home

About That Meeting

The Times Caucus Blog has some tidbits from The Meeting:

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California got the call from Hillary Rodham Clinton Thursday afternoon: Could she, would she let Mrs. Clinton use her home in Northwest Washington for a little sit-down with a certain senator from Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States? Mrs. Feinstein had made the offer before and it was still good. And so a few hours later, at just about 9 p.m., Mrs. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama arrived for a face to face chat. No staff. No spouses. Just the two of them in Mrs. Feinstein’s living room.

And so it happened, The Meeting, that Democrats knew was inevitable, but for a long while thought would never come. It lasted about an hour.

More . . .

“I can speak, I think, for Senator Clinton. She wants to do everything she can to bring the party together,” Mrs. Feinstein said. “She wants to do everything she can to see the people who voted for her have their voices heard and that’s reflected in credentials, platform. And she wants to have a working relationship with Senator Obama, and I think it’s a very positive thing.”

. . . Mrs. Feinstein said she did not need to urge Mrs. Clinton to hold a meeting. “I didn’t urge anybody to do anything. I know it’s a natural instinct. People, particularly in this case because Hillary represents a very large block of voters — the largest ever for anybody that has come in No. 2, and has the popular vote. She is I think desirous of protecting the issues that she cares about to the extent she can, seeing that the people are represented in this administration and certainly in the convention. And also to help with the ticket, and I know she feels that way because we have talked about this.”

Read the tea leaves.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Friday Morning Open Thread | Required Reading >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Wait for the end of the media honeymoon (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by Mike H on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    I have a lot of respect for Clinton in behaving the way she has in the past few days, although unfortunately too many on the left won't have the wisdom to give her credit for it.

    I'm also still quite saddened by this turn of events, and even her calls for unity are unlikely to change my mind much about the presumptive nominee.

    Well-put. Clinton cannot remake Obama (5.00 / 22) (#10)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:41:08 AM EST
    into a legitimate candidate; he remains the beneficiary of moral bankruptcy in the Democratic party.  Maybe there is some hope for the party in Feinstein's mention of the credentials committee -- I hope that means a challenge to the rulings, plural, of the corrupt rules and bylaws committee.

    But even then, if I could be a Democratic again, Clinton cannot remake Obama into a candidate who did not throw me under the bus.  He's the bus driver who detoured the party down a divisive route.  And he is going to find out that he's reading the map all wrong. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    My grandmother (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:57:27 AM EST
    used to say, "You can change people.  You can only change the way you react to them." Every time I forget this, I get in trouble. I've decided at last that I can't change the DNC. I can only change the way I react to it. If it's going to change, it has to be the decision of the people who taken over.

    On another note, I went to write "the people who have sold it down the river", but I hesitated because I guess that would be probably be considered a racist remark although to me it's an historical reference. The other night I was chastised for being racist for talking about "the coons" in my neighborhood, but I was referring to furry little creatures who won't stay out of my trash.  I was told that I should have said "raccoons". Is this going to pass, or should I just go for duct tape so I don't offend anyone?

    [ Parent ]

    Ooops! You can't change people (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:59:22 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    All of the above comments, WELL SAID (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by environmentally blue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:21:47 PM EST
    and I agree.

    ...and Samanthasmom, I don't know if we can move on.  My feeling is, being Obama brought us back so many decades with his race playing and accusing, I don't want to live in his version of our country.  Best that he just not be elected so we CAN HEAL.  Yes, we can.  Only if it's not him bringing us backwards.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't worry! we knew what was meant. (none / 0) (#112)
    by magnetics on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:53:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think this primary (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by festus800 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:06:52 AM EST
    brought out both a lot of ugliness, and a lot of oversensitivity, on both sides with respect to  race and gender issues.  I think that's the nature of having a primary where you have the historic prospects of the first woman president and first African-American president.  Both campaigns (and the media) played this game, both offensively and defensively.  I have no clue, and couldn't even guess, which campaign suffered more from the biases that afflict our country and/or the candidates manipulating voters through exploiting political correctness about these biases.

    The essential point is that as Democrats, we need to beat McCain, who in a town hall called an excellent question someone asking "How do we beat the b**?"  He will be much worse.

    [ Parent ]

    With respect - (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by liminal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:28:44 AM EST
    - that's a cop-out.  The media, particularly, came as close as they could to McCarthyite witch hunts seeks out alleged racists in the Democratic party, while repeatedly poo-pooing the idea that they had repeatedly engaged in sexist rhetoric regarding HRC.   The major so-called progressive blogs were even worse than the MCM.  

    I am NOT blaming sexism for her loss.  She lost thanks to Penn and the early decision to ignore caucus states - to her peril.  But she pivoted smartly mid-campaign and fought from way-behind to popular vote tie (I believe she would've had a clear pop-vote with with a Michigan revote), in spite of it all.

    Still, I absolutely refuse to dismiss the sexism displayed by so-many alleged progressives by claiming that "everyone did it" as if that somehow makes it all right.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#141)
    by blogtopus on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:30:18 PM EST
    Saying you were only one of the perpetrators does not excuse gang rape. Or a lynching, were the shoe on the other foot.

    [ Parent ]
    I can't agree (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:54:41 AM EST
    The sexism was don by the DNC, the MSM, the blogs, Obama supporters.
    The race card was brought out by Obama supporters and a few Hillary people.

    The winner?
    Well obviously Obama since the less vetted, less experienced person ended up with the prize.

    The losers? ALL of us. This is not the kind of race we should be running. The counrtry, the people, the issues, the war, the economy, the environment and how to fix what the republicans broke should have been the discusion as we chose a standard-bearer.

    [ Parent ]

    By birth and by marriage (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by magnetics on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST
    my immediate family comprises many historically oppressed minorities -- Aframerican, GLBT, Jewish (Ashkenaz) -- and yet throughout it all I remain steadfastly politically incorrect.

    [ Parent ]
    I doubt at this point (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:00:59 AM EST
    there will be any challenges. Clinton would not be conceding tomorrow if that was the case.

    Notice Feinstein mentioned Clinton supporters being represented at the convention. That is what was discussed last night. Clinton is not going to give up her delegates until a vote at the convention.

    That serves two purposes. One, it gives us recognition for our votes and it gives Clinton a big political boost for the future. Secondly what it does is that if Obama implodes or the GOP just flat out guts him between now and the Convention there is still time for the delegates to change their mind 'in the interest of wining the WH'.

    [ Parent ]

    Symbolic, too. (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by liminal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:30:52 AM EST
    When has anyone woman, ever, received that many delegate votes at a convention?  I don't think that she should release her pledged delegates.  They'll be making history when they vote for her.

    [ Parent ]
    She's NOT "conceding." (5.00 / 9) (#76)
    by vicsan on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:42:38 AM EST
    She's "suspending" her campaign and "supporting" BO. Supporting is also not the same as "endorsing" him.

    By "suspending" her campaign she retains her delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    Ha Ha! I think you are right! (none / 0) (#154)
    by Cate on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:45:57 PM EST
    Supporting is NOT 'endorsing'...at least I hope that isn't splitting hairs....


    [ Parent ]
    Cream City & MikeH (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:02:41 AM EST
    thank you for both your comments. They strike a deep chord;  I think and feel exactly the same and couldn't have said it better. Thank you.

    [ Parent ]
    Well said (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:03:40 AM EST
    Nothing changes the facts that Obama is not qualified, and that he refuses to be honest about who he is and what he plans to change. He can't speak articulately to his policy ideas, he is rude, arrogant, and dismissive of anyone who doesn't flock to his tent revivals. His judgment is questionable, and that is based in his own choices and behaviors.

    I need to hear that all caucuses have had their signatures verified as registered voters who are still alive and continue to live in the district they voted in from the state where the caucus was held. Something similar to what Obama did to Alice Palmer and the others who wanted to run against him in Illinois.

    The DNC needs to fix what's broken there, as well.

    I love that Hillary fooled the press again yesterday. There have been enough errors in speculation by the media lately, that it would be impossible for anyone to accurately guess what it was Hillary spoke to Obama about last night. I do hope she felt comfortable telling him whatever she needed to.

    [ Parent ]

    I haven't heard BO or the Dems answer questions (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:31:51 AM EST
    ... about why they participated in and frequently encouraged the most hideously bigoted assault on a worthy candidate in history.

    What if that nutcracker had been, say, a lawn jockey? And that's not even 1/500th of the crap that's been out there the last 5 months.

    [ Parent ]

    i don't understand... (none / 0) (#21)
    by festus800 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:53:16 AM EST
    why Obama is any less legitimate than McCain.  They are nationally even in polling, in what looks already to be a very competitive race.  The dem primary was extremely close and hard fought, and whether you agree with the outcome or not, it's still a legitimate outcome.

    I think Clinton is taking an admirable step towards unifying the party.  Her and Obama's policies are very closely aligned, and the goal should be to end the prospects of a disastrous McCain presidency.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is "illegitimate" (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:58:34 AM EST
    because of the way he got the nomination.  

    [ Parent ]
    Because they took 4 delegates from Clinton? (3.00 / 2) (#41)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:07:32 AM EST
    OK, I think the DNC was wrong to take 4 delegates away from Clinton as well, but look, Obama has made up well more than 4 delegates from other places.

    It'd kind of like saying that if 2 fraudulent votes were cast for a candidate in an election, and that candidate won by 100 votes, that his election is illegitimate because of those votes.

    Was it a good thing that it happened? No. Does it make their election illegitimate? No.

    [ Parent ]

    More than four (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by gabbyone on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:12:14 AM EST
    were taken.....he was given all the uncommitted votes which should have gone to the convention as uncommitted. How do you give someone votes when they have removed themselves from the ballot.
    At the meeting, they clearly said, it was his choice to remove himself, it was not required.....so we reward him for his bad choice
    and punish Michigan and Florida for theirs.
    Illegitimate he is.....

    [ Parent ]
    Your expectations for MI (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:14:11 AM EST
    were out of step with reality.

    Even Ickes admitted that the uncommitted were almost all for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by gabbyone on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:24:41 AM EST
    but he wasn't on the ballot. If you took yourself off the ballot any where in any kind of election, would you get the votes?  Ickes also said it was a violation of DNC rules to do this....guess Donna
    Brazile's follow the rules didn't pertain here.


    [ Parent ]
    The delegates were chosen (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    at the state convention in accordance with the rules. And almost all uncommitted were for Obama. What broke the rules was assigning the 4 extra. But that didn't change the outcome at the end of the day.

    [ Parent ]
    The Detroit papers (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by gabbyone on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:48:15 AM EST
    reported that the votes were certified by the state as uncommitted.  I would like to see where the state convention gave them to Obama? It was not reported any where that I can find. Saying it is so, doesn't make it so.


    [ Parent ]
    Check the archives here (none / 0) (#84)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:49:48 AM EST
    or go back and rewatch the RBC meeting.

    [ Parent ]
    Michigan party (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by gabbyone on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:00:38 PM EST
    MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY RELEASES 2008 NATIONAL CONVENTION PLEDGED DELEGATE, ALTERNATE, AND COMMITTEE ALLOCATION

    LANSING - The Michigan Democratic Party today released the official allocation of pledged delegates, alternates, and committee members for Hillary Clinton and for Uncommitted based on the official January 15, 2008 Presidential Primary results certified by the Board of State Canvassers on February 4, 2008.  

    Overall, Clinton will have 73 pledged delegates, 16 pledged alternates, and 10 committee members, and there will be 55 uncommitted delegates, 5 uncommitted alternates, and 8 uncommitted committee members.  

    Eighty-three (83) pledged delegates and 15 pledged alternates will be elected at Congressional District Conventions on March 29, 2008.  The remaining 45 pledged delegates and 6 pledged alternates will be elected at a State Central Committee meeting on May 17, 2008 in Grand Rapids.  Committee members will be elected that day by the entire delegation.

    These 128 pledged delegates, 21 pledged alternates and 18 committee members together with 28 unpledged delegates (also known as "super delegates") will constitute Michigan's delegation to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado on August 25-28.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary had the decency... (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by ineedalife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:56:09 AM EST
    not to run delegates for the uncommitted slots. Brewer said this in his presentation and answers. The county conventions were intentionally ran, with the Clinton campaign's cooperation, to swing the uncommitted delegate slots to Obama supporters. Obama supporters were, even then, outraged that a few truly uncommitted delegates were chosen. That was why there was no "unity"in MI until they gave over all the uncommitteds and a few more to Obama; because of the thugishness of Obama supporters.

    So the theft took place on several levels. Hillary was locked out of contesting for the uncommitteds, which was her right. She did that to help the MI democrats. But that still wasn't enough for the greedy Obamabots. The DNC finished the robbery.

    [ Parent ]

    This was the Michigan Demo Party's (none / 0) (#131)
    by ksh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:54:14 PM EST
    compromise. Obama wanted to split it, I believe Clinton wanted 69 + 4. The rules committee gave deference to the state plan: they hadn't submitted a delegate selection plan and, I believe, this is how they justified their decision.  Personally, I don't think Obama needed the four delegates and I don't think it would have changed the overall primary results.

    [ Parent ]
    you must not be well informed on MI and FL (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by sociallybanned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    Go read Wayne Barrett on the miserable Huffpo and on truthout.org.

    Obama backers (which were elected officials and campaign mgrs plus chair campaign for Obama) in both states pushed to change the dates knowingly it would tick off the DNC but who paid for the deal, Hillary Clinton.  It's no different than Bush elective officials assiting him in his win.  The difference is that they took another approach knowing Hillary would have won by even more of a landslide in both states.  

    And those other three states already had their dates moved up but changed them up again going against the original plans of the DNC.  

    [ Parent ]

    this is wrong (none / 0) (#132)
    by ksh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:59:04 PM EST
    Debbie Wasserman Schultz was involved and she's a Clinton partisan.  In Michigan, Rengell's wife was heavily involved. She's a Clinton supporter. Ickes is on the Rules Committee and voted for the sanctions.  McAuliffe threatened similar sanctions against Michigan when they tried it for the 2004 election.  Any suggestion that Obama engineered the attempts to jump the primary schedule is on the level of a conspiracy theory. Howard Dean was dead set against the moving of the primaries and I don't think it was a matter of partisan politics.

    [ Parent ]
    No, it's not (5.00 / 9) (#55)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:21:01 AM EST
    It's not 4 votes. It's 4 delegates. Which equals 600,000 people who voted for Hillary Clinton legitimately but had their votes handed to Barack Obama even though that's not who they voted for. He was not even on the ballot.

    And even if BO got "most" of the uncommitted votes, there were delegates for other candidates as well. The normal protocol is for uncommitted delegates to go to Convention and decide who they want to vote for then.

    Some of those uncommitted wanted to vote for Clinton. The DNC couldn't have that. It might've made their Precious lose.

    [ Parent ]

    One other little known fact (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by gabbyone on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:43:20 AM EST
    was covered by a Boston Globe reporter but ignored by the rest of the media.  When this reporter talked to all the campaigns about
    Michigan, she was told that the Obama camp came
    to them and encouraged them to get off the ballot so they could use it against Clinton.  The wanted to be able to say that she violated the rules and they followed them.  Most of the campaign's went along except for the candidates that stayed on the ballot with her.  The more honorable candidates you could say, chose to do the right thing and stay on.  The argument that she violated the rules was never true but dogged her through the entire campaign.  

    [ Parent ]
    ONe could say (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:58:42 AM EST
    that the "reflecting" and the "assumption" and the exit poll strategy used by members of the DNC gives an appearance of non legitimate conclusion.

    I'm just saying, one could say.

    [ Parent ]

    Right they are about even, but (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by abfabdem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:52:11 AM EST
    with all his MSM support and the boost from "winning" the primary coupled with McCain's Bush baggage, why isn't he further ahead at this point?  Hillary is still stronger.  See Vote the Numbers in the NY Times today.  She gets more electoral votes than he does despite the media screaming at her to get out for months.   It's concerning.

    [ Parent ]
    DNC corruption dates to August 2007 (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    at the least, in the first ruling of the rules and bylaws committee that delegitimized the votes of two states entirely, just to disadvantage Clinton and privilege Obama.  (And I think it predates even that, although that meeting is as far back as my evidence goes; however, the entire calendaring of the primary season seems highly suspect.)

    And I already have written here that your "lesser of two evils" argument no longer works for me.  Evil is evil, both parties and both Obama and McCain are benefitting from it, and I won't go along with it for either one.  For the first time in my long life as a Dem, now a former Dem, I'm sitting out this one and only voting downticket -- but only for those candidates who reject and denounce and do something about the corruption in the Dem party.  

    If Republicans want to clean up their corruption, good for them.  Makes no difference to me.  Got that?  There.  Is.  No.  Difference.  Now.

    [ Parent ]

    Standing firm on principles (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:38:45 PM EST
    Cream City, you are an inspiration to so many.

    I will be including your condition, reject and denounce and do something about the corruption in the Dem party, in all my letters to the democratic candidates who are downticket on my ballot this fall, in 2010, and again in 2012, if I need to still be doing that.

    I have emailed my existing democrats (all continue to support Clinton, despite the letter from the trio) to commend their decision to follow the expectation of the rules of superdelegates in using independent judgment.

    One has to wonder if any of this has been Howard Dean's retalliation for his failed run. How many times do you suppose Dean has said, "if I had gotten that nomination, the democrats would have won the election". He keeps saying it took him 3 months to convince his supporters to accept Kerry. Ego is his enemy :)

    [ Parent ]

    <blush and backatcha, Java> (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    I look for your comments -- yours and others inspire me.  And, crucially, have kept me from falling for the crazy-making tactic of making us think that we're the odd ones out, that we're the only ones who see what we have seen -- and, sadly, still see.

    [ Parent ]
    I Don't Understand Your Point (none / 0) (#126)
    by daring grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    Wasn't the 2007 vote to sanction Florida, for example, unanimous except for one committee member--Alan Katz of Florida, an Obama superdelegate?

    Why would all the Clinton supporters on the committee have voted to "disadvantage Clinton and privilege Obama." ?

    What piece of this am I missing?

    [ Parent ]

    Why would Richardson say one thing and do another? (none / 0) (#147)
    by blogtopus on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:17:06 PM EST
    We know that people's goals don't necessarily mesh with what is public.

    [ Parent ]
    Then how do you explain Ickes vote (none / 0) (#133)
    by ksh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    for the 100% removal of their delegates?

    [ Parent ]
    To both of you above, we have been (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:03:04 PM EST
    through this, and I have given it enough hours.  Search archives.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Um, sorry to be abrupt, but -- (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:06:20 PM EST
    my workplace is imploding on email, amid tornado sirens going off intermittently here; we've already lost our phone line, so electricity may be next.  Cheers.

    [ Parent ]
    NO, but (none / 0) (#78)
    by EMC2002 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:43:51 AM EST
    Clinton can make him legitimate. And the two of them together can make the changes in the party that could benefit all.Do you not think that Obama might be using Dean to make changes in the party..Clinton and Obama would be your check and balance for both the party and country.

    [ Parent ]
    No, I don't think that (5.00 / 7) (#87)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:52:33 AM EST
    because I am not naive enough to think that those who engineered corruption and were its beneficiaries will suddenly see the light and the error of their ways.

    As we used to say in those "excessive '60s," if you're part of the problem, you can't be part of the solution.  Apparently, you're too young to have seen the '60s?  Well, if there's any hope left for this country, it is that we will see their reprise.

    [ Parent ]

    No one can make Obama legitimate (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    He took delegates away from Clinton in MI, and I will need proof he didn't take them away in the caucuses.

    His negative campaigning against her caused poll results in every state he did that to rate her trustworthiness at terribly low levels, but the states where he didn't campaign, her rates were exactly where one would expect them to be.

    He cannot undo what he did to the Clintons, their supporters, and the many demographics he dissed.

    He cannot find the experience, and record of leadership he must have to get my vote between now and November.

    How can Clinton possibly make him legitimate?


    [ Parent ]

    by the DNC reasoning Hillary should be declared (none / 0) (#156)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:24:35 AM EST
    the winner of the electoral college by not being on the general election ballot. It's absurb argument!

    [ Parent ]
    Very funny. (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:30:31 AM EST
    MSNBC was reporting that they were at Clinton's house - live remote in front of the house with a lower-third saying it was a "secret" meeting.  It wasn't Clinton's house and it wasn't a secret.  Typical.

    I actually can't believe that the reporters didn't know it wasn't Clinton's house.  When I saw the picture I thought, "Oh she must have moved."

    I think the tea leaves say that "Mrs" (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:30:42 AM EST
    Feinstein was speaking of combining their resources. I still believe that "Mr." Obama's ego (and probably Mrs. Obama's ego)will not let this happen. He is not a smart politician (as you have noted previously)but driven by the worshipers around him telling him how wonderful he is. Sounds alot like GWB to me.

    smart enough to win the nomination (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by ksh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:33:14 AM EST
    and beat one of the smartest politicians of her era. You should give HRC more credit.

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me, BO was GIVEN the nomination by (5.00 / 13) (#11)
    by nulee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:42:02 AM EST
    the superdelegates, who could just as easily have given it to the leader of the popular vote, Clinton
    .  And that fact that that administrative decision by the DNC puts the party in a huge gamble is getting looked at more closely every day.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

    [ Parent ]

    okay, tell me how she would have (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by ksh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:04:03 AM EST
    gotten the nomination herself without super delegates?  What was her path to get more pledged delegates?  What's your math?  If they seated both Florida and Michigan full strength and let the Michigan uncommitteds pledge their preference, she probably wouldn't have made it. You must know the math if you want to use it. Florida and Michigan wouldn't have done it for her, counting all the delegates she would have gotten against his in Florida and his Michigan write-ins (I think it was 5% according to Green Papers) then any commitment the "uncommitteds" would make at a later date.

    If you want, you can fight about popular vote totals (and maybe be inclusive rather than exclusive in figuring them) but she lost in our pledged delegate system where popular vote only matters in the case where super delegates override an obvious trainwreck nomination.  

    There's your argument: If you believe Obama was/is a trainwreck, then you believe the super delegates didn't do their job. It's your argument, but I don't see Obama as a McGovern-like disaster meriting super delegate intervention.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps we should vote for Axelrod (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    Obama didn't beat Clinton. Axelrod did. Rove has shown us that ruthlessness wins every time. Clinton didn't expect Axelrod to run a campaign designed to tear down the party. It's very hard to win when your opponent is willing to burn down the house in order to defeat you, even if they go down in the process.

    Another good reason for Edwards to not run - he is clean, and he doesn't want to be associated too strongly with the new Rove. He won't be Axelrod's hit man. I wonder who they'll find for the job?

    [ Parent ]

    A vote for Obama IS a vote (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:59:36 AM EST
    for Axelrove.  I couldn't vote for Rovian tactics, so I also am hardly going to vote for their cheap, cheating knockoff that xeroxed them for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Scarey (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:48:47 PM EST
    Rove held a position in the Bush Whitehouse, right?

    Anyone up for Axelrod in your Whitehouse collecting a giant paycheck out of your tax money??

    [ Parent ]

    I was reading differently (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:43:25 AM EST
    A lot of people who know Obama say he is very intelligent, based on some things I read. Of course, I hear the same thing about Bush, so I'm a bit leery. I still can't figure out how a guy who was editor of the Harvard Law Review ended up filing incorporation papers and writing briefs for a law firm, even as he lectured on constitutional law. It would seem that a person of his stature (state Congressman, law professor) would be given a partnership in any law firm with which they were associated, but I don't know much about law firms, so perhaps there is more at play.

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder if it had anything to do with (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:54:27 AM EST
    his inability to wrap his head around the concept of decriminalization.

    [ Parent ]
    You don't become a partner at a law firm (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by caDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    even if you graduate at the top of class. No law firm will hire a fresh graduate at partner level.

    [ Parent ]
    He was there for nearly 10 years (none / 0) (#75)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:40:23 AM EST
    Although after 3 he was working summers only. He had been out of law school doing undefined community activism for 2 years before he started with the firm. When do lawyers generally get partnerships? What effect does a magna cum laude graduation have? What about being a State Senator? A law professor? I would think that any law firm would be happy to have him as a partner with those kinds of credentials, even if he didn't work there full time. His credentials alone would be a prestigious addition.

    [ Parent ]
    depends on the firm (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ksh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:04:26 PM EST
    the area of practice, and what he was doing at the time.

    [ Parent ]
    A lecturer (none / 0) (#128)
    by clinton dem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:25:13 PM EST
    Mr. empty suit was a lecturer not a professor of law. This is another 75 lies , so far, he has made up to boost her credential.

    [ Parent ]
    Well being the 1st editor of the HLR (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ineedalife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    to never publish an article may have had something to do with that.

    [ Parent ]
    well (none / 0) (#39)
    by ksh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:06:28 AM EST
    he could have gone many different routes, the most likely clerking for a Supreme Court justice.  He chose to continue in activism and civil rights.  As someone who has done the same thing, you should only question my judgment at bill paying time. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    But he didn't (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:35:40 AM EST
    I have found no mention of his personally running any activism cases, although I did read about him writing briefs about some civil rights cases. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding a lawyers responsibilities, and writing briefs is really important, but I thought that briefs were generally written by lower level lawyers and law clerks, not people who had been with a firm for over 10 years and were state Congressmen and Professor's of constitutional law. This is certainly the place to find out if I am wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    you're making generalizations (none / 0) (#98)
    by ksh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:06:41 PM EST
    in an area that's hard to generalize....I think you need a few more facts to fill things in, but every path to partnership -- if you want it (and that's a big if) is different, every law firm different, every practice area different.  BTD can tell you.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's career (none / 0) (#151)
    by laurie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:29:23 PM EST
    I have a feeling he was preparing for the presidency for a long time. I saw a BBC report which interviewed his classmates in Indonesia. They remember that at that time he wanted to be President of the US.

    This article by a British journalist affirms that
     " his entire political career has been choreographed by David Axelrod, a political tactician described by the New York Times as "post-ideological", from the day they first met when Obama was just 30 (and four years before the publication of his first memoirs)."

    The same article suggests that BO would obtain the votes of Superdelegates:
    "Not least, alas, by financial inducements. The non-partisan Centre for Responsive Politics says that Obama has doled out $698,200 to the campaign funds of super-delegates (via his political action or campaign committees) since 2005; 43 per cent of those pledged to support him have been recipients of Obama funds. Clinton's team has handed over $205,500 to super-delegates, meanwhile, and received only 13 per cent of pledges from recipients."

    http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/02/obama-clinton-vote-usa

    See this for Obama's finances:
    http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5637

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's legal career seen as average (none / 0) (#157)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:42:53 AM EST
    Attorneys at his old law firm say he handled few cases ...

    www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5679210.html

    By DAN MORAIN
    Los Angeles Times

    FIRM A FORCE IN CHICAGO POLITICS

    The firm that hired Obama right out of Harvard Law School has been a force in Chicago politics. Carole Moseley Braun, one of Obama's predecessors in the U.S. Senate from Illinois, briefly worked at the firm.
    Judson Miner, the head of the firm, was counsel to the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington. Allison Davis, a co-founder of the firm who since has left, is a major Chicago developer. Miner, Davis and other partners and clients have been a regular source of campaign money for Obama, giving him $100,000 over the years.

    CHICAGO -- In his books, speeches and campaign commercials, Sen. Barack Obama often hearkens back to his days as a civil rights attorney.

    It is fundamental to his autobiography, displayed on his campaign Web site and woven into his appeals for votes. In one of his television ads leading up to the South Carolina primary, Obama recalled "working as a civil rights attorney to make sure that everybody's vote counted."

    Senior attorneys at the small firm where he worked say he was a strong writer and researcher but was involved in relatively few cases -- about 30 -- and spent only four years as a full-time lawyer before entering politics.

    Obama arrived in Chicago in 1993 from Harvard Law School and was hired as a junior lawyer at the firm then known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard. He helped represent clients in civil and voting rights matters and wrongful firings, argued a case before a federal appellate court and took the lead in writing a suit to expand voter registration.

    But the firm also handled routine legal matters and real estate. Obama spent about 70 percent of his time on voting rights, civil rights and employment, generally as a junior associate. The rest of his time was spent on matters related to real estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits.

    • In one instance, Obama defended a nonprofit corporation that owns low-income housing projects against a lawsuit in which a man alleged that he slipped and fell because of poor maintenance. Obama got the suit dismissed.
    • In another case, Obama appeared on behalf of a nonprofit corporation that provided health care for poor people. A woman, who claimed income of less than $8,000 a year, had sued Obama's client to obtain a $336 payment for baby-sitting services; Obama's client paid up, and the case was settled.
    • In 1994, Obama appeared in Cook County court on behalf of Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., defending it against a suit by the city, which alleged the company failed to provide heat for low-income tenants on the South Side of Chicago during the winter.
    Those were not the cases Obama highlighted in his self-portrait drawn in his first memoir, Dreams of My Father.

    more......

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think you want that spin (4.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    Typically one does not want their champion to lose to the worst/mediocre challenger.

    Only someone really good could beat Hillary, not just anyone, would be the spin I would put on it.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    The only "spin" is that she didn't (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:47:50 AM EST
    manage the "caucuses" very well. He did, check the numbers, that's the difference in the how they both fared. I caucused, not supervised, and cheating going on. So stop spinning. We know what we know about both candidates. I agree w/BTD that Hillary would be the best pick for v.p. It would be a winning ticket, altho' some Hillary supporters still might not vote.

    [ Parent ]
    I realize feelings are running high (none / 0) (#25)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:56:39 AM EST
    but you are going to have to trust me, I don't give a d@mn  whether or not Obama is the nominee or Hillary. Either one is acceptable to me. If you choose you can check my posts, I have been very clear on this point.  I have not attacked either candidate. What is not acceptable is McCain.

    So if you want to go around and say Hillary lost to an inferior candidate, be my guest.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    I do give a d@mn as to who does and (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:03:13 AM EST
    does not get elected. I also play fair. Like Judge Judy's book is entitled: "Don't Pee On My Leg And Tell Me It's Raining." I have seen the light and it's glow doesn't affect me in the least.

    [ Parent ]
    What makes you think I don't? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:08:49 AM EST
    I don't care who the nominee is, I only care that the Democratic nominee is elected. I hope you feel the same way about getting the Democratic nominee elected.

    The funny thing is, the angrier the partisans got, the less attached to a specific nominee I became. I don't know why. I did try to reign people in on both sides, but few paid much attention to me.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    The Any Democrat strategy (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by annabelly on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:37:36 AM EST
    Won't work for me this time. The party has presented unacceptable, losing campaigns for the last two presidential elections. In the time they've held the majority since 2006 they have done squat to correct the corruption in Washington, mostly because they are either afraid, or part of that corruption (see Rockefeller). Their actions for the last 8 years speak for themselves, and they are as deserving of support as Republicans, which is to say, not at all.  And I will vote accordingly. Not one Democrat or Republican will get my vote this year.

    [ Parent ]
    Helpful (none / 0) (#103)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:19:48 PM EST
    Just what Hillary would ask you to do too!

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Just a guess, but I'd guess you may (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:19:55 PM EST
    feel no one is listening.

    [ Parent ]
    Hard to say (none / 0) (#153)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:35:36 PM EST
    some people clearly have decided to do what I think is the right thing. I'd like to think I played some role with that, but in the end,  it matters not whether I did or didn't.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    I do care (none / 0) (#129)
    by clinton dem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:27:27 PM EST
    who gets into white house. the president in this country has a lot of power and it does make a difference who that is. I am going with the safe one..MacCain

    [ Parent ]
    then goodbye Roe and get comfy in Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by ksh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:08:58 PM EST
    More corporatism, another attempt to privatize social security, lame, half-assed measures to deal with global warming.....Talk about cutting your nose to spite your face

    [ Parent ]
    Mcain is not safe (none / 0) (#149)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:51:19 PM EST
    McCain favors a war that has made us less safe. McCain graduated at the bottom of his class at West Point. McCain's war service consisted of getting shot down and spending the war in the Hanoi Hilton. That he came through that means is he is brave, not that he is particularly great on national security.

     McCain has promised to nominate more anti-Roe, anti-workers rights, anti-civil rights justices  (maybe you like that, I don't know). McCain has admitted to being clueless on the economy. McCain has had government paid for health care his entire life. He doesn't think you should have equal health care.

    You have peculiar ideas about safety.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    "Mrs.", Indeed (none / 0) (#127)
    by daring grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:19:25 PM EST
    I noticed that reference to Senator Feinstein and wondered if when she leaves the Hill and has guests over to house, she turns from Senator to Mrs.

    But then several times during the campaign, I found the same jarring reference to "Mrs." Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it's funny that DiFi sez (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:55:13 AM EST
    tht Hillary won the popular vote. Personally, it looks tied beyond the level of resolution we have. Doesn't matter anymore. . .

    It matters (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by cawaltz on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:10:24 AM EST
    If it didn't there wouldn't have been a meeting. He needs at least a portion of HER supporters to see him as legit or to e able to put aside that fact to win.

    [ Parent ]
    No question (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:12:53 AM EST
    But that's the argument for the unity ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah, that jumped out at me (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by lilburro on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:28:16 AM EST
    I wonder how commonly held that belief is among the superdelegates.

    [ Parent ]
    It's worse if they believe it (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:32:02 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I noticed that too (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:31:36 AM EST
    Interesting that she'd reference the popular vote.  I'd think all the cronies would be terrified to go there, but maybe she is softening the ground for HRC's announcement that she is suspending not conceding.  I really do think it is vitally important that Hillary go to the convention on behalf of MI/FL, not to mention her "constituencies" (particularly women).  It can all be theater when BO magnanimously seats the entire delegations, under the illusion of it counting with HRC still in the race, but it will still be important theater.  Besides, if on the off chance (your mileage may vary on how off a chance you think it is) all goes south for BO this summer, then HRC is handily there for a tidy substitution.

    [ Parent ]
    You got it (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:36:07 AM EST
    someone with some sense. that is obviously what is gonna happen.

    [ Parent ]
    I can see clearly... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by chopper on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:29:10 PM EST
    Pelosi said go with "the will of the people".

    I can't think of any clearer way to determine the "will of the people" than through "one person, one vote".

    Hillary won the popular vote, even including the corrupt caucuses.

    It can't be any clearer than that.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton did not win the popular vote... (none / 0) (#124)
    by phdby40 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:09:29 PM EST
    from kos: The ONLY way Clinton can claim a popular vote victory is to 1) count the Soviet-style Michigan election results, 2) give Obama zero votes in the state, and 3) ignore the caucus states.

    It was a close count, no doubt. Of course, if popular vote was the measure of victory, Obama would've run a different race. For one, he wouldn't have gone into "general election mode" a month ago, leaving votes on the table in the last few contests. But it wasn't, and Obama's team executed and won by every measure.

    [ Parent ]

    Please have (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:46:13 PM EST
    the common sense not to site anything from kos. Such rabid Hillary Hating blogs have no credibility.

    [ Parent ]
    Angry bitter women comments in articles (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by sociallybanned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:26:06 AM EST
    I just love it when I read articles that only white women are her loyal supporters.  I think it's hilarious.  Also most articles, giving advice to Obama how he can woo the loyal Hillary supporters which are women. LOL!!!!!  They are painted women as being bitter and extreme feminist.  Let me tell you this, I've heard many , many , many men that are very loyal to Hillary and WILL NOT  vote for Obama at all.  It has nothing to do about his race.  It has everything to do what's on his resume, which is nothing.
    Not knowing color of ppl here or race, but I can tell by words that there are loyal men here that support Hillary and will not be casting their vote for Obama.

    Yes, media continue to confuse (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:05:43 PM EST
    "women" with "feminists."  The suffix is gender-neutral for a reason (just as most women working for the vote called themselves "suffragists" and rejected "suffragettes," btw).

    Example: BTD, at least as far as I know from his words/actions here, is a feminist. :-)

    Media, however, as far as we know from their words/actions, are fools.  <not breaking news>

    [ Parent ]

    JUNE 10 (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by chopper on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:44:57 AM EST

    Tuesday JUNE 10 is INDEPENDENCE DAY.

    The day voters will switch their registration from Democrat to Independent.

    You can still vote either way.  It's a protest move about the way the DNC has treated Hillary and her voters.

    About the way Obama and the DNC shafted Hillary.  First by cutting her FL & MI delegates in half, but leaving South Carolina (Obama's state) in tact when they broke the same rule.

    Then by giving Obama MI when he wasn't even on the ballot.  He made a strategic decision to remove his name in order to gain favor with Iowa, which he did.  He won the Iowa "caucus". He should accept the MI loss along with the IA win. His decision.  Hillary had nothing to do with it.

    The DNC gave Obama ALL the uncommitted in Michigan meaning the votes of some people were hijacked. Example, if you voted for Mike Gravel who took his name off, and your second choice was Hillary - too bad, they gave it to Obama.

    Then, if that wasn't enough, Obama stole an additional 4 delegates directly from Hillary.

    So, INDEPENDENCE DAY is to protest all of that, the Texas ripoff, the other corrupt caucuses, continually trying to force her out, pushing SDs to push Obama over the top knowing Hillary won the popular vote, etc.........

    Cool. June 10 is a historic day (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:30:29 PM EST
    as the 89th anniversary of the first ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1919 -- in my state.  And on the same day, it was ratified in Clinton's home state of Illinois.

    The struggle to the last requisite ratification took more than a year -- but women then accomplished so much with the communication technology of the time that we ought to be able to do it in far less time with the Internet. :-)  Do you have a link on this?

    The strategies and tactics remain the same -- and so does our slogan from the woman who wrote the 19th Amendment, Susan B. Anthony: Failure Is Impossible.  And, as she also said, "No Self Respecting Woman Should Wish or Work for the Success of a Party That Ignores Her."

    [ Parent ]

    JUNE 10 is INDEPENDENCE DAY (none / 0) (#108)
    by chopper on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:45:58 PM EST
    Sorry, I don't have a link.  I was surfing last night and saw it mentioned on a website that I don't remember.  Maybe you can create one.

    [ Parent ]
    Houston Chronicle headline saturday (none / 0) (#158)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:52:07 AM EST
    TEXAS DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION
    Unhealed wounds
    Passions run deep as many delegates voice objections and support for Obama, Clinton


    [ Parent ]
    Well done to the two candidates (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:48:09 AM EST
    And shame shame shame on lots and lots of the media and the supporters.  This is a history shattering campaign and both candidates must be treated with the utmost respect and treat each other that way because the party they respresent is the party ever moving toward equality.  When you have one candidate capable of shattering a glass ceiling for ethnic minorities and another candidate capable of shattering a glass ceiling of gender rights inequality this is how it is done folks.  Of course I can't help notice that the candidate I think best suited for the job made the first overtures and in my opinion displaying maximum wisdom, maturity, and decision making skills.  If Obama is going to earn my vote it will be because of his ability to do things such as this and do it in such a manner that the issues of women and respecting women is uplifted, demonstrated, and highlighted!  He is the only person capable of earning my vote too.  His supporters, I have nothing I want to hear from them and many of them lost all credibility with me in this primary.

    Feinstein Video Link (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by dazedreamer52 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:46:19 PM EST
    You can see Feinstein talk to reporters here.

    I think that an hour is enough time for the two to watch a 30 minute video.

    You know, (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by suki on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:33:21 PM EST
    I wonder what you hope to accomplish with a post like this.
    It's not very bright if your goal is to help bring people to your point of view.
    On the other hand, if you goal is to stir things up and harden opposing views - good job!
    Personally, I find you very obnoxious.

    DEMOCRACY (1.00 / 0) (#53)
    by chopper on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:14:51 AM EST

    Hillary Clinton 17,673,329 (50.45%)

    Barack Obama 17,355,652 (49.55%)

    DO WE GO WITH LEGITIMATE VOTES AND DEMOCRACY,

    OR WITH CORRUPT CAUCUSES AND DISPROPORTIONATE DELEGATES?

    PELOSI SAYS GO WITH THE WILL OF PEOPLE.

    THAT SOUNDS LIKE GO WITH THE PEOPLE'S VOTES, DOESN'T IT?

    OBAMA "WON" THE CAUCUSES WITH HIS GOONS AND THEIR FORCEFUL TACTICS.  ESPECIALLY IN TEXAS WHERE OVER 2000 COMPLAINTS WERE FILED, EVEN WITH JAMMED PHONE LINES, AND THE DNC DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. I WOULD SAY CONDONED IT.

    THE RESULTS PROVE IT.  HILLARY WON THE PRIMARY, HIS GOONS STOLE THE DELEGATES.

    HIS DELEGATES ARE BASED ON A DISPROPORTIONATE SYSTEM TO BEGIN WITH, AND FURTHER CORRUPTED BY THE FRAUD, THEFT, THREATS, AND PHYSICAL FORCE.

    THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE DEMOCRACY OR A LEGITIMATE WIN TO ME.

    All caps = screaming (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:25:35 AM EST
    my ears hurt

    "Once in a while yo