Who do you like?

[Jack Halyard]

I was in the truck going to get lunch today and tuned into the AM frequency on the old radio and happened across Bill O. and a caller discussing the fact that Barack Obama's middle name is Osama.
I would find that terribly amusing if it weren't for the fact that there are tons of people who seem to be under the impression that that is his middle name, when of course it's not.
I know that this is probably rather insignificant but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

Have a great day folks.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I'm surprised that Romney hasn't conceded at this point.

He decided to pack it in today.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by wil

Yes this was the old way here, decisions as to who the party was to put up were contemplated in the classic smoke filled room.

Now that it's politically correct to smoke anymore, how are they going to manage?

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Jack Halyard

I was in the truck going to get lunch today and tuned into the AM frequency on the old radio and happened across Bill O. and a caller discussing the fact that Barack Obama's middle name is Osama.
I would find that terribly amusing if it weren't for the fact that there are tons of people who seem to be under the impression that that is his middle name, when of course it's not.
I know that this is probably rather insignificant but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

Have a great day folks.

His middle name is actually, I believe, Hussein. And this I think was his father's name. The controversy started when somebody decided that this meant that he must be, secretly, an islamic terrorist. This is the logic of the voting public--or at least a too large, crude block of them. I'm not surprised that they've now made the jump to Osama; after all, it only takes a switch of one letter in his last name. I'm only surprised that it took it this long to come out of the mouth of someone like O'Reilly.

Further lampooning of this sensationalism: http://www.comparative-religion.com/...tml#post135738

[flowperson]

Hi...Jack, this sneaky and underhanded stuff of messing with Barack's name in the public media has been going on for some time now. It might be the elephants, but my suspicions are that it's likely coming from the Hill camp also. It's a hot button issue, and as illinformed and uneducated as some of the voting public is these days such stories may be enough to sway or switch support from one candidate to another. Another I've heard is that one rumor was circulating that Barack went to a radical Islamic school when he was a child living in Indonesia. None of this sort of underhanded stuff surprises me.

Good to hear from you Bro.

Does anyone know the details about this "superdelegate" thingy that's going on behind the scenes in the Dem Party. What little I've heard implied that superdelegates backed by powerful Unions and Edwards delegates who are already committed could theoretically hijack the convention in ways to overcome a numerical majority in order to swing the final nominee selection process one way or the other.

flow....

[bob x]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Does anyone know the details about this "superdelegate" thingy that's going on behind the scenes in the Dem Party.

It's not "behind the scenes", it's out in the open. There have always been certain officials (the Congressmen, some others) who are entitled to be delegates, without running in the primary on a slate pledged to a particular candidate.
The idea is that they can arrange a deal if the candidates are deadlocked. If they turn out to decide it this time, however, I think there will be a lot of ill feeling.

[flowperson]

Hi Bob...No I think that this a different animal and something new to the delegate process, or at least that's the impression I got when I heard it discussed on ABC towards the end of their coverage tuesday. It involves union leaders and political button pushers such as Donna Brasille in a significant way, and they didn't mention Congresspeople to my knowledge, but then I might have missed something. I listen to political broadcasts about as carefully as I did to my ex-wives.

Thanks for your response.

flow....

[Pathless]

Democracy Now! did a segment today on the delegate/superdelegate question:

Originally Posted by Democracy Now

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain this issue of delegates, superdelegates, regular delegates, and why it’s so hard to even find out how many each of the candidates have won so far?

DAVID ROHDE: ... in 1984, they created the system that’s come to be called superdelegates, which simply means that there are a set of delegates, about 20 percent, or precisely 796 this time around, who are delegates by virtue of the office that they hold automatically, so all the members of the Democratic National Committee, all of the Democratic members of the US House, all the Democrats in the US Senate, all Democratic governors and a handful of former officeholders like former President Clinton, former President Carter, former Vice President Gore, etc.

The big difference for our purposes is that the delegates that are allocated through primaries and caucuses are committed to their candidates partly by virtue of the decisions of voters and partly by the fact that the candidates themselves get to approve who the delegates are. The superdelegates aren’t committed to anybody. They are designed to be and actually are free agents who get to decide for themselves who they’re going to support. And that gets us back to the question that you asked, why it’s so hard to find out who these people are supporting. The only—first of all, they have to have made a decision, which many of them haven’t, and secondly, they have to be willing to announce it publicly, which many of them aren’t.

So it seems to line up with what bob x said.

Democracy Now! | With Obama-Clinton Race Deadlocked, Focus Turns to Delegates (and Superdelegates)

[wil]

As I said my concern is that Obama will have the popular and majority delegates with Clinton with the majority of Super Delegates. If Obama supporters feel disenfranchised by the DNC it won't be pretty.

I've been talking to a number of Democrats who aren't willing to vote for either and are voting Republican the first time in their lives. It appears to me unless something dramatic happens, it'll be President McCain. (If the dems want to win the whitehouse they better send everyone out voting for Huckabee for the remaining primary season)

[China Cat Sunflower]

The role of super delegates is why we watch the endorsements, otherwise they would be almost meaningless. A comparison of the endorsements received by both the democratic candidates shows where they stand with the party elite. I don't think that the case can be made that Hillary has nailed down the super delegates. This is yet another cynical narrative being floated by the auxiliary media.

Chris

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by wil

Anyone who wants to see the lowdown on money spent, money raised, how much they've put into their campaigns (listed as debt on the right) check out open secrets, they do a great job.

Here's another interesting breakdown of funding:

It is what it is: Funding a presidential campaign

I have to say I'm impressed by Obama's high percentages of smaller individual donations. Watching his speech from Super Tuesday earlier this week, I am also impressed. He's charismatic, and I love the buzzing, exposive energy of all the people cheering and supporting him.

Oh Gawd! Have I gone soft? Must maintain vigilance... against... Media-ocracy...

[Pathless]

A little comic relief: solving the problem with democracy, monitoring the race among the cable networks (looks like Fox wins), and the whereabouts of Karl Rove--revealed!!

Stewart On Super Hump Day And Rove's Debut - Media on The Huffington Post

[flowperson]

Thanks Pathless.

flow....

[Pathless]

I find it signigicant that Obama is not afraid to use the "L" word. Twice in his speech in Chicago on Super Duper Tuesday evening, he used "love" as a verb, with himself as the subject and other people as the object. I don't think I've ever heard a politician do that. I think it's awesome.

Someone in the crowd yelled that they loved him, and he said, "And you know I love you back."

At the end of his speech, as he was saying goodnight to everyone and encouraging them to "go to work," he said quite clearly and loudly, "I love you."

This is important and I think a significant step forward in presidential politics.

[Pathless]

I am going to my county's Democratic caucus today to put my support behind Kucinich, if that is at all still possible.

I think Obama is a great, charismatic speaker. He's got that soul preacher thing going on. I agree with many things that he stands for. I am impressed by his history of community service and his dedication. Yet I am not convinced that he is the leader that we need right now to reverse the abuses of the past eight years.

I am much more convinced that Kucinich would work to defund the military and provide constructive, creative, positive change as president. Even though he has officially left the race, even though he has gotten little more than 1% of votes in primaries so far, he's the candidate for me. I can't play political games, supporting a candidate that I am less certain will represent my values and interests, not when Kucinich, who has worked towards impeachment and is working to establish a U.S. Department of Peace, is anywhere near the primary.

Why I will not be representing Obama today:

Originally Posted by Liliana Segura

In April of 2007, Obama gave a speech in Chicago at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in which he outlined five ways he would lead if he were elected to the White House. Restoring habeas corpus was not among them. Neither was eradicating torture in the War on Terror. Neither, for that matter, was closing Guantanamo. To be fair, this does not mean he wouldn't do these things. But his argument rested on a sort of benevolent militarism and an expansion of U.S. involvement across the world -- as Noam Chomsky called it, "the new military humanism." For a candidate whose defining refrains are "hope" and "change," Obama echoes the legacies of Democratic presidents, from Carter to Clinton, whose administrations shaped conventional doctrines of Democratic foreign policy.

"There are five ways America will begin to lead again when I'm president," Obama said. The first way was by "building the first truly 21st century military ... and showing wisdom in how we deploy it." Such a military would "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar." "No president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary -- to protect ourselves and our vital interests ..." Obama said. "But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others -- the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm." He may have been making a point about diplomacy, but Obama's invocation of the 1991 Gulf War -- which leveled Iraq's civilian infrastructure and began the road to the occupation -- suggests that it's OK to destroy a country so long as you can cajole some other nations into supporting it.

source: AlterNet: Election 2008: Where Does Obama Come Down on Bush's 'War on Terror'?