The Saturday Today Show 2/16/08

[Demeter]

Run time: 06:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2V5pbo5ujE   Posted on YouTube: February 16, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: February 18, 2008 By DU Member: Demeter Views on DU: 1642

 
Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan on Democratic Primary campaigns and Superdelegates

[comtec]

1. I hate to say it but Bucky (and RM of course) is right

if the selection is decided by the super deligates and has nothing to do with what people actually voted, there is going to be hell to pay!

Uncle Bucky may be a right winger, but his analysis is correct on this one, IMHO.

oh yeah.... I LOVE RACHEL MADDOW!!!!!!

[Apollo11]

2. "The Republican Party is not going to cuddle baby Barack"

Pat Buchanan is absolutely correct about the mainstream media's positive treatment of Barack Obama, and its unfair treatment of Hillary Clinton.

Rachel Maddow doesn't even try to deny it. Instead, she tries to explain why the media loves Obama and then pretend that it doesn't really matter.

Unfortunately this is a no-win situation for Hillary. Al Gore and John Kerry both had similar problems with media coverage. Whining makes it worse.

In the end a lot of this race comes down to campaign strategy. Right now the Axelrod strategy is winning and the Mark Penn strategy is losing.

[Sam Ervin jret]

3. If Obama wins the most voted, the most, re. delegates they would not dare, but

they might try to sit Florida and MI if the count is close. Obama needs to win by a larger margin in the reg. del. count than the difference in the uncounted states. then the game is over for the nomination.

BUT he will have hell to pay in the General election and his followers, especially the new and the young will be shocked. If they think the Clinton team has fought dirty they have not done their history homework.

I ask them all to Google 1988,1992,1996, 2000 and 2004 elections and I don't just mean the general election, try Ros Perot + dirty tricks, see what you youngsters can find.

[Hulk]

4. Why can't MI and FL let their delegates vote for who to support??

If the candidates were allowed to toss their stories to the delegates and then let them vote after, why would that be so bad???

Remember, the popular election in those two states was totally tilted toward Hillary. The delegates most often represent the popular vote...let them decide themselves. Either that, or a whole new election, which the repug machine in FL is NOT going to allow.

[localroger]

5. A new election would be the only fair way

The states knew the rules, the candidates agreed to the sanctions, the sham elections that were held were consequently totally skewed because of who wasn't on the ballot and people staying home because they thought, correctly, that the election was meaningless. Why not let Gallup conduct a push poll crafted by the Clinton campaign and use the results of that? Same reason.

And the Florida Republican party couldn't stop the Dems from having that second election if the Democratic Party was willing to pay for it. The problem there is that the states broke the rules so the national party isn't inclined to spend millions of dollars helping them to fix the screw-up. The states broke the rules; nobody disputes that, and if there are no consquences then it's a sure thing that next cycle the primary process will be even more of a clusterf*** than this one.

[jimlup]

7. Yeah but...

The popular vote was baised by the fact that we were told that Michigan's delegates wouldn't count. I voted differently than if I had thought those delegates would have been seated. It isn't clear at all that Hillary would have won Michigan given a fair election. Obama's name wasn't on the ballot and he didn't campaign here. Clinton took Michigan by default.

I feel totally disenfranchised and pissed-off at the state democratic party leadership for putting us in this position. Many Michigan democrates feel exactly the same way.

[Sander]

6. Although I will vote for whoever is the Democratic Nominee

I am not really happy with the prospect of Hillary as our candidate. I am still very angry over NAFTA/CAFTA and the rest of the Clinton-years destruction of our trade balance and export of jobs. The Clinton/Gore/DLC legacy lead to the '94 take-over of Congress and the destruction of the historic partnership between the Democratic Party and organized labor.

That said, I think that Hillary needs to come out and repudiate those mistaken trade policies. They are Bill's legacy, but she can be her own person, if she chooses to do so. She also needs to state publicly that she made a mistake in voting for the authorization to invade Iraq. If she fails to do this, she will still be viewed as a triangulating clone of Bill, willing to do and say anything to placate the right wing.

I am also troubled by the historic MSM-generated hatred of all things Clinton, left over from Bill's administration. Most all of this was undeserved. Yet, Hillary still must carry that baggage into November, if she is the eventual nominee. This bodes not well in any contest with McCain.

In contrast, Obama is relatively baggage free. His rhetoric is awe-inspiring - invoking memories of our greatest orators - FDR, JFK, Lincoln, MLK, RFK. He is likable. People identify with him. He doesn't make the mistake of boring the voters with detailed policy discussions. AND, he is electable. Between Obama and Clinton, there is hardly a scintilla of a policy difference anyway.

I do not agree with Pat Buchanan (and never did or will). Obama is being tested right now. Nothing McCain can do or say will expose any hidden defects - any more than what the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic field have tried to expose during this primary season.