home

Recess and Morning Review: Reader Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:55:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

They will reconvene at 4:15 pm for extended debate.

Here's a thread to review this mornings events.

Update: Here's the link for BTD and my afternoon live-blog. It won't work until 4:15 pm. Back From Ohio will continuing blogging from the meeting room here.

< DRC Hearing Live Blog V: Michigan Portion Two | DNC Rules Meeting: On Scene Live-Blog >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Recess and Morning Review: Reader Thread | 295 comments (295 topical)
    Donna Brazille (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:59:27 PM EST
    Thinks she's a blogger.

    No.  I should be more specific.  A dailykos blogger.

    It's all about the "smackdown" "trashtalk" for her at this point.

    If I was a republican, I'd give thanks to any higher powers for Donna Brazille.

    Donna is a caricature of herself (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:00:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Accusing the Clinton campaign of cheating (5.00 / 4) (#212)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM EST
    or of having the intent to cheat, was absolutely over the top and completely inappropriate for a member of the DNC leadership.  She should be held accountable for that, and in fact, should resign her position.  She has clearly become too biased and emotional to be effective as a decision maker in the DNC.  

    Parent
    and yet (5.00 / 3) (#229)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:57:45 PM EST
    she is proclaimed "uncommitted."
    Baloney.

    Parent
    She's grandstanding and waiting for her (5.00 / 2) (#242)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:02:27 PM EST
    big moment to announce officially for Obama.

    Parent
    You're seeing how Obama-mania can change people (none / 0) (#198)
    by prittfumes on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:49:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Prima Donna (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:01:07 PM EST
    the gift that keeps on giving...to the RNC.

    If she's the mouthpiece of the DNC, I'm so outta there.

    Parent

    I may write Donna Brazile (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:10:07 PM EST
    and ask how I, too, can get a job where astounding failure is rewarded time and again.

    'Cuz where I work, it works a bit differently.

    Parent

    Performance Evaluation (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by Brookhaven on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:17:23 PM EST
    Has she ever received one?  Because she would have been demoted a long time ago.  This woman will be one of the reasons people will resist the call for party unity.  She's behaved with unbridled maliciousness towards HRC and her supporters and continues on today with that uncalled for outburst calling HRC and her reps an us cheaters.  And, the Obama supporters in the audience cheer her on like she's their Queen and speaking truth to power.  She's a divider, pure an simple and she will singlehandedly drive more people away from the party and party unity and if she doesn't stop this partisan, malicious nonsense, McCain will be the next POTUS.  

    Parent
    Well once, depending on (none / 0) (#194)
    by brodie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:47:54 PM EST
    whether you believe one particular insider source, Gore in 2000 effectively demoted her during his Spring Cleaning campaign shakeup.  

    She kept her Campaign Mgr title, something she's traded on ever since in getting plum easy-lifting punditry jobs on cable, but was no longer consulted daily by Al as she was given lighter duties like minority GOTV.

    She might have been fired like campaign director Coelho was, and felt that was about to happen at one point according to Shrum, but that would have been mighty bad PR for Gore and his relations with the AA community.  

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#255)
    by Brookhaven on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:05:44 PM EST
    When I watched "Recount" on Sunday on HBO, I also noticed that the person who wrote the screenplay had the actress playing Brazile say one innocuous line and then that was it.  I've wondered why since she was supposed to be the Campaign Manager why she had so little presence in "Recount".  Perhaps you answered my question.

    I've got another.

    Do you know if she had any say in Gore's decision not to recount all of Florida?  Or, to concede after that disgraceful Supremes decision?

    Shrum is another piece of uselessness who keeps getting the same deal as Brazile with cable appearances.   He was an utter disaster when it came to Kerry's campaign.  I don't know if people still hire him as a political consultant but jeebus, they have to have their heads in the sand if they do and if they do they deserve to lose for being so foolish to hire useless Shrum.

    Parent

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    the GOP has given many thanks for her already. Remember she was a campaign manager for Dukakis.

    Parent
    she's not the worst (none / 0) (#20)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:04:54 PM EST
    the dumbness of the gey suits is astounding.

    Parent
    grey... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    oops.

    Parent
    Hee (none / 0) (#112)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:27:40 PM EST
    It's a good thing you don't spell it "gray".  ;)

    Parent
    gey? (none / 0) (#102)
    by BethanyAnne on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:26:34 PM EST
    the gey suits?  what?

    Parent
    ahh (none / 0) (#106)
    by BethanyAnne on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:26:56 PM EST
    much better :-)

    Parent
    Donna Brazile played to the cameras (none / 0) (#140)
    by catfish on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:34:57 PM EST
    If I were for Obama, I would actually think what she did was a smart move saying "you can't change the rules in the middle of the game". It made a good video clip (atrocious for me since I'm for Hillary.) Then the MI governor, who is for Hillary, said "I couldn't agree more" but his statement will get cut out because it was not as dramatic.

    Parent
    Harold Ickes got a good camera moment (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by catfish on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:37:53 PM EST
    though, when he said "to take away delegates from Clinton to give to Obama" sets a bad precedent. "Why take just five delegates from Clinton, why not take ten, twenty." So that should make the highlights on the non-Obama networks, if any exist.

    Parent
    Donna Brazile just accused Hillary (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    and her voters of cheating.  Unfriggenbelievable.

    eeeeeeyep (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:01:54 PM EST
    UNITY NOW!

    Parent
    Chuck Todd on MSNBC just pronouced... (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    ...Donna Brazile to be the most influential committee member during deliberations. So that's that. So much for fairness.

    Parent
    You have to know Chuck Todd isn't (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:03:19 PM EST
    always correct.

    Parent
    Apparently (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:03:25 PM EST
    "unity" doesn't mean what Chuck thinks it means.

    Parent
    Perhaps that is because (5.00 / 10) (#43)
    by oldpro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:11:00 PM EST
    Donna is always willing to play the race card and guilt trip some (too many) whites into backing down, shutting up, not voting, not arguing...weak people just want it to be all over and not take responsibility for anything.

    Parent
    That is so true. Anyone who has (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:17:26 PM EST
    ever had to work with a committee has had that experience.

    Parent
    no sweat, it is after all obama central. (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:52:39 PM EST


    Parent
    He meant to say (none / 0) (#252)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:05:20 PM EST
    In the eyes of MSNBC pundits and moderators, Donna Brazilch is considered th most influential committee....

    Parent
    Up is down (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:03:12 PM EST
    in her world.

    Come on, Donna, you're just a laughingstock at this point. 600,000 people now cheated by voting?

    This is classic Rovian crap. Attack the opponent for your own actions.

    Parent

    That was despicable (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by kempis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:07:04 PM EST
    In the same breath that she accuses people who challenge her Red Queen Wonderland Roolz of being cheaters, she then goes on to declare that "we're all here for unity."

    Does she even know what "unity" means? Does it mean the right to spit in your face and then expect you to agree with me?

    HOW did this woman rise so high up in the Democratic party?

    Lord have mercy I'm so glad I changed my voter registration to Independent so that I don't feel like my wagon is tied to Brazile and these other Obama-supporters who seem to think they can slap us around and get us to "unify" with them.

    No frickin' thank you.

    Parent

    Gov Blanchard (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    was visibly upset by that and his response to her was spot on. The committee members near her did a nice head shake/eye roll.

    She makes people not want to be on her team.

    Parent

    She was pissed because the rules trump the roolz (none / 0) (#236)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:58:52 PM EST
    Fowler cited the Democratic Charter, the ultimate rule, that said the RBC can't apportion delegates. Slam dunk, Clinton position wins by the ultimate rule.

    Parent
    Donna Brazile brought up her "momma". (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:13:14 PM EST
    Would her "momma"  be proud of her bias, yet maintaining neutatlity?  That's not being forthright.  My "momma" wouldn't be proud of my  obfuscating the truth.  Oh, I call her my Mother.  Is there a reason Donna doesn't do the same?  
    Please no flaming.  There is a reason for her words.

    Parent
    Donna must not be able to remember (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:14:30 PM EST
    if she's on This Week, Meet the Press, or CNN when there are cameras in the room.

    Parent
    The point is (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:41:22 PM EST
    her choice of words and to what extent her words have influence.  In addition, as she tries to have influence, her bias is apparent, a fact her "non-disclosure of support" flies in the face of "her words".

    Parent
    asinine? (none / 0) (#178)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:43:46 PM EST
    We are Donkey's being led my these bickering fools.

    Parent
    With all due respect, (none / 0) (#230)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:57:48 PM EST
    what's asinine?  Pretending to be neutral, or calling one out on one's supposed neutrality (when having a microphone available to state an opinoin that flies in the face of neutrality)?  Worst, using vocabulary is very powerful.  I have no doubt Donna Brazile is aware of this; her power of the microphone and her use of vocabulary influences and belies her neutrality.  If she declared her support, a wholly differnet argument.

    Parent
    and where were you with all this (none / 0) (#218)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:54:05 PM EST
    self righteous bruahaha when hillary was being bashed? yeah, right i thought so.

    Parent
    Donna is running scared (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:29:48 PM EST
    A strong person confident about their position and the outcome wouldn't act in such an angry, fear-based way.

    And Blanchard's response -- smile and all -- was one of those "I've got her *&$% in a vice and she knows it" moments.

    This meeting has not gone the way Donna/Precious/Axelrove envisioned it would.  Otherwise there wouldn't be so much yelling, fist-pounding, HRC's cheating, etc from the Obama Camp.


    Parent

    Cheating? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by janedw420 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:34:20 PM EST
    Then why did NH get a waiver and not MI? insane.I was waiting for someone to point out that she "cheated"--

    Parent
    If Obama had just agreed (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:01:09 PM EST
    to the re-votes in MI AT LEAST, his representatives wouldn't be reduced to arguing this nonsense about non-voters and write-ins and such.

    This really makes him, and them, look very bad IMHO.

    The write-in issue is nonsense... (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by NotThatStupid on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:30:36 PM EST
    ... If they were so concerned about allowing write-in voting, why don't they do something about the caucuses where you can't even mail in a vote?

    Parent
    I know... (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:38:48 PM EST
    Every time they wail about the non-voters I think of all the voters who couldn't make the caucuses. Nobody who supports caucuses really cares about voter enfranchisement.

    Parent
    I have an aversion to any process (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:44:10 PM EST
    That makes it more difficult to vote.

    Parent
    Caucuses cut out a huge swath (none / 0) (#269)
    by splashy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    Of voters. The elderly, those caring for family members, those working, those that can't go out at night, those that just don't have the time. A recent study done by a DISABLED person shows that caucuses are discriminatory. Jeralyn posted about that recently.

    Only those with the time, energy and health can caucus.

    Primaries that last for a week, all day long, are MUCH more democratic. You can pick a day and time that works best for you.  

    Parent

    If it's the same as a Primary (none / 0) (#287)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:27:59 PM EST
    Then it's just semantics and the people proposing the solution SHOULD have just called it a Primary.

    What's the point in calling something that has ALL THE FEATURES of a primary and NONE OF THE FEATURES of a caucus a caucus.

    I bet there's a good reason why it's called a caucus.  Don't you?

    Parent

    Remember (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:02:54 PM EST
    He was supporting revotes and schedulin events in MI and then something happened.

    Wright made headlines.


    Parent

    I'm confused about Obama's support for re-votes. (none / 0) (#149)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    The last I remember, he didn't support re-votes because some of his supporters may have voted in the MI Repub nomination and that he wanted those people to be able to vote for him in the MI Dem nomination.  Do you have info to clarify?

    Parent
    Exactly. It's in violation of the law (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:51:23 PM EST
    to support voting twice -- and this from the U of C "prof" who teaches a course called Voting Rights Law.

    Remember that: Obama teaches voting rights law so knows exactly what he is doing to disenfranchise voters in caucus states, MI, FL, etc. -- no matter how much he protests his innocence, stays above the fray to blame it all on campaign managers, staff, etc.  He teaches how to cheat voters, he teaches how to undermine democracy.

    Parent

    A good thing to tell people (none / 0) (#173)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    If he thought he could win there, he'd have the revote.

    All I know is the Wright story broke while all this was going on, and an overall attitude change about the idea took place with respect to both states.


    Parent

    Jaw dropping seeing who runs this party. (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:02:49 PM EST
    Someon said this Primary system was a the result of careful study and scientific method.

    Pardon me sir, it's only produced a single winning candidate in 40 years. Additionally, Bill Clinton won inspite of the results in NH and Iowa.  If he'd had Jesse Jackson running we would have nominated Tsongas for heavens sakes. It's so profoundly screwed up as a system that it clearly need to be ditched.  It's producing failure on a consistent basis.

    I suggest replication the French Presidential System.  Open first stage followed (a month or two later) by a second ballot contested between the top two from the first stage.

    That would actually allow regional/specialist/insurgent  candidates to emerge, and it would cleanly end the process with a candidate that got a  50%+ mandate.

    My God (5.00 / 11) (#14)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:03:21 PM EST
    Did Donna Brazile's mother tell her that you must always play by the rules, UNLESS YOU ARE NEW HAMPSHIRE?

    May God strike me dead if I ever invoke my sainted mother's name in support of such an utterly disingenuous point.  For shame.

    Poor Donna (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    she thought her mother was talking about the ROOLZ.

    Parent
    Amen n/t (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kempis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:08:11 PM EST


    Parent
    I want to mash that Dona Brazille presentation ... (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    ... into a dance mix to play at the McCain inauguration.

    Ok, smarmy alert (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    For all those that think this is destructive, for democracy and the Democratic party I say bunk.  This shows the true nature of democracy and justice.  It's messy, takes a lot of work and a lot of diligence.  It just does not happen.  

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:18:01 PM EST
    This is a pretty wise comment.  Democracy is messy.  Tyranny is extremely simple and straightforward.

    Parent
    it's bloody (none / 0) (#161)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:40:09 PM EST
    and ends in a violnt thunderclap, and there are always violent revolts when you have a tyrant.
    I'd say that Tyranny is messier in reality.

    This RBC feels like a prospective tyranny to me. They suspeded the voting process--these fools suspended a vote.   They have not behaved democratically IMHO.

    Parent

    How can you argue that it isn't destructive (none / 0) (#31)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:07:50 PM EST
    to the Democratic party? We're on the verge of losing Michigan in the general election. That's pretty darn destructive to out awful party's hopes of presidential victory.

    Parent
    What is not destructive (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:10:38 PM EST
    Yes, it was a mistake.  But the process, the hearing, etc.  is a sign of democracy.  That is all I am saying.  I think it's good for people to watch how complex issues are, how things are not black and white, how things are not as simple as" rules are rules" idiocy.  This is the first time we have had a dialogue about this that was not a sound bite.  

    Parent
    The Process is Good (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by santarita on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:22:09 PM EST
    What we are seeing out in the open for a change is some of the ridiculous people who have risen to power.  

    Parent
    the system and personnel (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:27:17 PM EST
    are fully integrated as a whole package.
    This oganization is built for catastrophic failure.

    Indeed, Bill Clinton won inspite of and in opposition to the set up.  1992 was the only time the process worked. And I say it only "worked" if you are being very generous and ignore the nature of the Clinton victory in 1992.  He was a fluke.

    Parent

    Good point and maybe why (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by ap in avl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:50:54 PM EST
    so many of these clowns dislike the Clintons so much.

    The Clintons have been successful DESPITE the party leadership's attempts to rig the system (for failure I might add).

    Parent

    So true, and there is nothing in a democracy (none / 0) (#166)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    that says only one way of thinking, behaving, or believing is allowed.

    We have seen that not everyone who rises to a position of leadership is always fair, smart or a good leader.  

    Parent

    nah it's a press circus. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:08:43 PM EST
    The entire thing is laughable.

    Democracy is voting . This is an internal power struggle interpreted to us my Chris Matthews.

    Parent

    Perhaps democracy is also (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by oldpro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:15:41 PM EST
    about how the people you get to vote for are selected...and by whom?

    Parent
    This is a power struggle among (none / 0) (#131)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:32:38 PM EST
    the party movers and shakers.  It's rotten.


    Parent
    and recognizing the votes. (none / 0) (#226)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:56:55 PM EST


    Parent
    unbelievable (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by SarahinCA on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:05:01 PM EST
    The people calling in are atrocious and ill informed, it shocks me they are spending all day watching this.  The most reasonable caller so far has been a Republican who suggests a total re-vote for MI.

    The GOP (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:11:02 PM EST
    actually has a more reasonable and democratic process.   But they are also hitched to the press manipulation too.  Although their use of the Electoral College (winner take all) innoculates them to some extent.  It's partly why they beat us on such a consistent basis.  

    Parent
    yeah. I wish we had their winner take all system. (none / 0) (#259)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    Hillary would have won this already.

    Parent
    Hint for watch C-SPAN (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:06:12 PM EST
    ALWAYS mute the callers. ALWAYS.

    Parent
    if Donna is talking about (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST
    Clinton "cheating", things must not be going the way she thought they would in this meeting.  Why else would she allow her Inner Thug to peek out?

    Fear, frustration and anger will do that to you.

    good point (none / 0) (#35)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:09:33 PM EST
    when someone gets hysterical it is not a good sign.  I agree with Andgarden about the FL solution, but I actually now think they will seat MI based on the election results with half vote.  I think Levin could live with that and if they don't give him something he will appeal. They want this over.  I might be wrong, but seriously, how can you justify not giving both states the same penalty.  Most uncommits will go for Obama in MI anyway.

    Parent
    I'm not as sure as you (none / 0) (#48)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:12:21 PM EST
    about the Uncommitted vote going exclusively to Obama.  After this debacle and his efforts to ignore the State's voters as well as Wright and Pfleger and his Electoral Weakness ... there may be more than a few who feel that supporting the Candidate who is strong and supported the State is the strongest choice.

    And that ain't Barack.

    Parent

    Agreed, but ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by cymro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:24:42 PM EST
    ... nobody needs to talk about that possibility until after this process is complete.

    Parent
    The calls on C-Span (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:05:29 PM EST
    are just annoying as hell. They're still going on and on and on about The Rules The Rules The Rules and how HRC signed a pledge not to make them count.

    So should Obama's people ought to have argued even more strongly that the votes in both states shouldn't count because he pledged not to.

    One woman even said (seriously) that she was sure that the voters in MI and FL wouldn't ever EVER say "my votes didn't count in the primary so I won't vote in the General Election". Really? In what world?

    In what world? Obamaland! Have a unitypop! n/t (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by kempis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:09:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Are they shaped like ponies? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:11:16 PM EST


    Parent
    that one (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by SarahinCA on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:10:18 PM EST
    said this is why Clinton is untrustworthy as well.  I haven't watched TV coverage of this election since Super Tuesday, and now I know why.

    Parent
    Todd Spangler - Detroit Free Press (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    managed to get his call on air...he said that he was disgusted by the crowd booing in the background, and he said specifically the Clinton supporters.

    Anyone remember that happening?  I remember some from the Obama group, but not the Clinton. I could, however, have selective hearing on the subject.


    Parent

    There was booing (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:23:24 PM EST
    for both Wexler and Brazile. Much deservedly, I might add. You don't call 50% of the voting base of your party cheaters and expect to be lauded for it.

    There were boos on the other side as well.

    Parent

    No wonder I didn't notice (none / 0) (#182)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:44:02 PM EST
    I was probably hollaring at the same time :)

    Parent
    Brazile was booed. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:23:37 PM EST
    But they were polite to everyone else.

    Parent
    It was at some outrageous comment made by (none / 0) (#109)
    by santarita on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:27:28 PM EST
    Bonior, I think.  I thought that the Committee should have enforced a little more crowd control of the partisans.  

    Parent
    There was (none / 0) (#179)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:43:49 PM EST
    some booing, and also some cheering, when Wexler argued Obama was making an "extraordinary concession" by agreeing to seat Florida 50/50.

    Parent
    Ah, yes (none / 0) (#196)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:48:16 PM EST
    just saw that on the C-Span replays going on during the lunch break. That was the only time the gavel was used to restore order, correct?

    So, Todd Spangler's comment was intended to plant a belief for those Obama supporters who weren't watching. Can't wait to see what he's going to write in the Detroit Free Press on the subject.


    Parent

    I really (none / 0) (#56)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:13:57 PM EST
    liked the guy who called ....

    He doesn't trust Hillary's husband so he is not voting for her!!

    My head is spinning,my face is distorted.... but, hey, this is not sexist! SNARK!!

    Parent

    spouses (none / 0) (#243)
    by teachermom on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:03:21 PM EST
    So does that guy like Obama's wife???

    Parent
    Obama leads in "unfavorable" (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Josey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:06:09 PM EST
    Rasmussen - http://tinyurl.com/ysufen
    Wonder how that number will look (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    come Monday after Wexler's performance today.


    Parent
    Wow! There is no way ... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by cymro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    ... he can survive until August.

    Parent
    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:51:22 PM EST
    11% drop since his best polling numbers.

    It will just keep getting worse. I can't wait to see how any SD's justify supporting him by the end of August.


    Parent

    Well Tweety just invited viewers to join him... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:07:40 PM EST
    ..Timmeh, and KO on Tuesday night to celebrate Obama's nomination. Now they are calling it a huge Hollywood ending.

    They're not even (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:10:29 PM EST
    pretending anymore, are they?

    That's absolutely disgraceful.

    I hope their viewership plummets to zero - although I guess they could always count the non-viewers as viewers, if they follow Obama's logic!

    Parent

    That's it (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:12:57 PM EST
    if we don't tune in, we really ARE tuning in so they'll just count us in their demographics! The Phantom Audience! The Phantom Voters! Woo hoo!

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by akaEloise on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    That's right.  Those viewers would have been watching MSNBC, but they were under the impression that it would not count since it wasn;t sweeps week, so they watched the Food Network instead.  

    Parent
    Too bad they don't still have the test pattern. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:47:06 PM EST


    Parent
    If Hillary can count MI and FL popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:12:01 PM EST
    I think she could sway some more SDs, so MSNBC may be celebrating prematurely.  Also, this definitely means Obama has to hit a higher number of delegates to go over the top.

    Parent
    Isn't this celebration supposed to (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:15:07 PM EST
    be at the same location as the Rep Convention?

    I wonder if he'll have to dial it back again . . .

    Parent

    I was on the Obama (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:13:05 PM EST
    channel briefly.  I heard Andrea say IO and NH were excluded from being early because they were too white, too privledged.  I changed the channel.  sigh.

    Parent
    jumping the gun (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:16:26 PM EST
    is always a sign that one is afraid that the result one wants is suddenly in great danger of not panning out.  Ergo, blow up your own balloons, drop your own confetti and act as if what you wanted to happen is happening.

    Not reality-based and Clinton isn't going to play along by dropping out, but it gives great insight into how "confident" these ObamaBoyz (including Precious himself) really are.

    And the answer is "not very".

    Parent

    Just watch the polls over the next 3 months (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by cymro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:33:05 PM EST
    Obama is going to self-destruct once he cannot fill the news with anti-Clinton talking points. By the Convention the superdelegates will be flocking to Clinton to rescue the party.

    Parent
    and don't think (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    Clinton doesn't know this.  That's why she's doing what she's doing, why she refuses to quit and why she's working hard for every vote as well as touting her very real Electoral Strength.

    She knows Barack doesn't have what it takes to handle Life in the General Election and he'll be eviscerated by the Media once it's decided he "is" the Nominee.

    Stupid she ain't.

    Parent

    Ha! (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:35:06 PM EST
    I consider Obama to be a Monty Python parrot at this juncture. And I can't be the only one

    Is he pining for the fjords?  :)

    Parent

    Obama is Nervous (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by santarita on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:38:39 PM EST
    Why have Bonior and Brazile act like attack dogs otherwise.  Clearly they were risking "unity" doing that.  I was astounded at the cheap shots taken by both of them.  

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:53:13 PM EST
    that you are making a pretty important point when you say that today's meeting shows exactly what an Obama presidency would look like.

    Parent
    If someone tried to (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by suki on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    force me to watch that at gunpoint I would tell them to just pull the trigger.

    Parent
    Ditto. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:21:17 PM EST


    Parent
    So (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    there going to have a party of three? LOL. Do they realize that seating the delegations changes the number?

    What are they going to do in Nov? Have a collective cry fest or what?

    Parent

    Won't watch MSNBC ever again and (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:24:11 PM EST
    try to pretend no Clinton supporter does.


    Parent
    For some reason (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:27:21 PM EST
    making a cottage industry about hating Clinton has caused their ratings to go way up.  So not watching them isn't good enough, apparently.  

    Parent
    Matthews used to be a strong Clinton (none / 0) (#261)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:10:36 PM EST
    supporter....Bill, that is. When the Monica story finally got to the truth, Chris acted personally betrayed by it. He has never forgotten how deeply he hates Bill and he will do whatever it takes to make sure he never has a role in the WH again.

    Parent
    Excuse me (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:11:21 PM EST
    Rachel Maddow really is stupid. She acts as if there are no reportable vote results in Iowa, Nevada, WA and Maine. that is simply falase. They REFUSE to do it.

    My own view is that is because they are unfavorable for the claims of participation AND unfavorable for Obama's arguments.

     

    She's not stupid.... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:13:50 PM EST
    ...she just acts stupid in order to curry favor with her new overlords. I can't believe I used to really respect her.

    Parent
    Yes, she's actually (none / 0) (#72)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:17:07 PM EST
    quite a smart woman.

    She learned very quickly how to parrot the company line.

    I used to love her before she took sides and decided she needed to sell out to play with the Boyz at MSNOBAMA.

    Parent

    Me toooooooo (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by LoisInCo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:24:41 PM EST
    I actually still like Nora O'Donnel. I probably shouldn't but I do.

    Parent
    I think she's brilliant (none / 0) (#215)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:53:26 PM EST
    But she's a Matthews protege.  It's sad to see her ruined like that.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:15:01 PM EST
    5% turnout in IA wouldn't look so hot would it.

    Parent
    She's on the list of people I don't listen to (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:16:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Levin, Bonior and Brazile (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by santarita on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:16:08 PM EST
    Levin is a hero.  He recognized the flawed primary-caucus process on a national level.  The reasons that he gave for his position were consistent with democratic and Democratic principles.

    Bonior and Brazile couldn't have been more divisive if they tried.  Accusing Hillary of cheating and trying to influence Michigan voters not to vote is reprehensible.  

    The sad fact is that the Rules Committee screwed up in the first place and put all of the candidates into positions in which whatever they did was going to be questioned and questionable.  What a mess.

    And trying to count voters that didn't vote - how can they assume that some of the voters who didn't vote might not have voted for Hillary?  How the Democratic Party leaders decide these question may alienate people for a long time if they don't do it well and in a logical manner.

    agreed, I thought Levin (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:17:53 PM EST
    made an excellent argument for changing the system

    Parent
    Levin (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:26:54 PM EST
    is my favorite Senator, always has been.  I felt lucky to be represented by him growing up in MI.

    I don't agree with him on everything, obviously, but it's just so rare to be represented by any politician with that much intelligence and integrity.  I think the world of him.

    Parent

    He is a man of integrity (none / 0) (#222)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:55:20 PM EST
    his face appeared to be a shade of red when the committee member challenged his reasoning in saying that Obama should get any delegates from the people who voted for Clinton. There was another element to his argument that was challenged at the same time, but I'm not sure what it was right now, so I won't guess.

    Parent
    Obama's a wimp. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    If he had any cajones he would have said seat the delegates.  This is just another Alice Palmer.

    it woud be smart for him (none / 0) (#232)
    by OldCoastie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:58:15 PM EST
    to lead the parade to fully seat all the delegates, but it is not in his nature - I suspect it doesn't even occur to him.

    Parent
    Oh, it occurs to him. (none / 0) (#246)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    If he did so, hill might win.  This is just another Alice Palmer.

    Parent
    Yeah. He prefers to win by disqualifying (5.00 / 1) (#266)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:13:44 PM EST
    signatures or voters.

    Parent
    Yeah. He prefers to win by disqualifying (none / 0) (#275)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:18:56 PM EST
    his opponents signatures or voters.

    Parent
    Poll: who was more cringe-making Wexler or Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:18:45 PM EST
    Wexler's high decibel shoutfest about Unity Pony / No One's Done More Than Me

    Donna throwing her Mamma at the committee

    Phew.

    Wexler (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    He was child-like with his fist pounds and his disrespect towards Ickes were stomach-churning.

    Parent
    DB - for insulting my intelligence. (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by Fabian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:27:41 PM EST
    Repeatedly.

    And for dragging her Mamma into it.  You drag your Mommy and Daddy into arguments when you know you can't win them on your own.

    Parent

    I missed Wexler - i'll catch is later (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by ruffian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:35:26 PM EST
    so Brazile gets my vote.  When she slips into folksy she drives me insane.  Act like a professional woman if you want to be seen as one. That's what my mother taught me.

    Parent
    That Mama stuff was unbelievable (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:45:38 PM EST
    For awhile I thought she was going to stand up and belt out I'm Livin' in Shame.

    Parent
    Brazile (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by santarita on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:42:31 PM EST
    She and Bonior tie for taking cheap shots.

    Wexler gets an honorable mention for histrionics and failing to answer the questions.

    Parent

    Just watched the repeat of the Wexler time (5.00 / 2) (#268)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:14:45 PM EST
    in front of the committee on C-Span.

    Wexler was so incredibly disrespectful to everyone at the table who challenged his arguments that he really should be ashamed of his representation on behalf of the Obama campaign.

    Ickes really did leave the room after Wexler belittled him on his question. It wasn't what he said, it was how he said it and Ickes had a right to feel demeaned.

    It would be nice to believe the people with the most civil, logical and democratic arguments will come out of this victorious, but I'm not holding my breath.


    Parent

    She certaninly has an agenda. (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:20:05 PM EST
    She has not been forthright.  That is dispicable.

    If you dislike what you are seeing... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:20:31 PM EST
    ...by the Rules Committee, then you are going to have a chance to demonstrate that displeasure in November if Obama is nominated.

    If you don't show your disapproval of what has happened, then the DNC will assume you assent to what has happened. And the likelihood for a repeat of what has happened is greatly increased. A precedent has been set, in other words. A supposedly 'successful' precedent.

    As others have said here, if Obama is nominated -- in violation of the will of both the registered Democratic and the overall primary voters -- then not only will I be voting for McCain in November, I will be campaigning for him as well, in addition to refusing to subsidize the DNC any time in the near future.

    If we, the likely aggrieved, accede to what has been done to us during this contest, then we have no one to blame but ourselves when our rights are violated and our votes not counted.

    I will not vote McCain... (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:28:38 PM EST
    but I will not vote Obama either.

    It's HRC or down-ticket only for me.

    Parent

    I'm sure the (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by TomP on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    Republican coalition of big business and fundamentalist Christians will welcome you.

    in my view, neither Obama nor Clinton were so special that either's defeat, by whatever means, justified screwing working Americans by supporting the Republican pigs.

    This is what you get if you support McCain and his right wing pigs:

      http://www.docudharma.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=5857C7710BAB7639EFFFCEE3FC0224FA?diaryId=7004

    "How much is the life of a farm worker worth? Is it less than the life of any other human being?" (+)
    by: TomP
    Fri May 30, 2008 at 16:26:20 PDT
    [edit diary]

    ( - promoted by buhdydharma )

    snip

     

    I just spoke at the funeral of 17-year-old Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez. Maria was working in a grape vineyard outside Stockton during the 1st heat wave of this year. She became ill due to the heat as the farm labor contractor and grower she worked for, like many others, did not provide the protections required by law.

    The death of this young pregnant girl is hard to accept because it did not need to happen.

    This is not the first time farm workers have needlessly died from the heat.  Ten have died over the last four years.

    Arturo S. Rodriguez
    President, UFW

    snip


    The UFW is sponsoring a four-day pilgrimage in her memory that will begin this Sunday, June 1st from the Lodi church where Maria's final eulogy was held.

    Over the 4 days, peregrinos will walk approximately 50 miles to California's Sacramento capitol. They will then appeal to the Governor and lawmakers to protect farm workers in the fields and ensure nothing like this ever occurs again.

    This pilgrimage will cost at least $36,068 to cover the costs of buses and vans for farm workers, food, housing, and of course cool water for the hot sun. We're asking our internet supporters to contribute 15% of the cost which is $5,410.

    Please help. Maria had only one life and now it is gone.

    This peregrination and the good that can come of it for other farm workers can help affirm that Maria's life was important and that she didn't die in vain.

    Is that the world you want to live in?  (By the way, I believe the UFW endorsed Senator Clinton, but I have no doubt they will fully support the Democratic nominee, whether it is Clinton or Obama.)

    Finally, you demean Senator Hillary Clinton's lifetime of fighting for justice as a Democrat if you support John McCain in her name.

    Not in the Name of Hillary Clinton.

    If she is not nominated, she will support Obama:

    "No matter what happens, I will work as hard as I can to elect a Democratic president this fall," she said. "We will come together as a party, united by common values and common cause. And when we do, there will be no stopping us.  We won't just unite our party, we will unite our country."

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10509.html

    Parent

    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by riddlerandy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:40:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Please follow the rules (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:41:34 PM EST
    I know I sure hate that word now.... but just write a small portion and then link... help save bandwidth.  Thanks.

    Parent
    Sorry. (none / 0) (#181)
    by TomP on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:43:59 PM EST
    I was not aware of that rule here.  I will just link in the future.

    Parent
    Yeah good luck with that (5.00 / 3) (#217)
    by daria g on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:54:02 PM EST
    For those on the blogs who are now devoting their time to bullying, threatening, or guilting Clinton supporters into voting Obama.. Please consider that a better course of action is to LISTEN to our concerns, think about how we might feel about how this process has played, and respond accordingly?  That's a start.

    you demean Senator Hillary Clinton's lifetime of fighting for justice as a Democrat

    I'm going to be blunt.. what kind of fool are you to think this finger-wagging will change anyone's mind?

    Parent

    Strategery: Insult voters into submission (5.00 / 1) (#278)
    by catfish on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:21:18 PM EST
    and they will vote for us!

    Parent
    Sorry, Tom. You should know better (5.00 / 1) (#254)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    ...than to try sophistry with me. You know me better than that.

    I am not in the business of rewarding those who bash myself and my candidates, and who do so in the most destructive, cynical ways possible.

    I received a YouTube comment last night on one of my videos that was the most disgusting, hate-filled thing you can imagine. I have reproduced the comment  at other locations, and I won't do so here.

    What I wrote stands, and I will defend it through November.

    If the kind of campaign Obama has run is rewarded, we all -- as Dems -- lose. My concern for the long-term health of the party supersedes 4-year cycles.

    I hope that you will one day understand that. If you don't, or choose not to, that is your right and I will accept it.

    But don't dream of lecturing me. I am far beyond such affairs.

    Parent

    this is what the DNC will get (5.00 / 2) (#258)
    by miguelito on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    for railroading the nom to Obama.  It is 100% their fault that McCain wins if they put up the inferior candidate.  Alienating Clinton voters is not the fault of Clinton voters.  Many of us are not "coming around"  in November.  I lived through 8 years of Bush/Cheney, I can live just fine through 4 years of  McCain with a Dem congress on top of that.  I will never vote for Obama.  

    Parent
    At this point, I don't even think they (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:42:25 PM EST
    have the capacity to notice a causal link. They are so disconnected from reality that they will just say "Aw shucks. The Repubs won again. Oh well. Try again in 4 years." They are stuck in their little world and can't hear outside. They don't seem interested in email, polls or people trying to get through to them.

    Parent
    If you hold your breath (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by riddlerandy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:27:36 PM EST
    while you vote for McCain, you will really make your point to Obama.

    Rush will be proud of you.

    BTW, please comply with Jeralyn's request to remove your obnoxious ad from your posts.

    Parent

    A false either / or: I'm writing in Uncommitted (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:39:34 PM EST
    So Obama can collect half of McCain's votes.

    Parent
    HA! Clever Ellie. (5.00 / 1) (#288)
    by leis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:28:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#203)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:50:29 PM EST
    Didn't see Jeralyn's request.

    The 'ad' is not obnoxious, but if she wants me to remove it I shall.

    Parent

    Also, have a care my friend (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:00:09 PM EST
    What Jeralyn -- the proprietor of this blog -- and what you can say to me are not identical. If you try to take swipes at me, I can and will respond to them.

    Parent
    Jeralyn said (5.00 / 1) (#250)
    by DFLer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:05:15 PM EST
    it was distracting

    Parent
    Why not (none / 0) (#276)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:19:13 PM EST
    just have a write in campaign to the DNC about the disgust in the process and Dean & Donna.

    Getting the DNC to change the way they are doing this is important to the Dem Party's future.

    There is more than one way to show your disapproval... I prefer not to go Repub.

    We would not have to wait until NOV election to put the heat on the DNC!!

    I've already told then I will not send an money until MI & FL are seated.

    Parent

    my two cents... (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by hilldemgoneindie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:22:39 PM EST
    the concern about voters' intentions, the fact that some may have crossed over to mess with the republican primary by voting for the weakest repub, or who wrote in names not realizing they wouldn't count, those who voted uncommitted even though they wanted to vote for an actual person, and those who supposedly voted for hillary as their second or third choice AND even the concern about the candidates who took their names off the ballots for some unknown, yet malleable reasons...

    i say too bad, so sad.

    as voters, we have a responsibility when we vote - to be informed and to not try to game the system. if we forgot to register... too bad. didn't know who was on the ballot or anything about them? too bad. wanted to play dirty and mess with the other sides' election but now you want your vote to count - TWICE? too bad. didn't know the rules about voting in your state and wrote someone in? too bad. is that harsh? no. americans are, in general, lazy and uninformed when it comes to voting. we have dismal turnouts (even 50% to me is pathetic in a country that goes to war in other countries to give people the right to vote), and most people on the street don't have a clue about for or whom they're voting other than sound bytes they get on network or the blather they get from the cable "news."

    to try and interpret AND move peoples' votes around is tantamount to, well... treason. i know, extreme as all hell, but that's how i feel about it. when i cast my vote, dammit, you are not allowed to give it to another candidate FOR WHATEVER REASON.

    i watched every minute of the meeting this morning (aside from those that blanked on me) and i've never been more satisfied with my decision to leave the democratic party. even if they seat 100% for both states what i witnessed was disgusting. the audacity of the obama camp is astounding.

    ok... maybe that was more like a dollar's worth but, anywho...

    John Roberts on CNN's magic map, (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:28:14 PM EST
    shows how Obama beats Clinton in the primary, BUT Obama can't beat McCain because of the places where Obama lost to Hillary. When the maps for Kerry-Bush 04 compare with the maps of Clinton -Obama 08 they are exactly the same. PA, OH, MI, FL, WV, KY, AR, etc. Clinton as John Roberts stated "Eats McCain's Lunch." If Obama is the nominee I will put up $100.00 that McCain wins. Obama is weak with white voters, women, seniors, blue collar, and RURAL VOTERS

    if John Roberts (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:33:41 PM EST
    and CNN's Magic Map are both being allowed to broadcast Clinton's Electoral Strength, then something's changed with the Higher Ups when it comes to the inevitability of Obama's Nomination.

    To go from "it's over for Hillary" to "she beats McCain in the General and Obama loses to him" ... yeah, something's changed behind the scenes.

    Parent

    I don't think so. It's just the media being (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:41:54 PM EST
    honest about Obama's chances after it's pretty much too late to do anything about it.

    Parent
    100% correct (none / 0) (#193)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:47:08 PM EST
    Now that the fix is in, we better start having some integrity in our reporting or we'll be humiliated as a supposed news source.

    You got it, tiger.

    :)

    Parent

    I was wondering about that too (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    as I had my own lunch.

    CNN has never made Clinton's case quite so clearly before, nor have they been allowed to.

    Something has clearly changed.

    Parent

    something's different (4.50 / 2) (#205)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:50:36 PM EST
    because those 3 or 4 people who watch CNN will be shocked that Hillary HAS a chance to beat McCain after hearing the 3 month long drumbeat of "she doesn't have a chance, she doesn't have a chance, she doesn't have a chance, Obama's the Nominee, she doesn't have a chance".

    If CNN is doing this, chances are some SDs are nervous about Obama and planning to switch or formally commit.  Or something.  I don't know.

    But something's changed behind-the-scenes we may never see or know about ... until the book/movie comes out.

    Parent

    What's different is the timing (none / 0) (#279)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:21:46 PM EST
    they can no longer impact the outcome of the majority pledged delegates going her way.

    They now get to show journalistic integrity and have it on record that they said she was the strongest candidate when the biased media topic takes over in the near future.

    They believe the SDs will not overturn what they have spent months defining as the metric for deciding the "will of the people" and when McCain wins in the fall, their hands are clean.

    Parent

    That's the point in a nut shell. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by vicsan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:36:43 PM EST
    BO cannot win in November and the SDs would be INSANE to nominate him.

    Parent
    Well that is new (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:38:07 PM EST
    I kept writing them telling them to stop giving FL etc to make it look like Obama could win those states.  Nice that they do this when they are convinced Obama has the nom isn't it.  cr@p.

    Parent
    Clinton's has a good chance to be nominee (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by zebedee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:28:19 PM EST
    Let's assume that counting FL and MI in pop vote she is ahead. And that MI is seated and Obama gets 55 (or 59) MI delegates due to being uncommitted. Next week Obama "wraps up" the nomination once enough SDs have come out. But if his margin is less than the 55 or 59 he got from Mi when he wasn't on the ballot, this make his nomination tainted (less actual votes and less ACTUAL voted delegates). Even though he becomes presumptive nominee she has this argument up her sleeve until Denver so if it looks like Obama is vulnerable in GE the SDs have a legitimate argument for a few (enough) to switch to Hillary.

    If I boycott the election does Obama get my vote? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:28:52 PM EST
    He's the antithesis of civil disobedience.

    He should be ashamed of cribbing from civil rights champions. I may have to actively campaign against him simply to keep the tradition of civil disobedience alive.

    Really, it's literally the last democratic principle in place after eight years of Clown Fascism we've had.

    Only if his name (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by ruffian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:33:17 PM EST
    is NOT on the ballot.

    That is the logic of the arguments he made today.  Unfrickinbelievable that this will likely be our nominee.

    Parent

    Okay, I'm stunned. Norah O'Donnell... (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:28:54 PM EST
    ...made a great case for Hillary Clinton deserving to be the VP. Tweety protested that to have her force herself on the ticket would be an affront to Obama, but Norah pointed out that that Hillary has earned the right! I was shocked. Norah is no Clinton lover.

    She did (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    I was as surprised at you. I literally said to my TV, good for Norah.

    Parent
    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    Interesting.

    Can't she just take it a little farther and say she deserves the nomination? :-)

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#130)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:32:02 PM EST
    Summary?

    Parent
    Norah was kind of making BTD's case... (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:34:27 PM EST
    ....how much support Hillary has, how much money she has raised. That she would be an asset to the ticket and has earned the right to be asked. Basically she was rejecting the whole notion that Obama deserves to have everything his way because it is such a very close contest. It was just refreshing to see an objective view. Most people on MSNBC think that Hillary = Huckabee, which is totally false.

    Parent
    Read my posts on the subject (none / 0) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:33:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Nice (none / 0) (#139)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:34:39 PM EST
    One thing you can say for Norah is that she's smarter than Kelly O'Donnell. (No relation, so far as I know).

    Parent
    I have a bit or a crush on Norah. (none / 0) (#169)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:42:08 PM EST
    Although she's one of Matthew's proteges.  

    Parent
    Maybe it's me today, but I turned on (none / 0) (#273)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:17:54 PM EST
    Tweety right after C-span started re-run on the hearing. As Pat Buchanan was making what he thought was Hillary's case, Tweety looked almost uncomfortable at disagreeing with him. As if in some way, he was not comfortable with pushing only Obama, all the time. It was momentary, I turned the station after that.

    Parent
    After one of the later debates (none / 0) (#284)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:24:49 PM EST
    Matthews said, "Obama doesn't say much when he talks, I hope people pay attention to this before it's too late". Olbermann wouldn't pick up on that comment, and it didn't lead to discussion.

    Parent
    Let me be clear about something (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:29:48 PM EST
    The Rules, if APPLIED properly, would seat the full Florida delegation as reflected in the votes and Michigan would have, at best, a 50% delegation, according to the January 15 primary.

    In terms of the unofficial popular vote count, I count all of the Florida vote as is, and the Michigan votes I count the votes for Hillary and the uncommitteds (or 75% of them) go for Obama.

    That looks fair to me. (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:35:43 PM EST
    That's what I would suggest personally.  Florida ought to be seated as is. A deal can be brokered in Michigan.

    Obama has already benefited from the suspension and removal of Michigan and Florida from the process.   He ought to be magnanimous after successfully playing his game.

    Parent

    That would be the most fair outcome (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by ruffian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:39:42 PM EST
    And would go along way in restoring my respect for the DNC.

    There would still be a long way to go however.  

    Parent

    Fairer would be (4.00 / 4) (#155)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:38:44 PM EST
    Hillary gets her total popular votes for fL and Obama gets his.

    All FL delegates seated per the vote, with full  or 1/2 vote each

    Hillary gets all her popular MI votes and 73 delegates.

    Obama gets 0 popular votes in MI and 55 delegates, which is generous since it gives him Edwards uncommitted as well as his own and and those of the truly uncommitted.

    He doesn't deserve any of the popular vote since he removed himself from the ballot and got 0 votes.

    Exit polls are ignored.

    Parent

    I think any seating of FL and MI (none / 0) (#171)
    by ruffian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:42:29 PM EST
    at all gives Hillary (and Obama) the right to count the popular vote in their arguments to the SDs, so I didn't look at it from that aspect.

    Actually, I think they can use that popular vote in their arguments  regardless of what happens today, but I agree that the media won't count it without some benediction from the DNC.

    Parent

    Agree... (none / 0) (#233)
    by Oje on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:58:28 PM EST
    You can't start talking about how many votes Obama "lost" in Michigan by his action to remove his name, without then questioning how many votes Obama gained by that action in the first four states, and then from the "momentum" in subsequent states. Imagine what the primary would look like if Hillary had won her Fl and Mi delegates in January, not June.

    It is a counterfactual sinkhole, and wholly disingenuous to suggest that the "lost" votes in the primary are Obama's. Obama gained throughout the DNC process, at virtually every turn (and now it seems here as well with a partial seating).

    Parent

    the wacky exit poll (none / 0) (#240)
    by OldCoastie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:02:01 PM EST
    argument was the silliest thing I've heard in awhile.... geez! how can that be a measure of anything at all?

    Parent
    That is fair (none / 0) (#129)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    and also RULES based.

    Parent
    Donna Brazile: Our Own General Douglas Haig. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:29:51 PM EST
    She's a monsterously stupid person who should not have been allowed near the levels of power.

    Supposing some outrageous (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:43:31 PM EST
    "compromise" is achieved, I propose a protest movement of people changing their registrations from Dem to Ind. I know this has already happened in many cases, but I say organize it.
    I completely (none / 0) (#290)
    by Jane in CA on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    support this proposal.

    Parent
    Well, I'm not ready to vote for McCain, (5.00 / 0) (#292)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:29:56 PM EST
    but I would like to hurt the Democratic Party. Surely there would be real world ramifications if the number of registered Democrats took a sharp drop.

    Parent
    If I were still a democrat I'd be first in line (none / 0) (#302)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    to change to independent.  Personally I'm perfectly comfortable voting for McCain over Obama but I can well imagine the problems others may have with that decision.  A sharp drop in registration, over a very short time, should get the DNC's attention.

    Parent
    what I wouldn't give (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:43:51 PM EST
    to be a fly on the wall right now listening in to all the desperate backroom wheeling-and-dealing going on.

    The Clinton spokespeople cleaned the Obama supporters clocks today and they know it.  Some might even say this was a disaster today for Obama's campaign.  I mean, really?  Counting Non-voters as well as taking delegates from a candidate who won them and giving them to a candidate who wasn't on the ballot?  Huh?

    I was thinking the same thing this morning. (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by vicsan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:54:28 PM EST
    If I could have one wish, it would be to be a fly until November! I would just LOVE to hear what the heck is going on behind closed doors.

    Parent
    I don't know. I'm afraid I'm too cynical. (none / 0) (#223)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:55:37 PM EST
    Committees can go off on weird tangents and can be swayed into ridiculous positions by outspoken people in the group like Brazille.  I was foreperson on a jury last year and it was truly amazing how 3/4 of the people had a completely distorted idea of the case.  Some didn't listen, others just had emotional responses with no basis in fact or logic.  Luckily, two other people on the jury had some grasp of the facts and details and, between us, we turned the others around. But it could just as easily have gone the other way.

    Besides, I think these people want to give it to Obama and will find some way to do that.

    Parent

    Ugh there goes Rachel Maddow again... (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    ...she is saying that the Clinton campaign is saying one thing when they speak in support of party unity, but everybody knows they are really saying...look over there at that pastor. Naturally she doesn't need to support that statement with anything other than her cynical disdain for the Clintons which is shared by her fellow panelists.

    thank you, Rachel! (none / 0) (#227)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:57:04 PM EST
    some people may hear her, wonder "what Pastor?  is there a new one?", go and Google it, discover Father Pfleger and go "ugh, last straw.  He isn't getting my vote"

    Parent
    So who were the good guys? (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:45:47 PM EST
    For me, Sen. Nelson, Tina Flournoy, Gov. Blanchard and most of all, Arthenia Joyner.  I found them all extremely articulate and spirited.  They talked about voters' rights, not just Teh Roolz.  Thanks to them, this meeting has been much more interesting than I thought it would be.

    TalkLeft was just mentioned on (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by vicsan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:48:05 PM EST
    Fox News. They were talking about the live bloggers and TL was mentioned. Just thought you'd like to know.:)

    thank you (none / 0) (#291)
    by DFLer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    for keeping tabs on Fox News.....that's a tough gig!


    Parent
    Keep up the good work Donna (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by Sunshine on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    Donna Brazille lost for Dukakis, she lost for Al Gore now lets hope she can do the same for Obama...
    She's still on CNN claiming to be undecided and she wants to call Clinton a cheater?

    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by JimWash08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    I made the same point in the earlier thread.

    At least people (I surely would) take her a little more seriously if she just came out (haha) and endorsed Obama. I mean, her arguments will be a little more legitimate then.

    She is a horrible representative for the DNC. Period.

    Parent

    MSNBC: Obama hasn't closed it down (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by catfish on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:50:00 PM EST
    yet. I can't believe it but Rachel Maddow, Matthews, Buchanan, Chuck Todd and O'Donnell all are agreeing the Obama's announcements that a rush of superdelegates were about to endorse him never came to fruition.

    and CNN discussed (5.00 / 2) (#241)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:02:17 PM EST
    Hillary's Electoral Strength against John McCain juxtaposing it against Obama LOSING against McCain electorally.

    Something's up with the Higher Ups.  Otherwise, why the change in "reporting"?  I thought "Hillary had no chance whatsoever" according to Them.

    Parent

    Maybe they read pissed off women (none / 0) (#282)
    by catfish on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:23:13 PM EST
    polls who are mad at the media and taking it out on Obama.

    That's my only guess.

    Parent

    That's probably why Obama's (5.00 / 3) (#262)
    by rjarnold on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:11:05 PM EST
    camp is playing hardball by asking for a 50-50 split in Michigan. I don't think they have enough superdelegates to win if Florida and Michigan are fully seated.

    Parent
    Yeah, but then Chuck said (none / 0) (#248)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:04:36 PM EST
    after today, he does think it will happen.  Because all the roadblocks will be gone.

    Parent
    Maybe it was just to fill air time (5.00 / 1) (#260)
    by catfish on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:10:27 PM EST
    but they do seem more respectful of her today than in the past.

    Parent
    I don't get this respecting ... (5.00 / 3) (#224)
    by Robot Porter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:56:18 PM EST
    the rights of people who didn't vote.

    They argue that people who voted should have their votes cut in half or more.

    But the voices of people who didn't vote should be considered?

    Madness.

    That logic is just embarrassing! (5.00 / 1) (#263)
    by Fabian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:11:26 PM EST
    People who voted, get their votes re-allocated because...????

    People who didn't vote at all, get to have their non-existent votes counted because...???

    I live in Ohio, of all places.  I lived through 2004 and S(P)oS Blackwell and all the weird and shady shenanigans that went down.  But this bovine excrement beats all that hands down!

    You count the votes that were cast.  You allocate delegates according to the candidates voted for, including Uncommitted.  You don't Creatively take votes from one candidate and give them to another.  You don't Creatively decide to count votes that were never cast.  What next - conducting seances to decide how to count votes from The Great Beyond?

    Parent

    Guess the Creative Class practices (5.00 / 0) (#300)
    by ap in avl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:42:20 PM EST
    Creative vote counting

    Parent
    Watching Donna Brazile.. (5.00 / 3) (#235)
    by JustJennifer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:58:38 PM EST
    I had a premonition that in 8 years we will be watching a movie like Recount about this election year and her comments will be featured prominently.  

    a good example of a bad example as it were! (none / 0) (#238)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:59:47 PM EST


    Parent
    is recount on youtube yet? ;-) (none / 0) (#251)
    by thereyougo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:05:15 PM EST


    Parent
    is recount on youtube yet? ;-) (none / 0) (#256)
    by thereyougo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:05:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Who will play Brazile and Dean? (none / 0) (#277)
    by catfish on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:19:32 PM EST
    Alfre Woodard could get silver highlights to play Brazile.

    Dean - some actor with a thick neck.

    Parent

    Alec Baldwin. (none / 0) (#293)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:31:08 PM EST


    Parent
    the good, the bad... (5.00 / 2) (#237)
    by Cal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:59:30 PM EST
    ...and the ugly.  Blanchard, Wexler, Brazile.

    Brazile needs therapy.

    Wexler surprised me (5.00 / 2) (#245)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:03:40 PM EST
    with his lack of decorum.  

    Parent
    It wasn't a blanket statement.... (5.00 / 1) (#267)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:14:34 PM EST
    ...poster was talking about Donna Brazile, and IMHO race baiting is exactly what she does. So in order to not be branded a racist by you we have to say that race baiting only gets done by white people? I'd like to know the answer to this, really I would.

    Why don't you specifically cite pursuasive proof (none / 0) (#274)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    of Donna Brazile's race-baiting and guilt tripping today -- or ever?

    You do that and I'll take you seriously enough to answer your question.

    Parent

    Well since you consider the two things related... (none / 0) (#283)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:24:47 PM EST
    ....I obviously can't force you to respond. By the way, can I ask you how many years and how many ways you have been an advocate for racial equality? Of course, I'm sure that question is similarly out of bounds.

    Parent
    In other words you have no evidence (none / 0) (#295)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:32:07 PM EST
    and neither does anyone else here. Just some angry people, some of whom allow their racist tendencies to rise to the surface. How this helps Hillary is anyone's guess.

    Parent
    Don't you even realize the irony? (5.00 / 1) (#301)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:44:17 PM EST
    ...the only evidence that you have that we are racists is that you say so. Well if it works for you. Call me racist all you like. I give a rats patootie.

    Parent
    Again, accusations with no evidence (none / 0) (#306)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:52:27 PM EST
    Where have I called everyone here a racist? Please provide specific evidence.

    Parent
    Of the top of my head ... (none / 0) (#307)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:05:11 PM EST
    "This is racist nonsense you are spouting"
    Anytime a black person expresses an opinion that people like you don't agree with suddenly they are playing a race card.


    Accusing black people of race-baiting and guilt tripping because they have the temerity to express an opinion contrary to yours

    ...Just some angry people, some of whom allow their racist tendencies to rise to the surface.
    But these same race-baiting and guilt tripping charges have been leveled here against every black individual who has advocated for Obama, including Obama himself. Replace Brazile with any other black face and the poster would've said the same thing, imo.  

    People who are shocked that a black woman won't stay in her place. People who cannot disagree with what a black person says without spouting racist junk.

    All quotes from you calling people here racists just because you disagreed with a poster's view of DB.


    Parent

    And you would submit this in a court of (none / 0) (#310)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:22:17 PM EST
    law as "evidence" that I called everyone here racist? It would've been better for you if you didn't make my case for me.

    Parent
    Didn't know we were suddenly in a court of law (none / 0) (#314)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:30:43 PM EST
    cuz most of your bigoted babbling wouldn't even been allowed there. I see you are just playing games. Sad that you can't see your own prejudice. This thread is already overflowing. Time to wish you goodbye and good luck with that beam in your eye.

    Parent
    OK. An uncomfortable line to step up to: (none / 0) (#308)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:10:24 PM EST
    When was the last time you heard Barack refer to his mother as his "momma"?  IMO, that was a word chosen by Brazile specifically for demographic effect.

    Parent
    Very weak, my friend. (none / 0) (#312)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:25:15 PM EST
    To cite her saying "momma" as evidence that she is race-baiting and guilt tripping. In other words, you have no evidence.

    Parent
    Once agiain, (none / 0) (#316)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:34:44 PM EST
    Please cite the time(s) Barack referred to his mother as "momma".  I think Brazile's choice of words is specific.  If not, why hasn't Barack use similar?

    Parent
    Is this a joke? (none / 0) (#317)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:08:03 PM EST
    All black people must use the same name for mother? Am I supposed to take you seriously or are you just clowning?

    Parent
    I think you're clowning, (none / 0) (#319)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:16:17 PM EST
    and wasting bandwidth.

    Parent
    Why do you suppose that (5.00 / 2) (#281)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:23:04 PM EST
    Donna Brazile is some symbol for ALL black people? Donna Brazile is Donna Brazile. You've first stereotyped the poster you responded to by refering to "you people" and then you have decided that the poster's personal criticism of Donna Brazile is somehow a criticism of all black people, thus stereotyping all black people as well. Donna Brazile is not immune from criticism just because she is black, nor is criticism directed solely at her equal to criticism of all black people, or frankly any balck person other than DB. For you to try to insist otherwise is ludicrous and the worst kind of perverted PC racism.

    I never said Brazile was the symbol of anything (none / 0) (#297)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:36:10 PM EST
    But these same race-baiting and guilt tripping charges have been leveled here against every black individual who has advocated for Obama, including Obama himself. Replace Brazile with any other black face and the poster would've said the same thing, imo.

    Parent
    You are so freaking full of it... (5.00 / 3) (#304)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:49:21 PM EST
    .....This blog has always been very specific and since I spend a lot of time here I can tell you that posters here repeatedly have NOT said that Obama's African American support is racist. First of all, Jeralyn and BTD set the tone. When there is race baiting here it is usually people like you how throw the race card around as a way to shut down dialogue. Well, I'm not backing down from this. If you want to call me a racist I suggest that you say it in the presence of my 6'4 black husband and son. (And my 5'2 black daughter as well, and frankly she is the one I would worry about if I were you.)

    Do you realize how far back you are setting race relations with this vile rhetoric and it is people like MY famiy that will suffer for it not creative class Obama supporters who can go back to their all-white enclaves. I'm freaking sick of it.

    Parent

    And how many racist postings has Jeralyn (none / 0) (#313)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:30:21 PM EST
    deleted here over the months? She can't possibly catch them all but he has deleted many. The site admin has never deleting any of my posts for race-baiting. Not one post. So you are dead wrong.

    Save your outrage.

    Parent

    So then I'm sure you can cite examples (none / 0) (#305)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:50:47 PM EST
    of the multiple times "oldpro" has leveled charges against blacks, and only blacks, that have supported Obama. Because if you can't then you are just as guilty of the very same bigotry of which you are accusing others here.

    Parent
    Thank you, Tree. (none / 0) (#320)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:10:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Donna Brazile did not accuse voters of cheating (1.00 / 3) (#175)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:43:15 PM EST
    She leveled that accusation exclusively at the Clinton campaign. You know, that is a major distinction. She said attempting to change the rules in the middle or end of the game is tantamount to cheating. She is absolutely correct in her assessment. Who wants to argue that she is incorrect?

    Well my dear, by extension she has called... (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:45:39 PM EST
    ...those of us who agree with the Clinton position cheaters too. But you can dance on the head of that pin if it works for you.

    Parent
    I will (5.00 / 2) (#234)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:58:35 PM EST
    Obama dropping his name from the ballot was trying to change the game and in effect, cheating, now that he wants votes back.

    THAT is changing the rules mid-game.

    Parent

    I think it's guaranteed (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:58:50 PM EST
    that Florida will be seated, probably at half strength. Given the Obama camp's inconsistency on Super Delegate strength, I think all Florida Super Delegates will be seated at full strengh, and probably all Michigan super delegates as well.

    As things stand, I do not believe that Michigan will be seated at all, though some compromise might be reached.

    Does this change the (none / 0) (#104)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:26:51 PM EST
    "magic number" re: delegates needed?

    Parent
    Yes, but I'd have to check to see by how much (none / 0) (#125)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:30:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Did anyone see Blanchard's response to Brazile? (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpa1 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:01:06 PM EST
    CSPAN was breaking up and of course CNN protected Brazile but not showing the response

    He Smiled at Her (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:04:23 PM EST
    And told her firmly that Hillary Clinton played by the rules -- she didn't cheat -- she didn't campaign --

    That's what I remember.

    Frankly he was WAY TOO NICE ABOUT IT.

    And how convenient that CNN cut off before he could give his answer.

    Parent

    I thought Blanchard was brilliant--and grownup. (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by kempis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:09:59 PM EST


    Parent
    He said (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:21:04 PM EST
    she did not speak to what kind of process they used, nor to the schedule. She played exactly by the rules.

    He was visibly upset by Donna Brazilch's comments and it showed in the color of his face and the restraint he used in his voice. His answer was 180 degrees different from her comment, and the rest of the committee had to notice.

    Parent

    I would like to see a way (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:04:00 PM EST
    to really punish New Hampshire and Iowa.

    I can see no better punishment (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:07:23 PM EST
    than a national primary day in 2012.

    That would puncture their self-importance quite nicely, without affecting the voters. :-)

    Parent

    There is one way (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:09:48 PM EST
    But it's unacceptable to most people.

    It's stay home in November.  Now hear me out, the one way all this will surely get changed is if it keeps churning out losers.  If it churns out a winner, no one will have the real incentive to punish anyone for any of this.

    I'm just saying there is a way.  What it means is balancing the ugliness of a McCain presidency with rewarding the current system.

    And if one looks at that and says, "If it takes a McCain presidency to get people to question these things, then it's not THAT important, we'll have to find another way to get things changed."

    Fair enough.

    In the end, in order to defeat McCain we have to put ourselves through the ordeal of rewarding Donna Brazille and listening to her smug face say "I told you so."

    UNITY NOW!

    Parent

    If BO's the nominee (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:12:43 PM EST
    I'm staying home.  But now I have even more incentive to do so, since my nonvote apparently counts extra -- even more than those who do vote!

    Yippee!  Clinton will win the GE even if she's not on the ballot!

    /s

    Parent

    Well Valhalla it really is a conundrum... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    ...because the Obama campaign has laid the groundwork to count your nonvote as a vote for Obama. I think you would be safer to do a write-in. LOL.

    Parent
    No, no, no!! (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:26:51 PM EST
    Didn't you hear Bonior?  All your write-ins belong to Obama, too.

    Parent
    Well, until Obama looks like Hillary or (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:38:44 PM EST
    my Dalmatian, I reserve the right to challenge that!  ;)

    Parent
    Hey, Don't (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:16:15 PM EST
    stay home.. at least vote for the down ticket Dems.

    Parent
    Actually, I misspoke (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:22:31 PM EST
    I haven't fully decided stay home vs downticket yet, I'm going to look at the downticket races and then make the decision.

    But I'll definitely be a nonvoter for Obama.

    As crap as that argument is, I can't believe 1) no one called them on it; and 2) no one pointed out that the nonvotes are just as likely to be for Clinton as Obama.  

    But thought Joyner and Blanchard kicked some serious butt.  If I were on the Obama side, I would have asked Alice G to please be quiet, she wasn't helping anyone.

    Parent

    not if (5.00 / 1) (#265)
    by miguelito on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    they support Obama

    Parent
    The decision is not easy (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:14:32 PM EST
    But it is also more difficult than people would like, and it's made so more and more every day.

    Parent
    Disagree strongly. (none / 0) (#84)
    by lobary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    This point of view is extremely short-sighted imho. I hope you'll change your mind before November.

    I vastly prefer Clinton at this point because I don't think Obama will be half the leader his acolytes are certain of, but even if he's the nominee there's no way I'm staying home on election day when the Supreme Court hangs in the balance.

    Parent

    Please do not characterize (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:27:39 PM EST
    my statement as short-sighted, or implicitly question my loyalty to principles.  You have no idea what has gone into my decision or on what grounds I made it.  

    If you are really afraid of what SCOTUS might do under McCain, then you'll be working your butt off to get Clinton the nomination, as she is far more likely to be able to win against McCain in the fall.

    (hmm, see how offputting and unpersuasive it is when you start an argument by challenging someone's loyalty to their principles?)

    Parent

    It is short-sighted. (none / 0) (#143)
    by lobary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:35:35 PM EST
    The Supreme Court is every bit as important as the White House. I am in complete agreement with you that Clinton is more electable against McCain, but the electability argument is moot if Obama wins the nomination.

    If that happens, and it's almost a foregone conclusion that it will, you're ceding the Supreme Court to the Republicans because our preferred candidate wasn't nominated.

    That's short-sighted.

    Parent

    If you vote Dem downticket and (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:42:53 PM EST
    give them 60 votes in an argument with the Rethugs, they can stand up to McCain (if they will, always a big question).   This argument was good when Kerry was running in 2004 but it is hollow now. The Supremes already have a 5 to 4 reliable conservative vote.  Besides, I don't think you can count on Obama to give you a reasonable Supreme Court nominee. He thought Roberts was just fine and would have voted for him if his political advisors didn't tell him not to because it might interfere with his running for President as a Democrat. O thought it was wrong to question Roberts on his "ideology."  So dream on he's going to be any different when you marry him.


    Parent
    How (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by LoisInCo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:46:03 PM EST
    long will our vote be held hostage then? Every single election people say " You must vote for the Democratic Party, think of Roe V Wade!" So we vote. Next election we vote again. And again. How long are we expected to vote based on one issue?

    Parent
    being played by the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#271)
    by miguelito on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    in exactly the same way as the religious fundies get played by the right wing.  I opt out.

    Parent
    Roe v Wade (none / 0) (#294)
    by lobary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:31:55 PM EST
    I agree with this point because Roe v. Wade is a red herring. It's settled law.

    However, my concerns with the Supreme Court are not limited to the abortion issue.

    Parent

    The Supreme (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:48:43 PM EST
    court is gone IMO. That was THE issue for 2004. How many would McCain replace? One probably. He also might appoint a David Souter. You just really can't ever be sure of that kind of thing. Obama could pick an even worse choice than McCain.

    Parent
    More than the Supreme Court (none / 0) (#285)
    by lobary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:26:42 PM EST
    The Supreme Court gets a lot of attention from the electorate, but too few Americans understand how much power federal judges wield. This issue is greater than just the Supreme Court. How many cases make it to the Supreme Court as opposed to those that make it to, for example, the strongly conservative Fourth or Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeal?

    In fact, one can reasonably argue that a president's real power isn't in the Supreme Court appointments but the appointments to the federal bench (not to mention the power to effectively create law through executive orders).

    If you're not gonna vote for the Dem nominee just because our preferred candidate isn't the nominee, you're making a huge mistake. I hope you get over your justified anger at the Obama campaign and the lunatic rantings of his supporters. I'm very critical of Obama because I don't think he's a true fighter, but I'd rather see him make administrative rules and federal bench appointments than Republican John McCain.

    Parent

    Your (5.00 / 0) (#298)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    argument just makes me madder. When are you guys going to realize that IT'S NOT ABOUT HILLARY. Obama supporters have to realize that we have a problem with Obama. He's too wimpy. Even yesterday he couldn't stand up and say what Pfleger said was wrong. All he gave was the "I'm disapointed" whine. Lots of people have a problem with the fact that he's unqualified. Lots of people have a problem with the fact that he is condescending. Lots of people have a huge problem with the race baiting. Lots of people have a problem. I don't happen to think he would be a good president.

    Parent
    You guys? (none / 0) (#303)
    by lobary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    If you think I'm an Obama supporter, you're wrong.

    I'm for Clinton, and I'm a lifelong Democrat.

    I will not vote for McCain, nor will I stay home and allow the Rs to continue to write insane executive orders and appoint judges like Priscilla Owen to the federal bench.

    Parent

    Short-sighted? Then work for the ERA (5.00 / 2) (#249)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:05:02 PM EST
    and we won't need Roe v. Wade, which has been eroded away, anyway, thanks to gutless Dems.  

    After all, Dems put up candidates for Congress who are pro-life.  So the SCOTUS argument to women stopped working then, even before Dem leaders put a candidate for president who votes "present" on choice issues, who voted against filibustering Alito, and who almost voted for Roberts until staff stopped him and convinced him, but purely as a politically calculating move.

    The SCOTUS blackmail doesn't work anymore.  See why?

    Parent

    honestly (5.00 / 2) (#272)
    by miguelito on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:17:50 PM EST
    I don't even trust Obama to make these decisions.  McCain or Obama?  Opposite sides of a dangerous coin.

    Parent
    Yes! We need the ERA (5.00 / 1) (#280)
    by splashy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:22:53 PM EST
    That would solve a whole BUNCH of problems.

    I'm all for it.

    Parent

    As I said, you have no idea why I'm a (5.00 / 1) (#289)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    nonvoter re: Obama.

    I strongly believe that the challenges facing this country right now, the war and the economy are huge.  They would be challenging to the best president ever.  The next candidate, whoever that is, stands a good chance at being a single-termer a la Jimmy Carter.  Twelve years of Republicans followed.

    A bad Democratic president in the fall increases the Jimmy Carter factor significantly.  I would rather suffer 4 years of a bad Republican and get the WH back in 2012 than lose it to the Republicans again for 8/12/16/a million years with Obama.  In other words, that's the long term.

    I do admit, that the utterly pathetic behavior of the DNC in this no-lose year damages my argument somewhat, since it's hard to have faith that they would be able to capitalize on the next no-lose election year, given how they've failed this year.  But we'd have 4 years to replace them with competent people.

    The 'if you were a real Democrat/feminist/animal lover' etc argument does not work with me because the flipside is:  if you are a real fill-in-the-blank of your choice, you'd work your butt off for the one candidate who has a realistic chance of winning the WH and SCOTUS nominations in the fall, and giving 8 Democratic years down the road, at least.

    Parent

    And not just the SCt (none / 0) (#163)
    by lobary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:41:00 PM EST
    ...but the entire federal judiciary. This is critically important.

    Parent
    It's a tricky argument to make (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:21:50 PM EST
    It sounds disloyal.  And it is disloyal to some extent.   But it really is an epiphany to witness this mess.  This primary system appears to produce catastrophic failure for the Presidential contests. Yet these grey suits seem to think it's an optimal system.  

    I'm a military historian and it's becoming quite a trend in the field to study organizational management systems and assess their role in misfortune, warcrimes and catastrophic outcomes.

    If you look objectively at the primary system on a teleological basis you'll see something like British Generals in ww1 mismanaging lavish resources, manpower and the soldiers faithful loyalty to a cause. It's like Gallipoli being refought in the same manner by the same fools over a 40 year period.  It's embarrassing that they have failed to reform their management of picking a good leader in an efficient manner.

    This really is not democracy in action, quite obviously. Chris Matthews keeps saying it is democracy but all I see are internal power struggles and bickering.

    Will voters give these loopy people the keys to the WH?  


    Parent

    Democratic Party in Action... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by santarita on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:34:32 PM EST
    not democracy.  We need more Levins and less Bonior and Brazile.

    Parent
    I decided, after long deliberation, to vote (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:36:26 PM EST
    for McCain and vote Democratic downticket.  In spite of all McCain's flaws and his recent "I love Bush and the 100 Year War" insanity, I think he is at heart an honest man, demonstrably capable of compromise, who cares about the country.  I think if we have a veto proof Dem Congress we can tolerate four years of McCain. My God, we've tolerated 8 years of GW Bush!

    Obama, however, is bad news.  The more I read about the corruption in Chicago (just found out that Axelrod was a political advisor to Mayor Daley when the Feds started investigating the bribery and pay for play crap that goes on there and he was defending him. ) I also read Evelyn Pringle's investigative reports.  She claims that the Chicago mob put Obama up for President because Governor Blagojevich was too tainted by his association with Rezko. She also says that the Chicago crooks don't care about parties, it's all about money and that it spreads to the corruption and milking of the taxpayers by corrupt corporations getting $ in Iraq.  

    I know this sounds like tinfoil hat territory, but even if I didn't believe this and I now do --there are just too many questions, like where is Obama's money coming from, and how firmly does he hold any progressive views (see his impassioned defense of one-payer health insurance when he was running for the Senate, in which he uses the same words about "those DC politicians not having a clue," etc.  that he does when he now takes the opposite position on health care-- making sure that his program does not have "mandates,' which the insurance companies hate.

    i won't even go into the misogyny and the thuggish attitudes of his supporters which to me seem like the Hitler Youth. I cannot support anyone who arouses such hatred in his followers.

    I'm a lifelong Democrat and voted and worked for Dems in every election since 1964.  I'm not a racist. My boyfriend went to Mississippi to register voters in 1961 and i was a Jesse Jackson delegate for the state of New Mexico in 1988.

    But I won't vote for this fraud. He is too scary.  I believe we can send a message to the party that we do NOT want it taken over by corporate thugs and incompetents if we vote against Obama. It's too risky to me to vote for Cynthia McKinney or just not vote, as I would prefer to do.  I want Obama to lose.  He scares me and I cannot stand the thought of him as President.

    Parent

    this meeting has given the GOP many new ads (none / 0) (#60)
    by Josey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:14:42 PM EST
    about Dems and roolz.
    Replayin Wexler on CSPAN now. n/t (none / 0) (#160)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:39:44 PM EST


    Opportunistic (5.00 / 2) (#257)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    garbage-monger, that Wexler.

    So you fought for the right to vote so you could fight now for the right to not vote.

    Parent

    Oooo, thank you! (none / 0) (#191)
    by ruffian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:46:30 PM EST


    Parent
    What I want to know is (none / 0) (#186)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:44:39 PM EST
    If the write-in votes and non-voters are so important to them, can we count the NE primary, too?

    Because, well, that would be more fair.

    The people from caucus states (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by vicsan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:50:33 PM EST
    who had to work or take care of their children or had no ride and couldn't go to the caucuses should be counted too then. NO?

    Parent
    Open Trashtalk (OT) (none / 0) (#200)
    by JimWash08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:49:49 PM EST
    If anyone is tuned in to the feed of the meeting on CNN.com, you can hear a couple of people engaging in a random trashtalk on an open, live mic.

    You just proved oldpro's point. (none / 0) (#213)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:53:03 PM EST
    Are you snarking or trolling?

    who are (none / 0) (#216)
    by DFLer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:53:31 PM EST
    people like you
    ?

    People who are shocked that (none / 0) (#247)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:04:17 PM EST
    a black woman won't stay in her place. People who cannot disagree with what a black person says without spouting racist junk.

    Answer you question?

    Parent

    What "racist junk"? (none / 0) (#286)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    Is it your position that no one can accuse any black person of race baiting? Who said anything about DB not "staying in her place"? You are going off half-cocked, making bigoted assumptions about what other posters are thinking. Trust me, you are not a very good mind reader, so stop trying.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#299)
    by DFLer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:41:20 PM EST
    be specific as to who those people are...."people like you" indicates to me everyone on this board.

    Parent
    Perhaps you are refering to (none / 0) (#309)
    by DFLer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:19:44 PM EST
    Arthenia Joyner (a black woman won't stay in her place.)?

    Love her....

    Parent

    I'm watching Wexler for the first time (none / 0) (#225)
    by ruffian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:56:40 PM EST
    He opposes the full FL delegation being seated?  Heh.

    Yea (5.00 / 1) (#253)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:05:32 PM EST
    he just put his nose right up the butts of the RBC and kept campaigning for Obama all the way through. When he was called on it, he threw a tantrum and reminded us that 'no one has done more for counting the votes than MEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!' which was true in 2004. Pity that Kool-Aid has taken the mind and rational though processes of someone most of us used to respect as an advocate of the people into a hack. I'd like to think that part of the tantruming and table banging was because down deep Bob knows he done wrong.

    I seriously hope someone runs against him next time.

    Parent

    Wexler, to ones who don't know whose (none / 0) (#244)
    by thereyougo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:03:21 PM EST
    side he's on seems to support the same argument, the Fl Sen. A. Joyner, spoke of earlier, to seat everyone.

    He didn't do his candidate justice IMO.

    He pounds his hands on the table and says we want unity! eek I wonder what he sounds like when he's not jazzed up.

    I used to like R. Wexler.

    At least Donna (almost wrote Obama they do sound alike!)isn't saying racist and all the other garbage the rest of the blogs bloviate about 24/7.

    You have got to be kidding. (none / 0) (#311)
    by TomP on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:24:43 PM EST
    This is absurd:

    Obama wants to appease dictators and enemies of the US. Obama thinks better of terrorists than you of fellow Americans.

    Republicans are pigs.  Why so willing to talk up Buch and McCain's phony attacks?

    Senator Hillary Clinton:

    "President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy," Clinton said. "This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address."

    When a reporter reminded the New York senator that she too has criticized Sen. Obama for his statements on meeting with Iranian leaders, Clinton said, "I have differences with Sen. Obama on certain foreign policy matters, but I think we are united in our opposition to the Bush policies and to the continuation of those policies by Sen. McCain."

    Clinton continued, "I disagree that any president would ever meet with a leader of a country which we have such deep and profound differences as Iran, for example. However I believe there should be diplomatic engagement, which President Bush has resisted from the very beginning. So I think that I have more in common with Sen. Obama and the Democratic position in our understanding of what we have to do to re-engage with the world."

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/05/15/clinton-criticizes-bush-over-appeasement-remark/

    Do you support Clinton?  Or is it Bush-McCain, because Senator Clinton opposes your kind of thinking.

    Recess and Morning Review: Reader Thread | 295 comments (295 topical)