You do not fear alienating the democrats most loyal voting block of African-Americans? I posted a diary about how a democrat simply cannot win without 80% or more of the AA support.  This includes new latino voters and white working class voters.   I thought you were a democrat.

I don't care to see their tax returns.

Ah, linking directly to the Clinton campaign website. Why is it that people are thinking that there is coordination between Jerome and the campaign?

I think its less that the campaign have vetoes, but that they have operatives, who DO have a say in the process and thus can either endorse or forstall it if the candidate doesn't like it.

like in MI, Obama's supporters wouldn't vote for the revote since it wouldn't allow democrats who crossed to the GOP primary (the democratic one wasnt suspose to count) to vote in the re-vote.

thus the re-vote in MI died

Are you kidding me?

Considering everything else that we have been through as a people, do you think that we would forget that our first Viable African American candidate, despite winning the popular vote and the majority of the pledged delegates, would have to take the back seat? Go to the back of the bus, as it were?

And yes, that is ABSOLUTELY how that would spread about our community.

Considering that we, as a people have been the most steadfast and dependable voting block that the left has, that would be a betrayal that would take YEARS and YEARS to get over.

You would chose a couple blocks of voters that every once in a while go for a Democrat over the guts of the party's voting bloc just to get your favorite candidate in?

Madness, sir. Madness.

Actually, counting electoral votes makes absolutely no sense, unless of course you're saying that the other metrics likewise make no sense.

Hey, he's not here to make sense. He's here to push Hillary for el presidente - come what may. She's inevitable remember? And so the countdown clock to my banishment from this site has begun.

... (the subject of diary after diary) or Obama's use of neocon tactics the subject of diary after diary)?

And no take on the 4,000 U.S. service member death?

Do you think either Obama or Clinton would get us out of Iraq during their first terms?

Though I may not like the Clinton campaign, the use of electoral votes as a metric they're winning on is brilliant.

I give them a D on how they've run their campaign, but an A++ for creativity.

just making up new ways to judge whos winning since they've lost all the official ones.

Yet another Armstrong diary to prop up the flailing Clinton campaign.  This is sad really.  

Moving the goal posts yet again. It used to be delegates were everything (which is correct).  Now Armstrong is pushing the "electoral vote" argument and even the corny "ratio between delegates and popular vote."  Ridiculous.

Armstrong's diaries are becoming more and more desperate.  This latest one should have at least showed a modicum of evenhandedness by including Clinton's lies regarding the Tusla, Bosnia trip.  Outlandish to say the least.  

Is any Clinton supporter willing to come forward with a metric upon which a superdelegate should base his/her vote?  I understand that there's a desire to keep this secret formula as close to the vest as possible, for fear that it will never withstand scrutiny, but I am genuinely curious as to what objective factors Clinton supporters think that the superdelegates should consider, and the respective weights of those factors.  Inventing new metrics as we go along isn't terribly convincing.

"I don't understand why either of the candidates even have a say, or a veto, in how the state decides the formula of how they will attempt a DNC-sanctioned election."

Familiar with the Credentials Committee at the convention? If the pledged delegate leader doesn't sign off on the re-election or allocation (and let's make it clear, that is and will be Obama), the MI/FL delegates won't be seated.

Josh Marshall: He runs smack dab into an epiphany about the situation, but comes out stating that: "My take is that whatever the arguments, the superdelegates aren't going to go against a clear pledged delegate leader." He must believe that there's an un-spoken moral argument to be made that a "pledged delegate leader" trumps everything, even though it'd only be a plurality lead, not the majority that grants the nomination. Unfortunately for his logic, this take would be exactly the sort of "rule change" he's saying leads down the rabbit hole into a "different set of rules" than the one that exists.

"And I think they'd be extremely ill-advised to do so. But the superdelegates do have this power under the rules."

Based on who won the popular vote:

With FL/MI

Clinton: 263
Obama: 219
Undecided: 73

Without FL/MI

Clinton: 219
Obama: 202
Undecided: 117

Clinton, PA, KY, WV; Obama, NC, ID, OR, MT, SD (without FL/MI)

Clinton: 253
Obama: 241
Undecided: 44

Clinton, PA, KY, WV; Obama, NC, ID, OR, MT, SD (with FL only)

Clinton: 280
Obama: 241
Undecided: 17

Clinton, PA, KY, WV, NC, ID; Obama, OR, MT, SD (without FL/MI)

Clinton: 279
Obama: 215
Undecided: 44

Clinton, PA, KY, WV, NC, ID; Obama, OR, MT, SD (with FL only)

Clinton: 306
Obama: 215
Undecided: 17

It does not matter though. Electoral votes and delegates are two different things and calculated differently. Though, it could make an argument.

"disingenuous," "divisive," "untruthful," "dishonest," "polarizing," "calculating," "saying whatever it takes to win," "attempting to deceive the American people," "one of the most secretive in America," "deliberately misleading," "literally willing to do anything to win," and "playing politics with war."

All of those things are true.  I don't see what you have a problem with.  If you'd included the "monster" bit, then I could buy it, but that's already been taken off the table.  

How is it character assassination if it's completely accurate?

Okay, I'll grant you one: "literally willing to do anything to win" is exaggerated.  I'm sure she wouldn't murder Obama in cold blood.

I can't read the 2012 Theorem stuff from work, so I won't comment on that.  I know the Mayan calendar ends, and the antichrist is also supposed to show up.

Barry becomes Barack: I admire people able to effectively change my name.  In college I used to try and go by my middle name, but it would end up just confusing people who knew me from before.  My admiration goes to both Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, for whom it must've been very difficult for an old-school feminist to change her name from her maiden "Hillary Rodham" to closer association with her husband as "Hillary Clinton." I get why it was necessary, though.

Obama Dilemma: If this is a dilemma, I wish I could have problems that good in my normal life.  Damn, we've got an intelligent candidate with broad appeal and fierce resiliency that is winning by all rational metrics whom we may have a problem with if we don't choose.  I DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO!?!!!

Michigan: Obama has said on the air to Larry King that he'd go with the DNC/Michigan decision.  It's not his call.  I don't see why anyone is even consulting him, unless its requesting his advice as a well-respected constitutional law scholar.  You said it yourself, the 50/50 split is a "starting position" and is rather generous, considering the results of a primary would probably heavily favor him, as it did in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

State totals: You're right, it is just as moronic to consider the electoral votes as it is counting the states & contests individually.  We should stop doing both.

Iowa co-chair: Obama has some imperfect people with his supporters.  Join humanity.

I care that my public officials release their tax returns, especially if they're self-funding their campaigns.  Obama gave himself $1,000 for one of his early campaigns.  This is public knowledge, and his returns are available.  Clinton gave herself $5 million and hasn't made them available.  For all we know, she could be funding her campaign with a vast porn enterprise.  Probable?  No.  But possible.  We won't know until we pop the hood and check it out.

Why should we let any "secret" about Hillary's Tax returns wait for the GOP to use against Her?

Hiding these returns only makes it look bad.

"Tax Returns - Transparency You Can Xerox"

Also consider this :

Obama will get more AA's out to the Polls that have never voted before. If there is no Obama to vote for they probably won't.

Woman who are democrats are "pro-choice" before "pro-woman". They won't vote for McCain.

Ok. Then McCain has already won. Let's move on to congressional races.

Damn Jerome,

How many diaries are you allowed to post each day?  Shouldn't there be a percentage of negative bs and happy bs if you do more than one?

Before a single Obama supporter bothers to engage any of Jerome's arguments. I know this is the DKos standard, but how long before you guys get bored and go back?

It is possible to disagree with a person, even disagreeably, and still engage them. There are two sides to this contest, pretending the other side has no merit is self-defeating. At least try to engage in the argument, most Obama supporters here do a pretty good job of it.

Why else would they call up the blue dress? Does not seem to me actions of a campaign who think they have locked up the nomination. Seems more like acts of a desperate candidate.

Women -- the 57% of the electorate -- don't matter.  

(speaking as one of those inconsequential women)

Disgusting.

Jerome, thanks for trying to present botrh sides.

I am SOOO put off by all the se vicious, vitriolic Obama cultists I can't begin to tell you how pissed off I am.

I DO hope that the SuperDelegates hand the Nomination to Hillary on a silver platter, just to see these scum go back to sitting at home and pretending they're too cool to vote in any Election.

So much for BO being a different kind of politician.

Jerome's posts are reality among the Obama fog of bs.

Dear black people,

I would be Oh so grateful if you could tone down (i.e. reduce) your support to the candidate Barack Obama. Barack Obama being a great guy and all that does appreciate your affection. However your love is getting kind of counter productive, kind of like a middle aged wife wearing chear leading outfit in a general assembly wher her husband is key not speaker.

For you see when black people look like they are banding together, the whites and other in their animalistic sub-conscious think: "Why the hell are all those black people banding together for? maybe we should band together too". This translates to a loss of support among other ethnic communities. That would be fine if the black community represented say 40%+ of the population, unfortunately, at 15% it's kind of a very bad trade.

The Candidate Barack Obama will greately appreciate your understanding and support in that matter.

Yours truly
BO

Does anyone even care if either Obama or Clinton release their tax returns while they were in public office?  I don't, but it does seem like it should be a "two-way street" if the Obama campaign thinks it matters so much.

Not that I expect better, but what an amazingly disingenuous statement.  Obama has released all his tax returns since he ran for senate.  Hillary has release ZERO.

Remember how Bush never "negotiates" except with people who have already met his demands? Same thing here on the vote theft 50/50 plan. Sigh.

Jerome,

Nice of you to list your primary source first: Hillary's Blog.  Nice to see you being honest.

Remember, Jerome, when you and Markos wanted to bring about "people-powered politics" to supplant that "ineffective, incompetent, and antiquated...Democratic Party establishment" which was "was "lacking the expression of any core principles"?

Those quotes are from the cover, the flyleaf, and the first page of your book.  It wasn't like I had to go digging for them.

Now you're arguing that those unprincipled, incompetent party elites should make the call however they wish, even if it overrules the votes of the actual people who voted in the primaries and caucuses.

You're making Mitt Romney look like a man of unshakable principle.

Like lemmings, they just line up to get ousted for behaving like children instead of adults...

Jerome is entitled to turn MyDD into Hillaryis44-2.0, because it is a free country.

And if Jerome openly becomes a republican surrogate that too is his right.

At least we all know where he stands...it is Hillary or McCain or bust.

Befriending Hannity,O'Reilly and Hume is the logical next step for Jerome as they too are frightened at the prospect of Obama becoming president.

And Jerome is perfectly entitled to do all the above without criticism. Leave Jerome alone. Totally alone.

has written some incredible things in the last month. Apparently what Bill said about how the election should be between two people who love their country is worse than McCarthy.

Also, a week or two ago Gordon's blog approvingly quoted from an Andrew Sullivan blog post that casually referred to the Clintons as "sociopaths":

http://www.iowatrueblue.com/Blog/tabid/3 6/EntryID/277/Default.aspx

Nauseating
Mar 13

Written by: admin
3/13/2008 1:57 PM

What The Clintons have done to even the most rational -- from Andrew Sullivan's blog:

"'When they hold three fingers in front of your face and say it's two, I don't know what to do."'

Jon [Chait] says he wants to hide under his bed rather than counter their pure dishonesty. I'll be candid. I got a nasty cold this week but I took to bed yesterday, mainly because I felt almost sick from covering the Clintons. They really do get under your skin, as sociopaths can. They make you want to flee all political activity; they make you want to give up; they make you realize that truth and politics need not have any connection if you have long since had your sense of shame surgically removed. Empower them with all the ugliness of Republican race-baiting and hysteria and the cumulative backlash is literally sick-making.

Which is, of course, the point. If they can nauseate an entire generation out of politics, they still have a chance at the spoils."

Gordon is a former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. As recently as last summer, he and his wife told me they were still undecided between Hillary and Obama.

I am shocked by how even people like Gordon have lost all perspective during this primary campaign, and are approvingly quoting the Reaganaut Andrew Sullivan trashing the Clintons.

Arguing that it should be about electoral votes is the same thing as arguing that we should take the primary and caucus results and re-tabulate them as if the Democrats had a winner-take-all primary system. I see not a shred of moral or intellectual integrity in this position. If anyone in the Clinton campaign had argued prior to the Iowa Caucus that there is something inherently unfair about proportional allocation of delegates, they might have a case to make here. Since no such argument was made, the only rational way to view this latest Clinton gambit is as part of an ongoing effort to discredit the existing rules -- apparently based on the belief that a rule derives its legitimacy not from its inherent fairness or unfairness, nor from its status as an agreed rule, but solely from the degree to which it does or does not favor Hillary Clinton.

The idea that there will be equal moral weight and intellectual credibility behind arguments on behalf of each candidate's claim to the nomination is ludicrous. Obama's lead among elected delegates will, in the eyes of most voters, make him the presumptive nominee. Clinton's sophistry about "electoral votes" will, along with a couple of bucks, get her a soy latte.

I have one question for anyone who claims to believe that this electoral vote argument is meaningful: Why didn't you argue in favor of a winner-take-all system at some point before, say, yesterday?  

Jerome: Do you really not "get all this talk about how the Democrats cannot afford to not choose Obama, because of fear of alienating the African-American vote"? Do you really not understand the difference between the disappointment that results from seeing your candidate lose and the indignant outrage engendered by the belief that your candidate was robbed? Do you really believe that if the superdelegates ratify Obama's pledged delegate lead this will be viewed by Clinton supporters as an act of grotesque unfairness (in the same way that Oabama supporters would view a superdelegate override of his lead)? You can keep telling yourself (and readers) that the prospect of a deeply embittered African-American community is a non-issue, but if the superdelegates veto an Obama pledged delegate lead, reality will ultimately intrude come November.

It does cut both ways in this regard: I am uncertain exactly how mad I am going to be about it if it happens that HRC somehow gets the nomination thanks to SD coup.

I may be too angry to vote for HRC. I may not.

This might just be the last blog I write about politics in America. I have written about Obama being the American Mandela, the burden of the hope he brings, and the man he is in his own right. But I don't know anymore. I still believe in Obama, but I just don't believe in American politics anymore. If this is how they want to play politics in America then I don't want to play anymore. This is too sick. This is nothing to be proud of. Yes, they won - the cynics and morally corrupt. This is just not right guys. This is not what people fought for and died for. The Founding Father would be ashamed. And so should you and them. http://angryafrican.net/2008/03/23/the-f ounding-fathers-will-be-ashamed/

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08083/867 043-109.stm

EXCERPT

I never cast a ballot until I became a citizen of the United States. But when I did, it was for a young man who spent years teaching me about the needs of Pennsylvania's working families and the good our government can do for them -- my late husband, Sen. John Heinz. He helped me learn how precious a right suffrage is -- as a weapon against tyranny; as an instrument of hope, progress and change.

That is why, this year, I will cast my vote in the April 22 Pennsylvania primary for Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

Teresa Heinz Kerry ( wife of Senator John Kerry )

I think we have a right to know if the sources of her income are going to be used by the GOP to beat her over the head during the election. The Clinton's are walking on very thin ice with respect to their proclivity to be enmeshed in scandals (whether deservedly or not, it is a political reality). If there is evidence that they are making millions of dollars from people who may have benefited from political decisions made by Bill or Hillary, it could destroy our chances to win.

I see no good reason for their stalling.