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 / 21) (#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 / 4) (#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 / 8) (#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 / 8) (#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 / 6) (#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 / 4) (#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 / 8) (#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 / 5) (#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 / 1) (#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 / 2) (#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 / 6) (#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 / 4) (#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.

    [ 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.

    [ 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.

    [ 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!

    [ 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.

    [ 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.


    [ 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 / 1) (#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 / 1) (#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

    [ Parent ]
    Goons? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:32:59 AM EST
    I hope the clintons rise above this level of discourse. obama and clinton tied as a matter of perpetual fact and reason. the rules state delegates decide the nomination. its not clinton's or definitely not obama's fault she lost. it was her campaign staff(namely mark penn) and her honest mistake on the iraq war vote. give me a break with this.

    [ Parent ]
    None so Blind (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by JimandZ on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    There are none so blind who will not see.  BO purportedly won 38 to 29 on the Texas Caucus and mysteriously lost 61 to 65 in the private-vote Texas Primary.  If the caucus reflected legitimate popular will, why did the results in the caucus end up so skewed when compared to the private votes?  

    Perhaps the thousands of caucus complaints where all baseless.  Perhaps all Hillary supporters who attended the caucus are having mass delusions.  Perhaps the media clips of police having to be called-in to some caucus sites were fabricated.  It was just Axelrod teaching the BO caucus goers how to win over the Hillary voters with some of BO's irresistible charisma.

    Too bad Axelrod won't be able to take BO's charm into the private voting booths of the November election.  However, the DNC doesn't care about that small complication.  Hillary voters will simply get some stern prodding from the DNC elite and fall in line behind their chosen one.

    Winning is a relative term.  What the DNC did for BO might have given him the purported win, but it is likely the voters are the losers.

    [ Parent ]

    RULES? (none / 0) (#85)
    by chopper on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:50:39 AM EST
    Do the rules state delegates can be "earned" through force, attacks, and threats?

    Are those considered legitimate delegates.

    Hillary's problem was she didn't hire her own goons.

    [ Parent ]

    The party leaders had to step in and make a (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Newt on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:19:29 PM EST
    decision.  Our candidates were tied.  They chose one candidate over the other, for many reasons, some of which may have been the perceived change Obama represents, new fundraising abilities, the dislike many Dem rank and file voters still feel for the Clintons, the "Bill" potential negatives, and the likely effect in the GE of the public's desire to get out of Iraq.  

    Popular vote did not hold as much sway with Superdees, perhaps because:  
    There's no way to tell how many of Clinton's 18 million votes came from Chaos Republicans voting for the candidate who would absolutely reengage their base (Yes, Obama has his own set of negatives, and yes 527s will use them, but holy smokes, some Republicans actually like this guy).

    There's no good way to count caucus states.

    There's no way to tell how much the GOP's election fraud maneuvers affected the vote totals.  

    I think Hillary wants the VP and Obama doesn't want her.  They both have an out simply by Bill Clinton not being willing to be fully vetted.  So the question then becomes, what else can she negotiate at this point, and will it unify the party if it's given to her?  I'm assuming if it's something she wants, like Senate Majority Leader, most of her supporters would vote for Obama if Hillary frames this in terms of her ability to achieve the goals she expressed during the primary.

    it is very difficult (none / 0) (#120)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:26:52 PM EST
    in any race to declare a winner without a commanding lead and most of the clinton supporters i know don't think obama is right and vice versa for my friends who support O. I have always thought this was great for the party as it energized the voters and got us out in record numbers but the drawback is someone had to lose and either side would be accusing the other of dirty tricks, cronyism, buying votes blah blah blah. I don't think losing gracefully has been in our dna since the 50's, perhaps all that ddt has horribly changed our dna to make us very ugly when losing.....

    [ Parent ]
    I would figure (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:22:29 PM EST
    they would be out of steam by now but their anger and bile re-energizes itself. Same old bashing over and over and over again. Reminds of the republicans against clinton back in the 90's. I hated it then and i hate it now.

    What do the tea leaves say? (none / 0) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:42 AM EST


    Same thing they always say (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:30:15 AM EST
    whatever you want them to say.

    [ Parent ]
    Tea Leaves (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    coming from Dianne Feinstein say 'Don't drink the tea'.

    Let's face it, Clinton is in full political mode now. She is doing what the HAS to do whether she likes it or not. She is doing it for her own political future, for if she didn't do it she would be an outcast and she has invested far to much in making America a better place than to throw it all away now. What she is doing comes with the territory of running for President.

    The plus side is if she plays this right she will come out much stronger that she started. Where before she was a State Senator with national name recognition, she is now the political moral leader of millions of admirers and supporters and is in a good position to influence the agenda from her Senate perch with the support of those supporters.

    Now will I and others follow her lead and vote for Obama? Not hardly. But other than that I back her actions and future 100%.

    [ Parent ]

    And.... (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    It is wonderfully amazing to me how she does what she must do graciously and with a smile.
    While I am all pissed off at the sexism and the roolz and the DNC and the media - she is mending the fences and building the case for a Dem WH and for her own future.
    What a woman!

    [ Parent ]
    Ahem, she never was a "State Senator" (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:08:13 PM EST
    as that terms means a legislator at the state level.

    She is a U.S. Senator, and she was one while Obama still was a State Senator.  That could suggest concern about his experience, hmmm?  But that's an argument that apparently is so months ago.

    [ Parent ]

    He was a state senator where they sit for only 55 (none / 0) (#160)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:59:06 AM EST
    days a year. So that makes him a state senator for 330 days less than a year and only if he has perfect attendance!

    [ Parent ]
    The New York Times wrote an article a week or (none / 0) (#37)
    by gabbyone on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:03:59 AM EST
    so ago which tracked what happened to people who run for the Presidency when they go back to the Senate and the picture wasn't pretty.
    They are almost diminished rather than becoming
    leaders.  Hillary's seniority is very low and the chance at even a committee chairmanship very small.  The only person who has done well after a run like this is Ted Kennedy and it was because he
    already had some years there and was young enough to have time to gain the seniority needed to
    lead.  Her age and the number of people ahead of
    her in line, don't make for a very bright future there.  The Vice President spot is a mixed bag because on the one hand, I really don't want her being the person that steers him to victory but
    being Vice President is really a gain for women
    in breaking that old glass ceiling.

    [ Parent ]
    One Need Not (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    have a a committee chairmanship to introduce and co-sponsor bills in the Senate. One need not have Seniority to appear on the Sunday shows and push an agenda. Look at Jim Webb and his veterans bill. Look at Russ Feingold, all he Chairs is a Constitutional sub-committee but yet he is a very strong voice and influence in a lot of areas.

    Don't let the MSM sell you their 'Bury Clinton' story.

    [ Parent ]

    I really saw it as historical perspective not (none / 0) (#56)
    by gabbyone on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:21:53 AM EST
    trying to sell anything.  They really gave the history of other candidates.  There is a lot of coldness and almost retaliation shown to Presidential losers when they return. John Kerry has barely been seen.  I hope you are right but it is still a old boys club in many ways.  

    [ Parent ]
    Historically, though... (none / 0) (#74)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    this was before the age of mass media and the internet.  She can get messages out and can make news like other people who have lost the nomination ever could.  Besides, she's not some first term, junior senator from Wyoming that no one has ever heard of - the media will get her on tape - even if it's just to create controversy.  


    [ Parent ]
    Unless a deal is cut (none / 0) (#99)
    by ineedalife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:07:59 PM EST
    Bill Frist became Majority Leader despite being very junior because Bush needed someone to push his agenda.

    Just my guess, but if Harry Reid doesn't want to keep it, majority leader may go to Kerry. After all, we are seeing the Kennedy's re-taking over the Democrats. So that door may have also been closed to Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    I wonder, though (none / 0) (#46)
    by Maggie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:12:02 AM EST
    if it hurts her if she can't lead her voters back to the party.  Would that be seen as a sign of weakness on her part?  It'll be interesting, in any case, to watch it play out.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think it will (none / 0) (#54)
    by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:16:39 AM EST
    First off there will be Clinton voters who will vote for Obama but I won't even try to guess as to how many. Secondly for those who don't she can always say that voters, whether supporters of hers or not, have the power to chose for themselves and that is the way it should be and that she respect all voters individual decisions.

    As long as her public face is supporting Obama and calling for unity then she has herself covered.

    [ Parent ]

    Is it me or did I not see the word concede (none / 0) (#64)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:30:47 AM EST
    in that article?

    [ Parent ]
    So Far (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by talex on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:49:07 AM EST
    she has not said the concede word, you are right. But publicly it seems that is what she is doing but we will know her actual language tomorrow.

    I don't think she will use the word, nor do I think she will say she is suspending her campaign, time will tell.

    I hoping as I expressed before that she will take her delegates to the convention for the reasons I stated in this post

    [ Parent ]

    We will just have to wait and hope that she (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:37:02 PM EST
    doesn't concede.  I want her to fight until the "bitter" end.

    [ Parent ]
    Her power base is her voters (none / 0) (#95)
    by Maggie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:04:25 PM EST
    And if she can't deliver them, what power does she have?

    I agree that this isn't a problem if he gets enough of her voters to win the election.  The problem is what happens if he loses, and it's because of the defections of her supporters.  She'd be seen as not delivering the votes that are supposed to be part of her power base. Seems to me like she'd end up in a weakened position as a result.  Leaders are able to get people to follow.  On this scenario she'd have failed that test.

    [ Parent ]

    She has made it very clear (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:23:43 PM EST
    and I am sure she related this to Obama.  Her 18M voters are Not invisible and they need to have a place in a new administration.

    Repeat after me:  We are not invisible.  We are not invisible.

    That includes: the poor, the under educated, the struggling unemployed or under employed and those without health care.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Eleanor A on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    Her responsibility is not to "deliver her voters", when in a lot of the specifics this matter is larger than she is.

    When someone is forced to drop out of a race, by dint of that fact she is no longer tasked with organizing anything.  Just what resources would she use to deliver said voters?  Especially with senior members of the DNC and the mainstream press treating her like the personification of villainy.

    [ Parent ]

    I just don't see how she can have it both ways (none / 0) (#148)
    by Maggie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:18:34 PM EST
    Either she is the representative/leader of a whole lot of voters.  In which case she has power to the extent that she delivers them.  She would exercise that power by campaigning for Barack, and making it clear to her supporters that the best way to pursue the agenda she wanted to pursue is to have a Democrat in the White House.

    Or she's the person who lost the nomination, however closely, but who no longer has any influence with her voters.  Assuming she campaigns for Barack, as she has promised, her failure to deliver her own base would have to look weak.  

    I'm not at all saying this would be bad for the voters in question.  The ones who intend to either stay at home or vote for McCain seem to know their own minds.  They can and should vote based on their own judgment of things.  I just think it would play badly for Hillary.  She'd have inspired people to vote for her, but not to vote for the things she stands for.  To the extent that the party stands for issues and not just personalities, it would be understandable if the democratic party saw Clinton as not having much to offer the party as a result.  

    [ Parent ]

    Feinstein said more (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:14:41 AM EST
    It would be great to get the clip, but I have no idea how to do it, but....

    Fox got the interview.  They have been showing extended clips.  She was asked about a unity ticket and said she would support it because Clinton brings 'constituencies'.  She was asked which and responded.. 'women, older voters, working class and states'  Also that this would be a 'historic mix'

    Sounds to me that Feinstein is paying attention to the demographics and the polls and the historic nature of both an AA and a woman.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama doesn't care. As someone (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:46:34 AM EST
    else said, he probably wants access to her lists and contacts. We have read here at how many postions he's changed his mind on..he's brought Chicago politics into all this already, everyone who might "hurt" him has been thrown under the bus, he's got the "power" he seeks...the question now is, how long will it take for him to be bored with it?!

    [ Parent ]
    You hit it on the nail - he wants the list just (none / 0) (#161)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:08:29 AM EST
    like he wanted Edwards's list! I've stopped contributing to the DNC after I saw Kennedy literally embracing Bush when he walked into the chamber to give his first state of the union address therefore legitimazing him in front of the whole country. The only campaign I've given money to was to Howard Dean and Hillary and also I've written to  Edwards after his comments that Hillary was not  fit to be President because she misted up to tell him I thought he was a sexist pig! So the day after the Edwards endorsement I start getting a begging letter from Obama and an email from Edwards asking for funds for his charity!
    So the only way they got my physical address and email is through Dean and Edwards.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh. (none / 0) (#7)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:32:01 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That Feinstein parses words well (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ksh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:31:53 AM EST
    crafty.  There's lots of room there.

    Honestly, she has served her friend better than Rangel [sic?] or Rendell.  I think you wait to talk to the press until you're sure your nominee isn't listening to you.  That was overkill on both their parts.

    [ Parent ]

    How long did Rangel wait to make her look bad? (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:42:29 AM EST
    2 hours? Geesh. So much for "loyalist"

    [ Parent ]
    I was sort of surprised at them feeding (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ksh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:49:26 AM EST
    the press like that. If the content of the phone conversation was as Rangel reported, his remarks were unnecessary.

    [ Parent ]
    In Rangel's defense (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:49:35 AM EST
    I'm sure he was under heavy pressure from AA voters.

    And I say this as a Clinton supporter who will not vote for Obama in November.  It's politics.  I don't expect politicians to behave as anything but politicians.  It's the nature of the beast.  Mind you, I will vote against the anti-Hillary turncoats whenever I have the opportunity.

    [ Parent ]

    He didn't need to throw her to those press (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:57:41 AM EST
    animals quite so soon now did he?  She didn't concede quickly enough? Come on now. And pressure from AA's? You don't think he got plenty of that BEFORE now? And, she won his Harlem district.

    [ Parent ]
    I think members of the New York delegation, (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by ksh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:09:58 AM EST
    particularly African-American members, were a little panicked.  Their districts went for Obama and holding out on endorsement made them vulnerable to being primaried.  I have some sympathy, but I still think he could have waited a day.  And I say that as an Obama supporter.

    [ Parent ]
    She won Rangel's district in Harlem. (none / 0) (#125)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:10:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I like Charlie Rangel, but he didn't get where (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:35:54 AM EST
    he has with just the help of the AA's.  I highly doubt he is in any danger of losing his seat.  The problem with many politicians is that they are media whores and want the attention.  It is CYA 24/7.  It doesn't appear that Hillary is holding any grudges towards the likes of Charlie, et al...let's just see what happens.

    GO HILLARY!!

    [ Parent ]

    If the great John Lewis was threatened (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:11:41 PM EST
    and coerced, as the Obama campaign did to so many other AAs (there is one in Missouri who even went on the record about it; he's toast), then so could Rangel be threatened and coerced.  

    That's the tea leaves I see.  That doesn't excuse his cowardice and discourtesy.  He's another one under my bus.

    [ Parent ]

    MSNBC is reporting that she says she (none / 0) (#9)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:36:18 AM EST
    greeted them at the door - put the two of them in her sitting room alone and left until they called her back and she saw them out and said good night.

    Apparently, there were no witnesses to the candidates' conversation except the two of them.

    [ Parent ]

    Rendell is two-faces as they come. I remember (none / 0) (#162)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:10:03 AM EST
    him during the recount of 2000 telling Gore to give it up! He only looks after himself, I would not trust him as far as I could throw him.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not the point (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:03:27 AM EST
    The point is, did Obama have a food taster at the meeting?

    /snark

    [ Parent ]

    What Do the Tea Leaves Say? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Spike on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:54:13 AM EST
    It's in the interest of both Clinton and Obama for the Democratic Party to be as united as it can be going into a November election that promises to be very good for the Democratic Party. It's obviously important for Obama because it will ensure his victory. But it's important to Clinton for at least two reasons. First, a truly united party will ensure that the Clinton legacy will be revered within the Democratic Party, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election. Second, a united party this year will provide Hillary a broad base of support for whatever she chooses to do in the future. No one -- except McCain -- gains from continued rancor within the Democratic Party.

    [ Parent ]
    In my opinion (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by cawaltz on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:08:36 AM EST
    screw the Democratic party revering them. What exactly has the Democratic party done recently that would mae the Clintons WANT ot even be associated with it. They have capitulated on the war, caved on FISA and disenfranchised two states.

    Hillary will have my support regardlss of the party in the future. I won't say the same thing about the Democratic party per se. I am an Independant despte that I HAVE given to the DNC in the past and I do get emails from them. Needless to say the last one got a blistering response from me. They can rely on the "new coalition" because this old guard member says "take a leap."

    [ Parent ]

    The Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:55:44 PM EST
    legacy revered in the Democratic Party. You simply cannot be serious. The Clintons are loathed, denigrated and despised by the Democratic Party. It's only the Democratic Voters that love them. And nothing is going to change that.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama should have thought about that before he (none / 0) (#163)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:15:42 AM EST
    denigrated the Clintons' accomplishments and allowed his surrogates to characterize them as bigots to peel away AA votes. He ran away from them as far as he could. That really helped Gore didn't it? Geeez, he praised Bush Sr and Reagan  but was silent on Clinton, and went so far as blaming him for the partisanship in Washington - let him reap what he sowed! He cannot expect to have it both way. I'm fed up of holding my nose - this time I will not forget or forgive. Enough is enough!

    [ Parent ]
    Now I have to say that this post presents (none / 0) (#18)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:49:05 AM EST
    a unique problem given the site rules here.  Keepin' it real is impossible because you're right about the tea leaves - there is little to base any kind of educated guessing on here - a house, three Senators, comfy chairs and water... and it is hard not to go off topic and talk about something else.  Is this a test?

    The truth is... (none / 0) (#123)
    by phdby40 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:08:05 PM EST
    From dailykos;

    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.

    This has been debunked (none / 0) (#135)
    by Eleanor A on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:03:59 PM EST
    Many times here and elsewhere.  I don't have the actual facts at hand but I'm sure someone else here does.

    [ Parent ]
    HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE (none / 0) (#137)
    by chopper on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:11:24 PM EST

    HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE.

    HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE, INCLUDING THE CORRUPT CAUCUSES STOLEN BY OBAMA'S GOONS.

    HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE, EVEN GIVING OBAMA ALL UNCOMMITTED VOTES HE DID NOT EARN IN MICHIGAN.  SOME OF THOSE VOTES WERE FOR MIKE GRAVEL AND OTHER CANDIDATES.

    HILLARY WINS EVEN WITH ALL THE FRAUD, CORRUPTION, THEFTS, THREATS, AND FORCE.

    IF SHE HAD HER OWN GOONS SHE COULD HAVE WON IN A LANDSLIDE.

    The Meeting (none / 0) (#138)
    by MrPope on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:13:07 PM EST
    I think they just sat down and talked  about life and apologized to each other for all the dirty tactics on both sides... politics are a dirty game.  I think Barack told her that he will not name her VP  but he will have her in a top cabinet position.  Lets face it  Sect. of the Interior has alot more power than VP.  Then in 2016 ..if she wants to run again...she will win easily.  69 is not too old.

    Sect of the Interior? (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:58:18 PM EST
    It does have more power than VP which is a totally useless place for a woman like Hillary Clinton to be. VP is only as powerful as a president allows it to be. Obama will NEVER give her any power. And she is a United States Senator and doesn't need Obama to "give" her a cabinet post.

    [ Parent ]
    Great. (none / 0) (#150)
    by phatpay on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:05:21 PM EST

    So this "historic" primary season is going to do nothing but give the Repugnants 4 more years.

    At this meeting, I really hope they laid the foundation for healing amongst the only party that gives a crap about poor Americans like myself.

    I'm not against a divided government! (none / 0) (#165)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:05:17 AM EST
    Having lived in Canada during the Trudeau years when he was the minority leader, government worked very well. No extreme legislation can go through. Having a rep president with a majority dem congress would not be as scary to me because they would have a veto proof congress.

    [ Parent ]
    Tables Turned (none / 0) (#152)
    by fctchekr on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:57:06 PM EST
    It's a given: if the tables were turned the Obama camp would have started a viral war against the party and the media.

    Hillary is defending her positions, her supporters, her party because she knows she has no other choice, she will do what she has to do, she will not destroy what she has built. She will not self-destruct and take us all down with her.

    It couldn't have been an easy decision, but it was the only decision. I believe everyone has to do what works for them, but I will not desert her now.. though I've said and still say I will.

    I too am still reeling from the hits she took, but she's why I posted in the first place..and why I'm still here.

    What about Hill's ego? (none / 0) (#155)
    by phatpay on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:59:16 PM EST
    It's a given: if the tables were turned the Obama camp would have started a viral war against the party and the media.

    I'm sorry.
    I can't believe that.

    Of course, I have had my head in the sand. I was absolutely shocked/horrified that TL (I came to see what PPJ was saying about the Obama nomination, yeah... that's how long ago I was frequenting/lurking here) was fostering division amongst the left.

    The fact that Hillary was even in a close race should let you all know that, all due respect, that she's not everyone's favorite either. She was all but anointed before the primary season, and acted as such. I was pulling for Edwards, but Obama emerged. I was hating the fact that the primary season dragged on, but then I kinda got behind Hillary and her determination. With such history in the making I'm glad she didn't bow out sooner. But she's out. And you can play around with the numbers as much as you want. You can mud sling about this and that from some supposed internet high horse (Like any pol has clean hands!!?? C'mon!), but when it comes down to it, it was Hillary's ego that was her undoing.

    Those actually considering not voting or voting for McCain rather than voting for Obama need to severely check themselves.
    Voting for McCain means voting for the status quo.
    Voting for the current economic and diplomatic policies.
    Read: that means more war and more poor.
    You better believe I'd be rallying behind whomever became the Democratic nominee. Just like I always have. I cannot, in good conscience, choose the larger poop sandwich.
    I can't believe anyone could.

    Are you one of Obama's 400 paid bloggers (none / 0) (#166)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:07:21 AM EST
    calling for unity?

    [ Parent ]
    lol no (none / 0) (#167)
    by phatpay on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:02:37 PM EST
    Hrmm... I can get paid for calling for unity?
    Tell me more, please.

    Look, politically and ideologically I'm sure one of the many non-mainstream candidates is a much more pure representation of my personal politics. But I haven't researched all them out and I'm not about to throw another vote away from unseating Republican power in the WH.
    It's the same old story, you choose the lesser of 2 evils. You choose to take a bite out of the less stinky poop sandwich. However you want to term it.
    If you actually believe in any sanctimonious swill from American pols I have some beach front property in Utah to sell you.
    Politically and ideologically, Hill and BHO are very similar. Whilst McCain will continue fiscal, diplomatic and political policies that are Neo-Conservative, divisive, and irresponsible.
    The cost is just too high.

    [ Parent ]

    we'll respond to you in kind in November after (none / 0) (#159)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:54:02 AM EST
    he loses us the elections!

    The DNC felt the same way about the Carters (none / 0) (#164)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:59:07 AM EST
    The snobbism and elitism are rampant in the party and if you're not from the north you're considered "rubes"! They went back to their roots with Kerry, the typical elitist, who would not deign fight for his reputation with a man who went AWOL for the last 2yrs of his service during the Viet Nam war, because it was beneath him.  That worked out very well didn't it? Where's Obama from? A northern state! They just don't learn...