I see you're still distressed by all those insects...everywhere...all around...coming after you...
Let it go, man. Really. It's OK. No one cares how bitter you are or how long you think we should drag this out. I never had a problem with her being nominated. I doubt most Obama supporters had a problem with it. So manufacturing more outrage and making a stink over something that's not a controversy outside of your own...uh, mind...makes you look silly and encourages similar behavior from those who may still respect your work.
this please me greatly. LJD is well-positioned to work that stretch of US 290 (he lives in Brenham) and do quite well in the rurals and in Harris County 'burbs. And I have a feeling Travis County will overperform for all Democrats this fall. As Clinton and Noriega work to bring Hispanics and women back home for Obama and put Texas in play, LJD will get some solid boosts along the way. We've got a solid slate down here, for the first time in ages.
repeatedly for his evidence back when he was posting his allegations, and his only response that he wasn't going to "name names" on a blog, and that he would "share [his info] with reporters" if any were interested. Of, course, I didn't want names, I just wanted some vague idea of what the hell he was talking about. The irony, of course, was that the only willful flouting of the rules in El Paso was at the county convention when the Clinton supporters who controlled the committees refused to allocate the at-large delegates based on the convention sign-in - a direct violation of both the rules of the TDP and of a clarifying directive sent out by the state rules committee not two days prior to the county convention. Same thing happened at a few other county meets as well, apparently.
As Karl-Thomas has noted at BOR and here, these issues are being rectified at credentials meetings around the state this week, and Obama may very well have the delegates he needs to get 38 rather than 37 of the 67 at-large delegates at the state convention this weekend.
The Clinton ground strategy after the Texas caucuses was simply to scream and holler and throw sand and make vague threats of litigation. Frankly I expected better considering the team she had put together down here - veteran Texas Democrats who should all have been quite well-versed in the rules of the process. Ridiculous.
And how does SHE win if half the party has no use for her?
Let's get real, Jerome. The one person who could end all of this petty bullshit and unite this party behind our nominee is named Hillary Clinton. In one grand speech Wednesday afternoon, she can call off the dogs, do something magnanimous, and tell her supporters in no uncertain terms that it is time to put our differences aside and work to elect Democrats up and down the ballot, pledging her full and unqualified support for Obama. In fact, had she chosen the high road 2 months ago, rather than trailing bait like Farrakhan, Ayers, Wright, Ferraro, "white people", "shame on you", NAFTA, etc. - she'd probably be the nominee by now. That's the part that seems to be lost on the Clinton dead-enders. The only person who's really been stirring up anti-Obama sentiment is Hillary herself, and you're taking that bait, too.
She can continue with this St. Joan charade or she can recognize the right thing and do it. What would you prefer?
BTW, "Clinton winning the nomination" is no longer an option, in case you haven't heard. I trust you're smart enough to understand why time travel is still politically impractical.
"Obama supporters not see the full possibility of telling an entire state's Democratic voters they are not worthy of having their voice heard?"
Who's telling them they aren't "worthy"? And who are you talking to? I'm one person. Enough of the 'us against them' silliness. And again, people who would lay out, in a swing state no less, because rules were enforced, are a bunch of crybabies, not Democrats. I refuse to believe that Democrats are so foolish as to do such a thing en masse, for that reason alone. Nevermind that this election can be won without Florida.
Who are these people? What qualifies you to make such a presumption and leap of logic?
unless all their delegates are seated with full votes, huh?
First, that's ridiculous. If FL Democrats are threatening to vote for McCain because the DNC did what they said they were gonna do, then that's pitiful and those voters can go shit in their hats. Their not Democrats. Second, there's a lot of time between now and then to work Florida hard. Frankly, if this is the measure of FL Dems resolve, I highly doubt either candidate can win there, despite what the polls say. I don't subscribe to this cause-effect theory of yours. Nothing about their penalty prohibits Floridians from voting and working for our nominee this fall.
They voted for these guys, and those guys did a poor job of representing their interests. "Oh, poor us - there was nothing we could do! Those big bad Republicans shoved this down our throats!".
We saw how Geller and the other FL Dems in the lege handled this. Pleading they had no part in the move is a lie. They played chicken with the DNC and lost. Period.
Nobody has argued that the calendar and system aren't in need of repair and reform, but if you have a set of rules agreed to by all parties then there has to be a genuine consequence for violations or the rules mean nothing. That's how a civil society functions. Stop pleading helplessness and hold your public officials accountable.
in violation of the rules, appeals failed, so a sanction is in order. How should the DNC sanction Florida's Dem Party leaders, then? Strip their votes? Why couldn't Florida just hold a Dem primary within the confines of the rules, like everyone else except Michigan did?
If there is no sanction, what are the long-term repercussions of that to the party and to our national elections?
I'd like a reasoned response from someone who adamantly supports the full seating of FL & MI.
Which is yet another reason she's riding this out to the end. If she loses, she's done. Losers who represent the past don't get to take control of the party machinery. Dean got it because his support core was the party's future and he had the party-building tools and infrastructure designers which made him the right man for the job.
The tools of the Clintons - McAuliffe, Shrum, Carville, Begala, Wolfson, Davis, Ickes, etc - have had their time at the controls but they're out. To the victor go the spoils. No longer will the Clintons control the flow of money or party machinery (as limited as that was during their tenure). If we're moving on, we move on. In cases like this, the loser gets put out to pasture,a la Teddy Kennedy. She can be a strong Senator and an effective advocate for many issues that are important to her and to Democrats as a whole - which is why, I assume, she got into this line of work in the first place.
It's not the Clinton's party anymore; it's gonna belong to the people again. Clinton supporters can come to grips with that and carve a place for themselves in the new paradigm, or they can run to the arms of their abusers. I'm reasonably sure they'll choose the former. The vast majority of them may be loyal supporters, but they're not cultists, for heaven's sake - there are too many important things at stake in this election for them to all run headlong off a cliff just because their candidate lost.
Sorry, I forgot that Olbermann is the king of all media now. Somehow he quadrupled his audience share overnight and then nefariously unleashed his mind-control powers on millions of helpless Democrats who had been strapped to their La-Z-Boys, Clockwork Orange-style, by the Obamabot army....
Yes, the Clinton team has run a less-than-stellar campaign, and have been outplayed on the media front by Obama's team. That's part of the game, whether you like and agree with Keith or not.
Some Obama supporters are horrible people? Bless my soul! Stop the presses! The holier-than-thou act has grown tiresome, and it's just fuel for continued recrimination. Republicans are laughing at this party once again, and neither of the candidates' online supporters have given them reason to stop yet.
Blaming the media is code for "we've done a crappy job of playing the media, so we're gonna scream and yell and harangue them until we get the coverage we want". That seems to be one of two cards Camp Clinton has left. Will you let it all go if Obama has the numbers on June 4?