Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I understand today has been a tough day. I really do. I support Clinton, but I've known for a while now that she will not win the nomination. Now that Florida and Michigan have been effectively settled, Hillary has gained a total of about 25 delegates, not including supers (I'm not sure how those will be hashed out).

Now, I've seen many comments from Clinton supporters vowing to take this to the convention, and supporting such a move. I understand things get said in the heat of the moment, but consider this:

Do you really want to prolong this nomination battle over an additional 25 delegates that will NOT win Clinton the nomination?

Because, when you think about it, that's what this is about. I really worry about the damage that will be done to Clinton should she indeed decide to take this to Denver. We simply can't afford to have this kind of schism in the party if we are to defeat Sen. McCain. I seriously think she'll end this next week, as she's already hinted at doing so.

So, I say to my fellow Clinton supporters, please, it's over. Even with MI/FL seated at full strength, we can't win.

Let's not start a war that we will lose even by winning.

I know Obama isn't perfect, but I encourage all of you to really look at what he's saying, and instead of seeing 'the other side' as the enemy as we've done during the primary season, it's now time to look at them as the tremendous asset that they are. They are Democrats, and so are we. Hillary realizes this, Barack realizes this, and so should all of we.

On to November!

Tags: Convention, delegates, Denver, Florida, Michigan (all tags)

Comments

321 Comments

Very good
thanks for posting this
recced.
by Student Guy 2008-05-31 04:46PM | 0 recs
You must be kidding!!!

WE NEED CLINTON TO STAY IN especially after the demonstration of another of his hate mongering friends, he chose to surround himself with for the past 20 years! Rezko and his entourage of Chicago hacks is about to surface big time now that the media is turning it's attention fully on his background - if we want to win we have to keep Clinton in the wings to take over after the press completely decimates him.

by suzieg 2008-05-31 08:30PM | 0 recs
NEVER NEVER NEVER.

Obama, Brazile and Dean can go Cheney themselves!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-31 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

Yes, the Obama supporters do not get it that we will not support him. Forget it, those bridges were burned down long ago, there is no way most Clinton supporters will ever vote for him.

by 07rescue 2008-06-01 12:18AM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

Good God.

Would you really rather have McCain in the White House nominating Supreme Court justices?

Be a fucking progressive.

by doschi 2008-06-01 02:03AM | 0 recs
On Roe v Wade...

How could the Democratic Party ever have allowed this lifelong Dem and Pro-Choice women (who was in DC marching and shouting from the very start!) get to this point...., this is now my response on Roe v Wade....

These are words first written by another commenter whom I respect and with whom I agree:

"If my younger sisters lose Roe Wade it will be their own fault for taking the rights they have for granted, because they didn't fight for them. They are complacent and can take the time to swoon over a sexy empty suit who has already set gender relations back a minimum of 30 years, and we haven't even gotten to the General Election campaign yet. Serves them right. Not my problem. I know how not to get pregnant.

It's my job to protect the rights I fought for that matter to me. This is a misogynist's campaign and if younger women are too busy spawning over Leland Gaunt handing out Needful Things and discussing his vibrating phone when he leans on one of them, then they will have to learn to take the consequences of their own folly along with the consolations. Maybe then they will Get It. I have already done well in my life. Complacency is their enemy, not mine. Let em eat cell phones."

by CoyoteCreek 2008-06-01 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: On Roe v Wade...

John McCain voted to filibuster the minimum wage. John McCain doesn't support the troops. John McCain agrees with Bush's Iraq strategy. John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. John McCain supports NAFTA. John McCain is a puppet for the lobbyists.

by heresjohnny 2008-06-01 06:10AM | 0 recs
Obama is a puppet...

with the likes of Jim Cooper and Axelrod waiting in the wings to be his master!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-06-01 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is a puppet...

Better that this puppet.

John McCain voted to filibuster the minimum wage. John McCain doesn't support the troops. John McCain agrees with Bush's Iraq strategy. John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. John McCain supports NAFTA. John McCain is a puppet for the lobbyists. John McCain is fine letting our troops rot in Iraq for 100 years.

by heresjohnny 2008-06-01 07:28AM | 0 recs
Nope...the Obama puppet IS GWB

An empty suit without an original thought in his brain.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-06-01 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Nope...the Obama puppet IS GWB

Hahaha. That doesn't make any fucking sense.

by heresjohnny 2008-06-01 07:43AM | 0 recs
Coyote Creek Go Donate Money to McCain

Obama is the nominee. Deal with it. If you want to vote for McCain then give him money, volunteer for him, and see him get elected. But if we're still in Iraq four years from now, still don't have health care, have a Supreme Court that overturns Roe, then be proud of what you've done.

COyote Creek -- go join Hannity and Limbaugh.

Those of us who supported Hillary are mature enough to realize that she lost.

Defeat McCain is the Number 1 priority.

by chatters71 2008-06-01 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Nope...the Obama puppet IS GWB

Do you hiss when you hear his name?  You sound like that lout at the RCB who was yelling at the members and being disruptive in a big public temper tantrum.  THAT sets women back, not Obama winning a nomination.

by kasjogren 2008-06-01 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: On Roe v Wade...

I wont even address how offensive your comment is about me as a young woman voting for Obama. I wont address how you assume that my vote is uninformed, just a folly- as if I would just as easily vote for the Jonas Brothers if they were running. What needs to be addressed, however, is the danger of overturning Roe v. Wade.

I'm sure you know how to not get pregnant. Lots of people do. And lots of people don't. Some girls don't get sex ed taught in their schools. Some girls get raped. But they deserve to lose their right because they voted for a man endorsed by NARAL who is not Hillary Clinton?

When Roe v. Wade was illegal, women continued to have abortions. It doesn't end abortions. But it makes them way more dangerous. According to an article on socialist.org, the estimated deaths from illegal abortion were between 5,000-10,000 a year. A lot of the deaths were a result of infection and hemorrhaging after the procedure. I remember reading grisly accounts while researching a paper on Roe v. Wade of families watching their mothers and wives die slowly in front of them after getting an infection from an illegal procedure. But we deserve that, CoyoteCreek. Cause Hillary didn't win.

I wasn't old enough to actually be around and fight for Roe v. Wade, but knowing that there was a time when the government was allowing so many women to die each year is frightening.

And that is what you are advocating. Not only is your argument selfish and reeking of self-righteousness, it's a dangerous argument for women and girls everywhere.

by cecilybecily 2008-06-01 08:53AM | 0 recs
Please.

You're lecturing ME about pro-choice and Roe v Wade?

Get out on the streets young lady and win those rights yourself.  Since you have taken for granted all of the work that we real-pro-choice women did for you.

Obviously it means nothing to you - unless you have to learn the lessons yourself.

Good luck with that.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-06-01 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Please.

I'm hide-rating you for continually insulting young women like myself who regard as voting for Obama... because we're horny?

What a hateful person you are.

by Jess81 2008-06-01 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Please.

I have been in the streets for a Planned Parenthood opening in Aurora, IL. I have been working my butt off trying to get a job at the Planned Parenthood offices in Chicago. And if McCain is elected and Roe v. Wade is overturned because of choices made by fellow women who call themselves progressives "teaching me a lesson", I will march in the streets then. You don't need to lecture me on being a REAL pro-choicer. I know I REALLY feel strongly about my rights and I get REALLY angry when selfish jerks tell me I deserve to lose my rights, whether they call themselves Democrat or Republican. "Obviously it means nothing to you"- I can't tell you how personally offended I am right now. I'm actually a little fuming. How ignorant can you be? I mean, really? Who the hell do you think you are?
 Do you know a single thing about me other than I am an Obama supporter? I support a candidate who has worked with PPIL and PP Chicago, and who is endorsed by NARAL. A Democrat who I believe wont nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court. I was raised by a super strong intelligent woman who also fought for Roe v. Wade. That super strong intelligent woman is also an Obama supporter.

I wish I didn't feel I had to lecture you. 5,000 TO 10,000 WOMEN DIED EACH YEAR DUE TO ILLEGAL ABORTION PROCEDURES BEFORE THE ROE V. WADE DECISION! It infuriates me that your self righteousness blinds you to the real, dangerous reality of a McCain presidency for women everywhere. What if I were raped and chose to have an abortion? You don't know anything about me, but you would still sit there and tell me I deserved to lose that right because your candidate didn't win the democratic primary. Unbelievable.

Sorry, but I have no respect for your comments. None. They are not the comments of a true progressive, and they are not the comments of a woman I would ever look up to. I'll stick with my mama- who fought for me, continues to fight for me, and urges me to keep fighting.

by cecilybecily 2008-06-01 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

Don't - these NEVER NEVER NEVER persons are part of an ever shrinking echo chamber.  No matter what they claim, they do not represent most Clinton supporters and I suspect that more than a few of them are neo-con provocateurs.  Therefore, asking some of them if they want to see McCain win is like asking a wolf if it wants a nice juicy lamb chop.  Since it is impossible to tell which of these dead-enders are really sincere but (I hope) temporarily unhinged democrats or neo-con tricksters the best thing to do is ignore them.

As an aside, I get tickled whenever I see an anti-Obama screed start by saying "I am a life long democrat but..."  And then proceed to spew neo-con talking points.  And I think, "Yeah you are a life long democrat who voted for Reagan and then Bush I and then Bush II and then Bush II again. And who worships Rush Limbaugh. Ha!"  They must think we are all as stupid as they are.

by oldbattleaxe 2008-06-01 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

Look up the exit polls in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Kentucky.  

Please stop insulting us as though we're an online fiction.  We exist and you'll find us on blogs as well as in population segments that are mostly apolitical but have had an easy decision made for them by the undemocratic coronation of Barack Obama.  

by BPK80 2008-06-01 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

Yeah right.  I can't take anyone seriously as a democrat who threatens to vote for McCain or not vote for the democratic nominee.  I hope that most of the NEVER NEVER NEVER people mostly are an online fiction.  And there is evidence that they are.  There was a  diary done on Kos that looked at the composition and number of posters at Hillaryis44 and found that maybe no more than a couple of hundred at Hill44 wrote a majority of the posts.  That's what I mean by ever shrinking echo chamber.

I know you feel insulted.  But, as far as I am concerned, even if you are a sincere democrat, you are not keeping good company and eventually you will be judged by that.

by oldbattleaxe 2008-06-01 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

Completely ridiculous.  I've voted Democratic in every election since I turned 18.  You do the party no favors by pretending I don't really exist.  Why the surprise?  Is there something ambiguous about over 70% of late May Clinton backers saying they wouldn't support Obama?

This is becoming a majority viewpoint among Clinton Dems.  It's real.  Online and offline.  

Here in Pennsylvania (both Northeast and Southeast/Philly), my friends and I sincerely believe Obama will lose the state.  Too many Kerry voters won't vote for Obama under any circumstance; his racist anti "small-town" comment was the last straw.    

by BPK80 2008-06-01 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

So have I voted for the Democrat in every election -- whether or not it was the Demcrat I wanted or not. I worked my ass for Howard Dean and thought Kerry was a sure loser, but I voted for Kerry. And Mondale. And Carter. And more Demcratic candidates for governors and senate and congress and state house and city council. Some of them were great and some of them were awful. But I vote for the Democrat. Period. In the primary I vote for the Democrat I think is best, and in the General I vote for the Democrat. Period. There is too much at stake. This is not just about Roe v. Wade. It's about thousands of American men and women who are is danger in Iraq. And those that have returned with grevious injuries for life not getting the support they deserve. It's about stopping the war. It's also about the earth we live on. There was a diary a few days ago about wolves being shot after Bush took them off the list. And global warming. There are just too many issues.

I always vote for the Democrat. But I know a number of people who voted for Nadar or bush in 2000 because they were mad at Clinton. And boy are they sorry now.

This election is not about us and our aspirations and glass ceilings and missed opportunities. It is not about our feelings of being taken for granted or passed over or insulted. It is about our country and our world and our environment and the planet we leave to our children and our grandchildren.

So we have a choice. We can pout and play a small game that's all about us and our feelings and who we like and who we find offensive. Or we can grow up and accept that a lot of times things don't work out the way we want and then get out there and work our butts off for whoever the Democratic nominee is. Because if enough pissed off Clinton supports don't do this, then Obama may lose PA and it will be their fault as surely as it is the fault of pissed off Nadar voters in Florida (or New Hampshire or a number of other close states). The blood of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and the fate of New Orleans is on their hands as well. Don't let this be you in 2008.

by Grassroots Mom 2008-06-01 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

You guys are mad if

A/ you think I'm some undercover republican

B/ you think I'm voting for Obama

"Be a fucking progressive."

If Obama is your idea of a progressive, then this must be your first election cycle.  Progressive's count votes, end of story.

This thing is going to the convention.

by rankles 2008-06-01 12:58PM | 0 recs
Sort of.

Progressives count votes in elections where the rules and choices are set ahead of time.  Informed consent requires that you are given the opportunity to choose with awareness of what you're choosing; voters in both states were told by the candidates and by the organization governing the delegate selection process that no delegates would be awarded.

Now, you can reasonably argue a couple of things but they lead to dead ends, if you're honest with yourself and others, I think.  One is that voters could've made their decision with the awareness that the DNC could change the rules and ultimately award delegates even though they said they wouldn't.  The other is that political necessity (i.e. Obama won't win) justifies changing the rules after the fact--even though it's not really "fair."

The problem is ... With both arguments is that they both can be used to support the actual outcome.  Argument one, for example, could go like this:  voters should've known that the RBC could rule as it did--even though it said it wouldn't.  Argument two works the same way--some people think Hillary is unelectable because of the backlash if the election is stolen from Obama, because of the Clinton baggage, etc.

Unfortunately, there is no really acceptable solution once we go down an unacceptable path (i.e. not having a normal primary/caucus).

One way of dealing with that is to find a solution that takes into account the validity of each side's claims/concerns--even if you don't find them compelling.  And then find a way to respect or honor each by offering something of value to each side.

As it was, Clinton was given more delegates than she stood to gain by following the rules (with 0 delegates for Michigan and Florida).  She didn't get everything she wanted because doing so was impossible if you wanted to respect others involved.

by chicago jeff 2008-06-01 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

We should focus on issues than personnalities. Leaders have their strengths and weaknesses. Obama's have been hammered by Hillary on the ABC debate, but Hillay's were saved by Obama's refrains. All of us know that the republicans won't be that kind to her.

by selam 2008-06-01 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

I don't trust Obama on the issues, especially foreign policy and GLBT equality.  His ties to homophobes are legendary.  

by BPK80 2008-06-01 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

Interesting as he has been preaching to black folks to get over their homophobia. Oh and as for PA, although the polls don't really matter at this point, he's ahead so to say that he will lose PA is just your opinion right now.  

I love all of your gloom and doom nonsense.

by sweet potato pie 2008-06-01 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

But I'm sur eyou can trust McCain on GLBT issues ? Can you say that with a straight face ?

McCain = Bush foreign policy on steroids.

Enough said.

by chatters71 2008-06-01 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

Boy are you off the rails there.  The UCC is a denomination that not only welcomes LGBT people but ordains them.  Obama's former church adheres to that.

As a member of a UCC congregation I'm getting a bit brassed off with ignorant people like you making such statements.  This latest frufra is typical.  The national UCC encouraged its congregations to invite speakers with different perspectives on racism and Father Phagler was part of that for Trinity as well as a young woman pastor (white) whose viewpoint was far less radical.  The idea of this "conversation on race" was to listen to viewpoints that might not necessarily reflect that of the congregation.  This was nationwide.  But, do you think any bit of that context was mentioned?  Hell, no.  And I get to read asshat statements about a UCC congregation being "full of hate" when I know that's a lie and a gross mischaracterization.

But, you believe it because you want to.  Congratuations you are slandering some of the best most decent people I have ever been priviledged to know. Honestly, why should I take anything you say seriously when you are so obviously ill-informed?

by oldbattleaxe 2008-06-01 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

It's time for him to come out of the ...limo.

by rankles 2008-06-01 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

"Be a fucking progressive."

Typical Obama supporter vulgarity, and a small part of the reason I will NEVER vote for Obama.

I am a deeply committed Progressive all my life, and that is why I support Hillary Clinton. She is a Progressive, Obama is not. I will actively work to defeat BO, and all the BO supporters who think we will simply and passively fall into line is delusional.

by 07rescue 2008-06-01 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: NEVER NEVER NEVER.

John McCain voted to filibuster the minimum wage. John McCain doesn't support the troops. John McCain agrees with Bush's Iraq strategy. John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. John McCain supports NAFTA. John McCain is a puppet for the lobbyists.

by heresjohnny 2008-06-01 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: You must be kidding!!!

then she can suspend her campaign in the highly unlikely event that these daydreams come to fruition.

Going scorched earth on the party helps no one--not even herself.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-31 11:03PM | 0 recs
Re: You must be kidding!!!

John McCain voted to filibuster the minimum wage. John McCain doesn't support the troops. John McCain agrees with Bush's Iraq strategy. John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. John McCain supports NAFTA. John McCain is a puppet for the lobbyists.

by heresjohnny 2008-06-01 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Here's to a primary hard-fought and to a victory well-earned. Respect to both candidates and their supporters.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 04:47PM | 0 recs
massive respect

and my sun tzu quote certainly fits you and zcflint and all other rational Clinton supporters tonight.

"Nothing is more difficult than the maneuver for an advantageous position."

Major props and massive respect to you.

by Student Guy 2008-05-31 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: massive respect

Thank you. I'm confident Hillary will show her reason and grace -- although it's been lacking a few times on the trail -- sometime this week.

And I'm sure Obama will have a few words for Clinton supporters as well. I will be listening.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: massive respect

that's the spirit of open-mindedness we're looking for! well done!

stop with the us vs. them thing......it's really a losing strategy. it's what's helped republicans dominate american politics for the last 30 years. unless you think it's been fun...? let's rally behind our candidate to beat mccain.

onward.....

by j cantarella 2008-05-31 05:20PM | 0 recs
now that you need us, no wonder that you want

to give us respect. It's a little too late for that as it was plainly seen today. We can smell hypocrisy from a mile away! Let Obama, supporters and surrogates reap what they sowed for all these past months!

If Hillary doesn't take it to Denver, I shut off my TV and will completely ignore his campaign but I will support the adversary of every lawmaker who betrayed her. He will learned that there is no fury like millions of women and Hillary's supporters scorned!

Your candidate is illegimate as was Bush in 2000! He will win the nomination by a brokered undemocratic party which I never, ever want anything to do with ever again!

by suzieg 2008-05-31 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: now that you need us, no wonder that you want

Wrong. It's just you who's scorned.  You will cry yourself to sleep on election night. Bitter, bitter, bitter woman.

by AlexScott 2008-05-31 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: now that you need us, no wonder that you want

fine--campaign for McCain, then.  See you in November.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-31 11:04PM | 0 recs
Millions of women

lined up to see Sex and the City tonight, not marched to oppose an inadequate black man.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-01 12:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I will oppose ANYTHING that takes votes away from one candidate and allocates them to another.

Whether it was Clinton or Obama I would be saying I would be against that type of move.

If you want to split 50/50-not my solution, but there it is.  If you want to penalize pledged vs. unpledged delegates, not cool, but the FL pledged delegates should have made a motion before the committee.

But this type of solution is unacceptable

by TxDem08 2008-05-31 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Consider for a moment that todays ruling is a agreement that the original vote was flawed in it's effort to measure voter preference.  As a result the fruit (delegates) were distributed in error.  

by nextgen 2008-05-31 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

"unacceptable"??

more or less acceptable than mccain picking the next 2 supreme court justices?

get some perspective here.

by j cantarella 2008-05-31 05:22PM | 0 recs
Stop it! It's offensive and lame - change your

tune, it's grating and we are way beyond that argument!

by suzieg 2008-05-31 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop it! It's offensive and lame - change you

Tell us how far beyond it we are if John McCain is president and nominates justices in the Scalito mold.

We'll see how grating it is then.

by doschi 2008-06-01 02:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop it! It's offensive and lame - change you

why is this argument offensive? stating it's so doesn't quite explain why you're offended.

how did "we" get "way beyond" that argument? in fact, i've seen very little consideration of the argument by those pronouncing their preference for "it's hillary or mccain" thinking. did you read what he said about the supreme court? was there some serious discussion of that on mydd that i missed?

clearly we're not way beyond the argument, since there's so much myopia amongst those who would rather continue to bicker over a lost primary.

it's offensive to pretend to care about democratic policies and progressive ideals while ignoring the importance of the supreme court to the future implementation and realization of them.

and it's lame to waste bandwidth arguing about the rbc decision. the primaries are over in a few days, and there are much bigger fish to fry.

by j cantarella 2008-06-01 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

You do realize that there is a huge inconsistency in your post, right?  You're ok with a 50/50 split, but "taking votes away from one candidate" to give to another is unacceptable?

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!
Thanks, I really didn't feel like typing that!
by mechascorpio 2008-05-31 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I noticed the same discrepancy.  Apparently a  64-64 delegate split where Hillary loses 9 delegates and Obama gains 9 delegates is better than a 69-59 split where she only loses 4 delegates, and he only gains 4.  Go figure.

by jturn17 2008-06-01 01:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

It's a compromise between ideas.

To some, the primary vote was not valid at all, to some it seemed valid.

This is a compromise, not a taking of votes.

by glopster 2008-05-31 07:56PM | 0 recs
thank you fellow Texan!

After witnessing the undemocratic caucuses in Texas, I'm beyond angry at the party which I supported unconditionally for the past 40 yrs. No one will ever understand the disappointment I feel about a party which I believed all these years would fight for voters, not for the candidate du jour.

The party has now become the republican party - Looking back at all the battles fought for the right to vote only to see them all evaporate today by disenfranchising million of voters is quite heartbreaking. Today, I had my last round of chemo so I don't know if the worse nausea I've felt to date is caused from the spectacle I saw today or from the treatment - probably from both!

Shame on them all for coming to their compromise behind closed doors after promising the american people they would not resort to that and for not showing us who is responsible for this atrocity so we can hold them accountable - cowards!

We need a third, viable and pure party - these two are corrupt to the bone! Not one of these people should feel proud of what happened today!

by suzieg 2008-05-31 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: thank you fellow Texan!

Point of interest -- if you want a third party, try and push for Instant Runoff Voting. 76.239% of game theorists agree that it's the best way to get viable third parties!

In all seriousness, though, primaries don't have to be democratic. They're primaries. They exist to a) build the party and b) determine the best (or maybe most popular? or something?) nominee.

Both caucuses and primaries achieve those goals with different levels of efficiency -- neither is perfect  though caucuses approach IRV much more closely than straight ballots do -- and IRV HAS been shown to improve voter satisfaction with the final result (if you want me to go dig through the journal of econ perspectives and find the article I'll try and do it).

Obama supports exploring IRV as a viable election tool but I don't know if that's anything other than talk. I don't know if Clinton has ever said anything about it.

As for the whole "who's responsible" thing -- it's hard for the RBC to admit that they screwed up. I'm pretty sure the RBC believed the primaries wouldn't be this hotly contested and so therefore the sanctions wouldn't become this large of an issue.

Frankly, I think Michigan thought so as well and so moved theirs up as a protest against the IA/NH duopoly.

by theMill 2008-05-31 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: thank you fellow Texan!

I sincerely hope that your illness goes into remission, and that you continue to fight the good fight.

As an Obama supporter, I hope you can take the words of your fellow Texan to heart Hats off to the great Ms. Ivins:

I will not support Hillary Clinton for president
January 20, 2006

AUSTIN, Texas --- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.

If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, "Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes." Bobby Kennedy -- rough, tough Bobby Kennedy -- didn't do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry.

What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

I listen to people like Rahm Emanuel superciliously explaining elementary politics to us clueless naifs outside the Beltway ("First, you have to win elections"). Can't you even read the damn polls?

Here's a prize example by someone named Barry Casselman, who writes, "There is an invisible civil war in the Democratic Party, and it is between those who are attempting to satisfy the defeatist and pacifist left base of the party and those who are attempting to prepare the party for successful elections in 2006 and 2008."

This supposedly pits Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, emboldened by "a string of bad news from the Middle East ... into calling for premature retreat from Iraq," versus those pragmatic folk like Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.

Oh come on, people -- get a grip on the concept of leadership. Look at this war -- from the lies that led us into it, to the lies they continue to dump on us daily.

You sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I'm telling you right now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.

Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. I'm serious as a stroke about this -- that is the only reform that will work, and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do all the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace redistricting reform, electoral reform, House rules changes, the whole package. Put up, or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff politics continue to run your town.

Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news."

Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.

by doschi 2008-06-01 02:18AM | 0 recs
rolls eyes

you just copy and paste that shit onto every thread don't you?

stop claiming to speak for all texans.

by annatopia 2008-06-01 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

the problem is all the vows by some BHO)'ers to humiliate the female and make she she goes back to bake cookies. no faux respect now can make up for that

by zerosumgame 2008-05-31 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Why do some posters reduce Hillary to "the female"? That's like calling Obama "the black guy." There's no place for that in 2008.

by fugazi 2008-05-31 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I understand your anger, but not all, not most and not the majority of Obama supporters feel this way. Just as I believe not all, not most and not the majority of Clinton supporters would hold up signs saying Obama's DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS: Murder, Drugs, Gay Sex! (seen at the SBC protest, there was a handful of truly frightening ones)

by notedgeways 2008-05-31 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

because of the BHO'ers who demand she Iron their shirts perhaps?

by zerosumgame 2008-05-31 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

NO Obama supporters did that. Those guys were shock jocks who were trying to get publicity for their show.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-31 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

yeah, keep on saying that, they just happen to back BHO but of course that means nothing right?

by zerosumgame 2008-05-31 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Do you have a  cite that says they where Obama supporters?

And, even if so, is calling him a murderer really a moral equivalent?

And even so, so. It doesn't negate what I was saying.

by notedgeways 2008-05-31 08:52PM | 0 recs
BO's supporters are not BO

Just like the Clinton "supporters" that made asses out of themselves today the the RBC, there are BO supporters who are complete jerks.  Please, please, please...don't let the irresponsibly remarks of a few, lead you to making a decision that will hurt all Americans in the long run.

We need every vote we can get come November, and I am one BO supporter that has always respected and tried to learn from Clinton and her supporter.  I hope you can reconsider.

We need you.

by chill 2008-05-31 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I'm an Obama supporter and I'm truly lost on this idea. I've never seen Obama denigrate Hillary or treat her in a sexist way. I haven't seen that from his supporters either. But I suspect that your use of his middle initial, BHO, tells us a little bit more about why you don't like Obama. Perhaps you never would've considered supporting a person like Obama?

by lindsay 2008-05-31 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I tend to believe that it's been mostly troll repugs that have been driving wedges between the two camps with inflammatory racist/sexist remarks. IMHO.

by PrdAmerican 2008-05-31 08:14PM | 0 recs
You'd rather us use the initials,"BO" ?

by BJJ Fighter 2008-05-31 08:27PM | 0 recs
where have you been hiding? under a rock!

This is the most absurb comment I have read in months!

by suzieg 2008-05-31 10:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

OMGWTF HILLARY GET BACK TO THE BBQ!

Seriously? Bake cookies? I'd rather she go onto the supreme court.

...though if she makes GOOD cookies I wouldn't mind a couple :-P

I KEED! I KEED!

by theMill 2008-05-31 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Thank you for the sanity. Recc'd. :)

by Yalin 2008-05-31 07:29PM | 0 recs
I would rec this if I could (/nt)

by MILiberal 2008-05-31 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Great topic!

by Cheebs 2008-05-31 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Well, I can rec it, and I have done so.

You have my respect.  Not because I agree with you, but because you are applying reason to the matter.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-31 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Rec'd.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Respectfully disagree, as I express in the next diary...but I will rec it anyhow.  It's a good discussion.

by MMR2 2008-05-31 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

The problem here is, technically, both candidates lose by winning.  Both do.  Obama would 'lose' with many women, and Hillary would lose with many African Americans.  It's up to the nominee and the party to sew that division up in the general.  And frankly, we don't have a nominee yet.

by MMR2 2008-05-31 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

That task becomes much easier if the loser is gracious and campaigns for the winner.

As both candidates had said that they would do -- and I believe them both.

by theMill 2008-05-31 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

A very reasonable response, even in disagreement!

I will read your diary next even thought I agree with this diary.  

by nextgen 2008-05-31 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I'd give this mojo if I could.

by lockewasright 2008-05-31 08:01PM | 0 recs
Why is that people think...

that we are the ones who decide the presidency? All 200,000 of the people who blog doesn't means shit. It's the people that wouldn't vote for Obama after he outspent Clinton 4 to 1 in TX, OH, PA, WV and still lost the election, that decides the presidency. The reagan democrats, the hispanic voters, the older voters. Them. Our vote counts for crap. The entire Clinton & Obama bloggers could unite and have political orgies, but they are in the end only noise in the wind when it comes to the General Election.

Stop with the unity diaries. It means nothing. Most likely Clinton bloggers will just walk away from the blogs leaving this place resembling an empty echoing chamber like dkos anyway. Most of them don't believe Obama is qualified to be president and they're not going to make themselves feel something that they don't.

Stop worrying about unity. I seriously doubt it's going to happen.

by cosbo 2008-05-31 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

You know what? I don't think that Obama is as qualified as Hillary is to be president. I think if it were up to me, of course Hillary would be the nominee. Having said that, you should honestly consider giving him the chance to change your mind. Both are qualified in different ways. Obama may yet surprise you.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

Sigh ... why was this troll-rated?

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 05:12PM | 0 recs
I have NO IDEA!?

I mojo'd to boost you.

by twinmom 2008-05-31 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

Don't sweat it.
It was a Clinton 'supporter'.

Uprated with relish.

by Kysen 2008-05-31 05:31PM | 0 recs
I'm sure catfish2's finger slipped...

I know he/she is a Clinton supporter, and as an Obama supporter I've had a couple of polite exchanges with him/her. He/she may have a bit of a short temper, but I would not call him/her a "supporter"... Or at least I would give him/her the benefit of the doubt.

by gustavoNYC 2008-05-31 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm sure catfish2's finger slipped...

Fair enough.

by Kysen 2008-05-31 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

mojo for sanity.  I don't know why people on both sides continue to not understand how troll rating works and when it is used.

by CAchemist 2008-05-31 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

Catfish2, serial TR abuser stikes again.  Uprated.

by fogiv 2008-05-31 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

uprated as well

by notedgeways 2008-05-31 06:29PM | 0 recs
Look, I'm in a part of NY...

that WILL vote for McCain in the fall. Obama will have my vote, but so what. We're most likely going to lose FL, OH, PA to McCain. When the McCain team is putting out that they're cautiously optimistic that they can have a wider electoral margin in the fall than Bush did, I think that they have a reason for that. My one little itty bitty vote for Obama does not mean I don't understand, today, that we're likely looking at a McCain presidency.

Primary voters like to vote for change.
General election voters go with the devil they know.

by cosbo 2008-05-31 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Look, I'm in a part of NY...

Obama has a lead in most polls from pennsylvania and some polls in Ohio.  So I disagree with you on those two fronts.  They are not foregone conclusions in either direction.  I am less optimistic in Florida but never say never.

by CAchemist 2008-05-31 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Look, I'm in a part of NY...

Having lived in Florida for 10 years I'm not optimistic at all about Obama winning there. Yet there are plenty of other states that we should be -- and are -- targeting. It'll be hard work, but we can win.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Look, I'm in a part of NY...

polling with Edwards as VP looks like he would win 35 states

by marketingman 2008-05-31 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

It's up to both sides to make the effort. Respect should be a two-way street. Maybe instead of looking at him as the enemy and as your nominee, you might find some respect after all.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

Mojo to boost after unfair TR

by nextgen 2008-05-31 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

When Hell freezes over.

by gunner 2008-05-31 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

That's true.  But why must he and his people insist on trying to change our assessment of him by this petty crap of trying to cheat her out of a couple of delegates?
by killjoy 2008-05-31 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

I can understand thinking Clinton should be entitled to more delegates.  But, can you understand the Obama point of view that the Michigan and Florida elections were flawed and thus any allocation based on those elections were flawed?  Or, do you really think those expressed views are insincere?

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-31 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

No, but petty and unbefitting a real winner.
by killjoy 2008-05-31 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...
This was not about who wins and who loses. This was about solving a problem. Finding the least unfair solution to a problem which had no fair solution. Obama's proposal of a 50-50 split made sense if you considered the election was totally flawed. Clinton's proposal of applying the output of the election without modification made sense if you considered the election was 100% valid. The output is a reasonable compromise between those two positions, and I think it reflects the will of Michigan voters better than either of the campaign's proposals. And it has the immense advantage of prevent either from claiming victory and adding spin. Which is in the best interest of the Party.
by french imp 2008-05-31 11:28PM | 0 recs
Respectfully disagree.

I believe he stiffed (a strong word, which I stand by) MI and FL on the theory that he had nothing to gain there, and much to lose, as he could only suffer deflation of his carefully nurtured victory narrative by going through with revotes, or a truly proportional allocation of delegates.

His electoral calculation is that the country will not vote for a Rethuglican for dogcatcher after 8 years of GWB, by which reckoning he either finesses MI and FL,   or picks up unexpected strength elsewhere.

Time will tell if he's right.  My view is that it's questionable, and highly cynical.  You may not like my opinion of his tactics; I don't like his tactics.

Time will show to what degree he alienates the traditional base of Democrats nation wide.

I think he is poorly qualified for the office of president, and has done exactly what Hillary was admonished not to do (by the DC punditry) : namely spend his first senate term running for president.

I consider myself a yellow dog Democrat, and have pulled the lever Dem in every presidential election since McGovern, and it has never, until this year, occurred to me to stay at home on Election Day.  Considering that I think that our country has been ruined by 30 odd years of Rethuglican domination of the office, that is not a statement made lightly.  Of course I would never vote for McCain, but Obama has not gained my confidence by expressing his admiration of R. Reagan, who in my view was an even worse president that GWB, whose ascent he enabled.

by magnetics 2008-05-31 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Respectfully disagree.

its not his fault that they didn't revote.  You can (and probably should) be pissed at how things have turned out.  This was the closest primary in modern history and I know I would be pissed off as hell if Obama was in Clinton's position right now.  But don't blame the situation on him.  The primary system combined with outside forces allowed his coalition to win by a hair.  

I know a lot of you are not interested in unity yet, but I get pretty pumped when I imagine what we could do if the two coalitions merged.  Mccain wouldn't know what hit him.

by Xris 2008-05-31 07:24PM | 0 recs
I agree a unity ticket would be hard to beat;

but do you think Obama will offer? and if so, will Hillary accept?

I haven't a clue at this point and am not taking bets.

by magnetics 2008-05-31 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

It was an argument, essentially by the MDP, that won over a 1/3 of her supporters on the RBC, and all the undecideds as well, I believe the initial Obama argument was to split 50/50.

I don't think either side was trying to "cheat" the other out of delegates, and I think Ickes (sp?) response was awfully hyperbolic in regards to 4 delegates.

I would have been sanguine with the slightly more favorable interpretation giving C those extra 4, but  Ickies' threat and temper tantrum makes me a lot less sympathetic.

by notedgeways 2008-05-31 06:37PM | 0 recs
Not undecideds, undeclared Obama-ites!!

by itsadryheat 2008-05-31 06:44PM | 0 recs
Hooray for 50 states

The RBC accepted the solution offered by the state party, for both Florida and Michigan.  Each state submitted what they thought would be a fair resolution to their flawed primaries.  

I'm just glad that both Florida and Michigan will be represented at the convention.  Hooray for 50 states!

by susanWAstate 2008-06-01 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

Uprated to counter TR

by bottl4 2008-05-31 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

Very well said VAAlex.

by lockewasright 2008-05-31 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

Do you really think Obama doesn't respect you??  What has he said exactly that was disrespectful towards you?

by jturn17 2008-06-01 01:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

He's only been campaigning for a year now. If you've decided you don't respect him, I seriously doubt that's going to change.

Vote for McCain, or don't vote at all, if you think things in this country are just peachy. But stop deluding yourself: he won't be bending over backwards to "earn" your respect anymore than you'll be going out of your way to earn mine.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-01 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

Yeah, but you're not running as my candidate for President.

I don't feel llike Obama represents my ideals for the Democratic Party, either.

And I know Hillay would make a better President.

Why are we nominating a person who is CLEARLY garnering LESS support than the other?  

Because Yes, we can?  

by dembluestates 2008-06-01 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...
"Why are we nominating a person who is CLEARLY garnering LESS support than the other?" Luckily we aren't. Obama has more elected delegates, which is how he's won the nomination. Along the way he's accumulted more voters that voted for him, and is ahead in all of the polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls /2008/president/us/democratic_presidenti al_nomination-191.html). So while you might not like him as a candidate, the voters have picked a candidate, and it's time to focus on winning the general election.
by laird 2008-06-01 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

Why does your favored candidate's supporters feed you with fanciful distortions that brings your logic to its knees whenever you repeat them?

The only way anyone can come up with that contrived "lead" in the popular votes is by counting 0 votes for Obama from either MI, or all of the dozen or more caucus states. That position has been ridiculed and debunked repeatedly on this site, but feel free to check with realclearpolitics.com for details.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-01 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

It may happen but it will happen without me.  

by Tolstoy 2008-05-31 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

Buh bye.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-31 05:56PM | 0 recs
You've made your position clear.

What do you have to gain by continuing to stick your fingers in our eyes?

by you like it 2008-05-31 11:37PM | 0 recs
I am really sorry to hear you say that
I was for Edwards initially, and even stated that I would write in his name on my May 20th ballot when he 'suspended' his campaign.

I stopped commenting on blogs for months. I truly did not know which one of the two I wanted to support.

Give it some time. You may not think so now, but when the GE begins in earnest, and if you're a true Democrat, you'll get behind the Democratic nominee when it comes to defending them (and the party), against McSame.

I really don't see how any true Democrat could think otherwise.

by DemsRising 2008-05-31 05:16PM | 0 recs
True democrats doesn't decide the presidency...

independents, swing voters (hispanic, reagan democrats) decides the presidency.

by cosbo 2008-05-31 05:39PM | 0 recs
Unless of course

the "true" democrats work really hard to win over the others.

by professor 2008-05-31 06:31PM | 0 recs
Jesus Cosbo - you are one bitter, angry person. .

You were not like this on Daily Kos when John Edwards was in the race. You were pretty cool. Now you spew this horrible, angry, divisive, bitter crap all over the place. Why are you so damn nasty? Can you please stop with your crap of hey you all, eff unity? That's all you do night and day, night and day. Everywhere you post. It's the hell with unity. Shut up everyone. It's getting old. Take your angry bitter rants over to eenr or something but spare the rest of us who have got to try to make this work. We don't need you bitter hate messing it up ever more.

by TheFullBerry 2008-05-31 05:57PM | 0 recs
No not bitter. Angry at the democratic party...

for being suckered by the media again. Seems like people who sees the writing on the wall has to step aside for the hopium addicts. It's okay, I don't mind. I was an independent before this primary season. It'll work for me again.

As for unity.... that pony was assassinated last week when Obama team accused Clinton of wishing or was praying for his assassination.

by cosbo 2008-05-31 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: No not bitter. Angry at the democratic party..

Your routine is tired.

You strike me as a northern guy who thinks he has the rest of the country figured out--and that there's just no way that they'll vote for the black guy.

You've argued that point so vigorously that now you're married to it--and you're actually hoping that it's true because otherwise you'd have to face the possibility that either you were projecting the whole time, or you just like to argue and you're wrong (my money's on the latter).

Well, I'm here to tell you that you don't understand this country at all. So, believe what you want, but we'd all really appreciate it if you dropped the doom and gloom crap--or at least keep it to yourself--because we've got an election to win.

by Brannon 2008-05-31 07:26PM | 0 recs
Whatever...

an old saying from back home....if you can't hear, then you must feel.

peace out.

by cosbo 2008-05-31 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: No not bitter. Angry at the democratic party..
"when Obama team accused Clinton of wishing or was praying for his assassination." You must live in a parallel world.
by french imp 2008-05-31 11:34PM | 0 recs
Re: No not bitter. Angry at the democratic party..
...Obama team accused Clinton of wishing or was praying for his assassination.

Evidence or retraction.
by you like it 2008-05-31 11:39PM | 0 recs
Amen, brother!

by BJJ Fighter 2008-05-31 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

Reagan Democrats are called Republicans. He did fine in TX and will  win OH and PA.

by heresjohnny 2008-06-01 06:11AM | 0 recs
Oh yeah

John McCain voted to filibuster the minimum wage. John McCain doesn't support the troops. John McCain agrees with Bush's Iraq strategy. John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. John McCain supports NAFTA. John McCain is a puppet for the lobbyists.

by heresjohnny 2008-06-01 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is that people think...

Very well put. It's not like we're a force that could influence the general election - not even close.

I've never had a candidate that I initially supported ever win a Dem. presidential primary. In '04 and now in '08, my initial choice was John Edwards. So once again, I'm wholeheartedly supporting a "second" choice. Last time Kerry, this time Obama.

Whether we elect Hillary or Barack, this is just one small step in a long journey to address our problems and the world's problems with progressive solutions. Getting either one elected is a wonderful first step but it's simply that - the first step...on a very long an arduous journey.

by desertjedi 2008-06-01 07:12PM | 0 recs
I really want them to explain some day...

to their daughters and granddaughters exactly why it is they can't get an abortion after they've been raped because back in the day they voted for John McCain to spite Obama and gave away the Supreme Court to rightwing zealots.

I come from a family of strong independent women and I hope these so-called feminists have the deceny and good sense to NOT screw future generations of women by voting McCain.

by jaywillie 2008-05-31 04:56PM | 0 recs
It's not just feminists supporting Hillary

I'm a gay white man, and have serious reservations about Senator Obama. His ignorance of basic fundamentals--especially in Economics, e.g., free trade, how capital gains taxes work--is as appalling as W's feeble grasp of the issues. After 8 years of the amateur hour, I fear we'll be getting the exact same thing with Barack Obama.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-05-31 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not just feminists supporting Hillary

I think I understand your reservations, but are you really giving him a fair shake?

On trade, for example, what exactly was the difference between Clinton's position and Obama's?  There was a contest to see who could say the most about incorporating labor standards - as though that's all we need.  It's mostly symbolism, but it's not fair to say that Obama was the only one indulging in it.

On health care, the main difference has nothing to do with the economics and everything to do with the politics.  Clinton thinks she can ram through a mandate.  Obama thinks it's better to limit the mandates to kids for now and work on the subsidies.  In time, you get to universal coverage.  At present, I'm feeling bullish and thinking that Clinton's probably going to be right about this, but there's room for reasonable people to disagree - and we'll all have to reassess when we see the election results.  Will there be 53 Democrats in the Senate?  Or 55 or even more?   It all depends, as they say.

On balance, all the evidence I see is that he's smart, he works hard, and he cares about getting the answer right.

by TL 2008-05-31 05:27PM | 0 recs
Has Barack ever taken a political risk?

Your comments are spot on, and I will try to keep an open mind. Frankly, I was for Mike Bloomberg until he declared that he wasn't going to run. And then I drifted back to the Democratic party, choosing Hillary as the lesser of two evils.

In that vein, both of these presidential aspirants voted for the recent Ag giveaway, and endorsed our country's bankrupt ethanol policy. This policy is exacerbating the hyper-inflation in commodities, especially the cost of grains...but who cares? Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, etc., are getting their share.

SO--does Barack understand what the concept of "famine"? Is he aware of the food riots occurring every week now, in the poorest of countries, such as Haiti and Indonesia? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt...he probably isn't even aware that this is happening. Ignorance is bliss.

How would the new Democratic hero explain away his support of this country's ethanol policy? I don't agree with many of John McCain's ideas, but at least he had the balls to denounce this boondoggele...BEFORE the Iowa Primary.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-05-31 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Has Barack ever taken a political risk?

Since he used to live in Indonesia and has some emotional ties to the country... I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he does still pay attention to the country to an extent and that he does know about such occurrences.

I think you underestimate him a little bit, and besides your comment about the capital gains tax is a little bit off base in my opinion.  Capital gains isn't the be all and in all that creates investment in the US or that determines what the economy does.  There are far too many other factors that are involved to say that raising the capital gains would hurt the economy or that lowering them helps the economy.  Each have situations and scenarios where each is better.  It's never as clear-cut as some Supply-siders would have the people believe.

by jturn17 2008-06-01 01:31AM | 0 recs
don't count on a possible democratic congress....

every single one of them is bought and paid for by lobbyists representing corporate america or special interest groups which do not represent the needs of the average american worker! Proof, Clinton had a democratic congress and they stood against him on health care and most of his legislation. These people are only in for themselves and what's good for them and their re-elections prospect and don't give a damn about anybody else.

by suzieg 2008-05-31 11:32PM | 0 recs
despondent respondent...

  please say you're just kidding when you say 'has he ever taken a political risk?'....ummmmm, IRAQ anyone? Or transparency, or nuclear non-proliferation, or representing a campaign that is not donated to, or influenced, by 'registered' lobbyists? OK...ummm, has Hillary ever taken a political risk?  Not REALLY! Unless you count her stepping off the tarmac when she landed in Bosnia..hahaha!

by rkcdvd 2008-06-01 01:24AM | 0 recs
Hmm...maybe Bosnia is somewhere near Auschwitz

by BJJ Fighter 2008-06-01 09:27AM | 0 recs
My pastor doesn't do my accounting...

and Obama doesn't have any of those contraversial religious leaders on his economic or foreign policy teams.  Indeed, looking at his team, it is rather impressive... certainly much more so than McCain's pack of neocons.

It should also be noted that Obama has been endorsed by Nobel prize winning economists that specficially noted his grasp of ecomonic issues as their reason.

If nothing else, his skill in studying the primary system and implementing a winning campaign strategy is a pretty good hint at his planning and problem solving skills.

by protothad 2008-05-31 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not just feminists supporting Hillary

I agree and disagree.  I don't think it's possible to figure out any democratic presidential candidate's position on fair trade.  

They gave up that issue long ago, trying to win the rust belt.  It's been say one thing do another for years. Indeed, before the democratic primary really kicked in, Obama was the candidate who had made the most pro-fair trade overtures; that includes Hillary and McCain.

Another part of Obama's "horrible" past is that he wrote for a financial book company upon graduation from Columbia.  

These are things that make me want to vote for him.  Others are free to disagree.

by such sweet thunder 2008-05-31 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not just feminists supporting Hillary

That's funny.  I am also a gay white man and I support Obama.   And part of that support is based in what I see is his superior grasp of economic policy.  Guess it all depends on what colored lenses one is looking through.  And as a CPA who is fiscally conservative and works on a daily basis deals with small businesses and individuals,  I admire his cajones to actually suggest ways to raise revenues to save social security and reduce the deficit.  Anyone who has the courage to tell people he is going to raise your taxes earns my respect.  And trust me, if Obama wins, my taxes will increase significantly.  That's OK with me however since I think it is up to us to pay down the 9 trillion dollar debt and not pass that on to future generations.  They will have their hands full with plenty of other problems our generation refused to address.

by Rick in Eugene 2008-05-31 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not just feminists supporting Hillary

I've had a question I've wondered about for a while that I'm hoping one of you two could answer: how did Hillary initially win the gay demo earlier?

Is it because of Bill Clinton and his push for don't ask?  Or, the fall out between Obama and the mayor of SF?  Is there something inherent about the two candidates' styles?

by such sweet thunder 2008-05-31 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not just feminists supporting Hillary

I can't pretend to know the answer, but many of my gay (male) friends seem to have a social leaning/preference for women over, (straight), men. Of course this isn't absolute, but may be a trend line that is expressed larger when looked at demographically.

(those that may have a better grasp of this please feel free to correct)

by notedgeways 2008-05-31 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not just feminists supporting Hillary

Let me explain why gays are with the Clintons.

1) Bill Clinton brought us into a positive spotlight and attempted to treat us equally during his time. Don't ask Don't tell was the beginning of our civil rights. They have either directly or indirectly supported our cause in all states.

2) Hillary and Bill has from time to time stood up for us, make speeches for us, etc while taking hits from the right. And they didn't budge at all. Not to say Hillary walked with us during Pride.

3) Throughout this campaign, the Clintons came to our gatherings and such.

What i don't understand is why gays voted for Obama.

  1. The SF refusing to take picture publicly with the Mayor because the Mayor supported gay marriage. The Mayor didn't even ask Obama to support the cause.
  2. Despite many public outcry and appeals by our community, Obama went on to have an ultrahomophobic pastor to represent him when speaking to a group of conservatives.
  3. Obama has never been for us, either through policies or speeches. He might just made a speech or 2 from time to time to liberal crowds but never once in a conservative crowd, unlike Clinton.

by stevent 2008-05-31 07:38PM | 0 recs
You've said it very well; I'd only add that

Bill Clinton's speech while campaigning in 1992 at a gay function in LA ("we don't have a single person to waste") was the first real outreach to our community by a Democratic presidential candidate. In the past, there was the typical assumption, "where else will they go?", after which we got a wink and a nod.

Beyond that, people questioned why President Clinton tackled the gays-in-the-military issue during his first week in office. His answer was beautiful for its honesty: "because I made a promise". After he was stonewalled by Sam Nunn and Colin Powell, he came away with a compromise that is scorned to this day by knee-jerk and limousine liberals. But bottom line, anti-gay hate crimes have decreased over 700% since 1993, and there have only been six court-martials. Which proves again: lofty rhetoric is wonderful...but real policy changes are what impact people's lives. However, such changes take a lot of effort, and doing your homework.

President Clinton knew how to do important things which entailed political risk, and often expended his political capital. It's unbelievable that the stuff being thrown at the Clintons during this campaign--by the Obam-orons--is far worse than anything ever dished out by Newt Gingrich or Tom de Lay.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-05-31 08:21PM | 0 recs
That's funny...

I remember him campaigning in Texas in an area that turned out a large percentage of African-Americans and he had no problem talking about equality and respect for all people, including homosexuals.  

I am a part of the GLBT community, and I have been following his statements and actions in our community for a long time.  He has evolved on his positions and has admitted to having poor judgements in the past.  I can relate to that...I'm sure most of us can.  We all grew up in a climate that discourages open dialogue about sexuality and therefore many of us have opinions and views that are not our own, until we can have our own experiences and meet people who can change our outlook.  
I believe this is the case of Obama.  He, like many other fellow Americans are still not totally comfortable with issues surrounding homosexuality.  Hell, even those who consider themselves a part of that demographic have anxiety and their own stereotypes to deal with.
I did for many years.
So, my point is.  His views have changed over the years.  That speech he gave in front of a very large audience in Texas sealed the deal for me.  If he can talk openly and honestly to a typically hard-sell audience (stereotype...maybe)...than he has my vote.
Besides, he has my vote for a couple of other key issues.  He's the more complete package in my eyes.  

by chill 2008-05-31 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: That's funny...

Are you implying that AAs are homophobic? Well the question here is why aren't we sticking with a candidate who had gone through so much just to give us our rights?

by stevent 2008-05-31 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: That's funny...

I wanted to thank you all for chiming in on this issue.  It's interesting to hear how you describe Don't Ask as a pivotal point in terms of gay rights.  I remember those times: my how far we've come as a nation in such a short while, with many battles still left to fight.

Alas, I'm an Obamaton and have to support my candidate:  it wasn't just TX, Obama made advances to the gay community in his speech in IN on the night of the PA primary (nobody clapped -- quite disheartening).  

But all of that is water under the boat to some extent. It appears to me that Obama's real support has come not form his actions, but what he hasn't done.  With one angry "hard working"esk statement he could have beat Hillary in KY and WV at the expense of our country's gay communities.  

I agree that I am less then thrilled that neither candidate embraces marriage.  And I think you have real grievances. Obama had a really interesting response to a question he received in regards to marriage on the Hardball college platform in PA: basically "you students are ahead of the curve on this issue."  Vis a vi: I know better, but am not willing to make the commitment because it would be too unpopular in November.

by such sweet thunder 2008-05-31 09:23PM | 0 recs
And of course at the 2004 DNC convention!

by nklein 2008-06-01 02:22AM | 0 recs
Unfortunately,you don't understand cap gains...

You may understand how to file tax returns, but apparently--like Barack--you don't understand the macroeconomic impact of raising the capital gains tax...raising this tax will DECREASE the amount of revenue taken in by Uncle Sam.

Charlie Gibson tried to explain this to Obama in the now-famous ABC debate, which Obama partisans squealed was so unfair. It was embarrassing, as Obama tried to follow Gibson's explanation of how the capital gains tax works...but he was clearly out of his depth.

This is Obama's similarity #1 with W: an intellectual laziness that prevents him from getting into the details of policy. He'd much rather talk about the "need for change", and being a messenger of hope. The dustup over NAFTA--when the Canadian foreign trade minister basically called him an idiot---was equally painful to observe. Obama went grovelling trying to smoooth things over, but it was too late.

Similarity #2 with Bush is more disconcerting...Obama has this intransigence that prevents him from changing once it's clear that he has fucked up. On the Capital Gains issue, he continues to recommend raising the rate from 15% to 28%--even after being shown that such a move will aggravate the federal defecit. Like Bush--instead of saying, "OK, I was wrong"--he continues with his wrong headed policy, mumbling something about how someone who profits on Wall Street should pay a higher rate than a secretary. This is comparing apples and oranges, i.e., the ordinary income tax with capital gains.

Many of us are OK with raising the top marginal rate, which is what you're probably thinking about when you say you're willing to pay higher taxes. However, even that is a somewhat questionable thing to do during an economic slowdown, another area where Obama seems to draw a blank.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-05-31 08:04PM | 0 recs
"an intellectual laziness"

Are we talking about the same man?

by chill 2008-05-31 08:25PM | 0 recs
To quote Harold Ickes: you bet your ass!

by BJJ Fighter 2008-05-31 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Unfortunately,you don't understand cap gains..

And I would bet that you probably make "a lot" of money.  

by chill 2008-05-31 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not just feminists supporting Hillary

So McCain is a nobel-prize winning Economist now?

by Brannon 2008-05-31 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not just feminists supporting Hillary

I'm sorry but McCain is better on economics? Are you a log cabin republican? I've heard that Hillary has a lot of supporters among that group and I really wouldn't be surprised. You guys have your own issues.

by sweet potato pie 2008-06-01 07:58AM | 0 recs
don't forget to tell them about the time Obama

voted present 7 times for political tactics and for political games put women's lives at risk because he was too cowardly to take a courageous stand, won't you?

here's an excellent post written by another blogger Tony Smith  

on Roe -- the ultimate red alert. An abundance of literature criticizes the feminist movement for centralizing Roe as a social movement objective. Mainstream feminists fail to recognize the ways in which economic barriers, not Court rulings, burden women's reproductive autonomy. The Supreme Court has watered down Roe almost to the point of nonexistence. The Court does not even apply the rigorous Roe doctrine anymore; instead, it only looks to see whether a law places an "undue burden" in the path of a woman seeking to abort a nonviable fetus. Since the Court developed this malleable standard in 1992 (Planned Parenthood v. Casey), it has upheld several laws that had previously failed Roe's "strict scrutiny" test. Now states can require women to read literature designed to deter them from seeking abortions. They can require "24-hour waiting periods," which means that patients have to schedule two doctor's appointments, thus exacerbating the cost of the procedure. Even under Roe, the Court had long held that the federal government and states could exclude abortion-related services from coverage under government-sponsored health plans. As a result, abortion is cost-prohibitive for many poor women -- unless they receive assistance from organizations like Planned Parenthood. Most recently, the Court, for the first time, upheld an antiabortion law that lacks a health exception. This federal statute bans partial-birth abortion, which usually takes place in the third trimester. Although heavily maligned by Obama's so-called "progressive" supporters, Bill Clinton vetoed partial-birth legislation two times. As Justice Ginsburg notes in her dissent, poor women, who often lack money to seek an abortion earlier, disproportionately utilize this procedure. Because the public strongly favors this legislation, do not expect the Supreme Court to reverse course, even under an Obama administration. The Supreme Court follows, rather than dictates, public opinion.

Obama has not stated that he would try to secure federal subsidies for abortion services or to do anything specific to enhance the reproductive choices of poor women. Had he articulated such policies, this would mark a significant change in the abortion debate. Absent such progressive measures, abortion will remain freely open to wealthier women and fairly available to middle-class and poor women - the exact same situation as today. Only policies that recognize the economic constraints on reproduction can disrupt the status quo. Because Obama has not proposed such measures, the Roe argument is merely a scare tactic

by suzieg 2008-05-31 11:24PM | 0 recs
Re: don't forget to tell them about the time Obama

I don't know how many times people can bring up his present votes in Illinois without doing any research or understanding those votes whatsoever.

Barack Obama worked with Planned Parenthood IL and Planned Parenthood Chicago and they all decided voting "present" would be the best move strategically. The point was to set a precedent that other legislators in Illinois could follow. It put the democrats in purplish parts of the state at less of a risk. That way, they stay in office. That way, there are more democrats to work for progressive issues. So if you are angry and think he does not care about women's rights because of his "present" votes, you must also feel the same way about PPIL and PP Chicago.

by cecilybecily 2008-06-01 09:46AM | 0 recs
more copy and paste comment spam

TRed.

by annatopia 2008-06-01 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Since this is about rules, I think it should go on as long as the rules allow. If Mrs. Clinton is acting within the rules there should not be a problem for fellow democrats.

How can acting within the rules be damaging?

If Mrs. Clinton believes the Michigan compromise is unfair to her candidacy shouldn't she use the procedures to address the issue? Or does the party no longer believe in fairness?

You can't pick and choose the rules you like and then disavow the ones you don't like in order to support your personal feelings about when she should exit the race to make life more comfortable for Obama's campaign or easier for superdelegates to show some courage.

I think what you have missed is some Hillary supporters have listened to Obama and are extremely dissatisfied.

by feelfree 2008-05-31 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Absolutely fair enough. There are about 17 million of us who had a preference for one over the other. Having said that, at the end of the day, the vast, vast majority of them will eventually vote for Obama anyway. When it's Clinton v. Obama, the choice is up to you. When it's Obama v. McCain, well, there really is no choice is there? Even if you can't stand him, I would hope you can't stand McCain more.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 04:58PM | 0 recs
let's not forget Nader the real true progressive!

I don't think I could vote for McCain, my dislike of the republicans is too deep but could see myself voting for Nader as a protest vote but I don't think he can get on the ballot in Texas because the rules are extremely hard for him to qualify and if it's the case, I'll just stay home!

by suzieg 2008-05-31 11:45PM | 0 recs
Now, if only

you'd turn off your computer too. I think everybody knows your position now. You've iterated it about eleventyjillion times.

OKTHXBIE.

by Black Anus 2008-06-01 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I agree, but only partly.  

If, after the voting ends, enough superdelegates declare themselves to give Obama a clear majority, I think that should end the active phase of the primary.  Yes, it's fair for her to stay nearby in case he spontaneously combusts, but I don't understand the point of spending two months continuing to campaign against Obama and trying to get the pledged delegates or declared supers to change their minds.

This is especially true if, as lately, there is a suggestion that the election was stolen.

by TL 2008-05-31 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Just because one is acting within the rules does not mean that one is acting as a good Democrat.  A good Democrat would always consider what's best for the party.  Specifically, waging a convention battle has been almost universally ackowledged as being harmful to the eventual nominee's chances in November.  Even if Clinton believe the Michigan compromise is unfair, she most definitely should not contest it for some abstract sake of fairness, considering the consequences of doing so.  OTOH, if she believed it would make the difference in her winning the nomination, then maybe she should contest it.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-31 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

In the new democratic party it appears fairness has become "abstract". That speaks volumes about the direction of the party.

What's best for the party is for it to allow the rules to guide the candidates in the best interests of the party. That's what the rules are for.

by feelfree 2008-05-31 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!
Yes. Basically that's what is happening.
by french imp 2008-05-31 11:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

In an ideal setting I agree with you 100%. The problems arise in real world practice.

The rules allow for her to take this to the convention floor. Looking at the level of animosity that was expressed today at the SBC I can't help think that it would be magnified and capitalized upon the longer it drags out, and by the time the convention rolls around it would be so entrenched that we would come out of the convention shattered and divided with ten weeks to knit the party together and try and convince the general population that, no really we are not batshitinsane, trust us we can run the country.

If the candidates, the media and the supporters where all saner and a summer campaign was based on respect without gotcha politics, and focused on McCain rather than each other then yeah I could get behind it. But it would not be, it would be a season that has made everything up to now look like a My Little Pony picnic.

We have lost the GE whenever it went to a convention fight. The lesson from history we should focus on is not RFK's run, but the mantra of 1980.

just my opinion

by notedgeways 2008-05-31 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!
Good Diary. It's time to move on.
Rec'd
by Beekeeper 2008-05-31 04:57PM | 0 recs
God bless you VAAlex

I agree with you 100% and know our efforts are best served against McCain. Thanks for posting.

by netgui68 2008-05-31 04:59PM | 0 recs
I don't understand,,,, Why do I have to

continue holding my nose when I'm voting for the party's chosen and most flawed candidate? You have no idea how hard it was to vote for Kerry, who stood for almost the same principles as Bush regarding the war, simply because he had a D next to his name! A man who stood by, allowing his character to be demonized and his military service denigrated by a man who went AWOL for the last 2 yrs of his service! How lame could he be but I still voted for him because he was the democrat! What does it say about my judgment?

I'm at an age (61) when I don't want to do that anymore. I'm fed up of toeing the party line, losing elections after elections and having my vote taken for granted! Really, when you think about it, why should I continue to endorse a party which lets me down time after time?

Why is it that the republicans can fillibuster successfully the majority of the legislation proposed by the dems during the 1 1/2 yr they have been the minority and the dems caved in and never used the fillibuster as a weapon against their obscene legislations for 14 yrs?

Why are we still in Iraq with no prospect of leaving after they promised us they would get these poor soldiers out if we voted them in? What have they accomplished of importance, in stand alone bills, without having to add them to the war appropriations bills to get them passed except to try 8 times to give amnesty to illegal aliens which was starting to piss me off - shouldn't they fight and put the needs of the american people first before anyone else? What is the urgency if not for their corporate masters salivating at getting cheap labor to further erode american wages? Ask any engineers in any discipline how well they are doing financially with most projects going either to India, China or Romania? Engineers have now become "checkers" of the badly done work from people coming out of diploma mills from these countries because it's still cheaper than paying americans to do the job fully!

I refuse to be the good little girl anymore and do as I'm told! Today was the cherry on the sundae - I finally realized that it's not a democratic party as it ironically calls itself but a finely tuned machine masquarading as a party fighting for democracy which was unmasked today as being the complete opposite.

To you, the new young urban and suburban members of this corrupt party, I envy your enthusiasm, naivety, your freshness of ideas and claiming the party as your own - the torch has been passed and my sincere good luck in trying to reform it. I hope for your sakes that you will achieve it and that you will not one day, as us "old asses", as we were once called on this site, wake up and see all your beliefs and hard work for what we thought was a "democratic" party crushed as mine were today! If you succeed and that day comes, I might just give the party another look but not today or tomorrow, I'm too busy licking my wounds, and they are deep, the betrayal of my convictions by them was staggering!

by suzieg 2008-06-01 12:51AM | 0 recs
I am sorry you feel the way you do

While I may not fit the profile you talk about, I am a white male living in rural subburbs out side of Birmingham Alabama, just turned 40. I do feel for your disenchantment with the parties, I believe none of them are perfect and many times I share your conviction about why the Dems seem to coward away from standing up for their convictions as you described in your post.  

I do not carry it quite as far as you do, such as blaming Kerry because the Republicans attacked his service and charecter, or condoning the Republican filibuster threats as an acceptable way to conduct business.  I blame the republicans for their foul methods of doing things, including their disqusting campaigning methods and I really do not want the Dems to simulate them...two wrongs do not make a right.

I can't say that I understand why you feel betrayed, I thought that the RBC made the best call they could out of a bad situation that in reality they created.  In retrospect they should have only stripped half the delegates from MI and FL in the first place and the candidates should have participated and campaigned in the States.

Given that they striped all the delegates, which meant neither candidate was entitled to a single delegate from either state, it made it very difficult to bring the two states back in fairly...there was no way to reset things and know what would have been if the process ran like every other state.

I believe that Senator Clinton would have won Florida under normal situations, and Michigan probably would have been extremely close with either candidate winning by a very small single digit number.

Essentially the RBC gave the wins to Senator Clinton and also chose to follow what the states proposed plans, which hopefully makes the voters there feel better since their represenatives outlined it in as fair of a manner as possible.

It was a compromise for sure, I thought since the states violated the timing rule and the RBC issued 100% loss that bringing them back to the table should cause no harm  since originally neither candidate was entitled to a single delegate making them even, then bringing them back in should not change the standing and certainly should not give them a reward by making them a game changer in the primary season, that is what they wanted in the first place and that is why they were penalized.

I am not certain and maybe you could clarify it for me. Some how I feel that a great deal of the hard feelings are coming from women who felt their time has come and felt Senator Clinton was entitled to the nomination, I do not feel anyone is owed or entitled the nomination based on their gender or skin color...they have to work for it and campaign and sale their policies to get it.

If this is about a woman being President, I am sorry that you did not get to see it happen...one day it certainly will happen.  

I understand you are no longer excited about the party, however, I do think you should consider what is at stake if McCain is elected into office and you know as well as I do so I will not bother to spell it out.

I really wish you the best and hope you can mend your wounds and find a way to support the party, even with all of its flaws it is better the the alternative.

by netgui68 2008-06-01 07:16AM | 0 recs
I am sorry you feel the way you do

While I may not fit the profile you talk about, I am a white male living in rural subburbs out side of Birmingham Alabama, just turned 40. I do feel for your disenchantment with the parties, I believe none of them are perfect and many times I share your conviction about why the Dems seem to coward away from standing up for their convictions as you described in your post.  

I do not carry it quite as far as you do, such as blaming Kerry because the Republicans attacked his service and charecter, or condoning the Republican filibuster threats as an acceptable way to conduct business.  I blame the republicans for their foul methods of doing things, including their disqusting campaigning methods and I really do not want the Dems to simulate them...two wrongs do not make a right.

I can't say that I understand why you feel betrayed, I thought that the RBC made the best call they could out of a bad situation that in reality they created.  In retrospect they should have only stripped half the delegates from MI and FL in the first place and the candidates should have participated and campaigned in the States.

Given that they striped all the delegates, which meant neither candidate was entitled to a single delegate from either state, it made it very difficult to bring the two states back in fairly...there was no way to reset things and know what would have been if the process ran like every other state.

I believe that Senator Clinton would have won Florida under normal situations, and Michigan probably would have been extremely close with either candidate winning by a very small single digit number.

Essentially the RBC gave the wins to Senator Clinton and also chose to follow what the states proposed plans, which hopefully makes the voters there feel better since their represenatives outlined it in as fair of a manner as possible.

It was a compromise for sure, I thought since the states violated the timing rule and the RBC issued 100% loss that bringing them back to the table should cause no harm  since originally neither candidate was entitled to a single delegate making them even, then bringing them back in should not change the standing and certainly should not give them a reward by making them a game changer in the primary season, that is what they wanted in the first place and that is why they were penalized.

I am not certain and maybe you could clarify it for me. Some how I feel that a great deal of the hard feelings are coming from women who felt their time has come and felt Senator Clinton was entitled to the nomination, I do not feel anyone is owed or entitled the nomination based on their gender or skin color...they have to work for it and campaign and sale their policies to get it.

If this is about a woman being President, I am sorry that you did not get to see it happen...one day it certainly will happen.  

I understand you are no longer excited about the party, however, I do think you should consider what is at stake if McCain is elected into office and you know as well as I do so I will not bother to spell it out.

I really wish you the best and hope you can mend your wounds and find a way to support the party, even with all of its flaws it is better the the alternative.

by netgui68 2008-06-01 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

On Tuesday night...
Obama will Pack the Xcel Center...home to the Republican Convention.
This is in Stark contrast to McWars feeble attempt to draw a crowd. I am sure his speech will be special.
He will treat Sen Clinton with respect.
He will acknowledge how important her supporters were to her candidacy. Then he will rhetorically scorch that place crisping Bush/McWars..all of'em. When the GOP does it's thing, it will be prefaced as the place "Obama made that speech.

Satuday night rock on
Hearts are gonna roll..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYYPydUZK OY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYYPydUZK OY

by nogo postal 2008-05-31 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

A bit too late for treating HRC supporters with respect!  You Obamatans blew it with your vitriol and abusive behavior from the outset of the primary season. Good luck with YOUR candidate.  He'll need it against McCain.

by trixta 2008-05-31 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Thank you.

It was nice of you to wish us luck.

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-31 05:24PM | 0 recs
So sad.

You act like an Obama presidency would get us a night in the lincoln bedroom.
it gets us no special favors.

And a McCain presidency?
You think that just hurts us? You are immune to it?
You, and your children, and your family will be fine under him?
This country will be fine? The courts? The environment?
Whatever - go do your thing and vote and for McCain.
Good luck with that

by TheFullBerry 2008-05-31 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

"You Obamatans"--good to see you have clean hands in all this and always treated everyone respectfully.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-31 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

you did see that rude behavier at the meeting

certainly was not from Obama supporters and

I say this as a Edwards fan

by marketingman 2008-05-31 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I'm not really concerned with all the outraged Clinton supporters because I know that you're not going to like Obama no matter what he does.

Barack Obama could cure cancer and ya'll would be pissed that he didn't cure AIDS.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-31 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!
That would surely prove his homophobia.
by french imp 2008-05-31 11:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Yes, quite.

</british snark>

by Black Anus 2008-06-01 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

It's not about you. Yes, you've been mistreated. But take a look around--people are dying.

It's not about you.

by Brannon 2008-05-31 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I know what you mean.  I have personally been disrespected by every single one of those 17 million Obama supporters and I know that us Clinton supporters have been nothing but gracious and respectful.  I too am "this close" to sacrificing all of the principles I have worked for all of my life because of those really mean people on the internet. I can't beleive those Obamabots, sexist pigs, messiah followers, cultists, elitists, latte liberals and trust fund babies.  What gives them the right to even consider uttering an unflattering word about Hillary or any of her supporters?  They are SO unreasonable.  When did we ever say one unkind thing to any of them?  You go girl, I'm right behind you!
I too could care less how many thousands more die in Iraq, how many supreme court justices McCain appoints, how much warmer my planet gets, how many more millions go without health insurance, I don't care how much larger the gap between the rich and poor becomes.  All that just pales in comparison to the fact that someone supporting Obama was mean to me.

 

by Rick in Eugene 2008-05-31 11:46PM | 0 recs
Give it up, pretty please!!!!

the argument is stale - come up with something better because we are no longer listening!

by suzieg 2008-06-01 01:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Give it up, pretty please!!!!

You won't listen to anything. So all that's left to do is to ridicule you mercilessly, and hope that somebody else who's less irrationally inclined toward your close-minded position will see the error of their ways in the error of yours.

In a way your complete irrationality is like a sacrificial lamb to the rest of unifying political discourse, so I thank you for that much, at least.

by Black Anus 2008-06-01 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

It's not fair

Hillary should have received a net of 525 delegates today but the sexist committee said otherwise.

by HillsMyGirl 2008-05-31 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

You're typically one of my favorite sarcastic trolls.  And I really enjoy bare-knuckled snipe-fests.  But I sincerely think that this diary isn't the place for it.

by reconad 2008-05-31 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Life's not fair.
Politics isn't fair.
Clinton's claims that FL & MI receive full seating wasn't fair.

We deal with it. You should too.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-01 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Excellent diary.

by ragekage 2008-05-31 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I don't think we'll have to.  The Supers, automatic delegates have to give the amount needed to make the nominee.  And the should be choosing Hillary.  

by thebluenote 2008-05-31 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

On the other hand, they might choose Obama. Then what?

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-31 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I just hope Obama can convince the typical white people who voted for Hillary to vote for him.

by DiamondJay 2008-05-31 05:04PM | 0 recs
As well as us &quot;Wal Mart&quot; Democrats

Not only Hillary, but her supporters as well, have been subjected to more snide comments and insults than there are Bush gaffes in a week.

But what do you expect? We have a nominee who thinks we are bitter, his  wife thinks we are "mean", and his minister refers to us as "blue-eyed devils". If some of us end up in the McCain camp, perhaps it's because we'll just receive some basic respect. And that's a lot more welcome than the kind of hate and disrespect spewed by Father Pfleger and his ilk.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-05-31 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: As well as us &quot;Wal Mart&quot; Democrats

I seriously don't think a fellow who calls his own wife a c*nt will give much basic respect to anyone who does not come with a big checkbook.

by notedgeways 2008-05-31 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: As well as us &quot;Wal Mart&quot; Democrats

Oh seriously, drop the drama. You said upthread you're a gay male--do you really want me to google John McCain and LBGT issues for you?

And McCain's BFF pastor blamed Katrina on gays--but that seemed to have escaped your attention as you were trying to read something anti-white into Obama's bowling score.

by Brannon 2008-05-31 07:37PM | 0 recs
Facts are stubborn things, asshole.

1) John McCain opposes a federal constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage...one of many stands which haven't exactly endeared him to his party elders. Give me one example of Barack doing something at odds with Democratic Party orhtodoxy.

2) I live in Tucson...in 2006, Arizona became the first, and only state to ever defeat a state constitutional ammendment which banned civil unions. Again, I have to wonder how if Barack has ever done anything which entailed risk to his political ambitions.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-05-31 08:56PM | 0 recs
Are you one of McCain's bloggers?

Your tone and (short) comment history makes me wonder if you are  part of operation chaos.  I hope you prove me wrong.  To address your points:

In fact, McCain supports amendments to state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage and would also support under certain circumstances an amendment to the federal Constitution banning same-sex marriage.

From http://mediamatters.org/items/2008052800 06.

With regards to the Arizona ban you rightfully trumpet as having been defeated:

Sen. John McCain said Thursday that he supports an initiative that would change Arizona's Constitution to ban gay marriages and deny government benefits to unmarried couples.

From http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic /news/articles/0826initiatives26.html

McCain is no friend to gays.  He is no friend to many other Democratic positions that I also support.  That is why I will be supporting the Democratic nominee this fall.

by you like it 2008-05-31 11:56PM | 0 recs
Yup

The typical white people and the hard working, white people.

by libertyleft 2008-05-31 05:44PM | 0 recs
their votes count

and the fact we have been losing whites by big margin over the years is why we lose. Bill Clinton won because he came within 5 points of the GOP candidates, and being that exit polls in both elections showed perot taking equally, it was genuine. Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern and Carter in 1980 all got dropped on the white vote. So yea, their votes matter.

by DiamondJay 2008-05-31 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: their votes count

Poor, poor disadvantaged and under represented white people.

by libertyleft 2008-05-31 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: their votes count

actually, many whites lack health care and have problems too. They are not all rich and well off. Poverty exists amongst them too. While I believe in equality, they are not the odd men out, and the problem is that over the years, our party has appeared that way. that is why Reagan and the Bushes could win. While I know whites haven't been discriminated much against, that message does not work to winning elections. We need minorities AND whites, not just one.

by DiamondJay 2008-05-31 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: their votes count

As a poor white person, I am aware of that.

by libertyleft 2008-05-31 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: their votes count

I thought everyone's vote mattered.  Now, it's some votes are more important than others?

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-31 06:06PM | 0 recs
not at all

and thats what I'm saying. The black vote and young vote is no more important than the white vote, and vice versa.

by DiamondJay 2008-05-31 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: not at all

I can agree with that.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-31 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: not at all

And not one single white person will ever vote for Obama. Got it. Thank god Iowa is 99% black or else he never would have won that state in the primary.

by Brannon 2008-05-31 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

But Bo's rhetoric is empty and doesn't offer what this country needs--a qualified candidate who can beat McCain.  Unfortunately, BO has proven to be a very divisive figure who will play the race card to keep his enemies in line. I wonder how long his victim status can work for him?

I also question Obama's surrounding himself with those who are players in the mortgage debacle, the nuclear industry, and the insurance industry.  With regard to the latter, Obama's health care policy is devised by none other than those who defeated HRC's efforts for universal health care in the 90s..  

by trixta 2008-05-31 05:07PM | 0 recs
The success of Obama's victim status

has just about run it's course. We have already had a small taste of how it will work against the GOP in the general election. McCain and the Republicans could give a shit less if he's offended by their attacks. Look at the reaction when he assumed Bush was talking about him with the appeasement remarks. If HRC had said the same thing, the media and the blogs would have had a hissy fit until she apologized. KO would have probably had a special comment. The GOP isn't going to treat him with kid gloves. They are going to be asking if the shoe doesn't fit, why is he trying so hard to wear it? He may have been able, with the help of a compliant media, to cry foul on anything that his primary opponents have said that casts him in a less than favorable light. But all bets are off in the GE. McCain is going to tell him to man up and quit whining, and use his complaints to make him look weak.

by georgiapeach 2008-06-01 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I can't look at what Obama is saying because he is being drowned out by all of his spritual advisors,supporters and surrogates.  And what they are saying is loud and clear.  

by Scotch 2008-05-31 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Precisely.. it reminds me of "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, for I am the great and powerful Wizard of..Ozbama."

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-31 07:48PM | 0 recs
LOL

What damage to Clinton?  

Don't worry, those were some supporters...., Hillary won't need to wait until Denver to win the nomination.  She may not even need to deal with the Credentials once she wins Puerto Rico and they Super De's see the polls and her large vote lead.

by LindaSFNM 2008-05-31 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL

by fogiv 2008-05-31 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL
Puerto Rico?  Really?  That's what's going to send the over 200 superdelegates she needs her way?
Well ... okay.  I guess we'll see in three days.
by bottl4 2008-05-31 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL

Don't ya know man?  All them supers have been waiting to see how PR votes.  As I people often say, "As goes Puerto Rico, so goes the nation."

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-31 06:09PM | 0 recs
Haven't you heard?

Puerto Rico is a swing state this year.  ;)

by protothad 2008-05-31 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL

A swinging state at any rate.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-01 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Will people please remember
The State Chairs involved of our Party said yes to today.
If they say yes...

rock on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x87IPQ2M Aw

by nogo postal 2008-05-31 05:10PM | 0 recs
on to Denver!
RBC are shame and Obama is a thief.
No unity with gangsters.
They want fight, they will twice of it.
We know that if no Clinton in November than McCain will win, so there is no point to unity before Denver.
Yes, she will win!
by engels 2008-05-31 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Well whatever is going to happen, there's no reason to pack it in today, with three more primaries to go.

If, as is widely expected, Clinton emerges with a lead in the popular vote, with reasonable consideration given to Michigan's results, she'll have a very strong moral case for the nomination. Obama may have the delegate lead, but she'll have a strong case to take to the convention.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-31 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I really don't want to provoke anybody, but please remember that

THERE IS NO POPULAR VOTE.

THERE IS NO POPULAR VOTE.

THERE IS NO POPULAR VOTE.

THERE IS NO POPULAR VOTE.

THERE IS NO POPULAR VOTE.

THERE IS NO POPULAR VOTE.

The only way to say that Senator Clinton is winning the "popular vote" is to count her votes in Michigan (where Obama was not on the ballot) and to ignore the four caucus states that do not announce a popular vote. In any case, adding together open primaries and closed primaries and caucuses doesn't give you a meaningful sum - that's why the delegate count is used.

3 apples + 2 oranges + 5 plums = fruit salad.

by Wee Mama 2008-05-31 05:33PM | 0 recs
Tell that to Al Gore, you fool!

There is no popular vote?????

That reminds me of what an Obama supporter said to me ten days ago: "the only way Hillary has gotten the most votes is if you count the votes of people in Michigan and Florida"

Well, uh, yeah...that's kind of the point of democracy.

After which, she said, "damn it...the rules are the rules!"

Such is the intellectual slum that has become the Obama candidacy. Good luck.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-05-31 05:42PM | 0 recs
Al Gore was ON THE BALLOT in all 50 states

and there were not four additional states using some different method of selection like a caucus.

by Wee Mama 2008-05-31 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell that to Al Gore, you fool!

The other point to democracy is to have all the fucking candidates on the ballot. Look it up.

by Brannon 2008-05-31 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

It's worth taking it to the convention over the fact that 30 people just undid the will of 600000 people in MI.  Uncommitted is the same as a candidate and they had NO RIGHT to change those delegates to Obama. What's to stop them from changing any primary they want now. THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY! The funny part is that he was gonna get most of them anyway from the county conventions.  THIS WAS NOT NEEDED, NOT LEGAL, AND SHOULD BE REJECTED

by nyarch 2008-05-31 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Ok, fine, for the sake of argument we grant none of the uncommitted to Obama and grant Clinton all of the delegates she earned in the state.

Still, it's not enough. Is making the point worth fighting two months over?

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Yes. 30 people just changed a vote of 600,000.  It is not democracy. For Donna Brazile to sit there and talk about her mother and the rules and then MAKE UP NEW ONES ON THE SPOT, is crap.  

by nyarch 2008-05-31 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Fair enough. You're willing to fight a battle that has zero chance of winning the nomination, simply to make a point about Donna Brazile. If this would change the outcome, then I might agree with you. But it doesn't.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!
Donna B. is not the reason, just an example of the crap that this decision was. It was arbitrary and had no basis in the rules of the DNC.  If anything it hurts our party's position on voting rights.
As to winning the nomination there is a good chance that she could win if she took it to the convention. they will end up about 110 pledged delegates apart and the supers are 100% free to change their mind until they vote.
by nyarch 2008-05-31 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Why is nobody blaming Carl Levin? Why is nobody blaming the Michigan Democratic Party? The RBC implemented exactly what they asked for.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-31 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!
Thirty people changed the vote of 600,000..from zero to something.  That is the reality.
  It is time to turn to the task at hand.  John McCain is looking in the windows of the White House.
by moondancer 2008-05-31 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

If those 30 people had done nothing then none of those votes would have counted at all.

by Brannon 2008-05-31 07:46PM | 0 recs
Right On. And I think Harold Ickes has

the biggest pair of goddam balls in Washington! It would probably take a dump truck to move them. As he said, you bet your ass the process was screwed up....and the millions of people who took time off from work, arranged rides to the polls, and took the time to go out and vote deserve to have their votes counted.

That mess in DC today reminded of me of some Banana Republic, and only contributed to the idea already out there (thank you, Nancy Pelosi!) that Democrats just can't get it together, much less govern.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-05-31 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Right On. And I think Harold Ickes has

But an election where the candidates can't fully campaign and two of the top three aren't on the ballot is nothing at all like a banana republic.

by Brannon 2008-05-31 07:51PM | 0 recs
Where was your outrage...

...when 29 of those same 30 people, including all of Clinton's supporters, voted to completely strip FL and MI of their delegates?

If you don't have an answer to that, then let me suggest that you're being manipulated here.

by maxomai 2008-05-31 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Where was your outrage...

That was a crap decision too, no question. They had a system in place for a reasonable penalty and they made up new rules then too.  If they wanted to strip delegates, halve them whatever that's well within their power. However, they have no power to assign delegates to one candidate or another. They are not voters in the state, they do not have that power.

by nyarch 2008-05-31 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!
What delegates?  Clinton had ZERO delegates from Michigan before
the compromise was accepted.
by JMcDonald 2008-05-31 10:22PM | 0 recs
It's up to Barack

He's supposed to be a uniter, let him start uniting.  Guilt-tripping Clinton supporters into voting for Obama because McCain is so scary-bad is weak.

So far, the only leadership Obama has shown is among members of his own flock.  That's not good enough to win in November.
 

by Upstate Dem 2008-05-31 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: It's up to Barack

I'm not 'guilt-tripping' anyone. I'm asking a simple question which curiously enough goes unanswered every time: Is 25-30 delegates really worth taking this fight to the convention over? It's up to both sides to treat each other with respect.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: It's up to Barack

In a word, yes.  What's at stake, also, is more than 25-30 delegates in total.  

These are two states that Clinton and her supporters believe she won fairly.  No, the process wasn't perfect, and it never is; but it is totally reasonable to argue that the voters (in both of these cases, Clinton supporters on the whole) should bear the brunt of the political missteps of FL/MI leaders.

If you are really a Clinton supporter, then there is something you should seriously consider:  Obama has not won the nomination yet.  Sure, he is likely to.  But despite what the MSM is telling is, does he have a lock on it?  The inconvenient truth, for Obama supporters, is no.  They (many of them, I should say) obviously want to GET a lock on it by denying Clinton the right to continue her candidacy, and her delegate fight.  Do you want to do the same?

by MMR2 2008-05-31 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: It's up to Barack

By winning the battle of MI/FL we still lose the war of the nomination. So I ask again: knowing full well that even sitting Michigan and Florida at full strength, she can't win the nomination, is this worth continuing past next week?

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: It's up to Barack

I disagree with your premise.  She can win the nomination; thats exactly why she would continue.  You may laugh, but as unlikely as it is, it's true.  The supers can change their minds--at any time.  Unlikely?  Yes.  But why not continue?  After everything your candidate has put in to the race, why not let her continue, and support her for doing it?

Here's an interesting psychology--why not support both candidates at the same time?

by MMR2 2008-05-31 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: It's up to Barack

I do support both candidates. Yet at the same time I see no difference in her suspending her campaign next week, taking some much-needed and much-deserved time off, then coming roaring back in a few weeks and campaigning for Obama. Should something earth-shattering happen, and Obama is deemed unelectable, she'll be ready and willing in the wings. But to actively crusade all the way to August would be catastrophic and draining.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: It's up to Barack

I definetely agree that she needs some time off; honestly, Obama might too.  Come to think of it, I'm not against her suspending her campaign.  I'm not against her campaigning, either, so long as she is not roughing up Barack.  

Even though she can technically still win, there might be another motivation for her staying in as long as possible: the Vice Presidency.  The longer she galvanizes Clinton supporters to her side, OR if she puts up a (staged) convention fight, perhaps she sees it as forcing Obama's hand to pick her.  

How about this for a compromise:  Hillary Democrats need to come to accept Obama as their eventual nominee, and respect him as such; but Obama Democrats need to accept the great likelihood of Clinton as the VP, and accept HER as such as well.

I feel that's a pretty decent compromise...right?

by MMR2 2008-05-31 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: It's up to Barack

You know what, I think that may be an acceptable compromise. While I personally don't like the idea of Clinton as V.P. -- I definitely do see the merits and agree that it would do wonders to bring along Clinton supporters for the ride. Officially, so to speak. :)

Kudos for engaging!

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 06:08PM | 0 recs
Obama is a GREAT Candidate

or he couldn't have beat Hillary for the Nomination.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-31 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Yes, I've read your diaries...just another concern troll for Obama trying to unify us to save your guy's ass.

by everyvotecounts 2008-05-31 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Thanks for the kind words. Since you've read my diaries, you know that 100% of what you just wrote is untrue.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

What an odd comment from everyvotecounts.

Thanks for the diary VAAlex.  Rec'd.

by TL 2008-05-31 05:34PM | 0 recs
I just reviewed

your most recent diaries.

You are no Clinton supporter.

by Coldblue 2008-05-31 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I just reviewed

Shame Clinton supporters in your eyes can't be objective. I also haven't seen you much around here, so not sure how you can comment on what I am.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 06:10PM | 0 recs
It's simple for

anyone to read your previous diaries.

Try as I might, they don't come across as being the Clinton supporter that you claim to be.

Hey, you wrote them and made the claim: I'm just not buying your claim.

by Coldblue 2008-05-31 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: It's simple for

Fair enough. My point also remains: you haven't been around for the last couple of months to interact with me to gauge who I am, either. So you can claim based on all my diaries (I doubt you've read my comments) to know who I am, but I am telling you who I am. But you're entitled to your opinion.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 06:18PM | 0 recs
You and I

haven't had a dialog but, unless you are suggesting that your diaries require direct discussion for clarification of your point of view, I don't see how that has any relevance.

You are entitled to your opinions, but please don't attempt to pretend to be someone that you aren't, OK?

by Coldblue 2008-05-31 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: You and I

Please don't pretend to tell me who I am. I know damn well who I am. And I've tried to be polite, but now you're making me angry. I've supported Hillary Clinton since Iowa. I've worked many long hours and donated a lot of money that I probably shouldn't have to her cause. I've spent countless hours on the phone for her and I was devastated when I realized she wasn't going to win.

Since you haven't interacted with me and I haven't interacted with you, you don't know me, yet you claim that I'm 'pretending' to be someone that I'm not. I don't have to 'pretend' anything or justify myself to you, especially since you haven't been on here for months. If you had, you would have seen me defending Hillary to no end.

So don't attempt to tell me who I am, OK?

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: You and I

On the positive side, at least you haven't been called a sexist yet today.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-31 06:49PM | 0 recs
Sure

you're a Clinton supporter.

Whatever you say...sorry it gets you angry when someone questions your validity.

And for the record, I have been on here for months since January '08. Prior to that was a no participation period after 2004. You were here in 2004, weren't you?

by Coldblue 2008-05-31 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Sure

You didn't just question my validity, I would have been OK with it -- and was, as the above comments prove. A check of my comments easily discredits your 'theory'.

What you did is you basically said I'm 'pretending' to be a Clinton supporter. That's what's offensive, and that's what you got called out on.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Sure

Quit it, Coldblue.

Maybe you're a lurker, or a banished troll back with a new handle, but you certainly aren't known to be a frequent poster.

As an Obama supporter I've had some heated arguments with VAAlex in the past, and yes, he has been a passionate if not vociferous supporter of Clinton. His change of heart came to me as a surprise - a pleasant one. Your johnny-come-lately accusations are patently false, and aren't winning you any points.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-01 08:32AM | 0 recs
You have

a UID 33228.

VAAlex has a UID of 32376

My UID is 2305.

I've never seen your posts here, probably because they are in pro-Obama/trash-Clinton threads that I avoid.

You are the johnny-come-lately, so in another four years if you still post here, we can revisit your claim of who is known and who isn't.

So, respectively, shove it.

by Coldblue 2008-06-02 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Well,

Not only is Obama not perfect -
He's just plain weak as a Dem candidate.
Why is it that we Dems always do this?

The Rethugs, despite all their problems and rock-bottom polling,
ended up with their strongest possible candidate.

Plus, I have seen more Bronx cheers and "Our way or the highway!"
statements from Obama supporters than you can shake a stick at.

Hardly makes one want to go out and support their candidate.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-31 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Great diary...and from an Obama supporter, I'll say this:

If it's only 25 delegates, why would Obama fight for them?  Perhaps the unifying way would have been to give HRC a 25 delegate advantage...

just a thought...offered in response to your olive branch.

by stlatty72 2008-05-31 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

The worry isn't the superdelegates, but the pledged delegates.  Remember, they're still able to switch at any times, and are perhaps more easily manipulated by bribery than supers, who are on the whole, better financially situated.  Indeed, a Clinton fund raiser recently offered 1 million the Young Democrats for their three superdelegate votes.

Obama needs to win by at least 100 delegates to make sure this is put away and doesn't go to the convention with any steam.  (Weather it goes to the convention at all is of course only up to one person.)

by such sweet thunder 2008-05-31 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

yeah, I was thinking that a lot today, but as a Hillary supporter (who will vote for Obama in Nov), I felt I couldn't write that without being trolled.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-31 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Hopefully soon we can write what we think again and not get trolled.  Hopefully people also recognize that you engage in respectful dialog and make this site a better place.

Just one Obama supporter's thoughts.

Oh yeah, I guess I thought the MI "solution" was weak too.  Mainly I'm just frickin angry that the DNC took such draconian action back in Dec that we had to revisit this now.  Any solution now would leave most people angry.

I truly hope that we get some serious primary reform next time around (no caucuses would be a great start) and someone please tell me why NH is sooooo special to the Democratic party?

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-31 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I agree that its over.  At least the result shows that Hillary got the majority of the delegates alloted, in proportion to the vote.  Based on the reading of the rules, this seemed like the inevitable and best possible result. It wasn't just a half and half thing, which would have been a real defeat.

by FarWest 2008-05-31 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Awesome diary. Glad to see there's a few of us that are rational on here. You've been an awesome poster for Hill. Rec'd.

by zcflint05 2008-05-31 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Thanks for the kind words. I really do think the vast majority of us are reasonable; unfortunately it's usually the loudest ones who get noticed most. I'll say the same about you -- you've been a good defender of Hillary as well.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

This is something we all need to keep in mind.  We can have 99 sane, reasonable BO and HRC supporters on the site and all it takes is 1 or 2 folks to start tossing grenades and getting everybody upset.

We need to keep telling ourselves that the one rigid poster who supports another candidate and keeps posting uncompromising, unfair stuff does NOT represent the vast majority of that candidate's supporters.  I believe the rigid folks are completely sincere, but they just can't view things from a different point of view right now.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-31 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

cheers and rcc'ed

today was a tough day or many, I hope this is as far as it goes and we can get down to the GE proper soon.

by notedgeways 2008-05-31 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Remember:

Those who give their liberty away to acquire a little security, deserve neither liberty nor security.

To paraphrase, those who give away their franchise to gain a little unity deserve neither.

Today, a foundamental bedrock of democracy was violated.  A candidate who wasn't even on the ballot was given votes.  Some of those votes were cast for another candidate.

Keep putting your head in the sand.  You have just put a lipstick on a pig.  You have squandered the foundantion of democracy and you don't even know it.

by ghost 2 2008-05-31 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

But ... Clinton and Obama aren't running to be the standard-bearers of democracy, they're running for the Democratic nomination.

by VAAlex 2008-05-31 06:44PM | 0 recs
When there's a difference, it's dangerous!

by itsadryheat 2008-05-31 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: When there's a difference, it's dangerous!

A party's nomination has never been about democracy.  That's why they're generally over before all the states vote.  Those later states don't call themselves "disenfranchised" even though they had no say in who the nominee would be.  Why should this year be any different??  Would the Clinton supporters have been pissed about disenfranchisement in Ohio and Texas and Pennsylvania, etc if Clinton had wrapped up the nomination on Feb 5th?  I doubt it.

by jturn17 2008-06-01 01:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Please.. a "fundamental bedrock of democracy"?

Coming from those that claim a sham primary should suddenly, after the fact, in violation earlier rules, should count as though it were completely legitimate?

Give me a break - and your high horse too.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-01 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Obama is not an asset. I will not be voting for him and I will be voting for the other enemy. No matter what she does, if Clinton is not the nominee as I know she won't be, then my vote is for McCain. After 8 years of Dubya, the best we can do is Obama?

Hell No! My mind is made up.

by bsavage 2008-05-31 06:41PM | 0 recs
I will vote for the nominee. Period.

If it happens to be Obama, then I will do it with no enthusiasm, no volunteering and no donations.  The bare minimum.

In the meantime, I am registering as an independent on Monday as a protest to the anti-democratic primary system that the party has seen fit to foist upon us.

I have not and will not tear down Obama, even though I do not think he is qualified to be president.  Let's just say I will vote for him out of a leap of faith. Faith that he will appoint rational Supreme Court justices and decent cabinet members.

My decision  should resonate with all the faithful Obama supporters who have invested in his campaign with religious fervor.

by Radiowalla 2008-05-31 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I will vote for the nominee. Period.

Given what I saw today I think the religious fervor bit can be applied even handed to many supporters on both sides.

But, may I say, thank you. I know it is pretty tough right now so even admitting this much must be difficult. I appreciate what you have to say.

cheers

by notedgeways 2008-05-31 07:13PM | 0 recs
No thanks are needed.

My decision is purely out of self interest.
Above all, I want to preserve the Supreme Court.  As for the rest of it, I could care less.  

I thank you for your kind reply, but I feel no camaraderie with Obama nor with most of the Obama camp.  

After being kicked in the teeth these last months, chased out of DKos and alienated by the vitriol of Huffingtonpost and Olbermann and Tweety, and on and on.., I don't feel very much like joining in the parade.

by Radiowalla 2008-05-31 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Chuck Todd said that Obama had enough votes to split MI 50/50, but he went with the compromise solution, the one that would help heal the party.

He didn't have to do it... he could have pressed to get every delegate he could... but, he didn't... he made a sacrifice and compromised for the good of the party...

by LordMike 2008-05-31 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Sacrifice?  You make it sound like he had enough votes from VOTERS OF MICHIGAN to split 50/50, but no.  The so-called votes were from individuals on the RBC who back Obama.  By being petty about those 4 delegates stolen from Clinton, Obama and his supporters are now going to continue to suffer the ire of millions of Democrats.  If that's healing, don't be surprised when the Dem Party is still bleeding in November.

by Montague 2008-06-01 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Recommended. Good diary, and keep it up.

by wiscogirl101 2008-05-31 07:20PM | 0 recs
My logic is simple
If granting Clinton additional 25 to 50 delegates will not make a difference to Obama but yet can make Florida and Michigan count, why not proceed with it? Why attempt to disenfranchise voters? What this circus did was ensuring a prolong hatred among the supporters. This is one of the best chance given to unite us from both sides but instead threw us, on the losing side, over the cliff. Harold Ickes said it right, this will certainly not unite us. He made an extremely heartfelt closing statements and i guess we shall fight the nomination in Denver.
 
by stevent 2008-05-31 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: My logic is simple
I think the importance of not fully seating the delgates from both states is that they still have to impose a penalty for breaking the rules. If the DNC had folded, any primary calendar they put out for 2012 would be laughed at and we would have a stampede that would result in primaries taking place in 2011.
I understand what you are saying in regards to not disenfranchising the voters, but what about every voter who decided to stay home because they were told their vote wouldn't count?
by GrahamCracker 2008-05-31 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: My logic is simple

Because treating a non-binding primary as completely legitimate would also disenfranchise voters, that's why.

Any attempt to keep legitimate voters from voting - from voter intimidation to deliberate misinformation - is considered disenfranchisement. It's no different for the R&BC to first tell voters that their vote won't count, then later, surprise! too bad you didn't vote, it did count.

Even with the compromise of 1/2 a vote per delegate, those votes did end up counting. For anyone that felt that their voice was quelled, they're still doing better than those disenfranchised by the above turn of events. Just because Ickes isn't involved on theatrics on their behalf, doesn't change that.

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-31 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Today was not a rough day for HRC, she ended up with more delegates, thereby increasing her Army.  So, consider this too.  BHO can give his Tuesday night where ever he wants.  It does not matter, the primary is still razor thin.  Don't assume HRC supporters are going to flock to BHO ASAP.  No, it's gonna take some serious time.  Many of us think he's a deeply flawed GE candidate.

HRC is tough and so are her supporters, many of whom will be in Denver.  So, the Party Elite demanding she fold just won't work.  Bullying never does.

That said, HRC will do what every guy has done in the past, and suspend the campaign and hold on to her delegates.  Sure, some will move to BHO, but most will stick with HRC.  From early June till late August is a long time, let's see how BHO performs against the Rep Attack Machine.  Honestly, there are plenty of more organizations or afflications he might renouce, we'll just have to stay tuned.  

by Chicano 2008-05-31 07:27PM | 0 recs
I absolutely agree.

It's time to start acceting Obama as our nominee, even if he's not our first choice.

by Angry Mouse 2008-05-31 07:41PM | 0 recs
I am not at all satisfied with the process

and not at all satisfied with the party which has been my home for more years than I can count.

If Obama is to be the nominee, then so be it.  But I won't be on a bandwagon that has so disrespected Senator Clinton and her supporters and that has been constructed on voter suppression.

I plan to leave the Democratic party and will not return until the primary process is reformed.

by Radiowalla 2008-05-31 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I am not at all satisfied with the process

"I won't be on a bandwagon that has so disrespected Senator Clinton and her supporters and that has been constructed on voter suppression"

Where does this anger come from?

From what I can see, Obama has always been civil and quite respectful of Clinton, even in the heat of the contest, And he's been far more inclusive campaign than Clinton, campaigning in every state while she's repeatedly announced that various categories states don't matter.

The only voter exclusion has been by the DNC, lead by Clinton's team, taking delegates away from states that break the rules. Losing delegates is the standard punishment (1996, 2000, 2004, 2008) and all of the candidates, including of course Clinton, agreed with enforcing the penalty.

by laird 2008-06-01 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: I am not at all satisfied with the process

You're right. Obama has conducted probably the most civil campaign I've ever seen in my "political" lifetime. You should see the shit Heater Wilson and Steve Pearce, both Republicans, are hurling at each other prior to the NM Senate primay. It's so foul, we can only laugh. I'm so glad we didn't see that level of crap in this primary - and I wouldn't expect it.

There's only one reason I can come up with for the anger you mentioned. And that's because they lost. And it wasn't just an ordinary loss, it was the loss of the chance for what they felt would have been possibly the most progressive administration this country has seen in decades. And, the chance to see a woman lead our country.

by desertjedi 2008-06-01 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I am not at all satisfied with the process

"There's only one reason I can come up with for the anger you mentioned. And that's because they lost. And it wasn't just an ordinary loss, it was the loss of the chance for what they felt would have been possibly the most progressive administration this country has seen in decades. And, the chance to see a woman lead our country."

This is very helpful, thanks!

by laird 2008-06-01 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

No sir, never. Time to make a statement. Time for this Hillary supporter lay down the law. Millions of Hillary supporters are pissed off, me amongst them. I will remember in November. I will NOT vote for Obama. Call me what you will, but my decision is final and irrevocable. I will vote in November. it might be for Nader, or it just might be for Mc.Cain.

by demswin06 2008-05-31 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Should probably changed your handle then.

by apd 2008-05-31 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!
VA Alex,
Thanks for your diary, & thanks for being a Democrat. Here's to the good fight against the GOP.
by catilinus 2008-05-31 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I don't feel that I have anything to do with the decision to go to the convention or not.  I am a loyal Clinton supporter, I don't like Obama and I doubt I will ever get over that, but I won't vote for McCain.  That's all I have to say.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-31 09:27PM | 0 recs
Really?

If you support Hillary why are you giving up before she has?

by portia9 2008-05-31 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

This process was a sham.  Voters interests were made subservient to those of Obama and CYA DNC politicians.  It doesn't matter whether there was an impact on the outcome of the national primary or not.  Every voter that cast a ballot should be counted.  There should be no half-votes or arbitrary allocations of delegates simply to appease the anointed 'leader' of the party who didn't even win the popular vote.

by khyber900 2008-05-31 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!
"Every voter that cast a ballot in a legitimate primary should be counted." There, that's better.
by laird 2008-06-01 11:16AM | 0 recs
Effendi you are correct.

The past is past, the present is prologue and the future is ours for the taking if we unite.  

As you say, on to November and the White House.

thanks for a thoughtful post, which was sorely needed today

by xenontab 2008-05-31 10:38PM | 0 recs
Kudos to VAAlex!
by french imp 2008-05-31 11:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

The way many Clinton supporters are acting you'd think Obama is behind in the pledged delegate count by 500 but all of the superdelegates went his way.  When is there going to be some acnowledgement that Obama won the election according to the rules which were in place (and the whole FL and MI thing wasn't just a long shot for Clinton but a gambit for a rules-based gambit which didn't turn on any result she could have won at the ballot box).

I don't think Obama supporters are trying to guilt Clinton's backers into voting for him.  There are two issues in play.  First, be honest--if Clinton somehow gets the nomination at this late date (say 500 superdelegates flip to her), you'll be making the same appeals and entreaties to us.  Where is the reciprocity?  There's simply no scenario where Clinton could have come out ahead where her supporters didn't then make the pitch for party unity (and not simply for self-interested reasons, you're challenging one of the most basic rules, those who supported the also rans have to get behind the winner).

Second, if a rift in the party occurs, who doubts this will last beyond the results of this election?  Something I can't figure out is why Hillary Clinton's supporters can't think a few moves ahead, and acknowledge that if Obama loses because Democrats don't vote for him she's going to get sucked down into the same whirlpool (I just don't see how she could come back in 2012, she'd have half of the party blaming her for this loss, and even sympathizers wouldn't want to risk losing two in a row).

If all Obama did was sign bills sent to him by Congress, that would make him the most effective president the Democrats have had for fifty years.  But whatever.  Hope you'll come around.  

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-01 12:20AM | 0 recs
Vengeance is sweet!.... why should she care about

the democratic party and all the judases a la Richardson who told her they would stand by her and then were easily bought off by Obama? What has the party done for her except nothing more than belittling her at every turn since Iowa even insinuating that her victory in New Hampshire was corrupt because the exit polls didn't math the results and then telling her to get out of the race to  make way for Obama? I hope she sabotages this corrupt falsely claiming to be democratic party They absolutely repulse me to the nth degree!

by suzieg 2008-06-01 01:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Vengeance is sweet!.... why should she care ab

What are you talking about?? Richardson never said he'd stand by her! If he had then he would have just came out and endorsed her.  He might have told Bill that he wouldn't endorse, but that's not "I'll stand by her."  That's a complete fabrication of the truth.

"even insinuating that her victory in New Hampshire was corrupt because the exit polls didn't math the results"

Can you show evidence of that with a link?  Cause I have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyway, yes... The Democratic Party hates Hillary.  They were out to get her from the start.  That's why she started this process with 100 more superdelegates than the other candidates and was given a calender that was front loaded to help her clinch the nomination early. Remember: "Well the race will be over February 5th."  Come on.

by jturn17 2008-06-01 01:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!
Stop acting as though Hillary's supporters are all a bunch of idiots. You are already trying blame Clinton *if* Obama loses in November, that is quite a telling statement to make.
by optimisticBoy 2008-06-01 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!
These are wonderful words, and I recommend the diary. I have no hatred or particular dislike of Obama. I believe he can win in November, but Clinton has a much better chance. Yesterday's RBC decision degrades Obama's chances to win, but doesn't obliterate them. Frankly, most of my Obama-related discordance is due to some, not all, of his supporters and "supporters" both on and off the net.
by zenful6219 2008-06-01 04:51AM | 0 recs
It's over

No decision here changes that.   Clinton's best argument is the popular vote win that depending on how one defines the electorate she earned.  

Obama's PD win is safe.

It is silly to dicker over an extra 10 delegates either way.  

Personally, I think that Clinton should be focused on securing the best possible exit package across power, prestige, influence and to a lesser extent campaign debt relief.

I suspect that much is willing to be discussed by the Obama campaign - short of the VP slot.  

The question then for Clinton is this:  Does she want the VP slot?  How badly does she want it?   And if Obama draws the line there, is she pepared to fight aggressively for it?  I suspect that if this thing gets ugly, it will be because either she wants the slot for herself, or she wants to ensure that a Clinton surrogate is in the spot.

by activatedbybush 2008-06-01 05:29AM | 0 recs
It was stupid

If Obama is going to win anyway, they should have allocated the delegates fully and without using magic numbers to determine Michigan.  All they have done is tainted the election unnecessarily and given Clinton a moral basis for continuing to fight.

by BPK80 2008-06-01 05:47AM | 0 recs
Zero. That's what she should have gotten.

She got a gift yesterday.

BTW:

John McCain voted to filibuster the minimum wage. John McCain doesn't support the troops. John McCain agrees with Bush's Iraq strategy. John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. John McCain supports NAFTA. John McCain is a puppet for the lobbyists.

by heresjohnny 2008-06-01 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Zero. That's what she should have gotten.

"Make your vote count, Vote Republican"

Slogan from a GOP ad in Florida.  Poignant and fitting.  

I am an undecided voter right now.    

by BPK80 2008-06-01 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Zero. That's what she should have gotten.

Fitting? Pathetic really. My uncle is from FL and he knew his vote wouldn't count - so he didn't vote like a million others - and he knew the election wasn't even fair since Obama didn't campaign there. If others aren't that aware (and my uncle isn't Haavahd educated - doesn't even have a college degree) then that's certainly a problem for them.

BTW:

John McCain voted to filibuster the minimum wage. John McCain doesn't support the troops. John McCain agrees with Bush's Iraq strategy. John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. John McCain supports NAFTA. John McCain is a puppet for the lobbyists. John McCain is fine letting our troops rot in Iraq for 100 years.

by heresjohnny 2008-06-01 06:26AM | 0 recs
Damned Straight. n/t

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-01 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: It was stupid

Hillary's claim is that she is the only one that deserves the nominiation, as lond as she does not get it, she will find some reason to continue the fight. In my mind, such appeasement, like yesterday's is insulting for a serious candidate like her. So, the RBC should not be driven by her intent, but by the rules. How about the violation of the rules? there has to be some pennalities, otherwise it will be a mess in 2012 as some states to come first for the primaries.  

by selam 2008-06-01 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

I appreciate your tone and your sentiment, VAAlex.  

However... I have always thought the U.S. needs more than two viable parties.  I've been loyal to the Democrats for decades but I'm thinking it is time to do something different.  The way this primary has been run has finally brought me to that point.

Good luck with your goals.  I'm steeling myself for four years of McCain.  My vote can't stop it, and I'm done with enabling men with thin resumes to beat out enormously talented, intelligent, hard-working women for jobs.

by Montague 2008-06-01 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

One person, one vote.

One person can volunteer and educate.

One person can make a difference.

Do you not agree that Obama is the pledged delegate leader ? Did he do this by coup d'etat. If teh Superdelegates are picking him despite all of the general election polling, dubious popular vote claims ( a number of caucus states aren't included in the pop. vote tally), etc. then it's over.

by chatters71 2008-06-01 09:01AM | 0 recs
Deceptive title

Why do you claim to be a Clinton supporter when you renounced your support of her back in April? (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/24/1859 15/744)

Is this a wolf-in-sheep's clothing kinda thing?

The odds of Clinton's winning the nomination are indeed very slim.  But ultimately I do not make my choice based on who I think will win the primary.  I make my choice based on who I think will win the general election, and who will best represent my interests, and our collect well-being, as President.

By those criteria Hillary remains my candidate, and will remain my candidate until she decides to step down.  If and when that happens, then I will re-evaluate my choice based on the options that are available to me at that point.

This has been a remarkable primary.  We have a candidate who has won more votes than any other candidate in the history of the Democratic party!  And yet, through a cumbersome and opaque set of rules and sub-rules and sub-sub-rules, we will not nominate that candidate.  Instead, we will nominate the candidate who has received less votes, and who is demonstrably less likely to win the general election.

As I say, it is astounding.

Meanwhile, progressives, as they existed at the turn of the (20th) century (when the movement was born and when the word meant something specific), must be asleep or somwhere outside the building.  What happened to the mandate of direct representation?  Gone.  Now 30 people substitute their judgement for the results of an election and we are content to leave it at that.  After all, they met eachother half-way, so it must be fair.  Not one person stops to think about what sort of precident was set by that?  (Nevermind which candidate it favors - I don't much care at this point.)

If Hillary wants to take this to the convention I will support her 100%.  It has nothing to do with anger or resentment.  There is a process in place.  The process allows for credentials challenges.  The decision to set the convention date close to election day was just that: a decision, made by short-sighted party elders.  Let them sort out the ramifications of their choices.  As a citizen, my only responsibility in this matter is to support the person whom I think would make our best candidate and best President.  I have become almost totally indifferent toward the horse-race aspect of all this.

by bobbank 2008-06-01 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Deceptive title

Good think we'll only have a few more days of this self-destructive behavior.

by laird 2008-06-01 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Deceptive title

Democracy = self-destructive?

I guess..

by bobbank 2008-06-01 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Deceptive title

You want to explain what about my post warrants a "Hide" rating, Laird?  Do you just generally approve of people disagreeing with you?

Your claim is that following a democratic process (which is what "taking it to the convention" would be) is "self destructive".  I called you on it.  You don't get to hide all discenting voices, sorry.  If you're not comfortable with having your position mirrored back at you, you should consider revising.

by bobbank 2008-06-01 01:03PM | 0 recs
Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

There are just some people who aren't going to vote for Obama.  Some of them were looking for a reason and some of them weren't.  It's okay though, I don't hold a grudge against them.

by venavena 2008-06-01 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!
A reminder..
Edwards lays it out..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZbeJzsnY 2E&feature=related
by nogo postal 2008-06-01 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

Unity? When this country is in a shambles I can't just sit back and hopey, changey that things will be taken care of. John McCain is an American patriot and will do whats  right for America. Obama, I'm not so sure of. I haven't heard a word from him about anything specific. We don't have time for an experiment. He is NOT qualified for the office. He didn't do his job in the Senate, how can we expect him to do the job of President. No thanks. If Clinton is not the nominee, I will be voting republican for the first time.

by glennmcgahee 2008-06-01 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

"Do you really want to prolong this nomination battle over an additional 25 delegates that will NOT win Clinton the nomination?"

YES

that is because I won't support obama as the nominee, therefore I want hillary to do all possible to win this thing.

Even

become an independent if possible.

by nikkid 2008-06-01 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This!

and put country above party and vote for the candidate who is qualified to be president

by awayer 2008-06-01 05:14PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads