Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 31, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Hydropower Illuminates a Piece of History
Report Criticizes EPA Oversight of Injection Wells






Truthdig Bazaar

Sutton

By J.R. Moehringer
$27.99

more items

 
Report

Guilty by Observation

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

Posted on Mar 27, 2008

By Eugene Robinson

    WASHINGTON—Talk about not being able to catch a break. To pummel a boxing metaphor, it was Barack Obama who got tagged with a roundhouse right, flush on the chin—but it was Hillary Clinton, from early indications, who ended up nursing a sore jaw and wondering what it was that hit her.

    A week of hearing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s jeremiads more or less continuously on cable news channels seemed certain to hurt Obama politically. Indeed it did—but only slightly, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. The candidate who really suffered, according to the same poll, was Clinton.

    Clinton must look back at dodging bullets in Bosnia and bringing peace to Northern Ireland as mere walks in the park compared to this crazy campaign. Then again, accurate recollection hasn’t been her strong point of late.

    The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, released Wednesday, found that the percentage of voters with negative views of Obama increased by four points in the last two weeks, from 28 percent to 32 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage with positive views of Obama declined by two points, from 51 percent to 49 percent. It’s hard to attribute this slippage to anything other than the controversy over Wright’s sermons. All in all, it wasn’t what you’d call a great fortnight for Obama.

    Surprisingly, though, Clinton’s was considerably worse. The percentage of voters holding negative views of her increased by five points, from 43 percent to 48 percent, while the percentage of voters who had positive views of Clinton declined a full eight points, from 45 percent to 37 percent.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
    I’ve been through the rest of the numbers in this poll, as well as those in a recent CBS News survey—and won’t cite them here for fear of running out of space before I get to the point. Take my word that Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech on race relations, generally but not universally well received, probably helped minimize any loss of support from the Wright controversy.

    What’s not unambiguously explained in the polls is why Clinton, basically a bystander, took a bigger hit in popularity than the guy who had the pastor problem.

    The NBC/Wall Street Journal survey was taken before Clinton’s claim of having braved sniper fire upon landing in Bosnia in 1996 was proved to be untrue, so that can’t have been the reason why her negative ratings jumped and her positive ratings fell. And when the poll was being taken, Clinton hadn’t even said anything about Obama’s relationship with Wright.

    Subsequently, she did have something to say: that if she had been Wright’s parishioner, she would have left the church. I can’t really fault her for answering a direct question, especially one offering a chance to take a shot at her opponent. That’s considered fair in politics. I do find it odd, though, that she would answer any kind of question from the editorial board of a Pittsburgh-area newspaper, the Tribune-Review, which promoted the vile and untrue allegation that she had something to do with the death of Vince Foster, the White House counsel in her husband’s administration who committed suicide. The Tribune-Review is owned by Richard Mellon Scaife, who is considered by Clintonistas to have been puppet master and chief financier of the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” that Hillary Clinton famously perceived.

    Here’s a hypothesis: The fact that Clinton’s poll numbers suffered more than Obama’s might have to do with the way her campaign gives the impression of being willing to do anything it takes—anything—to win the nomination.

    Obama drew a line in his speech about race, repudiating Wright in the strongest terms but refusing to “disown” a man who has been an important spiritual influence. Many commentators saw this stance as a mistake that ultimately will cost Obama support among working-class white voters—and those commentators may be proved right. It’s possible that he drew the line in the wrong place. But he did draw it.

    Hillary Clinton is a brilliant woman whose many exemplary qualities are obscured by a campaign that fights as if it couldn’t care less about collateral damage it might inflict—on the Democratic Party or on the front-runner for the nomination.

    That was always Bill Clinton’s political method: Do what you have to do; apologize later, if necessary. You can’t save the world unless you get elected, and to get elected you have to be what the people want.

    But maybe what the people want this time is a real person, rather than an image or a strategy. Hillary Clinton might start by making clear that she wants to be president, but not at any cost.
   
    Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.
   
    © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group


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 cann4ing, April 4, 2008 at 8:04 am Link to this comment

Our jimmyjam seems to have bought the bogus “choir boy” image of John McCain erected by the American propaganda network, aka the corporate media.  McCain is neither a maverick nor a moderate.  When it comes to foreign policy, John “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” McCain is so far to the right, he makes the neocons look like pacifists.  He claims to be the scourge of special interests, yet has more corporate lobbyists operating within his campaign than any other candidate.  While he has attached his name to a major campaign finance legislation (McCain-Feingold) he has also outspent every opponent in every Arizona race.  Over the past decade McCain became the largest recipient of corporate media campaign contributions.  Just as he did during the Keating Five scandal when he accepted free travel on Keating’s corporate jets, then intervened in a federal investigation of Lincoln Savings & Loan—this at a time when his heiress wife was partnered with Keating in a real estate development, McCain has accepted free travel on the private jets of Ruppert Murdoch and Lowell Paxson, then intervened with the FCC on Paxson’s behalf.

“Zero pork?”  Please!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 4, 2008 at 3:03 am Link to this comment

Such is the one who not only turns against the hand of friendship ....but has taken up the game of spitting in peoples’ faces on TruthDig for her own spurious pleasure, ugh.

Report this

By cyrena, April 3, 2008 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment

Not sure what you hoped to gain from this Chalmers. The post (my own) wasn’t to you, (that which you’ve sited) and the fact that you’ve chosen to post it in the context that you have, only reveals more of yourself.

I would question however, your use of the word ‘US’, since you are simply throwing your IEDS via internet, from somewhere in the South Pacific, (Australia is where I believe your troll location is set up) and I’m going to futher speculate at this point, that if you ever DID reside in the USA, you did NOT ‘leave willingly’.

So, just so all are aware, of who your are, and who you are NOT!

Now I suggested to Maani, that he leave ME out of his lies. Your plagerism of Obama’s speech here,

“...the past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past…”

taken out of context to apply to me, is yet more proof of your willingness to indulge in slander and the like. (Intentional lies delivered via innuendo, and very racist in nature. (since we know you are, you’ve proven that time and time again, in everything you post).

It is certainly true that I’m from California, and it’s equally true that I’ve lived much of my lifetime in other locations as well. Without doubt, I’m a global citizen. I’m actually quite proud of that.

Ipersonally am not ‘from’ the generation of Rev. Wright. He was slightly ahead of my times. HOWEVER, the most important thing to note here (about that) is that NOBODY CARES (about where I’m from, including my generation) EXCEPT YOU!!!

Yes, that’s what it all boils down to here Chalmers, and it’s not the first time that this has come up, but I guess we just have to keep dealing with it, until all can see it for what it is.

So, while we’re here on this TRUTH-revealing site, let’s make sure that ALL are aware of this OBSESSION that you’ve maintained with me, (via this website and blog) for well over a year now, beginning with the PRIVATE MESSAGES that you heaped on me, within a month of my first registering with this site. And let us take it from there, so that it is clear to ALL, that it was my very first clue that there was something seriously creepy about you, and that soon after that,  I made a conscientious decision at the time, NOT to engage in any ‘private messages’ with you.

The rest I believe, most of the readers can figure out, but…to sum it up…

You’re obviously a racist, and have serious issues with people of color, but specifically MEN of color.

You do NOT reside in the US, and you probably do not or CANNOT VOTE in US elections, as a US citizen living abroad. (many ex-patriots can indeed do that, but I suspect you are not among them).

With that in mind, and considering all of our ‘new laws’ in the US under the dictatorship of Dick Bush, your comments on this site can overwhelming be categorized as ‘terrorist’ in language and context. Is this how you were deported to begin with?

Lastly, you’re a coward Chalmers. You’re a washed-up, “wanna-be-somebody”. Didn’t you say you once operated a similar site?  What happened there? You never told us. It would seem though, that you’re a disenfranchised wanna-be pundit/journalist.

Well, I really don’t care to know the story of your sad life. But, will say AGAIN, that you need to check your obvious ‘obsession’ with ME.

You’ve overplayed your bi-polar and/or other mentally compromised ‘hand’ so to speak, and I don’t like being your chosen victim.

Just keeping it real Chalmers.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 3, 2008 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

McCain smokes them all.  Self enrichment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

Report this

By jimmyjam, April 3, 2008 at 7:19 am Link to this comment

Hillary=200+ mil. for pork
Obama= 90+mil. for pork,and he has only been honest for 2+ years(snicker includer)
McCain= 0 for pork over 30 years,

Now wouldnt that mean at this rate Obama will be selling the country to Corp.America by 2010, Yes Cyerna I know it is off topic.

Report this

By jimmyjam, April 3, 2008 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

on an old episode of Oprah, while interviewing Obama, OB stated that if he had the same Intel as Hillary,when she voted for the Iraq war, he would have voted the same way, It,s amazing that has not leaked out.. and did you see Obamas nice guy side yesterday , just pushing and berating a man for wanting a picture, and yes he was an autograph hound, but OB did not know that until after… Don’t shoot the messenger

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 3, 2008 at 6:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maybe you just don’t understand the multiple definitions of “is”?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 3, 2008 at 5:47 am Link to this comment

Expecting or even hoping a bigot would grasp the idea of just what acting and speaking like a bigot is, expecting and asking way to much of them.  Racists would hang blacks for entertainment while eating fried chicken after church on Sundays.  They also would not grasp or see themselves as racists.

Discrimination, racism bigotry all very real and unknown as such to the perpetrators.  Maybe this is the meaning of, ignorance is bliss.

Subconsciously way in the back of racists thick empty skulls, must lurk some guilt or semblance or acceptance of who they are?  Is it much deeper than that, no sadly much shallower.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 3, 2008 at 5:29 am Link to this comment

It was the leadership council of the MDP, the vote was 79-1…and i said that in my original post.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 3, 2008 at 5:22 am Link to this comment

Hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa….

He of circular arguments is back again, accusing others of it.  No, Maani, no Clinton supporter has ever voiced the idea of “i’ll vote for McCain”, never…not here or anywhere.

My whole argument with bert started by her doing just that and having the polls to “prove” it.

The supers moving en masse to Clinton wouldn’t be monkey business; i never said that such a scenario would be.  But i guess that’s the best you have in hoping for a Clinton nomination.

I’d tear Obama apart, but there’s a lot less to work with…and i won’t lie, it’s a lot more fun to work on a shameless political hack like Clinton.  Plus, it has the upside of pissing you Clintonistas off to no end.

P.S. you do this all the friggin time.  You use one argument in one post, and then when someone calls you on it, you accuse them of using the faulty logic that you started with.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 3, 2008 at 4:22 am Link to this comment

By cyrena, April 2 (3388 comments total) : “Maani, You are STILL full of shit, and STILL lying…”

Maani, for the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away…. nor has the anger and bitterness of those years for cyrena.

She’s old politics caught in a time warp….. the woman hanging on when she should give up gracefully, a brilliant (cough, cough) woman caught in a time warp. Such are the demographics of women supporting Barack Obama.

For her, the past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past. For the rest of us, who are more willing to say goodbye to all that, she could at least leave US out of her lies…......

Report this

By bert, April 3, 2008 at 12:12 am Link to this comment

To which post? But knowing you I probably did and disagreed and ignored it.

Report this

By bert, April 3, 2008 at 12:08 am Link to this comment

Thanks, jimmyjam. I think we all post as time permits. I know I have been working a lot so I don’t have as much time to post. Glad you are stil here to give ‘em heck, as Truman would say.  LOL

Report this

By cyrena, April 3, 2008 at 12:03 am Link to this comment

Maani,

THIS IS A LIE…

•  “And yes, it WAS Cyrena who compared voting for Hillary to voting for McCain, and she is not the only Obama supporter to have made that comment.”

And it is intentional on your part, just like all of the other intentional lies, innuendos, obfuscations that you’ve indulged in here for months.

So, let me say what I already have on this…voting for Hillary Clinton will, in many respects of both foreign and domestic policy, (no matter what she ‘claims’) would result in the same as voting for John McCain.

Hillary and John are the SAME – IN MY OPINION - in their hawkish stance on the use of militarism to advance the global hegemonic ‘interests’ of the US oligarchy.

Got that Maani? That IS my opinion, and I don’t give a shit if Hillary lies now and claims otherwise, because her votes as a Senator tell me what she would do if she were president.

The ONLY ‘substantial’ issue where Clinton and McCain differ, (at least as far as the issues concerning most Americans, including me) is on health care. Hillary is willing to come up with something, and McCain is not. It’s that simple. The repugs have never been interested in the needs of the average citizen, so that does not surprise me. Hillary, on the other hand, DID attempt this health care thing long ago, and she has my respect for the attempt, even though it failed.

As far as the 180/360 degree comment goes, my overwhelming respect goes to Outraged for actually trying to explain what that means, to somebody who claims to be a lawyer. Even my 15 year old niece picked up on this a few months ago, when one of the ‘officials’ at her school made a similar 360 degree comment.

They were discussing the sorry shape of their school football team, which they all admit, ‘sucks’. The coach made a stupid remark that the team was due for a 360 degree turn around, in which case, (as my niece noted), they would STILL ‘suck’. If you don’t get that, then you’re stupid.

As for your lying, it’s been exposed before, and then you always come up with some bullshit for it, whenever it’s exposed.

And yeah, we know that your post was to JS, and I also read my own name in it.

Your intimidating talk is cheap Maani, because that’s ALL it is. Cheap and ignorant talk.

Report this

By bert, April 3, 2008 at 12:01 am Link to this comment

Touche Obamabots !!!!!

Thanks for pointing that out Jacob Freeze.

Report this

By cyrena, April 2, 2008 at 11:31 pm Link to this comment

Maani,

You are STILL full of shit, and STILL lying. I have never suggested that ANY Democrat, or ANY supporter of either democratic candidate, SHOULD VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN.

Stop lying Maani, or at least leave ME out of your lies.

To verify what I HAVE in fact said…I SEE NO DIFFERENCE between Hillary Clinton and John McCain on the issues that matter the most to Americans, based on the polls that are consistently released. That is specifically on the WAR on Iraq, and the WARS to come, that both Hillary and McCain support.
The other is on the ECONOMY. As far as I’m concerned, Hillary and McCain are in the same position on that as well.

I base my assessment on more than what Hillary SAYS, but rather in conjunction with what she has said, and what she has DONE/voted in her capacity as a U.S. Senator. And, what she SAYS, is NOT consistent with what she has actually SAID where it counted the most…in her voting record.

As for criticizing Barack Obama, I’ve done it multiple times, and on this website, and MY criticisms ARE on substantial issues. Not just red herring bullshit that serves to confuse the masses, which is of course your intention.

You keep trying to blow smoke up the asses of folks you’ve already blown it right back in your face. Seems like you’d give up.

But, professional con artists never realize when their cons are being rejected.

And, I think bert probably voted for GW both times anyway.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 2, 2008 at 10:06 pm Link to this comment

A 360 degree angle is a circle.  You’ve claimed to be a lawyer and a pastor, so one would think you would be educated enough to have understood that.  Unless of course neither of which is true, which just could be.  The implication of my point is that if you went all the way around, you’d be right back where you started. Which then would qualify the premise that you (and others) DO have some sort of “blind love” for Clinton.  Were you able to follow that, or are you still confused?

As I said, possibly Cyrena did make such a comment ALSO, although I ALSO said, I couldn’t recall it offhand. Which is why I responded.  Were you able to follow that?

Your quote: “So why not just take chill pill, have a beer, and sit back and let people who have some semblance of coherent expression engage in debate”

**Your venomous intent is showing.

Report this

By Maani, April 2, 2008 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

Outraged:

You know something?  I literally don’t understand one word of your reply.  It is so convulated as to say nothing at all.  360 degrees?  Where do you get that?  And yes, it WAS Cyrena who compared voting for Hillary to voting for McCain, and she is not the only Obama supporter to have made that comment.

You seem to think my response as about YOU; but it was not.  It was in response to JS, who has not weighed in with his own response yet.

So why not just take chill pill, have a beer, and sit back and let people who have some semblance of coherent expression engage in debate.

Peace.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 2, 2008 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment

Sorry, I forgot the link.  Here it is.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/1/12146/80206/920/488267

BTW, Thanks Greg Jones.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 2, 2008 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment

The story appears to be legit.  Not that we did’t know that Clinton lies….  The story is here at Daily Kos with additional links at the bottom of the page.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 2, 2008 at 8:22 pm Link to this comment

Re: bert April 2

Yes bert, I understand that.  Did you get my point?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 2, 2008 at 8:19 pm Link to this comment

quote: “This is 180 degrees from fact.  I know that at least bert, Doug and myself have made it quite clear that we do not have “blind love” for Hillary”

**Make that a 360 and I’d agree, since then you’d be right back where you actually started, which, would be the opposite of what you’re implying here.

quote: “it is Obama supporters - like Cyrena, for one - who have compared Hillary to McCain, saying that a vote for the former is the same as a vote for the latter, so Obama supporters should simply vote for McCain or not vote at all.”

**Sorry Maani but that’s the most convoluted logic and spin I’ve ever heard.  First, I don’t think it was Cyrena who compared Hillary and McCain, although she may have also, I don’t recall that offhand.  I know I certainly have compared the two.  However that comparison stated that they were so similar one COULDN’T VOTE FOR EITHER.  How you came to the conclusion that “Obama supporters should simply vote for McCain” is beyond me.  That was NOT the premise of the comment.  What you’re implying is a stretch….a huge stretch…from the comment that was actually made.  Twisting the truth is the SAME as lying.

Report this

By bert, April 2, 2008 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

<<<<<<<  But you cannot call their potential decision - no matter how seemingly “undemocratic” - “monkey business” if it is made WITHIN that system. >>>>>>>>>>>>

Exactly tight , Maani. Ans, since rules seem so imprtant to Obamabots, the rules state that the stper delagates vote for the best candidate.

And the AP reported yesterday that Pelosi took back her commnet about super delagtes must vote by the will of the people nad were free to vote their conscience:

“Pelosi: Dem race should go on

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the “super delegates” who may ultimately decide the Democratic party’s presidential nominee have a right to vote as they wish, and that the drawn-out contest between candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama should be allowed to reach its conclusion.

“These super delegates have the right to vote their conscience and who they think would be the better president, or who can win, but they also then should get involved in the campaigns and make their power known there,” Pelosi said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC’s Good Morning America.”

Report this

By Maani, April 2, 2008 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment

JS:

You have become so hopelessly intellectually dishonest that I barely know where to begin.

“Clinton supporters…claim that Obama supporters have nothing but blind love for their candidate, and then display the same (or worse) blind love for their candidate.”

This is 180 degrees from fact.  I know that at least bert, Doug and myself have made it quite clear that we do not have “blind love” for Hillary: we have admitted that she lies, dissembles, obfuscates, spins, takes money from lobbyists, special interests and PACS, etc.  On the other hand, each and every time any Hillary supporter has brought up ANYTHING to criticize Obama, the Obama supporters here (and, yes, even some of you on the fence or voting otherwise) have justified, rationalized or spun it.  In fact, I dare you to find A SINGLE WORD - posted by ANY Obama supporter - that is critical of him in any real, serious regard.  Try it: find a single solitary acknowledgement that Obama, or anyone on his team, has lied, dissembled, obfuscated or spun ANYTHING at ANY TIME.

“And there is the constant assumption that if you’re not wholeheartedly for Clinton, then you must be firmly in the Obama camp.”

I can’t speak for others (bert, Doug, et al) on this, but for my part, I only believe this of those who have stated so.  And if I DO assume it about someone incorrectly, I immediately accept the correction and apologize for it.

“[T]he committed liberals/Democrats who back Clinton so loudly are the first ones to say, ‘I’ll vote for McCain.’...What kind of ‘Democrat’ votes for a Republican President?  Do you always try cutting off your nose to spite your face?”

This is yet again 180 degrees from fact: it is Obama supporters - like Cyrena, for one - who have compared Hillary to McCain, saying that a vote for the former is the same as a vote for the latter, so Obama supporters should simply vote for McCain or not vote at all.  I have NOT heard this from a SINGLE Hillary supporter.  In fact, I again dare you to point to any Hillary supporter here who has suggested that if Obama wins the nomination they will vote for McCain.  Yet Cyrena is not the only Obama supporter who has made this comment in reverse.

“Again, without any funny business, how does Clinton win the nomination?”

This depends on your definition of “funny business.”  The superdelegates were not created to simply abide by the “will of the people,” no matter how nice and sweet and democratic that may be.  They were created for exactly the OPPOSITE purpose: not so much to “thwart” the “will of the people” as to take into consideration factors OTHER THAN SOLELY the “will of the people.”  In this regard, if by July either (i) Obama is ahead in both pledged delegates and popular vote, but not by a clear and convincing majority, or (ii) Obama is ahead in pledged delegates, but Hillary is ahead in popular vote, then the superdelegates would have every right to consider other factors.  And this would NOT constitute “monkey business,” given how and why the superdelegate system was set up in the first place.

You can certainly question the entire logic and/or legitimacy of the superdelegate system.  But you cannot call their potential decision - no matter how seemingly “undemocratic” - “monkey business” if it is made WITHIN that system.

Peace.

Report this

By jimmyjam, April 2, 2008 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment

Het bert and lib, glad to see you back here ,Thought Cryrena might have had you kicked or something.  Where is Maani/hinnis and Joe in Maine ,hope they are all well.

Report this

By Greg Jones, April 2, 2008 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

HILLARY FIRED FOR LIES, UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR FROM CONGRESSIONAL JOB: FORMER BOSS
by Ed Morrissey

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s career.
Why?
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment — where they were no longer accessible to the public.

Visit: http://www.Blacks4Barack.org

Report this

By bert, April 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment

<<<<<  It doesn’t change what Mark Brewer said to my face well more than a month ago.  >>>>>>>>>

No, but maybe you ought to ask him a follow up question. You indicated ‘they’ or someone voted 76 to 1 for the new date.

Who is they? Was it the legislature? Was it the MI dem Party?

Or was it the NAYIONAL DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee?

It would make a difference in how your otiginal posy made an inference that MI ot MI Dems were fro the calendar change. All of them were not and they chnaged their mind as the process went on over several months.

Uoir origanl post was not clear on that and may have left some people with a mis-impression.

Report this

By bert, April 2, 2008 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

RE:  “leave “the details” aside…”  Refers to my paragraph above that sentence. It refers to the set of questions RIGHT ABOVE IT.

Not to facts, oytraged.

I get outraged that you jump to wild and crazy conclusions without fully understanding what someone is posting.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 2, 2008 at 5:45 am Link to this comment

First jackpine savage

Nice to hear I am not alone in my belief that the Hillary crowd displays an odd sense of misogamy, a dysfunction extrodnare of new ideas or change.  At first, until after my first sip of coffee, I have to agree with you when you say “But the truth of the matter is that we are the ones who have fucked this country up to its current sad, sad state.”  I agree with you, maybe with further discussion, and qualifications. 

Of course apathy, has provided the Washington crowd their good old boy career politician status.  Elevated cronies, this special Washington country club of opportunism, ivory tower of handpicked Washington lemmings, just like Hillary and so many others, so experience they drag us into a war, a war that should never have even happened. Yes experience of a mob.

We should vote the bums out and make a radical change of the status quo. Of course we know that will never happen.

Jessie Ventura has just made some interesting comments about the establishment, he was not very kind to those selected for us by the elite.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 2, 2008 at 4:21 am Link to this comment

I find it pretty damned funny that Clinton supporters like to call Obama supporters “cult-like”...and then behave like they’re in a hurry to get those bags packed for Guyana.  They claim that Obama supporters have nothing but blind love for their candidate, and then display the same (or worse) blind love for their candidate.

And there is the constant assumption that if you’re not wholeheartedly for Clinton, then you must be firmly in the Obama camp. (As i’ve stated on many occasions, i didn’t vote for Obama in my primary, nor would i have had he been on the ballot.  I find him intriguing and preferable to Clinton…but i’d find a two week old, road kill skunk preferable to Clinton…so that doesn’t say all that much about my feelings for Obama.)

I also find it humorous that the committed liberals/Democrats who back Clinton so loudly are the first ones to say, “I’ll vote for McCain.”  Why?  Is it because you secretly prefer Republicans. (that would explain your love for the Clintons, i suppose) What kind of “Democrat” votes for a Republican President?  Do you always try cutting off your nose to spite your face?

And still, none of the faithful has answered my challenge.  Again, without any funny business, how does Clinton win the nomination?

Being so personally invested in a presidential candidate (any candidate) does not speak well towards one’s mental capacity.  It suggests a belief that someone else will be able to fix your/our problems, and that is not the case.  It also suggests a basic discomfort with yourself, in that you have a need to live vicariously through the accomplishments of others. 

Obama likes to say that “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”  But the truth of the matter is that we are the ones who have fucked this country up to its current sad, sad state.  All of us, no matter what you believe nor how you vote…to be sure, some worse than others, but all of us are responsible in the end.

Go ahead and keep believing that it’s all the Republicans’ fault, or the fault of the VRWC, or Al-Queda’s fault, or Alan Greenspan’s fault, or Bush’s fault.  Reality will, eventually, smack the living sh*t out of belief every time.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 2, 2008 at 4:00 am Link to this comment

My point, which you missed, was that in terms of MI and FL, disenfranchise is the wrong word.  Bert has been arguing the point with me.  I said it’s the wrong word because Parties are private organizations, not public institutions.

My point was that if the voters of MI and FL are being “disenfranchised” by not having their “votes” counted, then what about the people in closed primary states who’s tax dollars pay for a ballot procedure that they’re not allowed to participate in without at least nominally joining a private organizations.

I voted in MI, and not for Obama (nor would i have if i had been able to).

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 2, 2008 at 3:50 am Link to this comment

Oh my CY, you seem to be in the clutches of the VRWC too.  /snark

May i add deep connections to Monsanto to that list as well?

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 2, 2008 at 3:48 am Link to this comment

I’d read that article before you linked it.  It doesn’t change what Mark Brewer said to my face well more than a month ago.  My state’s politics is screwed up on both sides of the aisle.  When all this was going on, they were bickering over a budget: they had to pull an all nighter to write an extension so that the state wouldn’t shut down.  And it still doesn’t change the fact that the Governor signed it willingly.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 2, 2008 at 12:34 am Link to this comment

Your quote: “But leaving those details aside for now,”

Sure bert, let’s just leave “the details” aside…sure…, I hear ya, you mean the ones that show Clinton is LOSING…....All polls show it, some albeit, show Clinton LOSING moreso than others…so I forget, what am I “supposed” to be figuring out…?

Report this

By bert, April 1, 2008 at 10:58 pm Link to this comment

<<<<<<  And after 27 years, i think that we can start calling them Republicans. >>>>>>>>

So any one who does campaign voter and issue research is automatically called Republican. 

I call them intelligent.

I am not sure that that makes you.

Report this

By bert, April 1, 2008 at 10:52 pm Link to this comment

<<<<<<<< The latest polls show a NATIONWIDE lead for Obama over Clinton of 10 pts. >>>>>>>>

I am not disputing you. Yet. Taking one sentence from a poll does not help me evaluate it. It makes no sense as writtne. Obama is not running against Clinton nationwide. Who did the poll? gallup? Rasmussen? And what were they polling? A match up of Obama and Mccain? and Clinton and McCain?

But leaving those details aside for now, you did not get what Joe in Maine is saying.

It doesn’t matter what the polls say right NOW. The elction is not right now. THINGS CHANGE. The General is a little over 7 months a way. A lot can and will happen between now and then. And what goes up can also go down.

Report this

By jimmyjam, April 1, 2008 at 4:58 pm Link to this comment

Heaven forbid Truth ,would want accurate facts

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 1, 2008 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment

That’s right, but everyone knows that without the election fraud and overt cheating by the republicans Bush wouldn’t have had a chance.  BTW, Bush didn’t win, remember.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 1, 2008 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment

Sixpack:
I didn’t write it.  If you follow the link you will see that.  Although given the tactics of the Clinton campaign it is fitting.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 1, 2008 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

Had to erase some “esp Fact Check” before Truth???dig would let it post.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 1, 2008 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment

April 1, 2008
A widely forwarded e-mail claims that Obama’s bills are more substantive and numerous than Clinton’s. Don’t believe it.
Summary
A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We’ve had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what’s the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?

We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:

It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.


It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.


It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.


It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail’s assertions, Clinton’s and Obama’s contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.

Report this

By jimmyjam, April 1, 2008 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment

Hahahah ,that was great.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 1, 2008 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment

Didn’t Gore have a 20 point lead on Bush 8 months before the election?

Nothing is static about a presidential race.

Momentum changes as people get sold on candidates in a general election. Wait until the nominees start fighting each other and you’ll be able to see how the race really shapes up.

In a poll I saw today John McCain is in a statistical tie with either democrat. You think that will change in Obama’s favor, right?

We’ll see.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 1, 2008 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If you are really from Maine then you know that the coffins returning from Iraq to the Pine Tree State contain older soldiers as well as younger ones, and I do not believe ANYONE killed in or wounded in action regardless of age should be referred to as a baby goat!

Anyone who has fought in a war-zone is far far from childhood!

The average age of a casualty in Vietnam was 20 years old. The average age of a casualty in Iraq is nearly 27 you are behind the times Joe.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 1, 2008 at 1:14 pm Link to this comment

Oh Leefeller… You know what? I totally agree with you. Hillary is a political monster and is losing popular support by the nanosecond. No arguement from me. She’s as bad as Kerry was, as pompous as Gore was, and universally disliked by everyone, especially the media.

Everything he does is regarded as fresh and unique.
Everything she does is a political tactic or a dirty trick.

You know exactly what I’m referring to.

I only hope for your sake and for the sake of the entire Youth Brigade energized by the Obama Crusade that the mass media doesn’t suddenly lose it’s “crush on Obama” before the fall election.

MSNBC: “And now topping our political news, Obama Girl has released a new video… Oh is there anyone that doesn’t have a crush on Obama yet?”

And now the sound of 48.8% of democratic voters in a collective vomit.

You don’t need to worry about any gaff, misstatement or embarrasing moment caught on video. You can even rest easy if an even more destructive friend pops up like Rev. Wright did. In the long haul it won’t matter to the MSM. They love Obama. The only thing Obama needs to do now is make sure he doesn’t piss off the reporters. Keep the seduction of the media going and you’re all set! Just ask WJC how much the media loved him in ‘91 when they could have ruined him. GWB could have been destroyed by the Texas ANG flp, but no, his media friends reminded us how much we all wanted to have a beer with him. Same with Obama. As long as they don’t suddenly fall in love with a grandfatherly older gentleman named McCain. Fat chance of that, right?

It’s funny how easy it is to discount the media bias when they are constantly telling you what you want to hear and telling you nothing of what you NEED to hear.

But hey. Someday you’ll figure that out for yourself. They turned on Bill sooner than you could say “Blue Dress”. They turned on GWB faster than you could say, “Mission accomplished”. When will Obama jump the shark? Only a matter of time… tick tock, tick tock.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 1, 2008 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

Please keep in mind that 4000 kids have been killed and over 40,000 maimed in Iraqi streets. Many by real improvised explosive devices. I find your use of the IED acronym to be very offensive. Use the words if you must, but you dishonor the brave by implying that any campaign’s use of political tactics is somehow the same thing.

Have a little good sense and tact for once.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 1, 2008 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment

Expect a two-pronged attack, as follows:

1. Oh well the larger issue is that we raised $20 MILLION MORE than Hillary raised last month.
2. Hillary is a bigger receiver of Oil dollars.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 1, 2008 at 11:50 am Link to this comment

You make the assertion that in fact Clinton will win in Nov. against McCain.  There is nothing valid about your premise.  The polls show otherwise.  The latest polls show a NATIONWIDE lead for Obama over Clinton of 10 pts.  Now…I won’t tell you don’t have the right to disagree but don’t sit here shaking your Lou Dobbsish finger at us when there is no validity to your claim.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, April 1, 2008 at 11:06 am Link to this comment

Where’ve ya been? 

I’ve been making similar comments as your’s here.

I believe in a complete government makeover. That’s not going to happen.  So as you suggest, the best that we regular people can do is to adapt to the change thrust on us, because the money and the power is their’s, and try to help one another. 

Those left after the implosion will be o-kay. 

You “old Indians” have an advantage over us pale-faces in that you already are highly experienced at this. Peace, man!

Report this

By lib in texas, April 1, 2008 at 8:35 am Link to this comment

I read in the paper where Oklahoma primary voters are asking pledged delegates to have a second look at Obama, they say if voting today they wouldn’t vote for him.
I have cousins in Iowa who are emailing everyone they can to change the delegates mind re Obama.  They seem to be coming out of their stupor for Obama.
Needless to say I had to ask them where their heads were in the first place.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 1, 2008 at 8:25 am Link to this comment

FactCheck.org, Obamas oil spill march 31, 2008
Obama ad claims he doesn’t take money from oil companies.
Obama took $213,00 from people and their spouses who work for the oil and gas industry.

TWO of Obama BUNDLERS are top execs at oil companies listed on his web site raised $50,000 to $100,000.

Imagine that !! I’m sure Cyrena, savage, outraged and a few more will spin this some how.

Report this

By bert, April 1, 2008 at 8:02 am Link to this comment

AND NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY - Part 2

When two court rulings found the move-up bill unconstitutional for technical reasons, giving Democratic state legislators who initially voted for it a chance to reconsider, they took it. Dillon and his House Democrats refused to support a bill that would’ve protected the January 15 date from threatened judicial cancellation by correcting the technical deficiency.

The Senate, again voting along party lines, quickly adjusted the bill to the court decisions, but Dillon refused to allow a vote in the House. All of this suggests a “good faith” effort to block an early primary—as required by DNC rules.

Had not the state’s highest court overturned the earlier decisions by a 4-to-3 vote just days before absentee ballots had to be mailed out, the early primary would not have been held. Significantly, all four of the judges who voted to allow the election were Republicans, and two of the judges who voted against it were Democrats.

In fact, it was a Democratic political consultant who brought the lawsuit that almost killed the primary. While the Republican state party filed an amicus brief in support of the bill, the Democrats took a barrage of editorial potshots in the Detroit Free Press, the Detroit News, the Flint Journal, and other papers for refusing to stand up for the state’s interest. Salivating over all the attention and revenue that would come with an early primary, the papers accused Democrats of “withering,” “carrying water for presidential candidates,” and “blocking a bill to rescue the election.”

State GOP chair Saul Anuzis declared: “The Michigan Democrats and the House Democrats in particular appear willing to blow up the primary for petty, political, selfish, self-preservationist motives, to protect their hides.”

Even before the court rulings, 19 Democrats in the House co-sponsored an October bill to repeal the one that authorized the election, including eight members who’d initially voted for the January 15 date. That bill was doomed from the outset since the Senate would never agree, but it was a measure of how fiercely Democrats had come to oppose the early primary. The ultimate result in Michigan, with a triumphant Clinton the only major candidate on the ballot, is, without a doubt, a Republican result.

Report this

By bert, April 1, 2008 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

<<<<<<<<Funny, that’s not what Mark Brewer, the head of the MDP>>>>>>>>>

AND NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY Part 1

The article I linked to last night and that you and cyrena refused to read has a slightly different story. Wayne Barret is an excellent investigative reporter. This isi only about one-soxth of the article, the part on MI.


Michigan: Republicans on the Bench and in the Statehouse

Let’s start with Michigan, whose Democratic chair Mark Brewer is a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the national party and in that capacity voted to sanction Florida—a pretty good indication that he wasn’t a great champion of challenging the DNC calendar in his own state.

Brewer in fact declared the Republican-sponsored move-up bill unacceptable from the start.

When it weaved its way through the divided Michigan legislature last August, only 29 of the state’s 75 Democratic legislators (in the House and Senate) supported it. A week after the bill cleared the Senate over unified Democratic objections, these 29 Democrats in the House voted for it, precisely the same number that voted against it or abstained (22 and seven).

It was 38 Republican yes votes in the House that made it law.

While Democrats like the governor, U.S. Senator Carl Levin, and DNC committeewoman Debbie Dingell favored moving the primary date up, it was a Republican state senator, Cameron Brown, who proposed the January 15 date. Levin and Dingell only supported that date when they concluded that the DNC was allowing other states, like New Hampshire, to defy the party’s prescribed schedule while threatening Michigan with sanctions if it shifted its date.

And Levin and Dingell certainly weren’t calling the shots for the Democrats in the legislature. Andy Dillon, the Democratic House speaker who’d voted for the move-up initially, walked away from the early primary in November, almost a month before the DNC voted to strip the state of its delegation.

Report this

By bert, April 1, 2008 at 7:41 am Link to this comment

<<<<<<<<the latest polls that show that Obama actually became more popular during the Wright ‘Crisis’.>>>>>>

Only with Democratic PRIMARY voters. Not so much in other categories.

Report this

By bert, April 1, 2008 at 7:37 am Link to this comment

Yes. I forgot Truth Dig. Add that to the list. And thanks for the reminder.  smile

Report this

By bert, April 1, 2008 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

You write:    “Seems the whining about the Mass Media not giving Hillary a fair or positive spin will never cease.”

That’s OK buddy boy. You and Obama will have your turn in the fall when the media turns on Obama and continues its love fest with McCain. The all you Obamabots will be ‘whining’ about the mass media not giving the annoyed one a fair ot positive spin.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 1, 2008 at 7:01 am Link to this comment

“In other words, stop the IEDs—“no way, Jose.” Because this is all she’s got left. Obama has already won the hearts and minds of the majority of Democratic voters. If she stops the IEDs now Obama would have a nearly unobstructed path to the nomination. She’s can no longer count on just slowing him down, she’s got to stop him. She needs to wound him so badly he can no longer win.

There’s two ways to get this nomination: win it fair and square, or finagle it. Since she can no longer win, she’s now onto finagling. Which means encouraging her surrogates to keep planting IEDs while she works the political angles—Super-delegates, seating Michigan and Florida delegates, etc.

Meanwhile out on the field of battle her surrogates have turned to the nuclear option—or as her own spokesmanr and snake turned snake charmer, Howard Wolfson describe it, “the kitchen sink strategy.”

full article:
http://www.alternet.org/election08/79869/

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 1, 2008 at 6:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Here I am told that If I don’t vote for Hill-the-business-shill I’ll get four more years of Bush through McCain’s election. 

The subtext is I should ignore my concerns that The business-shill is Bush in a pant-suit (yellow most often) and vote for her for the good-ole-Democratic party, and the Nation.

Let’s see

She advocated for a pardon for terrorists (FALN) who placed 86 bombs in and around New York City, one in my father’s office building at 150 E.42nd Street.

She served 8 years on Walmart’s board of directors (same time frame as a two term President) and did absolutely NOTHING NADA< ZERO for that companies beleaguered employees. No talk of health insurance, no push for decent wages, no effort to keep manufacturing jobs in the USA. She did nothing.

She served (she says proudly) on the Board of Children’s Defense Fund, BUT Marian Wright Edelman has yet to endorse her. In digging for the reason I found the following thread on buzzflash
“How Hillary Clinton Betrayed the Children’s Defense Fund for Political Gain”  which includes an interview with Ms Edelman by (GET THIS) none other than truthdigs own AMY GOODMAN!
see it here:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/034

Then we have the slightly skewed “enviornmental record more of the touted “experience” at the Rose law Firm where the Business-shill represented Tyson Chicken. Now leaving aside that the chicken indrustry treats its employees worse than any other where I have worked..(They refuse to stop the line for workers who need to use the bathroom, resulting in some women wearing diapers to work) They are also a messy business with lots of toxic waste. Rose was hired to help them find a loophole in enviornmental law which would allow them to dump in the whitewater River. Rose was successful, and even today Tyson continues to dump tons of waste into the river each year.

There is travel-gate, the way this shrew spoke to Arkansas State Troopers, and her failure to adaquately explain how the Clintons made 2 mill into 35 mill million dollars in fewer than 3 years.

http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html

Please tell me why this self-absorbed, ego-maniac, fifth columnist would be good for me and my family AFTER the November election.  You may even compare her to John McCain!

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 1, 2008 at 5:45 am Link to this comment

See it is all a foregone conclusion now. Obama is making a better case through the media that she can’t win without “party bosses and insiders” STEALING the election from Obama. There is also the implied threat of rioting in the steets, burning down the cities if the election is STOLEN from Obama by Super Delegates.

Do you want to be responsible for race riots Maani? Come on! Get on board now! Don’t destroy the party, hell, the NATION by prolonging a fight that divides us when we could all be united in a massive defest in November.

No one seems to understand that Obama can NEVER, EVER get to 2025 without those nasty “party bosses and insiders” STEALING the election from Hillary either. That’s OK as long as there are no RIOTS and BEATINGS and FIRES!

Who’s the real fear monger?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 1, 2008 at 5:38 am Link to this comment

Simple minded blind love affair with Hillary has some people in denial. 

Many people do not like Hillary for any number of reasons. I have already explained my reasons, I am sure others have different reasons.  Not liking something and hating it are two different things so keep that one were the sun does not shine.

Seems the whining about the Mass Media not giving Hillary a fair or positive spin will never cease.  It may have to do with the fact her entitlement is not a given and the kitchen sink, fear monger republican approach to her campaign does not bode well with many people. Yeh, I know Obama has been a naughty boy according to the Hillary crowd.  Seems you are not selling the kitchen sink very well.

Sounds like some folks have lot’s of time on their hands, to watch all the talking heads to find a positive story on Hillary.  As I said before, maybe she is really not all that positive.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 1, 2008 at 5:32 am Link to this comment

“By your use of “disenfranchise”, are the independent voters who live in states with closed primaries “disenfranchised”?  Yes or no?”

Who was it that committed to be registered as an Independant?

If it’s a closed democratic or republican primary and you feel strongly about voting, then change your affiliation.

How is that the same as being a republican, making the effort to go to the polls, voting on a legal ballot and then have the vote not count because of party bosses and the state legislature?

How is that the same as a coordinated political tactic of refusing to agree to any do over because you’re polling far behind your opponant and there is no political upside to allowing a re vote to take place?

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 1, 2008 at 5:20 am Link to this comment

Don’t you get it? The Wright thing is over. Nobody cares. don’t believe me? check out the latest polls that show that Obama actually became more popular during the Wright ‘Crisis’. yeah. It’s true. According to the TV News Obama’s 20 year relationship with Wright is all Hillary’s fault. Well, she didn’t actually force him into that 20-year mentor relationship, and no she was not the reason ABC and Fox decided to run the Wright story now when Obama had more than a month to recover before the next primary. Somehow the American people polled believe that “THE SPEECH” was the end of the discussion of race. It’s over for Hillary. Obama can take a punch, when he has the media in his corner to help him recover and the friendly pollsters eager to over sample the African American voters.

There won’t be any more talk of this Wright business. I’m sure Mr. McCain will keep the discussion on the issues of experience and national security. I can’t imagine that anyone on the right wing would stoop as low as the Clintons! It’s a given now that Obama will be our next President. The media will play and poke ‘fun’ of McCain’s age and run an endless loop of McCain saying, “100 years”.

Get your Obama Inauguration tickets now, while you still can.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 1, 2008 at 5:07 am Link to this comment

the much higher profile television network talking heads that are so in the tank for Obama? I don’t see you so Outraged about MSNBC’s every daypart effort to elect Obama. You have Mika in the Morning, her dad and brother work for the Obama campaign. There’s Chris Mathiews who feigns objectivity with remarks like, “I hear him speak and a chill runs up my leg” and then there is Keith’s Clinton Smackdown every night. There are as many examples as there are mainstream media outlets, but hey if you can’t see past the thin veneer of feigned objectivity - “Obama misspoke, Clinton lies”. “Obama’s on a Hope tour of PA - Clinton on the attack in PA” then attacks of any kind on Obama must seem very harsh to you.

I can see why you’d want to point out the terrible attacks on Obama from one obscure blogger and radio host. It must all seem so terribly unfair!

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 1, 2008 at 4:57 am Link to this comment

Our party slogan should be:

The Democratic Party. Nominating the Unelectable Since 1840.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 1, 2008 at 4:21 am Link to this comment

Uhh, there have been many bad days for Hillary on Truthdig too, bert…......

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 1, 2008 at 3:53 am Link to this comment

So Taylor Marsh, MyDD, and BigTentDemocrat are fonts of truth and wisdom, while Kos is worse than Ann Coulter.

Sounds like truth and wisdom are in the eye of the beholder to me.

Where do Richard Mellon-Scaiffe and Rupert Murdoch fit into all of this?

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 1, 2008 at 3:51 am Link to this comment

So you’re telling me that Taylor Marsh, one of the elite, somehow has her finger on the pulse of the little people “Reagan Democrats”?  Ok, that makes sense.

And after 27 years, i think that we can start calling them Republicans. 

This article is full of Marsh putting thoughts into other people’s heads.  And i’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that she doesn’t know anyone who works in a factory or is on unemployment.

They “relate to her struggle”...that’s a good one, since she’s been waited on hand and foot since she entered the governor’s mansion in Arkansas.  Yes, Sen Clinton and her $50M really know what it’s like to live hand to mouth.

I never said that Obama would win the general.  I have a hard time seeing either Dem candidate winning the general at this point.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 1, 2008 at 3:37 am Link to this comment

Funny, that’s not what Mark Brewer, the head of the MDP told me.  He never said anything about the Republicans.  In fact, he told us (at a local meeting concerning the issue) that the MDP leadership council voted to move the primary forward by 79-1.  That sure sounds like they hated the idea. 

I know full well that pledged delegates can change their vote at the convention.  That’s kind of funny, because at the same meeting with Mark Brewer, a young lady asked about being a delegate.  She was an Obama voter but just wanted to go.  So she asked if she signed up as a Clinton delegate if she could change her vote on a second ballot.  He screamed at her.  He told her that if she went to Denver as a Clinton delegate, then she’d have to go all the way…that she wasn’t allowed to change.

When another person attending mentioned that the whole thing seemed kind of crooked, Brewer screamed at him too.  It was all, “how dare you” and the like.  Now, if the situation had been shoved down the Dems throats by the Reps in the legislature, it sure seems like that would have been a good time for Mark to explain that the Dems were just trying to make the best of a bad situation.

And the candidates signed pledges not to participate.  I provided the actual pledge.  It all depends what participate means, but there it is.

The Republicans have a strong presence in the MI legislature, but not a super majority.  Neither party can “ram” anything down the other’s throat here.  (hence the inability to pass a budget) The Dems in MI didn’t even try to stop it…at least not publicly.  So the chances of me believing politicians who’ve lied to me before and are running my state into the ground after the fact, when they say “it’s not our fault”, are slim to none.  Especially when the leadership is so blatantly partisan.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 1, 2008 at 3:21 am Link to this comment

Wow, bert, you selectively answer things really well.

By your use of “disenfranchise”, are the independent voters who live in states with closed primaries “disenfranchised”?  Yes or no?

Did you read the part where i said that i live in MI, and i neither need, nor want, you to come rushing to my defense.  I don’t care who won.  The only time i vote major party for President is when i’m voting against a Bush.

And like i said, were you raising a stink about this in September?  If not, kindly drop it.

Report this

By bert, March 31, 2008 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment

“Pledged delegates” is in actuality a misnomer. No one is bound by the primary or caucus vote.

Delegates can vote for any candidate once they get the Convention.

It is generally accepted that a delegate will vote for the candidate for whom they pledged in the caucaus or primary. I know in the OH primary voters did not really vote for a candidate. They voted for a slate of delegates who supported that candidate.

But none of us were bound by that vote or pledge.

Now there are all sorts of reasons why a delegate would vote for the candidate they pledged for - and all of them are political, i.e. move up in the state party, curry favor with a particular politician, erc. I know in 1976 when I was a delegate the state party bigwigs suggested we at least vote for who we were pledged for in the first round. Then you were free. But that year it never got that far that year.

But the fact of the matter is each delegate can vote their conscience. A lot of things can change between the date of the primary election and the Convention.

I remember in ‘68 many delegates were pledged for Bobby Kennedy. But by the time the Convention rolled around he had been assassinated.

Things change.

Report this

By bert, March 31, 2008 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

Don’t patronize me jackpine. I know all about how the system works. I don’t need a elementary civics course from the likes of you. I was an elcted member of a state Dem party executive board, I was an elected Dem precinct captain, a paid political consultant to various local and state campaigns, I have successfully run campaigns, and I was a lobbyist at the state and federal level.

    “...then disenfranchise would be the right word.”

That sounds just like the definition of ‘is.’ That is an absurd statement. Tell a MI or FL voter they haven’t been disenfranchised. they will not appreciate your super fine distinction. The definition in Miraiam’s I quoted this morning did not mention the Constitution.

But if you wnat to play that game. Fine. MI and FL were disenfranchised by the Dem party in violation of the Dem’s own rules. Read my answer to Cyrena.

If the tables were turned and Clinton was leading in delegates right now I am 1,00,000 % certain that Obama and all of his darling little followers would be screaning to high heaven and DEMANDING that MI and FL votes and delegates be counted. And I am just as certain that you would be finging around the word ‘disenfranchised” with impunity.

You and Cyrena are such hypocrates!!!!!!!!!

Report this

By bert, March 31, 2008 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

YOU WANT TO TALK RULES, I’LL TALK RULES

    “that the leaders of the State Elections’ Committees, or the Dem Party Leaders in either state actually allowed this to happen. In hindsight, WAS IT REALLY WORTH IT, to break the party rules? “

That statement shows just how damn ignorant you are about what really occured in both MI and FL. The state elections committes and the Dem party leaders in both states had absolutelt positively nothing to do with changing the rules. It was totally and completely out of their hands.

SWEETHEART, IT WAS THE G-D REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED LEGISLATURES IN BOTH STATES THAT INTRODUCED BILLS - RAMMED THEM DOWN THE THROATS OF THE DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATORS-  AND PASSED THEM INTO LAW THAT SET THE DATE FOR THE ELECTIONS. (Rs control both states)

Plus the candidates did not sign pledges that said they would not be on the ballot. They signed pledges not to CAMPAIGN ( which Obama did - broke the rules hon - in FL ) in those states. Huge difference. Plus in FL if a candidate wanted to be off the ballot they had to withdraw from the Presidential race entirely. Which is why Obama did not take his name off the ballot in FL as opposed to MI.

Plus three other states ( NH, Iowa, and SC) also set their primary dates ahead of the DNC calendar, yet they were not so penalized.

So I guess the rules matter for some states but not for others. I guess they do not count in swing states where Dems MUST win the state to win in November.

Plus the DNC rules also state that if the primary date violates the rules that - like with the Republican party/McCain in these same states - the delagates will be seated but only half of their delagates count. Hell if the Dems had just followed their own rules this would not even be an issue now.

But again the rules were not followed equally for everyone. And therein lies the problem.

Report this

By bert, March 31, 2008 at 8:19 pm Link to this comment

P. S. to previous post.

Ignore the truth at your own peril. On Nov. 5, 2008 there will be a lot of you on thsi site who will be very disappointed that McCain is the President elect. The Democratic Party can’t even seem to learn from its mistakes. They just keep making the same one over and over again. Choose the weakest candidate. So mamy of you on this site are so myopic it is unbelievable. And you live in an echo chanber.

So sad.

If it were not for the fact that I don’t want to live under 4 more years Bush 2 I wouldn’t care.

Report this

By bert, March 31, 2008 at 8:11 pm Link to this comment

Hard for the actual voters to follow “the rules” when Republicans set them up without a vote from them.

Seems Obama likes stuff like this starting with Alice Palmer. He doesn’t like to lose or fail so he cheats.

You know, there used to be “rules” in the south, too, to prevent black people from voting. But we got rid of those rules.

You can’t tell good folk like live in MI and FL (and I have good freinds in both states - some support Obama and some like me support Hillary. All of them are mad as hell.) to f*ck off and then come Novemeber ask them to forget and vote for your candidate. Especially when that candidate disenfranchised them. (Yep, jackpine, I am still using that word. If the shoe fits and all that.)

Report this

By bert, March 31, 2008 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment

Markos Moulitsas has disgraced a once-fine site.  Kos has devolved into an anti-Clinton smear machine —worse than The American Spectator, worse than Limbaugh, worse than Murdoch, worse than Ann Coulter.

He has actively encouraged folks over at You Tube to make Hillary look as foolish as they can.

Now that is a new kind of politics and hope we can all (NOT) believe in.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, March 31, 2008 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment

Lying Clinton hack, Taylor Marsh, exposed by Las Vegas Sun
by Bob Johnson

Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:58:12 PM PDT
Wednesday was just another day for so-called liberal radio personality, Taylor Marsh.

As she has done many times this primary season, Marsh drummed up another lie with which to bash a Democratic candidate who dares to challenge Hillary Clinton. Marsh has become our very own Rush Limbaugh. And, like Limbaugh, she uses outright lies, half-truths and distortions to attack Democrats. The difference being, of course, that Marsh claims to be a Democrat.

Adding to the already long list of lies she has promulgated on her radio program and on her blog, Marsh, on Wednesday, took this story from the Las Vegas Sun…

Incident at Paris Las Vegas (UPDATED)

... about a claim by two union Clinton supporters that a co-worker had been intimidated into supporting Obama—even though the co-worker denied she had been intimidated—and turned it into something much larger and far more sinister…

Culinary Union Intimidating Members to Vote for Obama.

The only problem: once again, Marsh was lying.

Bob Johnson’s diary :: ::
Marsh has lied many times this primary season, including:

Claiming, falsely, that Oprah Winfrey is anti-union and runs a non-union shop (right before Winfrey and Obama embarked on their three-state tour), adding her own false, nasty, ugly spin:
This has been under wraps for a long time. Nobody has ever questioned the queen of talk, because she’s always flown underneath the radar. Not anymore. This from a woman who makes billions while freezing out unions on her show. As I’ve said before, scrutiny sucks.


Suggesting that Obama attacked Gore in Iowa, a lie which Clinton backers spread across the Web and which was easily debunked. (She also claimed in this post that Obama attacked Kerry. He didn’t, of course, and Kerry endorsed Obama last week.)

full article: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/25812/2147/708/438638

Report this

By bert, March 31, 2008 at 4:13 pm Link to this comment

You write:      “I said “blackmail” because the context of the post was that if Clinton doesn’t win, her support will vote for McCain…... the Clinton supporters will take their ball and vote Republican.”

You can really twist words and make wild assumptions with posts here.

What the poll was indicating and what I was saying is that certain groups of voters that make up the Democratic Party umbrella have competing issues which determine who they might vote for.

Below is just one example of what I mean. This article attempts to probe beyond the poll numbers and raw data and helps us see what the voter sees and perhaps thinks and feels. I am making an assumption here that you know what a Reagan Democrat is.

***** you will find text of article in following post. *****

WHY REAGAN DEMOCRATS SUPPORT HILLARY OVER OBAMA
From a Taylor Marsh web site

Report this

By bert, March 31, 2008 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment

Continuation of previous post

WHY REAGAN DEMOCRATS SUPPORT HILLARY OVER OBAMA
From a Taylor Marsh web site

“Barack Obama’s 20 year relationship with racist Reverend Wright who bellows “Goddam America” from the pulpit is a dispositive factor in this election. While it may not offend the sensibilities of elites in the media, academia, legal profession and business circles, it is repugnant to a pivotal group commonly referred to as “Reagan Democrats”.

Elites underestimate the magnitude of the problem because they are detached from this group and are afflicted with a sense of moral relativism. Reagan Democrats are an ethnically diverse people who believe in a code of self reliance, equality and individualism. They are patriotic, religious and deeply distrustful of elites. They trace their origin back to the Scots-Irish clans who settled along the American frontier, but they are not racially exclusive. Rather, they are defined and motivated by the code and values described above.

The distinction between elites and Reagan Democrats is stark. It can be summed up in these words: “I will not be won by weaklings-subtle,  suave and mild-but by men with the hearts of Vikings-and the simple faith of a child”. (Robert Service: The Law of the Yukon, 1898).

Reagan Democrats comprise a substantial segment of the middle class and working class population. They are well represented in the military and Congress. Typically, they do not hold top positions in elite fields. Yet, elites need their support in order to win elections and secure their policy objectives. In recent years, the Democratic Party has nominated a succession of elite intellectuals for the Presidency. Those elections were lost because Reagan Democrats voted against them. Barack Obama is merely the latest example of this mistake. Even so, they were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But when they learned of the racial threats and garish anti-Americanism of his spiritual advisor all bets were off.

Obama repudiated them through his surrogate and now they must repudiate Obama. Sure as the earth turns, if he is the nominee they will vote against him.

[BERT COMMENT HERE – these voters would NOT take their “ball” and run hone and vote Republican. It is that one candidate meets a strong need in the voter while another does not even if they may agree with that candidate on other issues. Human beings are messy and complex like that. It is in our DNA.]

By contrast, Reagan Democrats see Hillary as one of their own- despite her extraordinary intellect and fine education. The issue of gender which made some men reluctant to support her has been marginalized by the Wright episode. Her campaign visits to communities across the country have challenged the negative caricature painted by the right wing over the past 15 years. They see Hillary as their champion fighting for them against the elite forces they despise (i.e. media whores, left wing kooks and party hacks). They share her goals and relate to her struggle on a very personal level.

In sum, this pivotal group is now squarely behind Hillary and there is nothing Obama can do about it. The Wright problem which Barack never told them about has put media elites and senior party officials on the horns of a dilemma. After all, they have promoted him shamelessly to the American People but it is now clear that he cannot win the General Election. Therefore, they must find a face saving way to move away from Obama to Hillary if they hope to preserve their own credibility and prevail in November 2008.”

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 31, 2008 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment

Maani, the pledged delegates are how the whole system is set up.  I didn’t make the friggin’ DNC rules, i’m not even a Democrat.  If the nomination process was based on popular vote, then the delegates are superfluous.

In one paragraph you talk about the will of the people, and in the next you talk about overriding that for the good of the party.  Which one is it?  (And Clinton won two campaigns against basically non-existent opponents, the immune to the VRWC meme is old and tired.)

I wasn’t conflating the primaries and the general election.  You did that in your original post talking about how if Clinton had more electoral votes, wouldn’t that mean something?  Christ.  I was pointing out how stupid your argument was, and now you’re going to come back and tell me that it’s my argument and it’s stupid?  And of course the argument works against both candidates.

You wrote: As well, what if the states that Hillary wins by August actually represent a higher number of electoral college votes (as they do so far), since THOSE are the votes that actually determine who wins a general election?

Everything you pointed out was written to show the errors of your “logic”, and now you want to pin it on me.  Ok, smart guy.

I didn’t say that Clinton couldn’t take the popular vote lead, but tell me, what percentage would she have to win PA by to net more than 700,000 votes?  I said that she couldn’t build a lead so substantial that it would obviously negate every other metric.

And still, no one has answered my challenge as to how Clinton can win without rabbits coming out of hats and mysterious reenfranchisements or mid-game rule changes.

Don’t you people ever get dizzy?  Your circular arguments are astounding.

Report this

By cyrena, March 31, 2008 at 4:00 pm Link to this comment

bert…this is so totally ridiculous for anyone who thinks on any level of common sense, that your little links aren’t even worth looking at.

The bottom line is that there was no ‘removing’ of what was never there to begin with, and it was decided in September of 2007, that the Democrats from MI and FL would not be recognized at the Convention, because they held their primaries before the rules allowed.

What part of that don’t you understand bert? Jackpine savage was even generous enough to provide the actual language for it.

So, it really doesn’t matter how many times any of these candidates jumped on or off the ballots in either state, or EVEN that Hillary was the only one on it in MI.

The REASON it doesn’t matter bert, is because it was ALREADY DETERMINED that none of the delegates from either state would be seated, or have their votes recognized.

Is that unfair to the voters of MI and FL? Yeah. I’d say so. I’d be pretty pissed off (as an average jane voter) that the leaders of the State Elections’ Committees, or the Dem Party Leaders in either state actually allowed this to happen. In hindsight, WAS IT REALLY WORTH IT, to break the party rules?

Would common sense dictate to you, that they SHOULD HAVE JUST FOLLOWED THE FLIPPIN’ RULES?

This is so typical of ‘your types’ bert. You guys never want to take any responsibility or accountability for bad judgments or mistakes, whether by your ‘leaders’ or as individuals.

It’s just so TYPICAL ‘GW Bush’; Always change the rules in the middle of the game, or when you start losing. “Some people” in both of these states, decided that they would have their primary races early, and they found out the CONSEQUENCES of those decisions, LONG BEFORE they actually held their contests.

Now at that point, (and LONG before any ballots were printed) they could have realized the error in such a ploy, and simply NOT DONE IT!! How difficult would it have been to push the date back to a normal date? (like maybe Super Tuesday when so many other states vote?) Well, a hell of a lot easier than it was to move it UP.

They did NOT do this bert, and so the people of both of those states have a legitimate complaint. BUT, how many of them complained at the time? How many of them, (as in the millions and millions that protested Cheney’s war on Iraq in advance of it?) Well, I don’t know. DO YOU?

How many voters in either of those states contacted the ‘decision makers’ and said, “Ya know, this is pretty fucked up. If we hold these contests early, then we’re gonna get jacked.” Because, THAT’S what this agreement says. It says that our votes won’t be recognized and our delegates won’t be seated if we commit this violation of the party rules. Like, if I put this gun to my head and pull the trigger, it’s probably gonna blow my brains out, SO MAYBE I SHOULDN’T DO IT!

But, it happened, and they did it anyway. Kind of like how Cheney did his war on Iraq anyway, despite the fact that it was in violation of a few million laws, and despite the fact that several dozen experts forecasted EXACTLY what is happening right now, and despite the fact that millions of people demonstrated against it –BEOFRE IT WAS LAUNCHED!

What can be said of ANYONE who WILLFULLY violates the laws of ANYTHING, and then whines about the consequences later? It’s all so typical of the GW mentality, like his Yale days of obsessing with the board game, “World Domination”. Always changed the rules or extended the game session when he was losing.

I also think Barack Obama is wasting far too much time trying to ‘accommodate’. He too accepted the rules, and so that’s that. FL and MI don’t get their delegates counted. I think they’ll be able to sit at the table; they just don’t get to vote. Like, they’ll be allowed to come to the Dance, but they just won’t be able to dance.

Such is life. Get over it.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 31, 2008 at 3:54 pm Link to this comment

See, bert, the problem is that a primary isn’t voting.  The political parties are private organizations…which is why so many people can whine about how they should be closed to anyone who isn’t registered with one of the two parties.  The “privilege” in this case is granted by private organizations…so just like a store can refuse to serve anyone the owner so chooses for any (or no) reason, the parties can disallow people to vote.  Were the privilege part of the Constitutional make-up…like voting in an actual election…then disenfranchise would be the right word.

That was my point all along, thanks for proving it.  By your reasoning, all of us who don’t belong to a political party are disenfranchised by states who hold closed primaries…i don’t hear you clamoring for their voices to be heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.

Thanks for the links, the Iowa independent article is full of equivocations and unnamed sources.  And MyDD and BigTentDemocrat are so obviously in the bag for Clinton that it isn’t even funny.  But it all may be true…which would only go to show how well liked Clinton really is, as other candidates went along with it.  This, of course, wouldn’t make it right…just funny.

And the whole thing still hinges on the pledge and the word “participate”.  Legally speaking, the pulled candidates have a point, while Clinton has to redefine the word.  Obviously, the pledge doesn’t work for Florida because it contradicts FL state law, and a state law has more weight than a signed pledge within a private organization.

And since well less than 1/7 of MI voters bothered with the primary anyhow, you can calm down.  If they aren’t seated, 328 and some odd thousand who voted for Clinton will be pissed.  But they knew that the whole thing didn’t count when they filled in the bubble, so…  It wasn’t some Obama conspiracy that moved the primary up.  And there won’t be a re-vote because the State Senate didn’t bother to take up the measure before their Easter recess.

But if there was, and they didn’t allow Dems who voted in the Rep primary to vote…then all of them will be plenty pissed off.  And the State Supreme Court ruled that the Parties aren’t allowed to get the voter lists from an unconstitutional primary.  In other words, a revote would allow everyone who voted in the Republican Primary to vote twice.  Is that “fair”?

This isn’t your problem, unless you live here too.  This is Michigan’s problem.  Why don’t you let us worry about it?  But for all i care, Clinton can have all 156 delegates…if only you people would STFU about my “disenfranchisement” and how much it bothers you…because it doesn’t.  You know it and i know it.  You’re only upset because of the way that the chips are falling.  How many letters did you write to the DNC before all this to tell them not to punish us?  None, oh i see…so whatever.

Report this

By bert, March 31, 2008 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

“Then wouldnt you have to go back to Gore/Bush? I believe Gore had the popular vote and according to the left it was stolen? Using the DNC’s own logic, the popular vote is the real winner.”

Good one jimmyjam. Good one. If the DNC was logical that would be true. But we are not dealing with logical people here. See up is down and east is west, unless it does not favoe Obama and then the rules change again.  It’s purposefuly designed so that the real will of the people can be ignored.

Report this

By bert, March 31, 2008 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

How do I know Obama asked to have his name removed from the MI ballot? That’s simple. ‘Cause I know more than both of you put together.

See links below and below the links articles of same.

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=QshvHUmSVc0&rel=1&eurl=http&#x3A//noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/16/obamas-choice-for-michigan/&iurl=http&#x3A//i.ytimg.com/vi/QshvHUmSVc0/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJKWT71rxITVdYOCzJT9Zy8&hl=e

If you prefer reading to the video you can check the sources at Mydd.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/14/133512/691

Now, jackpinesavage, I don’t know what dictionary you are using but according to Miriam Webster:  disenfranchise

dis•en•fran•chise
Pronunciation: Pronunciation:
\dis-in-fran-chīz\

Function:
transitive verb
Date:
1664
: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or OF SOME PRIVELEGE or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote   [caps mine]

I stand by my original statement – unless the votes are counted and delegates seated at the Convention, then I believe the Democratic Party will deprive Michigan voters the privilege of having their vote for a nominee of Presidnet of the Democratic Party count. Another word for that is   -  disenfranchise MI Democratic primary voters.

And again, how can anyone SANR human being not count these votes, OR ALLOW ANOTHER VOTE, and then expect that they will vote Democratic in the fall?

Report this

By Maani, March 31, 2008 at 3:07 pm Link to this comment

JS:

“I believe that the “honor the will of the people” shtick refers to binding supers to the will of their constituents…in which case, total popular vote wouldn’t matter.”

Why?  Are the “pledged delegates” a GREATER sign of the “will of the people” than the popular vote in each state?  I would think exactly the opposite.

“...the whole design of the superdelegate system is for them to not be held directly to the choice of the lowly voter…otherwise there isn’t much point in having them at all.”

Exactly.  They were set up NOT to consider a SINGLE factor (i.e., pledged delegates or popular vote), but other factors, including who is more likely to better handle a withering, blsitering right wing smear campaign.  In this regard, Hillary is 100% correct about one thing: she has taken everything the right wing can throw at her, and she is still standing as a respected two-term senator from NY.

“The whole electoral vote thing is a canard…Neither candidate gets electoral votes for winning a primary/caucus, and just because they one the state in the primaries does not mean that they’ll win the state in the general.”

While the second part of the above statement is true, the first part is (deliberately?) conflating the primaries with the general election; I am well aware that no one wins electoral votes in the primaries.  As well, the second part of your statement could be applied to Obama’s wins in PRIMARIES in states that are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to vote Democratic overall in the general election.

“Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral…which one is more important?  The one that makes your favored candidate win?”

Here again, you conflate the primaries with the general election.  And again, this could apply to Obama’s wins in PRIMARIES in states in which he (or Hillary) will not win the electoral college votes.

Finally, re the popular vote thus far, and future, you are incorrect.  As it stands, if we ignore both Michigan and Florida, Obama is ahead by about 700,000 votes.  Yet depending on how many people vote in PA, and for whom, Hillary could (no matter how unlikely it may seem) make up that amount in Pennsylvania ALONE.  And with another half dozen or more primaries to come (including NC, IN, KY et al), Hillary could EASILY surpass Obama in popular vote, even if she does not catch him in pledged delegates.

Peace.

Report this

By jimmyjam, March 31, 2008 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment

She tried to say I was Internet stalking, when my post were on the story first, I say the woman,if that is what she really is,might be a wee bit loony.
then she will get real subtle about it, and in a round about way try to make bert sound like an old lesbian that used to be on here looking for a date, not exactly in those words but close to it. then she uses this to report you and get you kicked, She has a pretty good game going, of course she will dent this,isnt that always the way.

Report this

By Maani, March 31, 2008 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“...she came up with bert, and then gets pissed off when she’s mistaken for a male. Go figure.”

I do not see where bert got “pissed off” by the mistaking of her moniker.  This is simply your fantasy life taking over again.

You may also remember that many of you thought I was of the female gender until I corrected you (gently, without any sense of being “pissed off”).

Perhaps the problem is not in the monikers we choose, but in the ASSUMPTIONS being made by others, including yourself.

Peace.

Report this

By jimmyjam, March 31, 2008 at 2:47 pm Link to this comment

Sorry bert , but I have to agree with Cyrena on the below reply .

Report this

By jimmyjam, March 31, 2008 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment

Then wouldnt you have to go back to Gore/Bush? I believe Gore had the popular vote and according to the left it was stolen? Using the DNC’s own logic, the popular vote is the real winner.

Report this

By jimmyjam, March 31, 2008 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment

What coud we label you? I will have think on that

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 31, 2008 at 2:21 pm Link to this comment

Business as usual, the same thing will be happening when time ends.

Good to see you here again, as you once said, “we are all Indians now”.

You are right on the money.  Thanks.

Report this

By cyrena, March 31, 2008 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

By bert, March 31 at 8:06 am #
Reply to jackpinesavage
Originally Obama’s name WAS on the ballot. HE CHOSE TO REMOVE HIS NAME BEFORE ELECTION DAY BECAUSE HE WAS TRAILING BADLY IN THE POLLS !!!!!!!!  He did not want a massive defeat at the hands of Hillary.
Oh please bert. How the hell do you know that Obama’s name was ‘originally’ on the flippin’ ballot in Michigan? And how did HE remove it? Did they print up a whole bunch of ballots with his name on them, and then he came along and erased it? Or no, it was there, (his name) and then the state election commission burned all of those ballots, (for heat) and printed up a brand new batch of them with only Hillary’s name?

Yeah, right…whatever you say bert. Keep writing.

Report this

By cyrena, March 31, 2008 at 1:41 pm Link to this comment

•  “Apologies for assuming someone called “bert” was a male…add misogynist to whatever other labels any of you feel like calling me. “

Ah…jackpine savage..

Thanks for the text on the agreement that was signed. I’d never seen it in it’s entirety. As for your assumption that someone called ‘bert’ would be a male, you’re absolutely NOT alone. I made the same ‘assumption’ and I’m hardly a misogynist. I think it’s pretty standard for the average American, socialized in the US, to figure that anyone who would CHOOSE ‘bert’ as a screen name on a blog, would probably be male.

That’s not to say that I can’t overwhelmingly appreciate anyone, (and women especially) choosing a name that has NO gender association, and there are many who do. The reason of course, (and you’ve probably seen it here on this blog) is that women bloggers oftentimes come under the more despicable personal attacks! It happens all day everyday, and right here. Just have a look at nearly any of the posts from mensa moron or jimmyjam.

Anyway, bert is new to this, and apparently has ‘issues’ so instead of just making up some non-gender type handle like ‘teacher’ or ‘elder’ or Ohiopatriot, she came up with bert, and then gets pissed off when she’s mistaken for a male. Go figure.

Report this

By TAO Walker, March 31, 2008 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment

With everybody seemingly so engrossed in the “horserace” aspects of the Hillbillary/Barack-orama, this old Indian just dropped-in to say again that there exists absolutely NO institutional solution to the predicament the domesticated peoples are in.  And you just have to figure the current crop of wannabe figureheads knows that beyond any shadow of doubt.  So what’re they really playing for?  ....and playing theamericanpeople for?

Anybody who isn’t urging people to get together where they live, and start helping one another to adapt to these drastically changing conditions, is only blowing smoke up where the Sun don’t shine.

Every day that gets wasted on “politics/business-as-usual” (and there ain’t no other kind), is one day closer to a time when nobody’s money will be any good.  It’ll be the Tiyoshpaye Way or oblivion.

HokaHey!

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 31, 2008 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment

By the way, bert, “that” state is my state.  Unlike you, i’ve been watching this boondoggle unfold from the beginning, and i know something of the people behind it.

When you actually talk to people in “that” state, Clinton is the one seen as being at fault…as well as our Governor, who is well known as a HUGE Clinton supporter.

Also, please look up “disenfranchise” in the dictionary so that you start using the word correctly.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 31, 2008 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

That’s what Bill Clinton says, but i have a hard time believing a guy who argues the meaning of “is”.

Nobody’s innocent in the MI debacle; however, some are less innocent than others.  Here is the text of the pledge signed by the candidates:

“Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007
WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a
2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic
diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the
nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our
presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and
the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the
nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential
election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by
rules and regulations of the DNC.”

“Participate” is the important word.  Everybody except Clinton and Dodd (with Kucinich vacillating) took participate to mean participate.  Seems that there’s more than one Clinton who’s willing to challenge the friggin’ dictionary.

Clinton, after the fact, argued that since the first four primary/caucuses weren’t negatively impacted in any way, it was ok to participate after all.  I’m not surprised, i watched the Clintons going back on their words for eight long years.

Are you trying to tell me that Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards were also scared of Clinton’s polling numbers and that’s why they took their names off the ballot too?

And yes, she did sign the pledge…or she at least said she was going to sign the pledge:

Sept. 1, 2007
Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge
The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.
“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.
And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.
Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.”

Sometimes i wonder how this nation got saddled with an idiot like George W. Bush…then i’m confronted with the critical thinking skills of my fellow Americans and it all becomes clear.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 31, 2008 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

I believe that the “honor the will of the people” shtick refers to binding supers to the will of their constituents…in which case, total popular vote wouldn’t matter.

Obviously, regardless of whichever candidate wants want, the whole design of the superdelegate system is for them to not be held directly to the choice of the lowly voter…otherwise there isn’t much point in having them at all.  But the balance of power among supers is an interesting point.  (If wholly immaterial since they’re not going to listen to Obama or Clinton telling them what to do.)

The whole electoral vote thing is a canard…and a stupid one at that.  Neither candidate gets electoral votes for winning a primary/caucus, and just because they one the state in the primaries does not mean that they’ll win the state in the general.  Furthermore, to use that reasoning rests on the assumption that Clinton wouldn’t win WI or MN while Obama wouldn’t win CA or NY.

Last time i checked, the total popular vote count didn’t matter in this scenario…as it’s not what the nomination is based on.

And you’re going to tie yourself in knots with popular vote counts and electoral vote counts.  Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral…which one is more important?  The one that makes your favored candidate win?

Note, my challenge was about no funny business like changing the friggin’ rules half way through the game.

I see that i still don’t have any takers…

And by the way, with the four states that haven’t released popular vote totals and MI (where Obama gets no votes) and FL, he still currently leads the popular vote count by an estimated 200,000+.  Without MI, it’s more than 500,000.  I still don’t see a scenario where Clinton wins big enough in the remaining contests to much more the nose ahead.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 31, 2008 at 10:12 am Link to this comment

Maani,

Not strange at all,  everyone knows the Hillary supporters will keep things above board and in line.

Peace O pie

Report this

By Maani, March 31, 2008 at 9:55 am Link to this comment

JS:

One issue that has not been addressed is the following.

What happens if, by the time of the convention, Obama has more pledged delegates, but Hillary has a higher percentage of the popular vote?  If the superdelegates are going to “honor the will of the people,” do they honor it by pledged delegates or by popular vote?

As well, what if the states that Hillary wins by August actually represent a higher number of electoral college votes (as they do so far), since THOSE are the votes that actually determine who wins a general election?

As a related aside, if we stopped the process at this moment, withdrew all the thus-far “pledged” superdelegates from both candidates, and then apportioned the superdelegates as OBAMA has requested - i.e., by the “will of the people” in each state (i.e., by number of pledged delegates, not by popular vote) - then HILLARY would actually have even MORE superdelegates than she already has, and Obama would LOSE superdelegates.

Strange that none of the Obama supporters have given any thought or voice to these things.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, March 31, 2008 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

Lib:

“Good to see you back Maani, was afraid cyrena had put a hit out on you ! LOL”

Thanks for the concern.  However, trust me: I’ve been threatened by bigger and badder than Cyrena, so I’m not exactly quaking in my boots.  LOL.

Peace.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 31, 2008 at 9:30 am Link to this comment

Where is valkyrie607?  Bert you seem to be talking to yourself? 

We should always address who we are respond posting as you did, but cannot find the post, the posts get moved around.

You like Hillary, I do not, so for the general scheme of things, let’s leave it at that for now.

From now on I will not say anything not nice about Hillary, as a bigoted friend of mine used to say. “If you do not have anything nice to say, do not say anything at all.”

You should know I had my fingers crossed when I typed above, try it sometime it is really very hard to type that way.

If Obama does not become president, I believe the Hillary folks should embrace McCain.

On the other hand if Hillary becomes president, my old bumper sticker will return to the back of my car.

“Who gives a damn about apathy”.

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

 
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.

Like Truthdig on Facebook