Arkansas Blog

This making up the rules on the fly makes me sick. Clear, predetermined rules are not too much to expect. Howard Dean blew it by not anticipating the disaster caused by punishing Florida and Michigan. Now the losers will feel snookered, not beaten. Think 2000, we've been there before, but this time it's self-inflicted. Inexcusable. Embarrassing.

ARK. BLOG: Just for the record, I think your frustration here is with spin, not rules changes. The caucus and primary pledged delegate votes will be cast according to the results in the states. Since neither candidate has a clear majority of ALL delegates from pledged delegates alone, the super delegates will decide the outcome. They may be guided by overall results, results in their own states or the color of the candidate's shoes, if they choose. Those are the rules. A super delegate might, rather than by shoe color, be guided by his or her idea of the likeliest winner in the fall. In the end, I still think the final outcome is Obama. But the rules are being followed. Candidates are selecting the elements of the decision-making process that put them in the most favorable light as they make their case to the super delegates. A deep detestation for Hillary does not make this process illegitimate, as some seem to contend.

Maybe somebody needs to look at a place where cash talks and bullshit walks.
Iowa Electronic Markets shows Obama leading [nomination] by 80 pts. blue name.

Click over to the other one, U.S. Presidential Winner Take All (WTA) and Demos lead
Rs by 20 pts.

I don't have the crystal ball that the "Obama or Nobody" crowd uses, so I don't know what will happen in Nov. I hope the Democrats rally behind him and we win, but I won't be surprised if we lose, rally or no rally. In picking the new, different, more inspiring candidate, we also picked the least likely to win candidate. Normally, that would be my choice too, but following 8 yrs of Bush, I didn't think it was wise to roll the dice and risk it all for a dream candidate. My suggestions that we should be cautious and at least think about what was happening, were met with anger and derision rather than reflection, and I've watched as the sites I've read and loved for years became rabid and radical before my very eyes.

I remember a time in our history when I was radical, at least in my vote, thought and verbal support. I remember telling my kids when they complained that a minority school friend was "angry all the time", that had we been treated as they and their ancestors were, we would be making war against everyone in this country. I understood it all and would have joined any protest - was even occasionally ashamed that I hadn't had to suffer the same indignities.

So, I think my political beliefs are identical to any Obama or Hillary supporter out there. Where we differ, is that I see the past 8 yrs of Bush and believe that coming as close to 100% certainty that McCain not win is THE most important issue we face. Both candidates were and are near perfect, with each having some baggage that I didn't like. One had a superior chance to further my goal of stopping the Republicans in their tracks. I thought and still do, that was the wisest course.

We aren't going to take the safe route, and unless things get worse in the Obama camp, I will support Obama in Nov, but it won't be with any enthusiasm or joy - not because of him personally, but because I dread aligning myself with the attitudes I see growing on that side of the Democrat Party. I read Huffington Report, TPM, Buzzflash, Kos - sites I've loved with my morning coffee for years - and I see the kind of stuff I thought only nasty conservatives said and thought. I'm realizing the beast is in us, each of us, and we have to take care that we are the different party, the better party, the caring party, the more honest party, the dependable party, the fair party that I've always believed us to be. I was so proud to be a Liberal when it was such a dirty word. Please, please don't take that pride away, don't let me wake up to find we were not different, not better, not more honest and fair. Don't let me wake up to find we were all the same - just with a different name.

LWood, link goes to WTA only. Can you post a link to the site?

I think if the Dems really wanted guarantee a win in November they should have put Edwards up and maybe they still can if they get both HRC and BHO to drop out. 30% of the US population will not vote for Obama because he is black, 40% won't vote for HRC under any circumstances (unless maybe she was running against Huckabee). Edwards might have been lightweight, but at least he doesn't carry the massive negatives.

The nation and the world is tired of Bushes, but either leading nominee will make the election closer than need be.

Try this link to the Nominations market CiCi.

>>Edwards might have been lightweight, but at least he doesn't carry the massive negatives.<<

You're right Mud up until about July 1 when the Repub Slime machine will slime the candidate no matter
who he or she may be. It's sorta sliming by formula, the individual makes little difference.

I'll admit I am naive when it comes to the political elections ins-and-outs. But, it seems to me that whoever garners the most votes moves on and is the general election candidate. How can you consider what a "poll" says about who is the most electable? The people vote, and right or wrong that person is their candidate. All this posturing from each side just enforces the idea that elections are run by a select group of insiders. It's no wonder the turn-out for elections is such a small percentage of the eligible public.

Thanks, LWood.

You've got it right Earl. The one who garners the most votes moves on, but that doesn't mean the one who moves on was the best choice. Back when there was still time for this to go either way, some of us cautioned that maybe we should think twice.

I'm worried about the eventual nominee losing in Nov, because whether or not McCain should get the most votes at that time - he will be a disaster for this country. I am also worried about all the division in the Democrat Party.

This is beyond 'inside baseball'. These polls 6 months out, before the conventions, before the campaigns, are almost meaningless. You can't really even call them a snapshot. They are a reflection of media attention at best.

If you want to look at actual electability it is time to consider what a pitiful campaign Hillary ran against a candidate that would in any other context be considered a Vice Presidential contender and what a smart campaign a relatively unknown black man ran against the best known woman in the world. That might provide some insight into electability.

It does make sense in the long run for Hillary to continue to make these ridiculous arguments week after week, month after month, to deaden the outrage should she manage to steal the nomination. You can only imagine the Presidency that would follow. Coming on the heals of the Bush Administration, the damage to the political process, as if it could get any worse, or even democracy as an institution are not paletable.

Yeah...who the hell could've foreseen that Florida might be important in the general election. It doesn't seem fair to pick on Dean/Democratic leadership because they didn't have a crystal ball or because they didn't know that Florida Republicans were going to mess with the process. Frankly, I don't know who has demonstrated more incompetence...but my ire has settled on Dean and a few other Clinton-hating Democrats. (Hate them, if you must, but leave us voters and our votes ALONE.)

Like others, I don't have a clue what will happen in November. Everything I thought I knew about presidential elections left my brain in 2000/2004...after throwing my vote away on Nader in 2000. But a few things have stuck from the last two presidential elections: Florida is kind of important...as are a few other select states. Very liberal Dems are as likely to be elected by the general public as a Mike Huckabee. The Supreme Court liked selecting our president. Our elections are less secure, less reliable now than they were decades ago. Electronic voting machines are disasters waiting to be hacked. Elections should not be left up to those who are elected by the process. When a Republican state official speaks out and says his state is in the bag, a sure thing...you can bet it is.

Although, what is truly, truly ironic is that after the glee spent in the last eight years about Bush stealing the Presidency, now, the Hillary supporters advocate stealing the nomination. Could there be a clearer picture of state of democracy in America?

Right on, LWood. I watch the Iowa Election Markets, too.

I'm reluctant to tell Democrats how to run their party, but the way they apportion district-level delegates in some states is ridiculous. No one can figure it out. I've come to appreciate the winner-take-all approach of the GOP primaries.

Fletch, where have you seen a Hillary supporter advocate "stealing the nomination"? I haven't seen that at all. I've seen both campaigns say and do things that don't honor the frustration we all felt in 2000 when an election WAS stolen. Hillary has changed her mind on Fla and Mi mostly because it would help her win - that truth isn't lost on me at all. I know her motives aren't just "the poor voters" of those two states. BUT, have you not noticed that the Obama campaign is more than willing to see both Michigan and Florida voters left out in the cold? Do you think he is not looking at that issue strictly from how it will effect his chances of winning the nomination?

The idea that in order to support Obama you have to make Hillary evil is what I object to. I thought she was the most likely to win in Nov, but I'm a Democrat and I won't lose sleep because Hillary doesn't win. But, I resent like hell the idea she has to be made to seem evil in order to be a good Democrat???? Come on.

I quit my church because I didn't like being told I had to be a Republican to be a good Christian, and I'm sure as hell not going to be told how to be a 'good' Democrat by people who sound just like Karl Rove.

I'm not talking about you, Fletch - but there is so much ugliness in the anti-Hillary movement that I feel compelled as a fellow Democrat, to defend her. It's silly, devisive and ugly.

How in the hell are Hillary supporters advocating stealing the election? She's not the one standing in the way of a Michigan/Florida re-vote. And, neither Obama nor Hillary can win without intervention from Super Delegates.

For MONTHS Obama's supporters have acted like the nomination process was OVER and that Hillary had to steal something or triangulate something or do something unseemly to win the nomination. And I understand that acting like the winner is part of the game/process. But getting all high and mighty about the political ethics of Obama while treating every political action of Hillary's like she's the devil...like she's trying to steal what your guy has already won is, well, bull shit. The election is ongoing. Both Obama/Hillary are equally guilty of all sorts of political shenanigans (it is an election, after all). Both are equally deserving of the nomination and will have to depend on one sort of Party machinations or another to get the nomination. Both have supporters of all shades...ethics/honor wise.

Why don't Obama's supporters like/respect women?

Well...great female minds clearly think alike, Ci.Ci. Ha!

Remember all the angst these past few months about how the superdelegates might overturn the primary and caucus results at the end of the process? Looking at today's numbers it seems all that worry was sorely misplaced.

According to DemConWatch current delegate counts, Barack Obama has won 52.4% of pledged delegates (1,660.5 delegates) and Hillary Clinton has won 47.3% (1,499.5 delegates). John Edwards still has 0.3% (7 delegates) pledged to him.

The supers? Well, they are now 53.3% for Obama (320.5 delegates) and 46.7% for Clinton (280.5 delegates), less than a 1% difference from voter results.

I'm beginning to think Democrats are hard-wired to worry about every little thing that might go wrong to the point of exhaustion. That's where we put our energies while Republicans put theirs into projects like disqualifying legitimate voters.

Talking about delegate math and the process used to select the Democratic presidential nominee I want to bring up a sore point with me. Even though it is delegates, and only delegates ("It's the delegates, stupid"), that will decide the nomination, the Clinton campaign has been arguing that she leads in popular votes IF YOU INCLUDE MICHIGAN (and Florida). Since, as CiCi mentioned, we Dems like to think we are somehow better or different, I'm curious how Clinton supporters feel about Clinton including Michigan voters in the vote total since Obama's name didn't appear on the Michigan ballot. In essence using 'Clinton rules' of counting voters not a single person in Michigan voted for Obama nor intended to vote for Obama given a chance. Am I the only Democrat troubled by such politics (rules of engagement)?

If the situation was reversed with only Obama's name having appeared on the Michigan ballot, would Clinton supporters still feel the same way?

Now, I know some may respond that Obama supporters in Michigan could vote for 'Uncommitted' as an indirect vote for Obama. Again, if reversed, would you have accepted this method as a fair vote for Clinton?

I certainly don't see Hillary as evil.

Her actions begin to indicate that she has no vision, no purpose to her Presidency other than personal and political power, ego, and arrogance. That is not my demonization of her, it is simply the image she has left with the electorate since the shameful days of South Carolina. She misread the election, she didn't take Obama or her own negatives seriously, she acted as if she expected to be coronated, not nominated. It didn't work out too well. To continue is to marginize yourself and look desparate and egotistical. Not exactly Presidential material.

This thing has been over for months. Even though Hillary says Bill didn't clinch the nomination until June we are treated to the film clips of Bill's trip to Capitol Hill on April 19 to meet with Congressional Democrats as the 'presumptive' nominee. Florida and Michigan would not have even caused this mess unless we didn't all come to believe that these things are over early. Iowa, New Hampshire, Super Tuesday (which was created years ago for the same reason,) have been definative for half a century. Hillary looks foolish when she says otherwise. I don't know anything about about the demonization of Hillary. I know that if she continues on this path she will surely become a laughing stock, if she hasn't already.

When the money dries up and you are mathmatically eliminated you do the gracious thing and bow out for party unity. If she wants to hang on, waiting for a change in the circumstances, suspend the campaign and position yourself behind the scenes. That where VPs come from.

Super delegates do not vote until the convention. Who they say they support right now is meaningless. Unlike pledged delegates, they can vote differently at the convention if they want. A lot can happen in 3 of months.

It would be hard to claim Hillary Clinton stole the nomination if more Democrats voted for her.

"Her actions begin to indicate that she has no vision, no purpose to her Presidency other than personal and political power, ego, and arrogance. That is not my demonization of her..."

I feel the same way about Obama.

Max, don't you think it's more than spin? 5 or 6 differents ways being proposed to count the votes? Two key states in or out? All their votes or just 1/2? All that uncertainty sure seems like more than spin to me.

ARK. BLOG: No, there is only one way to count the votes -- setting aside Florida and Michigan. The pledged delegates will vote according to primary and caucus outcomes and super delegates will vote according to their personal desires. The Florida and Michigan mess IS a mess. But that's apart from all the arguments about electability, polls, etc., that Hillary is using to try to sway super delegates. The party made a mess of this. The press didn't help. Media kept asserting things as fact that weren't necessarily written in stone -- the number of delegates necessary to win for example. It seems clear that some delegates from Florida and Michigan will be seated, thus the delegate threshold will be higher. It seemed clear to me all along that the party would have to do something about those states. The media has also, until very recently, made it seem as if only the pledged delegates mattered in the outcome and that the super delegates would be bound by primary and caucus outcomes. That was never so, but the Obama noise machine contemptuously tried to silence anyone who tried to mention THAT particular rule. Whatever the outcome -- and I still think it's Obama -- the Democratic Party needs to clean up this process for the next time. I'd begin it by ending caucuses and particularly end the nutty dominance given Iowa.

I guess it depends on whose foot the shoe is on.

I have been blown away by the Obama-hate coming out of Hillary's camp.

I don't see how Obama started the war, which I put at when the "3 a.m." ads and the "He's not a Muslim -- as far I know" statements came out, but who cares at this point.

Hillary is a fighter, and she's got a fight, and good for her. I just hope it's good for this country.

You are right, Zelda. I was checking out Wonkette and found her statement regarding a Youtube skit showing a child pretending to be Hillary as a 12 yr old, and Wonkette's statement was "Even as a 12 yr old Hillary was a monster". What's up with all this crap??? Do I need to join Nader? Do I need to become Independent?? I think I know how Republicans who are dismayed with Rove/Bush politics feel when they say "the Republican Party left them". I'm wondering if the Democratic Party has taken a turn I can't take........

How much longer are we gonna have to listen to all the Hillary supporters cry and moan 'cause she lost? It's really getting old. Something tells me they won't shut up even after he clinches all the necessary delegates by next Wednesday.

"...If the situation was reversed with only Obama's name having appeared on the Michigan ballot, would Clinton supporters still feel the same way?..."--waterboy

This one would. Unfair crap is crap regardless of the source. It's outrageous/unfair to count the votes in a state where one candidate's name didn't appear. And it's equally outrageous/unfair let the Party divide the votes...hell, that's insulting and stupid. That's why I'm for a complete re-vote. One where both Obama/Hillary will have the same amount of time to campaign in both states.

The way the Democratic Party has run its election is incompetent, outrageous and unfair to the voters. Why bother with letting the people vote when those so-called Super Delegates can vote however they want...plus there are several other such 'rules.' I really didn't know that the Parties could make up whatever rules they wanted to. If they dared, they could just say 'We're appointing people to select the nominee and doing away with that pesky voting thing.' After all, people get to thinking they have a say in who their representative is.

"I don't see how Obama started the war, which I put at when the "3 a.m." ads and the "He's not a Muslim -- as far I know" statements came out, but who cares at this point. "

Obama called Hillary Clinton "Bush-Cheney light" last summer and you think she started the War? Your ignorant of the facts. Perhaps you should stop taking the word of the Obama media and look at the facts.

And That is not a quote from Hillary about whether or not he's a Muslim.

"How much longer are we gonna have to listen to all the Hillary supporters cry and moan 'cause she lost? It's really getting old. Something tells me they won't shut up even after he clinches all the necessary delegates by next Wednesday."--devilsadvocate

As long as it feels good/right. And, your 'something' is correct...unless something changes.

Levee, I have yet to see once incident of Obama hate from the Hillary campaign. Hillary has fought hard and she didn't go to the mat for Obama, but she has defended him about as much as he has defended her. They are opponents and that's what people involved in a battle do. All the hate in this campaign has been levelled directly at Hillary and whether I agree with all her positions or not, she doesn't deserve to be treated this way.

I'm all for every Democrat voting for their choice - I'm not all for Democrats demonizing the opponent who is clearly as qualified. I would do the exact same for Obama - indeed I have done so - defending him against the scurrulous "Muslim" attacks, unpatriotic attacks, and the attacks against Michelle that she is a radical black racist. I would just like to see the same courtesy extended to the other Democrat in this race - Hillary Clinton.

I'm expecting 'graciousness' from both the Hillary and Obama camps, fletch. In fact, I demand that both of them do whatever it takes to win the November. And I don't care who has to swallow the most.

I won't be forgiving if we lose in November...including myself if I haven't done everything in my power to help the nominee beat McSame!

devilsadvocate, this woman is not complaining because Hillary is a woman or because she is losing. This woman is complaining because she has been treated like dirt by other Democrats and the so-called Liberal media. I don't think it is sexism as many do, because I think were it almost any other woman, all hell would break loose on the media's performance of the "fair and balanced" duties.

I could care less who occupies the WH in Nov as long as it isn't McCain. I care a lot about the idea that has now permeated my party, that in order to support one candidate you have to hate the other and assign evil motives to their every word or deed. I think it is juvenile - not sexist. I see better fair play in grade school.

"I'm not one of those people who decided at the age of seven that I wanted to be president."

Obama attacking Hillary Clinton in Feb. of 2007. Click on my name for attack time line.

Obamanistas have some nerve saying she started it.

Yes, Ci.Ci., Michelle gets some of the same sexist crap that's plagued Hillary...and Teresa Heinz, and many, many women before them.

LOL, sour grapes.

Click on my name for a hilarious YouTube. I think CiCi mentions it above. ;-)

Zelda, it wasn't Obama standing in the way of a revote--it was the states themselves. Who's going to pay for it? Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for a new primary because Democrats in those states were too stupid/arrogant to follow the rules.

I do get tired of the Clinton people whining about this. "Waa! Someone is being punished for breaking the rules, with sanctions that my aide Harold Ickes wrote into DNC policy! How unfair!"

blast from the past...

Arkansas Blog
« Huckabee's last stand | Main | Late arrival: D-G boys' club »

It's over
I'd be happy to be wrong. For a variety of reasons, I'd prefer Hillary Clinton
to be the Democratic presidential nominee.
But it's not going to happen. She'll be clobbered in Wisconsin tomorrow. She
might run ahead, even win, the popular vote in Texas, but the delegate count
will be close, probably pro-Obama. The media talk, the popular mood, the times
-- they all work for Obama.
Finally, there's been the Clinton campaign. Fighting, seriously, today about
Obama's borrowing of rhetoric from a friend is a sign of desperation. Obama is
derivative. So is everyone. And Bill Clinton -- who knew? -- has proved to be a
negative.
The media megaphone can't be underestimated.
Some of it is crazy. Some of it unfair. So is life.
Obama will win the nomination. Polls today say he'll beat McCain everywhere --
in every key state and nationally. Those same polls said the same thing about
Hillary Clinton's sure dominance a few months ago.
For the record.
Posted by Max Brantley on February 18, 2008 06:49 PM | Permalink

I say beware of anyone trying to change the process. The Democratic Party needs to throw out the whole Super Delegate thing and toss the caucus BS. I've noted in my life that any time someone wants to make a simple process complicated, they're up to no good. If you'd study the booze laws of every one of our 50 states you'd find each state's laws are more complicated than anything Rube Goldberg created. This is done on purpose to leave lots and lots of loopholes that allows the unscrupulous to gather more power and make more money. Any IRS form is another good example of a simple thing made mind-numbingly complicated for the good of the few.

At the end of the day I want the candidate with the most votes to win. I want that to be true within the Democratic Party as it chooses a nominee and I want that to be true on November 4th. Any other way of counting is dead wrong. I understand why the Democratic Party wants to punish Michigan and Florida, but I question the wisdom of causing more trouble in very very troubled times. The simple thing is to have both states re-vote, then no one can complain and if Obama wins big in both.....yippy!

I was for the Clintons because I always root for the home team. I want Hillary to win only if she has the most votes at the end of the day. I think we'll see an Obama/Clinton ticket because there are no other choices. I like Bill Richardson, but adding him to the ticket won't make it as strong and safe as adding Hillary. This fall we aren't up against a mere political party, we're up against a machine most reminiscent of a Stalin or Hitler or the Chinese one party ruler. In order to beat them and their millions of dirty tricks, we'll need the strongest ticket ever presented in the history of the Democratic Party. And we still might not win.

Fair is something you take your kids to in the fall, there won't be anything fair about the way the neo-con Republicans handle this next election. Every dirty trick devised my mankind will be in play. Just for insurance, over the summer Google the word Revolution, cause we might need to know all about it on November 5th.

If we really wanted to be fair, we'd end the whole concept of political parties. Let everyone run as themselves. Dogs are great unless they're running in a pack. Same holds true for humans. I don't want to see the Democratic Party morph into the Republican Party just to beat the Republicans. Let's quit stabbing each other and use the time to sharpen our knives for McCain.

Aye, aye! Sir.

If we really wanted to be fair, we'd end the whole concept of political parties. Let everyone run as themselves. Dogs are great unless they're running in a pack. Same holds true for humans. I don't want to see the Democratic Party morph into the Republican Party just to beat the Republicans.

excellent point, worth repeating DBI

(and with modern technologies, there's no more good reasons not to allow people to have more say over more issues via electronic voting, imo)

If we had caucuses, I wouldn't vote. It's that simple. I don't want to be intimidated, don't want to have to socialize, don't want to have to go out at night, don't want to be constrained to a certain time that is open ended possibly going int the wee hours of the morning, and hate to wait around while others try to get things together. Talk about a boring WASTE of TIME!

Caucuses are crap, and I am very proud that Arkansas did NOT go for them and has the present system. It's the BEST!

Prouster...I didn't say that Obama was the one standing in the way of a re-vote. As far as I can tell, it's the Democratic Party Rules gang that's created this mess (with help from some Florida Republicans), and keeping the mess from being resolved. Of course, Obama is better off, vote wise, without a re-vote; but I don't see him trying to deliberately stand in the way of Michigan and Florida citizens voting. He doesn't need votes that badly.

And, several Democrats have offered to pay for a state-run re-vote. Money is not a reason.

BTW, Prouster, the revotes WERE paid for. There was money ready and waiting for the revotes. It was the Obama backers that blocked them.

What's your source for that, Zelda? Your hairdresser's brother's next-door-neighbor? I never read anything about there being money in any "reserves" for a revote.

You Hillary supporters will stop at nothing to smear Obama.

Of course, Max would be spinning hard the other way had Clinton won the caucus states. Then we'd be hearing about how it's stupid to try and change the rules mid stream (like the Clintonistas have been doing all along, really.) Those states came up with their own rules, Obama won those contests fairly, and he would win them again if they had a primary, straw poll, etc. This blog can argue that Shrillary would have had the most pledged delegates if you don't count the states Max doesn't want to count. This blog can argue that Shrillary won the mythical "popular vote" so long as you count the states in which Obama kept the agreement not to campaign in while Clinton did not. But no amount of attacking our Democratic nominee is going to make Shrillary president. This blog's die hard spin is cute, but pointless. In the meantime, you guys are just one more media outlet that is still giving John McCain a free pass. I love how the state's progressive blog spends all of it's time desperately trying to smear Obama, and yet is content to leave McCain untouched. Way to prioritize.

TEXAS does BOTH (heresy i know) but it does make a lot of sense,

vote early in the calendar, caucus select the last third of the delegates late in the calendar

just in case, a "rethink" is needed (as was feared in '92 and "hope(d)", by some, in '08)

and it would cut down on the competition 'tween the states to be first in line/up front

"Obamaists" and "Clintonistas"... jeez. Maybe some of us just voted for the candidate we liked best for president. No need to be an "ist" or an "ista"

FreedomCounty brings up a good point...

Where is the McCain bashing?!

Caucus are undemocratic because they exclude many voters....period.

There is nothing to spin and nothing to argue.

That's Obamanistas Moxiemoron. You can call them anything you want and I can call them anything I want. If anyone doesn't like being called that then tough. I don't like them demonizing Clinton either but they continue to do so.

I don't really understand the point of the "inconvienent truth" ???

I am not a fan of caucus, electoral college, delegates, or supers.. and i would also add I am no longer a fan of an open primary system... as long as there are parties.. only members of a party should participate in a primary, imo..

But water boy has it correct... I would ad a few points

Caucus delegates do represent majority vote for their area.. it's flawed, it's wrong, but it is also true.

Also the last time I checked the best Clinton math including MI and FL could at best place her 71.5K popular vote ahead of Obama...

Had team Obama broken the rules along with team Hillary... there is simply no way he would not have garnered much more than that 71k overall popular vote difference...even if he lost both states.

Let's not forget Limbaugh subversive votes who placed 400 to 500 k clinton votes in several states. Very likely threw the entire race in TX (at least 100k ditto votes in TX.. by exit polling of those who admitted what they were doing). None of those people will vote for a D in the fall.. none! Should we allow subversive ditto heads to select our nominee? Should we nominate the Dem candidate whos husband favored and pled for ditto heads to do that? Even though they are still losing?

No way in hell am I buying that Limbaugh stuff...no way to prove or disprove any of his wind. Heck, Limbaugh, Sean and numerous other Right-wing talking heads couldn't even stop McCain from becoming the nominee. Yet we're suppose to buy that his Mouthiness was powerful enough to screw with Hillary or Obama's campaign...to select the Democratic nominee...ha. Plus...everyone knows that it was Democratic subversives who infiltrated the Republican process and gave em McSame.

To really get a feel for just how bad caucuses are, here is a report from a disabled person that saw the problems easily. Get the PDF to see the problems in all their glory.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/27/92144/7994

ES, I usually agree with you on many things, but on the bit about the Repub subversives I have to take issue. Remember when Obama was bragging about his "crossovers" voting for him in the caucuses?

I'm thinking they want Obama more than Clinton. He will be easier to beat, or manipulate. She has a clue about how the Repubs work their behind the scenes crap.

Its stealing the nomination pure and simple. By all rational means, IT IS OVER.

Irony of Ironies, this whole Hillary mess is starting to go a little hormonal. What a perfect ending for the first woman President. It will justify all of the Women President jokes for the last 40 years.

Zelda, refusing to consider evidence is no more admirable.. than faith based non sense. (and I am not talking about McCain at all).. as i said above the swing ditto votes failed to trump the over all process... but they should be considered when calculating HC claims of garnering the popular D vote... just as claiming popular votes in uncontested states when being on the ballot at all was breaking rules.

Crossovers are often good..and of course very necessary in Nov.... Bush garnered 3 million D crossovers in one election (and most folks still inconveniently blame Nader crossover voters who were far fewer in number) while Bush still had to steal the rest of the election.

Bragging about genuine crossovers is one thing... looking for and actively supporting the idea of subversives like Bill did repeatedly.. is altogether another thing.

I'm saying conservative scientific exit polling of ditto heads who admitted what they were doing... and we know those ditto heads are not the type of crossovers who will vote D in Nov.. under any circumstance.

Rush repeatedly... for months begged.. damn near demanded ditto heads consider voting Clinton in many more states than he did with Obama.. and only the Clinton campaign (Bill) went on Rush's show (and other conservative talk radio shows) and endorsed that idea.

rablib.. I really have no idea what they want, beyond throwing a wrench in the D process, extending it and costing us chaos and money... but really, the evidence of my claims is well known... follow the links for more info.

One link at my name and two links below

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/06/exit-polls-limbaugh-effec_n_100488.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-leach/questioning-hillary-clint_b_100260.html

We will never know the precise numbers... but the conservative polls of those who *admitted* it suggest the numbers were large and by far and away an effort to push for Clinton as the Dem nominee..

It's a messy process with no perfectly clean hands... but there are clear signs of who is not breaking rules, who did not actively support the idea of subversives and clear conservative numbers in many areas of subversives who voted for HC.

bottom line the popular vote HC claims is BS.. and trying to claim foul at this point in time in re caucus is BS too.

I am amazed this convoluted system seems to be working in spite of all the monkey wrenches thrown. So far, anyway.

Why don't Obama's supporters like/respect women?
-zelda

wow...just wow

how can you level accusations at another camp when you can make that gross a generalization
saying that is like saying "Why don't Clinton's supporters like/respect black people?"

I have yet to hear an Obama supporter claim that they wouldn't vote for Clinton because of her gender, but I HAVE heard a Clinton supporter say "I won't vote for that n****r." Direct quote.
This is not to say that misogynist pigs don't exist. I know there are plenty on both sides who are idiots...but try not to be one please.

Obama AND/OR Clinton 2008!

FreedomCountry, please give me a quote from anyone "smearing" Obama. I haven't read one other than quotes some of us have read of racists and those convinced he's Muslim, and all of us defended him on those charges.

"Had team Obama broken the rules along with team Hillary..."

How did she break the rules? Obama broke the rules by running national TV ads before the FL primary. He still got his as beat bad. His supporterd in FL and MI worked to block the revotes there.

Obama doesn't smeared on here? Seriously? Just the fact that every other post is intended to discredit him/ support his already defeated opponent is bad enough. But Max has propagated that "Obama has a white person problem" crap on here over and over. It's over, folks. It's over. I look forward to the day when the Clintonistas finally give up the ghost and come back to the Democratic Party. The sooner the better, because we have a Bush clone to defeat...

Uh...JK, I had my tongue firmly planted in my cheek regarding Obama's supporters and the liking women stuff.

Eureka...you talk about me ignoring evidence regarding the Limbaugh stuff, but I haven't seen any such evidence. And that's the genius of his game...can't prove nor disprove his declarations. On the other hand, it's a fact that he didn't have the power to stop McCain's rise in his own party.

"Why don't Obama's supporters like/respect women?
-zelda

wow...just wow

how can you level accusations at another camp when you can make that gross a generalization
saying that is like saying "Why don't Clinton's supporters like/respect black people?""
by: JK

I 'SWORE OFF' the Clinton/Obama STUFF...sometimes I read a thread just for laughs...and I'm never disappointed!
November-5-2008 will be very interesting!!!

"...It's over, folks. It's over..."--FreedomCounty

So says you.

Just more generalizations, Ci.Ci., just more of the same. I know I've never smeared Obama.

Obamanistas can play all innocent all they want. The media can continue to falsely report that Clinton attacks Obama but not the other way around. What they say doesn't change reality. The reality is that MANY Democrats know how they behaved and will not support Obama in November. You can scream and bitch now all you want. You can call us traitors, idiots, Republicans, or anything else you want, but we're still not supporting or voting for Obama. It's done. You made your bed and now you get to lie in it with Obama. If Obama wins, that's fine, and if he loses, there is 2012.

You are correct...it's over. Time to focus on defeating McCain in 2012.

Blowing off somebody's claims..then switching your point to the other party race.. an entirely different process.. is ignoring, zelda.. as is refusing to look into evidence (linked above), or sticking ones head in the sand and declaring it doesn't exist.

Good grief

liberal Dem looking forward to 2012-

What are you, twelve years old?

Good grief is correct.

I give up...the same stuff over and over.

Freedom, I don't recall ever reading a post on this blog that was insulting to or could be considered bashing Obama. Do you really think that believing that Hillary would do better in Nov means we are bashing Obama?

I bash McCain all the time - I call him McSame, McSenile, etc., but I've never bashed Obama and I don't remember reading a single post on this blog that ever bashed him - even remotely.

Now the exact opposite is true of Hillary - many, many posts are insulting and bashing Hillary.

Let him continue to bash Clinton, because I intend to bash Obama for as many months going forward as they have going backwards. You've dished it out and now get ready to take it.

Let THEM continue to bash Clinton, because I intend to bash Obama for as many months going forward as they have going backwards. You've dished it out and now get ready to take it.

Are 'the Rules' THE RULES, or should EVERY VOTE COUNT ?
Well, if you're a CLINTON, the answer is "both" (or "depends")

Is there such a thing as TOO MANY VOTES ?
Again, the CLINTON-ian answers are "yep", "nope", "depends"

At the very moment when Clinton campaign lawyers are preparing their arguments for this weekend's Rules & Bylaws committee meeting in Washington D.C. asking for the Michigan and Florida delegations to be seated in full, as voted, other Clinton campaigners were challenging the seating of the Collin County delegates to the Texas Democratic State Convention.

Why? "They broke the LAW"
(and the Clintons are nothing if not famous for their fidelity to the letter of a law)

KERA has the story (link) as does PoliTex (link) and now also KOS (link)
http://startelegram.typepad.com/politex/2008/05/local-democrat.html
http://publicbroadcasting.net/kera/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1288079§ionID=1
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/29/22624/7358/589/525218

==========================
from PoliTex:

It was a localized version of the Michigan/Florida debate in Grand Prairie today and once again, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters were at odds.

Local Clinton supporters advocated Thursday for unseating ALL of the Democratic delegates from Collin County because their senate district conventions were held on the wrong day.

Officials with the Collin County Democratic Party said they chose to hold the convention a day late because there wasn't a large enough venue in the county available for the scheduled date of Saturday, March 29. Party officials warned at the time that the eligibility of their delegation may be challenged.

Clinton supporters said state law required that senate district conventions be held on Saturday, March 29.

"What is troubling me...is that it seems to me that this rule is crystal clear," said Martha Smiley, a Clinton supporter on the state party's credentials committee.

(whadya bet Martha was smiling when she said that?)

The DNC has no business telling states when they can and can not vote.
And there is a difference in breaking DNC rules and the law.
State legislatures decide when primaries are held, and that is the law.
Laws trump DNC rules.

Well, Muleboy, I think your article proves the point I've been trying to make. BOTH candidates are trying to win and BOTH will argue whichever side of an argument best benefits their campaign, so why make one on the side of the angels and the other on the side of satan. In this instance we have the "rules" being important to Clinton but not to Obama - the opposite of Michigan and Florida.

Obama and Clinton are so very similar that the constant bashing of Hillary leaves me dumbfounded and questioning my continued involvement with the Democratic Party.

I don't know anyone who is personally acquainted with Scott McClellan, but I do know some who are acquainted with his mother, and I tend to think that Scott's book is one of courage. It reminds me of David Kuo's book. We can never know for sure the part the promise of big bucks plays in anything someone does, but I've lived my life among evangelicals, and some are very hurt by the way things turned outwith George Bush and some do feel betrayed. I think being betrayed by someone to whom you gave blind faith can trigger just the kind of tell-all attempt to hit back, destroy, make amends, whatever you might call it.

I would rather they had spoken out immediately, but it wouldn't have done any good - probably won't now. Look what happened to others who resigned and spoke out - they got a moment's notice and some ridicule from the Bush bunch and then oblivion.

I say, go Scotty, go. It may be late, but scream the truth as loud as you can.

what struck me most curiously about the Collin Co. challenges was the fact that the state (TX) had made the "rules" into a "law". (i'd argue that, just as the state, any state, should not favor any spiritual institution in it's law (separation of church/state) neither does it have any business involving itself with the workings of political institutions (parties)

churches are subsidized by the state via the tax code, often the two major parties are subsidized directly by the state (paying for primaries, funding campaigns & conventions etc.)

does this mean that those frustrated with the primary process (who goes first, by what method delegates are determined, etc,) instead of lobbying the DNC to change the rules, should focus on enacting a federal law ?

I believe the courts may have ruled that it wasn't right to put that burden of paying for primary elections on the parties. The problem with that is that the courts have also held the parties can pick their nominees however they want, including disenfranchising entire states like MI and FL. Well you can't have it both ways. Either the state has no responsibility to pay for party primaries or voting rights do apply to party primaries.

Parties should have to pay for their own primary races if they refuse to protect voter rights. The parties use to pay for their own primaries in Arkansas. That's what filing fees were for. Now the filing fees go to the parties and the taxpayer pays for the party primaries.