home

Rules Are Rules, Except When They Are Not, Part 1 Zillion

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:00:56 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

A lot of outrage in the blogs about this Hillary Clinton statement:

Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process.

(Emphasis supplied.) What Clinton said happens to be true. But it is wrong of her to bring it up, imo. But the rules are the rules and Clinton is playing by them. I have never been a fan of the "rules are rules" argument, particularly since those invoking it are so selective about "the rules." See the blogs on superdelegates for instance.

Here is my rule - the will of the people. Expressed in the popular vote. That is my rule of who should be the nominee.

< The Last Thing Obama Wants Is . . . | Why the Feds Fail in NY Death Penalty Cases >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rules Are Rules, Except When They Are Not, Part 1 Zillion | 161 comments (161 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Get it over soon (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:55:59 AM EST

    The longer this goes on, the more outside observers will tend to think that the party that dreamed up this fiasco of a system should be barred from making the country's laws.

    We have a republican (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by badger on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:40:47 AM EST
    (samll r, please) form of government - we elect representatives to act for us. We don't find it unseemly when people try to influence those representatives with letters, phone calls, demonstrations or other kinds of influence, and we very often pretend our vote or some other inducement depends on their action.

    Why a party choosing its candidate should suddenly be restricted to direct democracy (which would be a horrible form of government - think Alabama 1960) is a mystery to me. The "will of the people" is certainly one consideration, but only one. There are other considerations as well which can be taken into account by the various elected representatives, which is all delegates are.

    This is why (4.80 / 5) (#10)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:20:09 AM EST
    I admire Hillary so much.

    She KNOWS how to play the game. Politics is her natural environment, and she advances with such cleverness that she leaves her opponents scrambling to catch up.

    People want to destroy her; but when the day is done, they're left with nothing with which to actually attack her. Except vague impressions.

    She really played the game well (none / 0) (#57)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:19:51 AM EST
    When her health care initiative was a flaming disaster.  Also when she presciently voted for the AUMF.  Come to think of it, when has she actually demonstrated significant political skill?

    Parent
    Hmm... (none / 0) (#64)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:31:02 AM EST
    I don't think you can claim she is forever tarnished because her FIRST attempt to initiate health care was a failure. As though politicians (and people in general) are not permitted failures once in a while? I don't care if you fail, as long as you learn from it. And, in my estimation, she has learned from the experience; and, considering that was 10 years ago, I think enough time has gone by that allows her experience to know system well.

    Besides, I'm talking about the here and now--this presidential campaign. Not about policy decisions or issues. I'm talking about her ability to work the Democratic system.

    And tying the Iraq vote to her ability to navigate the political process is a cheap shot and entirely irrelevant to what I originally said. And considering Obama's less than stellar (and less than principled) opposition to it, I don't think there is grounds to only deride her for the vote.

    Parent

    I would agree (none / 0) (#152)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:10:43 PM EST
    ...was ANYBODY else seriously talking about the health care crisis before she tried in the 1990's?  She got the conversation started.

    Parent
    With knowledge of how (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:58:04 AM EST
    agenda-setting works, and an open mind, you would see the benefit of her and Bill's work for health care in the '90s.

    And there is SCHIP and much more on her record, and I would go into it more if it would be worthwhile to do so with you.  That you don't know what she has done is not a persuasive argument, y'know, for those of us who do know.  So what was your purpose here?

    Parent

    Just think (none / 0) (#89)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:08:35 PM EST
    If the people had bought her Health care propsals back in 1992 how better off we would be.

    Parent
    Heh (4.75 / 4) (#24)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:40:26 AM EST
    The reason not to say it, to my mind, is that it raises echoes of the 1980 floor fight, not the best moment for our party.

    That said, I don't think anyone except the hyper-partisans gets excited over this sort of statement.  I recall a diary I saw at MyDD postulating that if Clinton won the nomination with these tactics, McCain would crush her by running ads showing heartbroken voters talking about how happy they were to vote for Obama, until Hillary poached their pledged delegate.  I'm afraid I do not dwell in the fantasyland where such scenarios take place.

    I suspect Hillary's motivation in making the statement is simply to further the narrative that goes "this thing is far from over, we have lots and lots of paths to victory."

    I love that vision (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:01:09 PM EST
    of the ads that McCain would run, featuring the "broken souls" of rejected Obama supporters.

    Oh, the drama of it all -- and the concern that the drama must continue, even if the candidate does not.  Interesting.  Are these supporters are themselves the ones they have been waiting for and just using him?  Now, that's a switcheroo I hadn't thought about.  Wonder what that would bode for Obama.

    Parent

    Someone make it stop (4.66 / 3) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:17:21 AM EST
    I can't stand it anymore.  I have never said anything because it wouldn't have mattered anyhow on any other blog but this one, all of the current delegate counts floating around out there - most of those delegate can change.  I'm not sure which delegates are bound and which aren't because it is different for each state but during the Texas primary I asked in a thread and two other commenters answered....and the elected delegates can vote for whichever candidate they want when the time comes.  Delegate counts.....schmelegate counts......tra la la la la, so in essence this is still all going to be decided by the party bosses because when they choose their direction - that's the way the delegates will tend to fall.  Like it or not we are going to be relying on a few bare knuckled pugilists to help us all decide this thing ;)

    Preparing Edwards delegates? (4.66 / 3) (#12)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:22:39 AM EST
    She is right they aren't forced to vote for their candidate but they are usually so intensly partsan that for all practical purposes they are. Unless they are Edwards delegates in which case I expect them to be intensly lobbied by both campaigns. That is probably who this is aimed at.

    So if Hillary pulls to within 60 pledged delegates of Obama, will Edwards be our VP candidate again?  Or Atty General? I am sure whatever Hillary offers him Obama will too.

    Issue (4.50 / 2) (#1)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:06:02 AM EST
    I thought they were pledged but not 'bound' (Craig Crawford).  There was a report on Politico that Obama's camp had gotten rid of some delegates for ones they felt would not flip.  There has been some work on the Edwards delegates too.

    OT.  MSNBC is calling Clinton a con-artist for proposing a joint ticket.

    Heh (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:08:12 AM EST
    I would expect no less from the Obama NBC network. Let's keep our comments on topic though.

    Parent
    TPM has an update (none / 0) (#65)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:33:21 AM EST
    Hillary wasn't implying she'd go after Obama's delegates - just citing the rules.

    Parent
    Delegates (none / 0) (#90)
    by 0 politico on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:08:43 PM EST
    are not bound.

    They may be pledged or unpledged.  Doesn't their allegience go up in the air if there is no winner on the first vote at the convention?

    Have so many folks forgotten what happens at conventions if there isn't a first round winner?

    Should she have said it?  Not my call.  Perhaps it was just something to keep folks distracted or engaged.

    Parent

    Replacements (none / 0) (#102)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:26:29 PM EST
    Obama has already had some delegates replaced. Alabama I believe.  They want people with guaranteed loyalty.

    Parent
    Forgotten, or never knew (none / 0) (#114)
    by cymro on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:40:31 PM EST
    Have so many folks forgotten what happens at conventions

    I imagine that most of the Obama supporters commenting online have never experienced a convention that went beyond the first ballot.

    Parent

    To which, I would add, (none / 0) (#131)
    by Oje on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    After looking into caucuses more, the process of the caucuses is such that no actually electoral votes or delegates have been determined at this time. I used Washington State's chart of the process: there are 35,000 party delegates going to county/legislative district caucuses at which ~2,000  delegates will be elected to go to the congressional district and state caucuses. At the state and legislative caucus, that will be trimmed to 80 delegates + 17  Superdelegates to the national convention.

    The kicker is that you do not have to be a delegate selected at the precinct level to be a delegate at any of the other levels. There are also "unpledged delegates (EVs)" (which basically have the same freedom as superdelegates) that will be (s)elected by a caucus delegate committee formed from the precinct or state delegates--I am not certain when the unpledged are (s)elected. Democrats "run" for those delegate positions like an election and submit forms to be (s)elected as pledged and unpledged delegates. Aside from the 17 Superdelegates, there are ~20 delegate positions reserved for state party leaders, but ~60 delegates come from this three tier election process. The state convention does not take place until June 14th, so the convention could blow with the nomination wind.

    Anyway, Clinton just speaks like the policy/process wonk that she is, knowing full well that when we have a definite nominee, pledged delegates or electoral votes will throw their votes to the presumptive nominee. What a monster she is for knowing what the rules are.

    Note: there may be mistakes in my description, I just reviewed their materials to understand caucuses in general, and other states may have different processes.

    Parent

    why are they mad at her today? (4.50 / 2) (#3)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:13:23 AM EST
    What about her comment incites derision?  I don't see it.

    Nothing (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:14:47 AM EST
    I disagree with her MAKING the comment. I do not deride her for it.

    Parent
    That's what I don't get (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    I don't see the comment as inflammatory.  It's something that Cream has said many times on TL, for instance.  It might be news to some voters.  It might (perchance!) get the media talking about the rules for a change.  But why is it a big deal?

    Now, I see that the leftblogs have gotten their panties in a wad again, but honestly, it doesn't take much these days, does it?  Clinton could say that she loves her daughter and there would be essays on how she really hates Chelsea and photographic evidence counting the inches between mother and daughter when they are on stage.

    If Obama had said this same thing, no outrage whatsoever.  If your argument is that Clinton should not have said it because she is held to a different standard and should keep her mouth shut...d*mned if she does, d*mned if she doesn't.

    (and ot: did you see Taylor Marsh has a letter from a woman claiming to have been kicked off TPM for having a divergent view?  Interesting stuff vis-a-vis your much anticipated Tues post on race/gender in the election...)

    Parent

    I don't really like her saying it (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:42:05 AM EST
    It smacks of "the rules don't count".  It causes people to throw up their hands and walk away because it doesn't matter what they do, they don't really count and just when you think something counts then it doesn't.  America itself though being largely unaware of these facts and this reality and now having Hillary spring it on them........civics class, teach my children civics people because they are all really dumbed down and they believe certain fairytales that aren't good for them.

    Parent
    When they say "rules"... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Oje on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:11:05 PM EST
    They mean "Obama rules!"

    Sometimes you can say it like "Obama  Rules!"--with a cadence like in Billy Madison ("O'Doyle Rules!").

    Parent

    Yes, and we (none / 0) (#156)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:53:46 PM EST
    all know what happened to the O'Doyles, right?  :D

    Parent
    dont know if it was her intent (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:30:30 AM EST
    but someone needs to start talking about how undemocratic this process has become.

    Parent
    Devious (none / 0) (#30)
    by Natal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    She's planting the seed. Brilliant but devious. However, another reason not to vote for her.

    Parent
    just curious (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:49:42 AM EST
    would you support an independent Obama candidacy?

    Parent
    It doesn't matter to me. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Natal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:03:04 AM EST
    I'm a disenchanted Kucinich supporter.

    Parent
    I don't want Obama to be an Independent (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:58:21 AM EST
    candidate, I want him to be a Democrat ;)

    Parent
    but (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:59:31 AM EST
    thats not really an answer is it?

    Parent
    It's my answer (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:02:19 AM EST
    and this is my world ;)

    Parent
    Heh, if devious was a reason for me (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:55:47 AM EST
    to not vote for someone I wouldn't have anyone to vote for.  You don't survive in politics if you don't have a devious streak when needed.

    Parent
    this is yet another example (none / 0) (#77)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:52:51 AM EST
    of the MSM playing the blogosphere for fools.
    In the Newsweek article, Hillary never said she would pursue Obama's delegates - but just cited the rules.
    TPM has updated but the false meme has now been planted - ensuring more rounds of Hillary-hate.

    Some left blogs eagerly invest in every kneejerk MSM misconstrued anti-Hillary narrative - increasing hits to TPM, MSNBC, Newsweek, DailyO, etc.


    Parent

    And Obama isn't going to go after hers? (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    Who is the clear undisputable leader anyhow?  Obama can't win a major state that isn't screaming red.  I'm really sick of Obama supporters pulling their numerous rabbits out of hats squealing that Hillary can't win as if that somehow makes their candidate the annointed KING, while failing to provide proof that Obama can outside of their much scrambled and crunched rhetoric.  He has tossed a lot of his progressive stances, he doesn't do well in closed primaries because he doesn't carry the majority of the Democratic support - but he wants to be the nominee of that party.....it is too funny and what a bamboozeler he is trying to steal the Democratic ticket through bullying caucuses and open Democrat for a Day primaries!  Or maybe it isn't funny at all!

    Parent
    Rules are rules (4.50 / 2) (#8)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    She is right that they aren't bound.  However there is about no chance that the vast majority of them are going to flip for either candidate.

    Delegates are people like Cream City, Stellaa, and Kathy except even more partisan*.  Unless there is a dead girl or a live boy involved, or a dead boy or a live girl in Hillary's case,  they aren't switching their vote.  

    Then why all the drama? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:22:50 AM EST


    Parent
    Consult Wolcott ... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:29:35 AM EST
    Drama is the bread and butter that Obama Supporters feed upon.

    They do him no favors though.

    Parent

    Do you think (none / 0) (#29)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:43:34 AM EST
    that Obama supporters are some alien race?

    They Democrats by and large.  Just like Hillary supporters.  Your perception of their emotional actions is based on your own biases.

    Parent

    Obama supporters: (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:48:44 AM EST
    Republicans, yes; Independents, yes; one-time voters, yes; traditional Democrats, not so much.

    Parent
    and another (none / 0) (#78)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:55:34 AM EST
    blogosphere myth is born, or perpetuated in this case.

    Parent
    Do you deny (none / 0) (#87)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:03:34 PM EST
    that Obama has said his voters will not vote for Hillary?

    The traditional Democrats will vote for Hillary so which voters was Obama referencing?

    Parent

    Bingo!! (none / 0) (#119)
    by cymro on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:48:07 PM EST
    Also, I believe that most of Hillary's supporters WILL vote for Obama if he is the candidate.

    Parent
    They need the drama (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by tree on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:41:52 AM EST
    to sustain themselves. These are people who were shocked when Clinton said "as far as I know", and spent days gnashing their teeth over whether an ad on YouTube made Obama look marginally darker than he looked at the debates.

      There are two reasons for the need. The first is controversy drives up hits. Hits drive up revenues.

     The second one is a by-product of the Obama personality-driven campaign. Its driven by emotions rather than issues. The blush of warm and uplifting feelings have tapered off, so now, in order to get another hit of the emotion "drug", they have to turn to baser emotions and lash out at the one they view as standing in the way.

     Plus,  a lot of the anger is pent-up anger at Bush, which , for the primary, has been re-directed at Clinton so that it can be released.
    So it goes.

    Parent

    Thanks goodness (none / 0) (#32)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:44:44 AM EST
    that Hillary supporters don't fly off the handle over minor remarks.

    Care for some tea?

    Parent

    No thanks, (none / 0) (#39)
    by tree on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:53:49 AM EST
    I've already had mine this morning.

    Parent
    Please don't try the equivalnecy gambit (none / 0) (#94)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:12:59 PM EST
    it just doesn't fly. Please point to the blog firestorms that have erupted from Hillary supporters that come anywhere near the reaction to the Drudge photo, the 60 Minutes interview or the "darkened" ad from Obama supporters.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#124)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:54:57 PM EST
    The Monster incident
    the Periodically incident
    the cup of tea incident
    the pimp incident

    Those are a few.

    Parent

    Because politics is perception (none / 0) (#15)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:27:18 AM EST
    Why is Hillary trying so hard to argue that Obama would b a great running mate when he is, in fact, leading the race?  To win the perception war.

    Why is Hillary pushing the experience argument so hard?  Because she wants to maintain the image that Obama is inexperienced where she is experienced.

    Pointing out this sort of thing furthers the narrative that Hillary will do whatever it takes to win.

    Perception is everything.
     

    Parent

    It works both ways (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:38:19 AM EST
    Why is Obama pushing the narrative that the delegate count is everything, and actual votes don't matter? It's pretty clear at this point that Obama is going to win the delegate count, but it is not impossible that he will lose the actual vote count. Obama's people have also been pushing the idea that Clinton will "do anything to win", marking her as cold, calculating, and a bit desperate. Meanwhile, the implication is that Obama is above all of that nasty campaign stuff, and he keeps saying that even as he attacks Clinton repeatedly. So far the media are choosing to follow Obama, so his message is getting out to the public while her's isn't. Perception isn't everything - a lot of it is simply controlled by what the media choose to report.

    Parent
    What perception do you think this builds? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:33:23 AM EST


    Parent
    Fly, who I admire, (none / 0) (#58)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:23:52 AM EST
    for sending his mighty pixels day after day into the lion's den, I still don't understand how pointing out differences is "doing anything to win."

    Obama himself is not above his share of lying, cheating and stealing.

    Judge not and all that ...

    Parent

    I am not judging (none / 0) (#80)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:57:26 AM EST
    I have personal beliefs and biases but I am also willing to accept that no candidate, regardless of whether I support them or not, is pure and righteous.  They can't be.  They are required to play by the rules set up by the media and the voters.

    "pointing out differences" is often a euphemism for negative attacks.

    Parent

    and likewise, often (none / 0) (#83)
    by tree on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    "negative attack" is hyperbole for "pointing out differences".

    Parent
    To each their own (none / 0) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:01:52 PM EST
    terrorist/freedom fighter.  All a matter of perspective.

    Parent
    Maybe I'm ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:57:28 PM EST
    "reading too much into it" but I think we got Fly to admit that Obama "will do anything to win."

    ;)

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#142)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:49:42 PM EST
    I don't know about anything.  But certainly he realizes that this isn't paddycake.

    Personally I think that Clinton's bar is much lower than Obama's but that is my personal opinion.

    Parent

    Close to an ad hominem attack, Fly (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    so please do explain further what you mean by . . . oh, where do we even start with your drive-by phrasing . . . bringing into this the corpses of dead children.

    Or "a live girl" in the case of Clinton.  

    And just what you mean by calling out other posters here, in connection with apparent slurs on sexual preferences of a candidate.  This is the stuff of wingnut blogs -- not only the attacks on a candidate (with the attacks in another thread, too, what is happening to this blog this morning?) but also the call-out on specific commenters.  

    Me, I don't mind, and especially as it comes from you.  But for the sake of this blog, I do mind.

    Parent

    But for the sake of this blog (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:36:10 AM EST
    Hahahahhaha

    That is funny. Get out the fainting couches. And I did notice that you do not need one. Nice that you are so concerned.

    Parent

    Who is that for -- and (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:34:10 PM EST
    why do you doubt what I say?

    Parent
    I Was Surprised (none / 0) (#157)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:07:27 PM EST
    That you used concern for the blog as the main outrage against the commenter. From my perspective, your concern for this blog and the damage it incurred, at least in this case, seemed less an issue, imo, than your irritation at the commenter.

    Parent
    In defense of fly here (none / 0) (#74)
    by tree on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:45:02 AM EST
    There's an old quote from former La. Governor Edwards:

    "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy."

    I don't think flyhawk was trying to cast aspersions on the current candidates. He was just trying to  indicate the depth of partisanship on the part of the pledged delegates.

     

    Parent

    and in defense of cream city (none / 0) (#75)
    by tree on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:52:03 AM EST
    Flyhawk's phrasing was quite awkward, and while he was just trying to adjust the politician's quote to make it apply to a female pol, its easy to see how Cream City could have taken offense, especially since fly mentioned her by name name in his post.

    Parent
    as tree pointed out (none / 0) (#84)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:00:31 PM EST
    the quote is a fairly famous quote that is routinely used.  

    I wasn't calling out posters. I think the 3 of you would agree that given a choice between Clinton and Obama there isn't much that could possibly sway you to vote for Obama.  

    How bout you put down your Outrage-O-Meter and relax a little.

    Parent

    jeez, fly (none / 0) (#96)
    by tree on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:14:33 PM EST
    Don't make me regret coming to your defense.

    "Outrage-O-Meter"?? A pointless slam. She obviously misunderstood your point and thought you were slamming her personally with a sexist homophobic smear. I can see how she misunderstood. Try a little harder to see how you might come across to others and it might make convincing people of your points a little easier.


    Parent

    Thanks, but no -- I was (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:32:37 PM EST
    seeing it as a sexist and homophobic smear against a candidate.  Not usually acceptable on this blog, but this is an odd morning, it seems, on several threads -- one attack even was called "welcome" here.

    So, again, I am more concerned for this blog, seeing the stuff that Fly lets fly, over and over again.  And it seems to be accelerating, yesterday in a thread he dominated and now with his calling out of other commenters by name.

    But if others think it's fine, fine.  Some of us may have to find other blogs again if it does continue to accelerate, but that's fine, too.

    Parent

    I understand where you're coming from (none / 0) (#108)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:34:34 PM EST
    But it really is a well-known quote in political circles.  Flyerhawk was obviously mistaken to assume that everyone would catch the reference.

    Parent
    And had she (none / 0) (#130)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    not gone into attack dog mode I would have clarified for her.  But her accusations of sexism and homophobia pretty much changed the tone.

    Parent
    I'm sorry, I had not previously seen (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:20:15 PM EST
    the evidence of your neurological disorder, as here.  I will keep that in mind to understand your behaviors.

    Parent
    I'm sure (none / 0) (#151)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:33:07 PM EST
    that was supposed to be a snarky jab.  I hope it made you feel better.

    Parent
    Fair Weather Friends (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:39:35 PM EST
    But if others think it's fine, fine.  Some of us may have to find other blogs again if it does continue to accelerate, but that's fine, too.
    I agree. Loyalty to TL is trumped by partisan fever. I hope some of the less feverish stick around, but I am not holding my breath on that one.

    Soon many will be returning to dkos, or the new improved versions.

    Parent

    Of course you did (none / 0) (#128)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    you love to point to my sexism.  You don't even need to bother trying to understand the comment which was  not sexist or homophobic.  Aside from the fact that the phrase I used is common and that you can find 1400 search results for that exact phrase, it was tangential to the point.  

    But hey I'm a guy.  I'm an Obama supporter.  Clearly I must be a sexist.

    And while I did mention the 3 of you specifically, there was absolutely no malice in the reference.  And that should be clear to anyone who read the comment.  The 3 of you are adamant Clinton supporters.  Do you think this is a debatable point?  If you were delegates is there any chance you would vote for Obama rather than Clinton?

    Don't worry though.  Your desire to make this a personal attack will likely lead to Jeralyn or BTD deleting these comments.  And you will feel self-satisfied that you were able to delete the original innocuous comment.  

    Parent

    I'm not trying to drag you into this (none / 0) (#125)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:56:30 PM EST
    Cream likes to twist my comments for her own personal enjoyment.  There is nothing she enjoys more here than accusing me of sexism or some other form of bigotry, apparently homophobia now.

    Parent
    Second-time callout, huh? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    And no, I do not enjoy contact with you.  Not at all.  I attempt to avoid you here, but when you call  out me and other commenters by name, and in conjunction with more misstatements, I will reply.

    And when you do it again -- okay, evidence of my "twisting" of your comments?  

    Sigh.

    Parent

    What can I say (none / 0) (#132)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    For some reason I take offense to be accused of being a homophobe and sexist.  I'm weird like that.

    Apparently you take offense to being called a Clinton partisan.  To each their own.

    Parent

    another cheap shot, please stop (none / 0) (#136)
    by tree on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:24:39 PM EST
    You're obviously upset about something that has nothing to do with this site. I can tell the signs. Get up and take a walk. Come back when you are over it.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#138)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:35:43 PM EST
    Thanks Dr. Freud.  

    I'm the one taking cheap shots when she is the one who accused me of being a homophobic sexist.  Gotcha.

    I find the one way criticisms amusing, if not terribly surprising.  

    Parent

    And fly you seem intent today to (none / 0) (#133)
    by tree on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    try to get some kind of a reaction. To bait. Sounds like you are askin to be accused, so you can play the victim. Don't blame it on Cream cuz you tried the same ploy with me. Frankly  I wish that BTD or Jeralyn would delete this whole thread-let. This is getting way too personal and snipey.

    Parent
    No tree (none / 0) (#141)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:48:07 PM EST
    I made a single point.  That delegates aren't switching sides.  I made an innocuous comment referring to some other posters as examples of the kind of people that delegates are.  There was no ill-intent whatsoever.  And you really really really have to WANT to see insult to find it in the comment I made.  

    CC decided to parse the statement to be offended and justify making accusations towards me.  

    I'm not angry and I'm not baiting anyone.  However I am not going to allow someone to accuse me of being a sexist and a homophobe simply because they don't like me.

    Parent

    Fly, you don't seem to be (none / 0) (#143)
    by tree on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:03:09 PM EST
    able to post on this without including a personal attack. Check your posts and stow your violin. I'm done discussing this. Have the last post if you want, but  at least see if you can do it without another personal attack.  

    Parent
    can I point out now (4.50 / 2) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:18:29 AM EST
    that if the delegates follow the rules as they are set down, and vote their conscience, some are already thinking of an independent run for Obama?
    from a stunning post at americablog (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:22:26 AM EST
     Suppose Senator Clinton clinches the nomination on superdelegates alone. That despite general indications to the contrary, superdelegates override the will of the people and go with the will of the party.

    Could Obama run as an independent? Would he? Could he grab someone like Chuck Hagel or Colin Powell and form a third option come November?

    I say this because it seems that the popular movement behind something new is so strong that it might be more viable than ever right now. Some might argue Obama would never betray the Democratic Party by forming a third party ticket. But if he were ahead in popular vote and delegate count and then not confirmed the nominee, wouldn't the party have then betrayed him first? Would he not be justified?

    Parent

    In my book (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:55:22 AM EST
    suggesting Obama might run as an independent is pretty much the flip side of the crazy comments suggesting Clinton might run as McCain's VP, since she thinks so highly of him.

    Obama is a young guy with a bright future no matter what happens.  There's no way he would throw it all away on some quixotic independent run, and no indication that he would do so.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:03:14 AM EST
    you are going to see all kinds of things that you have not seen so far if it starts to look like he might lose.
    that poster is not, as far as that blog is concerned, some fringe whacko.
    I do not find it surprising.  I do find it shameless and shocking and refreshingly honest in that many Obama supporters, on this blog and others, are just as critical of the democratic party as they are of the republican party and really have little to no interest in building the democratic party.
    thats a fact.

    Parent
    on this blog (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:06:42 AM EST
    I meant on THAT blog.
    but maybe some here too I guess.

    Parent
    No surprise (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:55:38 AM EST
    as I've said from the beginning that Obama has been running as an Independent from the beginning -- but with the benefit of the support of the Dem Party (read: Dean, Brazile, Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, et al.).  

    At least, that has been to Obama's benefit.  It has not been to the benefit of the Dem Party.  And now that is becoming more evident.

    Parent

    This is classic spin (none / 0) (#104)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:31:28 PM EST
    Neither candidate will win on "superdlegates alone." The dirty little secret the Obama people don't want us thinking about is that if Obama goes to the convention with fewer than 2,025 delegates, he'll need the supers just as much as Hillary will. But if he wins, it won't be considered a "back room deal." Because as we all know, Kennedy and Daschle, who he has running outreach to the supers, are long time practitioners of the new politics.

    Parent
    I think she says stuff like this ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:14:00 AM EST
    to get her "enemies" riled up.  They embarrass themselves, and it only seems to help her.

    About a week before TX and OH, KO and the blogosphere were claiming Clinton had multiple personality disorder.  She still won TX and OH.

    It's a "give 'em enough rope" strategy.

    And, of course, it once again puts on the table the wackiness of the rules, which helps some of her other arguments about the process.

    Yeah, I don't care if she says it... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:15:50 AM EST
    ..I would care if she actually tried to do it, though. Wouldn't be a good idea.

    Parent
    I'm surprised she even said this in public (none / 0) (#18)
    by Joike on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:31:14 AM EST
    Some times I just don't get politicians.

    They can be so smart some times and so dumb at others.

    Sure what she said was true, but that doesn't mean you say it in public.

    If you want to curry favor with the Edwards' delegates, why telegraph your decision to your opponent and why set yourself up for a potential media whirlwind?

    Combined with her "McCain and I are ready to C-in-C while Obama has only given a good speech" is she ready to throw the party under the bus to get the nomination.

    I don't see how this wins her points for building up the party.

    Reminding the Party (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:46:09 AM EST
    of the binding rules the Party created is considered tearing it down? I would greatly prefer a candidate that knows the rules of her own Party to a candidate that is interested in compromising with neocons.

    Parent
    You mean someone like HRC who (none / 0) (#60)
    by Joike on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:27:04 AM EST
    cozies up to Rupert Murdoch, hires union busters like Mark Penn and runs a seemingly dysfunctional campaign?

    I think it is a not-so-gentle reminder that she will do what she thinks is necessary for her (not the party) to win.

    I think people translate their frustration with the lying right into support for Clinton.

    I don't get why some progressives think Clinton is the better choice.  What is it about her political career that makes people think she won't be the "new Democrat" DLC triangulator that she has been in the Senate?

    I get the victimization angle.  The media and the right wing nuts have been obsessed with attacking both Clintons, but giving them the finger isn't a good reason for selecting a candidate.

    I think she could be an effective executive, but she's not my first choice for advancing a progressive agenda.

    Parent

    How is "cozying" up to Murdoch (none / 0) (#69)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:37:26 AM EST
    so different from wanting Hagel to be in the cabinet?

    Personally, I think Hillary will advocate for a more progressive agenda with Democratic figures in her government. Obama will move, in his desire to be a uniter, to the center to accommodate more people. I don't think that is an unreasonable or "out-of-nowhere" observation.

    Parent

    Hillary lead the procedural battle (none / 0) (#106)
    by DaleA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:33:22 PM EST
    against the Federal Marriage Amendment. How this is not progressive, I don't know. She has very strong credibility with gays and lesbians, who are generally considered part of the progressive movement.

    Parent
    Both Clintons have used the gay community for (none / 0) (#144)
    by Joike on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:11:00 PM EST
    fundraising, but have not shown up when needed.  Clinton has close ties with the HRC.  The Clintons have their supporters, but there is also significant frustration in the gay community with the Clinton's.

    Back in her 2000 campaign for Senate, she opposed gay marriage on moral and religious grounds.  She now says she has evolved since then.

    She supports civil unions, but not gay marriage which is the same position as Obama.

    Both fall short here.

    Obama supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act from 1996.  Clinton supports a partial repeal of DOMA which she supported back in the day.

    Obama also has criticized the black community for falling short of Dr. King's vision of a beloved community for significant homophobia.

    Obama and Clinton have also stated that we need to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.


    Parent

    Clinton or Mark Penn? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:48:36 AM EST
    I didn't see where she said this in public. I saw where Mark Penn said it in public.

    Parent
    She said it in a Newsweek interview (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:52:27 AM EST
    Source

    Parent
    So you think that some Nevada and Texas... (none / 0) (#19)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:33:18 AM EST
    ...delegates should change their positions and vote for Clinton, since she won the popular vote in their states but, due to arcane rules, didn't win a majority of the delegates?

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:34:21 AM EST
    The Superdelegates can handle it.

    All they need do is say they will vote for the popular vote winner.

    Parent

    That would cause a riot (none / 0) (#25)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:40:31 AM EST
    Most Americans don't even realize that the delegate count does not, in many cases, reflect the will of the voters. They think that the electoral count is the same as the popular vote count. If Clinton wins (and I'll grant that this is a longshot at this point) based on actual vote counts, the Obama supporters will loudly complain that she has "stolen" the election.

    Parent
    riot? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:43:53 AM EST
    or independent candidacy.  take your pick.
    how are we doing at building the democratic party so far?


    Parent
    Does it really matter? (none / 0) (#41)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:54:05 AM EST
    Either way, the Democratic Party loses in the Fall. I'm already working on emotionally accepting a McCain presidency. I won't be jolted the way I was the last 2 elections. That was rough. I've believed for some time that Obama didn't stand a chance in the general. I hoped for a while that McCain's win in the primary would be good for us - he isn't popular on the right - but the right is smelling blood and rallying behind him. The close Democratic race is not a bad thing, in and of itself, since it draws attention to Democrats and away from Republicans and it reduces the amount of time the right will have to tear down our candidate. But the way the electorates have been chosen is not very "Democratic", and the process has left our party looking confused and disorganized, which is very bad during a "time of war" and economic difficulty when people will want a strong, effective leader.

    Parent
    This system has been around (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    for a long time. Hillary, as demonstrated in this quote, plays by the rules--to the letter. She always has. The rules may be faulty, but you can't fault her for following them so expertly. Although, I imagine much of the ire against her (besides the sexist thing) stems from the fact that she knows the rules so well.

    I think it's telling that the faults of the Democratic selection process (very real, mind you) are coming out during this particular cycle. Call me cynical, but most of the cries of "foul" seem to be emanating from the Obama circles in response to Hillary's more adept knowledge of the process.

    Parent

    Maybe This Is Why She Said It (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    To keep the talking point alive that HRC always plays by the rules while BHO does not. Not to mention the talking point that HRC is smarter and more knowledgeable than BHO.

    Also as someone already said it makes it clear that she is still fighting and in the race.

    Parent

    The Mass Proletarian crowds (none / 0) (#110)
    by DaleA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:35:16 PM EST
    will bring forth the Will of the People who are one with the Party in advancing something or other. We are tending close to parody here.

    Parent
    Hardly a long shot (nt) (none / 0) (#40)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:54:01 AM EST


    Parent
    I'm a realistic Clinton supporter (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:02:05 AM EST
    Neither the numbers or the media coverage give me much hope at this point, although I really, really admire Clinton for continuing to fight, as long as there is a reasonable chance. She does have a chance, but it's going to be tough to win without working the system, and if she works the system then Obama supporters will loudly proclaim her a cheater and refuse to support her in the general.

    The Democratic Party is caught between a rock and a hard place - they have a widely popular but extremely vulnerable candidate who will draw new voters but who will be torn to shreds by the right wing machine v. a highly qualified but also highly unpopular candidate who can handle the right-wing machine but who will not attract the same level of voter support in the Fall. They have an election with a very close popular vote but a non-representative system that have given a clear lead in electoral votes to one candidate over another, along with some serious questions about seating the delegates from 2 major states.

    The only "out" seems to be running the two on the same ticket, but Obama won't accept the VP slot and having him in the top spot leaves him just as vulnerable to the right as he would be without Clinton in the VP spot - net gain, nothing.

    Parent

    I'm realistic, too. (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:10:55 AM EST
    Every time she has almost be defeated, she surges back. As she said in on March 4: "For everyone here in Ohio and across America, who's ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out and for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for you."

    I think to discount her ability to remain standing after such vicious and endless attacks speaks to the qualities one desires in a leader (not to mention the qualities needed in a General). And I think more people have realized this.

    The support she has garnered thus far (in terms of actual votes) should make McCain afraid for November. Even with future embittered Obama supporters, I don't think McCain can beat Hillary.

    I have no reason to think the Republicans will defeat the Democrats in November. [Sadly, I have every reason to think Democrats will defeat themselves before November.]

    Parent

    I had forgotten this about her (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:30:54 AM EST
    I used to really admire Clinton, because she was so willing to stand up to the media. I actually named a cat after her. No, there isn't anything derogatory there - the cat was a foundling, and when we brought her into the house to find out if she could handle our 3 large dogs, the dogs started sniffing her and she simply sat and licked her paw, not allowing the dogs to intimidate her. At the time, Clinton was taking a lot of heat from the press, and refusing to be intimidated, so the cat became "Hillary".

    I had forgotten how much I liked her spirit. It's easy to let the media coverage become the story, and they really don't like her. But her recent behaviour has gained my respect and admiration back once again. In spite of the media meme, I don't see her making personal attacks (saying your opponenet is unqualified isn't, imo, a personal "attack" - saying your opponent will do anything to win is). I don't for one moment believe the suggestions that she is running a racist campaign. I think she's taking the same kind of heat she did before, and she has been handling it just as well. She would make a great president.  

    Parent

    Obama Not A Loyal Dem? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:52:05 AM EST
    I guess that is another talking point that McCain will use. Although it may backfire because of he was also called the  Manchurian candidate.
    if she works the system then Obama supporters will loudly proclaim her a cheater and refuse to support her in the general.

    I disagree. Both will rally their all their supporters against McCain.

    but Obama won't accept the VP slot

    Both will also accept the VP slot, imo. These are politicians who care as much about America as they do themselves, and they both care about themselves quite a lot.


    Parent

    They also have ego's (none / 0) (#82)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:59:07 AM EST
    Clinton has been forced to learn humility at the hands of a merciless press and under the weight of the horrific experience of being exposed as spouse of an adulterous spouse while in the biggest spotlight in history. But she still has an ego, like all politicians, and I doubt that she will enthusiastically accept the VP slot under a man who is considerably younger and far less experienced.

    Obama does not seem to have learned humility yet (he's young and fairly new to the political experience - he will be tempered) and he has been leading in delegates for quite a while. He wants to be President, not VP, and he knows that if he doesn't make it this time he can run again for the next 20 years. He has no incentive to take the VP slot under a woman whom he considers politically inferior.

    Parent

    Where Do You Get (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:15:20 PM EST
    That he considers HRC politically inferior. My take is that they have tremendous respect for one another as they should. The fray of politics is business as usual for these two.

    Guaranteed that they will be arm in arm after the primaries fighting against McCain, whether or not one chooses the other as VP.

    And I do not see a way out of a joint ticket.  

    Parent

    I quite disagree, actually (none / 0) (#109)
    by spit on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:35:15 PM EST
    I think most reasonably attentive Americans -- and the completely inattentive don't really care and aren't probably going to vote -- are well aware that electoral votes aren't always the same as popular votes, especially after 2000. I'd be willing to bet they'll view this through the same lens.

    In the vast majority of situations here, I really don't see riots. That rhetoric always reminds me a little of my young anarchist friends, who have been arguing since 2000 that the people were going to rise in open revolt "any time now". Riots, etc could happen from grossly unfair scenarios, but I don't see it if the popular vote winner takes the nomination -- and this will come out with a joint ticket, very likely.

    Parent

    Not violent riots (none / 0) (#137)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:33:49 PM EST
    I should be clear - I'm talking about "Brooks Brothers" riots. I don't think Obama supporters are literally going to take to the streets. It has been so long since we've had a real riot that it didn't even occur to me that my comments could be taken that way.  

    Parent
    Please, the "riot" meme is irresponsible (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:49:55 PM EST
    and encouraging it is potentially dangerous.

    I wonder how many of those -- not this poster, necessarily -- who raise the specter of urban riots ever have endured one.  I have in my city, and people died.  Hundreds were injured, thousands were arrested, lost jobs, etc.  A thriving neighborhood was devastated and still has not recovered from it, decades later.  Nor have interracial relations.

    Please.  Let's not feed this frenzy.  Not here.

    Parent

    I explained above (none / 0) (#139)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:42:49 PM EST
    But I will reiterate. I was talking about the "modern" definition of riot, which is really more of an enthusiastic protest. That said, when I think about it I don't think it's completely impossible that some of the more extreme Obama supporters might literally take to the streets and get violent. Most would simply decide to stay home on election day, but there are more than a few who actually buy into the "Clinton is evil/Obama is a demigod" meme and might become completely unhinged if they perceived that Clinton had "stolen" the election.

    Parent
    Frenzy? (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:43:18 PM EST
    Now you are concerned that AA's are in a frenzy so we need to not say anything about riots lest the natives get too restless? Do you think that Obama supporters are uncontrollable animals?

    Pretty low.

    Parent

    I think that when people come from cities... (none / 0) (#145)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:28:51 PM EST
    ...that have had race riots, and they see the word "riot", it is understandable that they would associate the word with their experience of a riot. I have never lived in a city that experienced a race riot so my associations are different. I don't think that the author of this comment meant what you seem to imply he meant. I know I didn't. I was actually envisioning some of Obama's more ardent progressive supporters holding a "Brooks Brothers" riot in opposition to Clinton taking the nomination. I doubt very much that an Obama loss would result in generalized street riots, althout is is possible that some of the inevitable convention picketer's might make a scene.

    Parent
    Not Questioning (none / 0) (#148)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:20:22 PM EST
    Your motives, but with all due respect to your sincere defense, CC was clearly working it in an ugly way, imo.

    Parent
    Not just "race riots" -- you also (none / 0) (#161)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:32:09 PM EST
    must not have experienced antiwar protests (would those be your "modern" and "Brooks Brothers" riots?  the terms are just getting more obscure), either.

    Please also be careful of presumptions.

    Parent

    Read carefully, please -- (none / 0) (#158)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:26:28 PM EST
    "This" is not something in future but the current frenzy on the blogs, threatening riots.  I think it actually is from a lot of irresponsible whites, but I cannot usually know the race of a blogger.

    So watch it.

    Parent

    Perhaps it is dianem (none / 0) (#160)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:30:21 PM EST
    you meant to address with this comment, as I can see from her further comments that she is the one repeatedly putting this on Obama supporters.

    Parent
    We wouldn't riot (none / 0) (#146)
    by CST on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:48:57 PM EST
    I think you give too little credit to Obama supporters.  Most people would be fine with the popular vote winner.  Also, aren't the youth too "lazy" to riot.  I mean... we can't even usually get out to vote.  We'll be too busy drinking our lattes :).

    Parent
    Hahaha (none / 0) (#149)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:23:28 PM EST
    Bzzzzzzzzzzztttt. Talking points short circuiting. Good catch.

    Parent
    Thank you. Yes, that Starbucks latte (none / 0) (#159)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:28:14 PM EST
    is too expensive to just spill on the streets. :-)

    Parent
    These are the states' caucus rules (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:08:03 PM EST
    actually, as approved by the national party.

    No caucus state has determined its delegates to the national convention.  That is months away.  And all caucus states simply take the initial results as advisory and do what they want at each next step.

    (The wise minds can see how this helps those states keep bargaining, bargaining with the candidates for future benefits if they win the White House -- and/or how this helps those states wait and see who the winner will or at least is likely to be, by months from now, and then toss all their national delegates that way, also to achieve bargaining points with a future president.  This.  Is.  Politics. :-)

    All the delegate counts for candidates now are, therefore, only media guesses.  Or, as we can see from other media behaviors, only media attempting to crown candidates they want rather than waiting to see what we-the-voters want.  Or only media attempting to make it keep looking like a contest for the sake of ratings.  This.  Is.  The.  Media. :-)

    And this is evident when you see, if you wish, the widely varying guesses of different media re the delegate counts now.  Compare MSNBC to CNN to NYT, etc.  It can be revealing.

    Parent

    Same thing applies to the Electoral College (none / 0) (#22)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:34:40 AM EST
    They could vote against the will of the people as well... some states require pledges, have fines and penalties etc... but it would not overturn their vote.

    What am I bid? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Saul on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:43:27 AM EST
    How many think that after all the primaries are over that the rule of who ever has most pledge or most popular vote will be unanimously followed by the Supers in block form.  Especially if there is a very close difference between the two.  Do the Supers have to show their identity when they vote especially if it occurs at the convention or can they remain anonymous?  Is there a way  all the supers could vote yet no one would know how they voted?

    Nomination price (none / 0) (#62)
    by badger on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:29:33 AM EST
    eriposte had a great article at Left Coaster on the 1932 FDR nomination a few days ago. The nomination basically cost FDR making John Nance Gardner VP and gave William McAdoo of CA a veto over a couple cabinet nominations (somewhere around the 4th ballot).

    That's called politics - it's how political systems work. It's pretty much how life works.

    As to identifying how SDs vote, that would depend on convention rules. Normally the votes are by state totals, so it could be difficult to verify how an SD actually voted, although I expect most will tell you if you ask them (and some may lie). Their state delegation chair would probably know.

    Again, the LC article mentions that on one ballot the 1932 convention polled the delegates individually. With over 4000 delegates, that's going to take a while, and I don't know if modern rules allow for that.


    Parent

    Yes, the Supers have to publicly (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:10:55 PM EST
    cast their votes at the convention.  One of the reasons I like the Supers, myself, as most were elected by us -- our Dem governors, Congress members, etc.  So just as in Congress or in our state capitals when govs will or won't sign bills, we get to see what they do at the Dem convention.

    And then they get to come home and be accountable to us next election time.  That is not true of pledged delegates, most of them (but bless them for it) big donors who are really the ones who work behind the scenes all the time.

    Parent

    Very good chance Obama wins popular vote (none / 0) (#36)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:49:42 AM EST
    You put it at 50%, popular votefor either - possible.

    But, Penn basically need to go for Clinton by about 15%.

    Michigan has to go for Clinton by about 10%.

    Indiana has to break even - or perhaps Clinton by a small margin.

    At that point, by the way, the winner of the so-called "popular" vote, will be by an incredibly small margin.

    Popular vote, at this point, is the ONLY chance that Clinton has of winning a contest - and again, this ISN'T a good measure of popular vote, because, it can underestimate or overestimate actual popular will.  In Texas, caucus's would reverse popular will, but in a state like Wisconsin, a caucus would have UNDERestimated popular will.

    The agree upon definition, the rules, was delegates, pure and simple.  Despite the blurring of focus, that will remain the guiding rule.  And, since Obama should be over 100-200 delegates ahead, this is all sound and fury, that won't signify much, in the end.

    Still, I do hope that Obama comes out ahead in the "so called" popular vote, as skewed a measurement that is at this time, given the nature of caucuses.  It would at least settle the issue.

    The agreed upon rules (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by tree on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:34:40 AM EST
    include superdelegates who are allowed to chose their candidate based on any criteria they see fit. That includes tossing a coin, if they want.

    I really wish people would stop making up rules that don't exist. If you want to make the case that the number of pledged delegates should be the best criteria for the superdelegates to use, then go ahead, give it your best shot. But please, PLEASE, don't try to pretend that the rules require them to adopt your pet criteria.

    And according to  Rasmussen
    most votes, including a plurality of Obama voters don't buy your pet theory.

    In the craziness of the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it is possible that one candidate might finish the Primary Season with the most pledged delegates while another could end up with the most popular votes. If that happens, 57% of voters nationwide believe the nomination should go to the candidate with the most votes overall. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that just 26% disagree and say the nomination should go to the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

    Among Democratic voters, 59% believe the candidate with the most popular votes deserves the nomination while 25% take the opposite view. Barack Obama will almost certainly wind up with more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton. However, in what might create a nightmare scenario for Democratic Party leaders, it is also quite possible that Clinton will wind up with more popular votes than Obama.

    Still, 45% of Obama voters believe that the nomination should go to the candidate with the most popular votes rather than the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Just 32% of Obama supporters believe the candidate with the most pledged delegates should win.

    Clinton voters overwhelmingly believe the winner of the popular vote should get the nomination.



    Parent
    Heads are spinning (none / 0) (#46)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:59:00 AM EST
    You just wrote that the popular vote ISN'T a good measure of the popular vote. And invented something you call the popular will which you can determine and is more important.

    Does Obama mean Orwell in Kenyan? Is there something I'm missing?

    Parent

    So much of that post (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:12:04 PM EST
    is te stuff to make heads spin.  I love the statement about Wisconsin.  The poster does not know Wisconsin.

    Parent
    Which Popular Vote? (none / 0) (#53)
    by D Cupples on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:05:25 AM EST
    BTD,

    I read you often and enjoy doing so.  Anyway, which popular vote should count?

    Should Georgia's superdelegates reflect the popular vote in Georgia?  

    Should Tennessee's SDs ignore its own state's popular vote and follow majorities in some other states?  

    The latter seems to be the Obama campaign's wish, but I wonder how SDs who happen to be elected officials will feel about bucking their constituents and following other states' majorities.

    doesnt seem to bother (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:08:27 AM EST
    Kennedy and Kerry much

    Parent
    Which popular vote? (none / 0) (#59)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:26:42 AM EST
    National?  That doesn't seem too wise -- in theory it will lead to liberal candidates heavily favored in New York and California who would have trouble in the rest of the country.

    State?  That has the advantage of tracking the electoral college system.

    Congressional District or other applicable constituency?  That sort of seems the most natural since the supers could say they were representing the will of their constituents.

    In any case, if you want to go with any of the definitions of the popular vote why not convert the supers to a pledged delegates using those rules -- no dispute then about who they would vote for.

    Lots of supers (none / 0) (#70)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    represent no-one. They are just DNC members. So saying they should vote like their district is meaningless. They represent the party. That is why D.C. and Maryland have buttloads of superdelgates. They just happen to live there to do their day jobs, like lobbyist, think tank thinker, etc.

    Parent
    Then perhaps. . . (none / 0) (#73)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:43:23 AM EST
    the natural constituency of those super delegates would be the national popular vote?

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#154)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:40:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Do you understand that lots of supers (none / 0) (#95)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    were elected by us?  And thus are accountable to us at the next election?

    That is not so of lots of pledged delegates, who are the big donors and behind the scenes all the time.

    Parent

    Yes, but lots weren't (n/t) (none / 0) (#155)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:52:20 PM EST


    Parent
    CNN just did 15 minutes of the (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:37:01 AM EST
    "dream ticket" with Obama not as the president.  I'm wondering how this is happening.  Seems a little bit premature to me.  Is this some sort of coverage that the Clinton campaign angled for getting and now they're getting it?  It sounds really good.  It almost sounds like if Obama doesn't do this he isn't about solutions at all ;)  Has the Clinton camp just come out swinging this Monday or what?  If the Clinton's angled for this coverage I'm never buying a used car from the Clintons.

    Not just the Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:23:17 PM EST
    Not just the Clinton's.  SUSA did a poll.  The majority want Clinton at the top of the ticket.

    A democratic talking head was on MSNBC.  He felt that if they did a joint ticket now, there would be no re-votes and no more primary money spent and they could start running against McCain.

    I thinks some people are burnt out and just want to get on with it.

    I wonder if Obama will get pressure for these reasons.  It's not good media coverage for him.

    Parent

    I think you are right (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:50:03 PM EST
    I think some people are feeling burnt out.  Am I bad though if I feel these two should go all the way to convention and challenge each other and build that platform and expose those issues?

    Parent
    I said it this weekend-dream ticket (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:50:17 PM EST
    BRILLIANT move by the Clintons.  Y'all remember during the CA debate at the end when the dream ticket was proposed how everyone in the audience stood up and applauded? (Someone made a great joke then: "If Steve Wonder can see how good it is...")

    A lot of people, especially some in the aa community, feel like two of their best friends are fighting and they are caught in the middle.  A joint ticket would solve this problem and let us move forward.

    Clinton's team has been so on point in the last ten days that it's unbelievable.  She is really running lean and mean, and everyone seems to be staying on message.  The beauty of this "dream ticket" scenario is two-fold: it gets them both on there, so nobody loses (except for the militant factions) and it makes people ask the obverse, which is, with Obama at the top of the ticket, can you see Clinton as VP?  The answer to that is generally no because she is more experienced.  Brilliant.

    Also, it offers a beautiful dovetail into her presenting a workable and doable solution for MI and FL while Obama's folks scattershot about rules and other crap.

    Parent

    Popular Vote? (none / 0) (#91)
    by VicAjax on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:10:31 PM EST
    can someone tell me how picking the nominee based on the popular vote tally would not disenfranchise voters with the bad luck of living in caucus states?

    Because (none / 0) (#99)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:20:13 PM EST
    their votes count the same as anyone else's.  One person, one vote.

    Parent
    caucus craziness (none / 0) (#103)
    by VicAjax on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:29:43 PM EST

    but millions of Democrats who are not party activists in these states are not given the chance to voice their preference.

    so, by going with the "popular vote," the current complaint that the caucus system is unfair essentially gets turned on its head and becomes retroactively unfair in an entirely different way.

    therefore, going with the "popular vote" is not a solution, it's simply a new problem that happens to favor a different candidate.

    Parent

    This is a funny complaint (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:35:34 PM EST
    As Obama supporters have been supporting caucuses as good systems throughout. That is who cam out to vote. I hate caucuses. But that is how peo[ple voted IN THOSE STATES.

    Want to redo the caucus states?

    Parent

    Caucuses vs. Primaries (none / 0) (#117)
    by VicAjax on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:41:32 PM EST

    as an Obama supporter (obviously), I think caucuses are stupid.  I think the nominating system as it stands is stupid.  but i don't think it should be changed up midstream.

    i think the idea that the popular vote should determine the outcome of ANY election is the preferable method... delegates and electoral colleges are obviously obsolete and counter-democratic.

    but to go by popular vote at this point would probably cause a fair outcry among the voters of caucus states.

    and yes, i realize that i'm arguing my candidates position on this... but i maintain it's a valid one, regardless.

    Parent

    I don't get it (none / 0) (#118)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:47:27 PM EST
    you think the people who didn't show up for the caucus will have a complaint?  Why?  Their votes don't count either way.

    Parent
    Yes, please! (none / 0) (#123)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:53:33 PM EST
    Want to redo the caucus states?


    Parent
    they were disenfranchised (none / 0) (#112)
    by spit on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:38:55 PM EST
    by the caucus system. I genuinely don't understand this argument -- their votes aren't counted either way.

    Parent
    one of the many problems with caucuses (none / 0) (#115)
    by tree on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:40:34 PM EST
    is that the caucus voters are overbalanced in the pledged delegate count. BTD discussed this a few days ago, with figures similar to one delegate per  600 caucus voters in small turnout caucus states versus one delegate per 10,000 voters in large primary states. I don't have the exact figures but you could check the old posts on the Wyoming caucus.

    They may be underweighted in the popular vote count, but they are also skewed and don't reflect what the overall popular vote would have been in a primary, as amply illustrated by Texas and Washington.

     

    Parent

    Then what they ought to do (none / 0) (#116)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:41:31 PM EST
    is become party activists, as it is their states that decided not to have primaries but instead to have caucuses.

    Of course, if they can't come out for several hours on one day every four years for the sake of being caucus activists, they're probably just not the activist sort.  They still are constituents of state legislators and could contact them to put on the pressure to become primary states.

    Then they as taxpayers would have to pay for it, of course.  Caucuses are cheaper than primaries.  Still think these non-activists would want that?  I wonder.

    Parent

    So are you saying (none / 0) (#127)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:57:45 PM EST
    that a person who lives in a caucus state but doesn't attend the caucus will be disenfranchised because his non-vote won't count?

    Parent
    Does anyone know this? (none / 0) (#98)
    by ghost2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    Has the Texas Caucus all been counted?  Obama supporters are going around saying they have won the most delegates, but CNN still has the 41% and counting.  What's going on?

    Time (none / 0) (#101)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:25:00 PM EST
    The teevee said it is going to take a couple of months to count the caucus.

    Parent
    Oh Yes (none / 0) (#153)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:13:44 PM EST
    The rules are the rules EXCEPT when you can change them to enhance your candidate.... Obama camp does it too...

    Open Primary to Indy

    A decision is expected soon on whether South Dakota Democratic Party leaders will open their June 3 primary election to independent voters.

    You see... pols are pols... and Sen Obama is a pol.

    Political watchers say Obama could have an advantage if independents can vote in the Democratic primary.

    Much of the state party's leadership already supports Obama. Six of seven superdelegates, including party chairman Jack Billion, are in his camp.
    Wow! (none / 0) (#162)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:48:53 AM EST


    Parent
    Rules Are Rules, Except When They Are Not, Part 1 Zillion | 161 comments (161 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment