by Jeter, Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:28:49 PM EDT
The rules are the rules. I wouldn't want to see any candidate or a DNC leader, for example, try to subvert or abuse them by having his or her supporters make new rules up or call following the rules "a nuclear option" just because another candidate's supporters are attempting to use threats of "party instability" or "not voting for the Party designated candidate", because they had another preference.
As we are all aware - I believe - the Party's superdelegates may use any or many determinants that are the popular vote to determine who they vote for as the party's nominee. Non-popularly elected delegates will most likely have a great impact on who the nominee is this August.
I do find it rewarding, in any case, that the shortcomings of the Electoral College, the Caucus system and it's easy potential for abuse and inexact counting of the popular vote, and winner take-all primaries are being discussed now, as I'm sure someone had to have done four years ago?
It's not so much fun having to actually discuss the rules by which an organization determines who they will put up for election, but maybe the rules will be somewhat amended by the next Presidential election in 2012 and there will be better oversight into how well the leaders of the DNC are leading the DNC.
by William, Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:24:55 PM EDT
Big Tent Democrat writes:
If Obama is the pledged delegate leader and the untainted popular vote leader, then I will be up in arms if the Super Delegates deny him the nomination. But I do not claim for a second that this violates the rules. It clearly does not. The whining about the existing rules comes from Kos and Josh Marshall and other die hard Obama supporters. THAT is a fact.
In essence, what some Obama supporters are arguing for is CHANGING the rules so that the pledged delegate leader is the nominee. Maybe we can adopt that rule for the next nomination fight. But we won't for this one. Instead, JUST LIKE the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign and its online supporters are arguing for what they think the Super Delegates should do.
What bothers me is they are pretending they are not. It is disingenuous of them. I am arguing for my views as well. For making the popular vote the deciding yardstick. But I admit the rules do not mandate that my yardstick be followed. Obama, his news network NBC, and his legion of blog followers pretend they are standing for the rules. They are not.
I agree with almost everything BTD's posted on this subject in the last few days, and I'm so grateful that there are a few folks like BTD and Jerome pushing back against the shill-like narratives coming out of what is normally the reality-based community. One comment: I think there's a corollary to this that needs to get explicitly called out by the widely-read folks who are still making some sense on this subject. We seem perilously close to losing ourselves in our candidates, which is something I thought us netrootsers were supposed to frown upon...
by linfar, Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:05:38 PM EDT
I was blown out when I read this. What I especially liked is that Peter Daou has done his homework. The assault and negative campaigning against Hillary by the Obama campaign is called out forcefully and compellingly. He marshalls fact after fact.It also throws down the gauntlet. Here is our job.
Peter Daou, Hillary's Internet director, challenges bloggers:
I'm writing this to a group of bloggers. Some of you are Hillary supporters, some not, some neutral.
I want to address a pervasive misconception, namely, that Senator Obama hasn't run a negative campaign against Hillary. I think it's time to put that misconception to rest.
The truth is that for months, the Obama campaign has been attacking Hillary, impugning her character and calling into question her lifetime of public service. And now the Chicago Tribune reports that Senator Obama is preparing a "full assault" on her "over ethics and transparency." To those who contend that Senator Obama is the clear frontrunner, I ask, to what end this "full assault" on Hillary?
by kevin22262, Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:50:01 AM EST
David Sirota has a diary up right now that speaks to the heart of what is and has been happening to the netroots, especially at Dkos.
Evidently he has not only been getting beat up in the comments by the typical crowd at Dkos, but also by some of the front page posters who he is calling out.
What confuses me is that it seems that everytime I post anything now at DailyKos, a small group of very vitriolic and very angry people personally attack me - and by that I mean attack me as a person,
The thrust of the attacks, exemplified in the comments section of this post yesterday, are that I am a horrible person for promoting my work, and an especially awful person for promoting my work on DailyKos. This was the crux of ct's criticism yesterday. It then degenerates from there - with people DailyKos front-page posters like Laura Clawson using the comments section to tell me that, in fact, my work is "marginal" and unimportant. DHinMI, a Capitol Hill staffer, typically chimes in with one or another version of a comment that implies I should just leave the community. Again, the attacks rarely - if ever - have anything to do with the actual substance of the issues I am covering and reporting on.
I think you should check it out.
On top of this we have NO diaries on the front page that speak at all about Obama not going to the State Of The Black Union event in New Orleans. There are diaries that are coming up that are calling Tavis Smiley a "Traitor" for criticizing Obama for not showing up at this event.
Is Tavis Smiley a Traitor to America and Blacks?
by chicagolife, Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:36:03 PM EST
I am going to criticize some candidates. Please understand these are criticisms from the Left, and not meant to boost any candidate over any other. For the record, I voted for Senator Obama in the Illinois primary.
This is a criticism of us in the netroots, however, not the candidates.