The Epitaph

Via Political Wire:

"My momma taught me to play by the rules and respect those rules. My mother taught me, and I'm sure your mother taught you, that when you decide change the rules, middle of the game, end of the game, that is referred to as cheatin'."

-- Donna Brazile, quoted by NBC News.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws committee did not change the rules yesterday, They did not even pretend to follow them. What the RBC did yesterday simply is not allowed by the DNC Rules. There is not a person in the world that can say that RBC played by the rules. So Donna, what would your momma call that?

Comments closed.

< Late Night: For Puerto Rico | Unity >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I know what I call it, (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by suki on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:21:53 AM EST
    but I can't write it here or you would ban me.

    Dean on MI (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:22:56 AM EST
    Just heard on thisweek (ABC)

    George Stephanopoulos : Under What RULE did you give those uncommitted to Obama, and then also take 4 from Clinton and give it to Obama.

    Dean: We did what MI asked us to do.

    When all else fails, let Carl Levin decide (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:28:15 AM EST
    And since Levin (5.00 / 12) (#17)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:37:51 AM EST
    decided he'd use my vote for purposes that I did not intend, then he'll not get my vote in November.

    If Obama's the nominee then that's two blanks on the ballot. Levin will win in a cakewalk but I'll have the satisfaction showing disapproval.


    Fortunately hill have my vote (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:41:44 AM EST
    ANd the rest of Detroit, Flint, and Grand rapids.  I think we will be okay in MI

    Moma Brazille is on ABC.. (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:39:42 AM EST
    The best way Brazille can help heal the Clinton People is by NOT SHOWING UP ON TV.

    Donna Brazile is (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:46:21 AM EST
    the DNC's Donald Rumsfeld.

    It was such a sad, pathetic joke when GWB dumped ol' Rummy after the fact, when the GOP could benefited greatly from Rummy being handed his walking papers six months earlier.

    Ditto for Brazile.  The DNC could gain a chunk of political capital by keeping DB so busy that she has "scheduling conflicts" every time that a media outlet wants her input.  They could train up someone else to handle those tedious media tasks.


    Well, (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:52:04 AM EST
    they both have funny little phrases and are generally incompetent and dishonest. I think the comparison ends there, though. . .

    Exactly. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:06:39 AM EST
    Obama took 20 yrs to dump Trinity.. (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:05:18 AM EST
    Not sure how much time he would take to dump Donna..  If I know him correctly ..not any time soon.. he would throw her under the bus only when she threatens him.

    A well known secret. (5.00 / 12) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:16:20 AM EST
    Brazile threatens his candidacy every time she opens her mouth.

    Why is she even on the DNC, anyway (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by The Realist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:15:45 AM EST
    It's not like brazile has done anything for DEMS, in the past

    It depends on what your definition of (5.00 / 14) (#14)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:37:20 AM EST
    Michigan is.

    The VOTERS of Michigan decided something different than what the Democratic party's bureaucracy decided.


    The same thing is true for FL. (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:14:43 AM EST
    Ausman was jubilant in gleefully declaring Clinton is now "mathematically dead."  Quote was to the Tallahassee Democrat (newspaper), immediately after the Rules Comm. decision.

    So Roolz are Roolz except when they're not ... ? (5.00 / 14) (#27)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:41:14 AM EST
    The pretzel logic to stuff Obama's bucket is just so tiresome. His DNC nannies aren't even pretending anymore.

    States beg for rulings on the plight of millions of voters and get ignored or punished (cause, you know, Roolz) but Dean's current story is that the DNC had to reward Obama not under the Roolz but because the states asked?

    Can you blame media fabulists for weaving tales of their own when this is the best the DNC has to offer?


    Did you also hear Roosevelt say (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:36:39 AM EST
    it was not a legal primary?

    I coulda sworn that's what he said . ..

    Donna B just said something about FLA getting their full vote back at some point this summer?


    No surprise (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:13:34 AM EST
    Wolf : What would happen if the Clinton took the challenge to the convention

    Dean: If you have teenagers you would know never talk about hypothetical.


    Momma sez (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:23:17 AM EST
    Bamboozling or hoodwinking ain't lying, okie-dokey?

    Well My Momma Would Have Said (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:29:59 AM EST
    "When you take the advise of people who have proven themselves to be incompetent, you deserve the end results."

    Can I ask a dumb question? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by befuddled on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:36:24 AM EST
    In the longer process, when this all goes to the Credentials Committee, are the two candidates bound to stick to the same arguments made yesterday, or can they change tack and use the rule-based argument of some days ago, where all the early states were penalized? (Don't roll your eyes, I'm a psychologist, not a lawyer. :))Thanks.

    Not under any rule (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:37:50 AM EST
    But it seems difficult to change your argument.

    I asked that (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by befuddled on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:08 AM EST
    because when you first came up with the rule-based argument I thought it was excellent, what I had to fall back on in a hostile real-life situation. It "worked" but didn't win friends. Then Jeralyn argued  for seating everyone fully. The rule based argument hands out penalties all around very fairly, but then is a PR loss because it's a "lose-lose" argument (even though Clinton wins more delegates) and the other is a principle argument that leaves the Clinton narrative of "every vote counts" intact. "Win-win." I think everyone knew that the fix was in on this RBC meeting and the play might have been to take the lumps now and say later "we tried to make nice, and you screwed us every time, here are the rules."

    A position I read last night was.... (none / 0) (#231)
    by ksh on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:12:44 AM EST
    That the Michigan state party failed to timely submit a delegate selection plan to the DNC and that their choice (the 69/59 split) was an acceptance of that plan. Conversely, it was stated that the RBC or DNC, for that matter, had no right to choose a delegate selection plan submitted by a candidate.

    The upshot of this position is that the Michigan compromise was rules-based and that even if they wanted to, they could not accept a plan put forth by a candidate.

    I don't know the legitimacy of this position, but perhaps you might want to wrap your brain around it and see if it fits.


    i suppose they could (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:22 AM EST
    but it would not be credible.

    psychologist here, too.


    Another Credentials Cmtee question - (none / 0) (#69)
    by nulee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:04:16 AM EST
    I had to leave right after Ickes' statement that HRC had authorized him to take this to the CC.  Does this mean she is definitely taking this Denver?  Barring some kind of unity ticket deal - that would certainly be what I favor now, taking it to Denver.

    POPULAR VOTE. ELECTORAL MAP. (5.00 / 2) (#280)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    SHE will be ahead in the popular vote. BO will be ahead in delegates. The SDs decide WHO THEY BELIEVE WILL BE THE STRONGEST CANDIDATE AGAINST McCAIN IN NOVEMBER. Believe it or not, BO doesn't get to anoint himself the President.

    Hillary has the ELECTORAL MAP on her side AND the POPULAR VOTE. BO does NOT. THAT is what she's taking to the convention. Understand now?


    Yes she does have the popular (5.00 / 3) (#292)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:14:34 AM EST
    and she will take this to the convention. She may not have to after the news tomorrow.

    Playing by the rules (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:36:31 AM EST
    I saw on another thread where PL referred to A. Herman saying that there was no prohibition on candidates campaigning in sanctioned states. (wtf?)

    I missed that yesterday.  I did notice impassioned pleas for sticking to the rules by comm. members when discussing the Fla. thing, but that stick seemed to evaporate as the day went on.

    None of it made much sense, and the media will give us only the shallowest of commentary.

    Donna Brazile's Mama (5.00 / 11) (#19)
    by Kensdad on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:07 AM EST
    oh, what would your mama say if you told her that 30 members of the RBC committee took away the votes of 2.3 million people, then gave back 1/2, but only after they changed how those votes reflected the elected delegates?  oh, and how about giving votes to a candidate who removed his name from the ballot?

    i think your mama would be more than a bit confused!  i bet your mama thought that fundamental democratic principles were more important than committee rules...  i guess the trick was on her, eh donna?

    If Rules were so important...... (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by Kefa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:25 AM EST
    all states would have been made to live by them.

    Brazile is just an embarrassment anymore (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by environmentally blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:40:47 AM EST
    My Momma tells me it's easy to spot a liar and once a liar always a liar and they are never anyone worth trusting.

    Liar (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by bobbski on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:31 AM EST
    Your momma was right.

    It's always the eyes that give a liar away.  They will dart this way and that, always avoiding direct contact.


    Yes, the eyes don't lie (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by environmentally blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:58:09 AM EST
    And hers were rolling all over the place, uncontrollable with her lying.

    I know that was a little gem. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:44:05 AM EST
    I always despised these little "those in the know" comments, especially when they come from so-called journalists. Why doesn't he name names? It's so clearly an Obama campaign talking point, but he makes it seem like he is protecting a source! Please. I am watching Leave it to Beaver this morning. I'm taking a break from these clowns today.

    Rules (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by bobbski on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:46:47 AM EST
    Could the Rules Committee's closed door session after lunch yesterday be called a smoke filled room?

    If not, how is iwhat happened yesterday any different from what used to happen in the smoke filled rooms that Obamabots and other democrats seem to loathe?

    Ditto - only Florida and I talked my (5.00 / 10) (#32)
    by nulee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM EST
    whole damn family into a week-long GOTV effort - for what?  A big loser who now endorses Obama blindly when Clinton is clearly our winner.  What a travesty.

    Me Too! (5.00 / 7) (#89)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:09:46 AM EST
    Voting Rights Attorney in Jackson County FL for a week.  My own expense and traveled from Cambridge, MASS.  There were no violations to report at all.  The people in Norhtern Florida, though registered overwhelmingly as Democrats, hated Kerry.  The exact same thing will play out there in November, and to a greater degree, IMHO.  Northern FL went to Edwards in the primary.  Those votes were for the home boy, as N. FL is like the south, only whiter. Obama will loose FL.  I think the only county he won was Leon County (Tallahassee).

    I'm hearing the same from PA (5.00 / 9) (#110)
    by nulee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:25:01 AM EST
    - people who delivered for Clinton there say there's just no way Obama has made a strong case to the union and other blue collar voters there. They cannot deliver those votes to him this fall.

    By what measure is Clinton the winner? (1.00 / 9) (#149)
    by Mavs4527 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:42:01 AM EST
    Even if you argue the Michigan proposal was unfair, Hillary only received 4 fewer delegates than what she was asking for, in an election in which she was the only major candidate on the ballot.

    Why are you guys trying to make it look like the whole nominating process depended on this one person and you got the shaft? It was a proposal made by the Michigan Democratic Party to make the best of a bad situation. Stop pretending this whole thing is something it is not.


    Did you read the post before making (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:45:20 AM EST
    this comment?

    Doesn't sound like it.


    Clinton is the winner (5.00 / 9) (#163)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    ...as Gore was the winner in 2000. It's not a very complicated concept to grasp for those not playing "See no evil, hear no evil."

    What happened with MI yesterday was invalid, had nothing to do with 'rules' and as Ickes said, does not meet the 'fair reflection' standard.

    Michigan's voters got shafted multiple times by Obama and his supporters. Yesterday was merely the latest in a series of muggings.

    And now Clinton has every right to go to Denver to try to seek justice for the 600,000+ voters who were   violated by the Rules and Bylaws Committee.


    Troll rate as you will... (5.00 / 6) (#216)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:07:06 AM EST
    ...you will discover that this is not Daily Kos and your methods will not avail you here.

    As on The Daily Obaman, those who have the ability to communicate effectively anywhere on the 'net are targets of misused troll ratings. Like those corrupt members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee yesterday, your troll ratings merely reveal you for what you really are.

    You don't silence a majority, and those who have supported Clinton -- both among registered Dems and among all of the primary electorate -- are just that, members of groups which are > 50% of the voters.

    Good luck, happy troll-rating and I wish you success with your astroturfing, if that term applies to you.


    HA! (5.00 / 5) (#204)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:03:00 AM EST
    Stop pretending this whole thing is something it is not.

    And you guys can call us racist.

    I just CANNOT turn blind eye to this party's biased efforts to IMPOSE a a week candidate on us and take away the nomination from a candidate who had the Popular vote.

    It's Hillary ho got the shaft.. and she is still trying to unify the country by agreeing on the FL's half vote... and she is also trying to agree to give votes of Uncommitted candidate to Obama.. and then they still want to steal 4 more from her.. sigh.

    and then Donna came along and called that was cheating.. I just don't know how by giving 1/2 of her delegates in FL/MI and then letting Obama have all delegates of uncommitted to himself and then letting her be robbed of another 4 delegates is cheating.. what a unity prank..

    My chances of voting Obama had narrowed after I had started to learn about his great friends and connections and the thing that took the cake was when he labeled me a Racist while giving a speech to raise above racist remarks.

    Sorry.. keep calling me names and I will surely vote for you.


    Whre's Jimmy Carter to investigate (5.00 / 1) (#272)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:42:14 AM EST
    ...this voter fraud that has been foisted on the Democratic voter?  He travels all over doing it for other countries....oh, wait, he's drinking Kool-Aide right now.

    I guess what's important to the rest of the world is not important right here at home.  Shame on Jimmy.


    Carter will endorse Obama (5.00 / 1) (#308)
    by janedw420 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    so there is very little chance he will step forward on this. Gore would be the ONLY Super that may step up here, but he has stayed out. I also hear loud and clear the PENN argument. My family in KY share the same. They will not support Obama, not because of race, but view him as too liberal. Many will vote for McCain, and many more will not vote. That is Hillary's "more electable" argument, and it is a valid one.

    She received a smaller... (5.00 / 6) (#245)
    by NotThatStupid on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:18:58 AM EST
    . . .percentage from the committee than she did from the voters. And Senator Obama, counting all the uncommitted votes for him -- which is absurd, in my opinion -- received a higher percentage from the committee than he did from the voters.

    We don't make up votes like that in this country, or at least we didn't use to. This isn't Nigeria, Congo, Venezuela, N. Korea, or any of dozens of other countries who play fast and loose with their citizen's votes - this is America.

    The committee's ruling yesterday was outrageous, and every American should be mad as he!! about it.

    Senator Obama is a disgrace. The RBC and those who voted to give him votes he did not earn are a disgrace as well.

    I cannot vote for Senator Obama, ever, I don't care who he chooses for VP.


    It's called (none / 0) (#244)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:17:51 AM EST
    POPULAR VOTE, but what would you know? If you can't read, I wouldn't expect you to know that.

    Popular vote? (none / 0) (#307)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:06:39 PM EST
    Er, the nominees are not selected by popular vote. You may disagree with that but that's the process we have today.

    Nominees not selected by most delegates (1.00 / 0) (#312)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:46:01 PM EST
    going into the convention, either, if not the necessary minimum comprised of pledged delegates.  See numerous cases of nominees being behind in delegates going into the convention, when the delegate leader didn't have enough of the committed, pledged delegates.

    Tempting, (5.00 / 13) (#33)
    by suki on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:07 AM EST
    but I like this site too much to say it.
    I have many Republican family members and a few friends I've been working on for years to move to the Dem side - I'd made some real progress but yesterday will probably undo most of it.
    I've already talked with one this morning and it wasn't pretty.
    How can you argue when you've lost the high ground on such a huge issue as counting the votes?
    To tell you the truth, the spectacle yesterday has wiped out the desire to do so.

    I think the first indication (5.00 / 7) (#180)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:53:13 AM EST
    ...that the DNC elites who are railroading the majority of the party who has voted for Clinton will be receiving of what is to come in November is going to be the number of Democratic voters who are likely to switch parties in their fury over what has been done to Clinton, MI & FL and to themselves ("If you don't vote for Obama you're...").

    We are watching, I believe, one of the greatest Pyrrhic victories I can recall in my lifetime. Obama's tossing of Trinity Church under his typical white grandmother's bus yesterday only solidifies this concept in my mind.


    From the Detroit Free Press (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:13 AM EST
    Rochelle Riley is a columnist in the Detroit Free Press.  She had this to say this morning regarding the RBC hearings:

    "With months to plan, the Democratic Party, which is run no better than a fraternity house after a kegger, made no plans -- and months later finally realized that it could not disenfranchise voters -- voters who should have been filing lawsuits and raising hell last January."


    thanks DNC (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by fraternity4me on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:33 AM EST
    I just read that Obama is in charge of the Democratic Party and it has finally been taken away from the Clintons.  After B. Clinton brought our party back from extinction this is the respect he gets. The DNC loves Obama. Maybe I'll change to Independent or write in Hillary. In 12 years we'll take back the party from the Obamaniacs.

    It's really (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:04 AM EST
    embarrassing how they treat the former President.  He did a lot of good things in his time.  

    I was trying to think of the best president we've had in the last 30 years and it has to be Clinton.  


    Yeah, that's the narrative I've seen (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:02:12 AM EST
    Victims of CDS backslapping each other.

    I hope someone is compiling all this wonderful Unityness for the months to come.


    I Beg You (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:39 AM EST
    And I urge you and anyone you know (and all readers of TalkLeft) who intends to write-in Hillary in November to check the rules of your state.

    Unless Hillary registers as a write-in candidate, a write-in vote for her goes automatically to the Democratic nominee on the ballot i.e. Obama.

    I for one plan to write-in Hillary, if it is possible, but I will also make sure my vote does not go for Obama. Ever.


    Didn't MI want a revote a month ago or so? (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by katiebird on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:54 AM EST
    So, if they were just doing what Michigan wanted, why couldn't they have their Firehouse Caucus last month?

    We couldn't let them have a revote, but we can let them overturn the election they had?


    Obama people (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:20:21 AM EST
    in the state killed any chance of a re-vote after they said they would support any plan approved by the DNC.

    The DNC approved Michigan's plan for a re-vote.  Then the Obama campaign came up with lame excuses in opposition.


    (shaking my head) (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by katiebird on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:25:22 AM EST

    IIRC Having A Revote Would Disenfranchise (4.87 / 8) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:28:03 AM EST
    those voters who voted for a Republican. IOW people who voted for a Republican in the initial primary should be allowed to vote twice or it would not be fair. NEW Democratic Party RULZ: Disenfranchise hundreds of thousand voters who chose to vote Democratic to allow safeguard the rights of voters who chose to vote Republican.

    Because BO said NO (5.00 / 1) (#283)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:58:24 AM EST
    to the revote and had his thugs stop it.

    Donna is so heavy (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:54:33 AM EST
    I love the way she talks down to people, like they were eeny weeny kids, who need slapping down with MOMMA SAYS, or need some good ole home COOKING. I'm sure a decent discussion of rules and procedures wouldn't be beyond her-or would it?

    One thing is certain she's been a kiss of death for the Democrats and any campaign she's been involved in.
    I liked her when she limited herself to spouting voter statistics. BUT maneouvering in South Carolina for your own (undeclared) candidate, and then acccusing his rival of CHEATING  while you graciously concede her HALF votes in 2 States is TOO MUCH.

    Todd is a Tool (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:54:44 AM EST
    He is nothing more than a shill for the Obama campaign, as is the entire MSNBC/NBC "news" division.

    Sad. And the worst part for Todd and his future prospects is that this is his introduction to much of the country unlike, say, Tim Russert who was known before this cycle.

    We don't need no stinkin' rules (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:58:42 AM EST
    when it suits our purpose.

    I see (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:59:17 AM EST
    so the rules themselves do not really count, just the ROOLZ.

    Nice admission.

    You should post up Alexis Herman's statement (5.00 / 7) (#71)
    by ineedalife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:05:00 AM EST
    when she allowed the motion. She outright acknowledged they were violating the charter. It is one thing for one of Obama's minions to try to get away with this. For the Co-Chair of the committee to  state, on the record, they were doing this with full awareness of what they were doing is incredible.

    Dean should be asked to explain how that is possible.

    I was there (5.00 / 9) (#75)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    and watched Brazile, for entertainment mostly. She was visibly upset and trying to contain when anything was said that you knew she disagreed with

    Of course the hall was filled with O supporters and when she used the word 'cheaters", they stood and gave her a standing ovation. They did the same when she entered the hall after the lunch recess.

    Seems Donna is now the Obama progressives new goddess.

    I will write about other observations but got to go site see for an hour before I leave DC

    No one has done more for the candidacy of... (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:14:08 AM EST
    ...Barack Obama than Donna Brazile.

    Donna is Obama's undeclared Unity Pony Guru n/t (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:20:44 AM EST
    Well, maybe Obama (none / 0) (#152)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:43:51 AM EST
    will choose Danna as his VP running mate.

    That way they both can put the final nail in the Dem Party's coffin.

    How in the world did my beloved Dem Party get to the place.... oh, no... I now remember ... power greedy politics!!

    But I just came back from John McCain's Web site...UUUUUUGH!! I just can't go there.

    My district will go Republican, but my state will go to Sen Obama... so my vote won't make a difference. I'll stay with the Dem.

    But I'm going to fight like he#$ against the repulsive actions of the RBC!!


    here is the video of that exchange (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by The Realist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:07:08 AM EST
    Be good to yourself: be Indy, support worthy Dems (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:07:35 AM EST
    On the scale of madness (marine edition) voting Repug comes after drinking one's own urine and addressing the sun by a first name.

    Isn't it more telling (none / 0) (#322)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:58:04 PM EST
    to the DNC for us to stay Dem through November & vote only downticket Dem??

    Battle cry for the NEW Democratic Party (5.00 / 9) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:07:55 AM EST
    "Count the RULZ not the votes." NEW Democratic Party Disclaimer: All RULZ are subject to change without prior notification if they do not result in the desired outcome.

    How can anybody trust Democrats goping forward? (5.00 / 12) (#83)
    by ineedalife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:08:02 AM EST
    They don't even feel bound by their own charter. There isn't a principle they will defend in the face of political expediency.

    Errrr! "going forward", oops. (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ineedalife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:08:47 AM EST
    Amazing typo-pun! When Dems to GOP-like things (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:32:18 AM EST
    it does make Dem voters highly suspicious and uncomfortable.

    Brilliant typo!


    I still won't vote for McCain (5.00 / 12) (#94)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:15:05 AM EST
    but I will declare my independence from this party.  On July 4th.

    This party is a complete disgrace.  After sticking with the dems for thirty years of mostly clothespin votes, I'm finally done.  After watching a Congress who we worked hard to get to majority status completely shirk their responsibility and let the BushCheney admin. run roughshod over this country, I'm finally done.  After watching this party stand by and allow the things that have happened in this primary without protest, I'm finally done.

    It's time for a new, independent, populist party in this country.  We are becoming the thing that we loathed.  I can't stand by and be a part of it.

    Nonetheless, I really believe McCain will win in November.  I have no confidence in Obama and I have strong reservations.  For the sake of my kids, who will soon be draft eligible, it might be time to figure out a way to go and live somewhere else.

    UHC has become (5.00 / 7) (#167)
    by magisterludi on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:30 AM EST
    a perennial campaign promise that the DNC has used as a political carrot for years. Oh, and how "bout ending that war? More carrots. I could go on...

    Who among us believe at this point that the dem leadership would rather have these as issues to cage votes as opposed to actually enacting real change? I know the number is greater today than it was yesterday.


    Just e-mailed Donna B to express (5.00 / 9) (#100)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:18:49 AM EST
    my distaste for what happened yesterday. Momma to momma about rules. I have never sent so many e-mails, made so many phonecalls as with this election. My momma would be proud...she was very political, very active politically and I wish she were here for this one...we'd be up till all hours talking about this one!!!!!

    Stunning Abuse of Power ....hm, how often (5.00 / 11) (#101)
    by Boo Radly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:19:57 AM EST
    has that very apt phrase been used in the last 7.5 years and nothing was done about it by the formerly known party of Democracy? Shades of Bu$hit continue.

    I prefer civil discourse but I tire of applying rational thinking to an insane situation, which I might add is THE definition of insanity when it happens over and over again and nothing changes.

    I tire of my intelligence being insulted by a party I used to trust. I tire of watching reprehensible behavior by people who should know better. I tire of greed and lust for power being paraded as acceptable. I tire of racism, sexism and lies. I tire of the hate projected by BO, MO, and their clueless "fans".

    Living through 7.5 years of total crap has made my skin claw, but, in the last several weeks I now have developed acid reflux watching tapes of Rev. Wright, Fr. Plfeger, trying to make sense of BO's hemming and hawing, the continuing coverage by Baghdad Bob media, those clueless comments by BO supporters, the sham "RBC meeting" - it is cumulative.

    Am I taking all this too seriously? I don't think so. It is not a game. There are certain guidelines that I as a human being must perceive  existing in a society that I want to be a part of.

    My last call to DNC is to the toll free contributions number - 1.877.335.7200. I want my money back - they do not represent me or my vote.

    Indeed, this is not a game. (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:44:08 AM EST
    Last night I was imagining what would happen if I was drafted to go to Iraq under McCain's 100 Years of War. (Thank goodness, my husband is too old for that.) How gas being $8 a gallon would bankrupt the entire country. How dissenters could be thrown into the prison camps Halliburton is building all over the country. How our entire privileged American lives could be completely destroyed for something unrecognizable.

    All so the DNC and the Democratic Party could nominate the worst, least electable candidate I have seen in my lifetime.

    You are right, there is some reason behind it all, but I don't think it has any basis in logic or sanity.

    Apparently, those qualities are no longer important in today's New Plutocratic Party.


    I agree the Clinton camp could have argued better- (5.00 / 10) (#105)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:21:02 AM EST
    on FL. BTD has made that point well and frequently here.

    But, looking over the entire fiasco of MI and FL, I think the early analysts had it right: When the 100% deduction penalty was announced, the pundits who looked at the history of these things said it was highly unlikely MI and FL would not be allowed to vote at the convention and most likely it would be at the 50% regular rule. This was in almost all the articles about the issues.

    I think there was never any real chance of even FL getting 100% bcz, even tho' FL had right and rules on its side, politics would not permit the DNC to give FL 100% ex post ad hoc 100% Rool and not give MI 100%.  

    Since MI was such a mess internally, 100% was almost impossible to give 100% to with any rationale other than "bcz we want to."

    So, I was not surprised by the 50% ruling.

    What still shocks me even as I'm more calmly viewing this is that the DNC decided, on the basis of no rules or principles to give Obama more than the delegates he could have possible earned in the actual voting y Michiganders.

    Just take votes from a winners actual vote count to...do what? Make nice to Obama and his supporters?

    Well, it wasn't the SDs doing that (altho' most of those on the committee are SDs), it was pure, raw political power playing. WHY?

    Terry McAuliff on right now saying he's never seen votes earned through actual votes won simply willy nilly given to another candidate. Nor basis in rules or principles. "This is not the Democratic Party [he] know[s]." Nor me.

    Howard Dean on right now saying the Rules Committee did an incredible job. True, Dr. Dean: Incredible!

    Roosevelt said rules set for primary have force of law per SCOTUS. Had to come up with best reflection of how the voters intended to vote. He left out, IF THEY HAD VOTED. Also, voters of MI had come to the DNC to suggest this plan, so it's all good.

    Does that mean if voters come to the DNC and say they have buyers' remorse about voting for Obama, the DNC will just give delegates to Clinton? Oh, I don't think so...

    Listening to Dean and Roosevelt is making me sick. To say and feel that about someone with the name Roosevelt is almost more sickening. Oh, Democratic leaders, what have you done?

    Roosevelt now saying it was their duty to "honor the rules." Which freakin' rules, doooood?

    I shouldn't have watching this program.

    Oy. Shoula proofread! Do not post when angry! (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:28:16 AM EST
    I remember last fall reading about FL and MI reading those predictions that both would have 50%, and thinking, well, not too bad. I did not think the DNC would let the threat of no representation fester until now.

    Again, why the almost abusive/super controlling parent--or chilsh?--initial approach of yelling, "Get outta my house! Until you learn to behave, you cannot live under my roof! As long as you live in my house, you will follow my rules, no matter how capricious!"


    Don't you dare improve or we'll all have to! ;-) (none / 0) (#194)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    I use preview more, but I find words and phrases are getting clipped out of my browser's text window. (My browser's text selection is weird.) If I'm on one of my fast systems, the proofing goes easier, otherwise, I just post hoping karma air-miles kick in and beautify my words in transit.

    The pundits (aka, "everyone") (none / 0) (#113)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:25:36 AM EST
    said that Florida would be seated, and the implication was that they would be seated at full strength. Why? At the same time the pundits usually acknowledged at the Republican nominee would seat the full Florida delegation too.

    It seems a curse to have a memory that extends before January.


    The Repubs simply followed their written rules-- (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:30:46 AM EST
    break the schedule and lose 50%. It was the Dems who went ballistic--over R's manipulating them in FL and a combination in MI. (Levin seemed to make it clear MI Dems and officials were making a deliberate statment. Wilentz, iirc, did say the MI Dems did have rebel's remorse, and tried to walk back the legislation. But the R's saw their advantage and told them to take a hike and live with their messed up primary results.

    I liked Kerry (5.00 / 8) (#121)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:29:09 AM EST
    about a billion times more than the presumptive Democrat nominee this year.  

    Of course, my real first choice was Wesley Clark.

    I was for Clark this cycle, too. (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:41:15 AM EST
    And was actually mad when he endorsed HRC.  That shows how far I have come with the candidates - I only became a HRC supporter at the end of January, but by the time Super Tuesday rolled around, she had me hooked!

    Me too! When he worked for Fox (5.00 / 2) (#255)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    I was so angry. I refused to watch him while on that network...even though I ADORE that man. My son and I traveled from Illinois to Nashville, TN to work on his campaign for 4 days and then he dropped out of the race while we were driving home from Nashville.. I was CRUSHED. As much as I love him, I just could not bring myself to watch him on Fox. The network was banned in our home for 7+ years. Now, It's the ONLY network I watch! The world has turned upside down for me. It really has and now my party has left me.

    Barack Obama makes... (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:41:59 AM EST
    ...John Kerry look like a combination of Washington and Lincoln.

    Could someone strive to explain (5.00 / 13) (#129)
    by andrelee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:31:52 AM EST
    The point of taking away HRC's piddlin a#% 4 delegates in MI and giving them to OB. What did he or the DNC gain but the utter contempt of, say, a couple of million people who are already contemplating showing their feelings with their vote against OB and decreasing their support for the DNC.  What? It makes no sense. He's not losing by 4 delegates, 4 more won't put him over the top by any measure nor would it do much for her. Seriously, these actions are very 'Bush-like' in the myopic outlook that one would use to justify this as a plus, a win, or a action with no obvious drawbacks. Help.

    Good grief. (5.00 / 8) (#206)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:04:23 AM EST
    In fact, most of the very few people who are following it closely will forget all about it in a few weeks.

    Obama supporters are delusional.  


    Go back to the playground, (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:22 AM EST
    little man.  That seems the place in which you are comfortable.

    Excuse me? This needed to be done? (5.00 / 1) (#289)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:05:44 AM EST
    Think again. They just lost the election if he is allowed to steal this nomination.

    giving 4 to Obama (none / 0) (#154)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:44:08 AM EST
    makes it an 8 delegate difference  

    Here's a quote I saw (5.00 / 14) (#131)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:34:17 AM EST
    last night.  Thought you might like it.:

    I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong. - Abraham LIncoln

    I won't be with this "Chicago style rules" Democratic Party again.  When I see someone with even a tiny bit of integrity come into the party, when they've hung around for a few years and proven themselves, then I might think of going back.  In the mean time, if someone decides to form a new party, I'll be there.

    But yes.  A state broke the rules, and we must follow the rules, so let's throw the rules away.  That kind of foolish logic only happens in kangaroo courts, (I suspect)in military tribunals at GITMO, and in a Democratic Party that wishes it didn't have to rely on silly voters to nominate THEIR CHOSEN CANDIDATE.

    Great quote...can I borrow it... (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:43:29 AM EST
    to use as a comment with the Obama dead-enders I encounter at other sites?

    Not my quote! (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:46:54 AM EST
    It's Abe's, so feel free.

    The latest spin (5.00 / 12) (#136)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:38:34 AM EST
    on the Sunday shows is that Obama has promised Michigan and Florida that, once he is the nominee, they will be seated at the convention at full strength.

    Does that strike anyone else as bizarre?  Once he secures the nomination he'll let them all vote?  Wasn't the purpose of the primary to give them a say in who becomes the nominee?  These states are supposed to be appeased by this?

    [shaking head -- it must be me because I feel like I'm in a Bushlike Bizarro world again]

    I just remember that Union rep from Ohio... (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:39:05 AM EST
    talking about how Obama screwed them with the Maytag (I think that was the company) plant.  That was a powerful piece of video and, as I recall, was irrefutable.

    Yes. It was Maytag. (5.00 / 4) (#238)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:15:56 AM EST
    Then Obama proceeded to take the Crown family's money to line his pockets. Galesburg, Illinois faced the same fate as Maytag moved their factory to Mexico.

    Donna B just sent me an email (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:39:07 AM EST
    answering mine where all she said was that she "respectfully disagreed" with my position. I have now emailed back for her to explain. Simply saying she doesn't agree is the same to me as saying she is "uncommitted."

    More responsed to e-mails? (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:46:51 AM EST
    Take her Blackberry away. She's going to get herself into trouble with e-mails again. Now she sounds temperate, but she stresses out easily.

    Doesn't she know that e-mails are forever? She is hurting her own candidate.


    I hope there is a tape. Implosion extraordinaire. (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:40:00 AM EST

    There is. (none / 0) (#284)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:59:25 AM EST
    Stay tuned tomorrow.

    McGovern named Eagleton as his VP, and after the (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:40:00 AM EST
    convention had to find a replacement when it came out that Eagleton had undergone, iirc, mental illness treatment including shock therapy (which back then was pretty brutal). Polls did say people would not hold it against the ticket.

    From Wiki:
    Having been declined by the "name" Senators, McGovern turned to lesser-known candidates, and Eagleton, who had opposed the Vietnam War, was selected on July 14 with only a minimal background check. Eagleton made no mention of his earlier hospitalizations. Newspapers soon revealed them. McGovern and Eagleton initially joked about the case with Eagleton saying he would undergo a psychiatric examination if other candidates (e.g., Nixon) would do the same. But the charges kept coming. Columnist Jack Anderson wrote a column falsely accusing Eagleton of being arrested for drunk driving -- a charge that Anderson had to retract.
    McGovern said he would back Eagleton "1000%", but on August 1, Eagleton withdrew at McGovern's request and, after new search by McGovern, was replaced by Kennedy in-law Sargent Shriver.


    My GOD (5.00 / 6) (#153)
    by tnjen on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:44:06 AM EST
    Do you (general) get what just happened?!!! That "compromise" in MI was no compromise. It was a SETUP. The Obamacrats just invalidated the ENTIRE MI primary but no one in Michigan knows it and very few democrats have realized it. What they are saying (through Todd) is that we've allocated the delegates based on the polls not on the election and therefore NONE of the VOTES that were cast mattered -- they are invalid. They have effectively STOLEN the MI primary and no one realizes it.

    Clinton MUST go to Denver, now. It is the only way.

    BTW, how in the hell can they violate their own rules without losing their charter?

    Donna, what would your momma call you? (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by feet on earth on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:45:31 AM EST
    Learning adversed.

    Voters are not rational, as a rule (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:46:19 AM EST
    Obama needs to figure out how to deal with this people, and the scorn and ridicule haven't worked yet.

    Some Obama supporters (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:02:06 AM EST
    appear to confuse "Unity" with "submission."

    I repeat, which candidate really has the low-information voters? The Obamans seem to be rather unable to understand the meanings of simple English words.


    Well (none / 0) (#251)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:24:20 AM EST
    This Clinton supporter would suggest that Clinton has plenty of very low information voters, albeit with high irony skills.

    I understand words quite well.  I also understand politics.  


    Well (1.00 / 0) (#190)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:57:23 AM EST
    the first step towards healing the rift will be Hillary's when she concedes sometime next week.  

    There isn't much Obama can do at this point to heal the right other than giving the nomination to Hillary.  


    jeebus (5.00 / 6) (#230)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:12:41 AM EST
    i am so darn tired of the obamaphiles who again and again place the responsibility for unity on HRC.

    Get a grip and a clue.


    ok (none / 0) (#242)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:17:07 AM EST
    What exactly would you like Obama to do?

    Drop out! (none / 0) (#318)
    by miriam on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:14:11 PM EST
    There isn't much Obama can do?!? (5.00 / 5) (#246)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:19:41 AM EST
    That's insane.

    Unity is now Clinton's problem?


    Where's all this transformational leadership he's supposed to have?

    Or does Clinton have to provide that as well?


    Morph into a human being for starters (5.00 / 2) (#296)
    by Boo Radly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:35:01 AM EST
    but I still will never vote for him. Karma is going to be a real *it@h for him for the rest of his life. His "numeracy"(his word for saying 57 states) adds up to LOSER! Someone is really reaching to appear intelligent.  

    At first I thought they both were just  "unpolished", a little on the coarse side, a joke. They really are clueless and the arrogancy is really them, they own it..... but, the "fans" truly project beyond words what the preening couple stand for - can you say, phony...in words, deeds and actions.

    No one, not even the honorable Hillary and Bill Clinton can or should prop up the BO candidate - it is grotesque in his inadequacies for the office of POTUS. Just stellar lunacy on the part of the DNC.  



    Feel free (none / 0) (#253)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:18 AM EST
    to tell me what Obama should do to heal the right at this point?

    And let's not engage in wholly ridiculous requests such as "Obama should apologize for the actions of everyone who was mean to Hillary".  


    UHC ... (none / 0) (#281)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:57:45 AM EST
    that would be a start.

    Bull. (5.00 / 1) (#291)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:08:40 AM EST
    Hillary's not going anywhere and if I were you, I'd pay close attention to the news tomorrow.

    Yes! Finally, you understand. (none / 0) (#317)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:03:00 PM EST
    Clinton on top of the ticket.

    It's also the only thing that will win the WH for the Democrats in November.


    Not that (none / 0) (#208)
    by magisterludi on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:05:05 AM EST
    scorn and ridicule as a unifying strategy hasn't been given quite an ample shot. (psst- hasn't that horse been dead since, like, Feb?)

    I'm not (5.00 / 8) (#170)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:48:53 AM EST
    comfortable around people who claim Hillary is a racist or that Hillary said Obama might be assassinated or that Hillary supporters are cheaters, are you?

    Nope (none / 0) (#187)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:55:42 AM EST
    There are wacko Obama supporters certainly.

    But if Clinton were to be the nominee I certainly wouldn't be voting for McCain much less hoping for a landslide McCain victory.  


    wacko supporters? (5.00 / 2) (#236)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:14:49 AM EST
    Like his campaign staff who pushed the "ASSASSINATION!!!eleventy-one!11!" meme everywhere?

    And if Clinton were the nominee, you can bet that she wouldn't be doing her damndest to tell Obama's supports to go fly a kite. That is what the minions of the Precious seem to be doing.


    So you're conceding that (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:28:26 AM EST
    Donna Brasile is a wacko?

    She is an idiot (5.00 / 2) (#258)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    She isn't a wacko but she is an idiot who screws up everything she gets involved in.

    I have no idea how she continues to have any authority.


    ok, at least (none / 0) (#301)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST
    you are throwing Donna under the bus to reach out to some Hillary supports, but honestly, how many Donna types will Obama throw under the bus? And would/could you ever trust him if he does?

    DB continues (none / 0) (#319)
    by miriam on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:18:10 PM EST
    under the same "rules" that yesterday gave Obama votes that Hillary won. This is today's Democratic party, and it's not one of which I want to be a member.  

    NObama 08 bumper stickers are now (5.00 / 5) (#176)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:51:01 AM EST
    ...on our cars.  I actually replaced the one that I've had for the past 4 years..."Anybody But Bush".

    Wow, that really tells you something about the depth of my feelings.

    Congrats (1.00 / 10) (#191)
    by Mavs4527 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:57:26 AM EST
    Glad to see you have absolutely no perspective at all in politics and would seemingly prefer to have an anti choice, pro war, mentally unstable John McCain as President simply because your chosen candidate in our party's primary didn't win. You should be so proud of yourself.

    I am proud of myself. I'm a very good person. (5.00 / 5) (#232)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:12:44 AM EST
    Always have been.  Always will be.

    Thank you for reminding me of that!


    On November 5th (5.00 / 5) (#235)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:13:37 AM EST
    ...when John McCain is the President-elect, I will be the first Democrat (or former Democrat) ready to sit down with Obama supporters and sing rounds of "Kumbaya" and talk party unity. Once justice is done for FL, MI, Clinton and her supporters, I think the majority of the party which has backed Clinton this primary season will be more than willing to come to the table and start making plans as to how we proceed and heal the divisions which this contest has caused.

    Before that? No.

    I hope you and your Obaman brethren will be ready to let bygones be bygones after McCain is elected. I am sure that we Clinton supporters will be more than happy to accept you -- the minority of the party who backed Obama -- back into the fold.


    How many people... (none / 0) (#305)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:04:51 PM EST
    did Obama get killed?  

    Start a useless war and occupation, cool bro.

    Dare to question Hillary's legitimate line to the throne as a member of the Clinton royal family...how evil.


    Count up the war funding bills (1.00 / 0) (#313)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:47:40 PM EST
    for which he voted, over and over, and get back to us on that.

    Well, I missed all of the action yesterday, (5.00 / 6) (#177)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:52:02 AM EST
    as I was attending to a difficult situation with an elderly family member, and arrived home in the early evening tired and already emotionally drained.

    All I managed last night was reading through the hearing posts and comments, which confirmed that the DNC did just what I suspected they would do: whatever it took to make sure Hillary made up no ground on Obama with delegates.  And their decision to penalize Clinton 4 delegates she earned in Michigan, and reward Obama for not being on the ballot?  That one is going to haunt them for a long, long time.

    I am just so disgusted with the party and with the so-called leaders who have chosen to allow their partisan allegiance to a terrible candidate to drive the entire matter; if Obama is The One, why the heck does he need the DNC to subvert and pervert democracy to make sure he wins?  And why is the DNC willing to do it?

    Clinton ought to call their bluff, and suggest that if Obama ends up with the nomination and loses, every single member of the DNC should be required to resign.  

    Seems fair to me.  Especially since, by the time that happens, the Democratic Party as we know it may be a shadow of its former self.

    Yes, (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:55:24 AM EST
    I can hear the Republicans now.  The Chicago-style Democrats aren't even lining up dead people to vote anymore, they're now using imaginary voters!

    I have been reading around the web (5.00 / 4) (#219)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:07:59 AM EST
    this morning, and it isn't as if those of us following this process closely didn't know we were headed for the twilight zone but damn.  I cannot believe how taunting and ridiculing posters are today.  Sheer stupidity if Obama is going to be the Dem nominee.  I watched McCain a few days ago giving a speech about his plans on addressing nuclear proliferation to include our own.  He talked about further scaling back our nuclear arms because the nuclear global threat is the single worst threat out there.  John McCain is going to run as John McCain now that he has sewn up the nomination. John McCain is not some freaky conservative, he's a moderate with a few liberal streaks two of which are immigration and nuclear proliferation.  That is just the beginning of his appeal to indy voters and now disgruntled by the bull and taunting Dem voters. Snap out of it people!  My grandmothers both taught me the vital importance of being decent and avoid embarrassing myself in the long run!  It is up to us to employ what they taught us.

    Yup. (4.85 / 7) (#227)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:10:33 AM EST
    As I predicted, he is running to the left, being much more respectful to Hillary than Obama, and keeping his distance from Bush.

    He is on track to win in a landslide.


    You understand wrong (5.00 / 5) (#224)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:09:14 AM EST
    That is simply wrong in every particular.

    Moreover, nothing in the rules allows them to do what they did do.

    Question of winning and losing (5.00 / 4) (#248)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:20:35 AM EST
    We make a leap that they will lose cause they are unjust and basically unethical, well, that's what wins elections in America.  It does not make for good government or a fair democracy, but it wins elections.  

    We have here the end result of the Bush years, ends justify the means, neocon mentality, combined with some artifact of the left, by any means necessary, so you get as I insist a very dangerous:  "movement"  because at it's core you have people like Donna etc.  They believe they are and always will be right.  

    How TeamObie, Super Genius, will lose bigger (5.00 / 7) (#260)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:32:17 AM EST
    ... than even they were slated to do on Obama's built-in weaknesses as a leader, and his kingmakers' arrogance.

    If their contemptuous attitude was localized to internecine squabbles that would be one thing.

    Their contempt is for voters, and not just in slamming the popular vote as if it means less than some slick political hucksters bullsh!t du jour. Their contempt is clear with stupid pol tricks like getting voters to vote Uncommitted, or get Repugs in on the joke by being Dems for a Day.

    Why should anyone be an activist for this mockery?

    How dare Donna Brazile huff and puff with Mamma talk and lay that fake Della Gente smack about disenfranchisement. She's no Dem but she's definitely one of the biggest Jackasses to ever disgrace this once proud party that made me declare Independence from their shameful Bush era record.

    Stealing votes from Sen Clinton, and shredding others so they won't count, lays down the doubt in millions of voters' heads that it could be his or her vote that was treated that way.

    That's the thing, unless EACH VOTE is treated as precious, even a small number of votes shabbily treated puts the entire process in jeopardy.

    The other self-defeating principle of this contempt for the popular vote is going to make it hard for all but those swimming in BO's tank of Whine-Koolaid to GOTV, knock on doors for him.

    Why, when votes don't count for the candidate, should disenfranchised Dems go out and scrape together every possible vote for this (impending IMO) most expensive landslide loser in history?

    What Sen. Clinton shows me by going out and personally fighting for every vote by reaching the voter is that my vote will be appreciated and, more importantly, she'll fight to get it counted.

    I agree with you-In PA also (5.00 / 5) (#264)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:34:06 AM EST
    The people are not really talking about it. And they were so excited for Hillary before the primary. But, when someone brings up the election, it is generally, "I am not that happy with McCain, but I am real unhappy with Obama". The talk is basically that they hope McCain picks a really good Vice President and not Mitt. And they do not care who Obama picks as they do not care what Obama says. Period. They feel nothing Obama does or says can make them change their mind. Somewhere in the last month, people made the decision that Obama should not be President. Maybe it was the Wright thing or Obama's gaffs that showed he was not who we thought he was. Maybe even Donna's remarks on CNN.  Maybe even the arrogance of not wanting debates since the last one really showed him up. But it happened. And this time, people are not being moved by SCOTUS threats, guilt, or Iraq (Weren't we suppose to be out right after 2006? Maybe if there had been some progress on this issue alone, people might believe in the Dems getting it done, but without this, people are going to vote for experience. Watch for 527 ads quoting Obama saying he was not experienced enough to run for President. This will not be his time. Many people even on this site have made their decision not to vote for Obama and have voiced it. Swing states will not swing Blue. And once again, a check in the loss column for Donna. The new kiss of death following in Bob Shrum footsteps. At least he still writes good speaches and not the C**p she was uttering yesterday.

    NOPE (5.00 / 3) (#316)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:01:32 PM EST
    Someone read the rules while on the air--the rules say that uncommitted votes are to be left uncommitted.  It was an entirely stupid move to say that those votes should be listed immediately in Obama's column.  I have little doubt that the delegates would have declared for Obama.  BUT THE RULES SAY UNCOMMITTED IS UNCOMMITTED.

    This is just a stunning abuse of power... (4.60 / 10) (#18)
    by bmc on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:05 AM EST
    This is really a stunning abuse of power by the RBC. Where in the rules does it state that they can take delegates away from a candidate and give them to another candidate? Could someone please point that out to me?

    Also, if "uncommitted" is a recognized category, then the RBC ruling conveniently eliminated that category under DNC rules yesterday, right?

    The RBC took the "uncommitted" category and changed it to Obama! Now, Obama took his name OFF the ballot; no one forced him to do that. And, they could have allowed "uncommitted" delegates to choose to endorse/vote for whichever candidate they preferred, either in Denver or over the summer.

    The RBC ELIMINATED the "uncommitted" category. They SUBSTITUTED Obama's name in that category. And, they STOLE 4 delegates from Clinton--that she earned from voters--in the process!

    By what possible measure of rationality do they justify such an astonishing, brazen, and public act? This is simply breathtaking. Still shaking my head....this is really not good for the Democratic Party--not for November, and not for the future of the party. I cannot abide by this action, and Donna Brazile has earned my contempt with this craven defense of the indefensible.


    TeamO: Roolz sacred except for someone's quote (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:30:40 AM EST
    What an utterly ridiculous proposition: these DNC Roolz which were graven by lightning onto stone and beyond the same latitude of interpretation as the penal code, fed/states' constitution(s), bible (and all holy books) and even the Magna Carta magically, mystically turn to dust because someone at Cheetoh's dug up an obscure HRC quote.

    If it'll get Obama a few stolen delegates that his rival rightly won by, you know, voters voting for her.


    We all get what we deserve in the end (1.50 / 8) (#54)
    by SFGeek on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:57:12 AM EST
    "I will now vote for McCain."

    Then you will get the president you deserve.  

    I just feel sorry for the civilians in Iran who don't know they are dead yet or the women who don't know that their uteri are about to be re-possessed by the Federal Government.

    spare me (5.00 / 13) (#57)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:58:11 AM EST
    Spare you from what? (1.00 / 7) (#175)
    by Mavs4527 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:50:46 AM EST
    Reminding you that getting into an uproar over how the delegations of two rule breaking states were handled should have no bearing over the fact that we can not afford to have John McCain to be President. With the next Supreme Court Justice appointment, Roe v. Wade can and will be oveturned if McCain is President.

    Next time you want to get hysterical over Hillary's loss of 4 delegates in a campaign that's been basically over for weeks now, think about what's at stake in this upcoming election and consider whether your anger now should be at the expense of women across the country.


    My Momma taught me (5.00 / 6) (#189)
    by livesinashoe on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:56:03 AM EST
    that I should have thought about that before I messed things up.

    "Next time you want to get hysterical over Hillary's loss of 4 delegates in a campaign that's been basically over for weeks now, think about what's at stake in this upcoming election and consider whether your anger now should be at the expense of women across the country."


    How could the Democratic Party... (5.00 / 6) (#200)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:01:49 AM EST
    ....ever have allowed this lifelong Dem and Pro-Choice women (who was in DC marching and shouting from the very start!) get to this point...., this is now my response on Roe v Wade....

    These are words first written by another commenter whom I respect and with whom I agree:

    "If my younger sisters lose Roe Wade it will be their own fault for taking the rights they have for granted, because they didn't fight for them. They are complacent and can take the time to swoon over a sexy empty suit who has already set gender relations back a minimum of 30 years, and we haven't even gotten to the General Election campaign yet. Serves them right. Not my problem. I know how not to get pregnant.

    It's my job to protect the rights I fought for that matter to me. This is a misogynist's campaign and if younger women are too busy spawning over Leland Gaunt handing out Needful Things and discussing his vibrating phone when he leans on one of them, then they will have to learn to take the consequences of their own folly along with the consolations. Maybe then they will Get It. I have already done well in my life. Complacency is their enemy, not mine. Let em eat cell phones."


    what I like about trolls (5.00 / 4) (#211)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:13 AM EST
    is the ability to read the minds of everyone here, and therefore address their gripes to all here, rather than to a specific post.

    "Will you guys please stop...."
    "Why are you guys trying to make it look ...."
    "Next time you want to get hysterical...."
    (nice touch with the appeal to women there)

    Of course MY post did not mention voting for McCain, Hillary's 4 delegates or anything like that.

    So I repeat, spare from your histrionics.


    Y'know what? (5.00 / 1) (#290)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:06:56 AM EST
    Roe is a non-issue. Why? because IF and I do say IF it is overturned, it becomes a state issue. Since Obama's record on these issues is to vote 'present,' and since he SUPPORTED AND WANTED TO VOTE FOR ROBERTS, don't throw your strawman roe argument here.

    Perhaps it's time for folks to learn WHY Roe was important, instead of using it as a strawman.


    McCain won his nomination honorably. (5.00 / 16) (#66)
    by felizarte on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:03:58 AM EST
    What kind of a president can come out of a party that has acted so dishonorably to its members? Violating its core principles?  Whatever it is that the Democratic party is selling nowadays, I AIN'T BUYIN! I'm done! finished!

    This decision did not change the dynamics of (1.09 / 11) (#157)
    by Mavs4527 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:44:45 AM EST
    the race. Will you guys please stop pretending as if it was? This decision was never going to change the outcome no matter if you got everything you wanted. Stop pretending this thing was stolen.

    You're wrong. (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Radix on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:55:50 AM EST
    All we HRC supporters have ever asked for is to be treated fairly. Had the DNC played by the rules then the dynamics wouldn't have changed. Since the DNC didn't play by the rules, it may very well cost the Democrats election.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    How can anyone be treated fairly (1.00 / 0) (#228)
    by Mavs4527 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:10:39 AM EST
    in a situation that was wholly unfair to begin with? Both states were warned not to hold their primaries before February 5, but did so anyone, in violation of the calendar the party had outline. All the candidates signed a pledge not to participate in those contests and 4 of the major candidates, including Obama, removed his name from the ballot in Michigan out of respect to the pledge not to participate. They would have done the same in Florida, but the deadline had already passed for anyone have their names removed from the ballot. The elections went on as scheduled despite the party saying they would not count, many Democrats did not show because of that, and as a result, we probably didn't see a true reflection of the will of each of those state's Democrats.

    As Carl Levin said to Ickes, you're asking for a fair reflection of a flawed primary. No compromise was going to be perfect, but the Michigan Democratic Party did what it felt was making the best of a horrible situation and neither side got what it wanted.

    I only hope people like you don't threaten the future of this country over Hillary's loss of 4 delegates that weren't going to change the outcome of the race to begin with.


    People like me? You mean veterans? (5.00 / 6) (#263)
    by Radix on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:33:55 AM EST
    As to the "it's just 4 votes" non-sense, you don't get to steal even 1 vote, well at least you don't in the America I was willing to defend. I'm not sure what you want to turn my country into, but if this is a taste, I don't like it one bit.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    Obama is now officially... (5.00 / 5) (#203)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:02:45 AM EST
    "Mr. Illegitimate" to myself and many other Dems. This is not only the result of the shafting of FL & MI, but also because of what people such as Sean Wilentz have documented as his race-card-playing campaign. Not to mention the 'the claws come out,' sexist tenor of his team.

    It's pretty simple: You want us to forget what you and your cohorts have done to us for months so that you can win in November. We are telling you "No." You are free to expend as much energy as you wish to try to rewrite the history we have just lived through and/or to try to play the Supreme Court game, but I would advise you that you are likely to not only fail but to strengthen the resolve against you and what we feel is your illegitimate candidate.

    Obama has had the primary gamed for months now. All of you could be as arrogant as you wanted to be, and bullying, etc.

    And now those tactics are going to, as they say, come home to roost. There is no pillow- or 'sweetie'-talk which is going to turn most of us from wanting to make sure that the party-infecting Obaman Arrogance is given the comeuppance which it requires in November.

    Good luck, my possibly astroturfing friend. You will need it.


    Obama has never won an election... (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:08:06 AM EST
    without disenfranching voters or other candidates - even when he beat Alan Keyes (Dooh, whoop-de-doo!) he and Alexrod got his opponent's divorce papers into the hands of the press and humiliated the guy's wife and children just to eliminate the opponent.

    Yup, Barack Obama...what a standup guy!



    Stolen, yeah (5.00 / 4) (#218)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:07:54 AM EST
    This is not about Hillary now.  This is about Obama.  He's simply unqualified by experience or character to be president of the US.  Plain and simple.  Get over it.

    Not the point (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:16:02 AM EST
    I suggest you actually read up on the concerns we've consistently posted here before you give yourself permission to analyze our thinking.

    You will NEVER change (5.00 / 2) (#273)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:44:22 AM EST
    Hillary supporter's minds about BO, so give it up. You are not helping your cause. The nomination was stolen. Read a newspaper or a reputable web site...Kos doesn't qualify, BTW, and learn something. Besides that, after tomorrow, I think you will be singing a different tune. Obama will be finished.

    McCain won because he made promises (1.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Mavs4527 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:54:57 AM EST
    to the governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, and secured his last minute endorsement, thus basically handing him the state when before Mitt Romney had been leading in the polling there. After that, the GOP race became a foregone conclusion. You want to vote for McCain at the expense of the right to choose for women across the country, be my guest, but let's not pretend that McCain somehow received his party's nomination through any sort of truly honorable process.

    What you're describing (5.00 / 6) (#195)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:58:54 AM EST
    regarding McCain is what all politicians do.  Your Obama does stuff like that too (but I know, I know, it's okay when he does it.)

    If Roe was the be-all end-all, why did you support Obama, who came really close to voting for Roberts (but didn't because of presidential electability issues) and defended -- on Daily KOS -- those Democrats who did vote for Roberts.

    I have zero -- ZERO -- confidence that an Obama election ensures the safety of ROE.  So I may as well vote for the guy who seems more competent.  We've had an incompetent president for the last 8 years.  We don't need another one.


    You're going to bash Obama (1.00 / 0) (#233)
    by Mavs4527 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:13:17 AM EST
    for something he apparently almost did, rather than what he actually did. I just hope people like yourself take a step back, gather yourselves, and realize we're all Democrats and we can't afford to have what would be a third Bush term in John McCain.

    I will NEVER join forces (5.00 / 2) (#275)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:46:59 AM EST
    with BO supporters. He's losing in November if he's allowed to steal this nomination. He cannot win with just the AA and creative class vote. Everyone else, he's alienated. BO can never win in November. The sooner you get a grip on that reality, the better.

    Well yes (5.00 / 1) (#315)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:54:25 PM EST
    because what 'he almost did' tells me a lot about what he'll do when he thinks no one is looking.

    I am so tired of you telling me... (5.00 / 19) (#73)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:05:42 AM EST
    ...that I will have the blood of this nation on my hands if McCain wins.

    Abortion in this country is NOT going to be outlawed - first of all, if the Dems win the majority in Congress isn't it their responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen under McCain?  What's the problem?  So spineless they will cave?  (Whoops, sorry - forgot that the war in Iraq is still going on even with Pelosi and friends in "power").  Hey, THEY are the ones to protect the Supreme Court...all I can do is vote and tell them what I feel (a lot of good that has ever done!)

    And if the Dem Congress does let McCain stack the Court and Roe v Wade is oveturned or made even more restrictive, then the states will have to deal with it - and many states will not change a thing.

    Grow up.  I was pro-choice before you were probably even thought about.  So don't try that bull with me.


    I agree (5.00 / 14) (#91)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:12:36 AM EST
    This is an awful scare tactic of Obama supporters. Recall Bork?  I will not be threatened with the SC, ever.  Save your breath.

    So voting Hillary in the general (none / 0) (#197)
    by Melchizedek on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:59:59 AM EST
    would not have been important for saving Roe v. Wade? That's basically what you just argued.

    Yeah, I guess other policies don't matter either (Iran, Iraq, housing crisis, environment, energy policy, nuclear diplomacy, employment benefits, health insurance, corporate ethics, campaign finance reform, on and on). Those are just smokescreens.  After all the talk about "blue-collar" "meat and potatoes" issues, in the end McCain's vicious Bushonomics are quite tolerable, as long as the uppity Obamabots understand that the FL and MI compromises were worse than the 2000 recount. Sorry, Ohio, all that talk about a Democratic President being better for economic progress, that wasn't true. Just wait until 2012, THEN it will truly matter. Until then, just sit tight.  I mean, health insurance can wait until we get the PERFECT version in five years, right? So suck it up, get your kids some Purel, and vote for McCain.

    The Obama supporters who say they'd vote for McCain over Hillary disgust me just as much. One wonders how much worse things have to get before we wake up and realize that the less bad thing is the better thing, and cutting off our nose to spite our face has never worked. Well except for voting for Nader instead of Gore-- that really showed us, didn't it? The Democrats sure learned their lesson-- they moved EVEN FURTHER TO THE RIGHT. Maybe voting for McCain will teach them, to move...to...the...left? Brilliant-- and responsible!!!


    Yippee! I disgust an Obamaphile today! (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:05:09 AM EST
    And boy, does that feel GREAT!

    TeamObie made the mess, they can clean it up (5.00 / 12) (#95)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:15:39 AM EST
    Whatever today's Trolling Points Memo is trying to dump on others doesn't really work here.

    I'm writing in Clinton for Pres or Uncommitted and Donna Brazile can make a Mama-based case that my non-vote belongs to Obama (even if I stay home.)

    I feel so serene about this.


    I will be an American first (5.00 / 3) (#243)
    by felizarte on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:17:13 AM EST
    and vote for worthy candidates downline without regard to party affiliation.

    Ellie! (5.00 / 2) (#247)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:20:12 AM EST
    You are so funny. You really have a way with words!

    Tell Mama all about it....

    My mama told me....

    This could go on all day - there are a lot of mama songs and mama-based talking points.

    Poor Donna.


    Here we go again. (5.00 / 11) (#114)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:26:16 AM EST


    Look here, Obamatron.  The majority of Clintonites who are turning towards McCain aren't buying the SCOTUS scare tactic.  

    Would you REALLY have us believe that Obama would be ANY better than McCain, given that the !@^!@ supported the Roberts nomination before Pete Rouse told him to vote against him for the sake of his political career?


    Prof Kmiec's endorsement of Obama (5.00 / 11) (#133)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:35:57 AM EST
    and Obama's statements on abortion:

    For those unfamiliar wiht Prof. Kmiec, he is a noted legal scholar, and ardent Roman Catholic. He has the credentials and standing to become a serious nominee for the United States Supreme Court. Also, he is a member of the IL bar, and has written for the Chicago Tribune. I know of no other link to Obama. He has endorsed Obama.

    IN writing on Obama, Prof. Kmiec has quoted Obama's positon on abortion as:
    As he [Obama] writes, "I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."
    Note, one COULD view Obama's personal position on abortion as influencing his "present" votes on a woman's right to choose while an IL state senator.
    Prof. Kmiec reconciles his endorsement of Obama (not McCain, who is adamantly pro life) by citing to the offical bishops' edict on voting and abortion:
    "a Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position." But voters should not use a candidate's opposition to abortion "to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity" -- such as, say, the invasion of a foreign nation leading to the sacrifice of the lives of our own troops and of thousands of others."
    Prof. Kmiec also posits the following question/statement:
    "[B]ut here's the question: Does Obama's thoughtful appreciation of faith mean that he would work toward the protection of life in all contexts even if that protection cannot be achieved in a single step?  I am inclined to think so . . ."

    Interesting endorsement, no matter how you read it. If choice is your overriding issue, you should be backing Clinton.


    Yeah (5.00 / 7) (#156)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:44:28 AM EST
    My own confidence that Obama would protect Roe-v-Wade is ZERO.

    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#196)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    I didn't know that one... Isn't Kmiec the one that was on all TV bloviating against WJC during the circus of impeachment?

    I do not trust Obama's on the SCOTUS issue. His heart was indeed with Roberts and on other issues many of his positions are close to Reps.  Besides: the Pres. nominates only.  It is Congress that confirms and Congress should be doing its job !
    Souter was  nominated by Bush I and Congress back then did its job and voted down Robert Bork.

    It would be much more difficult for a Dem. majority in Congress to block a bad nominee from a Dem President than from a Rep. President.  So there you have it !


    It's never on their first 100 days menu is it? (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    For all the feckin yelling they do about SCOTUS or Iraq to get support, it's never on a front burner for the Dems.

    I think today's Trolling Points Memo instructed the iBots to laser their pester power to draw ttention away from the atrocity of BO's DNC nannies stealing votes from other candidates and giving them to him -- against their own sainted ROOLZ.


    Your agument is so passe'. Didn't they send you (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by feet on earth on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:41:07 AM EST
    a new memo? You are either out of the loop or the creative class coming out with the troll memos is running out of creativity.

    If they had followed the rules (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:31:22 AM EST
    shouldn't they have simply denied MI and FL any delegates at all?

    That would have been fairer but politically untenable.

    it they had followed the rules (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:36:32 AM EST
    they would have penalized Obama for airing TV ads in FL.

    And (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:06:50 AM EST
    for not stopping his surrogate John Conyers from running Obama ads in Michigan.

    Also MI (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:53:11 AM EST
    I have always cosntrued Obama's active solicitation of the "uncommitted" voters in MI as active campaigning.  He had all his surrogates out en masse telling people to vote for "uncommitted" as a vote for Obama.  Edwards did the same thing.  This was done officially via email, telephone, goverment websites.  This was campaigning.

    really? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:11 AM EST
    If they had simply discounted all MI and FL delegates why would they need to penalize anyone for wasting their money?

    a rule is a rule! (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:52:20 AM EST
    unless it concerns (5.00 / 6) (#108)
    by The Realist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:24:06 AM EST
    Iowa,NH, South Carolina, or Nevada.

    No (5.00 / 20) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:37:04 AM EST
    If they had followed the rules, Michigan would have had 505 of its delegates seated, New Hampshire would have had 50% of its delegates seated, Iowa would have had 505 of its delegates seated, South Carolina would have had 50% of its delegates seated and Florida, because it qualified for the Rule 21 safe harbor waiver, would have had 100% of its delegates seated.

    But you are right, following the rules was not political tenable for the RBC after the disaster it created by NOT following its own rules previously.


    Are you sure? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:39:00 AM EST
    I thought all those other states had waivers, something neither FL or MI had.

    The NH waiver was granted (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:50:40 AM EST
    after NH unilaterally moved its primary up.

    So the DNC had a choice, follow the rules (and  penalize NH) or grant a waiver and pretend the rules were obeyed.


    But a waiver was granted, no? (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:54:48 AM EST
    So at the time NH voted it was doing so with the benefit of the waiver but this was not the case for FL and MI.

    I don't really follow this very closely so I have no idea what the laws and rules say. but I do remember clearly that all campaigns accepted that FL and MI were being penalized but no one said anything like that about NH or any of the other states. Therefore it seems clear that everyone accepted MI and FL broke some rules the others did not.

    That's why I think the simplest would have been to deny FL or MI any delegates at all but I can see how this is politically impossible.


    You miss the point (5.00 / 10) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:56:46 AM EST
    By granting the waiver, the RBC broke the Rules. You seem to be missing the point.

    Answered below (nt) (none / 0) (#56)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:57:51 AM EST

    Answered what below? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:04:09 AM EST
    Well, according to Donna B, they (none / 0) (#210)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:09 AM EST
    didn't break the rules..

    Well, according to Donna B (none / 0) (#223)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:08:07 AM EST
    this morning, they didn't break the rules!

    The RBC had no pwer to grant such waivers (5.00 / 12) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:55:22 AM EST
    They broke the rules when they did that.

    I haven't seen anyone (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:56:48 AM EST
    in the campaigns make this claim. Did I miss it? Did someone prior to NH say their votes shouldn't count?

    Rewatch Carl Levin's testimony from yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:59:32 AM EST
    No (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:01:12 AM EST
    I a talking at the time of voting. I remember clearly all campaigns accepting that FL's and MI's votes would not count but I don't remember anyone saying the same for NH or SC or IA.

    What does that have to do with the Rules? (5.00 / 7) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:03:33 AM EST
    Do the statments of campaigns constitute the Rules?

    Because on January 25, Hillary Clinton said Florida and Michigan would count. Heck Before Florida, in the days leading up to it, she said Florida would count.

    So is it your argument that because Clinton said Florida would count, it should count?


    Going into primary season (3.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:08:24 AM EST
    the DNC ruled and everyone agreed what states would count and which wouldn't. I think the simplest and fairest is to follow that, the rules everyone agreed to at the start of the race. If candidates changed their mind as the race changed that should be their problem, not anyone else's.

    I think the nominating process needs an overhaul but that's for another time. Once the race started and everyone agreed on what would count and what wouldn't that should be the final word. Otherwise this never ends.


    Actually that is false (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:24:17 AM EST
    The DNC agreed to the DNC Delegate Selection Rules.

    They broke them.

    that is my point.

    You need to address my point or stop commenting. I am aware of your true intent here and I have humored you but that is now at an end.

    If you can not write a comment that addresses the DNC Delegate Selection Rules, then you are not permitted to commment further in this thread.


    I have no clue (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:27:46 AM EST
    about the DNC selection rules.

    And I have no preference in this election, other than to see McCain lose. If it were up to me neither HRC or Obama would be the nominee.

    I am simply pointing out that all sides agreed to some rules before this all started and, no mater how flawed, those are the rules of the game. That's all.


    Than you for admitting (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:29:13 AM EST
    that you are not actually familiar with the rules.

    Apologies (none / 0) (#124)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:30:01 AM EST
    if I implied otherwise. That was not my intent.

    Your memory is incorrect (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:22:39 AM EST
    Indeed, both Obama and Clinton said Florida WOULD count., The delegates would be seated.

    But that is irrelevant to the Rules anyway.

    You seem incapable of sticking to the point here.


    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:01:36 AM EST
    No one in the Clinton campaign made that claim. This is true.

    But not relevant.


    Pretty relevant (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:03:11 AM EST
    Everyone agreed that FL and MI would not count but the other states would. That's why we should have simply not counted them and be done with.

    Actually (5.00 / 8) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:06:48 AM EST
    since you want to play the game that what a candidate said constitutes the rules, Hillary Clinton said Florida WOULD count. Before the Florida primary. Indeed, Obama said before the Florida primary that Florida would be seated.

    So if the statements of the candidates constitute the rules, then Florida should count fully.

    But of course that is not how it works as you well know. There is a document, it is called the DNC Delegate Selection Rules.

    Those were the rules. And the RBC refused to follow them yesterday.


    She said that AFTER (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:10:09 AM EST
    primary season started, no?

    What did the DNC rule and what did everyone agree to before the first votes were cast?


    She said it BEFORE the florida primary (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:21:40 AM EST
    As did Obama by the why.

    But again, this had NOTHING to do with the Rules.


    After primary season started, no? (1.00 / 0) (#111)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:25:18 AM EST
    I think we can all agree that however much we may want to change the rules of a game once it starts you can't do that. Prior to the start of primary season ALL campaigns agreed with the DNC  what states would count and which wouldn't. That should be enough. If they changed their minds afterwards that's too late. Otherwise we never end and are constantly changing the rules.

    Are you going to actually address the rules (5.00 / 8) (#115)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:26:52 AM EST
    at some point, or are you just going to keep prattling on about the things you made up in your head that are supposedly the "rules"?

    I am not a lawyer (1.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:29:21 AM EST
    I have not read the rules and quite frankly, probably wouldn't understand them. I have no dog in this fight, so long as McCain loses.

    Good Lord (5.00 / 8) (#142)
    by suki on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:40:33 AM EST
    If you don't understand what you're talking about, WHY do you keep talking?

    Hmmm (1.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:48:30 AM EST
    Maybe you should read what I write before commenting, no?

    I never made a technical point about what the rules say or how to interpret them. I leave that to others.

    I am simply pointing out that the DNC and all the campaigns agreed to certain rules before this all started and, no matter how flawed, those should probably be the rules followed.


    Since you don't know what the rules are (5.00 / 7) (#174)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:50:37 AM EST
    you are not in a position to comment on whether anything anyone supposedly agreed to is relevant or not.

    You comment are simply ignorant chatter.


    Simple question (1.00 / 1) (#304)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:03:57 PM EST
    Did the campaigns agree with the DNC prior to primary season on what states would be excluded? Yes or no?

    I'm sorry ... (5.00 / 2) (#250)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:23:19 AM EST
    but if this does not constitute CHATTERING, I don't know what does.

    Whoa (5.00 / 9) (#96)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:15:42 AM EST
    the RBC does not = everyone
    the RBC does not = the campaigns
    the RBC does not = the media
    the RBC does not = the pundits
    the RBC does not = Obama bloggers

    the RBC = the RBC and they broke their own rules by granting a waiver


    No? (1.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:18:06 AM EST
    I thought that before the first votes all campaigns had agreed what states would count and which didn't.  No campaign said back last October or November that FL should count, right? No campaign said back then they would ignore the DNC's rules, right?

    The campaigns don't make the DNC rules (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:27:20 AM EST
    nor do the campaigns enforce the DNC rules.

    You might be using confusing the 4-State Pledge with the RBC but the 4-State Pledge/campaign comments has zilch to do with the RBC and its rules


    Yet again (5.00 / 9) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:20:51 AM EST
    You are wrong on your facts.

    and miss the point.

    Rules. Look them up. "What somoeone said" is not a rule. And of course, on Florida, Clinton AND Obama said the delegates would be seated.


    Yes, you missed it (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:04:29 AM EST
    and based on the "innocent bewilderment" of your posts thus far, it doesn't seem to be the only thing you've missed.

    Waivers after the fact (5.00 / 0) (#184)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:54:34 AM EST
    from my reading.

    no. (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:37:23 AM EST
    this has been discussed a zillion times.

    If you can say that... (1.00 / 8) (#168)
    by Rictor Rockets on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:43 AM EST
    If you can say that you will vote for McCain, and mean it, and actually do it, then you were never really a Democrat to begin with.

    Really. Seriously. Truly.

    I feel the same way about Hillary you do about Obama, but I would still vote for her in a heartbeat before I pull that lever for McCain. Either of the Democratic candidates is miles ahead of that man, who will continue to destroy this country with George W. Bush, Part III policies.

    If you support McCain, you support Bush. No other way around it.

    If you can vote (5.00 / 11) (#178)
    by tnjen on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:52:33 AM EST
    for a candidate that just stole the MI primary by throwing out every vote cast, and awarding himself delegates despite the fact that he was NOT on the ballot and there is NO RULE OR PRECEDENT for such an action, you're no democrat. That's fascism.

    Get. Over. Yourself (1.00 / 2) (#252)
    by Rictor Rockets on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:25:09 AM EST
    Obama didn't steal jack.

    (From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/1/72643/08080/210/526590)

    There is no provision in the Democratic Party Charter or Bylaws to enable party committees to determine the delegate allocation per nominee, even though it would be perfectly legal (see point 1 above) to do so if they wished.

    The delegate allocation is decided by the STATE and presented to the DNC. In fact, in order to maintain parity with other states and historical precedent, the ONLY reasonable choice available to the RBC to fairly seat the delegates was to accept the allocation presented to them by the state party representatives for each state.

    In the case of the RBC meeting held yesterday to determine the fate of MI & FL delegates, the RBC voted to accept the allocation presented by each state, having established (as they are required to do) that the state representatives have acted in good faith to determine an allocation that is fair and reasonable.

    Furthermore, there is no precedent or provision to allow a candidate or their official representatives to determine the allocation process.  Had the RBC chosen to follow the guidelines of a candidate over the recommendation by the state representatives, it would have set an irretrievably dangerous precedent.

    Therefore, it is fair to argue that the RBC could NOT have chosen Clinton's proposal in so much as it differed from the state's recommendation even if they had wanted to.

    Seriously. This isn't some "terrible civil rights travesty". This isn't "Worse than Hitler and Zimbabwe and Slavery combined", and to have people saying such things exposes their tremendous ignorance and/or greedy, amoral manipulations of people who really themselves should know better.

    This is what happens when people let emotion rule out over fact and education. Because it's much easier to kneejerk over things than take the five minutes to read up on them.

    You want to vote Republican? Go for it. A lot of Hillary supporters have been acting like them for a while now.


    Go away. The last thing I want (5.00 / 5) (#265)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:35:08 AM EST
    is for some newly, indoctrinated cult member telling ME, a LIFELONG DEMOCRAT, who I am and what I should do! I have always voted a straight Democratic ticket. I have been a registered Democrat since 1973. So, take your freakin', IDIOTIC lectures and shove them. Got that? Don't you DARE try to lecture ME about who I am or what I should do.

    I will NEVER vote for Obama. This will be the first time in my LIFE I vote for ANY republican and you can thank your cult master and people like you for that. Go away.


    It's very simple (5.00 / 0) (#271)
    by Rictor Rockets on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:40:42 AM EST
    You vote for the Republican, you espouse and support all the Republicans espouse and support.

    You are giving them your approval for how they run Iraq.

    You are giving them your approval for how they run the economy.

    You are giving them your approval for how they pick the Supreme Court nominations.

    You are giving them your approval on how they handle civil liberties.

    Bush knows this, and said as much in 2004: "It was a referendum on how I'm running Iraq", he said.

    I have far, far more respect for someone who simply wouldn't vote, or would write in Hillary's name in the end (even though these actions help McCain out) then someone who would WILLINGLY AND KNOWINGLY VOTE FOR a Neoconservative like John McCain.

    You care more about "making people pay" because you didn't get your way, then it is about trying to help this country. How sad that America might have to pay for your overemotional outrage.


    You have more respect... (5.00 / 2) (#276)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:47:39 AM EST
    for voters who don't vote or write-in Clinton than those that vote for McCain....hmmmm, wonder why?

    Oh, that's right.  A vote FOR McCain from former HRC supporters means BO has to make up two to come out even.

    But a write-in or no vote means nothing.

    Well, I think you've just provided me with my decision...and my husband's and our daughters.  That  makes 6 votes that BO has to make up.

    Thanks for the reminder!


    Madam (1.00 / 1) (#286)
    by Rictor Rockets on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM EST
    I believe you made up your mind long, long before my simple little anonymous post on "Teh Intertubes" was read by you.

    If my words have that much power to sway you to supporting Iraq for 100 years, for blocking minimum wage increases, for destroying the economy, for "free trade", for turning this country into a police state...then I think I need to start demanding a million dollar paycheck from the Republican Party ;)

    No, I admire those who simply won't vote for either because at least they aren't selling our the core values they claim to believe in in order to strike out at some faceless group they want to hurt. Even if that means hurting the country as a whole to do it.

    They have far more moral bearing, character, and fiber than you and your unfortunate family.


    you value 'facts and education over emotion'? (5.00 / 3) (#266)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:35:14 AM EST
    And yet you link to DKos? Weird.

    Wasn't that funny! (5.00 / 2) (#282)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:58:04 AM EST
    Comes here and completely ignores the analysis/evaluation of lawyers on the rules and instead relies on Kos.  Ha!

    Attacking the source and not the content (1.00 / 0) (#269)
    by Rictor Rockets on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    Is a sign of a weak argument.

    If you can refute the material, do so.

    Maybe the poster put it up on DailyKos, because lord knows anything that doesn't get down and lick Hillary's boots would be tossed out here on Talk"Left".


    And obtaining your talking points (5.00 / 2) (#277)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:48:19 AM EST
    from a tabloid rag is a sign of stupidity.

    Attack the messenger...we learned that (5.00 / 2) (#278)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:49:30 AM EST
    from Obamaphiles for the past 7 months.  See...we do listen to you lemmings!

    And yet... (none / 0) (#287)
    by Rictor Rockets on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:01:48 AM EST
    None of you can refute was posted up. Just continual attacks on the messenger and the venue, but not the message.

    Weak, weak, weak.


    Honestly... (5.00 / 1) (#295)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:25:34 AM EST
    as soon as I see a link to DK, I just ignore completely now. So, I'm sorry that I no longer waste my time in pointless internet sparring with arguments from those who have already lost all credibility. I know it will be intellectually dishonest.

    Those are the words (none / 0) (#321)
    by Rictor Rockets on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:12:53 PM EST
    of a coward.

    How Ignorant Can You Possibly Be? (5.00 / 3) (#306)
    by Richjo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:05:43 PM EST
    The rules that allow the state to present the delegate allocation to the DNC require that those delgates be allocated as a reflection of a valid nominating contest where voters are allowed to participate. It cannot just be made up by the state committee. If we accept that there was no valid nominating process held in Michigan, which we must do to ignore the results of the votes, then the conclusion must be that Michigan gets no delegates seated. If we want to seat Michigan delegates we have to accept a legitimate nominating contest took place and therefore must respect its results. The two options according to the rules were therefore to not seat the Michigan delegation, or to seat it according to the results of the primary. The delegation had to be seated because if it had not been seated that would have hurt Obama come November. SO the RBC committee completely ignored their own rules and devised a compromise that saved face for them and the Michigan Party leaders but told the voters in Michigan to go screw themselves. And as for your PATHETIC argument about setting a bad precedent- what this decision does is allows state committees to ignore the results of contests and just allocate delegates as they see fit. So if John Smith wins the primary by a lot, now the state committee could decide to not give that candidate all the delegates he was entitled to. Your arugments here are the height of ignorance.

    Richjo, I would give you a 50 rating if ... (5.00 / 1) (#314)
    by cymro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:35:31 PM EST
    ... I could vote 10 times. It was ALL about RULES and PRECEDENT and yesterday the DNC pontificated about both, followed neither, and ended up creating an even worse precedent.

    Until the last vote I was expecting the Michigan state resolution to be defeated as a part of the compromise decision, and then the final resolution to seat delegates according to the vote with 50% voting strength, as they did with Florida. That would have been reasonable. I was shocked when they accepted the Michigan proposal.

    But ... such an obviously wrong decision has at least justifies the Clinton campaign continuing to fight for a reversal, all the way to the Convention. That means Hillary will be still on the ballot for superdelegate votes in August, after Obama self-destructs. Which the polls are already beginning to show.


    To be troll-rated by a troll is a compliment (1.00 / 0) (#320)
    by cymro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:05:31 PM EST
    LOL! (5.00 / 8) (#181)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:53:31 AM EST
    Because we don't follow Obama like Lemings over a cliff?

    Obama's "Democratic" (LOL) Party doesn't support my values anymore.  Democrats used to be about the little guy -- and about Democracy.  Now they're about the latte guys and gaming elections.

    Now that there is no party that supports my values, I'm more interested in voting for who I think is more competent.  That would be McCain.

    And try and invoke Roe, and I'll just invoke the period from 2006-2008 when no Democrat did anything about the war that they were elected into office to end.  Democrats like to scare us -- BOO! -- I'm not interested anymore.


    By that logic (1.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Melchizedek on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:03:33 AM EST
    You'll be voting for Republicans downticket as well, based solely on "competence." The positions don't matter now.

    Then why were Hillary's positions important?

    I understand you guys are angry, but your logic for voting Republican is collapsing at your feet.


    So you're saying (5.00 / 4) (#220)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:08:04 AM EST
    that Democrats are incompetent?

    There are still a few good Democrats out there.  I'll be abstaining from voting for anyone who endorsed Obama.  Our governor Gregoire is one of those.  In addition, we've had Democratic rule in Washington state for many years, and our state has the most regressive tax structure of any state.  It's time for divided government here.

    I'm not a Democrat anymore.  I don't have to be a "good little Democrat" (read leming).


    So you support (none / 0) (#259)
    by Rictor Rockets on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:31:03 AM EST
    A guy who wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years?

    You support a guy who wants to keep selling our jobs overseas through bogus free trade agreements?

    You support a guy who thinks that giving out GI Bills to help out are troops is being "too generous" to them?

    You support a guy who worked to try and block the last minimum wage increase?

    You want a guy who wants to keep going with the Bush economic polices and wage cuts?

    If you support these things, then duh...the Democratic Party NEVER supported your values, because your values are blatantly NeoConservative Republican.

    It's amazing the number of so-called Democrats who are willing to throw this country back to the NeoConservative Wolves because "they didn't win" Spiteful, spiteful, spiteful.

    I'm very negative on Hillary, but I would snap to and fall in line behind her against McCain in a heartbeat if she somehow manages to become the nominee at this late date.


    Yes, yes, yes (5.00 / 1) (#299)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:41:09 AM EST
    and yes.

    As long as it keeps Rev Wright away from our daughters (sic)

    McCain in 08. Because one cant say Thank you Sir, may I have another? Too many times.


    You don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#302)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:50:49 AM EST
    it is a vote against Obama and his kind of politics. We are flatly and strongly rejecting his new brand to DNC. It is despicable.  If the DNC will behave just like the RNC then
    who will be there to defend basic principles in the future?
    The DNC and Obama's camp cannot not be vindicated for their disgraceful behavior.

    Okay (1.00 / 1) (#303)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:02:15 PM EST
    What are the radical differences between Obama's center-right policies and Our Lady's center-right policies?

    Take your time. Please.


    Yeah,they sure sell (none / 0) (#297)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:36:14 AM EST
    alot of "lattes" in the inner city. But, I guess those little guys dont count.

    Try a different meme: David Brooks wore that one out eight years ago.


    Nope - you're absolutely wrong. (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:53:32 AM EST
    But I'm sure that you will never understand/believe that.

    Actually I think Obama and Bush might be on the same level...a very low level, BTW.

    As noted above, I just replaced my "Anybody But Bush" bumper stickers with NObama 08.

    I'm first an American.  And second, I was a Democrat...all my life.


    How about being (none / 0) (#300)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    a human being first? Or is that too radical a notion?

    Btw, I used to know a girl in the city named Latte (Johnson), is that what everyones refering to?


    Honestly (5.00 / 6) (#199)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    Obama looks more like Bush III  

    Oh? (1.00 / 1) (#256)
    by Rictor Rockets on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    Did he filibuster and try to block the Minimum Wage increase like McCain and Bush did?

    Did he try to block the new GI Bill like McCain and Bush did?

    Does he support NAFTA like McCain and Bush do?

    Does he support the current Iraq Occupation strategy like McCain and Bush do?

    Anyone who really takes the time to stop hyperventilating and shooting only from the hip can see that neither Hillary nor Obama are anything CLOSE to Bush III. McCain is Bush III, and thats that.


    Some simple examples (5.00 / 2) (#298)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:37:22 AM EST

    Obama voted for Cheney's disgraceful energy bill; he voted against the capping bill to stop predator policies by Credit Card companies; he voted for Gen. Casey confirmation,  he was honored with the chairmanship of the the US Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee overseeing NATO and Afghanistan and did ZERO--unprecedented! to the dismay of the europeans-- (very Bush-y)
    He also really wanted to vote for John Edwards confirmation; and if you want I can give you from when he was State senator as well; and we can also discuss all the important issues on which he washed his hands like Pontius Pilate and voted "present" (how convenient...).
    If in addition you add to this how incredibly naive and light weight he is; his presidency would be deja vu all over again.   No thanks.

    Sorry, "Rictor Rockets" (5.00 / 5) (#249)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:21:41 AM EST
    ...I made a pledge to myself long ago that anonymous internet posters such as yourself won't be given the power by me to define whether or not I am a 'real' Dem.

    Your view is non-relevant, and it shall remain that way, my anonymous amigo.

    Real Democrats are outraged that the tactics of Jesse Jackson, Jr., Amaya Smith, Michelle "black America will wake up" Obama, Doug Wilder, James Clyburn, Al Sharpton, ... have been employed so wantonly and cynically. Obama and his acolytes have consciously undone years of hard work which many of us have done to heal the racial divide in this country.

    The hard work of 'real' Dems like myself.

    Huff and puff as you must. My 'real' Dem steel house isn't going anywhere. And neither is anyone else's that you and your ilk are seeking to blackmail into supporting a candidate whose tactics have shamed all who call themselves "Democrats."


    Real Dem (none / 0) (#310)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:29:32 PM EST
    If that wasnt the voice of the O'Reillyian "angry white man", I've never heard it. You forgot Tawana Brawly, though. And Sister Souljah.

    Where were you a life long Democrat, south Alabama?


    This is a headache Obama does not need. (1.00 / 1) (#198)
    by halstoon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:00:20 AM EST
     Why not just give you guys another 20 delegates? It's not like it would change the outcome, which is still going to be an Obama nomination. But would that stop the whining, not to say that you are whining.

    yes (5.00 / 2) (#237)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:15:51 AM EST
    it's whining to want to count the votes fairly.

    boo hoo.

    thank you for your magnanimous condescension.


    And that's what I don't understand (5.00 / 4) (#240)
    by tnjen on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:16:12 AM EST
    ... Why is he doing this -- especially the MI thing? What is the benefit? Yes, I'd be upset either way BUT this action (nullifying MI and awarding delegates in violation of the DNC charter and under sham rules that do not exist) can't be healed. It is unprecedented, against the rules, unethical, etc. In short, it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to vote for him.

    That's a good question (5.00 / 6) (#241)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:16:40 AM EST
    Why did the Democratic Party feel they had to slap Hillary when she was down?  Hmm, what good reason could they possibly have had to take away a stupid 4 Delegates when she already had no chance of winning a Delegate lead?

    It was to demoralize her -- and by translation, us.  You see your Democrats think that the only thing standing in the way of Unity is that the stupid beotch won't quit.  Once she quits we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya.

    Well, buddy, the kumbaya ship has sailed never to return in 2008.  Good luck with your candidate.  You are seriously going to need it.


    Why are you here? (5.00 / 0) (#293)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:16:21 AM EST
    If you're so d**n sure he's won this, why the heck are you here?

    Momma Rules (1.00 / 1) (#222)
    by melro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:08:07 AM EST
    As a mother you line your kids up, you tell them the rules, and everyone agrees that they will abide as long as everyone else does. Next thing you know it's chaos. As a mother you line them all up again and look for the perpetrator do you not? And if all stick together, than all get the punishment equally. It works for the military.

    BTD/ 'Rico Suave for today, will you be updating? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:25 AM EST
    Will you be forecasting and following the situation at the polls?

    Here's a snifter of the finest vintage stuff.

    Fox gave an update (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:05:43 AM EST
    So far, turnout is light, but it's early.  Also the party that is 'no state' is out having an event (events?) telling people not to participate, that it's a sham.

    Wish Ickes had used clearer language when (none / 0) (#161)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:45:38 AM EST
    bringin up "clear reflection," which I believe means the makeup of the of the delegate slate must as clearly as possible reflect the will of the voters.

    As reflected by their votes, not some polls or state officials' desired outcome of the votes and/or polls.

    If he had said the delegate slates must reflect the will of the voters, or something very, very clear, it would have played better on TV.

    Yes, it was the language of the Charter, but we cannot trust our MCM to explain to the public anything they do not find convenient for their narrative. Since The Narrative is Obama Forevah! among most of the MCM, they will not see a need to inform the public.

    Ickes should have understood that his audience was not just the rules committee.

    I think it is important (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:07:14 AM EST
    For Ickes to use the exact language of the Rules.  It would be in court, to state the precise objection, for further appellate review.  it is about the record, not so much the audience.  I love him for what he did.

    I found Ickes comments (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by sander60tx on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:09:25 AM EST
    interesting... my memory is that in the 2-3 times he made that comment about clear reflection being a core principle of the Democratic party... each time he also mentioned affirmative action as being another.  Was he implying that violating the clear reflection principle to give Obama votes he didn't earn was some form of affirmative action?  Of course he didn't say that, but why did he keep reminding us about affirmative action?  

    Ickes was speaking as an authority, which others (5.00 / 1) (#261)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:32:17 AM EST
    in the know understood immediately. What he needed to do for the general audience was also use plain English which explain what the precise terms meant. As I wrote, I think I understand what he was talking about.

    I had no idea what he actually meant with his comments about affirmative action. Was he saying that was a basic a Democratic principle as one person, one vote, clearly reflected in the delegate slate?

    I don't know.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#279)
    by tnjen on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    ...affirmative action is a part of the DNC selection process for delegates -- every slate of delegates must include a certain percentage of ethnic groups/women etc. What Ickes was saying is that delegate selection in the party has 2 core rules that are considered inviolate (1) the delegates MUST reflect the will of the voters or primary vote AND (2) the slate of delegates group of delegates/people  each state or sends must follow the affirmative action formula and be composed of a certain percentage of each group.

    These two things are mentioned specifically in the DNC charter.


    sorry number 2 (5.00 / 0) (#285)
    by tnjen on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:59:54 AM EST
    should read: (2) the "slate of delegates" or group of delegates/people each state sends must follow the affirmative action formula and be composed of a certain percentage of each group.

    are doing during her lovefest-at all cost of what's right, for Obama.

    before Obama through him under the bus.

    Anyone know where Ms Donna is on Rev Pfleger?


    who? (none / 0) (#323)
    by lizgado on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:22:02 AM EST
    Who plays by the rules?