This is an emerging fact that I predicted right after Texas. I expect to see Republicans re-registering in PA upwards to 20% in hopes of vaulting Hillary over Obama and keeping the Democratic Party in a state of flux.

Its a fact that GOP crossover voters in MS cost Obama more delegates by increasing Hillary's meager totals. 15% of Clinton voters DO NOT want her to be the nominee in November!

The only solution I see is for the Democratic establishment to see what is going on and for Superdelegates to break for Obama and to put Hillary to bed once and for all.

I think it is obvious to see that the Repubs are playing some dirty political tricks on the Dems here. I haven't seen much MSM commenting on this however. If word does get out there, it may change the rhetoric, but I don't know about changing results.

It sure puts a question on the popular vote and delegate count though, doesn't it? Should we strip away 15% of Hillary's delegate count and popular vote count?

Nothing can be done after the fact BigJohn. Its the media narrative the Clinton's drive thats the problem.

All evidence points to Texas as having been tipped by Republicans with no intentions of voting for Hillary in November. And its also the reason Obama dominated the TX caucuses because these Republicans wouldn't show and go public with their faux support.

I believe the Party has to come forward with this story. If Obama does, all we'll hear is that he's whining, which is the furthest from the truth.

Everyday that Hillary stays in this inevitable race is another day she and the GOP can inflict more damage on the Democrats. We see it here everyday, don't we?

It happened big time in Texas also. My brother is a precinct worker in a North Dallas suburb. He said probably 10%+ of the voters who came in and requested for Democratic ballots asked "do I have to vote the whole ballot or can I just vote for one thing?" Some actually mentioned the "Rush thing". Many other precincts reported similar incidents.

Now who do you suppose those people might have been?

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- The Left

Maybe after 35 years of experience, many of us Republicans think she's earned it.

"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a
aaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- The Left

Posted by moomanfl"

We're unable to even attempt any semblance of an intelligent reply to the topic at hand, or even manage a facsimile of a witty retort!!!!!!!!! -- The Right

This topic needs to become more front and center than the idiotic Ferraro controversy. A flase narrative is setting in with the voting public and its based on nothing but a corrupted process leading to distorted results.

Obama's strength among Democrats is higher than it appears and Hillary's weaknesses are being minimized by rouge GOP voters.

I'm not calling for anything to be done other than for objective reporting of the facts to take place in the open where everyone is exposed to them.

Primaries should be for the party only. The whole concept of "open primaries" is ridiculous.

The crossover GOPiggies who are voting for Hillary do not truley support an honest vote. They are unashamedly gaming the system and freely admit it.
Brings into question their commitment to a voting system with integrity and bolsters their reputation of election perverts.
They have no respect for our electoral processes and are happy to destroy the democratic system for their own selfish fear of a true free and honest election.

This is as bancrupt as a party can get; basically admitting that they cannot win on principal or on the strength of their own candidates, they resort to vandalizing the electoral process for fun and profit.

Patriots my ass....subversives says it best

OWS...

I couldn't have put it better.

I can see where this is headed...If Barrack doesn't get the nomination, it's going to be Rush and the Republicans fault. Not the States that allow open primaries, not the Caucuses, not the Super Delegates, and certainly not Flordia and Michigan.

Oh, and certainly not Hillary Clinton!

Primaries should be for the party only. The whole concept of "open primaries" is ridiculous.

I don't agree with that sentiment even though it leads to potential chaos as we're seeing.

Many times people DO want to vote for cross-party candidates even in primaries. Its hard to say one needs to change party ID just for the sake of doing so.

As OWS says above, I guess little can be done about those willing to pervert the system for their own nefarious reasons.

Also by The Jed Report: ObamaIsWinning.com

JAE- Just another edirtorial.


If Obama wants to settle all this speculation, all he has to do is win Pennsylvania. There won't be any Repubs voting there.

Or is asking a Dem candidate to win a Dem only primary in a battleground state too much to ask?

Wisgod,
Nevermind 'where this is going". How bout you speak to my post.
How did your party get into the 'lets fuck up their vote so they cant really elect the candidate of their choice' position?

Do you ponder the dems candidates and whish wistfully that your party had a shot at winning a free and honest election with better candidates and better ideas?
Cause thats the way it looks.

Admit it...YOU FREAR AN HONEST ELECTION.

How do we know for sure there won't be any repubs voting there?

We have nothing to frear but frear itself.

It's a Dem only primary, as was said.

So no repubs will switch to dem?

Brilliant retort jomama. When a typo is all you can answer you have lost the debate.
Sucks bein you huh?

Corky...

Hillary is leading Obama by 19 points today or you wouldn't be here trying to paint PA as some sort of electability test.

The entire primary is the electability test and your girl is losing states 30-14! PA doesn't mean diddly when on May 6th Indiana and North Carolina put 187 delegates up compared to PA's lowly 158.

Obama should bag PA and let Hillary and Geraldine sow all their bag of deceit by themselves. Obama will KILL Hillary in IN and NC!

Admit it...YOU FREAR AN HONEST ELECTION.


Posted by oldwhiskeysour

I don't fear anything. But you go right ahead and paint the entire Republican Party as dishonest because Rush gave 24% of Miss. Republicans their marching orders and missed the other 76%

Or maybe The Jed Report and the Daily Kos are just trying to get you folks stirred up. (Such credible sources, after all)

Wisgod...

Now don't go all reactionary on me now! I don't think anyone is blaming the Republicans solely for the state of the Democratic race.

What I'm trying to do is illuminate that the Clintons are pushing a false narrative as to the underlying results in these elections.

I do believe that its perfectly acceptable to be upset that something as important as our elections is being gamed, not out of desire for the best candidate, but to create chaos and disorganization.

So excuse us that truly care where this Party is headed as compared to others bent on driving it into the same ditch that the neo-cons drove the Republicans.

-your girl is losing states 30-14!

Er, how many Utahs does it take to equal a Penn or Ohio?

Number of states won is less important than which states are won when SDs consider who can best beat McCain in the battleground states.... where she wins.

What is this battleground state thing? You know what really matters, getting more votes. Votes lead to collecting electoral college reps. And it's the electoral college that determines the next pres.

Battleground states mean nothing when more than half of the dems are pissed off at a hack and slasher (that's Hillary) and don't show up to vote.

Number of states won is less important than which states are won when SDs consider who can best beat McCain in the battleground states.... where she wins.

No Corky, the number of states is equally important because of the electoral vote count. I want a President with a 50 state strategy, not one who ignores the majority of America.

Hillary exemplifies why the Democrats have not won a two-person Presidential election since 1976. Your calculus is for LOSERS and history proves it time and time again.

Oh, and I guess I should mention that a large chunk of Hillary's votes aren't even real, but that of Repubs gaming the system (the topic of this thread after all).

How does that play in to Hillary's metrics?

She can not beat McBushSuckUp. Why do You hink JeffJ is championing Hellary's fax experiance. It's reverse psycology at work. SuperDelegates Should go to the one with the most delegates.

Larry Mohr

What I'm trying to do is illuminate that the Clintons are pushing a false narrative as to the underlying results in these elections.
Posted by tonyroma

Believe me Tony, I know what you're trying to do. In this case, I respectfully disagree that it has as much bearing, that's all.

Oldsourwiskey was the one who painted the GOP guilty.

Larry,

Why do You hink JeffJ is championing Hellary's fax experiance. It's reverse psycology at work.


Up until a month ago, that statement is 100% accurate, and my post history supports it.


However, more recently I have changed my viewpoint. I think Clinton is more formidable in the general than Obama.

-the electoral vote count

In states, won, HRC has well over 200 electoral votes, BHO well under.

If you and Obamer want to try out some new strategy for the electoral college that depends on him winning red states like Miss where 69 percent of white males voted against him, ya'll really ought to do it on your own time and not be willing to lose the election on an experiment that looks pretty unworkable at the moment.

"Number of states won is less important than which states are won when SDs consider who can best beat McCain in the battleground states.... where she wins."

Like Iowa?

Oops! Nope...

"'It's not even close in terms of the difference a candidate like Obama makes,' said Iowa Gov. Chet Culver, whose state went for Obama in the first caucus this year. Culver pointed to a recent Des Moines Register poll that had Obama taking 53 percent of the vote there against Republican nominee John McCain, who had 36 percent; conversely, McCain beat Clinton in Iowa 49-to-40 percent in the same poll."

However, more recently I have changed my viewpoint. I think Clinton is more formidable in the general than Obama.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-03-12 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

See You are even doing it here. You are trying to deny it but Your subconscience won't let You stop. It's plain as day.

Larry Mohr

Penn, MI, FL, and Ohio are the traditional battlegrround states.

Iowa is a very large pig farm.

"Iowa is a very large pig farm."

Good Clintonista! Anything we're not winning must be ridiculed and dismissed as unimportant.

At least you're consistent.

Wisgod,
Guilty is the right word. Do you condemn the GOPiggie strategy?

No, SA, just retorting your nonsensical comparison.

Iowa is a very large pig farm.

Posted by Corky at 2008-03-12 03:55 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

Then Hellary should not have had ANY troubles winning Iowa then cause She acts just like a greedy piggy.

Larry Mohr

Do you condemn the GOPiggie strategy?

Posted by oldwhiskeysour

I don't buy into one based on exit polling data. Did you study the article, or just decide it was a good time to bash the entire republican party?

No need to respond....

"No, SA, just retorting your nonsensical comparison."

Nonsensical? I quoted the results of a poll in a critical battleground state that Bush won in 2004. Please explain how that is a nonsensical comparison.

Oh, I know, because it doesn't fit the definition you created, and doesn't support your contention.

Predictable.

In states, won, HRC has well over 200 electoral votes, BHO well under.

Posted by Corky at 2008-03-12 03:49 PM

If that is true, that is actually a compelling argument. However, how much has been tainted but the GOP gaming scenario? Also, where did you get the electoral college numbers?

BigJohn, I think he's forcasting primary states one in relationship to the General Election. He makes an interresting point.

one=won...geesh.

See You are even doing it here. You are trying to deny it but Your subconscience won't let You stop.

I am doing nothing of the sort.

What makes Obama successful in the primaries, I view as a liability in the General, at least relative to an establishment candidate like Hillary.

My personal belief is that Hillary is more formidable now than Obama is vs. McCain. As such, the partisan in me is now rooting for Obama. That said, my best interests are served by a long, protracted battle between Obama and Clinton. Ultimately, I hop Obama emerges victorious, but extremely battered. Important point - I think that Clinton needs to pull out all of the stops to win, at this point. From a partisan standpoint (which is not the sole reason for my opinion on this); I suspect she's willing to sacrifice 2008 in favor of McCain - with a subsequent Obama loss - in favor of setting up a 2012 victory.

Hell Wisgod, is that the best you can do?
How about answering the thrust of my posts?

Dont you wish your party could run on merit, on your track record (BWAAAHAHAHA). On the strength of your candidates and the quality of your ideas instead of gaming the system?

Have you no faith in the integrity and strength of the electoral system personally?

Is cheating your way to an election victory no longer a notion which disgusts you personally?

Are you going to deny that your party is laughing up their sleeve at the prospect of depriving Dems of electing the candidate of their choice?

Of course, Obama is very young JeffJ, and he too could go for a 2012 run, and the same thing happen, except Obama will be more prepared for the shit flinging.

Dont you wish your party could run on merit, on your track record (BWAAAHAHAHA). On the strength of your candidates and the quality of your ideas instead of gaming the system?
Posted by OldSourWiskey

Fix your own mess, you lazy Liberal.

Bill Clinton would have lost Ohio and Pennsylvania if Ross Perot hadn't been in the race. I doubt either of those states will go GOP in the fall. Times are tough. They weren't in 2000.

Polls show Obama winning more states and more electoral votes than Hillary.

A 50 state strategy is in sync with the DNC's plan. Hillary's 50% + 1 strategy is a losing proposition. Florida will go GOP no matter who the Dem nominee is. Ohio and Pennsylvania will go Dem no matter who the Dem nominee is.

Other states, like Virginia, North Carolina, and several Western purple states are likely Dem with Obama at the top of the ticket. Not with Hillary.

He's now ahead 163 elected delegates. Hillary doesn't have a chance to catch up. Her lack of a plan after Super Tuesday (much like W's non-plan after Iraq invasion) is to blame. Yet Corky still insists she's better. BWAAAAAAA! He 'leadership' skills are being put to the test for the first time, and she's failed miserably.

I want a President with a 50 state strategy, not one who ignores the majority of America.

Hillary exemplifies why the Democrats have not won a two-person Presidential election since 1976. Your calculus is for LOSERS and history proves it time and time again.



Posted by tonyroma at 2008-03-12 03:42 PM

So nice I had to post it twice.

That Hillary is more conservative than Shrub is a good thing. That Hillary projects knowledge and competence is comforting. That Hillary has been corrupted by the Oligarchy in the same way as Shrub is frightening. Her concern for the middle class is as fake as a three dollar bill.

if Hillary does steal the nomination with help from Rushies, it will tickle me to no end if she wins and they have to put up with her for 4 years.

in the end.. no matter how much shit is flung

i would rather have either hillary or obama

then old man mccain... the oatmeal senator

especially if its mccain and romney the flipflop duo

"Sucks bein you huh?"

Sure does. My view of Waikiki beach is completely unobstructed. How 'bout you?

"My view of Waikiki beach is completely unobstructed."

You lucky bastard.

Mine's seriously obscured. Rocky Mountains, Sierra Nevadas, Pacific Ocean, all kinds of irrelevant shit.

Waikiki, indeed.

Do you scuba?

I think it is obvious to see that the Repubs are playing some dirty political tricks

What else do they have? Their message of hope and success?

It is pretty damn pathetic when the Gay Old Party has to manipulate the democratic vote to get a candidate they think they can compete against.

What a bunch of losers.

gray old party

you seen mccains speeches???

wow, the stench of bengay and preperation H must be overwhelming

I do not scuba. I've done it in the past but I never got certified. I love to snorkle, and I'm surfing again. Here 'till Friday.

"It is pretty damn pathetic when the Gay Old Party has to manipulate the democratic vote to get a candidate they think they can compete against.

What a bunch of losers."

Sadder still when Bill Clinton gives interviews to the guest host of the Rush Limbaugh show. To me, when he did that he ceased being a Democrat. No Democrat ought to be voting with REpublicans, not even in a primary election. I certainly hope that the Dems in Pennsylvania realize that Hilary Clinton has quit the party and is the "Manchurian Candidate" determined to give REpublicans a victory in Nov. Let that happen and you will regret it. We all will, even the stupid Republicans who think they are getting one over on us, think about how many already regret voting for Bush.

How did your party get into the 'lets fuck up their vote so they cant really elect the candidate of their choice' position?

Admit it...YOU FREAR AN HONEST ELECTION.

Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2008-03-12 03:03 PM | Reply

That's rich! A Democrat whining about honest elections!

What, exactly, is the point of a primary? It's the opportunity for people to express who they prefer as the candidate.

There are no more choices left for Republicans, but there's still a choice in the Democrat party. So, many people are simply saying that given the choice, they prefer Hillary! over Osama.

I'm an independent Conservative, and four years ago I voted for Kerry in the primary. There was no choice in the Republican primary, and my preference was for Kerry v. Bush.

Rush Limbaugh has maybe 20 million listeners tops (over the course of a week) so trying to blame him for something sinister is just pathetic and desperate.

The "waaaaaaa....." post was correct: It was Dems who pushed for open primaries in the past, and now that a few of you don't get the outcome you want, it's time to cry about it.

Geez, get over yourself.

I've got some sewage stories for ya' sometime, Zat.

Democrats crying about Republicans voting for Hillary. You gotta love it.

Those same Democrats and media that were clearly involved with influencing election results with folks like McCain, called it "democracy" when they engaged in it. But now they cry foul when it happens them. Priceless!

Poor Democrats! Poor, poor Democrats. My heart bleeds!

"Poor Democrats! Poor, poor Democrats. My heart bleeds!"

I feel strangely comforted.

Mai Tai time!

Hee hee!

Holey moley, Zatoichi. "The Abyss" time!

They are unashamedly gaming the system and freely admit it.
Brings into question their commitment to a voting system with integrity .......

.....basically admitting that they cannot win on principal or on the strength of their own candidates, they resort to vandalizing the electoral process .......

Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2008-03-12 02:43 PM | Reply

This sounds so much like Algore in Florida that it's spooky!

Gaming the system: selective recounts, suppressed military votes

Cannot win on principal (sic) or the strength of the candidate: what can I say? It was Algore

Vandalizing the electoral process: turning to the courts

And now Whisky is upset when some Republican and Conservative voters LEGALLY cross over to support a particular Dem!

Exit polls show out of 36% of the vote carried by Clinton, 9% was attributed to Republicans. That's one-fourth of her total.

You can spin that to say that she's the Cross Over Candidate, and if you believe that then McCain is going to be president.

The hill country of Alabama or Mississippi will never vote for a black candidate. They still have remnants of the KKK down there. Which, in the primary at least, makes Clinton the Bigot's Choice.

"The Abyss"

Recognize the "cast iron bitch"?

The sad thing about being a diver for fifty years is being a diver for fifty years.
Tektite was the Summer of my 20th year; Still the coolest job I ever had.

From NBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro
The Clinton campaign put out a memo today asserting that "if Barack Obama can't win [in Pennsylvania], how will he win the general election?"

The memo continues, "Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972."

But, as one of us writes, there is a fallacy to this kind of argument that hasn't received much attention: "Recent history shows that winning a state in the primary season -- no matter its importance on the map -- doesn't guarantee success in the general election.

"In 2004, for example, John Kerry won early Democratic contests in Iowa, Arizona, and Missouri, but he fell short in all three states when pitted against George W. Bush. In 1992, Bill Clinton captured primaries in Florida and Texas, but lost those states in the general election.

"And in 1984 -- in a primary that has drawn parallels to the current Democratic race -- Walter Mondale secured the Democratic nomination over Gary Hart in part by winning large industrial states like Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. But in the end, he wound up winning just one state against Ronald Reagan: his home state of Minnesota.

"The opposite also is true. There are numerous examples of candidates losing states during the primaries but then going on to win them in the general election. Bill Clinton, for instance, captured Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire in his 1992 contest against George H.W. Bush. But he lost all three in the primaries."

Uh, oh. Trouble in Corky City

I thought the bloated opiate addict (Rush Rimjob) was "tired of carrying the republican parties water".

I guess being addicted to such high quantities of opiates makes one forget the discomfort of carrying such a pail.

Well--the Dems crossed over and picked McCain for the Repubs--so fair turn around.


Murphy

I personally don't know how crossover voters can live with themselves; were I to request a ballot and vote for Hillary Clinton, I would probably be struck by lightning and sent directly to hell.

That said, were you to have said a few months ago that Hillary was attracting tens of thousands of votes from Republicans, you lefties would have held it up as an example of how superior your candidates were. But since there's a hotly contested primary race, you complain about the Republican involvement in the election. But in Texas, exit polling said that Republican crossovers split evenly between Obama and Hillary. So . . . the votes for Hillary were to screw up the primary, but the ones for Obama was because his messages resonated even among Republicans? Or is it the other way around?

The Democratic primaries have been a total farce, and you've nobody to blame except your own party leadership--if that word can even apply here. You've got a lot to worry about without wondering whether Rush Limbaugh can possibly screw up your elections worse than you already have.

"I personally don't know how crossover voters can live with themselves"

Could be you don't take your marching orders from Rush Limbaugh.

"I personally don't know how crossover voters can live with themselves"

Could be you don't take your marching orders from Rush Limbaugh.

"were I to request a ballot and vote for Hillary Clinton, I would probably be struck by lightning and sent directly to hell."

Keep my seat at the bar warm, will ya?

I understand the Republicans philospy here. Hillary can be beat easier by John McCain. She has more weaknesses and has more faults. The problem the Republicans don't see is that Obama will make a stronger President and will address the Domestic weaknesses in this country such as poverty, health care, making free trade agreements fair trade agreements, helping the vets coming home, pushing towards oil independance, rebuilding this countrys intrastructure. He is not influenced and led around by the lobbies that run Washington DC so he will not be influenced by them. If we can elect a President like this "WE THE PEOPLE" will take this country back. Revoloution is sweet USA lets make sure we all know that this man is the first HOPE to come along since lobbies started running this country.

JOELABEY

Righties don't care if a Presidential candidate (or president) is a complete fuckup of a moron - as long as he has an (R) after his name.

"I think it is obvious to see that the Repubs are playing some dirty political tricks on the Dems here."

I agree. I cannot believe the Repubs would stoop so low. I am glad the Democrats never stoop low just to swing elections. It is irrelevant that the Dems helped pick McCain for the Repubs. Just watch, the Repubs will come out with a scandal about a month before the elections. A scandal they will sit on for over a year, just to swing the elections. I am proud to be a Democrat. At least they have a sense of decency.

"I am proud to be a Democrat. At least they have a sense of decency."

I agree...and the most decent of all are are the Democratic Party icons, Bill and Hillary Clinton. I just can't understand why the only woman vice presidential candidate, ALSO a decent democrat, resigned from Hillary's campaign. Everybody knows that ALL the democrats have a sense of decency (except maybe Ted Kennedy, Spitzer, McGreevy, Jefferson, Farakhan,...oh well, you know.)

The Dems in some way have brought this on themselves with their flawed primary process.

What gets me is that the Dems have no one to blame but themselves for this process. It is theirs, they designed it, no one told them what to do, etc.

Now, the real question in my mind is "do I want these people who cannot even get this right running my country?"...

Do I want the people who have created this mess in charge of my health care?

Do I want the people who created this mess in charge of an energy policy?

Wow, as much as things are bad now, you can only imagine how much worse they could become.

Obama supporters are the whiniest bunch of pussies around, crying about primary-goers "cheating" (code for playing by the rules apparently). Hell, even their candidate is a whiny bitch.

Ahhh.....Socialists..

Votes are awfully inconvenient, aren't they? Individual choice is certainly very selfish...Why have them at all?

We all know that AlGore is our true fuhrer!

Watching the dems stew in the juice of a dish of political shit is delicious to watch.

and to put Hillary to bed once and for all.

Posted by tonyroma at 2008-03-12


TONY......come on bro....please think of a more pleasant way of saying that the dems might put her out to pasture. there thats a lot bettter.....LOL
a blurb in the houston paper said that estimates were that 500,000 of her votes here were crossovers.
I was not one of them because I just couldnt stand the thought of anyone finding out that I had voted for her even if it meant she was elected. I dont know, there was just something about it I couldnt do. I mean, the thought that if enough of us did that and she was the nominee and then GOT ELECTED and my vote was a part of that...well....I would have to return my tom delay republican decoder ring and everything.
but I dont see anything wrong with any of this. a primary shouldnt be closed anyway.BUT HERE IS MY MAIN POINT.
many of you bullshitting here about rush and all that dont seem to remember, it wasnt that long ago that you were breathing hard when mccain was winning primaries with the help of independents and DEMOCRATS....and it wasnt that long ago that he was the darling of the media leftists because he was a "MAVERICK". so whats the difference.

N- O- T -H -I -N -G nothing, absolutely nothing ....dum dum dum.....( wow, I went to WAY too many high school football games in 30 years)

BLT...

You miss the gist of these statistics. Go back up and read what I've said. I'm not pissed at the Republicans, hell, you guys perfected slimy modern politics. I'm pissed that Hillary is claiming victories and electoral strength from voters who aren't going to support her come November.

People can vote however they want, but I want you to mark this year and remember it moving forward.

Let's say Obama wins this fall and runs unopposed in 2012. Now, let's say the GOP runs Romney, Huckabee, and some ultra-fundamentalist religious nutball. How would you feel if the Democrats all decided to cross over and vote for the nutball that 80% of America can't stomach? See where this is going? Just remember your response when the shoe is on the other foot.

"...it wasnt that long ago that he (McCain) was the darling of the media leftists because he was a "MAVERICK". so whats the difference."

He's morphing into something entirely different now.

Being surrounded by lobbyists in his campaign - including those who successfully lost Boeing the airtanker contract ON HIS PLANE - loses him all that previously earned credibility.

Another thing that baffles me is how McCain went from being the AntiChrist in the wingnut talkradio guy's eyes three weeks ago to someone they are willing to throw an election to

Kind of makes you wonder who the REAL John McCain is...

AU--

On this contract business--the Northrup Grummen/Airbus contract was better than the NO BID contract originally offered by Boeing.

It was a no bid contract--isn't this the mantra of the Dems saying we can't have NO BID contracts anymore!

The analysis of the two planes found the NG/A plane better.

And you may be surprised to learn that the JOBS to complete the contract are NOT going to Europe.

They are going to the plant in ALABAMA. Yes--Americans working the contract!

So when Howard dumbass Dean says on Morning Joe this morning that 40,000 jobs are going to Europe--he needs to check again.


Murphy

This type of article is a joke. Republicans were voting for Obama early because they hate Clinton. Now they are voting for Clinton to make a mess of the Democratic Primary, so what. This is a pattern that I am starting to notice with Obama supports and I expected from the Clinton people. It is okay when it works in my favor but suddenly it is a horrible thing when it isn't working my way. Don't count Flordia and Michigan, the rules, the rules. What, superdelegates can vote however they want, nonsense. They should have to vote based on whatever way favors Obama.

LAJ...

Taking liberty with the facts just like Corky?

Show me one statement where Obama supporters have said that supers have to vote a certain way. There aren't any. What has been said is should supers overturn the expressed will of the actual voters across America? If that is the case, why have primaries anyway if the supers are going to choose who they want regardless?

All the Democratic contenders signed a pledge to follow the rules set forth by the DNC. Only one person wants to go against their pledge and it isn't Obama.

Your rant is illogical and not based on any facts whatsoever. Are you a DNC member?

"On this contract business--the Northrup Grummen/Airbus contract was better than the NO BID contract originally offered by Boeing."

"They are going to the plant in ALABAMA."

I hadn't heard or read about that. Do you have a link to an article?

How is this (Miss.) any different from when large numbers of crossovers voted for BO in the Chesapeake Primaries?

tonyroma,

And HRC plans on having Florida & Michigan added as delegates within the rules of the Democratic Party. No matter what the canadates agreed to it it is up the credentials committee to decide who is a proper delegate. No rules being broken here, Obama just needs to make the arguement why these votes shouldn't count (Michigan easy but Florida will be difficult). Then HRC can make the argument why she won the popular vote in Texas and should get the majority of delegates.

I heard that when you look at votes made by only Democrats, it is very close or she is actually ahead.

According to Florida law it is illegal to have a mail-in vote, and also illegal to give voter rolls with signatures to outside entities as Florida is suggestingdo the counting and accounting. Can't you see all the 'help' elderly voters will get in myriads of senior centers across Florida?

Florida won't go Democrat in the fall anyway. I don't know why they're making such a big deal out of it. Michigan will go Dem without a doubt.

One step they should take immediately: Freeze the voter rolls so we don't have the 'Limbaugh" effect on a Democrat election. It was 24% of Hillary's total in Mississippi.

Since when did the GOP fight fair anyway is the cynical answer to that.

This is what I fail to understand, why are demoncraps constantly discuss about race when they are the ones supposed to be above it all? All the race and gender turmoil in this election have originated from Clinton or Obama camp.
Clinton is the one going around apologizing for some stupid remarks that her dumb ass husband has been making.
The fact is democrats nominated a woman and a Blackman to that when any opponent tries to go against them they will labeled as racist or gender phobia. There is no longer a Whiteman with a substance to stand against republicans.
I am always called Uncle Tom because I am a black conservative. That is fine with me. I never vote based on color and I never blame my set backs to rich men.
America will be less secure if Obama and Hillary gain power. I do not like McCain but I think he has some guts to confront the Islamic radicals...

This from a TIME magazine political discussion site, discussing a rumored delegate compromise at hand for FLA and MI:

-- Michigan's 156 delegates would be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.

-- Florida's existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention--but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.

-- The two states' superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver, likely netting Clinton a few more delegates.

-- The betting: Florida and Michigan delegates, the DNC, and the Clinton campaign would all -- some reluctantly accept this deal.