Remember November 2000 Presidential election fiasco?

What did we, the Democrats, want to do? Wasn’t it to count ALL the votes even though it was mathematically impossible for Al Gore to beat G.W. Bush in Florida?

Then, what did the Republicans want to do? They wanted the election to be over with and to make George Bush the President just like Obama supporters of the Democratic party want the current Primaries to be over with without counting the votes in Michigan and Florida?
How strikingly similar these two cases are!
So aren’t the Obama segment of the Democrats hypocrites on this?

Back in 2000, I remember some of the sayings Republicans and its media came up with, in order to end the Florida counting and award the Presidency to George Bush, and they were as follows;
(1) The Democrats should not drag the country through this re-count process, as it could hurt the country.
(2) There should be a quick resolution as a long re-count could stagnate the stock market.
(3) Democrats are Sore Losers!
(4) Demanding Al Gore to drop the fight and concede the election to George Bush.

Amazingly enough, in comparison, following is what Obama supporters and its media are saying to Hillary Clinton now;

(1) Hillary should not hurt the party by staying in the race.
(2) There should be an end to this primary process as prolonging the primary process till all the primaries are held, could hurt the party’s winning chances in November.
(3) Hillary is a sore loser!
(4) Demanding Hillary Clinton to drop the fight and concede the election even though we haven’t counted the votes and awarded the delegates to the candidates in Michigan and Florida, yet.

Since these two states moved their primaries forward, those results were disregarded as the process was to have the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, are heard first. At the time, this step was fair and reasonable. But, these two states were going to have primaries eventually before the convention anyway, weren’t they? So, why do you allow Obama camp to block these two states from having a vote-in, since Iowa, NH and Nevada have already spoken?
Therefore, not having fresh primaries or some form of vote-in to make sure the opinions of the voters from these two states are taken into consideration in the Democratic nomination process, is like the U.S. Supreme Court awarding George Bush the presidency in 2000 without counting the Florida votes in a proper manner.

Democratic party’s leaders and Obama’s super delegates should not be hypocrites. Please don’t award Sen. Obama the nominations without counting the Michigan and Florida votes, just as the U.S. Supreme Court awarded George Bush the presidency without counting all of the Florida votes!

Thank you.
Calvin.

I don't think so. It was pretty much a mathematical certainty that Gore would be known to have defeated GW Bush if Florida had, for example, counted the votes that were kicked out by machine as "undervotes" or "overvotes", but where human beings could reasonably determine the intent of the voters. Florida law required this and the Florida Supreme Court tried to uphold it. Five Republicans voting as a block in an unsigned ruling that they said should never be used again as a precedent for anything sided with the criminals who have misled this nation ever since.

as if we don't know who Cal is.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hillary the war criminal trying to steal an election is just like Bush

How can you count those idiots votes if they were told it didn't count?
If they were too stupid and voted anyhow, they deserve to not count

Calvin, you are preaching to the choir with me. I'm SO with you on this. I've been shouting at the top of my lungs about this since Howard Dean first chose to ignore what the rules recommend (which is removing half of the delegates in a situation such as this) and to strip FL & MI of all our delegates, thus disenfranchising millions and millions of voters. I have posted extensively on this, so I won't bore everyone with stating my arguments again, but know this: I'm with you, as are truth, justice and the American way. We (Florida) should at least get half of our delegates seated based on the results of the primary election. As for Michigan, it is a little trickier due to several factors, especially the fact that Obama CHOSE to remove his name from the ballot and is now whining about that like it was something that just somehow happened to him and he had no control over it. There was no rule saying he had to do that. He CHOSE to do it. But, anyway, Michigan is a trickier case. That said, at least half of the delegates from BOTH Florida and Michigan should be seated. Florida should definitely be based on the results of the primary election, PERIOD, and not, as Dean keeps saying, based on some mythical solution that will "be acceptable to both candidates". In elections, there are winners and losers. The result is never acceptable to the loser. But that is how democracy functions. The delegates should not be seated based on some political backroom deal that appeases one candidate or another. It should be based on how the VOTERS voted.

Anyway: soooooooooooooooooooo with you, brother!

Clay, we voters of Florida and Michigan are not "idiots" and not "stupid", either. Even though Dean had decided to go against party rules by removing all the delegates of both states, all the experts and also our state party here in Florida kept saying that it would be worked out by the convention, and we were strongly urged to get out and vote anyway. Our state party here in Florida specifically had a "Make it Count" campaign to rally people to vote, to participate in the process, even though our own party chief had decided to take away that precious right.

Since I am a loyal, lifelong Democrat, and also since I was disenfranchised in 2000 and since I'm a Gore supporter who will NEVER get over that or let it happen again, and since my state party was urging me to vote, and since there were lawsuits pending, challenging Dean's unjust ruling, I chose to vote anyway.

I'm am not an idiot for voting. I am not stupid for voting. I am a loyal Democrat for voting. I am a citizen of a democratic country, and a member of a great party that has temporarily lost its way with this ruling, but that has many passionate members working to right that wrong, so the voters like me knew that the only thing we could do towards that just end was to get out there and vote, and hope that, in the end, it will be counted. That is not stupid or idiotic. It is patriotic and it is loyalty to a party that is slapping us in the face at the moment. That's what it is.

Quote by the wise and wonderful Wayne (bolded emphasis added by moi):

"It was pretty much a mathematical certainty that Gore would be known to have defeated GW Bush if Florida had, for example, counted the votes that were kicked out by machine as "undervotes" or "overvotes", but where human beings could reasonably determine the intent of the voters. Florida law required this and the Florida Supreme Court tried to uphold it. Five Republicans voting as a block in an unsigned ruling that they said should never be used again as a precedent for anything sided with the criminals who have misled this nation ever since. "

Sing it, brother!

Its interesting that Terry McAuliffe was on Meet the Press Sunday talking about this. He claimed what Dean did was so wrong, so unfair etc etc.

Russert of course nailed him by bringing ot McAuliffe's own book, where he threatens Carl Levine with nearly the exact same thing in a prior electyion where he was DNC chief...pulling 50% of the delegates and not sitting them at the convention. Russert destroyed him with the hypocrisy of McAuliffe's position now.


My solution has been to give all delegates back to Florida and Michigan.
Sit them at the convention. However since Obama was not even on the Michigan ballot (he played fair) these states should not have an impact on delegate counts.

So divide them equally...50% the delegates of each state for Clinton, 50% for Obama. That way the voters are heard, delegates seated and no impact from the two states that did not play by the rules. These two don't negate the other 48 states (or a part of them) that DID play fair.

I saw Clinton's Michigan team offered a new deal: to give Clinton 69 delegates and Obama 59. I say split the difference, give Clinton 64 and Obama 64 and we are done there. Rinse and repeat for Florida.

Seems easy, fair and an appropriate punishment for states that deserve to be punished. (and I live in Florida.)

quotes from Nagasakee appear in blue:

"Its interesting that Terry McAuliffe was on Meet the Press Sunday talking about this. He claimed what Dean did was so wrong, so unfair etc etc.

Russert of course nailed him by bringing ot McAuliffe's own book, where he threatens Carl Levine with nearly the exact same thing...pulling 50% of the delegates and not sitting them at the convention. Russert destroyed him with the hypocrisy of McAuliffe's position now."

There was absolutely nothing hypocritical about McAuliffe's position. In his 2003 statements, he said he would pull HALF of Michigan's delegates if they violated the primary date-setting rules. HALF. That is what the rules call for. That is NOT what Howard Dean did in 2008. Dean chose to pull ALL the delegates. That is NOT at all, as you mischaracterize it, "nearly the exact same thing". That (pulling ALL delegates instead of just half) is what was very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very...how long do ya have, cause I could keep going with "very"s all day *lol*? Anyway, that is what was very wrong. As McAuliffe said to Russert, had Dean just pulled half of FL's delegates, and half of MI's delegates "we wouldn't be having this discussion right now". Pulling half the delegates would have chastised the offending states, while still leaving the VOTERS with a voice, albiet an understandably diminished one. That is what the rules call for. That is what McAullife said he would do in 2003 if Michigan moved up its primary date.

No hypocrisy detected.

"My solution has been to give all delegates back to Florida and Michigan.
Sit them at the convention. However since Obama was not even on the Michigan ballot (he played fair) these states should not have an impact on delegate counts."

Then that is not really seating the delegates. Just physically placing them there does NOTHING to reverse the voter disenfranchisement that Howard Dean set in motion. It is just a meaningless gesture.

And, p.s., Obama pulled his own name off the Michigan ballot. No rule said he had to. So, too bad, that was his choice. Everyone played fair. Everyone had a CHOICE. Those who chose to cow-tow to Iowa and NH lost out on getting any votes in Michigan. It is called consequences for your actions. Something Obama needs to understand.

"So divide them equally...50% the delegates of each state for Clinton, 50% for Obama."

In my very STRONG opinion, that would be the absolute WORST, most undemocratic, horrifying "solution" possible. I would VASTLY prefer no delegates at all than to have some arbitrary 50/50 delegate split. Why? Because no delegates is "merely" no representation of the voters. A 50/50 split is a blatent MISrepresentation of the voters and thus TOTALLY unacceptable. We will fight that all the way to the convention floor, trust me. A 50/50 arbitrary splitting of the delegates is a totally unacceptable subversion of the election process. We had a free and fair election with record turnout and any seating of the delegates should be based SOLELY on that election! That should not even be in question, in the case of Florida! The ONLY question on the floor/up for debate is: should the delegates be seated? PERIOD. Not HOW should they be allocated! The fact that Dean has made that part of the equation is just further evidence that he is not fit to be DNC Chair. Saying that any solution has to be "acceptable to both candidates" shows that he does not understand what a democratic election even is. Shocking, horrifying, frightening, and totally infuriating.

"Seems easy, fair and an appropriate punishment for states that deserve to be punished. (and I live in Florida.)"

Nope. It seems a totally dangerous, precedent-setting, horrible, unfair, unjust, party-destroying, democracy-flouting way to subvert the election process for at least one state (Florida) whose VOTERS do NOT deserve anything but to have our votes count in an election, for ONCE (just for the novelty of it).

Calvin,
We are really ON THE SAME PAGE HERE...
What does OBAMA have to fear, including these states? If people truly believe that Obama is the 'presumptive nominee' they should allow the process to play out... let EVERY STATE count... Florida and Michigan included... remember, it isn't the VOTERS of Florida who did this flimflam... it was the STATE-RUN REPUBLICAN MACHINE in Florida... and I'm not sure what the Michigan story is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was more of the same there...
Howard Dean should be excoriated for allowing it to go this far... Perhaps on May 31, there will be a fair resolution to this, and the PEOPLE will choose their candidate...
Frankly, Obama is wounded, as is Clinton from this bruising season... there IS a candidate who would unite the party at a moment's notice... and would steamroll over McCan't in the fall... and we all know his name...

AL GORE...

Come out, come out... wherever you are!!!
:clap:

you are so boring with your lies

Hillary has refused to compromise

She won't accept 1/2

And even with every single delegate she lost
So she just lies and lies and lies

Face it, you lost

And America won

Because Hillary is anti-American and belongs in jail
It's as simple as that

And no real Gore fan would back Hillary
Gore can't stand what Hillary and Bill did
That is why Gore wanted nothing to do with them in 2000

So a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bush and anti-Gore

no 2 ways about it no matter how you spin it

It's as plain as black and white

Did I say you were starting to bore me? If not, you are.

McAuliffe is a hypocrite, and he too belongs in jail.
Which is why Gore made sure to can him

:clap: :Y:

Bless you, jzforGore, for your reasonable comments! It is so refreshing to hear from someone who actually feels for the millions of FL & MI Dems and for a healthy election and healthy Democratic party. Yay, you, and, by the way, WELCOME! (Welcome to Calvin, too, by the way, I forgot to say that earlier!)

P.S. to jzforGore: it is also refreshing to hear someone other than myself on this board call for Dean's excoriation: wu HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU! As one pundit hilariously put it a few months back on "Florida This Week" (sort of a local McLaughlin Group type of program here on the west coast of Florida):

Pundit to moderator: Do you know how furious Florida Democrats are over this?

Moderator: How furious?

Pundit: Well, they are basically calling for the waterboarding of Howard Dean!

Waterboarding of Howard Dean: LOVED it! :laugh:

Of course, we don't really want the poor man to actually be waterboarded. Just removed as head of the DNC. And he can take Donna Brazile with him.

Clay, why do you say McAuliffe "belongs in jail"? :?:

edited to add: I just noticed that, in the same post, you say Hillary belongs in jail, too. Care to elaborate on why? I mean, I know you detest the woman, but "belongs in jail"? That seems a tad over-the-top.

for any of the 100s of crimes of enabling the Bushfamily to do what they did for starters
(and no James, they are NOT republican sound bytes either)

They did nothing to stop W from entering office

They freed Mark Rich, not for bedroom favors but he was the last and only person still guilty in Iran/Contra/hostage deal (which was illegal, and that whole thing led to Reagan being elected

And this Florida/Michigan spiel is over the top
Obama will still win even with that
And on one hand you feign insult at Obama for taking it away from Hillary
Then on the other hand you want them to take it away and give it to Gore

It makes no sense

James and you are the ones recylcling republican sound bytes

Hillary now did not even win Ohio by double digits, it is 8.6% on the final count

There is no method of calculation showing HIllary has any chance whatsoever

Hillary is looking for a JFK like event, and even if something like that happened, in what world would they then give it to Hillary?

It is all so hypocritical, and goes against the spirit of Al Gore

I guarantee you, IF Al Gore is the person who we think he is, he would not
want to steal it away, and he is not plotting to

How the hell did I get dragged into this? :?:

Hillary has lots of allies in the Rules committee deciding Michigan and Florida. Both states will be seated, Hillary will win the popular vote, and a brokered convention will take place in August.

Al Gore will be the Democratic nominee for President.

Sounds good to me Algorerocks - lets just hope she goes well in West Virginia. I think she needs to win it by 30 points or more and there has to be a good turnout. If it is neither then Hillary (and our hopes for Al) may continue to slide.

If she wins big and with a big turnout that will bode well for her in Kentucky and Peurto Rico. I have a feeling if she has three mega-wins in those states that she may even pull off a victory in Montana - Republicans and Independents can vote in Montana. Everyone thinks Montana is going to vote for Obama because the neighbouring states all did. But the neighbouring states were caucuses. If Hillary wins Montana - or even goes close - then we have a deadlock and therefore we might yet get Al Gore.

I had heard somewhere that Hillary has the numbers on the first committee that is deciding what to do with Florida and Michigan - so I am pleased to hear that you have as well. If Hillary doesnt do well in these next few states then she may just quit and so it wont even get to the committee. But if she does well then she will fight on and a win in the first round (ie Florida and Michigan) will be very good justification for Obama to step aside for the good of the party.

I'm not giving up - AL GORE FOR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE!

Does anyone know of any Al Gore appointments after this month? He is speaking at a gala event in Pennsylvania this Saturday and then goes to Israel to collect another award. But after that I dont know of one Al Gore event. Is it possible his diary has been kept clear just in case he has to run for President? If this was any other moment in the last three years we all would have known of events Gore was booked at in the near future - but not now.

quotes are from Clay/reelectGore:

"And this Florida/Michigan spiel is over the top
Obama will still win even with that"

And if he does, so be it. But count our votes! For me, it is about the fairness and inclusiveness of the process, and the voters, not which candidate comes out on top. Yes, between the choices of Hillary or Barack, I definitely support Hillary, but I would be screaming just as loudly about the delegate situation if Barack had won Florida and/or Michigan. I know you probably don't believe that, Clay, but it's the truth. I was screaming about it before a vote had even been cast.

"And on one hand you feign insult at Obama for taking it away from Hillary
Then on the other hand you want them to take it away and give it to Gore"

I'm insulted that Obama has been so dismissive of FL & MI Democratic voters, not because he is "taking it away from Hillary". And as for "then on the other hand you want them to take it away and give it to Gore", you do have a point there. I'm not entirely comfortable with my desire for a brokered convention that ultimately ends up drafting a candidate that didn't get a single vote in the primary season. That said, though, a few things: 1.) the process is set up with that possibility as one potential outcome in a situation like that, so it isn't like it is subverting the process, it is rather one potential outcome of the process itself, if the process is deadlocked, basically; 2.) Al Gore is a unique case, candidate-wise. He won the popular vote for president in 2000 and there is a real possibility that he actually won, PERIOD, as in, won the presidency, but we'll never know because the repugs impeded the process. Since then, he has single-handedly raised the world's consciousness on global climate change and won the Nobel Peace Prize. He is in a league of his own in our party. He is uniquely qualified to be "drafted" at the convention if the other two candidates' delegates are deadlocked, and, again, the process has that potential built in.

Frankly, if I didn't love Al Gore so much and want him to be president so much, I think I would still, all that said that I just outlined above, have a concern about a nominating process that picked someone who wasn't on the ballot. But the fact is that we ARE talking about Al Gore and it IS within the process--not something that would be turning the process on its head--if he does emerge as the nominee. ...Plus, there's the pesky fact that, if Gore doesn't become president and put a laser-like white-hot focus on turning around global climate change, we as a species could be toast. Desperate times call for desperate measures, as the cliche goes...

Excellent post, hangingchad!! That's the way I've felt about this brokered convention possibility. Had it been anybody else, I might have had reservations, but Al Gore is indeed in a class by himself!! And he did win the popular vote in 2000 and he's done AWESOME things for our country. He'd make a great unity candidate!!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Why, tank U very much, Texan for Gore!!!

:Y:

HC said, "I'm not entirely comfortable with my desire for a brokered convention that ultimately ends up drafting a candidate that didn't get a single vote in the primary season."

Good news, I voted for Gore in the Florida primary! I think we are gtg ! :)

If a brokered convention were to throw the nomination to someone like John Edwards or Joe Biden or even John Kerry, I think there would be a lot of resentment. The same would not be true of Al Gore because he is Al Gore. There is still a sentiment in the party (and the country) that he was cheated out of the presidency that he rightfully won and thus he's owed it.

While the brokered convention scenario is a very slim possibility it is still a possibility. And it is a shame that some who have transfered their loyalties elsewhere are now trying to squash even the mere discussion of it.

I haven't seen anyone here trying to squash the mere discussion of Gore emerging from a brokered convention. :?:

Let's think about this rationally and honestly. James has said this is a very slim possibility, but still a possibility. I agree with that. All I have said is that I won't support Hillary on the very slim chance it will help Gore. I think the likely beneficiary from any such gamble would be John McCain. Each of us will have to decide what we think is the best course of action.

Exactamundo! That is what I'm hoping.

Stay in it, Hillary, stay in it! (If she doesn't stay in it, we're scr*wed. The convention will just be window dressing, as usual. But if she stays in it: PANDEMONIUM! Bring on da noise, bring on da funk!)

I agree with Texan - that was an excellent post HangingChad!

The only thing I can add is that Al Gore won 50 out of 50 primaries in 2000 and he won the popular vote. So when Obama steps aside for Gore he can say that he is only correcting what happened 8 years ago.

The brokered convention is no longer a slim possibility. It's a very realistic possibility. Had Al Gore endorsed Barack Obama in February, Obama would probably have won Tennessee and this race would already be over with. Now, Obama has to spend money that he should not have to spend.

Another 30-40 point win in Kentucky, a blowout win in Puerto Rico, and the Michigan/Florida additions, and Hillary will be assured of winning the popular vote.

Until Hillary officially drops out or Obama gets the necessary number of total delegates needed to clinch the nomination, the brokered convention will be an increasingly realistic possibility.

:dance:

Bring on da noise, bring on da funk!!!!!!!! Momma wants some pandemonium on the floor in Denver!

:turtle:

If no one gets the necessary votes on the first ballot then there could be a brokered convention. How do people see this happening?

Hillary can win big in Kentucky and then in Puerto Rico (which of course can't even vote in November) and then that's it. She's lost. Obama has won. The superdelegates are coming out more every day for Barack. Do you seriously think that there will be large numbers of superdelegates that will just vote 'present'? They are going to break for Hillary or Obama, most of them for Obama. Once again I say I wish Gore had run for the nomination but he chose not to.

The only way I can see a brokered convention is in the case some true disaster; A candidate drops dead of a heart attack, a plane crash, or something truly shocking comes out that would cause the candidates supporters to walk away. The odds of that are probably less than one percent.

We Al Gore supporters have been heart-broken and disappointed enough already. Remember us counting down in October 2007? Remember that SNL episode in December 2002 where Gore said he wasn't running in 2004? I don't need to tell you about the election in 2000. I think it's just cruel to set us up for a big let down one more time. Hopefully we will hear from the Big Guy himself later this spring. :coolwink:

I know this may not matter to anyone but it looks like Obama will win my state next Tuesday, May 20.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/polit..._in_oregon.html

Poll: Obama leads big in Oregon

Posted May 13, 2008 11:12 AM

by Jim Tankersley

Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton by 20 points in Oregon's Democratic presidential primary, according to an independent poll released this morning.

The poll, conducted by longtime Oregon polling guru Tim Hibbitts for the weekly Portland Tribune and television station KPTV News 12, shows Obama up 55 percent to 35 percent. Voting has already begun in the state's mail-ballot primary. The deadline to return ballots is May 20. Both candidates campaigned multiple days in the state last week, and both are due back at the end of this week.

Clinton is expected to win big in West Virginia's primary today - and likely in Kentucky, which votes the same day as Oregon's deadline. But Obama is still likely to clinch victory among Democratic "pledged delegates," selected by primaries and caucuses, in Oregon on election night here.

"Barring a disaster, Barack Obama's going to win Oregon, and he may win it very big," Hibbits told the Portland Tribune (no relation). "This is the widest lead that I've seen of any poll for Obama in Oregon," he said. "I'd be shocked if Obama didn't win here."

I live in one of those forgotten states, but it may decide things next week.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/print_...064144749596700


Poll: Obama trouncing Clinton in Oregon

Illinois senator leading former first lady 55-35
By Steve Law

The Portland Tribune, May 13, 2008, Updated May 13, 2008

Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are locked in a battle for the Oregon Democratic primary election. A new poll shows Obama way ahead in the state.
A bit more than a week away from Oregon’s May 20 primary, Barack Obama has amassed a nearly insurmountable lead in the Democratic presidential race, according to statewide polling conducted by Portland’s Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall Inc. for the Portland Tribune and FOX 12 News.

The U.S. senator from Illinois leads Hillary Clinton by a commanding 55 percent to 35 percent margin among likely Democratic voters, and even leads among women voters who ordinarily tilt toward Clinton, said Tim Hibbitts of Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall. The poll was conducted May 8-10, during and after visits to Oregon by Obama and Clinton.

“Barring a disaster, Barack Obama’s going to win Oregon, and he may win it very big,” said Hibbitts, one of Oregon’s most respected nonpartisan pollsters. “This is the widest lead that I’ve seen of any poll for Obama in Oregon,” he said. “I’d be shocked if Obama didn’t win here.”

Clinton’s slim hopes of gaining the Democratic nomination could rely on sweeping all six remaining primaries, Hibbitts said. Oregon’s May 20 primary could prove crucial in the nominating battle if Clinton wins, as expected, in West Virginia tonight and Kentucky on May 20.

“Obama needs a counterbalancing win, and Oregon looks like it’s here to provide it for him,” Hibbitts said.

That could give Obama an important psychological advantage as he tries to woo remaining uncommitted superdelegates, Hibbitts said. Those are elected officials and party insiders who are awarded automatic votes at the Democrats’ nominating convention this summer.

The poll results and recent events suggest this could be Oregon’s most influential presidential primary in 40 years, when Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy were fighting for the Democratic nomination, Hibbitts said.

Davis, Hibbitts & Midgall Inc. interviewed 400 likely Democratic voters across the state. Its poll has a margin of error of 4.8 percentage points, meaning the numbers could be off by that amount in either direction.

Results showed that Obama’s lead over Clinton, the former first lady and a U.S. senator from New York, was similar in Portland, in the rest of the Willamette Valley, and in the rest of the state.

Clinton enjoys the sympathies of more Democratic voters over 55, the poll showed. But Obama is crushing her among voters 18 to 34 and 35 to 54. In both age groups, Obama leads by more than 2-to-1, according to poll results.

“Right now Obama’s winning across the board,” Hibbitts said. “He’s winning by 11 points among women; He’s leading by 30 points among men.”

Obama’s reputation among Democratic voters aged 18 to 34 is off the charts. Among that group, a whopping 86 percent said they held favorable views of Obama, versus only 1 percent who said they had unfavorable views. In comparison, 68 percent of those voters had favorable views about Clinton, versus 13 percent with unfavorable views.

Not surprisingly, the poll showed Oregon Democrats don’t hold President Bush in high regard.

Among all age groups, 75 percent of Democrats had “very unfavorable” views about Bush and 9 percent had “somewhat unfavorable” views. Only 11 percent had favorable views.

Presumed Republican nominee John McCain has more support among Oregon Democrats, About 22 percent held favorable views about the Arizona senator, while 32 percent held “very unfavorable” views and 27 percent had “somewhat unfavorable views.”

Democrat Stephen Tollefson, a 57-year-old freelance writer from St. Johns, told pollsters he favors Obama.

“He seems fresh. He seems different. He seems intelligent,” Tollefson said in a follow-up interview. “He doesn’t seem to have as much political baggage and special-interest connections as the other candidates.”

Tollefson said he doesn’t trust Hillary Clinton, and blames her husband for paving the way for George Bush’s election as his successor.

“I think she’s an opportunistic politician who would say or do anything to get elected, and I think she and Bill Clinton had their chance at the White House and blew it,” Tollefson said.

Ralph Griffin, 81, a retired heavy equipment operator who lives near David Douglas High in east Portland, told pollsters he favors Clinton in the primary.

“She has the experience and I can’t go along with McCain,” he said. “Obama’s too new. He’s had two years in the Senate and he didn’t accomplish anything.”

Mail-in ballots are due May 20 for Oregon’s primary. As of mid-day Monday, 271,065 Oregonians had cast ballots, about 13 percent of the electorate. That includes Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/polit..._in_oregon.html

This was a comment someone had made. Obviously doesn't know Oregon very well. Yes we have African-American people living in our state but the percentage is small. I'm proud to say that most of us are just not racist out here. :clap:

Obama has a big lead? Oregon is mostly black voters....right?

Man, Wayne, you are really a buzz kill today.

:(

Reading your post below it sounds like exactly what you are trying to do.

Funny I was refering to Clay originally but after reading your post below I can see why you are getting so defensive.

But Wayne, people are just "thinking outloud". Why are you so offened by them "thinking outloud"? Or are you the only one that's allowed to "think outloud"? At least they have some factual support for their "thinking outloud" and are not pretending to be mindreaders telling us what Al Gore wants or thinks.

Let's remember that the Supers could end this tomorrow by coming out enmass for Obama. But they haven't yet. It's possible that many have doubts about both Clinton and Obama. And until either reaches the magic number of 2024 (or 2209 if Florida & Michigan are seated) no one has won the nomination. Until that has happened anything is still possible. A very slim possibility but still a possibility. Why do you have a problem with people "thinking outloud" about this?

So sad when a former Gore supporter has transfered his loyalty elsewhere. :(

gee, James

One can think aloud if it suits you
But if the conversation doesn't James, you accuse us for switching allegiances when that is not the case

It is being realistic to the present

I think the groundswell of supers you say hasn't happened has happened

And is being choreographed in an attempt to allow Hillary to gracefully exit, however she is rude and not getting the hint

At which point, she will be yanked off the stage like they do in talent competittions, getting the hook

Sorry, I don't recall writing anything to indicate I was offended by, or had a problem with other people stating their views. :?:

Hey, now, that is not fair. Wayne is a current Gore supporter. He just has a different opinion about the whole brokered convention thing than some of us, but that's okay. As for me, I choose to stay in what is probably Denial Central for as long as I can, because even though we are supposed to be "reality-based" around here, slim possibilities still count as within the realm of "reality" in my book. And the slim possibility of that scenario is the only thing standing between me and complete madness and/or depression at this point, so I am clinging tenaciously to it.

I must admit though that, with Edwards' endorsement last night, Obama all but has this thing wrapped up. He DOESN'T have it wrapped up just yet...but he all but does. The Edwards endorsement will throw a lot of the working class demographic his way, so this is really bad news for those of us who can't stand Obama. I think he is basically the nominee now.

:unsure:

That said: Hillary is still in this thing and anything could still happen at the convention, so I am STILL, to paraphrase Jesse Jackson, keeping hope alive!

No one has it wrapped up until they reach 2024 delegates (or 2209 if Michigan or Florida are seated). Neither can reach that number without the Supers.

And remember that Obama is close enough that the remaining Supers could end this tomorrow by coming out for Obama now. But they haven't so there must be a reason.

So while a brokered convention is still a very slim possibilty, it is still a possibilty. There is nothing wrong with continuing to speculate about it.

Has anyone noticed how guiet VP Gore is? I hope it is a good sign.