The Next President of the USA will be?

[Hermit]

Bump this up. What say he Hermit to the Florida thing?

I think the situation in FL is bad for the party no matter what the final outcome is.

I think it sucks that FL voters wont have their votes counted, and yet I'm also aware the party rules were clearly violated. The consequence for violating the rules was made clear well before the primary took place, and as such the primary results there are, unfortunately, null and void.

Would I be even more upset about it if Obama had won FL? Yes, of course.. but my opinion on the votes not being counted would, believe it or not, be the same. The rules were clear before the game started; FL violated the rules; FL voters.. the Clinton campaign.. and the entire democratic party.. must all now suffer the consequences.

Thanks (again) Florida.

WTF is it with Florida and elections anyway?

[edited to add]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama and Clinton ultimately agree to some proportional (perhaps 50/50; perhaps 60/40) split of the FL delegates,.. just as a way to keep FL voters from feeling totally disenfranchised. Hillary won't ever be totally satisfied though because no matter what happens, the few added delegates she might get from FL still wouldn't be enough to give her the nomination. So, ultimately the FL pledged delegates issue becomes a non-issue.

When it comes to popular votes, there's nothing "official" about popular votes as far as the nomination process goes. Popular votes is merely a measuring stick for gauging a candidate's popular appeal among party voters. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing barring superdelegates from considering the popular vote results from FL as it stands when they make their choice of who they're going to support. If superdelegates wanna consider the results in FL as it currently stands, more power to em, I say. I tend to think the superdelegates understand the situation and are able to look at the results in FL with a balanced eye, taking into account the fact that neither candidate campaigned there.

The fact of the matter is that even with the FL popular votes

counted as it stands, Obama still leads Clinton in popular votes.

Popular Vote (w/FL):

Obama: 14,993,833; 48.3%

Clinton: 14,788,379; 47.6%

Spread: Obama +205,454; +0.7%

*source*

Its up to the superdelegates at this point. They're gonna decide who the nominee is.

[Hotplant]

They are rebublican nazis.

Determined to screw up EVERY election.

It's their traditioin they hold very dear in their hearts.

[Pb Derigable]

You say Hillary has a "good mathematical shot" at the nomination, but I can't help but

notice that you don't back your assertion up with a mathematical explanation.

Show me what it would take mathematically for Hillary to win the nomination. You say Obama's polling numbers will drop if more skeletons come rattling out of his closet. OK then, by all means please do prove your point by showing me how far Obama's numbers would in fact have to drop in order for Hillary to actually "have a good mathematical shot at the nomination". Please show me the percentages Hillary would have to win the remaining primaries by in order for her to get enough pledged delegates, popular votes, and/or super delegate support to win the nomination.

Show me the math, Pb. I'd love to see it!

[why do I have a hunch you wont be able, and/or willing, to show me the math? ]

according to CNN

Barrack Obama 1724

Hillary Clinton 1589

717 delegates left unpledged

2025 to win

so

1589

+436

717

=

2306

thats math, if you read my post, i said the polls are not in her favor for this to happen. try to find a story on the Internet and give me a 10 page essay how that is not math. She needs 60%. If she can get 3 delegates for every two obama gets. she gets the majority.I'm not saying she will win, but your not asking me that, just the math.

Here is a informal poll I'm taking around in the office

10 people say they are voting for obama right now.

I ask them if obama admits to killing a bus load of nuns on purpose, because William ayers told him to do it will you vote for Obama.

9 people say they will not vote for Obama, 1 said Obama is his distant cousin (which is true) and blood has to stay together.

Once again math and polling numbers. tell me how that is not math and not a poll. It's amazing after the obama train has slowed down, you start attacking the people who don't like obama, not defending your guy. Don't tell me your running out of koolaid.

insert stupid whistling smile face with the hippy here

Insert the stupid smile face with spinning sign saying "No" on one side, "Obama" on the other here.

[zosodude13]

I meant to add that if you include Michigan, then Hillary has a clear lead. But lets say just Florida. Your numbers are a virtuual tie then Hermit and the Supers could go either way and justify it. Im sure the remaing 9 states will change those numbers in the popular vote. And Hillary has won the states that hold far more electoral votes. the ones you need to beat McCain. the Grizzly Bears wont be enough to beat him.

NY, penn and cali (the "big" state's hillary has won) have a history of voting democratic in the last 4 elections

so it wouldnt matter between obama and hillary since they would likely vote demcratic anyway

[Nathan]

Absolutely. It is forgotten. I never saw the other members posts for the record. Its tough because people are on at differant times. And sometimes its difficult to go back and read pages and pages. As for my other "friends" Im sure they arent going to sweep anything I say under the carpet.

Awesome.

*shakes hands with overthehillsandfaraway*

As for politics...

Is anyone else just getting sick of the Dem race? It's gone on for forever at this point. And it's giving me a headache.

[Pb Derigable]

Is anyone else just getting sick of the Dem race? It's gone on for forever at this point. And it's giving me a headache.

If youre'sick of this already, you're going to be jumping off the bridge once the real race is set to begin. I'm not sure where do you live at, but in Illinois i haven't seen a presidential campaign commercial in my whole life, but with the third parties able to attack any candidate, I'm expecting it to be the biggest shit throwing contest ever.

[Hermit]

according to CNN

Barrack Obama 1724

Hillary Clinton 1589

717 delegates left unpledged

2025 to win

so

1589

+436

717

=

2306

thats math, if you read my post, i said the polls are not in her favor for this to happen. try to find a story on the Internet and give me a 10 page essay how that is not math. She needs 60%. If she can get 3 delegates for every two obama gets. she gets the majority. I'm not saying she will win, but your not asking me that, just the math.

Yup, that is math alright. Good job.

The logical problem for you (and the mathematical problem for Clinton) is the extreme improbability of Clinton getting 60% of the remaining delegates. To do that, as of now she'd have to win EVERY remaining primary by ENORMOUS margins of (rough estimate) 20% or more. After N Carolina, she'll need to win something like 80% of the remaining delegates, which means she'll have to win EVERY remaining primary after that by even larger margins than 20%. The already extremely high improbability of her overtaking Obama in pledged delegates will get even more improbable with each primary that she falls short of the target margin of victory.

FYI,.. Clinton has thus far managed to win by a 20+% margin in only 2 of the previous 40 DNC-sanctioned primaries: Arkansas 43.8%, and Oklahoma 23.6%. By contrast, Obama has won by a margin of 20+% in 20 of the previous 40 primaries. Since we're talking about mathematics, would you care to calculate the probability.. or the improbability as it may be.. of Clinton winning EVERY remaining primary by 20+%?

Saying "the polls are not in her favor for this to happen" is only half the story, muh-man. Neither the polls nor the odds are in her favor. And to say the odds are "not in her favor" is.. well.. an understatement of epic proportions.

Thank you, friend,.. you've helped make the point that Hillary has virtually no mathematical chance of overtaking Obama in pledged delegates. And in helping to make that point you've also helped debunk your own fallacious (and illogical) claim that "Hillary does have a good mathematical shot at the nomination".

Well done, dudey.

Go Obama!!

[btw,.. regarding "inserting" smilies into your posts, you might find this info from the forum help section useful: "Emoticons: The button with the smiley icon will display a listing of all the emoticons for the board, and allow you to insert them into the post". Simply click on the desired smilie and it will be inserted into your post at the point of the cursor. Bada-bing, bada-boom. Easy as that. ..You're welcome, friend. ]

[wanna be drummer]

Allow me to enlighten you. You are hanging your political hat on the delegate count. dont you realize that he can have more delegates and still lose!!! Wake up! If she wins the popular vote, ,very possible, very, very, very possible, the superdelegates have much leverage to pick her as he doesnt have the magic number either. and he is not going to have the magic number. How do you like that math? And dont forget that she has won the big electoral states while your guy has won the "Grizzly bear" states.

NOBAMA "08

add smiley face with hippy jumping please

The superdelegates won't do that. That would ensure that none of the youth votes they're getting can be counted upon for November. It would polarize the younger voters and they'd just see it as pointless because they're votes didn't even matter in the end

Superdelegates do what's best for the party, and to do that, they'll favor the candidate with more delegates and more popular votes:

Mr. Obama

[wanna be drummer]

Everyone knows that old people make it to the polls much more than young voters. Hell, do you really think they are counting on winning this thing on the youth vote?

Older people generally vote for the Republican side. Thats a simple fact. The Democrats rely on relatively younger voters. This year, the real young ones (18-30) are coming out stronger than they ever have, simple as that. If the Democrats want to win the Presidency, they better cash in on that and they just won themselves another generation of voters. You think they'd risk that on Bill?

[Hermit]

Well said!! and funny. And to Hermit, CNN's numners dont match yours. Could you be "spinning" a bit?

The numbers aren't "mine". I get the numbers I post from a number (pardon the pun) of sources, and I usually post a link to the source. Fwiw, Ive been getting popular vote total numbers from *this site*, and Ive been getting delegate total numbers mostly from *here*, but I also check the totals as listed *here* and *here*.

Do I "spin" what those numbers might mean?.. sure. This is politics afterall.

But I also back up my "spin" with logic and sound rationale,.. unlike you who

tends to do nothing but repeat the same Clinton spin lines over and over again.

Regardless of the numbers, if it is as close now in June as now, the Superdelagates can go either way. dont you get that Hermit?

I've said as much a number of times already, muh-man. Aren't you paying attention, OTHAFA?

The pertinent point though is that your (ie, the Clinton's) rationale for why the superdelegates should ignore/disregard the pledged delegate total and popular vote total and support Clinton anyway is 1. bogus, and 2. indicative of nothing more than your audacity of hope.

The supers are not gonna outright ignore the pledged delegate count nor the popular vote totals. Nor are they necessarily gonna buy the Clinton spin/fallacy/red herring (as you have) that Obama can't win certain states and/or that only Hillary can win certain states.

The supers are gonna support the candidate who they think has the best chance of winning in November, and that means they're gonna do what they have to do to keep the party from blowing apart. If they ignore the pledged delegate totals and (to a lesser degree of importance) the popular vote totals, they'll start a firestorm that will doom the party's chance of winning in November. The Obama campaign has brought in thousands and thousands (if not millions) of new voters. The supers are not gonna do anything that might alienate (or piss off) those voters. The supers know that its the thousands (if not millions) of new voters who will bring the party a victory in November.

And the fact remains that any state that Hillary can win in the general election, Obama can also win. And any state that Obama can win in the general election, Hillary can also win. In the general election democratic (and independent.. and disaffected moderate republican) voters won't be choosing between Hillary and Obama, they'll be choosing between Obama and McCain, or Hillary and McCain.

To suggest that democratic (and independent.. and disaffected moderate republican) voters will be willing to vote for Clinton against McCain but not for Obama against McCain is both ridiculous and disingenuous. It's absurd. Those who oppose McCain will just as likely vote for Obama as they would Clinton.

If anything, the argument cuts the other way: disaffected moderate republicans who might consider voting for Obama are much less likely to consider voting for Clinton. Republicans (even moderate republicans) absolutely HATE the Clintons. While moderate republicans may not trust or fully embrace Obama, they don't outright HATE him.. they don't loathe him like they do the Clintons. And, most importantly,.. while disaffected moderate republicans thoroughly despise and loathe Clinton,.. some of them do see (or at least are willing to consider) Obama as possibly being a preferable choice than McCain.

Connect the dots, muh-man.

Don't let your rabid Clinton fervor blind you.

Think about it rationally.

Which states do you think the Dems would rather carry? NY, California, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania or the states where there are more Grizzly bears than homo sapiens???? Hello!!

Why are you stuck on the notion that it's either/or? What makes you think that

any state that Hillary can win, cant also be won by Obama in the general election?

In the general election, any rational minded democrat (most Clinton supporters are democrats, right? There aren't many, if any, republicans who support.. or even stand to look at or listen to.. Clinton, right?) will vote for whomever the democratic candidate is, whethr it's hillary or Obama. Not merely as a matter of blindly voting for a democrat, mind you, but because the two democratic candidates (Hillary and Barack) espouse values and political agendas that are VASTLY different (practically at opposite ends of the spectrum) than the values and agendas espoused by the John McCain. Any one who supports either Clinton or Obama, should support either Clinton or Obama against John McCain in the general election. To do otherwise makes absolutely no political sense whatsoever. NONE.

Your argument that Hillary is the only dem candidate who can win certain states is utterly bogus. I've made this point several times to you now, and yet you've never responded with a counter-argument. Instead you merely keep repeating the same bogus spin that the Clinton's have fed you.

With all due respect, friend,.. I will not address

this issue with you again until you first tell me:

• 1. why it is that you think Obama cannot win the same
  states that Hillary can win in the general election.
  
  2. why you think Clinton supporters would (and/or should)
  vote for McCain instead of Obama in the general election.
  

NY, penn and cali (the "big" state's hillary has won) have a history of voting democratic in the last 4 elections

so it wouldnt matter between obama and hillary since they would likely vote demcratic anyway

exactly.

The superdelegates won't do that. That would ensure that none of the youth votes they're getting can be counted upon for November. It would polarize the younger voters and they'd just see it as pointless because they're votes didn't even matter in the end

Superdelegates do what's best for the party, and to do that, they'll favor the candidate with more delegates and more popular votes:

Mr. Obama

you speak wisely there, wanna be,.. my moderate republican friend.

Now if we can get your wisdom to deepen to the point where you realize

that Obama would be better for American than More Of The Same McCain..

[wanna be drummer]

you speak wisely there, wanna be,.. my moderate republican friend.

Now if we can get your wisdom to deepen to the point where you realize

that Obama would be better for American than More Of The Same McCain..

Moderate Republican? Is that what we're called these days?

I used to be so pro-McCain just last year (I'm sure you remember a few words we had back on the old board ) but right now...I don't even give a shit who wins at this point. I definenitely don't want Bill, thats my certainty, and if she does (highly unlikely) get the nomination, then I'll vote against her. But, if its down to McCain vs. Obama, I'll probably vote third party. I'm sick of both parties and I'm getting tired of how moronic both can be. But thats politics.

Even if I did vote for McCain, my vote won't count anyways, Michigan'll vote Democrat again, as the latest trends of our fair state have shown.

Third Party '08

[Hermit]

Moderate Republican? Is that what we're called these days?

Qualifying your personal brand of republicanism as being "moderate" is, I'll admit, a political strategy on my part.. aimed at not alienating you. You know, in case there's even a slim chance you might open up to Obama as November nears.

Seriously though,.. you're a republican, I know, but in my experience of you, you're also a thoughtful guy. [Given that you're smart and do seem to exercise your capacity for deeper thinking, how/why you choose to remain a republican is quite a mystery to me. But I digress.. ]

Rather than throw your vote away on a thrird party nobody with no chance of winning, why not cast your vote for Obama so, if nothing else, you can tell your kids and grandkids you voted for the first African American POTUS in American history? Imagine how cool and progressive on the cutting edge they'll think you were! They'll be so proud of you, man! You don't want them rolling their eyes and laughing at you for being out of touch at such a historic moment in American history..so much so that you voted for Ralph Nader or Ru Paul instead of Barack Obama,.. do you??

I used to be so pro-McCain just last year (I'm sure you remember a few words we had back on the old board ) but right now...I don't even give a shit who wins at this point. I definenitely don't want Bill, thats my certainty, and if she does (highly unlikely) get the nomination, then I'll vote against her. But, if its down to McCain vs. Obama, I'll probably vote third party. I'm sick of both parties and I'm getting tired of how moronic both can be. But thats politics.

Even if I did vote for McCain, my vote won't count anyways, Michigan'll vote Democrat again, as the latest trends of our fair state have shown.

Third Party '08

...I wonder how long it'll be before overthehillsandouttolunch

refers to Nathan as "Mr I Don't Even Give A Shit Who Wins"...

I respect John McCain for his military service,.. and I used to have some respect for him as a politician. Not anymore though. I have absolutely no respect for him as a politician anymore. And that's because he's a republican, per se,.. it's because he's chosen to become a shameless, principle-less pandering political whore. (you know.. as opposed to your standard run-of-the-mill political whore.)

anyway..

cheers bud.

[Hermit]

overthehillsandouttolunch,.. how exactly has Obama "played the race card"?

..by being Black?

If your only response is "because he stood by his pastor", you're not exhibiting much depth or thoughtfulness. You did see (listen to, or read) Obama's speech in response to the Rev Wright issue, didn't you? I challenge you to show how anything Obama said is indicative of him having "played the race card".

I also suggest you review what the pundits are saying and the polls are showing: that the Rev Wright issue has not appreciably hurt Obama among democratic voters. Obama weathered the storm. I think the issue is gonna become even less relevant after the Rev Wright-Bill Moyer interview airs.

You're out of touch, muh-man. You're behind the times. Not all Americans think every Black man and his wife are anti-White racists. That belief is pretty much only held by good old boy repubs (which does not exclude women), uneducated folks, and.. well.. Clinton supporters.

[Hermit]

overthehillsandouttolunch. haha. very clever indeed Hermit. But you certaiinly must admit that some of the voting trends Ive mentioned are not out to lunch but statistically correct. You dont have all the answers dude. and please, stick to the substance and try and not take up so much space with the silly little hippy cheerleaders. Very silly. Where can I get some little Grizzly bears? As for Rev Wright, do you think anyone is going to buy any damage control bullshit that he is coached into saying by a candidate that is not very articulate to say the least. If he wins, we lose.

NOBAMA "08

Obama "is not very articulate to say the least"? Geezus,.. you are out to lunch!

"If Obama wins, we lose"? WTF? Dude,..stop being so rabidly pro-Clinton that you're anti-Obama. Your comment is ignorant to the extreme. Consider the consequences of another republican in the White House over the next 4 years, for krysts sake. Obama can't possibly be worse than that. Hillary is not a savior, and Obama is not demon. They're both democrats and their policies and agendas are very similar. Either would be good for America as the next POTUS. For cryin out loud, man, show some semblance of rational thought!

Btw.. I'm still waiting for you to indicate how it is that Obama "played the race card".

And here's a few bear smilies for ya.

Now quit yer whining.

[zosodude13]

overthehillsandouttolunch. haha. very clever indeed Hermit. But you certaiinly must admit that some of the voting trends Ive mentioned are not out to lunch but statistically correct. You dont have all the answers dude. and please, stick to the substance and try and not take up so much space with the silly little hippy cheerleaders. Very silly. Where can I get some little Grizzly bears? As for Rev Wright, do you think anyone is going to buy any damage control bullshit that he is coached into saying by a candidate that is not very articulate to say the least. If he wins, we lose.

NOBAMA "08

I'm sure you wont, but if you take the time to read Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech (the response to rev. wright) it clearly shows Barack is extremely articulate...

in fact even your lord and savoir Hillary liked the speech

"Issues of race and gender in America have been complicated throughout our history, and they are complicated in this primary campaign... There have been detours and pitfalls along the way, but we should remember that this[Obama's speech] is a historic moment for the Democratic Party and for our country. We will be nominating the first African-American or woman for the presidency of the United States, and that is something that all Americans can and should celebrate."

-Hillary Clinton

and by the way... I CANT WAIT to hear all about Hillary's stories about when she was a little girl in Indiana and North Carolina

[zosodude13]

Those are goldylocks bears. They arent Grizzly bears. And Im not whining. And Im not giving up on Hillary. If you think they are so close then why do you favor this untested nobody from nowhere so much? I never said Id vote for McCain. No way. Id sit out first. But Hillary is in this with a fighting chance. All the political analysts admit it but you wont because you are trying to win votes for your boy on this board. Like it will make any differance. Hillary will have a much easier time whipping McCain than Obama. He played the race card in a very subtle way. And when he was confronted with his ties to this pastor who is a modern day Nazi, he should have washed his hands of him. The dude that turned on the Clintons obviously has an agenda. Didnt get greased enough so he rolled over. And what did Hillary say when asked about him? She held no punches. Said he has not been following the campain very closely. I still think the Grizzly bears voted in some of those states. Hell, youve got to go overthehillsandfaraway to get to a voting booth. He probably wrote those hillbillies a check for all the money he is spending. He is spending like a drunken sailor on leave at a whore house.

I'm not sure if im reading this correctly, you think Obama has been winning people out in hicks-ville?

If you ask ANY political analyist who is Barack Obama's supporters... they will tell you urban populations support obama

Hill's backers are rural people, and those lisving away from the cities...

those "hillbillies" in western Pennsylvania saved Hillary from losing and almost officially ending her chances

ask any politican, its a bad idea to turn around on your core-supporters I would embrace those "hillbillies" and "grizzly bears" if I were you

[zosodude13]

Sure the inner city blacks voted for him. At a whopping 92 percent. This for a guy that came out of the woodwork. the whites that voted for him came from the smaller states. Not NY, Cal, Ohio, Texas, Penn. Grizzly bear states you right winger from Hilton. I live in an extreme right wing area, and lets face it, you are one of them.

you from upstate NY? only someone in the Rochester area would know hilton!

ya... its a tiny town, its a bedroom community with a few apple farms left from the ye ole days...

because of the fact no one in hilton works in hilton, they all work in Rochester, NY... and since Rochester is urban, it votes democratic and since our jobs are tied to the city, we will vote democratic to protect our interests

[zosodude13]

You know where Im from. You know Im a Sabres fan. and you dont know how Republican this town is and always will be. I worked for Monroe County for yrs. why do you think Maggie Brooks is still in office after all the botches. Like with the Fast Ferry to Toronto. this is and always will be a very heavy right wing Republican town. the Dems that are here dont show up at the polls. I voted for the old Mayor Johnson who is black for the record to unseat that cronie Maggie Brooks. They will never lose in this town. Thank God that this town didnt decide the NY senate or Hillary never would have even won the Senate here. Pure far right wing conservative crony pricks run this town and always will dude. Im 3 times your age so I know what Im talking about.

so then, what explains Rochester's democratic mayor, bob duffy?

[Hermit]

"I'm 3 times your age" <--> overthehill?

Btw overthehillandouttolunch,. I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts about

Obama's "More Perfect Union" (response to the Rev Wright issue) speech..

I'm curious.. is it just me or do other people also detect more than a mere

hint of racial and economic "bitterness" in overthehill's comments?

[The Rover]

From our Friends at Nadar/Gonzalez:

If you believe that the Democratic Party is the answer to what ails us as a nation, then please, be our guest -- give them some more money.

If on the other hand, you believe that the Democratic Party is part of the system of corporate control and domination, then there is a clear choice:

Nader/Gonzalez Now.

Earlier this month, we wrote that it was "shameful" that progressives like Medea Benjamin were supporting the Democratic Party over Nader/Gonzalez.

Medea posted a response on one of our blogs, saying she was offended by the accusation, and said we should "respect" each other's choices.

Medea used the word "respect" three times in one paragraph.

One person who was on the receiving end of Medea's "respect" in 2004 was Peter Camejo, Ralph's running mate in 2004.

We asked Peter to respond to Medea.

Please read Peter's essay carefully.

Have a safe weekend.

Onward.

The Nader Team

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitulation

By Peter Camejo

I was stunned to see Medea Benjamin complaining to the Nader/Gonzalez campaign because the campaign had used the word "shameful" in referring to "progressive" Democrats who had supported the pro-war, pro-Patriot Act, anti-labor, and anti-environmental candidate John Kerry in 2004.

I have great personal admiration for Medea Benjamin for many of the stands and actions she has taken through the years. But her capitulation to the Democratic Party has been truly disappointing.

Medea Benjamin eventually joined the "progressive" Democrats and has become an active supporter of the Democratic Party.

Without the Democratic Party's support, Bush's war policies could never have been implemented. The Democrats voted in Congress a resolution that included the phrase, "unequivocal support for George Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq."

They have voted for all the funding requests for the war in Iraq. In 2005 at the State of Union address, the entire Congress, with few if any exceptions, gave George Bush 39 standing ovations in one hour. They rose to their feet and applauded every time Bush used the word Iraq even before he finished his sentence.

Of course this is nothing new for the Democratic Party. This is the Party of human slavery, of the Jim Crow of 5,000 lynchings, of fighting the right of women to vote, and of imprisoning Japanese Americans in camps.

This is the Party that launched a war of mass murder killing two million Vietnamese as the "peace" party in the 1960s. It is the party that has supported the destruction of the trade unions, lowered taxes for the rich -- while raising them for the poor. The Democrats voted 98% in favor of the Patriot Act in the Senate without reading it.

Earlier, 100 percent of Senate Democrats voted to confirm the right-winger Antonin Scalia for the Supreme Court.

In 2004 the Democrats ran John Kerry for President -- the same John Kerry who said he could implement Bush's war policies better than Bush especially in increasing militarization in America and promoting the war in Iraq.

What confuses so many progressively inclined people is they do not really understand that our society is controlled by the corporate power of concentrated money.

The corporations and the super rich -- through their domination of the government, the media, and educational institutions and of course the two parties -- run our society.

The totalitarian rule of money is a self correcting mechanism. It has flexibility which is part of why it is so powerful.

The two-party system allows the appearance of differences and adjustments to public sentiment. It has become the single most successful political form for the rule of a minority over a majority in the history of the world. How this system of control developed, consolidated, and has survived through the years will be studied for years to come.

The front line in this denial of democracy is the Democratic Party because it is the instrument that controls, channels and co-opts the forces that otherwise could challenge the rule of concentrated money.

It is precisely the "differences" between the two major parties that makes the system effective.

And the front line in the battle for the control of money over people are the so-called "progressive" Democrats who talk the talk. They confuse people, prevent free elections, and fight hardest to undermine a Nader/Camejo candidacy or a Nader/Gonzalez candidacy or any other candidacy whose voice for democracy begins to be heard.

They may think they are helping move the country toward a more progressive agenda. But in fact, they are deepening the illusion that answers can be found through the Democratic Party. In turn, this reinforces the two-party domination over the United States, making possible the horrendous policies we have seen over the last eight years.

You -- Medea Benjamin -- are now one of those on the front lines defending the two-party domination, and as a direct result, defending the rule of concentrated money and other illegalities and injustices of our present system.

You can't have it both ways.

In 2004, the Democrats went further than just supporting Bush's policies.

They led a massive campaign to silence the only well known candidacy that opposed Bush's policies. They did this by manipulation.

They sent representatives into the Nader/Camejo campaign to disrupt it, to seek to prevent his supporters from getting Nader/Camejo on the ballot. They actively sought to prevent those who disagreed -- and favored peace, social justice and democracy -- to have a voice.

They harassed people trying to petition for Nader/Camejo. They brought at one time over twenty lawsuits to try to block Nader/Camejo's campaign from state ballots. They spent tens of millions of dollars in their battle against free elections and against voter choice.

Even today they are trying to "fine" Nader/Camejo tens of thousands of dollars for merely seeking ballot access in the State of Pennsylvania.

I personally had to pay them $20,000 not to have a lien put on my home for having been Ralph Nader's Vice Presidential candidate.

The Democrats, especially the people you, Media Benjamin, call "progressives," were the most vicious in their endless diatribes against Nader calling him "crazy," "ego maniacal," "stupid," and "agent of Bush."

Media Benjamin you are now shocked that the Nader/Gonzalez campaign used the term "shameful."

Where was Medea Benjamin during the Democrats hate campaign against democracy in 2004? You were campaigning for a pro-war candidate and supporting the vicious anti-Nader/Camejo campaign.

Medea Benjamin in her effort to support John Kerry helped successfully to manipulate within the Green Party support for David Cobb, the anti-Nader pro-voting Democrat candidate who favored US occupation of Iraq in two public debates with me.

She worked to get the Green Party convention to prevent Nader/Camejo from being endorsed after Nader/Camejo representatives won a number of Green Party primaries and state conventions, including California.

During the 2004 campaign, there was a letter on David Cobb's web site titled "Vote Kerry and Cobb." And it was signed by Medea Benjamin, among others.

If you are going to seek fairness and oppose "trashing," why don't you start with all your friends whose extreme public attacks on Nader/Camejo you never protested?

Why not promote among your Democratic friends the publishing of ads apologizing to Nader and the American people for the twenty-four harassing lawsuits in twelve weeks filed by Republican corporate law firms like Reed Smith and Kirkland & Ellis and abuses they committed in 2004 against the rights of the American people to have free elections and voter choice?

Yes Medea Benjamin you have the right -- like so many before you -- to seek to reform the Democratic Party. The truth is, however, that what you actually achieve is to give cover for this pro-war anti-labor political organization. Millions upon millions have tried to reform the Democratic Party for decades.

The AFL-CIO went in to reform the Democrats with millions upon millions of supporters only to be reduced from 33% of the work force to 12% -- a submissively controlled force ineffective in defending even their own existence -- unable to even get the Democratic Party to repeal the notorious anti-labor Taft Hartley law of 1947.

The generation of progressive "leaders" that capitulate in 2004 will have to be replaced by a new generation that will stand by principles like the early abolitionists of the Liberty Party, the Populists who led the uprising of 1890s, the Debsian socialists and Women's Party activists of the early twentieth century -- and yes like Ralph Nader who refuses to capitulate to a Democratic Party that has and is selling out the American people.

Making personal attacks on Ralph Nader is starting to get a little old. Maybe it's time for your Democratic Party friends to end their political bigotry against Nader/Gonzalez.

Yes we should all work together on issues we agree on. Yes we should try to get people regardless of what party they are registered with to support specific objectives.

That is how the most massive peace demonstrations ever were organized in the 1960s and 1970s or the millions who marched together for immigrant rights just a couple of years ago. Of course none of those actions were ever supported by your Party, the Democrats.

The ranks of the Democratic Party are desperately seeking change. In time they will see that the Democratic Party cannot be and will not be the agency through which peace, social justice and saving our environment will come. On this issue you and I remain divided. On the debate about this issue Nader and those supporting him have been saints in their language in comparison to your friends in the Democratic Party.

The Nader/Gonzalez campaign has nothing to apologize for. Nader has been one of the most beautiful examples of showing respect for all including those who disagree with him.

It is time for you and your Democratic Party associates to show respect and apologize to Ralph Nader.

[Hermit]

I dont know where you live but you are damn right there is bitternes towards the local Republicans. Maybe that other member wasnt really talking about koolaid. What the hell are you really drinking? Calling me out on this racist shit? Im sick of being called a racist over stating political statistical voting data.

You dont like me making an obssrvation that your comments seem to reveal racial bitterness on your part, but you dont mind calling Barack Obama a racist,.. is that it?

Btw overthehillandouttolunch,.. I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts about

Obama's "More Perfect Union" (response to the Rev Wright issue) speech..

Here.. I'll help you out by providing a link to the video of the speech..

*http://youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU*

See it for yourself, friend.

I defy you to watch that video and then tell me that you

still think Barack Obama is not articulate and is a racist.

Afaic, your credibility.. and your objectivity.. are at stake here.

[Pb Derigable]

Yup, that is math alright. Good job.

The logical problem for you (and the mathematical problem for Clinton) is the extreme improbability of Clinton getting 60% of the remaining delegates. To do that, as of now she'd have to win EVERY remaining primary by ENORMOUS margins of (rough estimate) 20% or more. After N Carolina, she'll need to win something like 80% of the remaining delegates, which means she'll have to win EVERY remaining primary after that by even larger margins than 20%. The already extremely high improbability of her overtaking Obama in pledged delegates will get even more improbable with each primary that she falls short of the target margin of victory.

FYI,.. Clinton has thus far managed to win by a 20+% margin in only 2 of the previous 40 DNC-sanctioned primaries: Arkansas 43.8%, and Oklahoma 23.6%. By contrast, Obama has won by a margin of 20+% in 20 of the previous 40 primaries. Since we're talking about mathematics, would you care to calculate the probability.. or the improbability as it may be.. of Clinton winning EVERY remaining primary by 20+%?

Saying "the polls are not in her favor for this to happen" is only half the story, muh-man. Neither the polls nor the odds are in her favor. And to say the odds are "not in her favor" is.. well.. an understatement of epic proportions.

Thank you, friend,.. you've helped make the point that Hillary has virtually no mathematical chance of overtaking Obama in pledged delegates. And in helping to make that point you've also helped debunk your own fallacious (and illogical) claim that "Hillary does have a good mathematical shot at the nomination".

Well done, dudey.

[

I never said she had a logical chance, you never ask me that too, you wanted math. That is mathematical logic that she can still win. I officialy know why you are so pro Dem's. you don't know how to do math so you expect somebody else to do it for you. Your playing this stupid gotcha game when you can't defend your candidate, this is why obama will lose. He keeps digging holes and he doesn't have the right people running his show. Rev. Wright should never been seen again. Bill ayers should be disowned as soon as he popped up, not "i resent these allegations that somebody i know, has something to do with my bid for presidency'. and then Obama commented on later, 'I have discuss issues with him, but not on a regular basis'. The only thing he has done good in this race is telling his American hating wife to shut up. It funny how that pic of him not putting his hand over his heart during the natl anthem, actually had some merit. Hermit he wants to talk to Iran, when everbody know they intend to do harm against us and iseral. Jmmy Carter talked to a terroist organization hamas, which so happens is supporting Obama. This is why 9/11 happen becasue the dems didn't do jack shit in the 90's. Obama wants to raise the taxes of the people who already pay the most. He wants parents to have no control over thier kids. He wants partial birth abortions and he wants to take away our guns. He wants to prop up bad corprations, and prop up people who refuse to work.

answer me this one you don't have to read anything else i wrote. Obama voted "present" 130 times in the Illinois senate. All of which were key issues that he said were key issues. 7 times he had his voted changed in key issues, all of which were thought to be tight races, but ended up having enough to pass without his vote. He had dreams of being president long before he decided to have dreams of his father and of changed. Everybody knows why he joined that church, just to get ahead. A black man going to a white church does not look good in the city were dirty politics is the only way to play. but he can't disown him just as he can't disowned his "typical white person" racist mother. Then he said he disowned him a month later. Now, Rev. Wright is "bitter" saying that what politicians do.

This guy has the audacity to think 2 years in the senate makes up for 20 years of hate. God damn that koolaid must taste good. The worst thing is this guy can't stop smoking, but he has no problem of pulling ourselves out of the middle east, so Iran can run over Iraq and lob a nuke at Israel.

those smiley faces make you look like a 14 yearold girl. Be a man.

[Pb Derigable]

My Illinios pipe trades, the biggest union in chicago, has stopped openly endorsing Obama. A hometown boy gets no love anymore.

[Hermit]

What in the hell does his speech have to do with my previous posts about my local government mr know it all? Id be brain dead if I read the entire post by Rover about Nader before you. I dont want to hear any more about Obama and Im not reading it. I spent an hour reading your last propoganda bullshit post about his wifes fucking essay from 20 yrs ago. My credibility was shot here on this site long ago because of people like you with agenda's and because you are all in bed together. what a joke. Call me anything you want, you and your poll numbers and your little hippy cheerleaders are very redundant. why should I read an encylopedia to back up your Obama propoganda campaign? You lost your credibility by calling me a racist because I dont support your boy Obama who goes to a racist pastor. Go drown in you koolaid. If thats what you really are drinking.

The speech has nothing to do with your local government comments; it has to do

with you repeatedly making allegations that Barack and Michelle Obama are racists.

For the record,.. I did NOT call you a racist. I merely expressed my observation that your comments seem to reveal a bit of racial and economic "bitterness" on your part. I stand by my observations; you do seem to harbor racial bitterness. For example, your assumption that Blacks are voting for Obama for no other reason that because he's Black smacks of racial bitterness to me. Your generalization is totally unfair, and the unfairness of it is racially based. See what I'm saying?

I'm also trying to make a point about your baseless allegations/smears/aspersions that Barack and Michelle Obama are racists. Your allegations are not only grossly unwarranted, they are ugly and reprehensible. We expect those kinds of baseless hateful Carl Rovian smear tactics from the republican party against democratic candidates, and that's ugly enough, but for it to come from a fellow democrat is.. well.. shameful and harmful to the party. Shame on you.

Perhaps you'll take a moment and consider the unfairness and ugliness of your calling the Obamas racists. ..especially if you won't even take the time to watch and hear what Barack Obama had to say in response to the comments made by Rev Wright... since its his relationship with Rev Wright that seems to be the main reason you're making your disgusting allegations of racism.

If you don't think you harbor racial bitterness, then by all means say so, and explain why it is that you keep making baseless allegations about the Obamas being racists and why you make disrespectful generalizations about Black voters.

I'm all ears, muh-man.

[Hermit]

Pb,..

if you think its logical to say "Hillary still has a good mathematical chance at the nomination" while at the very same time acknowledging the mathematics of the campaign shows that she has a "nearly impossible mathematical chance at winning the nomination".. then I'm left concluding that there's no sense in debating with you.

"Mathematically nearly impossible" and "good mathematical chance" are not the same; they're opposites. Suggesting both are true at the same time is not logical.. it's utterly illogical. That you can't recognize the obvious incongruity of those two statements speaks volumes about your intellectual limitations, friend. (as does your grammar)

If you can convince me that you understand the difference between "mathematically nearly impossible" and "good mathematical chance", then maybe I'll have reason to think a discussion between us might be worthwhile. I think the chances of that happening are nearly impossible. And just so you're clear,.. no, that doesn't mean I think there's a "good chance" of it happening.

--

overheillsandouttolunch,..

there's one point you keep overlooking in your insistence that I have some irrational bias in my support for Obama: I've repeatedly expressed my felling that Hillary Clinton would be a fine POTUS, and I've repeatedly said that I'll support her if she gets the nomination. I simply prefer Obama, thats all, and I've reasonably and rationally explained why it is that I prefer Obama over Hillary. Nowhere in in expressing my support for Obama have I gone out of my way to trash or demean Hillary.

You, on the the other hand, constantly trash Obama even though its totally unnecessary to do so. You, sir, are completely blinded and biased by your pro-Clinton fervor. You're rabid to the point of complete irrationality.

Furthermore,.. I have never suggested that hillary has NO chance of winning the nomination; I've merely stated the factual truth: mathematically, its nearly impossible for her to catch Obama in either the pledged delegate count or the popular vote count. Given the virtual mathematical impossibility of her catching Obama, I'm comfortable, as an Obama supporter, claiming Hillary to be "done". Yes, the superdelegates can go either way, but I don't think they'll go against the will of the people as indicated by the pledged delegate totals.

Perhaps the mathematical facts are too emotionally painful for you to acknowledge, or my jubilant anticipation of Obama getting the nomination is simply too maddening for you to tolerate; I don't know. Maybe you're just a "bitter" Clinton supporter. In any case, your over-the-top lashing out at Obama, and to a much lesser degree at me, speaks to your gross irrationality right now. Perhaps you need a mother's little helper or two, eh bro?

Go Obama!!