27 Comments

• 1. Kahn  |  March 10th, 2008 at 12:40 am

  Obama doesn’t have enough votes to lock the nomination either. And, she makes a good point about carrying the big actually needed to win states. She has every right to try for those super delegates as Obama does. And, he should be careful about being the presumptive nominee - thats what got Hillary in trouble.

  And you know I don’t like her - just being objective.

  If neither walks in the door with enough delegates - then they have the same claim - none.

  After the FIRST ballot, they should have a second one including Michigan and Florida. Keep voting until they agree.

• 2. Mark Noonan  |  March 10th, 2008 at 1:10 am

  Kahn,

  Agreed - can’t stand Hillary, but she has a strong case for obtaining the nomination even though Obama will almost certainly enter the convention with a higher number of pledged delegates. If I were her, I wouldn’t be backing down at all…

  That said, it will be a knife fight for the Democratic nomination, and we’ll soon see if Obama has the stones for such a fight…

• 3. Arctic Fox  |  March 10th, 2008 at 1:13 am

  I would like to see Clinton withdraw and leave the race for the Whitehouse between Obama and McCain.

  That being said, I know she never will. She and Bill have been trying every trick they can think of - and they sure do know a lot - to win, and will take it up to the wire as you rightly say here.

  It causes me to raise an eyebrow every time Bill says “I” when speaking about what is supposed to be his wife’s run for the presidency. I can’t help but wonder if by some miracle she did get elected, how much of the leadership would be hers and how much would be his.

  But I do think as we get closer to the cutoff point more will go for Obama for one simple reason - he’s more electable in the eyes of the public than Clinton.

  When push comes to shove, the Democrats DO want to win in November, and Obama vs McCain is a better bet than Clinton vs McCain because McCain can blow some pretty big holes in the Clinton campaign, especially when Bill insists on that quaint yoga position of opening his mouth and putting both feet in it. If Clinton is going to be remotely electable he’s GOT to shut up about how it’s him that’s running for president,

  But yes, it’s going to be a wild ride right the way through to election day. And like everyone I’m looking forward to watching with great interest how the three campaigns develop.

• 4. Barack Obama Chronicles &&hellip  |  March 10th, 2008 at 1:19 am

  […] Another fellow blogger put an intriguing blog post on I Unpledge My Allegiance to the Obamaâ […]

• 5. Barack Obama News »&hellip  |  March 10th, 2008 at 5:46 am

  […] Read the rest of this great post here […]

• 6. Almiranta  |  March 10th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

  I have been observing for years now that the Dems seem to vote based on emotion rather than objective analysis of the issues. I have relatives who, when we talk about actual issues, are clearly conservative, yet they voted for Gore and then Kerry just because they hate Bush.

  The Clinton/Obama thing both proves and illustrates my point. Up until about four or five months ago, Hillary was the light and hope of the Dems. The party couldn’t wait to see her back in the White House.

  Then Barack started to get a lot of attention, and now Hlllary’s left on the sidelines—and the only explanation is emotion. There is a new rock star in the party, and Hillary is out in the cold. But the funny thing is, there is no reason to move from Hllary to Barack except emotion.

  They promise the same things, they have the same agendas, they are basically the same candidate in different skins. Objectively, Hillary is still the better candidate, because as much as a fresh face may appeal to some, it DOES take experience to be President—-if not experience in actually negotiating treaties and dealing with world leaders, at the very least experience in how things work in Washington.

  I’ll say this for Hillary—once she got into the Senate, she worked her butt off, learned the ropes, fought the battles, and prepared herself to be president. I’ve never argued her qualifications, just her agendas and her politics. But Barack has been, as Bill Kristol put it, a “bemused spectator” in the Senate, never a leader, and he has spent nearly two years of the three since he was elected running for the presidency. So if issues really drive the Dems, why are they turning their backs on the candidate more likely to be able to implement those issues?

  Emotion.

  If the support for Hllary had always been tepid, if she had not had the deeply passionate and supposedly committed support of so many, it might be different. In that case, it would be one of millions of people ’settling’ till something better came along. But that’s not the case. The support for Hllary was ardent.

  And now it’s shifted to Barack, almost overnight. And, as they represent the same thing, it’s not really that Barack is offering anything different. He is just more appealing to EMOTION than Hillary.

  The fickleness of so many Dems just illustrates the emotional foundation of what should be objective political analysis.

• 7. Joe  |  March 10th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

  That is what you don’t (or don’t want to) get Almiranta.
  They DO offer much of the same platform. That is why this race is virtually a dead heat. People like BOTH candidates.

  I would be perfectly happy with either Clinton or Obama. I, however, voted for Obama not because of your foolish “Emotion” belief. I voted for him and would rather see him because I believe there is SO much baggage that people bring up about everything Clinton that although she would make a fine president, she wouldn’t be able to bring people together as much as Dems want. I believe that since they are so similar I would rather see someone that doesn’t come into this with so many Republicans already against her.

  But again… something you don’t seem to want to understand is that Dems would be perfectly happy with either in the White House. We all have a preference, but either will do just fine.

• 8. hermie  |  March 10th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

  Obama is the ‘Oprah’ candidate. He says the things that make Dems feel good, and he mouths platitudes and slogans which he doesn’t actually practice, but it gets the crowd to swoon.

  As an Illinois resident, I’ve seen Obama in action and he hasn’t been anything except a ‘yes man’ for the Democrat party; especially Daley and the Cook County machine. He’s been content to do what he was told, while he happily rubbed elbows with people like Tony. Rezko .

  He got into the State Senate easily and he didn’t even break a sweat getting the US Senate seat, primarily because the Chicago Tribune went after his primary opponent’s divorce records, then the GOP nominee’s sealed Child Custody records.

  In truth, he never had to fight for anything. It was pretty much handed to him by one patron after another.

• 9. js  |  March 10th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

  Clintons do have an incredible past;

  The Clintons, a horror film that never ends

  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3510778.ece

• 10. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche  |  March 10th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

  Alimaranta-

  “I have been observing for years now that the Dems seem to vote based on emotion rather than objective analysis of the issues. I have relatives who, when we talk about actual issues, are clearly conservative, yet they voted for Gore and then Kerry just because they hate Bush.”

  Correct me if I’m wrong but were’nt you saying in another post I shouldn’t be psychoanalyzing Conservatives but here we go again you’re giving your variety of dime store psychology. Pot it’s kettle, nice to meet you.

• 11. southerner  |  March 10th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

  Nietzche,

  I really wouldn’t bother even reading Almiranta’s posts. She has previously written about how she doesn’t even want to hear an opposing point of view on blogsforvictory, and besides that, she writes in the incredibly pompous style of someone who feels the world ought to just shut up and listen to her already. This despite the fact that she never seems to say anything concrete or factual or offer any rationale for her opinions and blithe pronouncements. She writes like a deeply unhappy, bitter person, so why engage with her?

  Although I have to say I do find it strange that she still contributes to blogsforvictory given that she previously posted that she would NEVER support John McCain for the presidency (she wrote that back when moonbats like Huckabee, Romney and ‘dracula’ Giulliani were still in the running).

  Why are you still here Almiranta? Aren’t you aware that the ‘victory’ part in the title of this blog refers in large part to getting John McCain, the man you would “never” support, in to the white house this November? You’re a strange lady.

• 12. js  |  March 10th, 2008 at 6:09 pm

  ya ever notice how libs tend to attack the messenger ( Almiranta) instead of the message?

  funnier thing go on in the liberal world though, like telling people that obama is going to be president!!

• 13. js  |  March 10th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

  liar meet thief, obama-n-hillery

• 14. southerner  |  March 10th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

  Almiranta doesn’t have a ‘message’ js, her rants are entirely content free screeds about what she believes, written in a condescending, bitter/mocking tone, and without bothering to ever explicate the reasons for her seemingly God-given higher knowledge about the state of the world. And I do think that it’s highly relevant to question why she contributes so much to BlogsforVictory given that she has stated she would ‘never’ support John McCain for the presidency. Doesn’t that seem a little self-contradictory to you? But then again you strike me as a person for whom logical contraditions are not such a big problem.

  After all, hilariously enough you complain that I “attack the messenger and not the message” (an ad hominem argument) in my previous post and then complain that this is “so typical of liberals”. Thus you have countered one supposed ad hominem argument with another. Nice going. Something tells me you weren’t captain of the debate team at high school (though then again you write like you haven’t made it through or even to high school yet).

• 15. Michael  |  March 10th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

  If you pay close enough attention, you can see Obama fading fast. Clinton knows the ropes and controls the machinery behind the Donkey party. He will suffer death by 1,000 cuts and there is little he can or is willing to do to stop her. She’s dragged him into the gutter and he hasn’t figured it out yet. He’d better wake up and toughen up or he will be dog meat. Poor guy, he never saw it coming.

• 16. southerner  |  March 10th, 2008 at 6:59 pm

  Yeah Michael,

  Obama is really suffering - he has raised over 50% more cash than Hillary, has an army of energized supporters in every state, is ahead in the popular vote, won 8 more delegates than Hillary in Texas (a state she “had” to win) and just trounced her by a nearly 2 to 1 margin in Wyoming. Every poll says that he is better liked with the wider electorate and far more electable against McCain than Hillery and what else? Oh yes, it’s mathematically virtually impossible to catch him on pledged delegates by the convention. Hillary really is hurting him alright. Do you guys ever feel a little silly after posting these little content-free rants of yours? You know, the ones which are based on nothing more than your wish fantasies? I know you’d all love to go up against Hillary in November as Obama’s army of supporters are way too effective (and in fact the length of the primary contest on the democrat side is only helping Obama as by the convention he will have battle-tested field offices in every state in the Union during which time ‘angry white man’ McCain will have been sitting around drinking gimlets and reminiscing about previous failed attempts to capture the white house.

• 17. Kahn  |  March 10th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

  Southerner, you have a lot of nerve saying ANYONE else writes in a condescending, bitter/mocking tone.

  Almiranta has posted some really good explanations. And unlike YOU, never in a condescending, bitter/mocking tone.

  Kettle, you’re smoking pot.

• 18. Joe  |  March 10th, 2008 at 8:08 pm

  OMG that is funny!!!!!

  Almiranta has posted some really good explanations. And unlike YOU, never in a condescending, bitter/mocking tone.

  Please Kahn…. do you want me to try digging up some of the rants? Good grief. One-sided is one thing… but don’t blatantly lie.

• 19. Kahn  |  March 10th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

  Joe - what point are you objecting to? The way I say Almiranta writes or the way I say Southerner writes?

  I find Almirantas writing well thought out and logical. I guess I missed the condescension parts.

  But the condescension and derision are clear in Southerners postings. VERY clear.

  Now, I know that Almiranta gets sick of dealing with the endless misstatements of fact and endless chants that we encounter here. Wishing some liberal posters would go someplace else so the grown-ups could talk is hardly an example of the hatred that drips from many of the liberal posters.

• 20. Kahn  |  March 10th, 2008 at 10:03 pm

  Obama doesn’t have enough delegates. Thats all there is to it. Neither does she. Delegates is how the decision is made.

  So, they BOTH have valid arguments. Valid positions. But NEITHER has the right to claim the election. Because NEITHER has won so far.

  I also think that the way the Democrats treated Michigan and Florida has been awful. I really don’t see the justification for it. I understand the reasons, but don’t think those reasons justify removing two states from the decision process.

  It will be interesting to see if the party can solve that problem. Its interesting that it puts Obama in the position of having to argue against letting peoples votes be counted.

• 21. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche  |  March 10th, 2008 at 10:05 pm

  Kahn-

  “Wishing some liberal posters would go someplace else so the grown-ups could talk …”

  Well now, talk about clear arrogant condescension, that’s it in spades. I wish I could say that was the first time I’ve heard that statement on this site or that you have been the only one to ever make it but we all know thats not true. But then again, we must all remember what the party line is and that is CONSERVATIVES AREN”T CONDESCENDING.

• 22. Kahn  |  March 10th, 2008 at 11:25 pm

  Nietzsche,

  condescension: Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude

  Sorry, I see that on your side more than ours. What I’m referring to are the repeated stupid and disproven claims I see here over and over and over.

  Cheney got Haliburton work in Iraq to pay back his friends.

  Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq so they could give work to Haliburton.

  Gore won (when a recount by the freakin’ Washington Post of the disputed ballots proved he didn’t).

  600,000 dead in Iraq! 1,000,000 dead in Iraq! 1,000,000 civilians dead in Iraq! Really, it sounds like your all on dope.

  Bush caused Katrina. Bush is the cause for decades of neglect to the levee system. Bush have found a way to get help past the washed out bridges and roads and into the destroyed airports. Democrats who refused to evacuate or declare martial law are not to blame.

  It goes on and on and on and on. I can’t speak for everyone. But as a group, I think you are hateful and small people. Your ignorance of military affairs is glaring and getting worse every day. Your attitudes about welfare have destroyed the inner city. Your failure to actually work towards solving Global Warming with acts that we can agree on for different reasons is either hypocritical or insane.

  Really - socialism is not the answer. Xenophobia is not the answer. Identity politics is not the answer. Suppression political speech is not the answer. Justifying attacks of every kind on conservatives is not the answer.

  Is that being “Patronizing”? I don’t think so.

  But by the way; When Dick Cheney left Haliburton to run for vice-President, he walked away from about a billion dollars in options. That means he could have purchased Haliburton stock for much less than market value and then sold it for profit. SINCE being Vice-president, Mr. Cheney has given 100% of his investment income AND his salary to charity. And the left hates him.

  THAT’s why we’re sick of the mindless liberal chant-of-the-day. The blind adherence to disproven political dogma. The complete unwillingness to admit ANY faults with ANY liberals. The endless attacks on conservatives. The justification of violence against Republicans and our property.

  I for one am sick of you and your ilk. Patronizing? Condescending? No - go reread the definition. (OK, maybe that last part, a little)

• 23. Kahn  |  March 10th, 2008 at 11:41 pm

  Telling you you’re a jerk is not patronizing or condescending.

  and Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche (why pick that crazy handle, hell I have to cut-n-paste it to get the whole thing), you are a jerk.

  Tell me Obamas top five accomplishments?

  Tell me Hillary Clintons top five accomplishments?

  Explain to me why you and your party won’t attack Kennedy for killing wind power and why YOUR party won’t overturn those laws?

  Explain to me why your party refuses to build nuclear plants? The ones in France seem OK - would their system not be OK?

  Explain to me why there are no new hydro-electric plants even being considered?

  Explain to me the Constitutional Logic behind the “Fairness Doctrine” and “Campaign finance Laws”.

  Explain to me how welfare and subsidized housing has not led to the deterioration of the inner city and its family structures?

  Explain to me on what day exactly a fetus becomes a human, and why you don’t think it deserves the “reasonable doubt” standard you’d give a mass murder suspect?

  List the drugs and great inventions to come out of any communist nation or strongly socialist nation?

  Explain how you think taxing and restricting pharmaceutical companies will make them sink millions of dollars and tens of years into developing new drugs that you plan to limit the profits of?

  Please , please, please don’t reply with your typical dodge, attack on me, or some completely different subject. Doing any of those proves you can’t answer these questions. I tried that “I could answer, but I’m not going to” ploy in school ONCE - it didn’t work out too well.

  Please don’t dodge, dance, or divert. Let us know what YOU think. How you think things should be done. How YOU think things work. Leave the hatred out. Be specific. Here is your chance to impress us!

• 24. southerner  |  March 11th, 2008 at 12:22 am

  Deleted - mindless insults.

• 25. donttasemebro  |  March 11th, 2008 at 3:11 am

  Kahn said

  Southerner, do you actually have a copy of the Bible? Which one? The Catholic Bible doesn?t have Revelations?

  NOT can you look it up on the Internet, do YOU have a bible?

  Explain to me why you should be taken seriously after posting such an idiotic comment?

• 26. Kahn  |  March 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am

  Yes, you are right and I was wrong. The Catholic Bible has the Book of Revelations. I must admit, that being Catholic I didn’t actually read the bible growing up.

  From what I understand, the book is different than protestant versions. But I’m not going to research it because I don’t care all that much. Do you care very much?

  But is that it? “donttasemebro” I haven’t seen you post here before, and thats all you got? First post, contains an insult. Great.

  I challenge NitwitZ to spell out his beliefs, to explain himself, to not dance, dodge, or attack. And YOU come back with THAT?

  G.F.Y. Obviously you hold positions that can not be defended. And THAT was Almiranta’s point.

• 27. Kahn  |  March 11th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

  Well so far, I’m not impressed.

Matt Margolis on Twitter