Colorado State Convention Gets Underway

It's embarrassing to see that these women, who call themselves "White Women for Obama" are from my home state.

[Janice]Francis and two of her friends, Elana Hanson and Pam Clausen, wore T-shirts they designed and sold that said "ColoradObama." Francis and Hanson are trying to get elected as delegates from the 5th District.

..."We're white women for Obama," Clausen said.
"Oprah's the one who got us turned on to him," Francis said.

There are 70 pages of Obama wannabe delegates and 46 pages of Hillary hopefuls, 1,500 people in all, competing for 12 delegate slots and 2 alternate positions. Hopefully these three won't be among them.


As to whether the delegates are up for grabs, this was interesting, if accurate:

Terry McAuliffe, former chairman of the DNC, will speak on Clinton's behalf. Arizona Gov. Jane Napolitano will urge delegates to support Obama.

Are they just pitching the uncommitted delegates or are the delegates picked at the caucuses (and then at the county convention) no longer bound by their pledges?

All in all, this is a pretty unflattering article. It ends with another dumb quote from the Oprah-seduced Ms. Francis:

Saturday's events are at the Event Center, which has parking for 2,400 vehicles. An estimated 10,000 Democrats were expected to descend on El Paso County Friday and today.

"Isn't that great? This place is so Republican," Francis said.

Time to try the Denver Post and see if the coverage is any better.

Comments now closed.

< Overnight Open Thread | Denial And The 50 State Strategy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Well, white women for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:59:17 AM EST
    and Napalitano better stay the hell away from our delegates.  Honestly, how embarrassing.

    LOL--"It's Rainin' Obama! Hallelujah!" (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by kempis on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:04:38 AM EST
    Those hilarious "McCain Girls" videos leaped to mind when I saw this.

    Surely these women jest. Surely.

    Someone please tell me they're kidding.


    I'm leaving Denver in 15 minutes (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by echinopsia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:30:36 AM EST
    for the hour and 15 minute drive to CO Springs. I'm a Hillary alternate but I will probabaly be seated as a delegate - I was last time.

    I'll report back later today on the proceedings.


    Heck...I Thought Larry, Moe & Curly Had (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    resurfaced.  Someone needs to query them on obama's platform and what he stands for.  My guess is hope and change will be their answers.

    They should read what Edwards said about Hillay (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by suzieg on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:14:48 AM EST
    Doesn't anybody remember what Edwards said about Hillary being qualified to run for president after her eyes misted? Maybe if they knew how lowly they are being viewed as women in the Obama's camp they might change their minds

    John Edwards just lost my vote. How dare he take cheap shots at Hillary Clinton for letting her eyes mist over (not "crying" as was widely reported) at a meeting with voters in Portsmouth NH earlier today? This is a man who has used his most private tragedies--his wife's cancer, his son's fatal accident -- in his campaign in a way that had a woman done the same she would surely be accused of "oprahfying' the lofty realm of politics. This is also the man who promoted himself early on as the real women's candidate, and who has repeatedly used his likeable wife to humanize his rather slick and one-dimensional persona. Today he deployed against Hillary the oldest, dumbest canard about women: they're too emotional to hold power. ABC's Political Radar blog reports:

    "Edwards, speaking at a press availability in Laconia, New Hampshire, offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to bring into question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency. Edwards responded, 'I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.'"



    I remember (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:22:48 AM EST
    and that was the turning point for me when I stopped leaning toward Edwards and threw my support behind Hillary. The bs he's said since then (ganging up on her at the debates with Obama and the msm, how important it is to elect a "black man" -- never mind the qualifications of said man, etc) only confirms that my initial reaction was correct and that he was unworthy to be my President.

    People in his home town (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:41:00 AM EST
    in South Carolina didn't seem too enthused.  The whites did vote him in the primary (he won 1 county?)  His campaign event here was in a very small 'family' restaurant.  

    I remarked after that video we linked to that he looked like a high school prom king.  Hate to say that, cause I know personally of one lawsuit he won for a badly injured child.  


    Just because he is a good lawyer (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:49:49 AM EST
    and takes the right side in law suits, doesn't mean he is presidential. I admire John Edwards' work, but at this juncture I don't want him in the White House. And I hope Elizabeth smacks him silly for that stupid statement.

    North (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    Carolina. He lives in/near Chapel Hill.

    You're right, he's not popular in his home town.


    The thing about pledged is interesting (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by phat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:01:37 AM EST
    From what I understand, the DNC does not hold "pledged" delegates to a legal standard.

    The first ballot at the DNCC is based on a "good faith" standard, I gather.

    This is why the campaigns get the right of first refusal, to make sure they have loyal partisans as delegates.

    It's all very obscure, of course.

    As to county or statewide delegates, well, the thing is, if they have rules that are in disagreement with DNCC rules, DNCC rules trump.

    The rules are automatically amended to be in compliance with DNCC rules.

    So, technically, I would believe county and state pledges are up for grabs.

    Now if the the outcome of the state convention is different than what was laid out by the state caucus rules vis apportionment, the DNCC could refuse to seat those delegates, I would guess.

    But if you signed an application form to be a DNCC delegate, I do believe you are only ultimately bound by their rules.

    Their rules, from what I understand, do not enforce the pledge.

    Does this make sense?

    That's awful. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:07:53 AM EST
    Can she get him removed and replace him with someone loyal?

    Why would she do that? (none / 0) (#11)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:10:07 AM EST
    Funny (none / 0) (#16)
    by phat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:38:11 AM EST
    That guy sounds like a real piece of work.

    I would hesitate to use the word criminal (none / 0) (#10)
    by phat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:10:05 AM EST
    As really, that is the point of the rules as laid out. Ultimately, the rules allow for the conscience of the individual to be their guide. That doesn't really bother me at all. I may disagree with their reasoning, but of all the stupid rules laid out by the DNC, that one I appreciate.

    In the long run, all delegates are superdelegates, but pledged delegates have a more explicit set of weights to guide them in their decision.

    I would only use the term criminal if there were some explicit contractual obligation involved in the pledge, something I'm not even sure you could enforce. This may have even been decided by case-law. I wouldn't know.


    All of this, of course (none / 0) (#13)
    by phat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:13:18 AM EST
    Begs all sorts of questions.

    Ah, for a lot of folks, yeah. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:02:59 AM EST

    Truly pathetic. I hope The Secret is working (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:05:30 AM EST
    out for them.

    right off the cliff (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Salo on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:35:24 AM EST

    Bless his heart! (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:28:24 AM EST
    Comment from the linked article (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:21:43 AM EST

    Posted by me2 on May 16, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    I love predictions from conservatives. Remember S. Hannity saying "you will never hear the words, Nancy Pellosi, Speaker of the House."

    While I expected more from her (and the Dems in general), I will say, it was great to hear those words when it happened. I work at home and had the Teevee on. I stopped, watched and did feel a sense of accomplishment. It's kinda funny because at the time, even with Hillary as my senator and all the talk of her running for pres, I never thought we would get here. It's one thing to come up through the House or Senate (not discounting NP at ALL!!! ), another to go out and run for President. I just am happy to see her get this far. Both women have done a great job of breaking barriers, lets keep it going!

    Not too surprising. A really good friend (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by oculus on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:05:02 AM EST
    of mine told me she had switched from Clinton to Obama due to the gas tax holiday meme from Clinton.  I sd., but Obama voted for that in the IL Senate.  No response.  Surprising.  So, she is a highly educated Caucasian female for Obama.

    I bet that they are their daughter's (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:07:00 AM EST
    best friends, too, and write things like "whatev!" and "srsly?" when they text each other.

    parents voting for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:57:55 AM EST
    because of their kidz, reminds me that parents smoke pot with their kidz in an effort to bond with them.

    Pal said her first reaction to kids' text msgs ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:12:11 AM EST
    ... was that they had learned conversational Czech behind her back. (That's in their heritage.)

    Even so, she's still thrilled that they're acquiring skills beyond TV / vid-game thumb ninjutsu. :-)


    Obviously didn't do his research (none / 0) (#198)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    the first time, eh?

    If Hillary's townhall from last night is posted - check it out.  She explains it well.  She's good on those tedious wonkish details.  Knows her stuff, does her homework.

    Doesn't rely on "staff" and "advisors".


    They look like the planning committee (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:07:00 AM EST
    for the Class of '68's 40 year high school reunion.

    Suddenly, (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Grace on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:10:40 AM EST
    They seem like part of a SNL skit...  

    "White Women for Obama plan the '68 Class Reunion"


    Suddenly, (none / 0) (#22)
    by Grace on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:04:29 AM EST
    They seem like part of a SNL skit...  

    "White Women for Obama plan the '68 Class Reunion"


    Teddy and Oprah (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by karen for Clinton on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:05:29 AM EST
    had an enormous strong-arming of this election, sadly.  The surge for him was obvious as their soul selling drama played across the nation that week and millions of people who hadn't paid much attention suddenly picked obama based on hope, change, he is the one according to ted and oprah.

    I nearly blew a fuse when a 50 year old white woman friend who is just like the woman in the above photo and knew nothing about obama at all - or hillary for that matter, told me she made up her mind after she heard kennedy speak about ob.

    And other obamabots we know praised her.

    needless to say they all thought the Race Speech was GREAT and answered all their questions.

    I have several friends I no longer stay in touch with since they are out of touch.

    oprah damaged the democratic party and herself.

    She should have stuck to peddling books.

    Oprah not all bad! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:24:02 AM EST
    She supports We Can Solve It! and the fight against Climate Change.

    That's a worthy endeavor, but it's also a grassroots thing and not a one person show.  I admire Gore for his works, not his charisma.  


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:26:00 AM EST
    Oprah did go back to selling books or whatever.  Hasn't been heard from on the trail lately, I read.

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:39:45 AM EST
    Her ratings dropped after he role of John the Baptist for the ONE -- Ellen is now the number one talk show. Heh -- guess not all WOWs who watch(ed) her show are lemmlings.

    The only problem I had with her endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:08:13 AM EST
    She has been so popular for so long and I know several ladies who can't miss her show. I get the daily I saw on Oprah info. But, women have been the bulk of her audience and the reason she is such a hit and yet she did not choose a woman as her candidate. After not getting involved in politics and endorsing, she only got involved because the candidate was a AA. She overlooked all her women viewers.

    I'll bet your friend has no idea (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:04:48 AM EST
    Obama went all around the country spinning a tale about the Kennedys bringing his father to America. He even mentioned it when the Kennedys endorsed him!
    But it was all a BIG LIE! - exposed by the Washington Post and Talk Left in March.
    Media and other press?  chirp, chirp

    Obama didn't google for facts - but neither did the Kennedys.
    Both were content to further a lie to prop up Obama.


    Those women must be dreaming. Obama doesn't (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by DeborahNC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:52:33 AM EST
    want 'older' white women on his team. They must not have gotten the memo, or at least, didn't hear Donna Brazile's comments.

    It still surprises, and indeed puzzles me, how many allegedly progressive and educated people are voting for Obama, but they cannot discuss specifics about his proposed policies. If I ask them why they are supporting him, I get a very vague response about how he wants to change politics. In what way, I ask. And everybody here has probably experienced the huffy and defensive shift in tone that the conversation acquires after questioning "the One."

    What is so disheartening to me is that many of my friends would be considered part of the left-wing faction of the Democratic Party, much more leftish than O's blogging boyZ, and heretofore have seemed to be sensible people. And these are educated people...many with Ph.D.s, J.D.s., self-taught intellectuals, etc. You know, people who are supposed to use reasoning in their decision-making! What is about Obama that ensnares these people and somehow diminishes their cognitive ability?

    The bottom line is that they look at me as if I've gone off the deep end when I say that I'm supporting Hillary. Suddenly, I'm part of the 'older' white woman demographic who must have harbored latent anti-progressive tendencies, and they're surfacing now. (They don't say that--it's just the look.)

    I guess that I just so tired of the labels and name-calling that has been such a central part of this campaign. And, the sexism and misogyny that appears to be endemic in the U.S. is frightening. It's almost as if I've gone back in time, and once again, have to prove my worth as a human being because I was born female. But interestingly, I don't feel intimidated personally; the anger and disgust I feel when I hear these sleazy remarks only strengthens me.

    I have felt an sense of camaraderie with many of the women on this blog, especially when reading how you're not willing for women to sit back and accept the unseemly behavior exhibited by so many in the media and other blogs. I don't think many of these people really know what women can accomplish when we work collectively.

    BTD, thank you for being willing to acknowledge and to oppose the sexism that has been flagrantly demonstrated during this campaign. It serves as a model for other men.


    Remember The Speech? (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by aa incalif on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:38:26 AM EST
    BO said in a speech that America was the only country where a black man from Africa could come to and marry a white girl from Kansas.  Me and my wife were rolling on the ground laughing.  

    It's really, really sad that Oprah can pick your candidate.  Oprah got rich with the support of white women then she turns around and supports BO.  HRC went into this race thinking she had the support of AA's. When Oprah said she was really afraid for her country and that's why she was supporting BO.  She should have been afraid for the last 50 years of her life.  Just an excuse from Oprah.

    What's next "White women for Al Sharpton".  It's really sad that we have to use names to support a candidate for a election.

    It's sad that we have to use names like AA's in california to let people know that there are AA that still support HRC.  It's really sad.

    Angry Black Man


    Let's not forget that her endorsement came after (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by suzieg on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:25:00 AM EST
    she told Hillary on her show: "Please run!" Then she chooses the black man simply because they are of the same skin color! What an affront to all her female voters - she's a billionaire who made her fortune courting white women - how pathetic is that?

    It is very presumptious to deign (none / 0) (#134)
    by independent voter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:44:28 AM EST
    to tell us all what the deciding factor for Oprah was when choosing the candidate she supports.
    Unless you can link to a statement from her saying just what you deem her motives to be, I suggest you are not in a position to speak for her.

    Yes, it is sad (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by wurman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:51:34 AM EST
    . . . that all those emigres who have entered Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain (ahhh, the blackamoors), Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Greece [is that enuf?] have no opportunity to meet the local debutantes & get hitched.  Must be frustrating, ce n'est pas?

    Only in America, they all come to America, that shining beacon on the hill--let's spout off some silly jingoism & play to our most base mental midgets.

    Yes, they vote with their feet.  Only in America.

    What an embarrassment.

    How do you develop a foreign policy from that.

    Only in America.


    IIRC Interracial Marriage Were Accepted (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:13:12 AM EST
    in Europe back in the forties. Miscegenation laws were on the books in some states in the U.S. up to 1967. It is a shame that history is not respected or even widely known in the U.S.

    All forms of marriages . . . (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by wurman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:29:26 AM EST
    . . . were OK in Spain from the 8th century on.  I think similar with Italy, especially Rome.

    During the twenties many A-list Americans moved to France so that inter-racial, inter-religious & GLBT couples could live together, marry, have legally recognized offspring, own property in common, etc.

    I'm proud of the way the USA promotes itself as a hodge-podge, even when not always true but we're working on it, but xenophobic, chauvinistic jingoism just makes the proponent look foolish.

    Dogbone dumb & silly--only in America?


    I Wasn't Aware Of The History Of Spain Or Italy (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    So thanks for the history lesson. My comment was based mostly on this part of your response.

    During the twenties many A-list Americans moved to France so that inter-racial, inter-religious & GLBT couples could live together, marry, have legally recognized offspring, own property in common, etc.

    I was thinking about the aftermath of World War II when the same thing occurred. Forgot about how many AA performers etc. moved to France in the twenties.


    Yes, it's a broad segment in Europe. (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by wurman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:27:23 AM EST
    The original church, then both the Roman & Orthodox variants, encouraged marriages & other "unions" with non-believers.  Newly converted folks came from all over the Mediterranean, representing different ethnic & social groups.

    The Inquisition did a great deal to end this, even as the Crusades kept the hodge-podge mixing as a sub-dominant element.

    I never really studied much about the Eastern European principalities, but the mixing of Asians via Mongols, Tatars, Huns, etc., with the local Caucasian "mutts" was never challenged.  The churches were happy as long as the "outsider" agreed to have the offspring brought up in the faith.  No problem.

    The terms "nubian" & "moor" & "blackamoor" are the language subtext to this trend from about 750 CE onward.


    I feel your pain (3.85 / 7) (#26)
    by Chincoteague on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:37:49 AM EST
    but don't agree with you.

    I'm Hillary's demographic, over 55, white female, yet I'm for Obama.

    It's a canard to say we can't discuss the specifics of his policies, especially as their policies are so similar.  And maybe it isn't the differences in policy that are what is behind my decision, but who I think is better able to put those policies into effect.  

    And yes, there's been some sexism, just as there's been some racism, but not nearly to the extent that it's changed the outcome.  For either candidate.  

    If there were truly sexism, then how could Hillary have led in the polls over Obama by more than 30 points in Oct?  

    I truly do feel your pain, it's hard when your candidate comes so close, but doesn't win.  Maybe it just wasn't to be, in this time or place for Hillary. But feeling like a victim (of sexism) does neither the party nor the candidate any good.

    Hillary has a great future in the party, as one of it's best leaders.  But she, and her supporters, would put that future in danger if (and I repeat IF) the party is torn apart because they refuse to  accept the outcome.

    So, please, accept my condolences and my congratulations for a good tough fight, and let's move on to defeating John McSame.


    This race is not over. Period. (5.00 / 12) (#27)
    by Serene1 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:59:20 AM EST
    Neither Obama nor Hillary has the required number of delegates to be declared a winner. Trying to declare a winner based on the front runner status is beyond ridiculous.

    Hillary most probably will lead in popular votes by the end of the voting cycle. Two large and important states Fl& MI are being ignored and punished too much, which if counted can actually change the outcome.

    If we are choosing a winner let's do it fair and square instead of a coronation. McCain won the republican nomination fair and square. We democrats were v. upset when Gore lost to Bush because we thought the process was unfair. There are certain principles that must not be sacrificed come what may and fairness and just behaviour are one of those. Let Obama win this nomination fair and square then we will talk about opposing McCain.
    Regarding tearing the party apart, a more stronger argument can be made that it is Obama and his supporters who are tearing the party apart. So let's just agree to disagree on the same.


    True, (4.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Chincoteague on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:09:26 AM EST
    it's not quite over, but it very soon will be.

    MI and FL will be seated, but it's my opinion that if they receive no punishment, then we might just as well not have any rules, and the next election will be total mayhem.  All the candidates agreed in advance to follow the rules, you seem to want to change that now.

    I'm sure a compromise is possible, so let's move on from that.

    I really consider it weak to say that having the most delegates and the most states is a coronation.    Very weak.  In fact, it sounds undemocratic.


    For only one point (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:19:23 AM EST
    since the others have been done and done here that show you as wrong, but you can use search. . .

    But for the point about a self-coronation, that is speaking of Obama's plan to declare himself the winner as of this Tuesday because of some new goal posts moved to be the majority of pledged delegates.

    That is weak, that is undemocratic, you are correct.  But it is Obama saying he would do so.  I hope it doesn't happen, as it only will anger even more those Dems who already don't like his conduct toward Clinton.  It would not be a move toward unity.


    actually its NOT undemocratic (4.20 / 5) (#33)
    by TruthMatters on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:26:36 AM EST
    just like its not, undemocratic for McCain to have secured his nomination before the end of the voting.

    ALOT of supers give the most weight to the pledged delegates, so for Obama to hit a point where he has  a majority of the delegates, even IF MI and FL gets seated, that means alot to them. THEY are the ones who set up the system to use delegates to reflect the will of the people, and when Obama hits a point where Hillary can NEVER pass him in pledged delegates that actually means something to alot of supers. and when he hits that point that will move some of these supers who still haven't decided. just like for others if they are still undecided in June, then yes the pop. vote will probably sway some. but there are no rules saying they HAVE to consider the pop. vote, thus only the supers who want to consider the pop vote will, but there have been enough signs for months that the supers give more weight to the pledged delegates. it is often just ignored by alot of Clinton supporters because they don't want the pledged delegate count to decide because we all knew a long time ago, who would win that count.

    and he is not claiming he won, the nomination, he is claming he has the most delegates, you know kinda like when Hillary claimed she had the most pop vote.

    no one had a problem when she did that did they? (besides the dispute over the actual numbers) on May 20th, Obama will have the Majority of the delegates, and if MI and FL got seated as is, then Obama would still get some from MI and once again would still have the majority of the delegates. That does mean alot if you step back and think about it.


    You are right (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:44:49 AM EST
    Superdelegates can consider pop vote or not, as they see fit.  They can also consider pledged delegates, and where they came from.

    They can consider anything they want.  So don't be surprised if in August they consider who can best beat McCain.  Don't call it stealing the nomination from Obama if they select Clinton.

    I'm not saying you are one of those who has said that, just saying it would be wrong to do so.


    I won't be suprised (none / 0) (#45)
    by TruthMatters on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:25:32 AM EST
    because as I've said before, the supers are independent we all know it

    what people are arguing and doing is, they are trying to convince supers to use their metrics, thus HRC supporters want it to be popular vote and electability, others want pledged delegates, if the supers are independent as Hillary argued then heck they could decide by the color of their shoes and thats fine.

    its all about which metric will sway the most delegates, and I stand by, pledged delegates will sway NOT all of them, but enough of them.


    Which metric? (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:24:38 AM EST
    How about (gasp!) which candidate will be the best and strongest president?

    You are probably right (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:15:49 AM EST
    That is most likely what will happen, regardless of the cost to our GE prospects.

    Oh, yes, (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:23:16 AM EST
    but for this summer, the SD's will be feel more  important if people keep in mind that those delegates must vote at the convention before it really counts.  And history shows mind changing is endemic at democratic conventions.

    Egg on your face, anyone?


    Your comparison shows your ignorance (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:57:47 AM EST
    or intentional bias to pervert the news, whichever.

    For one, McCain securing the nomination is much different from Obama securing half of the pledged delegates.  And you must know that.  If so, your attempting to equate the two on this blog suggests that you think we are low-info voters.  Best go back to the blogs where that silly equation will get you a hundred huzzahs.

    If you really don't know the difference when you attempt to equate the two, then you would do well to just lurk and learn here.

    Until it is clear which of the above you are, I won't bother further engaging with you.


    McCain has several hundred (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:51:10 AM EST
    MORE delegates than needed to achieve nomination. He is, however, called "presumptive" because the convention vote is necessary to seal the deal.

    There is absolutely ZERO comparison.


    They were punished already (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:21:11 AM EST
    No one campaigned in FL and MI, so they lost millions of dollars in revenues and contributions to the party.

    For the 10,000,000th time, not one person is proposing changing, or not following, the rules. It was always a part of the rules that the loss of delegates could be appealed. That is what is happening.

    Seat the delegates.


    I'm afraid (none / 0) (#35)
    by Chincoteague on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:34:30 AM EST
    you'll have to take that up with Harold Ickes.  He's the proponent of the punishment, which the party and all the candidates agreed to.

    Certainly, there will be a compromise, but there must be some punishment, and lost revenues doesn't cut it.  


    Lost revenues doesn't cut it? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:31:53 AM EST
    You must live in one a them well-to-do states that hasn't has an entire industry shrink to a fraction of its former size with the attendant loss of income and tax revenues and so on and so forth.

    You think they call it the Rust Belt for nothing?

    There's the DNC again, making friends and influencing voters.  


    If you want to quote a candidate (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:48:11 AM EST
    how about the video of Obama from three years ago saying he was not qualified to be president and would not run?  Let's hold him to his word.  Why should he be different from Ickes?

    She Shoots, She Scores n/t (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:51:20 AM EST
    Right on, Kathy! (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:54:55 AM EST
    Once again a short and to the point answer that spells it out perfectly.

    I'm sorry, (3.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Chincoteague on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:57:12 AM EST
    but no, it doesn't cut it.

    If MI and FL had needed the revenues, they should have heeded the warnings given, prior to their legislation, that there would be punishment meted out.

    And please don't say (as in the case of FL) that it was a Republican legislature that passed the law.  The Dems in that state enthusiastically voted for the change.

    Both states, in their attempt to have early relevancy, mistakenly thought that if they didn't change, the nomination process would be over before they voted.  They guessed wrong.

    I don't wish to disenfranchise the voters of those states, but by the same token, the party must have rules.  I believe in a compromise.  One was just passed in MI, which clearly was a compromise, yet Clinton, after first supporting it, then nixed it.


    Please, for all our sakes, come up with a compromise.  


    I think they should do nothing at this point (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:03:09 AM EST
    What's done is done, doing anything now is just asking people who have been disenfranchised to sit back and enjoy it.

    Besides, so Obama needed some help from the DNC to win the primary.  That surprised no one.


    You are making an excellent (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:03:42 AM EST
    argument for Who Needs Parties?

    I mean hey, if you end up with no delegates, no money and no political clout and pretty much get kicked to the curb - why bother?  Just go Independent and watch both the Democrats and the Republicans go crazy trying to get your votes.  It lacks the organizational oomph, but at least you get to keep your dignity and self respect.


    The Republicans And John McCain Will Be (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:14:47 AM EST
    thrilled if the Democrats are willing to trade two delegate rich states in the GE for the sanctity of the RULES.  They will be more than happy to accept this gift.

    See you again (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:18:04 AM EST
    in 4 years?  Or not.

    They were voting for a paper trail (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    for the FL electronic voting system that the Republicans attached to the same bill knowing the Dems would have to support it.

    By punishing the FL Dems in this way, the DNC has actually encouraged the Republicans in every state where they control the legislature to do the same thing in the next election cycle.  The Republicans have seen how easy it is to make the Dems shoot themselves in the foot, all at only the cost of half the state delegates for themselves.  They can take one for the team at the convention, and guarantee a Rep win for their state in the GE.  In FL the Republicans campaigned up and down the state with no Dem response, and no money being collected for FL and national races.

    Way to go, DNC.  And yes, the candidates were wrong also for not speaking up sooner.  All of them.


    My understanding... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:54:42 AM EST
    is that there was an important paper ballots initiative (HB537) connected to this legislation that if the Dems voted against, it would've been...well...not good.

    No, Ickes was not the proponent (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:01:09 AM EST
    of the punishment to strip all of the delegates.  The original rule was half of the delegates.

    That rule was amended by a motion by an Obama super-delegate (Dawson from New York, as I recall) and really was the work of Donna Brazile, another so overtly Obaman that it has become a joke -- when even Campbell Brown calls her on it.

    Stop with untruths.  They confuse this issue even further.


    And Scarlet answered, (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:17:00 AM EST

    Proportionate action rather than extreme either-or (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:41:36 AM EST
    Jumping on the DNC roolz as if they were beyond dogma, at the cost of disenfranchising millions, enshrines DNC arcana above the penal code, above holy dogma, even above the constitution.

    By logic, compassion, reason or any combination, do you really believe that DNC rules are civil society's thin squiggly line between order or complete feckin' chaos?


    Please, think about what you're saying, not just about the "score" but elevating these "rules" so loftily above what really counts that it actually shreds your argument better than I ever could.

    If Obama's the champ, let him win decisively and not because he gamed the system early and ran out the clock so that a huddle of Party Cardinals could keep throwing old, crunched and spat-out "impressive" numbers for media repetition. Increasingly those require so much squinting and tail-chasing revolutionary argumentation, simply as a requium for the long slow death of basic common sense it's best to clean the slate and do some fresh and honest math here.

    (I'm not trying to be mean here. I've had pleasant exchanges with you in past cyber-lives at the Cheetoh Blog and respect your judgment other than on this particular argument, to which I'll just add, oh come on!)


    There are no ROOLZ (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:52:20 AM EST
    that's the rub -- the written ROOLZ called for a 50% reduction of delegates for states that went early -- the DNC chose to ignore/amend the written ROOLZ to "send a message" to FL & MI. Furthermore, the ROOLZ required no campaigning in FL & MI -- Obama ran ads there, in violation of the ROOLZ, and the DNC chose to ignore that. So, citing the ROOLZ is a weak argument, when the DNC has consistently ignored them to, imo, "help" Obama and "hurt" Hillary.

    Thanks, nice to know (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:39:23 AM EST
    that Hillary has a bright future with the party she has worked for for 35 years, and helped save from total obliteration in the 90's.

    She has already said she will accept the outcome, and work her heart out (her words) for the Obama if he is the nominee.  Have Obama or his supporters said anything similar?  They are the ones threatening mayhem at the convention if they do not get their way.

    Calling him McSame is not going to cut it in November.  We will all be feeling the pain if we don't nominate a candidate who can beat him in the big electoral vote states.


    This kind of patronizing message (5.00 / 9) (#42)
    by Boston Boomer on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:23:02 AM EST
    from BO supporters only makes me more determined that I will never vote for him.  There is no way he can beat McCain in November.  If Obama is the nominee we will have President McCain.  

    And this is beyond insulting:

    Hillary has a great future in the party, as one of it's best leaders.  But she, and her supporters, would put that future in danger if (and I repeat IF) the party is torn apart because they refuse to  accept the outcome.

    Good luck convincing Clinton supporters to rally around Obama with that kind of talk.  In case you haven't noticed, the party has already been torn apart.  There are many of us who already know we can never in good conscience vote for Obama.  Condescension and threats will simply guarantee that our numbers increase.

    However, I'm convinced that Hillary will be the nominee.  I don't believe that a majority of the superdelegates will be willing to lose the election in November with Obama.


    yes, the party has been torn apart (5.00 / 10) (#47)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:28:12 AM EST
    and Clinton isn't the one who did it.  That's what ticks me off--the implication that she, through her evilness and selfishness, used all of her spiteful power to rip apart the party.  Just another one of those convenient "women are power hunger b*tches" stereotypes.

    I am with you, Boomer.  Clinton still has a chance, and I will stand with her through the nomination and on to the White House.

    Rise, Hillary, rise!


    "I feel your pain" (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by Leisa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:39:23 AM EST
    I do not think many of us are feeling pain...  We are frustrated having to deal with unthinking canards.

    Please compare and contrast their health plans and tell me they are similar...

    Next, please reassure me that he will stick to his stated commitments to woman's rights, taxes, the war, improving the educational system, securing social security, and improving the economy.  What about his vague promises to the AA community?  Now is our time...  how is he going to help them?  What exactly has he proposed to do?

    You see, I have witnessed him stand before audiences expressing a strong conviction on issues, only to waffle and take them back or deny ever saying those things.  

    I think he is a manufactured candidate.  There is very little that he stands up and says that is original.  He just delivers the recycled and perfected Axe speeches so well. Then, I look at who some of his advisers and money bundlers are and I really think that he will not deliver Universal Health care or help the economy at all...

    Your candidate does not have a history that proves to me that he is dedicated and consistent on issues I think are important to our country.  He needs to spend more time developing and defining who he is by actions, like voting and leadership in Senate committees before he will be elected POTUS.

    I truly do feel your pain, it's hard when your candidate comes so close, but doesn't win.  Maybe it just wasn't to be, in this time or place for Hillary. But feeling like a victim (of sexism) does neither the party nor the candidate any good.

    Last, please don't condescend and say you feel my pain.  That is just plain insulting.  BTW, Obama is still not the nominee.  It is not over yet.


    Compare and contrast, you say? (3.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Chincoteague on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:18:18 AM EST
    How about this.

    We'd have had full national single payor healthcare by 1998, because there was a bipartisan plan fifteen years ago, that started off without that mandate that Hillary still insists be part of the plan.

    There were 49 co-sponsors of that bill, 22 Republicans and 27 Democrats.  Yet Hillary would not even consider it.  It was her way, or no way.  So, we did not get any healthcare reform. Not only did she not consider it, she then tried to punish Cooper, who had simply brought the bill to her attention.

    She still won't consider compromise, and if she's our president, we still won't have a national healthcare plan.

    I want national healthcare, and I want a president who is at the least willing to look/listen at others plans.  That is not Hillary.

    If you doubt me, which I'm sure you do, just google Cooper healthcare.


    No mandates? (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:17:25 AM EST
    Wow.  That would have been so ineffective.

    Weird, isn't it when people don't want to support a plan that they know it is bogus?  Why didn't Hillary just cave in and let people walk all over her?

    Don't know.  Perhaps she was interested in actual results and benefits and not just political expediency and pandering?

    That's shocking!  Shocking I tell you!


    Jim Cooper (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:13:55 AM EST
    is trying to re-write history. He's pretty much a DINO, too. Blech.

    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:01:42 AM EST
    fought for mandated health insurance and did not allow the insurance companies to design her plan (as did Cooper who ranked 215th on the Congressional progressive scale).

    Saying if we enacted Cooper's plan in 1993, we would have had national health insurance by 1998 is, aside from  Republican spin, silly,  because if we had enacted Hillary's plan in 1993 we would had mandated health insurance by 1998, duh!

    Only more proof that Obama supporters favor "blue dog" solutions and not progressive policies


    If you Google "cooper healthcare" (4.00 / 4) (#160)
    by wurman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:21:32 AM EST
    You get the homepage for Cooper University Hospital, South Jersey, New Jersey as the first entry.

    Turn up the juice, man.  When you visit Talk Left you need to be one of the brighter bulbs in the scoreboard.  Get a linkee thingee, instead of a lame reference to Google.

    Just for laughs, I contacted Cooper.  The receptionist told me that the Clinton healthplan would cover 43% more people in their service area, reduce costs by eliminating the emergency room impact of uninsured folks seeking help & put an end to the Chap. 13 medical bankrupticies that trash the balance sheet every month.

    What you attempt to reference doesn't show in the first 10 Google entries.  But Corrente does.  This destroys your allegation:

    Who is Cooper? Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn) is a "blue-dog" Democrat and Bush enabler. Cooper told the Memphis Daily News that health care reform failed in 1993-1994 because Hillary Clinton was too mean to him. Some Cheetopia diarist picked it up and it became a most recommended diary yesterday.

    Cooper is also cited as evidence that Hillary is ruthless and vindictive. It seems that Cooper had a competing bill (similar to Obama's current health-care reform proposal) that undercut Hillary's plan:

    "They turned up their nose at my bill, and that's fine. But then they constructed this secret 500-person task force to draft a whole new bill - and I knew it would go nowhere," Cooper said. "So I went privately to the White House to warn (Hillary Clinton). No publicity. No nothing.

    Secret 500-person taskforce?  Yupperz!  Good ol' Jim Blue Dog Cooper.  Wow.  Y'all got yasef some fine company there, kuz.


    How dare you tell me you feel my pain!!! (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:08:45 AM EST
    How dare you tell me that "their policies are so similar"

    I am passed pain, I am passed anger, I am a passed your type of blog appeals for unity.  I am a cold blooded outsider now witnessing the implosion of the D. Party, and hoping for as countercoup in Denver.

    As for the meme of your "similar policies" statement: there are 15 millions differences, one for each person left put of Omaba's discriminatory healthcare plan.  Plus many more such as privatization of Social Security, their tax plans, etc.  

    As for "feeling my pain", here is a little test for you:

    Do you know as I do the pain of:
    Watching you mother die as a candle burning from both sides because of breast cancer and no insurance?
    Watching you sister going through the same death? and no insurance
    Going through a bilateral mastectomy and chemo as I did? and no insurance
    Watching the anguish and fear in your daughters and nieces' faces because of the breast cancer gene in the family and no insurance?

    I hope you can answer no to each of these questions because I am not vindictive.  But please, go away with your "I feel your pain" shtick


    they'll just reply that you're racist and Obama (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by suzieg on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:49:57 AM EST
    will tell you as he did in Houston that he'll wait to see if the mandated health insurance for children works before even considering it for adults - how utterly condescending to the 15 million people without insurance from a man who has taxpayer paid health insurance who has done his job for only 143 days since 2004? I cannot even think how you could go through breast cancer treatment without any kind of health insurance!!! My treatment cost $43,000 but only paid $7,000 with my state risk pool and had only radiation for my breast cancer, I can't imagine what the cost must have been for you. No one unless they had to fight cancer knows how hard a battle it is but to fight without health insurance must be excruciatingly scary. You are a very courageous woman!!! Edwards saying that Obama stands for universal health care must have stabbed his wife right in the heart!!! He's repugnant! I received his begging letter and I've come to the conclusion that Dean gave him his supporters' list of names in exchange for coming to Obama's rescue in Kentucky. I stopped contributing to the DNC years ago and have only given to Dean and Clinton, so the only way Edwards got my email address is through Dean which depressed me because it means that the "machine" is behind Obama 100% so we must stand firm against Obama. I've changed my party affiliation to independent and made a copy of the form and sent it to him with the  message that I'm fed up of being taken for granted

    wow, (2.33 / 3) (#72)
    by Chincoteague on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:20:34 AM EST
    with your attitude, I hope you enjoy President McCain.

    You were on a roll, (5.00 / 9) (#82)
    by samanthasmom on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:27:50 AM EST
    but you just couldn't maintain it.  You slipped from blue into orange mode.

    Totally love that chart! (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:36:57 AM EST
    It makes dealing with Obama supporters so much easier.  

    Pocket Guide (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:29:42 AM EST
    That pocket guide is great.   I have tabbed browsing and I keep it up now.    

    If a commenter's statements can be plugged in to one of those categories, I don't respond, I laugh it off and then I just ignore the name and never read their comments.  If they fit in the chart, they aren't interested in issues, electability etc, they are interested in harrassing.  


    You must be healthy with health insurance other (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by suzieg on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:56:02 AM EST
    wise why would you be so insensitive and cruel to what she experienced and her reaction is valid when she hears from the presumptive democrat that he's not for universal healt care at least she'll get $5,000 from McCain twice what Obama would offer her! Why are you not disgusted/angry that Obama is following the desires of his insurance and drug lobbyists contributors disguised under the names of their wives and friends?

    Give me McCain (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:31:42 AM EST
    over Obama any good ol day of the week.

    Feh (4.42 / 7) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:26:11 AM EST
    Obama as nominee ushers McCain in as President. If we nominate Obama we might as well accept that fact.

    I don't get it (none / 0) (#87)
    by TruthMatters on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:36:05 AM EST
    why is McCain so bad and dangerous for our country that many on this site are saying they will vote for him in Obama wins.

    i mean Obama is so bad that we will get stuck with McCain so many say I will just cut the middle man and vote for McCain to ensure I can complain for 4 years that McCain won?


    Congress is more important. (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:41:41 AM EST
    If the Prez gets into office and seals himself in the hermetically sealed bubble that GWB is in, then it will be up to Congress to use the power of the purse to push their agenda, not his.

    When Gore said that the grassroots is more powerful than the Prez, I believed him.  Still do.  People have more power than they realize.  They just need to use it.


    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:12:15 AM EST
    McCain at least respects the voters. Obama does not. Obama and his supporters either "expect" our vote or claim that they don't want us in the party. Heck, why vote for someone who obviously despises you?

    "Fiddle-de-de,' (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:14:57 AM EST
    said Scarlet.

    I am willing to accept the outcome (5.00 / 9) (#68)
    by standingup on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:14:59 AM EST
    But I doubt, as your comment shows, that Obama and his supporters will accept the consequences of the way this primary has been conducted.  Don't think for a minute the patronizing offering of condolences and request to all get along, particularly one that also includes what amounts to a threat, will work.

    I am not a party lemming who will vote with the party no matter who they nominate.  I have principles and am more disgusted with the Democratic party of today than I have ever been in my life.    


    another unearthed of the 400 Obama paid bloggers (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by suzieg on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:20:38 AM EST
    to tell us to unify! They denigrate us for months and now they want us to play nice!  TOOOOO LATE!
    Hell has no fury like hundreds of thousands scorned women - let him try to win this election without us - we will be his downfall and he deserves it! I'm voting Nader to let the party that I'm fed up of being taken for granted. When their handpicked candidate bombs in November, they'll know why! The sweeties rebelled!

    History (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:39:19 AM EST
    First we had the Spartan 300, now we have the Obama 400 Bloggers.  Yes, they march, they will coalesce us, with reason and the mighty power of their keyboards.  Succumb, to the power of logic and the inevitable power that is  "Obama".  

    On your knees and unite without resistance.  


    And, yet again, not (5.00 / 8) (#105)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:56:07 AM EST
    talking policy because we don't know the policies of Sen. Obama. The blind leading the blind. Their policies (Hillary and Obama) are not the same. He seems to take on the policies of whoever he is with at the time, she has told us over and over her view of the presidency and her policies. He is about change, however most of his followers are mean and nasty and insulting (and he has not said a word about changing their tone)...we have that now, what is changing??? I will not be insulted in the primary and expect to "tow the line" in the GE....not this way, not this time. To be a blind follower is not being strong (imo), to seek out the truth strenghtens one's position and argument.

    wow - totally untrue! (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:12:44 AM EST
    >>>And yes, there's been some sexism, just as there's been some racism, but not nearly to the extent that it's changed the outcome.  For either candidate.  

    Obama played the Race Card and used race-baiting to smear and accuse the "first Black president" and his wife of racism.
    I've never voted for a race-baiter and won't begin now.


    You don't have a clue, your presumptuous comments (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Boo Radly on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:07:54 AM EST
    are laughable. Hubris runs rampant in the BO cult.Your presence here and your tack reeks of it.

    We know BO will never be POTUS based on facts.We know how close this primary is and why.We know what our choices are and we will not vote for BO. We know it is not over by a long shot.

    We also know that a great percent of his fans are borderline personalities - repeating words they hear but do not realize there meanings. We know they are desparate and bullies.We know that 12% of his voters will be black.We know that some women will vote for Hillary because of sexism.We also know who framed it with racism and sexism.We know the facts and we do not go to BO fan club blogs making presumptuous comments.

    Me thinks you doth protest too much.

    We have not suffered through the present administration only to be GIVEN a lower form of Bush by machinations of our own party. I will never vote for a "pocket" POTUS. Based on facts, experience, character and judgement, not race or sexism, Hillary wins and the majority of the voters see that. Hillary transends race, gender,  the co"media"(totally comedic in their irrelevancy) and the DNC.


    Black Men 4 Clinton (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by aa incalif on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:09:21 AM EST
    There are thousands of AA men for Clinton. I donate money to her campaign. No one should support BO because he is black. It's not about voting for a black man, it about voting for this black man.

    Nothing the Clintons have said have been racist.  BO MLK said the same thing about LBJ.  The BO race card is a disgrace.

    I can't stand to hear blks say "That BO is a smart brother" as if no other black man is smart. His attacks on the 60's should turn blacks off.  He ignores all the progress that has been made by all Americans not just blk Americans.

    The last MLK event he was absent.  HRC & McCain were there but no BO.  He doesn't want people to think that he will support issues that are related to blks.

    Blk issues are American issues.  I really get upset with people that support BO because he is the so called first black with a legit chance to be president.


    but, but, but (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:54:38 AM EST
    Kerry says we should vote for Obama because he's a Black man!

    ABC News, March 20, 2008
    Kerry said that a President Obama would help the US, in relations with Muslim countries, "in some cases go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can't otherwise."

    "He has the ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism," Kerry said. "To maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion."

    Kerry was asked what gives Obama that credibility.

    "Because he's African-American. Because he's a black man. Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country."

    An African-American president would be "a symbol of empowerment" for those who have been disenfranchised around the world, Kerry said, "an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, other places in the world where disenfranchised people don't get anything."


    Hawaii?Oppression?Repression?Boston? (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:46:45 AM EST
    And this quote too.
    other places in the world where disenfranchised people don't get anything."
    Awwwwwwww, Florida.

    Not only are you angry (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:15:16 AM EST
    but you are intelligent and can see the unbelievable treatment the Clintons have had to endure because of the unforgiveable tactics utilized by Camp Obama.

    I have an AA girlfriend who has to use her rapid-fire wits to defend her position of supporting Hillary.  I hope that you are not alienated by your community because of your principaled stance.
    She's caugh a lot of grief but she is READY to defend HRC.


    My choice for (none / 0) (#41)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:18:55 AM EST
    Black Man for Prez would be John Conyers.

    I know it's unrealistic, given his age and that he's a mere Rep and not a mighty Senator.  But I do like a little track record with my candidate, and Conyers delivers.  (I'd think he'd win MI, too!)

    As far as we know, Conyers was ready to fire up impeachment proceedings Jan 2007 but for Nancy Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table".

    What can I say?  I'm a sucker for a man of action!


    Keith Ellison is my choice (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by chancellor on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:34:11 AM EST
    What an awesome addition he has been to the House!

    He's a little fresh yet. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:56:57 AM EST
    Any chance he can break into the Senate?

    You can move him to Ohio - we'll be looking to dump Voinovich(R) in 2010!


    I am looking forward (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:57:46 AM EST
    to supporting Michael Nutter for president someday. I wish he had more experience now and could be considered for Hillary's VP. (I still believe she will be the nom, leave me alone!).

    Nutter impressed me to no end during this primary season and made me laugh more than once as well. His appearances on Hillary's behalf on Larry King have been a highlight.

    He is smart, Harvard educated, well liked, progressive and knows a good candidate when he sees one. Not to mention strong enough to remain loyal in the face of what must have been extreem pressure.

    What a guy!


    Should probably talk to my Party (none / 0) (#115)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:06:41 AM EST
    contacts and see who the current candidates are for Voinovich's job.

    V. is the worst kind of (R) - he stands on his soapbox, talks about how terrible-awful Bush's policies are and then....puts his soapbox away, walks back into the Senate and meekly votes the party line.

    It's not just Dems who are spineless.


    His wife is even worse than MO. (none / 0) (#46)
    by honora on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:26:36 AM EST
    this gives stupid (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by cpinva on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:12:18 AM EST
    a bad name. and no, i don't blame sen. obama, he can't control the idiocy of others.

    He could send a message (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:01:01 AM EST
    through his campaign and all the "bloggers" he has hired, etc. to spread the "word" to tone it down. He chooses not to...says alot!!

    No, he can't control the stupidity of others.. (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:32:49 AM EST
    but he can tell them not to boo when Hillary's name is mentioned. He can not grin ear to ear when his followers do boo her. He has encouraged this sort of behavior by condoning it, grinning at it is condoning in my book, and has made no effort to mitigate the outrageous attacks his followers make on Hillary. I left DKos because I was sickened by the sexism and the absolutely foul epithets that were used to describe a sitting Senator with a long history of public service. Obama has done nothing to discourage the sort of vile language and disrespect that his followers fling at her every day. He should be ashamed of them. He isn't. That's enough for me.

    Well put. I will have a hard time voting (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:41:25 AM EST
    for anyone who behaves as he has done -- the dirt on the shoulder and shoe routine -- and encourages his audience to behave so badly, too.  

    Same for McCain when asked a question by one in his audience that was a slur on Clinton and women, too.  McCain at least has tried to pedal it back a bit -- but all these memories are burned into my brain.

    And I do vote with my brain, not my emotions.  So I may just find myself having to leave that top box on the ballot blank.  The candidates who  encourage such behavior will see that I will not encourage them.  


    His Silence On The Treatment Of Tavis Smiley (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:41:32 AM EST
    was unacceptable to me. If you can't tell your supporters that death threats and harassing family members will not be tolerated, then what is out of bounds?

    Suppose, just suppose, (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:13:28 AM EST
    that every time one of the Obama supporters comes on feeling our pain and explaining that Obama is the nominee, someone prints a reminder (till we learn) to not respond.  Not one response.  Skip it as if it did not exist.  Do you think we could remember that?  If not, the next weeks (and months, I hope) may be made miserable by our 'visitors.'

    "Hillary is great and all.." (5.00 / 7) (#85)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:31:28 AM EST
    "But she lost!  Get over it!  Let us march together to our glorious future with Brave Sir Obama leading the way!"

    If they really felt my pain, they'd say:

    "I'm an Obama supporter and I really want to make sure Obama wins in November.  Do you have any suggestions on how he can improve his chances?"

    Because, man oh man, we could tell them exactly how Obama is going to blow it again and again unless there's a massive intervention to deflate his ego and get his Issues straight and learn how to really Reach Out and Unify.

    Obama has gone from being an enigma to me to be being an open book.  If I read that book, surely the Right has too.  The Right will not only have Plan A & B, they'll have plan C, D, E,..,Z.  And Obama will have plan A and plan A ver 1.01.

    If Obama is the nominee, I'll try to restrain myself to saying "Oh, that's awful!  Terrible! I feel his pain!" instead of "Yeah, saw that coming months ago.  Too bad they didn't listen.".


    Don't you just love the way they coopted (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:35:54 AM EST
    Bill Clinton's phrase, "I feel your pain."? First they steal the "Hope" meme, now they steal the I feel your pain phrase. Why doesn't Obama save himself the trouble and just say "What Bill Clinton did..DITTO!!" Oh wait.. I forgot..Clinton is just like Bush..oh wait..Obama likes Bush..ok, now I am confused. Heh.

    No! Must. not. mention. that. name! (none / 0) (#170)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:38:59 AM EST
    Reagan!  Bush 1!

    But never the c-words - Carter, Clinton.


    It would help (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by DJ on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:38:49 AM EST
    if you would put their name in the comment line and some word so that I can skip them as I'm reading  

    I know you're right (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:01:17 AM EST
    but I can't help it.  Sometimes they do start off like they are trying to have a reasonable conversation.  I'm  a sucker.

    Good Morning, Big Tent. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by wurman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:31:22 AM EST
    This joker00 is promoting his baloney commercial website here again.

    Jeralyn waxed him yesterday & he's back with a new moniker.

    Please do Live comment! (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Boo Radly on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:45:11 AM EST
    If you have to use another website - let us know.

    The party has moved beyond (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:53:12 AM EST
    My inclination to support it then.

    Stay classy! (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:54:24 AM EST
    You could just collect all the Obama swag you can stuff in a bag in order to recycle it.

    (I'd be tempted to make "Big, strong man." cracks about Obama.  You know - "I just love big...strong...men like Obama..." in a husky voice.  Licking your lips or making other suggestive gestures is optional.  What?  It was a compliment, a compliment I say!)

    Apparently FL/MI popular votes do count? (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Radix on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:57:14 AM EST
    This OT, I think it's worth it though. According to this article, Dean has said that the DNC ruling only applies to the delegates, not the popular vote. Anyone have more on this?

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Obama No (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by WillieB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:18:50 AM EST
    Good Article in Progressive about Obama by Adolph Reed Jr. a Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

    He gets it and has seen Obama from up close.


    NIce article, thanks. (none / 0) (#177)
    by Radix on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:45:34 AM EST
    Um, about this bit.. (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:42:30 AM EST
    Your candidate is the one who doesn't like the netroots,
    When was the last time Obama did a conference call with bloggers to thank them for their support?? Has he ever thanked the online community for their support?? Or does he just take their money? Hillary had a lovely conference call with bloggers yesterday...the post about it is down the blog a bit. So don't come here and tell us that Hillary doesn't appreciate the netroots, she not only appreciates us, she talks to us and says thank you for our support. It's too bad Obama cannot be as gracious and inclusive as Hillary Clinton. Isn't it??

    Red Mode (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:44:03 AM EST
    Handy link to the identification guide to the hyperbolic Obama supporter.

    If that color wheel starts spinning fast enough (none / 0) (#201)
    by Burned on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:32:25 AM EST
    People will start falling off.

    We should try to catch a few. Nothing better  than saving a few lives.


    Your candidate is cutting off (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    the netroots.  He's telling his donors not to give to netroots causes and 527s.  Your candidate has no intention of changing anything.  Let's be honest, he hasn't the personality nor the power to change anything.

    The roolz, the roolz,  you know the rules, you just live in denial.

    If you didn't want McCain as president, the rational, logical, reasonable thing to have done was support Clinton.  Poll after poll showed Clinton supporters would not vote for Obama, but you couldn't pivot and switch support.  You had to have your shiny new toy.

    Here's a quote from an Obama supporter yesterday... after bragging he's apparently a multi-millionaire...

    [The thing is with Obama supporters, we don't mind losing this election as much.  For example, I'd actually make money if McCain was elected.  I'm one of those latte sipping liberals who should be voting Republican anyway.  Blacks will have no favors done for them by Hillary now.  They're just as well as off w/ McCain (as you know Hillary is vindictive).  And frankly, Republicans haven't been so bad for Blacks anyways.]  

    So who's sowing (whining about) what?

    With his takeover of the Dem Party and its (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by jawbone on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:01:46 AM EST
    fundraising (a highup fundraiser was telling big donors to not give money to non-Obaman progressive organization and GOTV groups), the next step is taking over the Internet.

    All your votes belong to Obama!
    All your donations belong to Obama!
    All your internet traffic belgons to Obama!

    Takeover City, babeeeee.


    9:44 - Convention starts at 10 and (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by echinopsia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:46:41 AM EST
    we'll get an announcement about alternates.
    The last announcement was to tell us everyone had entered the building and there were no more lines outside.

    Apparently this is a big deal, as is the announcement that they expect to actually start on time.

    Democrats. Like herding cats.

    I'm going to go to standby to conserve power until something happens.

    Gov. Ritter speaking now (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by echinopsia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:26:46 AM EST
    Lots of Republican bashing, praise for Dems.
    Damn there are a lot of Democrats here.

    Don't know yet if I will be seated.


    It's funny.. especially given (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:52:10 AM EST
    Obama's remarks about "typical white women". And his tossing his grandmother, and mother, under the bus for political purposes. So here is a group of women, just like his mother and grandmother, who are supporting him. We just hope they don't get road rash from being dragged under the bus with his grandmother. Heh.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Steve M on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:52:20 AM EST
    We have never won an election without the help of conservative Democrats, and this November assuredly will not be the first, so you might want to think about whether insults are productive.  Because you're obviously not concerned about whether they're rude.

    The issue isn't gender (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:52:41 AM EST
    it's race.  Why do these women feel the need to put WHITE in it?  Oh, I forgot, that's what Obama wants.  It's about RACE not issues.

    No one here disparages women for voting for Obama.  This is an issues-based blog (IMO) and the owner CERTAINLY doesn't allow race-baiting or sexism to be a part of the threads.

    To point out that these women in CO are using race to descibe themselves in their candidates' choice, is in the words of Barack Obama, "boneheaded".

    Next think ya know I will go make a t-shirt that says "Gay Mexicans For Clinton".

    How would that sound to YOU?

    Belated response to Chincoteague. (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by DeborahNC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:54:51 PM EST
    Your post exudes condescension. I would indeed welcome a genuine sense of understanding from a female Obama supporter, but it is evident that empathy was not your intention.

    You, or anyone else, cannot know what my experience has been; therefore it is blatantly presumptive of you to label my post as a canard. It's clear that your comment was intended to be mocking and provocative, not empathic.  

    Perhaps it would have been useful to fully read my post before making comments such as this: "But feeling like a victim (of sexism) does neither the party nor the candidate any good."

    Obviously, you read cursorily through my post, otherwise you would have noticed this: "But interestingly, I don't feel intimidated personally; the anger and disgust I feel when I hear these sleazy remarks only strengthens me."  

    If you interpret that statement as a sign of victimhood, you unquestionably need to spend more time with Mr. Webster and M. Roget.

    Further, if you are on the welcoming committee to the Unity Party, they need to find another representative; your efforts are counterproductive to your ostensible purpose.

    I see that attempting a (3.40 / 5) (#81)
    by Chincoteague on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:27:43 AM EST
    reasonable conversation has backfired.

    The vitriol on here is palpable.  

    I apologize for the reception (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:36:06 AM EST
    you received.

    I know you meant well.

    I hope our readership can do better in the future.


    So Much For Apologizing For Your Readership (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:53:16 AM EST
    BTD, the spreader of vitriol and hatred, as per Chincoteague. Looks like your readership read this commenter right in the first place.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:27:57 AM EST
    The commenter has been incredibly nasty to me for many many years.

    I was hoping for a fresh start, in the name of unity, you might say.

    So much for that.


    BTD, sorry, but how dare you (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:09:16 AM EST
    apologize when the poster opens with this comment (among several in that post):

    "Feeling like a victim (of sexism) does neither the party nor the candidate any good."

    You never have been the sort to let something like that go by, BTD -- and then to apologize to someone who would write that.  Please say you just missed it.


    in response.

    That said, I got my comeuppance from the commenter herself (who, it must be disclosed, has hated me forever.)

    So I say carry on. Never mind and all that.


    I can't think of anything witty (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Burned on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:44:31 AM EST
    So I'll just stick with a nice try, BTD. Honorable even, except for the part where you tossed aside the many Clinton supporting TL commenters that like you, for the sake of unity with an Obama supporter that can't stand you.

    I KNOW there's a good one liner out there.


    Perfect reply (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:00:46 AM EST
    and yes, BTD, I'll carry on -- I don't need this blog to tell me to do so, as I've done so all my life.  But I do mind when others apologize on behalf of me and mine, where there was no reason to do so -- there was no vitriol at that poster, who opened by deploying victimology upon us.

    Please don't stop speaking only for yourself (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:51:11 AM EST
    It's what I like about your posts and opinions and Jeralyn's.

    I think you've crossed the line in apologizing for the readers here, and whose objectionable content you usually downrate or delete. People respect the work you and Jeralyn do to maintain a great blog standard.

    This public apology at the expense of your readership is beneath your own (and the site's) standard of independent opinion.

    Speaking for myself only, it does nothing more than chase personal validation from a first time visitor who has dropped by, insulted the intelligence and patience of the readership, and disproportionately feigned woundedness to get his or her boo-boos kissed by you.

    There is no need to apologize for MY particular posts or anyone else's here that I've seen. I hope you'll respect the same forum for independent opinion as has always existed here in the years I've read it and the months I've commented.

    Downrate or delete the objectionable content, argue against the commentary that dismays you, or leave them be.

    Apologizing for them does everyone a disservice.

    I have had many boo-boos yet to be kissed in such a fashion and would like to know where the line forms to get them tended. I don't see that in the FAQ.

    My point being, I actually read the FAQ and Chincoteague apparently did not. Respect due please. That is one huge boo-boo.


    I accept that I made an error here (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:28:14 AM EST
    Thanks for the honesty and clarity (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:54:10 AM EST
    The TL regents really are a cut above the rest.

    I read what you yourself (none / 0) (#97)
    by Chincoteague on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:43:53 AM EST
    write, BTD, and you foster the vitriol and hatred here.  So you do what I'm sure you must, which is ban me.  

    Yes, I did mean well, but that's not the point.  The point, as I see it, is there is a segment of the party, those I see here, who would rather destroy the party from within, than accept any compromise, or any view but their own.


    Your arguments didn't pass muster and you weren't (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:02:10 AM EST
    ... personally subject to vitriol or disrespect other than (from the responses I've seen) takedowns of your arguments based on their own merits.

    If they didn't fly, it's not because anyone here held them down or from any unfriendliness towards you but but because the arguments you presented were lame.

    This posture of guaranteed woundedness that seems to be a built-in feature of the Obama bandwagon is simply ridiculous. (Join now and get twice the indignation of other psychopolireligiama!)

    In an hour or so of your free time you failed to convince people to turn over dozens, maybe hundreds of votes Obama's way because you've dumped some well-chewed and debunked talking points here.

    OMFG, the presumption is staggering. No wonder he's referred to as the Presumptive Nominee.

    I know that you're strong enough to recover from discovering that people value their franchise more than what you've suffered here.


    "destroy the party" (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:02:43 AM EST
    "co-opt the party"
    "crash the gates"

    Whatever.  Teh Party is not sacred to me.  Issues, Principles - those are what I hold dear.  If Teh Party has decoded that my issues are no longer important to it, then the Teh Party is no longer important to me.  

    Do I need Teh Party more than Teh Party needs me?

    My son keeps on asking me what an "experiment" is.  I tell him it's when you do something to see what happens.  


    Thanks, Pony! (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:40:15 AM EST
    You have made my day.

    I needed a good laugh and you troll rating BTD was the cherry on the sundae.


    You v. Your Arguments... (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:01:58 AM EST
    When someone critiques or counters your arguments, they are not necessarily attacking you.

    I don't see where you, personally, were being attacked.

    I do, however, see where some people were going after your arguments...and/or the perceived holes in those arguments.


    For sure. (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:32:11 AM EST
    Lousy arguments they were too.

    Might be better to try to use the POV of the people you are trying to win over.  Hillary/Bad Obama/Good, Obama/Winner Hillary/Loser were doomed to failure here.

    If I'm going to be wooed, I want to be wooed by a professional who knows what they are doing, not some offensive amateur.  

    [tosses imaginary locks]
    Because I deserve the best!


    Dead Wrong (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:45:46 AM EST
    BTD and Jeralyn foster civility.  Now every now and then BTD may throw in stupid, idiot or some other descriptive word...but this ain't the Huffington Post or Daily Kos or Americablog.

    Surely there are some AA's or college youth in SD or OR that Obama hasn't won over yet.  After all, those are the two groups to launch him to the White House in Nov.

    Never mind the rest of us pesky Clinton voters....all 17 million of us.


    Well (3.66 / 3) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:20:04 AM EST
    That'll teach me to try and be conciliatory with you.

    Carry on everyone.


    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Steve M on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:50:26 AM EST
    No pony for you, huh?  God.

    Open note to Senator Obama (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by samanthasmom on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:42:07 AM EST
    The surge isn't working.  Your deployment of troops has only strengthened the resolve of the insurgents. You are losing voters faster than you can replace them, and you cannot continue to use your people to help secure more voters under various vehicles and expect a net gain. May I suggest reassigning your troops to the job of replacing all of the Democrats you have lost?

    vitriol? where? (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:44:10 AM EST
    Just because people here are disagreeing with you doesn't make what is said "vitriol." Try posting something even slightly positive about Hillary on kos if you want to see vitriol.

    Arithmetic has a reality bias. (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by wurman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:24:51 AM EST
    "Alternative" Delegate Votes
    (no sanctions)
    Need to Nominate 2,210.0
    B Obama             1,982.0
    H Clinton             1,911.0
    (available)              450.0
    Uncommitted             55.0
    J Edwards                 20.0
    No Preference 0.0
    Total                   4,418.0

    Apparently Sen. Obama's supporters think that a 71 delegate lead terminates the primary campaign.  Not.  He is still 228 short of the actual number (which may or may not change on May 31 when the Rules & By-laws Committee meets.  By the bye, this is a different group of members than the one that chose to totally disenfranchise the FL & MI delegations--& create this bogus mess.


    Ah, Only Pro-Choice When You Agree? (3.00 / 2) (#204)
    by MediaBrowski on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    This is the saddest thing I've seen this election.  Hating on those women because they chose another candidate is the anti-thesis of the concept of feminism.

    Oprah? (none / 0) (#18)
    by tnjen on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:55:43 AM EST
    Seriously?!! I thought that was a joke. Ugh.

    White Women for Obama (none / 0) (#20)
    by Grace on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:05:28 AM EST
    t-shirts.  I wonder if those women realized that, one small slip at the screenprinter, and those t-shirts could read "ColoredObama."  Of course, the manufacturer wouldn't be affected because he could then sell them to the Republicans...  Maybe.  Then again, the Colorado Republicans might already be making their Obama t-shirts...  

    Barack is special, ya'll (none / 0) (#43)
    by diplomatic on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:23:02 AM EST

    Oh, yes! (none / 0) (#53)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:42:47 AM EST
    Obama is very special.  He's a bi-partisan which means he swings both ways, sometimes at the same time!  That Obama is a verrrrry talented man.

    (Just waiting for Obama to praise both Carter and Reagan at the same time - that'd be some serious ambidextrous pandering!)


    That Will Never Happen (none / 0) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:55:09 AM EST
    According to Obama the only Dem President that has any worth was JFK. If he didn't need Ted Kennedy's support, he would probably not mention any Democratic president.

    Just kidding. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:00:39 AM EST
    the average right winger's head would explode if you claimed that Carter was equal in greatness to Reagan.

    Why do you think that Obama never mentions Carter?  He'd lose the right wingers.


    Between You And Me (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:26:43 AM EST
    I believe that the number of right wingers who will vote for Obama in November has been greatly exaggerated. By the time the Republicans and their 527s get done, Obama will be the most liberal politician who ever walked the face of the earth with friends that are so far out of the mainstream the Republican voters will run back to McCain as fast as they can. When you add the number of Republicans who will finally vote for him and subtract the number of Democrats who won't, you wind up in negative territory.  

    Don't forget the October surprise(s)! (none / 0) (#86)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:33:36 AM EST
    Don't Think The Republicans Need An (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:40:58 AM EST
    October surprise. There are so many things that are already on tape and in writing to provide hours of negative ads to fit the narrative that the Republicans are establishing.

    I think we're going to see surprises (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:06:32 AM EST
    in June, July, August, and September, too -- and not from the Republicans and not swiftboating but from Obama's own background.  He just has tried to get along for himself by going along with too many types in Chicago.  And in Chicago, that means some sorts  that will surprise the rest of the country.

    We've been saying (none / 0) (#62)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:06:43 AM EST
    a lot of people vote against their interests!

    I thought that there was a list of delegates chosen before the primary, a list for each candidate.  OK, I get with this stupid proportional thing that might be difficult; I'm for fewer delegates from each area, not more, tho.  By golly, everything I knew about politics is out of date: primary conventions to choose candidates where states sometimes put up a 'favorite son' (note that 'son'!) to be chosen for the first roll call only, etc.  I like the national primary day in May idea!

    Anyone having trouble (none / 0) (#102)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:54:05 AM EST
    getting to Correntewire this morning?
    I get an XML parse error on my Sage reader and the site has a go-daddy thingie up.

    Yup, (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by OldCoastie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:13:47 AM EST
    me too - no corrente this a.m.

    I've Had No Trouble Accessing Correntewire (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:19:49 AM EST
    Went there earlier this morning and just went there again. No problem at all.

    I'm on Verizon DSL and can't get to Corrente (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by jawbone on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:57:05 AM EST
    Mentioned this at The Confluence. Katiebird can get in and wrote a comment about the problem.

    I'm in Northern NJ, as mentioned, on Verizon DSL.

    Someone said a hub could be down, or something....


    Oprah's the one who got us turned on to him (none / 0) (#159)
    by oldnorthstate on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:19:57 AM EST
    dear god,
    i don't to vote for mccain, but...

    I happened to be driving through and (none / 0) (#188)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:55:18 AM EST
    staying overnight in SC when Oprah had her big Obama rally there. I watched the news and was highly amused to see the coverage was all about Oprah with Obama as a footnote. "OPRAH is coming to SC!!" And the coverage of the event showed her entire speech and then a snippet of his, and then they went back to Oprah-worship. It was funny to see who the bigger celebrity was, and it wasn't Obama.

    Obama should remember this..... (none / 0) (#197)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:22:51 AM EST
    You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
    His time is not now, not this year, not here!

    Previously banned commenters (none / 0) (#202)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:41:01 AM EST
    leftofu and jambojambo and heemster made comments here. Their accounts are now deleted again.

    If you are banned, you can't come back using another name.

    Voting (none / 0) (#203)
    by thentro on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:54:59 AM EST
    I don't see any problem with people voting for a candidate they relate with. Demographics is destiny and Colorado is a western Obama state. If white, Oprah watching women form the west connect with Obama good for them. If white, "The View" watching women from the east love Hillary good for them. People have their reasons that usually can't be conveyed in a sound bite.  

    Just let people vote. It is a complicated and personal choice.

    Belated response to Chincoteague 2. (none / 0) (#206)
    by DeborahNC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:26:54 PM EST
    I meant presumptuous not presumptive.