In article
<85edd47a-aa4d-4437-95ad-6c90256b89dd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
numbers_guy <GeraldCNewton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 27, 2:23 pm, fargo116 <fargo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On May 27, 4:12 pm, numbers_guy <GeraldCNew...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 27, 2:02 pm, fargo116 <fargo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 27, 3:58 pm, numbers_guy <GeraldCNew...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 27, 1:44 pm, mordacpreven...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On May 27, 2:38 pm, numbers_guy <GeraldCNew...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > From ABC news: "By the numbers: Obama is now 51 delegates
away from
>> > > > > > 2,026 (the current magic number). He is 202 delegates ahead
of
>> > > > > > Clinton, per ABC's delegate scorecard."
>>
>> > > > > > Oh really now. Well how many of those delegates were won in
caucus
>> > > > > > states where the military stationed overseas had no chance of
>> > > > > > attending the caucuses, and where the 7 million night ****ft
workers
>> > > > > > had no chances of attending, and where working Moms that
could not
>> > > > > > afford babysitters could not attend, where the disabled could
not
>> > > > > > attend, and where blue collar workers might have been just to
damn
>> > > > > > tired to attend?
>>
>> > > > > > Let us take a look.
>> > > > > > Obama so far has gotten 323 delegates through caucuses.
Clinton has
>> > > > > > gotten 171. 323 - 171 = 152. This means though
>infiltrating caucuses
>> > > > > > Obama won 152 of his 202 delegate lead. Removing the unfair
and
>> > > > > > discriminatory caucuses would give Obama only a 50 delegate
>lead. But
>> > > > > > now what about Florida? Florida voted 50 percent for Clinton
and 33
>> > > > > > percent for Obama. Florida has 211 delegates. 0.5 x 211 =
105
>> > > > > > delegates for Clinton and 0.33 x 211 = 67 delegates for
>Obama. 105 -
>> > > > > > 67 = 38 delegates. Now Obama has only a 50-38 or a 12
>delegate lead.
>> > > > > > But then there is Michigan. Michigan has 157 delegates. In
>Michigan
>> > > > > > Clinton got 55 percent of the popular vote. 0.55 x 157 = 86
>> > > > > > delegates. Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan,
>but if we
>> > > > > > give Obama all of the remaining delegates he would have 157
>- 86 = 71
>> > > > > > delegates. 86 - 71 = 15 delegates putting Clinton 3
delegates ahead
>> > > > > > of Obama and Hillary Clinton is the winner in popular vote
>delegates.
>>
>> > > > > > Hillary Clinton should run as an independent, and she could
>beat both
>> > > > > > Obama and McCain.
>>
>> > > > > Why do you hate it when the rules are followed?
>>
>> > > > > Oh that's right, you're a fascist rightard.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > Rules of caucuses are discriminatory. What if caucuses had a big
sign
>> > > > at the door that said, "colored people not allowed?" The Obama
crowd
>> > > > would go to the courts so fast your head would spin. Why?
Because
>> > > > that would violate Federal law. The same thing applies to other
>> > > > groups, but they do not have a clear cut Federal Law, now do
they.
>> > > > However, there is one group that has a very good federal law that
>> > > > could be used to totally screw the caucuses and that is the
Americans
>> > > > with Disables Act. I hope Hillary uses it
>>
>> > > LOL..Hey Festus, care to tell us how many of the states Obama won
were
>> > > caucuses?
>>
>> > > S. Olson- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > By the way Fargo, Google does those stats (you know the one's you
like
>> > to post as if you are somehow the assumed kook overlord of these
>> > groups) on this group and they do not match yours at all. All your
>> > tedious work is done for you and you didn't know that. Now be a nice
>> > little boy, and I will tell you how to find the stats
>>
>> Well, tell us Festus. It wouldn't be 'five' would it?
>>
>> S. Olson- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I don't work for free kookieboy. You will have to pay the regular
>rate: $250/hr.
OK! Now you admitted you're doing all these insane postings for
money.
As to who you're working for, we needn't go far to find out. In
another follow-up of yours in the same thread, you said:
>> Hillary Clinton should run as an independent, and she could beat
>> both Obama and McCain.
As I have repeatedly said, despite others who thought you were working
fore the republicans, you are Hillary's paid ****ll. (Initially, you
were trying to pretend, although doing a poor job of it, that you
were not doing it for Hillary when I pointed it out. But now you have
dropped you figleaf even, perhaps because of fatigue just like Hillary
herself, eh?)
You've at least admitted in the past that you were doing ``4-6 hours
of research daily'' to give you the ammunition for dozens and dozens
repetitive propaganda pieces you posted everyday, ever since Hillary
was going downhill. But then you still claimed that you were not a
``Hillary ****ll'', which was of course unbelievable.
(And let's see: $250/hr and 4-6 hours daily make 10 to 15 thousand
dollars a day and thirty thousand dollars a month. Mercenary kind of
work and pay, I see . . ..)
I don't care what you call yourself, but you have been posting for the
very specific purpose of spreading lies and fear for the benefit of
Hillary's faltering campaign.
You have repeatedly bandied about the caucus argument against Obama,
long before the mainstream press mentioned (and therefore confirmed)
it as a Hillary campaign argument to diminish Obama's leading
position.
Of course, you were relentlessly pursuing the by-now famous Hillary
strategy of exploiting the impoverished southern white Americans.
And amidst countless other deceptions and smears, you started talking
about the likelihood that Hillary might make a run as an independent
if she doesn't like what she sees, comes the end of the primary
season.
This talk was offered amidst Hillary's contention that her pestilent
stay in the race would not hurt the party's prospect in Novemeber,
despite all the contrary evidence.
What Hillary means is that
a) hopefully ``I would be the nominee and I would have Obama as my
runningmate'' or if not, then
b) ``Obama would pick me as his runningmate, so either way we'll be a
unified party''.
So, it is clear to me that just as the caucus argument which you've
been bandying around for a while, this argument that Hillary would
bolt and run as an independent is also a strategy decision coming down
from the campaign hierarchy. And the intended audience of all this
talk are at least partly intended for the superdelegates.
Essentially, the Hillary campaign wants to scare the party into
submission.
It hopes that the powers-that-be will force it upon Obama to accept
Hillary as his VP to keep her from bolting. It wants the party to
repeat the JFK/LBJ marriage of convenience, despite the known tragic
result.
I don't know if Obama would be so stupid as not to see the danger to
his life with Hillary always feeling ``ready to succeed him from day
one''. If Hillary was presenting the RFK assassination scenerio as a
rationale for the party to let her stay and be ready to take the helm,
she was clearly also telling her less scrupulous sup****ters among the
neocons to come up with something after the election, if not before,
to make her the chief.
But the Democratic party might be worrying too much. If it keeps its
cool, the Obama ticket will be a winner.
The party actually does not need to fear the Hillary threat because
of Bob Barr's run as a libertarian party nominee.
Hillary will not get her ``working Americans, hard-working Americans,
hard-working white Americans'' voting for her in the general election
when they have McCain and Bob Barr to choose from.
For her beloved constituents from the south, the white woman was just
a stand-in for the next white man to come along.
Hillary isn't gonna have too many women voting for her in the fall as
an independent either, just as she couldn't win the party's nomination
with the women's vote.
She could not because of a few simple reasons. People who can think
just a bit are suspicious of anti-war credential. People are wary of
her tie to cor****ate interests and the neocon lobby. People are weary
of the dire economy facing down on America, a problem which is clearly
caused by our unending foreign occupation-wars and which would only
get worse with time. People are weary of Hillary's indecent disregard
for the truth and truthfulness.
And anyone who can see that occupation of Iraq is not going to get
easier will see that the war will loom large in the fall, just as ABC
News's Sam Donaldson also believes.
And there is no sound argument to a marriage-of-convenience ticket in
the two. Hillary belongs to the past while Obama to the future.
The past and the future are not characterized by whether a woman or a
black man can get hired for America's top job. The past and the
future are separated by what interests the person who will get that
top job finds him- or herself beholden to.
Hillary is beholden to the status quo, the cor****ate interests, and
the war-driven neocons. Obama is propelled by the grassroots, the
anti-war movement, and people's power.
The Democratic party can choose to belong to the past by resorting to
the same old tired politics of forcing its will on its members as well
as its sup****ters at the polls at large. It can do so by cynically
fixing a political marriage of convenience, forcing obama's sup****ters
to buy the damaged good in Hillary Clinton. Or it can let the process
take its natural and therefore democratic course. If they choose
cynicism over democracy, they will at least turn off some people like
myself.
Why I will not vote for an Obama-Hillary ticket? 1) I don't want
Obama to get assassinated. 2) I don't want someone who threatens
other nations with ``total obliteration'' to be near our nuclear
arsenal. And 3) I don't want the dynastic tendency to continue.
In the particular case of the Clintons, they are simply too indecent
to be let back in.
lo yeeOn
========
Courtesy of valinor20@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tue May 27 22:57:05 EDT 2008]
Hillary's Hostage Crisis
By RJ Eskow
Created May 23 2008 - 10:00am
Hillary's rhetoric of the past 24 hours has gone from conciliatory to
cataclysmic, turning on a high-speed dime like some UFO over the Florida
swamps. An awful [1]lot [2]of [3]Democrats [4]are shocked and outraged at
her use of civil rights rhetoric over the primary dispute, especially
after
winning two primaries with the help of some white voters who admitted
their
choice was influenced by race.1
Some are suggesting a personality ****ft explains the change of tone, but
she's cooler and smarter than that. It's more likely that this sudden
transformation is premeditated, brought on by a simpler and more ruthless
motive: She's demonstrating to Obama and the superdelegates what she's
capable of doing if she's crossed.
Think about it: She's showing that she is willing to ignite a firestorm,
amplify the misguided rage of her sup****ters, and split the party in two
if
her demands are not met. She no longer expects to get the nomination. She
has another list of demands, which might include the vice presidency but
definitely involve high-level appointments for herself and/or her
sup****ters. She spent a couple of days showing how good she can be for the
party. Now, the purpose of her recent comments has been to show how much
damage she can do.
And she can do a lot. Many of her sup****ters remain convinced that not
counting the Florida and Michigan votes (that is, honoring the pledge she
and others signed) is some sort of disenfranchisement. She's made it clear
she will push that argument until she has what she wants.
She's also making it clear she can keep the racial issue on the
front-burner. What was most outrageous about her now-infamous WaPo
interview
[5] wasn't her claim of media ***ism, which undoubtedly exists. It wasn't
even her claim that she's losing because of bias -- despite the fact that
she was once the odds-on favorite and was a woman then, too. More
outrageous
was her claim that there has been no racism in this campaign -- this from
a
candidate whose last two victories came from white voters who, by 20% and
25% respectively, acknowledged that race played an im****tant role in their
choice.
What does that kind of talk accomplish? It inflames her sup****ters'
mistaken
belief that she's been unjustly robbed, while at the same time dismissing
the idea that both nominees had hurdles to overcome. The ongoing rage of
Hillary sup****ters is her best bargaining chip. It's the dynamite she can
use to blow up the party.
And speaking of racial: Was it just coincidental that she invoked
Zimbabwe,
of all places, in describing the Florida election? And not just Zimbabwe,
but the President of Zimbabwe: "the president lost, they refused to abide
by
the will of the people." Nice. The President of Zimbabwe is, of course, a
scary and possibly corrupt black man. (No subliminal racial message there,
of course; it's just one of the ongoing series of "accidental" inferences
the Clintons keep innocently making.)
She knows these arguments won't sway the superdelegates to give her the
nomination. What she's doing now is showing the Obama team and the Party's
leaders that she has it in her power to cost them the election in
November.
Her surrogates are busy doing the same thing: "undermining the legitimacy
of
the Democratic nominee," as Scott Lemieux [6] puts it.
It's a hostage crisis. She's showing that she'll destroy the party if
necessary, even if it means destroying her own political future. She
wasn't
having a personality crisis when she switched from nice to mean yesterday:
She was showing everybody the detonator in her hand. It was a Dog Day
Afternoon moment, with Hillary as Al Pacino -- walking back and forth,
smiling and nodding her head and saying "See what I can do? Still want to
write me off?"
She didn't think Florida and Michigan were "rights" issues when she signed
that pledge -- not until it was in her self-interest to do so. But a lot
of
her sup****ters either don't know that or don't care, and she knows it. She
knows that a certain percentage of Democrats will chant along with her
when
she and her sup****ters start saying "Count the votes! Count the votes!"
What a moment that will be. Like "Attica State! Attica State!" but with a
less sympathetic character leading the charge.
___________________
1Don't believe race is a factor in this campaign? Watch this video [7]
about
Kentucky - then ponder why no American news outlet bothered to interview
these voters.
RJ Eskow blogs:
Night Light [8]
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog [9]
|
