I would agree the nightmare is not over yet. We have to pray we live through the last few months of Bush, the president with the highest disapproval rating of any president in the last century.

Just curious here, ahmanrah. Who would you be "praying" to for that?

As to Hillary, I don't think she's going away yet. And, really, why should she?

I do think there's a point to be made in the fact that she's waited all this time to get this job--for which she is better qualified than her rival, by the way, and the "good old boys" are going to give it to the "new guy."

As a woman, I almost want to vote for her when I think about that. But not quite. (Not even for Rush.)

Wow, I though PME died, good to see it's still kickin.

Just curious here, ahmanrah. Who would you be "praying" to for that?

For many people, "praying" is just a figure of speech. Many of us do not actually, physically pray, (because it is silly) but use the term to describe hoping or wishing etc... which is essentially the same thing as praying.

As to Hillary, I don't think she's going away yet. And, really, why should she?

Because she lost. She's not making a comeback. She's done. Look at the math, look at the super delegates. She's toast, put some butter on her. West Virginia is a nice door prize.

You know what, I shouldn't speak for ahmanrah, maybe he is praying.

I apologize for speaking for you if I was wrong, but from what I recall, you're not the praying type.

SSE,

Actually, I have been doing the math, and if the Democrats were serious about the whole reason for superdelegates, they ought to give Hillary another look.

The fact is that Obama has not won the states that will need to be won in the Fall. The Democrats, for all their excitement, are not bringing in the majority of eligible voters they will need in the fall. Hillary has won Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, California, Ohio, and--arguably--Florida and Michigan. Those states make up 185 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win (almost 70%). If, for some reason, Obama can't bring them home, the Democrats are toast.

Obama has won states with large African-American populations and small electoral votes (like Louisiana and Maine.) He has also won states in the DEMOCRATIC primary that he will NOT win in the general election (come on--does anyone really believe Obama can win UTAH?)

The superdelegate system was set up to be pragmatic. It was supposed to keep the decision-making in the hands of the cool-headed leaders of the party. Instead, it is merely exacerbating the Democrats' problems. Party elites are further to the left than the rank and file (witness West Virginia), and they're going to take the mob-crazed bait and nominate a virtual unknown with no experience who can't win.

It would be much smarter to give the 50+ percentage of female voters a chance to put Hillary into office, because they just might do it, if the game is played just right.

With Obama, they're fielding a candidate who's going to become a "niche" candidate as soon as he hits the real stage--and then it's over.

People will come around after the convention, most of the Hillary fans will vote for Obama over McCain. If not, 4 more years of Republicans in the White House, yay. I don't see Obama having a big problem winning over Democratic voters, only time will tell though. It is time for Clinton to throw in the towel.

"People will come around after the convention, most of the Hillary fans will vote for Obama over McCain."

Actually, that's not going to be enough. If you look at the numbers, the Democrats have NOT been getting the turnout that they are going to need to make the case for the general election. If this is the most exciting primary season we've seen in a while, we may be able to assume that the Democrats have exhausted their stash of voters, to a certain extent. In other words, this may be all they've got to give.

If that is the case, they are in SERIOUS trouble. There are very few states in which both of them TOGETHER have brought out even TEN percent of the available voting population. If they run the same game, and the same voters vote for the Democratic candidate as voted for ANY of the Democratic candidates, they will still lose by a wide margin.

"If not, 4 more years of Republicans in the White House, yay."

You may be more thrilled about that prospect than I am. I don't see this potential upcoming Republican reign as much of a plus.

"I don't see Obama having a big problem winning over Democratic voters."

Oh, boy, I do. I don't see him winning over those West Virginians. Not one bit. And if he chooses to play this as a racial thing (which I think his wife will try to do), he will lose worse than McGovern.

"Only time will tell though."

Time is such a tattletale.

"It is time for Clinton to throw in the towel."

Not till the fat lady sings. Point is, neither of them can win it fair with just the people's votes. They are going to--whether they like it or not--have a SELECTED candidate, instead of an ELECTED one. And, either way, half the Democratic party regulars will be mad, and either fifty or ten or so percent of the electorate will feel discriminated against.

yeah, well, we'll see what happens. Did you watch John Adams yet?

OK looking on from a distance I have to say this seems a mess.

The idea that you are so close to having the list of US presidents read

Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton

even if she doesn't win I think undermines the idea that the US is anywhere a meritocracy. Does anyone really believe that in a country of 300 odd million the 4 best people for the job just happen to be a father and son combo and a husband and wife beggers belief.

The fact that Bush 2 lost the popular vote against Gore and was put in the Whitehouse by an bizarre electoral system and his brother giving him the nod undermines the idea of democracy in the US as does the reliance on huge amounts of cash.

And these are the people who want to spread democracy throughout the world and in particular in the middle east. Well at least thats the official public line - mind you why anyone gives this idea consideration is perhaps beyond comprehension. Allende Chile - elected and destablised by the CIA, Chavez elected and demonised, Saudi Arabia run by a fantastically rich family American friends and Pakistan a General Bush couldn't remember a key player in "the war against terrorism".

Madness.

Before anyone says it I'm not suggesting the UK has a great electoral system either.

You seem to have been drinking the purple Flavor-aid. All hail Michael Moore's version of history.

"OK looking on from a distance I have to say this seems a mess."

It's only a mess because the Democrats made it one.

"The idea that you are so close to having the list of US presidents read

Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton

even if she doesn't win I think undermines the idea that the US is anywhere a meritocracy."

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. First, we don't count the terms that way, and Bush 41 was sent packing--he didn't found a dynasty of some kind.

Bill Clinton was only president because Hillary couldn't figure out how to get there yet. If anything, it's a reverse conspiracy.

"Does anyone really believe that in a country of 300 odd million the 4 best people for the job just happen to be a father and son combo and a husband and wife beggers belief."

Your "belief" is easily beggared, then.

"The fact that Bush 2 lost the popular vote against Gore and was put in the Whitehouse by an bizarre electoral system"

It's the same system that put EVERY US president in office. There's nothing new about it, and the same thing was required of Gore. And will be required of ANYBODY who wants to be president. Ya gotta get the 270--part of the set of very good reasons Obama isn't going to be president.

"and his brother giving him the nod..."

What exactly does that mean? President Bush has no brother with the power to "give him the nod." I don't know what you are talking about.

"undermines the idea of democracy in the US as does the reliance on huge amounts of cash..."

No, they don't. And NO ONE (except the abysmally ignorant) says that America is a DEMOCRACY. It's a democratic REPUBLIC.

"And these are the people who want to spread democracy throughout the world and in particular in the middle east. Well at least thats the official public line - mind you why anyone gives this idea consideration is perhaps beyond comprehension."

Wow, what a racist thing to say.

"Allende Chile - elected and destablised by the CIA, Chavez elected and demonised, Saudi Arabia run by a fantastically rich family American friends and Pakistan a General Bush couldn't remember a key player in "the war against terrorism"."

You REALLY need to lay off that stuff. It's making you drunk with impotent ignorance.

And, by the way, the number of people who give a rat's behind whether we have a Bush-Clinton series or not is likely statistically insignificant (like Barack Obama's share of the available voters of West Virginia). We aren't obsessed with class and inheritance, the way the British are.

Our problem is with ISSUES, not last names.

You think a drunk, drug abusing son of a real American president (Bush I) got elected because of his talent, his experience? No he got elected because of his name, and because the conservative knew he would support their issues, and the real people pulling the strings (Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc)...knew he was to stupid to do anything other than what he was told to do the real brains the of operation.

Kerry,

Oh and after Republicans got their assess handed two them in two special elections here recently...in very conservative districts, I wouldn't trust your knowledge about Obama's chances in the fall if I were you. Recent polls have him with a 10% lead over McCain at the moment, and if people, even conservatives are as pissed off as the above elections show, it might be a Reagan-style blow out.

"You think a drunk, drug abusing son of a real American president (Bush I) got elected because of his talent, his experience? No he got elected because of his name, and because the conservative knew he would support their issues, and the real people pulling the strings (Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc)...knew he was to stupid to do anything other than what he was told to do the real brains the of operation."

So.. you're saying the American people are stupid?

Why, exactly, would his "name" get him anywhere, when his father (the one with the "name") got handed his hat after one nondescript term? A

s to "the conservatives knew he would support their issues"--well, duh. Isn't that what we elect presidents for? To "support" our "issues?" So are you saying the majority of Americans in 2000 (AND 2004) were conservatives? And do you find something wrong with electing a president that will "support our issues?"

By the way, it's about time you quit calling the president a "drunk" and a "drug abuser," since he isn't the first anymore (don't you believe in redemption?) and there's no evidence he was ever the second.

And stop calling him stupid. He did better in school than his Democratic opponents, and he went to the TWO (allegedly) best schools in the country. You may not like his mannerisms and his country style, but he's not stupid (contrast this to his "biographer," Oliver Stone, who dropped OUT of Yale and now believes a complete set of ridiculous liberal conspiracy theories. Don't get me wrong--Stone's a stunningly good director; but that doesn't prevent him from being vulnerable to ridiculous ideas.)

And, no, SSE. I haven't gotten to John Adams. Sadly, I now have to wait for it on Netflix, as we had just gotten Directv and didn't understand that things recorded would fall off the list. Oh, well. Perhaps I can get it on a long weekend (My family once watched "24" (several seasons) nonstop for the bulk of a Spring Break. It was like being in college again. Only with better food.)

"Oh and after Republicans got their assess handed two them in two special elections here recently...in very conservative districts, I wouldn't trust your knowledge about Obama's chances in the fall if I were you."

I would. You might want to go back and look at my 2004 predictions.

By the way, the landscape just changed again. California legalized gay marriage, which puts it back in play for the 2008 election. If McCain decides to "maverick" this one, too, the election results will tell you a lot about the relationship between the evangelical right and the Republican party. (Remember: we vote for them because they agree with US; we don't automatically agree with THEM.)

"So are you saying the majority of Americans in 2000..."

Lest you forget Kerry, Bush didn't get the majority of the vote in 2000. And we'll keep reminding you of this.

As to most American's being stupid...yeah I'd say sometimes they are...after all, only we are responsible for the mess we're in. Occasionally they wake up and we started to see that happen in 2006 and I suspect you will see it again in 2008.

"Lest you forget Kerry, Bush didn't get the majority of the vote in 2000. And we'll keep reminding you of this."

Very well, then. I'll try again. So you are saying that the majority of Americans living in those states that added up to over 270 electoral college votes....are stupid?

Honestly, ahmanrah, run the numbers yourself. The Democrats are only activating about ten percent of the eligible electorate, in the most exciting primary we've seen in a long time. If that's all they got, we're done. And add in gay marriage to the mix as a national issue, and the Democrats will (you'll excuse the expression) go down hard in November.

You seem to forget that the DEMOCRATIC Congress also has abysmal ratings. The GOP is fielding a candidate that often opposed President Bush, and Bush himself will be going away.

What do you all have to offer "Change?" Whatever direction you go in 2008, you'll get change.

Question is, do you really want a baby-killing, gay-marrying Marxist running the country? Is that the change you're looking for, Mr. and Mrs. West Virginia voter?

Kerry,

At the moment Democrats have a higher trust rating among voters on every issue. So keep drinking your own brand of koolaid.

Kerry,

Even Fox News can't skew this one...Republicans are running scared.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/15/can-the-gop-avoid-an-election-day-disaster/

"The sense of doom for Republicans is compounded by an historical backdrop that shows Democrats have a keen ability to take huge majorities when their stock is high."

"Even Fox News can't skew this one...Republicans are running scared."

Snicker. "Even Fox News" is now a proud sector of the mainstream media. Watch how they're covering abortion and moral issues.

It's not yo mamma's Fox News anymore.

Just as with Fred Thompson (remember him?), Kerry likes to imagine contenders where there are none. Hillary was my pick, but she's not going to make it.

The dirty little secret of the Democratic party is that there is no such thing as what a normal person would think of as a “pledged” delegate.

Dirty? Seriously, who cares? I'd be happier if both parties dispensed with these wasteful primaries.

And second, the super delegates are not going to come out for Clinton. As a matter of practicality, if they did that, the grassroots would revolt -- that much is clear. It wouldn't bother me, but it would bother a lot of other folks, and if it happened, you could expect the end of the super delegate status by the time of the next cycle.

It's true that Obama is a weaker candidate than Clinton on the national scene. Frankly, I think it's quite stupid the way the democrats flocked to him so unthinkingly. The party vote is split down the middle, but Kerry's observations about Obama's electoral weaknesses are, sadly, dead-on.

Does anyone really believe that in a country of 300 odd million the 4 best people for the job just happen to be a father and son combo and a husband and wife beggers belief.

I don't believe that the "best" person for the job, out of 300 odd mill, is EVER elected. I'm sure that's some dude out in Idaho or something, too smart to get involved in this crap. I myself have no problem with the alternating "dynasties". The important thing that differentiates us from, say, a monarchy, is not who we elect but THAT we elect them.

bizarre electoral system

You have to put it in a historical context. At it's inception, the US was conceived as a federation of states more than a single nation. To convince the states to submit to joining a true union, several compromises were necessary so that smaller states would not be rendered voiceless. The electoral system is one of those (also, the fact that all states have two senators...there are other compromises, including the ignominious "three-fifths compromise.")

The system does seem to have outgrown its usefulness, but changing it would require a constitutional amendment, and that must be ratified by 3/4 of all the states. Since that would include a lot of smaller states which would lose out, it will probably never happen.

BUT, it's not the end of the world. As long as the electoral outcome doesn't stray too far from the popular vote, I think we can live with it. I don't think anything magical happens when a candidate goes from winning the popular vote to losing it, by 1% or less. Yes, it violates our "sense of democracy", but you can't win 'em all.

Bill Clinton was only president because Hillary couldn't figure out how to get there yet. If anything, it's a reverse conspiracy.

Now THAT is the dumbest thing I've heard...not ever, but certainly this week.

Wow, what a racist thing to say.

Ah, I see you are continuing your quest to make the republican party the primary player of the race card. How tiresome. Why are you assuming that Brit is saying what he's saying due to race? Are you saying there are no other factors that differentiate the West from the Middle East?

You REALLY need to lay off that stuff. It's making you drunk with impotent ignorance.

If you can't refute him, don't say anything at all. Are you unaware of the coups to which 'Brit refers? It's unlike you to be so...ignorant. Narrow-minded and irrational, sure...

"Are you saying there are no other factors that differentiate the West from the Middle East?"

Such as? Sorry, but I thought the assumption that Middle Easterners, for whatever reason, are unfit for democracy, was just flatly ignorant. If not based on race, than perhaps it was so for some other reason.

"Are you unaware of the coups to which 'Brit refers?"

Of course not. I just don't buy the Howard Zinn version of unendingly evil capitalism versus eternally valiant revolution.

perhaps it was so for some other reason

Christ on a fucking crutch, how about culture?

Of course not. I just don't buy the Howard Zinn version of unendingly evil capitalism versus eternally valiant revolution.

How about just well-known and documented history? Conservatives tend to know so little about the things we do in South America (and let's include Haiti). Probably because there are a fair number of shameful episodes. Which, of course, you simply can't imagine to be possible.

A side note for those of you who like to browse a little at work, without shame:

Obviously, if anyone comes behind you and sees the PME logo or the "Chappaquiddick" image, it's a bit embarrassing. Probably even if you are conservative! Well, I found the answer today. It's a little firefox plug-in I've been using for a couple years called "Adblock". The nice thing about adblock is that you can block ANY image with it. Only today did it occur to me that I could do this to hide the PME graphics. Just an FYI for my white collar homies and cubicle rockers.

Oh, gee thanks Fella!

IE version 6.0 is the only option for me at work, I can't even update it. I'd use firefox if they'd let me install it but alas, I can not.

So thanks for, well.. nothing, you're no help. I'll have to live with the embarrassement.

SF,

I know all about what happened in South and Central America and the Middle East.

I just don't think it's relevant today. Neocolonialism is over. It's SO nineteenth and twentieth century. Get over it.

It's not about history. It's about whether or not human beings all over the world have the same desire for self-governance and freedom. THAT'S what "freedom's century" is all about.

Neocolonialism is over. It's SO nineteenth and twentieth century. Get over it.

Wow, just wow. I think you serve as a good case study for certain kinds of wrong thinking. First of all, one of the things Brit mentioned was our unsuccessful attempted coup against Chavez's democratically elected government. And how this shows the lie in those who would supposedly spread democracy throughout the globe (a mission that you demonstrate so clearly with your next paragraph). This happened in the twenty-first century, which you are aware of since you "know all about what happened in South and Central America..."

The second thing is that this foreshortened view of history is like stumbling into a fog. You can't have any idea where you are going if you don't know where you've been. The twentieth century wasn't so long ago and some of us were alive when some of these things happened. My parents had friends who fled Chile after the coup...one of them was marked by police for having a book entitled "Revolutions in Geophysics." No, I'm not personally impacted by this -- my point is, you can't even call this "history"; as though history is something so removed from our current experience, anyway.

You can't just invoke the history you like. Conservatives will harp on WW2 until the sun goes out, but look how eager you are to dismiss the "neocolonialism" in extremely recent history. I'll add one to the list: how about our recent backing (2005 or 6 I believe) of the coup in Haiti, forcing out THAT democratically elected government? "Self-governance"? How can you not laugh at your own words? We've never encouraged freedom and self-governance in Central and South America, and that continues to this day.

Geez, this thread is still open, I'd love to hear a response. For once, we're not debating the bible and 'teh gays'.

"How can you not laugh at your own words? We've never encouraged freedom and self-governance in Central and South America, and that continues to this day."

Why is it the Democrats want to complain that we aren't encouraging enough freedom in the Americas--but at the same time contend that we are foolish to be seeking freedom in the Middle East?

What's the difference?