home

Late Night: Getting Ready for Florida

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:06:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Pinball Wizard by the Who.

This letter from the Michigan Democratic Party to the DNC Rules Committee explains the history of what happened very well.

Update: Hillary picks up superdelegate from Washington. The state total now stands at 7 for Obama, 6 for Hillary and 4 still uncommitted.

This is an open thread.

< Obama To Overturn Bush Laws and Orders He Finds Unconstitutional | The Media And Michigan And Florida >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Late Night: Getting Ready for Florida | 180 comments (180 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Hillary is the strongest candidate (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:12:59 AM EST
    in this race.  She's won the big electorals, the swing voters, and the swing states.  She has the resume for the job, and knowledge of the issues.  She polls the best against John McCain, and stands the best chance of winning.  She has the popular vote.

    For crissake, let's nominate her!

    OTOH (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Lupin on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:33:37 AM EST
    I'll be entirely happy to agree with the sratement that by most metrics Clinton does poll much better than Obama against McCain.

    According to MyDD today:

    Obama: 290
    McC: 248

    Clinton: 338
    McC: 200

    I see no reason to dispute this. Note however that in both cases, we win.


    Parent

    She does NOT have the vote (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Lupin on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:55:51 AM EST
    Real Clear Politics

    In virtually every scenario but one (0 vote to Obama in MI), he is ahead of Clinton.

    Personally, I don't care, because I think the two  candidates are just too close for it to be significant, and further after weighing the evidence, I don't find that either one has a significant advantage/disadvantage against McC in the GE.

    So I'm content with waiting for the DNC to declare one our official nominee, whatever it takes.

    But if you want your cause to be credible, you've got to stop making up stuff.

    Parent

    But if you count ALL the ACTUAL votes ... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:24:07 AM EST
    ... Clinton leads by 164,654, based on the RCP link that you supplied.

    And even if you include estimates for the four caucuses that did not publish vote totals, Clinton still leads by 54,432, based on the RCP link that you supplied.

    That's two scenarios -- the two that are the most inclusive -- not one, as you claim:

    In virtually every scenario but one (0 vote to Obama in MI), he is ahead of Clinton.

    Did you actually read the data before linking to it? If you want your arguments to be credible, you've got to stop making up stuff, especially since you "don't care" who is the nominee. Because some of us do care, and so we pay attention to these details. Like which candidate is actually trouncing McCain in the polls.

    So, since you don't care and think the two candidates are "just too close for it to be significant," and the errors in your comment confirm that you are not really paying attention to the details, maybe you could consider refraining from stirring things up with further troll-like posts?

    Parent

    I disagree... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Lupin on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:59:52 AM EST
    ...that the +164,654 scenario has any likelihood to happen at this stage, which is why I hadn't included it in my statement, but even granting that point, that still leaves Obama the leader in the majority of scenarios, which is greatly different from merely stating "Hillary has the vote".

    No she does not. At least not according to the majority of scenarios currently on the table.

    I would argue that real trolls are the ones who continue to repeat the candidates' talking points, as opposed to those who check the facts and take a wait and see attitude.

    Parent

    You are just wasting everyone's time ... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:16:58 AM EST
    ... with your ridiculous statements about what is "likely to happen" when we are discussing the sum totals of votes that have already happened.

    So please do check your facts, and take a wait and see attitude, as you suggest. That approach will be simpler for you, and less confusing your readers.

    Parent

    You must be joking? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Lupin on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:26:32 AM EST
    The most often repeated argument I read here to support nominating Clinton is that she is more electable, based on something "likely to happen" and you dare complain about using stats from RCP???

    I'm sorry but the facts are the facts, and right now:
    Popular vote
    Obama: 16,685,941    49.1%   
    Clinton: 16,227,514    47.7%   

    Parent

    The general election is vs McCain (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by andrys on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:32:35 AM EST
    And obviously you have noticed that in the electoral-college map polling, Clinton is beating McCain in ALL the ones people here have sited, while Obama is losing to McCain in ALL the ones people here have sited, in many threads.

      November is not about which is the most popular Democrat candidate nationwide but, believe it or not, about which candidate can win the presidency against McCain.

      It's no surprise you don't speak to that.

      As the GE campaign goes on and the mostly unknown Obama is vetted by the usual, you will see only a downward turn in his polling against McCain.

     

    Parent

    have Cited :-) (none / 0) (#135)
    by andrys on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:33:02 AM EST


    Parent
    And the Polls said... (none / 0) (#181)
    by FedUpLib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:24:10 AM EST
    In November that Hillary was going to run away with this thing in a landslide.

    Attitudes Change, polls change.

    Re Popular Vote...
    Imagine watching the SuperBowl and your team is winning by a touchdown.  You get to the end of the game and you are still ahead.  The other team calls over to the refs and argues that they had more yards than you do, so they should be the winner.

    Yes, the other team has more yards, but the game is scored by how many times you actually cross the goal line.

    The total yards stat is interesting, possibly even indicating a better team...but in the end, it is the team with the most points on the board that wins the game.  In football as in politics as in life, it is not always that best team that wins.

    I happen to believe that the better team is winning right now, but that is only my opinion.

    If Hillary gets the most Del's...fine, I will step into line and vote for her.  Arguing for Popular Vote just makes you sound like a sore loser.

    Parent

    hasn't anyone seen this despicable video from (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by suzieg on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:07:39 AM EST
    another of his longtime friends/advisers/mentors/or whatever he calls them to suit his purpose, who accuses us of being racists and Hillary a white supremacist?

    I'm fed up of their argument and now all I want is for him to simply go away and take his hate mongers with him! My mother used to tell me: "show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are!" when she didn't approve of my new friends.

    The evidence is clear when, once again, we see who the Obamas chose to befriend. He doesn't represent my values and makes me wonder after this latest incident, what he really says behind closed doors when he's with them. I gave him the benefit of the doubt with Wright, but this is just one too much for me!

    Parent

    "Virtually" one? Uh, two (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:26:08 AM EST
    per your link.  But, y'know, who's counting. . . .

    Parent
    Not the "new" Dem party ;) (none / 0) (#61)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:32:11 AM EST


    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#63)
    by Lupin on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:37:44 AM EST
    The 164,564 scenario is unrealistic because it's the one without any apportionment of the MI vote, and we already know that's not going to happen.

    In any event that still leaves MORE scenarios with Obama leading in the votes than Clinton, which is contrary to the blanket assumption that Clinton leads that I see repeated here.

    Parent

    How can you disagree (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:01:53 AM EST
    that there are six categories at your link, and she leads not in one but in two?  Because counting six categories takes too many fingers, and two hands?  You can disagree with the criteria for a category, of course -- although your criteria seem to require a crystal ball . . . and a disregard for rationality as well as ye olde requirement that candidates who wanted votes went on the ballot and stayed there.  That was so, y'know, last century.

    Parent
    Not so simple (none / 0) (#85)
    by Lupin on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:10:27 AM EST
    Because as I already said the, one scenario (the +164,000 ie 0 votes from MI for Obama) is no longer on the table. I don't count hypotheticals.

    Look at MyDD (a pro-Clinton site) -- the post "Declaring Victory" by Ted Breeton. This is a guy who supports Hillary, and yet he outlines clearly and convincingly the reasonable case scenarios currently on the table.

    And again, remember that I merely objected to the blanket statement "Hillary had the votes". In most cases, she does not. That's all I pointed out.

    Parent

    Not relevant to my main point. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:14:31 AM EST


    Parent
    Tear up all the votes you want they're still votes (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:22:32 AM EST
    They still count, even though TeamObama is pretending they're just debris.

    You can't tear up the voters themselves.

    Parent

    not if you count everybody then (none / 0) (#96)
    by Lupin on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:29:29 AM EST
    Nobody is talking about tearing up votes. If you apportion the MI votes, Obama still ends up with a few more votes. Your funny math is not a valid argument, and I dare say, one of the reasons the Clinton supporters are alienating the "neutrals".

    Parent
    People are worried about (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:39:13 AM EST
    alienating the Neutrals?  What about alienating the registered Democrats?  

    Parent
    Tearing up votes is exactly what they're doing (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:41:55 AM EST
    There's nothing the voters themselves did wrong, and as BTD demonstrated yesterday, nothing the state parties did wrong going by the DNC's selectivity in enforcing their own sacrosanct Roolz.

    Voter depression and suppression are rotten in themselves, but destroying votes cast to feign victory for their pre-chosen candidate is obscene.

    Counting them only fractionally goes against every foundation of democracy I would think was one principle to get the Dems stand firmly for, but they haven't for any of the other constitutional values so this latest cave-in doesn't surprise me in the least.

    I do appreciate the opportunity to exercise what's left of MY franchise though.

    Parent

    The votes were state-certified and they stand. (none / 0) (#137)
    by andrys on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:34:33 AM EST
    What the meeting is about, is the delegates allowed to participate and who they will represent.

    The votes cast are as they are and the DNC cannot invalidate those.

    Parent

    MyDD Is "Pro-Clinton" (none / 0) (#159)
    by creeper on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:16:39 AM EST
    Don't make me laugh.  That's why I post here.  MyDD started going the way of dKos.

    Oh, and BTW, it's Todd Beeton...no R.

    Parent

    I disagree, because virtually every scenario (none / 0) (#82)
    by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:06:15 AM EST
    ... except those that count ALL the ACTUAL votes are biased in favor of Obama. And virtually no one who has reviewed the caucus voting has concluded that it is a fair reflection of the electorate in those states. And virtually no analysis of the electoral vote favors Obama over McCain.

    So it's virtually certain that if you are arguing otherwise that your claim of "not caring" which candidate is the nominee is bogus, and you are really a committed Obama supporter masquerading as a concerned Democrat.

    Parent

    not the case (none / 0) (#91)
    by Lupin on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:22:26 AM EST
    I'm fed up pointing out on this site that I have attacked and criticized Obama on DKos (calling him the "Jimmy Carter of the North" and comparing him to Werner Ehrard) last February, long before most of you deadenders started getting the vapors about him.

    I am, in fact, not an Obama supporter, nor a Clinton one. As I have stated way too many times already, I was an Edwards/Kucinich supporter.

    At this point, like Digby and many others, I'm neutral, happy to vote for whoever the DNC decides is "my" nominee. Both candidates are able and competent and I will have no regrets.

    This site, which was once a paragon of logic and clear mindedness, has sadly descended into the most appalling repetition of untrue or inaccurate or illogical talking points.

    To say that "every scenario is biased in favor of Obama" is so ludicrous I won't even dignify this with a reply. Yes, reality has an Obama bias, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert.

    MyDD -- which is a pro-Clinton site -- has more rational coverage; I suggest you read the "Declaring Victory" post which I think is an accurate and rational analysis of where we stand.

    I'll end by saying I didn't get the candidate of my choice this year, and I didn't get him in 2004 either (that was Dean), and I wasn't wild about Lieberman in 2000. So I understand about the frustrations created by the process. Certainly, I agree that the system ought to be reformed.

    But I don't go bonkers cherrypicking facts and making up stuff and generally overreacting.


    Parent

    If you are as indifferent as you claim ... (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:00:09 AM EST
    ... why are you so argumentative? And if you view the opinions expressed here as "appalling repetition of untrue or inaccurate or illogical talking points" why do you bother trying to respond logically?

    Please understand that people like me are not just writing about our assessment of this primary election because our goal is to disrupt the elevation of a Democratic candidate to the White House. No! We simply don't accept your assessment that the two candidates are interchangeable. We have spent a lot of time evaluating the candidates and people's reactions to them. We can see that Clinton is the most qualified, and the GE polls confirm it. We can also see that Obama is not only unqualified for the job, which would be bad for the party if he were elected, he is virtually certain to lose to McCain. (I will give you 10-1 odds if you want to place a bet, because he is such an obvious loser.)

    I want to see a Democrat in the WH, and the only candidate we have left in the race who can beat McCain is Hillary. This is NOT an illogical talking point, it is based on solid evidence of the primary process, that the DNC insiders are apparently intent on ignoring because they care more about internal party power struggles than about actually winning the election and governing the country.

    So what may seem like "over-reacting" to you is vitally important to some of us. Don't criticize us just because you don't see things as clearly as the minority of long-time Democratic activists and supporters who are posting here. We do know what we are talking about, and I believe that time will prove that we are right. And we are going to continue to fight in every way possible to secure the nomination for Hillary, because it will be no consolation to be saying "I told you so" after Obama is beaten by McCain.

    Parent

    Lupin is clearly indifferent... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:50:24 AM EST
    ...me, far less so, but Lupin?

     I am not sold on Clinton electability.   The year is not the 90s, she would not be running against Dole or Bush and the electorate is not as pro-Clinton as we imagine them.

     I will support the Democratic nominee. So will Lupin.  The "over-reacting" you speak of is because we have been threatened with the prospect of turncoat Dems voting for McCain.  Which, I might add, no honest progressive (or committed Dem) would ever do.    

     

    Parent

    But Obama's Newbies outnumber Discarded Dems (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:07:56 AM EST
    That's the drumbeat Donna Brazille and the revamped wing of the Dems have been pounding, along with the message that anyone who's not in lockstep with that agenda is disposable.

    It's patently ridiculous to complain that the sizable Discarded Dems have to be on board even after being dumped, with the added craptastic bonus of being egregiously insulted virtually daily.

    Save your energy for marshalling new BFFs and unleash their Pester Power against the foe on the horizon.

    The rest of your thinking is simply nuts. Ascribing blame for Obama's / Dems' potential future failures just won't cling to me, bitterly or otherwise, and I don't see other supporters of Sen. Clinton accepting responsibility for that either.

    Your risk; live with the consequences. You might drop a line about this to Ms. Brazille, though.

    Parent

    Obama mystery at Texas meet (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by suzieg on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:17:28 AM EST
    Good article in Houston Chronicle this morning:

    www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/5808894.html  

    May 29, 2008, 11:07PM
    An Obama mystery at state meet

    By RICK CASEY

    Texas Democratic Party Vice Chairwoman Roy LaVerne Brooks is a superdelegate who endorsed Barack Obama in March.

    The longtime party activist from Fort Worth is also running to unseat current state party Chairman Boyd Richie.

    Imagine her surprise Tuesday when she received a disturbing phone call from a national Obama operative who is part of a group that parachuted into Texas to work on this weekend's state party convention.

    Roy says the operative, Rudy Shank, told her that unless she drops her candidacy to unseat Richie at the state convention she will not be going to the national convention as a superdelegate.

    A deal is offered

    more......

    Parent

    Thanks. I barely read the Chronicle (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:40:25 AM EST
    anymore because I'm sitting here blogging. This is interesting. Keep the post updated if you can.

    Parent
    Wow ... hoping TL Texan readers look at this (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:31:09 AM EST
    I'm not up on insider baseball and who the players are but I hope the TL regulars situated there will weigh in on this.

    Parent
    Pester Power (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Burned on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:31:46 AM EST
    is a perfect description.

    Parent
    Voting or not voting for Obama (none / 0) (#121)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:04:50 AM EST
    has nothing to do with being a Democrat. Last checked Democratic party cherished Democratic ideals of individual free will over toeing the line.

    Parent
    You ARE overreacting (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by andrys on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:42:11 AM EST
    because you cannot stand that people here are looking at all the scenarios.  

      If you're tired of talking to us, then stop, until then try to have a bit more respect for people who are not you.  

    Most still don't know that Howard Dean, in a talk with Financial Times on April 25,
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb39916c-1329-11dd-8d91-0000779fd2ac.html
    said the following about superdelegate decisions remaining (which I imagine he also told the superdelegates):

    -------
    "I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else."
    -------

    The rules have nothing saying that Superdelegates follow the lead of pledged delegates -- for if they did, Superdelegates would not be needed !  But Obama supporters are of course pushing only that they follow the pledged-delegate voting.

    Re Electability as focus for SDs:

    In virtually every electoral-college poll-match currently, Clinton is easily beating McCain, while Obama is, overall, losing to McCain. And this is before the Republican 527 vetting of Obama.

    http://hominidviews.com/?p=1560
    Clinton: 100% probability of winning (May 26)

    http://hominidviews.com/?p=1561
      Obama:  37.3% probability of winning (May 26

    http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May28.html
     Electoral Votes:  Clinton 327  

    http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May28.html
     Electoral Votes:  Obama 266

      Dean told one group that the DNC CANNOT nullify a state-certified vote  but they can refuse to seat or count a delegation (or portions of it).
    Popular vote totals:
     Shorter link for realclaerpolitics: http://tinyurl.com/2hbf4a
    Latest polls:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

    Latest polls:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
    http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May28.html

    Parent

    Digby had a great one today (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:13:24 AM EST
    about MSNBC
    If they help Democrats beat McCain in the fall I won't be crying about it. But I won't be cheering either, since it's only a matter time before the next shiny object is waved in their faces and it's very likely that it will not be something that accrues to our benefit. These people are still bad for our politics.

    The best part is the quote from the Obama supporter criticizing but basically buying all of MSNBCs bashing of Hillary.  

    Digby is wise (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:19:53 AM EST
    One of the most amazing things about this primary is how the progressive blogosphere has forgotten all their previous criticisms of the media.  The McClellan story should remind us that these people are, no pun intended, bad news.

    If you give the media the power to choose the Democratic nominee or the next President, you're not always going to be satisfied with their choices.  I like to think that if I were an Obama supporter, I could be happy for my candidate but still deplore how the media have conducted themselves.

    Parent

    Buyer's Remorse (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by miriam on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:46:35 AM EST
    I'm none too happy with the recent choices the media has made for us.  It sold us the Iraq War and is now selling us Obama. Have these been beneficial to America?

    Parent
    I smell Buyers' Barely Contained Panic (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:26:49 AM EST
    They've been shamelessly propping Obama up and circling around him against the actual facts of his record, statements and gossamer "policies" and HRC supporters aren't accepting the blame for that craptastic clunker of a deal right now. (Somehow I doubt many will in the future, either.)

    Note that I discount Obama's promises to ponder and speecify in the future, and similar retrofitted wouldda couldda shouldda hypotheticals from the past as "policies". (eg, his anti-war non stance on Iraq.)

    The shell game they're playing now on the Roolz strikes me as nothing more than a panicky gambit to get HRC supporters to prop Obama up.

    Otherwise, how else can active participants in what I comfortably predict will be the most expensive landslide loss in history avoid being exposed as complete frauds and poseurs? (ie, they can accuse me all day long of racism but they'll either ride their Unity Pony into oblivion or own the McCain win. Not my horse, not my farm.)

    Parent

    That's ridiculous. (none / 0) (#148)
    by independent voter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:52:17 AM EST
    You are completely dismissive of the people who voted for, donated to, and campaigned for Obama and completely believe he is the better candidate. Just because YOU don't feel that way, doesn't invalidate anyone else's beliefs. It's funny, because I have always described the difference between a R and a D as the Rs have their own world view, and they do not allow any other opinion in. The Ds know what they believe, but are fair and open minded enough to allow for other opinions. It has become increasingly apparent through this primary season that I was (sadly) wrong, the self-proclaimed Ds are just as tunnel vision as any R. Congratulations

    Parent
    This is a "free" country and you (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:59:12 AM EST
    may support whomever you choose. The people here are, mostly, Hillary supporters. They are calm, rational, intelligent and informative imo. Just as you want your opinion(s) to be heard as to why your choice would be better, so do I want you to hear me and others like me. This election is very important, please gather as much info as you can to decide. Do not believe everything (from anybody)and make your choice.

    Parent
    Asking you to roll w/ it and own it is dismissive? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:19:51 AM EST
    It's actually respecting your choice and treating you like a grownup. By all means support the candidate you wish and afford me the same respect. It's your Unity Pony so ride with it. (Must listen for hardcore Soul Diva fans: Betty Harris doing Ride Your Pony.)

    What you categorically do NOT get to do is exercise that and whine for others to accept the consequences of your choice.

    I'm told there are more of your like-minded compadres and comadres than mine and that your choice has already won, so I'm not sure why you're in a bunch about this.

    Parent

    The "whine" is completely (none / 0) (#173)
    by independent voter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:30:36 AM EST
    out of place and a blatant mischaracterization of my comments. I should expect no less here, dissenting views are not welcomed.

    Parent
    You don't actually read what you write, do you? (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:00:31 AM EST
    Were it even possible to "characterize" whining, asking others to take responsibility for YOUR choice is a core definition of whining.

    (Someone in the Creative Class can spell it out for you if you're still having trouble with it.)

    Parent

    Ok, Isaac Chotiner from TNR (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:21:35 AM EST
    Here is his grotesque article complaining about MSNBC but loving it, cause it cheered his guy.  This was the sad part"
    Dangerously, too, MSNBC's coverage can lead to a perverse sort of cognitive dissonance in viewers like, well, me. Throughout the primary process, I often found myself much more bullish on the Illinois Senator's chances after watching MSNBC than I had any reason to be


    Parent
    Given up on digby myself (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by bridget on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:24:37 AM EST
    and don't read her blog anymore unless TL posts a link I may check it out.

    ---
    Celebrating? MSNBC?

    digby:
    "Lately, MSNBC has taken a different tack, which many of us on the left are celebrating. Shows like Keith Olbermann's, while late to the party, did help bury the corpse of the Bush administration in the last couple of years and Obama supporters are thrilled to have open advocacy for their chosen candidate on a major news network. But there is danger in this as well, particularly if our side comes to depend upon the kindness of news organizations that operate on the basis of what's in political fashion at the moment." .....

    ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz......


    Parent

    I too (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:54:33 AM EST
    gave up on Digby. My list of people I respect and am willing to read or listen to is shorter all the time. Maybe it's because I don't think that "winning" is all that matters.

    Parent
    Stephen Colbert is soaking in the Kool-Aid (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by janarchy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:22:25 AM EST
    I almost broke my tv tonight. He was talking about the RBC meeting on Saturday and then proceeded to discuss Teh Roolz including reminding his viewers that all the candidates were required to take their names off the ballot in Michigan but only Hillary left hers on, showed the assorted backing-up-his-own-conclusions sound bites (without the other side of it from January on where she was for all the delegates being counted) and pretty much just roused the audience into more CDS by her evil nefarious election stealing plans.

    He then interviewed Tad Devine and seemed to speak out of the other side of his mouth on the issue but...the damage was done. Pity the fake news can't even bother to do the kind of research they used to rather than just cribbing notes from HuffPoo and the Orange Satan.

    Stephen, you're on notice.

    But doesn't everyone know Colbert is mocking (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:35:53 AM EST
    .. the people who are saying the things he says on his show? So if his character is spouting anti-Clinton rhetoric, his intent is to draw attention to its inherent stupidity.

    Do you think that people watch him and actually take what he says seriously, as opposed to treating it as satire?

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#18)
    by janarchy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:56:46 AM EST
    when it comes to 'the facts' (esp when greeted by the cheers every time he went on about The Roolz), I think he was being serious and giving out misinformation. If that was supposed to be satire and people in the audience were supposed to know he was wrong (which is odd given we've seen that same misinfo spouted here time after time by Obamabots and trolls) then it failed miserably. It just seemed like another Olbermannesque screed to prove what a horrible psycho b!tch HRC is for trying to actually, you know, count the votes.

    Parent
    Michigan Democrats make the same (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:38:27 AM EST
    error in their letter to to RBC

    The January 15 primary result was flawed because Senator Obama took his name off the ballot.  He interpreted the DNC injunction and his pledge to New Hampshire that he would not campaign in Michigan to require him to take that affirmative step.

    It wrong for 3 reasons:

    1st: Obama's campaign said the decision to withdraw was "an extension of the pledge" not the pledge itself and certainly nothing to do with the DNC injunction

    2nd: The Pledge does not say anything about being on the ballot

    3rd: Florida Democrats did not place Obama's name on the ballot until 3 weeks after he removed it from MI.  Plenty of time for Obama to say, hey Florida, don't put me on the ballot!.

    Parent

    Also, Obama's motives were written about (none / 0) (#150)
    by andrys on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:59:29 AM EST
    The Iowa Independent on Oct. 11, 2007, wrote about Obama's motives.
    "Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa."

      The names of Kucinich, Gravel, and Dodd were the 3 other names that remained on the Michigan ballot.

      Also read the radio ads by his surrogate Conyers telling people to vote Uncommitted because that's a way to vote for Obama.  

      Obama himself told voters to do that - a clever way of "participating" -- and again, everyone who READS about any of this knows that Obama did not need to take his name off the ballot but it was convenient and strategic for him to do so.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:33:08 AM EST
    One of the first things out of Devine's mouth was incorrect - he said that the RBC would be giving each delegate a half-vote (if they chose that as the penalty), not cutting each delegation in half, which is the exact opposite of what the DNC staff concluded.

    I had to stop and reflect on the fact that I was actually able to identify this as a mistake.  It definitely suggests that I've waded way too deep into the minutiae.

    Parent

    Have they decided yet? (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:44:23 AM EST
    I mean on a half vote vs cutting the delegation in half.  I know those were two options mentioned in various letters and proposals I can't keep it all straight anymore, being just a low-information voter.  I'm sure it will be crystal clear after Saturday. HA!

    But yes, we all know way too much about this stuff when we can't relax and enjoy Stephen Colbert anymore.

    Parent

    They have not (none / 0) (#13)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:48:31 AM EST
    what the lawyers concluded was basically "technically, under the rules, the only option is to cut the delegation in half, but if you really want to seat the whole delegation with half-votes, I suppose we can justify it somehow."  Now, I might have slightly paraphrased that.

    Parent
    I get it (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:54:48 AM EST
    Thanks for the paraphrase.  I'm only awake because my dogs were barking at an armadillo in the yard. i need all the help I can get.

    Parent
    Thanks for the laugh (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:31:48 AM EST
    as now I feel better about being awake because my new kitten decided to noisily gallop in laps around the house, including up and across the bed several times, in response to her first thunderstorm.  The prevalence of thunderstorms in Midwestern summers, of course, suggests that it's going to be a long summer here, too, in which I also will need all the help. . . .  

    Parent
    Up most of the (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:04:25 AM EST
    night too. I adopted two very abused Macaws 9 years ago, kept in small cage in basement for their whole lives, and they are afraid of thunderstorms too. So two half-naked, as in no feathers, Macaws and one very tired Marge spent the night up with lights on while "Mom" tried to calm the birds down and get them to go back to sleep. Not a chance.

    Now here I sit this morning bleary eyed and half asleep while both birds have heads tucked under their wings and are fast asleep.

    fyi, birds will pluck their feathers out when they are subjected to mistreatment, thus my poor half naked Blue and Gold Macaws. They have slowly, but surely come around to be two mischievous characters that enrich our lives. We are fortunate they allow us in their lives.

    Parent

    Like your macaws, I fear that (none / 0) (#127)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:18:15 AM EST
    if Obama is elected, we all will be plucking out our feathers, because we, too, will be subjected to mistreatment.

    Parent
    It wouldn't surprise me if the DNC proposed ... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:52:47 AM EST
    ... cutting each delegate in half, considering that they seem to believe that they are possessed of the wisdom of Solomon.

    [The link is just for the those who, like Tom Sawyer, were not paying attention in Sunday School].

    Parent

    If they apply it to Superdelegates (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:58:27 AM EST
    and start with Donna Brazile, I would not object.  

    I guess I'm not the delegates' real mother.

    Parent

    You know why (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by daryl herbert on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:43:04 AM EST
    they are cutting the delegation in half instead of giving a half-vote, right?

    They are afraid that if a full-size delegation shows up, there would be protests/demands that everyone gets a full vote.

    But if a half-size delegation shows up, nobody is going to protest that everyone in the half-size delegation should get 2 votes.

    Parent

    How do we get the kool-aid (none / 0) (#125)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:14:14 AM EST
    away from these people. I think the election of 2000 did something to all these peoples brains, circa "Invaders from Mars" (1953) ya know Martians fly in, inject some needle in earthlings brains and everything about them changes. This is so bizzare!!!

    Parent
    Elton cannot compare to The Who (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:28:44 AM EST
    Woodstock (1969)

    Isle of Wight (1970)

    Pete Townshend on Letterman (1993)

    Hooray for Pete (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by janarchy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:59:47 AM EST
    Thanks for the memories. Pete's in my pantheon of rock gods (and has been since I was about 15 and first saw "The Kids Are Alright". Ah, the days of elevators and army boots (that's a personal in-joke...)

    Parent
    No doubt about that (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:05:08 AM EST
    I love his acoustic version of 'won't get fooled again' too. Great stuff.

    Parent
    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by janarchy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:14:41 AM EST
    I've got all his solo stuff on vinyl and cd as well as the entire Who catalogue. Someone just gave me his brother Simon's solo albums the other day. They're pretty good!

    I caused a big to-do in my high school (circa 1979-ish) for wearing a "Pete Townshend is God" teeshirt given to me by one of my closest friends at the time. Apparently it was way too weird for a 16 yr old girl to have guitar heroes. We were only supposed to dig the pretty boys or disco singers apparently!

    Parent

    true (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:36:55 AM EST
    I went for the visuals and for some reason, the Townsend videos kept starting and stopping on my computer while the movie one didn't. Maybe I'll try again and swap it out.

    Parent
    One for HRC fans: Baby I'm Ready to GO! (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:31:32 AM EST
    I sent this into her song contest. Feelgood Clinton-era techno-pop might not be her taste, but I just don't know anyone that doesn't like Republica's Ready To Go. (This is the pop version that was re-released in the US awhile after the UK club version became popular.)

    The plot:
    EMO guy's wearing on our girl's self-esteem, criticizing her appearance, blaming her for his woes ...

    It's a crack (crock)
    I'm back and
    Standing on the rooftop
    Shouting out:
    Baby, I'm ready to go!

    One week is another world ...

    (Hope HRC adopts it now!)

    Parent

    I know...but (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:52:07 AM EST
    I was a teenaged Elton freak when this movie came out, at the height of his superstardom.  It was sooo exciting.  And even now I still think his piano adds a lot to that song.

    That video is funny.  I mostly heard the song on the radio - only went to see the movie once.   Watching it just now I thought Roger Daltrey looked stoned, then I remembered he was method acting deaf, dumb, and blind.

    Parent

    The Fr. Pfleger mess (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:15:38 AM EST
    I was absolutely disgusted at the video of Fr. Pfleger's rant at Trinity. With respect towards the views of BTD, I think this really does point to a serious concern about Barack Obama.

    The problem isn't so much what Pfleger himself said. It was despicable and extremely ugly in many ways, but I don't think one can hold Obama directly responsible for that, though one can ask how someone such as Pfleger could have been listed on Obama's web page for so long.

    The real problem is the crowd reaction. They laughed as Pfleger mocked Hillary Clinton's nonexistent tears. They applauded when he called her a racist white supremacist. They roared when he said she felt entitled because of her whiteness. They came to their feet and reveled in every drop of it.

    These were not people who were surprised, shocked, or dismayed by what they were hearing. For better or worse, this is their church and this is the kind of message that they choose to hear. Rev. Moss, the subject of Obama's recent praise, welcomed Pfleger glowingly beforehand and thanked him approvingly afterwards.

    This is the community that Obama voluntarily associated with for nearly two decades. This is where he made his spiritual home, and these are the folks whom he made his religious family. If, as he claims, that this kind of teaching is a surprise, he must be the only one.

    The idea that he didn't know what was going on was always dubious, but now it is completely inoperative. It wasn't just Wright. As Moss and Pfleger and the audience reaction show, this is Trinity. He stayed there for 20 years. He's a member still. Just last year, he donated $20,000 to the church. He chose to make himself at home where this kind of ugliness is preached.

    Why?

    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:06:54 AM EST
    it speaks volumes to his values.  

    I have to believe they've probably had a lot more preachers like these two now.  There is no other way to think.  And yes, the crowd reaction was quite something.  

     

    Parent

    The congregation seems comfortable (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by bridget on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:47:02 AM EST
    with these kind of preachers no doubt about it. And Obama was part of it for two decades.

    When he was done with his hyped up "preaching," the man who spoke immediately after him thanked him the messenger for the message etc. It all seemed as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened - so the way this all went down on the video is v. telling.

    I still can't get over the fact that Bill Clinton, the popular president, and Hillary are now so publicly maligned by the black community. I still remember when they both spoke at the King funeral and they were a beloved part of the community who seemed to respect and appreciate them.

    It's too upsetting for words. Had someone told me a year ago that this would happen between Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and the Black community, I would have never never believed it.

    Parent

    I am aware that a large percentage of Black (none / 0) (#79)
    by bridget on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:00:26 AM EST
    Dems said that they would vote for Hillary should she be the nominee. Wasn't it about70%?

    But it is still tough to see the reaction of the congreation on that video. I have only seen two clips about this kind of thing. The other one was when Wright maligned Hillary and that was v. shocking to me. Had no idea this was going on at all.

    Parent

    Obama's never objected to any of the (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by andrys on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:03:59 AM EST
    villifications of Hillary done by either Wright or this new preacher friend who guest-spoke.

      Certainly the congregation's action show what the place was like when Obama was there and enjoyed the mindset so much while pretending to be so post-racial.

      It's not as if the church were hiding its policies and philosophies.  It's open about that.  It's Obama who explains in his books why he was SO drawn to the church and its particular focus and it was precisely talk about "white greed" by Wright that he describes in 'Dreams'

      The man is a Pretender in so many ways.

    Parent

    Seconded, OrangeFur (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by bridget on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:06:26 AM EST
    Until now I had no idea who Pfleger and Moss are. Your post said it all.

    Parent
    How many media coverage did this get, (none / 0) (#25)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:18:18 AM EST
    outside of FOX?

    Parent
    Anderson Cooper (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by janarchy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:57:58 AM EST
    had stuff about it on 360 tonight along with the Alice Palmer story. He then had Candy Crowley and Mary Francis Berry discuss it and to my delight, MFB was pretty unhappy about the situation. She praised Obama and then damned the media for not vetting him properly as well as made some very strong statements about the TUCC and their messages. Crowley just kind of floundered.

    Parent
    Crowley one of the many CNN Hacks. They (none / 0) (#139)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:38:44 AM EST
    have their own little "Hackocracy" theme going on over there. Led by the Pinheaded, Misogynistic, Loud-mouthed, Idiot known as Jack Cafferty. Less it not be clear, I, speaking for me only, do not care very much for Crowley and Cafferty the Laurel and Hardy of CNN without the wit, intellect or talent of those two great comedians.

    Only good thing I can say about either of them is they aren't quite as bad as Tweety and Olbermann. But they are fast catching up.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#30)
    by LoisInCo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:42:00 AM EST
    inside FOX Ann Coulter said the Rev reminded her of M&M. Heh.

    Parent
    I looked at (none / 0) (#69)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:44:09 AM EST
    Google News and it appears this made it into a lot of MS press:  MSNBC, Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, etc.

    It's high time the press start paying attention to things like this!  I've worked at a few big newspapers and I think they have gotten exceptionally lazy since the Drudgereport and 24-hour news has come into play.  They should be doing indepth articles on a lot of issues but they aren't.  Too many staff cutbacks?    

    Parent

    Mainly, it's illustrating (none / 0) (#154)
    by andrys on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:05:22 AM EST
    what kind of 527 videos we'll be subjected to all summer, and that doesn't even mention all his other long-time associations he will find shocking at one time or another.

    Parent
    Obama said (none / 0) (#49)
    by Newt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:19:39 AM EST
    he was "deeply disappointed" by Pfleger's comments.
    "As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that that unites us," he said in a statement. "That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause."

    Parent
    And the Clinton camp said . . . (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:27:19 AM EST
    Clinton's campaign denounced Pfleger's comments.

    "Divisive and hateful language like that is totally counterproductive in our efforts to bring our party together and have no place at the pulpit or in our politics," the campaign said in a statement. "We are disappointed that Senator Obama didn't specifically reject Father's Pfleger's despicable comments about Senator Clinton, and assume he will do so."

    at least they spared Obama the "deeply"  ;)

    Parent

    But... (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:30:55 AM EST
    Why does it take having these preachers say hugely offensive things before he realizes that he shouldn't be hanging around them?

    Look at the audience reaction. They love this stuff. They're not surprised or shocked or even disapproving. How could Obama not know about it beforehand? Why did he stay there for so long?

    I simply don't believe that Obama didn't know this kind of thinking goes on in that church all the time.

    Parent

    Of course Obama knew it (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by bridget on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:54:12 AM EST
    he was part of the congregation for 20 years.

    btw. President Carter said on Larry King that this kind of stuff is going on as long as he can remember in Black churches. He also said that Obama needed to distance himself from Wright. It was during the height of the Wright brouhaha when Carter was on Larry King.  

    Parent

    Obama keeps distancing (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:23:33 AM EST
    himself from these individual "people" but not from the church itself. Mustn't alienate the people of that church, nor any other church as a whole!!

    Parent
    Oppression causes really bad attitudes (none / 0) (#68)
    by Newt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:43:14 AM EST


    Parent
    Is that why (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:50:47 AM EST
    Obama hasn't been looking terribly happy these last few weeks?  

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:57:24 AM EST
    That's a decent point. I try to be understanding given the history of this country.

    Nonetheless, I think most people, including a very large number of African Americans, find the things said by Wright and Pfleger to be extreme and unhelpful to improving race relations. The broadside launched at Clinton was simply gratuitous and ugly, and the sight of so many people applauding while Pfleger called her a racist who felt entitled by white supremacy is stomach-turning.

    It troubles me that Obama finds himself at home in a place where this stuff is popular.

    Parent

    No question, they took cheap shots at Hillary (none / 0) (#104)
    by Newt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:10:56 AM EST
    but the fact that it rings true with many listeners is less of a problem than how easily people are misled and manipulated.

    As an Obama supporter, my concern is whether or not it was deliberately planned to get a white religious leader out there doing that so it would diffuse some of the heat from Obama's Wright association.

    It wasn't politically smart of him to stick with that church, but I understand why he did.  Growing up in Hawaii, and especially as a mixed race kid at an excellent private school, it makes perfect sense that he would immerse himself in that church.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#111)
    by Josey on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:08:45 AM EST
    Obama joined that church for political reasons, networking, hobnobbing, etc.
    The problem is - Obama emulates Wright/TUCC's anti-white mentality in word and deed.
    He is supposed to represent ALL Americans, but he's been associated with a church for 20 years that spews racist hatemongering from the pulpit.

    In 2004, the GOP had a tizzy over Kerry being divorced and partaking communion.
    They'll have a field day with Pfleger and Wright's racist rants.


    Parent

    perhaps you're right (none / 0) (#115)
    by Josey on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:41:44 AM EST
    >>>my concern is whether or not it was deliberately planned to get a white religious leader out there doing that so it would diffuse some of the heat from Obama's Wright association.

    The church does promote anti-white ideology and boosting their cred in the hate-Hillary category from the pulpit seems to be more important to this hatemongering church than promoting the love and tolerance teachings of Christ.

    Parent

    We are where we come from (none / 0) (#133)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:28:57 AM EST
    and Obama has already shown that he has learned to mislead and manipulate, just like you say the people in Trinity have shown, and will continue that onto all endeavors he pursues.  

    Parent
    He knows about it and he supports it (none / 0) (#155)
    by andrys on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:06:34 AM EST
    through a $27,000 contribution sometime in the last 2 years and with his last tax return apparently another $20,000.

    Parent
    Obama's statement (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:15:26 AM EST
    is anemic and formulaic. Not to mention misleading, as if he , once again, was not aware of the belligerent and bigoted rhetoric of another member of his Chicago mafia.

    Parent
    during his racist rant, Pfleger also said - (none / 0) (#136)
    by Josey on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:33:24 AM EST
    "America has been raping people of color and America has to pay the price for the rape. "

    Parent
    WHY?!? (none / 0) (#177)
    by Groundhog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:28:11 AM EST
    Lessee--because, oppressed people get pissed off, angry and yes, irrational, dat's why...

    Do you/can you actually equate:

    --black rage with white "working class" resentment;
    --Jewish angst with anti-semitism;
    --female anger with male anger;
    --lgbt hostility with homophobia?
    --anger at cops with the blue wall defending cops?

    In each of the above, B IS THE CAUSE OF A.  This ain't rocket science; just simple historical sociology.  

    Now,none of this is to excuse angry black Muslims, paranoid Jews, man-haters, separatist lesbians, etc; none of this lends any credence to nutjob ideas like the government invented AIDs (or blew up the WTC, for that matter...)

    Or even weird relativistic ideas like, "if another culture rejects western science, that is their culture" or "gravity is merely a western social construction" or "the goat dance is a valid as vaccination" (I am sure many of you encountered some of this bull%#%^ in school)

    Please bear in mind, Rev Wright was an adult before the civil rights act, the voting rights act, before Loving v. Virginia.  For years, the accusers of Tuskeegee, and the proponents of a Jefferson-Hemings tryst were mocked as ignorant morons.

    And you ask why some people say and/or believe this stuff?!?

    Cornel West once told me, the real question is not why do people believe this stuff, but why more people do not believe this stuff...

    To reiterate (and with apologies to Chris Rock): I am not saying I agree--but I understand...

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#179)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:51:46 AM EST
    I suppose Father Pfleger was embittered by this country's long history of anti-German sentiment, huh?

    It's one thing to say that people who suffer from racial oppression sometimes respond in anger.  It's another thing when someone who doesn't have the same excuse of racial oppression goes around inflaming that anger.

    I have much more empathy for Rev. Wright than I do for Pfleger.  Both of them are guilty of spreading a message, at times, that fails to move our country in the right direction.  But at least Rev. Wright has something of an excuse.

    Parent

    BillO tonight (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CHDmom on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:40:36 AM EST
    I don't know if you caught Bill O going off on MSNBC/Russert ect tonight, but here is the youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAf76a_Q-D0
    the Russert in the tank for Obama starts about 3:40

    Thank you for that! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:30:23 AM EST
    Dang! Can I see a show of hands please? Who woulda thunk it back in Jan, that Bill O would have a conniption over Hillary's poor treatment by the media?!

    'tis truly a strange time . . .

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by janarchy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:30:13 AM EST
    I laughed at Anne Coulter's "Eminem" joke about Father Pfleger tonight. Does this mean I am going to H3ll?

    Parent
    Umm, doesn't Bill O want Hillary to win because he (none / 0) (#64)
    by Newt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:39:06 AM EST
    thinks she'll bring out the right wing's conservative base?

    Anti-Hillary fanatics desperate to vote against her will also be salivating over his show.  Ratings, money, and the Democrats will miss the opportunity to fire a bunch of Republicans in Congress.  Bill O does quite nicely off the conflicts, thank you.

    Parent

    That (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:49:34 AM EST
    talking point is very old and tired. The GOP is very, very motivated to vote against Obama.

    Parent
    Two Dem candidates who won recently (none / 0) (#157)
    by andrys on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:08:25 AM EST
    some important seats had to publicly disassociate themselves from Obama, saying they did not even know him or associate with him (when the Repubs played Reverend Wright ads against their being more or less endorsed by Obama).

    A great way to run the lower ticket.

    Parent

    Posted the same qs a second ago ;-) (none / 0) (#95)
    by bridget on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:27:28 AM EST


    Parent
    WOW just watched it (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by bridget on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:26:07 AM EST
    thanks for the link

    who would have ever believed Bill O'Reilly would tell it like it is ... and he is 100% right here (just watched from 3:40 on ;-)

    Bernard Goldberg defended Russert which was laughable since he always wrong and in response re ObamaMSNBC he said they would come to regret it because one day they would go too far (paraphrase). Well. What is too far these days?

    btw. Bob Somerby has an excellent post re Russert's Hillary trial (all "prosecutors" on the panel were anti-Hillary) on Sunday on Thursday's DailyHowler. A Must Read.


    Parent

    This is a great "WOW" moment (none / 0) (#138)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:38:06 AM EST
    on Billo. He was absolutely right about NBC/MSNBC. Let's see if KO would play that one of a Bill rant!!!

    Parent
    About those Obama Democrats (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by SamJohnson on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:54:43 AM EST

    I think that Democrats are being pressured to go along with a lame idea of the DNC members and superdelegates who don't get just how mad we Clinton supporters are.

    I'm having some more cognitive dissonance (as in WTF?) about nominating Obama to squeeze the young and new juice out of all those people who have stated their preference for Obama. I knew a lot of people who really expressed serious issues with the Democratic Party before Obama was given a get out of the spotlight pass while we bash Hillary Clinton pathologically, especially as a result of sexism and/or male power bonding. It interests me that they claim fidelity to the Democratic Party now, but they receive the same number of e-mails and letters that I do from all sorts of people asking for money for a specific Democrats campaign.

    Today, I received an e-mail from Senator Tester asking for a donation to Begevich's campaign to oust Senator Stevens. Senator Reid sent me a similar e-mail. Joe trippi sent me an e-mail about the DNC. I wondered how many of my Obama supporting friends had been responding to these e-mails, as I have been doing.

    I honestly don't think that the Obama supporters are coughing up the bucks for other Democratic causes. I always do, but I make sure to send a nice note with whatever I contribute. I also follow up with an e-mail to the person who asked for the money as well. I let them know that I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. I also let them know I am mightily unpleased with what has been done by so-called Democrats to a fellow Democrat. I also ask them just how many donations they are getting from Obama supporters. Because none of my friends say they are making donations to anything but the Obama campaign. That's messed up. It makes me believe that there is going to be a quid pro quo with Obama that many Democrats are really not going to like.

    So I sent another donation to the Clinton campaign along with my donations to the other causes. I don't really believe that the Democratic Party recognizes or cares just how angry I am about Obama gaming the caucus states and low voter turnout to get delegates. Sure, great tactic. That has nothing to do with who will make the better candidate. Hillary will win. Obama? I honestly and sincerely and with great disappointment believe Obama will not. Against McCain, that's saying a lot, because McCain really, really sucks. I think we really have to fight for Hillary, even if we are over the whole thing.



    Ex-annual donor after '04; Glad I went monthly (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:33:41 AM EST
    The follow-up is a great action I never used to do before but I'm going to now with every group that I support.

    Getting an automatic tone-deaf party email addressing my reactions with an automatic Yeah Whatever Give Us More Cash just infuriated me more.

    Dems used to be on my automatic, year-end "Lump List" along with other groups and causes I support(ed) but the monthly approach suits me better now.

    Again, I'm an Independent now but I WILL support worthy individual Dems and reward good behavior wherever I see it, and AFTER I see it.

    Not BEFORE ... anymore.

    Parent

    Since this is an open thread (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:29:14 AM EST
    Here's something interesting to ponder:

    Harriet Miers, who was basically laughed out of her Supreme Court nomination, is more qualified IMO to be President than Obama is.  

    Miers bio

    She's got leadership experience, an elected position...  I think she's capable of making decisions too.  

    I still can't get over the DNC pushing Obama as a candidate.  I really can't.  

    Sioux Falls, SD Argus Leader (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by annac1aire on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:22:07 AM EST
    endorses Clinton.

    Wow! Thanks for that. We're 2 up (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:41:19 AM EST
    I think with a SD supporting her from WA(I think) yesterday and this today...(sing) when you are down and out, lift up your head and shout, it's gonna be a great day!!!!!

    Parent
    Bad News for Hillary in New York State... (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by HsLdyAngl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:31:38 AM EST
    Rasmussen did a poll today in New York state.  The findings are not too encouraging for Hillary.

    "Fifty percent (50%) of New York Democrats say it's time for Senator Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race for the White House. Just 43% believe she should keep going. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey also found that most New York Republicans--52%--want Clinton to keep striving for the nomination. Overall, among all Empire State voters, 45% believe she should drop out while 43% disagree."

    "Forty-seven percent (47%) of New York voters believe Obama is the stronger general election candidate. Forty-three percent (43%) believe Clinton would be better."

    "The survey also found that Obama is now viewed more favorably than Clinton in New York. Sixty-two percent (62%) of New York voters have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama while 55% give Hillary Clinton such positive reviews. For Obama, those ratings are up four points from a month ago while Clinton's are down three points."

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/ne w_york/election_2008_new_york_presidential_election

    I find these results disturbing for Hillary, considering that she has been the junior Senator from New York for eight years.  I wonder what is turning New Yorkers away from her......

    That's barely even blipworthy given the MOE (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:47:18 AM EST
    Although it has been the latest concern-troll talking point with "unnamed black leaders" in the tank for Obama lately.

    (Wondering if this will be on next week's Trolling Points Memo, the astro-concern that she should drop out NOW -- rilly -- or she won't even have a Senate seat to go back to!)

    Parent

    I'm wondering who they're polling (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by janarchy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:01:08 AM EST
    considering all the New Yorkers I know (both downstate and upstate) are perfectly fine with what she's doing. Which is not to say I have any scientific sample but other than the people who are already in the tank for Obama, I've not heard one peep of complaint.

    Parent
    NYers I know are newly appreciative of their Sen (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:21:38 AM EST
    After what she's endured in this primary and shown what she'll bring as a historic President for these times, they've gone from antipathy or neutrality to admiration.

    The DNC's making a huge mistake to continue propping up Obama, not merely for media expediency now but for longterm party health.

    It's Obama's election to lose and the Dems' future possibly for decades. This is a pivotal election.

    (I'm temporarily situated outside Bubble America for family, work and tax reasons -- protecting my assets against the locust effect of the Bush era being a priority -- but this is definitely simplifying my longterm sked.)

    Parent

    That's all I'm hearing (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by janarchy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:28:05 AM EST
    After what she's endured in this primary and shown what she'll bring as a historic President for these times, they've gone from antipathy or neutrality to admiration.

    I live in the suburbs of NYC. I have friends and family all over Long Island, Queens, the Bronx, Westchester and then the Albany area. No one, but no one, wants her to drop out or to do anything more than fight, even people who were sort of grudgingly accepting of her in the past. People in the local grocery stores talk politics (and we're in an affluent white suburb full of what should be the latte liberals) and it's the same thing.

    The people I know in Albany and the Berkshires are blue collar and white collar --they have friends and family in the area as well as Western Massachussetts. Again, it's the same thing. So unless Rasmussen is only calling DNC members or people on the Obama 08 mailing list, I don't know who they've talked to. It's just not true with anyone I know other than the Obama supporters, most of whom were full of CDS before she ever threw her hat into the ring.

    If the DNC thinks they're going to make up their $15M loss for the convention and wring more money out of formerly supportive Democratic voters, they've got another thing coming. There's at least half of us out there who are not happy with the way things are playing out. (I wish I could get out of Bubble America, believe me!)


    Parent

    what's interesting is she does better (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:11:05 AM EST
    against McCain in the little charts they have along the side.

    I'd need to see more info since they only polled 500 people . . . . but feel free to be disturbed.

    Parent

    There was (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:18:38 AM EST
    a woman on either CNN or FOX today.  She said she was marching in Washington on Saturday to try and get the votes in Florida and Michigan to count.  

    I don't remember exactly what she said but, in a nutshell, she wants Hillary to be the nominee.  If Hillary isn't, she'll vote and work for McCain's election.  And she said she had 10,000 women with her.  

    Parent

    And yet, you somehow missed that (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:41:18 AM EST
    she's well ahead of Obama "in the race for the White House. . . .  Clinton leads McCain 59% to 29% while Obama leads 52% to 33%."  But it was good of you to provide the link for us to go get the good news there.  

    Well, admittedly not as good news for your candidate, troll.

    Parent

    Voters who would switch from supporting Hillary (none / 0) (#60)
    by Newt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:31:53 AM EST
    to working for McSame can just go ahead and change parties, IMO.  Bye bye, don't bother to come back. A protest voter who prioritizes their anger above America's future is not a Democrat we need in our party. Democrats want to win this time around, and we will.

    No Republicans Left Behind in 2008


    Parent

    I'll vote for this country before I'll vote for my (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:48:46 AM EST
    party.  USA before Party.  Sorry.  (And I'm still a Democrat though I'm really going to have to think about it after this mess.)  

    Parent
    Proud Liberal and Independent, Unbought, Unbossed (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:18:23 AM EST
    I might not fit the Dems' and fauxgressives' stereotype of a crotchety problematic typical racist white woman who's, like, baaaad and racist and stuff but I'm definitely Old School about some things.

    My mind is my own, my vote is my own. I don't easily lose either or sell them off.

    A hearty cackle and an eye wipe on the suggestion that I'd worry for a second about being confused with a Repug, so I'll temporarily cop to the crotchety part just for now to tell you to get off the feckin' lawn, AstroTurfer.

    Parent

    If the (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:50:30 AM EST
    Obamacrats keep saying that people that won't vote for him should go join the Republican Party, and that we don't need ya, they prove to be sillier than we think they are. Doesn't seem possible does it?

    Kinda like the Conservatives that always tell people that if they don't like the way things are in this country to move to another country.

    I doubt "their" candidate, or any candidate for office anywhere, would appreciate someone telling voters to go join the other party. Would think that said candidate would, in fact, be appalled at such foolishness. Especially a candidate that is supposedly all about "unity", or not.

    Parent

    The problem (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:46:45 AM EST
    is that Obama could probably be even worse than McCain. He's repeatedly shown bad judgement. He's weak on national security and has no experience or accomplishments to speak of.

    Parent
    You don't realize (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:01:58 AM EST
    how bad the defections are.  That's the problem.  The DNC only wants a small faction of Dems in the party, the ones who agree with the ridiculous course the party is taking..  The rest of us can go to h3ll.  It's plainly obvious for us to see and many of us have already switched to Independent, and may not go back the other way ever again.

    So bye, bye to you as well.

    Parent

    You can't win elections w/o certain (none / 0) (#144)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:44:12 AM EST
    voting blocs. The more blocs you alienate (such as Obama has done w/women etal. you cannot win!!

    Parent
    Why? It's because all they hear from the MSM is (none / 0) (#164)
    by suzieg on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:37:54 AM EST
    that the nomination is over and that she should quit! Where do you see anywhere anyone asking her to fight on, except maybe for FOX?

    Parent
    That's a great endorsement. (none / 0) (#10)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:40:15 AM EST
    She and I agree on a lot, particularly that we need Hill to get us out of that mess in Iraq.

    I checked out St. Sabin's website. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:54:12 AM EST
    This is the parish of the Rev. Pfleger.  Very prominent advocacy of gun control, which makes a lot of sense, given the parish is on Chicago's South Side and is primarily AA.  I think this is the priest who invited the Rev. Wright to give the benediction after the initial flap re Wright at TUCC.  Wright gave the benediction at an event honoring Maya Angelou on her birthday.  

    He had previously gotten into trouble... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:00:53 AM EST
    ... for calling on people to "snuff out" a gun store owner. He later said he wasn't aware that "snuff out" could mean to kill. Whether or not you think that's plausible, it's certainly asking for a benefit of the doubt that has been in short supply whenever Hillary Clinton is involved.

    Parent
    The Archdiocese of Chicago (none / 0) (#178)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:40:21 AM EST
    Department of Communications and Public Relations

    Director
    Colleen H. Dolan
    Phone: 312-751-8289
    E-MAIL: cdolan@archchicago.org

    just shipped off an email to this man asking what is the official position of     

    HIS EMINENCE
    FRANCIS CARDINAL GEORGE, O.M.I.
    ARCHBISHOP OF CHICAGO

    related to the sermon that Rev. Pfleger delivered at TUCC, which vedio is now been shown in major media outlets and on youtube.

    If anyone else is inclined to do so, I'd appreciate it. This kind of staff muct be stopped from the top down.

    Parent

    Lost Season Finale (none / 0) (#26)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:19:59 AM EST
    Very good. No spoilers, but I suspect a 'Weekend at Bernie's 3' is in the works.

    *dies laughing* (none / 0) (#36)
    by janarchy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:00:00 AM EST
    That's the best explanation I've heard of it yet!

    Parent
    While I love Colbert... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:42:16 AM EST
    ...I am dreading the spin that will follow the FL/MI debacle.  I really don't see a rational reason for this mishap.  What in the hell were they thinking?

     The clearest option would be cutting the delegates in half...but probably only before the election.  

     My (very Democratic) relatives in MI were dreading the GE and I see why.  Very, very stupid of the party.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:54:20 AM EST
    BTD has been 100% right on this in my estimation.

    If Obama were to say "look, we need to count those delegates," there is no chance that the DNC would do otherwise.  He's the presumptive nominee, they're not going to sandbag him.

    If he continues sitting back and saying "hey, whatever you guys decide is fine," then he may avoid taking a PR hit, but he's not doing the smart thing in terms of November.  It's not like Hillary suddenly becomes the nominee if those states are counted, the die is cast.

    I really don't understand anyone's thought process in this mess, but Obama definitely holds the keys to the kingdom.  It's his race to win or lose, he needs to step up.

    Parent

    Obama has (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:14:50 AM EST
    difficulties making decisions.  This appears to be a pattern with him.  I'm not sure he knows what a "firm stand" is on any issue.  

    Parent
    I imagine both Hill and Obo already know what (none / 0) (#78)
    by Newt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:00:13 AM EST
    the RBC decision will be.  Both are probably hoping for a surprise from the last three primaries.  It would be great if Obama graciously made an ethical stand to include the votes, but unless a unity ticket has been already decided, he can't really risk losing his lead.  Too bad for the DNC that the meeting wasn't scheduled for after June 3rd.


    Parent
    What you are saying (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:11:31 AM EST
    is that Obama hopes to win on a technicality versus "really being electible."  

    It appears to be a pattern in his life.

    He gets his competitors disqualified and BINGO!  He wins.  

    You know, the more I know about this guy, the more I really hate him.  He IS George Bush's third term.    

    Parent

    I think in many ways he's worse (none / 0) (#158)
    by andrys on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:13:23 AM EST
    because people don't realize how empty his head is on the issues people care about.  With Bush it was more obvious.

    Everytime Obama talks about a real subject off the cuff, he gets A LOT wrong.

     

    Parent

    Also, if the SD's are really in the (none / 0) (#145)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:47:07 AM EST
    bag for Obama, what difference would it make to him if he still gets the nomination after all the votes are counted fairly. And wouldn't he really look good if he would fight for all the votes. Makes ya think!

    Parent
    I don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Lupin on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:03:48 AM EST
    I really do not understand why some folks here are obsessing about this (other than echoing some talking points).

    It is obvious that FL and MI will be seated. Yes, I don't have a crystal ball, but to me, that's the most likely case scenario.

    It is equally obvious that some of the MI delegates will be allocated to Obama -- the only controversial issue as far as I can tell -- likely in the 69/59 split.

    Finally, it is entirely obvious math-wise that none of this will significantly affect the Obama-Clinton balance of power.

    The only thing that would do so would be: (i) zero seating of MI delegates for Obama, unlikely; or (ii) massive exodus of Obama superdelegates to Clinton, also unlikely.

    There are many valid reasons to support Clinton, but this is not one of them.

    Parent

    Telling people they're voting 'wrong' is WRONG (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:51:57 AM EST
    Something you SHOULD be concerned is the assumption of vote-entitlement from any individual, party or issues group.

    Protecting the neutrality of everyone's opportunity to use their franchise freely and in whatever way suits them should be the PRIMARY concern of anyone.

    This presumption of yours -- which coincidentally gibes with TeamObama's, and other kingmakers in the fauxgressive Blovillages -- to operate as a backseat driver on people's "wrong" votes is repugnant.

    I would never tell anyone s/he's voting "wrong" even if s/he backed a candidate for happening to like an unquantifiable attribute like that person's overall scrumpdellyiciousness.

    Parent

    Have any of you noticed (none / 0) (#52)
    by uncledad on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:24:40 AM EST
    That the right wingers still walk, or are you walking with them. This post of mine will most likely get me kicked off this site, maybe not.

    Walk away from Huillary, walk into the new democratic party, we need all of you to win this november, just cause your behind, dont mean you should lose. Lets beat the null and void, lets beat the losers.

    I liked the OLD Democratic Party (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:34:20 AM EST
    I didn't leave the Democrat Party -- the Party left me!!  

    The solution for the Party is to nominate Hillary.  That way you can get all of our votes!  

    Parent

    Heh, the party left me, but I (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:41:10 AM EST
    made the divorce final ;)

    Unaffiliated is a nice spot for me right now . . .

    Parent

    Where I live (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:57:54 AM EST
    I'm afraid it might lock me out of voting in primaries, so I'm not going to change.  

    I'm still angry though.  

    I usually vote for Democrats.  

    Parent

    Yeah, if I want to primary vote (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:07:01 AM EST
    I'll have to re-think a year in advance. But it seemed the best answer at the moment. I need to check and see when some terms are up, etc. and I'll be moving in a year or 2, so will have to re-reg anyway :)

    Parent
    I'm just going to vote for McCain (none / 0) (#88)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:15:39 AM EST
    Let the DNC try to figure out why my normally Democratic district voted for the Republican.  (I'm saying this because the district sometimes goes Pubbie which I imagine they will do this time too.)  

    Actually, thinking back, our district was pretty Republican before Bill Clinton ran and James Rogan became a total outcast.  

    Parent

    Could you please ask Obama (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:48:16 AM EST
    to send a troll who can spell, capitalize, and punctuate?  Can't we get a troll who can use the apostrophe?  Coherent and cogent thought would be nice, but it's really insulting to this blog that we keep getting sent the trolls bought at a discount rate.

    Parent
    Hey! I think these trolls (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:04:56 AM EST
    are Creative Class.  They certainly have "Inventive Spelling" down to an art.  


    Parent
    LOL Cream I want what's in your breakfast today (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:36:09 AM EST
    I have a pulse but my brain's lagging a bit. (I'm flexing to int'l fax barf so I can power-loaf on the weekend.)

    TMI / fashion warning for sensitive viewers: I just scared the living bejeebus out of the paper delivery couple when I went to get the morning fishwrap. You'd think they'd never seen anyone co-ordinate prescription swim goggles, plaid boxer shorts, a man's tuxedo jacket and hot pink crocs into a [paper]fetching outfit before. It was that or nudity and a coin toss on which would scare the early morning raccoons more.

    Dayum, I was hoping to start a trend, too!

    Parent

    Who'd you go home with (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:34:47 AM EST
    after your gala, Mark Spitz?

    Parent
    Cough. I went for what was laundry / cleaner bound (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:58:04 AM EST
    Didn't want to skank up any of the clean stuff before my morning appointment at the Hazmat Spa. :-P

    Hmmm ... maybe I was offending more than one sense, now that I think of it.

    Parent

    Hey, we all make typos once in a (none / 0) (#146)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:49:41 AM EST
    while, but this has been bothering me as well!

    Parent
    I became a Democrat (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:04:38 AM EST
    because the Democrats were for the little guy.  The new Democratic Party is NOT for the little guy.  Therefore, it's not for me.

    Parent
    No Thank You, I Don't Like The New (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:12:53 AM EST
    Democratic Party. It is all yours.

    Parent
    I don't (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:02:52 AM EST
    like the "new" Democrat Party either. In fact I don't see much democratic about the "NEW" shiny Obamacrat party. And not too surprisingly they don't seem to care much for me. I'm old, female, and working class.

    My vote belongs to me. Not to any party, candidate or anonymous keyboarder on a blog. I'll cast that vote in agreement with my politics, conscience and integrity.

    Parent

    We need all of you. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Fabian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:13:45 AM EST
    Really?  

    I've got a ton of housework and yard work and the little one's been sick this week.  Just send some helping hands from Team O over and we can talk about this.  

    Parent

    They're (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:07:40 AM EST
    now in stage 2 of the cycle that abusers follow:
    Beg. It's what they do after threats have failed.

    Parent
    I know. (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Fabian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:25:09 AM EST
    I just want to see how much they'll offer me.  Probably just words.  Money would be nice.  I could create a PAC for them to donate to...

    Parent
    Progressive Punch (none / 0) (#110)
    by facta non verba on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:06:33 AM EST
    rates the Senate.

    Guess who came out better? Hillary or Barack?

    Progressive Punch

    Here Are A Couple Of Other Interesting Items (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:19:39 AM EST
    Human Rights/Civil Liberties
                   Score      Ranking
    Clinton  87.93        25
    Obama  75.00        41

    Making Govt. Work
    Clinton  94.41        15
    Obama  87.32        33

    Parent

    Making governent work? (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Fabian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:27:13 AM EST
    I thought that was Obama's shtick?

    Parent
    No One Has Done More To Make Government (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:39:51 AM EST
    work than Obama provided you throw out the 32 other Senators that did a better job.

    While I thought that category was amusing because as you say it is supposed to be Obama's shtick, I found his ranking on Human Rights/Civil Liberties disturbing. With a ranking of 41, he has to be among the lowest ranked Democrats in this category.

    Parent

    That family planning (none / 0) (#113)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:23:18 AM EST
    rating for Obama certainly knocks the wind out of the "But remember Roe!" argument, no?

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#126)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:17:30 AM EST
    Hillary's 33 ranking is so much better.

    Obama picked up 4 more supers yesterday.  

    Parent

    Been Sick For a Couple Of Days (none / 0) (#141)
    by creeper on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:40:31 AM EST
    I finally looked at news websites this morning.  Was amazed to see a bunch of stories critical of Barack Obama, not the least of them a long one on CNN about Obama's team removing all his opponents from the ballot in 1996.  It appears he also has a new preacher problem.

    Where have these reporters been for the past six months?  The lazy bastards have been pushing Barack Obama's candidacy since the get-go, with puff pieces and biased reporting.  Now that they've almost succeeded in crowing him, they're finally getting around to doing some real research.  Turns out there's more in Mr. Obama's closet than the Rev. Wright.

    One more time.... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Groundhog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:59:33 AM EST
    First, from the the Michigan Dem letter:

    "The Democratic National Committee then proceeded to selectively enforce its calendar rule. On December 3, the Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to give New Hampshire a waiver to move from third to second place in the sequence. Michigan requested a waiver and was denied. When the Rules and Bylaws Committee itself decided not to follow its own newly adopted, hard-fought for rules and granted a waiver to New Hampshire, it set the stage for the present situation (emphasis added)."

    Huh? Are we kidding? And they (the Michigan Dems) chose to pursue it? Um, if the DNC does not have the right/power to "selectively enforce," then it has no raison d'etre, no?  I mean--and I hope we are all pro Union Dems here--but the boss is still the boss, no? I would hope that we are not arguing that boss/employee, teacher/student, parent/child, doctor/patient relationships should be  relationships of equals? (I mean social equals--of course we are all legal equals)

    Let me be clear: If the DNC decreed that: men can not wear earrings; no dress-down Fridays; techno is better than soul; the X-men suck--either obey their insane rulings or institute proceedings to replace the bosses with those you find more rational. (For the same reason, I oppose impeachment of the current &%#$@#--we had a chance to rectify this democratically in 2004--and the American people. actually 50.7% of us--well, see Jane Smiley...)

    This is not an Athenian democracy, nor can it be...

    2) As to the Michigan Democratic proposal--not too bad, actually.  How's this, only:
    Clinton 69
    Obama 59

    For a total of 128--do not seat the remaining 29 super delegates--after all, they are the ones who should be penalized for defiance, and not the voters.  

    Does this work for you guys?

    P S.

    I have always felt Dr. Dean handled this poorly.  If he were serious, he should have picked a public row with Senator Levin in January and resolved this then (let me be clear: I make no pretense of faux-urbanity--if this needed to be resolved Tom Stall style, that is fine--but it should have been resolved).  

    No, if you're not (none / 0) (#168)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:42:37 AM EST
    on a ballot, no one has voted for you. The Michigan voters did not vote for Obama. The delegates that were not earned by Senator Clinton are UNCOMMITTED. That's what the voters checked off on their ballots. If Senator Obama is getting any delegates in Michigan, I want some, too.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#165)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:38:29 AM EST
    If your argument is that "the DNC's rulings are holy writ regardless of how arbitrary and unfair they are" then we're not going to have much to talk about, and I frankly don't understand why you bother.

    You cannot simultaneously argue "the rules must by obeyed" and "the DNC must be obeyed even if they ignore the rules."

    As for the idea that people who voted for Hillary should be reassigned to Obama in the name of compromise, I'm pretty sure you'll find that's a nonstarter around here, with good reason.

    Addendum (none / 0) (#167)
    by Groundhog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:41:41 AM EST
    1. First, we Obama supporters are in fact Democrats, Sam--your insinuation that we are, I don't know, Naderites? It does not wash. For what it's worth my 1st choice was Edwards (or in an idealized world, Gore).  

    2. It was asked what is turning New Yorkers against Clinton, well speaking as one(that's right, Lorelynn, who suggests that I am "clearly unfamiliar" with her record--snap):

    For the umpteenth time: we do not oppose Hillary because of her gender; just as we do not support Barack because of his. No--we are fed up because she is a Clinton.

    And that means--as in hiring Dick Morris--caring more about one's own ambition than the Democratic party. (Please do not think of equating Obama's banal comment about Reagan with Clinton's
    "triangulation.")

    And yes, as long as they run as a team, I shall hold Bill's shortcomings against her; I see no evidence that she cares more about the Democratic party as an abstraction, separate from her own career.

    Now before you guys bite: These are not "distortions, half-truths and lies," Angie and Steve M (really, maybe because I am far older than you guys, but I think it the height of cowardice to insult someone insulated by this medium.  Yes, I am suggesting that you would be far more polite face-to-face...)

    They are opinions.  Not feelings, opinions.  Choose to diagree, and I will listen.  But let's knock it off with juvenile ad hominem attacks.

    Seriously, do you guys ever really ask what makes so many liberal Democrats mad at the Clintons?  I mean, in a serious, abstract way?  Do you really believe it is solely because he is a southerner and she a female?  Do you really beleive that?  I for one, would have backed up Johnson in his feud with RFK (so much so, had I been able to vote in a NY primary in 1968, I would have supported Humphrey). I did support Carter over Ted in 1980.  So some of us can, did, and do support "establishment" Democrats.  

    But the operative noun is "Democrats."  And when Clinton hangs with Gingrich, or Scaife, or Dick Morris (or votes on the war, her positions on school unis, flag burning, etc.) this demonstrates a very limited philosophy of government, as little more than a problem solver.
    To put it another way: too much poli sci, not enough political philosophy.

    And when she repeatedly insinuates that McCain is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than her Democratic opponent, that is nigh-unforgivable.

    Word to your moms.

    Heh (none / 0) (#169)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:01:25 AM EST
    Of course I understand why some people dislike the Clintons.  Some of it is rational, some of it is not.  The idea that dislike for the Clintons should lead to favoring a candidate who urges working with the Republicans over a candidate who campaigns on fighting against them is, nonetheless, rather baffling to me.

    But hey, it's your vote, and if your choice is to cast it for whoever happens to be the anti-Clinton du jour, that's your right.

    But don't expect a lot of respect from Clinton supporters when you make intellectually dishonest arguments just because they happen to favor the anti-Clinton candidate.

    I didn't favor Hillary at the start of this primary myself, but I believe she is a basically good person who doesn't deserve one-tenth of the abuse heaped upon her.  Those who prefer to regard her as a malignant, racist force, going around implying that her opponent ought to be assassinated, tend to receive no respect from me, whether offline or on.

    Parent

    The reason I will... (none / 0) (#170)
    by NotThatStupid on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:03:21 AM EST
    ... not vote for -- and might possibly vote against -- Senator Obama have nothing to do with my support for Senator Clinton.

    It is based solely on my personal judgment that Senator Obama is not qualified to be President.

    Also, in my opinion (and if this gets me suspended, so be it), regarding your statement that...

    when she repeatedly insinuates that McCain is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than her Democratic opponent, that is nigh-unforgivable.

    ... there is nothing to be forgiven, it being the truth, after all.

    The country is more important than the Democratic Party, and Senator Obama is not qualified or competent to lead either. Again, just my opinion.

    Parent

    The problem is actually (none / 0) (#171)
    by RalphB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:04:13 AM EST
    this is is clearly the case.

    McCain is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than her Democratic opponent

    On every level, McCain is more qualified to be CinC.  It may not be helpful to Obama but a politician can occasionally commit candor.

    Parent

    The latest (none / 0) (#172)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:10:03 AM EST
    from Harold

    Harold Ickes, Sen. Hillary Clinton's "chief delegate hunter," told the Huffington Post "that there may be some defections" among the 13 DNC rules and bylaws committee members who have endorsed Clinton. "If Ickes and his allies cannot hold all their troops in line, a motion before the RBC to seat all 210 Florida and 156 Michigan delegates with a full vote each would face certain defeat."

    Is this on the level? (none / 0) (#174)
    by Groundhog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:58:35 AM EST
    I have made not one single intellectually dishonest argument--knock that off.

    HOWEVER--if some of you guys really believe that McCain is more qualified to be Commander Chief than Obama, do not just state it as obvious.  Defend it.  Defend:

    1. McCain's repeated conflation of Al Quaeda and Iran (which Lieberman had to correct--yet they jump on Obama for mis-speaking about Buchenwald);
    2. His repeated insistence that Iran supports Al Quaeda;
    3. His sophistry in talking of "Al Quaeda in Iraq"--which exists because of our invasion;
    4. The ridiculous sabre-rattling.  Since when does talking to someone imply approval? Does this forum not prove this :-)

    And most important, his insistence that he knows how the world works, simply because he say so.  NO.  Do not let him confuse credentials--of which his do not actually impress me--with merit.

    If you have the time, see todays NY Times op-ed by Susan Jacoby on "elites"--a word that is supposed to mean "really knows what (s)he is talking about." McCain is not, in fact, more qualified just because his hair is greyer and he knows how to fly.

    Do any of you actually believe that, prior to 9/11, McCain was truly well-informed on Middle Eastern history and culture?  I have seen no real evidence of this; I find Obama to be the far more urbane person.

    News flash:  The Persians ain't Arabs, they ain't Sunnis, and they detest Al Quaeda.  We could have done something to enlist their support, and undo some of the animosity which led to Achmenijad.  

    Heh (none / 0) (#180)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:55:00 AM EST
    Um, if the DNC does not have the right/power to "selectively enforce," then it has no raison d'etre, no?

    I mean, that's an argument you should be ashamed of yourself for making.  Seriously.

    Anyone who thinks it's important for the Democratic Party to send the right message regarding the primary calendar in 2012 should deplore the fact that NH was excused for its deliberate flouting of the rules.  There's just no question about this.

    Parent

    Let's chill (none / 0) (#182)
    by Groundhog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:52:42 PM EST
    Um Steve:  Please knock it off with the insults.  As I wrote earlier, do not say things you would not/should not say in person.  It demeans the dialogue, and accomplishes nothing.

    1.  As to Rev. Pfhelger (sp.) I was not explaining him (a clown), but responding to the "shock" of some on this stream to the audience reaction.  On this, I don't think we are in disagreement.

    2.  If the DNC cannot make and enforce rules, why have it? Should they really have permitted an onrush of pre-Super Tuesday primaries?

    3. Um, call me an elitist--Susan Jacoby would not--but I have way more respect for the formally educated opinion than the appearance of "hand's on" experience.  McCain simply does not know more about the Middle East or Africa, or even east Asia than does Obama. (On this point: Condi Rice has a PhD, but I would not defer to her about anything but the countries of the former Soviet Union; even Joe Biden, who surpasses all three of the aforementioned, reacted a bit too emotionally about Kosovo--following his logic, one should support the Irish unionists and not the Irish Republicans--a position I don't believe he holds).

    4. Following the last, here is the one time I will say something you might interpret as provocative, but let's get it out there:

    If you (I don't mean "you," Steve--anyone) are a person who:
    --probably voted for Dukakis in 1988;
    --Definitely voted for Clinton 92 and 96;
    --Gore 2000;
    Yes, I am going there...
    --Kerry 2004...

    But this time--after these last eight years--are seriously contemplating not voting for Obama (because of his lack of "gravitas") and actually voting McCain ("he's not like "other" Republicans)--well, can you please explain to me how we--the left side of the party--can interpret it as anything but... you know what.

    Please, someone make us understand.  And please understand that we are--and I mean this sincerely--not so much angry as confused and disappointed.

    Please explain.  

    Your fellow Democrat,

    George

    Parent

    CNN CRITICAL OF OBAMA!!!!! (none / 0) (#176)
    by kenosharick on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:00:58 AM EST
    CNN had a report this morning about how Obama used the ROOLZ to knock every Dem off the ballot but himself back in 1996. It was not a flattering report- too bad it did not come months ago.

    Late Night: Getting Ready for Florida | 180 comments (180 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment