Pima,
I think Hillary is on the other side of the world so voters don't think about her too much.
There are a lot of my independent friends who prefer her to Obama, and most remember 2008 all too well.
Platforms don't change too much, and are usually the idealized notions of what that party wants.
The reality might be a different story.
The party may want one thing - or at least it's chosen delegates do, anyway.
In this case, the President realized it was a hot button issue and decided that the language needed to be in the platform, Villargoisa pushed it through, and TA-DA! Democracy.
Come on, really...nobody noticed or read the platform? Who is running the DNC after all?
I really don't understand why Platform statements are so important. It's all pie-in-the-sky stuff.
Exactly, until Dems started making a huge issue out of the Republican platform this year (which is, as it always has been, pro-life) to buttress their "war on women" meme.
Republican platform is pro-life (ho-hum); Democrats try to remove God and Jerusalem from their platform----kind of a big deal to a lot of people.
longprime, I am not disagreeing with you for the most part, but when a platform publicly goes on notice regarding another country that we consider a friend, we should all stop and take notice.
I can't in good faith believe that this was an OOPS, regarding Jerusalem.
I also think many I's like me question why Hillary is 1/2 way across the world. C'mon Jakarta? Seriously.
Maybe I just got addicted to the TV Series Political Animals and saw more than what exists in reality.
__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree
Obama will win electoral, Romney will win popular. Not a landslide, but still a win.
I know that sounds insane, but if you start to see how the system works, it is possible.
I don't understand the relevance of "Not a landslide, but still a win."
If Obama wins electoral then he wins. Period. Popular is immaterial.
I've watched the polls leading up to previous elections and found them to be accurate. The candidate who had the lead in the polls won the election.
The polls right now are showing Obama with a lead.
But I just get the feeling, or maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, that there's a strong anti-Obama undercurrent across the board from left to right. The sniping and the posturing and the arguing between the two campaigns is what we see on the surface, and it's the media's job to stir the pot, and that's what the polls reflect. But I think 2010 and the Walker recall are better indicators of how people who vote actually feel.
My prediction therefore is that Romney will win easily.
__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain
Seriously, is she saying that the amount of hands that this went through for final approval all missed both the God and Jerusalem issues?
That she said it is reason enough to call bs but it seem unlikely all on it's own.
The problem with the big tent is that all the squeaky little wheels don't see eye to eye with each other, hmm... more correct to say they generally need to be kept separate from each other, lest they go for each other's throats but...
A real cynic would say that: besides the stray independent that might be confused by the ad pointing out Democrats seem to have completely separated God from their governing principles, Obama needs the Hispanic vote so dearly that he doesn't intend to risk a more fundamental type Catholic getting any ideas about who he or she's sharing that tent with -- the pro-Palestinian, separation of church and state, academic atheists are reliable enough they'll swallow that cram through done yesterday and still show up.
The same cynic would point out that the President is, amongst other things - a liberal academic, and his reliable monetary and media support tends to come from people who can't be called pro-Israel on a regular basis. Add in the general pattern of abandonment of the last three years, and it doesn't really look much like an oversight.
-- Edited by catahoula on Thursday 6th of September 2012 08:03:19 PM
I wonder how this is playing with undecided voters. My IL's have voted D their entire life, including in 08. They are from NJ. She is Jewish, he is Catholic. They held their nose in 08 when they voted Obama. They will hold their nose now when they vote Romney.
On WMAL this morning an on air guest made a prediction regarding this yr., and after I thought about it, I think they are right.
Obama will win electoral, Romney will win popular. Not a landslide, but still a win.
I know that sounds insane, but if you start to see how the system works, it is possible.
__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree
Would not be surprised to see that video in a R commercial. The folks who object to religion, never mind that it played a vital role in ensuring their right to boo, are clueless about it.
-- Edited by winchester on Thursday 6th of September 2012 06:24:04 PM
__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain
I agree Samurai, I think she is on the other side of the world for the exact reason you stated. Her being at the convention is just a reminder to Dems what they elected back in 08.
I am a pro-choice voter, I lean to the right because of fiscal and military reasons. I don't see abortion ever being over-turned, thus, my pro-choice belief is safer as far as I am concerned than compared to how Israel can create a military conflict.
As far as the Israel issue, it is a big deal to me. I am not jewish, this is not about personal ties. This is about world peace.
It is not about Jewish voters for me, it is about Iran and openly stating they want to obliterate Israel. It is about Palestine. Israel has the right to defend their country, and as I said before the way they stayed out of Gulf 1 was because we sent our Patriot missile defense system to defend them. The DNC not acknowledging Jerusalem as their capitol sent a message.
JMPO, BO came back and said put back Jerusalem was because he gets it. He does not want them to be a wild card. I give him credit for stepping in because he saw the big picture.
JMPO dems hurt their party last night with the boos. They can spin anyway they want, but in the end when people listen to the vote, it was not a majority. The only people that believe they had a majority to change it were deaf!
-- Edited by pima on Thursday 6th of September 2012 05:52:24 PM
__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree
At its heart it is rudderless and largely seeks change for its own sake, where "change" usually means undermining "the man," or "those in power," because they are, practically by definition, "oppressors." Tearing down the social structure in this way is known as "progress."
The way to accomplish this is by "organizing" leaderless people who think they are powerless into mob action.
But when one actually has to have some sort of guiding principles, or morals, besides change for the sake of change, with which to base decisions on, well, this is what you get. Weathervane style politics.
__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain
Just saw this on Drudge Excerpt from Morning Joe on MSNBC. David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett played cleanup this morning on the Democratic platform mess, blaming ‘others’ for allowing ‘Jerusalem’ and ‘God’ to drop out of the platform language.
“Honestly Charlie, he was counting on others, he had some other duties and responsibilities so when he learned that it had been taken out of the platform, he had it put back in,” Axelrod said, explaining that the President learned about the missing language yesterday.
Mayor Corey Booker and former Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio were both part of the platform drafting process.
So in other words the media knew about this at or before the President. I only ask this because it was a topic on the drive by talk radio yesterday morning. Using Axelrod's logic, President Obama found out when the media found out.
That is scary. You are asking Americans to entrust their lives with you, but according to your handlers, your party that you represent as the President changed their platform without discussing it with you.
Either your party is going rogue, or you are back peddling. Israel is a big component in the Middle East, I have a problem swallowing that it was an oversight. I have a harder problem voting for a President that can't lead their own party at such a high vis level.
People my age can remember Gulf I and how Bush 41 had to do everything to keep Israel from going offensive and creating a larger war. Remember sending Patriots? Only a fool would believe Israel is not the wild card when it comes to that region. If they don't feel we have their back, it makes it worse.
The God comment really didn't stress me, that is personal opinion. The Israel issue has an impact when it comes to an unstable area already.
-- Edited by pima on Thursday 6th of September 2012 01:06:48 PM
__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree
Am I the only one that LMAO regarding Debbie Wasserman Schultz's comment? It was an oversight, the platform is pages and pages long. That sounds familiar to me. Didn't Arlen Specter say the exact same thing about reading the entire Obamacare bill as his defense?
Seriously, is she saying that the amount of hands that this went through for final approval all missed both the God and Jerusalem issues?
Is she really saying, OOPs our bad, we didn't catch it? What does that say about their leadership? What else is slipping through without their knowledge? I will give Obama a pass that he didn't know about this until it hit the media fan
What made me laugh was Axelrod is now eating his words regarding his own party. Here is what he said on Fox News Sunday "We don't have the problems that the other party has. We're not divided. We don't have to worry about what people are saying on the side, or about their affection for the president. We don't have those problems. We don't have the reinvention convention," he said. "We're a unified party."
“I think it failed,” said Don Kershner, a delegate from Boise who said it sounded to him — sitting in the opposite end of the arena from the speaker’s platform — that at least 50% of delegates opposed the changes. Kershner was one of the only delegates from Idaho in the arena when the changes were made — itself a problem, he said. But he said he thought the party should have left well enough alone.
“They shouldn’t have messed with it,” said Kershner, wearing a white cowboy hat supporting the Boise State Broncos. “It’s clearly a dividing subject. We don’t want to drive a wedge into the party.”
Instead, they've got the problem of "Obama directed the change", after "Obama saw the platform and didn't make the change". He's the tail wagging the whole dog, in other words, and can't make up his mind until he feels the wind blowing on his face.
I'm more than ok with them removing God from their platform. I think it's about time to be honest. IMO, politics and God should not mix (mainly because I don't believe in God).
As for Jerusalem... it seems that it's still there? I must have missed something.
Guess they decided that hollow declaration about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel did have a purpose after all, seeing as they just changed their platform.
After all, they do need a few Jewish voters.
Almost four years of poor support for Israel. Hostile treatment of Netanyahu. Low support for Obama by Israelis. Call to support borders where Israel would lose land critical to their defense.
If this didn't wake up Jewish voters, the administration admitting they aren't quite sure that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, compounded by a Democratic platform removing that language....I don't know what will.
But no matter how you look at it, there will always be people who question Israel's right to exist, and certainly the right to defend itself. I don't think this is lost on all Jewish voters.
The Democratic platform declares firm support for Israel in word and deed.
The Middle East
President Obama and the Democratic Party maintain an unshakable commitment to Israel's security. A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States not simply because we share strategic interests, but also because we share common values. For this reason, despite budgetary constraints, the President has worked with Congress to increase security assistance to Israel every single year since taking office, providing nearly $10 billion in the past three years. The administration has also worked to ensure Israel's qualitative military edge in the region. And we have deepened defense cooperation—including funding the Iron Dome system—to help Israel address its most pressing threats, including the growing danger posed by rockets and missiles emanating from the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. The President's consistent support for Israel's right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to Israel's security.
It is precisely because of this commitment that President Obama and the Democratic Party seek peace between Israelis and Palestinians. A just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord, producing two states for two peoples, would contribute to regional stability and help sustain Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state. At the same time, the President has made clear that there will be no lasting peace unless Israel's security concerns are met. President Obama will continue to press Arab states to reach out to Israel. We will continue to support Israel's peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which have been pillars of peace and stability in the region for many years. And even as the President and the Democratic Party continue to encourage all parties to be resolute in the pursuit of peace, we will insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel's right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements.
It seems to me that espousing the committment to support and protect Israel while working for diplomatic solutions is far more important to include in the party platform than empty promises about moving the embassy and making Jerusalem the capital of Israel........ something that's been included in platforms, Democrat and Republican, year after year and yet no president --- Bush 2 did have eight years --- did anything to make it happen. I suspect that political realities win out over the platform windowdressing and it becomes clear that the consequences to such an action would be destabilizing to say the least. So the Jerusalem language amounts to a hollow declaration that serves no real purpose.
well, just so you guys know, they put it back. The democrats displayed some epic democratic failure to do so, but they did it: here's the video with the audible yay/nay voting.
Voting starts at 2:00
-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Wednesday 5th of September 2012 07:49:37 PM
I am not a Christian right winger, but I found the decision to remove the name of God strange.
My MIL is Jewish, we are Catholic. She is a Dem., along with her NY sisters. The DNC in their opinion of removing that is making it clear to them Obama is parting ways with Israel. They are in their 60/70's, they are children of the Holocaust, they care about Israel.
__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree
