The delegates' obligation to vote for McCain is only to the extent that they are a legally (as opposed to morally) bound delegate. That's it.

Ex. Ohio (I think) is a "winner take all" state. McCain won Ohio. But guess what? The delegates are under NO obligation to vote for him--Ohio's delegates are unbound.

The MSM is presuming that because Romney and Huckabee threw their support to McCain, their delegates automatically get assigned to McCain as if they are legally bound. Not so. Hence in part the presumption that the nomination is hemmed up. Those delegates can vote for whoever they wish, frontrunner status be darned.

IMO, I think the MSM's numbers on McCain's delegates are significantly, if not grossly, inflated. If McCain had the nomination locked up, we wouldn't have a need for a convention to decide it.

Uhhh, he already holds a national office. He is a U.S. Representative (who btw secured his re-election to Congress).

P.S. Intelligent discourse isn't naively making decisions based on a biased source that are perpetuating myths, misconceptions, and half-truths and passing them off as fact (read: the MSM).

"We're not a respectable (TV) network. We're a whorehouse network. We take [ratings and profits] any way we can get it." ~Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall), from the movie Network.

I meant executive office. But thanks for clarifying a point that everyone already knows. He's got a nice, cozy, no-opponent-in-the-general-election congressional seat there that he can stay comfortable in. And enjoy.

ETA: I just read your edited/added parts and again, don't assign all your big-word-mumbo-jumbo to me 'cuz you don't know me, and I'd caution you that making decisions based on zealot-driven websites, blogs and I don't know how else the Paulettes communicate, leaflets, maybe?, is the best way to go either. And oo, a movie quote against "the system". That's unique. And effective in "intelligent discourse"! But hey, you do you.

I don't see that happening either... they will both fight until the bitter end I think.

Hill did hint to a joint ticket with Obama as her VP, but I don't think he'll go for it.

Don't they communicate by racist Ron Paul newsletters, according to the press about a month ago?

Perhaps even more funny than Kapital PhiNust's claim that the Republican delegates are all going to abandon McCain is the idea that if they did, they'd go for Ron Paul because despite his inability to win many delegates in the primaries, more people will be interested in voting for Ron Paul in the general election.

It's worth a chuckle to really think it through.

Particularly when things have ended up as decisive for McCain with GOP voters as they have, and he's polling as well against the Democratic candidates as he is.

It's not that I think he will necessarily win the general, but he won't end up with the GOP equivalent of of Mondale and Dukakis results, I don't think.

can someone help me figure this out?
 

Why is Obama making such a huge deal about the tax returns? Is it to prove he makes less than her and is more like "one of us" to try to make himself more appealing or something?

What does it really matter what any of them make? They are politicans.... Hill is even married to a Former President... I'm sure they make a ton of money just for speaking at events and such.

I guess I don't get it why it's such a huge deal? Maybe I'm missing something?

I'm guessing, and that's all it is, is that he expects that the sources of the Clinton's income, in terms of Bill's outrageous speaking fees and maybe even some corporate boards, will rub a lot of people the wrong way, and maybe even just a little bit of how hard it will be for them to keep selling "we speak for the common" man when people see the amount and sources of income.

The Obamas are rich by most people's standards, but I don't think their household income will seem as bad in comparison.

Uh...at a loss?

Then just say this.

Osama Obama has been used over and over and it's usually used to play-up his name and the general fear of Islam, rather than a discussion of his views on terrorism. So there's no way to assume that you mean it differently than others have used it.

pssst ......guess what everytime you do the "Osama Obama" thing.....you aren't doing anything but helping it along....


try focusing on an issue.....a RELEVANT issue

and this is being whispered along

(US News) Senior Democratic strategists, many of whom had previously panned talk of a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket, are now talking up the idea of a ticket headed by Barack Obama with Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

"The campaign has created a lot of hurts, but it might be the only way she can get to the top job," said a party strategist with ties to the Clintons.

"It would give her a chance to deal with all her negatives, but she'd have to prove herself in the job," said the strategist. Another suggested that the twinning is unlikely but might be the best way to rally the party against John McCain, the likely Republican nominee. "If it happened--if, if--they might be able to build on the change message by saying this is the biggest change in politics ever."

What's more, he said, by having Clinton as vice president, it would mean that former President Bill Clinton wouldn't have as large an office in the White House as he would as first husband, meaning his actions would win less attention by the media. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have said in the past that women face a glass ceiling in politics and that grabbing the vice presidency is the best way to break through.

Republican officials, told of the Obama-Clinton buzz, said that it would be an easy ticket to beat because it would include two very liberal candidates who've proposed massive new spending programs and who lack McCain's experience.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3900078.shtml

The Obama "how rich am I" comparison is lost on me, too. I know that he is doing what other politicians do and that's try to appeal to as many people as you can appeal to. So getting his endorsement from the labor union and some of his initiatives will lead to an attempt to say "I'm not in the top % of this country, I'm closer to the rest of this country than Clinton is."

****

Does Obama have corporate sponsors or not? My friend and I were talking about how all of these endorsements can lead to a conflict of interests. Whose agenda do you really push if you're being funded by corporations AND labor unions? The interest of the corporations directly conflicts with that of the labor unions in most regards. Even when workers and labor unions are having their demands met, it is still in the best interest of corporate profit and capitalism. So that is one thing that some of us question when it comes to politics.

The only reason I'm asking this about Obama specifically is because his supporters basically had a parade when he was endorsed by the labor union.

I thought the Teamsters was a really big deal.....now I am wondering....

If that is really the case (which I know you are only guessing, 'cause so was I), then I think he's more lame now than I thought he was before.

Yeah, it seems a little lame, but as he gets a little sullied with the Rezko situation, he probably thinks that he is still clean in comparison, and I think he probably is. So, he's looking for ways to remind people of that.

Eh--all of this stuff is only as important as we make it.

I wasn't moved either way, except that it made my eyebrow raise. You can't be everything to everybody.

Interesting thought.
However, the POV of someone I know who is working for Clinton is that she will NOT take on the role of VP. And the person I know seems to be a a close "circle" as they seem to regularly have dinner with her.

But only time will tell.

Oh really? I've unfortunately been out of the media loop today with being rather bogged down with work [wohm wohm wohhhhm].

Lemme just say this about the so-called "frontrunners":

McCain scares me with his talk on foreign policy. I can see it now:

January 20, 2009: McCain gets inaugurated.
January 21, 2009: McCain drops an 200 megaton nuke on Iran.
Januray 22, 2009: McCain drops a 200 megaton nuke on Iraq.

If McCain wins the White House, someone better call Dr. Strangelove. And to think I thought The Ghoul was evil!! *shudders*

Mind you, I don't find this country out of harm's way (economically, domestically, or foreign policy-wise) with either Obama or Clinton in office, though I doubt their tactics and measures won't be quite as extreme. But let's not split hairs.

I will fight tooth and nail to keep all of them away from the White House.

If you dropped two 200 megaton nukes on those targets, would there even be a Middle East left?

Yeah, you do that. Let us know how that one-man battle goes.

The histrionics make your "arguments" beyond ridiculous. I'm not a McCain voter, but to even suggest he'd launch nukes just days after his inauguration is so blindingly stupid it's indescribable. Though I can't believe I'm even entertaining this discussion with a counter-point, the logistics of bugging all of the Americans and other troops on "our side" out of Iraq before "dropping the bomb" (please) are impossible and it would never ever ever ever be entertained.

*lol* Nittany, you amuse me. You really do.

I was exaggerating details to make a point. I didn't think you actually thought I believed McCain would actually start nuking nations on Day Two of his tenure in office. Try some decaf next time, Nittany, goodness....

*lol again*

You talk about fighting "tooth and nail" to keep someone out of the White House and you're telling me to drink decaf. Yeah, I'm the one without a solid grip on reality. I'm glad I amuse you, Kappy, one of us should be interesting. Keep tippin' at those windmills!

It's not just that although part of Obama's appeal is that "common man" thing. He and his wife only paid off their student loans and got out of debt after his book became a best seller.

It's more the fact that Hillary's campaign funding has to be reported, but the Clintons won't reveal where donations to the Presidential Library are coming from, for example. And she put 5 million of her own money into that campaign, if it came from someone shady via Bill than it will look really bad. And honestly the more the Clintons protest the more it looks like they have something to hide.

Does anyone know what's new with the Ron Paul blimp? ;)

I think it's hard for anyone as currently rich as the Clintons to pass off the "common man" thing, but they've both claimed to represent the interest of the working class. The Obama's are rich today, but I don't think it probably compares to how much any former president can pimp himself out if he wants to.

Because it's the Clintons, I suspect they do have things to hide. I'm not saying Republicans are cleaner, but the Clintons are more financially compromised in a personal way that most politicians, I think. With others, it may be someone doing shady things on behalf of an industry or business connection, with the Clintons, they're usually tied in directly and it can be traced more easily, or so it seems to me.

Guarantee?? How much are you willing to put up???:D;)

Everything I own.

*pause*

OK, how about $50 and a bucket of KFC? :p :D

This is probably going to come out wrong, because I'm typing but here goes:

I don't know if either of the Clinton's took out student loans. Maybe neither of them had to because their families were either already wealthy and just paid outright for it for their educations... maybe they started a nestegg when the two were born. (If they didn't get loans?)

Why does it matter if/when they did, and even if they did, why would it be wrong that they are already paid off? They are at least 10ish yrs older than the Obamas, and her husband was the President of the US for awhile and prior to that he was doing all kinds of snazzy jobs where I'm sure they would have used funds to pay off the loans if they did have them, they both had books, and I'm sure they get paid to give speeches and all, they would have to pay back their loans just like everyone else.

I took out student loans... a bunch... and I've been out of school for almost 3ish years now... guess what? I'm not a millionaire, I don't make an insane amount of money... but I've managed to pay off more than half of them already. I'm not even 27 yet. It can be done. Does that make me some super rich elitist person? No. I just lived on a tight budget and put whatever free money I could to pay off the bank.

I just don't get this whole "well I just paid off my college loans so see? I'm just like you! You should vote for me!!!!" stuff.

What does Bill Clinton's Presidential Library have to do with any of this? Him & Hill are two completely seperate different people.

Sorry but I'm not buying the whole "YEEEESSSS WEEEEE CAAAAAAN!!!" crap.

Not that I'd vote for either of the Dems., but I do think Hillary should release her tax returns AND her papers from her time as first lady. I'm not believing that, oh, she would, she's just been busy. :rolleyes:

Yep.

I'm not predicting there won't be ANYthing for critics to feed on once the Clinton tax return is released, but I think Obama's team are mainly reacting to the talking heads last night that said he was getting dinged by the Rezko thing and the staff member/Canadian official dealings and he needed to hammer on the "question" about her releasing her returns to try to deflect some stuff on her. Everything I've read in response to what's been lobbed is that their 2007 return will be released on or around April 15th. Isn't that tax day? Is it unreasonable they don't file/release their return until tax day?

And all of her papers have been given back to the Archives from what I understand and it's up to them to release them.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...linton-hiding/

It doesn't appear to be just the 2007 return. It's all their returns since they left the White House.

I don't really believe that it's the archive that won't release her papers. I think it's terms that she set (or Bill set).

http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351

Ok, I misspoke. According to the article, they plan to release all of those returns on or about April 15th. Real judgement can come after that happens (or if at that point it doesn't happen).

You do realize that article is from October 2007, right?

Let's join each other in 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022902989.html

Great last line:"So calling on the Clintons to release their papers makes for great campaign theater. But it's theater that has no bearing on reality."

I really don't care how rich or poor any of the candidates are, and whether they had to take out student loans to get their law degrees or not. For that matter, I really don't care too much how they do their taxes, either. All of these things are distractions from the important stuff, and I really think the democrats should shut their mouths and stop bringing up stuff that could haunt the party when it gets to the general election. The Democratic party insiders and strategists really need to have more foresight. If they thought to anticipate what media or the Republicans might say/do later, they wouldn't do some of the stuff they do.

The article I posted is less than five months old. I don't think that much has changed.

The law says that the materials should be available to the public five years after an administration ends. The documents aren't. Perhaps they should have started the vetting process within the five year window, so the documents would be available now.

While you are accepting of a Washington Post's editorial page contributor's take, I'm not. I think the Clintons are happy with the hold-up, or they would make more things available themselves, like the tax returns.

And if they hadn't had a reputation for withholding documents that might be damaging, I think I'd be more accepting of the claims in the article. But they were, and I'm not.

I think that the financial stuff is actually relevant since there's a perception in the public mind that some folks have been bought or are beholden or just in bed with some pretty distasteful folks financially. The sources of income are worth knowing in my opinion. But I don't hold it against anybody that they are rich.

I agree with what you are saying about it being smarter not to damage each other, but it also may be the case that airing it now makes it seem like old news by the general election. There's just no way to know.

I think a Clinton-Obama ticket makes much more sense than an Obama-Clinton one. Hillary brings the experience and better policy ideas, and Barack is on the backburner "inspiring." I'm not a fan of Obama but, as a VP, he'd have a claim to experience and be in a perfect position to ascend to the presidency in 8 years. I would think that an intelligent Democratic party would see and encourage this as a way to control the White House for (potentially) the next 16 years.

Kap...so this means that you are among those who feel like there are NO good candidates this year and if possible, you would want a do over with new candidates?