There is more damage behind the scenes. Everyone wants to back the winner. This was the way it was always going to shake out. The question was... would the delegates consider the winner to be the one that did not win the most normal delegates, but maybe had other qualities (won the most states, won in the most regions, etc.). Obama blew all that away long ago.
You don't have to read the whole article on Ickes. Here is a good quote:
It is not the most rewarding of jobs these days. Mr. Ickes recounted one "very long" telephone call with a Democratic leader he had known for decades %u2014 Mr. Ickes would not say who %u2014 who finally, and decisively, informed the persistent Mr. Ickes that Mrs. Clinton should not count on his vote.
It was the latest reminder of how an aggressive campaign has turned into a rear-guard action; he has been reduced to asking delegates to wait until Tuesday to see whether Mrs. Clinton wins Ohio and Texas before doing anything. "There is a real emphasis on holding what we have," said Mr. Ickes, with a combination of resignation and good cheer. "We are very aware of the pressure on delegates and the need to hold them."
Remember, a while back Clinton was working on the undeclared superdelegates, of which there are many. Now she is trying to keep what she has. But I will try not to read too much into it and assume that they split up the rest of the delegates into a pro/con list and are counting the pros on their side in this quote.
It is still great news for Obama. She will lose Texas and she has already written the book on her requirements for staying. She is shooting herself in the foot. But, the math is going against her as well.
AngelDevoid said:
This was the way it was always going to shake out.
100% agreed, which was why the media's practice of including superdelegates in the delegate count is ridiculous. It's also worth mentioning Lewis' reasons why he jumped to Obama. Essentially, Obama won his district by 80% and won black voters in Georgia by 90%... and he's in an election year.
Politicians aren't dumb. Unless they're sufficiently insulated from popular uprising (see: Feinstein, Kerry, Kennedy), they're not going to vote against the will of their constituents.
bald_eagle said:
Actually, I think it could. It makes it look like the fight is already between those two.
As in, "Hillary who?"
That's true, but she's still in it. If people see a weakness in a OvM dual, they could defect.
Honestly, I'm going to be scrutinizing both their foreign policy records/policies before I vote on the fourth. It's a big big issues for me, and I really want to vote for Obama...
bald_eagle said:
Actually, I think it could. It makes it look like the fight is already between those two.
As in, "Hillary who?"
That's true, but she's still in it. If people see a weakness in a OvM dual, they could defect.
Honestly, I'm going to be scrutinizing both their foreign policy records/policies before I vote on the fourth. It's a big big issues for me, and I really want to vote for Obama...
Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. For me, that's the biggest single foreign policy indicator there is. And then she voted for the 'we might go to war with Iran' resolution.
Obama campaigned for senator with a clear anti-war platform. It was a big risk, but he took it.
I'm aware of these positions. I'm speaking of a more nuanced appreciation of what is involved in diplomacy. He's got a couple talking points that any freshmen in college could assert. He hesitated in the last debate (not tues, the one before). This worries me. There's more to the world than Iraq. The USS Cole just approached Lebanese soil, what's his position on Syria? What's his position on the Turkish forces in Iraq? What's his position on the independence of Kosovo? That's just a small area of the world. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I am saying I've gotta look into it this weekend.
emotedcreations said:
I'm aware of these positions. I'm speaking of a more nuanced appreciation of what is involved in diplomacy. He's got a couple talking points that any freshmen in college could assert. He hesitated in the last debate (not tues, the one before). This worries me. There's more to the world than Iraq. The USS Cole just approached Lebanese soil, what's his position on Syria? What's his position on the Turkish forces in Iraq? What's his position on the independence of Kosovo? That's just a small area of the world. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I am saying I've gotta look into it this weekend.
I don't know if all of these are covered, but a starting place to check his foreign policy views out might be here.
Cool. That'll be a good place to start. I'm taking a break for now though. *cheers*
bald_eagle said:
Actually, I think it could. It makes it look like the fight is already between those two.
As in, "Hillary who?"
That's true, but she's still in it. If people see a weakness in a OvM dual, they could defect.
Honestly, I'm going to be scrutinizing both their foreign policy records/policies before I vote on the fourth. It's a big big issues for me, and I really want to vote for Obama...
Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. For me, that's the biggest single foreign policy indicator there is. And then she voted for the 'we might go to war with Iran' resolution.
Obama campaigned for senator with a clear anti-war platform. It was a big risk, but he took it.
I'm aware of these positions. I'm speaking of a more nuanced appreciation of what is involved in diplomacy. He's got a couple talking points that any freshmen in college could assert. He hesitated in the last debate (not tues, the one before). This worries me. There's more to the world than Iraq. The USS Cole just approached Lebanese soil, what's his position on Syria? What's his position on the Turkish forces in Iraq? What's his position on the independence of Kosovo? That's just a small area of the world. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I am saying I've gotta look into it this weekend.
I would prefer a President who is hesitant to blatanly declare foreign policy decisions without first consulting his knowledgeable advisors and cabinet.
I do not expect a President to know everything at all times; I expect him to be smart enough to bring on the right people to consult when he's unsure. I want a President who is smart enough and confident enough to know when he should hesitate. Someone who forges ahead when they're unsure of the facts or feel ill-informed but feel pressure to perform anyway is not someone I want to be President. That's what we have now. That's not what we need, and that's not what I ever want to see leading this country again.
Bold declarations of foreign policy make great sound bites, but have the tendency to be total fucking failures in practice.
Basically, I want a gentleman (or woman) and a scholar, rather than a "decider."
Shalome said:
I would prefer a President who is hesitant to blatanly declare foreign policy decisions without first consulting his knowledgeable advisors and cabinet.
I do not expect a President to know everything at all times; I expect him to be smart enough to bring on the right people to consult when he's unsure. I want a President who is smart enough and confident enough to know when he should hesitate. Someone who forges ahead when they're unsure of the facts or feel ill-informed but feel pressure to perform anyway is not someone I want to be President. That's what we have now. That's not what we need, and that's not what I ever want to see leading this country again.
Bold declarations of foreign policy make great sound bites, but have the tendency to be total fucking failures in practice.
Basically, I want a gentleman (or woman) and a scholar, rather than a "decider."
Strange how the things you want (and I completely agree with you on all of them) are exactly the "points" used by those who fear intellectuals, a group that seemed to have a hand in both Bush debacles/elections. They are scared of people who think to much, who don't charge straight ahead, who hesitate in order to find the best solution.
I don't get the whole "fear of intellectuals" in the far-right. Wouldn't we want the smartest amongst us (as long as they can also prove common sense) to lead?
Shalome said:
I would prefer a President who is hesitant to blatanly declare foreign policy decisions without first consulting his knowledgeable advisors and cabinet.
What do you mean? He has advisers. He can consult them, and let us know what he thinks. Do we have to wait till he's elected to hear these policies?
I do not expect a President to know everything at all times; I expect him to be smart enough to bring on the right people to consult when he's unsure. I want a President who is smart enough and confident enough to know when he should hesitate.
We agree, and that's why right now he's my man. But this is a critical point in the direction of US foreign policy, and I think it's important that we have a president who understands the implication of the decisions that they're going to make right now. I would just like to see him demonstrate this more aptly by demonstrating that he is in fact aware of issues other than Iraq and Afghanistan (and Cuba). That's all he seems to talk about, publicly at least.
Someone who forges ahead when they're unsure of the facts or feel ill-informed but feel pressure to perform anyway is not someone I want to be President. That's what we have now. That's not what we need, and that's not what I ever want to see leading this country again.
I don't think anyone wants that.
Bold declarations of foreign policy make great sound bites, but have the tendency to be total fucking failures in practice.
Cognizance=/=bold declarations
Right now, Obama has got my vote, but the guy who has got my vote also gets the greatest amount of scrutiny. I'm going to place a very important vote on the fourth, and I want to make sure that I'm as informed as I can possibly be. Obama's foreign policy seems to be a weak point for me at this point. It's the only weak point, but I still have to examine it.
coyotemike said:
Strange how the things you want (and I completely agree with you on all of them) are exactly the "points" used by those who fear intellectuals, a group that seemed to have a hand in both Bush debacles/elections. They are scared of people who think to much, who don't charge straight ahead, who hesitate in order to find the best solution.
I don't get the whole "fear of intellectuals" in the far-right. Wouldn't we want the smartest amongst us (as long as they can also prove common sense) to lead?
Dude, cowboys don't think, they act....How do you think the west was won?
coyotemike said:
I don't get the whole "fear of intellectuals" in the far-right. Wouldn't we want the smartest amongst us (as long as they can also prove common sense) to lead?
uh, im going to go cheap and say if they elected smart leaders they wouldnt be in charge.
alternately, how could they tell if a leader is smart?
coyotemike said:
Strange how the things you want (and I completely agree with you on all of them) are exactly the "points" used by those who fear intellectuals, a group that seemed to have a hand in both Bush debacles/elections. They are scared of people who think to much, who don't charge straight ahead, who hesitate in order to find the best solution.
I don't get the whole "fear of intellectuals" in the far-right. Wouldn't we want the smartest amongst us (as long as they can also prove common sense) to lead?
Dude, cowboys don't think, they act....How do you think the west was won?
Shalome said:
I would prefer a President who is hesitant to blatanly declare foreign policy decisions without first consulting his knowledgeable advisors and cabinet.
I do not expect a President to know everything at all times; I expect him to be smart enough to bring on the right people to consult when he's unsure. I want a President who is smart enough and confident enough to know when he should hesitate. Someone who forges ahead when they're unsure of the facts or feel ill-informed but feel pressure to perform anyway is not someone I want to be President. That's what we have now. That's not what we need, and that's not what I ever want to see leading this country again.
Bold declarations of foreign policy make great sound bites, but have the tendency to be total fucking failures in practice.
Basically, I want a gentleman (or woman) and a scholar, rather than a "decider."
Strange how the things you want (and I completely agree with you on all of them) are exactly the "points" used by those who fear intellectuals, a group that seemed to have a hand in both Bush debacles/elections. They are scared of people who think to much, who don't charge straight ahead, who hesitate in order to find the best solution.
I don't get the whole "fear of intellectuals" in the far-right. Wouldn't we want the smartest amongst us (as long as they can also prove common sense) to lead?
Therein lies the crux of the issue. Being educated has always held a negative stigma in America. For some bizarre reason, America often celebrates its collective ignorance, rewarding those who've charmed us with their self-depreciating idiocy. Intuitively, we fear those who are smarter then us yet feel compelled to buy a beer for the village idiot who has cleverly amused us to sympathize with, no, rival, his or her stupidity. Anyone care for a beer? Anyone want to buy me one?
Perhaps I've taken it a bit too far... I must be such a self-hating liberal commie. Seriously though, I am distressed that America continues to foster a culture of the dumb often tied together with a culture of fear, death & violence, which are all other topics unto themselves...
emotedcreations
Germany
July 2006
FEB 28, 2008 02:48 PM