those of us who support Obama will burn Denver to the ground before we let Clinton steal the nomination if she doesn't have the lead among pledged delegates.

Soullite.....I don't know why you would says such things, as it shows you to be a complete idiot if you really believe that.

Make no mistake. It will be possible to elect a Republican President next November, if that is what the Barack people (or the Hillary people, for that matter) really want. The big question is what sort of country we will have left after another 30 years of a Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and their BFFs to be appoint in the next four years.

Burn Denver down. What sort of people would even threaten to do that in fun?

Where did you ever get the idea Brady and Nutter aren't friends? That must be some other Bob Brady who stayed in the mayoral race so Nutter could win.

And Nutter doesn't control much patronage. Brady does.

"Make no mistake, those of us who support Obama will burn Denver to the ground"

Um, could you confine the burning to a couple mile radius around the Pepsi Center? And in no case burn south of Alameida or East of University?

Thanks...

-Barry
The kind of person who wants a revolution. Some see Obama as being able to keep it bloodless. However if Hillary try's to stop it (the bloodless revolution)then some will take it by force. Hillary has only one chance at the nomination which is to completely destroy Obama. If she succeeds in that then many Obama supports will start the revolution in Denver and it won't be bloodless. People want their country back.

TheDrizzle:
Did you read Rick Perlstein the other day at HuffPo? he echoed Soullite's thinking. Not that Rick would be in the streets, just that if Clinton stole the nomination, he's heard from people he talked to that it will get ugly in Denver(yes, that means riots and the like). You are right, a lot of people out there want their country back.

Soullite,
WTF? Where is it written in stone that "Pledged Delegates" get to determine the nomination? What if Hillary leads in the popular vote? The rules are that the nomination is determined by pledged delegates plus super delegates. If you have a problem with that, form your own party.

It is funny how much complaining I heard from Kos about the popular vote not determining the election when it was Gore vs. Bush, but now that it is Obama vs. Clinton, it is the almighty electoral college.

Joe Klein's conscience,
And in the unlikely case Clinton pulls it off by winning the pledged delegates? Then what? You guys still gonna burn Denver down?

the people on here who think that obama is some sort of revolutionary need to have your heads checked. my god. none of the three candidates who are currently running for president are revolutionaries. they are all about as main stream, middle of the road as you can get. the differ on a few issues, but for the most part they will keep the status quo moving forward in washington.

if you want to start a revolution, elect members of the green party to local government. no matter who you elect president, none of them are going to even try to tap on the brakes when it comes to the run-away train that is congress and the federal taxation and appropriations systems. the only way you can really start a revolution is to build a viable third party that does not take corporate interests above individual interests. and the only way to do that is by electing green candidates in your boroughs, towns, cities, and counties.

mccain, clinton, or obama = better than bush, but no fix to the system. and certainly no revolution!

"...Make no mistake, those of us who support Obama will burn Denver to the ground before we let Clinton steal the nomination if she doesn't have the lead among pledged delegates."

I'm certainly glad that I saw Obama in person, and wasn't relying on his supporters for any kind of intelligent input. They are becoming more like the Dallas Cowboy fans every day...and that's why everybody wants to see them lose.

If threats of violence back the bloodless revolution, then dear readers, that's just organized crime and gang talk and KKK cross burnings, extortion and protection rackets, ya know, like the Godfather or CheneyBush, not Dr. King, or Gandhi or Krishnamurti, Mandela & Tutu or Christ's truly bloodless revolutions of love, forgiveness & reconciliation.

Promising me a job would probably be more effective and less terrorizing than threatening to "burn, baby, burn."

I wonder what Barack has to say about Soullite's strategy to win the nomination:

"Vote for me or I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll burn your house down"?

That means only one among us gets to the mountain top.

good god. the obama campaign has to do something about its supporters. they are an embarrassment. burn denver down? you and how many bags of Cheeto's?

so you had 8 years of the worst administration in history to get mad, but are going to burn denver down because a centrist democrat beats another centrist democrat in a razor sharp election? loser.

If only the popular vote counted, Al Gore would be president.

Oh, c'mon, Clintonites. A little hyperbole never hurt anyone.

Obama is going to lose Pennsylvania, but it is not going to matter in the end because she cannot catch him among pledged delegates, and the super delegates are NOT going to overrule the pledged delegates, no matter what tortured arguments the Hillary camp makes.

But Hillary is going to lose black votes in Philly and lose badly. Just look at South Carolina. She had the support of lots of black leaders, but he crushed her among the actual black voters. You guys are acting like black people are sheep who all follow their stupid ward leaders, and frankly it's a bit offensive.

If black voters aren't sheep why are they voting overwhelmingly for Obama? He policy positions are very similar to Clinton's so it can't be policy differences. They are voting for him because he is black but it is apparently forbidden to say so.

What's funny - to me at least - is my theory that this circus is the real reason that Pennsylvania hasn;t moved it's primary towards the forefront of the nominating process.

I don't think the local machine here in Philly - and various others throughout the state - want to be subservient to presidential politics. They don't want the attention, they don't want the scrutiny. I suspect they would much prefer to control their little fifedoms quietly, without the weight of national campaigns pressing in on them.

It'd be so much easier to throw a bone over there, or send some rowdy poll watchers over to that division if the big contest were already over.

Oh, c'mon, john doe, what you call a little hyperbole hurts Barack Obama, even if he winds up winning the nomination.

Oh, c'mon, john doe, what you call a little hyperbole hurts the Democratic Party, if you care about winning the national election.

Show me some Clintonites threatening violence or waxing hyperbolic nonsense and I'll be happy to call them out on it, too, but not with promises of physical domination or personal cultural wars of aggression. I want to do better than neocons and fascists.

Do you?

I hope that's a big enthusiastic "YES!"

msalley:
Why is it 'sheep like' to vote for Obama just because he is black. By your own admission his positions are “very similar to Clinton's" so why do you claim it is intellectually inferior to vote with your race. Using your faulty logic if you’re a women and you vote for Hillary because she's a woman you acting like a sheep, just following around all the other women sheep? If all things (policy wise) are equal why is it sheep like to move onto other criteria for making your choice?

Seems Obama could have trumped the Bill Clinton effect a little by actually appearing there himself. Who'd you rather have, an ex-President or the next-President? It might do him some good to be seen as being able to take on BOTH Clintons at the same time.

ws, I guess you take everything everyone says literally, but what some random anonymous person posted on some random blog is not going to hurt anybody, not Obama and not the Democratic Party. Give me a break.

What will hurt the nominee and the Party is when Hillary says that she and John McCain are qualified to be Commander-in-Chief and implies that her DEMOCRATIC opponent is not qualified. I guess she is saying that voting for the Iraq War qualifies you on the theory that it's better to be Strong and Wrong, as Bill Clinton likes to say.

If she wants to endorse John McCain's qualifications, that's her business, but she should be thrown out of the DEMOCRATIC Party for that Joe Lieberman-like comment. It's not going to help her win any super delegates over to her camp, and it's certainly not going to help lay the groundwork for her 2012 campaign.

SG & DR:
If Clinton were to be in the lead with the pledged delegates(which is damn near impossible now barring a Gary Hart type meltdown), it would be okay. What was being talked about was if Obama had the pledged delegate lead. Also, saying Obama supporters need to get a grip? One could say the same about Hillary's supporters as well. Take Taylor Marsh as example number one and go from there. Both campaigns have their over anxious supporters.

tockeyhockey wrote, they are all about as main stream, middle of the road as you can get. the differ on a few issues, but for the most part they will keep the status quo moving forward in washington.

I agree that both Hillary and Obama are not that liberal; at best, slightly left of center.

But McCain? Mainstream? AFAICT, McCain thinks that if a woman is raped and gets pregnant, he thinks she should bear the rapist's child to term.

I don't think that's "mainstream."

Nor is "we'll stay in Iraq 100 years if we have to" mainstream.

Ah, hate to break it to you folks, but Clinton has already PASSED Obama in the national primary vote:

13,609,945 - Clinton

13,575,302 - Obama

And, after she wins Pennsylvania, her lead will only get larger, and there is no way for Obama to catch up with any of the TEENY TINY states he might win, to add to all the previous TEENY TINY states he has already won.

Ah, hate to break it to you folks, but Clinton has already PASSED Obama in the national primary vote:

13,609,945 - Clinton

13,575,302 - Obama
Posted by: Joe Friday

So, Joe-sounds-like-a-Republican-whether-Friday-or-any-other-day, are those numbers inclusive of the Michigan and Florida primaries? If that's the case, then you would be full of shit, wouldn't you? It would also be true that you and your cohort think it's OK to punish Obama for basically taking Howard Dean and the DNC at their word and playing by the rules. It would be stealing, too, but, well, you get the point.

Finnegan's Wake is not in the "whitest part of town".

Burn Denver, etc.

Does anyone here actually think that's an honest Obama supporter?

Really? Are you sure?

If that guy swayed you either way, you should just plan to support the nominee and step away from the keyboard until November.

I think that Supporters IP address belongs to Rove or some-such trixter.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Support This Blog


Philadelphia Bloggers