Sunday: America, Seize the Day!

Dear American Voters,

I’d like to revisit something we saw yesterday from Hominid Views. These trend lines show the polls for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton vs McCain since the beginning of the primary season.

Obama_trendClinton_trend

Want more evidence? Check out Paul Lukasiak’s post Buyer’s Remorse at Corrente. Or check out this graph fom RealClearPolitics:

Voters per pledged delegate

What I find really exciting about these graphs is that in the past several weeks, the Obama campaign and the media have been cranking up the volume on the notion that Obama is the presumptive nominee but you aren’t buying it. Your support for Clinton is strong and growing-hardly the thing you would expect to see if the primary season had finished Clinton off.

To me, the graph says you are holding out for something, some event, some moment where you can throw your support behind her fully. I believe that moment will come next Saturday in Washingotn when the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to decide what will happen to the Florida and Michigan delegations. The Obama campaign says it wants to seat them at the convention but clearly does not want their delegates to have an influential role in the outcome. Is this any way for a confident presumptive nominee and party leader to behave? Shouldn’t he be magnanimous in his victory? Or is he afraid that seating them will give you, the public, renewed hope for Clinton’s campaign and is that why he and his minions have been so eager for her to get out of the race? It is so much easier to win the nomination if your competition just quits.

Now, there is going to be a lot of noise about the RULZ. Screw the rules. This country was formed by men and women who saw that rules that King George had laid out for them and said, “Follow your own damn rules. We’re making our own.” The truth is that the DNC has to seat Florida and Michigan with full delegations if it has any hope of winning them back in the fall. I know you want to win back the White House from the careless and destructive Republicans. We can now see that you think that Hillary can do this against McCain because she has shown how tenacious, tough, smart and dedicated she is. But you are waiting for some twist of fate.

Here’s the thing, America. You cannot wait for some twist of fate. You have to make fate happen. If your voice is loud and insistent enough, you can have an impact. You can get behind Hillary right now and tell the DNC and the superdelegates that you have made up your mind and you want them to do the right thing. There will be a rally in Washington next Saturday and here’s the details on how you can participate:

If you want to get even more motivated, set your DVR’s tonight for the HBO movie Recount that recounts the skullduggery behind the Florida recount of 2000 that ended up with the Supreme Court appointing George Bush to the presidency.

Recount

We’re sick of losing and, Yes, we really want a Revolution. We can’t count on others to do it for us. We have to do it ourselves.

Carpe Diem! Seize the Day!

RD


About these ads

108 Responses

  1. Excellent post riverdaughter. I’m going to try and make it to DC next Saturday. I posted this song last night. I may be pure supposition on my part, but I think this is how Hillary must feel about supporters like you. You really have her back and her love.

  2. “Screw the rules. This country was formed by men and women who saw that rules that King George had laid out for them and said, “Follow your own damn rules. We’re making our own.”

    EXACTLY, she shouts!

  3. hey RD!
    Since I can’t figure out how to email you, I’m going to go a little bit off topic to bring your attention to something I’ve been working on — Its called

    “Buyers’ Remorse: How Rank & File Democrats Rejected Obama Once He Was Declared The “Inevitable” Nominee”

    here’s the link

    Basically, I looked at the pre- and post March 1 exit polls, and it turns out that Obama is tanking in most major demographic categories — part 1 deals with overall totals, gender, and race, and I’m working on part 2 (income and education) right now…

  4. Thanks, Paul, I added a link in the second paragraph. Excellent work and full of mind boggling data.

  5. I trolled at the Kos this morning. They would like two things: 1. An apology from Hillary to the Obamas for something she didn’t do. 2. Also, they would like the press to call the Clintons out on this bull&*%$ about FL and MI because the press really hasn’t been hard enough on the Clintons.

  6. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson, Revolutionary

  7. This one’s for you, Mr. Obama and your followers:

    “What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.”
    –Robert Kennedy, an American hero who was assassinated 40 years ago on June 6th

  8. I was a Democrat for 37 years. I loved my party. We stood for gender and racial equality, stood up for the working man, stood up for the common man.

    Yesterday I recieved my Independent Voter ID card. I was made to feel unwelcome in my own party. But , then again, I was just a member of the core Democratic base, and expendable in the view of the race card playing, sexist elitist, Obama.

    I will follow Hillary Clinton anywhere. I will follow Barack Obama nowhere.

  9. All we need to remember is that Hillary Clinton did NOT divide the Democratic party; the DNC divided the Democratic party. There are too many of us who are supporting Hillary for them to overlook us … once that thought entered my mind, the thought “Yeah, right” came right behind it. So, if something happens that the DNC manages to bring her campaign to an end, it will be very surprised by how the election goes in November. I don’t remember any other time when our party has been so mishandled and so filled with conflict, and the DNC is the major cause of it. Those of you who are able to get to Washington, D.C., will have the wishes and hopes of many of us with you for good luck. Do NOT give up, Hillary … we believe in you.

  10. Here in MA we remember all too well The Boston Tea Party. It can symbolically happen again if the DNC does not correct itself.

  11. Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics has some interesting graphs. Here’s the link:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/a_review_of_obamas_voting_coal.html

    The one that’s interesting is voters per pledged delegate. Hillary destroys Obama. The Democratic nominating process is in shambles.

  12. Paul – I read your article/essay this morning. Thank you for the thoughtful ,methodical, work. Your paper outlines important statistics and trends..

    How can we make the Super D”s aware? Do Dean, Pelosi, Brazile et al care about this?

  13. Latest news…Obama trying to make nice with veterans here in Las Cruces…

    “Yup! Obama Doing an “Invitation-Only” Event for Vets on Memorial Day…and Richardson Will Appear…”

    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

    As I predicted, making the day political, trying to make up for his DUMB and INSENSITIVE comment comparing the Bataan Death March to the primary season…

    And Bill Richardson is handling it all..

    SO obvious…frankly, pretty dicey if the kids crash this thing…so much CLASSIER than Hillary’s (innocuous) RFK reference…by the way, did anyone ever report on Obama’s crappy comment about the Bataan Death March being like the primaries??

  14. I am trying to break the Sunday morning talk show habit, and didn’t watch today. But I did click thru George Steph’s show and found Deedee Meyers saying she was so confused as to what Hillary really wanted, why she was staying in the primary.

    OMG! Deedee, she wants to the Dem nominee — is it really that mysterious? Sheesh.

    But, i just read from a TL commenter that the Obama campaign is sending the KO comment to SDs??? Is that correct?

    Did anyone watch L’il George’s show?

  15. interesting read by Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics – but that is weird – his blog home page defaults back to may 09, not to this current may 23 point.

  16. I will never vote for this man. How on earth could any Hillary supporter want this man to be President? He’s astonishingly narcassistic. He’s like a Democratic George Bush.

  17. Hillary’s Op-Ed in the Daily News:

    Why I Continue to Run.

    Deals with the latest smear from the lying liars, too. Strong stuff.

  18. Most of Hillary’s supporters don’t watch those shows. They are at church, apparently :)

    All Hillary wants is for every vote to be counted and every State’s delegates to be seated. But Obama doesn’t want that. Blah, blah, blah…we know the story.

  19. Lynn wrote: The one that’s interesting is voters per pledged delegate. Hillary destroys Obama. The Democratic nominating process is in shambles.

    grumble, grumble…. I did THAT article more than three weeks ago! ;-)
    Count WHOSE Vote 3: Separate AND Unequal

    **********
    Sarah asked How can we make the Super D”s aware? Do Dean, Pelosi, Brazile et al care about this?

    well, I don’t have any connections to anyone in the campaign, or in the Party apparatus — but I think that bloggers who have access to people like Peter Daou (hint, RD! ;-) ) should try to get this kind of information to the campaign and through them to party leaders…

    I’ve always assumed that the Clinton campaign was creating these kinds of analyses already, but the fact that Real Clear Politics is finally talking about the disparity between the number of voters represented by Clinton and Obama delegates three weeks AFTER I wrote about it suggests that the Clinton campaign is not crunching these numbers…. (if they had been, they would have been leaking the data well before I wrote about it))

  20. My gosh, homind views gives her a 99.99% chance to beat McCain. What the hell is wrong with those supers? Stop nominating the wrong candidate.

  21. As a citizen of Akron, I appreciate this tag line:

    Why Obama Supporters Want Super-Delegates To Think That One Person In Anchorage Is Worth More Than 36 In Akron

  22. OK, Paul, I’ll e-mail your link to Clinton!

  23. Carpe Diem!

  24. Paul: I’m fairly confident that Peter et al are reading us and if they see something worth using, they’ll snag it.

  25. Honestly, this primary process has been an awakening of sorts for me, personally. Because before witnessing Hillary Rodham Clinton’s steely consitution, her remarkable wonkishness and that genuine personal touch of humanity, I swear I didn’t know just how weak-as-water the Democratic Party had become. Now I know and I find it pathetic!

    And this is the party I’m expected to continue supporting and fighting for – come hell or high water? What have they done for me lately? The more they continue to buckle and capitulate the more they prove why Dems have become such bonafide losers. Again I ask: they won’t FIGHT for me, but they want me to go to bat for them on election day?

  26. Did you all get the email from the Clinton campaign about sending a pair of shoes to the DNC prior to next week’s vote?

  27. You know that 10-minute KO video rant against HRC you all love to hate? Well, turns out, Senator Obama’s press staff sent out copies of that tape to the MSM. David Axelrod is on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopolous. They were discussing HRC’s RFK statement. DA claimed they were satisfied with her explanation. ‘Then why,’ George asked, ‘did you distribute KO’s tape to the press?’ DA said something about KO being entitled to his opinion. GS repeated, ‘But you distributed the tape.’ DA repeated, ‘We’re satisfied with HRC’s explanation and we’re past this.’ GS now asked, ‘So, does this mean you won’t send out any more tapes?’ DA repeated we’re past this. DA that preceded GS’s statement about the Obama campaign’s distribution of KO’s tape: “We’re not trying to stir the issue up.”
    DA=David Axelrod

    Sign here, very easy

    http://www.countthevotescast.org/letter.php

  28. A few observations: Obama has angled his campaigns on having big auditorium events, but never really going out to the working class, so it makes him look bigger and avoids frank questions from the common man. It’s like, you never ask the reverend awkward questions about the Bible in the big auditorium church meetings. The great minister is ultimately remote.

    Second: Obama supporters really are in some sort of scientology worship. They can’t describe the promises and the details of the religion, but it’s couch jumping feeling great.

    And anyone that tries to tell them reality is called “suppressive personalities” “SPs” just like the scientologists are told to deal with doubters of their religion. In fact, the Confluence should just start linking to Tom Cruise’s crazy scientology videos on you tube and change the name of the blog from Confluence to SP, because we won’t stop trying to break the programming and won’t stop telling the truth.

  29. The party has been looking to get rid of or release their dependence on certain groups for a long time: working class, gay people, ‘older’ white women. The hispanics they want to keep. So I just assume that they figure they will get them back in the Fall. But this is very, very liberating to Howard Dean. Whatever happened to the 50 state strategy or Dean’s remarks about wanting to get the voters in pick up trucks with gun racks? Well, he now doesn’t have to worry about it.

  30. The Supers should really be following the Rezko trial.

    Elizabeth Pringle connects the dots in Follow the Money: Curtain Time for Obama.

    http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/follow-money-pringle-final-chapter.html

  31. Am I correct in assuming that the reason HRC has more votes per pledged delegates than BO due to caucus states like Texas swinging for BO when the popular vote in that state went for HRC? In my mind there are really two very separate arguments in the original post (primary voter support and GE electability). I agree that the democratic nominating process should be simpler and more transparent. I do not really like the idea so much of super delegates, caucuses, or even delegates in general. There is little question in any reasonable person’s mind that the Democrat’s nominating system has benefitted BO. I guess in my mind my preference is the popular vote metric and while I have not been following it closely on a day to day basis, in my mind, BO and HRC are for all intents and purposes tied in that area.

    This is part of the reason why I do not really like these quasi complex demographic breakdowns. A vote is a vote in my mind and the suggestion that BO’s support is crumbling really requires a complex breakdown of demographics to support because in reality it is not. They have both received a similar number of votes. I usually check the Gallup poll every day and what I have seen is the two candidates trading spots with one another on a fairly regular basis. Maybe the best analogy of how I conceive of this is a relatively well balanced scale where one candidate takes a little weight off of the others and tips the contest in their favor only to have the other candidate do the same thing the next day. It seems to me that HRC has particularly strong support and this does not necessarily mean the opposite is true for BO. Personally I need some strong evidence to come to the conclusion that HRC’s (or BO’s) support is evaporating in an irreversible trend. For example, May 18th: BO polled 16 points higher than HRC in the Gallup poll. She is done for right? Nope, the gap between the two was halved in the following couple of days.

    I guess these types of breakdowns are not necessarily unhelpful or lame; maybe it is just that I feel attempting to assign motives to voters as a whole with declarative statements like, “Once voters realized that Obama would be the nominee, his support within most demographic categories declined, and declined significantly in most cases.” Alright, so how many people here do not support BO because you know he is going to win? Nobody? Maybe the best example of something (of many) that happened between February and May is the whole Rev. Wright ordeal.

  32. These elections were certified by their respective states. Obama CHOSE to take this name off the ballot. Count their votes fully or lose these states in November.

  33. Ben,

    I believe that 3,700 shoes have been sent.

    The shoe campaign is not part of the Clinton campaign. It was organized by Clinton supporters:

    http://www.walkamileinourshoes.org/

    Tell the Democratic National Committee: Don’t Walk Away From Our Winning Base, Walk A Mile In Our Shoes.

    Send a pair of shoes to the DNC TODAY!
    Request that the DNC donate the shoes to women’s shelters & recycle packaging.
    1. Mail a pair of your shoes representing your walk in life to the DNC at the address below.
    2. Send Virtual Shoes, an image of a pair of shoes representing your walk in life, to the DNC. OR CLICK HERE, then Cut-n-paste full text in blue box at left, and cut-n-paste the name of your shoe from poll list at left, into the DNC email window.
    3. Vote in The First Ever Poll To Let You Speak With Your Shoes! Help tell the media how many of us want to be heard.

    Where / Mailing Address:
    Democratic National Committee , 430 S. Capitol St. SE , Washington, DC 20003
    Talk the Walk – Help us keep count of shoes, to report to the DNC
    Include a printout of this Web page inside your package.
    Mail to arrive by May 30th for Sat. 31st committee meeting.

    [more on Web site]

  34. http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

    As I predicted, making the day political, trying to make up for his DUMB and INSENSITIVE comment comparing the Bataan Death March to the primary season…

    And Bill Richardson is handling it all..

    Gloria,
    I wish the Supers would realize that supporting Obama means being his servant ….forever. That his idea of unity is you fall in and obey, and that what he and the DNC are doing to Hillary and the Dem voter base, is what they will do to them if they do fall in…voting for Obama will not save you Super D’s!! Figure it out. Support Hillary Super D’s! If saving your country and party isn’t enough of a reason …then support Hillary to save yourself !

  35. Pringle’s Follow the Money: Final Chapter – Curtain Time for Obama is the best of the series for summarizing how Obama, especially as Chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, abetted Rezko’s influence peddling schemes.

    The Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act had to be passed–and this is where Obama, Rezko #2 man, played a role.

    BTW, Rezko was counting on Gov. Blag. becoming President and Patrick Fitzgerald–the Elliot Ness going after the pervasive Chicago/State of Illinois corruption was going to be “replaced.”

    From the trial: Rezko told witness Ali Ata: “Do not cooperate with the government, don’t worry, the top federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, will be replaced.

    Assistant US Attorney, Reid Schar, delivered the closing argument for the government:

    There was no mystery about how Rezko gained control over the Teacher’s Retirement System board and the Health Facilities Planning Board to pressure companies and individuals hoping to get state business for kickbacks, Schar told the jury.

    “The answer to that question is access and clout and it stems from Rezko’s ability to raise a lot of money,” Schar said. “He is one of the top fundraisers for Gov. Rod Blagojevich,” he noted.

    Rezko gained power over the Planning Board by stacking it with members whose vote he could control, Schar said. The chairman was reappointed after delivering a $1,000 contribution to Rezko for Blagojevich and two others contributed $25,000 before getting appointed.

    Tony Rezko is a private citizen. Therefore, the evidence presented in the trial focused on his influence over officials in getting members appointed to the Boards. Prosecutors did not discuss how the legislation got passed that enabled the Planning Board to be set up in a way that allowed for the appointment of members to rig the votes to begin with.

    That part of the scheme will likely be detailed in future indictments, probably starting with Blagojevich. Blagojevich signed the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act with an effective date of June 27, 2003. However, before he could sign the act, a bill had to be passed by the Illinois House and Senate.

    As discussed fully in Curtain Time Part II, Obama was the inside guy in the senate who pushed through the legislation that resulted in the Act.

    Obama was appointed chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. The minute the bill was introduced, it was referred to his committee for review. The sponsors of the bill also served on this committee with Obama. Within a month, Chairman Obama sent word to the full senate that the legislation should be passed.

    On May 31, 2003, Senate Bill 1332 passed and specified that the “Board shall be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate.” The legislation reduced the number of members from 15 to 9, paving the way for the appointment of a five-bloc majority to rig the votes.

    The corrupt members appointed included three doctors who contributed to Obama. Michel Malek gave Obama $10,000 on June 30, 2003 and donated $25,000 to Blagojevich on July 25, 2003. Malek also gave Obama another $500 in September 2003.

    –the complete article can be read at –

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0805/S00325.htm

  36. Ryan: the disparity in the voters per pledged delegate CPU t is partially due to the caucuses and partially due to the fewer number of delegates awarded to densely populated states like NJ. We got considerably fewer delegates per voters than places like idaho. Clinton’s delegates represent far more voters. That is why so many of her supporters are with her until the last dog dies.

  37. Hey Gloria, you’re from Las Cruces? That’s my home town. Used to live off the 70. When I was in high school, I used to run up to the Organ mountains for exercise all the time. Your front page pic brings back so many memories.

    I’m planning to head back to NM eventually and have been looking into hooking up with the progressive community in NM-2. That congressional seat is so winnable with the right candidate and organization.

  38. ETP – It’s the crazies like you that give Pat Robertson a bad name.

    We will take the matter in our own hands. With our votes. With our money and our volunteer time. We aren’t fair weather supporters of Clinton and our time and money and votes are fixin’ to move on. The Democrat party should be on notice.

  39. Am I correct in assuming that the reason HRC has more votes per pledged delegates than BO due to caucus states like Texas swinging for BO when the popular vote in that state went for HRC?

    in short, no. Texas’s “voters per delegate” number (14852) is well above the national average — and that is based on total voters in the primary divided by combined primary and caucus delegates (192)

    I think its important to point out that the “per delegate” graph above is extremely deceptive, showing a huge gap between Clinton and Obama’s voters per delegate that, in reality, constitutes less than 100 out of over 11,000 votes/delegate (I hate to toot my horn, but the graphs i put up in the “Count Whose Vote” piece I linked to previously are much more ‘honest’)

    The primary reason for the difference is that Obama got so many delegates out of caucus states in general. For instance, in Alaska, there was one delegate for every 683 caucus attendees, and Obama dominated the delegate count in the 12 states with the lowest number of voters per delegate (AK, WY, ID, KS, ND, NE, HI, ME, CO, MN, WA, NV)

    But in terms of the states with the highest number of voters per delegate, its pretty much of a wash — of the worst twelve (as of May 3), Obama won six states (VA, GA, MD, MS, IL, WI) and Clinton won six (NH, MA, PA, CA, TX, OH).

  40. RD,

    One thing that appears to have vanished from our consciousness is the fact that in three states out of three which had both caucuses and primaries, the results have been deeply at odds with each other. In all the primaries, where there was more participation, Hillary did much better in the primary than the caucus. In addition to the unfair allocation of delegates in caucus states, every single piece of data we have suggests that the caucuses are illegitimate indicators of popular sentiment. If we were to factor that into the equation, Obama’s claim to legitimacy based on his delegate lead is very dubious.

    I’ve been wanting to post, but have been busy writing and preparing for ye ol’ thesis defense in a couple days. Why there hasn’t been more of a deal made out of this is beyond me. Given the discrepancies between caucus and primary and Obama’s thwarting of democracy in FL & MI I can no longer view him as a legitimate candidate. There is very little that can convince me otherwise. Especially if he loses the popular vote.

  41. maybe it is just that I feel attempting to assign motives to voters as a whole with declarative statements like, “Once voters realized that Obama would be the nominee, his support within most demographic categories declined, and declined significantly in most cases.”

    What has really been happening is this….

    When Edwards dropped out right after Super Tuesday, most of his support went to Obama because of general antipathy toward Clinton. Clinton had high negatives at that time, and Obama didn’t.

    (I’ve examined what happened to the Edwards vote by comparing data from Oklahoma (where despite having withdrawn, Edwards got 10% of the vote on Super Tuesday) and West Virginia….)

    But the more these Edwards voters find out about Obama, the less they like him. Keep in mind that Obama was declared the ‘inevitable’ nominee before (around Feb 19) there was any focus on Rezko (whose trial started in March), Wright (which first broke in mid-March) or any questions about his qualifications/experience/preparation to be president were raised (the “3 AM” ad was released at the very end of February.

    Obama is losing support in most demographic groups — the only place where he is gaining support is among African Americans, poor voters (under $15K), uneducated voters (not HS graduates), big city voters, and very young voters (17-24). In most other categories, he’s fading in a MAJOR way…

  42. I recommend Paul’s posts. He has nice, easy to read graphs.

  43. Let’s hear it for The Sweetie Rebellion.

    Toss out all their bullshit. Take back the party.

    Put the grown-ups in control for a change.

    And tell them all Thanks — for the Vitriol.

  44. http://www.correntewire.com/obama_golf

    The rules are simple, and any number can play: To win, change an innocuous Hillary statement into a wankfest-worthy statement in the fewest number of strokes:

    0. She says “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

    0. Assassinated

    1. black leaders have been assassinated

    2. Obama is a black leader

    3. She was talking about assassinating Obama

    Three strokes, total. (“Teeing up” the initial trigger word does not count as a stroke).

  45. no blood for hubris

    ,I was reading your post and tried to follow the link to MYDD and the post is gone. Is it me, or do they have a habit of posting really inflammatory stuff and then yanking it later? I’ve had this happen on many occasions. anyone else?

  46. gqmartinez — I will drop a major data-bomb on the caucus component of Obama’s delegate count in the near future.

    We’ll get new data points from the idaho primary (Tuesday) and the upcoming SD and MT primaries which fill comparability gaps in caucus country.

  47. No Blood for Hubris: I just discovered your blog… I agree heartily on this point:

    “Love and kisses to Kos, Johnny A, Soto, Arianna, KeithO, JoshMM, and all the rest whose outrage is endless against one of their own while letting the actual Bushist fascist pro-torture crowd totally off the frickin’ rage hook, eh?”

    http://nobloodforhubris.blogspot.com/2008/05/thanks-for-vitriol.html

    Word.

    I’m actually a bit taken aback by how thoroughly the big money media blitz for Obama Inc. is backfiring. (Oops, I said “blitz”… the Blitz was the bombing of Britain by Nazi German… I just called Obama a Nazi… two strokes!) I guess I really thought it was just me, heh. But I’m discovering more and more corners of the net that are inside my brain and working it.

    I’m beginning to think that the corporate media has taken on a Pravda-like anti-legitimacy. Anything it says is likely suspect propaganda, and oddly enough, more than a few people seem to be recognizing that. Which is, clearly, as it should be — I am amused (yet not-amused) by the fauxgressives who have forgotten that they railed against the corporate media for *years*. Until the corporate media took Obama under their wing as a pet project, of course. (Oops, I said “pet”…!)

  48. Did you all read what Burton said about Bill Clinton? That he can campaign for Obama because he’s hurt about that african american community. If he does that, I will NEVER forgive him.

  49. Charles, that’s nice — and I can’t wait to see what Peter sends you.

    gqmartinez, I’m really curious about the caucus stuff. My dad just sent me a letter about the shenanigans at his caucus. Mine (a couple of miles south of his) was also a mess.

    I’m trying to decide what to do with his letter.

    **

    On a totally different note, if anyone here has any advise for a web editor, I’m looking for something affordable but reliable and good. At work I use Dreamweaver (CS3 Suite), but I can’t afford it in real life.

    Any advise would be hugely appreciated. Thank you…

  50. Lambert, I just read your Obama Golf rules to the family — this is great!

    Wonderful for a vacation car driving game….

  51. If you use Linux, I’d recommend Quanta Plus. It’s free.

    I haven’t tried it, but OpenOffice allows you to export powerpoint like presentations to HTML files. It’s also free.

  52. I didn’t know Contribute was a full web editor. I thought it had to work with something else. I’ll go take a look. Thanks!

  53. gqmartinez, I’m using windows at least for now….

  54. Well, the vote per delegate information has been educational. I wish the party could implement a better system than the one it is using. It does not seem very fair.

    Paul, I do not follow your site and I think I may have read too much into your comment. I kind of thought your comment implied causation (when it was not meant to). Oh well, thanks for the clarification.

    Katiebird, I think Aptana is supposed to be a decent competitor with Dreamweaver. I have no personal experience with it though. It could be worth checking out.

  55. If you want to go over to the dark side, it is available cheap. Make sure to check for viruses if you do.

  56. Hi Ryan, I’m just getting ready to download Aptana — it does look good. I’m tempted to buy the pro version. But I’m going to be reasonable and evaluate the free version first :)

    Henry, I’d be terrified to visit the dark side, much less download software from there…..

  57. KB:

    Maybe you should try Nvu (Nview). It’s open source and it’s free. I think it’s http://www.nvu.org

    It was made for people who couldn’t afford Dreamweaver.

  58. Oh no!

    I think it’s http://www.nvudev.org

  59. Hi MABlue, I looked at nvu a year or so ago but it didn’t work well with vbscript or asp (classic) pages and I use that now and then for fast/easy scripting. My memory is that it inserted html symbol code into the vb code and totally goofed it up.

    It was a serious disappointment because the editing environment was very nice.

  60. Came upon this quote today, seems very pertinent.

    “Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.”
    Franklin D. Roosevelt

  61. I’m so glad I have you all. I just went over and read another pro-Hillary blog and was so severely insulted by one of the posts by a blog front-pager, I can’t even see straight.

    I have real moral high-ground reasons I won’t vote for Obama, and this person I’m talking about is a real jack**s for his insulting way of acting toward those who won’t vote for Obama.

    This blogger in question is a self-proclaimed elitist. I’m for the little person, and he’s obviously not. He’s only about winning, screw the exclusatory direction that a win would take the party.

    Anyway, venting, glad I have a place to vent to.

    I hope you’re enjoying your day.

  62. How do we get info like the Buyers Remorse piece to the superdelegates? They are so bamboozled by the babel surrounding the annointed one I doubt they read blogs.

    Even this May protest, if we can’t go in person, as most can’t, how can we petition the DNC to come to their senses?

  63. dot commodity: I think the supers are as intrenched as anyone else in their candidate. Truth won’t sway them.

  64. KB:

    How about Bluefish? I haven’t tried it, but it’s supposed to be the open source equivalent of Frontpage.

  65. It looks good MABlue, but right now all my computers run on Windows. I’m getting ready to download Aptana Studio. (after the Indy 500)

  66. Boston boomer posted a long list of email adresses a couple days ago…theres no archives, so I now can’t find that post…anyone know how I can get a hold of them again?

  67. I haven’t tried it, but OpenOffice allows you to export powerpoint like presentations to HTML files. It’s also free.

    http://www.openoffice.org/index.html is a nice program – that is what I use (I run it with windows), and I have had no difficulties with anything (and I am pretty techno-stupid).

  68. Today I saw a commercial featuring Tweetie talking about Bill Clinton’s campaign style and something about “who says we can’t broker a deal.”

    Another commercial showed Kieth Olberman announcing coverage of McCain and his connections to lobbyists. “Hold on to your dinners!” said Keith.

    is this the new media plan? Olberman attacks McCain and Tweetie is the Sweetie?

    Keith (looking bloated) will now attack us by saying “How can you vote for McCain?”

  69. I do have Open Office. I never thought of using it as a Web Editor.

  70. {{Teresa}} I don’t know what site upset you. But, I’m pretty upset with something I just read at another site.

    And I don’t think I’ll be posting there anymore.

  71. The Tweetie commercial is confusing. He says something about Bill Clinton knows “political kung fu” and then something about “does Bill Clinton have the right to fight for Hillary’s place on the ticket.”

    I’m lying here sick in bed, so maybe I’m not understanding this commercial. I feel like I’m hallucinating. I need more fluids, I guess.

    Thank you all for being here.

  72. Katiebird: I’d say a certain frontpager at that site is a site violator.

    What an a*s. I think he’s driven a bunch of us away.

  73. Charles, I’m trying something called Aptana — it looks like it’s got some coding advantages that could be useful and the full-paid version is just $100 which isn’t too bad.

    I think I’ve got Contribute as part of something at work. So, I’ll take a look at it there. I did look at it a few months ago. But it was for a specific project and it wasn’t what I needed.

    Teresa, I’ve known for a while that my time was limited there. Because — we’ll I’m NOT going to vote for Obama. It doesn’t have anything to do with Clinton Loyalty. It has to do with the fact that I don’t want to be associated with the Obama campaign.

    In fact, I might be beyond what can be handled by this site too. We’ll see.

  74. Katiebird: I know exactly what you mean. What’s happening is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The only way to have any chance of making it right is to prevent a win. And it’s not about Clinton, and it’s not about the Democratic party, it’s about voter representation. It’s about the reason we’re Democrat. If Democrats suddenly abandon that reason, then I personally, can’t be a Democrat. There are no ifs, ands, buts.

    At the end of the day, the folks Obama wants to represent don’t need a president as badly as the folks he wants to ignore. His candidacy needs to end.

  75. For me, type means TypO

    Hopefully you got the gist of my post.

  76. Well, Teresa as long as we can’t talk about Obama’s serious weaknesses, we’re the ones who will sound like crabby nutcases. Then November will come and this stuff comes out, I think they’ll be hell to pay. All these super delegates who have endorsed him will have to answer for a lot.

  77. Katiebird: We’re far from alone. Even media figures are seeing the light of day.

    Maybe we need to find a place where those of us who feel this way can talk….without feeling like “nutcases”.

    I’ll tell you, I sincerely believe that I might not have survived my childhood without policies set in place by Democrats. This change in the Democrats to the party of, by, and for, the elitists is not one I’m going to support in any way. I refuse. If it makes me sound like a nut, that’s absolutely fine with me.

  78. Obama is not qualified to be CIC. He has no track record, and dubious associates. I will use my vote to prevent Obama from winning should he be the nominee.

    Hillary will win the nomination. We have to hang tough.

  79. And I think a certain front page blogger has been playing a rather dishonestly sophisticated game with us. Now he’s being a little more honest about his feelings — but it’s still a pretty sophisticated game.

    All these discussions of “electability” rely on secrets being successfully kept. And revealing those secrets are against the rules.

  80. katie, what do you mean?

  81. I also think that a certain front page blogger is more worried about keeping his friendships with certain “blogger boyz” than with being intellectually honest. At the end of the day, he wants to be a kewl kid.

    I was absolutely mortified at how quickly he fell for the RFK nonsense. IMHO, it showed that he was more hostile toward Clinton than he wants us to know.

    If you ever want to talk about this offline, TeresaIndy(at)gmail.com

  82. Howdy all!

    I’ve been playing Obama Golf and wading through sewers all day.

    The Oborg have descended to Malkinesque levels of derangement.

    They’re about ready to start checking Rachel Ray’s countertops.

  83. Katiebird: I’m off to yank weeds out of my yard, to rid some frustration.
    Have a good Sunday.

  84. Been upriver for the last few days, but out here in Ory-gun my last nerve has finally snapped! The day after O won the Oregon primary, I received my FIRST fund raising letter from his campaign. A day later I also received a phone call from his campaign soliciting funds. (I am already in a number of databases as a Clinton contributor.) So, I interrupted the caller to say “no way” and hung up. Next, I put my Dixie Chicks’ “Ain’t Ready to Make Nice” on the stereo at top volume and wrote the following message with a red felt tipped marker onto the nice fundraising letter from Obama: “Surely, you must have meant to send this to your friends at Goldman Sachs.” (O’s biggest contributor from wall street financial sector where he has raised MORE money than Clinton according to the latest stats.) I then took that comment and placed it in O’s prepaid envelope and sent it back to him. Thus I let them how I know what they really are all about and they have to pay the postage to find out what I think of them instead of getting a contribution. HOW SWEET IT IS!

  85. Melanie, Visit No Quarter USA and look for posts by Larry Johnson. There are issues that we probably won’t be talking about here. But they address serious electability issues.

  86. The Oborg have descended to Malkinesque levels of derangement.

    They’re about ready to start checking Rachel Ray’s countertops.

    myiq2xu – (I AM rolling on the floor laughing!)

    I don’t even know what you mean exactly, but it sounds hilarious!

  87. {{salmonrising}} “My last nerve” I think I’ve recently become aware of that myself….

  88. PS: A certain front page blogger’s response to Hillary’s RFK remarks? Didn’t surprise me at all.

    And he’ll never live it down in my book.

  89. myiq2xu – You really made me laugh,

    I get the impression that Rachel Ray’s countertops are covered in ketchup, Triscuit crumbs, and e. coli. I saw a photo of her sitting on her sink (her SINK!) wearing scanty clothing and clutching a collander. I swear to God, I did. Who knows what’s crawling around in her kitchen.

    Disgusting.

  90. No Blood for Hubris: I just discovered your blog… I agree heartily on this point:

    “Love and kisses to Kos, Johnny A, Soto, Arianna, KeithO, JoshMM, and all the rest whose outrage is endless against one of their own while letting the actual Bushist fascist pro-torture crowd totally off the frickin’ rage hook, eh?”

    http://nobloodforhubris.blogspot.com/2008/05/thanks-for-vitriol.html

    Word.

    From making the rounds of the pro-Clinton grassroots, the big money media blitz for Obama Inc. is backfiring to an extent that actually surprises me. (Oops, I said “blitz”… the Blitz was the bombing of Britain by Nazi German… I just called Obama a Nazi… two strokes!) I guess I really thought it was just me, heh. But I’m discovering more and more corners of the net that are inside my brain and working it.

    I am amused (yet not-amused) at the fauxgressives who have forgotten that they railed against the corporate media for *years*. Until the corporate media took Obama under their wing as a pet project, of course. (Oops, I said “pet”…)

  91. Arabella: Do you recall where you saw that picture of Rachel Ray?

    My curiousity is uh. . . purely scientific.

  92. I agree Katiebird and Teresa – I caught that immediately when that ‘front pager ‘ came out with that crap – Anyone who really knows Hillary would absolutely KNOW that she never , ever would say something like that – or even hint at something like that .. etc.. sheesh – ‘that front pager ‘ – exposed .

  93. @edwardian, that is SUCH an excellent point. The Democratic establishment won’t fight anyone ever anytime and makes a virtue of capitulation to wrongs, but we’re supposed to somehow fight and fight for them despite all the back stabbings, as if we owe them. They’ve got it backwards.

    There’s a poster at a pro-Hillary site, very smart guy, but he basically blames the voters for electing sucky reps who want to disenfranchise them and others who won’t stand up to the disenfrachisers. Well, guess what, my reps are sucky too. I voted for them because of all this browbeating, you need to vote for whoever’s on the ballot even if they’re just as bad as the Republicans, voting D is in itself a positive good. I think those of us who are not being disenfrachised should consider ourselves lucky, not act like we’re somehow braver and stronger than our unfortunate brethren and assume that we could somehow make our voices heard while it’s their fault they can’t, they’re not trying hard enough.

  94. myiq2xu – I saw it years ago. If I find the link, I’ll post it.

    It was way back in the day when Rachel Ray was a just a culinary nymphet bopping around the kitchen talking about “evooo.”

  95. today in the news, just to make me ill: Clinton Camp Stokes RFK Flap by Blaming Obama (Washington Post).

    I can’t stand it

    What happened to America? Was it always like this and I never noticed?

  96. IMHO, the Oprah-ification RUINED my Rachel Ray. I loved her in the EVOO days.

  97. It’s a passing fever, jacilyn. This is the first time we’ve had a real fighter in the mix. This should have happened long ago.

  98. Katie: A certain someone has serious anger management issues.

  99. Dontchoo be talking bad about RR, she’s my dream girl!

  100. (whispering) myiq2xu: TL….

  101. marie3548, on May 25th, 2008 at 12:41 pm Said:

    They were discussing HRC’s RFK statement. DA claimed they were satisfied with her explanation. ‘Then why,’ George asked, ‘did you distribute KO’s tape to the press?’ DA said something about KO being entitled to his opinion. GS repeated, ‘But you distributed the tape.’ DA repeated, ‘We’re satisfied with HRC’s explanation and we’re past this.’ GS now asked, ‘So, does this mean you won’t send out any more tapes?’ DA repeated we’re past this. DA that preceded GS’s statement about the Obama campaign’s distribution of KO’s tape: “We’re not trying to stir the issue up.”
    DA=David Axelrod

    Around here, DA = Dumb Ass. Looks like it’s universal. ;)

  102. Teresa and Katie,

    I’m in your camp. It’s a moral issue for me. Frankly, I think Obama is a crook and that’s why the oil co’s, nuke co’s, etc. picked him to back. They thought Bush had destroyed the Republican party’s chances, so they put their money on another horse. They’ll be OK with either McCain or Obama. They know Hillary is a fighter.

    I think you could be right about that certain front pager being afraid to be on the outs with the “A-list” bloggers.

  103. You want to be embraced and love by “Liberals” and “Progressives” no matter what you ever did to them?

    Very simple: Just hate Hillary Clinton, maniacally.

    Arianna Huffington used to be a Gingrich Republican (blerk), working night and day to spread lies about the Democratic agenda in 1994, ridiculing everything we stood for. She was among the people who went the extra mile to viciously savage the Democratic nominee Al Gore. Just check for yourself what she was writing about him between 1998 and 2000.

    How did she become one of the leaders of the new “Progressive” movement?
    She created “Hate Hillary Central”.

    The most appalling case is the “Liberal” embrace of sociopath Andrew Sullivan.
    These days, he gets approvingly quoted on a regular basis by leaders of the “Progressive” movement, everyone of his deranged conniption fit about Hillary Clinton is endorsed by the creative class among Democrats.

    Let’s revisit Andrew Sullivan vs Democrats and Liberals and Progressives, shall we?

    As editor of The New Republic, Andrew Sullivan No Exit, the dishonest piece of GOP hatchet woman Elizabeth McCaughey about the Clintons’ Healthcare Reform. The piece was so full of misinformation and outright lies, that the Clinton administration published a point by point rebuttal. However, Andrew Sullivan refused to publish it.

    No Exit was trumpeted by the Rightwing Noise Machine and was successfully used as cris de coeur against Universal Healthcare in 1994. For those who don’t remember all the lies and shenanigans used by detractors of the UHC in 1994, please read A Triumph of Misinformation, by James Fallows of The Atlantic. He goes through the falsehoods contained in No Exit. He also debunked the “secrecy of the task force” myth.

    Strangely enough, that piece went on to win National Magazine Award for… Wait for it… “Excellence in Public Interest”. The jury said No Exit

    “transcended the coverage in most of the press. More than any other single event in the debate, what she wrote stopped the bill in its intellectual tracks.”

    Mickey Kaus, who was then at TNR reacted in the magazine by writing No Exegesis. He wasn’t particularly happy:

    So why don’t I feel more like celebrating? Is it because, as a New Yorker editor publicly complained, the McCaughey articles seemed to have been ” nominated for buzz”? Perhaps. But does The New Yorker not care about buzz? (Tell it to the Easter Bunny.) Is it because my colleague Michael Kinsley, in this space, denounced the initial McCaughey piece as a “screed,” and James Fallows, writing in the Atlantic, said its claims were “simply false” and Theodore Marmor, professor of public policy at Yale, told me his fellow health experts of left, right and center consider McCaughey’s articles ” risible”?

    ( … )

    She got some things right. But she got a lot wrong. In the process, she completely distorted the debate on the biggest public policy issue of 1994. Give her a medal.

    After reading No Exegesis, Gregory Curtis, a member of the jury sent a letter of protest to TNR, a letter Andrew refused to publish. The following may explain why:

    I am not talking about the difference of opinion between McCaughey and Kaus. A magazine is a chorus of many voices. There is lots of room for disagreement. But that’s not the problem here. Clinton’s plan says what it says. Any article on that plan must be based on accurate statements about what the plan says. Making sure that an article is accurate is one of the things an editor does. If you are not going to do that for a cover story on a central piece of legislation by a president that you endorsed, if you are not going to do that for a follow-up in which you call the administration liars, when are you going to do it? If Kaus was wrong and McCaughey is right after all, then how could you have published Kaus’s column? I can imagine a good magazine publishing neither McCaughey’s story nor Kaus’s story. But I cannot imagine a magazine with respect for its readers publishing both.

    (It’s important to note that TNR endorsed Bill Clinton, not Andrew Sullivan)

    In October 1994, Andrew Sullivan, editor of The New Republic, under protest of other writers, finatically published lengthy excerpts of “The Bell Curve” by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. It was about race and intelligence, based on bogus research, financed by the Pioneer Fund, whose mission was to promote eugenics. In short, “Blacks genetically have a lower IQ”.

    The outcry about what Andrew did was very loud among liberals. However, Andrew wouldn’t have any of it. Au contraire, he considers that one of his greatest achievements. Here he is in 8/2005 sticking it to us:

    One of my proudest moments in journalism was publishing an expanded extract of a chapter from “The Bell Curve” in the New Republic before anyone else dared touch it. I published it along with multiple critiques (hey, I believed magazines were supposed to open rather than close debates) – but the book held up, and still holds up as one of the most insightful and careful of the last decade. The fact of human inequality and the subtle and complex differences between various manifestations of being human – gay, straight, male, female, black, Asian – is a subject worth exploring, period. Liberalism’s commitment to political and moral equality for all citizens and human beings is not and should not be threatened by empirical research into human difference and varied inequality. And the fact that so many liberals are determined instead to prevent and stigmatize free research and debate on this subject is evidence … well, that they have ceased to be liberals in the classic sense. I’m still proud to claim that label – classical liberal. And I’m proud of those with the courage to speak truth to power, as Murray and Herrnstein so painstakingly did. Pity Summers hasn’t been able to match their courage. But recalling the tidal wave of intolerance, scorn and ignorance that hit me at the time, I understand why.

    When George Bush was rushing the country into the Iraq war, Andrew Sullivan accused those of us who were against that war of mounting “a fifth column”. He issued his own fatwa against those who would not tow the line. David Talbot wrote in Andrew Sullivan’s jihad:

    Since Sept. 11, the British journalist has declared himself the mullah of the media world, sitting in judgment of American writers’ patriotism.

    .
    Here is the intro of Sullivan’s 3/2003 piece in Salon.com,
    “A million Mogadishus”

    The coming weeks are going to be critical for the left in this country for a very simple reason. Legitimate, important, valid or even extreme and hyperbolic arguments before a war are one thing. But they have a different salience when they are made during a war — especially one that has barely even begun. There are already polling suggestions that the antiwar movement is at this point bolstering public support for the war. But if the antiwar rhetoric among the extreme left continues in the same vein as it has this first week, the marginalization of the left in this country, already profound, might become irreversible.

    During Sullivan’s tenure, TNR became the conduit for Camille Paglia express her degenerate hatred of the Clintons’, especially Hillary.

    How did this guy suddenly become the darling of the Big “Progressive” Blogz, the Big “Progressive” Boiz and the “Liberal” creative class?

    By hating Hillary Clinton beyond humanely possible and asking them to join in. That’s all it takes these days to make the new “Liberal” coalition happy. And oh, he said he likes Obama too. Now that reaaaaally helps.

    Who cares about anything beyond that?

  104. MABlue, welcome to the wonderful brave new world of progressivism.

    I was a kid at the time, but wasn’t there also some vague controversy about Sullivan’s passionate denunciations of the entire concept of universal health care because when he was disagnosed with hiv, Peretz kept him on the payroll at TNR despite the fact that he was no longer working there, so he could continue to receive health insurance? It’s good to be a libertarian conservative as long as you save the libertarian part for the less fortunate.

  105. MABlue,

    Your excellent “comment” should be published as front page post. When are you going to accept Riverdaughter’s offer to post?

  106. Thanks to all of you for helping me keep my sanity. And an extra thanks to you katiebird and theresa for making this “despised” old bat feel a little less alone and confused.

    I do admit though that I belong to a cult. The cult of democracy. The cult where “anything goes” is not acceptable behavior just because it’s playing politics.

    I am one small, not very important voice. But it’s my damn voice and my damn vote and I’ll cast it the way that best fits my conscience, my values, and my integrity. And anyone that doesn’t like that…

  107. “Now, there is going to be a lot of noise about the RULZ. Screw the rules.”

    How Republicanesce. It was the Republicans screwing the rules in 2000 that gave us George W. Bush.

    If there was one lesson to take from the 2000 election, it was to not change the rules that were set up before it was known who the rules would favor. If the Florida state laws on handling disputed elections had been followed, it’s likely that Al Gore would be president today.

    If you are not willing to accept any rules, how do you propose to make Hillary the nominee?

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 414 other followers

%d bloggers like this: