Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-04-27 at 1.58.13 PM
Your host at work.


  • ***


« For McCain, From Bad Dreams to Nightmares -- Courtesy Barack Obama | Main | Reading the Tea Leaves of Today's Biggest Broadcast Idiot »

February 15, 2008


Dana Hatch

The whole delegate system, especially this superdelegate crap, is one more way the ruling elites of both parties in this country aim to keep decisions about who will run the country out of the people's hands. The electoral college and electronic voting machines, same thing. All contests, primaries and elections, should be decided on who gets the most votes, marked by hand on a paper ballot. If the DLCers and inside power brokers manage to thwart the people's will and hand Clinton the nomination, after she's voted like a Republican throughout the whole Bush nightmare, it won't even matter who wins the election.


My heart is with Obama in this fight, but it is up to him to show he can stand toe to toe with the Clintons. Unfortunately, we all remember the Gore and Kerry debacles, whereby they played the game as gentlemen and ended up getting Cheneyed. The Clintons are an exact replica of the GOP and Barack needs to get down in the gutter and smack them upside the head if he intends to be the nominee. He may not have that Predator Class instinct that seems to be common these days.


My "Big D" Democratic Roots only go back to 2004 (when it became necessary for G.D.I.s - God Damned Independents - like me to "choose sides"). But my "little d" democratic roots were developed over a life-time (I am 49). NOTHING will turn me OFF to the Democratic Party FASTER than if a small, elite, group of so-called "Super Delegates" is allowed to over-ride the will of WE, THE PEOPLE.


I see it, and this is the reason I will never vote for Billary Clinton. The clinton's are a self-glorifying, self-centered duo of "screw the public" I want what I want.

What is disturbing is how many dems are falling for this. The blind leading the blind!


The tenor of the Clinton campaign indicates how out of touch with the pulse of the electorate they are.

They are losing respect from those who remember the clinton Administration as the light before the darkness.

The mood of the country is leaning towards something new... and they're giving us the same old... you know.


"Just politics" is what put the country into the quagmire of economic decline.

When George Washington left office, he attempted to warn the nation against the rise of "factions", groups dedicated to the advancement of their own self-interest above the needs to all else - especially the nation which sheltered them. One can make a strong case that today's political parties qualify as factions as defined by The Father of Our Nation.

I hope that at some time, people will wise up enough so that political party membership combined is less that those who choose non-affiliation. It might be wishing against hope, but maybe at that point the government will always remember who they represent.


You mean 16 years of raw-power arrogance. Bill Clinton was a whole universe better than Dubya, but Clinton was as nasty, aggressive, rule-breaking, triangulating, and Machiavelllian in getting and holding on to his own power as almost anyone who has ever held the office. We need the Bushes and the Clintons and their mean, selfish ways out of government. NOW


PM Carpenter is, again, right on target, and ahead of the curve.

People seem to forget that this election IS about Bush, and whether we continue his administration's way of governing, or turn the page to something better. What has defined the Bush administration seem eerily similar to what defines the Hillary Clinton camp.

Think about it. Hillary is a national figure, who got to be that way through family associations [Bill] and name recognition [Clinton]. Her election would continue the rule of government by dynasty that the GW Bush administration resurrected.

This list of similarities is amazingly long ... voting for the Iraq war, of course, but also giving speeches that were simply mirrors of what Bush was saying. [For those of you who believe Bill's "fairy tale" lie, you should go back and read Obama's 2002 Iraq war speech. He understood what was happening, and called it exactly right. Hillary played follow the leader, for political gain.]

And what about the huge, intrusive national government, that treats it's own citizens as terrorist suspects? To me, Hillary's bizarre idea of the health insurance crisis - the government forces you to buy insurance - means that she not only doesn't understand the problem (it's expensive, because there's not enough to go around!), but her big powerful government solution sounds exactly like Bush.

Obama's take on health care - have negotiations so transparent that they could be broadcast on C-SPAN - is the complete antithesis of the Bushary take on the roll of the government, which has pushed for "privacy" (for them, not you) at every turn.

Do you think Hillary will dismantle the criminal shadow government? Or do you think that she'll just slip comfortably behind the driver's seat?

And, as Carpenter points out, she cares not the least what voters think. If you look at a national poll of her and Obama, the graph looks like an X. Hillary starts high, and just falls and people have gotten to know her and what she stands for [absolutely nothing]. Obama starts low, and rises and people learn what he is about.

Obama can win a National election. He gets the swing states, whereas Hillary gets the states that would go Democratic (California) or Republican (for instance, if she wins Texas) come hell or high water. And, her star is falling, whereas Obama's is rising.

Hillary supporters - wake up! She will not fix the last seven years of destruction. She'll not get us out of Iraq, we'll possibly just wind up in Iran as well. Health care won't get cheaper, it'll just get ... required. The problem of power mad dictatorial leaders won't disappear, it'll just ... change faces. [Have you seen the pictures of her cuddling up to McCain? Do you think that's because ... maybe ... they think very much alike?]

Hillary doesn't want what's best for us or for US. She wants to be president. Her selfishness will quite likely put her good buddy, McCain, in office.

chris bearde

The best thing about the revealing of the Clinton's undemocratic scheming is that their approach to running things is now becoming patently obvious to anyone with half a brain. Those with this "half a brain" attribute now have a chance to see what a Clinton "take over" will be like. This is a preview of coming corrupt Rovean based distractions! The hope for all of us being that after 8 years of destruction more American voters will see through this "mean and selfish" approach to government and crush The Clinton's cynical manipulations into the dirt where it belongs.

Will B

This strategy is the very reason I soured on Hillary last month - at a time when I only 'suspected' that she relied on gamesmanship over substance. Guess I was right. Barack must demonstrate a lot of things in the coming months, to me and all voters. But Hillary has already done that, to the detriment of her campaign.

Spike Heels

I am a voter that wants change, REAL change. We've had a Bush or a Clinton in power for 27 years. How does putting a new Clinton in office give us change? Hillary keeps saying she'll be ready to govern on "day 1". She probably will because she helped run things for eight years.

The Clintons and Bushes are all corporatists and have/will continue to put their corporate master's interests ahead of ours. I want a chance at something different and I won't get it if Billary is re-elected in November.


Clinton power politics will only add to discrediting democracy and America not only in the eyes of the world but in the eyes of the people. Does anyone out there want to die for the dictatorship? Will you die to protect the sacred rights of the
international corporations: iron control of the masses, who have no political rights, and strict support of property, control and


What is all this whining about the super-delegates? At lest 400 of them have not committed themselves to any candidate yet.

Why not? Answer: They are waiting to see who winds up with the most votes, wins the most states and delegates and emerges as the consensus favorite to beat McCain in November.

In short, they are doing just what politicians do, holding their fingers up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before they jump.

It's difficult to see large numbers of them swinging to Hillary because she's able to bribe enough of them to matter.

Probably that would only work if there were multiple ballots like in the old days when party conventions used to actually do something. Back in the days when state chairmen could swing the entire state delegation one way or another, and voting for "favorite son" candidates were a way of power-brokering at the convention.

In those long-forgotten times, there were sometimes 10 or 12 ballots before a consensus candidate emerged, usually not either of the top 2 vote getters.

Something like that is impossible today. Hillary is just trying the best strategy she has left to win. It doesn't seem like it has any hope of success.

I'm not worried about super-delegates.

The comments to this entry are closed.