Clinton remarked after N. Carolina that is we played by the same rules as the Republicans, she'd already be the candidate. She isn't. And neither is Barak. Does that make the Democratic Primary more diliberate with their selection, or Republicans more arbitrary? What do you call a "fair" debate? Does this mean debates have thus far been unfair?

... I love the Democratic party!!!!!!!!

Ditto, yes we can! 

HRC loans herself some more money, and threatens to loan herself more, while she  waits for Obama to offer to pay off her campaign debt.  The Clintons have outdown Ed Kennedy for the top of the, 'how not to concede a campaign' list.  Go dem.'s 08!

Bsuper: Just save the hyperbole and tell it like it is. You hate the Democratic Party and could care less for the fairness of HRC. The rules were set beforehand and they are both playing by those rules. Prior to the primaries it was hers to lose but she got "out-organized" by a political unknown. The Republican and Democratic parties have their flaws when nominating a candidate. It's just that the Dems have a more competitive primary race than the GOP.

J Francais,

Well considering that McCain beat out more people that whoever the Dem's pick I don't know what qualifies as more competitive. I guess if you go by Length of time it takes to decide you could be right, but I would argue since your party doesn't let the voters be solely responsible for that choice, it has made your race go on longer.

But let me see here you said I hate the Democratic Party, that's not true, I just think you guys are wrong to go in a socialist, government responsibility taking over for personal responsibility, kind of direction. That's based on the fact that all of recorded history shows these ideas not only condemn people but hurt that society overall. The fact that you guys think "Oh no not this time it will be different, we will make it work" seems foolish to me. Especially when our country was founded on principals exact opposite to your platform.

I don't know what "out organized" means, I kind of just think that is a buzz word that people don't want others to question. Out organized? How so? Clinton has and maintains one of the best political networks in American history. In fact Obama has admittedly stated he's had a harder time making his organization.

CATPAW, with out a doubt the (Dem) aired debates sponsored by only liberal organizations have most certainly not been very informative. I like that though because the Dem's will debate a Repub later and most likely be unprepared. But that isn't really isn't your question you asked what primary was more deliberate and arbitrary. I think and I honestly think this, the primaries are to pick the party's nominee. I think that in America this choice should be done in a way that all voters have a equal say. I don't think its a question of deliberate of arbitrary, it a question of are we picking who the Americans want. I think in the end both candidates are chosen very carefully and I just hope its by a majority not a select few picked by party elite. I know shame on me for wanted everyday Joe Shmoe to vote.

Oh and a fair debate is one that no one person is favored by questions, moderators or the sponsors. I would hope you agree

I saw an interesting analogy the other day.  At the time automobiles got started, there were fewer and fewer manufacturers of buggy whips around.  Eventually it was down to just a single buggy-whip manufacturer, who made a hell of a buggy whip and had near 100 percent of the market.

.

Senator Clinton has nearly 80 percent of the buggy-whip market in West Virginia.  Too bad the rest of us are driving to the polls.

.

Clinton's big problem was she picked the wrong campaign staff and strategy.  With an Obama-style campaign strategy she'd have won easily.  As it is, she came in second.  But what a hell of a buggy whip she produces!

.

I'm happy with the Democrats having a different strategy from the Republicans.  Look at the fossil the Republicans settled on with *THEIR* system.  McThuselah must make one *HELL* of a chipped-flint arrowhead!

Even though I'm going with the Democrats on this one, I hesitate to label myself so. I am socialist in my ideas, however, and I would say that the government isn't socialist enough. The move towards "socialist" policy is inevitable IMO. Health care, social security, and military ( a socialist organization) issues will make it so. Your assumption that socialist ideas only hurt societies is just as incorrect as stating that capitalism and free markets is the all encompassing elixirs for our ills. I would argue that both can be problematic when not tempered with reason and acknowledging the flaws in any ideology. Health care and education policy are having problem due to the old adage that "the free markets will work everything out". Capitalism doesn't hear illiteracy or families not having adequate health care access. It only hears profit margin and cost. Some policy decisions shouldn't be made with that as the primary factor.

By "out-organize", I mean that his campaign does a better job than HRC on mobilizing supporters and getting them to the polls to vote. Not a buzzword, just an observation I've seen firsthand. HRC should have the upper hand based on her political "experience" and the number of years she's been a politico on the federal level. With that being said, a virtual unknown on the national level "out-organized" her in several states (Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, to name a few). Based on the polls (I know, take them for whatever they're worth) she had huge leads in several states only to see them shrink within weeks of the election.

I would consider more competitive the election that has the interest of the people and not necessarily the most people to beat. I guess I am judging by the length of time and yes I don't like the idea of superdelegates. I also don't like the winner take all format  that the Republican Party does. They both have  serious flaws that could harm the most popular candidate.

BakersfieldSuperman: "Well considering that McCain beat out more people that whoever the Dem's pick I don't know what qualifies as more competitive."
 

Are you sure about that? In every election result I've seen, each of the Dems have received more votes than McCain.

"CATPAW, with out a doubt the (Dem) aired debates sponsored by only liberal organizations have most certainly not been very informative. I like that though because the Dem's will debate a Repub later and most likely be unprepared. "

Well, we can't all have the easy out and compare ourselves to Reagan every five seconds....

Well, Superman, I won't argue semantics with you. I get the impression your context of "socialism" is different than mine. As jfrancais pointed out, socialism is an ideal that makes our society all-inclusive. Without it, we would not have public education, food stamps, welfare, unemployment benefits, minimum wage and so on. Revolutions come about where there is no (or little) redistribution of the benefits of labor ("wealth" if you will), even if it extends to those who can't (or won't) find employment. For example, I expect the Mexican government to implode and go through tumultuous change simply because nothing destroys a democracy like a corrupt government and an unacceptable level of poverty.

Yet, by its nature a democracy must be a capitalistic economy. Profit and wage incentives motivate production. Restated, greed is an American institution. Finding the balance between that and socialism is not a matter of fine-tuning as much as it is being flexible to a changing world. Bush and company has shown an inability to do that. 

Like a good number of Americans, I payed little attention to debates at the beginning of the campaign. They were little else than beauty contests and issues were "debated" in a cursory manner. The early debates were more a statement of platitudes. I expected this. I expect debates to become, as they are becoming now, more confronting and intense.

Thinking of McCain's gaffs on the state of the world and the economy (calling Russia the Soviet Union, for example) makes me wonder which candidate will be unprepared for a debate.

He means there were more unqualified candidates on the R side this time than normal.  As in:  all of them.  McThuselah came in second from the bottom so they went with him.

May you never get old RF!

Of course with your sedentary risk averse lifestyle, the chances of that are vastly increased.

You and yours have a wonderfully incisive platform against McCain:

1) He's Old

2) We can tie him to Bush

Clever.................... 

Chico, you forget the last bit, which is that McCain doesn't have a principled bone in his body.  He sold them all for a point at the polls.

Here's a couple of things I don't get: First, McCain lost primaries to Huckabee even after he'd gotten enough delegates to be the nominee.  It happens.  Second, Clinton's complaint that if the rules were different, she would have won is silly since Obama would have run a different campaign if the rules were different.  Further, it means that Clinton is either saying that she didn't understand the rules or she's saying that she'd have run the same campaign no matter what the rules were.  Neither speaks well of her.

I keep trying to give you guys the credit for all the cutesy names you use for McCain and for Bush but my support keeps getting shot down. 

It's sad to see that not a one of them are original and they're just being parroted here.   McThuselah being the latest.

:-(  (I'm sad)

;-)  (not)

Not to worry Nancy,I am keeping track of all the cutsy names for Clinton(clitongue etc.) and for Obama and passing out credits! :-) But I may grade on a curve so watch out!

Yeah Tom

Obama thinks there are 57 states

Bril.....................

Sage, while I admire your ability to keep track I have to ask...are you keeping track of the names used here?  I don't see the conservatives using all those McWhatsit type names referring to Hillary or Obama in every post as the more liberal side is wont to do.    There was a spate of the Hillary/Obama  stuff but they seem to have disappeared. 

Again, as to keeping track, are you preparing a list giving stats?  You know how the folks are on here...they love their stats.  LOL.  (show me..prove it..where's the link..etc.) (jking)

Sigh...I think my disappointment is more that they aren't original here..just parroting what they read.  And all the while talking about sheeple in the other camp.  Tiska tiska.

Yeap just the comment  here,and I have a secret data base that i assure you is completly honest!!!ROFLOL

Socialism has never worked in the long haul and never will.  Anybody that thinks it will is a delusional fool.   But then, look at who the followers of socialism are. Losers and nitwits. While the leaders of the socialist movement milk them and the system for all it's worth.

Capitalism doesn't work in the long run and never will. They all have to be tempered with common sense and suit the needs of society as it evolves. There is no cure-all elixir of ideologies. Capitalism is great for business but it doesn't "hear" global warming, poverty, illiteracy. Good and bad are justified by price and profits. Socialism exists in the U.S. whether you believe it or not (New Deal, military, etc.) Even that tax rebate check you received is the government's way of propping up the economy. Free markets in its truest form would not solve the current problems we have now unless you're willing to see a lot of lows before the benefits were to come.

Not true, Nancy.  "McShrub" is all mine. 

And the rest of them I look on as a public service.  Your side passes around the phony e-mails about Obama's flag salute and such but you hardly ever get to see how your candidate is referred to.  The purpose of a weblog ("blog") after all is to give you a sampling of what's going on at many places on the web...

.

Chico, in addition to him being the oldest guy ever nominated for the presidency and irrevocably tied to the most unpopular (and worst)  President evah, you forgot:

3)  He supports an extremely unpopular war we happen to be losing.

4)  His economic policies are the ones which got us to the present mess

5)  His health care plan combines the worst aspects of all the worst Republican ideas.

6)  His present positions on key issues  are directly contradicted by his positions from just a few years ago.

7)  He actively asks for political support from bigots.

8)  His memory is failing, in public, as is his health--or why wouldn't he release his doctor's reports?

9)  He never was any great shakes, having graduated 894th in this class (bottom 1 percent) from a trade school.

10)  He's old.  Yeah, you already covered that one, but he's even older *NOW*.  And in August we'll help him celebrate *ANOTHER* birthday, hopefully with another cake presented in person by the most unpopular President evah.  I just hope a major American city isn't lying in ruins like at last year's birthday party, but ya never know with Shrub.

Superman says: "I just think you guys are wrong to go in a socialist, government responsibility taking over for personal responsibility, kind of direction. That's based on the fact that all of recorded history shows these ideas not only condemn people but hurt that society overall."

Supe, your socialist paranoia reflects a decades old conservative commonality dating back to the dark days of McCarthyism.

Today, this recycled commie fear now centers on any Democratic effort to regulate the corporate entities controlling the healthcare,  energy and financial industries which through their unbridled greed have brought the country to its collective knees as it teeters on the brink of financial ruin.

To you and your conservative ilk, regulation, oversight and enforcement of fair laws equals socialism.

You apparently don't see that government regulation is necessary to curb the rampant runaway greed that got us to this point.

You obviously don't see that the severely damaged democratic capitalist system was not a result of socialism but your own conservative hacks that have been in charge for the past eight years.

And if you can't see the sorrowful state of affairs caused by Bush, Cheney, etal rapidly eroding the nation's one time greatness and see that McCain represents more of the same, you are way out of touch with reality.

The system is indeed in need of an overhaul and McCain has offered nothing indicating the willingness or ability to bring about needed political and philosophical change to restore the nation to its former greatness.

Time to wake up Supe, and smell the aroma of hope sweeping the country that begs for a better world. It's what "we the people" want and are willing to gamble on anyone other than another one of the gang of idiots and crooks that screwed things up so badly.

OK RF..you get the patent on McShrub..I won't go see if anyone else thought of it.

But you don't deny that the rest is copied from elsewhere.  While I still think it's chintzy, at least THAT one is original to you.  MY point with Sage was that the Conservatives on HERE havn't used much of that sort of gibberish while the Libs use it daily.  And multiple times daily.

I do however, appreciate you folks bringing the world to these here blogs..after all, if not for that we on the other side would be totally unedgeekated politically.   

It's actually been more fun lately as it gets closer to the wire.  We have a long, hot ,miserable summer and fall to get through before the axe finally falls on the Democratic Party so who knows how much virtual blood will be shed here?

Only The Shadow knows.

Out organized? How so? Clinton has and maintains one of the best political networks in American history. In fact Obama has admittedly stated he's had a harder time making his organization.

That statement just proves how her campaign should be more organized and be able to consolidate votes. The concept of smaller web based donations is novel to the field of running a presidential campaign. How can one of the "best political networks in American history" consistently lose leads in virtually every state? Because of Obama's ability to organize (let me guess you don't know what that means) and raise a huge amount of funds; moreso than Clinton.

Alas, I'm not the only one to coin it, it seems.    I thought "McThuselah" was a stroke of genius, and gave it the sincerest form of flattery.

.

Nancy, sharpen that axe well.  You don't want it dull when it falls on the Republican party instead.

Obama has had a harder time, given the lack of name recognition, etc, but he's gone ahead and done the hard work--and the party as a whole will be benefiting for years to come, if they take advantage of it. 

.

Senator Clinton had huge advantages going into this thing, and frittered them away.   That's one of the ways to evaluate a candidate's executive ability, and I'm frankly amazed she performed as badly as she did.  Her handicap is the outlook fostered by the DLC, and it showed.  Obama's main advantage over her is that he didn't have the DLC's help.

RF..you wish.  lol.  I will however, tenderize the crow that you folks on the left will have to eat come November.

Ya know..rethinking it.  How long did Methusela live again?  That might not be such a bad nickname after all.  He should skate right through his 8 years in office with plenty of years to spare.

Actually, there's a bit of a conundrum there.  Methuselah supposedly lived 969 years...and died before his father did.  Someone did the calculations and noted that Adam was supposedly alive when Methuselah was born, and Methuselah presumably died in the flood--which would tend to suggest he wasn't quite the role model you might wish. 

.

It may all be one of those mistranslations/misunderstandings that abound in the Bible.  If one interpretation is correct (he was 969 *LUNAR MONTHS* old, not years) he'd have lived until age 87--remarkable but entirely possible--and had his first kid at 17.

.

Whatever.  As they say on Law and Order.  "You opened the door"  and it was your reference.  :-)

Well, regardless of what the polls say, it will probably come down to this....

Since Bush took office, we turned a huge surplus into a huge deficit. Oil has gone up 600%. We are in a war without any possible good end result. Our tallest buildings were felled, then we let the perp get away while we tried to wrest the oil from Iraq and failed. Real estate is turned on it's head. The American dollar is worth 60 cents in Europe. Government is exponentially bigger than ever, yet we can't build levees. For the first time in American history, the rich get a tax break while America is at war.  All this, and the Republicans have the gall too call themselves  the conservative party.

I think most middle of the road Americans who don't drink the Kool Aid from either party are tired of both sides 'do nothing' rhetoric. The media are nothing but shills. I mean geez Sean Hannity, should we just get a Fox channel that is stictly dedicated to renegade reverends?

Since middle of the road Americans are completely disgusted with the state of America, and since John McCain will make many misstatements over the next several months, look for a black man to lead us out of Egypt. Oh....he probably won't succeed either, but when you've been bludgeoned to death for 8 years, even another 4 years of torture looks good as long as they use a different mode.

anti, at least   "your looking for a black man to lead us out of Egypt" makes more sense than the  "I think if I vote for a black man I will be able to tell myself forevermore that I am one of the MTV PC Enlightened".........

Note how RF glibly passed over Obama saying he had campaigned in 57 states.

Whilst spending his precious 24-7 in front of a PC on  "McShrubs" (saw it on Kos ages ago BTW) mistatements.

Tells you all you need to know about the substance of both his party and their nominee.........

RF, I like how in your 10 points, you couldn't use one fact. Not one, well except number 9, this could be a fact, I'm not sure what you mean.

Saber Hagen,

I like how you,  refute the fact socialism has never and will never work, by just saying I'm a paranoid. Really? How so, when all facts lead to just one thing, Capitalism is the only reason we have our great country, its the only system that works and that the Socialism only causes the decline of society.

Question for you, you speak of ills and the like, give me one. Can you? Seriously think hard, try to come up with one that you know of.

Tell me what state of affairs happened and what has been eroded? Why is Bush and his policies so bad? You make some very eloquent statements but I doubt you have any idea what they mean or what the hacks that spread them mean either. Take me past the I hate bush and what he's done(although you have no idea what that is).

Look I just wish you would do a little more thinking and a little less mindless drum beating...