eriposte:
Please hold onto your seat. We both know that there is an underlying pro-clinton slant but this is a really good article. It points the ominous problem that is awaiting us depending how the delegate count works out. We must bear in mind that both Clinton and Obama are politicians and will favor the rules that allow them to receive the nomination. I am not going to say that I am going to abandon the party if things don't go the way I think they should go. I like Donna Brazile; but I think that her comments were a bit shall we say “un-thought-out.” Where would she go? The Republican Party?
I just think that we all should take a step back and see how things play out with super delegates as well as the mystery of what we do about FL and MI. Again Eriposte this is a good article.
Hey Donna, don't let the door hit you in the behind.
And on the vile business of defining how people should think.
What's the difference between Tom & Barry?
Thats easy, Tom's not running for president.
Posted by Joe at February 11, 2008 07:01 AMWhat is complex about people being attracted to someone they think shares their values and can do the job of president? I frankly I don't need inspiration, I find it in poets, music, literature and basically not politicians.
What is complex about someone we recognize is a politician and not the anointed one?
Caucuses are comfortable for opinionated younger people. They are not for older men and women and people who feel insecure about discussing their politics.
I imagine an Obama win. If during the election they treated all opposition with such hatred and venom, if he wins, what will they do to us who are critical? I think they are a bunch of political bullies posing as enlightened hopeful ones. At this point I want Obama to lose because his campaign and his followers truly scare me.
Posted by stellaa at February 11, 2008 07:45 AMIronically, Hillary's recently-demonstrated ability to tap (or, more accurately, benefit from) a pool of small donors is one of the reasons that I don't like her.
For months, if not years, the Clintons and Terry McAulliffe have ignored small donors, preferring to solicit contributions from big whales (Go Hillraisers!) Had Hillary bothered to do what Obama does, what Edwards was doing, and what Howard Dean did -- make people feel like they are participating in both the campaign and a movement to improve America through small donations -- this race wouldn't be close.
Only now, at the eleventh hour, when most of Hillary's major donors are maxed out, and when Hillary's supporters feel desperate, is their any serious attempt to get a grassroots fundraising campaign to rival Obama's off the ground. And even now, I am less convinced that Team Hillary is doing anything right than that her supporters are trying, on their own initiative, to save her ass.
There is an undercurrent of contempt for grassroots politics that follows the Clintons.
Posted by space at February 11, 2008 07:47 AMWhat information do you have that they did not want small donors? And why should that bother you? Do you think that Obama has not had big donors?
The small Obama donor has been manipulated artfully. They think they own him, whereas take a look at where and how he gets his money. Rezko is his bread and butter. This is a machine that will respond to the large donors and whittle away at the democratic agenda while the loyal followers bathe themselves in the language of inspiration.
http://www.caclean.org/problem/latimes_2007-04-22.php
Posted by stellaa at February 11, 2008 07:53 AMWhat information do you have that they did not want small donors?
First, lets stipulate that all campaigns want money. The more, the better. So, it isn't a matter of not wanting small donors. Its a matter of focus.
I'm not sure what "information" I could provide you to convince you of my thesis. I think it is pretty obvious that Obama's campaign has been more about getting people to join a movement -- and to literally "buy into" the movement with small donations. And I think it is obvious that Hillary hasn't. Her strategy was to create a massive warchest, create an air of "invincibility" and let momentum drive the GOTV.
Posted by space at February 11, 2008 08:15 AMI'm not sure what "information" I could provide you to convince you of my thesis. I think it is pretty obvious that Obama's campaign has been more about getting people to join a movement -- and to literally "buy into" the movement with small donations
The implication is that for all those years the Democratic base has not done that. That is just pure fabrication. Thousands of people have given their 10 25 and 50 contributions to the party. Is just that they don't announce it on the internet and they have been doing it for generations.
This is not a "movement" this is idolatry. He has not taught people how to sustain and join the party, he has told them they are better and should bust up the party, for his sake, not for what we share as common issues. In 1972, the last time the kids took over the party, I was one of them, we basically shat on the base then they became the Reagan democrats. Obama in my mind would have been brilliant if he could have brought in the new people without taking a dump on everyone else. This to me looks like just a way for him to win.
I find Hillary more dedicated to the Democratic Party winning.
Posted by stellaa at February 11, 2008 09:06 AM"voters' complex psychological relationships to Hillary makes her extremely difficult to run against"
More bullshit from the punditocracy. Let's look at that statement for a moment. Who is it that has been twisting the truth about Hillary for so many years? (hint: the GOP bought punditocracy) Who is it that pretty much owns the media? (hint: the GOP) Who are some of the key figures behind the trashing of the Clintons that have been working on sabotaging them with propaganda? (hint: Frank Luntz, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, etc)
Now who is it that has a complex psychological relationship to Hillary? Who has made the time and energy to do that? Looks to me like its the media, the GOP driven punditocracy, and the Republican operatives that are the ones who are twisted about her.
And in typical fashion they project their psychological shit onto "the voters." So anyone who actually thinks Hillary has good credentuials and skills for the job she's seeking, and anyone who admires a atrong woman trying to make her way in the world are simply being sensible.
That's one thing I pretty much uniformly have noticed about Hillary suppporters... their sensible, and practical and not into guru-izing their candidate. They know she's a real woman with strengths and flaws like any of us.
I try hard to live in the real world, not the world of "smoke and mirrors" as created by media spin.
Posted by dragoneyes at February 11, 2008 05:01 PMStellaa,
Obama's supporters scare you?! Gimme a friggin' break.
I mean if a democrat takes the White House and signs all sorts of legislation to fund SCHIP, fund Stem-Cell research, withdraw forces from Iraq, raise the minimum wage, provide more grants for college, make sure the rich pay taxes, etc. and it isn't HIllary then all hell will break lose!
Posted by midwestdem at February 11, 2008 08:10 PM