Dear

Dear Jerome,

I understand, Hillary has lost and it is hard to deal with. I remember in 2004 how distraught I was when John Edwards wasn't going to be the nominee but after a  couple of weeks I moved on and made sure that the nominee, John Kerry had my full support. With that said, what is your problem? No seriously what is going on with you?

Let me bring you up to speed with reality.

You claim that Hillary will win the popular vote at the end of the season. I'm sorry Jerome that is just not correct. Maybe you forgot about all those caucus states that don't keep a record of the popular vote.  If those were primaries, Obama would be ahead by over a million votes as Hillary had no plans after Super Tuesday.  Currently, he is ahead by 800K votes and when states finish counting provisional ballots like Ohio did in which he closed the gap by 2%, he will increase his popular vote lead.  There is still a chance that he might actually win Indiana as Hillary currently leads by less than 1%. I would also invite you to start reading El Nuevo Dia which is the prominent Puerto Rican newspaper and things aren't looking so good for Hillary in Puerto Rico.  Puerto Ricans don't like losers and won't vote for them no matter what you tell them.  

As for your dubious popular vote argument.  Wait, don't the Democrats select nominees based on delegates? Of course they do and they always have.  No, the popular vote will not be a valid metric because you will end up disenfranchising those in caucus states.  I know that disenfranchising voters is alright in caucus states but not MI and FL. You are entitled to your opinion but it is not based on any facts.

Finally, I think your main argument that Hillary would be more electable is because of the states that she would carry.  Did you not notice that her map to victory is the exact same map that Democrats have used in the last two cycles?  Please keep in mind that she would have to hold onto all of the Kerry states and win Ohio and/or Florida. The problem with that is she is polling weak  in WA, OR, MI,MN  which are states that we also need. Furthermore, should she become the nominee, she won't win because you need African-Americans to come out in droves which they won't. If you don't believe me take a look at recent polling form Rasmussen and Bloomberg.  On the other hand,  Obama is very strong in those states as well as other western states and Virginia is very much in play. I know you are going to say that it's the south and the south isn't ready for a black president even though they had a black governor but that's not the point. The point is that you are doing a severe disservice to your readers when you let your own blind hatred for Obama cloud your reasonable judgment.  

It's time Jerome to come back down to earth. It's okay to mourn Hillary's loss but there is no reason for you to spew hatred towards the democratic nominee. If you need a shoulder to cry on, just ask.

Signed,

Sweet Potato Pie

UPDATE: Wow! Thanks for the recs!! I just thought that it was important to make this point and present some facts as to what is really going on. I understand when you become invested in a candidate and I do know that Obama has room for improvement but to be so blinded by what is really going on is just not helpful. Thanks again!!

Display:


Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 9)

Jerome knows the score; he just can't come out and say it, if you ask me.

Terry McAluffe was just on Meet the Press and the first words out of his mouth were "100,000 votes seperate the candidates," and "2209 is the magic number."  He had trouble defending that against Russert, who quoted both him and Clinton on the Florida/Michigan issue taking the opposite standpoints (including McAluffe defending the punishment of Michigan if they moved their primary too early in 2004).

Team Clinton is having some problems staying on-message, actually.  McAluffe said, flat out, that white working class voters would get behind Obama if he is the nominee.  That essentially negates Clinton's entire argument from the last week.

I don't expect that we'll get a lot of acknowledgement of these issues around here, but I suppose it probably can't hurt to bring it up.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:05:12 PM EST

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 5)

The biggest problem with the Clinton campaign spin on the popular vote is that it won't work with high information voters... like the SD's.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:12:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 3)

That's correct.  You have to not know what you're talking about for it to work.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:14:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (1.33 / 3)

Exactly.  Jerome knows the rules why is it okay to break them now?


by sweet potato pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:17:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Jerome (2.00 / 1)

Respectfully, since when has being condescending changed anybody's mind? I find an old saying particulary apropos to this campaign's dairy wars: Those who can do; those who can't criticize. It explains why he's on the front page and you're not.


by phoenixdreamz on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:47:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Jerome (2.00 / 5)

actually he is on the front page because it is HIS site...


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:50:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No offense sweet potato (2.00 / 2)

but I have seen you, a fairly new comer, spew more hatred on this site than most lately. If indeed, you have concerns about Jerome's stance on issues, you might want to check your own rhetoric before assuming a position of lecturer.

Weren't you telling us all, with great authority, just a couple days ago- that no African American would ever vote for Hillary Clinton?
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome banned one of his most loyal readers (2.00 / 3)

A friend who was the first person to tell me about MyDD (and probably one of its first 500 readers) was banned by Jerome.

This friend is (a) a military veteran, and (b) a terrific grassroots activist, and (c) one of the most polite people I know -- both online and off.

His offense? Posting factual information, in a lighthearted tone, which happened to disagree with Jerome's position on the Presidential race. (Note: The friend was an Edwards supporter who switched to Obama only after the former dropped out.)

Jerome's response: Locking his account until/unless this person signed a sort of "loyalty oath" Jerome concocted.

The friend, being a person of great integrity, decided to forgo posting on MyDD rather than be bullied into signing Cultural Revolution-style loyalty oath.

So the commenter above who is critical of someone for posting "hate" when they're a newcomer? The sad fact is that at MyDD today, you can be a great activist, a low-UID longtime fan, and a polite poster -- and still get whacked by its host for simply having a different opinion.

Not what I came to expect from this site when I first started visiting, at this friend's suggestion.


by Hudson on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:09:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome banned one of his most loyal readers (2.00 / 0)

"Loyalty oath"? Did your friend save a copy/screencap of this? I'd be very interested in putting that up in a diary. I'd happily sacrifice my account for getting that piece of dirty laundry out in the open.


by upstate girl on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome banned one of his most loyal readers (2.00 / 0)

He has the message. I will ask if it's OK to post it.


by Hudson on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome banned one of his most loyal readers (2.00 / 0)

Thanks. If you're not comfortable putting your account in the firing line for it, I'm happy to do so. I have an email account at upstategirlmydd (at) gmail.


by upstate girl on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:23:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome banned one of his most loyal readers (2.00 / 1)

Perhaps I should look into registering "upstate woman" and "upstate girl 2"...


Trusted, but gagged.
by username4 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:02:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome banned one of his most loyal readers (2.00 / 1)

I wish I'd even had a warning. I was banned in an instant for asking if the rules of the site - no criticising MYDD - meant that you couldn't ask questions. No partisan comment. I was a trusted user for four years. And then disappeared.

Yes, I've always enjoyed your posts upstate girl. Don't let yourself be silence.

Former BRITish friend


The Moose is Loose!
by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome banned one of his most loyal readers (2.00 / 1)

Good to see you buddy ;)


by upstate girl on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:48:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The policy is bizarre (2.00 / 0)

I got returned to full use without any comment either on banning or on restoration after getting someone to post about my situation.

I would have gotten a good chuckle from a loyalty oath.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:59:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting (2.00 / 1)

but that wasn't my point. My point was the hypocrisy, which seems to be beyond a lot of us (even me) these days. The diarist has said some very awful things in the last couple of days and then has the audacity to call out Jerome for posting his own take on his own blog?

I don't know whether or not what you say is true, but even if it were, how on earth is that different than censorship in any form? One person or several individuals?
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:13:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting (2.00 / 1)

Jerome exercised a clear case of 'top down' censorhip ten days ago when he removed rec'ed diaries, banned Bob Johnson and many other long time users.

I have no problems with your comments or diaries, linc. I often disagree, but that's OK. That's why I've been coming to MYDD for four years - for different points of view. But to ban reasonable debate on whim, that's not democratic, that's demagogic. And I'm sure you'd agree if the same thing happened to you. I'd certainly complain if you  disappeared merely because you're a vocal democratic supporter.

Democratic values trump candidate partisanship. And the whole point of the netroots movement, according the user guidelines of MYDD, is that we're a community and rec, comment, hide, mojo from the bottom up. If the whole site gets editorialised, then it's a betrayal of Crashing the Gate.

It's Slamming the Gate


The Moose is Loose!
by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:43:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then, why do we still have so many Obama (2.00 / 2)

supporters and Hillary haters on this site?  Furthermore, their numbers seem to be growing in the last week.  If Jerome was systematically banning these people, he hasn't worked hard enough at the task to suit me.  Within a month or two, this site might not be so different from DailyKos.


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then, why do we still have so many Obama (2.00 / 0)

Maybe he can't keep up with the number of people who don't agree with him (or have moved on). Or maybe he's stopped these shenanigans now that he realizes that he may not be on the winning side, and may need some of these readers in the future. (This happened after Obama's lead started to look insurmountable  but before the media began to acknowledge that fact.)

Or maybe he just was in a bad mood that day. Dunno. Point is: I agree with the poster that the discrepancy between the site's hosts professed desire to reunite the party and his continued belligerence toward the other" Democratic side needs to be reconciled.


by Hudson on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:22:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about this idea? (2.00 / 2)

It's his site and he can do whatever the hell he wants.  Personally, from a marketing viewpoint, I don't see why he would want to be just another web site riding on the Obama train.


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:28:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about this idea? (2.00 / 0)

In about two weeks, the "Obama Bandwagon" is gonna be the only ride in town if you are a still Democrat.

And if you vote for McCain or advocate his candidacy in protest, no, you are not a Democrat.


by Obamaphile on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:21:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When's the excommunication ceremony, (1.50 / 2)

Comrade Stalin?


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:24:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When's the excommunication ceremony, (2.00 / 1)

It happened last week here.

But as Shelley said: we are many, they are few.


The Moose is Loose!
by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry I missed it (2.00 / 0)

But I'm not sure I had anything appropriate to wear anyway.


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry I missed it (2.00 / 2)

It was cool. Bob Johnson wore a leotard. That was a sight for sore eyes.

Or should that be a site for sore losers?

Sorry, only kidding. Sometimes the puns are irresitible


The Moose is Loose!
by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:08:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome banned one of his most loyal readers (2.00 / 2)

This is surprising to me.  I have basically called out Jerome for being dishonest in nearly every comment I've made on his posts, and he hasn't banned me yet.  In fact, I originally signed up on this site after reading one of his posts just to tell him he was full of it.  :)

So Jerome seems like a good guy to me -- but I wish he would be more willing to engage in actual discussions on the complicated topics like what (if anything) the 'popular vote' actually means.  Instead he seems to enjoy uncritically parroting the latest Clinton talking points.  I expect that from the HillaryIs44 crowd, but Jerome owes more to his readers.


John McCain the flip-flopper...
by chinapaulo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome banned one of his most loyal readers (2.00 / 1)

Truly disturbing.

I've repeatedly considered not coming here anymore, but I've been around awhile and can't believe it when I look at what this site was when the main posters were Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers vs. what Jerome's done to it.

I like Todd and Jonathan a lot, but the main site proprietor's gone a little off the deep end.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:34:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No offense sweet potato (none / 0)

isnt it sad the swarm and bully tactics going into all these diaries - i smell fear!


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:36:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 2)

Pot, meet kettle. Give some links to back your statements up - oh wait, you can't, because that's all completely untrue and you know it.


by upstate girl on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (none / 0)

Sadly, I suspect most diehard Hillary fans don't really know it. They're swilling off Alegre diaries and regurgitating here.

JoseyJ: When Obama mentioned the "clinging" story, he was talking about why rural voters WOULD vote for him, not why they wouldn't.

Look it up.

It was Hillary that talked up and misrepresented that line, the way you have.

Look it up.

Oh, and there wasn't even a mention of racism in that story. By either of the candidates.

Look it up.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:55:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 3)

I think it's more of a bank shot: Toss a lousy argument out there, and see if Low-Information Joe buys it (or if people say he will).  If he does, you can then tell the supers (privately) "see, Joe will swallow this."


Trusted, but gagged.
by username4 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:16:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 1)

You're up to Username4 now?  Freakin' awesome.  :)


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:29:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 0)

What got username3 kicked off?


Unable to rec or rate. But I've got phantom mojos for miles.
by Agent77 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:03:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 0)

Kinda want to make a "username576212462145" account now.


by upstate girl on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 0)

If the primary goes on long enough for him to need it, you can sell it to him.


Unable to rec or rate. But I've got phantom mojos for miles.
by Agent77 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 0)

You vicious, devious creature!

At that point I'll probably be reduced to mumbling obscenities through my dentures between bites of jello.  But I would still need that username to do so, and would make you a reasonable offer.


Trusted, but gagged.
by username4 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:05:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 1)

The biggest problem with the Clinton campaign spin on the popular vote is that it won't work with high information voters... like the SD's.

And here you have an example of the worst kind of childish flaming that goes on:  I'm smarter than you, and my candidate's supporters are smarter than yours.  I'm a "high information" voter, and you're not.

While you're feeling so proud of yourself, why not stick out your tongue too?


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:00:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 1)

"And here you have an example of the worst kind of childish flaming that goes on:  I'm smarter than you, and my candidate's supporters are smarter than yours.  I'm a "high information" voter, and you're not."

Ya know, on its surface, the 'high-information voter' line might sound elitist, but with regard to the 'popular vote' argument, he's got a great point.  Only people who understand the complexities of the Democratic Party's nomination process can explain why the 'popular vote' is a flawed and illegitimate metric for measuring the 'will of the people' (because of the caucuses, primaries, varying state-to-state rules, disproportionate delegate representation, etc.).  People who aren't political junkies might just think, "sure -- one person one vote."  Sadly, they'd be wrong.

What I find to be the most offensive is that the potential discrepancy between the popular vote and the election of delegates is often compared to the difference between the popular vote and the electoral college in the general election.  This comparison is completely false and usually intentionally dishonest.


John McCain the flip-flopper...
by chinapaulo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (none / 0)

With me it's all about the rules. Before the primaries started, the DNC set out the rules. You may not like these rules but they were what the candidates had to work with.  It's always been a delegate race and that is how Obama played it.  If the rules had stated that the popular vote was the decide deciding factor then I'm sure that Obama would have campaigned differently.

Why in the world do Hillary supporters (Jerome & others) think that it's o.k. to change the rules (popular vote, MI & Fla,) when the game is almost over?


by Destiny on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are all voters the same? (none / 0)

Are all educations the same?

Are we communists?  Do we strip doctors of their responsibility and make them janitors?  Do we expect purges like Stalin's and Mao's?

We know there's different levels of sophistication in the voter poll.  How do you suggest we discuss it?

--from a LAZY latte sipper who works 60 hour work weeks in a white collar job.


by Regenman on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:48:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (none / 0)

You know, it is not that one voter is smarter than the other, it is about getting the right information.  Think about it, if more of us paid attention to the information available, we would not be in the mess we are in right now with Bushco.  

It is the low information voter that is to blame for what is the matter with Kansas, not the people who take the time to learn the intricacies and the facts of a matter.

So yes, the popular vote crowd probably does not know that this is an election about delegates.  Not because I am smarter, but because I have found the facts and make a choice on those facts.

If that makes me an elitist, then so be it.


Capitalization is the difference between "I had to help my uncle Jack off a horse..." and "I had to help my uncle jack off a horse..."
by igottheblues on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:49:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 2)

Jerome is just a blind acceptor (right now) of the current Clinton Campaign talking point?

But, thank goodness, this MUST be the final goal post move, this count 0 votes for Obama in Michigan, and then move the delegate count up?

The Clinton campaign stays on message, (including acolytes like Jerome) but, the MSM, and it looks like the Supers aint buying the spin.


My mom believed in Jesus, the Pope and FDR..... Just not necessarily in that order.
by WashStateBlue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:13:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (1.66 / 6)

I thought the same thing about 4 dishonest justifications ago.  Now, I have seen that there is no low to which Hilary won't stoop.  Don't count on this being the last goalpost move.

At first I thought that Hilary wouldn't go lower.  Then she did.  Then I thought there wasn't a way to go lower.  She found one.  At this point I won't even count on her to stop being a louse after she is forced (by the math) to concede.

I was proud to have Hilary as a candidate for our party's nomination  back when this contest started.  It is now my belief that she is a dishonest person more loyal to her ambition than to the democratic agenda on which she has run.  I have NO respect left for her.  She's a creep.  Even SNL, who has been kind to her in the past, is not illustrating what a shrill joke she's made of herself.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 4)

At this point, attacking HER personally so hard is counter productive.  

We NEED at least SOME of her supporters back.

Personally, I think 90% of this is because, in the internal struggle of her campaign, Bill sided with the Penn contingent, the "go negative" and "keep moving the goal post" strategy.

Actually, I hear insiders are shopping their book deals.

I think, when the stories are written, Penn comes out EVEN MORE the villian of the peice then we suspect.

I think, he makes us yearn for the days of Dick Morris.....


My mom believed in Jesus, the Pope and FDR..... Just not necessarily in that order.
by WashStateBlue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:32:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 6)

My disgust with Penn knows no bounds. I know that he was greatly trusted by both Clintons, and he's obviously not lived up to that trust. Regardless of the wiseness of their decision to both utilize him and keep him on after the Columbia incident, Penn has a lot to answer for to Clinton supporters. I never wanted to dislike HRC, and the campaign he's continued to run hasn't helped matters.


by upstate girl on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:35:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (1.18 / 11)

Penn wasn't the boss.  Neither was Bill.  This stuff all happened because Hilary let it.  If she can't be held responsible for the conduct of her campaign and of her underlings, then how the hell could she ever be expected to be responsible for running a country?  

I don't buy that half of the democratic voters are so monumentally stupid as to throw the election.  In fact, I bet that in November the number of new voters and crossovers that BO gets will outnumber the number of sour grapes Hil supporters that either vote for McCain against their own best interest or sit at home.

She's a creep.  I'll will be happy to see her no longer holding any public office.  That is exactly what will happen when she comes up for reelection in the senate if she doesn't stop making a pariah of herself and living up to the description that the GOP labelled her with in the 90s.  I will be relieved when it happens.

That's the part that upsets me the most.  I have been defending her and Bill since the 90s.  She has betrayed me by acting like exactly the creep they said she was.  Worse she's betrayed the democratic party by making the GE more competitive with her roveian garbage.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 3)

I agree that she and Bill have played directly into the narrative that the Republicans have used against them for years. And that's depressing to me. I also use the association argument - that if she's so indebted to Penn, what does that say about the people she'd put in her Cabinet? Judgment counts. But I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she got taken for a ride. It happens; we're human. Its not enough for me to hate her and I refuse to slander her, but it does affect how I weighed both candidates and chose Obama.


by upstate girl on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:51:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (1.10 / 10)

I would have to find a dirtbag trick that she hasn't pulled in order for my comments to rise to the level of slander.  That would take a while.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:54:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (1.50 / 4)

Ahhh, the unity that emanates from the Obama campaign - the high-minded, clean fighting Obama Fan base. You guys are inspiritation with your egalitarianism, your concern for the unity of the party, your long term strategic thinking skills.


by Little Otter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You won, Otter. (1.66 / 3)

I'll give you that.  Not even the most virtuous campaign could possibly withstand the negativity of MyDD's more zealous anti-Obama posters.

You would murder a unicorn if you could find one.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:19:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 4)

Wow, from a lot of posters, that MIGHT have some kind of weight?

But, you, Little Otter, you are one of the most active of AntiObama posters here, you rip in and slash and burn on ANY THREAD against Obama, and his supporters?

Not only, IMHO, don't you want unity, I suspect, you would PREFER Obama lost and, are probably going to vote for McCain, to help assure he does?

I really think, you speaking on UNITY is a bit disengenious?


My mom believed in Jesus, the Pope and FDR..... Just not necessarily in that order.
by WashStateBlue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:21:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you howl during full moons? (none / 0)

Keep spewing the Hillary hating bile. That is very helpful.  I hope you and your fellow travelers continue and make your feelings more public.

I found the line about her senate reelection particularly amusing because I've been hearing that threat a little more often in recent weeks.  I encourage you and all who feel the way you do to oppose her to the best of your abilities in 2012 because I would enjoy seeing your poor crying faces after New York gives a big smack down to the rabid leftists like Connecticut did in the Lieberman fiasco.


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:25:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you howl during full moons? (none / 0)

ever wonder why you've been hearing it more lately?


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:31:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know why I've been hearing it more (none / 0)

Because the rabid left is like the rabid right.  They are far too unrealistically impressed with their own perceived powers.  They think because they talk to, and associate with, a bunch of similar crackpots and cranks that their views are mainstream consensus.  That's why I love what happened in CT (even though I don't like Lieberman much) and am confident the same thing would happen again if they challenged Senator Clinton in NY.


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:38:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know why I've been hearing it more (2.00 / 1)

or perhaps more and more people are seeing her as worthy of it.

This country is fickle and tends to turn on people after a loss.  She is fast on the path to making a pariah of herself.  You can act like I have delusion of grandeur if that makes you feel better, but I didn't say that I would wave some magic wand and reap my vengeance upon her or anything like that.  I said that there could be a price to pay and that I sure hoped there would be.  SNL is evidence that I am right and you are full of hot air.

I know you hate what I am saying, but stop and look around you at the media narrative, pop culture (SNL), and the CW that is forming.  It is true.  She could be vulnerable and if someone wants to challenge her she could find herself in a position where more people are willing to donate to the challenger than otherwise would have been and there may also be fewer her are of a mind to donate to her as well.  

Guess which way my money would go.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:51:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I really don't care where your money goes (none / 0)

Knock yourself out opposing her for reelection if that makes you happy.  

And SNL is a comedy show.  A comedy show that doesn't poke fun at all sides is derelict in its duties.  Like most libs, you take yourself way too seriously and cherry pick everything as a affirmation of yourself.


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really don't care where your money goes (2.00 / 1)

Seems like you had your finger right on the pulse when you picked your candidate for the nomination.  Way to go there Kreskin. I guess that I should immediately retract my read on things given the acuity you've shown.

My bad.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:16:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ha, ha, good one (none / 0)

I don't know how old you are, but if you are a Democrat with years of voting under your belt, I find your smug attitude amusing given your likely history of picking numerous electoral losers.


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:30:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ha, ha, good one (none / 0)

The last republican to win a presidential election was Herbert Walker... once.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:14:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmmm? (none / 0)

You mean Al Gore has been president the last 8 years?


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:37:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmm? (none / 0)

That's not what I said.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:46:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, that is what you wrote (none / 0)

Should I believe you or my lying eyes?


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:58:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, that is what you wrote (none / 0)

Me evidently.  Go back and read.  My comment concerns who won the election, not who wound up in the White House.

Hint:

Google Kenneth Blackwell and Katherine Harris.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Still screaming about 2000 and still refusing to (none / 0)

accept the verdict of 2004.  You'll have to start compiling a list of various conspirators who wrongfully denied the triumph of the Obama movement just in case the voters reject him in November.  Here, I'll even start it for you:

1) the backstabbing traitorous witch Hillary Clinton;

2) The knuckle dragging ignorant hicks across the country;

3) racist America;

4) Obama's advisors for not pushing him to campaign enough like a liberal crusader intent on delivering America from its ignorant ways.

I'm sure you'll be able to add some other good ones to the list.


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:23:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So you acknowledge that you were lying about what (none / 0)

I had said.  Sweet!  Now that we have established that I am, in fact, more reliable than your lying eyes we can move forward in our conversation with the knowledge that you struggle with your perception of reality.  That's progress.  Now we know which of us is too busy warping the things so they fit his notions to see the truth.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:39:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know why I've been hearing it more (2.00 / 1)

Guess how much time Leiberman bought himself?  Polls show tremendous remorse from CT voters.  Turns out, as usual, the rabid left was correct and just smart enough to be ahead of the learning curve.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:00:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Keep the faith. It's a powerful thing, moonbat! (none / 0)


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:02:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keep the faith. It's a powerful thing, moonbat (2.00 / 1)

Do you assert that the political atmosphere in CT hasn't turned sharply against Leiberman in the time since his reelection?


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:17:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know (none / 0)

But, what matters for him, is the political environment in 2012 when he is up for reelection.


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:39:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know (none / 0)

Keep watching.

...and try to move into that HIGH information group.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:49:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you howl during full moons? (2.00 / 0)

You're a Lieberman supporter? Weird, I don't think I've ever seen one of you.

If by rabid leftists, you mean people who oppose the war, I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but the overwhelming majority of the country opposes the war.

The rapid Clinton hater you were responding to, I'm not going to defend.


by letterc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:00:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, I am not a Lieberman supporter (1.00 / 1)

I said that explicitly in one of the posts above. But I despise the leftist netroots even more, so, in Lieberman's case, enemy of my enemy is my limited friend.


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:05:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"I Despise the Leftist Netroots"? (2.00 / 2)

Jesus, what the hell is your problem? Why don't you just leave? Seriously, just go away. Your kind helped bring about Joe "McCain Has His Bearings I Checked" Lieberman. Yeah, us "rabid leftists," attacking poor old Lieberman, I mean, what a loyal Democrat he's been. Thank you so much for protecting the party from us silly, ignorant peons. If you hate the netroots so much for our horrible ways, then why are you posting on here so much you fucking hypocrite. God, people like you are the worst.


by JewishJake on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:36:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm something like a reality missionary (none / 0)

Just trying to give some of you a taste of how many feel about you even in the Democratic party.


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:47:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I am not a Lieberman supporter (none / 0)

So you are purely a troll, and a devoted opponent of the purpose of this blog.

Nice thing to spend so much time on.

I'll add you to the list of people to ignore.


by letterc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:46:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks! (none / 0)

I look forward to not having to endure any further conversations with you.


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:00:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (2.00 / 1)

That's the part that upsets me the most.  I have been defending her and Bill since the 90s.  She has betrayed me by acting like exactly the creep they said she was.

On that point, you speak for me also.

On numerous occasions since the Clinton administration I have encountered people whom I considered perfect fools because they were absolutely convinced that Hillary Clinton was amoral and pathologically ambitious.  Sometimes, I would confront these people and demand that they explain how they could be so positive that they understand her internal moral and mental state. Other times I would just remain silent and smugly classify them as irrational or non-thinking idiots.

Now, it appears that I was the idiot. I feel betrayed; and I hate feeling like that.


by rmx2630 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0)

but attacking supporters as being 'blind acceptors' is OK. Please, read what you are writing.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:01:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably not much impact here (none / 0)

He's  right on at least one point, she has not yet lost, rumors of her demise are greatly exaggerated.  And she can win the popular vote, she's been ahead before, she can recoup her lead. And if she wins the popular vote she has a better than even chance of being the nominee, it's all true.  Obama has some campaigning left to do, he needs to convince working class guys he'll be tough on national security.  Those guys didn't go for bill and they didn't go for Al and they didn't go for John and she's the first who's shown enough grit to make then know she'll be no walk-over when it comes to such things as nuclear proliferation.  he won't either, but he hasn't made a strong enough case for himself.  Bill only won cause he had the advantage of a third party spoiler that a lot of pug-libertarians voted for.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:10:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you even read the post? Guess not ... (2.00 / 1)

As you just dove right in with your unsupported allegations that Hillary can still win the popular vote, which is not a valid metric, as it disenfranchises some of the caucus states.  This is decided on delegates.  

How's Hillary doing on that score lately?  Oh, that's right, she's now losing among the SD's.  


GeauxBama!
by DailyKingFish on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And why is it that he can't come out and say it? (none / 0)

Though he did make a gesture today, even though it was accompanied by more of the same sort of petulance that's so offputting.

It seems he's either too invested personally with the candidate or more concerned with his credibility amongst the remaining dead-enders rather than with his credibility overall in the progressive blogosphere. He's way too intelligent to be sticking to this path right now, so it's just a mystery to me.


by bookish on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McAuliffe (2.00 / 10)

One of the many benefits of an Obama victory is that we won't have to endure Terry McAuliffe's smarmy, spinning TV appearances again for a long time.

I say this as someone who voted for Bill Clinton twice and volunteered on Hillary's first Senate campaign.


by Hudson on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:09:08 PM EST

Re: McAuliffe (2.00 / 2)

ditto wolfson.  carville.  penn.
s.
by synth on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:13:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On the other hand... (2.00 / 0)

... the flaw in my post is that we have a political culture of "failing upward." Serve as an advisor to a major candidate or official who fails, get a plusher job. Weird, that.

I always knew this was true of Republicans, but it's dismal to learn in recent years that it's often the same with our Democratic party. On even a local/county level, people who organize lame, losing campaigns seem to move upward (not downward or out entirely), while those who demonstrate success with a Crashing the Gate model tend to get ostracized.


by Hudson on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:28:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the other hand... (none / 0)

I like them all, but I like James Carville the best, he's so real.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:11:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the other hand... (none / 0)

The sad part about this comment is that she is being honest rather than snarky.


by zadura on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ANY evidence for Jerome's "blind hatred" (2.00 / 5)

of Obama? Or is it one of those 'he disagrees with me so he must have some sort of psychological problem' deals?


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:09:49 PM EST

evidence for Jerome's "blind hatred" (2.00 / 6)

have you read any of his recent posts?


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:28:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seriously (2.00 / 0)

He just suggested that Sebelius was on Obama's VP list because he has an Oedipal complex.

...

Yeah.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seriously (none / 0)

That actually isn't true, he suggested that the press would binge themselves on that interpretation, not that it was actually true.


by letterc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, of course (none / 0)

...because now that he's thrown it out there, the mass media totally doesn't read this site.  They can't tie their shoes without the blogosphere anymore.

Innocuous offhand comments that don't seem horrible at first are par for the course this season.

"Of course Barack Obama is a patriotic American.  I'm just saying that Hamas wants him to be president."


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:52:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, of course (none / 0)

True.


by letterc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ANY evidence for Jerome's "blind hatred" (none / 0)

Any evidence?  Are you frickin' mad?  Have you READ his posts for the last several months?


by rf7777 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ANY evidence for Jerome's 'blind hatred' (none / 0)

I'll take that as a 'no', since you haven't provided any specifics and I've read most of his stuff and haven't seen any "blind hatred" at all.

Jerome does see some difficulties for the Obama candidacy going forward and who doesn't? It's a website that talks about campaigns from a Dem perspective, so what do you expect him to talk about?

Todd Beeton takes a pro-Obama slant (though he doesn't "blindly hate" Hillary), Jerome maybe is more pro-Hillary than evenhanded, and the other guy seems right down the middle. No blind hatred except in the diary section and I wouldn't have it any other way.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:30:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Jerome (1.92 / 13)

It used to be the goal around here was to get democrats elected.  Today it's about contorting or flat out dissembling to justify Hilary's pointless continued participation in a contest that is over and has been since February.  That's the problem.  Hilary supporters have had to strenuously deny reality in the form of mathematics since supertuesday.  Denial of reality has become as addictive habit for these people.  It keeps them from having to address the pain of losing.  It also allows them to say shit that most of us outside of this echo chamber would be ashamed and embarrassed to try and pass of as fact:

1. Michigan and Florida should count

2. Barack has run a negative campaign

3. Hilary can catch up on popular vote

4. Popular vote is a valid metric for the nomination process

5. Michigan voters won't vote for BO even though SUSA has    shown differently for a month now

6. Barack has gone horribly negative

7. Everyone who doesn't approve of Hilary is a misogynist

8. Barack has been race baiting

9. Hilary didn't have a hand in selling NAFTA

10.  She still has any chance whatsoever.

Colonel Nathan R. Jessop would have something to say to these silly people.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:10:40 PM EST

You want me on that wall (2.00 / 4)

you NEED me on that wall


_____________
changiness
by lizardbox on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You want me on that wall (2.00 / 4)

J can't handle the truth!


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:23:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shorter Jerome (2.00 / 10)

I don't even like to imagine an Obama nomination, but if he doesn't hang the albatross around his neck in the fall I'll like it even less.


by ameridad on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:11:17 PM EST

Diarist's a little unaware of basic facts. (2.00 / 5)

The nominee of the Party isn't chosen until the Convention.

It's not over until it's over.

Superdelegates may switch their allegiance at any time up until they actually vote at the Convention, too. (For that matter, so can pledged delegates.)

Obama supporters fail to acknowledge these basic facts about how BOTH political parties are run. Lately, the media's taken on this meme, too.

Read Jerome's two latest diaries for a little historical perspective...something which both the media and the Obama campaign fail to acknowledge.


by bobswern on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:21:05 PM EST

Re: Diarist's a little unaware of basic facts. (2.00 / 4)

Right, and history has shown that no one comes out a winner when we take it to the floor.


by sweet potato pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:22:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then you would think... (none / 0)

they would've changed the system.


by JimR on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:38:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Diarist is VERY incorrect, historically... (2.00 / 1)

In fact, just read Jerome's historically accurate comments about Convention history--the diary's his second diary currently on the front page of this blog.

There's a been a floor fight at almost every Dem convention where our Party's nominee has won the general election.

Your comments are devoid of fact. Completely.

Kennedy, Carter ('80), Clinton ('96), etc.

It truly boggles my mind--and apparently Jerome's too--as to how the media and the Obama campaing are ignoring these truths today. Truly incredible.

The emperor has no clothes. Obama is not the Party's nominee. He has not won the nomination. At best, the truth is the only thing Obama will be able to claim--maybe--is the title of "likely nominee" up until the Convention actually occurs.

And, a lot can happen between now and the convention.

Furthermore, Obama doesn't have enough delegates to win this thing last I checked.

This is far from inevitable, despite the lies being thrown at us by both the Obama campaign and its supporters, and by the media, now, as well.

This is the most closely fought Primary this country's seen in a long, long time.

Then again, it's not surprising that the youthful Obama supporters--many devoid of historical reference as well as the older Obama supporters that try to revise history like the diarist does here--aren't cognizant of these realities, either.

It's not over 'til it's over.


by bobswern on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:47:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Snark? (2.00 / 7)

What are you talking about? A floor fight in 96? Clinton won the vote easily:

   * Bill Clinton (inc.) - 9,706,802 (88.98%)
    * Lyndon LaRouche - 596,422 (5.47%)
    * Unpledged - 411,270 (3.77%)

It was never in doubt.

At the 1980 GE, Carter lost after the floor fight.

I can only imagine that this post is snark.


by grass on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:58:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's All About Forcing Clinton to Drop Out (2.00 / 1)

Just a few wee facts to remember:

Delegates are the people who will decide the nomination at the Democratic National Convention.

Delegates from the fifty US states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have a single vote each, while some delegates from American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam and Democrats Abroad have half a vote each. Thus, the total number of delegates is slightly higher than the total number of available delegate votes (4,048).

Rasmussen:

Hillary 48% to McCain 43%.
Obama 47% to McCain 44%.
West VA: Hillary 56, Obama 27.

*

Gallup Daily: "Obama not pulling away yet".

Dates polled, May 6 to May 8, 2/3 of whom were polled after Tuesday's election results were known. Obama 48, Hillary 46.

Gallup says "Obama remains in a statistical dead heat with Clinton for the 16th consecutive day."

A good explanation of electoral college votes and swing states v. red states and blue states:

http://www.correntewire.com/hillary_clin ton_must_be_the_democratic_nominee_do_th e_math

And Anglachel's blog is must read:

http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:35:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's All About Forcing Clinton to Drop Out (2.00 / 4)

Rasmusses just declared the race over and stopped tracking. However, right before they did, Obama was up 7 points. Gallup he is ahead 50-41.  

It's over.


by sweet potato pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's All About Forcing Clinton to Drop Out (none / 0)

Rasmussen just declared the race over and stopped tracking. However, right before they did, Obama was up 7 points. Gallup he is ahead 50-41.  

It's over.


by sweet potato pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:40:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's All About Forcing Clinton to Drop Out (2.00 / 2)

Both of your cited links are anti-Obama hit blogs. If you're going to provide links to outside commentary, at least try to pretend its impartial.


by upstate girl on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's All About Forcing Clinton to Drop Out (2.00 / 1)

An argument is an argument, whether its impartial or not.

Read the post, and refute it. So far, nobody has been able to.

The only thing that matters is electability. Clinton's outperformed Obama substantially in the states we MUST win to carry the electoral college.


by lambertstrether on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:42:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's All About Forcing Clinton to Drop Out (2.00 / 4)

Your first sentence shows exactly why you're incorrect. An impartial argument about math is not the same thing as hit piece, biased blogs that t