The Dem Debacle: On Saturday's Disenfranchisement

The best article I've read on the Saturday debacle of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting in which it decided to seat Michigan and Florida delegates with 1/2 vote each and award delegates who voted for Hillary to Barack Obama, is Dana Milbank's in the Washington Post.

It's a great read, you will feel like you were in the room witnessing the dissension, the childishness and the pettiness of all involved, from the committee members to Rep. Robert Wexler, and the resentment it caused among the spectators, which by now has spread across the party.

It also brings home the utter political stupidity of the committee's final ruling. I'll put a few quotes below, but there are so many more just go read the whole thing. [More...]

On the ruling itself:

The chaos and vitriol seemed to confirm Democrats' fears that they might blow an election that should otherwise be an easy victory for them. Nor did the compromise fit well with the Democrats' oft-voiced commitment to voting rights. They decided they would give Florida and Michigan half of their voting rights -- one of the more arbitrary compromises since the 1787 decision that a slave should count as three-fifths of a person -- and voted to award Obama 59 Michigan delegates, each with half a vote, even though his name wasn't even on the ballot in the state.

On Rep. Robert Wexler who I will never be able to look at again without picturing him shouting and banging his fists on the table.

Arguing for Obama, Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida insisted that his state's delegates should get only half of their votes.

...When another panelist asked what would be wrong with giving Florida its "full vote," a self-impressed Wexler went into a long, table-pounding speech about how "no one in the state of Florida has championed voters' rights more than I."

Howard Dean told the assembled group:

"We are strong enough to struggle and disagree and to even be angry and disappointed and still come together at the end of the day and be united," Dean told his troops.

All together now, 1,2 3. I just hope the Dems, in shooting themselves in the foot yesterday , didn't shoot their chance of victory over the moon.

Comments now closed.

< Late Night Open Thread: R.I.P. Yves Saint Laurent | On Super Delegates Choosing Obama As Nominee >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    i'll just say this (5.00 / 14) (#1)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:21:16 AM EST
    if the comments and emails i'm getting from clinton supporters at tlc are any reflection, the committee's ruling was disastrous.

    What change do you see? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:22:43 AM EST
    people who were angry (5.00 / 14) (#4)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:25:45 AM EST
    are now fed up. people who were trying to deal with the anger no longer are. i have no idea if this is true outside of our blogworld bubble, but this schism is not going to be easily healed. and i'm trying.

    If Ben Smith is to be believed (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:27:24 AM EST
    Clinton may be getting ready to drop out. The implications of that. . .unclear.

    I'd chalk that up to ... (5.00 / 4) (#231)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:51:36 AM EST
    what Mad Magazine might call:

    The Department of Wishful Thinking.


    that was also in the guardian yesterday (none / 0) (#12)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:29:25 AM EST
    and hints in the new york times. that's why i wrote what i did today. i think clinton will do what she can to heal the rift, but i'm not so sure that enough of her most passionate followers will follow her lead.

    Obama: cause of divisiveness (5.00 / 21) (#32)
    by Davidson on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:39:36 AM EST
    Clinton can't change that and, frankly, neither can Obama since no one will believe such acts of political expedience.

    And forgive me but why are we all of a sudden trusting Politico, the Times, and the Guardian?  I'm not a Pollyanna by any means about her chances (if she has any) but I'll believe it when I see it.  Suspending her campaign, especially in this race, does not mean it's completely over.

    Oh, and leaving MI the way it is or waiting until Obama is nominated won't help either.  If anything, she should go to the convention just to fix MI--and FL--in order to try and curb the inevitable GOP attack on the Democratic nominee in those two states.

    Lastly, the best way to help our Party unify is to have Clinton at the top of the ticket.  I don't care how unseemly it is to the Party establishment; it's the only way we have a chance.


    And don't (5.00 / 10) (#259)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:47:01 AM EST
    forget, the Democrats who are supporting Obama are the same Democrats who refused to impeach the most criminal president in history.  I find it ironic that 13 of these Dems had no qualms about voting to impeach a DEMOCRAT, but they refused to impeach a criminal Republican.  What a party, eh?

    Make no mistake, there is a very nasty power struggle going on in the Democratic Party and the players are not fight to give Power to the People.


    Really? That's painful to hear (5.00 / 0) (#273)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:11:24 AM EST
    Can you name names?  I'd like to add those 13 to my special Sh*t List.

    Repubs also gave half votes (none / 0) (#314)
    by seesdifferent on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:20:17 AM EST
    to MI and FL; I don't see that being a way to attack Obama in those states.

    She Can't (5.00 / 41) (#47)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:46:15 AM EST
    At least not with me.  Because my problem is not that she lost.  It's that the Democratic Party doesn't reflect my values anymore.  This has been a long time coming, what with all the cave ins to the GOP over the last eight years.  The campaign has just brought it all to the surface.  The silence in the face of the misogyny.  The race baiting.  The dismissal of Appalachia and the working class.  The reassignment of votes.  The call for Unity with brickbats.

    For the record, I started out leaning Obama believe it or not, way back in January 2007.   Then I was any Dem would be fine, wavering between Hillary and Edwards.  Around December I settled on Hillary.  But I never thought I'd get to a place where not only am I re-registering unaffiliated this week and not going to donate one dime to any democratic organization (why would I?  I'm not a democrat anyome).  But I cannot commit to voting for Obama in November (I will never vote for McCain).  You can argue about why I should vote for Obama and some of your reasons I might even agree with, but I don't know if I can make my hand do it.  I get physically sick thinking about it.  It means signing onto a campaign that has race-baited, leveraged misogyny, and now stolen votes.  If I reward that, don't I ensure that my voice will never count in the Democratic party?  That these kinds of tactics will be vindicated?    

    I take no joy in saying any of this.  I think I've voted against one democrat in a general election in the last 20 years.  You can bet not all of those were my primary choices.  So if I'm having trouble, I doubt true swing voters will "get over it." I've never gotten over 2000, why would I get over this when the GOP tactics of that year come to the Democratic Party?


    Shorter Version (5.00 / 16) (#53)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:48:39 AM EST
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by laurie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:42:47 AM EST
    beautiful picture and a reminder for all.

    That is the quote I used (5.00 / 2) (#265)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:56:16 AM EST
    in my email to the DNC yesterday, telling them why I am changing my registration from Dem to Independent.

    You're right. (none / 0) (#78)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:03:37 AM EST
    Amen (5.00 / 6) (#218)
    by Mike H on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:44:10 AM EST
    You've quite eloquently put together why I too now feel like I cannot support the Democrats at this point.  Assuming the headlong rush to anoint Obama continues unabated, I think I will vote Green in November.

    BDB You Expressed My Feelings (5.00 / 5) (#223)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:22:20 AM EST
    on this much better than I ever could. It is not about Hillary.

    It's that the Democratic Party doesn't reflect my values anymore.
    The silence in the face of the misogyny.  The race baiting.  The dismissal of Appalachia and the working class.  The reassignment of votes.  The call for Unity with brickbats.
    It means signing onto a campaign that has race-baited, leveraged misogyny, and now stolen votes.  If I reward that, don't I ensure that my voice will never count in the Democratic party?  That these kinds of tactics will be vindicated?

    As to actually casting my vote. I don't think Obama will be able to win Missouri. If the polls here show a McCain victory, I will definitely do a write in rather than vote for Obama. If Obama is really close here, I will have to reevaluate my decision at that time.


    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#254)
    by melro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:41:17 AM EST
    with you about the party. My husband and I both said that we feel like re-registering as Independents even though I've voted Democrat in every single election since I was able to and I'm 55. I quit giving to the DNC, which was a monthly donation when I found out about NH jumping the gun and Dean doing nothing about it.

    I am too old to have the same idealogy that fuels the Obama campaign any longer. Ideals are a gamble in the real world. And this is no time to gamble. We're in especially bad shape this time around.

    Someone answered me yesterday that a Clinton president would be the same old gridiron lock between Dems and Repugs, and Obama would change things. Nobody but nobody is going to do any big changes, let alone an inexperienced 2-year senator with a very poor voting record in congress, until the mess this administration leaves behind is cleaned up. And that will probably take 8 years with a very seasoned politician to do it.

    Obama would have been a fantastic candidate after Hillary had 8 years of getting America back on track. I want a Clinton in there now. My memory is very good. Back when Bush Sr. was in office, the mortgage interest rates made it to 14%. I know, I was buying my house then. After 8 years of Bill, who everyone wants to crucify, the average person had money in their pockets and the U.S. had a surplus. That's one heck of a turnaround. Surely, Hillary knows that formula for success and has many more of her own. I believe in women power and am a little amazed at all the blue collar workers that want a woman president.

    My husband and most of the construction skilled trades he works with will not vote Obama. But I will. Think about it. You get to go to every single blogsite you've ever blogged on and plant a big "TOLD YOU SO" when he doesn't come across with big miraculous changes he's promised. It's  the only reason I will vote for him. To make a point to the younger generation pushing him, that a little ideology goes a long way in a very real world. Too much and it's a bust.  


    Well, I have the advantage (4.85 / 7) (#60)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:52:44 AM EST
    of having been thrown under the bus early. But I guess we have different perspectives. I said at the time that I was going to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what, even if it were Obama, and I'm sticking to that.

    You'll have to make up your mind, but I'm personally sure that a McCain presidency would be far worse, and that's the only other option.


    Right, and those of us who think (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:55:27 AM EST
    Obama could be catastrophically bad won't make the same choice.

    Why do you think... (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:00:05 AM EST
    ...Senator McCain would be less catastrohic than Senator Obama?

     I disagree with the implicit assumption, but I really don't see how Senator McCain comes out ahead.  Not on his current policy platform.  


    Look, I don't want to re-hash this (5.00 / 22) (#79)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:03:47 AM EST
    every night. Suffice to say that even if one doesn't like McCain, if you think Obama is the Democratic version of Bush---empty suit and a fistful of promises---then it's hard to want to vote for him.
    You don't have to agree with my characterization---that's not the point.
    The point is that a lot of Democrats really despise Obama now AND think he's completely unqualified.
    You can't expect him to get many votes out of that crowd.

    Supreme Court. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:05:36 AM EST
    From what I understand of his voting record, I'm not confident of too many progressive policies coming out of an Obama administration, but I do think his Supreme Court picks would be much better, if only because of the anchoring bias going in as a putative Democrat vs. a known Conservative Republican.

    He wanted to vote for John Roberts. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:06:37 AM EST
    He also gave a speech that.... (5.00 / 5) (#221)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:15:15 AM EST
    took the wind out of the Alito filibuster. Then, once it was clear that it did not have the votes, voted for it. Once again, both sides of the issue. I think with Obama we have just as good a chance as getting another Clarence Thomas on the bench as we do of getting another Thurgood Marshall.

    And then the political implications (none / 0) (#88)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:12:14 AM EST
    were explained, and he didn't.

    If you seriously believe he would nominate someone like Roberts, you haven't read what he said at the time.


    Um, as I recalll, he changed his mind (5.00 / 7) (#94)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:14:46 AM EST
    solely because of political appearances.
    At any rate, the SC blackmail attempt will not work on me. The Democrats have a majority in the Senate which they will probably increase.

    I'm sorry you think it's blackmail (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:16:24 AM EST
    To me it's a very real threat. McCain is guaranteed to appoint bad justices.

    Lacking any other reason to support (5.00 / 11) (#101)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:20:04 AM EST
    Obama, the SC is not enough. Anyway, he is headed  for a historic loss if he is the nominee.

    For me it is more than enough (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:23:22 AM EST
    Horses for courses.

    let me tell you what i find scary. (5.00 / 1) (#313)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:03:10 AM EST
    i find a candiate who had knowly had ongoing relationships with such folks was ayers, wright,and the rest a real worry. i find his light resume a real worry. i find his divisive way of campaigning a real worry. i find the attitude his wife expresses very distasteful. i have zero confidence in any thing he says and even less in what he will do. i have no confidence in the democratic party to do the right thing. i have not seen them do one darn thing for americans for years now, yet i see them FINALLY ORGANIZE TO SCREW FELLOW DEMOCRATS. so while appreicate i your heartfelt comments, i can't be persuaded or agree.

    McCain must have the advice and consent... (5.00 / 13) (#186)
    by Romberry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:57:23 AM EST
    McCain would have to have the advice and consent of the senate for anyone he appointed to the federal bench at any level. All that is needed to insure that he would appoint moderate justices that respect precedent would be for Dems to gain some seats in the senate, and that is something that looks likely to happen. Of course senate Dems would also have to have a spine and actually believe in Dem values...but that's another story.

    As far as I'm concerned, the best outcome in this election is to see strong Dem gains in both houses of congress...and to have a divided government. I;d rather have a Dem congress keep a president McCain in check than have a Dem congress display obsequious  subservience to some cult of personality with a lightweight like Barack Obama in the same manner that we saw Republicans (and Dems too following 9/11 for that matter) do with Bush.

    I'm not a Hillary supporter. Never have been. It's just that I am a Barack Obama opposer and HRC is all that's left.

    I will not vote for or support Barack Obama. He has somehow managed to get a great number of Dems that I have had online relationships with for years to turn into some pod person version of a left wing Freeper. Dissent is not allowed. Criticism is blasphemy. Many of these are people I have considered friends since the 90's and more than a few have given me the old "I used to respect you/I don't know you any more/consider our friendship over" lines that I expect from lockstep Republicans, but not from Dems. And they did that months ago, before it was just HRC and BO. They did it when my guy (Edwards) was still in the race.

    I see something scary and potentially dangerous here. I will not be a part of it. This year when it comes time to mark the ballot for president, I'll either write in a name or note vote in that race at all. Under no circumstance will I vote for Barack Obama.


    The problem with this theory (5.00 / 3) (#236)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:00:28 AM EST
    is  McCain will never NOT nominate an anti-Roe (and probably  anti-worker rights) supreme court nominee. A Democratic congress, no matter how strong cannot refuse all nominations indefinitely. And frankly having watched them over the last 8 years, I don't expect they would hold out as long as a Republican controlled congress.

    Every nominee McCan would send up will be anti-Roe. They won't be openly controversial like Bork. The Republicans aren't that stupid, no matter what you think of them. When it comes to politics, they are wolves. No, they will be stealth nominees, young and healthy able to occupy a position on the court for 40 years.

    Consider this. Since 1968, the Republicans have nominated 12 to the Supreme Court. President Clinton nominated 2. During that time period the court has gone from a liberal left court,to a right wing court.

    There was a time when Justice Stevens was considered an independent, moderate right wing justice. Now he is the court's liberal. I don't think he has evolved that much. The court has swung that far to the right. Justice Blackmun was a moderate right winger, but when he left the court, he was considered a liberal. A case can be made that he evolved his views.

    Then there is Justice Souter.  Another moderate, who makes up the "liberal wing".  Well there is no liberal wing. There is a moderate wing and and extreme right wing.

    Out of 12 justices, less than 1/4th were mistakes by conservative standards. Those are not good odds. They will not nominate any Carswells or Haynsworths or Borks. No, as I said, they will all be stealth nominees, with no obvious overt extremists.

    Because they have nominated 12 of the last 14 justices, the balance is precarious and favors conservatives. We got a break when Bill Clinton was president, in the sense that we managed to keep two seats moderate to liberal. We have gone from a 5-4 moderate to left court to a 5-4 right court. All they need is a 6th justice and there will be no brokering of decisions with justice Kennedy, which is the only brake on the court at this time (and not much of a brake).

    Which justices are most likely to be replaced? Stevens and Ginsburg. Two possible vacancies, both of the "liberal wing".

    What is the conservative track record? Less than 1/4th a mistake by their standards. Those are not good odds for a liberal, a progressive, a Hillary supporter (presumably if you support Hillary, you share her values)  to bank on. Those are very good odds for a conservative to bet on.

    "President McCain won't be so bad, and the Democratic congress will save the court", is a suckers bet. I wouldn't take it. A better bet is a Democratic congress will keep a Democratic president in line, and more likely to do, what their natural inclination is to do.

    I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee in fall.  I will not sit out, I will not vote for McCain under any circumstances. Its too important.


    the Repubs and Roe v Wade (5.00 / 5) (#283)
    by S on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:21:39 AM EST
    the suckers bet is that the repubs will do away with Roe v Wade...they have had every opportunity, especially under Reagan...most Republican women are pro-choice...even Monica Crowley, a diehard conservative, is on record stating that the Republicans will never eliminate Roe v Wade...however, they will continue to use it as a fundrasing issue...

    ...don't be fooled by the Obama argument to scare democratic women to support Obama because of Roe v Wade...first of all, women have more issues besides just Roe v Wade...and it will not happen, especially with a strong Democratic Congress...it is a fear tactic...


    No they have not (5.00 / 2) (#294)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:35:11 AM EST
    Unless you mean they could have proposed a constitutional amendment. Which they won't for reasons you described. That doesn't mean they won't keep nominating anti-Roe nominees to the court. They will. They have to, their evangelical base will not be denied.

    This is not an Obama argument or a Clinton argument. These are the facts. I agree there is more to the court than Roe. Any McCain nominee is less likely to be for worker rights or human rights. That is what the other half of their base wants.

    I cannot state in more forceful terms that you are wrong. All you have to do is consider the history of their nominations since 1968. The Court has turned more right wing since any time prior to the New Deal. This was not by accident. That is by design.

    Their nominees are less Bork like and more Roberts like. Harder to oppose. Young, likely to be on the court for 40 years. This too is not by accident. This too is by design.

    I hope wiser heads prevail.  I am just a dirt lawyer, there are pros who watch the court, who post here. These points I am  making ought to be made by others besides me. Its time they did.


    the Court decides more than abortion issues (none / 0) (#305)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:02:58 AM EST
    I'm pro-choice, but the Supreme Court decides far more than just abortion issues, in case you hadn't noticed.

    Republicans (none / 0) (#317)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:45:43 AM EST
    forced Bill Clinton to nominate moderate judges to federal courts. There's no reason that Democrats can't do the same with McCain especially with an increased majority.  An increased majority will mean that there may be an additional seat on committees.  No more 1 member committee advantage. A Russ Feingold (Obama supporter)cannot be an unchecked rubber stamp as he has been with Bush nominations.

    For that matter there certainly is no guarantee that Obama would nominate moderate to liberal judges.  The Roberts confirmation story is IMO the Rosetta Stone to Barrack Obama. His Unity schtick it appears is more than just schtick.  How do we know his White House staff will not be larded with Republicans? How do we know he won't leave some Republican appointees in federal agencies? Anyone who maintains that he'll bring the other side to the table as a starting point simply can't be trusted. This is especially ironic when Democratic Party power is increasing. Increased power is an opportunity to ram through desperately needed reforms so what in hell is the Democratic Party doing by nominating someone who would through away that opportunity.
    There are many problems that will not be solved with compromising legislation, legislation that may have no impact. It's certainly happened before, the appearance of action but lacking substance. Obama's US Senate record yields evidence that he's willing to act in that manner.

    Since Roosevelt the Democratic Party has promoted government activism to tackle the nation's problems.  Obama's dependence on the Chicago school of thought would move the Democratic Party away from that role. That's what the 'change' is all about.

    When Obama unnecessarily put Social Security back on the table it should have sent alarm bells ringing. He looked like a Trojan Horse candidate.  I don't believe he's a Trojan Horse but he's put a critical program at risk and it doesn't help that one of his principle policy advisors is a known friend of privatization.  When Bush made his privatization threat, Democrats in Congress pulled together to insure that Bush's foot stayed firmly on the third rail.  That's probably the only reason they made a unified stand. I have a chilling feeling that at least some Democrats in Congress aren't wedded to insuring that Social Security remain a robust public only program. So what happens if a Democratic President decides to "solve" the Social Security "crisis" by proposing some Rube  Goldberg "remedy?"

    I could go on and on about the potential damage. There are deeply serious character flaws in this man.  Through his actions he clearly exhibits traits that I personally loathe.

    It really comes down to the future. I think about my little grandchildren, I don't want a schmuck President with a Democratic Party label. I don't want a Democratic Party changed to the extent that American politics is 'Mexicanized,' leaving only a choice between right and farther right.

    I will not vote for Barrack Obama.  I will write in Hillary Clinton's name if possible or leave the top spot blank. None of the above.  


    Only by losing the presidential election is (5.00 / 8) (#240)
    by hellskitchen on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:08:01 AM EST
    there any hope of reality coming back to the Democratic Party.  Right now they're full of the idea that all of us will vote for Obama to defeat McCain.

    Only when they realize that they've lost the voters that they need to win elections will they wise up.  There are long-term values and short-term values.

    They've taken their support of Obama out of our hides - and I'm going to bend over and say "Kick me again?"


    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:15:42 AM EST
    They'll just blame Clinton. ;-)

    Hopefully you will consider the long (5.00 / 2) (#246)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:18:17 AM EST
    term damage a more conservative court will do. That is the long term value. Your preferred nominee is a short term value.

    I would add that partisans of both sides have been insulting and insufferable to their opposing partisans. However, the candidates to their credit, have behaved reasonably responsibly. I cannot ascribe the worst words of a Hillary partisan to Hillary or the worst words of an Obama supporter to Obama.

    Whatever you think of Obama's short comings, Hillary Clinton wold be the first to tell you that sitting out or voting Mccain would be a serious mistake.

    Like Hillary, I intend to vote for the Democratic nominee. I will not sit out, I will not vote for McCain under any circumstances.


    If you mean McCain (none / 0) (#312)
    by hellskitchen on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:02:14 AM EST
    he's not my preferred nominee. I don't know what I'm going to do except not vote for Obama.

    1. I don't buy that we're going to get a better court with Obama.  The behavior he's exhibited in the campaign doesn't instill confidence in his belief in democracy - Im talking about his actions rather than any lip service he's given to civil rights.
    2. Dean, Reid, Pelosi, et al are going to learn nothing if we act like sheep.  Do you have any idea how stupid sheep are?  (There's a wonderful diary over at the Orange Hell about sheep, but you'd have to go to the archives of CanadianBill to find it. and, of course, you'd have to go to Orange Hell.)

    The time is ripe for a third party or the demolishment of the Democratic party as it now exists.  Somehow the playing field has to be leveled in favor ofthe rank and file.


    If it were a real threat to you, you wouldn't be (5.00 / 7) (#207)
    by andrys on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:16:05 AM EST
    insisting Obama be the nominee -- especially now that Clinton is ahead in the popular vote, counting the 4 caucus states where votes are estimated (in his favor) and even counting Uncommitted in Michigan for Obama, AND winning all the averaged-electoral-college-polling matches vs McCain while Obama is losing them to McCain.

      Obama's votes have been been about 500,000 behind Clinton since March and the difference is in the states we know do count, and he has been a presumptive nominee who has been beaten in THREE states now in the last month or so by the most humongous margins won by a 'losing' candidate than ever before.

      In insisting on Obama, you are definitely helping to cause an almost certain McCain win.  It's something to think about.  This would be a result of your call (as a group) despite SO MANY signs that are showing the dangerous weakness of your candidate.

      The only way we can win is to have the two of them run together but with Clinton in the top slot.  Tough to take for many, but it's also true in GE polling (averaged between many, many pollers and not any one poll).


    Obama is ahead (1.00 / 2) (#209)
    by manish on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:21:03 AM EST
    ..under your scenario of giving uncommitted in MI to Obama and estimating caucus results, Obama is ahead by about 44,000 votes.

    An Obama presidency (5.00 / 8) (#256)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:43:25 AM EST
    would do to the Dem party what the Bush presidency has done to the repug party.  Obama is the dem version of Bush.  Unqualified.

    How can you count (5.00 / 3) (#287)
    by DarielK on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:23:11 AM EST
    the uncommitted votes in Michigan?  I know for a fact that there was a large vote for Edwards in the primary - possibly larger than Obama - especially outside of Detroit.  Obama voluntarily took his name off the ballot.  He deserves no consideration for counting individual votes in Michigan.  Hillary respected the voters enough to keep her name on the ballot and every single one of her votes count!!!  

    so you're not concerned about the people (1.00 / 1) (#315)
    by seesdifferent on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:30:48 AM EST
    you're only concerned about Clinton?

    so your thinking is the CANDIDATES deserve...? (1.00 / 2) (#316)
    by seesdifferent on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:41:56 AM EST
    I think the PEOPLE deserve... And they have spoken in their various ways, including caucuses. The PEOPLE were fairly treated by the Michigan solution.

    Abortion is NOT going to become illegal. (5.00 / 8) (#191)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:11:14 AM EST
    A Dem congress can do their job - for once - and as they did with Bork, keep McCain from destroying the Supremes.

    AND, if they should fail to do their job (sadly not out of the realm of possibility), and Roe v Wade gets watered down even more or overturned...the states will not allow abortion to become illegal (at least, not the majority of states).  

    And then the fight can go on.  As it has in and throughout my generation.  Maybe, then, the "new" generation will appreciate all that we did for them


    Supreme Court is more than just abortion (none / 0) (#306)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:10:14 AM EST
    Ya know, one issue voters is how we lose elections, lose parties, lose the people,

    I am very pro-choice, but if you think the only thing the court is there for is to protect abortion, I say to hell with it.  Let it be overturned.

    The court, as any actual progressive democrat should understand has far more important issues to deal with than your mere abortion.


    Just FYI, (5.00 / 10) (#90)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:13:01 AM EST
    is the approach which will drive Clinton supporters to McCain in droves.
    Just saying..

    Jesus (5.00 / 7) (#126)
    by phat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:50:11 AM EST
    Talk about using fear to get votes.

    I disagree, because voters can tell when ... (5.00 / 7) (#162)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:53:11 AM EST
    ... they are being manipulated, and they don't like it. They become even more determined to withhold their vote.

    Sorry, I see that this was intended ... (none / 0) (#167)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:03:05 AM EST
    ... to drive Clinton supporters into the Obama camp. I agree with your point. Although this is probably posted by a McCain supporter, directed by Karl Rove, with the intention of dividing Democrats. But then the entire Obama campaign is just such a conspiracy, so what's new?

    I'm over that threat. (5.00 / 13) (#257)
    by vicsan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:46:26 AM EST
    I'm too old to worry about abortion. I fought that fight already. If the 20 something Obama supporters don't care about abortion, why should I? If they REALLY cared about that WEDGE issue, they would have supported the woman who has fought for women's rights her entire life.

    Wedge issues are not going to work in this campaign. Speaking for me, I just don't care anymore. Let McCain nominate his strict constructionist judges. It's the price the Obama supporters pay for not supporting the candidate who could beat him. Oh well. Such is life in today's America.

    They will get what they wanted, if Obama is allowed to steal the nomination, and they will reap what they sowed. I don't care anymore.

    I won't be voting for Obama because of his connections to questionable people like Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, Rezko, Auchi, and the Ayers family and because he painted Bill and Hillary as racists when in SC. Two people who spent their lives fighting for Civil Rights are racists?

    I don't think so.


    So... (1.00 / 0) (#100)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:19:56 AM EST
    ...you think Senator McCain will appoint pro-choice justices?  Or do you mean that Senator Clinton enjoys the support of pro-lifers? Or do you mean that people don't like feeling as though they are pressured to vote D because of the abortion issue?  Or because it is a crude approach?

    FYI (4.71 / 7) (#271)
    by joanneleon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:09:05 AM EST
    Just so you know, I have learned to ignore all comments that start with the word "So".  I've come to recognize that first word as a forewarning of a condescending (and usually counterproductive and provocative) comment from the Unity Camp.

    I believe (5.00 / 5) (#199)
    by The Realist on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:30:48 AM EST
    a vote for Obama will catastrophic becaus it will insure a one term President and Republican control of our Government for another 30 years. That is just my opinion though.

    All you (5.00 / 11) (#262)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:51:26 AM EST
    have to do to get there is look at how corrupt and undemocratic the Democratic Party is behaving in this primary season--much worse than the Republicans in 2000.  We all saw how well the candidate the neoCons manipulated into office worked out--so we can imagine how well Obama will work out.  We have NO IDEA who would really be running things in an Obama administration and what the policies would be.  

    One thing anybody with two brain cells to rub together can conclude is that people who will corrupt their own party rules to give their candidate of choice an edge will not be trustworthy in office.


    You're right too. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:03:55 AM EST
    A weak McCain presidency ... (5.00 / 7) (#160)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:50:16 AM EST
    ... opposed by a strong Democratic congress will do less damage to the US, and certainly less damage to the Democratic Party, than would a weak and ineffectual Obama presidency.

    I don't believe Obama has a chance of defeating McCain in the GE, but if I am wrong and he is (a) nominated and (b) wins -- neither of which I would bet on -- then when his 4 years are done we can look forward to another 8, 12, or 16 years of Republican presidents while the Democrats struggle to figure out their reason for being a political party, then how to get organized behind that mission, then how to actually win elections.

    By then, we'll probably be supporting Chelsea for President.


    Amen (5.00 / 3) (#263)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:53:52 AM EST
    and there is also the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The Dems are already showing this tendency so do we want to buy into it? Not me.

    The presidency is not weak! (none / 0) (#310)
    by lobary on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:43:37 AM EST
    Regardless of who occupies the Oval Office and who controls Congress, the executive branch is by far the largest of the three branches and arguably the most powerful. We often talk about the Supreme Court in the context of presidential politics and presidential power, but the president's power is much greater than that. The SCt is certainly an issue we should be concerned with, but the President's power to affect our laws through bench appointments extends beyond the nine justices on the Supreme Court. Additionally, the President has the power to make law through administrative orders and there is very little Congress can do about it. I am no Obama fan, but his promise to review Bush's executive orders in the first hundred days is reason enough for me to vote for him over McCain.

    sorry I just don't see clearly how an (5.00 / 11) (#211)
    by kimsaw on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:24:25 AM EST
    Obama presidency would be better than a McCain presidency. Maybe it's because I'm an independent. Or maybe it's because Obama sat in an anti white church for 20 years, used them and then trash them when convenient. Just because he has a D behind his name doesn't necessarily mean he's a Democrat. His clarity is lacking with a vocabulary embedded in double speak. His moral fiber allows him to throw anyone under the bus, even perhaps the people who loved him best and admired him most as their beacon of hope. Integrity is not a word I associate with Obama. He's as flawed as the Democrat party is foolish. Clinton's decision to support a morally bankrupt party is her problem. I know she will surrender. It doesn't make me proud as a woman and it doesn't make me proud as an American. My support for her is because she is the best candidate. The most prepared to drive this nation in a sane direction.

    Obama is a propagandist of the worst sort and with him "just words" are the polar opposite of his intended meaning, "just words means exactly that to this voter, they are simply words that speak to nothing with credibility. I can not vote for him in good conscience. He is a divisive hate filled example of what every politician shouldn't be. He's not a unifier or a hope filled candidate but a young immature undefined mess, he is the brethren of our current president. A taker of power not an empowerer. Obama leads by divide and conquer. He has created a new party in his own image. Messianic no, his foundation of leadership is based on division not on respect for our differences. He has built a political web of deceit and the Democrats get what they deserve. Obama does not get my vote- with all do respect to Clinton- this isn't about her my decision is all about him. Clinton has my trust, she has earned it. I'm not afraid of McCain. I fear him far less then I distrust Obama.  The Democrats do not know who they are.


    A McCain Presidency (5.00 / 3) (#291)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:28:56 AM EST
    Is not something I would look forward to or think is a good thing.  It probably would be worse than an Obama presidency.  

    But that will always be true.  If Obama loses, then in 2012 we'll be told to back another Democratic ticket we hate, chosen by the same idiots who chose this one because otherwise McCain will be re-elected and we won't be able to risk that.  That's how Donna Brazile has kept her job all these years because good Democrats keep going along with the program in fear that to do otherwise will empower Republicans.

    Well, I've gotten over that fear.  Mostly because the weakness of the Democratic Party and its continued slide away from economic populism and towards corporatism have put the Democratic Party almost as far from my values as the GOP.  The Democrats are not as bad as the GOP, but the differences get smaller and smaller every year and the only reason the Dems aren't as bad as the GOP is that their slide into corruption has been slower than the GOP's.  But it's still there.  

    And between still trying to cave on telecom immunity, the continued confirmation of right-wing judges (Southwick), and the Rovian primay season in which the ascendant half of the party has not only been willing but eager to throw feminism and working class voters under the bus, I have no real hope that empowering the "new coalition" of Democrats will in any way do much for the causes I care about.  Given that the GOP is not EVER going to advance the causes I care about, my only option is to try to make the Democratic Party care again and that will only happen by withholding the things they want from me - my vote and my money.  

    As I've said a million times now, ask nothing for your vote and nothing is what you'll get every time.  I don't ask much for my votes from Democratic candidates, but I do ask for several things, starting with basic respect.  Repeatedly the party and Obama have made it clear that if that's my price, it's too high.   I won't give my vote away because if I do that, I will always be taken for granted.  Indeed, I think one of the things that's hurt Clinton is that the party insiders believe she and her supporters will fall in line because we always have.  That's how they think - Obama has more influence precisely because he has threatened to split the party and because of his "independent" appeal.  Well, next week, I'll be an independent so now maybe I'll have some influence with the Democratic party.  

    As for President McCain, while I won't like it at all, it will give the Democratic majority in Congress an opportunity to prove that it's deserving of my support.  Of course, I fully expect they will fail at that as they continue their slide into corrupt corporatism, but that's not a reason to support the party.  It's a reason to try to change it.  And you don't do that by accepting whatever they shove down your throat.  


    Turkana (5.00 / 12) (#217)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:43:48 AM EST
    Your post was excellent (as usual). But I think you might have missed one thing - it's not just Clinton supporters, it's anti-Obama people now. There are a whole lot of angry liberals who loathe Obama and his movement but are not necessarily Clinton supporters or who are now Clinton supporters only be default. I think Obama supporters, including many of your regular commenters, don't understand that the anti-ObamaNation sentiment is not necessarily the result of Clinton support. They simplemindedly blame Obama's weakening support on Clinton and her supporters but I don't think the correlation is correct.

    Dr. Molly (none / 0) (#267)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:59:05 AM EST
    Your argument could just as easily be turned the other way.  Since the DNC, the media and the Obama campaign decided to demonize the Clintons, Obama started out with an anybody-but-
    clinton crowd--remember:  no more dynasties?  Obamabots biggest talking point (as per Richardson--why are you endorsing Obama--Richardson: it shouldn't be Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton).  So what's your point?  Does Obama want to give up all the people who voted for him just because they didn't want Clinton?

    tek (5.00 / 1) (#290)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:27:30 AM EST
    I think you may have misinterpreted me. Perhaps I was unclear. I was only saying that it's not only disgruntled Clinton supporters that are now anti-Obama - it's more than that.

    Sorry. (none / 0) (#296)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:37:38 AM EST
    "passionate followers" (5.00 / 11) (#222)
    by alsace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:17:32 AM EST
    I'm not so much a "passionate follower" of Hillary Clinton as I am one who recognizes she is the last competent candidate standing.  Obama has had well over a year to demonstrate his grasp of the issues and his position on them.  Instead, he and HIS "passionate followers" have opted to stay with his pseudo-issues of hope, change and unity, while  using misogyny and bullying as their chief campaign tactics.  

    Agreed (3.00 / 2) (#17)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:31:19 AM EST
    I think Gloria Borger said that Hillary spoke to Obama today. I hope they can work something out.

    He called her on the win in PR. (none / 0) (#46)
    by itsadryheat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:45:44 AM EST
    His text messaging wasn't working? (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by soccermom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:39:47 AM EST
    Is there a parallel from a recent (5.00 / 16) (#56)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:50:11 AM EST
    election for the percentage of Democrats who say they will not vote for the nominee?
    One reason I think Obama is doomed to a catastrophic loss is that he and his supporters refuse to acknowledge the problem he has with Democrats already. I don't quite hate Obama, but I certainly like him less than any Democrat in my lifetime. I think that is typical.
    The "unity schmooze" and the emotional blackmail attempts are just going to make people less likely to vote for Obama.

    Paul Lukasiak at Correntewire is offering (5.00 / 11) (#142)
    by itsadryheat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:15:56 AM EST
    to sue the RBC for violating it's rules and to set up a website and organize a movement to demand refunds of donations to the DNC on the basis of misrepresentation.  He says he has the webspace and time to put into it if people think it is a good idea.  I tried to register so I could say ,"YES" but registration is delayed.

     I had already seen people on the blog at Hillary's site suggesting these ideas last night, along with starting a new party (The America Party, The Real Democratic Pary or the New Democratic Party or The Democratic Values Party ) People wanted to ask Hillary to join and run. Or ask her to run as independent, ask her to stay active till the convention and fight it out there. Others wanted to find out the state requirements for write-in campaigns or organize petitions to the DNC to show the scope and extent of the anger and damage it is doing the party's prospects.

     Some were suggesting organizing trains to Denver for Hillary supporters to join as they crossed country.  Many were sending zeroxes to Dean of their new voter registrations as Independents.  Send back fund requests with a piece of one's mind and no postage.  Even burning bras and sending the residue to DNC.

     General tenor of the near 400 posters was that simply not voting for Obama was not nearly enough. So many were trying to donate to McCain that his site was non responsive last night.

     Many, many were saying they sent in donations to Hillary after the meeting to continue the fight, so much so that the site put up the donation screen.  One can send the campaign tips and ideas at Tips@HillaryClinton.com.


    Geez, that's fantastic (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:23:16 AM EST
    Thank you so much for posting this.

    Florida (5.00 / 3) (#269)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:05:55 AM EST
    already has a suit filed against the DNC. It's a different cause of action that some people who are lawyers are saying has a good chance of succeeding.  Details at TM.

    I like the idea of a third party.  I remembered this morning, it wasn't the Democrats who stood up to the Robber Barons in the Gilded Age, it was a third party:  the Progressive Party. After the Progressives got several Congressional seats the Democrats embraced them and adopted their platform.  Seems like a better path than what the DNC is offering us this time around.


    I think these ideas are great (5.00 / 1) (#281)
    by Jane in CA on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:20:46 AM EST
    for the most part, but I would be very very wary about sending ashes of any kind through the US Postal Service to DNC.  You could likely find yourself under investigation with Homeland Security ... just saying.

    So you've heard of the (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:28:35 AM EST
    new PUMA party?  Stands for Party Unity My (Derriere).

    See Riverdaughter


    heh (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:31:58 AM EST
    i try with her, because i respect her, but she's not coming back, and meteor blades's post today was not helpful. i'm with meteor blades probably 99% of the time, but he's been breathing too much toxic air.

    There are legions of us (5.00 / 16) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:33:31 AM EST
    who aren't coming back....

    and what's worse (5.00 / 13) (#28)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:36:56 AM EST
    we're not the ones they should be worrying about. It's the unwashed masses they disrespect, ignore, and don't want in the party anymore. Active people talking on this and other blogs aren't the problem. But if we can't be won over, they're in really big trouble.

    You are so right. (none / 0) (#270)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:07:47 AM EST
    Lots of Democrats don't have time to be blogging, but they are following events and they are not happy--they will not be turning out for Obama.

    Hope you included me in that legion (5.00 / 5) (#213)
    by felizarte on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:26:37 AM EST
    I have gone beyond upset and livid after Saturday.  My plans are set for November and they do not include Obama.

    It isn't just about supporting Clinton... (5.00 / 22) (#40)
    by jackyt on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:42:46 AM EST
    It's also about rejecting Obama. For me, he doesn't measure up on any scale I use to judge someone qualified for the office of President of the United States. So no matter what anyone else, Hillary included, asks me to do, I cannot in good conscience vote for Barack Obama.

    Abomination (5.00 / 8) (#73)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:59:27 AM EST
    Description of RBC debacle on Liberal Rapture site: Obamanation.

    I am in the same boat here. (5.00 / 6) (#190)
    by Amiss on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:11:01 AM EST
    I am a lifelong Democrat since I was 21 and am almost 60, I am having a really hard time trying to reconcile any reason that might lead me to vote for Obama, and each day it becomes more and more troublesome for me to even think of it. Most likely I will do a write-in. Here in Fla there is a place on the ballots for write-ins, but if the candidate needs to register with the state for it to count as anything but a protest vote.

    that's true in MI as well (5.00 / 4) (#266)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:57:09 AM EST
    So according to the DNC you don't have to worry.  Write-in anythign you want and then the ROOLZ committee will figure out who they want to assign your vote to without even looing at the write in to see who you wrote in.

    Protest vote might be the only way to save us (5.00 / 2) (#279)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:18:56 AM EST
    The new Democratic Party has gone into another direction. If we want to save the Democratic Party, we might just have to be like Alice Paul. Our only course left is with our votes at this time. At least with Kerry or Mondale or even Dukakis, I had faith in their experience and wisdom to be able to vote for them even if they were not my first choice. But in my heart, as I clearly felt when GW was running, this is not the man I want as President of the World. I did not think GW was qualified and could not understand why other people adored him and did not see the flaws. I feel the same way here. AND I can not vote for the Idol because running the country is a hard job. Heh. And this does NOT HAVE anything to do with supporting Hillary. I support Hillary because I believe (And I was for any of the top 3)that she would make the best President of them all. I can not say the same for BHO. Why would I cast my vote for someone who does not represent me. We just have D's on our voting registration. A democracy says I can vote for whom I want. Or not vote at all. Yep, a protest vote for the DNC to fix the problems before the next time out. Otherwise, it will continue on just as before because they think we are lemmings.

    If not Obama, vote Libertarian... (none / 0) (#87)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:09:59 AM EST
    Because of the Supreme Court, because of the lesson of 9/11 and Iraq, I strongly encourage people to vote for Obama when it comes down to it.


    But if you can't vote for Obama, then trying to get a real third party started would be a good thing.

    The country is stuck in a lot of stupid politics because of our two party system, a system that apparently our wise founders never wanted.

    Getting a third party going is one way to break the gridlock.  The libertarians have a lot of wrongs, but at least they are very pro-civil liberties, and getting a third party started makes it that much easier to get a fourth party started.


    Personally (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:02:18 AM EST
    I would vote for Obama before the Libertarians.  I would vote for McCain before the Libertarians.  I would vote for GEORGE W. &%%$& BUSH before the Libertarians.

    That my dear friend. (5.00 / 5) (#208)
    by TheViking on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:18:18 AM EST
    Is an understatement and a half!

    I realize that this blog is now trying to put a "let's all try to work it out" spin on everything.

    For example, that other post that J just posted about Markos' "popular vote" count and the fact that we have to be NICE about him and his bs because you apparently love him, is just one.

    FWIW he's no friend of mine, and is to BLAME for alot of this travesty. If this is what you love... leave me out of it.

    Good luck with your unity drive.

    After Saturday's blatant hijacking bull$hit, you're asking for the impossible.

    Speaking for myself AND MILLIONS* OF OTHERS JUST LIKE ME!


    They should (5.00 / 1) (#307)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:19:30 AM EST

    They should have been given at least 3/5 vote.

    What we've essentially got (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:24:30 AM EST
    is a game of chicken for the nomination. And the inability of the committee to come up with a solution that made any sense is a reflection of that, I think. A better group with more foresight might have been able to. But the party hacks weren't ready for the public spotlight.

    we have no party leaders (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:27:31 AM EST
    everyone's looking out for their own narrow self-interests. thank god we're in a republican meltdown year, because we're doing quite the job on ourselves.

    Our meltdown is looking worse than theirs (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:28:26 AM EST
    They fight over policy, and we fight over identity.

    Well, i think it is a fight over policy. (5.00 / 22) (#18)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:31:23 AM EST
    I do not trust Obama on any core policy issue. I think he is a trojan horse for the energy and insurance industries. His repeated glib promises to "work with business" instead of regulating it bothers me a great deal.

    For you it might be (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:33:54 AM EST
    I don't really trust Obama either. But his policy positions, as stated, aren't very different from Hillary's. Yes, I know there are differences, but the policy differences aren't why so many people are angry.

    The "Denver! Denver!" shouts were not from healthcare policy wonks, imo.


    But i think passion over policy is (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:35:25 AM EST
    a key difference between Hillary and Obama supporters. It doesn't have to be wonky---just the sense that Obama won't deliver health care improvements and doesn't care about the plight of working people.

    Both Clintons, Bill and Hillary, like 'em or not, (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by magnetics on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:40:30 AM EST
    are deeply interested in policy -- more so than most of their peers -- certainly more than Obama, who has done nothing but run for president since assuming his senate seat.  That's just what the DC punditry admonished HRC not to do, in her first senate term.  Hmmm...

    BTW my idea of being interested in policy does not cover   the Grover Norquists of the world, who just want to destroy the government -- or the Cheneys, who want only to establish an oligarchy beholden only to the oil companies.


    Yes, I know (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:37:25 AM EST
    Hillary supporters are more interested in policy, generally speaking.  But what do you think this comment is about? Healthcare? No. I could find similar example from Obama supporters.

    There is no compromise on what's at issue for many people.


    What do you think is at issue? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:13:34 AM EST
    Any ideas.

    A healthy heaping (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:15:13 AM EST
    of identity politics for the most part. I don't criticize that--it just is.

    Women and AAs??? (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:28:27 AM EST
    If that's what you're referring to, I think that's part of it, but I think, in a way, they are also innocent bystanders.  And the real battle is something different.

    Andgarden (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:35:05 AM EST
    please go read Anglachel's blog, if you haven't yet, about 6 posts down now, called "Libertarian Paternalism" about the common thread that runs through Obama's policy positions.  It's really enlightening.

    That's easy (5.00 / 1) (#274)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:14:14 AM EST
    What's at issue is the greatly expanded Executive power Dubya will leave on the table since the Dems didn't impeach him and restore the balance of the branches.  That's what this is all about--a struggle over who's going to control that power.  The D. C. Dems don't want a strong Clinton president, they want to wield that power themselves--men like Tom Daschle who couldn't even keep his seat.  Men like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy who tried to be president and couldn't get elected or nominated. This is a power struggle plain and simple.

    Interesting how Daschle has all of a sudden made a comeback and is all over the cable news shows.  Tells me everything about what's going on in the DNC.


    trojan horse oh yeah (5.00 / 7) (#158)
    by margph on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:45:07 AM EST
    Agreed on that point.  He is not going to be the greenest nominee considering his affection for nuclear energy.  That worries me more than anything.  You know, along that line, wouldn't you think Gore would support Hillary for all her green ideas.  That is what he lives for, right?  I can't see Obama proposing wind farms if he's getting dollars from nuclear.

    Gore should just run now (5.00 / 0) (#288)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:25:41 AM EST
    Yeah, way too late. I know. BUT, it would solve a lot of things.  Now THAT would be a united Democratic Party.

    Our meltdown... (5.00 / 9) (#62)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:53:43 AM EST
    ... is worse because it was so preventable if our party had an ounce of sense.

    The Republicans are saddled with the burden of having run the country into the ground. That's not something they could have fixed this cycle.

    Our wounds, on the other hand, are almost completely self-inflicted, and ones we didn't have in January. All of the racial and gender acrimony, all of the accusations of cheating, all of the slanders, all of the divisiveness, all of the toxicity, have come since then.


    Six months ago (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:58:08 AM EST
    It seemed to me that even Dennis Kucinich could probably have won.

    Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:29:26 AM EST
    get away with meltdowns, with "Worst Presidents Evah" etc.  Democrats DON'T.

    And Now They're Going To Tell Me (5.00 / 24) (#75)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:59:42 AM EST
    to STFU and vote for the guy they chose.  Because they've chosen so well in the past that we've had two winners in 40 years.  

    That's why I feel no real need to be a good girl and fall in line.  The threat that the Democrats will lose if I don't rings kind of hollow after all the election cycles where I did hold my nose and fall in line and the Democrats LOST.  So perhaps Democrats winning or losing is not in my control when the party keeps giving me the same kind of candidate, one who appeals to urban liberals, African Americans, and young voters and nobody else.  Obama is John Kerry with less experience and more charisma and he's going to do about as well. Of course, this time it will be Hillary's fault because it's always someone's.  It's never the party elite's fault.  It's always the voters' fault.


    True (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:27:39 AM EST
    And even they realized that, which is why they went and hid (in violation of their own sunshine rules) to "debate" the outcome.

    Dean = Obama (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:28:46 AM EST
    I've been thinking lately that Howard Dean is a good preview for Obama - someone who talked a good game of people power, but could not deliver. Obama's mantras will fail similarly.

    I think Dean is better than that.... (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:13:48 AM EST
    For whatever reason I think of Obama as empty-suit politician, one that I think has good intentions, but in the end, empty-suit politician and apparently a not terribly ethical or honest one at that.  Not worse than average, just average, corrupted politician.

    For whatever reason, I think more highly of Dean than that.  Perhaps because he is a doctor.  Perhaps because I still like his "Yeargh!"


    Disappointed (5.00 / 7) (#102)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:20:49 AM EST
    Agree that Dean has a core that Obama does not.  But I would have hoped for more from Dean because of that.

    At least Dr. Dean can stitch up wounds (5.00 / 7) (#112)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:26:50 AM EST
    and heal them.  "Prof." Obama lacks the ability to do so, entirely.  Even telling his supporters to be "nice" to us was done in such patronizing terms that I have no confidence whatsoever that he can do it.

    Oh, and btw, he doesn't get to demand that the Clintons do it for him.  Not even they can heal the divisiveness created by Obama's campaign strategy, tactics, and style.  Every time he would send them out on the trail, it would just revive memories of the names that they have been called, the treatment that they have received by Obama and his backers.  Picture Gerry Ferraro doing so.  It won't work.


    I hope he was better (5.00 / 5) (#133)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:02:46 AM EST
    at closing the wounds as a doctor because the wound that he has opened in the Democratic Party may never heal.

    I hope he was better (none / 0) (#134)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:03:07 AM EST
    at closing the wounds as a doctor because the wound that he has opened in the Democratic Party may never heal.

    Playing their reindeer games (5.00 / 15) (#141)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:14:31 AM EST
    I watched as the Republicans poured hatred in our public discourse, disenfranchised swathes of people who needed champions and not conquerors, and made destroying my rights their raison d'etre.  For. Years.

    And now my own party has become that very thing.  I naively thought that the bottomless vein of misogyny and disdain for my gender, my ideas, my background and my class were a Republican thing.  But they are not.  The DNC and Obama was willing to unleash and encourage a perfect storm of hate and blood against its own party for ... what?  Someone not qualified to fill a city council seat?

    This isn't something that can be 'unified' out of me.  I'm not some teenage girl nursing my first heartbreak.  It has to be stopped.  I can't stop it myself but I do not have to be a part of it.  I do not.


    makes me mad all over again (5.00 / 14) (#14)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:30:08 AM EST
    when I read that. I still can't believe how callous and undemocratic they were. And that after our experiences in 2000 and 2004. If you told me in 2000 that the Democratic party would do that to itself in 2008, and in FL no less, I would never have believed it. And what they did in MI is off the charts.

    This committee is an embarrassment to democracy in all it's forms around the world. The only hope we have is that a larger body of the party will overturn this travesty. If not, it will be a party that has little regard for the voter and for democracy. Which given the parties name will be a horrible irony.

    Hypnotized (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:39:41 AM EST
    But it reveals the deep trance that the party is in with respect to Obama.  I think a potent combination of guilt and fear and Hillary-hatred have led all rational due process concerns to evaporate.

    This is a frightening precedent in a democracy - and they gladly set it just so that Obama would be taken care of.


    sadly I know what republicans (5.00 / 11) (#55)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:49:53 AM EST
    will make of a party and a candidate that had to be given Clinton's delegates in order to win. And unlike the Clinton campaign, they won't be afraid to say it.

    Potent Weapon (5.00 / 9) (#61)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:53:31 AM EST
    And make no mistake - such framing will synergize with the hostility to affirmative action to further generate resentment.

    Taken care of (5.00 / 8) (#161)
    by margph on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:51:46 AM EST
    It is more than just having taken care of Obama.  They actually succeeded in making him look weaker for "needing" a hand up.  This is bound to backfire when people think about it long enough.

    It's the Hillary hatred that gets me and (5.00 / 8) (#250)
    by hellskitchen on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:35:45 AM EST
    this is coming from someone who is not a personality voter at all.  I tend to view politicians somewhat askance for their big egos and willingness to turn on a dime for opportunity's sake.

    That said, I originally supported Edwards for his policies and drifted to Clinton when he left the campaign because her policies were so much like his.  I had no problem being disgusted with Edwards for supporting Obama.

    But hatred?  I really don't understand hatred.  I don't even hate Obama, although his campaign scares the hell out of me.


    yeah, it was a good day for Obama supporters, (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by DefenderOfPants on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:30:25 AM EST
    a bad day for democracy.

    The problem (5.00 / 14) (#16)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:30:39 AM EST
    The problem with what happened yesterday is now they have a whole swath of the party who aren't just angry at Obama, but who are now angry at the whole democratic leadership. They are now questioning what the party actually believes in. Instead of unity, I believe they split the party further. I would love to see stats on how many people change their registration from dem to independent (or some other third party) this month. I have a feeling that it will be a significant number. Anyone know if there is a public accounting of this somewhere online?

    I think that switching party registration is (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:32:39 AM EST
    the right protest for what's happening.

    Indeed.... (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:46:23 AM EST
    ...as an Obama supporter, I don't think that is a bad thing.  I haven't had the opportunity to vote for Republicans apart from the most senseless elections (county commissioners, etc.) because in MI either the stakes were too high or their candidates were too conservative where I lived, or, in CA, the party is largely a puritanical, ideological mess.  

     My view of party affiliation is that it is not sacred.  If I lived in the South during the Dixiecrat regime I wouldn't lift a finger to help them win their local and state elections on those platforms.

     But overall, I will still vote for the D in this election.  Unless they defied the primary after an Obama meltdown and coronated the likes of Zell Miller or Sam Nunn, John McCain is simply unacceptable.


    Um (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by phat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:59:33 AM EST
    County commission elections are not at all senseless.

    That's the big problem I have with Obama supporters. It doesn't seem to occur to them that other races are important.


    Clarification is in order (1.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:06:14 AM EST
    "Senseless" has to be understood in the context of the vote.  The example I had in mind was a three-way nonpartisan race between self-identified Republicans.  Regardless, I voted for the candidate who had the policy stances I agreed with...given my choices.

     But the point remains the same: for the right candidate with the right policies I will cross over, barring other strategic considerations.  See, for example, the last Rhode Island senate election.  


    Well, It's my party (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:35:33 AM EST
    I don't have to leave.

    Well, for me they are like (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:38:41 AM EST
    the Bush/Rove guys.  They are a weak coalition, if they win, they will not be able to govern, and the party will need to be put together again.  Only problem is they are purging the oldies.  

    Eh (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:40:13 AM EST
    They can't make you leave. And whether they like it or not, they need you.

    Amazingly, you still have the power.


    I can vote my principles: (5.00 / 0) (#286)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:22:26 AM EST
    I live in a solid red state, in a solid red corner.  There will be a county primary soon--no dems on the list that I have heard of.  It is always between a couple of republicans (or three).  Edwards got the primary vote (born here), but he would have lost the GE.  

    So I probably shall just sit at home--hoping that somehow we wind up with a decent president.  I sort of think that would be McCain, who doesn't seem to enthralled with the religious right (isn't he an Episcopalian, and don't they have more liberal views than the inerrancy crew?).  But it's up to the US; I somehow survived Big Grand-daddy (Ike), the 'I'm not a crook,' the actor, shrub one and the feather, and shrub two and fire-when-ready.  I can also survive "As the WORM Turns,"--but I think the country would do better with the old guy than with the Chicago machine.


    What power? (5.00 / 0) (#295)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:35:41 AM EST
    They take our votes and give them to their chosen one.  You think they won't find a way to do that in the GE?

    Applause (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:39:56 AM EST
    for your choice.  

    Choices are a good thing.


    You are brave to stay (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by gandy007 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:52:43 AM EST
    andgarden, I respect your loyalty and I pretty much agree with what you post.

    However, here we have a totally different perspective, one which I think is the point of departure for many others here.

    You see, I don't feel that by not voting for Obama, I am leaving the Democratic Party.  I don't have to leave. I feel it is the Democratic Party that has left, better said abandoned, me.

    I'm not sure I'll change my registration.  But even if I do, the truth of the matter is that when it comes time to vote, I'm sure I'll vote straight Democratic down ballot.


    The Dem Party kicked me to the curb. (5.00 / 8) (#198)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:28:42 AM EST
    It's quite clear...they don't represent me...they don't know me...they don't respect me....they only want my money and vote.

    Well, my vote is not given away, it's earned.  And the Dem Party and it's annointed "nominee" have done nothing - nada, zip - to earn my vote.

    So they won't get it.


    Gone Baby Gone (5.00 / 14) (#27)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:36:47 AM EST
    Yes - the cynicism now is only growing, and perilous  for the party.

    Finding delegates for a candidate who NEVER appeared on a ballot - well, as George Will said today - the Democrats can no longer complain about 2000: "They just make it up."


    What I found fascinating (5.00 / 14) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:41:00 AM EST
    in the wake of all this is the parade of party people, Obama supporters and Hillary supporters alike, from Dean on down, saying with total confidence that "the party" will unite.

    It finally struck me that they define "the party" as themselves, the pros, not us, the voters.  Of course the pros will unite.  They always do.  They pretty much have to.

    But it simply doesn't seem to have occurred to very many of these folks that we, the voters, aren't the same thing.  I truly think it's going to come as a huge shock to most of these folks when they realize that pieties about uniting behind the party simply don't apply to enraged voters.


    It's by state (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:32:08 AM EST
    Deep (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:33:06 AM EST
    Obama's unearned delegates were made possible by the new, improved Michigan Math.  Too complex for the ordinary person, only the electoral wizards of the RBC can handle its intricacies.

    ah, the same math (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:40:05 AM EST
    they keep talking about where Hillary can't win. Now it all makes sense. Is this the new math?

    Here's what everyone will understand (5.00 / 10) (#130)
    by DWCG on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:58:50 AM EST
    And it's what the Republicans will undoubtedly be hammering on talk radio all week: The DNC stole people's votes and gave them to Obama including many from Clinton.

    This fits into four of their memes:

    1. Even the Democrats don't like Clinton.
    2. The Democrats have no respect for democracy make up votes that don't exist ("Chicago-style politics" will be the word of the day).
    3. The superdelegates (Democrat elite) are deciding this election.
    4. Obama is so weak he can't even win this thing on his own.

    I hope people report back (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Fabian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:06:09 AM EST
    on the right wing radio hosts.

    I may gird my loins and listen to Glenn Beck tomorrow.  Can't be much worse than any AA personality who repeats the WWTBQ meme.


    and (5.00 / 5) (#148)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:23:49 AM EST
    #5. See, we were right in 2000. They were only claiming to count to votes to let their guys win illegitimately. See, we told you we were right!

    I made the decision this morning to leave the DNC (5.00 / 15) (#37)
    by iceblinkjm on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:40:33 AM EST
    after I got up and was still angry and hurt after reflection. I know pols are crooked but yesterday was quite eye opening and earth shaking for me. I know I should probably suck it up but what they did goes against everything I believe in and was raised to belive in. I am 31 and have been a democrat since I was 14 and campaigned for Bill. My mother was a democrat and I felt her turning in her grave yesterday.

    I'm mad too (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:42:50 AM EST
    I'm "mad as Florida 2000".

    Or possibly madder, since the Democratic Party is doing it to Democrats.


    Hey, um, ... (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:19:04 AM EST
    your mother died far too young.  I'm sorry for your loss.

    Great article by Millbank (5.00 / 9) (#38)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:41:22 AM EST
    How much you wanna bet KO will not have him on his show to discuss the situation since, you know, it might take away from the mass bukkake fest over the coronation on Tuesday? Can't say anything that might make the great victory seem illegitimate.

    I never thought I'd see something like this in my lifetime. I'm just glad so many other people are as angry as I am over what's been done to our party.

    Michigan (5.00 / 14) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:41:23 AM EST
    Michigan and the DNC agreed to a revote.  Obama stood in the way.

    Revote was AN ACTUAL SOLUTION, which is why it couldn't happen.

    gee, i thought that was obama? (5.00 / 12) (#42)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:42:50 AM EST
    "no one in the state of Florida has championed voters' rights more than I."

    i hope they enjoy it, it will be the last one for a while. i believe sat. was a pyricc victory for sen. obama, at the cost of the GE.

    yeah, it was a good day for Obama supporters

    unlike jeralyn and BTD, i can't vote for him. he isn't a real democrat, and god only knows what havoc he would wreak on the country and party in 4 years.

    the DNC leadership will implode after the GE, to hopefully be replaced by a wiser group. until then, i'll vote only the down-ticket, should sen. obama be the dem. nominee.

    Wexler is delusional it's sad but true (5.00 / 10) (#115)
    by Mark Woods on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:30:04 AM EST
    I called his office again to tell them I think he's become a real schmuck about this election, in spite of his stellar career prior to this: 202 225 3001.

    And after reading Dana's article, I went and made a donation to Hillaryclinton.com to cheer myself up.

    Hillary's unbending positive attitude in all this is the key for those of us who support her.

    ALL of my Florida neighbors are livid by the way, and this takes in all the generations, not just the Jewish retirees and 45+ year old women, Latinos and gays.


    wondering if Wexler is on Obama's VP list (none / 0) (#200)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:35:17 AM EST
    They need to replace their focus groups (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:35:40 AM EST
     "Nobody has done more for...."  That line has jumped the shark.

    vote stealing (5.00 / 18) (#43)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:44:35 AM EST
    is theft. Taking away delegates from Hillary in MI was theft. The stole those votes. Any candidate, supporter, or party that is comfortable with that, is not someone I want to support. I wouldn't want to see vote stealing even if my own candidate benefited.

    Believe it or not, some people out here have principles. And sometimes, the hold those principles as more important than a short term issue like who will be president for the next four years.

    Just wanted to read it again (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:38:29 AM EST
    vote stealing is theft. Taking away delegates from Hillary in MI was theft. The stole those votes. Any candidate, supporter, or party that is comfortable with that, is not someone I want to support. I wouldn't want to see vote stealing even if my own candidate benefited.

    Believe it or not, some people out here have principles. And sometimes, the hold those principles as more important than a short term issue like who will be president for the next four years.

    Thanks DT.  So nice I wanted to read it twice.  (And would have uprated 10x if I could have!)


    Legitimacy (5.00 / 10) (#44)
    by zebedee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:44:40 AM EST
    The whole process has been flawed because of the unrepresentative caucus states. Even accepting those  as part of the process, Obama could not be considered a legitimate winner unless his eventual lead surpasses the effect of the FL and MI allocation.

    It seems that yesterday HRC got +19 from FL and 5 from MI. Without the penalties she would have got +38 from FL and +73 from MI (with BO getting 0 due to removing himself off ballot). That's a difference of 92 so if the eventual margin is less than 92 his legitimacy will be tainted i.e. given to him by the DNC/RBC as the 2000 election was given to Bush by the Supreme Court and Kathleen Harris.

    With a popular vote lead I hope that Hillary somehow suspends her campaign in such a way that if it look like Obama will lose the GE she can get enough SD switches to be given the nomination.

    Bogus Metrics (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:50:25 AM EST
    Good points - a pledged lead derive from caucuses or RBC hijinks is a thin reed on which to build a case for substantial popular support.  

    So the difference would be only 23 (5.00 / 10) (#98)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:18:56 AM EST
    pledged delegates now between them, per only 23 pledged delegates difference per RCP totals, if she had those 92.  And even with super-delegates, she would be only 62 total delegates behind.  That shows the utter corruption of the DNC decision yesterday.

    And if those FL and MI votes had been resolved by the DNC in timely fashion rather than delayed -- she would have been ahead going into Super Tuesday . . . and thus, the entire momentum was robbed from her.  From us.  I felt that, but these numbers really show it.


    You know, I was doing OK (5.00 / 10) (#154)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:37:47 AM EST
    until I read this (your analysis of the delegate totals.)

    Now I'm literally so mad I can't see straight.  I mean, hopping, ready to get on a plane and give Howard Dean a piece of my mind mad.

    Lucky for him I hurt myself with a lawnmower and am on crutches, so that plan of action won't come to pass anytime soon...

    But that'd only be a short-term solution anyway.  Sign me up for whatever's going to be the surest way to get rid of and punish the buffoons that did this, even if it's (extremely) long term.

    Hell, I already live in a purple state that's filled with the most hideous Republican atrocities ever, and many DINOs.  What do I need with a national Party that actually stands for something in face of all this?  That actually cares about real people and their concerns?  That might actually try to come off as something other than a cadre of eggheaded elitists determined to squander the spirit of democracy this great nation once held?

    Yeah, I'm guess I'm "Florida in 2000" mad too.  Maybe madder, and more heartbroken.  It's one thing to expect horrible behavior out of Republicans, but it's excruciating to see it out of Democrats.


    Roosevelt quoted in today's Boston Herald (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:45:04 AM EST
    Note his quote is from Friday:

    "In an interview Friday, committee co-chair Roosevelt told me he could not envision a scenario where his committee would reverse who's losing here, which means Obama wins."

    The interviewer is Margery Eagan, Boston Herald

    So, htat means no matter who voted for whomever in whatever numbers, there was no way the Rules Comm. would ever disturb the status quo.  

    Just awful!!  

    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:47:48 AM EST
    Saturday's meeting was merely to maintain "the fix" that the elite Washington establishment cemented when they propped up a newbie senator to take out Hillary.
    Throughout the primary, the Wright tapes were being sent to the media. But the media, which is part of the Establishment, concealed negative info about Obama until most states had voted.
    This gives the impression that Obama "won" on his own and the SDs are flocking to him because he's a "winner", etc.
    But no newly elected senator would begin plotting a presidential run during his first month in office!  Obama said so himself, right after his Senate election. That is, unless he was backed by the Establishment and had the SDs in his pocket before he announced his candidacy.

    Wexler (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:47:16 AM EST
    There is only one word to describe him here that is acceptable..FOOL.

    No... (5.00 / 4) (#201)
    by Fredster on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:45:12 AM EST
    Schmuck was pretty good too.

    Thanks Fredster (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Mark Woods on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:52:21 AM EST
    You're a real mensch, ya know?

    I still don't understand how and why (5.00 / 11) (#50)
    by Chamonix on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:47:30 AM EST
    they took delegates that Hillary won and gave them to Obama. Anderson Cooper asked, I believe Donna Brazilla and she skirted the question 3 times. This seems like they were just sticking their finger in Hillary's eye. Kinda like saying FU for not getting out sooner and making us look like idiots that have no idea what they are doing.

    Donna's answer (5.00 / 10) (#54)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:49:23 AM EST
    was the one they've been handing out since yesterday "Well, we were magnanimous and gave her the 69/59 split instead of the 50/50 Obama was asking for."

    Nice, isn't it? I wasn't on the ballot in Michigan either. Can I ask for a large percentage of the uncommitted votes too?


    that's right, that was the talking point but (5.00 / 12) (#63)
    by Chamonix on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:54:09 AM EST
    Does anyone know the real answer? Anderson Cooper didn't even know and no one answered him. They had to have done this for a reason that they know the answer too and that is important to put Obama over the magic number sooner rather than later. They want this OVER. They are acting no different than the Majority of the SCOTUS during Bush V Gore. They are the deciders, not the people. Our Democracy=Hell meet Hand basket.

    Someone also needs to explain (5.00 / 8) (#82)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:04:02 AM EST
    to Prima Donna and a few other people involved that if you're trying to create Unity (which is laughable anyway), the last thing you should do is remind people that it coulda been worse and they should just suck it up and be grateful they got anything at all.

    Sorry, Donna, we don't need your crumbs. We know the truth. All the crocodile tears in the world won't make up for it.


    The whole thing is Insane. I have been so proud (2.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Chamonix on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:22:23 AM EST
    this past year. Being an activist for my party. Calling my senators, being the squeaky wheel. Always yelling out about all the injustices. Doing anything I could to help get the word out about Bushco and his cronies and now I see our own party doing pathetic backroom deals and then today I see Hillary acting like Baghdad Bob during her speech, talking about 'when she is President...." NO ONE IS DEALING WITH ANY KIND OF REALITY HERE. Talk about a trip down the rabbit hole. Everyone involved is making the democratic party look like fools that can't keep their own house in order. All along I would have been happy with either of them. Now I am embarrassed by the behaviour of both of them.

    Article in Salon (5.00 / 7) (#129)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:57:54 AM EST
    by Walter Shapiro explains what went on behind the scenes.

    Basically, the Obama people on the committee were ready to vote a 50/50 split for Michigan, if you can believe it, with a majority of exactly 1 committee member over those opposed.

    Mark Brewer, the MI party chair, who was unable to vote on this because it's his state, then warned the rest of the committee that such a decision would pretty much kill the Dem. Party in Michigan because it would go down so badly.

    So the Obama people magnanimously agreed to support instead that stupid "compromise" that Michigan had proposed to begin with that gave Obama the extra 4 delegates from Hillary's column.  And enough of the Clinton supporters, figuring it was the best they could get, went along with it to pass it by a substantial margin.

    Sounds very much to me like Brazile et al effectively gamed the whole thing to intimidate the Clinton supporters into going along with the "compromise" and reassigning the 4 delegates.

    No wonder she looked like the cat who ate the canary when she came back from the "lunch" break.


    Did you watch the challenge presentations? (1.10 / 10) (#153)
    by travc on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:33:56 AM EST
    Probably most didn't since that would expose you annoying arguments and facts you don't agree with.

    The MI split is (at least approximately) a 'best guess' how it would have gone if Obama were on the ballot.  It is based on the official results, exit polls, and the uncounted write-ins.  As an estimate, it may be off by a few, but almost certainly not more than 4 delegates.

    You may argue that Obama took his name off the ballot and should get nothing.  And you will instantly loose respect from the vast majority of people for such a blatantly unfair position, but you can argue that.  The RBC didn't agree with you... they though that the delegate allocation should reflect who people would have voted for if the ballot were complete.

    Another (numerically nit-picking right now) point is that Obama was allocated delegates which would have been committed to Edwards.  I would have preferred those delegates being actually given to Edwards instead (based again on estimating who people would have voted for given a full ballot)... of course, since Edwards is supporting Obama, the end result would have been the same.

    Watch the presentations before the RBC trying really really hard not to automatically support everything which would help out Clinton just because it would help out Clinton.  You may disagree with the decisions, but they actually do make some sense.


    No Obama votes from MI (1.00 / 8) (#156)
    by travc on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:42:09 AM EST
    Let me add...

    If you think Obama should get no delegates from MI because he wasn't on the ballot... how can you possibly support any delegate votes from MI?

    You are saying rules are rules... only count the actual party primary votes.  But none of the votes were 'party primary votes'; the party didn't approve the primary.  This is serious hypocracy I hope you can see.  No one has provided an even half coherent rational, and I honestly don't think one exists.


    Seems to me you understood (5.00 / 14) (#92)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:13:45 AM EST
    exactly what they were doing.  It was a huge FU.  Obama is now the party BOSS? It was sealed for the media by what the DNC did to Clinton's delegates.  If the party will take Clinton's delegates and give them to him the media thinks that makes him a leader.  That isn't the word I would use to describe him.

    I could never vote for him.  There is nothing in my make up that would allow me to do it.  It's so simple.


    I will vote for who ever the democratic candidate (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Chamonix on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:25:14 AM EST
    is but to take delegates from one candidate and give them to another without any explanation is insanity. I am still waiting for some real explanation.

    and that resolve, imho (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:59:28 AM EST
    is the only way the party has a chance in hell of changing for the better.

    Michigan was easy (5.00 / 10) (#51)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:47:41 AM EST
    Give Clinton all the votes she rightly earned from people who voted for. Give Obama none as his name was not on the ballot. Let the uncommitted delegates who are legitimate and been accepted in every bloody convention we've ever had go to Denver and vote for whomever they please -- as they do in every other state in the Union. That's the whole point. They're uncommitted.

    Obama took himself off the ballot voluntarily. He and his surrogates (as well as Edwards' people) told his supporters to vote Uncommitted. If you do not vote, you do not have the right to complain about the situation. No matter whether someone tells you it doesn't count or not. Let them fight with Obama for disenfranchising them, let them blame HIM for his disinterest in having their voices counted. His ploy. He should not have been rewarded for his gaming the situation in order to screw over HRC.

    As it is, the majority of the Uncommitted would probably vote for him anyway in Denver. However, as Terry McAuliffe pointed out today, some of those Uncommitted were going to vote for HRC at convention -- they'd already pledged to. That's the real reason Obama had to be handed delegates he didn't earn on a silver platter. The DNC were afraid he might not win.

    Oh, and write-in votes for a candidate not on the ballot do not count for that person. Because they are not on the ballot. New York State is the same, ASFAIK. So, no, those votes shouldn't count either. Unless you think that Mickey Mouse, Homer Simpson and god knows who else should be considered viable candidates when people write them in as protest votes.

    Sorry but... (5.00 / 10) (#52)
    by NWHiker on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:48:17 AM EST

    Taking delegates that Clinton won away from her is flat out vote theft.

    Whose fault was it that Obama wasn't on the ballot? He's the one who removed his own name.

    And there was a better solution: give Clinton her delegates and let the Uncommitteds vote for whomever they please at the Convention. Since by all accounts, all those Uncommitted delegates are actually Obama supporters, he'll get them eventually.

    Instead they chose to disenfranchise.

    What does it say about Obama that he can't win without stealing votes that were legitimately cast for his opponent? What does it say about the Democratic Party that we allowed this to happen? Nothing good, imo.

    Exactly what Ickes said (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:51:41 AM EST
    was the solution for MI. The rules already cover Uncommitted.

    Obama took his name off in a gambit to try to hurt Clinton. It was his campaign that reached out to Edwards', etc. and got them to take their names off, too.

    But one miscalculation was not enough. Let my Tupac Hunter, Obama's MI peeps went "Biggy" on the voters and blew the state's desire for a revote.

    Obama blew it, twice. And the DNC simply made roolz up -- ones which go against their actual rules which Ickes sought -- to try to save their anointed one.

    And in so doing, they have shattered any possible legitimacy for Obama or unity for their party. This was the fatal blow for an Obama candidacy come November. It was one long, ugly, Wexler-stained GOP campaign ad.


    EDIT (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:52:19 AM EST
    "Led by" Tupac Hunter...

    yes! (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by vrusimov on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:50:43 AM EST
    when all parties agree beforehand about the legitimacy of a contest, and therefore all agree not to campaign or participate in said contest...what makes that contest legitimate in the eyes of the governing body who voted it illegitimate beforehand...

    The morally bankrupt Ickes argument about delegate allocation makes no mention of the fact that legitimate elections involve campainging on the part of all candidates, as to make their case to the people...

    If a candidate removes his or her name from the ballot of an election that he rightfully views as not counting, in the same way that Hillary stated herself and the RBC ruled, HOW does the election then qualify as a contest that the DNC should recognize as anything but illegitimate?

    The only way this happens is to change the rules after the fact...

    particularly hideous to watch were the Clinton supporters on the committee, who voted to strip delegates last year, but now have an agenda and the benefit of hindsight to feign a purely altruistic empathy for FL and MI voters...they all sounded like hypocrites...

    one could argue that the Florida state legislature used the 80 page HB537 as a cover to absolve themselves of any blame that would occur over their collective decision to violate the rules...

    Their votes were impartial last year before the primaries began, as they should've been, because you don't get the luxury of a crystal ball when you make a decision such as they made...

    Where was the uproar from them all last year?

    Where were their rabid concerns for disenfranchisement then?

    Why did'nt they exercise their collective power when they had ample chance to do so?

    is there a statue of limitations on a ruling to strip delegates 100%? Did this start with the Iowa caucus?

    Any ruling other than what was carried out would've rendered the DNC a farce and illegitimate as a governing body tasked with enforcing its own rules and bylaws, not to mention setting the stage for future chaos...a message had to be sent that this won't be tolerated...


    except.... (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by jeffhas on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:30:42 AM EST
    stripping 100% of their delegates went against the roolz.

    RBC and Credential Committees were put in place to hear grievances and to make rulings on grievances - MID STREAM.  This is not changing the roolz in the middle of the game... it's called umpiring... someone has to called in to make judgment calls when two sides have a disagreement.

    Obama was not forced to remove his name from the MI ballot - he chose do so for political gain with Iowa.  If he gets the gain with Iowa how do you allow him to also gain from MI?... talk about having your cake and eating it too.

    Indeed - all very one sided.


    perhaps you can explain... (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:58:02 AM EST
    since FL also "broke the rule", why didn't Obama take his name off the FL ballot too?
    Seems to be more bamboozling from Obama...

    FL rules (none / 0) (#215)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:31:23 AM EST
    IIRC, in order for Obama to take his name off the primary ballot in FL, he would have to withdraw from the presidential race. I'm not absolutely sure on this but I remember this being discussed when he withdrew his name from the MI ballot.

    Reading that was (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by facta non verba on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:55:29 AM EST
    like reading Gabriel Garcia Marquez's Chronicle of a Death Aforetold. A mystery that was no mystery, a horror show that was horrific than anticipated, a theatre of the absurd, a parallel vortex that must only exist in the minds of the leadership of the DNC, it was, in short, the transcript of a mass suicide in which the victims were not those present but rather the American people. They committed suicide, the rest of us pay the price.

    On the day they were going to kill the party? (none / 0) (#67)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:57:13 AM EST
    love that book (...Death Foretold btw) (none / 0) (#77)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:02:51 AM EST
    Nothing like starting a novel with: "On the day he was going to die..." Poor Santiago Nasar. Kind of hooks you right in. Based on a actual friend believe it or not.

    And nicely said by the way. It was very surreal.


    A lot of people didn't vote (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by Manuel on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:57:51 AM EST
    That was a rationale for splitting MI as they did.  A lot of people didn't vote in caucus states.  How about reaportioning those delegates?

    No (1.00 / 7) (#164)
    by travc on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:57:46 AM EST
    "Many people did not vote" was not the rational.  No one is that dumb, I hope.

    A minor part of the allocation rational was that pro-Obama turnout was depressed more than pro-Clinton turnout because he wasn't on the ballot.  Maybe one or two delegates in that argument (more on the one side).  The 30K+ uncounted write-ins were a much larger factor.

    And face it, we are talking about a very few (4) delegates total.  Yeah, it is a close race, but not that close.

    The key is that they apportioned delegates based on an estimate of who people would have voted for if it was a complete ballot.  That is what many people are really objecting too... and what I have yet to see a coherent argument against.


    Tell that to his (5.00 / 7) (#171)
    by tnjen on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:11:31 AM EST
    ...primary opponents in Chicago. I'm sure they'd have loved to have had their names on the ballot.

    Why have elections at all (5.00 / 11) (#180)
    by Evie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:25:58 AM EST
    if the DNC gets to estimate who "people would have voted for"?

    Why not look at how the people ACTUALLY voted? We KNOW how many votes Hillary got. The only question is how much of the 'uncommitted' were Obama voters.

    People also stay home from elections ALL THE TIME. Some of them may deliberately choose not to vote. Does it mean that for every election now, a committee can decide in some back room how these non-voters "would have voted"?


    The DNC caused the problem not realizing (none / 0) (#187)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:03:14 AM EST
    the tight race would bring it this far, and this is the RBC's solution.  Looking at how people actually voted does not fix the problem the DNC created by demanding states adhere to their schedule.  Yes Obama took his name off the ballot.  Whether he did it to pander to IA & NH doesn't matter if you are trying to support the voters.  The pro-Obama turnout was depressed more than pro-Clinton turnout because he wasn't on the ballot. The more that 30K uncounted write-ins were a also factor the RBC had to deal with.  

    This isn't a backroom committee trying to override the will of the electorate by mysteriously counting non-voters.  


    In all seriousness, (5.00 / 3) (#245)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:15:50 AM EST
    this is the most ridiculous argument I've heard thus far.

    I don't believe for a second that you would accept the situation if it was reversed.  If Hillary had VOLUNTARILY removed her name from the ballot in an effort to PANDER to IA and NH (we all know how much you Obama supporters hate pandering...remember the fuss over the gas tax??), there's no way in hell you would condone allocating her not only all of the uncommitted delegates (nevermind that there were several candidates that removed their names from the ballot), but FOUR of Obama's as well.  Your freaking head would explode.  I can just hear the cries of racism now.

    It's simply an intellectually dishonest argument.  Period.  


    The charter says (5.00 / 3) (#261)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:50:51 AM EST
    (it was read aloud Sat.) that uncommitted is a valid choice and should not be changed.  To 'ell with the 4; the uncommitted should have been left that way, even if the whole durn bunch marched over to Obama's side at once.  Obama and Edwards very probably figured that those delegates would move themselves--at convention roll call.  If the DNC had not contravened its own charter, the current delegate count would be legitimate.  But it is not.

    Uncommitted Delegates should go to Denver as (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by jackyt on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:58:45 AM EST
    uncommitted. And Hillary should get ALL the delegates she earned.

    The whole debacle was an Obama creation. He should live with the consequences just like anyone else who makes a poor decision.

    I just wonder: will Obama be able to game the Electoral College the way he has the primary system?

    blame Obama again...rinse and repeat... (1.00 / 1) (#193)
    by vrusimov on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:18:04 AM EST
    in no way is this an Obama creation...this situation was created by both state legislatures who decided that they were above the other states in the post feb 5th window...

    the Michigan contest has to be a legitimate contest to matter if either candidate removed or kept their names on...IT WAS'NT...Hillary acknowledged this verbally and in writing, as did all other candidates beforehand...this is where the MI argument breaks down IMO...

    to totally absolve states of their responsibility to their voters does a disservice to every other state that followed the calendar...

    this is one of the chief reasons for the venom between Clinton and Obama supporters...dump it all on Obama, either by insinuation or direct accusation...

    the states don't get to walk away from this anymore than someone can walk away from an accident they caused...it's called taking responsiblility for your actions, choice and your vote...

    it does'nt matter if insult or injury is intentional, though in this case arguable, there has to be a punishment as a deterrent against future chaos...choice does'nt always mean you get to walk away and escape culpability while shifting the blame to others...

    yes, voters suffered...those who went and those who stayed home...the DNC made the "responsible, adult decision"...and though not a perfect one, it is the only "fair" recourse they had...

    If this is unfair, either have another primary or uphold the previous ruling...but then Obama gets the blame for undermining all of the creative ways of delegate allocation which did'nt present themselves during the 30 day period they were given to choose an alternate one last year...three of four parties are absolved of their reservations and objections with the proposed redo elections while the fourth is made the scapegoat...

    Whatever...give it a rest...

    It seems that some here are comfortable with the fact that elections without campaigning, whereby candidates make their cases to the voters directly, are reflective of a fair contest...that is your opinion and you are certainly entitled, but others will vehemently disagree...


    Obama disenfranchised his MI supporters (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:13:12 AM EST
    to be able to spin a narrative in Iowa that he was playing by the rules. This led voters to believe Hillary had violated DNC rules by keeping her name on the MI ballot - and reinforced Obama's continuing theme that Hillary is evil.
    But there were no rules that candidates couldn't be on ballots in states that had moved their primaries!
    Obama chose the "high road" in MI to hurt Hillary in Iowa but chose the low road in FL, since both states broke the rule.
    Obama is a flim flam artist.

    Obama gamed MI (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:21:48 AM EST
    by removing his name and then having his surrogates tell voters to vote uncommitted or vote Republican, iirc, to vote for Romney. As to FL, I think the only way he could have removed his name from the ballot was to withdraw from the Presidential race. Some one correct me if I am wrong but I believe those are FL rules. I am sure he would have played the same stunt if he could have. So much for change.

    The Three-Sixths Compromise (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by daryl herbert on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:59:00 AM EST
    That's what I'm calling it.

    I don't like the idea of any American's vote counting for only half.

    Especially when it's being counted that way in order to guarantee victory to a certain candidate.

    If the Virgin Islands (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:12:41 AM EST
    were a state of the Union, of course. But you're mixing apples and oranges and you know it. Michigan is part of the 50 states (or 57 if you ask Obama). And last time I checked, the DNC rules (as much as they'd like to believe it) are not federal law.

    If the VI votes counted and Gore took his name off the ballot, then no, he is not entitled to anything.

    And this has nothing to do with my candidate. Had the RBC turned around and handed Clinton more uncommitted delegates for no known reason because they wanted her to have them, I'd have been just as pissed off. Because the people who voted for her voted for her. The people who didn't clearly did not and since there is no way of actually measuring what the intent of the voters were in the uncommitted category, the delegates should have been free to go where they wanted -- as they are in every other state in the union.

    Also, your argument is fallacious because you're also mixing popular votes in a general election with primary votes for delegates. The same number of delegates from MI would be going to the convention regardless. It's just whose pocket they have been put in to.

    I'm sure YOU would be screaming bloody murder if YOUR candidate had had 4 delegates taken from him in another state for absolutely no reason other than political machinations and fixing an already heated primary season.

    However, unlike you, some of us care more about the voters and the principle of fair representation than just who wins. 600,000 voters in Michigan were told that even though they voted for Clinton, their votes count for Obama instead. Tell me how this is a good thing (other than letting Obama have even more delegates than what he's entitled to)

    I would have (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by LoisInCo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:21:31 AM EST
    been P.O.ed had they merely assigned all the uncommited to Obama. But actually REMOVING some from  Clinton is disgusting. Personally I would have rather they left the penalty.

    And (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by LoisInCo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:26:07 AM EST
    appealing was a valid option from the begining which (as a much vaunted lawyer) I am sure Obama was aware. So really, rules were not changed. Probability changed.

    The main thing they accomplished was ... (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by dwmorris on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:22:13 AM EST
    giving Clinton the political cover she needs to stay in the race until the convention (assuming this is what she decides to do).

    Your candidate failed (5.00 / 14) (#107)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:22:38 AM EST
    miserably.  Where anyone gets off thinking that someone who conspired with the other candidates to take their names off the ballot to stab another candidate in the back, and then has the friggin' nerve to steal votes and delegates, I don't know but it is THE most disgusting act I have ever seen a politician do and slimy doesn't even come close to how I would describe it.

    Rock and a hard place my @#$.  He'll never be considered legitimate. Respect, never. This will be written up in history books as vote stealing.

    When the Obama supporters are happy with the result and the Clinton supporters aren't, rational thought would indicate the decision was not equitable.  Oops.

    Yes (5.00 / 15) (#110)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:25:16 AM EST
    They could have seated all the delegates giving Hillary her 73, Obama the 55 uncommitted (even though he earned less) and given them all a whole vote. That would have been a compromise since Obama would have gotten those who wanted Edwards, those who wanted him, and those who were truly uncommitted.

    Better, but less of a compromise, would have been to give Hillary her 73 and let the other 55 go to the convention uncommitted in accordance with their votes. They could cast their vote at the convention.

    i'll tell you why i think (5.00 / 10) (#113)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:27:06 AM EST
    a pres. mccain is less dangerous than a pres. obama:

    a pres. mccain would, by a (hopefully) veto-proof democratic congress, have his nominee's feet held to the fire. he would be handcuffed.

    i'm afraid a pres. obama wouldn't be, by this same democratic congress. they would feel compelled to approve, or risk being called racists.

    in short, a pres. mccain is less likely to have the freedom to destroy that a pres. obama would enjoy.

    that scares me.

    And the "movement" (5.00 / 9) (#117)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:33:01 AM EST
    will always be out there, needing to be fed and being used to rationalize all kinds of things.  Astro turf.  Scares me frankly.  Obama without the Movement, could be ok,,but the Movement frightens me.  

    Stellaaa, what's scary about the movement? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:04:54 AM EST
    Most people I know who are looking for change and see the potential with Obama's candidacy are wanting what we've wanted from our government for years:  more transparency, less corruption, more programs that help citizens, protection of the environment, and less disparity between the middle class and the super rich.  If you look at the progressive mentality of many of Obama's supporters, I think you'll see that many of us have already been working toward these goals.  I expect that will continue, but in an accelerated fashion after the GE.

    Movements are incapable of (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:18:46 AM EST

    Don't confuse an obsession with Meta with introspection, either.

    Meta is just self-involvement.


    More transparency? Less corruption? (5.00 / 13) (#166)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:01:38 AM EST
    We saw the opposite yesterday from the Obamans on the DNC committee -- meeting for hours away from the public view, taking voters from one candidate and giving them to another not even on the ballot, etc.

    It is when those within a movement do not see that they are doing the opposite of what they proclaim that a movement is scary.  It has been that way for months, with all the transference aimed at Clinton, but yesterday brought it all to the fore, and indelibly, for too many now-former Dems.

    But then, the movement told the rest of us that we're not needed, so go win it all on your own.


    I certainly don't think that you're not needed. (none / 0) (#184)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:48:06 AM EST
    We saw the opposite yesterday from the Obamans on the DNC committee -- meeting for hours away from the public view

    Cream City, both sides went out of the public view, not just Obama's supporters.  Personally, I expect they decided long before the meeting that they weren't going to change the trend for either candidate.  They probably spent the lunch time making sure they hadn't missed any new arguments presented that morning in their responses they had typed up the week before.  

    I doubt the RBC decision will cause more people to vote for McCain then would have anyway if Obama wins the nomination.  It might even result in FL & MI folks who didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count or because their choice wasn't on the ballot feel more party loyalty because the party recouped their mistake in not voting.

    Even if Hillary's supporters are angry, at least they've taken a stand that says if you're going to quit the Dem party, go ahead and do it.  Whoever's left can now get focused on beating McSame, and we'll do a better job of that without continuing the fighting within the party.  If Obama has the requisite delegates after Tuesday's results are in, Hillary will have to either make good on her promise to support Obama as the winning candidate, or continue the conflict that divides our party.  Much as I love the fighting spirit she displays, I hope she'll not drag this out any longer.  


    True Enough (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:06:47 AM EST
    The people who have decided not to vote for Obama because of these grievances won't ever be convinced to anyway, don't waste your time on them.

    And this is supposed to be (5.00 / 4) (#224)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:25:43 AM EST
    a persuasive argument about your new and improved party?  No thanks.  The least of your problems is whether "she" will "drag this out any longer" -- you don't get it; this stunt pulled for your candidate now has made this a much larger issue than any candidate.

    The creative class has created a monster with the corruption yesterday -- by such corrupt "leaders" that they didn't even think it problematic to broadcast it all on national television.  Big mistake.

    But before we're all gone from the party, we who have been around a while ought to explain a little detail to you:  Obama can not get enough delegates Tuesday.  He can not get enough delegates until the convention now.  No candidate cinches the nomination, as those who have been around a while know, with so many super-delegates, who can switch.  A nomination is cinched only with sufficient pledged delegates -- no matter how soon your candidate coronates himself.  Doing so makes him look the fool, and his supporters the same.


    There is a rational argument for McCain (none / 0) (#144)
    by jeffhas on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:17:35 AM EST
    considering the House and Senate majorities.  McCain has always been his own man - I get the move to the right to solidify his party, but he will govern without taking his orders from the right - and they know it - that's why the right hates him, because he is not beholden to them.  He may talk their language from time to time, but he has reached across the aisle many times before and stuck the conservatives in the eye.

    If he made an appeal to middle class whites, I could see him getting a significant portion.


    Can I ask what is so great about this (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by WillBFair on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:32:39 AM EST
    Washington Post article?
    It doesn't say a word about the DNC granting waivers to other states but not to FL and MI.
    And it doesn't mention that Dean and Donna made the decision months ago, that it was an act of corruption, and that Obama taking his name off the MI ballot is suspicious given that he would have lost there.
    By granting waivers to some States but not to large States that Hillary won, the DNC has effectively chosen our nominee. They've made the democratic party into a fraud.

    I agree with you entirely (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:13:35 AM EST
    Frankly, it just looked to me like Milbank ridiculing Democrats in general.

    He is not on our side-- either Clinton's or the Democratic Party's or liberal values.  He's just a smarta##.


    Please note (1.00 / 3) (#175)
    by travc on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:17:43 AM EST
    A waiver before a primary is very very different than a 'waiver' after.

    I personally thought Levin's arguments about why MI moved its primary up were compelling... but that means they should have gotten a waiver, well before, not now.  FL has a pretty strong case too (screwed by the GOP controlled state legislature).

    Please deal (or at least think about) the difference between saying "Ok, your new primary schedule will count" vs saying "We said it wouldn't count, but now it is long over, we change our minds".

    The Dem party really put itself in a very bad position... any chance we can fix the system?  If you really want a worthy cause, I think the convention is the appropriate place to setup the reform committee and give them a mandate.


    Michigan has a state primary 8/5 (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by DWCG on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:38:00 AM EST
    Therefore, there were two fair solutions:

    OPTION 1
    Seat half the delegates as the people voted on 1/15 (Clinton: 37.5, Obama: 0, Uncommitted: 27.5) and the other half based on 8/5 votes (64 up for grabs)

    OPTION 2
    Seat all the delegates as the people vote on 8/5 (128 up for grabs).

    Option #1 would not have made that large an impact on Obama's delegate lead (netted her 37.5), and would have probably satisfied 95% of Clinton supporters (you know the people he needs in the general).

    Option #2 would have been more difficult to swallow for Clinton supporters, but was a heck of a lot better than the solution derived.

    The only drawback is that it would have increased the magic number to 2208 (if Florida was to be seated at full strength), which reveals the true reason neither of the two options above was selected: Camp Obama didn't believe he had enough superdelegate support to get to 2208 before 8/5.

    Option 3: follow the rules (none / 0) (#233)
    by lgm on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:54:50 AM EST
    The rules, as announced before the primary, were that it would not count at all, zero.  That's what they should stick to.

    the RULES (5.00 / 1) (#247)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:22:14 AM EST
    announced before the primaries began also included two options for seating the FL and MI delegates.

    1. revote
    2. appeal to tyhe Rules committe and/or the Credentials committee

    Everyone knew ahead of time that both of these options were a FAIR and LEGAL process within the RULES.

    I'm tired of people saying that only 1 rule applies and other EQUAL rules are of no value


    Here's a better article (5.00 / 8) (#128)
    by DWCG on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:53:01 AM EST
    Obama's Pyrrhic Michigan Victory

    Yesterday's DNC decision to award Obama delegates in Michigan even though he was not on the ballot surely seemed plausible to Democratic leaders trying to find a way out of their dilemma. The idea of splitting the baby in Michigan and Florida, seating the delegates while cutting their voting strength, was always a natural one, and in and of itself will cause little problem.

    But the Michigan decision is a jaw dropper. By setting aside election results to Hillary's disadvantage, the DNC has saddled its likely nominee with an enraged opponent who now has every incentive to carry the fight through the summertime. Simultaneously, it has told Michigan voters that the DNC - and by extension, its nominee, Obama - is willing to set aside election results it does not like. That cannot have a positive effect on Michigan swing voters - and Obama needs to carry Michigan in the fall to have any shot at victory.

    The Clintons' unwillingness to accept defeat is legendary. Yet the DNC has thrown sand in the face of a candidate who is already claiming sexism underlies the opposition to her campaign. Never underestimate the fury of a woman scorned, the adage goes.

    Now she can stay in the race with yet another rationale for her candidacy - she is fighting for democratic principles. And her working class voters in Michigan will hear that message.

    Given the influence of the (1.00 / 7) (#157)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:42:18 AM EST
    Limbaugh spoilers in our primaries who are voting for Hillary because they want to run against her instead of Obama, and given that Hillary's camp is attempting to unseat delegates that Obama won in Texas while at the same time claiming she's really just fighting for the FL & MI voters, I think they agreed to a solution that acknowledges the limitations of the primary race and cuts our losses rather than leaving it mired in conflict until August.  There are fifty different states, some with caucuses only, some with primary voting only, and some that double-count voters, which means there's no way both sides will agree on either the popular vote count or the delegate allocation.  The RBC may have made a decision based simply on a need to move forward. People who are going to vote for McCain are going to do so if Obama wins, regardless of the RBC decision.  Perhaps the MI decision will add more to that group of deserters, or perhaps it will help the FL & TX people who didn't vote feel more party loyalty for somehow salvaging their mistake in not voting.

    Either way, it clearly draws a line and says if you're going to quit the Dem party, OK, do so now.  Because the rest of us who are staying need to get focused on beating McSame, and we'll do a better job of that without the crazy fighting we've experienced for the past four months.  If Obama wins after Tuesday's primaries, it'll be time for Hillary to either make good on the promise to support the winning candidate, or continue the conflict that divides our party.  


    wrong horse, Newt (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by margph on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:05:37 AM EST
    You are betting on the wrong horse.  You are obviously not paying attention to which states were won by which candidate.  

    Your excuses are just rationalizations for a decision you made some time ago.  The playing field has shifted under you.  Pay attention.


    Your post implies one of two things (5.00 / 6) (#205)
    by DWCG on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:08:37 AM EST
    1. It's okay to win by stealing votes
    2. There's no other way to have the party "move on" without rigging it.

    I don't agree with either, and as a Democrat who believes in democracy, Saturday's decision has just to me given Hillary (or anyone else for that matter) the green light to take the issue OF VOTE STEALING and VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT to the convention.

    Go away. Length and depth are not (5.00 / 6) (#139)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:12:16 AM EST
    co-existent in your comment.

    I wish Hillary would split from the party (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by bridget on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:53:15 AM EST
    if Obama is the candidate - he will lose the GE.

    She has got the momentum. It's time for a better democratic party anyway. It's time for a third party.

    me two cents


    tl;dr (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:22:20 AM EST
    However, your insult that we're all just 'reacting' to something a talking head on tv said or that we read on a blog is insulting and patently untrue. I know the Obama camp thinks we're all 'low-information voters' but most of are a lot smarter than that.

    You humbly suggest, do you? (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:25:04 AM EST
    You're not much of a writer, but you're a pretty good satirist.

    What was I saying (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:28:40 AM EST
    about learning how to craft a persuasive argument?

    In Massachusetts (none / 0) (#272)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM EST
    persuasive writing is the 7th grade MCAS test.

    Again (5.00 / 7) (#151)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:30:34 AM EST
    If how you campaign is supposed to be an indicator of how you will lead, then Bush would have been a great president.

    When it comes to competence, and figuring that out based on who one is surrounded with, while I think there are some loyalties involved between Clark and Clinton (and that's a GOOD thing), I don't think it supercedes Clark's consideration for the safety of America.

    You are free to take a different view.

    As for slash and burn, Obama attacked Clinton's character.  In his view, she is a liar and she should NEVER be president.

    Clinton attacked Obama's readiness.  In her view, he wasn't ready and could be one day.

    That's the campaign in a nutshell.  Sorry.  

    Campaigns (1.00 / 3) (#195)
    by travc on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:21:07 AM EST
    We could see well enough what sort of WH Bush was going to make from his campaign org: Loyalists and old school GOP RFers.  Effective != good.
    The actual people running Clinton's campaign in a management sense are who I have a problem with.

    What is Wes Clark's role in the actual campaign?  I thought he was a surrogate/supporter and an adviser.
    BTW: I still have my Clark 04 bumper sticker on my car ;)  The next pres really should have him in the cabinet.

    PS: I'm probably over comment limit and whatever else, and generally frustrated at lack of reasonable discussion.  However, your comment actually makes sense so I wanted to respond.


    The Race (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by KC4847 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:45:32 AM EST
    My god.  I've been too busy to pay a lot of attention to the race lately, but today I've been catching up by reading pro/anti Obama comments and pro/anti Hillary comments at various sites. People are way too wrapped up in this.  I admit, I'm slightly pro-Obama now, but voted for Hillary in the CA primary.  To me, neither candidate is perfect, both have problems, and supporters on both sides are guilty of hollering unnecessary insults and slights.  Go to any website and you'll see the most terrible motives ascribed to the tactics and ambitions of either candidate.  Obama is an empty suit who simply cannot win and can't be trusted, plays the race card at every opportunity, and will turn his back on the party by appointing conservatives to the Supreme Court.  Hillary Clinton is power hungry, willing to do and say anything to gain the presidency, and will destroy anyone who gets in her path using the most uncouth and diabolical means.  Honestly, it's bizzarro world out there at this point.

    Whatever the Superdelegates decide, I'm going with, whether Hillary or Obama.  Both of them are good people, qualified candidates, and will be better than four more years of a Republican White House.  If there's anything this primary has shown, each can play hardball when they want, something I appreciate.  We can get into electability arguments, but clearly they are pretty relative--everyone feels their preferred candidate can win.  To me, it's far more important to get a Dem in the White House.  If the Supers choose Hillary, I might be a bit perturbed, but I'll get over it.  I voted for her husband happily, voted for her in the primary, and will do the same again if she's nominated.  Putting McCain in the White House is simply not in the cards for me, especially after the last eight years.  

    If the Supers chose Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by bridget on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:58:32 AM EST
    my faith in the Dem party would be partly restored.

    Whatever the Primary evolved into (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:04:52 AM EST
    The strategies from the beginning were clear.

    In order for Obama to win, they felt they had to attack Clinton's character.  She is a bad person, she should never be president.

    In order for Clinton to win, they had to attack Obama's readiness.  He isn't ready.  He could be one day.


    Agree (none / 0) (#172)
    by KC4847 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:11:50 AM EST
    with you on this one. The primary evolved into what it is now, with blame to go around on both sides.  This is only natural in a close contest that includes two qualified candidates with lots of popular support. Now it's up to the Supers to decide and for the sake of sanity, especially after reading all the garbage that's being thrown around on both sides, I'm going with what they do, no matter the outcome.  People have just gotten way too invested in their candidate, and just seem to want to only see the flaws of the other. Some of the comments I've seen from supporters of both sides are just plain disturbing.

    I'm glad we agree (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:21:20 AM EST
    On what each campaign was about.

    Correction (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by Evie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:12:03 AM EST
    "they" didn't have a one-candidate election. Even if you discount Kucinich, Gravel, etc., Obama took his own name off the ballot.

    And Michigan voters got the message. Loud and clear.

    And Obama reaped the benefit (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Serene1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:17:47 AM EST
    of the same in Iowa so shouldn't Hillary be awarded some extra delegates in Iowa now?

    This is a new one: "sexism-baiting"? (5.00 / 7) (#176)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:19:21 AM EST
    Oh, please, do explain that one.  What in h*ll is "sexism-baiting"?!  

    Did Clinton show too much cleavage or leg for you in those pantsuits?  Or did we wimmen, y'know, ask for it?

    I am so looking forward to the answer on this one.

    I suppose (5.00 / 10) (#178)
    by LoisInCo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:21:26 AM EST
    we should all be grateful that they didn't give Senator Obama more delegates in New Hampshire given the fact that polls said he had more votes.

    The DNC (5.00 / 10) (#182)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:29:39 AM EST
    are now mind readers and psychics of the highest order. They can discern the intentions of all voters who stayed home but clearly meant to vote. I'm sure that'll work really well in the General Election.

    As Tina Floury said, in 2012, maybe they should just forgo any sort of primary and just decide who the nominee should be all on their lonesome.

    And if exit polls were really accurate, John Kerry would currently be running for his second term.


    Hillary Clinton letter (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Amiss on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:34:50 AM EST
    to the RBC is posted at politico, in case anyone is interested.


    Going for a new record? (5.00 / 7) (#194)
    by gandy007 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:19:28 AM EST
    Barely 24 hours here and already 23 1's.  Oops, 24.  You do not have a single rating above a 1.  That is really hard to do.

    Here to make friends and influence people for your candidate. Just a friendly word of advice.  You are doing neither, IMHO.

    In fact you are doing Obama a disservice by reinforcing the sorry impression that many of us have of the run of the mill immature and rude Obama supporter.

    Is your favorite word "hell"?

    You're babbling. (5.00 / 4) (#197)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:23:07 AM EST
    Take it to a place where some one cares. G'night.

    Must be an Obama supporter. (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by Fabian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:46:35 AM EST
    They've got the preaching part down.

    Was over at DK.  Read some diaries on "Hillary supporters".  There was actually one good one, but the others were some flavor of "This is what Hillary supporters are like and why.".  They weren't flattering portraits mostly because they left out one little morsel - Clinton supporters think Clinton is the superior candidate and Obama is the inferior one.  That would go against the narrative that Obama is just plain the best and couldn't possibly be any better.

    So if Obama is the bestest, then anyone who supports the inferior candidate has judgment problems to say the least.  So you see, it's not Obama's fault.  It's not Obama's supporters fault.  It's Hillary's fault for leading Dems astray and it's her supporters fault for following Clinton and not seeing the greatness of Obama.

    I can't even agree to disagree with that.  The framing is false.  Never accept a flawed premise or you've lost already.

    Obama's supporters think he is the best candidate.
    Clinton's supporters think she is the best candidate.  They are all rational, fallible people.

    Any Unity dialog should begin with that premise.  If it doesn't, it's going to fail.

    That Would Be Real Effective (5.00 / 3) (#228)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:44:23 AM EST
    Slapping at people is SOP for the Obama campaign and it does open people's eyes. Just not in the way you want them opened.

    So keep up the good work and you will reap what you sow.

    Nobody ever suggested all MI delegates to HRC (5.00 / 2) (#230)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:50:37 AM EST
    That was never a suggestion. You just make crap up.

    The most equitable solution was to leave the uncommitted delegates as uncommitteds. They are mostly for Obama anyways. In the county conventions Hillary stayed out of their selection. She could have ran a slate of uncommitted delegates but honored the election and didn't.

    If MI democrats were angry at that they could direct that anger at the person who caused the mess, Obama, He pulled his name from the ballot.

    a fair question, though it has been (5.00 / 4) (#235)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:58:42 AM EST
    explained many times before on this site, i shall endeavor to enlighten you.

    What the hell is "a real democrat"?

    a real democrat believes all votes should be counted. a real democrat doesn't waver in their support of woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, and to make her very own reproductive decisions. a real democrat doesn't cry wolf about social security, because they already know the republicans are full of it. a real democrat would never even think of voting to confirm, to the USSC, a judge with justice roberts' history. a real democrat stands firmly for the right of all people to expect equal treatment under the law, regardless of their race, creed, gender or sexual orientation.

    that's for starters.

    the whole point for Obama was to STOP Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#242)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:12:00 AM EST
    from having any valid talking points after Puerto Rico.  If you recalculate the pledged  delegate count the way Clinton supporters wanted  FL and MI done, Obama's lead among pledged delegates would be about 29 right now ihstead of 115.  And, as of Saturday when this stupid decision was made people were expecting a much higher possible turnout in PR which would have given Clinton the popular vote lead no matter how you calculate it.

    Obama's current lead in pledged delegates is 115.  Goving Clinton the other 19 advantage from FL if tey had full votes and it goes down to 96.  Then adjust MI to to give Clinton the 73 votes she earned and put back the other MI to Uncommitted and his lead in pledged delegates end up at 29.

    That would give Clinton a very GOOD argument to make to the super delegates.  Especially if you add in the debacle that is called Texas and consider she won NV and got fewer delegates and that some of the delegates that are now in Obama's column are Edwards delegates from Iowa.

    This all seem clear to me that based on actual votes, this entire primary ended up a TIE.  And now, the supers should be worried about only one thing, who is more electable in Nov.

    So What Did We Learn From All This? (5.00 / 4) (#249)
    by Saul on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:29:45 AM EST
    To me the most important thing I learned is that IMO Obama hoodwinked and bamboozled many voters early on on who he really is and if all the voters had known what they know today about Obama very early on in Dec of 07 we would not be having this conversation today.  Hilary would have swept the nomination by the end April.   It will be to bad that the wrong person will be the nominee and the SD knowing that Hilary is by far the best candidate to win the GE will not have the chutzpah to choose her for fear of political repercussions, for fear from a historical point or just fear of being called racist for not picking Hilary.

    I believe this will be the first time in the nomination process since McGovern, that the nominee with the most PV will not be selected and we know what happen in the McGovern choice.

    I do not think the unity of the party will be easy and the strong feelings in this contest are like I have never seen before.  I hear many saying that the Clinton supporter will get over their loss and will turn their support to Obama.  Well I do not think so.  Not this time.  This contest was too unique.

    A funny quote I heard -- (5.00 / 2) (#252)
    by marianne on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:36:51 AM EST
    on a right-wing call-in show on AM radio (where else?): "I wouldn't vote for Obama if he MARRIED Hillary!"

    Gotta (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:41:36 AM EST
    hand it to those Democrats, they know how to bring people together.  Just give one group twice as many votes as everyone else, then take votes away from women and give them to AAs, and before you know it we'll all be singing Kumbaya and bowing down to The One.  Not.

    Oh, and the idea of demonizing the greatest Democratic hero in living memory--brilliant!  Really got the Republicans on that one.  Yah, the Republicans WOULD NEVER TRASH A PAST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IN A NATIONAL CAMPAIGN. But the Democrats are enlightened equalizers. Bwaaahaaa!

    McCain '08!

    Clinton's fault (5.00 / 1) (#258)
    by melro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:46:32 AM EST
    is not what's wrong with America or the voting process. You just said it all right here: "Most nominating processes are decided long before the end." Exactly. How would you like to be the citizens of America that never, ever get the chance to actually have a choice in the decision of who will be your president?

    You're just afraid because your candidate's bubble is hovering a lot lower these days when all Americans get to finally speak by way of votes.

    Dem Debacle & Bob Wexler (5.00 / 1) (#264)
    by S on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:54:45 AM EST
    the sad thing about the Dem debacle is that the for political gain the Democratic Party has lost the high and moral ground on voters rights, especially after they fought so hard for those same voters rights in Florida in 2000...the Democratic party no longer can claim that mantel...

    ...to redeem itself the Democratic Party will have to change its delegate and caucus system because this primary season completely exposed that, in truth, the votes of the democratic voters do not elect the nominee...the elite insiders of the Democractic party do...

    ...as for Bob Wexler of Florida, an Obama representative...I found him to be his passionate self but to me, he was a tragic figure arguing against himself...as Dana Milbank put it, Bob Wexler pounded the table saying that...

     "no one in the state of Florida has championed voters' rights more than I" and yet,

    when Tina Floutnoy asked him if he would oppose his home state of Florida receiving 100% of their votes and delegates you could see the look of horror and fear in his face and he sat there for those moments with 'the deer in the headlight' look...

    ...Bob Wexler was a man arguing against himself...sad...

    But the GOP did the same thing... (none / 0) (#275)
    by Niffari on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:14:32 AM EST
    So again, why are we the only ones arguing? I'd really love an answer to that. I can't imagine that GOP voters in FL especially are any more cavalier about their voting rights than we are.

    If the GOP (none / 0) (#293)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:32:42 AM EST
    was engaged in the tight primary race the DNC is, there would be an uproar. And the GOP rules are less convoluted that the DNC rules. The GOP has a "winner take all" rule. The candidate that wins the state takes all the delegates. There is no controversy as to who won. Take NV as an example. HRC won in NV but Obama got more delegates. Sorry, not exactly democratic. The DNC needs to clean up its act, pronto.

    Refreshing (1.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Exasperated on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:03:53 AM EST
    It's refreshing to see some of you really working on this, looking at a party perspective.

    I think a good deal of my exasperation has not been focused on you, really, it has been the simple realization of how completely exaggerated the HRC campaign was when it came to BHO.

    The arguments she made really goaded me into thinking during the end of the Iowa campaign that she was going to say things that were not true about Obama and hurt all of the Dems general election campaign hopes.

    Certainly there were some things that came up that were eyebrow raising, interesting campaign tidbits, but when she started saying that he was not qualified to be prez due to outlandishly exaggerated circumstances, exactly something that GOP-ers do, I was shocked, then pissed as the days wore on.

    No one can be prepared to be president was something HRC reflected early on, as she was the almost unchallenged front-runner. and stories and problems arise...

    I thought to myself, just because HRC had LOTS of known problems did not mean there weren't new problems that could pop up for her, as well as OBama.

    Anyway, I was really a Clinton fan for a good part of 2007. But seeing the divisiveness and warlike atitude that HRC's campaign carried...which I at first was inclined to endorse...

    I realized that what I wanted all along during the decades was to be able to work in harmony together. obviously on particular issues I was settled in for the long haul, but since almost all of the candidates were conjoined on those issues, I was interested what type of leader these candidates would be.

    After the Obama win and seeing the old guard Bill delegates sharing the stage with HRC, I was fearful that this  would be the harbinger of old and new.

    Make it so,

    Barkeep (5.00 / 9) (#122)
    by phat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:39:29 AM EST
    I'll have what he's drinking!

    {passes the bottle to phat} (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:11:04 AM EST
    Shameless (1.00 / 1) (#229)
    by Oceandweller on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:46:55 AM EST
    no, just adding facts
    facts are like maths or symptoms
    Iam a doctor
    if a patient has raised glycemia , polyuro-polydipsia etc wheter primary or secondary it is diabetes an not a cold
    if people who call themselves democrats whter in the clinton league or under obama prefer to vote mc cain rather than the one who is nominated at the end
    you cant help having mccain elected and the war and pro-life judges
    truth is shameless facts are facts
    I am not putting blame on obamas or clintons I just remind you of the facts
    you remind me very much of patients arguibg diets andd facts
    carry on eating swzeets and bye bye this toe
    you are adult
    you cant hide from the truth
    BDT I feel quite sure would be telling you the very same thing
    we are in a quagmire
    either it is up to us to bite the bullet and united we stand by the way living in europe has nothing to do with an US passport
    or we prefer to be divided, which after all is Your Choice
    but you have been informed you have signed the waiver and if hell breaks loose and the toe is in the bin dont cry for me ...

    Why no Outcry from GOP Voters in FL? (1.00 / 1) (#260)
    by Niffari on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:48:08 AM EST
    The GOP stripped down their delegates from 114 to 57 in FL. How come then that only Democrats seem outraged. Perhaps someone down in FL can explain why the Democratic primary has become the hotpoint in FL but not the Republican primary.

    As for MI, I can't believe we are arguing over 4 delegates. Does it really matter? This was a totally invalid primary process and defies any definition of legitimate. The fair thing would have been to invalidate the primary on its face. But there may be other options now, especially if Clinton wants to make 4 delegates her big fight at the convention.

    I think the DNC and the state of MI should just fund another primary real quick and set the date for July. That would settle matters, right? I know the legislature killed the plan but if MI voters are so enraged at the split, just pay for another. I hope Granholm makes another run for this idea.

    Either that or Obama should just toss Clinton the 4 out of deference.

    I'll take a shot (5.00 / 1) (#285)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:22:12 AM EST
    The Republicans still got to campaign in FL, so even though the delegate count was halved, most voters did not really feel an impact of that penalty.  They were part of the process, and felt like it.

    The DNC botched every single angle of this issue.


    July won't do it (5.00 / 1) (#289)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:27:14 AM EST
    The ROOLZ say it has to be done by mid-June.  The 15th I believe. Doesn't matter, because it's not going to happen.

    I think it was George Steph woh asked Dean and Roosevelt what rule they used for the MI ruiing, and of course they had none.  They said 'we gave them what they asked for.'  How lame - what they asked for was an early primary - why didn't you just give them what they asked for back in January?  Idiots.

    Glad we're all unified though!!!


    Umm... (none / 0) (#284)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:22:07 AM EST
    because their race isn't close.  

    If the Virgin (none / 0) (#86)
    by LoisInCo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:09:39 AM EST
    Islands had an important vote that could say END WAR IN THE WORLD and the US needed them to vote for the US position, which do YOU think Gore would have picked?

    How to lose an election (none / 0) (#196)
    by Oceandweller on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:21:54 AM EST
    been reading most of the posts and oh boy how depressing it is
    regardless of the whys and how it is now clear the democratic party is split in 2
    because at the end regardles on who is right and who is wrong it seems we have gloriously managed to end up with the same debacle shia-sunni debacle
    clintonians refuse for one second to consider the lesser of 2 evils while obama voters .well do the very same thing
    so the end is clear
    neither will get elected because that is how the story is going
    I may probably sayvery unpleasant facts ; but facts are facts and cant be denied
    whoever is the nominee this year if I am led to believe each camp is bound to get only halves of his/her party votes.
    great for a supposedly inevitable election victory

    so we better brace for McCain no more Roe versus Wade and more deaths in Iraq more pbs with Israel/palestine, more danih embassy bombings etc
    more Rove spins more of all the nightmares
    I am quite glad to be living in Europe as I read all those obama/clinton voters enting out their frustrations and I cant but wonder if my living abroard I can get more easily the bigger picture
     and yes each camp voter is now resorting to pettiness and childish rage

    is it really what you want deep in your heart each and every of you: more Bush more white crosses in arlington
    because that is the likely outcome of those feuds
    you, I vote badly and our sons die
    as simple as that
    sorry guys but this morning, listening at the islamabad bombing I am reminded of the real targets
    and at my age I have learned it is better to swallow willingly the bitter potion because not doing it will only get things worse and having to swallow twice as much

    yes the DNC has been stupid
    yes between you and me Hillary should have gotten her 73 and o HIS 55 AND YES both should have been halved because yes they did not respect the rules as indeed did the republicans way earlier than us
    in my profession when I let a sore to progress I generally have to amputate a limb at the end, I do not like to slice off toes and feet
    but that is what people have to do when ulcers are allowed to go on
    the BRC has been wrong
    but keeping on division is not right
    and a third wrong will not make right those earlier wrongs
    splitting the democrats will not make it better
    we all know how it will end and how it did ended up for nader and perot etc
    do we want to at the end let mccain win
    do we want to see Clinton leaving with enough followers to allow her party to suffer a decisive blow ... but for how long 4-8-12ys at most and then what we all know how those stories end up
    people come back knock on the door and then what most of the time they do not participate anymore firstly because the ones who carried on the sake of the old house do not trust them anymore and secondly because the prodigals sons and daughters are so ashamed they generally stay put yes jesus saud dada
    but humans are not jesus
    the donkey will survive
    you will survive but the soldiers who in the meantime will be dying because of what is no more no less but bruised egos
    they wont be ressucitated...should have wrote how to make oneself ashamed of oneself....

    What Democrats are you talking (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by TheViking on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:26:18 AM EST
    about? My European friend?

    After Saturday -- is there's no Clinton Nom, we are no longer Democrats -- so there, PROBLEM SOLVED!

    And by the way, what the hell do you care? Roe vs Wade extends to Europe now?

    And btw the website's comments programming sucks! After a certain amount of comment posts, ALL the indenting and replys to comments get wiped. Kinda hard to hold a dicussion with that happening.

    'eh what to I care, I'm over it.

    Give my love to Markos Jeralyn! Tell him I say hi!


    Somewhere amid that free verse (5.00 / 4) (#225)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:33:34 AM EST
    if I can follow it, you call longtime Dems the prodigal sons and daughters who ought to be ashamed?  Yet you attempt blackmail with Roe v. Wade and war and more.

    That is divisive and dismissive.  Shame on you.


    Living Abroad (none / 0) (#268)
    by melro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:00:56 AM EST
    I've done the same and yes you do get a totally different picture. But your picture is swayed by the the place where you are living, not American views so to speak, and unless you are an American do not understand.

    We like the fight remember? I'm enjoying this contest to the end. With all the sport's nuts in this country I don't know how we don't get this? For Hillary to concede is unheard of especially when the popular vote is so close. I don't care about the delegates, because most are not following the pledge to follow the popular vote and who is most electable in the first place, and the media consistently fails to inform the public in a big way every time Hillary picks up more delegates, so the average CNN listener has no idea what a contest this is.  

    You've lived abroad too long and forgot this love of contest we have here, and the idea that every voter should have a choice of selection in every primary. I think this should be a standard, not a once in awhile thing like 1968, 1991, and now. More people got to have a choice of candidates for the first time in a long time. Now that's American, and a very good thing.



    too hard to read - no style points (none / 0) (#318)
    by DFLer on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    It seems to me (none / 0) (#216)
    by Kefa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:31:29 AM EST
    The Dems have lost an chance to truly unify for November.

    This is not helpful (none / 0) (#241)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:08:57 AM EST
    If you cannot help unify the party- and it is the obligation of all committed Democrats, including both candidates, to unify the party- please hold your tongue on this issue or vent in a place where it will do less damage.

    Someone must concede (1.00 / 1) (#251)
    by lgm on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:36:35 AM EST
    This extended primary process is damaging the party.  Someone must concede.  The question is who.  Should it be the one who is most likely to win, and already would have won had the rules not been changed after the fact?  Or should it be the one with at best an outside chance?  

    Gasoline or water on the flames? (none / 0) (#276)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:15:05 AM EST
    Yes someone must concede.  Partisans on either side should what is more likely to unify the party and what is more likely to enflame passions  in their posts. That is not a call for self censorship. That is a call for diplomacy, tact and mutual respect.

    What is more likely to get you what you want-  gasoline or water on the flames? Neither side will gain by insulting their opponents.


    Please do ask Obama to concede. Thanks (none / 0) (#277)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:15:56 AM EST
    The Case For Voting For McCain (none / 0) (#253)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:37:57 AM EST
    Sorry in advance for the long post.  

    Understand that I have given this very careful consideration.  Having NEVER voted for a republican presidential nominee, this is not a decision I've made lightly or based on emotion. That's not to say that I am not furious, because I am.  I haven't been this angry since 2000 and it's actually worse this time because the assault has come from the Democratic Party.  That said, here are some things to consider when deciding whether to simply not vote, vote for a 3rd party or write in a name:

     - Anything but a vote for McCain could result in an Obama victory.  It is important that Obama not win for a few reasons.  First, a loss would send the proper message to the DNC.  If Obama squeaks out a win, the DNC will believe that their actions were justified.  Second, he is bad for the long-term success of the Dems (though that matters less and less to me by the hour) because he will be Jimmy Carter 2.0 and look what that did to the party.  Third, and most importantly, an Obama presidency would be bad for the country.  He has proven time and time again that he will shy away from anything too difficult or anything he might not win.  He lacks the strength and fortitude we desperately need in a leader today.  Our country and our economy are in shambles.  We cannot afford to elect an ineffectual leader.

     - McCain is a moderate with a history of working with Democrats.  Electing a moderate is something that any reasonable person should all be able to embrace.  Extremism is offensive regardless of which side of the political fence on which you sit.  It will send an even more important message to the RNC than the one we would send to the DNC:  No More Bible-Thumping Candidates.  If McCain loses this election, the RNC will undoubtedly swing way back to the far right.  This is not good for our country in the long run because, if we've learned anything about the Republicans, they know how to win elections.

     - McCain is not a warmonger.  He has a healthy respect for and knowledge of the military.  He has a child currently serving in the military.  He wants to end this war as badly as anyone else, but I believe he would do it the right way.  Obama and HRC have both said they will listen to military leaders and begin withdrawing troops immediately.  I think this will be the first broken campaign promise - not because they don't mean it, but because it's impractical.  I would trust McCain to end the war in an effective manner over Obama any day of the week.

    The nomination of McCain was the greatest gift the Republicans could have ever given us.  If they had nominated any other candidate, I could never consider voting Republican.  

    Please don't throw the SCOTUS argument at me.  HRC has taught me a lot over the past several months - one lesson was to refuse to be pressured into doing what I feel is the right thing.  I will take my chances with SCOTUS.  I'm kind of a proponent of states' rights, anyway.    

    I totally agree about McCain (none / 0) (#278)
    by marianne on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:16:34 AM EST
    My family of Democrats lived in Phoenix for a few years, recently, and we were all impressed with the bipartisanship in the governance of Arizona -- particularly that shown by both (D) Gov. Napolitano and (R) Sen. McCain. Despite what we have heard these last months, John McCain is NO partisan demon.

    On the other hand, I have believed, since the rapid onset of Obama and his ensuing -mania, that this new Dem presidential candidate represents no more, no less than a spoiler, an affable and dynamic anti-Clinton candidate, albeit one with uncertain foundations and perhaps yet undiscovered means of support.

    Maybe my own Boomer cynicism in this regard stems from the sense that American life lately has trended toward diminishing returns from our efforts, in so many different areas of this culture! and quite visibly in the politics of our elected officials. Not to mention the disturbing falloff in the quality and diversity of America's public discourse.

    Anyway, this November I'll bet on "change" via the known entity. My vote WILL go to Clinton, if she remains viable in ANY incarnation. Failing that, I will find a way, any way, to vote against the new, improved and anti-Clinton Democratic candidate.


    McCain is no moderate (none / 0) (#282)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:21:39 AM EST
    Time for the bartender to cut you off. McCain is not a moderate.

    As for the rest of this Ralph Nader couldn't have said it better.

    How about considering what Hillary said?

    Hillary Clinton on Wednesday reiterated her vow to stay in the Democratic presidential race, but she said it would be a "terrible mistake" for her supporters to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama.

    "Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room."

    "I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama

    If you share Hillary's values, you will not vote McCain.


    Pols sometimes say what they have to say (none / 0) (#299)
    by marianne on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:49:08 AM EST
    and I think that's why Clinton is assuring her fallback support for the O-man.

    I'm not giving up on Clinton yet, because I think she will rise like a phoenix, BUT if the powers that be in my party this year absolutely preclude me from voting for her and she seeks no alternative framework in which to run, I will absolutely give up my vote this time.

    As others have expressed here, Dems in the new Congress will certainly be a countervailing influence to any  untoward action by a Republican president, and our longterm election prospects may look better with an '08 victory for McCain rather than the man I consider the 'wild card' alternative.


    Before this fall (none / 0) (#303)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:54:41 AM EST
    reconsider this:

    As others have expressed here, Dems in the new Congress will certainly be a countervailing influence to any  untoward action by a Republican president,

    Because that will not happen, at least not with the court. Review the Roberts nomination. Compare it to the Bork nomination. Which model do you think McCain would follow?


    I (none / 0) (#280)
    by melro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:19:45 AM EST
    If the SD's don't have a clue, and Hillary doesn't get the nomination, here are reasons to vote for Obama:

    You get to go on every blogsite you've visited and paste: "TOLD YOU SO!" when Obama doesn't deliver.

    Obama's failing to come through on most of his big CHANGE ideas will teach the younger crowd who backed him about ideologies and the real world of politics.

    The Democratic party will have egg on their face when their "Chosen One" doesn't come through even though Hillary supporters did help him get elected after all.

    Since Obama is going to need an awfully lot of help, we still need to vote other Dems on the ballot into congress. The more the better because Obama will need them desperately.  

    If we don't vote, it will all be blamed on us and Hillary. That's already started.

    If we don't vote, we'll have another mini-Bush to deal with and that's not currently going well  even with a Dem congress.

    The wealthy already rule. They just haven't put their crowns on yet. Putting another Repug in office will have them polishing those crowns in front of us.

    Another Repug in the White House and everyone in middle class America and lower will be reduced to the 1/2 vote status relative to the slavery vote, because that is what we'll be--slaves.

    I will gag to put my pencil mark by his name, but I refuse to be blamed for his ineptitude. I want Obama to have full responsibility for his losses.

    Lastly, by the miracle of God, and that's what it will take, Obama might come through with a whole lot of help from Congress! A much better scenario than anything McCain offers.  

    Marc Lynch (none / 0) (#309)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:36:52 AM EST
    is an Obama supporter. HMMMMM.

    I stopped reading your blather (none / 0) (#311)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:58:49 AM EST
    as soon as I got to the deliberate lies you spout about her work on healthcare. talk about strawmen. here's a hint:  length of post not correlated with insight of post.

    J. Roosevelt is Eleanor's grandson too (none / 0) (#292)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:31:08 AM EST
    Many people in the hearing mentioned that James Roosevelt is FDR's grandson. You would think, that under the circumstances with a former First Lady running for president, and sexism being a key issue in this campaign, that someone would have seen fit to mention that James Roosevelt is also Eleanor's grandson.  

    If anyone did, I missed it. I did not see the whole thing, so that is possible.  Please correct me if so, so I will feel better!

    BTW - I know it is a very minor, petty point (none / 0) (#302)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:54:23 AM EST
    But it was the only thing left that has not been said.

    Gee, I remember my x-husband saying the same (none / 0) (#298)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:43:21 AM EST
    because someone needs to slap you  and get you to open your eyes
    The someone was him.

    As for Ted, I hope his operation goes well today and he recovers and lives a long and happy life. But, he not only likes Obama, he is one of the people responsible for Obama being there and only because he hates Hillary. So Ted has lost a lot of luster in my eyes. Maybe he isn't a real Democrat anymore if he is more for causing division than unification. Look at the source of this problem. We had a front runner. They choose to challenge for their own egos.

    You are preaching (none / 0) (#300)
    by themomcat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:52:02 AM EST
    to the wrong congregation.

    Hillary would have been a great president (none / 0) (#319)
    by Foxx on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:38:01 AM EST
    Obama would be at best a mediocre one. And that is the bottom line for me. It is clear that the dem "leadership" does not want a great president. That would disturb their comfortable little worlds.

    This is an immense tragedy. An incomparable loss.

    Ok who saw that goof Dean on ABC GS show (none / 0) (#320)
    by Salt on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:40:17 PM EST
    and his expression of his belated concern about sexism and his view of why women are offended, of course the DNC fraud the total lack of common sense and ridicules delegate distribution process called will and the seemly Rulz committee were of course not the problem, and oh yeah, its Hillary who must heal the wounds it's the losers job to fix the wounds and he actually referenced himself as an example of someone who did that of all things.  I really do not understand how anyone can now remain a Dem, being left ideologically, centrist, moderate conservative I get that, but aligned due paying members of either Party I can not now imagine why people would enable this assault on our governance form these organizations, I really don't how's that saying go, STUPID is Forever, and between the rules committee, Dean and what DB's mama told her there is no longer a glimmer of doubt that the Party has a forever affliction.

    To Blue Sun (none / 0) (#321)
    by melro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:32:54 PM EST
    Listen to the Hillary campaign? Until I found this blogsite, I quit listening to most of the dog and pony show on the media.

    I listened to all the candidates early on. I distinctly remember Obama's big gaffs like switching the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. That's not bringing them home! I saw him advocate a single payer health care system then deny it. I read the article in the NY Times about Obama telling Iowans he was glad he passed a nuclear bill relative to safety. The bill never passed. It was waylaid by the Repugs, watered down and died. I remember a very reluctant Obama that really didn't want to run for president yet. He knows he's inexperienced. I read the U.S. govt. website on how many times each and every senator voted in Congress, and that Obama has failed to vote far too many times compared to his peers and especially Hillary. I also read and heard more than once that Obama is known as a radical in congress. He writes bills that will never pass.

    What this shows me is that Obama is well aware of his shortcomings. He was a tentative candidate from the beginning. His record for voting, where he represents his constituents is poor compared to other senators, so relying on him may not be so smart. He flip flops and lies about it. He has a tendency to overinflate what he has actually accomplished. And that if he doesn't know the ropes well enough he can easily get sidelined by very crafty Repugs, like that nuclear bill. You know he's pro-nuclear now, got a donation? HMMM.

    I did my own homework.

    Just checked my email (none / 0) (#322)
    by melro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:47:49 PM EST
    and Hillary's campaign stated: "Every vote we receive in South Dakota and Montana will help us add to our popular vote total. Every vote helps us make our case that I am our party's strongest candidate in November.

    Nearly 18 million people have stood with us -- the most votes cast for a candidate in the history of presidential primaries in either party. We've defied the skeptics and answered an important question: Which candidate best represents the will of the people?"

    But on Yahoo's home page where I pick up my mail it says "Obama nears win amid signs Clinton may admit loss."

    Who you gonna believe?