home

Things That Happened Today

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:30:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bump and Update: We are moving to the new server around 10:30 pm ET as opposed to 11:00. See you all in an hour or so.

****

Is the drama over? Yes and No.

To review the day, Big Tent Democrat, Back From Ohio and I started at 9:00 am ET getting live threads going to cover the day's big Democratic Rules Committee meeting. We finished at 6 pm.

There was lots of drama at the committee meeting, you can read our five or six live earlier threads on it.

There was also drama behind the scenes as our server went down and the site crashed repeatedly. All day. Sometimes for five minutes, once for almost an hour.

No one knows why. . [More...]

They don't know if it's the hardware (the server) or internal coding for the site. It usually happens on debate and primary nights and days like today when not only are there more visitors than normal, they stay on the site longer.

The average length of a site visit on TalkLeft has been over 6 minutes for some time. With 25,000 to 30, 000 unique visitors a day, and each one averaging 3 page views per visit, maybe that's too much to expect a server to bear.

But we added another server and the problems continued. Then we added 5 more gigs of memory to the server and the site still goes down. We're the only site on the server, it was new a year when we moved to it and it now has 6 gigabytes of memory

So, it's something else.

The site also tends to crash when comments top 200 on any given thread. Maybe it's too many people refreshing the page to see the new comments at the same time.

In any event, it's very frustrating.

It may be the server itself is bad. That's what we're going to check next.

Tonight at 11 pm ET, we're moving to a new server, again with 6 gigabytes of memory and we'll be the only site on it.

We'll be down for less than an hour while they do the move.

I hope this fixes the problem because between moderating offensive comments, dealing with site crashes and communicating with IT people who talk in a language I don't understand, this is more drama than I care to deal with on any given day.

Thanks to everyone who hung with us all day despite the glitches, and to those who contributed the past few days. (I did send out "thank you" emails to those who used paypal during one of the down periods today -- something I didn't do the past two times. Amazon will be next).

Okay, your turn. Any and all drama stories welcome.

And if your a tech person with any ideas what might be causing us to crash, I'd love to hear them. We're on Scoop, like Daily Kos and MyDD, not Wordpress or Movable Type.

And we'll be down around 11 pm ET for up to one hour.

< Alcee Hastings To Boycott Convention Due to FL Delegate Travesty | Obama's Popular Vote Lead . . .? >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Things That Happened Today | 163 comments (163 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I've got a new appreciation for TL... (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:16:58 PM EST
    When the server started crashing, I went over to Marci's place....

    it was all obots, all the time, and not one of them understood what a "rule" was, what the rules were, what the charter was....NOTHING.  Complete and utter ignorance, and Hillary hate.

    Marci used to have one of the smartest blogs around.  Marci herself is pretty smart -- but she's joined the cult.  She actually suggested that SIGH IN SHEETS from district conventions rather than vote totals be used to apportion delegates in Michigan.

    Then she had the nerve to tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about when I talked about "fair representation", and how the state was REQUIRED to assign delegate at district conventions based on the returns of the elections.

    I wasn't making it up -- i was relating what Brewer had said when Levin was challenged on the claim that the state delegate allocation process had begun based on the compromise proposal percentages.   Brewer had said it, and when he realized WHAT he'd said, he walked it back very quickly....

    a sad, sad, day in so many ways...

    Hmm, comment time trouble (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:28:44 PM EST
    And I got the rate-limit warning too.

    Parent
    What's that? (none / 0) (#65)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:13:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Comment rate limit (none / 0) (#106)
    by hillct on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:48:17 PM EST
    The comment rate limit exists not as a server capacity management consideration but as an anti-spam measure - in that spammers are likely to want to post many comments quickly, we limit comments to discourage spammers in that sense, but also to encourage legitimate users to post substantive comments where they've put some thought into the composition. This in contract to sites on which no such limit exists, where you can often find tons of comments consisting merely of "I Agree." or "no, you're wrong".

    I believe the limit as it's set now, contributes to the positive visitor experience on the site, although I'm sure if enough people fine the rate limit to be too low, Jeralyn could be persuaded to increase it.

    Parent

    Actually, it was on my first attempted comment (none / 0) (#115)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:56:25 PM EST
    after the site came back up. So it was obviously a glitch.

    I have run into the real thing before, but I usually try to make fewer short comments now, so that's not a real problem.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#130)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:12:44 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#133)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:14:16 PM EST
    (dkos allowed a lot more of these. . .)

    Parent
    Can you do me a favor. (none / 0) (#51)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:30:03 PM EST
    I've had some trouble finding the appropriate rules defining the DNC's delegate allocations.

    Ultimately, the DNC has to approve the delegate allocation rules provided by each state. But I don't know the rules that they are supposed to use to make that decision.

    Do you have a link for this?

    Parent

    link (none / 0) (#92)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:41:00 PM EST
    delegate selection rules

    the timing rules (rule 11) are on page 16 of the PDF file.  The penalty rules for disobedying the timing provision is  rule 20 C 1 a (Page 24 of the PDF)

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#105)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:48:07 PM EST
    Perfect.

    Parent
    Now I know why I didn't read that earlier (none / 0) (#120)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:58:11 PM EST
    I wish I hadn't read it.

    Parent
    yeah, its kinda weird isn't it... (none / 0) (#134)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:14:21 PM EST
    to actually read the rules, and then watch the rules committee pretend to be enforcing them...

    Parent
    I suspect (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:23:54 PM EST
    That a few states didn't actually meet some of the requirements.

    But the failsafe is this Rule 13 H:

    H. For the purpose of fairly reflecting the division of preferences, the non-binding advisory presidential preference portion of primaries shall not be considered a step in the delegate selection process and is considered detrimental. State parties must take steps to educate the public that a non-binding presidential preference event is meaningless, and state parties and presidential candidates should take all steps possible not to participate.
    1.      In a state that uses a caucus and/or convention to determine presidential preference of voters, the plan must provide for the timely reporting of the election results to the state party.

    This is terrible.

    Parent

    Grrr. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:25:22 PM EST
    This is such a vague and empty-headed rule.

    Parent
    Wait a tick (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:32:32 PM EST
    Somebody may have violated this rule.

    Parent
    Hmmm, would it be this part? (1.00 / 0) (#155)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:47:02 AM EST
    . . . .state parties and presidential candidates should take all steps possible not to participate.

    Do I see what you see?

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by phat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:46:04 AM EST
    That is what I see.

    Parent
    Ah glitches are a small price (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:34:36 PM EST
    to pay for the live blogging we got today. I especially liked the polls, very cool. Thanks so much for everything Jeralyn. Good luck with the changeover tonight.

    Could also be a hit? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:35:17 PM EST
    It seem to happen a lot to all pro-Hillary websites.
    Coincidence?  Perhaps....

    Maybe it's just that Hillary sites (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:36:32 PM EST
    are popular.

    Parent
    Yessss (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:41:35 PM EST
    I like that optimism better !!!!!

    Parent
    You make an interesting point (none / 0) (#124)
    by hillct on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:02:12 PM EST
    There's probably more to be said about this, but lets not. While that sort of thing does occur, it's difficult to develop compelling evidence of the true source (other than IP addresses) of such things so it would be irresponsible to make such accusations.

    What can be said definitively is the issues being resolved this evening were hardware related, not network related.

    Parent

    My sympathies Jeralyn.... (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:36:14 PM EST
    ...but we really do appreciate that you hang in there for us.

    It was a tough day staying on this (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:38:25 PM EST
    site today, but never gave up and glad to finally be back in. Thank you so much for all you've done to keep things moving and civil here, and thanks for help in understanding the complicated rules and regs. we've come to know and critique.

    I noticed (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:38:35 PM EST
    that the site was continually loading when the 'live blog' was in the thread. Other threads were normal. I'm not a geek, just wondering if it was a problem.

    I'd bet that's part of it (none / 0) (#36)
    by blogtopus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:26:35 PM EST
    I am a geek, and it seems the common denominator is the live blog. Having the server under constant loading for a large number of individual must really drain the resources.

    Parent
    It seems that comments (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:35:36 PM EST
    should be blocked on live blog threads.  A separate comment thread with the users having two windows open.  I really think the live blogging slows things down and crashes since you have to reload to check for new comments.

    Parent
    The trolls/troublemakers (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:16:00 PM EST
    were here in bigger numbers than normal and dominated threads with their meaningless arguments, though, too.


    Parent
    The one with J and BTD (none / 0) (#38)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:31:27 PM EST
    had so many comments it was bogged down.  Really can't go over 200.

    So I left and went on to Ohio's live blog.  No problems ....until the whole site went down.

    Parent

    coveritlive.com live bloging software (none / 0) (#127)
    by hillct on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:07:21 PM EST
    The live blog app is not hosted on talkleft.com although it is embedded on some pages. The result is that while it does constantly poll coveritlive.com for new entries, it doesn't have a direct impact on talkleft.com

    Parent
    Hey, you gave it an all-day effort (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:39:27 PM EST
    BTW, is the version of Scoop at the database software you're using 64 bit, if not, it's possible than anything beyond about 4 gigs of RAM in the server isn't going to make a difference.

    It's possible that with this kind of traffic you've just outgrown your software.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:42:47 PM EST
    If you can talk Markos into letting you use his modified version of Scoop, that might well solve your problems.

    Parent
    Prolly not. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Fabian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:52:13 PM EST
    Those bells and whistles probably add a ton of overhead to the site.

    Parent
    I suspect that the whole thing (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:58:05 PM EST
    is fairly light-weight. And my impression is that they streamlined, modified, and updated it to bear the weight of all the traffic.

    Parent
    DailyKos custom comment engine (none / 0) (#137)
    by hillct on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:20:22 PM EST
    Markos (through his tech staff) have offered to contribute their customized comment display code back to the Scoop project, but that has not yet happened, based presumably on time constraints, likely due in part to the the impact the election season has on dailykos.com

    The mechanism used over at DailyKos is a more efficient version of the dynamic comments display mechanism currently available on the Comment Preferences Page of this site. The DailyKos version is somewhat more efficient on the back end and was written specifically in response to the exact same long comment thread rendering speed issues we're seeing here, so when that does become available, it will be deployed here. Until then, the exiting dynamic comments mode is more efficient than the default nested view, as well as providing (in my opinion) a better reader experience so you may want to try it out. If you don't see the dynamic options in the comment display mode list, be sure you've enabled 'Dynamic Interface Elements' in Interface Preferences.

    Parent

    Thanks for the info (none / 0) (#146)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:31:19 PM EST
    I now have my comments set to nested, and I think the reason I did that was because, after threads passed ~200 comments, I was only able to see the subject lines in dynamic mode. I can see why that would be more efficient, but it makes it difficult to follow the conversation!

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#159)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:03:42 AM EST
    I learned a couple of things from your comment. The Dynamic Interface Preference was especially helpful.

    Parent
    Since Scoop runs with a My-SQL (none / 0) (#46)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:22:36 PM EST
    backend, it might be worthwhile to check the transaction log space there.  The live-blogging software may cause an undue increase in the number of transactions and, if the logs fill, hangs etc occur.

    Threading issues in Apache can also cause these kind of problems.  Generally there are logs for all these components and errors may show up there.  If you're running on Linux, there may be error messages in the syslogd message files.  FWIW.


    Parent

    System Administration (none / 0) (#145)
    by hillct on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:30:37 PM EST
    Thankfully, the live blog software is not hosted on the talkleft server, but that said, now that we've hopefully addressed our hardware issues, I can focus on some further database optimizations that should improve overall performance further. In particular, the query cache and join buffer requirements of the larger threads are rather extensive. There are plenty of further optimizations to be had, but it's better to start with known sane hardware.

    Parent
    64-bit vs 32-bit hardware and software (none / 0) (#150)
    by hillct on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:02:06 AM EST
    64-bit hardware and OSs has benefits and drawbacks. They're optimal for database servers, for example, where the memory access requirements of individual processes (database server daemon) can exceed 4GB but at an OS level, any modern server OS (read: NOT Windows) supports Physical Address Extension which handles OS-level addressing of memory up to 64GB.

    The chief drawback for web servers in particular is rather severe - per process memory requirements typically 20% higher than on a 32-bit OS - where webservers run many processes each with their own memory footprints, it's generally not reasonable to have a 20% memory overhead requirement.

    There's a lot more to this, in much more detail than anyone here is likely to care about, and it is a debatable point.

    Parent

    Colin, thanks for your comments here (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:55:31 AM EST
    Colin is our web administrator who handles everything from Scoop and the design of the site to the hardware and the servers.

    Most hosting companies offer you an email address when something goes wrong. Colin, on the other hand, is personally available, by phone, which is both rare and very helpful. For example, knowing that debate, primary and election days are big here, he's  always around on them to help out. So instead of going down for a day, we're down for a few minutes usually at most.

    That said, his last comment is a perfect example of what I meant when I said it's like talking to someone who speaks a different language. I don't understand a word.

    But again, thanks Colin for all that you do for TalkLeft.

    Parent

    Whew. I thought it was just me. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:49:50 AM EST


    Parent
    Thanks so much Jeralyn for all you and BTD do (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by athyrio on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:40:38 PM EST
    this is my favorite site....

    Thanks so much. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by jpete on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:41:10 PM EST
    You've helped to make today better.  Otherwise, HRC has been struck a blow, while Obama foreswears more of his background.

    What's not making sense here?    

    The counter movement is growing (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:41:21 PM EST
    As the internet is the last refuge of the disenfranchised, I do expect a bumper crop of pro-Clinton blogs "keeping up" with this Obama movement thingy.

    Initially I got (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:47:19 PM EST
    excited that the arguments were on the table and we were getting to hear them all, I thought the whole thing would be behind closed doors.  

    Then I had to leave, I come back with a decision made that somehow did not make sense with what people were saying and the arguments I heard.

     Then, Obama has this press conference on leaving the church and says some things that seemed rather strange about faith etc.  In addition, he said that he did not anticipate the Wright and church thing to be a great issue.  He finishes off, by saying that he will decide what to do about church in January.  Uhh, he will know in November.  His press conference had a disturbing quality.  

    In November (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Monda on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:54:34 PM EST
    He finishes off, by saying that he will decide what to do about church in January.  Uhh, he will know in November.

    LMAO, he will know in January?!  

    Parent

    hmmmm (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:03:29 PM EST
    maybe he knows something we don't.

    the fix must be really IN

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by tek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:10:00 PM EST
    That's my suspicion.  Not only will the primaries be corrupt, but they have plan to corrupt the GE too.  The Democratic leadership has gone barking mad.  I detest Howard Dean.

    Parent
    I doubt seriously (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:45:40 PM EST
    that the Republicans would roll over.  See Florida in 2000 for details.

    Parent
    oh it is probably that he doesn't plan on (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:43:56 AM EST
    speaking to it during the election. he doesn't want to irritate the aa voters and hopes no more information will come out. good luck with that! it is going to happen whether he likes it or not. and if he thinks the repubs are going to play nice with him, then he is poorly informed about things.

    Parent
    Thanks Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by mattt on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:47:25 PM EST
     and BTD for liveblogging and giving your time to keeping the site up.  I enjoy your insights even if I disagree with a lot of them lately.  Always good to listen to people you don't agree with.  Good luck resolving the issues.

    Heartfelt appreciation (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by clio on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:47:51 PM EST
    for the dispassionate and accurate reporting.  I must be one of the people causing the server problems as I find myself coming to this site more and more for informed, respectful commentary and opinions.

    Thank you, Jeralyn.
    Thank you, BTD.
    And Mwah! BackfromOhio.  Really enjoyed your on site observations today.

    I want to thank and commend (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by themomcat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:53:16 PM EST
    You, Jeralyn, BTD and BakfromOhio for a magnificent job that you have done, today especially. Thank you for giving us a voice here.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#176)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:25:55 PM EST
    My thanks to Jeralyn and BTD - Reading their analyses of the Rules, the history of the primary scheduling, waivers & penalties, etc. (along with legal staff memos, challengers' docs & RBC By-Laws and Delegate Selection rules), was most helpful to me in following the proceedings yesterday.  

    Parent
    Thanks so much (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:55:49 PM EST
    This is my favorite site right now, hands down. The live blogging is a true service to the readers; Jeralyn, BTD, and T Chris write amazing posts; and the commenters are some of the best to be found. Despite being in the tank for Hillary, I even enjoy many of the supporters of Sen. Obama who post here.  They are a spirited bunch, if you can ignore the trolls (many of which are probably Republicans trying to stir up trouble).

    My one complaint is that sometime it is difficult to figure out exactly where BTD stands on an issue.  He's so wishy-washy. :-)

    He's not wishy-washy (none / 0) (#53)
    by lobary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:32:51 PM EST
    He's a man of principle.

    Parent
    Wow, didn't think I needed (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:18:14 PM EST
    a snark tag on that one.

    Parent
    I see what you did there! (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by lobary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:20:13 PM EST
    But you didn't see mine. /wink

    Parent
    Low key "drama" here :) (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:57:59 PM EST
    my mother called right when they started to debate FLA. Normally I would ask to call her back, but she wanted help finding a new pup for her and my dad. So I would like to say "THANKS!" for live blogging as my TV was muted for most of the 'debate'. Yes, one eye on muted TV, one on live blog while chatting away about what she's looking for, lol!~. I think it was actually less stressful or perhaps it just saved my TeeVee for the next round of insanity from this primary.
    Again, Thank You!

    Thanks (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by stxabuela on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:01:08 PM EST
    This blog is the only one I've found that allows supporters from both sides the opportunity to state their cases based on issues, not personalities.  

    I have become a person without a party, and I truly appreciate the "atmosphere" here.  TL has been my refuge in a stormy season.  

    Borrowing a phrase from my children and grandchildren, "TL ROCKS!"

    Get an unpaid/low paid intern or two? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:02:28 PM EST
    You might be able to get some free/low cost semi-reasonable sysadmin help by sponsoring an intern from the nearby universities....

    It all makes sense now. . . (5.00 / 10) (#30)
    by NotThatStupid on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:12:44 PM EST
    ... and what a brilliant strategy it is. Obama plans to win in November by using the Michigan Maneuver to force the electoral college to give some of McCain's votes to him.

    Maybe he can take his name off the ballot in all the swing states to help that process along.

    He Plans To Contest All Of The States (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:33:28 PM EST
    McCain wins using the precedent that there were X number of voters who meant to vote for me but just didn't vote. Therefore, I actually won the EV of the state. That will definitely win the WH in November

    Parent
    It's his back up for the no-show youth vote (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:35:41 PM EST


    Parent
    ROFLMAO!! (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by tek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:10:54 PM EST


    Parent
    LMAO!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by DWCG on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:37:21 PM EST
    That's the quote of the day!  

    Parent
    Thought the problem was on my (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:13:05 PM EST
    router, so I kept resetting it :)

    Jeralyn, BTD, and BackfromOhio all earned big KUDOS for a great day at the blog !!

    Can you believe this?! (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:17:46 PM EST
    Obama aide Anita Dunn, per ABC News:

    "Asked if Obama would wait to get a concession call from Clinton before claiming the nomination, Dunn said the onus was on Clinton now that the Democratic Party has firmed up the number of delegates needed to claim the party's nod."

    "`He's not going to wait by the phone like a high-school girl waiting for a date,' said Dunn. `That's not Barack Obama.'"

    "`After Tuesday,' Dunn added, referring to the final contests of South Dakota and Montana, Clinton `can decide how united she wants this party to be.'"

    WTF?! (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:26:02 PM EST
    Methinks the Unity Pony needs a few lessons in unity.

    Parent
    How uncooth and surly!!! (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:35:52 PM EST


    Parent
    I Think The Voters Will Decide How United (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:37:18 PM EST
    they want to be. With supporters like Dunn, the answer may well be "Count me out. It is your party now and your responsibility to prove that the NEW exclusive Democratic Party is viable without my help or my vote."

    Parent
    I looked up Dunn's e-mail and just (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:07:47 PM EST
    wrote to her. I find her choice of words appalling and insulting. Hearing his reps. Obamaspeak really drives home how some of the people who come to this blog behave and write.

    Parent
    Dunn used to apparently work (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:17:57 PM EST
     for Tom Daschle.

    Parent
    her comments speaks to the attitude of (none / 0) (#168)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:46:55 AM EST
    the campaign. that unity pony will be spending most of the election in the barn it seems.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:11:35 PM EST
    Methinks her name should be Anita Pony.

    Parent
    Can we please now admit (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:22:31 PM EST
    that Barack Obama is not now, nor ever will be, interested in reaching out to Hillary Clinton or her supporters?

    What does it take, folks?

    What.

    Does.

    It.

    Take.

    Parent

    Speaking for me ONLY (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:44:34 PM EST
    I get it.  Always have.

    Parent
    They are the sorest of sore winners (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Raven15 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:59:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Reaching Out (none / 0) (#177)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:35:30 PM EST
    Watched the discussion at CNN this evening concerning what Clinton & her supporters will do -- Jeffrey Toobin, Gloria Borge, et al.  Borge said several things that raised my ire:  First she mentioned that discredited theory floating around the the fewer the AAs in a state, the more white people vote for Obama (see thoughtful critiques by Sean Wilentz, Prof. of American Studies at Princeton, & Lind, Journalism Prof at Columbia);  second, she said Barack needs Hillary to work hard to get her supporters to back Barack as nominee -- my problems with this one are that Barack is not nominee yet & Hillary's supporters made up their own minds to support Hillary and will make up their own minds about whether to support Barack if he should become the nominee.  We are not sheep - but analytical thinkers.  While I respect Hillary's loyalty to the Dem Party, I am so repulsed by the disrespect for the rules as a means for elbowing Hillary out of the race, it's going to take a lot more than Hillary doing the heavy lifting once again to bring me around.  

    Parent
    E-mailed Anita Dunn and just (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:39:48 PM EST
    received an e-mail back saying she was sorry she said it the she did, but she was upset because a Hillary supporter had said something racial and it upset her. So, she apologized....with Sen. Obama, isn't always someone else's fault. Anyway, I re-wrote her and told her why I wasn't voting for Sen. Obama. It really felt good.

    Parent
    what is her email (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:42:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Anita Dunn's e-mail is (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:47:14 PM EST
    adunn@squiermedia.com

    Parent
    wait . . . she blamed a Clinton supporter (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:08:00 PM EST
    and managed to pull race (ism) into it also?

    Oy. GMAFB.

    Parent

    i don't want 4 years of hearing it's all about (none / 0) (#169)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:48:38 AM EST
    race and that i am a low information, bigoted hick. no thanks mr obama.

    Parent
    AICF! (none / 0) (#40)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:33:35 PM EST


    Parent
    No (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:10:50 PM EST
    It got what one of the FL superdelegates asked for, which was not Florida's official position.

    I had to bug out right before the MI (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:23:31 PM EST
    decision was announced and just got back.  Thanks Jeralyn and BTD for a great day. It was easier to take sharing it with everyone at TL.

    I am cruising Red State, Michelle Malkin...others (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:26:03 PM EST
    and for what it's worth, they are more on the Clinton side of things.  Red State said that Hillary supporters are NOT backing down AND that the demonstration looked more like a conservative rally.

    The dynamics are unbelievable right now.  Frikkn craziness!!

    Heh (none / 0) (#114)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:54:55 PM EST
    Uh, thanks for the compliment.  Yow.

    Parent
    My husband just told me (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:36:48 PM EST
    that, although it makes him nauseous, he is going to vote for John McCain.

    This is a 55-year-old original dirty f-ing hippie who protested the Vietnam war when he was 15 years old.

    He has never, ever voted for a Republican. He was a George McGovern guy.

    The Democratic Party has absolutely lost its collective mind.

    I laud your husband (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:43:29 PM EST
    i'm sitting here angry because the party that my aunt Pauline, who got me into politics in the FIRST place when I was 14 working for Congressman Jim Wright here in Fort Worth, got me so active and committed to is gone.  I am so glad she's not alive to see this incredible bullsh1t.  she is no doubt SPINNING in her grave right now.

    Howard Dean should resign IMMEDIATELY for leading the party of FDR, Truman, JFK and BILL CLINTON into the dustbin.

    Thanks for the unity Barack.  I sure hope that video of your wife IS coming out with the racially charged comments...hence your TWENTY YEAR DECISION to leave your church has become so important.

    Parent

    I agree with your DH (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by reslez on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:20:48 PM EST
    I never thought I would say this but it's conceivable I might vote for McCain. All he has to do is hint he won't appoint judges that would overturn Roe. Think how many Hillary voters he might pick up by doing that. What's to stop him from dogwhistling our direction the same way they dogwhistle to the right?

    Thanks to this primary brawl and the loutish behavior of Obama's supporters I've become utterly unenthusiastic about the Democratic party. That's pretty amazing considering how traumatized I feel by the entire 8 year Bush debacle. I guess the ability to inspire strong feelings in hooligans really is a double-edged sword.

    Also, since this is my first comment I would also like to thank Jeralyn, BTD and everyone else for their hard work on the site and comment moderation. Reading discussions here has been a balm and oasis.

    Parent

    welcome to the site (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:12:16 AM EST
    Glad you like it.

    I think any Democrat is better than a Republican not just because of Roe v. Wade but all issues that come before the Supreme Court and our federal courts -- particularly involving the Bill of Rights. These are lifetime appointments that will mold our courts for 30 to 40 years.

    I think the Dems lost a big chunk of female voters today and can say goodbye to Florida and Michigan, as well as to Ohio and probably PA if Obama is the nominee, but I'm still voting for the Democrat. Obama's possible win in the western states can't make up for those.

    And, I'm still going to cover the convention. No boycott for me.

    Parent

    No confidence here (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by reslez on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:59:49 AM EST
    Obama's record on judicial appointments in the Senate doesn't engender confidence. Unlike him, I'm not a fan of John Roberts. When paired with our toothless Democratic congressional leadership, Obama is even less inspiring. And the threat of losing more rights rings hollow when it comes from the same craven party leaders who participated in the last 7 years of assaults on our civil liberties.

    Judicial appointments are a necessary but not sufficient condition to choose a candidate. I believe in the Democratic party's ideals, which means I prefer a Democratic candidate to a Republican one 99 times out of 100. I believe Obama shares most of those ideals -- but I'm not confident he will act on them. Obama has yet to demonstrate that any issue matters to him other than winning the nomination. That's why he doesn't have my vote.

    At this point I intend to write-in for the Presidential ballot. But as my earlier comment stated, it's conceivable I could vote for McCain. At this stage in the nomination, that is a profoundly depressing statement.

    Parent

    My son is having his fun (none / 0) (#160)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:39:08 AM EST
    because I match your description of your spouse, but for the gender.  And I always vote, and I always have voted Dem for decades now.  And I raised my children to always vote, too, taking them to the polls with me and inculcating in them that there is no duty more important for us.  So I was horrified in 2000 when my progeny returned from his first time at the polls to say he voted for Nader.  Ohhhhhh.  Even if it made no difference in our state.  Ohhhhh.

    Now, he just heard his mom say that I don't see how I can vote this fall at all -- I can't vote for McCain, but I can't vote for the presumptuous nominee and his party now, as it's not a party I can belong to or support at all anymore.  And for me to not vote at all (except downticket) is, believe me, beyond imagining.  So my son just spent a happy half-hour getting back at me for all the times we have discussed his vote for Nader, all the times he has watched the horrors of the last eight years in this country under the result.

    But I don't see any way around it, after what we witnessed today.  Frankly, even if Clinton becomes the nominee, or even if the convention is deadlocked and the Dems resurrect Gore -- I still would have to hear some firm commitments from Clinton or Gore about how the Dem Party is going to clean out the corruption and reverse the terrible direction it has taken this year, and especially today.

    Parent

    Obama cut off his (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:39:33 PM EST
    nose to spite his face..... He cut Hillary in half, alienated probably 25% or so of the party, to claim victory on Wednesday over 4 of Hillary's delegates. None of his own, yet some of Edwards, Chris Dodds, and some from Judas Iscariot's pathetic campaign.

    If Obama was smart, and that is a big IF, he would have said seat all of them from FL and MI. Remove me from MI, because I was naive and removed my name from the ballot. He would have looked like a stand up guy....I don't mind losing that bad, but I don't like to lose and feel like I was ripped off... ie 2000. Obama would have, in all reality won anyway, even though I feel he is a light weight and without merit. His problem is now she can cast a light on him..... He did not get the popular vote, what nominee does not get the popular vote in the primary's? She is probably a better match against McCain, and in the battleground states.

    This was a banner day on TalkLeft (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:52:03 PM EST
    Great blogging all 'round.

    I'm proud to have donated yesterday and am grateful for an island of excellent analysis.

    Time for Clinton (1.00 / 11) (#49)
    by lgm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:25:27 PM EST
    It is even more clear than ever that Obama will be the nominee.  It is time for Clinton to accept the decisions of her party.  The youtube clips of over the top Clinton supporters show that she is tearing the party apart.  

    Al Gore accepted the Supreme Court decision in 2000.  It's time for Clinton to do the right thing.  This is the real test of her character.  Al Gore passed, what about her?

    Heh (5.00 / 8) (#57)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:09:06 PM EST
    Tell me, are you happy about the results of Al Gore's decision?

    Parent
    Please, the "decisions of her party" (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:09:31 PM EST
    hasn't ended and won't until August.

    Parent
    Right, (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by tek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:12:18 PM EST
    and aren't we all thrilled with the results of Gore accepting Gore v. Bush?  Pay attention, will ya?

    Parent
    Yes... (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:19:39 PM EST
    and it's clearer than ever that we gonna get our *ss handed to us in Nov.  Al Gore not defending himself was pathetic and sad, not a show of "character", unless you feel that all of those dead soldiers and record deficits are a good thing.  (And no, I'm not voting for McCain, but I'm not voting for BHO either.  He can go to Hell with his arrogance.)

    Oh, and character involves not sitting in a church that spews hate for 20 years, and having that hate exposed to your children.  It would be like me going to a Klan meeting and taking my kids, if I had any.  Apparently, the Precious agrees with me since he threw the whole church under the bus, now that it has served his needs.  Sorry, I'm not supporting a guy who will throw me under a bus when it is convenient to do so.

    Good luck in Nov.  As the Obama people say, they don't want or need us, which is the racist half of the democratic party, so I guess I take my "hatred" and "White privilege" and stay home.  But hey, enjoy your Pyrrhic victory, I'm sure that it will keep you warm.

    Jackson

    Parent

    i think brazile had a lot to do with (none / 0) (#171)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:52:45 AM EST
    gore's loss in floria. of course let's also not forget liberman and his disgusting conduct during the contentious period about votes.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Blue Jean on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:31:51 PM EST
    I don't know what planet you're living on, but here in a place we like to call Reality, Al Gore got his "character", a spoiled, alcoholic brat got the Presidency, the US got two wars, the SC got two reactionary Supreme Court Justices, the Treasury got record deficits, the US got humilated, and the rest of us got shafted.

    If anything, Bush vs. Gore is a good example of why Democrats should not give in.

    Parent

    As I posted yesterday in another thread: (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by DWCG on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:41:45 PM EST
    Deja vu all over again.

    Bush proclaiming victory, while Gore only asks for recounts in select counties, all the while the true intent of the GOT DAMN VOTERS isn't even on anyone's damn mind or mouths.

    You unpatriotic undemocratic smucks: SEAT THE DELEGATES AS THE PEOPLE VOTED!!!!!!!

    Where's the God-blessed love for DEMOCRACY in this fricking country?

    Let me stop, before I go Jeramiah Wright on ya...

    Parent

    RIGHT ON!! (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:26:33 PM EST
    Hillary is a fighter. I will back her up all the way.  If Gore had had HALF of Hillary's cojones, we would probably not be in this terrible state we are in now.

    Parent
    Gore was constrained by FL election law, which (none / 0) (#164)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:10:31 AM EST
    required that the challenging candidate be able to prove that a recount (after the first mandatory machine recount, which I gather 18 counties didn't even do, based on Jeffrey Toobin's statements) would likely result in a real change in the vote outcome.

    I asked if others here remembered that, and one commenter (Steve?) stated it was correct.

    So, Gore could not demand a full statewide recount without proof that it would likely result in a change. They had pick their challenge counties carefully. Perhaps the only one they could have asked for and didn't is the county where many ballots were rejected as overvotes, and it seems voters out of an excess of cautions had filled in the ballot for Gore, then also wrote in his name to ensure their vote would be counter. Which meant it wasn't, alas.

    The FL Supreme Court did eventually come to decide a full statewide recount was needed, and the Supreme Five cut that off and awarded the presidency to Bush.

    It was not the fault of Gore that he didn't demand a statewide count--he simply could not.

    I remember a retired FL election official made that statement. Later, it seemed to be buried in  part due to the MCM's Narrative that Gore campaigned badly and thus did not deserve to win.

    Parent

    Would it have been difficult - yes (none / 0) (#175)
    by DWCG on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:50:39 PM EST
    But there were plenty of lawyers in the Democratic party and activists to fly in or mobilize locally to force it.  Additionally, they could have asked for it by the Florida Supreme Court.  And they should have asked for all under-votes and over-votes (the condition that truly ascertains the will of the voters, and just so happens to be the one that shows that Gore actually won).

    In addition to being the right thing to do, it would have given him the rhetorical and moral high-ground, and basis to fight all the way to the floor of Congress.  

    Parent

    Here we go (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:45:47 PM EST
    with the "Clinton is tearing the party apart" ... Di you EVEN watch what the DRBC did today?

    They wer not tearing apart theparty when they ignored half of the Fl vote and gave MI delegates to a person not even on the ballot.

    My 7th grade civics class had a better concept of Democracy.

    GET THIS... if Obama is the nominee then he needs to start being sensitive to the FL , MI voters and the Hillary supporters.

    HE CAN NOT GET ELECTED WITHOUT THEIR SUPPORT!


    Parent

    When the final curtain (none / 0) (#23)
    by miriam on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:59:46 PM EST
    comes down on this wretched season and the books start to be written and published, what do you think will be seen as the moment/event that the Democrats lost the '08 election?  

    Hasn't happened yet (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:23:47 PM EST
    If it happens, it will be when Obama refuses to pick Clinton for the VP slot, and then does precious little to mend fences with her supporters.

    Even if he picks her, Obama will need the schmoozing skills of Bill Clinton, and from what I can see he's not even in the same time zone as Bill in that regard.


    Parent

    The moment?... (5.00 / 8) (#85)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:33:09 PM EST
    one point?  well, if there is one point where his odds of getting less than 270 electoral college votes went below 50%, it was "bitter/cling."

    that was the light bulb moment -- the point at which people who knew they didn't like Obama, but were sure why they didn't like him, realized what it was that was wrong with him -- his complete disconnect from the concerns of average working americans.

    Bitter/cling made it possible for every smear that the GOP would eventually put out about Obama to be believed, and amplified.

    The moment when the Party lost the election was when they voted to strip four delegates from Clinton.  It was an overt sign of complete, insitutional disrespect for Hillary Clinton.  

    That moment stripped the fig leaf of "following the rules" for screwing clinton by only giving FL and MI delegates half the vote.  It was completely unnecessary -- its the equivalent of stripping two more delegates, so its not a big deal in terms of delegate counts.... but the committee under no circumstances had the power to take delegates from one person, and give them to another.  It was just egregious.

    Parent

    I am late to the discussion (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:39:19 PM EST
    but didn't Ickes reserve the right to take the MI decision to the credentials committee?  I guess it might be moot if Obama gets to the magic number, but I hope they do it anyway to correct the injustice of it.

    Parent
    yes... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:44:49 PM EST
    he did.

    and the magic number is relevant only to pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses.  the supers can change their minds at any time.... and with Alcee Hastings saying I'm boycotting the convention, a whole LOT of Clinton supporters are going to resist ANY effort by the rest of the party to make them toe the line.

    Parent

    He can't get the magic number (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:48:54 PM EST
    The only way to consider the nomination "in the bag" with the magic number is if the delegate count of 2118 is made up of pledged delegates.

    The supers can change their mind and aren't locked in until after they have actually voted at the convention.

    THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE.

    Parent

    Bitter/Cling (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:13:20 PM EST
    You're correct but the media really only played the bitter part of his statements.  Far more harmful was the cling parts.  Guess which portion the GOP will play up in the ge?

    It also gave people a reason to vote against Obama other than they didn't like him.  They could vote against him because he didn't like them.

    Parent

    personally i think the race was lost when (none / 0) (#172)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    the obama campaign began the racist dog whistles. i still remember the "erie" comment he made about he was going to fight "chicago" style after his loss.

    Parent
    Admire that you are still going (none / 0) (#27)
    by Lil on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:05:41 PM EST
    after this long day. Thanks for keeping us informed. I missed the paypal day, but promise to send some change later in the week.

    Michigan (none / 0) (#29)
    by cannondaddy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:11:01 PM EST
    got what it asked for...

    no (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:01:12 PM EST
    Michigan wanted its delegation seated with full votes.  That would have given Clinton more net votes, so it didn't happen.

    Parent
    One unanswered question is . . . (none / 0) (#37)
    by TOI on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:30:07 PM EST
    Why did the Obama campaign fight so hard for the Michigan compromise? The small number of delegate votes achieved is a very small gain, in comparison to the potential loss of giving the Clinton campaign a stronger argument for taking it to the convention credentials committee.

    There is one rational reason for the Obama campaign to take this approach: if they aren't sure they can win enough of the to-date uncommitted SDs. But all evidence indicates that they can win enough of those SDs to make the Michigan candidate split decision irrelevant.

    So, why? Why give the Clinton campaign a strong reason to appeal to the credentials committee in exchange for a small number of votes that won't decide the final results? Why allow the debate to be prolonged?

    there is only one reason.... (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:30:56 PM EST
    ...because they could.

    I thought everything was going along just fine -- everyone was behaving, and framing all their statements in "unity", and "count the votes", and "follow the rules".

    Then Bonier showed up.... and things his presentation was a political hit on Clinton.  Wexler, who tried to make up in volume what his presentation lacked in sense, framed his argument within the "unityfollowtherulescountthevotes" stuff.  But Bonier was a just pure political bile.

    Obama had made demands.  His demands weren't met -- so he decided to put CLinton in her place.

    REALLY bad move -- ALcee hastings is just the start.

    The one thing that bugged me is that no one asked Bonier the question:  Your proposal is the same as the Michigan compromise in terms of allocatng delegates at full strength but differs in the proportion of how the delegates are approtioned, is that correct (Bonier: Yes) Could you explain to me why Senator Obama wants Florida voters to have the Florida delegates to get half a vote, but the michigan delegates to get a full vote -- at a 50-50 split?"

    That no one caught that Obama's two reecommendations contradicted each other amazed me...

    Parent

    Bonior gave a toxic presentation (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:06:08 PM EST
    worthy of Daily Kos. And it just went downhill from there.

    Parent
    It's a shame (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:13:55 PM EST
    Bonior is a legendary congressman from my home state.  I used to have a lot of respect for him.  After he sat there and lied about the reason Obama took his name off the ballot, not so much any more.

    Unlike some people here, I didn't have a problem with Wexler's presentation today.  Sure, he yelled his way through it, but in my book he didn't step over the line as an advocate.  But for Bonior to lie about something he has personal knowledge of, that's unforgivable.

    Parent

    Hey, (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:17:51 PM EST
    You held your own pretty well over at MyDD. Apparently the "reality based community" doesn't have a clue what New Hampshire did--or got away with.

    Parent
    Hey (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:48:50 PM EST
    Why the heck do I have to "hold my own" at one of the most pro-Clinton blogs on the Internet!!! :)

    Thank goodness for the moderation at TL, I say.  We still get the you-know-whats, but at least we don't have to fill up disk space answering the same falsehoods again and again and again.

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#118)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:57:36 PM EST
    And MyDD was pro-Clinton for about five minutes--until Bob Johnson and Al Rodgers brought their wrath.

    Parent
    I thought Wexler was disingenuous when (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:20:03 PM EST
    asked if he could, would he want 100% of Fl seated, he punted. So obviously a one-side opinion. It's one thing to argue for your candidate, but if Obama really wanted to votes counted, Wexler would have agreed with that premise, knowing they'd never do that.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:31:03 PM EST
    any Florida elected official would have responded with, "absolutely, we'll happily take that" without even a moment to think about it.


    Parent
    Make that 3rd line "wanted the (none / 0) (#78)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:20:55 PM EST
    votes counted"

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#110)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:50:09 PM EST
    I don't think he was disingenuous, I just think he was there as an advocate.  I remember thinking wow, what a tough question.

    Parent
    Except, Wexler lied twice (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:27:18 PM EST
    he claimed Obama followed all the rules and didn't campaign in FL, but he did. He also claimed Obama didn't do anything to stop the re-vote.

    Parent
    lying was allowed today... (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:53:12 PM EST
    I mean, lying was the order of the day -- the whole thing was premised on the lie that the RBC didn't screw up last fall, when they imposed the 100% penalties on two states in the first place.

    If you read the rules concerning penalties, its obvious that the penalty for violating the timing rule was loss of 50% of the delegates AND loss of any media attention -- the latter was assured by penalizing CANDIDATES in campaigned in sanctioned states by not letting them have any delegates.

    The whole basis of the rules is that too much importance was being placed on Iowa and New Hampshire -- and that's not because of Ioaws huge cache of delegates makes it mearly impossible for anyone to catch up.  Its because of the media attention.

    Imposing the 100% penalty was designed to send a message, and was NEVER intended to be permanent... the expectation was that a consensus candidate would be chosen on Super Tuesday and all would be forgiven.... the 50% penalty might have been imposed anyway, but loss of half your voting strength when the outcome is already determined is irrelevant.

    Parent

    I missed that (none / 0) (#140)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:23:16 PM EST
    Why did Bonior say Obama removed his name from the ballot?

    Parent
    He said (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:55:23 AM EST
    that he did it out of respect for the DNC ruling.

    I forgive random people on the Internet for not knowing the real story.  But Bonior was Edwards' campaign manager, for the love of God.  He knows they weren't sitting around talking about how to show respect for the RBC.

    Parent

    yup bonoir and wexler are both rabble (none / 0) (#173)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    rouser type speakers, so i can only conclude that it was all planned that way. there are times for those type of speakers, but yesterday was a serious mistake along with brazile's comments.

    Parent
    Yes, But... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:51:43 PM EST
    I generally agree with this explanation for the Obama campaign willingness to support the 69-59 split proposed by the Michigan Democrat Party. But Chuck Todd is reporting that Obama actually had the votes to get the straight 50%-50% split that they proposed. However, they chose to go with the Party's split because it was more generous to Clinton and passed by a 19-8 vote.

    Parent
    HIGHLY doubtful... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:57:26 PM EST
    I don't think even Donna Brazile could have stomached a 50-50 split....  50-50 was never more than a negotiating position.  Chuck Todd was probably told that Obama had control of the committee, and thought that meant he could get whatever he asked for.... he got what he wanted out of the committee.

    Parent
    Levin Effect (none / 0) (#179)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:13 PM EST
    There was a lot of respect for Carl Levin personally and his advocacy of the 69-59 split in the air at the proceedings.

    Chuck Todd may have been at the proceedings, but I didn't see him in the room.  I saw him speaking with WashPo reporters in common areas after proceedings finally ended.

    Parent

    Obama approach (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by TOI on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:57:57 PM EST
    No, this still misses the point. Why give up a little (rather than nothing or everything, either choice which would have been better) when the primary result will be that Clinton's supporters have something to complain about that they otherwise wouldn't have had to complain about? It just doesn't make sense.

    Parent
    Exactly!!! (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by HsLdyAngl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:13:11 PM EST
    This was a subliminal message to Hillary, Ickes, et al, that the Democratic Party is now the Democratic Party under Barack Obama and no longer under the auspices of the Clinton's.

    This was evidenced by the Clinton affiliated members on the RBC, who voted against Clinton's arguments for both Fl and MI.

    Parent

    yeah so perfect that the obama campaign (none / 0) (#174)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:02:40 PM EST
    has most probably lost the voters he desperately needs to win in november. oh that's right we aren't neededed because of the new democratic party. right, i just keep forgetting!

    Parent
    beats the he!! out ot me (none / 0) (#48)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:24:36 PM EST
    apparently doesn't make sense though.

    Parent
    I think one of the reasons (none / 0) (#64)
    by rjarnold on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:12:44 PM EST
    that he did this was to hurt the idea of using Michigan as part of the popular vote (I saw this theory at an Obama-blog). Since the RBC decided not to base the delegate allotment on the primary results, they are agreeing with the Obama campaign that the Michigan primary was an invalid election and this helps the Obama camp argue that an invalid election should not be used in the popular vote totals.

    Parent
    That's pretty ridiculous. (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:43:17 PM EST
    If the election was "invalid," then neither he nor HRC should get any delegates whatsoever. Does anyone at the DNC have the ability to think AT ALL?

    Honestly, there is no universe in which the Michigan "solution" was okay. The DNC does not have the power to steal elected delegates from one candidate and give them to another - especially one whose name was not on the freaking ballot!

    I am so angry. So, so angry.

    Parent

    Alternate universes (none / 0) (#109)
    by TOI on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:49:30 PM EST
    I enjoyed reading this because of the "alternate universe" approach to working out the problem. Thanks.  

    Parent
    I'm not agreeing with them (none / 0) (#121)
    by rjarnold on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:58:38 PM EST
    I'm just saying this might have been their motivation. It's still ridiculous.

    Parent
    Then it suggests they cannot win (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:49:28 AM EST
    if this stupid strategy and argument is what to expect from Obama's handlers in a general election campaign.  The GOP can handle such fools easily.

    Parent
    It was (none / 0) (#74)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:19:34 PM EST
    AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc. and the Bush administration spying on innocent people.

    Sure she would (none / 0) (#99)
    by TOI on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:44:01 PM EST
    She very probably will, but in any case, there is a situation in which she would.

    This kind of thing helps no one (none / 0) (#126)
    by TOI on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:04:29 PM EST
    I fully expect to support, donate to, and vote for Obama once the party's nomination is over. So please don't act jump to judgmental conclusions.

    Parent
    Could be you're asking the wrong person (none / 0) (#136)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:20:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Pointless (none / 0) (#142)
    by TOI on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:24:18 PM EST
    You said her staunch supporters would not concede--not might not concede, not probably would not concede, but would not. This is the way hasty generalizations work: it just takes one little example to prove that you are wrong.  

    Parent
    I think that LJ might be (none / 0) (#125)
    by rjarnold on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:03:08 PM EST
    pulling that rumor from you no where. I don't trust that site. It seems like part of the shrillosphere except instead of attacking Clinton they attack Obama.

    4 now (none / 0) (#139)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:22:36 PM EST
    I will give him the benefit of the doubt.  He's usually been on track about backing himself up.

    It will be interesting to see what he's got up his sleeve Monday.

    Parent

    no chance (none / 0) (#153)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:00:14 AM EST
    it's the live blog software. If anything, that makes the site less likely to crash since it's not hosted by TalkLeft.

    Robert Wexler (none / 0) (#163)
    by This from a broad on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:58:04 AM EST
    He was voted in by the people of Florida and here he is advocating for their votes not to count.  Just half of our votes.  This creep has a town hall meeting on Monday night, I will be there.  Perhaps when he loses his phony-balony job, Obama will give him one.

    please go and speak for the voters in (none / 0) (#166)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:37:26 AM EST
    florida and let us know how it goes. maybe jeralyn will let you do a diary on it.

    Parent
    i had repeated problems logging on (none / 0) (#165)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:36:23 AM EST
    so i closed out for the evening. i knew that many were trying to get on and thought that i could do my part by retreating and letting others have the bandwidth. of course i know it is upsetting but speaks to the deserved popularity of talk left and kudos to dtd and jeralyn.

    i have read there is someting on tape about (none / 0) (#170)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:50:27 AM EST
    obama's "cousin" in kenya. sorry his name escapes me. i wish when dick morris comes on to berate clinton that he would be forced to disclose his pathetic journey to kenya and who paid him for his lobbying attempts there.

    Cousin (none / 0) (#178)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:38:38 PM EST
    is Odinga

    Parent
    not a real gentleman from what i've read. (none / 0) (#180)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:57:56 AM EST


    Parent
    Things That Happened Today | 163 comments (163 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment