I think Eugene Robinson gets it right here

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Mrs. Clinton just doesn't like it when her opponents use her tactics against her, does she?

Obama should not have been a wimp and really gone for her throat after her shot about a "slum lord" helping to raise money for Obama's campaign. One name is all it would take: Norman Hsu.

You are correct, it will be an interesting two weeks. Here's to Obama and Mrs. Clinton attacking each other to the point that they both lose focus of the objective and Edwards winning the nomination by coming through the back door.

If Cali is correct, this could go on for another month or beyond. That would be real reality television. Riveting and entertaining. Not good for the writers out on strike.

Time to chuck Tom Brokhaw for Jerry Springer.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I disagree, and I think most Democrat commentators would as well. There were some very interesting narratives coming out of Michigan, and not really positive for Clinton, including the small 15% gap between her and "Uncommitted", and her poor showing among blacks. Imagine if she had lost.

Major network anchors may ho-hum, and the candidates themselves may not campaign there, but the vote still matters. If something other than "the expected" outcome happens ... expect it to get covered, expect it to have an influence.



It's not a "rumor." It's a rumor, and not one off Republican blogs. I'm not wagering any "karma points" on it, but it's out there and in more than one place. As I said, we'll see.

PS. I'm not claiming, by the way, that the Florida Democrat primary has the same implications as the Republican one. Just to be clear.

I am not understanding your point with regards to Florida. You indicated Obama would be in trouble because Hillary will win in Florida. You then note that it will be a factor only if something "other than the expected" occurs there. Well, she is heavily expected to win in Florida. So how will that help her, according to you, if she does? Can't Florida, with your line of argumentation, only help Obama (unless he receives almost NO votes)? Ironically, for support, you point to Michigan where Obama arguably received more publicity because Hillary only beat "uncommitted" by 16 points or so. Doesn't that support my argument that a loss in Florida won't hurt Obama at all?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

If Cali is correct, this could go on for another month or beyond. That would be real reality television. Riveting and entertaining. Not good for the writers out on strike.

Time to chuck Tom Brokhaw for Jerry Springer.

Wow - a month or more of bickering could be more than I could have hoped for. It makes me chuckle to watch Mrs. Clinton seethe when she doesn't get her way.

As a person, I like Obama. He'd be a guy with whom I think it would be fun to see a ball game - hang out at Comerica Park and taunt the Yankees.

I'm going to pull for him from the Dems - not because I want him to be President, but because of the fun it would be watching the Clintons come unglued when their sense of entitlement is ignored.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Be yourself, and let the chips fall where they may. That's what he needs to learn.

What does that mean to a politician, "be yourself"? The better ones are able to project authenticity while doing the political thing. Let's watch this week as McCain, a stick in the mud on Bush tax cuts, suddenly becomes the tax cutting king in the face of economic woes. He learned something from Michigan.

They all do it Mike, so why hold Mitt's feet to the fire? Is that you just don't like to see fellow tribe members play that game, that it somehow reflects badly on your utopian view of things?

Mitt's miscalculation was not that he changed his views but that he pandered to a voting block that would never give him full loyalty. He thought they would be able to see through his Mormoness, that they could find common ground and religion wouldn't matter. Big gamble, he lost.

A faultering economy has given him his true voice. Will it be enough?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

What does that mean to a politician, "be yourself"? The better ones are able to project authenticity while doing the political thing. Let's watch this week as McCain, a stick in the mud on Bush tax cuts, suddenly becomes the tax cutting king in the face of economic woes. He learned something from Michigan.

They all do it Mike, so why hold Mitt's feet to the fire? Is that you just don't like to see fellow tribe members play that game, that it somehow reflects badly on your utopian view of things?

Mitt's miscalculation was not that he changed his views but that he pandered to a voting block that would never give him full loyalty. He thought they would be able to see through his Mormoness, that they could find common ground and religion wouldn't matter. Big gamble, he lost.

A faultering economy has given him his true voice. Will it be enough?

well, the problem with me and Mitt, is that he has changed in ways that are 180 degrees different from my views. If you are going to change, at least have the decency to change to my positions.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If Romney loses, he has no one but himself to blame. He mislabeled himself and miscalculated. If he wins, it will be despite these poor decisions.

Agreed. He does and says some really strange things. There was a video released of him yesterday that shows him with a bunch of African-American supporters in South Carolina. As he puts his arm around one of the girls for a picture, he says "Who let the dogs out, Who, Who Who...." Sooo very awkward.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am not understanding your point with regards to Florida. You indicated Obama would be in trouble because Hillary will win in Florida.You then note that it will be a factor only if something "other than the expected" occurs there. Well, she is heavily expected to win in Florida. So how will that help her, according to you, if she does? Can't Florida, with your line of argumentation, only help Obama (unless he receives almost NO votes)? Ironically, for support, you point to Michigan where Obama arguably received more publicity because Hillary only beat "uncommitted" by 16 points or so. Doesn't that support my argument that a loss in Florida won't hurt Obama at all?

I said no such thing. *Sigh* These conversations with you never change. All I said was that it matters, in contrast to you who said it does NOT matter. This is not complicated.

If Hillary wins as expected it will boost her campaign's credentials, even if it gets only cursory media attention in the wake of the Republican contest. If Obama wins against expectations, it will likely get HUGE coverage.

It's a mystery to me how you've retreated under the "no delegates, no matter" tent.

Just for review and your short attention span:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Who cares about Florida? It is worth 0 delegates (just like Michigan).

Originally Posted by Tex

As Romney and the state of Wyoming has learned, delegates are not always what counts at this stage. As you should know, perception in these early contests can have a big influence on later voters.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Democrats aren't paying any attention at all to Florida.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Agreed. He does and says some really strange things. There was a video released of him yesterday that shows him with a bunch of African-American supporters in South Carolina. As he puts his arm around one of the girls for a picture, he says "Who let the dogs out, Who, Who Who...." Sooo very awkward.

Is it any more awkward than Mrs. Clinton and Obama and their fake southern accents when they were in Selma, Alabama?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I said no such thing. *Sigh* These conversations with you never change. All I said was that it matters, in contrast to you who said it does NOT matter. This is not complicated.

If Hillary wins as expected it will boost her campaign's credentials, even if it gets only cursory media attention in the wake of the Republican contest. If Obama wins against expectations, it will likely get HUGE coverage.

It's a mystery to me how you've retreated under the "no delegates, no matter" tent.

Just for review and your short attention span:

I really didn't think this would be complicated.

You said:

I think you've got Obama blinders on. I don't think grass roots can beat The Machine. Obama has trended upward lately, but I don't think he'll win Florida....

To which I responded that it doesn't matter if Hillary wins Florida, because they have no delegates (i.e., Obama losing Florida doesn't hurt him).

You then responded with:

As Romney and the state of Wyoming has learned, delegates are not always what counts at this stage. As you should know, perception in these early contests can have a big influence on later voters.

And you went on to note that:

Major network anchors may ho-hum, and the candidates themselves may not campaign there, but the vote still matters. If something other than "the expected" outcome happens ... expect it to get covered, expect it to have an influence.

Hillary is absolutely expected to win Florida. As you noted, that doesn't matter, unless something "unexpected" occurs. Since you brought all of this up in the context of Florida harming Obama by voting for Hillary, you must be of the opinion that Obama will do much worse in Florida than he is currently expected to do (which is to lose by double digits) (which sounds kind of crazy to me).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Is it any more awkward than Mrs. Clinton and Obama and their fake southern accents when they were in Selma, Alabama?

Clinton's WAS quite awkward. Obama's sounded quite natural. But yes, I would say Romney's was even more awkward. It looked like a white dude trying to act like what he thought black people acted like (and missing horribly).