Where Fox News fails at journalism, they make up for with hot anchor wimminz.

*does not find that to be coincidental*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feld...a_b_103500.html

That's a link to a video excerpt where a Fox News Pundit jokingly refers to and laughs about assassinating Obama. But maybe it was before Murdoch got all ghey over him.

Wow, that has NEVER happened before.

BILL MAHER'D!

Unfortunately, it's a bit different when you're talking about Obama, since a lot of people are really concerned that some nutjob will try to take a shot at him. I'm not saying that it's ever excusable, though.

But come one, just because some chick on the news makes a stupid comment doesn't mean some right-wing wacko in Louisiana is going to load up his Remington 700 .30-06 Springfield and actually do it.

Hey, wait a sec...

*IS a right-wing wacko in Louisiana...HAS a Remington 700 .30-06...*

*lazy*












*KIDDING!!!!!!!!!*

I would be concerned some Obama fanatic will break bad on Hills or Johnny.

No, I only mean that it's a sensitive subject. I'm not saying that it would give anyone ideas.

I don't think you can beat Headline News' Christi Paul.

So anyway they have this big Democratic rules committee meeting today... it's a lot of numbers and negotiations and bla bla bla, but hopefully by the end of the day there should be a lot more clarity on the state of the Democratic race.

Oh and Obama is having a general election kick-off rally on Tuesday, at the same arena in Minnesota where the GOP is planning to hold its convention.

LOL.

Aaaand here's the result of the big meeting today:

(from MSNBC)



OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE

In all fairness to Clinton, I think that's what she and FL/MI get for those states not wanting to abide by rules in the first place. Of course, if those states want to pick the '08 election as the time to have problems with the entire party, that's the way it'll go. It's the dumbest possible year to have an in-party fight. But seeing as the Democrats have had a record of throwing away elections..

Well, her popular vote "lead" depends on not counting 4 caucus states, so the "hijacking" comments don't surprise me.

But anyway...

If they're really going to bitch all the way to the convention over four delegates, then Obama should give them ten of his.

Jesus, people, it was a compromise -- if you're surprised that Obama still comes out on top it's because HE'S THE FRONT-RUNNER

He only really needs like 10-20% of the outstanding superdelegates to win now...given that he doesn't totally tank in the last 3 contests.

The Clinton campaign is quietly signaling that it will be over next week. I guess they just feel the need to keep stirring the pot for a while.

But Harold Ickes can go suck dickies.

She goes out with not a whimper, but a bang?

Looks like she's gonna win Puerto Rico by a 2-1 margin, if the current returns are any indication.

What I don't get is... like, why people in Puerto Rico vote in primaries when they're not eligible to vote in the general election.

I'm going to avoid the obvious bang/whimper joke, especially concerning Slick Willy.

on topic. do they actually think it will matter?

I think what's more important is that if, on any off chance, Clinton wins, Obama supporters will shut up and accept it.. just as much as Clinton supporters should shut up and accept it if Obama wins. Unfortunately, neither seems like it will be the case.

What I really don't get is how self-absorbed people are on both sides that they both threaten to vote for McCain if their own candidate doesn't win. When it comes to their platforms and stances on all the issues, Clinton and Obama are infinitely more alike each other than either of them are with McCain. History will really remember no other distinctions. Why should they be worth all this drama for us?

to Nomolos:

It depends on the message Clinton's campaign sends. At her victory speech in PR today, she did say how both she and Obama have inspired record voter turnout this primary season, and went on to talk about how the Democrats must win the White House this year etc. However, she was also plainly making an appeal to superdelegates by bringing up (again) the states that she has won, as well as her popular vote claim.

(Which, I should add, includes the voting results from the uncontested primaries in Florida and Michigan, as well as four caucus states that didn't provide vote totals. And of course, as she well knows, the nomination depends on the total number of delegates, not who wins the popular vote. Which of course is the way the Electoral College works as well, as we all learned eight years ago.)

They were just saying on the news that Obama would really really like to go "over the top" with the necessary number of delegates from the results of the last two primaries on Tuesday, not with the endorsement of a superdelegate. Of course, it's the same either way, but it has some psychological benefit to be able to say "hey we officially won now because of this state's primary" as opposed to "hey some dude decided that I should be the nominee." They were anticipating that Obama would produce a flood of superdelegate endorsements tomorrow to accomplish just that -- pad the numbers enough on Monday that his delegate count from Tuesday would be what officially clinches the nomination for him.

I have to say, it would be very difficult for Obama's supporters to accept Clinton getting the nomination, because the rules of the Democratic primary state that the person with the most delegates is the winner. I don't mean that to sound biased, because I do understand that neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to be proclaimed the winner, and that both are relying upon superdelegate endorsements. However, considering that Obama has held a pledged delegate lead since March, it would indeed be seen as a reversal for Clinton to be given the nomination by the superdelegates. Now that would be perfectly legitimate, as that is part of the system. But the perception would be that the nomination was taken away from Obama. Whereas in Clinton's case, she has been trailing for months. For her to lose would simply be what is expected at this point.

Again, it would be perfectly legitimate for superdelegates to pick Clinton as the nominee. But there would be a big mess to clean up after that decision, and I'm sure one question on the minds of superdelegates is, which candidate would leave the bigger mess behind them?

I'd also like to mention, since it's one of the Clinton campaign's frequent talking points, that while Clinton has indeed carried a number of states that Democrats must win in November, it's not as if there isn't significant risk in her candidacy. I do believe that were she the Democratic nominee, every Republican in the country would come out to vote against her. Not to mention the fact that she has been getting crushed in the African-American vote. If their candidate were denied the nomination, would they stay home in November? It's possible. It's also definitely possible that all the young first-time voters supporting Obama's candidacy would stay home as well.

Mmm. Well, it seemed like the idea of all this was to "clean up" the mess such that there should be at least less bellyaching with any final results than there would otherwise have been. But it seems more like temporary placating than cleaning up.

I don't think The Mess is really the fault of either candidate as much as it is with whoever the weakest links were in the system. On the other hand, it seems it'll be typical for any candidate/nominee/elected official to shoulder the burden of any resentment.

I thought I was the only one wondering that for the last three months.

GUAM'D!

Today Clinton is saying that superdelegates can still change their minds. I wonder what she wants Obama to give her for her to go away...

Hillary's entire campaign staff could quit but I doubt Hillary herself would. She'd would either replace all of them with illegal immigrants or just run the whole damn thing herself. Hillary has lied, cheated, and stolen for decades to get where she is now and in her mind, she has "earned" the presidency. Once it hits her that all her years of "hard work" have been all for naught, she's going to have a nervous breakdown of epic proportions.

Could there be anything other than Vice President? I dunno either she wants that and is not getting it or she has a real loose grip on reality. I really hope its the first one.

first of all, lol to your signature

I can't believe some assmunch thought that was a SECRET TERRORIST MESSAGE like OMG we're all gonna be blown up by perky TV cooks and tasty snack treats durka durka Dunkin Donuts Jihad!!!1

so anyway, yeah

She may not want the vice presidency -- she may want a cabinet position. Everyone knows that healthcare is her big thing, why not give her the ability to run with that.

Then again, "Hillary" and "healthcare" is a radioactive combination for a lot of lawmakers. So who knows.

About the only time I found myself agreeing with Mitt Romney (besides the day he dropped out) was when he said that he didn't really want to think about Bill Clinton wandering around the White House all day with nothing to do. I want that freaking guy as far away from Washington as possible.

My only speculation is that it's because the general election is specifically governed by the Constitution, while political parties were never intended or provided for. The primary election itself didn't even really begin until the 20th century as a reform against political bosses controlling who the candidates were..

From what I've learned, it's more to do with Puerto Rico's in-limbo status as an annexed bit of Spanish territory that the USA never made into a state.

Guam and the other non-state territories seem no different.

?

You know, the more I read Clinton campaign comments, the more it seems that they are definitely angling for a VP slot. They keep talking about how Clinton draws constituencies that Democrats will need to win. But the thought of either Clinton being involved in Obama's campaign gives me the heebie-jeebies. Not to mention that it would kneecap Obama's message of "turning the page" on Washington politics of the past, in which he has included both the Bush and Clinton administrations.

Clinton on the ticket = SC

So, if Hillary is the Veep, does that make Bill the Vice First Man?

Wonder if that would affect his game?

Clinton is officially holding a "celebration" Tuesday night in NYC.

Hmm.

She's also telling people not to bother with working for her after Tuesday...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/060...ding_staff.html

If Clinton is on the ticket I still think that give McCain an easy win.

It wouldn't stop me from voting for Obama, but I'd have to hold my nose as I did it.

*awaits Barr/Paul ticket*

RuPaul?



OK, I can understand the appeal, but Raymond Burr? Isn't he dead?

Yes. He was killed in a duel with George Hamilton.

*waits*

I think there's a distinct likelihood that a Barr/Paul ticket will emerge and act as a 2008 GOP version of 2000's Nader/Whoever He Picked As His Running Mate ticket. Although I don't think the election will be as close as it was in 2000.

I just want more sweet Bob Barr 'stache pics.

Hanging Chad =

Hey it works for Bill





OK that got me LOL

ZING...

i mean uh, hey keep the jokes in INH this is serrus. [/Hobbes]

none of that political point scoring.[/Madhammer]


love u long time guys, but I couldn't resist.

Oh, it's totally serrus, but once a page reaches over about 100 pages or so, I figure all the important stuff on that particular topic has been said, and I stop being as uptight about it.