It seems that the Clinton campaign may be able to force the Florida/Michigan delegations to be seated without Chrm. Dean's involvement via the credentials committee.
More dishonesty from Barry Obama's earlier political life...The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.
Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.
They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize(d) his position.”
But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago non-profit group that issued it. And it found that Obama – the day after sitting for the interview – filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes adding to one answer. h/t Politico.com
Posted by peter at March 31, 2008 08:22 AMThey should ask a group of male chauvenist super delegate pigs if THEY want to be the deciding vote in keeping a shrill PMS beeotch out of the ovary office.
The collective affirmative would register on the Richter.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 31, 2008 08:32 AM"P.S. Yes, yes, Sen. Clinton has not run a perfect campaign and this post does not excuse her or her campaign for anything offensive."
This would actually be meaningful if the vast majority of posts here weren't all about how "OMG Obama is the worst Democrat EVAH". Not that your coverage (or anyone else's) is supposed to be balanced, but it's hard to concede to you when you're right or make persuasive arguments when you often neglect to examine the actions of the Clinton campaign through the same harsh prism you apply to Obama.
Posted by Mike P at March 31, 2008 08:54 AMActually, TIKI AL, I've been accused, on this very blog, of (among other things) opposing Hillary because I am sexist. I have never seen eriposte, Turkana, Jeff or Steve make any attempt to criticize such comments.
Moreover, it is an article of faith on TLC that criticizing Hillary Clinton is, per se, proof of "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" or "Hillary Hatred". That these terms are cheap knockoffs of the labels "Bush Derangement Syndrome" (coined by grand neocon and arm- (wheel-)chair psychotherapist Charles Krauthammer) and "Bush Hatred" does not give the crew at TLC any pause. Reading TLC bloggers ape GOP talking points is like hearing nails on a chalkboard. I half expect them to next tell me to "just get over it".
I have no great love for Barack Obama. I have said that MANY times at TLC. But the truth is that when this campaign started, Team Hillary couldn't care less about the democratic process. They racked up a massive war chest and helped to orchestrate a primary/caucus system that was front-loaded and designed to favor a massively funded political insider (i.e. Hillary). This massive front-loading forced John Edwards to opt for matching funds, creating a perception of weakness and crippling his campaign.
Team Hillary never complained about the caucus system before Obama began to dominate the caucuses. (Nor did they defend Howard Dean in '04 when he made complaints about the Iowa caucus that Team Hillary is now making.) That is in large part because they controlled the party apparatus; they never expected a relatively green politician who was relying on new voters and independents to dominate a caucus system that is designed to reward older, more experienced democratic players.
But Obama has out-marketed, out-hustled, out-organized, and out-fund-raised Hillary. Has he thrown elbows? Yes. Has he always taken the high road? No. Instead, he has played by the Clinton rules and has won.
Nearly all of eriposte's posts attack Obama for "hypocrisy", not for violating any principle. That is because anything negative that Obama may have done has been done in spades by both Bill and Hillary over the past 3 decades. Unfortunately, "Yes, but he's as dirty as we are. The media just goes easier on him." is not a compelling argument.
Posted by space at March 31, 2008 09:15 AMAnd when I stuck up for Hillary on KOS I was attacked like a KKK member.
I just think it's about time a woman crashed thru the 75 cents on the male chauvenist dollar glass ceiling.
Yes the first black would be nice also, too bad someone has to lose. Leave it to the dems to run both simultaneously and lock out Fla and Michigan for a bonus.
I hear republicans laughing from coast to coast.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 31, 2008 10:03 AMThe truly sad part of all these elbows and playing of hardball and all the dirty rest engaged in by both teams is not that the campaigning has provided ammunition for the right wing in November - the right is never short of ammo. Rather, it's that so many "progressives" have taken to mouthing right-wing talking points when it comes to the Democratic candidate they dislike. And, of course, that this has weakened our chances of winning the presidency in 2008, with who knows what effect on down-ticket races.
Posted by Meteor Bladest at March 31, 2008 10:06 AM...they are part of the reason why the woeful Democratic party hasn't tilted even farther right in the past several years
The Clinton's share great responsibility for this movement to the right.
(I suppose my expectations about the so-called "netroots" have fallen rather steeply in the last few months)
It's always a bitch to discover people don't agree with you.
I will try to come back to the topic of pro-Clinton bloggers and their experience during this campaign in a future post...
Be sure to include the statement "Obama supporters should just STFU on the blogs."
“If white people were being harassed and threatened because they were not supporting a white candidate, we’d see headlines,”
I seem to notice that this statement comes below the headline. BTW: Does the Hispanic experience count? You know, the Judas Richardson?
Posted by phidipides at March 31, 2008 10:10 AMIt is now clearly that African Americans supporting Obama want to make the campaign about race. On that score they might win the primary but lose the general election. Too bad for the Democratic Party.
Posted by Prabhata at March 31, 2008 10:40 AM"It is now clearly that African Americans supporting Obama want to make the campaign about race."
Au contraire. It has been clear for sometime that the Clintons wanted to make Obama into the black candidate and run to his right (notwithstanding the insistance of TLC bloggers that she has the superior progressive record). Bill Clinton's South Carolina comments were almost certainly intended to provoke the defense of Obama by the black community. Bonus points if Al Sharpton ran to get Obama's back.
Posted by space at March 31, 2008 10:53 AMActually the blogs are coming off as out of touch as the rest of the political establishment. It is about real issues not individuals. Y'all sure shut Steve Soto up real fast a week or so ago when he had a comment on Hillery. Too bad both you and KOS haven't gone for some kind of balance of positions and real debate. It feels like you are both just positioning for you candidate - no different than the inside beltway bs.
Posted by allansfca at March 31, 2008 11:09 AMCNN now has Obama up 10 nationwide. And on another channel, Clintoniac Wolfson was busy putting words in Obama's mouth while Obama's actual statement was being scrolled at the bottom of the screen. Pretty painfull. The tone with Clinton's "at all costs" campaign now is that the more shrill she gets, the more desperate she appears. Maybe she should take a vacation like Obama did.
Posted by T2 at March 31, 2008 11:10 AMSenator Clinton and her surrogates set the "strong-arm" tone for this campaign. They have harassed superdelegates, pledged delegates, and even their own friends. Clintons web site will not even allow posts that are not "hurrah, Hillary" posts. I really get disgusted with the Clinton whining about being the victim, when she has been the most aggressive Democratic candidate in recent memory. It is this very double standard that made me turn away from supporting her in the first place.
Posted by John in NC at March 31, 2008 11:15 AMI wonder if the RudePundit would Fuck Barack Obama? He's never come out with a spoken word explaining all the ways he wouldn't. Or is that sort of sick, disgusting, shtick reserved only for women?
Posted by shoelimpy™ at March 31, 2008 11:24 AMHow Dare you compare Dear Hoper to Dear Leader?
I mean, despite the frenzied support by thugs, the dirty tricks pulled on primary candidates, the hypocritical calls for Uniting America while intentionally dividing it along racial and cultural lines, the almost complete lack of experience for such a job, and several other factors that don't bear mentioning, HOW CAN YOU MAKE SUCH AN UGLY COMPARISON?
Truly you are not hoping for your Pony.
Posted by blogtopus at March 31, 2008 11:53 AMThe problem with Obama's win-at-all-costs campaign--with its disenfranchisement of 2.3 million voters--and bloggers like Josh Marshall who are fully mired in Clinton Derangement Syndrome, is that voters like me aren't going to support them in November. But obviously it is more important to have Obama win the nomination than anything else now. Keeping HRC from the nomination is their pathological obsession.
The "uniter" has destroyed the party. The Republicans are laughing their asses off.
Posted by hal b. at March 31, 2008 01:09 PMWin at all costs????? Obama went on a vacation last week. That's how worried he is. hal, if you wanna vote GOP then go ahead a do it. I hope you don't have any army age kids.
Posted by Tt2 at March 31, 2008 01:16 PMAh T2, two and a half days are a 'vacation'? More like a weekend. Maybe you aught to see the latest Rasmussen polls on the red/blue divide. One by one blue states are being turned into toss ups or better for me...leans Republican.
Your 'uniter' has become just as much a 'uniter' as mine has been. And I loved this one from Schumer...how can he claim to be a good negotiator with the likes of Chavez if he can't negotiate with a member of his own party. (as said on CNN, pardon me Rev. Moss III, RNN in the 4PM hour eastern.
Posted by peter at March 31, 2008 01:33 PMWell, this cuts two ways. A couple of weeks ago I went to a progressive feminist blog (which shall remain nameless) that has become exclusively pro-Hillary since the campaign started. They've been conducting a poll the purpose of which seems to be to encourage Hillary supporters to vow to vote for McCain if Obama is nominated. I posted a comment that I thought this behavior was self-defeating for feminists because of what McCain would do if he were elected. I was accused of trying to manipulate them through fear.
If you study the history of any social system that goes into polarization you see that it reaches a point where the people on the two sides cease to listen to reason and become more caught up in the process than in what is good for the whole. There comes a point where the situation becomes irretrievable. That may well be what's happening here. It may be time to step outside the system that's been created and consider things.
Posted by Delia at March 31, 2008 01:51 PMPeople areso dug in now for their candidate that the issues of this scary economy and the war and healthcare have been lost to us. We're gonna be stuck with the damage that Bush has done and will get worse. I wonder how many of these commenters have any idea about the specific ideas/plans of the opposing candidate. I bet they know hardly anything at all. Some of the foul language is pathetic. And then we have each other's "blog communities" blocking commenters because of their views or attacking with childish cuss words. Read about the issues.
Posted by glennmcgahee at March 31, 2008 03:24 PMI will say this.
(NEWS! Please see lower down in this text, Turkana, Eriposte!)
The Obama-anians are desperately trying to obfuscate the facts that:
a) Obama can't win the nomination for the Democratic Standard Bearer Outright. Not even with Superdelegate pledges.
b) Obama has yet to win a big state, wherein resides the vast majority of the electoral college votes necessary to officially take the Presidency in the Autumn (Yet Hillary Clinton has, and will continue to do so).
And it will all become moot, as the Obama-anians "Death Wish" to ape the phrasings of George Orwell's 1984. Just because you keep saying Hillary is a "Loser," and you keep on saying it, doesn't make it so.
You're not going to convince me.
And as a matter of fact, there have been alot of reports here in PA that there has been a very noticeable movement of people either registering for the first time, or actually switching party affiliations to vote in the Democratic primary here in April.
Because, unlike the desperate Obama-anians who want to coronate a King, the fact is that voting matters. And not one whit what the Blogosphere actually says.
I am voting for Hillary. So all of the Obama-anians yammering isn't going to sway me.
But...This may all go by the wayside anyway.
AL GORE MAY YET BE NOMINATED!!!!
Check this out from the UK Telegraph.
I'd vote for Al Gore, right now.
Read on...
An excerpt:
"....
Plans for Al Gore to take the Democratic presidential nomination as the saviour of a bitterly divided party are being actively discussed by senior figures and aides to the former vice-president.
The bloody civil war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has left many Democrats convinced that neither can deliver a knockout blow to the other and that both have been so damaged that they risk losing November's election to the Republican nominee, John McCain.
......
If neither Mr Obama nor Mrs Clinton has the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination, and if both appear unable to beat Mr McCain, under one scenario a group of about 100 party elders - the "super-delegates" - could sit out the first ballot in Denver, preventing either candidate winning outright, and then offer Mr Gore the nomination for the good of the party.
Tim Mahoney, a Democrat congressman from Florida, said last week: "If it goes into the convention, don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket." This suggests the party would accept a Gore-Clinton or a Gore-Obama pairing.
..."
I hope that the Democrats will keep these things interesting.
Posted by Troubled American at March 31, 2008 04:10 PMSorry, I thought that the URL link was successfully cut and pasted.
Here is the UK Telegraph news story about Al Gore.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/30/wuspols130.xml
Posted by Troubled American at March 31, 2008 04:15 PM
"It is now clearly that African Americans supporting Obama want to make the campaign about race."
Au contraire. It has been clear for sometime that the Clintons wanted to make Obama into the black candidate and run to his right (notwithstanding the insistance of TLC bloggers that she has the superior progressive record). Bill Clinton's South Carolina comments were almost certainly intended to provoke the defense of Obama by the black community. Bonus points if Al Sharpton ran to get Obama's back.
I'm going to make a point that people just don't seem to get. Clinton can't MAKE Obama the Black candidate. HE IS THE BLACK CANDIDATE. Just like Obama can't make Clinton the Woman candidate. Every day like MILLIONS OF BLACK AMERICANS (or in his case bicultural) he gets up, looks in the mirror, sees his brown skin and knows who he is. If people don't know BY NOW what Barack Obama looks like, then they don't need to vote or be involved in this process AT ALL.
As for Bill Clinton's comments, they were FACTUALLY ACCURATE. The break down of Obama's win was virtually identical to that of Jesse Jackson and different from Bill Clinton's and John Edwards' win. Jesse Jackson HIMSELF said the same thing, and IN FACT said that he didn't find Bill Clinton's remarks to be racist or offensive. So if Jesse Jackson isn't offended, why are you? Could it be bc you were TOLD that they were supposed to be offensive without KNOWING the FULL CONTEXT of the statement?
Oh and btw, I'm a black woman so I'm an ACTUAL MEMBER of the black community. I didn't feel the need AT ALL to come to Obama's defense bc I understand the media and the blogosphere's "art of parsing and omission." In fact, when newspapers here in NYC interviewed people in Harlem and elsewhere, they were consistently SHOCKED that Black people of all ages, regardless of who they were supporting weren't offended when they heard the remarks in context (since lets not forget he praised Obama and his campaign), and they continued to speak highly of Bill Clinton. In fact, in Harlem, HRC WON the Black vote. Knowledge continues to be a powerful thing.
Posted by kacey at March 31, 2008 04:16 PMDelighted to hear that Boehlert is going to write a book about how bloggers are influencing the 2008 primary.
As a Clinton supporter and very longtime poster at DKos, I reached the point where I had to leave in order to preserve some shred of self-respect. Clinton supporters are simply not tolerated on many of the principal liberal blogs. That is certainly a story worth telling.
Hey I thought I would take this opportunity to introduce Hillary's racist campaign manager, responsible for Hilary's racist campaign. Go read about her and see her picture at the Washington Post, "Meet Maggie Williams": http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/11/2008-02-11_meet_maggie_williams_hillary_clintons_ne.html
Go read it before commenting, you might miss my point.
Posted by Dave Johnson at March 31, 2008 09:37 PMTt2, that "vacation" was timed with Easter weekend. The Obama people wanted him out of the country to get him out of his Easter service mass.
Posted by tiffany at April 1, 2008 05:58 AM