The Fear Factor

by: Mike Lux

Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 19:30


Cross-posted at HuffingtonPost

No, I'm not talking about the daily Bush/McCain festival of fear about the scary terrorists. And, no, I'm not talking about the 3 AM phone call ad, either.

I'm talking about how many people I know, many superdelegates among them, who are scared to publicly support Obama because of the Clintons' well-known penchant for vengeance.

There are plenty of people in the Democratic Party who think Hillary Clinton would make a better President, and/or a better general election candidate, than Barack Obama. There are also some folks who endorsed Hillary early on, and believe you have to stick with the candidate you endorse until the bitter end. There are even a few, although the number is shrinking daily, who still have not genuinely made up their mind. And some superdelegates in the remaining states want to wait for the voters in their own state to vote before they declare. But there are very few people I talk to who think Hillary can win without an utterly divisive fight that will likely tear the party apart. They know that from the perspective of what's best for the party, it's time to endorse Obama.

What those remaining undeclared folks are telling me in private, though, is that they hope the race will play itself out and Obama will emerge as the clear winner so that they don't have to piss the Clintons and their machine off. They don't want the Clintons and McAuliffe and those donors who signed the letter to stop raising money for them. They don't want Carville and Wolfson to call them a traitor. They don't want all the behind-the-scenes trashing that they know will come.

I am encouraging my friends to come out of their political closet. If all the superdelegates and other influential friends that I have talked to who believe that the best path for the party is for Obama to win a clear victory would come out in is favor, this thing really would be over.

I hope this doesn't start another big flame war- I almost didn't write it because I am so tired of people attacking each other over this primary race. But I thought it was important for people to know what I'm hearing from people.
Mike Lux :: The Fear Factor

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Fear Factor | 90 comments
Who can forget Richardson's treatment! (0.00 / 0)
Do you think calling him Judas was an off the cuff statement. If I were a Super I'd surely get "The Message"
They called him Judas... (4.00 / 8)
  ...but it seems like the Clintonistas were more seriously damaged by that outburst than Bill Richardson was.

 The Clintons called him a traitor? Traitor to what? The Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation?

 I wouldn't sweat that charge too much. Doesn't seem like Richardson did.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
If I were a superdelegate and on the fence... (4.00 / 4)
this would push me right off that proverbial fence into the Obama camp.  Being afraid of machine politics and moneybags is so 2004...

Seriously, they are afraid of the machine that got outorganized by a newcomer to the scene and moneybags whose money is paling in comparison to the $10 donations of Obama?  They must be more easily scared than a mouse...

[ Parent ]
It's a Catch-22 (0.00 / 0)
  Some of the supers are afraid to come out for Obama because the don't want to "piss off" the Clintonistas.

 But with every super who comes out for Obama, the Clintonistas' power takes another blow. Once Obama clinches the nomination, the Clintonistas will have next to no power in the party anymore.

 So what's the problem, then?  Get it over with! Bill Richardson did. Bob Casey did. Pat Leahy did. Chris Dodd did. Last I checked, they're still alive and well.

 The Clintonistas are paper tigers.  

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
"The Clintonistas are paper tigers." (0.00 / 0)
That is what I mean.  And these super still afraid of them?  After Barack Obama has already shown them all a way to an end run around the fading Clintons...
[ Parent ]
Yuk, sorry for the non-editing... (0.00 / 0)
"And these supers are still afraid of them?"
[ Parent ]
Like pulling off a band-aid . . . . (0.00 / 0)
Just got to do it quick.
[ Parent ]
Hey Superdelegates, Answer These Questions (0.00 / 0)
Since when did the Democratic Party become the party of wimps and cowards?

Since when was politics ever a risk-free proposition?

Since when did so-called party leaders become content to kick back and let others make the difficult decisions?

Hmm... (4.00 / 1)
Boy I can just imagine how the GOP would answer this question.  ;-)
[ Parent ]
I think it was around 1979 (0.00 / 0)
its a joke, just a joke. no troll rating please.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
"Since when did the Democratic Party become the party of wimps and cowards?" (0.00 / 0)
The process started 11/22/63, it accelerated on 6/5/68, is reached almost total wimpification on 11/4/80 and the transformation was completed on 10/25/02.  

Only now is the party beginning to recover.  Many members are either not really aligned with the party's philosophy, but many others will have a very hard time unlearning the idea that you can't hold on too strongly to your most basic core principles if you want to remain in power.  (

The electorate is changing, and the playing field is changing.  It will take either a leap of faith, or continued donations from rank and file after the successful election of a Candidate funded like Obama's for them to believe they can tell fat cats who want to buy policy to keep their money.  

[ Parent ]
Right..... (4.00 / 1)
The Clinton donors have NO RIGHT to withhold their money from the Democratic party.  They OWE the Democratic party that money.

Of all the fates that might befall someone in the rough and tumble world of national politics, being called a "traitor" by a skinny bald guy on CNN is the worst.

And particularly everyone knows that supporting the winner of the Democratic nomination and the (perhaps) next President will be a career killing move.  No one can stand a trashing by the loser of an election for supporting the winner - nobody.

Get real.

If you don't want a flame war, you might try writing something that makes sense, that doesn't sound like every other vague, faintly ridiculous smear against Clinton that floats around the blogs.  If you want to write an anonymous source sort of post, at least make it marginally convincing outside your own personal echo chamber.

Flame wars. (4.00 / 12)
I get a flame war every single time I write anything related to either candidate, so there is nothing surprising about that. I do find it remarkable that you apparently think it's a good thing for Clinton donors to screw the rest of the party over their anger re how Hillary is being treated.
You want an actual quote, here's one from Terry McAuliffe: "donors are either with us or against us."
Look, it's no surprise that people fearful about angering the Clintons don't want to go public with that info, be kind of strange of them to do so. Having worked in the Clinton White House, I do have a sense of how all this works and who the players are.
[ Parent ]
I don't have an opinion (4.00 / 1)
on whether it's a good thing if some donors withhold money if either candidate loses.  It's their money.  

You say you "know how these things work" but what you say doesn't make a lot of sense.  

Seriously.  Explain it to me.  I want to know.  If there's some Senator superdelegate who is dependent on Clinton fundraisers, what exactly are they afraid of?  They'll lose that money?  The fundraiser would rather lose the Senate seat out of spite?  Big fundraisers are players - they get something out of the process.  If the Clinton money is gone, and Obama wins the Presidency, won't the money appear from another source?  Obama raises $50 million a month - he has at least the same favor power as anyone else. He's endorsed by heavy hitters like Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, etc.  You want me to belive these big-name insiders are putty before the Clinton machine?  C'mon.  And, if the choice is really between losing some donor money and losing the White House - if the Senator really believes the party will be "destroyed" - aren't the negative repurcussions to the Senator in future fundraising in a divided shambles of a party at least as bad as losing that Clinton money?

I realize I'm being antagonistic, but your post doesn't make any sense, and hiding behind "I know how it works and you don't" is the same insider sleight of hand you're accusing the Clintons of.

[ Parent ]
Um, yeah (4.00 / 3)
If there's some Senator superdelegate who is dependent on Clinton fundraisers, what exactly are they afraid of?  They'll lose that money

Pretty much. Also, since as you note big donors are "players" there's a social cost. It's not just the hard cash contributions, it's the leadership PAC funding, the dinner invites, etc.

He's endorsed by heavy hitters like Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, etc.  You want me to belive these big-name insiders are putty before the Clinton machine?

This is precisely the point: these "big-name insiders" have their own lists, support base, etc. They've been around. They're powerful and confident enough to be independent. Others with less time and experience? Maybe they're more concerned about making enemies, so they're hoping the campaign runs out the clock.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

[ Parent ]
If that's the case (0.00 / 0)
then you're just stating a reality that has little to do with the Clintons.  No matter what they do, they'll make someone unhappy. Everybody has friends; everybody has connections.

If Clinton is going down, I can't imagine that the big players, the internet fundraising groups, the Obama network etc is going to let too many people go down with her.

I can't for the life of me see why the Obama people don't see this as a level playing field.  He's an establishment candidate now.  He and his allies have as much clout as anyone - but always there's this loser's cry of being beaten up on.  I don't buy it, even remotely.

Not wanting to make a decision, I understand.  But that's cowardice, not being bullied.

[ Parent ]
Vengence (0.00 / 0)
The point here -- the main point of Mike's article -- is that the Clintons have a (some would say well-deserved) reputation for being particularly aggressive when it comes to payback.

If you want to call it cowardice, I wouldn't call you wrong. That's not my point. Mainly I was trying to help you understand what seemed to me to be an entirely rational report from the field.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

[ Parent ]
The purpose of the report from the field (0.00 / 0)
in my view, is to hit Obama's theme of the day.

Naturally there will be repurcussions to superdelegates for making any decisions.  That's the nature of decisions.  The superdelegates who aren't invested don't have much motivation to take any risk, and would prefer to have it over without weighing in.  How effectively the Clintons can, or would, extract vengence is something I don't know - except I know that people don't suffer in life from backing the winner.  

My personal point of view is the theme that Clinton can hurt Obama, or wants to make him unelectable (the Tonya Harding theme), is a cover for other concerns.  When Clinton attacks Obama, she suffers as much if not more than he does.  

The real problem is Michigan and Florida.  This issue is becoming a sore spot with committed Clinton voters.  The most strident Clinton bloggers are starting to use the idea that Obama is "illegitimate."  Clinton is starting to push the issue herself, hard, but she's not using that sort of language.  This is a bitter issue with Clinton's base - sort of like a mini-election-2000 drama.

Obama's counter is the "will of the people" claim.  He argues, not entirely accurately, that the pledged votes represent the popular will.  And Clinton's backers gave him a gift with that letter to Pelosi.  Obama can pretend that his campaign is powered by nothing but the little guy, and Clinton is only supported by the big-money backroom dealers, who are taking a wrecking ball to the process.

IMO, that's the strategic importance of this message.  Obama needs to be seen as the man of the people right after Michigan and Florida revotes die.  Clinton has to be seen as against the will of the people, as the issue of Michigan and Florida is snuffed out quietly.

I don't blame Obama for pushing this theme (it's the smart thing to do), and I don't know Mike is just spreading the daily Obama line, but it was a weak comment that fit the current theme so nicely.

Being as die-hard as Clinton supporter as you can find, I have a sense that we are reaching a fault line, which is the endgame on Florida and Michigan.  That is why the party is freaking out.  If Clinton pushes the obvious illegitimacy of the process, the party could split.  Even if Clinton doesn't, her allies will start.  That's a reason to freak.

[ Parent ]
Fear. (4.00 / 2)
You raise a few questions, I'll try to answer.
First, I'm not talking much here about Senators. Senators have their own $ base, which is why so many Senators have already endorsed. I'm talking some about congresspeople, many of whom are back benchers desperate for whatever $ help they can get. I'm talking even more about the DNC members, many of whom are from relatively poor state parties, or folks with favorite organizational causes the Clintons have raised money for previously.
You also assume fear is always rational. I have written for a long time now about the culture of caution in the Dem party, being timid about many things because of so many years of being outspent and attacked by the right wing media machine. Same thing here: the Clintons have been the most powerful force the Dem party for 16 years now, and have played hard ball with lots of people for a long time. Folks have trouble getting over that.
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't worry so much about the donors (4.00 / 1)
You might want to worry more about the voters.  You can always make up the $$$ somewhere, but if you piss off the Clinton supporters (a very large group of people) you might not get to make that up as easily.
[ Parent ]
What a sad post Mike (0.00 / 0)
Whisper, whisper...

"What those remaining undeclared folks are telling me in private..."

Yeah right! ALL those remaining Supers are telling all to you. Off the record no less.

And you say Clinton tries to destroy people? What are you trying to do with unsourced innuendo?

Looks to me you are using the same tactics you are accusing Clinton of. And that makes you what? Honorable when you do it?

How f'ing sad.

[ Parent ]
off the record (4.00 / 3)
Why would someone go on the record with something like that- the whole point is that they are trying to keep a low profile.
And, no, I'm not trying to destroy anyone. I'm laying out an honest truth as I see it. The only person who can destroy Hillary Clinton is herself, if she pursues a path that recklessly destroys the party and we end up with McCain as a result. It hasn't come to that yet, I hope it doesn't, because the Hillary Clinton I knew from my White House days played hard ball, but did it with honor for the right reasons. I hope this thing ends before she destroys her own legacy.
[ Parent ]
"honest truth as I see it" (4.00 / 1)
Nuff said. The truth as one sees it is colored by their bias which you admittedly have.

Of course if one reads the news we know this snipping is originating from both sides but of course you don't want to write about that. No not a thing about all the negative innuendo from Obama.

It's sad. It's sad because I have seen a side from some on the Left Activist Base that up to now I only thought the Right possessed and that is the ability to do anything, to say anything to destroy your opponent. And as you know this is the very thing you all rail against Clinton about but yet you and many many others do it yourself as if you are above it all.

And what is funny is you are all blind to your own hypocrisy. Or not.

You and all the other slimmers who post falsehoods and unsourced innuendo on the Left have lost your soul and as such have damaged any credibility the Left had. And for what - a middle of the road smooth talker who has corporate backing, employs known healthcare busters, and runs as hard as he can from being labeled Progressive? And for that you sell yourself out and sell out the Progressive movement. Wake up!

[ Parent ]
MMMMMM (0.00 / 0)
Reaally heart-felt nonsense. And this is a very good example of the smear that will make it harder for the Democratic Party Nominee to get elected. That is, and probably always has been, the point of these criticisms. This what must be removed. That is why this is over.

People pretending to be members of the Democratic copalition trying to stop this same centre-left coaliton from winning the election. Change is coming, this wont be stopped.

No matter who he picks as his VP, Obama in 2008.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Change? (4.00 / 1)
What change?

Change from Obama who runs from the label Progressive? Change from Obama who runs from the idea that he might read blogs and makes it clear to the MSM that he doesn't? This from a guy who  says he wants bottom up politics but shuns the very vehicle of bottom up politics? You guys support someone who does the exact opposite of what you want.

Change?

"Casey said the campaign was a chance for change, new politics and healing. "I believe in my heart that there is one person who is uniquely qualified to lead us in that direction and that is Barack Obama," Casey said in Pittsburgh ..."

Really! New politics? And what would those be? The Repubs rolling over for Obama and not obstructing him? Get real. Tell my realistically why the Repubs would do that. If anyone is going to roll over for anyone it is going to be Obama rolling over for the Repubs.

You guys can't see the forest for the trees.

[ Parent ]
Listen (0.00 / 0)
Not many here are saying that Obama is some kind of progressive savior, a perfect leader, the complete, total, all-encompassing manifestation and embodiment of everything we could ever want in a president.  I know you somehow come to that perception, but I think that 9 out of every 10 Obama supporters here and elsewhere simply feel that Obama is more progressive - he is not perfect, and sometimes we wish he would do or say certain things.  

But you come here and make these criticisms of Obama, that he runs away from being progressive, and you criticize him for not reading blogs.  First of all, if anyone has run away from being progressive in their political career, it's Hillary Clinton, especially since she's been in the Senate.  Triangulation, hypocrisy, attacks from the right - these are the actions that have characterized her campaign, especially of late.  While Obama hits McCain from the left, Hillary lefts Obama from the right.  You tell me who the progressive is here.

And using blog readership as a major criterion by which you choose your candidate? There are plenty of people I know who read blogs I don't want within a million miles of policy making, and plenty of people who have never read a blog that I wish were representatives, senators, governors, presidents, etc.  Plus, do you really think that Hillary Clinton reads blogs? And no, MyDD doesn't count.

[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 1)
as has been stated here before by many poster, according to Progressive Punch, the gold standard for rating Progressives, Clinton scores higher in their Progressive ratings both Currently and Lifetime than Obama.

Now I know you ignore that because every time someone like me mentions that fact Obama supporters run to the next thread because you guys don't like facts - instead you like lofty speeches that do noting to bring change to the country.

Obama loves Republicans. He has showed that time after time. In fact in just the last few days he said:

"The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional, bipartisan, realistic foreign policy of George Bush's father, John F. Kennedy, of in some ways Ronald Reagan," Obama said in Greensburg, Pennsylvania."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20...

Bipartisan eh? Lovely. Bush senior and Reagan? Lovelier.

We know exactly what the Repubs want in terms of foreign policy. And Obama is saying upfront that he is going to listen to them.

Notice he mentions two Repubs and one token Democrat? Keep living in your fantasy land dude and ignoring who the guy really is. Keep ignoring how unbiased organizations like Progressive Punch, who factor in all the votes including missed votes, something that Obama has a history of doing going back to Illinois, rate the two of them. Facts don't matter to you guys. And you ignore his inconvenient words that embrace Republicans.

Ronald Reagan! Really!

[ Parent ]
Somebody rated, Obama mentioned (0.00 / 0)
The depth of your analysis is impressive I must admit.

Obama is the democratic nominee, Obama will listen, and feels comfortable in the huge field of the democratic party party coalition. Our job, now that we have a nominee, is to make the choice of a progressive alternative on every topic easy for our President when he assumes office.

This not rocket science. What part of the above do you not understand? Were you alive for the fight against NAFTA? Did you march against NAFTA? (North American Free Trade Agreement)

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Sure he will listen (0.00 / 0)
To the Republicans on Foreign Policy as quoted and linked to. So much for progressive a agenda eh? This not rocket science. What part of the above do you not understand?
[ Parent ]
I've stated this again and again (0.00 / 0)
but Progressive Punch scores are not the be-all and end-all of who is most progressive, by any means.  For example, Ted Kennedy's Chips are Down score is only marginally better than Bob Casey's.  Does that mean that Ted Kennedy is only marginally more progressive than Bob Casey? The Progressive Punch score is also only a measure of votes cast in the Senate or the House of Representatives (since 1991, which hurts Obama because he wasn't in the Senate before 2004, and Kennedy because he was in the Senate for so much longer before that), and counts each vote equally, i.e. a vote against the AUMF counts equally against Hillary Clinton's progressive score as a 2002 vote against $150 million for summer school funding (while Obama's opposition to the war from the start is not factored in at all).  I'm not saying it's not a useful tool, but to use it as a "dealbreaker," so to speak, it is not nearly as useful.

And really, you're going to go off and criticize Barack Obama, of all the candidates, for sucking up to Republicans on foreign policy? That Hillary Clinton, of all candidates, represents some kind of break with the conservative foreign policy consensus?   Her advisors are terrible - one degree better than the O'Hanlons and Pollacks of the world, while Brzezinski and other Obama advisors have been against the war from day one (like Obama), and have taken courageous stands like defending Mearsheimer and Walt while they're Sister Souljah-d by anyone with a microphone in front of them.  I'm not trying to defend Barack Obama universally, because I don't necessarily agree with what he's saying in the single quote you provided, because that's the difference between you and I.  I view my candidate through a realistic lens - willing to praise him for his strengths, and criticize him for his failures.  

You claim that I'm living in a fantasy land, but I've been critical of Barack Obama when I feel he deserves it, and I compliment him when he is praiseworthy.  You have never demonstrated anything other than blind ignorance on virtually every issue and discussion here, and absolute loyalty to your campaign's talking points, even though there is an overwhelming degree of evidence that suggests that on matters of campaigning and policy, HRC is to the right of Barack Obama on a number of really important issues, constantly triangulating, reinforcing right wing narratives, and just being hypocritical.  

[ Parent ]
You are truly not in the same league -- to understand... (0.00 / 0)
nuff said...
[ Parent ]
You are not capable (4.00 / 1)
of understanding the hypocrisy of Mike and millions of others who continue their smear tactics everyday online.
[ Parent ]
Oh I'm capable of understanding hypocrisy AND naviety... (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Fear: It's Not Just For Breakfast Anymore (4.00 / 1)
I wish I could be more sensitive to the tender sensibilities of the Supers, but I'm afraid the fear thing just doesn't resonate. I find it amazing that these overpriviledged people could be  such incredible wimps, even though it is a pretty common affectation of wealth. One's personal position is always more important than the national interest the wealthier one becomes, it seems. Very patriotic!

I will be sure to cry for them when I lose my job thanks to the economy the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Greenspan/Rubin/Hedge Fundies and iBank Continuum have given us! (sorry, had to vent on that)

That said, I'm with you on this. But I also think this is all healthy in the long run and here's why:

As a nation, we are about to be beset by a long series of crises, some of which have already entered into the national psyche. It's long been my understanding that the political elite are, to an absurd extent, divorced from the reality of the rest of the nation. The "boom" of the 90's, based almost entirely on paper now largely worthless, allowed everyone to essentially look the other way at the deeper trends in US socio-economics. That time is at an end.

Please tell your friends without cajones to settle down and wait for the right time for them to act. It will come soon enough. All that really matters is that they see what's happening with clear eyes and act accordingly when its needed. After PA would probably be a good time. Maybe right after all the primaries are done.

The Clintonoids are directly tied to the very financial establishment (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Hedge Funds out the wazoo) that is killing the US economy at the moment. Rubin, McAuliffe (who has made his millions off of people like Rubin) and the lot of them are playing chicken in a game they can't possibly win. The economy will prove them wrong shortly, as will the occupation of Iraq, which is now going to become a hot war all over again--casualties and everything.

All these things, combined with the irrational hubris of the Clintonoids, will be their undoing. Let the big money wankers go all King Kong on the Supers. Let's see how far that gets them in the next couple months.

Can you say Blowback? Sure, I knew you could....

PS: To paraphrase the great hypocrite and McCain accolyte, "I feel your pain" on the whole flame war thing. It's why I don't comment on much of this. But sometimes I can't help myself. Machines not only suck, they are bad for the country. Let the machine blow it's wad over this. We'll all be better off for it!


"In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State" -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

[ Parent ]
of course (4.00 / 3)
they have the right to take their balls and go home.

What is wrong is holding an entire party hostage to the needs of one candidate.

[ Parent ]
Unpleasantries: (4.00 / 2)

"Get real."

". . .you might try writing something that makes sense"

"every other vague, faintly ridiculous smear"

"marginally convincing"

"your own personal echo chamber."

Dear Kanzeon,

As a reader, I can't get past these ad hominems to consider the arguments you may be trying to bring to this forum.  

Instead, I'm distracted by wondering what compells you to demonstrate such loathing for Mike's remarks.  

[ Parent ]
You might want to look up (0.00 / 0)
what an ad hominem is. (Hint: "maringally convincing" and "faintly ridiculous smear" don't qualify).

You might also look up the word "loathing."  The definition isn't "finding something absurd and illogical."

Your distractibility is something you'll have to struggle on on your own.  Good luck with it.

Thanks for the input, though.

[ Parent ]
Your loathing is loathsome (4.00 / 1)
The language you used is mean and rude, full of loathing.  I don't know why.  I can't see that it was provoked by Mike, he didn't bring that tone to his presentation at all.

Ad Hominem, as I'm familiar with it, means attacking the person instead their argument.

Here's the full text that I found distracting:

"Get real.

If you don't want a flame war, you might try writing something that makes sense, that doesn't sound like every other vague, faintly ridiculous smear against Clinton that floats around the blogs.  If you want to write an anonymous source sort of post, at least make it marginally convincing outside your own personal echo chamber."

Take out the bluster and all you are saying is that Mike's report was untrue.  You offer no evidence to support your case, only insults.

My suggestion is to find more effective means of argumention to pursuade readers like me.

You're welcome!

[ Parent ]
clearly they will do what ever it takes (4.00 / 2)
to win.

but maybe, just maybe, this time it can be different.

the transparency of politics, offered up by the internets, is a beautiful thing. thanks for the post! thanks for open left!

Fear (0.00 / 0)
This kind of confirms that Carville was specifically asked to make an example of Richardson doesn't it?  Not to punish Richardson so much but to keep the others in line.
SD fear? (4.00 / 2)
Mike,

The thing that the uncommitted superdelegates don't seem to understand is that by remaining on the sidelines, they are helping to create the very scenario that they most fear-- an extended, nasty, and divisive fight right through the convention.

If the SD's do find the courage to get out of the closet and end this mess soon, I don't want to hear any whining from the Clinton camp.  HRC had 96 SD's who committed to her before the campaign even began.  The uncommitted SD's have at least had enough sense to withold judgement until they witnessed 20 debates and 40 primaries.

all at the same time. (0.00 / 0)
I think did it at the same time, as in Breseden's proposal, it would be easier.
[ Parent ]
It's time; it's over (0.00 / 0)
Look at some of the factors in the Bob Casey endorsement:  his previous consideration of letting the race play out - a committment many now see as being met - the long ago snubbing of his father at the Bill Clinton corination back in 1992, the Clinton campaign's recent manipulation (as in shrewdly rather than deviously) of the super delegate race.  Oh, and his daughters being on the Obama bandwagon.

My theory is that concern for the long term prospects in the general election allowed Sen. Casey to move forward at this time, feeling that the actual race for the nomination is concluded, and also feeling that the Clintons prior treatment of his dad had earned them little in the way of magnanimous treatment.

Was it revenge?  We may never know, but the Clinton's had certainly done enough previously for it to be a possiblity.  But I believe the overriding factor was the party, and the little to no doubt being left about the outcome of the nominating process.

oh (0.00 / 0)
and if it was revenge...16 years is very cold dish!
[ Parent ]
Heh (4.00 / 2)
You aren't Irish, are you....? /snark

I think the most intriguing case are the early endorsers. I wonder how many of them would endorse HRC now had they remained neutral back when "inevitable" wasn't a punchline.

[ Parent ]
Irish? (0.00 / 0)
and Catholic... :)
[ Parent ]
What about Speaker Pelosi leading the way? n/t (0.00 / 0)

The Clintons Can't Last (0.00 / 0)
The Clinton "kitchen sink" strategy has backfired against the Clintons.  Match this data with DNC Chairman Howard Dean's comments earlier today and Senators Dodd's and Leahy's recent calls for Senator Clinton to concede defeat and withdraw.

The pressure will get more intense and there will come a point when donors will become reluctant to contribute to Clinton's campaign, anticipating her withdrawal.

Granted, Bill and Hillary Clinton sound so resolute now, vowing to stay in the nomination fight until the convention in August.  It just won't happen.  It really can't happen.  The rationale for the Clinton campaign will evaporate long before then.
(from http://swimmingfreestyle.typep...

superdelegates are wimps (4.00 / 3)
i'm a hillary supporter, and i wish there were no superdelegates.  i also wish that we only had primaries and no caucuses.  as long as i'm making these useless wishes, i wish republicans and independents couldn't vote to choose the democratic nominee for president.

the uncommitted superdelegates are clearly the most gutless wimps in the democratic party.  i have no sympathy for them whatsoever.  if they are afraid of the clintons, then that means they will vote for the clintons if the seas get rough and there is a battle at the convention.  in fact, i would think that some (not all) of the committed superdelegates are likely to jump ship when the momentum swings decisively in favor of one candidate or another.

the superdelegates are supposed to make independent judgements as to who will be the strongest candidate in the general election.  that is their duty.  so, although it would be preferable if there were no superdelegates, as long as they do exist, they should do what they knew was their duty when they became a superdelegate.

considering the current mess, i'd hope that the DNC "cleans up" the nominating process for 2012 and beyond.  this has been a ridiculous three ring circus from start to finish and it could end up costing the dems the WH in november.

so, obama supporters aren't the only ones who are disgusted these days...  and speaking as a loyal democrat who will support the party's nominee no matter who gets it, i would really appreciate it if the obama supporters could stop blaming this whole freaking mess on Hillary.  it's NOT her fault.  (end of rant)

I dont think the superdelegates are SUPPOSED TO do anything (0.00 / 0)
they just exist and can vote. if they want to smoke crack as part of that process they can.

i dont think there are too many obama supporters blaming Hillary for the existence of superdelegates. what I think they do blame Hillary for is running campaigns which paint McCain as more favorable to Obama, rather then comparative critiques on policy or judgement or record within a center-left/left context.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
I have a suggestion. (0.00 / 0)
A friend of mine has been mightily thinking about just who could tell the Clintons to let go of their grip on this campaign in such a way that they may be willing to accept it, and, in turn, to minimize the anger afterward.

And I think he has a good candidate.

How does Vernon Jordan strike you as peacemaker, folks?

let's let (0.00 / 0)
the voters all vote and then see where we are.  Make sense?
The voters have decided. Its over the only thing left (0.00 / 0)
is the slow destruction of the Clinton legacy.

Obama has apparently waethered this storm among Democrats, and Hillary is tanking in peoples minds and apporval, her negatives higher than at any time in her career ever.

But Hil;laries histrionics, fibs and kitchen sinks will hurt Obama among the low-information voters and independents who both just want a good person to be President.

Smearing Obama is making that harder.

It is over. It is time for voters to show they understand that. I encourage others to come forward and declare for Obama, declare it is over. Campaign for Obama right now in Pennsylvania. Call the campaign, get some spotlight, give Obama the power of your name.

Please help us end this. Your time is now.

On power and threats I wrote this the day before yesterday.

Albuquerque Mayor Says Richardson Has "No Loyalty"
by: HousesofProgress
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:16

The Democratic Party as the gang, goodfellas, gangsters. "You don't understand Loyalty? You will," the Mayor is assumed to have said, swaggering with a bulge in his shoulder. "Just you wait and see, " one imagines the mayor snarl. Its similar to calling Richardson Judas, except it doesn't rely so much on Clinton being Jesus Christ.("I wouldn't attend that church")

So now its a offer you cant reuse. Poor Obama supporters, may have to rely on their own fundraising. Down ticket supporters may have to rely on Barack's coat tails. Being from historic Chicago, Obama is I'm sure amused by the pretensions.

Its a bit odd for the campaign to be sending out these messages about betrayal and loyalty because it is essentially a power message. The unfortunate display of using stale dated James Carville and the Mayor of Albuquerque as her muscle might be seen by some as not packing heat, really not packing at all. "What are you looking at?", this image seems to scream.


Im not sure, as the party is run by the President, that threats from the Clinton camp are a good idea. Because Hillary isnt going to be President.

Please help us end this. Your time is now.

You will be endorsing the next President of the United States, and he will be head of the Democratic Party.



Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Where am I? (0.00 / 0)
The slow destruction of the Clinton legacy?

Did I miss a turn and end up the forum of the New york post? or fox news?

[ Parent ]
What WAS the Clinton legacy? (4.00 / 4)
   The two strongest elements of the Clinton legacy -- budget surpluses and a reasonably progressive tax code -- have both been shredded by the Republicans.

  Just about everything else the Clintons left us -- telecom consolidation, DADT, DOMA, welfare reform -- is pretty much in line with Republican goals.

   The harder I look, the less sense it makes to me that a Democrat would believe Hillary Clinton shares his or her values.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
...on a progressive blog working for a democratic party President. (4.00 / 1)
Obama has apparently weathered this storm among Democrats, and Hillary is tanking in peoples minds and approval, her negatives higher than at any time in her career ever.

and Hillary is tanking in peoples minds and apporval, her negatives higher than at any time in her career ever.

Is this hard to understand? HRC has great respect and will be returned in New York, and may yet become Senate Majority Leader. I cannot see a successful primary challenge to her in New York, and Bill Clinton will be remembered for years of service, not this campaign. But this legacy is taking a beating. The kitchen sink tactics are hurting HRC not Obama.

Perhaps a picture will help you understand.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
If it were not for the stupid MSM*, (4.00 / 3)
I would advocate the following: let Clinton hang on till whatever time she wants to; but she needs to promise not to level stupid, false charges against Obama and concentrate solely on making a coherent case for herself and against McCain.  

Obama, I would argue, is already trying to do this, except that she keeps getting in his face and he has to periodically swat her down.

Then voters will get a decent chance to break the demographic tie that is this primary dance between the two of them.  Right now, she is effectively keeping the white vote for him depressed by strategically dogwhistling at all the (in)appropriate times.

Unless she stops this code-messaging right before big-state (diverse enough, and therefore angst-filled enough, for her tactics to work) primaries, we will never be able to test his ability to attract their votes.  The flip side of the coin is the way she has repelled off the black vote from herself (I have personally known black women who were strongly for her until SC, and then I saw utter contempt and resignation that this ugliness always rears its head; they say that at this point they think she has wounded him enough to lose the general, but that they are still going to vote for him because they cannot vote for her any more.)

*Stupid MSM will not allow us to really take this course, because they will trump some non issue or the other, even if the candidates themselves don't.  With the stupid MSM in the process, the choice is only whether we are dealing with their trumped-up muck, or the muck the candidates decide to throw, sigh.

Well, I'm already pissed off (0.00 / 0)
Five minutes ago I got a call from the DSCC.  I politely told them that I wasn't happy with the way the big boys (and girls--that means you, Nancy Pelosi) in Washington were handling the primary situation, particularly as regards FL and MI.  I'm no superdelegate, but I'm no cash register, either.  Find your hundred bucks elsewhere.
Me, too (0.00 / 0)
I got two calls from the DCCC last night. I said that just as I put a great deal of time, resources and energy into electing Democratic candidates in 2004 and 2006, I planned to contribute to the DCCC. But not now. Not until the party leaders have put an end to the destructive behavior we are seeing in the primary. I asked the callers please to get the message to the DCCC leadership that by allowing that destructive behavior to continue, they are making it much more difficult for us footsoldiers to do our work in the fall. Allowing one campaign to pursue a strategy of knee-capping the other candidate is political suicide, and it is not fair for the DCCC leadership, especially Rahm Emmanual who is currently the only member of the Illinois delegation who is supporting Clington, to expect our loyalty and our money while still "enabling" this destructive behavior.

The first caller kind of gulped and didn't say much; the second said he agreed with me 100% and would pass on the message.

[ Parent ]
That seems inappropriate (4.00 / 3)
The DCCC represents Congressional Democrats, and their leader, Nancy Pelosi, just stood up to a threat from large donors to cut off funds unless Pelosi retracts her statement that it would be harmful to the party if the candidate chosen by the people doesn't win.  I immediately gave them money after that, to make up for the billionaires that are threatening to cut off the DCCC.

Last year, I refused to give to the DCCC as Congress caved on issue after issue.  But now that they've grown a spine, and are standing up to Bush on FISA as well as elsewhere, I think it's time to reward good behavior.

And yes, Emmanuel is a problem, but the DCCC helps all Congressional Democrats, it isn't just him.

If you don't give to the DCCC, then I hope you give to the Democrats of your choice.

[ Parent ]
Democratic Victory (4.00 / 1)
More important than either a Clinton or Obama victory is a Democratic victory in Novemeber.  With the possibility that the next president could appoint as many as six justices to the supreme court, democrats cannot afford to lose this election.

Both Sen Clinton and Sen Obama would make fine presidents.  With that said, I've seen the numbers and it appears Barack Obama is to be our nominee.  Prolonging the Democratic contest will not change that fact.

Meanwhile on the ranch...with the media focused on the he said/she said of the Democratic contest, McCain is getting away with recent blunders.  In addition, McCain is putting out his national campaign ads.  Soon, he and the GOP will ratchet up their defining of the Democrats.

 

A good friend of mine (0.00 / 0)
told me of the tactics the Clinton's used in New Hampshire in the year before the primary.  

It was unbelievable.

Then, of course, there is the story about the former Senator who was told that his institution would not see a cent if he didn't endorse the Clintons.

I think this story has made the rounds, so it is pretty obvious who it is about....  

Enough with the complaining (0.00 / 0)

Complaining won't work against McCain, so if you are so confident about your guy winning the nomination, I suggest you start your detox now.

If you endorse the political oponent of someone who supports you, chances are he will stop suporting you. The Clinton didn't make that rulw up and it works both ways, there are some AA supedelegates long-time supporter and friend of the clinton who are feeling an enormous pressure from their community to switch.

One final word: the biggest machine is the obama machine: Both in money and manpower. As proof I have only one word: Caucuses

Although unintentionally this poster is correct (0.00 / 0)
The time for action is now. "Complaints" are for yesterday, so are arguments, and appeals and logic and demands, the Clinton campaign is not listening.

So now there must be action. It is now time for people to come forward and redouble and emphasize that is over by echoing Senator Leahy's call to Clinton to stop, echo Senator Casey's announcement of support for Obama because it is over. It is time to stand up like Governor Richardson, and despite the personal pain of hurting his good friends feelings, declare for Obama.

Complaints are not working.

It is time to put this to an end.

Action is called for.



Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
The Obama Machine (4.00 / 3)
One final word: the biggest machine is the obama machine: Both in money and manpower. As proof I have only one word: Caucuses

What you call machine I would call grassroots. Obama didn't have a nationwide network of connections to state parties and organizations to go to bat for him. His spouse wasn't the head of the entire Party for 8 years. What he did have was a ton of younger voters with some free time and $50 to spare. Which, apparently, is all he needed.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Yes, but (0.00 / 0)
at least a large majority of those people come from the same demographic as you and I do.  They are not billionaires.  Do they expect something in return for their support?  Hell yes.  What helps them, helps a large chunk of the rest of the country.  I would much rather support someone whose machine and money comes from people who are in the same tax bracket as I am, not someone whose donor base is full of people who make millions on a regular basis.  Somehow I just don't see their interests and mine matching up all that well.
[ Parent ]
Yup. (4.00 / 1)
I'm talking about how many people I know, many superdelegates among them, who are scared to publicly support Obama because of the Clintons' well-known penchant for vengeance.

I've had the feeling for quite a long time.  I think the clintons' have a VERY long political memory, and people are scared of pissing them off if they don't have to.

Another point to make is that let those donors walk.  There surely are others to pick up what they're taking, not too mention the million and counting that obama's building who one might think would continue to donate if they see a "people-powered" candidate take the highest office.

i say she's welcome to them.  They're acting like repubs anyway.

too obtuse? (4.00 / 1)
haha, that's funny - obtuse.  To ask the final factor to answer the question 'who will you support?'

It's interesting to see how Clinton backers are unwilling to accept that the numbers are aligning against them.

Ways back they argued - and the Clinton campaign still does argue - that the popular vote, in certain states, under certain conditions represent some greater significance then the nominating processes of other voters.  But as the tide turned, and evidence mounted that even a popular vote victory was not likely, they turned to the guardian angel-like lure of the super delegates.

And now that people from Howard Dean to Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi to Pat Leahy are pushing for resolution sooner rather than later, their back to 'wait, let THE PEOPLE SPEAK!'  

After insisting the supers would not be beholden to the voting of 'regular' citizens, now they're hoping the supers won't decide until after all the 'regular' citizens vote but recall that how the citizens vote shouldn't matter to the supers?  Um, huh?

In the Kubler-Ross model, they're in the bargaining stage.

"Operation Chaos" (4.00 / 1)
I'm wondering about the Republicans who've switched parties to vote in democratic primaries.  I think Limbaugh is still encouraging them to vote for Clinton.  In my state of KY thousands of Republicans have switched parties to vote in the May 20th Dem. primary.  Now I know there aren't that many Obama supporters in KY, so these have to be troublemakers.

So may question is: Could she pull it off--i.e., win enough votes to at least stay in the race--through Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos"?  If she could, I see why she wants to stay in.

I'm an Obama supporter, so I'm hoping Limbaugh's efforts won't impact the primaries much.  But I can see why Clinton would stay in the race if there's a chance she could widdle down Obama's lead.  Besides the Limbaugh troublemakers, I don't see how else Clinton can beat Obama 65-35% in the remaining states.

If you want to shake up your friends... (0.00 / 0)
...have them take a look at this page:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/...

Clinton in '08. Or give Carter a 2nd term. Vote for Obama!

What's the point (0.00 / 0)
Polls haven't been that accurate two days before the election, why would they be all that accurate eight months out.
[ Parent ]
New Hampshire (4.00 / 1)
Am I alone in thinking that a whole horde of people decided after New Hampshire that "polls are NEVER right"??

Polls are often right and always useful. Just because there was a major fuck up in NH doesn't mean all polls are now meaningless forevermore.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Polls weren't even all that wrong in NH. (0.00 / 0)
Clinton's organization was better than Obama's in NH.  
[ Parent ]
You have to admit (4.00 / 1)
that getting worked up over polling on an election that is more than 7 months out is not really worth the time.  If it were, HRC and Rudy would be running for president.  
[ Parent ]
The way I see it.... (0.00 / 0)
There are ~100 million voters, and we all want to know what they think. We can either a) not know at all or b) get an idea  from polling. 'B' just seems to make more sense to me.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Fantastic post, Mike... (4.00 / 1)
...but not for the reasons stated by many in the comments.

As your post confirms, it's all over but the squealing. The Wright incident was the single most negative inflammatory event imaginable for Obama's candidacy - the "loud angry anti-American black preacher" writ large, a Farrakhan he couldn't disown. And what happened? Obama disarmed the Wright controversy like a Mercedes running over a toenail clipping. Noonan swooned. Casey endorsed.

Does anyone really think that the Dems who end up bailing on Obama in November wouldn't have done so with or without the Wright excuse? The McCain Democrats (whose number will shrink with time) will be mostly conservative white Democrats. I grew up amongst them. They would no sooner have voted for a black man named Barack Obama than grow stalactites out of their nostrils or take a Friday afternoon joyride to Alpha Centauri.

--------------

When Obama won South Carolina, most everyone else still saw the race as 50-50. But a few understood that the race was all but over... that, at the very least, it was Obama's to lose. Super Tuesday was a coronation, not a stalemate.

Now the netroots' conventional wisdom is months behind yet again. The Clinton-Obama battle through April, May and June  will not hurt Obama's general election chances.

REPEAT: the Clinton-Obama battle through April, May and June will not hurt Obama's general election chances.

Democrats are more motivated for this election than in any presidential year since 1932. Democrats will turn out in record numbers to vote for Barack Obama. Even at this campaign's harshest, Clinton voters have about a 50-30 net positive approval of Obama. And if RFK folks could hold their noses and learn to love Hubert Horatio in '68 (who nearly won, after all), surely a massive percentage of that 30% will return to the fold.    

The key is for Obama to pull the independents, where McCain is strongest. And who do independents REALLY dislike? Who is the candidate that they absolutely will not vote for over John McCain... against whom they will vote for McCain by a 15+ point margin, even though they disapprove of George W by a net 30 points or so... who is that candidate?

And why would it NOT be a good thing for those independents to see Barack Obama overcoming that candidate cleanly in a tough, long contest?  

--------------

Obama-McCain national polling has moved little, even though McCain can run against Obama (I loved his "American President" ad - "ready, set, xenophobic racism!!") without fearing direct counterattacks. Now you understand why.  

And to return, finally, to Mike's post...

The better politicians try to do some moral good in the margins, but their main incentives are to gain power and to protect power. And so they know political greatness when they see it, in large part because they desire so strongly to adhere themselves to it.

The unnamed supers referenced by Mike understand Barack Obama's political virtuosity. That is why they wait for someone else to toll the bell on this lengthy Democratic primary. They fully appreciate the inevitability of Obama's candidacy.      

well frick'n said!! (0.00 / 0)


Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Hillary is not leaving this race early (0.00 / 0)
and Team Obama agrees with me.   Remember the leaked spreadsheet?  She's in every race until the end :)
Fear Factor (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for the post Mike and yes I do agree with you because it makes sense to me and something that I have long assumed to be true.There is no other reason for the behavior of the Dems and calling them timid is an understatement. The Clintons are the machine and have been for a long time regardless of the fact that they really have not supported anyone down ticket and have not tried to build the party at any time in their careers. So the solution is to keep gettig more and better Dems in office which will take a while but maybe just maybe we can get rid of this "machine"finally.The Clintons had their time and now it is time for a new day and hopefully some of these delegates will continue to come forth even though they are labeled traitors and Judas's--
Create the Environment (4.00 / 1)
Mike says...

"I am encouraging my friends to come out of their political closet. If all the superdelegates and other influential friends that I have talked to who believe that the best path for the party is for Obama to win a clear victory would come out in is favor, this thing really would be over."

Couldn't agree with you more.  Walter Mondale said something similar this week in a Q and A at a speech where he ripped up Cheney's theory of the Vice Presidency at the Hubert Humphrey Institute.  He was asked about the contest under way, First, he made the point he had early on committed to Hillary, then he surrounded that with a series of "buts" and went on to talk about letting the process run through the scheduled primary races, and then looking at the results and thinking about the good of the whole party.  I got the impression that if Obama is ahead after June 1, Walter could re-think his commitments.  (as a former VP he is a super).  He said Carter was leaning Obama, but saw the situation the same way.  Both Carter and Mondale are from states that went strongly to Obama.  

I agree there is a fear factor in play, but there also exists a network like this -- Carter, Mondale, perhaps Gore, that are experienced party leaders who, at the right time, could provide the leadership to shake up the polarization, and pretty much disarm the fears that are real. Sure they know the "fear" -- after all they probably leveraged it themselves from time to time, but they can also see the bigger picture, and are positioned to serve it.  Essentially they can provide an environment in which an assessment takes place, and people change their minds.    

If... (0.00 / 0)
If people really had faith that Obama was a strong candidate, this wouldn't worry them that much.  As others have suggested upthread, lining themselves up with the next president of the U.S. is a great career move.

I think what people recognize though is that even if Obama wins the nomination (as appears likely), he is unlikely to win the presidency -- and may even suffer a defeat of Mondale/McGovern like proportions.  And then, by endorsing Obama, they will have aligned themselves with a big loser rather than with the last Democratic president and possibly the next one (if Hillary comes back in 2012, when should probably be the favorite for the nomination.)

You may not agree with the details of this, but I repeat that if people really expected Obama to win the presidency, they wouldn't see much of a downside in publicly endorsing him.

Smokescreens while the clock ticks. Let the race continue as it may. (0.00 / 0)
There are nine voters in my family who call and correspond with each other frequently.  We are seven Democrats and two Independents with over 320 combined years of Progressive voting.  We were spread all over the map during the early days of the primary.  Three have yet to vote in their state primaries, and two are in a state with the primary denied.  At this moment, three are for Clinton, four for Obama, and two undecided.  Are any afraid McCain will win under any circumstances?  No way!!!!  Do any think that one of our candidates should withdraw now, barring some, yet to be, devastating revelation?  No way!!!!

Except that we support different candidates, until now, we were all in agreement that we would be voting for whichever candidate our (un)Democratic Party nominated.  Now, we are all pissed about the behavior of our party, and wondering what punishing signal we can send to the pigs at the top.  Personally, I'd like to swat that a**hole Dean across the nose with a rolled up newspaper, and rub it in the mess he left in the middle of my living room.

And then we see that bloated f*ck, Leahy make his call.  What's the problem Pat?  In a state with a total population of 608,000 and over 189,000 voting in the primary, and both Obama (the winner) and Clinton each far exceeding the total Republican primary vote, is Leahy trying to convince me that he won't be able to deliver his state in the Presidential Election?  Well, if that were to become the case, then he has been lying to himself and us about the actual support the Democratic Party and a particular candidate has in his state, or he is lying to us about being an effective Politician.

[from a prior post that I paste everywhere -- as 'old91A10' or 'anon 65 plus']
The (un)Democratic party -- the party I have supported for 45 years!  

I am so disgusted with Dean, Pelosi (not impeach), Reid (FISA coward) -- I want these a**holes gone as much as I want Bush, et al., gone.

One person, one secret ballot (if eligible, registered, and in state of residency).  A complete and accurate count.  

How can we deny or not count a vote by a citizen, and then allow a supposed higher authority approve or enforce the evil?  Then, are we to let the clock run out, so any challenge becomes moot?  Oh!  I remember now.  But, this time it is 'we against us.'

All of this other blather about one candidate dropping out for the sake of the party or how super delegates should vote is just a smokescreen -- while the clock ticks down.

We still have plenty of time, resources, and options to have a primary revote in both Florida and Michigan -- not caucuses, but real primary elections.

I am so disgusted with my party.  I have seen the erosion of our rights and stifling of our voices effected by neocons, and more than abetted by some of the feeble progressives we have elected to serve and protect us.

How are we to repair the damage caused by this war, the gluttony at the top, our ignorance of the disadvantaged, the putrid behavior of the fourth estate, etc., if we do not have our vote and voice?

It seems that supporting our party, voting, marching, waving signs, and typing words into emacs buffers will have little, if any, impact.

Throughout this campaign, I have said that I would support any candidate nominated by our party.  I am beginning to believe that my only option is to write in a vote for whichever Democratic candidate is NOT nominated.

No citizen should be denied the opportunity to participate in a primary or disenfranchised in an election.  Fix the Florida-Michigan debacle.  Let the primaries continue as they may.  Then the Presidential Election, Electoral College, and Swearing in.  Then we clean up our party by getting rid of our own bags-o-sh*t, beginning with Dean, Pelosi, and Reid.  Then we gut the DNC and get our primary rules right.

What with all your 'hyped' up experience DON'T you get... (0.00 / 0)
a) about the math...

The Hillary Deathwatch
http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/
"...To start off, we're putting her odds at a generous 12 percent. (Last week, a Clinton campaign official gave her one-in-10 odds.).."  So, it's not as if your vote is going to top her over the edge...!  All the while McCain is getting a free ride...

b) about how much the DNC and State parties have for another primary... And I DON'T mean money coming from a jury-rigged Hillary Camp donor fund...  Hillary has next to no chance of winning unless the Clintons continue their gutter campaign.  Whereby Obama'scampaign money should be used campaigning AGAINST McCain == Hillary is FORCING him to spend our hard-earned money -- fending off her lies, and attacks.

Dean Statement on Florida and Michigan
March 5, 2008
http://www.democrats.org/a/200...

Florida Democrats won't vote again, official says
By John M. Broder Published: March 18, 2008
http://www.iht.com/articles/20...

"...Florida's Democratic Party chairwoman on Monday officially buried the possibility of redoing the state's disputed January presidential primary, saying there was no practical or affordable way to conduct a new election..."

The arrogance of FL and MI State's fu*cked up not Dean...  No campaigning was done in Florida, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michagan... so excuse me... it sounds like you are a screaming Clintonite -- yet again with their facts wrong...!


[ Parent ]
This isn't the way to preserve the party (0.00 / 0)
Whining that the other should out because yours is going to win anyway is pretty feeble.  Disenfranchisement is not the answer.  

Obama = Feingold's censure of Bush over wiretaps; rejected Murtha's call for redeployment; had once said Bush doing good job on Iraq; ignored Jena, Mississippi; no early response, then feeble one on mortgage crisis; neglect of European Subcommittee; would meet with Cuba, Iran, North Korea without conditions; voted 'present' women's issues (I doubt the explanation which smacks of cowardice again); can only say, 'oops, I pressed the wrong button' on questioned votes; has many missed votes; has a weaker record on FISA; repeatedly voted for Patriot Act; supported anti-union candidates; had a relationship with homophobes McClurken and Rev. Caldwell; advocates Social Security privatization; cut money for children's welfare; does not include adults in his health insurance program; supported Bush's feeble energy plan; invoked Reagan era as feel good; besmirched the 90's successes; besmirched the 60's movements; owns the 'Unite Here' appeal; spokesperson equivocated on NAFTA in Canada (until recently 'ambivalent'); spokesperson floated 18 months on start of withdrawal in England; tip-toed on edge of lying about not having heard Rev. Wright sermons (and cowardly in not speaking up); voted for Bush's Class Action Fairness (deprives legal recourse against large corps.); encourage lenders to restructure mortgages (not government regulation); correction for Bush's tax relief (until 2010) for the wealthy begins below $100,000 income level; thwarting FL & MI redo on primary; again invokes republicans (G.H.W.B & R.W.R.) in his bullshit

[ Parent ]
Are you deluded? (0.00 / 0)
When other candidates have won... the opponent gracefully 'gets-it' and drops out...?  Supporters are disappointed, and at times angry, but the candidate knows the NUMBERS, knows politics and knows that it would hurt the Party to carry on just for blind arrogance and to their push their agenda.

Plus, what the hell did you think happened to the votes in prior nomination contests when the nominee had already been choosen -- the West Coast has been shafted for years?

To carry out a full blown candidate 'campaign' at the State level takes up vast resources both in time and money... -- GOTV and registration is definitely a plus.  HOWEVER, because of extenuating circumstances == i.e. McCain raising in the polls, getting good marks for Iraq, getting closer and closer to defining himself == before we can -- we have to wait up Hillary;s 10% chance of winning -- She's LOST... but because she doesn't want to admit she's losts... WE because we are losing time -- could actually end up losing to McCain.

And you have the gall to came back to me and tell me that you think it's ok for your candidate who [ again HAS LOST ] to arrogantly continue campaigning against the winner AND in the process even provide media time to further embellish the attributes of the other Party's candidate...~!  And you call this all in the name of "Enfranchisement" -- you are deluded... Wake Up...

You would rather be a member of the Clinton Cult rather than standing by the Democratic Party -- unbelievable.

And as for the rest of your 'unsourced' crap... most of which has either been debunked, or been presented totally out of context... you need to realize that Hillary has already had her Dean-Scream moment -- being exposed as a habitual liar... which unfortunately trumps anything Obama has done up-to-date.

Oh yeah... and as for Rev. Wright... the press hasn't even got into her brothers little exploits...  and and this case -- no you can't choose your genes!

This farce has got to end...

[ Parent ]
I know I know I should proof-read before I post.. but I'm so pissed... (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
oops I fell into that one... no I haven't opened the bottle YET! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina (0.00 / 0)
And, what about Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina?
[ Parent ]
From The Trenches (0.00 / 0)
I live in the bluest section (Magnolia) of the bluest district (36th) in the bluest city (Seattle) in the country, and I'm the second Clinton delegate that I know of to switch to Obama as a result of the kind of campaign Clinton has run.

I guess I'm a small-fry megabucks kind of guy. Gave her $7,100 over the past two and a half years. I'm not a bundler, so I don't get calls at 3 in the morning. James Carville didn't call me Judas either. You have to become a senator or a governor before you will be accused of murdering Jesus. Thank heaven for small favors.

Now, Washington is a caucus state so we don't count, or something like that, but I can tell you that Clinton's campaign is moving people here. I know, because I'm still on their lists. Last night I got a call from them asking if I'd house volunteers from out of state. This morning, I got a call about volunteering.

Oddly enough, the Obama people haven't discovered me yet, even though I wrote an Op-Ed in the Seattle Times that listed my contributions. Go figure. I wonder if I can get the $2,300 earmarked for the general election back from Clinton's people. (I'm afraid to ask. If she gets elected president, it'll be no end of IRS audits.)

I'm worried about the deepening split in the Democratic Party. You don't really see much of it here in Seattle because this was Obama country to begin with, plus it's March and everyone's thinking about going to Hawaii. But you go to the various websites like "My DD" and "Daily Kos" and it's pretty crazy.

I'm wondering if anyone's going to remember that the nominee is going to have to beat McCain, and that while WE all know McCain is a phony from the word go, he remains oddly popular among many Americans who aren't nerds like us and will have to be persuaded.

You know, persuaded. As in "convinced." Is anyone going to remember that after we're all through shouting at each other?

Take your pick -- liar or candy-asses (2.00 / 2)
I'm sitting here with my brother, an Obama supporter, who also believes that no impediment should be thrown in front of a single or group of voters, as well as the processes for nominating and electing a candidate.

We've read the article several times, and I agree with him that Lux is either lying or knows far too many candy-asses.

The Fear Factor | 90 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox