San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

It is over. Obama will get the nomination.

She's done, but she will milk it a little while longer to raise funds to pay off her debts. She'll stop attacking Obama and will run a quiet campaign the next couple weeks, and concentrate on fundraising. She'll bow out gracefully after she wins W. Virginia on the 13th and splits with Obama on the 20th (she wins Kentucky, he wins Oregon).

I heard a rumor this morning that she is out of money...............AGAIN.
If this is true, she needs money just to keep the staff running so raising more money will also mean that she will probably have to inject more of her own money or borrow more money to keep going.

At this point, I believe her only motivation is to cause so much dissension that Obama will be guaranteed to lose to McCain in the election. Then, she gets another bite of the apple in four years where she can claim, "you should have gone with me last time".................and, "I told you so". I can picture her in my mind saying both of those things in four years if McCain becomes President.

The latest results as of Wed morning say that Obama won NC by 14 points and Hillary won Indiana by 2 points.

I'm curious. Is there anyone else out there that is sort of getting tired of this election soap opera? Not trying to sound insensitive, but at this point, does it really matter who from the obama-clinton soap opera is going to the general election? As it wears on, I'm getting sort of tired about following it. I wish they would just make up their mind and move on. I surely hope clinton doesn't demand a recount or some crap like that :) I'm just wondering if there are others that are starting to think it's dragged long enough....

It's almost as tiring to follow as the... yahoo-microsoft soap opera. 

selfportrait

----- Sour grapes for everyone!

9:30 EST:
**DRUDGE EXCLUSIVE 8:59 EM ET**: Senator Clinton has made another multi-million dollar loan to her campaign. She gave $6.4M in the past month and will be giving more... Developing...

Looks like the rumor had the ring of truth to it

McCain channeling all his luck toward 2008 race

April 16, 2008
By Joseph Curl

Don't try to pass a salt shaker to John McCain. He won't take it from your hand because it's bad luck.

The Arizona senator also won't throw a hat on a bed — it means death will soon visit the household — but he regularly carries 31 cents in lucky change in his pocket.

Now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has converted his staff to his famously superstitious ways. Whenever anyone says something optimistic — especially about this fall's general election — a slew of staffers join him in knocking on wood.

"That's an ugly habit I've picked up myself," Brooke Buchanan, the senator's national press secretary, said with a laugh. "We were in Kansas City ... and someone mentioned winning in November, and three of us knocked on wood. We don't want to jinx anything. We're all very superstitious people."

Top adviser Mark Salter also has been influenced.

"I grew a beard in 2000 and didn't shave until the campaign was over, and I did it this time, too. That's my little superstition. I probably won't shave it until November," he said, adding that he's not sure if Mr. McCain "considers it lucky, or if he considers it an eyesore."

Mr. McCain has dozens of superstitions and rituals, many stemming from his days as a Navy fighter pilot, a notoriously superstitious bunch. He carries a lucky feather, a lucky compass and a lucky penny — not to mention a lucky nickel and a lucky quarter.

"He had so many of them that we had to cut down. It was like a change purse in his pocket," Miss Buchanan said, laughing.

Joseph W. McQuaid, publisher of the Union Leader newspaper of Manchester, N.H., gave Mr. McCain a lucky penny he'd found (heads up, of course) just before Mr. McCain won the New Hampshire primary, on Jan. 8.

Mr. McCain also pocketed a nickel he found outside his hotel in Columbia, S.C., just before that state's primary — his second primary win.

As for the quarter, "I think he just found that on the ground," Miss Buchanan said. "It's always what he finds, heads up."

Still, it's what she called "a lucky drummer boy quarter" — a 1976 bicentennial commemorative quarter.

He doesn't have a dime — a lucky one, that is — but he almost picked up one in January. When he went to the Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Mr. McCain noticed a shiny dime on the stage floor. He stooped for a closer look, but it was tails up — rejected.

"The Irish have a thing about heads and tails," said Catherine Yronwode, co-founder of the Lucky Mojo Curio Co. and an authority on talismans. "People of Irish descent think that if a coin is heads up, it's lucky; if it's tails up, leave it, let the poor have it."

Irish, indeed. On St. Patrick's Day in Chicago, "this guy had a lucky four-leaf clover that was laminated," Miss Buchanan said. "He pulled it out of his pocket and told the senator it had brought him good luck, and now the senator carries it around in his wallet."

"Am I superstitious? I'm that," Mr. McCain said. "But I don't think I'm alone there."

Especially among his staff.

"I've always been superstitious as well, like, I hate the number 13," Miss Buchanan said.

Oddly, the campaign's headquarters is on the 13th floor of a high rise in the Crystal City neighborhood of Arlington, even though the elevator button says "M."

"Why did you have to bring that up? It is the M floor, the M floor, for McCain!" Miss Buchanan said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080416/NATIO...

FLU, I agree with you. I think it has gone on long enough. We all know what type of people vote for which candidate and the super delegates should just step in and end it. Neither have a commanding, although Obama is leading in total delegates count. The current pole shows that over 50% of Clinton supporter will not vote for Obama, while a much smaller % of Obama say the same thing about Clinton.

The democrats have a choice.

They can either disenfranchise about 50% of their supporters (blue collar, whites, older workers) and go with Obama. Problem is they will stay home and McCain will win.
OR
They can disenfranchise about 50% of their supporters(college educated, blacks, younger workers) by choosing Clinton and have them feel ignored and cheated and stay home and the dems loss to McCain.

What the party leadership is doing is hoping that itll all play out and a choice will be made without their hand being seen. (ie someone running out of money). That way they dont loose 50% of their supporters.

The democrats can win this year, Bush has made that a real possibility. But they cant if they tear themselves apart and half their voter base stays home. I dont think the DNC will step in till the very last second, just before the convention.

The polls are saying that much less than 50%, I think around 20-30% of Obama supporter wouldn't vote for Clinton. So, that's a little better than 50-60% of Clinton supporter saying they won't vote for Obama.

Once those Clinton supporters realize that they're not only voting for McCain, but also for 2-3 Supreme Court judges (and therefore the direction of this country for the next 30-40 years), they will reconsider.

I think only the dream ticket of Obama/Clinton can beat McCain...But despite Hilary saying she is willing to do everything it takes to beat McCain (extension of Bush), I believe her pride (or ego) won't allow her to run as V.P..

She is just in it now to keep the donations coming it to cover her debt (ie the new 6 mil loan to her campaign from herself)..No one will donate to an offically dead campaign.

Unless Obama comes up with a great VP choice I think McCain will carry most of the swing states and win..Personally, I can't imagine any of these 3 being President...Real scary...

Hey DWCAP, what you said about disenfrachising one half or the other is true only if the process remains bitterly contested to the very end. And I agree that it's not time for the DNC to step in.

However, this is the time for Ms. Clinton to step in, and wholeheartedly endorse Obama. She has a chance to be seen as a party uniter. Unfortunately, she'll probably end her campaign the same way she run it (badly):

-She brought up the race issue again and again
-She engaged in negative attacks
-And to crown it all: she refuses to concede and divides the party until the very bitter end, risking a McCain victory in November

Hillary is showing some very bad judgement right now (and for the past couple months) in my opinion. Staying in the race to beat up Obama and hurt the Democrats' chances of winning in November when she has no real chance of winning seems like a bad decision. She's also showing a George Bush-like disconnect from reality when she says this morning that "everything is going well" for her campaign. That's pretty scary. Another commander in chief whose personal capacity for denial will endanger our country is exactly what we don't need.

I'm also somewhat disappointed in Obama for the negativity of his campaign over the last month or two. All he had to do was stay above the fray and let Clinton show herself to be the egomaniacal machine that she is. But he didn't, which shows bad judgement and also goes against what he says he's about. Disappointing, but I still think he's the best choice.

As a side note, I'm starting to understand why the right hates Hillary so much. I think it's a personality thing. And her personality is really extremely grating to me. Her self-centeredness, galaxy-sized ego, stilted attempts at humor, apparent meanness and condescension really add up to something quite annoying.

Not to mention her unique laugh.

I like the scenario that Clinton/Obama ticket with Clinton promise to be one-term president.

Obama is too young and untested for a leader at a critical time of the nation. He can talk the talk but I am not sure if he can walk the walk. Give him four more years to be in the spotlight and we will know for sure.

She brought up the race issue again and again
How is race not an issue. It always was and still is. 90% of black voters vote for Obama. Just think about it. She has about 60% of the white votes on average. So in states where there are a large % of black voters, he wins, plain and simple.

She engaged in negative attacks
That's the nature of the beast. Everybody does it, even Obama.

she refuses to concede and divides the party until the very bitter end, risking a McCain victory in November
You're giving her way too much credit. Obama can't win over the blue collar, Reagan democrats. He tried many times but still not successful. Those are the voters in swing states and they are probably the majority of the 50+% that will not vote for Obama.

Please, there's a big difference in the race-baiting that she has been engaged in. Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won't get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she's parroting?

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

Frankly, Obama will have a tough time. He won't get the blue collar Dems or the racist Asian immigrant Dem vote (like my mom).

That being said, in the long term (except for the SCOTUS issue), I think it's better for the Dems to put up a historical candidate that will get blasted by the same old tired pro-war, anti-science, neo-cons. Then we'll let McCain try to fix Bush's mess(es). It'll be amusing and kill the Republicans (a different party iteration) like Reconstruction.

Of course, the risks are the eviseration of privacy rights, probably expansion of fed powers (of course against the Constitution but "activist" judges are only called that if they're liberal), more police powers, more attacks on the environment, more staffers "attending/escorting" NIH scientists, more non-scientists on NIH science boards, human embryonic cells being allowed to be thrown in the trash yet not used for science, a larger federal deficit, more bottom tier attorneys being placed at the DOJ, blah blah blah, you know the litany.

The Real Enemy (in my mind) is this

College biology teacher Jennifer Gruenke teaches her young charges that "light from distant galaxies is just a divine illusion" and that "men used to live to be nine hundred years old.

Think how competitive the US will be with students learning the above in college. Yeah, sounds great.

"Men used to live to be nine hundred years old"

But who calls dat livin'
When no gal'll give in
To no man what's nine hundred years?

Lyrics from Porgy and Bess - It Ain't Necessarily So

Clinton has a good reason to stay. She is a lot more electable than Obama.

The key to becoming a president is winning Deep South. The reason we had Bush for two terms is that Southern whites voted for him in massive numbers two times in a row. Racism is still strong there. In 2004, Louisiana whites voted 75% Bush / 24% Kerry, blacks voted 9% Bush / 90% Kerry. Georgia whites voted 76%/23%, blacks voted 12%/88%. Bush won both states. And that was with white democratic nominee.

There aren't enough blacks in the South to turn those states Democratic if we pick Obama, and those blacks vote Democratic anyway. But there are plenty of racist whites who would choose McCain just to keep a black man out of the White House.

As much as I like Obama, his face-off with McCain could be a disaster.

I still hope for some kind of compromise, such as Clinton as VP. But it seems that there's too much bad blood between them.

The South has been trending more and more conservative for decades now. It's pretty much a lost cause for Democrats there, with the exception of FL. I doubt Hillary could win a single one of the deep southern states, with the exception of Arkansas, and possibly FLA (which Obama I would say has a similar shot of winning). And Arkansas doesn't - or shouldn't - have near enough votes to matter.

However, while the South has been trending conservative, other areas have been trending more liberal (rocky mtn states like CO and NM, even AZ to a certain degree), New England and the West Coast are now pretty much Republican free zones at the state office or higher level (with the exception of RINO's like Schwartzenegger who disagree with somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3rds of the Republican party platform). It offsets.

Submitted by Dukehorn on May 7, 2008 - 3:48pm.

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

Duke, agreed.

Frankly, Obama will have a tough time. He won't get the blue collar Dems or the racist Asian immigrant Dem vote (like my mom).

I don't want to open a can of worms, but the above is what I don't understand. My ex mother-in-law, who happens to be Japanese, married a black man and her family wanted to prevent that at ALL costs. My ex mother-in-law's father enlisted the WHOLE family to try and talk my mother-in-law out of marrying him. She had all kinds of people trying to convince her she was making a mistake: sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, the family dog...

He was a good man and a naval officer when he met my ex mil.

I've seen Asians being treated very disrespectfully by whites on many occasions. For example, in recent years, I've made the rounds looking at model homes quite a bit. Often there was an Asian person looking uncomfortable while being browbeaten into signing a contract by one of the white salespeople. I've never seen a white buyer being treated that way, nor a black one. The impression I got was the realtor/salesperson thought the Asian had money and thus was an easy mark. Myself, I would have told the salesagent where to shove said contract...

The fact that there are a lot of Asians still prejudiced against black people for no logical reason at all, like Dukehorns mother, really bothers me. No one is better than anyone else by virtue of race, people need to learn that!

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

So, it's OK for Obama to engage in negative campaign when his campaign is being hammered but not Clinton? Her campaign has been hammered for a long time now.

Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won't get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she's parroting?
He doesn't need to say it. The almost unanimous support from the black community speaks much louder than what he can say. Also, in the beginning, she was splitting the black votes with him, until the black community see him as a viable candidate. I think they would much rather vote for her than McCain though.

Personally, I like a moderate much more than either a hard left or right wing candidate.

Gershwin.

Very nice.

I didn't know that Obama owned the MSNBC, the Washington Post, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, the Atlantic or Fox News.

Just because Clinton was unpopular from her days as First Lady doesn't give her free reign to attack a fellow Dem in a negative matter.

As for subsequent bad news, all the negative attention on Obama has been on what other people have said like Rev. Wright.

Clinton's wounds have been self-inflicted garbage that came out of her own mouth, namely:

a) lying about snipergate after being called out on it already.

b) gas tax holiday--stupid idea

c) telling folks that McCain had passed the CiC test and Obama hadn't

If you're too blind to distinguish between attacks based on what comes out of a candidate's mouth and attacks based on associations, let's agree to disagree.

If you want to go the Wright route, then Obama should have gone the Lewinsky route. But did he? Nope.

If you're too blind to distinguish between attacks based on what comes out of a candidate's mouth and attacks based on associations, let's agree to disagree.
Oh yes, someone who disagree with you is blind. How very open minded. But I'll just have to agree ti disagree.

If she's as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can't Obama put her away and why are we even having this conversation at this point in the primary.

Although gas tax holiday is stupid, I think raising capital gain tax to 28% is much worse.

What does Lewinsky have anything to do with Hillary? Last I check, Lewinsky wasn't her spiritual adviser for 20+ years.

If she's as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can't Obama put her away

Lets flip this around.. if he's as unpopular as you say he is, then why the hell can't Clinton put him away?

esmith: There aren't enough blacks in the South to turn those states Democratic if we pick Obama, and those blacks vote Democratic anyway. But there are plenty of racist whites who would choose McCain just to keep a black man out of the White House.

As much as I like Obama, his face-off with McCain could be a disaster.

esmith...so then the answer is to concede to the racists?!

Unbelievable. Doesn't matter who will be best for the country. We'll just let the ignorant, backward people in the south tell us who we should vote for.

It's time to turn the page.

Submitted by asianautica on May 7, 2008 - 5:01pm.

If she's as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can't Obama put her away and why are we even having this conversation at this point in the primary.

Asianautica...It's already over. The dem majority does not want Hillary. We have spoken and we want Obama. Can't you see that?

She will not go away. Which makes her even more ridiculous because she's hurting the democratic party in her attacks on Obama.

Hillary has already flatlined. All these attempts to try and hang on and resuscitate herself and her campaign are fruitless.

It's over.

My opinion? I like her. I like Bill also. I'm a liberal. I'm a democrat

And I also think she is PATHETIC to have stayed this long past her welcome.

And I think that even if she had won soundly in ALL state primaries, she would still be as DOOMED to lose against McCain!

The democratic party is even more PATHETIC to let her run, to think she is a candidate with any chance of making it to the White House. And don't get me wrong; I'm ready and comfortable to vote for a woman for president, but not Hillary. She has never had what it takes to win the White House.

The Republicans are PRAYING she wins the democratic nomination, because she is THAT easily defeated. Why? Because she doesn't inspire voters in the way her husband did and how Obama does, and because the Republicans need only succeed in raising her negative numbers a few points. They also have SO much material to work with to do that. Why do you think the Republicans have mostly held back attacking Hillary. They WANT her to win the nomination, obviously. There are even LOTS of rumors of many Republicans mustered their troops across many state primaries to temporarily switch parties and vote for Hillary, yet even that effort hasn't put her ahead. Even her putting 10+ million of Bill's speaking fee money into her campaign hasn't helped either.

As for Obama, the Republican strategists are VERY worried about him winning, because they see a real risk that he could easily beat McCain.

A prediction: if Obama wins the nomination, then McCain's goose is cooked. If Hillary wins (fat chance) then McCain makes it to the White House.