Saturday Night Open Thread

A few points. The most important, we all are relieved that Ted Kennedy appears to be fine.

Next, Big Brown is a Super horse.

Third, when I criticize the delegate selection rules and the outcome of the pledged delegate process and the MI/FL fiasco I am in no way criticizing Barack Obama as he has done exactly what he was supposed to do. I tip my hat to him. He has behaved honorably throughout the process in that he is trying to win the nomination. My critique is of the process and the organization that organized the nomination process and made the disastrous and rule breaking decisions regarding FL/MI.

Finally, this is an Open Thread. Oh some foul mood music on the flip.

Comments now closed, there's a new open thread up.

< The Lack Of Integrity Of The Pledged Delegate System | Late Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I thought you said he is mistaken not to (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Teresa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:25:24 PM EST
    support re-votes (when they were still possible)?

    I agree on Big Brown. I think we're looking at a Triple Crown winner. He got stronger the longer the race went. It will be fun to watch.

    Big Brown (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by AmyinSC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:28:49 PM EST
    Is Phenomenal.  He didn't even have to kick into top gear!  What an amazing horse...

    I do not sure abt BTD's assertion that Obama has acted honorably in this nominating process.  FL and MI? He has stonewalled at EVERY turn on that.  How his people railroaded caucuses??  That came from somewhere, especially like TC, in which people were showing up with packets that weren't even supposed to be AVAILABLE...SO, honorable?  I cannot agree with that assertion.  In addition to THOSE concerns, his sexist behavior has certainly been less than honorable, IMHO...


    dirt off his shoulders (5.00 / 21) (#26)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:47:43 PM EST
    snubbing her on the senate floor.  Not practicing what he preaches by taking a stand against sexism.  Not denouncing surrogates who trash her like she's something nasty the dem party stepped in.  Trashing WJC's legacy-or at least trying to.  

    Not honorable.


    I wouldn't say honorable but... (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:16:10 PM EST
    ...I suppose he took advantage of the situation. I guess it wouldn't bother me as much if people didn't put him on some kind of pedestal.

    It wouldn't bother me as much (5.00 / 20) (#97)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:24:46 PM EST
    if he wasn't running as the champion of the exact opposite of everything he says he is.  Time after time after time, he's said he's running a clean campaign, a different sort of campaign, when anyone who has half a brain would see that he's running the usual, Chicago-style dirty campaign.  During the debates, when he talked about taking the high road, I just kept thinking, "Harry and Louise mailer, 'she's desperate to win'; 'she'll say and do anything to win'; etc."

    It's the same hypocritical attitude he takes about his vaunted three years of community service and time in the state senate, living in the shadows of Rezko's slums.  It's the fact that every time he gets called out on something inconsistent, he blames a staff member, or he pushed the wrong button, or he voted "present" as a strategy even though he was not told to.  It's voting for a bad bill, then going on the record saying he didn't mean to vote for it, knowing his vote still stands.  It's lying about passing a bill he did not pass.  It's lying outright about the whole NAFTA meetings thing while bashing Clinton for doing something he did (that she did not do).  It's trashing Bill Clinton's legacy. It's praising Reagan and Bush.  It's accusing the Clintons of racism.

    I dunno, I don't find it honorable to be where you are only because you are standing on the bodies of all those folks you climbed over to get there.


    Then the moment when (5.00 / 8) (#109)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:32:52 PM EST
    her poll numbers for untrustworthy became 36% to his 51% in the first state where he didn't show up to stump speech how she was running a negative campaign to his worthy, policy-focused one.

    That confirmed for me that all her negative numbers (accepting 35% would be the best number any politician could get) were undoubtedly the result of the horrible image he was painting of her with the tone and intent of his campaigning.

    MSM is bad, but the greatest % of the blasting they have been doing against Hillary was given to them by the Obama campaign.


    Honorable my ass. (5.00 / 17) (#114)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:36:41 PM EST
    He has virtually secured the nomination by labeling anyone who doesn't worship him a racist.  His campaign tactics have been appallingly Rovian.  He is shameful.

    PS - his entire campaign is about campaigning.  He deflects criticism by blathering on ad nauseum about using others using 'negative campaign tactics' that his campaign won't use because that's not how they campaign because they're running a clean campaign unlike the other campaigns that are dirty campaigns because that's how campaigns have always been run but not anymore since he's decided to change the way campaigns are run. campaigncampaigncampaign.  gag.  


    Wow! Kathy, you're right on target. Thanks!! (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by DeborahNC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:08:04 PM EST
    And How About... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by AmyinSC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:22:33 PM EST
    His "community organizing" really being voter registration?  And his campaign's meme that Michelle grew up poor in South Chicago, as opposed to BOTH of her parents working for the city??  Don't even get me STARTED on all of the stuff abt his dad, most recently though was his father's flag-draped coffin...Wow.  If the media bothered doing its job at ALL, they would be talking abt this...

    more importantly (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by CanadianDem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:03:59 PM EST
    what are their counter-tops made of dammit!!!!?!?!?

    BTD you reap what you sow, although I admire your firefighting skills now.


    One of the best (none / 0) (#185)
    by facta non verba on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:23:58 PM EST
    comments ever! So spot on. Duplicitous is his middle name.

    I Do Not See obama As Anything Honorable.... (5.00 / 5) (#165)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:09:33 PM EST

    Obama's campaign was definitely not (5.00 / 7) (#192)
    by Serene1 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:30:32 PM EST
    an honourable one. Gaming the system can never be called honourable especially if your campaign theme is the opposite. There are a lot of delegate fraud stories floating arround for the same not to be taken seriously.
    Secondly the way they baited Hillary and her supporters was appaling. Right from the start they had a gameplan of attacking Hillary, unfortunately the gameplan was right out of a republican hand book of Character assasination. They built up the 'Hillary is bad tempo' to such a level that almost all pro Obama blogs in the netroots overnight became an 'anti Hillary willing to sprout any conspiracy theory about Hillary' blog.
    They liberally used racisim charge against Hillary and her team for any perceived insult. It reached to such a crescendo that any ad or utterance by Hillary was perceived to be a coded racist message or term. Mind you Obama kept quite throughout when his surrogates drummed up the racisim charge. Team Obama is single handedly responsible for the kind of animosity that exists between Democrats today.

    This is not the behaviour or outcome of an honourable campaign.


    Exactly! (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by AX10 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:20:55 PM EST
    Obama and his surrogates have NOT been "honorable".
    He is a politician like the others.  For him to act as he is "above it all" is nonsense.

    Exactly Right, Kathy. (none / 0) (#63)
    by AmyinSC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:09:16 PM EST
    And I meant TEXAS...Sheesh.  

    Don't Forget obama Playing (5.00 / 7) (#183)
    by talex on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:23:33 PM EST
    the race card.

    Remember the whole thing started out with an anonymous source in a British newspaper and Obama jumped on it FAST to turn black voters against Clinton.

    The old saying goes: Follow the Money.

    In this case follow who an anonymous source article benefited the most. Right out of the Karl Rove play book that one was.

    Then their was the publicly available picture of Obama in African garb that he took advantage of with once again an anonymous source saying it was released by the Clinton campaign.

    Again - follow who benefited from that.

    I am throughly convinced Obama played dirty in branding Clinton a racist by pushing the race theme on her.


    I personally feel that Obama deserves some (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:25:58 PM EST
    criticism for the way he has acted wrt the delegate selection process. In particular, his blocking of the Michigan revote. Hillary, of course, should probably have accepted the compromise offered last week, so long as Obama also agreed to seat all Florida delegates.

    agreed (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by bjorn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:42:27 PM EST
    If Clinton (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Emma on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:46:55 PM EST
    can't be the nominee, why should she accept anything?  Why shouldn't she stick to principle and insist that every vote be counted as it was cast?  Which means:  not giving Obama delegates he didn't earn.  If she can't be the nominee, what's the benefit of accepting anything less?

    Yep. (none / 0) (#152)
    by DeborahNC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:03:14 PM EST
    Had she buckled to that unfair (5.00 / 7) (#113)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:35:47 PM EST
    distribution, she would have been confirming the unfair tactics that the Obama campaign has been using were okay. It wouldn't be in concert with her "fighter" image.

    She is right to fight the injustice.


    I will criticize Obama (5.00 / 16) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:28:53 PM EST
    not because I an inclination to do so, but he and his campaign did not make a genuine effort to resolve the issue.  Instead they have used the ineptness of the DNC to their advantage.  I don't respect that kind of leadership, particularly when it has labeled itself as the new  politics.  

    Yep I agree. (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by lilburro on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:38:17 PM EST
    Honorable is not the word I would use to describe him.  His supporters are far worse though.  Reports of their caucus behavior are beyond the pale.  Caucuses need to go.

    I agree but I doubt Obama will do anything (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by bjorn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:39:31 PM EST
    to reform the system if he wins.  We will see.

    It's the DNC's responsibility (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:37:32 PM EST
    and they have a leader who needs to start doing his job.

    Obama is doing what has always done (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:27:52 PM EST
    gaming the system. That's all he knows how to do, as far as I can tell. And you can't do that sort of thing in the GE, it won't fly. What's he going to do if he gets to the White House and finds out he is the system? How is he going to game that?

    And Big Brown was great. So was Kent Desormeaux, whom I knew back when he was just a Cajun kid looking for rides. He was good even then, and soon became the leading apprentice in MD, and the leading rider for a few years. He gave that horse a perfect ride.

    The thing about the 7 spot and a horse as big as Big Brown (and he is long and lanky for a race horse well muscled and all but big and long striding) is that if he didn't break well he could get boxed in. Kent got him out of the gate and perfectly placed. The other thing about Pimlico vs. Churchill is that Churchill has that 1/4 mile stretch. At Pimlico, the quarter pole is in the turn, not at the top of the stretch. So, if he is going to make his move at the quarter pole, which he pretty much did in both races, he is accelerating on the turn rather than on the straightaway at the head of the stretch. That can make a big difference for a long striding horse like Big Brown. But Kent had him on the outside, which flattens the turn somewhat, and on they came. That was just about a perfect race from the point of view of a rider.

    And my friend at Pimlico said that Big Brown was "tearing down" the spit box(where they get the urine and blood for the tests) like he hadn't even run a race. So, look out NY, here comes a really good horse. This might be the year for a Triple Crown winner. I remember Secretariat's Triple Crown..man, that was a horse and a half. Big Brown is not in his class, look at the times, but he is the best shot we have had at a  TC winner in a long time. Keep your fingers crossed!!!


    Mark Salter really said it best (5.00 / 9) (#119)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:40:34 PM EST
    Senior Adviser to McCain last week said about Obama's campaigning:

    "We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is."


    Here Is The Supposed Honor From the obama (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:12:10 PM EST
    camp and followers I am guessing...

    On Carole Midgen Leading's poll to see who superdelegates should endorse, Hillary was leading by a wide margin yesterday. This morning it has flipped to Obama...and the strange thing is, if you hit reload on the page, Hillary keeps going down a percentage point a minute. I think someone is running a bot to change the vote, because apparently you can vote more than once. (An Obamabot...running a bot!)

    Maybe it's a good idea to vote (again) and to post some comments on her board to counter this obvious manipulation of the voting tally:


    Went back to Migden's page and they closed the poll.


    It is open (none / 0) (#258)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:17:10 PM EST
    I just posted there. It is about how to pick a president. Leave comment.

    Stellaaa, that is not even (none / 0) (#122)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:44:13 PM EST
    leadership. He seems to be a follower, not a leader. When you are a chief, your feather sticks out, his does not, at least for me.

    Gaming Florida Twice (none / 0) (#215)
    by Athena on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:45:11 PM EST
    Florida has been gamed twice in 8 years to give us totally unqualified Presidential candidates - Bush and Obama - who will have gone farther than they should have because of the failures in that one state.

    FYI (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:31:00 PM EST
    I have suspended myself for the rest of the night and tomorrow for violating the site commenting rules in the previous thread.

    I will not be posting again until Monday.

    Ya know (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:39:07 PM EST
    One of the things we admire about you is your passion.
    Have a good weekend. See you Monday.

    Unlike a lot of us BTD you are one of the few (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by bjorn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:44:12 PM EST
    people who has always treated both candidates with respect. I think we all know that you are on the side of the voters and making a better system.

    I respect self suspension (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:47:01 PM EST
    I wish I had the character.  I will try it for tomorrow.

    Dang BTD, that punishes all of us. (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Teresa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:48:04 PM EST
    I will miss your take on the Sunday shows.

    Be that as it may, BTD (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by frankly0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:11:56 PM EST
    you absolutely owned KidOakland in that thread.

    Quoting him back his own words about "vote suppression" -- which once upon a time was the moral high ground claimed by everybody on the Obama side when it came to the Nevada caucuses -- exposed his, and Josh Marshall's, hypocrisy beyond dispute.

    I have to say I sympathize with your disgust on this point, which has always been a trigger issue for me as well. The hypocrisy is too palpable, the bias too arrogant and smug, the deceit too blatant, to react to it with anything like equanimity.


    Whoa, what did I miss? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:20:06 PM EST
    BTD, you are a grown up (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:58:52 PM EST
    who has learned how to take responsibility for your actions. I wish others were like you!!!

    Drawing Distinctions (none / 0) (#50)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:00:17 PM EST
    I appreciate your willingness, BTD, to draw a distinction between your problems with the DNC and the actions of the Obama campaign. They have run a highly effective campaign driven by a strategy to secure every possible pledged delegate. While legitimate complaints can be raised about the nominating process, Obama should be held responsible for its shortcomings.

    HEH... (none / 0) (#73)
    by mrjerbub on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:14:51 PM EST
    You must be here with me in (Tacoma) Seattle. Can you believe this weather? Clear skies. 85 degrees.

    I deleted Kid Oakland's remark (none / 0) (#243)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:03:55 PM EST
    as there is no need to continue the ugliness and hypocrisy.

    It is all stated in the other thread.

    Kid Oakland, do not bring it uop again in this thread. I did not.

    Now be civil and respectful please.


    Yeah, open thread (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:38:21 PM EST
    I recall during the 57 state thread that one commenter wrote that she didn't think this one gaffe was enough to put him on the level of W. Ok, now we have this one re: why Hillary will do better then he will in KY:
    "What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."
    Besides the fact that "the states in the middle" comment comes off as totally elitist, IL actually borders KY and, thus, is much closer than AK. I move that this latest gaffe, together with his others such as bitter/cling gate, needing Arabic speakers in Afghanistan, etc, puts him on par with W. Is there a second?

    second (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by bjorn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:40:42 PM EST
    SECOND!! (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by AmyinSC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:40:57 PM EST
    Second (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Raven15 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:43:53 PM EST
    ...and I also join the chorus of those who don't think "honorable" is the right word to describe Obama's comportment.

    Have a great day off, BTD! (I've needed many of my own over the course of this epic)


    I second that emotion! (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:47:52 PM EST
    word! nt (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by isaac on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:05:30 PM EST
    Second (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:18:06 PM EST

    He screws up geography now (5.00 / 14) (#89)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:20:45 PM EST
    as well as history, in so many of his statements?

    As an academic, I now know to entirely question the vaunted reputation of Columbia University.

    He was said to be a liberal arts grad there.  I have business majors, nursing majors, architecture majors, and many others in professions, not liberal arts -- and at a commuter campus -- who do better than this.

    How can a Senator of a state not know which states border his?  How can a Senator of the state of Illinois, one who poses and launches his campaign at Springfield, not know that Lincoln came to the state  from next door?  Are we now going to find out that Obama has not been to as many counties in Illinois, the ones far from Chicago, as there are countries he has not been to but claimed?

    A day does not go by without me shaking my head at the stunning prospect of this being our presidential candidate.  And in this year, possibly our president.  This is our answer to Dumbya?!


    Yea, I've begun to wonder about Columbia too. (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by DeborahNC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:54:05 PM EST
    maybe we need a man from the (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:44:31 PM EST
    working class who went to school at night. they can't do any worse and just might have a little respect for the working class.

    geography and history! (5.00 / 5) (#238)
    by noholib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:58:35 PM EST
    I still think his flippant reference to the Bataan death march--comparing the long primary campaign (when was this?  in March or April ?!!) was awful and that it shows an  appalling lack of sensitivity and judgment when it comes to history.  The Bataan death march was a wartime atrocity after all.
    Please, don't tell me about his vaunted superior judgment.  No one will accuse him of excessive gravitas.  It just doesn't go with coolness, does it?

    notice how we aren't hearing about his (5.00 / 5) (#242)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:02:35 PM EST
    "superior judgment" much anymore? Now it is all about "unity" and "change" but after the whole Wright fiasco, they pretty much dropped the "judgment" thing as a talking point.

    judgment? (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by noholib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:15:46 PM EST
    Angie, isn't "superior judgment" still implied by his standing on his speech against the Iraq war? As if no other question about his knowledge and approach to foreign affairs need ever be asked?

    Perhaps you are right (5.00 / 1) (#270)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:24:20 PM EST
    that it is "implied" -- I meant how we don't actually here him (or the SDs who have been coming out to endorse him) actually using the words "judgment" anymore -- the words now are all about how he is the one who can "unite the country" and "be an agent of change." I think it is deliberately done so that we all will not be reminded about his "judgment" in sitting in that church for 20 years.

    Love it (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:33:37 PM EST
    but then Southern Illinois is like whole other state if you live in Chicago. It's almost Appalachian.

    Once again, he purposely refused to (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:47:25 PM EST
    acknowledge she is better known because she spent 8 years living in the Whitehouse as the First Lady.

    He knows the love the people have for the Clinton's, so, the same way he is now campaigning as though there is nothing more for him to do in the primary, and his only opponent is McCain, he is dissing and dismissing the best reason there is to get the democrats back in charge.

    He is the democratic counterpart to dubya, and the democrats need to prove they are smart enough to see that before they mess up another GE.


    Hold up... (3.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:58:07 PM EST
    ...because your comment is kind of nonsensical.

    He is the democratic counterpart to dubya, and the democrats need to prove they are smart enough to see that before they mess up another GE.

     If he is the Democratic equivalent of President Bush, you're essentially saying we get eight years of a Democratic presidency...but then you say "mess up another GE." So you don't mean that...

     I just don't buy it.  He's not remotely like Bush, or even a Democratic version of Bush.  He is a gamble, as is Senator Clinton.  But I don't buy this nonsense that he is equivalent to one of the most disastrous presidents in U.S. history.


    Every candidate is a "gamble" (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:00:19 PM EST
    however, I place my money on one who knows how many states are in this Union and knows which states border his own.

    Ok, I have driven to Arkansas (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:12:48 PM EST
    from VA, and I went through KY on the way..they aren't anywhere near each other. And when I was working on the track, I drove from AR, where I was at Oaklawn Park, to KY where we went to Keeneland and Churchill, and then to IL when we went from Churchill to Hawthorne. It took days to get from AR to KY. KY to IL was an easy day's drive. My US geography isn't very good..my world geography is great. Being educated mostly overseas does that. But even I knew that IL is close to KY and Arkansas isn't. Before I did all that driving, I knew it. Why doesn't Mr. Ivy League-educated Senator know it?? Doesn't he ever look at a map?? I am getting so TIRED of this man!! He should go back to the Senate, learn his craft and oh yeah, chat up the other Senators about where their states are.

    Hey! Give the guy a break! He grew up in HA, (none / 0) (#251)
    by jawbone on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:08:42 PM EST
    and it's understandable that the mainland states' boundaries are a little fuzzy to him.



    Third (5.00 / 1) (#264)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:21:31 PM EST
    It's interesting (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:49:19 PM EST
    But reading over here has spurred the memory that originally, it was Clinton supporters who were annoying me.

    But the suspects in question had always been annoying, imo, finding every opportunity possible to flame people, holding bizarre and memory-flawed grudges, etc. Besides, they got banned pretty quickly.

    Then, the Obama supporters went bonkers, and I suddenly saw clear as day the critiques of dKossians as groupthink and bullies.

    I was honestly crazy about Obama from day one. But I lost it because I was so horrified by all the crap surrounding him.

    What I regret now is that I didn't vote in the primary for Edwards. I really, really came to like him and even today, think he would have been the best of the lot.

    To be honest, I voted for Clinton in the primary here, just to piss off the Obamaists. :D

    Well, I never claimed to be particularly mature!

    Good grief. I better sign off before I reveal any more deep dark secrets.

    Is it April fools again? (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:13:38 PM EST

    I am in no way criticizing Barack Obama as he has done exactly what he was supposed to do. I tip my hat to him. He has behaved honorably throughout the process in that he is trying to win the nomination.

    Say what? Hat tiping? Honorably? I am dumbfounded by your comment....

    He honorably turned down and blocked every
    proposal for a revote in FL & MI and continues to do everything in his power to disenfranchise the 2.5 Mil voters that took the time to go vote in Jan. all in the name of wining the nomination; and he still dismisses the seating of their delegations.

    Very `honorable' indeed.  Uh?

    Ted Kennedy's doctors said he is resting (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:14:52 PM EST
    and not in any immediate danger.  (Per CNN) he will undergo further tests to determine the cause of the seizure.  Report says he did not have a stroke.  

    thanks for the update (none / 0) (#103)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:27:05 PM EST
    I've been irritated with Teddy recently, but only because I love him!

    What is with the feminist bashing? (5.00 / 8) (#75)
    by dianem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:15:02 PM EST
    I was bored (okay, trying to avoide some homework) and I wandered into the big orange. The top rec diary was a screed by a purported feminist decrying how "older feminists" were insulting the young ones by insisting that they vote for Clinton just because she is a woman. First, who said this? She didn't provide any evidence that the women who supported Clinton did so simply because she was a woman, although both she and the commentors seemed to assume that this was true. Second, how can she call herself a feminist and not be able to see the sexism that has occurred in this campaign? I got the impression that she was my age, which means that she has been in the workforce long enough to see that women are not equal. Is this simply a case of Obamamania dominating over common sense? Or is there a streak of anti-feminism in America that even permeates women who call themselves feminists?

    Your last line, door #2 (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:18:20 PM EST
    In my experience (5.00 / 8) (#93)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:22:39 PM EST
    The Gen Y females run away from the word "feminist" like it is radioactive. I could go into my entire "how role models like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton have set women back 50 years," but suffice it to say: they don't know what it even means to be a feminist -- they think it is being some fire-breathing man hating non-sexual prude. Their opinion on feminists means next to nothing imo.

    Gen Y females are part of the reason (5.00 / 7) (#123)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:45:31 PM EST
    I hope McCain wins (assuming BO is the candidate, of course) and Roe v Wade is overturned.  

    I marched on Washington for reproductive rights several times.  For what?  These spoiled brats glibly walk through the doors that so many brave women opened for them with absolutely no appreciation for the sacrifices that were made on their behalf.  Eff them.  Let them fight for some of their rights for once.  Maybe then they'll begin to understand the sexism that STILL runs rampant in this country.  


    Thank you for saying that (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by dianem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:55:07 PM EST
    I want roe v. wade overturned, too, although I don't think the right will allow it. It's too useful. It keeps the populace pacified while they strip away our rights one by one. I am part of the post Roe generation, but I know how fragile our right to control our bodies is. We need people to fight to get the rights back that have been taken away from us, and until Roe is gone, they won't even admit that we've lost. I can't tell you how many women have told me that Roe is a valuable asset. It was, at one time, but they've found so many loopholes that it is now a tattered remnant of what it was.

    This one calls herself a "feminist" (5.00 / 7) (#124)
    by dianem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:45:46 PM EST
    Then she proceeds to claim that women are completely equal in today's society and the old school feminists are simply in denial. She really seems to believe that women have all the same opporunities as men and the only women who don't believe this are bitter women who have failed in their personal goals and need an excuse.

    I'm trying to imagine if the same attitude were taken toward blacks. Only a fool would deny that racism exists - no progressive would dare. Black people have largely achieved equality, just like women, but there are pockets and ceilings that hold all of us back.


    I have concluded fminism was just a blip. (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:52:54 PM EST
    I can't believe that. Or I won't. (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by dianem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:58:51 PM EST
    We're not going back. There has been a lot of progress. Men are taking more responsibility for childcare, and women have risen slowly through the ranks to lead. In other nations, feminism has become the norm. Many nations have had female leaders, and women have become activists for many causes that have nothing to do with women's rights. Women in some places have actually achieved real equality. As much as I hate the stupid cigarette ad, "We've come a long way, Baby". There have been setbacks, and I'm feeling more and more that my world is getting smaller, rather than larger, but I don't think we're close to "An Handmaid's Tale".

    As a movement, a blip. (5.00 / 5) (#156)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:05:13 PM EST
    I totally believe that.  When women flaunt their feminist credentials as in "1000 feminists for Barack Obama" in an effort to help a less qualified, less experienced male opponent of the first viable female Democratic candidate to run for President, who also happens to have spent her entire dult career championing feminist issues, I sense the movement has failed.

    That doesn't mean that the movement is dead (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by dianem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:09:41 PM EST
    It just means that we need to redefine it, move it from the fringe back into the mainstream. These women are going to learn that there are a lot of doors closed to them, and we need to be there to help them learn to open them.

    I actually know one of them (5.00 / 8) (#222)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:48:18 PM EST
    who wrote that pro-Obama feminists' screed.

    I can tell you that she has made a career of being a feminist but stabs women coworkers in the back and won't stand up for others when not feminism but just a conscience calls for it.  Seeing her on the list made all of them suspect for me.

    This campaign has been a series of revelations about many people I know well or thought I knew about as much as it has been a revelation about the media, DNC, etc.

    No, we have not come a long way, baby -- or sweetie or cutie (as Obama called Barbara Boxer).


    I agree... (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:14:41 PM EST
    ...and I do think that Senator Clinton would have been a great message to send to the Islamic world and, to a lesser extent, East Asia, regions suffering from a deficit in this arena.  Unlike many Obama supporters, I don't dislike Senator Clinton (her husband is a different matter, and, in fact, I was waffling between her and Edwards before South Carolina...the Iraq vote and a mentor's persistent campaigning pushed me over the edge for Obama), but I refuse to accept the idea that Senator Obama is the anti-Christ of Democratic politics, which unfortunately is much of the message that I receive on this site.  

     BTW, I loved Atwood's book.  My mother is a huge fan and I managed to get her an autographed copy of Oryx and Crake for, get this, ten bucks (I was working at a bookstore at the time, got it at cost because it hand't sold out, and only discovered it was autographed after I purchased it).  

     While I don't think feminism is dead, I do worry about the message younger women are receiving.  My sister is 12 and eats up that MTV garbage like everyone else her age.    


    FTR, I don't think Obama is (5.00 / 2) (#269)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:23:24 PM EST
    the anti-christ of Democratic politics.  I think David Axelrove is.  

    Dead Wrong (5.00 / 5) (#286)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:37:50 PM EST
    your quote:
    but I refuse to accept the idea that Senator Obama is the anti-Christ of Democratic politics, which unfortunately is much of the message that I receive on this site.

    Please identify any post in this site that ever referred to Obama as 'anti-Christ'!  Please don't try to sneak in statements like this over here and take advantage of the overall civility in this site.

    And what is there to dislike about Sen. Clinton other than she refuses to be beaten by Sen. Obama's campaign?  It's Hillary or McCain for me because I think that a president Obama will be worse.  McCain has demonstrated his sense of honor many times, unlike Sen. Obama.    


    those who don't know and study history (5.00 / 4) (#219)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:46:52 PM EST
    are doomed to repeat it.

    I remember the good old days when the (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:49:06 PM EST
    Sisterhood was powerful. Today, one considers themself as feminist by virtue of being a woman. There is no consideration of helping other women in any way including putting them in positions of power where they can help all women.

    I know... it was poorly written dribble (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:36:30 PM EST
    If African Americans voted for Barack by the same percentage that women voted for Hillary, Hillary would be winning by a large margin and have the nomination rapped up after Super Tuesday. I don't condemn Africans Americans for doing this -- its forgivable racism, just as women voting for women because they are a woman is forgivable sexism.

    I totally get why AA's are voting (5.00 / 1) (#265)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:21:49 PM EST
    for BO in such large numbers.  I wish women were doing the same for Hillary.  That said, isn't it a little bit ironic that - at least in the black community - he is not being judged on the content of his character?  I wonder what MLK would think.  I'm not being snarky.  What do you guys think?

    I don't think we can presume to know (5.00 / 1) (#274)
    by bjorn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:27:23 PM EST
    what MLK would think.

    Different Strokes (1.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:59:27 PM EST
    I know many women who consider themselves feminists -- including my wife and daughter -- who are avid Obama supporters. Many of the them supported Hillary Clinton until South Carolina when they were turned off by Bill Clinton's race-tinged campaign tactics.

    This has nothing to do with Obama (5.00 / 7) (#162)
    by dianem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:07:56 PM EST
    Feminists can be Obama supporter's without betraying anything. But too many of them seem to believe that older feminist women are voting for Clinton only because she is a woman, and looking down on them for doing otherwise. Some of these same people attack Clinton in sexist ways and dismiss older feminists, which is ungrateful and insulting.

    If there is one thing I will never forgive Obama for it is convincing people that the Clinton's were using racism to get votes. In doing so, he was using racism to his favor, and it worked. He distorted things that Clinton and her supporter's said, turning honest racism-hating people into Clinton hater's. It turned the tide of the election, and divided the nation, tearing open wounds that were slowly healing.


    Obama Didn't Do It... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:29:38 PM EST
    My wife -- an "older feminist" -- made up her own mind to switch to Obama because of Bill Clinton's Jessie Jackson comment after South Carolina. To imply that she was unable to independently reach that conclusion without being convinced by Obama smacks of sexism to me. Am I wrong about that?

    Yes, you are wrong (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by dianem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:46:46 PM EST
    I never suggested that gender had anything to do with your wife's decision. You may believe that I am wrong, but sexism has nothing to do with it.

    But they weren't offended (5.00 / 10) (#168)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:10:25 PM EST
    by the Obama surrogates attacking Hillary for "using tears" to sway votes in NH?  They weren't the least bit offended that BO has yet to make a peep in terms of discouraging his supporters for their vicious personal attacks on HRC?  They didn't care that he essentially gave her the finger during a stump speech?  They weren't bothered that he portrayed her as a crazy out-of-control woman when he said she was throwing the china at him?  None of that offended them as much as Bill Clinton saying that Jesse Jackson had won SC?  Huh.  

    Your wife and daughter may consider themselves feminists, but no self-respecting feminist would be anything less than appalled by the way this man, his campaign and his supporters have carried themselves in terms of their treatment of Hillary as a woman during this campaign.  Sorry.  


    Your comments... (1.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:19:50 PM EST
    ...are vicious and way too personal.  Any legitimate points you have (and there are a few) are lost in the personal attacks.  I won't dignify them with a substantive respnse.  Back off.



    umm... (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:33:55 PM EST
    so sorry you're offended, but 'vicious and way too personal'?  which part of my comment was vicious or even personal?  

    This... (1.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:37:13 PM EST

    Your wife and daughter may consider themselves feminists, but no self-respecting feminist...

     Knock it off.


    Are you a woman? (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:39:19 PM EST
    That's right, you are not. So you knock it off -- you know nothing about it.

    Feminism... (1.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:42:14 PM EST
    ...ain't limited to women...or is it?

       Are you black? Then you have no insight into racism, huh?

     Stupid. Those were personal attacks and you know it.


    Don't tell me what I know you arrogant (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:53:45 PM EST
    [redacted per site rules]. And you certainly aren't going to give me a lecture on feminism. That's right, I have the ovaries, you lose this argument, big boy.

    Feminism (5.00 / 5) (#253)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:13:43 PM EST
    isn't limited to women, but you should probably understand what it means before you claim to embrace it.

    and, yes, non-blacks can have an insight into racism because blacks are not the only race that suffers discrimination.  all races do on some level.  that said, i am white, so i cannot assume to fully understand the black experience.  just like you cannot assume to fully understand the female experience.  if you were a woman, you would understand how disturbing it is when women are more offended by alleged racism than they are by sexism (when they are equally offensive).  any woman who can overlook or excuse sexism on any level is not a true feminist.  

    ps - don't even get me started on how the clintons were systematically trashed as racists by the obama campaign.  it's a disgrace.


    Seriously, dude, (5.00 / 3) (#220)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:47:02 PM EST
    vicious was a serious overstatement.  

    No... (1.00 / 1) (#224)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:49:59 PM EST
    "no self-respecting feminist" was the overstatement.  As I said, you had good points.  They get lost in that.  

    I call BS (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:38:02 PM EST
    First, look of the word "vicious" Second, Spike brought up his alleged feminist wife & daughter for the sole purpose of repeated the lie about Clinton's "racist remarks" re: SC. We all know about the Obama memo to "inject racism" by misrepresenting the Clinton camp, even though the msm has conveniently forgotten it, yet the lies about Clinton still get repeated.

    I Should Just Let This Pass (none / 0) (#241)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:59:51 PM EST
    But I admit I find it troubling. My wife and daughter consider themselves feminists, whether you feel compelled to judge them "alleged" feminists or not. When you say that I was repeating a "lie" about Clinton's "racist remarks," you refuse to acknowledge that it's possible that my wife could be offended by what she determined to be racially-tinged remarks. If my wife personally concluded the remarks were racist, on what authority do you judge that my wife's heartfelt conclusion was a "lie?"

    You're right, you should have let it pass (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:07:52 PM EST
    I didn't say your wife lied you [redacted per site rules] and the fact that you think I did shows you lack fundamental reading comprehension. Furthermore, I was talking about YOU when I used the word "alleged" NOT your wife, because based on what you write here on a daily basis, I don't believe a word that comes out of YOUR mouth. Moron.

    On What Grounds... (none / 0) (#268)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:22:46 PM EST
    ...do you question the veracity of what I "write here on a daily basis?" Can you point to specific posts that are factually incorrect? And how is the conversation advanced by labeling me a "moron?" It seems to me that little is gained by engaging in that kind of undue incivility.

    Excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#275)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:27:35 PM EST
    I am quite capable of drawing my own conclusions about you, and I do not owe you any explanations. But I will say this to you: you can't even read and interpret correctly what I wrote, and instead accuses me of saying your "wife's heartfelt decision was based on a lie." Anyone who wants to play dirty with me by twisting my words has no credit with me.

    Thanks (1.00 / 1) (#284)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:36:13 PM EST
    Your response explains a lot.

    Why? Because he congratulated Obama on (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by derridog on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:14:40 PM EST
    winning SC and said that Jesse Jackson had also won it  in 1988? As I recall, Clinton was excoriated for that comment because he was (supposedly purposefully) reminding everyone that Obama was the "black candidate". Well, as far as I can see, Obama  has been reminding everyone of that himself ever since as he sees racist attacks behind every tree, precisely so he can own the black vote and discredit every criticism made of him,  no matter how valid.

    And, Jesse Jackson had won (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:29:55 PM EST
    it, so was Bill Clinton telling lies or being racist? Who was really being disengenuous??

    Then they fell for the media spin (5.00 / 4) (#225)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:50:59 PM EST
    on that rather than research it for themselves.

    Feminists can make mistakes.  But there is time.  If they are feminists who read, they can find research on this done by others; google historian Sean Willentz' fine and detailed analysis of that event.  

    That, or they can wait for the book to come out on this campaign and feel like foolish feminists then.


    Condescending (none / 0) (#250)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:07:54 PM EST
    This is one of the most sexist posts I've seen in a long time. To conclude that any feminist who concludes that the Clinton's have engaged in race-tinged tactics has fallen for media spin or hasn't done their homework is condescending as hell.

    No, what is condescending (5.00 / 5) (#259)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:17:41 PM EST
    is a man telling women about "why their feminist wife supports Obama" as some kind of counter-argument to their own views about the sexism that has been displayed in this campaign by Obama and the msm.

    i heart angie. :) (5.00 / 4) (#271)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:25:36 PM EST
    What was "honorable" about (5.00 / 8) (#86)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:19:53 PM EST
    voluntarily taking his name off the MI ballot?

    A Leader who is afraid to lose, will lose.

    Honorable (5.00 / 10) (#99)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:25:07 PM EST
    is the last word I would ever use to describe Barack Obama.  I suspect that as the nomination process ends and it goes Barack's way,  I will be migrating back to my own blog.

    TL is a great forum but I won't be able to swallow compliments to a candidate who is running for the POTUS and doesn't even know how many states there are, alienating SO many demographics and treating blacks like nothing more than pawns in his gaming of places like MS, AL and NC.

    Obama Iowa to "claim victory" (5.00 / 9) (#115)
    by Robert Oak on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:37:30 PM EST
    There are now massive news reports saying Obama is returning to Iowa on Tuesday to announce he has "won" the D primary.  I don't know about you, but this is amazingly grandiose to me and pompous.  

    It's not just you (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:45:51 PM EST
    and if there is any justice in this world it will backfire on him big time -- either on May 20th itself or at the convention in August.

    I just hope that Hillary has a grand speech (5.00 / 8) (#174)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:14:38 PM EST
    planned for the same evening. One that, again, reminds the remaining states that she values their voices and hopes they will speak at the polls when their day to vote comes up.

    I'm writing to my 3 local network news groups and asking them to be fair in their televising and reporting of what is truly going on.

    SD's should NOT be allowed to endorse or state their votes prior to the convention. This whole primary would be so different if they all had kept their mouths shut.

    Obama is an absolute UNKNOWN and needs further vetting before the convention. The democratic party is entitled to have the best candidate on the ticket and they should NOT allow the MSM, under Republican ownership, tell us who is going to be our candidate.


    Really? (none / 0) (#211)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:41:21 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton started the primary season with a 100 vote lead among declared superdelegates. That was a major element of her inevitability strategy. So now your idea of reforming the nominating process would be to deny superdelegates their First Amendment right to publicly state their preference before the convention? How would that improve the system?

    They shouldn't be controlling the direction of (5.00 / 2) (#262)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:20:07 PM EST
    the process. The voters should be heard first.

    Iowa would be a fitting place... (5.00 / 5) (#195)
    by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:32:45 PM EST
    Considering he didn't win a majority of the popular vote there.

    Yes, the Presumtuous Nominee (5.00 / 4) (#228)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:52:07 PM EST
    and there was time that media would have had a lot of fun with such pomposity.  Those were the days.

    I think it is a great political tactic (2.00 / 0) (#121)
    by ajain on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:43:04 PM EST
    I also think this is aimed at depressing voter turnout, or ballot turn in, for Clinton.

    But it makes sense. He wants to move away from the primary as soon as possible and if Clinton doesnt upset him in Oregon, game will be over.


    I want to know why he is so afraid (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by dianem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:49:12 PM EST
    It would seem to me that he could benefit more from simply running out the clock, but instead his people keep obsessing about beating Clinton. This won't really be resolved until the convention, but it's pretty much a done deal. He can start to plan his fall campaign while still benefiting from the spotlight and letting Clinton take the negative press. She's doing him a favor by staying in - if she pulls out, he is going to get torn limb from limb. This way he has a chance to "heal" the wounds he has created. Instead, he is acting like he's afraid of losing.

    I heard he was bored of the whole (5.00 / 6) (#140)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:56:34 PM EST
    campaign a few weeks ago and just wanted to get on with the GE. How arrogant! Considering he says that KY doesn't know who he is, he should have created some excitement there, thus creating some excitement for himself. Perhaps people would start fainting again in his presence.

    Sorry to disagree with you (5.00 / 11) (#134)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:52:34 PM EST
    but advocating depression of voter turn out is NEVER a political tactic that I would characterize as "great" or "sensible," especially from a so-called Democrat, no matter how beneficial such depression would be to his getting the nomination. But what they hey, he has already actively moved to block the re-votes of millions in MI & FL, why not do the same to MD, SD & PR. In for a penny, in for a pound. As to his wanting to "move on" to the GE -- too bad, so sad -- there is NO nominee until the votes are actually cast in August, so unless he has his hands on a time machine, he can suck it, imo.

    Depressing Turnout? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:04:05 PM EST
    How will Obama depress turnout by giving a speech in Iowa next Tuesday? The only states remaining will be South Dakota and Montana -- both of which are Obama states. Why would he want to depress turnout there?

    To keep Hillary's popular vote (5.00 / 7) (#188)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:27:11 PM EST
    numbers down. She is in the lead with the popular vote now. The lower the turnout, the lower everyone's vote numbers are. Delegates go by percentage of votes, not numbers. So depressing the turnout is to his advantage. It will keep her from gaining more of a lead in the popular vote. Gaming the system is Obama's "new politics".

    Because he only wins (5.00 / 7) (#240)
    by samanthasmom on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:59:42 PM EST
    when the vote is depressed.  So much for being the candidate who "gets out the vote".  Heavy voter turnout results in wins for Hillary.

    First he was the "most electable" (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by diplomatic on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:47:48 PM EST
    now BTD says Obama has behaved nothing but honorably.

    Add it to the pile...

    Honorable? (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Cal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:54:54 PM EST
    Yikes.  Stunning remark.

    The Count (5.00 / 10) (#139)
    by Pat Johnson on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:55:48 PM EST
    Sorry to disagree, BTD.  Obama has not been honorable in this respect.  He and his supporters  blocked any resolution to the MI count and he has also assisted with the same tactic in FL.  Do I blame him, no, because he is clearly ahead at this point.  However, by refusing to count those two states, FL in particular, we will wear the same mantle of the GOP in voter suppression from 2000.  He is going to need FL, especially the Jewish vote, which is somewhat on the fence about him, should he capture the nomination.

    Not trying to be funny here, but Sen Obama is not the honorable candidate the press would have you believe.  He not only has not stood for a fair count in those two states, but he has also allowed a candidate of 35 yrs of public service, to be trashed in the manner she has been.  He could have stood by her and declaimed this treatment but preferred to remain silent.  Not qualities of a leader, particularly one with little experience and qualifications.  The time to do the right thing was then, not now.  He does not have my vote.

    Volunteering in Kentucky (5.00 / 9) (#146)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:59:21 PM EST
    Wish I had $1 for everyone who's said they'll vote for McCain if Hillary doesn't win.

    People here still v. fired up. Apparently folks have been lining up at 9 AM for afternoon Clinton surrogate appearances.

    My fave argument re: Florida:  If they don't seat the state, how many others with GOP legislatures will simply move the Dem primaries to screw with the Dem nominating process?  Don't think they won't for two seconds.

    It's definitely a two-fer for the Repugs. (5.00 / 10) (#177)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:15:45 PM EST
    They get to set our primary date and they get to cause chaos in our party. Win-win! FL should never have been punished at all. They are only required to "in good faith" comply with the calendar. With a Repug majority in the legislature, they have no control whatsoever. Brazile was totally out of bounds with her punitive measure. This nomination will never be legitimate due to her actions.

    Brazille is insufferable. (5.00 / 7) (#272)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:25:56 PM EST
    She has lost millions of votes for the party. There can be no doubt.
    If I, a person that has liberal DNA and voted dem in every single election since the age of 18, will not be extorted this election by the arrogant and derisive sneers of Big B, I know others feel the same. She and Axelrod make Penn look like a boy scout.

    Yes! (5.00 / 6) (#235)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:55:01 PM EST
    If they don't seat the state, how many others with GOP legislatures will simply move the Dem primaries to screw with the Dem nominating process?  Don't think they won't for two seconds

    Exactly!  The Republicans can literally rig our election for us simply by moving primaries up, resulting in the DNC exercising the nuclear option on each.  But of course the DNC will only exercise the nuclear option on states where they know their favorite candidate would lose anyway.


    If You Haven't Read This...It Is Interesting... (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:04:23 PM EST
    Obama's rags to riches fairy tale (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:26:54 PM EST
    Will burn him big time in the general. He needs to knock that stuff off, pronto.

    Too Late (5.00 / 4) (#200)
    by dissenter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:36:47 PM EST
    This guy is a first class liar. His honesty rating was at like 49% in the WV exit polls.

    I thought I was just in a small majority of dems that weren't going to vote for Obama but recently a lot of friends have told me they are voting for McCain and they are college educated, pro-choice dems.

    I think the polls are going to be off cuz a lot of people have told me they have gotten in fights with friends about Obama and now they just say they will support him but they have no intention of it. Pre GE polls are gonna be way skewed like 04 I think.


    ouch! This was pretty (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by bjorn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:54:34 PM EST
    fascinating thanks for sharing the link.  I don't know the politics of the author but I have to agree with his assessment of Obama so far.

    Excellant find !! (none / 0) (#248)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:05:37 PM EST
    This is what I suspected all along. You can't bullsh!t a Bullsh!tter, and Obama is a DAMN Good One. There is nothing new or different about him except his skin color. He is still a politician, very thin skinned and in experience too. I knew it, I knew it, I knew it. He WILL lose if he is "the one".

    He thinks he is Neo.

    From Wikipedia: NEO

    The character Neo lives in the world of the Matrix, an illusory construct in which humans are neurally connected to a gigantic computer system (aka DailyKos) which simulates the world of the late 20th century. This system has been developed by intelligent machines to keep the human population as tools for the machines' survival - the machines use a form of fusion in addition to the bioelectrical energy of human beings. .......

    Ladies and Gentleman, I present you:


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by PainKillerJayne on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:06:04 PM EST
    this is her own burden to bear if it is legit.

    Him telling supporters to not donate (5.00 / 6) (#160)
    by jbradshaw4hillary on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:07:32 PM EST
    to 527's and groups like vote vet which I am not sure of the difference seems kind of distrubing.  It seems he just wants to control most of the money with in the democratic party.  It seems as though he is trying to create the barack obama party.  Ist this normal for candidates to do.  Even if they believe that they have the nomination wrapped up, Which I do not think he does.  
    As to whether he has acted honorably I would have to disagree.  he has been condesending.  Also his campaign has comitted some of the sexist statements which he did not speak out against so I would not say he has been honorable.  

    It is his money power (5.00 / 2) (#227)
    by Serene1 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:52:00 PM EST
    that has bought him this far and that has enamoured the DNC elites so.
    I think it is a very shrewd move by him wanting to control all the money because that kind of will make him more formidable and more [powerful within the DNC.

    Music Video (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:10:02 PM EST
    No music video? Well luckily I saw this one earlier. Apparently Eurovision 2007 is just another benefit of living in Europe that we non-Europeans must suffer without.

    This was the 2nd place finisher and without one ounce of shame I have to say I LOVE IT. What's not to love:

    1. accordion
    2. flashy costumes
    3. people doing the monkey

    Verka Serduchka - Dancing Lasha Tumbai (YouTube)

    After all (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by Emma on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:13:07 PM EST
    if Barack Obama can't run his own house, he can't run the White House.  Doesn't that work for him the same way it works for Hillary?

    I've never seen a candidate do it before (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:18:08 PM EST
    and it is disturbing. A little too dictatorial for my taste.

    Obama has not everything he's supposed to... (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:24:45 PM EST
    He took his name off the ballot in Michigan to score some short-term political points with the early states and now doesn't want to pay the long-term cost of it. The guy wouldn't even support a re-vote.

    But isn't the counterargument... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:35:04 PM EST
    ...that Clinton pledged not to campaign in MI, but kept her name on the ballot so she was the only well-known choice?  That, too, was a gamble.  It could pay off, I suppose, but it also lends some credibility to the argument that she will do anything to win. Smart politics, bad PR.

     I have been pretty consistent about the party making a bad choice with respect to Michigan, especially.  But I am not about to swallow this self-serving argument.  

     If he personally opposed a revote, that was stupid.  But regardless, it was the party that is responsible, not the candidates.


    How is allowing voters to vote "doing (5.00 / 2) (#279)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:29:39 PM EST
    anything to win"? Obama disrespected MI voters by not allowing them to vote for him, though he did run ads to push the "vote uncommitted" choice. That "she'll do anything to win" meme is untrue. Surprised that you would use such a tired canard.

    Joan, let's say... (none / 0) (#290)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:45:16 PM EST
    ...that I think removing one's name off the ballot was unwarranted.  Once all but two candidates have removed their names, you don't have a legitimate primary.  Particularly not after the DNC has told those voters (in a stupid DNC fashion) that they will not seat the delegates at the convention.  Once you have that situation, the "do anything to win" meme will have force as others campaign against you (as, indeed, Edwards and Obama brought up later).  As I said, I'm talking about whether it lends credibility to an argument, not whether or not it is true.  Hence, the reference to PR.  

     Iowa and New Hampshire should certainly not go first every year, I agree with that.  


    We all think it is probable (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:29:50 PM EST
    both she and Barack have been in the pews during many sermons we would find over-the-top. They want Obama on the ticket because he is going to be so easy for them to mess with.

    All the things the Clinton supporters are begging the media to address on Obama will be taken care of if he is the one McCain faces in the GE.

    Didn't Michele Obama say that (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:33:56 PM EST
    he could only run for Pres once because she didn't want to put her family through it all again, and after all, they'd be really rich after this run so they'd be just fine? Something like that! I think that was probably a pretty truthful faux pas!

    Too rich to be able to relate to the people (none / 0) (#229)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:53:10 PM EST
    according to Chuck Todd one evening on Hardball.

    I have a theory.... (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:45:28 PM EST
    Al Gore will be in Pittsburgh tomorrow at Carnegie Mellon University. The former VP and 07 Nobel Peace Prize winner will give the keynote address. Carnegie Mellon University is a world renowned private research university. If Al Gore was to endorse anyone, now would be the time. In a white, blue collar, rust-belt city and a campaign that could really use a shot in the arm before the Tuesday primaries, it is Obama's. I am sure the media will be EVERYWHERE. I am going to watch how they cover it tomorrow. The local news coverage has been talking about it a little. I hope he just remains neutral.


    how is giving a victory speech (5.00 / 5) (#226)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:51:24 PM EST
    in florida a violation of the rules?  she wasn't campaigning; the votes had already been cast.

    also, you seemed to gloss right over the fact that obama had a commericial airing in florida when he wasn't supposed to be campaigning.

    She was claiming (none / 0) (#239)
    by kid oakland on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:59:42 PM EST
    Florida. And she has since claimed MI, too. And her surrogates, like Ed Rendell have, as well.

    I've been clear why that's a stand I disagree with. Elections where no one campaigns are not fair elections.

    Obama's ad was a national buy, it did appear in FL. It's a far stretch to claim that that won him many votes or truly constitutes campaigning but it is a negotiating point.

    I'm sure that's a point that FL Clinton supporters will make in the negotiations.


    Not only did Obama appear on Florida TV campaign (5.00 / 5) (#263)
    by bridget on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:20:37 PM EST
    ads and not just once or twice, don't you know?

    He also gave a press conference in Florida which is most def. against the rules of not compaigning - AFAIR he shrugged it oh so cutely off his shoulder at the time.

    Since he campaigned he broke the rules. Punishment acc. to the rules could be NO VOTES for Obama at all in Florida. Hillary Clinton did not break any rules in Florida.

    Obama took his name of the ballot but now says his name is "uncommitted." It's not. No votes for Obama IMO. You take your name off the ballot, you suffer the consequences.

    Certain blogger did consider that fact alone a  mistake if I remember correctly. And knock me over with a wispy feather,he admitted that the hated Hillary Clinton did a smart thing instead. Indeed.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#289)
    by kid oakland on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:43:53 PM EST
    that your claims about FL and MI hold the weight you think they do.

    The folks from MI are offering a +10 split for Clinton. That's not zero.

    John Edwards endorsed Obama in MI for a reason. His name was on the ballot in FL, as well. That's not a small deal politically, either, when it comes to negotiating for seating the delegates of those states.

    Clinton needed to win CT and MO and keep it close in the caucuses that day. She did not and the slate of Feb. states set her back. Quotes from inside the campaign reveal that loyalty to Mark Penn and Patty Solis-Doyle hurt Clinton's campaign especially in February. TX, despite the foot-dragging from the Clinton side on the caucus returns, was effectively a loss for Clinton.

    PA, KY, WV are not enough, and were never enough. Clinton needed the reverse result from IN / NC.  A close loss in NC and a big win in IN.

    An absolute majority of the delegates in the states where the candidates campaigned is a powerful argument for the nomination.


    WOW! Obama has behaved honorably during (5.00 / 6) (#230)
    by bridget on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:53:27 PM EST
    this nom process? I don't think so. But What he did do is try to win the nomination any which way ... and with the media support behind him - he could.

    I have seen candidates win the nomination with a lot more honor in the past and they had to campaign hard as well. And that With a lot more compassion and love of country. Bill Clinton (twice w. success) and Hillary Clinton are two examples that come to mind here.

    On Tuesday night, after Hillary's huge WV victory, one of the CNN pundits (most of the Obama pundits had left at the time AFAIR) actually suggested that had the Wright issue come out earlier, maybe in October, Hillary Clinton would be the nom by now. Obama would have gone nowhere after that they said.

    In order to get the nomination Did the Clinton campaign push Wright early? Or did they push Rezko hard early? Or did they anything like that at all? No

    But what did the "honorable" Obama do? He showed the kind of candidate he is when

    He used racism as a wedge issue in order to get the black voters away from the Clintons. The Obama campaign turned Bill and Hillary Clinton into  racists. There was nothing honorable about that. It was a disgrace And I will never forgive him for it.

    But that alone wasn't enough for Obama in order to get the nom. He had to make sure the most popular Dem president we have had in decades "disappeared" from his line-up of admirable American presidents as well. And then he trashed Bill Clinton's legacy. But good. Needless to say, I will never forgive him for that either.

    And thruout this probess Obama blocked revotes and   as of now disenfranchise millions of voters. What is so honorable about that?


    And he has led many into also being (5.00 / 5) (#246)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:05:32 PM EST
    dishonorable -- many former friends as well as family who were huge fans of Bill Clinton but turned on a dime with the disgusting race-baiting of him by Obama's campaign.  I am shocked that so many people I loved and respected could be so disloyal in an instant.

    I am sad for the Clintons, but it may have saved me from counting on any number of people I now know are entirely unreliable -- and, yes, that has made them dishonorable as well.


    Yes (5.00 / 5) (#282)
    by bridget on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:34:54 PM EST
    I often think of Maya Angelou who is a living legend in the black community - but she remained a loyal friend. I respect her a lot. Always have and it is great to see her remain a strong Hillary supporter.

    How tough it must have been for Bill and Hillary to be betrayed by so many people. Not just by members of the black community but by the Richardsons et al.   as well. Dishonorable people all the way IMO.


    There are so many glossed-over facts (5.00 / 2) (#236)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:55:48 PM EST
    in this, such as that the rule was for such states to lose half their delegates until Obamans Ralph Dawson, Donna Brazile, et al., amended the rule after those states set the primaries, etc., etc. . . .

    The poster's selective bias has become infamopus, and this is a prime example of why that is so.

    One thing I try not to do (none / 0) (#266)
    by kid oakland on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:21:51 PM EST
    is engage in the kind of ad hominem you do above.

    You say my argument is wrong because...I'm me. That's not very persuasive.

    (Further if I've had a disagreement with a blogger during this primary season, I've tried to make that disagreement on their blog and do so in a constructive manner despite the fact that I get downrated and subjected to ad hominem attacks.)

    As for Brazile and Dawson, they are ostensibly "undecided," but clearly argue in a very similar fashion to the way BTD does here on TalkLeft. I don't disagree that they are effectively pro-Obama any more than that BTD is effectively pro-Clinton.

    None of us are going to be immune to that kind of thing. It's a primary battle. If one side is rapaciously pushing an argument and insisting that you accept their terms, most folks are not going to go along with that.

    A case in point.

    You mention that the original rules called for a 1/2 penalty.

    The Republicans did just that, but their candidates also campaigned. They avoided our mess.

    What outcome would you accept from the negotiations? Would a 1/2 penalty be acceptable for FL? Plus the Michigan terms? What should be done with Super Delegates from FL? Should they be half votes as well? Full votes? Zero?

    I don't think a popular vote argument is fair when no one campaigned. If Clinton accepts the MI / FL settlements that give her more delegates out of MI / FL will she turn around and continue to claim popular vote totals from those states as if these were full and fair elections with campaigning when we all know that they were not?

    That is the most disturbing thing to me about the Clinton argument. She has to use states where no one campaigned to make a margin of victory because she has lost the vote and delegate count in states where all parties did campaign.

    At the end of the day, we all know the Supers have found that argument to be the key.

    Obama will win the popular vote and pledged delegate count in states where all candidates campaigned and that's why he in the position he is in today.


    Thank goodness for no TV or news in Fla (5.00 / 4) (#281)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:33:41 PM EST
    I don't think a popular vote argument is fair when no one campaigned.
    I don't think a popular vote argument is unfair when every name was on the ballot. Believe me, everyone in Florida knew these candidates pretty well without any campaigning. They saw debates, they saw the news, and they saw MSNBC. There didn't need to be any campaigning to know who they were voting for. So on this argument I will have to disagree.

    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 6) (#291)
    by Anne on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:50:37 PM EST
    That is the most disturbing thing to me about the Clinton argument. She has to use states where no one campaigned to make a margin of victory because she has lost the vote and delegate count in states where all parties did campaign.

    At the end of the day, we all know the Supers have found that argument to be the key.

    Obama will win the popular vote and pledged delegate count in states where all candidates campaigned and that's why he in the position he is in today.

    You think people only vote because the candidates  campaign?  Are the voters so stupid that we just wouldn't even know there was an election if we weren't being bombarded by ads and phone calls?  It's not like the people of Florida and Michigan were in some kind of blackout and couldn't watch national television shows to know what was going on.

    The argument that it shouldn't count because no one campaigned is ridiculous - Florida had a record turnout.  John Conyers exhorting people to vote uncommitted in Michigan - is that not campaigning?  

    And with the states of Florida and Michigan certifying the elections and the votes - those votes count in the popular vote total.  The elections themselves were entirely valid.

    And what is the deal with your continuing to say that Clinton lost the popular vote and the delegate count in states where they did campaign?  That's a disingenous way of avoiding the discussion of which states she won, and won convincingly, and you know it.  And it's a dishonest way of avoiding the discussion of Obama's losing trend since Ohio and Texas, the erosion in key sectors of the electorate - but instead of looking at ways to make gains in those areas that he must have if he is to be a successful GE candidate - making no assumptions that he will be - or to work on unifying the party, he continues on the path of dismissing and ignoring and obfuscating, of tacitly approving the use of sexism, racism and class warfare, of making excuses and whining, and of trivializing voters who have been the backbone of the party.

    You must be so proud.


    Obama fans once again show rude behavior - (5.00 / 8) (#260)
    by gabbyone on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:18:49 PM EST
    this time at the Colorado State Convention.
    My daughter who is a Hillary delegate in
    Colorado told me that the Obama supporters were
    booing every Hillary supporter that got up to talk and the when Terry McAuliffe spoke, they had to gavel the convention to quiet them three times.
    They booed when he talked about the popular vote, they shouted no Michigan and no Florida, when he
    mentioned those two state. While Clinton backers campaigned to be national-convention delegates outside the arena, Obama supporter walked thorugh their area yelling  "Oh, come on, smell the coffee! and your candidate is a loser."  She said the long time convention attendees said they had never seen anything like it and on the local news
    Former state Rep. Fran Coleman, a Clinton supporter, said that the episode was disappointing and blamed it on the many political newcomers backing Obama. "They treat it like a sports event," the Denver Democrat said.
    "There's a real disrespect there."

    Not Surprised (5.00 / 6) (#273)
    by dissenter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:26:15 PM EST
    I live out here and the same thing happened at my caucus. It was disgusting and I have worked in politics for many years. In all that time, I had never seen anything like it.

    The women on the Hillary side were stunned and my poor mother, OMG, she will never go to a caucus again. She loves Hillary so I convinced her to go (despite her being quite ill) to the caucus for Hillary. The Obamabots were so rude to her. She is a senior and every a senior or woman brought up issues that concerned them the were treated with total disrespect.

    Mom not only won't vote for Obama now, she will never attend a caucus again. It was her first one and she is totally turned off.


    hopefully we can abolish caucuses (none / 0) (#277)
    by bjorn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:29:22 PM EST
    so no one will ever have to do it again.

    this is what happens (5.00 / 1) (#278)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:29:25 PM EST
    when you encourage children to participate in the process.  it makes me wish they'd change the voting age to 25.

    You know what though (5.00 / 8) (#287)
    by dissenter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:38:16 PM EST
    I never acted like that in college. Nobody did. I won't get into a dissertation on today's kids but a friend of mine who is a recruiter for big companies tells me horror stories about these kids.

    She says HR departments have parents calling bosses to complain about the treatment of their kids at work. I mean seriously, that is crazy. I would have been horrified if my parents had even called a professor let alone my boss. And it would never have occurred to my parents to do such a thing. My parents were like - congrats, your and adult now. We love you and good luck out there lol.

    It is this entitlement mentality that really gets under my skin.


    Obama Ignoble (5.00 / 2) (#288)
    by fctchekr on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:41:51 PM EST
    Obama is the sum total of everyone else's rendition of him; we know very little about what he will really do as President. And what we do know about him, and his history, he has denied, disallowed or disowned.

    If Obama is in fact calling the shots then he is aware that the campaign communicated to his supporters to vote uncommitted in MI. He intentionally took his name off the ballot there yet directed supporters to vote uncommitted. His campaign slow walked any decision on Michigan and Florida. We saw Obama supporters grinning as they blatantly admitted they knew exactly what they were doing when they voted a revote down in the MI legislature.

    And you say Obama has not done anything wrong?

    He agreed to the NARAL endorsement even though he had to know it would split the party even more; for that matter many of the endorsements  from long time Clinton supporters would not only serve the purpose of boosting his candidacy, but they would all serve to sever perceptual ties with the Clintons.

    I don't think I've ever experienced an election with so much rancor caused by endorsments and critisms of Clinton by party members.

    The point being, from everything I've observed of Obama, it would seem he is intent on eliminating the Clintons from American politics..and or defaming and relegating them to political excile.

    Honorable? (5.00 / 7) (#293)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:40:21 PM EST
    "He has behaved honorably throughout the process in that he is trying to win the nomination."

    Honorable is not my personal pick for a description of Barack Obama and his campaign.

    Calling his principal opponent divisive and polarizing is not honorable.  Trashing previous Democratic administrations is neither honorable nor wise politics. Trashing the occupation of another of his opponents is not honorable. Blatantly introducing the race card is not honorable.  Refusing to allow re-votes to facilitate voter participation is not honorable. Flooding caucus sites with goon squads is not honorable.  Smiling while his supporters boo his principle opponent is not honorable.  Making rude gestures in reference to his principle opponent is not honorable.  Boasting that he received more delegates than his opponent after his opponent had a higher popular turnout is not honorable.  Refusing an unmoderated debate is not honorable. Removing his name from the ballot to taint a sure victory by his principle opponent is not honorable.

    Since the McGovern Commission rules changed the method of selecting nominees, Barrack Obama has run the filthiest, tackiest most dishonorable primary campaign of any Democrat in my memory.

    Honorable, ha! (5.00 / 1) (#295)
    by gandy007 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:46:09 AM EST
    In my estimation, a person who has done everything to obstruct the operation of the democratic process, like Obama has in Michigan and Florida, is not an honorable person.  This is just one instance.

    IMHO, one does not have to do dishonorable things directly to be dishonorable.  To countenance such conduct in subordinates or turn a blind eye is even worse in my view, than when a person is honest enough to do their own dirty work.

    You say "he has done exactly what he was supposed to do."  Is that the same as saying one does what one has to do and that is OK? Does that mean that one does whatever it takes to win?

    One might rationalize and say this is just good hardball tactics and politically justified in trying to win, but I do not agree with that.

    RE: Fundraisers to merge, talk Clinton surrogate (5.00 / 1) (#296)
    by fctchekr on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:10:33 AM EST
    This came out on MSNBC last night:


    "In addition to the fledgling attempts to merge the fundraising operations of Obama and Clinton, there is growing talk that the best -- and perhaps only -- way to truly mend the rift is for Obama to pick a top Clinton surrogate as his vice presidential nominee."

    "There's gale-force pressure for Obama to choose a Clinton loyalist as a running mate to heal the party but avoid putting her and her formidable baggage on the ticket," said one Obama ally in Washington. "You hear the names [Ohio Gov. Ted] Strickland, [Indiana Sen. Evan] Bayh, and [retired general] Wes Clark almost constantly, and it's no secret that Jim Johnson and Tom Daschle are purveyors of that wisdom."

    The "formidable baggage" line is a crock.

    Yea, Amando..... (1.00 / 2) (#292)
    by Andre on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:55:49 PM EST
    you did Obama's work on the bloggers' call with
    Clinton yesterday, didn't you?  Because you wanted to make a pretty long and I think insulting statement, one or two Clinton supporters didn't get to ask a question.  Good show, My Man! Not!

    Anyone else feel Hillary is going to drop out soon (none / 0) (#6)
    by ajain on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:35:33 PM EST
    I don't know why I feel like at this point there is no way she gets the nomination. Mostly because of the General Election atmosphere that has been created by the Knessett Kerfuffle.

    Even if she pulls out Oregon (which just seems highly implausible), I just dont think he will be denied the nomination. Although if by some miracle she does that it will give her a 5% chance of getting the nomination. But most likely it will just cause a sperdelegate flood to Obama.

    Well, I certainly hope not. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:39:52 PM EST
    Why not just go through to the convention?  It's a close race and she should stay in to the end.

    If Hillary says she is (none / 0) (#150)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:00:34 PM EST
    suspending her campaign, does that mean she could get back in again if...

    After June 3 there are no more primaries (none / 0) (#213)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:43:50 PM EST
    to campaign in.  What is the point of "suspending campaign"? She only needs to prepare for the convention where the nominee is finally chosen.  She has said that she will stop when a nominee is chosen.  I think her statements have consistently left her options.  She is far too smart to paint herself into a corner.

    Superdelegates (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lilburro on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:40:26 PM EST
    can flood all they want, but they don't vote til August.  I think she needs to keep her options open until June 4th and see if she wins the popular vote.

    Why in the world should she quit now? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:45:19 PM EST
    when she has clearly the momentum going into the convention? Besides, what if that Michelle Obama tape really does exist and shows up before the convention?  That would be Rev. Wright all over again x 7

    What Michelle Obama tape? (none / 0) (#28)
    by ajain on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:47:55 PM EST
    See previous thread on pledged delegates (none / 0) (#42)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:55:47 PM EST
    Thanks for the info and for the fact you will not (none / 0) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:15:34 PM EST

    Here's the link (none / 0) (#44)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:57:31 PM EST
    Well, (none / 0) (#88)
    by ajain on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:20:18 PM EST
    I dunno how much merit this story has, but seeing what the Tennessee GOP just recently put out (the Michelle Obama "proud of my country" stuff) there might be something to it.

    Also Larry was right about Bill Ayers. But, well, unless we see the video we should be skeptical. I just felt my hopes shooting up, which is bad because I dont want to be disappointed, again.


    heck no (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:50:28 PM EST
    she ain't quitting, and neither am I.  She's going all the way.

    Kathy... (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:51:32 PM EST
    have you ever quit anything?  I never have.  

    ya know... (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:52:53 PM EST
    I haven't, and I've done fairly well because of it.  I have taken a lot of crap on the way to where I am, though--mostly folks telling me I was too driven or I was too...something.  Better than the rest, I guess!  Hahahaha!

    Never give up, never surrender.


    I quit (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:05:50 PM EST
    smoking. Does that count ;-)

    GOOD FOR YOU!!!!! :) (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:49:54 PM EST
    I have a friend who smokes way too much.  Apart from being incredibly unhealthy, it's REALLY stinky.  She sits in her car to smoke - even if it's a nice day.  It's like she's stewing in cigarette smoke.  When she walks through the office, she leaves a trail of cig stink.  I love her like a sister, but it's really nasty.  

    My sense of smell (none / 0) (#148)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:59:29 PM EST
    is returning and food is tastier. I've gotta get the car detailed so the smoke smell goes away, but my clothes don't stink any more. 30 Days and counting.

    I hope she sees the light and finds the strength to quit. It's hard, but it's so good for you.


    your little cilia (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:13:44 PM EST
    must be so relieved!  i don't know you, but i'm so proud of you.  one day at a time - keep up the good work!!

    Wrong perspective! (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by NWHiker on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:23:14 PM EST
    You didn't quit smoking, you took up pure oxygen!

    (Congrats, by the way. My dad died of lung cancer and my mother still freaking smokes. Every time I hear someone has quit, it makes me feel better.)


    The Mississippi Election (5.00 / 11) (#38)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:53:07 PM EST
    I love Obama taking credit for the guy's win and saying Wright did not have an impact.  Childs had to take an ad out saying"  I do not know the guy who endorsed me"  Hillarious.  Crawford has the videos.  

    I agree it looks right now like (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:55:36 PM EST
    she will not win.  But she will not drop out until after June 3rd. There is no reason for her to do so.

    I think enough SDs will stay uncommitted until then out of respect for her, and for the process.  We'll see on May 31 what the DNC decision is regarding FL and MI - there will be some sort of compromise, and the magic number will be something between 2025 and 2210.  After June 3 enough SDs may get Obama over the top of the new magic number.

     Then she will have to acknowledge that and maybe suspend campaigning, knowing that the delegates can change their mind at the convention if something knocks some sense into them.

    That's how I see it playing out anyway.


    She said we'll know more after June 3 (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:57:46 PM EST
    but nothing about dropping out.  I don't see her not going all the way to the convention.  Ted Kennedy did when he was behind 1000 in pledged delegates.

    Yes He Did...No One Is The Nominee Til (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:38:13 PM EST
    the convention...

    1980   Ted Kennedy behind 750 delegates
    1988   Jesse Jackson behind 1400 delegates
    1992   Jerry Brown had only 600 delegates

    And they all took it to the convention.  No one asked them to drop out of the primaries.  If I am not mistaken Jerry Brown is one of those calling for Hillary to drop out.


    None of them could win. (5.00 / 6) (#221)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:48:14 PM EST
    I think a big part of why Obama and his supporters are pushing Hillary to quit is that she has a chance to win. Neither Jerry Brown nor Jesse Jackson was even close. And Teddy was only a threat because he ripped the party apart, not because he had any real chance to win.

    Obama wants Hillary out because he's scared. She is a viable threat to him getting the nomination. And, remember, Obama has never had to fight for anything. His political success has always been handed to him. He can't deal with the competition. And, so, in an effort to, once again, protect poor Barack, the pressure is on to get Hillary out.


    You Are Oh So Very Correct Casey.... (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:53:35 PM EST
    Does anyone know what (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:10:00 PM EST
    would happen between June 3 and the convention?  I'm not sure what 'taking it to the convention' means.  Did Kennedy keep going around campaigning even when there were no primaries?  I was preoccupied the summer of '80.  <she grins remembering her wild youth>

    I guess it would mean she would not release her delegates. I'm not sure it matters if she does that or not.  It would take an massive implosion of the Obama campaign to change the SDs mind if they commit on June 4.  In that case even if she had released her delegates they could come back to her at the convention. I guess we'll see what happens.


    She'll probably catch up on her sleep (none / 0) (#151)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:00:59 PM EST
    and then . . . deliberate on the proper strategy for the convention.

    Her equanimity (none / 0) (#159)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:07:06 PM EST
    noble grace and inner strength can only come from a strong faith in a Greater Power. And I admire her even more for not putting out flyers like those of Obama's with the cross.

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by pie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:10:17 PM EST
    Then she will have to acknowledge that and maybe suspend campaigning,

    I don't see her dropping out.  Why should she?

    He doesn't have it wrapped up.


    I would be surprised if it does not happen (none / 0) (#46)
    by bjorn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:58:37 PM EST
    as you have outlined.  I keep hoping I will be surprised though!

    Me too. (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:14:29 PM EST
    i would so love to be proved wrong on this one.  I'm hoping for an Oregon surprise.

    If the compromise isn't in her favor, (none / 0) (#53)
    by pie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:02:46 PM EST
    there's going to be trouble with a capital T.

    Good Analysis (none / 0) (#60)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:06:18 PM EST
    That sounds right to me.

    if he loses oregon (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by isaac on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:07:31 PM EST
    hillary's chances increase exponentially

    Absolutely. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:10:36 PM EST
    That would be sooooo funny.

    From your and issac's lips (none / 0) (#76)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:15:24 PM EST
    to God's ears. (I'm superstitious, y'all).

    No, sure don't (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:39:44 PM EST
    I take her at her word, "I'm not a quitter". She says it all the time.

    The superdelegates have to decide this at the convention. They are not obligated to use any of the metrics being offered by the media in their decision.

    Democrats need to continue letting the DNC, and the SD's from their districts/states that we will be watching their vote and converting it to one of the criteria we will use in voting for their re-election in the fall.

    I think my governor won by 1 vote after 734 recounts last time, and isn't much of a governor. She's the only one who shows up on my ballot who has declared she will vote Obama.


    You must be in Washington. (none / 0) (#223)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:49:41 PM EST
    Yes, indeed (none / 0) (#233)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:54:32 PM EST

    Agreed about Gregoire (none / 0) (#237)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:58:18 PM EST
    Not much of a governor. I'm leaving the governor's bubble blank this time too.  Can't vote for Rossi.

    I'll vote for her... (none / 0) (#261)
    by NWHiker on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:20:01 PM EST
    ... but I'm not thrilled with her leadership. Rossi is awful.

    Doesn't mean a little pressure (none / 0) (#276)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:28:25 PM EST
    on her wouldn't encourage her to change her vote to Clinton. She wouldn't want a rerun of the last election.

    Is Rossi a sure thing as the Republican candidate this year?


    She must wait until after May 31 when MI and FL is (none / 0) (#7)
    by bjorn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:38:08 PM EST

    I say take it to the convention (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:39:55 PM EST
    Ted Kennedy did when he trailed Carter by more then 1,000 delegates. 5% chance is still a chance -- nothing is a fait acompli until the votes are actually cast in August -- and a heck of a lot can happen between now and then.

    Is This One More Thing obama Didn't Know (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:41:08 PM EST
    ...his big endorser was trailing by a huge margin of delegates in 1980 and still took his fight to the convention; or are they conveniently forgetting this amid their calls for Hillary to drop out.

    She won't concede before Puerto Rico. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:21:13 PM EST
    I am pretty sure about that. But as for what happens after, I have no idea.

    No... she will probably suspend her (none / 0) (#193)
    by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:31:05 PM EST
    campaign after the last primary and then possibly re-emerge at the convention if Obama tanks again.

    Who has power over our elections? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Lora on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:45:20 PM EST
    From Black Box Voting yesterday, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is "the organization that has effectively -- and for the first time in history -- centralized power over elections, putting it into the hands of a tiny group of political appointees."

    The EAC's new Chief Operating Officer is Alice P. Miller.

    MIller, formerly of the DC Board of Elections and Ethics, had helped to get herself and others there an illegal pay raise, according to the Office of the Inspector General.

    Here's the interesting quote from the OIG summary in this post at BBV by Jim Soper:

    ...the technical assistance of a computer security technician employed by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) was enlisted to make the salary changes directly to the District's computerized payroll system.(emphasis mine)

    So, a person involved in this electronic fraud is now the COO of the EAC, an entity involved with the nation's voting systems?!

    Henhouse, meet Fox.

    Just DC... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:19:31 PM EST
    This has nothing to do with "the nation's voting systems." Elections are run at the state level and what you've quoted appears to refer to the District of Columbia only.

    DC is where she was. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Lora on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:38:22 PM EST
    The EAC is where she will be now.  That affects all elections.

    From the EAC website (emphasis mine):

    The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent, bipartisan commission created by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002.

    EAC is operating the federal government's first voting system certification program. It issues guidance about HAVA, adopts voluntary voting system guidelines, audits the use of HAVA funds, and provides best practices and resources to election officials throughout the nation.

    EAC also administers a national clearinghouse of information about election administration and maintains the national mail voter registration form.

    Link (none / 0) (#23)
    by Lora on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:46:48 PM EST
    Hasn't Clinton made the MI/FL controvery a ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:48:50 PM EST

    Clinton has now stated that she will campaign until there is a nominee AND there will be no nominee until one candidate reaches 2210.

    Given Hillary's position, it's hard to see how Obama gets to 2210 unless the MI and FL delegations are fully seated. It would require a level of SD activism that defies credibility.

    I can't see them breaking hard for Obama without the MI/FL controversy resolved to Clinton's satisfaction, particularly in light of the signficant and growing backlash against media and gender bias.

    What do we think (none / 0) (#35)
    by lilburro on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:51:03 PM EST
    about the Obama/527 thing?  Obama and 527s

    For a 527 to be effective helping downticket races, it will inevitably be helpful to Obama's campaign.  I think they should lighten up on trying to control the money flow.

    First, I think it would be dumb since we (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by bjorn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:55:09 PM EST
    know the Republicans will have them in droves.  Second, I am not buying his "don't fund" them stuff.  He is trying to look like a reformer.  I don't think he should pretend like he is trying to block their funding because there will be Dem 527s.  I guess then he can say he tried to block them.  Whatever, I think we need them to level the playing field in the fall.

    That looks like the Chicago Way to me (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:28:29 PM EST
    and not at all like a reformer.  It's standard machine politics stuff, and he wants to be the machine boss -- who has control over all funding to be handed out as largesse to the faithful.

    There is so much Chicago Way in everything Obama, Axelrove, et al., have done in this campaign that, frankly, fear of the country being corruptly run the Chicago Way is becoming my major reason for not voting for Obama.  And that is among so many, many reasons, from exploiting and actually corrupting the caucus and thus nomination process to the appalling sexism and other behaviors from him and his followers.  (They act straight out of Chicago, too.)


    I just think... (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:47:19 PM EST
    ...you hate us Great Lakes midwesterners. ;-)

     Seriously, though, I don't see it.  But then, I'm not from Chicago.  The "Chicago Way" must elude me.  In California, they just gerrymander their way to winning elections.      


    Great Lakes Midwesterners? (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:37:30 PM EST
    I thought that Obama moved the Great Lakes to Oregon.

    Whaa? I'm two block from the Great Lakes (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:40:38 PM EST
    right now, been here all my life.

    That's how I know about Chicago.  

    Think.  Then type.


    I think... (none / 0) (#217)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:46:17 PM EST
    ...you're reading way too much into a fairly non-serious comment.  Hence the ;-).  Also, the criticism of California Dems.  



    Now this is getting weirder by the post (none / 0) (#252)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:10:55 PM EST
    as I can't remember saying a thing about California Dems, and I even went back through my comments for a couple of days and don't find such a one.

    What in the world are you talking about -- and/or what are you up to here?


    No, it was me... (none / 0) (#256)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:15:05 PM EST
    ...I said that they win by gerrymandering (with complicit Republicans). I.e., in Chicago they use the machines, out here we use the maps The point was that the post was meant to be humorous, or, failing that (clearly), it was meant to be non-serious.

     It failed, clearly.


    What did they do to (none / 0) (#145)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:59:05 PM EST
    corrupt the caucuses?  I'm not being snarky.  I've heard this several times.  I don't live in a caucus state (thank god), so I don't understand how they can be corrupted.  Please explain.  Thanks!

    Read the "Lack of Integrity" post (none / 0) (#158)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:06:53 PM EST
    and comments(immediately prior to this one).

    No 527s (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Emma on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:56:31 PM EST
    on the Dem side means unilateral disarmament which, IMO, will not benefit Dems.  I think it's a mistake.

    And Hasn't... (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by AmyinSC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:58:48 PM EST
    Obama BENEFITTED from 527s???  I mean, really - he loves them when they are for HIM, and doens't want them to work for ANYONE else.  This is becoming quite a pattern for him...

    Presumptuous of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:00:20 PM EST
    to create the impression that he controls all the money people contribute to their causes.

    Thing is... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:12:40 PM EST
    he doesn't.

    If I want to donate money to VoteVets, he can't tell me I can't...same for ActBlue and other groups.


    No, but other people are not like you (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:17:18 PM EST
    But I think VoteVets is a strong enough long term organization to be in a different category.  

    The ones that he has effected are the ones that were just springing up for this election, like the new one David Brock briefly started, then shut down when Obama made that proclamation.


    Total control (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:03:11 PM EST
    He wants control of the money flow and the message.  I think the 527s that have closed up shop made a mistake, but then I'm not trying to run an organization with someone as powerful as Obama is about to be trying to dry up my funding.

    Seems to me there is a secret authoritarian streak running through the progressive community.  They were just waiting for the right daddy to show up.


    I am not a big Larry Johnson fan but I did (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by bjorn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:06:07 PM EST
    like his analogy of animal farm for the DailyKos people...they have become the oppressors they once hated (i.e., Bush Cheney).  It is a well known sociological phenomenon.  If Obama is a true community organizer he probably knows Pablo Frieire's work, and it is very much an explanation of why people who have been oppressed tend to just turn the world upside down and do the same thing once they have power.

    LOL, except that I have a hard time... (4.50 / 2) (#98)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:24:55 PM EST
    ...thinking of the DKos community as oppressed.

    hmmm... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:19:37 PM EST
    It is a well known sociological phenomenon.

     I knew there was a reason I stuck to economics courses.

     Seriously, though, you believe that pro-Obama bloggers are like the Bolsheviks? That sounds like that Saul Alinsky nonsense that was tossed at Senator Clinton.  They're just overly zealous Obama supporters, much like Senator Clinton's supporters can be on this site, and much like I can be at times.  I don't think that makes someone an authoritarian.


    I agree it is too soon to tell for sure (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:23:19 PM EST
    but 527s shutting down on his say-so is step one IMHO.

    It does bug me a bit... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:41:58 PM EST
    ...that a lot of his supporters do seem to have messianic visions of political candidates.  They will be disappointed, particularly on the Iraq war, where it just isn't going to go the way they hope if he wins.  

     That being said, I doubt funding of 527s will stop on his say so.  


    Hee! (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by pie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:06:07 PM EST
    but then I'm not trying to run an organization with someone as powerful as Obama

    Good grief.  

    George Bush redux.


    You ain't seen nothin' yet (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:24:07 PM EST
    I think it was a very bad idea... (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:10:59 PM EST
    for him to go after VoteVets and the like.

    I really hope these groups don't just roll over and play dead.


    the problem is twofold: (5.00 / 6) (#79)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:16:14 PM EST
    if he loses the nom to Clinton, they have to start building back from zero.  If Obama loses the presidency, they start building back from less than zero.

    I just don't understand these non-profits and 527 folding up shop so easily.  What's next--Planned Parenthood?  The Boy Scouts?  Some of these organizations are going to feel a real pinch, and with Obama controlling the purse strings, what happens if they disagree with him publicly?

    This really is a disgusting manipulation.  These organizations should be independent.  It's the difference between Some Blogs and this one, where dissent is allowed so long as it is civil.  For instance, if Obama is the primary funder of national NARAL, and they fight one of his judges or say something negative about him, what happens to their cash?  (God, talk about karma.)


    Hmmmm...that NARAL (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:25:26 PM EST
    endorsement is making a little more sense in this context.

    Eeeek. (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by pie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:31:15 PM EST
    Obama shouldn't be the primary funder of any group, especially one like NARAL.  No wonder the state orgs went ballistic.

    What a creepy idea.  

    He's now down to 1 on the scale.


    I'm beginning to see him and his adoring (5.00 / 3) (#267)
    by RalphB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:22:27 PM EST
    herds as the precursors to American fascism.  Or perhaps a remaking of the Daley machine on a national basis?  I just hope Hillary hangs in there and pulls it out.

    Say What? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:26:14 PM EST
    I don't think anyone is saying that Obama will control NARAL's funding. NARAL is not a 527. Where did you ever come up with that?

    Untruths again. Do the research (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:29:58 PM EST
    as it was NARAL's 527, exactly, that endorsed him.

    Really? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:39:46 PM EST
    Considering that it's 30 years old -- and 527s are a new creation -- I thought that NARAL Pro-Choice America was a 501c3 or c4. Can you provide a link that proves they are a 527?

    A 501c3 organization (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:48:16 PM EST
    loses its funding the moment it becomes politically active by way of endorsing candidates.

    That's why churches cannot engage in political endorsements from the pulpit...

    Most of these organizations (NARAL, NRA, and others have a 527 (or 527 like/501c4) political arm that allows them the opportunity to engage in the political process by way of political endorsements.


    You're right. NARAL is a 501 (c) 4 (none / 0) (#173)
    by shoephone on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:13:52 PM EST
    because they do advocacy.

    It also has MCFL status... (none / 0) (#247)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:05:33 PM EST
    There is a specific type of 501(c)(4) organization known as an MCFL-type corporation, which has an ideological mission, is not formed for profit; is tax exempt under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code; may not accept money from either corporations or unions, just individuals.  If these criteria are met, MCFL-type corporations may make independent expenditures for express advocacy communications to the public legally, with FEC reporting. MCFL- type corporations may not make contributions to any candidate campaign, and may not coordinate with any candidate campaign.

    It's not just 527s (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:35:05 PM EST
    under discussion. Stoller points out that they're encouraging non-funding of independent groups including VoteVets--a group focused on helping out vets as they are considered "inside the Beltway" and "Obama has created a number of significant infrastructure pieces through his campaign, displacing traditional groups the way he promised he would by signaling the end of the old politics of division and partisanship," and therefore to be cut out of the process.

    NARAL's political participation would be considered the same. But they came forward and endorsed Obama. Was it to save their funding? Given the flak they're getting from the sub-chapters, they are currently in a very sticky situation.


    America Votes (none / 0) (#255)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:15:03 PM EST
    is a 527 with NARAL Pro-Choice America as part of its membership.

    My issue is, (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by lilburro on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:15:45 PM EST
    does he get to control everyone's message?  Why not let 527s run ads to support the DNC in hotly contested states, where the Congressional races are really close?  

    Making Dems not air these ads doesn't mean Repubs won't.  And I'm not sure if he will be able to carry the entire party to victory by just being too noble to endorse 527s.

    I just hate this Mr. Noble streak.  Esp since it looks like he won't accept public financing...he's defining noble as he goes along depending how much money he can get at the time.


    Mr. Noble? (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by pie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:23:53 PM EST
    I couldn't care less what his financing is.  His handlers have found a way to get around it, when in reality, they're totally in the tank.

    Good grief.  The more things "change," the more they stay the same.

    Who the f**k do you think you're fooling?!


    Sorry, (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by pie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:34:50 PM EST
    that was directed at the people who think Obama is some kind of messiah, not you.

    What a nice thing to say. (none / 0) (#48)
    by pie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:59:24 PM EST
    He has behaved honorably throughout the process in that he is trying to win the nomination.

    How mature of you.

    There's plenty of dishonor around (none / 0) (#90)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:20:56 PM EST
    Sorry, but Obama did not act honorably when he removed his name from the Michigan ballot.

    And no candidate acted honorably when they signed that pledge. I will admit that Dean should have nixed that pledge in the bud as it put the candidates in an uncomfortable spot. But a candidate should never, ever agree to boycott people of any state when running to be president of all the states. I'm not saying they needed to campaign, but rather promising to ignore people is never a sign of honor.

    And coming to Florida for money while refusing to talk with the people? No honor for any of the candidates who did that.

    No Quarter (none / 0) (#106)
    by wasabi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:28:44 PM EST
    Some of the posts over there are interesting, but alot of the comments are caustic.  I want to take a shower after reading them, just like at Orange Cheetoland.

    I would like to know soon if the tape (none / 0) (#130)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:49:02 PM EST
    of Michelle Obama exists. Although, I suspect if rev. wright+bittergate+"sweetie"+ayers "the terrorist buddy" were not enough to sidetrack his nom, this probably will not do it either. They will blame Hillary somehow.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#280)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:33:38 PM EST
    There's a new open thread up.

    Horesracing sux (none / 0) (#298)
    by JohnRove on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:00:43 AM EST
    Horseracing is a nasty "sport"  for every horse that gets treated well thousands wind up going to slaughter or getting abused becaue they don't perfom well.

    As for the Dem primary, if Hillary Clinton had apposed the war from the start she would not have lost the nomination regardless of the format.  This election is about the war and a person who apposed it from the beggining is in a better position to make that argument against McCain.

    It is the war, not sexism, racism, "gaming the system".  Even Mark Penn could have looked good if they Clinton campaign had been on the right side of the war.

    Again, Comments are closed here (none / 0) (#299)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:41:22 AM EST