____________________________________________________________________
OK, looks like it's time for Maria's Reality Check on FL & MITM
You want the Democratic nominee to win in November, right? Then why in the hell would you try to antagonize the voters in two big states? And trust me, voters -- especially in Florida -- are EXTREMELY PISSED. How do I know this? I know this because I've been speaking to hundreds of them weekly (on behalf of the DNC, the DSCC and the DCCC) for nine months now. I talk to the ones who give thousands to these groups, but mostly I talk to the ones who give $15 or $20 a year. And they don't give a rat's ass about how or why -- they just want their votes to be counted.
They feel like it's 2000 all over again. (Anyone else see the brilliant HBO movie Recount this weekend?) It was the Florida Republican legislature who moved up the election, not the voters. The voters themselves feel hurt and abandoned.
Also, go back and look at contemporaneous accounts back in August and you'll see that everyone (pols and media) assumed that the votes would eventually count because everyone knew that you couldn't afford to just piss away a couple of big states.
Moreover, look at the official long-standing DNC rules and you'll see that the punishment for defying the DNC was never taking away all the votes -- it at best suggests taking away half.
You assume -- probably correctly -- that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee in November, no? What possible good comes out of knee-capping his candidacy? Because that's what the Democratic Party will be doing if they give the finger to the VOTERS by disenfranchising them. That's how THEY see it and it doesn't matter if YOU don't see it that way.
It would behoove Obama to make nice to these voters, be the big man -- even if it means that Hillary can make claims to a popular vote win -- by embracing the Florida, and yeah, even the Michigan delegate count. He can then go about making nice to blue collar voters, women and Hillary supports in general.
I'll be in DC this Saturday advocating just that -- because no matter what -- I don't want a President McCain.
.
63 comments:
can i ask how the hillary camp thinks that the results of the MI primary are even valid given the fact that she was the only name ON the ballot?? who's really being disenfranchised? what about all of the people who wanted to vote for edwards, richardson, biden or obama but couldn't because they weren't even on the ballot?
why didn't she follow the rules and remove her name from the ballot like the rest of them? would this still be an issue if she had done that?
the people of MI and FL should be upset with their own lawmakers who moved their primaries w/o consent of the DLC, not the candidates or the rules committee.
i don't pretend to know the best answer, but i don't think that changing the rules to best serve her campaign is the right thing to do. as her terry mcauliffe is famous for once saying, "rules are rules".
Funny how times change. A million years ago -- OK, Januray of this year -- back before Kos of Daily Kos was in the bag for Obama, he wrote this:
Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.
So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal. (Emphasis supplied.)
"the people of MI and FL should be upset with their own lawmakers who moved their primaries w/o consent of the DLC, not the candidates or the rules committee."
But they are, Blanche, they are PISSED at the Party. (Sorry, can't seem to stop channeling screen queens today: see 1:30 here.)
John K. says: Look at this! Democrats arguing with liberals. Disenfranchising voters in two states. Demanding others follow rules. LOL LOL LOL Limbaugh did a number on your party.
"On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. ... Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably strategist Harold Ickes—voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla. city commissioner who supported Obama.)"
"Carl [Levin], take it to the bank," [McAuliffe] said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."
Hmmm... Who to piss off more? The Hillary voters in MI and FL, or the tens of millions of Obama voters (and small $$ donors) who have watched their candidate run, for the most part, a highly respectable campaign and, as a result, be rewarded with the front-runner position?
When it seemed like Hillary was the inevitable nominee, the Hillary camp had no fucking problems with voters being "disenfranchised." Now it's an issue. Now it's on par with some of the greatest civil liberties injustices in recent memory.
Just when you think things can't get more depraved, the children stop throwing sand at each other and opt instead for feces...
Maria, would you be traveling to Washington if the situation was reversed with Hillary in the lead and Obama having won Michigan and Florida?
Answer that question seriously.
So, is it really about disenfranchisement or is it about changing the rules to help Hillary in any way possible?
I am an Obama supporter, a Democrat, and think it's a travesty that the party has allowed this to happen. I definitely think it hurts us in November in a state in which we can't afford to lose any votes (Florida). It needs to be resolved and frankly should have been resolved way before anyone started voting.
I also have no doubt that the delegations of both states will be seated in some capacity by the DNC. I think it will still be unfortuante that regardless of what happens, both of those primaries clearly do not represent the actual will of the voters in those states.
Hillary and her supporters aggrandizing this issue, at this point in time, are merely helping out the Republicans. Deep down you know it but just can't admit it or won't stop it because you are so blithely stopping at nothing to find a way to make Hillary the nominee.
Oh, and have fun in D.C. Say "hi" to all the DLC folks for us, and let them know that Signatures, Abramoff's former restaurant, still doesn't have a new proprietor. Maybe HRC could get some more money from the Tans and go halvsies with Harold Ford on a smoothie joint at that location...
This would have been a lot more goddamn persuasive if Clinton supporters had been making this goddamn argument back in goddamn December.
I wonder how agitated Floridians and Michiganers really are. I feel like we're in for an elaborate "preppy riot" of the kind Bush backers staged outside the canvassing board in Miami-Dade County to shut down the recount.
I agree with John K. Limbaugh did do a number on our party. Can you imagine the vote and delegate totals were it not for Republican saboteurs crossing over to keep Hillary afloat?
Again, you failed to address the real problem and are trying to have it both ways: why must Florida and Michigan be counted, but Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington not be counted? You cannot have it both ways on that. If everything is counted, Obama is still ahead. What the Clintons have done is invent an alternate reality where they are ahead--an alternate reality where Iowa, Washington, Maine, and Nevada are not counted. Want a President Clinton? Count the votes of Iowa, Washington, Maine and Nevada in popular vote tallies.
And before you try with that Clintonian crap that Iowa, Washington, Maine, and Nevada do not count the popular vote, each state releases an estimate.
Doing things the Clintonian way disenfranchises a quarter million Democrats in Washington, two hundred thousand each in Nevada and Iowa, and 75,000 in Maine. Little wonder Clinton would lose Iowa and Washington and Obama would win them.
Average humans who vote don't give a rat's ass. They want their vote to count? Tell them to vote in the general election, it will count.
Well, hopefully.
And fine, seat half the Florida delegation, and find some nonsense formula to divide up the delegates. Let's get this silliness over with.
Bag,
I answered you here at 11:54 AM so your "And before you try" is a couple of hours late. I did say there to "read the fine print" at the exact page you quote here.
Apparently you didn't read it when you used it as an example here because you say it says that "each state releases an estimate" when it clearly says that "Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals" and goes on to say that "RealClearPolitics has estimated the popular vote totals for Senator Obama and Clinton in these four states." Get it? RealClearPolitics ESTIMATED the vote, not the states themselves.
And to repeat myself from my other comment: "No one is saying not to count the vote count there, except of course Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine because it is they who have chosen not to release any actual popular vote totals."
So your "following the rules" would be to base a popular vote total on the estimations of a blog.
Trust me when I say that I'm laughing really hard right now.
Hmmm...I wonder why those states don't release popular vote totals?
Oh, that's right. It's because the popular vote isn't how the nominee is selected. It's the delegate count that matters.
So, Maria, if Senator Clinton wants to change the rules, invent a time machine and go back to the time when the rules were made and have at it. Until you do that, stop with this popular vote crap!
Let's face it, all of the tortured logic in the world regarding Hillary's 'popular vote win' will not get her the nomination, most supers can see through this foolishness. The only purpose for pushing this argument is to sabotage Obama in the general by convincing her low information voters that the election was stolen from her because she had the most votes.
Following the rules! Now you're going down to D.C. to protest, make a seen, and fuel up the outrage. I'm sure John McCain will be sending you a thank you note. You're doing a lot to help him get elected. The nomination is over, Obama won.
And even if we accept that Michigan should be counted, 239,000 (40%) people in Michigan voted for "Uncommitted." Given where those votes came from, it's likely that 30% intended to vote for Obama and 10% intended to vote for Edwards. That gives Obama another 176,000 votes, which puts him ahead even if you exclude the caucus states. But no, we can't have that because this was Hillary Clinton's turn god damn it, and she was supposed to win. So we should count Michigan as a zero for Obama and that way Hillary can win like she was supposed to!
It is the height of being a hypocrite to claim that Michigan's voters should be enfranchised, but only those Michigan voters who voted for Hillary Clinton should count. It's bizarre logic of Clintonland. You can't have it both ways, as desperately as you might try.
Sorry, but there's simple no defense for the Hillary Clinton popular vote argument. What this is about, and you should know this, is creating a anger and resentment by making an argument that Clinton won the popular vote when she didn't. It's about Bill Clinton saying "It was stolen from Hillary" all summer. It's about getting the 50ish women committed to abortion so angry that they'll vote for McCain. It's about electing John McCain in November. It's really sad to see you, Maria, a good progressive aide in this cause. The Republicans thank you.
1) Show me where anyone said not to count the delegates in those four states.
2) Go ahead and give Obama all the uncommitted voters in MI. Show me where I've said he can't have them.
3) It's McCain who will thank you if the Democrats lose Florida because the voters there are pissed off.
Why are you all so eager to cut off you nose to spite your face?
When Hillary steals the nomination, can you ask her to make Joementum her VP? They'd be such a perfect fit.
"It's clear that the election they're having in Michigan won't count for anything," Hillary Clinton October 10, 2007. Talk to your candidate about that one.
So Maria, your support for counting the votes and delegates in Florida and Michigan has everything to do with voter enfranchisement and nothing to do with trying to change the rules to find a way for Hillary to win the nomination?
Trying to win Florida and/or Ohio is another recipe for defeat. I believe Obama will win. Here is my conservative prediction.
He'll win despite losing PA, OH, MI, and FL. It's not the 1990s anymore. There are different electoral realities.
And even if we accept your argument that voters in Michigan (where Obama leads Clinton in polls by the way) and Florida are upset and don't vote for Obama, fueling up the outrage with bullshit protests of a committee meeting doesn't help the cause. It merely furthers the cause of dividing the Democratic Party, which is the cause of Hillary Clinton. It's too bad her supporters don't see that reality. Have fun when your kid gets drafted to Iraq by McCain and when Roe is overturned. Don't say I didn't warn you!
Yes, trying to win big states is a recipe for defeat.
Do I cry or laugh now?
Maria, your sophistry knows no bounds when it comes to Hillary.
We've been banging our heads against the wall in Ohio for 8 years now and losing. Trying to win Ohio again will lead to the same result. Kerry didn't really try that hard in Nevada in 2004, and came within 2% of carrying the state. He was within 1% of carrying New Mexico and Iowa. And within 5% in Colorado. Those states have a combined 27 electoral votes. Had he put resources into those states instead of obsessed on Ohio, he would be President today (Ohio only has 20 electoral votes). Obama has built-in advantages in Missouri (11 electoral votes) and Iowa (7 electoral votes) he'll likely win there. Demographic shifts in Virginia will switch that state. Georgia is an interesting case, but Bob Barr's presence on the ballot and a relatively high floor for Obama in that state make it likely that he'll carry Georgia. Indiana is another tough state, but proximity to Illinois makes Obama a likely winner there (McCain is unpopular there as well due to his stance on Boeing).
Let's see:
PA--21
OH--20
MI--17
FL--27
_____________
85 electoral votes
GA-15
VA-13
MO-11
IN--11
CO-9
IA-7
NM-5
NV-5
______________
76 electoral votes
We can try the same old approach and not realize that political realities have changed over the last eight years, and lose again. Or we can try a new approach, build a new majority and win. The only state which is a stretch for Obama on my list is Montana, but I suspect that he may well ride the coattails of their popular Governor to a narrow win there. Obama has an undeniable strength in the Mountain West--an area that is the new battleground because of shifts in demographics and public opinion. Hillary Clinton has an undeniable weakness in those states.
I actually have serious doubts as to the impact in the general election. First, neither state registered record turn-out this year(MI's record is 1972, which had about a million more voters than this year). The point is that usually general election turnout is higher than primary turnout by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1. So, it's probably a better than even chance that the number of people who didn't vote in the primary but will vote in the general election as Democrats is much higher than those that voted in the primary.
That being said, no one voted in MI and FL without knowing that those states' presidential primaries would be little more than beauty contests. If they didn't know that, then they live in a cave. I think we forget that there were a lot of other issues and races that brought people out for those races.
I imagine that it's more true that you've talked to angry Clinton supporters but still, it's anecdotal evidence. In fact, current polling shows Obama to be holding his own in both states, with no evidence so far to suggest that there will be a backlash as a result of this issue.
Frankly, I doubt very much that most Democrats feel very strongly about these things. It's really just the most dedicated political junkies and activists who take much interest in this. Most people are busy just living their lives.
This one's a kicker for me - "they don't give a rat's ass about how or why." Well, maybe it would behoove the members of our party to understand the rules by which we organize ourselves; afterall, these are party elections, not official elections.
And I think the simply fact that we don't have official vote totals from all of the states only further undercuts any sort of popular vote victory that Hillary might be able to claim. How can you possibly make that assertion when we don't even have an official count of how many people voted?
It's also unfair to blame the Republicans for this. I've seen the video of the FL legislature and I know that it was a near unanimous vote, so Democrats went right along with it, despite the warnings of the party. They could have voted "no." And knowing what I do about MI, it's seems to be a habit of their Democratic leaders to do this because it was just in 2004 that then-DNC chair Terry McAuliffe warned Sen. Carl Levin that if they moved up their primary, he would have no choice but to strip the delegation of its credentials for the convention.
Will it be resolved? Yes. Will it be the full seating of the delegations as the Clinton camp is demanding? No.
I think it would better serve both campaigns if we ceased with the hyped-up rhetoric and stopped exploiting the ignorance of some Democratic voters with regards to how the party is organized and what the legal realities are in this matter.
Well you guys are all really smart and I'm a commoner, but everyone I talk with (A LOT of other commoners)are so disenchanted they claim to want to sit this out and let History reveal the consequences. This is the first year I have EVER heard regular voters express this sad decision.
Anon 3:37 - Are you kidding? There has been record turnout across the country for this election. How do you reconcile that with your idea that people want to sit this out??
maria, i think that we each see the other side as cutting off their nose, to spite their face.
to me it comes down to this, why push this issue when it won't change the outcome, and will only serve to further divide the two camps?
and this latest development from the NYT: "Democratic Party lawyers have determined that no more than half the delegates from Florida and Michigan can be seated at the party’s August convention, dealing a blow to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s efforts to seat the full delegations from those states."
I disagree with the commenter who said the Democrats need to win Florida this November. I do believe we need to win Michigan, however. I have Obama losing Ohio and Florida and still winning the general by 36 electoral votes.
I feel compelled to mention this again, because I didn't see Maria's answer to the following question by an earlier commenter:
"Maria, would you be traveling to Washington if the situation was reversed with Hillary in the lead and Obama having won Michigan and Florida?"
I always love these kinds of questions, because they force one to separate the wheat from the chaff. When you would gladly work on an issue in a way that would go against some kind of outcome that you want, then you know that that issue is really important.
When you are only taking up an issue because you are hoping to influence things and achieve that given outcome, then you know that you are merely contributing to spin and that the issue doesn't really matter to you.
If all you care about is seeing Hillary get the nomination, then at least be honest about that. Say, "damnit, it should be her, and I'll twist whatever logic I need to support my candidate". But don't then try to pretend that you are truly concerned about these poor disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida.
I honestly don't think that you really want to count every vote, or that you really want these delegations to reflect the will of the people. What you really want is to count every Hillary vote, and to ignore the will of the people who supported Obama.
Which is also fine with me, provide that you are honest about your desire to see Hillary get the nomination, apparently by any means necessary.
But if you don't see that this endless, "she can still win!" campaign is hurting the Democrat's chances in November, then I don't even know what to say here. Yes, many of us are -- at long last -- telling her to sit down and shut up, just as you would be saying to Sen. Obama if the situation were reversed.
Every stinking day that this pointless effort continues, we gain more and more entrenched idiots who steadfastly decide that they will not vote for Obama, simply because their candidate lost the primary. It's long past the time to throw in the towel on the Clinton nomination, and it's long past time to acknowledge that she lost this race fair and square.
She had every conceivable advantage going into this race, and she blew it. And that's not Sen. Obama's fault. He shouldn't be punished becuase of her failings. But if we keep pushing every last wedge out there in a futile effort to save her failed candidacy, we will divide ourselves and be counquered in November.
Look, Obama would have won Michigan had he been on the ballot and campaigned in that state. There is no way his campaign should concede more than half of those delegates to Clinton.
I'll give you that HRC would have still won Florida by a double digit margin if Obama campaigned there, so a proportional split, based on something a little better than the actual results, would be fair. But Maria - I'm not sure what that gets you. You cannot win. I am confident that the Obama campaign will offer a fair proposal on seating the FL and MI delegates but is that going to be enough for you "Hill-raisers" or are you just doing this (protesting in DC) because you're pissed that your candidate lost??
Were Sen. Clinton to concede the nomination, I would expect Sen. Obama to offer the gracious but unnecessary (and in some ways troublesome, because it would promote similar problems from scofflaw states in later years) concession of awarding credentials to Florida and Michigan Democrats. I also would expect Sen. Obama, and many other Democrats, to work overtime to arrange a dignified and desirable position for Sen. Clinton at the convention and beyond.
But Sen. Clinton seems hell-bent on pressing every advantage, real or perceived, sensible or misleading, real or ridiculous, positive or counterproductive, in pursuit of her longshot chance at the nomination. Her current positions are rooted in self-interest more than principle, and rely on the shallow understanding of most observers, in many respects.
Until she concedes, or at least stops relying on misleading, contorted and damaging arguments, I see little reason for Sen. Obama or the Democratic Party to surrender an inch to her. Had she conducted a competent campaign, or voted against invading the wrong country in the most important vote of her legislative career, she likely would be the nominee. She fell short on both counts, and that -- not any misconduct by Sen. Obama, nor any unfairness during the nomination process -- is how she has found herself in her current, unfavorable position.
If she were to concede, I would cut her all the slack in the world. If, instead, she continues to compete, she should expect Sen. Obama -- and the Democratic Party, whose rules govern the nomination process -- to stand their ground.
I'm all for primary candidates continuing symbolic campaigns to help grassroots movements maintain momentum. After all, I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I don't want him to stop campaigning until he gets to speak at the national convention. However, there's a distinct difference between a symbolic campaign and obstinacy. There's so way Hillary has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination, short of some catastrophic physical, psychological, or politic event ending Obama's campaign. If if such an event happened, she wouldn't have to be actively campaigning to take his place as nominee. What possible purpose could dragging this circus on serve? Don't give me any "count all the votes" bullshit. I think Hillary's own comments, as pointed out by other commenters, clearly reveal that argument to be one of convenience.
By picking the worst possible candidate, they're handing this election to the DNC on a silver platter. McInsane is a sacrificial candidate. Leave it to the DNC, though, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I guess I shouldn't be surprised given that the VP for a very popular president did so poorly against Tweedle Dee the Wonder Dummy that he lost (if you think the vote wasn't rigged) or didn't win by a big enough margin to compensate for vote tampering. That election was Gore's to lose, and this one is Obama's. Don't blow it again, Dems. I really don't want a third Bush term.
Oops: "By picking the worst possible candidate, the GOP is handing this election to the DNC on a silver platter."
Retired Millhunk-
Nice language Maria... nothing but class. Anyhow nice to see you are going to DC for the rally. How many anti- Iraq war rallies have you gone to DC to participate in? Oh I forgot Hilliary voted for the war ergo you would have no reason to go then. A good idea would be while you're in DC go to a recruiting office to show how much you really back your warmonger candidate. Lets go PENS.
Maria,
You write very good satire.
John K. says; A good thing a conservative did not use that type of language. You might be calling for separation of church and state seeing as how the language was used in a Presidential campaign. Operation Chaos Rules!
I feel compelled to mention this again, because I didn't see Maria's answer to the following question by an earlier commenter:
"Maria, would you be traveling to Washington if the situation was reversed with Hillary in the lead and Obama having won Michigan and Florida?"
I'm sorry, I forget that you and every other blogger responds to every comment on their blog. My bad.
The answer is that it's doubtful seeing that I'm taking off a day of work and will have to work Sunday instead BUT
"If all you care about is seeing Hillary get the nomination, then at least be honest about that. Say, "damnit, it should be her, and I'll twist whatever logic I need to support my candidate". But don't then try to pretend that you are truly concerned about these poor disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida.
I honestly don't think that you really want to count every vote, or that you really want these delegations to reflect the will of the people. What you really want is to count every Hillary vote, and to ignore the will of the people who supported Obama."
I do not want McCain to win in November and I do think the Dems will be kneecapping the Democratic candidate who I have already conceded that I believe will be Obama if they continue to piss off Florida voters anymore (I say Florida voters here because they are far more pissed off than Michigan voters). And I say this with knowledge that is far more than anecdotal because I and my coworkers have spoken to THOUSANDS of them over the course of the last nine months. Get it? That is not talking to someone's aunt in Boca, that is a de facto poll. A long-running tracking poll of super voters.
And, no I don't it is wise to blow them off. I think that it is monumentally STUPID.
I am able to hold more than one thought at a time however, sorry if that's confusing to anyone ("The Party's lost its damn mind if it decides to piss of FLA voters anymore and dammit after all the crap I've taken at this blog from the Blogger Boyz I need a shot of estrogen, and yeah, part of this is a Hillary last stand, but I don't want to work another fucking Sunday, but what the hell is wrong with these people claiming they want a 50 state strategy and then trying saying let's blow off a couple of states, shit, I should probably be paying more attention to the union vote at work on Friday than anything on Saturday, do they really think they can win this by actively trying to piss off as many Hillary supporters as possible, what's for lunch?...")
By the way, Sen. Clinton has been calling for counting the votes since before the Florida election.
Oh yeah, and answer me this and please be honest -- I do feel compelled for some reason to say that -- justify Obama's 1) refusal for a revote in these states and 2) his calling for a 50/50 split of Michigan AND Florida as anything other than a political move to benefit him?
Especially in light of many of you saying it's not fair to even give him all the uncommitted votes in MI even though his supporters made a last minute push for Obama voters to vote uncommitted after he chose to take his own name off the ballot and that his 50/50 "solution" would mean that he wants to claim the votes cast for Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel and some of Clinton's for himself.
NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL DEMOCRACY! Now who is it again that doesn't want to reflect the will of the people?
And trust me, voters -- especially in Florida -- are EXTREMELY PISSED.
Then they should vent their anger by voting out the State Legislators who passed the legislation to move the primary date.
Maria, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because Obama's being a douchebag with his 50/50 "compromise", doesn't mean Hillary should still be in "damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead" mode. Shifting blame to Obama, even when it's deserved, doesn't absolve Hillary.
"and dammit after all the crap I've taken at this blog from the Blogger Boyz"
Blogger Boyz? What the hell is that?
And if you're sick of "crap", maybe you should weigh the idea that one tends to get roughly the amount of respect that one gives to their readers out here.
one tends to get roughly the amount of respect that one gives to their readers out here.
Not so Bram. I've seen other Blogs that do. But this one is full of very mean Obama supporters and that's why I'll never support him. His supporters do not act with the dignity he tries to show. Hilary's people arn't even allowed to say anything about his wife, but you guys bring up Bill and Chelsey all the time. Hill lies, but Obama gets tired. If he leads with those kind of followers we're in for a very hard four years.
Bram,
You know that you have been civil so if you thought that that comment was directed at you, you are wrong.
However, I have been repeatedly told here that I have "lost my credibility; make up/manufacture facts; whine, whine whine; just want a female to be elected president; spout bullshit; reek of desperation; shame on me; should take a sabbatical; should let someone else blog in my place" and these are the NICER comments.
There have been far uglier comments like:
"You get out the lynchin' rope, Maria, I'll start the fire."
"She [Maria] could give a shit less about who dies in Iraq"
"(Its OK To Be A Racist If You’re a Women)"
And, after allowing all this, I've also been accused of deleting pro Obama comments because someone had a problem with blogger.
By the way, this doesn't include any of the CRAP sent to me in emails, just what's been said here.
F&B D,
"Then they should vent their anger by voting out the State Legislators who passed the legislation to move the primary date."
Yeah, and we should have had a President Gore and I should win Power Ball this Saturday.
The point in that they *are* pissed at the party.
John K. says: I love this. Oepration Chaos Rules! Look at this, 43 comments of Democrats bashing liberals and vice versa. The best part, starting in 1998, we told all you liberals what Hillary Clinton was like and you referred to us in insulting terms. Now you are lefties are echoing what conservatives have been telling you for a decade. WE WIN! LMAO
... but this [blog] is full of very mean Obama supporters and that's why I'll never support him. His supporters do not act with the dignity he tries to show
Somebody's got to put an end to this kind of nonsensical justification of not supporting a particular candidate.
Look, I'm willing to bet that were supporters of George W. Bush (and probably even Adolph Hitler) who were just the nicest people you could ever want to know. The kind of people who pulled together and dropped off casserole dishes to Aunt Susan every night for three full months after Uncle Richard died. The kind of people who canceled their vacations and took a neighboring family into their own home after a devastating fire or some other disaster.
But that wouldn't be enough of a reason to vote for George W. Bush (or Adolph Hitler).
By the same token, I'll bet that Al Gore, John Kerry, and even Jesus Christ had supporters who just about anyone would find morally repugnant and intellectually bankrupt. I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you could find child rapist murderers who were on death row who would proudly tell you that they endorsed Al Gore for president or Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
That's no reason to refuse to vote for Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry.
No candidate can exert total control over every last person who endorses them. It's hard enough for them to control their high-profile endorsers and big-money contributors. But somehow, you expect the Obama campaign to notice, disavow, and exert control over a few commenters who are posting disagreeable things on some tiny corner of the internet.
To put it another way, these nasty comments are being left by idiots and hard-core assholes. Are you really going to let the actions of a few idiots and hard-core assholes determine who should get your vote in November? Why give them that kind of power?
There are distasteful people whose judgment I have no trust in who have publicly endorsed all three candidates for president. By your logic, I should just stay home in November and refuse to vote for anyone. After all, how could I ever vote for anyone that Luke Ravenstahl supports? Or John Hagee? Or Jeremiah Wright?
This kind of thinking is not only stupid. It's not only counter-productive. It's also transparently dishonest. The only way that this sort of logic makes sense is if you've already decided that you won't vote for Obama, under any circumstances, for reasons that even you yourself know don't make a whole lot of sense and that you know you could never state in public. Your only choice, in these circumstances, is to wildly cast your eyes everywhere you can in search of some other justification to support your pre-determined decision, so that you can make it sound better to other people.
If that's the case, then you might want to cast your net again. Because the presence of disagreeable supporters is not a valid reason to reject a candidate. Every politician has disagreeable supporters. But I'm not willing to let these butt-nuggets influence my vote.
Maria,
For the record, I would like to apologize for my past comments that you "reek of desperation" and were a "whiner" just like Hillary. I don't mind your staunch support of Hillary but it seemed like your posts were becoming more anti-Obama than pro-Hillary, which I didn't care for. Still, that doesn't excuse the name calling. My bad.
Love Schultz
Apology accepted. :-)
Yes Maria, I can appreciate to whom you were referring, and thank you. Still, it seemed like you were making a broad stereotype of a nature that is sensitive in this election, and perhaps revealing. And I do maintain that although bouts of rudeness and trollism will always exist in blog comments, they can be greatly mitigated by taking a less sharp tones initially on one's own end. Even if it's less fun that way -- and I am FAR from the poster boy for always doing that.
Maybe Dayvoe is. Why not evaluate Obama based on him?
It's a cheap shot to contend that you're not going to vote for Obama because you don't like some of his supporters -- there has been nastiness on both sides. It's an election. It got heated. Support who you want.
Let's just follow the rules and be reasonable in interpreting them. :-)
"It's a cheap shot to contend that you're not going to vote for Obama because you don't like some of his supporters"
I once said some of his supporters were making it hard to be able to support him, but I didn't say that in this thread and I've never said I wasn't going to vote for him. That was someone else in this thread. Is that what you're responding to?
Yes, absolutely. I was responding in that portion to Anonymous of 12:12.
To whom, I should hasten to add: I do agree about Michelle Obama. Like Chelsea, if she's out there campaigning, she should be fair game.
An entire state doesn't get pissed off. Certain groups of people do. This isn't about Florida--Obama will cede Florida. He runs well in the west and in the high-tech south. He'll try to pick off CO, NM, NV, and VA, one of the Carolinas or Georgia--which is possible for him.
This protest isn't about the people of Michigan and Florida. If it was, why is a Pennsylvanian driving down there?
Unfortunately, Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, and Hillary Clinton injected a lot of bullshit into this campaign. Leaving with the perception that it "was stolen from Hillary" the goal of the bullshit "protest," will continue to anger a narrow segment of Hillary Clinton's backers. If Hillary Clinton can't get all her people aboard the Obama bus; if even ten percent of her supporters bail, hello President McCain. Obama has done all he can to be gracious. The Clintons used it to spread theories about a "cover up," "hard working Americans, white Americans" and how Obama is a illegitimate nominee. They are truly assholes.
PS--If the Clintons had fought this hard for Gore or Kerry, Bush wouldn't be President today. But the Clintons only fight hard for themselves.
Double PS--A person who lives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is such an authoritative source on what's going on in Florida. Hillary Clinton's backers in Florida may be pissed off (specifically the people on the call list the Clinton campaign gives Maria). But again, bringing them on the Obama bus is now the responsibility of Hillary Clinton herself, as painful as that may be for her. Obama has done everything he can to be fair. He accepted a deal which sat the Florida delegation in its entirety and split Michigan's Stalinist ballot 69-59. Hillary Clinton rejected that compromise and drug this on to the rules committee, ginning up anger (see Ferraro's worthless column in the Globe today) along the way. Obama can't do it himself. Leadership from Hillary Clinton is needed, which is something I suspect we won't get.
"Double PS--A person who lives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is such an authoritative source on what's going on in Florida."
It might be nice if you actually read what I wrote. I'll repeat.
Hands up everyone reading this whose job it's been for the last nine friggin months to talk to Democrats across the country on behalf of the DNC, DSCC & DCCC...OK, I see my hand up.
Why, Maria, you say, you must have spoken to literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Dems in Florida in that time.
Yes, you are correct in that assumption.
Hmmm, you might have a bit of insight then.
Yes, I do.
Well, Maria, certainly your coworkers who are Obama supporters don't want Florida counted.
Funny you should ask that.
I was just speaking to the guy sitting next to me this very evening who is an Obama supporter and he was saying THE SAME FRIGGIN THING I WAS cause he's also spoken to literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Dems in Florida in that time too.
I'm thinking if any of you out there had spent the last nine friggin months trying to convince Obama supporters* that they have to vote for Hillary if she wins and Hillary supporters* that they have to vote for Obama if he wins and telling people in Florida that they must not give up on the Democratic Party that you might feel a little differently too.
So, Bag, that does give me some "authority."
*Note: Not saying that ALL need to be convinced.
___________________________________
" He accepted a deal which sat the Florida delegation in its entirety and split Michigan's Stalinist ballot 69-59."
Source please, cause that's not what google brings up.
A so you're violating DNC rules by publicly supporting a candidate. So somebody that complains endlessly about the DNC's rules works for the DNC, and violates those rules. Precious! Of course, it's no different than the Clinton campaign--Harold Ickes wrote these rules--which whined about rules it's right-hand man wrote.
By the way you haven't been doing a very good job of raising money down there. You know why? Because there are millions of Americans don't want a cent to go to Hillary Clinton.
And yes, I'm a good political activist. Good political activists listen to people. I have a pretty good pulse on where the country is. They don't give a shit about bullshit process fights which are interesting to DNC staffers; they're upset that they're canceling summer vacations because gas is $4 a gallon. They're upset it costs $5 to get a gallon of milk. They're upset that their kid enlisted in the army,got shot, came back and wanted to go to college but had to drop out because he couldn't afford the tuition. They care about big issues.
I've listened, not talked at, to people and talk to people. I've talked to people in the following states: Iowa, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, North Dakota, Minnesota, South Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, and California. If Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee by overriding the vote, she'll lose Maryland and Delaware (see what happened to Kathleen Kennedy Townsend in 2002 for reference), won't have a chance in Virginia, and would be very weak in Iowa.
There are many, many people who are sick of the gutter tactics, and self-serving actions of Hillary Clinton. So no, you don't know more than I do. You're biased. And you're bizarre. That somebody who works for the DNC would engage in a bullshit protest against the DNC is priceless. If I was chair, I'd fire you/ Unfortunately, Howard Dean is a gigantic wimp, and the campaign you support has taken full advantage of it...
PS--The DNC's fund-raising and activist list are not valid samples. They're of committed party activists. This is a realigning election; some of them will be lost, just as McCain is going to lose some moderate Republicans and evangelical Christians opposed to the war (see Scott McClellan and the American Conservative, which has turned into a bastion of support for Obama). Obama is going to lose some wealthy women (Ferraro, Pappas,people on the DNC fund-raising list). It's the way realignments work. Ultimately, I think that there will be more Republicans bolting for the Democratic Party than Democrats bolting for the Republican party.
And a DNC staffer was associated with this comment by attending the protest:
"What Howard Dean is doing at the DNC is worse than slavery".
Yep, stay classy. If you see my name on the DNC's list--I've donated to them in the past--you can skip it and automatically put me down as "refuses to donate because of Hillary Clinton."
"A so you're violating DNC rules by publicly supporting a candidate. So somebody that complains endlessly about the DNC's rules works for the DNC, and violates those rules. Precious!"
WRONG.
I do not work for the DNC.
I'm violating no rules.
(Guess you never found that source to that false statement you put out here.)
Tell us, did you take your picture with Larry Sinclair? This is the reason I'm back on the attack. It'll probably end tomorrow. Then we can be friends again. But yes, DNC staffers must remain neutral. Well known party by-laws; in fact, County Chairs are supposed to be neutral in primary fights too. (Western PA continually flaunts this rule, which is part of the problem with Western PA). And pardon me for confusing "raising money for the DNC" and working for them. Actually, I'm still technically correct. Even if you work for a third-party vendor, you have a contract (or your employer does) with the DNC. But whatever.
Again, we can be friends when Bill shuts up. If it goes to the convention, people who stick with her are very, very, very foolish. It won't go to the Convention. Over tomorrow.
Though I should point out that unless it specifically says that employees must remain publicly neutral in the contract with the DNC, and unless your employment contract also states that, then you're not really violating any rules. It probably doesn't say that, as somebody could challenge that in court and cost the party a lot of money. Still, I want to know, did you meet Larry Sinclair at that circus?
Post a Comment