They gave her nothing and they will likely get nothing in return.

It's called respect.

It's called compassion.

It's called a token of good will.

It's called throwing someone a bone, and they couldn't do it.  They violated every rule in their own book and yet couldn't find any way to appease, mollify or placate, and neither could he.  It's pathetic.

Why?  Either he has the numbers as implied, and then this is just rubbing salt in the wound, or he didn't and it's theft and deceit.

And speaking of pitiable, concurrent to all this, Obama is quitting his church.  Lo and behold.  No irony there; just the audacity of making a politically expedient change well after it is either expedient or useful politically.  There is no leadership here, just words.  There is no change, just the spineless ambiguity of a supposedly core conviction gone to the pressures of campaign which purported to have the experience and wisdom to bring us all together.

And from everything I have heard said and seen written, there will be no real reaching out; no hard choice by the candidate; no unselfish act to unite the ticket.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-r eardon/the-question-that-cuts-bo_b_10450 1.html

I guess I can tolerate many things, but I can't seem to swallow the holier than thou hypocrisy of this hollow farce.

They gave her nothing and they will likely get nothing in return.
.
.
.
.
.
Of all the further arrogant, misogynistic crap - `won't wait' ... "like a high-school girl" ... "onus on [her]"

Obama Won't Wait for Clinton Concession
May 31, 2008 8:57 PM
ABC News
Teddy Davis & Karen Travers

...  Asked if Obama would wait to get a concession call from Clinton before claiming the nomination, Dunn said the onus was on Clinton now that the Democratic Party has firmed up the number of delegates needed to claim the party's nod.

"He's not going to wait by the phone like a high-school girl waiting for a date," said Dunn.  "That's not Barack Obama"

Tags: delegates, Florida, Michigan (all tags)

Comments

124 Comments

Members of the congregation were receiving threats

on calls to their homes, and they were being harassed by the press as well. That's why Obama left his congregation so they could be left alone in peace.

by slinkerwink 2008-05-31 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Quits church

I am sorry.  I guess the timing had nothing to do with Michael Pfleger, and the issues for his former congregation were unforeseeable a month ago.

by Liame 2008-05-31 09:28PM | 0 recs
He officially lost moral high ground

this was the turning point, will take time for people to notice. His reasons for quitting the church were so puzzling. But "I don't renounce the church, there's nothing worth renouncing" will come back to bite him.

by catfish2 2008-05-31 09:31PM | 0 recs
Look!

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-31 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Look!

You're a baaad man. Lol.

by catilinus 2008-05-31 10:18PM | 0 recs
It's good we all can enjoy simple pleasures

I hope your not saying that the John in this campaign is going to flush our bad-ass cat.

by Liame 2008-05-31 10:32PM | 0 recs
Re: He officially lost moral high ground

There is nothing to renounce in that church is is in fact a tremendous place.  If you are at all a progressive you should take heart in the fact that someone like the Rev. Wright will hold Barack to his promises.  The Rev Wright treated Aids patience with more than just ministry before our president would mention the word.  He also called the Bush administration the damnable lie it actually is.

God bless Barack in his search for a new church home as I'm sure he will.  

by Adept2u 2008-06-01 05:20AM | 0 recs
Solomonic Compromise

As I have said elsewhere in this set of threads and in earlier diaries and comments, the Solomonic Compromise would have been to halve the pledged delegates, but through enforcing the no campaigning rules and using the uncommitted vote, fashion a result which would have maintained the same pledged delegate differential as would have existed if the states had not been sanctioned.  The voters and candidates were not the parties being sanctioned; it was the states.

I would love to hear your reply.

by Liame 2008-05-31 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Solomonic Compromise

That doesn't make any sense - keeping the same differential if you half the delegates, would mean taking delegates away from Obama.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-31 11:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Solomonic Compromise

The 2008 DNC rules proscribe certain punitive measures that can be taken against the states.  This process, as far as I can tell, is not meant to be punitive to either the voters or the candidates.

Maintaining the same differential maintains the will of the voters and is punitive to neither candidate.

2008 DNC rules
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/dem ocratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2 008delegateselectionrules.pdf

by Liame 2008-06-01 12:22AM | 0 recs
Oh thank God for Saint Obama.

That poor church.  Those poor people.  Poor pitiful Obama.

And not a kind word to the victim of the slander and slurs.  Not a mention to the person who was the focus of all that hate.

Go to hell.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-31 10:20PM | 0 recs
A callus oversight

Being able to show remorse and apologize is a sign of maturity.  Perhaps you missed that.  I had not noticed that Obama failed to make an apology to Clinton.  If he did forget, then that was a callus oversight.

by Liame 2008-05-31 10:46PM | 0 recs
He had to apologize

for knowing someone who said something bad about her?

Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.

by Rorgg 2008-05-31 11:33PM | 0 recs
It is just good form.

It is just good form.  Plus the relationship to his campaign was a little less casual than you imply.

by Liame 2008-06-01 12:25AM | 0 recs
knowing? how about friends for close to 20 yrs and

giving over $200,000 taxpayer dollars to this racist hate monger! What about Axelrod doing a documentary on this guy?

by suzieg 2008-06-01 05:24AM | 0 recs
He did apologize...

So did Pfleger.

by nklein 2008-05-31 11:51PM | 0 recs
Re: He did apologize...

Good for Michael Pfleger.

by Liame 2008-06-01 12:33AM | 0 recs
Does that ameliorate your attitude towards either

of them?

by nklein 2008-06-01 01:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Does that ameliorate your attitude

Having empathy is certainly important.  It doesn't change the political nature of the timing of his leaving the congregation, which was one of the points of my diary.

by Liame 2008-06-01 02:15AM | 0 recs
Obama didn't apologize to Clinton...

he said he was sorry his campaign has hurt his church.

Dooh!!!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-06-01 05:48AM | 0 recs
That was in a different statement regarding...

a different issue.  And if you knew of the comment than you knew that.  He said that he was very disappointed in those remarks.  Coyote, I know that you were up in arms when Obama's campaign called Clinton's RFK comment unfortunate.  You said that Obama was playing dirty politics by so maligning an innocent comment (paraphrasing).  Now that Obama uses similar language to dismiss Pfleger's remarks they are too weak.

by nklein 2008-06-01 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh thank God for Saint Obama.

Feck off, Coyote.  You pathetic whiner.

Damned  That felt good.

by LtWorf 2008-06-01 12:38AM | 0 recs
Thankfully only God

Can send people to hell, that being said your attitude may send you there.  Can you describe how anyone has been victimized by Trinity?

by Adept2u 2008-06-01 05:22AM | 0 recs
you mean to tell us that your blind support

for Obama stops you for seeing a nest of complicit racists in that church?

by suzieg 2008-06-01 05:26AM | 0 recs
i've actually been to Trinity

And I attend a church just like it, and there is nothing racist about it.  Perhaps you'd like to share what you think is racist.  I feel racism=power+bigotry+prejuidice.  The message of that church and ours is racial reconciliation.  

My support for Obama is irrelevant as he could suffer a stroke tommorrow, and I would still need my church.

by Adept2u 2008-06-01 05:40AM | 0 recs
Obama conceded with Michigan

He had the votes to split it 50/50 on the committee, but the campaign went with the 69/59 plan because they felt it would be more fair to Senator Clinton.

He could've split it 50/50 but he didn't.

by slinkerwink 2008-05-31 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama conceded with Michigan

my advice, for what its worth, is to just let them vent for the next 3-4 days.  They are pissed, and probably rightfully so.  Give them time to sort out their feelings.

by Xris 2008-05-31 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama conceded with Michigan

Thanks.

These are my and perhaps other's feelings.  It is unlikely that they will change dramatically, but I appreciate the gesture of good will.

by Liame 2008-05-31 11:10PM | 0 recs
They took 4 delegates from her, gave to him

You might not want to bring attention to Michigan.

by catfish2 2008-05-31 09:28PM | 0 recs
Yeah, and the State Party...

...and Carl Levin asked for that outcome.

Now, let's grant that this isn't fair. Let's suppose that they split the difference, giving Clinton 73 delegates and Obama 55.

Do you honestly expect me to believe that people wouldn't be screaming fake outrage the way they are now?

Of course they would. Because the committee didn't just kiss Senator Clinton's ass, there's going to be some BS thing or another for Harold Ickes to protest over.

This isn't about votes. This isn't about democracy. This is about Senator Clinton's game of brinksmanship.

Don't be a pawn.

by maxomai 2008-05-31 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, and the State Party...

Winning with class means making the losing team feel like a winner as well.

This was classless, as is your comment.

Sure he may have complaigned, but I wouldn't have.  I am about as even keeled and as close to the classic Oboma supporter demographic as they come.

This was a slapdown.  It will have consequences.

You should be more unhappy about it than I.  You're not; what does that say?

by Liame 2008-05-31 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, and the State Party...

Winning with class means making the losing team feel like a winner as well.

I'm sorry that I don't have time to pamper the feelings of a bunch of wound up thugs who divide their time between circulating crazy theories and making noises about how they're going to vote for McCain.

You should be more unhappy about it than I.  You're not; what does that say?

I don't know what it tells you, but for me, it is a manifestation of the fact that I've heard enough bullshit for one year. Particularly from falsely so-called Democrats.

by maxomai 2008-05-31 10:02PM | 0 recs
Jollies. Let's browbeat them into joining us.

Hence the issues with uniting the party.

by Liame 2008-05-31 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, and the State Party...
"Winning with class means making the losing team feel like a winner as well." What if the losing team doesn't feel like feeling like a winner in any case? Do you mean that you can win with class only if your opponent has class?
by french imp 2008-06-01 02:13AM | 0 recs
Winning with class.

No, but your overtures need to be authentic and meaningful.

by Liame 2008-06-01 02:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning with class.
They were what the MI democratic party was asking for. Do you mean that the MI democratic party (which is pro-Clinton) made inauthentic and meaningless proposals? Do you want to disenfranchize it?
by french imp 2008-06-01 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama conceded with Michigan

His compassion and goodwill know no bounds.

She should have left that room with the same differential she would have received had the states not been sanctioned.  It would have cost him nothing.

Either that or the rules should have been applied to the letter for all of the states and each campaigns misconducts.

This could have been a moment to begin healing; it was not, it was a farse disguised as 'the best we could do under the circumstances'.

by Liame 2008-05-31 09:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama conceded with Michigan

Traditionally and consistently Hillary Clinton has been using victories (no matter how small) as an instigation to prolong the fight even further.

So your argument doesn't really hold. If they gave her the whole bone as you say -- Hillary & her supporters would be all "Now to Denver for victory!"

And if they did not, they'd be "Now to Denver to destroy you!"

So there's a dilemma. As a solution they gave her something. The halved delegates, and the compromise Michigan state itself proposed. They hoped it would be enough to allow Clinton to accept it and reconciliate, but not enough to give people false hopes to the point where Hillary would be using it (as she used the miniscule Texas victory, as she used the miniscule Indiana victory) as an argument to prolong the fight.

Obviously they failed and Hillary was going to bring it to Denver regardless.

That's what they get for trying to make nice with Hillary.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-06-01 12:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Dilemma

Her campaign's results since Texas have been anything but miniscule.  To imply so is somewhat dishonest.

It is a historically precedented right to campaign up through the convention.  I am not necessarily supporting that, but it is true, none-the-less.

Regarding the "dilemma": I was unaware that, at this point, the Obama campaign and likely victory were so very fragile, that maintaining the un-punitive differential would put it in jeopardy, and the awarding of half delegations had little to do with the campaigns and a lot to do with not further alienating the critical swing states and voters of Florida and Michigan.  There was no being nice to the Clinton campaign noticeable in the decision made.

by Liame 2008-06-01 12:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Dilemma

"Her campaign's results since Texas have been anything but miniscule.  To imply so is somewhat dishonest"

Did she cut down on his lead, in any significant manner? If not, then by definition "miniscule results".

"unaware that, at this point, the Obama campaign and likely victory were so very fragile, that maintaining the un-punitive differential would put it in jeopardy"

Let's cut this "so fragile" crap. We both know how far ahead Obama is in delegates.

The point is that your argument of how "to make nice with Hillary Clinton" is illogical. If they'd given everything to Clinton (but necessarily halved) and punished Obama, then Clinton would merely take it to Denver to double her reward, and to double Obama's punishment as well.

"There was no being nice to the Clinton campaign noticeable in the decision made."

To validate Florida and Michigan in any manner was being nice to Clinton.

But Clinton was arguing that all 55 Michigan unconfirmed superdelegates should remain in play for her, she was arguing that there should be no halving, she was arguing that everything was spiffy -- so at this point there's no reconciliation possible with her. We ought crown her Queen of the  Universe or she'd take it to Denver.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-06-01 07:03AM | 0 recs
If a county election official had given Clinton's

votes to Obama, he would be arrested!

by itsadryheat 2008-05-31 10:11PM | 0 recs
A good analogy.

by Liame 2008-05-31 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: If a county election official had given Clinto

How do you feel about the 18% of Clinton voters that were Obama supporters, as per the exit polls?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-31 11:37PM | 0 recs
Re: If a county election official had given ,,,

I feel about the same way as I do about the caucus vs. primary results.

I would have awarded them as uncommitted delegates but selected those delegates in a way that was likely to replicate the results of the preferences for candidates who had tactically / voluntarily removed their names from the ballots.   A certain number of voters selected Clinton and that is unambiguous; a certain number did not and that in unambiguous; the uncommitted you do the best you can to be fair, without indicating that a poll is reflective of an actual primary vote.

by Liame 2008-06-01 01:08AM | 0 recs
Have RBC give Clinton half the caucus dels

delegates since she hardly campaigned in the caucus states.  Obama got delegates when he declined to run at all.  She should get at least half the caucus delegates.  And in all of the states with primaries and caucuses, she should get the delegates  from the Primaries and the popular vote.  The RBC can give Obama the pop vote from the caucuses.

by itsadryheat 2008-06-02 09:13PM | 0 recs
Is this snark?

seriously,

Is this snark?

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-31 09:25PM | 0 recs
Smoot smote snark.

Nope, it's a smoot.  And this resolution came up many smoots short.

by Liame 2008-05-31 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: They gave her nothing and they will likely get

Its called the best judgment one can get from a terminally flawed and b.s. sham of an election.

Its not the Committee's job to make Hillary or her supporters feel better. Its their job to determine the fairest outcome in a situation that didn't have one.

The sense of entitlement is astounding. No wonder those protesters acted like children - you're spoiled and demanding someone kiss your behinds.

Its 4 delegates. Its not going to make a difference one way or the other. But the fact you're going to throw a spoiled brat tantrum over them, taking it as a personal slight? Absolutely ridiculous.

Have fun venting out your anger. You're going to have one hell of an embarrassment hangover when its out of your system.

by upstate girl 2008-05-31 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: They gave her nothing and they will likely get

The fairest outcome, and one that everyone would have been hard pressed to argue with a straight face and without loosing more than they could possibly hope to gain, would have been for her to leave that room with the same delegate differential that she would have had if the states had not been sanctioned.

This was an Obama belly rub.

by Liame 2008-05-31 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: They gave her nothing and they will likely get

She did, plus or minus 4 votes. Its almost absurdly in line with your own personal definition of "fair". That you're still acting this childish over the symbolism of 4 votes when it doesn't change a damn thing, on top of the sheer hypocrisy of wanting a rules and bylaws committee to make a judgment according to Hillary (read: your) precious feelings, is pretty telling where your head is - firmly wrapped up in loving your own victimization.

by upstate girl 2008-05-31 10:05PM | 0 recs
Perhaps you relish the divides a little too much

No.  They gave her half of the difference (some uncommitted estimates), plus or minus four.  They should have given her all of the difference had the states been unsanctioned.

Symbolism is important.  Obama himself would, on any other day, say that with great verve.  It would have been magnanimous, but it was not to happen and shows yet again how paper-thin his veil may be.

That's the sad state of these affairs, as is your comment about "on top of the sheer hypocrisy of wanting a rules and bylaws committee to make a judgment according to Hillary (read: your) precious feelings, is pretty telling where your head is - firmly wrapped up in loving your own victimization".

I wanted the healing to begin.  By any measure, it has not.  He and they missed their opportunity.

Why aren't you upset even more than me?  Perhaps you relish the divides between the constituencies a little too much.

by Liame 2008-05-31 11:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps you relish the divides a little too mu

PLease explain in delegates - because this makes no sense to me.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-31 11:38PM | 0 recs
Maintain the differential example.

I don't have actual pre-punative numbers for the two states.

FOR EXAMPLE ONLY --

If for Florida 186 delegates prior to punitive measures, as an example, of which 105 pledged delegates for Clinton and 67 for Obama, then after halving the pledged delegates I would have maintained a 38 delegate differential between Clinton and Obama.

If for Michigan 128 delegates prior to punitive measures, as an example, of which 70 pledged delegates for Clinton [55%] and 58 uncommitted delegates [45%] (of which 43 could be reasonably argued for Obama [74%] and 15 for Edwards [26%]), then after halving the pledged delegates, and assuming all the Edwards delegates were supportive of Obama, I would have maintained a 12 delegate differential between Clinton and Obama.

Combined this would be a 50 delegate margin rather than the 24 as a result of the committees decision.  The difference is like giving the Obama campaign the entire state of New Mexico uncontested.

by Liame 2008-06-01 02:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Maintain the differential example.

But your solution would require taking delegates away from Barack - sorry, that is ridiculous.

by interestedbystander 2008-06-01 04:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps you relish the divides a little too mu

So, you're openly stating that its not the actual fairness of the decision, but that they should have given her those four delegates - and even past that, Obama should have insisted that they be given to her?

That's like saying not only should someone benefit from breaking the rules, but that they should be given more than what they already are unfairly getting because they're still going to come in second place. That's some sore-loser tactics.

And the pure chutzpah of holding that up as a price for unity is just slimy. You or anyone else with that mindset doesn't have other concerns they're basing their vote on? Are people supposed to applaud this gesture? I'm not saying this an an Obama supporter, I'm saying this as an adult that's more than a little appalled at this kind of behavior from other adults.

by upstate girl 2008-06-01 12:38AM | 0 recs
Perhaps you relish the divides a little too much

I think you're confused, the Clinton campaign didn't break any rules.  If rules were broken, then it was by Florida and/or Michigan.

I am saying that a third party shouldn't be punished as part of the process, if possible (voters and campaigns).

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Perhaps you misunderstand the matter at hand.

(see above ... its not about four delegates)

by Liame 2008-06-01 02:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps you relish the divides a little too mu

To try and get a little perspective on where this talking point is coming from, I zipped over to Taylor Marsh's site and lo and behold:

Let me enlighten you. Senator Obama is ahead in delegates. A gracious split of Michigan would not have jeopardized his lead. But instead, the RBC, in your infinite wisdom, decided to adjust the delegates just enough to infuriate the entire Clinton contingent that is now set on Defcon Activist Revenge.

The perception problem created is beyond comprehension. Honestly, you have no idea the fuse that's now been lit. But to give you an idea. I'm in the minority on my own blog when it comes to pushing back against a McCain presidency. This didn't happen because of anything Clinton did, my friends. You all cemented it all by yourselves. Oh, with the help of some eager, power hungry people thinking they can push the Clintons out of the Democratic Party and take over without half of the people who support the Clintons signing on. Good luck with that one. Trust me, everyone knows what's really going on.

Does this accurately sum up the jist of things? Because I'm seeing a lot of overly emotional, irrational things in these paragraphs. She freely admits its about perception. Any supporters that have the perception that this will be perceived as a slight against Clinton by the general public is mistaken, so you can stop worrying about that. But I have the feeling its not about that - Taylor doesn't seem to think so. Its about the perception of being slighted that you're projecting onto it. Everyone else is just happy its over and done with and we can move the hell on. The single-minded absorption over how this all revolves around a tiny subset of outraged supporters is ridiculous. And the revenge talk is truly childish. I'd expect this kind of mindset out of a junior high schooler, not grown women.

by upstate girl 2008-06-01 12:59AM | 0 recs
Completely off base

Any supporters that have the perception that this will be perceived as a slight against Clinton by the general public is mistaken"

Let's watch the narrative over the next twenty-four hours and then we'll see what the general perception is.  Your discounting of Clinton supporter's concern about both the perception and reality may be naive.

You're also completely off base with the following statement on multiple fronts: "And the revenge talk is truly childish. I'd expect this kind of mindset out of a junior high schooler, not grown women."

Perhaps you should rethink that statement or find some collaborating evidence.

by Liame 2008-06-01 02:40AM | 0 recs
As a 61 yr old woman, she's doing a heck of a

job winning me over - the arrogance of taking for granted the millions of Clinton supporters who just don't like Obama - yes, there are people who just don't like him and will never vote for him because he just does not represent what we are looking for in a candidate but calling us school girls because we do not rise to your enlightment  frankly is despicable!

by suzieg 2008-06-01 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: As a 61 yr old woman, she's doing a heck of a

You don't care about being won over and if an anonymous person on the Internet is your hinge for that - instead of policy or political reality - then who cares, really? I'm not going to tell you your attitude is something to be proud of just so your ego gets flattered in exchange for your possible support that you're not willing to give anyway. Acting like people have to praise you in order for you to throw your support behind a candidate is childish. I've seen plenty of adult women your age that act like 5 year olds - like that video of Harriet Christian.

by upstate girl 2008-06-01 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Too vitriolic.

"
don't care
who cares
your attitude
ego gets flattered
have to praise
childish
act like 5 year olds
"

How about trying to use a more positive tone, rather than reacting negatively in your posts.  For example, your previous post might have said:

'I would be much more inclined to debate policy or political reality with you than to get caught up in all the emotional baggage involved in these two campaigns.'

... just a suggestion.

by Liame 2008-06-01 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: They gave her nothing and they will likely get

Ludicrous assertion. The fairest outcome would have been for Michigan's delegates to count for exactly what everyone said they were going to count for they day of the primary: Nothing.

The only reason Michigan or Florida are having their delegates seated at all is political expediency. So how can you possibly expect anything but a politically expedient compromise?

by nathanp 2008-06-01 01:40AM | 0 recs
Lost opportunity likely further deepens the divide

This is an insightful comment.  Nevertheless, it was a lost opportunity for the Obama campaign to reach to the Clinton campaign supporters and it will likely further deepen the divide.

by Liame 2008-06-01 02:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Lost opportunity likely further deepens the di

I seriously doubt there is anything the Obama team could say or do to win over the diehard Hillary supporters - if the ones protesting yesterday were anything to go by.  They hate Obama - they aren't reachable, and they will shortly be irrelevant.

by interestedbystander 2008-06-01 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: They gave her nothing and they will likely get

its not the Committee's job to make Hillary or her supporters feel better.

its not?  
then why was the word unity thrown around at the meeting 934 times?  seems to me like unity only happens when multiple parties agree to be unified.

by canadian gal 2008-05-31 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: They gave her nothing and they will likely get

They weren't trying to make anyone feel better, and I have no idea why you're trying to make that concept read like that. They were trying, hoping against hope apparently, that certain parties in attendance would start acting like adults instead of childish, emotionally unstable wrecks of self-absorption. I'm left to assume that appealing to their more mature, better natures didn't work because they had no such thing to appeal to.

by upstate girl 2008-05-31 10:08PM | 0 recs
lol...

maybe senator obama should ask you to be a part of his team to help unify the party.  with the language you use - it will certainly be kumbaya!

by canadian gal 2008-05-31 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: lol...

Frankly, I'm not worried about a few hundred people that went off the deep end and behaved like children. I'm not going to kiss their behinds either for their behavior - its disgusting. What's to coddle up to? That kind of behavior? No thanks. Grow up, sober up, gain some perspective, and come back and behave like an adult.

by upstate girl 2008-05-31 10:30PM | 0 recs
Re: lol...

Our postings at least begin to show a level of control.

"
deep end
children
kiss their behinds
coddle up to
grow up
sober up
gain some perspective
behave like an adult
"

Perhaps you should read what I/we are saying and not leap into hysterics that we have not expressed.  As is, you do yourself no favors.

Replying to the heart of our concerns would be a much more mature means of reaching out to unite the two constituencies.

Thanks Canadian_gal for your thoughts.

by Liame 2008-05-31 11:21PM | 0 recs
Re: lol...

If canadian gal wants to explain why she apparently thinks is is the committee's job to make Clinton feel better, by all means, contribute. She's not putting forth anything but a misplaced sense of entitlement, and if she expects people in general to continue to tiptoe around mentioning that attitude is more than a little tiresome, then she's in for an adjustment period.

I find the sentiments that this rules and bylaws committee somehow owed Clinton - or Obama - more than what was delivered, childish. Your personal interpretation of "fair" out of the numerous versions floated for primary contests that weren't even supposed to count isn't the be-all and end-all.  There was no ruling possible that would make everyone happy because the actual contests were so flawed that they weren't supposed to count in the first place - except for the entitlement and victimization of a minority of individuals that pushed this to become something it was never supposed to be.

And even now, that its finally over, you're rending garments over 4 delegates because you feel it was a personal affront? A gesture of appeasement that went undelivered? That's astoundingly self-centered.

by upstate girl 2008-06-01 12:30AM | 0 recs
See above for the example you requested.

See above for the example you requested.  It's not four delegates.  That would be petty.

by Liame 2008-06-01 02:50AM | 0 recs
Re: lol...

UpstateGirl, you sure have a fiery personality, and perhaps some diary history with CanadianGal of which I am unaware.  I am not sure whether to duck and weave or to grab a bottle of wine.

Thanks for your feedback.

Liame

by Liame 2008-06-01 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: lol...

Ok - let's take you at your word.  What exactly could an Obama supporter say to you now that would help move you towards supporting our nominee?  Because from the tone of your diary I highly doubt you are willing to entertain any overtures - in which case it is dishonest of you to criticize others for their tone.  I for one am sick of responding to belligerent diaries, only to be told I'm not helping win the diarist over to Obama.

by interestedbystander 2008-06-01 04:50AM | 0 recs
Re: The perfect storm.

To answer your thoughtful question about "What exactly could an Obama supporter say to [me] now that would help move [me] towards supporting our nominee?"  The more Obama supporters can truly acknowledge Obama's weaknesses and the concerns of his detractors as to the importance of those weaknesses, even if you disagree somewhat, the quicker a positive dialog will begin that will increase potential supporter confidence.

Ultimately though, Obama is going to have to make a difficult and timely decision.  And I think it will be the most important one of his campaign and political career to date.  He must decide whether or not to offer Clinton the Vice Presidency, with all the risk and ire and value that such a decision will likely bring.

Lots of other names can be surfaced, many of which I many like better as a general election candidate than either of the two Democratic candidates remaining.  As a leader he should recognize that there is only, in my humble opinion, one genuine decision.  Is he willing to step into the eye of the perfect storm and lead the Democratic party with a unity ticket and the chance of a true mandate for the future?  If he is not, then perhaps he is not who we want him to be.

You could support him doing so.  I certainly do.

Talk about frying some circuits in the party establishment's network.

by Liame 2008-06-01 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: The perfect storm.

I'm pretty sure he has already made that decision - I would be amazed if he offered Hillary the VP.  Apart from the fact of the obvious lack of chemistry and trust between them, it would be very hard for Obama to make his change message work with an establishment VP.

by interestedbystander 2008-06-01 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: The perfect storm.

... not a very strong character reference for him.

If he can't work something out with her, then how about with someone that has real policy differences and is truly hostile.

Sounds like a recipe for a more of the same, thin on experience, get nothing done, can't bridge differences administration.  You have, perhaps inadvertently, reconfirmed my hesitancy.

by Liame 2008-06-01 02:51PM | 0 recs
but then you find it acceptable that your

candidate was part of a church which did the very same thing for 20+ yrs!

by suzieg 2008-06-01 05:46AM | 0 recs
Anita Dunn is female

the person quoted in the article is female - Anita Dunn.  

I guess she hates women.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-31 09:27PM | 0 recs
Women can be sexist

and blacks can be racist.

by catfish2 2008-05-31 09:29PM | 0 recs
....and leon is getting larger!

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-31 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: ....and leon is getting larger!

Wicked, wicked man. I demand you clean the coffee I spit out off my monitor. And tell Leon, oh, forget it.

I don't know why you continue making light on what is, apparently, the end of days....

by catilinus 2008-05-31 10:23PM | 0 recs
Racism=power+bigotry+prejuidice

Im not sure how many black people you know who think themselves better than whites, don't like whites, and then have the power to do something about it.  There may be some, but is certainly isn't impeding the white race at all in this country.  

by Adept2u 2008-06-01 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Racism=power+bigotry+prejuidice

Oy, that's a lost cause there my friend.

The fact that power is a necessary component of racism is completely lost on a lot of people here.

by minnesotaryan 2008-06-01 06:13AM | 0 recs
Anita Dunn is female and that changes what?

Please reread what was said.  It was not good, especially in this political climate.

by Liame 2008-05-31 11:23PM | 0 recs
It looked to me like

you were applying more "Obama is sexist" paint to the brush.

"misogynist" is an incredibly loaded term to used, especially given a fairly common metaphor, and most especially when it was given by another woman.

by Neef 2008-06-01 01:17AM | 0 recs
Choose a more descriptive word or turn of phrase

Even this red blooded, argumentative, sob thought it was in pretty poor taste

Why don't you choose a more descriptive word or turn of phrase for the imagery promoted.

by Liame 2008-06-01 02:57AM | 0 recs
HuffPo is still hating on Hillary?

What a surprise. Zza Zza needs something to talk about!

by catfish2 2008-05-31 09:29PM | 0 recs
Knock, knock.

Lanny Davis, is that you?

by MJJLWolf 2008-05-31 09:37PM | 0 recs
Lanny Davis?

This makes no connection for me.  Enlighten me.

by Liame 2008-05-31 11:26PM | 0 recs
Lots of emotional rants and NO substance

All parties including Clinton agreed FL and MI weren't going to count. Clinton was not only silent about this issue prior to falling behind, she SUPPORTED IT. She was expecting to win so she didn't care.

After falling behind she throws this big stink over MI and FL, drawing a line in the sand dividing C and O supporters even further.

So for the purpose of unity the DNC agrees to change the rules late in the 4th quarter.

ALL CANDIDATES agreed to receive ZERO delegates from Florida and Michigan. The time to fight about it was before the Primaries.

She gained net delegates when in fact she was supposed to receive none. That's not a bone?

Anything short of Clinton winning the nomination and you're probably going to keep beating the "not fair" drum no matter what.  

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-31 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: To the Rant, Snark and Troll boogeymen

Did I just miss something?  This committee just stepped all over the rules.

2008 DNC rules
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/dem ocratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2 008delegateselectionrules.pdf

The new allocation of the Michigan delegates to reflect the polls is a no-brainer, in-your-face, completely obvious example that the rules were out the window.  Now I'm not a believer in mindlessly following the rules, but lets get real with what happened.

You need to get your facts straight and avoid unfounded attacks, "you're probably going to keep beating the "not fair" drum no matter what" as a means of substantiating a poor argument.

If the Obama campaign was confident enough, then they would have thrown her the whole bone, probably, and maybe even rightfully, hoping she would choke on it.  They were not and did not.

by Liame 2008-05-31 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: To the Rant, Snark and Troll boogeymen

And I would add that in a true competition, nobody wants to be "thrown a bone".  Maybe that works for some, but not for me, and I'm pretty sure not or someone as tough as Hill either.  Why would you want that for her?  How does that do anything for the Clinton legacy?

by Chelseain32 2008-05-31 10:55PM | 0 recs
The bone is a beginning, not the end

This is not about Clinton.  It's about the other fifty percent of the people who voted in the Democratic primaries.

The stray dog first gets a bone, then a plate of real meat (hopefully red), and finally a scratch behind the ears.  If one goes for the scratch directly, one is likely to, not only, get bitten, but never catch the dog.

The bone is a beginning, not the end.

by Liame 2008-05-31 11:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The bone is a beginning, not the end

...is this really the analogy you want to use for the Clinton campaign? I'll run with it if you want, but if I'm calling Hillary and the rest of you a hungry stray dog, I can't imagine there aren't people who are going to find it insulting.

by nathanp 2008-06-01 01:46AM | 0 recs
Re: The bone is a beginning, not the end

We are certainly stray from `the good ship Obama'.  I'm thick skinned; bring on the imagery.

by Liame 2008-06-01 03:00AM | 0 recs
Re: The bone is a beginning, not the end

Someone on myDD with a thick skin?  Wonder of wonders! :)

by minnesotaryan 2008-06-01 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: To the Rant, Snark and Troll boogeymen

Yes because disagreeing with Clinton supporters makes someone a rant-snark-troll-boogeyman.

The new allocation of the Michigan delegates to reflect the polls is a no-brainer, in-your-face, completely obvious example that the rules were out the window.  Now I'm not a believer in mindlessly following the rules, but lets get real with what happened.

Yes, let's get real. What is the purpose of having the allocation of delegates reflect what's on the ballot? The collective tallies of what's on the paper is presumed to reflect the will of all voters.

How many people voted for Clinton because their preferred candidate wasn't on the ballot? "Uh, gee. I don't know." How many willing and able voters stayed home because Clinton and Co. told them their vote wouldn't count? "Uh, gee. I don't know." Etc.

So now we have a problem. Seating no delegates whatsoever DOES keep with the rules. And the "direct reflection" of the ballot means jack shit when it's most definitely not a direct reflection of voter intent. And yet the DNC still agreed to seat the Clinton-only delegates in Michigan for the purposes of unity. And to try to put out fires caused by her scorched earth policies.

You need to get your facts straight and avoid unfounded attacks

You're right. I should just call someone a troll when they disagree with me.

If the Obama campaign was confident enough, then they would have thrown her the whole bone

Yeah, OK. The Obama campaign isn't confident they're going to win. Seriously.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-01 07:22AM | 0 recs
Haha

At the speed of light the faux outrage begins regarding the phone call quote.

Sorry, but that is just too funny.  You must be a Hillary "supporter" cause you have just fallen straight into your own cliche.

by Sychotic1 2008-05-31 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: They gave her nothing

I would be more sympathetic if Senator Clinton had lifted a finger, or said a single word, to prevent these sanctions.

She did not.

Why won't you Clinton supporters acknowledge that?  Harold Ickes, her mouthpiece at the meeting today voted for those sanctions.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-31 09:53PM | 0 recs
No reconciliation for the masses!

You haven't figured it out yet.  It isn't about her.  It's about us, the othe fifty percent of Democratic primary voters.

She's a `pol' and has as much mud on her as all the rest.  But we new that already didn't we.

Unfortunately, he has shown himself to be not much better.

by Liame 2008-05-31 10:22PM | 0 recs
Re: No reconciliation for the masses!

I don't understand why you rail on both candidates and yet seem so surprised by this result?  What was Hillary owed?  And why???  I think this plays into the whole notion of entitlement that so many felt about her campaign.  

You say he is "not much better", but his campaign ended up being just that.  The RBC rulings today had nothing to do with that though... make no mistake about that.

My folks and I watched it together and though we felt the people in the crowd that were Hillary supporters were at times rude, they didn't make the difference.  Neither did Mr. Ickes and partisan politics.  In the end, it just came down to the rules and the DNC doing the right thing.  

Let's hope they don't need to do it again!

by Chelseain32 2008-05-31 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: No reconciliation for the masses!

I am a realist and try and view the candidates in as unbiased a manner as possible.  I have no problem with someone supporting Obama because they can have acknowledge his flaws and truthfully say and defend that he more closely matches their values and positions.  It is the obfuscation that bothers me.

Regarding the rules, don't be deceived; the rules were not followed as best as I can tell, and I'm neither a slouch nor overly rule-bound.

2008 DNC rules
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/dem ocratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2 008delegateselectionrules.pdf

by Liame 2008-05-31 11:48PM | 0 recs
Re: No reconciliation for the masses!

What about supporting Obama after next week because he's the party's presumptive nominee?  I mean, obviously he's very good on a lot of issues that I care about...I feel like you might be trying to view him in some kind of vacuum rather than in comparison with, oh, I don't know, perhaps his republican counterpart?

Fact of the matter is, Clinton lost this election by not campaigning enough in Obama's strong states, allowing him to rack up an insurmountable pledged delegate lead and many supers have said they'll go with the pledged delegate leader.  Even Hillary's huge wins in West Virginia and Kentucky ultimately pale in comparison with Obama's February streak of blowouts.

If you think the RBC decision was a bad one, fine, but just keep in mind that Hillary wouldn't have won it anyway.  She lost back in February.

by minnesotaryan 2008-06-01 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: No reconciliation for the masses!

She's a `pol' and has as much mud on her as all the rest.  But we new that already didn't we.

Unfortunately, he has shown himself to be not much better.

About 150 delegates better by my count.

by zonk 2008-05-31 10:57PM | 0 recs
Re: No reconciliation for the masses!

Now that appears to be a truth.

by Liame 2008-05-31 11:37PM | 0 recs
Obama wanted a 50/50 MI split...

so he actually was willing to compromise.

And the MI proposal was the product of the MI Dem party so...

I guess you should also hold the Clinton supporters on the RBC accountable for voting to help pass the MI/FL resolutions today.

by jaywillie 2008-05-31 10:02PM | 0 recs
Where have I heard this before?

I would support him.

by libertyleft 2008-05-31 10:06PM | 0 recs
Feh! Pointless diary. n/t

by sricki 2008-05-31 10:20PM | 0 recs
Feh! Pointless comment.

by Liame 2008-05-31 10:23PM | 0 recs
Point taken, indeed! n/t

by sricki 2008-05-31 10:25PM | 0 recs
Reading all of your post....

I don't think you will be happy with anyone else.

Obama could actually go into a burning house and save three kids and a cat and you would accuse him of being cruel to dogs if the dog still died in the fire.

by IowaMike 2008-05-31 10:34PM | 0 recs
Can he fill the boots?

So far he has accidentally lit the barn on fire, and proved to be a slow fireman with too little water.

If he turns out to save the kids and cat, then I will be the first to praise him, as long as the house is not also his oversight.

I will of course mourn the dog.  To not do so would be unpatriotic.  The wife, I guess, will just remain unsung.

by Liame 2008-05-31 11:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Can he fill the boots?

So far he has accidentally lit the barn on fire, and proved to be a slow fireman with too little water.

I'm sorry, what?  I thought the theme of this election would be fixing the problems that 8 years of unchecked republican rule got us, not some other vague reference to a perceived wrong Obama did you that you've inserted pretty poorly into someone else's metaphor.

by minnesotaryan 2008-06-01 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Can he fill the boots?

Thanks for proving my point.

by IowaMike 2008-06-01 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: They gave her nothing and they will likely get

I think Clinton getting "nothing" would be a +0 gain in delegates out of today. She got a bone. She just didn't get a full seating with 0 in MI for Obama, which is what she wanted... something which was incredibly far fetched to begin with.

by mattw 2008-05-31 11:20PM | 0 recs
A wee, bitty biscuit perhaps.

I agree that Clinton got a wee, bitty biscuit, but it was not from Obama and it was only due to it being an unavoidable outcome of the committee's political necessity to include Florida and Michigan in the convention.

by Liame 2008-06-01 12:04AM | 0 recs
Re: They gave her nothing ?

What ?

All this time you people were saying it's about the voters and now you're saying what ? They gave her nothing ?

"HER" ?

Oh, hell no. I can't believe you had the gall to post this and reveal your true motives.

by BlueDiamond 2008-06-01 12:03AM | 0 recs
Re: They gave her nothing ?

I contemplated the title as"They gave us nothing and they will likely get nothing in return", but it sounded a little to egotistical.

Perhaps it could have said 'the other fifty percent of the voters', but its not quite as catchy and likely wouldn't fit.

by Liame 2008-06-01 12:12AM | 0 recs
Re: They gave her nothing ?

It's also a bit out of date. The polling companies still doing Clinton vs Obama polls have had her at about 42% the last week or two. California, which she won by nine points, now polls at 51-38 Obama. A good chunk of the 49% of Democratic voters (don't forget that Edwards and others have also received votes. Neither candidate will have a true majority of the popular vote, as little mention as the other candidates get,) who voted for Clinton have already moved on. Another big chunk will move on once Obama reaches a majority of delegates. Another chunk will move on if and when Senator Clinton concedes the race. I don't know what size that last chunk is, but I know the chunk that the final chunk, the ones who refuse to vote for Obama no matter what, are not as large as some people would like to believe.

by nathanp 2008-06-01 01:57AM | 0 recs
Re: They gave her nothing

She got nothing! (Except more delegates) And even her own supporters on the committee went along with it.  How dare they?  Compromise?  Never!!!

I suppose NOW they are going to want to select the candidate with the most delegates to be the nominee?

This party never ceases to amaze me.  

by Rick in Eugene 2008-06-01 12:41AM | 0 recs
Obama had the votes

To get a 50/50 split. He took 69-59, a gift by definition.

You will note that he is getting no credit for this. None. It has not prevented diaries like this, or worse the stuff at Taylor Marsh.

Can you say, honestly, that he would have gotten any benefit from offering 73-55? 73-0? How far would he have to go to have someone acknowledge a generous move? Total capitulation?

There is no satisfying everyone, and you should never try. He DID offer her a bone, that is an unadulterated fact, and that's all he needed to do.

Whatever happens in November, happens.

by Neef 2008-06-01 01:33AM | 0 recs
Re: They gave her nothing and they will likely get

I honestly don't get it. Obama is perfectly capable of reaching out.  I know Jewish voters who had been very worried about him and now like him because he has gone out of his way to give them assurances that he's strong on Israel--even though I'm sure his netroots supporters aren't too happy about that.

But working class voters, Hillary supporters and those like me who believe he's weak on health care and progressive economic issues-- we have seen nothing from him.  Nothing.

Even when he had Edwards endorsement he didn't make any move toward working people's issues
Today it's clear he doesn't care about unity--he's either sure that women and Hilary supporters will come around because they have nowhere else to go or he doesn't need us.

by rosabud 2008-06-01 02:08AM | 0 recs
Olive branch opportunity was not taken.

Time to move on from this topic.  As a conclusion to my thoughts on the matter, I believe as follows:

Florida should have had full seating.  It lost campaigning and all that goes with it.  The primary date was out of the control of those aligned with the DNC.

Michigan should have received half votes.

A few other States should have been admonished.

Neither the voters, nor the candidates should have been penalized by the errors of the states, and consequently the differential between the candidates at the time of the primaries should have been maintained.

Any blame for a failure to extend a meaningful olive branch by the likely nominee to  the Clinton campaign supporters should be placed at the feet of candidate Obama, not the Rules Committee.

The surrogates of the two campaigns should not be faulted either; they are meant to fight for the best for their candidate and constituencies.  Any change form that policy would have required their bosses nod.

Enough said.

by Liame 2008-06-01 03:29AM | 0 recs
Re: They gave her nothing and they will likely get

* Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.

MyDD rule. Has this rule been suspended?

by xdem 2008-06-01 04:39AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads