David Corn

Y'know...IF she just vowed to work within the party, to make sure that the voters weren't ever screwed by the party again...maybe then I'd have a bit of respect.

The delegates will be seated...they'll be limited by candidate or by number, or they'll just sit on their hands until AFTER the nominee is officially chosen, then they'll have somewhat limited input to platform issues, etc.

The Florida and Mich. state parties will be promised help with sorting out how to ABIDE BY THE RULES and still be "poignant' for the Generals and then in future elections. They'll also be given a promise of more attention in the mid-terms and 2012.

Obama will then proceed to charm the hell out of 'em...the Mich and FL statewide PTB's will be out campaignin' for the Party's nomineee...and then they'll look forward to an even BIGGER landslide in 2012!

Hillary? ...well let's just say there's an empty display case waiting for her Pantsuit in the "Ball-busters' Hall of Fame".

-T

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes it impossibile to ever support HRC.

She has nothing in common with my values or ideology, not by her actions and now not by her words.

Good piece.

Thanks

At the end of the day, I don’t give a shit whether candidate A or candidate B has a self-image as a fighter, a reformer, a hope-pusher, or what have you. I just care about their ability to deliver some semblance of economic equity while forthrightly acknowledging that imperialism in the service of daft efforts to re-engineer parts of the world and systems of belief we know nothing about is a really, really bad idea. (Don’t get me started on Hillary’s mind-bending efforts to reel back her 2002 vote on the Iraq use of force resolution without conceding it was a mistake.) Obama, while no angel himself, stands a far better chance of delivering on some of these basic agenda items, by virtue of record, temperament and—most of all, I think—his salutary impatience with the dorm-room tenor of Boomer politics. Also—no small thing, this—he’s shown a striking ability to bring more people into the party. Hillary at best mobilizes a pre-existing Dem base that is, in all sorts of demographic measures, shrinking. If you cleave to the sentimental notion that the Dems should be the party of the ordinary people’s interests, counterposed to the G.O.P.’s standing as the party of money and business, then you want candidates at the top of the ticket who can use a broader voting base to fight the influence of today’s robber-baron class.

Anyway, this is all pretty much academic, since Obama’s going to be the nominee, barring a Michigan-Florida floor fight that would basically destroy the party. I have no doubt that Clinton, bloodthirsty monster that she may be, is contemplating such a measure—just as I have no doubt that, should she go through with it, John McCain would have the presidency locked down by the time the Democrats leave Denver.

(kos)

Hillary staying in is nothing more than conceit and power. If Obama were facing the same fate, he would
bow out gracefully and campaign vigorously for Hillary. Not so of a Clinton. She will do all she can to win, will do it in spite of the party and the nominee, and she will do nothing, including Bill, to help Obama win in November. Should Obama not win, then she will be able to say "I told you so." But the way I see it, she would get plastered by McCain and if she is not the nominee, that will never be proven fact so she has nothing to lose, that is why she is doing what she is doing.

Clinton Evokes Bloody Zimbabwe Election Dispute When Discussing Florida and Michigan

In Florida today, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., vociferously pushed her argument that the disqualified contests in Michigan and Florida should count, even though the DNC said the contests didn't count, no candidate campaigned in either state, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., along with many other Democratic candidates, was not even on the Michigan ballot.

"I believe the Democratic Party must count these votes. They should count them exactly as they were cast," she said in Palm Beach County, per ABC News' Eloise Harper, apparently meaning that she should receive more than 300,000 votes from Michigan and Obama should receive zero.

In Sunrise, Fla., Clinton assailed countries "where votes don't count. People go through the motions of an election only to have it discarded and disregarded. We're seeing that right now in Zimbabwe -- tragically an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people. So we can never take for granted our precious right to vote."

http://tinyurl.com/3o7bud

*****

Wow, kind of speaks for itself.

Would somebody please show me in the constitution where there is a right for delegates to be seaed at a political parties convention? No such right! Michigan and Florida voters were able to vote so they were not disenfranchised. What occurred after that is a political party process and if they broke the rules they broke the rules. All candidates agreed to abide by the parties decision to punich the states for moving their primaries and that should be followed. Funny to look at now since Florida and Michigan thought the process would be over early, that is why they moved up. Coming back to haunt them and Hillary now.

The Democrats brought all of this on themselves in the first place with their convoluted primary system. There's been more than a little monkeying around with the caucuses as well during this cycle.

If Barack would have been in the Republican system and won as he has, he would already be the nominee.

Of course, since I am not for either of the Democrats I have the luxury of sitting back and enjoying the spectacle of them tearing each other (and the party) asunder. It is glorious. I only hope they do a thorough job of it so my man can win handily in the fall.

-Tim

Hajji,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the Dems in Florida had to move the primary date through no fault of their own due to the timetable being set by the state legislature, which has a Republican majority.

Regardless, I have to agree with a lot of folks here that the Dems are entitled to their rules and that there is no inherent "right" to have your vote counted in a primary. Hillary's reversal is clearly nothing more than a political ploy to save her own skin.

-Tim

I expect this race will go on until a cliff-hanger, live TV, roll call vote at the Convention... And round-the-clock lobbying of superdelegates will go on to the very end...

I'm not feeling "torn apart" at all! I think it's great. What's YOUR problem? We're all going to vote against the Republicans in what will certainly be a November blowout so just chill... Jeez!

Teenagers are so prone to overreaction!

Nuclear? C'mon already... grow up! This is going to be fun!

The prospect of such excitement, tension and memorable television deserves a celebration! The entire world will be tuned in to this glorious spectacle of American democracy... The entire world loves watching us! Let's enjoy all the attention!

And the whole carnival is SO going to eclipse the hapless McCain... He's going to just look smaller and smaller and smaller.... and hopelessly irrelevant....

Not to mention that if Obama maintains his characteristic and trademark class and composure throughout, it will only end up making him look better than ever....

(While pundits will play up the cliff-hanger drama, the roll call will most likely end in a huge Obama victory... And, as the result becomes clear, state delegations (as is the custom through many conventions) will all start interrupting to revise and switch their votes so the final count will actually be a landslide and huge show of party unity....)

Relax and enjoy! The only way "bitterness" is going to do damage is by being bitter... So lighten up already!

She can't win right? So what are you so upset about!?!?!

For some reason while reading David Corn's post and the reactions, my mind flashed to a feature heard recently on NPR's Morning Edition about Josh Whedon's TV series, "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer."

Does Hillary have a chance at a spin-off series, "Hillary, the Delegate Slayer"?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90584068

Morning Edition, May 19, 2008

Buffy the Vampire Slayer saved the world and the sanity of NPR's Jamie Tarabay while she was in Baghdad. Tarabay explores why she needed the slayer during her time in Iraq.

"Hillary, the Delegate Slayer"?

lol

I have used that one already!

Thanks

Mr. Corn,

You are so biased that your distain for Hillary Clinton oozes out of your hackneyed words like sticky goo. Your posts are consistently filled with narrow, subjective opinion based on few details and fewer facts. Your writing is riddled with cliches. I've yet to read an original thought.

Why does it bother you so much that Mrs. Clinton is fighting to have every
vote counted in Florida and Michigan? Isn't that what Democracy is all about or did you miss Bush v Gore 2000?

Isn't it a tad hypocritical of you, Mr.Corn, to rant about party rules when your guy Obama ran ads in Florida against party rules?(Incidentally, Hillary did
not run ads nor did she campaign in FL) And still Obama lost big time in
that state.

Let's not be disingenuous, shall we? Although you so often are. The only reason Camp Obama is stamping their feet and yelling about rules now is because Obama LOST Florida in a landslide.

Your self-righteous, judgmental attitude about Senator Clinton is tiresome and rather pathological.

On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably strategist Harold Ickes—voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)

*****

HRC knew - now she is lying - if that matters.

HELLO? FLORIDA? DID YOU SEE THIS PART: Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably strategist Harold Ickes—voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement.

September 1, 2007 press release from the Clinton campaign:

9/1/2007

Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge

The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.

*****

Nothing but lies and liars and the lying lies the liars tell?

HRC lost she just cannot man-up for a loss.

She would make a veryy poor executive.

(CNN) — Hillary Clinton would accept the No. 2 spot on the Democratic ticket, but it's highly unlikely Barack Obama will offer it to her should he be the party's nominee, former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday.

*****

I think Barack would make a mistake to put HRC on any ticket.

I hope he makes a better choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yJn4VtgJ5A

Clinton has now taken Kentucky … Nevertheless, Montana , South Dakota and Puerto Rico are still to come.

The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive and most likely to be decided by superdelegates If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com

If youre tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r25wUeMAwdE

Everyone seems to be forgetting that at the time of the 2 primaries, John Edwards was still in the race, that should be factored in. So if they were to divide the delegates accordingly, he would get some and he has since backed Obama,

GG,

That goes for all that were in the contest at the time.

Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd, Richardson should all get theirs (if they had enough to qualify) ..

HRC and her supporters are not interested in fair, they just want her in the presidency - nothing except that will do - so F'em!

HA!

http://s67.photobucket.com/albums/h288/SparkleMeister/?action=view¤t=hillaryfan.jpg

A margin of .49%.... And you think he deserves a coronation...

Sorry, but when he ran "Harry and Louise" ads against universal health care, echoing precisely the Republicans and the insurance companies did in 1993, he lost me.

Not to mention when Austan Goolsbee spilled the beans in Canada that the anti-NAFTA stuff was all politics. When Samantha Powers in Britain spilled the beans that the Iraq withdrawal might well be reconsidered after inauguration. When Obama's promised repeatedly to escalate the war in Afghanistan... (Note: Democratically elected new government of Pakistan want to de-escalate...wants to negotiate...)

Go ahead. Keep on insulting us. Maybe you can feel righteous after your generation earns its very own McGovern, Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale... or Gary "new ideas" Hart...

.49%

You absolutely need us.... so maybe it's time to try emulating your extraordinary and classy candidate and his personal emodiment of "new politics" (i.e. refuses to sink to character assassination)

.... instead of acting like second-tier right-wing radio gasbags, trying to outdo yourselves in trashing the Clintons with ancient and long de-bunked innuendo and distortion...

(Don't forget, the Clintons are the only winning Democrat politicians at the national level in more than 30 years. The Clintons raised taxes and are still standing. Name one other candidate in a generation that managed that.)

"You absolutely need us"

Which "US" are you speak for? Were you chosen or elected to this spokesperson position? (lol)

Maybe you could speak for yourself like the rest of us?

And the "You" you mention would be Barack Obama, he might need your vote but yours is only one vote so I would expect he cares as much about your one vote as he does about any other vote, but you should take that up with him maybe he will give you more credit that I do.

The collective "us" is an old troll trick, speaking with the false authority of millions with only the voice of one and no authority - are you a troll?

You make it difficult to enter a serious discussion when you peddle such tripe.

Clean up your act if you want interaction from me.

Or I can just read past. Either way is okay by me.
(now see how silly it would be for me to say "us")

Do you find it odd or somewhat out of line when the trolls sing your praises here?

Are those the kind of bloggers you identify with? They seem to support your point of view, maybe there is a reason for that?

Something to think about - if you are sincere,

The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.

Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982), The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964

Harold Ickes, was on the DNC committee that voted to sanction Florida and Michigan by not including their delegates. Her campaign completely signed off on sanctions after that. And there are actually numerous quotes from the Senator herself saying those primaries didn't and wouldn't count. Michigan and Florida were sanctioned because they ignored the rules the DNC had set down for running this year's nomination process.

The evidence is simply overwhelming that Sen. Clinton didn't think this was a problem at all -- until it became a vehicle to provide a rationale for her continued campaign.

Now, that's politics. One day you're on one side of an issue, the next you're on the other, all depending on the tactical necessities of the moment. But that's not what Clinton is doing. She's elevating it to a level of principle -- first principles -- on par with the great voting rights struggles of history. There's no longer any question that she's going to win the nomination. The whole point of the popular vote gambit was to make an argument to super-delegates. And that's fine since that's what super-delegates are there for -- to make the decision by whatever measure they choose. But they've made their decision. The super delegates are breaking overwhelmingly for Obama. They simply don't buy the arguments she's making.

As Greg Sargent makes clear here. There are very good reasons to think Sen. Clinton won't take this to the convention, even as today she suggested she might. But that's sort of beside the point.

What she's doing is not securing her the nomination. Rather, she's gunning up a lot of her supporters to believe that the nomination was stolen from her -- a belief many won't soon abandon. And that on the basis of rationales and arguments there's every reason to think she doesn't even believe in.

(TPM)

****

Her actions are truly dastardly.

Where is the line, or is there one?

What is too much to her supporters? WHen doi they say enough is enough.

She lost - nothing is going to change that.

Nothing worse than a pathetic loser that has no class. She is proving this over and over again.

Here is a copy of the agreement signed by Barack and HRC:

Four State Pledge Letter 2008

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina

August 31, 2007

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

___________________________ __________
John/Jane Doe, Doe for President DATE

******

What part of campaign or participate did HRC not get? Now it is paramount to violate HER signed agreement?

Not something you want in a chief executive and certainly not something you want in a president.

Signed agreements are an important part of the social fabric. Legal and binding contracts are just that.

Any candidate can keep their word or violate the truth by lying. HRC is lying again.

No real support for liars here.

You make it difficult to enter a serious discussion when you peddle such tripe.

Clean up your act if you want interaction from me.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I just puked a little in my mouth~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(now see how silly it would be for ME to say "us")

Posted by Capt Smug

Come on Capt, we all know when it comes to your silly posts, that only Diff seems to read, it's all about ME ME ME not us

Mr Corn,

Prof Marcia is ripping your biased writing apart, rightly so. You'd better ban her before you lose any dignity you might have left here on your own site.

A desperate Hillary Clinton said today that in addition to having Florida and Michigan included in the Democratic primary election results that she also wants Canadians to be able to vote for her too. Hillary Clinton is thought to be very popular with the Canadian white working class hosers like Bob and Doug McKenzie. Clinton also said that like Michigan only her name needed to be on this special Canadian election ballot.

http://tinyurl.com/4qn3lb

*****

Too funny, eh?

The votes from the losing side are never counted and the losing-side voters voices are always ignored.

It will be fun to see what Bill Maher does with Hillary's New Rules game.

Obama backs off from pledge to talk with Iran

Guardian ^ | 5/22/08 | Suzanne Goldenberg

Barack Obama has begun to edge away from his offer to pursue talks with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after being hammered by Republicans as an "appeaser". Now on the cusp of securing the Democratic nomination, Obama yesterday continued to attack John McCain, his likely Republican opponent in November, over his hawkish foreign policy. "He has spent his last week describing his foreign policy as who he won't talk to," Obama told a rally in Florida yesterday. After Tuesday's primaries, in which Obama lost...

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jeesh after 3 days of you trolls making every excuse under the sun for Jimmy Obamas appeasement stance, he goes and flip flops on ya!

Boy has he put egg on your face Capt!

In case you don't read my posts, capt, it is in fact pretty clear how I distinctly differ with LBH on anything actually politically substantive...

But despite your disdain for "us," a simple collective pronoun with a long-venerable history in political speech, LBH and I both represent significant segments of the American voting population that you should think seriously about.

Segment 1. Like me, there are many Hillary supporters who just aren't affected, on a gut level, by the Obama "magic." To us he's just a wet-behind-the-hears political novice with an unfortunate proclivity for sanctimony. The fact is, we just don't experience the same magical, supernatural feeling that you do that he's somehow actually the new embodiment of Abraham Lincoln.

....and 2. Right-wingers like LBH who are violently turned off by liberals in general....

Your candidate can't win if you totally alienate both of "us."

You better start working to mend fences with the other 49.51% of those Democrats who didn't vote for Mr. "It's my time..."

"it is in fact pretty clear how I distinctly differ with LBH on anything actually politically substantive.."

If it were I wouldn't wonder, eh?

"You better start working to mend fences"

Not up to me to mend anything.

People will vote how they choose - I fully support that.

What I find less than believeable is when a person claims to be something but does all they can to tear down the candidate of the party they claim as HRC is doing?

Curious that.

Again, you can only speak for yourself. As do I only speak for myself. My opinions are just mine and I have no reason to justify anything I post to anybody - not even you (or you'all if you prefer)

I have no reason to concern myself with fences, mending or 49% of anything.

I post my opinion and link to other pieces I find interesting, informative or funny.

Maybe you are under the impression that I am more than me? Like I am an "US" too, I am not.

Stay in line with what the trolls think and post - as you do now or you can join the party - frankly I cannot invest anything in your choices - just offering my perspective.

Thanks!

Karl Rove has just been subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to testify on June 10. I just heard it on MSNBC. Will have a link to a story as soon as I can find one.

*****

Is there such a thing as "Frog March" music?

lol

Popular vote from Tuesday, May 20:

Obama: 567,808

Clinton: 709,204

Beat him by 8 points.

(Counting Michigan "uncommittteds" as Obama vote, he now leads nationwide by .49%, or about 130,000 votes... Hillary cut that margin in half on Tuesday)

Now, assuming the usual demographic breakdown between upper-income, highly-educated people with health insurance... and lower-income, lower-educated, people without it (i.e. the Bob and Doug MacKenzies who don't live in Canada)....

When exactly is the "mobilizing the masses" for "class war" to win "universal health care" going to begin exactly?

....and 2. Right-wingers like LBH who are violently turned off by liberals in general....

By Diff

You got part of it right. I don't consider myself a rightwinger more of a moderate/conservative. Kind of like McCain, I even like Leiberman. I think they would make a great ticket but Repubs wouldn't stand for it.

I vote for the candidate that I think will be best for the job. I've voted for Sen. Ron Weiden, who by the way responds in writing to every request unlike Sen Gordan Smith. I've even voted for the Dem Gov. It was either that or not vote at all.

But, I despise what the far left has done to the Democrat party. Everyone in my family is a life long traditional Democrat and everyone of them will tell you that there is nothing traditional about the Democrat party of today. The same can be said about the Rebuplican party and far right wingers.

I would love for the country to move back to the middle as Bill Clinton did and represent the majority not the elistsit minority. Our polictical system is broken and we need term limits more than ever. Just look at Sen Bird and his ridiculous cryiong on the senate floor over some tweety bird. Who the hell even knows what hes talking about! His interns are changing diapers instead of giving BJs.

The Dems were in control of Congress for 40 years before the Repubs and they were voted out because of greed and scandal (post office scandal). Then the Repubs came in and were no better than them so here we are again all over again. The Dems come back in with promises of lowering gas prices and ending the war, but alll they do is posture for the next election to gain more power.

So you could say that I am violently turned off by the system.

Oh Ya, and smug liberals like Capt.

People will vote how they choose - I fully support that.

Then lets count Florida and Michigan who voted for Hillary, eh?

The Associated Press reports that the Webb GI Bill has passed the Senate:

Senate Republicans have broken with President Bush to help Democrats add support for veterans and the unemployed to a bill paying for another year of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The 75-22 vote also added billions of dollars in other domestic funds such as heating subsidies for the poor and money for fighting wildfires to the $165 billion for the military operations overseas.

...The huge tally in the Senate was driven by $15.6 billion over two years to extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks and more than $50 billion over the upcoming decade to provide returning Iraq war veterans with sharply increased college aid.

Both Sens. Obama and Clinton voted in favor of the bill. Sen. McCain skipped the vote (as did Sens. Tom Coburn and Ted Kennedy).

(huffpo)

****

That is the sound of McSame's supporting the troops? A no-show on the vote? What a guy.

Busloads of Hillary Clinton supporters will swarm a meeting next week at a D.C. Marriott, where Democratic Party elders hope to forge a compromise over Florida and Michigan's now-voided convention delegates.

"We really don't know what to expect, but we do know that the Clinton people are very organized," said a senior Democratic National Committee source.

Tactically, this takes a page right from the Karl Rove Recount 2000 playbook: send a mob of angry villagers to turn a relatively genteel process into a shrill folderol. Nevertheless, while the stage is set for roving gangs of superfluous supporters to disrupt the DNC proceedings, this will still be a model of decorum and tranquility compared to Clinton's other bizarre voter-rights reference, Zimbabwe. Though it should be noted that Zimbabwe's electoral strife would have been magnified one hundred-fold if it had featured Howard Wolfson conference calls.

*****

Hard to believe HRC and her supporters have turned into Rove. . .

You can't hold Obama hostage and demand over the barrel of a gun that he give you a spot on the ticket. I mean, it is audacious. Here are Bill & Hillary Clinton, and all of their surrogates, who on the one hand are delegitimatizing the nomination of Barack Obama by claiming that he and the media are sexist and that millions of Florida and Michigan voters were disenfranchised, and the while continuing to argue that he is the weaker candidate; and on the other hand demanding that he pick her as his most trusted advisor and teammate.

If I was in Barack Obama's shoes right now, I would be telling the Clintons to go fuck themselves.

Here they are making my life miserable, endangering my general election prospects with their continued pointless impossible narcissitic campaign, all the while making demands of me, and requiring for the preservation of their legacy and ambition that I part with my first, best and most important decision as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party.

Really, there is no response to this kind of situation than to tell the Clintons to fuck off. And thus, I have no doubt the Field story is true.

And I say this not because, like others, I am opposed to a possible Obama-Clinton. I can see the need for it, and I can see it working.

But for it to work, Hillary Clinton must first and immediately cease her campaign, praise and endorse enthusiastically and emphatically, and retract all previous statements made about his unreadiness during the campaign as just being arguments made during the campaign. Indeed, she must give an "Edwards-Richardson-style" endorsement of him. She must become an Obamamaniac first, before Barack Obama can even consider offering her the Vice Presidency.

And after that, the ticket can work.

It will not work if it is forced on Obama at gun point.

(kos)

*****

Barack has nothing to gain by putting HRC on the ticket. It would be a huge mistake.

The Democratic Partry has always - as in forever - given the nomination to the candidate that has the most delegates and that is what will happen.

HRC knows this too but she continues to create false issues (popular vote metric is one) to support her failed candidacy. She is trying to repair a failed campaign with lies and false projections of non-issues and the Democratic leadship is taking notes.

She deserves whatever condemnation she will receive for what she is doing now and continues to do.

Shame on her.

I never warmed up to her before her senate campaign and she has not made me feel any better about her - actually far worse. I have trouble with liars and cheaters that are delusional - call it a weakness on my part.

I believe that Hillary has if anythng disqualified herself for the V.P. slot and has not earned it. She and Bill since Day 1, or at leasst after Iowa, began to fuel a racial and gender division within the Democratic Party and the country as a whole. She has aligned herself more with McCain and the Republicans than with the Democratic Party! She has been cold and calculating, devoid of conscience in some instances. It would be very unwise for Barack if not political suicide to pick Hillary as a running mate. Their word is not their Bond and they cannot be trusted to live up to earlier intentions as in the battle for votes which she earlier signed off on and said these votes would not count.

Hillary is whining. But not only is she whining, she is distorting the facts. Clintons made a big deal about Barack whining and said "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I think they should take their own advice!

HRC knows this too but she continues to create false issues (popular vote metric is one) to support her failed candidacy. She is trying to repair a failed campaign with lies and false projections of non-issues and the Democratic leadship is taking notes.

Posted By Capt smug

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why not, it almost worked for Al Gore~

Mr. Corn,
It would seem that Prof Marcia has you confused with the writer who killed Misery, but I guess she told you... MR. MAN

"MR. MAN" !!

Not fair, you could give a guy some kind of warning - I nearly snarfed on my keyboard!

Too effin funny!

lol

(good one just the same thnx)

McCain Flips Out

By now you all know that McCain didn't even bother to show up for the Senate's vote on the Webb GI Bill. This is no minor vote, this is setting up for a veto/override showdown.

Obama, who voted for Webb's bill, had this to say:

I respect sen. John McCain's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the President in his opposition to this GI bill.

I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the President more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.

At which point, McCain lost his fool mind.

http://tinyurl.com/6h94qq

*****

OMG, there is a one-liner about half way down the page that cracked me up. It might not seem as funny to a McSame supporter but maybe if they have a good sense of humor.

Once Upon A Time, Barack Obama Pledged To Meet Unconditionally With Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Now . . . things are somehow different:

Barack Obama's original answer seemed crystal clear: last July, asked whether he would meet with the "leaders" of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea "without precondition," during his first year as president, he quickly answered yes.

"I would," Obama, D-Ill., said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "And the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

Obama has not renounced his commitment to meet directly with the leaders of rogue nations, including Iran. But in recent weeks, his top aides and advisers have sought to add caveats to his promise, as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has made Obama's debate answer a central campaign issue.

The Obama campaign is now offering a more nuanced approach that would not necessarily include a presidential meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- and that stresses diplomatic work that would take place before any such meetings take place.

Asked about Obama's original statement Tuesday morning on CNN, former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., a top Obama adviser and supporter, said top-level meetings would not be immediate -- and would not happen without preliminary extensive diplomatic work.

"I would not say that we would meet unconditionally," said Daschle. "Of course, there are conditions that we [would] involve in preparation in getting ready for the diplomacy. ... 'Without precondition' simply means we wouldn't put obstacles in the way of discussing the differences between us. That's really what they're saying, what Barack is saying."

Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy adviser, said Monday that Obama's meetings with Iranian leaders might not include Ahmadinejad.

"He said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn't named who that leader will be," Rice said on CNN. "It would be the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time -- not necessarily Ahmadinejad."

Uh-huh. To be sure, this is a much more responsible approach than the one that Obama initially took. But it is not at all the same approach and it will be most amusing to watch and listen to Obamaphiles who praised Obama's initial unconditionality now claim that his newfound caution is what should really garner hosannas.

( That would be you, not us, Capt)

Someone should call Obama on all of this. Why is it that he backed away from unconditional talks? What is this business about talking to "the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time"? And if Obama really believes that strong nations are willing to talk to their adversaries, why is he suddenly less willing to do so?

Easy, it's called a major flip flop~

First you had Al Franken the workers compensation dodger and now you have this:

Did Laura Richardson (D-CA) Abstain on the Mortgage Bailout Vote?

By Erick

Laura Richardson is a California Congresswoman. She's also one of the many reasons the housing industry is collapsing. Congresswoman Richardson, you see, is one of those homeowners who got into a house with no money down and then walked away from her mortgage.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Capitol Weekly reports that newly elected California Congresswoman Laura Richardson walked away from the mortgage on her $535,000 Sacramento home, letting the house slip into foreclosure and disrepair less than two years after she bought it with no money down.

"While being elevated to Congress in a 2007 special election, Richardson apparently stopped making payments on her new Sacramento home, and eventually walked away from it, leaving nearly $600,000 in unpaid loans and fees," the publication reports.

Hey, if you own stock in Washington Mutual, Richardson is screwing you. But on a serious note, did she abstain from voting on the mortgage bailout bill? Will she be able to take advantage of the bill for personal gain?

And ain't this just typical of a Democrat. They buy a house and let it fall apart. Just like they're doing in Congress and to the troops -- just walking away.

Laura Richardson: metaphor for Democrat control.

UPDATE: She did not vote. So, that opens up more questions. Does she now intend to take advantage of the bailout? Did she advocate that others in her caucus vote for it. If so, did she tell them it'd financially benefit her?

~~~~

You sure gave us change all right!

McCain Rejects Hagee Endorsement

UNION CITY, Calif. — Republican John McCain has rejected the endorsement of an influential Texas televangelist criticized for his anti-Catholic views.

John Hagee, the Texas preacher, withdrew his endorsement at the same time.

McCain issued a statement after audio surfaced in which Hagee said God sent Adolf Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land.

McCain said in a statement: "Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well."

Hagee also issued a statement saying he was tired of baseless attacks and he was removing himself from any active role in the 2008 campaign.

http://tinyurl.com/3ml3jk

*****

Exactly as I predicted

He still has Parsley then line them up, from the looney Reich-wingnuttia fringe. Heck he might pick up more vote by pandering to a crazy sect or two. Just give him a chance.

Paterson Sees 'Desperation' By Clinton, Disagrees On Florida And Michigan

Gov. David Paterson, who is right now being interviewed by WAMC's Alan Chartock and taking calls from listeners on "Vox Pop," just disagreed sharply with his presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, on her last-ditch efforts to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations.

While he stressed that he continues to support Clinton and will do so until "she makes a different determination," Paterson, a superdelegate, said he doesn't believe the DNC should change the rules after the fact on Florida and Michigan and added that he's not buying her claims about leading the popular vote if the ballots cast in those states were counted.

"I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support and I'll support until whatever time she makes a different determination," Paterson said, adding: "I thought she was the best candidate and I thought she had the best chance of winning."

http://tinyurl.com/4aqhjc

*****

This is from one of her strongest supporters.

I share his point of view and conclusions on the matter.

Hillary is claiming the pledge she and other presidential candidates took to not "campaign" in these States was just that, no campaigning.

THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

From law.com:

participate
v. to invest and then receive a part or share, as in business profits, payments on a promissory note, title to land, or as one of the beneficiaries of the estate of a person who has died.

Hillary's current demands that Florida and Michigan votes be counted says that she is now trying to "receive a part or share of the votes she won.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Hillary said in October, 2007 before the Michigan primary:

"It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything"

Be sure to watch the video of her saying this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yJn4VtgJ5A

(kos via TPM)

******

Was she being hoenst then or is she being honest now? Can she stand by her signed agreement or does it get trashed like her integrity if it serves her purpose now?

It is called character, honesty and integrity - triple zeros is her score in my book.

Maybe other folks don't mind the dishonesty.

Even More Flip-Flops: McCain's Shifting Positions on "Roadmap" for Cuba

Run time: 00:44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08tXAb6Uwzs

Posted on YouTube: May 20, 2008
By YouTube Member: DemRapidResponse
Views on YouTube: 376

Posted on DU: May 20, 2008
By DU Member: jefferson_dem
Views on DU: 78

In Florida on May 20th, 2008, Senator McCain went on the attack instead of squaring his old positions on relations with Cuba. McCain accuses Senator Obama of "shifted positions" and criticizes him for favoring "easing the embargo, not lifting it." Then McCain said, "He also wants to sit down unconditionally for a presidential meeting with Raul Castro. These steps would send the worst possible signal to Cuba's dictators -- there is no need to undertake fundamental reforms, they can simply wait for a unilateral change in US policy. I believe we should give hope to the Cuban people, not to the Castro regime. My administration will press the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally, to legalize all political parties, labor unions, and free media, and to schedule internationally monitored elections. The embargo must stay in place until these basic elements of democratic society are met."

Bur on Hardball on May 1st, 2000, McCain was asked by Chris Matthews what he thought about relations with Cuba, and he said he was open to concessions and a "a road map for negotiations," saying that only the first thing that he would demand would be that the Cuban regime empty its political prisons...

MATTHEWS: "What do your friends -- you're big on relations with Vietnam and economic and diplomatic ties and really good ties. What about Cuba? Where should we go with that other communist country?"

MCCAIN: I'd be willing to do the same thing we did with Vietnam. We offered the Vietnamese a road map that if they did certain things, we'd do certain things. If they got out of Cambodia, we would lift certain restrictions. If they...

MATTHEWS: What would be the first demand on Cuba? Elections?

MCCAIN: No, I think the first demand would be to empty their political prisons.

MATTHEWS: Why? If they do that, then we could talk?

MCCAIN: Yes. I think so. I think we could at least set up a road map for negotiations. But I'm not sure Castro wants to do that. The Vietnamese were desperate for economic betterment. Castro doesn't seem to be that interested."

******

Gramps can't remember which position served his purposes and when. Not a good thing for a politician in the youtube age.

He will never clear up those juxtaposed positions because he can just restate the obvious - he is as feckless as Bush and as mean and dishonest as Cheney.

MR. DOOCY: Would you be "the comeback senator"? Would you be "the comeback gal"? Have you thought about that yet?

SEN. CLINTON: I'm going to leave that to you. You all have a great way with a turn of phrase. But what I'm going to do is to just keep working hard every day, knocking on doors, making phone calls, talking to people.

I feel very good about where we were. This has always been a challenge. I'm going to start on January 3rd with the caucuses in Iowa and go all the way until February 5th, because at the end of the campaign what you need are enough delegates to actually get you the nomination. And I believe that I will get the nomination and that I will be the next president.

12/17/07

*******

Let us review:

"I'm going to start on January 3rd with the caucuses in Iowa and go all the way until February 5th, because at the end of the campaign what you need are enough delegates to actually get you the nomination."

That would be HRC saying Feb 5th is the end.

Yeah, she is really sincere about MI and FL.

And the whole "delegates" thing - don't get me started on the delegates.

She knows darn well she has lost - she is now turned into an enemy of the party.

McSame proves again he will do anything to pander unless it makes for bad press then f'em.

I hope the evangelicals are watching his religious commitment. I am sure they will appreciate it.

Why I'm Kinda Fonda Obama
(and more so each week)

Some of us who like Barack Obama get accused of having drunk the Kool-Aid – or perhaps love-potion would be more accurate – and thus being too smitten by his rhetorical enticements to see him clearly for what he is.

Maybe that accurately describes many of his fans, but it’s definitely not me.

http://tinyurl.com/633djc

*******

I identify with every point and feeling David Michael Green has written in the above piece. If read carefully you might too.

So let’s play devil’s advocate: let’s assume that Hillary Clinton’s actions play a role in John McCain being elected, or even that they’re perceived as having played such a role. Under such a scenario, will Clinton, as so many pundits seem to assume, have a wide open path to the nomination in 2012?

Not a chance.

If Obama loses in November — after such tremendous hope for a Democratic year — there will be more than enough anger within the Democratic Party to go around. And Obama and his supporters won’t be the only ones tarred.

Sure, passionate Clinton supporters will scream I told you so until they’re even bluer in the face than they already are. Beltway pundits will declare that the party threw away its best chance at victory by letting those damn “hippies” rob Hillary of the prize (the same way they’d argue just the opposite were the roles reversed).

But they’ll be plenty of screaming going back the other way, too. Millions of angry fingers will be pointed at Clinton, who will stand accused, fairly or unfairly, of sabotaging the ticket. The term “Ralph Nader Clinton,” or something close to it, will come into everyday use — count on it.

An Obama loss will lead to an inferno within the Democratic Party: and neither Obama nor Clinton will survive it with their presidential aspirations intact. Democrats will never want to walk down this same road again.

There’s no 2012 option for Hillary Clinton. And hopefully, for the sake of the party and the nation, she knows it.

(lastchancedemocracycafe)

Clinton repeatedly compared the current situation of unseated delegates to the 2000 recount in Florida which was ended by the Supreme Court, giving George W. Bush the presidency.

"It is time for the Democratic Party to honor one of our core values, namely that we are the party that supports democracy," Clinton said.

William Daley, who chaired Gore's 2000 campaign and now is a top adviser to Obama, said Clinton's comparison doesn't make sense.

"I just don't get it. There's no analogy whatsoever here, zero," Daley said. "I think when you start making extreme statements like that, one's credibility isn't enhanced, it's lessened."

Daley said every politician likes to assume the role of the outsider, but in Clinton's case, it just doesn't fit well.

Bill and Hillary Clinton "have been the paramount force within the Democratic Party, and most of the people that voted for (punishing Florida and Michigan) were Clinton people, because there wasn't such a thing as Obama people in the establishment then."

*****

Well, in all fairness Hillary didn't think the upstart would be a challenge - one more poor choice from a candidate with poor judgment.

The Florida and Michigan delegate deal:

A deal has already been struck by Howard Dean to seat these delegates. It's just that he was hoping to delay this until AFTER Obama clinched the nomination.

The deal was made because after the fiasco in Florida and Michigan, the Democrats in those states turned off the money spigot. This was an untenable situation from Mr. Dean's point of view and therefor he had to agree to seat them at the convention. Right after the deal was struck, the money started flowing again and it has not been kept a secret.

Why do you think Hillary's hanging on at this point and trying her best to force the issue now? It's because she knows that the delegates will be counted.

As for Obama, he is nothing more than the classic "Trojan Horse." The grownups in the Democrat party and in particular, a majority of the superdelegates are not going to go for Obama. Actually, more than just the Democrat "old guard" have now begun to see Obama for what he really is.

As for those who think McCain is old or irelevant - just keep on underestimating him. I love it because he's going to administer a severe whapping come November.

Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3134

Thank goodness - HRC has come to her senses.

Never underestimate the age of your opponent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW5Eqycf4d4

lol

I'm kinda surprised no one's responded to my prediction of a record-worldwide-TV audience watching the live cliff-hanger roll call vote at the Democratic Convention.

When you have such a hairs-breadth race (.5%), and two never-say-die candidates... What could be more appropriate and exciting?

And McCain's existence will have been entirely forgotten by then! It's actually a GOP nightmare!

....not knowing which candidate to start the mud-slinging, character-assassination machine against for so many extra weeks and months!

Hillary will, of course, lobby superdelegates to the bitter end.

(At least the ones that haven't disappeared into the witness protection program by then...)

And if she actually squeaks ahead in the popular vote by the end of the primaries on June 3, she'll have a solid "will of the people" argument...

(Obama's lead is only .5% COUNTING Michigan undecideds in his column...)

Sure the MI and FL delegates shouldn't count, that's what the rules say. I agree completely, but we're talking about living breathing American voters going to the polls....

It's a moral argument, and not legal one. And it will carry great weight with all those weather-vane Super D's. Hillary's simply laying the rhetorical groundwork for it now...

The system (the "rules"), in FACT, puts the final decision squarely in the hands of the superdelegates, and they can take absolutely anything they like into consideration... and they can change their minds as many times as they like and right up until the very last second....

In fact, it's likely many will be changing their votes WHILE the roll call is going on... (has happened a million times in past conventions)...

What you're terrified of is that Hillary's going to continue to lobby Super D's until the bitter end...and you're terrified that, armed with the popular vote, (and Electoral College trial heat polls that continue to show her beating McCain while Obama loses....)...

...that she'll actually manage to convince enough of them to change their votes...

...and that would, in fact, by the rules, be perfectly fair and square....

I actually can't wait, and relish the next few months of watching and participating in it.

And I'd still wager that the odds solidly favor Obama...

...but it ain't over until it's over. And it's ALL up to the Super D's....

So quit hyperventilating already! It's a great history-making event! Have a little fun!

The Nightmare Ticket Is Dead

[...]

The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.

And that is all that anybody needs to know to understand the childish and wounded behavior of Senator Clinton yesterday, grandstanding hypocritically to senior citizens in Florida, telling them they should consider themselves under sniper fire in Bosnia, er, Zimbabwe, aggrandizing herself as some kind of civil rights leader (MLK? or LBJ? She didn’t say this time) and attempting to corner 30 members of the DNC’s Rules & Bylaws Committee that will meet on May 31 to resolve the disputes over whether, and, if so, how, delegates from Michigan and Florida might be seated at the convention in August.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248

Re: Kinda Fonda Obama

Jeez. Talk about damning with faint praise...

"....even if that was all he was, that would still be one hell of an improvement. I think he would have little choice but to end the war in Iraq and to move on national healthcare, even if he didn’t want to risk the considerable political capital necessary for pursuing either of these initiatives...."

Here we have the notion of the "masses mobilizing Obama..." I guess.

"....but I think Obama has promised that enough [healthcare] now that he really could not walk away from it...."

Or what? capt will call him on the phone and cry about it?

News Flash: Universal health care is going to be a bloody and brutal fight and it's going to take nerves of steel and a backbone like a Douglas Fir tree.

I want someone with real fire in the belly for it. Hillary's a Tiger tank and I have no doubt she'll fight for health care reform the way she's fighting for the nomination.... Till her last dying breath...

Gawd! If Obama really turns out to be the wishy-washy timid fellow imagined by "KInda Fonda Obama," then we're in deep kimshi if he becomes President...

"Obama could probably easily ride out four years, or even eight, and still get away with pretending to address some of these problems, while remaining highly popular...."

Holy Crap! What a nightmare!

Tim, I suspect your man will win, despite all the crimes and follies of his party., because pigs will sprout wings and soar over the frozen plains of Hell before I vote for Bill Ayers's buddy, and the GOP Media Machine will make damn sure every last person in the USA knows who Ayers is by Nov. 4.

As for the Democratic Party, I think it was better off before all the idealistic reforms of the McGovern era, when the Presidential nominees were chosen in the infamous "smoke-filled rooms". Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation, but I notice the Dems won more Presidential elections when the candidates were chosen by the party bosses.

Edging Right Up on the Literary Cliché ...

Emily I don’t think anyone disputes that hideous instances of sexism have been stirred up in this campaign. Nor does anyone dispute that Ms. Clinton is entitled to address it, which she has done very deftly at times. The question is whether she’s entitled to reduce her entire failed campaign to sexism—which has the practical effect of splitting women into those-who-are-angry-about-sexism, and those who what? Think it’s acceptable? There’s one other practical effect that warrants mentioning, and that is that it reduces a complex, brilliant, and talented candidate to a big whomping cliché. My friend Susannah writes: “I find it increasingly unbearable to watch Hillary. It feels like she has become the archetype I find most painful to see in women—a high-maintenance, delusional, and "difficult" woman who feels entitled to do whatever she likes. ... Meanwhile, Obama is forced to tiptoe around essentially just humoring her. There is a pathetic "Yes, dear" quality to the way he is forced to react to her these days.”

This mirrors a sense I’ve had that we might have finally crossed the Hirshman line. Linda Hirshman argued persuasively that all powerful, ambitious women are at some point dismissed as “hysterical” or “insane.” Too true. The problem now is that when Clinton behaves irrationally, we can’t call her out for it because it would be sexist. If we can't call irrational behavior irrational because the character in question is a woman, then it’s a short hop from here to a Tennessee Williams play ...

http://tinyurl.com/5vb8hg

*****

“Blanche, it’s time to go.”

From the end of the Bill Press show - (I was smoking in the garage)

The VP slot for McSame should go to:

David Archuletta!

He is young (17yo) and very popular.

lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs

I'm sitting the election out totally. It'll be the first time since 1980, but I am so sick of the demonization of Hillary and the "walk on water" cultism of Barack Obama. I was going to write in Hillary, but now I don't give a sh*t.