Louise:

I believe you are confusing “universal health care” with “single-payer health care.”  As lib in Texas notes, Hillary’s plan IS a form of universal health care, where Obama’s is not.

Peace.

Louise, After your big long explanation of nothing
you are still wrong about Universal Health Care. Go to Factcheck.org. Hillary’s plan IS universal health care.  YOU are the one who doesn’t understand what that means.

Great post Lousie, I find the importance of experience issue highly over rated, if that is the case Chaney should be running, so the Clinton folks could vote for him.

“Look folks, the Democrats have been shafting us” since Woodrow Wilson. I thought I would add my own little touch.

seenmostofit, February 10 at 7:44 am ...

As far as Hillary’s comment about health care, I am not quoting anyone except Hillary! I heard the words come out of her mouth! She did not say Obama, she said “my opponent” but given no plural plus her using HIS talking points, it was pretty obvious.

Sorry you missed it. If you think her health care plan is Universal Health Care, I guess you don’t understand what that means. Obama’s plan isn’t true Universal Health Care either, but at least he is NOT putting words in her mouth! Sorry if my comment offended you, but her comment offended me!

Following two overwhelming votes by the party’s rules panel, the Democratic National Committee ruled that Florida’s delegates will not be seated, or, if seated, will not be able to vote, at the National Convention. The DNC also ruled to forbid any candidate from receiving delegates should they campaign in the Florida primary. They also voted to deny Michigan’s request to hold its primary on January 15 and declared that Michigan’s delegates would not count in the nominating contest unless Michigan moved its primary to a later date. Michigan refused to change the date.

As a result, Obama, Richardson, Biden, and Edwards pulled their names from the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot. Clinton, Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich did not.

None of the candidates names were pulled from the Florida Ballot, because Florida REFUSED to pull them. Clinton had over 50% to Mr. Obama’s more than 30%. But five months earlier all the Democratic candidates, including Hillary signed a pledge stating Florida and Michigan would not get delegates to the August presidential convention.

Now that Hillary has won both states, unchallenged in Michigan, she says they should.

Clinton said, “I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan ...”

I agree, all fifty states should be represented. As I stated the rules were stupid and stinky and only served to risk leaving some candidates supporters totally disenfranchised. And further fracturing the party. But it’s a little late now!

Hillary, along with ALL the other democrat candidates signed a pledge to UPHOLD the ruling of the party. But, she did NOT pull her name from the ballot in Michigan. And now that she has won an UNCONTESTED vote, she is PUSHING TO SEAT those delegates. We could argue semantics, but the fact that the other major candidates pulled their names from the ballot indicates at least they interpreted the pledge to remove themselves from the campaigning as part and parcel of removing themselves from the voting.

Sorry, in my view Hillary did break the rule. Further she chooses to ignore her own pledge to uphold the rule now. What do we call that?

The whole thing is a mess, can be laid at the feet of democrat leadership and has only served to make Hillary look bad. But I didn’t make the stupid rule and I didn’t sign the stupid pledge! Nor did I make any of this up!

Both political parties penalized early voting states in an attempt to gain control over a chaotic primary calendar, just differently. But as is so often the case, they did what they did to late and in a most undemocratic fashion!

Both candidates have said, and they are both right, we need election campaign reform! The current system stinks and every time someone try’s to fix it, it gets worse!

By the way, I suspect if the story were reversed and Obama had pulled that stunt in his speech, and left his name on the ballot after Hillary had pulled hers, you’d be feeling the same way I do.

Only more-so!

Uhh ... common sense and logic maybe?

I’m sorry Maani, I’m not sure I understand your point. My response to you was based on the response to me [above, or maybe below, not sure where this will come up] where you said:

“Ultimately, lobbyists are in Washington to stay, because the majority of representatives WANT them there.  This may also be inexcusable, but it is a fact.  And no ONE person - even the president of the United States - is not going to single-handedly eliminate them, or even get close to it.

“It is nice to wish it otherwise, and to have a candidate even willing to expend rhetoric on it. But, as I said, if anyone thinks that the lobbyists are simply going to abandon their offices on K Street and “get out of town” because big bad Sheriff Obama is coming, they need to stop smoking whatever it is they’re smoking and get themselves a good dose of reality.”

And my original comment was based on [way below]

By Maani, February 8 at 5:33

[This is the comment I “lifted”]

“Obama’s stand is a good and noble one.  But it is so unrealistic as to be little more than a good campaign speech talking point.”

To which I reiterate:

“A healthy dose of common sense and a good bit of logic is what the people want. It has nothing to do with gender or color! You can be sure there will be little, if any change if we elect a standing “club” member. In-breeding creates deformity. New blood is needed to regain normal. Same applies in the echo chamber in D.C. And everybody knows it! Even a lot of republicans!”

Meaning, over time politicians spend MORE time in the echo chamber than they do at home with their constituents. Danger being they tend to take opinion from another member of the echo chamber as more valid than whatever they hear from home.

Oh my gosh! The most excellent example we have of that is the House of Representatives caving to Nancy. Even against their own best interests. Even when the folks back home are SCREAMING for something different!

Come to think of it, Nancy stands as a great example of what plagues D.C. She doesn’t even sound like the same person she was three years ago!

Steadfast membership, constant re-electability equates reward with power based on seniority. Which may be a good thing, but should NEVER take precedent over serving the constituency that put you there in the first place. And of course power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

I keep remembering what my Senator say’s: The most powerful Lobby in the United States is the people!

And we are. I think electing Obama will send a clear message, the lobby of “We The People” is/are going to try and take our rightful position back! And for some reason we think Obama gives us the best opportunity to do that! Probably BECAUSE he is the least “entrenched” candidate in the field.

So while some may call that lack of experience, I call it a blessing!

Louise:

Since you lifted MY comment from a post in which I was SPECIFICALLY addressing the lobbyist issue, I think I had good reason to assume that YOUR response was to that issue.  If it was not, then why did you lift that particular comment from me?  And if you were not adderssing the lobbyist comment, exactly what WERE you addressing, since my comment was about lobbyists?

Peace.

I sometimes wonder Maani, are you trying to convince me ... or you?

I dont recall mentioning Lobby’s, Lobby money or K street. I think I did mention something about new blood.

Of course if security, or the need for security requires one avoid change, then I guess any argument I offer will be rationalized away, and any argument you offer will be justifying too much inside dealing, by citing the reality of too much inside dealing.

Yes, it really does make that much sense.
Or not.

Louise:

It has nothing to do with how long anyone has been “in the D.C. stewing pot.”  It has to do with how entrenched the lobbyists are, and WHY they are entrenched.  This is exactly one of the reasons I am concerned about Obama, and about the myopia of his supporters.

First, they seem to think he is not a Washington insider, despite the fact that he has been a U.S. Senator for three years.  He may not be AS MUCH of an insider as others, but he has learned to - and DOES - “play the game” just as craftily as any other representative.  To believe he is some kind of “maverick” is simply not supported by the facts.

Second, they think that just because he does not take money from lobbyists NOW, he is somehow “clean” in this regard, and that that, in turn, makes him somehow better equipped to get rid of them (or at least attempt to).  Obama took lobby money both times he ran for the Illinois state senate, as well as for his U.S. senatorial campaign - in which year he actually took in MORE money from lobbyists and PACs than Hillary did for her re-election to the Senate.  (You can look it up.)  And while Hillary has in fact accepted money from lobbyists this year, it is actually a piddling amount: ~$800,000 out of a total raised of over $100 million.  This does not excuse her for doing so, but one needs to put this in perspective as well.

Ultimately, lobbyists are in Washington to stay, because the majority of representatives WANT them there.  This may also be inexcusable, but it is a fact.  And no ONE person - even the president of the United States - is not going to single-handedly elmininate them, or even get close to it.

It is nice to wish it otherwise, and to have a candidate even willing to expend rhetoric on it. But, as I said, if anyone thinks that the lobbyists are simply going to abandon their offices on K Street and “get out of town” because big bad Sheriff Obama is coming, they need to stop smoking whatever it is they’re smoking and get themselves a good dose of reality.

Peace.

Sue Cook:

“I’ll switch parties or not vote at all…..

I’m as angry has hell and I won’t take it anymore if Obama gets the nomination this time around.

Hillary deserves it more, it’s her turn!”

***

Honey, this isn’t a game on the kindergarten playground. No one should be president because it’s their turn. Cripes, that’s the republicans line when you ask them why their voting for McCain! Only in their case it’s because they cant think of a better reason.

I would hope that we are all fed up enough with republican leadership that no matter who the candidate is we’ll hold our nose and vote democrat. I know if Hillary is the candidate that’s what I’ll have to do!

Maani:

“Obama’s stand is a good and noble one.  But it is so unrealistic as to be little more than a good campaign speech talking point.”

***

That might be true if Obama had been cooking in the D.C. stewing pot for as many years as the rest of the candidates. But he hasn’t. And he has made it clear he doesn’t want to wait and cook until he’s just like them!

Change is possible, if we start with someone still far enough removed from the same-ol-same-ol, and a fresh new congress, which we will give him.

A healthy dose of common sense and a good bit of logic is what the people want. It has nothing to do with gender or color! You can be sure there will be little, if any change if we elect a standing “club” member. In-breeding creates deformity. New blood is needed to regain normal. Same applies in the echo chamber in D.C. And everybody knows it! Even a lot of republicans!

cyrena:

“In fact, this is your claim…

… Fair enough but Obama is now trying to change the rules himself by arguing that the candidate that wins most states or most total votes should be anointed.”

***

Obama has never said that. There may have been times when a supporter has asked him if total votes should determine the winner, and he may have agreed. I think it’s safe to say we all agree with that. But he has never taken the position the rules should be changed mid-stream. Perhaps our election rules need to be revisited, and he has said that he’d like to see some meaningful election law reforms when he’s elected, which we would all like to see happen! But he never made the statement above. A sound-bite comment, probably made by Hillary or her people.

***

“Then again, I was also unaware that he’d apparently said that Hillary should be ‘given’ Florida and Michigan, or that those states should be ‘counted’ for her. I don’t agree with that at all, and I’m sure the Dems of Florida and Michigan aren’t all pleased about it either.”

***

He never said that either. Some of his people may have, which is not to bright, and some politicians and pundits have said that, but they’re not always to bright either. but what has really been said is more a question. What about those votes?

That position has been widely debated by roomfuls of pundits who love to sound all-knowing and important. It is a valid issue. Hillary, like ALL the dem candidates was told not to be on the ballet in Michigan and Florida. She broke the rule. A stupid rule to be sure, and we should be screaming at the party leaders for their stupidity and duplicity. But she broke the rule ... what to do?

Obama respected the rule. Hillary didn’t. A thorny issue because those who voted for her in those states have a right to be counted. If they are, there will be an outcry from those in Michigan and Florida who would have voted for Obama but couldn’t, because he wasn’t on the ballet. I’d be pissed either way. Like I said this is a thorny, no really STINKY issue and the party leadership is to blame. We need to send them all a letter and let them know what a lousy job they’re doing!

While we’re at it, we need to let them know how we feel about Super Delegates. Another really STINKY idea!

Yesterday I watched while Hillary said she would give us Universal Health Care [have you seen her plan? It is not Universal Health Care] Anyway she went on to say, “My opponent thinks we cant have that. He says “No we cant!” to which I reply, “Yes we can!”

[Everybody knows Obama has NEVER said we cant have universal health care. And, “Yes we can!” Has been one of his rally cry’s for months!]

I almost fell out of my chair! My first reaction was does she think the people in Washington State are that stupid?

Now of course, we know the people of Washington State are not that stupid. That was a major blunder on Hillary’s part and oh so political. Come to think of it, oh so republican. Geez!

That stupid bit of “slick” shit may have sewed it up for Obama!

If Pelosi has anything to do with brokering the nomination she’ll have another thousand protesters camped out on her door step.

Maybe so, except of course that you seem to be in error on anything that suggests that Obama has asked to have the rules changed to begin with.

In fact, this is your claim…

”... Fair enough but Obama is now trying to change the rules himself by arguing that the candidate that wins most states or most total votes should be anointed.”

Do you have any verification of this argument that Obama is allegedly putting forth? I haven’t heard or read it.

Then again, I was also unaware that he’d apparently said that Hillary should be ‘given’ Florida and Michigan, or that those states should be ‘counted’ for her. I don’t agree with that at all, and I’m sure the Dems of Florida and Michigan aren’t all pleased about it either.

Like, if I was a resident of Michigan, and had been forced to vote for EITHER Hillary, (the ONLY name on the Dem ticket in their primaries) or be ‘uncommitted’, I’d be pretty damn pissed off. Same if I lived in Florida. Now, who do we blame this on? The PARTY LEADERSHIP itself, or the candidates?

Meantime, can you please provide some sources for what you claim Obama is arguing? I don’t believe you.

Jackpine Savage,

I love your post about the tiny little temper tantrums.

(you say tainted, but I think of tiny little fists, like little babies who ball them up and flail them when they don’t get their way).

But on this part….

”.....  Destruction is the necessary prerequisite to creation….”

Humm…I think the DESTRUCTION PART is already done. Been underway for ages now. So, we’ve got THAT prerequisite out of the way. I’m thinking it’s definitely creation time now, except what’s in the making is shaping up to be a Frankenstein type product.

Look folks,  the Democrats have been shafting us from the beginning of the last election, I have been really pissed off at the Polosi’s impeachment is off the table thing, and the and bring the troops home horse and pony show is just an example of partisan positioning.  Our young are dyeing for nothing more than politics of the elite, grab assing with special interests.  Good old boy smoke filled rooms, without the smoke are still happening, our tax money is supporting the separation of the classes. 

Anti war demonstrations by the people have been ignored by the media.  War is a way of both parties.  Ignorance is the crutch.

Check out this Rolling Stones “Chicken Doves” article

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197 /the_chicken_doves/2

Hey, hey, hey everybody…its time to gather round in a circle.  Locked and loaded?  Good.  Now…ready, aim, fire!

Look, if you disagree with Sen Obama’s politics DO NOT vote for him.  If you disagree with Sen Clinton’s politics DO NOT vote for her.  It is your vote, and it is the most important thing you possess.

On the other hand, these petty little tantrums about not voting for the other if your candidate doesn’t get the nomination are, well, fucking petty.

We all talk (even if it is not our word choice) about politicians acting like grown-ups.  Well, politicians are never going to act like grown-ups until the people who put them in power start acting like grown-ups.  Get it?

In a perverse way, i’m actually starting to hope that the Democratic Party implodes over this.  Destruction is the necessary prerequisite to creation.

I don’t care about the rules, because they are loaded against what the people want.  You can stay with your bureaucratic crap for all I care.  The process is screwed and is stacked against what the “PEOPLE” want.  So what’s your point?

Yes, very naive. If one agrees to run for the nomination under a given set of rules, then one cannot ask that these rules be changed because one does not like them. Asking for change of rules is childish.

Senator Obama has correctly protested the attempt by the Clinton campaign to change the rules of the game by asking the DNC to count Florida and Michigan as “Clinton wins”. Fair enough but Obama is now trying to change the rules himself by arguing that the candidate that wins most states or most total votes should be anointed. I call this for what it is namely hypocrisy. So we are about to get another president who is willing to break the rules to get his/her way? Frightening. There is only one way to finesse the super delegates, if that will be necessary, which is by a joint O/C ticket agreed on prior to a Democratic non-convention.

^ but the only fair way to decide this is to look at the popular vote.  If Hillary gets the most votes (not delegates) then give it to her; however, if Obama gets the most votes (not delegates), give it to him.  Anything else makes a travesty of our “democracy” and the peoples vote.  If the popular vote isn’t the deciding factor then why vote at all?  Maybe we will see, once and for all, that we lost our voice a long time ago.

Thank you Greg. My jaw dropped when I read Sue Cooks thing on how Hillary ‘deserves it’ and claims that it’s all about the ‘timing’ because this is our best chance to have a woman in the white house.

It’s scary as hell to know that grown people, (who vote) actually have these mentalities. (Obama should come back in 4 to 8 years). Yes, the mentality is absolutely scary as hell. Like a 5 year old actually. It’s MY turn, never mind that Hillary would finish us off, and that Obama is the only one at this point, who could actually save us, IF it’s not too late.

And, that’s the reality of it. People like Sue display the seriously challenged mentalities that they have. (Obama should just concede - right, and sell finish selling us down the river…what’s left of us anyway). Amazing.

And people like Maani will continue to divert with stupid details like, Obama ‘says’ that he’s going to do something about the lobbies, but that doesn’t mean that he will. Shit like that. And, it never stops.

So, it means the rest of us just have to disregard them, and work that much harder to elect the only person, (at least at this point) who can actually reverse the destruction.

So, I’ll continue to do everything in my own power as well.

Leefeller:

Obama can STATE anything he likes.  The question is whether he can or will ACT on it.  Do you really think the lobbyists are just going to leave their offices on K Street and “get out of town” because big, bad Sheriff Obama SAYS so?  I don’t know what dreamworld you are living in.

Obama’s stand is a good and noble one.  But it is so unrealistic as to be little more than a good campaign speech talking point.

Peace.

LOL:

Actually, it is OBAMA who has been getting more of the “rich” vote, while Hillary has been pulling the working poor and middle class vote.

Peace.

Why don’t you vote for Chaney? Oh I love partisan politics, it makes things so clear cut. 
My biggest grip is the lobbyists in Washington and the undue influence they have on decisions that affect our lives.  Obama has stated lobbies are a problem, has Hillary?

The party needs to sit down the representatives of both candidates, make them decide on rules they both can live by from here on out and have the candidates sign a contract.

Walter Cronkite can be the arbitrator for the agreement and can settle subsequent disputes.

He’s the last person this country trusted.

I’m as angry has hell and I won’t take it anymore if Obama gets the nomination this time around.

Hillary deserves it more, it’s her turn!

She’s the best candidate with the most experience.

She don’t have the rock star status he has, but she’s true to her word and the best chance we have to clean things up of what George Bush will leave behind.  I trust her leadership in this regard over his.

Actually, I am torn between the two.  I want to more than anything vote for her, but I would also like to see him in the white house, because he is that good, but not right now. Maybe in eight years, or even four, but Hillary is too good a candidate to lose out.  Time is NOT on her side like it is Obama’s.  He can come back as strong as ever in the near future!

I think Howard Dean should intervene and talk some sense in the both of them, mostly Obama for the possibity of the “dream team”!

Clinton/Obama 08!

They are dividing the democratic party.  I know I’m not the only one who feels this way.

I do know that I will not vote for him if he wins, I might not switch and go republican, I more than likely will not vote period and I will be very angry and disappointed that we came so close to a 1st woman president and we probably won’t see one with her expertise for a very long time if ever.

Obama, please concede and come back in 4-8 years.
Keep the democratic party strong!

JS:

“Oh come on, its an ugly possibility because it has the possibility to take the issue out of the hands of the voters.”

No.  The voters will have spoken by then.  It is not the problem of the convention that the voters could not choose between the candidates.  Unless you are suggesting that rather than the superdelegate method, there be a national “referendum” of some sort on which everyone could vote one more time.  I suppose that would work, though it, too, could get sticky.

“It is an ugly possibility because one side will almost certainly think that they got screwed.”

With all due respect to both candidates, I would say “sour grapes” to this.

“And its an ugly possibility because the decision will likely be made by politicians judging how one or the other affects their chances and who they owe or do not owe.”

On this we agree, but, again, unless we are talking about a national popular vote b/w Hillary and Obama, I’m not sure what would be fairest.

“But if it comes down to superdelegates and party machinations, it also means that all the millions of dollars that states spent to hold these primaries were money flushed down the toilet.”

Again, not quite.  The voters DID vote in those primaries.  So the money was not “flushed down the toilet.”  Again, if the voters simply could not choose a clear front-runner, that is simply one of many possibilities within the system.

Peace.

“If LieDig says, “There’s an ugly possibility out there,” it must mean that it is good, or at least neutral, possibility.”

You’re starting to sound a bit iconoclastic.
That’s what this rag needs alot more if.

Oh come on, its an ugly possibility because it has the possibility to take the issue out of the hands of the voters.  It is an ugly possibility because one side will almost certainly think that they got screwed.  And its an ugly possibility because the decision will likely be made by politicians judging how one or the other affects their chances and who they owe or do not owe.

The DNC structured the nomination process this way to avoid any possibility of a repeat of the ‘68 nomination process.

But if it comes down to superdelegates and party machinations, it also means that all the millions of dollars that states spent to hold these primaries were money flushed down the toilet.  My state spent $10M that it doesn’t have for a primary that didn’t count (stupid state legislature).

In the end, it doesn’t matter to me, because i’ll vote for a third party (or write in) in any case; Samuel Clemens is my current front runner.  F—-in’ Democrats…absolutely no clue.  The Party is like a dog chasing its own tail.  And the only thing the rank and file is concerned with is their chosen candidate.  Half of whom are suffering from a messiah complex and the other half rally around the idea of moving forward into the past.

If LieDig says, “There’s an ugly possibility out there,” it must mean that it is good, or at least neutral, possibility.  Because while it is true that there seems something “wrong” with the decision being made by less than a thousand people at a convention, it also means that the American people felt that they had two equally good (or equally bad) candidates, and could simply not decide between them.

What’s wrong with that?  Why should that be a “bad” thing?  Why is it “necessary” that one candidate be far and way better than the rest?  Wasn’t everyone complaining about a Hillary “coronation” (via the media and the primaries) early on?  Are LieDig and others now suggesting that such a coronation would have been preferable?

I wish they would make up their minds.

Peace.

Cyrena:

You said, “Hillary vs McCain? NO DIFFERENCE….”

I’m hoping you are being tongue-in-cheek.

McCain: Stay in Iraq until we have victory, even if it takes 100 years.
Hillary: Begin withdrawing troops within 60 days of taking office.

McCain: Permanentize Bush tax cuts, which benefit the rich.
Hillary: Roll back Bush tax cuts, put money into financing health care.

McCain: Economy needs new shot of Reaganomics.
Hillary: Economy needs anything BUT Reaganomics.

That’s just for starters.

Peace.

”...My best guess is that they will chose Mitt Romney to run for Democrats.His previous positions come that close to the democrats…”

I had to chuckle Thomas…

But, I think they’d choose Hillary in a heartbeat. She’s as close to a repuglican as anybody can get, and still call themselves a dem, and manage to fool enough people into believing that she really IS a democrat.

So, it’s very scary, but no different than if she wins the nomination anyway. In short, if the voters choose Hillary, that age old adage will apply…

“Whenever there’s a choice between a repuglican and a repuglican, the democrats will pick the repuglican every time”..

Hillary vs McCain? NO DIFFERENCE….

So, that’s who the super delegates would choose. That’s why Nancy the Botox Pelosi is just fine with it. Too bad we can’t UNCHOOSE her.

If we had democracy here we would have a national primary so that everyone could vote.  As it is only the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have a voice in choosing the candidates.  The voters of those three states determine who stays in and who drops out of the race.

Who needs stinkin voters.The democrats will probably go to the Supreme Court to decide who should represent them.What a quandry for the Supreme Court who to chose among democrats.My best guess is that they will chose Mitt Romney to run for Democrats.His previous positions come that close to the democrats.

oops, Feb 6th show.

Colbert’s interview with Tad Devine should be posted here (Feb 7th show). Discusses this, very funny.

Um, if they are neck and neck and get pretty equal number of delegates, the Super Delegates, cast at the convention, decide the nomination.

Or is that not how it works?