Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 18, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Star-Spangled Baggage
Science Finds New Routes to Energy




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Grand Theft Delegate

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 9, 2008
Clinton
newsweek.com

Hillary Clinton has returned to the subject of poaching pledged delegates, a topic that was raised and immediately lowered by her campaign earlier in the primary season. In a new interview in Newsweek, Clinton drops the hint: “Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to.”

While it is true that pledged delegates are technically free to go for whomever they wish, the idea of actively lobbying them to ignore the will of the voters who allocated them has traditionally not gone over well.

It’s a tactic the Clinton campaign already disowned once, and while it’s possible that Hillary’s comment below is simply meant to get past the “delegate math” storyline, Time’s Mark Halperin wonders if it isn’t “another trial balloon (on a topic already raised and shot down).”


Newsweek:

How can you win the nomination when the math looks so bleak for you?

It doesn’t look bleak at all. I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they’re all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we’re going to follow the process.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Jack, April 28, 2008 at 2:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As Sen. Hillary Clinton has ‘managed’ to take the Pennsylvania state, the Democratic race for nomination is very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates. Indiana ,Idaho and west Virginia are still to come.

If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama

If you haven’t done so yet, please write a message to each of your state’s superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com

It takes a moment, but what’s a few minutes now worth to get Obama in office?!

Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it’s appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It’s that easy…

Clinton Supporters:

It takes a moment, but what’s a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?!

Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it’s appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It’s that easy…

REALLY easy to identify the superdelegates and reach out to them !  It includes a list of names, addresses, and affiliations of superdelegates from each state including your state

Report this

By Ken, April 3, 2008 at 6:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Today’s launch of http://www.LobbyDelegates.com for the first time empowers grassroots Democrats with the only 1-stop portal for influencing Super Delegates, the nearly 800 top party officials allowed to vote for any Presidential candidate they choose at the Nominating Convention.

Super Delegates’ votes could be decisive in a continuing close race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both candidates remain better than 600 delegates shy of the 2,024 “magic number” for clinching the nomination. Given this math, neither candidate is expected to win enough pledged delegates during the 10 remaining state primaries to clinch a victory before the August 25th convention in Denver.

This likelihood has led some Democratic leaders to recently suggest holding a special Super Delegate Primary in June to avoid the intra-party rancor anticipated from a brokered convention.

With such high stakes, many Democrats want greater Super Delegate accountability—by endorsing either the candidate who won their state primary, or the one winning the most delegates from all primaries nationwide. LobbyDelegates.com enables rank-and-file Democrats to communicate such grassroots views directly to these Super Delegates—who include party leaders, governors, mayors, state and Congressional lawmakers.

Users of LobbyDelegates.com can communicate with some or all of their state’s Super Delegates, who are categorized by whether they’re currently supporting Clinton or Obama, or have stayed Uncommitted. Users can thus tailor messages urging Super Delegates to switch candidates, or switch from being uncommitted to one candidate or the other. Users can even lobby Super Delegates to stay uncommitted until the Convention.

The LobbyDelegates.com website is strictly impartial and is not affiliated with any political party, candidate, campaign or advocacy group. LobbyDelegates.com was created as a public service under the auspices of the StateDemocracy Foundation. This tax-exempt nonprofit was established in 1999 to run http://www.StateDemocracy.org—a civic engagement portal dedicated to delivering democracy to your desktop!

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 12, 2008 at 5:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

More “Clintonese” thought style Maani.

You know I had a cousin in a “cult” who, before deprogramming, sounded just as adamant as you.

It is my position that the DLC has already picked The corporate whore as the candidate, The party hierarchy has endorsed her (wasn’t client #9 one of her super delegates?)

BUT if Obama can negotiate that greased floor that is the Democratic party (If your losing, change the rules) and he manages to defeat this machine mechanic, what do all you cultists do?  Drink cyanide-laced Koolade?

Report this

By bert, March 11, 2008 at 5:21 pm Link to this comment

Well said kxa.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 11, 2008 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

Given three choices for president, they have been guided into our laps for us by the Mass Media and special interests.  Differences between the three are minor when one digs real deep and tries to find substance.  The Republicans and Hillary are sniping at Obama in-order to create an illusion of difference.  Three acceptable candidates for the elite to protect their wealth and power. 

People seem excited about Obama, he has one thing the others do not offer,  charisma something missing for quite some time in our politics. 

Simple fact is I prefer Obama, because he offers a feeling of involvement that the other two do not. 

Even if it is an illusion, Obama will be much more pleasant to see and follow in the White-house than a monster lady and crazy old man.

Limited, change, even a little away from Bush is a pleasant thought. Obama offers this, Hillary and McCain do not.  Let’s face it the people of our county are complacent in their lives, until external changes force them other wise.

Report this

By Maani, March 11, 2008 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

Louise:

“And guaranteed, you’ll win. Even if you have to cheat, bribe, alter, rig and maybe even go into court to make it happen.”

Talk about rigging and going to court:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, March 11, 2008 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“I read the link on Palmer. Doesn’t look nefarious to me at all. What can I say?  I’m just only willing to see what’s there, and make some evaluations or opinions based on what’s there, what isn’t there, what I might be aware of that the story doesn’t include, and whether or not is has any relevance to anything else. This doesn’t.”

Now, why doesn’t that surprise me?  I think Obama could get caught red-handed shoplifting from a store and you would find a way to justify it, rationalize it, spin it, or otherwise suggest it is “irrelevant” or that you have information about it that neither the store owner, the police or the 100 witnesses who were there have.

You are truly a piece of work.

Peace. (of work…)

Report this

By Louise, March 11, 2008 at 6:34 am Link to this comment

Uh ... maybe you need to re-read my comment. Actually, maybe you need to re-read YOUR comment.

Perhaps a little clarity is called for. I wrote:

“Well if those three groups are the only ones voting for Obama that might be true. Or if the majority of voters are, as you imply dumb, who’s to say they may not vote for Obama too?”

“Actually I think the dumbbells are getting smart. Living in a declining society can do that. More than that, burying your kid, or attending the umpteenth funeral of someone from your hometown killed in the immoral war in Iraq can do that too.”

“Besides, I know a lot of really well educated white folks who are down-right stupid [Bush supporters]
So maybe the numbers really don’t make any sense! Just filling space for the pundits looking for readers.”

“Anyhow, maybe Hillary needs to re-think counting on the dumbbell vote.”

“But then, maybe that’s not what you meant. wink

OK, you seem to have meant blue-collar workers. But I think most of them are as smart as any so-called “educated white.” After all they’re the ones who do the work that keeps the corp’s going. Which is one more reason they might end up voting for Obama. Because the same-ol-same-ol has REALLY HURT them!

My original dumbbell remark was for Hillary ... not the voters. Because deciding to swing to classic repub methods in her campaign was, well ... really dumb!

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 11, 2008 at 6:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Personally, I prefer old Democratic values like fair play, integrity, and respect for others.”

I’m laughing my ass off…

“Used to be that such attacks and venom came only from the Republicans.”

I just need to know was this a line from your third-grade American History text? and how far back are you referencing?

The Democratic party was (in my youth) the party of segregation, they stole the 1960 election, they were the party of Tammany Hall, Chicago’s Daley machine, and Boston’s notorious “Vote early and often for Curley!” 

They were the party of Lester Maddox who handed out axe handles at his fried Chicken establishment so the patrons could beat any blacks who attempted to be served.

They were the party of George Wallace who stood in the “schoolhouse door” to block admission of Black students.

In the South the KKK often met in Democratic Union halls.

There are some STAND UP folks in the current Democratic Party, and there have been stand up folks in their past, BUT there are stand up folks who have served as Republicans also, and to say that due to these folks the “parties” should get a pass is ludicrous.

Report this

By cyrena, March 11, 2008 at 3:09 am Link to this comment

OK Maani,

I read the link on Palmer. Doesn’t look nefarious to me at all. What can I say?

I’m just only willing to see what’s there, and make some evaluations or opinions based on what’s there, what isn’t there, what I might be aware of that the story doesn’t include, and whether or not is has any relevance to anything else.

This doesn’t.

Report this

By cyrena, March 11, 2008 at 3:04 am Link to this comment

OK…I understand what you mean now, and yes…I can see where that would be even more sophisticated than what Rove pulled off in Florida in 2000.

Now, just so I’m understanding you, are the ‘crossovers’ being recruited to vote for Obama or Hillary, in order to throw the election?

I remember from just after Super Tuesday, a poster was saying that he was in line with a woman who was a repuglican, and was there to vote democratic in the primary for Hillary, so that she could then go back to the general election and vote for McCain. Now, this was in Texas, where I didn’t think that was allowed, (to switch back after the primaries) but maybe that’s changed since I left.

But yes, I understand the dilemma, if in fact it is one. For the moment, that’s just talk, and combined with more live time information, I don’t believe it.

I’m also thinking that these numbers don’t have the same significance that they’ve ever had in the past, and for a variety of reasons that are too long to go into.

But for one thing, the terms liberal and conservative don’t mean anything. There are literally hundreds of thousands of voters turning out this year, creating record high registrations. In my area, the highest turnout since 1976.

I also don’t believe, (because I actually do study the society at large) that racial and other demographics are gonna play as predictably in this election. The election is historical for one MOST important reason, which I think alot of you all might just want to blow off. The point is that most Americans now UNDERSTAND how the Dick Bush regime has jacked them up, and they are going to pick the individual that they think not only best serves their own interests, but in a new twist, they are going to pick the one that is FURTHEST from the politics of that old regime as they possibly can, based on what is available.

THAT is the pragmatic practicality of the REALITY. SO, if old repugs actually cross over to dems, I suspect it’s because THAT’S who they want to vote for. I detect a certain arrogance and maybe a bit of neurotic denial in your repeating over and over again, like a mantra, that only THESE 3 groups are voting for Obama, (because you’ve obviously been WRONG so far) and your insistence on some sort of a ‘game’ that only the likes of Rush Limbaugh would think up.

Then there are the Independent Voters. I don’t know how much you know about them, but after doing political survey analysis on and off for several years, I KNOW there are a whole lot more Independent voters than there used to be. And, they are from both the right, left, and center. I switched over myself, several years ago when I was in Texas, because it was the best place to be for a progressive ANYBODY. Being independent allowed me to make whatever choices I wanted, without having to be committed to a party, and that’s the way I’ve ALWAYS voted. I vote the person first, and the party second. Now as it works out, they usually ARE Dems, but that hasn’t seemed to make a difference these last 8 years or so.

Even the dems in Congress are paralyzed and won’t do their jobs. Still, I’m just saying that if people ‘crossover’ from the repug side, it’s probably because they don’t like their CHOICE on the repug side

No, I think that Obama will win the whole thing, and it’s the bush disaster that has set him up for the win. Sometimes in the arrogance, we forget that real human beings are attached to those ballots, and that they might not fit in your pigeon holes, because they might just vote for who they want.

I also don’t see as much racism this time, and that is a pleasant surprise. Racism is a poison in any society, and it prevents people from making the best choices to represent the whole.

So, I think it’s a new game this time.

That will actually even be good for Hillary supporters, even though I understand they don’t get that now.

Report this

By cyrena, March 11, 2008 at 2:16 am Link to this comment

Thanks for the links and the story Louise.

I’m simply being my standard TRUTHFUL self when I say this…I am NOT surprised. I’m just NOT. There was a time, even as recently as 10 years ago, when I would have been surprised. (even then, it made me either very naive, or I’d say just totally UNINFORMED.)

I try to explain the serious horrors of the mentalities of that place, and people used to think I was exaggerating, until they found out themselves. Matter of fact, yet another youngster who made her way to Texas about this time last year, has called to tell me that she’s headed back home. She’s the one that told me that if one more person on the job asked her with CHURCH she attended, she was gonna just choke ‘em. And, she said the same about the multiple weekly occassions of bible study, which is of course after a full day’s work. Now on that deal with the bible study, I think I got solicited on that maybe 3 times total, and then they never asked me again.

Anyway, I tried to tell them, but you know how it goes. Sometimes the grass really IS greener on the other side, and as you’ve already made clear, (and I’m still finishing up the paper for) things are really bad here, nation wide. But besides that, it is NEVER ‘geener on the other side’ in Texas, no matter WHERE one is coming from. At least not now.

I realize that there are some who are finally coming around to recignizing this now…that we are in a crisis already, and that it is going to get much worse. The fact that so many have been in denial for so long, has set us up for a much rougher fall.

It has happened to other nation states, for the very same reasons..we live above our means, (as a nation) and we have that mentality, (like that of a teenager) that America the Great is THE super power, and will always be THE SUPER Power, and everything is wonderful, even if they suffer the occasional hardship themselves, like losing a child to a war that they still think is ‘protecting us’.

Still, because of this economy, and all of the trillions being wasted in wars, and the fact that were losing so much of our human infrastructure, as well as our architectural and technological infrastructure somehow seems to go unnoticed.

There is a REASON why we have these multiple and mass shootings all over the place now. Not a week goes by without one or more. And that’s just HERE. That doesn’t even speak to the atrocities our troops are undergoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We’re traumatized as a nation, and as a society. We are already in a fascist mode, and it would take only the slightest thing, to tip us over into full fledged totalitarianism.

I don’t know that we could last as long as January next year. But if we wind up with either McCain or Clinton, and we’re still somehow managing to hold on, that’s gonna spell the end.

So, I don’t know if enough people realize that this is riding on more than just their petty political jealousies, and at this point, we need to save our collective asses, if it’s not too late already.

meantime, this cheating (with impunity) in Texas, is SOP, and Hillary damn sure knows it. Obama is the newbie here, so I know that he just wouldn’t think about it, or even be cynical enough to expect if from her, (well, he may now…kind of hard to miss with the comments comparing Obama and McCain).

Report this

By bert, March 10, 2008 at 9:35 pm Link to this comment

You know your use of the wird “dumbell” to charaterize anyone who does not vote for or support Obama is extremely juvenile, disrespectful, and just as repugnany as calling an African American a “nigger.”

These folks you so cavalierly denigrate are hard working blue collar Anericans, rural Americans, and American poor, among others. They deserve their share of the American dream every bit as much as you or I do.

Used to be that such attacks and venom came only from the Republicans. Apparently, Obama and his supports must be hoping to win over the Republicans by copying their gruesome tactics. So much for Obama ushering in a new era of hope and unity. If denigrating Americans is what Obama’s hope and unity campaign looks like, cocunt me out.

Personally, I prefer old Democratic values like fair play, integrity, and respect for others.

Report this

By bert, March 10, 2008 at 9:24 pm Link to this comment

Your use if the word “dumbell” to indicate those who may be voting for Hillary, or someone else, is extremely immature at best and at worst a slur every bit as repugnant as “nigger” would be to an African American and to me, as well.

These folks you call “dumbells” are hard working blue class collar workers, rural folks, the poor and many others who are Americans, too and every bit as entitled to their piece of the American pie as you or me.

Used to be that such venom came only from the Republicans. Apparently, Obama supporters in their desire to create a new politics of hope and unity must be hoping to win over the Republicans by copying their gruesome tactics of name calling.

Personally, I still believe in fair play, integrity, and respect for others.

Report this

By bert, March 10, 2008 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment

No, troublesum, Obama is winning caucuses because: 1.) fewer people vote ( less undemicratic, unless you are saying you don’t want everyone to vote); 2.) more crossover Republicans and Independents can hijack a Democratic caucus; and 3.) the process can be more easily gamed.

Report this

By Louise, March 10, 2008 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment

Gosh Hon, I was actually addressing the question “ever been to Wyoming Lady?” To Hillary, because there aren’t enough black voters in that State to make a significant difference.

But on your other points, you may be correct.

“blacks, white educated liberals, and white Independent/Republican crossovers”

Blacks. Well that’s 13% I’m told. White educated liberals. Does that mean there aren’t enough white educated liberals in America to determine a vote? Or does that mean the Hillary camp is counting heavily on the dumbbell vote?

Independent/Republican crossovers. Well as I understand it their numbers, both independent and republican are smaller anyway, so whatever we pick up from them is a plus on our side, minus on theirs.

“There are not enough voters in those three groups alone in all the states to win a General Election. It may win Obama the nomination. But it won’t win a General.”

[There ya go, pretty clear the dumbbell vote is the key!]

Well if those three groups are the only ones voting for Obama that might be true. Or if the majority of voters are, as you imply dumb, who’s to say they may not vote for Obama too?

Actually I think the dumbbells are getting smart. Living in a declining society can do that. More than that, burying your kid, or attending the umpteenth funeral of someone from your hometown killed in the immoral war in Iraq can do that too.

Besides, I know a lot of really well educated white folks who are down-right stupid [Bush supporters]
So maybe the numbers really don’t make any sense! Just filling space for the pundits looking for readers.

Anyhow, maybe Hillary needs to re-think counting on the dumbbell vote.

But then, maybe that’s not what you meant. wink

Report this

By troublesum, March 10, 2008 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment

Hillary can’t win in the caucuses because that’s where people who are politically active get involved.  They think carefully about the issues and candidates.  They are not influenced by simple minded tv ads.  She’s in trouble with people who think.

Report this

By bert, March 10, 2008 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment

Well,Hon, yes I have.

While the media has reported that Senator Obama’s demographic support has improved over time, it has thus far neglected to report that the racial split in the Democrat nomination has been clear and unyielding. And it did not change last week in either Texas or Ohio.

Senator Obama has won his delegates based almost entirely on three voting groups: blacks, white educated liberals, and white Independent/Republican crossovers.

There are not enough voters in those three groups alone in all the states to win a General Election. It may win Obama the nomination. But it won’t win a General.

That is the bottom line, Louise.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 10, 2008 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment

Hey, Neo-Crappo! Don’t look now but isn’t that your hero, Herr Hitler?

Ouch! You almost took off my chin jumping up to “Sieg Hiel”.

My mistake—you’re just all excited over a pile of shit.  As usual.

Report this

By purplewolf, March 10, 2008 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

Remember a few months back on TD the article where the Repugs were trying to make the voting public promise to vote Repug in the primaries and to remain only in the Repug camp, even if they didn’t like the final choice for the election? Well if they vote for the Demos now, then it should be mandatory they voter Demo come November. After all, they are the ones who came up with that idea to begin with.

Report this

By Louise, March 10, 2008 at 7:26 pm Link to this comment

Agreed. There are more blacks and poor in Texas ... lots more. So much for Hillary’s black voter theory!

In Wyoming, oil and gas are the going thing. And all across the State Cowboys and Rodeos are alive and well. Whether or not they still drive herds to Chicago, they still consider themselves cattle ranchers. The folks there are still rural, and the Jackson Hole population is largely transient. Most of the wealthy Californians re-located and settled further South.

[It is hard to assimilate into the rural mindset]

Like I said, those cowboys like women, they don’t like cowards. And they are an independent bunch.
And you know what? I think at some point in time, [sooner than later I hope] the folks in Texas are going to clean up the convoluted mess Bush and Rove blessed them with and return to the “Dixie-crat” [conservative dems] State, Texas used to be.

Cheney has had about as much influence on Wyoming as Bush has had on Connecticut. Next to none.

Texas is deceptive, because the population is concentrated in metropolitan areas, so given the power of money, I could believe Hillary winning the metropolitan areas, if poverty wasn’t rampant on the underbelly.

Move out of the city and the cowboy is still out there kicking shit, damn stubborn and independent. And the backbone that built both society’s is/was cattle and oil.

Behaviors and attitudes remain engrained in closely knit society’s. And assimilating into that rural mindset where even ten cows and a bull constitutes cattle raising can be difficult. Rural Texans are still home on the range and the similarities in the rural mindset between Wyoming and Texas are remarkable.

Texans will insist they have more and bigger of everything. Although I think now, Wyoming might surpass Texas in oil and gas reserves.

Perhaps Hillary benefited from the gerrymandering and district rigging the repubs twisted Texas up with, but I still think something smells and I don’t think it’s cow-pucky!

Wyoming is a so-called red state, but that really means they are very conservative. And so is Utah and Idaho, and Obama won there too. And the numbers of votes indicate there are a lot of conservative voters on those lists.

And just based on folks I know who live in those States, they voted for Obama, because they want to vote for Obama in the general election. They have FINALLY realized their party has been hi-jacked and Bush and the other so-called conservative leaders in Washington DC are frauds!

McCain embracing Bush and visa versa, has turned more than a few loyal hanger-oners away.

Report this

By Maani, March 10, 2008 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment

MMC:

“Go piss up a rope maani.”

That’s very mature and adult of you.  And, of course, it adds so much to the discussion.

Cyrena:

“The fact that Maani hasn’t provided an update on this should tell us that the stats don’t look so good for Hillary.”

You know, for someone who keeps telling me that it “isn’t about you,” you seem to MAKE it about me an awful lot.

Re Texas, Clinton won the PRIMARY by 51% to 47% (popular vote) with 100% of the precincts having reported.  So this is final.  She won 65 delegates, Obama won 61.

Re the CAUCUSES, only 41% of the precincts have reported thus far (it is apparently far more complicated to count), with the current standing having Obama winning by 56% to 44%.  No delegates have yet been awarded.

It should be noted (as most people know) that FAR more people vote in primaries than participate in caucuses.  For example, in Texas, a total of 2.8 million people voted in the primary, while only 42,000 participated in the caucuses.

So there you have it, Cyrena - since you asked…

Peace.

Report this

By Louise, March 10, 2008 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment

“Caucus Chair Uncovers Discrepancies: 
The Daily Texan, 3/7/08

http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2008/03/07/TopStories/Caucus.Chair.Uncovers.Discrepancies-3258732.shtml

“When recounting, the volunteer noticed a whole list had Sen. Hillary Clinton written in similar handwriting in the presidential preference column for each of the six voters on that list. Skidmore started calling each of the voters on the list when he reached finance senior Ronesha Holmes, who told him she did not write Clinton as her preference; Holmes said she was instructed to leave that line blank.”

[She was INSTRUCTED to leave that line BLANK?]

“Even one discrepancy threw up a flag of suspicion, Skidmore said.”

“As he continued calling people on the list Thursday, he found that two other students, history and pre-med sophomore Abigail Cheney and government sophomore Adam Aldrete, said they did not fill in a presidential preference and that Clinton was not who they would have listed.”

“I think it’s pretty disappointing,” Skidmore said. “It might not affect the [number of] delegates, but it’s the integrity of the process that may turn people off.” He added that he was sorry for the inconveniences or problems the situation may cause.”

***

The integrity of the process? We are all grown up enough to know, there are some people who given the opportunity to cheat ... will. I think the issue is that there may be people working in the polls with no integrity! Caucus goers were told to leave the candidate choice line BLANK! It was later filled in with the candidate they were not caucusing for. For all we know, this could have happened the length and breadth of the Texas Caucuses. Only the volunteer’s didn’t look close enough to realize the names appeared to be written on all lists by one hand.

And will anyone go back now and check?

Report this

By cyrena, March 10, 2008 at 5:17 pm Link to this comment

•  “So Obamas win in Wyoming only makes me question whether or not Hillary actually won in Texas!”

Louise,

I’ve ‘heard’ that Hillary did NOT ‘win’ in Texas, and I even read that in a comment on this site, though I don’t remember now, who it was.

I say that I ‘heard’ this these days, to make the distinction between what I’m actually prepared to ‘prove’ or –offer into evidence- , in advance of the yelps among the spin that will reverberate, since Hillary and company are so very, very, proud of that ‘win’.

While I am relatively certain that there is truth to the statement that Hillary didn’t actually ‘win’ in so far as the numbers/delegates go, I don’t have the exact breakdown at hand. That’s because Texas has a very convoluted set-up to their primaries, which they call the Texas 2-Step. (ONLY in Texas – they also sell macaroni made in the image and likeness of Texas). In short, TX is DIFFERENT than ALL other states, in so many ways that you could make lifetime research out of it.

That said, I know that TX has this election process that strings out over a few days. They have a standard sort of primary contest one day, and then they go caucusing the next day, and then they might do something else even after that. There were a couple of attempts by the MSM to explain it, and a few posters tried as well. I don’t remember it from my time living in that very DIFFERENT state, so I’m not even going to attempt to explain it. It’s been several years since my escape, and I’m certainly not PLANNING to ever return, (for any reason) so I figure I don’t need to know. It’s like…just wake me up when it’s over, and then just give me the bare and basic minimal facts…down and dirty, just like TX.

Still, I don’t know those statistics, although I’m sure they’re available if someone wanted to search. The fact that Maani hasn’t provided an update on this should tell us that the stats don’t look so good for Hillary. But, if they don’t look so good for Hillary’s campaign and nomination efforts, then that means ALL the rest of us can continue to retain some hope.

I also certainly got your point on the Wyoming issue, which nobody has correctly bothered to address. I believe your point was that all of the Obama bashers and spinners are doing the best to convince EVERYONE, that the ONLY base support Obama has is the black/African-American vote, and the young. I think you made that point because the population of Wyoming is NEITHER. Despite CY’s characterization of the North end as being populated by former Californians, (as if we don’t have our own share of die hard repugs here in CA) there are probably no more than 3 black people in the entire state! About 15 years ago, I met ONE black woman from Wyoming. She confirmed then, that she was the ONLY one that she knew about herself. If there are a few more by now, that would probably be within reason. A FEW more however, is the most one might expect. Jackson Hole, which is what CY mentioned, is a TOURIST/ski destination, so if there are more than 3, THAT’S where they’re at. (Actually the skiing used to be excellent there, though I don’t ski anymore). I don’t if many black folks ski much anymore. It’s an expensive sport.

So yes, I find it very relevant that Obama won in that state, and overwhelmingly. That’s not to say that he could or would win in the general election, because again..it is an overwhelmingly RED state. Still, it should put to rest all of this blather about Obama’s base being only black and young folks. Seems like they would have gotten over that by now anyway, considering that black folks only account for 13% of the entire population. Barack has won 28 contests thus far, to Hillary’s 17, and it didn’t happen that way because of black folks and kids. (although I am delighted to see both groups more involved in their own survival).

The WAR maybe?

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 10, 2008 at 4:23 pm Link to this comment

I didn’t say that i was definitely going to bail; i just like that i have the option of an undefended border.

Note that i mentioned an off the grid, self-sufficient farm out amongst many hundreds of square miles of jack pines.

But now is the time to have options and be ready to exercise them.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 10, 2008 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No, Wyoming and Texas were once Cattle States, but that’s where the similarity ends.

Wyoming (despite Cheney) is far more libertarian than Texas. They were the first State (by half a century) to elect a woman Governor. Their North West Corner is FILLED with ex Californians and New Yorkers. (Jackson Hole) The most populous town in Wyoming is peopled by 55,000 folks. (Cheyenne) Wyoming is the least populous State in our Union with 8 times the land area of Vermont, and 300,000 fewer folks.

Texas has urban populations , with 13 Cities over 100 K population, three of these are over 1 million, and one, Houston is over 2 million. Texas has a black and a poor population, and a “border state” feel to it. 
It has been continuously the second and third most populous State in the Union for the last 20 years.

Wyoming people still have a say and a stake in how their State operates. Texans seem to have lost that feeling.

HArry H. Snyder III

Formerly resided in Amarillo, and Rock Springs.

Report this

By Louise, March 10, 2008 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

Maybe we could call this article the making of a dumbbell.

After all, it worked for Bush. Just play dumb, keep laughing, insult your opposition and make out like the people don’t care, or cant remember anything. And guaranteed, you’ll win. Even if you have to cheat, bribe, alter, rig and maybe even go into court to make it happen. And don’t spend any time worrying about how that will make you look, or whether or not that might divide the country, or in this case the democrat party.

Remember the important thing is being president. Not because you will make a great or even good one, but because it’s such a charge. And you can make off like a bandit. Especially now that Bush and his co-criminals have brutalized Constitutional law, so’s you can do just about anything you want.

Just remember, and tell yourself over and over again, “It’s my turn. I’m entitled. It’s my turn, I’m entitled. Bush may have been the first king, but I’m going to be the first queen! Nothing else matters.”

Oh, and don’t forget to give the occasional nod to God. Some folks are really impressed by that. Like I said, it worked for Bush.

Meanwhile keep spinning reality like Obamas base is the black vote and the young.

[Ever been to Wyoming lady?]

Truth is Obamas base is everybody who is fed up with Bush and his altered reality. And I guess that’s why I get such a knot in my stomach when I listen to the Hillary spin. Who wants another giggling corporate shill, who cant admit their responsibility for the war in Iraq ... in the White House?

Oh, and one other thought. Wyoming is a mini-Texas.

Cattle, oil, boundless conservatives ... where the deer and the antelope play ... and cowboys love women but hate cowards. Like there isn’t a cowboy out there that wont tell you making a mistake is OK, but a real man stands up and admits his mistake.

That war thing. wink

So Obamas win in Wyoming only makes me question whether or not Hillary actually won in Texas!

Duh.

Report this

By bert, March 10, 2008 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

You write:
“It’s pretty amazing that you would actually think there was something odd about any candidate, in ANY election, for ANY office, attempting to register or recruit uncommitted voters.”

This is NOT about registering or recruiting UNCOMMITTED voters or NEW voters. This is recruiting already registered Republican to CROSS OVER and sign up as Democrats in order to be able to vote in and throw the Democratic primary election, and then WINK-WINK go back and re-register as Republicans for the General Election.

This is the EXACT same thing people were moaning, and groaning, and complaining, and bitching about last week when Rush Limbaugh told Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary so that he could get his jolles and keep the, as he called it, “soap opera” going.

Anyone who does that on the left or right, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat is sick, sick, sick. It is unconsciable. The integrity of the system is broken when this happens. And this simply cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

Report this

By Maani, March 10, 2008 at 1:40 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

I am not “reading into” ANYTHING.  I am reading ABOUT what Obama did and HOW he did it.  It was despicable.  And because YOU can’t possibly KNOW whether Ms. Palmer’s petition signatures were or were not valid, YOU may be ENTIRELY WRONG about how and what Obama did: he may well have robbed her of a legitimate opportunity to fight for her seat.  How very “democratic” of you!

For those interested, here is the main Chicago Trib article on this:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, March 10, 2008 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment

bert:

Wow!  Just did some research and reading on Palmer.  I have just lost any belief I still had for Obama’s message.  Talk about political expediency!  What a snake in the grass!  And one of the writers is correct: if Obama wins the nomination, you can be CERTAIN that the GOP machine will use this - successfully.  It is as troubling if not moreso than Rezko.  And if a tie to Obama or his campaign can be made to the leak re Ryan’s troubles, the GOP is simply going to eat Obama alive.

In that regard, I’m not sure if you found the following, a Huffington Post piece that is basically about Rezko (more in-depth than anything I have ever found) but also mentions Palmer:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obamas-faustian-bargain-_b_82863.html

Thanks for the heads-up.  While I will still support Obama if he is the Dem nominee, I will no longer be even marginally happy doing so.

Peace.

Report this

By cyrena, March 10, 2008 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment

This is really curious bert, because according to Maani, Obama DID have opponents for that race. Matter of fact, he’s got the whole story.

I love the way you two are so ‘supportive’ of the Democrats.

Yep, we really, really, need this.

I think Maani spins it better than you do though bert.

Still, you both ‘read into’ things that aren’t there. It’s pretty amazing that you would actually think there was something odd about any candidate, in ANY election, for ANY office, attempting to register or recruit uncommitted voters.

It’s like you’re both grasping ever more tightly at increasingly fragile straws. Do you really see a benefit to that?

Anyway, you two work it all out about Obama’s Senate race, since those details are of such overwhelming importance to you.

Meantime, today is March 10, in the year 2008. (just a reminder).

Report this

By bert, March 10, 2008 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment

Maani - Do you know who Alice Palmer is? Obama took her place in the IL State Senate. How he did it is one for the record books. He ran unopposed simply because he usrd the old corrupt Chicago Democratic Machine tactic of challenging the signers on her and three other candidates petitions. A new day in politics and the audactity of hope and all that.

Google her name. Leads to all sorts of “unknown” info on the politician named Barak Obama. I found this info in less than 60 seconds and only read about an hour. Can you begin to imagine what the Republican Smear Machine will be able to dredge up (and twist and turn to suit their own purposes) on Onama with their $400/month subscriptions to Lexus-Nexus and their contacts on the ground? Scary.

Report this

By Maani, March 10, 2008 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

Correction:

“I have zero problem with fawning articles and media reports about Obama - as long as they do NOT comprise the overwhelming majority of such articles and reports.” (“not” was omitted).

Report this

By Maani, March 10, 2008 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

Leefeller:

“Maani - sense of fairness to you is tainted and selective…”

No, it is not.  Fairness in this case means “balance.”  And there has been NO balance in the media - MSM OR AM - re the number and tone of articles and media reports that are anti-Hillary or pro-Obama as compared to those that are vice versa.  I have zero problem with fawning articles and media reports about Obama - as long as they do comprise the overwhelming majority of such articles and reports.  And they have, and they do, and they continue to.  Period.  End of story.

“The bottom line is I do not like what Hillary offers, same old politics…”

And you are entitled to feel that way, and vote for someone else.  What you are NOT entitled to do is demonize people, particularly those who may support a different candidate.


“I do not see much difference between her and Bush.”

Then you are either hopelessly naive or willfully ignorant.  In fact, making a statement like that is tantamount to admitting that you know almost nothing, or are simply given to hyperbole.

“You know the short of it is the Mass Media has been on Hillary’s side since her alleged Texas win.”

There were a handful of articles and reports that were in fact favorable to Hillary immediately after the Texas/Ohio/Vermont/RI primaries, given her “comeback.”  That is expected.  But the anti-Hillary, pro-Obama articles started up again almost immediately - indeed, in some cases within 72 hours or less.  Indeed, you say, “So you site two weeks ago before the Mass Media Change over to Hillary.” Yet what I cited (not “sited,” that means “to situate or place”) was an article in TODAY’s (3/10) NYT, NOT something from two weeks ago.

You are not only willfully ignorant of the facts, but it is YOU who is “selective” - about what you read, what you hear and what you claim.

Nice try.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, March 10, 2008 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

Bert:

This is exactly how the Georgia GOP got Cynthia McKinney out in 2002: by having over 40,000 Republicans switch party affiliation so they could vote in the Democratic primary and vote against her, and then switch back to vote as Republicans in the general election.  That Obama’s supporters would adopt this strategy is as bad or worse than Hillary saying something nice about John McCain.  It is not simply repugnant, it is hopelessly undemocratic.

Peace.

Report this

By bert, March 10, 2008 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

This just posted at a site calling itself Raising Kaine The Voice of Progressive Virginia.

This poster is actually advertising to get folks to come canvass to get Republicans and Independents to change party affliation for the Virginia primary

Talk about your stealing delegates. Talk about dirty tricks. So far the Obama campaign is denying any role in this post and in this campaign. But it shows you the length and exposes the depth of dirty tricks Obama supporters are capable of.

So much for a new kind of politics and hope.

START POST:
Heave the Kitchen Sink Back Over the Fence
by: elevandoski
Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:59:09 AM EDT
Crossposted at VBDems.org.

Let’s not forget about that kitchen sink that Hillary Clinton dumped on Barack Obama.  Here’s how you can help heave it back over the fence to its rightful owner. 

From a fellow VirginiaforObama’er:
Volunteers are needed in Pennsylvania BEFORE March 24.  We have only until that date to register new voters and persuade Independents and Republicans who want to vote for Obama to switch their party registration for the primary. (They can always switch back for the general election.)

The PA primary (April 22) is a closed one, meaning only registered Dems can vote.  We have until March 24 to expand our “universe” of Obama voters. After March 24 that window shuts.

There are only two weekends left to do this!  If you can travel to PA in that time please do.
If you have not traveled to another state or were unable to canvass on Virginia’s election day this is a great opportunity to jump in to what may end up as the most exciting, and crucial, contest of the election.

Philly is 3 hours away, Pitt is 4 hours away. It’s a very easy weekend trip.

“Only Democrats can vote in the state’s Democratic primary. The campaigns have until March 24 to sign up new party members from the 984,000 registered voters who are not members of either major party, or from potential defectors among the 3.2 million Republicans or Pennsylvanians who are not registered to vote.”

Remember, Obama pulls out the larger primary wins whenever Independents and Republicans are allowed to vote.  It’s critical that he not only win Pennsylvania, but he forces Clinton out of the race if he beats her handedly.

Below the fold is info on how to help BEFORE March 24. 
END POST

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 10, 2008 at 11:05 am Link to this comment

Maani sense of fairness to you is tainted and selective according to Maani. The bottom line is I do not like what Hillary offers, same old politics. She is a muckraker of classic proportions, and I do not like the politics of hate and lies.  I do not see much difference between her and Bush.

You know the short of it is the Mass Media has been on Hillary’s side since her alleged Texas win. So you site two weeks ago before the Mass Media Change over to Hillary. How convenient Maani, as most of your arguments. 

To agree with you is to give in to the freshness of hope. Fairness according to Hillary standards are dirt and more dirt.  If that is fairness you can keep it, your sexist better man statement is more of what we can expect from the Hillary folks.  It is oaky for the goose but not for the gander.

Hillary offers nothing, I mean nothing to the world and the United States, except yesterdays politics.  Egos and crap precede the Clintons everyplace they go and everything they touch turns into the same crap.  Truth is not an option.

You know the Clintions are getting the soft gloves right now after her whiny extraordinaries to the media.

Hillary lies like a rug, and she attacks any opposition, with a take no prisoners attitude. 

Her support of McCain is so sad Manni, you need to grasp the reality, Hillary will destroy the Democrats to get what she wants.

Report this

By Maani, March 10, 2008 at 9:50 am Link to this comment

MMC:

“The man who started and runs this blog is Robert Scheer.  Look him up moron.”

First, just because Bob Scheer started and “runs” the site doesn’t mean he micromanages the site and personally oversees every writer or article.  And what is this thing that you and Cyrena have with constantly calling people “morons?”  Have either of you ever learned to discuss and debate without resorting to name-calling?  Indeed, given that a “moron” is defined as “a very stupid person,” it would seem that you and Cyrena fit that description better since it is stupid (indeed, schoolyard-childish) to resort to name-calling.

Leefeller:

“TD does seem very slightly biased to Obama…On top of you biased comment about the MSM, it is leaning to Hillary right now, so why you are using the argument is really sad.”

“Slightly?”  I actually did the research a couple of weeks ago and found that better than 85% of the articles, videos and cartoons were either blatantly anti-Hillary or pro-Obama, while a mere 5% were blatantly pro-Hillary or anti-Obama.  (The other 10% fell somewhere in the middle.)  So don’t talk to me about “slightly.”

Re the MSM, I defy you to prove that claim.  In fact, it is been hopelessly anti-Hillary and pro-Obama for quite some time, and remains so.  Indeed, the main front-page article in the NYT today is, again, critical of Hillary.

As for “not very much nice to write about her,” that is about as phony an excuse as I have ever heard.  What about journalistic neutrality, to say nothing of fairness?  What about “equal time?”  Indeed, to suggest that there is “not very nice” to write about her is simply a regurgitation of the MSM party line: there are plenty of nice things to wqrite about her - especially substantive issue-related things - if the media really wants to.  But you and I (and most people here) know very well that controversy and dirt sells, while “niceness” doesn’t.

Grow a sense of fairness, Leefeller; it will make you a better man.

Peace.

Report this

By bert, March 10, 2008 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

Yo Mid City Mike - DEMOCRACY IS ABOUT PEOPLE NOT CORPORATIONS.

Obama has lots of corpoate ties, too. he just tries to hide it.

A link that names lobbyists with dollar amounts given to Obama is below. The article is titled “Sen. Obama finesses his lobbyist ties.” Check it out.

He is no angel in this department. Syop trying to make the man something he isn’t.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen.-obama-finesse s-his-lobbyist-ties-2007-04-19.html

Report this

By bert, March 10, 2008 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

To Non Credo

Go tale a senior or Master’s level psychology class. Happens all the time.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 10, 2008 at 8:19 am Link to this comment

TD does seem very slightly biased to Obama, but as I have said before their is not very much nice to write about Hillary.  Ken starr, Monster, Naftagate, all the kitchen sink crap Hillary uses to gain votes, not one of them positive.  On top of you biased comment about the MSM, it is leaning to Hillary right now, so why you are using the argument is really sad.

Report this

By Maani, March 10, 2008 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

MMC:

“Well this isn’t a neutral political blog, it is a progressive/liberal blog.”

How on God’s great earth can you say that with a straight face?  Most of the writers here are just as “corporate” as those in the MSM, despite the fact that they happen to be posting to a so-called alternative media website.

Indeed, the only thing that could even be considered “progressive/liberal” about this site is its bias toward Obama - which doesn’t make it “progressive/liberal,” but instead hopelessly biased and one-sided, perhaps even MORESO than much of the MSM.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, March 10, 2008 at 8:04 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“I can’t believe you wrote this: (actually, I can): ‘When you trash talk your opponent in politics, it’s always a good idea to have the facts on your side.’  WHEN (pray tell) have ‘facts’ ever been part of YOUR dirt/smear/innuendo/hate campaign, be they ‘relevant’ or not?”

Now I’m CERTAIN that no one here actually READS what is written; they gloss over it looking to make their accusations and arguments.  If you had READ the post you would know that it was not ME who said it, but a reporter for the Baltimore Sun.  (I even gave the date of publication.)

Unfortunately, you so chomp at the bit at ANY opportunity to bad-mouth me that you didn’t bother reading that.

Peace.

Report this

By kxa, March 10, 2008 at 7:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama Triangulation?

Obama stated that the GOP was the party of ideas for the last 15 years and that Reagan was a “transformational” president.

Seems like he knows how it is done.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 10, 2008 at 6:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“By jackpine savage, March 10 at 4:10 am #

A few months ago, the progressive/liberal/Democratic folks were dancing in the streets because it looked like the Republican Party was dead on its feet.

They had the gun pointed squarely at the temple of the GOP…but then they got distracted and now they’re waving it in the general direction of their own feet.”

Got that right buddy!  AND this is not the first time. The Dems did this in 1976 when the Country had had it’s fill of Nixon’s crookery and Ford’s Pardon, The Republicans were reduced to a slim minority in the House, and The Dems had an almost veto-proof majority in the Senate.

Jimmy Carter’s bumbling and his administrations own slime (read Bert Lance)  gave the Republicans there biggest win (1978) in years Dumping Floyd Haskell (D-CO), Dick Clark (D-IA), William Hathaway (D-ME), Wendell Anderson (D-MN), and Thomas McIntyre (D-NH)

Then in 1980, they toped that by losing such great manes as Herman Talmadge (D-GA), Frank Church (D-ID), Birch E. Bayh II (D-IN), John Culver (D-IA), John A. Durkin (D-NH), Robert Morgan (D-NC), 1972 presidential nominee George S. McGovern (D-SD), Warren Magnuson (D-WA), and Gaylord Nelson (D-WI)

Bob Dole became the New top-kick in the Senate, Democrats lost big in the House, and they lost the White House in the biggest landslide to that time. The Dems even lost in Liberal havens like New York, Massachusetts, and Vermont.

in 84, the R’s followed with an even bigger White House victory winning every State save Minnesota.

This only eight years after the voters were ready to dump the R party lock stock & barrel!

Report this

By Bubba, March 10, 2008 at 5:35 am Link to this comment

Stop whining.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 10, 2008 at 5:10 am Link to this comment

A few months ago, the progressive/liberal/Democratic folks were dancing in the streets because it looked like the Republican Party was dead on its feet.

They had the gun pointed squarely at the temple of the GOP…but then they got distracted and now they’re waving it in the general direction of their own feet.

It would be disgusting and maddening, if i didn’t have such a black sense of humor.  As it stands, i’m looking forward to the bloodletting.  Then again, i can walk/swim across the border in three days or less.  And i have an open invitation to move to a friend’s off the grid, self-sufficient farm.  And my rebate check will be spent on better arming myself.  So maybe i have fewer reasons to worry than others.

Report this

By bert, March 10, 2008 at 3:09 am Link to this comment

This is rich - Gary Hary is using Obama as his surrogate to try and ‘win’ the unsuccesful 1984 primary campaign Hart lost.

This is sour grapes. Nothing more. Nothing less. Hart has been angry and has wanted to get even with the DNC ever since he lost in ‘88. Hillary replaces Mondale and Hart hopes the outcome will be different this time and will somehow redeem him.

And for those who have forgotten, or were too young to be in the know, Mondale and Hart were virtualy tied in delegates won in the primaries by Convention time, and it was the super delegates who gave the nomination to Mondale at the Convention.

This is a long time to carry a grudge, Gary. Get over it. You can’t change the past.

Report this

By troublesum, March 9, 2008 at 11:56 pm Link to this comment

Gary Hart on Shrillary: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030908A.shtml

Report this

By troublesum, March 9, 2008 at 10:40 pm Link to this comment

People who aren’t sick to death of the Clintons yet should read this:  http://www.counerpunch.com/wypijewski03082008.html

Report this

By cyrena, March 9, 2008 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment

Maani,
I can’t believe you wrote this: (actually, I can)

•  “When you trash talk your opponent in politics, it’s always a good idea to have the facts on your side.”

WHEN (pray tell) have ‘facts’ ever been part of YOUR dirt/smear/innuendo/hate campaign, be they ‘relevant’ or not?

Well, wouldn’t we have to agree that it’s just about NEVER? And when you ‘do’ post ‘facts’ they are never relevant, but rather some desperate grasp at discrediting somebody, just like now.

You direct this post to MMC, and then proceed to do your standard myopic stuff, which amounts to pulling the wings off of flies. Do you honestly think that anybody CARES if Obama confused the names/positions of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2003? And, do you for sure KNOW that it was HE who confused this name/vote/position, rather than whomever was writing for the Baltimore Sun?

You flunk Maani, every single time. You can never pinpoint the crux of an issue or any argument, and identify the point. And the only POINT, which MMC has consistently made, (and he’s been consistent, just as Obama has been, and obviously UNLIKE Hillary has been) is the fact that Hillary Clinton voted to authorize and illegal war of aggression against another sovereign state.

And, that is the case whether she read the NIE or not. It’s that much MORE irresponsible that she did NOT read it, because had she read it, she would have been that much more aware of the illegality of the action. By failing to read it, she can claim ignorance. She can say, “Well, I didn’t know.” I believed all of Condi’s and other tales of mushroom clouds, and I thought everything Chalabi was saying was true. I believed the lies about the yellow cake and the whole nine yards, and had no reason to question any of it.

She can even claim to have KNOWN that it is illegal to attack another nation except in self-defense, (Geneva Conventions, article 51) but she could say, ‘what other choice did I have, when they were about to attack us or our ‘allies’ in the Middle East with all of those WMD? Maybe she could just say that she didn’t have ‘time’ to check those ‘facts’ or the NIE report, before authorizing an action that would ultimately take millions upon millions of lives, and leave a several nations and a region in tatters, not to mention the ultimate destruction of our OWN nation.

Who could blame her for that? I mean, with all of these threats of mushrooms clouds, (and she already said that Saddam had to go, and that he had to be FORCED, because he never did anything without being threatened with the use of force) she just didn’t have any other choice.

So, she could certainly present that argument, (which would be more appropriate to the discussion) so the voters would understand how/why she made THAT decision, so that we could guess how she might make decisions in the future.

For instance, if a call comes through on the red phone, from say somebody in Saudi Arabia, and (maybe 3:00am?) telling her that somebody in China had just talked to somebody in Iran, and they were about to bomb us with some enriched uranium, she could then make the call to blast Iran right off the map.

And, since she wouldn’t bother checking with any reports or anything like that, it wouldn’t much matter who or how the Senate Intelligence Committee had voted 6 years before, eh? And, it REALLY wouldn’t matter if Obama had the names right, because it would be HER CALL.

So, MMC has just continued to point to HRC’s leadership judgment, and what it has produced, and what we can expect if she steals the nomination.

More terror.

Report this

By purplewolf, March 9, 2008 at 9:13 pm Link to this comment

THE SLIME HAS OOZED FROM THE PIT.

Report this

By cyrena, March 9, 2008 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment

Bert, Speaking of rules

Looks like you might be smearing separate issues here, be it intentionally or otherwise. Still, let’s look at them.

You mention MI and FL. You say this on Obama’s position re those delegates:

•  “Obama does not want to seat MI and FL nor does he want do over primaries in those states.”

I personally was not aware of this position from Obama HIMSELF, but I’m inclined to believe you, because in fact, while it is more up to the DNC to decide this, (than either of the candidates) I agree that these WERE THE CONDITIONS that they all agreed to prior to the kick-off.

Louise covered this in a post because as horrific as we agree it to be, for the citizens of two states to be totally disenfranchised, this WAS the agreement.  They agreed IN ADVANCE, that these delegates would NOT be seated. Now what I actually remember from the immediate after affects of Super Tuesday, was that Obama had ‘allegedly’ said that Hillary could HAVE the delegates from MI and FL. Now of course that stays in rumor status for me, because I can’t confirm that he ever said that. Still, if he has indicated that these delegates from MI and FL SHOULD NOT be seated, then that would certainly be in keeping with the ‘rules’ to which they agreed.

That being the case however, how you can answer or otherwise respond to the very consistent claims by HRC IN HER OWN WORDS, that she has ‘won’ MI and FL? Do you find anything the least bit off the integrity chart there?

Moving along, that is a totally SEPARATE issue from the superdelegates and pleged delegates, etc, that you say goes back many, many, years. These ‘rules’ governing the delegates from MI and FL are SPECIFIC TO THIS ELECTION, and only the primary contests. It is disingenuous on YOUR part, to combine them in your ‘rules based’ argument about the purpose or objective of these other delegates that have supposedly been around for years. And yes, I realize that this process has been around for years, with the attendant ‘rules’.

So, Obama seems on target to accept the ‘rules’ as they have been established, in respect to MI and FL. Hillary on the other hand, has been hoping to disregard those rules. (we’re not speaking now, to the ‘supporters’ of either candidate, but the CANDIDATES THEMSELVES!) As has been mentioned, she was the ONLY dem on the MI ballot, (anyone NOT choosing her had to vote as ‘uncommitted’) and she has consistently claimed both states as ‘wins’.

As for the other delegates and THOSE ‘rules’, Hillary is NOW suggesting that since there is nothing in writing, that obligates the super delegates to vote based on the preference of the voters, then they should just vote for whomever THEY PERSONALLY want to vote for, REGARDLESS of the preferences of their constituency. In other words, just about exactly the same as what occurred in Dec, 2000, when the Supreme Court (superdelegates) chose the shrub over the popular vote/preference of the voters.

We see how THAT worked out, eh?

So, rules are great. Theoretically, they are the foundation of any democracy, since a democracy is the rule of law, and not the rule of man/woman, and no man/woman is above the law.

But, the rules can’t govern morality, integrity or character, as Hillary has consistently proved. In other words, ‘technically’ these super delegates are not legally ‘obligated’ to vote as representatives of their constituencies, despite the fact that our so-called ‘democracy’ was/is founded upon the concept of representative government.

So, you admonish us to suggest that if we DON’T LIKE the rules, then we should get active to ‘change them’. I’m in agreement with that, and my own ‘wake-up’ call to that came over 7 years ago, in respect to the electoral system. (HRC made the same public statement THEN, as you are suggesting now, about changing that system..never happened).

But, as HRC proves again, there is never a way to legally monitor morality/integrity/strength of character.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 9, 2008 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment

I’m sure glad Biasdig.com doesn’t want to to be unfair to Hillary Clinton. If she pops a pimple this site puts a negative spin on it that it means she’s really a DINO—and controlled by Israel.

What kind of crap there is here!  That’s why Neo Crappo posts everyday—it’s his kind of sewer.

Report this

By P. T., March 9, 2008 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment

What is she going to bribe them with?  A night in the Lincoln bedroom?  She treats the delegates like her Wal-Mart workers.

Report this

By Maani, March 9, 2008 at 8:19 pm Link to this comment

MMC:

“When you trash talk your opponent in politics, it’s always a good idea to have the facts on your side.

“Unfortunately, for Sen. Barack Obama yesterday, he clearly didn’t have the facts properly lined up when he talked smack against Sen. Hillary Clinton over her vote to authorize the Iraq War in 2002.

“Obama was trying to raise doubts about Clinton’s foreign-policy experience by reminding voters that she didn’t read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before the crucial 2000 vote, suggesting that if she had read it, she might have also voted against the war vote, just like Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who Obama identified as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time.

“The problem is that Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat, who just endorsed Obama, voted for the war authorization. So Obama got that wrong.

“Obama was also incorrect in identifying Rockefeller as the intelligence committee chair at the time. The committee was chaired in Oct. 2002 by Sen. Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who voted against the war authorization.”

Baltimore Sun, March 3, 2008.

Report this

By P. T., March 9, 2008 at 8:16 pm Link to this comment

What’s she going to bribe them with?  A night in the Lincoln bedroom?  She treats the delegates like her Wal-Mart workers.

Report this

By Presumptuous Insect, March 9, 2008 at 7:50 pm Link to this comment

Stupid, grasping, rightwing beast who has been suckling on Rove’s gargantuan teat for years.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 9, 2008 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment

You are right, Hillary provides the lower standard degree of being disingenuous, she seems to be better at it than most.  Her successes may be due to being apt at attacking from all fronts, whether real or not, lies or deceptions.  She took the cake when she stated McCain, the Republican candidate is a preferable choice over her democratic rival.

Underhand disingeniousness should be rewarded, old politics denotes it so, Hillary is the best of the best when it comes to lies and deception, she uses them even better than Bush. She should be rewarded for her efforts.  Politics will be politics, we must accept that, so quite calling her a monster, she ain’t no monster.

Report this

By bert, March 9, 2008 at 6:21 pm Link to this comment

Those have been the rules for decades and decades. Check it out. Ask the DNC for a copy of the rules. I have known this since the 1960’s. If you can’t stand the heat in the kitchen and all that…......

Obama does not want to seat MI and FL nor does he want do over primaries in those states. He has said the rules are the rules. Now all of a sudden Obama supporters cry fowl and don’t want to follow the rules.

If you want delegates to HAVE to vote for one candidate and only one get actively involved in the DNC and change the rules.

Don’t come whinning this late in the game. And that goes for the TruthDig staff too, because I am willing to bet you know the rules and have known them for some time. Your article is disingenuous at best. Stop trying to stir up a nest of hornets.

Report this

By TL Anderson, March 9, 2008 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How do we trust her to run the security of our country when it has been reliably shown that she doesn’t even know what happens in her own closets?
If she steals this election, there will be blood (sic), she will lose anyways,and the party will not recover. Republicans laughing their asses off and donating to her campaign, telling their folks to vote for her. Isn’t it all obvious by now?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 9, 2008 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment

Stealing delegates fits the Hillary profile, the surprise will be when she gives them to McCain.  Not quite a monster I suppose, but she is quite a piece of work. She should join the Leiberman caucus and start the screw the public party, they can use an ice pick for their mascot.

Report this

By ocjim, March 9, 2008 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment

I am an Obama supporter and am also very sensitive to Machiavellian behavior since Rove justified any means—whether it meant death and/or destruction—to get the corrupt and clueless Bush Jr. elected and supported. I don’t think I am being subjective in feeling that Hillary is heading in a Machiavellian direction. Pretty much any smear / any bending of the rules is justified in securing her nomination.

My hope is that Obama provides more attention and substance to his economic plan to lift the economy and the people (something sorely needed in this recession) rather than using the negative smears that Clinton is using.

Report this

By Thomas Billis, March 9, 2008 at 5:40 pm Link to this comment

The phone rings at three in the morning.Hillary answers.The voice on the other end says we have stolen three more delegates.Hillary laughs says good job and goes back to sleep.Making America safer by stealing delegates.Hillary ready to screw up fron day one.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.