nuf said

Look - I have no idea why you guys think that such comments do anything at all to try to unify the party. Since when did Hillary have anything to do with the delegates being allocated?  

who post on the front page.  So perhaps instead of saying "you guys" which implies something beyond the individual making the comment it would have been sufficient to simply say "you"?

Peace.

What should we make of this comment from you:

as far as VEEP -  unless she is willing to publicly disclose their 2007b income and taxes (they filed for an extension) as well as all contributors to Bill's library and foundation, she unwilling to accept proper vetting and should be disqualified.  Because if that info were to come out, it would be clear how they have been trading on the possibility of HRC becoming president -  this is far worse than Terry McAuliffe selling nights in the Lincoln Bedroom

Emphasis added by me.  =)

not to "you guys" - and I absolutely stand by that statement.    But it is my statement, not that of Lowell, or Eric or anyone else.

is what I think you are doing.  You guys can generally refer to a number of posters on this site.  I don't think it is necessary to qualify "you guys" every time it is used.

And to the extent you want to continue to stand by an unsubstantiated accusation is up to you.  But in my mind, it also makes it perfectly acceptable to use "you guys."  

is quite substantiated, and it involves both of the Clintons, many members of their entourage including McAuliffe and Clintons' brothers.

Which is precisely why the refusal to make the current year's source of income and the donations to the library and foundation so much of a concern.

If you don't think they should be of concern, you are in the same fantasy world as Clinton when she claims she has been fully vetted.

And I know of people waiting, just waiting, for her to give them an excuse to unload on her and Bill, even thought the Obama campaign and others do not want them to.  Hell, I tamped down one such effort tonight, with the help of a couple of other people.

Meanwhile the Clintonites keep shopping rumors about the Obams (note the plural) to people in the media.    Now, that's despicable.  And it is also well documented.  

The lack of transparency was not your statement.  You made an accusation, which is still, despite this response, unsubstantiated.

As I asked in my prior response to your original statement, I would appreciate any sources you have for this accusation.  On the rumors, what rumors are they shopping and where is this well-documented?

reflect the collective views of all of you? Because if so, what about this diary:

http://www.raisingkaine.com/sh...

that seems to suggest that a highly agitated and disturbed Hillary Clinton supporter is representative of all Clinton supporters.

Can we attribute that to "you guys?"

unless we say so.  I have ONCE posted a statement on behalf of the editors.   Some of the endorsements are made on behalf of the site - those are properly designated as statements by "you guys."  But even when one of us writes on the front page, that does not make it collective statement.  And when someone who is not an editor makes a statement in his/her diary, that is certainly not a statement that should be attributed collectively to "you guys" unless and until you find "you gus" signing on to it.

since in this case it was a comment, which anyone registered can make, and which was challenged by the founder of this site.

I think I was pretty clear in responding specifically to the poster and NOT the post itself. When I said "you guys" I specifically meant commentors such as those to which I responded who have made RK a place where those of us who support Hillary feel completely unwelcome.  

which is why I made the remark I did.  I think highly of you and your work, which is why I was taken aback by the particular phrase.

I accept you at you word that such was not your intent.

Peace.

Hillary Clinton decided on how many delegates Puerto Rico gets?  That's news to me.

right here:

...Puerto Rico has 63 delegates to the Democratic convention, more than similarly sized South Carolina (54), Oklahoma (45), or Connecticut (60). The Democrats, in line with their traditions of welcoming and celebrating minorities, have long given Puerto Rico about as many delegates as it would get if it were a state, while the Republicans long gave it only a few delegates and today give it somewhat fewer delegates proportionately.

I'm not sure Puerto Ricans are a minority in Puerto Rico, but okay, we'll go with that explanation.

that either SC or Oklahoma and that is supposed to lead to additional delegates.

And didn't DNC give a bonus to those states etc. willing to go later in the process?

Is it just me or is the whole process of the DNC and its system screwed or what. Will they ever get it right and actually do things that make sense.
Half delegates? This state gets more cuz theres more Dems? At what point will they elevate Va delegate count if we have 2 Dem Senators a Governor and larger House contingent or are we not minority based enough. Please.

By the way you know what all this is leading to. Obama is gonna win the popular vote in November against McCain and then lose the Electoral College...its like the writing is on the wall to actually change and create a system that makes sense for everyone and not just the elitists who want to control the Party. The Party is about or should be about the People...BIG P.

Interesting piece by Sabato in the RTD today on the "Unit Rule"---this is gonna get crazy at some point.

I am thinking about it still - but I am pretty sure Obama will win the general with a huge margin of the popular vote and an even larger proportion of the electoral college vote.  Still crunching numbers, but my guess is at least 290 E.C. votes, and I think that will go up as we get closer to the election.  I am trying to decide if it will go above 330.

Oh, and can you say at least a 15% margin in the popular?

is that Obama will win all of Kerry's states in the end, plus Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia.  Michigan could be a challenge, although in the end I think Democrats will take the state. Also, Ohio will be a challenge, but I think it's winnable. And Florida's a possibility, but it won't be easy.  Overall, this election is likely to end up with a narrow victory to Obama, but running mates could prove crucial, as could the campaign itself.  First and foremost, the Democratic Party will need to unify after the bitter past few months.  That's challenge #1, and it may not be easy.

I don't know. I am not as confident. The numbers are moving back a bit a think at some localities. Friends in OH, PA and family here in VA that supported him are waffling now. There is something happening but not sure whether it is just the machine wearing people down and now this Trinity Church mess again coming back to the headlines. We have not even vetted issues yet.

The bigger issue for me is the massive numbers of new to be sure but in the wrong states for the most part to impact the General. Virginia was one of them but people I am talking to here, at least around Richmond, are backing off. There are not nearly as many signs, for anyone though, as there were but that may be a product of other factors.

Today, my numbers just do not get him there. Though there is time. Republicans will not nearly get the numbers as a percentage in TX and FL that they are accustomed but still think they will take those States. I think they will win MIchigan as well with Romney, even if not the VP, pledging to campaign there beginning in Spetember for McCain. I really think OH and PA come down to how and when and the circumstances Clinton exists the race....those folks do not support Obama and that spells some trouble in OH even though Reps have no business this year winning there.

15% margin? I was not thinking that much but could happen. He will certainly win more than Gore and Kerry for sure-thats a no brainer-but they have to be in new purple or red states to help him. As I said before CA and NY will help his popular vote but thats all---they were not going red anyway.

Va is a reddish state, and PR is as blue as they get.
If your state is more heavily democratic, as measured in elections, they get more delegates.

This even counts right down to congessinal level, county levels,  and such.
Thats why Alexandria, with 30% more  folks as  roanoke, has 55% more delegates

To put the state vs. territory number of delegates in perspective, it might be helpful to consider that one way to look at this is that half-votes could be considered the equivalent of Puerto Rico getting half as many as delegates as they are actually allocated.

With that perspective, I think the comparison to, say Virginia's number of full-vote delegates, might be considered to be a fair delegate allocation.

                       T.C.