home

Primary Eve Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:40:19 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm just getting in from work and haven't seen any news yet today. Thanks to Big Tent Democrat and TChris for their postings.

Here's another open thread until I get up to speed, which will could be a while.

Reminder: If you see a troublemaker or chatterer, don't fall for it. Respond with the words "site violator" and the posters name in the subject line. Leave the comment area blank. That way others will know not to respond and when I get to it I can delete the comments and ban the poster if I agree.

To new users: While all points of view are welcome here, we don't let new posters post more than 10 comments a day and chatterers are limited to 4 a day. URL's must be in html format or they skew the site and your comment will be deleted. Use the link button at the top of your comment box to paste in the url or got to tinyurl.com

Finally, no race-baiting and no calling anyone a racist. Read the comment rules.

< Ohio GE Poll: Clinton Wins, Obama Does Not | Hillary to Obama: "It's Nowhere Near Over" >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Primary Eve Open Thread | 176 comments (176 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Rise Hillary Rise!! (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:44:37 PM EST


    Be polished like gold! (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by stillife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:46:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama had free concert on Sunday with 16 bands (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by suzieg on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:33:31 AM EST
    My friend in Portland told me the reason why Obama looked as if he attracted 65,000 people was for the only reason that he sponsored a free concert - most came for the music and got Obama also which made for good theatrics but like everything else in his campaign - it was a delusion!

    [ Parent ]
    Rock bands brought out 80,000 for Kerry (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:38:39 AM EST
    in Madison, Wisconsin, a week before the election.  A week later, Kerry almost lost the state, the closest state in 2004.  Rock concerts do not reassure me as to our chances with Obama this time around, either.

    [ Parent ]
    Illegitimate (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:47:37 PM EST
    I didn't think the Democratic party would stand for ignoring 30 million voters in the 4th and 8th largest states in the country when selecting a nominee.

    This will be as legitimate as W being installed by the Supreme Court.

    They will be seated (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:50:23 PM EST
    just not until they won't affect the outcome which is shameful

    You vote to have your voice heard

    [ Parent ]

    Shameful, indeed (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by znosaro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:55:08 PM EST
    Democracy is NOT about punishing voters!
    Democracy IS about voters punishing incompentent, inept, and destructive leaders!

    Howard... Donna... Barack... we're looking at you.
    Seat the delegates!

    [ Parent ]

    "Seat the delegates!" (none / 0) (#21)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:01:24 PM EST
    Seating the delegates is and always has been a forgone conclusion. So, any movement to seat FL and MI's delegates is about as urgent as signing a petition for the sun to rise tomorrow. It's happening no matter what.

    [ Parent ]
    Then why (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:06:04 PM EST
    have they waited this long and p-ssed off so many voters in MI and FL?  Just stupid.

    [ Parent ]
    they waited to give the appearance (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by g8grl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:43:08 AM EST
    that Hillary is out of it.  That way they can talk about the numbers being so against her.  IF they had seated the FLA/MI delegates earlier, Obama would not be able to talk about being so far ahead of the numbers.  Certainly wouldn't have been able to talk about it pre-PA/OH.  It's all a scam.

    [ Parent ]
    Michigan... (2.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:57:52 PM EST
    ...really was screwed in all of this.  They didn't even get a chance to meaningfully participate.  At least voters in Florida had all of the candidates.

    [ Parent ]
    Not true (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:00:51 PM EST
    55 percent, a majority voted for Hillary. Two other candidates voluntarily chose to take their name off the ballot.

    Not counting Michigan is punishing Hillary's supporters.  

    [ Parent ]

    No... (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:10:07 PM EST
    ...there were more than three people running in the race, and a bunch of them withdrew their names.  The only two who left their names on voluntarily were Clinton and Dodd. What's more, her campaign chair threatened to do what the DNC did four years year ago.  

     Trying to rewrite history on this front is not helpful.  

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for reinforcing my point (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:14:04 PM EST
    I don't think you intended to but you did. They VOLUNTARILY took their name off the ballot, and Hillary didn't.

    55 percent voted for Hillary, a majority. Why shouldn't their vote count?

    [ Parent ]

    It will... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:31:39 PM EST
    ...there will probably be some punishment, but they'll be seated.  

     I never said they didn't voluntarily withdraw their names...but the two candidates who voluntarily kept their names on, one of whom was assuring pissed off voters in IA and NH that they would not be counted anyway, were hardly being honest about what they were doing.

     Why shouldn't their vote count?

     There were always problems with "just" counting Michigan as is.  The DNC had told them their primary was irrelevant, so a lot of voters didn't show up.  Senator Clinton's supporters had more of a reason to show up and vote, if they knew that there was some chance the DNC would change its mind later.  And still some 45% voted uncommitted.  

    [ Parent ]

    I think it's more fair to give Obama votes (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:35:31 PM EST
    from MI than FL. He should be stripped of all delegates from FL for egregiously violating the rule against not campaigning.

    [ Parent ]
    And why did those (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:37:27 PM EST
    people show up to vote "uncommitted?"

    The campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards are urging their supporters to cast ballots for "uncommitted," according to state Democratic party chairman Mark Brewer. The Obama campaign says there may be "grass-roots efforts," but that the Chicago-based campaign is not involved.

    source.

    [ Parent ]

    count all votes (none / 0) (#133)
    by JON15 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:08:36 PM EST
    Really....Could the Democratic Party leaders look
    any more retarted? They keep talking about rules.
    The only rule in this Democracy is.... EVERY VOTE
    COUNTS.....PERIOD. The primary was held, votes
    tallied and recognized by the Secretary of State,
    end of story. If BO can only win by not counting
    votes, like GW in 2000, than he should not be
    given the nomination. I think the Democratic
    Party has had a collective nervous breakdown.
    It is out of control. Hillary should run as an
    Independant....GO HILLARY


    [ Parent ]
    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:25:27 PM EST
    Hillary Rodham Clinton   328,309       55.2%
    Uncommitted               238,168       40.1%
    Dennis J. Kucinich         21,715       3.7 %
    Christopher J. Dodd         3,845       0.6%
    Mike Gravel                 2,361       0.4

    source.

    So the "bunch" of them that took their name off the ballot where Obama and Richardson, Edwards and Biden?

    [ Parent ]

    good one! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:26:05 PM EST
    I thought it was more than two.

    [ Parent ]
    Kucinich... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:40:43 PM EST
    ...tried, and was unsuccessful.  

     Regardless, reading into the results is tea leaves.  Voters were told that it would not count, the media was saying that it would not count, and there you have it.

     Situation is very different in Florida.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    why is it different in Fl (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:42:25 PM EST
    weren't the voters there told it wouldn't count as well? I mean if that is your criteria?

    [ Parent ]
    Florida... (2.50 / 2) (#71)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:47:45 PM EST
    ...had all of the names on, so you had an impetus to go out if were a supporter and you thought it would make a difference later on.  Michigan is just impossible to discern.

    [ Parent ]
    One thing is CERTAIN about Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:55:28 PM EST
    55 percent of voters, voted for Hillary. Period. Michigan would've had all candidates on the ballot if they hadn't voluntarily taken them off.

    [ Parent ]
    Why did Obama allow the (none / 0) (#151)
    by ding7777 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:17:18 AM EST
    Florida Party's Executive Committee to vote his name onto the ballot 3 weeks after requesting his name be removed from MI?

    Obama took his name off the MI ballot October 9, 2007

    The Florida Party's Executive Committee [] voted to place the eight major Democratic Presidential candidates on the [] ballot on October 28, 2007.

    Obama screwed up in MI - not the voters or the SD's.

    [ Parent ]

    And Rep Conyers and others (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:47:09 PM EST
    were running a series of "Vote Uncommitted" campaigns as support for Edwards and Obama.

    My fave line of the article?

    Rarely do people work so hard to drum up votes for no one in particular.


    [ Parent ]
    Media is saying votes don't count now. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by DJ on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:41:06 AM EST
    And people are still showing up in West Virginia...Kentucky...Oregon.

    [ Parent ]
    Voters were told it would not count (none / 0) (#131)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:03:31 PM EST
    but over half a million of them turned out anyway. And Obama wants votes he didn't earn after taking himself off the ballot. Oh, that's fair! Not.

    [ Parent ]
    1.7 million (none / 0) (#153)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:37:10 AM EST
    not to nitpick your number, but it is even more insane with the real number of voters!

    [ Parent ]
    sorry, you're talking about MI (none / 0) (#154)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:37:45 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    hey alec babeeee....Gravel and Kucinich (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:39:16 PM EST
    were on the ballot too.  F-O-C-U-S

    [ Parent ]
    Both Obama and Edwards (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:52:33 PM EST
    urged their voters to vote Undecided.

    It's hardly Hillary's fault that both tried to game the system; there was no requirement whatever in the agreement that she take her name off the ballot.

    It's hardly fair for the DNC to punish the voters of Michigan for Obama's tactical mistakes.

    What Obama should have done was work out the revote proposal; Carville put $15 million on the table, and Obama has more money than God. If Obama had said Yes, the state would have fallen in line, and found a way.

    [ Parent ]

    It Is No One's Fault But obama's That His (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:34:16 PM EST
    name was NOT on the ballot in MI.  It was his choice and now he has to pay the price.

    [ Parent ]
    The DNC Needs To Be Bombard With (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:37:21 PM EST
    emails and phone calls....more than they have ever received before!

    [ Parent ]
    They don't care (none / 0) (#159)
    by suzieg on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:35:04 AM EST
    hey figure that it's their year and are willing that people will come around in 6 months - I truly hope that they get a nasty surprise!

    [ Parent ]
    For the Buffy/Angel/Firefly fans (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by cloudy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:51:41 PM EST
    Just read somewhere that Joss Whedon has a new show named Dollhouse on Fox this Fall.  Starring Eliza Dushku (Buffy).  

    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:56:07 PM EST
    ...and the guy who plays Helo on BSG is going to be the FBI agent tracking down the dollhouse organization.  It is an interesting concept, they are given new personalities to complete the tasks they are hired for.  

     Alas, its presence on Fox may herald its doom.

    [ Parent ]

    Why is Joss working with Fox? (none / 0) (#26)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:04:45 PM EST
    After the travesty that was the cancellation of Firefly, you would think he'd stay far, far away from Fox.

    [ Parent ]
    Joss said (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:52:52 PM EST
    that it's a new bunch of folks he's working with at Fox (I don't keep track of network execs so don't know if that's true) and it's a whole different game with them.

    I'd guess at the very least he would have insisted on some sort of 'no-stupidhead-interference' clause from them before making a deal.

    I have to say, the plot doesn't excite me but neither did Firefly's, so I'll def. watch.

    [ Parent ]

    happy happy joy joy (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:37:56 PM EST
    as the proud owner of all 12 btvs and angel boxsets, i cannot WAIT for faith and josh to get back together in a show.

    [ Parent ]
    Heard a rumor that there may be another (none / 0) (#12)
    by FLVoter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:53:25 PM EST
    Firefly movie?  Anyone know if this is true?

    [ Parent ]
    don't know... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:54:35 PM EST
    But I saw Ironman last night. You have to stay past the credits for the blip at the end.

    [ Parent ]
    Marvel... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:00:33 PM EST
    ...has developed a plan for doing Thor and Captain America, a sequel to Iron Man, and with the new Hulk movie they'll have quite the franchise and the perfect set up for the ensemble.

    [ Parent ]
    I loved Iron Man (none / 0) (#22)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:01:56 PM EST
    Robert Downey Jr was amazing.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:21:27 PM EST
    ...you really couldn't have picked a better Iron Man.  I don't even really like the character in the comic books, but he did a bang up job.

    [ Parent ]
    Downey Jr. is supposed to have a (none / 0) (#103)
    by Rhouse on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:14:25 PM EST
    cameo in the new Hulk movie.  I believe he's trying to sell a "Hulk Buster Suit" to the Army.


    [ Parent ]
    Ahhh, now here's a topic we can all agree on! (none / 0) (#23)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:03:23 PM EST
    Though Eliza Dushku played Faith, not Buffy. Maybe you meant she was on Buffy?

    Either way, looking forward to checking it out!

    [ Parent ]

    Oh! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by cloudy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:09:52 PM EST
    I meant she was ON Buffy.  :)  Amy Acker (Angel) is said to be cast also.  Joss actually did an interview about Fox saying he had no hard feelings/was happy to be there.  Tho I'm guessing that's what you have to say if they're paying you for your show.  Here's hoping they don't screw it up.

    [ Parent ]
    Even Tho Faith Was Evil, I Really Liked Her! (none / 0) (#76)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:50:16 PM EST
    And I love seeing the guy who played Xander on Criminal Minds.  

    [ Parent ]
    Favorite Faith scene. (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Fabian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:12:59 PM EST
    She kicks undead butt and then propositions Xander.  Afterwards...Xander is all chummy with his hot new girlfriend, only to have her dump him like week old trash.  When he attempts to argue with her, she implies that his options are "Leave now." or "Leave in an ambulance.".

    [ Parent ]
    hah... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:25:23 PM EST
    ..wasn't that the zeppo? That was a great episode.

    [ Parent ]
    Required viewing for middle school (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Fabian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:52:48 PM EST
    girls - if I had my way.

    The gender reversal is obvious, and the proposition is without the usual bs lines, but the lesson is still the same.  That guy you think is soooo hot and sooo great might just be a total d!ck.

    [ Parent ]

    That's... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:25:59 PM EST
    ...pure Whedon. Of course, the Buffyverse is full of such examples.  I have been trying to turn my sister onto it (and Veronica Mars) because I think a lot of what she prefers is...awful, as far as that message goes.

    [ Parent ]
    This is pathetic (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by stillife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:07:33 PM EST
    and scary:

    Obama stumped by question about the Hanford site

    But I guess he doesn't need to actually be informed on the issues, b/c he has such good judgment.

    And yet people are still voting for him (5.00 / 8) (#36)
    by angie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:13:08 PM EST
    He signs the Bush/Cheney energy bill. He completely guts his own nuclear legislation because of pressure from the nuclear industry. He thinks Lake Erie is in Oregon. He hasn't heard of the Hanford site. He thinks they speak Arabic in Afghanistan. And he will win Oregon -- which is supposed to be so "green" and "educated" -- tomorrow.
    Mother of God, help me understand!

    [ Parent ]
    Makes me wonder (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by stillife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:14:25 PM EST
    who are the real low information voters.

    [ Parent ]
    This is another example of the (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:14:59 PM EST
    press bias...the meme on Obama is that he is so bright...Bush is a dufus...if Bush had made any of the mistakes Obama has made it would be front page news...he doesn't even know IL borders KY!

    [ Parent ]
    Ditto for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by stillife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:16:59 PM EST
    everybody would be saying he's senile.  What's Obama's excuse?

    I predict, if Obama is our next President, there will be "Obama-Speak" books.  

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe Rev. Wright Can Help Him Find The (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:35:43 PM EST
    answer.  More and more I have to wonder why anyone would consider obama for president, or even senator for that matter.

    [ Parent ]
    Sen. Obama, couple of more questions . . . (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by wurman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:42:18 PM EST
    Sen. Obama, what do you think of the fits & starts & occasional problems at the Umatilla (Oregon) Chemical Depot & the long-term effects of incinerating dangerous military warfare toxins?

    Chirp, chirp, link.

    Perhaps you could discuss Hanford & Umatilla with Senators Wyden, Smith, Murray, or Cantwell.  Ever met any of those people?

    Didn't think so.  Perhaps you could defer to their judgements?  Well, maybe not, hunh?

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting quote from the article (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by nycstray on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:43:54 PM EST
    "We feel that an Obama White House will be much more favorable to environmental cleanup than the Bush administration," he said.

    But will it be more favorable than a Clinton or McCain admin? Being better than Bush at something is hardly a stretch . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Good god, if that is where the bar (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:49:27 PM EST
    is set.....who can't be president?

    [ Parent ]
    I like this one (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:50:03 PM EST
    "Here's something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I'm not familiar with the Hanford site..."

    No, you will not hear that from other politicians, because the other politicians, especially the ones in this race, KNOW what the Hanford site is and can tell you exactly what they are going to do about it.

    You goober.

    [ Parent ]

    In fact, you would (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:07:05 PM EST
    never hear that from anyone with any cred as an environmentalist.  Hanford has been a poster chid for years, maybe even decades.  No wonder RFK, Jr. endorsed Hillary.

    I was going to say that at least this might mean Gore won't endorse him, then I remembered he gets his big endorsements right after he fails miserably with the groups championed by the endorser.  I expect Gore to come out for him tomorrow.

    Wake up progressives, before it is too late.


    [ Parent ]

    No Surprise Here (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by CDN Ctzn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:33:41 PM EST
    One of his biggest contributers is the Nuclear Energy lobby. Remember during one of the debates,(I believe it was Nevada), when both Clinton and Edwards promised to put a hiatus on Nuclear energy, Obama said he would but only if it could be proven that Nuclear energy is unsafe.
    Hanford who?

    [ Parent ]
    He promised to catch up on the issue (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by katiebird on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:04:10 PM EST
    on the way to the airport.  Isn't that good enough for you?

    [ Parent ]
    I cannot get over how stupid the DNC and (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by kenosharick on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:10:01 PM EST
    Obama campaign must think the voters (esp. of Fla/Mich)are- they can weigh in after the decision has been made! A Dem CANNOT win the WH by losing Oh,Penn,Fla, and Mich. Obama is losing Wis, and is tied in Mass. He is NOT winning in the "new strategy" states of Va,Ga.,and NC. Where is the upside in making him the nominee? Are the supers that stupid? or do they hate the Clintons so much that they are purposely throwing this election away? It boggles the mind. AND THEY THINK I WILL JUST FALL INTO LINE???? They can go to hell. They have decided to put mccain in the WH, not me.

    Tied in Mass. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:02:03 PM EST
    Could someone point me to the numbers showing he's tied in Massachusetts?  I keep seeing references here but I can't find anything on RCP, and tried googling but only come up with about a million polls from Super Tues.  Maybe I'm just a crappy web researcher, but I'm having probs finding anything recent.

    [ Parent ]
    Valhalla- I was referring to polling (none / 0) (#166)
    by kenosharick on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    I saw from late April by Survey USA that had Barack up by 2 in Mass, while Hillary wins by 15. My point was that with Obama we will need to spend time and money defending normally solid Dem states. Obama probably would squeak out Mass- but with a lot of effort that could be used elsewhere.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's an intra-party power issue. If not, (none / 0) (#150)
    by DeborahNC on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:05:23 AM EST
    why do they seem to support the weaker candidate? If their objective was to win in November, they would not have cast their support for Obama, and as such, put their credibility on the line.

    I think it's an effort to sideline the Clintons because they are popular with many Americans and steal the thunder of other party members. Clearly, the Clintons have garnered power within the party, and some factions within the party want to dilute that power.

    And perhaps more importantly, with some Dems, it boils down to petty vindictiveness, because some of these Clinton saboteurs harbor resentments because of perceived slights to them by the Clintons throughout the years. Examined by a rational mind, such behavior is nonsensical and juvenile, because through the Clinton's success, the party has gained. There was a recent article in the Boston Globe enumerating some of these person grievances.

    Whatever their reasoning, at the least, these vendettas are counterproductive for the Party, which ultimately adversely affects other Dems over the long haul.


    [ Parent ]

    The problem with the Clintons is (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:41:30 AM EST
    that they are massively successful at all their endeavors while their fellow Democrats are not. Back in the Reagan administration, the Dems were pretty much sidelined by Ronnie's popularity. Yes, he was popular, for all the wrong reasons, but still popular is popular. None of the Dems had the fundraising chops that Reagan had. Then along comes the two little hillbillies, fortuitously named Hill and Billy, who teamed up with Pamela Harriman and PAMPAC to raise money for the Dem cause. They were very, very, successful. And he was running for President. She was a formidable entity in her own right, no Nancy Reagan or housewife type was Hillary Clinton. They rolled across the country, raising huge amounts of money, and campaigning for local Dems. They made it look easy. The Democrats haven't raised that much money that fast since, despite Obama's claims to the contrary. That got the majority of the Congressional Dems and state Dems behind the Clintons. Ooops!! They weren't supposed to back the Clintons, they were supposed to back the Democratic Party as a whole and let the DNC do the rest. Well, they didn't. They ran for office, and won, twice!! Ooops, again. Then we had a good eight years, which look even better contrasted with Bush's disaster of a presidency, and the majority of the country regarded the Clintons as harbingers of the good times. That is not what the insiders in the Dem party wanted. They wanted a controllable fundraising machine, not two Dems who could raise money for themselves, and others, any time they wanted to instead of when the DNC told them to. They wanted someone who would run for the offices the DNC decided on, not the ones they wanted to run for. Ooops!!! Senator Clinton wasn't supposed to win that race, or the subsequent reelection. But the citizens of NY decided otherwise.

    The will of the people doesn't have much to do with the DNC's planning, as far as I can see. It's all about the money and who controls it. Now they have Obama who wants to hold the purse-strings on the funds he raises. Something the Clintons never asked to do. They just went out and raised it for the Dems. I wish the DNC luck with their new little funding dictator. May they both go down in flames, lit by the fluttering flaming dollar bills raised by Obama. They are going to be so sorry when they find out that his base is tapped out, and Hillary and Bill's base isn't giving the DNC money anymore.  And no matter how much "charm and charisma" Obama puts out, he can't pry anymore dollars out of the electorate for the Dems. Ooops!!

    You watch..after Obama crashes, the DNC will be kissing the Clintons' behinds so hard they will have to be surgically removed. And if the Clintons have the sense God gave a goat, they will make the DNC beg for them to fundraise again and insist on an anti-misogynist statement as part of the guidelines for future campaign funding. No funds for any misogynist candidate, even a hint of misogyny will cut off funds completely.

    [ Parent ]

    rewriting history (none / 0) (#167)
    by diogenes on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:35:35 AM EST
    Bill Clinton won because he ran and governed as a triangulating third way DLC politician.  Not what most on this Talk LEFT site would prefer.
    Hillary Clinton won senate elections in New York because she carpetbagged into a very safe, open Democratic seat (elbowing out people like Rep. Louise Slaughter, who might more properly have been in line for the seat).
    Bill Clinton also won becausae the Repubs were tired and due to be kicked out of office in 1992.
    If the Clintons are so good at raising money, then why has Obama outdone them?

    [ Parent ]
    A lot of the money the Clintons are (none / 0) (#168)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:13:59 PM EST
    raising goes to other people, or organizations, not just Hillary's campaign. And the triangulating got things done, in case you didn't notice. Not as much as some would have liked, but he did have a hostile Republican Congress to contend with, as you may recall. Triangulation was the ONLY way to persuade the cross-over GOP voters that he was an acceptable candidate, and also the only way to get anything through Congress. I was living near DC during the Clinton years, and I remember thinking how totally brilliant he was to be able to get anything at all through that Congress. And some of it he got through while they were trying to impeach him. Not bad for a good ole' boy from the sticks, was it? Obama raises money for HIMSELF, and doesn't share well. He demands control of where the funds go. The Clintons have raised hundreds of millions for the Democratic Party. Obama isn't even close to that number. And he never will be. After the country finds out what a total phony he is, he won't be able to raise a dime for anyone. And as for Hillary "carpetbagging" into the seat, she had to win the primary and then the election. She has done so twice. So, I guess the NY voters disagree with you.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't spoil the pep rally... (none / 0) (#172)
    by kdog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:46:38 PM EST
    with any food for thought diogenes.  

    [ Parent ]
    Still, that doesn't quite explain the animosity (none / 0) (#170)
    by DeborahNC on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:21:41 PM EST
    some of the Dems are showing the Clintons, not just SD support for Obama, but also with many disparaging remarks. When I read the Boston Globe article that focused on grievances, that apparently have accumulated over the years from some politicians, it added a dimension that helped explain some of the hostility I've seen during the campaign.

    But even knowing that, it still seems so petty. And given that President Clinton is the only two-term Democratic president in recent years, one would think that there would be at least a modicum of respect.

    FlaDemFem, do you have any other ideas about what could generate such open hostility? Of so, please share, because this phenomenon just baffles me. Thanks. I appreciate your insight.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure, it's something I learned about (none / 0) (#173)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:16:28 PM EST
    in boarding school. One of the most elite boarding schools for girls in the US. One girl came in as a scholarship student. Very nice, smart as hell, and fit right in as far as I could tell. Then one night at dinner, I heard someone say, "Why not invite X to the(event)?" The answer was, "Because she is NOKP, dear." NOKP means Not Our Kind of People. For the elites of the Democratic Party, the Clintons are NOKP. Simple. And being so outrageously successful, and being NOKP, puts the old school pols values at sixes and sevens. They thought they knew what sort of person the voters would like. Jefferson was old news, FDR was the new model of Democrat. And FDR was all old boy network, he was the perfect model of OKP, Our Kind of People. He also had the "common touch". In a word, the DNC and the Democratic elite are snobs. Pure and simple. But it is so ingrained that they don't see it.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd heard and read that they were not accepted (none / 0) (#174)
    by DeborahNC on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:37:34 AM EST
    by the long-time Washington crowd. Ironically, the fact that Clinton was liked by so many voters and his approval ratings remained high, even during the impeachment process, probably served to ratchet up their disdain.

    I think because politics can be very complex, potentially involving so many other disciplines, e.g., psychology, sociology, etc., is the one of the reasons that I find it fascinating. I'd love to have a sit-down with you sometime and hear all of your stories. I find the "inside stuff" so captivating. Thanks for your insights. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    In your opinion, is the OKP (in politics) (none / 0) (#175)
    by DeborahNC on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:53:05 AM EST
    primarily related to inherited wealth i.e., old money, and social status or does it also relate other factors, such as a longstanding family lineage in politics, e.g., Al Gore?

    [ Parent ]
    Both, and also geography., (none / 0) (#176)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:21:34 AM EST
    The Clintons came from Arkansas. Not famous for producing intellectuals, or politicians. I mean, the local football team is named after wild pigs, Razorbacks, and their rallying call is "SOOOOOOEEEEEEEEYYYYY PIIIIIIIG SOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEYYY!!" That a long way from the genteel rah-rah-rah that one gets at an Eastern school. Even in Texas, where football is a religion, they don't do that. Bill Clinton was a genuine Bubba, not someone showing he knew what a bubba was and just speaking the language for the campaign trail. I mean, the man had an El Camino as his "cool" car and the back was lined with Astroturf. To understand the actual visceral reaction to this sort of person by the eastern establishment, just imagine the late WF Buckley's expression when he smelled something bad. That's it, right there. That is exactly how the party elite feel about the Clintons. And it is what makes the voters love him, no matter what. And his wife, too. And the elites can't stand that. Personally, it's what I love about both of them. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    FlaDemFem, I'm so impressed with your outstanding (none / 0) (#177)
    by DeborahNC on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:05:07 AM EST
    ability to enthusiastically exclaim the Razorback "rallying call!" You are, without a doubt, a woman with a multitude of skills. But, the important part is that you vividly portray Bill Clinton as a Bubba, especially with the El Camino with astroturf. Wow! Seriously, I never knew anyone with a car like that.

    I'm smiling as I wonder how Hillary Rodham found that appealing. Is it just me or do you also perceive Bill to be more Bubba-like, and Hillary to have been primarily a very serious student, while establishing solid plans for for a successful career?

    [ Parent ]

    The media is going (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by kayla on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:27:47 PM EST
    on about Hillary isn't criticizing Obama on the stump now.  But something that I've always noticed about Hillary is that she rarely ever did.  Her commercials or debate performances might have been critical of him (which is normal), but not so much her stump speeches.  Even way back in February I noticed that Obama constantly went after her on trustworthiness or judgment but whenever she went after him on the stump, it was about UHC or some other substantive subject.  She's always been pretty soft on him, and I always wondered why she didn't go after him harder.  Her stump speeches are really just about her policies and the differences between hers and his, and she never pointed those differences out as often as I would have liked.

    I'm just so irritated with the media.  For months it was hard for me to watch because of all the anti-Hillary bias, but now that they've declared her candidacy irrelevant, they're pretending to be nice.  I wish they would just be honest for 5 minutes.

    she couldn't go after him harder (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:39:35 PM EST
    because they would have crucified her.  That's what's so funny about this whole thing--for all Obama's whining, what she has done has been so terribly mild.  She saved him from being eviscerated.

    And now, she will save him again by taking the nomination and fighting the repubs at their own game.

    Rise, Hillary, Rise!

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton really never has hit him (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by eleanora on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:49:46 PM EST
    on anything but policy and qualifications. When they rant about how she's "smearing" him, I've asked several Obama supporters to come up with any instance of her disrespecting his character, his family, or him as a human being, as he's done to her. And they never come up with a quote, just some blather about the 3am phone call ad being toxic to his candidacy.

    And I don't get that--why don't they just say, "Of course Obama could answer that phone better than anyone, and here's why..." If his own supporters are so sure that ad disqualifies him, why should we think any differently?

    [ Parent ]

    I Wonder If The Campaign Ever Did (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by CDN Ctzn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:41:14 PM EST
    I heard President Clinton about a month ago at a small venue in the Portland area. He spoke eloquently for over an hour and a half, campaigning for his wife, and didn't mention Obama or his policies once. Instead he gave a detailed summation of Hiilary's plans for the Enviorment, Economy, and Education.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn, a music rec (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by stillife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:33:59 PM EST
    sometime when you post an open thread.  You posted a Dwight Yoakam vid the other day.  For weeks now, ever since the bitter/guns/religion remarks, this song has been going through my head:

    Streets of Bakersfield

    This video features Dwight Yoakam and the legendary Buck Owens, who are clearly having a good time.  

    Pertinent lines are "Hey you don't know me, but you don't like me, you say you care less how I feel!"  Expresses my sentiments on the DNC perfectly.

    I live in Brooklyn but I guess I'm just a "hick" at heart.

    I like this one for tomorrow night (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:53:06 PM EST
    Shine, Hillary, Shine!


    [ Parent ]
    From Bakersfield to Brooklyn ;) (none / 0) (#125)
    by nycstray on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:46:50 PM EST
    Ok, so I never actually lived in Bakersfield, but we used to go there for back to school shopping, first run movies etc. Always cracks me up when I see the name :)

    [ Parent ]
    HARDBALL tonight (I saw a bit)-HOLY CRAP!!! (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by kenosharick on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:42:47 PM EST
    WHAT LIARS!!!! Schuster had a report and Tweety seconded that NO ONE in the media has ever said Sen. Clinton should get out of the race!!! They actually said this with a straight face, and seemed to believe their own blatant lies. I wih I had the technical savvy to put together a tape of them and dozens of their cohorts saying exactly that over and over for months.

    Amazing (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:57:05 PM EST
    They seem to think that if they did not say the exact words 'Hillary, please get out of the race' it does not count. They don't count the wondering aloud why she is still in it, the comparisons to the 'Fatal Attraction' spurned woman, the ridicule at her making speeches as if they mattered, etc.

    I can't even watch them anymore, which is nice because I am enjoying the quiet evenings.

    [ Parent ]

    Tweety started that (none / 0) (#149)
    by janarchy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:55:46 AM EST
    last week, after WV. Unbelievable. Ron Reagan also said it on Air America last Wed. "No one I know has ever said anything like that!". No, it was just "When Will The Stupid B&tch Drop Out Already?" right?

    We've always been at war with Oceania...

    [ Parent ]

    I LOVE Obama (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:43:25 PM EST
    back-peddling on his Napoleonic coronation tomorrow in Iowa.  "Returning to the scene of the crime" eh?  Laughable.  You would think that CW would put him in OR considering half of the Pacific NW showed up in Portland to see and hear him speak.

    I used to think that huge crowds were indicative of something big about to happen politically.  I remember Bruce Springsteen drawing tens of thousands of people while campaigning for Kerry....made me think that Kerry had a chance.

    Yeah, right.  All those crowds do now is remind me of my club/bar days.  BIG ol' crowd and NO sensation.

    Who knew The Decembrists (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:51:08 PM EST
    were so popular in Portland?  Maybe that was the real draw. Free rock n' roll.

    [ Parent ]
    Kerry drew a larger crowd in Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:53:08 PM EST
    in 2004, a crowd of 80,000 in Madison -- and but a week before the general election.  

    A week later, he barely won Wisconsin, the closest state of any in 2004.  There are lessons in that: crowds don't matter, Madison isn't Wisconsin, one college town is not a state, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    Michelle Obama (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:47:54 PM EST
    I saw the earlier diary on MO.  This plays into the narrative that JM wrote about the post-mortem on the sexism that the MSM wrought on HRC.

    Michelle Obama can say and do whatever she wants about mending fences and paying some kind of homage to Hillary Clinton. But her "you can't run for the White House when you can't run your OWN house" statement is burned on me like a tattoo.

    I will never forgive her for it.  Shows her utter lack of class towards not only another woman, but to a fellow Democrat who assisted her husband in his campaign efforts for US Senate.

    The Obamas remind me of a quote that Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis said about Madonna when she was introduced to her by the late JFK, Jr:  "Crass social climber(s)".

    Have You Been Reading Obama Turndown? (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:54:34 PM EST
    It is very cool how this has caught on so quickly.
    People are lining up to sign on.  And, I know we want a dem in the WH, but seriously, obama?  Should we be held responsible for that if he gets the nomination?

    [ Parent ]
    I did see that (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:08:12 PM EST
    I read it and found it quite interesting.

    Hopefully this catches on.  I doubt that the DNC in its bubble care though.  When Obama is the nominee and they (Dems) go down McGovern/Dukakis style, I will not feel bad for them at all.  They did not heed the warning of its base/citizenry.

    [ Parent ]

    uh... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:50:43 PM EST
    ...the full text is sometimes relevant:

    "Our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime."


    [ Parent ]

    You can make (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:03:53 PM EST
    all the excuses you want.  Doesn't work for me.  She is a lawyer.  English is her tool.  She knew EXACTLY what she was saying.  I don't buy that for a minute.

    I am SICK of the "what Barack/Michelle meant was"...spare me.  I could care less about their victimhood.  I am not a liberal nor a Democrat so I owe them nothing, as they owe me nothing.

    As an independent who supports Hillary Clinton I will not show solidarity for swipes at her...just like you cannot explain away that song that they used in a campaign stop from Jay Z:  "I got 99 problems but a b1tch ain't one of 'em!"

    Justify that one.  You can't.

    [ Parent ]

    If you're reading into that... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:12:43 PM EST
    ...then you're latching onto the same kind of forced reasoning that Obama's supporters used with Bill Clinton's "fantasy" comments.

    [ Parent ]
    "Reading into that"? That's hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:41:00 AM EST
    as it really does not require "reading into it" -- it's right there in your face.  If you open your eyes.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:08:22 PM EST
    That isn't what she said when she was visiting back home. She said that the election was important because of being role models of what good families look like. Then she launched into her attack about not being able to run the White House.

    But thanks for your link because it shows she was running around the country using her tacky applause line more than once.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for posting that (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:12:25 PM EST
    I knew I had heard it used in that context.  

    Ugh, just mean.

    [ Parent ]

    No problem. (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:20:49 PM EST
    One of the things that bothered me about the quote when I heard it was that it was a slam against Chelsea. People can say what they want about Bill and Hillary's marriage but to try to pretend that they didn't do a bang up job raising Chelsea into the woman she's become is idiotic.

    I've seen some "role model" good families turn out some craptastic kids.

    [ Parent ]

    Excellent point. (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:17:26 PM EST
    I have used Chelsea myself as an illustration. When my "family values" friends go on and on about the Dems not having family values, I ask them.."Would you rather your children turned out like the Bush twins or Chelsea Clinton??" They always pick Chelsea. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    And sometimes not. I give (none / 0) (#82)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:53:41 PM EST
    Michele credit for knowing how her words would be interpreted. I'm also reminded of her statement that by gosh, she didn't know why people hated Hillary, but since they do, better choose Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    You give President Clinton... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:56:32 PM EST
    ...the same credit when he's talking?

    [ Parent ]
    are you joking? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:56:08 PM EST
    say hello to my little friend... the ellipsis.

    [ Parent ]
    I have to say.... (none / 0) (#90)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:57:45 PM EST
    ... I share Alec's concerns on this.

    As people may or may not know, I'm not exactly gentle with Barack "No Mas" Obama, but this is one talking point I don't use. Misogyny? No question. Vile use of baseless charges of racism to smear opponents? Absolutely. This one? No.

    [ Parent ]

    See Above (none / 0) (#127)
    by CDN Ctzn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:50:24 PM EST
    Thanks to LatinoVoter for comment #97 and the provided You Tube link.
    Care to revisit your previous comment?

    [ Parent ]
    I looked at the whole transcript, not a clip (none / 0) (#140)
    by lambert on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:38:02 PM EST
    She's not necessarily attacking past occupants of the White House. And I'm sensitive to dog whistles.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama wouldn't be running the WH (none / 0) (#146)
    by Josey on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:29:24 AM EST