You’ve got a point MackTN.

Oh the other hand, I’ve got my idealism that I think actually has produced some pretty selfless leaders who are not ego driven.

One could always fall back on the suggestion that all lawyers are ego driven, but that too is an interpretation.

No, I wouldn’t want Hillary as my attorney against anyone, but I do get your point. It’s definitely a contest of who can be the nastiest.

Ralph Nadar has done some remarkably good work for which I will always be grateful. There may have been a time in the prior century when he would have been a good president as well.

That time has pased, in part because that’s what happens. Time does pass, and change occurs whether we want it to or not. In our case however, so much of that change has been manufactured, to make for an entirely different set of circumstances that Ralph Nadar is not equipped to deal with from the ideological level. If we could be isolated, then it might work. But, there’s no going back to that. The world just doesn’t operate that way.

Not to permit this to devolve into psychobabble…but I see these contests as all ego-driven and therefore personal, requiring tremendous arrogance and belief in self.  Only when the victor owns the presidency does the conflict between ego and the common good emerge, thus resulting in legacy.

There are no saints among victors, especially in politics. (Not even my hero, Ralph Nader, whom I believe is more saintly than any of them). While Hillary’s style of politics is distasteful to me, you might want her as your lawyer if you were going up against a big corporation….

I don’t think I’d interview for a company I viewed as distasteful and if I felt compelled to show my arse or blow a whistle…that might be a good thing. 

But we don’t disagree.

Of course i set a higher standard for the qualities i expect out of my president than for myself. i’m just frustrated that the debate is more often than not framed with unrealistic exaggeration of both the positive and the negative. And the character assassination is generalized to the point where there is no distinction between supporter and candidate. It is not all that way, and i occasionally actually learn something new reading here, but i hate to see enemies made over what are minor differences of opinion.

i guess i’m trying to lay the groundwork for this whole unity thing where we’re going to have to band together and viciously tear apart McCain and his supporters. i’m optimistic though, ‘cause if there’s one thing the O’s and the H’s here have in common, we both loves us a good verbal smack down.

•  “While most of us around her age are probably thinking that we are at the end of things, she actually could have an incredible future before her.”

Here’s where ‘most of us around her age’ might not be thinking as we should. (dependent on the individuals of course). Hillary is 60 years old. Anyone between the ages of 50 and 85, who still have a functioning mind, shouldn’t be thinking that we are at the end of things. We aren’t. We aren’t at the end of things, until the end gets here. Until then, we need to keep thinking about other than ‘the end of things.”

It’s fine if Hillary might have an incredible future before her, but HER incredible future isn’t gonna help the rest of us. (at least not by the way she’s talking).

So, I’m 55. I may be willing to start considering ‘the end of things’ in another 30 years, (if I’m still around). Meantime, there’s other stuff to think about and I’m not depending on Hillary to do it for me. I’m actually depending more on the rest of you, regardless of what your age is.

On this, I get your point

•  “…I was never a Hillary supporter…but do I understand this pain on a personal level.  To start this contest confident that you will be the next president—a historic, global first, outshining even her husband—then to watch it crumble in your hands.  There’s not one competitor, not one relentless overacheiver who doesn’t wince at the memory of being closerthanthis and failing….”

BUT, can I point out just this one thing? You mention the ‘pain on a PERSONAL level’ because in games like tennis, and chess, it would be. The same can be said when one is mountain climbing, or engaged in any other major challenge that is PERSONAL.

And, in those cases, when one begins such a ‘contest’ CONFIDENT that they will WIN, and get really ‘close’, only to have it crumble in their hands, (or seem to) than it is a huge and painful wince, when they seem to ‘fail’. (and here again, we’re defining ‘failure’ on a personal level.)

My own thoughts about this involve the dilemma of seeing such a contest (political office) from this PERSONAL level. In fact, I see the major problem as being ‘confident’ that one will be the next ‘whatever’ first, when that confidence needs to be in the people that will decide, and not just oneself. That confidence might work in chess or tennis, and well enough. When one has that confidence without regard to the fact that they are in fact INTERVIEWING FOR A JOB, with the decision to be determined by others, and when there are others in the competition as well, the confidence can seem more like arrogance or ego.

So, this is a different sort of a contest in my opinion, that by its very nature, means putting the ‘personal’ and the ego aside. One doesn’t win a tennis competition by ‘kneecapping’ the opponent anyway. I mean…it wouldn’t really be a ‘win’ would it? And one doesn’t get ‘the job’ that one is interviewing for, by pissing on the folks that are doing the interviewing, or otherwise showing their behinds with dirty drawers, or none at all. Isn’t that sorta like ‘mooning’ the boss, and then wondering why you got fired?

Cyrena

Let me release you from suffering in your fantasy-land. The candidate whom I supported was Dennis Kucinich because he was one of two wannabes who were members of Congress that were consistently anti-Iraq-war. The other was Ron Paul whom I could not support for various other reasons. Senators Clinton and Obama have on several occasions voted funding for the war in Iraq that passed the Senate. According to a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court of 1990 that is the equivalent of a declaration of war. In other words, after the first time that Congress gave President Bush specific funding for the war in Iraq, that war had become legal in our country and the President no longer needed a Congressional declaration of war to continue. The Supreme Court makes the rules, right? Hence Clinton and Obama supported that war, period. Actions still speak louder than hot air.

You ask why I wrote this statement. Answer: to urge ignoramuses like you to use your God-given brains.

This is the language of the former Southern segregationists who insisted that some blacks could not vote “because of the rules”.

As you have done an infinite number of times you are guessing which candidate I support. If you have any decency left, which I doubt, show me the text in which I state: “I dihey support*****”. You are the most miserable insinuator on earth.

...is important and telling. 

It is amazing how quickly history (or herstory) can be rewritten these days.  Hillary’s flipflop on the punished delegations echoes Dubya’s revision on Iraq minus WMDs.  Like these events and statements aren’t recorded? aren’t a matter of record? 

Her dissapointment is poisoning her perspective, her legacy.  She has an opportunity, still, to acheive a lot of firsts….While most of us around her age are probably thinking that we are at the end of things, she actually could have an incredible future before her. 

Chess players recognize the end game when they are in it.  The loser realizes that “mate” is inevitable unless the opponent suddenly falters, has a heart attack or suffers some other kind of unforeseen catastrophe.  How the loser gets to “mate” makes all the difference in the story, i.e. how the end game is played.  I’ve watched many hard fought matches—chess, tennis, even basketball—in which the loser’s heart has overshadowed the winner’s victory. 

I was never a Hillary supporter…but do I understand this pain on a personal level.  To start this contest confident that you will be the next president—a historic, global first, outshining even her husband—then to watch it crumble in your hands.  There’s not one competitor, not one relentless overacheiver who doesn’t wince at the memory of being closerthanthis and failing….

I think it’s actually chivalrous of Al Gore to stay out of this, even though, from what I’ve read, Hillary & Bill were not very helpful to him during his pitted path to the presidency.

We used to play poker when I was a kid,  I remember the rules changed every time we played.

Well, if you had started crying when this ‘betrayal-of-democracy’ shame first reared it’s ugly head for all to see, (The Coup of 2000) you’d be out of tears by now.

Conservative Yankee, I love your *elucidation*!

Always a pleasure.

I should have read further..This explains it..dihey writes:

“By the way, I am an independent voter in Texas.”

Yep…that explains it; not ‘independent’ alone, or even ‘Texas’ alone.

Just an independent voter in Texas, who happens to be highly critical of one democratic candidate, and highly supportive of the other, as evidenced in multiple other posts. So, that makes it debatable about how ‘independent’ he/she actually is. In all objectivity, (and from my own hard time in that state) I never saw much independence of thinking.

So, I guess ‘Independent’ doesn’t mean what I thought it did..like, objective, and more inclined to vote person in front of party.

Gee, I just get so confused sometimes. Maybe I should be an anarchist as well. The only problem that I have with that is that I honestly do appreciate the value of having some sort of a system of rules, since I know that a society can’t otherwise function. Airplanes need to have flight plans and a construction of rules of the air, or they’d just all crash into each other.

When folks drive their cars, they all need to have some general understanding of what everybody else is gonna do. Red means stop, green means go. That kind of stuff.

Besides that, most societies need some form of leadership, or at least an entity that is gonna take some responsibility for figuring stuff out, and for taking responsibility when the stuff goes wrong, so that they can figure out how to keep it from going wrong again.

Now the anarchist thing would work in smaller groups, where folks can basically police themselves, and support themselves and each other. But, I think we kind of grew out of that arrangement a few hundred centuries ago, which is probably just as well.

I honestly don’t mind having somebody or some entity around to figure out the details, so I can just get on with whatever it is that I’m doing. Most of the time, I have no problems stopping at red and going at green.

4/8ths of a person? In 21st century America?
Forget Hillary & Obama. Our beloved Democratic Party could never recover from not counting all the votes. We must count all the votes as cast in FL or MI or re-vote those states properly allowing Absentee Ballots. (Caucuses are hideously undemocratic.)
WHO will believe our pieties about the sacredness of the vote if we do not count the votes?
Will all the other DNC ruling people give up THEIR votes? Will you put YOUR vote where your decision is? WE Democrats are the champions of the people & their votes. Aren’t we?
I cry myself to sleep at night with the betrayal-of-democracy shame of it all. American Math—one person = one vote. It is “incendiary” to fight for that?

Gee dihey, odd you would say this..

•  “They must be satisfied with whatever “solution” the Democratic Party comes up with”

Based on my understanding, (as well as the candidates and the entire Democratic Party) THEY’VE ALREADY DONE THIS. Like, back at the beginning, when all of the rules for a contest are established. And yep, the candidates were satisfied enough to sign the agreement on it.

Gee, wonder what happened?

Oh, I know. Hillary started LOSING, as soon as Americans started VOTING. (in all of the states that were intended (from the beginning) to be included in the operation.

Yeah, I think that’s what happened, but here’s an article that probably puts it in better perspective for those who are just catching up in the middle of a ‘created’ problem that already had a solution.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/86359/

Here are a few excerpts:

What Game Is Hillary Playing?
By Guy T. Saperstein, AlterNet. Posted May 24, 2008.

“Nothing reveals more clearly how utterly unprincipled the Clintons are than their assertion that rules set by the Democratic Party’s Rules Committee, and endorsed by all Clinton representatives on this Committee, now should be abandoned.”

“The outlines of this story are simple and straight-forward: Two states, Michigan and Florida, sought to advance their Democratic primary elections ahead of other states in order to increase their influence in the primary process. If they had been allowed to do so, Democratic parties in other states could have done the same, it would have become a frantic, disorganized race to be the first, or among the first, state primaries, and the primary season could have been extended substantially. The Democratic Rules Committee reviewed this, understood that chaos would ensue if every state party could advance their presidential primaries unilaterally, and ruled that if Michigan and Florida advanced their primaries, the votes would not count in the delegate race.”

“Hillary Clinton had 15 representatives on the 30-member Rules Committee and every single one of Clinton’s representatives supported this Rules Committee decision, which passed unanimously; Democratic parties in 48 states followed the rule, but Michigan and Florida chose not to. Subsequently, no Democratic candidate campaigned in either state and no Democratic candidate, except Hillary Clinton [who fudged the rules] was even on the ballot in Michigan. The Clinton campaign now contends that these wholly undemocratic elections—even the Stalinist one-candidate election in Michigan—must count or democracy itself will be imperiled.”

Check out the rest at the above link. It seems to provide a reality that some folks won’t like, (Hillary supporters who care less than a damn about a democratic process, and only about Hillary being president, whether the American public wants her to be or not) but it is highly informative.

It would be really cool if for one week we all analyzed ourselves using the same mindset that we so easily apply to the rival candidates and their supporters. Would there be any room in that analytical mode for a balanced assessment? Or under that microscope, would we all turn out to be assholes?

If it is true that “what the candidates and pundits like Mr. Dionne think is totally irrelevant and deserves to be pitched into the garbage can,” i can’t imagine why you are so earnestly critiquing it.

But to your other point, you should consider that the DNC is a private organization and has no legal or even ethical obligation to listen to the will of anyone in order to name a Democratic candidate. They do, however, have rules which are followed. Your litigious Floridian will lose her law suit (and the money and time invested). Unless the DNC rules guarantee a “just” outcome, i think your just going to get an outcome. Save your constitutional-crisis-face for the fall.

Crap, looks like Conservative Yankee beat me to the punch.

Anarchists unite! <smirk, smirk>

I fail to understand what “Federal election guidelines or strictures” have to do with a potential challenge of Florida/Michigan voters at the Convention of the Democratic Party or in state/federal court. Throughout history challenges on a great variety of issues have occurred at nominating conventions of all parties. And since when can persons not take a “private entity” to court? That is an unknown concept in our jurisprudence. In fact, that is exactly what a Florida voter is doing today. That voter argues that he has been ‘disenfranchised’ by a ‘private entity’,i. c. the Democratic Party, and that disenfranchisement is illegal. Slightly over the top perhaps but certainly understandable. The court has agreed to rule on his plaint. Finally, how will voting Republican, Libertarian, Green, or Independent resolve the issue of a Democratic voter who demands that his/her vote be counted? That is rich! By the way, I am an independent voter in Texas. I am appalled by the authoritarian way in which the Democratic National Committee has treated the voters of Florida/Michigan. Being just trumps following rules slavishly. The campaign of Senator Obama does not seem to get it.

Yes, I do believe she could have won this nomination but she and her husband overestimated their entitlement and underestimated their opponent.  After 8 years of George Bush, a ridiculous war, and now a plummeting economy because of it, Hillary started off offering the same-ol same-ol.  So arrogant, so overly confident, she even felt that she didn’t have to answer questions during the debates.  Coached by hubby, she played it safe instead of authentic.

Nobody been sexist to Hillary, the self proclaimed “I’m your girl.”  She even asserted on the debate stage that the country could benefit from a woman as president, knowing full well that Obama couldn’t respond in kind….

Evidence that she’s been treated with kid gloves is the fact that the press has not torn her resume to shreds.  35 years of experience my arse!  While her husband was running for president, she presented herself as a housewife and mother…who baked cookies!  In what profession do credentials transfer from spouse to spouse or father to son?  Would you hire your plumber’s spouse if the plumber died and the spouse took over the business?  No, but we hire presidents that way. 

THE TRUTH IS HILLARY WOULDN’T EVEN BE A SENATOR IF SHE HAD NOT BEEN MARRIED TO BILL CLINTON.  That’s up to the state of NY, but I don’t have to vote for a keeper of the flame for President, for heavens’ sake.

Gee, is playing the “sexism” card the same as playing the “race” card?

It seems to be impossible to discuss Florida/Michigan without references-and some vile references (“drunk with power”)for that matter-to Senator Clinton. Mr. Dionne is a perfect example. Florida/Michigan may not be the greatest calamity for our country since 2000 but it is certainly the greatest calamity for a fully dysfunctional Democratic Party since 2004 when the Democrats thought that they had Bush/Cheney on a rope. The most ludicrous comment I’ve heard is that any solution for Florida/Michigan “must be satisfactory to both candidates”. Huh? Are the candidates electing themselves or is that the perogative of the voters of these states? They must be satisfied with whatever “solution” the Democratic Party comes up with. That is the essence of democracy. If the Party is unable to do that it is necessary to challenge its failure at the convention. In my opinion, the only persons who have standing at such a challenge are the Democratic voters in Florida/Michigan. What the candidates and pundits like Mr. Dionne think is totally irrelevant and deserves to be pitched into the garbage can.

So Dennis, does this mean that you just won’t vote, or that you’ll vote for another unqualified person and right their name in?

No, it’s not a typo. Some people overlapped in answers due to the questioning process. It does look strange, but it’s right. There is also the margin of error, so essentially it was split with slightly more in favor of keeping true to the rules, but shortly afterward it was made aware that the Florida Democratic Party felt unable to do a mail-in vote accurately, so the plan was shelved.

Bravo Aegrus. (I’ve long since learned to ignore the mary s’s of the world, but I’m still glad to hear of the mobilization for Obama in Florida).

Thanks.

Aegrus, you’re clearly tired of teaching an ignoramus, so I hate to burden you further, but was this a typo? “59% were in favor of a re-vote (myself included), and that 63% were in favor of letting the rules stay and not do a re-vote.” Sounds like the good people of FL have mixed feelings.

I can’t speak for you (god knows!) but I’d be royally pissed if a Republican legislature stripped me of any meaningful vote in a Democratic primary by gleafully flipping the DNC the bird.

He’ll have the Floridians. I’m already planning on a big campaign for Obama.

tbach, I’m tallying it from all the people I speak to regarding politics. A whole lot of them are Republican, for starters, and they think the Dems are a joke in Florida. A lot of pamphlets were sent to registered Democrats regarding the decision by the DNC to remove the Florida delegation from being seated saying how the Dems disenfranchised them, and it was time to switch parties. It’s all nonsense because everyone had the opportunity to vote, and a lot of people did.

What the DNC did is not comparable to the voter suppression and out-right deception of the conservative agents in Florida and the Scalia Supreme Court decisions.

Also, food for thought, polls of 1.5 million registered Florida Democrats said 59% were in favor of a re-vote (myself included), and that 63% were in favor of letting the rules stay and not do a re-vote. When the discussion of a mail-in vote *My preference* was had, the State Democrats confessed that they didn’t feel they could do it accurately, and then everyone lost interest because of that and no one could pay for it.

That’s what happened. Please, PLEASE stop trying to win this argument because you don’t know what you’re talking about!

Qualified? The only qualification for president is to be born here in America and to be over thirty-five years of age.

I think Obama qualifies.

You keep saying things like, “Wanting a re-vote is not a majority opinion in this state” and “No one had a problem with the rules at the time”? On what basis are you tallying this FL puplic opinion? The majority of FLoridians are content to not be represented at the convention? That’s mighty strange!

HRC agreed to the DNC rules and, as Aegrus points out, signed away the rights for Florida and Michigan delegates to be counted. After all, FL and MI broke DNC rules. Now, suddenly, HRC has become THE champion of democracy and the disenfranchised. Why? Not because she gives a flying f*@! about voters in Florida or Michigan, but because she’s behind in overall delegate numbers. She cares only about hers and Bill’s own selfish political interests—the Presidency at all costs—even if that means splitting the Democratic party and ultimately the democratic process itself. I’m sick to death of all this hypocrisy.

Magginkat, you should know (or maybe you don’t since there are many errors in your logic)that your opinion that Florida voters should vote again or have our votes count is NOT the majority opinion in this state. I wanted a re-vote, but the pussies in our state legislature refused to do a vote by mail. Citing their inability to do it accurately *rollseyes*

The DNC is not trashing Florida votes in any way. Everyone was allowed to vote, but a large chunk of our population did not vote because they were informed enough to realize it was only symbolic. No one had a problem with the rules at that time.

Also, you’re forgetting that we got ourselves a paper trail for our general elections with that bit of legislation. I value that earmark tremendously, as it should help to alleviate some of the ballot tampering of the past. We lose our delegates in the convention, but it isn’t like it will make a difference anyway.

Take a little time to think about this, Meggin. The Democratic National Committee is a <i>PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT<i>, and is not federally regulated in any way, shape or form. All political parties are run privately, and are entitled to their own rules. Every candidate knew what would happen, and the fools we elected into the state legislation knew what would happen and the people of Florida knew what happened. No one was lied to or deceived in the manner of the 2000 and 2004 elections. Give me a break. The whole idea of a National Primary Day is laughable because of the fact these political institutions are privately owned and operated.

Furthermore, unlike you, I have a strong stomach for pain. This campaign season isn’t particularly grueling or torturous for me. Extremely frustrating at times, but overall it’s a continued energy that we haven’t seen before. I’m happy to have it this way.

Stop blaming Obama for our state’s legislation! You’re the hypocrite because Hillary Clinton signed the pledge that every other Democratic Presidential Candidate (except Dennis Kucinich) signed! She agreed that ANY STATE PARTY which moved up primary dates before February 5th would lose 100% of their delegates! Then, she made the flip-flop of going against her SIGNED PLEDGE by saying that they should when she, herself, signed away our delegation.

PLEASE GET THE FACTS BEFORE POSTING!

I am a Floridian, voted for Edwards and I still want the votes to count.  First the Republicans managed to get Florida votes trashed and installed that bimbo in the White House.

Now the DNC is trashing Florida votes in favor of the man in the contest.  The Republican controlled Florida legislature is responsible for this and the elitist DNC walked right into the trap. The Repugs are laughing all the way to the bank.

  We the People of Florida are once again the victims of a few jackasses & their rules which are applied one way to one state and another way to a second state.  What the hell kind of rules are these?

We could easily solve all of this by getting rid of the super delegates and having a National Primary day.

The primary, as it is being conducted this year, amounts to torture of the innocent voters.

There’s a whole of of hypocrisy in the campaign compliments of the great & saintly Obama.  At the start of this campaign he was pretty much against the super delegates because he thought they would favor Clinton.  Now that he’s bamboozled most of the country with that phony halo, and sees the
cowardly ones shifting to his side, he loves those SD’s!  HYPOCRITE!

It appears that the only thing that will stop Shillary from stinking up the place is to treat Shillary the same way one does a vampire; both are unwelcome and have no sense of place.

Shillary reminds me of some drunk that passed out in the lawn at your keg party.

The next morning, when you wake up, you realize two things: One, you’ve got a killer hangover and two, the drunk that passed out on your lawn last night is awake and shaking the keg, trying to get it to pump out some stale beer.

You go outside and explain to the miscreant that the party’s over, time to go home and he replies, slurring his words, “No buddy, it’s time to Rock and Roll” and lets out a loud yell.

Again, you patiently explain that the party was over late last night, please go home.

He replies, “Time to Party Hearty, dude. I’m here for you Bud, so let’s raise some hell and finish off this keg. Yahooooooooo.”

Frustrated at your inability to explain to the drunk that it’s no longer Miller Time, you tell him to keep it quiet, you’re going back inside to sleep some more.

Just as you’re laying down, you hear a loud rebel yell and the sound of someone’s car stereo cranking up AC/DC’s “Hells Bells” loud enough to ratttle your windows.

That drunk is Shillary and she has no plans to leave or show any dignity in the primary race.

She’s too drunk with power to be able to listen to reason.