Hillary's campaign is in the red, and not paying its bills to vendors. And we're supposed to trust her to run the Federal government with its massive budget? What I don't understand about this situation is that HRC and her campaign don't seem to understand the political implications of a story like this leaking out. Wouldn't you think that if you're running for the highest office in the land that you'd be keen to demonstrate fiscal responsibility?
Here's the link-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html
Posted by louisiana louie at March 30, 2008 06:30 PMThis system of shutting out voters disgusts me beyond words. There always seems to be some ridiculous reason to do so.
I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't tune in more closely this past month on a friend's advice.
Posted by Amelinda at March 30, 2008 06:54 PMI hope the Clinton campaign uses this example to highlight the complete absurdity of the delegate allocation results process and why,...
Yep. She should fume and complain and continue her attempts to disenfranchise Texican voters. She should rail and bitch about the process. A process Jefferson and Franklin and Madison, et al, understood. Democracy. It is not a pretty process. You know, like 120,000 republi-cons voting for Shrillary in the Texican open primary. Or the Texican Democrat's caucus that showed slightly different results. But then again -as Hillary supporters like to point out, Obama is the cauc-master.
Posted by phidipides at March 30, 2008 06:55 PMPhidipides, when this race is over, you needn't drop dead, but you are definitely encouraged to drop out.
Posted by MarkL at March 30, 2008 06:58 PMHow is Hillary continuing to give the people a choice a campaign to destroy the Democratic Party? If the Democratic Party doesn't want Hillary in the race, no one will vote for her. It is the people who continue to vote for her who are destroying the Democratic Party, not Hillary. All they are saying is that they want a choice.
And Jefferson, Madison, et al did not put in place the current system which the Democratic Party uses to nominate its presidents. That process was put in place by the DNC over the past several decades.
Posted by shoelimpy™ at March 30, 2008 06:59 PMI like your site, but TLC is every bit as partisan for Hillary as DKOS is for Obama. And with all your squawking about the popular vote in Texas and Obama winning the delagate count, keep in mind that Obama leads in the popular vote overall by anyone's measure. And Caucasing requires an organized and energized campaign team and electorate, meaning Hillary just doesn't seem as organized as Obama. So you are saying that is a strike against Obama? Look, I like both candidates but Obama is the better campaigner. Period.
Posted by Ron at March 30, 2008 07:04 PMGive me a break, Ron, don't you dare pigeonhole us. I have never been a Hillary supporter, and Steve went neutral.
The Left Coaster is not an echo chamber populated by cheerleaders. Never has been, never will be. There are sincere voices here, yes, but that's all.
Have a nice night.
Posted by paradox at March 30, 2008 07:15 PMI think the Texas system just highlights part of the problem with how delegates are allocated. Personally, I have always thought caucuses were ABSURD. I thought that in high school when I first learned about them 15 yrs ago and my mind hasn't changed. I think the entire electoral college system is lame as well bc of the way certain counties and states receive delegates.
Honestly my preference would be for every state to have a primary. It always has been, it always will be. But we have the system we have. If our system were more fair and accurate, GWB would never have been president in 2000.
That being said, everyone knew Obama would get more delegates out of Texas. It's not really news, it just confirms what we already knew. But it still highlights flaws in the system. I don't care if its Obama, Clinton, McCain, or whoever, if you get the most votes, you should get the most delegates. But I don't think candidates should complain about it. If the people of those states really cared enought to change things, then lawmakers of those states will eventually make a change.
Posted by kacey at March 30, 2008 07:26 PMUm, the Supreme Court stepped in in Bush v Gore to stop the FL courts from counting certain "unreadable" ballots to see how FL actually voted---that's where the outrage lay, not in the fact that Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral college---he didn't win either vote, but the Supreme Court wouldn't allow that the be determined. Hence the outrage.
But Bush v Gore and its unprecedented "process" has nothing to do with the proper application of the delegate apportionment in Tex-ass via pre-existing rules. Yes, there is some analogy to an "electoral college" wherein the popular vote and the delegate count don't have to match up, but it's not the same situation as the outrage in Bush v. Gore.
Nice try though.
Posted by euzoius at March 30, 2008 07:28 PMHillary Clinton lost the Texas Primary delagate vote. She lost. Obama won. Eriposte can write all the BOLDed paragraphs he wants, but it won't change that fact. It may not be a sensible way to elect delegates, but it's the way it is done. Over, Done, Obama Won. Stop the whining, Eri.
Posted by T2 at March 30, 2008 07:29 PM"Give me a break, Ron, don't you dare pigeonhole us. I have never been a Hillary supporter, and Steve went neutral.
The Left Coaster is not an echo chamber populated by cheerleaders. Never has been, never will be. There are sincere voices here, yes, but that's all.
Have a nice night."
Hey Paradox,
Obviously I was speaking in generalities, not every DKOS poster is an Obama supporter. But by and large, TLC is a Hillary site like it or not. BTW, I enjoy your writing and that of other posters here, I'm just calling it like I see it.
Thanks
Agreed the hodge-podge system (sic) for selecting delegates around the US is a mess, but it was a mess long before the Texas primary.
State parties are largely autonomous entities. It seems as if eriposte would prefer this not to be the case. Maybe there's a legitimate case to be made for that alternative to the status quo, but as this post stands, that's not a case that eriposte is making. He's just criticizing.
As long as there are autonomous state parties--as long as there as states within a federal system--we'll be dealing with diverse ways of choosing convention delegates. I say "diverse"; eriposte says "absurd".
Hillary Clinton's campaign did a lousy job of preparing for state-to-state diversity. Barack Obama's campaign did a good job of preparing.
Posted by joeldanwalls at March 30, 2008 07:46 PMPhidipides, when this race is over, you needn't drop dead, but you are definitely encouraged to drop out.
Thanks for your support!
I intend neither to drop dead nor drop out. What I intend, instead, is to be a thorn in Obama's side until we get single payer healthcare and Iraq is just a bad memory and an end to the career of those who supported the AUMF. Lofty goals I assure you. At least they are goals.
I like your site, but TLC is every bit as partisan for Hillary as DKOS is for Obama.
Hang in there, Ron. Keep posting your opinions. This is a great place and not as Hillary oriented as you might assume. People here have gotten to know each other and so some formalities are dispensed with that would clue you in to our great respect for each other. I realize it's a bit like the Three Stooges poking and gouging each other, but these are passionate and wildly intelligent people. I would be quite surprised if it wasn't like this right now.
If you don't think you want to post here, I invite you back when the Dem nominee is pronounced. I predict you will see a marked change. Go read eriposte's "Uranium" series and "Treasongate". Now imagine that competence in research and analysis focused like a laser beam on McCain.
Posted by phidipides at March 30, 2008 07:57 PM"Phidipides, when this race is over, you needn't drop dead, but you are definitely encouraged to drop out." ... MarkL
You mean like the 60's? I think I have a lava lamp, a sitar, and some blue cheer around here somewhere.
The father of LSD, Dr. Albert Hoffman turned 102 Jan. 11th. Think Robert Byrd and McCain are on the stuff?
Posted by TIKI AL at March 30, 2008 08:29 PMI'm puzzled that more of Hillary's supporters haven't noticed just how bad her campaign has been managed. When you consider the incredible set of advantages she had going into this race, it's just amazing how often her team has been outsmarted by the Obama camp. Seems to me this reflects on her qualifications to be POTUS. If she can't manage a campaign competently, then why should the voters put their trust in her as President?
Posted by cosmo at March 30, 2008 09:07 PMeuzoius
did you read what i wrote or are you just perseverating on some point you're trying to make?
Posted by kacey at March 30, 2008 09:11 PMWonderful video!!!!
Thanks!
Posted by Radiowalla at March 30, 2008 09:11 PMIs there anything that will stop you from trying to change the rules in the middle of the game?
Posted by Mickeleh at March 30, 2008 09:15 PMObviously, the commentary accompanying the video was sarcastic and facetious -- at least, I hope so.
Posted by Donald from Hawaii at March 30, 2008 09:38 PMCosmo,
You said: "If she can't manage a campaign competently, then why should the voters put their trust in her as President?"
The Republicans have long been masters of managing campaigns fabulously (unlike Democrats) and they are the worst people when it comes to governing. Unless of course you think George Bush was a great President because he campaigned much better than John Kerry.
It's a pleasingly cute talking point, but one thing has little to do with the other.
Posted by eriposte at March 30, 2008 09:39 PMI thought you were serious with that statement. I always lurk here and when I saw that HIllary was destroying the party statement, I gulped. I didn't even watch the video until I saw it again on another site.
Wow. You scared me. :)
Posted by MaddieFL at March 30, 2008 09:41 PMJoeldanwalls,
You said: "Hillary Clinton's campaign did a lousy job of preparing for state-to-state diversity. Barack Obama's campaign did a good job of preparing."
I agree with this.
However, you also say: "State parties are largely autonomous entities. It seems as if eriposte would prefer this not to be the case. Maybe there's a legitimate case to be made for that alternative to the status quo, but as this post stands, that's not a case that eriposte is making. He's just criticizing."
Actually it would be better if you actually read my post. See the reference to something needing change before 2012? A reference that indicates that the status quo needs to be changed?
As for state to state "diversity", I remember that a party called the Democratic party has been fighting for decades to make sure voting rights are universal across states so that individual states don't distort the popular will or artificially suppress voting using a variety of different techniques that make it more difficult for certain parts of the population to vote. I can cite numerous states and the lawsuits that progressive groups have been filing against the states for a variety of reasons (FL, OH, GA, etc.). So, I've been pretty consistent in my view that the more voters who get to vote the better. If they vote for Obama that's absolutely fine too - but I want more voters to vote everywhere rather than less. And I want the popular vote to be the reflection of the people's will and I think the majority of Americans will likely agree with me.
Further, you can certainly criticize the Clinton campaign for not raising any objections to this process before the primaries began and that would be very justifiable criticism. I certainly was not aware of all these intricacies and absurdities in various states until I became aware of them during this campaign.
Posted by eriposte at March 30, 2008 09:51 PMLouisiana Louie,
You said: "Hillary's campaign is in the red, and not paying its bills to vendors. And we're supposed to trust her to run the Federal government with its massive budget? What I don't understand about this situation is that HRC and her campaign don't seem to understand the political implications of a story like this leaking out. Wouldn't you think that if you're running for the highest office in the land that you'd be keen to demonstrate fiscal responsibility?"
So is it your position that only candidates who can raise insane sums of money and never run up debts will be effective in managing the Government? Like say, Republicans (at least prior to the last 2-3 years)? Are you really sure you want to be on record with making these absurd comparisons?
I used to remember a time (not so long ago) when real progressives were constantly troubled by the Republican party's ability to raise insane sums of money, progressives who were troubled by candidates who had too much money because of how it distorts the election process (since they can just buy the election) by shutting out those who are much more capable and can run Government much more effectively and for the people. Should I assume that yet another long-held progressive principle is now out the window? So, now candidates who can't compete on $$$ are useless and cannot be trusted to run the Government? Some progressive titans of yesteryears must be turning in their graves today.
Posted by eriposte at March 30, 2008 09:58 PMparadox, Let's be fair, you may not have chosen a select candidate but you have never once wrote a pro-Obama piece. I will give you credit, you have been amazingly impartial.
In fact, I've been waiting for the first pro-Obama piece from TLC since... well, since that guy who was writing for Obama quit.
Even though Turkana says he's not for either Obama or Hillary, he has never defended Obama the way he has Hillary.
And we all know where eRiposte stands.
I will not criticize Steve...
Unfortunately, Cal Pol Junkie is the closest TLC has had as an Obama contributor. And it's only come in the comment thread.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 30, 2008 10:00 PMDonald,
"Obviously, the commentary accompanying the video was sarcastic and facetious -- at least, I hope so."
Yes it was :-)
Posted by eriposte at March 30, 2008 10:00 PMNo need for Hillary to be complaining. All the campaigns were aware of each and every state's delegate selection process. All these votes are not to elect the candidates, but to seat delegates. I rather like caucuses, it keeps those republicans from jumping the fence and voting in open primaries as Limbaugh instructed Dittoheads to do in Texas.
Political parties are private organizations and they, along with their state election board, figure all that process out. Hillary knew FL and MI violated the rules, but since back them she was the huge front runner, she didn't seem to mind. she can take it to the National convention, but the nominee usually is the one that controls the credential committee. Really this nonsense has to stop. Hillary is broke, behind in delegates, and is way behind in the popular votes. Time to realize that the Democrat party is changing. Obama doesn't need huge democratic contributions from lobbyist. He's raised millions and millions on a average donation of $104
Posted by Edinmissouri at March 30, 2008 10:31 PM((( "Give me a break, Ron, don't you dare pigeonhole us." )))
I agree with Ron. This site is not just pro-Hillary, it's rabidly anti-Obama. For years I visited here daily, but now I just check in every couple of weeks to see if you've grown up and stopped all the Obama hate. Despite your protestations to the contrary, you haven't. See you in a couple of weeks, maybe.
Posted by buddhistMonkey at March 30, 2008 11:08 PMMaybe if Obama's supporters would stop posting the spawn of Drudge crap from the Politico they would get a better reception, but individuals who post ridiculous MSM talking points that are meant to prop up Obama to then ream him in the GE don't really get much respect here. As soon as he actually wins the nomination, which I personally do not want to see happen, things will dramatically change. Or is the fool who keeps posting that article about campaign management and candidate capabilities a Republican troll? Like Bush ran his own campaign and that got him elected. Stockholm syndrome, people. Keep the debate about policy.
Posted by jeter at March 30, 2008 11:43 PMThere is a difference between debating a point and arguing. Steve is an extremely well respected guy who may occasionally post things that get challenged. He's pro-Democrat and often if not always provides original commentary. He doesn't suppress discourse, and neither do any of the posters here. I've seen TLC posts celebrated on anti-Hillary blogs as evidence that even the fair minded posters support Obama. Not the same thing but that well run Obama machine does run on oil company donations so a corporate mentality does seem to take over the mindsof ssome individuals. If that's why you think this is not a pro-Obama site, then you live up to the well earned reputation from other sites where posters are not perceived as pro-Obama but merely anti-Clinton. The problem in the Democratic Party is not the pro-Obama supporters who personally chose him as their candidate, it's the anti-Hillary crap the bitter rabid ones espouse. They have the choice of losing the GE by continuing their anti-Hillary hatefest, or start acting like adults. The point is that it may be too late. Rest assured though, I will lay the entire blame on Axelrod, Penn, Brazile, Pelosi, Jackson Jr, Geffen and others who think this is about doing whatever it takes to win along with the MSM and DKos and Huffington Post and Americablog. Funny how the last three are all former Republicans.
Posted by jeter at March 31, 2008 12:03 AMRon: I like your site, but TLC is every bit as partisan for Hillary as DKOS is for Obama.
Phidipides: Hang in there, Ron. Keep posting your opinions. This is a great place and not as Hillary oriented as you might assume. People here have gotten to know each other and so some formalities are dispensed with that would clue you in to our great respect for each other. I realize it's a bit like the Three Stooges poking and gouging each other, but these are passionate and wildly intelligent people. I would be quite surprised if it wasn't like this right now.
Thanks Phidipides. I'm actually very impressed with the quality of both posts and comments that I see on TLC and it is a blog that I visit regularly, though rarely post on. I just get concerned when I see McCain making nutty statements and getting away with them while Obama and Clinton (and their partisans) trade punches. The race and gender issues within the party especially concern me because that feels VERY personal. Leave that to the republican slime machine and let's stick to the policy differences between our two great candidates. I think eriposte has a terrific voice but the snark towards Obama is barely contained. Oh, I must admit that I plan to vote for Obama in Oregon's May primary but that it won't be an anti-Clinton vote.
Methinks you protest too much, paradox, and if the shoe fits, wear it. The Left Coaster IS The Clinton Coaster.
It doesn't matter that you, paradox, have never endorsed Clinton. It doesn't matter that Turkana's never formally endorsed Clinton. It doesn't matter that Steve's rescinded his endorsement of Clinton and has in fact defended Obama, although not as much as he did Clinton. It doesn't matter that the guy who was supposed to cover Obama never showed up.
What matters is that day after day, hour after hour, Steve allows his site to be used by the likes of eriposte here to spew his unbalanced hatred of Obama. I'm sorry, paradox, but eriposte linking to and quoting from multiple opinion pieces, writing little original material himself, and ending it with the equivalent of, "A-ha! And there's the evidence Obama sucks ass!" does not qualify as reasoned or balanced analysis by eriposte. It does qualify as propaganda or character assassination, though, and it most assuredly does reflect on Left Coaster as a whole. Interestingly, this is one of the few recent pieces by eriposte that don't fit that mold, although he did still manage to write nothing but "Obama sucks" throughout the piece. Maybe he ought to write more and quote less, seeing as he can write "Obama" sucks" by himself without just quoting other people's articles nearly whole.
Anyway, at any given time over the last three months or longer, eriposte has had the second largest or largest plurality of diaries on Left Coaster's home page, most of them chock full of bile and spittle toward Obama. And Eriposte certainly has had more diaries on the race than anyone else over the last three months. These posts by eriposte have been roughly equaled or surpassed in number by Turkana. While I would guess that a majority of Turkana's posts have not been about the primary election, the ones that have been about that always point out the flaws in Obama's candidacy and never fail to defend Hillary's candidacy, which hardly qualifies Turkana as a disinterested, neutral observer. In Turkana's posts on the race, whether Turkana wants to admit it or not, Hillary is always favored. Let's not forget, either, paradox, Turkana is the head blogger here when Steve's absent, according to Steve. So, Turkana's fawning over Clinton alone would qualify this blog as a pro-Hillary blog in this reader's judgment. You combine Turkana with the ravings of eriposte, and you've got one of the premiere pro-Hillary/anti-Obama blogs in the whole world.
If you want to blame somebody for this perception of The Left Coaster as The Clinton Coaster, paradox, look to your fellow bloggers as the reason, not us readers.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 31, 2008 03:21 AMWow, the pro-Clinton propaganda on this site is as obnoxious as ever. Why this blog is so determined to support a corrupt, heterosexist, fundamentalist Christian, white supremacist, Republican war criminal like Hillary Clinton is beyond me.
Posted by libhomo at March 31, 2008 03:46 AMheterosexist?
Posted by at March 31, 2008 04:33 AMobama supporters are a bunch of losers...kerry..dean..pelosi..an elitest group dedicated to keeping bill clinton out of the white..there is absolutely no rationale that i know of that makes me think that barack obama can defeat john mccain..he won't..to have won new york ..california..ohio..michigan and florida..texas..and soon to be pennsylvania..and not get the nod..makes no sense...she is not quitting..and i believe will still win it...reverend wright put the nail in obamas coffin..much as they will not admit it...she wins pa..big..it will be over for barack..they know it..thats why the big push to have her quit now..they see the scenario
Posted by dennis at March 31, 2008 04:40 AMWas Hillary Clinton unaware of the stupid way this primary works before she entered the race? Was she that unprepared? Oddly, it seems she got concerned about it after she started losing. I'm not saying there are not legitmate gripes, but bringing them up after the process is well underway seems more desperate than it does being concerned with the electoral process. Where was she when the party was writing the rules to the primary? Was the DLC locked out of the process?
Posted by jack fate at March 31, 2008 05:21 AMI AGREE with eriposte in that the Texas primary and caucus contest outcome has been known for a while, e.g. CNN 'certification' with relative percentages on 3/10/08.
To the Clinton campaign: So Obama won it by the rules and it's a "big state", right?
This is a good time for both candidates to talk specifically about important policy issues that will likely harden one of them for the fall campaign and better define the issues.
As far as Turkana being 'undeclared', I'm wondering if the oft-time quotes of "dimwitted Obama supporters", etc. offers of glimpse of the bias. Ron is right-on!
Posted by tfitznc at March 31, 2008 05:25 AM"...Of course, some of them are now fully in support of a similarly undemocratic system since it benefits Sen. Obama...."
probably the worst drivel you have written yet
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 31, 2008 07:57 AMWere Clinton supporters decrying how undemocratic caucuses are before the primaries began? They're generally favorable to establishment candidates. It's a profound embarrassment to Senator Clinton that she has done so poorly in them. While they stink for the voters, they are an excellent test of campaign organization which will be needed in the fall.
I don't think anyone has a right to complain about media coverage now saying Obama won Texas. By the only measure which really matters, he did. March 5th, Clinton had the media saying she had won Texas as needed to keep her campaign alive but she hadn't really won the state.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 31, 2008 10:00 AMHillary is working for 2012. She is destroying Obama and getting McCain elected. She feels she can beat McCain in 2012.
Posted by Steve at March 31, 2008 10:43 AMyou obama people are really and honestly..very goofy..you don't get it...he is not electable
Posted by dennis at March 31, 2008 10:56 AMIt works like this: you lose the football game, and then you say that the score isn't important, it's how many yards your team gained. And when that doesn't work, it's how points in the first quarter shouldn't count as much as those in the fourth. And when that doesn't work, it's if you take the number of touchdowns and divide by the number of field goals and multiply by the number of hot dogs sold in section 17 over the serial number on the Gatorade cooler, the odds of winning increase proportional to...ad infinitum.
Now...since I haven't mentioned it before, what campaign did YOU think I was describing?
Posted by balthus at March 31, 2008 11:12 AMah, so the new Hillary meme is that she is winning the popular vote?
ROFL.
Posted by getaclue at March 31, 2008 11:52 AMHillary is working for 2012. She is destroying Obama and getting McCain elected. She feels she can beat McCain in 2012.
This is why people make fun of many Obama supporters bc that sounds like something a republican would say. It's also ironic that this idea is being pushed by sites founded by former republicans some of whom spent the entire 90s blasting the Clintons and demanding Bill Clinton's impeachment. It's also worth noting that these sites are the biggest supporters of Barack Obama.
The idea that Obama supporters ACTUALLY BELIEVE that the Clintons are racist, prefer McCain, and are trying to destroy the democratic party, shows how bamboozled and hoodwinked they've been.
2004 I realize was A LONG TIME AGO, but I remember the last Democratic president(Clinton)stumping HARD for a Democratic presidential nominee (Kerry) even though said nominee had dissed the former president throughout his campaign and publicly stated that he didn't need the former president to win. Still, the former president did more than his doctors suggested (remember he was still recovering from bipass surgery)and stumped for this guy ANYWAY when he was asked to in the final stretches of the campaign.
Although if you're an Obama supporter who believes that this man is trying to destroy the party, I guess you'd believe that Clinton was really trying to sabotage Kerry so that his wife could run in 2008, and was totally insincere in his efforts to get Kerry elected. Because those are the thoughts of a "real democrat."
Posted by kacey at March 31, 2008 01:43 PMI hear NEWSMAX is hiring - you'd fit right in .
Please , go pee into the GOP tent and noton friends
Posted by Greg at March 31, 2008 07:25 PMI hear NEWSMAX is hiring - you'd fit right in .
Please , go pee into the GOP tent and not on friends
Posted by Greg at March 31, 2008 07:26 PMWe don't want any of you peeing in our tents, you just got to clean up your own mess. Democrats made it.
Posted by peter at March 31, 2008 08:31 PM"Hillary is working for 2012. She is destroying Obama and getting McCain elected. She feels she can beat McCain in 2012."
Well, the proof in the pudding will be what she does during the general campaign. If she legitimately supports Obama and works hard to get her voters to back the Dem nominee, then all will be forgiven. I think that will happen. I know it's hard to envision right now, but most of the current rancor will be forgotten and the Party will be unified in November.
Posted by at April 1, 2008 03:56 AM