Rush Limbaugh, Scaiffe and Ann Coulter are all praying to their god that Hillary pulls this off.

And what good is a party that would the party insiders to nominate the candidate who has fewer elected delegates, popular vote, number of states, and number of grassroots donors?

"On the other hand, you have the other campaign taking the exact opposite action, offering more support to the party committee and seeing its grassroots supporters send new online support to the party's effort in the House."

Nonsense, they are offering support to those who have the capacity to support them, it is totally self-aggrandisement. They hope to buy support by showing up now.

The Clinton backers who wrote that letter that you are calling "extortion" are the people who already have been supporting the party for many years. They have every right to express their opinion on what is fair and appropriate, and the should be respected and listened to, not trashed here!

Mods - this troll is getting more offensive by the hour.  Is it about time he was disappeared, or better still completely ignored?

I am on the side that does not demonize others just because they disagree. someday I hope even you will join that side.

I am a centrist-DLCer (former fund-raiser for Bill) that knows HRC does not have Bill's charisma.

Obama has made a coalition of people like me, and my friends farther on the left.

"here are liberal/progressive grassroots/netroots Deaniac diehards on one side and the centrist DLC machine big-money powerbrokers on the other."

I am on the liberal/progressive/populist Clinton side of the Democratic Party, for all the central core Democratic values that have made this country a better place for generations.

Not the "magic of marketing" on the internet wing of the corporate interests.

your point well taken...the washington elitists really don't care if you are repub or DLC...it all maintains the status quo that screws the american people and why obama and all democrats that support his cause are such a threat

Uh, no.  There are liberals, there are classical Leftists ("progressives"/Dean), and there are Democratic moderates ("progressives"/Edwards).  And some muddled moderate-conservatives that are "centrists" or still think LBJ will return.

Your point of view is the American variety of classical Leftist.  The actual DLC affiliated folk (Tauscher, etc) are generally moderate wing and "centrist" sorts.

Re Jonathan's initial point: Obama and whatever his affiliated organizing efforts are, are not actually responsible for the 48%+ Democratic lean in the electorate.  The "organizing" stuff is in part about maxing out the Democratic vote, but it seems really about who gets 'empowered' and a potential career ladder for the Andre X sorts.   Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is a pretty good example of the kind of careerism that is forming.  I wouldn't mind it so much, but it's so crass, crude, vulgar, resentful, and thoughtless...

There is no such thing.  Racism implies that you believe that your race is superior to others.

No sane Black person has ever said or even thought that the Black race was "superior" to any other.

I'm giving you a sympathetic ear at the start when you say:

This is the kind of thing that drives me up a wall.  I did not make a decision on who to vote for until the week of the primary (in MA).  I understand the appeal of Hillary Clinton.  But this crap is just painful.

So why did you have to mess that up by abandoning truth?

Obama has an insurmountable lead in the vote even if one counts [Florida and Michigan]

Sorry, that's just flat-out false.  Once you factor in Florida and Michigan, Clinton will take the lead if she wins PA by double-digits, and that's without even counting the rest of the primaries.  Perhaps that word insurmountable does not mean what you think it means.

The next one is even worse, because you turn an untruth into an accusation:

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's strategy is openly to try to convince pledged delegates to vote against who they are pledged to

If it's her "strategy," she's sure keeping it secret - and not acting on it.  Listen, just because Clinton on a single occasion stated the incontrovertible fact that pledged delegates aren't actually pledged doesn't mean that she's working to convince them to switch.  She is not!  I have never read or heard a single account of even the slightest effort by Clinton to get pledged delegates to switch, yet you assert it as if it is a fact and she is a criminal.

Sorry, all my sympathy is gone, and all that is left is a dull anger that I have become quite accustomed to over the last few months.

Sorry, but this demonizing Obama for denying people a vote isn't going to wash....  

First off, MI and FL are not his fault.  They are the fault of the state leaders who thought the DNC would blink.

Secondly, both states were able to vote.

Finally, I would like to know where this chorus of voices for democracy (esp. among Clinton supporters) was in the summer when you could have made a difference?  More importantly, where are you in the comments section of the following diary that deals with disenfranchisement for real?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/3/14421 4/0440

Spare me the blame whomever is convenient now that we need FL and MI to count stuff...  we made our bed and should have to lie in it.

But before she said that, she did say that they should vote for the pledged delegate leader.  That's flat-out Obama position, pushed by the Obama campaign for obvious reasons, and neither written into the DNC charter nor morally obvious.

I don't give a rat's ass why.  She needs to either remain neutral or give up her role as Chair of the Convention.  She absolutely cannot take sides in that role until a winner is declared.

and she is soon going to be overtaken on the super delegate count too

Hillaryis44 folks are outright fanatical.  People accuse Obama supporters of being in a cult of personality.  If you've never been to Hillaryis44, you do not know what a cult of personality is.  

The kooks at DKos and other sites where assemble the left wing rabble that are nothing more than the nutroot version of the warbloggers on the right.

And her first action was to protect dumbaya. I voted for her last cycle and never will again. If you like criminals in the WH why are you here?

Fair point.

Hmm, Pittsburgh claims credit?  I was at a 2004 rally in Philadelphia with B. Clinton and Kerry, which was billed as his comeback after the health issues.  It was the day of the Al Qaaqa ammo dump story.

I blame Bill Clinton for DOMA, for NAFTA, welfare reform, and embarassing this party with his personal actions.

As for the economy, I credit the Dotcom boom, not Bill Clinton.

How would you define "in the center" and how in the world are you claiming that 70% to 95% of the American public occupies it?

And if they do, how does that explain the ascendancy of George Bush (far-right) or the success of Barack Obama (not "far-left" in the Kucinich sense, but definitely more progressive than any Democrat in a loooooong time)?  SOMEBODY had to be voting for these guys?

Party affiliation is a good indicator of where people stand a lot of times, and the registration numbers are split roughly into thirds between Democrats, Republicans and independents.  This is why most people pander toward the center - you get your 33% and then try to go after the majority of in the independents that don't overtly favor one side or another.  In 2004, the indy's broke for Bush and he won.  In 2006, they showed up for Democrats.

The thing is, Obama's very progressive, and he STILL does very well among independents already - and that's before a general election cycle where people actually LOOK at John McCain and analyze how fitting that "maverick" label actually is.

My take is that she meant that the public feels like she and McCain have proved themselves credible as C-i-C, but that the jury was still out on Obama.  I don't think she meant that McCain would be good at the job, just that he had no need to convince anyone that he could do it.  Conversely, Obama would still need to convince the public that he could do it.  

So it was a smack at Obama for inexperience (compared to McCain).  But noting McCain's experience isn't the same as praising McCain for it -- though she didn't have to do either, IMHO -- because we all know experience isn't the same as skill or ability, and because her frame was public perception as opposed to underlying talent.

So my rewrite/paraphrase of that statement would be:

People can see me as C-i-C, because of my experience.  People can see McCain as C-i-C, because of his experience.  People don't see Obama as C-i-C yet, because of his inexperience.  He responds to the criticism of inexperience by pointing to judgment -- the speech in 2002 -- but people haven't bought that yet.

I think the obvious counterpunch by Obama should be "What experience, Hillary?"  And it's also valid for Democrats to say, Hey, Hillary, don't bring McCain into it at all, because even mild praise is too much.  But I'd still say that it's a myth that Clinton said McCain would be a better C-i-C than Obama.

But cripes, she only said it one time, but from speaking to and interacting online with Obama supporters you'd think it was her campaign slogan and she'd spent $50 million in advertising on it.  Hell, it's you guys that keep bringing that up day after day after day, not her.  Why not just let it lie, the way she'd doing, obviously having realized that it was a mistake?

On the other hand, I better grab an abacus before I start counting the way that Obama's closest supporters and even Obama himself have impugned Clinton's honesty, integrity, and regard for the Democratic Party and its principles.  It's been straight out razor-blade character assassination, starting with Senator Punjab, Lincoln bedroom, and can't manage her own house, right on through the gotcha orgy that wildly mischaracterized and overplayed her comments about "sniper fire," a carbon copy of the technique of picking at the candidate's recall of past events that cost Al Gore the White House in 2000 and that every candidate and every human being is vulnerable to.

If you're interested, I have a longer answer above, which I wrote before seeing your reply.  "Endorsement" is a massive overstatement.

In a democracy one generally divines the will of the voters by counting their votes. You and Nancy Pelosi may have some other standard, but if so I think you are both fundamentally mistaken.

If the primaries were over, or if a candidate were so far ahead that the primaries were effectively over, she might have a point. In this case she was doing Obama PR, which she is free to do but not in her role as Speaker of the House.

That's what she said after these donors forced her to walk back from her previous position, which was that superdelegates should vote for who had the pledged delegate lead.  That was an all-Obama-all-the-time position, 100% inappropriate for her in her role as Chair of the Convention, and thank God they made her come to her senses and at least make the show of neutrality that is necessary in a contested contest.

You just hung your self,
In order to get Obama elected we need to build the party, register new democrats, online donations ect.

Everything the clintons do to get elected destroys the party, this letter to Nancy, super delegates not supporting the will of the voters.

You just said it, Obama's candidacy is helping the party grow, the stronger the party is the more likely Obama will get the Nomination and not Clinton

Is this post-modern irony?

So your alternative is what again?

I wouldn't ridicule a way of doing something unless I knew of a better way.  But then, I try to avoid ridicule, the lowest form of political communication.

Sorry, Mr. Coaster, but I've seen too many of your comments to take you at face value.  Got a cite?

Is that the line you want to take? I ask for evidence and you cite your belief that supporters don't do things on their own...

-Did Obama tell Samantha Powers to call Hillary Clinton a monster?

-Did Obama tell Austan Goolsbee to tell the Canadian Government what he said in speeches about NAFTA should be ignored, because what he said to the voters would not be his policy if he won?

-Did Obama tell his campaign manager answer a questionnaire stating that he supports the "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?"

This could go on and on with many of his surrogates, some whom Obama has known much longer and more intimately than these, but without any evidence, it is wrong to state that Obama did any such thing. Jonathan did insinuate the Clinton campaign played a role. I want to know if he has any evidence whatsoever to back it up. Your belief that supporters don't act independently is not enough, and counter-productive for your candidate.

But he is right when he said his supporters may not vote for Hillary. He has brought many new, young voters into the fold, and they may abandon politics if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. Not saying it is right or wrong, just saying it is true.

Interesting that I'm talking about 'Democratic Party loyalty' and you can still only be concerned about Hillary.

Ex-Presidents/First Ladies bad mouthing small states, red states and caucus states are what I'm talking about. That is going to hurt the state Democratic efforts long term.  

Sounds to me a lot like trashing the existing party and building a new one.  Which is fine, but don't steal our Party's name while you're at it.  "Obama Party" is about the only accurate name I can think of, since its governing principles are still somewhat opaque.

She is the leader of House Democrats.  She can take things on and off the table, which is what the first poster was referring to.

What ignorance are you referring to?  Apparently, it's some set of private facts to which only you are party.