The Ostroy Report

The Ostroy Report is a fresh, aggressive voice for Democrats and a watchdog of the GOP/Tea Party. We support President Obama and the Democratic agenda and seek to preserve the Senate majority while taking back the House. But we're also not afraid to criticize the left when necessary.

Sunday, March 09, 2008

The Super-Delegate Debate: The One Question No One is Asking


So far the 2008 Democratic nomination process has yet to produce a clear victor, unlike the GOP, which will send Arizona Sen. John McCain to the general election in November. While some Democrats insist the crown belongs to Barack Obama and that Hillary should get out of the race, the simple fact is that both candidates are in a virtual dead heat. The junior Senator from Illinois leads in delegates by about 10% and by about 2% in popular vote. Hardly an Obama mandate, and certainly no justification to claim the nomination. But that's not stopping Team-Obama from insisting that come convention-time in August, if he's still ahead in delegates then he should be the nominee.

But here's what very wrong with that supposition: the party requires 2025 delegates to snag the prize. Not 2000, not 1900, not 1800 and not 1700, where Obama is likely to end up when the action moves to Denver this Summer. If it's as simple as giving the nomination to whoever has the lead by then, then why does the party have it's 2025 rule? Why then isn't the rule that whoever has the most delegates, not 2025, wins? Why is no one but me asking this question? Am I missing something? I think this is a very simple issue. If you get the 2025 needed delegates, you win the nomination. If you fall short, then the Super-Delegates must analyze all the critical factors of the campaign and assess the overall viability of each candidate. That's how the system is currently set up. Those are the rules. Why is it that the Obama camp can cry foul and accuse Clinton of attempting to change the rules (re: re-seating Michigan and Florida's delegates) but seemingly has no problem arguing against adhering to the 2025 minimum rule?

I think it's pretty arrogant for Obama and his team to essentially be saying..."We're gonna campaign long and hard to convince enough Americans to vote for us so we can get the 2025 minimum delegates to win the nomination. But if we fall short of that minimum, even several hundred short, then we're gonna claim the nomination's ours anyway as long as we're ahead." I ask again, if that's how it's all gonna work in the end, why have a 2025 minimum?

I'm sorry Obama fans, like it or not, both candidates are basically tied. Certainly close enough that neither of them can rightfully claim anything right now with five months to go until the convention. That's a lifetime in politics. And on April 22nd, the landscape can change even more, especially if Clinton wins in Pennsylvania, and wins big. For one thing, her winning streak of big Blue states will have continued; she could tie or even pull ahead on the popular vote; and she could appreciably narrow the delegate deficit. And if that's the case, the Super-Delegates' job becomes even more relevant. They must ultimately choose who is the most electable candidate, not merely who has the lead, especially a small one, in delegates.

To show just how murky the waters have become, former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle, on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday, told host Tim Russert that the Super-Delegates will be hard-pressed not to follow the will of the people. That they could not overturn the American voters' wishes. But when asked by Russert if that would be the case should Clinton win the popular vote, Daschle back-flipped and said its the pledged delegates, "elected by the people," who should ultimately be making this decision. C'mon, Tom, would it really be going against the 'will of the people' if the Super-Delegates ultimately support the candidate with the most popular votes?

So let's get real here. It's time the mainstream media begins to ask the question....why have a 2025 minimum if simply finishing with a simple deleagte lead is grounds to claim the nomination? Until I hear a logical answer, and not one mired in partisan rhetoric, the issue is pretty black and white. No minimum, no nomination.

28 Comments:

  • At 4:40 PM, Blogger jbc said…

    You make a couple of statements that I find logically suspect:

    1) "I'm sorry Obama fans, like it or not, both candidates are basically tied. Certainly close enough that neither of them can rightfully claim anything right now with five months to go until the convention."

    Well, no. Neither one can claim the nomination at this point, true. But Obama can certainly claim (as you recognize) that he holds the popular-vote and pledged-delegate lead, as well as the delegate lead when superdelegates who have indicated a preference are factored in.

    Obama can also rightfully claim that unless something dramatic changes the race, he is likely to reach the convention ahead of Hillary in all three of those categories.

    For her part, Hillary can claim that she has won most of the largest states that have held primaries so far (though when she made that claim recently, she included Michigan and Florida in the list of her victories, which is arguably bogus, for reasons we needn't go into here).

    True, neither candidate can claim to have won the thing already, or even to being on track to taking a clean victory with 2025 delegates. But that's not the same thing as their not being able to rightfully claim anything. Both can claim something. It's then a question of whose claims are stronger. You like the idea, obviously, that Hillary's supposed "electability" should carry the day in that argument (though it's kind of a weak position, to my mind, given polling that shows her doing worse versus McCain than Obama). But whatever. We'll have to wait and see.

    2) "No minimum, no nomination." Again, not technically true, at least based on how I'm interpreting your statement. It seems quite possible at this point that neither candidate will win an outright victory in the primaries without the help of superdelegates. That is, there is a decent chance (getting better with each contest, and looking at the math I think it's now approaching a sure thing), that Obama will not be able to reach the minimum as of the last primary (and obviously, since Hillary will almost certainly still trail him in delegates at that point, neither will she). Yet it is a certainty that one way or the other, there will be a nomination at the convention. So it's quite likely that even without the minimum, there will be a nomination.

    One thing I enjoy about your blog is the way you're willing to wear your heart on your sleeve, making confident predictions that are based more on what you want to be true than on what an objective analysis of the evidence actually suggests. I do that too; it's human nature. But you do it a lot, and it's entertaining to me to read stuff where you make these absolute pronouncements that are so clearly the product of a childlike wish that the world rearrange itself to match the outcome you desire, rather than just being what it is.

    I'm looking forward to your prediction that when the convention deadlocks, a desperate Democratic party will turn on the third or fourth ballot to the one person with the power to bring us all together -- Al Gore. (Unless you've already predicted that. Apologies in that case. As I said, I read your blog mostly for entertainment value, and I tend to dip in and out.)

     
  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger 35th 'n Shields said…

    I remember a bunch of people whining about the Supreme Court overturning the popular vote to appoint a President. It was wrong then, and it's even more wrong now for a bunch of party big shots who ironically call themselves democrats to overturn the people.

     
  • At 5:55 PM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    JBC (or should I call you Freud?), thanks for the free psychoanalysis....but I hate to burst your bubble. You're way off the mark (and might even need some therapy yourself; classic projection, perhaps?). I don't write what I want to be true. I leave that sort of things to all the lemmings (you perhaps?) who blindly and unconditionally fall in love with a candidate (Obama?). I write about facts, and the simple fact is, unless someone gets 2025 delegates, a different set of rules kicks in. I know that is not what you want to hear about your candidate Obama, ut it's the party's rules. That's why we have super-delegates; to take over when the minimum hasn't been met. Maybe you are in denial about this, my Freudian friend, because it is you. who wants certain things to be true? As for my predictions, it's more analysis than sooth-sayering. I call it as I see it, not how I want it. As for my objectivity, where were you about 3 weeks ago when I was writing very favorably about Obama? Go back and re-read, or not. Far be it from me to force a little reality into your fantasy.

    Still waiting for someone to provide the logical answer to why we don't "have a 2025 minimum only until no one reaches it...and then it's whoever has the highest number." Very simple question, people.

     
  • At 5:59 PM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    PS...since you like polls...look at the new Newsweek poll released today. Against McCain, Hillary fairs better than Obama (although not by much). The only thing that's going to matter about these two candidates is how they both look by convention time. What happens today...what the polls show right now...delegate/pop vote counts as of March 9...means nothing. There's perhaps 5 months left. A lifetime...

     
  • At 5:59 PM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    PS...since you like polls...look at the new Newsweek poll released today. Against McCain, Hillary fairs better than Obama (although not by much). The only thing that's going to matter about these two candidates is how they both look by convention time. What happens today...what the polls show right now...delegate/pop vote counts as of March 9...means nothing. There's perhaps 5 months left. A lifetime...

     
  • At 7:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Ostroy can't stand that a black man is going to get the DNC nomination.

    Democrats like Ostroy will never allow a black man to run for President.

    If Obama does not have the required number of delegates, look at to see how the Ostroy Democrats keep the black man from getting the nomination.

    Look at how poorly Hillary has run her campaign. Why would the Ostroy idiots want her to run the country?

     
  • At 10:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    jbc -- It would be nice for us who plough through your drivel if you would write in a more entertaining way. Ostroy is of course correct as he always is. The 2025 rule is a hard and fast rule, unlike the fiasco in FL which the Republicans caused. The super delegates and the 2025 rule were created for a purpose The purpose: the more electible candidate can be chosen despite accrued points in a campaign. And, it's becoming obvious as the Muslim smear-campaign continues and if another of Obama's advisors blunders terribly, he won't be electible even if he scores way ahead of Hillary.

    And, all of you who blast Hillary for saying McCain has the experience to be president have overlooked the Obama aide who said that neither Hillary nor Obama had the experience or wherewithal to answer the three o'clock call.

    Finally, Daschle, who was almost a Bush groupie and who displayed no spine at all should keep out of it, as should Kerry and Kennedy, who gave us No Child Left Behind. What do they know?

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    JBC, I think Andy has indeed posted before that there's a chance that Gore assumes the role of the "White Knight" at the convention when the delegates are deadlocked a few ballots in.

    While I agree with you, jbc, on most of the points you raise, I don't think there's a reason for your mocking tone. Ostroy is a 90's partisan, firmly within the orbit of the Clintons/Gores. He's mocked Obama, as well as Obama's partisans, continuously because he's fundamentally resistant to change. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. People support candidates who they are most comfortable with (see: 2004 election, sadly) If you frequent this blog in order to find "objective analysis" then it is you who are the fool.

    Ostroy is an articlate Clinton partisan. I read the blog in order to get a glimpse into the mind of a smart Clintonista, not to get a dispassionate critique of the day's political theatre.

    I would like to add one thing, though. I find it amusing that Ostroy is railing against Obama's argument that should he go into the convention winning by every discernible, reliable metric (pledged delegates, popular vote, total states won). Imagine if roles were reversed and Clinton was up in each of those metrics. Does Ostroy honestly believe that he wouldn't be making the same argument that Obama now makes? Ostroy would be calling for Obama to drop out. But it's politics, so we use any and every viable (and not so viable) argument at our disposal.

    Also, for all the crazy, Clinton kool-aid drinkers who buy the claim that the Clinton's are some kind of electoral force, recall this: Bill Clinton never won a majority of the vote!! That's right. He would have lost sans Perrot in '92, and he couldn't even pick up more than half this nation's popular vote against Bob "Viagra" Dole in '96. And Hillary is not even half as likable as Bill was. I also think it's funny that Ostroy cites the Newsweek poll, but neglects to tell his readers that nearly every single other poll on this subject has Obama doing better than Hillary against McCain. Must have slipped Ostroy's mind. Also, the Newsweek poll, if it says anything, speaks to the fact that Clinton's foul, "kitchen sink" strategy is working. She is desperately trying to ensure that the likely nominee, Obama, is unelectable come the fall.

    I can't fathom why an unapologetic liberal like Ostroy continues to embrace the Clintons, who have done more to destroy liberalism than any other force in the Democratic party. They are hawkish, DLC'ers. They are sloppy (see: HRC's campaign), scandal prone, and care for nothing but the aggrandizement of their own power.

    Hillary is losing by every reliable, obvious metric. If she cares anything for the party, she must drop out now. Sorry Crazy Clintonistas, the sun is setting on the Clintons, their choke-hold on the party is slackening...

     
  • At 11:12 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Furthermore, as the Clintons' are so vocally supportive of the notion of "vetting" the Democratic nominee, I think it's about time to take a look at Bill's business dealings post-White House, who the foreign contributors are to the Clinton foundation and the Presidential Library...

    Clintonistas are suffering from serious naivete if they doubt that the Republicans will make Norman Hsu, Marc Rich & past and future pardons, Clinton's ties to the Saudis, and so on, a campaign issue. Why do you think they are so reluctant to release their tax returns? Their post-White House tax returns are probably sitting in an accountants office, easily retrievable, yet they need to wait to release them, curiously around the time of the PA primary...

    The Republicans will have much fodder, new fodder, with which to make the case against the Clintons. I think its time for Hillary and Bill to be vetted, in the interests of the party's electoral prospects...

     
  • At 11:21 AM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    Sidney, it fascinates me about people like you who consistently put their feet in their uninformed mouths and make egregious claims that cannot be supported with fact. I call people like you lemmings; kool-aid drunks who've fallen so in love with a candidate that they become so blindly loyal and myopic that they can no longer see the forest through the trees. You've attacked me pretty hard here today as someone who's "90% partisan" and who "rails against Obama." Well, for you and all the others here who simply are too lazy to have read my blogs, or, are too ignorant to actually comprehend what I've written, consider just some of the extremely positive things I've said about Obama, which demonstrates clearly that I, unlike you and so many others unfortunately, continue to assess the current Democratic landscape with utter objectivity:

    From Feb 7: "But the Democratic landscape is anything but decided, which is a surprise to me. I had expected a much stronger showing from NY Sen. Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, and a dimmer one from her rival Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Kudos to to Obama. He picked up key swing states like Missouri and even somehow managed to pick up states like Idaho. All in all, he captured 13 states to Hill's 8. Granted, she won huge states that really count in a national election--NY, NJ, CA--and she's ahead in the polls of many upcoming key contests in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania for example, but we cannot discount Obama's ability to attract, excite and inspire voters. He's a great campaigner, and is even better at raising funds. He's really giving her a run for the money."

    From Feb 9: "Which is why this weekend is a most critical one, especially for Obama, whose campaign has shown much strength and momentum. As much as I'm pulling for Hillary (and I know I'm not the only Democrat wishing Bill were back in the White House too), the Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska and Maine contests could be where Obama all but puts it away. By Saturday night, he could be the clear frontrunner. He's ahead in some polling, and he's done well in the previous caususes, and there's three of them this weekend. While many are talking about the February 12 "Potomac Primiaries" in Virginia, Maryland and DC as the next big contest milestone, I believe this weekend is even more important. On the heels of last week's 24 Super-Duper Tuesday primaries and caucuses, Obama could once and for all prove that he's the people's choice to take on Arizona Sen. John McCain come November. And if so, this coming week could be the longest, most difficult in Hillary's political life. Hillary or Obama. I'd be ecstatic either way."

    Feb 10: "Give him credit. Barack Obama has come from behind to mount an aggressive, highly -effective offensive that, without question, has made him the clear Democratic frontrunner for the 2008 presidential nomination. On Saturday, he swept Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska and the U.S. Virgin Islands, sending his rival Hillary Clinton home empty-handed (but since the Democratic Party awards delegates proportionally, Clinton stands to pick up an appreciable number of the 3-state 158 total). It was a highly impressive showing, in particular his 2-1 margins in Louisiana and Nebraska. Surveying the landscape at this time it's hard to imagine this momentum fading at any time soon. It's hard to imagine him not going all the way. In politics, momentum and perception is everything. And he looks, act and sounds like a winner. In his victory speech, he was strong, confident and driven; he carried imself like a man who had a window into the future, and he really liked what he saw. To the contrary, Clinton appeared like a tired loser; weak, scared and whose window afforded a much less exciting view."

    From 2/12: "The results are in: Sen. Barack Obama has won decisive victories in all three of the Maryland, Virgiania and DC "Potomac Primaries" Tuesday. His momentum is tremendous. Something's happening here that's hard to ignore. His campaign is alive and brimming with excitement. This gives him an impressive string of eight consecutive victories in the last 4 days in addition to the thirteen states he won on Super Tuesday. With each passing day, with each new speech, Barack Obama is starting to not only look like his party's clear nominee but, compared to the stiff, aging, conservative Republican relic John ("My Friends") McCain, he's also looking like our next president. It's very hard to watch all this and not get goosebumps; a strong sense that history's in the making."

    Sydney, does this really sound like the rantings of a "Clintonista?" Does this really appear like I am a "90% loyal partisan?" I would suspect an apology is warranted, but I won't hold my breath. Instead, I would urge you to start demonstrating some objectivity of your own rather than follow a candidate--any candidate--into the water like the Pied Piper's rats.

    Try to look a situations and facts at any given time, and allow yourself to get behind, or defect from, a candidate if the landscape changes. As you should've been able to plainly see, as a Democrat, my only concern is winning in November. And I will get behind ANY candidate who demonstrates to me their electibility. I am incredulous that you and/or anyone else would think I am "loyal" to any one candidate. I am loyal to myself. To you. And to every other Democrat out there. Should Clinton falter tomorrow and start looking weaker, I would drop her in a nanosecond and get behind Obama....just as I came very close to doing last month. That others wouldn't assess the landscape this way, and simply shower a candidate with blind, unconditional, consistent support, is downright foolish and costs us elections. Get behind a winner. Don't merely fall in love.

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    As much as I dislike the way Senator Clinton has chosen to run her campaign so far, I think Senator Obama should publicly offer Hillary the VP slot if she backs down now. Hillary, and not Obama, is well-suited for the VP role. She'd make a good attack-dog, who would absolutely bludgeon the Republican ticket, while allowing Obama to remain above the fray as a statesman.

    She's smart and knows Capitol Hill well, and could be deployed as a quasi-prime minister to Obama's head-of-state. Bill's presence would obviously complicate matters, but I think Obama has to place party before personal animosity and name Clinton his VP. Obama as VP makes no sense at all given that: a) he would be too much wattage at the bottom of the ticket and could overshadow hillary and b) he's ahead by every reliable metric so far, so there's little reason for him to take second fiddle.

    Obama/Clinton vs. The Old White Men=Electoral landslide

     
  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Ostroy,

    I think you need to take a step back and re-read the comment I posted that set you off. You misquote me. First, I said you were a "90's partisan," not a 90% partisan. Your loyalties toward the Clinton are rather rationally-based on the way you experienced and view the 1990's. There's nothing wrong with that..I wasn't castigating you.

    Also, I said you "rail[ed" against Obama's argument regarding his delegate lead, whereas you go off half-cocked as if I said you were always "railing against Obama." I've read some of your kind words about Obama, though you have to admit that even your positive words always seem to be given in a begrudging way, and that you still see him as an empty-suit.

    Also, you did not answer the question. What would you be saying now if Hillary was ahead by ever conceivable metric? Answer that!

    Finally, you constantly mock Obama supporters as kool-aid drinkers, or followers of the pied-pipers. In doing so, you show a remarkable unwillingness to behold the serious social forces that are at play in his candidacy.
    Merely b/c you have been written positively of Obama, doesn't somehow negate the fact that you are a Clinton kool-aid drinker. Hell, you have no problem with Clinton going to the convention, allowing McCain time to gain strength, despite the fact that she cannot make up his delegate and (not likely) popular vote lead, even with a new Michigan and Florida primary. If you were so concerned with the party's prospects, and weren't in the tank for Clinton, then your post would be entitled "Why Clinton should Step Aside" or "Why Hillary should take VP". Obviously, your predominant concern is getting Hillary as President, no matter what the odds are of that happening, no matter how much damage it does to our party's prospects. So who's the kool-aid drinker exactly? Oh, yeah...It's Obama's supporters...Some real logical gymnastics there...

     
  • At 11:51 AM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    Like I said, Sydney, I didn't hold my breath. My posts, in total, speak for themselves...as do yours.

     
  • At 11:58 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    We're all kool-aid drinkers. We're not professional journalists, so there's no reason for any of use to strain toward some ethereal standard of objectivity.

    But seriously, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on an Obama/Clinton ticket...

     
  • At 2:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ostroy your right about the count but your never going to convince obama's people,their hatred of the clinton's are too great,even the moron in the whitehouse has used bill clinton where it would help the rest of the world during troubling times,the sunami,new orleans and treating aids in africa.but because his wife is running a strong campain against them,he's a no good MFer,tell the people in africa who are getting their aid drugs he's bad

     
  • At 4:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It seems clear at this point that the nomination will boil down to how the super delegates vote. While I will vote for whomever the Dems nominate, I am excited about Obama and as such feel trepidation about how the super delegates process will work.

    I assume the candidate with the most to offer the uncommitted delegates will triumph, and because of this I believe Clinton will prevail. I believe Clinton will have the most to offer in terms of political connections and jobs, not necessarilly the offer that she is more electable. I believe that C or O are on par with each other over electability --which is SLIM. After all, this is still a very racist and sexist society, with the consciousness industry well in the hands of those who purvey entertainment over information and empowerment.

    I know Hope is the byword, but really, does a women or a black have a chance to become president in the US today? Not much.

     
  • At 5:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    On Feb 19, Ostroy agreed with ME about Obama and I'm the hated conservative that posts here.

    Here is Ostroy's response to my post (emphasis added by me):

    Anonymous 8:38...clearly, reading comprehension is not your main strength. (a) if you actually read what I write you'd know I am a Hillary supporter and, for the most part, agree with you on Obama; (b) that I refer to Obama's inevitability doesn't make me an Obama supporter. It just make me a realist.

    What was my post that Ostroy agreed "for the most part" about Obama? Its below:

    "Ostroy, you are a flip floppin' flip flopper with your cheering on of every Democrat that has the fawning media's attention. Its funny how so many Democrats could be in love with someone who has nothing to offer but generic words. Here's a pop quiz:

    1. What does Obama stand for? And don't say "hope and change." Those are non-answers.

    2. Can you tell me two specific policy initiatives Obama has proposed? See if you can get past national health care and higher taxes on the evil rich.

    3. Name three Obama accomplishments --- and being elected Senator doesn't count .. there are 99 others in office right now who pulled that one off.

    I bet no Obama fan could answer all three questions.

     
  • At 5:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think all of you for Obama who equate his being against the Iraq war with the guarantee of the future wisdom of his judgment should remember that Howard Dean was also against the war in Iraq -- that stand was the totality of his campaign. And everybody has to admit his handling of this mess and his "rule" disproves being against the war is a sure sign of future wisdom.

     
  • At 5:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I wonder who out there for Obama is happy about the probability of getting "two for the price of one." We're going to have four years of Al Sharpton interfering with every "wrong" he perceives against blacks and he'll have the president behind him. He's already started ranting about the possibility of the re-do.

    Why did Imus lose his job for calling a team of black and white girls "hoes" and David Shuster was back on the job at MSNBC in two weeks after implying that Chelsea Clinton was a whore when he said the Clinton's were pimping her. Sharpton is a might man.

     
  • At 5:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    5:24. Ostrons comments to Sidney about his posts and observation are not contradictory. Take your time, turn off the TV and read them carefully.

     
  • At 6:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Things are so ugly. Today on TV Donna Brasile remarked to Wolf Blitzer that Hillary will be sorry she -- I don't remember the exact word -- in effect that Hillary turned against blacks and alienated them because they are all nowand will continue to vote for Obama.

    She is wrong. The Clintons merely remarked that all the blacks had voted for Jesse Jackson in SC but their racism against whites went no further than SC. There was the possiblity it would end in SC this time with Obama. It did not, but Brasile from her lofty perch is not telling it like it is. They did not make racist remarks about Obama. She's a super delagate too - supposedly one of the "wise elders" of the party.

     
  • At 6:03 PM, Blogger Kathryn said…

    "All animals are created equal but some animals are more equal than others." from Animal Farm by George Orwell, 1945

     
  • At 6:35 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    5:49 is an idiot. To suggest that if Obama is elected President "We're going to have four years of Al Sharpton interfering with every "wrong" he perceives against blacks and he'll have the president behind him" is beyond the pale. You're quite possibly the most ignorant person on this blog's comments sections.

    Stop being so scared of a person of color being in a position of authority. As President of the United States of America, there will be no reason for Obama to pander to Sharpton, as Obama will be the most powerful person in the country. He will not be expected to wade into every urban shooting that Sharpton wades into. He'll be above the fray.

     
  • At 9:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Democrats will never allow a black man to be their presidential candidate. They are too racist.

     
  • At 9:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I am not afraid of a person of color being in power. I am afraid of Al Sharpton and the power he wields. I've seen him in action here in NY. He wins every fight because he's smarter and stronger than his opponents. On any TV debate I've ever seen him on, he wins hands-down over the other guy(s) because he out talks and out wits them. Imus, with his caustic tongue, crumbled and lost under Sharpton's attack. Why I thought of him at this time is the talk that he will sue if the "do-over" doesn't suit him. He will have his way and the black community will support him. There's nothing wrong with that, I suuppose, unless you really miss "Imus in the Morning."

     
  • At 8:02 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Ummm, see you never actually backed up your claim that Al Sharpton would wield power at the national level vis-a-vis an Obama presidency...I know Sharpton and Obama are not close, they're not associates, Sharpton doesn't advise Obama in any capacity. So I assume you think Sharpton would be very influential solely on the basis of his skin color. So we should all tremble at the prospects of Allen Iverson and Barry Bonds wielding overwhelming influence, as well. Schmuck...

     
  • At 8:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Sidney, you have a problem understanding the wrirten word, (as far as I know); evidenced by your misinterpretation of what I have written and your inane responses to Ostroy. Besides, the purpose of this blog is not the mindless bickering between readers. From your recent comments to Ostroy you seem to find this all amusing; I do not.

     
  • At 9:57 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Are you insane? Have you read your comments and my response?

    This was the post I responded to:
    "I wonder who out there for Obama is happy about the probability of getting "two for the price of one." We're going to have four years of Al Sharpton interfering with every "wrong" he perceives against blacks and he'll have the president behind him. He's already started ranting about the possibility of the re-do."

    Now, I can read and understand the "wrirten word" (as you put it). You unequivocally state that with Obama in the White House, Al Sharpton would have undue influence. It's pretty hard to miss. I responded by saying that's a ludicrous supposition. How have I allegedly misinterpreted your explicit writings?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home