Buckeye State Blog - Preventing civil war starts at home - Let's get ModernEsquire on the hope train first - Comments

Jesus

Brody — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:29:31 -0700

Hillary will win Pennsylvania because the laws of large numbers say you have to win once in a while... That will give her 4 wins in the last 20 states... REALLY!!! Good for her - she reminds me of that lowered expectations skit from the old Saturday Night Live... Obama has cut off the possibility of a joint ticket because Hillary's 51% philosophy has nothing to do with change, or brining more people into the Democratic party, or anything of substance other than possibly trying to put a Clinton back in the White House.

This race more and more reminds me of a Chris Rock sketch from back in the days when they talked about Collin Powell for Bush's V.P. "Only in America would we ask a black man to be second to a person he can beat in an election." By my count Barack Hussein Obama (I can use his middle name, because I have graduated past the 6th grade) has won more states, and will have won the majority of the states (over half) and has won the popular vote (by a decent amount) and has won the delegate count...

Obama hasn't "wrapped this thing up" because of idiots like you who think a race is still going on, and newspaper and television coverage who sell more ads when they have a conflict to report on!!!

Hillary Clinton = George W. Bush... She is trying to win an election without winning the popular vote, maybe she too can get this case to be decided by the Supreme Court - because God Knows that worked out really well for everyone involved!!!!

Cant we all just get along

Steve C — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:01:26 -0700

I am of the opinion that we need to resolve this before the convention if possible. Why has Obama completely cut off the possibility of a joint ticket? Why has Obama not been able to close the deal ? Why does it look like Hillary will win solidly in Pennsylvania ? Why do some if not most of the new Obamanics hate the Clintons? These questions and the huge dispute over the Michigan and Florida delegations could seriously hurt our chances in Nov. We in the blogesphere should be discussing options to resolve these issues. My thought is a joint ticket with Hillary at the top. She has the practical knowledge as to how to run the Federal Government. With her and Bill we can bring back the good times and Obama can get the practical knowledge that he needs to become more seasoned. We could have a 16 year Democratic ruling period. What an idea !!!

Train wreck

Eman — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:21:36 -0700

Superdelegates were put in place first and foremost to give the party the flexability to avoid a train wreck. While they are free to take note of how their districts voted, they are not, nor should they be tied to how their district voted. Sure, they may pay a price when they are up for reelection, but this is where the call for leadership comes up. I'm not saying we are there yet but the track we are on is leading to a train wreck. It is up to the superdelegates - the democratic party leaders - to figure out how we get through the nomination process without disaster.

it's not amusing, it's dead serious

Tim Russo — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:12:31 -0700

the choice is not between Hillary and Barack. it's between Barack and John McCain via civil war. that's your choice to make, not mine.

general sherman is offering the folks in second place an opportunity to be heroes. that doesn't mean general sherman is going home to the wife.

Gen. Sherman turns peacenik

modernesquire — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:07:11 -0700

Look, Tim, this is amusing. It really is. I love the change of tone from the past week, I really do, and that's not snark.

But it's absolute nonsense to say that all the new voters that have come out in these races are Obama voters. Since Iowa, young voters simply haven't been turning out in larger than in the past.

We all know here in Ohio that we've shattered all prior turnout figures in a primary. Clinton won by ten points. How'd she do it if Obama is getting all these new voters (and they split the Republican voters)?

You guys take it as an article of faith that all new "true" Democratic voters are pulling for Obama and that all new Democratic voters for Clinton are fraudsters. But since the Republican vote in Ohio was split exactly, that's demonstratively false.

And young people didn't turn out in larger numbers while seniors stayed home, either. Clinton is leading in race after race among the most dependable turnout voters demographically.

I sat here for a month listen to you and Jerid put standard after standard of what Clinton was going to have to do in Ohio to justify her staying in the race, and then preemptively attack her because she would stay in the racce despite not reaching those benchmarks.

And yet, she did reach those benchmarks and you guys are telling us that she should still drop out of the race. It's crazy.

It's not over. Not by a longshot. Obama doesn't have the nomination secured; he's still 400 delegates away and not likely to get them before Denver, either. You guys always talk about Clinton's math as why she can't possibly win until the convention, but conveniently ignore that the same can be said of Obama.

Why when my candidate has done something you guys predicted was politically impossible should I abandon her for a candidate who can't close the deal when he has practically every advantage and outspends her two to one (not counting the heavy union Obama-surrogate spending, too)?

It's obvious that the Obama campaign went all-out to try and end the race last week, and they failed. Why should I back a guy whose prior biggest campaign victory was defeating a carpetbagging Alan Keyes? Someone who won only five counties out of 88 in a battleground state like Ohio? (Most of them solidly dependable Democratic counties in the general.)

Tim, I like you, I really do, but given the tone you took even after Tuesday, and you want to blame ME for continuing a civil war?

I'll support the Democratic nominee, and I won't whine about how unfair it is or undemocratic. Even though I do believe that given the number of caucuses we've seen where people alleged they were shut out and denied the right to vote, the caucus process isn't very democratic. Will you do the same, even if it means Clinton gets the nomination? After all, we all knew the rules of the game beforehand and that superdelegates exist to be unpledged delegates who are to serve as a check against the pledged delegates. If you looked into the history of the superdelegates, you'd know that.

Nomination by coup is nonsense. You and Jerid here are asking for the Ohio superdelegates to ignore the 1.2 million Democrats who voted for Clinton, ignore the fact that the constituents who elected them voted Clinton (some by large numbers like in Charlie Wilson's district) and overwhelming go to Obama. And you're going to call when the Clinton campaign does it a coup?

You want to make it sound like it's 1968 all over again. I think it's about time we had a convention that was worth watching. Think how many people are going to watch your candidate and mine and all the other Democratic leaders in Denver. Do you honestly think the GOP is going to get that many people to watch a tribute to the leadership of George W. Bush and listen to John McCain read from his notebook paper?

here's why, modern

Tim Russo — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:25:57 -0700

this isn't a close race thats getting closer. it's an over race that's getting more over by the day.

you should join us because the only other alternative is to continue the kind of campaign that gives us a weekly descent into divisiveness that geraldine ferraro just gave us. it's not going to help put hillary over the top. nothing will, because that is a mathematical fact.

the choice is not between obama and hillary anymore. it's a choice between obama and civil war which = john mccain is the next president.

and it's not going to be over after denver if this nomination by coup happens. how far will black turnout be supressed after that? how many of the new voters Obama's brought into the fold will just throw up their hands and go home? for good?

we can't afford that.

c'mon, modern. do the right thing.

Tim, you made me chuckle...

modernesquire — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:35:00 -0700

I love this. :)

A week later and suddenly Tim is trying to make ME look the agitator. It's funny. Although, Tim, I think you'll find your honey approach will attract more for the O-train than vinegar.

Why should I, or any Ohio superdelegate, ignore the will of the 1.2 million Ohioans who voted for Hillary Clinton and support the candidate who won only 5 out of 88 counties in Ohio among our own base voters?

Why should superdelegates like Tim Ryan, Marcy Kaptur, and Sherrod Brown ignore the will of the very constituency that has made them superdelegates? Why should I now oppose a candidate who had a much broader base of support in Ohio and largely carried the most reliable and large voting blocs?

How many times have I read Obama supporters says that the superdelegates should vote in accordance with their constituency (Rhine McClin, for example), but now say that only applies when it favors Obama?

To avoid a civil war that will last less time than Grenada? A "civil war" that will be over after Denver?

And why? Because despite practically every advantage and heavily outspending Clinton, Obama couldn't close the deal last week? Like that's Hillary's fault? For a candidate who probably still couldn't secure the nomination before Denver even if Clinton were to drop out today?

You, Jerid, and countless others said that Clinton should drop out of the race unless she carried Ohio by at least eight points, but preferably, double digits. Privately, I told you guys that if Hillary couldn't carry Ohio, I'd switch.

She did exactly what you guys said she needed to do to justify staying in the race. Now, you guys are saying she should drop out anyways.

I don't mean to get personal here, Tim, but after Jerid predicting Obama would carry California, you predicting Ohio would turn out like Wisconsin, and Kos' general history of making lousy predictions (how's Senator Lamont doing now adays?), I'm not comfortable relying on the predictions that Obama is the safer bet for November.

I don't deny that Obama isn't the frontrunner, but he's not the presumptive nominee. He hasn't put the race into McCain-Huckabee territory, especially when Clinton has more pledged delegates than McCain and the margin between Obama and Clinton is approximately half the total number of delegates Huckabee actually has.

It's a close race that I sense is getting closer. I think you do, too.

Preventing civil war starts at home - Let's get ModernEsquire on the hope train first

Tim Russo — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:04:46 -0700

All politics is local, right? Here at BSB, we've had a vigorous debate between the Obama contingent (principally myself and Jerid), and our good friend, fellow attorney, and soon to be drinking buddy ModernEsquire. It's time for the BSB community to come together and fight to stop this impending civil war in our party, and the first step is getting us all together on the same page.

I hereby invite ModernEsquire, a truly worthy member of the Ohio blogosphere's best advocates, to join us on the hope train, and advocate to superdelegates in Ohio to prevent what will surely be an utterly destructive civil war should Hillary Clinton attempt to overturn Barack Obama's lead in popular votes, states won, and delegates, at the Denver convention.

The stakes could not be higher. If we join together, we can make the Democratic Party nomination for president worth having. If we don't, that nomination won't be worth squat. It will tear us apart, suppress our own base turnout, send hundreds of thousands of energized new voters home with a sick taste in their mouths, and ensure that John McCain is our next president.

Modern, there's a lot of room on the O-Train. Come on board. And BSB readers, help make him feel at home. Let's make it an easy decision for Modern.