Spinning It
Barack Obama’s campaign is quickly trying to spin the major defeat in Nevada yesterday. They say that he has won more delegates in Nevada than Clinton. The only problem? The Nevada Democratic Party Chair disagrees. The delegates will be rewarded in April, they say, and normally the winner (percentage wise) of the caucuses will get most delegates. Hot Air summarizes it well “Why, it’s almost like a victory. Except for the fact that he lost the popular vote by six points, lost the culinary worker sites he had banked on, lost hugely among Hispanics, lost in a caucus state, where he figures to do better than in states with secret ballots, and now has to deal with headlines like this with South Carolina suddenly a must-win.”
“To believe the spin you have to believe that one extra delegate is worth more than the momentum and buzz Hillary earns from outpolling him,” AP adds.
Of course that reaction was only the first one: as AP points out, first they try to spin the results and then - when that doesn’t work - they pretend that Clinton’s win wasn’t legitimate.
Conclusion: lets ignore the spin from campaigns in the coming days. The fact of the matter is that Obama has a problem: he has to win in South Carolina. His last, and only, win is while ago already. Since Iowa, Obama hasn’t been able to beat Hillary. He has to prove that Iowa wasn’t a fluke and that he can truly take her on.
O, and in SC, more than 50% of the Democratic voters are African-Americans. If he can’t win there, where can he win?
The truth of the matter is Barack Obama won more delegates than Hilary Clinton, 13 to 12. Both Associated Press and cnn.com have full reports on the math of how the delegates are aportioned. As a liberal white American I am ashamed to see the bias against this articulate, new generation candidate from the establishment as well as racist supremacists. I believe Barack will eventually prevail…like it or not!
.
As a liberal progressive it is almost impossible for me to differentiate between Mr Obama and Ms Clinton. They are both candidates of the corporate establishment status quo. So given that they are interchangeable, why would anyone be surprised to see the corporation go with anyone other than Ms Clinton?
The choices are clear, stay put with the status quo or move forward. Personally, the policies of Mr Edwards represent to me the opportunity for the people to move USA forward.
.
Mr Obama represents meaningful ‘change’ and true ‘hope’ for the future. Hope for all Americans and the rest of the world. He represents a reclamation of all that America has always stood for. A peaceful America, striving for the betterment of its people and all its global neighbours. Mrs Clinton, represents the politics of the past. The politics of division and self interest as evidenced by Mr Clinton’s second term in office. This is what this race is about. Mr Edwards is a nice guy, but realistically has just not been able to build enough steam to play any significant part in this specific election. As Americans, we have not always been smart to look beyond now when determining who is best suited to lead our country…look how much we got burnt when we chose likeability over qualified with Mr Bush vs Mr Gore. This time we have an opportunity to make it right. We have an opportunity to reclaim our American glory. The time is Now!!
What kind of an idiot are you Mr. Brown. Obama’s skin color doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that I don’t think he’d be a very good president. It’s his policy views. Try that again and you’re banned.
As for the delegates: that’s because the media want Obama to win. They’re his main supporters. The fact of the matter is that the delegates haven’t been awarded yet and that Clinton won yesterday.
Stop spinning.
.
Excuse me!?
By what right do you call a person an ‘idiot’?
Sweeping statements have a tendency to create confusion and to get the person making them into conflicts. Mr Obama is finding his race to be to his advantage, to deny this is to deny one’s own eyes.
"… What kind of an idiot are you Mr. Brown. Obama’s skin color doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that I don’t think he’d be a very good president. It’s his policy views. Try that again and you’re banned. …"
I may only be a visitor here but really. Your threatening to ban someone here is abusive and totally unnecessary. Is it time to apologize?
.
Ema, anyone who accuses Michael of being racist is being idiotic. The fact that you complain about "idiot" but not about the prior accusation of racism reveals that you’re not principled, but rather only biased.
And we do not welcome public complain about the admin policies. If you have a concern, send it by email. You certainly do not have the authority to instruct people to give apologies.
Jason; strange how they do that, isn’t it? "You’re behaving like an idiot" is over the line according to this Ema person, while "white supremacist" and "racist" is perfectly fine according to this politically correct person.
And this is my blog Ema. You make a habit out of telling people to apologize in their own homes when a guest just deeply insulted them and they react?
Hm, guess your not a welcome guest in most homes then huh?
You’re welcome to comment here, but you have to know your place. You’re a guest, not the site owner.
.
Yes it is your blog. Yes I am a guest. Perhaps I am mistaken to expect a level of civil decorum in a public forum.
English is a beautiful language. People use it to make points. But one does need to learn subtle differences.
Mr Brown did not call you a racist. Your taking umbrage does suggest a touch of over sensitivity on your part.
There is a major difference in ‘acting like an idiot’ and calling one an idiot ("What kind of an idiot are you Mr. Brown.")
_I_ did not _tell_ you to apologize. A guest does have the right to expect the host show proper manners. Good manners do help maintain a level of open discussion and decency.
.
At this point, Ema, I am hoping that you do not manage to get yourself banned by overreaching with this haranguing. I am hoping this because I will be VERY interested to see if your supposed concern for good manners and civility extends to those who are hostile towards conservatives as much as it extends towards conservatives.
I’m betting it won’t. I’m betting that because you’re not the first liberal to come along with lectures about civility and manners for any conservatives who dare to dissent in any way from the liberal consensus on certain issues but who goes completely quiet while fellow liberals spew name-calling and abuse that is in many cases far, far worse.
.
Jason Steck,
_I_ speak for myself. I have not been hostile toward anyone. I have tried to stick to the issues being discussed using civil language.
Yes I know how to use language to help bring my point home. People may mis-understand me (intentionally or otherwise) but I have tried to show respect to all and their points of view. You will not find a post by me attacking persons personally.
I may be banned. It is a power many like to use. Is banning people for their use of civil language and the right of free speech an action you support?
.
No, but I support banning people who intentionally lie about what the other person is saying. So perhaps you shouldn’t distort my position in this way.
And at the point that you go out of your way to criticize Michael, you are putting yourself in the position of "judge" over others’ actions and begging the question of whether you will be consistent about the conditions under which you will do so.
I’m questioning whether your concern will be consistently applied, Ema, because we have seen so many, many cases where it is applied selectively using ideological criteria. You’re dodging that (another commonly seen tactic from many liberals on this and other sites) by trying to change the subject. That’s not exactly rhetorical Queensbury rules on your part.
P.S. For you to say that you have not been hostile towards anyone in light of the frequency with which you have already in your brief time here expressed overwhelming hatred towards all Republicans, all conservatives, and even it seems all non-Edwards Democrats is just funny.
Well of course everyone wins - it’s a caucus race, of course…
`What is a Caucus-race?’ said Alice; not that she wanted much to know, but the Dodo had paused as if it thought that somebody ought to speak, and no one else seemed inclined to say anything.
`Why,’ said the Dodo, `the best way to explain it is to do it.’ (And, as you might like to try the thing yourself, some winter day, I will tell you how the Dodo managed it.)
First it marked out a race-course, in a sort of circle, (`the exact shape doesn’t matter,’ it said,) and then all the party were placed along the course, here and there. There was no `One, two, three, and away,’ but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out `The race is over!’ and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, `But who has won?’
This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it sat for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence. At last the Dodo said, `everybody has won, and all must have prizes.’
P.S. I think the election system in the USA is the most complicated and archaic in the all western world
.
Jason Steck,
Who is spinning?
"… overwhelming hatred towards all Republicans, all conservatives, and even it seems all non-Edwards Democrats is just funny." !?!?
I have not expressed hatred or love for any person or group. I have expressed my support for the policies of Mr Edwards because I believe they are good for the people of USA. Mr Obama’s positions may have merit but I happen to think they they will help the people as much as Mr Edwards’.
Is it really possible for a sane person to try to spin my voicing support for one man’s position over another’s into ‘hatred?’
.
Right, Ema. I am sure that when you said that everyone who didn’t support Edwards was a tool of the inhuman corporate machine, that you were totally innocent of the dehumanizing implication of that charge. And I am sure that when you said that the entire Republican party was best summarized by a "Who’s on First" parody, that it was pure love that motivated the comparison.
Not. Your contempt for conservatives, both as individuals and as a group, has been very obvious from your very first comments here. Don’t try to pretend those didn’t exist.
You don’t get to eliminate part of your record to claim that you were only "expressing my support for the policies of Mr. Edwards". In addition to those expressions, you have added many gratuitous and insulting comments regarding those who disagree with your ideology. In your brief time here, you have been just as snotty, condescending, dishonest, and nasty towards your opponents as anyone you currently try to criticize.
And as such I find your claim to be interested in pure civility to be rather selective at best and grossly hypocritical at worst. Tend your own garden before you jump in calling out the site authors. I have no intention of letting you get away with attacking my friends while you get to play “open season” on conservatives.
.
Jason Steck,
"… I have no intention of letting you get away with attacking my friends while you get to play “open season” on conservatives."
As it was pointed out to me earlier,
"… You’re welcome to comment here, but you have to know your place. …" I am welcomed here.
Is it your place to act in the manner you do?
"… In your brief time here, you have been just as snotty, condescending, dishonest, and nasty towards your opponents as anyone you currently try to criticize. …"
I have presented my opinions in simple English. Should you choose to read it as you do, am I responsible?
Who here is acting as ‘thought police’ by trying to have me banned because I do not agree with your friend’s positions?
Who then is allowed to post here, only those who are conservative and Republican?
.
That is twice on this thread that you have attempted to evade the issue of your hypocrisy by changing the subject and lying about what my argument with you is about. The falsehood of your claim is proven by the fact that I myself am neither conservative nor Republican.
If you lie again about what my argument is, you will be banned. My "place" is to do that, Ema. Don’t believe me? Test it.
My complaint with you is that you take it upon yourself to criticize others by standards that you yourself do not uphold. You called out Michael about civility without authority to do so, lied by omission when confronted with your own record of incivility, and keep trying to change the subject when your errors are pointed out. LAME.
Let me step in here: Ema, this debate is over. Try to carry it on and you’re banned. Don’t like that? Too bad. Stop arguing about this issue, you’re hijacking the thread.
This is a final warning. One more word about this, either in response to this comment or in response to Jason’s and you’re gone.
You’re more than welcome to comment here, but do so by respecting the rules. If you’ve got an issue: e-mail. Try it again in comment sections and you’re done.
Let me make myself very clear: any more comment in this thread not directly dealing with the substance of the post will be deleted and the commenter banned.
Edited by MvdG: That’s it. I made myself very clear. E-mail but stop debating the issue at the blog. You’re now banned. You can get de-banned if you send me an e-mail and let me know that you understand it.
.
Edit by MvdG: And you’re gone as well.
Well, that’s a shame. What’re you gonna do, though? Some people can’t help themselves.
I think this weekend has solidified Clinton’s position, but I also think that it is still far from over. It’s going to be fun to watch this one play out.