Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

So Cow, what is with this "Saint" Obama stuff? I know the dittoheads are tossing that stuff around, but they're bordeline ######ed and still believe that there are WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam was linked to Al Qeada. Certainly you aren't in alignment with the Limbaugh and Hannity set are you? You're much too intelligent to get suckered into that cesspool of ignorance. What gives?

I look forward to Cowperson's triumphant escape from this hole you've pigeoned him into.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

So Cow, what is with this "Saint" Obama stuff? I know the dittoheads are tossing that stuff around, but they're bordeline ######ed and still believe that there are WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam was linked to Al Qeada. Certainly you aren't in alignment with the Limbaugh and Hannity set are you? You're much too intelligent to get suckered into that cesspool of ignorance. What gives?

The current cover of Rolling Stone:

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I look forward to Cowperson's triumphant escape from this hole you've pigeoned him into.

As do I.

In all seriousness, I do find Cow to be quite intelligent, so I am very confused how he could be suckered into this obvious attempt to make Obama look bad, and then continue to repeat it himself. Doesn't seem like something Cow would do...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by troutman

The current cover of Rolling Stone:

I don't want to derail, but The Black Crowes? Clapton/Winwood reunion?

You'd think it'd be a picture of a fresh-faced Bill Clinton to go along with those cutting edge acts.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

As do I.

In all seriousness, I do find Cow to be quite intelligent, so I am very confused how he could be suckered into this obvious attempt to make Obama look bad, and then continue to repeat it himself. Doesn't seem like something Cow would do...

I don't think it's being suckered, but rather being skeptical about annoiting Obama the answer to all that plagues America. Sure you know what to expect from Hillary and voting for McCain is like going to the same restaurant and ordering a different entree. Considering the options it's easy to rally behind someone who charismatically delivers speech after speech trying to differentiate himself from the other two, but in reality in office he could be better/worse/or pretty much the same and it's premature to give him more credit than what's due. I don't think he yet deserves the accolades he gets from many.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Maybe Obama will actually scrap NAFTA because it compromises national sovereignty in favor of big business and he'll build a new trade agreement.

And in the process he's going to piss Canada and Mexico off....and you really think we're just going to sit down at the table and build a new trade agreement after the US unilaterally backs out of NAFTA?

Because that is exactly what BOTH Obama and Hillary suggested.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

And in the process he's going to piss Canada and Mexico off....and you really think we're just going to sit down at the table and build a new trade agreement after the US unilaterally backs out of NAFTA?

Because that is exactly what BOTH Obama and Hillary suggested.

I think we would.

[HotHotHeat]

A lot of you assume Canada's government is happy about the terms of NAFTA. Go read some of the Chapter 11 clause, and the disputes that are rising as an outcome.

In a capitalistic society you'd have to expect the government is going to do favours for big business, however a lot of what is going on makes one think that maybe this time they've gone too far.

NAFTA is great for the economy in a lot of ways, but when Obama comes out and says he wants to restructure it, it's to take a portion of the power away from corporations.

Here a link:
OTTAWA—The number of challenges launched by foreign investors against Canada under NAFTA’s controversial investment rules continues to grow, says a study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).

The study looks at the six new NAFTA cases filed against Canada over the last two years and finds the targeting of environmental protection and natural resource management regulations particularly disturbing. Two recent actions include a challenge by multinational oil giant Exxon-Mobil to Newfoundland’s local economic development policies and another over the province of Ontario’s decision to halt a controversial project to dispose of Toronto’s landfill in a man-made lake.

“Unfortunately, NAFTA’s investment rules are so broadly worded that these aggressive claims might well succeed,” remarked Scott Sinclair, the report’s author. “At a time when Canadians are more concerned than ever about protecting the environment, this is simply unacceptable.”

As of January 1 2008, there have been 49 investor-state claims -18 against Canada, 14 against the U.S. and 17 against Mexico. Nearly half of these claims have involved investor challenges to how governments protect the environment or manage natural resources.

Tribunals have awarded financial damages to the complaining investors in two of three decided claims against Canada. Canada also settled another claim out of court by agreeing to pay the investor damages and repealing the challenged measure. Mexico recently lost its third NAFTA investment case. By contrast, in the four decided cases against the U.S. to date, the investors’ claims have been dismissed.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/New...fm?pa=BB736455

List of past and current disputes. I think anyone will find a few of the claims (and dollar amounts) alarming.

These aren't cases where the government is trying to bully businesses. One dispute is about a Canadian based gasoline additive company suing California for removing their additive from gas at the pumps there, even though the additive was found to contaminate surface water.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

And in the process he's going to piss Canada and Mexico off....and you really think we're just going to sit down at the table and build a new trade agreement after the US unilaterally backs out of NAFTA?

Because that is exactly what BOTH Obama and Hillary suggested.

Yeah, that's what they suggested in a room full of rustbelt union members. It's a long way from a primary political rally to the White House, and somewhere along the way personal promises that conflict with established national policy tends to fall by the wayside.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

A lot of you assume Canada's government is happy about the terms of NAFTA. Go read some of the Chapter 11 clause, and the disputes that are rising as an outcome.

Thats not the point.

Point is if you sign an agreement....like NAFTA....you don't talk about unilaterally withdrawing.

If the US has a problem with NAFTA....sit down and talk about it.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thats not the point.

Point is if you sign an agreement....like NAFTA....you don't talk about unilaterally withdrawing.

If the US has a problem with NAFTA....sit down and talk about it.

In the debates I've seen I think that's what they're suggesting. What he and Clinton have said during rallies is that "NAFTA is not good", "NAFTA lost you your job", etc. They have said that if the terms aren't restructured they'd pull out, but there's no doubt Canada and Mexcio would both restructure.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't want to derail, but The Black Crowes? Clapton/Winwood reunion?

You'd think it'd be a picture of a fresh-faced Bill Clinton to go along with those cutting edge acts.

It's Rolling Stone. Those are actually much better than their normal cover fare.

Fall Out Boy
Linkin Park
and Justin Timberlake rule the world!

Puhhhhhlease.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

She only has to be close in delegates at convention time, not tied or ahead.

That's very unlikely.

First of all, it's not likely Clinton would have an advantage in superdelegate support come convention time. Most of her superdelegate pledges date back to the early race, but Obama has won every single caucus (except American Samoa), with a telling total of 272 to 138. That says a lot about which of them is more popular inside the party. (Something which is reflected in the way superdelegate pledges have been going Obama's way ever since.)

Even despite that, if you ignored the support implicated by caucuses and project the current superdelegate spread (a 30 vote difference with 437 pledges) to represent the final spread, Clinton would only gain around 25 delegates more in the convention. She's not going to be that close at convention time.

(If they'd let the Florida primaries count as it is, which is unlikely, Clinton would gain around 40 delegates more. If they have a new primary, it'll most likely be about the same or better for Obama, since this time he'd actually campaign there, and he's been doing better and better as the race gets older. Michigan can't be counted as is since Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and if they hold a second primary there, it's likely to end up as a wash. Let's speculate a BIG win for Clinton in Pennsylvania, say a gain of 50 delegates (not very likely). Add up 25 superdelegates, 50 from Penn and 40 from Florida, and that's still short of the Obama's CURRENT lead. So even in that unlikely best case scenario for Clinton, she's still losing. And I'm not even counting the big states of Indiana and North Carolina, both of which will propably go for Obama with some margin, a margin which will be enough to ignore most of the smaller states, except Puerto Rico. More on that later.)

Also, there's a strong movement within and outside the Democratic party to let the popular vote decide. Since nobody can force the superdelegates, it's just propaganda, but since many superdelegates have publicly supported the idea, it's really quite obvious the superdelegate vote will go with the popular vote.

However, there is one state that might actually make a difference: Puerto Rico. Here's a link to explain the basics. (Still, note the line "reduces toward zero the chance that Puerto Rico will produce a unanimous delegation for Hillary Clinton". That's one of the many reasons I'm sure this is over, despite the hopes of the Clinton camp.)

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2...oll-power.html

[MarchHare]

At this point, it's pretty much mathematically impossible for Clinton to win more pledged delegates than Obama. See for yourself using this nifty calculator:

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

She has to win every remaining state by a massive 62-38 margin (not gonna happen) to pull ahead by a mere 3 delegates. If someone can play with that calculator and come up with a realistic scenario by which Hillary can pull ahead, I'd love to see it.

Her only chance now is to influence the superdelegates to break her way in addition to somehow getting the Michigan and Florida results to count.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

At this point, it's pretty much mathematically impossible for Clinton to win more pledged delegates than Obama. See for yourself using this nifty calculator:

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

She has to win every remaining state by a massive 62-38 margin (not gonna happen) to pull ahead by a mere 3 delegates. If someone can play with that calculator and come up with a realistic scenario by which Hillary can pull ahead, I'd love to see it.

Her only chance now is to influence the superdelegates to break her way in addition to somehow getting the Michigan and Florida results to count.

there's a chance (albeit not a very good one):
the key is Pennsylvania. if Clinton gets a big win there, it could bring the count close enough for the democrats have to consider re-polling Florida and Michigan in which case pretty much anything could happen; she could pull close enough that super-delegates could swing things quite a bit. if she doesn't get a very decisive win in Pennsylvania, its time to throw in the towel so the democratic party as a whole can rally against the republicans. a long(er) drawn out, mudslinging battle for the nomination will only hurt their party's chances.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

The key is Pennsylvania. if Clinton gets a big win there, it could bring the count close enough for the democrats have to consider re-polling Florida and Michigan in which case pretty much anything could happen;

You know what the funny thing is, in Pennsylvania even though Clinton is excepted win handily the democratic primary, Obama still polls better against McCain then Clinton does in the state.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Dan02

You know what the funny thing is, in Pennsylvania even though Clinton is excepted win handily the democratic primary, Obama still polls better against McCain then Clinton does in the state.

Yeah, the knock against Obama is that he's winning the Democratic runoffs in Republican states, which shouldn't translate into electoral votes, but the kicker is that he still polls better than Clinton against McCain nationwide.

[HotHotHeat]

John McCain tries to suggest people should vote for him because Al Qaeda doesn't them to.

SPRINGFIELD, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday he fears that al Qaeda or another extremist group might attempt spectacular attacks in Iraq to try to tilt the U.S. election against him.

McCain, at a town hall meeting in this Philadelphia suburb, was asked if he had concerns that anti-American militants in Iraq might ratchet up their activities in Iraq to try to increase casualties in September or October and tip the November election against him.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...edName=topNews
More republican fear-mongering.

[Itse]

As if the Al Qaeda would care for the differences between the candidates. "The only good American..." and so on. And if they did, they'd be rooting for McCain. They don't want the US to get out of Iraq, ever, except if they manage to drive them out themselves (as if).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Itse

As if the Al Qaeda would care for the differences between the candidates. "The only good American..." and so on. And if they did, they'd be rooting for McCain. They don't want the US to get out of Iraq, ever, except if they manage to drive them out themselves (as if).

I don't think they're rooting for anyone.

Despite all the 'campaign rhetoric'....I bet you all of the 3 candidates would do the same thing foreign policy wise in their 1st year if elected President.