Comments on: This Post Will Make More Sense if You Read the Byline http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/ Keeping a jaundiced eye on the corporate media. Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:03:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Bob http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143248 Bob Tue, 13 May 2008 12:09:30 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143248 zuzu: Let me try again. HOW would it benefit the Democratic Party for the SuperD's to hand the nomination to Clinton? I didn't ask if such a mechanism exists, I didn't ask about FL and MI, I didn't ask if the present rules were good or bad; I asked if it would BENEFIT the Democratic Party. You answered yes it would then followed that up with straw men, evasions and non sequiturs. HOW does the Democratic Party become a stronger force in American politics by having the SuperD's overthrow the will of the Democratic Party electorate. zuzu: Let me try again. HOW would it benefit the Democratic Party for the SuperD’s to hand the nomination to Clinton? I didn’t ask if such a mechanism exists, I didn’t ask about FL and MI, I didn’t ask if the present rules were good or bad; I asked if it would BENEFIT the Democratic Party. You answered yes it would then followed that up with straw men, evasions and non sequiturs. HOW does the Democratic Party become a stronger force in American politics by having the SuperD’s overthrow the will of the Democratic Party electorate.

]]> By: zuzu http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143222 zuzu Mon, 12 May 2008 18:32:51 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143222 Moreover: You can complain all you want that the party would be destroying itself if it didn't go with Obama because he has the lead in pledged delegates, but if the nomination is decided without the input of the delegations of Florida and Michigan, however they are composed (because I am not discounting the possibility that the RBC lifts the nuclear-option penalty but leaves in place the standard 50% penalty, which would still "punish" them for jostling, but would also allow them to have a meaningful way of participating), then it can kiss the GE goodbye. Not to mention, you'd hand the GOP an incredibly potent weapon. Moreover: You can complain all you want that the party would be destroying itself if it didn’t go with Obama because he has the lead in pledged delegates, but if the nomination is decided without the input of the delegations of Florida and Michigan, however they are composed (because I am not discounting the possibility that the RBC lifts the nuclear-option penalty but leaves in place the standard 50% penalty, which would still “punish” them for jostling, but would also allow them to have a meaningful way of participating), then it can kiss the GE goodbye. Not to mention, you’d hand the GOP an incredibly potent weapon.

]]> By: zuzu http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143221 zuzu Mon, 12 May 2008 18:28:24 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143221 Yes, Bob. Just as it would be beneficial for the party and the nation as a whole if the Superdelegates decided in Obama's favor. The nominating process sucks, but this is what we're stuck with. And when you have rules that say there are no rules to follow for the people who are actually making the decision, then you get what you get. Obviously, you feel differently. Yes, Bob. Just as it would be beneficial for the party and the nation as a whole if the Superdelegates decided in Obama’s favor.

The nominating process sucks, but this is what we’re stuck with. And when you have rules that say there are no rules to follow for the people who are actually making the decision, then you get what you get.

Obviously, you feel differently.

]]> By: Bob http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143179 Bob Sun, 11 May 2008 19:21:28 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143179 zuzu: Fine, I'll concede your point. Until the last SuperD votes nothing is over. Now a simple question: do you believe it would be beneficial to the Democratic Party and the nation as a whole to have the Superdelegates decide the nomination in Clinton's favor? No parsing, please. Just a straight up yes or no. It’s fine if all remaining undecided SuperD’s vote for Clinton or it isn’t. zuzu: Fine, I’ll concede your point. Until the last SuperD votes nothing is over.
Now a simple question: do you believe it would be beneficial to the Democratic Party and the nation as a whole to have the Superdelegates decide the nomination in Clinton’s favor? No parsing, please. Just a straight up yes or no. It’s fine if all remaining undecided SuperD’s vote for Clinton or it isn’t.

]]> By: zuzu http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143174 zuzu Sun, 11 May 2008 17:27:07 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143174 <i>zuzu, By your criteria either candidate would be given the domination</i> Not my criteria; the party's. If you get to the magic number (either 2025 or 2209, depending on what the RBC's decision is on Florida and Michigan on May 31), you get the nomination. If nobody has that by the convention, all bets are off, and the supers make the decision based on whatever criteria they feel is most important. zuzu,
By your criteria either candidate would be given the domination

Not my criteria; the party’s. If you get to the magic number (either 2025 or 2209, depending on what the RBC’s decision is on Florida and Michigan on May 31), you get the nomination. If nobody has that by the convention, all bets are off, and the supers make the decision based on whatever criteria they feel is most important.

]]> By: steveeboy http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143163 steveeboy Sun, 11 May 2008 15:25:09 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143163 I wonder why anyone wastes time with a troll like bj white. I wonder why anyone wastes time with a troll like bj white.

]]> By: memyself http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143159 memyself Sun, 11 May 2008 14:28:09 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143159 "Wonder why Senator Obama’s supporters choose the only example which shows Senator Obama ahead in super delegates." ????? Wonder why Clinton supporters pretend the THREE sources I list that already had Obama ahead actually equals one. “Wonder why Senator Obama’s supporters choose the only example which shows Senator Obama ahead in super delegates.”
?????
Wonder why Clinton supporters pretend the THREE sources I list that already had Obama ahead actually equals one.

]]> By: HeywoodR http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143152 HeywoodR Sun, 11 May 2008 05:50:20 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143152 <i>I think those of us on the “winning” side of this primary need to give some space and chill.</i> It may seen a bit abstract now but we’re about to be saddled with a single word that the media will repeat over and over the same way they did with electability for Kerry and values for Bush. It seems like a lot of Democrats don’t want to allow Obama win with an anti-Iraq war mandate that’s perceived as legitimate. So we’ll be stuck with "change" and that will mean whatever Tim Russert says it means. I think those of us on the “winning” side of this primary need to give some space and chill.

It may seen a bit abstract now but we’re about to be saddled with a single word that the media will repeat over and over the same way they did with electability for Kerry and values for Bush. It seems like a lot of Democrats don’t want to allow Obama win with an anti-Iraq war mandate that’s perceived as legitimate. So we’ll be stuck with “change” and that will mean whatever Tim Russert says it means.

]]> By: Chris http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143150 Chris Sun, 11 May 2008 04:50:14 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143150 I think I should probably be more clear. When I write that I generally favor Clinton’s approach to Obama’s on most of the issues, I'm really talking about domestic issues like healthcare and education. It would probably be fair to characterize me as a socialist, so the solutions that both the candidates are offering are nothing approaching what I think is needed. I'm also somewhat pragmatic with regards to my expectations, so I judge things as they are, not how I wish they were. Listen, we went into the primary with the shitty candidates we have, not the shitty candidates we wish we had. I can accept that, even if it hurts sometimes and makes me start quoting Hunter S. Thompson in weak moments. I wish that the candidate I support had shown some leadership on Iraq once he got into the senate. He didn't. Nobody did. I worry that the war is going to turn into our version of the Republican's perpetual bait and wait with the religious right on abortion. They'll keep saying all the right things on the war, but when push comes to shove they won't do shit because they don't want to lose it as an election issue. But, whatever. I don't exactly know what the fuck to do about that. Anyway, I think those of us on the "winning" side of this primary need to give some space and chill. The last time I really backed a candidate for anything it was Seth Williams in his run against Lynne Abraham for Philadelphia District Attorney. He didn't have a shot in hell and I knew it, but I still had a pretty good cry when he lost. It's human nature to get emotionally attached to campaigns and candidates and to take their losses very hard and very personally. I think I should probably be more clear. When I write that I generally favor Clinton’s approach to Obama’s on most of the issues, I’m really talking about domestic issues like healthcare and education. It would probably be fair to characterize me as a socialist, so the solutions that both the candidates are offering are nothing approaching what I think is needed. I’m also somewhat pragmatic with regards to my expectations, so I judge things as they are, not how I wish they were.

Listen, we went into the primary with the shitty candidates we have, not the shitty candidates we wish we had. I can accept that, even if it hurts sometimes and makes me start quoting Hunter S. Thompson in weak moments. I wish that the candidate I support had shown some leadership on Iraq once he got into the senate. He didn’t. Nobody did.

I worry that the war is going to turn into our version of the Republican’s perpetual bait and wait with the religious right on abortion. They’ll keep saying all the right things on the war, but when push comes to shove they won’t do shit because they don’t want to lose it as an election issue. But, whatever. I don’t exactly know what the fuck to do about that.

Anyway, I think those of us on the “winning” side of this primary need to give some space and chill. The last time I really backed a candidate for anything it was Seth Williams in his run against Lynne Abraham for Philadelphia District Attorney. He didn’t have a shot in hell and I knew it, but I still had a pretty good cry when he lost. It’s human nature to get emotionally attached to campaigns and candidates and to take their losses very hard and very personally.

]]> By: froghorn http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143146 froghorn Sun, 11 May 2008 03:47:26 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143146 BJ, Good for you BJ, good for you. AP says the total U.S. deaths in Iraq = 4074 <a href="http://icasualties.org" rel="nofollow">icasualties</a> has the number at 4075. Wanna place a bet who has the right number? BJ,
Good for you BJ, good for you.
AP says the total U.S. deaths in Iraq = 4074
icasualties has the number at 4075. Wanna place a bet who has the right number?

]]> By: B J White http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143145 B J White Sun, 11 May 2008 03:27:48 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143145 May 09, 2008 6:19 AM May 09, 2008 6:19 AM

]]> By: B J White http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143144 B J White Sun, 11 May 2008 03:25:41 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143144 Now of course these will change, but wonder why Senator Obama's supporters choose the only example which shows Senator Obama ahead in super delegates. Personally, I would have chosen the WaPo measure...... Now of course these will change, but wonder why Senator Obama’s supporters choose the only example which shows Senator Obama ahead in super delegates.

Personally, I would have chosen the WaPo measure……

]]> By: memyself http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143141 memyself Sun, 11 May 2008 03:11:17 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143141 B J White - Many of your counts are days old. For example ABC declared "Obama Takes Lead in Superdelegate Tally" on May 9th Politico: "Obama grabs superdelegate lead" - also from May 9th CBS shows the Obama lead A small minority of news sites have Clinton still leading, but by much smaller margins than you have lsited (CNN shows her 4 delegates ahead, not 10) B J White - Many of your counts are days old. For example ABC declared “Obama Takes Lead in Superdelegate Tally” on May 9th

Politico: “Obama grabs superdelegate lead” - also from May 9th

CBS shows the Obama lead

A small minority of news sites have Clinton still leading, but by much smaller margins than you have lsited (CNN shows her 4 delegates ahead, not 10)

]]> By: Brutus http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143139 Brutus Sun, 11 May 2008 02:54:12 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143139 Thanks Macjazz, white_n_az's comments were so fact free (starting with reading Obama's mind and intentions) I just had no idea how to respond. Thanks Macjazz,
white_n_az’s comments were so fact free (starting with reading Obama’s mind and intentions) I just had no idea how to respond.

]]> By: B J White http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143138 B J White Sun, 11 May 2008 02:53:13 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143138 ABC OBAMA 267 CLINTON 265 CBS CLINTON 271 OBAMA 261 CNN CLINTON 268 OBAMA 258 NBC CLINTON 274 OBAMA 260 AP CLINTON 271.5 OBAMA 266 New York Times CLINTON 263 OBAMA 258 Politico CLINTON 268.5 OBAMA 260 Washington Post (uses AP statistics) CLINTON 271 OBAMA 256 ABC
OBAMA 267
CLINTON 265

CBS
CLINTON 271
OBAMA 261

CNN
CLINTON 268
OBAMA 258

NBC
CLINTON 274
OBAMA 260

AP
CLINTON 271.5
OBAMA 266

New York Times
CLINTON 263
OBAMA 258

Politico
CLINTON 268.5
OBAMA 260

Washington Post (uses AP statistics)
CLINTON 271
OBAMA 256

]]> By: Macjazz http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143137 Macjazz Sun, 11 May 2008 02:46:40 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143137 "Isn’t it interesting how many times Senator Obama finds it necessary to be ‘politically expedient’." B J White - that's a pretty weak answer, especially considering how "politically expedient" some of HRC's utterances and stances have been ... like, um, ACTUALLY voting for the war ... "Clearly there are many Democrats, even mild supporters of both Clintons who have been dismayed that Obama’s campaign has sought to destroy all things Clinton to win, in essence, creating a fracture in the party." And clearly there are others who would say the exact opposite, and indict the Clinton campaign for exactly that. Hillary's most recent racial comments are an amplification of this trend, suprising even her supporters such as Charles Rangel, ("I can’t believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.") “Isn’t it interesting how many times Senator Obama finds it necessary to be ‘politically expedient’.”

B J White - that’s a pretty weak answer, especially considering how “politically expedient” some of HRC’s utterances and stances have been … like, um, ACTUALLY voting for the war …

“Clearly there are many Democrats, even mild supporters of both Clintons who have been dismayed that Obama’s campaign has sought to destroy all things Clinton to win, in essence, creating a fracture in the party.”

And clearly there are others who would say the exact opposite, and indict the Clinton campaign for exactly that. Hillary’s most recent racial comments are an amplification of this trend, suprising even her supporters such as Charles Rangel, (”I can’t believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.”)

]]> By: Brutus http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143136 Brutus Sun, 11 May 2008 02:42:30 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143136 zuzu, By your criteria either candidate would be given the domination. However, since one candidate has won more pledge delegates it makes the task of winning over super delegates easier. As of today Obama now has taken the lead in super delegate count - Obama 275, Clinton 27. No one gave him this lead, he earned it. zuzu,
By your criteria either candidate would be given the domination. However, since one candidate has won more pledge delegates it makes the task of winning over super delegates easier. As of today Obama now has taken the lead in super delegate count - Obama 275, Clinton 27.
No one gave him this lead, he earned it.

]]> By: Brutus http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143135 Brutus Sun, 11 May 2008 02:34:43 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143135 Part 2 home state) and Florida and Michigan where democratic voters where told their votes did not count. <i>she has therefore agreed to accept the wishes of her constituents and has changed her mind.</i> Mighty noble of her, to bad she signed a written pledge stating that the she would not participate in the primaries and agreed that the results would not count. Earlier you stated that you could not trust Obama, yet you can trust someone who is willing to break a pledge when it is politically expedient? Part 2
home state) and Florida and Michigan where democratic voters where told their votes did not count.
she has therefore agreed to accept the wishes of her constituents and has changed her mind.
Mighty noble of her, to bad she signed a written pledge stating that the she would not participate in the primaries and agreed that the results would not count.
Earlier you stated that you could not trust Obama, yet you can trust someone who is willing to break a pledge when it is politically expedient?

]]> By: Brutus http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143134 Brutus Sun, 11 May 2008 02:33:30 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143134 <i>And since when did democrats not want to count all the votes?</i> When the votes were cast in an illegitimate election. Did you know that there are only 4 states where Democratic turnout has been lower than Republican. Those 4 states are Utah (Mormons for Romney), Arizona (McCain's And since when did democrats not want to count all the votes?
When the votes were cast in an illegitimate election.
Did you know that there are only 4 states where Democratic turnout has been lower than Republican.
Those 4 states are Utah (Mormons for Romney), Arizona (McCain’s

]]> By: white_n_az http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143133 white_n_az Sun, 11 May 2008 02:26:30 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143133 Given Obama's political aspirations, I don't believe for a second that he would have done anything other than vote for the AUMF in 2002. By saying that, I admit that it seems that Hillary's for for the AUMF was motivated by her political ambitions. All you need to look at is how Obama walked his 2002 position back in 2004 when he himself admitted that he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate in 2002. I suppose that if you believe that the Hillary's vote for the AUMF in 2002 and Obama's speech against the AUMF were the prominent reason to cast your vote this year, then the choice seemed pretty clear as Chris is suggesting. There clearly are 3 reasons why Obama is virtually certain to win the nomination. Failure to plan beyond 'Super Tuesday' The media outrageously played a role in defeating her Obama has run a better campaign Clearly there are many Democrats, even mild supporters of both Clintons who have been dismayed that Obama's campaign has sought to destroy all things Clinton to win, in essence, creating a fracture in the party. Time will tell whether this ultimately is a winning strategy. It seemed so clear that the Democrats would win this year...I have lost faith that we will win in November. Given Obama’s political aspirations, I don’t believe for a second that he would have done anything other than vote for the AUMF in 2002. By saying that, I admit that it seems that Hillary’s for for the AUMF was motivated by her political ambitions. All you need to look at is how Obama walked his 2002 position back in 2004 when he himself admitted that he didn’t know how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate in 2002.

I suppose that if you believe that the Hillary’s vote for the AUMF in 2002 and Obama’s speech against the AUMF were the prominent reason to cast your vote this year, then the choice seemed pretty clear as Chris is suggesting.

There clearly are 3 reasons why Obama is virtually certain to win the nomination.
Failure to plan beyond ‘Super Tuesday’
The media outrageously played a role in defeating her
Obama has run a better campaign

Clearly there are many Democrats, even mild supporters of both Clintons who have been dismayed that Obama’s campaign has sought to destroy all things Clinton to win, in essence, creating a fracture in the party. Time will tell whether this ultimately is a winning strategy.

It seemed so clear that the Democrats would win this year…I have lost faith that we will win in November.

]]> By: Brutus http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143132 Brutus Sun, 11 May 2008 02:19:43 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143132 <i>And since when did democrats not want to count all the votes?</i> When the votes were cast in an illegitimate election. Did you know that there are only 4 states where Democratic turnout has been lower than Republican. Those 4 states are Utah (Mormons for Romney), Arizona (McCain's home state) and Florida and Michigan where democratic voters where told their votes did not count. <i>she has therefore agreed to accept the wishes of her constituents and has changed her mind.</i> Mighty noble of her, to bad she signed a written pledge stating that the she would not participate in the primaries and agreed that the results would not count. Earlier you stated that you could not trust Obama, yet you can trust someone who is willing to break a pledge when it is politically expedient? And since when did democrats not want to count all the votes?
When the votes were cast in an illegitimate election.
Did you know that there are only 4 states where Democratic turnout has been lower than Republican.
Those 4 states are Utah (Mormons for Romney), Arizona (McCain’s home state) and Florida and Michigan where democratic voters where told their votes did not count.
she has therefore agreed to accept the wishes of her constituents and has changed her mind.
Mighty noble of her, to bad she signed a written pledge stating that the she would not participate in the primaries and agreed that the results would not count.
Earlier you stated that you could not trust Obama, yet you can trust someone who is willing to break a pledge when it is politically expedient?

]]> By: zuzu http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143130 zuzu Sun, 11 May 2008 02:04:49 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143130 <i>What is the word given about?</i> He hasn't won it yet. The superdelegates have to give the nom to him; it's mathematically impossible for him to earn it based on pledged delegates. What is the word given about?

He hasn’t won it yet. The superdelegates have to give the nom to him; it’s mathematically impossible for him to earn it based on pledged delegates.

]]> By: B J White http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143129 B J White Sun, 11 May 2008 02:00:07 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143129 Apparently HRC has been told by 'her constituents' they want their votes counted; she has therefore agreed to accept the wishes of her constituents and has changed her mind. And since when did democrats not want to count all the votes? Apparently HRC has been told by ‘her constituents’ they want their votes counted; she has therefore agreed to accept the wishes of her constituents and has changed her mind.

And since when did democrats not want to count all the votes?

]]> By: Brutus http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143128 Brutus Sun, 11 May 2008 01:46:13 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143128 <i>As long as Michigan and Florida aren’t counted ‘as is’, given is the correct word.</i> So elections where the voters were told in advance that the votes would not count are legitimate - strange views for a democrat. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xHRqi8nsvI" rel="nofollow">Here's a video of Clinton saying the Michigan vote would not count.</a> As long as Michigan and Florida aren’t counted ‘as is’, given is the correct word.
So elections where the voters were told in advance that the votes would not count are legitimate - strange views for a democrat.
Here’s a video of Clinton saying the Michigan vote would not count.

]]> By: Brutus http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143127 Brutus Sun, 11 May 2008 01:39:55 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143127 Bob, There have been several bills calling for troop withdrawal (of varying merits), he voted against some but he also sponsored The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. Would I prefer he had a better record on this, yes, but his record is as good as or better than Clinton's. So I assume you would vote for Clinton even though she voted against troop withdrawal legislation, so why the double standard. Bob,
There have been several bills calling for troop withdrawal (of varying merits), he voted against some but he also sponsored The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007.
Would I prefer he had a better record on this, yes, but his record is as good as or better than Clinton’s.
So I assume you would vote for Clinton even though she voted against troop withdrawal legislation, so why the double standard.

]]> By: B J White http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143126 B J White Sun, 11 May 2008 01:39:33 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143126 As long as Michigan and Florida aren't counted 'as is', given is the correct word. I would have been more impressed with Senator Obama's anti Iraq war stance if he had supported funding to begin withdrawal; that would have taken only one day....... As long as Michigan and Florida aren’t counted ‘as is’, given is the correct word.

I would have been more impressed with Senator Obama’s anti Iraq war stance if he had supported funding to begin withdrawal; that would have taken only one day…….

]]> By: Brutus http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143125 Brutus Sun, 11 May 2008 01:30:21 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143125 <i>I’m not an Obama supporter and won’t be voting for him should he be given the dem nomination,</i> given? given? Funny, I've been watching and I was under the impression that he is leading in pledged delegate count and popular vote count (yes popular vote count) because he won votes. What is the word given about? So Bob, you seemed concerned about the troops in Iraq, but you are willing to vote for McCain, or a third party candidate (equals a vote for McCain) or not at all (equals a vote for McCain). Neither Clinton or Obama will be able to immediately pull troops from Iraq, but both would have that as their goal and that's a hell of a lot better than 100 years. I'm sorry but I just don't see your logic. I’m not an Obama supporter and won’t be voting for him should he be given the dem nomination,
given? given? Funny, I’ve been watching and I was under the impression that he is leading in pledged delegate count and popular vote count (yes popular vote count) because he won votes. What is the word given about?
So Bob, you seemed concerned about the troops in Iraq, but you are willing to vote for McCain, or a third party candidate (equals a vote for McCain) or not at all (equals a vote for McCain).
Neither Clinton or Obama will be able to immediately pull troops from Iraq, but both would have that as their goal and that’s a hell of a lot better than 100 years.
I’m sorry but I just don’t see your logic.

]]> By: B J White http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143124 B J White Sun, 11 May 2008 01:30:11 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143124 Isn't it interesting how many times Senator Obama finds it necessary to be 'politically expedient'. Isn’t it interesting how many times Senator Obama finds it necessary to be ‘politically expedient’.

]]> By: PSoTD http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143123 PSoTD Sun, 11 May 2008 01:22:22 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143123 Ah, hit enter too soon: Most Americans were against going into Iraq, and it meant nothing to them. should read Most Americans were against going into Iraq, and it meant nothing to their most of their Congressional representatives. Ah, hit enter too soon:

Most Americans were against going into Iraq, and it meant nothing to them.

should read

Most Americans were against going into Iraq, and it meant nothing to their most of their Congressional representatives.

]]> By: PSoTD http://susiemadrak.com/2008/05/10/18/56/this-post-will-make-more-sense-if-you-read-the-byline/#comment-143122 PSoTD Sun, 11 May 2008 01:21:31 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24798#comment-143122 <i>His stance when he wasn’t in the Senate means nothing</i> That's the kind of opinion that got us into Iraq, and it's bullshit. Most Americans were against going into Iraq, and it meant nothing to them. It did mean something, and guess what - Hillary Clinton is finding out now that it did, and McCain will find out this fall. It took a while for it to gain power, but that stance doesn't mean nothing. His stance when he wasn’t in the Senate means nothing

That’s the kind of opinion that got us into Iraq, and it’s bullshit. Most Americans were against going into Iraq, and it meant nothing to them. It did mean something, and guess what - Hillary Clinton is finding out now that it did, and McCain will find out this fall. It took a while for it to gain power, but that stance doesn’t mean nothing.

]]>