Hillary's Speech on Florida and Michigan

What a great speech. The transcript is here.

We may get to the convention after all. From a newer version of the earlier AP article:

Asked if she now envisioned the race extending beyond June 3, Clinton replied: "It could, I hope it doesn't. I hope it's resolved to everyone's satisfaction by that date, because that's what people are expecting, but we'll have to see what happens."

Comments closed

< Details Announced for May 31 Meeting on FL-MI Delegates | Wednesday Evening Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • WOW what a tough cookie and populist (5.00 / 16) (#1)
    by athyrio on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:54:07 PM EST
    she has turned out to be...Bill Clinton has stated on several occasions that Hillary is by far the most qualified person in modern history to be president including himself and I now see what he means....I stand in awe of her (and I wasn't a supporter at the beginning of this mess)

    It was a pretty awesome speech (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:57:30 PM EST
    and I say that as a Floridian who got chills watching it.

    Awesome indeed! (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:08:00 PM EST
    Her voice modulation is perfect.  Her speech cadence is perfect.  Her logic is impeccable with the right mixture of nobility in her thought patterns.  I think we are seeing the evolution of an orator that finally catches the imagination of the people. Bravo Hillary!

    if we nominate Obama (5.00 / 14) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:00:43 PM EST
    it wont just be stupid.  it will be tragic.  a gigantic missed opportunity.

    I agree... (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:18:46 PM EST
    tragic that once again we will be plunged into mediocre candidates to choose from.  Wow, this speech was amazing.

    exaggerate much? (1.00 / 2) (#24)
    by sarissa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:17:25 PM EST
    Missed opportunity, certainly - tragic, not so much.

    all the time. (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:20:36 PM EST
    this wasnt one of those times.
    tragic.  absolutely.  because, almost certainly, we will lose and because even if we win I think we will be sorry.

    It could be very tragic (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:21:05 PM EST
    and we could end up losing congress and 2012/beyond.

    Yes tragic (5.00 / 8) (#34)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:24:07 PM EST
    because some people, maybe not us, are living paycheck to paycheck with no health care or childcare, maybe no job or lack of education.

    some people are voting because they are desperate to improve their lives, to have REAL hope.


    She's Fighting For Her Voters (none / 0) (#211)
    by Athena on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:39:39 PM EST
    Hillary has every right to fight for HER voters - that would only verify the trust that they put in her when they voted.

    Isn't that what representing people is all about?


    do you think it was "tragic" (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by sancho on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:31:44 PM EST
    that bush was elected intead of gore? I know some people who do and also think that the wrong election decisions can be tragic. but these views of course vary according to the perspective.

    yes (5.00 / 8) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:34:47 PM EST
    I believe I said one tragic part is that McCain will be the next president.
    but it is only one possibly tragic future if Obama is the nominee.

    Absolutely -- look at the consequences (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by cymro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:24:36 PM EST
    I have no doubt that future historians will conclude that the selection of Bush as President, when Gore was the candidate rightly elected, was a tragic and costly mistake. The consequences severely damaged the nation's standing in the world, politically and economically, in ways that are irreparable in the short term, and will have long-term repercussions for many decades.

    I also agree that failing to elect Hillary when she is far and away the most qualified candidate could turn out to have similar tragic consequences, certainly for the Democratic Party, if not for the nation, although only time will tell.


    Shades of December 2000 (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by blogtopus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:31:39 PM EST
    You're right. I often feel that with Gore as President, he may not have been loved, but we would have been in much better shape.

    You don't what you got 'till it's gone...

    Having the ObaMessiah in the captain's seat gives me chills. At least McCain's supporters aren't as dogmatically rooting for him (remember how much he's despised by standard GOP?) as Obama's are. Fainting, heh.


    I'd love to hear from you (none / 0) (#165)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:01:06 PM EST
    What part of the bush administration hasn't been tragic. The war, the demise of our international image and relations, or the economy?

    I completely agree (none / 0) (#220)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:45:05 PM EST
    The one thing I'll grant Obama is that he has served as a nearly perfect foil for Hillary to show who she was, and who she was not.

    Given previous preconceptions of Hillary, I doubt that people would regard her as a working class hero -- as they clearly do now -- if she could not define herself in contrast to Obama.

    Obama, by his manner and background, quickly to represent and attract the always ugly elitist component of the Democratic Party. Hillary's natural but mostly latent appeal to the working class rose in clear relief to Obama's radically different appeal.

    This made her an almost perfect candidate for the general election -- far more so than she might have been beforehand. I don't see how a "Feminazi" smear could possibly work against her at this point.

    But the Democrats, who will always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, will not seem to allow her to emerge as the nominee.

    Truly tragic.


    She certainly knows how & when (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:02:46 PM EST
    to focus on an issue. I totally agree with your observation.

    Yeah, she's certainly qualified but... (1.00 / 4) (#32)
    by sarissa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:21:58 PM EST
    as a feminist it somewhat irks me that our only serious contenders for the highest officers of the land seem to be wives of past/present candidates (e.g Geraldine Ferraro, Elizabeth Dole, Hillary Clinton).

    Ferraro? (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by Emma on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:24:27 PM EST
    Was her husband a presidential candidate?  Really?

    Please do not embarrass (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:24:49 PM EST
    yourself with such contentions.  Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton.  She is not "just a wife".  No feminist would ever, in 25 reincarnations say that.  So, take your self away.  

    by the name I assume you are female (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:25:19 PM EST
    Im sorry, that just seems a very odd thing for a woman to say.

    ever been through a divorce? (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarissa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:27:06 PM EST
    It's not odd at all.

    Yes, I have -- a hellish (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:45:28 PM EST
    battle over custody and more that put me and my children back into poverty for years, etc. . . .

    That still doesn't make your comment either cogent or correct.  You clearly know nothing about the three women you name.  But we already know a lot about you, without even knowing your name -- because we have met your like before.


    Totally agree (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by indiependy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:26:04 PM EST
    I've always wondered why someone like Barbara Boxer hasn't been made a contender. She's easily got more experience, credentials, and liberal cred than anyone else out there. And to your point, she's done it all on her own.

    Boxer will be lucky (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:28:37 PM EST
    to keep her senate seat.  suggesting "wives" only run for the presidency is sad.

    Hyperbole much? (1.00 / 0) (#97)
    by indiependy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:41:11 PM EST
    Her electoral margins have increased each time she has sought re-election. In 2004 she won her Senate seat by 20%. She's one of the most experienced and accomplished Senators around, male or female. And her Democratic stances on issues has been impeccable.

    I don't agree with, nor never suggested, the notion that there's anything wrong with a wife of a politician running. However, it's incredibly inspirational to see someone like Boxer get where she has without anyone being able to say "well if not for her husband..."


    Isn't Arnie gonna make a run (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:43:08 PM EST
    for her seat?

    Do you think B Clinton would have ever become President without Hillary?


    Someone told me a joke once (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by MMW on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:13:28 PM EST
    When Bill was President, He and Hillary drove up to a Gas station. Bill looked out the window at the gas attendent and asked Hill, "Isn't that the guy you went out with before you started seeing me?" Hillary looks at the guy and says "Yes, that is him". Bill turns around and says, "See where you would have been if you hadn't picked me?"

    Hillary smiled and answered, "No Bill. HE would have been President."


    not what I am hearing from CA (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:45:20 PM EST
    we will see.

    for the record (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:46:03 PM EST
    I worked hard for Boxer in the 90s.  she is not a presidential candidate.

    Really? (none / 0) (#176)
    by indiependy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:05:04 PM EST
    Not sure why CA Dems would say that. There's certainly not going to be a primary challenger and Arnie as a Senator is a pretty big stretch, especially in 2010 when a lot of the problems he's kicking the can down the road on will be rising up.

    Why is she "not a presidential candidate"? Her experience, accomplishments, causes, and credentials are stronger than those of Hillary and Barack combined. As a party the Democrats need way more like her, voting against the war resolution, going toe to toe with Condi Rice and this administration, opposing Bush nominations, leading the battle to block ANWR drilling, passing good economic bills, etc., etc.


    Please go straight to Halifax (none / 0) (#150)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:57:49 PM EST
    do not pass "go" do not collect $200. The fact that you think it would find it "inspiring" that no one can say "well if not for her husband" about Boxer is mind-blowingly insipid. The only people who say "well if not for her husband" about Hillary Clinton or any other powerful females are grade-A certified morons who will find something negative to say about any woman in power and thus their opinions count for less then nothing.

    Seriously, Boxer would be (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarissa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:35:03 PM EST
    a great candidate.  Perhaps being female and Jewish has hurt her?  I don't know, but she's got a great resume.

    She's also from that REALLY, SCARY (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:41:14 PM EST
    LIBERAL SF, CA area  ;)  IIRC, she lives in Marin, which some consider worse. lol!~



    Nobody makes anyone a contender. (none / 0) (#210)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:38:44 PM EST
    An individual has to decide to compete.  I suppose it is different with Obama.  Certainly, someone or several people MADE him a contender.  Geraldine Ferraro alluded to that.

    But, those things aside, fact is, Hillaryh is the contender and she has the right qualifications and qualities to be one and the NOMINEE and after that, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  


    as a feminist it irks me that (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by sancho on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:44:09 PM EST
    a male candidate with little national experience and severe electability issues can be promoted so easily to nominee over a clearly more qualified (female)candidate. but maybe if the female candidate had senior men supporting her--kennedy, kerry, dean, carter--i'd feel better about the "young man's" early promotion. in that case, his promotion would more clearly be on merit than old boys club terms. but for some reason the senior men went with the fresh "junior" colleague over the "experienced' (her again?) woman.

     here are some questions for we feminists to ask ourselves: which woman is "senior" to hillary clinton in terms of the office she seeks? who is her role model who has the office or position to which she aspires? no one, except, arguably, geraldine ferrarro and we see how much respect she has been accorded this election cycle. clinton's fight for the nomination is one of the most amazing, inpsiring political stories in our country's history. thre has never been one like it.  

    obama's story is inspiring too, and it is, in a sense, silly and demeaning to compare them, but i think the gender barrier is higher, more entrenched than the racial one. colin powell, condi rice, jesse jackson, ron brown all precede obama and make his arrival not so surprising. given that he is the elite white male's favorite candidate (in pointed contradiction to hillary), his "rise" is not at all surprising.

    hillary' election quest story, however, has no precedent in our nation's history.

    count the votes!  


    Not to take away from your fine comment (5.00 / 6) (#130)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:52:04 PM EST
    but in the interests of being factual, again -- Clinton also is preceded by dozens of women who have run for president (and dozens who have achieved high positions -- before Condi Rice, hello, there was Madeline Albright).  

    The difference is that of all those women, not a one ever won a primary.  Clinton clinched that historic marker many months ago -- and since then, she has made history again by winning so many that she remains in serious contention . . . and clinched another historical marker a month ago, when she became the first candidate, woman or man, in any party, every to win so many primary votes.

    So the difference is -- well, it's Hillary Rodham Clinton, the most qualified woman and most qualified candidate, according to the voters.  That used to mean something.  Maybe it will again.


    As a feminist it really irks me (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:53:47 PM EST
    when people don't know what being a feminist means.

    Wasn't Hillary named one of the most (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by kayla on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:08:05 PM EST
    influential women in America before Bill was even president?

    The notion that a woman should not apply to a job that her husband has already had is bs.  Especially when talking about Hillary Clinton.


    I must have been sleeping for those (none / 0) (#170)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:03:32 PM EST
    administrations. What years did President Dole govern? And, President Ferraro (who, wasn't even in politics)?

    As a feminist it irkes me (none / 0) (#174)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:04:47 PM EST
    when women are not aware of how many women who have held a position of power in the world have done so through family connections, whether that be husband, father, brother etc.

    My translation: (5.00 / 18) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:57:10 PM EST
    Seat the FL and MI delegates, or we're going to the convention. I think that's a winning hand for the moment.

    It is a winning hand (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:58:38 PM EST
    Even CNN's John King said last night that if they seat those delegates as is the math improves considerably for Senator Clinton.

    Here, here we go to convention... or beyond... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Exeter on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:04:05 PM EST
    She has the most votes (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:11:38 PM EST
    It should go to the convention because she has a better argument. Look at the electoral map.

    I don't see how a democrat wins without winning at least three out of four, Michigan, Florida, West Virginia and Ohio


    I'm Happy To See Her Play Hardball (5.00 / 12) (#43)
    by BDB on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:25:46 PM EST
    It's taken awhile for her to work her way into a position to do it.  But with the odds more likely she'll lead in the popular vote, her crushing defeats of Obama in WVA and KY and her other recent wins, especially in PA, and her improved GE polling, she's finally there.

    The Dem. leadership has always been weak and Obama has been trying to roll them since February.  Between her improved electoral position and the groundswell of anger by her supporters with the party, it helps balance the pressure.  Good.


    Heck I'm Happy To See A Dem Actually Up (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:54:51 PM EST
    and fight for something. Too few have for too long.

    Is that what they meant (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by blogtopus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:36:47 PM EST
    when they said Hillary isn't a Democrat? :-)

    yes. count the votes (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:31:21 PM EST
    its a no lose strategy.  the opposing argument is, what, dont count the votes?

    I honestly dont understand (5.00 / 14) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:59:15 PM EST
    shy everyone is so freaked by the idea of a real convention.
    I think it sound exciting.  a REAL convention.  not a 4 day informercial for Obama.

    Obama, DNC terrified of being exposed (5.00 / 13) (#13)
    by Davidson on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:08:10 PM EST
    I believe they're scared of everyone realizing what an utter disgrace this has been: to realize that the only way Obama "won" the nomination was the disenfranchisement of two entire states and caucuses in red states.  Also: they'll be more backlash if there's the open misogyny that many Obama supporters can't seem to stop themselves from engaging in.  It's one thing for a bigot rally to break out at a state convention, but to have the anti-female intolerance and hatred shown on national--and international--television is another matter.

    The house of cards will fall apart if this goes to the convention.  The fact that Clinton is likely to beat McCain while Obama is simply unelectable makes it all the more absurdly obvious.  They can steal the nomination from Clinton and give it to Obama but everyone will see it for what it is: a travesty.


    all these unity ponies running around i (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:11:22 PM EST
    guess will have to go back to the barn. the obama campaign now will have to get back to business as usual if hillary goes to the convention.

    ha (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:15:22 PM EST
    a regular Augean Stables with Hillary in the role of Hercules.

    Better Watch Where You Step :) (none / 0) (#61)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:31:21 PM EST
    dont worry (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:33:33 PM EST
    Hillcules will clean all the pony droppings from that convention floor if she has to divert the Colorado river.

    misogyny????? (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by Monda on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:24:59 PM EST
    What is this?  

    From a blogger at NoQ (I don't watch MSM)

    On CNN a few moments ago, analyst Jeffery Toobin argued that Hillary was right when she said in an interview that coverage of the race has been "sexist," buttressing his case by pointing to a recent newspaper column suggesting that Hillary is a "white *itch." Toobin, unsurprisingly, took issue with this, saying that it was "appalling" that this was considered acceptable.

    "Some women, by the way, are named that, and it's accurate," Castellanos said. He went on to buttress his case by pointing out that Hillary is "abrasive, aggressive, irritating."

    What's amusing about this is that Castellanos actually argued that it's sometimes accurate to call a woman a "*itch" as a way of making the claim that Hillary was wrong to argue that there's sexism in our political coverage. Pretty twisted stuff.

    I repeat, what the hell is this?  If this great woman, US Senator, former first lady of the country and of a state can be called names on CNN, what can we expect for the rest of us?!!!!!


    Castellanos Is A Bigger Biatch Than Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:33:15 PM EST
    could ever hope to be....I do not recommend watching him EVER.  As for Toobin, it is about time he said something relevant and smart...he is such a sheople...

    I hate that (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by Evie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:37:43 PM EST
    NOBODY bothered to point out that people would never call an "abrasive, aggressive, irritating" MAN a b!tch, let alone print that in a newspaper column.

    They call her that name because she is a woman.


    misogyny????? (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by delacarpa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:39:43 PM EST
    I have become a Fox News girl because of the "Best Political Team" not. Tired of all of them. Tired of the grey headed guy who has made millions off of Hillary and Bill that slams them when he is on, Jack who slams Hillary every day, and this guy needed a slap down yesterday.

    Saw that. He ought to be fired, period (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:59:50 PM EST
    and never brought back, if he were appearing on a reputable network.

    CNN disgraced itself in the same minute, when Blitzer did not say something.  CNN disgraced itself in a few minutes more, when it went to commercial and came back -- and Castellanos still was there.  

    CNN has disgraced itself every minute since by not issuing an apology, not only to Clinton but also to the people of New York who elected her and the people of this country whom she served as First Lady.  

    Fox continues to rise in my estimation, by comparison to the other networks.  That is a sad  statement on the status of journalism today -- and an even sadder statement on the situation of all of us subjected to those who exercise only freedom of speech without exercising its concomitant responsibility.

    I would complain to the FCC, but it's useless these days, too.  I wish I could recall who were the commercial sponsors on CNN last night.  I would watch now for names of CNN sponsors, but it is another network off my list now.


    Okay Now Hold Up (none / 0) (#183)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:12:05 PM EST
    First, I am hardcore 100% will-take-a-bullet for Hillary supporter.

    But I will NOT bemoan Barack the victories he has won.  For a guy with a name like Barack Obama to win in places like WI and IA, I give the man credit.  I have said before that politics is a contact sport.  Here in TX his people participated in less than ethical behavior during the caucuses.

    But Barack has won.  Albeit in places where Dems would NEVER win, but, hey, he won.  I do think that if Barack wins the nomination he would be an illegitimate nominee.

    But don't belittle his victories, that's the tone I get from this posting.


    and they wonder why no one even (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:09:48 PM EST
    watches conventions anymore. take the vote there and it will GET VERY BIG AUDIENCES.

    it would be huge. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:11:42 PM EST
    which, as the other commenter said, is probably why they are freaked.

    Better Not Play It Up Too Much, Or The DNC (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:34:50 PM EST
    will want to make it pay-per-view.  Heard they are hurting for money... :)

    Seriously, this HAS to go to the convention!!

    GO HILLARY....


    Heh. (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:47:44 PM EST
    Wouldn't put it past them to charge for the event - which would be quite a show!

    We could all pitch in to cover the cost and have (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:17:14 PM EST
    a giant TL pot luck....how fun would that be?

    We could all pitch in to cover the cost and have (none / 0) (#186)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:14:43 PM EST
    a giant TL pot luck....how fun would that be?

    It would be a poor return for MLK (none / 0) (#218)
    by blogtopus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:43:56 PM EST
    if Obama's fans cause a riot at the convention hall on his big speech day.

    I can see it now: 'someone' calls 'someone' the n-word, with no verification of the identity. Accusations fly, the racism auto-response goes on full power. Then all hell breaks loose as Obama's fans, of all colors and creed, run rampant over the older generation in the convention hall. It will be spectacularly destructive and will end any chance at a Dem victory in the fall.

    Later on, with cell phone cameras, we learn that both people involved were Obama staffers.

    Hey, it worked in the other election fiasco, why not here?


    I've wondered about that too, Capt. (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:14:53 PM EST
    For once, we will have TV coverage of suspenseful events.  For once, those in the media who are not true journalists will be out of their element--away from their sets and unable to control the script.  I have an impish delight just thinking about it.

    This is truly going to be a figurative hand-to-hand combat; in the trenches.  On to So. Dakota, Montana and Puerto Rico AND the C O N V E N T I O N !


    yes! (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:15:55 PM EST
    I'm with you. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Marco21 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:55:48 PM EST
    If this party can't survive its own convention, it doesn't deserve to survive.

    I posted yesterday about  Obama supporters sounding like they've already lost the GE  and are using anything Hillary does as the scapegoat for that loss.

    If you fear Obama will not be able to survive a skirmish, why are you planning to send him into combat later in the year?


    This does sound like a great idea (3.00 / 0) (#27)
    by kpatton1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:19:03 PM EST
    I certainly could support this, as long as everybody agrees to be 100% behind the candidate who wins in the end at the convention.

    My biggest worry is that this won't be the case.  The only way I would oppose taking it to the convention is if people can't agree to support the nominee that comes out regardless of who it happens to be.


    I dont think (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:23:32 PM EST
    the hard core Obamans will ever support Hillary.
    no matter how fairly and squarely she wins it, it is  now abundantly clear that the meme will be that she "stole it from him".
    the media will see to it.  I heard that no less than 10 times last night.
    this morning on MSNBC Wolfson explained to them that no one has won it so no one can steal it.
    they cut him off and went to a commercial.

    At the same time (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kpatton1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:36:57 PM EST
    There are many reasonable people in the Obama camp.  Just like there are a lot of reasonable people in the Hillary camp.

    Lets all play nice at the convention, and then support whoever the nominee is in the end.  

    My biggest concern is that a lot of people here that like to assert that they will never vote for Obama.  Just like I have no respect for any hardcore "Obaman" would wouldn't support Hillary, I can't understand any self-proclaimed democrat who wouldn't vote for Obama in Novemeber should he be the nominee.


    Because he is undemocratic. (none / 0) (#222)
    by alexei on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:48:00 PM EST
    Michigan and Florida are not being counted because of him.  I stated that anyone who does not uphold the voting franchise, will never get my vote.

    B-b-but isn't one of the Obama (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by zfran on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:36:59 PM EST
    talking points is that if "she was the nominee they would support her" therefore we should support him?!

    So if Hillary wins the nomination (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by zfran on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:38:19 PM EST
    some, not all, of the Obama people will just accept, move on and vote for her?

    uh huh (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:42:42 PM EST
    and let me know when Elvis gets here.

    I don't believe (none / 0) (#149)
    by kpatton1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:57:31 PM EST
    That is any sort of logical justification to do the opposite.  If you say that, they can make the same argument and we run into one big circle of party division.  We can rise above what one fanatical supporter or another says.

    And I do know many Obama supporters who would certainly vote for Hillary if she were the nominee.  Unfortunately, both of these historic candidates came at the same time, and its hard to have it both ways.


    and I *know* (none / 0) (#104)
    by BethanyAnne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:43:45 PM EST
    I've heard tons of folk here say they won't vote for Obama no matter what happens.  Cream City? Kathy? MarkL?  Care to pipe up?

    I won't. (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:44:57 PM EST
    This just feeds the fire (1.00 / 0) (#157)
    by kpatton1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:58:56 PM EST
    Of party division, and gives justification on the other side for people who say they would never vote for Hillary.

    It makes me :(


    To quote Springsteen (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:04:05 PM EST
    we didn't start the fire.

    If and when I hear some apologies -- a lot more than "let's play nice" -- I may reconsider.  Right now, I'm no longer a Dem, so it's not about what's best for the party.  It's what's best for the country, so I'm continuing to look at all of the candidates.

    And I'm listening to see who asks for my vote -- by showing they listened about my issues.  So far, Obama hasn't done so.  We'll see.


    Thats fine (1.00 / 0) (#189)
    by kpatton1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:17:31 PM EST
    If your reason for favoring Hillary was solely based on her personal characteristics.  And if you want to vote for another candidate because you don't favor liberal ideals, etc, thats your prerogative and I definitely can respect your choice.

    But if you supported her because of her ideals and positions on the issues- well, I just hope you realize, that their positions on most of the issues are 95% the same.  In which case you'd be doing the country a disservice by voting against what Hillary stands for.

    Just like how I don't have any respect for Obama supporters who claim they wouldn't vote for Hillary in a GE matchup.


    Ha! (none / 0) (#207)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:37:41 PM EST

     Oh man I would be in a lot of trouble if I didn't compromise to vote for the Democratic nominee every time around as is.  

    I left the party since it seems (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:41:45 PM EST
    to be leaving me by leaps and bounds.

    You forgot me!! (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:46:02 PM EST
    And me! (none / 0) (#193)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:23:50 PM EST
    No kidding. (none / 0) (#235)
    by Kathy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:44:10 PM EST
    I'll say it again: I won't vote for him.  And if you think this is just about Obama, you have not been paying attention.  I will not support a party that does not support me.  I am a true progressive.  I am not an Obama dem, I am just a plain dem--you know, the backbone of the party.

    And trying to guilt me into voting for him is not going to work.


    Count me in (none / 0) (#209)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:38:44 PM EST
    I won't pony up for Barack.  Being an independent now I have no loyalty to the Democratic party.

    But then again, I am loyal only to my conscious.  If I vote McCain, my conscious will be clear.


    FYI, The convention will happen (none / 0) (#226)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:51:29 PM EST
    without consent of anyone of us.  I have absolute confidence in Hillary's ability to do the right thing and win the nomination. I have said repeatedly in the past, It is going to be Hillary for me.  The idea of a Pres. McCain, in the event that Hillary is mistreated some more, does not scare me. I have already been called OBDURATE by one of your members, and I plead guilty to the charge with no regret. You may not like it, but that is my answer.

    I've always thought Obama was a better candidate (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Exeter on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:03:08 PM EST
    But, I honestly think that in the last month she has become, much, much better than him. It's almost as if they've switched roles: she now is very likable and he is coming off more and more as a smug, patronizing elitist.

    absolutely (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:10:58 PM EST
    my feelings exactly.
    and his supporters seem to get worse by the day.
    I saw some comments that Kos and others had "toned it down".
    I havent seen it.

    My mother and sister went to an event a couple (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Angel on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:03:25 PM EST
    of weeks ago.  One of Hillary's top field people was there, and he told the crowd that Hillary was definitely taking this to the convention floor in August.  I saw this same person about a month ago here in town and spoke with him.  I asked him if Hillary was going to win and he said YES.  I asked him if he was serious, and he said, YES.  I'M DEAD SERIOUS.  This man has known Bill and Hillary since their college days, are very close friends, so I believe what he says.  Hillary will not give up.  

    As a Floridian I am so proud that she speaks for (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by FLVoter on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:07:18 PM EST
    me.  This is why I voted for Sen. Clinton.  I have confidence that she will do what is right! She will do everything she possibly can to have my vote count.

    the speech gave me goosebumps (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by Monda on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:15:00 PM EST
    especially this:

    Because remember, it's been the mission of the Democratic Party, guided always by the understanding that as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, "the ultimate rulers of our democracy are not the president, the senators, the members of Congress and government officials, but the voters of this country." In this Democratic Party, the voters rule. So let's make sure your voices are heard and your votes are counted.

    It's beyond me why people (dems included) hate this great woman.  

    Hillary you are my voice, and I do hope it will count.  

    I can't believe that MSNBC talked over the (none / 0) (#229)
    by honora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:56:09 PM EST
    beginning and cut out the end.  Do you know of any complete tapes of the speech.  

    fight, fight, fight! catch a nap, have (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:18:05 PM EST
    lunch and then fight some more. sounds good to me!

    My daughter watched with me (5.00 / 14) (#35)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:24:16 PM EST
    last night, Hillary's victory speech.  Daughter is having a tough time right now with a boss straight out of "9 to 5," a Dabney Coleman type.  We were telling her to hang in there, put up with him, and keep looking for another workplace -- perhaps even one with health care benefits (crucial to her, and promised by the current boss, but he made many promises. . . .).  

    She got a call for a job interview today, but she has been so demoralized by the boss's behavior that she was worried whether she would do well today.  So she needed some mom time.  But she knows about mom's Tuesday nights with Hillary. :-)  And she's a terrific Clinton supporter, too -- so she said we'd watch last night's victory speech.  

    Daughter got fired up and talked about getting the message that a quitter never wins, and a winner never quits.   She did great in the job interview today, already got a callback for a followup interview tomorrow.  And she said that watching Clinton gave daughter the gumption to get up and give it her all today -- and to go back in to the current job tomorrow and just take it, as that's what she has to do for health care coverage . . . while she's doing what it takes to be a winner, too.

    That's what every day, every hour of Clinton's campaign battle is role-modeling for girls and young women today -- and smart men and boys, too.  

    It takes a village to raise these kids, after all. And I sure appreciated Hillary's help today. :-)

    Yay CC kid! (none / 0) (#195)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:27:55 PM EST
    Yay CC kid! (none / 0) (#196)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:28:21 PM EST
    Tell her we said "you go, girl!"

    Make My Vote Count! (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by fly on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:45:44 PM EST
    What a wonderful speech...makes me have tears in my eyes.
    I was an elected Delegate in 2004 for Florida and i have fought the state and county about the DRE voting machines and having Voter Verified Paper Ballots, and that is exactly what the bill was that the republicans amended to add the change of date for our primary.
    We won that bill in a Republican Controlled Legislature only to be punished by the likes of Howard Dean, and Donna Brazile and Now Obama.
    I know what went on, a friend and someone i mentored to work on the DRE voting machine problems , was in the capitol when the bill was introduced and being passed and she called me every step of the way when the bill was introduced.
    4 of the Citizens who got that bill to the the floor of the Florida legislature just recieved the highest award the Florida ACLU gives out this past Saturday, because the bill to Ban DRE voting machines and mandate Voter Verified Paper Ballots was their baby..

    It is inexcusable that anyone in my state's votes won't count.
    I am married to a double minority, i have seen my husband and son's votes stolen in this state, my husband and i put up most of the money in my county for an audit of the DRE machines after the 2006 election...(.the anchor of the I-4 corridor of Florida) the state auditor sat for 2 days here and said ..no audit was possible..

    It was because of the good citizens here in Florida that we became one of the first states in the nation to Ban DRE voting machines and mandate Voter Verified Paper Ballots..not for the 2012 election..***but for the 2008 election!

    It wasn't the DNC that did this, it wasn't the DNC that paid for the work and FOUGHT FOR the legislation ..it was the people here in Flotida , that worked their rear ends off with no help whatsoever from the Congress of this country, or the DNC, or anyone else...it was the people.

    And how have we been paid back..having our votes stolen once again...but this time by Obama , Dean and Brazile.

    All I can say is THIS: ..if you sit back and don't scream about this from coast to coast..

    Today it is my vote..

    Tommorrow it could be yours..will you accept my vote being stolen and that of my family, and only get mad when it becomes your vote , or will you do something now to help us in Florida get our votes counted????????

    A democracy is only a democracy when our votes are counted.


    Must I  stand outside with a purple finger  to prove to you I voted???????

    I voted, my vote has been counted and certified by my state, it is the DNC and the Democratic Party that will not recognize my vote.

    Will you let that stand , or stand to not allow it ??????

    Please call the DNC and demand my vote count and the votes of the largest block of vets in the nation and the headquarters of this war and the soldiers who are fighting it ..let their voices count! And their parents and wives and husbands voices count as well!


    From Fly..a 2004 elected Delegate from the State of Florida..and a poll watcher at large IN 2004 FOR EARLY VOTE FOR 2 WEEKS AND THE GENERAL.. protecting the people's votes.

    You deserve a medal (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:18:34 PM EST
    but at least accept my thanks -- as I know that the Florida fight for reliable machines has made a difference in other states.

    And I also can see clearly, as you say, that if this drastic penalty (beyond the original DNC rules) goes forward, it's a blueprint for more mischief in many states with legislatures in GOP hands.  My state was one not long ago -- and it usually is, so it will be again.


    I really doubt anyone is going to see it (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:49:17 PM EST
    I've said it before.  If I was an Obama supporter, this would concern me.

    The last thing I would ever want is my candidate, a historically unprecedented candidate, to win based on equally unprecedented and CONTESTED circumstances.

    It's a really bad idea.

    What I'm implying here should be clear.  You just can't say the words.  But the words will be said one day.

    You heard it here first.

    I'll put it like this.  Wouldn't the AA community have preferred a candidate with a more substantial resume to win an election where there were no mitigating circumstances that would forever taint the victory.

    Count MI and FL now!  Move forward.  None of this will ever come into play.

    Clinton is doing this so she can win, but the byproduct and make no mistake about this.  The byproduct of Clinton's efforts is, without a doubt, the byproduct of Clinton's efforts here is to only LEGITIMIZE someone who is too scared to embrace the electorate in it's totality!!!!

    Oh my Gawd. (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:57:07 PM EST
    I just read the transcript. I have tears in my eyes.

    Because here in America, unlike in many other nations, we are bound together, not by a single shared religion or cultural heritage, but by a shared set of ideas and ideals, a shared civic faith, that we are entitled to speak and worship freely, that we deserve equal justice under the law, that we have certain core rights that no government can abridge and these rights are rooted in and sustained by the principle that our founders set forth in the Declaration of Independence. That a just government derives its power from the consent of the governed, that each of us should have an equal voice in determining the destiny of our nation. A generation of patriots risked and sacrificed lives on the battlefield for that ideal.

    We are fighting for the soul of the Democratic Party.

    One candidate wants to honor every vote and has worked on legislation and taken action to make that happen.

    The other candidate wants the nomination at any cost. To call him tone-deaf is far too complimentary. He is simply not standing up for truth, justice, and the American Way. And that's neither Democratic, nor democratic.

    Is it any wonder that many who support Hillary, life-long, die-hard Democrats, do not see Obama as a viable choice?

    Amazing speech (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:12:09 PM EST
    She's framed the argument in a very clever way. Now she has a cause linked to core democratic values.  She's linked herself to people fighting for civil rights. She's linked herself to the 'count every vote' effort in the 2000 election which is still an open wound for many Democrats.

    I have no idea why the Obama campaign would willingly hand her this issue but now they are in a very bad position indeed.  They are on the wrong side of it in the court of public opinion.

    Looks like Obama increased his blogger budget (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Raven15 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:06:21 PM EST
    ...now that he no longer needs to win votes, since everyone knows the Puerto Rico primary was scheduled just for fun.

    utter nonsense: (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by isaac on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:26:20 PM EST
    >>>The superdelegates are not going to go against the will of a majority of Democrats, which by, according to the rules, is pledged delegates

    the super delegates can vote for anyone they please and what better metric than actual votes?  and how do the roolz say delegates represent a majority of democrats?  they do not, they are not even proportional.  they are getting very desperate, they've even got obamaman repeating the, 'obama doesnt have a working class white problem, he's got an appalachian problem' meme

    Backbone (4.33 / 6) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:34:06 PM EST
    That's what I call it.  Backbone and stamina.  This country is in trouble and we need someone who has some fight in them and will fight to fix all the things that were broken.  Once again, Hillary proves that she is the strongest candidate.  Speaking clearly, with conviction and with fortitude.  

    Well said. (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by lentinel on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:38:06 PM EST
    She does speak with conviction and fortitude.
    She also speaks with clarity.
    Her intelligence is apparent.

    Biden, Richardson, Clinton (2.33 / 3) (#49)
    by Teo1234 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:26:46 PM EST
    Hillary is a great candidate. There is no question about it. But, Joe Biden was a great candidate. He was m as qualified or more "qualified" than Hillary. Heck, Al Gore was much more qualified than Hillary, too, and so is John McCain.

    If the only question, in deciding who you want running this country is, what kind of political experience a person has, the only people who stand a chance to win are people who have been in the Senate for 30 years. That's not the only question.

    I started out this race a Hillary fan.  But, I flipped somewhere along the way. I don't know when, but somewhere along the way, she really changed. In Virginia and in Maine, she kept telling reporters how well she would do. And, she got trounced in both states. In Wisconsin, she told people it was a dog fight. She lost Wisconsin by 17 points.

    At some point, what occurred to me is this: Hillary is very smart. She'll make an excellent Supreme Court justice. But, she can't organize. She can't get her people to the polls. She can't get her people to caucuses. And, she can't win a general election.  And, this race is way too important to have a candidate who cannot organize and who cannot get her people to the polls. I saw that with the insider John Kerry (unquestionably one of the most qualified candidates).  

    I admit I don't come to this site -- I saw it in a NYTimes article -- so people don't know me. But, I am pragmatic. Both Barack and Hillary are right on most issues. There are some differences here and there -- Hillary's health plan is better in that it gets to univeral coverage quicker -- but for the most part, they're similar. The fact that she could not win states like Colorado and Connecticut and Minnesota (my state) and Georgia is really significant to me, especially given her name recognition.  

    Obama isn't perfect, but as a candidate -- as someone who really wants this job -- he's better than she is. That's why he won Wisconsin by 17 points. That's why he won Oregon last night by a similar margin. He's better at the nuts and bolts of organizing than she is.  

    Haven't you ever hired anyone? You have the candidate who seems like a perfect fit and who does a lousy interview. And you have this other candidate who has a great interview, but is weak on the experience. So, you bring them both back for a second interview and you toughen your questions for both candidates. And, the same thing happens. Well, Hillary had about her twentieth interview last night and, well, she lost Oregon by 17 points.

    I don't think she should quit. She's almost done and what's another few weeks? But, I know the right candidate won.

    Great job (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:30:50 PM EST
    with copy and paste.  Thanks we have read those paragraphs word per word in the last couple of weeks, over and over and over.  

    stella, the poor guy is trying to make a living! (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:32:16 PM EST
    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:31:11 PM EST
    Obama lost his interview in Kentucky by 30 points.

    Neener neener neener.


    I thought it was 35? (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:32:34 PM EST
    I was being (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:33:56 PM EST

    They round up for spin.

    I round down for spin.

    Guess who still wins the popular vote even after Obama has been given his advantages?


    lol!~ ;) (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:36:35 PM EST
    Guess who is still leading in pledged delegates? (none / 0) (#221)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:46:35 PM EST
    Guess who is leading in SuperDs? Guess who got more SuperDs today?  That would be Obama.  

    Great (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Monda on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:32:08 PM EST
    Cause in November it will come down to who can cause havoc in the "caucus red states."  Yeap, he is good at that.  That should do it.

    PS: It's been discussed here million times that when voter turnout is high Hillary has won the state.  But keep on believing the fairytale that Obama is bringing in more votes.  It's going to work very well in November.


    it's true. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by kangeroo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:19:08 PM EST
    it's strange that obama and his DNC enablers are falling all over themselves excited about the turnout in caucus states.  even at record levels, those caucus states have consistently been producing significantly lower turnout as a % of their populations than primary states have; %-wise, the primary states have been turning out several times as many voters as their caucus counterparts.  not to mention caucus results in general are suspect anyway, as TX and WA and widespread intimidation and dirty tricks this season have taught us.

    And (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Emma on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:32:19 PM EST
    Obama lost WVA by 41 points and KY by 35 points in the same "job interview".  But he, like, rilly rilly wants it, so I guess that makes those trouncings okay.

    Concern trolls are thick on the ground today.


    They are starting to get really scared. (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:40:44 PM EST
    Like, maybe their Beloved Obama doesn't have what it takes to win the GE.

    Maybe blaming and dismissing voters who just don't understand His Greatness wasn't the right tactic.

    Maybe they shouldn't have been complete condescending @ssh@les for 8 months.

    Maybe their candidate shouldn't have pissed off millions of voters and stuck a big "I am a sexist elitist" sticker on his forehead.

    Maybe "IACF!" wasn't the smartest way to go, and maybe owning up to his own mistakes and actually trying to earn votes would have been a better idea.

    Ya think?



    Conventionphobia (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:43:34 PM EST
    Please do tell, if the convention is so horrible, then why do the rules allow the party to have a convention?  Is it just for show?  Rules are rules-----gag...rules are rules---but lets not show the emperor has no clothes.  

    Alright (none / 0) (#129)
    by BethanyAnne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:51:38 PM EST
    Let's go to the convention.  I can afford to fly to Denver.  I'm sure that tons of other Obama volunteers and voters and donators can as well.  Hell, let's have Florida and Michigan sat.  As. Is.  Then let's have a delagate vote.  I'm confident that we'll win.  And I'm confident that we'll win in November.

    "afford to travel" (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:56:07 PM EST
    wlll I'll just get the old Ford truck out, pack me some victuals and come on down?  You gonna have some space for my blanket in your fancy, creative class hotel room?  I will bring Pa along, he likes those vibrating beds.  

    (Are you implying that us Hillary voters cannot afford to fly to Denver?)  Don't believe your own campaign hype.  


    wtf? (none / 0) (#162)
    by BethanyAnne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:00:16 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but what?  Did I hurt your feelings?  No, I'm saying that I personally can afford the time off from work.  And I'm saying that Obama's base of support is larger.  And if you really like this kind of fighting with other Democrats, I personally refuse to be intimidated by your sensitivity.  You can mock me for playing into some stereotype, but I am not going to be intimidated.

    hillary has more votes (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:02:40 PM EST
    how is her support smaller? there aren't a lot of yuppies

    Honey (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:04:59 PM EST
    it will take a lot more to hurt someone like me, I was joshing with you.  "Refuse to be intimidated by my sensitivity"  wow.  

    "Obama's base is larger"  Pray tell how that is when Hillary has more actual people that voted for her?  


    Wow (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:00:54 PM EST
    We'll pick our nominee based on who can 'afford' to go the convention.  Hello oligarchy!

    obama does a great what? (none / 0) (#54)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:27:53 PM EST
    bittergate, michellegate, boomergate? please!

    You forgot WrightGate & Sweetie! (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:37:26 PM EST
    57 states, Kentucky close to Arkansas, the Great Lakes in Oregon!

    Ugh! (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by lentinel on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:39:54 PM EST
    The "sweetie" remark should have been enough to disqualify Obama from serious consideration by anyone interested in civil or human rights.

    Don't Forget A Montana Position On Iran (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:09:57 PM EST
    and an opposite Oregon position on Iran. All captured on video to make it easier for the GOP cut the ad before the election.

    Sounds like (none / 0) (#151)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:58:06 PM EST
    a good case to hire Senator Obama to run Senator Clinton's general election campaign.

    I chose experience, not interview technique (none / 0) (#219)
    by cymro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:43:58 PM EST
    Haven't you ever hired anyone? You have the candidate who seems like a perfect fit and who does a lousy interview. And you have this other candidate who has a great interview, but is weak on the experience. So, you bring them both back for a second interview and you toughen your questions for both candidates. And, the same thing happens. Well, Hillary had about her twentieth interview last night and, well, she lost Oregon by 17 points.

    After you hired those great interviewers, how did they turn out at actually doing the job? Having hired a lot of consultants in high tech, I go for the proven experience every time. I've been seriously burned by candidates who interview well but then can't deliver a fraction of what they promised. That's why I support Clinton for President.


    really wants the job? (none / 0) (#238)
    by CHDmom on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:17:09 PM EST
    IF Obama really wanted the job, then why can't he be botherred to fight for every vote? I want some one who will fight for me, Hillary is a fighter. Obama saw WV and Ky would be tough for him so instead of even trying and talking to the voters in person, he just spent alot of money on TV and implied they were racist.
     Obam only really wants the job, if he can take time off and have his supporters and the media do his work for him.

    The Fight is Basically Over (2.00 / 6) (#158)
    by Niffari on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:59:14 PM EST
    All that's left are not the tears, just the blame. Hillary Clinton had every opportunity to outright win this thing and she simply didn't. The fact that we are NOW going back over the DNC's long-held decision regarding FL and MI only points to how absurd the situation has become. Yes, let's alter the rules we all agreed to and knew in advance to suit the one person who just happens to be losing.

    When this is over, and trust me, it will be finished LONG before the convention, Obama will have won. Why? Because no one, and I mean no one, will give Hillary what she wants. When the committee meets, they will most likely give 1/2 delegates to Hillary and maintain a punishment for both states. This is the story we are hearing now so don't be surprised when it happens. Obama will still be far ahead of Hillary in electeded delegates. The SD's who are already not committed will not go against the person who has the majority of delegates. According to Tim Russert this AM, not ONE undeclared SD states that they will go against the person walking out at June 3rd with the most delegates.

    It's lost. Of course, Hillary can do a lot of damage. Then her career will be over too. I have been quite disappointed in Hillary's insistence on continuing to fight for a way to win in violation of the rules. If you can't win under them, by all means try to change the rules later, but changing the game is simply not fair. The only people who don't get that are those who are determined to nominate Hillary regardless of how its done. I'm not at all impressed with that strategy and it's strongly redolent of what has been wrong with this country for 8 years.

    Long-held? DNC changed it about (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:34:04 PM EST
    8 months ago, as I recall the date of the rules committee meeting that changed the rule -- changed it from what you suggest here, which was that the states would get half their delegates.

    It doesn't seem that you researched this very well.  That's okay on a lot of blogs, but not so here.  Come back when you're ready to contribute.


    Then why are you here? (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:37:02 PM EST
    Oh the angst of it all. gasp, sigh, faint... The roolz! It's the roolz!  The made-up (attempt to manipulate voters by the astroturfer Axelrove) Obama roolz!

    Power (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:55:09 PM EST
    If Hillary's career were going to be ended by continuing the primary campaign, I doubt that Obama supporters would be kind enough to point it out.

    The bottom line is that Hillary, if she's not the nominee, will return to her Senate seat as the most powerful politician in the country after the POTUS. She's raised millions of dollars and she's garnered millions of votes.  She's now the voice of the structurally disadvantaged, of economic populism, and of voter enfranchisement.  She'll be working for all the things she outlined as her platform and she'll be working flat out as her Senate career may likely be her political legacy.  I can't wait to see her fight for universal healthcare with Elizabeth Edwards.

    The more people see of her, the more they like her.  We've always heard it's true from personal anecdotes but now we've seen the evidence.  Not only has she garnered increased devotion from the base, she's gained the respect of Republicans.  There isn't any hard evidence that her standing has been diminished in the AA community to any significant degree.  She started this primary as a good candidate and she's leaving it as a great candidate.  Her star is in the ascendant.

    She's going to have power and she's going to be ready to use it.  Hence all the preemptive spinning in the MSM about need to punish and shame her. They know it too.  She's going to join Al Gore and Bill Clinton as one of the most powerful and popular people on the planet. Not a bad legacy for the Clinton Administration.


    Really? Congratulations, you can no go home (none / 0) (#178)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:07:18 PM EST
    and Obama can go on Tim Russert and claim the nomination this Sunday; and on the Chris Mathews Show, Keith Olberman, Larry King.  Then go to So. Dakota and tell his supporters no to bother voting for him because he has won, then on to Montana and Puerto Rico.  Or perhaps, don't bother at all.  Don't even bother to show up at the convention until they call him to make his acceptance speech.

    I am really fine with that. Then you also don't have to bother with any of the posters here.  Again, congratulations!


    Really? Congratulations, you can now go home (none / 0) (#181)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:08:37 PM EST
    and Obama can go on Tim Russert and claim the nomination this Sunday; and on the Chris Mathews Show, Keith Olberman, Larry King.  Then go to So. Dakota and tell his supporters no to bother voting for him because he has won, then on to Montana and Puerto Rico.  Or perhaps, don't bother at all.  Don't even bother to show up at the convention until they call him to make his acceptance speech.

    I am really fine with that. Then you also don't have to bother with any of the posters here.  Again, congratulations!


    Oh Super (1.80 / 5) (#37)
    by PaulDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:24:36 PM EST
    Cause convention floor fights worked out sooooo well in 1968 and 1972.

    Thanks folks.

    But, hey, at least I'll never have to get an abortion so knock yourselves out!

    don't talk down to us! (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:26:05 PM EST
    Well (1.00 / 3) (#56)
    by PaulDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:29:52 PM EST
    Then start acting like you are aware of the historical ramifications of a convention floor fight.  

    If you think we can continue this war for the next three months and still be able to come together in November, you are ignoring the contrary evidence from history.


    stop the bull! i have read a great deal (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:34:10 PM EST
    about conventions and cleary your haven't. what you do is memorize obama talking points.

    why are you afraid (3.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:27:25 PM EST
    of a real convention.  I would love to hear why.

    Because (none / 0) (#58)
    by PaulDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:30:59 PM EST
    history suggests that a convention floor fight will lead to a loss in November.  Now for those whose aim is to set up another Clinton run in 2012, that works out just fine I suppose.

    nothing about this election (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:38:46 PM EST
    is ordinary or typical.  at every turn people like yourself have tried to shut this process down by fretting about what it would do to our chances in November while in primary after primary records continue to be set for democratic turnout.
    a contested convention would be the icing on the cake.
    every eye in the country would be on their tv just like it used to be when I was so young I barely remember it.  before it became a canned infomercial that no one watched or cared about.

    Not so. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by lentinel on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:43:17 PM EST
    Floor fights are democracy in action.
    They are also more interesting to watch than the staged crap that both parties put on last time around.

    History suggests no such thing (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by cymro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:32:10 PM EST
    You are confusing the process of nominee selection with the nominee himself. The reason Democrats lost in those years was because they nominated candidates who did not appeal to a majority of the voters, not because they had a contest at the convention.

    The same thing will happen this year if Obama is the nominee. It has no relationship whatsoever to the process by which he is selected; Hillary could drop out today and he will still be the same person, who will still lose the election for the Democrats in November.


    paul, your candidate is already on his (3.66 / 3) (#76)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:34:42 PM EST
    way to a major loss!

    Relax, Paul. She didn't say she was (none / 0) (#73)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:34:01 PM EST
    going she suggested she could.

    And the last few elections (none / 0) (#237)
    by otherlisa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:20:26 PM EST
    with uncontested conventions have worked out so well for the Democratic nominee, right?

    What we've been doing hasn't been working. I'm all for the fight. Maybe that kind of spirit is what it takes to win for a change.


    If Hillary is takes it to the convention (1.00 / 11) (#23)
    by sarissa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:15:59 PM EST
    she is doing great disservice to her 2012 run.

    She needs to bow out soon after snagging some sort of metric she can wave around like a banner in a few years - like say the lead in total votes actually cast (Puerto Rico should help out a lot in that department) this year.

    why don't you just change out hillary's (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:19:08 PM EST
    name and put in obama. that makes more sense.

    17 + Million voted for Hillary (5.00 / 9) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:20:44 PM EST
    stop being patronizing.  The only disservice to let an injustice stand.  If the Obama campaign has not stomach for a fight for the candidacy in his own party, how will he have the stomach to fight for the Democratic issues and for America?  

    Not being patronizing as I really really (1.00 / 5) (#38)
    by sarissa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:24:39 PM EST
    want to see a female president elected before I'm old and grey.  Hillary is NOT going to get the nomination this year (it sucks - I know, but it's really a done deal at this point).  She does not need to get talked into doing something that will hamstring her come 2012 (i.e. a convention fight).

    Ok, don't fret about it. (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:25:57 PM EST
    She knows what she is doing.  Ta ta.

    As one of the 2.3 M disenfranchised voters I do (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by FLVoter on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:25:35 PM EST
    not see this as a Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama issue.  It is about preserving democracy.  It is about counting every vote.  It would be wonderful if Sen. Obama would stand beside Sen. Clinton and have my vote count, but he has chosen to support my disenfranchisement.  So for me, it is personal. It should be personal for every voter, because if I got disenfranchised this time you could next time.

    your vote didn't matter to her in August 2007 (none / 0) (#59)
    by ibextati on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:31:02 PM EST
    why didn't she raise hell when DNC stripped your delegates?

    You just don't get it or even want to acknowledge (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by FLVoter on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:44:14 PM EST
    that disenfranchsing voters is a horrible thing to do no matter who does it.  It was wrong in 2000 and it is still wrong. If Sen. Obama wants to be President, then it is time that he start standing up for the rights of all Americans.  Last time I checked, Florida was still part of the US.

    Who cares?! It's about the voters! (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Davidson on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:55:13 PM EST
    My God!  This isn't about either Clinton or Obama.  We cannot allow the disenfranchisement of voters, regardless of who it may or may not benefit.

    Again: it's about the voters--who should never have been punished in the first place.


    One of her supporters did do so (none / 0) (#204)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:36:24 PM EST
    at that meeting, but Brazile, Dawson, and other Obama superdelegates decided it was time to go to lunch.

    Really.  Have you even viewed the video of that rules committee meeting?  If not, why are you bothering this blog with ill-founded blatherings?


    Sarissa: When she is inaugurate president in 2009 (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:25:54 PM EST
    all she has to do is deliver on her on the solutions she has outlined to the country and 2012 will be a lot easier for her.  Why in the world should she bow out now when people are just beginning to see that she is the best of the three candidates?  That would be stupid, don't you think?

    When she is INAUGURATED President in 2009 (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:27:05 PM EST
    sorry for tye missing d.

    Because (none / 0) (#68)
    by sarissa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:32:32 PM EST
    the media, damn them, have essentially called it for Obama - I can't think of a scenario wherein she gets the nomination unless say someone catches Obama on his knees praying to Mecca (not that there's anything wrong with that) or something like that.

    Getting the blame for the Obama loss this year is not going to help.


    If all votes are counted (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:35:37 PM EST
    Hillary wins. There's your scenario

    the media called it for obama huh! (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:37:15 PM EST
    and we are supposed to bow our heads and say amen. i say no way, no time no place. let's take it to the convention. i'll take off and do a little demonstrating myself.

    seriously (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:40:28 PM EST
    I am starting to think what the Obamans need is a few threats from us to take it to the streets if they try to "steal" the nomination from Hillary.
    that felt good just typing it.

    summer in denver will be better than (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:46:15 PM EST
    summer in houston. i can do that!

    just like 40 years ago (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:53:31 PM EST
    with better haircuts.
    Im in!

    Me (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by BethanyAnne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:46:28 PM EST
    and the 1.5 million Obama donators will see you there :-)

    threats won't get you anything here! (none / 0) (#128)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:50:22 PM EST
    So (1.00 / 1) (#145)
    by BethanyAnne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:56:10 PM EST
    are you going to tell that to Capt. Howdy right above me?  Or is it only a threat when an Obama supporter speaks up?  This entire thread is about the fight Hillary wants to have at the convention.  All I'm saying is that if she wants a fight, I for one won't back down.

    oh my god (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:58:07 PM EST
    I had the temerity to suggest what the Obamans have been suggesting for months.
    I am so wicked.

    so! neither will we! and your point? (none / 0) (#148)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:57:31 PM EST
    personally i and most others don't care if you are there or not!

    we are older (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:58:53 PM EST
    and we have more insurance.

    My point (1.00 / 1) (#167)
    by BethanyAnne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:02:41 PM EST
    , hello there, is that there are tons of Obama voters and supporters who are equally willing and able to match Hillary supporters for passion.  If this war suits you, it suits me.

    I think we can take you (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:54:58 PM EST
    Heck and some of us (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:58:29 PM EST
    "ladies of a certain age" will do an old fashioned bra burning, we may have to get a permit, cause it would qualify as a bonfire.  

    yuppies are scary (none / 0) (#163)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:00:37 PM EST
    Then don't blame her. Do your part (none / 0) (#208)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:38:26 PM EST
    for common sense, if you really care about your party having any viable future.

    Used to agree (none / 0) (#227)
    by Valhalla on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    I used to agree with this viewpoint until a few weeks ago.  I thought if she bowed out with the grace and honor she shows in so many arenas, it would significantly improve her 2012 chances.  I don't see more than one term for Obama, if he could even win it.  The economy and the war are very tough issues even for solid, experienced politicians and he's neither.

    But over the last few months (possibly) and weeks (definitely) she's put the fighter part of herself out there more and people are definitely responding to it.  Multiple polls of Democrats after Indiana and NC showed 60% or more think she should stay in the race.  Obviously people are not paying attention to the MSM who've been declaring her run over since Super Tuesday.  Her appeal is strengthening while Obama's maxed out in March.

    That she's still standing after all the attacks -- remember she's been under attack by Republicans for 20 years -- highlights the DKos folks as just a bunch of whiny little brats compared to the real stuff -- is amazing and inspiring.


    Question to Hillary Clinton and Her supporters (1.00 / 3) (#47)
    by ibextati on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:26:04 PM EST
    Why didn't she fight as hard for FL and MI before January 2008? It sounds to me that she's doing it now just to save her candidacy.

    For the same reason (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:36:06 PM EST
    No one would have cared about butterfly ballots in California.  Or long lines to the voting booth in Georgia.

    The vote matters more when it makes up the margin of victory.


    well? (none / 0) (#131)
    by ibextati on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:53:24 PM EST
    according to your argument then, this is not an issue of defranchised voters. You just want the vote because you want your candidate to win.

    If it makes up the margin of victory (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:54:22 PM EST

    That's how I felt in 2000 too!


    and what has your candidate done (none / 0) (#50)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:26:51 PM EST
    for voter enfrancisement lately? the answer is not one daxx thing!

    How (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by BethanyAnne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:57:18 PM EST
    about the national voter registration drive?  Does my going out to register folk at Obama's request qualify?

    See? (1.00 / 1) (#122)
    by BethanyAnne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:47:45 PM EST
    The Clinton Roolz: Obama was worse!



    answer my question? (none / 0) (#81)
    by ibextati on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:36:06 PM EST
    This is just a political game by both sides. They are both siding to what benefits them the most whether you like on not.

    and who in the heck do you think you are (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:38:51 PM EST
    giving me orders. hell will freeze over before i answer anything from you. learn some manners and then come back to the table.

    I just want an honest answer (none / 0) (#112)
    by ibextati on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:45:24 PM EST
    nothing more

    lady you got answers in about (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:48:26 PM EST
    50 different sizes and by 4 or 5 different posters. that isn't enough for you. frankly nothing we say or do will please you except to get in the obama supporters line. good luck with that because it won't happen.

    the answer is she is doing it (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:49:02 PM EST
    because she wants to win.
    whats your point?  
    it also happens to be the right thing to do.

    thank you for making my point (none / 0) (#159)
    by ibextati on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:59:31 PM EST
    she is raising hell now because she wants to win. Back in December she didn't care about the defranchised voters in those two states.  

    she didn't make your point. hillary (none / 0) (#168)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:03:01 PM EST
    gets out with the poor, the workers, the boomers! you know the ones that the obama campaign and dnc are being told are no longer needed or wanted.

    she didn't make your point. hillary (none / 0) (#169)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:03:29 PM EST
    gets out with the poor, the workers, the boomers! you know the ones that the obama campaign and dnc are telling us are no longer needed or wanted.

    she didn't make your point, hillary (none / 0) (#177)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:05:22 PM EST
    get out there with workers, poor people, boomers. you know the ones the dnc and obama camaign are told are no longer needed.

    Actually she did (none / 0) (#231)
    by Evie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:59:57 PM EST
    She issued a statement protesting the disenfranchisement of FL and MI and has often spoken of the matter.

    The problem was that there were more immediate concerns, like campaigning in the remaining primaries.


    So? (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Manuel on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:45:00 PM EST
    Regardless of the motivation, one candidate's position lines up with democratic principles.  The other candidate's position doesn't.  The DNC is nowhere to be found when it comes to leadership.

    ha ha (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by ibextati on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:21:18 PM EST
    where was she in December? How come nobody talked about democratic principles when DNC stripped the delegates. This whole thing is a joke.

    Clinton delegate Don Fowler did (none / 0) (#213)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:41:35 PM EST
    so go look him up and learn what he said and then come on back when you can contribute.

    So... (none / 0) (#230)
    by Josmt on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:56:29 PM EST
    all the noise I hear from you... You don't want FL and MI to be counted because your savior and all powerful lord would lose? I see... that's make sense... If I was a republican back in 2000, it would make perfect senses...

    To Obama maybe it is a game (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    but not to Hillary and her supporters; it is a fight for the welfare of the country.  It is literally a matter of life and death.  To give the most number of Americans a better life: affordable healthcare, education, energy; jobs, jobs,, and jobs; protect our environment so that it is a healthy environment for people to live in;  and to stop the dying of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    NOBODY HAS WON YET.  This will be decided at the convention.


    It wasn't the right time. (none / 0) (#64)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:32:06 PM EST
    It is superior intellect to know where all your opponent's forces are located and who they are before advancing.  Besides, there were other things to do.  Now is definitely the right time.  The best analogy I can think of in answer to your question is in a basketball game, you don't shoot while you're still in the back court.  You move closer to the basket before you make your move.

    simple political game (1.00 / 0) (#105)
    by ibextati on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:43:52 PM EST
    when it comes to FL and MI, they both shared similar views before primaries began. After January Obama stayed with his position because it benefits him the way it is and Hillary became a champion of voters right because that is the best thing for her survival. Let's be intellectually honest.

    It's really not a video game! (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:50:21 PM EST
    But I'm glad you admit that they are politicians (because Obama has been saying he is above politics) The difference is Hillary is on the side of the right principle.  She is for voters' rights.  Are you saying that Obama is not?  If your answer is yes, then there is nothing else to be said.  Hillary will win this argument before the WHOLE country. Ha,ha!  She is definitely a much better politician.

    my whole point is (1.00 / 1) (#179)
    by ibextati on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:07:51 PM EST
    Hillary changed her position for political expediency on the back voter disenfranchisement.

    If she takes this to the convention, we're done (1.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Mavs4527 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:31:48 PM EST
    It's an exercise in hubris on Hillary's part and will be the downfall of our party, at least for our chances in 2008, which will keep her options open for 2012 running against President McCain, which may be her plan anyway.

    The worst aspect of this whole exercise is that anyone with any intelligence and impartial point of view can see a convention fight will be futile for Hillary. The superdelegates are not going to go against the will of a majority of Democrats, which by, according to the rules, is pledged delegates. Doing otherwise risks more than half of the party staying home in November, namely African Americans who would see what could have been the opportunity to vote for the first African American candidate for President, who played by the rules, ran against almost impossible odds, and won a majority of pledged delegates, and then in the end have it taken away by party insiders. For all the talk about white working class voters, it should be mentioned that without strong African American turnout in key states, our chances of winning the presidency every four years is significantly reduced.  If Hillary's coup attempt at the convention succeeds, don't count on a lot of those people showing up in November.

    It's also worth pointing out if Hillary takes it to the convention, no matter what happens, we're going to have an extremely weakened nominee without much of a campaign war chest only having a little over two months to run a general election campaign against McCain, who's been the GOP nominee since March, and try to bring whatever is left of the Democratic Party back together again.

    Hillary has lost. It's over. If she cares about the good of the party at all, after June 3rd, she should suspend her campaign and help unite the party behind it's nominee, Senator Barack Obama.

    IACF ...... too funny (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:42:22 PM EST
    Just exactly how many paid bloggers are here today?  This is the oddest thing, every time Obama has a huge loss people join up and their first comment is a drama laden, over the top angst ridden speech about   IACF!!!!! Ha!

    Clinton will take this to the convention (none / 0) (#215)
    by mffarrow on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:42:07 PM EST
    If she thinks it will get her the nomination.  

    That's why her campaign is fighting to get the illegitimate FL and MI delegates, so that she will have more delegates, and a stronger case to make to the supers.  

    And if the meeting to resolve the MI/FL issue is not favorable enough to her campaign, I expect we will be hearing a lot more about fighting all the way to Denver.


    I really don't think... (none / 0) (#225)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:50:49 PM EST
    ...she will take it to the convention.  Unless she truly believes he is unelectable and will destroy the party's chances in November.  And even then, taking it to the convention would be disastrous...once the deal on MI and FL is reached, I assume that she will end the race after the last of the primaries.  

     I also truly believe she knows that, in the event he loses in November, taking it to the convention would destroy any hope of a run in the 2012 primary.  Continuing through the primaries will be fine, and even if she convinced the superdelegates ahead of the convention she might have a shot...but the party would be doomed if it went to the convention.  


    Not a paid blogger (1.00 / 1) (#224)
    by Mavs4527 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:50:47 PM EST
    Just someone who cares about the long term interests of the Democratic party instead of the short term stubbornness of a failed Presidential candidate and her diehard supporters who still can't come to grip with the fact she's lost and risk costing the party the chance for the White House by taking a fight to the convention that no sane person thinks has a remote chance in succeeding.

    I really, really, really don't like the idea... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:41:25 PM EST
    ...of going to the convention.

     I agree with what she said earlier, though: I definitely hope that the Michigan and Florida situation is resolved, their delegates seated in some fashion and the potential public relations mess with the Republicans can be avoided, and we do not have to go to the convention without a candidate.

    I really, really, really don't like the idea... (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by fly on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:04:32 PM EST
    Seating the Florida delegation  "IN SOME FASHION " IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH ..we had near 1.8 million people come to vote on election day, those votes are certified by the state.

    Right now in Texas Obama is claiming delegates for the caucus after the primary..as of todays date only 41% of those caucus votes are counted, and yet None of 1.8 million voters in Florida are counted.

    South Carolina , New Hampshire and Iowa broke the same rules, only after they broke the rules they wrote a letter and Dean and Brazile exonerated them..they did not get rid of the cfooked voting machines,..no they just broke the rules..same as Florida.

    So if our votes should only be counted "in some fashion" then those states votes should only count in the same fashion!

    And if rules ARE GOING TO BE FOLLOWED ... then Obama should be punished as he broke the pledge no other candidate did in the State of Florida..not once but twice he broke the pledge..once right after he signed the pledge he broke the rules and he was the only candidate that campaigned with commericals coming into Florida  before the election for almost 2 weeks.

    He spent more money than 8 republican candidates in the state of Florida for commericals ..combined.

    The is no "fashion" for democracy..you either count our votes , or this is no democracy.

    Bush tried to create a fashion with purple fingers  for Iraq..i don't live in Iraq..but right about now i think i may be painting my finger purple..so people will know i am still an American even though my vote doesn't count as one!



    you're right. it's pretty clear now that (none / 0) (#212)
    by kangeroo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:41:23 PM EST
    the DNC isn't interested in legitimacy or in winning the white house.  it's utterly bizarre that we're more than willing to include american samoa, guam, puerto rico, and the virgin islands--all of which can't vote in the GE--this season, but we're completely ignoring two huge states, one of which decided our general in 2000 (FL) and the other of which we barely carried in 2004 (MI).  which is why i've concluded that the dem officials enabling this catastrophe must be either vindictive or utterly incompetent.

    as long as it is yours right! (none / 0) (#109)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:44:57 PM EST
    I have stated... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:55:31 PM EST
    ...that I will happily vote for Senator Clinton if she secured the nomination.  There are other reasons to avoid a convention fight.

    and i think there are many reasons to have it. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:58:47 PM EST
    O/T but any info (none / 0) (#115)
    by delacarpa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:45:46 PM EST
    on the several buses that bused people from Ga. today to his event in FLA. Like the event in Oregon that gave him a crowd of 75,000 mostly the younger crowd there to also enjoy the sun and free entertainment. I am wondering can this guy stand on his own 2 feet.

    This is one of the scary thing about convention (none / 0) (#161)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    the inability to stage anything without someone in the media blurting it.  Because the media will be camped at the convention site for four days and they have to keep looking for materials to broadcast; and even the most insignificant things will be used to occupy air time between commercials. The Obama supporters (the young uns will be under the glare of lights; Obama cannot deploy enough thought control police to keep his supporters in line.  They are likely to make the same kinds of statements to the media as they do at DKos and their whole nastiness will be there for the nation to see. Transparency is not one of the Obama camp's qualities.

    My favorite parts... (none / 0) (#133)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:53:36 PM EST
    [It's about the will of the people. And whenever you can understand their intent, it should govern.] ....

    [We are still arguing, aren't we, for counting all the votes back in 2000, and we should be just as passionately arguing for that principle today, here in Florida and in Michigan. It is well within the Democratic Party rules to take this stand. The rules clearly state that we can count all of these votes and seat all of these delegates, pledged and unpledged, if we so choose. And the rules lay out a clear process for doing so.]

    What a concept.  

    She can't take it to the convention (none / 0) (#203)
    by ibextati on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:35:59 PM EST
    She knows her faith is on the hands of the super delegates. Any attempt by her to take it the convention will freak out the superdelegates and i won't be suprised if the superdelegates flip to obama and end her candidacy.

    You know, I wasn't born in this country, so (none / 0) (#217)
    by camellia on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:43:36 PM EST
    I don't quite understand the convention thing.  Why have a convention at all if the nominee is chosen and anointed in advance?    I must be simpleminded but it seems that the idea of a convention is to get everyone together to Choose the Nominee.  So -- what's wrong with waiting?

    Wow, this speech (none / 0) (#223)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:50:35 PM EST
    was unFREAKINGbelievable.

    Hillary Clinton knocked it out of the ballpark!

    She sounded presidential and like a true leader.  She is definitely ON the high road.  Any attack on her points and easily be construed as an attack on the very principles this country was founded on:  democracy.

    Nice deflection (none / 0) (#233)
    by Mavs4527 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:13:08 PM EST
    Good to see you're conceding the point.

    Thanks for the video! (none / 0) (#236)
    by Terry M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:05:21 PM EST
    I won't watch cable news anymore because of the deplorable treatment of Hillary, but I'm glad to know (surpised as well) that MSNBC would cover any part of Hillary's great speech.

    But the telling moment in the posted clip was the anchor's comment, when the cutaway occurred, that Hillary had signed a pledge not to campaign in Florida.  This is supposed to be the "gotcha"  moment.  But, hello news media and DNC types, not campaigning is NOT the equivalent of not allowing others to vote.

    It has NEVER been adequately explained why Hillary's agreement (made with the other Dem candidates) not to campaign in Florida and Michigan (a pledge which Obama broke in a very sneaky fashion) is the justification given for NOT COUNTING MY VOTE.  HILLARY DID NOT CAMPAIGN; I DID VOTE --- THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!  Why are they always equated?

    Howard Dean and the rest of the DNC leadership better count my Florida vote - I will rememeber this undemocratic treatment by the Democratic party. This is a pledge I make now to the DNC.  My Florida friends all say the same thing. Are you listening DNC and SDs?  

    With all due respect. (none / 0) (#239)
    by Get 27 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:07:25 AM EST
    I see ample evidence of Clinton supporters making very negative assertions about Obama and his supporters, but I do not  see the reverse. I am referring to the threats to vote for McCain, and the accusations of underhandedness. If someone here feels that Obama supporters on dKos are out of line, why not post something on dKos and focus this discussion on what people are actually saying here at TalkLeft? What I am saying, like other UNPAID posters, is that I will vote for Hillary over McCain if she is the nominee. I think that the MI and FL issue is a big mess and Hillary is trying to argue to change the rules because it is her only hope to stay in the race at this point. Fine. If she is successful in her argument, and ultimately prevails because of it, I will vote for her. I'm not a Democrat, I'm Independent, but I am aligned to the left politically. I have no idea what kind of coalition we have on the left, but I would not vote for a Republican president after all the BS Bush brought us.Many posters here are touting electability as the main argument for Hillary over Obama. I think that either can beat McCain. That's the difference between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters here. We are more committed to preventing a Republican presidency. Those of you who are on record as unwilling to support the democratic nominee if it is not Hillary are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that may lead to a McCain win. I'm staying to the left no matter what, but I'm wondering how Hillary supporters throw in with McCain and his policies which are very much at odds with hers. I mean, if I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama, I would vote for Nader or write Hillary in before I voted for the Republican,

    I Post Here... (none / 0) (#240)
    by Niffari on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:01:32 AM EST
    I post here because I found in the past an intelligent group of like-minded individuals. What has happened to the Hillary cause is a bunch of supporters not seeing virtually any other actions as legitimate except those that benefit Hillary Clinton. I see that and I'm calling you on it. That's fair because that's what is happening here.

    If you all want to insult that, go ahead. I can take it. I realize that I'm right here and you're wrong. Basic fairness is the issue. Name-calling "Obama roolz". What does that mean anyway? Please explain because I'm quite certain the DNC made these rules.

    As for the delegate votes, I am reiterating, Hillary will not get what she wants which is all delegates from both states. It's a basic fairness issue and that's why the media has leaped on this issue as an end-run around the rules.