MyDD :: Wes Clark on Verdict: HRC takes Fight to Convention

by yitbos96bb on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:30:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark on Verdict: HRC takes Fight to Conve (none / 0)

I believe the diarist is referring to Jerome and Jonathan's lack of advocating for unity in spite of their choices for the nomination.

I don't think he's necessarily right about that, at least on Jonathan's part. Just sayin'.

You haven't seen impatient until you've seen a monkey waiting for a donut.

by bjones on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:43:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is there a source for this diary? (none / 0)

Nothing on Google News yet.

Obama leads the popular vote too

by kellogg on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:03:15 AM EST

Not what he said, though he agreed it was possible (2.00 / 1)

Do you all go to exaggeration classes?

by TxKat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:04:15 AM EST

have to get it off my chest. (2.00 / 1)

gotta love laurence o'donell - he reports BO's campaign's spin as if it were fact! (not in this clip - but in general)

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:27:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not what he said, though he agreed it was poss (none / 0)

THanks for the vid...I had wanted to see exactly what was said.

No way. No how. No McCain.

by freedom78 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:53:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I so admire (1.75 / 4)

the maturity and appropriate behavior of the typical Obama supporter. Keep up the good work.

by phoenixdreamz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:04:49 AM EST

spare me (none / 0)

motes, beams, etc.

by JJE on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:13:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I so admire (2.00 / 1)

The diary and this comment are completely uncalled for.

by mefeck on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:13:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As is ratings abuse (none / 0)

It's clear you really care about what's right.

by phoenixdreamz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:34:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually you made the very definition of a Troll comment. It deserved a 1.

by yitbos96bb on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:38:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by phoenixdreamz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I paid a compliment. The fact you don't perceive it that way clearly indicates even you know it wasn't deserved. And you think you're so clever ;)

You're much less deft at worming out of badly worded statements than your preferred candidate.

by mefeck on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:46:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And that comment shows you acting like an... well I'll just refrain and try to avoid acting like you are.

by yitbos96bb on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:04:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That was a trollish comment-calling all Obama supporters immature.

by mefeck on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I repeat.. I paid a compliment (none / 0)

The fact that you find yourself unable to own it is strictly your problem.

by phoenixdreamz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:49:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I repeat.. I paid a compliment (none / 0)

Are you 12? That's the type of argument I have seen middle schoolers make, not an adult.

by yitbos96bb on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:05:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're just upset that a real adult (none / 0)

isn't as big a fool as you wish ;)

by phoenixdreamz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:13:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're just upset that a real adult (none / 0)

Wow, what a "witty" comeback. I wasn't actually thinking you were 12, but if THAT embarrassment was the best comment you could muster maybe you are only 12 or 13. I'd certainly expect someone over the age of 18 to be able to actually hold an intelligent conversation, but so far you have proved that notion wrong.

by yitbos96bb on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:15:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark (2.00 / 1)

Cheers---

to Todd.

"Rankles and Rush Limbaugh, ruining the chaos brand since 2008."

by alyssa chaos on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:05:34 AM EST

no one won the nomination (2.00 / 4)

yet the candidate with the popular vote lead is supposed to roll over and play dead even though all polls show that she is the strongest candidate in GE. Wonderful! If that happens the Democrats deserve to lose in November.

by tarheel74 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:31 AM EST

by Yalin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:26:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1) She doesn't have the popular vote lead.

2) Delegates are what designate the nominee, not popular vote.

3) If she can't even win the democratic nomination, she's not the strongest candidate.

Drive thru.

Re: no one won the nomination (2.00 / 2)

1) wrong....she is leading the popular vote now. If she wins Puerto Rico by the margin projected she wins the popular vote by any metrics

2)that might be true but that is the non-binding way.

3) think again. Democrats have a long history of nominating the weakest candidate for the shellacking in the GE (Dukakis, McGovern, Adlai Stevenson, John Kerry)

by tarheel74 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:31:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

1.) wrong, the assumption is she wins the popular vote if nobody voted for Obama in Michigan. If even 80% of the uncommitted vote went to Obama, he'd win the popular vote. That is not a solid argument

2.) No, pledged delegates are called pledged for a reason. It would take a big scandal or death to change their vote. What does she think would change their votes

3.) Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate...massively unpopular who will be destroyed by the Republicans in the General Election. They will use the primary against her and try to dissuade Democrats from voting for her. They will smear her as a liar and a panderer and untrustworthy and use the primary to prove it, drive up their turnout. The election will turn into an anti-Hillary election.

by nrafter530 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:36:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no one won the nomination (2.00 / 1)

1) even if Obama got the MI votes, all the uncommitted votes (which he should nt because he did not even try to get on ballot there, even before the DNC ruling) he would lose the pop vote after Puerto Rico primary.

2) pledged delegates are non-binding...that is the DNC rule...like it or not

3) I have newsflash, whoever the candidate might be it will be an anti-candidate election. Now it is an anti-Obama election. The eputhets you used above are being used right now to characterize Obama, to that you can add elitist, inauthentic, snob, novice etc etc.

by tarheel74 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:49:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Yalin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:29:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1) By what reality-community-based metric is she leading the popular vote now? Hopefully not one that borders on a banana-republic style election held in Michigan and Florida.

2) It's not a "might be true" statement. It IS true and there are no ifs ands or buts about it.

3) And Democrats have a history of nominating candidates who went on to win.

Clinton '92 and '96.
Carter '76
Johnson '64
Kennedy '60

Your point.......

It's a delegate race. Why is that hard for you to understand? If it were a pop vote race they would have campaigned differently. The supers aren't rubes so they know it's a stupid argument. I wish Clinton wasn't misleading her supporters.

by heresjohnny on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:41:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no one won the nomination (1.00 / 0)

but it does not prevent the perception of a stolen election parallel to 2000

by tarheel74 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:50:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Stolen election? Even with MI and FL seated AS IS, Obama still has a 100 delegate lead and a 70 delegate lead in PDs. Clinton can't win the PD total in any metric.

by yitbos96bb on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:01:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Could you JUST STOP?!?! (none / 0)

Goodness, HRC KNEW it was a delegate, had a built-in infrastructure and LOST. THE. DELEGATE. RACE.

One thing HRC supporters cannot defend - without resorting to some sort of histrionic nonsense - is her two-faced approach to Fl. and Michigan.

First, it was 'they SHOULD be punished because they broke the DNC rules.'

Second, it was 'we can't disenfranchise those voters!!!!!!!!!'.

I was suspicious that Hillary was 'all about Hillary' and it is true.

And, the longer this plays out, the higher her negatives go.

BO ain't perfect, but, man, he's light years ahead of HRC in terms of likeability - something that is CRITICAL to GE success.

And, if I may be so inclined:

HRC is NOT likeable for GE victory.

I am so tired of this incessant bullshit-pushing by HRC and her supporters. High-information voters are KRYPTONITE to HRC.

by yankeeinmemphis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:31:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by yankeeinmemphis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:34:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, yeah and African-Americans WON'T feel like it's been 'stolen'.

God damn, get off your high horse and take off the HRC-tinted glasses.

You've won 20 states out of 50.

The 'popular vote' bullshit is bullshit. You know, I know it and HRC knows it. BUT, one thing that HRC knows: there's LOT of low-information voters out there who don't.

Whatever.

HRC's toast in the GE because of poor likeability AND she's pissed off - IRREPARABLY - the AA vote.

The only reason the perception is there is because Clinton is feeding it. If she said it WASN'T like FL in 2000 - which would be the honest and ethical thing to say - and people still (and I don't know how many actually do) felt that way it might be a little different. But's she's neither honest nor ethical and she's campaigned herself right out of the WH and the VP slot and I thank G-d for that at this point.

by heresjohnny on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:58:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Old News (2.00 / 2)

Clinton said last week she would take it to the convention if they wouldn't seat Florida and Michigan completely.

If Obama is the nominee, it can't be because the party ostracized two states Clinton won to create an illusion of false victory. He'll never be considered legitimate if he can't win the nomination in the 50 states and additional territories.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:10:42 AM EST

She will never be (none / 0)

considered legitimate if she won because of two states whose voters who told they wouldn't count.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:16:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

He still wins, even with her ridiculous demands...

by LordMike on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:20:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

Good, then seat the delegations! (duh)

Why would anyone want the taint of illegitimacy clouding the nominee?

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:34:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Aris Katsaris on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:05:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We very well know why Hillary and her hardcore supporters want that taint, thank you very much.

You want that taint, because you're seeking Hillary 2012 and to get that you need Obama to lose in November. Congrats.

Good god (none / 0)

They didn't ostracize anyone, they punished two states who broke the rules before they went to Clinton.

In fact, they mostly went to Clinton because they were being punished and had no campaigning. It was a name-recognition test that she had the advantage in because she's been in the public consciousness for over four times as long as Obama.

Most primary seasons don't even get past Super Tuesday before there's a nominee-aparent; are you going to tell me that 80%+ states in every primary before now was disenfranchised, too?

by Dracomicron on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:21:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

The rules allow for MI/FL to be seated if that is the choice of the RBC's discretion, subject to the Credentials Committee and a full floor vote if necessay.

I've had this debate 5,000,000 times on this site.

The bottom line is perception will be reality here. If Florida and Michigan are excluded, Obama will have an asterisk next to his name going into the fall election.

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and if they are (none / 0)

and she wins, so will she.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:40:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and if they are (none / 0)

In all fairness, a candidate winning based on a 50 state tally looks a lot less suspicious than a candidate winning on a 48-state platform.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:28:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and if they are (none / 0)

Obama wins on both tallies. Clinton is just stalling, which is fine with me as long as there are pledged delegate contests left.

The ruling is now much more about the power struggle of the DNC vs. states moving up their primaries without penalty.

I think you realize this, so I'm not sure why you're arguing that it will affect the outcome of the nomination. I thought your arguments from the perspective of the voters of Florida and Michigan were much more convincing.

by gcensr on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:01:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and if they are (none / 0)

Thank you. My arguments in favor of seating FL/MI are multidimensional.

The public perception argument, like all of such nature, is the most labile because it's the most subjective. Either way, it's all the more reason to just seat the delegations fully and get it over with.

There are more apt ways to punish (and more importantly deter future) rogue legislators than ostracizing two major states from the party convention (and by extension, from the party itself both symbolically and pragmatically).

I would never want to be held personally responsible for the actions of George Bush even though he technically "represents" me as a United States citizens. The analogy applies likewise to the voters of FL/MI.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:13:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't be silly (none / 0)

Obama's already campaigned in Florida and Michigan for the general, so it'll be a 50-state campaign by the time it's over.

Primary != General

by Dracomicron on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:05:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by slynch on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:08:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you've had this debate five million times?

Come on, haven't I told you a billion times not to exaggerate? :)

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

:-)

78,000 times.

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:14:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by slynch on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's better!

by gcensr on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:12:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Honest question:

Let's say that the delegates are 1/2 seated, and by some miracle, Clinton drops out on June 4th.

If Obama goes to the convention and wins by a margin that makes the other 1/2 irrelevant, will you still consider his nomination asterisk-worthy? That is, say Obama wins by 200-300 delegates at the convention, which means he would have won no matter how Michigan and Florida were allocated. Would there be any question, in your mind, about the legitimacy of his victory?

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

If Clinton's concession was because they delegation was 50/50% rather than full seating (as in for that reason and for that reason alone), it would be sour. The situation wouldn't be functionally different from "Obama won by having his cronies in the party nuke two states." It would be a win by half-nuking them.

However, if they're seated at 50%, and Clinton concedes for reasons independent of Florida and Michigan (meaning the delegate spread is so large that even including them fully would be null), that would be legitimate.

I don't mean to make it sound complicated. Excluding FL/MI (or half-excluding them) is the most legitimate gripe anyone can reasonably have. With Florida & Michigan fully counted, if we lose (Clinton supporters), then we lose fair and square, barring any other unforeseeable peculiarities. If we lose because a coup to ostracize two whole states, it looks like a hit job on Clinton and Donna Brazile becomes the next Katharine Harris for half the party.

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:22:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Yalin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:36:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary Clinton's people wrote the damn rules and voted to exclude Florida and Michigan.

Stop with this nonsense.

And as I said in the post below, the RBC can only seat 50% of the delegates according to DNC rules, rules which were written with the help and consent of Clinton loyalists.

So you'll get your wish if she takes this to the convention. You'll get a democratic party loss in the fall.

No democrat has won the fall election having a contested primary to the convention floor. None.

What you and other Clinton supporters are proposing is nothing short of suicide. Neither Obama nor Clinton would win if it went to the convention floor. But then, maybe that's just what you want.

given their claims to huffington post... (none / 0)

clinton has at least 50% of the rbc supporting her. so whatever they decide (and it seems clear that they will decide to cut the vote in half; the real question is whether they knock out the superd's), it will be with the full consent of hillary's backers.

and don't rule out the possibility that hillary will take it to the floor and then storm out if she doesn't get her way. she has a reputation for being volatile, and that's a very real possibility...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:01:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

The DNC's lawyers are generating PR.

The rules punish states by 50/50% but that punishment is modifiable by the RBC (See Rule 20 in all of its entirety). The RBC has as much discretion to seat Michigan and Florida fully as they sat Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina fully, the states that were in technical violation of the exact same rules subsection as Michigan and Florida.

I wasn't making an argument above. I was stating an honest opinion.

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:10:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Yalin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:35:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please link me to the rules list since you believe the DNC lawyers are not telling the truth about the capabilities of the RBC.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

No need. I've had a copy of the rules handy for a while now.

Without elaborating on my education, training, past profession, or current profession, let it suffice to say I'm more than equipped to know when a lawyer is distorting a body of law.

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:40:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's an html: http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:jlV nd-D847AJ:a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/ democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdf s/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf+DNC+del egate+rules+2008&hl=en&ct=clnk&a mp;cd=1&gl=us

Sorry--I misread your comment as a request to send me the rules.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:42:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Yalin on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks much! I'm going to read this tonight.

by Yalin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:33:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually the RBC can only seat 50% of the delegates AT MOST according to the rules.

If Clinton wants 100% of the delegates, she HAS TO take it to the convention floor. The RBC can do nothing this weekend to seat 100% of the delegates.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

False. Read Rule 20.

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:10:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Yalin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:29:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Link me to the rules list. I'm going by what has been stated by the DNC lawyers.

He'll never be considered legitimate by whom? You? If you mean voters in MI & FL please prove your assertion.

by heresjohnny on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

Yes, for instance the 25% of Democratic voters in Florida who intend to vote Dem for president but will vote for McCain if they're votes aren't counted. (Florida Dem Speaker Geller commissioned the poll and had the results a few days ago on his live interview). This is a distinct segment from the Hillary supporters who will also vote McCain if she's jipped out of the nomination by a 48-State-Strategy, on what many perceive to be sexism.

I understand the views of those complaining of sexism but I don't complain about it much, because I think it hasn't been as pronounced a factor as other things in this election.

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:58:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Geller? (none / 0)

Wasn't he the one joking about Florida losing its delegates on the floor of the legislature? Real impartial person to trust, one of the authors of the Florida debacle.

"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"

by xenontab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by gcensr on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:14:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Can you really trust a poll like that?

People are going to say they won't vote for the nominee just because they know that skewing the poll will be helpful in getting the delegates seating (as you are trying to do here).

That 25 percent is, thus, really a maximum value, and frankly, it's not inconsistent with what is seen in other states at this point.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

I'm not sure the electorate is as politically savvy as you describe. The poll Geller cited was the only public opinion gauge on the matter. It's the best evidence available.

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:32:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you'd be wrong if you thought that... (none / 0)

there have been at least three poorly written and statistically-challenged polls on this question. since each poll strongly suggested that florida voters should be angry about this, that is exactly the results they found! funny how that works...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:03:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you'd be wrong if you thought that... (none / 0)

Fair enough. I never saw those polls. I don't know where they're hiding.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:05:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you know that in 2000 something like 50% of McSame voters said that they wouldn't vote for Bush. Guess what happened.

by heresjohnny on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:59:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

Bush did really poorly in Florida in 2000. Given the state's make-up and Big Red (yuck!) voting history, it's amazing Gore was even that competitive (Lieberman effect).

by BPK80 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:23:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It was certainly close (he lost) but if 50% of McCain voters stayed home Bush could have never won the election.

by heresjohnny on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:56:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Look at Johnathon's posts (2.00 / 1)

they are mainly fact based. In fact I would say he is an Obama supporter based on what he posts.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:11:02 AM EST

Re: Look at Johnathon's posts (none / 0)

Well he DID vote for Obama, so there is a reason you can call him an Obama supporter.

by yitbos96bb on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:31:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dude. (2.00 / 1)

I'm an obama fan too but you need to chill. And I thought Singer was an Obama supporter.

by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:11:54 AM EST

Nope (none / 0)

Singer supported Clinton, but will support Obama in the general. Because he's a Democrat.

by Dracomicron on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:22:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:29:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gotcha.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/5/16132 5/6294

He's wrong. Singer voted for Obama as an easy search will show.

by yitbos96bb on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:36:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/5/16132 5/6294

Wrong. Singer VOTED FOR OBAMA!!!! Todd and Jerome voted for Clinton and I have no idea who Josh voted for. Seriously, get your facts straight. You guys make all Obama supporters look bad when you post stupid crap like this.

Seriously it took me all of 5 minutes to find his post. Stop being so damn lazy and actually verify your claims.

by yitbos96bb on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:35:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Whoops (none / 0)

Silly mistake; I thought I remembered a frontpager where he was pro-Clinton.

I guess I'll join Clinton in Tuzla and Obama's great uncle in Auschwitz.

by Dracomicron on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:03:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoops (none / 0)

Sorry was more pissed at the diarist and took it out on you. My apologies. Remember Win, don't spike.

by yitbos96bb on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:27:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No biggie (none / 0)

I make dumb mistakes all the time; I'm used to the fallout.

by Dracomicron on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:34:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

I see you have no idea what you are talking about.

by lori on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:38:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh. I'll be darned (none / 0)

I could've sworn I remembered him being pro-Clinton.

My mistake.

by Dracomicron on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:02:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh (2.00 / 1)

I like Wes Clark but I didn't know he was the official spokesperson for the Clinton campaign.

by JustJennifer on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:16:02 AM EST

CELEBRATE! CELEBRATE!! (none / 0)

dance to the music.....

I'M SOOOOOO HAPPY.....

time for a glass of wine AND a shot of crown royale......

I'm going to Denver - I'm going to Denver!!!

by nikkid on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:18:09 AM EST

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

Why? Even if she steals the nomination, she's all but guaranteed defeat in November. A party fight kills any and all chances of victory, for either candidate!

by LordMike on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:21:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe she needs to lose (none / 0)

to McCain. I hate to say it, but maybe that's what has to happen this year.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:23:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe she needs to lose (none / 0)

I'm willing to do that... It's the only way to stop her destructive ways...

Fortunately, we won't have to make that choice...

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:40:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by nikkid on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:24:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope. She's got a plan and it will guarantee us the win. She (and he) will win.

BTW - how can you say "steal" the nomination?

Counting VOTES isn't stealing, NOT counting them is.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:27:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Counting the votes is absolutely "stealing" the nomination if that's not the metric all of the candidates were told at the start would matter.

How is this complicated? How do you not understand that you can't just up and change the rules in the middle of the contest to change the winner and call that fair?

Would you like your boss to lower your wages in the middle of a pay cycle, and do so retroactively?

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

sorry didnt the rules at the beginning include supers noy ratifying the pledged leader? right.

by canadian gal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:29:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:29:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I've never said nor suggested that they are required to do so within the rules.

I have said they're out of their minds if they don't, but they're operating within the rules if they want to be out of their minds in that fashion.

There is a distinction. One is an obligation, the other is a choice.

is it as good as her plan (2.00 / 1)

to win the nom by Feb 5? If so I'll take my chances with Kucinich, thanks.

by JJE on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:30:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by doschi on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:48:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's what Hillary wants, so she can run again in 2012.

Care to bet on that?

by yitbos96bb on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Doomed? (2.00 / 1)

Obama's lack of support can only be blamed on himself (and maybe obnoxious Obamabot supporters). If he loses in the fall, you can try to blame Clinton (because she won the popular vote? because she didn't "drop out" after winning 4 of the last 6 primaries?)- but in the end Obama's problems are no one's but his. Nice try though.

by easyE on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:18:10 AM EST

by Monolithic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:24:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

nope, still pretty sure it will be her fault if he does lose.

although he won't, unless she actually takes it to the convention, if she does her political career is over.

by nikkid on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:25:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

of course you think that - in obama's world - all fault lies with Hillary, he takes NO blame for anything....

Why should he (none / 0)

Everyone got along including the nominees, until a certain vile nominee decided to renig on their committment to standing behind the DNC rules that they signed an agreement too and then started pitching the kitchen sink, septic tank, and loaded toilet strategy. Nope sorry he has NOTHING to apologize for except treating Clinton with way more respect and dignity than was extended back to him.

by netgui68 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:31:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why should he (none / 0)

is that why he spread VILE rumours about the RFK assassination?

by nikkid on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:33:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

lay off the sauce (none / 0)

you're losing what little coherence you had.

by JJE on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:35:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You mean the words Clinton SPOKE (none / 0)

I think Clinton spread that herself and everyone heard it...who needs to spread rumors when you have video and every major media showing it. Now what was you saying?

by netgui68 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:37:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why should he (2.00 / 1)

True, the fact he defended Clinton and the way he argued that she meant nothing bad was completely VILE of him.

One day history will judge him badly because of how leniently and gently he treated such a vile person as Hillary Clinton.

by Aris Katsaris on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:14:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, the number is 2025 (none / 0)

according to Hillary 1.0.

Hillary 2.0 says different.

Obama leads the popular vote too

by kellogg on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:35:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by yankeeinmemphis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:36:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

HRC's ROCK-SOLID NEGATIVES NEVER GO BELOW 45%...and BO's the one who is doomed?

Only from the classic HRC MyDelusionalDeadender.com 'the woman must win at all costs and Ferraro is NOT racist!' supporter.

by Philoguy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:17:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll never understand how people can blithely say that Clinton won the popular vote when her calculations don't include Maine, Nevada, or Iowa. That's just plain dishonest.

The nerve that woman has, huh?!?!? (2.00 / 1)

Imagine that?! Getting at least half the Democratic vote in the Primary and insisting that they don't anoint the nominee until the time when....they're SUPPOSED to anoint the nominee!

Campaigning by the rules!

Hey, if the only way a candidate thinks they can win is by humiliating the other candidate--when both candidates equally split the Party's vote--then perhaps the Party's got a problem that may require at least a couple of months for it to be worked out?

So, all the polls currently say Obama is--at the very best--even with McCain if the GE were held today, and all we're hearing from Obama's supporters on this blog is that if Obama loses the election it's Hillary Clinton's fault?

Well, guess what? If that's NOT the most divisive comment a Democrat can make what is?

Lies are still lies no matter how often they're repeated.

by bobswern on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:25:09 AM EST

The rules (none / 0)

Florida and Michigan don't count...those are the rules.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:26:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

needs more bold and all caps (none / 0)

The multiple exclamations help but without more you won't reach the level of spittle-flecked you're going for.

by JJE on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:28:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The nerve that woman has, huh?!?!? (none / 0)

"Lies are still lies no matter how often they're repeated."

Too true, too true.

I wonder which candidate has been repeating untrue things umpteen times in order to get people to believe it.......

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:29:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah..Expel me too. (none / 0)

I will be leaving this site and the party anyways, if this happens.

by netgui68 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:27:45 AM EST

Re: Wes Clark on Verdict: HRC takes Fight to (none / 0)

Wes Clark didn't say that.

by rfahey22 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:41:05 AM EST

Re: Wes Clark on Verdict: HRC takes Fight to Conve (none / 0)

Lifelong Democrats understand we need to consider Electability at the convention.

A convention fight will actually be good for the party. Knock it out and drag it down. The emergent nominee will then be in the strongest position to fight Old McCain in November.

This race is essentially a tie. Making it easy for one candidate by forcing the other out before the convention only produces a weak candidate that can't face a fight.

by wblynch on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:39 AM EST

Re: Wes Clark on Verdict: HRC takes Fight to Conve (none / 0)

The race is not essentially a tie. The delegate counters on the right of the page, as inaccurate as they are, will show you that.

by mefeck on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:48:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you kidding? (none / 0)

You think any Democrat is going to ok with their candidate losing in the end?

They will find some way to blame something for their candidate's loss, they will whine and moan about it until after the nominee loses in November.

This isn't going to end at the convention either. Someone is going to lose and that person's voters are going to deliver the nominee a defeat.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:50:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wes Clark on Verdict: HRC takes Fight to Conve (none / 0)

Yep... The most "electable" candidate John Kerry won in 2004.

Good call.