Where Kos And I Agree . . . And Disagree

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Kos responds:

[I]f the supers overturn the popular will by siding with Clinton, they will spur civil war ("up in arms", as Armando says) -- not because they broke a rule in pulling off their coup, but because they will have subverted the will of the party electorate.

Here Markos and I agree. If Obama is the pledged delegate leader and the popular vote leader (as me, Kos and a cast of a thousand bloggers, NBC, etc, expect), then any action by the super delegates to subvert such a result would be outrageous and wrong, imo of course. But as Kos acknowledges, NOT against the rules. It won't happen. More . . .

Where Kos and I disagree - he writes:

The rules state that Michigan and Florida don't count.

The rules DO NOT state that. The rules ACTUALLY expressly state that Michigan and Florida would suffer a 50% loss of elected delegate as a penalty for moving up their contests. The DNC violated its own rules in imposing the draconian punishment of stripping Florida and Michigan of their delegates. But let's not go all Walter Sobcek on this.

The REAL point is that revotes were planned for Michigan and Florida - revotes that were completely within the rules and more importantly, completely in the interest of the Democratic Party (but NOT in the interest of Barack Obama's chance to win the nomination, though certainly in his interest in winning the general election.)

Barack Obama blocked the proposed revotes in Florida and Michigan. To my way of thinking, this means Obama needs to have a margin in the popular vote that exceeds 500k, the amount of margin one could reasonably argue Clinton may have gotten from revotes in Florida and Michigan. He should be able to do that. And of course he will hold his selected delegate lead.

One last point, except for what I am writing with regards to the rules, everything I present here is merely opinion, not facts. Until the voters decide, this is all just bloviating from pundits like me, Markos, Josh Marshall and whomever you choose.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Petition Online to Seat FL and MI Delegates >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    you have opinions (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:56:46 PM EST
    the "a list" bloggers have the revealed truth. don't you understand the difference?

    I thought BTD was A list blogger (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    Must be. Wasn't he on an HRC (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    campaign conf. call recently?

    No (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    not fort a long time.

    well your name starts with an A (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    you must be.

    jeralyn's been on tv more, lately (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:05:10 PM EST
    thank markos. i sense a coup...

    and she will be on a lot more (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    because she kicks major bleep

    Are you sure it isn't because she always (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:20:15 PM EST
    has great expensive updated hair due to her identity crisis?

    She's make a great guest host (none / 0) (#40)
    by Chimster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:24:31 PM EST
    for MSNBC's  Countdown.

    almost enough to make me watch that show (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:36:19 PM EST
    Now if she could just take over for Keith...

    But seriously, she should have her own show like Greta Van Susteren.  BTD can come on and be on her legal panel and TalkLeft will take over the world.... the world!! MAUAHAH MAUAHHAHA DROOL....


    Respectfully, I disagree. (none / 0) (#177)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:33:46 AM EST
    On another blog (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:58:23 PM EST
    Markos mentions in his post, the following paragraph appears (I'm not linking to it because I object to the title, as does Markos, and it's become typical of that blog. He has the link though)

    There are going to be some women that think Clinton was treated unfairly in this process because of her gender, but very few of them will be able to harbor the kind of lingering resentment toward the Obama campaign that would preclude them from supporting him in the fall.

    No facts, no stats to back that up. Also, it's exactly the kind of post filled with personal attacks you won't find here.

    it's a bizarre argument: (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    we must not upset the obama supporters, because if we do, they won't participate, in november. clinton's supporters, on the other hand, will do the right thing, so we can afford to upset them.

    Bizarre, But Not Uncommon (5.00 / 13) (#27)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:17:29 PM EST
    It's implicit in Obama's statement that he'll get Hillary's voters, but she might not get his.  And it's designed, IMO, to play on Super Delegate fears.  From a recent article on South Dakota:

    Some Democrats feel like they're in a jam, Simmons said. If Clinton wins, the black vote might not turn out for her in the general election. If Obama wins, political ads featuring Wright will blanket the airwaves and Internet.

    It seems to me that the worry over the black vote is, at least in part, driven by the Obama campaign's attempts to smear the Clintons as personally racist (the fairytale, MLK crap).  Sure, there were some unfortunate comments by Clinton surrogates, but it's Obama's repeated playing of the race card that is the real culprit here, IMO.  And I think Obama's statements about Hillary not getting his voters are designed to play onto those fears and essentially try to convince the SDs they have no choice but to vote for him.  Now, ordinarily, you might think the guy threatening to split the party wouldn't be rewarded, but I'm not so sure about that.

    It's remarkable to me that a campaign that has so often leveraged Reps/Indys against democrats, used rightwing framing on healthcare, has worked to portray the last successful democratic president as a racist, and has essentially threatened to take his voters and go home if he doesn't get his way, is considered the party of Unity, while Hillary - who has repeatedly said the party would unite behind the nominee and run a partisan, democratic campaign - is alleged to be secretly plotting a McCain victory.

    Only in the democratic party.


    That Was A Heck Of An Article (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by flashman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:58:07 PM EST
    Thanks for passing it along.

    Excellent points and precisely the reason (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by hairspray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    I am changing my registrtion to independent and have serious doubts about voting for Obama. An important point to consider is the Latino vote.  IN the past they have not benn consistent voters much to the dismay of the Democrats in TX.  If Hillary gets trashed they too will stay home, mark my words.

    As a slight digression from the points made... (none / 0) (#156)
    by tandem5 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:24:37 PM EST
    I know that I shouldn't be looking for logic where there is none, but the implicit and explicit statements made on the part of the Obama Campaign and its supporters that, "he'll get Hillary's voters, but she might not get his" further indicates that Hillary Clinton's supporters are the base of the party - A fact not disputed by most exit polls for the various primary elections.

    But, at the same time, another message permeates the political landscape which I would assume also originates from the Obama camp that, unlike Obama's supporters, Clinton's, in general, do not hold positions consistent with progressive tenets. So I guess my (faux) confusion centers around where the progressive movement sits in relation to the base.

    I've heard a variety of arguments that essentially gerrymander the progressive movement out into the regions of the independents (usually those regions that are more inclined to vote for Obama, oddly enough), however I've always been under the impression that the term "progressive" was a euphemism for being liberal (eek!) and so if we can all agree the base on the Republican side represents solid right-wing positions I think its safe to assume that our base is fairly lib... uh progressive.


    Reward Bad Behavior (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by flashman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:17:33 PM EST
    Nevertheless. . . (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:21:22 PM EST
    it has been one of Obama's arguments.  And not really that bizarre if you buy the "growing the party" argument -- that Obama attracts people who aren't necessarily doctrinaire Democrats and who might not vote for the Democrat in the fall.

    I don't buy that argument -- at least, not barring open warfare around the convention (which might well induce some otherwise reliable Democratic voters to sit it out this year).  But if you do, then it makes perfect sense to say we can afford to rough Clinton up but have to treat Obama with kid gloves.

    I don't buy the argument because I don't believe the polling is there to support it, but also because it's tainted by being so obviously self-serving in nature.


    What I (none / 0) (#72)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:44:07 PM EST
    And many of my colleagues (I live in Atlanta BTW) are worried about is that the anger from AA's will run so deep if the press allows the idea that the nomination (Hillary's) wasn't completely above board--no smoke filled rooms, etc.--that AA's won't just stay home for this election, they'll stay home rather than vote for ANY white democrat.  I DO NOT think this would be smart behavior...but it does worry me.

    I understand that (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    But the notion that AAs will erupt in anger if the nomination isn't decided the way they prefer, while women will dutifully let it roll off their backs and show up in November to vote for the party's nominee, seems to play into stereotypes of both groups.

    And it's a dangerous game, in any event, to decide that we must appease certain groups who might otherwise walk out, while paying no attention to the opinion of other groups who we've decided can be safely taken for granted.  The short-term logic of this approach is apparent, but in the long run all you do is end up rewarding bad behavior.  We don't want the Democratic nomination to be decided, year in and year out, according to which candidate's supporters can make the most powerful argument that they won't vote Democratic unless they have their way.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:10:05 PM EST
    This is kind of a weird year.  We have two great candidates.  Both of whom I'd be proud to vote for.  The point I'm trying to make is that AA's may be so angry that they won't vote for any white democrat, Atlanta will end up with a republican mayor, etc.  I don't discount the possible anger of white women voters...I do think it very unlikely that they will refuse to vote for any democrat unless said dem is a white woman.  
    Also, slightly O/T to our conversation, but if HRC is within 100 delegates and leads in the popular vote, I will have no problem with her as the nominee...nor do I think many AA's will.

    so, what you're suggesting is that (none / 0) (#157)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    the AA community is so blinded by race, it would, as a group, knowingly and willfully vote in violation of its own self-interests? sorry, i just don't buy into that stereotyped analysis. sure, some would, no doubt. some wouldn't vote at all. the majority i suspect would still vote for what works best for them.

    let me further break it down: atlanta is not the entire state of GA. the entire state of GA will vote republican in the fall, regardless of who the democratic candidate is. if the AA community of atlanta wants to vent its collective spleen, by letting a republican become mayor, that's really their problem, not mine or sen. clinton's.

    in fact, i could frankly care less, the mayor of atlanta has absolutely no effect whatever on me, or anyone else outside the city limits of................atlanta.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#162)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:17:58 PM EST
    For your breaking "it down," and for your use of a gigantic ellipsis.  I, myself, enjoy ellipses.  Let me break this down for YOU: I was using Atlanta as an example because it is where I was born and raised and currently practice.  How 'bout I break it down further for you:  After I posted my example, in the halls of the Georgia State Capitol, I heard a man I know to be a democrat and an elected official say "If she doesn't care about us ** her," to a relatively large group of young men.  [They went on to discuss sen. Clinton by name, so I'm assuming that's who he was referring to] He was not.......from Atlanta.  
    Let me break it down even further: People vote against their interests.  Always have, probably always will.  That's why poor whites are a huge voting bloc for the repubs.  
    I understand that GA will most likely go red in GE but that doesn't mean we can't continue to elect people like Rep. Lewis...unless the AA community feels like they've been lied to.  Then we can't.
    Republicans have been running a years-long whisper campaign that basically goes "dems are just taking your vote for granted.  They don't really care about you."  If it seems this nomination was stolen, we will have lost a huge voting bloc that we count on across the U.S.  I was using ATL as an example. Thanks for missing the point.      

    Then we have no one to blame but Obama (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:11:16 PM EST
    He didn't have to drive a wedge between Hillary and the AA community.  What could he do for them that Hillary wouldn't have done?  If anyone has to make amends in the fall, it has to be Obama.  He either has to patch things up with the "typical white person" Democratic base or he has to glue the AAs and Hillary back together.  
    And I hate to point this out but AA's make up only about 15% of the total population and are heavily represented in Republican states like Mississippi, South Carolina and Louisiana.  Even if they all turned out for Obama, it is unlikely that they would be capable of winning the south for him.  

    Yeah! How dare that uppity young buck... (2.00 / 1) (#108)
    by tbetz on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    ... run against the experienced Hillary Clinton!  It was her turn to be President, not his!

    That's a big problem in this primary. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:30:58 PM EST
    Resorting to claims of racism when one is unable to answer the argument.

    Ahem (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:32:59 PM EST
    racist language doesn't become any more acceptable when you're purporting to put the words in someone else's mouth.

    The only way Obama could have avoided... (none / 0) (#120)
    by tbetz on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:38:41 PM EST
    ... driving a wedge between the AA community and Hillary Clinton would have been for him not to run a successful, engaging campaign.

    Pretending otherwise -- and pretending that what I wrote wasn't the real meaning behind the post I replied to -- seems to me rather obtuse.


    Ahem (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:40:22 PM EST
    It is not for you to decide that other posters must be racist just because you can't divine any other intent for their comment.

    I believe Jeralyn had a post less than 24 hours ago in which she warned commentors not to resort to accusations of racism.  And now here you are.


    It was not an accusation of racism. (none / 0) (#129)
    by tbetz on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    It was an accusation of "status-ism".  It was an accusation of "turn-ism".  As in, "It's Hillary's turn, and I'm gonna smear anyone who gets between her and the Presidency into a wet spot on the pavement."

    Unfortunately, in this case, because of Obama's perceived race, there was no way Hillary's campaign could smear Obama without alienating the AA community.  Even the assertion that he has driven that wedge drives the wedge deeper.

    Which comes back to the fact that, because of his engaging manner and obvious charisma, the only way Barack Obama could have avoided driving a wedge between Hillary Clinton and the AA community would have been not to run.


    not so (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by mexboy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:09:52 PM EST
    The way Obama drove a wedge between Hillary Clinton and the AA community was by tainting President Bill Clinton as a racist.

     It started with the comment by the Obama campaign that President Clinton was saying Ba black man running for president was a fairy tale, and it went from there.


    You may believe that if you like... (none / 0) (#144)
    by tbetz on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    ... but because of the "all's fair in politics" nature of the Clinton campaign -- witness Hillary's harping on Jeremiah Wright just today -- it was inevitable that the color of Barack Obama's skin would result in some slip-up in somebody's language driving a wedge between the AA community and Hillary Clinton.

    You may cite that as when it happened, and you may be right -- but I say it was inevitable, and Bill Clinton's sloppy choice of words in South Carolina just happened to be the first instance.


    I'm not even going to comment on this. (none / 0) (#169)
    by mexboy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:36:31 PM EST
    well, no (none / 0) (#158)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:39:47 PM EST
    sen. obama could have run his campaign on its merits: his accomplishments, his experience, his brilliant plans for the country's future. he could have. unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have much of the above, so that didn't really leave him much left to run on, hence the ludicrous charges of "racism" against the clinton campaign.

    methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

    charisma and platitudes will only get you so far, at some point the people demand substance. that's the huge difference between sen. clinton and sen. obama: i'll grant you, she isn't the most charismatic speaker, and she doesn't shake a room up when she enters, but she's got a rock solid record of substantive accomplishments.

    myself, i'll take solid & substantive for $100 alex!


    goldberry (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:12:05 PM EST
    didn't say he shouldn't have run against her, he said Obama shouldn't have driven a wedge between Hillary (and Bill) and the AAs.  He absolutely has done that and it's not good for the Party overall.

    Who is Buck? (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Mike Pridmore on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:21:47 PM EST
    Is he a third party candidate?

    Another Point (none / 0) (#93)
    by The Maven on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:09:24 PM EST
    that's largely been left unspoken:  

    The common wisdom is that Obama is bringing in all these new voters as well as pulling over a decent chunk of indies and disaffected Republicans.  Let's posit that all this is true.  What I don't see is how this necessarily benefits Democrats in any other race, for Congress, state or local offices.  Some share of the new voters would simply show up at the voting booth, cast their ballot for Obama, and leave pretty much everything else blank.  The crossover Republicans may very well split their tickets and vote GOP for downticket races -- after all, if he will work for unity and be willing to work with everyone, what's the imperative to strengthen the Democratic majority in Congress?

    I'm not suggesting that Obama actually would be a net negative in this regard (and hopefully this wouldn't turn out to be the case), but it's a question that I think is worthy of examination.


    Maybe Not (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:20:03 PM EST
    A recent msnbs/wsj poll said that 76% of the voters "want a candidate who has different policies than Bush".  Considering the GOP is lockstep, the only alternative is to vote Dem down the line.

    think progress


    Erm . . . The Question Asked (none / 0) (#143)
    by The Maven on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:24:43 PM EST
    in that poll was, "Do you think that the next president should take an approach similar to that of George W. Bush, or should the next president take a different approach than George W. Bush has?" (Hart/McInturff for NBC/WSJ, March 7-10, 2008, Question 7 at p. 13)

    I'm not sure how the 76% who said that the next president should take a different approach necessarily translates into a straight-line Democratic vote all the way down the ballot.  Maybe it will, maybe it won't.  All I'm saying is that no one has really addressed this yet, and there's no data one way or the other.


    I Must Be Biased (none / 0) (#175)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:55:59 PM EST
    Because it is hard for me to imagine anyone wanting another BushCo ticket. Also, my guess is that the people who would vote for a Dem president would not then hamstring them by voting Republican down the line.

    But yes, it is hard to know from the poll if people are going to vote down the line.


    ladies are expected to "play nice" (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by nemo52 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:33:37 PM EST
    However, I know a lot of "old bags" as we have been designated by Obama's young fanatics, who are furious, are contemplating not voting or planning not to, and I know several who are already severing from the democratic party.  It works both ways, and yes, older women have been taken fro granted and insulted thoroughly in this campaign.

    Good Thing (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:08:01 PM EST
    That for most older people wisdom increases with age. Those sages will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee irrespective of their skin color or initial favored candidate.

    in other words... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:04:02 PM EST
    Markos is telling his readers that Obama will be "likeable enough" for women voters after it's all said and done.

    Jeralyn, you are right to point out that he is not quoting any surveys to back up his assertion, because if he did... the numbers tell a diferent story...

    For example, as wasabi posted earlier, this is one source (Ras) that shows that Obama would have a harder time getting Clinton supporters:

    "The division in the Democratic Party is highlighted by the fact that just 71% of Democratic Primary voters now say they will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election campaign. If Barack Obama is nominated, 64% of Democratic Primary voters are ready to vote for him. The way in which the Democratic Nomination is resolved will ultimately determine whether the nominee will enjoy stronger support from the party's base."

    No, it wasn't Markos who said that (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:05:28 PM EST
    it was a blog he linked to in his post.

    Yes, but that kind of stuff (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:18:03 PM EST
    just is making me crazy, and I think there will be "long-range resentment".

    I went to our state capitol yesterday.  It's got a mall with cherry trees and they are in full bloom and it is an exquisite sight.  Our capitol, in two previous incarnations, burned to the ground or something, and was rebuilt in the thirties, and it's a rather nifty big ol' marble Art Deco pile.  It has a huge shiny bright gold pioneer man on top of its Art Deco dome.  (The public spaces in this state tend to have a LOT of pioneer statuary.)  I contemplated this huge shiny guy with oversized sparkling musculature and trying to hatch a plot to anonymously reduce him to shiny gold dust, and then rather tactfully suggest to the legislature that maybe a pioneer woman would be a splendid idea for a replacement.

    You never heard it from me, though, right?  ;-)


    allright (none / 0) (#21)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:13:11 PM EST
    Are you referring to the part in the blockquote?

    I don't go to Daily Kos anymore, excuse me if was a bit mistaken.


    That is so offensive (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:08:13 PM EST
    I looked it up.  You are right about the title--almost lost my breakfast.

    Markos Has Been Wrong About A Lot Of (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:10:30 PM EST
    things lately. This just adds to the list.

    The real problem is likely not (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by frankly0 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:15:14 PM EST
    so much women voters, per se, but the action of Reagan/Bush Democrats.

    Now I don't offhand have statistics to back it up, but I've got to believe that the number of working class Democrats who might fall under the "Reagan Democrat" rubric is larger than, say, the number of African-American voters.

    But even assuming they are roughly same in number, the Reagan-Democrats present an even greater problem, by far, come the general election because:

    1. They are concentrated in the major swing states (OH, PA, MI, and FL).
    2. They traditionally swing their voters from Democrat to Republican, instead of merely sitting the election out (the likely outcome if A-As refuse to vote for Hillary). This means their likely voting behavior has twice the force.

    While I appreciate that getting the AA segment upset by giving the nod to Hillary would have bad consequences, they are likely only going to be far, far worse if Obama is selected instead.

    Another point (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by frankly0 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:21:33 PM EST
    Looked briefly at the Booman link.

    What he doesn't get, and many Obama supporters don't seem to grasp, is that, if Obama wins the nomination, Reagan Democrats aren't going to vote for McCain over Obama simply out of anger that their candidate wasn't selected, they are going to vote for McCain because they prefer him as a potential President.

    That is traditionally exactly what they have done, when they voted for Reagan over Carter or Mondale, or for Bush over Gore or Kerry. It wasn't out of bitterness -- it was because they are close enough to the center that a Republican candidate can win them over.


    Also Hispanics (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:30:03 PM EST
    Obama has polled very weak among hispanics.  John McCain just did a swing through Southern California, meeting with a number of hispanic groups.  The Republican operative (grain, salt) on NPR said that Republicans viewed California as more in play if Obama is the nominee than Clinton, in part, because of hispanics (also because Clinton has stronger, deeper ties to the state).  Personally, I expect the Dem to carry the state whoever it is, but I thought it was interesting, especially since this was a local NPR segment and so wasn't aimed at influencing primary votes.

    McCain will benefit from this in Florida the most (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:12:43 PM EST
    His support among Hispanics is especially strong among Cuban Americans.  He has been very outspoken against Castro throughout his political career and many can argue that it was this dynamic that made the difference for him in winning the Florida primary.

    And it isn't just Cuban Americans.  I personally know many Puerto Ricans who are perfectly fine with McCain.  (especially among military vets, including in my own family)

    Overall Hispanics will remember that he was the only major Republican candidate who agreed to the original Univision debate and the only one who dared to speak out in defense of immigrants being "God's children" knowing he'd likely be booed for it.

    I picture a general election campaign between McCain and Obama and I don't even see how it could be close.  The media darling status of Obama will be nullified by the fact that McCain is also a media darling.  Take away that advantage and Obama is outmatched, outexperienced, and out-propagandized (no right wing machine) at every level.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#105)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:21:34 PM EST
    There was a very interesting diary on mydd a few days ago that talked about the Latino vote for November.  The diarist did his best to explain, several different ways, why McCain might get a large chunk of the Latino vote on the merits if Obama were the nominee.

    The pro-Obama commentors just didn't get it.  It seemed clear as day to them that voting Democratic would be in the best interests of Latinos, and so of course it would happen, no matter how many times the diarist tried to explain that Latinos simply don't have any kind of long-standing institutional connection to the Democratic Party.  Now personally, I happen to think that voting Democratic is in the best interests of just about everyone, but I'm smart enough to know the reason I think that is because I'm a Democrat!  In the real world, when my opinion of someone's best interest is at odds with their own opinion, their opinion tends to win out.

    Apparently AA voters ("the most loyal Democratic voting bloc," we're told again and again) are unique in that their resentment is genuine and lasting and that they really will stay home if the nomination isn't decided to their liking.   But everyone who isn't AA will apparently be just fine with voting for whoever the nominee is!  It's a strange world these folks portray.


    What I don't get (none / 0) (#153)
    by DaleA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:01:52 PM EST
    is the A list bloggers keep pointing to the west as the place for Dem growth. Latinos are concentrated in the Western states. Hillary does very well with a large demographic in the projected areas for growth. Obama does not do well with that demo. So, logically, it would make sense for Dems to choose the candidate who starts off with a large base in the targeted region. What am I missing?

    Per the Census Bureau, link is not working, there is a handy map showing the nation with information on each state. In every Western state there are more Latinos than AA's. Sometimes by a 5 or 7 to one margin. Isn't Hillary the logical candidate for party growth in the targeted region?


    Heh (5.00 / 10) (#32)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    It's been my experience that no one, including women, likes to be taken for granted.

    That's exactly what Obama did with his infamous "I'll get all of her voters, but will she get all of mine" comment, and it's exactly what Markos is doing in that quote.  The instinctive reaction to being taken for granted is to respond, "Oh yeah?  I'll show YOU!" which isn't the sort of reaction you want to provoke when your goal is party unity.

    Is there a single person among the prominent Obama supporters in the blogosphere (Markos, of course, sits at the head of the food chain) who understands the big picture, the need for unity in November?  If Obama were really as much of a sure thing as these folks tell us, what would the point be of continuing the negativity?

    If anything, the negative attacks on Hillary's character have only accelerated, with no thought given to whether her supporters might be permanently alienated by the sort of bullying that led to the DKos writer's strike.  Maybe these folks have internalized the "her voters can be taken for granted" talking point to such a degree that they actually believe no work is required to line those votes up for November.


    Always dissing the women (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by kmblue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:29:16 PM EST
    I continue to be absolutely astonished by the Obama campaign's casual assumption that they'll have the women's vote.

    And the the fact that the same casual assumption is firmly held by Kos and the MSM.


    The Insinuations That Those Who Are Not (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    voting for Obama or racists or uneducated is not going to bring about unity in the party either.

    Maybe these folks have internalized the "her voters can be insulted as often as possible" talking point to such a degree that they actually believe no work is required to line those votes up for November.


    The DNC (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:15:17 PM EST
     is also taking all of us for granted.  I keep reading where these Dem leaders are pushing Obama and then they say all the Dems will vote for him because we have to.  Some nonsense like that.  They seem to think they're in an unassailable position this year, so they're not using good political sense.

    I love my country too much (none / 0) (#66)
    by nellre on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:39:58 PM EST
    I love my country too much to sit it out.
    I will harbor resentments about the tacky way HRC has been treated, but it'll be resentments against the people responsible for it, not Obama himself.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:00:32 PM EST
    Obama IS responsible for it.  It's his campaign, his staff, his people.  Honestly, I'd have more respect for him if he joined in rather than pretending to be so pure and above the dirt.

    However, I do think the vast majority of women Dems in particular simply will not stay home and let McCain win, no matter waht some of them are telling pollsters now.  Nor do I believe most AA voters would if Clinton ends up the nominee.

    Both of these groups are far too smart as voters and as citizens to sulk and let another right-wing Republican get into the White House.

    If I'm at all a typical older white woman Dem., we will march our butts down to the polls and cast the most difficult vote of our lifetimes for a Democrat if Obama wins the nom-- and then we will bave to go get very drunk.


    I of the opinion that (none / 0) (#109)
    by nellre on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:25:49 PM EST
    Obama doesn't have a visceral hatred of HRC that the Obama followers who are trashing her do.
    Pure emotional knee jerking is the only way I can account for the self destructive nature of the HRC discourse on sites like huffpo and dailykos

    And I'll be right there with you (none / 0) (#152)
    by allimom99 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:00:17 PM EST
    An Antidote (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:27:21 PM EST
    To that post can be found in this thoughtful piece by Melissa McEwan on legitimate concerns feminists have about supporting candidates who embrace sexism.  In it she decries the tendency for progressives to complain that calling out fellow progressives for sexism prevents unity:

    This oft-wielded cudgel to silence feminists who cry foul at sexism expressed by political allies is wrong for the following reason, which I cannot state any more succinctly than this: When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility.

    BTW, polls have repeatedly shown that more Dems stay home if Hillary is on the ticket, than if Obama is (see, e.g., here).  So the idea that if Obama is the nominee, Hillary's base will stick with the party appears to be more claim than actual fact.


    Your link says more Repubs (none / 0) (#87)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:03:42 PM EST
    stay home-not Dems- and more Dems stay aboard with Hillary.

    If only there was a way to prove... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Exeter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:37:13 PM EST
    ...this meme wrong... something fact-based... hmmm... how about polling people?!? Yes! Anyway you slice -- nationwide or in battleground states -- HRC is the better general election candidate against McCain.

    During that back and forth about (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    the rules re the penalty for moving the primary forward, I thought the default rule was penalizing a state 50% of the delegates selected in the out-of-order primary, but that there was other provision giving the DNC discretion not to do so.  

    On a ftr note (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Kos writes:

    Nowhere have I said that this would violate the rules. You too, Jerome. All I have said is that it would be a coup by super delegate -- the overturning of the popular results by the party elite.

    Well alleging a coup is exactly an accusation of breaking the rules but let's leave that aside, as I did in my post. I wrote:

    Kos uses the pejorative term "coup" to describe the Super Delegates not voting for the pledged delegate leader. Let's leave aside the issue of whether the word "coup" makes sense here - and let's focus on whether the rules allow this. The answer is obviously yes, they do. It seems to me that it is Obama supporters like Markos who are complaining that the rules MAY NOT favor Obama. It is they who are whining that the rules permit Super Delegates to pick a nominee who is not the pledged delegate leader. I do not like the rules either. But for a different reason. They allow Super Delegates to pick a nominee who might not be the popular vote leader.

    Some Kossacks who have been the targets of my criticisms in the past are rankled by my points of view. Others do not like it when some of their heroes are called onto the carpet.

    What you will not see from them is anyone showing something deliberately false in my posts. You will also not see an actual substantive response to my points.

    I have no sacred cows, friends or foes. I write what I think.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:27:22 PM EST
    People who use words like "coup" need to be more honest in acknowledging the connotation.  Another thing people need to be more honest about is that the meme "millions of voters will see the nomination as illegitimate if it's decided in a certain way" is to some degree self-propagating.  People will be upset by a certain scenario because they've been told, over and over again, that said scenario is unacceptable.

    I don't like the dynamic this sort of talk has created, where the threat to stay home if things don't go your way is routinely deployed.  People are essentially trying to blackmail the superdelegates, and the Party.


    Markos has a good grasp. . . (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:40:50 PM EST
    on using words to annoy -- witness his attacks on "women's studies types" and "New York money liberals" in the past.   Part of his popularity has always derived from his Limbaugh-like outrageousness.  But it's not so attractive when targeted within the party.

    Using words that mean things and then claiming they don't mean those things is a kind of slippery passive-aggressive discourse that makes actual dialog extremely difficult.


    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    This campaign has really been an eye-opener with respect to some blogosphere tactics that don't really seem so bad until you're on the wrong side of the argument.  (Of course, you and I went through something similar already with the whole "Bloomberg Democrats" flap, but this is obviously several degrees beyond that.)

    I used to enjoy so many diarists at DKos when their righteous indignation or righteous snark was aimed at the Bush outrage of the day, but not so much now that my own candidate is the target and I can see that their diaries are, if I may say so, not entirely factual.  Having a tremendous gift for the written word may get you on the Rec List, but it doesn't make you any more likely to be correct on the merits.  A lot of the diaries at RedStates are exceedingly well-written polemics, after all.


    Nuclear option (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by PaulDem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:37:48 PM EST
    I also disagree with the terminology of a "coup" because of the implication that such vote of the superdelegates would be structurally illegitimate.

    A better term would be "nuclear option".  While overturning the outcome of the pledged delegate race is "legal" based on party rules, the likelihood is that it would obliterate the coalitions that form the backbone of the party.  It's use, therefore, is an extremely grave step that should be carefully considered.

    As an aside, I don't see the popular vote totals as a valid marker of the winner because the disparity between voting turnout in caucus versus primary states.  You could argue that if more states held primaries instead of caucuses that Clinton would have gained more votes and possibly more delegate but that is just pure speculation.  Besides if the popular vote was the determining factor we'd have President Gore taking his victory lap right now.  Sometimes life's unfair.

    In any event, were the superdelegates to veto the pledged delegate winner, there should be a more compelling rationale than "because the rules allow for it".  The effect of such a reversal on the voters who supported Obama could have lasting consequences for this election cycle and beyond.  

    In my opinion the purpose of the superdelegates holding the power to nullify the outcome pledged delegate contest is to prevent the case where nominating the pledged delegate winner would do serious harm to the Democratic party and its prospects in the general election.  

    Even in light of the Wright dustup I don't think nominating Obama rises to this level potential harm to the party.  I have not heard any other compelling arguments from Clinton supporters for why the superdelegates should take the extraordinary step of putting their thumb on her side of the scale in this contest.  I'm willing to listen to logic since I'm a fairly soft Obama supporter but nobody put forward anything convincing yet.


    Popular Vote (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:43:23 PM EST
    The allocation of pledged delegates is at least as unfair and arbitrary as the popular vote.  And more irrelevant in terms of holding party coalitions together.  Do I think all those hispanics who turned out in Nevada are going to be mollified that their "votes" (yes, I know it was a caucus), which helped put Hillary over the top in terms of popular "vote", don't matter because Obama won the pledged delegate count?  Or that blacks in Alabama will be satisfied because their overwhelming support for Obama led to a tied delegate count?

    I believe it's voters, not delegates, who make up coalitions and it's voters, not delegates, that Democrats need to attract in November.  So why on earth should I care more about delegates?


    Agreed (none / 0) (#80)
    by PaulDem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:55:35 PM EST
    The way we apportion delegates is whacked and should be changed but I didn't hear anybody clamoring for these changes until it turned out that the specific changes they now see as crucial to this particular contest just happen to benefit their candidate.

    It's the same thing as the newly minted consternation about the poor disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida.  Where were these wails of anguish last year when the party voted to impose these consequences?


    Delegate apportionment (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    and caucuses simply weren't much of a problem before because we've never had such a neck-and-neck primary contest before.  The fault lines of the caucuses and the delegates are glaringly apparent only now because they're not giving us any help in figuring this out.  If we had the exact same system except it was winner-take-all for each state, I honestly doubt you'd be hearing much more than a bit of grumbling.

    Implies We Knew (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:09:47 PM EST
    I didn't know how delegates were apportioned and I didn't have much understanding of the difference between a caucus and a primary.  So my lack of earlier complaint was because of a lack of understanding, not because I agreed.  Now that I do know, I believe we need a complete overhaul of the system before 2012 - primaries (preferably closed) and popular vote % by state for delegate breakdown.  You win 60% of the vote in, say, California, you get 60% of the pledged delegates.

    As for MI and FL, at the time, there was repeated assurances that they would be seated somehow, that it would all be worked out.  I had no problem with punishing the state party bureacracy by keeping out candidates and their dollars, but I did not believe I was signing on to actually disenfranchising almost 2 million voters.  That is unacceptable to me.  I was fine with a re-vote (which would've been permissible under the rules), but since Obama scuttled those, we're stuck with the original votes.  That's not my choice or my doing.


    its the process of electing a nominee (none / 0) (#125)
    by thereyougo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:48:04 PM EST
    that should be looked at and essentially we're speaking to that now.

    Its the strategies that both sides took to get where we are now. Hillary for all the purported negativity remains strong.

    The SDs have to stop looking at the candidates per se'. I think both candidates will win against the Republican. Its about the war and the economy.
    And we know what we'd get with McCain.

    But more I hear about Obama he is not ready for prime time, just on those 2 issues. After all I have seen of him he's a better orator;capitalized on what they used to call  MLK -- a protected black back in the day. Meaning his typical experiences in the black community aren't the same,to garner the almost complete support. Its like GWB said, I don't know what its like to be poor. I don't hold it against Obama, but the total support he gets from the black community comes fairly close to how females see Hillary -- gender vs. race. Two competing valid reasons historically in their significance to elect either.
    So as I see it, Both Hillary and Obama would prevail given the current dynamics.


    "coup" is a nice little word (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:19:06 PM EST
    to further incite Obama followers that have been led to believe Hillary will "steal the nomination"!!  because she's EVIL!
    They seem to have the perception that there's this big Clinton Machine and Obama is just a little guy that started with nothing in Feb. 07.

    The same little guy that the media has promoted and concealed negative info about him until the primaries were almost over.


    We need to recapture the term "coup" (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by Exeter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:43:00 PM EST
    It would be a coup for Obama to win the nomination without winning the popular vote. It would be the first time in the modern political era that it has ever happened-- in either party. It is he, not Clinton, that would be subverting the will of the people in that scenario.

    When calculating lead (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by nellre on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:00:51 PM EST
    When calculating lead in the popular vote a margin of error ought to be taken into account.
    I've heard our voting process has a margin of error of about 3%.

    If 30 million vote, that's 900,000 votes plus or minus.

    If the difference in the popular vote between Obama and HRC is less than this, it's a statistical tie.

    I so much wish someone more articulate than I would write about this.

    I'd love to see Clinton surrogates (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:34:51 PM EST
    starting to push this line.  It would be absolutely hilarious.

    You did just fine (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:07:46 PM EST
    articulating it.  And I agree with you.

    I tire of this subject, but (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by fladem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    1.  There are no rules about super-delegates. They vote for whom they want, period.
    2. The DNC did not violate their rules.  The DNC had the authority to change its rules when it voted to punish Florida and Michigan.  It did so in accordance with its own rules.

    While people are free to make principled arguments about what the decisions above SHOULD be, there is NO disptute as to the fact of either statement above.  

    No it did not (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    It had the discretion to hold an investigation and consider the Florida Dem Party's  argument that it had no choice and tried to do what it could on the date.

    The DNC did NOT follow its OWN rules. It violated its own rules. I tire of having to repeat this fact every time someone like you, who we all respect, ignores that fact.


    You have it backwards (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by thefncrow on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:21:29 PM EST
    The DNC rules allow for additional sanctions, above and beyond the automatic 50% delegate loss, period, without any requirement for an investigation.

    What is also in the rules is a section that allows for the DNC to hold an investigation and clear the state party of wrongdoing because the change was mandated by a state law and the party members provably did all in their power to change the state law.

    The investigation is required before the DNC clears the state party.  The investigation is not required for additional sanctions to be levied.  And if you watch Democratic Minority Leader Steve Geller's introduction of an amendment to undo the primary move, it's quite clear what the position of the state party was.

    Add that up with the fact that there was no good faith effort to run a contest that abided by the DNC rules until just recently, and the positions of the state party are quite clear.  The rules don't require an investigation, but even if one was to be run, it could be concluded in short order: despite a scant number of official protestations, the Florida and Michigan State Democratic Parties wanted those earlier primary dates, even if they were in contravention of the DNC rules.

    The DNC followed it's own rules, as did 48 other states, and several US protectorates.  The only violators here are Michigan and Florida.


    Uh (none / 0) (#106)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:23:27 PM EST
    New Hampshire followed the rules in what sense?

    It's a matter of record that the only reason Michigan moved up was because New Hampshire announced its intention to break the rules!


    Pre-Authorization (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by thefncrow on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:32:10 PM EST
    Before New Hampshire moved up, it asked for, and was granted, a waiver to do so by the DNC.

    Because it has a waiver, it is not in violation of DNC rules.

    If you'd like to argue about why they were granted a waiver, that's fine, but New Hampshire did not violate the DNC rules.


    Yes (none / 0) (#123)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:43:12 PM EST
    "waiver" means "permission to break the rules with no penalty."

    A schedule was set.  NH didn't stick to it.  MI didn't stick to it, because they were upset by NH's decision not to stick to it.  The DNC decided to hit MI with a draconian penalty and give NH a waiver.

    Arguing that NH "followed the rules" is pure sophistry.  People who follow the rules don't need to be excused from following the rules.


    With vs Without Permission (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by thefncrow on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:48:49 PM EST
    New Hampshire moved it's date up with the permission of the DNC, and so was not penalized.

    Michigan moved it's date up without permission of the DNC, and was thus penalized.

    It's really that simple.  If you'd like to argue why one got permission and one didn't, we can do that, but the waiver explains exactly why one was penalized and one was not.


    According to the rules (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by fladem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:24:12 PM EST
    DNC Rules and Bylaws Section 20.c.5 and 20.c.6 allows the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to "impose sanctions that the committee deems appropriate" to enforce its rules.  Thus, it was not bound by the provision in 20.c.1 that a delegation be punished by losing 50% of its delegates.

    The judgement of the Committee was that removing all of the delegates was required in order to avoid utter chaos in the primary schedule.

    As I read the rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws followed its own process, and the decision it made was within its power.  

    One can argue the wisdom of the decision, but I am a pretty good lawyer, and as I read what they did it was in accordance with their rules.  


    Okay (none / 0) (#160)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:01:16 PM EST
    but if the policeman chooses to look the other way when you commit a crime, that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.

    You can't premise an argument that NH followed the rules on the claim that the DNC decided not to penalize NH for breaking the rules.


    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by thefncrow on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:14:00 PM EST
    fladem's comment was in response to BTD's claim that the DNC broke the rules by taking 100%, instead of 50%, of Michigan and Florida's delegates.  In that, he is absolutely, positively, 100% correct.

    Your response is a non-sequitur about New Hampshire that I already went over with you:

    New Hampshire applied to the DNC for a waiver in advance of moving up their date.  The DNC granted such a waiver.  With a waiver in hand, New Hampshire was allowed to move up their primary without violating the DNC rules.

    Michigan and Florida did not have this waiver.  If you'd like to argue they should have gotten one of these, that's a fine topic for discussion.  But, without the waiver, they are in violation of the DNC rules, and stand to be punished as the Rules Committee sees fit.

    It's not that New Hampshire broke the rules and then was allowed to slide.  New Hampshire came to the DNC and asked for permission in advance.  Once they received that permission, they moved up, and the fact of them moving up their date was not a violation of the DNC rules because the DNC cleared that move in advance.  

    If you're wanting an analogy, we'll go with this.  Florida and Michigan wanted a look at Person X's records.  Florida and Michigan kicked in the front door, and retrieved the records.  Having willfully violated the rules, Florida and Michigan were sentenced to prison.

    New Hampshire also wanted a look at those records.  They went before a judge and filed an order with the court asking for access to the records.  The judge reviewed the request and approved it.  With a court order in hand, New Hampshire goes and retrieves the records.

    One of those is a crime, the other is decidedly not.


    Your facts are incorrect (none / 0) (#171)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:41:03 PM EST
    New Hampshire announced at a public press conference that they intended to move their date up, well in advance of receiving any permission from the DNC.

    It was in response to NH's announcement that MI decided to move their own date in protest.

    I am tired of people who refuse to acknowledge that NH did anything wrong.  You'd think the fact that they have carte blanche every four years to do as they please might be a hint to people that they acted the same way this time around.


    Define "hearing" (none / 0) (#39)
    by tbetz on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    The rules don't.

    Even Harold Ickes was satisfied in August of 2007 that the DNC had heard enough to vote to strip Florida and Michigan of all their delegates.

    As several states continue to elbow each other to go earlier and earlier in the 2008 presidential calendar, the Democratic National Committee decided to draw a line in the sand and say "enough."

    "The whole system is goofy, completely out of kilter and way too early," said Harold Ickes, a rules committee member from Washington, D.C. "The whole damn system is way, way too early."

    I can't imagine what might have driven him to change his mind.


    Look (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:48:01 PM EST
    citing the hypocrisy of pols and their operatives is stupid here.

    I do not appreciate it and have to think you are bereft of an actual response to my point.


    I'll repeat my point... (none / 0) (#118)
    by tbetz on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:33:51 PM EST
    ... without the distracting quote of one of the people who participated in what the DNC rules committee considered to be a hearing.

    Define "hearing".  The rules don't.

    Now, I'll elaborate.

    The DNC rules committee looked at the available evidence about how the Michigan and Florida primary dates were set and made a decision.

    Who are you to say that they didn't hold a hearing?  

    As far as they were concerned, they did;  if they believed otherwise, they wouldn't have voted when they did.  And having written the rule, they should know better than anyone what they consider to be the definition of a "hearing".

    So all your bluster about the DNC rules committee having violated their own rules is just that, bluster.  

    It is definitively not fact.


    Who's Kos? (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:06:26 PM EST

    some guy who used to have a good blog (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:15:59 PM EST
    Kos = Markos of dailykos (none / 0) (#35)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:21:50 PM EST
    dailykos.com (none / 0) (#48)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:28:30 PM EST
    She's snarking, folks. (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:45:56 PM EST
    She's a dk old timer, not a blogging novice.

    And it's dk's loss that she and others have left.


    He runs an Obama 527 (none / 0) (#107)
    by badger on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:25:11 PM EST
    is this true? wow, just wow (none / 0) (#133)
    by thereyougo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:08:30 PM EST
    No it is snark (none / 0) (#149)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:48:25 PM EST
    And I hope no one is actually objecting to Kos having a favored candidate?

    Some of you are becoming that which you claim to dislike.


    Not that snarky. . . (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:58:29 PM EST
    Certainly dKos doesn't meet the legal requirements of a 527 but it has pretty much become an Obama support organization.

    Personally, I couldn't care less about Markos' favorite candidate (except insofar as his endorsement is a negative in my evaluation of any candidate at this point).  It's his hating on the other Democrat, and his tearing at the structural integrity of the Democratic Party, that's got me down.


    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by badger on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:34:54 PM EST
    In fact I was just snarkily making the comment that he (and his site) does have a favorite candidate - in the extreme.

    The only things I'd disgree with are his prior claims about (paraphrasing) "not wanting to be a political leader" and "running a site to elect Democrats".

    That, and the quality of his arguments is pretty poor, certainly on the merits and even just as advocacy.


    Why have Superdelegates at all? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:07:18 PM EST
    This should be the standard question whenever one is confronted with an argument like the one Markos is making.

    Bongo! (none / 0) (#128)
    by Neal on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:52:53 PM EST
    You nailed it!

    What do you think Harry Reid is talking about (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:07:24 PM EST
    when he says this:

        Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

        Reid: Easy.

        Q: How is that?

        Reid: It will be done.

        Q: It just will?

        Reid: Yep.

        Q: Magically?

        Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

    I am an Obama supporter who agrees with everything BTD says here (including what he says about revotes), but I do think, as an Obama supporter, but more importantly as a Democrat, that the process needs to be allowed to work itself out.  I have no idea what Reid is saying, but I don't think I like it.  

    If I were a Clinton supporter I would like it even less since, in my view based on the numbers and what I see as the likely outcome of the pending contests, the only way Clinton wins is at the convention.

    What is the problem? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:28:33 PM EST
    If the primaries and caucuses are finished,  and the superdelegates decide to coalesce around a candidate then nobody would be in a position to complain.  I understand Hillary and her supporters would prefer for this not to happen, as the candidate they are likely to coalesce around would not be her,  but it would be part of the process and would be the super delegates performing their function.

    Besides Hillary has had 90+ super delegates locked up before the first vote was cast so she can hardly be precious about wanting super delegates to hold off on endorsing until the convention or some other arbitrary point in the future.


    But (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:32:30 PM EST
    the notion that the superdelegates might, hypothetically, choose to coalesce around Clinton instead is the entire basis of this "civil war" debate.

    It cannot be perfectly okay if a bunch of superdelegates decide to go with Obama, but an affront to the legitimacy of the primary process if they decide to go with Clinton instead.  There's a lack of consistency on the part of some people.


    True, I take your point (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:42:19 PM EST
    However I was responding to the comment about Harry Reid's delphic remarks which seem to imply that a backroom deal has been done to ensure that a nominee will be in place before the convention.

    To me, that seems to imply that at some point,  probably once the last contest is complete,  all or most of the the unpledged superdelegates will flow to one of the candidates based on some metric to effectively bring the contest to a close.

    I think that is probably a sensible thing to happen, and that as a process neither candidate can really complain about them doing that.

    OTOH I'm sure they both can and will complain if the metric used is not to their liking,  and with varying degrees of legitimacy in their complaints.

    i.e.  If Obama is leading in pop.vote, pledged delegates and somehow the superdelegates go with Clinton based on electability/big states argument/electoral college then obviously Obama would be unhappy, in my view justifiably unless some outside event or campaign implosion renders his campaign radioactive (in a way that Wright clearly has not).


    Ok How much of a lead (none / 0) (#131)
    by hookfan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:01:07 PM EST
    must a leader have to be significant? And what pre- established criteria (aka 'da roolz") is used to determine it? Hint: there aint any except reaching the magic number of delegates. The rest is just blowing smoke and passing gas.
      If the party elders cared much about popular vote as a big factor in determining the primary outcome, why have such a screwey, byzantine, delegation selection process that looks designed to avoid much influence of the popular vote? Why give such a huge percentage of influence to unpledged delegates?
      I'm wondering if the primary process is just a smokescreen to give the appearance of a democratic process to get people active but all the while keeping the real control in the empowered ones at the top.

    I don't think that is the argument (none / 0) (#65)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:39:00 PM EST
    I think the argument is there would be a civil war if the SD's picked Clinton despite Obama having the lead in pledged delegates and popular vote.

    so the SDs should go with Obama (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:30:48 PM EST
    even though he lost CA, FL, OH...?
    Lots of Latinos and Reagan Dems in those states who will go for McCain over Obama.

    a win in calif. wipes out wins (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by thereyougo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:23:52 PM EST
    in at least 3 states or maybe 4, just on popular vote and delegates. So on sheer states number 'won' by Obama have little weight, in the larger picture and would probably go Red. Unless you're Kos, who wants to be a purist, but falls short when calling a SD choice a coup or for civil war. Its crazy and reckless coming from someone who claims large traffic to his site because he heads a "coommunity" blog. I think he still thinks like a Republican.

    I don't have a problem with that (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:41:11 PM EST
    My concern is that the party is going to do something to force an early decision.  I think one of the most critical things for anyone serious about making this country better is to make sure that whoever the candidate is, they get the other side's supporters on board so that we win in November.  Anything that smacks of the party anointing either candidate seems likely to make that harder.  I think that it is for the best that people like Pelosi, Dean, and Reid not make endorsements.  At the same time I can understand why they would want things decided sooner.  Everyday the primary goes on is a day we are not going after McCain.

    Media (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:34:13 PM EST
    is beginning to report that Dean, Reid and Pelosi are going to end it.

    That Would Be A Very Grave Mistake IMO n/t (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:42:29 PM EST
    The point is that they can't "end it" (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:46:44 PM EST
    definitively, but that 300+ superdelegates are still sitting on a fence being politicians (i.e. cowards) and if they move as something close to a block to one candidate,  then I suppose they can end it.

    They are looking for someone else to make the decision for them, so it may well be that  if results in the next couple of primaries do not show strong movement towards Clinton that shows that she has a chance of closing the gap with Obama on at least one of P.V. or Pledged Delegates then there could be some kind of informal agreement amongst the unpledged superdelegates to support Obama for the good of the party.


    Influence (none / 0) (#124)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:44:28 PM EST
    Apparently some think they have enough 'power and influence' to convince the superdeez to move one way or the either, effectively, for them, ending it.

    [eye roll] (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:49:43 PM EST
    And I bet they'll call it "leadership".

    Reid and Pelosi (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by kmblue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:55:51 PM EST
    have done such a great job for us in
    Congress! (snark)

    "Things are being done" (none / 0) (#22)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:14:08 PM EST
    covers a lotta ground!

    And provides grounds for endless speculation!  Wahoo...are we having fun yet?


    It's a curious statement from Reid (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:30:56 PM EST
    considering that his own MO as majority leader has been to do as little as possible.

    Check out a comment in the open thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:21:59 PM EST
    about a Congressman's comments about Gore/Obama or Gore/Clinton at the convention.

    Imagine if he lost again. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Chimster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:26:40 PM EST
    I'm not sure he'd want to have this end up in Florida again, which as it turns out, might just happen.

    "they will have subverted (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by plf1953 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:27:55 PM EST
    the will of the party electorate."

    Kos must not mean the party electorate - i.e., self identified Dems - who have overwhelmingly (by 800,000 votes incl. MI and FL) voted to support Hillary to this point ...

    THAT is the PARTY electorate, not the "Dems for a Day" whom Obama has manipulated to achieve his overall "popular vote" and "pledged delegate" lead to this point.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:47:38 PM EST
    the superdelegates are the party electorate.

    If only the GE was restricted to (none / 0) (#52)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:30:52 PM EST
    members of the Democratic party then maybe Gore and Kerry would have fared better.

    Besides I'll see your Obama supporting cross over voters, and raise you some Limbaugh listening Hillary supporting mischief-makers.


    Do that, please. (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Davidson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:03:39 PM EST
    Back up your post that somehow Limbaugh gamed anything in favor of Clinton.  Especially after several long months of boosting Obama.  Please.

    Here's a little info for you: Limbaugh played no role in deciding the victor in TX.  In fact, Obama won the Republican vote.  In fact, he's won the Republican vote--handily--in just about every single primary/caucus.


    See Jeralyn's appearance on teevee. (none / 0) (#150)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    Strategic.... (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:33:33 PM EST
    1. "We'll stay home" is a game two can play, I would say, and it's really impossible to tell who's the one really playing chicken. My recollection, FWIW, is that on my own extremely uncivil and messy site, we went through a long argument over many threads, and the forces of "both parties are really the same" basically lost the argument, and we decided to vote for whoever the Dem nominee was. This was all well before Michelle's "I'd have to think about it" comment, and well before Barry's comment that "I can get her votes, but she can't get mine." So, if I come away feeling that we expended a fair amount of community energy to figure out how to play fair, and if that got used against us... It doesn't leave a good taste behind.

    2. I think there's a difference between voting and working for. There's only so much time in the world, and, as a Hillary supporter, I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee. However, I don't trust him on Social Security ever since his dog whistles to the right in Iowa, and I've never trusted him on Universal Health Care, especially when the creative class guys started backing away from it. So, I think it makes sense to vote for Obama, but work for policies I believe in, on the assumption that, with the nomination, all the questions of Obama's vetting have been addressed, and the only question is the margin of victory.

    3. And heck, the Obama supporters don't want me on their team anyhow. If they did, they wouldn't have thrown me off their sites. So, I'd just be old and in the way.

    Hillary HAS been treated unfairly & Edwards (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:36:06 PM EST
    Why do the media, the DNC, and the guy blogs not think that will matter. Why do they think if The BHO guy does not win there will be a civil war, but if the Woman does not win, it will be OK, oh well, we tried. We are women afterall. We'll get over it. We will do what the men want. We will just move out of the way and let the guy have it all.

    I don't think that will happen this time. Women will not riot or have a civil war, but they will just stay home and not bother voting. And if Reid has made a deal with Dean already, I will be totally disappointed & call that unfair too.

    One word (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:38:09 PM EST

    I looked it up (none / 0) (#161)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:11:46 PM EST
    Understand the comedy. You are right.

    Some of what I wrote in this (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:01:56 PM EST
    comment is relevant to the points you raise in this post. While I'm inclined to agree with you that a 500K popular vote margin should seal the deal for most people, even Clinton partisans, I wonder whether the superdelegates will accept the converse -- that something less than a 500K popular vote victory for Obama is just cause to override Obama's substantial pledged delegate lead. On one hand, you have a certainty -- numbers of pledged delegates -- and on the other -- speculation about how the popular vote would have come out. That's not to say that the speculation wouldn't be informed.

    However, there is additional reason to look with some skepticism on popular vote totals, or at least look more deeply into them. The global popular vote totals do not accurately reflect the likelihood of victory for each candidate state by state. The popular vote totals can easily be skewed by one or two big states going wildly in one direction or another. As an example, what does it matter that Hillary beat Obama in Texas in the popular vote? Does either candidate have a shot at winning Texas in the general election? I seriously doubt it.

    I would argue that delegate count is a far more accurate measure of possible support in the electoral college than the popular vote in the primaries. I suspect many superdelegates will view it the same way. Those who don't are, like Ed Rendell for example, looking for a rationale they think will sell to the party rank and file, and not looking for analytically cohesive reasoning.

    Actually, Rendell was right. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Davidson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:05:52 PM EST
    If the nomination process was winner-take-all/GE, Clinton would be up.  And pledged delegates are rather arbitrary anyway.

    Caucus Vs. Primary (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by OxyCon on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:09:52 PM EST
    Wouldn't Hillary be ahead on all counts, popular and delegate, if the Dem election consisted of primaries only, like the general election?

    Why is a lead significant? (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Richjo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:16:51 PM EST
    While I find BTD's position 100 times more reasonable than what we hear coming out of the Obama campaign and from most Obama supporters, I would still question the significance he attaches to a lead that falls short of the majority needed for victory. It is my opinion that equating a lead with being deserving of the nomination is unfair and allows one candidate to falsely assume a mantle of legitimacy that they did not earn.

    No one will win this nomination. The superdelegates will have to decide who they want to give it to. I personally would rather see them exercise their independent judgment about who would be the best nominee and President then have them default to one candidate because they happen to have a statistically and morally insignificant lead. Especially when making the argument that not voting for the leader would be overturning the will of the people enables one of the two candidates to play a run out the clock strategy where they flat out disenfranchise the voters of two states, and attempt to strip the voters of many others of any really meaning in the votes they cast.

    I respect that BTD will call out the Obama camp for their ploys, but it seems to me by buying into the proposition that a lead short of a majority means something that he is amongst those in the press who are in fact enabling the Obama camp to get away with this type of behavior. A better approach would be to accept that if there is no majority winner in the process that we must deem the process inconclusive. To take a term from polling, we should conclude that the result falls within the margin of error and declare it essentially a tie. When that happens we should follow the wisdom of our framers who in a similar scenario within the electoral college had the sagacity to send such a decision to the House of Representatives where the elected representatives of the people could exercise independent judgment to resolve the conflict. This will prevent the type of mob rule we see threatening to break out and preserve the essential principles of our system of government.

    The truth is that Obama cannot "win" the nomination, the superdelegates will be choosing to give him the nomination and can do it whenever they want. They want to obscure that fact so they are waiting till the end of the primaries so they can claim that they didn't actually make the choice and pretend the voters did. If the race is over they should end it, but they won't because that would expose how fraudulent Obama's wait out the clock and try to pretend like the nomination is being stolen from him strategy is. The superdelegates will decide and end this fight, pretending that is otherwise because they go with the "leader" just doesn't cut it. At least not in my opinion.

    "Coup by superdelegate" (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:28:30 PM EST
    That's Kos' refrain.  If he acknowledges that the rules allow superdelegates to exercise their discretion to vote as they see fit, what can excuse this type of rhetoric.

    IMO, the count we have is inherently unrepresentative, and it's telling that BTD refers to it as "the best we have."  My main problems with the "popular vote" "we have" is that it is skewed by caucuses, which do not seem to me even a rough reflection of the will of Democrats.

    I think the superdelegates (and delegates for that matter) ought to vote as they see fit.  And this "coup" crap from Kos is just his attempt to create an outcome, rather than (as he would have it appear) a description of what will happen, or what voters will perceive is happening.

    "Coup by superdelegate" is among the most manipulative and craven spin I have seen from any quarter in this primary.


    Darn it. You removed the post (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:33:10 PM EST
    I was replying to. Now I look crazy! Apologies.

    shhhh (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:49:11 PM EST
    don't say that here.  You will be called a kool-aid drinker, someone who will take their toys and go home, someone who only wants their doll and nothing else.

    Apparently it is a lack of knowledge that drives this urge.  If you were truly intelligent, you would hold your nose and vote for someone you don't support and don't believe would be a good leader.

    Kos - Oct. 10, 2007 (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:23:45 PM EST
    >>>Clinton and Dodd aren't bailing on Michigan voters.

    Pledging to not campaign in Michigan is one thing (as stupid as I might think it is), but slapping Michigan voters in the face by taking their names off the ballot, well, that's another thing entirely. They didn't move the primary up. The politicians did.

    Hillary and Dodd are apparently the only two candidates on the Democratic side unafraid of incurring the wrath of irrational Iowans and Granite Staters desperately hanging on to the final vestiges of their undeserved primary supremacy.

    Outstanding find -- pre-Kos' epiphany (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:20:41 PM EST
    when he saw the heavens open, the light shine down, and he lost his last semblance of reasoned thinking.

    What amazes me (4.75 / 8) (#25)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:15:30 PM EST
    Is that so many will recognize that the rules that allow the superdelegates to vote as they wish are NOT more important than the will of the people. And yet they think the rules that allow the disenfranchisement of the people of Florida and Michigan are more important than the will of those people.

    Yep (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:24:32 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter I've been very disappointed in his behavior RE: FLA and MI.  Especially MI since with FLA he seemed to be mostly just dragging his feet.  In MI he was an obstacle.  

    I was never really sure (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:32:56 PM EST
    I understood why a revote in FL was even necessary.  All names were on the ballot.  No one campaigned there.  Seems like a level playing field to me.  It's not like the voters weren't aware of the candidates and their positions by the time the primary rolled around.  Their delegates should be seated as is.    

    MI, on the other hand, is a different story and I think that MI voters will not forget Obama's behavior in the GE.  


    That is exactly the point kos misses (none / 0) (#134)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:08:32 PM EST
    and it makes him look ridiculous.

    DailyKos would be right at home in Stalin's Russia (2.00 / 1) (#173)
    by doyenne49 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:21:05 PM EST
    Their tactics are as grim and slimy as they come.

    I dont agree, (1.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Salt on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:37:09 PM EST
    If Obama is the pledged delegate leader and the popular vote leader (as me, Kos and a cast of a thousand bloggers, NBC, etc, expect), then any action by the super delegates to subvert such a result would be outrageous and wrong, imo of course.

    ...the entire reason the SDs have any role is to put Party first so that's their why they are there and that's how they should vote.  There is already of civil war in-Party the disenfranchisement of Mich and Fla delegate rich caucuses has created a larger Party rift both in principal and in the appearance so nothing do can make it worse or so I believe.

    Talking about ROOLZ (none / 0) (#30)
    by DaleA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:19:33 PM EST
    IMHO is not helpfull at this point. The focus should be on healing the rifts and hurts of the primary. Especially with FL and MI. But there are a lot of other rifts. I don't see the A list bloggers doing this. I do see Hillary bloggers like Alegre and Riverdaughter going more and more to a stay home on election day position.

    Talking about 'coups' is a bad strategy IMHO. How do posters here see a healing coming about? I have tried to imagine what would reconcile me to Obama. Can't find anything that would. Anyone have ideas.

    Yes, they should stay off his side (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by nellre on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:24:50 PM EST
    Many Obama supporters are turning people off to Obama.
    I turns me off big time, but I try not to hold it against Obama.
    My decision to support HRC is that she has the experience.
    Obama should run again in '16

    Think of the Supreme Court (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:49:21 PM EST
    That's what I do.

    I wish I trusted (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by nemo52 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:41:57 PM EST
    Obama with the supreme court appointments, and at one time, I would have.  Now, I am not so sure.  

    Simple, consider the alternative (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:51:56 PM EST
    Take a long hard look at John McCain.  You can start here or here or here or here

    I could go on, but you get the idea.

    Obama and Clinton are fundamentally similar in their policies.  You can argue about who will be most effective, but an ineffective either will be better than McCain.  

    Some have argued that Obama's inexperience would somehow endanger national security.  I find McCain much scarier by any measure.


    we survived Reagan and the Bushes (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by mexboy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:54:57 PM EST
    We will survive McCain if Obama becomes the nominee.

    Sometimes you have to stand on principle. A man who claims to be a different kind of politician and then trashes the best president of my lifetime as a racist in order to win an election does not get my vote. Using race bating tactics is below my tolerance level.

    One thing almost no one is considering is the Latino vote. It is my opinion most Latinos will not vote for Obama for two reasons.

    The race baiting tactics to taint Bill Clinton as a racist.

    The unfair  attacks on Hillarie's character and the dirty tricks by the Obama campaign.

    My culture (Mexican) considers a man who bashes a woman a coward, and it is my opinion that most will not vote for Obama if he should become the nominee for these reasons.

    Four of my immediate family members have already said they will not vote for him.


    You forgot to say (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:23:53 PM EST
    "trashes the best Democratic president of (our) lifetime" AND "with the tacit approval of Howard Dean and the DNC".

    I'm a woman and I really hope your culture doesn't consider it cowardly to practice political strategy on a female political opponent.  We don't want to be "protected," we want to be equal.  Trash away as long as the trash is truth.

    However, there are lines you shouldn't cross, especially when you're crossing into "inaccuracies" (the Jeralyn term).  From my own observation, the DNC apparently hates the Clintons more than they love the party brand, and they don't mind destroying the last two-term Democrat since Roosevelt.


    notice I said unfair attacks on Hillarie's (none / 0) (#166)
    by mexboy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:25:28 PM EST

    I said nothing about political strategy, and no, women and Hillary in particular does not need protecting. She is a fighter and I am quite comfortable leaving the security of our country in her hands. Otherwise I would not be supporting her.

    I think you misread the intent of my post. I in no way implied women are not equal or that the culture I grew up in feels they need to be protected.  I resent having to explain my post to you. I frankly am tired of people being overly sensitive to sexism, racism and all the other PC nonsense.

    Sometimes we just have to take off our own filters and read what the poster said.


    * Hillary's (none / 0) (#170)
    by mexboy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:37:45 PM EST
    I think our only hope is to attend one (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    of those mass rally's featuring Obama.  

    Unlikely (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:31:34 PM EST
    to have the desired effect on me.

    Worshipful mobs make me nauseous.


    Find his speaking style (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by DaleA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:15:11 PM EST
    off-putting. Just can not get into it at all. Detect a preachy quality that I can't stand. So a rally probably wouldn't do it for me.

    if you squint your eyes, (none / 0) (#43)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:25:28 PM EST
    he looks like a biblical character.

    Hhahahahahahh (none / 0) (#138)
    by andrelee on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:16:39 PM EST
    hahhaahahahahaahahah!!!! Thank you. This was getting a bit droll.

    Hyperbole (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:22:35 PM EST
    I think that kos uses the word coup in the same way you use the phrase 'up in arms', although technically you are correct that it would not be a coup. That being said, I guess it does make sense to make your point, just in case anyone were high enough to believe that kos was actually suggesting that the SD's behavior would in fact, literally be a coup.

    Is there some purpose for (none / 0) (#111)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:30:47 PM EST
    repeatedly putting your one-sided argument into every thread?
    Hasn't Jeralyn asked you just today to cool it with hogging up the bandwidth? Thanks in advance for thinking of the rest of the users here.

    Anyone read the article from TM (none / 0) (#139)
    by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    where the Florida Dem SD said if the nomination goes to a brokered convention, the SDs are going to nominate Al Gore? (!) ?

    benjamin, now that you've graduated from college, (none / 0) (#147)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:41:13 PM EST
    i have just three words for you:


    If Obama Gains (none / 0) (#159)
    by bob h on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:47:36 PM EST
    the nomination by continuing to block the Florida and Michigan delegations, and proceeds to lose in November, then civil war will be triggered within the Party.

    Lowgrade Civil War is already well underway. (none / 0) (#168)
    by pluege on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:32:03 PM EST
    The question is what it will take to make the peace AND to get the losing side on-board for the general election.

    The Disgreement is in Outlook, not Issues (none / 0) (#167)
    by pluege on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:29:15 PM EST
    Where BTD and kos disagree the most is that kos has already decided (and did so long ago) that Obama IS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE democratic nominee and anything, ANYTHING that upsets kos' predetermined outcome is wrong. Whether its rationalizing excluding MI and FL, or how delegates are counted, or how the popular vote is counted, or anything else, IT DOES NOT MATTER to kos, because has determined that Obama is the winner.

    BTD on the hand, despite expectations, assumptions, preferences, and other subjective attributes will wait to declare a winner until a winner is actually determined and will pass judgment on the result.

    which is why BTD is readable to non-Obama worshippers and kos is not.

    If he (none / 0) (#172)
    by sas on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:20:52 PM EST
    is so naive to believe that Clinton voters will come around, he's crazy.

    Women, especially, will either stay home or vote McCain.  

    What is purpose of super delegates? (none / 0) (#176)
    by motorman on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:22:15 AM EST
    I respectfully disagree with the notion that supers must vote with pledged or popular vote. Especially popular vote, which has little to do with choosing a candidate.  I agree it leads to hard feelings if the superdelgates have an different choice but what is their function.  Is it purely honorary?

    Cook County (none / 0) (#178)
    by Larry on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:18:46 PM EST
    Interesting that 90% of Obama's popular margin comes from Illinois (650k/711K) and 60% from Cook County. If Obama falters in the next round, Cook County could end up as his entire popular margin, especially if you include Florida, where both were on the ballot.

    Obama would kill Clinton running for their mutually best choice of a next office, one which would provide the executive experience they both so sorely lack: Illinois Governor - even though it's Hillary's home state. It's not like Blagojevich ought to get reelected.