• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    pm317 on Stroll: Watercolor in the…
    riverdaughter on Stroll: Watercolor in the…
    pm317 on Stroll: Watercolor in the…
    pm317 on Stroll: Watercolor in the…
    pm317 on Stroll: Watercolor in the…
    riverdaughter on Stroll: Watercolor in the…
    Sweet Sue on Dunkirk Spirit
    pm317 on Dunkirk Spirit
    Niles on Stroll: Golden Hair
    Ga6thDem on Dunkirk Spirit
    Ga6thDem on Dunkirk Spirit
    Sweet Sue on Dunkirk Spirit
    JMS on Dunkirk Spirit
    pm317 on Dunkirk Spirit
    pm317 on Dunkirk Spirit
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • On Stubborn Facts and Partisan Identification
      There is vast confusion in the more active left about this, so let’s clear it up by way of Bernie Sanders. Clinton was more popular with POC and women than Sanders was. She was also more popular with old people. However Sanders is well liked by POC and women. Every survey I have seen shows […]
  • Top Posts

Things that only true Obamaphiles can believe

Cognitive dissonance is not dead. It just isn’t supposed to be so rampant on our side. But here are some of things that only the true Obamaphile believes:

  • Just because Hillary kept a hands-off attitude about the Wright videos, which would have surely helped her on the Wednesday before SuperDuper Tuesday, she will still do absolutely ANYTHING to win.
  • He sits on the sidelines and lets FL and MI revote options expire, disenfranchising 2.2 Million voters while she is willing to risk her delegate count to get them seated. But this was just more of her ruthless negativity because as he says, ” “She’s just trying to tear me down, and that’s not the kind of politics we’ve been about,”
  • He wouldn’t have to go so negative if she would just drop out. She’s asking for it.
  • She has the right to compete. He says it’s Ok.
  • She has visited over 80 countries as first lady and has participated in numerous missions on behalf of her husband’s administration. He hasn’t had a single meeting of his Foreign Relations subcommittee and hasn’t had to do diddly for this country in just about his entire adult life. See? They’re completely even. ( Close your eyes and squint)
  • She gets caught misremembering snipers in Bosnia while on a visit into a dangerous war zone. He gets caught running Deval Patrick’s entire campaign down to the notable sentences about “We hold these truths to be self eveident” Nevertheless, she is a serial exaggerator and liar in the mold of Al Gore and John Kerry. But he is just collaborating.
  • Despite her lifelong committment to healing the racial divide, her win at any costs strategy demostrate overt racism. But his pastor is just a big pussycat who got a little energetic and no, he never noticed that in 20 years of knowing him. He was in the bathroom peeing during those parts of the sermon.
  • His wife says for the first time in her adult life, she feels proud of her country. But Hillary is less patriotic, er, just because.
  • Hillary viciously hurls the kitchen sink at Obama when she comments that she wouldn’t have stayed with Wright as her pastor. He says that when she’s feeling down, she periodically thinks of ways to attack him. She is not expressing an opinion, she is using one of her periodic attack strategy sessions. He is practicing a higher form of politics.
  • She calls for Michigan and Florida to be seated because the nominee can’t be legitimate without them. He sits on MI and FL and his supporters ask WWTSBQ? after she *wins* states. Neither can get the nomination without superdelegates. But he will not have to go this route because he has already won- without MI and FL.
  • He has already won but his campaign announces that it is going to go offensively negative on her, becaaause it’s fun to kick a girl when she’s down?
  • He says that his supporters will not vote for her but hers will vote for him. She says she will work to make sure the party is united in the fall. But she’s just ingeniously calling attention to her own divisiveness while he is the Unity candidate.
  • His supporters are Sports Illustrated Swimsuit models with PhD’s in fabulously creative fields- who look like Markos Moulitsas
  • Obama’s PhD swimsuit model supporters will never grow older or cease to be attractive, respected and desired by middle aged male Obama supporters. And someday they will all vote for a woman for president, just not “this one.” (Maria Garcia)
  • She wants everyone to vote and every vote to count His supporters are telling the rest of the primary states that they shouldn’t even bother ‘cuz he’s going to win it. No, there is no reason for him to fear the actual vote, why do you ask?

Now, it’s your turn. I gotta go pack. I *hate* to pack..

Things that make you go hmmm. California Democrats meet in San Francisco amid Presidential Stalemate.

Advertisements

101 Responses

  1. – MI and FL and their millions of voters don’t matter because they broke the RULZ.
    – If MI and FL count somehow Hillary will STEAL the nomination from Obama.
    – Hillary has no chance of winning so she should drop out now for the good of the party.
    – The Clintons are racists. But Rev. Wright is just misunderstood.
    – Clinton supporters are threatening Pelosi and DNC to break the RULZ and that’s just WRONG!
    – It’s all Hillary’s fault! WAAAAAH!

  2. Obama said that Clinton “has the right to continue to compete,” but he agrees with Richardson that the campaign has turned negative – and he blames Clinton.

  3. Obama has to give Clinton the permission to compete.

  4. An interesting story from AP. The largest gathering of superdelegates between now and August is going to meet this weekend in San Jose, California. Hillary takes it so seriously that she is sending her husband. Obama asked Richardson and Kennedy to show up; well, it seems they have scheduling conflicts, so Obama is looking to fourth tier aparatchiks to lobby at the convention.

    I wonder if Kennedy is worried about Wright? I am sure Bill Judas Richardson is afraid to look Bill in the eye.

  5. DCDemocrat– That’s very interesting. Do you have a link to the story?

  6. DCD: San Jose is just down the road from San Francisco (I really *do* know the way to San Jose). And SF is where Nancy Pelosi lives and she’s becoming a big pain in the ass this year.

  7. Riverdaughter: I grew up in San Jose in the 1960s and 1970s. I am a Bellarmine boy and my undergraduate was at Loyola in Los Angeles.

    The [AP http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8719550%5D story is at the The Mercury web site.

  8. rd: “His supporters….. like Markos Moulitsas”

    You are so naughty

  9. Experiment: If I remember to close the bracket will it work?

    [AP http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8719550%5D

  10. Sorry for my failed experiment, riverdauger.

  11. I hate to nutpick, but this comment on a thread from another site is too on point for this thread:

    “Believe me, speaking from Michigan, every time she talks about how concerned she is about my precious vote (against her), I feel like screaming or vomiting or both. I voted “uncommitted” when many stayed home, just so I could keep her from claiming a “Michigan victory,” which the pro-Obama and pro-Edwards folks correctly predicted. My hubby crossed over to vote for Mittens on the advice of the Great Orange Satan.

    The only reason I wanted a revote was because I am sure Michigan would go Obama and humiliate her. But her lobbying for a revote and lining up only her own supporters to pay for it gave Michiganders a bad taste in their mouths, killing the chances for her bought-and-paid-for election. And today, a federal judge said that the scheme to share primary voter rolls with only the GOP and Dems (and no one else) was unconstitutional. Without the ability to screen out the true-blue Dem voters from the crossovers like my husband, the revote becomes impossible under DNC rules.”

    WTF?

    “But her lobbying for a revote and lining up only her own supporters to pay for it gave Michiganders a bad taste in their mouths, killing the chances for her bought-and-paid-for election.”

    So Hillary lobbied for a revote and lined up supporters to pay for it and that’s what killed the deal?

    I guess Kool-aid kills brain cells.

  12. Sooo what is this delegate pow-wow supposed to accomplish?

  13. myiq2xu: LOL. These Obamabots will say any crazy thing to blame HRC. Most of the time they make no sense at all but somehow they spin their drivel and fellow Obamabots just nod their head in agreement. They are seriously not thinking straight right now and that’s is another reason why I can’t vote for the guy. His followers are too cultish and nonsensical. I just can’t have someone with followers like that in power.

  14. DCD: I spent 4 years working across the tracks right behind Bellarmine on Stackton Avenue during the 80’s.

    Small world.

  15. myiq2xu: I graduated from Bellarmine in 1977. I was long gone by the time you started haunting the place.

    Did you know that College Park Station, right there next to Bellarmine, is mentioned by Jack London in the first few pages of The Call of the Wild?

  16. WTF???

    Why do my comments keep disappearing?

  17. DCD– Thanks for the link. Those Obama surrogates sound worse than fourth tier. He must not think he has much chance–or may Nancy will be his undercover surrogate? Somehow I don’t think even Richardson or Kennedy would be able to compete with Bill Clinton.

    It would be very interesting if Kennedy were worried about Wright. He obviously should have known about the good pastor long ago, since even I did. I’ll tell you one thing, the pastor issue isn’t going to look good for Kennedy and Kerry in staid New England.

    And as riverdaughter points out, Obama’s clone, Deval Patrick isn’t so popular here either. Gambling casinos in MA? I don’t think so. It looks like the state legislature isn’t going to go along with that, Deval.

  18. BTD has an interesting thread at Talk Left on Puerto Rico and “post-racial” politics (or not). I found it interesting.

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/27/201147/440

  19. MABlue, that happened to me yesterday. I think the spam catcher looks for certain words.

  20. yeah, but he’s Mr Hopey McChangey, so none of the above matters.

    here’s one that bothers me. you know how Bush loves a straw man….”there are those who say…” followed by some ridiculous assertion. he does this all the time without ever naming who they are (since they don’t exist)

    Obama does it too. his line is “there are some who will” followed by resist change or hang onto the status quo or something like that.

    straw man arguments are so easy to win, since you get to make up both sides. Bush has driven me crazy using them for seven years, and now Obama favors them as well. another reason I don’t support him.

  21. bostonboomer, I thought the NYT piece today on Patrick was crafted to be exceptionally unflattering to Obama.

  22. Chris: It’s funny you mention Obama and Bush in the same post. My stomach has been turning over at the thought of one inexperienced jackass succeeding another.

  23. One good thing has happened to me during these primaries.

    Because all the “progressive” Big Blogz are so viciously anti-Hillary, the number of blogs I even visit has been reduced to a precious few (The Few, the Proud…the Clinton Bloggers)

    I know have more time to read the blogs I really like and I have enough time to get some work done.

    Thank you Big Boyz Blogz!

  24. yeah DCD, and the Bushbots said experience didn’t matter because he could surround himself with seasoned advisors. we’ve all seen how well that worked out. and Obama doesn’t seem to be too strong in the picking advisors department either.

  25. MAB, me too! I’ve also removed myself from a bunch of email lists (buzzflash, huffpo etc). it does free up time, and honestly it’s so important to know there are others who feel the same way. the big blogz can make you feel so isolated.

  26. DCD,

    I don’t follow local politics that closely, but I knew that casino thing was not going to go over here. I’ll bet seeing how Patrick has turned out is really going to turn off MA voters to Obama. We don’t need another president who has to have on-the-job training. I sure hope MA doesn’t go for McCain, but it could happen. Reagan carried my state. Horrors! We have to get Hillary nominated.

  27. bostonboomer: That SUSA poll last week that showed Obama and McCain tied in Massachusetts made me wonder if Obama might try to outdo McGovern and Mondale and just go for the District of Columbia. It’s completely doable: I have no doubt Obama can carry the District, so he really should see if he can set a new record in all time colossal electoral disasters.

    chris: As long as Barack has Michelle and Rev. Wright whispering in his ear, all will be well.

  28. chris:

    There are many of us. Each time someone mentions his new reading habits in the same vain, there are always a lot of respondents.

    People out there tend to underestimate Hillary Clinton’s strong support and that’s why they have danced on her grave 3 times already, but she is still here and will go with us all the way to the convention.

  29. “His supporters are Sports Illustrated Swimsuit models with PhD’s in fabulously creative fields- who look like Markos Moulitsas” omg – lmfao

  30. To all those who are deluding themselves that Rev Wright is over:

    Think again.(h/t No Quarter)

    Btw, that’s Juan Williams, one of the members of our exclusive club “Black-Men-Who-Are-So-Stupid-They-Don’t-Support-Obama”

  31. MABlue:″…they have danced on her grave 3 times already″ 🙂

    I am glad I found this ″tribe″…good sense of humour.

  32. DCDemocrat: Obama might try to outdo McGovern and Mondale and just go for the District of Columbia.

    Oh, he’ll also keep MD.

    I did laugh, though — a neighbor took down her Obama yard sign when Rev Wright hit the news.

  33. I’m not sure if I posted this here or not, but the Illinios General Assembly only meets 70-something days out of the year. Out of those 70+ days, only 55 (on average) are mandatory. It means that Obama really only had about 1.5 years legislative experience before he was elected to the US senate. I’m getting the exact number of days for the first four years he was in – hopefully, I’ll have that tomorrow. On the mandatory days, they don’t take roll call so you can’t actually know what day your legislator is in. ‘

    Personally, I think the paltry number of days he worked is a big part of the reason he won’t release his schedule. His schedule would draw attention to the fact that he is a greatly inexperienced man.

    I won’t vote for either Obama or McCain. If Obama cant’ win with counting all the votes, if he can’t distance himself from racist friendships, if he, himself, can’t refrain from sexist, racist remarks, then I can’t tell the difference between him and a Republican. I won’t vote for McCain, but I will also not vote for Obama. Too much stink.

  34. hlr: I bet she’s just another typical white woman.

  35. Wow, Juan Williams was pissed. and OTM in what he said. Am I crazy or are is there doubtless a huge trove of similar material from Wright.. Fox probably hanging on to most of it until the optimal timing.

  36. DCDemocrat: I bet she’s just another typical white woman.

    In fact, she is.

  37. Juan Williams made a point that brings up another Obama – Bush similarity. everything is always someone else’s fault. the buck hasn’t stopped in the oval office for seven years and I don’t think it would if Obama sat there. how many times has he demanded an apology? that isn’t going to play on the world stage.

  38. OOh, I have another one….Obama’s PhD swimsuit model supporters will never grow older or cease to be attractive, respected and desired by middle aged male Obama supporters. And someday they will all vote for a woman for president, just not “this one.”

  39. Hillary will do anything to destroy the Democratic Party?
    Oh Really?

    From BTD@Talkleft (He’s been eviscerating the Big Boyz throughout the Primary Season)

    Hillary Clinton’s “scorched earth” tactics:

    Clinton was asked by a questioner in the audience here what she would tell frustrated Democrats who might consider voting for McCain in the general election out of spite. “Please think through this decision,” Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word “please.” “It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country.”

    . . . “First of all, every time you have a vigorous contest like we are having in this primary election people get intense,” she continued. “You know, Sen. Obama has intense support. I have intense support.”

    Clinton stressed that there are “significant” differences between her and Obama, but said “those differences pale to the differences between us and Sen. McCain.”

    What a dastardly thing to say . . .

  40. What a dastardly thing to say . . .

    hehe – obama will be demanding an apology

  41. Rev Wright is not going anywhere… Part 2

    So today, Barack Obama in his interview with The View, said this:

    “Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people, and were inappropriate and mischaracterize what I believe is the greatness of this country,” Obama explained, “Then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable standing in the church.”

    Aha! Hillary should expecting an apology from Obama and his campaign because he agrees with her that somebody saying things like these should not be your pastor.
    Why did he and his campaign trash her for saying that?

    Is Andrea Mitchell going to ask Obama why he is bringing the Rev Wright up? (although he probably answering a question just like Hillary was).

    I am too tired to even get into the lies and pathetic excuses made in that statement. Let’s see what the media will do with the Wright related parts of the interview.

  42. (different topic but had to spread the news)

    Good News Hillary Fans!

    We went to the FIRST meet-up for Hillary in our County in NC tonight and according to the “recorder” there were 4 times MORE people that showed up compared to last year!

    SUPPORT is growing in Western NC for Hillary!! It was a GREAT meeting and I added THE CONFLUENCE to the list of “Nice to Hillary” websites! They only had Taylor Marsh listed! I had to add a few.

    So hopefully you will get a bit more traffic soon. (I’m sure your traffic is great already)

    Oh and Bill is gonna be at the local High School tomorrow night! Can’t WAIT! I hope Hillary makes it up this way too before May. This extended campaign is a GOOD thing (for the VOTERS).

  43. The only votes that matter are the one for Obama. The rest? Well, not so much.

    Being the Uniter means bringing together people who agree with you. The rest? Well, not so much.

    Barack Obama can out-awesome anybody. He’s the Awesomest. He even out-awesomes Jeebus. He is that awesome.

    Fighting to win is great, unless you’re Hillary Clinton. Then you’re cheating.

    The mere fact of Barack Obama trumps any accomplishment by Hillary Clinton. See re: the Awesomer thing above.

    Any attack on the Awesomer is de facto evil and kitchen-sink-y.

  44. Is Obama ever going to be able to stop making the rounds to clarify/clean up after whatever Wright has said or written? now it’s the anti-Israel stuff and the “garlic nose” insults. I read a raft of arguments when the first videos were released saying, you know, things were out of context, this is his style to provoke, etc. But I have to step back and ask myself, how does someone casually throw in all these insults? ugh.

  45. I’ll be at a rally at the San Jose Convention Center tomorrow at 4:30 P.M. when Pelosi arrives. No Hillary wear or banners– we are showing that committed Democrats for any candidate don’t want Michigan and Florida voters disenfranchised.

    Come join the party!

  46. You forgot my favorite: Obama’s experience as a “community organizer” is adequate preparation to be leader of the free world.

  47. And I think I caught on the news somewhere that the Rev apologized to him? The Rev. apologized to Barry? For what? Causing him embarrassment? And if this was in private, do I take B.O.’s word? Sorry, how ’bout an apology to the American People?

  48. nytimes.com apologizes to Hillary, sort of….

    Correction: March 28, 2008
    An editorial on Thursday about the mortgage crisis misstated Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s position on bankruptcy reform. She has endorsed proposals that would allow troubled home buyers to have their mortgages modified in court. http://polstate.com/?p=5339
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/opinion/27thu1.html

  49. Krugman on Hillary…..

    Hillary Clinton’s speech could not have been more different. True, Mrs. Clinton’s suggestion that she might convene a high-level commission, including Alan Greenspan — who bears a lot of responsibility for this crisis — had echoes of the excessively comfortable relationship her husband’s administration developed with the investment industry. But the substance of her policy proposals on mortgages, like that of her health care plan, suggests a strong progressive sensibility.

    Maybe the most notable contrast between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton involves the problem of restructuring mortgages. Mr. McCain called for voluntary action on the part of lenders — that is, he proposed doing nothing. Mrs. Clinton wants a modern version of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, the New Deal institution that acquired the mortgages of people whose homes were worth less than their debts, then reduced payments to a level the homeowners could afford.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/opinion/28krugman.html

  50. North Carolina’s rural voters, around 40% of the state, and blue-collar workers, favor Sen. Clinton, who handily won neighboring Tennessee last month. North Carolina’s primary is closed to Republicans, but unaffiliated voters, which account for 12% of the Democratic electorate, can cast ballots for either party.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120665997629669997.html?mod=WSJBlog

  51. “She gets caught misremembering snipers in Bosnia while on a visit into a dangerous war zone. He gets caught running Deval Patrick’s entire campaign down to the notable sentences…”

    Hillary went to a dangerous war zone in Bosnia and went to places even Bill Clinton hadn’t gone. When has Obama done anything like that? What courage has he shown? Oh yeah, he gave a speech in 2002 that was never recorded because he was a nobody that noone had ever heard of. Now he’s running ads in which he “recreated” the speech with fake crowd noise and echo-ey sound. He could have completely rewritten the speech and we wouldn’t know. But Hillary is a “liar” and Obama is “brave” and “has good judgement.”

    http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

    Are we really going to let this man represent the Democratic Party in the race for President?

  52. Good Morning:

    Yeah, I heard about the re-enactment of the speech (wow, this guys has so many fantastic speeches that is hard to know how to refer to them). I guess I mean the anti-war speech. I am sure they will have a disclaimer anywhere in the ad, right?

    Also, what is the whole thing with garlic nosed italians? I have heard talk about that at TL and now here. Did the loving reverend actually used those words?

    Anyway…..

  53. Never mind…. I just went to TM and saw the Juan W. commet at Fox…..

    ummmmh, I use garlic in my cooking (as do most people in the Mediterranean basin) wouldn’t that make us all garlic nosed?

    Is it me, or does Obama have a larger problem than he anticipated with his spiritual adviser

  54. Garlic-nosed?
    Wright may have had a whole other life writing for Archie Bunker.
    Would he have stayed at this mental level in race relations if it had not been so profitable?
    He is certainly holding back the progress of the south side of chicago in race, not to mention our own.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579535818243439.html

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3602710.ece

  55. Hillary said she landed under sniper fire when she meant that she had landed under threat of sniper fire.

    And Obama? Not in his experience.

  56. UpstateNY—we haven’t hit Reverend/Representative Meeks, yet.

  57. bostobommer: you just sparked a great idea.

    You know, Sen. Clinton has written some great speeches. Re-recording parts of them for a video wouldn’t be a bad idea.

    I could start with her Wellesley commencement address. I’ve done voiceover work. And I have a production studio.

    Be interesting to see if her words coming out of a guy’s mouth would be more inspirational. There’s some pretty persuasive testing done on the issue.

    Okay, anybody know a voice actor (baritone would be best) who would consider recording some :30 spots for me?

    ohio at holytoledo dot com

    Seriously, I’ll do this for nothing if I can get the material.

  58. Justin, Sen. Clinton was answering a question about Rev. Wright from a reporter. She answered dozens of other questions. And she also gave a major speech on the economy (and praised by Paul Krugman, a progressive economist). But that stuff barely made the mainstream media.

    And you say nothing about it in your comments. This is substantive stuff, and instead, you’re just repeting the talking point: It’s All her Fault.

    Interestingly:

    “Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying at the church,” Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, “The View.”

    So Sen. Obama is saying almost the same thing: Rev. Wright wouldn’t have been his pastor either, if he hadn’t retired.

    It’s amazing that Sen. Obama’s polticial problems with his choices regarding his church are her problem. Why are you blaming her? Do you see how this constant refrain makes him look incredibly weak?

    He can’t win unless she quits. We all know that. If he wants to win, then get out there and win. Whining about her putting up a fight doesn’t just make him look weak, it’s pretty good evidence that he is weak.

    Too weak to win the White House. Too weak to govern if by some miracle (Sen. McCain falling over dead on Nov 4) if he got there.

    I have no illusions here regarding the FL and MI delegations. But the practical reality is this:

    If Democrats want to up their majorities in the House and Senate, in addition to the White House, maybe we should make an extra effort to include and not exclude the voice of their own members. This isn’t just sound principle, this is good politics.

    I was really hoping your candidate could’ve stepped up to show some leadership on this issue. “Yeah, we’ll match the Clinton campaign $15 million on the table and let these people vote. Because at the bottom of it, this is about our country and our process, not just one election.”

    That would’ve been huge. It would have made him, in my eyes, start looking like a new kind of politician. he would have looked like a president. He would’ve been practicing the unity he preaches. The Clinton campaign put money on the table and he, well, screamed about the rules.

    The rules also say pledged delegates can change their support. Yeah, they do. http://www.mrsuper.org/. So if we’re going by the rules, then both campaigns can go after the other’s pledged delegates, which they’re doing in Texas right now. And please, Sen. Clinton has as much right to fight for her nomination as Sen. Obama. It ain’t kneecapping. It’s politics.

    I have never called Sen. Obama unpartiotic. Quite the opposite. He is a public servant doing a job I could never do. I have thanked him for his work. So quit with the crap, oaky?

    “Btw, Richardson is a self-same man, to call him a judas is shameful. What is that called when someone votes for someone based on past favors? Oh yeah, corruption.)”

    According to James Carville on CCN, Gov. Richardson told the Clinton campaign he was endorsing her. That is a betrayal.

    Voting for someone based on past favors is not corruption. That’s how political parties work. Common interests, common goals, constant compromise to achieve those goals. For example, how Sen. Obama made an anti-choice vote while in the Illinois State Senate to protect himself politically.

    He talked with Planned Parenthood before doing it. In fact, he was acting on behalf of other vulnerable Democrats when he did this and I don’t fault him. The issue was not in anyway a matter of principle.

    But his failure to vote against funding the war in Iraq? That’s a different story. His claims to be against the war are fine, but not once, when he had the power to make a difference, did he speak out. Not once did he stand up for his own principles on this issue because he knew it would hurt him politically.

    But I guess his cowardice is Sen. Clinton’s fault, too.

    Corruption is selling your support for a price. Like helping a slumlord get millions of taxpayer funds in exchange for campaign contributions. All the while your own constituents living in the slumlords buildings can’t get the heat turned on in winter.

    Oh, yes, he can. And he did. http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_none_080328_barck_obama___the_wi.htm

    There are a lot more articles on this very issue. Lots. And the FBI mole testifying in the Rezko case is still testifying.

    “Those who are college educated and follow the race closely are far more likely to support Obama.”

    Show me the evidence. Whatever poll you find, I can find others to say. Even more, polls this far out from a primary, much less the general election are notoriously unreliable.

    And this argument totally misses the point:

    Sen. Obama’s supporters are not the only people who will be voting. Not in PA and the rest of the primaries. And certainly not in the general election.

    Not everyone in the United States fits your typical Obama-supporter picture. In fact, most people don’t. He has to make his case to everybody and he hasn’t. And if he can’t, not only will he not win the White House, he will not win the general election.

    I don’t think he can’t win the general anyway. The pastor disaster is going to get worse and will continue through the fall. He’s connection with corrupt politicians like Emil Jones and crooks like Rezko are going to define him through 527 ads.

    He kneecapped himself.

  59. Ok, I’ll concede a point I never tried to advance in the first place: Obama’s political problems are not the result of Hillary. I would argue, however, that Hillary Clinton is being more negative towards Obama than is necessary or appropriate for an in-party contest. I would also argue that this vitriolic contest between the two is hurting the nomination process for democrats in the fall.
    Despite you’re concern about Wright, it hasn’t hurt him in the polls. Today’s Gallup poll has Obama back to a commanding lead, and 2/3rds of voters thought that Obama did a good job addressing his relationship with Wright. Obama could have taken the “weak” position and left Trinity Church, but he took a big political risk with his speech, which ended up being praised by almost every pundit and political figure. Even Sec. of State Rice praised him.
    In contrast, Clinton now has an approval rating of 37% because of the Bosnia flap. Instead of addressing the issue, she simply claimed she misspoke. She “misspoke” over four times, making the story more elaborate on different tellings. There was also her exxageration on the Ireland peace treaty and Nafta. These questions of honesty and resume padding her foreign policy credentials are here to stay, just like the Wright flap. Unlike Obama, she seems unable to curb the tide of bad news. So despite your certainty that Hillary has more leadership, Obama has displayed far more over the past few weeks. He seems to be the one that can detail criticism deftly, not Hillary.
    I don’t understand why you feel Obama is unable to win the nomination without Hillary quiting. Obama seems poised to hit the 51% mark after the Indiana and NC primary, and then he’ll only need 40 % of remaining superdelegates to win. Considering his high endorsement rate, he is more likely to get the vast majority of remaining superdelegates (btw, do you not think the superdelegates will vote for the leader of pledged delegates? lol). Btw, please name one possible way for Hillary to win without causing a civil war in the Democratic party. She is the one who can’t win unless Obama quits. You’re girl Hillary will never be president.
    You claim that you have “no illusions” about FL and MI, except you seem to believe that Hillary is somehow being noble by trying to seat these two states or that it would actually hurt her. Want my prediction? FL will be seated at half delegate count (they did break the rules) and MI will allocate their delegates 50/50 (since there isn’t going to be a revote [logistic issues] there is no fairer way to seat these delegates).
    I have a news flash for you though, even if FL and MI were seated completely in favor of Clinton (which isn’t going to happen, not matter how much Clinton protests), Obama would still almost certainly be the leader in pledged delegates. He opposes them not because the race is close, but because seating those delegates would be an affront to democracy.
    I’m going on long, so I’ll try to wrap this up here. “Corruption is selling your support for a price. Like helping a slumlord get millions of taxpayer funds in exchange for campaign contributions.” Perhaps if you displayed more skepticism about sources. Although Rezko raised funds for Obama, *nobody* credible has claimed Obama returned the favor. If having unsavory characters donate you money is a deal-breaker for you don’t look into the past of any politician, esp. Hillary. His “present” votes in the senate were effective no votes, so he was hardly violating his principle.
    In short, you’re post is fill with the most one-sided, bullshit strawman arguments and you completely fail to see the big picture here. You even contradict yourself in your blind zeal, criticizing Obama for his supporters, and then saying it doesn’t matter when I bring up his favorable demographics and prominent endorsements. Take off your tinted glasses and stop demonizing this great man.

  60. Justin: Don’t bogart that joint. Save some for the rest of us.
    Seriously, on what planet do you have to be on to interpret Hillary’s behavior towards Obama as being more negative than is necessary or appropriate. If she was any gentler, she’d be reading him stories and getting him milk and cookies just before bed.
    And don’t even try to rationalize the whole FL and Mi debacle. There is no excuse for leaving 29 million people out of the process in a year when you will need to win by overwhelming margins. You seem to be completely clueless as to how this game is played. As we argue over two very important states, the Republicans are carefully and stealthily rigging the game.
    I will leave you with this: If Obama gets the nomination by leaving FL and MI out, and by extension, NY, NJ, MA, CA, AZ, OH, and all of the other Clinton states, he is NOT a legitimate candidate. And if he obstructed the revotes in those states, he is a coward and no leader. And finally, the amount of a handicap we would have given him, 29 millions voters, in order for him to win this thing will give the Republicans good cause to declare him the Affirmative Action candidate. It won’t matter how good he is next to McCain. Anyone who buys into this notion that he won’t be permanently tainted by MI and FL and the contempt that he showed those voters is one sandwich short of a picnic.

  61. ““Those who are college educated and follow the race closely are far more likely to support Obama.”

    What, so people too poor for college don’t matter in elections? And you wonder why Obama has political problems. Look at the arguments you have to make to support his case.

    MI will allocate their delegates 50/50

    So Obama will recieve votes he didn’t earn. I’m sorry, but Clinton did recieve 55% of the vote, she is entitled to those votes, so long as she in contesting the nomination. Obama took a political risk by removing his name from the Michigan ballot, took away the ability of his supporters to choose him, and he should suffer the consequences of that action.

  62. I agree with you, riverdaughter, that the whole FL and MI thing is a big debacle that needs resolving. I don’t know how you deal with it at this point, but their vote has little to do with Obama. Both FL and MI knew what they were doing when they moved their voting date up. The Democrats in both those states happily moved up their primary knowing what would happen. There was virtually no opposition to these moves within the states, because they believed they would gain more clout by going earlier. Dean also told both states that the DNC would pay to move their primaries back to Super Tuesday, and they refused. It was those same people who failed to organize a revote because of the costs and procedural difficulties. These two states disenfranchised themselves and they did it with a smile on their face.

    Second, I would argue that the DNC did nothing wrong by stripping them of their delegates. I probably would have just halved their delegates like the RNC did, but the DNC can choose whatever method they like to pick a candidate. Superdelegates are undemocratic too, but you’ve yet to say whether you’d object to them turning over the leader in popular vote and delegates. Remember, even if you included the popular vote and delegates from FL and MI, Obama is ahead.

    But the question is what to do with those two states. Do you want to seat the delegates as is? A caucus would have been cheap to organize and implement in both states, but Hillary cried foul over those. Basically both candidates wanted their own way or the highway.

    Aeryl, I only brought that up because the initial post mocked Obama’s supporters, saying they were made up of swimsuit models. I just pointing out that a lot of smart and substantial people are behind Obama; we’re not dittoheads. Of course everybody’s vote matters.

    Second, I want you to compare three quotes. The first is from a pledge the main candidates all signed, the second is a quote on why Hillary didn’t remove her name from the MI ballot (laws blocked Obama and Edwards from removing their name from the Florida ballot), and the third is Clinton’s explanation afterward for why MI should count.

    “THEREFORE, I, Hillary Clinton . . . I shall not campaign or [b]participate[/b] in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008 . . .” – Sept 1, 2007

    “It’s clear: This election they’re having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot.” — Oct. 11, 2007

    “. . . we all had a choice as to whether or not to [b]participate[/b] in what was going to be a primary. And most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn’t. And I think that was a wise decision because Michigan is key to our electoral victory in the fall.” – March 13, 2008

    Aeryl, if this had happened in Pakistan would you have accepted it as being fair and democratic?

  63. I’m also sorry if I got a little heated earlier, riverdaughter. You’re driven mad by us Obama supporters, and us Obama supporters are driven mad by Clinton supporters. Around and around we go. Whee!

  64. Why is it that every time I come to a proclinton comment thread I’m always greeted by such uplifting dialog as “Mr Hopey McChangey” and Obamabot? I’ve read through this whole thread hoping to see some positive comments on Clinton and all I’ve read is either defensive attacks that usually mock Obama or outright mocking Obama or his supporters.

    The only thing I found that was at all positive was “She has visited over 80 countries as first lady and has participated in numerous missions on behalf of her husband’s administration.” I’d like to see more of this, lets argue issues not conjure up perceived injustice and then feel better about ourselves for denouncing it, that goes for both sides.

    Clinton has legit grievances too, don’t get me wrong, here are three off the top of my head.

    1. I thought Obama and his campaign should do more to to discourage the idea that Hillary needs to step down.

    2. I thought Obama could have acted more like a leader in working out a strategy for Michigan and Florida, at the very least he should have spoken on the subject back in Dec.

    3. I thought his mocking comment about her crying was off base.

    The rest of the stuff I’ve read here just takes weird stuff that 99% of Obama Supporters don’t agree with or don’t believe and then paints all Obama supporters has having those views.

  65. Go Hillary in 2012!!

  66. I’m just wondering … will it still be an historic election if everyone stays home in November?

    As far as Obama’s supporters being more educated – I guess it depends on the area in which you have your education. I know of no one in my circle of colleagues and friends (most with PhDs in the biological sciences) who supports him (for the record, I support neither of them but if I were to rank them Hillary would come before Obama).

  67. This is the largest gaggle of fools I’ve ever run across, and to think we all reside in the same political vein is even more disturbing.

    I know you’re proud of yourself, for the list you’ve compiled, but as someone who doesn’t support either of the presumptive choices whole heartedly, I must say it’s funny to watch the party eat away at itself. Funny or sad, I’m still straddling these two emotions.

    First off, to this list I’m sure you’re quite proud of yourself for compiling. Most of it’s inconsequential, and doesn’t convince me one way or another, lets start picking them apart shall we, at least the obvious bits.

    “She has visited over 80 countries as first lady and has participated in numerous missions on behalf of her husband’s administration. He hasn’t had a single meeting of his Foreign Relations subcommittee”

    The first thing that jumps out is the immediate change of terms, She’s visited over 80 countries and he hasn’t had a meeting w/ F.R.subcomm. – seems like we’re comparing apples to oranges here, her only qualifications is to be on a plane with her husband to visit other countries? Well if the standard here is going to other countries, didn’t Obama LIVE in JAKARTA?? And there is zero clarification on her numerous missions, and how the hell any of this poppycock is relavant to anything. I suppose you’re trying to illustrate experience, well Bust has visited some countries not as a part of Laura’s envoy but on his own, wow, maybe even 80! my god, four more years right? McCain just got back from Iraq!!! He must know what’s going on!!! morons.

    Despite her lifelong committment to healing the racial divide, her win at any costs strategy demostrate overt racism. But his pastor is just a big pussycat

    Then this ramble about the preacher, it’s funny that the dem base would jump at this one too. Which part of his sermon did you take offense too? Was it the part about arawoks, or grenada, or slavery, or iraq?? Maybe you’re just referring to the two clips you saw over and over again on tv. And lifetime of healing racial divides!? You’re a cracker aren’t you? Can someone really be this ignorant? Please for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, back some of this shit up.

    His wife says for the first time in her adult life, she feels proud of her country. But Hillary is less patriotic, er, just because.

    gahgah goo goo, she love country, he don’t, ga ga goo goo!
    You actually go there hahaha, well, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundral” -samuel johnson; I think thats all that needs to be said, minus the obvious question, how the hell do you know it’s the first time she’s ever felt proud of her country?? How old are you anyways, this list wreaks of grammar school nitwittery. Why don’t you just grade them on their lapel pins you twit. haha. Sorry.

    I couldn’t stomach all the bull about swimsuit models and what not, can’t even decipher what the hell it is you’re trying to say. To say that reading this was a waste of time, compounded with the emmence waste of time it took to respond, my only consolation is the little bit of humor I had writing this.

    a list of things only ass backwards clintophiles will believe:

    > she has been justified in her support of the iraq war
    >she has been justified for her support in the patriot act, a document she didn’t read
    >she’s justified in her support for the suspension of habeous corpus
    > Kosovo was koooOL!
    > Bosnia was bitchin!
    > Waco happens
    > Nafta was inevitable, and so was the drummed up support for it, and it acheived everything she had hoped for
    > She’ll really get a good deal with the insurance companies, we’ll have UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE in no time!!!!
    > She will win the nomination, end the war, give us all healthcare, it will be a veritable utopia!

    and by the way, saying that you had to dodge sniper fire, get down and run to the plain, that paints a very specific portrait of an event, and the fact that she got it so wrong because she was “tired” doesnt’ say much to her 3 a.m. advertisment now does it. Anyways, good luck in your self delusions.

  68. what a blog. I never thought i’d see a group of seemingly well-reasoned women that despite it all think with Cynical Understanding Nevertheless Totally Shallow. An acronym for the slow.

  69. pending moderation LOL

  70. Great posts. I’ll send it to others 🙂

  71. Let us all take a step back for a millisecond.

    Does anyone here think that John McCain’s policy of 100% support for Cheney/Bush, the 100 years Iraq war, and the inevitable invasion of Iran are examples of wise directions for the future of this country?

    I imagine the answer is no! So how about we stop being so divisive, agree that either candidate is better than our current direction, and maintaining the beltway status quo, and have reasonable, polite discourse about our favorite candidate; whom ever that may be.

    Finally, to anyone who says “if my candidate doesn’t win I won’t vote”, or worse yet “I’ll vote for McCain”, I ask you, do you truly believe in your principles or are they so pliable that a bruised ego is sufficient to get you to abandon them completely?

    Both candidates want universal healthcare, to stop the unnecessary loss of American lives in Iraq, to allow everyone the ability to achieve the American dream (not just the wealthiest 1%), and to bring back the moral compass we’ve lost these past eight years. Can’t we all concede that we are in agreement on these foundational issues?

    Just because my candidate doesn’t win doesn’t give me the right to forget that there is more at stake in this election then my fragile ego: specifically ~300,000 soldiers lives and countless innocent Iraqi civilians!

    The majority of us here, quibbling, have had to sacrifice nothing for this war. If all I have to do to honor those 4007 (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/) American Soldiers who paid the ultimate price, is to vote for my least favorite of two good options then it is my moral obligation to drag my ass out of bed and do everything I can on election day to make damn certain not another single life is lost in vain.

    Sorry about the soapbox, it was systematically destroyed.

    Thank you for your time.

    –But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

  72. “what a blog. I never thought i’d see a group of seemingly well-reasoned women that despite it all think with Cynical Understanding Nevertheless Totally Shallow. An acronym for the slow.”

    That isn’t necessary penvy. Sexism isn’t cool.

  73. Justin, Dink, & hiebz: Is the money good?

  74. hiebz:

    I think it’s fair to discuss the discussion and in some aspects I’d agree with you—though decrying the lack of balance here is missing the point of this website.

    Still, I appreciate you taking the message of fairness and objectivity to HuffPo, MSNBC, KOS, and other outlets. I’m sure people have responded to your message and calling people out on their shit by throwing metaphorical rocks at you.

    We should have a pool with a list of the most offensive things people can toss at you. Every time you are me are called one, $5 to Amnesty International.

    Okay, we better make that $1. I’m running out of money since I have to donate to Sen. Clinton’s campaign every time someone tells her to quit.

    Give me the URL to your posts on other sites about fairness and I’ll go and read—if I agree, I’ll stand with you and take some of the hatin’.

    Simon:

    I think calls for being less divisive are great and have said so elsewhere. So, like heizb, share the URLs where you’ve called for fairness, balance, objectivity, and so on, and if I agree with your posts, I’ll stand by you, too.

    See, this is a website that was created because of some pretty serious shit happening on another profile blog. But I’m sure you know the history of it and are still at that site with heizb fighting the good fight for fairness and unity.

    The anger was and is real. The sense of betrayal is real. The sense of being taken for granted and interests ignored are real. I’m pretty sure you’d agree that these can have serious consequences not just for candidate, but for party and country—and by extension, the planet.

    And if you agree these are real, then you’d agree they should be addressed forcefully. Basically, if you want me to support you, show me you share my interests.

    You can see this is a reasonable position to take, right?

    We can also agree that the FL/MI is a clusterfuck that will turn into a serious shitplosion without some serious problemsolving.

    So how about we see how the primaries go and do some creative thinking in the meantime. Agreed?

    Let’s also agree that neither candidate can win the requisite number of delgates (unless there’s an implosion somewhere before the rest of the primaries run) until the superdelegates step in.

    So no more calls for anybody to step down. Agreed?

    We have a convention in August and a floor fight may not be the worst thing that ever happened. In fact, a _fair_ fight may energize and unite Democrats not just to win the White House, but downticket all the way to dog catcher.

    IMHO, legitimacy of process is key to unity. Letting the race run and resolving FL/MI are key to that legitimacy. And if we can fight but unite, then we will win big time. Big. And we can get some very unpopular and necessary shit done.

    OTOH, I’m sure you can see that if a voter thinks a political party is not representing his or her interests, he or she may shift allegiance.

    For example, let’s say I think that the party and MSM haven’t been playing fair in this primary season. Let’s say I have good reasons for thinking the process has been rigged by the very people who want me to support them. If so, then why in the world should I give them my support?

    Saying a Republican in the White House would be worse than any Democrat—well, that may or may not be true.

    If I skip the presidential vote but vote Democratic downticket, we maintain a majority in the House and Senate, the Democrats can fight a war of attrition (including failing to confirm Supreme Court nominees) until 2012. Then we put up a strong candidate I can back fully who can whup up on ’em but good.

    Hell, our current House and Senate leadership kiss Republican ass now (impeachment off the table, WTF?) and nothing gets done. What makes anybody think it’d be different with a Pres. McCain?

    We voted in a majority and look how well they’ve done. Shouldn’t our party leadership be held accountable for their crappy governance? Isn’t the way you hold politicians accountable—either vote them out or withhold support so their lose their damn jobs?

    The Democratic Party has put up some real presidential clunkers and I voted for ’em though I knew they were weak weak weak. I happily voted for President Gore because I thought he’d be the better president, though I wish he’s stayed and fought.

    See, one of my interests is to have a candidate who will fight. I mean the arm-twisting, teeth-kicking, knee-groining kind of fighting of RFK, LBJ, FDR, and others fought to make this country better and that fight was not nice.

    There are a buttload of problems to solve where entrenched interests are arrayed against my interests and perhaps your interests. I don’t want to unify with these people—I want to beat them.

    John Edwards is right: we cannot nice these people to death. If I don’t think a candidate will lead on and fight ruthlessly for core Democratic principles, and if I think the leaders of the party have betrayed those principles, why should I support them?

    If I think Pres. Obama in the White House is going to lead to four years of Pelosi/Reid ineffectual bullshit, why would I vote for him? He won’t get anything done, so why not let McCain take the blame and plan on beating the Republicans in 2012?

    I’m not saying that this is what I’m going to do or what anyone else should do. But obviously I’ve thought about it.

  75. and good luck with the “universal healthcare”. I’m still waiting for one of these Clintomatons to rationalize her hijacking of the term.

  76. oh merv, the money is wonderful. I wipe my ass in it, i bathe in the shit. I’m excreting money from every orifice in my body it’s quite a sight you should come see it. Every copper cent from my copper godhead, Whew.

    Was there a point to that comment just wondering? Is the money good? As to imply we were some paid stooges for the obama campaign? Is this as narrow as your little world has become?

    Delusions was an apt word for it I see all too clearly now haha, good luck with that!

  77. oh merv, the money is wonderful. I wipe my @$$ in it, i bathe in the shiest. I’m excreting money from every orifice in my body it’s quite a sight you should come see it. Every copper cent from my copper godhead, Whew.

    Was there a point to that comment just wondering? Is the money good? As to imply we were some paid stooges for the obama campaign? Is this as narrow as your little world has become?

    Delusions was an apt word for it I see all too clearly now haha, good luck with that!

    ***post edited to avoid another deletion, I wasn’t aware we were so particular about language, but no one likes to be accused of being a stooge for a particular campaign, esp. when one doesn’t support either one of the fools ordained to rule over us.

  78. Dink: Did you take that personal? I didn’t mean for it to be. I’m glad you’re so rich you can use your money to wipe all your orifices:-) You must have a lot to spend. Keep up the good work and god bless you:-)

  79. no, just trying to figure out what it was you were implying by it. And interjecting a little hyperbole into the mix, I’m trying to keep the posts at least partially humorous whilst the party devours itself from the inside fighting over two lessers.

  80. Merv: If you had asked about my MO instead of stating what it was in a short, assuming comment, I could take you seriously. But it’s obvious you are defensive or out for a witch hunt of those who don’t resonate with your paradigm. I am an independent, unregistered voter in the county I just moved to and haven’t made up my mind of how to align myself. Your brash statements aren’t bringing my mind closer to your opinion or the ethos of this blog, and it’d help your cause (if it is a cause outside of your self esteem) to respond in a more substantial manner. I’m not saying dink’s approach is appropriate either. My notions of rational dialogue with respectful rebuke in the political realm existed long before Obama has presented such ideas for his campaign. Perhaps you should review the Invitation and the Credo of this blog for why it exists. Ohio inspired me to do so.

    Ohio: Thank you for your thoughtful response. I’m guilty as a poser, you have caught me as a passerby in the blogosphere from onegoodmove, not as a highly active commenter in any realm. I would be glad to spend more time presenting our shared ideas to other blogs despite their reception. Keep your comments coming, as they are some of the more insightful.

    These issues are difficult, and I hope aren’t ignored or misused in our collective pursuit for the betterment of our fellow citizens.

  81. by the by:
    Clinton’s prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or “the Family”), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to “spiritual war” on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship’s only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has “made a fetish of being invisible,” former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan.(…)

    The Fellowship’s long-term goal is “a leadership led by God-leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit.” According to the Fellowship’s archives, the spirit has in the past led its members in Congress to increase U.S. support for the Duvalier regime in Haiti and the Park dictatorship in South Korea. The Fellowship’s God-led men have also included General Suharto of Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia, plus a list of other generals and dictators.

    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-3.html

  82. hiebz:

    Most of the people who post here have insight. A lot, if I’m not being presumptious, are exhausted from trying to fight a fair fight for months. They’ve been pretty beaten up and riverdaughter started the place as a refuge.

    Passionate advocacy for one’s cause is good. Honest differences of opinion are good. Honest airing of those differences are all for the good.

    Asking people to play fair is good.

    Simon, I forgot to say this: I don’t think anybody, especially you, is being soapbox-y in the least.

    Justin:

    I haven’t forgotten our discussion, I just felt a pretty deep need to argue that perhaps people who have had it with the DNC, etcx., may have some pretty good reasons for it. And I thought you attacked riverdaughter unfairly regarding arrogance and corruption.

    I will get those sources for you, most a combination of Chi papers (esp. the long interviews) and documents regarding campaign donations.

    Either way, disagree or agree, you call me on my shit and I call you on yours. Is that fair?

    And thanks for the call out on sexism not being cool.

  83. Ohio,

    I agree, that in a situation were I am the only one to suffer the consequences of my actions I have the right and the duty stand firm on my principles.

    From that common ground let me say our anger, feelings of being disenfranchised, feelings of betrayal, or general disgust with the way in which the Democratic Party tows the beltway line are of little consequence to the family that lives everyday wondering if their brother or sister or mother or father is going to come home from a war for which they need not risk their lives. It is of no recompense to the elderly man or women trying to decide between food and medication. It doesn’t feed the myriad of families scraping to remain above the poverty line or put those foreclosed homes back in the possession of the newly homeless. It doesn’t get proper funding for healthcare for returning veterans, it doesn’t protect our family member dying every day in Iraq; sorry I will stop.

    The point I am trying to make is that this election is about more then the small differences in implementation of similar public policy upon which we all generally agree.

    I believe everyone should fight vehemently for their favorite candidate, but in doing so we should stay on point: issues issues issues. I don’t see real schisms in the party until people run around spewing personal attacks and regurgitating RNC/Faux spin. Clinton and Obama are not polar opposites, they have similar goals and only varying ideas of how to attain those goals.

    To answer your question: If I think Pres. Obama in the White House is going to lead to four years of Pelosi/Reid ineffectual bullshit, why would I vote for him? He won’t get anything done, so why not let McCain take the blame and plan on beating the Republicans in 2012?

    Because, in line with the hypothetical proposed above, if Obama were to win the nomination, a Clinton supporter’s moral and principled beliefs are more in line with Obama’s then McCain’s. So to vote for McCain would be to give up, take your basketball and go home. A vote Obama, on the other hand, is a principled concession to make the population, country, and world better then it is now, to put a sympathetic, and like-minded, ear in the White House, and finally and I think most importantly, to support those who don’t have the luxury of being able to be spiteful, those individuals that can’t survive another four years of gross incompetence and mismanaged governance.

    I want to fight also, I want to fight with people who believe intellect, study research and history are of paramount importance, who believe that this country can be great and that everyone has a right to live happy and healthy and free. To vote against your own best interest or not to vote at all is defeatist is eliminate all chance of entering the fight because you’ve let someone else control admittance to the venue. (I draw your attention to the GWB “town hall meetings”)

    With all due respect and admiration.

  84. Simon:

    You know, I could take issue on Sen. Obama offering a like-minded and sympathetic ear in the White House. But I won’t. At least, not yet. (I joke, but reserve the right to revist later.)

    But keep in mind that my self-interest isn’t limited to my belly and my pocketbook.

    It’s in my interest for there to be decent jobs and decent schools. It is in my interest for all of us to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. It is in my intererst for the political process to be legitimate because if not, we lose our moral standing (the little that’s left, sigh) and deny the idea that regular folks like me and you and my neighbor and MABlue and everyone else can govern ourselves.

    I agree with Abe Lincoln that self-rule is not an insane idea, despite what shows up on MSNBC. (BTW, Lincoln would never watch MSNBC. Everyone knows that.)

    Saying I can’t vote for a candidate is not _a priori_ spiteful. I may choose to sit this one out because I may not be able to in my own self-interest and good conscience support a candidate or party or issue.

    See, those who cannot withstand another four years of this rule are also my responsibility. Offering solid money-on-the-table change is my responsibility. And if I see that the Democrat nominee is not someone who represents my interests but just more of the same in a different package?

    You can see my conundrum. I have held my nose so many times that I wonder what the point is. People need help more than a sympathetic ear. An ear is not enough.

    You can say it’s better than nothing, but maybe it’s time we all stopped settling for better than nothing.

    Maybe nothing would be better. Because you can start over if there’s nothing blocking your way.

    I am genuinely troubled by this and I don’t think I’m the only one. I have yet to decide which way to go.

    But not to worry. I don’t equate thinking of a thing with actually doing it. I like to keep an open mind, just not so open my brain falls out.

    Respect &c back at you.

    P.S. We can’t be so peaceable all the time or we’d not be Democrats.

  85. Ohio — the way I see it, Obama can earn my vote. I GAVE my vote to Kerry and I’ve felt bad about it ever since. I really think he took people like us for granted.

    Since I live in Kansas, there is absolutely no reason for me to vote for a Democrat I don’t like. It’s not like the either Clinton or Obama have a chance here.

    I do like the fact that my vote counts as part of Gore winning the popular vote.

    And that’s the reason I want to be careful about who I hand it to in the fall.

    I’m still working on the whole train of thought though. So I could change my mind.

  86. Unfortunately McCain does not represent “nothing” in my opinion. He represents a significant blockade to reason, logic, and good judgement in public policy.

    If it were only possible that none of us would be forced to make this decision, “what to do if my candidate doesn’t win the nomination”, but I hope that those who are inevitably forced to stand at the two roads diverging, can be convinced that real and lasting change never occurs in big leaps.

    If my candidate is not chosen I will vote for the other to win the White House. I will campaign and I will fight for that person as vehemently as I would have argued for my favorite choice. And then when we win, I won’t stay complacent, it will merely be the first of many small victories that will lead to real change and a better world. And I hope that if others don’t share the optimism of slow change then at least they will think of their fellow Americans whose lives depend on the swift removal of the current incompetent leadership when they are forced to make the same decision.

    P.S. We can’t be so peaceable all the time or we’d not be Democrats.

    –Maybe we aren’t, maybe we’re the beginning of something better.

  87. Simon, I am so sorry — I didn’t mean I’ll vote for McCain. I’ve never voted for a Republican and never will.

    And I won’t skip the election.

    I just mean that if she’s not the nominee, I might write-in Hillary’s name. Unless I’m convinced otherwise.

    And again, I can say that with some assurance because I live in Kansas, one of the reddest of states. If it looks like a close election here, I would of course give the whole idea more thought.

    But, I insist. It’s Obama’s job to sell himself to me. I don’t actually owe him anything.

  88. Katiebird-

    Oh sorry, that was meant for Ohio. I live in a Redder state. Care to take a guess which one?

    For what its worth I agree with everything you said. I am concerned about people who are already so angry with the course of events that if their candidate is not chosen to represent the DNC they won’t vote or will vote for McCain out of spite. (For the record this is not Ohio’s point of view, we were just discussing the issue.)

  89. Simon, I misunderstood. But, I’m still glad I clarified my plans. I really don’t want to let anyone think I’d vote for a Republican.

    Redder than Kansas? Recent popular culture has painted us so red it’s hard to imagine…. One of the Dakotas?

  90. Katiebird-

    Close, but redder still. This state has gone republican since 1965 and was the “reddest” state in 2004. Give up? Utah.

  91. Would each of you ‘google’ : ‘ Black Theology’
    It’s what Rev. Wright’s church has been all about from the beginning and continues today after he retired.
    Check it out…
    It’s very important to understand the influences which have been absorbed into Obama’s psyche.

  92. Justin:

    Here you go.

    “For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago’s South Side.

    It was just four years after the landlords ­ Antoin “Tony” Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru ­ had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

    Rezko and Mahru couldn’t find money to get the heat back on.

    But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building…”

    From the Chicago Sun-Times
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

    The Chicago Sun-Times also provides a list of all donations Obama received through Rezko’s bundling network at http://media1.suntimes.com/multimedia/obama.pdf_20070617_21_13_43_1648.imageContent

    “The standard explanation is that we Chicagoans view nepotism, graft and waste as the price we pay to Daley’s machine for plowing the snow and collecting the garbage. It’s no wonder prominent liberals like Rep. Rahm Emanual, Rep. Jan D. Schakowsky and Obama want no part of this local fight. Their attitude is if you can’t beat them – at least look the other way.”—Ben Joravsky 03/24/2008, WA Independent
    http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/the-man-and-the#acomment

    Sen, Obama says he wants to clean up Wahsington. Well, maybe he should’ve cleaned up his own house first.

    Not picking on ya—just giving you the sources you requested.

    And re: Obama’s Illinois State Senate career, please see
    Todd Spivak 03/12/08, Willamette Week, http://wweek.com/editorial/3418/10516/

    schar:

    The day I give a crap about what Rev. Wright says is the day monkeys fly out of my butt.

    However, I do not like that Sen. Obama (I’m being charitable here) obfuscated about his relationship with Rev. Wright bothers the hell out of me because he did the same thing with his relationship about Tony Rezko.

    Why should it matter?

    Because Sen. Obama’s pitch—his unique selling point—is his superior judgment.

    He has not shown any such thing.

    Also, the U.S. government invented AIDS to kill people of color—that is flat-earther stuff. Intelligent Design.

    It is CRAP and irrational. For Sen. Obama to claim he didn’t know about Rev. Wright’s belief about this is bullshit. That he has never said he stood up to his pastor—another pattern emerges:

    Sen. Obama will not stand up for or against anything if it is not politicially expedient for him to do so. Well, he’s a politician and that’s sort of the job.

    But what’s the saying? If you don’t have enemies it’s because you never did anything?

    I cannot rationally expect him to stand up for my interests when he’s demonstrated to me he’s never done it before.

    I am trying desperately to keep an open mind here. katiebird is right—he has to earn my vote. I’m not unwilling to be sold, but I am highly, highly skeptical.

    I’m trying, though.

  93. Justin, oy vey, no need to call names.

    Rev. Wright does espouse black liberation theology. The denomination is primarily white, but his church has almost 9,000 members, most of whom are African-American.

    For the record, I know he’s retired. Anyway, e took a piss-ant tiny organization and turned it into a megachurch. That takes tremendous business acumen, passion, and brains.

    He’s also done a shitload of good for the surrounding community. I especially admire his call for African-American hetero people to embrace their queer brethren. That didn’t make him terribly popular and I guess people left the church after his call for acceptance.

    So you can walk out of his church if you don’t agree with the sermon. Imagine that.

    Me? I have issues with irrationality, faked history, dry humping altars, and well, religion in general.

    I’m just saying.

  94. Eh, I’m an atheist. I kinda think all religions are nuts, so it pisses me off when one religion claims another one is way off base. Pot, meet kettle.

  95. Just out of curiosity, what exactly should be done in the next presidential primary? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there are no repercussions in this cycle for states unilaterally moving their primaries. What happens when next cycle several more states move their primaries and/or caucuses up to January? And what if Iowa and New Hampshire move their contests into December? I know our system now kinda sucks, but do you really seriously believe that the full time job of our public servants is to campaign full time while they miss votes? I understand your keen desire to support your preferred candidate, one that you honestly believe will be the best person for the U.S. Great. More power to you, people like you make our democracy run. But have you taken the logic the next step?

    What are the repercussions for rewarding rules violations? Also, do you think you’d be arguing so strongly for seating the MI and FL delegates if your preferred candidate had not won? If Obama had won, I’m predicting his supporters would suddenly become the advocates of the “disenfranchised” while Clinton supporters would be the “law and order” advocates. Why must you post such an obviously partisan perspective. Hillary’s got far more going for her for you to waste time to arguing on her behalf in this way.

  96. The truth of the matter is that I don’t think we would be arguing that they shouldn’t be counted. I have principles that I’m more than capable of sticking to even when they don’t benefit me. I’ve done it before. I’ve certainly backed losing candidates. I live in Cali and I voted for Howard Dean.

    I don’t think anything will happen that can’t be fixed. I don’t think that there is any drawback to counting those votes that is more dangerous to the Democratic party than not counting them is. If we don’t count them, then we become the party that doesn’t count votes – and that will be used against us in a big way in this elections, and lots of other elections as well. it’ll become a push button issue. If we do count them and don’t want a repeat next cycle, then that simply means we must deal with the primary issue in a fair way. We have to remember that Florida voted early because of a bill that outlawed the electronic voting machines that have been used to disenfranchise Florida voters numerous times. The Republicans put the moved primary date in as a poison pill. To disenfranchise Florida voters because of Republican actions is just mind boggling to me. As for Michigan, Barry willingly pulled his name off the ballot – that ain’t Clinton’s fault and certainly the Democratic party wasn’t telling people to do it.

    The only sane and reasonable thing to do is count those votes as they are. If people didn’t vote, well, that’s no reason to not count everyone else’s vote. Both those states had record turnouts for primaries, and we need both of them if we want to win in November. We’re Democrats and we must respect the democratic impulse. If legally registered voters can be disenfranchised because of actions by the other political party, we’ll never have any allegiance.

    I cannot believe that thinking adults are tut-tut-tutting about rule of law when it comes to a Democratic party primary. Personally, I think the only Democratic campaign I know of who would try to excluse the votes is Obama’s – I think his campaign’s actions are completely at odds with everything I know about the Democratic party.

  97. LwPhD:

    “Why must you post such an obviously partisan perspective. Hillary’s got far more going for her for you to waste time to arguing on her behalf in this way.”

    I’m sure you realize this is a pro-Clinton website, right? But I take your concern regarding partisanship, so please post URLs where you have said this very thing on DKos, HuffPo, TPM, and pro-Obama websites so I can read and post in support if I agree with you.

    And I don’t think arguing in favor of counting votes is a bad way to spend my time.

    Votes belong to voters. The self-serving interests of candidates are of no consequence to determining what is right here. Yes, I would be emailing and calling whoever and offering the DNC $1,000 for a re-vote if the situation were reversed because ripping off voters is _wrong._

    Help me, Jeebus. This is so obvious. How can anyone argue otherwise?

    That people feel they’ve been heard, even if their candidate loses or ballot initiative fails, is a very important part of the process. Everyone has to feel they’ve been given a fair shake regardless of the outcome.

    If the winning candidate claims victory with the situation as is, those on the other side will not think they’ve been fairly treated. Will they take it out on the nominee, downticket candidates and the party?

    As my Magic Eight-Ball says: Yes.

    Calls to respect The Rules fail to recognize that the same rules allow for on-the-fly changes to accomodate weird situations like this. Yeah, they do. There is a higher purpose here—to serve what is good for the party and the process.

    If Democrats aren’t going to stick up for Democratic Party values (hell, American values), if our leaders ain’t going to lead, then why bother supporting them or the party?

    They’re just Republicans with a different marketing message. And the message is just words.

  98. LwPhD:

    “Why must you post such an obviously partisan perspective. Hillary’s got far more going for her for you to waste time to arguing on her behalf in this way.”

    I’m sure you realize this is a pro-Clinton website, right? But I take your concern regarding partisanship, so please post URLs where you have compalined about partisianship on DKos, HuffPo, TPM, and other pro-Obama websites so I can read and post in support if I agree with you.

    And I don’t think arguing in favor of counting votes is a bad way to spend my time.

    Votes belong to voters. The self-serving interests of candidates are of no consequence to determining what is right here. Yes, I would be emailing and calling whoever and offering the DNC $1,000 for a re-vote if the situation were reversed because ripping off voters is _wrong._

    Help me, Jeebus. This is so obvious. How can anyone argue otherwise?

    That people feel they’ve been heard, even if their candidate loses or ballot initiative fails, is a very important part of the process. Everyone has to feel they’ve been given a fair shake regardless of the outcome.

    If the winning candidate claims victory with the situation as is, those on the other side will not think they’ve been fairly treated. Will they take it out on the nominee, downticket candidates and the party?

    As my Magic Eight-Ball says: Yes.

    Calls to respect The Rules fail to recognize that the same rules allow for on-the-fly changes to accomodate weird situations like this. Yeah, they do. There is a higher purpose here—to serve what is good for the party and the process.

    If Democrats aren’t going to stick up for Democratic Party values (hell, American values), if our leaders ain’t going to lead, then why bother supporting them or the party?

    They’re just Republicans with a different marketing message. And the message is just words.

  99. What happened to my post? : (

  100. I must call out what I see as counter productive arguments for a generally progressive agenda. You aren’t really calling for a practical solution. In fact, given your obvious engagement in the election and your intelligence, your efforts could be much more profitably directed. It seems as if your talents are going to waste. Do you think such arguments endear Obama supporters to Hillary? Do you think that they will sway true undecideds into Hillary’s camp? Do you think they will cause progressive-leaning independents to support Hillary? Do you think that the last die hard Edwards supporters will be lured by your writing? Forgive me if you are merely publicly venting or intentionally preaching to the choir, for I had mistaken your blog for one interested in Hillary advocacy and not merely the baiting of her opponents.

    On to the specifics of FL and MI. If you actually look into the political details, a complete mulligan is unlikely for many reasons, including among them economics, party registration, confusion, political will of the state parties, etc. There are procedures in the rules (as you rightly point out) that are more than adequate to establish the conditions under which a particular method of seating the pledged delegates would happen. And indeed, the credentials committee can make arbitrary decisions and change the rules at will.

    It just so happens that on a practical level, the conditions under which brand new primaries will be conducted are very unlikely. This is primarily because of concerns including: Who will fund it? Who can vote? What method will be used (caucuses are cheaper, but we can all think of reasons that isn’t satisfactory)? Will the change be seen as legitimate? But rather than get down to the brass tacks of actual implementation of some sort of alternate work-around, and presenting arguments based on national party credentialing rules and the eccentricities of state party rules and state law, you are using a perception of “disenfranchisement” as an epithet to tar Obama with, despite both Obama’s and Clinton’s limited but equal complicity in the entire debacle. Both candidates could have publicly challenged or supported the party rules before the contest. Both supported them by agreeing not to “campaign or participate” in those two primaries. Hillary even had an ace in the hole in the form of Harold Ickes, who actually voted in favor of stripping the delegates. If there was any time to lodge her discontent, it would have been then via dissention from Ickes who is a senior member of Clinton’s campaign.

    In light of this, by painting the Obama camp’s lack of effort to support an arbitrary change of the rules after the contest as disenfranchisement, you are simultaneously being disingenuous and making a mockery of the word “disenfranchise”. You speak of participating in party politics as if some sort of right of democracy was at stake. I’m sorry, but parties are perfectly welcome to be as democratic or undemocratic as they see fit. It ain’t pretty, but those are the costs of appending that (D) next to your name. The real democracy happens in the general election, not in the primary season. Parties are not bound by law to follow democratic principles in choosing their candidates. Hence the allowance for caucuses. Hence the presence of super delegates. Hence the ability of the rules committee to arbitrarily strip or restore any result they see fit, whether or not it conforms to the actual or perceived outcome of any particular vote. (For example, the delegates could be halved the vote or split it 50/50, etc.) This ain’t democracy, and there are no inherent rights being lost. If you’re a Democratic partisan, you play by the party’s rules. Leave “disenfranchised” out of petty party squabbling, and reserve it for real abridgment of rights, such as happened in the Jim Crow south or before woman’s suffrage.

    In reality, the candidates only share a very small portion of the blame (this is a party issue after all, not a candidate specific issue). Even so, the time to speak up to avoid some sort of “disenfranchisement” is well past, and Clinton, who had the most influence in the DNC in the race, failed to speak through one of her primary surrogates, Harold Ickes. Perhaps Dems should have a national primary. Perhaps they should rotate the early states. Those are all fine ideas. But the real issue is that, once guidelines have been put into place, advocating change only after doing so becomes beneficial to her decreases Clinton’s legitimacy at least as much as passively supporting the rules benefits Obama. Again I ask, what are the Dems to do for the future? If the rules can be thus flaunted, then do you take the next step in logic and say that any guidelines provided by the DNC are so weak as to be unenforceable? Would this result in a candidate selection process in 2012 or 2016 that best assists progressive candidates?

    Again, I applaud the passion with which you support Hillary. But your arguments are replete with ex post facto rationalizations and ad hominem attacks that not only fail to benefit Hillary, but also hurt progressives in general by injecting toxicity into the primary process. But it need not be that way. Hillary can and does inspire people, like she obviously has inspired you. Why isn’t she and her supporters like you spending more time trying to campaign FOR Hillary instead of AGAINST her opponents? Had she engendered such support on a broader scale for her entire campaign instead of only after her mediocre performance on Super Tuesday, we’d be calling for Obama to drop out right now instead of the reverse. Had her campaign run that course, people like me may very well be arguing for Hillary at this very moment. She might be a pledged delegate lead. But before Maggie Williams came aboard, she ran an establishment campaign based on name recognition, heavy DNC backing, her surrogate experience in the White House, with “inevitability” as a narrative. Those themes turn off progressives like me, and when Edwards left the race, I gravitated away from Hillary and into Obama’s camp for those very reasons. I wanted a more populist candidate. But only now, when the chips are down does Hillary feel the need to campaign for the hearts of minds of her electorate, or at least the ones she can guarantee benefit her ambition. Only when her strategy guaranteed that she would leave more than half of the Democratic electorate on the table in February and failed to donate to progressive candidates in red states and suffered for it, did she start express an interest in the will of voters. She finds it acceptable to spin losses in red states as unimportant while advocating for the rights of FL and MI to be seated.

    Don’t get me wrong. I hope Hillary isn’t the nominee. But if she is, I will vote for her against McCain. And also, you won’t find me instigating venomous posts against her on any blog I frequent. I’m committed to seeing a progressive revolution in November, regardless of who is at the top of the ticket, and I see your efforts as misguided. And that’s why I’m calling you out on this. Your efforts may be cathartic, but they aren’t convincing and they increase Hillary’s negatives. So, no matter what, from my perspective, it is a lose-lose. If Clinton succeeds in part due to supporters like you, I feel that the divisive strategy would doom progressives in the fall. And if it doesn’t work to win the nomination, then why employ such tactics?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: