home

Colorado's State Convention Held Saturday, Udall Nominated for Senate

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:04:10 PM EST
Tags: Mark Udall (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Colorado held its state convention Saturday in Colorado Springs. By all accounts, it was chaotic, disorganized and not a pleasant experience. Obama supporters booed Terry McCauliffe. Even though Barack Obama handily won the caucuses, the Denver Post reports that half of the 6,000 in attendance were Hillary supporters.

The good news coming out of it was that Rep. Mark Udall was nominated for the Senate seat being vacated by Republican Wayne Allard.

You can read my post on the convention at 5280 here. I quote some of the local bloggers. The sexism again runs rampant in their accounts.

[McCauliffe] closed with we have 2 great candidates, but we need to elect Hillary because she has a uterus. Repeated again that the primary will be over in 2 weeks. And once again that Colorado is the greatest state in the country. I don’t know how this guy every got to be chair of the DNC. It definitely was not for his speech-writing or presentation skills. Thank god it’s over. Wellington Webb was much much better.

Another blogger wrote that the chaos boded ill for the DNC in August. I disagree. [More...]

I think predictions of chaos at the National Convention in August are premature and misguided. I attended the DNCC party Friday night at the JW Mariott in Cherry Creek. It was for convention workers, to celebrate being 100 days out from the convention. I had a lovely time. It was friendly, a little dressier than a work event, with a host bar and a dance band.

DNCC co-chair Steve Farber was on hand, greeting people as they entered. Rep. Ed Perlmutter was there, positively glowing about how much he loves being a Congressman. He got to be Speaker pro tem of the House for a day this week. and described in great detail a speech by California Congressman Dan Lungren. He flies home every weekend and doesn’t complain a bit about it. It’s great to see an elected official who really loves his job.

The DNCC press people were there as well as the IT folks, even DNCC Director Lea Dougherty. I introduced myself to her and she too was friendly, happy and optimistic.

So all I can say is whatever problems went down in Colorado Springs, after mingling among a hundred or so of those responsible for putting the Denver convention together, I have high hopes. There wasn’t a “Henny Penny the sky is falling” person in the crowd.

The Colorado state convention was all about 1,500 people, mostly Obama supporters, vying for one of a dozen delegate spots. (There were 70 pages of Obama delegate wannabes compared to 46 pages for Hillary.) What have most of these people done for the Democratic party in the past to warrant them being elected a delegate? Sounds to me like most just want to be part of a popular movement.

Comments now closed.

< Obama, Iowa and Immigration | U.S. Building New Prison in Afghanistan >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Colorado's State Convention Held Saturday, Udall Nominated for Senate | 219 comments (219 topical)
    Booing and other behaviors (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:17:23 PM EST
    that we have seen this year so disgust me that they were part of my decision to not be a member of the Party of Bad Manners anymore.  I was part of the non-violent protest generation, and I learned then that the boorish ones among us only cost us and the country more progress that could have been made.

    And our candidates then never encouraged such behavior -- as Obama does, with his "dirt on the shoulder and shoe" routines.  All the talk of Clinton damaging the anointed one and the party just is such nonsense.  It is the treatment of her by the Obamans and their candidate that have turned off me and many others.

    We may vote for their candidate, or we may not.  We may vote only downticket, or we may stay home.  This is not how to build a party, as I also learned in the last "children's crusade" for the Dems that most of the young then -- and often, the most fervent -- fell away fast when the partying was over, when the frat atmosphere gave way to hard work.  "Dems for a day" is nothing new; it's just the blatancy of it, like the bad manners, that is striking and will have more serious impact.

    And when the partying was over, the Dem party was over then for quite a while, too -- and it is going to happen again.  I can see it so clearly.  So I'm glad I will be seeing it as an observer and not as a participant now.  I have much else to do, with much nicer people around me, that will make much more difference than working for and with such "Dems."

    I'm sorry to say that (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by MonaL on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:07:02 PM EST
    I completely agree with you.  I went to a AAPI Townhall event in Irvine, CA yesterday and was very offended by the remarks of the Obama speakers.  They showed absolutely no respect for HRC or her supporters (which make up almost 50% of Dems).  Carrying my Hillary placards past the Obama table, one of his supporters called out to me "remember, we're all together in the end."  The small person inside of my couldn't help be call back "only if Hillary's the nominee."

    I hate not being able to respect my party.  Where are all of the party faithful in outrage over the way she has been treated by the MSM?

    I want her to go all the way to Denver.

    [ Parent ]

    The Brush Off (1.80 / 5) (#4)
    by April on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:25:05 PM EST
    as for the media, for George Stephenopolis and his phony flag lapel pin questions.

     Why you keep insisting on twisting this truth.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Why bless your heart, I saw the video (4.63 / 11) (#12)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:32:40 PM EST
    of your candidate doing his hip-hop-inspired "Dirt on the Shoulder" song routine, so I twist nothing.  Did you see it?  Do you actually defend it?

    As for what anything written here has to do with flag lapel pins, please explain.  I think you missed some segue there in the cut-and-pasting of the daily Obama memos.

    [ Parent ]

    Cream, I think (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:10:31 PM EST
    the "Sweeties" have arrived and are hi-jacking the thread. Are we supposed to say site-violation now or do we have to wait until they have posted a dozen or more comments?

    [ Parent ]
    That's an ugly tone you have there (2.00 / 4) (#16)
    by April on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:38:01 PM EST
    You don't even know me, and immediately you seek to disrespect me with sarcastic comments.

    Odd. Especially since I am a woman.

    Do you really think this kind of tone serves your candidate well?

    [ Parent ]

    April, sweetie, I think we're on to your game. (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:46:59 PM EST
    cf. Sunday Sweeties at The Confluence

    [ Parent ]
    Yes we are. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by AX10 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:15:43 PM EST
    We see the fraud April.

    [ Parent ]
    Not a fraud, necessarily ... (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:28:24 PM EST
    ... though we are seeing a lot of sock puppeteering among these template trolls.

    [ Parent ]
    All hail, the mighty uterus! (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:48:28 PM EST
    Okay, now that we've respected your female parts, can we get to the part where you campaign for Obama using worn and offensive talking points and you leave in a minute and huff?

    Or do are you really interested in why we think Clinton may be the better candidate?

    [ Parent ]

    more faux outrage from an Obamabot! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Josey on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:53:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Disrespectful (1.00 / 4) (#39)
    by April on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    name calling?

     That isn't very nice.

    [ Parent ]

    Prove you aren't. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:13:08 PM EST
    Should be simple.

    My favorite test for supporters:

    1. Name three things you admire about your candidate.
    2. Name three things you dislike about your candidate.
    3. Name three things you dislike about your candidate's opponent.
    4. Name three things you admire about your candidate's opponent.

    Zealots frequently can't see anything bad about their candidate or good about the opponent.  No gray, just straight black and white, hero and villain.  They feel more than they think.

    More objective people can see strengths and weaknesses, good and bad, virtues and flaws in any candidate - even John McCain.  They think more than they feel.

    [ Parent ]

    Here goes (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by dianem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:57:11 PM EST
    1. Things I like about Clinton: She has a long history of working for the rights of people who have no power. She is tough. She is a very hard-working, brilliant candidate who has taken the time to educate herself about the issues currently facing America.
    2. Things I dislike: She is not particularly charismatic as. She has not communicated well why she voted to give Bush more authority in Iraq. She is not an "activist", she is more of a backroom dealer.
    3. Things I dislike about Obama: He is willing to do anything to win, including dividing the Democratic Party. He is not intellectually curious - he has not shown that he understands issues and often actively avoids answering serious media questions. He often comes across as arrogant and condescending.
    4. Things I like about Obama.  He inspires people.    He is self-reflective. He is hard working.


    [ Parent ]
    My List (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Spike on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:25:15 PM EST
    Three Things I Admire About Obama
    1. He has the vision and skills to be a transformative leader who will usher in a new progressive era.
    2. He is very smart and does his homework on policy.
    3. He has proven that he can both take a punch and land a punch; the guy's resilient.

    Three Things I Dislike About Obama
    1. He can appear to be aloof.
    2. He might be too quick to compromise to prove he  can bring people together.
    3. He can be too intellectual and not sufficiently inspirational in debate settings.

    Three Things I Dislike About Clinton
    1. She strikes me as inauthentic; I'm not sure who she really is.
    2. She has put personal ambition over the good of her party by continuing a campaign long past having any chance to win.
    3. She will say or do anything to get elected, even things that are inconsistent with her own basic values.

    Three Things I Admire About Clinton
    1. She knows policy.
    2. She works hard.
    3. She doesn't give up.


    [ Parent ]
    You go first (1.00 / 3) (#90)
    by April on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:27:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    April (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Iphie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:38:52 PM EST
    take a look around. I realize that this is your first day commenting here and all, and that you clearly aren't at all familiar with the other commenters, but if you use that little search button on the left-hand side you'll find the answers to your questions. The same cannot be said for your answers, however, since in any of your publicly written comments here, you have left out any cogent argument in favor of your candidate. So, no really, you first.

    [ Parent ]
    My pleasure. (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:43:25 PM EST
    Obama gives good speech.
    Obama really believes that he is the best candidate.
    Obama is a master at creating a biographical narrative.

    Obama is too easily provoked.
    Obama is has a poor grasp of policy and issues, and appears not to be interested in them.
    Obama willfully alienates groups of voters in order to win other groups - a terrible long term strategy.

    Clinton is too cautious, understandably so, but often frustratingly so.
    Clinton is not nearly as progressive as I would like her to be.
    Clinton has had the media attack her for decades - an unfortunate circumstance beyond her control.

    Clinton is resistant to provocation.  She knows that every misstep and gaffe can be used to further an opponent's narrative of her.
    Clinton knows her policies and issues and appears to actually enjoy the nuts and bolts of governing.
    Clinton is a fighter, not a pugnacious person, but a careful and deliberate fighter.  She chooses the fights she can win, and doesn't fight just to "prove" that she isn't weak.

    [ Parent ]

    No, it's not nice (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by dianem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    The moderator's generally limit that kind of thing, but it's sunday and they're out having lives. Generally, this site is pretty respectful, unless somebody comes in and attacks or starts spouting nonsense. Feelings are running high lately, but I think you'll find that most people here will be respectful if you are.

    [ Parent ]
    You want respect (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:11:22 PM EST
    because you're a woman?

    So'm I.

    Last I checked...respect and votes get earned. They aren't automatically handed over to any candidate with a genuflect.

    [ Parent ]

    What does your being a woman (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by Iphie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:25:15 PM EST
    have to do with it? Maureen Dowd's a woman and that hasn't dampened her misogyny one little bit.

    [ Parent ]
    Sad comment that. (1.00 / 2) (#91)
    by April on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:27:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Maureen Dowd? (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Iphie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    Yes, I agree -- very, very sad.

    [ Parent ]
    So you have no problem with Obama (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by MarkL on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:34:28 PM EST
    flipping off Hillary? I think that is the most immature act I have ever seen from a Presidential candidate. This is not someone I would trust to handle the pressures of the highest office.
    You know, the election is not about YOUR feelings. It's about choosing a candidate who is both up to the job and can win in November.
    It shows a stunning lack of maturity on your part that all you can do is discuss insults, real or imagined.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure about that, but (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:05:07 PM EST
    because if he did so, it was so subtle.  (My progeny in their 20s both watched it for me, though, and said yeh, sure, that's how ya do it, mom . . . so I guess I'm glad I didn't get called to their schools even more.  And many others their age and younger at my campus talked about it, too.  I simply cannot say for sure what I saw in his gesture -- in part because I'm such an old and bitter woman raised with better manners that I admittedly cannot even imagine a Senator doing so, and when asking for votes from others who will see such a video.)

    So I restricted my comment to the unequivocal part of that video, the hip-hop "Dirt on the Shoulder" and shoe routine that he did -- smirking throughout and to the delight of the audience.  With or without the debatable other gesture, the part I referenced is sufficiently disgusting to a colleague, a Senator more senior to him, a former First Lady respected around the world that can see the video now, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    No, actually, he was dusting off (1.00 / 0) (#203)
    by caseynm on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:24:34 PM EST
    the Stephanopoulis/Hillary jokefest that was supposed to be a debate but turned into a "what about your lapel pin" People Magazine discussion of irrelevant issues. The only thing that surprised me was that Stephanopoulis didn't ask him when he stopped beating his wife.

    [ Parent ]
    caseynm (5.00 / 2) (#229)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:22:05 PM EST
    If you're going to make a charge you're going to be asked for proof at this site.

    Your charge of collusion is despicable.

    The people here are far better informed than you.  You're in way over your head.

    [ Parent ]

    And he is supposed to be (none / 0) (#195)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:10:05 PM EST
    an "educated" man. Imagine if a person or persons did something like that in front of his wife, would he be so blaise about it? I think not.

    [ Parent ]
    This LIE is the most childish thing (1.00 / 1) (#177)
    by caseynm on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:48:20 PM EST
    I see with such frequency on this site.  He didn't flip her off.  Get over it and come into the adult world.

    [ Parent ]
    How do you know? (none / 0) (#191)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:04:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What do you mean how do I know? (none / 0) (#198)
    by caseynm on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:13:25 PM EST
    I watched the freaking video.   Why would you make the childish assumption that he would do something like this other than to be able to demonize him--which seems the main goal of many on this website.  What's the point? "If we demonize him enough, Hillary might pull it out?"

    If the folks on the fanatically pro-Obama sites are, as many seem to claim here in disgust, as venemous as suggested, perhaps the pro-Clinton fanatics on this site ought to take a look in the mirror and perform a little critical self-reflection (critical self-reflection not being one of the primary behavior traits of fanatics.) T%his place is pretty venemous and not very rational with some frequency.

    [ Parent ]

    Dont' insult my intelligence. (3.66 / 3) (#207)
    by MarkL on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:54:06 PM EST
    You can defend what he did or ignore it, but saying it didn't happen is outrageous.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't insult MY intelligence. (1.00 / 1) (#211)
    by caseynm on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    He isn't 15 y/o, and you are looking for anything to demonize him.

    To all appearances, Stephanopoulis coordinated that jokefest "debate" in Philly with Hillary. It MUST be true. Don't insult MY intelligence.

    Oh, wait.  It's a matter of interpretation.

    [ Parent ]

    Booing (none / 0) (#29)
    by Spike on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:50:10 PM EST
    I don't think Democrats should boo other Democrats. But in all honesty, I would have had to restrain myself from booing Terry McAuliffe if I had been there. Not because he was representing Hillary Clinton but because he represents everything that has traditionally been wrong with the Democratic Party. He is the ultimate Washington corporate insider Democrat. I thought it was a mistake from the beginning that Clinton made him the public face of her campaign. He represents business as usual, not change. His whole approach to political organizing is shaking down the wealthy donor. Internet fundraising will ultimately prove to be the savior of the Democratic Party because it is permitting us to be competitive in the money race by harnessing the power of a large number of small donors -- rather than coming in second in the Republican game of getting a relatively small number of large donors.  McAuliffe and his ilk are, thankfully, passing from the scene.

    [ Parent ]
    Obamabots keep proving... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Josey on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:02:49 PM EST
    Hate is a powerful drug - and huge doses of it cause CDS and a belief that the Clintons are responsible for all the evil in the world.
    A "unity" candidate wouldn't have thrown a large chunk of the Dem Party under the bus. But it was the only way he could win - the nomination.

    Obama is the insider candidate and Washington lobbyists funded his political career until he became a presidential candidate.
    Obama is the only Dem to state Bush and Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses!

    [ Parent ]

    Not an Obamabot and... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Spike on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    I assure you that I do not hate the Clintons or believe that they are responsible for all evil in the world. In fact, I worked in the Clinton White House for eight years and defended the president with every fiber of my being during impeachment. I'm very proud to have been a very small part of his many accomplishments. But I have personally concluded that Barack Obama is the right person to lead America into the future. That conclusion had everything to do with hope and absolutely nothing to do with hate.

    [ Parent ]
    Could you please tell me why? (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by dianem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:08:24 PM EST
    Hope is a lovely concept. I like hope. But I don't think that "Hope" makes a good campaign platform. I want to know what Obama is going to do that will be good for this nation. What promises has he made? What is his platform? And how is he going to do it?

    I can tell you what Clinton would bring. She is a policy wonk who knows enough about issues to be able to sort fact from fiction, good from bad. She would implement polices that protect children and enhance the lives of women and minorities. She would have a tough, no-nonsense foreign policy and our opponents would know that they can't BS her into agreeing to things that would hurt America. She would try to do the right thing, even if it cost her politically. She's not perfect, but she's honest, hard-working, and very smart. She has had life experiences that prepare her to deal with unforeseen challenges. So... what does Obama bring to the table?

    [ Parent ]

    The Why (none / 0) (#206)
    by Spike on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:41:41 PM EST
    For me, the hope reflects the answer to the "how is he going to do it?" question.

    I truly believe that Obama has the capacity to remake our politics. He has the vision, the leadership skills and -- most importantly -- the strategy to create a new progressive era.

    First, look at how he has run his campaign. He has outflanked an established candidate who had every advantage at her disposal. His campaign has been brilliantly conceived and executed with discipline. He has brought new people, new energy and new money into the process.

    Second, with his amazing fundraising capacity, Obama will be able to outspend McCain 2-1 without becoming indebted to big money donors. Obama will launch the most sophisticated general election campaign that America has ever seen.

    Third, Obama recently launched a 50 state voter registration drive that will apply the same organizing skills to dramatically increasing Democratic turnout in November. He is changing the game and changing the map. In addition to taking the Gore/Kerry states, Obama will bring Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia into play.

    Fourth, the beauty of the 50 state strategy is that it looks beyond the electoral college. This is more than winning an election, it is building a long-term governing majority. By boosting the prospects of down ballot Democrats in what will be a banner year for Democrats, it will not ensure that Obama will have significant Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. In addition, by permitting Democrats to take control of state legislatures, Democrats will be in position to draw Congressional district lines after the 2010 census, thereby cementing Democratic Congressional control for the next decade.

    Fifth, by drawing a stark policy contrast with John McCain in the fall, Obama will emerge with an overwhelming electoral mandate to get the US out of Iraq, create universal health coverage and revitalize the US economy. And he will have the Congressional majorities to make those policies the law of the land.

    [ Parent ]

    48 state strategy. Let's be real here ;) (5.00 / 0) (#221)
    by nycstray on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:53:22 PM EST
    remaking our politics needs to go beyond fund raising and voter registration. So let's leave out the marketing end of it and get down to the real issues, changing politics and running the country.

    • He has zero proven leadership skills.

    • Has run a divisive campaign and alienated voter demographics

    • Backs away from challenges: Tough states, debates, town halls, uncomfortable interviews and photo ops.

    • No major accomplishments in any of his past positions that he has obtained through his own hard work and initiation that I can see.

    • His policy plans are weak and vague. Kinda like he's compromised be before starting the talks.

    • He has no plans for REAL UH Coverage. And has run H&L ads straight out of the R playbook.

    • Has been attacking his opponents' character throughout the campaign.

    • He actually did get where he is from big money donors.

    That's just for starters. So, how is he changing, going to change things once he's in the WH?
    And how is he going to run the country?

    Remember, voter registration and fundraising are not the answer  ;)

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, but with all due respect... (none / 0) (#226)
    by Spike on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:09:35 PM EST
    ...you have just trotted out a highly subjective list of Obama's shortcomings as a candidate while ignoring the fact the he is on the verge of clinching the Democratic nomination. How do you explain the disconnect between your assessment of his skills and his obvious success?

    I see only two explanations.

    Either you are so biased as to be blind to Obama's considerable political skills;

    Or Hillary Clinton has run the worst political campaign of all time if she's about to lose to someone who is as bad as you say he is.

    Which is it?

    [ Parent ]

    He hasn't been winning much lately (5.00 / 0) (#227)
    by nycstray on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:19:33 PM EST
    now has he? Is there some reason he's rushing to close down this race? What are his considerable skills that will make him a good leader for this country?

    Hillary hasn't run a horrible campaign. In hindsight for her, I'm sure she would make some changes, as is evident by how her campaign has eveolved. His hasn't to any degree btw. I do think she has made some mistakes, but if it was the worst campaign in history, she would be lone gone and everyone would already be rallied behind Obama. Kinda funny how there has been a big rush of voters abandoning her for him . . .

    Much of Obama's success, imo, has to do with packaging, branding and sales. It's not too hard to sell product to the American consumers. They ran this campaign a couple times prior. Kinda like test marketing so to speak. I have to wonder how much buyers remorse there is out there . . .

    now that we are done with your sidetrack, how again is he going to change politics and lead the country?

    [ Parent ]

    No one that I know (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:24:50 PM EST
    is doubting Obama's considerable political skills.  As a pol coming out of South Chicago, he has learned from highly skilled people and hired some of the best political guns in the country.  It's his leadership experience that some of us question and his ethics. Running an effective campaign where your goal is to stamp out your opponent any way you can is different than running a government that represents the people - all of the people. His failure to recognize that his own divisive behavior is an impediment to the general election and his inability to control his message tell me that he lacks "the vision thing". And "the vision thing" is what he's running on. Running a military campaign that successfully overtakes a government requires different skills than the ones needed to govern in the aftermath.

    [ Parent ]
    Josey stop the insults (none / 0) (#205)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:32:22 PM EST
    to Obama supporters.

    That goes for all of you. If they post civilly and don't try to re-direct the conversation or spam the thread or post misinformation, don't jump on them.

    All points of view are welcome here. It's how they are expressed that matters.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh BS (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Mrwirez on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:11:14 PM EST
    The Obamabots are the ones who created this atmosphere of "HE IS THE ONE". If I was there I would have had my Hillary button on and booing the Obamabots also. The man is unelectable on a national scale. PA fugetta 'bout it. OH fugetta 'bout it. FL fugetta 'bout it. He won't win the battle ground states, and Clinton supporters are frustrated.

    Write in Hillary Campaign:   http://tinyurl.com/5hjncs

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Steve M on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    Do you have the same problem with Tom Daschle, who may end up being Obama's Chief of Staff?

    The sad reality for progressives is that there are too many villains out there to boo them all.  No one is pure, which is why I hate all this preening about how the other guy is always in the pocket of lobbyists.  Even when Edwards was my candidate I hated how he would go on and on about that.

    [ Parent ]

    Tough Question (none / 0) (#136)
    by Spike on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:55:09 PM EST
    Almost anyone who has enjoyed success in Washington has to some extent been tainted by the system. That would include Tom Daschle. But during his time in the House and Senate Daschle had many opportunities to demonstrate leadership on policy issues. The problem with folks like McAuliffe is that they are professional political hacks -- campaigns is all they do -- so they don't get to develop a reputation outside the taint of the political process. I always thought that Clinton would have been better served to choose a former elected official -- someone like George Mitchell -- to be the face of her campaign. But what do I know... :)

    [ Parent ]
    Which is why I am continually (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:24:45 PM EST
    astounded the Obama seems to be able to convince many he is a Washington "outsider," even though he is currently a U.S. Senator from IL.

    Almost anyone who has enjoyed success in Washington has to some extent been tainted by the system.

    [ Parent | Reply to This | 1 2 3 4 5  ]


    [ Parent ]
    especially with the backing he has (none / 0) (#170)
    by nycstray on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:43:01 PM EST
    Kennedy, Kerry and friends. lol!~

    [ Parent ]
    Nor to mention all those Super-Ds. (none / 0) (#184)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:55:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama's Backing (none / 0) (#208)
    by Spike on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:54:36 PM EST
    Obama didn't start with the backing of all those Washington establishment figures and superdelegates. He earned that support by his performance. He demonstrated that he could win, that he could speak and that he could raise money.

    [ Parent ]
    Can't argue with your last point. (none / 0) (#210)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:04:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:07:11 PM EST
    not shaking people down?

    Explain for us the Obama declaration that contributions to Democratic groups not connected to the party are forbidden and should be directed to him.

    His campaign even tried to shake down lobbyist's spouses.

    Obama is the party establishment's candidate the candidate of the Boston-DC axis. You think it's just a coincidence that, with the exception of Rhode Island, every New England Democratic Senator endorsed Obama? If Joe Lieberman had won his primary he would have been among the group endorsing Obama.  You do remember that Obama campaigned for Lieberman against Ned Lamont in the primary.

    So far as shaking down the wealthy is concerned what was Obama doing securing the wealthiest donors in Chicago as a prerequisite to his campaign.  Who do you suppose those people were at that little gig in San Francisco?  Most of them, by the way, normally Republican donors. You think they're donating for some 'cause?' They're donating for ACCESS and Obama is giving them that access by allowing them to have weekly input to his policy staff? You think ordinary folks have access to his policy staff? Where do you think the money in Obama's PAC came from?  You know, the PAC he's using to buy SDs. Different source of money for PACs, higher contribution levels allowed. You think all of that Obama money comes from folks a sendin in 20 or 50 here, a hundred there?

    Change! The only change Obama represents is the Village establishment trying to get rid of the Clinton group and their constituency once and for all. You know the Clinton group, the group that actually wins. A constituency with roots all the way back to the Truman Administration. What do you think was happening in the Village all during the 90s?

    This campaign is about the DC elite establishment getting rid of the Bubbas.

    As for booing any Democratic party operative, I certainly couldn't do it.  Whether I agree with them or not, whether I like them or not, it should be remembered that these people have spent a good share of their lives working for the Democratic Party and quibbles about who they are for or against don't trump that fact.

    [ Parent ]

    wealthy donors (none / 0) (#185)
    by Josey on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:57:19 PM EST
    >>>>he represents everything that has traditionally been wrong with the Democratic Party....His whole approach to political organizing is shaking down the wealthy donor

    McAuliffe has done nothing comparable to ObamaInc throwing a big chunk of the Dem Party under the bus.
    When a "unity" candidate has to divide to win - it's obvious he was never interested in unity.

    Well heck! Obama can't even visit small towns after explaining to his wealthy donors that Democrats not voting for him were racists, clinging to their guns and religion.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you guys here (1.00 / 1) (#204)
    by caseynm on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:27:27 PM EST
    peeled yourselves off because Hillary wasn't as inevitable as she thought.

    Don't blame Obama for Hillary's poor campaign strategy.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is the insider candidate (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Josey on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    When was the last time the Washington establishment ran a newbie senator for the purpose of "changing" THEM??
    ha!

    What about FDR?? (1.00 / 2) (#41)
    by TheKSG on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    He served a session as state senator (less time than Barack), and only one full two year term as governor before running for President.  He didn't do all that poorly now did he...

    [ Parent ]
    FDR was willing to step up to the plate (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:35:00 PM EST
    after Herbert Hoover because he knew exactly what to do with the economy.  Hillary is the same way.  She knows exactly how to deal with the economy.  Obama?  I can't say the same thing about him.

    [ Parent ]
    You forgot a few details (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by dianem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:35:39 PM EST
    FDR served 7 years as Assistant Secretary of the Navy.  He also had a Presidential campaign under his belt - he was VP candidate on the Cox ticket in 1920. Oh... and he was governor of New York for most of 2 terms, during the Tammany Hall era, even though he openly opposed Tammany Hall.

    [ Parent ]
    But was FDR editor of the Harvard (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by MarkL on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:55:38 PM EST
    Law Review?
    I"m sure the Obama supporters know about that. In fact, maybe one of them could dig up some of his writing from his tenure at the Harvard Law Review, to show how brilliant he was.

    [ Parent ]
    Oops, he never wrote for the Law Review (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:11:14 PM EST
    so I read on a lawyers' blog -- an astonishing omission, as they said Obama was the only head of the Harvard Law Review never to write an article for it.  (And they had other unkind things to say about his years there, from a book about the mess left after him and from a content analysis that showed fewer citations -- a measure of its contribution to the profession, to the scholarly body of knowledge about the law, etc. -- of the Harvard Law Review from his year than from any other year in its history.)

    Btw, I learned a lot more that, once again, shows the distortions of the "Obamastory."  He was not the editor of the Harvard Law Review; the position had recently changed to "president" of the law review board.  But that allows him to make the claim that he was the first black in the position at the Harvard Law Review.

    Actually, the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review happened 60 years before. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    And... (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by MonaL on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:59:53 PM EST
    he was elected as President.  Kind like prom/homecoming king.  

    [ Parent ]
    I missed where Obama was asst. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MarkL on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:47:14 PM EST
    secretary of the Navy for 7 years. FDR held that post from 1913-1920, which includes WWI.
    That is a hefty item on a resume. Wonder why you didn't mention Obama's lack of anything comparable.

    [ Parent ]
    Not elected... (1.00 / 0) (#158)
    by TheKSG on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:25:54 PM EST
    Not an elected position, nor especially high.  In fact, except for the Roosevelts, I don't know anyone who held the position.  I'd count that as much as Obama's position as president of the HLR -- that is, I don't count it for much w/ respect to qualification for higher office.

    [ Parent ]
    KSG (none / 0) (#163)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:34:29 PM EST
    You have 20 comments here today. As a new user, you are limited to 10. Please come back another day. No more today.

    [ Parent ]
    But he was (none / 0) (#174)
    by DJ on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:45:42 PM EST
    An Asst. Professor and an Asst. Attorney

    [ Parent ]
    Oh pleeze, are you comparing Obama to FDR (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:16:40 PM EST
    because if you are, go back and re-read your history. Read about the USA back then, the people who lived in the USA back then, the hope, the dreams, the sorrow, the pain, the work-ethic, the respect of others, the all pulling together at an extremely difficult time. What has Obama said to this country to inspire? We need change? GWB said the same thing back in 2000. GWB said he could work accross the isle to get things done in Washington? What has Obama said, what has he done. What is his position on the supreme court, global warming, the ecomony and on and on. His opinions change depending of who he is with and talking to about it (it's a proven fact in print!).

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, has someone cloned FDR? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:03:34 PM EST
    Guess not.  

    [ Parent ]
    I suggest ignoring (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Foxx on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:51:52 PM EST
    Obama posters.

    Ignore (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    I agree. Especially when their posts are poorly written. I can't believe my five year old niece needs pocket money this badly.

    [ Parent ]
    I personally enjoy (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:00:33 PM EST
    asking them to "bring me to Obama".

    Haven't seen a single competent salesperson yet.  Maybe they need a new product?

    [ Parent ]

    They obviously don't know the first thing (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by MarkL on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:35:33 PM EST
    about Obama. There's no meat in their comments at all. Where did they get these people?

    [ Parent ]
    Lord knows I do n/t (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by stefystef on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:07:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    OK here is an Alternative (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Mrwirez on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    To Barack Obama. I found this link for a Hillary write-in campaign. This is what I am gonna do.

    http://tinyurl.com/5hjncs

    Blogging the convention person (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MichaelGale on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:07:05 PM EST
    states he practices medicine? I hope the universe protects the people of Colorado from practitioners like him.

    He abuses Hillary but certainly includes every judgment possible against anyone who bothers him.

    What a petulant person.

    I wonder what (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by April on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:09:51 PM EST
    Clinton supporters had to say in their blogs at the convention.

    I am sure it was all sweetness and light for Obama, right?

    Come on, both sides have passionate partisan supporters.

    I support Obama. And thankfully in my state of Colorado, he won!

    [ Parent ]

    Ok.... (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by lilburro on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:28:44 PM EST
    you are shaping up to be a concern troll for Obama supporters not being as bad as we think.  I am sure that is true - but saying it once can be as effective as saying it 1000 times.  Please, do not be a concern troll on this issue.  Instead, give us your thoughts on something more substantive.  I would appreciate hearing them!

    I won't get into which type of supporter is worse, but the booing of Hillary definitely hurts.  It's not right.  

    [ Parent ]

    If you have facts... bring them on (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by dianem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:10:45 PM EST
    This is not the right site for this kind of speculation. Go find some examples, from reliable news sources, of bad behavior on the part of Clinton supporter's. But even if you do... remember that "She did it too" isn't a valid defense, anywhere.

    [ Parent ]
    O supporters (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by margph on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    I wonder how much April is getting an our.  From what I can tell, she has put in a little over 30 minutes on this one.  It sounds too canned for me -- not really from the heart.

    "Her" talking points are dreadful. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:18:43 PM EST
    Cotton candy has more substance!

    [ Parent ]
    I heard a snob remark once (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:47:47 PM EST
    "one is only insulted by someone they feel is better than they are."  And I am pleased that you feel we here at TL are better than you.

    [ Parent ]
    Insulted comment noted (3.00 / 2) (#82)
    by April on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:24:12 PM EST
     You obviously are not interested in changing the tone, or you would stop with the ugly comments.

     I am not worried about you insulting remarks. I just want you to make a note of the fact that YOU are doing exactly what you accuse Obama supporters of doing.
     

    [ Parent ]

    YOU obviously came here to stir up (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by MarkL on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    trouble, and look for "insulting comments".
    Agitprop is very Obama style.

    [ Parent ]
    Do I lie? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:33:00 PM EST
    Or have your comments here indeed been lacking substance and long on emotion?  Indeed you have yet to provide anything worth discussing even when I ask you to.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you interested (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by sumac on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:37:03 PM EST
    in actually talking about anything of substance? Or did you just come here to tell us how insulting we are? Mean ol' Hillary supporters.

    This is boring.

    [ Parent ]

    The tone is what you bring with you. (none / 0) (#186)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:57:41 PM EST
    I am simply holding up a mirror so you can see how you sound and look to me. And by the way, I will never vote for Obama and so will the other seven members of my family.  People like you only increases my resolve. Besides, we expect Hillary to be the dem nominee in August. And I remember one Obama campaign to the republicans about "being a democrat for a day."  I'll have the mirror version of that in November, just in case.  

    [ Parent ]
    No, we're not doing that (none / 0) (#200)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:17:03 PM EST
    because that would require making fun of your candidate, and we are not doing that -- we are debating your points about your candidate.  That's what this blog does.

    Now, admittedly, some are making fun of your inability to make good points about your candidate.    But you know what you can do about that: Do some research, come on back, and be ready to really contribute with better points about your candidate.

    That's what it will take to convince us to vote for him, and that's what you're being paid to do.  I hope.  That is, I hope this blogblitz is not just about junking up our blogs, because that hardly would convince us of a good candidate or campaign that can win the White House.  Such a campaign tactic, when tried on the good GOP blogs, would make you and your candidate into lunch meat -- because they're not nearly as nice as we are.

    [ Parent ]

    Insulting comment noted. (2.33 / 3) (#78)
    by April on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:21:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    FDR isn't running. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:24:47 PM EST
    There's no point in bringing him up unless you bring up enough data to prove your point.  The plural of anecdote is not data.

    It's just a transparent deflection.  Obama is Obama.  He's no FDR.  

    And, this is a very different America (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:33:35 PM EST
    than the one FDR governed.

    The size of the population alone is enough to know we need better than a short-term Senator with no leadership over anything but a college publication (where his performance is unknown)to give us for qualifications.

    He spent 4 young childhood years in Indonesia, a few weeks in the middle east on vacation, and some time in Kenya helping out his relatives and claims foreign affairs is his strong suit!!


    [ Parent ]

    I get it... (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TheKSG on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:28:00 PM EST
    Since Obama can only be Obama, by definition, I can't name any one else?  Hence the very question is flawed (as the questioner was asking me to name someone else).  By your reasoning anyone else that I name is not Obama, hence not an answer to the question.

    Good ploy.  Typically Q&A on this message board.  Disingenuous question, since you never really wanted an answer.

    [ Parent ]

    You're just trying to incite (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:36:08 PM EST
    with your posts.

    If you want to join the conversation rather than attempt to control it, change your approach. Please.


    [ Parent ]

    Why do I get the blame? (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by TheKSG on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:39:56 PM EST
    Why do I get the blame when most of the posts are equally derisive against Obama?  No one seems to police most of the other posters...  Are you honestly saying that it's only my posts that seem negative.

    [ Parent ]
    You would have more fun at HuffPo (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:44:03 PM EST
    This site is fun and informative until people who just want to argue show up.

    You clearly just want to argue.


    [ Parent ]

    Don't ask for honesty when you have none. (none / 0) (#234)
    by feet on earth on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:50:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Piece by piece (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by dianem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:28:01 PM EST
    1. There are few here who claim that Obama is sexist, although the recent "sweetie" incident did raise some issues. The claims are that the media and Obama's supporters have been using sexist attacks on Clinton.
    2. I am unaware of intellectuals who are "deferring" to Obama. Perhaps you could point to some examples. Krugman is not a good public speaker, and does not debate well, but he always comes to debates prepared with facts and solid arguments. Obama, in spite of his legendary public speaking skills, fails at debates because he is not able to intellectually rise to the challenge. Given his public speaking skills, he should be an amazing debater.  
    3. Obama has played the race card by distorting things said by Hillary's camp in order to make people angry at Clinton's supposed racism. It's a classic straw man technique - claim that your opponent said something they didn't, then knock it down. This is what allowed him to win the primary - and, in the process, divided the Party.
    4. He is divisive, but he did not need to be. He could have chosen to not attack Clinton and dismiss her supporter's, including many voter's in MI and FL, but he allowed his campaign organizer's to run the most divisive campaign in recent Democratic history. He claimed for a long time to be above negative campaigning, even as he and his surrogates attacked Clinton constantly, beginning with the "Senator from Punjab" attacks last year.
    5. Elitism isn't about where you come from - it is about where you are. Obama claims to be qualified to be President in spite of minimal experience, based on only his popularity and ability to inspire. He has said some very dismissive things about blue-collar voter's. People from humble backgrounds can be elitist. In fact, most people from truly powerful backgrounds learn not to be elitist.


    Not Bad Analysis (1.00 / 0) (#187)
    by Spike on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:57:53 PM EST
    I don't agree with your analysis but I will admit that it is thoughtful. I would see it somewhat differently.

    1. I haven't seen sexism coming directly from the official Obama camp. While there has certainly been an anti-Clinton bias in some parts of the media -- ie Chris Matthews -- I'll leave it to others to determine if that's the result of sexism or just left over anti-Clinton bias from the '90s.

    2. Obama's problem as a debater is, IMHO, because he is too intellectual, not because he falls short intellectually. I think he gets too wrapped up in dry wonk speak and loses sight of the need to deliver the memorable sound bite.

    3. Historians will determine who played the race card. For many of us Obama supporters, it was Bill Clinton who was trying to brand Obama the "black candidate" to undermine his appeal to white voters after seeing the results in Iowa and New Hampshire. For Obama, it never made sense to play the race card because the upside of increasing the black vote was never enticing enough to risk the downside of alienating the white vote.

    4. I don't think Obama has been any more divisive than he had to be. The only thing he's been guilty of is (a) winning primaries and caucuses; and (b) fighting back when attacked. The campaign only became negative during the Wisconsin primary when the Clinton campaign concluded that they were in too deep a hole to win with a high road strategy. When they launched the attack on Obama he had no choice but to respond in kind. If he had not struck back at Clinton he would have been derided as a wimp who would never survive the Republican attack in the fall. The Clinton campaign forced Obama to attack. And he acquitted himself well.

    5. Barack Obama is no more an elitist than Hillary Clinton or John McCain. This is nothing more than a Republican talking point that the Obama campaign must be prepared to respond to.


    [ Parent ]
    There's more substance in Obama's (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by MarkL on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:30:57 PM EST
    campaign speech than your rant.
    Give it a rest.

    How about Kerry's statement (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:40:15 PM EST
    that Obama was best because he is black? That didn't get any backlash because he's on Obama's team. No apology needed, and no accusations of the comment being racist.

    What's the quote?? (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by TheKSG on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:43:29 PM EST
    I had never heard Kerry say that he was only supporting Obama because he was Black.  That would be like some Clinton supporters only supporting Hillary because she's a woman.  Now certainly some people will support Clinton/Obama because they are female/black, but I've never heard any major political figure support one or the other solely for that reason, as you seem to suggest.

    [ Parent ]
    They never actually say that (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by dianem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:48:51 PM EST
    It's always phrased as "we want to show the world that America has moved forward".  The implication is always clear: We are endorsing Obama because we want to show that we're not racists. Oddly, if anybody says something even vaguely similar about Clinton, they immediately are torn down for supporting Clinton merely because she is a woman.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually... (1.00 / 2) (#139)
    by TheKSG on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:01:29 PM EST
    I've heard people say that it would be great to elect a woman president.  In fact, I think Hillary even said it relatively recently.  I've heard admonish that if Hillary isn't elected they don't know when they'll see a woman president.  I actually hear such statements very often.  Honestly, you don't?

    [ Parent ]
    Different matter (none / 0) (#147)
    by dianem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:13:50 PM EST
    Many people have said that it would be good to elect a woman President OR a black President. I actually hear both statements frequently, and have even said both myself. That isn't the same as saying "I'm endorsing Clinton/Obama because it will show that we're not sexist/racist". When somebody says that, or implies it, they are almost invariably falling down on Obama's side of the aisle.

    [ Parent ]