This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

The protest probably sounds like a wonderful idea to them since they're all fired up over what they believe is sexism costing their candidate but they're diminishing her accomplishments by advocation subverting the rules to get what they want. If every woman in the country shared their view then this wouldn't even be necessary, but they need to accept that every woman doesn't as well as every man and in doing this, they're going to alienate some of the people on which they rely.

It should be more important to them to have candidates in office who support their causes than to threaten the party in order to force their party on the ticket. It's very poor strategy and they really should examine the facts more closely and recognize that their candidate and her committee supporters enabled the disenfranchisement in the first place. They can blame the Republican governor in FL but the governor of MI is a Democrat and a Clinton supporter so who can they blame there?

I just pray this thing will be close to over by Saturday night. This is beyond silly right now.

And now I just hear that next week.......it's all over.

Sens. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have now demanded that the SDs get of the fense and end this whole thing, because there is word that some within the Clinton camp will take this matter to the rules commitee at the DNC in Denver.

And now I just hear that next week.......it's all over.

Sens. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have now demanded that the SDs get of the fense and end this whole thing, because there is word that some within the Clinton camp will take this matter to the rules commitee at the DNC in Denver.

They are taking it to the rules committee this Saturday but I would rather we have a nominee by the time the DNC happens

i dont thinmk either should just drop out but someone higher up needs to step in and make a choice. the choice needs to be made and it eneds to be made now. because there are voters on the fence, like myself, who could go either way. time to stop taking on eachother and start taking on the other side.

And now I just hear that next week.......it's all over.

Sens. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have now demanded that the SDs get of the fense and end this whole thing, because there is word that some within the Clinton camp will take this matter to the rules commitee at the DNC in Denver.

They may take it to the Credentials Committee and the delegates would have to vote on it the first day of the convention. Pelosi and Reid will probably try to put the squeeze on the House and Senate members who are SDs to pick a side on Wednesday.

I am still in search of one of these figures who knows how to properly apologize. Father Pfleger needed to replace the word "if" with "for" because he clearly offended some people with his mocking HC. Had he been a comedian it wouldn't have been Fox News' biggest story. On the flip side, Wolfson criticizing Obama on his response to Father Pfleger is laughable to me. He needs to take his misery to Geraldine Ferraro.

Scott McClellan is overshadowing the Democrats and I think he's actually exciting some of the journalists who are tired of the Democrats and their sideshow. The most informative thing to come out of this so far for me is that the Senate was privy to upfront information that should have told them that the rationale for the war was shady. It's not a hindsight situation at all. It was a question of taking the time out to read all of the information which was apparently questionable on its merits.

i dont thinmk either should just drop out but someone higher up needs to step in and make a choice. the choice needs to be made and it eneds to be made now. because there are voters on the fence, like myself, who could go either way. time to stop taking on eachother and start taking on the other side.

Yep, it's time for the party to have an apparent nominee and for this to turn into a general election thread. OH, and what happened to Max ?

Edited May 30, 200817 yr by Jess

Howard Wolfson needs to take a course on how to run a good campaign. All he can do is complain about the opponent.....even when his own candidate has little room to complain about their behavior.

SM maybe has had a gut check. He knew what the flip side of turning his back on his people would wrought.....but I applaud him for it. It's many years and many dead soldiers later, but it's good for someone on the inner circle to step up to the plate and tell what was happening. Like he said, though.,.......you sure don't hear the Bush Admin. disputing what was in the book. And I saw some jackass on Verdict last night who now has pickedup the talking point that the publisher may have written most of the book.

Please. Get a life.

After this Tuesday, it should be over, and we can FINALLY get on with the business of McCain vs. Obama. It's important. This other stuff just needs to stop.

Clinton falls behind Obama in state, poll says

Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

Friday, May 30, 2008

A new poll of California voters appears to undercut Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's argument that she is the stronger presidential candidate in big states, showing that her long-standing support in the nation's most populous state has eroded among Democrats - and even women.

The latest Field Poll shows that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama - who lost the Feb. 5 California primary to Clinton by nine points - is now preferred as the party nominee by a landslide 51 to 38 percent among the state's Democrats, according to a poll of 914 likely party voters taken May 16-27.

And in a head-to-head contest with presumed GOP nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Obama does as well as Clinton, both of them beating the Republican by 17 points among a cross section of voters likely to cast ballots in November. Obama also leads McCain 59 to 24 percent among critical decline-to-state or independent voters, who make up 20 percent of the California electorate, the poll showed.

With just days until the final primaries in Puerto Rico on Sunday and in South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday, the poll shows Clinton of New York also has lost ground among her base voters in critical California - the state that represents the biggest cache of Electoral College delegates and where both she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have long enjoyed strong support.

Women, who have given Clinton a consistent edge in California, now support Obama by 49-41 percent, the poll shows.

"Women have pretty much come 'round to accepting Obama," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll. He said the erosion of ground under Clinton in California is the result of Democrats' growing acceptance of the outcome of the primaries and the fact that Obama could have the required number of delegates for the party nomination by as early as next week.

Obama apparent winner

"I think voters here and elsewhere have been viewing the events of the last two or three months as the nomination battle has unfolded, and Californians are coming to the conclusion that Obama is the delegate winner," DiCamillo said. "They seem to be satisfied with backing Obama as the nominee.

"Many California Democrats are probably anxious to get the general election started and to stop the intramural battle between Obama and Clinton," he said.

The poll shows that while Clinton still leads Obama among three categories of voters - those over 65, those with a high school education or less and those earning less than $40,000 a year - Obama now bests the former first lady in all other age, educational groups and income levels.

In breakdowns among voters by ethnicity, Clinton leads only among Latinos - by more than 2-1 - though Obama is ahead among white non-Hispanics by a whopping 56-34 percent, among African Americans by a huge 76-13 percent and favored by Asians by 56-33.

DiCamillo said the poll showed some lingering resentment as 22 percent of Clinton supporters said they are "not likely" to vote for Obama in the general election, and 17 percent of Obama's backers said they are "not likely" to back Clinton should she be the nominee.

With Obama appearing to be moving quickly to round up the delegates needed to claim the nomination, the changing opinions revealed in the Field Poll are being reflected on the public stage. Rep. Dennis Cardoza of Atwater (Merced County), a state superdelegate who had supported Clinton, recently announced he had switched loyalties and would support Obama. Even current Clinton backers, like Assemblywoman Loni Hancock of Berkeley - now running for state Senate - have publicly predicted that Obama, not Clinton, will be the party's presidential nominee.

Californians want a break

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the poll showed that "California and all of America is looking for a break from the same failed Bush policies that John McCain is offering. This fall voters will have a choice between the George Bush leadership that John McCain offers and Barack Obama's vision to fundamentally change this country."

Political observers say the poll results in California, a trendsetting state, are a blow to Clinton's dimming hopes of making a successful case to the superdelegates to swing to her side before the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August.

"To the extent that California reflects a cross section of America, (the poll) demonstrates that the Democrats will have little trouble reuniting behind Obama in a campaign for the presidency in November," said Phil Trounstine, founder of San Jose State University's Survey and Policy Research Institute and a communications consultant and pollster who has donated to Obama's campaign. "It shows Hillary Clinton is no longer seen as the standard-bearer for the party; that role has now been taken over by Barack Obama. She's not big in the biggest state anymore, the biggest prize of all American politics."

But Clinton supporter David Rapaport of Palo Alto - one of dozens who wrote to The Chronicle this week insisting that they will stick by the former first lady - said polls and party leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, who has predicted the race will be over next week, will not put an end to the Clinton campaign. He said that the democratic process demands that the nomination play out, adding, "Let's hold the convention and not seal the fate in the House speaker's chambers - or elsewhere."

Other findings in the Field Poll:

-- Obama by far ranks higher than either Clinton or McCain in favorable-unfavorable ratings among likely state voters in November. He is seen favorably by 62 percent of California voters, compared with 29 percent who see him unfavorably. Clinton, by contrast has a 49-44 percent favorable-unfavorable rating, while McCain has a 46-45 percent favorable-unfavorable rating.

-- A majority of Democratic voters in California say that a "dream ticket" of Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama would increase their chances of supporting the party's ticket in the fall - but fewer Obama supporters favor the Clinton-Obama choice than Clinton supporters favor the Obama-Clinton choice.

The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

E-mail Carla Marinucci at [email protected].

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Most people now see that Obama was won the nom and just want to move on.

I have NO clue what the deal is with the super -D's , are they on a power trip scared of the Clintions , looking for some reason to steal this from Obama?

Make up your minds already and let's move on the whole thing is turning into a JOKE and it's giving Hilary reason to keep going!

Hilary will destroy the Democratic Party if the last thing she does...

God I never hated a woman so much in my life. It just scares me...truly frightens me to think how desperate she is for power and what she and her husband will do to get it.

Please Nancy Pelosi and other important Democratic Leaders take a stand and stop her NOW before its too late. We can't afford another Republican in office!

(CNN) — Geraldine Ferraro – who sparked controversy earlier this year with her comment that Barack Obama was only a viable presidential candidate because he was black – wrote in an op-ed published Friday that the Illinois senator’s campaign and the media may be responsible for “the effects of racism and sexism on the campaign [which] have resulted in a split within the Democratic Party that will not be easy to heal before election day.”

“Perhaps it's because neither the Barack Obama campaign nor the media seem to understand what is at the heart of the anger on the part of women who feel that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly because she is a woman or what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn't an issue, but reverse racism is,” the former Democratic vice presidential candidate wrote in the Boston Globe Friday.

Reagan Democrats feel they have been mistreated during the campaign season, she writes, and since her March resignation from the Clinton campaign have repeatedly told her that “If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist…”

“They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white,” writes the former New York congresswoman. “It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory ‘Our Time Has Come’ they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.”

Ferraro resigned from a post on the Clinton campaign’s finance committee following a media firestorm over her remarks about sexism and race.

“The reaction to the questions being raised has been not to listen to the message and try to find out how to deal with the problem, but rather to denigrate the messenger,” she wrote Friday. “Sore loser, petty, silly, vengeful are words that have dominated the headlines. But scolding and name calling don't resolve disputes.

“The truth is that tens of thousands of women have watched how Clinton has been treated and are not happy. We feel that if society can allow sexism to impact a woman's candidacy to deny her the presidency, it sends a direct signal that sexism is OK in all of society.”

She called on Harvard University’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy to conduct a study, which she and other women would fund if necessary, to explore whether either of the Democratic candidates’ campaigns engaged in sexism or racism; whether Clinton was treated unfairly by the media; and “whether certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate. And if they did to suggest ethical guidelines which the industry might adopt.”

“That sexism impacted Clinton's campaign, I have no doubt. Did she lose a close election because of sexism? I don't know. But I do know that it will never happen again as long as women are willing to stand up and make sure that it is just a one-time bad experience.”

Crack is WHACK!

Geraldine Ferraro needs to shut the hell up. And FYI...."Regan Democrats" are now Republicans .

First of all, Barack Obama is mixed. He isn't "black", he isn't "white", he's "mixed". It's funny how SHE keeps bringing up the color of his skin, when he in fact rarely brings it up. SHE keeps talking out of her ass and making race an issue. The Obama campaign isn't doing that. Clinton has NOT been unfairly treated by the media. Everything was golden until they stopped sucking her ass through a clear straw and began showing some attention and doing FAIR reports on Barack Obama.

So basically because Hilary isn't going to get the nomination, the media, democratic party and those who don't vote for are are sexist. People who choose not to vote for Obama aren't racist, and people who choose not to vote for Hilary aren't sexist. They just choose not to vote for them....unless of course they're out spitting hatred...then they can be racist and/or sexist.

I guess if I wanted to I could marvel how GF can be hung up on how sexism impacted the campaign and "reverse" racism since the injury has to all be to HC. There is no such thing as "reverse" racism. Racism is racism period. If she's saying that people who don't vote for Obama are being called racist then how is she not as guilty as they are when she's implying that people who don't support HC are sexist. Maybe she should take that issue up with all the women who chose not to vote for HC because now she's saying that HC is entitled to the nomination because she's a woman.

Maybe she should take her cause to some black women who support Obama and see if they've suffered for being women any less than she thinks she has.

And what should she say about anyone who is a racist sexist since she probably hasn't considered that the combination does exist?

It looks as if Pelosi and Reid will have to make good on their words since HC's lawyer is laying down his own rules:

Utrecht also made clear the campaign will not accept a resolution in Michigan that awards Obama any delegates, since the Illinois senator took his name off the ballot there.

"Neither the DNC Rules nor the Michigan Delegate Selection Plan allow arbitrary reallocation of Uncommitted delegates to a candidate or arbitrary reallocation of delegates from one candidate to another," he wrote

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...-case/#comments

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_...3nAJ1e3HHlh24cA

Obama used party rules to foil Clinton

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton, rival Barack Obama planned for the long haul.

Clinton hinged her whole campaign on an early knockout blow on Super Tuesday, while Obama's staff researched congressional districts in states with primaries that were months away. What they found were opportunities to win delegates, even in states they would eventually lose.

Obama's campaign mastered some of the most arcane rules in politics, and then used them to foil a front-runner who seemed to have every advantage — money, fame and a husband who had essentially run the Democratic Party for eight years as president.

"Without a doubt, their understanding of the nominating process was one of the keys to their success," said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist not aligned with either candidate. "They understood the nuances of it and approached it at a strategic level that the Clinton campaign did not."

Careful planning is one reason why Obama is emerging as the nominee as the Democratic Party prepares for its final three primaries, Puerto Rico on Sunday and Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday. Attributing his success only to soaring speeches and prodigious fundraising ignores a critical part of contest.

Obama used the Democrats' system of awarding delegates to limit his losses in states won by Clinton while maximizing gains in states he carried. Clinton, meanwhile, conserved her resources by essentially conceding states that favored Obama, including many states that held caucuses instead of primaries.

In a stark example, Obama's victory in Kansas wiped out the gains made by Clinton for winning New Jersey, even though New Jersey had three times as many delegates at stake. Obama did it by winning big in Kansas while keeping the vote relatively close in New Jersey.

The research effort was headed by Jeffrey Berman, Obama's press-shy national director of delegate operations. Berman, who also tracked delegates in former Rep. Dick Gephardt's presidential bids, spent the better part of 2007 analyzing delegate opportunities for Obama.

"The whole Clinton campaign thought this would be like previous campaigns, a battle of momentum," said Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "They thought she would be the only one would who could compete in such a momentous event as Super Tuesday."

Instead, Obama won a majority of the 23 Super Tuesday contests on Feb. 5 and then spent the following two weeks racking up 11 straight victories, building an insurmountable lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses.

What made it especially hard for Clinton to catch up was that Obama understood and took advantage of a nominating system that emerged from the 1970s and '80s, when the party struggled to find a balance between party insiders and its rank-and-file voters.

Until the 1970s, the nominating process was controlled by party leaders, with ordinary citizens having little say. There were primaries and caucuses, but the delegates were often chosen behind closed doors, sometimes a full year before the national convention. That culminated in a 1968 national convention that didn't reflect the diversity of the party — racially or ideologically.

The fiasco of the 1968 convention in Chicago, where police battled anti-war protesters in the streets, led to calls for a more inclusive process.

One big change was awarding delegates proportionally, meaning you can finish second or third in a primary and still win delegates to the party's national convention. As long candidates get at least 15 percent of the vote, they are eligible for delegates.

The system enables strong second-place candidates to stay competitive and extend the race — as long as they don't run out of campaign money.

"For people who want a campaign to end quickly, proportional allocation is a bad system," Devine said. "For people who want a system that is fair and reflective of the voters, it's a much better system."

Another big change was the introduction of superdelegates, the party and elected officials who automatically attend the convention and can vote for whomever they choose regardless of what happens in the primaries and caucuses.

Superdelegates were first seated at the 1984 convention. Much has been made of them this year because neither Obama nor Clinton can reach the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination without their support.

A more subtle change was the distribution of delegates within each state. As part of the proportional system, Democrats award delegates based on statewide vote totals as well as results in individual congressional districts. The delegates, however, are not distributed evenly within a state, like they are in the Republican system.

Under Democratic rules, congressional districts with a history of strong support for Democratic candidates are rewarded with more delegates than districts that are more Republican. Some districts packed with Democratic voters can have as many as eight or nine delegates up for grabs, while more Republican districts in the same state have three or four.

The system is designed to benefit candidates who do well among loyal Democratic constituencies, and none is more loyal than black voters. Obama, who would be the first black candidate nominated by a major political party, has been winning 80 percent to 90 percent of the black vote in most primaries, according to exit polls.

"Black districts always have a large number of delegates because they are the highest performers for the Democratic Party," said Elaine Kamarck, a Harvard University professor who is writing a book about the Democratic nominating process.

"Once you had a black candidate you knew that he would be winning large numbers of delegates because of this phenomenon," said Kamarck, who is also a superdelegate supporting Clinton.

In states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, Clinton won the statewide vote but Obama won enough delegates to limit her gains. In states Obama carried, like Georgia and Virginia, he maximized the number of delegates he won.

"The Obama campaign was very good at targeting districts in areas where they could do well," said former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a Clinton superdelegate from South Carolina. "They were very conscious and aware of these nuances."

But, Fowler noted, the best strategy in the world would have been useless without the right candidate.

"If that same strategy and that same effort had been used with a different candidate, a less charismatic candidate, a less attractive candidate, it wouldn't have worked," Fowler said. "The reason they look so good is because Obama was so good."