Alcee Hastings To Boycott Convention Due to FL Delegate Travesty

I do not blame him. Florida got the shaft today. Part of Rep. Hastings' statement:

Florida Democrats have been serially abused and the DNC is the latest of offenders. How the DNC has the authority to ignore the votes of ‘Jack and Jane Lunch Bucket’ is beyond my understanding. The insiders who actively sought to disillusion and disenfranchise the more than 1.75 million Florida Democrats who voted on January 29 give new meaning to collective arrogance.

. . . I suppose the DNC has the right to block Democrats in Florida from attending the National Convention. They also have the right to be stupid, and stupid they are.

MORE . . .

. . . [O]n May 31, 2008, a group of elitist insiders of the DNC have effectively said that some of my ancestors’ progeny equal only 1/2 and that men and women in Florida who voted on January 29th are 1/2 also. For a Party which will crown its historic nominee on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, the DNC’s decision today is tragically ironic.

As a matter of protest, I do not intend to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Me neither. Course, I was not going anyway, but now I am joining Hastings' protest. And like Hastings, I will fight for the Democratic nominee in November anyway:

Despite all of this, too much is at stake this November. I refuse to allow those who have done me and my constituents wrong to stop us from taking back our country. Together, we will do whatever it takes to increase our majority in the House and Senate and win the Presidency.

. . . . This election is bigger than Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is certainly bigger than the DNC. There are over 46 million Americans who are uninsured, gas and energy costs are spiraling out of control, America’s economy is faltering, and U.S. troops are dying nearly every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will take the energy and resources of all of us to fix these problems and the others facing our nation.

Hear! Hear!

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Deep Thought | Things That Happened Today >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Awesome. (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:47:44 PM EST
    How can you not have a soft spot for someone who, when denied the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, issued a statement saying "Sorry haters. God isn't done with me yet," or something similar?

    "They have a right to be stupid, and stupid they are."

    That's the new Democratic Party motto.

    Or how about this (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Rhouse on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:53:38 PM EST
    "We're UNITED in stupidity - stupidity unites us" or  "Come for the Pony - Stay in the Mess!"

    Kudos to Alcee.... (none / 0) (#60)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:18:56 PM EST
    I remember (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:48:03 PM EST
    that he was standing with Bill Nelson from the beginning in last fall.

    He said Florida was in compliance from the beginning, and he was right.

    I let the FDP have it... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:55:20 PM EST
    when I unsubscribed to their email list...same with the DNC.

    I won't (5.00 / 14) (#3)
    by Polkan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:49:17 PM EST
    I'm sorry to say this, but I will change my party registration to Independent next week. What happened today showed me that my party and I didn't really know each other. I will vote for whoever earns my vote in November.

    I already did (5.00 / 14) (#11)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:54:13 PM EST
    Right after Clinton Won again.... in Indiana and the mayor of Gary Indiana held up the vote count untill 1:00am. I saw the writing on the wall.... THE FIX was in.

    You are far from alone, my friend... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:54:42 PM EST
    just read here:

    Invisible No More


    Dude.... its cool you got your (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:05:30 PM EST
    own site, but c'mon, this is someone else's blog. Advertise here, like make a donation or ask...... I go off topic sometimes, but I wouldn't advertise without asking or paying. This is the best site for politics.

    Btw....I actually agree with Bill O'reilly in that clip.


    If you had read the earlier comments (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:13:30 PM EST
    ...from today, you would see that my supposed 'advertising' for my site has been addressed.

    Don't mistake coincidence for consequence. The person said they switched their party affiliation and I knew of someone else who had just done so who happened to write that she did on my site. I mentioned that to give the original writer (and readers) the opportunity to see, immediately, another who felt the same way.

    I love Talk Left, and appreciate it. But I am not looking for an ad blitz of any sort currently and certainly not one which involves this site.


    Ok my bad (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:23:07 PM EST
     I still loved the O'Reilly rant about MSNBO. He can crank it up a bit. I am not a fan of him either.

    No worries, friend (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:28:57 PM EST
    Sorry to sound harsh but someone yanked my chain on that issue earlier today.

    O'Reilly never stood taller than he does in that clip.



    I switched to unaffliated (5.00 / 10) (#27)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:01:04 PM EST
    at the DMV a few days ago.  It was liberating.

    Me, too (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by Davidson on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:03:39 PM EST
    I became an "unaffiliated" voter back in April precisely over MI and FL.

    However, I still can't believe the Party is about to commit political suicide with Obama as its (illegitimate*) nominee.  We cannot win without Clinton at the top of the ticket, but I finally get it: winning in November is irrelevant; the goal is to take over the Party the Chicago Way.

    *That is exactly as he will be seen come September.


    I will be switching mine soon as well (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:05:26 PM EST
    It will be odd to look at the voting card without a "D" on it, but the decision was sealed today by the RBC.

    I am not (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by LoisInCo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:27:22 PM EST
    switching until after November. It will be the final act after voting AGAINST Obama as a DEMOCRAT. I can't wait.

    Unaffiliated here (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:07:58 PM EST
    They lost me a bit back. Something about WWTSBQ really didn't sit well with me, along with all the blatant sexism being ignored (and more!).

    Guilt free voting is the way to go, imo.


    On Monday morning (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:24:15 PM EST
    we're going down to the Registrar of Voters and signing up as independents.

    I've been a Democratic party loyalist and activist since 1964.  Not any more.  I will not be back until the primary process is reformed.

    In the meantime, good luck to ye.


    Leaving the party (none / 0) (#89)
    by Natal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:12:29 PM EST
    With so many Clinton supporters leaving the Democratic Party it definitely appears it's going to be Obama's party from here on. There'll be no opposition within to put a check on him.



    It would be (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:27:15 PM EST
    Nioce to see some emails sent to the DNC about their actions today.

    DNC Email

    It would be great to on Monday that the DNC had so many emails that it crashed their server.


    The DNC isn't reigning Obama in. (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:32:59 AM EST
    Quite the contrary.

    Welcome to the club (none / 0) (#154)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:18:27 PM EST
    I sent mine in last week and it feels right. I actually went to the web site several times and then backed out. Then I printed it out, filled it out, and lost it. Finally I just did it. At first I was surprised at how hard it was. I've been a Democrat all my adult life, but never particularly active. Recently I had considered getting acting in my local Democratic Party activities. Now, I'm surprised at how good it felt to leave. All of that baggage, trying to justify the actions of people I don't agree with... it's easier from here. I can pick and choose my candidates (I suspect they will mostly be Dems, but who knows?), and I don't have to apologize for the behavior of people who simply don't know how to lead.

    Alcee Hastings (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:51:34 PM EST
    We stand with you, my brother.

    Finally, some political courage in a sea of expediency.

    We are in the part of the campaign where both heroes and villains will be made.

    Hastings is a hero. Ickes is a hero. Wexler is a spoiled, fist-thumping child. Brazile, Dean, Pelosi, etc.: Well...

    Thank you, Alcee Hastings. You are, truly, a man with integrity.

    I agree with all who say Alcee Hastings (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:04:39 PM EST
    has courage and I also agree with what he says and what he stands for, however, BTD chided Hillary's reps today for not arguing to count every vote, Hastings reps at the meeting today (Sen. Nelson etal) talked about it, didn't insist on it and didn't protest counting the actual vote. I hope Alcee and many others boycott, perhaps then the message will get out there..it sure isn't getting out there yet!!!

    Integrity? (1.00 / 11) (#13)
    by KristenWinters on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:54:48 PM EST
    This is high comedy.

    If Alcee Hastings is truly a man of integrity, you must have a different definition of integrity than Noah Webster.


    True enough (5.00 / 14) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:00:27 PM EST
    some folks would be tempted to point to Rezko, Wright, Pfleger, etc. at this moment, but I won't stoop to your level.

    You might try engaging an argument once in a while.


    I am engaging in an argument. (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by KristenWinters on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:10:11 PM EST
    I don't believe that Alcee Hastings is a man of integrity.

    And I would probably agree with you on anything you say about Wright or Pfleger, too.


    Oh, how about Daley, Hoffa and Nadhmi Auchi? (none / 0) (#122)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:49:03 PM EST
    Integrity is as it does (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:07:38 PM EST
    If Hastings lacked integrity in a previous decision he made in his life, so be it.

    Are you going to tell me that Barack Obama is a career criminal because he illegally used cocaine, on multiple occasions?

    Argue better, and don't leave your flanks exposed in such an obvious manner. That is my advice.


    I would imagine that a majority of our elected (1.00 / 5) (#54)
    by KristenWinters on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:19 PM EST
    officials have experimented with illegal drugs, as have most on this board.  

    Personally, I believe that those who haven't missed out on a life experience.

    However, my response was directed at Alcee Hastings' integrity.

    The same way that Obama would have little authority at a "Just Say No" convention, Alcee Hastings and integrity do not belong in any sentence that doesn't include the phrase "has no".


    I find your argument for drug use (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:27:43 PM EST
    ...uncompelling and, frankly, naive. There is no 'life experience' to be gained from doing hard drugs. Ask Len Bias. I find people in your position's argument to be little more than an excuse for your actions.

    You did what you did. Good for you. But don't try to glorify it because that's not what the next Len Bias needs to hear, that they need that 'experience.'

    What you are arguing is of little relevance because of how you're arguing. You're making the argument that a person cannot have integrity based on one or a series of missteps in his life. And so I brought you the illicit missteps of Barack Obama since you mentioned the apparent lawbreaking/lack of ethics of Hastings.

    Now, either both men cannot have integrity based on their mistakes or they both are still able to attain such integrity, at least momentarily, as Hastings did with his decision today to support the rights of the voters of his state.

    If you want to tell me Barack can't have integrity based on a series of actions he has committed in his life, I'll definitely listen. But I'm not sure that's how you want to proceed. You tell me.


    So...... (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by michitucky on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:30:49 PM EST
    Using your reasoning, breaking the law by using illegal drugs is a "life experience"......Interesting!!!

    In short, yes. (2.00 / 2) (#82)
    by KristenWinters on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:35:56 PM EST
    I would think most sane people agree with the decriminalization of most drgus.

    Now You Are Insinuating That Obama Lacks Sanity (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:19:13 PM EST
    He is against decriminalization of drugs.

    no - (5.00 / 7) (#80)
    by Josey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:32:51 PM EST
    your response is to target Hastings to avoid discussing Obama's deceptiveness and dishonesty. Whatever it takes to avoid any discussion of Obama's character flaws.

    Kristen....markos is calling you.... (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:21:41 PM EST
    I really want to dive into this... (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:32:21 PM EST
    ...but I'll behave for now.



    Why, does his vote for Obama count in (none / 0) (#30)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:03:24 PM EST
    Michigan too?

    Ahhh.. Backlash (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:52:19 PM EST
    Its already starting, whats it been 90 minutes...
    Good for Alcee Hastings!! An American with guts. These are the Dems I support, not the roll over and die, wuss Dems.

    I wouldn't go (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:56:30 PM EST
    For the same reason I wouldn't hang out at an Obamablog.

    I knew Alcee a long time ago (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:16:02 PM EST
    I was working for a Federal OEO program and he was a attorney handling all the legal work for the office. He was always a very cool dude.

    Seriously People Lay Off (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:20:31 PM EST
    It's bad enough what happened today. But to turn around and slime Hastings after he stood up to protest voter disenfranchisement??!!! Especially when he said he would support the nominee anyway --- which after today's travesty we can say will be Obama (presumably your guy).

    It's that immaturity that has cost your candidate half the support within the Party. A cost that will probably continue through November.

    But at this point, I say bring on. You and your candidate have been coddled by both the DNC and the MSM. It's already becoming apparent that in large closed elections that coddling doesn't extend to the ballot box. Time to drive that home.

    Both sides needed (none / 0) (#66)
    by Rashomon66 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:23:24 PM EST
    I see immaturity on both sides. We need to all start acting like adults about this no matter who we support

    I still can't get over the fact... (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:27:21 PM EST
    ... that the Democratic Party today decided to give delegates to someone who got zero votes in the Michigan primary.

    I'm not sure that even Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor and Kennedy could have reasoned their way into this outcome.

    And who deliberately (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by vigkat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:03:59 PM EST
    and strategically took his name off the ballot, voluntarily.

    To be fair, (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by bocajeff on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:45:20 PM EST
    They also gave delegates to Sen. Clinton and she had known and stated that those votes weren't going to count either.

    The time for this fight was back when the delegates were originally stripped which is what Sen. Nelson, Rep. Hastings and even Rep. Wexler are exactly right.

    Sen. Clinton DIDN'T care originally because she didn't think it was going to matter.

    Fight for what you believe in all the time, not just when it's expedient. Which is kinda what BTD does.


    To vote democrat in November (5.00 / 7) (#81)
    by StevenT on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:33:59 PM EST
    As for me, for once i see how the democratic party lost its vales of transparency and accountability. Look at what power does to this party. It took the Republican party 8 years to get super greedy and to my surprise took the Democratic party 2 years to achieve this power craziness. Even me, who has been on the field for Clinton has accepted the fact that Obama is the nominee, so why not just seat both delegations in full for the sake of unity. But no. 'They' decided to play rough.

    I do not know what the Obama wing will do for unity. But to tell us that we have to vote for him because of the havoc that McCain will bring, i think writing in Clinton would be my first option. Who knows, maybe then we can go to the Supreme Court and tell them that the millions of people who write in Hillary should count.

    I have (5.00 / 8) (#87)
    by tek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:04:01 PM EST
    a problem with people who say we can take back the country with the Democratic Party.  I guess i'm too much of a realist.  After witnessing the travesty of this primary season and especially the little show of corruption we were treated to today, how can anyone believe the corrupt promotion of a Dem candidate is any better than the corrupt nomination and election of GWB?

    How well I remember the outrage among Democrats when Karl Rove circulated rumors around SC that John McCain had a black baby.  That now seems like a children's bedtime story compared to the vile, vicious smears the Democratic leaders and Obama have ciruculated about Hillary and her family.  I will not vote for tyrannical corruption no matter what party is involved.  A man who is willing to destroy a fellow Democrat to get something he wants is not presidential material.

    I absolutely agree (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:14:16 PM EST
    I simply could never support the Democratic candidate after today, if it is Obama. This was a travesty, and the "Rules" Committee never even cited a "rule" as a basis for its decision.  I know it is not a court, but it is the "Rules" Committee.  

    you need to go outside the Obama bubble (none / 0) (#149)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:31:53 AM EST
    to understand.

    Ricket Rockets (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:13:43 PM EST
    You are permanently suspended from my threads.

    Every comment you make in my threads will be deleted.

    Tallahassee Democrat (Newspaper) (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:20:35 PM EST
    This is the lead story, lead paragraph.  Now see why I think there is something wrong in Florida!!

    "The veteran Tallahassee political operator who filed the appeal that won back half of Florida's Democratic National Convention delegate votes Saturday said Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is now mathematically dead."  


    u cant beg for sympathy after you broke the rules (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:31:09 PM EST
    Do you think that the DNC will remember that in November, after breaking their own rules today?

    Did you actually (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:40:57 PM EST
    bother to watch the proceedings today or hear any of the arguments? Did you hear Alice Huffman's recommendation at the end based on those arguments? If you don't know what the facts are, then please don't pretend to know what you're talking about.

    The voters did nothing wrong in any state. In Florida, the RNC screwed the party over but good. And now they know how to do it again in future. But hey, Obama won, so who cares, right?


    looks like the posts we were (none / 0) (#145)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:07:53 AM EST
    responding to got deleted. Makes it look like we are arguing with each other when we are really agreeing. Oh well.

    They broke their own rules (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:54:26 PM EST
    by not allotting Michigan delegates on the basis of the certified election results. They have set a horrible precedent that says that the DNC can overturn the results of a state election. Their "compromise" compromised one of the most basic democratic tenets.

    It isn't about us. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by lilburro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:33:28 PM EST
    I do agree.  But why did Obama let this happen?   Does this hurt his electability?  Or are we the only ones paying attention?  

    In any case, taking 4 of Clinton's delegates is asking for some resentment down the line.

    You think Clinton (none / 0) (#113)
    by lilburro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:40:27 PM EST
    wanted a ridiculous 69/59 split?  Or argued for 50/50?

    Want to be the nominee, act like the nominee.  


    No, she argued for a split consistent (none / 0) (#127)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:00:09 PM EST
    with the vote in Michigan, which gave her 73 delegates, and allotted the rest to "uncommitted". As both the Michigan state reps and the Clinton campaign acknowledged, most of those "uncommitted" delegates (who have already been included in the state selection  process) are Obama supporters.

    You don't appear to have listened or paid any attention at all to the proceedings today.


    hah! (none / 0) (#139)
    by maladroit on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:46:01 PM EST
    You mean to say she argued that the delegates should be allocated the way the votes were cast... Obama taking his name off was his doing, he didn't get any votes in MI (to his name, "uncommitted" and Barack Obama" are not the same thing) so he shouldn't get any delegates allocated to him.

    Punish Those Voters (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:34:22 PM EST
    They broke the rulz. Rules are more important than voters and more important than winning states in the GE. Stick to those rulz. Who needs those voters anyhow?  

    I Am Being Real (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:06:55 PM EST
    You have missed the point entirely.  Pissing off voters is poor GE strategy. Now you and Obama might want to cling to the rulz but you will also have to accept the consequences of choosing  rulz over voters come November.

    The thing is... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Soulhuntre on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:15:43 PM EST
    "Despite all of this, too much is at stake this November. I refuse to allow those who have done me and my constituents wrong to stop us from taking back our country."

    Those people who feel this way are wrong. You cannot "take back" the country when the people you will be handing power to are not "you" and don't share any of your values.

    After this it is clear that Obama (and those who are running him) has staged a coup of the DNC. They are counting on one thing... that you dislike McCain enough that you will still help them gain power even after they have proved to yout hat they care nothing for you, the rules or the votes of their constituants.

    If they are proven right, then the DNC is totally lost.

    Disrespect for Rule of Law (none / 0) (#155)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:04:39 PM EST
    From my perspective, the problem the permeates most thngs the Bush Admin has done that I've recoiled at for the last 7+ years is its trampling on the rule of law, beginning with the U.S. Constitution.  The DNC RBC is also disrespecting the rule of law -- its charter and rules to promote a candidate, and presumably the candidate's campaign goes along with this. Seems to me like a national case of been down so long, looks like up to me.  I left the proceedings last night with grave concern for my country and my party.

    Good for him. (4.90 / 11) (#8)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:52:47 PM EST
    What happened today was a travesty.

    Yes, it was (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:59:37 PM EST
    It was one long GOP campaign ad with a long lunch break.


    How often does a minority of a party (those who have voted for Obama/supported him) secede from the majority of a party (those who voted for Clinton)?

    If Donna Brazile and David Axelrod want a new Democratic Party, today's travesty went a long way in making sure the old party is wrecking-balled.


    does anyone know? (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Josey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:16:23 PM EST
    if there's ever been a Dem candidate for president who was more arrogant and divisive than Obama??
    Unbelievable arrogance and elitism!  all condoned by the Elites of the Obamacrat Party.
    Apparently, they wanted a swift end to the FDR/Clinton wing of the party.

    FDR/Clinton wing of the party (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:22:30 PM EST
    thrown under the bus again by the DNC.  

    With help from (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:35:05 PM EST
    FDR's grandson. I'm sure FDR's spinning in his grave.

    Try getting the history straight skepti (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:43:37 AM EST
    "they called him "Ol' FeatherDuster" who had no real accomplishments,"

    First: Feather duster was a tag placed on him by some people in Eleanor's family.

    Second: he was a man of significant accomplishment before he ran for President as a State Senator in the New York assembly, as an accomplished assistant Secretary of the Navy and an effective, innovative Governor of New York.

    Before his Presidential run some people considered him just a charming affable guy but there was no denying his considerable accomplishments before his candidacy.


    You're not very (none / 0) (#119)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:44:52 PM EST
    good at this.  However, you do have your criticism of Bill Clinton down.  Too bad he won twice huh?  Sorry but Obama is the effete elitism this cycle.

    Lyndon Johnson (1.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Dadler on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:15:03 PM EST
    Was a completely fraudulent, corrupt slimeball who actually signed the Civil Rights Act -- ironies abound everywhere in life.

    This pity-fest is tiresome.  Hillary ran a campaign, so did Obama, the DNC ran itself into the ground, this is what we have.  Would you prefer a John Sociopath McCain?



    You Are Such A Great Advocate For Obama (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:23:18 PM EST
    and unity. Did you have to take classes to develop your technique or did it just come naturally?

    LBJ had a conscience. He actually cared about the (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:59:26 PM EST
    poor and civil rights and he put his reputation on the line to pass the Civil Rights act and start the War on Poverty.  I didn't like him at the time because of Vietnam, but I was young then, as these Obama kids are now, and caught up in the emotion of the times.  I won't say LBJ was a saint, because he wasn't.  But he wasn't a "completely fraudulent, corrupt slimeball!"  That is a calumny and no better than the Obama camp and the MSM having palpitations and crying racism when Hillary said it took LBJ working with MLK to get the Civil Rights Act passed.

    I would imagine you weren't alive when LBJ was president or you would be more respectful of him. He listened to the protestors and they affected him and the war affected him and he refused to run for a second term because of that and died shortly after he left office.


    Yes - (none / 0) (#148)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:26:53 AM EST
    >>>Hillary ran a campaign, so did Obama

    but no newly elected senator would begin plotting a presidential run during his first month in office without the backing of the Washington establishment.
    The Establishment ran Obama, condoned his sexism, race-baiting and false accusations of racism against the Clintons as he repeatedly trashed the Clinton administration. Ideologies and narratives Obama had learned all so well at the feet of Rev. Wright and frequently conveyed on the campaign trail.


    Well, to be fair... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Cynicor on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:20:01 AM EST
    Some people might see Clinton telling us to go vote for someone else if they didn't like her AUMF vote as arrogant, especially because she was the heavy favorite at that point in 2007. I know that it offended me quite a lot.

    Should have said... (4.00 / 1) (#74)
    by DaveOinSF on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:28:58 PM EST
    ... that it's surprising that the RBC didn't award Florida delegates 3/5 of a vote instead.

    Stop with that nonsense right now (1.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Mavs4527 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:03:21 PM EST
    The votes are being recognized. The state party is being punished by losing some of the power of it's delegates.

    It's going to be bs comments like this that will prevent us from being unified in November.


    Is it? (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:14:28 PM EST
    These comments will be the reason?



    Yes, that is the Obamabot tactic (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:44:29 PM EST
    .. bully the Clinton supporters by pre-blaming them for Obama's impending catastrophic loss.

    That does seem (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:47:42 PM EST
    to be the talking point of the day  :-)

    Too bad it makes absolutely no sense.


    No they are pre-blaming Clinton for (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:02:18 PM EST
    not making us vote for Obama.

    We (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Nadai on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:56:22 PM EST
    are not berating the Obama people because we think your comments are an impediment to Unity - Unity is your shtick, not ours.  We berate you because your comments are either insulting or stupid.  Or both.

    interesting logic (none / 0) (#140)
    by maladroit on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:51:04 PM EST
    You mean the votes are being diminished, and that the Democratic voters of Florida are losing their power, because pledged delegates aren't selected by the state party!

    I didn't know punishing the voters was how you punish the state party!


    Well, since the Republicans did the same thing (2.00 / 2) (#4)
    by rafaelh on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:50:49 PM EST
    Doesn't they cancel each other out, at least on this subject? Voters can move to make a decision based on something that matters, like who has the best health plan, or foreign policy, etc?

    My friend (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:53:57 PM EST
    Perhaps you missed this part:

    Despite all of this, too much is at stake this November. I refuse to allow those who have done me and my constituents wrong to stop us from taking back our country. Together, we will do whatever it takes to increase our majority in the House and Senate and win the Presidency.

    . . . This election is bigger than Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is certainly bigger than the DNC. There are over 46 million Americans who are uninsured, gas and energy costs are spiraling out of control, America's economy is faltering, and U.S. troops are dying nearly every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will take the energy and resources of all of us to fix these problems and the others facing our nation.

    Well, if you're gonna go valedictorian on us, here (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by fctchekr on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:22:58 PM EST
    Imagine if the Colonists had decided to pay the tea tax and forgo the battle... and the framers decided not to break with British rule by not creating their own Declaration of Independence...

    The point being there is something far greater than a political party and its powers or any candidate..and that's us...the people...each one of us has the right to particpate and be counted. That is our one and only power...

    They denied Florida and Michigan voters that right today. What we witnessed was not a demonstration of Democracy, but a well orchestrated performance to give the nomination to one candidate.

    Why didn't someone get up and say this is not the party of everyone anymore...and the election is not bigger than us, it is us, or should be. What was done today was like rationing health care on the basis of only half a person qualifying for coverage...

    Stunning loss for the party because it will reverberate long after the election is over... fortifying generations to come that the Democratice party doesn't count votes and that  many of us just don't count...


    Respectfully, I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:25:17 PM EST
    The more important point to be made is that you will not tolerate disenfranchisement, reallocation of delegates, allocation of delegates to someone who did not earn them, a coronation of the chosen and calls from party bigwigs for a candidate to shut up and sit down.  

    Alcee Hastings (1.11 / 9) (#7)
    by KristenWinters on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:52:39 PM EST
    is one of only six federal judges who have ever been impeached and removed from office in the history of this country.  He was convicted of corruption and bribery charges and impeached by a vote of 413-3 in the Democratic controlled House and removed from office by a 69-26 vote of the Senate.  For full disclosure, he was pardoned by Bill Clinton, and as such, "has a dog in the fight" per se.

    Whatever side of any ethical issue Alcee Hastings is on, I would argue, taking the opposite position is the most prudent course of action.

    Um, on this issue he has a point (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:54:49 PM EST
    I am also happy to accept his votes in the House when I agree with them, which is most of the time.

    Do you consider John Conyers to be always ethically right because he floor-managed the impeachment?


    I'm pretty sure... (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:55:09 PM EST
    ... he'll be voting for Obama in November if Obama is the nominee.

    Will you be doing the opposite?


    ouch (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by clbrune on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:31:57 PM EST
    way to dismantle an argument ;-)

    Wow (5.00 / 14) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:55:34 PM EST
    this is an impressive comment. you may not know this, but Hastings' conviction was overturned.

    But what I REALLY like about your comment is the way it is a textbook case of an ad hominem argument.

    Well done.


    Indeed, (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:56:50 PM EST
    "forget the issue, he's untrustworthy!!!"

    No seriously (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:58:33 PM EST
    Whenver someone asks what an ad hominem argument is, this is a textbook case.

    Saying "you are an idiot" because of the opinion you just expressed is not, despite the many protestations to the contrary.


    Well, the textbook example is (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:00:13 PM EST
    something like "you shouldn't believe him because he's old and fat." But this one is just as good.

    bgut this was not a statement of fact (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:02:37 PM EST
    So his credibility is not in issue.

    He made an argument. she did not challenge his facts. she simply said "He was impeached" therefore he is wrong.

    this is no different than saying "he is fat" in these circumstances.


    Right (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:03:57 PM EST
    BTW (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:56:56 PM EST
    Friends of mine work in the Administration of Anibal Acevedo Vila, currently under indictment in US court in Philly. He is an Obama supporter. Should I be on the other side of him because of that?

    I believe Vila (1.00 / 2) (#37)
    by KristenWinters on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:05:24 PM EST
    was indicted for campaign fundraising violations.

    I don't think anyone would argue that Hastings was impeached for more serious violations.

    And if you want to have a high level legal discussion, Hasting's conviction was overturned under US vs Nixon which ruled that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings in the Senate.

    His conviction was overturned for jurisdictional reasons.

    His impeachment wasn't overturned.

    And he took the bribe.

    As for Vila, I would disregard the endorsements of both he AND his son.


    Um (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:08:28 PM EST
    That's not a very good argument.

    Silly person (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:17:42 PM EST
    I was making fun of you.

    As it happens, I think Anibal Acevedo Vila is a very honorable person who is being railroaded by the feds.


    the comment that offended me (1.00 / 2) (#46)
    by KristenWinters on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:08:23 PM EST
    was that "Alcee Hastings is truly a man of integrity."

    I don't think that you agree with that.  Do you?


    I do not hink it matters what offended you (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:18:12 PM EST
    Your comment was to MY post.

    Mixed votes (none / 0) (#41)
    by Rashomon66 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:06:06 PM EST
    Didn't Anibal Acevedo Vila win an election from something similar to uncommitted voter ballots?

    No (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:16:38 PM EST
    Sort of, actually (none / 0) (#62)
    by Rashomon66 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:21:05 PM EST
    Well it was controversial anyway and dealt with the concept of trying to figure out what the voters in Puerto Rico wanted exactly. [This according to Wikipedia where things can be wrong].

    Taking The Opposite Position Of Hastings (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:03:42 PM EST
    is the most prudent course of action?

     Hastings is recommending that we all come together to defeat the Republicans in November. As an Obama supporter, I'm surprised that you are advocating opposing Hastings' position.

    Taking an opposite stand would be to decide that it would be unethical to vote for Obama and the Democrats in November because of their actions. You may be right.


    And Obama is the only (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:06:17 PM EST
    Presidential nominee [likely] who has admitted to using cocaine. Should he be disqualified?

    Not disqualified, but I do anticipate (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:39:43 AM EST
    his cocaine use will be discussed this fall.  

    You know (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:06:18 PM EST
    Since he was impeached and is able to hold a seat in the House, that tells me that he's a pretty smart politician. I think maybe I might trust his judgment on that score.

    Thanks for the info (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:32:44 PM EST
    I lived in Tallahassee, FL.  I was a voting rights attorney for Kerry/Bush in 2004.  I smell something bad there.  There is a schism between northern FL and the rest.  I contacted people I know in Tallahassee, both ardent, active Dems., neither wanted the votes counted, both support Obama.  I suspect there was a power struggle and Obama supporters won out on this, despite Clinton's very strong showing among the voters.  Something is wrong.  I like to watch what they do, not what they say.  That goes for Hastings also.    

    hmmm... (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by mattt on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:05:47 PM EST
    It will take the energy and resources of all of us to fix these problems and the others facing our nation.
    And that's why he's staying home?

    If he urges "us" to come together, (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:20 PM EST
    then why is he choosing to boycott the convention. That is apart, not together!!

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:21:43 PM EST
    Because the DNC told him he's a half-a-person.

    Honestly, people there are consequences for bad behavior.


    NO. (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by mattt on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:31:54 PM EST
    The DNC recognized the entire vote in FL and sat all delegates.  They reduced the delegates' votes in order to punish state party mucky-mucks (who are the delegates), but it seemd that all of FL's popular vote should "count" as far as it does for those arguments.

    He's still voting (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:25:23 PM EST
    maybe he's trying to set an example that you can make a gesture but still vote Dem.  It's a very passive act to me, but eh, what do I know.

    Now, when someone says they are leaving the party over this, then I'll listen.  Otherwise they are making meaninglesss gestures.

    For me complaining makes no sense if you are just going to roll over and take it.


    Listen to Hillary (1.00 / 3) (#99)
    by indiependy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:25:17 PM EST
    If large numbers of Clinton supporters, as they're threatening, sit out the election or vote for McCain in droves it will be the end of the Democratic party for at least the next 8 years. If McCain wins in November as the result of Clinton's demographic strongholds, the message won't be "Obama was a weak candidate" it will be "Clinton and her supporters cost Democrats the election". The criticism piled upon Hillary, unfairly as it may be, will be immense. That's why even she says "but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."

    Emotions are running way too high right now, which is understandable. But Democrats can't take their eye off the target. The issues at stake are too important - Health Care, Supreme Court balance, Iraq, the list goes on and on. There has to be a whole lot of reaching out by Obama and his supporters, but Clinton supporters also have to be receptive to being reached out to.

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:40:43 PM EST
    Do you honestly think anyone will give a rat's @ss about your criticism or blame.  Obama can lose this one all by himself.  Personally I imagine that would be the first step to a major cleaning and overhaul of the DNC.  

    After watching those people today, it would be the best thing that's happened to rank-and-file democrats in a generation.


    The RBC Can Decide Whether Or Not To (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:00:28 PM EST
    Count The Votes. They chose not to do so. Obama's campaign, Brazile and the DNC can decide that some voters are more important than others and that the NEW Democratic Party can discard, discount or ridicule voters not in their exclusive "important" demographic groups.

    OTOH, voters can decide whether or not they want to belong to this NEW Democratic Party. They will make up their own mind as to whether or not this party represents them and their values. What you fail to realize is that Hillary has little to do with it.

    Will Hillary get the blame? Probably. It is the SOP that Obama is blameless. Somehow 20 years ago Hillary forced Obama to join Rev. Wright's church, forced Obama to chose Ayers and Rezko as friends and associates. Hillary is responsible for Obama ridiculing small town and rural voters for the amusement of his SF donors and for Axelrod and Brazile stating that they didn't need white working class people or hispanics.

    It has already been proven that the people in this new coalition are not going to treat Hillary or her voters with respect regardless of the outcome in November.


    Look. Obama has brought his troubles on (5.00 / 6) (#136)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:17:52 PM EST
    himself. Last year at this time I was giving him money. Now I will vote for McCain rather than vote for him and I'm a lifelong Democrat and I bet my life is a lot longer than yours and more of it has been spent as an activist.

    I have a cousin in Missouri I just visited. I haven't seen her or spoken to her in three years.  She doesn't have a computer and wouldn't know a blog if it bit her. I didn't even know what party she belonged to, but she told me spontaneously that she was a Democrat and that she couldn't stand Obama would vote for John McCain rather than vote for Obama.

    People don't get this kind of reaction from others for no reason or because someone else "makes" them have it. Obama's own words and actions and those of his followers have created this situation.   I worked and gave money and made phone calls and canvassed for John Kerry even though he treated Howard Dean worse than anything Hillary has ever done to Obama, including making an ad comparing Dean to Osama Bin Laden for Christ's sake!  The MSM shot Dean down with the manufactured Dean scream nonsense and yet I still worked my butt off for the party in 2004 and again in 2006.

    No more. I will not vote for this man and neither you nor Hillary can make me do so.  It's not Hillary's fault. It's Obama's fault. He and his supporters are the most divisive people I've ever seen and I do not want to be part of a party they belong to.


    You don't have to wait for the party to die (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:23:05 AM EST
    eight years from now.  It committed suicide today.

    As everything else you say is contingent upon a party that serves the will of the people, and the Dems no longer do, to the rest of your comment I can only say . . . pfffft.


    How odd it is that the same remedy (none / 0) (#85)
    by Mavs4527 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:26:40 PM EST
    The GOP used to seat it's Florida delegates is somehow disenfranchising the state's voters. those voters in Florida are sure getting the shaft by both parties this year.

    No Democratic candidate could campaign there, many didn't even bother to vote in the first place because it was said it wasn't going to count.

    It's sad how some smart people can act just so stupid.

    Goofball argument (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:34:58 PM EST
    The GOP did NOT do what the DNC did with MI and FL.  The GOP actually followed it's own rules and took half the delegates away, including NH which violated the rules, but let campaigns go on as normal.  Therefore MI and FL fully participated in the GOP primaries.

    The DNC by contrast broke their own rules by using the nuclear option on MI and FL, while letting NH off the hook.  Not the same at all.

    The only thing you said that I can agree with is that it's sad how some smart people can act so stupid.  But we don't agree on who's acting stupid.


    Well, let's remember (none / 0) (#135)
    by Mavs4527 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:08:44 PM EST
    It was Hillary supporters along with others that unanimously voted to strip both Florida and Michigan of all of their delegates. I'm inclined to think it would have been better off to do the same from the beginning, just as the Republicans did.

    But then again, Hillary would have still found a way to complain about the process.


    While I don't agree w Rep. Hasting's position (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ben Masel on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:09:44 PM EST
    he makes it with class.

    What an amazing coincidence (none / 0) (#134)
    by dianem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:08:30 PM EST
    That the first black Presidential candidate is going to be officially nominated on the 45th anniversary of one of the most inspirational black civil rights speeches in history. If they hadn't planned the convention way before Obama decided to run, this would be unbelievable. It's almost as if he were destined to be the candidate.

    But the question is (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:59:41 AM EST
    who decided that Obama was going to run, and when did they decide? I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this is no coincidence. If I didn't believe that Obama's nomination was being orchestrated before, after today I'm convinced.

    i think questions about (none / 0) (#137)
    by cpinva on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:23:09 PM EST
    alcee hastings' integrity are fair game BTD. as the judge said, "you opened the door counselor, you can't stop anyone from walking through it now."

    how about if we apply "situational integrity"? 20 years ago, in his then situation, he clearly didn't have it. now, with respect to the present issue, he does.

    that said, i agree with his position, and give him his props.

    What an amazing coincidence..... It's almost as if he were destined to be the candidate.

    isn't it though? when is elizabeth cady stanton's BD? maybe they'll schedule the next one, if there's another viable female candidate, for then. what do you think?

    Well, the Dem convention opens (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:30:02 AM EST
    on Women's Equality Day, the anniversary of the 19th Amendment becoming the law of the land.  Cady Stanton had a hand in the struggle, of course, but the Amendment was written by Susan B. Anthony.

    Close enough?  I think so.  A good day to open a convention to nominate Clinton.  Think it's going to happen?  About as much chance of that as Obama, the Constitutional law "prof," knowing much at all about the struggle for the 19th Amendment. . . .


    sauce for the delegates, gravy for the electors (none / 0) (#152)
    by knarvil on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:59 AM EST
    If the DNC wants to nullify a state's delegates, should the governors and legislatures exercise their perogative to keep their electors home?   I'm not a fan of the electoral college, but I'm not one of the caucus or delegate system either.  And if the DNC wants to play with their hammer, even though they are not part of the constitution.  Then the states, who have no business being dictated to by the DNC or RNC, hold a viciously powerful trump.  

    The govs and legislatures of all the states should be standing behind Florida and Michigan on this.