And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken from Obama Delegate List

Well, interesting things indeed went on in the dead of night as delegate candidates are being evaluated by the Obama campaign in California to see if they're worthy of inclusion as prospective delegates to Denver. Marcy Winograd over at the blog we do not name or link to said...

By dusk on Wednesday, the California Obama campaign had purged almost all progressive anti-war activists from its delegate candidate lists. Names of candidates, people who had filed to run to represent Obama at the August Democratic Party National Convention, disappeared, not one by one, but hundreds at a time, from the Party web site listing the eligibles. The list of Obama delegate hopefuls in one northern California congressional district went from a robust 100 to an anemic 23, while in southern California, the list in Congressman Waxman's district almost slipped out of sight, plunging from a high of 91 candidates to 17. Gone were strong women with independent political bases.

Marcy went on to state that the remaining candidates appeared to be mostly "bundlers and their girlfriends".

Marcy has paid her dues- she ran against Jane Harman in CA-36 in 2006, and got 37.5% of the votes with a lot of progressive support. The wisdom of the Obama campaign pissing off this kind of person remains to be determined.

Over at Calitics, Brian Leubitz is not happy.

Obama Slashes and Burns through the Delegate List

Today, I learned that I have been pruned out of my delegate race. I will say that I didn't really expect to win. There were people in my district that were better organized and better known (Chris Daly). And they both made the cut. However, I didn't figure the campaign to whom I donated money, and to whom I traveled to two different states for, would decide that I wasn't loyal enough. Heck, I spent March 4 working for Buffy Wicks (the CA field director) in Texas at the Election Hotline... this is a function of the Obama campaign, and if they expect to get any more time or money from me, I need to hear some sort of reasonable answer from the campaign.

And we get the so-called "rationale" for eliminating "certain types" of people...

I understand that the Obama campaign is wary of the Clinton campaign picking off some of their pledged delegates...

More ruckus over on HuffPo:

Obama's "Big Tent" Campaign Cuts Out The Little People In California

After completing the application process and finding my name on the official list of registered candidates, I received an email from the California Democratic Party today (Wednesday) at 4:48 p.m. informing me that the final approved lists of delegate candidates had been posted and that I should check the website. (I assume the same email went out to all the delegate candidates.) I clicked over to the website and found that, lo and behold, what had been a list of 90 candidates had been eviscerated down to only 17, and that my name was gone. I immediately checked the Obama candidate list for the 33rd District, where a friend and fellow Obama die-hard was also running for a delegate spot. His name was gone, too, and a list that formerly contained 83 names was down to a mere 20.

The ostensible rationale for the cutting of delegate candidates is to prevent "Trojan horse" delegates from making their way to the Convention floor and then switching allegiances. The vetting and removal of delegate candidates is expressly allowed by party rules. But could the 30th District really have had 73 such turncoats, and was I really one of them? I was a Precinct Captain for the Obama campaign for the California primary; I've donated several hundred dollars to Senator Obama's campaign (the first politician I've ever supported financially); and I've boosted the campaign in numerous posts on this website...

It's hard not to be cynical. Remaining on the list of approved candidates is the slate of candidates (longtime campaign volunteers) that the Obama campaign has officially endorsed, as well as several names recognizable from local politics. These delegate candidates aren't to be faulted for being longtime political activists, but the cynic in me wonders why those names remained while the "nobodies" on the list disappeared. The Obama campaign owes those of us who were cut a fuller explanation of the decision process.

This is where the real progressives are being asked to get off the bus.  Ideologically motivated people, the progressives who have been in Bush's face and raising a stink about the Bush Administration long before it became fashionable, are being seen as not trustworthy.

What Obama's campaign wants is "mules" - people who will go to the convention and vote for Obama, no matter what. It's not about the issues, it's about the candidate. If these delegates have strong dedication to particular causes they might be persuadable, so none of those types are allowed.

Why does this surprise anyone? All along, Obama's campaign has been about getting elected, Chicago style - that's it. Causes come and go, but the pursuit of political power goes on.  

"Thanks for the help, liberal blogosphere and grassroots activists, but we'll take it from here".  Heh.

Oh, by the way, it's all Hillary's fault - as usual. She MADE them do this.

Tags: 2008 Primary, Barack Obama, president (all tags)



Re: And the Purge

This should surprise no one. Obama has no general election strategy apparently. He thinks that all these people will just automatically vote for him in the fall if he's the nominee. If this ticks off enough people I would imagine that it could affect his numbers in CA.

by Ga6thDem 2008-04-10 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

PLEASE, will somebody explain to me how you are meant to get over 2000 people to go to the Democratic Convention when there are only 167 - ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY SEVEN - delegate places. Jesus, you expect that they just going to say "oh sorry, you can't come" two days before the show?

I feel sorry for Marcy, but she really needs to buck up a little.

by grass 2008-04-10 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

I think it's more about Obama's tactics than anything else.

by Ga6thDem 2008-04-10 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

What tactics?

What about Hillary's "Pledge delegates are just like super delegates, they can vote for whoever they want" tactics.

This has been completely overblown.

by grass 2008-04-10 09:50AM | 0 recs
Well the problem is the word "purge"

These were only ever potential delagates and sometime before Denver they had to be narrowed down to those that would actually get to go. There is no purge involved since this was always automatically going to happen.

Of all the silly non-scandals to be thrown at Obama this is easily in the top 50.

by DSloth 2008-04-10 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Well the problem is the word "purge"

Somewhere between the "Dem for a day" flyer made by some precinct captain and the "snub".

I'd be curious to know how many people applied to be delegates for Hillary.

by grass 2008-04-10 10:02AM | 0 recs
But But ....Words Don't Matter

In the last two days there's been some interesting wordsmithing happening here:

1. Yesterday we read that a "secret cadre" of Indiana grad students were tearing down our democracy.

  1. Earlier today the "forces of evil" were brainwashing us.
  2. And now we learn of a "purge" within our Party.

I'm getting scared. Very, very scared.

by toyomama 2008-04-10 12:59PM | 0 recs
It was a purge.. it sounds like..

And it also sounds like it was for the usual reasons, insecurity.

A secure leader doesn't only pick yes-people..

by architek 2008-04-10 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: It was a purge.. it sounds like..


does that mean Hillary will pick some Obama people as her delegates since she doesn't want "yes men"??

No.  When the other side is actively pursuing a strategy of wooing pledged delegates, you sure as hell better pick "yes men" to be your delegates.

These aren't people advising Obama, these are people going to a convention to vote for him.  

by bawbie 2008-04-10 01:31PM | 0 recs
Obama's advisers are not yes-people

but of course the criteria for an adviser and for a delgate are very different.

Unfortunately for you and Hillary he will pick delegates to Denver who will abide by the democratic will of those who voted in their primaries and caucuses.

by DSloth 2008-04-10 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Well the problem is the word "purge"

Speaking as someone who is running a presidential delegate selection caucus in Wisconsin, I will tell you that when the candidate camp cuts the list, it's not to make life easier for us.  They PURGED people, straight up.  Usually, you let voters decide on these kinds of things (and the voters are party activists in California I believe).  

PURGING your supporters at the grassroots out of fear that HRC is going to try some coup is dumb and dumber.  Dumb because HRC had no chance of pulling this off.  Dumber because he's killing what made his campaign a winner in the first place.

He's in general election mode - or was he already?

by Peter from WI 2008-04-10 10:48AM | 0 recs
How does it make life harder for you?

Only so many actually get to go to Denver. Now these people know whether or not it will be them and they can plan accordingly.

It's not a purge because no one ever told these people they were going to Denver. You can't be purged of a stuts you never had.

by DSloth 2008-04-10 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

The divisiveness and arrogance is what I hear is turning people off.

by Ga6thDem 2008-04-10 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

Well, like most things, that certainly works both ways

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 10:18AM | 0 recs

by magnetics 2008-04-10 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Really?

Yes! Really!!!

by zep93 2008-04-10 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Really?

Really really?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-10 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

I'm not seeing it so much fom Obama, although my fellow Obama supporters sure do have that in spades.

But I do think it's valid to be extremely carefull of who your pledged delagates are when your opponent has stated that they can get them. There's a lot of uglyness out there and I'm worried about it.

Also, up thread you commented that he doesn't have a GE plan. I think he is far better suited than Hillary right now because he already has the infrastructure in the small states. Hillary does too but much of it is outdated because it was last used in 1996.

by Mike S 2008-04-10 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

No infrastructure here in GA. I keep hearing that but from what I've seen he packs up and leaves after the voting is done.

It's the condescending attitude toward women that Obama has that turns a lot of people off.

by Ga6thDem 2008-04-11 02:22AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

Dunno... he must be getting mighty worried that Wright, Rezko et al will add up to a lot of delegates jumping ship in Denver.

Dumping progressive activists to ensure that only the uber-loyal remain smacks of desperation.

by alegre 2008-04-10 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

You are right - you dunno.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-10 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

If this is true why did he gain delegates from the Iowa conventions instead of loose them? That was during the height of the All Reverend Wright All The Time coverage.

by Obama Independent 2008-04-10 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

You get a prize for being the first to point that out.

To repeat - at the height of the Rev. Wright dustup, he picked up half of John Edwards' Iowa delegates, and one of Hillary's.  He lost none.

by Mostly 2008-04-10 10:05AM | 0 recs

What did I win?!

by Obama Independent 2008-04-10 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Oooooooh!

Probably not a trip to Denver ;)

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-10 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

Uhm, have you forgotten that this is a campaign, and if Hillary has her way then she'll persuade pledged delegates by any means possible, so, yes, the 'Uber' loyal is precisely who you want at the convention. Is that a crime? No. Are you making a ridiculously big deal of this? Yes.

And I've yet to see any hard evidence that progressives have been targeted.

by grass 2008-04-10 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

Looks like I hit a nerve here.

by alegre 2008-04-10 10:12AM | 0 recs
lol, congratulations

You've annoyed somebody.

by grass 2008-04-10 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

Yeah, we're pretty upset Hillary talks disenfranchisement out of one side of her mouth, and  then tries to do it herself out the other. And when Clinton supporters ignore that, hoo boy.

by ragekage 2008-04-10 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

Actually, I think the nerve has pretty much been numbed by your previous 10,000 mentions of Rev. Wright and Rezko.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-10 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

He certainly isn't a confident candidate is he? Joe Scarborough said the other day that Obama has another pastor scandal getting ready to hit. I guess we'll see.

by Ga6thDem 2008-04-10 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

Yep.  Rumor has it he's an ardent supporter of the extremist Yeshua Bin Yusef.  You should do a diary on it.

by fogiv 2008-04-10 10:53AM | 0 recs

I wonder how many people rabidly googled that name and salivated over another potential connection with a funny-named person.

by amiches 2008-04-10 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: lol

Sadly.  Probably a lot.

by fogiv 2008-04-10 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

Wright and Rezko?  Again Alegre?  If anything smacks of desperation, it's your comment.

by fogiv 2008-04-10 10:19AM | 0 recs
you're wright

HIs anti-war supporters don't care about Tony, even though Barack can't say no to his bankers, or to his pastor, there is a principle there, but about the exit plan. It's now coming out, they don't have the same exit plan. She'll end the war and the occupation, she'll outlaw Blackwater and end Bush's no-bid contracts, and she'll evacuate Iraqis who've helped us, as well as getting out our business interests.  There can be no helpful diplomacy in the region with Obama's less than complete plan, and the more that gets known, his real anti-war supporters will have to switch to her. She can't make anyone switch to her, but the rules say they may and I guess telling delegates the rules means to Obama a poaching season may be opening up. Maybe he knows more than you, he can't have real anti-war activists as delegates, he's not anti-war enough for them.  This is the real story - stay tuned.  

by anna shane 2008-04-10 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: you're wright

Apart from your use of the the word "the" I disagree with everything you've said.

by fogiv 2008-04-10 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: you're wright

She is not going to "outlaw" Blackwater....  they are a private firm.  She wants them to be held accountable for their actions.  Obama actually proposed legislation that would hold them accountable.  Neither of them are in favour of Blackwater as it has been running amok in Iraq....

And whereas she may say she will end Bush's no-bid contracts, that does not mean she will not favour her own...

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 10:55AM | 0 recs
she's already promised

cosponsored legislation to make private armies illegal, he's for bringing them under American law. he says he needs them there to guard contractors and visiting politicians.  She's said she'll void those no-bid contracts that he'd pay mercenaries to guard.  It's true, her exit plan is thorough, and won't be changed by any so called progress. obama wants to try to influence the Iraqi government to compromise, which shows he knows nothing about Iraqis.  He may have spend his childhood in Indonesia but he hasn't been hanging out in Iraq. Not all Islam is the same, there are even more differences than Sunni and Shai.  

by anna shane 2008-04-10 01:16PM | 0 recs
Looks like a bunch of off-topic....

...Obama supporters deviating from the diary, which has nothing to do with Clinton, BTW.

It truly cracks me up to see this "spin anomaly" play itself out, time after time...from the top of the campaign (the candidate) right down to the everyday blogging community.

Funny, I thought this was a diary about old-school, Chicago-style tactics--the kind that put Obama in power in Illinois and kept him there--manifesting themselves in his national campaign?

Guess I was wrong, this is all about Hillary, right!? Wright?! Wrong!

Question: is it possible to discuss something that might just--just maybe--hint at something negative about Obama without Obama supporters going ballistic? Is that possible?

This is a comment string about a diary about Obama's campaign b.s. in California delegate selection. For once, let's stay on topic, okay? Inject crap somewhere else, where it's more appropriate...there are plenty of other places right here on MyDD where that's more on-topic. Thankyouverymuch.

by bobswern 2008-04-10 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like a bunch of off-topic....

"Question: is it possible to discuss something that might just--just maybe--hint at something negative about Obama without Obama supporters going ballistic? Is that possible?"

Definitely a salient point.  Let's add that Clinton supporters do the same thing and probably should stop, too.  I think we're a lot more successful setting rules and boundaries around here when we apply them fairly.

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-10 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

It doesn't smach of desperation.  This nomination is locked up for him.  It smacks of stupidity and a lack of a progressive core.

by Peter from WI 2008-04-10 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

The nomination is nowhere near locked up and he knows it. The race is neck and neck and he has Wright and Rezko to worry about. If Rezko is convicted of bribery, his $625k "favor" to Obama is going to stink the entire state of Colorado up.

by Little Otter 2008-04-10 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge
Desperation, is writing diaries accusing Obama of doing the exact same thing Hillary is doing.
by lion king 2008-04-10 10:50AM | 0 recs
by minnesotaryan 2008-04-10 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

Yeah, I'm sure he's quaking in his boots.

Pres '08
Apr 10 Rasmussen McCain (R) 46%, Obama (D) 45%
Pres '08
Apr 10 Rasmussen McCain (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 42%

Seriously, people, get out the hothouse once in a while. Reality is passing you by. Your relentless negativity and scorched earth tactics only hurt your candidate. I know you're angry, I know you're disappointed, but you're only driving up Clinton's negatives.

Dumping progressive activists to ensure that only the uber-loyal remain smacks of desperation.

Uh huh. Mark Penn, Lanny Davis, Ed Koch, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor... all those brilliant progressive heroes.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-10 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

What "relentless negativity" are you talking about in this diary?
The diarist posts a story about Obama purging delegates (and yes, Hillary is doing it too) and that is "scorched earth" tactics? Telling the truth and posting quotes from disappointed delegates is scorched earth tactics?
There's a lot of disappointed people in California that evidently have not done this before and for some reason all thought they'd be accomodated in Denver, I guess.

Here's the first few paragraphs of the AP story about it, maybe you won't accuse them of relentless negativity:

Home / News / Nation  
Calif. delegate lists under scrutiny
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size - + By Michael R. Blood
Associated Press Writer / April 9, 2008
LOS ANGELES--Barack Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns are purging potential California delegates to ensure that only their loyalists vote at the national convention that will crown one of them as the Democratic presidential nominee.

more stories like thisLocked in a race with an uncertain outcome, representatives for both camps this week directed the California Democratic Party to remove dozens of names from the lists of more than 2,000 potential delegates. Party caucuses scheduled for Sunday will elect a slate of delegates for each candidate.

Driven by fears that some prospective delegates might be concealing their true allegiances, the campaigns are searching campaign finance data, scouring the Internet and making telephone calls to weed out dubious candidates.

Neither side wants to elect a delegate who might really support their rival, or other candidate.

Most of the cutting was done by Obama. His campaign dropped about 900 potential delegates, compared to about 50 excluded on Clinton's side. es/2008/04/09/calif_delegate_lists_under _scrutiny/

by skohayes 2008-04-10 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

What "relentless negativity" are you talking about in this diary?

I was referring to Alegre and the comment s/he made in this thread

Dunno... he must be getting mighty worried that Wright, Rezko et al will add up to a lot of delegates jumping ship in Denver.
Dumping progressive activists to ensure that only the uber-loyal remain smacks of desperation.

according to his/her new role as Chief Clintonite Concern Troll. I actually miss the syrupy cut'n'paste cheerleading treacle of the old "Our Girl Is A Fighter"  Alegre Diaries

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-10 03:42PM | 0 recs
What smacks of desparation

Is putting significance in this sniff-sniff-my-feelings-are-hurt story. It is notthe campaigner w

by Quicklund 2008-04-10 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

Yeah, Obama's tactics, all that getting lots of new Dem voters and online fundraising, it's a terrible strategy that will obviously fail us.  Let's go back to the previous dem strategies of raising less funds and getting less voters to the polls.

by steampunkx 2008-04-10 10:48AM | 0 recs
Your argument is pure BS

Our delegate caucuses have always been democratic, and a way to reward the activist base. That's why our delegation is always full of school teachers.

In '96, when I went to one of these things to vote for a buddy, there were dozens of candidates in every CD who wanted to go to the party in Chicago. Get that? Thousands of Democrats have always run to be delegates. And the process is easy, a hell of a lot easier than the caucus I saw in Texas.

Until this campaign came along, delegate selection was always a democratic process.

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Your argument is pure BS

"Under party rules, each campaign can block any local-level delegate aspirant it deems unworthy by a Monday deadline. Volunteers for both candidates say campaign officials are reviewing donor lists to make sure ardent Clinton supporters aren't running to become Obama delegates and vice versa.

"We're going to make sure that people who are pledged to be Hillary delegates are Hillary supporters without applying any sort of purity test ... just like the people running as Obama delegates (should) support Sen. Obama," said Chris Lavery, Clinton's California political director. "We don't believe that anyone should try to beat the system."" tml

Well, I don't know how closely you've followed this before, or whether you've seen an election this tight, but I reckon this is entirely sensible. It's unfortunate that some people who might be entirely honest Obama supporters like Marcy get cut, but I don't see this as some sort of evil plot.

by grass 2008-04-10 10:21AM | 0 recs

Sure. But they have never been used in the time I've been around.

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules?
There hasn't been a tight election like we have here in a long time. Each campaign wants to make absolutely sure their delegates are their core supporters, and only so many can go. I knew someone over at MyDD would take this story and make an anti-Obama diary out of it. I'm surprised it's not over at NoQuarter yet. Let's totaly ignore the Clinton delegation process and blame everything on Senator Obama. Marcy and the others fail to realize that the supporters who DO make it are also going to be progressives and core Obama supporters. And there is NOTHING wrong with that.
by DaveDial 2008-04-10 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules?

The numbers indicate that Clinton kicked off, what, 50 people?

You might expect that many moles in a state of our size.

Face it: the Obama campaign does not want a lot of regular activists to be democratically elected as delegates.

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 11:02AM | 0 recs
Face it: the Obama campaign does not want a lot of regular activists to be democratically elected as delegates.
What the Hell is that supposed to mean, and why would that be the case? I'm sorry, but that seems like something someone would say while they tape up their windows wearing their tinfoil hat. The lists were cut down to people who have given to the Obama campaign and signed up to help the campaign. They took off anyone that gave to the Clintons. They also had many more times the number of potential delegates that wanted be Obama delegates at the convention, hence the reason why so many more were cut. And if all of these reasons and facts aren't enough, if the link from the Globe wasn't enough, I don't know what to tell you.
by DaveDial 2008-04-10 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: WTH??

Your post does not make sense.

There are always way more applicants to be delegates than there are slots.

And until this, we in CA have chosen our delegates via secret ballot, with the winners getting the most votes.

Manipulating the contest to exclude regular activists is new with the Obama campaign. You might note Hillary's CA delegate selection process is traditional, and only tossed out a small number of people who we can safely guess were ringers for Obama or (as always) LaRouche.

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 11:24AM | 0 recs

Both candidates looked at the donations and who worked for their own campaigns.

Marcy donated to Dennis K and was removed. The same thing happened to the rest of the cuts, there were just many more people that volunteered to be Obama delegates.

It might not be fair, but this is a different election, one that is too close to chance.

Nobody, not one of the potential delegates, has a RIGHT to become a Obama or Clinton pledged deleagate. Sheesh!

by DaveDial 2008-04-10 11:32AM | 0 recs
This is democracy

and while there are rules that allowed excluding people from the delegate selection process, this stunt of kicking half applicants off the list violates the idea that the Obama campaign is about people-powered politics.

But it's not. This is worse than politics as usual.

I don't understand the wagon-circling here. If the HRC campaign kicked any of my buddies who are good supporters off the list, I'd be on the fucking phone until I fixed it. I would also be blunt: I'd stop volunteering for a campaign treated people like that.

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 12:00PM | 0 recs
You are so full of it

The Obama AND Clinton campaign get to decide who their delegates are. Period!

They can vote for the ones they want, but they have to be approved by the Obama campaign.

Perhaps are just so used to there being no competition that you are put off by the process when it actually matters, I don't know.

What I DO know is that any loyal Obama supporter would NEVER write a diary that claimed he was 'purging' a group of people. So I'll take the other posters position into consideration, she must be a trojan horse.

I'm a loyal Obama supporter who doesn't get to be a delegate, and I know the only people who would slam Senator Obama for the process are those we don't want as delegates anyway.


by DaveDial 2008-04-10 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Rules?

The numbers also indicate he had 800 more people trying to become a delegate.

by Obama Independent 2008-04-10 11:26AM | 0 recs

This is usually a democratic process. Usually, a large number of people run to be one of the small number of national delegates.

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: And?

There still are a large number of people running to be a small number of national delegates. There were 10 people for each spot there is now about 5. The same ratio that Senator Clinton has in terms of candidates to seats.

by Obama Independent 2008-04-10 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: And?

So much for people-powered politics?

Let me fill you in on a little secret here: Obama supporters tend to be newer to politics, and want to "crash the gates" by getting included in the process.

Of course a lot of Obama people would like the honest chance to be elected to be a delegate to Denver.

I know (soon to be) Clinton delegates here in CA. We aren't gate crashers. We know each other, and know who is likely to be a good delegate. I didn't run to be a delegate for this reason. I chose to do other things.

But the Obama campaign excluded close to a thousand good supporters who chose to try to be a delegate.

Democracy. Try it. Start with Florida. Or your own campaign.

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 12:29PM | 0 recs
Don't feel sorry for Marcy.

Her diary is dishonest at its core.  She may feel it is acceptable and even honorable to sneak into the Convention as a Progressive Trojan Horse, but it is still a Trojan Horse strategy.  That's what she is about without the integrity to say so.

by Piuma 2008-04-10 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't feel sorry for Marcy.
MyDD. A few people think it stands for "My Daily Dishonesty".

Marcy was probably going to get cut anyway. What were her chances, 5%-10%?? The Obama campaign made a prudent decision. Since the list needs to be trimmed down by huge magnitudes anyway, they might as well make sure there aren't any 'lukewarm', 'flippable', or Trojan horse supporters on the list. Or just trim it down to the best of your best supporters. The most worthy... (Of course some supporters will be hurt.)

It's another reason Obama is winning this race. Attention to detail. Hillary was just on NPR the other day saying that pledged delegates can vote for whoever they want and they are not tied to any candidate. Obama shouldn't take any chances. People say the Clinton's will do anything to win.

by power of truth 2008-04-10 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

I live in Harman's district and had many friends who supported and worked for Marcy Winograd. Her not making the cut for Obama absolutely stuns me (I worked at the convention in '92 and was on one of the committees so I have some small idea what goes on). It speaks volumes, IMO, about the true nature of Obama's candidacy.

HINT: It's not progressive.

by OtherLisa 2008-04-10 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

It speaks volumes to having a disciplined campaign; the fact that this person, supposedly a good dem, is now running around with this crap-tacular "I didn't get choosed but I should have because I'm the one who should have" doesn't sound like the kind of person I'd trust.

by steampunkx 2008-04-10 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

it sounds a little like sour grapes over not being chosen....

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

Since I live in Harman's district (where Winograd ran) and as mentioned know  people who fund-raised for her and worked for her, I think you are coming to the wrong conclusion here. Obama  is where he is because of the strong progressive and grassroots support he has received. This has always puzzled me, because aside from his 2002 State Senate campaign speech, there is nothing particularly "progressive" about him, particularly in economic justice and environmental issues. One of my very politically active friends who is supporting Obama did so not because she thinks he is very progressive but because she felt that if grassroots support got him elected, he would be beholden to some extent to grassroots supporters and their causes.

What this move says to me is, well, not so much. Winograd isn't just some disgruntled envelope-stuffing, wanna-be delegate, she is a pretty major player in this part of California's progressive scene.

Sure, you can spin this all you want, but IMO it was not a smart move on the Obama camp's part.

by OtherLisa 2008-04-10 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

I stand by my statement....

The person in question is considered a "major player" but is not going to the convention... so now we have a dust-up about the person not going to the convention...?

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 11:32AM | 0 recs
Exactly right

Add to that the fact that any real Obama loyalist would never write a diary stating he was 'purging' people.

It sounds to me like it's a good thing she didn't make the cut, if she could turn on him so fast anyway.

by DaveDial 2008-04-10 01:05PM | 0 recs
This is just the beginning.

He's going to cut a lot of people loose as this goes on.

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: This is just the beginning.

Yep. Wow.

by OtherLisa 2008-04-10 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: This is just the beginning.

Yeah, in fact, the number of people going to the convention as delegates from California might just end up being exactly the number of delegates that he was awarded in the primary! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-10 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: This is just the beginning.

I have to say...look, some of us do know something about this process and the implications of what the Obama campaign did. The way that you guys disparage and disregard observations which are based on knowledge is, well, telling.

by OtherLisa 2008-04-10 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge

The guy who's building a 50-state machine has no GE strategy, but the candidate that planned to be finished with the Dem nom by Super Tuesday does?

What are you talking about?

by steampunkx 2008-04-10 10:46AM | 0 recs
not only is this a duplicate diary...

it (intentionally?) ignores the fact that both campaigns have done this.  but thanks for the attempt to swiftboat a democrat!!!

by bored now 2008-04-10 09:38AM | 0 recs
From your own link:

Most of the cutting was done by Obama. His campaign dropped about 900 potential delegates, compared to about 50 excluded on Clinton's side.

Looks like someone's a hell of a lot more worried than the other.

by Rumarhazzit 2008-04-10 09:45AM | 0 recs
So it's not

the culling itself that bothers you, it's the extent of it?

Long story short, Hillary is doing the same thing, only she has fewer potential delegate choices to begin with.

by MBNYC 2008-04-10 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: From your own link:

Maybe that's becasue there are far more people vying to be an Obama delegate?

Looks like someone's supporters are a hell of a lot more energized.

by fogiv 2008-04-10 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: From your own link:

I suppose it's easy when nobody wants to be a Clinton delegate.

by ragekage 2008-04-10 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: From your own link:

She cut her perspective delegates by 5%.  He cut his by 50%.

Says nothing about how many want to be a delegate.

Local committees are suppose to choose the delegates that go.  What Obama did was narrow the field before the locals had the chance.

by Dave B 2008-04-10 12:51PM | 0 recs
C O L !

That sig line of yours just cracks - me - UP!

Thenks for the belly-laugh... I needed that :)

by alegre 2008-04-10 10:08AM | 0 recs
you're welcome...

people complained about my quotes from prominent republicans about their eagerness to face hillary in november, so i'm glad this one has humor value.  i admit, i don't exactly pay attention to the sig line though...

by bored now 2008-04-10 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: not only is this a duplicate diary...

Yeah... WTF?  Anything to score one, eh?  What's the policy for diaries that outright deceive?

by mikeinsf 2008-04-10 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

Well, hasn't she been saying that she'd attempt to poach delegates?  

by Mostly 2008-04-10 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

so why should obama be worried about her persuading anti-war progressives to switch, and not party fatcats?

oh, that's right. his iraq adviser says we'll have 60,000-80,000 troops in iraq through 2010, and he's working billionaire's row these days. sorry, dumb question.

by campskunk 2008-04-10 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

Please please please find a real issue?

by Mostly 2008-04-10 09:47AM | 0 recs

by Shazone 2008-04-10 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Crickets

See, even Shaz agrees.

by ragekage 2008-04-10 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Crickets

LOL.  Even when she doesn't realize it.  ;)

by fogiv 2008-04-10 10:57AM | 0 recs

by Shazone 2008-04-10 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins

getting rid of his anti-war activists before the upcoming debate doesn't sound like a real issue to you? It does to me.  Hillary can't poach anyone that doesn't decide to be poached, and that rule works for her delegates too. But the point is that his exit plan is getting looked at and they're are no longer lumped together as the same plan. Her's is far more comprehensive and will allow for real diplomacy, his his sort of out sort of stay, go back when you feel like it, keep those bases but call them not permanent.  It's just not anti-war.  He's thus right to hone out those anti-war activists who may see through his soft speak before the convention.  He needs to keep the people he plans to hire. That way they'll have no option but to go to the mat for him, cause it'll be for themselves.  

by anna shane 2008-04-10 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr
Is Hillary on that billionaires row list??
by lion king 2008-04-10 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr
She said it this week on NPR's "All Things Considered".
by power of truth 2008-04-10 11:03AM | 0 recs

Nevermind the fact that they had dozens of people for 2 or 3 seats per district at the convention. Why point out the obvious truth when you can bloviate and smear the candidate you don't like.

by Obama Independent 2008-04-10 09:42AM | 0 recs
He smears himself enough that

we really wouldn't need to help if the media would be fair and honest with the public.

by NewHampster 2008-04-10 09:43AM | 0 recs
Thank you NewHampster!!!

Way to nail it!!!

by Shazone 2008-04-10 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you NewHampster!!!
The only thing he nailed is another nail in hillarys campaign coffin.
by lion king 2008-04-10 10:00AM | 0 recs
Shorter Clinton follower:

"We smear, because the media doesn't".

Thanks, that sums it up pretty neatly.

by MBNYC 2008-04-10 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Shorter Clinton follower:

that seems to about sum it up these days...

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: He smears himself enough that
And hampster you sure do help with the smear campaign.
by lion king 2008-04-10 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: He smears himself enough that

Post all the fact based problems you have with Senator Obama you like. This is just a hit piece that ignores obvious truths in favor of smearing a candidate.

by Obama Independent 2008-04-10 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: He smears himself enough that

I'm sure all the lurkers and undecided voters are being swayed by your argument there. SWAYED, I say! Which is why Clinton's numbers in PA and nationwide are skyrocketing.

by ragekage 2008-04-10 10:27AM | 0 recs
This is basically normal but funny none the less

Every campaign does this to some extent but I've never heard of a mass purging like this before.

What give me giggles is the Obama supporters who really thought this campaign was somehow different than any that has gone before.

What a hoot.  Obama is just a politician after all and all he and his generals want is to win at any cost.

by NewHampster 2008-04-10 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: This is basically normal but funny none the le

This is so silly.

I'm sorry but I can't stop laughing.  "Turns out he wanted to get elected.  Just like all the others."

Is this a parody?

by Mostly 2008-04-10 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: This is basically normal but funny none the le

What a scandal. The candidate wants to get elected!!

by politicsmatters 2008-04-10 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: This is basically normal but funny none the le

It's not funny! When I heard Obama wanted to run a new kind of campaign, I thought he meant his goal was to lose! I poured my heart and soul into believing in this guy because I believed America was ready for a losing campaign.

I'm so tired of politicians and their "win the race so I can actually serve my constituents" attitude. Turns out, Obama is just like them. In fact, all along, I thought he just kind of accidentally ended up running for president, but now I know it was intentional!!

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-10 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: This is basically normal but funny none the le

Well, um, no; this is not silly.  Obama's supporters have been breathless with the vapors over how transcendentally amazing he is.  How he's not really like all the other politicians.  Hell, that's part of his whole campaign imagery and narrative.  But he's just like all of them.

The only positive on this is that I can see that maybe Obama is willing to crush some nuts when it's needed.  I think that this was a woefully inaccurate calculation of when to do so.  But at least he's showing the willingness to cut throats.  But I bet he won't go to the mat in his first 100 days on universal healthcare, tax reform, energy independence, or education funding reform (except in the wrong direction).

Disclosure: I don't actively support either candidates left in our primary.  Whomever is the nominee will be my candidate.  

by Peter from WI 2008-04-10 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: This is basically normal but funny none the le

What a straw man argument that is.

I switched from Clinton to Obama -- just like one in five Democrats did -- and I never made that argument. Nor has any Obama supporter I know.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-10 11:25AM | 0 recs
"I'm asking you to believe

not just about my ability to bring real change in Washington ... I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Odd that this grassroots stuff excludes Democrats who want to run as CA delegates.

Does anyone else see a mismatch here?

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: "I'm asking you to believe

I see a mismatch between 1700 potential delegates and only 156 available slots.

by Mostly 2008-04-10 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: "I'm asking you to believe

Then apparently you've never heard about how a caucus works.  Isn't Obama saying "let the voters decide"?  That's how these things work.

by Peter from WI 2008-04-10 10:55AM | 0 recs
There is not

How may people went to the last CA national delegate caucus you went to?

At the one I went to in '96, we probably had 100 people and 20 candidates, a 5:1 ratio.

If you want to see a mismatch, look at TX county conventions a week and a half ago, where you had 2000 precinct delegates for 200 slots to Austin.

The same sort of magnitude is happening in a few Washington legislative district conventions this weekend.

For a campaign whose primary field expertise is running large caucuses, this whole set of excuses if beyond absurd.

Face it: they don't want regular activists on the CA delegation.

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: There is not
I see a mismatch between 1700 potential delegates and only 156 available slots.

Obviously the campaign needs to trim this number down. I'm sorry that you don't approve of the method and that some people's feelings were hurt. Either way, a huge majority of these people cannot go to the convention.

Hillary was on NPR this week essentially saying that she could try to poach pledged delegates. Obama should not take any chances. I admire the campaign's attention to detail.

by power of truth 2008-04-10 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

"All along, Obama's campaign has been about getting elected, Chicago style - that's it. Causes come and go, but the pursuit of political power goes on."

You know, candidates try to get elected in other places besides Chicago too.  At least that's what I hear.

by Mostly 2008-04-10 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

you're kidding me..!  Does the media know about this?

Candidates.. trying... to...get...elected...

Wow, what will they think of next?

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Delegate List

From what i've heard Obama has purged almost 1000 people from his list so far.  Hillary has only taken off about 60.  So something is definitely going on in the obama campaign.  Looks rather unseemly.

by karajan72 2008-04-10 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Delegate List

And how many people were running for Obama delegate slots versus Clinton delegate slots? Throwing out a number like 1000 as opposed to 60 means little without knowing the totals for each side.

by Obama Independent 2008-04-10 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Delegate List

You're right, looks like the incredible amount of supporters that wanted to be delegates for Obama is unseemly.  You do realize that there are only limited numbers of slots and that when there is such a large pool people will have to be cut so that only the number of slots allotted are filled don't you?

The point is there was a limited amount of time to decide who got cut.  I have hear reports that there would have been more people (to make a case to be a delegate) than there was enough time to give each one a chance to make their case.  Less than 1 minute per person.  At some point the campaign has to make the decision to make the process more managable for their and everyone's sanity.

Just wait, HRC will have to do similar numbers of purgings (assuming she has the support she seems to have been getting in the primaries).  I hope the story is as big when she does her mass purgings.

by Why Not 2008-04-10 09:55AM | 0 recs
This is nonsense

There have always been large numbers of Democrats who ran to be national delegates. In the '90s, everyone wanted to go to the party, and everyone I knew who wanted to got to run.

It is utter nonsense, after the TX caucuses, to say that a couple of hundred people in a room for the morning is excessive.

In fact, last week, I called a list of WA LD delegates that's bigger than the turn out at a CA delegate caucus.

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Delegate List

True.  I was told to anticipate a minute or less to make a speech.

I was planning to run for a Obama delegate seat in my Cali CD.  When I saw the overwhelming number of people vying for a slot (most with some serious cred), I decided I didn't have enough time to compete.  The sheer numbers were daunting for me personally, and inspiring overall.

by fogiv 2008-04-10 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Delegate List

It's because he has a massive list of alternates.  She does not.

If you want to know why he's covering all bases, look into the Mondale/Hart race in 1984 - Hart's delegates went into the state caucus conventions and came out wearing "Mondale for President" buttons.

And since Clinton has already telegraphed the fact that she planned on doing exactly that, plus the fact that there's no way to go from 1500+ delegates down to around 200 without massive culling, I don't see the issue.

You guys who are actively looking for things to dislike about Obama are grossing me out.  This is "Randi Rhodes was at an Obama fundraiser!!!1" all over again.  A simple "no it wasn't" should have been enough, but it took days for the message to sink in.

by Mostly 2008-04-10 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Delegate List

Do you have a site for this?

The last I knew, the number of alternates was defined by the CDP, and identical for all candidates.

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Delegate List

Correct!  This is why the two lists are being culled right now.

I was using the term "alternate" as in "people who wanted to go to the convention".

by Mostly 2008-04-10 10:25AM | 0 recs
Provide a cite, please

How many people applied to run as delegates for Clinton?

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 10:32AM | 0 recs

Associated Press:

LOS ANGELES--Barack Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns are purging potential California delegates to ensure that only their loyalists vote at the national convention that will crown one of them as the Democratic presidential nominee.

Locked in a race with an uncertain outcome, representatives for both camps this week directed the California Democratic Party to remove dozens of names from the lists of more than 2,000 potential delegates. Party caucuses scheduled for Sunday will elect a slate of delegates for each candidate.

Driven by fears that some prospective delegates might be concealing their true allegiances, the campaigns are searching campaign finance data, scouring the Internet and making telephone calls to weed out dubious candidates.


Clinton trails Obama both in the popular vote and in pledged delegates, and has said she will take her fight for the nomination to Denver if necessary. Clinton also has hinted that hopes to persuade some of Obama's delegates to switch sides and back her instead.

"There is no such thing as a pledged delegate," she said last week.

Hillary needs to respect the choices of voters. Yes, this is her fault.

by MBNYC 2008-04-10 09:46AM | 0 recs
here, you dropped this.

Most of the cutting was done by Obama. His campaign dropped about 900 potential delegates, compared to about 50 excluded on Clinton's side.

by campskunk 2008-04-10 09:50AM | 0 recs
And you dropped the part

where she's threatening to overturn the will of the voters, plus the part where she only has 800 or so potential choices, and he had 1,700.

The real scandal here is that the Clinton campaign, while dishonestly mewing about democracy in Michigan and Florida, is actively trying to subvert the wishes of the voters.

But hey, it's a primary. Nobody expects partisans to, like, be honest and stuff.

by MBNYC 2008-04-10 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: And you dropped the part

Of course he dropped more. He had more he HAD to cut because of the number of slots available.

This is really really basic MATH.  

There x slots available and y number of potential delegates. Can you write the equation?

by politicsmatters 2008-04-10 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: And you dropped the part
Don't mention MATH here. Many Hillary supporters are in denial of Math and discussing logical paths to the nomination.
by power of truth 2008-04-10 11:22AM | 0 recs

come on, that would make sense if the disparity were not so great in numbers cut.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-10 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: rofl

Of course he had to cut more!  He has more people that want to be delegates than Clinton (and maybe you can explain to us why Clinton doesn't have more, considering that she won the state).

by politicsmatters 2008-04-10 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: And you dropped the part

well, i ran the chi-square on your hypothesis that the campaigns are dropping candidates at the same overall rate, despite the sixfold difference in rate in the observed sample, and the probability is less than .0001. MUCH less, since the chi square value is 501.4. heh.

by campskunk 2008-04-10 10:10AM | 0 recs
You asked the wrong hypothesis

Not to mention you have no distribution data with which to fuel your supposed calculations.  Perhaps you should have seen if the two campaigns were trying to reach roughly the same target number.  Hmm.

Start 850 - cull 40 = leaves ~800

Start 1700 - cull 900 = leaves ~800


by Quicklund 2008-04-10 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: And you dropped the part

1) Edwards dropped out.

2) Caucus rules are different than primaries.

3) Clinton has in fact lost a delegate to Obama.

4) We're not the ones saying that Obama attempting to vet his delegates is some kind of scandal.  You said it yourself; Clinton does it too.

by Mostly 2008-04-10 10:13AM | 0 recs
so if convince all the

CA, NJ "pledged" delegates to vote for Obama you won't start yelling about disenfranchising the voters?

by kindthoughts 2008-04-10 10:25AM | 0 recs
i hate to interrrupt this propaganda

with a fact, but they are both purging California delegate lists. Both campaigns are actively purging the lists, reviewing campaign donations and interviewing people in order to ensure that their pledged delegates remain loyal. I await your update in which you also accuse the Clinton camp of being more interested in power than principle.

by jadegirl 2008-04-10 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: i hate to interrrupt this propaganda

Hillary purged 5% of hers.  Obama purged over 50% of his.  Not much of a comparison, is it?

by Scotch 2008-04-10 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

Shouldn't you let the regular people who donated and volunteered and voted amd shed blood sweat and tears for Obama worry about this?

We aren't.  

by Mostly 2008-04-10 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

Oh horseshit - your post was "look like the poor saps got pushed aside for the Obama's fat cats."

Read it again, it drips with venom.

I'll say it again - anyone who finds the fact that he's culling his giant list of alternates down to legal size - which he is required to do - is looking for a reason to dislike him.  I don't like your motives here.

by Mostly 2008-04-10 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

The money quote:

It seems that for Obama, people who are about the issues, regular people, who bought into his hope and change rhetoric don't have the money or political clout to carry weight on the floor of the convention.

This is like a re-do of that "$96" diary.

I'm touched that Clinton supporters are so concerned for how Obama picks his own delegates. I'm also sure that anything short of letting every one of the record-breaking 2,000+ applicants onto the list would be met with the same "shocked!!!" reaction around here.

So let's see...Winograd gets culled, and determines that its a systematic removal of women progressives. Gosh, now THERE'S an incendiary accusation that shouldn't be double-checked.  

As for Leubitz, he's already updated his article to state this:

I also got an email from somebody familiar with the process. Essentially they said that the Chicago folks had the California Obama team ask the volunteers running the caucus to cut down for logistical and convention reasons. The results were less than exceptional, but better than the initial plan: trimming it to the minimum three people per slot.

Clearly, even he admits that it was all an insidious conspiracy to shut out the anti-war progressives. Or not.

In other news, Rev. Wright said some bad things.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-10 11:10AM | 0 recs

you are projecting your own motives on to others.  
I really do feel sorry for those who have been duped.  Less sorry when they say they are going to continue to be duped.

Typical Obama supporter:

"I am voting for him because he is
-not DLC-
-gay friendly-
-against lobbyists-
-against 527s-
-not corrupt-
-the grassroots guy-
-thinks outside the box- (jeez, talk about corporate speak.)
 because he is my team and my team has to beat the other team."

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-10 11:33AM | 0 recs
vs what?

Ok, so you put down Obama supporters, now what?
You think you conviced them Hillary is better?

Hillary who is:


  • voted for war
  • likes lobbyists
  • Has not problems with 527
  • voted for bankruptcy bill (corrupt anyone?)
  • definately not grassroots
  • thinks that LBJ was more instrumental that MLK (hence things inside the box)

I am just saying, your candidate does not come off as better.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-10 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

You do not understand the delegate selection process.

by Peter from WI 2008-04-10 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

they understand and approve. this is all just feigned ignorance of what's really going on now - progressives being kicked to the curb.

by campskunk 2008-04-10 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

I can understand the frustration of those who did not make the cut. However a cut had to be made.
Of course the 2,000 all opposed Bush's War.
I believe that every one of the 2,000 would consider themselves progressive.
Unless folks can pick out those that made the cut do not oppose Bush's War..what is the deal? I would venture to say those that made the cut would consider themselves to be progressive.

HRC and her staff understand the ONLY way she can gain enough delegates is to poach them. Only a fool of a candidate would not have their delegates  fully vetted...Obama is not the leading candidate by being a fool.

by nogo war 2008-04-10 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

we get it. all progressives are equal, but some progressives are more equal than others.

by campskunk 2008-04-10 10:11AM | 0 recs

I am sure according to you, Obama supporters are not real progressives.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-10 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: right

oh, no, on the contrary. obama has lots of progressive supporters. they're just not going to the convention. heh.

by campskunk 2008-04-10 10:33AM | 0 recs

hyperbole much?

by kindthoughts 2008-04-10 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: right

I'd like to see you prove, even anecdotally, that the delegates cut from the list are more progressive than the delegates left on the list.

by bawbie 2008-04-10 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: right

heh! you didn't even read the diary, much less check out the links. instead of just braying and spraying, as usual, read about marcy winograd, and check out the link to bradblog.

by campskunk 2008-04-10 02:50PM | 0 recs
one does not

make a trend.

Unless you personally know the majority of these people and their views you are braying and spraying one.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-10 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: right

So one progressive got cut.  Can you prove there aren't any left on the list?  No.  Because there are some left on the list, they've posted here.

by bawbie 2008-04-11 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr
Yeah, just like Hillary's some states matter then most.
by lion king 2008-04-10 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives

This might be the dumbest line of attack yet.  Each side will be sending only the most loyal of their supporters, because, as Clinton herself has noted repeatedly, it is possible for a candidate to poach the other candidate's pledged delegates.  Both camps will have mindless, hyper-partisan delegates at the convention.

by rfahey22 2008-04-10 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives

There's no "might be" about it.

Seriously - shame on you.  This diary is most unintentionally funny I've read this month, but the sentiment behind it is ugly.

Every day with this - some scurrilous attack or half-truth because at bottom you're looking for as many reasons as you can to dislike someone.

by Mostly 2008-04-10 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives

Actually, I think the diary about Obama and the mainstream media being "evil" is funnier.  At some point you just have to laugh these things off.

by rfahey22 2008-04-10 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives

That was more "creepy" funny.  This is more "zany" funny.

by Mostly 2008-04-10 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives

I gotta say I was disappointed to find out that only 75% of the people who voted in the poll support evil in all it's forms.

by Obama Independent 2008-04-10 10:44AM | 0 recs
Testing, one two three.

After several post fails, I have to try to post in a new diary.  

So, here's my comment: Why am I not surprised.  Sounds like a lot of Daily Kos members got shoved aside.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-10 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Testing, one two three.

well you can't have the netroots messing up the real nominating process.  They might object when asked to participate in actual dirty tactics.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-10 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Testing, one two three.

Not if it comes with the promise of eternal salvation.

What?  Is that out now, too?

by Scotch 2008-04-10 07:14PM | 0 recs
and so it begins
the purge to select candidates who are loyal, loyalty above all else...where have we heard it before I wonder? Oh never mind.
On a different note the new Marist poll shows Obama losing NY to McCain in the GE....remember NY the blue state? I smell toast...burnt toast.
by tarheel74 2008-04-10 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: and so it begins

Yes, loyalty above all the convention!  Unless you endorse the much more democratic option of having one candidate steal another candidate's delegates at the convention.  Seriously, this argument is delusional.

by rfahey22 2008-04-10 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: and so it begins

the last I checked anyone who is stealing or planning on stealing delegates and votes is BO with his idea for a 50-50 split of FL and MI results.

by tarheel74 2008-04-10 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: and so it begins

Wow.  Rather than admit the flaw in your argument you just pivoted from one misguided talking point to another.

by rfahey22 2008-04-10 11:31AM | 0 recs
guess what?

If Obama is to prevail at the convention he is going to have to "steal" delegates.  They both have to worry about loyalty, but apparently Hillary is not willing to cut down the delegate candidates to only those who have bundled for her.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-10 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: guess what?

Please explain how Obama would have to steal pledged delegates to win the nomination.

by rfahey22 2008-04-10 11:31AM | 0 recs
what's the flavor today

Cheery Cherry or goofy grape?

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-10 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: what's the flavor today

What, you've drunk so much of it that you don't even remember the flavor?

by rfahey22 2008-04-10 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: and so it begins
Of course you smell toast, it's breaksfast time and Hillarys supporters are smelling defeat.
by lion king 2008-04-10 10:59AM | 0 recs

what name will you chose when Hillary wins the nomination and you have to come back as someone else?

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-10 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: meow
Tell you what teresa, if Hillary wins I'll let you choose my new screen name. And When Obama wins do I get to choose yours?
by lion king 2008-04-10 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: and so it begins

okay, go ahead and check the recent polls at the top of this site that gives--gasp!--Obama a lead in the GE v. McCain. I smell toast...burnt toast.

by shef 2008-04-10 11:34AM | 0 recs
Loyalty? Don't overlook this:

The Obama campaign does not want netroots rabble rousers to be the face of the campaign. The campaign wants Obama to be the safe candidate, and doesn't not want the convention to be out of control with controversial platform planks, insulting tee-shirts from the dKos crowd, or shouting matches on national television.

While hyper-aggression like I saw in the Texas caucuses has a role in Chicago style politics, you want the candidate to float above that sort of mud fight.

Although the purge was misguided, I suspect the campaign felt it was necessary to present a house-broken image.

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Loyalty? Don't overlook this:

But I thought it was the progressives that got him this far in the primaries and this is his way of saying thank you.

Obama's true color is coming out.  Cutting the Obama-bots so he can making nice with the Republicans.

by stefystef 2008-04-10 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

I think it has more to do with nobody wanting anything to do with Clinton. Why get on the Titanic, right? ;)

by ragekage 2008-04-10 10:29AM | 0 recs
I read the huffpo comments
it is both Hillary's fault and the fault of CA which apparently have some sort of law DEMANDING they cut all but a handful of delegates.
In the meantime Obama has cut 900 and Clinton has cut 50.
It is not about a manageble number, it is about eliminating everyone but the big money bundlers.  They are invested with money and therefor more trustworthy.
by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-10 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I read the huffpo comments

There are only so many delegate slots, so they have to cut people.

Obama evidently has more people who want to be delegates so he has to cut more.  And I've seen no actual evidence that there was a type of person cut -- such as a list of people who were on the list, classified in some way and then a list of those who got the slots, classified with the same criteria.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-10 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I read the huffpo comments

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he had about 1700 people trying to become a delegate and she had 950. No, clearly that has nothing to do with it at all. He really just hates his supporters. And women. And America. And puppies.

by Obama Independent 2008-04-10 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I read the huffpo comments

I supposed then, if I compared Obama's list of bundlers (of which he is the only candidate to make it public) to the list of 1000 potential CA delegates, I'd find the same list?


That's a good one.

by bawbie 2008-04-10 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr
Your argument makes no sense.

This is really the equivalent of the massive Obama rally where too many people show up and not everyone can get into the venue. (Usually they have TV screens outside for people to watch.)

There just are not nearly enough spots and the list needs to be trimmed. Some worthy people will be left out in the cold, but most of them understand and are still FIRED UP and READY TO GO!

by power of truth 2008-04-10 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

By the way, why does Clinton have such few people (compared to Obama) who want to fill these delegate slots?

by politicsmatters 2008-04-10 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr
Would anyone..go through the culled  Obama list.
Find a name who is NOT against Bush's WAR.
Find a name that is NOT progressive.
How does anyone here know the cred of the culled list?
Seriously..some folks are tossing around accusations
about people You don't even know..let alone their background.
by nogo war 2008-04-10 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins:

I seriously doubt that the campaign had any way of knowing who was or was not more "progressive" when they culled the list. How could they? I spent months volunteering for the campaign, but I doubt that any of the higher-ups has any idea where I am ideologically. But I am known in certain progressive circles, and I made the cut, so what does that mean? Who knows?

by dmc2 2008-04-10 11:40AM | 0 recs
they profiled

you either did or did not fit the profile.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-10 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: they profiled

Looking at the remaining list for my district it'd be pretty difficult to figure out the profile. It's a pretty diverse group.

by dmc2 2008-04-10 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

Thanks for chiming in dmc2...and hey hope ya make it here to Denver..

by nogo war 2008-04-10 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

Maybe if Hillary wasn't using a slash-and-burn strategy, attempting to do things like steal pledged delegates and tear down the presumptive nominee, the Obama campaign wouldn't have to vet its delegate selection so much.

Just a thought.

by amiches 2008-04-10 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

Don't you guys ever get sick of making up excuses for what Obama does?  It is always someone else who makes him do it.  Personal responsibility.  He might try adding that to Change, Hope and Turning the page, if only for his supporter's benefit.

by Scotch 2008-04-10 07:07PM | 0 recs
Sounds like sour grapes

oh, i donated to Obama so I should get something.

Wahhhaaaa! Buck up campers. Odds were you were never going to the convention anyway.

This diary is unfortunately typical for MyDD's rec list. It meets the #1 requirement to be recommended - it attacks Obama.

Sad. Truely Sad.

by Flapper 2008-04-10 11:49AM | 0 recs
Why are so many Clinton supporters

concerned how Obama chooses his delegates?  I haven't seen any Obama supporters comment that they are upset about it.

This is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.  Most early delegates realize they won't get to go to the convention.  Hillary delegates will be 'purged' too.

by GFORD 2008-04-10 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Why are so many Clinton supporters

Nothing but crocodile tears.

by rfahey22 2008-04-10 12:20PM | 0 recs
You're right

and here's why.

This provides at least anecdotal evidence that Obama is not dedicated to things he most claims to represent like people-powered politics.

Obama is not running on specifics, but to bring about a new kind of politics. So when his new kind of politics is really old style Chicago politics that cares more about managing a convention than including the people who support him, it is a very bad sign to the rest of us who are already luke warm about his dedication to speciics like health care.

If he will screw his own people, what chance do we have that he would stand up for health care reform?

I really, really want an answer. If this guy will not dig in his heels over some sort of principle, he's more harm than good.

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 12:50PM | 0 recs
Nobody is getting screwed here.

He only gets 107 delegates, less than 10% of those who would like to be delegates.  People who get picked will be happy, those who don't will be disappointed.  But, hard as it may be for Clinton supporters to understand, Obama supporters don't cry 'oh, poor me I'm a victim' over things like this which are part of how the game is played.  

Get over it, you have so many perceived instances of people picking on Hillary to worry about you don't need to branch out.

by GFORD 2008-04-10 01:08PM | 0 recs
I would really appreciate

a substantive response to my previous post. I get that you do not care about following the tradition of allowing any Democratic voter to run for the national convention. I get that.

What I do not yet understand is why we should shrug off something so central to the Obama change campaign as outright rejection of people-powered politics.

Like I said, and would like an clear response, if Obama will not stand for this central plank of his change platform, how can we trust that he will stand by any of his policy proposals, all of which are clearly of lower priority?

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 01:44PM | 0 recs
What is it you want a response to?

That Obama is running a people-powered campaign?  He is and I don't think that has ever been in dispute.  His large number of volunteers drive the ground game, his large number of individual donations pay for the campaign.

Maybe since you aren't part of his campaign you don't realize how much he appreciates us and how much he lets us know that.

For some reason you are fixated on this one little detail of who gets to be a delegate as evidence that he is rejecting people-powered politics.  Whoever the delegates are they will go to the convention and they will vote for Obama, that is what matters.

The only reason that I can think of for Hillary supporters to care about this (and by the way, Obama supporters don't really care how Hillary picks her delegates) is because Hillary has made it clear she thinks she can somehow poach pledged delegates.  So people like you are trying to soften the Obama delegates up for her.  But guess what?  It isn't working and it isn't going to work.  He will choose (as I imagine Hillary will) delegates who will not be poached.  You are wasting your time.

by GFORD 2008-04-10 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: You're right

John, use the intertubes.  The answer is in the intertubes.  

"Obama is not running on specifics"

Every one of Obama's policy positions is available on his website in pretty exhaustive detail.  He doesn't discuss these details in his speeches but is extremely specific in town hall meetings.  

I am so desperately tired of hearing this same old argument around here.  Somehow people think if you make extremely specific policy speeches that this legislation will in fact become law.  Nothing is further from the truth.  If it were, we'd be deciding between Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich.

Alas, Hillary, though less progressive, is more charismatic than either of them... but less so than Obama.  Thus, here we are.

by zadura 2008-04-10 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Why are so many Clinton supporters

Look in the dictionary under "trolls, concern"

by bawbie 2008-04-10 02:28PM | 0 recs
I think we need another category for some

of these comments.  Like 1.5 for Silly.

by GFORD 2008-04-10 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I think we need another category for some

Do what I do - wait for someone to mojo it, THEN hit them with a troll button.  It works out about the same.

by Mostly 2008-04-10 10:21PM | 0 recs
Obama now showing himself

and his rhetoric to be empty.  Bottom up?  Not with such arrogance.

While I am not happy that those who have spent their time and resources with Obama have been cut out, I am glad that we are seeing this now.  Adds a little reality to the hype.

Maybe its time to look beyond his silver tongue and rhetoric?  Who is he really?  Now he's throwing his own supporters under the bus!  Who's next?

by 4justice 2008-04-10 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama now showing himself

Throwing his supporters under the bus? By drawing the numbers down?

What would you Clinton followers have thought was a reasonable and smart way to have done it then?

by Darknesse 2008-04-10 01:42PM | 0 recs

How abut letting every Dem have the option of standing for election as a delegate, just like every other campaign in modern history.

But the central issue keeps getting dodged: if a campaign whose central promise is to change politics as usual will toss people-powered politics under the bus, and take the extraordinary step of excluding its own supporters from the process, what, exactly, does it stand for?

by Pacific John 2008-04-10 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Reasonable

are the 1000 people still eligible to be CA Obama delegates not people?  Or just not people-powered?

by bawbie 2008-04-10 02:27PM | 0 recs
change the subject. sigh.

he shouldn't have done this in the first place.  don't change the subject.  The guy made a mistake.

by 4justice 2008-04-11 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Reasonable

Why should it be an election? Delegates aren't elected officials.. I don't understand why you think he can't pick who he puts as his delegates.

When Obama is president, I don't expect him to ask for our opinion on LOTS of stuff, from big choices like Cabinet posts to small choices for who he has staffing his office.

I voted for Obama because I believe he has good judgment. I trust that he can use his judgment on his own delegates...

by Darknesse 2008-04-10 02:54PM | 0 recs
Since Hillary says she is going to poach

Obama's delegates so Obama is doing to SMART thing by making sure his delegates won't be poached by Hillary.

I see nothing wrong with that.

My mother is going to be a California delegate for Obama.

by puma 2008-04-10 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

Why is it "arrogant" or whatever to make a plan to cull the numbers down to a manageable number?

I somehow doubt Obama himself, or any of his people went through the list one by one and culled the "real progressives".

by Darknesse 2008-04-10 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken

Does this diary have any point whatsoever?


by DeskHack 2008-04-10 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken

Simple answer: no...

by zadura 2008-04-10 02:45PM | 0 recs
Kos drinks your pagehits.

Thought you were on strike?  Well, now that the scabs are crossing the [picket line, I guess Kos can buy himslf that second Lamborghini (one for weekends.)

Anyway, you are correct.  A rather petulant, pouty diary did appear on DKos. Yes, oneperson was culled from the list and in her mind she is the only Progressive on the planet. Since she was not picked, Sen Obama is the spawn of Satan. Since a former member of Dennis Kucinich's Presidential campaign was passed over in favor of an actual Obama supporter, that is proof of a "purge".

Or something like that. Well, enjoy your wallow in the mud.  

by Quicklund 2008-04-10 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos drinks your pagehits.

well, obviously you didn't get as far as the second sentence of this diary, much less bother to see what was linked or not linked to, so any embarrassment you may have is entirely self-inflicted.

by campskunk 2008-04-10 03:00PM | 0 recs
I read the orginal

in its entirety. It is a first-person account from one person with hurt tender feelings.

Your is merely derived from that one.  You have nothing meaningful to add, being as you are not the author of the first-person account at hand.

So, yes, I am fully up to speed on this "issue".  And Kos still drinks your pagehits.

by Quicklund 2008-04-10 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I read the orginal

not mine. i didn't get marcy's post from there - i got it from another site. it's all over the web. you don't know what you're talking about if you think i gave kos any page hits. go ahead- since you're so buddy-buddy with the admins, have them look for my IP. it's static. once you have that, maybe you can fish around for some RL information on me ;-)

by campskunk 2008-04-10 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

Ya know...I have no problem with sitting all 1700 as Obama delegates...Won't that put him over the top?

by nogo war 2008-04-10 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins

....and how would you know what is on the blog that we do not name or link to?  Hmmmmmmm?

by Scotch 2008-04-10 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins

Just kidding!  :P

by Scotch 2008-04-10 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins
Didn't Obama sortof "purge" the ballot of Dem opponents when he ran for the Senate in Illinois?  Obama isn't all he is made out to be.
He hates competition, and isn't about to have all those-- potential turncoat free thinking voters for his competition if something happens at the last moment(PTFTVCSHs)--running about, no matter what they did for him.
by Scotch 2008-04-10 06:52PM | 0 recs
Oh I forgot this was MyDD

where people can post their own imaginations as fact.

by Garret 2008-04-10 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken fr

Chicago Politics, indeed.

The more things "change" - the more the stay the same.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-10 08:18PM | 0 recs
My my oh my

    what a bastard. Obama is scrutinizing his potential delegates. Son of a damned bitch!!! What a chump! Why would he want to scrutinize his delegate list? Hillary Clinton would NEVER try something this blatantly political. Only Obama!! What a jerk!! That SOB, I'm switching my support RIGHT F'ing now!! I've had enough! I mean, who the hell does Obama think he is?

  Jesus Christ, the things we choose to care about. Or better put, the nothings the Clintonites will try and turn into the next scandal.

by southernman 2008-04-10 08:38PM | 0 recs
It's reversed.

"In recognition of this tremendous enthusiasm, our campaign has asked the California Democratic Party to allow all persons who have filed to be a district delegate candidate for Senator Obama at the Democratic National Convention to participate in the caucuses this Sunday, April 13, 2008.

We are confident that delegates elected from this pool will reflect the Senator's commitment to a diverse and unified delegation at the National Convention."


David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

by verite 2008-04-10 10:36PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads