Please educate me - What really can happen if

[Genevieve]

she takes this all the way to the convention?
:scared:

[LisaL]

1. A brokered convention.

[Exilednight]

10. No. A candidate will be picked on the first ballot unless they are seperated by less than 19 ......

delegates, the same amount that Edwards currently holds. You do not want to be one of 18 elite SD's to vote for a nominee that claims the other candidate is an elitist.

[MikeDJohn]

2. President McCain nt

[WeDidIt]

3. She loses on the first vote, but the party is divided

at the end of August with not enough time left to unite before the general election.

In other words, if she does that she does not alter the outcome of the primaries but she does alter the outcome of the general election and John McCain wins.

[LWolf]

4. A brokered convention,

which may be the only way, at this point, to field a decent nominee in November.

[karynnj]

18. That is a sore loser attitutde

and it is particularly appalling coming from Clinton people (I don't think you are ???). In 2004, Carville was wistfully saying the same thing - even though John Kerry had the number of pledged delegates to win the whole thing. It is not unusual - but 1968 was the last time there was anything that could be called a brokered convention - and it destroyed the Democrats - even though Nixon was no more likable in 1968 than he had been in 1960.

[LWolf]

19. I am not a Clinton person,

and it's much more than a "sore loser" attitude.

For me, the nomination of a neoliberal like Obama or Clinton is a party-breaker. I see the brokered convention as the only hope for the future of the party. If we put a neoliberal in power as a Democrat in '08, I don't think the party will recover; at least, not as a party I want anything to do with.

I see the traditional base fracturing towards 3rd parties, me included. I don't think that's a good thing for the long term health of the party or the nation, so I will continue to hold out hope for that admittedly unlikely scenario.

That's not "sore loser." It's a last ditch defense of the Democratic Party.

I find, frankly, the farce of a primary season we've endured appalling, and both Clinton and Obama appalling.

[karynnj]

21. I don't see a brokered convention and I do not see Obama as a neo-liberal

I can't imagine who you want. Gore clearly is uninterested and was the first DLC candidate in 1988 - Obama never joined the DLC and may be the most liberal candidate we ever had. Edwards was DLC through and through when he was in the Senate and doesn't have much foreign policy experience or preference.

I do see Obama as the only one who was potentially differeent and liked his links to Kerry and Hart.

[LWolf]

25. Obama is not a liberal,

and one of the things that infuriates me is the pretense that he is.

Gore is the obvious choice, and has grown quite a bit since the Clinton years. Edwards has shifted left as well.

Either of them would do nicely.

It's increasingly unlikely that the convention will be brokered; that's true.

I don't believe that Obama can unify the party and win in November. I'll hold out for the long-shot hope of someone different while I still can.

That's the only "hope" I have left when it comes to electing another president.

[karynnj]

28. This is ridiculous

Look at Obama's record he is a liberal. The thing I don't get is that Gore and Edwards - because they are fan favorites are suddenly called liberals - though nothing in their history suggests it. Edwards most definately can't unite the party - why on earth would they turn to a mediocre one term Senator who won exactly one primary in two elections.

Gore is mostly about global warming now and that is really not a liberal/conservative issue. In 1988, Gore was the bottom or my list and that of most liberals - because he was about as conservative as a Democrat gets. He was the first DLC candidate. He was the one who debated Perot on NAFTA. Tipper led the crusade for labels. Gore has done an fantastic job on teaching people about global warming - but he is not a liberal.

As to Edwards, he very likely cast his first vote for NIXON. He voted for the bankruptcy bill and he was extremely hawkish. What I dislike is that he pretends that didn't happen - as does Elizabeth, who spoke of how even before she had cancer she and John were for universal healthcare - now that would mean 2004. In fact, Edwards bashed Kerry for having a near universal plan saying he couldn't pay for it and that it was too expensive - Kerry's answer showed both who was the more liberal and who deserved the seat he had on the Finance Committee.

Say that you don't like Obama and others and like Edwards and Gore - don't say the former group is not liberal - and the latter one is. Edwards in particular has done nothing but talk in a more liberal way.

[LWolf]

30. I didn't say Gore or Edwards was "liberal."

I said that Obama is not.

I do happen to like Gore and Edwards both better. At least, when they speak, they hit some liberal points. If primary candidates campaign to the left, and then move to the so-called center for the GE, how much further right will Obama go for the GE?

If I have to have a centrist, I'd rather it be Gore or Edwards, that's for sure.

Obama is not a liberal. Mentor pay and charter schools aren't liberal ideas, on the liberal agenda. They are on the conservative agenda.

Leaving private insurance and pharmaceutical companies controlling the delivery of health care is a corporate agenda, not a liberal agenda.

The bogus "war on terror" is not a liberal action.

NAFTA is not liberal.

Ronald Reagan was not a liberal, and admires of the Reagan era and the way Reagan "changed the trajectory" away from the "excesses of the 60s and 70s." Obama sees the LIBERAL actions and accomplishments of the 60s and 70s as "excessive."

Obama is not liberal. Please stop pretending that he is.

[karynnj]

35. I do not think that any politician exactly fits a label

That said, Obama's positions and actions over his life would but him to the left of Edwards and Gore.

How much do you know about charter schools? They can be done as a liberal idea. I have a sister who is the principle of a charter school that gets the kids that are failing the main high school - it is part of her town's public school system and is funded by the number of kids there. The goal is to use as many alternative methods as possible to try to find something that works. I assume you mean merit pay - that idea is not so much liberal/conservative but that the union doesn't like it. If merit could be sensibly measured - giving more to people who help the kids the best would be good. I did read Obama's education ideas and the idea to look at the how the group of students did at the end of a year vs the beginning makes sense.

HRC and Edwards rely on private insurance and drug companies as much as Obama. In fact, Obama has taken Kerry's re-insurance for catastrophic costs plan. That is a back door to moving to a single payer plan for the biggest cost. If it did drive down costs, it would make sense to lower the threshold for additional (though smaller) gains.

Obama is no different on the "war on terror" than Kerry - who wrote about the dangers of non-state terrorism in the 1990s and saw the solution as international law enforcement and intelligence and occasionally needing military action, often in concert with the host country. The tools that Kerry proposed against international money laundering have led to some of the few successes. People like Kerry always said the phrase "war on terror" was a misnomer, but the fact is that just as globalization has changed the way legitimate companies operate causing new problems, there has been a globalization of crime - creating new problems and needing new solutions. Obama has three experts that I know and trust on this on his side - Richard Clarke, who opted to advise him since early 2007 when he was thought to have no chance. Gary Hart who with Rudman wrote the report on terrorism that Bush ignored. Kerry is the third.

No one thinks NAFTA was liberal - my point Gore was one of the strongest advocates of it.

As to Reagan, Obama NEVER said he agreed with anything Reagan did - in fact he pointed out he was working on the South Side of Chicago trying to HELP people hurt by Reagan policies. What he said was an intellectual truth - that if you look at the waves of change - the pendulum swings in policies - the phase we are in is the last phase (hopefully) of the wave of change brought in in 1980 with Reagan. It was not just Reagan. Some of the best liberals we ever had in teh Senate were thrown out - McGovern, Bayh, Magnuson, Nelson - to name a few. The politics changed overnight with that election. He is correct that even though we gained the White House (and still had the House and I think Senate) in 1992 - the legislation passed was more conservative than liberal. He also spoke of Nixon doing many liberal things because he was President in a liberal wave - the EPA and other Nixon actions were not conservative.

[LWolf]

37. How much do I know about Charter schools?

Plenty. I'm an educator, I've worked for districts that approved charter schools, and worked with people who worked at them. I've also worked at some "schools of choice" which were not charter schools, but operating within the district umbrella.

Charter schools are a conservative idea, not to "find what works," etc., but to further privatize public education. Not all charters are run by private corporations, of course. Many are. One district that I worked at had a muslim charter school, as well. The bottom line is that charter schools don't have to follow all the rules and regs that the rest of us do, and while districts provide "some" oversight, usually in the form of a yearly evaluation, they don't pay nearly as much attention to them, accountability wise, as the do the rest of us.

It is perfectly possible to use different structures, different formats, different kinds of instruction, within the public system.

Merit pay is also a conservative idea. Do you know the history of these things? Do you know the reality? I do. Please don't try to present them any differently than they are.

Obama is not a liberal. Neither is HRC. I'm not pretending that Gore or Edwards are liberal, either. I'm saying that if I have to have a centrist, I'd rather have them. I also don't think Kerry was liberal as far as "the war on terror" goes. I remember his "heart-felt" reflection, after the fact, about his vote on the IWR. I wasn't impressed. There were some Democrats who knew better at the time.

Regardless of whether you consider any of these people "liberal" or not, it doesn't change my point.

Obama is not a liberal. Please don't pretend that he is. I'd have a lot more respect for Obama supporters if they would just acknowledge that he's a fairly conservative Democrat, and stop trying to pretend that he offers "hope" for any "change" that would move the party or the nation left.

[karynnj]

39. I gave you an example of where a charter school was a liberal idea

and where it is working in a way that is consistent with a liberal point of view. It is fully within the public school system in its town. They take the same accountability tests as any other school - in fact, she has to defend why more of her kids fail the standardized tests than the main school's does - every year.

There is no such thing as liberal or conservative on the war on terror. Who has a liberal position on that and what is it? Kerry was against the invasion and said so in several speeches. He was labeled anti-war through mid -2003, when Dean was pushed as the only anti-war candidate - even though it was not clear how Dean would have voted if he were a Senator. I Obama's case it is completely clear and he would have voted against it. That you accept Edwards's caviler "I was wrong", even thouggh he was pro-war and a co-sponsor, but reject Kerry's far more personal comments, even though he was clearly pushing to avoid a war, simply shows that you like Edwards and likely still resent Kerry winning the nomination in 2004. You also ignore that he has led the effort to move public opinion towards getting out since 2004. He and Feingold were the authors of Kerry/Feingold.

If you do not count Kerry and Obama as mostly liberal, there are less than 10 liberals in the Senate. Obama is not fairly conservative. Get a list of current Senators - and place them to the left or right of Obama. There will be far more to the left. If you want, you could go various organizations that do this - none of whom place Obama in the more conservative half of the party. Looked at from each of their records in government, Obama is to the left of every first or second tier candidate this year other than possibly Dodd. Compared to the 2004 pool's top 4 (Gephardt, Dean, Kerry, Edwards; I left out Clark because he has no record ), Obama is to the left of all but maybe Kerry. He is to the left of Gore, Bill Clinton and Carter. I will grant you that Kuchinich is more liberal - and absolutely unelectable.

You say;
"Regardless of whether you consider any of these people "liberal" or not, it doesn't change my point.

Obama is not a liberal."

Rather telling that you position your opinion as truth and then say you lose respect for others because we "pretend" to think otherwise. Why not give us the same respect you give yourself - that our positions are based on good faith. Consider that you are taking Gore and Edwards on faith. (Kerry and Gore have a huge overlap in the Senate (January 1985 - December 1992), there is no question who the more liberal is and was - and it was not Gore. If you read Kerry's "This Moment on Earth", you would see more who he is)

[LWolf]

42. Some individual charter schools

are started by more liberal organizers.

Establishing the legal use of public funds to be spent on charter schools that don't have to follow the same rules and regs that public schools do? That was one of the right-wing conservative ideas to further privatize public education.

The bottom line is that public funds are for public education, and public education is supposed to provide equal opportunity to all.

When most schools have phone-book sized binders full of all the laws and regs that they are required to comply with, and a few don't have to, where's the equality?

When Charter School legislation allows a private corporation to take public money for running it's private, corporate school, for example, Edison schools, that's privatization.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. Gore is no less of a neoliberal than Clinton or Obama

Edwards talks like he's a populist but his voting record says otherwise. He voted for permanent MFN status for China and then opposes a minor trade deal with Peru when he's running for President.

Russ Feingold was probably the best shot we had of getting someone who is drastically different from the DLC on trade issues. Maybe Sherrod Brown will run a few years down the road.

[LWolf]

38. I hoped Feingold would run. He didn't.

I don't need an explanation of Gore or Edwards, thanks. I don't pretend that Gore or Edwards are "liberal," just that, if I have to have a centrist, I'd prefer either of those, who have shown signs of breaking away from their centrist leanings rather than embracing them.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. I'm just saying, if you were willing to vote for them, I hope you're willing to vote for Obama

I'm not asking you to like him, just to vote for him if he is indeed the nominee.

[NashVegas]

32. I Wouldn't Call It a Party Breaker - Not in the Short Term

But I do believe that if things continue on their current path, we are going to find a certain chill in the air as we head towards a more controlled state. All under the benevolent watch of enlightened progressives (as opposed to the brutal watch of the RW). A third party of liberals will find it more difficult to truly get off the ground if there's a Dem president. Some alliances will have to be forged.

Although I voted for Clinton in the primary and support her candidacy here, I'd probably join you in that third party. This primary season has been the most blatant, cynical farce I've ever seen.

[quakerboy]

27. How likely

is that? If they find their way into a brokered convention, how likely are we to get a better candidate, honestly?

[LWolf]

31. Not likely, but not impossible.

It is, however, impossible to get a better candidate without it.

[AllentownJake]

5. She loses on the first floor vote

and its over.

However we have 2 more months of her trashing Obama publicly and privately to anyone with a camera and a microphone which is bad.

[Blarch]

6. Ummm...

That would be unforgivable.

[still_one]

7. It becomes an unknown. A brokered convention is political horse trading

We WILL lose the general election if that happens, no matter who the nominee is

If at the end of the primaries, whoever is ahead, if the other side does NOT accept that, THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR LOSS

They can play all the games and rationalization they want, but they will have screwed the country first, and the party second

[Clear Blue Sky]

8. Nothing good comes out of taking this to the convention.

[rocktivity]

9. Relax--Obama will have his 2025 delegates by then

and the MI/FL seating matter will be settled.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Genevieve]

11. Oh damn-- I do hope so! ---

There's a thread here somewhere saying that Wolfson said this morning that she is taking this to the convention.

[rocktivity]

24. If Obama has at least 2025 delegates and the MI/FL seating is settled,

she'll have nothing TO take to the convention!

:headbang:
rocknation

[still_one]

13. This whole situation is very uneasy /nt

[Genevieve]

15. absolutely. nt

[Yael]

12. Nixon, Reagan, McCain

[Bensthename]

14. Her plan for a McCain presidency becomes more possible

And then she can bring her bitter old ladies back to vote for her in 2012

[Saturday]

16. Uncalled for snark by an Obama supporter. nt

[Bensthename]

17. Huh, I am for Hillary.. You silly..

[rucky]

20. Ron Paul's taking it all the way to his convention.

Just some food for thought.

[calimary]

29. Let's hope bob barr does, too!

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080511/NATION/904208419/1001

A little disarray on their side is good for ours!

:toast:

[BlooInBloo]

22. Obama wins. Nothing to worry about.

[tokenlib]

23. Hillary's SD base will erode significantly before the convention....

..at least enough to handicap her ability to create too much mischief.

At least I am hoping and praying for that.

[grantcart]

26. Virtually every single SD will abandon her

Schumer in Feb. No way are they going beyond June 3rd my money is on May 20th on the 21st the financials come out.


"The number one thing that people worry about is that the candidates will cut each other up and make it harder to win the general," he said. "But I think that is not going to happen. Because everyone cares about winning so much. Not only the candidates, but the electorate. So if one candidate is doing something that is regarded as really self-destructive, of the ability to win, that's really going to hurt them."

"It would widely be regarded negatively in the electorate," he said.

Obviously, this isn’t to suggest, as the Obama campaign has, that there’s no legitimate way for Hillary Clinton to come back from her recent string of defeats. And the definition of “something that is regarded as really self-destructive” will vary widely, depending on who’s plotting the self-destructive act in question. But it’s worth keeping in mind if and when the Clinton campaign is faced with the choice of whether or not to try to win this thing based on superdelegates or the results of noncompetitive primaries in Florida and Michigan.

[kentuck]

34. There may be some wishful thinking?

But Obama does need to win the popular vote...

[Genevieve]

36. No, Obama does not need to win the popular vote.

Which he is winning anyway.

[gkhouston]

40. No one really knows. It depends on how much power the Clinton name

still has by the convention. Hillary might still wield a lot of influence by then -- or she might be perceived as a national joke.