Great video, Craig. I like the movie clips. I detect a hint of sarcasm in your
"Hollywood Ending."
In his heavily choreographed performance this Tuesday, the main character,
Obama, will appear in his Armani suit. His well-rehearsed speech carefully prepared. Director Darth Axelrod can be seen perched in the wings, wrinkling his brow, filled with angst as he watches Obama to make certain his protege follows the script.
Thanks for the link to the Lanny Davis article. I love that guy.
Of course, I agree with everything he writes. But, don't you think
the back room deal, in smoking rooms, has already been
struck by Camp Obama with the shady delegates? (I wish it weren't
so, but I fear the dirty deeds have been done). The DNC, the elitist media and the Washington insiders just didn't want a woman to become president,
especially a woman as feisty, smart and strong as Hillary Clinton.
After yesterday's acrimony, I was motivated to go back to Craig's book The Politics of Life.
Quoting from page xi in the introduction "Think again about driving your car and how people actually behave on the roads. While plenty of drivers are kind and generous, many are rude, obnoxious, and even threatening. No matter how they act elsewhere, remember this: What you see on the road is who they really are. You could be at a party with those same rude drivers, and they might put up a gentle and affable front. But in the anonymous bubble of their automobiles, they are their true selves."
I think that this analogy is applicable to posting on the internet as well. So we all provide a window to our soul, the good, the bad or ugly when we post here.
Hillary must go down in flames, if she does go down. Otherwise, her credibility as one who will fight for every inch of hallowed ground will be shattered.
According to Article 9, Section 12 of the Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States:
All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee,and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot.
Interesting they had a private dinner the night before and at 4:15 on Saturday they held another private meeting. Then came out and did a dog and poney show and voted. Did they break any rules by doing this or by just having the public vote they covered themselves.
What time I read your mighty line,
O Mr. Q. Horatius Flaccus,
In praise of many an ancient wine--
You twanged a wickid lyric to Bacchus!--
I wondered, like a Yankee hick,
If that old stuff contained a kick.
So when upon a Paris card
I glimpsed a Falernian, I said: "Waiter,
I'll emulate that ancient bard,
And pass upon his merits later."
Professor Mendell, quelque sport,
Suggested that we split a quart.
O Flaccus, ere I ceased to drink
Three glasses and a pair of highballs,
I could not talk, I could not think;
For I was pickled to the eyeballs.
If you sopped up Falernian wine
How did you ever write a line?
Is Larry Johnson stil going to release the tape this morning at 9? Interesting that FOX never brought it back up yesterday after first reporting it. They talked to a guy by the name of Roger Stone. He's the guy who broke the Eliot Spitzer prostitution story. He's not well liked to begin with. Rivera bet $100 that the tape does not exist.
How I wish that they took their Charter seriously. But they don't.
There are two vehicles for Mrs Clinton to act, the most immediate would be a civil suit asking for injunctive relief until such time as the Charter is followed.
The second way would be to spread the word that she doesn't want to do the first, but does want the matter addressed by the credentials committee, and, if necessary, the entire convention, in August.
If this had been a governmental body in Florida, the entire crowd would be in the pokey for having violated the Govt in the Sunshine Act.
Craig.... you should have gone to the movies..... then you could have had some great popcorn instead of those nasty Nacho Doritos.....
Bowman.... I tried to read some of this blog last night..... after reading for a few minutes.... I decided my decision to ignore this blog on the weekends was the correct one for me..... I shut this damn machine off.....
great weekend to be a Boston sports fan..... the Celtics won the Eastern Conference and Manny hit his 500th home run...... YEEEHAAAAW!
Since everyone is on this, rules are rules, then did the committee break any rules by having a private meeting before they had the public vote. Based on what was said before the vote it appears a decison had been made in the private meeting. Like a straw vote.
For this discussion take Hillary and Obama out of the picture and just chat about the rules. Also if they did break the rules what happens in this case. Do you have a court case? No real Law would be broken but a party law might of been. So I don't understand this kind of rule.
It will be difficult for me to watch Obama grab the big prize tomorrow night, as the pundits at MSNBC and CNN do their victory dances. It will be even harder for me to watch Hillary concede the nomination. I hope she goes out fighting.
Geraldo is about as rich as it gets. Betting $100 told me he wasn't willing to go out on a limb all that far!
As far as all of the comments about the true window to people's soul, when some of the more vitriolic posters "apologize" and say they are ready to play nice, and then we go back and see some of the hateful language they had used in the past, it gives me an icky feeling. Honestly, I don't think I am capable of that kind of hate language to begin with, and I'm not all that moral (or is it ethical?) Whatever.
Prof Marcia, Flatus, and VA Daryl -- Yes, I thought it was troubling that there was a private dinner meeting of he RBC members the night prior to the meeting. Also the fact that their lunch break took over three hours -- after which one of the RBC members confirmed that they had been talking about the decisions they were about to make. They might not have actually cast votes, but certainly violated the spirit of the bylaws cited by VADaryl.
Vad: Is there a provision in the Rules and Bylaws that allows them to go into closed session? Could they call that extended lunch break a closed session?
Jamie, indeed. And remember the actual ending with the nonagenarian heroine having enjoyed her 'secret' for her long, long life casting it back into the deep with a smile on her face.
I thought I would share this email exchange between Donna Brazile and one of the people in the American People for Hillary Group (which was mysteriously shut down by the DNC website last week.)
Start at the bottom and read to the top to have it in order
-----Original Message-----
From: Donna Brazile [mailto:donna@brazileassociates.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 1:44 PM
To: Roger
Subject: Re: NEWS FROM THE MEETING
Roger,
I respectfully disagree with your analysis.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am not in the business of trying to
change your views. But will respectfully move on.
Donna
Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile. Please excuse any typos or
grammatical errors.
-----Original Message-----
From:Roger
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 13:15:48
To:
Subject: RE: NEWS FROM THE MEETING
Or we could this time around for just once use the rules already written as
they are written and just play by those rules and not cheat at all.
If the committee had done that in August 2007 none of this would ever had
happen.
It is not Michigan's fault nor Hillary's fault or Obama fault that the
committee did not play by the rules in August 2007.
Michigan and Florida both were willing to take the 50% hit as stated in the
rules.
Obama would have left his name on even for 50%
Hillary should not be punished for a wise move that still played with in the
rules.
Only the DNC committee is the one seen here as cheating.
They cheated in August 2007 and now in May 2008.
The rules do not say those early primaries are invalid or those voters votes
won't count it only says go ahead but know you will only get 50% power for
your delegates at the national conventions...now that is playing by the
rules..
I wish you would have done that just once yesterday. I am sadden that your
resolution to the cheating was more cheating. Only yesterday was like
Harold said...aimed at the core of what we stand or rather have worked hard
to change and stand for. We have seen the enemy and they are us! We have
gone backwards and are now like GWB and the Republican in 2000.
Anger yes but more sad then anger. And Donna you and I have emailed about
Jack Cafferty and you shared so honestly that you were neutral but that is
not how you acted or voted when you go with the crowd yesterday. I am
sadden by that on a personal level.
Sorry I know you are being bomb barded with all this now.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: Donna Brazile [mailto:donna@brazileassociates.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:42 PM
To: Roger
Subject: Re: NEWS FROM THE MEETING
Thanks for sharing. It's totally acceptable to be angry, but i wish they
knew the facts.
Sending this to several people because I have to work today.
Here is what you can do for me. Ask the Michigan Party what they want, the
Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign.
Take a vote and give the winner what they earned. Hmmmmm. The winner would
get half. The loser will whine. Ok. Go back, revote and see who won.
This time the Party wins.
Obama accepted. Clinton rejected.
I call it a game. But when you change the rules at the end of the game -- as
we did, we cheated.
Clinton got something. Obama got something. No one received 100 percent.
There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.
Forward!
Obama says he wants to be a different type of politician, well he could of been if he would not of quit his church. But he did what all other politicians would do is get away from something could could be harmful. One thing he did do was delay that decision for a long time.
Vad: Is there a provision in the Rules and Bylaws that allows them to go into closed session? Could they call that extended lunch break a closed session?
I don't know does anybody else know the answer to these questions?
As crazy as it got here over the weekend, this forum is downright civil compared to the many other blogs I monitor. I have been blogging for Hillary since January using different handles and different IDs, but this is the only one in which I feel comfortable to use my real name.
I don't think they made that decision in advance. I think they went to a closed door because they knew it was going to get ugly and they did not want the public to see it.
I believe the general rule is, if you want to go to a private session, that decision must be made in a public session prior to the event.
Posted by: Flatus | June 2, 2008 7:57 AM
That I would agree with after attending as many City Council meetings as I have in my lifetime...they usually announce that they are going in to closed session.
I think both candidates and their supporters might pay attention to Winston Churchill:
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, and courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."
Posted by: Jamie | June 2, 2008 8:04 AM
That is not what Howard Dean asked us to do on Saturday. He told us to fall in line. I am still flabbergasted by that stuck on stupid story he told. To have the gall to compare his run for the Presidency to Hillary Clinton's is not only deluded but laughable.
However Jamie, in the spirit of your post, I am always willing to listen.
Closed session question. I'm not sure if the same laws govern DC, but I serve on a county commission that is governed by the VA Open Meetings Law and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
No more than two people are allowed to meet in private. Socially this can be a bit tricky as some of us are friends and do meet to socialize, but we are not allowed to discuss commission business.
If we do go into private session we have to certify that we only discussed the issues for which we are allowed to meet in private -- i.e. personnel, certain legal matters, contract negotiations.
All commission-related emails are subject FOIA, even those which are generated from personal email accounts.
There is also a record keeping requirement of three years of all correspondence related to commission business, just in case someone does want to FOIA.
Alicia: Yes, that sounds about right. I know that on some boards I have served on we were not even allowed to put official business in e-mails (that was in the chapter by-laws.).
Nitpicky me. Barnacle just di the "first woman to run for President" bzzzzzzt Wrong! There have been lots of them and some received national attention. (My favorite is and always will be Shirley Chisholm)
No one can say they won't get an Academy Award for strategy.
I always like a happy ending, so it was nice to have him dump
his church at the end to avoid problems.
Dress rehearsal is over, now the real battle starts.
Okay -- my post about open meetings laws governing VA and DC, and a legal article regarding open meetings by political parties got snagged by spam filter.
My husband just called me and said that Harold Ickes was just quoted on the radio saying: "Six people made the decision for six hundred thousand people"
MSNBC and Morning Mika is particularly maddening this morning. I have emailed her, but, of course, she will not read my email because it asking her to ask Mr. Obama the question: Do you adhere to the black liberation theology?
A wealthy old Gentleman decides to go on a hunting safari in Africa , taking his faithful, elderly Jack Russell named Killer, along for the company.
One day the old Jack Russell starts chasing rabbits and before long, discovers that he's lost. Wandering about, he notices a leopard heading rapidly in his direction with the intention of having lunch.
The old Jack Russell thinks,'Oh, oh! I'm in deep doo-doo now!' Noticing some bones on the ground close by, he immediately settles down to chew on the bones with his back to the approaching cat. Just as the leopard is about to leap, the old Jack Russell exclaims loudly, 'Boy, that was one delicious leopard! I wonder, if there are any more around here?'
Hearing this, the young leopard halts his attack in mid-strike, a look of terror comes over him and he slinks away into the trees. 'Whew!', says the leopard, 'That was close! That old Jack Russell nearly had me!'
Meanwhile, a monkey who had beenwatching the whole scene from a nearby tree, figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the leopard. So, off he goes, but the old Jack Russell sees him heading after the leopard with great speed, and figures that something must be up.
The monkey soon catches up with the leopard, spills the beans and strikes a deal for himself with the leopard.
The young leopard is furious at being made a fool of and says, 'Here, monkey, hop on my back and see what's going to happen to that conniving canine!
Now, the old Jack Russell sees the leopard coming with the monkey on his back and thinks, 'What am I going to do now?', but instead of running, the dog sits down with his back to his attackers, pretending he hasn't seen them yet, and just when they get close enough to hear, the old Jack Russell says...
'Where's that damn monkey? I sent him off an hour ago to bring me another leopard!
Alicia: I, too, received that e-mail from Donna Brazile. My e-mail to her expressed the thought that they could have continued to refuse to seat the Michigan delegation, or they could have seated them at 50% as per votes actually cast, but what they did was to invent an outcome. I am absolutely certain that such a decision is against the rules, even if it had been done in public.
What's worse is that the only point of the four delegate gift to Sen Obama (in addition to assigning him all the uncommitted delegates) was that it made no real difference ... it was just to prove that his team had the power to do it.
Chloe: I don't see that happening either. Moreover I don't think it would be a wise move for Sen Clinton. On the other hand, she can endorse Sen Obama and urge me to vote for him all she wants ... this has gone beyond her and her candidacy for me. I will never vote for him unless he stands up and apologizes for what he did to ruin the reputation of the Clintons -- and even then I might not.
"I learned over the weekend why the Republicans who have seen the tape of Michelle Obama ranting about “whitey” describe it as “STUNNING.” I have not seen it but I have heard from five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape. It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church when Michelle makes her intemperate remarks. Whoops!! When that image comes out it will enter the politcal ads hall of fame. It will be right up there with the little girl plucking daisy petals in the famous 1964 ad LBJ used against Barry Goldwater."
"it was just to prove that his team had the power to do it."
Yep. Good old fashioned nose rubbing and another example of the arrogance of his whole team. Doing something just because you can is rarely the best way to influence others.
It's down to 10 minutes, I wonder if Johnson will still release this tape and if he does how long will it take for media to jump on it. FOX will be first but what about Obama's MSNBC and CNN.
Well you have been promising multiple times daily for weeks. The deadline is in six minutes. Anything after that with nothing to show belongs in the round file with the other trash.
Plegler quits the Obama campaign. Then gives a hate-filled speech. Obama quits church as a result (well, that and all of the calls to shut-ins from the media.)
CNN decides to do a story which has been on the blogosphere for months and months on Obama's Chicago-style politics once the nomination is completely secure for Senator Obama.
And, Hillary Clinton loses the nomination in large part because she chose to run a General Election campaign during the Primary. In contrast, Obama ran a Primary Election campaign during the Primary and won said nomination but now seems to have serious electability issues in the General.
I could go on and on but I have a full-page ad due this morning.
"...I don't think it would be a wise move for Sen Clinton maggisd
maybe not a wise move, but it's nice to fantasize.
Maggie, undoubtedly, she'll "be required" by the party to endorse him. But I couldn't forget all that's happened if I tried. I can't be loyal to a party that has behaved as the DNC has. I will vote for the person I see as best for the Country from here on out, regardless of the party they're affiliated with.
I now consider myself a life long Democrat who is now an Independent.
Chloe: It IS nice in the mornings. I read through some of the thread from late last night (for the last couple of nights actually) and the new Obama posters coming from Kos and HuffPo are, at best, predictable. I know that we welcome all new posters with open arms but the "You Clinton people" language gets so boring after a while.
Chloe: I agree with you entirely. It has been made quite evident to me that the DNC is soooooo certain that women are a lock for the party that they need do nothing at all for us ... as Harold Ickes said, the Saturday vote was a hell of a way to try and unify the party.
In my e-mail to Donna Brazile I expressed the fact that we were not a bunch of apparatchiks mindlessly toeing the party line. Even Roe v Wade is not enough of a reason to cause me to vote for a faction that has shown such utter contempt for me and my sisters.
ok, you go west......you go north........you go south....and I'll go east, toward the beach........scour the internet and report back here with that tape or dont bother to return.........that tape must be found........this is no time for silly shill-he shall-he syllogisms......FIND THAT TAPE. I'll be on the beach with a cuba libre........
Up and down weekend on the soccer fields, with a good ending Sunday - LP's team won the consolaation game 8-1, LP scored 5 - his first was 10 seconds into the game.
Bear Bryant would have described the weekend result from the rules committee as something like kissing your sister. BTW, I doubt that Ickes plans to take anything to the Credentials committee. Would be a waste of time, money and effort. The thrust will be with the SDs.
Travelling today - I'll keep it between the lines. You guys keep it civil - yeah, like that could happen.
"we were not a bunch of apparatchiks mindlessly toeing the party line. Even Roe v Wade is not enough of a reason to cause me to vote for a faction that has shown such utter contempt for me and my sisters." Posted by: maggisd
Anytime I see a similar phrase it reminds me of a moment in time when my brain just totally went on strike. I was trying to describe the old Camel billboard that blew smoke rings. For some reason this came out as "He was poking smuff bubbles".
But he has not updated that story yet. That was at 7:43 but at the end he did say: If Republican poohbahs have their way the tape will remain on ice until October. Maybe that is what going to happen.
My feeling is that if such a tape does exist, and if it is held in GOP hands, it will not come to light until after the August conventions. And then it will show up on You Tube ... the Republicans do not want to help Hillary ... they can read the polls as well as anyone and they know she is the stronger candidate.
I agree this tape exists but if the GOP has it then there is no way they would release that today, they would wait till the October surprise when he would have it's most damage. So I guess Johnson thought someone would give it to him or the press would get a hold of it but that never happened. So now back to normal.
I'm with Vad: If the tape exists, they will have to pry it from the cold, dead, lifeless hands of the Republican who has it. There is no way it will appear before October (if it really exists.)
With the Ted Kennedy news and now the death of Yves St. Laurent of a brain tumor, all heavy cell phone users might really want to consider going totally "hands free". The connection may be unproven as yet, but the seeming added risk is worth the caution.
So I googled Roger Stone and found several blog sites with references to the so-called Whitey video, but I couldn't get any of them to download. Lots of interest apparently. Every reference to Roger Stone used the phrase "political dirty trickster" ... so, do we think he might just be planting rumors or starting his own urban legend? I mean, I know that Mrs Obama has said some unfortunate things in public, but can't think that she is as stupid as to have sat and discussed Whitey with Farrakhan.
LJ said he would provide more info this morning, not necessarily the MO video. Expect details to be fed out gradually - this is the way it works. Can't throw info out "cold" - he has been laying the groundwork. Remember, don't want the Clinton campaign's "fingerprints" on this Obama takedown.
maggi.......not "lately" you mean.....it could be well before obama's keynote speech.........20 years of membership........lots of tape to search..............
After about 10 minutes I got larry's site to display and no update yet. It's almost 1/2 hr, I'll give him till 10 and then I give up on this one until october.
"Craig do you know anything about this so called tape? -- Posted by: vadaryl"
dunno a thing, could be a hoax like the imaginary photo of George Bush dancing naked on a table that so many wasted so much time talking about in 2000.
Personally, my prayers go out to Sen Kennedy's surgeon ... that his hands be steady and sure ... I think that the decision to undergo surgery must be a good sign ... that the tumor has not yet developed arms ... at least I fervently hope so.
There is no tape folks. This has just become a traffic driver for noquarter. It is about money.
If there were a tape, It would have been released. Now is the time to cause maximum damage. Release the tape now you cause chaos in the Democratic party and you avoid the blowback that would occur in a later release. McCain can look good by loud and often condennation of the tape.
One other point, It would have to be a hell of a tape to do any real damage.
You might be right, that something like this should be put out gradually. Also maybe he wants someone else to put it out so that Clinton campaign's won't leave any "fingerprints" on it.
vadaryl: Why would there be Clinton fingerprints on a tape in the possession of Roger Stone?
To be honest, I can believe Mrs Obama talking about Whitey...I just don't see her interacting at a conference with Farrakhan. Primarily because it strikes me as against his character to have a sit-down discussion with a female...not his style, somehow.
Listen up folks: Even if there was a tape of Michelle Obama dancing naked on a table (just last week), it wouldn't be enough to derail Obama supporters. There isn't ANYTHING that can be said or shown about the Obamas that will cause any waiver in their support.
It's getting close. My question is: will Obama be able to reign in enough superdelegates to make his Tuesday night something truly special, or will there be that awkward set of days to follow in which everyone is waiting for the last couple people needed to meet the threshold to endorse?
Just checked in but have to cut grass.Just want to say how nice the early morning crew is.No name calling or hate filled messages.Wish it could always be this way.We can agree to disagree without all the vitrial.
Vadaryl
LJ is either lieing or being suckered by people way smarter than him.
After all this silly chatter has to be very entertaining to Republican operatives. Their sides must be sore from all the the laughter at Democratic antics this weekend.
I'm ready for a discussion about the rest of the election. We don't have anyone running for Senate this year in California .... but what are the reports from other states?
I see a pick-up for Dems in Colorado and New Mexico (the Udall men), as well as Virginia and New Hampshire. Al Franken seems to be in trouble in Minnesota, but reports are that Elizabeth Dole is being strongly challenged in North Carolina. For some reason, the polls currently show that Hillary runs stronger in NC than either Obama or McCain... something not right about that one.
Anyway, four more Dems for the Senate ... judicial appointments will be safe no matter who wins.
PU: No, there won't be any awkward days. There will be politicians chomping at the bit to provide the vote for the magic number. These are politicians we are talking about.
"The other observation about Obama’s retreat from Trinity is that it took him three weeks to distance himself from Wright and he departs now insisting that he’ll not denounce the church. This is a guy who’s indecisive or, worse yet, a potential President who can’t turn a bad idea loose. He’s been accused of turning his debate gaffes into foreign policy — the pledge to meet with scoundrels and dictators without preconditions, for example.
If there is such a tape, I don't see the point in bringing it out gradually. How would you do that anyway? But from my point of view, it would be revealing if Michelle sat at a table talking to Farrakhan, even without a "whitey" statement. But what do I know? I would think enough had already come out to ruin a candidate.
Just meditate for a minute of the words Pfleger spoke and how inflammatory and racist and sexist they are, and then remember how enlightened and intelligent people have been and are still on tv excusing it and justifying it, and it may be that nothing will affect Obama's becoming the democratic nominee. But president? Never.
Perhaps you're right. Does Obama need a high-profile endorsement today, somebody like, oh, I don't know, Al Gore, to get the party started and goad some of the undecideds? I kind of feel there needs to be an elder statesman, or some higher up to get things rolling. In order for Obama to pull of the requisite number, he's gonna need to have about 25 + delegates before tomorrow night, and I'm skeptical that it will happen.
I agree with those who say the tape will not matter whenever it comes out,if it exists.Nothing sticks to Obama.Only a fraction of what has already came out would have been enough to sink any other candidate,but this one is the Messiah and nothing can touch him.So forget about the tape.It will be useless.
Ruth
PU: I believe the whole thing might already planned out (who will provide the magic vote.) That person could very well be Al Gore. Or, it could be Nancy. Hard to say.
I don't think the tape (if it exists) has to be released to be damaging. what I found most interesting in the 7:43 update was that financial backers are asking the campaign if such a tape exists and they are being stonewalled. Just the possibility that it exists might be enough to keep some SD's from moving right now. Do they want to take the risk?
P of U: What is interesting to me ... I went back to the basic delegate count today and found that Sen Obama leads Sen Clinton by 115 votes (including the 4 delegates gifted to him on Saturday, I guess)... and that he needs a total of 379 SDs while she needs a total of 494 SDs.
Bearing in mind that SD votes don't count until they are cast, it seems abundantly clear that Sen Obama is relying as heavily on the old-style politicians as Mrs Clinton would have had to do.
I know you take a different view, but were I Mrs Clinton I would insist on being able to have my name put in nomination and my votes counted at the Convention, even if I knew I would fall short.
I think...but cannot be sure...that seeing such an event take place might actually mollify some Clinton supporters.
Harold Ickes has been warning SDs for months about a Repub "October Surprise" to be dropped on Obama. In this sort of thing, always look at the timing in addition to the source. Johnson began the "Whitey" story a few weeks ago, it has spread. Hours after the disgraceful DNC theft on Sat, he posted an info alert. Remember, Obama is not the nominee until the roll call vote in Aug - plenty of time for the video to come out and "destroy" Obama. The anti-McCain Repub billionaire can be used as cover by the Clinton campaign.
I'm glad to see the police in NYC are finally doing something about all the rampant drug use there. They busted Tatum O'Neal last night for trying to buy crack cocaine. Go Red Wings and go Lakers!
GORDO: I would hate to think that the Clintons would use such a tape, particularly in light of what was done to them in the past. I am pretty certain that the Clinton campaign knew about the Rev Wright and TUCC, since it has been reported on since at least early 2007 ... but they did not circulate the information and, despite what some have said, Sen Clinton resisted commenting on Rev Wright for weeks...and then her response to questioning was quite mild.
That's definitely a possibility; however, in this newfangled era of image-orientated, for-show conventions, I don't know if it will happen. In order to mollify the Clinton supporters, the best option seems to me to offer her a high-profile cabinet position, as some reports are already suggesting.
wow... I see some of you actually took my joking about Craig's choice of snack seriously..... com'on lighten up..... it's June and it's a beautiful day here in the northeast....
maggi..... I'm excited that Jeanne Shaheen will be replacing John Sununu in the Senate here in NH....
just want to give a head's up for all you George Lakoff fans.....
he will be on for a full hour with Diane Rehm this morning during her second hour..... 11am to 12pm EST.....
PofU: Note that I said some of her supporters. Nothing will satisfy me ... except perhaps an apology or what I deem to be a heartfelt expression of regret for not condemning those of his surrogates who spent so much time trashing the reputation of Pres Clinton. I want to hear him include Pres Clinton and LBJ in his pantheon of past Democratic leaders of whom we can and should be proud, and not dismiss the good they did.
BTW, I asked you a few days ago, in your studies of Utopian societies, did you ever study New Harmony Indiana and the Owenites? Just curious.
Well Craig, good video again. Stay away from the Doritos; they are addicting ! :-) Obama is winning and I see no reason to fight about it any further. What I do think the whole process raises is the issue of how delegates are awarded, i.e. giving stronghold Democratic regions more delegates per vote than areas that have been traditionally Republican. Since the African American community votes nearly 90% for Democrats, this naturally benefitted Mr. Obama in a manner that I think exaggerated his win over Hillary Clinton. However, it's a new day, and the good thing out of this, I think, is that the angry Clinton supporters, and the Clintons themselves, are going to fight for a fairer system in the future. If I were in the states now, I would attend my local party meetings to push reform ideas. I am sure others will be doing their part.
I think Senator Clinton's name goes into nomination unless she resigns and releases her delegates (usually accompanied by an endorsement ala John Edwards). It is one of the ways she would be honored.
The first ballot is taken with all the states voting their delegates as earned or endorsed. Illinois will probably be skipped so that at the appropriate moment, they could be called upon to put their Senator's name over the top for the nomination followed by lots of balloons and silly stuff.
Then a motion is usually made to make the nomination unanimous though this one might be tricky given some of the hard feelings as it is usually by acclimation and I could imagine a lot of booing going on.
It's been all planned out that Tuesday night or early Wednesday this will be all over. It's just what Hillary will do next. My gut feeling is she will take it to the convention with the hope that Obama will make a big mistake and she can say I'm still here.
I'm willing to bet that you're going to get some, but not all of what you are requesting. Unfortunately, given the way these things work, it might not be until the convention that we get a kind of glance back toward the Clinton years and their influence on the party. As for LBJ, I'm not sure.
In terms of my work: no, I primarily look at late 19th/early 20th century American literature. Utopia in my studies is more of a structural heuristic that links up with Marxist notions of futurity, or post-national subjectivity. I know that sounds like a lot of jargon, and it probably is to anyone outside of English studies, but unfortunately no, I haven't had time to look at those groups. Do you have any suggestions on where I should start?
Craig.... you should have gone to the movies..... then you could have had some great popcorn instead of those nasty Nacho Doritos.....
Posted by Rebellious Renee
LOL... I thought for sure I'd be the only one making the Doritos comment. Popcorn is ever more healthy, of course remembering to use little or no salt and stay away from the butter.
EuroTom: I would like to believe that the weighted delegate apportionment system will be reformed, but I seriously doubt that it will. I rather think that, instead, it will be held out as a carrot in various Latino communities as an example of how powerful their voices might become if they voted en masse for the Democrats.
I kind of agree with you. The question then becomes: who will stick by her. At best she will be seen as a fighter for her supports, but at worst she will be viewed as a villainous figure, hell-bent on ripping apart the party. If she chooses to take it to the convention, I don't think she'll have many Washington supporters.
PofU: I take it, then, that you have read Samuel Butler. (I think that's his name as I recall from English Lit) and his novel about Erehwon?
As to the Owenites and New Harmony Indiana, start off by googling it. They have an interesting "library" there called the Workingman's Institute, established in the early 1800s ... there were two separate Utopian communities there .... the Rappites followed by the Owenites.
My father's family lived in that area from app 1807 through app 1932, although they were not part of the Utopian community themselves but rather New Light Baptists.
I heard this the other day on NPR
With the tie vote , there is an interesting problem for Obama
If HRC's name is placed in nomination for VP
The super delegates are not bound Obama supporters they could vote for Obama for president. But they don't have to vote for his choice of VP. They could instead vote HRC instead.
There isn't that more fun than worrying about that silly tape.
Any candidate who's been around as long as Hillary has to know when to throw in the towel. I just can't believe that she can't accept losing. There has to be something out there that is keeping her going. Just like her War vote, she stood her gound on that one. knowing taking the easy way out would be, I was wrong on my vote. If it was me I would of quit months ago. We all hate losing. They will do just fine no matter what way she goes, so I am not buying that she will be threw if she fights on. The party won't be broken, they might be stronger.
Jamie: TY for the explication. It was a good refresher. I was fortunate enough to be at the 1960 convention in LA and remember vividly when the votes went "over the top" ...
PofU: If Sen Clinton suspends her campaign in the interim, there can be nothing wrong with having a real roll call vote. That's how the system is meant to work. Refer to Jamie's post ...
Comments
First?
Posted by: Jason | June 2, 2008 6:15 AM
not last
Posted by: sturgeone | June 2, 2008 6:21 AM
"hey....is this heaven?"
"No.........it's Iowa....."
lol
Posted by: sturgeone | June 2, 2008 6:24 AM
Good Morning,
Great video, Craig. I like the movie clips. I detect a hint of sarcasm in your
"Hollywood Ending."
In his heavily choreographed performance this Tuesday, the main character,
Obama, will appear in his Armani suit. His well-rehearsed speech carefully prepared. Director Darth Axelrod can be seen perched in the wings, wrinkling his brow, filled with angst as he watches Obama to make certain his protege follows the script.
Posted by: prof marcia
| June 2, 2008 6:35 AM
"Obama's Hollywood Ending-The Movie" produced by MSNBC with
cameos by Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, comic relief by
Mike Barnicle.
Posted by: prof marcia
| June 2, 2008 6:50 AM
Lanny Davis in WSJ making the case for Hillary's nomination:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121219030144534313-lMyQjAxMDI4MTAyMTEwOTEwWj.html
Posted by: Alicia Knight
| June 2, 2008 6:51 AM
Alicia,
Thanks for the link to the Lanny Davis article. I love that guy.
Of course, I agree with everything he writes. But, don't you think
the back room deal, in smoking rooms, has already been
struck by Camp Obama with the shady delegates? (I wish it weren't
so, but I fear the dirty deeds have been done). The DNC, the elitist media and the Washington insiders just didn't want a woman to become president,
especially a woman as feisty, smart and strong as Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: prof marcia
| June 2, 2008 7:09 AM
Reposting from last thread.
After yesterday's acrimony, I was motivated to go back to Craig's book The Politics of Life.
Quoting from page xi in the introduction "Think again about driving your car and how people actually behave on the roads. While plenty of drivers are kind and generous, many are rude, obnoxious, and even threatening. No matter how they act elsewhere, remember this: What you see on the road is who they really are. You could be at a party with those same rude drivers, and they might put up a gentle and affable front. But in the anonymous bubble of their automobiles, they are their true selves."
I think that this analogy is applicable to posting on the internet as well. So we all provide a window to our soul, the good, the bad or ugly when we post here.
Posted by: Bowmanc
| June 2, 2008 7:10 AM
Craig, I loved the finish!!
Hillary must go down in flames, if she does go down. Otherwise, her credibility as one who will fight for every inch of hallowed ground will be shattered.
Posted by: Flatus
| June 2, 2008 7:10 AM
According to Article 9, Section 12 of the Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States:
All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee,and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot.
Interesting they had a private dinner the night before and at 4:15 on Saturday they held another private meeting. Then came out and did a dog and poney show and voted. Did they break any rules by doing this or by just having the public vote they covered themselves.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 7:13 AM
On a Wine of Horace's
What time I read your mighty line,
O Mr. Q. Horatius Flaccus,
In praise of many an ancient wine--
You twanged a wickid lyric to Bacchus!--
I wondered, like a Yankee hick,
If that old stuff contained a kick.
So when upon a Paris card
I glimpsed a Falernian, I said: "Waiter,
I'll emulate that ancient bard,
And pass upon his merits later."
Professor Mendell, quelque sport,
Suggested that we split a quart.
O Flaccus, ere I ceased to drink
Three glasses and a pair of highballs,
I could not talk, I could not think;
For I was pickled to the eyeballs.
If you sopped up Falernian wine
How did you ever write a line?
Franklin P. Adams
Posted by: sturgeone | June 2, 2008 7:19 AM
Is Larry Johnson stil going to release the tape this morning at 9? Interesting that FOX never brought it back up yesterday after first reporting it. They talked to a guy by the name of Roger Stone. He's the guy who broke the Eliot Spitzer prostitution story. He's not well liked to begin with. Rivera bet $100 that the tape does not exist.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 7:20 AM
vadaryl,
How I wish that they took their Charter seriously. But they don't.
There are two vehicles for Mrs Clinton to act, the most immediate would be a civil suit asking for injunctive relief until such time as the Charter is followed.
The second way would be to spread the word that she doesn't want to do the first, but does want the matter addressed by the credentials committee, and, if necessary, the entire convention, in August.
If this had been a governmental body in Florida, the entire crowd would be in the pokey for having violated the Govt in the Sunshine Act.
Posted by: Flatus
| June 2, 2008 7:20 AM
good morning gang....
Craig.... you should have gone to the movies..... then you could have had some great popcorn instead of those nasty Nacho Doritos.....
Bowman.... I tried to read some of this blog last night..... after reading for a few minutes.... I decided my decision to ignore this blog on the weekends was the correct one for me..... I shut this damn machine off.....
great weekend to be a Boston sports fan..... the Celtics won the Eastern Conference and Manny hit his 500th home run...... YEEEHAAAAW!
oh yeah..... politics..... sooooooooo......
Posted by: RebelliousRenee
| June 2, 2008 7:22 AM
RR,
The kids spilt over from kiddieland. Along with a few 'adult' trolls from the repug side trying to incite violence amongst us.
Posted by: Flatus
| June 2, 2008 7:26 AM
Since everyone is on this, rules are rules, then did the committee break any rules by having a private meeting before they had the public vote. Based on what was said before the vote it appears a decison had been made in the private meeting. Like a straw vote.
For this discussion take Hillary and Obama out of the picture and just chat about the rules. Also if they did break the rules what happens in this case. Do you have a court case? No real Law would be broken but a party law might of been. So I don't understand this kind of rule.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 7:27 AM
Mr. Charles..........what ARE the blues......and WHO gets them?
--Dan Ackroyd as Tom Snyder to Ray Charles as himself.
Posted by: sturgeone | June 2, 2008 7:28 AM
It will be difficult for me to watch Obama grab the big prize tomorrow night, as the pundits at MSNBC and CNN do their victory dances. It will be even harder for me to watch Hillary concede the nomination. I hope she goes out fighting.
Posted by: prof marcia
| June 2, 2008 7:31 AM
Geraldo is about as rich as it gets. Betting $100 told me he wasn't willing to go out on a limb all that far!
As far as all of the comments about the true window to people's soul, when some of the more vitriolic posters "apologize" and say they are ready to play nice, and then we go back and see some of the hateful language they had used in the past, it gives me an icky feeling. Honestly, I don't think I am capable of that kind of hate language to begin with, and I'm not all that moral (or is it ethical?) Whatever.
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 7:34 AM
this just in.........the catholic priest Pfleger has had his minutes of fame cut from 4 1/2 to 3.25.
Posted by: sturgeone | June 2, 2008 7:34 AM
Prof Marcia, Flatus, and VA Daryl -- Yes, I thought it was troubling that there was a private dinner meeting of he RBC members the night prior to the meeting. Also the fact that their lunch break took over three hours -- after which one of the RBC members confirmed that they had been talking about the decisions they were about to make. They might not have actually cast votes, but certainly violated the spirit of the bylaws cited by VADaryl.
Posted by: Alicia Knight
| June 2, 2008 7:35 AM
Vad: Is there a provision in the Rules and Bylaws that allows them to go into closed session? Could they call that extended lunch break a closed session?
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 7:44 AM
Good Morning All
Loved the movie references Craig. Small detail. Didn't the Titanic sink?
Posted by: Jamie
| June 2, 2008 7:44 AM
Jamie, indeed. And remember the actual ending with the nonagenarian heroine having enjoyed her 'secret' for her long, long life casting it back into the deep with a smile on her face.
Posted by: Flatus
| June 2, 2008 7:49 AM
I thought I would share this email exchange between Donna Brazile and one of the people in the American People for Hillary Group (which was mysteriously shut down by the DNC website last week.)
Start at the bottom and read to the top to have it in order
-----Original Message-----
From: Donna Brazile [mailto:donna@brazileassociates.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 1:44 PM
To: Roger
Subject: Re: NEWS FROM THE MEETING
Roger,
I respectfully disagree with your analysis.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am not in the business of trying to
change your views. But will respectfully move on.
Donna
Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile. Please excuse any typos or
grammatical errors.
-----Original Message-----
From:Roger
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 13:15:48
To:
Subject: RE: NEWS FROM THE MEETING
Or we could this time around for just once use the rules already written as
they are written and just play by those rules and not cheat at all.
If the committee had done that in August 2007 none of this would ever had
happen.
It is not Michigan's fault nor Hillary's fault or Obama fault that the
committee did not play by the rules in August 2007.
Michigan and Florida both were willing to take the 50% hit as stated in the
rules.
Obama would have left his name on even for 50%
Hillary should not be punished for a wise move that still played with in the
rules.
Only the DNC committee is the one seen here as cheating.
They cheated in August 2007 and now in May 2008.
The rules do not say those early primaries are invalid or those voters votes
won't count it only says go ahead but know you will only get 50% power for
your delegates at the national conventions...now that is playing by the
rules..
I wish you would have done that just once yesterday. I am sadden that your
resolution to the cheating was more cheating. Only yesterday was like
Harold said...aimed at the core of what we stand or rather have worked hard
to change and stand for. We have seen the enemy and they are us! We have
gone backwards and are now like GWB and the Republican in 2000.
Anger yes but more sad then anger. And Donna you and I have emailed about
Jack Cafferty and you shared so honestly that you were neutral but that is
not how you acted or voted when you go with the crowd yesterday. I am
sadden by that on a personal level.
Sorry I know you are being bomb barded with all this now.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: Donna Brazile [mailto:donna@brazileassociates.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:42 PM
To: Roger
Subject: Re: NEWS FROM THE MEETING
Thanks for sharing. It's totally acceptable to be angry, but i wish they
knew the facts.
Sending this to several people because I have to work today.
Here is what you can do for me. Ask the Michigan Party what they want, the
Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign.
Take a vote and give the winner what they earned. Hmmmmm. The winner would
get half. The loser will whine. Ok. Go back, revote and see who won.
This time the Party wins.
Obama accepted. Clinton rejected.
I call it a game. But when you change the rules at the end of the game -- as
we did, we cheated.
Clinton got something. Obama got something. No one received 100 percent.
Respectfully yours on a Sunday,
Donna
Posted by: Alicia Knight
| June 2, 2008 7:51 AM
Well, today is grounds maintenance day. And, Stinky is pacing the floor waiting for me to get my miserable butt off the chair.
Guess I'll humor her.
Posted by: Flatus
| June 2, 2008 7:52 AM
Hillary says NO nominee on tuesday.....http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/clinton-says-no.html
Posted by: emmy | June 2, 2008 7:52 AM
Heaven for me?
Doritos for breakfast...yummmm!!
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| June 2, 2008 7:53 AM
thought for the day
There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.
Forward!
walt kelly
Posted by: patd | June 2, 2008 7:53 AM
Obama says he wants to be a different type of politician, well he could of been if he would not of quit his church. But he did what all other politicians would do is get away from something could could be harmful. One thing he did do was delay that decision for a long time.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 7:54 AM
Vad: Is there a provision in the Rules and Bylaws that allows them to go into closed session? Could they call that extended lunch break a closed session?
I don't know does anybody else know the answer to these questions?
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 7:56 AM
As crazy as it got here over the weekend, this forum is downright civil compared to the many other blogs I monitor. I have been blogging for Hillary since January using different handles and different IDs, but this is the only one in which I feel comfortable to use my real name.
Posted by: Alicia Knight
| June 2, 2008 7:56 AM
I believe the general rule is, if you want to go to a private session, that decision must be made in a public session prior to the event.
Posted by: Flatus
| June 2, 2008 7:57 AM
I don't think they made that decision in advance. I think they went to a closed door because they knew it was going to get ugly and they did not want the public to see it.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 8:01 AM
I believe the general rule is, if you want to go to a private session, that decision must be made in a public session prior to the event.
Posted by: Flatus | June 2, 2008 7:57 AM
That I would agree with after attending as many City Council meetings as I have in my lifetime...they usually announce that they are going in to closed session.
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 8:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyutnmdDwsg
il pogo
Posted by: sturgeone | June 2, 2008 8:04 AM
I think both candidates and their supporters might pay attention to Winston Churchill:
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, and courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."
Posted by: Jamie
| June 2, 2008 8:04 AM
I think both candidates and their supporters might pay attention to Winston Churchill:
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, and courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."
Posted by: Jamie | June 2, 2008 8:04 AM
That is not what Howard Dean asked us to do on Saturday. He told us to fall in line. I am still flabbergasted by that stuck on stupid story he told. To have the gall to compare his run for the Presidency to Hillary Clinton's is not only deluded but laughable.
However Jamie, in the spirit of your post, I am always willing to listen.
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 8:08 AM
Closed session question. I'm not sure if the same laws govern DC, but I serve on a county commission that is governed by the VA Open Meetings Law and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
No more than two people are allowed to meet in private. Socially this can be a bit tricky as some of us are friends and do meet to socialize, but we are not allowed to discuss commission business.
If we do go into private session we have to certify that we only discussed the issues for which we are allowed to meet in private -- i.e. personnel, certain legal matters, contract negotiations.
All commission-related emails are subject FOIA, even those which are generated from personal email accounts.
There is also a record keeping requirement of three years of all correspondence related to commission business, just in case someone does want to FOIA.
Posted by: Alicia Knight
| June 2, 2008 8:09 AM
Alicia: Yes, that sounds about right. I know that on some boards I have served on we were not even allowed to put official business in e-mails (that was in the chapter by-laws.).
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 8:15 AM
Nitpicky me. Barnacle just di the "first woman to run for President" bzzzzzzt Wrong! There have been lots of them and some received national attention. (My favorite is and always will be Shirley Chisholm)
http://www.jofreeman.com/politics/womprez03.htm
I know he couldn't name them all, but a tip of his bald spot wouldn't have hurt.
Posted by: Jamie
| June 2, 2008 8:19 AM
Ally,
Good we are in total agreement ... Dean really messed up this whole election and the weekend was totally in character.
Posted by: Jamie
| June 2, 2008 8:22 AM
Craig,
You keep getting better and better!
And to think he owes it all to Iowa.
No one can say they won't get an Academy Award for strategy.
I always like a happy ending, so it was nice to have him dump
his church at the end to avoid problems.
Dress rehearsal is over, now the real battle starts.
Posted by: chloe
| June 2, 2008 8:24 AM
Okay -- my post about open meetings laws governing VA and DC, and a legal article regarding open meetings by political parties got snagged by spam filter.
So here are the most relevant links:
Legal article:
http://www.ancelglink.com/qanda/a7.html
This is a good resource on FOIA and Open Meetings:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/
Posted by: Alicia Knight
| June 2, 2008 8:25 AM
My husband just called me and said that Harold Ickes was just quoted on the radio saying: "Six people made the decision for six hundred thousand people"
Posted by: chloe
| June 2, 2008 8:28 AM
MSNBC and Morning Mika is particularly maddening this morning. I have emailed her, but, of course, she will not read my email because it asking her to ask Mr. Obama the question: Do you adhere to the black liberation theology?
Posted by: lizbeth
| June 2, 2008 8:31 AM
Dean really messed up this whole election and the weekend was totally in character. Posted by: Jamie
and predictable. All we had to do, was look at past behavior.
Posted by: chloe
| June 2, 2008 8:31 AM
MSNBC and Morning Mika is particularly maddening this morning. Posted by: lizbeth
Switch to "FaB" Fox.
Much less annoying.
Posted by: chloe
| June 2, 2008 8:33 AM
I think HRC could win as an independent candidate by drawing Dem, Indy, and dis-enchanted Rep. bread and butter oriented, women.
That faction plus we millions of HRC supporting Dem and Indy males could prove to be a winner.
I think with Wesley Clark as a running mate she also draws many Rep. males.
I think she would draw votes from McCain in large numbers, while absolutely demolishing Obama.
Even if McCain still won, Obama goes down in flames and she builds a solid base for 2012.
The DNC would lie in ruins.
I fervently advocate such an effort and will gladly donate the maximum allowed to help facilitate such.
Posted by: Mike | June 2, 2008 8:36 AM
A wealthy old Gentleman decides to go on a hunting safari in Africa , taking his faithful, elderly Jack Russell named Killer, along for the company.
One day the old Jack Russell starts chasing rabbits and before long, discovers that he's lost. Wandering about, he notices a leopard heading rapidly in his direction with the intention of having lunch.
The old Jack Russell thinks,'Oh, oh! I'm in deep doo-doo now!' Noticing some bones on the ground close by, he immediately settles down to chew on the bones with his back to the approaching cat. Just as the leopard is about to leap, the old Jack Russell exclaims loudly, 'Boy, that was one delicious leopard! I wonder, if there are any more around here?'
Hearing this, the young leopard halts his attack in mid-strike, a look of terror comes over him and he slinks away into the trees. 'Whew!', says the leopard, 'That was close! That old Jack Russell nearly had me!'
Meanwhile, a monkey who had beenwatching the whole scene from a nearby tree, figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the leopard. So, off he goes, but the old Jack Russell sees him heading after the leopard with great speed, and figures that something must be up.
The monkey soon catches up with the leopard, spills the beans and strikes a deal for himself with the leopard.
The young leopard is furious at being made a fool of and says, 'Here, monkey, hop on my back and see what's going to happen to that conniving canine!
Now, the old Jack Russell sees the leopard coming with the monkey on his back and thinks, 'What am I going to do now?', but instead of running, the dog sits down with his back to his attackers, pretending he hasn't seen them yet, and just when they get close enough to hear, the old Jack Russell says...
'Where's that damn monkey? I sent him off an hour ago to bring me another leopard!
Posted by: sturgeone | June 2, 2008 8:41 AM
Alicia: I, too, received that e-mail from Donna Brazile. My e-mail to her expressed the thought that they could have continued to refuse to seat the Michigan delegation, or they could have seated them at 50% as per votes actually cast, but what they did was to invent an outcome. I am absolutely certain that such a decision is against the rules, even if it had been done in public.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 8:42 AM
I fervently advocate such an effort and will gladly donate the maximum allowed to help facilitate such.
Posted by: Mike | June 2, 2008 8:36 AM
I would too, but I can't see it happening.
Posted by: chloe
| June 2, 2008 8:43 AM
What's worse is that the only point of the four delegate gift to Sen Obama (in addition to assigning him all the uncommitted delegates) was that it made no real difference ... it was just to prove that his team had the power to do it.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 8:44 AM
This could be something, more on this tape:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/02/michelle-obama-and-louis-farrakhan-take-on-whitey/#more-2847
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 8:47 AM
Chloe: I don't see that happening either. Moreover I don't think it would be a wise move for Sen Clinton. On the other hand, she can endorse Sen Obama and urge me to vote for him all she wants ... this has gone beyond her and her candidacy for me. I will never vote for him unless he stands up and apologizes for what he did to ruin the reputation of the Clintons -- and even then I might not.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 8:47 AM
Where's that damn monkey? I sent him off an hour ago to bring me another leopard! Posted by: sturgeone
Sturge, I love your story. Just what I need this morning.
The morning crew is so uplifting.
Posted by: chloe
| June 2, 2008 8:49 AM
Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan Take On Whitey
"I learned over the weekend why the Republicans who have seen the tape of Michelle Obama ranting about “whitey” describe it as “STUNNING.” I have not seen it but I have heard from five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape. It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church when Michelle makes her intemperate remarks. Whoops!! When that image comes out it will enter the politcal ads hall of fame. It will be right up there with the little girl plucking daisy petals in the famous 1964 ad LBJ used against Barry Goldwater."
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/02/michelle-obama-and-louis-farrakhan-take-on-whitey/
Posted by: GORDO | June 2, 2008 8:50 AM
"it was just to prove that his team had the power to do it."
Yep. Good old fashioned nose rubbing and another example of the arrogance of his whole team. Doing something just because you can is rarely the best way to influence others.
Posted by: Jamie
| June 2, 2008 8:51 AM
It's down to 10 minutes, I wonder if Johnson will still release this tape and if he does how long will it take for media to jump on it. FOX will be first but what about Obama's MSNBC and CNN.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 8:51 AM
Interesting it's taking longer and longer for Johnson's page to display.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 8:53 AM
Gordo
Well you have been promising multiple times daily for weeks. The deadline is in six minutes. Anything after that with nothing to show belongs in the round file with the other trash.
Posted by: Jamie
| June 2, 2008 8:53 AM
Now I can't get the site to display at all.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 8:54 AM
Word of the Day: Ironic.
Plegler quits the Obama campaign. Then gives a hate-filled speech. Obama quits church as a result (well, that and all of the calls to shut-ins from the media.)
CNN decides to do a story which has been on the blogosphere for months and months on Obama's Chicago-style politics once the nomination is completely secure for Senator Obama.
And, Hillary Clinton loses the nomination in large part because she chose to run a General Election campaign during the Primary. In contrast, Obama ran a Primary Election campaign during the Primary and won said nomination but now seems to have serious electability issues in the General.
I could go on and on but I have a full-page ad due this morning.
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 8:55 AM
"...I don't think it would be a wise move for Sen Clinton maggisd
maybe not a wise move, but it's nice to fantasize.
Maggie, undoubtedly, she'll "be required" by the party to endorse him. But I couldn't forget all that's happened if I tried. I can't be loyal to a party that has behaved as the DNC has. I will vote for the person I see as best for the Country from here on out, regardless of the party they're affiliated with.
I now consider myself a life long Democrat who is now an Independent.
Posted by: chloe
| June 2, 2008 8:56 AM
Can anybody get johnson's page to display?
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 8:57 AM
Food for thought. Here is the current pledged delegate count with 2118 needed to go "over the top"
Obama
1739
Clinton
1624
31 pledged delegates at stake tomorrow.
I have been unable to find out how many Obama delegates are as the result of weighted delegate apportionment, but I would like to know.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 8:58 AM
Chloe: It IS nice in the mornings. I read through some of the thread from late last night (for the last couple of nights actually) and the new Obama posters coming from Kos and HuffPo are, at best, predictable. I know that we welcome all new posters with open arms but the "You Clinton people" language gets so boring after a while.
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 8:59 AM
Some of you need to read MORE carefully what Larry Johnson writes - words matter.
Posted by: GORDO | June 2, 2008 9:00 AM
Ironic, or well planned?
Not on Hillary's side because it didn't work.
But on Obama's and CNN's side, because it did.
Posted by: chloe
| June 2, 2008 9:00 AM
OK it's after 9 now, anybody hear anything about a tape yet?
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 9:02 AM
Chloe: I agree with you entirely. It has been made quite evident to me that the DNC is soooooo certain that women are a lock for the party that they need do nothing at all for us ... as Harold Ickes said, the Saturday vote was a hell of a way to try and unify the party.
In my e-mail to Donna Brazile I expressed the fact that we were not a bunch of apparatchiks mindlessly toeing the party line. Even Roe v Wade is not enough of a reason to cause me to vote for a faction that has shown such utter contempt for me and my sisters.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 9:05 AM
Can anybody get johnson's page to display?
Posted by: vadaryl
Vadaryl, I have a fast connection and I can't get it to load.
They must have site problems, maybe too much traffic??
Posted by: chloe
| June 2, 2008 9:06 AM
nothing on the noquarter site as of now
¡yo soy Horsedooty!
Posted by: yo soy Horsedooty!
| June 2, 2008 9:06 AM
Basically he heard from a friend who heard from a friend who had it from five "good" sources that they had friends ... SNOPES here it comes.
Posted by: Jamie
| June 2, 2008 9:07 AM
ok, you go west......you go north........you go south....and I'll go east, toward the beach........scour the internet and report back here with that tape or dont bother to return.........that tape must be found........this is no time for silly shill-he shall-he syllogisms......FIND THAT TAPE. I'll be on the beach with a cuba libre........
Posted by: sturgeone | June 2, 2008 9:07 AM
Ally - I thought that we were Clintonistas.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 9:07 AM
I guess we all are interested if he's telling the truth or blowing smoke.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 9:07 AM
I got it to load with my cable connection but it took a while
¡yo soy Horsedooty!
Posted by: yo soy Horsedooty!
| June 2, 2008 9:08 AM
mornin' all.
Up and down weekend on the soccer fields, with a good ending Sunday - LP's team won the consolaation game 8-1, LP scored 5 - his first was 10 seconds into the game.
Bear Bryant would have described the weekend result from the rules committee as something like kissing your sister. BTW, I doubt that Ickes plans to take anything to the Credentials committee. Would be a waste of time, money and effort. The thrust will be with the SDs.
Travelling today - I'll keep it between the lines. You guys keep it civil - yeah, like that could happen.
Posted by: pogo
| June 2, 2008 9:09 AM
"we were not a bunch of apparatchiks mindlessly toeing the party line. Even Roe v Wade is not enough of a reason to cause me to vote for a faction that has shown such utter contempt for me and my sisters." Posted by: maggisd
Well said, and I agree.
Posted by: chloe
| June 2, 2008 9:09 AM
I got it to display but it's not been updated. Last update was 7:43 with Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan Take On Whitey »
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 9:10 AM
vadary, chloe -----------------------
Look at my post of 8:50 AM.
Posted by: GORDO | June 2, 2008 9:10 AM
"or blowing smoke"
Anytime I see a similar phrase it reminds me of a moment in time when my brain just totally went on strike. I was trying to describe the old Camel billboard that blew smoke rings. For some reason this came out as "He was poking smuff bubbles".
Posted by: Jamie
| June 2, 2008 9:12 AM
Ally - I thought that we were Clintonistas.
Posted by: maggisd | June 2, 2008 9:07 AM
I think we are a lot of things...
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 9:13 AM
Gordo,
But he has not updated that story yet. That was at 7:43 but at the end he did say: If Republican poohbahs have their way the tape will remain on ice until October. Maybe that is what going to happen.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 9:14 AM
vadaryl: Didn't Roger Stone work for Giuliani?
My feeling is that if such a tape does exist, and if it is held in GOP hands, it will not come to light until after the August conventions. And then it will show up on You Tube ... the Republicans do not want to help Hillary ... they can read the polls as well as anyone and they know she is the stronger candidate.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 9:15 AM
Is it getting cold in here or are we just experiencing a Gordo/No Quarter Snow Job?
Posted by: Jamie
| June 2, 2008 9:19 AM
I agree this tape exists but if the GOP has it then there is no way they would release that today, they would wait till the October surprise when he would have it's most damage. So I guess Johnson thought someone would give it to him or the press would get a hold of it but that never happened. So now back to normal.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 9:20 AM
I'm with Vad: If the tape exists, they will have to pry it from the cold, dead, lifeless hands of the Republican who has it. There is no way it will appear before October (if it really exists.)
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 9:21 AM
Dana Milbank's takeon the weekend activites.
His choice for Hollywood ending
War of the Worlds
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053102354.html?sid=ST2008053102453
Posted by: Lynn C | June 2, 2008 9:23 AM
good way to have a tape without really having to actually have one...........so far.
Posted by: sturgeone | June 2, 2008 9:23 AM
Sen. Ted Kennedy in surgery now: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002886195
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| June 2, 2008 9:23 AM
Now if this tape was about Hillary or McCain you bet it would be shown.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 9:23 AM
gordo = bluff Question: has anything gordo posted come true?
¡yo soy Horsedooty!
Posted by: yo soy Horsedooty!
| June 2, 2008 9:24 AM
Craig do you know anything about this so called tape?
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 9:24 AM
With the Ted Kennedy news and now the death of Yves St. Laurent of a brain tumor, all heavy cell phone users might really want to consider going totally "hands free". The connection may be unproven as yet, but the seeming added risk is worth the caution.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-195865.html
Posted by: Jamie
| June 2, 2008 9:24 AM
All our prayers go out to Kennedy!
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 9:25 AM
As to the existence of "The Tape", even National Review remains skeptical
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmU5NjE1ZTM1NTg5OGZlNmMxMzI4YzUxYmM4MzNmMzk=
Posted by: Coreen | June 2, 2008 9:25 AM
So I googled Roger Stone and found several blog sites with references to the so-called Whitey video, but I couldn't get any of them to download. Lots of interest apparently. Every reference to Roger Stone used the phrase "political dirty trickster" ... so, do we think he might just be planting rumors or starting his own urban legend? I mean, I know that Mrs Obama has said some unfortunate things in public, but can't think that she is as stupid as to have sat and discussed Whitey with Farrakhan.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 9:27 AM
vadaryl ----------------------
LJ said he would provide more info this morning, not necessarily the MO video. Expect details to be fed out gradually - this is the way it works. Can't throw info out "cold" - he has been laying the groundwork. Remember, don't want the Clinton campaign's "fingerprints" on this Obama takedown.
Posted by: GORDO | June 2, 2008 9:28 AM
maggi.......not "lately" you mean.....it could be well before obama's keynote speech.........20 years of membership........lots of tape to search..............
Posted by: sturgeone | June 2, 2008 9:28 AM
After about 10 minutes I got larry's site to display and no update yet. It's almost 1/2 hr, I'll give him till 10 and then I give up on this one until october.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 9:29 AM
"Craig do you know anything about this so called tape? -- Posted by: vadaryl"
dunno a thing, could be a hoax like the imaginary photo of George Bush dancing naked on a table that so many wasted so much time talking about in 2000.
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| June 2, 2008 9:29 AM
Personally, my prayers go out to Sen Kennedy's surgeon ... that his hands be steady and sure ... I think that the decision to undergo surgery must be a good sign ... that the tumor has not yet developed arms ... at least I fervently hope so.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 9:30 AM
LOL
some of you people...............
There is no tape folks. This has just become a traffic driver for noquarter. It is about money.
If there were a tape, It would have been released. Now is the time to cause maximum damage. Release the tape now you cause chaos in the Democratic party and you avoid the blowback that would occur in a later release. McCain can look good by loud and often condennation of the tape.
One other point, It would have to be a hell of a tape to do any real damage.
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack
| June 2, 2008 9:30 AM
Craig: It is WAY to early in the morning to think about George Bush dancing naked. I am trying to eat my fruit and granola!
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 9:31 AM
Gordo,
You might be right, that something like this should be put out gradually. Also maybe he wants someone else to put it out so that Clinton campaign's won't leave any "fingerprints" on it.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 9:31 AM
sturgeone: IMHO even if such a tape were found, the fervent Obama supporters would dismiss it as a hoax.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 9:32 AM
Craig with all your sources you dunno a thing. Someone's got to be talking about this one.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 9:33 AM
vadaryl: Why would there be Clinton fingerprints on a tape in the possession of Roger Stone?
To be honest, I can believe Mrs Obama talking about Whitey...I just don't see her interacting at a conference with Farrakhan. Primarily because it strikes me as against his character to have a sit-down discussion with a female...not his style, somehow.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 9:35 AM
It's been 15 minutes now and I can't get Johnson's page to display.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 9:36 AM
vadaryl: Someone is talking about it ... us. :)
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 9:37 AM
Listen up folks: Even if there was a tape of Michelle Obama dancing naked on a table (just last week), it wouldn't be enough to derail Obama supporters. There isn't ANYTHING that can be said or shown about the Obamas that will cause any waiver in their support.
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 9:37 AM
vadaryl
Jim told me he read that MLRO was actually discussing Bush and she was asking, "why'd he..." not saying "whitey".
Thanks Jim....grrrrr...LOLOLOL!!
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| June 2, 2008 9:37 AM
If the site can't display then millions of others are interested in it too.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 9:37 AM
where did Jim read that info?
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 9:38 AM
Good morning, everyone.
It's getting close. My question is: will Obama be able to reign in enough superdelegates to make his Tuesday night something truly special, or will there be that awkward set of days to follow in which everyone is waiting for the last couple people needed to meet the threshold to endorse?
Posted by: Politics of Utopia
| June 2, 2008 9:39 AM
Just checked in but have to cut grass.Just want to say how nice the early morning crew is.No name calling or hate filled messages.Wish it could always be this way.We can agree to disagree without all the vitrial.
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| June 2, 2008 9:39 AM
Vadaryl
LJ is either lieing or being suckered by people way smarter than him.
After all this silly chatter has to be very entertaining to Republican operatives. Their sides must be sore from all the the laughter at Democratic antics this weekend.
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack
| June 2, 2008 9:40 AM
I'm ready for a discussion about the rest of the election. We don't have anyone running for Senate this year in California .... but what are the reports from other states?
I see a pick-up for Dems in Colorado and New Mexico (the Udall men), as well as Virginia and New Hampshire. Al Franken seems to be in trouble in Minnesota, but reports are that Elizabeth Dole is being strongly challenged in North Carolina. For some reason, the polls currently show that Hillary runs stronger in NC than either Obama or McCain... something not right about that one.
Anyway, four more Dems for the Senate ... judicial appointments will be safe no matter who wins.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 9:40 AM
PU: No, there won't be any awkward days. There will be politicians chomping at the bit to provide the vote for the magic number. These are politicians we are talking about.
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 9:40 AM
ummmmmmm...lemme see if I can find the site...one sec...
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| June 2, 2008 9:41 AM
Atlanta Journal Contitution
"The other observation about Obama’s retreat from Trinity is that it took him three weeks to distance himself from Wright and he departs now insisting that he’ll not denounce the church. This is a guy who’s indecisive or, worse yet, a potential President who can’t turn a bad idea loose. He’s been accused of turning his debate gaffes into foreign policy — the pledge to meet with scoundrels and dictators without preconditions, for example.
So now the picture of his leadership is becoming fuller. He’s most likely a facilitator, not a decision-maker. And to cover that, he proceeds with misstatements and impulse pronouncements and makes them his policy positions. Not good. Not good at all"
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/thinkingright/entries/2008/06/02/barack_obama_whos_now_about.html
Posted by: Lynn C | June 2, 2008 9:42 AM
If there is such a tape, I don't see the point in bringing it out gradually. How would you do that anyway? But from my point of view, it would be revealing if Michelle sat at a table talking to Farrakhan, even without a "whitey" statement. But what do I know? I would think enough had already come out to ruin a candidate.
Just meditate for a minute of the words Pfleger spoke and how inflammatory and racist and sexist they are, and then remember how enlightened and intelligent people have been and are still on tv excusing it and justifying it, and it may be that nothing will affect Obama's becoming the democratic nominee. But president? Never.
Anyway, I'll believe the tape when I see it.
Posted by: lizbeth
| June 2, 2008 9:43 AM
Ally,
Perhaps you're right. Does Obama need a high-profile endorsement today, somebody like, oh, I don't know, Al Gore, to get the party started and goad some of the undecideds? I kind of feel there needs to be an elder statesman, or some higher up to get things rolling. In order for Obama to pull of the requisite number, he's gonna need to have about 25 + delegates before tomorrow night, and I'm skeptical that it will happen.
Posted by: Politics of Utopia
| June 2, 2008 9:43 AM
Ally: I couldn't agree more ... no wonder Sen Obama is so fond of Reagan ... they are both Teflon.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 9:43 AM
I googled "Michelle Obama why'd he" and this was the first site. I don't know if this is exactly what Jim read...but it is basically what he told me.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message556941/pg1
How did we ever live without google????
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| June 2, 2008 9:44 AM
I agree with those who say the tape will not matter whenever it comes out,if it exists.Nothing sticks to Obama.Only a fraction of what has already came out would have been enough to sink any other candidate,but this one is the Messiah and nothing can touch him.So forget about the tape.It will be useless.
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| June 2, 2008 9:46 AM
PU: I believe the whole thing might already planned out (who will provide the magic vote.) That person could very well be Al Gore. Or, it could be Nancy. Hard to say.
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 9:46 AM
I don't think the tape (if it exists) has to be released to be damaging. what I found most interesting in the 7:43 update was that financial backers are asking the campaign if such a tape exists and they are being stonewalled. Just the possibility that it exists might be enough to keep some SD's from moving right now. Do they want to take the risk?
Posted by: ubns
| June 2, 2008 9:47 AM
P of U: What is interesting to me ... I went back to the basic delegate count today and found that Sen Obama leads Sen Clinton by 115 votes (including the 4 delegates gifted to him on Saturday, I guess)... and that he needs a total of 379 SDs while she needs a total of 494 SDs.
Bearing in mind that SD votes don't count until they are cast, it seems abundantly clear that Sen Obama is relying as heavily on the old-style politicians as Mrs Clinton would have had to do.
I know you take a different view, but were I Mrs Clinton I would insist on being able to have my name put in nomination and my votes counted at the Convention, even if I knew I would fall short.
I think...but cannot be sure...that seeing such an event take place might actually mollify some Clinton supporters.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 9:50 AM
Harold Ickes has been warning SDs for months about a Repub "October Surprise" to be dropped on Obama. In this sort of thing, always look at the timing in addition to the source. Johnson began the "Whitey" story a few weeks ago, it has spread. Hours after the disgraceful DNC theft on Sat, he posted an info alert. Remember, Obama is not the nominee until the roll call vote in Aug - plenty of time for the video to come out and "destroy" Obama. The anti-McCain Repub billionaire can be used as cover by the Clinton campaign.
Posted by: GORDO | June 2, 2008 9:51 AM
I'm glad to see the police in NYC are finally doing something about all the rampant drug use there. They busted Tatum O'Neal last night for trying to buy crack cocaine. Go Red Wings and go Lakers!
Posted by: Corey
| June 2, 2008 9:53 AM
GORDO: I would hate to think that the Clintons would use such a tape, particularly in light of what was done to them in the past. I am pretty certain that the Clinton campaign knew about the Rev Wright and TUCC, since it has been reported on since at least early 2007 ... but they did not circulate the information and, despite what some have said, Sen Clinton resisted commenting on Rev Wright for weeks...and then her response to questioning was quite mild.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 9:56 AM
maggisd,
That's definitely a possibility; however, in this newfangled era of image-orientated, for-show conventions, I don't know if it will happen. In order to mollify the Clinton supporters, the best option seems to me to offer her a high-profile cabinet position, as some reports are already suggesting.
Posted by: Politics of Utopia
| June 2, 2008 9:56 AM
wow... I see some of you actually took my joking about Craig's choice of snack seriously..... com'on lighten up..... it's June and it's a beautiful day here in the northeast....
maggi..... I'm excited that Jeanne Shaheen will be replacing John Sununu in the Senate here in NH....
just want to give a head's up for all you George Lakoff fans.....
he will be on for a full hour with Diane Rehm this morning during her second hour..... 11am to 12pm EST.....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee
| June 2, 2008 9:58 AM
PofU: Note that I said some of her supporters. Nothing will satisfy me ... except perhaps an apology or what I deem to be a heartfelt expression of regret for not condemning those of his surrogates who spent so much time trashing the reputation of Pres Clinton. I want to hear him include Pres Clinton and LBJ in his pantheon of past Democratic leaders of whom we can and should be proud, and not dismiss the good they did.
BTW, I asked you a few days ago, in your studies of Utopian societies, did you ever study New Harmony Indiana and the Owenites? Just curious.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 10:01 AM
Well Craig, good video again. Stay away from the Doritos; they are addicting ! :-) Obama is winning and I see no reason to fight about it any further. What I do think the whole process raises is the issue of how delegates are awarded, i.e. giving stronghold Democratic regions more delegates per vote than areas that have been traditionally Republican. Since the African American community votes nearly 90% for Democrats, this naturally benefitted Mr. Obama in a manner that I think exaggerated his win over Hillary Clinton. However, it's a new day, and the good thing out of this, I think, is that the angry Clinton supporters, and the Clintons themselves, are going to fight for a fairer system in the future. If I were in the states now, I would attend my local party meetings to push reform ideas. I am sure others will be doing their part.
Ever upward and forward...
Tom
Posted by: EuroTom
| June 2, 2008 10:03 AM
Nick: I like the way you are taking dating advice and applying it to politics—it's very appropo.
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 10:04 AM
Maggie,
I think Senator Clinton's name goes into nomination unless she resigns and releases her delegates (usually accompanied by an endorsement ala John Edwards). It is one of the ways she would be honored.
The first ballot is taken with all the states voting their delegates as earned or endorsed. Illinois will probably be skipped so that at the appropriate moment, they could be called upon to put their Senator's name over the top for the nomination followed by lots of balloons and silly stuff.
Then a motion is usually made to make the nomination unanimous though this one might be tricky given some of the hard feelings as it is usually by acclimation and I could imagine a lot of booing going on.
Posted by: Jamie
| June 2, 2008 10:05 AM
It's been all planned out that Tuesday night or early Wednesday this will be all over. It's just what Hillary will do next. My gut feeling is she will take it to the convention with the hope that Obama will make a big mistake and she can say I'm still here.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 10:05 AM
maggisd,
I'm willing to bet that you're going to get some, but not all of what you are requesting. Unfortunately, given the way these things work, it might not be until the convention that we get a kind of glance back toward the Clinton years and their influence on the party. As for LBJ, I'm not sure.
In terms of my work: no, I primarily look at late 19th/early 20th century American literature. Utopia in my studies is more of a structural heuristic that links up with Marxist notions of futurity, or post-national subjectivity. I know that sounds like a lot of jargon, and it probably is to anyone outside of English studies, but unfortunately no, I haven't had time to look at those groups. Do you have any suggestions on where I should start?
Posted by: Politics of Utopia
| June 2, 2008 10:06 AM
She may also say she is suspending but not quitting and releasing her delegates.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 10:06 AM
Craig.... you should have gone to the movies..... then you could have had some great popcorn instead of those nasty Nacho Doritos.....
Posted by Rebellious Renee
LOL... I thought for sure I'd be the only one making the Doritos comment. Popcorn is ever more healthy, of course remembering to use little or no salt and stay away from the butter.
Tom in his "diet mode" mindset
Posted by: EuroTom
| June 2, 2008 10:07 AM
EuroTom: I would like to believe that the weighted delegate apportionment system will be reformed, but I seriously doubt that it will. I rather think that, instead, it will be held out as a carrot in various Latino communities as an example of how powerful their voices might become if they voted en masse for the Democrats.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 10:07 AM
vardaryl,
I kind of agree with you. The question then becomes: who will stick by her. At best she will be seen as a fighter for her supports, but at worst she will be viewed as a villainous figure, hell-bent on ripping apart the party. If she chooses to take it to the convention, I don't think she'll have many Washington supporters.
Posted by: Politics of Utopia
| June 2, 2008 10:08 AM
regarding Dorito-gate, haven't you guys seen the price of popcorn lately? Too rich for my blood . . . http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/05/movie-tickets-m.html
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| June 2, 2008 10:10 AM
PofU: I take it, then, that you have read Samuel Butler. (I think that's his name as I recall from English Lit) and his novel about Erehwon?
As to the Owenites and New Harmony Indiana, start off by googling it. They have an interesting "library" there called the Workingman's Institute, established in the early 1800s ... there were two separate Utopian communities there .... the Rappites followed by the Owenites.
My father's family lived in that area from app 1807 through app 1932, although they were not part of the Utopian community themselves but rather New Light Baptists.
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 10:12 AM
I heard this the other day on NPR
With the tie vote , there is an interesting problem for Obama
If HRC's name is placed in nomination for VP
The super delegates are not bound Obama supporters they could vote for Obama for president. But they don't have to vote for his choice of VP. They could instead vote HRC instead.
There isn't that more fun than worrying about that silly tape.
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack
| June 2, 2008 10:13 AM
Craig,
Popcorn? Not popcorn! : )
Posted by: Politics of Utopia
| June 2, 2008 10:13 AM
Thanks, maggisd!
Posted by: Politics of Utopia
| June 2, 2008 10:13 AM
McCain just mispronounced "Purim" in front of AIPAC ... back to the "Hebrew Made Easy" practice sessions.
Posted by: Jamie
| June 2, 2008 10:14 AM
Craig: Maybe there should be Congressional hearings. Isn't the tradition of movies and popcorn as American as baseball?
Posted by: Ally
| June 2, 2008 10:15 AM
Any candidate who's been around as long as Hillary has to know when to throw in the towel. I just can't believe that she can't accept losing. There has to be something out there that is keeping her going. Just like her War vote, she stood her gound on that one. knowing taking the easy way out would be, I was wrong on my vote. If it was me I would of quit months ago. We all hate losing. They will do just fine no matter what way she goes, so I am not buying that she will be threw if she fights on. The party won't be broken, they might be stronger.
Posted by: vadaryl
| June 2, 2008 10:15 AM
It's a sad day when popcorn brings down the movie theatre industry. What's the world coming to?
Oh and I may have mentioned I've been dieting.. I am down 20 kilos which is... (44 lbs I think). Only 7 more kilos to go.
Posted by: EuroTom
| June 2, 2008 10:15 AM
Jamie: TY for the explication. It was a good refresher. I was fortunate enough to be at the 1960 convention in LA and remember vividly when the votes went "over the top" ...
PofU: If Sen Clinton suspends her campaign in the interim, there can be nothing wrong with having a real roll call vote. That's how the system is meant to work. Refer to Jamie's post ...
Posted by: maggisd
| June 2, 2008 10:16 AM
McCain is having delusions of adequacy.
Posted by: sturgeone | June 2, 2008 10:16 AM