Chilly

So you're buying the double-talk of using it as a basis of how the delegates would be seated, but then calling it invalid? I think its pretty clear that they ruled that way, to make sure that Clinton couldn't "officially" claim the primary count.

No, its not. It is fair to say that Clinton is leading in the popular vote. Hay, did you know that the Democrats awarded Obama the "Uncommitted" vote? Hay, did you know that they went ahead and seated Florida? Hay, did you also know that regardless of the caucuses (which aren't included in Democratic popular vote totals), Clinton has the lead that I posted. Hay, did you know that they seated Florida and Michigan? Hay, did you know that this has NOTHING to do with the statement that Hillary is leading the popular vote being fair?

No, thats not fuzzy math, caucuses have never counted toward the Democratic primary vote total.

Or, you could do even better and get an Archos 605.

Fuzzy math? Dems gave uncommitted to Obama, so popular vote w/MI uncommitted going to Obama is Clinton +65,555. Yes, it is fair to say Clinton leads in the popular vote.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/england/west_yorkshire/7430668.stm

So, you don't see any difference between: A.) Vick owning a house where a crime has actually been committed and is known about by the fed, occupied by his family members, and having the local sheriff say on television that Vick had indeed been at the house and knew about the dog fighting. and B.) Hardy may or may not having a gun in an incident where the cops came but found no evidence of a crime. I didn't address it because it wasn't a valid point to begin with. Its plenty allowable to make our own decisions based upon the facts of the case, when there are freaking facts that have been reported. If there are no such established facts, you are assuming stuff.

The implication here is if she actually thought she had a chance, she would be having them schedule trips around the country.

Yes, because the Vick case was completely comparable to the Hardy case. Let's just throw out the nuance that there was plenty of solid evidence back in June of last year, compared to Hardy, where there was hardly anything. Right, because, you know, there was just so much evidence to the contrary.

I think that this is a possibility, for sure. The Democrats will want to look as smooth and graceful as possible, and of course, get as many snippets in the national media as possible. I would agree that this is a good way to do that. However, I see another possibility: 1.) Clinton lets Obama win, stays quiet besides giving a speech. 2.) Obama clearly leads delegates Tuesday night 3.) Clinton bows out Wednesday or Thursday, pushing the Dems back to the spotlight to highlight Clinton's exit. By the way, Clinton is already cutting staffers that she would likely keep for a gen election run: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/060...ding_staff.html

Bingo. Here in Austin, ATT works almost flawless, whereas my friends with Verizon have issues all the time.

hbd

Paranoid? You replied to my post, pointing out the obvious, so there were two ways to take your post: 1.) You were pointing out the obvious just to point out the obvious 2.) You were making a commentary about my post I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought it was #2, but I guess it was #1.

This is a completely accurate portrayal of everyone's feelings on the board.

Care to point out where in that post I said anything bad about Obama?

Naw, theres nothing wrong with it. It simply goes against the exact things Obama claims to stand for, and reinforces racist views.

Guess you've never heard of the Nokia N95.

Great

That whole 3.5 thread on intelligence pretty much killed that movie premise for me, since I knew the it was false (although, if you are HA, you'd thin the opposite lol). Still pretty decent, though.

History shows its a helluva lot harder to build a brand-spanking-new winning coalition in the general election than it is in a primary. Thats not to say he couldn't do it, but rather gives me plenty of reason to be skeptical.

Which is fine. If Obama comes out and explains that this was the full extent of his relationship, everyone should drop it. If Obama's response is "don't look at that, its a distraction", I have an issue with it. Quite frankly, I thought Obama's response to it was very well, and as long as he doesn't call it a "distraction" or anything like that, I'm happy with his response. Where I seem to disagree with you is that there are times when guilt by association is a reason to be concerned, and there are times when it is not a reason to be concerned. Simply examining a situation or a relationship is not a distraction, but a look into whether this is a time when we should be concerned or not. Obviously, with this pastor, that isn't the case. That bold statement is the one I take issue with. How do you know whether a relationship is deep or not until you look into it? Why should a candidate not have to explain a relationship that he had with a person? His entire life and judgment are under public scrutiny, and asking him about a known relationship is fine. Does the media take it too far a lot of times? Sure, they do, and with that I'd agree with Obama about. But I feel that Obama is being disingenuous when he labels stuff like Wright as a "distraction", when it is a perfectly valid thing to look into and ask him about. It gives me the impression that he isn't simply labeling distractions distractions, but that he is using labels the exact same way liberals criticize Republicans: If you're on the left, you're a far left, evil evil liberal. That is not change, that is the same old politics that I'm used to. Quite frankly, I don't think there is much to the Ayers stuff, from the media's investigations into it. But, when asked about it, instead of explaining what happened, he tried to brush it off as a "distraction". No, Obama, asking you to clarify your relationship with a member of the Weathermen in a debate is a legitimate question. If, after clarifying his relationship with Ayers, and what he says is true, then bringing it up in future debates would be a distraction. Please understand that my negativity on the situation isn't because he has some loose connection to Ayers - its that when a legitimate question was asked of him in a debate, the only debate it had been brought up in, instead of addressing it, he brushes it off as a distraction. Correct. If you were running for President under a more open-politics and more fair-campaign ticket, and were asked abut such a relationship, I would expect you to say just that: "I worked with xxxx for 10 years in Hollywood, but didn't know him outside of a business relationship." I consider myself as "in-the-know" when it comes to news as the average American. I hadn't heard of the Ayers relationship before the debate. I did not think it was an unreasonable thing to ask him about, but instead of addressing his relationship with Ayers, he primarily brushed it off as a distraction. This answer, especially when running on a more open and reform politics campaign, bothers me greatly.

The big problem with the Wright situation is Obama's about-face: "I can't disown him...", then a couple weeks later, he does just that. O RLY Which is irrelevant to my point. I think it is important to take a look at Michael Pfleger and ask yourself if he is showing good judgment by choosing him to be his spiritual leader and one of the primary shapers of his life and ideas (it is of no surprise the effect that religion has on a person). Does he choose to use good judgment in who he associates himself with? This question is a reflection of the way he thinks, and his values. I don't know much about Pfleger to know, so I'm not saying either way. What I am arguing though is that each one of these situations needs to be taken on a case by case basis and examined to see if there is a red flag there. Dismissing all of these such instances as a "game", a "distraction", and other such terms is rejecting an opportunity to find out information about Obama. Every single person also chooses when to end relationships and show judgment in doing so. Dismissing these relationships, without closely examining them, causes you to lose out on an opportunity to peek inside of someone. Obama's labeling of these issues as distractions, and dismissing people examining the relationships is wrong. If Barack Obama really wanted to change politics and campaigning for the better, he would have done this in the debate: 1.) Understood why people would be interested in his relationship with someone from the Weather Underground 2.) Fully explained his relationship with Mr. Ayers 3.) Allowed people to judge for themselves whether it was a moment of bad judgment to be associated with him, and not just dismiss it as a distraction. In contrast, we receive this response from him: Notice how he doesn't take the time to discuss the meeting in Ayers' home about the resignation of Alice Palmer, or his relationship on the board. Instead of saying "Yes, I worked with him on a board, and he was involved in some political events with me in Chicago, but it was strictly a business relationship", he dismisses the examination of his relationship with him as a distraction. He somewhat does what I want in "He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis,", but this isn't to the depth necessary to let someone judge for themselves his relationship with Ayers. His act to try to set the rules of the game and to dismiss this as a distraction reeks of old-style politics, pointing out the hypocrisy between his messages and his actions. Would I take issue with a potential President of the United States choosing to be friends with someone like Bill Ayers? You bet. Would I take issue with a potential President of the United States knowing Bill Ayers due to a business deal and a political event? Not unless there was some reason Ayers would expect kickbacks. Same with the pastors: Would I take issue with Barack Obama or John McCain choosing to have John Hagee as their own personal spiritual guide? Without a doubt it shows a lack of judgment. Would I take issue with Barack Obama or John McCain receiving an endorsement or knowing (due to politics or what have you) John Hagee? No. That difference is a very significant one. Dismissing it without really talking about what they did together is contributing to "silly season".

This idea that "Guilt By Association" is somehow wrong is something proposed by the Obama camp as a distraction (just like everything anti-Obama is a distraction). He's trying to set the terms of the game. A reflection of yourself and the way that you think can be seen through multiple things, including the decision to make someone your spiritual advisor (such as Wright or Pfleger), or to continue to be someone's friend after they claimed that they didn't kill enough people (Ayers). Is Obama guilty of being a terrorist or killing people? Of course not. However, the question that the Obama camp and supporters are ignoring by calling these "distractions" is this: Is Obama showing questionable judgment by continuing to be friends with a terrorist, or allowing someone who is a bit crazy to shape his worldview? Obama and his camp would obviously like nothing more than to have his words speak louder than his actions, and so far for a large amount of people, it has worked. We'll see if it continues to do so.

Would you be critical of the association with him, regardless of the teary-eyed incident?

Correct. Most people don't consider Airplane! the greatest movie of all-time, therefore it is underrated.