• They have the uncanny ability to really screw up. They have turned great Democrats with incredible resumes into homogenized fake politicians that inspire no passion. Remember how well Hillary did AFTER she limited their roles. They wrecked her campaign just like McCauliff wrecked the DNC.

  • comment on a post Was saving this for when Hillary was declared VP.... over 5 years ago

    night. She was amazing and other than the problem of having a strong willed ex-president in the VP house she was the better choice for VP. I totally blame bad consultants, the DLC and John Kerry for Hillary not walking away with this nomination. Yes John Kerry winning the nomination using the old party machine to pull the nomination from Dean and then fail so miserably against a terrible, unpopular president. It convinced me and alot of the net roots   that the status quo needed to change. The Clintons and their close ties to that party machine hurt her in the primaries.  Yet I suspect (and hope) the new and improved Hillary is here to stay.

  • comment on a post On the popular vote totals over 5 years ago

    is even more invalid. PLEASE stop trying to use such a obviously flawed results to justify a case for the DELEGATES to overturn the results of the sanctioned contests. Yes I know a lot of you folks are NOW against caucuses yet very little complaints were being made until Hillary lost so many of them. This constant refrain that the contests was unfair to Hillary when her surrogates were responsible for their implementation is wrong and dishonest. I expect these arguments from Republicans who want to win at any cost. We were supposed to be better than this

  • on a comment on Florida & May 31st over 5 years ago

    This is HRC surrogates last desperate act. Making bogus disenfranchisement arguments. Lets see if I get this right. The way to remedy the disenfranchisement of voters is to argue that two unsactioned contests with no formalized electioneering or elections processe should be legitimized. So it can be used to convince a large majority of superdelegates to overturn the result of  the 50+ legitimate contests. Yet this is what good democracy is to Hillary and her surrogates. Illegitimate contests combined with the unelecected Superdelegates to overturn the results of over 50 + contests. Pretty shameful that any Democrat is arguing this and even more shameful that she invokes the 2000 election where Gore won the majority of the popular vote legitimately AND the electoral votes.  Its the most dishonest argument yet.

  • on a comment on WV over, next over 5 years ago

    thats wrapping up. I do go to DailyKos there is alot of hate for Hillary and her supporters. This site is the other side of that coin. Yet with the few remaining contests people are getting more frustrated rather than less. Having Jerome posting yet again about the popular vote number HE likes is unlikely to change the outcome. Then comes the inevitable arguments that his numbers are not valid then the counter argument etcc...

    Yet this will probably be decided when Obama obtains the remaining 140 delegates. After that its going to be a hastily convened session by the DNC to seat the Fl and Mi delegates without changing the outcome.

    Then the real ecriminations come because for months we have heard ad nauseum about the disenfranchisment of the voters so at the end of the process we get a bunch of pissed off Democrats

  • on a comment on WV over, next over 5 years ago

    compare Obama to the anti-christ( which they  literally done) or the anger that Obama's supporters have for Hillary supporters I say its gone too far.  It would be one thing if these candidates were diametrically opposite but that ain't the case. It's the end of the nominating process and there is no late moment surge that is likely to change the game. So again why keep going on feeding this notion that by changing a few things here and there Hillary's odds improve dramatically. BO is literally 140 delegates away from the number the  DNC will actually honor. They have shown no will to let the results from two states that defied them from further disrupting the nominating process. Basically no other state delegations have shown a willingness to support HRC view. Where is the huge outcry that Hillary is waiting for?

  • comment on a post WV over, next over 5 years ago

    is hurting the party. Continued anguish on what can be done to salvage her nomination. The utter contempt the Hillary Supporters are showing to the likely nominee. The anger of the Obama supporters over Hillary's unwillingness to abide by the will of the voters. This prolonged bitterness is frustrating Hillary supporters because just like the Obama supporters they know its not impossible for her to win but everyday it gets a little worse and that is what I see. Rather than losing outright she continues a slow long prolonged defeat.

    HRC's defeat continues slowly but inexorably and all this talk about Fl and Mi is about prolonging the death spiral of a doomed campaign. Keeping the  argument  about popular votes about electablity about superdelegates because  is just a way of denying that her campaign will probably be over in the next few weeks. If she chooses to take it further to the convention my belief is that will kill her standing in the party.

    So at this point its hard not to feel sad for all the HRC who have daeir hearts broken little by little every day.

  • comment on a post Nebraska Caucuses Violate the "Spirit" of DNC Rules over 5 years ago

    it is how about changing it. This continuing theme that caucuses are unfair is an issue that keeps coming up. If its so unfair why not make a grassroots efforts to have each state that holds caucuses to change to a primary. I am now living in Minnesota and suggested that to the local party chair. He said he had also tried to change it to a primary but various party leaders but they were not receptive. My guess is that alot of other states would have changed it if they wanted to but the desire is not there. You guys are welcome to try but whining about how unfair it is to your candidate is just a "sore loser" argument. Just like me arguing that the demographics in W. Virginia made it impossible for him to win.

    Otherwise this is a "sore loser" complaint. The  system was set up to choose a nominee. My first choice was Edwards he lost. Quite frankly Hillary was always way down at the bottom of my list. After a living a long time in the South I realized that she rallies the Republican base. I can't prove it but I am positive she will rally the Republican base more than Obama will. It's a gut feeling from over 30 years of living in the South.

    To get back to my point Hillary and all the candidates had the same rules. Hillary suffered from negative press coverage but she benefitted more than any other candidate by having most of the Washington establishment in the Clinton's pocket. Edwards who was the most electable in the GE was constantly having to fight the big money donors, the establishment the Clinton machine. It sucks but he played by the established rules and he lost just like Biden, Dodd, Richardson etc...
    Now Hillary wants to change the rules for Mi and Fl . She wants to "look" at the popular vote she wants a "pause" while she continues to poison the well for Obama. Yes she has poisoned it by legitimizing the white latent racism in the last remaining contests. I don't think she is  a racist I think she is a savvy politician exploiting an issue to win. Its troubling because it damages our nominee and she is okay with the collateral damage.

    So as the end approaches and the bitterness continues. Keep in mind that while this last ditch effort has some benefits its got some pretty large negatives. This site proves that the longer this process continues the more the attitudes are hardening for or against the nominee of the party whether its Obama or Hillary manages the upset.

    And for all the talk about the closeness of the race keep in mind that yet again that does not matter. Because the way our system works the person  with the most votes not the two closest gets the office.  So even if those W. Virginia don't want to vote for Obama in November that does not matter because what matters is that he will have gotten the nomination by the rules established by the party and put together the necessary wins and superdelegates to represent the party in November.

  • on a comment on Delegates matter over 5 years ago

    supporter. It was met with deaf ears. Its wrong to continue soliciting if you are not honest about the likelihood of having a successful nomination.

  • on a comment on Delegates matter over 5 years ago

    as an elder statesman she can truthfully tell her supporters the contest is done for all practical purposes. The people have spoken. Yes while its true there were 2 contests that caused unresolved issues that should not be justification to punish the 48 states that followed the rules. The time for that dissent was last year when Clintons surrogates were establishing the rules and validating the DNC rules. Party unity and healing is needed and Hillary should be working toward that instead of sowing dissent among her supporters. Yes that is what she is currently doing. Giving false hope that she can build a winning majority of delegates and claiming a nebulous electability argument that can't be proven on either side. She can help to win or she can act as a spoiler. Staying in is fine demanding rules changes and trying to force a rules change that slightly increases her chance for a miracle win is selfish

  • on a comment on What happened? over 5 years ago

       * Black voters supported Obama by 87% in OH, and by 90% in IN.

       * White voters supported Obama by 34% in IN, and by 40% in IN.

       * White Democrats moved from Clinton leading by 43% in OH, to Clinton leading by 28% in IN.

       * Liberal voters moved from Clinton leading by 7% in OH to Obama leading by 14% in IN.

       * Conservative voters moved from Obama leading by 5% in OH to Clinton leading by 24% in IN.

    He  seemed to improve in a number of demographics
    Just saying

  • Again that assumes the very generous oil companies pass on %100 of the savings on to you. They are well know for being generous like that

  • 30 mile commute each way
    equals 60 miles
    multiply by 5 days equals 300 miles
    divide by an inefficient gas mileage of 15 miles per gallon and this translates into 20 gallons of gas per week
    Multiply by 18 cents and we get the grand total of $3.60 per week of savings ! or less than  $15.00 a month for 3 months !

    This all assumes that the gas companies pass the savings on to you :)

  • mean the Republicans and the media won't. Currently they are ignoring her but that can and would definitely change

    What Obama wishes he could say

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/050 8/10010.html

    Seems like Barack hands could be a lot dirtier if he really wanted to play in the mud

  • comment on a post Wonder how this will play in IN? over 5 years ago

    foot. Isn't someone going to argue how its good that this comes out now or that the Republicans will use this. Finally its all about electability ... blah blah blah ... Frankly this is the worst kind of politics and it does not matter who does it.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads