"John He Is"

[Bama_Dawg]

Unfair . . . but pretty dang funny.

For those who want some background before clicking, it's a parody of that Barack Obama "Yes We Can" video. Only it features John McCain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs&e

 

[It's On A Slab]

Unfair . . . but pretty dang funny.

For those who want some background before clicking, it's a parody of that Barack Obama "Yes We Can" video. Only it features John McCain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs&e

I guess I can't criticize McCain too much right now.

As long as Hillary remains in the picture, McCain is a viable alternative for me. Iraq being the stumbling block for me.

If those two get the nominations, look for a record low turnout in November. I'll be thinking about sitting this one out, too.

 

[Ldlane]

Hopefully, Clinton is done after today. I will not vote for McCain!!

 

[It's On A Slab]

Hopefully, Clinton is done after today. I will not vote for McCain!!

Her willing lackeys in the media are still spreading the falsehood that she is "ahead" in the delegate count. I guess if you count the super-delegates (whom nobody voted for).

I will give her props as being the legitimate nominee if she happens to win this thing fair-and-square, but if the Clintons try to steal the nomination via super-delegates, they are looking a ....-storm of disapproval from the nation.

 

[cbi1972]

How would it be stealing?
Why would there be disapproval?
Why are there super-delegates in the first place?
Is that not the established procedure for determining the nominee?

It seems a bit silly to complain about political manipulation of a system that is designed to encourage manipulation. Some would say that it measures fitness for the job.

 

[derek4tide]

The republicans are playnig with fire by pushing McCain for the nomination. Many, like me, are going to either not vote or vote for the dem or some independent. I will never vote for McCain in any election, period.

 

[cbi1972]

Generally the more moderate candidate fares well in a general election, because they do better at attracting those that are not strongly partisan. I don't know to what extent McCain will alienate conservative Republican voters, but it would have to be one heck of a hot issue for me to even consider voting for Clinton or Obama, and I can't think of anything that they're not even worse on.

Or maybe they wish to hasten our decline so that a better nation can emerge from the ashes in their lifetime.

 

[Bama_Dawg]

Her willing lackeys in the media are still spreading the falsehood that she is "ahead" in the delegate count. I guess if you count the super-delegates (whom nobody voted for).

I will give her props as being the legitimate nominee if she happens to win this thing fair-and-square, but if the Clintons try to steal the nomination via super-delegates, they are looking a ....-storm of disapproval from the nation.

Did you see that memo from Penn today ordering Clinton supporters to call super-delegates "automatic delegates" from now on? Classic reframing (just like when the Democratic Party became the Democrat Party) and a pretty clear indication that they realize they can no longer overtake Obama in pledged delegates.

I'm afraid Hillary's gonna be like that Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction. You'll have to drown her AND shoot her to get her to quit.

 

[It's On A Slab]

Did you see that memo from Penn today ordering Clinton supporters to call super-delegates "automatic delegates" from now on? Classic reframing (just like when the Democratic Party became the Democrat Party) and a pretty clear indication that they realize they can no longer overtake Obama in pledged delegates.

I'm afraid Hillary's gonna be like that Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction. You'll have to drown her AND shoot her to get her to quit.

Yup, see VeeJay's signature. He's borrowing my line about Hillary wanting to burn down the house on top of herself.

I can just see it now: If Obama gets the nomination, you'll hear screeches in the back of the arena. "I'M MELTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[bamanut_aj]

question: Who ultimately decides who gets the Dem nomination? The primaries, or the delegates?

To clarify: are the primaries more of a "tone of the people" and the delegates would generally nominate who "the people" want? If so, they would have the power to say "people be damned, we're nominating Hillary"?

 

[derek4tide]

question: Who ultimately decides who gets the Dem nomination? The primaries, or the delegates?

To clarify: are the primaries more of a "tone of the people" and the delegates would generally nominate who "the people" want? If so, they would have the power to say "people be damned, we're nominating Hillary"?

Delegates will decide, not the primaries. Pledged delegates are awarded based on the popular vote. But unpledged delegates (also called Superdelegates in the Democratic party) can be given to candidates irrespective of how they fare in the popular vote. These unpledged delegates are meant to give party leaders a voice in the nominating process.

There are two types of delegates in the 2008 primaries - pledged and unpledged. The Democrats use the term superdelegates for unpledged delegates. Pledged delegates are awarded based on the popular vote (i.e., people's individual votes) and these pledged delegates make up the bulk of delegates awarded. So, it's not fair to say that a person's vote doesn't count if these "delegates" do the deciding. But it is possible for a candidate to get win the popular vote and win in delegates. This is primarily because superdelegates (or unpledged delegates) are party leaders who can award their delegate vote to a candidate irrespective of the how the popular vote went. Things have been set up this way in both parties because the parties themselves want some control in which candidate is picked to represent them.

 

[BamaNation]

Things have been set up this way in both parties because the parties themselves want some control in which candidate is picked to represent them.

Frankly, I think this is a good/smart thing. Ultimately it is the candidate representing the party in the general election not the other way around. However, if Clinton tries to make the MI & FL primaries count in her favor, then we could see real rioting in the streets.

Also, it is to have some oversight here by those who have vested interests.

Sometimes I wish for the days when backroom deals WERE made and boom! we have a nominee! Wouldn't that be a nice difference from the 2-yr long process we have now???????

 

[NYBamaFan]

Frankly, I think this is a good/smart thing. Ultimately it is the candidate representing the party in the general election not the other way around. However, if Clinton tries to make the MI & FL primaries count in her favor, then we could see real rioting in the streets.

Also, it is to have some oversight here by those who have vested interests.

I agree with the premise, but the principle is pretty scary. Americans can only elect those who are put on the ballot. We can write in candidates, but the chances of a president being elected by write in is so small as to be nonexistent. For that reason, the people should choose the candidates placed on the ballots, not some elite group.

As long as these elitists control the ballots, they dictate election results. The system is rigged, and has been for a very long time. It is about time to scrap it all and start over...

 

[Giant Squid]

I will give her props as being the legitimate nominee if she happens to win this thing fair-and-square, but if the Clintons try to steal the nomination via super-delegates, they are looking a ....-storm of disapproval from the nation.

If that happens they'll be looking at a repeat of Chicago in '68.

 

[jthomas666]

I guess I can't criticize McCain too much right now.

As long as Hillary remains in the picture, McCain is a viable alternative for me. Iraq being the stumbling block for me.

If those two get the nominations, look for a record low turnout in November. I'll be thinking about sitting this one out, too.

On the plus side, the economy will get a massive boost from increased alcohol consumption.

See, the glass IS half-full. In my case, it'll be half full of rum.

 

[Ldlane]

I agree with the premise, but the principle is pretty scary. Americans can only elect those who are put on the ballot. We can write in candidates, but the chances of a president being elected by write in is so small as to be nonexistent. For that reason, the people should choose the candidates placed on the ballots, not some elite group.

As long as these elitists control the ballots, they dictate election results. The system is rigged, and has been for a very long time. It is about time to scrap it all and start over...

You and I agree on something else. I would even go as far as getting rid of the electoral college all together!