Donna Brazile's Breach Of Neutrality

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

The concept of appearance of impartiality seems to be a difficult one for some in the DNC to grasp. Not surprisingly, Josh Marshall is oblivious to how bad this looks:

An ostensibly "neutral" member of the DNC has just taken a side in a fight that could be before the Convention. I can only hope no one plans to appoint her to any committee that has to make a decision at the Convention.

< The Blogosphere's Big Mistake In Campaign '08 | Blogging The West Virginia Primary >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "The rulez! The rulez!," she exclaims. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:39:23 PM EST

    And 4 other (none / 0) (#111)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:16:24 PM EST
    states also broke da roolz.

    There is an absolute need, after this tragedy finally ends, to clean house at the DNC.  But before replacing people there should be a closed door discussion centering on why the Democratic Party has such a talent for screwing things up.


    Donna, (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by OldCoastie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:43:18 PM EST
    hilariously, shot her credibility all to heck when she claimed on this same show this morning that, "Nobody has called for Hillary to get out of the race".

    Who can believe one thing out of her mouth?

    She's ridiculously neutral.... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:43:58 PM EST
    .....with the accent on ridiculously.

    She threatened quite a few months ago to (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by athyrio on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:45:07 PM EST
    quit the DNC if Michigan and Florida were seated. Very disgraceful.

    I wish (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by nemo52 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:53:22 PM EST
    she would do so!

    Doing the math (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:51:29 PM EST
    I was trying to do it this morning.  Counted how many comments I posted and wether it would be worth it cussing Brazille out and getting suspended for the day.  So, I will wait longer or allow you to read my mind.  

    Makes the Democratic party look like a petty dictatorship.  

    What they leave out when they say do the math... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:13:12 PM EST
    ...is that they have eliminated all the variables by virtue of the roolz.

    Donna Needs to Quit the Party Like She Promised (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Richjo on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    What a bunch of non sense. If her claim that other states would be voting to exclude Florida and Michigan because they broke the rules, rather than because it would favor their candidate's interests, then it shouldn't matter if Clinton or Obama had won more states. All states should be voting against Florida and Michigan because they "broke the rules". She is basically admitting because Obama won more states he will ensure that Florida and Michigan will never be counted so he can win the nomination. First he blocks the revotes, now he is going to ensure these states never have any say in the process. This is a disgrace, Brazille is a joke. Somebody better start reminding me how evil McCain and the Republicans are because right now I am not sure how anyone could be more courrupt and disgusting than what is going on in this party.

    What I love is that she can threaten to quit... (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:10:54 PM EST
    ...the party, but I can't.

    True, true (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by herb the verb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:13:25 PM EST
    Donna Brazile is likely the lamest commenter/playa currently involved in this race.

    Here we have someone basically pre-supposing what Dean's appointees will do (corrupting their appearance of objectivity), pre-supposing what "each state's" reps will do (corrupting their appearance of objectivity) and pre-supposing what Obama's surrogates will do (preventing them from reaching out to Mi and Fl should his lead be insurmountable following the primary voting and therefore further ensuring MI and FL are lost to Dem candidates for both the presidency and down ballot in the general election).

    A true trifecta of Democratic party stoopidity. The biggest problem with Obama being nominated (aside from the fact that we will lose the GE to McCain), is that morons like Brazille will be allowed to further moronosize the Democratic Party.

    People like Mike Lux have been writing about the "wrath of the Clintons". Well, all I can say is "bring it on", if it will purge the party of week-kneed losers and panderers like Brazille, Richardson, Casey, Kerry and Dean.

    If John Murtha is in Hillary's corner, what more do you need to know?


    I second you on that (none / 0) (#35)
    by Suma on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:13:54 PM EST
    "Somebody better start reminding me how evil McCain and the Republicans are because right now..."

    It won't be Obama. (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:25:41 PM EST
    Remember how fabulous the foreign policies of Reagan and Bush I were?

    Oh Donna (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by nell on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    She has not been neutral for a very, very long time. In fact, some Clinton supporters on other blogs tried to email her just to suggest that perhaps she should note that she is an Obama supporter before she speaks on national television because it is just painfully obvious and when she presents herself as neutral she just makes the DNC look bad for picking sides. These people posted replies from Donna that were angry and quite ridiculous about how Clinton supporters needed to stop whining and even made reference to the fact that she wants a black man to win this. She also said she has been defending the Clintons forever and she is tired of it...

    That is fine, that is her right to support whoever she wants, but it is ludicrous and irresponsible for her to present herself as a neutral supporter.

    No Resolution, No Money (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:01:43 PM EST
    I replied to a DNC email asking for money by saying that I wouldn't donate until the party got its act together on Michigan and Florida because it's the one issue (along with forcing Hillary out) that could split the party.  I specifically cited Ms. Brazile and her lack of leadership (e.g. threatening to split the party by leaving is not leading).  

    I have to say, I'm feeling even better about that email this morning.

    Sent the Email Last night (none / 0) (#19)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:03:00 PM EST
    Sorry that above post was unclear on that.

    They don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:05:06 PM EST
    I get emails from Kerry and Daschle to support Democratic candidates.  Guess what?  After what they did, they have no credibility.  I will pick which congressional candidates I want to give money to.  So, let them swing.  

    Donna (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:03:12 PM EST
    Brazile is as neutral about Obama/Clinton as I am about the Packers/Bears.  

    yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    Everybody prefers da Bears


    as for the other...

    Theirs is not to reason why,
    Theirs is but to do or die...

    I thought the Dems wanted to actually win this time.


    No insulting the site or me or Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    All such comments will be deleted. Repeated attempts will lead to suspension and banning.

    I've never been impressed by her (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:15:50 PM EST

    But as someone said yesterday (?), with Brazile and Daschle and Kerry in Obama's corner, he can't...um...

    Stupid Democrats!

    I vote they change their name (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    from Democratic National Committee


    Obamaphile National Committee.

    Or how about (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:22:41 PM EST
    The Democratic(Except in Florida and Michigan) National Committee

    The D(EFM)NC


    Or... (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    The Not As Democratic As Advertised Committee?

    AKA NADAAC? Probably a little too long and contains too much information.


    Either way.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    ...in the dictionary under Irony, there is a picture of the DNC

    She was whistling a different tune last month... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Exeter on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:23:02 PM EST
    In this NPR interview:
    "As a party we have to deal with the two states that did comply with the rules-- Michigan and Florida-- that should be on the table for discussion at some point. Whether its now when the rules committee reconsiders their sanctions or later when the credentials committee has to decide if they will seat some people from those two states."

    "Let's give these people a chance to vote and if we cannot sort it out then we'll go back to the rules and the rules also state that superdelegates count."

    "All I'm saying is let's not end the process."

    Nothing new (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Sunshine on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:32:40 PM EST
    It was Donna Brazile that first declared Bill Clinton a racist because he said "roll the dice" and Obama's stand of Iraq was a "fairy tale"... She has always been in the tank for Obama....

    As a Clinton supporter and someone that speaks (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by athyrio on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:43:45 PM EST
    to many other Clinton supporters all over the country, I can promise you that we will not view Obama is legit unless and until Florida and Michigan are counted and I dont mean counted after the fact....Counted when it can really make a difference....

    No matter what Donna Brazile says (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Sunshine on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:46:15 PM EST
    Obama also has a narrow path that goes through Mi and Fl, as many Clinton supporter are saying that if the votes from these two states are not counted that Obama cannot count on their votes in Nov....   I think he better listen now.

    wow !! Same talking points on TM this am (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by kc on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:59:38 PM EST
    --Taylor Marsh's post had several Obama supporters on this am with very similar comments.

    the 'both camps have people over the top saying foolish things,' the 'don't want to be responsible for more dying in Iraq,' and the 'good of the party' stuff.  Coincidence?

    I think that this is an attempt to slowly tone down the anti-Clinton rhetoric before the supposed nominee turns on the charm to woo us pitiful, poor, uneducated (low-informational)women back.

    Just my little crystal ball in action

    By the way, I and my friends also got money calls from the DNC and I live in Florida. They got a scorching reply (many) back. And I am very unforgiving and don't care right now if it isn't nice.

    What I find (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by rooge04 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:40:44 PM EST
    utterly hilarious is that this has been the approach of Obama surrogates to get Clinton votes:

    1.  Say you'll just get them and she won't get yours.
    2. When you realize this backfires and all you managed to do was make Clinton supporters angry and dig in their heels further...you calm down.
    3. When HRC doesn't drop out already, you make sure and get every super-d to go on tv and bloviate about it for you.
    4. When THIS backfires, and you get Clinton supporters to guarantee they won't vote for, you try and bring up the 'rules' again.  
    5. Resort to calling Clinton supporters stupid and if they don't vote for Obama they're going against their own best interests.  Yes, at the end throw in a meme about how they're stupid.

    LOL. They will never learn apparently.

    If they (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:36:27 PM EST
    seat them after the nominee has been chosen, if this thing is close, all hell will break loose among the women of this party.  

    I don't like Obama being shoved down my throat, and if appears that Hillary is not getting a fair shake - get out of our way - cause we will not stand for it.

    We (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by rooge04 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:39:04 PM EST
    certainly won't. And there are many like us. We may not be the ones bloviating on television but we're a formidable group.  

    I like her. (none / 0) (#2)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:42:13 PM EST
    She's very attractive and her hair always done well.

    I don't like her at all (none / 0) (#50)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:35:17 PM EST
    I think she spouts a lot of nonsense about The Roolz and I can't believe she's being used as an "impartial" pundit.  Well, actually, given the state of the MSM these days, I can believe it.

    However, I do agree that she's extremely attractive.


    From her appearances on CNN (none / 0) (#7)
    by facta non verba on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:49:04 PM EST
    I thought Donna Brazile had long lost objectivity and neutrality. She has been espousing pretty much the same position for weeks. Thanks for the clip, I feel so out of touch and miss the news feeds. Still I get the sense that not much has changed the last two weeks. The whole argument that there is no argument over MI and FL because they did this to themselves is nonsensical especially in the case of FL. Floridans weren't given a choice. You would that Ms. Brazile might remember 2000 and her failure to fight for Floridans.

    Still, I must admit that Clinton's failure in all this was not having any plan beyond Super Tuesday. It is fair to say that through January, the Clinton campaign was poorly run and managed. In my own case being an Edwards supporter to begin with, she failed to capture my full attention until after the run of caucuses. Scrambling to support her, while a moral imperative now, hasn't been much fun.

    Campaign (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by alexei on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    Yes, that is why Maggie Williams is now in charge and you can really see the difference.  That said, how many candidates could have done what Senator Clinton was able to do after the "collapse" of the campaign in Feb.?  Just another compelling reason for my support - she is a fighter and she just doesn't quit.  No whininess, just pure grit, hard work and determination.  No wonder Joe Scarborough hearts Hillary.

    Yes, you're right. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by facta non verba on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:36:25 PM EST
    Clinton is a fighter and that's what I like about her. I don't agree with her on every issue and should there be a Clinton Administration I will push her leftward but I think she is someone who listens and weighs the options well. And most importantly she has convictions, long-held principles. I like this woman. She admits her flaws and works through them.

    Dean's appointees against seating FL & MI? (none / 0) (#8)
    by katiebird on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:50:58 PM EST
    Did she say -- imply -- that Dean's appointees to the credentials committee are ALREADY against seating Florida & Michigan?

    She did say that all Hillary has are the 3 appointees from each of the states she's won.  That the rest are Dean's appointees and the ones from Obama's states.

    Does that mean you can't be on a committee if you aren't part of the majority delegation?  How do people get appointed to the committees from the states?

    And it REALLY sounded to me like Dean's appointees lean away from seating FL & MI as long as they matter.

    What a total mess up.

    Neutrality is not Blind (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jaman on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:53:49 PM EST
    This contest taken to the Credentials Committee, Donna Brazile correctly pointed out, would be a losing tact for Clinton.  That committee's members are assigned 3 per state. Obama has won twice as many states, ergo he will have twice as many members by state.  Those facts may not seem "fair", but they are neutral facts.

    Fine (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by nell on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:55:52 PM EST
    and like Clinton said, let's have the DNC go on record three months before the national election refusing to seat the delegates of two big swing states.

    If the DNC does that, they are stupider than I thought and deserve to lose this election for actively disenfranchising the voters of two states.

    Good riddance to the party. They are no better than the republicans. I thought we were the party of civil rights, equal rights, VOTING RIGHTS for all...

    Guess not if you live in Florida or Michigan.


    She is saying that Dean and Obama (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by katiebird on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:56:39 PM EST
    Do not support seating FL & MI.  Up to now that's only been inferred from the facts.  Today she told us straight out what there plan is.  And that Dean and Obama are in agreement.

    My question is -- We don't have winner take all delegations.  But do we have winner take all committee appointments?


    Clueless (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:03:34 PM EST
    APPEARANCE matters.

    Man, Brazile HURTS Obama with this. I am amazed.


    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by nell on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    Why do you think Brazile hurts Obama with this? This is nothing new, she has been going on tv supporting any and every position that will help him get the nomination. So why do you feel that this particular appearance hurts him?

    The railroading meme (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:09:29 PM EST
    has gained traction. Brazile helps that meme, hurting Obama's chances of unifying the Party.

    I'm guessing (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by OldCoastie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:13:48 PM EST
    her "no one called for Hillary to quit" this morning was the most awkward attempt anyone has ever seen to backpedal on the railroading business.

    True (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by nell on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:14:53 PM EST
    though no one ever seems to suggest that this railroading is coming from the top of the campaign.

    We did have Obama "graciously" say yesterday that Clinton is "welcome" to stay in the race...to me, that sounded as tin eared as the "likable enough" comment...WELCOME? Did she need his permission? I was not aware that he had reached the magic number of 2,025 to WIN the nomination. How nice that she is WELCOME to stay in!


    Yes, "Welcome" comment (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by suisser on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:40:50 PM EST
    was just awful.  He has repeatedly rubbed this Feminist the wrong way with his words, body language and overall attitiude toward Hilary.

    "Graciously"? (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:57:34 PM EST
    Yes, I suppose condescension can appear gracious at times.

    Josh seems to assume (none / 0) (#15)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:58:25 PM EST
    Dean's whole contingent is going to go only one way.  I wonder who Josh is assuming Dean and company support?

    Brazille insists that a fight on the (none / 0) (#18)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:02:25 PM EST
    credentials committee would be a problem, but then says that MI & FL will be dealth with by the credentials committee.  Of course, we wouldn't be having any credentials committee issues if we had election do-overs.  What was Brazille's position on re-votes?

    I can't believe that Brazille can't at least appear to be more concerned about how this fight is negatively affecting voters' opinions of the Dem Party in the two states.  Frankly, I can't understand why the Obama camp doesn't see the danger for them in the GE.  I think they've gotten mighty sure of themselves lately.

    Not Sure of Themselves (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:09:12 PM EST
    If they were sure of themselves, Obama would agree to a re-vote.  

    If they were sure of themselves, they wouldn't be trying to force Clinton out now.

    If they were sure of themselves, they wouldn't need to risk angering two swing states by disenfranchising them to clinch the nomination.

    No, every time I see an Obama supporter - and Brazile is an Obama supporter - on television telling me why votes shouldn't count, how this can't go to the convention, and why Clinton can't win, I realize that the Obama campaign is very unsure of itself.  


    Well, I think you are right, but (none / 0) (#39)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:17:40 PM EST
    their strategy in this primary was to cover every inch of ground they could around the country because Clinton was a formidable opponent.  I believe that strategy has paid off.  The thing is that they don't seem as motivated to cover every inch of ground as they once were.  If Obama wins the nomination, not having campaigned in either FL or MI will make his fight in the GE harder imo.  But I get the sense that they aren't worried about that at all.  I get the sense that a lot of Democrats particularly in the Obama camp don't take McCain all that seriously.  Many can't seem to imagine how anyone could not want to vote for their guy - and on some level lately I've sensed that the Obama campaign has been drinking its own "inevitablity" kool-aid.  Ironic too after the missteps we witnessed when the Clinton camp bought their own PR.

    And this is the attitude (none / 0) (#42)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:22:15 PM EST
    that seems to be forming now towards the Dem race, as the first wave of articles ("Leaders call on Clinton to drop out!") are being followed by articles citing people who want Clinton to stay in, and those wondering why people want her out so badly just now.  It's the kind of thing that helps her...and probably the party, since the latter line of argumentation assumes having two candidates competing is good and normal, rather than horribly divisive and unusual.

    Maybe they've been watching the AOL straw polls (none / 0) (#57)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:44:30 PM EST
    Not a stable picture for Obama supporters. From what I can tell, you can only vote once and they have over 364,000 votes logged. . .

    Actually (none / 0) (#117)
    by nell on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:41:56 PM EST
    you can vote multiple times. All you have to do is delete your cookies...I am sure there are crazies who game the system, especially given that the Obama campaign has paid people to comment online.

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:14:00 PM EST
    Brazile and all the other "insiders" are convinced that all us mindless little libs will get in line and vote for whatever Democratic candidate is chosen for us. If past performance is anything to go by, they're right. No matter how many times the Democratic Party screws over their people, we keep on voting for them.

    Being disgusted with the Party I became an Independent in 2007. I voted for my first Democrat in 1968, ugh, Hubert Humphrey and have voted in every election national, state and local ever since.

    I vowed when I held my nose and voted for Kerry, and then he didn't fight for every last vote, that I would never again vote for someone just because he/she was a Democrat. And I won't.

    I would never, could never vote for McCain, but if the FL and MI voters are disenfranchised, I will not vote for Obama.

    I long for the good old days when I really believed that Democrats were better than Republicans and dishonest people like Donna Brazile were identified as Republicans.


    I do not get to vote for the President, but (none / 0) (#96)
    by TomLincoln on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:01:59 PM EST
    if I were residing stateside (rather than in Puerto Rico) I can assure you that unless the Democratic Party either allows the FL/MI votes to count, or finds some way to do a revote, I would not bother voting for Obama were he the nominee. I cannot see myself crossing over to vote for McCain, but I definitely would not vote for Obama. He either wins it counting FL/MI (when it matters), or he simply is not a legitimate nominee.

    She opposed revotes (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:05:07 PM EST
    Of course she does. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:10:39 PM EST
    I have a vague recollection of her being interviewed during the Gore campaign and saying that Nader voters weren't going to make a difference.  That was when I first thought she was an idiot.

    Eh (none / 0) (#31)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:12:47 PM EST
    So what.  More "hyperbole and outrage" when the reality is just that the the numbers keep slowly migrating and the "leadership" has begun to send signals of the coming end.  Whoever delivers "the message" gets 15 minutes of outrage fame, and then the next message get delivered by another person.  The message has now been delivered by several people.  The first line in the sand is in June, the second is before the Convention when the Credentials Committee begins its meetings.  Oh Boy!  Two more months of Hyperbole! Two more months of "Viewing with Alarm!" and "Attacks on Lack Of Credibility of "X"."  What fun.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by nell on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:23:36 PM EST
    that is fine, but I think BTD makes a good point. If Obama wins this nomination with less than a 500,000 popular vote lead, while failing to count Michigan and Florida, then he is not a legitimate nominee in my eyes and the party truly has railroaded Clinton. I, for one, will not consider voting for him under this scenario. The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of equal rights, civil rights, and voting rights for all. If they think having their chosen candidate win the nomination is more important than making sure every vote counts, then the nominee produced of such shenanigans is not legitimate in my eyes and is therefore not worthy of my vote. I will just stay home. I promise you I am not alone. And if you think Obama can win without Clinton supporters showing up at the polls, well, good luck with that.

    Do you have any concerns about how (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:18:59 PM EST
    Clinton supporters will view the windup? If you do not, then nevermind.

    I have that worry.


    Oh sure (none / 0) (#52)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:39:40 PM EST
    But it's all breast beating and outrage now, so who knows what it'll be like when the dust settles?  There'll be the Yellow Dog call.  

    Judging by the Oaths Of Eternal Fidelity that people made to Dean and Clark in 2004, there'll be a lot of clothes pins on noses during the voting in November, but the voting will be for a Democrat.  At the moment we are at the Gothic Romance part of the primary season with  people channeling Brian Ferry crooning "My Only Love!"


    Comments like this (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by nell on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:43:15 PM EST
    make me more determined to stay home if Obama is the nominee. Keep it up, Obama and his supporters are alienating Clinton supporters one by one past the point of no return.

    How can that be nell? (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:52:02 PM EST
    We're only being like the witless females in some Gothic Romance. We'll get over it once some big, strong man gathers us in his mighty arms and tells us all will be well. Or not.

    Of all the insufferably insulting drivel that one takes the cake.

    I'm gonna leave now, before I say something that gets me taken to the woodshed.


    You forgot... (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by sumac on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:59:12 PM EST
    "smart." We'll get over it once some big, strong, SMART man gathers us in his mighty arms and tells us that while he doesn't really care about us, we should be good little cheerleaders and step in line.

    It's what we need since we obviously can't think for ourselves and we don't really have any convictions and if we want THE PARTY to win even though they have treated us like ugly, stupid stepchildren, then we have to obey.

    I prefer not to feel like the chronic victim of abuse.



    Nah, you'll get over it when you get (1.00 / 3) (#67)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:01:16 PM EST
    smart enough yourself to vote your own interests.  All the emoting in this election knows no gender. It's just emoting.

    You are wrong (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by sumac on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:07:34 PM EST
    I don't like Obama, but I loath some of his supporters with their superior attitude. He has given me no reason to award him my vote. He has to earn it and I seriously doubt he can. And I am not that emotional. I lived through 8 years W (more considering that I live in Austin and had the great joy of having him ruin our state). I am not so scared of another 4 years of W-lite which is what we will see come the GE.

    Do not suppose you know anything about me or my convictions.


    I forgot to add (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by sumac on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:18:24 PM EST
    That I am being very logical in that one should not reward bad or incompetent behavior (by the Dem party). It just reinforces that bad behavior. If they end up shooting themselves in the collective foot then perhaps we can start rebuilding. Or not.

    I am looking at this from a long term perspective.


    Heh (none / 0) (#84)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:33:40 PM EST
    Reward bad behavior by reinforcing worse behavior.  Smooth.

    As I said (none / 0) (#72)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:15:48 PM EST
    You haven't discovered where your interests lie.  If you are for McCain why not just say so.  Personally I don't want many thousand's more dead in Iraq and the final ruination of the economy.  I'm not voting on "Why I don't like so-and-so's supporters."  Personally, I don't like all the adolescent hormonal supporters of either candidate.  Most of them strike me as those who regard pyramids of beer cans as home decoration and read People magazine.  Neither candidate runs a fact and policy based campaign.  

    Again (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by sumac on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:28:17 PM EST
    You suppose you know a single thing about me? You don't. And I don't feel any need to inform you about where my interests lie.

    But let me say this I am sick and tired of having our current "Uniter" in office. Ah the great good of having a stubborn, arrogant Washington "outsider" in the Oval Office. It's been really rewarding, hasn't it?

    I am NOT convinced in the least that Obama actually has any of my interests in heart.

    Your last sentence is laughable. Certainly the "facts" have been distorted on both sides. But I know at least one candidate has been trying to focus on policy while the other has been doing an impressive smoke and mirror show using race baiting and personal attacks and THE MATH.

    I am done with you.


    You are a condescending troll (none / 0) (#78)
    by herb the verb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:22:43 PM EST
    What of value do you actually have to add?

    Referring to rolfyboy6 (none / 0) (#79)
    by herb the verb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:24:10 PM EST
    to be clear.

    I'm happily (none / 0) (#81)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:29:24 PM EST
    telling all the emoters that they are wasting time.  Considering all the emoting and time wasting going on that's a positive contribution.  It's easy to tell people like that, they're so invested in their emoting they call anyone who laughs at them a troll.

    Ironically, you're quite wrong about emotions. (none / 0) (#87)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:20:05 PM EST
    To know your own interests is to know your emotions. Our emotions shape, unconsciously, many aspects of our decision making. Psychological studies indicate that our political interests are emotionally charged--and quite rightly so, or we wouldn't care about them at all. [Care is, after all, an affective state.]

    People often confuse their emotions (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:41:36 PM EST
    for their interests.  You're right that it's psychologically charged.  The American public has voted against their own interests for years.  Witness Ronald Reagan and the feel good George Bush.

    You misunderstand (none / 0) (#92)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:51:11 PM EST
    You're claiming that we should make our decisions devoid of emotions, and that interests are mutually exclusive from emotions. That's not the case. Emotions support both good and bad decisions.

    Obviously (none / 0) (#106)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:24:30 PM EST
    And you are being very un-nuanced to see things in such two dimensional terms.  What has to be done is to separate the emotion and be rigorous enough to see the difference.

    No, without emotions we wouldn't have (none / 0) (#110)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:14:14 PM EST
    ethical or moral systems. Emotions provide the impetus for those systems. I value affective life as instrumental in any concept of a human being. I reject the idea of "pure" intellect, and I think you're the one who sees things in a dichotomous and two-dimensional way if you advocate separating emotion from intelligence (as though they're mutually exclusive).

    Oh yes, (none / 0) (#105)
    by nemo52 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:01:03 PM EST
    the Ronald Reagan Obama finds so "transformative."

    This is why I won't vote for Obama. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Mari on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:46:53 PM EST
    The Obama supporters and their behavior that is quietly encouraged by the Obama campaign has been leading me to believe that Obama is no better than McCain. Disenfranchising over 2 million voters in a closely contested nomination race is the last straw and tells me that Obama is a republican in disquise. Why should I vote for republican-lite, if a real republican is available and would keep the Democratic party as an opposition party rather than a rubber-stamper for republican-lite policies.

    Gosh, those Tweedledums (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:29:32 PM EST
    they're so much worse than us Tweedledees.

    You are happily chattering and trolling (none / 0) (#113)
    by herb the verb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:47:56 PM EST
    and I hope that works out for you regardless of where YOUR "best interests lie", because it is apparent you neither know nor care to learn where anyone else's interests lie. How else do you dare tell anyone that they haven't figured out their own best interest?

    Good luck with your trolling, you will need it because it is pretty lame and transparent. I give you (this internet entity or netentity) about 48 hours before banning.


    Gotcha ;) nt (none / 0) (#82)
    by sumac on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:30:19 PM EST
    Your comment should be deleted (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by herb the verb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:17:25 PM EST
    but if it isn't, I will go on record as saying that it is YOU that will have to "get over it when you get smart enough to" realize that saying to others that "you'll get over it when you get smart enough yourself to vote your own interests." is likely the most dismissive, condescending and juvenile construct of a non-informed, non-convincing, and moronic non-defense of a post I have seen on this site.

    Really take the pudding.

    BTW, if you want to help Obama, you should stop posting on blogs because you are counter-your-own-desires.


    If women had show up at the polls (none / 0) (#95)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:01:45 PM EST
    in 2004 in the number that supported J Kerry, J Kerry would have won.

    Long standing tradition among women. If the candidate doesn't speak for us, we can vaguely support the candidate, and simply not vote on the day.

    Ignore it at your peril.

    There's a reason for it, and it has nothing to do with "emotion".


    No Gender was involved in my comment (none / 0) (#66)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:59:49 PM EST
    I am after all fond of Georgette Heyer.  And the Gothic stuff is in both camps.  They say exactly the same stuff.  Watching both sides exactly mirror each other gets comical.



    Georgette Heyer? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:15:43 PM EST
    You are guy aren't you? I always thought so?  Are you a sissy or something? (Psst, I like Heyer too.)

    One of the great sentence writers of all time (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:18:56 PM EST
    A great stylist.  THE writer of drawing room comedies. Tight plots.

    Her more historical works are top notch and her book on Waterloo is still considered among the best ever written, the only clear narrative of the battle.


    An Infamous Army (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:39:17 PM EST
    I have a worn version of it.

    Gothics vs. Autodrama (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:31:24 PM EST
    Gothics have been around for a while.  Legitimate genre.  Solid.  No pretense.  Lots of clarity.  Generally, fun.  Always delivers.

    Now compare the genre that represents the Obama camp:  

    The contemporary Autobiography or the "Boyeeee, have I suffered and look at me now" hence, autodrama.  The Autodrama offers the reader redemption through the suffering and the struggle of the author.   The suffering has to be padded with angst, identity crisis, discovery of self and lots of you can do it too.  

    The genre blurrs the lines between fiction and non fiction, but that's ok, cause truth is not the purpose, it's the effect on the reader that is important.  


    Bwahahaha (none / 0) (#88)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:20:53 PM EST
    I knew the campaign was taking a turn for literary device with all the emoting.  Both camps have gone to the literary, the Clintons some time try for Gothic and sometimes for a Raymond Chandler hard boiled effect.

    You must have adored Eat, Pray, Love. (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:09:04 PM EST
    eeek (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:11:33 PM EST
    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by americanincanada on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:33:51 PM EST
    I have no intention of voting for McCain is Obama in the nominee. But I have no intention of voting for Obama either. I will vote for all down tickets dems in my state, Florida btw, but I will either leave the presidential choice blank or I will write in Hillary Clinton.

    That is all.


    And what else happened (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:50:35 PM EST
    in 2004?

    Kerry lost.


    OK (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:57:12 PM EST
    And was that due to disaffected Dean and Clark voters?  No?  So what was your point?

    Oh you silly Clinton supporters.... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by herb the verb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:05:22 PM EST
    and Michigan and Florida voters, sigh.

    Don't you know you will have a chance to vote (for me) in November? Only if you ask me nicely though.


    Barak Obama

    P.S. We know what is best for you, just take it like (or from) a man.


    Why hand them something to (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    have a grievance about? Seems idiotic to me.

    But you seem to be ok with it. Dem stupidity bothers me.


    It's human stupidity (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:55:06 PM EST
    and they've been stupid a long time.  With a large portion of the Democratic blog readers having sphincter control problems when they look at pictures of their candidate it's hard to get past the celebrity noise machine and remember that a lot of people who are emoting right now have actual interests they will remember by Novemeber.  Besides,  I don't think there's been a successful centrist splinter party.  This isn't Henry Wallace or the Dixiecrats in 1948.  John Anderson died on the vine.  The less said about Perot the better.

    Splinter party? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:16:45 PM EST

    You seem confident that it will have no effect. I wish I had your confidence.

    what numbers? (none / 0) (#46)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:23:38 PM EST
    Until you count or revote MI and FL, you have no legitimate numbers. Well, that's if you care about democracy. But trying to guess at what numbers you might really have only leads to one conclusion, right now it's about a tie -- that is, with MI and FL, Clinton is either just behind or just ahead now in the popular vote. And I think it means Clinton will be ahead in popular votes at the end of the process. And when that happens, you have the classic 2000 election dilemma of popular vote vs. delegate (electoral) vote.

    Either way, the SD's settle it. This can be handled well, or really poorly. Let's watch and see.


    The only numbers are Delegate count (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:48:35 PM EST
    Them's the rules.  I don't like it either and the caucuses have been a mess and the whole rest of the alleged and often projected rather than actual numbers has made for a free for all in rhetorical assertions of what the numbers are and what they "mean."  

    Apples and oranges have been lumped together and called Apples, then they've been called Oranges.  The use of which device depends on what week it is in which camp.   I've now read stuff from both camps using the literary device "The Will Of The People" depending on the ebb and flow since January.


    "Them's the Rules"? (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by ricosuave on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:03:14 PM EST
    Are you a parody of team Obama?  This silly idea that pledged delegate count is the only thing that matters is only true when looking through Obama glasses.  If Obama or Hillary had reached the magic number of delegates to clinch the nomination, then it would be all about pledged delegates.  But that didn't happen.  NEITHER candidate has the pledged delegates to win this, and everyone agrees that neither will.

    Everyone also agrees that Obama currently has more and most believe that he will still have more even after all states vote.  But he will not have enough to get the nomination because he will not have met the threshold.  Them's the rules.

    So this is up to the superdelegates.  They will be the folks who decide this (effectively, the people that break the tie).  Obama can win this only by winning over the superdelegates, as can Hillary.  And the superdelegates are not announcing their intentions.

    The view through the Obama glasses is that the superdelegates must decide based on the pledged delegate count so that they can simply ratify whomever has the plurality vote.  The previous Obama position was that the superdelegates must vote on the basis of how their constituents voted (though it turns out that this would seriously cut into Obama support).  I'm sure after things get mixed up a bit through the next few primaries we'll see an entirely different set of guidelines for the superdelegates to vote on.

    The real question here is how the supers will decide (or, in reality, what they are going to use to justify the decision they have already made).  I think the question for most of them is whether they want to appear down-ballot from Obama.  They will look at this inability to broaden his coalition, the inability to scale his operation beyond caucuses and small primaries, the numerous gaffes, and the impending doom from the inevitable 527 ads on Rezko and Wright.  Some of them might even be interested in what the voters wanted, and there are a thousand different ways they can interpret that despite what the Obamatrons claim to be the "official" version they should use.

    As long as the pledged delegate count remains close (which it is and will remain) and as long as nobody reaches the magic number with pledged delegates, the pledged delegate number becomes moot and all the nonquantifiable stuff comes into play.  

    No wonder they wanted her to drop out (oops...that Obama tactic is no longer operational).


    even the pledged delegates can change (none / 0) (#118)
    by thereyougo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:46:21 AM EST
    after the primaries and won't be affirmed until June, I believe. Hillary commented on this in her interview with Greta. Props to Mrs. Clinton, she's proving to be the hare in this cycle and Obama is becoming impatient with the process. Hurry up and finish this because I want to get on with it!

    Mrs. Clinton has shown us what I wanted to see in Gore, that she won't subvert the process  and we'll just have to go where it leads us.

    No more talk of the splitting the party being her fault or coup or civil war,  as if this silliness by the Obots is going to make it so. She is sure to capture the hearts of the electorate by standing up for Democracy one vote at time.                  

    What a wonderful example for our kids, and young gen X and Y bloggers that this what the march of democracy looks like despite the cheers and jeers of the ones who look to declare Obama the winner mid game. I'm glad Hillary shows grit and determination such that I will again send some $$ encouragement to let her know we got her back.



    Delegate count. Not true. (none / 0) (#101)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:32:40 PM EST
    Not this year. Neither has the delegates to make it a lock.

    So, there are the other numbers. Popular votes at the end of the campaign. Votes and polls from states that will make up with electoral college vote.

    Ignore those numbers, and you'll see a defeat in November.

    It ain't about the delegate count. It's about the general election, and how the delegates take that into account.

    That is actually why we have superdelegates..... and like it or not, they are part of the rules too.


    It won't matter if she's appointed to the (none / 0) (#48)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:29:34 PM EST
    committee or not. What she is explaining is the common sense of the committee's set up. Obama won more states. Representation on the committee has a state element. Obama is likely to end up with a majority on the committee. How bright does the writing on the wall have to be in order to read it??

    Weeks and weeks more of this will be too much to take. It has been established that Sen. Clinton will contest the primaries until it is clear that she cannot win the popular vote. Ergo, suspend all discussion of her paths, since we know how she either wins or loses. Obama has to beat her in the popular vote. If you support him, urge people to turn out and not assume he's got it wrapped up. If you support her, urge people to turn out and not assume she's lost.

    But for the love of all things holy can we stop talking about any other scenarios, since they will not happen? This is the only play left in the game. It is a ten-week Hail Mary unless Obama can swat the ball out of the air before then. He can do that by winning PA, making PA a nail-biter, winning NC and IN, winning or making too close KY,WV, or blowing her out in SD,OR and MT.

    No committees will play a part. Voters will decide.

    The problem: what do we talk about until then??

    One more nail in the coffin (none / 0) (#89)
    by reynwrap582 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:39:00 PM EST
    of this "democracy" / "will of the voters" thing.  It's bad enough that your vote in AK is worth 20+ times more than another person's vote in CA as far as pledged delegates go.  Now each state, regardless of size/population/votes, has exactly 3 appointees to the credentials committee?

    That is overwhelmingly ridiculous.  Yet again.  Whoever set up this system needs their heads checked.

    She also doesn't accurately reflect the `rules' (none / 0) (#99)
    by scorbs on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:21:32 PM EST
    Other states violated "the rules," but DB doesn't mention them.  They were NH, Iowa and SC.  Yet they were not "punished" by the "rules."  In fact, Brazile says in this clip -- FALSELY -- that 48 other states "complied with the rules."

    No they didn't.  About 45 did.

    Don't worry you'll be seated (none / 0) (#100)
    by scorbs on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:23:42 PM EST
    Don't worry FL/MI, you'll be seated -- after 48 states decide the nominee in July.

    The problem with Brazile (none / 0) (#119)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:40:27 AM EST
    isn't that she supports Obama. The problem with Brazile is that she claims to be "neutral". That's dishonesty. And people of integrity should be repulsed by it.  

    Somethings shouldn't matter no matter which candidate you support.

    I love the worst Campaign manager in history (none / 0) (#121)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:49:29 PM EST
    coming out and telling others that their strategy is just foolish.  Donna, I know you, like Richardson and others, are pissed that you didn't get asked along for Hillary Clinton's Clinton WH run.  But here is why:  You suck at your job.  

    Brazile and the DNC (none / 0) (#122)
    by S on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:29:35 PM EST
    Donna Brazile has been instrumental is the last two losing Democratic Presidential elections...the Obama campaign is surrounded by other presidential contender losers, Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, Daschle, etc...

    ...the irony is that the only two winning Democratic Presidential elections have been under the Clintons...

    ...the DNC thinks they know best...

    ...but the DNC, and by extentsion, the Obama camp, are drunk with their power, 'their rules' and their ability to manipulate the Democratic party and the primaries...including dismissing two large states and over 2 million votes...

    ...they think they can dismiss, patronize and attack Hillary and her supporters but we will all still be there when the nomination is given to Obama for the sake of the party...

    FLASH TO THE DNC...you are in serious denial...we are in the process of moving on...

    Good luck in the general election when the Democratic base is absent and isn't coming back

    Bye, bye...