tdbach...I’m just sort of wondering what you could be thinking here:

“..No candidate for this office has ever been so close to winning it yet so “light” in both executive and national political experience. Not by a long shot...”

Because, you need not even go back any further than the person who holds the office now.

Can I remind you that with the exception of the office that was purchased for him, (where he didn’t even serve a full term) George W. Bush had ZERO executive of national political experience. ZERO.

His most important ‘experience’ was as that of Governor of Texas, and he was as poor a performer in THAT job, (because he had ZERO experience) as he was in all of the failed business ventures he’d been bailed out of, and just as bad as he is in the job that he has now.

The only reason he didn’t mess Texas up even worse than he did, was because he wasn’t in the job that long, and never did ANYTHING, but he was only doing that, to plan for the Pres job, and he SAID that at the time that he took the governor title.

So...by a LONG SHOT, both Hillary and Obama have more experience than your current president.

If you don’t remember that, then you either have a very short memory, or are kidding yourself.

Nobody in the country (outside of Texas) had ever even heard of the moron, before the neocons started selling him.

Forget the presidency: it’s become too powerful an office.  Elect Congressmen/women, and MAKE THEM TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR RUNNING THE US!! There is no reason for them to be as servile as the Congress of China.

I would argue that the media began the “Clinton is presumptive nominee” story, not to trumpet her case but to shake up the Democratic party to find a viable alternative. Let’s face is, the media don’t want a coronation. Controversy and heated contests are their bread and butter.

The problem the Clinton campaign had was that they bought into this story. They decided it was theirs to lose, so they to a very cautious, low-cost route that didn’t spend a lot on building the organization necessary to win caucuses and lower-density states. They concentrated on the biggies - and won all of them but Illinois.

The “experience” platform was really the only one available to them. She couldn’t run on a “change” and “hope” platform because she was too well known and too widely viewed as the consumate political insider and operative. So they had to use her reputation as an advantage rather than a liability. As the campaign peeled away all but Obama from the contest, it became even more important. No candidate for this office has ever been so close to winning it yet so “light” in both executive and national political experience. Not by a long shot.

But as it has turned out, her experience - or rather, the elctorate’s experience of her - is indeed a liability for those who oppose her and his inexperience - or rather voters inexperience with him - is essential to sustaining the credibility of his hope and change candidacy.

Oddly enough, your concluding sentiment is exactly the case Clinton has been making, and very credibly, at least to her supporters. The presidency holds no mysteries for her. She’s been there, seen it up close and personal, not simply as an ornamental first lady but as a policy and political partner, every day, for 8 years. If you think otherwise, you either have a very short memory or you’re kidding yourself.

“The short of it is that people like this are NOT ‘self-respecting’ so you can’t shame them. Any time you hear anybody make the accusation that Blacks are only supporting Obama because he’s black, it’s a DEAD GIVEAWAY that they refuse to vote for him because he IS!”

Cyrena, the only dead givaway here is that anyone who voices an opinion contrary to yours is going to be ridiculed as biggotted, ignorant, or just plain stupid.

Time to take a modesty pill, and start opening your eyes to other possibilities than the narrow prejudice you bring to the argument. Has it ever occurred to you that backers of Clinton really do feel like she is considerably more qualified for the job than Obama? They may or may not be right about that, but it’s not stupid to think so, just like it’s not stupid top think Obama could be transformative as a presidential leader of our country, based on no more than his campaign rhetoric. We all form our opinions in an alchemy of facts, hopes, instincts, personal history, etc. Once formed, we defend it with varying degrees of passion. With that in mind, someone who is of the opinion that Hillary is more qualified compared to the only other remaining candidate, who has litte national experience and no executive experience (indeed, in modern history, no one has every lead either mjor party in a presidential primary who has so little national experience who was not a governor or so little executive experience who was not long established in national office), is bound to look for reasons why she should be losing. One reason seized upon is this is yet another instance of a woman being pushed aside by a less-qualified man. Another is to lament that a whole segment of society is going en mass to his side for simple reason that they have never had anyone who looked like them have a realistic chance of being elected (not enough alone to elect him but more than enough in a close race to tip the scales in his favor). Understandable, but still frustrating for anyone whose opinion favors Clinton. Racism has absolutely nothing to do with it in many if not most people voicing this opinion. Just as you would protest, rightly, if anyone claimed sexism was behind your dislike of Clinton.

Let’s drop the “isms” out of this argument, shall we? Sex and race are huge, looming issues in this contest for obvious reasons. But when we broadbrush our opponents’ supporters with their “isms” we do a diservice to them, our candidate, and ourselves.

As to your MI and FL fantasy. That’s exactly what is is. But if it makes you feel good, enjoy!

or at least the same level of support.  And super delegates are not required to vote the way the delegates voted.  If Hillary can prove she has equal support or more support, then super delegates might be impressed enough to change their vote and vote for her at the convention.

It aint over til it’s over.  Lets count every vote and make every vote count? Focusing on the rules in order to not count votes sounds very wrong doesn’t it?

Let Hill be ambassador to Iran, spend years explain why she thought it was OK to threaten to exterminate all 70 million of them.  Make Bill ambassador to Iraq, explain why killing a half a million plus of their children was “worth it.”

John: It’s a pretty simple question and answer. How do you know when you have lost a campaign? When the loss is everyone’s fault but your own. It’s especially true when you blame “THE MEDIA”, as if there is some monolithic media that moves in lockstep to some unhidden hand.

Of course you ignore that most of this media were the same ones who declared Mrs Clinton the presumptive favorite to win the nomination before even a single vote was cast. Much of the same media that gave no one a chance to defeat Hillary, least of all Obama, but now you want to blame them for her predicament?

Do you mean to say that Hillary and Bill are totally blameless? Are you saying that Hillary’s chief strategist Mark Penn ran a brilliant campaign for her?  Are you saying that somehow the media convinced millions to vote for Obama over Clinton. Oh I know, they are just stupid, unlike those who voted for Hillary who are wise and smart.

You really don’t mean to say this. Where I hail from, the leader is responsible for everything his or her outfit does or fail to do. It’s a world where the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters.

Let’s face it Hillary ran a bizzare and awful campaign. Why? because the fool handlers around her like Mark Penn convinced her that she did not need a strategy. All she had to do was show up and claim the prize. It was to be a coronation not a competitive race.

Her husband, a man of no experience at the national level beat a sitting President, a man of great experience. Yet, she elected to run a campaign against a younger, dynamic guy by running on what? You guessed it, experience. The so-called 35 years of experience was a bogus claim right from the start.

The fact is unless you have been or are the President, no one has that kind of experience. Further as we have seen even being President is no guarantee of success. Anyone who has stepped up to a higher job understands that there is a learning curve. No one steps into the oval office knowing exactly what to do from day one. It’s arrogant and foolish to even say so.

So please if Mrs Clinton does not win she will have no one to blame but herself.

Very good intentions here gattlingun6

• “Further it’s an insult to Black people everywhere to say that Blacks support Obama simply because he’s Black.”

But, it’s not likely to work with people who are such ideologues. The above comment is an insult to black people of course, but it’s also an insult to the author of the comment, because it shows how ignorant he or she is. We’ve already noted on this thread multiple times, that even if Blacks DID ONLY support Obama because he’s black, there aren’t ENOUGH Black people in the US to get him anywhere even CLOSE to the front running position that he’s in now. Seeing as only 13% of the population is Black, and LESS THAN HALF of them vote, there’s no way. And, at the rate things are going with the reversion to old Jim Crow style laws, now requiring a photo ID, knowing full well that it is among the poor of ALL races of DEMOCRATS that aren’t likely to have these photo ids, that cuts another huge portion of Democrats out of the process in November.

Then you say this, but unfortunately, it’s wasted on Magginkat as well:

• “No self respecting Democrat should even consider voting for John McCain, a man who will tell you to your face that he is an out and out conservative, and does not have a progressive bone in his body!!”

The short of it is that people like this are NOT ‘self-respecting’ so you can’t shame them. Any time you hear anybody make the accusation that Blacks are only supporting Obama because he’s black, it’s a DEAD GIVEAWAY that they refuse to vote for him because he IS!

Racism is very much alive in this country…even after nearly 2 ½ decades. They won’t vote for a Black person because they have unfounded fears providing the basis for a racism that will never go away, even if you present logic and reason to them. These people actually WILL vote for McCain, (or Lucifer himself) in order to vote AGAINST Obama.

Sickeningly sad, but very, very true. And, since it is so politically incorrect to admit to their racism, just as they would attempt to hide any other crimes, they always find some other reason to blame it on. They would NEVER say this stuff in public, to people that they know, which is why they come on these blogs, and holler all of this stupid stuff, and throw tantrums.

And, even though you or dozens of others might remind them how much like GW McSame actually is, (even worse in many respects – if that can be imagined) people like this are too dumb to even know how bad bush is.

Meantime, I’ve been thinking of something really funny about MI and FL on that huge hoopla that Hillary has all worked up, demanding a change in the rules that she agreed to at the beginning. Wouldn’t it be something if they could arrange a real quick revote in those states, for EVERYBODY, and Obama won like 78% of the vote in FL and lets say 83% in MI? Oh Lordy…what a hoot. I make myself laugh out loud, everytime I think about it.

And ya know, considering the way Hillary and Bill have been clowning for the past few months at least, it’s highly likely something like that could happen. That’s why she’s lost so many superdelegates; because of showing out like she has. You know what the old folks would say about this. They’d tell ya in a minute that the girl just didn’t have no upbringing. I mean, most kids get beyond this stuff by the time their finished with the toddler phase. Spare the rod, spoil the child is what my grandma would have said. A good butt whoppin’ is what was called for way back when.

It’s a sad shame that the poor woman had to wait ‘til she was 60 years old to get her ass kicked. I’m telling ya, the pain is a whole lot worse, the older one gets.

Anyway, you were very diplomatic here, which I never am these days, because I’m old too, and not running for president.

Magginkat:

I understand that you support Mrs Clinton, but I do hope you have the good sense to not cut off your nose to spite your face. A vote for John McCain would be just that! Once we get over the emotions we have invested in a tough, tight Democratic primary campaign I do hope we have the good sense to come together to defeat John McCain in the fall.

If you like George Bush, you will love John McCain because he fancies himself as smarter than George Bush and morally above everyone. He has a solution for everything but in 26 years in government has fixed precious little. He rails against earmarks but has done precious little to stop or change the process other than run his mouth. Then he makes the ridiculous assertion that stopping earmarks is the key to balancing the budget, that somehow he can get a 100 billion from stopping earmarks. He doesn’t want to gain Congresses’ cooperation in running the government, he wants to fight and if gridlock results, so be it.

Barack Obama has earned his votes, the same as Hillary Clinton has earned hers. To denigrate Obama is simply not helpful. Further it’s an insult to Black people everywhere to say that Blacks support Obama simply because he’s Black. If that were true Michael Steele would now be the senator from Maryland.

If Black people have proven anything in this country, it’s that they will vote for whomever they see as the best candidate regardless of race, sex, ethnic group, religious affliation, age, or any other factor. So please can we stop this racist dribble and concentrate on the prize in November?

No self respecting Democrat should even consider voting for John McCain, a man who will tell you to your face that he is an out and out conservative, and does not have a progressive bone in his body!! So please folks can we lower some of this ridiculous rhetoric?

Well, the TRUTH can indeed be SLIMY sometimes. Witness the never ending garbage disposal contents that Hillary keeps throwing at us.

If that’s not slime that we’re all WITNESSING WITH OUR OWN EYES AND EARS, I can’t think of much slimier.

And, it’s obviously the TRUTH, because we’re watching and listening to it!

Unless maybe you think that’s some sort of a clone, and not really Hillary.

This whole Presidential thing reveals how desperate people are to hold on to whomever they perceive to be the best candidate. I’ve been called out, as it were, on this site and others for questioning the motives of all candidates. My recent intense scrutiny on Obama has angered some. But they should remember the blistering blogs on Mrs. Clinton, such as “A Truthless Monster”. I recently published “Thoughts on John McCain” which can be found at: http://www.streetalker.com/
Since I have only been doing political writing for less than a year (it should be remembered I am a professional writer on BEER), I discovered that most of my concerns could be divided into two subjects: issues and process.
The process part, or how the game is being played, is best found in pieces like “Thoughts on Obama” or the new “Thoughts On John McCain”. The pieces concerned with issues are much more difficult for me, because they touch emotional nerves. A very good example of this type of writing can be seen in the piece “Only When It Is Dark Enough Can You See The Stars”.
I must say I have enjoyed this work. But for now, I must give it a rest. To put it bluntly, the creativity in life demands that I do not devote myself to this all consuming horse shit that is politics.
I will continue to visit this site and others, and check out what all of you are saying. I enjoy reading comments from everyone, whether I agree with their views or not. So anyway. Peace is a living action. Thank You is my only prayer.
The Beer Doctor

HG, what percentage of the population of these United States of America does 17 million constitute?  It sure looks like a minority to me...though the same thing could be said about Obama’s total.

Is there any moral obligation for her to end this stupid bickering match so that we might concentrate the national attention on something other than a sub-plot of what may well be an epic farce?

Granted, sports teams don’t stop playing just because they are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, but they generally play a little differently than they might if it mattered.

In any case, good luck with the stomp your feet and hold your breath strategy.  It hasn’t worked for too many five year olds that i’ve known, but maybe 17 million of you throwing a collective tantrum might just get you that pony that you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want.

Not to detract from my “wow” (below), but i would quibble on one point.  So long as the private organizations expect the public to fund their selection process, the primaries should all be “open”.

I understand your distaste with how such a system can skew the results...and i agree with your point; however, someone like me (who will never officially join a political party) isn’t particularly happy about the idea of paying for it but not being able to participate.

That has nothing to do with caucuses (which i think are a much better system for nominations), because political parties pay for caucuses.

Closed caucus, understandable; closed primary, unacceptable.

Wow, excellent post...thanks!

Ya know HG, you keep bringing up these votes that Sen. Clinton has won, with only a quarter of Sen. Obama’s money.

But, let’s see if you can work this math. This ‘money’ that you’re talking about isn’t really Sen. Obama’s money. Nope, he got the MAJORITY of his money from US! Yep...even those of US who couldn’t really afford to give him anything, somehow made a way to do it.

Now, do ya suppose all of those of us kicking in $25.00 one month, and then maybe squeezing another $32.00 the following month, (no pizza that month) didn’t ALSO vote for Senator Obama?

So, do ya think THAT might not be way he’s SOOOOOO far ahead of Senator Clinton in this contest?

It’s really nice about the alleged 17 million votes that Ms. Rodham has won HG, but there are 300 plus million people in the USA, and while not all of them can or do vote, (particularly consider the huge numbers that have been PURGED from the rolls) there are OBVIOUSLY enough of them that HAVE, or Sen. Obama wouldn’t be so incredibly far ahead of her.

Now I understand your frustation at the thought of your alleged 17 million votes somehow not being ‘recognized’. I felt the same way when Al Gore won the Presidential Election in 2000, but the Dick Bush gangsters moved in anyway. That was REALLY frustrating, and of course when my fellow citizen assholes did the same thing 4 years later, it was really bad. I mean, it would have been really difficult for them to hijack us that way, if at least several million didn’t actually vote for him. (I mean, they couldn’t have fixed THAT many votes).

So yeah, we realize that there are lots of you out there who don’t seem to care that Sen. Clinton is prepared to continue the hijacking and the policies of the gangsters that are now in charge. And, there’s little we can do about that.

But at the end of the day, there are MORE of us who want out of this misery, and so we’ve voted for Barack Obama.

That’s the way it works here in a so-called democracy. The person with the most votes is supposed to win. I know it didn’t work out that way in 2000. Still, we’re gonna go back to that this time.

“… have to say, she’s making a great case for being VP… for McCain.”

Based on my own interpretations, (which I’ve noted here at TD more than a few times) Hillary should have been on the McCain ticket as the VP since at least March.

Actually, if one were a non-voting ‘observer’ with no real dog in the fight, they would have long ago assumed that she WAS the Repug running mate.

Just don’t ask the 18 million of us to pick up the tab for the food fight she started.

It has been pointed out numerous times in the last couple of days (and before that i’m sure) that the political parties are private organizations. You can have your democracy in November when the election belongs to you. Right now, two massive private organizations (and others) are deciding who will be inserted into the process of representative democracy. The reason we fret over the case of FL and MI is not altruistic, it is because we want to avoid turning those voters off to the Party because we need their votes in the fall when they actually matter.

Frankly i’m tired of this whiny sh!t from self-righteous ignoramuses who think that parroting the feeble talking points of interested parties constitutes an informed opinion. Why not go after the states with open primaries? Why should the Democratic Party be subject to the influence of Republicans who will vote for McCain in the fall, but voted in the Democratic primary because McCain has already secured the delegates he needs for the Republican nomination? The reason you don’t go after them is because your real motive is to rationalize the spurious claim that a certain candidate is actually winning in popular vote (which she’s not), and to those ends you are willing to disregard the expressed will of caucus participants in five states to arrive at a number which suits your needs.

i live in one of those caucus states and we are proud of the system we have, a system which generates face to face debate, conversation and sometimes compromise and cooperation. If a wheelchair bound individual wants to attend, someone helps them get there. You are out of line insinuating that democracy can take only your form, and you have no legal foot to stand on to suggest that absentee ballots do a valid result make. If you don’t like the way your state party holds your elections, then get involved and work to change it — or better yet, buy yourself a van with a wheelchair lift and travel the country helping crippled people attend caucuses. In the meantime you should focus on the only metric that is going to get anyone nominated and that metric is the delegate count on the floor in Denver in August.

Amen to you for noticing Rob Mendez. There actually ARE some feminists in our midst, who actually UNDERSTAND what that is about. Among us, (both over and under 50) we know that HRC is clearly NOT about empowering women. (at least not any other than herself).

Rest assured, if Sen. Clinton was running against another woman in this contest, she’d be using the same equal opportunity dirty tricks as she’s using against Sen. Obama.

Hillary’s ‘contest’ is NOT about the Democratic Party, it’s NOT about her supporters, and it’s NOT about what’s good (or bad) for the American people.

It’s about HER. She wants the ‘position’ and that’s all that matters.

“a moral obligation to continue”? Really? Seems more like a financial obligation to recover the 11 million dollars she lent to her own campaign.

Mr. Robinson sports his contumely with “ridiculous exercise of lumping together apples” etc. If we were to be honest about ridiculous exercises, we would bring up the fact that (excepting Maine) Absentee Ballots aren’t allowed in Caucus States.

In Texas, Hillary’s voters were plus 4% in the primary & minus 12% in the caucus on the same day. A 16% swing. Suppose we had only seen the Caucus Results in Texas? That’s what happened in ALL those other caucus states. Senator Obama’s pledged delegate count is as preposterous and “ridiculous” a metric as could be devised in LoonLand, but not one pundit will examine that.

No Absentee Ballot, No Democracy. “I can’t caucus, honey, I’m a cripple. If I can’t get there in my body, I don’t count.” The Will of the People? Which people? The Will of Only the Healthy People? It’s ridiculous indeed.

...if we’re going to continue to act like kindergarteners wailing when someone pops the head off of our favorite Barbie doll or GI Joe, we won’t deserve to win an election in the fall. Let’s take down our Tigerbeat posters of our pop political stars and remember that this election is a REALLY BIG DEAL, and that it is going to take grown-ups to solve the grown-up problems we’re being left with by the Bush Adolescence — i mean, administration.

Please forgive me for bringing MSM into this hallowed ground of progressive name-calling, but Keith Olbermann’s special comment on Friday (May 23,2008) provided a comprehensive list of Clinton campaign faux pas. Please, let’s continue to triangulate how media bias has forced Clinton out of the race....

“Senator, in this campaign, this nation has had to forgive you, early and often…

And despite your now traditional position of the offended victim, the nation has forgiven you.

1. We have forgiven you your insistence that there have been widespread calls for you to end your campaign, when such calls had been few.

2. We have forgiven you your misspeaking about Martin Luther King’s relative importance to the Civil Rights movement.

3. We have forgiven you your misspeaking about your under-fire landing in Bosnia.

4 .We have forgiven you insisting Michigan’s vote wouldn’t count and then claiming those who would not count it were Un-Democratic.

5. We have forgiven you pledging to not campaign in Florida and thus disenfranchise voters there, and then claim those who stuck to those rules were as wrong as those who defended slavery or denied women the vote.

6. We have forgiven you the photos of Osama Bin Laden in an anti-Obama ad…

7. We have forgiven you fawning over the fairness of Fox News while they were still calling you a murderer.

8. We have forgiven you accepting Richard Mellon Scaife’s endorsement and then laughing as you described his “deathbed conversion.”

9. We have forgiven you quoting the electoral predictions of Boss Karl Rove.

10. We have forgiven you the 3 A-M Phone Call commercial.

11. We have forgiven you President Clinton’s disparaging comparison of the Obama candidacy to Jesse Jackson’s.

12. We have forgiven you Geraldine Ferraro’s national radio interview suggesting Obama would not still be in the race had he been a white man.

13. We have forgiven you the dozen changing metrics and the endless self-contradictions of your insistence that your nomination is mathematically probable rather than a statistical impossibility.

14. We have forgiven you your declaration of some primary states as counting and some as not.

15. We have forgiven you exploiting Jeremiah Wright in front of the editorial board of the lunatic-fringe Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

16. We have forgiven you exploiting William Ayers in front of the debate on ABC.

17. We have forgiven you for boasting of your “support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"…

18. We have even forgiven you repeatedly praising Senator McCain at Senator Obama’s expense, and your own expense, and the Democratic ticket’s expense.”

Olbermann goes on to say “we” can’t forgive the assassination comment because it exploits the deep wound and shame of our history of political murder.

i have to say, she’s making a great case for being VP… for McCain.

Louise, the media has reported on the details of the FL primary snafu, though scantly. i wasn’t aware of the compromise for paper audits (thanks to Aegrus for the clarification). But i have known for months that Florida’s Republican legislature was in part to blame for the early voting date. One would think this is the kind of issue with hard facts and political intrigue which would make a good story, but like my continued attempts to generate dialogue over the culture of campaign bloat and fiscal irresponsibility in the Clinton team, there are better ratings to be found in race/gender baiting and manipulating the emotions of those with such a “personal stake” in the politics of identity. Unfortunately, the politics of policy has become a quaint afterthought. Details go under reported because the story is the reaction, not the cause.

Your pancakes comment, was that not “can’t I just eat my waffle?” which is what Obama said to a reporter. As far as your angry screed against the junior Senator from Illinois, I am struck by the misguided vehemence. Do you really think Senator Clinton cares about you, or for that matter the American people? As far as the “media-promoted presidency”, where would any of these top tier dumb bells be without it? There is the riverboat gambler McCain, no I meant to say Maverick, Senator from Arizona. Then there is that pit bull defender of the WHITE WORKING CLASS, that of course would be your gal, who is just proud as punch to be in the Senate seat once held by Bobby Kennedy, another media rock star from another era, who is mythically portrayed as a man of peace.
But I guess none of this would matter to someone who buys into the Hillary As Victim fable. You might try to wake up. She is staying in this race with the hope she will get a “lucky shot”, but also to recover the 11 million dollars she lent to her campaign.

By writing “issue” instead of issue, Mr. Robinson shows his deep-seated, incurable prejudice. His opinion is therefore not worth the website it is published on. Question: What sort of truth is Truthdig digging for? Slime it seems to me.

I agree with you cyrena. Hillary did herself in: in her willingness to trash Obama and the Democrats for her ambition, in her utilization of Rove Machiavellian techniques, etc.

Obama is not perfect but he has demonstrated some principles and even a modicum of principles is something we haven’t seen with Bush or would see with the fraud, McCain.

A threat, that would have them rethink any plans to cut in line. Not unlike the Iraq War Resolution, for which Hillary has been pillaried ad nauseum. In the case of Iraq, it worked pretty well, except G.W. Bozo & Co. flipped congress the bird and went to war anyway, because, well, they wanted to. ~tdbach

Bwhahahahahaha! Looks as though someone’s in the market for a nice bridge to sink their retirement savings into.

Come on, there was never any doubt in the mind of anyone with more than 3 operational brain cells what that resolution was about.  The whole world knew that there wasn’t a serious WMD threat (except, of course, Sen Clinton...who didn’t bother to read the intelligence).

I’ve read some pretty silly things this primary season, but this one takes the cake and eats it too.  By the way, the bill was entitled “Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq”; that’s not a threat, that’s a promise...especially when handed to the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and G.W. Bush.

And if Sen Clinton voted for a threat with the precondition that the administration provide evidence, why wasn’t she giving long speeches about the administration handing Congress the same list that they gave to get the authorization...with no evidence that the stipulations had been met?

Oh, fuck, what am i saying...the Democratic Party has always been about starting wars, they love it.  Yet somehow, the anti-war crowd likes to vote Democratic.  America is a truly amazing place.

The fact that Rush Limbaugh is a Hillary supporter is a bad sign for Democrats.

McCain is probably the only Republican that could win in the fall, because he’s the one with the most appeal to Democratic Voters. That’ why he won the nomination.

At this point Hillary looks and acts more like a “spoiler” than a potential president.

Only the True Hillary believers want her now, she’s too selfish to do the right thing, and that’s why the voters rejected her to begin with.

Thanks for the clarification.
I learn something new every day!

To republicans everywhere, I apologize.
[Just kidding ]

But I am a bit confused. Why did the Democrat Legislature shoot itself in the foot? Not because they want a verifiable paper audit trail for the general election ... that’s a good thing, but because they didn’t work with the Democratic rules committee ahead of time to avoid this happening?

Maybe a better question is why did the Democrat rules committee set this rule anyway? And how come Democrat Party leaders in the State didn’t work with both to head this off? Or is the entire Democrat Party suffering from a bad case of “no vision” like the repubs?

Surely there must have been someone there, somewhere who could foresee a candidate using this outcome for their personal advantage! But then, maybe it never occurred to them that Hillary could/would do this.

As has been noted elsewhere, Hillary’s people signed on to this rule change well ahead of the fact. While Kucinich did not, so apparently that choice could have been made by the Hillary camp and we wouldn’t be having this issue right now.

Well actually yes, I guess we would. But had she not agreed to the rules, her position might be better.

My empathy was directed more at what I perceived as a level of frustration on your part. That can happen when we engage in a debate with someone who doesn’t really want to debate ... just win. Truth is those of us who have made our decision and cast our vote ... for whatever reason, are committed and aren’t likely to change our minds.

But like I said, I learn something new every day.
To bad the media [or Hillary for that matter] have never made the reason behind the early primary clear. I had no idea!

Thanks again.

Ah but beerdoctor, imagine the severe trauma if they actually had to find this stuff out..in FACTUAL form. Far better to follow the Clinton’s Fun With Numbers..there’s a new puzzle every day. Sometimes a bonus one or two, with different variables.

Besides, they don’t WANNA know anything about them. They just want Hillary to live in the White House again, even if nobody actually elects her to the job.

Kinda like the election of 2000. Remember that one? All that mattered was that the shrub seemed like the kind of guy they’d like to have a beer with.

And Hillary seems like the kind of girl that will gladly bust the balls of any man who ever made them cry.

And, they might get invited to sleepovers at the White House sometimes. If not, they can always pretend.

Among the admittedly small crowd of Hillary worshippers, she’s the female version of Elvis.

Don’t start bothering them with all of that biographical stuff...that just means more work to twist it around, so that it can all be blamed on sexism.

No time to waste on that. I mean, surely it would be an effort for even the most delusional to explain how sexism and the media were responsible for Hill’s authorization to bomb, bomb, bomb Iraq, and to support that resolution to line up the same arrangements for Iran.

You KNOW it’s all about how they just don’t like her.

Come now.  When the Presidents of NARAL and Emily’s List both decry the misogyny coming from the media during the campaign, but also stating unequivocally that they thought it paid no role in the outcome, why do you think you know better?

This just looks like more scapegoating from Hillary’s supporters.  It couldn’t possibly be that the candidate was flawed, can it?

I’m disgusted as well John. Please allow me to tell you why. I have been following the politics of the our nation for a very long time now, but more specifically since The Coup of 2000, when we began to descend into a State of Authoritarianism the likes of which this nation has never seen.

I’ve been overwhelmingly disgusted with the treasonous repugs for a long time, and felt sick to my soul with all of the hoopla that the repugs did, to destroy the Clintons when they were in office. At that time, Hillary was no angel, but Slick Willie was an intelligent guy, and so as a lifelong democrat, I considered him to be the best REPUBLICAN president we ever had. He seemed to have at least some notion of what was important to the average citizen, even though there was never a doubt in my mind that in his decision making, the CORPS DID hold the power. Hillary was even MORE into the corporate oligarchy, with far less of a humanitarian side to it.
STILL, I was pleased that she was elected to the Senate, because I’d already had a glimpse of what was in store for us, with Dick Cheney as the puppet master behind the wheel of the socio-path that is GWB. I thought that she and maybe a few others, could or would use that hard-core posture that she used in Travel-gate, and in putting together NAFTA, and in totally ignoring the hate mongering from that ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ back in the day, and surviving it, even though many of her victims didn’t.

So, I figured when the thugs highjacked our government, Hillary was the one person who would surely crush their balls, because she’s already proven she could do it.

She didn’t. Instead, she did the opposite; to advance her own ambitious agenda, and she’s been doing exactly that ever since.  So don’t blame the media for airing what she has actually said or done, because they didn’t speak FOR her (or put words in her mouth, or vote for her in the Senate), and many Americans are smarter than you might think we are. I for one, don’t even VIEW major media outlets. I’ve NEVER paid any attention to FOX, or ABC, or NBC, or CBS for anything other than my local weather. The intent is advertising, and in the past 15 or so years..media has declined..epecially the televised media.

After 9/11, even the more reliable sources that I HAD relied upon, like the NYT, the LA Times, the Boston Globe, and the Washington Post, had gone right down the crapper, because they had become State Sponsored Media..pushing only the Fascist agenda.

So, when I make my own assessment of a political candidate, it is based on what comes DIRECTLY OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS, and NOT how some pundit spins it. It is based directly on how THEY work, and the public record they create. (which is exactly how I knew that Dick Bush would be such a dangerous duo). I look FOR MYSELF, at what they DO, and what they SAY, in their respective positions within the Government. I watch them on the floors of Congress, and I read their votes, and any input they have to any bills or other legislation. The MEDIA cannot change that.

Hillary screwed herself, in terms of what things should be judged. I’m not saying that the media hasn’t influenced many others, who are not so discerning in their judgment. But at the end of the day, there are still enough of us who decide based on the real deal. If MORE Americans did that, (and were NOT influenced by the media), Hillary would have lost before she started. She’s a fraud. So don’t blame THAT on the media.  If anything, the media did her a favor, at least until real voices started to speak in voting booths and caucuses throughout the nation. A silent majority that was paying more attention than you thought.

YOU can just eat YOUR pancakes in peace john, and I’d really be delighted if you would. It’s like as soon as we seem to be delivered from one hate monger, another (like you) shows up.

Why so bitter, if your girl is doing so well?

You really shouldn’t talk about marketing to me, tdbach. I have a really, really, deep-seeded loathing of advertising, consumerism, marketing and people involved therin.

I know every candidate has their own way of presenting information, but I don’t listen to them so much as I read up on the facts behind the spin. Honestly, I rarely listen to Obama speak. Usually, I’m researching his voting record, and specific topics/ideas he expresses. Everything else is pretty meaningless to me, so I don’t appreciate having spin presented to me as fact or legitimate.

While I disagree completely with everything you say, I appreciate the fact that it seems to come from yourself and not just from a talking-point e-mail. That’s the only reason why I discuss things like this with you as fully as I have in this specific comment thread.

Thank you, but we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

Well, thank you for your empathy, but there was a legitimate reason our Democratic legislation voted for this bill (only one person voted against it). It was because they attached the stipulation that there had to be a verifiable paper audit trail for the general election. Something we have needed for years.

We got that, and I really have to say, while I still favor a re-vote, it is a pretty staunch compromise to lose control in a primary outcome in order to gain better voting in the Fall. Voters still came out in record numbers, and there was a formal victory ceremony on the day after the Florida primary.

The only people making a stink about our primary results, and this is 100% fact, are people Hillary Clinton has spoken to personally or are on her campaign supporter list. Period. The average Floridian is completely split, and thus indifferent to the issue.

“Where exactly are you setting the standard for electability?”

You think a black man or woman will be elected president? Not in this century, maybe not in the next.

Most of the old guard democrats in the South are now Republicans. Why? Because most of the NEW Democrats in the South are black.

Oh well, you probably think we went to war in Iraq for something other than control of her oil. Not much point to having a conversation with a person who refuses to let reality intrude.

Obama has made it through 40 primaries on a slogan and you’re going to vote for that?  It’s a mystery to me why he has aimed his campaign at 15 year olds since they can’t vote.

When you talk about spin, you’re treading into territory that I may be more knowledgeable about than you. How about that! Politics is a specialized form of marketing, and I’m in the business of marketing. “Spin” is a term peculiar to politics, but it’s the same process that’s employed in marketing, whether it’s toothpaste or microchips. Spin doesn’t ignore facts, it chooses them, carefully, and interprets them in a way that is most favorable to your product. It’s not unique to Fox or Karl Rove. EVERYBODY does it. Obama included. Hell, this site spins like a top - and I agree with most everything it stands for!

The fact that you don’t like Hillary as a candidate means you’re not going to be very sympathetic to her spin. You’re not going to buy which FACTS she decides to emphasize and interpret. You’ve got some of your own to “disprove” her. Sorry, chum. If the world were so black and white, fixed and determinative, there wouldn’t be any arguments. Everyone would agree.

The point is, people like the author don’t want her to make her case. They want her to shut the hell up. They make the specious argument that by suggesting that FL and MI voters are being disenfranchised in the name of a lousy declaration designed to scare state legislatures into following DNC rules (and not bad rules, either, but...) she is threatening party unity. Talk about spin! They say that by suggesting that caucuses measure the success of caucus-directed canvassing of party insiders and may not reflect how a candidate would fair in a general election, she is disenfranchising caucus states is still more spin. She’s making a case, based on a certain logic. You can argue the logic, but to say she’s trying to get around the primary process, change the rules, and torpedo the party to satisfy her personal lust for power is more than spin. It’s pure bullsh*t.

Of course she’s trying to influence our - well, really, superdelegates’ - decisions. That’s the nature of the game, for heaven’s sake. There’s nothing Fox News about it. And to suggest that anyone arguing that she’s not doing anything wrong is delusional, is, well, delusional.

I felt a twinge of empathy when I read the comment by Aegrus (May 23 at 7:07 am - Re: It’s simple)

It never occurred to me that the repub legislature in Florida may have been behind the push to move up the primary. But now that I think about it, it makes sense. Having lived many years [years ago] in an all red state, I can say with absolute certainty there is nothing repubs wont do to gain and maintain control over the voters. Not that they CARE about the voters ... they don’t. They care about the POWER, and keeping the voters out of the loop and off base helps them STAY in power.

This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, yet here I was ... surprised!

Problem is, in spite of the fact that blatant repub dishonesty, like the fixed grin on their faces is always on display, we STILL cant recognize it, even when it hits us in the gut! A lifetime of media pundits who are so used to dishonesty they re-spin it as a news story, and a life-time of brainwashing about right to life, suffering Israel, and the threat of gays has conditioned us to recognize as bad certain key words, and ignore the MUCH WORSE reasons those words are keyed on. So we fail to notice ... the most dedicated group of folks who hate peace, women [pregnant or otherwise] and all men who do not pretend to be just like them [phony to the core] serve only to disserve honest people.

Ergo - early primary.

But stupidity and duplicity and disservice do not belong exclusively to repubs. The dems demonstrated with this rule and a few others, they can set up folks to get knocked over just as good as the next guy. And this situation is a perfect example of the perfect stupidity. Geez Howard, how come you didn’t see it coming?

Maybe that’s the biggest difference between the two.
Repubs are always stupidly dishonest and dems are sometimes honestly stupid.

And as far as the caucus goes. I personally think that’s a dumb idea anyway, because it does shut a lot of people out. Like folks who have to vote absentee. But that too is an individual state party issue, and since me and a lot of other folks don’t like it, it remains for us to do something about it, in OUR states, before the next go-around.

All the same and anyhow, any candidate who now ... after knowing full-well what to expect as a result of the rules they accepted ... has got no business screaming foul.

No foul, because that was the game plan they signed onto!

Oh please troublesum, stop with all of the paranoia and the stupid female stuff.

I said all of the same stuff about GWB in HIS campaign...knowing full well at the time, what a complete asshole he was, because I’d already suffered under that same shit since I lived in Texas as the time.

When are you gonna get over the fact that integrity and all of the rest of that is not gender specific? When has ANYONE failed to recognize Hillary as ANOTHER ONE OF THE BOYS?

So why are you trying to claim this special status for her as a woman, when all she’s ever wanted to be besides president, is ONE OF THE BOYS?

She fits right in. She’s as low down and dirty a gutter fighter as any one of them. Nobody is trying to take that away from her!

She’s EQUAL. What more do you want for Christ’s sake?

Gee, it’s hard to give this up, even if my opnions are invalid, uninformed and futile. Sorry, it’s too much fun. Even the stupid like to learn. So I’m going to posit something, and you shoot it down with characteristic style, and therefrom I learn:

The declaration that Clinton, Obama, and every other candidate save Kucinich signed, pledging to strip all delegates from any state attempting to hold a primary before February 5 was designed as a deterent, no? A threat, that would have them rethink any plans to cut in line. Not unlike the Iraq War Resolution, for which Hillary has been pillaried ad nauseum. In the case of Iraq, it worked pretty well, except G.W. Bozo & Co. flipped congress the bird and went to war anyway, because, well, they wanted to. In the case of the DNC declaration, in Florida at least, it didn’t work because a Republican legislature flipped the DNC the bird and went ahead and held state primaries early. Do you think all tactical threats carry the weight of contractural law? Suppose our intelligence on Iraq was wrong in the other direction, and Saddam was actually far more advnaced in WMD technology than we ever knew, and to prove it, he set off a nuclear device to demonstrate his capabilties, and vowed to use one he had planted in a major US city if we attacked. He would have failed the test of the IWR; are we then obliged to attack?

I know this is really beside the point, but I’m struck by how ardently Obama supporters hold to that DNC resolution as LAW.

I find it quite remarkable that there are people posting on the internet who say of the presidential candidates that they know nothing about them. They refuse to do the research to find out anything. Just take the time to Google it up. Read their public statements. Read their legislative voting records. Examine biographical facts.

tdbach, it seems pretty silly to tell me Hillary is entitled to spin. Of course, she can and has spun evidence to her favor, but we shouldn’t base opinions on SPIN! We should base opinions on FACTS, and the FACT is Hillary’s spin regarding popular vote doesn’t add up to any valid numbers!

She counts her votes in Michigan, and gives Obama ZERO because he wasn’t on the ballot. She doesn’t count the votes from caucus states in her numbers either! Both of these FACTS disprove her SPIN, so I base my opinion on the facts I know to be true!

What is wrong with you? This isn’t a battle about free speech. Sure she has the right to say whatever the hell she wants, but it doesn’t mean we should make political decisions by her propaganda. How could you make that argument? Why are you and other Clinton supporters turning into Fox News surrogates? That’s what I want to know.

Accusing me of playing fast and loose with facts when you defend spin. That’s just beyond the realms of good taste, tdbach. I generally consider you to have a brain and a reason for your opinions, and this just has to be a hiccup of brain freeze because this is equivalent to defending ballot stuffing.

Also, I refrain from presuming what on earth Clinton is thinking right now. She’s carved her own path, and wherever she goes is her business. I’m just happy we’re all paying so much attention to the primary. Super delegates are paying attention too, and I’m also happy they come to the same conclusion I do when they see spin for spin and fact for fact. Obama has the lead in states won, popular vote, pledged delegates and super delegates. Barack also picked up five more super delegates today.

It is of great relief to me that no one in power considers any of your arguments to be applicable.

You’re the one playing fast and loose with the facts. Hillary has not refused to accept caucuses as legitimate votes. She’s trying to win the nomination. That’s what people who voted for her expect her to do. Toward that end, with pledged delegate counts working against her and superdelagates starting to drift to Obama, she’s trying to make the case that Superdelages need to take into consideration the popular vote, which if you include Florida and Michigan, may well tilt slightly in her favor, when deciding who has the best chance to win the general election. That’s the purpose of superdelegates - they’re supposed to have the political wisdom to pick a winner if the results of the primaries are at all ambivilant. Hey, you can argue this any number of ways - that the FL and MI primaries aren’t meaningful measures because voter knew going in that their votes wouldn’t count, or that caucus states might well have similarly favored Obama if they were to have held open primaries - but this is politics, this is a campaign, and she’s entitled to spin the facts any way she wants to make her case. Has it ever occured to anyone on this site, save a few lonely voices (sometimes even including yours), that Clinton actually believes she’s the better candidate and would make a better president, and that it’s not all about personal ambition run amuck, a power-grab frenzy any more that it’s those things for Obama. So I ask again, why not explore every avenue to win? If the party can’t tolerate that, then we’re in a bigger mess than anyone dares imagine.

You are speaking of Florida, I am speaking of Michigan.

The entitlement that Hillary feels is a different entitlement than that which was drilled into the average brain of George W. Bush by pampering parents, a propaganda-savvy Rove and a corporate media. But the fallacious thinking, the distortions, the deceptions, and the illogic that Hillary is using does rival the Bush-Rove ploys to push their agenda.

Both have one thing in common. The end justifies the means.

tbach, playing fast and loose with the facts again? There are already meetings being held, at this moment, to seat delegates from MI & FL, and don’t question my loyalty to Democracy. It’s your candidate who refuses to accept caucuses as legitimate votes.

Our votes weren’t silent. It was proclaimed, quite ecstatically, by Hillary and the mainstream media of her win in this state, but it was supposed to be just a superficial vote to show where the will of the Florida voters was for other, super delegates, to take into account. You clearly don’t comprehend the nature of the system at all.

I’ll reiterate, Florida is not going to win anything for Hillary, and it’s not your problem to deal with. Your emotional attachment to Hillary doesn’t mean there is any validity to asking my state officials to break all the rules so that Hillary can win her dog and pony show. Florida is NOT just political capital.

The only TV ads displayed in Florida by Barack Obama were part of a media block purchased for South Carolina and Georgia. It couldn’t be circumvented by Barack himself that those ads mistakenly played a few times in Northern Florida. Always with the loose interpretation of facts. Add some depth, tbach.

I’ll be damned if I say anything about Hillary dropping out. I’ve gone and said everything good about her that I can, and yet people like you want to disqualify me, and the majority will of Florida, to declare some false victory for democracy and pat yourselves on the back.

Oh, and you want to talk about re-votes? I was an ardent supporter of do-over primaries here in Florida, but more people didn’t want to do it again. I heard over, and over again how people thought it would be pointless because “everyone knew the rules.” And only when Hillary started coming down here this week, did I start hearing people blame Obama for the mess OUR STATE LEGISLATORS created. It isn’t Obama’s fault, and it isn’t our fault.

You refuse to recognize the pledge everyone signed, the rules made by the DNC in 2005 and the fact that Republican majority blocked our state democratic leadership into moving up the primary so we could get a paper trail in the general election.

You’re incredibly blind and irrelevant to this situation, and have no business making an opinion because it will be invalid, uninformed and futile.

Who decided to more the FL primary up, against DNC rules? How many people, all totalled were involved in that decision? Since you’re a native, who knows your state infinitely better than us snowbirds who flock down there to avoid winter’s wrath or to die under a palm tree, do you think these “deciders” were alligned behind one particular candidate? Which one? And if we heald primary tomorrow, would the vote be much different than it was in January? How so? Why?

Her’s wasn’t the only name on the ballot in FL. Obama’s and Edwards’s names were there too. But, hey, if you want to re-vote, go for it.