Ding Dong the witch is dead la la la la!

She was a bad choice to begin with from a political point of view. She has no political appeal other than being a woman. She has no firm stance on ANYTHING (at least Bill was charismatic and I actually kinda liked him, and I'm a republican). Plus if there were ever a way to not get people to cross party lines its her. Now if the republicans had run Rice, now there is a way to get people to cross party lines. I mean a Black, Female, Republican. Tons of dems would cross over for that. The problem is that if she went on the ticket against McCain lots of people would not necessarily vote FOR McCain but AGAINST Hillary. Now, at least Obama can appeal to n...

Ding Dong the witch is dead la la la la!

She was a bad choice to begin with from a political point of view. She has no political appeal other than being a woman. She has no firm stance on ANYTHING (at least Bill was charismatic and I actually kinda liked him, and I'm a republican). Plus if there were ever a way to not get people to cross party lines its her. Now if the republicans had run Rice, now there is a way to get people to cross party lines. I mean a Black, Female, Republican. Tons of dems would cross over for that. The problem is that if she went on the ticket against McCain lots of people would not necessarily vote FOR McCain but AGAINST Hillary. Now, at least Obama can appeal to not only the Black community but to the people looking for a change from the norm. Personally I like that he is younger and seems more open to change than McCain and like I said, I'm a republican.

I don't buy this logic. I should admit that i've soured quite a bit on Obama recently. But regardless of that, i think the Democratic party will not - and should not - nominate someone who lost OH, NY, NJ, PA, TX, CA, MA. If he continues to lose most of the remaining states, then i think a smart conclusion would be that the bloom is off the rose. Let's face it...he won most of the delegates early on, before much of the recent news about him was out. But now that people know more about him and his past, he's not winning. I think the Democratic party would be very foolish to not acknowledge that quite a lot has changed since this process first began - and his momentum, while once great,...

I don't buy this logic. I should admit that i've soured quite a bit on Obama recently. But regardless of that, i think the Democratic party will not - and should not - nominate someone who lost OH, NY, NJ, PA, TX, CA, MA. If he continues to lose most of the remaining states, then i think a smart conclusion would be that the bloom is off the rose. Let's face it...he won most of the delegates early on, before much of the recent news about him was out. But now that people know more about him and his past, he's not winning. I think the Democratic party would be very foolish to not acknowledge that quite a lot has changed since this process first began - and his momentum, while once great, is gone. If i were in the room, i'd pick Hillary over Obama,

OK, I'll give it a shot. Here goes:
1. Obama won Texas, one of the biggest of the big. HRC claims it - like MI and FL - but he walked away with more delegates.
2. Are primaries fair indicators of November success?
Consider -
a. Many of the states Hillary has won are Democratic states - always. Neither Democrat would lose there. She does best among traditional, older Democratic voters, so of course she won where she is most familiar. But those states are blue. What she has won is what Democrats usually win. That represents no change in electoral votes for the Democratic nominee.
b. The bigger question is who is likely to win swing states -those on the ...

OK, I'll give it a shot. Here goes:
1. Obama won Texas, one of the biggest of the big. HRC claims it - like MI and FL - but he walked away with more delegates.
2. Are primaries fair indicators of November success?
Consider -
a. Many of the states Hillary has won are Democratic states - always. Neither Democrat would lose there. She does best among traditional, older Democratic voters, so of course she won where she is most familiar. But those states are blue. What she has won is what Democrats usually win. That represents no change in electoral votes for the Democratic nominee.
b. The bigger question is who is likely to win swing states -those on the bubble that Repubs often carry. Consider Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and Virginia, for instance - all states in which Obama won, and won with massive increases among Democratic registrations. Lots of electoral votes there, and lots of dissatisfaction with Republicans.
c. Consider also his impact on Southern states: As the NYT said today: "The South could be transformed with the likelihood of strong turnout of black voters in Republican-leaning states like Georgia and Louisiana" Remember, at the beginning of the primaries it was not at all clear that blacks would largely support Obama, for many black leaders had a long relationship with Hillary. Obama won most of them away (with Bill's help). Lots of new electoral votes there.
d. Consider, the thousands of new voters who have come into the process and shown up and voted under Obama. They are change-specific, they don't get Hillary, my guess is that they'll shrink back into the woodwork if HRC is the nominee.
e. Now we've left her strong region, we're about to enter his: he's ahead by more than twenty i

In my opinion it is going to be very hard to break this trend, why? Because as a whole the American people base who they are going to vote for on political adverts or purely by tradition and not by actually finding out what ideals and methods the candidates are supporting. I admit that for myself I have often had to stop my self from just voting for a major party because I feel that every time I vote for someone who is not a dem or a rep that i a throwing my vote away. Its hard to see the people you believe in getting 1-2% of the vote and then seeing an election decided by a few percent. But there is most likely never going to be a candidate from one of the major parties that is going to do ...

In my opinion it is going to be very hard to break this trend, why? Because as a whole the American people base who they are going to vote for on political adverts or purely by tradition and not by actually finding out what ideals and methods the candidates are supporting. I admit that for myself I have often had to stop my self from just voting for a major party because I feel that every time I vote for someone who is not a dem or a rep that i a throwing my vote away. Its hard to see the people you believe in getting 1-2% of the vote and then seeing an election decided by a few percent. But there is most likely never going to be a candidate from one of the major parties that is going to do anything radical, because those type of people don't get the political machine thrown behind them. The only hope is that one day the American people wake up and realize the politics should not be about party lines and trying to get elected on the platform of "I'll do whatever the current guy/gal isn't doing" because thats the lie they all tell, over and over and over and.....

I say eliminate the machine all together. Congress and the House should not be party divided. It should all be the "American" party. If you do a good job and have voting records that people like and ideals that people relate to then you stay for a while but not more than eight years. And if people hate you... you leave! Everyone should get to vote for all the seats based on the person. There should never be a majority of a party that can bully their way through passing laws/amendments/whatever. Each and every person should have to answer to all the American people on a regular basis. Parties are always going to cause a hinderance in actually making good progress in our system.

Sounds like a decent solution. Party approach sucks everywhere. Would be nice to get a small report annually showing every bill someone introduced and voted (how) on. Then you, the citizen give it a simple kiss or kill vote and based on the popular vote counts (ie no delegates, regular or super) - the guy(gal) either moves on to the next year or goes home.

In addition to that there's a list of replacement candidates, as a waiting list. In other words, there's a replacement ready as soon as someone gets 'killed'.

And just as any job, getting on the list requires education, prior record of civil service in smaller institutions (local level) and perhaps passing of some test that must be...

Sounds like a decent solution. Party approach sucks everywhere. Would be nice to get a small report annually showing every bill someone introduced and voted (how) on. Then you, the citizen give it a simple kiss or kill vote and based on the popular vote counts (ie no delegates, regular or super) - the guy(gal) either moves on to the next year or goes home.

In addition to that there's a list of replacement candidates, as a waiting list. In other words, there's a replacement ready as soon as someone gets 'killed'.

And just as any job, getting on the list requires education, prior record of civil service in smaller institutions (local level) and perhaps passing of some test that must be passed to be qualified, so some bozo who has no sense of history or current laws can't get in somehow. Money becomes almost a non-issue. The qualified candidates profiles etc. will be available on a single web site. No ads, no endorsements, just personal comments, documents, history, videos of the candidate only for public consumption.

Getting back to reality of today - I still say it is fun to watch the Dems implode in front of your eyes.

Since we're in the Passover territory, it's almost as if Hillary/Obama are playing the role of Moses and the Democrat party is the Red Sea. Brings back the outcome of the movie War Games - the war erupts and... nobody wins. Too bad that so many will be disappointed and disenchanted with whatever the result (probably some will even perish, depending how bad it gets)... but it is like reading a book full of twists and unknown detours, with new events springing up almost on every page... predicting anything is like a stock market - you may guess correctly or lose your shirt in the process... and that's what makes it fun (at least for me).

@masbury - no question that rich get richer, but I disagree that 'noone else is doing too well' - there are plenty of folks that do. Thousands of Microsoft millionaires weren't so before... the Google boys etc. No corporation made them and they certainly managed to do well for themselves. That's the beauty of USA, pretty much compared to nobody in that respect.

As for Europe - it may be illegal, but it certainly occurs. When it comes to corruption a place like US pales in comparison to say Russia, Ukraine and the list goes on and on. Do you ever pay attention to scandals in England, France etc? Europe can give US a run for its money when it comes to corruption.

But, regardless of how ...

@masbury - no question that rich get richer, but I disagree that 'noone else is doing too well' - there are plenty of folks that do. Thousands of Microsoft millionaires weren't so before... the Google boys etc. No corporation made them and they certainly managed to do well for themselves. That's the beauty of USA, pretty much compared to nobody in that respect.

As for Europe - it may be illegal, but it certainly occurs. When it comes to corruption a place like US pales in comparison to say Russia, Ukraine and the list goes on and on. Do you ever pay attention to scandals in England, France etc? Europe can give US a run for its money when it comes to corruption.

But, regardless of how much better it is here - always nice to strive to do better, that's for sure. Just need to keep things in perspective.