MyDD :: Hillary Clinton conference call

Hillary Clinton conference call

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:23:20 AM EST

I listened in on a CC with Hillary Clinton, and took a few notes. She's going to continue her campaign, undoubtedly, because she thinks she can win, or as she said: "I believe I will win; I believe my opponent could win."

The one thing that I was going to ask of Clinton, but didn't get my question in, was to ask that she push for reform of the primary process. I am fine with states choosing caucuses, but not if they are also having primaries. And if they do have caucuses, they should have less delegates, so the delegate to vote ratio is more closer.

Here was her message, and my extrapolation, in the call:

1) She's leading in the popular vote. Period. This isn't a procedural argument, but a moral one. Yes, they voted in FL and MI, that was their only chance at voted. It may not be what is used for distributing delegates, but no one can deny that there was a vote taken, those people count...

2) Count the delegates of MI & FL. This is a procedural argument. Whatever the committee decides, they decide. They better damn well not punt. I think it does signal a turn in the race, on June 1st, after they've been allocated in whatever fashion they determine. We will then have a clear marker on which both candidates agree, and the contest is decided.

3) Clinton makes the argument that she's won the states with the EV's that matter. The heart of this comes back to her claim that 'she will win, and Obama could win'. As she said: "Its the map not the math".

That was the gist of the argument, which I'm sure she's telling the SD's too.

I don't think either of them is a given against McCain, but that Clinton does have a better shot currently at winning the GE than does Obama. You can look at the EV maps here on MyDD, of the lastest poll in each state, to come to the same conclusion.

Paul Maslin has a good post that goes through Obama's chances.

To start, to grant Obama the states of Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin (only two of which Obama is leading in today) gets Obama to 255 EV's, according to Maslin.

For the last 15, Maslin includes Ohio & New Hampshire as toss-ups, which they don't seem to be at the moment. Ohio demographics make an uphill climb for Obama, and NH just marginally as McCain has some strong pull in the state historically; in my view, both are leaning McCain states.

So Obama is left with going out west, taking Colorado (9); Nevada (5); New Mexico (5); for a total of 274 EV's. Yes, Obama 'could' win, but lets not pretend that he's not a battleground candidate-- he's just changed the battleground states, given his weakness in Ohio/WV and in Florida.

I've said it many times, and it bears repeating. I'm not a Clinton fan by choice. I've come to support her through attrition, as the one left who I see could win. If or when she is out, I'll support Obama, and hope that the GOP's use his variety of gun stances and his proposal to raise the capital gains tax to 28 percent, doesn't work against Obama out west, and that somehow, Latino voters, whom didn't support Obama in the primaries, decide they will over McCain, whom is probably the most favorable Republican to Latinos at the moment, in the GE.

The odds of the Democratic nomination greatly favor Obama. Obama's odds in the GE are a toss-up.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 335 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 8)

Do you participate in conference calls for Senator Obama too? I appreciate the update on the daily Clinton campaign talking points but as this site was established to elect Democrats shouldn't we also have the information from the Obama campaign? Just asking.

by temptxan on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:29:08 AM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (1.18 / 16)

Jerome just sounds like an elitist sore loser who didn't get his way. Sucks when the establishment doesn't win. I thought that used to be a good thing around here?

He may have only come to Hillary by attrition, as did I to Obama, but shouldn't he now just move to Obama by attrition and stop fucking whining like a little baby.

And no it's not what Clinton is saying, he is also saying this. If not you would also put up what Obama is saying and everyone in the reality based community and the Democratic party, etc.

by eraske on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:55:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 1)

It sounds to me that YOU are the bitter, whining baby.

by doyenne49 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:40:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you Jerome and capital gains (2.00 / 3)

First, this is the first time I have seen Jerome publicly state that he will support Obama if/when he is the Democratic nominee. That is good to hear.

Second, Obama's plan is to raise the TOP RATE of capital gains. How many people know here that the capital gains rate a person pays is tied into their income tax bracket? That is one reason why the argument that it would hurt families making under 50K is a canard. Over 80% of capital gains is paid by those making over $200,000.

I know Jerome and many Clinton supporters fear the attacks that the right-wingers will throw at Obama. The fact of the matter is that these attacks (or better yet, distortions) will be thrown at Clinton also if she were the nominee.

The upsetting bit about some Clinton supporters is that they have often accepted these distortions about Obama as fact while recognizing the right-wing attacks against Clinton as bs (and rightly so.)

Therefore, I would ask Jerome and others that think similarly to him to stop fretting over/worrying about the disinformation campaign that the Republicans will run, a campaign which I believe Obama is ready to fight and win, and eventually join Obama supporters in getting the true message out there.

Interestingly enough, I don't think that means you have to completely accept Obama's policy positions over Clinton's on issues in which they differ. I think it is perfectly fair for Clinton supporters, who made up almost half of the electorate, be able to voice their differences on healthcare, etc. But I would ask that you do that at two places/times--the convention and after Obama is elected. We should not be attacking our own candidate while he is running to beat McCain. I also think your opinions will be well represented by Clinton back in the Senate.

I know this race has not officially ended so I look forward to working with Clinton supporters who are willing to get on board in June sometime, hopefully.

by batgirl71 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:29:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you Jerome and capital gains (none / 0)

Phantom mojo.

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 Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 1)

Yowza.

If there's anyone in the blogosphere who's been sticking to the facts and the data the whole way through the primaries, not clouded by campaign talking points or emotional investment in the race, it's Jerome on this site. I don't see any whining in this post whatsoever.

by daria g on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:43:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 3)

Uh...you've GOT to be kidding me. Jerome has been extremely biased for months. Not that aren't similar pro-Obama biases within the blogosphere, but there are a number of contributers on this very site that are considerably more even-handed and intellectually honest than Jerome.

by ChrisKaty on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:04:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 2)

I have to agree with you here ChrisKAty. Todd is much better at supporting Clinton whilst still holding on to a semblance of the opposing argument. Jerome takes the extreme proClinton position always, without a nod usually to Obama. Here he almost flirts with a realistic appraisal of the race though, so maybe we will get him back some point soon. I am very much looking forward to what Jerome will write in two weeks when this thing is wrapped up for Obama. Should be an interesting day around here.

by wasder on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This has GOT to stop (2.00 / 1)

Disclosure: I have been a supporter of Obama from the beginning. I have been an admirer of Hillary from the beginning. I have been angry at Hillary from time to time.

Our country is in trouble. Bush & Co. have done more damage that I could ever have thought could be done in 8 short years. We will extend our lead in Congress and we MUST take the White House. There is much at stake.

When Obama supporters make insulting remarks to Clinton supporters (or the other way around), I just cringe.

Every day ask yourself: "How many more years of toxic Republicanism can our country take before it just falls apart?"

We need a Democrat in the White House. All of us are needed to make this happen.

by smoker1 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This has GOT to stop (none / 0)

Phantom mojo.

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 Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:45:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (1.75 / 4)

It's the old politics of access and connections. Not exactly crashing anything.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 1)

It's not as though the gates got crashed in 2004, either, in spite of DKos and MoveOn and more. It's not enough to crash the gates; one must get inside.

by Montague on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:24:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 0)

The blogs in 04 aren't even comperable to 08.

Hillary is the establishment choice, and these questions of "what the GOP will do" and "how the EVs will work out, based upon primaries" are establishment pushes.

Jerome may think he's not a Clinton "fanboy," but seeing as he took -- and agreed -- with every comment on the Clinton propoganda call, and dutifully reported them back to us as fact -- makes that statement just one of the many false ones in that post.

Interesting that Jerome was silent on Bush's attack on Obama -- and Obama excellent response, but found time to post thrice about the mighty important land of West Virginia.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if you know someone who does (none / 0)

participate in Obama conference calls then I am sure that Jerome would be happy to have the information posted here.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:29:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 4)

Thanks for your assessment Jerome.

by durendal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:30:51 AM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (1.50 / 4)

yes thanks for the assessment should we expect your hand wringing through Nov?

by eraske on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:59:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 1)

Why don't you address his assessment, if you thank him for it, and not attack him?

by dembluestates on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:23:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (1.33 / 3)

Because they don't know how. They are in fanatic denial about the GE prospects of their demigod.

by doyenne49 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:41:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 1)

Is that anything like the fanatical denial about HRC's prospects in the primary? I think we all have room to expand our horizons and work together to get a Democrat elected.

by travelerkaty on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:50:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

Actually it's quite easy to point out that those maps are misleading at best and meaningless at worst. Polling in May doesn't show strength in Nov. If poll numbers were meaningfully predictive in some way Clinton would already be the nominee. But she's not. That's because campaigning effects the opinions of the voters. The GE campaign just started.

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:53:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

Not to mention that Dukakis once had an 18 point lead over Daddy Boosh .. and we know how that turned out .. hell .. I wonder what the polls will show next week .. after McCain got hammered this week

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:15:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 1)

It's really a silly assertion coming from a leading political blog.

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:18:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

And Bill Clinton was in third in July of 1992.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:22:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

Exactly .. so polls do change .. besides .. when was the last time anyone challenged McCain? .. Never probably .. so he's in for a rude awakening

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:55:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"They" (2.00 / 5)

Stop with the fucking "they."

People who support Obama are not a monolithic hive mind. We don't all think the same way and we don't all feel the same way. I am so sick and tired of the bile spewing hatred at anyone who supports Obama.

Most of us don't hate Clinton. Most of us don't hate people who support Clinton.

The only two things we all agree on is our support of Obama and our disgust at people who lump us all together because they feel the need to insult as many people as possible with one sentence.

I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.

by JDF on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:12:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 9)

Only Obama's position on guns is a problem, eh? Also, the GOP won't argue that Senator Clinton supports tax increases? Just asking. Personally, I don't think either argument works in today's political environment.

Also, you've once again chosen not to list any of the swing states where Obama outperforms Clinton. States that are every bit as important as Ohio or Florida. Iowa, Wisconsin, and MN are all states where Obama is stronger than Clinton. So are Washington and Oregon. The last I checked, they still matter and McCain plans on contesting them all vigorously.

Personally, I can't wait till we can stop having these pointless electability arguments. There's enough data out there to argue the point either way. I wish you would at least admit as much, instead of pretending that the only rational view is that Clinton is stronger.

by HSTruman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:33:07 AM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 1)

No, the data out there which Jerome covered argues strongly in favor of Senator Clinton, for exactly the logical and realistic reasons he raises.

It is nowhere near an even split, no matter how you want to spin it.

by dembluestates on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:25:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

You think, you honestly think, that Hillary won't have gun problems? Do you know what the NRA thinks of Clinton? The assault weapons ban? Is she going to say she disagreed with that, too?

It baffles me how everyone is oh so hug me scared of what the GOP will do to Obama, who is holding himself nicely, thank you, as opposed to what they'd do to Clinton, who would also hold herself nicely.

But if you think Hillary has some kind of baggage advantage, you couldn't be more wrong. Unless you are pro-baggage.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:37:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

Yeah, I honestly think Hillary won't have gun problems.

Her strength is not with GOP crossovers, it's with women and the Dem base. Her strength is urban areas and big states, which takes the NRA out, but in WV and AK she has also shown an ability to bring out voters Obama can't touch.

by dembluestates on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

Well, since her policy views are the exact same as Obama's, that doesn't make any sense to me. But if you say so.

by HSTruman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:07:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 4)

again? this EV argument continues to make me laugh, because it completely ignores whole parts of the country that you write off because you want to. Obama is polling strong in VA, NC, and SC. He's also ahead in part of NE. He's not far behind in TX or ND. And he's only single digits behind in AK.

But its more convenient for your case to ignore all this and focus on the battleground states of 2004. So much for a 50 state strategy. In Clinton's world, only states that were close last time count this time.

democracy!

by BlueGAinDC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:34:34 AM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 2)

Also according to this NYT article republicans will have to contest the entire south because of the large black turnout expected for Obama while they don't like McCain. Factor in Bob Barr who is a southerner and McCain is in big trouble.

by eraske on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:07:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 1)

Of course the popular vote doesn't count states like Iowa(caucus states that don't release vote totals) .. so it is a dumb metric(with out even pointing out that Clinton agreed to the FL & MI rules .. which Jerome refuses to call her on)

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

If you think Obama has a chance at winning NC, SC or TX you are beyond dreaming...There is NO chance & to base an election, the most important election of our time, on this type of straw grasping is beyond troublesome. I mean I can hear the GOP laughing right now at the thought that anyone actually believes that for a minute. There is a MUCH better chance however of a NY or NJ going red in this election especially with an Obama vs McCain ticket to choose.

by jrsygrl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:32:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 1)

you've summed up the argument in a nutshell. Let's ignore states because you are soooo sure we have no chance at winning them. Explain to me, then, why Obama is so close in the polls? I here over and over again that polls right now don't matter, and sure, they can change, but what evidence do you have that they are wrong.

If Obama had no chance in these states, there wouldn't be polls saying he does. Stop thinking you know everything for a second and realize that this is not 2000 nor 2004. This is a new year, we have new candidates, and a very different political atmosphere. Writing off states because you just know we can't win them is beyond stupid.

Luckily, we have a candidate who understands the need to compete everywhere and not just for 3 or 4 states.

democracy!

by BlueGAinDC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

I'd laugh but I just want to cry...

Use some common sense here please to base one of the most important elections in this country's history on the idea that maybe he'll turn ingrained red to the core states blue flies in the face of complete logic. It really makes me sick that people are turning their face away from logic like this & then once again I am going to have live with the results. I wish we could put all the people on an island together, who vote for the GOP or argued that Obama was the better choice to win the G/E, to live with the results of ANOTHER 4 GOP years. Because God knows I can't take much more of it.

Now here is why it is nice to see that the polls are changing more & more down in these red to the core states. That means that in the coming DECADES those states may have a change in sentiment - maybe we are close to turning one and then another's ideology after a FEW more election cycles. That is realistic optimism & hope for the future, but this type of change does NOT happen overnight (& 4 years is OVERNIGHT).

by jrsygrl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:27:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 0)

As someone from a supposedly deep red state, I'm disgusted by the way some Democrats think that they understand southern states. Believe it or not, there are a lot of Democrats in these states that you pretend don't exist. In 2004, Kerry lost Georgia by about 600,000 votes. According to a recent report, there are more than 500,000 African Americans of voting age that arn't registered. Get them out to the polls, and you have a swing state on your hands.

In North Carolina, the margin was about 400,000 votes. In South Carolina, less than 300,000 votes.

Guess what? We lost 'swing state' Florida by about 400,000 votes.

I will concede that Georgia may be out of reach this year (though I wouldn't leave it completely uncontested). But North and South Carolina are winnable. To deny that is ignorant.

Stop with this elitist notion that somehow the southern states are too red to win. You clearly do not have any understanding of what is going on here. You ignore polls because you think you know so much about these southern states, that were too dumb or too conservative to vote for a Democrat.

Well, your wrong. There are Democrats that are just as progressive and just as loyal in the south. And while it may take some work to win these states, writing them off based on your own foolish assumptions is a mistake.

democracy!

by BlueGAinDC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:08:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

Excuse me I may currently live in NJ very close to NYC BUT - I have many familial ties as well as regular associations with many people who live in the very states that you are bringing up as examples. To put it bluntly - I have been highly aware on a personal level as to what the sentiment is once again in the VERY states you cite - hell my immediate family has had or currently have homes down there! And that is ignoring the MANY close friendships I have maintained for SEVERAL years with people who were raised and CURRENTLY live in the south. But once again you ASSume things about me AND ASSume that your first hand knowledge is somehow better then mine.

I can't even believe you brought GA into the mix (I have family & friends there too). Now I will say once again that in coming DECADES (like maybe another 10 - 20 years which equals a few more election cycles) these states will possibly turn since they are polling closer. But to actually count on them, to DEPEND on them as reliable areas to turn BLUE in order to win THIS election is nothing but delusional! To view those states in a longer term strategy as plausibly being brought over to the Democratic side is wise. To ignore that they may be viable in upcoming, FUTURE election cycles would be naive. But to DEPEND on them in the IMMEDIATE?! Give me a break.

by jrsygrl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:33:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 1)

I honestly don't care where your family and friends live. You still seem to have no understanding of these states. If you did you would realize that southern states are not solid red as you believe them to be. Look at the county breakdown all over the country. You will find that Democrats do better where the people are concentrated. We lose most counties in most states, even in reliably blue NY and CA.

The trick is to maximize turnout in the democratic strongholds. Trust me, McCain is not very popular in the rural south. He'll get the votes of those who turn out, sure, but don't expect the evangelical base in southern states to work much or turnout well for McCain. Higher turnout among African Americans and youth voters puts these states into play.

Like I said, Georgia would be very hard to turn blue this time around, but North Carolina is a lot closer to turning blue, and perhaps South Carolina too.

I don't say depend on them. What we need to depend on are the kerry states. But if we can win them, we only need to turn a couple states blue to win. And the more states you compete in, the better chance of winning. Look, do you really want to sit in front of your tv in november waiting to see whether FL and OH turn blue to see if we win? I would much prefer to be watching a lot more states.

With a winner take all system, it is not smart to limit where you compete. We CAN win NC and maybe SC. And with the money Obama is going to have, I suggest he compete there. If the numbers wont move in a month or so, perhaps we should concede the state. But there's no sense giving up a state that we can win before we've even tried.

democracy!

by BlueGAinDC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:05:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

You still seem to have no understanding of these states. If you did you would realize that southern states are not solid red as you believe them to be.

If this is true, then please explain why South Carolina has elected Jim DeMint (possibly the most conservative Republican senator, definitely in the top five), Lindsay Graham (not much further down the list), and Mark Sanford (also a strong conservative). This is not a red state that elects some significant blue officeholders, like Montana or Virginia.

As far as I can tell, the only evidence you've presented for South Carolina flipping it 500,000 unregistered African American voters. They're unregistered for a reason. Granted, some may get inspired to registered because of Obama, but not all. And there are no doubt unregistered conservative South Carolinians, too. The case seems to me to be extremely tenuous at best, and certainly we should not be hinging our general election fortunes on South Carolina.

by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

General elections involve one candidate from each major party. Its not like the voters in these states could choose candidates on a scale of most conservative to most liberal.

So the fact that Demint, Graham, and Sanford won means that the Republican party is more conservative in these states (which it is) and that Republicans then won the general election.

But these elections were a lot closer than those in other states. Republicans have the advantage, sure, but a strong Dem like Obama can beat a weak Rep like McCain, if we actually try. I'm not saying its likely to happen, but it can. and we will have the money to compete where mccain cannot. If we focus on a few swing states, then as long as McCain can defend them, he can win. If we compete all over the map, then a few upsets here and there and we win the white house. I'm not saying we concede other states in favor of NC and SC, im saying we compete there also, because we can.

democracy!

by BlueGAinDC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:06:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

But these elections were a lot closer than those in other states.

A quick Googling shows that in 2004, DeMint beat Inez Tenenbaum by 9.6 percentage points, and that in 2002, the slightly more moderate Graham beat his opponent, Alex Sanders, by 10 percentage points.

We're very far from razor-thin margins here. Neither Obama nor Clinton would win South Carolina.

by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:52:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

I don't consider 10 points to be a margin that could not be overcome. Remember, Obama is likely to have a lot more money that McCain.

In 2004, about 200,000 black voters didn't vote in South Carolina. Those who did went for Kerry 85%-15%. I think Obama can improve on both that margin and on turnout.

And look at how energized our base is. Now, comparing primary turnout to past primary turnout may not be very useful. But look at this: 532,151 ballots were cast in the Democratic primary this year. Kerry got 661,699 votes in South Carolina in 2004. That's 80% of Kerry's vote! Only 445,499 voters turned out in the Republican primary (which was still hotly contested).

I'm not saying these states are likely pickups. But to say we couldn't win in these states just ignores the fact that we can, in fact win.

democracy!

by BlueGAinDC on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:07:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

But the problem is that there are major swing states which Obama is LESS likely to win then Clinton & the argument for his victory in the G/E is the presumption that he CAN swing some of these classically red states. And I only bring up my personal ties to some of these states b/c you attempted to trump what you assumed to be a a naivete on my part re: the culture in these states, with your personal experiences which are no more valid then my own.

I am well aware of the fact that places like Atlanta or Chapel Hill or Austin can be more liberal, just like the county I live in in NJ is Republican, but the bottom line is that OVERALL those states are still culturally VERY red & that isn't going to change in the immediate future. There is a BETTER chance of NJ going red than GA going blue in the next election however if Clinton is the nominee I would anticipate that both states will remain as the status quo. NJ will definitely be more in play with Obama as the nominee against McCain BUT I suspect in the end it will still go blue even with that scenario (but it will be closer I guarantee). However, I don't forsee Obama garnering OH, PA OR FL which are all very important. So what is he going to win instead? GA???? NC??? SC??? Be realistic.

I do think it is important to give time/energy to campaigning in those states as the party is having an effect gaining momentum. Eventually maybe in a few more election cycles (say 4 - 8 ie 10 or 20 years) we may see a shift which would only occur if cultivated over time. But it isn't going to happen yet!!!

by jrsygrl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:53:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

I would gladly trade in a couple states that favor Clinton slightly for a whole lot of states that Obama puts into play where Clinton isn't even competitive.

If you look at the 2000 and 2004 maps, we don't need much improvement to win. There are states like NV, NM, VA, and CO which give Obama the opportunity to win, even if you assume that FL and OH go red. But I'm saying that he will be able to compete in even more states including MT, AK, NE, SC, NC, possible even more. Imagine if in 2000, after losing FL, we still had a few other state left that we could win. The more you expand the map, the better chance you have at winning.

I love it how you call me unrealistic, yet say that you "don't forsee" Obama winning in FL, OH, and PA. This election isn't going to be won by fortune telling. Sure, Obama has some ground to make up, but if Clinton can win these three states Obama sure as hell can too.

democracy!

by BlueGAinDC on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:21:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

by the way, you might want to take a look at this NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/pol itics/16south.html?_r=2&partner=rssn yt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref= slogin

democracy!

by BlueGAinDC on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:54:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

Do you REALLY think come G/E campaigning (real campaigning) that Obama is going to GAIN numbers??? He is at his peak now; however the more people hear Clinton talk the better HER numbers get.

I don't care how close we are now at putting some classically red states into play - a real effort to campaign by the GOP there has not even been employed yet. By the time the G/E campaigning is done that will be different. However, like I have said repeatedly, what that shows is those areas are susceptible to a change in the FUTURE so we should continue to cultivate the attitude.

BTW Obama is just NOT as popular in OH, PA, FL as Clinton and he is NOT going to become MORE popular during the G/E campaign. You have to expect his allure will fade once the full court press is turned on him. These swing states however do tend to have a more favorable sentiment towards Clinton and people tend to be a bit more invested in their opinions on her - which means her supporters are resolute.

And by the way having foresight based upon established patterns and history is NOT the same as making stabs in the dark towards empty predictions.

by jrsygrl on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

I'm sorry, but you have to be joking. Obama is at his peak? Seriously? He has been locked in a tight battle with Clinton, with her attacking him left and right (im not saying he didn't do the same, in fact, I think she is at her low point too). His numbers have NOWHERE to go but up. He is clearly at his floor against McCain. He's tied with McCain, and that's with at least a third of Hillary supporters saying they'd vote against him. Once the Democrats come home to support the candidate, his numbers will surely improve.

And the more people hear Clinton talk the more her numbers improve? Interesting, considering her numbers almost never improved during the entire course of the primary. Look at the trend lines in pretty much every state. The more they got to know Obama, the better he did. Her numbers either stayed the same or went down. She never improved with campaigning.

And no, I don't expect his allure to fade. It's so sickening how you and a lot of your fellow Clinton supporters continue to dismiss all of Obama's support as based on some fake allure he has, some cult of personality. It won't go away, because it never existed. We've liked Obama for who he is and what he stands for. As do many independents and Republicans across the country.

I'm sorry your still stuck in the swing state mindset. Its a completely made up concept. Put it in perspective. For two cycles we've had so called swing states. Two cycles! That's it. There's no pattern. If you actually do some research and look at the real hard numbers, you will see that the southern states are winnable because of African Americans. We don't need to win whites to win southern states. We don't even need to come close. If Obama could manage 20 points among whites in MS, Improve among blacks, and increase black turnout by about 5 or 6 percentage points, we would win. Yes, that's right, win, MS. The same holds true for SC, and to a lesser extent GA and NC (which we can win more white support in than the other 3).

Continue to ignore the facts if you want, but you don't win elections based on your feelings. You win them based on real numbers. You get more votes, you win the state. Its that simple. Imagine that. If in november, large turnout among one group and depressed turnout among another results in more Dem votes than Rep votes in MS, we win it. Yes, as conservative as MS is, we still will get their electoral votes as long as we get more votes there.

The name of the game is turnout here, not persuasion. There are no more important states. They are all important. No states EVs are more important than another's.

democracy!

by BlueGAinDC on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

All I can do is just shake my head. Your premise is based on alot of things that have yet to ever come to pass. It is nice that you want to make history, but historically we are in some very dangerous times. And the notion that AA voters, the group that is the most disenfranchised when it comes to election day are somehow going to turn this around is more then just optimistic, it is absurd. And as an aside to assume that the AA community loves Obama is also a bit presumptuous as well. While it is true that Obama has attempted to capitalize on his race (ie his non-biological grandmother in Kenya on TV etc.)for the purposes of GOTV between voter disenfranchisement & the lack of real knowledge as to if he will actually appeal to AAs, it is a bit presumptuous to assume that this group will change the face of the election.

Once again though it isn't about race to me; if anything I think this country exemplifies more misogyny then it does racism, but about a candidate who knows how to win this fight and whom when people listen to her talk, find her persuasive. If that weren't the truth then Obama would've won in his debates against her. Instead he had his clock cleaned handily, which is also troublesome if one his greatest skills is his oration abilities.

I also find it amusing when Obama supporters LOVE the polls in this conversation and then in other diaries hate them when it comes to his chances in November against McCain. I also find it amusing that when I supported Edwards polls re: electability in the G/E were as meaningless as fortunetelling, according to many Obama supporters & the day after Edwards dropped out polls were the bastian of reliability.

by jrsygrl on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:26:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

I'm not basing my hopes on AA turnout. I think it can surely bring huge surprises in this election if it happens, but it doesn't need to. Obama can win anyway, with his strength in VA and out west.

By the way, the shit about Obama's grandmother makes me wonder whether you are really a Dem or not. That smear is ridiculously dumb, and something only taken seriously on far-right blogs. That's like saying adopted parents are real parents. She's just as much a grandmother to him as his biological one, but that clearly doesn't matter to someone who's only trying to bring up the fact that his father was Muslim and therefore his father had multiple wives.

Anyway, I for one never changed my position on the polls. Its pretty dumb to use polls right now as a measure of electability in terms of who polls better against McCain. i.e., Clinton polling against McCain 2-3 points higher than Obama, i would agree, is meaningless.

But these polls have value in showing who is and who isn't competitive. I would never reject a poll now outright. Polls can definately change, but I think multiple polls that show Obama competitive in many states where Clinton is not DO mean a lot. These numbers are not made up. Sure, McCain could end up cruising to victory in these states. But the fact that Obama is competitive means that we can win these states.

So yes, Clinton is competitive in FL, OH, WV, and AR. But Obama is competitive in FL, OH, VA, NC, SC, AK, NE, ND, TX etc.

What we need is a candidate that will be able to compete all over the map. I can't say he'll win these states, just like I can't say Clinton could win hers. But I would much prefer a candidate who is competitive in more states.

And please, stop with the comparisons between sexism and racism. They both exist, but they are very, very different concepts and effect the election in very different ways.

And please, saying debates are a measure of how well she is received? The only people who 'judge' who won debates are the pundits. The voters have time and time again moved toward Obama the more they get to know him. This bodes well for the GE.

democracy!

by BlueGAinDC on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

A. He propped the woman up in Kenya to make a point to a certain demographic. I really don't care though it is politics & that exists in the game. But to suggest it was done for another reason is disingenuous.
B. Obama has no chance in hell of winning NC,SC, TX etc. & it is delusional to think we will get the immediate gratification of winning these states in THIS election. They need to be cultivated over time for a long term goal of maybe winning them in the FUTURE. And Clinton's chances in PA, FL, and OH are more competitive.
C. I watched the debates TRYING to LIKE Obama, b/c I felt that there was a good possibility he could be the nominee. And I along with everyone who watched it was impressed consistently by Clinton & not by Obama. And if he is going to go head to head with McCain where the meme is experience, his debating ability will affect the message. And his polling approval rating has gone DOWN so I don't know what you mean by the voters like him more. He is becoming LESS popular with time.

Although way to first reject polls as being a valid measure of elecatibility & then 2 sentences insert the word competitiveness to validate them...You either think polling is worth reviewing regard competitive ability in combination with other factors or you don't! Right now Clinton is more competitive when it comes to running in the G/E against McCain then Obama is.

by jrsygrl on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:24:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (none / 0)

A. Evidence? Everything you say about this comes directly from far right wing conspiracy theories. Its his grandmother just as the mother of someone's adopted parent is their grandmother.

B. No, the delusion is to think that Obama has no chance at these states despite the evidence.

C. Not everyone saw the debates like you saw them. But then again, you seem to think everything you believe is absolute fact(i.e. Obama can't win this or that, because you said so), so I expect nothing less. And as far as approval rating goes, Clinton's has stayed low. And what matters is whether he can win the votes, which he has been doing, not what his favorability rating looks like.

And I am consistent in the way I read polls now. They can be read to see whether or not someone is competitive AT ALL or not in each state, though I think how competitive will change throughout the campaign.

democracy!

by BlueGAinDC on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:43:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The GE is in... (2.00 / 3)

November.

I'd also say that even if you're right about Hillary having a better chance in the general, which nobody concedes, who will have a better chance to actually govern once elected? I'd suggest with Hillary back in office we'd lose the Congress again just like in the 90's and we'd be back to one scandal after another.

If you vote McCain, you don't believe in anything Hillary has stood for her whole life.

by SpanishFly on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:35:29 AM EST

Re: The GE is in... (none / 0)

Hillary wil have a abetter chance to govern in Septemeber.

Se is by far the more experienced, the more well-known, the more accepted by the Right and the GOP.

The oady has left markers all over the place sice she came into the Senate, and will have little trouble calling them in.

We arenot going to lose the COngress, once again you and the othere Obamas want to rewrite history and blame the Clintons for the losses. T'aint so! Bill and Hllary poured millions of dollars into the DNC and DLC thru personal appearances and campaigned tirelessly on beha;f of ANYBODY who asked when he was in office.

AS to scandals, why don't you blame the Arkansas Project and Judicial weatch, which poured hundreds of millions of dollars into hunting and hounding the Clintons, instead of blaimg them?

And don't think for a minute that Obama 's not going to get the same treatment. it's what they DO.

by dembluestates on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:30:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The GE is in... (none / 0)

These are moot points.

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:54:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The GE is in... (none / 0)

"Se is by far the more experienced, the more well-known, the more accepted by the Right and the GOP."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, god, my sides are splitting here.

I'm going to guess you were a toddler during the 90s, and didn't learn of politics until, 2002 maybe?

Hahahaha. Oh god. That's rich.

Speaking of Mark Rich....

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:39:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The GE is in... (none / 0)

I was working for Dem causes while Bill Clinton was winning Elections, WAY before 2002.

But thanks for playing.

Seriously, if you look at the coalition Hillary has, older, more Conservative voters are flocking to her.

She has co-sponsored legislation with people like Santorum, Brownback, Lindsey Graham, and other wingnuts in the Congress.

She has worked with NEWT GINGRICH on what to do about our health care policies. Gingrich has praised her far and wide.

She has a demonstrated, REAL ability to pull disparate parties together and work out problems.

Why do you think the right-wing media were so silent about Obama until the Rev. Wright? They were praying they would not face her in the GE.

Hillary will kick the base out from McCain and leave him with crumbs and dregs.

by dembluestates on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The GE is in... (none / 0)

I'm sorry to suggest you weren't in politics prior to 2002. I should instead have asked if you read the news prior to March, 2008.

They were not silent about Hillary. They were maniacally rubbing their hands together in glee. Watch a few 2007 debates between the GOP candidates. They spent more time bashing Hillary than they did talking about themselves.

I love the Clinton, I love Hillary, but this idea that she's somehow not a target -- or would have been less of a target for the GOP is the most unbelievable fiction I've heard in politics in my life. Second only, maybe, to the "Hillary can still win" idea.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:46:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The GE is in... (2.00 / 1)

And there, you have touched on exactly what I've been thinking, but precisely in reverse. Obama has been promising so much, and he will be able to deliver on so little of it.

It is my belief that a win, perhaps especially a huge win, for Obama in November would be a disaster for the Democratic party. Not being able to deliver on the audacious promises he's made will turn many of those new, young voters off so thoroughly that we will, in 2010 get a congress even more right wing than in the 90s, with leaders who make Newt Gingrich look liberal.

Of course, I hope I'm wrong.

by NJ Liberal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The GE is in... (none / 0)

I hope you're wrong as well. I don't think Obama has promised any more than Hillary. In fact, his health care plan, some here would argue, sets the bar lower than Hillary. On Iraq, they both plan to pull out in about the same time frame. On changing the tone, only he CAN deliver on this. I'm not saying he will, only time will tell. But Hillary isn't going to unite the country, that's certain.

If you vote McCain, you don't believe in anything Hillary has stood for her whole life.

by SpanishFly on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:55:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The GE is in... (none / 0)

He has promised to change the way business is done in Washington. That is simply not going to happen. People will be disappointed.

Just look at all the people who were calling for the resignation of the Democratic leadership in congress after they failed to get a 2/3 majority. I'm expecting about the same reaction to Obama.

Of course, as I said, I hope I'm wrong.

by NJ Liberal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:11:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton conference call (2.00 / 6)

As an Obama supporter, here's what I think about those three points:

1) This argument reduces her legitimacy because it's so clearly immoral to most people. Yes, of course MI votes should be counted. But the will of the people is the gold standard, and to count Clinton's votes without giving Obama any credit clearly does not reflect the will of the people and can therefore be considered disenfranchisement of the voters who came out to support Obama.

2) Sure, count the delegates. I think most people would consider a full seating, without any penalty, to be unfair and foolish. But at least there's a fair (ostensibly) process whereby to determine this.

3) This is a completely fair argument to make to the supers. Supers can decide for themselves if the argument is strong enough to epically piss off Obama supporters. I know where I stand on the matter, but that doesn't mean it isn't a fair argument to make.

by randomscientist on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:35:38 AM EST

Why is it fair to the 48 states (2.00 / 3)

that played by the rules, to reward the two states that didn't.

Why is it fair to say that every vote must count, only to have the superdelegates say, oops, the voters were stupid they meant to vote for Clinton.

The logic is a backbend over what is reasonable.

overthrow the government~participate

by missliberties on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:47:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (2.00 / 3)

I don't understand that either. 54 other states, territories and districts figured out how to hold a caucus or a primary without too much trouble. It isn't fair that FL & MI should benefit from their inability to hold a proper vote. If they get to have all their delegates it would be a joke. If Obama gets zero pledged delegates from MI it would be a joke.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:52:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (1.80 / 5)

No. Obama had the chance to participate in a fair revote. He rejected the option.

The votes should stand as is.

by bellarose on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:55:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (2.00 / 0)

The proposals floated by the MI and FL legislatures can in no way be characterized as "fair".

by amiches on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:00:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (2.00 / 1)

The Obama campaign has said they were behind the two compromises plans offered by the MI and FL delegation (69-59 in MI and half-votes in FL).
It is the Clinton campaign that is now saying "No. It is everything or nothing". And unfortunately for them, it ain't gonna be everything.

by Benjaminomeara on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:07:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (2.00 / 3)

I like these proposals, but I believe the posters was referring to re-vote plans in MI and FL that relied on mail-in votes, disenfranchised anyone who had voted in the R primary, etc.

They weren't fair offers and were rightly rejected. Republican legislatures in both states did not want a good-faith redo of our primary because it suits them politically. So let's stop pretending that Obama's the guy responsible for the MI/FL mess.

by amiches on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:10:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (2.00 / 1)

There was nothing unfair about the MI revote plan. It was only going to be open to Democrats. Is that what you're claiming is unfair?

by bellarose on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:13:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (2.00 / 2)

It would not have allowed people who voted in the Republican primary to vote in the Democratic one.
A lot of Democrats and independants who did not think the MI vote counted since there was only one name on the ballot decided to vote in the other primary where their vote would have an impact.
The revote would have disenfranchized those people who thoughts the rules were the rules.

by Benjaminomeara on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:17:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (2.00 / 3)

Let me walk you through a probably voting day scenario for an Obama supporter.

1. Hey, it's election day!

Dang, my candidate isn't even on the ballot, and they're all saying that my vote won't count this year. What kind of idiots screwed me over like this?
Well, if I want my vote to count at all, maybe I'll vote in the GOP primary.

Obama refused the Hillary re-vote deal because voters like these, who voted in the GOP primary because they WERE EXPLICITLY TOLD THEIR VOTES WOULD NOT COUNT IN THE DEM PRIMARY would not be allowed to vote. I get that this was a DNC problem too, so I'm not surprised the whole thing fell apart.

So basically, a re-vote under those terms would mean all Hillary voters could re-vote, but if you decided not to throw your vote away that day, you could not participate.

Hillary should feel damned lucky they didn't revote, since all these laughable 'I won the popular vote' scenarios she is pushing are reliant on Obama getting zero in Michigan. She'd be even more screwed if they had revoted.

That's the kind of fairness I love about the Hillary campaign!

by travelerkaty on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:24:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (none / 0)

Why is the world would an Obama supporter want to vote in the GOP primary?

by doyenne49 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:43:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (none / 0)

For the same reason that Limbaugh suggests that GOP voters vote in the Democratic one. To push up the weakest candidate.

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:56:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (none / 0)

LOL DKOS had a thing going to get Dems to vote Republican. I can't figure out why now people think they should get to double dip. (vote D and R)

by J Rae on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:03:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (none / 0)

Seriously? They voted to keep Romney in - who would you rather we were facing in the GE?

by interestedbystander on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:06:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (none / 0)

Because not all voters are blindly partisan and saw people they preferred on both sides, but since all but one of the viable candidates weren't on the ballot, they thought, he maybe I can actually have my vote matter.

For example, Ron Paul was pretty popular at the time, and he had a message that I think a lot of people agreed with, even if they didn't like the rest of his policies (i.e. following the Constitution). If I had been voting, I would have voted for McCain just to vote against the terrifying nutjob that is Mike Huckabee.

by brathor on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:11:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (none / 0)

A revote would have been unfair to the 53 jurisdictions who followed the rules. A revote would have rewarded scofflaw FL and MI with tie-breaker status. Why then shouldn't PA, IN, NC, and every other jurisdiction that followed the rules be allowed to move their primaries to some date after FL and MI to gain tie-breaker status?

by Brad G on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:25:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (2.00 / 2)

So Obama's actions have consequences but the Michigan morons who tried to play chicken with the DNC shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. You want the whole delegation seated at the convention based on a vote that only had one major candidate on the ballot. That certainly seems fair.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:03:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (none / 0)

But see, that's the tradeoff they want to make. Between what is fair and what is right. My GOD, is that dangerous ground for a democracy.

by vcalzone on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:05:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (2.00 / 3)

So Clinton gets everything she wants because it would hurt our democracy if she didn't? You lack imagination my friend. There are hundreds of ways to find a reasonable solution to FL & MI. Once Clinton gets the hell out of the race one of those reasonable solutions will be implemented. Don't worry about our democracy it will be just fine.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:08:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (1.00 / 2)

Yup, yet another Obamabot "solution" that begins with "When Hillary gets the hell out, we will do what's right".

Sorry. It ain't goin' down that way.

by dembluestates on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:37:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (2.00 / 1)

We can do what is right today if you want. That would be kewl with this Obamabot. The problem for Hillary & Co. is that doing what is right won't help her much. That is why she didn't agreed to the MI compromise that was floated a couple of weeks ago.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (none / 0)

Every "compromise" floated out there by Obama has always boiled down to 3 for me and 2 for you.

It wasn't Hillary who turned down a fair revote fully paid and organized by Dem millionaire supporters because it would be too "privatizing".

by dembluestates on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:09:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My cynical thoughts (1.33 / 3)

The Clinton's don't care what is fair, as long as they win.

Their reputation precedes them.

overthrow the government~participate

by missliberties on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:08:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My cynical thoughts (2.00 / 2)

Personal attacks on the Clintons again. They never stop coming, do they? It's like an Obama-supporter trademark.

by dembluestates on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:38:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My cynical thoughts (none / 0)

Because that's all they've got. Honestly. It's all they've got.

by doyenne49 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:44:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, as an Obama supporter (2.00 / 1)

I have the presumptive nominee. You on the other hand have bs math, serious misrepresentations, rule changing, baseless positions, and my favorite, fear mongering.

It gets pretty fucking frustrating to see people not admit to the double standard of HRC's Michigan and "will of the people" position. When we show you how wrong your arguments is, that you in fact are espousing disenfranchisement, that's when you disappear from the post or start personal attacks.

I have no problem with HRC continuing her run. BUt if you don't want negative posts about her or your positions, then you've got to start being more intellectually honest about your position.

Democrat for the democratic nominee

by KLRinLA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, as an Obama supporter (1.00 / 0)

Yeah, right.

If we "behave" then Obama people won't launch personal attacks??

A more honest position would be for you or someone to chide ms. liberty up there.

But of course, you won't. Against cult rules.

by dembluestates on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My cynical thoughts (2.00 / 1)

It's hard to come to any other conclusion with their breathtaking hypocrisy - moving the goalposts whenever one metric doesn't work out for them. Seriously, how do you square "every state must count" with "it'll be over by Super Tuesday"? You can't - the Clintons will say or do anything to win. The only thing that is going to stop them going all the way to Denver is that the party will collectively tell them it's over.

by interestedbystander on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My cynical thoughts (2.00 / 1)

Because Clinton and her supporters would -never- resort to personal attacks!

by brathor on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Frankly my dear (2.00 / 2)

Actions speak louder than words.

How many times have the Clinton moved the goalposts as to what does and does not constitute a winning majority in the primaries.

I guarantee you that if you would shed the bias, and looked at this objectively, you would wonder about the constant reframing of what victory looks like for Hillary.

The most cynical move is saying that Florida and Michigan MUST count, that every vote must count, while plotting to overturn the vote at the convention by twisting the arms of the superdelegates.

If you look at it with an open mind you would see that your claims are weak and that the cards that you hold are the cards of the perpetual victim which is not liberating to women in any way.

overthrow the government~participate

by missliberties on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:17:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (2.00 / 1)

What's fair and right is that MI & FL are held accountable for their actions. If the voters are angry they get to take it out on their legislators by voting the bums out.

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:57:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (2.00 / 3)

The states were told the consequences of their actions and went ahead...

There should BE consequences...

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:06:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (2.00 / 1)

So you're siding with the Republicans in Florida? The ones who did this intentionally so that Florida's democrats would feel slighted by the DNC come November?

Okay then.

by bellarose on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:10:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it fair to the 48 states (