Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, She Wants Her Name in Nomination

Hillary Clinton's New York Office denies the report from the New York Daily News that she does not want her name in nomination. The New York Daily News story cites no named sources, and her office confirmed the story is not true.

You may not like our friend Alegre, but she checks her facts, and she contacted Hillary's New York office.

A contact who met with Hillary in San Francisco yesterday (Thursday) who said this:

She talked about her name being put into nomination and she said that she wanted her voters to be heard and for her delegates to have the experience of what a real convention is.  She said that by doing this and by having a roll call that it would help unify the party.

As Alegre says "Think about it - after all she's been through in this campaign, does anyone really think she'd leak this monumental story to a paper like the Daily News?  It's laughable!"

Obama's supporters do him no favors by such divisive tactics as denying her a simple symbolic roll call vote, or spreading rumors in order to quash one. Obama is better than this, his supporters should follow suit.

Tags: Convention, Denver, Hillary, Roll Call (all tags)

Comments

262 Comments

Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are

No one's denying her a vote.  Quit slandering the rest of us.

by rfahey22 2008-08-01 07:43AM | 0 recs
Spreading rumors

I corrected it - spreading rumors to quash a roll call vote.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Spreading rumors

Fair enough.

by rfahey22 2008-08-01 07:49AM | 0 recs
No evidence his campaign started the rumor

Or even evidence that it was a supporter. Likely its a newspaperman who wanted something sensational to fill space.

I personally hope she has her rolecall. I think it will be eye-opening to people to see how the  DNC doesn't fight her on it.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-08-01 08:35AM | 0 recs
Oh, and recced for truth

Can we get the other one off the reclist? At best its a rumor, at worst, a falsehood.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-08-01 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, and recced for truth

And how do you know this one is true?  I'm not confident about the report, no, not at all.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 08:58AM | 0 recs
Well lemme rephrase that:

Recced to counter a rumor. That's certainly all either of these diaries can be considered. Until we get an official, sourced statement from the Clinton campaign, it remains her business and all else is speculation.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-08-01 09:25AM | 0 recs
I hope you are talking about her CAMPAIGN office..

Her Senate office cannot and would not respond to a claim like this, since it is entirely political in nature.

Anything Alegre says anymore should be taken with a grain of salt.

by Pragmatic Left 2008-08-01 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: I hope you are talking about her CAMPAIGN

And I don't think she has an open campaign office anymore, so all of this is, predictably, probably wrong.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 08:59AM | 0 recs
This comes from the same

Alegre who claimed to have proof that 8 super-delegates were going to switch from Obama.

Sorry - she is a liar. She demonstrated this over and over in the primary season.  Pure and Simple - I don't trust her.  

by fladem 2008-08-02 06:50AM | 0 recs
Silly rumors

The NYDaily News? Come on, guys.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Silly rumors

What's wrong with the Daily News? Its'a tabloid for sure, but has a pretty decent reputation for getting the news correctly.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-08-01 08:27AM | 0 recs
Is there another source beside Alegre?

I wouldn't believe her if she told me the Yankees sucked.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-08-01 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there another source beside Alegre?

how unpleasant?  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there another source beside Alegre?

Is that a no or are you a Yankees fan?  

by Blue Neponset 2008-08-01 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there another source beside Alegre?

I guess anyone can call her office and check on the accuracy of a story/rumor put out by a newspaper. I'd guess newspeople could do that too. I don't think it's hard.

What's Barracks number, to check on rumors?  Maybe we could check rumors before posting them ourselves?  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there another source beside Alegre?

You still didn't answer my question.  Is Alegre the only source of this information?  

by Blue Neponset 2008-08-01 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there another source beside Alegre?

it's not my diary, why are you asking me?  If you want to check accuracy, that's easy, call her office.  Do you know Barrack's number so we can check with him too. Let's strike a blow against rumors and ask the rumored party about accuracy ourselves. Seems that's what Al did, but it's not my diary.  I'm saying, who cares, if anyone can check for themselves why bicker about who says they checked.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there another source beside Alegre?

You've spelled his name wrong repeatedly and I'm not the first person to explain this to you.

B
A
R
A
C
K

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-01 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there another source beside Alegre?

Yep and that's annoying, but there appears to be a big problem with grammar in general.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there another source beside Alegre?

Barack?  That's such a funny name.

(Just a joke, people.)

by Sieglinde 2008-08-01 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there another source beside Alegre?

You responded to my comment.  That is why I am asking you.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-08-01 08:25AM | 0 recs
B A R A C K

Note the single R as opposed to the double R.  Learn to spell the name, as you'll be using it a  great deal for the next eight years.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-08-01 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: B A R A C K

I had the same issue with Hilery. But I got it after a while and now I spell Hilery just fine.

As for Hilery and a roll call, I don't see that happening if the emphasis is on unity, even if just for show.

Either way, I'm sure Hilery will be just fine. As I recall, Hilery even said as much.

Yeah, good ol' Hilery.

by Its All So Goofy 2008-08-01 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Is there another source beside Alegre?

I would hope you would hold one of your own diarists here, to the same standard????

And why is it you only come here when one of Alegres minions posts.

by venician 2008-08-01 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there another source beside Alegre?

Oh come on.  You know the answer to that!

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-01 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there another source beside Alegre?

If it helps, I can confirm that fact.

by TCQuad 2008-08-01 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there another source beside Alegre?

Thank you. :-)

by Blue Neponset 2008-08-01 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

soooo we should believe Alegre over the NY Daily News?

can you give me 1 reason why I should?

I mean you say why would it be leaked to the Daily News, but if it was false why would they dispute this thruogh Alegre? a low level blogger who no one but PUMAs follow?

at least we know 1 thing when this story gets straghtened out we will know exactly where the Daily News Alegre's credibility stands wont we.

1 will be right, the other will have lost their credibility, place your bets which it will be

by TruthMatters 2008-08-01 07:47AM | 0 recs
The NYDaily News probably asked an Obama

supporter.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: The NYDaily News probably asked an Obama

really, or they just made it up. Was it the post that followed Edwards?  What's with that rag? Do they really think any intelligent person would believe their 'breaking news?'  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: The NYDaily News probably asked an Obama

Nope it was the Enquirer that followed Edwards.  However, the journalistic standards of the Enquirer are probably higher than the Post.  The first is sensationalist, the second right wing.

by LIsoundview 2008-08-01 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: The NYDaily News probably asked an Obama

well like I said eventually this gets straighted out.

and I am glad for this diary, because when Hillary does come out and say she doesn't want a roll call vote, what will Alegre and the rest of you pumas do next?

so its a wait and see now

by TruthMatters 2008-08-01 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: The NYDaily News

The big story for me is that it is up to her. She'll do what she thinks is best for the party. I think it would be a mistake for her to say she doesn't want her votes counted at the convention. Even if this were her own decision a lot of people would think she was pressured and the big point now is to unite behind Barrack.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 08:05AM | 0 recs
Barack

There's only one 'R' in his name.

by mikeinsf 2008-08-01 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack

Still?  Even after all this time, his name is STILL spelled B-a-r-a-c-k?  Weird.

by Jay R 2008-08-01 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack

yea, my name gains a consonant every year.

It is very impressive now- but getting a bit eastern European.

by wrb 2008-08-01 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack

Strange, huh?  You'd think that after spending over half a year tearing him down, she would get the spelling right.  But, then, I could never spell "Buush".

by mikeinsf 2008-08-01 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack

I know I will never call him President and I cannot give him caps. I call him bush, like the plant.

by Hollede 2008-08-01 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack

She won't fix it. It's her passive-aggressive way of showing contempt. Best to just ignore her.

by batgirl71 2008-08-01 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack

true

by mikeinsf 2008-08-01 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack

funny that no one ever chews me out for spelling Hilary with one l. It's a mistake I make in typing and proofreading, you don't need to read anything special into it.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack

Because you don't spell Hillary with one L.  

The nice thing about the internet is that it keeps a record of what you've posted.  We don't have to take your word for it (thank god).

by Jess81 2008-08-01 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack

now you're calling me a liar?  What an ambassador for Barack you are?  I'm sure you've read all my thousands of comments, looking for an example of the one l?  Someone needs to get a life?  Or, you didn't?  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack

Personally insulting me isn't going to accomplish anything.

by Jess81 2008-08-01 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack

clever?  I''m insulting you for not accepting your insult? Good thinkin'

by anna shane 2008-08-01 04:12PM | 0 recs
It's not a big deal to me either way

If she did want her name in nomination, then perhaps she could be nominated first, with the Arkansas and NY delegations pledging a majority of delegates to her.  Then Obama could be entered into nomination by Hawaii, with states proceeding to give him a lead until the Illinois delegation would ask for his nomination to be ratified by acclamation.  It would make for a nice bit of theater and wouldn't overdo Clinton's role.

by activatedbybush 2008-08-01 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: The NYDaily News probably asked an Obama

If the Clinton campaign doesn't rapidly refute the original story (and apparently they haven't) then the Daily News is probably correct.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-08-01 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

Alegre's credibility.  Isn't that kind of like jumbo shrimp?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-08-01 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

Yep, and last I checked Pecos Bill had ridden it up a river.

by fogiv 2008-08-02 08:22AM | 0 recs
try thinking for a moment
why would any candidate, much less the first potential female President of the US, not want a floor vote?  It's not what any man with that many votes would do.
Get over your obsession with Allegre and use your brain.
by Teacher1956 2008-08-01 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: try thinking for a moment

Because it makes no earthly difference either way?

Why would any candidate, much less the first potential female President of the US, keep her plans a secret to everyone but Alegra?

by Jess81 2008-08-01 02:41PM | 0 recs
Always

the Obama slander.

by Neef 2008-08-01 07:47AM | 0 recs
No slander here.

Just correcting the record, and a request that his supporters act as classy as the man himself.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 07:48AM | 0 recs
by reaching orgasm?

by JJE 2008-08-01 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: by reaching orgasm?

what does that mean?  If it's a joke, please explain.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 07:59AM | 0 recs
it's a reference

to catfish's question of whether Obama would reach orgasm during his Denver speech.

OK this might be gross, but  (4.00 / 3)
do you think he expects to reach orgasm while giving his speech?
by: catfish @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 21:28:48 PM CDT
[ Parent | ]

Classy indeed.

by JJE 2008-08-01 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: it's a reference

This has to be said:

PWNED!

:)

by fogiv 2008-08-01 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: it's a reference

It is interesting that Catfish would go down this line of thinking, wrt Obama.

Is this one of those sexual attraction things that manifests itself as the exact opposite behavior toward the focus of that attraction?

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-01 08:35AM | 0 recs
Like Bill and Ann Coulter you mean?

by conspiracy 2008-08-01 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Like Bill and Ann Coulter you mean?

Actually, I try to tune Ann out completely.  Is there a similar dynamic at play with Bill and Ann?

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-01 08:40AM | 0 recs
Running joke

She was/is bitter because he turned her down.

by conspiracy 2008-08-01 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Running joke

Wow!  Who would turn down Skeletor!

It is interesting how much the right obsesses about sex.

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-01 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Running joke

Where I come from, Skeletor is James Carvile.  Ann Coultre is just your garden variety crackhead.  No need to make up funny names.

by Jess81 2008-08-01 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: by reaching orgasm?

You know exactly what it means, considering that you mojo'd catfish's post about Obama's orgasms.

OK this might be gross, but
do you think he expects to reach orgasm while giving his speech?
by: catfish @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 21:28:48 PM CDT
by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.
# You must enter a subject for your comment
Others have rated this comment as follows:
LSekhmet     4
campskunk     4
creeper     4
anna shane     4

Too funny.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-08-01 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: by reaching orgasm?

oh, right, I'd get a reference to an obscure joke.  in context it's funny, but out of context it's weird.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: by reaching orgasm?

I would really like to know the context in which that statement isn't trashy, nasty, and tasteless.  That diary about Obama speaking at Invesco Field doesn't exactly scream "Hey!  I wonder if Barky Hussein OBamBambi is planning on having an orgasm on stage?!"

Nasty, but not at all surprising.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-08-01 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: by reaching orgasm?

I thought it was funny.  I didn't take it literally, I thought it was about the soaring grande finale.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: by reaching orgasm?

Well, you're in good company over there.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-08-01 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: by reaching orgasm?

You claimed to not recognize it last time too.  Are jokes about Barack Obama having orgasms while fully clothed so common around you that you can't keep track?

by Jess81 2008-08-01 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: by reaching orgasm?

you think I'm lying?  I'm sure I can forget it again too, it wasn't that a funny.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: by reaching orgasm?

But you gave it a rating of 4!

by venician 2008-08-02 09:56AM | 0 recs
Repeating a Daily News story

is not a move to quash her vote, nor a divisive tactic, as your diary claims. I'm not even sure why you tossed in the last line, it was an informative diary otherwise.

by Neef 2008-08-01 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

Look what the cat dragged in:

The Following Users Have Recommended This Diary:
Caldonia
souvarine
izarradar
anna shane
anna belle
soyousay
louisprandtl

by venician 2008-08-01 08:26AM | 0 recs
Rec police

hello, officer.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Rec police

Sorry Citizen Fish.  We'd meant to turn you over to the Orgasm Squad for debriefing.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-01 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Rec police

How do you put the bracelets on a fish?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-08-01 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Rec police

Staples.

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-01 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

Is this your try at intimidation?  There's no place for it here.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-08-01 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

Public shaming isn't the same thing as intimidation.

That being said, this diary doesn't deserve public shaming.  This tactic has been used repeatedly in troll diaries, yet you've never appeared to comment in any of those...

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-01 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

well actually it is. public shaming (and mobbing) is the very definition of intimidation. if i wanted to digress back to the grade school playground taunts i'd have stayed over at that orange site where it really caught on. this is Jerome's playground here. if you don't like his rules, then.....

by swissffun 2008-08-03 03:04AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

Is this your try at intimidation?  There's no place for it here.  

Is this yours?

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-01 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

I got a sock puppet TR.  Very cool!

;-)

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-01 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

Users are free to rec diaries. Other users should be able to show who has rec'd a particular diary. There is no public shaming unless you feel those who have rec'd a diary should be ashamed of that rec.

by MS01 Indie 2008-08-01 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

If Jerome is truly concerned about the practice of posting the usernames of people who have recommended diaries, then he should add it to the site guidelines as a banned practice.

Methinks that he has another agenda, however...

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-01 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

Why in the world would anyone tr this comment? Disagree with it, yes. Point out where I'm wrong, yes. But, tr it? I'm really stumped trying to figure out this one.

by MS01 Indie 2008-08-01 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

Thanks..I've rec'd this diary as well as the one with the NYD information. I thought they are information on both sides which needs to be aired. I wonder what the real story behind all of this..

by louisprandtl 2008-08-01 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

Your rec was reasonable and I took no issue with it.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-01 09:39AM | 0 recs
Thanks..

by louisprandtl 2008-08-01 09:41AM | 0 recs
I wonder whether these news releases

are part of some behind the scenes negotiations...now that might be conspiracy theory.. :)

by louisprandtl 2008-08-01 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

Jerome, you obviously dont spend enough time at your own blog.

These people spam your site almost every day.

Is it ok with you when Catfish does this?

http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDi ary.do?diaryId=431#6586

Why do you defend these people, they are only here to hurt your site as they constantly make your site on Confluence, Alegre's corner, and NoQuarter.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-01 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

I might also add that a comment showing who recommended a diary became necessary when Jermone & Co. took away the ability of many Obama supporters to recommend diaries during the primaries.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-08-01 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

Now why did THAT get TR'd?  It's a simple statement of fact.

by Jess81 2008-08-01 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

you cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact that dozens of "people" who have NO comment or diary history, who do not participate or contribute in any way to mydd, are galvanized in the comments sections of UGLY, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC sites to come here and take advantage of the BROKEN rec/rate system at this site for the sole purpose of stiring up division here.  

you are aware of this, right?

care to provide some leadership for the people who actually work their butts off to keep this site relevant and civil?  how would you suggest we deal with this phenomenon and the garbage it plants on your recommended list?  

i anxiously await your response...

by elie 2008-08-01 10:31AM | 0 recs
You won't get one

People have been asking that question since February. Hell, when Todd asked for suggestions on how to make the site better, the topic of having actual contributing posters in good standing be the ones with rec ability was specifically and repeatedly stated.

Jerome et. al. just want the hits that come from a site in love with its own metaness. Let's talk about us for a while, and us vs. them, and are you us or them? Let's talk about it!

by upstate girl 2008-08-01 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: No slander here.

Jerome at least half of the Obama supporters on here can't rec diaries, nor can we see who who else has rec'ed them.  It's your own site's policy, so I'm sure you're aware of it.  

Posts like that are a service to us.

by Jess81 2008-08-01 02:52PM | 0 recs
You know that's a DISGUSTING habit...

...and I'm t.r.'ing it.

Your habit of calling out folks for rec'ing a diary. What purpose does it serve other than to create divisiveness. This is precisely why I think you're one of the biggest trolls on this site. The behavior does more to disaffect those on the fence as far as their support of Obama's concerned than anything else.

by bobswern 2008-08-01 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: You know that's a DISGUSTING habit...

You may not like someone posting the rec list in the comments thread, that's your right. However, you had no call for tr'ing my comment above. Using your logic, I could tr the comment you just made. In fact, I'd have more justification for it than you had for tr'ing my comment.

by MS01 Indie 2008-08-01 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: You know that's a DISGUSTING habit...

Right back at you Bob. I believe everyone has the right to know who or how many people have rec'd a diary. And I'm sure you'll provide us with your proof of how this affects undecided voters.

by venician 2008-08-01 10:56AM | 0 recs
It's clearcut intimidation...no ifs, ands...

...or buts.

If folks want to know who's rec'ing a diary, it's available for all to see.

When you put it in a comments thread, however, you might as well just come out and say...

"Look at these assholes in agreement with this diarist!"

It's the same thing. No equivocating about it. The only intent is to initimidate other users for expressing their opinions.

You're doing nothing but intimidating...abso-freakin'-lutely nothing other than that...and for that, you were t.r.'d.

If you want to abuse your own t.r. ratings, go right ahead and t.r. me. NOTE: I will report you to the blog mod's, if you do, however.

by bobswern 2008-08-01 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: It's clearcut intimidation...no ifs, ands...

There's actually a cool technique that you can use in football, to get your opponent thrown out of the game.  We used it occasionally in college.

The trick is this:

You start trash talking at one particular guy, early in the game, (the key is to pick someone with a temper).

You keep this up till about halfway through the second quarter.

Then...when the ref isn't looking...you give him a head slap, or some other kind of tweak. (It's also good to block the initial incident with your body, if possible).

Right before the guy responds, you step to the side, opening up the vision of the scene to the ref.  When he responds back, he's caught, and ejected.

When done well, it's a beautiful thing!

I could take lessons here at MyDD.

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-01 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: It's clearcut intimidation...no ifs, ands...
1. Not everyone has the ability to see the rec. list.
2.Rec.ing a diary is NOT expressing an opinion, it's stating that one thinks the diary is reccommened reading.
3. You just tried to INTIMIDATE me by THREATENING to report me to the admins. You just proved how silly you really are. GROW UP!
by venician 2008-08-01 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: It's clearcut intimidation...no ifs, ands...

No it's not. It's a legitimate point of discussion. It's a way of pointing out that: yes this on the rec list but it's the same gang of recommenders as many other questionable diaries, and thus should be taken with a grain of salt.

To argue otherwise is to say that we should all just be blind to the fact that there's a lot of hit-and-run reccing going on, from people who do not otherwise participate and do not stand up for their opinions, and that if we do happen to notice that it's going on that it's taboo to actually mention it to anyone else.

Which stifles real discussion more? If those who rec'd the diary want to stand up for it, more power to them. That's the whole point of it.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-08-01 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: It's clearcut intimidation...no ifs, ands...

Well said gray wolf.

by venician 2008-08-01 12:26PM | 0 recs
I stand solidly behind my comments.

Your flagrant Hillary-hate is posted all over these diaries. IMHO, you do more than most to undermine the nominee's effort at reconciliation between party factions by simply posturing as you frequently do on this blog, and in the manner in which I'm discussing here.

This is pure intimidation. The folks rec'ing this are all regular commenters here. You cast negative comments upon them as a group. They're people. They're here. And, they do not deserve to be harassed on a personal level as you're clearly doing now.

There is no justification for your behavior, despite those coming to your support in this thread.

It's really quite inexcusable.

by bobswern 2008-08-01 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I stand solidly behind my comments.

Faux outrage much?

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-01 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I stand solidly behind my comments.

 Bob,  You have gone off your rocker. I have posted not ONE word against Hillary in this diary so FUCK off. I'm tired of your shit.

by venician 2008-08-01 03:48PM | 0 recs
Ah... so you now admit Obama is classy.

Good on you.

Now if Clinton mono-supporters would just act classy to begin with eh?

by notedgeways 2008-08-01 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office....

Catfish -
This is getting a tad old. Everybody with half a brain knew there was going to be a role call vote. And that her name could be put in nomination. Those are the rules. Dean even said they were the rules. The question I had would she want her name put in nomination. So Alegre through her sources says yes she does. Fine,
end of story. If that's what it take to get you guys on board I'm all for it.

However, If by putting her name in nomination you are hoping for a different outcome than we have now. I wouldn't hold your breath

by jsfox 2008-08-01 07:48AM | 0 recs
Then maybe Geekesque should take down the

diary. Glad you agree.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Then maybe Geekesque should take down the

Umm no. Geek has given a source as  you have. Who's right we shall see.

My comment was matters not who is right. If your right fine. if Greek is right that's fine too.

by jsfox 2008-08-01 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office....

Fish always ROT from the head first.

by venician 2008-08-01 08:20AM | 0 recs
sorry catfish.

fail - a comment on one blog sourcing a comment on another blog is not a credible source.

now the other story is also on its surface not rock solid - but still you cannot conflate one rumour with another.

by canadian gal 2008-08-01 07:50AM | 0 recs
I'm sure you said the same to Geekesque

That NYDailyNews writer has a history of floating false rumors unfavorable to Hillary.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 07:52AM | 0 recs
that's fair.

but this is not what your diary states.

by canadian gal 2008-08-01 07:59AM | 0 recs
So did you tell Geekesque "fail"?

Somehow I doubt it. You know, when a false rumor catches fire you've got to spring into action, we can't wait for the MSM, we've got to check the facts ourselves. I'm sure you've seen media studies that show fewer and fewer reporters are reporting news, and more bloggers and pundits are repeating it. Alegre picked up the phone. She did legwork.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: So did you tell Geekesque "fail"?

Alegre picked up the phone. She did legwork.

I hearby sentence you to Texas for committing a metaphor violation.

She did the "armwork."

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-01 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: So did you tell Geekesque "fail"?

I take offense to your sig line! It should be Obama/Lucy Lawless or Obama/Sarah Michelle Geller.

Go Buffy! Go Xena!

Hell, I would even go for Starbuck. Although I do realize that Xena and Starbuck are not actually US citizens. Damnit. I do like Bruce Campbell tho.

by Hollede 2008-08-01 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: So did you tell Geekesque "fail"?

Check out the new, stylish sig line!

Is it smoking, or what?

I do have a thing for Lucy.

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-01 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: So did you tell Geekesque "fail"?

Me too and I love your new sig! Lucy Lawless, still hot and smoking!

by Hollede 2008-08-01 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: So did you tell Geekesque "fail"?

Eventually, my sig is gonna fill up with "B" list movie actors.

Lucy will be a permanent fixture, however.

She is hot!

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-08-01 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: So did you tell Geekesque "fail"?

Consensus! What a wonderful step to healing the party ;~) Now I think that Lucy should come over and give me a big hug. I'm sure my girlfriend won't mind. In fact, she might just want a hug too ;~D

by Hollede 2008-08-01 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm sure you said the same to Geekesque

Michael Saul?  Really?  Can you point me to an instance where he has done such a thing?

by Koan 2008-08-01 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm sure you said the same to Geekesque

Sorry, catfish, I can't hear your response through the noise of all those CRICKETS.

by Koan 2008-08-01 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm sure you said the same to Geekesque

Which one, Saul or Defrank? Could you provide evidence, please?

As is, I'm more inclined to believe the media story than the response from an unnamed source and the person who answers the phone at Hillary's NY office. In the end, though, I've already stated both options (putting her name in or keeping it out) are acceptable to me personally.

by TCQuad 2008-08-01 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm sure you said the same to Geekesque

That NYDailyNews writer has a history of floating false rumors unfavorable to Hillary.

And Alegre has a history of floating false rumors favorable to Hillary (or her own agenda, like now), while also floating and repeating false rumors about Obama.

We are at an impasse, sir.

by Darknesse 2008-08-01 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office

It's been left up to Hillary and she'll do what's best for the party, she always does.

I think her name should be in nomination because I think that's the way to unite.  If it's perceived that she was bullied, out of fear that she could 'win,' then some of her supporters will have a harder time working for Barrack.  Some would do it anyway, but it would be harder.  Her campaign is historic, and polls show that with registered Democrats she won by a significant margin.  It would be a grand moment for those of us who wanted her to be our next president to hear her votes counted.  

It was very close, could have gone either way, and I'm very glad that in my lifetime a woman ran on her solutions and her abilities and got so close.  It would be a grand moment for me.

by anna shane 2008-08-01 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office

If she wants a vote, so be it.  It's her candidacy.  I'm pretty sure that no one in the Democratic Party can bully the Clintons.

by rfahey22 2008-08-01 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office

for sure. The good news is that it is up to her, I bet there was some wrangling going on over that one.  That was a non-issue that should have been officially cleared up months ago.  Why Howard isn't more of a leader on these things I'll never know.  Maybe cause he's a doctor and not a lawyer?

by anna shane 2008-08-01 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office

Well, if you actually have to submit paperwork to participate in the roll-call vote, then they basically have to wait until they receive the paperwork from Clinton, right?

by rfahey22 2008-08-01 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office

yes, that's correct.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office

No, it's not correct. You've mixed up two things:

1. Placing the name in nomination.
2. Voting for whoever you want in the roll call.

You need paperwork for (1) but not (2).

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office

it's the roll call that's important, I agreed there would be paperwork for that. That's what will unite the party, a real vote, like everyone gets if they want it.  That's what all this fuss has been about all along, and what Howard could have cleared up long ago. Makes it seem he was uncertain of his own powers.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office

Anna,

Please slow down and actually read what I wrote. You do not need paperwork for the roll call.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office

And Howard has repeatedly said there will be a roll call.

When asked about the ads criticizing him and Speaker Pelosi for Clinton supposedly not being on the ballot at the convention, he scoffed. Clinton will be on the ballot at the convention, and will be speaking there. Dean indicated that the rules were so clear on this matter, that the groups running these ads and spreading these rumors must be associated with the other internet rumors going around, such as Obama being a Muslim. He also speculated that McCain supporters might be behind these rumors.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=7006

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office

well, he's wrong, people like me have been asking for clarity on this too, and it's confusing, roll call, paperwork?  Seems easy to me that he could explain it carefully and accurately and then we'd all get it.  Or at least it would be theoretically possible.  I mean, if enough students don't get it, is it the teacher's fault or the students?  You don't call the students saboteurs, and make them embarrassed for still not getting it, you explain more clearly, no?  

The question is if it will be a real vote, that counts, in real time. That's what will lead to unity.  Otherwise it's open to perception that it's been fixed in advance, and the old rules have been changed.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 12:01PM | 0 recs
I'm extremely sorry. rfahey22 .I didn't see my

original rating somehow got recorded as a troll rating. You know I'll never, ever TR you...

by louisprandtl 2008-08-01 09:49AM | 0 recs
Howard has a 50-state campaign to run

He's got bigger concerns than silly squabbles over symbolic gestures.

by JJE 2008-08-01 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Howard has a 50-state campaign to run

really, doesn't show on the surface. I thought the 50-state thing was a solution, but he's having to fight for that strategy, I didn't know that.

For me united the Democratic party behind Barrack is the biggest thing. And that means showing respect.  Like always.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 08:07AM | 0 recs
what?

Your first three sentences are incomprehensible.

There is a campaign for Democrats at all levels going on.  Howard's time is occupied.

The party is mostly unified.  Very few people care about this roll-call issue.  It's really just a fetish for the few Hillary supporters who have entered their Ghost-Dance phase.

by JJE 2008-08-01 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: what?

It's to be expected of Anna, who seems to have graduated from the Rosie O'Donnell school of blogging.

by venician 2008-08-01 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: what?

is that supposed to be rude?  Am I the only one that wants party unity, not just going after new demographics, keeping the old ones too? He's too bush to talk to Democrats?  Maybe he is, but then maybe he's in over his head and we need someone who can do more than a few chosen things at a time?   That's the tired old one, that we're not wanted or needed?  That's not true, this one is too important to be rude just for fun.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: what?

Mojo for the ghost dance reference.  A fine (if sad and depressing) analogy.

by fogiv 2008-08-01 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office

Howard did clear it up - He's said that there will be a roll call. It's not up to him whether Clinton's name is placed in nomination; there's a standard procedure that has to be followed.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office

update, Hillary says that she thinks the roll call vote will help unify, but that she's currently speaking with Howard and Barack about whether or not to ask for that, and that they will come to some agreement ahead of time.  We'll find out when it's announced.  This makes me feel better because she's in on the decision making, it's a sign of respect for her voters that works for me.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 01:33PM | 0 recs
She checks her facts?

Like her "fact" that eight super-delegates were switching from Obama to Clinton?

Whatever.  REC THIS UP GANG!

I posted news ad MyDD  (0.00 / 0)
linking to this diary. If anybody could just do a quick rec, that would be great.

They've got a diary up now saying she doesn't want her name in nomination.
by: catfish @ Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 10:53:32 AM CDT
[ Parent ]

by JJE 2008-08-01 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: She checks her facts?

Or the "fact" that PUMA paid back all of Hillary's debt? (not to mention the "facts" about a certain tape and a certain convicted felon).

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: She checks her facts?

it was a race, PUMA's won. I know Barracks supporters were trying to beat the PUMA's, but hey, it was a fair race to the goal and PUMA's won it.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: She checks her facts?

What are you talking about?  A race?  What in God's good name do you mean?

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 08:28AM | 0 recs
Obama supporters took too long

reaching for their wallets. Really it was an opportunity for a unity gesture, but they complained the entire time. So the PUMAs stepped up and nipped that debt. They've got some fundraising prowess, those PUMAs.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters took too long

I donated the day after she dropped out.  How was that "too long?"

Oh, right.  You would have preferred me to have donated to her while she was still running.

Got it.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-01 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters took too long

I think it took me about a week but I donated to Hillary also. Nothing will ever be good enough for these folks.

by batgirl71 2008-08-01 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters took too long

The debt has not been retired. Try reading something outside of the PUMAsphere.  

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters took too long

Oh, come on. Didn't you hear that the PUMAs raised $10 million in ONE DAY to retire Hillary's debt??!?

And also, they've developed a flying car, and Harriet Christansen has discovered a cure for AIDS. Because the PUMAs are just that awesome.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-08-01 09:47AM | 0 recs
Not really

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2008/07/20/clinton_loaned_self_another_ 1.html

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's debt to her vendors grew in June, according to a federal filing tonight to the Federal Election Commission, and the New York Democrat reported loaning herself an additional $1 million after leaving the campaign trail.

Clinton raised just $2.7 million in June and finished the month with $25.2 million in campaign debt, most of that, $13.175 million, owed to Clinton herself, according to her report to the FEC.

They're some cheap-ass bullshitters, those PUMAs.

by JJE 2008-08-01 09:07AM | 0 recs
ahahahaha

Sometimes I just have to laugh aloud at you catfish, you dim, dim person.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/stor y.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10522683

In case you really can't read and that's the crux of your problems, her debt is up to 25.2 million.

PUMA's haven't done shit because there's about 15 of you guys masturbating to your own inflated egos online. Sorry buddy.

by upstate girl 2008-08-01 10:10AM | 0 recs
Oh lookie here

I'll be...TWO sources for our facts, catfish! Where's yours? Oh, right...Alegre's your source...for everything...gotcha.

If you poke your head out your window right now you can probably hear me laughing.

by upstate girl 2008-08-01 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: She checks her facts?

Whew!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-08-01 08:55AM | 0 recs
Because a third-hand account posted

in the comments section of a deeply delusional pro-McCain blog is the very essence of credibility.

by Geekesque 2008-08-01 07:58AM | 0 recs
Well if you post unnamed sources

from a reporter with a history of reporting false rumors that are unfavorable to Hillary, bloggers have to check facts. There are fewer and fewer reporters nowadays, bloggers have to take up the slack.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 08:01AM | 0 recs
How many McCain points

does it take to get a free coffee mug?

by Geekesque 2008-08-01 08:02AM | 0 recs
Cyber War Room

I don't work for McCain. I am an undecided Democrat.

But points - you're onto something. Is that how Obama's Cyber War Room works? Are you guys in cubicles over there?

by catfish2 2008-08-01 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Cyber War Room

Were too elitist for cubicles,

just too blue collar for us.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-01 08:52AM | 0 recs
We orbit the earth in spy satellites

and are getting ready to use psychotropic weaponry on non-believers.

by Geekesque 2008-08-01 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: We orbit the earth in spy satellites

Followed by the beaming up to the spacelab operating slab for the rectal probe.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-08-01 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: We orbit the earth in spy satellites

No rectal probes though please. Just beam me up and gimme some of that psychotropic weaponry.

by Hollede 2008-08-01 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: We orbit the earth in spy satellites

Hey, I have just decided that I am a non believer. Will you please use some psychotropic weaponry on me?

by Hollede 2008-08-01 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Well if you post unnamed sources

You've presented no evidence that this reporter has this history.  All we have is your unsourced, undocumented claim.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 08:29AM | 0 recs
Yes, No, Maybe

This also from the Daily News article:

"Hillary Clinton is 100% committed to helping Barack Obama become the next President of the United States and realizes there are passionate feelings that remain among many of her supporters," said Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand. "No decisions have been made at this time.

by jsfox 2008-08-01 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, No, Maybe

so they knew it was false and reported the truth too?  Weird.  

by anna shane 2008-08-01 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, No, Maybe

For all we know, especially considering both sources the Daily News and Alegre both could be quoting sources who really don't have clue either way.

by jsfox 2008-08-01 08:15AM | 0 recs
How about we all ignore this diary

if we don't like it? Instead of fighting with the diarist, we could just, you know, leave it be. Let's not give this diary 350+ comments like we did with the last one.

by sricki 2008-08-01 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: How about we all ignore this diary

A good troll slapping is good for the circulation.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-08-01 08:59AM | 0 recs
It gets the troll's blood pumping, too, though. nt

by sricki 2008-08-01 09:03AM | 0 recs
I like how Catfish

suggested that Geek take down his diary because it was a scurrilous rumor based on a biased publication like Israelinsider.......I mean the New York Daily News....

Not so much fun when it's Hillary that's targeted with rumors, now is it?

As to the substance of all this?  I have no idea what to believe.  I won't make a judgment until Senator Clinton or her campaign makes a statement.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-01 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: I like how Catfish

Well said.

by Hollede 2008-08-01 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

The people in Hillary Clinton's New York office, let's face it, probably have no better idea of what's going on than anyone in this thread.  Same is probably true for the writer at the Daily News.

My prediction, btw, is that there will be a roll call where Clinton is on the ballot, and what people are trying to figure out is how this can be done in the best way possible.

My second prediction is that there will be two roll calls, one where the states record their votes for Obama and Clinton (w/ no distinction between made between pledged delegates and supers), and, just before the final tally is read, someone will make a motion to vote again, and Obama will get the nom by acclamation.

What people are working on is the script for all of this.  It's choreography.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-08-01 08:27AM | 0 recs
Have to disagree

I'd think they have a better idea than regular joes blogging on MyDD.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Have to disagree

Disagree.  Joe Blogger can say "I have no idea".  Someone who is working for Clinton's NY office has to give a stock answer (and "I don't know" isn't one of them).

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-08-01 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

There is no ballot at a roll call.

They just go through the states and ask for the delegate tally. Delegates from a state can be unanimous or not.

All this WILL happen.  The only issue is whether Clinton's name will be placed in nomination.  That's a separate matter which requires signatures and permission from the potential candidate.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

Official Senate offices CANNOT be used to comment on campaign matters. If someone in that office commented, they broke federal law.

And I don't think there is a campaign office open anymore, besides which, the national headquarters was in DC.

So unless you're talking about a NY field office for the campaign (and the campaign web site has no such number), the Alegre story has holes in it.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Roll-Call Vote

Why should the "final tally" not be read after the first roll-call vote.  Let's have some transparency.

by cameoanne 2008-08-01 10:40AM | 0 recs
cameoanne

care to explain why you troll rated me and others in this thread?  

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/8/1/11 4129/1204/114#114

what gives?

by elie 2008-08-01 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: cameoanne

1.  Attacking the site owner.

2.  I despise this posting of "Username Diary Recommends" and attacking of other posters - whether they be either Clinton or Obama supporters - in comment threads.  Were you actually approving of the post that Jerome was responding to in his comment?

You were probably the most civil.  I removed the rating from your comment.  

by cameoanne 2008-08-01 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: cameoanne

1. i don't remember attacking anyone.

2. furthermore, i was unaware that questioning jerome was prohibitted in the site guidlines.

3. i have never posted the names of "posters" who have recommended a diary.  but i understand it's purpose on this broken site when garbage makes the wreck list via spammers from other sites. if jerome doesn't like the response, perhaps he should do something about the cause...

4. you have recently developed quiet the history of ratings abuse...

by elie 2008-08-01 12:00PM | 0 recs
Alegre doesn't have Hillary's interests at heart.

Why the hell should we listen to Alegre?  She did exactly the opposite of what Hillary wanted us to do.  She is actively urging people to do something that would give McCain the Presidency.  She hangs out with NoQuarter racists.  Why the hell is she even brought up?  She's shown her true colors after the primaries, and exposed her real self.  

by OVAH 2008-08-01 08:33AM | 0 recs
No Quarter

In your world, anyone who says Obama is black is a racist.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: No Quarter

No just the members of NoQuarter and Alegre's Corner.

Worst offenders:

Texas Darling (banned from this site for racist remarks)

New Hampster (banned from this site but let back on after primary ended for racist remarks)

SusanHu(too many to count)

Universal (banned from here for racism)

any more to add?

racism is a dirty habit, I don't endorse exterminating the people, just ignore them.
I dunno, I was raised to hate these people do I don' know any better.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-01 08:49AM | 0 recs
Right, but calling Hillary supporters prostitutes

isn't sexist and is acceptable behavior. This party is dead.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Right, but calling Hillary supporters prostitu

Always the victim aren't you?  

by Blue Neponset 2008-08-01 08:56AM | 0 recs
classic catfish move

rather than rebut the examples of racist behavior by No Quarter/Alegre's Corner dwellers, change the subject.

by JJE 2008-08-01 09:04AM | 0 recs
You have yet to point out

where NoQuarter was racist. Comments don't count - he sends his Cyber War Room trolls to impersonate commenters and leave racist remarks.

Hard to rebut examples when no examples exist.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: You have yet to point out

So lemme get this straight...

The racist comments at No Quarter are not from actual racists who hate black people, but instead are from paid members of the Obama campaign who are impersonating such racists in order to hurt the credibility at No Quarter?  Even though doing so after Hillary dropped out would be an incredibly stupid waste of money, in addition to being insane.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-01 09:12AM | 0 recs
Several examples were cited

This dishonesty reflects poorly on you.

by JJE 2008-08-01 09:18AM | 0 recs
150 McCain points!

Combine two lies with batshit craziness, all in the defense of putrid racists.

Well done!

by Geekesque 2008-08-01 09:33AM | 0 recs
He who?

McCain is the only one to gain from any of this, so if he is "he" then we might agree...

by chrisblask 2008-08-01 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Right, but calling Hillary

Why don't you ask your buddy NewHampster that question? He's the one who has professed his LOVE of pornography and strippers. Funny how NONE of you ever called him on that bit of sexism.

by venician 2008-08-01 11:48AM | 0 recs
You called Hillary supporters whores

accompanied it with a photo of a thong-clad woman with her legs spread.

I don't know when New Hampster ever called Hillary supporters whores, since he supports Hillary too.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 05:40PM | 0 recs
As I recall.

The caption said "attention whore," and the girl was doing a cartwheel (not "spreading her legs").

by Shem 2008-08-01 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: No Quarter

Yeah, TeresainPa.

by venician 2008-08-01 11:18AM | 0 recs
actually

anyone who uses the N-word like Larry Johnson does is probably a racist.

by JJE 2008-08-01 09:00AM | 0 recs
Get a grip, people.

This thread is disturbing.  There's no need to ask catfish about his (her?  not sure I know) "McCain points" and all that stuff.  If it turns out that this is the correct diary of the two, then a lot of people will have a bit o' egg on the face.  

OK, Alegre isn't a reputable source.  That's fine.  But that doesn't mean this is false, for certain.  If it is, fine.  Someone posts a diary about it, people get in a tizzy over it, then it's false.  No biggie.  If it's true...well, then how can it possibly be wrong to post it?

by freedom78 2008-08-01 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

Hillary still rocks!

by french imp 2008-08-01 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

I just wish Catfish and his daddy Alegre supported her as much as we did.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-08-01 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

Oh, the photons we waste.

by QTG 2008-08-01 08:49AM | 0 recs
Ah my brain is back..How heavy does it feel?

by louisprandtl 2008-08-01 12:04PM | 0 recs
what's Obama gain by creating a false rumor?

Now the McCain campaign could use PUMA to divide the Dems by floating a false rumor.

But the Obama campaign? What do they gain?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-08-01 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S
I find something a bit strange. The New York Daily News's info is on the Huffington Post's front page.
If it's not true, why don't HIllary's people publish an official denial? I mean, the info being published, it's a bit surprising that we should learn it's not true so indirectly.
The absense of denial seems to be telling something, isn't it? Now perhaps the denial is coming soon. Time will tell, shortly.
by french imp 2008-08-01 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

Time will tell.

One possibility is that Alegre misheard what the person said. There's still confusion about having one's name placed in nomination and having a roll call. The person at the office could have said that Clinton's name could be included in the roll call and she could have heard that as Clinton will have her name placed in nomination.

Again, just a possibility.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:09AM | 0 recs
In case you haven't noticed

the press hasn't been super professional in the last few years. And HuffPo is not the most balanced site on the net. In fact, the site is making things worse for Obama.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: In case you haven't noticed

Sorry, I said front page - it is actually Politics page. But it's in big with a nice photo! Hillary rocks!

My point was not to say that Huffington post is making it more credible. Just that, it is strange that Hillary doesn't react officialy if it's not correct. But as like as not she will react soon.
We'll see.

by french imp 2008-08-01 09:27AM | 0 recs
Not seeing it on HuffPo - link?

Not seeing it.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Not seeing it on HuffPo - link?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics/

Here ya go.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Not seeing it on HuffPo - link?

Aren't you going to update over at Alegre's?

It's on HuffPo front page  (0.00 / 0)
the rumor, not the truth.
by: catfish @ Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:27:30 PM CDT
by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.
# You must enter a subject for your comment
Can't find it, maybe they took it down (0.00 / 0)
nevermind.
by: catfish @ Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM CDT
[ Parent ]

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Not seeing it on HuffPo - link?

And why don't you tell people that Howard Dean said that there absolutely WILL be a roll call?

Here's the quote:

When asked about the ads criticizing him and Speaker Pelosi for Clinton supposedly not being on the ballot at the convention, he scoffed. Clinton will be on the ballot at the convention, and will be speaking there. Dean indicated that the rules were so clear on this matter, that the groups running these ads and spreading these rumors must be associated with the other internet rumors going around, such as Obama being a Muslim. He also speculated that McCain supporters might be behind these rumors.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=7006

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Not seeing it on HuffPo - link?

Now that you see the quote directly from Howard Dean (above), I'm sure you'll correct this as well:

It's just a roll call vote, why  (4.00 / 3)
must they be so petty? This will cost them even more votes than they've already lost.

http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showCo mment.do?commentId=6592

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:29AM | 0 recs
I'm sure Geekesque will also take down

or correct his diary. Yes I saw that silly quote from Dean it's a month old.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm sure Geekesque will also take down

So why did you write on Alegre's that Dean should allow a roll call,  -- when Dean already said that there would be one?

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm sure Geekesque will also take down

And, for that matter, why did you write this

Obama's supporters do him no favors by such divisive tactics as denying her a simple symbolic roll call vote, or spreading rumors in order to quash one in this diary?

There will be a roll call. So stop claiming that someone might prevent one. No one is preventing one!

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:54AM | 0 recs
Toxic commenters over there

yeesh. They just reprinted the DailyNews story, same misleading headline and everything.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Toxic commenters over there

Yeah - but at Alegre's, you said that there was no link at Huffington Post. I'm sure you'll want to make sure that you didn't leave a misleading impression and will correct that.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

It's on drudge now too, highlighted in red down the left-hand side of the page, with a link to the daily news article.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

by JustJack 2008-08-01 12:48PM | 0 recs
Trying to hold her head under water.

Too cute.

by catfish2 2008-08-02 05:57AM | 0 recs
the reporters

BTW, I don't recognize the name of both NY Post reporters who have this byline, but Tom DeFrank is a very respected veteran NY reporter.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:11AM | 0 recs
The Post is not the Daily News

Just because DeFrank is a veteran reporter doesn't mean he's respected.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The Post is not the Daily News

But he is. That's my point.  

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:24AM | 0 recs
In your opinion

You're not the most objective source.

by catfish2 2008-08-01 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: In your opinion

I'm not referring to my opinion, but to what is said about him by others when has published other stories with unnamed sources.  They respect him because his stories get confirmed by others down the road.  He is an old-fashioned, shoe leather type reporter.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-01 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

We've just endured two days of flame wars over a false report based on unnamed sources. Now we have two diaries about another issue and both are based on a single unnamed source - a different source in each diary, but still unnamed. Wake me up when there is confirmation either way from a reliable 'named' source.

by MS01 Indie 2008-08-01 09:35AM | 0 recs
There is a big difference

No one is attacking Hillary Clinton's character.  

She has every right to be on the ballot if she wants.  Discussing the implications if she is on the ballot at the convention is standard fare of a political blog that leans toward or supports the Democratic Party.  

I am surprised you don't see the distinction.

by Blue Neponset 2008-08-01 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: There is a big difference

The two diaries that have just been posted are not about whether she should or should not put her name up. They are about the report in the Daily News. Now, some of the discussion is about whether she should put her name forward, but a lot of the comments are about who's report is more reliable - alegre's or the Daily News. All I'm pointing out is that neither one should be considered reliable. They both use a single unnamed source for their claims. You will have to forgive me for not trusting either report wholeheartedly.

by MS01 Indie 2008-08-01 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: There is a big difference

If I have to choose between an angry blogger and a large daily newspaper I will go with the newspaper.  

It may turn out both sources are wrong and Clinton hasn't made a decision yet, but I see nothing at all wrong with reporting this story.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-08-01 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: There is a big difference

I see nothing wrong in reporting the Daily News article. I see everything wrong with starting a flame war over it. Both diaries are written as if the case is closed on the subject. Both diaries call out the other side. Both articles are written in such a way as to almost guarantee a flame war in the comment threads. All of this based on 'unnamed' sources.

I'm going to exercise my right to not get involved in the flame war. There will be plenty of time to discuss whether or not Hillary should put her name forward once we have confirmation one way or the other on this report.

by MS01 Indie 2008-08-01 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

catfish2... gotta say, your credibility is getting spanked in this thread. I note multiple instances of refusing to answer questions by either ignoring them or changing the topic.

the fact that others are able to pull up your posts over at the other blog to compare them to what you are saying here makes you look foolish at best.

And, uh, what exactly do you mean you are an undecided Dem voter?

Personally I have always found the practice of pimping for reccs here on other sites to be pretty lame. Was when Al did it, it is now.

I've no idea who is correct in this story, or what Clinton will do. And don't really care. Al has blown her credibility already, an "unnamed source" is also pretty weak, however DeFrank does have a level of credibility. Guess we'll see.

by notedgeways 2008-08-01 10:21AM | 0 recs
Meh

Who cares?  For pete's sake I cannot believe people haven't let go of this.  Right or wrong, good or bad.. Obama is the nominee.  Nothing is going to change that now.

by JustJennifer 2008-08-01 10:37AM | 0 recs
Sheer speculation

If Hillary doesn't deny soon (and officially), that may mean that she is indeed not going to ask for her name to be on the ballot, this is decided or at least being discussed, but she didn't plan to reveal it now.

by french imp 2008-08-01 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

I don't care enough about Hillary to care if she puts in for a ballot or not.

I don't see where it can help anything for her to do so though..

by Darknesse 2008-08-01 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office:

I guess she has to formally request it in writing.

If she does, she'll get her vote.

by Bush Bites 2008-08-01 11:35AM | 0 recs
sigh:

Maybe, just maybe, Hillary will decide to cast her superego aside for the health of her party. Will she? I doubt it.

Her extra baggage is exponentially heavier and more costly than Obama's.She never ceases to amaze me.

by april34fff 2008-08-01 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: sigh:
Oh Lord, does the ignorance never end?
  It is unheard of for a nominee NOT to get a floor vote.  It has nothing to do with her ego.  
by Teacher1956 2008-08-01 12:33PM | 0 recs
Obama is NOT better than this
this is his campaign's dirty tactics which are no surprize.
Now I hear she gets a speech on tuesday about women's vote while surrounded by women.  I think she should tell the DNC to shove it up their collective asses.
by Teacher1956 2008-08-01 12:31PM | 0 recs
What? She's a token now?

She is so much more than just a woman.

by catfish2 2008-08-02 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False

As Alegre says....

LOL!

by John in Chicago 2008-08-01 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

For you Catfish if it's not been posted all ready. I don't have time to read through minutia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8gdU_1MM 44

by Iceblinkjm 2008-08-01 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

If one assumes that the Clinton and Obama campaign are getting along perfectly, there are still thorny issues here to be worked out.  For instance, it's probably the case right now (as mentioned in the Daily News article) that many super delegates who supported Clinton last spring would now like to vote for Obama (just so they can line up behind the nominee).  Similarly, some super delegates who were uncommitted during the entire season would probably prefer it if they didn't have to vote at all (why offend anyone?).

If there's a roll call where Clinton only gets her rump of support, however, that's going to look bad.  These voters might be seen as dead enders (though many, clearly, wouldn't be, eg. Charlie Rangel).  We have no way of knowing how much discord exists on these issues, if any.  I think we do know that Clinton won't do anything to contest the nomination (that issue was resolved many weeks ago).

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-08-01 01:19PM | 0 recs
Hopefully this stunt will get quashed.

If she wants to throw a pity party, she can do it at her own convention.

At the Cheesecake Factory.

by notxjack 2008-08-01 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False

This is very important news.  It means that....she STILL MIGHT WIN!

by Skaje 2008-08-01 04:07PM | 0 recs
No, It's just a symbolic floor vote

and that it's not allowed yet is very divisive.

by catfish2 2008-08-02 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's New York Office: Rumors Are False, S

If she wants her name on the ballot it is up to her to sign a letter requesting it happens.  If she doesn't sign the letter then she has decided not to be on the first ballot.  Why are we making such a big deal of this?  Even she, herself, has stated if it does happen it is just a formality....Geez people lets move on already.

Oh, by the way, if she decides not to sign the letter I hope this will not turn into "Well Obama forced her off the ballot" bullshit...It is totally up to her.

by hootie4170 2008-08-01 05:29PM | 0 recs
DO NOT CARE. DO NOT CARE. DO NOT CARE.

DO NOT CARE. DO NOT CARE. DO NOT CARE.

But for the record, Alegre wouldn't listen to Clinton if she DID say she didn't want to be thrown in, she'd still fight for the vote. So... not exactly the most reliable source.

I keep telling ya, you're starting to head into delusional wingbat territory. You're now SOURCING your news from rumors on your own blog rather than the media. You know who does that? WORLDNETDAILY. Get a grip.

by vcalzone 2008-08-01 11:24PM | 0 recs
You do not care about divisive rumors

or dividing the party? Thought you were a Dem.

by catfish2 2008-08-02 05:54AM | 0 recs
Good job, catfish!

Maybe they'll believe CQPolitics:

While Hillary Rodham Clinton has not made any final decisions about whether she wants to be nominated for president at the Democratic National Convention, a New York Daily News report said she has asked not to be nominated. But some of her supporters continue to press ahead.

Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand said in a statement Friday that Clinton was "100 percent committed to helping Barack Obama become the next president of the United States and realizes there are passionate feelings that remain among many of her supporters." Strand said that no decisions have been made but, when they are, "they will be made collaboratively with Senator Clinton and her staff, the DNC and Senator Obama's campaign."

Toni Alves, a Clinton advocate, said she attended a Clinton fundraiser Thursday in Palo Alto, Calif., where the senator indicated she thought her nomination would be good for party unity. Alves told CQ Politics that Clinton said she wanted her supporters to have their voices heard and her delegates to have the chance to vote for her at the convention.

by psychodrew 2008-08-02 04:43AM | 0 recs
That's the NYDailyNews

The NYDailyNews is unsourced, and the CQPolitics article cites the NYDailyNews.

by catfish2 2008-08-02 05:45AM | 0 recs
Oh I get it

on the web we tend to read the first graph and little else. Thanks drew. Putting her name in nomination will unite the party.

by catfish2 2008-08-02 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: alegre newsflash

hmmmmm CQ article
Didn't see the PUMA's mentioned here..

"they will be made collaboratively with Senator Clinton and her staff, the DNC and Senator Obama's campaign."

Wonder if alegre and catfish will be attending this biggie?

"Bower also said PUMA is holding a closed conference Aug. 8-10 in Washington during which activists will meet to coordinate their strategy for the Democratic National Convention and also to try to secure the final 100 signatures necessary to get Clinton nominated."

by nogo postal 2008-08-02 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: alegre newsflash

It negates the NY Daily News Story and provides some support to Alegre's claim.

by psychodrew 2008-08-02 04:38PM | 0 recs
For Unity, HRC wants her name placed in nomination

Hear Hillary in her own words why she wants her name placed into nomination.

by grlpatriot 2008-08-02 05:55AM | 0 recs
Of course she never says that

but good try anyway.

by JJE 2008-08-02 06:06AM | 0 recs
Does anyone

believe or care about anything catfish says?

How did this make it to the wrecked list?

by JDF 2008-08-02 06:02AM | 0 recs
It was off for a while

but now it's back.  Looks like catfish's pimpng at Alegre's Sewer took a while to have an effect.

by JJE 2008-08-02 06:05AM | 0 recs
Not you

but some people do, much to your chagrin.

by catfish2 2008-08-02 06:33AM | 0 recs
I do.

Catfish has a great deal of courage to come here and express unpopular opinions.

by psychodrew 2008-08-02 04:36PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads