Differences between McCain and Obama go well beyond the obvious
The divergent personal styles and campaign approaches, particularly during the primary season, offer a glimpse of a possible matchup this fall should Obama win the Democratic nomination over Hillary Rodham Clinton and go head-to-head with McCain, the GOP nominee-in-waiting. At this point, Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates; it is mathematically difficult for her to win.
For any candidate, mannerisms on the trail can provide insights into how one could behave in office.
Bill Clinton adored glad-handing with voters so much that the Democrat frequently ran late as a candidate; he didn't change as president. George W. Bush was known to josh and needle campaign trail reporters; the Republican does the same with the White House media.
Now, in 2008.
JOHN MCCAIN:
The Arizona Republican, who would be the nation's oldest man to be elected president, was arguably the most open White House candidate in modern history during the GOP primary fight.
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Not stupid in Alabama @ 05/06/2008 6:16:48 PM
Comment: We wouldn't have this division in the Democratic party if the DNC applied its rules fairly. What we are getting instead is a kind of affirmative action plan for Obama. It is the only possible explanation for the inconsistency in the application of rules to the states violating the schedule the DNC established for the primaries.
Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as "no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Iowa), "no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February" (New Hampshire), and "no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February" (South Carolina).
Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.
Under Rule 11.A., five states were in violation of the Democratic National Committee's Delegate Selection Rules, and as such, all five states should have been punished under Rule 20.C.1.a.
Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
The DNC has alreadly decided not to apply the half delegate penalty to Iowa, SC and NH, so there is no reason to apply it to FL and MI either, and there is absolutely no reason to take away all of the FL and MI delegates.
What this is is blatant sex discrimination. They would never apply the rules differently to disadvantage a black man, but the DNC not only ignores their own pre-established penalty but goes further, all to keep Hillary from winning the nomination.
The DNC will destroy the democratic party if it does not apply the same rule to all of the states.
Count all the votes, seat all the delegates.
Fair is fair
Posted By: Not stupid in Alabama @ 05/06/2008 6:11:42 PM
Comment: Patriot2059, go back and read the Dec. 2007 Times article on Obama, the one where he said he would offer Bill Clinton a job in the White House in a second.
Posted By: Not stupid in Alabama @ 05/06/2008 6:10:10 PM
Comment: We wouldn't have a divided democratic party, and McCain wouldn't have a chance if the DNC applied it's rules fairly. What we are getting instead is a kind of affirmative action plan for Obama. It is the only possible explanation for the inconsistency in the application of rules to the states violating the schedule the DNC established for the primaries.
Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as "no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Iowa), "no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February" (New Hampshire), and "no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February" (South Carolina).
Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.
Under Rule 11.A., five states were in violation of the Democratic National Committee's Delegate Selection Rules, and as such, all five states should have been punished under Rule 20.C.1.a.
Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
The DNC has alreadly decided not to apply the half delegate penalty to Iowa, SC and NH, so there is no reason to apply it to FL and MI either, and there is absolutely no reason to take away all of the FL and MI delegates.
What this is is blatant sex discrimination. They would never apply the rules differently to disadvantage a black man, but the DNC not only ignores their own pre-established penalty but goes further, all to keep Hillary from winning the nomination.
The DNC will destroy the democratic party if it does not apply the same rule to all of the states.
Count all the votes, seat all the