Clinton’s viability is absolutely tied to Michigan and Florida. The reason Clinton is fighting for Florida and Michigan is because she needs them to capture the nomination.
Got it? The candidates agreed the delegates would not count. Now, however, Clinton needs them to win, so everything is out the window, and Big Tent Democrat has no problem with that. In fact, the crazification factor is so high that he insists it is good for the party.
And they wonder why people like me think they are insane? If Hillary can not keep her word on something like this, I don’t trust her to keep her word on anything. Additionally, if Sen. Inevitable couldn’t win the nomination without the two states she agreed would not count, I don’t like her judgment and I don’t like her chances in the general.
It is that simple. If the DNC and the states can figure something out that is acceptable to them, I am fine with it. But they can’t, or won’t, so Michigan and Florida are dead. Seating them as is when the ballot in Michigan was Hillary vs. Uncommitted is unacceptable. Which is worse for democracy, abiding by the agreement made before the primary, or holding a Saddamesque election in which Clinton ran unopposed?
So stop whining about them. They fucked up. Not Obama. The villain in this scenario is not the people who followed the rules and are abiding by the rules. The villains are the sleazy folks who are going back on their word now that they need the delegates from those states. That would be Hillary, since I don’t trust her supporters to reason through this shit anymore on their own.
Andrei
Bingo.
Just Some Fuckhead
LMFAO!!!!!!
Ninerdave
It’s no different than wingnut logic. Start with the premise that you are right and your cause is just, then compartmentalize away things that violate the premise you start with.
Christian Prophet
The Republicans are going to hit Obama unmercifully on his background and philosophy. See:
http://miraclesdaily.blogspot.com/
So Hillary is saying to herself, “I have to stay in this.”
Just Some Fuckhead
Talk Left needs to change it’s name to Reason Left.
cleek
BFD. like they wouldn’t do the same to any other candidate.
4tehlulz
Michigan and Florida shouldn’t count, since Hillary won’t win them in the general election.
jake
Um. Yeah. And the GOP absolutely needed to cut off the recount in Florida to win the election in 00.
I guess the fine folks at TalkingoutoftheLeftsideofyourface haven’t figured out that a desire to win doesn’t mean you get to dwtfyw.
Paul
“Obama didn’t have to take his name off the ballot in Michigan. He disenfranchised the voters of Michigan by doing that.”
(Disclaimer: Not that I buy this argument, but friends of mine from Michigan expressed it to me)
cleek
Marshall makes a bunch of sense here:
Jen
P-luk is awol, myiq’s heart isn’t in it, and we have a new weirdo pseudochristian troll. I really hope Hillary gives the speech he recommends. Don’t change a word, Hillary, not even “orientals”. Don’t change
despite the fact that Barack Obama didn’t actually say that. Your campaign probably has enough for the defamation suit.
Of course, Jesus, being dead, cannot be defamed, which is unfortunate in this case.
SpotWeld
The thing is, even after this all gets settled and we’re finally down to just two canidates (one from each party) and whatever indipendents crop up… this whole circus is just going to get even more twisted.
Buck
I don’t think the Republicans are going to hit anybody anywhere until a nominee is chosen. They should be content to let Clinton and Obama hit each other as often and as hard as they can.
I think Hillary is staying in because right now 45% of registered Democrats want her and 45% of registered Democrats want Obama. It doesn’t get much better than that.
This sucker is going right down to the wire and I don’t think Hillary is staying in to save the party.
Just Some Fuckhead
Do tell..
Dennis - SGMM
One other thing that Clinton supporters don’t get is that, should she be elected, her first term will be a an unrelenting campaign for her second term. Every action that her administration takes will be first sieved through “How many votes will that get me in ’12?”
Because she has all of the charisma of a root vegetable she won’t be able to lead or to sell a progressive agenda. Instead, she’ll have to focus group her way through. Not a pretty prospect.
Jen
A properly done parsnip has way more insouciance than Hillary, IMO…
Just Some Fuckhead
Is that counting Virginia where we don’t have registration by party? Because I’m getting kinda tired of hearing my vote in a DNC-sanctioned primary doesn’t count but states that flaunted the rules, got penalized and then refused to hold new contests must be accomodated at all costs up to and including a bloody convention fight that splits the party. Fuck that.
Warren Terra
Didn’t you get the memo? Armando now insists on being called “Big Tent Democrat”.
Because he isn’t one, presumably.
John Cole
I fixed it, thanks.
John Cole
I happen to like root vegetables. Big fan of turnips.
Jen
Another involuntary mental association I have is that he is some enormously fat guy who needs a huge tent to be in and there isn’t any room for anyone else.
McKingford
The candidates agreed the delegates would not count. Now, however, Clinton needs them to win, so everything is out the window
It’s worse than that. Clinton can’t win even *with* Michigan and Florida counting. And the idea that a revote helps Clinton is equally delusional. Does anyone really think Clinton would win Florida by 17 points if they held another primary? Or that she would win Michigan by 15 points? (eg. Clinton outpointed “uncommitted” in Detroit – do you think *that* would happen with Obama’s name on the ballot in a real primary?)
This whole Clinton shtick reminds me of a great axiom that I continue to cherish, and it is this:
“People believe the lies they choose to believe.”
Clinton isn’t trying to convince Obama voters or independents or the media or anyone else with her spin – because it is too ludicrous for any thinking person to rationalize. It is meant solely to give her partisans something to hold onto.
Z
Didn’t Michigan’s court throw out the primary as unconstitutional? I don’t get how Hillary supporters can blame Obama for that.
Dennis - SGMM
I immediately pictured Homer Simpson in the muu-muu from that episode where he wanted to get fat enough to work from home.
wobbly
Are the Democrats who voted in Michigan and Florida sleazy?
If they had voted for Obama, he’d be making the same case as Hillary is, and you’d be swooning over it.
cleek
yeah. i keep picturing Homer when he discovered the mumu.
cleek
which would’ve been, you know, hard to do, since his name wasn’t on the fucking ballot, because they’d all agreed to skip FL and MI.
will someone rid me of these meddlesome Hilbots !?
Rick Taylor
Nope. As far as I can tell, Hillary didn’t agree the delegates would not count. She only agreed not to “campaign” or to “participate” in those states. She did not say “Simon Says.” Of course not “participating” in a state does not preclude leaving your name on the ballot and then pushing a credential’s fight to have the delegates allotted to you when your opponent didn’t even appear. If Obama took his name off in Michigan just because he signed a statement not to “participate” that is his own hard luck; besides, he only did it in a cynical ploy to appeal to voters in Idaho. It’s all Obama’s fault anyhow, because if it weren’t for him doing being so negative. Florida and Michigan surely would have had revotes by now.
The Other Steve
Whatever. Hillary is a fool.
Wilfred
Yes, yes, yes. Then don’t promise her your vote NO MATTER WHAT THE FUCK SHE DOES. There, it’s easy.
Jen
Uh, no. She’s making this case because there is no way in the world for her to win without it. There is no merit to the case, it is just something she has to do. Obama may or may not make meritless claims, but even if MI and FL had voted for him he would win anyway. With nothing to gain, I doubt he or anyone else would say the ridiculous things she has said.
Bring your A game, wobbly, or stick to Talk Left.
MBunge
“If they had voted for Obama, he’d be making the same case as Hillary is, and you’d be swooning over it.”
Uh, since the MUP is already leading the delegate and popular vote count…HE WOULDN’T HAVE NEEDED TO MAKE ANY CASE ABOUT FLORIDA OR MICHIGAN!
I swear, it’s like the sense of entitlement amongst Hillary and her supporters is so sharp that they slipped one day and all gave themselves accidental lobotomies.
Mike
Z
Wait… didn’t the Democratic party in Florida DECIDE not to have re-vote? How is this being blamed on Obama? So, his campaign expressing concerns about a mail in vote is the same thing as Jedi mind control over the Michigan courts and Florida Democratic party? ! ? Is it so wrong to ask Hillary supporters to be logical in their objections?
bhagamu
Oh Yeah?
How about this?
[Pennspeak]
Obama has brought this on the party. If Obama hadn’t run, then this primary wouldn’t have gone on for so long, and we’d have a nominee.
[/Pennspeak]
chopper
not really an either/or. i mean, bill had loads of charisma but he still focus-grouped and task-forced nearly everything. some people are just all about riding popularity polls into the sunset i guess.
i think the reason hillary wouldn’t end up selling a progressive agenda is that she really isn’t that progressive. on some issues the venn diagram meets (like healthcare), but on many others, at least in practice, she’s out to lunch.
cleek
well, by repeating the nonsense that Obama is the reason FL and MI are being “disenfranchised”, they are souring the voters in those states on Obama – thus pushing down his appeal in the GE. it’s simply more kneecapping from the honorable Hillary Clinton campaign.
Jen
This was not one of my more brilliant turns of phrase.
I hope you can ferret out the meaning anyway, if you’re so inclined.
RareSanity
It was announced months before that those delegates would not be seated. If she didn’t “agree” with that then why didn’t she say anything then?
Look, it’s over, accept it and move on. The DNC is not about to seat delegates from those two states. Especially when one candidate’s name wasn’t even on the ballot.
McGuffin
But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Rick Taylor
That is a good question. I don’t think Obama is an angel, he’s played hardball politics in the past (Alice Palmer), and I would certainly have preferred it if he’d come out in support of revotes in Florida and Michigan, at least on principal. But I don’t see how he “blocked” revotes especially in Florida, where there nothing even seems to have come to a vote.
Still, this is strongly believed and repeated on some blogs (Big Tent as declared on multiple occasions that Obama “Blocked” revotes in Florida and Michigan); I’m still looking for someone to say how he actually did it. And if and when Clinton argues that the delegates of Michigan and Florida should be seated as is, they will argue that this is fair because we could have had revotes only Obama “blocked” them.
Colleen
Sorry about the OT here but it looks like tbogg has answered the bat signal sent out by balloon juice. http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/03/31/dear-ace-my-imaginary-girlfriend-is-holding-out-on-me/
cleek
i actually signed-up over there and was about to hit Submit on a post asking BTD that very question. but i decided i didn’t want to deal with the amount of bad-faith argument i thought i’d get in return.
as far as i can tell, Obama’s team has been less than enthusiastic about a bunch of half-baked, non-feasible proposals that have come forward. and, then there are anonymous “high placed MI Dems” who blame the problem on Obama – can’t find any info about who those Dems are supporting, of course.
it seems to be an article of faith that Obama is blocking these proposed revotes. i’ve decided to chalk it up to more kneecapping – make FL and MI hate him, then plead with the SuperAutomatics to go with the candidate they don’t hate.
leinie
Can someone please explain to me how Obama “blocks” votes in Michigan and Florida?
Seems to me, if those states decide to have an election, they have it, and if Obama doesn’t like it, too bad. How can he possibly control what those states do?
He could decide not to participate, I guess, or claim it wasn’t legitimate, but how does he “block” the the state party from doing whatever the hell they want? They sure did whatever the hell they wanted back in January, KNOWING that they weren’t going to be seated, and nobody “blocked” that, although the DNC did warn about consequences.
I just don’t understand this argument.
ThymeZone
Ditto.
Now, who wants pie?
Jen
You’d probably get your post deleted. If you survived a round and asked a follow-up, you’d get it deleted for “chattering”.
Z
I double triple dog dare you to post anyway. I want to see the Jedi mind trick argument out in the open instead of implied.
ParagonPark
Needless to say this campaign isn’t exactly encouraging regardless of which candidate you prefer. I can’t blame either candidate for pushing for the outcome that favors him or her.
It’s the so-called leaders in the DNC and the Michigan and Florida organizations who decided to play a high stakes game of chicken rather than reach a compromise about primary scheduling who are to blame for this aspect of the mess.
Policy-wise there is not much difference between the two so the race is being decided on other factors. In fact, if one believes the blogosphere this has devolved into a personal war between factions with the candidates themselves little more than proxies for gropus venting hatred of anyone who disagrees with them. it’s an unattractive enough trait when people do it against the opposing parties, but intraparty fratricide is even more repulsive. Don’t think the people who will decide the general election– independent and swing voters are being impressed by how we practice democracy.
We started with a huge upper hand and are on the verge of tearing ourselves down so succesfully, we’ve not only squandered the entire advantage but made it very difficult to win in November.
Rick Taylor
RareSanity wrote:
I have to admit, my previous post was meant as snark, and a satire (though as accurate as I could make it) of the opinions I’ve read on other blogs.
To answer your question though, that is a mystery to me, and I’d sincerely like to know the answer. Surely it was clear that the DNC decision would hurt her; why go along with it to begin with? The only two answers I’ve been able to come up with are (1) She was so confident she was going to win without Florida that it wasn’t worth fighting and (2) She never believed the DNC would really disenfranchise two states, and didn’t expect she’d pay a penalty. Neither explanation reflects well on her. I’m not convinced either is true, but I can’t think of any other. Big Tent and other bloggers who’ve generally been pro Hillary have criticized her on this.
Jen
This Modern World is sometimes too preachy to be truly funny, but I liked this one, final panel particularly.
Just Some Fuckhead
Better get used to it because if HRC and her Flying Monkeys turn this into a convention fight they’re going to get the shit kicked outta them with extreme prejudice.
Imagine the huge grassroots support that has overwhelmed all of the state caucuses. Now imagine all of that support in one place: Denver.
He and everyone else agreed on caucuses – except HRC, because she can’t win caucuses. In fact, the DNC, in agreeing to penalize FL and MI initially, always expected party-paid-for caucuses to be a last resort. But that all changed when HRC found her support is too soft to generate the kind of grassroots effort to win a caucus.
Agsrue
Ninerdave Says:
It’s no different than wingnut logic. Start with the premise that you are right and your cause is just, then compartmentalize away things that violate the premise you start with.
***
I totally agree. I’ve realized that for a while now. Almost a year ago I started to notice that “liberal” arguments and argument style mirrored a lot of wingnuts. A lot of people I previously admired for their wit and insight seem to be losing their minds as of late and so the similarities are more stark than ever.
I thought I had enough cynicism to curtail any feelings of disillusionment. I guess I was wrong.
cbear
Not that I disagree with the overall sentiments regarding HRC’s incredible bullshit regarding Fl and Mi, but in the interests of accuracy, MUP was on the ballot in Fla.
I know because I voted for Edwards here in Daytona Bch.
Rick Taylor
Paragon Park wrote:
I can’t blame either candidate for pushing the outcome that favors them, and both Obama and Hillary have done so. However when Hillary starts suggesting that the nominee won’t be seen as legitimate if the delegates from Michigan and Florida aren’t seated beforehand, that crosses a line for me. This politics, both sides are playing hardball, but there should be limits.
libarbarian
Its exactly right, but sadly plenty of people do not seem to have thought much about how fucking sick the “It’s her turn” mindset is.
Check this out from TPM.
Take some time and think about the mindset required to make such a statement. It’s the same mindset people have when discussing the Oscars, Emmys, and other meaningless awards. “Oh, its so-and-so’s turn to win this year”. “Oh my God, I can’t believe they stiffed Liza again, thos bastards!!!”. In this mindset, being the nominee isn’t about who has the best policies, or how every single poll taken so far has Obama the stronger match-up against McCain, or who would be the best president. No! Its about whose turn it is – as if the president of the USA is no more important than the President of the local PTA and is nothing more than a symbolic reward for the woman who held the most bakesales.
McGuffin
There’s always room for pie.
ThymeZone
TMW is always funny, but not everyone always gets it.
Of course, I have no idea what passes for humor in NC.
Jen
I don’t know what the “who’s turn” analogy is, but it’s not PTA president.
PTA president, is a thankless, grueling, tedious, time-consuming, zero-paying job with very few perks and a lot of headaches.
If you have kids in school, please make a point of thanking this person for their work, and volunteer for the damn field day.
Signed, Jen, friend of a PTA president
Rick Taylor
Do you have some links for this? I could use some ammunition.
Although just as I don’t see how Obama is culpable for revotes not happening in Florida and Michigan, I don’t see how Hillary is responsible if caucuses didn’t happen.
Jen
Well, at least you didn’t say “what passes for humor with men pretending to be women.” Progress!
Jen
“whose turn”
Today, I FAIL.
ThymeZone
For example, you probably think that was funny.
I think what’s funny is that you think you are such an arbiter of humor that you’d poo-poo the humor of one of the wittiest comics on the planet, from a guy with a large, long brilliant body of work out there that exemplifies the absolute best in topical humor.
I assume that’s a NC thing. I can’t think of any other rational explanation for your goofy-assed comment.
ParagonPark
Rick:
That’s a valid point, but the reality is that now, because of the foolishness of the Party leaders, there is now NO truly legitmate solution to the mess, just varying degrees of illegitmacy. Over-simplifying, we can have do-overs which, practical problems aside, are unfair because it would essentially change the rules midstream and give two states two at bats as a reward for violating the rules; we can disenfranchise MI and FL, and anger voters in two key states (and elesewhere); or we can cobble together some arbitrary, backroom (although I’d suggest the euphemism “solomonic”) allocation of delegates which would actually be both disenfranchising and changing the rules midstream.
The GOP hasn’t even had to lift a finger (yet) to make us look both unprincipled and incompetent.
Just Some Fuckhead
No, but if you want to vote on The Greatest Rock Band Of All Time, I’m yer man. Seriously, it’s common knowledge the party tried to do caucuses initially because they are cheap and can be done without the expense to the state. But the HRC camp dismissed this option out of hand. Maybe it’s somewhere in the depths of TPMElectionCentral. I’m not much of an archivist.
Haven’t you figured out yet that your targets are bullet-proof impenetrable?
Jen
Good grief, TZ, humor is subjective. I often find it funny, but I sometimes find it too preachy to hit the mark exactly. It lacks the self-deprecating dimension of something like the Daily Show, or the goofiness of, I dunno, MST 3K or Pearls Before Swine, and something about me tends to like that better. I was giving my opinion, not being a damn arbiter of humor, and you’re entitled to have your own opinions and your own pissed-off-for-no-reason persona. Now go put on your Glen Campbell and have some Brunello and tell TZ to chill the fuck out.
Just Some Fuckhead
Hey – my strikeout on bullet-proof went away! What gives?
chopper
jesus, TZ, you’re really obsessed.
Jen
And, yes, there is very little more quintessentially North Carolina than vinegar BBQ, sweet tea, Tobacco Road, and linking to comics that we kind of, but not always, like.
It is a bit like how Arizona is all about the adobe, desert, turquoise, and gender-parsing of comment threads.
Just Some Fuckhead
I don’t find Tom Tomorrow funny very often. So I’m with Jen on this.
Disclaimer: I border Jen.
Jen
My favorite politics-oriented comic is Doonesbury, I guess I’m not exactly unique in liberal circles in that.
ThymeZone
No, really? Wow, I never knew that. I swear, the idea of it never entered my head until just now. I owe you, I think. Anyway …
Here’s the issue as I see it:
You = TMW often “too preachy” (an some other hastily added baloney you just made up to cover for your gaffe)
vs.
Me = TMW always funny, topical humor at its best
Let the world read TMW and decide for itself. I rest on what I said, your comment is dumb.
To save time, start here.
Jen’s putdown of TMW, or Tom Tomorrow’s massive legacy of brilliant humor?
I believe (deeply, deeply) in democracy. We report, you decide! I just made that up!
Because as we all just learned — today! — humor is subjective!
Svensker
What Jen said. (And, BTW, absolute proof that Jen is female because no guy ever really gets the PTA thing.) In fact, most PTA presidents would prolly be better CinC material than at least one of the current candidates….
libarbarian
Jen,
Ok. I was referring to the stereotype of a small-town PTA as essentially a social club.
Still, she is implicitly treating the contest for the Nomination as though it was some minor award from a social club that you win simply by putting in your time until its your turn to win.
Tlaloc
*shrug*
I can honestly say that Aramando’s argument resonates with me more than Cole’s.
“Got it? The candidates agreed the delegates would not count. Now, however, Clinton needs them to win, so everything is out the window, and Big Tent Democrat has no problem with that. In fact, the crazification factor is so high that he insists it is good for the party.”
It is called politics, and there’s a hell of a lot of it at the federal, much less presidential level. I don;t see what exactly is pumping your righteous indignation well here, frankly. Are you upset that candidates also make a big deal of agriculture subsidies in Iowa when they don;t give a shit about them anywhere else?
“And they wonder why people like me think they are insane? If Hillary can not keep her word on something like this, I don’t trust her to keep her word on anything.”
Why the fuck would you trust any national politician to keep their word?
Oh, _dear god_, tell me you aren’t actually believing everything Obama says…
“If the DNC and the states can figure something out that is acceptable to them, I am fine with it. But they can’t, or won’t, so Michigan and Florida are dead.”
That’s a rational position, _but when Armando says it will hurt the party he’s *right*._ It will hurt the party, gravely. Pointing that out is not insane. Nor is pointing out that if we did seat atleast some of them we’d hurt the party *less*.
“Seating them as is when the ballot in Michigan was Hillary vs. Uncommitted is unacceptable.”
Whose decsion was it to take Obama’s name off the ballot? Hint- _not_ Hillary’s. That was pure Barry. So tell me again why he gets to bitch that he didn’t get any votes?
“So stop whining about them. They fucked up. Not Obama. The villain in this scenario is not the people who followed the rules and are abiding by the rules. The villains are the sleazy folks who are going back on their word now that they need the delegates from those states. That would be Hillary, since I don’t trust her supporters to reason through this shit anymore on their own.”
Again- *shrug*. This is the kind of ranting screed that makes me wonder more and more what it is that Obama rallies put in the drinks. Hillary is not a villain because Obama was too dumb to realize that sooner or later Michigan and Florida were going to be seated. Every pundit I read at the time simply assumed that sooner or later it would happen.
Quick question- when you hear the term “democrat” is the first thing that leaps to mind “a courageous bunch of people who always stick to their principles even when they are unpopular and politically costly”? Or do you think more along the lines of “a bunch of people who often have decent ideas but tend to lack any sort of backbone and very often roll over for anybody who says ‘boo’ to them”?
The second one? Really? Well then you too thought Michigan and Florida would be seated eventually, you just haven’t admitted it to yourself. MI and FL should be seated, they will be seated. A do over would have been best, but that’s not to be (and yes Obama played a role in helping that not to happen). That being the case the next best solution is seating as is (at least some portion). The worst solution is “following the rules” at which point you absolutely get president Mccain for sure.
Rick Taylor
I agree with you, it is maddening. No matter what happens, some voters are going to believe the nominee of the Democratic party was chosen illegitimately, and may not support them as a result in November. We’ve managed to shoot ourselves in the foot before the game is even begun.
And just to add, as tempting as it may be for people to tell Hillary supporters, the DNC isn’t going to seat Florida and Michigan, deal with it, time to move on, assuming Obama is the nominee he is going to need their votes in November.
ThymeZone
Oh, that explains it. Well, in Arizona, we just take the cowboy as he is when he walks into the salon … er, saloon.
We don’t look him over and say something like, ya know, that comic strip cowpoke is often too preachy.
Nope, we just buy ’em a beer and then take his money at poker.
Stevious
That kind of B.S. from TalkLeft is why I took them out of my RSS reader subscription. The rest of us all knew something fishy was up when Edwards and Obama took their names off the ballot in Michigan, but Hillary didn’t.
Jen
Libarbarian, point totally understood, wasn’t trying to start a really stupid fight over the PTA or anything. I can’t even think of a better analogy.
liberal
libarbarian wrote, Its exactly right, but sadly plenty of people do not seem to have thought much about how fucking sick the “It’s her turn” mindset is.
But that mindset is extremely common, generally speaking.
For example, why are vice presidents often the heir apparent?
Why did the Rethuglicans nominate Dole in 1996? (I don’t recall the primary, but my guess is it was “It’s his turn,” even though his charisma is pretty lacking.)
ThymeZone
Oh god, now THAT is funny. Guys definitely get the PTA thing, which is why no guy in his right mind would ever want to be president of the PTA.
Guys are practical, sensible.
Except for the zero-pay part, that pretty much describes MY JOB. Why on earth would I want two jobs like that?
Tim F.
The WireThis Modern World is weak and sporadically funny at best, and anyone who thinks otherwise must have watched Baywatch for the plot.ThymeZone
Heh. I supposed you watched to see Hasselhoff?
Jen
How did you get the paid job of Balloon Juice Commentator, TZ? Is it one of those things where it becomes your turn, by any chance?
ThymeZone
Invented to cover up for meat that doesn’t taste wonderful on its own …..
libarbarian
Stupid PTA fight is … ON!!!!!! :)
Just Some Fuckhead
No, can’t let this stand. We haven’t shot ourselves in the foot, HRC shot us all in back. She herself said the delegations from MI and FL would not count. This is on record. If she hadn’t have reversed herself for political expediency, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
We’d be sailing into the convention knowing the delegations were going to be split down the middle and seated anyway, despite FL and MI doing their damnednest to fuck up our primary and cast the whole Democratic nomination into question.
And let’s be clear here, the point of all this bullshit isn’t so the voters of FL and MI can be enfranchised or the delegates can be seated in any fashion at all, even one that completely favors HRC over BHO. She still can’t win that way.
The point of all this nonsense is to restore the FL and MI superdelegates who pissed all over our process to the detriment of the other 48 states and were rightfully stripped of their votes.
McGuffin
Damn kids. Get off
my lawnTom Tomorrow!some guy
Tlaloc said: It will hurt the party, gravely. Pointing that out is not insane.
No, it’s not insane, it’s just an assertion with no evidence and a weak argument behind it. It’s just as easy to assert that allowing MI and FL to “get away with it” will “hurt the party, gravely.”
ThymeZone
You mean, where did I get the unmitigated audacity to criticize your remark and poke fun at you?
Blame it on the Bossa Nova, I guess. Blame it on the rain. Blame it on Rio.
Z
Tlaloc
That was ‘pure Barry’? Huh. I thought taking their names off the ballot was pure EVERY OTHER DEMOCRATIC candidate EXCEPT Hillary. At the time, I thought it was really sleazy of Hillary. It is very hard to have any respect whatever for Clinton supporters whining that if Obama had been as sleazy as THEIR candidate, then everything would be hunky dory.
Tim F.
Ok, in all honesty I think Tom Tomorrow is often pretty funny. I just couldn’t resist the temptation to snark about the relativity of taste.
Also, I taped the opening credits. The rest of the show didn’t have nearly enough slo-mo and hair rock for my taste.
Rick Taylor
Well he and all the other candidates did sign a statement saying they wouldn’t participate in the election. It seems a fair interpretation that not participating would mean not appearing on the ballot. Biden, Richardson, Edwards, and Kucinich all felt that way (Kucinish was late in the filing the papers to be removed). Yeah, I guess Obama’s just a sucker, taking the DNC rules or anything he signed seriously. Jokes on him and his supporters!
How did he do that? This is question is meant sincerely, I keep hearing how Obama “blocked” a revote in both Florida and Michigan, I haven’t heard anyone say how. Helping it not to happen is a considerably more wishy washy way to put it, but I’m all ears.
ThymeZone
For a Fuckhead, I must say, you got that exactly right.
No offense.
ThymeZone
That is the best part of the show, for sure.
marjowil
Michigan was considering a revote, probably what we call a “firehouse” caucus, which is larger than other caucuses, sort of a mini-primary run by the party. As I understand it, it was done in the past. However, HRC didn’t think caucuses were democratic enough.
The state refused to pay for another primary vote, the way HRC wanted, so she lined up her own private donors to “gift” the Michigan Dem Party with millions to pay for a revote. She made a big push in the state right before the Legislature was going to vote on it again, but her high-pressure tactics, along with HER donors offering money (no Obama donors were asked to participate), gave the legislature the willies and they reportedly backed out for that reason.
Shortly after that, the state Supreme Court said that part of the January primary was unconstitutional: a provision that the list of voters for the Dem and GOP primaries would be furnished to each respective party. The ACLU (or a 3rd party challenger?) argued that it wasn’t fair for the Dems and GOP to get the voter lists for a state-paid-for primary, that everyone should be able to get it or no one. The court agreed that no one should get the voter list unless they filed for Freedom of Information.
This was IMO a good decision, for privacy reasons, but a setback for the MDP, because if a revote was going to be held, they wanted to involve only the Dems who had voted in the primary, and no one who had asked for a Repub ballot (like my Dem husband) would be allowed to participate. Without a ready-made voter list to go by, it was decided that there was no way that a revote could be planned, venues secured, etc., on such short notice, because the general election is already being worked on now — it takes that long apparently.
So that was seemingly the last word on a MI revote. There doesn’t exactly seem to be a great hue & cry over this, except from the HRC camp. Well, as I have said, I think HRC would lose a MI revote anyway.
Obama’s position was “anything that the DNC and the states agreed to” as long as the rules were followed.
As for Hillary, apparently in an interview before the Jan primary, she was quoted as saying “Michigan doesn’t count” though apparently she forgot or did not bother taking her name off the ballot. Kucinich was going to but missed the deadline; I don’t know whether he had agreed not to participate as Clinton, Obama and Edwards had pledged. I believe Gravel was also on the ballot.
We were told by the MDP that Edwards and Obama voters should vote “uncommitted” because even though the delegates wouldn’t count, they “Might” count later, and some non-Clintonites were afraid that Hillary would claim victory even though Edwards and Obama were not on the ballot. We were told not to write-in, though there was a line for it, because no possible write-in candidates had pre-registered as a write-in.
Most of the party leadership in the state who wanted the early primary were Clinton supporters anyway. I think they wanted the appearance of a Clinton win prior to SuperTuesday, figuring that she would not need actual delegates but that a symbolic victory would help her on SuperTuesday. No one campaigned in the state at all except for Repubs, esp. Romney, who did well.
libarbarian
Christian Prophet,
Um, real Christians don’t quote phony sources who were penned by new-age charlatans
Its one thing to “quote” Jesus – insofar as a man who never wrote anything can be quoted from texts written 60+ years after his death. Its another thing to take money from suckers by pretending to channel spirits like Biggest-Douche-In-The-Universe John Edwards. Its a truly pathetic thing to seriously quote from someone who was just taking money from suckers by pretending to channel Jesus .. and actually credit the quote to “Jesus” himself.
Seriously, anyone who can’t be bothered to make up their own “spirit guide” and have to resort to “Jesus” to get attention needs to just get out of the game and leave it to more creative con men.
ThymeZone
Excellent summary of the situation.
Z
I agree. Beautiful summary.
Rick Taylor
Good point. Do you have a link to her specifically stating the delegations from MI and FL would not count? I’ve heard this attributed to her several times, but I’ve never seen a source. Of course it falls under a reasonable interpretation of the pledge she signed not to participate in the primaries of states that violated the DNC decree, but it would be nice to have something even more concrete.
ThymeZone
Oh no! I need a new dashboard action hero figure, then.
Svensker
Yes, but TZ, that’s exactly what guys don’t get. The fact that the PTA job is important to do. Guys think it’s “impractical”, instead of realizing that it’s a job that needs to be done and done well.
But I agree with you about Obama. And pie.
Jay McDonough
from swimming freestyle:
“When asked why they continue to wage her campaign in light of her position with respect to pledged delegates, the popular vote and states won, Bill and Hillary Clinton have argued voters in the ten remaining primary states would be denied the opportunity to vote for her should she withdraw now.
By the same reasoning, do Bill and Hillary Clinton believe Dennis Kucinich should have stayed in the race so as not to deny those (rabid) Kucinich voters in Pennsylvania and North Carolina the opportunity to cast their vote for Kucinich?
http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com
ThymeZone
Pretty sure I posted one 2-3 weeks ago, but alas I am way too lazy (and deficient in many other significant ways) to go look it up for you. But it’s out there, Google is your friend. She was saying such things way back last fall.
Just Some Fuckhead
None taken. I’m actually a little giddy from the attention.
Dennis - SGMM
marjowil, thanks for cutting through all the crap. I figured that the real story was a lot more complicated than the way it’s portrayed by Clinton.
ThymeZone
You could be right. But real men need glory.
Just kidding. (Or, am I? Heh.)
McGuffin
“Christian Prophet” makes me appreciate Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett more than ever.
The Other Steve
Someone over at /. made an interesting observation. Noting that if you watch Hillary speak, she has distinct body language. When she makes certain statements, usually promises or commitments, she either nods her head up and down, or side to side.
He commented, that it appeared as though she nods side to side on statements where she isn’t telling the truth, and up and down when she really agrees. Or if it’s ambiguous, she kind of goes diagonal.
Just an interesting observation. I have noticed that she bobs her head a lot, but I never noticed the pattern. i’ll have to pay more attention.
chopper
i read TMW all the time and i think its too preachy sometimes. what’s the big deal? who’s so sensitive that their delicate sensibilities get stepped on when someone says that a political cartoon can get too preachy sometimes?
ParagonPark
I believe Clinton miscalculated the dynamics of the race. back when the primary and caucus scheduling rules were put in place she saw it as her versus the field. She probably anticipated the field would remain viable, with the 50 odd percent who oppose her diluted among several among several candidates until she had built an insurmountable momentum.
Instead, all of the lesser candidates were nonstarters, Edwards (my original choice) ran a terrible campaign and quickly became a non-factor and she found herself in a one on one race for which she was ill prepared. Instead of a muddle out of Iowa which she could spin as exceeding expectations and Edwards and Obama struggling as much against each other as her, she found herself facing a single opponent around which all of her many antagonists could coalesce. That Obama not only separated from the field at the gate but quickly pulled ahead in delegates and even in the popular vote was obviously not something Clinton expected when she made her statements promising to abide by DNC rules.
All she has left is trying to portray the battle over the MI and FL delegations as being about the voters in those states and not about her, because without them (and, let’s face it, probably with them at this point) she loses. Is that dishonest? Is it putting personal interest above the good of the Party? Yes, obviously, but does that really make her much different than any other politician?
She’s close to the last person for whom I would vote in any Democratic contest of any kind, but this episode has little to do with my antipathy.
Brachiator
Even though this sentiment is wrong-headed, you cannot, unfortunately, discount the strength of the desire for some women to see a woman as president, right now, dammit. There may be an audio clip out there in which you can more easily get a feel for the sense of outrage in her voice, but ABC news anchor Carole Simpson recently appeared on a segment of Larry King Live and really threw out the “it’s gotta be Hillary” stuff. The show even spooled a video clp that invoked the idea that the Sisterhood Force is so strong that Chelsea Clinton thinks her mother would be a better president than Bill was.
A piece of the show transcript, which also features radio personality Stephanie Miller (Should Hillary Clinton Drop Out of the Race?):
The Other Steve
This is a good point. Had Edwards not dropped out, Hillary would be in a better position.
Just Some Fuckhead
Please see my previous to you.
Rick Taylor
Thank you, majorwil, that was a helpful summary.
Paragon Park:
That makes a lot of sense, and helps with my confusion as to why she went along with the decision in the first place.
I think so. And I say this as someone who voted for her, and never got what all the anti-Hillary rhetoric was about. It’s true there’s always going to be a tension between a candidate’s self interest and the interests of their party. And I’ve been disappointed in both candidates (with Obama it started with his attacks on mandatory health insurance). But there is a line, and attacking the legitimacy of the process in a way that may hurt the nominee crosses it. I suspect when the nomination is over, assuming as seems likely Obama wins, she’ll come out strongly in support of him and some of the bad feeling may be mollified but that’s how things stand now.
Rick Taylor
Some fuckhead wrote:
Whoops, I missed that post. Guess I’m the fuckhead this time.
Point. I like to be clear in my own mind if nothing else.
ThymeZone
Who’s such a dickwad that they refer to someone else’s opinions as “delicate sensibilities” because they don’t agree with them?
Go fuck yourself, man. Seriously. I made a snarky comment. If you don’t like it, kiss my ass.
p.a.
Everyone simmer down, take a deep breath, cup your ear and point it towards RNC HQ. ssshhhhh…listen….hahahahahaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…
Nice one Hil. Maybe you can complete the sabotage by naming Lieberman your veep. No class.
Patrick
Here’s what I tell all my Clintonista friends whenever they get going about Florida and Michigan: 48 out of 50 states have either gotten it right or are on schedule to get it right.
I’m not passionate about either candidate and I will be voting for whomever ends up holding The Ring…errr…the nomination. This crap about Florida and Michigan has gone on way too freakin’ long, though.
They fucked up. 48 other states either didn’t or haven’t. If 48 others can get it right (including my beloved Lone Star State and our platypus of a primary-caucus-convention system), I’ve got no sympathy for two states who had the chance to do the right thing and failed.
leinie
I hope you’re right, Rick, but I don’t have your faith. She has shown no hesitation in attacking him from the right, and asserting that if I don’t vote for her, I should vote for McCain. Even when called on that destructive crap, she hasn’t stopped.
Should the MUP somehow manage to self destruct, and she become the nominee, I’ll vote for her – cuz Supreme Court, bitches – but I’ll be holding my nose.
I didn’t get the anti-Hillary stuff either, until she started asserting that me and my state didn’t matter, cuz she didn’t win it, and telling me that the Republican was the only other viable choice besides her. At that point, things became crystal clear.
If she can’t put the party before her own ambition, how can I expect her to put the Country first? Unitary Executive needs to be dismantled, not solidified, and her ambition doesn’t give me any warm fuzzies there.
ThymeZone
Get your simmerdown on here.
Just Some Fuckhead
You know, now that you mention it, ya know, she does have an odd, you know, way of speaking, ya know, extemporaneously. In the future, you know, I think I’m going to, ya know, watch her a little closer and see if I can, you know, figure out what it might, ya know, mean.
Dave in ME
The entire campaign summed up in two short sentences. She and her campaign went into this thinking things is would be wrapped up in a month, maybe 2 at most. Dumbest fucking Dem strategy ever not to involve Bob Shrum.
My .02 – she runs out of money and that is what pushes her the fuck out of a race she lost in February.
Rick Taylor
I did a little google searching on caucuses and Michigan and Florida. Nothing on Hillary but there was this from February:
Yup. The DNC tries to get the states to do caucuses, or to come up with some solution that abides by the rules. Florida tells them to go screw themselves. This is clearly Obama’s fault.
cbear
Does she show her teeth a lot when she “bobs”. That could explain the Lewinsky situation.
(Sorry to the commenter, I tried to take that pitch, but I just couldn’t let one that fat pass by)
1jane
Talk Left used to be a good site for issues relating to the law. Then the blog went round the bend to support Clinton..which seems fine on the face of it, EXCEPT when you post facts that dispute their bias which is truly convoluted and fact free, you get rudely told off, insulted and deleted. Try it and see how long you’ll last. They will tell you you’re off topic, trolling or some other lame reason. I go there to stick pins in their strange world hoping some oxygen will revive themselves to their former, “pretty fair” blog to visit. Right now they are doing the backstroke through a sea of manure and apprently loving it.
Just Some Fuckhead
I told you. I might be a fuckhead but I’m not a liar.
Tlaloc
Someguy:
“No, it’s not insane, it’s just an assertion with no evidence and a weak argument behind it. It’s just as easy to assert that allowing MI and FL to “get away with it” will “hurt the party, gravely.””
I think you mean something different than I do by “hurt the party.” I’m talking about the dem’s electoral chances come november. There’s no concievable way that seating Michigan and Florida hurts the dem’s chances while not seating them is pretty obviously a threat since it strongly threatens the dem’s chances to get either state to vote their way, and those states have a not inconsequential number of EVs.
Now if you mean that seating the delegates may hurt the party in the future by giving the state parties the message they can do whatever they want, then you may well be right. But personally that seems like a remote and manageable issue compared with President McCain who thinks bombing Iran is a really funny joke…
Z:
“That was ‘pure Barry’? Huh. I thought taking their names off the ballot was pure EVERY OTHER DEMOCRATIC candidate EXCEPT Hillary. At the time, I thought it was really sleazy of Hillary. It is very hard to have any respect whatever for Clinton supporters whining that if Obama had been as sleazy as THEIR candidate, then everything would be hunky dory.”
You’re mistaken in your initial statement. It was not in fact every other democrat who removed their names from the ballots, only Obama and Edwards and maybe Biden. As tempting as it may be to forget Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel were ever in the race, they were.
Rick Taylor:
“How did he do that? This is question is meant sincerely, I keep hearing how Obama “blocked” a revote in both Florida and Michigan, I haven’t heard anyone say how. Helping it not to happen is a considerably more wishy washy way to put it, but I’m all ears.”
I don’t believe he “blocked” it, as that’s likely an overstatement. I can’t say exactly what happened for sure, my guess though is that since the sticking point was who would fund the whole thing his campaign basically refused to fork over one cent. I have no problem with them feeling like it was the DNC-state party’s foul up, because it pretty much is/was. But there was a way for him to get a fair contest and it seems pretty clear that he passed (since he was the only one against it, for whatever reason).
D-Chance.
Hillary should stay in. I want more Lanny Davis in my life.
ThymeZone
You know, F-head, and by the way, I love the handle, HRC does have an almost-bizarre way of using her head as a gesturing device when she listens AND talks.
It’s something I find very annoying, which is, you know, subjective. I mean, annoyance is subjective. I just thought that up right now, spur of the moment. I kid you not.
Anyway, people who nod their heads at me or point their fingers at me when they are talking, or use other gestures that make me think that they think they are talking to children …. totally put me off. I stop listening to them instantly.
What did you say?
You talkin to me?
Just Some Fuckhead
I feel your pain. I successfully resisted the urge to respond to “Why would Hillary mispeak about her Bosnian trip” with “PTSD?” because I don’t think PTSD should be a punchline to anything. I only bring it up now so we can commiserate.
ParagonPark
Yes, her repeated use of “you know” is noticeable whenever she tries to speak spontaneously, but when she is flustered by a tough question she interjects “you know” practically between every third word. I broke my daughter of that at about age 6 by always saying, “No, I don’t know” every time she said it. I can’t understand how someone who has been involved in public speaking so long can be such a poor speaker. It’s not just the lack of charisma or eloquence, it’s sounding really lost whenever she has to put a sentence together that isn’t scripted.
Rick Taylor
Well yeah, I know that. But if someone comes up and asks me how I know what I know, I’m not going to tell them, “Some fuckhead told me.”
ThymeZone
Sometimes, altho I take it a little differently … I take it as a gesture of emphasis and insistence on keeping the listener on the hook. A control thing.
Now, as we all know, I have very delicate sensibilities, and also very delicate digestion. But anyway, I am really weird about voices. People who know me — bless their hearts — know that I hear voices in a very odd way, and hear things in voices that most people don’t hear. Hillary actually has two voices, one being the “make a speech” or “debate” voice, and other is a more low-register conversational voice. She rarely uses that in public. But she did make a couple commercials with it, and I must say, it is an extraordinarily persuasive voice. Her regular public voice makes me want to run away as fast as my stubby little legs will carry me.
Just Some Fuckhead
Thanks TZ, been reading BJ for a long time and was always surprised no one already had the moniker. (zing!)
You’ve been clear from the beginning that your reluctance to support HRC was because of the way she speaks. I had interpreted that to mean her tone and trailer-park-and-carton-a-day-marlboro-reds cackle.
But it’s actually much, much worse than that.
Brachiator
Actually, Senator Clinton played this one better than hubby Bill’s “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”
Hillary Clinton is technically correct when she says that she only agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michgan. It is amazing in retrospect that she left herself some wiggle room to claim all or most of the votes.
A New York Review of Books article provides background on the primary process and includes this about Florida and Michigan, “A Possibly Super Problem”:
(I had a problem with the NYR link, but you can get to it from the Wikipedia article on the Florida Democratic Primary.)
The Candidates did not even show up at the Florida Democratic Convention, and the New York Times noted the grumbling in its campaign coverage:
And in a February Texas Monthly interview, Senator Clinton pressed her advantage (Poll Dancing):
All in all, a nice bit of political trickery, or an honest concern for voter sentiment. You make the call.
McGuffin
Reminds me of that whole visual accessing cues issue. Every Bush press conference I’ve watched closely seems to validate it.
Just Some Fuckhead
Very good point.
ThymeZone
That concerns me, too. People might think you are talking about me.
some guy
pretty obviously a threat since it strongly threatens the dem’s chances to get either state to vote their way, and those states have a not inconsequential number of EVs
“Strongly threatens?” Another unsupported assertion. I can just as easily assert that no voter in either state will give a rat’s ass about the primaries come November. In my own experience, this is the first year my vote in a primary ever mattered–the previous six Presidential elections there was already a presumptive nominee–and it never prevented me from voting in the general.
Frankly, the only way voters in MI and FL will be discouraged is if Clinton continues to make a big stink about their “disenfranchisement” and they start thinking that somehow they were screwed by Obama or the DNC. In other words, Clinton’s hurting the party (again).
ThymeZone
Well, it is a real problem for me. But it’s only part of the reason I didn’t want her as the nominee, or as my tormentor in any sense.
I don’t like the idea of 12-16 years of those two people in my White House. I don’t like the people they surround themselves with. I don’t like her AUMF weasel job. I don’t like her phony “experience” pitch. I don’t think she has cred on healthcare, at all. Ideas, yes. The ability to get it done, no. And I think she still thinks, like she did 15 years ago, that she can steamroller the thing through congress, and I see her failing at that again.
I also think that the GOP is licking its lips to run against her, and that is worrisome.
Last but not least, I am not sure she’s a woman.
Okay, kidding, but I had to say that for reasons that should be obvious.
Conservatively Liberal
Last October, on a New Hampshire radio show, what did Hillary say?
Yup. She went there, and now she has moved on to somewhere else. But the continuity in her mind is unbroken.
She operates on her own plane of surreality.
ThymeZone
I think it’s been an unofficial appellation until now.
I’m glad you disambiguated it.
Just Some Fuckhead
We either meet her unreasonable demands or she blows up the party. That’s why I call her a terrorist.
Loviatar sock puppeting for "F"
This article from New York Magazine sums up pretty well why Hillary still runs and some of the dynamics surrounding the Obama non-endorsements from John Edwards an Al Gore.
.
Money Quote
.
As I’ve written here before; Obama is somewhat of an unknown quantity; we think we know what he would do as president but we can’t be sure. He has yet to close the deal to Democracts such as myself who while a supporter of Hillary Clinton does not see any real differences between the two in regards to overall policy.
.
Final Note –
Hillary bashers, your attacks do not help Obama. There are a lot of people like me who support Hillary Clinton but are willing to listen as to the superiority of your candidate, what we do not appreciate is the constant whining and vitriol aimed at Hillary. You would benefit by targeting your attacks at the legitimate policy differences between the two (Kyl-Lieberman, etc.), which I and others have problems with, ad hominem personal attacks on her does not benefit your case.
Also, Andrew Sullivan and others of that ilk are most definitively not a good reference. Anytime my friends and I see a link from him referencing the Clintons, we immediately disregard it, unfortunately John Cole is quickly sliding into that category.
cbear
TZ-
I first thought JSF was you—assuming a kinder, less-confrontational alter ego—and posting twice as much.
Loviatar sock puppeting for "F"
Apologize,
Here is the link to the New York Magazine article.
ThymeZone
No, sorry. I don’t have the energy for two personas. Remember, I am typing these missiles with a stick held in my teeth.
Morat20
Things I’ve learned at Talk Left:
1) Obama — and probably Howard Dean — have magical mind control powers, allowing them to take control of the Democrats in Michigan and Florida and prevent a revote. I know this because I’ve also learned that both states as massive Hillary strongholds, chock-full of Hillary supporters, and somehow they and their elected leader are being forced not to have a revote. Because according to Talk Left, a revote would TOTALLY help Hillary, because she’d do even BETTER with an actual opponent on the ballot! In fact, what Obama’s afraid of is that he’ll lose Michigan so badly he’ll be penalized delegates he’s already won from other states. That’s right — he’ll end up with negative votes in Michigan, if it wasn’t for his mind control powers.
2) Obama — and probably Howard Dean — have a time machine. That’s how they knew in 2007 to first setup the primary rules, then use their mind control powers to forced Michigan and Florida to break them. They knew all along that Michigan and Florida were key to Hillary’s success.
3) Caucuses are undemocratic and highly susceptible to Obama’s mind control. He floods them with his brainwashed zombie minions. Only the blue cloth curtain of a ballot booth blocks his evil mind-rays.
Frankly, these all seem reasons to vote for Obama for me. The man owns a time machine. He can go back and fix his mistakes! He can control people’s minds — he can just make Osama give himself up! He has the ability to create loyal brain-washed zombie minions. How is that NOT Commander-in-Chief material?
Rick Taylor
Brachiator wrote:
Actually, she agreed not to campaign or *participate* in those primaries. Now how one declares victory in an election on did not actually participate in is a brain stretcher.
Just Some Fuckhead
Yawn.
See the little button to the right under your screen? You can make it all go away anytime you choose.
Tlaloc
some guy:
““Strongly threatens?” Another unsupported assertion. I can just as easily assert that no voter in either state will give a rat’s ass about the primaries come November. In my own experience, this is the first year my vote in a primary ever mattered—the previous six Presidential elections there was already a presumptive nominee—and it never prevented me from voting in the general.”
But nobody was going out of their way then to make sure your primary vote didn’t count, and certainly not the presumptive party nominee. It’s elementary human nature- actually they summed it up in the Hoffa pretty well: “A real grievance can be resolved; differences can be resolved. But an imaginary hurt, a slight – that motherfucker gonna hate you ’til the day he dies.”
Out of curiousity what kind of support exactly were you wanting for these assertions?
“Frankly, the only way voters in MI and FL will be discouraged is if Clinton continues to make a big stink about their “disenfranchisement” and they start thinking that somehow they were screwed by Obama or the DNC. In other words, Clinton’s hurting the party (again).”
I see. Disregard the above question, this statement makes it pretty clear you intend to blame Hillary for _everything_ regardless of _anything_.
I miss the days when it was the right that was derranged about the clintons.
ThymeZone
Yes. It says CATSUP. I’m at McDonalds.
some guy
It’s elementary human nature.
In other words, you have no evidence. I do–as noted elsewhere, in 2000 McCain supporters vowed not to vote for Bush because Bush won the nomination through dirty tactics. However, by November they came around.
I see. Disregard the above question, this statement makes it pretty clear you intend to blame Hillary for everything regardless of anything.
ORLY? Clinton tries to delegitimize the process to serve her own ends, and suddenly I’m a hater who blames her for “everything?” What else am I blaming her for?
Rick Taylor
Conservatively Liberal:
Whoo hoo! Thank you for that link. And an audio no less.
Loviatar sock puppeting for
.
Now tell me, If Obama gets the Democratic nomination, why should I vote for him again?
Tlaloc
Fuckhead:
“Yawn.”
Well out of curiosity, what exactly is your purpose in bashing Hillary if not to help your candidate? That is if it is clear it is not helping your candidate (and it’s not) then why continue? If this is just another inbred circle jerk of people who want to hear their own popinions reflected back to them then just say so. Most of us have better things to do, and more reasonable people to talk to, if your utterly inured to rational discourse.
So- what exactly is it you want to accomplish?
Just Some Fuckhead
Holy shit, I’m honored and horrified all at the same time. Honored to be compared with a BJ stalwart, no – THE Stalwart.
Horrified I’ve been coming across that mean. I thought I was staying on the funny side of the mean/funny divide. Oh well, prolly just that time of the year.
Oh wait, you did say “kinder, less-confrontational”, so I take that back.
I’m actually just a long time reader between blog homes. Ya know how we all sorta have one base place we read and comment at, and then a bunch of places we read? Well, BJ was one of my read places but I left my normal read and comment place…… (UNCOMFORTABLE!)
So.. I was wondering if you guys were going to refill NoIQs slot. I had a little hand in running him off and I could realize use the tenure. At my age, it’s just so damn hard starting all over again.
McGuffin
If I wasn’t aware that you were succumbing to the Fallacy of the Unbounded Middle, I would try in good faith. Sadly, such is not the case.
Brachiator
I am not disagreeing with you. I am only pointing out that she did not formally utter the magic words, “I agree that the votes won’t count.”
This is the weasel distinction that she is hanging her claim on. However, I note that the references I found only mentioned “campaign,” not the more definitive “or participate.”
Tlaloc
“In other words, you have no evidence. I do—as noted elsewhere, in 2000 McCain supporters vowed not to vote for Bush because Bush won the nomination through dirty tactics. However, by November they came around.”
And we all know that the republicans and democratic parties work exactly the same way.
Oh wait.
“ORLY? Clinton tries to delegitimize the process to serve her own ends, and suddenly I’m a hater who blames her for “everything?” What else am I blaming her for?”
Yeah read that paragraph again and try to figure out why it seems like a hater. Hint- Clinton didn’t delegitimize anything. Clinton isn’t responsible for the people of Michigan and Florida wanting to have some say in the matter. Nor is she responsible for the current mess where they don’t have a say and seem somewhat miffed about that. While we’re on the topic Clinton also did not invent Cancer *or* AIDS and doesn’t actually sleep in a hypabaric chamber filled with the blood of the innocent.
Just had to clarify that since the derrangement is getting rather silly.
ThymeZone
I’m hearing Nobel Priiiiiiiiiiize!
Start singin Dear Old Stockholm, baby!
slag
Last month, Clinton wouldn’t accept caucuses:
Apparently, Senator Clinton gets to define democracy however she wants these days: only big states who don’t do caucuses. Rules schmooles.
Or to paraphrase Jon Stewart: Remember back when Michigan and Florida got their delegates stripped for breaking party rules? And remember when nobody cared? Funny story…
ThymeZone
Click here.
Rarely Posts
Yup. But Obama supporters don’t seem to care. They think they can beat McCain anyway. I’d like to think they are correct. But I have serious doubts.
Just Some Fuckhead
Everyone has their own reasons. I like to think I spend much more time bashing her supporters. I do it because you guys are so goddamned stupid. Barack has already won the nomination and he can only lose it if you think you can steal it. If I beat you down like ug- re-, hmm. If I beat you guys down enough you’ll eventually be too demoralized to fight. And if it doesn’t actually turn out that way, oh well, at least it was fun.
Again, this thing is already won. HRC said she’s going to fight it out in the credentials committee and Obama will have the majority there.
I’m pretty sure we’d all have to have penises for it to be a circle jerk so no, I can’t say so. As far as the inbred thing goes, I don’t think it’s a coincidence you used that word on a West Virginia blog and sorta indicates to me that you actively desire any scorn sent your way.
Don’t let us hold you up. I believe NoIQ is warming the car up. See ya, and remember “Politics ain’t beangag!”
Tlaloc
Rarely posts:
“Yup. But Obama supporters don’t seem to care. They think they can beat McCain anyway. I’d like to think they are correct. But I have serious doubts.”
Fair enough. I personally have serious doubts about Obama capabilities in a tough campaign (based entirely on watching this primary nomination, granted), but I see your point that there are a number of Obama supporters who seem to think he can do anything. From that persepctive it doesn’t matter what has to be done to get Obama nominated because he’ll magic up a november victory in the aftermath regardless.
Rick Taylor
Brachiator wrote:
Here is the pledge she and all the other Democratic candidates signed as a pdf document (hat tip: Talking Points Memo):
Conservatively liberal also found an excerpt from a radio interview where she said the Michigan votes would not count, though as that wasn’t a signed pledge it does not have the same weight.
some guy
And we all know that the republicans and democratic parties work exactly the same way.
Oh wait.
Meaningless snark. I’m still waiting for some evidence from you that MI and FL voters won’t get over any imagined slight (and let’s be clear, it’s the Clintons that are imagining it, not the voters themselves) and vote in the general. But somehow it so seriously threatens our chances that we have to seat the delegates. Hey, maybe it’s possible that voters in the other 48 states, where they followed the rules, will be so “insulted” by letting MI and FL get away with it, they won’t vote. That’s simple human nature, right?
Hint- Clinton didn’t delegitimize anything. Clinton isn’t responsible for the people of Michigan and Florida wanting to have some say in the matter.
Hint back at you. Clinton is the one attacking the rules. That’s delegitimizing the process. Duh. And please show me evidence that “the people” of MI and FL are clamoring to have some say in the matter. As far as I can see, it’s Clinton hacks and apologists that pretend to be speaking on their behalf.
Conservatively Liberal
No prob. That quote is from Hillary v2.0.20071011
;)
Loviatar sock puppeting for "F"
McGuffin,
Like you, I am not a believer in the “Fallacy of the Unbounded Middle”.
I am a moderate Democrat who has never voted Republican. However, I have not voted when the Democratic candidate has not met my standards, I have held my nose and voted when the candidate has barely met my standards. I want to support the nominee from my party, and more importantly, I want to passionately support that nominee, so please try, without the personal attacks.
libarbarian
To me thats like saying “forget reality”.
Rarely Posts
You just don’t get it and you never will. People in Florida felt disenfranchised before Hillary ever opened her mouth about counting the votes in Florida.
Just Some Fuckhead
I read somewhere they took a poll and only about 20% of the Florida voters wanted their delegation seated. If it’s true – and hopefully Rick Taylor will chase it down and find out – less than half of her own supporters in Florida could give a shit.
cbear
Yep. Except we do our circle jerks a little differently here at BJ.
We put a cookie in the middle of the circle, and after everybody finishes, we give the cookie to the first gooper or Hillbot that wanders by. Hungry?
(sorry regulars, apparently I have to keep explaining the rules to the new folks)
Tlaloc
Fuckhead:
“Everyone has their own reasons. I like to think I spend much more time bashing her supporters. I do it because you guys are so goddamned stupid. Barack has already won the nomination and he can only lose it if you think you can steal it. If I beat you down like ug- re-, hmm. If I beat you guys down enough you’ll eventually be too demoralized to fight. And if it doesn’t actually turn out that way, oh well, at least it was fun.”
Well since Obama doesn’t have the number of delegates he needs I find it hard to see where he’s won. Nor is he likely to get the magic number before the convention unless Clinto drops out. He has a small lead in the popular vote which doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference mechanically, and polls for the two are very much tied.
So he hasn’t “won.” Furthermore even if he has at best a slim majority of dem primary voters you might consider that the primary is the FIRST, not last, step in the process. With half of democrats he can lose about as spectacularly as Carter circa 1980. Which is apparently what you want.
So your point apparently is to garner some personal enjoyment by heaping abuse on others even when it hurts your ability to reach your supposed goal. Personally I find that rather pathetic and I’d encourage you to think a bit more strategically. But then again I’ve gotten used to the democratic party insisting on losing no matter what.
some guy
JSF: And of that 20% who could give a shit now, very few will still give a shit come November.
Conservatively Liberal
Ahem.
While she did not utter the phrase you posted, she is crystal clear in what she said:
“Its clear, this election they are having is not going to count for anything.”
Her own words. Lets see the verbal and mental contortions the Clintonistas have to get around this…lol
libarbarian
WHAT??
I always try to cite “Some Fuckhead” at least once in all my publications.
Rick Taylor
Actually, I’m nervous about Obama facing McCain in November. I like him as a candidate, but I wonder how he’ll fare against the same right wing machine that tarred Kerry by smearing his service in Vietnam. The affair with Wright has made me nervous. But the thing is, it looks extremely likely Obama is going to be the nominee, and I don’t appreciate Hillary (who I voted for) spreading the meme that his selection is somehow illegitimate, or that he is somehow responsible for disenfranchising Democrats in the primaries, in a Quixotic attempt to beat the odds. That is simply not true, and it’s not going to help is in November.
Rarely Posts
We’ll see. All this crying by his supporters has me wondering how he’s going to hold up to the right wing slime machine. Hillary hasn’t done anything but throw a few softballs at him. I worry that their constant whining will make him look weak. There’s a perception problem in American politics. Supporters that are constantly on the defensive are perceived as weak, and that reflects on their candidate. One day soon, I hope they toughen up a bit.
Just Some Fuckhead
I won’t be “getting it” as long as you hightail it out of threads without answering my questions. If you want an argument, go finish one you started:
https://balloon-juice.com/?p=9994#comments
Tlaloc
“JSF: And of that 20% who could give a shit now, very few will still give a shit come November.”
in 2000 in Florida bush’s final official taly was 537 votes more than Gore. That’s .01% of the voters in Florida. That’s all it took. Welcome to the winner take all electoral system.
Rarely Posts
No, it was 89%. The 20% was the amount that would vote for McCain if the delegates didn’t get seated. Though I think it was 23%. Might just be sour grapes and they’ll come to their senses, but Florida doesn’t matter anyway, right?
Loviatar sock puppeting for "F"
ThymeZone,
You give a great reason for supporting Obama if he is the Democratic nominee and while I intellectually agree, I also want to feel passionate in my support of him. However, demonizing my chosen primary candidate with personal attacks kinds of guarantees that my support of Obama will be lukewarm at best.
Make your case without the personal attacks!
some guy
in 2000 in Florida bush’s final official taly was 537 votes more than Gore. That’s .01% of the voters in Florida. That’s all it took. Welcome to the winner take all electoral system.
In 2000, Nader got 96k votes in Florida. Welcome to 2008.
Dennis - SGMM
I suspect that a key aspect of Obama’s campaign to beat McCain in November will consist of not touting McCain’s fucking qualifications.
John Cole
This is a two way street. I would have a much easier time dealing with the possibility of voting for Hillary if her supporters would stop spewing every line of bullshit her campaign throws out. It gets a little tiresome hearing reading allegedly Democratic sites linking to Fox, karl Rove, and Hot Air as they try to destroy Obama so Hillary gets the nod. if any of you would stand up and say, simply, I support Hillary but her campaign is acting like assholes, it would go a long way.
Instead, we get daily doses of Talk Left reading like Red State.
Rarely Posts
I can understand you feeling that way. Though I didn’t see where she said it was illegitimate. I think the perception here, in Florida at least, is he doesn’t give a hoot about us. Also, I can’t fault a candidate for thinking he or she can win, though perhaps there is a better way to phrase it?
I dunno, the entire primary has got me in a funk. I never expected, after seven years of being considered a traitor by republican commentators, that I’d be considered a traitor by democratic commentators simply because I favored Hillary over Obama.
chopper
they’re ‘delicate’ because, well, you’re getting pissy that someone dare say that a cartoon you like is a bit preachy. that’s like 3rd-grade drama queen shit right there.
Just Some Fuckhead
Why should I be anymore worried about the general election than the HRC folks? I mean, you guys aren’t spending a lot of time worrying about how HRC is gonna get back all the voters she pisses off with a convention fight. So why the fuck should an anonymous commenter care about you eight months before the general?
One time, I had a dream that I was in a bad car accident. I felt like this dream was a foreshadowing of things to come so the next time I had to drive somewhere, I was very careful. When I got on the Interstate, I made sure not to go faster than 25mph. Sure enough, I had an accident. So I kinda see where yer coming from.
McGuffin
You might want to google “Fallacy of the Unbounded Middle” before you go on.
/Tick fan
Rarely Posts
Ask me again, I’m not in the mood to search.
cbear
OT-
Remember that cheesy video with the “McCain Girls” that everybody thought was a spoof because it was so bad?
Apparently it wasn’t because one of the “girls”, and I use that term loosely, has posted an angry youtube video.
Be sure and read some of the comments. Priceless.
Just Some Fuckhead
So was that a yes? On the tenure too??
Loviatar sock puppeting for "F"
John,
Please, please, pleaseeee link me to a Hillary supportive site where the personal attacks spewed at Obama is anything like the vitriol spewed here and this site is mild compared to Kos and Sullivan.
.
Also,
I support Hillary but her campaign sometimes acts like assholes.
Tlaloc
Some guy
“In 2000, Nader got 96k votes in Florida. Welcome to 2008.”
Nader’s talking about running agin, btw.
John Cole:
“This is a two way street. I would have a much easier time dealing with the possibility of voting for Hillary if her supporters would stop spewing every line of bullshit her campaign throws out.”
Well frankly some of the stuff you think is bullshit seems pretty reasonable to me. You might consider that some people genuinely differ with you on the validity of a given argument. Honestly, I don’t particularly like Clinton but the attacks on her are so ridiculous and common that I find myself pushed more and more to support her.
Fuckhead:
“Why should I be anymore worried about the general election than the HRC folks? I mean, you guys aren’t spending a lot of time worrying about how HRC is gonna get back all the voters she pisses off with a convention fight. So why the fuck should an anonymous commenter care about you eight months before the general?”
I haven’t seen the Hillary campaign be anywhere close to as abbrasive and assholish as I see everyday from Obama. Now maybe that all depends on the particular areas of the internet I frequent. maybe I just happen to hit all the places where Obama supporters boast aboout attacking their fellow democrats (as you did), and just happen to miss the ones where all the Hillary supporters do the same. Could be, but I can only draw conclusions based on the evidence I see.
What I see is Obama supporters buring bridges. A lot.
Just Some Fuckhead
It’s not because you are favoring Hillary (as you call her) over Obama, it’s because you are favoring Hillary over facts.
chopper
that’s good. heh.
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m shocked to hear that. What did the Obama campaign do? This sounds most serious.
cbear
Get your head out of your ass and go to No Quarter which has become a sister site of Talk Left and Jerome’s blog.
They’ve done everything short of accusing MUP of having Natalee Holloway’s bones buried in his backyard, although I’m sure that’s going to come up sooner rather than later.
Tlaloc
fuckhead:
“I’m shocked to hear that. What did the Obama campaign do? This sounds most serious.”
Sorry, poor choice of words. I mean the supporters of the campaigns, not the official campaigns themselves.
Just Some Fuckhead
Yeah, happens to the best of us. If it makes you feel better, when yer at the ballot box in November trying to decide between Obama and McCain, you can imagine everything I said was a poor choice of words. ;)
cbear
Who the fuck do you think you are, coming here and calling Fuckhead, fuckhead?
That’s MR. Fuckhead to you.
The nerve of some people.
John Cole
Ok. How about the following things that I and everyone with an IQ over 12 thinks is bullshit but has been featured on the pro-Hillary sites and has come either directly or indirectly from her campaign:
1.) It is Obama’s fault regarding MI and FL and he is responsible for disfranchising the voters.
2.) Angry negro Rev. Wright
3.) “Obama is, to the best of my knowledge, a Christian.”
4.) How about the Clinton campaign lying about Obama’s advisor and Canada and NAFTA, when it was in fact the Clinton campaign who was lying about NAFTA.
5.) Alleging Obama is lying about being a law professor.
6.) Asserting Obama has not passed the CinC threshold, but McCain has.
7.) Mark Penn going on hardball and chanting COCAINE COCAINE COCAINE.
8.) Ferraro going onto every venue she can to claim Obama is only winning because of black privilege.
9.) Claiming Obama’s win don’t count because they are in states that don’t count, or they were caucuses (which don’t count), and so on.
10.) Claiming that Obama is sexist because of a picture that was taken in which he was not looking at Hillary.
Do you want me to go on? I can give you 100 such instances of said bullshit. Hillary’s campaign and her supporters have been total fucking assholes. In fact, just a few months ago, I was one of the few voices defending Hillary, but her lackeys have been that fucking repellent that I am now totally in the bag for Obama.
Meanwhile, what you are upset about is us calling you all assholes for… being assholes. There is an easy way to solve that problem. Stop being assholes.
Loviatar sock puppeting for "F"
People understand; we have two ambitious people with Type A personalities running for the Presidency of the United States of America (McCain doesn’t have a chance), they’ve surrounded themselves with aggressive (thats saying it mildly) advisers, they’re running in a political environment that hearkens back to the 19th century in its partisanship and bitterness (Civil War anyone) of course there are going attacks on your opponents, there should be attacks.
However, the personal attacks are unwarranted, silly and most of all damaging to their candidate, that is what I’ve called upon to stop, the ones (on either side) who don’t see that are doing more harm to their candidate than help.
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m going to go with
c) ignore it and call everyone inbreeds and crybabies and then make hysterical accusations about mean Obama supporters driving away the pure virtue of the Clinton folks
McGuffin
Sure…
Dumbass.
cbear
What makes you think anyone here gives half-a-rats ass what you called on us to do?
What you just don’t seem to get is that its fucking insulting to have somebody come here and tell us something so blazingly fucking obvious that anybody with half-a-brain already understands.
YES. WE. UNDERSTAND. YOUR. POINT.
WE. MUST. ALL. GET. ALONG. FOR. THE. GENERAL. ELECTION.
In the meantime, most of us are going to keep calling out Hillary and her campaign for treating us like the village idiot that you seem to be. Sometimes we’ll even do it in a the less-than-genteel manner you find so objectionable.
If the MUP starts blatantly, and obviously, pulling the same lame-ass bullshit…we’ll call him on it too.
So fuck off.
Oh yeah, I’ll vote for her in the GE quicker than a cat covers shit, IF she’s the nominee.
Happy?
Now, go fuck off.
Conservatively Liberal
Other than your response, the rest of the Clintonistas have not bothered to touch this…lol
Reality hertz… ;)
Tlaloc
John Cole:
“1.) It is Obama’s fault regarding MI and FL and he is responsible for disfranchising the voters.”
I think that’s wrong to say, but you have posters here in this very thread saying Hillary is responsible for MI and FL, where’s your scorn for them? I don’t see you calling their arguments bullshit even though they hapen on your own blog.
“2.) Angry negro Rev. Wright”
Where’s the proof that came from Clinton? I see that all over the right, not the left.
“3.) “Obama is, to the best of my knowledge, a Christian.””
What? I’m missing the “bullshit” in that statement.
“4.) How about the Clinton campaign lying about Obama’s advisor and Canada and NAFTA, when it was in fact the Clinton campaign who was lying about NAFTA.
5.) Alleging Obama is lying about being a law professor.”
Haven’t seen any of this. I do remember one small kerfluffle about Canada but in the end Obama was wrong not Clinton.
“6.) Asserting Obama has not passed the CinC threshold, but McCain has.”
Honestly right now I’m very very torn on whether I could vote for Obama in the general. A large part of that is that I don’t see where I have any reason to trust Obama enough to hand him the nuclear football. McCain for all his bluster I strongly suspect would not actually start WW3. So yeah, if you asked me if one of the two had passed the threshold I’d give the same answer as Hillary. That’s not bullshit, in the sense of me lying to you. You’re free, of course, to think it’s bullshit in the sense of being unsupported.
“7.) Mark Penn going on hardball and chanting COCAINE COCAINE COCAINE.”
Didn’t see it and I somehow doubt it happened just like that.
“8.) Ferraro going onto every venue she can to claim Obama is only winning because of black privilege.”
And you know what? She has a point. It may not be a great point but she’s at least a little right. Obama has gotten further in this campaign due to his race. In a way that’s really cool- America is easing up a bit. At the same time it’s also unhealthy. We shouldn’t nominate a black man just because he’s black (nor Hillary just because she’s female, which is the real problem with Ferrarro’s statement, it applies easily as much to Hillary as Obama).
“9.) Claiming Obama’s win don’t count because they are in states that don’t count, or they were caucuses (which don’t count), and so on.”
Again- there is a valid point here. Winning the nomination in states that you are never going to win in the general is sort of a pyrrhic victory. Caucuses are in fact anti-democratic and should be gotten rid of.
“10.) Claiming that Obama is sexist because of a picture that was taken in which he was not looking at Hillary.”
Again never heard of this. The problem is the way you present the events above that I have heard of make me strongly suspect it isn’t quite the way you suggest.
Of the things you mention a number are valid points or at worst typical politics. A few are significantly taken out of context or twisted to fit the narrative you are espousing (which is also typical politics, btw). Not one strikes me as beyond the pale like the 2000 SC “McCain’s black baby” bullshit, or the treatment of Max Cleland.
“Meanwhile, what you are upset about is us calling you all assholes for… being assholes. There is an easy way to solve that problem. Stop being assholes.”
*shrug*
Like I said before, not helping. You left one party full of authoritarian cultists. I’d thank you not to encourage the same behavior in this one. People can disagree without being assholes.
Loviatar sock puppeting for "F"
How is this is a personal attack?
Rev. Wright has been defined as a “Angry Negro” by your former BFF (Republican Party) and the MSM, you’ll have a hard time getting any sympathy from a Clinton supporter on the mis-definition of your candidate.
Clinton was wrong, she should not have gone there, however in my opinion, religion has way too much influence in American politics.
How is this is a personal attack?
Please provide context or link as I am unaware of this assertion.
How is this a personal attack.
Mark Penn was wrong, he should not have gone there.
Ferraro was wrong, she should not have gone there.
How is this a personal attack?
Someone, somewhere out there is wrong, they should not have gone there.
.
Of the 10 personal attacks against Obama that John has referenced, lets tally the results:
1 personal attack by Hillary Clinton
2 personal attacks by Clinton advisers
1 personal attack by the Republican Party and the MSM
1 personal attack by someone out there
1 personal attack I need context/link for, before I decide
.
and
.
4 in my opinion are nothing more than hard fought campaigning.
Soylent Green
I don’t know who is going to win in November, but my money is on Uncommitted.
Tlaloc
Conservatively liberal:
“Other than your response, the rest of the Clintonistas have not bothered to touch this…lol”
Well the statement “Its clear, this election they are having is not going to count for anything” isn’t quite the bear trap you seem to think it is. She could easily have been saying “this election isn’t going to count for anything (and that’s the way it should be” or “this election isn’t going to count for anything (and that’s wrong or too bad)”. See what I mean? Do you have the context of the statement? Was she simply observing the facts as they were or making a value judgment?
Conservatively Liberal
Shorter Tlaloc & Loviatar sock puppeting for “F”: All is fair in love, war and politics, except when you say something about Hillary that we do not like.
Gotcha.
Conservatively Liberal
Shorter Tlaloc: It all depends on what the definition of is is.
Gotcha. Loud and clear. Clinton Rules.
John Cole
Can we please get better trolls.
Seriously, your argument that Obama supporters are evil because they react, get this, negatively to bullshit lies spewed by Clinton’s campaign and Clinton supporters is beyond tedious. To then further pretend that this means that Clinton supporters are somehow more virtuous and inclusive because they are less angry is farcical, as well.
Guess what, if Obama’s campaign and Obama supporters were spreading as many lies as you all are, you would be hopping mad.
Seriously, better trolls please.
Tlaloc
Conservatively liberal:
“Shorter Tlaloc & Loviatar sock puppeting for “F”: All is fair in love, war and politics, except when you say something about Hillary that we do not like.
Gotcha.”
Yeah, that’s it exactly. Except it’s really more like this- Obama plays politics and can’t be even remotely _criticized_ unless you are wearing full body armor and asbestos underwear. Clinton plays politics and can’t be _defended_ without the same get up. He’ll be lionized for the stuff she’s demonized for. And at least a few of us are left wondering “WTF” and suspiciously sniffing your kool aid.
I have no problem with Obama’s campaign and supporters going after Hillary’s war authorization, or her health care plan (although her’s is vastly superior to his, still it’s a fair issue), or really any other issue of merit. But that’s not what I see/hear day in and day out. I see endless “she’s the cause of everything bad in the universe including entropy!” mixed with questions about her gender and sexual preference along with the sadly common references of “whore/bitch/cunt”.
I’ve really started to wonder if Obama’s candidacy isnt the worst thing to happen to the dems in a long time. He just seems to have brought out so much ugliness in his followers, which is really strange given that he himself has run a very typical campaign. He’s not rove, but he seems to drive his supporters into that mindset unintentionally somehow.
Just Some Fuckhead
Do I win anything?
Rick Taylor
She never said in so many words Obama’s nomination would be illegitimate. Just as she never exactly said that McCain would make a better Commander in Chief than Obama. In that case she said, I’ve passed the Comander in Chief Threshold, McCain has passed the commander in chief threshold, and. . . you’ll have to ask Obama if he has. That has an effect; I read a Hillary supporter saying they were voting for McCain if Obama won the nomination, because of what Hillary had said. She has more recently said Obama would of course be a better choice for President than Obama, thank goodness! She shouldn’t have suggested otherwise and then left the question lingering for so long, but it was good she did finally say that.
Pretty much everything that I’m referring in what you replied to is here .
Just as with McCain, she doesn’t say that the results would not be legitimate, just that they will not be “considered” legitimate, and then she pointedly doesn’t give her own opinion of whether they’d be legitimate or not. And as well, she’s spreading the meme that it’s Obama’s fault that revotes aren’t happening in Florida and Michigan. I’m still willing to be convinced Obama was somehow at fault in Michigan, but so far all I’ve heard is innuendo. As for Florida, well, read the next thread after this if you still think that’s somehow Obama’s doing. I’d have no problem at all if she’d raised these objections before the primary elections. But instead she signed a statement saying she wouldn’t be participating in the primaries in those states, she said of course the votes there wouldn’t count and then *after* she found she’d need those votes to in order to win, after she’d run an uncontested race in one state and one as the front runner where no one could campaign in the other, and after she argued not for a revote but to seat the delegates from those two elections including one where she ran unopposed, now she paints herself as the champion of voters rights and her opponents as somehow not wanting the people to vote. The hypocrisy is a little galling.
Anyway, we’ve been around this a few times and I have to work. Of course I’m supporting Hillary if she wins the nomination, as is just about everyone here. Funnily, it’s on the blogs like Taylor Marsh where most of the commenters are saying they’re supporting McCain if Obama wins the primary nomination or not voting at all.
Loviatar sock puppeting for "F"
cbear,
I don’t give a damm about attacks on Sen. Clinton’s policies or politics, in fact some of them are warranted (Kyl-Lieberman, semi-endorsement of McCain). However, the personal attacks against Hillary Clinton are silly and irritating for those of us who are her supporters, they don’t benefit your candidate and engender hard feelings from your fellow Democrats.
Why is this a good thing?
Just Some Fuckhead
From your lips to Taylor Marsh’s ears.
Seriously, did I hear a rumor that the best trolls get the A-list blog assignments? Because that’s pretty unfair for the rest of us.
Tlaloc
I find it more than a tad ironic to be labeled a troll when the only people in this thread to boast of trying to have fun by attacking others were, you know, _not_ me. But whatever.
Dennis - SGMM
Isn’t it a bit odd that Clinton, who wants to punish those who won’t pay for health insurance, had $292,000 in unpaid health insurance bills for her campaign staff?
Just Some Fuckhead
This edition of As The World Turns Upside-down has been brought to by Tialoc, today’s featured Clinton Troll.
Loviatar sock puppeting for "F"
John,
I had no hope that I would ever convince you of anything positive about either of the Clintons (boy I would pay money to have read your thoughts on the Clintons while Bill was in office). Reading some of the archives referenced in an earlier post by Tim F. reinforced that fact that you were previously an asshole Republican and have become a slightly less assholish DINO.
My only surprise is to the number of Democrats who have whole heartedly bought into your CDS; like them or not or even like another candidate better, the Clintons have done more for the Democratic Party than a former Republican with recurring CDS.
Again I’m saying to my fellow Democrats, rightfully attack Hillary on her policies or politics, but why follow down the route of Sullivan (Republican) and Cole (DINO) with the personal attacks.
.
How does that benefit your candidate or the Democratic Party?
McGuffin
Gee, I guess the wingnuts have dropped their Roman/Greek classic fetish in favor of Aztec and Finnish minor dieties.
cbear
I’m sorry, I think we have a misunderstanding here.
I wasn’t personally attacking Hillary in my most recent comment.
I was personally attacking you for being so fucking oblivious to the fact that we understand your point and are sick and fucking tired of having stupid fucks like you come here and write 10-20 stupid fucking comments about the same fucking thing.
Again, my apologies for the confusion and I very-fucking-sincerely hope that clears things up for you.
Tlaloc
Fuckhead:
“This edition of As The World Turns Upside-down has been brought to by Tialoc, today’s featured Clinton Troll.”
Obviously you don’t agree with my assessment, but it is an honest assessment. I’ve heard a scary number of Obama supporters describe him in distinctly religious terms. In Cole’s post starting this thread is an implied statement that Obama doesn’t lie. I can only hope he didn’t mean it that way, because that’s unbelievably naive otherwise. Like I said, it’s my take on things. I suspect I’m not alone. That being the case you might consider how best to counteract that impression.
Again, that’s assuming you _want_ to win the election…
I’m beginning to have my doubts, personally.
Loviatar sock puppeting for "F"
cbear,
.
How does that benefit your candidate or the Democratic Party?
cleek
where? here?
your concern has been duly noted.
Rick Taylor
Just for fun, I’ll have a go at John Cole’s list.
Yes this one drives me nuts, can’t argue with you here. Of course if someone has evidence he blocked the process in Michigan I’m all ears; Florida is clear cut.
Hillary only brought that up in an interview when asked, and basically disassociated herself from Obama’s trouble. I didn’t blame her for this, especially as it came after Obama’s campaign leaked a picture of Bill with Reverend Wright to the news.
As for it being a hot topic on Hillary sites, well some of it, much of it is junk, but I think it is a legitimate campaign issue. This country is nuts (witness the effectiveness of the swiftboat attacks on a vietnam veteran) and it may be a problem for Obama in the elections, and one doesn’t have to be a Hillary-phile to think all of Obama’s responses might not have been the best politically possible.
What was she supposed to say? I have seen into Obama’s heart and know he is a Christian? It was nuts she was asked the question to start with. I saw the video of her, and didn’t see anything wrong. Alright, maybe a strident denunciation of the interviewer for even bringing it up might have been nice, but I didn’t see anything wrong.
I’m still confused what happened there.
Now that was nuts. On Taylor Marsh someone posted a list of Obama lies, saying he was never even a senior lecturer and not a professor. I gave them a link to the University of Chicago Law School Website and it still wasn’t good enough. He’s a senior lecturer. He’s listed under “Professors” along with the other senior lecturers. To be fair, a few of the more reasonable ones there admitted it was a pretty minor thing at best.
That was what made me regret my vote for Hillary. Pummel your opponent all your want, but the bottom line should be, of course my filthy opponent is still far preferable than the pond scum that is the opposition party nominee.
Didn’t really catch this one.
That was nutty, although I don’t blame Hillary for that.
That’s more a source of entertainment than anything else. Although there were times her campaign came dangerously close to disrespecting voters we might actually need in the general election.
Meh. Don’t have an opinion of that one way or another. I don’t think the point was he was sexist though; more ungracious.
I’ll just add one of my own, though it’s not Clinton’s fault. But there was an incredible kerfufle at Taylor Marsh over NBC oversampling African Americans in a poll, because they didn’t understand about correcting for oversampling, even after NBC went out of their way to explain it on a website. That was astounding.
Just Some Fuckhead
Tialoc, you are Concern Trolling. Do you know what that means?
chopper
funny, cause she was asked the same question the day before and didn’t want to answer. then lo and behold, the next day she starts eating tons of shit over ‘snipergate’ and she suddenly feels like talking about wright.
John Cole
I didn’t imply anything of the sort, you inferred it out of thin air and then went off on some crazy ass tangent. This is the sort of delusional BS we are dealing with every day from Hillary supporters.
Rick Taylor
On Taylor Marsh’s site, a troll is anyone who supports Obama and posts there. They make lists of them. Some of the so called trolls were obnoxious, but some were exceedingly polite. Here it’s roughly the reverse. I think the term has lots its meaning through overuse.
Conservatively Liberal
Shorter Tialoc: Can you give me a hand here? I am trying to nail myself to this cross, and I am having problems pounding the last nail in.
Rarely Posts
RT – I’m not going to comment on what some other poster said about voting for McCain over Obama, simply because there’s no way of know if it’s a troll, or someone having a bad hair day. The dedicated Dems will all vote for the Dem nominee. The indies, and the DINOs, I don’t know how they will vote.
And yes, as I’ve stated before, Hillary’s intentions in seating the delegates in Florida and Michigan are not pure. I have a hard time believing Obama wouldn’t be saying the same things if the situations were reversed. And I don’t think it’s Obama’s fault, any more than I think Hurricane Katrina is Bush’s fault. The only thing that is anyone’s fault is their reaction to the happening. And while Obama is perfectly justified in not wanting FL & MI seated, we are justified in being pissed if they are not seated.
Rarely Posts
And here it would seem the reverse holds.
Just Some Fuckhead
LMFAO!!!!
Do you mind if I use that in the future and claim it as my own?
John Cole
That was breathtaking. It reminded me of when the rightwing nutters all rejected the Iraq casualty studies because they were statistically ignorant. It also reinforced my opinion that certain circles of Clinton support are exactly the same as Bush Republicans, with the only difference being their policy stances.
p.a.
Hey, where’s myiq.5xyou? Out on a Cheetoz run? Shouldn’t he be contributing his Hillary ball-wash (uh, sorry for the mixed metaphor) to the discussion? Maybe he’s over at RedState where he belongs…
Rick Taylor
Rarely Posts:
Umm, that’s what I just said. Actually, “roughly the reverse,” I think it’s worse there. There you had really polite posters supporting Obama who’d go so far as to congratulate Hillary when she won who still were termed “trolls.”
Just Some Fuckhead
I don’t wanna go all Larry Summers here but the Clinton campaign isn’t exactly sucking up the math contingent of primary supporters.
Just Some Fuckhead
He did a Goodbye Cruel World a few threads back.
John Cole
Bullshit. Obama is justified in not wanting them seated as is because he was not on the ballot in one and because they all agreed ahead of time they would not count. For the same reasons, Hillary and her supporters are wholly fucking unjustified demanding they be seated.
Until you can get that through your damned head, this discussion is fucking pointless, as is your assertion that Obama would do the same damned thing were roles reversed. You can’t possibly know that. We can impugn Clinton for her BS because she has been acting in bad faith. You don’t get away with impugning Obama for bad faith because he might have done something wrong in some mythical situation that will never happen.
Don’t you get that? Jesus.
Rick Taylor
It wouldn’t have been so bad if they weren’t so utterly self-righteous about it. Taylor referred to the post “What Oversampling means,” and said NBC was being condescending, basically saying they were all idiots. Well, no, NBC was not saying that; but you do look like idiots when you can’t even comprehend the over-sampled group wasn’t included in the over-all results after they’ve spelled it out for you.
cbear
Really? Anybody know which thread?
Conservatively Liberal
Go for it. I am an Obama supporter, and we borrow the words of others and call them our own!
;)
Conservatively Liberal
Do a search for “hot goat sex”, it will be in there somewhere… ;)
John D.
RP, here’s the problem I have with that statement. Obama’s position, as far as I can tell, is “We’ll follow the DNC rules.” That’s it.
When the DNC asked him to sign the pledge, he did. When the DNC asked him to remove his name from the ballot, he did. When the DNC stripped the delegates from FL and MI, he responded with “we’ll follow the DNC rules”. When the dubject of a revote came up, he said “If the states and the DNC reach an agreement, we’ll follow it.”
Imputing your disbelief upon his campaign is amazingly shitty, given that he has not wavered from his (eminently reasonable, IMHO) stance since this began.
Do I think Obama would be trying to get the delegates seated if the positions were reversed? Damfino. But all evidence we have points to no.
Rarely Posts
Jesus, Mary and Joseph. How many times do I need to state Hillary’s position on this issue isn’t pure??? And please, quit with the sanctimonious BS about my knowing what a candidate is thinking or doing or planning. Such nonsense is posted daily on this blog by your commentators and sometimes by you, yourself regarding Hillary.
My head isn’t damned, btw.
Just Some Fuckhead
He’s serious, BTW.
Rarely Posts
Then why all the bitching about the superdelegates? Or do you mean to say he’ll follow the DNC rules when they suit him…so confusing.
Rick Taylor
chopper wrote:
Well, it was also after Obama’s campaign sent a picture of Clinton with Wright during a prayer breakfast over the Lewinsky matter. She hadn’t touched it up until that point, and that’s how they repaid her. I could understand her being a touch annoyed at that point, to say the least. And with the polls coming out with both candidates hurting after the revelations, I could understand her not wanting to take a hit for Obama’s sake.
John Cole
Of course Hillary;s position is impure. It is also poisonous, self-serving, and will be disastrous for future DNC chairs.
The problem is when you want to knock Obama because “he would do the same thing” if the positions were reversed. You can;t possibly know that.
I am functioning within the realm of reality when I bash Clinton for her duplicity on this issue. Your response is to entire the realm of fiction and assert Obama would do the same thing.
Just Some Fuckhead
Obama Breaks 50% thread:
Just Some Fuckhead
Are you sure that was the campaign or was it one of the lefty blogs?
Rarely Posts
Okay, I’ll grant you that. Judging from the way politicians act and judging from Obama’s reaction to what his minister said, it is my opinion that he will say what needs to be said to get elected, just like any other politician would do. I’m not going to fault him for that, and I’m not going to fault you for believing in the MUP.
And though I imagine Hillary will get faulted, and rightly so, for her duplicity on FL & MI, I personally think that she is correct, the delegates should be seated. Even if it makes her look like a POS, and even if it costs her the nomination.
Dennis - SGMM
Thanks, JSF. I guess we’re all trolls now.
Just Some Fuckhead
John, one of the great things about your blog is that you will engage with even the most obtuse and undeserving folks.
I hope that holds up when I get my cabin at Moncove Lake State Park. We can hang out and go fishing and throw back our heads and just laugh and laugh about this shit.
Conservatively Liberal
I find it interesting that Ed Rendell was on Faux Nooz today, and that he complimented them on their coverage of the primary.
Are we really sure that these people are Democrats?! Embracing Faux?! That is just fucked up.
Just Some Fuckhead
There should be a cool answer when a troll drops by and calls you a troll. You could say like “Yeah? Well it’s my motherfucking bridge, motherfucker!”
Or something like that.
Rick Taylor
Rarely Posts Says:
I hope so. Anyway, I only brought that up to point out that what the candidates say matter. That’s why I’ve been troubled by some of the things Hillary has been saying. And I do believe, when the nomination is over if Obama is the nominee, she’ll pull for him and a lot of the current ill feeling will be assuaged. I’ll also say there have been times Obama has said things that were out of bounds and I criticized him too (I really didn’t like him attacking Hillary’s health care package; we may be fighting for that some day); it’s not personal.
It’s impossible to know; we can only judge the candidates on what they’re doing in this reality we happen to be in. However, I do believe if we were in some crazy alternate universe where Obama was trying to seat the delegates after having signed a statement not to participate in the elections, I would be just as unhappy with him there.
I’m not saying you think that. None of the things I was saying were directed to you personally at all, I’m just responding and trying to explain why I believe what I believe. The thing is while you don’t feel that way, quite a number of Hillary’s supporters do and say so vocally, even saying they’re voting for McCain because Obama wouldn’t be a legitimate nominee. And the things Hillary is currently saying are not helping the matter; in fact they’re adding fuel to the fire. That’s all.
Well I’m pissed that delegates in those states aren’t being seated either. It’s just that subject of my ire may be different than yours (may be; I don’t know). The major portion of my ire goes to the legislatures in the two states; they didn’t have to defy the DNC, and once they did, they could have hammered out some less than perfect solution to have caucuses or revotes and get they’re delegates back. The Florida legislators in particular made it clear that they were interested in seating the delegates as is, and anything short of that they didn’t care for. I also think the DNC penalty was draconian, they should have stuck to penalizing half the delegates, the recommended penalty.
Rick Taylor
Rarely Posts:
Oh, when you refer to my posts, could you call me “Rick Taylor”? I search on that, and I missed your post the first time I was reading through the thread. It’s getting long and easy to miss things (even though it was right above another post I saw). Thanks.
Rick Taylor
Just some Fuckhead said:
That’s what the New York Times political blog said.
Conservatively Liberal
I agree, as I think most Obama supporters would. Nonetheless, this race is based on a given set of rules that everyone agreed on. Everyone. To change the rules in the middle of the race is just wrong, no matter how you slice it up. Hell, we raise our kids to honor rules and play fairly with others, and anything else is cheating and poor sportsmanship. Is there some exemption in politics?
When Hillary claimed that it was a conscious, deliberate strategic move to keep her name on the ballot in Michigan, what really she said was that when everything was being agreed on and signed in good faith prior to the race, she had her fingers crossed and behind her back.
That is not a presidential move. That is cheating.
Just Some Fuckhead
Hmm. I don’t remember seeing that anywhere else and I’m way Dyson with this shit. I’m more comfortable with dismissing the “Wright wouldn’t be my pastor” remark as an answer to a direct question as opposed to attributing to a possible event that never happened. Keeping in mind that even if it did happen, there is no way to know that influenced the way she answered the question.
Of course, on the flip side, I’ve never suggested she answered it that way because she was trying to deflect Snipergate. Others have, seeing a Machiavellian pattern behind everything the Clinton campaign does.
Me, I just see incompetence and mostly very short term tactical maneuvers that generally result in long term losses.
Just Some Fuckhead
All’s fair in love and war! And thanks in part to HRC, we’re at war!
(Sorry about the superfluous aside. As an Obama troll I have a quota of themes I have to hit on my shift.)
Rick Taylor
It sounds like you don’t read the pro-Hillary blogs enough. :)
To be honest, I was just playing around, there’s no way to know. I mostly threw it up as an alternative because someone else had suggested Snipergate. Either it was a legitimate statement for her to make or not, and it’s useless trying to read anyone’s mind.
Just Some Fuckhead
Hah! Truthfully, I’ve never been to one. I guess as long as they’re sending missionaries out two by two, I won’t have to go there.
Conservatively Liberal
I am a member of two political blogs that I comment at: Balloon Juice & Talking Points Memo. That is it. I read lots of blogs, but my favorite train wreck Hillary blog is Hillaryis44. They are no holds barred, non-stop raving batshit insane there. It a festival of extreme insanity and ignorance there.
I have read a few Obama blogs, but they are generally so positive that it is boring…lol
No problem, I have the same quota to fulfill. :D
John D.
Exactly what are you referring to? I’m talking about the MI/FL delegates, which was the topic at hand when I replied to you. WTF are you trying to get at?
schooner
“6.) Asserting Obama has not passed the CinC threshold, but McCain has.”
Honestly right now I’m very very torn on whether I could vote for Obama in the general. A large part of that is that I don’t see where I have any reason to trust Obama enough to hand him the nuclear football. McCain for all his bluster I strongly suspect would not actually start WW3. So yeah, if you asked me if one of the two had passed the threshold I’d give the same answer as Hillary. That’s not bullshit, in the sense of me lying to you. You’re free, of course, to think it’s bullshit in the sense of being unsupported.”
And Obama would??????
Better trolls indeed. Fuck off to Talk Left (or Redstate) asshole.
Cain
It feels so wierd to do that. I usually only type that in google search.
cain
Splitting Image
“Me, I just see incompetence and mostly very short term tactical maneuvers that generally result in long term losses.”
Me too. The difference between the Clinton campaign and the Republicans is that they normally confine this to actual policy.
If Karl Rove and Dick Cheney were as interested in governing as they were in campaigning, the Middle East would be well on its way to a lasting peace and the domestic economy would be pulling out of its funk and headed for a decade of growth.
I suppose it’s possible that Clinton is as good a governor as Rove is a campaigner since the reverse seems to be true, but I’m not holding out hope.
Brachiator
Great stuff. Thanks (and a nod to Conservatively liberal).
Now, I’m scratching my head wondering why the Democratic party leaders are indulging Clinton’s spin on this issue, instead of shutting down her more outrageous and insubstantial claims to these delegates.
By signing the pledge, and by publicly agreeing to abide by it, she gave up any right to claim the delegates. What the party may do to remedy the situation is separate from, and independent of, anything either candidate might say.
Also, interviewers should stick the pledge in Clinton’s face and make her justify her current stance.
Whether or not they formally agreed to anything, I get the impression that the mutual lovefest between Fauz Nooz and the Clintons is an “understanding” to tolerate each other in order to get Obama out of the race. Clinton is then hoping that she will be able to fend off the inevitable GOP attacks in the general election.
Pb
Loviatar etc.,
Nice handle — Forgotten Realms?
Assuming that you are being honestly ignorantly earnest here, I’ll provide you with some links, and you can tell me what you think after you’ve digested them.
For starters:
A recent Clinton campaign press release: “Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements”
Now compare that to the RNC’s old list of “Obama’s Top Ten Fabrications” — and yes, that’s actually cited by the Clinton campaign — they are officially using bullshit debunked RNC talking points in their campaign, in case anyone still wasn’t sure on that point.
DFD
Armando was a douche when he was on DK and re-branding himself as BTD hasn’t changed that fact. These cognitive contortions are simply a way to protect his inflated ego from the indignity and pain of defeat.
Pb
Loviatar etc.,
As for the pro-Hillary blogs to check… oh jeez, there are scads. Hillary Is 44 is probably the worst, and then there’s No Quarter, TalkLeft, Taylor Marsh, some of the diarists now over at MyDD, The Left Coaster, Corrente Wire…
Pb
I can vouch for that. He actualy wrote some really great diaries, back in the day, but he was a real dick in the comments section, he would get totally unhinged in an argument, and practically everything was an argument for him. Apparently, this primary season is also one long argument for him, and therefore, yeah, he’s totally unhinged about it. I was actually more disappointed by SusanHu and Larry Johnson.
Robert Sneddon
Re: the FL/MI delegate convention seating “problem”.
The DNC is the sole arbiter of this situation. The DNC as a rules body have to remain neutral between Senators Obama and Clinton (the individual superdelegates on the DNC are another matter). The DNC are looking forward to the next Presidential cycle, 2012 when they will again set out the rules and calendars for Democratic primaries and caucuses.
If the MI/FL delegations are fully seated at the convention then everybody will break the rules four years from now knowing there is no real penalty for doing so. If they are cut off at the knees as the DNC are proposing then in four years time things will be a lot simpler. Any idiots in State legislatures who raise a voice to suggest overriding the DNC’s calendar will be told by their colleagues to sit down and shut up. That’s why, unless the DNC is castrated in some manner over the next few weeks, it will not seat the MI and FL “delegates” in full. They have to look to the long-term health of the Democratic party, as it is bleedingly obvious no-one else is.
wwz
So, when exactly did the candidates agree the delegates from MI wouldn’t count? Link please.
Rick Taylor
wwz Says:
Repeating my post from earlier:
Here is the pledge she and all the other Democratic candidates signed as a pdf document (hat tip: Talking Points Memo):
If this isn’t convincing, then please explain how one declares victory in a primary one did not “participate” in.
Also, here’s a link to a radio interview in which Hillary said of course the delegates wouldn’t count.
The latter is not a pledge of course, but it’s clear all the candidates understood and agreed the early primaries would not count. This was not an issue or a subject of contention until Hillary discovered she’d need them to win.
So, a signed pledge that she would not participate in those primaries (that all the candidates signed) together with a recorded statement that the delegates from Michigan would not count. If that doesn’t satisfy you, I don’t know what would.
Rick Taylor
I wrote that quickly. Just to be precise, she said the primaries which Michigan held would not count for anything. Of course if Michigan was able to do a revote or caucases of some sort, their delegates could be seated. I certainly don’t object to anyone calling for a revote or caucases; this is specifically a reference to her push to seat the delegates from a primary election in which she agreed not to participate and as a result ran nearly uncontested.
Rick Taylor
wwz:
So does that satisfy your question?
Rarely Posts
whoa! But Obama participated in it, too, by your definition…so he also broke the rules.
bwahahahahahahahaha!
Rick Taylor
Rarely Posts:
Excuse me? Obama removed his name from the ballot in Michigan (and many Hillary supporters are now saying it’s his hard luck for doing so). None of the candidates removed themselves from the ballot in Florida, as it wasn’t possible at the time. Obama has not threatened a convention fight to seat the delegates in a primary he pledged not to participate in.
So what are you talking about? I’m doing my best to be reasonable, but this is getting sur-real.
Rarely Posts
Oh, you were talking about MI. I was talking about Florida. What you posted that they signed was not an agreement that the delegates wouldn’t count. It was a pledge that they wouldn’t campaign or participate. The only way either candidate participated in Florida was by leaving their names on the ballot, therefore they are either both guilty of breaking the rules or participate is defined some other way. Regardless, you’ve convinced me that Hillary is perfectly within her rights to insist the Florida delegates should be counted and nothing she pledged to do before hand nullifies this position. And also, yes, Obama is saying in effect that Florida voters don’t matter since he broke the rules by your definition.
Rick Taylor
Rarely Posts:
By the way, there’s an earlier post I made you haven’t replied to you may have missed. I’ve got to run though.
Just Somw Fuckhead
You are perfectly within your right to disenfranchise the voters of Florida who followed the wishes of the DNC and the candidates themselves and did not participate in the non-sanctioned Florida Democratic primary. Just knock of the concern-trolling about disenfranching voters. This is simply about making sure every HRC advantage is had at whatever means possible.
And, for the record, Florida election rules doesn’t allow a candidate to remove themselves from the ballot once they are on. This is why all the candidates were still on the ballot instead of the way it was done in Michigan. You don’t appear to know a whole lot about the situation for someone who operates with such certainty.
horatius
It would be much simpler if people who call themselves Rarely Posts actually stuck to their fucking names and rarely posted. The bullshit they spew makes it hard to indulge them in a good-faith argument.
Rarely Posts
Which?
wwz
Rick, read my question again and you’ll know the answer. If you’d stop stumping for Obama one second, that is. It was a simple enough question. All you had to do was say you didn’t know the answer, or not respond at all.
Rick Taylor
Rarely Posts asked:
This one here. Or if that doesn’t work, do a search for the string “March 31st, 2008 at 9:59 pm”. There’s nothing I think you need to respond to in it or anything, I think the conversation has run its course. Just thought you might be interested if you did miss it. Plus I did reply to some points you made in a previous post and didn’t want you to think I’d ignored them.
Rick Taylor
wwz wrote:
Perhaps I’m ignorant and misguided. Perhaps I missed the point of your question, what with me obviously being blinded by my Obama stumping. But I made a good faith effort to reply to your question and explain what I thought, in no way impugning your motives, intelligence, or character. Your response is condescending and obnoxious.
You’re right about one thing though, it was a mistake to respond to you’re original post; I will not repeat it.
Rarely Posts
Rick Taylor – I have to rethink my position now that you’ve convinced me that Hillary never agreed that the delegates wouldn’t count. Obama either, for that matter.
Interesting, to say the least.
Rarely Posts
Fuckhead – Would you like my email address so you can just tell me what to think each morning?
Just Some Fuckhead
As if anyone can tell you Clinton folks anything. LOL.
wwz
Very well
wwz
I’m from MI. I’d like my vote to count. As far as I know, Clinton has not stated that she wants the primary vote to stand as is, not as a first choice, anyhow. I believe Clinton pushed for a re-vote. Her interests coincide with mine in this, unlike Obama who doesn’t seem to think my vote is important enough to count. Nor do Obama supporters, it seems. Which is fairly strange because we are, after all, all dems, if not progressives.
The Party screwed the voters of MI and FL. They should fix it. I want my vote. Those who endeavor to disenfranchise me and the millions of others involved ought to think long and hard about it.
Rick Taylor
wwz:
Alright, if you’re willing to discuss issues, I am. There’s a lot to talk about, but I’ll hit on one or two points. Clinton did originally argue she wanted the delegates seated as is at the. Having a revote was originally a second choice for her, at best. And she wasn’t willing to accept a revote that was done via a caucus, which would have been the easiest solution to implement. Now there’s a populist argument to be made against caucuses, but of course Clinton has done much worse in caucuses than Obama has.I don’t have citations handy, and I’m at work without time to look them up, but that’s what I understand.
The bottom line is both candidates have consistently pursued their self interest in the matter. I can hardly blame either one of them, as that’s they’re trying to win an election, they’re not supposed to be in the business of arbitrating the rules. In Clinton’s case, I’d have a lot more respect for her position if she’d come out for revotes early and strongly. Instead, she’s only really been pushing for them now that there’s very little time to figure out how to do it.
And I agree, it sucks that Michigan voters aren’t being counted. But the bottom line is the time to fix this was back before the primary process got started. Both candidates, really every one involved, was silent about it then because no one thought it would make a difference; when has have the primaries ever been this close? Also, it’s not entirely true the Michigan and Florida elections will have no effect. The super-delegates are aware of them after all, and they are free to consider them when casting their vote.
i have more to say, but I’m at work, so perhaps another time.