Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I think Biden would be good at several cabinet positions but I just can't see removing a sitting Dem Senator with such a close split in the Senate. I'd like to gain a couple more seats and kick Lieberman's butt to the curb.
Last Edit: May 7, 2008 17:21:01 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
I think Biden would be good at several cabinet positions but I just can't see removing a sitting Dem Senator with such a close split in the Senate. I'd like to gain a couple more seats and kick Lieberman's butt to the curb.
In the event of a vacancy, that state's governor usually nominates the replacement (depending on what state law on special elections has to say - depends on what portion of the term's been served). They're usually free to choose whomever they like, but don't often rile feathers by going with someone of a party other than the one that won the last election. So I don't imagine Biden going to the Cabinet to be a big problem for the Dems at large.
Biden having reservations about losing his accumulated seniority in the Senate might be another story.
^^Good point. If conditions would all but guarantee a Dem replacement for Biden, I think he would be a great Sec of State or Defense or even National Security Advisor
Conditions all but guarantee it, if he wanted to. So it depends on whether he wants to return to the Senate. He got elected when he's around thirty. I'm not sure his exact age, but it's got to be in the neighborhood of 60. That's five or six terms. If he leaves the Senate, he probably wouldn't be guaranteed choice committee chairmanships like he does now. I'm not certain about that; that's probably the Senate Rules Committee's jurisdiction, though, so they can decide that kind of thing internally.
Post by strumntheguitar on May 8, 2008 14:06:23 GMT -5
^^sounds like a political clusterfuck just waiting to happen. I really can't believe the Clinton campaign is being so adamant about counting Florida and Michigan. I mean, they clearly broke the rules. The only reason anyone would think they should count is because Hillary won them. I will lose all faith in politics and government if by some strange chance they end up counting those states. I don't see it happening though.
Instead, I really think Clinton is going to destroy her own political career trying to win the nomination...
They'll probably be counted. The thing is, even if they're counted... Obama still wins.
Clinton is still on the attack. She is now claiming that Obama cannot win the general because white Americans don't support him, and her supporters don't support him.
Guess what Hill, if your supporters don't end up supporting Obama in the general... ITS YOUR FAULT! You need to start the healing process and make damn sure your supporters end up supporting him. You need to friggin CAMPAIGN FOR HIM like he'd do for you if you'd won. You didn't win, you lost, its farking over.
There's a huge uproar about Hill-dog's comments today about Obama not being able to win the "white" vote. I think she's really gonna regret saying that. It's obvious to everyone, execpt those dead end supporters of hers, that she's just trying to divide and conquer. This is why I lay the blame for any political backlash, or loss in November, squarely at the feet of these undecided super delegates.
You can't blame superdelegates here, politics aside.
Especially an undecided superdelegate from a state that has yet to vote. A common reason for support given from superdelegates is that they will vote the way of their district. Not every district has a result to inform superdelegates. There are still-undetermined superdelegates because not all the county conventions etc. have taken place to appoint them all. Not every undecided superdelegate is undecided because their head is up their ass. In some cases, it's just not far enough in the procedural process to have that decision. We won't see the complete roster of convention delegates until after Bonnaroo.
Even if they had all decided on one candidate or another, it's not official until it gets voted on at the Dem convention in late August. Since they don't have to commit at this point, their endorsements could always change.
I understand those super delegates from districts where they haven't voted yet not declaring themselves. It's mainly the "super" super delegates that piss me off. Pelosi, Gore, Jimmy Carter, and the like. I know that even if just one of them decided to break towards Obama, it would go a long way towards ending this fiasco. I'd just like to see some balls from one of the big party insiders to take a step forward and do something. It's mainly just my own frustration with seeing this continue when I know it doesn't have to.
On another note, there seems to be some hub-bub about McCain's pastor now. I guess he said that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for the gay pride parade that was to be held there at the same time. Somehow, I don't see the media latching on to that one. After all, race isn't involved
On another note, there seems to be some hub-bub about McCain's pastor now. I guess he said that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for the gay pride parade that was to be held there at the same time. Somehow, I don't see the media latching on to that one. After all, race isn't involved
I know, right? You don't hear any hubbub over all the controversial remarks Billy Graham has made. You don't hear anyone talking about how Rod Parsley, one of McCain's spiritual advisors, has called for the destruction of Islam (even calling it a "false religion), or anything about his hateful anti-gay rhetoric. And you certainly don't hear anything about how, during the Monica Lewinsky fiasco, Hillary and Bill brought to the White House none other than Reverend Jeremiah Wright for some spiritual counseling.
Nothing major. Sidestepped all questions that sounded like they were trying to discern his endorsement. Explicitly declined to offer an endorsement. Calls Obama the "presumptive nominee." Wouldn't share how he cast his vote in the NC primary. Squeezed in a plug for a working-class issues lobbying group.
polls show oboma wont win mass in the general. do you know when the last time mass didnt vote demacratic was!? never! we were the only state not to vote for nixon
"Sen. Barack Obama moved into the lead today in the last category that Sen. Hillary Clinton had claimed to have an edge -- support among the Democratic Party's superdelegates.
The Illinois Democrat grabbed the superdelegate lead thanks to a switch by New Jersey Rep. Donald Payne and an endorsement from previously uncommitted Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon.
Those two votes gave Obama a 267-266 lead over Clinton. That is a huge shift since the days when Clinton boasted about a 60-plus vote lead among the party's pros back on Super Tuesday. "
Nothing major. Sidestepped all questions that sounded like they were trying to discern his endorsement. Explicitly declined to offer an endorsement. Calls Obama the "presumptive nominee." Wouldn't share how he cast his vote in the NC primary. Squeezed in a plug for a working-class issues lobbying group.
I saw this this morning and it was just ridiculous. Diane Sawyer tried a similar thing with someone a few months ago. Both just look like they're trying to trap the politician into something that can become a negative ad. Who cares what they actually have to say? Let's get them to say what we want them to say.
I'm kind've a lurker and I just wanted to say that although I am far from a democratic superdelegate, I was a Hillary supporter until some point last night. I'm switching my allegiance. (We aren't ALL batshit crazy)
I'm kind've a lurker and I just wanted to say that although I am far from a democratic superdelegate, I was a Hillary supporter until some point last night. I'm switching my allegiance. (We aren't ALL batshit crazy)