The Dems should be careful of Operation Board Game.
It's coming and it's a handful.
eriposte:
The current argument from Clinton camp is that the number 2025 delegate count should be increased to include Florida and Michigan. This is classic moving the goal post senario. The reason being Obama is getting close to 2025 number.
If such moves would not split Democrats at the advantage to Republicans then what will?
It is time for Hillary to support the party not herself.
Posted by suresh at May 14, 2008 07:39 AMThank you, eriposte!
Every time I read one of Steve Soto's posts, I am reminded why Democrats fail to win the White House.
To paraphrase James Carville, if Hillary gave Steve on of hers, Steve will still come up two short.
Posted by JoeCHI at May 14, 2008 07:54 AMTo paraphrase James Carville...
The man who calls people Judas close to Easter?
Or was it the same Carville who said, “I’m for Senator Clinton, but I think the great likelihood is that Obama will be the nominee... As soon as I determine when that is, I’ll send him a check.”.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 14, 2008 08:09 AMIt's unAmerican to call for the close-second in a race to quit. Like eriposte, I was p'o'd when Gore quit and ohmigod Kerry caved; now so-called 'progressives' call for HRC to quit? I hope she stays till there's no differing of opinion in 'teh math'!
Posted by Sharon at May 14, 2008 08:23 AMHi eriposte. I am new here - I am not the Judith who has been here a long time.
I agree - Clinton should count every single vote and give the media the salute. Just like Gore should have done.
Whether or not you are for Clinton, you Should be for the Domcratic Party having a backbone.
Thanks for your post.
Posted by the young Judith at May 14, 2008 08:24 AM"given his defeats in OH, TX, PA, IN and WV" Good to have Eriposte back, printing misleading or false statements favoring Clinton. The Texas primary was a win for Obama in the delegates awarded. I'll concede he lost the popular vote narrowly thanks to GOP vote for Clinton. But the reason Texas held a primary and caucus was to award delegates to the national convention. Obama won the majority of those delegates. Eriposte, will you please print a correction?
Posted by T2 at May 14, 2008 08:28 AMwhoohoooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!
boy is it good to have you back, eriposte. i was starting to get worried that you were in the trunk of some obamabot's car.
so glad to have you on the right side, fighting the good fight. :D
Posted by kangeroo at May 14, 2008 08:31 AMHillary - please keep fighting!
She is fortifying the party by keeping the fight on - not looking good to the "party elders" who always cave in & whine and expect her to do so.
Besides, the party elders threw me out because I'm not part of the "new coalition."
So fine, we of the "old coalition" will just keep on voting for Hillary & WV proved it.
Posted by SM at May 14, 2008 08:37 AMExcellent point about Hillary supporters and the media. They're not listening to a word they say.
Right now, I'm watching MSNBC's geniuses who are at it again, with a headline of "Why Hillary Won't Give Up" and with Norah O'Donnell talking about how it's "virtually impossible" and laughing. (Note: after listening to Norah laugh for the last few months I can't help but wonder how she could bring herself to mock Hillary's "cackle".) This morning on "Morning Joe" Mika was really off her game, clearly upset that anyone on her show was talking about the significance of the WV win. She even had Tucker and Barnicle, but they weren't very helpful. You could see the angst in Mika as increasingly, things weren't going her way, or she wasn't getting her way. I've been embarrassed for Mika these last few months.
Anyway, the thing about Hillary supporters is that they're used to the media bashing both Clintons and it has little (if any) negative effect on their support, in fact it might make it stronger, the more they are dismissed and insulted. While her supporters may, on the whole, be less educated, they seem to have a lot more common sense and good judgement. Sadly, the same can't be said about many of the superdelegates and beltway bubble crowd. But we'll see.
Let's watch the media as they become more and more frustrated at not being able to manipulate the way they want to.
Posted by joanne leon at May 14, 2008 08:37 AMWell said, young Judith.
Kangeroo,
ROTFL! BTW, nice to see you over at Talk Left. :-)
Posted by Blue Jean at May 14, 2008 08:57 AMI'll second Kangeroo's whoho. Nice to see you again Eriposte.
Posted by peter at May 14, 2008 09:01 AMI don't think Senator Clinton should drop out until after everyone's voted, but she is not going to win the nomination. The superdelegates aren't buying her argument that she'd do better against McCain--at least 20 superdelegates have committed to Obama since Michigan and North Carolina voted, compared to only one that I know of for Clinton. If they were going to declare for Clinton, they would've done it already, or waited until after the West Virginia primary.
She may or may not get the majority of the popular vote, but that doesn't matter, since the nominee is decided based on committed delegates. Obama doesn't have the majority of delegates, but I believe he will after next week's primaries in Kentucky and Oregon.
Whether or not you are for Clinton, you Should be for the Domcratic Party having a backbone.
I am. For example, when Florida and Michigan were told not to move the primaries or their votes wouldn't count, they should be penalized for moving their primaries. After eight years of President Bush, I'm tired of bending the rules without accountability, and I don't like changing the rules during a contest.
Posted by croatoan at May 14, 2008 09:04 AMboy is it good to have you back, eriposte. i was starting to get worried that you were in the trunk of some obamabot's car.
eRiposte, You have some 'splaining to do. How did you get out of my trunk?
Posted by Seven of Six at May 14, 2008 09:08 AMUnless the superdelegates become more afraid of angry Clinton supporters than they are of the Obama political/media machine, they won't abandon The Chosen One. Defeating McCain would be nice, but hey--let's not get carried away. Priorities. . .
You were missed eriposte!
Thanks for stating something that has become very important to me: Clinton's base is challenging the very ugly media takeover of this nomination. Even if Obama wins the nomination (which of course we know he will because the whole thing has been gamed for him from the get-go), and indeed, even if wins the election, one thing will remain true: the Clinton base stood up against the lies and distortions of the corporate media while the Obama base was complicit in it and helped it along. That is still a victory for Clinton and all of her supporters, and I will be proud of it no matter what. The Obama campaign has been 'by any means necessary' and I have never gone for that. I will never vote to be part of the Obama Movement.
Posted by at May 14, 2008 09:19 AMI don't like changing the rules during a contest.
I heard the original penalty was that only half the delegates in MI were to be seated in this case, but now all the delegates are not to be. Are 'the rules' set in stone? Apparently not.
Posted by at May 14, 2008 09:21 AMI agree HRC should stay as I do not think there is any longterm negative downside....but the numbers don't lie....I still buy the odd lottery ticket but do I really think I'm going to win...NOT...but you definitely need to be in the race to win, so let her rip....unfortunately many are polarized and the number of Dems stating they won't vote for BO astounds me....like McOld is a better candidate than BO....the problem for the HRC camp is there isn't much track left to run on....I think we need to compromise that whoever wins, all Dems back and forget the petty backbiting.
Does anyone doubt the loser of this battle will not vote for the winner in November?
Posted by Goyo at May 14, 2008 09:32 AMYeah, come back after calling me all those awful things. Not that easy to do folks.
Posted by peter at May 14, 2008 09:45 AMT2 - Since when is a 100,000 popular vote win in Texas a narrow win?
And nobody's won any delegates in Texas yet - the convention is in June.
Posted by jmac at May 14, 2008 09:53 AMClinton certainly kicked Obama's ass in West Virginia yesterday, but he still got more votes than McCain.
Barack Obama 91,663
John McCain 89,661
I heard the original penalty was that only half the delegates in MI were to be seated
Then only half should be seated.
the whole thing has been gamed for him from the get-go
Was the constant media coverage of Reverend Wright before or after "the get-go"?
Posted by croatoan at May 14, 2008 10:00 AMthanks Blue Jean.
kangeroo and sevenofsix - funny!
Posted by the young Judith at May 14, 2008 10:02 AMWelcome back Eriposte:
Long long time Obama supporter that has no problem watching this thing play out like it is for another month.
Now they are not throwing knives at each other but focusing on issues and Mccain.
When the story is written on this election I believe Dems will have won an historic landslide victory in Nov. and the conventional wisdom will be that the long drawn out primary will have been the best thing that ever happened to Obama and we will have Mrs. Clinton and her supporters to thank for that.
We now have dominated the debate and thouroughly aired our dirty laundry. We have also put together very effective orgs. in states we would have barely looked at had Clinton not drawn this thing out. We are positioned to challenge in every state at the exact time when a total idiot has damaged the country and when the country is screaming for change.
Thank you Sen. Clinton.
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at May 14, 2008 10:16 AMThere were 4 states that moved up their primary, but only 2 were penalized. The rules state they only get to seat 1/2 their delegates. It should apply to all 4 states, not just MI & FL.
Posted by DoubtingThomas at May 14, 2008 10:21 AMMan, I hadn't dropped by in some time. Apparently this blog has lost all sense of direction and rationality. All this Hillary love is a little too much to take... forever. It's about winning in November. Consider yourself unbookmarked.
Posted by ricardog at May 14, 2008 10:21 AMIt should apply to all 4 states...
I think it had to do with the size of the states moving up.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 14, 2008 10:25 AMI see Barry put his flag pin on again...didn't want to go to Rush's birthplace without it. Especially after that showing in WV. What a pandering soul he is.
Posted by peter at May 14, 2008 10:29 AM...go to Rush's birthplace...
That was a nice touch wasn't it!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 14, 2008 10:32 AMeRiposte, You have some 'splaining to do. How did you get out of my trunk?
Hilarious! :-)
blue jean, good to see you too. sevenofsix, alright i'll admit that was pretty funny. :)
p.s. eriposte, you're so right about this being an election about democratic values, especially re: the media. the media in this country is now so utterly corrupt and rotten to the core, it's unbelievable.
great comment by petey on this topic over at talkleft, in response to BTD's incredulity re: the hackery of the obama news network (aka NBC):
You misunderstand General Electric's reasons for running their "news" operation.General Electric earns more than 20 times as much profit from their healthcare and financial divisions as they do from NBC. Their "news" operation is a loss leader run entirely to disseminate propaganda designed to increase profits for the entire company.
In this case, General Electric's "news" operation is being run to help the candidate opposed to universal healthcare and weaker in support of Social Security - Barack Obama.
General Electric has been on a multi-decade long jihad against government social insurance programs. This isn't personal for them, it's about their bottom line.
and that reminds me of my favorite quote by FDR (adapted for present purposes):
We know now that Government by organized [media and marketing is just as dangerous as Government by organized] money [which] is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.Posted by kangeroo at May 14, 2008 10:52 AM
Thanks eriposte. You're one of the best writers on the 'sphere.
Yesterday I was imagining the final "it's over" moment for HRC. The more qualified candidate. The better prepared candidate. The tougher candidate. The candidate who would make a great president. Done. Over with.
And all I could think was, "Hey, the man won. Who could have predicted that?"
We're seriously about to send a 47-year-old guy with a thin resume and a great marketing team into the White House while we tell a 60-year-old woman with a strong resume to go back to her day job.
And the Democratic party will be in a position of telling its strongest, most reliable members to suck it up. Hey, women! Thanks for all your hard work and votes over the last 50 years. We know we can count on you in the fall . . .
I don't know about the rest of you, but I moved past the whole battered woman thing a long time ago. No thanks.
Posted by hitchhiker at May 14, 2008 12:00 PMGeneral Electric earns more than 20 times as much profit from their healthcare and financial divisions as they do from NBC.
I wonder how much profit G.E. makes from their U.S. Defense Contracts.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 14, 2008 12:03 PMYAWN
Posted by at May 14, 2008 12:04 PMI don't know about the rest of you, but I moved past the whole battered woman thing a long time ago.
Well great, you can give up your vote and let some shmuck in there like McShame who will then appoint more conservative judges and repeal all women's rights.
And you have the nerve to say No thanks?
Posted by Seven of Six at May 14, 2008 12:08 PMEveryone knew why Clinton was going to win West Virginia and Kentucky.
The argument that superdelegates will look to West Virginia, a state the Dems have no chance of carrying, and rush to Clinton is dreaming.
While there are true believers who fool themselves into thinking that Clinton has any possibility of winning, Clinton and her campaign knew after Obama won eleven straight primaries that she wasn't going to be the nominee. Now she's doing what Rush said to do, bloody up Obama for the election in November. Why? Because she's not really running for feminists or Democrats. She's running for the people who paid her and Bill those 109 million dollars. She's been a corporatist since at least when she sat on the board of Walmarts. Like Deep Throat said, follow the money.
Sorry, suckers, looks like you got fooled again. Meet the new Judas goat, same as the old Judas goat.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 14, 2008 12:10 PMHitchhiker:
"We're seriously about to send a 47-year-old guy with a thin resume and a great marketing team into the White House while we tell a 60-year-old woman with a strong resume to go back to her day job."
The 60-year old woman has less actual resume time as a legislator than the 47-year-old guy. She also has a crap marketing team (aka the DLC) and *that's* the main reason she's not going to the White House.
Clinton is not convincing the superdelegates: 42 have endorsed Obama since the beginning of May, compared to 10 for Clinton
According to Slate's delegate calculator, she can't catch him in delegates even if they split Oregon 50/50 and she gets 100% of the delegates for Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota.
Posted by croatoan at May 14, 2008 12:58 PM"I wonder how much profit G.E. makes from their U.S. Defense Contracts."
uh, so what's your point? this is consistent with my theory that the corporations want mccain first and obama second, and that they want hillary out of the race at all costs. and please, for god's sake, do NOT start talking about iraq. obama's position on that matter is a load of self-serving garbage meant to mislead unsuspecting anti-war voters into voting for him.
with that and your bringing up women's rights, i see you're going code orange (threat mode) on us, sevenofsix. nice try, but no cigar.
and bob in pacifica:
"The argument that superdelegates will look to West Virginia, a state the Dems have no chance of carrying, and rush to Clinton is dreaming."
oh really? hmmm... is that why bill clinton won both WV and KY in 1992 and in 1996--whereas both gore and kerry lost both states in 2000 and 2004? and is that why the turnout in WV for hillary yesterday approached GE-type levels?
"While there are true believers who fool themselves into thinking that Clinton has any possibility of winning, Clinton and her campaign knew after Obama won eleven straight primaries that she wasn't going to be the nominee."
since i'm more concerned with the GE than with corrupt media narratives, i think you mean 10 primaries--of which 3 are very red states that won't go blue in november, 5 will stay blue no matter what, and 2 of which HRC also has a very good chance of carrying in the GE.
unfortunately, i can't say the converse is true for BO's chances in OH, TN, KY, AR, NV, NM, WV, and FL... you know, those pesky states where hillary is stronger than obama--those stupid, racist, irrelevant states that hillary could carry in the GE for us?
oh yeah, and then there's those damn electoral vote-rich states like CA, NJ, PA, MI, and IA--where obama will, again, be weak in the GE. yep, it's no problem at all that dems have lost significant ground at the presidential level in all 4 of those states since bill clinton left office, most dramatically in PA and MI--both of which kerry barely carried in 2004 and where hillary far outperforms obama. no siree, no problem there at all. nothing to see here, folks, move along, we have a GE to lose already.
Posted by kangeroo at May 14, 2008 01:05 PMcroatoan, the superdels only want to get their hands on obama's fundraising machine, nothing more. and if obama were such a sure bet, why are so many superdels withholding their endorsements right now? i'm guessing they know something you don't... something like, obama's going to lose in the GE.
Posted by kangeroo at May 14, 2008 01:09 PMWonder how much profit GE makes from global warming products?
Posted by peter at May 14, 2008 01:13 PMwhy are so many superdels withholding their endorsements right now?
But they're not. They're coming out 4-1 in favor of Obama.
Posted by croatoan at May 14, 2008 01:16 PM"They're coming out 4-1 in favor of Obama."
heh. translation for you:
4 = "screw the white house, i want the money. plus i hate those hillbilly clintons."
1 = "er, don't we want to win the white house?"
Posted by kangeroo at May 14, 2008 01:34 PMWelcome back, eriposte. I've been afraid that The Left Coaster did a Greg Sargent on you.
Edwards endorses Obama. Add him to the list of the delusional.
Posted by T2 at May 14, 2008 02:27 PMwith that and your bringing up women's rights, i see you're going code orange (threat mode) on us, sevenofsix.
Well kangeroo, just jump back to Corrente then.
nice try, but no cigar.
Funny, that's not what Bill said.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 14, 2008 03:23 PMgreat post
Posted by Capt Howdy at May 14, 2008 03:30 PMall john edwards has done at this stage of the game is to hedge his bet..he isn't delusional...but the rest of you are
Posted by dennis at May 14, 2008 03:54 PMRobert Sneddon, add to Clinton's resume the trade agreements that gutted all those blue-collar jobs out of the economy that she supported or pretended to support while her husband was in the White House. And the cruel mainstream media? Would that be the same media that went a-mergin' during Bill Clinton's reign?
Or maybe the candidate who's three times given cover to Bush making war (the authorization vote, Kyl-Lieberman and her latest obliteration statement). Or the one who did the despicable of repeatedly saying that McCain was fit for office but her Democratic competitor wasn't.
Oh yeah, quite a resume.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 14, 2008 04:03 PMeriposte,
You are clueless.
It's over, it's been over.
Edwards endorses Obama.
Go Away! Go back to pomposityville.
I strongly believe Sen. Clinton has a much better chance of beating her Republican opponent - esp. Sen. McCain...
Really classy, eriposte.
Posted by joel dan walls at May 14, 2008 04:53 PMIt's Ain't Over Yet
Don't confuse possibility with probability.
Posted by phidipides at May 14, 2008 05:34 PMPer the DNC, the number is 2025. They may change their minds, they may not.
Right now, the number is 2025, not the fairy tale 2209.
Moreover, anyone who tells you that the results from MI will be fully honored by the DNC is either lying to you or delusional to the point where they should be involuntarily committed. An election where only one candidate was on the ballot will NOT decide this race. Moreover, FL and MI will NOT have their full delegations seated according to what happened in those states. DNC rules call for an automatic 1/2 delegate penalty. So, Clinton MAY net 18 delegates out of FL (gee I wonder where those Edwards delegates are gonna go) and she MAY net 9-10 in MI.
Of course, even if that happens, she'll be over 120 delegates behind Obama.
Baghdad Bob should sign up with the Clinton campaign.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at May 14, 2008 06:09 PMIt's sad just how far down the hackery path eriposte has gone. seems like it was only yesterday where his astute analysis on Iraq, KJoe Wilson, and the media was given, only to become one of the biggest hillary shills and reality-deniers next to Taylor marsh.
You've come a long way, eriposte. Unfortunately the direction has been continually downward.
1. Your political rationale is silly. Her chances of winning are low because of her inability to catch him as well as her chances becoming lower by each primary to which she had to maintain a near-impossible threshold, which that threshold climbs every primary as well. Indeed, the role of the superdelegates is independent judgement, which one can easily examine the trend of these superdelegates and realize where the majority of their judgement is heading - toward Obama. Give me a rationale reason why the supers would somehow want to completely turn 180 and move against this obvious trend toward Obama. I hear Hillary supporters talk about how much they'll rebel against Obama in the coming months. Gosh, I can only imagine how much rebellion would occur if Hillary somehow pulled a rabbit out of her ass and had the supers miraculously move towards her instead (probably at Bubba's gunpoint), can't you?
As for her big victory in yet another Appalachian state, congrats to her. Obama has also had impressive blowout victories in Colorado, Georgia, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Virgin Islands, C.C., Minnesota, and Kansas, not to mention votes abroad. Granted, these aren't all primaries, but the last I checked we play by the current rulebook that we have, do we not (well, except when you're behind and want to throw in Florida and a state like Michigan when Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot, I suppose)
2. Media defining the rules of elections. Funny, I don't seem to recall you guys bitching about the media when Jeremiah Wright, Ayers, Mr. "Bitter" and "Elitist" was splashed all over the tv set. But now that your candidate is all but finished and has a ridiculously cellar-dwelling probability of catching Obama, while doing nothing but divert our party's attention and funds away from going after Mccain, you cry "foul!" at that darn librul media for waking up to what most reality-based blogs knew after February. Your candidate ran a stupid campaign with a failed understanding of how the process works with both primaries and caucuses in play, and was unprepared for the long haul. You want someone to blame, look within, look at your candidate, and look at the DLC idiocy whom she surrounded herself with. Oh yeah, look at Mark Penn while you're at it. As Milbank today demonstrated in the Washington post - your little empress has no cloths. If anything, her complete mismanagement of her campaign speaks volumes about her possible management capabilities as POTUS. But gosh, there's that darn cynic in me talking about YOUR "Precious" again.
3. Universal healthcare - Hillary's ideas with a mandate payment stipulation are not going to pass the filibuster test, no matter how many seats we gain in November. Obama has a more realistic version that gets us to the ultimate endgame of complete universal healthcare, and there's not a chance in hell that Republicans are going to allow any mandatory payments on any healthcare system at this time, especially with the rising costs of medicare as they already are today.
4. History and change - could we not say the exact same words about an African-American president? What's more, even less of a population are represented by African Americans. A truly great feat indeed would be for a person from this minority group in our country to come this far with the background that he had to become the first African-American president of our country, especially after the historical difficulties with racism in our country.
5. Florida and Michigan - Jesus, get over it. They don't count because the state dems. willingly broke the damn rules. And until something gets worked out to count their delegates, the rules and number remains at 2025. When something gets figured out (hopefully on May 30th), and they figure out how to cut the delegates in Michigan where Obama didn't even have his freakin name on the ballot, and Florida (to which Hillary clearly won, granted), then we'll talk about a higher number. Until then it's a moot point. But I understand the desperation from Hillary who agreed with cutting those two states from the start and now wants to count them when she's getting her ass handed to her by every measure overall. That's not hard to figure out.
And while you're at it discussing about how well she did with working class white Americans, tell me about those darn working class white Americans who'll be voting for Obama in Oregon, to which he'll likely clean her clock soon:
http://www.pollster.com/08-OR-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Last I recall, it's pretty darn white there with a healthy number of "working class Americans", but I guess I could be wrong.
Oh yeah, how's that Edwards endorsement, the working-class white candidate treating you today?
As for trashing Donna Brazille, granted she's not the most eloquent speaker at times (to put it gently). Then again, neither was:
* Geraldine Ferraro who claimed that Obama has an unfair advantage because he was black.
* Bob Kerrey who was happy that Barack Hussein Obama attended a madrassa and had all that experience with Muslims.
* Billy Shaheen who was concerned over Obama's use of drugs and possible questions on whether he was ever a drug dealer.
* Andrew Cuomo who said that "You can't shuck and jive," in reference to Obama.
* And of course the First Surrogate, Bill Clinton, who compared Obama's win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's wins in the 1980's, and then being shocked at the suggestion that he was trying to paint Obama as "the black candidate."
Oh well. Guess you can't win 'em all.
As for Nebraska, funny how he still won in what's clearly another "white working class" state, albeit by smaller margins. Gosh, if it weren't for that darn rulebook that all candidates and their staffers were given from the very start, boy what a wonderful world we would live in..........
As for the Politico piece of Obama's camp expectations, I would have to agree with the number of posters there - they were lowballing the crap out of those numbers, giving low expectations out the wazoo. And I highly doubt that was inadvertently given out, something that Obama's camp hardly ever does anything inadvertently.
And here's a few bonus features for you. The latest polls showing Obama doing well against McCain in the GE:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1064a208Election.pdf
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1177
And here's a double, added bonus for you to munch on - Hillary's wonderful ties to none other than to Abramoff:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/13/215317/551/504/515125
By the way - call my post what you will. Your deliberate slander and name calling over your last few posts such as "Precious" and Obama being a Republican are equally offensive. Perhaps it was your intent to bait, since that's really all you have left at this point. Sadly, I see the very same tactics in Bush supporters when they have no more ground to stand on as well. As stated previously, you've come a long way (down).
Very well said MisterOpus1.
It's nice to see an updated review of the dishonesty and inconsistencies that litter eriposte's manic ramblings. As you know, there are many others who came before you. They are weary of the labels, attacks, and overall irrationality of the 'arguments' of eriposte and Turkana.
Some have left the site for good. Some have been 'banned' by Turkana. Some just don't comment anymore.
Carry on!
Posted by pragmaticprogressive at May 14, 2008 07:03 PMMisterOpus1
Your name should be on the blogroll on the upper left. You are greatly needed on these pages.
Posted by phidipides at May 14, 2008 07:04 PMHillary has LOST the nomination. Even if she wins every single remaining primary from here to convention, she CANNOT surmount the mathematical deficiency.
She should quit now so she doesn't ruin our chances this fall.
Oh and stop scrubbing my comments. It makes you look like a fucking propagandist.
Posted by at May 14, 2008 07:04 PManybody who quote Dailykos loses by default.
Posted by the young Judith at May 14, 2008 07:24 PMLOL, young Judith! You can always tell when Obama looks weak because the THTs get really mad and start demanding that she quit.
Posted by Blue Jean at May 14, 2008 07:51 PM
anybody who quote Dailykos loses by default.
My apologies. Guess I should stick to those more unbiased sources next time like TalkLeft, Jerome at MyDD, Taylor Marsh, Hillaryis44, umm, and here of course.
And then I'll read those other unbiased sources about how wonderful the liberal and progressive philosophies are for everyone at Hot Air and Powerline while I'm at it. They can be so gosh darn reasonable there too.
I think I'll also venture over to Instapundit and Captain's Quarters on how the Iraq War has hurt our country overall, and how bad of a decision it was to pursue war in the first place.
I suppose it couldn't hurt either, because objective analysis run aplenty at those places too!
I'll make a deal - I won't pretend that DKos isn't pro-Obama biased if you all will make a feeble attempt to believe your pro-Hillary sites are any less biased towards your candidate. Putting the substance of those sites aside for a moment, since we're only sticking to ad hominems here, Judith, I wonder if that's possible.
But I would challenge you, just for a moment, to read through the Abramoff connection and ask yourself why Hillary hasn't given back that money that clearly ties her association with that Republican bastard. I've parsed through many o' pro-Hillary posts and websites, and in the process have conceded numerous points given (even on this site, not too long ago). I hope the fire that burns from your eyes and sulfuric acid that sears your nose hairs will not do permanent damage when you try reading an occasional pro-Obama piece here and there.
Then again, we do occasionally perform cat juggling.
Oh yeah, we also sometimes murder ponies.
So you might want to avert your eyes in horror on those days. I'll try to give you fair warning ahead of time. Deal?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 14, 2008 08:16 PMMisterOpus1,
I made the mistake of assuming in one of the previous threads that you were participating in this comment thread with the intention of driving an honest discussion. I guess I was mistaken. So, this is my last response to you.
You said:
Your political rationale is silly.... Give me a rationale reason why the supers would somehow want to completely turn 180 and move against this obvious trend toward Obama.
You are certainly allowed to call anything "silly" but thankfully sentient adults are still allowed to use reason in this world. For the nth time, if this election ends with one candidate with a majority of pledged delegates and another with a majority of the popular vote and neither has enough pledged delegates to put them over the winning threshold, it is the job of superdelegates to exercise independent judgment to decide which candidate would be a better nominee to take on McCain and win. Only in the fever swamps is this simple rationale so difficult to understand, even though this has been made clear multiple times by now at TLC (by Turkana and me). I am not going to answer this question yet again because you have made it clear that you don't like the answer and could care less.
Superdelegates are certainly entitled to tip the race to Sen. Obama and they may not want to reverse the current trend, but that doesn't mean they cannot do so or that reversing the trend is completely out of the question based on what happens in the remaining races.
5. Florida and Michigan - Jesus, get over it. They don't count because the state dems. willingly broke the damn rules. And until something gets worked out to count their delegates, the rules and number remains at 2025. When something gets figured out (hopefully on May 30th), and they figure out how to cut the delegates in Michigan where Obama didn't even have his freakin name on the ballot, and Florida (to which Hillary clearly won, granted), then we'll talk about a higher number. Until then it's a moot point. But I understand the desperation from Hillary who agreed with cutting those two states from the start and now wants to count them when she's getting her ass handed to her by every measure overall. That's not hard to figure out.
A small reminder for the fact-challenged. Seating the MI/FL delegates is very much allowed per the magnificent rules you are so concerned about - if the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC so declares. So there is nothing wrong in petitioning the rules committee to have the delegations seated because the rules allow anyone to petition the committee.
Also, I'll "get over it" when the Democratic party shows it doesn't believe in voter disenfranchisement. The state Dems did make an attempt to accommodate the DNC's strictures but not everything was in their control (e.g., Republican legislature). Not to mention, other states that moved the primaries earlier did not get subject to the same rules. It isn't the world's fault or my fault that Sen. Obama chose to remove his name from the MI ballot as a gimmick to pander to Iowa when he realized he couldn't win MI - that was his choice, he didn't have to do it and he can pay for it appropriately. I would much rather prefer a candidate who believes in enfranchising voters than a candidate who doesn't. Of course, the candidate you support appears to favor seating the delegates from FL and MI, unlike some of his supporters who like to suppress voters according to "the rules". I'm going to assume you will declare your undying love for SCOTUS' "rules" about voter ID laws even if it disenfranchises Democratic voters unfairly and for the "rules" of so many other states that disenfranchise millions of voters for one stupid reason or another. Don't turn into a "hypocrite" now by saying Democrats should fight against such "rules" even if it helps them "win" elections (oooh, the tragedy!!).
Finally, Sen. Obama will certainly clean Sen. Clinton's clock in Oregon by a comfortable double digit margin. It's called an "election" and that's a splendid thing - and nothing to get into a rage about. And the term "working class whites" is merely a term used by pollsters to describe a particular demographic of white voters. I didn't invent the term - so if you are upset about it you can blame the pollsters you love to cite.
Oh yeah, how's that Edwards endorsement, the working-class white candidate treating you today?
The Edwards endorsement was nice and he was gracious and classy unlike some others.
As for Brazile, the reason her behavior is egregious is she has constantly pretended to be neutral in this race even though that is not the case. James Carville got ejected from CNN not too long ago because he was a Clinton supporter - the same standard doesn't apply to her since she is an Obama supporter. And let's not even get into the nonsense about citing whose supporter said what. Unless you believe Jeremiah Wright - who was part of Sen. Obama's campaign outreach team until not too long ago - speaks for Barack Obama. No one is denying that Sen. Obama was subject to some bad media coverage but what Sen. Clinton received was orders of magnitude worse. If my mere mention of that drives you into a rage, then so be it.
P.S. Feel free to highlight the post where I claimed Obama was a "Republican". After you find none - and after you find numerous examples where I explicitly acknowledge his progressive voting record or that he is a Democrat - don't bother to apologize. That will be in keeping with the rest of your comments.
Posted by eriposte at May 14, 2008 08:31 PMMisterOpus1, no one has explained how Clinton's healthcare mandates will pass the constitutional test. In order to live in America or be an American a person would be required to pay money to a (private) insurance company. That person would have no voice in the running of the company. That is, taxation without representation.
A single-payer would bypass that, but that's not what Clinton is pushing.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 14, 2008 08:34 PM"A small reminder for the fact-challenged. Seating the MI/FL delegates is very much allowed per the magnificent rules you are so concerned about - if the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC so declares."
It's allowed, but it's NOT REALITY at this time. The number as of right now IS 2025.
2209/2210 is a spin number, not one based on rules or reality or fact.
If the Rules committee changes nothing, the number is 2025. Under the rules as currently stated, the number is 2025.
That is fact. That is reality.
The same people who wail and cry about 2210 simultaneously argue that every single Obama supporter in MI should be disenfranchised.
And then they follow up their 'prevent disenfranchisement' calls on FL and MI by calling on the superdelegates to overrule the winner of the elections. Because Obama will get more delegates through elections than Clinton, regardless of what happens in FL and MI.
P.S. Superdelegates don't buy the 2210 number.
Guess I should stick to those more unbiased sources next time like TalkLeft, Jerome at MyDD, Taylor Marsh, Hillaryis44, umm, and here of course.
MisterOpus1, Don't forget Corrente and No Quarter.
As for Brazile, the reason her behavior is egregious is she has constantly pretended to be neutral in this race even though that is not the case.
eRiposte, I think you're reaching on this one. She has to defend her position on being neutral. When it's clear her bias is towards making sure every candidate follows the rules agreed upon.
Which pisses off Hillary fans to no end because that is not what they want to hear. So they have to blame somebody and it looks like Brazile is the target.
Also, I'll "get over it" when the Democratic party shows it doesn't believe in voter disenfranchisement.
Just come out and say it eRiposte... quit dragging it out. You want the voters enfranchised so the rules finally favor Hillary and she can declare some sort of shallow victory.
I say follow the rules set. Don't try and move the goalposts. I'm confident it will be a favorable decision by the rules committee... for MI and FL voters and delegates. Or did I leave someone out?
Posted by Seven of Six at May 14, 2008 09:05 PMI feel kind of bad for Eriposte. She isn't nearly as insane as BTD, Jeralyn, Lambert, or the others. She doesn't gender-bait with the WWTSBJQ talk. Hell, half of this vitriol is probably due to the fact that she's one of the few Hillary bloggers that doesn't auto-ban Obama supporters, only allow registered comments, or severely restrict pro-Obama activities.
Really people, some perspective is probably in order. I know Clintonistas are frustrating, but we've won and it's almost over. Let them hold onto their delusions, and remember not to punish the mildly annoying for the activities of the batshit crazy. Eriposte has more hope than she should, but thats not half as bad as some of the other Hillary bloggers that have allowed their hope to curdle into bitter hatred.
Posted by Soullite at May 14, 2008 10:13 PMEriposte,
I realize that that was your last response, however I'm a bit compelled to reply, so take it as you will.
I made the mistake of assuming in one of the previous threads that you were participating in this comment thread with the intention of driving an honest discussion. I guess I was mistaken.
Mistakes happen, just as I had assumed you were always going to give thoughtful commentary and analysis like the days of old. Times change. People change. Oh well.
You are certainly allowed to call anything "silly" but thankfully sentient adults are still allowed to use reason in this world
Remind me that the next time you throw a silly name call towards Obama and how us supporters worship him as our "Precious". Please.
if this election ends with one candidate with a majority of pledged delegates and another with a majority of the popular vote and neither has enough pledged delegates to put them over the winning threshold, it is the job of superdelegates to exercise independent judgment to decide which candidate would be a better nominee to take on McCain and win. Only in the fever swamps is this simple rationale so difficult to understand, even though this has been made clear multiple times by now at TLC (by Turkana and me). I am not going to answer this question yet again because you have made it clear that you don't like the answer and could care less.
Quite the opposite. In fact, I eagerly challenge you on that ridiculously slim possibility of Hillary somehow gaining the popular vote at this point. If you rest your entire argument on this, that she can somehow pull out a popular vote win with the remaining votes, while somehow including both Michigan where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot, let alone Florida, those 2 states that defied the rules deliberately, knock us all out, chief. Even with those 2 states included, her chances are, well, extraordinarily slim.
And you want the supers to examine that and say, "Oh my goodness, Hillary IS the better candidate, because she has a 1% chance of pulling out the popular vote!" Alrighty then. How much are those bridges in Brooklyn again, sir?
Superdelegates are certainly entitled to tip the race to Sen. Obama and they may not want to reverse the current trend, but that doesn't mean they cannot do so or that reversing the trend is completely out of the question based on what happens in the remaining races.
Let me guess - it's not out of the question should Hillary win the popular vote, right? If this is your argument, all I can say is you sure have all your eggs in one basket at this point.
A small reminder for the fact-challenged. Seating the MI/FL delegates is very much allowed per the magnificent rules you are so concerned about - if the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC so declares. So there is nothing wrong in petitioning the rules committee to have the delegations seated because the rules allow anyone to petition the committee.
Straw man. I never argued otherwise. What I AM arguing, however, is why the DNC would somehow seat the delegates in such a strange manner that gives Hillary such a tremendous edge that you Hillary supporters demand, especially in lieu of Obama's name not even being on the ballot of one of those states.
Also, I'll "get over it" when the Democratic party shows it doesn't believe in voter disenfranchisement. The state Dems did make an attempt to accommodate the DNC's strictures but not everything was in their control (e.g., Republican legislature).
How is this voter disenfranchisement by the Democratic Party when it wasn't even in their control (i.e. Republican legislature changing dates in Florida, Michigan Repub. legislature blocking re-vote and a judge declaring a re-vote against state law)? What else would you have expected the Dem. Party to do at that point, considering it was not in their control to do anything at all?
Not to mention, other states that moved the primaries earlier did not get subject to the same rules.
Because those other states played by the rules and received permission to do so. Funny, when a state receives a warning that their delegates and votes won't count, and their state party says, "to hell with you," and breaks the rules anyway, you look towards those other states to blame?
I can't help but wonder if the roles were reversed with Hillary and Obama, that your astute analysis on Florida and Michigan would be the same. It's neither here nor there considering the current situation, but I still tend to wonder.
It isn't the world's fault or my fault that Sen. Obama chose to remove his name from the MI ballot as a gimmick to pander to Iowa when he realized he couldn't win MI - that was his choice, he didn't have to do it and he can pay for it appropriately.
Umm, huh? Obama, Edwards, and Richardson ALL kept their pledge to remove their names from the ballot in Michigan. You made a very cute attempt to corner Obama only on this, but seemingly left out the fact that ALL Democratic candidates except your favorite one complied by the rules. You can spin it anyway you want on Obama, but that changes nothing of the fact that Hillary broke her pledge on Michigan, the only Dem. to do so, and now seemingly believes not only is she entitled to ALL delegate counts there, but ALL the popular vote count there as well.
Not exactly Americanish, but desperate times call for.......
Of course, the candidate you support appears to favor seating the delegates from FL and MI, unlike some of his supporters who like to suppress voters according to "the rules".
Indeed, some Obama supporters agree.
some Obama supporters say......
Are we really going to grab that broad paintbrush? Be careful.
I'm going to assume you will declare your undying love for SCOTUS' "rules" about voter ID laws even if it disenfranchises Democratic voters unfairly and for the "rules" of so many other states that disenfranchise millions of voters for one stupid reason or another. Don't turn into a "hypocrite" now by saying Democrats should fight against such "rules" even if it helps them "win" elections (oooh, the tragedy!!).
I have to admit that you're better at analysis than you are at wit. Guess I never quite noticed that until I finally engaged in an argument with you. But if you're going to make an attempt to parallel a conservatively bias SCOTUS to the Democratic (and by default usually entails liberal and/or progressive values) Party's rules, I guessing you're going to lose more than just me with that leap.
And the term "working class whites" is merely a term used by pollsters to describe a particular demographic of white voters. I didn't invent the term - so if you are upset about it you can blame the pollsters you love to cite.
Oh I'm not upset at all. I can just appreciate a little sense of irony when that's used against Obama, and then he turns around and wins with the same demographic thrown at him elsewhere.
As for Brazile, the reason her behavior is egregious is she has constantly pretended to be neutral in this race even though that is not the case
Guess I'm not following you on that one. I knew some time ago, even before I switched to Obama from Dodd, that she was an Obama supporter.
And let's not even get into the nonsense about citing whose supporter said what. Unless you believe Jeremiah Wright - who was part of Sen. Obama's campaign outreach team until not too long ago - speaks for Barack Obama.
Are you somehow contending that Wright speaking for Obama was not used against Obama by not only the Right Wing Noise Machine but by Hillary and her supporters, in a very similar manner as those individuals I quoted above?
No one is denying that Sen. Obama was subject to some bad media coverage but what Sen. Clinton received was orders of magnitude worse. If my mere mention of that drives you into a rage, then so be it.
Of all the individuals demonstrating a tone of anger, Eriposte, I think some could easily conclude that you might have a bit of the anger bug yourself.
P.S. Feel free to highlight the post where I claimed Obama was a "Republican". After you find none - and after you find numerous examples where I explicitly acknowledge his progressive voting record or that he is a Democrat - don't bother to apologize. That will be in keeping with the rest of your comments.
Not that you'd take my apology, but as I've mentioned numerous times, I am prone to making mistakes such as this one you cited. I misread your post and therefore apologize. See, it's not that hard. Hopefully one day you may do the same, if you ever make a darn mistake or slur to my Precious, of course.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 14, 2008 10:20 PMit's over. hillary should quit and let us get on with the business of sweeping the rethugs completely out of power
CLEANSWEEP 2008
Posted by at May 15, 2008 02:59 AMThis strikes me as a slur on all Democrats with one exception: "Sen. Clinton represents the only remaining opportunity to really get universal healthcare passed in the next 4 years."
Or has Senator Clinton promised not to work on healthcare under a Democratic President? Would a stronger Democratic Senate with a Democratic President somehow be incapable of working on healthcare because H. Clinton isn't occupying the WH? Are you saying that Obama is going to work against healthcare reform?
Or is eriposte just saying that Obama can't win because he, er, can't win? He's winning. He's won. Despite the four centuries of racism in this land he's doing okay, no thanks to his opponent in the primary.
If you want healthcare reform, you would do better thinking about what you want and how you're going to get it under President Obama stop pretending the world will end when Clinton loses. She's lost, eri.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 15, 2008 07:00 AMeriposte, do you read the pretentious and patronizing drivel that goes for commentary by some of these posters? I hope you laugh like I do.
Posted by the young Judith at May 15, 2008 07:31 AMShe isn't nearly as insane as BTD,
WTF???????!!!!
Big Tent Democrat is an Obama supporter, and always has been.
True, he isn't infected with CDS, but that's because he wants Obama to win in November, which means you can't throw the Clintons and their voters overboard. You can always tell the THTs, because they hate the Clintons far more than they like Obama.
Posted by Blue Jean at May 15, 2008 07:48 AMfafnir interviewsthis worthless warmongering POS Hillary.
Posted by ran at May 15, 2008 09:44 PM