Vote Obama or Else? Guess Again!
By Linda Starr on May 28, 2008 at 11:02 PM in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Superdelegates, Women and Children
NOTE: ACTION ITEMS ARE BELOW THE FOLD.
DNC & SUPERDELEGATES, PAY ATTENTION — WE WILL NOT FOLLOW ALONG LIKE SHEEP — as both this video, and Linda Starr’s exceptional letter below, with its call to action, make very, very clear to you. Not this time. Not with this unqualified candidate and with the sexism you have permitted to go on, unchecked, throughout this campaign — and most stunningly, your lack of support for the very most qualified, most knowledgeable, most energetic, most ALERT candidate, HILLARY CLINTON! — Preface by SusanUnPC
From LINDA STARR …
Dear Larry,
I am working with women’s groups who are contacting their delegate representatives where HRC overwhelmingly carried the districts and the Democratic representatives are leaning towards Obama. We are contacting these representatives to inform them if they defy their constituents wishes, they will be unseated by the Republican nominee in the General election. I can site two specific examples, Charles Gonzales and Nick Lampson who are in jeopardy in Texas.
I’ve been contacting the HRC supporters and contributors, all of whom previously supported Nick Lampson in his bid to take Tom Delay’s old seat. These women are so incensed because they say Lampson could never have won without their volunteer help and financial assistance and they will vote Republican, if Obama is made the nominee because their own representative defied them. I’m getting similar reactions from women in Charles Gonzales district who are equally surprised and angry.
I recommend other women supporters of HRC do the same with their own representatives in their districts. My whole point, if the superdelegates are willing to defy their constituents and vote for Obama for whatever reason, they are no longer representing their constituents interests (women’s suffrage), their constituents primary votes, or their will. These superdelegates are also ignoring the best interests of the country and the Democratic Party in selecting a nominee who has virtually no chance to win.
DNC Leaders have grossly underestimated the personal offense to the women of the party (and more men than we knew) by the misogynistic methods and hate speech to help Obama steal this nomination away from the people’s choice. The DNC leaders and Democratic members of Congress have sat silently by while Obama’s surrogate attack dog, Jeremiah Wright, (and others, particularly at MSNBC) were deployed against HRC to use inflammatory, derogatory, personally vicious hate speech. There have been no words of reproach, or criticism against either Obama, his campaign staff, his supporters, or directed at members of the msm while HRC is vilified hourly.
Women are appalled and we are threatening a walkout at the national convention if Obama is forced on us as the nominee and we will work to unseat every Representative who defied our choice of HRC. It defies all common sense and logic why the DNC leaders are so hell bent to make Obama the nominee when it is patently obvious he cannot win in the General Election. Check out www.electoral-vote.com and see how in every scenario, HRC beats McCain hands down and in nearly every possible scenario, McCain beats Obama in a landslide except in one particular scenario, if everything goes perfectly for Obama, then he squeaks by. This site does not factor in the mass exodus of pissed off women who won’t vote for him. If those figures are factored in, there is no possible way Obama can win and the Democrats down ticket candidates will lose as well.
Women are so incensed, we are starting a new national women’s party for the specific purpose of electing women, anti-war activists and others who have not enjoyed equal civil rights such as gays and lesbians. Larry please help me get the word out. To join our new group, send an email to newwomensparty-subscribe@yahoogroups.com with their name, a brief description, and location. We are also going to merge with other groups in the near future, by state, to better prepare for the future.
Thank you, especially if you can help us get word out - we aren’t accepting Obama and will not support him if he’s the nominee. We’ll boycott the presidential race, write in a candidate of our choosing, or vote for a candidate of another party. Obama is not acceptable and he must not be allowed to win the nomination by using misogynistic hate speech!
Well Done Linda! WE will not sit down and shut up!
Women beware…
If Obama wins somehow it will be open season on womens’ rights. To the victors go the spoils. He is bringing all the sexists with him and all those that have no class or respect for women.
His associations and sympathies with Muslims and his cousin in Kenya who believe in Sharia law should also be most alarming.
I’m not saying that I will open a Burka store, but this is very scary!!
As a man my blood boils at the treatment of Hillary who should have already received the nomination hands down.
Respectfully, I disagree. I think you scare a bit easily.
Have you seen how these kids act today? No respect!
What ever happened to holding the door for a woman or other gentleman acts of kindness. After what I’ve read on the Kos or from Obieman I believe it is a trend and if Obama wins then it will legitimize this kind of behavior.
Well, I don’t really think cultural change works quite like that.
He’s a bit of a social boob as far as I can tell. But Bush talks “funny.”
It’s not like we all now talk funny as a result.
And people will be polite or impolite regardless of who is running for president. That’s based on how they were raised.
There are just a lot of unsocialized people out there now more visible than in the past.
So it’s the mothers fault for not teaching kids manners? Kids, and some adults, usually emulate what they see and this generation of young voters came of age during the almost 8 years of the Bush presidency where the message was do whatever you want and never suffer the consequences.
Bush will be leaving the White House as one of the lowest rated presidents of the 43 - but will STILL leave as President. That’s a powerful message to politicians and voters.
And so is the powerful message of sexism perpetuated against Senator Clinton. There is much research showing that young children exposed to violent behavior against their mothers or to child abuse can and do emulate their parents behavior at an early age.
This repugnant and violent language gleefully directed at Senator Clinton from politicians and the mainstream media says it is acceptable behavior to treat ALL women this way. After all, Senator Clinton did nothing to bring about this abusive behavior so it is easy for misogynists to extrapolate this behavior to the next female that they think is keeping them from getting what they want.
I live in Southeast Texas so I’m sure you know what kind of men I’ve been raised around . . . as my father used to always say . . . “horse hocky”! Thanks, dad.
Suz
Seattlemoss I tend to agree with you, when powers that be accept a type of behavior it has a direct influence on cultural behaviors of society, as we have seen throughout history, and only when the powers stand against it is when the culture in society changes, and history has also proven that. The in your face sexism and misogynistic behavior from obama, the elites, media, and obamabots will not be rewarded by me either.
I agree. There are enough social problems right now as a direct result of the Rap Music/Thug Culture, and in some weird way, BO’s candidacy has somehow highlighted it. I immediately noticed the vile, rude bahvior when I first began posting at DK a few months back. But, it was confirmed to me when those kids went apesh*t when BO flipped the bird, dusted shoulders, and scraped the bottom of his shoes in defiance of Hillary and ABC News. When I see the OVERT references of misogynistic language go unchallenged by BO, I just can’t help but see that he tacitly approves of this disgusting behavior.
Yikes, you sound like one of those Rush Limbaugh plants that have been sent out to post inane and divisive comments on blogs. “bringing all his sexists with him”…?
Uh huh, and watch out for that scary black man too.
If you think manipulating the superdelegates with threats is going to work, give it up. If you want McSame instead of Obama, go ahead, vote Republican. You’ll be paying for it more than I will. But don’t try to fool us into thinking you’re really a Democrat, because no matter who wins the priimary nomination, ANY Democrat is better than Mc$ame.
No, not really. You’re deluded if you don’t think that Democrats have had their own corrupt eras in history.
In fact, you’re in the midst of one.
Take the label off. Vote for the person of integrity.
Don’t insist that they agree with everything. That’s a rigid stance that will break your heart.
Figure out your priorities. Put the country in at least equal position to your pocketbook.
And you’ll sleep at night.
But, No, there are times when Democrats should say NO to Democrats.
This is one such time.
Feminist from Oregon…
Sounds like you’re an Obamabot who fears that half the democrat party will be voting for McCain.
I used to vote for the party.
Not this time..
As the slogan goes
I was for Hillary before I voted for McCain.
I’m a lifelong Democrat who comes from a family of lifelong Democrats. I will NEVER vote for Obama, but I also will not vote Republican. I’m going to have to sit this one out if it comes to this. I’m a Delegate for Hillary, and I’m going all the way to the Convention to stand up and with Hillary. I just signed a sworn, notarized affidavit as a delegate to vote Hillary.
I also believe that love of country should supercede Party loyalties. This is going to be a difficult thing for many Hillary Democrats if she isn’t our nominee. But, I’ll revisit this when the dust settles after Denver. Right now, I just have to focus on Hillary.
I was on a Conference Call with Bill Clinton last week for Delegates to the our Convention, and he said we’re taking this to Denver if these votes are counted in F/MI. Dis’ing Hillary is still so shocking to him. And, he also said that is the purpose of the Convention to elect a nominee. It is NOT Pelosi or Dean’s place to push out Hill in order to coronate BO!
Bottom line… this is very difficult for many of us. I just rue the fact that BO ever stepped into this race, because everything feels so surreal. This Dem Party is no longer my Party. So, if I’m going anywhere, it’s away from the Dems and the Repubs.
My wife and I were Independents but had to switch to Democrat so we could vote for Hillary before the primary at Oregon. We also volunteered at the campaign office of Springfield by making phone calls and helped out in some special events which included Hillary, bill, Chelsea, and even for Ambassador Joe Wilson. Plus, watched the counts, etc, on the day of the primary of 05/20 at Lane County Voter Registration bldg. I also moderate in Educk.com on the womens sports forum(millrace). When I am not posting sports I have for the past few months also posted every negative thing I could find on Obama in the political forum(woodshed). We, plus many others will not vote for Obama. Some will rather vote for McCain just in hope that Obama does not become President. Many, including us, will gladly vote for Hillary if she decides to jump to the Independent Party. I have accumulated a very long list of negatives on Obama which needed to be brought out by the Democratic Party a long time ago but for whatever reason it was not.
ATTENTION: Jon H
Please contact me directly at
newwomensparty-owner@yahoogroups.com
If you would like to join our group, the addy is
newwomensparty-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Thanks.
Come on people go and vote with your brain. Use what the good Lord above gave you. Anyone who has’nt been livng under a rock can see what the hell is going on. If Hillary does’nt get the nomination this is one democrat who will leave the party. Remember the party left me. I would rather risk the next 4 years with McCain than risk it with BHO. He has done nothing but make fools of the American people. The idea that it is “cool” to go along with what everyone else is going along with is the reason he has gotten this far. Wake up people he is not the Messiah, not the Saviour of the world. Just another crooked polititian doing and saying whatever he thinks you want to hear.
A few things I have to say to the powers that be: Never underestimate the power of a woman. Pay attention to all of her supporters. If you do not like the bed you have made then change it. Then and only then will you see a united democratic party.
Go Hillary!! The peoples choice.
Oh, I promise you that not only will this pissed off, bitter gun clinging, bible thumping, woman and her six sons and husband will absolutely not vote for Obama! I can stand four more years of the Republicans easier than I can stand four years of as you call him a scary black man. See, I am tired of the double standard, of people telling me I have to vote for the black man instead of the white woman, as by my not voting for him I am a racist. Get this, call me what you want to, I will not vote for Obama under any circumstances that you people can dream up, not even if Senator Clinton gets a token offering of VP, and I am not alone in this, take that to the bank! So, bring on the new party, we’ll have a hell of a launching party, and let the games begin!
Vote for whoever you like. That’s what this country is all about. But rest assured, Barack Obama will be the democratic nominee and he will win the Presidency. I don’t think you or your family are rasict because you don’t support him. I do, however, think that you and the other die hard Clinton supporters are going to regret your behavior once all of this is over.
I am stocking up on popcorn because it is going to be HILARIOUS watching His Fraudness Obamadingdong crash and burn in November. Can’t wait to see what the GOP lets loose!!! He and his sexist supporters who have gleefully referred to my candidate as a B-word and C-word for the past year DESERVE IT ALL. McCain is 1 million times the man and person Obama will ever be. How come it never comes up that people who won’t vote for Clinton are sexists? What a stupid and broad generalization. In order for me to be racist, Obama would have to be black. Not that I give a flying f*** but he is mostly white, next he is mostly Arabic, and he is 6.25% black, which ironically probably doesn’t even qualify one as a minority. I don’t care if he is psychedelic purple. He and his a**hole supporters sat silent while my candidate was degraded and then screamed racism whenever someone sneezed. Pissed off women are not going to tow the line and play nice. Even the Greeks learned that. Go read Lysistrata.
Regret our behavior? And what does that mean? An extension of the bullying done by Obama supporters to Hillary SDs? Or an continuation of the anti-women hate speech coming our of Obama supporters mouths?
Ohhh I am scared.
Let’s not forget there are also anti-semitic backers of Obama like the nation of islam who has many members as security for Obama. Obama’s campaign has already strong-armed delegates to either switch sides/endorse him or they lose the $$$ that they have been getting. Or, tell them they will be replaced if they do not endorse. The delegate on this board knows this all is happening.
Don’t worry fem from oregon, we will, McCain is mountains better than obama. We aren’t looking for a bush from the left.
I agree.
I hope you guys are coming to DC on Saturday. Dividing the FL and MI delegates in half will be the most tragic mistake in the history of the democratic party.
Sign me up!
I am 100% in favor of lobbying the SDs who have supported Obama or remain undeclared, but not with the argument they are not following the vote of their constituency. That can backfire.
Rule of the SD is they must follow their own judgment based on what it best for the party. What is best for the party is the candidate most likely to win the GE. That is Hillary.
I have 2 senators and 1 rep who appear on my ballot. My state & district went for Obama, but all who I vote for have declared, and remain solid in their commitment to vote for Hillary. I don’t want them changing to Obama on the same argument you are using for yours.
She’s right!
Bravo, I hope there is such a huge exodus, that this will never happen again. This is a travesty of justice. The men are deciding this with a few stupid women at their side!
Linda,
Thank you- We’re joinning you ( My entired family ), we will not vote for OBAMA. I can not immagine any scenario from which Obama emerges as a victor in November. Democratic is doomed to repeat the same mistakes time after.
My Family will not vote for Obama we are in Fl and PA all 21 People to McCain or no vote
We are Pa Ma Fl and NC. All voting for the best interests of our country, not our selfish pocektbooks- we will ALL vote McCain if Obama gets coronated
BTW, another fact the media is not presenting..our economy is not in a recession. Figures released this morning on Fox News show a growth. It’s another tactic to elicit favor for Obama. So in addition to voting for national security and values, you are not necessarily voting against your economic interest if you vote against Obama. We all know Hillary represents all those interests with a plan that emphasizes American values and solid economic, domestic, and foreign policy.
Barring her nomination, McCain is the better choice.
The economy has always had periods of growth but, that doesn’t have any positive impact on the people in this country. If it did gas wouldn’t continually be going up. John McCain isn’t going to do anything to help the millions of Americans suffering in this country from the failed economic policies of this administration.
I am grateful to hear there is an organized group taking action on the flagrant disregard of state voters by Super Delegates at large. First Dean said: vote with the will of the people! Then the people voted for Hillary. So, next Dean said, exercise your judgment on behalf of the future of the party. Until sound judgment was dropped from obama’s campaign and campaign money (and other favors) were dropped in the pockets of these party elite. Finally, Dean said, vote however you want to for any reason at all. Enough said.
Go to this link to see how disgusting the SuperD’s regard for the voters of their states have been:
http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/
Where obama won by a little, they gave him near all. Where Hillary won by a lot, they have held back her support and many have ignored the state outcome completely and backed him anyway. In IL, all 28 SD’s for him, he only won be a fraction. In Wi, less of a win for him, but SD’s all behind him. Several never bothered to wait for their states to even vote at all. Just look at this list. Then go do demcomwatch (which is linked at the bottom of this numeric listing page).
Demcom shows who these people are and if they are office holders. Clearly as this article points out the way to get through to obama SDs who have ignored the votes of their states is to let them know that large numbers of prior (until this week) democrats are not only NOT going to vote for them. We will ACTIVELY CAMPAIGN against them.
Go to lobbydelegates.com for contact information on SDs and breakdowns on whom they support or if they remain undeclared. TOO MANY SDs who should be already counted in for HILL, based on their states, have been pressured into withholding their support. More of us need to let them know how we feel.
I’m feeling better tonight in that a hard mailer I did (at some expense and considerable time) may have helped. See several new SD endorsements for HILL this month that were on my mail list. So, believe this really does help. But there needs to be many, many more - and some of the outrageous SDs against their own state need to withdraw their irrational endorsements - no matter what they’ve been promised or given, they will, with obama, surely pay a far higher price than they think they will gain.
What a tragic corrupt state for a party so many of us have for so long believed in. And for those who say we MUST defeat McCaine because of the issues, at this point, there is NO issue that compares to the VOID OF INTEGRITY within the current D party structure!
That’s a very strong message. Luckily, the person in my district is a Hillary support/SD. But Hillary WON in my county, so that’s the way it should be.
I think this tactic sends a very strong message that these politicians need to honor their constituencies votes and not be bribed or bullied my Obama/DNC. This is not a dictatorship, for gawds sake. It’s a democracy.
Everyone, please join us at hillaryclintonforum.net It’s free!
This forum is fantastic as well. I’m posting Starr’s message there too. We’ll all make a major move if Hillary is not the nominee.
We can do this! See you on either site.
Obama considering trip to Iraq
OH BROTHER !
He knows everything about Iraq because his late night phone pal Sam tells him what’s goin’ on over there.
I know I won’t be falling in line in november and voting obama if he is the nominee.. On another note just bringing this up off topic… I have a friend whose great grandparents were in a concentration camp. Talking with my friend this weekend I can tell you her family is appalled by Obama’s statement. When are the super delegates going to get this guy isn’t electable and his chances get worse and worse by the weeks that pass. Anyways, it’s Hillary for me, or it’s Mccain in November….
Super Delegates are NOT supposed to vote based on their constituency. I think people need to do some research into the history of why it even exists.. as flawed as it may be.
They are supposed to use their wisdom, knowledge and experience that is (supposed to be) above ours to make a solid decision of what’s best for this party and this country.
Sadly I’ve seen some of the SD’s on tv and they look like 21 yr old ignorant kids who don’t know a damn thing about the process or have the depth to look beyond the word “change”
the whole SD thing needs to be tanked but in the meantime they should stick to original rules.
besides, you know kennedy and kerry will not back Hillary no matter what..
just a bunch of traitor sexist dick heads who couldn’t win the election themselves..
i suppose they are worried that if she can win it and they couldn’t, their dicks will shrink even further.
Super D’s were started in the early 70’s to prevent another McGovern election failure. Their only purpose is to nominate the candidate that can beat the Republican nominee. That is all they should be looking at. Again, that is their ONLY purpose. Otherwise, they have no purpose.
The trouble with that, Lou, is that they were also formed to PROTECT the Party Elites and are constituted of Party Elites who consider themselves above the riff-raff of the Party. Obama is the candidate of the Party Elites. They will probably vote for themselves (as they have projected themselves upon Obama).
Dead fish stink from the head down. Both major parties are corrupt to the core. I have GOP activist friends who are walking away from their party because of the abuses of the last seven years. But they aren’t becoming Dems. Now, Dems are walking away from our party, but not toward the GOP.
“Where there is no vision, the people perish.”
Can you see it?
Obama started this meme, Pelosi added to it, Brazile reinforced it.
So they can live with their own manipulations now. Frankly, they were lying through their butts about the role of the SDs. As usual, it was Hillary who spoke quietly and firmly that SDs may and should vote independently.
I don’t see her complaining either when an SD in her won area goes against her.
She has integrity.
Obama and Company do not.
Ha, ha. It’s funny bc it’s true.
Blunt, but possibly true.
Even though the SDs are not obligated to,
it’s hard not to use the rationale that the SD’s should consider their constituency because it is so difficult to find any other reason the SDs would support this ridiculous candidate.
Even if Hillary begs us to vote for Obama my family will not (we knows she has to play the game)
I wouldn’t vote for him even if Bill Clinton came to my house and begged me to.
Me neither,
And that is saying a lot.
Love the video it was right on the money. Wake up SD’s your boy can’t win.
Perhaps a boycott of MSNBC is in order. Why should I watch MSNBC if they do nothing but defame my candidate. I would be just as happy if they went off the air.
Oh gawd — I removed ALL of their programming from my DVR recordings last fall … it got more and more difficult to listen … and then i was absolutely disgusted by how Keith Olbermann catered totally to his pitiful little audience mostly comprised of young adult males who j–k off at Daily Orange.
So who watches MSNBC any more any way?
I’m fortunate that I live in the great BLUE state of New York and my elected officials have been loyal to Hillary …although our UN elected Governor used the word “desperate” when speaking of her.
I think I’ll see to it he stays un elected.
He did apologize. LOL* (He changed it to ‘frustrated.’)
If I never hear the word “desperate” again, it’ll be a good life. Lordy, people are such lemmings, aren’t they? Can nobody really talk anymore?
SO SUE ME (sorry if it was already posted)
======================================================By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:18:34 PM EST
The defense you will hear to my strict DNC rules argument is that the early states received “waivers.” In fact, they did not until AFTER they had scheduled their primaries in violation of DNC Rule 11, which was never formally amended. According to the DNC Memo of today, this makes these “waivers” against the DNC Rules. But worse than that, there is nothing in the circumstances of those waivers that are in any way different from the Florida situation. In short, the rules are rules for the DNC, except when they are not. Wayne Barrett told the story well:
The national party had tried - before New Hampshire’s case wound up on its docket - to leave the impression that zero tolerance was automatic once violations of the schedule occur. Back in June, a DNC spokeswoman, for example, told the Associated Press that neither Dean nor the Rules Committee “has the power to waive the rules for any state,” explaining that “these rules can be changed only by the full DNC.” Yet a few months later, on the same day that the Rules Committee stripped Michigan of its delegates, it waived the rules for New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, each of which had also moved up their primaries.
(Emphasis supplied.) The DNC Memo issued today has no explanation for how this could possibly comply with the rules while it stands by its position that the RBC can not seat the full delegations for Florida and Michigan on May 31. Why can’t a “waiver” be issued on May 31? This is an unanswerable question for the DNC.
Barrett further wrote:
Though Dawson and others on Rules [and Bylaws Committee] now say, as they did in recent interviews, that states whose contests were always scheduled before February 5 were free to shift dates without sanction, that’s not what the delegate selection rules adopted in 2006 say. Those rules provided an automatic 50 percent loss of delegates for any state party that moved its contest to any day “prior to or after the dates” spelled out by the DNC.
And indeed, the DNC Memo now says that such waivers were not allowable. That is the problem with the DNC Memo. It puts Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in violation of Rule 11. It is a position that simply is untenable.
And here from the horse’s mouth, were the rules changing before our very eyes:
Rules powerhouse Donna Brazile said she would “grudgingly support the waiver,” warning New Hampshire shortly before the December committee vote that “the days of ‘privilege’ may end soon.”
Not only did “first-primary-or-die” New Hampshire switch from January 22 to January 8, it moved ahead of Nevada, whose January 19 caucus had been deliberately scheduled by the DNC to precede New Hampshire’s. But New Hampshire’s Democrats got a DNC waiver because their back was up against the wall, due to a decision by the South Carolina Republican Party to move its primary up to January 19.
But there was a good reason, SUPPOSEDLY, for allowing New Hampshire to move up, the Republicans in South Carolina had deliberately provoked a crisis. Sound familiar? Barrett writes:
The waiver was, in other words, a reasonable response to a Republican provocation. What’s unclear is why one Republican provocation is more equal than another.
(Emphasis supplied.) Precisely! The stripping of Florida’s delegates is simply unconscionable and unsupportable. The allowance of New Hampshire to move up inflamed Michigan who then also moved up their primary. To wit, this entire travesty was a result of Donna Brazile’s incompetence and her inability to actually act consistently. There is no basis, none, for the DMC to hold to its position of not seating the Florida and Michigan delegations. Barrett again:
While the DNC implicitly challenged the “good faith” of the Democratic opposition to the Republican moves in Florida and Michigan, it seemed far less interested in gauging what New Hampshire Democrats were doing. The head of the South Carolina GOP actually traveled to Concord, New Hampshire, to announce the decision to move his state’s primary up. He stood in the Executive Council chambers of the statehouse with Secretary of State William Gardner and Representative James Splaine, a Democrat who led the legislative efforts to protect the state’s first-primary tradition.
Democratic governor John Lynch was at a funeral when the press conference occurred, but his spokesman said Lynch “has faith in Bill Gardner” and “supports whatever Bill decides.” And Lynch, who had already derided the DNC decision to put Nevada ahead of New Hampshire, was clearly pleased that the acceleration of the South Carolina Republican primary date was giving Gardner all the justification he needed to squeeze back ahead of Nevada. New Hampshire officials even called the maneuver an “alliance” with South Carolina Republicans. Gardner promptly chose a new date 11 days before Nevada, defying the schedule that the DNC had issued.
But New Hampshire was granted the safe harbor waiver. There simply is no basis for what the DNC has done. It is outrageous, unfair and worst of all, political idiocy.
And, to borrow a phrase from Markos Moulitsas, a tale of intellectual dishonesty. Barrett writes:
The inconsistency on New Hampshire aside, DNC officials have come up with one other argument for why they were so tough on Michigan and Florida. Dean’s spokesman Damien LaVera said in an email to Huffington Post that, despite the unmistakable references in the rules to testing the “good faith” of a state’s “elected officials” and examining a state’s “legislative” efforts, the DNC’s rules “apply to a state party plan, not state legislatures or elected officials.” LaVera insisted that the only standard their Rules Committee judges compliance by is what state parties do, and that the parties in Michigan and Florida had options other than the state-designated primaries.
But this makes no sense. The New Hampshire Democratic Party, the South Carolina Democratic Party and the Iowa Democratic Party all had the exact same options that Florida had but they were given waivers anyway.
In short, rules are rules, except when they are not. Donna Brazile has a lot to answer for. This disaster is entirely the fault of the DNC and the RBC in particular.
I don’t personally have a problem with the 50% penalty, which I assume they will arrive at as a compromise.
Truth be told….everyone knew the score. So I can see Obama’s side. I can see Hillary’s side, too.
What bothered me was the truth that he avoided the revotes. That really bugged me. That’s chicken-stuff.
Anyway, she’ll come up short on the delegate side, but I think she’ll be the popular vote winner. He can strut around like a peacock, but that’s not too comfortable being the actual popular vote loser.
That, in turn, is going to put him under immense pressure. She, in turn, won’t concede. She’ll go to the convention as the popular vote winner, for sure.
Then, he’ll have a few months here getting pounded for everything that made me nuts that everyone was ignoring in the primary. His lies? I spotted them from day 1 in SC. Amazing stuff. But all that free ride is over. He’s now up against Rove, for one. I enjoy hearing Rove rip him for stuff that I was saying for a year.
He’ll enter the convention beat up. She’ll be perky as heck.
It only will take one more major story to hit. That’s all. He’s clocked in enough major hits by now that if he were just a normal guy, he’d be toast. He’s still got his one great asset. He’s an AA guy. But just one more big story, and even the AA community will go, “We give up!” LOL*
Need another scandal hovering over him? I got a goodie for you then.
How many of you know that three gay members of his church were murdered execution style between Nov and Dec 2007? I don’t know what it means, if anything at all, but it looks pretty serious. If it were HRC, it’d be front page 3 inch headlines and on every news show.
Oh yeah……heard about it.
I don’t buy it.
The guy is just too obviously after money and too hinky.
So no, I’m not one to think Obama is on the down-low. I do imagine his drug use is more than he admitted.
Just my experience. It’s the “two-beers” lie.
And my loved ones who have gone that path got into some hinky stuff.
But a lifestyle?
Nah*
I’m just not sensing that, anyway.
Pelosi just did an interview stating that she won’t let this fight go to the convention floor. She is going to end it at the end of June. San Francisco Newspaper….don’t remember which one now…sorry.
Pelosi hasn’t gotten anything through so far.
Methinks she’s just a blow-hard.
Has she anointed herself the Queen of the Universe? She knows she’s screwed the DNC over and they’re hurting for money. Check this out from the New York Observer:
http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-headlines-d-n-c-s-victory-fund-raiser-manhattan
Barack Obama is set to headline a 100-person Democratic National Committee fund-raiser in Manhattan on June 4, the day after the last primary, according to a supporter organizing the event.
The $28,500 per-person event is taking place at 820 Park Avenue, at the home of prominent Democratic fund-raisers Jane Hartley and her husband, Ralph Schlosstein. Checks for event will be made out to the White House Victory Fund, the newly created financial arm of the D.N.C. whose proceeds go to the Democratic nominee.
According to the event organizer, the fund-raiser is meant to signal that the Democratic Party establishment is getting ready to recognize Obama as their candidate and shift Democrats’ focus away from the protracted primary with Hillary Clinton and onto the general election against Republican John McCain.
According to the organizer, “We don’t want it to look like a victory party,” but rather, “a reality check.”
Obama’s losing in states he won:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05292008/news/nationalnews/o_losing_in_states_hes_won_112973.htm
I don’t think that Pelosi can stop it if Hillary has the popular vote sewn up. It would be too obvious a Fuck You to the majority of the party … but they’ve been doing it all season long, so who the hell knows …. maybe the superdelegates for HRC don’t show and they don’t get the “magic” number … then what?
It is not up to Pelosi anyway, it is up to Hillary.
You don’t have a problem with the 50% outcome. Do you have a problem with applying the rules to only 2 of the 5 states in violation?
I’m one of those men that’s totally pissed off at the blatant sexism constantly on display in the media and from Obama.
TOTALLY DISGUSTED.
I’m registered in Maine. There are two US House districts. My Rep is staying neutral, but the other (Tom Allen) is running for Senate this year and endorsed Obama earlier this month (Obama endorsed him right back quid pro quo). Tom Allen has been friends (acquaintences, whatever) with Bill Clinton for like 30-40 years.
Allen still has to get the primary nomination on June 10th, so I’m voting for his Democratic opponent (Tom Ledue). I’ve also donated to Ledue, and then I forwarded the donation confirmation to Allen and told him to go to hell.
If Tom Allen gets the nomination to run for the Senate in November then I’ll vote for the Republican incumbent, Susan Collins. She’s a moderate and I have no problem with her.
That’s the kind of action that all of Senator Clinton’s supporters need to take. Allen is the kind of Democratic leader who needs to be culled from the herd.
Good for you Max. Me too. We have to convince other men also.
Good deal. I’m doing the same thing here in Ohio.
Max - think you need to get this simple explanation out there for people who want to “do something” when their reps are disloyal but aren’t sure how.
not all Hillary supporters are politically savvy, some just are turned off by Barack’s anti Americanism.
Your example is a good one and a simple one.
sorry that was big tent democrat
The Obama divide and conquer campaign has turned into divide and lose. Way to go ladies!
Good plan. I predicted 2 months ago there will be fall out for any Democratic congressman and senator supporting Obama in a district that heavily favored Clinton.
What’s more it will be driven by women and supported by men.
And, if Obama is nominated, is unwisely elected President, and fails to lead the country out of the war and out of economic problems, then the fallout for any Democratic congressman and senator supporting Obama will be swift…and will be lead by men and supported by women.
What people don’t realize is that a President Obama will be worse than a third Bush term. Right now everyone thinks McCain is so bad he WOULD be a third Bush but Obama is and will be far worse.
I was just reading the comments left by readers of the Washington Post story on Scott McClellan’s book. Funny…everyone writing knew Bush was lying for years leading up to the 2004 election…but the commentors getting the high approval ratings from the WP readers said the MSM is to blame for not calling the WH out on the lies and that they see it happening again in the primary/election with Obama. It is, however, too easy to blame the MSM.
Each of us has a brain…use it. Check the facts, check the tea leaves but execute your convictions. Work hard to get Hillary…failing that then vote McCain even if he does fundraise with Bush, have the same nuclear policy, want amnesty for illegals and fail to support Webb’s GI bill. So what?!
As I was falling asleep last night, I was thinking that two more years of Bush to get Hillary in 2010 wouldn’t be such a bad deal. ANYTHING not to have Obama … and he’s supposed to be a “democrat.”
I agree but would like to add that while it is too easy to blame the media, there are any number of people who get the bulk of their information directly from the tv media alone, perhaps after they come home from a long day of work. Given the extreme bias of the media it would be difficult for those who only receive that information to ascertain an opposing viewpoint. Of course this is precisely why the media has huge responsibilities to report the news and not influence it and should be held accountable for doing otherwise.
I think it would be great if we started a new democratic party. One that harkens back to the days of FDR when democrats were democrats not snivelling republican ass kissers like Obama and his crew.
People are tired of the DNC and the cowards in congress now.
Anyway-at least teach MSNBC a lesson. I hate Olberman and I hate his big fat pumpkin head.
I’ve been listening to Lou Dobbs. The Independents are really sick of the MSM. Heads will likely roll at all the MSM outlets…but not because their management (”the controllers”) don’t like their performance…because the viewership numbers are dropping like a rock.
I’ve turned them all off. It’s a sad day when I get my news from honest and fair blogger sites on the internet and radio.
Try give a listen to the BBC. It’s news the way it used to be, delivered straight-up without the attitude.