But from what I've seen in the blogs and in the Left Coast meat world, the healing will not be so easy.
Keep in mind the blogs represent those whose feelings are most intense about politics -- they are not representative as a whole.
Also keep in mind that the anonymous blog comments are probably full of right wing trolls pretending to be rabidly pro-Clinton or pro-Obama in order to stir up more hostility than actually exists.
Posted by Anonny at May 19, 2008 09:10 AMWell, I'm not going to "blame" the party insiders for concluding the handwriting is on the wall and that they'll be judged on how they handle themselves in the next couple months. And I'm glad they recognize that Obamans and Hillarians need to unify sooner rather than later.
There aren't many more states left to vote, so I can't really see how the "process" hasn't been allowed to "come to an end". And the fact that the process delivered an unpalatable "end" in MI and FL doesn't mean that it wasn't allowed to come to an end.
Some seating scheme will be arrived at for those two states who were very unfairly and idiotically treated by the DNC, it just isn't going to be allowed to change the finish line, nor should it. Obama didn't cause the MI and FL fiascos and anyone Dem arguing that some candidate did is being irresponsible.
Posted by euzoius at May 19, 2008 09:17 AMhope for a strong Dem Congress, cause we're gonna welcome John McCain. IMO, giving the nom to a candidate that can't win after GWB would be far more damaging to the party than "awarding" it to HRC.
too bad that those insiders who wanted the Unity Pony couldn't see that they had the smartest, most articulate, toughest and most hardworking *historic* candidate and trashed her in favor of the Manchurian Candidate.
Hillary would've made a great POTUS. ah well. 30 more years in the wilderness.
I plan to drop my D affiliation the day the BO "takes" the nom.
Posted by susan at May 19, 2008 09:21 AM
a bunch of rich folk can get together, enjoy the lovely view of the potomac in nightlight, sip cocktails, and talk unity and healing all they want to.
they've all got something to lose.
the rest of us rebels don't.
and that's how rebellions get started.
Posted by orionATL at May 19, 2008 09:25 AMThis nomination will be over when Hillary is nominated. Otherwise the democratic party will be over.
Posted by Kathy at May 19, 2008 09:50 AMAs PD from Shakesville said:
One thing that really bugs me when discussing Obama's possible VP picks is when people throw around the names of non-Clinton women - the idea being that having a woman veep is necessary to win over the Clinton supporters. It's insulting, because it presumes that Clinton supporters will blindly support anyone with a pair of X chromosomes, and that any woman is interchangeable with another."It's not who you wanted, but she's just as good, right? See, she's got boobies!"
Obama needs to understand he's got a woman problem, and it's not going to go away by telling some crowd "be nice to Hillary supporters." Sending astroturfers to the blogs to pretend to be nice won't cut it, either. If Obama thinks he's going to need the votes of the Clinton supporters in the GE, then he's going to need to acknowledge that his campaign's policy previously was to "not be nice to Hillary supporters" where sexism was not only ignored but encouraged. And if he thinks he doesn't need Clinton's supporters, well, he can just carry on, then, and let those that are starting to organize against him gather more support.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 19, 2008 09:52 AMAlthough the implication here is otherwise, the "shrillosphere" has been equal parts Clinton and Obama supporters -- especially now. Krugman set a negative tone about Obama (and a very dumb one at that) that I'm not sure anyone with comparable stature on the Obama side quite matched. Angry Hillary supporters are getting mixed up between the big media players, who indeed were more negative on Clinton -- at least until the fuss about what the pastor of his church once said -- and the Obama campaign itself.
Posted by urban legend at May 19, 2008 09:53 AMSo the nouveau-deciderers have made their decision, eh?
Posted by Sharon at May 19, 2008 09:54 AMThe campaign mailer showing Obama at the pulpit of a church with a huge cross behind him proudly proclaiming that he will go out and do Gods work was pretty much the last straw for me.
Or was it all of the "Bros Before Hos" T-shirts selling on the internet?
Oh well, doesn't really matter. Arizona will probably go McCain bigtime anyway.
Posted by TIKI AL at May 19, 2008 09:57 AMjesus fucking christ, another Obama/Hillary food fight
Sorry Hillary supporters, your candidate didn't win. But then my candidate (Edwards) didn't win either. Get over it and work to deny Bush his third term!!!
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 19, 2008 09:57 AMgay vet,
and edwards has only grown in stature. he didn't have the money, but he sure has proved a leader.
Posted by Turkana at May 19, 2008 10:01 AMhopefully Edwards will be the next Vice President or Attorney General
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 19, 2008 10:08 AMno way he'll be veep, but attorney general seems very plausible. tough job to clean that house, but he'd be the man to do it.
Posted by Turkana at May 19, 2008 10:10 AMTurkana,
With all due respect, Edwards lost all cred with me when he demeaned Hillary for crying and talked about how the commander in chief could not afford to be emotional. Asshat.
Posted by Anon at May 19, 2008 10:10 AMBoy everyone sure seems to get their feelings hurt easily from the "shrillosphere".
As usual TBOGG can say it best
"This goes for both ends of the political spectrum.
We have become a nation of overly sensitive people with our outrage meters primed to go from zero to sixty at the drop of a supposed slur. Nowadays every utterance is greeted with "Well, what is THAT supposed to mean?" when sometimes what is being said is merely an everyday expression or a colloquialism. Making a big fucking deal over every fucking little thing in life diminishes real life grievances that have implications well beyond "This offends me" or "That made me feel bad". There is a world of difference between someone threatening to "bitchslap" another person and, say, sending that same person off to die in a phony war.
The truth is most people don't care if you are offended, they're just placating you so you will shut the fuck up.
So here is a suggestion: stop being obtuse, grow the fuck up and calm the fuck down because you're really annoying the shit out of the rest of us and, in turn, that makes us cranky causing us to use really fucking bad language.
Thank you. Now who's up for pudding? "
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at May 19, 2008 10:18 AMOh and not to crib TBogg too much but he had this to say today which also needs to be on this thread.
"I just want to be fair to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
This is from MSNBC's First Read:
Here's the dispatch from NBC/NJ's Athena Jones... Some 75,000 people flocked to Portland’s waterfront Sunday to watch Barack Obama speak, making it the biggest rally the campaign has held to date. Thousands stood on the lawn, dozens watched from boats and from the bridge stretching across the Willamette River. A few kayakers held their paddles and tried to keep their kayaks straight as they watched the candidate, who stood on a makeshift platform.
Obama hailed Clinton as a “formidable candidate," saying she "has been smart and tough and determined and she has worked as hard as she can and she has run an extraordinary campaign."
For Hillary's supporters:
Here's the dispatch from NBC/NJ's Athena Jones... Some 75,000 dead-enders flocked to Portland’s waterfront Sunday to watch Barack Obama speak, while the remaining population of Portland (estimated to be 493,000 hard-working salt-of-the-earth white Americans) stayed away in droves. Thousands stood on the lawn, dozens watched from their elitist boats and from the bridge stretching across the Willamette River. A few kayakers (an elitist sport by the way) raised their paddles in mindless obedience to the so-called messiah, their eyes glassy and uncomprehending, as they watched the candidate, who stood on a makeshift platform, refuse to admit that the dream is over while clinging to his stubborn and divisive refusal to accept the obvious.
Obama conceded as much by hailing Clinton as a “formidable candidate," saying she "has been smart and tough and determined and she has worked as hard as she can and she has run an extraordinary campaign....but unfortunately she is a woman."
Then he reportedly made a discrete but clearly obscene gesture accompanied by disgusting sex noises while his followers laughed and laughed like the world was coming to an end... just like it will if he is elected. In the distance came the sound of a lonely ice cream truck which made me sad for the children. Really really sad. "
The train is leaving the station everyone.
It's time to take our country back.
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at May 19, 2008 10:24 AMYour candidate didn't win yet either. He is one Rezko type mushroom cloud from being vaporized.
I said over a year ago only 2 sitting Senators were ever elected president, and neither was a woman or a black.
Not only did Edwards vote for the war, he couldn't even win his own state. And the strategic dagger he put in Hillarys back has made him look like a slimy calculating lawyer.
Elizabeth showed class by not being a part of that shameful exibition.
The way the party has imploded thru stupidity has allowed the knuckle draggers a chance to pull off a McCain squeaker.
Maybe we need 4 more years ending in a dustbowl with the banks closed to finally wake up Joe and Jill 6 pack.
Posted by TIKI AL at May 19, 2008 10:27 AMTIKI, I agree with you - on all counts. Sadly, eric and tbogg, who is a comedian, btw, think that it'll help things by calling people like me a whiny baby is gonna help. Next up: threats that Roe v Wade is going away. Let's see, Bush had all branches of gov't and it's still there. With each "get over it" another Hillary supporter signs on to an Obama protest group.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 19, 2008 10:51 AMTIKI,
The Rezko shenanigans didn't stick for a good reason, despite everyone's best efforts to dig and push the story. If Republicans want to push that storyline, it would be a welcome fight. The dirt on McCain is only beginning to have discussion with the idiot media heads.
That's not to say that there won't be muck drawn up on Obama either from Rezko, Wright, Ayers, "bitter", "elitism", etc. If the GOP can slime a war veteran on fictitious events about his war record, they can pretty much create a story on anything. But the media has largely ignored the contradictions on McCain and his "straight-talk" bullshit record a bit too long, and now that the focus is shifting towards the remaining two candidates he will not be receiving a free pass as easily as before.
As for a position for Hillary, I tend to be on the fence as to whether or not she should be a VP. At the very least I think she could easily be a high-level cabinet member - a Sec. of State perhaps. But I'm not opposed to her being a VP at all, despite some of my fellow "Obamabots" stating otherwise for a need to change and move forward from the DLC and Clintons. I see the argument of having Ohio's governor as a VP, or even Richardson, Edwards, Biden, or my own Kansas gov. Sebelius. Honestly I think we can make a good argument for anyone picked, and having Hillary on the team has more benefits than negatives overall.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 19, 2008 11:49 AMIt's very simple. The DNC must take its big, fat collective thumb off the scale and seat Florida and Michigan. If the process is fair, then I will consider voting for Obama if he's the nominee.
However, if Obama wrests the nomination away from Clinton by gaming the system, I'll stay home in November, nursing my poor, widdle, hurt feelings.
No Democratic candidate can win without women. Can't do it.
Hey Turkana, I didn't start this one either.
You might want to look at Kansas from February of 1867 onto November of that year. The two suffrages, Blacks and Women collided that year. Both needed the white guys present to vote for a women's right to vote or a blacks right to vote. Susan B. Anthony even went to state to help out. Unfortunately she allied herself with a wrong character when funds ran shallow. Republicans wanted blacks to have the right to vote. Women thought they were due. The end result is both were set back by the fighting going on....
Look this is your problem right now. Sure we're enjoying the predicament, but You fine people creeated this one all by yourselves. 90 to 10% splits in the AA vote sure doesn't help, neither does 70 to 30% splits for white voters. These are all Democrats for the most part.
Posted by peter at May 19, 2008 12:33 PMListen Up Obama Supporters.
First of all, it apparently was 65,000 who allegedly turned out to listen to Obama.
Second of all, your wishful thinking that the primary season is over doesn't make it so.
Straight from Hillary:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Clinton_to_Obama_Not_so_fast_0519.html
Excerpts:
"....
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday said her opponent Barack Obama may be getting a little ahead of himself in acting like the party's nominee before the final contests of the primary season are over.
....
"You can declare yourself anything, but if you don't have the votes, it doesn't matter," Clinton said Monday in a satellite interview with an Oregon television station before a campaign appearance in Kentucky.
....
She said Monday that she is the "more progressive candidate" and dismissed the hype surrounding Obama that results in the large crowds like the record rally of an estimated 65,000 he drew in Portland on Sunday afternoon.
Clinton said Obama, who has refused to debate her since they last faced off just before the Pennsylvania primary last month, would "rather just talk to giant crowds than have questions asked."
Later, while speaking to several hundred people in a high school gymnasium, Clinton picked up her campaign's argument that Obama's victories in states that had caucuses instead of primaries are somehow less significant because turnout was lower.
Clinton also revived her pitch that many of the states where he has beaten her, like Alaska, Idaho and Utah, matter less because they would not be competitive for Democrats in November. Anybody "who's really analyzing this" should come to the same conclusions, she said.
"So I'm going to make my case and I'm going to make it until we have a nominee, but we're not going to have one today and we're not going to have one tomorrow and we're not going to have one the next day," Clinton said. "And if Kentucky turns out tomorrow, I will be closer to that nomination because of you."
I think Hillary stated things very straightforwardly. No "coronated" nominee this week.
And I'd like to add one more thing. From Bill Moyers' broadcast of last Friday. If you don't think a significant slice of Obama Supporters aren't voting "Black," read on.
One of the talking heads was a PhD working at Stanford, and he complained about racism in Hillary's campaign. But then the show stopper was this:
To quote Edley, it is damning that he did indeed choose Obama in part because of his race (a Presidential candidate allegedly transcending the issue—which of course, he does not, and in reality, cannot) as a major factor in his selection, and Edley is indeed an educated minority person who is also Afro-American:
CHRIS EDLEY: Look, I think that it - I confess that - I'm sure that part of it is that he's black. No question about it. But it's the qualities of mind and character more than anything else that attracted me to his candidacy and made me confident having worked in two White Houses that he has the capacity to be a spectacular President. So race is a part of it, but, boy, if he were not in the race I would be thrilled about Hillary's candidacy and as a first but also the things that I respect about her.
I rest my case. Calling Hillary supporters racist? Look in the mirror, you Obamabots.
Posted by Troubled American at May 19, 2008 12:39 PMTroubled:
I don't think either of my posts had whiney baby in them.
Projection?
Posted by ericl at May 19, 2008 12:52 PMCompare this to 1972, when the AFL-CIO refused to endorse a candidate, when the Executive Director of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO was sent to Minneapolis to put the Minnesota AFL-CIO into receivership because it looked like the Minnesota union was going to endorse McGovern.
When the Teamsters endorsed Nixon.
Four years ago I was very, very pissed at both John Kerry, John Edwards and Terry McAuliffe over the Torricelli-funded Osama bin Laden ad that was used against Howard Dean in Iowa.
But come late October I put up my own money to fly from California to Virginia to canvass for Kerry and then on to Florida to do Election Protection in Tampa on election day.
Nobody from the Kerry campaign reached out to sooth our tender feelings. We were fucking adults and we did what made sense. This last gasp threatening-to-sit-on-our-hands bullshit is getting very tiresome.
Regular non-obsessed voters don't pay any attention to this stupid "they dissed my candidate" shit. And us political obsessives will get over our hurt feelings, roll up our sleeves and help defeat McCain
Hell, I'm not even mad at John Kerry anymore.
Posted by kaleidescope at May 19, 2008 01:39 PMIf you read the Clinton bloggers, you will find many strong and valid arguments about why this race really isn't over. Or why it really shouldn't be over. If this was a truly democratic process. Which it isn't. As Big Tent Democrat has pointed out, the process wasn't designed to be truly democratic. And the Obama bloggers have spent much of the past few months over the possibility that party insiders and superdelegates would decide the race. For Clinton, anyway. Because the party insiders and superdelegates are deciding the race. For Obama. And the shrillosphere is okay with that. Because to some people it hasn't ever been about fairness or democracy, it's been about their guy winning. And the party insiders and superdelegates are declaring it over. The corporate media have already declared it over. And the pale reflection of the corporate media that is the Shrillosphere of Change long ago declared it over.
Interesting lexicon.
If someone makes a spirited argument for Clinton, that person is a "blogger".
If someone makes a spirited argument for Obama, that person is "bringing the shrill in a very big way" and is part of "the Shrillosphere of Change."
I prefer Obama over Clinton. I do not sleep with an image of Obama around my neck or above my bed. Does this make me "shrill"?
As for the non-democratic Democratic nominating process, who designed it? It's a bummer for Hillary Clinton and her supporters that her chances of winning the nomination appear to be slim, but that doesn't mean we let her tee up the ball again and start over with a nominating process that Senator Clinton deems more "democratic".
On the issue of a more democratic way to pick nominees in the future, one facet neither Jerome of BTD addressed was funding. The Supreme Court has made it clear that political parties can use whatever criteria they choose in determining who they nominate (except they can't discriminate on the basis of race, sex or national origin). Which means the Democratic Party is perfectly free to slap serious limits on the size of donations a candidate can accept for spending on the primary.
What would make the biggest leap for democracy in choosing a Democratic candidate would be to limit to $100 the amount a candidate could accept from anyone for spending on the primary.
Why should the Democratic Party allow the filthy rich -- the people and interests that are the base of the Republicans -- to have so much influence on who we pick as our nominee for the general election?
Posted by kaleidescope at May 19, 2008 01:50 PMYou either can believe is something or believe in someone. I supported Hillary because I thought she could best deliver on the things I believe in. I will have no problem supporting Obama because he sure will come closer to supporting the things I believe in than will McCain. It shouldn't be a hard decision.
Posted by Jerry Saleeby at May 19, 2008 01:52 PMah, yes
eric in austin
the sanctimonious missionary sent by the order of st. obama
to teach us benighted democratic savages the god's truth about american dmocracy and real, true chicago-style political leadership
quoth eric the missionary:
- "It's time to take our country back."
and
- "Thank you. Now who's up for pudding?"
pious puddinghead!
My contention: most of these commenters deriding Clinton supporters to grow up, get over it, be noble, and support the nominee are men. They don't care about standing up on principle against the misogyny that was used to tear down Clinton because..... well, they just don't give a shit.
Look - I don't expect you guys to stand up against sexism, I expect you to be cravenly silent and accepting about it. That's what we've been taught during this primary. So, just do me a simple favor - don't expect women to also shut up and not take a stand. It's asking a little too much.
Posted by Anon at May 19, 2008 02:15 PMactaully, I didnt get my feelings hurt online - I dont care what anonymous people say - but knowing that the filth has been on the airwaves poisoning the country does bother me.
Posted by the young Judith at May 19, 2008 03:00 PMAt least for me it has nothing to do with misogyny at all and if I say I'm offended by that it will not matter to you. The only thing that is dissappointing in Mrs. Clintons defeat for me is that it means we will not have a woman in the White House for the next 8 years or so.
For me and I suspect for most Obama supporters it was who stood the best chance of beating the republicans in November. Now before you go all "you better think about what he will do when he gets in" I also happen to like his record a bit more than Mrs. Clintons as well but for me it was who could win with the biggest coattails for the house and senate candidates.
It seemed obvious to me at the time that Mrs. Clinton had several major strikes against her that would make her one of the weakest candidates in the general election and not to beat a dead horse but they were...
a. Huge negatives (the republicans just hate
her and she would really fire up their base
b. For a big number of luke warm democrats
and independents she just didn't do much
for them. Again big negs.
c. In my opinion the strongest issue we have
to beat the republicans over the head with
is Iraq because it is one of the greatest
foreign policy disasters we have ever done,
and her vote for the war really negates
that issue for her which I think will
be huge.
so if it makes you feel good as a woman to stew in the view that we supported Obama because we hate women fine but once again the alternative is to allow a republican party that embraces the misygony of the born again christians, the party that would deny you the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, oh hell you know the issues. Just look at the kind of woman that Obama is married to and I think you know how he will stand on issues important to women.
Here is hoping you decide to help us beat Mccain.
Eric in Austin
Was just viewing Hardball and with Tweety looking on, Michelle Bernard said "there will be race riots in the streets if the super delegates take the nomination away from Obama".
Now we are being threatened by a talking headlouse who supports Obama? Way to lose more votes, Michelle! You should be in jail.
I still remember having to run our locomotives with the headlights off so the snipers didn't shoot them out in Milwaukee during the 68 riots.
Gee, I guess I actually DID dodge sniper fire!
Posted by TIKI AL at May 19, 2008 03:58 PMGee, I guess I actually DID dodge sniper fire!
That's not what Sinbad said. Of course he was in the caboose at the time.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 19, 2008 04:23 PMSo, we're being threatened with race riots, the end of Roe v Wade, (which means that a Dem majority in both houses will roll over, is that it? So, again, why vote Dem?), and the ire of the bully boiz of the blogs, complete with misogynistic crunchberries. Hmm. Sounds more like a hostage situation than a primary, doesn't it?
Posted by iamcoyote at May 19, 2008 04:51 PMIf Sinbad was in the "crummy", he was either sleeping or playing "sheeps head" and drinking beer with the conductor and hind brakeman, so he wouldn't have known there were bullets flying anyway.
The Lake Geneva Playboy Bunnys rode up in the cab with me and liked to run the engine and blow the horns.
Posted by TIKI AL at May 19, 2008 05:00 PMHmmm, what's more legal:
I don't get my nominee, I'm staying home in November,
or,
I don't get my nominee, I'm going to riot and make you sorry.
Posted by Sharon at May 19, 2008 05:12 PMMaybe if I wear a "Bros Before Hos" T-shirt, I can slip thru the Obama hostage takers.
Do they come in 5XL?
Posted by TIKI AL at May 19, 2008 05:19 PMHeh, you'll blend right in, TIKI! Then what? Hillary goes into witness protection?
And yeah, Sharon; couldn't a threat like that be incitement to violence or some such? Didn't Limbaugh recently tell his followers to storm Denver? I didn't hear much about it after the first reports - wonder if he got into trouble.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 19, 2008 05:50 PMHillary has lost. No, not every primary has been held and not every superdelegate has announced, but Clinton has lost. So while we can have brave talk all we want, and we can presume that since the candidate won't be Clinton that he can't win, it still won't get Clinton to the White House.
So if this "revolution" is being fought, it's because by destroying the Democratic Party (someone threatened that) it will bring people to Clinton? No, Clinton's finished as a Presidential candidate.
This is what I want to know: Is there anything that can be done for the Clinton supporters here to support Obama? If not, then I'd suggest The Left Coaster to start posting about other things, because true-believing unto the death of the Democratic Party is not Left at all. It's very right-wing.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 19, 2008 07:22 PMHa! Bob in Pacifica is a great one to talk about 'very right-wing'. He's done nothing all season but use right-wing talking points against Hillary. Screw off.
Posted by at May 19, 2008 07:51 PMerici,
thanks for proving my point moron. you need to read a little more slowly next time so you can comprehend.
Posted by Anon at May 19, 2008 07:52 PMI said over a year ago only 2 sitting Senators were ever elected president, and neither was a woman or a black.
Well, TIKI Al, the good news is that all three contenders are Senators, so the chances are good that the next President will be a Senator. That said, I would have been happier if Obama or HRC had governor experience.
Bob,
That's a fair question, so, at bare minimum;
1) No privatization of SS, no matter what Austin Goolsby whispers.
2) No nomination of Judge Roberts types (no matter how much one admires his "intellect".)
3) Restoring the worker and environmental protections that Bill Clinton maintained (and Shrub gutted).
My prediction;
1. Obama will graciously offer the Veep to Hillary, under SD pressure.
2. Hillary will graciously decline, under SD pressure.
3. We will all come together and beat McPain in November, while peter weeps slowly, slowly into his beer.
:shakes head: OK, I was enjoying that last mental image too much.
Yours?
One mistake some Obama supporters make, thinking all Clinton supporters are women. And no they are not all working class either. Been in the corporate world for over 30 years, and Obama represents the yearly new comapany slogan to me. New slogan, same old ideas. Except with Obama have no idea what his positions are because his records in Illinois were purged and he has so little time in the Senate. And the idea the Democratic party would fracture was not a threat, it was an observation and not just from Clinton supporters. To me, the Party does not have an identity. Where was the leadership and the bloggers who said we would not let Democrats be pilloried? Happily joining in and not objecting. So no, we are not threatening to destroy the Democratic Party, it has already accomplished that all by itself without our help. (First vote was for president was HHH in 1968)
Posted by formerhoosier at May 19, 2008 07:55 PM"Well, TIKI Al, the good news is that all three contenders are Senators, so the chances are good that the next President will be a Senator."
The point was that the 2 senators that won were white men like McCain. Was Nader a senator?
And is it too late for a non-senator independent to jump in?
Posted by TIKI AL at May 20, 2008 12:20 AMAh. No, Nader was not a Senator, but again, he has as about as much chance of becoming President as I do of becoming Queen of England.
Yes, there's never been a black or a female President, but there's never been a leading black or female Dem nominee either. If you'd told me a year ago that the leading two contenders for the Dem nom would be an AA and a woman, I wouldn't have believed you. So I'm credible about either one becoming President.
And is it too late for a non-senator independent to jump in?
Yes. Unless you're talking about Perot, who couldn't, or Al Gore, who wouldn't.
Posted by Blue Jean at May 20, 2008 06:14 AMiamcoyote -
[Hmm. Sounds more like a hostage situation than a primary, doesn't it? ]
that is funy as hell.