Late Night: Wait For Me

What Hillary can't say Saturday, but I wish she would:

And I'll fight for the right to go over that hill
I will not be persuaded
I wont be still
...I'll be around
If you'll wait for me

This is an open thread.

Comments now closed.

< Today's Crime Postings | Off to Aspen for NORML Drug Law Seminar >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • I wish she would too (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:16:09 PM EST
    It breaks me heart that they won't let her. I really wanted a floor fight and for the will of the people to win out. Sadly, it is not meant to be.


    Hillary, stay in it to win it! (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:32:27 AM EST
    The VP slot is political suicide for Hillary. It's the top of the ticket or nothing (for now).

    So, let's say she declines the VP slot and we're left with Obama and whomever. We have a ticket headed by an inexperienced candidate with an army of unsavory associates and a highly obfuscated personal history.

    In all probability, a lot more politically catastrophic Obama baggage will surface before the convention. In that event, we will need Hillary to come in and get herself elected to the top of the ticket in Denver.

    On the other hand, if Obama makes it to the convention and emerges as the Presidential nominee, he is in for a career-ending, inevitable, late October surprise. This is a foreseeable outcome and no VP can save him from that fate, not even Hillary. In fact, any person who is running as his VP will have exhibited their own form of "bone-headed" judgment and doomed his/her own political future.

    Bottom line: if Obama is the nominee he will be toast before November. He will lose and his VP will go down with him. That person should not be Hillary.

    If Hillary is not the nominee in 2008, we need her to stay viable for 2012.


    See this at Riverdaugher's website (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Fredster on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:55:29 AM EST

    I have no idea who the poster is, but it sounds logical to me about how the DNC/RBC did what they did.  I just don't think they've realized how many of the *older* votes they have ticked off.


    Oh %#@$#@! (none / 0) (#195)
    by Fredster on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:57:15 AM EST
    The comment is by CB at 9:21 p.m.

    I have friends at high (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:30:17 AM EST
    levels in Washington

    And unfortunately, that sounds like how the parties would handle it.

    More voters, more money.  Who cares about anything else?  It's like making sales for the corporation.  

    Disgusting but true.    


    She'll run again (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by nellre on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:21:43 PM EST
    4 to 8 years... I'll wait

    I have to wonder why we don't wait to hear (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:53:51 AM EST
    what she has to say before the death knell...last I heard, she was suspending and keeping her delegates.  I sincerely hope that is true!!  She can go onto the convention.  My guess is that obama will not be looking too hot come August.  



    8 years! (none / 0) (#29)
    by sociallybanned on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:45:07 PM EST
    I don't think so.  4 years is much better.  Depending on the elected President there will be so much BS to clean from this current administration, nothing will get done but just wiping the smeared crap up from the floor.

    Heck (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:22:16 PM EST
    I'll wait for her even after she doesn't say it.  2012 it is.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Esme on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:23:39 PM EST
    One day, we will have the pleasure of referring to her as Madame President =)

    Statistically speaking (none / 0) (#18)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:40:30 PM EST
    She's got until 82 years before she hits the average life expectancy of a caucasian woman. 22 years! That's almost three double-term administrations!

    Barack, however, has until 70 to make his dream a reality.

    Strangely enough, both Hillary and Barack have about the same amount of years left before hitting the expectancy wall: 22-23.

    Stay away from Bubba's snack box, Hillary, and you'll be President sooner or later. There is no hurry.


    Hillary / Chelsea 2016 (none / 0) (#57)
    by jerry on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:57:08 PM EST
    Personally, I think you're smoking something, but you do raise the prospect of a Clinton Clinton 2016 ticket, so I'll give that to you. :)

    NYT is reporting (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by masslib on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:24:19 PM EST
    the meeting was at Hillary's behest, and at her home.  They issued a joint statement about having a productive meeting about this fall or something.  So, sadly, sounds like he's not planning on selecting her.  So, I'm back to write-in.  Ah well.

    Well, I think he wants (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Esme on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:30:52 PM EST
    to let everyone stew for awhile. He's making such a big deal about how it's his decision alone to make, so I think even if he does choose her, he's going to keep us all waiting.

    NYT is also mentioning Webb as a favourite for VP. What a slap in the face to all women if he is chosen.


    I think Webb has reformed (none / 0) (#15)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:37:48 PM EST
    quite a bit since Tailhook, hasn't he?

    Webb remains sexist, it seems (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by BoGardiner on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:10:38 AM EST
    It would indeed be a slap in our faces.

    I say this as someone who campaigned hard for Webb, given the alternative was George "Macaca" Allen.

    But if you read Webb's apologies, they were nominal and insincere.  For what it's worth, given that it's now third-hand, a friend of a friend sat next to Webb at a dinner party last year.  She was a rising star in a military academy.  He was an ass to her and replayed his arguments as to why women didn't belong in the military.  The host, a high-ranking military officer, took the woman aside to apologize to her for Webb's rudeness.  The source of this story was a fellow Webb campaigner, so was not inclined to trash him unnecessarily.  She was saddened by her friend's tale.

    I'm content with him as our senator in Virginia, but I would be insulted at his selection as VP.  To give Webb credit, he's remained his own man and stayed neutral during the primary, refusing to jump on the Obama bandwagaon.


    Webb's a pig (none / 0) (#137)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:51:02 AM EST
    Ask any woman at the Naval Academy who worked there when Webb worked there, for the one semester, before he quit.  Webb doesn't play well with others, but he REALLY doesn't play well with women.  He has zero respect for women.   Ask his 3 ex wives.  Webb is an arrogant jerk.  We don't need two arrogant men on our ticket!  

    PLUS, Jim Webb won the Senate by TWO votes per precinct.  He'll never carry VA for democrats.  

    If Obama is going to choose someone from VA, it should be Mark Warner.  He's MUCH more popular in Virginia, much better looking,and MUCH nicer person too.  


    I've heard he's polling (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:40:54 PM EST
    that's why he's not deciding right away. He wants to see whether she would push him to victory or have a deterrent effect.

    Not sure this means all that much (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:32:04 PM EST
    I just happened to catch him saying (on Tues night, maybe) that he wanted to meet with Clinton at the time and place of her choosing because they had a lot to discuss.  I don't remember exactly what he said.  I think it was something about meeting at a place where she'd feel comfortable or something.  (it sounded better than that, and I'm definitely harsh on how he says things).

    So I read nothing into the 'at her bequest' part.  And there's no way he'd offer her VP this quickly regardless.  I don't think he'll offer at all, and I still won't vote for him, but I really don't think there's all that much meaning in this.


    Right (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:52:44 AM EST
    He's meeting with Hillary to tell her she has to tell her supporters tomorrow to get behind his campaign.  He wants her to make sure her supporters start sending him money, and campaigning for him.  

    Yeah right.... (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:00:10 AM EST
    I'll get behind his campaign all right...

    I'll be so far behind it, he'll have to send the Canadian Mounties out to look for me...

    But I'll be behind it.  


    Don't worry. (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:32:17 PM EST
    Honestly, I think VP is beneath her.  I have said this before.  I don't think she'd want it at all, but she'll do it for her country, and for the good of the party.

    I, for one, would be happy for her not to be VP.

    It's sad.  I keep thinking back to 1992, when three good, brilliant people burst into the scene: Bill, Al, and Hillary.  The three have been vilified by the media especially, with the occasional help of the democratic party.  So far, they have been proved right at the end.


    I know. But I want to vote (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by masslib on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:35:17 PM EST
    for her in the fall, and I want it to count.

    This fall. Might indicate (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by andrys on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:37:14 AM EST
    ... that she did not want to give up her delegates at the Convention in August.

      That she doesn't want to do a full endorsement that would mean giving up her delegates before then.

      Full-tilt stumping for him AFTER August (if he remains the nominee after so many continuing "This is not the person I knew" statements).  Wouldn't that make sense?


    It might be a talk about Health Care Plans (none / 0) (#34)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:47:30 PM EST
    If she manages to convince him to use her plan, I will flip out. THAT might convince me to vote for him more than anything else she could say. For me that's paramount, and it would solve a lot of problems nationwide.

    1. Lower health care payments
    2. Less safety restrictions on private property? - imagine how much more fun kid's playgrounds will be once people stop suing so much to pay for uninsured children. Have you SEEN Germany's playgrounds? FUN.
    3. More money to pay for other things; this would stimulate the economy better than a tax cut.

    Etc etc Yeah it's not a cureall but it's headed towards the light.

    I don't see that happening (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:01:08 AM EST
    Obama made such a bid deal about how volunteer was better than mandate. In fact he got pretty close to saying a real universal health care system (i.e., mandate driven) was evil. This would turn everything he said about that on it's head. No, I don't think he can politically afford to offer real universal health care.

    That's what really p!ssed me off about (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:20:39 AM EST
    the Harry and Louise ads he ran. And his followers all thought it was fine from what I gathered. I saw way too many defending his actions. I honestly couldn't believe they went there . . .

    universal = mandates? (none / 0) (#183)
    by travc on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:42:11 AM EST
    I'm right with you on hoping Obama adopts more of her plan... but neither her's nor Obama's is Universal Healthcare.  I'm hoping to see single payer with really universal coverage payed out of general (progressive) tax revenues, not some 'you have to buy into one of these bazillion different private healthcare plans or else'.

    Not going to happen in one giant step, but maybe in my lifetime we'll get there.


    to me (none / 0) (#207)
    by boredmpa on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:32:48 AM EST
    universal has to provide complete coverage (not some arbitrary deductible, and must include dental) and has to be portable.

    In san francisco, I'm covered for free for healthcare while underemployed (i start a new job mon) BUT the SF health plan isn't serviced by private clinics and doesn't support dental.  So there are two tiers of care, and thus two standards of care, and two environments to navigate.  The only way coverage will be adequate, cost-effective, and equitable, is if people can go anywhere and the low-income clinics are thus not so resource/budget constrained.

    For the record, CA's cost-saving single payer plan covers dental and vision.  And is cheaper than the current insurance-industry-based system.

    It makes no sense to me to have a risk-pool privatized with 20% overhead/marketing when you're covering everyone anyway...


    Let her know in the comments here (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:24:48 PM EST
    And I'll send the thread on to her campaign. She knows TalkLeft readers love her and very much appreciates you all.

    I read so many different terms (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:39:43 PM EST
    -- suspending, conceding, etc. -- and her campaign's announcement is that Clinton will be "expressing support" for Obama on Saturday.

    That is being reported as "endorsing" -- but if so, why doesn't it say so?  And is she conceding or is she simply suspending, so hanging onto her delegates?

    I hope that she hangs onto her delegates as leverage, at least for her issues (and in the event that there is reason to revive her run).  I really hope that she leverages a credentials committee challenge to the rules and bylaws committee ruling, at least that it never happen again in future.

    And I really hope that her name is put in nomination for president.  It's a common courtesy -- to candidates and supporters -- but the ingrate Dems became such a discourteous party toward anything Clinton.  So does anyone know just what is ahead, is she hanging onto her delegates, etc.?  Media reports are so muddled, no surprise.  Or is Hillary having her fun again, not quite making clear to the media circus what she will do on Saturday to put them through hoops again?

    (That was great that she did so Tuesday, after their all-day hatefest on her.  I am so tired of reading since that it was "ungracious," etc., of her to do.  D**n it, it was her South Dakota victory night, it was possibly her last night -- and the One could have waited one more day.)


    The media has no idea what they are (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:51:14 PM EST
    talking about. They just can't stop themselves from that sick habit they've fallen into of trying to direct and create reality.

    Hillary gave them such a great run for the money on Tuesday, and they won't give up on reporting their greatest dream....that she will withdraw. They prefer she concede and give up her delegates, so they are all over the place with how they are describing what we can all expect.

    Note that they parked themselves outside the Clinton home in D.C. all evening because the meeting was taking place inside. Not sure how they discovered the meeting was actually going on at Feinstein's house.

    After all we watched during the campaign, the media reporting that this grand gesture of respect in Obama going to her was to show his best side.

    Personally, I think he wanted her best fund raisers, and her list of biggest contributors and knew better than to ask her to come to him when he was going to be the only beneficiary of the topics he wanted to discuss.

    I also think he wanted to get her to pnky swear  that on Saturday she really was going to say she believed his was the presumptive nominee.


    I think you have cagily called it (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:11:11 AM EST
    correctly that this is about strongarming her for her lists, under the guise of the nice guy coming calling on the grrl.  Uh huh -- I just read that he only agreed to come based on "preconditions," including that she not be allowed to raise the issue of the vice-presidency.  I suspect that may have caused her camp to engender the news release today that she is not seeking the position, thankyouverymuch and justtrytowinwithoutme.

    But I gather you also have the sense that despite the media attempting to make the news, she has not said that she is conceding and could hold onto her delegates?  Good, if so -- and I would think so, as she knows how to hold onto leverage and power.


    The ones who (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Jane in CA on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:24:30 AM EST
    haven't already deserted her, you mean.  Maxine Waters and Barbara Boxer both received emails from me today that made it very clear what I thought of their flip-flopping.

    It's too bad -- in January, I saw Waters as a potential future national figure. I think I was more horrified by her defection than anything else.

    Barbara Boxer has been nothing but a huge disappointment throughout this entire primary.  What a waste of votes she has been for me. She is so clearly not leader material. I wish she could be dislodged in 2010.


    We knew what to expect (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:36:04 AM EST
    from Boxer after the 2006 campaign and Lieberman.  

    I was disappointed in Charlie Rangel too.  In fact, all of them who expressed their dismay that she did not concede Tuesday night are a bunch of a$$e$ in my book.  There was no need for them to show her the disrespect of not allowing her to even have a day or two to gather her thoughts.  I don't think I will ever think the same of the Democratic party again.


    And on her mother's birthday, too (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by Davidson on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:38:58 AM EST
    Stay classy, Democrats.

    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:57:05 AM EST
    I loved Hillary's speech tuesday night.  It was strong and upbeat and she looked so like the real winner in all this.  Then I began to read the criticims and thought, how could I be so "wrong?"  Well, I was not. There is no way that she said anything that could be perceived as negative toward Obama or his campign.  The fact that she sounded and looked so strong made him look weak, by comparison. It is what it is. She is the stronger candidate.    

    Her speech was great (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:46:53 AM EST
    I was happy the whole next day, even though I never thought she'd really take it to the convention floor.  In fact, the only election-related day I was ever happier was the day after Bill won in 92.

    It was just brilliant.  Goodness knows the Dems have given me enough experience with losing to know what it is to be part of a demoralized post-concession crowd, and that wasn't it.  She made very clear that neither she nor we had been defeated.

    As for all those maroons complaining about how she ruined his big night, well, all the heads exploding in the media-blog-blovo-sphere just made me laugh.  And not a bitter guns & religion & weak just-you-wait kind of laugh, but a happy, ok kids, settle down now and get ready for bed kind of laugh.  I think the massive sore winner syndrome was severe cognitive dissonance.  They finally beat the b*tch, but ... psych!  They didn't.  


    I hadn't heard Boxer flipped :( (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:53:52 AM EST
    so she's up again in 2010, eh? heh, I may just be a CA resident again by then . . . .

    I hadn't either (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:21:54 AM EST
    but they'reall here.

    But she and Mondale flipped. I'm shocked that Frank Lautenberg also went for Obama. Guess who won't be getting any money from me for his Senate race now.

    There's a lame explanation here explaining Boxer's move with claims that they are all "neutral" (yeah, right) and the same 'unity' b.s.  

    I've just taken myself off Boxer's email list and will tell her to go screw herself when she asks me for money again.


    So his preconditions were in exchange for (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:30:21 AM EST
    him allowing her to choose the time and place :)

    Only the media has pushed this "I demand to be VP" story. The people close to her deny it.

    Notice that she chose a place where she could have a fair witness to events and discussions. My immediate thought was that she is so sick of false reports coming from his campaign that she needed to keep him honest by having Diane Feinstein, a top row respected Senator, to back her up, should it be necessary.

    I don't honestly believe that Obama is as "nice" in private as he tries to portray publicly. She knows if that is true. The last time he pulled her aside it ended up benefitting him, and only him.


    I hope (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:57:22 AM EST
    she gives him old lists.  

    Honestly.  Play dirty.  All the men do.  Why should women be so freakin' honest?  


    Please don't be sexist (none / 0) (#185)
    by travc on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:45:38 AM EST
    It really isn't helpful

    I think Geraldine (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:37:09 AM EST
    Ferraro should go teach Rhandi some manners. Lord knows no one could teach her any sense.

    As Far As I'm Concerned, It Is Up (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:37:20 AM EST
    to Obama to prove that he is likeable enough.

    Meet me in Missouri? ;-) (none / 0) (#189)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:53:25 AM EST
    obama has systematically tried to rain on (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:45:12 AM EST
    her parade everytime she has won lately; so who's kidding whom?

    Jeralyn, please tell her (5.00 / 9) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:45:18 PM EST
    we want to know what we should do to take our party back.

    Like a lot of people here at TL and around the country, I'm on the horns of a major dillemma.  To vote for Obama means to tacitly support the crap the party has been dealing out, including the thing that Emma posted in another thread about how the party people told Hillary they were more interested in all those shiny new voters and dollars than in winning the presidency.

    18 million of us can play that game, and many will, that we'd rather see a house-cleaning in the party than win the White House.

    I understand why she wouldn't even consider a third-party or independent run, but I'm at a loss to know what to do other than to cancel my Dem. Party membership, which I've done, and either vote for McCain or blank the presidential line in November.

    She has a movement behind her now, less visible but potentially as powerful as Obama's.  Will she just let it dissipate in order not to challenge Obama?

    Hillary, HELP!


    That's good (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:52:49 PM EST
    to know.  I am upset though that she has given my name to the Obama campaign.  How did Obama's campaign figure out to send me emails about GLBT issues?  Hispanic issues?  I got a mailer from the DNC and summarily shredded it to pieces.

    She has to know that some of her supporters are going to be quite upset about getting communications from the Obama campaign, as some of us are seeking other candidates to support in the GE.


    He may have gotten it (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by LoisInCo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:57:36 PM EST
    from the DNC. I haven't gotten any emails from him yet.

    I wouldn't be so sure (none / 0) (#72)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:03:23 AM EST
    her campaign is responsible.  I have not received any emails.  I did receive a request for a donation by regular mail but imagine they got my address from the DNC or Claire McCaskill.  There are plenty of ways that campaigns gather information.  

    I have not received any Obama emails either (none / 0) (#149)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:59:28 AM EST
    Hope I never do.  

    I have not received any Obama emails either (none / 0) (#150)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:00:04 AM EST
    Hope I never do.  

    And I hope you took those shredded (none / 0) (#130)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:46:29 AM EST
    mailers and mailed them back to the DNC...

    I have not recieved any specific emails (none / 0) (#156)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:05:55 AM EST
    from either campaign aside from the basics. I signed up for Obama's so I could compare tone and message and hers well, that's a given ;) I also have only gotten mail from her campaign and it has also just been "general", non specific as far as demographic issues go.

    All I have to say is (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Nadai on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:55:23 PM EST
    Please let your pledged delegates vote for you.  They deserve the chance to vote for a woman, for once in this country's history.  That chance will not come again in my lifetime.

    I really like your idea. It would (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:14:29 AM EST
    be wonderful if Clinton held onto her delegates.  Afterall, Obama doesn't need them.  And it would be a terrific event to hear them voting for Clinton on the first ballot.

    YES! I'm on board with this also (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:24:47 AM EST
    Not just voting for a woman, but voting for "that" woman, lol!~ The one and only, who would be the best president. Senator Clinton :)

    Yes, Yes, Yes!!! (none / 0) (#153)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:01:02 AM EST
    It's a historical moment (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:18:46 AM EST
    for women too.  Take it the convention floor.  Let them vote for a woman.

    I am disappointed the most qualified candidate, in I don't know how long, is not on top of the ticket.

    This year I decided I wasn't holding my nose to vote for anyone, so if VP is offered and it is something you would choose... I would vote for a joint ticket.

    I will be following your work whatever you choose as I have come to admire how you stand up to whatever is thrown at you.  It was amazing to watch you and I was proud to help in my small way.


    If Jerry Brown could take his loser butt to (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:48:08 AM EST
    the convention with 600+ delegates, I sure don't see why Hillary can't do the same?  Those that have been trying to push her out for months, can go to He!!.

    And please let Clinton know that (5.00 / 6) (#118)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:27:28 AM EST
    hanging onto her delegates for leverage to try to do something about the corruption in the party, the rules and bylaws committee rulings, by her taking an appeal (or states doing so, if technically needed) to the credential committee and challenging the rulings is crucial to the future of the party.  

    But as you know, many of us lifelong Dems have had to leave the party because we cannot countenance and support such corruption.  She appears to be the only one who sees the need and can push for this to be fixed -- and she cares so much about the party.

    But above all, she should do whatever she darn well wants and decides to do.  I hope that she, Bill, and Chelsea head for a beach, unplug the cell phones, and just sit back so that she can get back that great chuckle of hers.  I hope to hear it again and again in the great future she has ahead of her for making history yet again.

    She knows history so well that I hope she knows that she has been a central figure in courses ushc as mine for years.  She has been an inspiration to hundreds of my students alone.  And she would so enjoy reading what they write about her and how they applaud my PowerPoints of her -- from Wellesley to the White House, or with her mother and daughter, or with all the male candidates at the start of the campaign, a sight not seen before -- and they are so moved by seeing a videostream of her Beijing speech.  So I am looking forward to the fun work of revising next year's lectures yet again, updating to keep up with the remarkable career of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  And I've got a lot of years left in me, too, to keep revising.


    Am definitely waiting...for 2008 (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by andrys on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:01:01 AM EST
    There is so much going on that August 25 is actually quite far away in that I suspect more disclosures that don't quite go with Obama's image of being above politics, will come out and the mainstream Republicans and Independents just will not be comfortable with all of that in a President.  

      Hillary did get the popular vote, and the pushing of superdelegates to pop for Obama BEFORE primaries were completed was meant to MASK her winning yet another state that had been predicted for him AND to mask the FACT that by actual count of votes received in their names, including caucus estimates that were calculated favoring Obama, she won the Total Popular Vote.  While Mark Penn erred in the caucus strategies (or lack of them, though her segments normally can't get to hours of caucasing at few sites) and Obama erred in removing his name from the Mich ballot for strategic reasons.  He will have to take the responsibility for that, and state-certified votes are what counts in the popular vote.

      THAT's why she was not going to 'concede' that night.  The supporters needed to enjoy her OWN Historic victory that night, even if the DNC was set on ignoring it.

      Their belittlement of her efforts and accomplishments, especially from March onward, and their insanely unethical actions in the Saturday RBC meeting, are things I really cannot forgive them for because it is the exact opposite of what the Democrat party had ever meant.  And the antithesis of the meaning of democracy.

      Until I see better from Obama (the DNC cannot redeem itself but I will still vote lower Dem ticket to protect us from McCain's lesser impulses), I am still waiting to see as presidential nominee the candidate who had it all, for those who need someone to fight for us on the issues she has long thought about and could give all kinds of ideas about because they are what she has been dwelling on, and with no need to direct us to her website to see what her policies are.
      She knows every detail of the problems and the various approaches that can be taken.  She has the energy, the enthusiasm, the interest.  She really is The One for 2008.

      She is just the person long on experience and desire to fix the problems for so many people.  The obvious thing is that she cares, and has for a long time, and it really shows.

      That's why she got so many votes after March, when she finally showed us herself rather than Penn's image of what he thought was needed.  It was a surprise to me and a delight and also a great Hope.  That's still there.

      And I am still hopeful for August and for this country.


    You can tell her that (4.50 / 2) (#16)
    by namekarB on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:38:25 PM EST
    we all admire her. However, Obama is going to be the nominee and I cannot sit by and let the Republicans take the White House again.

    Hillary shattered the ultimate glass ceiling even in her loss. I think the future is bright and many more women will be encouraged to run for office. It is all because of her. No she did not win but she did show that a woman can win.

    We must keep our eye on the prize, the November election. That is what this is all about.


    Democratic Party Loyalty Oath (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by FemB4dem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:26:16 PM EST
    Please bear with me, I'm new at this.  I posted this comment in an earlier thread and am re-posting it here in the hope someone knows the answer to my question.  Thanks:

    Since this is something of an open thread, I have a question I hope one of you can answer.  I am a longtime reader, but this is my first comment.

    I wanted to stand for election as a delegate for Hillary at my county caucus in Montana this evening, with the idea that maybe I could become a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and support Hillary through to the very end of what has been a truly eye-opening and disillusioning process.  So, I jumped through all the hoops to do so, and then gave up at the last one:  in order to stand for election I was required to sign what seems to me to be the kissing cousin of a loyalty oath.  Among other things, I had to "pledge that, if elected, I will not publicly support or campaign for any other candidate for President or Vice-President other than the nominess of the Democratic National Convention."

    Well, like many of you, I have decided I cannot support Senator Obama and may decide to publicly support Senator McCain or the candidate of another party (Bob Barr, for instance).  So, because I do not sign pledges lightly, I was prohibited from becoming a delegate for Hillary.  The more I thought about this, I realized I probably could not even have signed this if Hillary had prevailed.  Who can ever know for certain whether at some point their candidate might do something so awful they would feel duty bound to support another candidate?

    Anyway, I was wondering if any of you know whether this is a DNC requirement, or something that the Montana Democratic Party concocted? I am at heart a longtime ACLU Democrat wondering who hijacked my party.  Thanks for listening, and thanks to Jeralyn and BTD for such a great site -- it truly has been an oasis of sanity.  

    you could sign with the intent to support (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:33:32 PM EST
    especially Hillary. But then if she is not the nominee, you could withdraw as a delegate. And then support whoever you want.

    I don't know, (none / 0) (#20)
    by FemB4dem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:40:52 PM EST
    the pledge says "if elected," I'm not sure that leaves wiggle room to later resign. I just wasn't comfortable signing the thing.  What I want to know is if this is a DNC requirement, and is something new, or if it's something I need to take up with my local party.  I find the concept troubling.  

    Call Hillary's campaign... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:45:06 PM EST
    ...and ask them. I know they have folks helping with the pledged-delegate process; maybe someone else here has additional contact info but if not, just call HQ and ask for someone.

    I don't know the answer (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:53:27 PM EST
    to your question, but I do think it is not unreasonable to ask people who want to be delegates to the national convention to commit to supporting the party's nominee.

    I also think the commenter above is entirely right, that it's perfectly acceptable to resign if you can't.  (The local party people would be mad at you, for sure, but would you care at that point?)

    I'm sorry you were blindsided by the loyalty oath, and I understand why you would recoil at signing it.  When i first registered to vote (in liberal Mass!), I was required to sign a loyalty oath to the U.S., and it gave me very great pause just because I hate the ideal of loyalty oaths.  So I know how you felt.  I'm sorry, though, that it kept you from your chance to be a delegate, especially for Our Girl.


    If you know you can't do it.. (none / 0) (#40)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:49:50 PM EST
    ...then just don't sign. I think this is an ethical question. If you weren't sure, it would be easier, but I think that if you are certain that you won't be sincerely signing, you shouldn't. And thanks for reminding me ... I need to renew my membership in the ACLU.

    Thanks, yes I did decide I couldn't sign (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by FemB4dem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:07:14 AM EST
    in good conscience since I know I cannot support Obama, and will be supporting someone else in private and public, I'm just not 100% certain who yet.  I do think it unreasonable for my once beloved Democratic Party to extract such a pledge, but that's my stubborn, libertarian side.  

    I didnt sign a pledge in KY (none / 0) (#63)
    by sociallybanned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:00:00 AM EST
    We are having our this Saturday and find it strange, why, when knowing Hillary is endorsing him.  Of course, I am only at the lowest level.  Weird terminology, I'm a delegate to vote for a delegate.  A district delegate to vote for a DNC delegate.  I'm with you on that one.  The first caucus meeting (nomination to go to KY Dem Conv) was so disorganized not on Hills side but on Obama's side.  The doors closed at 10am and Obama folks were coming in after that as late as 1020 and I'm certain that is against the rules but since we were split evenly we didn't care.  It was funny cos they were disputing who was going to be nominated and we were all in acceptance with motions.  We left cos we already had our names and Obama folks were still duking it out.  LOL, it was funny!

    they will cover your spot.

    Dear Senator Clinton: (5.00 / 13) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:34:13 PM EST
    I am writing to let you know how much I admire the way you have conducted your campaign, including your incredible ability to (1) explain complex issues, (2) listen to others, (3) keep going in the face of incredible sexism and media disdain, and (4) exhibit such incredible stamina, smiling the whole way.

    I am so proud of your campaign on our behalf.  Thank you.

    You said it for me too. (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:43:55 PM EST
    I am not an American, but I am simply in awe of her grace and poise.  She even made Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan respect her for her toughness, heart and resilience.  

    Yes, we who followed this campaign everyday, know how classy and positive Senator Clinton was in every minute of it.

    Many people were tepid supporters of her, or were even initially opposed to her, but became passionate admirers in the course of this campaign.  


    Count me as one (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by reslez on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:03:31 AM EST
    HRC's incredible grace under fire has been profoundly inspiring, and humbling, to witness. I don't know how anyone can bear up under so much unrelenting pressure and media scorn. They kept telling her to GTFO of the race, but she kept winning state after state. What an amazing, formidable candidate. She really came into her own. I'm so proud I was able to cast my ballot for her in the primary. She earned it a hundred times over.

    I began as an Edwards supporter, but I lost some respect for him when he bowed out of the race the day before my state's primary. Hillary proved to the world she is a fighter. I have my doubts I will ever see a glimmer of that from Barack.

    All the same, I know and realize HRC is not my "perfect candidate" by any means. She made some missteps along the way -- both strategically and with the occasional verbal gaffe -- mostly imaginary and blown out of proportion, but the occasional true gaffe. I also hope she'll use her position in the Senate to become more of a leader rather than try to triangulate so much. Her Iraq vote really hurt her a lot.  But it's very debatable whether there was a winning side for her on that issue no matter what choice she made. No matter what, she's converted me from skeptic to believer.


    Her Iraq vote didn't hurt her in the least. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by lorelynn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:10:12 AM EST
    No one who is serious about ending the war is going to vote against a capable candidate on that basis. I mean, who were they going to vote for?

    I agree with you (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by reslez on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:33:20 AM EST
    I based my statement on what Obama supporters told me (unfortunately I have several on acquaintance, which hasn't been fun. I was a good sport and congratulated them, though!).  They perceived Obama as the "Get out now" candidate based on Clinton's authorization vote. Sounds illogical to me, but what do you expect...

    I beg toi differ (none / 0) (#182)
    by gandy007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:37:51 AM EST
    I think it hurt her in several ways.

    First, it was one of the few ways in which not so sophisticated voters could differentiate her and Obama.  I think especially many college students voted for him as the perceived anti-war candidate.
    It augmented their sense of rebellion and anti establishment.

    I think worse still, it may have cost her the Presidency. I say this from the point of view that it emboldened Obama to run at all. Obama may well have believed, as many did, that Iraq would be the defining issue in the primary and it opened up what he saw as a unique opportunity. It turned out not to be the issue, but still, he may never have run, but for the distinction.

    Just my two cents.


    You said it. (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Esme on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:49:42 PM EST
    I have nothing but admiration and respect for Senator Clinton. Well, maybe a lot of love too! She should be proud of the history she has made: not only is she the first viable female presidential nominee, but she is the first female to have won the popular vote in the selection of a presidential nominee. Bravo, Hillary!

    yes, she has such a strong center (none / 0) (#198)
    by andrys on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:10:16 AM EST
    Despite the disapppointment and all the pressure last Tuesday night, I was amazed by the relaxed steadiness of her voice.  I just couldn't manage (and I'm considered calm), and so I'm filled with admiration.

      Sure, in private we can express anger, sadness, but to be able to to center yourself and communicate as needed/wanted to others who are also feeling these emotions, that's a real leader.  Especially when you know the vultures are surrounding you, and when I heard Olbermann say, at the end of the speech, which was a very good one, only that they must have chosen a place free from cellphones or outside news, I was reminded some were vultures with the tiniest minds possible in quite large heads.


    She can't campaign for him before the (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:34:57 PM EST
    convention. His illusionary victory can disappear in a heartbeat if yet another Rev Wright/Ayers type scandal finds its way to the media.

    She is still in a virtual tie, and remains a viable candidate for winning the nomination at the convention.

    Bill is back in the private sector today giving speeches.

    After what the Obama campaign, his supporters, and the media did to him, I wouldn't blame him one bit if his calendar won't allow him to stump for Obama.

    His presidency was dismissed, he was called a racist, accused of saying Obama was not patriotic, and that trashy, pathetic article Todd Purdum published in Vanity Fair at a time when Hillary hardly needed something like that to deal with is not something anyone can expect him to simply consider "all in the name of politics" and help the man who just sat back and let it all happen.

    Obama thinks he's ready for POTUS, he needs to get it on his own.

    Speaking of Rev. Wright, he's back (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:43:34 PM EST
    and "unretired," re media reports that he has reneged.  Time has quite a story on Wright's ego splitting the church.  Will he be back in the pulpit for more Youtube Top-Ten hits?  No word on that, but the guy does love the spotlight and an audience.

    The reports suggest this has been brewing a while; the timeline tells me that this is one reason for Obama leaving the church -- for deniability that he and/or his family weren't there if Wright gets up in the pulpit to do his "ridin' dirty" dance again.


    you'd think the Obama team would pay (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:49:21 PM EST
    him to not do that. But I wouldn't be surprised if he reappeared. He does seem to have quite an ego. I'm not sure he can do much worse than he already has. Though just being around will be a thorn in Obama's side.

    Reverend Wright (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:55:08 PM EST
    is just the gift that keeps on giving and giving to the RNC.  As we say in the 'hood, Rev Wright is a HOT mess!

    Geez TX....almost sounds like a case of (1.00 / 0) (#138)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:51:21 AM EST

    He never did retire! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by gandy007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:05:05 AM EST
    That was  a sham in my estimation.

    I discovered this by accident.  Some time ago on some thread, there was a link to hear some sermon or another. This was after the supposed "retirement".

    I lost the link before I could use it, so I went straight to trinityuninitedchurchofchrist.com and decided to peruse the site.

    Just go there and click on Pastor.   There is Senior Pastor Wright in all his splendor and glory, with glowing reviews.  Then go to Pastoral Staff.  There again is Senior Pastor Wright and below is the supposed new Pastor Moss who among other things "is under the leadership" of Wright.
    Guess who I think sets policy and direction.  

    In my estimation nothing has ever changed.  I think it was a shell game in which of course he is not the pastor of the church.  Gee, you didn't ask the right question. He's just the Senior Pastor, and uh, by the way he always has been.  

    Smoke and mirrors.  Everything is stated in the present tense.  The huge growth of the church under Wright' wing from X date to currently.

    Go look for yourselves and get your own impressions.  Maybe I'm just getting too cynical, but I believe we were conned.

    I think maybe Obama was afraid he was just a couple of clicks away from being discovered.


    We were bamboozled!! (none / 0) (#164)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:18:55 AM EST
    Isn't that the proper terminolgy?  

    Anybody notice how Obama used gambling terminology in his speech today?  "Double down" -- that's something a blackjack or craps player would say.  It's a casino term.  

    I've never heard a poker player say "double down" so that isn't a term you would learn playing poker with your neighbors.  

    Anyway, I thought that was interesting.  Wonder if Obama went on any trips with Mr. Rezko?  


    LOL (none / 0) (#187)
    by gandy007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:49:50 AM EST
    I believe you "double down" in blackjack by taking a single card under varying rules at the same time doubling your bet, but you "double up"  your initial bet at craps, or actually at any casino game against the house, even blackjack.

    There a fallacious saying, "Double up to catch up."

    Ah, the wisdom gained from a misspent youth.


    Fall book tour. (none / 0) (#117)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:26:52 AM EST
    Bill! (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:57:44 AM EST
    I'd give a million bucks to be in the room when he gives some BO supporter that big, sh*t-eating grin of his and tells them he's sorry but his private commitments prevent him from doing any more campaigning.

    Sigh.  I don't know if it'll really happen, but a girl can dream, can't she?


    She can and she will (none / 0) (#32)
    by namekarB on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:46:50 PM EST
    and so will Bill. They both know that this is about more than their personal feelings. We must prevail in November. For better or worse Obama is the nominee. We must either pull together or pull apart, that is each individuals choice.

    I was an Edwards supporter in 2004 and again in 2008. He dropped out before my primary and so I voted for Clinton. My mission is to prevent a 3rd term by Bush as this country cannot take another 4 years of swirling down the drain in Iraq.


    Obama won't end the war. He's going to (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by lorelynn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:15:50 AM EST
    make too much money on it. He's going to go all LBJ on us, and try and find someone smarter than he is (not too difficult in DC) to finesse the situation and if he is elected, we'll have close to 60k to 80k troops in Iraq - just you want and see. And another 4000 dead. And all of the jokers who claimed they opposed the war will be defending Obama on the subject.

    Ending this war is going to take someone of truly super human will and discipline - because way too much money is being made. Obama is a lot of things but disciplined and willful he is not - he like-a da short cuts and there is no short cut to ending the war. He can't cheat his way out of it.

    Mark my words - the deficit will be much higher, fewer people will have health insurance, the green revolution will sputtering rather than vibrant, and Obama will be on his way to being richer than God. That's what it's going to look like if that man is the president. Oh - and there will be no Roe V Wade.


    Sing out Sister! (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:37:10 AM EST
    That's what I think too.  If anyone is being bamboozled, it's us -- the American public.  

    Everything he says is like a shell game -- which is a con game.  (Some people call it "3 Card Monte".  Look it up on Wikipedia.)  It's the pea under the walnut.  Is it here?  No it's here.  Is it there?  No it's here.  

    Every firm position he has taken is subject to "shifting."  Sometimes his shifting means he moves to a totally opposite position -- he just hopes you aren't quick enough to catch onto him.  

    This is part of the reason the Reverend Wright thing made me mad.  If the man has been your friend for 20 years, you defend it.  You don't throw him under the bus.  You defend it.  Obama was unable to defend it.  I lost all respect for Obama at that point.  Honestly.  If you can't defend a 20-year relationship that upsets other people, you have no business being in the White House.

    Anyway, I think President Obama would be a total disaster -- for the people, for the Democratic Party, for the United States.  


    Worse than Carter? (none / 0) (#154)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:03:11 AM EST
    I didn't think it possible to have a democrat in the White House who was worse than Carter but now I am second guessing myself.  :(  

    Oh well, I'm voting for McCain anyway.  


    The Purdam article... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:49:13 PM EST
    ...have you actually read it?

     It is not nearly as lurid as the media reports have made it out to be, imo.  I think President Clinton's response was a bit much.  


    Alec82 (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:58:20 PM EST
    Get back to us when the media does a hit job on YOUR personal life and see how lightly YOU would take it.

    You are far too naive to make that kind of statement.  How do you gauge lurid in your world?  


    It is hardly that bad... (1.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:04:48 AM EST
    ...and it is nothing compared to what the right wing accuses him of.

     Recognizing that President Clinton is imperfect is hardly shocking to the core.  Parts of it were even sympathetic.  


    Spare me (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:09:49 AM EST
    when someone tries to tell you something that challenges your comments on this blog you get quite upset and start troll rating and throwing fits.

    I can imagine if someone wrote something, for the whole world to see, as negative as a sexual affair outside of your marriage...you would explode.  

    Your arrogance is annoying.


    When someone (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Nadai on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:59:03 PM EST
    writes an article like that about you, then your opinion of what the target should do will be valid.

    Well... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:08:37 AM EST
    ...at minimum, I would suggest fanning the flames is not the best idea.  It only drew attention to the article.

    Uh huh (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:12:29 AM EST
    Because no one would ever have heard of that obscure rag Vanity Fair if Bill Clinton hadn't said anything.  You probably thought Kerry shouldn't have responded to the Swiftboaters, too.

    Swiftboaters? (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:00:29 AM EST
    whachutawkin 'bout Willis?

    Did you see Wolf Blitzer interview Todd P? (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:15:00 AM EST
    His intent was disgusting and with malice.

    The actress is suing Purdum and (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:34:13 AM EST
    Vanity Fair, I read, and says that they only met a few times at large events, among a lot of people, etc.  Wouldn't it be (Axel)rovian if this was a plant the story, a setup to advantage Obama just before more primaries?  It smells like Watergate-style dirty tricks to me -- and there have been so many dirty tricks reported, here and there, that I hope that someday we will see a Woodstein-style compilation to put it all together.

    This is the reason (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:58:23 AM EST
    it's so hard for me to just join in.  The whole idea was to stop this stuff.  Yet, here it is.  It was so amazing that the VF story appeared just like that on the 2nd.  

    I went to hear Lakoff (none / 0) (#167)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:20:29 AM EST
    when he came to Dallas during the 2004 election. His book "Don't Think of An Elephant" armed me with some pretty good material.

    I believe he's supporting Obama in this election cycle (or stated that before this Tue), so I was a little disappointed.  You would think that he would have gotten behind Hillary, but then again, it wasn't "framing" that won Bill the office twice, it was good ol' fashion politicking with an intelligent and insightful person.

    Obama says 'that words mean something'.  It's good he has Lakoff on his side because he's going to need all the help he can get.  The R's are framing him already with Iraq.  They are challenging him to go to Iraq.  If he goes, he's toast.  He will have to defend "progress" that has been made there.  If he doesn't, they will paint him as a coward OR go after him with the "he will meet with Castro but not Petraeus" line.

    This will be his undoing.  


    No one wants to be the next (none / 0) (#135)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:50:35 AM EST
    Monica Lewinski. I was not at all surprised to hear she was going to defend herself vigorously.

    Todd's interview had him claiming that close Clinton associates were coming to him regularly to share their honorable concerns for the rumors they were hearing!! LOL. The real story is probably closer to something that involves Dick Morris and Dee Dee Myers, and cheap speculation gossip.

    I hope the actress refuses to settle out of court.


    Purdum is a hack....there is no real sourcing (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:10:48 AM EST
    for this article.  Maybe his wife, DeeDee Meyers gave him this info.  As for Gina Gershon, I wouldn't mess with her if I were Todd.

    Is dick morris going to suck dee dee's (1.00 / 0) (#160)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:12:15 AM EST

    Ah, perfidy (none / 0) (#192)
    by gandy007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:54:55 AM EST
    I suppose you all know Purdum is the husband of Dee Dee Myers, who was given the opportunity to be the first woman Presidential Press Secretary, for two years, byt of course Bill Clinton!

    No, I try to avoid the pundits... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:19:15 AM EST
    ...and talking heads.  It was NPR that drew my attention to the controversy.  I will youtube it later.

    It's on the CNN (none / 0) (#136)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:51:01 AM EST
    web site.

    I will be very happy if she's not the VP (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:40:50 PM EST
    to tell you the truth. Having the better candidate, the more experienced, the one that can be the best president, and the only candidate on the ticket that could win or help the team win as the number two spot would be hard for me to take. To say nothing of it being the canonical sexist put down for women in the workplace to have the more experienced women being number two to the inexperienced man.

    I'm sure Hillary wants to do the most for the party she can, but that position for her would I think not help in the long run. Though I know it by itself would be historic. It would be just too painful. But if that's what she wants, I would support her even more because I'd know she was doing that for the good of the party.

    I think the better path would be to stay in the senate and become a great mover and shaker not unlike the position Ted Kennedy has now. And of course if the opportunity for the presidency presents itself again, I would be on her side once again.

    Oh, and I haven't given up for Denver (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:44:24 PM EST
    by the way. I would definitely hold on to those delegates. Clinton and Obama are essentially tied in the popular vote and in the regular delegate count. So the only contest recently and through to the convention is with the super delegates. And as we know, they haven't voted yet. So anything can happen. Hang in there, you never know.

    I realize its not a very good example (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:53:06 PM EST
    But look at Reagan and Bush 1; there were a lot of people who saw that as the wrong way, in terms of experience and knowledge.

    Same with Bill and Al; Al was almost a pedigreed politician compared to Bill. Bill rose to the occasion, of course, but Al might have been seen as the more experienced of the two.

    However, seeing the meteoric rise of Barack with the blasted landscape left in his wake (and unfinished terms), it makes me a little scared. 'The missiles are flying, gentlemen. Hallelujah, hallelujah.'


    Please don't release your delegates Hillary. (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:41:33 PM EST
    They and you deserve the right to vote at the convention. It will be such a proud, but sad, moment but I want to see it.

    Yes! Yes! (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:48:50 PM EST
    And I hope the stupid Obamedia wouldn't start a new drumbeat of "why wouldn't she release her delegates". I am almost anticipating it.

    Caucus (none / 0) (#39)
    by sociallybanned on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:49:45 PM EST
    Now, I agree, caucuses do not represent a true vote from the ppl but I find it strange that knowing there is a meeting on Sat KY DEM CONVENTION. We are still electing delegates to the August convention.  Why?  I sent an email asking , do I still go?  And got word, yes!  So, I don't know what for prolly because this is the first time I'm doing this and frankly, caucuses are confusing.  I guess I'll have a better understanding.  Does anyone know why we (KY Dem Con) are still electing delegates to August?

    Why wouldn't you? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:53:10 PM EST
    Of course you're still electing delegates.  There's still a convention, right?

    dunno (none / 0) (#82)
    by sociallybanned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:07:58 AM EST
    See its the first time for me and when I asked what's the format and what happens if she concedes.  I got no straight answer.  It's not like going into a voting booth and voting.  It will take all day long to debate.  I don't know what to expect but I surely will be bringing my Blackberry to surf the net if I need to find info.  

    Might be to select the actual (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:59:28 PM EST
    people who go to the convention as the delegates.

    I have a friend who went to the delegate selection process in Mass. in 2004 (I can't remember what the official name was).  But it was open to any party member.  Usually it's state party semi-bigwigs who run for the spots, but in Mass (again, from memory) anyone can run for a spot.  Of course the convention is usually a big party, as well as party-building thing, so a lot of people want to go.


    Thank you! (none / 0) (#86)
    by sociallybanned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:10:26 AM EST
    Thanks for that piece of information!

    Breaks my heart too (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:43:42 PM EST
    I didn't see her email until this morning, and ended up crying while driving to work.

    There are not a lot of people who I consider true heroes but she is one.  She inspires me to never give up, never let the naysayers have their way, and to be a better woman than I am.

    D*mn I wish it would've been her year this year.  But it's not that long to wait. 2012.

    This is starting to sink in (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:44:51 PM EST
    I just went and read Obama's bio on Wikipedia and the one on his web site. What has this man done to qualify him to be President? His supporter's quote his community service, but I can't seem to find anything that describes exactly what he did. He law career is unimpressive, to say the least. He didn't write or even pass most of the bills he is credited with passing. He is given credit for his public speaking skills and for hiring the right people to run his campaign. But as far as I can tell, he was chosen to be the candidate, not the other way around. And being able to hire the right people is not enough qualification to be President. If you don't know enough about the issue to know when they are ... er, not giving you good information... then you will not be able to make intelligent decisions. A good leader isn't just someone who hires good people -  he or she is someone who has enough knowledge to know when to listen to them. We've had 7 years of a President how is ignorant. He took soembodies word that Iraq would be a "slam dunk", and look what happened?

    I cannot believe we did this. I don't know if I'm more afraid that he will lose or that he will win. Could somebody please reassure me that he is not as much of a disaster as I think he is? That his oratorial skills will save the day? That he has hidden leadership talent? Or at least the he won't be a pawn of the people who are putting him in power? I don't want a Democratic Bush.

    I recommend a book (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by zyx on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:49:58 PM EST
    by David Mendell. "Obama: from Promise to Power".

    It will leave you wondering, too.  Says some good things about Obama, but makes you think, why? and especially, why NOW? Why so soon?


    Sorry I cannot reassure you. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by magnetics on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:06:21 AM EST
    I think he is just unqualified for the job.

    If she is chosen for the VP spot (and that snowball is feeling the heat downstairs) I will vote for him; otherwise I will consider sitting out this November.  

    In any case,  I wouldn't vote McCain for dogcatcher; but I certainly won't give a dime to the DNC, although I will consider individual contributions to specific campaigns.


    I can't reassure you, he scares me (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:15:05 AM EST
    So much that I am fairly sure I'm going to hold my nose and vote for McCain.  I don't trust that Obama knows enough to keep us safe and without that, the rest won't matter.  

    Why couldn't this man have waited another 4 years or 8 years?  What the heck was his rush?  I still think he thought he'd get his name out there, for the future, or maybe Hillary's VP, and was totally shocked at what began to happen.  He was shocked, Hillary was shocked, and our democrats were the fools who let it happen.  All because they fell for his lofty sounding sermons.  


    Its very simple (1.00 / 2) (#42)
    by namekarB on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:50:13 PM EST
    if you break it down to its simplest part. Democrat vs Republican. 4 more years in Iraq or not. That is your choice.

    as Michelle said, I'll have to think about it n/t (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:56:57 PM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:59:03 PM EST
    I've seen little from Obama that shows a commitment to leaving Iraq. You'll have to find something else.

    Obama has not committed to leave Iraq (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:00:10 AM EST
    He says that we will leave troops there to fight al-quaeda. He doesn't say how many, but we will need a significant number if they are to be effective and safe. McCain says essentially the same thing. Neither seems to think that we can pull out completely. Obama has also expressed willingness to invade Pakistan and has said that he will do anything in his power to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. So... what exactly is the difference between Obama and Bush/McCain in these regards?

    Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:16:20 AM EST
    Our Democratic majority in Congress can all try being a "Dem for a day" and defund the war at anytime too.  

    Define Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Davidson on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:16:52 AM EST
    Honestly, define what those principles are, backed up by action, competence, and leadership and then tell me how Obama is a Democrat.

    Pelosi and the Democratic majority ... (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by dwmorris on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:19:26 AM EST
    could have ended the war last year by withholding funding.

    We already have the power and chose not to excercise it.

    I suspect Obama supporters are going to be bitterly disappointed with what he ultimately delivers.


    My advise to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by LoisInCo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:50:18 PM EST
    Now this will sound strange, but because everyone is all het up over the VP slot for Obama ( on both sides) I propose a compromise in the selection process.

    Put Clinton on the VP panel.

    She could prove she was genuinely trying to assist Obama without forcing herself on the ticket. Other women could then be chosen with HER input. This might help mitigate any damage another female  candidate might bring, as well as to provide insight into her 18 million voters.

    Of course I prefer she tells him to stick it and fights at the convention in the end, but if she really wants other options, I think it would be an interesting peace making idea between the 2 camps.

    What makes you think (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:05:15 AM EST
    she's trying to force herself onto the ticket?

    That's all just more crap the media is making up because they think it makes for good talk tv.

    Give me a reliable source for that.


    I don't (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:17:05 AM EST
    think she is trying to force her way on the ticket. I do think some percieve her as trying to do so. This would help dispell that. Again, I  would rather she fight to the convention. Doesn't mean I am incapable of thinking of other options for her, should she need or desire them.

    Not dispelling of the idea if we remember (none / 0) (#204)
    by andrys on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:30:49 AM EST
    ...Cheney was the one who was vetting the VPs for Bush...

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:17:50 AM EST
    T-Rex said it on his blog today.  Maybe one of his cats told him.

    There is one more link out of my favorites, the pickings are getting really slim at this point, luckily we have this place.  Thanks Jeralyn, BTD, and Chris for having such a welcoming place, I really like it here, to the point that I'm probably blogclogging.  LOL



    I think the poster (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by eleanora on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:18:56 AM EST
    was just quoting various Obama supporters who are accusing Hillary of that, not saying it herself. At least that's the way I read it. Otherwise, I think this is a pretty good idea--I feel it's more likely that Hillary will get forced to be on the ticket, and I don't want that.

    That's funny, as Cheney was picking (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:54:08 PM EST
    possible VPs for Bush,and picked himself.

    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Emma on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:50:46 PM EST
    Hillary, don't release your delegates.  Get something for 'em, even if it's not the nomination.

    Suspension: a must (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Davidson on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:02:47 AM EST
    All I pray is that she not succumb to the pressure and concede.  Suspending her campaign will be a "win" in my book.

    And it'll allow me to nurse my wounds by entertaining the far-fetched possibility of her still becoming the nominee this year.  I believe this year was/is the only chance for her.  As a woman and a Democrat, it'll be most difficult for her to run and win in '12.  Democrats are terrible when it comes to past contenders, misogyny will be no less ferocious, and the GOP will be revitalized.


    I wonder what the messages from her supporters (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by FemB4dem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:51:59 PM EST
    said tht she solicited on Tuweday night.  I know I commented on her site that she should please not accept the VP spot, if offered, because it would demoralize her supporters, who in our lives have seen far too many women forced to take the backseat to a less qualified, younger man.  I want her to wait until 2012.  The democratic congress will just have to do its job and hold the country together -- I don't see him being elected even if Hillary agrees to be VP.  Just like Bill did, we will need her to clean up after 12 years of republicans.

    I know why I'm a Democrat (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:53:29 PM EST
    Because Democrats are supposed to be the good guys. They don't lie and cheat, and they practice clean politics even when it means that they're going to lose. I guess that in spite of my inherent cynicism, I'm a bit of an idealist. That's contradictory, but humans often are. That's why I can't vote for Obama. Because he condones dirty politics and lies about his competition. In all honesty, Gore and Kerry weren't exciting, but I liked them. They would have been good Presidents. But how can I trust someone to tell me the truth in office when he lies to get into office? I might as well vote for a Republican. At least I won't be disappointed when they lie - I expect it.

    My conscience is clear (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:02:23 AM EST
    I play by the rules. My candidate played by the rules. Her opponent didn't.  He didm't have the integrity to do the right thing with respect to Michigan.  He's a puppet by "following what the DNC/RBC did".  His unity schtick went out the window when that happened.

    So I will vote for someone else other than Obama.  I am looking really hard at the Greens and Cynthia McKinney.  She is a real progressive.  I may not have approved of her actions with respect to her scuffle, but its nice to see someone fight for progressive values and REAL social justice.

    So, when I DON'T vote for Obama, my conscience will be clear.

    My conscience will be clear too (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by MisterPleasant on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:31:37 AM EST
    Whoever I vote for in November, it won't be one of the major party candidates unless someone's campaign takes an unrecoverable nose dive.  Hey, I can hope, can't I?

    Like all candidates, there is good and bad to be found regarding Cynthia McKinney.   So far, her positives outweigh the negatives for me.  She is smart and speaks her mind (kind of like another woman we all know).  She has taken some very brave stands (impeachment, black caucus's objections to 2000 electoral vote) and in the process has ostracized herself from the party leaders, hence her entry into the Green Party.  Joseph Cannon was leaning her way until he discovered she has a Farrakhan connection.  Not a deal breaker for me, but I need to learn more before taking the plunge.


    Uh (1.00 / 2) (#89)
    by namekarB on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:11:34 AM EST
    The Michigan Democrats came up with the proposal. The RBC agreed (as well as some Clinton members on the RBC). Obama can take the heat for lots of things but he is not responsible for what the Michigan Democratic Party proposed.

    And if we are talking about playing "by the rules," then Michigan and Florida should not have counted at all. However, Hillary (who I voted for) made a pledge that their delegates would count and be seated.

    Hillary succeeded. The Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated and counted.


    Oh please, the Michigan proposal was in response (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by FemB4dem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:16:58 AM EST
    to Obama's even more unreasonable proposal to split the delegates evenly.  He did indeed agree to a plan that stole four of Hillary's delegates.  That decision alone pushed many over the edge into the "I can never vote for Obama" party.  What bad judgment on his part -- he had to have known those four delegates would make no difference to his delegate count.  Michigan 2008 is worse than Florida 2000 precisely because we expect more from democrats, not less.  This was a disgrace, pure and simple.  You Obama supporters need to come to terms with that before you can even begin to hope to reach out to Clinton supporters.

    Ad Nauseum (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by gandy007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:17:48 AM EST
    I've posted this so often, I'm getting writer's cramp.

    The MSM has regurgitated the four delegate theft as the main storyline so often that I'm almost starting to believe that that is what broke the camel's back or on the other hand that it was a petty thing to protest.  To be precise about this "distraction" it was actually an eight delegate swing.

    Nevertheless, in my mind, the real issue is the fifty nine delegates that Obama got that he was not in any way entitled to. Had he not gotten then, it would have given Hillary some breathing room  and tightened the delegate count. Then maybe the huge upset in South Dakota would have had a chance to make an impression.

    Once again into the breach:

    It was against the Holy Roolz as I under stand them, because,

    #1. Thou shall not transfer the delegates of one candidate to another, I would hope much less  to one not even on the ballot.

    #2. The status of an uncommitted delegate shall have the same sacrosanct standing and entitled to the same rights and privileges as a committed delegate.

    Oh Donna, back to Roolz 101 for you.


    Those delegates (5.00 / 6) (#101)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:17:25 AM EST
    were Hillary's - not the Michigan Dem Party's or the DNC's.  The DNC had the right to seat or not to seat them, but they were hers.  The Michigan Dem Party had no more right to give them away than I have to give away your computer.

    Go read Wayne Barrett article (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by sociallybanned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:19:43 AM EST
    If you read it, scroll down to Obama backers. You will see his campaign maangers and chair in Florida was behind moving the date, even after the DNC threaten to strip.  They defied it!  Why?  Because they knew Obama would not win or should I say lose by a landslide.  3 elected officials that support Obama in Michigan pushed to moving the date as well defying the DNC and look who had gotten the raw end of the deal; Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Snakes!  No different than the 2000 election!

    I saw a really funny comment on another blog (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:03:02 AM EST
    Relative to Obama:

    I'm in sales.
    Oh, what do you sell?
    I don't have to answer that.

    Inquiring minds want to know (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by dwmorris on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:13:08 AM EST
    please don't sell your mailing list (5.00 / 6) (#79)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:05:48 AM EST
    Dear Hillary,

    I would very much appreciate it if you didn't sell your list of supporters to the presumptive nominee (Obama) or to the DNC. I have supported you for president. I don't think I'll appreciate getting email from any other groups.

    Thank you,
    DandyTiger (one of your supporters)

    I have heard various columnist make the case (5.00 / 6) (#108)
    by Serene1 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:20:15 AM EST
    that there will be other women blah blah. Besides the obvious answer of when?, the other thing that bothers me about these statements is that they just don't get it. Most of us support Hillary not because she is a woman but also because she is the right woman.
    Hillary is one of those women who is so comfortable in her femininity that she doesn't has to go overboard with it in terms of dressing or attitude. She is what an every woman is ambitious, fighter, tenacious , not all that striking looking etc. For long we have been fed the stereotype that the ultimate woman is one who embodies feminity to the extreme. One who is emotionally and mentally weak but physically attractive. Physical attractiveness was considered one of the major qualifying factor for a woman.

    Hillary with her pantsuit and her go getter attitude was a complete antithesis to this image. She was ambitious and a fighter and was not afraid to show it. This after most of us have been conditioned to believe that women should not be seen as too ambitious or anything. This is what I think scared most of the MSM and the insecure males. That is why any talk of Hillary was peppered with talks about emasculation yada yada. I think subconsciously these worthies realized that if Hillary won it would in a way open the floodgates for women to finally behave in the way they are meant to rather than the way they are conditioned too.

    And that is why I am so reeling with sadness at her loss of the nomination. The sadness is more because nobody gave her a fair chance. Neither the MSM nor the Dem elites. If the Dem elites truly respected her candidacy and the historical connotations it had they wouldn't have behaved the way they behaved in Saturday and they wouldn't have bullied the SD's to endorse Obama instead of allowing it to play out in the convention as per the roolz.

    Keep Your Delegates and Your Dignity (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by cdalygo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:26:22 AM EST
    That means the following:

    1. Don't accept the VP role (much less seek it)

    2. Don't allow his supporters to keep trashing you (make him stop it)

    3. Don't worry about your place in history if you take time for yourself and your family (no man would have had to concede, much less work full time for him until August)

    4. Don't forget you have an army of supporters waiting for you (in 2012 or (better) August 2009)

    5. Don't disregard your place in women's history (good dem right now looks too much like battered spouse)

    that's rich from an Obama supporting troll (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:37:06 AM EST
    given your previous posts. You know, if you're going to pretend like that, you might want to make a new username. Then of course you'd be saying that with no previous comments. Tricky isn't it.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:44:21 AM EST
    Name the associates they were being connected to that required you to defend the Clintons from guilt by association.

    NOTE: None of these names can be repeats from the false accusations they went through in the 1990's.

    Hillary as VP (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:47:01 AM EST
    I've given more thought to this and I hope she doesn't take the job if it's offered to her.  

    The primary reason why I don't want her to take the job is this:  Obama has shown that he'll throw anyone under the bus to remain on top.  I don't want to see Hillary under the bus.  

    In my worst worst, most disasterous dream, Obama does something awful, pawns it off on Hillary, and she ends up being impeached -- just like everyone wanted Cheney impeached this last 8 years.  Could you imagine another Clinton being impeached?    

    Obama hasn't really proven that he has the backbone to stand up for his own stupid decisions.  It's something about him that I don't admire and don't like.    

    Anyway -- so that's it.  I don't want to see Hillary as VP in his silly administration.  Let him go find another sucker.  (Am I being cruel?  LOL!)        

    OT: Warning for Dog Owners! (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:47:25 AM EST
    Pro-heart 6 is back. Please do NOT use this for heartworm prevention unless you have done a boatload of research on it!! I no longer have links  to the sites that were dealing with this a few years ago, but it is not something you would wish your pet to go through if they have a reaction to it. Also, once administered, it self activates for 6mos+. When they say this, "followed in some cases by death.", that's putting it subtly.


    FDA Announces Limited Return of Heartworm Drug to U.S. Market

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced a limited return of a reformulated heartworm prevention drug for dogs, which had been withdrawn because of serious, life-threatening adverse reactions, including loss of appetite, lethargy; vomiting, seizures, difficulty walking, jaundice (a yellowish appearance); and bleeding disorders, allergies, convulsions, followed in some cases by death.

    It does look like a congress critter is paying attention though:

    CNN June 5, 2008

    Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, fired off a letter to FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach on Thursday expressing concerns about how the agency came to its decision to allow the drug, called ProHeart 6, back in the U.S.

    Grassley, ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, said the agency has had 18 meetings and 85 phone calls about ProHeart 6 since it was withdrawn, but doesn't know if any of the meetings involved FDA safety officials.

    Grassley said he wants a response from the FDA by June 19 about whether any safety officials were involved in the meetings, and if any of the studies involved dogs.

    Reuters June 5, 2008

    As many as 485 dog deaths may have been linked to Proheart 6, FDA officials said at a public meeting in 2005. Wyeth officials said on Thursday they could not estimate how many fatalities may have been linked to the drug, saying there could have been other causes.

    I would say 485 is on the low end. I know how they count and had a recent refresher lesson during the pet food recall . . .

    Grassley has said his investigation found the FDA scientist who uncovered the link between Proheart 6 use and canine deaths, Victoria Hampshire, was forced from her job at Wyeth's urging. He had requested more information from the agency earlier this year, but said on Thursday the FDA never responded.

    Tell her (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by cawaltz on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:50:15 AM EST
    she has my admiration. Tell her the other day a boy called my daughter a not nice name and my daughter said she felt like she was in good company because she had hear the same said about Hillary Clinton and Hillary was the would be President. It rolled off of her because Hillary taught her that someone who endures that can come out stronger and those words are less a reflection on the person being called the name as it is on the person name calling.

    Tell your daughter (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:27:48 AM EST
    if she runs for president someday, she has a supporter already built-in in Texas.  ;)

    Good (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:57:55 AM EST
    you've been to my blog.  THAT'S why I have one.  Like Jeralyn has said, if we had something to say/opinion, start a blog.  I for one have enough respect for THIS blog not to use THOSE words.

    Don't think that you are going to make me feel bad about the language I choose to use on my own blog.  I have had many here email me and tell me that they like it. The internet allows a free-flow of ideas, whether you agree or not, and if you don't like to be challenged, then don't put yourself out there like that.

    Thanks for reading my blog though. I appreciate the traffic.

    2 THINGS.... (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by chopper on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:35:37 AM EST
    1. I saw somewhere that Tuesday June 10 is Independence Day. The day we change our registration from Democrat to Independent.  All on the same day for impact.  I like it.

    2. This link is to a page that has a new GOP Obama You-Tube ad.  It's pretty simple, his resume, but alarming when you see it on paper.


    Bummer (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Eleanor A on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:32:35 AM EST
    I live in a state that doesn't register by party (Tennessee).  Any suggestions on what we non-Partiers can do on June 10?

    Guess I could send back a DNC pledge card with foul language written on it, but then I do that every day...;)


    I still don't like the way the MSM (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Serene1 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:35:49 AM EST
    and Dem elites are forcing Hillary to concede.  They are acting as if the 18 million voters who voted for her just do not exist and instead as if Hillary was running a faux campaign that has come to an end.
    Why are they so unwilling to acknowledge that Hillary had a much stronger finish than Obama and that in reality both Hillary and Obama are basically tied. Also doesn't fairness and justness demand that the Dem elites acknowledge the millions who have voted for Hillary and believed in her candidacy by allowing Hillary the choice of taking this to the convention or conceding at her owm pace if she so desires instead of pushing her to conced and ordering us like cattles to unify behind the presumptive nominee.

    God the Dem elites behavior has truly been appalling!

    Concession beyond unnecessary (5.00 / 4) (#194)
    by Davidson on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:56:02 AM EST
    Honestly, there's a clear pattern here: they want to humiliate her.  All the more outrageous when you realize she is the first serious woman candidate.  I cannot imagine any other trailblazer being treated so viciously--not a Jew, Latino, homosexual, etc. (unless they were a woman).

    She better not concede.  I'll feel as if she betrayed herself.  She's better than them.  The "leadership" is so certain he'll be the nominee they can't help but be arrogant so there's even less reason to force her out.  Also, politically it's just stupid: it'll only harden resentment against Obama--and the Democratic establishment.  One point that is all to ignored is how angry people are at the very Party.


    I saw this comment (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:09:15 AM EST
    at another blog, thought it might make some of you laugh as it did me.

    Pat Johnson, on June 5th, 2008 at 11:14 pm Said:
    The DNC just reformed under a new name; The Katherine Harris Unity Party.

    Speaking of reforming or regrouping (none / 0) (#202)
    by gandy007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:26:32 AM EST
    Since this is a thread about showing Clinton our support and maximizing it, has anyone else checked out clintondems.com, new site.

    Maybe Jeralyn would consider putting it up under "Blogs We Like".


    I'll Wait For You, Madame President!!! (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by lochosvestu on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:18:52 AM EST
    I'll wait for you, Madame President Hillary Clinton!!!

    Hillary and Obama (1.00 / 2) (#56)
    by namekarB on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:57:05 PM EST
    I'm not sure how to begin. They have very similar policies. Even Hillary says this. I voted for Hillary but we now must make a decision.

    Are we going to reject Obama and allow McCain to pander to the corporate lobbyists and continue throwing money down the drain in Iraq? That is the question you must each internalize.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by cawaltz on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:03:01 AM EST
    I'm going to reject Obama if Clinton is not on the ticket. I refuse to default vote for  candidates. Sorry.

    Come now (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by suisser on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:05:49 AM EST
    that's 4 in a row saying the same thing.
    And please note, I choose for myself what to "internalize"

    fair enough (none / 0) (#97)
    by namekarB on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:16:32 AM EST
    Rebuke accepted

    Neither/nor (5.00 / 7) (#110)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:21:29 AM EST
    We (and when I say we, I mean me and the people who agree with what I'm about to say) are going to say:

    'Wait just a goshdarn minute.  We do not support vote-stealing.  We do not support the takeover of our Party by a new coalition seeking to exclude all those whom the Party had traditionally championed.  We do not support a party that has made it clear it does not want us but does want our money.  We do not support a candidate who lays claim to post-racial politics but encourages and takes advantage of unbridled misogyny, rage and hatred.  We do not support a candidate who shows very little evidence of the passion needed to promote our agenda or the inclination to do so.'

    Stopping the 'new direction' of the Democratic Party in its tracks is a threshold issue for me.  This is not the party I signed up for.  The Dean-Pelosi-Reid etc faction has a definite agenda and it's not mine.  If they are allowed to hijack the party, and in such a low way, there's little reason to think they will actually accomplish (or put much energy into accomplishing) any of the concerns of rank and file Democrats, and no reason at all to think they will not continue putting the ends before the means.  And means are not irrelevant.

    It is an extremely unfortunate consequence of their actions if McCain gets elected.


    Nicely said. That's our rules. (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:32:33 AM EST
    Here's a good one for them: that's our rules, and as you know, rules are rules. :-) Ah, feels good.

    oops (none / 0) (#65)
    by namekarB on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:00:59 AM EST
    Not sure what happened but the last sentence should read

    Are we going to reject Obama and allow McCain to pander to the corporate lobbyists and continue throwing money and bodies down the drain in Iraq? That is the question you must each internalize.


    Sorry (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by gandy007 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:33:02 AM EST
    but I've done my internalizing for many months now and it's not about policy or programs, or the Supreme Court, or even Iraq.

    You just don't get it.  For me, and only me, there is a moral imperative that supersedes all other considerations. I've said this before, but just in case you haven't heard it; I have not left the Democratic Party, I feel it has left me.  Obama's loss won't be the demise of the Party. I will faithfully pull the lever down ballot.

    Believe me, the Democratic Party will survive a loss by Obama. For, me it would be the demise of a single individual who in my estimation never really sincerely espoused or evinced the philosophy of my Democratic Party.

    I'm done with internalizing and I'm done with Obama.


    Anyone who thinks Obama will not be in (none / 0) (#166)
    by magnetics on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:20:14 AM EST
    the pocket of lobbyists, is, in my opinion, dreaming.

    My pocket comparison of McCain/Obama: the worst of each.

    McCain is likely to start a war with Iran, and will likely make terrible nominations to SCOTUS.

    Obama is altogether unqualified for the job.

    Conclusion:  I would never vote for McCain (or any other rethuglican) but may well withhold my vote from Obama.


    Senate Majority Leader (none / 0) (#161)
    by smb on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:14:10 AM EST
    I was thinking tonight, wouldn't Hillary be a great choice for Senate Majority Leader. Firstly, it would mean that an entire branch of government would be led by women. Second she is young, which carries the idea of change, freshness. On that same note since she hasn't spent long in the Senate it would be sort of a turning over of the guard to the next generation. Lastly it would put her in a perfect position to lead the process of pushing universal healthcare through the senate, and lets face it nobody is more "persuasive" than she is. She knows how to get things done when it comes to political battles.

    After some looking around it seems Reid is open to this. Although I'm sure its not as cut and dry as this.

    Could this happen over the summer, before the election? And then Obama and Clinton could campaign together saying WE are going to push through change together, WE are a team. And in my mind an even more powerful team as being VP in a senate that the dems will likely control her VP vote would be pretty useless.

    That would be nice (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:21:37 AM EST
    but there are too many big egos in the Senate for that to happen.  The Senate is all based on seniority.   Whoever is next in line isn't going to just step aside for Hillary.  They won't do it, every one of them thinks they should be Leader, if not President, or King if it was available.  

    That article is from 2006. More recently, (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:26:32 AM EST
    Reid, who is Sen. majority leader, sd. he's not going anywhere but thanks for asking.

    Harry Reid needs to (none / 0) (#191)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:54:26 AM EST
    retire or resign first.  I see no sign of him doing that.  

    moral turpitude (none / 0) (#169)
    by boredmpa on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:25:55 AM EST
    Voters also approved Proposition C, which amends the City Charter so that a city employee convicted of a crime involving "moral turpitude" - usually theft, fraud or a breach of the public trust - cannot collect employer-funded retirement benefits. Prop. C passed with 56 percent of the vote.

    automatically taking someone's retirement benefits as punishment for a crime is nasty stuff imho.

    i wonder if this will apply to folks like the police officer who got fired for having a porn site (out of uniform).  nasty, vague, and no reason not to enforce it on anyone and everyone.

    An interesting radio piece (none / 0) (#188)
    by akaEloise on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:53:05 AM EST
    Hearing From Hillary Supporters Overseas  At a global women's summit held in Viet Nam, women talk about how they view the Clinton campaign.  

    Obama flip-flops again (none / 0) (#190)
    by daryl herbert on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:53:56 AM EST
    He told AIPAC that he supported an undivided Jerusalem.  Odd, but okay.  It got him applause.  Then he left, and was criticized, and immediately backtracked.

    Why should the Israelis trust him if he's so naive about their situation and so quick to change his mind?  They know he's just trying to tell them what they want to hear, as long as it won't get him in trouble with other groups.  So why should they trust him? Why should we?

    What is he doing?  He's so naive.  He keeps making mistakes. He needs someone with experience--like Sen. Clinton--on his ticket, just to keep him steady.

    If there's going to be 2-3 new Obama gaffes every week until the general election, he's not going to win.  Who can save Obama from himself?

    Colin Powell as VP (none / 0) (#210)
    by laurie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:34:57 AM EST
    I saw on a right wing blog that Colin Powell was being touted as Vp. This was because of Powell's military and moral stature. It was also part of the idea of forming a centrist party, appealing to moderate Republicans etc etc.