home

Deep Thought

Atrios writes:

Deep Thought

Your candidate's supporters suck.

Here is a deeper thought -- your candidate NEEDS the sucky supporters of the other candidate to win in November.

Will the Dems learn this anytime soon?

This is an Open Thread.

Comments closed

< Unity? | Alcee Hastings To Boycott Convention Due to FL Delegate Travesty >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Onto PUERTO RICO!!!!! (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:07:27 PM EST
    here is a nice post about Hillary Clinton in Puerto Rico

    !!!!!   ADELANTE HILLARY   !!!!!!!

    Please. (5.00 / 12) (#2)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:10:30 PM EST
    Here is a deeper thought -- your candidate NEEDS the sucky supporters of the other candidate to win in November.

    The unity pony is dead.

    Seriously (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:15:24 PM EST
    I've been repeatedly told they don't need me.  So, I choose to believe them.

    Parent
    LOL, one of them told me on a closed thread... (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:20:38 PM EST
    ...that I also lack substance. I guess that's a more hoity toity way of telling me I suck.

    Parent
    You mean (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:16:30 PM EST
    the phony unity pony is dead.


    Parent
    Gloating? (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:10:45 PM EST
    or was that pouting because others refuse to bow down to the ONE.  Well at least we know the Obama crew are happy.  Does that tell you how equitable the decision was?  Ha!

    Is it over? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:14:02 PM EST
    Since when?

    Parent
    What over? (none / 0) (#84)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:30:14 PM EST
    I was referring to today's events with the R&B.... they aren't upset by today's decision and seem mad at Clinton's supporters...

    Parent
    Okay. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:40:44 PM EST
    My response to them is...

    :)

    Parent

    No matter how hard I suck (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by Fabian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:11:26 PM EST
    No matter how hard they cheer

    Our votes should count the same.  That's democracy.

    I can't wait to see how the Purer Than Thou Coalition is planning on winning without the bigot votes and racist votes and the ignorant votes and the angry votes and the bitter votes.

    Deep thoughts hurt (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:11:51 PM EST
    Can we just accept that without "the other" we won't be going to any inaugural balls in January?

    Who knows after acceptance we could have respect. Well, maybe not, but a girl can hope.

    At some point (5.00 / 14) (#16)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:16:45 PM EST
    I have to stand for myself and, as you know, I'm not inclined to make the peace when I believe that I've been wronged.

    Parent
    If she lost, why is she ahead in the (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:33:45 PM EST
    popular vote? BTW, the final allocation of TX delegates is yet to come. I hear that Hillary is going to clean up when that happens. In fact, she may come out with 80% of the TX delegates.

    Parent
    Any system where you win a state and (5.00 / 6) (#117)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:40:27 PM EST
    lose the delegates in that state needs a serious overhaul IMO, such as the Texas primary/caucus  

    Parent
    Well, of course, but caucus results (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:01:30 PM EST
    have the highest validity, to an Obama supporter, so I am really looking forward to Hillary leaving TX with a big majority of delegates, as predicted by Txpolitico67.

    Parent
    First off, she is; and second, the (5.00 / 5) (#140)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:50:24 PM EST
    SD's can consider any measure they like. Thwarting the popular vote will not go over well with Hillary voters---especially when coupled with stealing delegates.

    Parent
    Way to go, skepti (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by stxabuela on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:21:45 PM EST
    "Who cares what you think?"

    Wow, that really convinces me to vote for your candidate.  

    I'm really searching for a reason to vote for Obama in November.  Do you really think a statement like that will make me feel all warm and fuzzy for your candidate?

    Here's a clue:  Its. not. working.  

    Parent

    She is NOT ahead in the popular (1.00 / 0) (#116)
    by independent voter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:39:59 PM EST
    vote, and repeating it ad nauseum will not make it so

    Parent
    hee hee! (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:41:31 PM EST
    yes, Hillary is ahead in the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:41:34 PM EST
    I know you don't like to hear that but it's true

    Parent
    I don't need to repeat it. The truth (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:42:03 PM EST
    stands on its own. Obama shouldn't have taken his name off the ballot in MI, you know. Tsk, tsk.

    Parent
    You are incorrect. (5.00 / 8) (#95)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:34:14 PM EST
    Those of us in MI who voted for Hillary have been wronged. Voters who cast votes for her had their votes taken away.

    Parent
    I was wronged (5.00 / 7) (#147)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:53:36 PM EST
    and so were you, even if you haven't realized it yet.

    This isn't about Hillary or Barack.

    Parent

    Also sorry to be honest (5.00 / 8) (#151)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:55:03 PM EST
    but some folks actually are stupid and naive enough to believe in the principle of COUTNING THE F&*&iING VOTES!

    Isn't that what we all agonized over in 2000, or were you even old enough to notice then?

    I'm 60 years old and a die-hard lefty.  I've watched pretty much every presidential candidate I've ever been passionate about go down to defeat-- fairly.  I've sucked it up and voted for and contributed to the eventual Dem. nominee.  I have NEVER even come close to the rage I feel now about this campaign.

    If I could vote for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale and John Kerry with at least some enthusiasm, and absolutely cannot for Obama, that should tell you something you really, really ought to think hard about.

    If Obama had played fair and won fair, I could possibly, possibly overlook his appalling policy positions and lack of even minimal experience.

    But. I. Can't.

    Parent

    Forty years of voting straight Democrat (5.00 / 5) (#168)
    by Jake Left on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:09:03 PM EST
    and this may be the end. Back in January the DU and HP were full of Obama supporters who vowed they could not vote for "that woman". Now they say they want us to suck it up and vote for the good of the party. Sounds like my party left me.

    I hate to think about another four years of neocon rule, but I don't see how Obama could be any better. He talks a good game, but his whole campaign is based on getting along with the thugs. His SC nominees might be just a hair better than McSame's, but given that he thought John Roberts was cool, I doubt it.

    Axelrod is the new rove. He picked a pretty face that would appeal to the non-thinking left just like karl picked a nice head of hair to appeal to the idiot right.

    We've all had our party taken from us - but some don't know it yet. It took the dimmer republicans 8 years to see what george was like. Probably take our dimmer liberals that long to catch up to what is being fed to them.

    Parent

    Ditto. I will not vote for Obama if he is the (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Angel on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:20:42 PM EST
    nominee.  I have left the Democratic party as of today.  No more money to them, no more votes for people who do not stand for my principles, no more supporting the stealing of votes, not counting the votes, awarding of delegates when they have not been earned, etc.  My fervent hope is that Obama (should he be the nominee) loses the general election in a historic landslide.  Then maybe he and Michelle can rejoin Trinity Church and again be at home with all the hatred that comes from that place.  

    Parent
    I just feel like a D!ck (none / 0) (#100)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:35:26 PM EST
    Oh and Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:13:02 PM EST
    to you and J for the live blogging. Great insights and lovely bells and whistles.

    I can't imagine a proceeding (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:13:15 PM EST
    with a worse impact. I almost think it would have been better if no delegates were seated today.

    From the perspective of Clinton supporters (2.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:16:21 PM EST
    Her acceptance, in principle, of 50% votes for all delegates in the two states basically seals the deal that this race is over.

    Obama will reach the new threshold by late next week, at the latest. The only argument left that they have is fighting to get two more pledged delegate votes (4 * .5), that will in no way affect the outcome.

    This sealed it. It's over.

    Parent

    Hilarious. (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:17:10 PM EST
    Nots it is (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:37:48 PM EST
    HILL-arious

    F obama

    Parent

    Of course it's over (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:17:59 PM EST
    I've been saying that since North Carolina. The problem is that elusive unity.

    If Obama would just produce the effing superdelegates he needs to put himself over the top, we could get on with it without sustaining more damage.

    Parent

    heh. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:18:48 PM EST
    Good Point (none / 0) (#171)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:11:18 PM EST
    Ideally, the superdelegates will be announced tomorrow and Monday so Obama will go over the new 2118 threshold on Tuesday night in Montana. That will mark the beginning of the GE.

    Parent
    No, he won't. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:19:34 PM EST
    The number is now at least 2,117.5  and Sen. Clinton has won the popular vote.

    Parent
    He wins (2.50 / 2) (#44)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:22:10 PM EST
    about ~40 pledged delegates in the remaining states and will need about 20-30 superdelegates to cross the threshold. At the rate they've been endorsing, I expect that will happen late next week.

    Parent
    Of course he is gonna win (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:25:35 PM EST
    But idiots like you and his team;s behavior today make it more likely he will lose in november.

    My gawd, the stupid, it burns!

    Parent

    If I could uprate this comment more than once, (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by snstara on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:12:03 PM EST
    I would.  That last line alone...

    Parent
    Thanks for the insult (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:39:37 PM EST
    I'll pass on returning the favor.

    I don't see how pointing out facts about why Clinton's strategy of giving full support to 1/2 vote proposals for MI and FL is going to end up having her lose sooner rather than later proves how "idiotic" Obama supporters are.

    Parent

    One more time... (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:03:28 PM EST
    if you have 'won' STOP TALKING ABOUT CLINTON.  Why do Obama supporters keep obsessing over everything Clinton?  Get over it.  Move on.  Let it go.  Get a grip. etc.

    Pivot! Pivot!  Pivot to the GE already.  You are annoying the he!! out of the rest of us.

    Parent

    They see tomorrow as the future (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by Jake Left on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:54 PM EST
    Next week is not even on their radar.

    Parent
    We know you don't see it (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:09:01 PM EST
    Obama doesn't see it, either.

    Your loss.

    Parent

    Obama has trouble ahead. (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:27:25 PM EST
    Eeek.

    Parent
    Your algebra (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:39:39 PM EST
    is wrong.  He has now 1983 plus what he won today plus your 40 +30 is still short of 2117,5

    Parent
    Where do you get your numbers from? (1.00 / 0) (#131)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:46:03 PM EST
    Demconwatch says he has 2053, including the new FL & MI delegates, plus a few declared supers from those states.

    Parent
    RCP (none / 0) (#201)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:25:27 PM EST
    Well, this is politics... (1.00 / 2) (#22)
    by His Grace on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:17:30 PM EST
    What did you expect the RBC to do, go "Gosh, ya know what? We were completely wrong."

    The outcome reached was the likely outcome. That this comes to a shock to people is illuminating.

    Parent

    No BTD, Dems ain't gonna learn anything (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:14:02 PM EST
    soon. Not a darn thing. Get ready for more headaches in 2012.

    I thought Duncun said we were cheaters? (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:14:13 PM EST
    Maybe we're suckin cheaters?

    ...sucking cheaters. Yep that's us. (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:18:07 PM EST
    ...nice of them to notice.

    Parent
    Fox is having a field day with Obama (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by MMW on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:17:09 PM EST
    and not in the MSNBO mode. Their currently laying the groundwork for November.

    If Obama is the nominee, the Dems are toast.

    I don't see how he MSNBO darling status remains.

    94 % of Fox viewers (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by cannondaddy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:22:38 PM EST
    voted for Bush in 04.  They're kinda preaching to the choir.  And their Obama treatment isn't a new development.

    Parent
    If there current angles are what's to be (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by MMW on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:24:59 PM EST
    expected from the 527 ads (which will be showing on channels other than fox) We're cheneyed big time.

    Parent
    Thank you (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Dadler on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:24:41 PM EST
    Any Dem worrying about how FOX treats any Dem candidate has been living in a hole.  They treat them all like sh*t.  All the time.  

    Parent
    I have an uncle and two aunts, (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by Jake Left on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:21:19 PM EST
    all very dim. All listen only to Faux and rush. All have had it with Bush and are ready to vote Democratic. But when Faux gets through with Barack, that will be three less votes for him.

    You guys keep tossing away any votes that don't meet your purity standards. Let's see, we don't want that 20% and we don't want that 20% and we don't need that 20% and we hate that 20%. We will just win with the rest.

    You are innumerate.

    Parent

    Bush won in 2004. (none / 0) (#130)
    by cosbo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:45:16 PM EST
    Duh.

    Parent
    anyone watch the Obama press conference? (5.00 / 12) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:17:50 PM EST
    Deep thought, their candidate sucks.

    What happened (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:41:59 PM EST
    was it a great speech in front of specially selected journalists with prepared questions?

    Parent
    Press conference (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:51:26 PM EST
    on his faith and leaving the church.  It was disturbing and very amateurish.  

    Parent
    My diary on today's events (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:17:54 PM EST
    can be found at this link.

    Great piece (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:20:12 PM EST
    I swear I did not steal mine from you.

    Parent
    Recc'd n/t (none / 0) (#32)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:19:50 PM EST
    You dealt with the speed reader (none / 0) (#51)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:23:57 PM EST
    nicely, Steve.

    Parent
    I hope there is a fight at the convention (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:19:15 PM EST
    over the 4 delegates. BTD, if Hillary's reps. today would have banged the table, argued to seat Fl/Mi at 100%, giving her in MI no split just all to her, what do you think would have happened. The fix was in, the counts on the voting was a fix. To me, at least this way, she got the delegate count to clinch, upped, the popular vote to count (in her favor), her points stated, and the right to protest to the committee at the convention. Otherwise, she would have come away with nothing. I believe in fighting, but I think she knows her enemy and she bought time. Give her at least that credit?


    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Monda on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:24:33 PM EST
    They (the msm and Obama crew)would have buried her if she kept this going.  

    Parent
    What Blanchard said about his Michigan newspaper (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:21:08 PM EST
    that sure as hell will matter to normal people.

    You would be wrong (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:21:15 PM EST
    This year is UNLIKE any other I have seen.

    and if you do not recognize that, then you have not been paying attention.

    I get the impression you (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:46:11 PM EST
    think the campaign divisions are mostly on the net?  People are called names for wearing Clinton buttons in grocery store, my friend had her car spit on, people scream out taunts at supporters... these activities are written up in articles and you think this is going to have to no impact?   I think that will be a wrong position.

    Parent
    Except (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:23:52 PM EST
    the uninformed around us ask us for our informed opinion.

    Not buying your theory.

    Yikes, now those folks on that blog are... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:23:53 PM EST
    ...some hard-nosed Hillary supporters. And people come here and complain about little old us.

    I have a feeling (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:24:18 PM EST
    that the video exists.

    If it does, Obama will have to throw her under the bus.  Then he might as well join her.  :(

    (Why did they ever think they could weather that storm?  Even if he'd won after Super Tuesday, the repubs would have used it!)

    Also (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Cate on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:34:29 PM EST
    as Obama just LOVES the sound of his own voice, who's to say there aren't videos of Obama at the pulpit? Now, those will very interesting!

    Parent
    I think the tape exists, too (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by miriam on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:45:03 PM EST
    And I also think it's the reason we saw Obama today retire from his church. Then, when the tape goes mega-public, his media can say "That's old news."  I do not believe anything can dissuade the core Obama supporters.  They need a messiah and they think they have one.  

    Parent
    I think the tape exists, too (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by miriam on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:46:39 PM EST
    And I also think it's the reason we saw Obama today retire from his church. Then, when the tape goes mega-public, his media can say "That's old news."  I do not believe anything can dissuade the core Obama supporters.  They need a messiah and they think they have one.  It's totally irrational, but what about this primary season has been rational?  

    Parent
    Sorry for double post! (none / 0) (#136)
    by miriam on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:47:44 PM EST
    Spouse and I (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:27:42 PM EST
    are registering as independents on Monday.

    The Democrats have to get their sh*t together if they want us back.
    Reform the primary process!  Count all votes!

    Why do you care? (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Niffari on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:28:59 PM EST
    Who really cares what one candidate's supporters say about them? That's pretty thin-skinned. Now if it were a close friend or relative...I'd be mad. The fact is that both Obama and Clinton have die-hard supporters that are shocked, just shocked, that anyone could support the rival camp. Those that must insult should be ignored. Ignore the trolls is always a good policy.

    Dear Atrios (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by TimNCGuy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:29:25 PM EST
    Clinton's supporters suck?  What did you think of Wexler's performance?  Why did he feel the need to YELL throughout his entire PERFORMANCE?

    And, what was the deal with the man near the end who talked in support of the MI plan and felt the need to bring up Obama's LEADERSHIP?  What was that about?  What LEADERSHIP did Obama display in regards to FL and MI?

    Wexler, FWIW (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:22:54 PM EST
    always yells.  He yelled enough to break your eardrums when he was defending Bill Clinton on impeachment on 6 TV shows a day.

    Don't know what his problem is, but FWIW, it's not confined to Obama-love.

    Parent

    Alcee Hastings is going to boycott the convention (5.00 / 8) (#88)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:32:07 PM EST
    And good for him I say. He does talk about unifying behind the nominee but still sending a message.

    From Naked Politics (go there to read the entire thing)

    Now, on May 31, 2008, a group of elitist insiders of the DNC have effectively said that some of my ancestors' progeny equal only 1/2 and that men and women in Florida who voted on January 29th are 1/2 also.  For a Party which will crown its historic nominee on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's `I Have a Dream' speech, the DNC's decision today is tragically ironic.

    As a matter of protest, I do not intend to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver.



    Great! (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:36:46 PM EST
    Do you feel the (1.00 / 0) (#133)
    by RussTC3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:46:33 PM EST
    same way about the other Democratic pledged and super delegates whose vote only counts as 1/2?

    They broke the rules, and they were punished.  It SUCKS, I agree, but it's the rules.  All the voters will be represented at the Convention by the same amount of pledged and super delegates.

    Parent

    That was a quote (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:18:11 PM EST
    I was quoting Alcee Hastings. That line is to show the quote and I provided the link so you could read the entire quote so as not to violate copyright.

    You want to know how I feel? I feel as if the RBC and the DNC doesn't give a damn about voters. That they don't feel the need to do anything other than be NOTBush in order to win. They have been willing to throw people under the bus for NO GAIN. And that is just a line I will not cross.

    If they and you want to push the rules, then you better be damn sure you are following the rules. These decisions of theirs haven't. I have no problem with punishing those who break rules. But the violations and the punishments MUST be uniform. Anything else is an injustice.

    Show me the rule that allows them to give a waiver to a state to move their primary out of compliance in order to maintain the same order.

    Show me the rule that allows them to give a waiver to a state to move their primary up and out of order because other states moved.

    Show me the rule that allows them to assign delegates to a candidate which they didn't get in an election.

    You want to preach the rules? You should start by reading them. BTW, voters aren't represented by the same amount of delegates. Delegates aren't assigned due to the number who vote in the primary nor by the size of the state. PDF

    Parent

    He doesn't have it yet. (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    So I disagree.

    Shouldn't we be trying to put the strongest candidate forward?!

    The Democrats won't have a nominee until (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:34:21 PM EST
    convention.

    The unity pony is nothing more than a carousel until it has 2118 real votes to give it legs that work.


    Shorter Atrios (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by songster on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:37:24 PM EST
    You suck.

    I appreciate that. (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Fabian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:43:41 PM EST
    Cuz I spent some time at teh great orange today and I found out the width and breadth and depth of my suckiness in enthusiastically gory detail.

    I prefer just "You suck.".  It's concise.

    Parent

    There's a huge difference between the (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:40:42 PM EST
    two campaign support bases.

    You'll find nothing on the Clinton for President site that resembles the hatred and threats that show up on the Obama campaign site.

    It does not matter what the Clinton campaign (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:41:45 PM EST
    does or says at this point- the FIX WAS IN. And has been for months; the DNC,Obama campaign, and MSM(and many bloggers) have attacked everything she says or does-this was no different. THEY WOULD NOT LET HER WIN!!!! They are all so determind to tear this party apart by calling Clinton and he supporters racists or other names,pulling republican style tactics and on and on. Today was not about unity- it was making sure Obama wins the nom at ANY COST. They will have their nominee and I will laugh my ass off when John McCain beats the crap out of them in November. Sorry if I sound "bitter"- but they drove me to it.  

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:23:17 PM EST
    The deal "negotiated" today was EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID IT WOULD BE WEEKS ago.

    And really, did they need to add insult to injury by taking away 18,000 votes (4 delegates) from Clinton?  Was that necessary for "unity"?  

    Do they think that it's just HER standing in the way of his re-election?  They don't think it's her VOTERS!?  They don't think his increasing unfavorables are due to things like this petty crap of taking away the 4 delegates he didn't even need?

    Yeah, I'd change my affiliation if I could, but I did so months ago.

    Parent

    You are wrong.. (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:49:57 PM EST
    I've been away the past few days, and in deep Red territory. Ran into several repubs who.. surprised me by talking politics -- usually we don't engage because they know I've been solidly Democratic past several years, and have called them out on occasion (even though several are friends and family -- we just label the other 'politically stupid and beyond reach' and go about our business).

    Interestingly, the talk turned to popular vote and delegate counts etc. and I was taken aback and surprised. Here are Republicans (who I now guess may have voted for Hillary) deeply engaged in this Dem. primary -- and heck, knew about things like the differences between caucus and primary vote counts in several Western states.

    The Democratic party is just going to turn these folks back toward McCain by its behavior! Based on my sampling I'd say the number of engaged and active voters -- is 1:3 or maybe 1:4. Don't quite know why that is. Perhaps the Internet reaches more people than you think.. and perhaps more folks are watching Faux news. I suspect gas being >4$/gallon has a lot to do with it too -- a lot of people are out there looking for real solutions!


    More faith-based (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:52:47 PM EST
    thinking from the Obama campaign.

    You don't get it, do you.  Obama has problems that go beyond the MI and FL voting issues.

    your argument is preposterous. Look (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:54:26 PM EST
    at polls of Hillary supporters. Obama is in serious trouble with them---and they aren't all here at Talkleft. After today, do you honestly think Obama's appeal with them is higher? Obviously not. In fact, I expect McCain got many donations today from Democrats.

    Look skepti (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:05:51 PM EST
    Not voting for Obama has nothing to do with Clinton for lots of us.  Some of us simply believe that Obama is not qualified by experience or character to be president.  Why would you think that would change in the next few months?  Obama is not going to gain years of experience in that time.  Policy papers on his blog don't mean anything if you don't trust him.  

    Parent
    Sometimes Winning is Losing (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Missblu on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:56:36 PM EST
     I think a few  excerpts from Rudyard Kipling are called for tonight with Hillary in mind.

    "If you can keep your head when all about you
        Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
     If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
        But make allowance for their doubting too,
     If you can wait and not be tired by the waiting
       Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
       Or being hated don't give way to hating"

     If you can meet with Triumph and disaster
      And treat those two imposters just the same
     Or watch the thing you gave your life to, broken
     And stoop and build em up with worn out tools.

     And if you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
      Or walk with Kings and nor lose the common      touch,
      If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you   and all men count with you
        Yours is the earth and everything that is in it.

    Hillary will be fine and should shun any so called "unity ticket"

    Hers will be the world later.

    'Your candidate's supporters suck': (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by snstara on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:03:34 PM EST
    We're long past the 'he started it/no, she started it' phase.

    I'm now waiting for this to degenerate further.  Watch, Democrats will start greeting each other with 'nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, phlbbttt!!!' at any moment.  ;)

    And we're trying to convince (5.00 / 5) (#165)
    by HenryFTP on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:04:48 PM EST
    the electorate that we're more competent than the Republicans?

    How many more televised trainwrecks are the Party Leadership planning between here and Election Day?

    If this is the infighting they're content to let the public see, the power struggle behind closed doors must be about as bad as our own little shrillosphere.

    It does remind me of Carter-Kennedy in 1980, which had more ideological content, but was also a personality-driven power struggle.

    Maybe one day we'll get the inside story as to why the Obama team kept playing hardball when they had the inside track to the nomination instead of using the opportunity to be magnaminous to Florida and Michigan. Even if the tediously self-important RBC still insisted on having things its way, Obama could have plausibly staked out a position more empathetic with the voters.

    I won't address Hillary's lost opportunity because I don't understand her strategy or her tactics and the implications as to whether she either really thought this was a good idea herself or was influenced by the lame advice of her staff or had some backroom maneuvering ulterior motives just puts my head on the critical edge of exploding.

    You have to wonder how trust and confidence can be restored within the Party.

    Playing Hardball (2.00 / 0) (#196)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:31:34 PM EST
    I'd guess that the Obama campaign has kept playing hardball because undue graciousness would be perceived as weakness and Clinton would be encouraged to continue a hopeless campaign until the convention. The primaries will be over on Tuesday. This has been going on for five months. It's time to bring it to conclusion and turn our attention to John McCain.

    Parent
    Apparently (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:17:59 PM EST
    you never talk to "real people."

    They also need our money (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by differnet on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:34:30 PM EST
    I will never give the DNC another penny for the rest of my life.  I suggest others make the same pledge.  The next time the DNC calls asking for a donation, I will cheerfully tell them since they are sexist and refuse to count ever vote, my money will only be given to candidates that I want - not ones they endorse.  

    As for Atrios, I will never visit his site again - nor Americablog.  If they think we suck so bad, they can do without my support.

    Will the Dems learn this anytime soon? (4.83 / 6) (#21)
    by livesinashoe on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:17:16 PM EST
    No.

    This has been another in the series "Short Answers To Short Questions."

    did you or did you not feel .... (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by coolit on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:19:50 PM EST
    the same way in 2000 and 2004.  Why is this so shocking now?

    It's not.  It's just that it finally is clear as day that it's happening again.

    Parent

    It feels worse than Gore (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:42:24 PM EST
    And Worse than Kerry for sure. I thought Kerry was pathetic, I mean the man would not even defend himself. I see that in Obama too. He is gonna get his.. in the end.

    Parent
    Actually, Obama's supporters REALLY suck. (4.33 / 6) (#101)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:35:49 PM EST
    They go to Obama's church and talk about how Hillary ani't never been called a n*gga.  They go to his church and talk about how she cried in NH because she's white and thinks she's entitled to the presidency.  But you know who really SUCKS?  Barack Obama.  Because unlike the higher ups in the Catholic church, the african american woman who spoke before Obama's pastor friend in the same church on the same day, and John McCain, Barack Obama never said anything in defense of Hillary Clinton.  I'm sorry, I am not down with uniting behind the Chicago machine.

    BTD, I am beginning to see your point. (4.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Cate on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:16:58 PM EST
    This is hard to accept but I can't see anyway that Hillary will be the nominee. And, if she WERE, by some miracle, to be nominated, the media, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, the Creative Class and the DNC would not stop until they crashed her campaign.

    She is taking the high road now in preparation for 2012.

    Re: Stealing Delegates (1.50 / 2) (#6)
    by mattt on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:12:45 PM EST
    Those 4 delegates can't be stolen from Hillary, because they don't belong to her.  They belong to Michigan.  The plan approved by the RBC was the plan put forward by the Michigan Democratic Party.

    If it's Michigan Democrats we care about, how is this not a victory?

    So much for the voters (5.00 / 11) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:16:58 PM EST
    You mean the write in voters? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:20:41 PM EST
    That had their votes discounted? Or how about the Democrats that were advised to go vote for Romney to screw with the Republicans since the party empathetically told their vote wouldn't matter?

    If you're intent is to simply and mechanically ratify what votes were cast, then yes, your argument wins. If you are trying to represent the true preferences of the voters of Michigan (which is the purpose of voting, it's not an end in itself), then there is no possible way to do that, since these preferences were never accurately captured.

    There is no solution that saves "the will of the voters" since we will never know what the true "will of the voters" was.

    Parent

    I had enough respect for my vote (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:22:22 PM EST
    to vote for my candidate. Those who did not, do not deserve a voice in the contest.

    Parent
    count the write in votes! (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:24:10 PM EST
    I am with you. Let's go fight that fight too.

    You think you are going to get me to argue against counting votes?> You are a fool.

    I am the person who is counting the uncommitted votes for Obama.

    Sometimes people like you just are so effing stupid.

    Parent

    I'm saying (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:29:30 PM EST
    that why is the 73-55 delegate slating sacred as "the will of the people"? The 73-55 division is based on, at very best, an extremely fuzzy interpretation of the "will of the voters".

    It's one that you could start from, but there are other arguments that can be made that are as equally fuzzy that start from different premises about the "will of the voters" and come to different delegate allocations. Including write-in votes at 80% for Obama, for example, would give a final allocation of 69-59.  

    Parent

    Wrong wrong wrong (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:32:41 PM EST
    The 73/55 is THE reflection of the ACTUAL votes cast by voters who respected their votes enough to vote in the Dem primary. The 55 portion isn't even reflective of Obama votes as there were other candidates who also foolishly removed their names. Write-in ballots were not allowed, therefore invalid.

    Parent
    Voters: Those who voted. (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Fabian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:26:12 PM EST
    If you didn't vote, then you are not a "Voter".   Can we at least get that point clear?

    That was probably the most head bangingly painful part of the MI debate - the talk about the People Who Didn't Vote deserving representation.  They made the choice to NOT be represented.  

    argh!

    Parent

    Not following you (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:33:24 PM EST
    pretty hard to make that argument when you're told by both candidates that you will not be represented before you've even left for the voting booth no matter what you do.

    The thing is, MI should be represented somehow. I agree.

    But what is the end goal of representing MI? It is to accurately represent the true preferences of the democrats in MI. Seating the delegation as 73-Clinton 55-Uncommitted is a pretty egregious violation of that goal, since it is clear that there are plenty of Obama supporters in MI. 73-Clinton 55-Obama might be a good start, but I fail to see how the election that took place was really that great of a measure of the ultimate goal of seating delegates from MI in the first place, making that allocation sacrosanct.


    Parent

    You're funny. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Fabian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:39:32 PM EST
    You really are.

    Here's the deal.  It's done.  The only thing left to do is to appeal to the Credential Committee for whatever effect that may have.  Otherwise, the primaries were scheduled, the votes cast, the legal ballots counted and now the RBC has made their decision.

    There's no point discussing anything outside of what, why and how to appeal to the CC AND how to keep this damaging and costly clusterF_ from happening again.

    Parent

    Reality (5.00 / 5) (#161)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:02:36 PM EST
    In Michigan, IF ANYTHING, the Clinton voters would have been more inclined to stay home because of the phony "votes wouldn't count" meme.  Why?  Because the Obama supporters campaigned hard and vigorously for people who supported Obama to vote "uncommmited."

    If, if, if, if.  Obama took his name off the ballot precisely in order to try to invalidate the results because he knew he could not win.

    That's a tactic you're proud of?  That, to you, is in accordance with democratic values, never mind Democratic values?

    You are a hypocrite.

    Parent

    Two points in reply (1.00 / 2) (#103)
    by mattt on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:36:00 PM EST
    Those "non-voters" who stayed home because they took what the DNC (and candidate Clinton) told them seriously are going to be important to either candidate in carrying MI in the Fall.  They may number as many as those who actually did vote in January.

    ALso, in the past, many voters have stayed home for reasons like preferring to feed their family rather than pay a poll tax....avoid the embarrassment of a rigged literacy test....or just because they were convinced their votes would never really be counted.  But it was their choice to stay home, right?

    The Michigan vote was too flawed to be taken as any kind of a serious indicator of the will of the people.

    Parent

    What concession do you propose for (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:43:08 PM EST
    the voters of WV who stayed home because the Obama campaigners called them to tell them they were wasting their time because the nomination had already been won?


    Parent
    Be careful of the argument you are making (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:00:28 PM EST
    You may not be aware of this, but you are arguing that all state caucus results are flawed. Now I would agree with you on that one and so would a lot of others here. But I suspect that you don't mind a flawed election, as long as it benefits your preferred candidate.

    Parent
    Uh (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:30:09 PM EST
    Can you remember any election in history where we concerned ourselves with divining the will of people who did not vote?

    In the name of "the will of the voters," we just took several thousand voters who voted for Hillary Clinton, looked at exit polls to determine that they would have rather voted for Obama, and took those votes away from Clinton and gave them to Obama.  I can see how that arguably represents the will of the voters, but can you think of an election where that has ever occurred before?

    Parent

    I think Democrats do it all the time (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:36:23 PM EST
    for voters that are disenfranchised by various Republican ploys.

    The larger  point is, though, that the 73-55 split is obviously only tenuously connected to Obama and Clinton's actual support in the state (what would have been expressed if it was sanctioned as a real election and had everyone's name on the ballot), and while it is a good starting point, I see no reason to give it excessive deference.

    Parent

    You can quit (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:01:56 PM EST
    with the "name not on the ballot" lines. Everyone knows what happened, especially at this site.

    Parent
    You know, in every election I know, (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:09:31 PM EST
    my name has not been on the ballot. So I am one of those people whose "name is not on the ballot". Whne do I get my share?

    Parent
    I'm struck, BTD, (2.00 / 0) (#57)
    by mattt on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:24:57 PM EST
    by your disregard for the voters who stayed home after being told their votes wouldn't count.

    The resolution gives Hillary a substantial majority of MI delegates.  Yet Chuck Todd, who has been respected in the past, has figured that if the MI primary were re-voted with both candidates on the ballot and campaigning, it would be close to a dead heat.

    How happy do you think those MI voters are to see their state go 69-59 for Hillary?  What about their rights? Aren't they important to carrying the state in the Fall?

    This was a difficult situation, impossible to resolve perfectly.  I can't think of a fairer resolution than to apportion the delegates as the Michigan Democrats themselves would like.

    Parent

    Aside from a candidate quote, (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:29:50 PM EST
    please show me any official statement telling MI voters that if they voted, their votes would not count.

    Good luck with that.

    Parent

    Here's what turned up (1.00 / 0) (#174)
    by mattt on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:50 PM EST
    in one Google query: LINK

    Parent
    Did you even bother to read any of those links? (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:30:24 PM EST
     They don't support your argument.Several are lapsed links but just looking at the first one here is what it says:

    Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.

    In spite of the vote, some party leaders and officials said they believed the delegates would eventually be seated at the convention.

    ....

    Fowler also said that stripping the delegates was unnecessary, since many party insiders believe that the eventual nominee will have them restored at the convention.

    "No one at this table believes that the delegates from Florida and Michigan will be absent from the convention," Fowler told the rules panel.

    Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said in a statement: "The threat not to seat the delegates of Michigan and Florida at the Democratic convention is a hollow threat. They will be seated, and when they are, it will be plain for all to see that the privileged position that New Hampshire and Iowa have extracted through threats and pledges from candidates is on its last legs."

    Several others say the same thing. As Levin and Blanchard said at the hearing today, newspapers, tv stations, and public officials in Michigan were all assuring Michigan voters that eventually their votes would count.

    Parent

    OK, should have read them. (1.00 / 0) (#205)
    by mattt on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:08:56 PM EST
    What I remember is "it won't count" was the phrase commonly used by TV pundits to descrbe MI int he weeks leading up to the vote.  Here's a memo from the Clerk of Washtenaw County indicating that that view was not without basis:
    The Democratic candidates on the ballot are: Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich....

    Write-in votes WILL NOT COUNT in the primary ...

    That being said, both national parties are penalizing Michigan for the unauthorized early primary.... planning for the Democratic National Convention in Denver next summer is going forward on the assumption that Michigan won't have a delegation there at all.  No hotel space, nor seating section on the convention floor, have been allocated to Michigan.  Possibly the delegates will end up being seated, after the presidential nomination has already been settled. [emphasis added]

    Here's an item from the Kalamazoo Gazette:
    Michigan's Democratic primary is pretty much a bust because the national Democrats have stripped Michigan of its delegates as punishment for moving the primary date without consent. Moreover, John Edwards and Barack Obama pulled their names from the Michigan ballot.
    This story captures the mood on the ground, at least what the reporter saw....it's titled "Will Anyone Vote?"


    Parent
    It's not a victory (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:20:41 PM EST
    because it in no way reflects the actual votes. My vote. My wifes vote. I have been disenfranchised. But hey, it's the Obama RULZ, so everyone should be celebrating the decision.

    Parent
    You don't care about (4.83 / 6) (#13)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:15:58 PM EST
    MI democrats.  You care about Obama.

    She won the state.

    Parent

    It's hard NOT to be disappointed by supporters (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by RussTC3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:25:34 PM EST
    on BOTH sides of the fence though, isn't it?

    I mentioned this in the prior thread, but I wanted to bring it up again.

    It was mentioned during the meeting by the fellow of the Michigan Democratic Party that Barack Obama received about 30,000 write-in's that were previously NOT counted.  If you add that to the prior total (594,398) then we come up with 624,398.

    That drops Senator Clinton's percentage in the state from 55.2% to 52.6%.

    I know that delegates aren't necessarily awarded strictly by percentages, but that would take away three delegates from her (70.4 to 67.3).

    Instead of going off about how Senator Clinton was stripped of delegates, can we please find out if the reason for her dropping a few delegates is due to this reason?

    I assume that Edwards got a few write-in's as well, which would have dropped her percentage even further.

    Illegal votes, I believe. (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by Fabian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:29:55 PM EST
    The candidate needed to be registered in order to have any write in ballots counted.  

    Correction?  Validations?

    Parent

    Yes...... (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by michitucky on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:00:13 PM EST
    That is correct!!!

    Parent
    So do you believe in (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:19:59 PM EST
    the Roolz, or only the Rools that favor your candidate?

    Parent
    It's hard not to see (4.92 / 13) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:27:22 PM EST
    that Obama supporters are record holders in the stoopid since it is THIER candidate who is going to be the nominee and they insist on acting like boors and a**holes to the sucky supporters of the other candidate.

    How dumb can you get? Or is it that you want to whine in November too?

    Parent

    It's funny (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:29:01 PM EST
    When they say "it's over," I have a feeling that they're more right than they realize. And every time they say it, it's more true than before.

    Parent
    I apologized for my honest mistake in the other (none / 0) (#79)
    by RussTC3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:29:41 PM EST
    thread.  And the point in my previous post was more deep than just the comment I made on whose supporters are worse.

    Did you at least read over what I wrote about the votes?

    I'm not here to fight.

    Parent

    So You respond in Kind? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Niffari on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:29:50 PM EST
    Were the insults necessary?

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#94)
    by RussTC3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:33:50 PM EST
    insults?

    Seriously, I'm really interested in finding out if the reason for Clinton's weakened delegate take is because of the write-in votes.

    Parent

    I should take your word for this, (3.00 / 2) (#85)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:30:17 PM EST
    why?

    Dumbass.

    Parent

    Re: Florida (1.00 / 0) (#78)
    by mattt on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:29:39 PM EST
    One of the committee members mentioned that turnout in FL was driven by a major property tax measure that was also on the ballot.  I wonder how that skewed the sample of voters who did turn out, after being told their presidential votes wouldn't count?  Property taxes....older property owners....disproportionately Hillary supporters.

    Obama votes were likely suppressed disporportionately by the understanding that the presidential vote would not count.  Allowing it to stand as is really was a concession by Obama.

    Older voters (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:34:55 PM EST
    vote. If the only thing on the ballot was dogcatcher they would vote.

    There was plenty of talk about the vote counting prior to the election. And no evidence that either the vote was suppressed and certainly not specifically suppressed to hurt Obama.

    But keep pumping out those old talking points. They didn't work the first few hundred times I read them, but maybe someone will catch me on a weak day and I'll buy it.

    Parent

    No one will buy it. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:38:44 PM EST
    mattt isn't going to win that argument.

    Parent
    He's already made it, word for word (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:36:23 PM EST
    on at least one other thread, and was blown off then too.  At least change some of the words around, please.

    Parent
    Just to be clear, (1.00 / 0) (#160)
    by mattt on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:02:10 PM EST
    I don't think there was any deliberate intent to skew the Florida vote toward Cinton.  I was just speculating there might have been some shift in that direction.

    And I love voters.  I especially love voters who turn out to cast their ballot no matterr what anybody says, but we've gotta look out for the more easily discouraged, too.

    If the GOP passes those voter ID laws a lot of eligible voters are going to be tempted to stay home rather than go through the trouble of complying.  Since that's their "choice," do we just write them off too?

    Parent

    Voter ID laws (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:22:22 PM EST
    and other voter suppression tactics.  What are you gonna say about it now that the Democrats have thrown away the high ground?  "Count the Votes" will sound stupid coming from a party that hosed up like the RBC did today.

    Giving votes to someone who wasn't on the ballot is bad enough, but to take votes from one candidate and give to the other is completely undemocratic.


    Parent

    Wow! (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:36:10 PM EST
    You really do hate voters don't you?

    Parent
    I voted. (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:37:21 PM EST
    It was a huge turnout in MI.  And 2 million people voted in Florida.

    That is a disgusting argument.

    Parent

    One word (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Davidson on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:39:41 PM EST
    Caucuses.

    Parent
    Keep trying (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:23:45 PM EST
    Maybe you'll convince yourself.

    Parent
    Even deeper thought (1.00 / 0) (#202)
    by s5 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:30:17 PM EST
    It's a running joke that he's been making for months, to parody how ridiculous the extreme candidate supporter partisans have been during the primary. What's next, objecting to the treatment of ponies in Holden's overcrowded stables?

    Who is Larry Johnson? (none / 0) (#36)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:20:27 PM EST


    Ex CIA agent, political commentator. (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:21:46 PM EST
    He was a friend of Plame's---I believe that's where his prominence comes from. He USED to be a regular source for Josh Marshall, but now his blog is one of the most vitriolic anti-Obama sites.
    It's a very mixed bag there, but there are some good writers.

    Parent
    ...and (1.00 / 0) (#59)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:25:32 PM EST
    repeated death threats to Obama that the Secret Service is investigating and judicious use of the n-word by his forum denizens (in addition to widely-accepted racist allusions). If you wanted an example of a cesspool, then that's it.

    Parent
    Larry is the one turning over the (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:28:15 PM EST
    death threats to the SS. Do not blame him.
    He runs a rough blog, which is his right.
    You don't think Kos is responsible for all the comments at DK, do you?

    Parent
    I think (1.00 / 0) (#138)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:48:57 PM EST
    any blog or forum that freely lets its commenters use the n-word and other hateful stereotypes and slurs about blacks isn't really a democratic blog at all. That's free republic territory right there.

    Parent
    Daily Kos is indistinguishable (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:52:44 PM EST
    from Free Republic today.

    Parent
    Oh, but it's OK to use (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:41 PM EST
    demeaning sexist slurs against women, as Kos people do?

    Now we know where you're coming from.

    I don't visit Larry's blog, and I don't defend him.

    How about you?

    Parent

    What about hate towards women (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:20:24 PM EST
    including Clinton?

    Parent
    DailyKos is the best equivalent of FR. (none / 0) (#142)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:52:08 PM EST
    I must not go there (none / 0) (#146)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:53:12 PM EST
    often enough.  I have never seen the n-word there.

    Parent
    I have definitely (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:35:47 PM EST
    seen the c__t word used toward Clinton there, and many other words like that.

    Parent
    I haven't either, except in reference (4.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:54:59 PM EST
    to some rap songs.

    Parent
    Larry has good pieces (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:34:26 PM EST
    just because some of the bloggers get out of hand and the commentors get out of hand, you can't diss the whole site.  There has been some good info there.  Don't read the comments is a good rule for some sites.

    Parent
    No Quarter often posts video first (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:46:52 PM EST
    on topics that will end up on TV and all over the internet.

    Like anything else, you'll agree with some, and disagree with others.

    They don't make up things, though.


    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:54:51 PM EST
    I've never known them to make anything up.  But, I will believe the tape exists when I see it.

    Parent
    Still listed (1.00 / 0) (#71)
    by cannondaddy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:28:09 PM EST
    on TalkLeft under "blogs we like"...

    Parent
    All death threats (none / 0) (#73)
    by befuddled on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:28:20 PM EST
    are immediately reported to the SS, he posts on the front page often.

    Parent
    Bob Johnson's (none / 0) (#65)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:27:19 PM EST
    evil twin.

    Parent
    He's funnier too---these days, anyway. (none / 0) (#152)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:55:42 PM EST
    citizen big tent democrat, withstanding (none / 0) (#42)
    by cy street on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:21:37 PM EST
    a unity ticket, what might the obama camp do to unify the party as it was?  i do not see any opening with the race is "close" crowd.  

    it seems to me, the time has come to move on and to plan another way forward.  the past teaches us how easy it is for number two to foil the nominee.  team obama must heed these lessons.

    for all the democrats won over by mccain today, obama must equalize with new democrats of all stripes.

    this is carter/kennedy all over again.  hopefully, obama will not make the same mistakes or faux gestures.

    Carter/Kennedy, as I understand it, (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:23:40 PM EST
    was about policy as much as anything. This contest is about personality and identity. The unity has to be literal.

    Parent
    Because we have different aims, I assume (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:24:29 PM EST
    For my part, if Obama is nominated--which seems inevitable--I want him to win. As I understand it, you don't.

    Yup (none / 0) (#67)
    by RussTC3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:27:23 PM EST
    I say it again:

    Vocal Minority vs. the Silent Majority

    Well, I'm going to wait this one out (none / 0) (#111)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:38:46 PM EST
    Larry Johnson has been highly inflammatory and very unreliable.

    I don't really like NoQuarter (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by kayla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:03:11 PM EST
    I used to visit it, but ever since NAFTAgate the pettiness of some of the posts started to irritate me.

    I bet there is a tape, but it's probably not as inflammatory as Johnson is trying to make it seem.  I bet it's another one of her 'woe is me! there's no joy in this country' type of speeches.

    Parent

    After all we have seen from that church, (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:07:55 PM EST
    I would not be surprised at all if what comes out is highly inflammatory---on a par with Pfleger's remarks. Obviously that is what the people of that church like to hear.

    Parent
    I'll grant you the first, but the second? (none / 0) (#145)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:53:04 PM EST
    Not sure about that.

    Parent
    Check the site rules. you can't (none / 0) (#192)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:29:03 PM EST
    post profanity here.

    Whoever said (none / 0) (#206)
    by ruthinor on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:47:20 PM EST
    that comments on No Quarter (Larry  Johnson's site) included use of the N word is lying through his/her teeth.  Larry would never tolerate it and I've NEVER read such a comment.

    Lost (none / 0) (#207)
    by gormenghast on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:17:14 AM EST
    Yesterday, I witnessed the spectacle of an African American put a motion on the table to give human beings, in a democracy, one half of a vote, then lecture Harold Ickes on civil rights, and "rules" waived for another state. I have lost my bearings and all sense of irony.