Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Party Rules and Political Reality

Hank said in a comment to Deal: Your mistake (if you are not doing it deliberately), is trying to treat the nominating process as an election. It's not.

No. The problem here is you think this is pinochle, not politics.

Nomination processses are political processes, the purpose of which is to select the candidate most likely to defeat the competition and take office after a general election.

The votes in Florida have been cast. Whether the DNC will recognize delegates based on those votes is a different matter. To ignore the express will of the voters when the voting itself does not have any procedural or substantive errors is a grave political mistake. The party rules may say "Do not count them," but there will be long term political penalties to the party by adhering to those rules. The decision to disenfranchise carries repercussions that were not anticipated, and the real loser here is the party.

As I have said before, there were several mechanisms by which the DNC could have avoided most of those repercussions, every one of which would have been allowable by the rules. Revising the penalty to 50% of the delegation, which is the standard penalty. Requiring a revote. Some combination of the two (Say 50% apportioned by the original vote, the other 50% by a revote). An agreement to seat the state if no candidate could win the nomination on the first ballot. Etc.

As for Michigan, the irregularity of the vote is due to Obama's own actions. A revote was urged, and it was probable at the time that Obama would have narrowly won that contest, but he manuevered against it. The rules allowed a revote. Political reality clearly is behind having one, given the Electoral College weight of the state and how close the contests have been there.

What the Obamacans cannot (or deliberately refuse to) understand is that insisting on a set of rules that are themselves increasingly being called into question as to their legitimacy, let alone their political wisdom, while the voting patterns of the primaries are turning away from the front runner because of very real weaknesses that have come to public notice, is not a winning strategy. It is ignoring that both law and culture in the US come down on the side of votes cast in a fair and transparent election. Primaries are elections of delegates based on those votes. A party may refuse to seat those delegates, but the delegates were legally, legitimately elected.

I do not say exclude caucuses. I say count all the primaries and revote Michigan to remove all doubt about the will of the voters. I say that the voting totals we can know (because caucus totals have not all been released and I am in favor of releasing them so that they can be tallied) do not provide Obama with a majority. I am saying that ordinary voters consistently say that popular vote counts are the most legitimate measure in their eyes.

I am making an argument about political legitimacy and electoral strategy. I have my expectations of how this will all shake out (Hillary as nominee = White House, Obama as nominee = defeat), and no amount of whining from the Obama side about WWTSBQ? (I am so proud of Lambert joining the digital age) is going to change the facts on the ground - the Democratic base does not like Obama, and the probability of a loss to McCain is high.

What a number of Obamacans also don't understand is that I'm looking at long term trends in the electoral efficacy of the Left. Obama has chosen a political strategy of blaming voters for failing to vote for him rather than correcting himself to be more appealing to them. Key in this is to declare anyone who fails to vote for him a racist, as if this were the only reason someone could fail to support him. This says a great deal about the candidate's psychology, but that's really between him and his shrink. What matters is the effect this has on voters.

I don't think the majority of Obama supporters (not even Big Tent Democrat, who is to be commended for his impressively clear-eyed view of the campaign) really grasps the damage that has been done with the false claims of rampant racism. Yes, there is probably some, but it is no where near as prevalent on the Left as the misogyny that gets thrown around without apology. Given voting habits, Hillary probably has greater defections due to her gender than Obama does due to his race. The overt and callous misogyny exhibited towards HRC is also going to have significant fallout in the party. The combination of these two - baseless accusations of racisim coupled with matter-of-fact misogyny - are not things that will easily be set aside. Obama can lose, and the party will continue to pay for his irresponsible campaign for several cycles.

The people who post comments to this blog are real. They live in real places, they have families and careers, and they vote. They are representative of larger numbers who do not share their fascination with spouting off in public forums (I'm looking at you, Turtle), but do partake of the emotions and opinions voiced here. The complaints on the Obama side seem mostly to be you are not nice to our candidate and how can you support that bitch? The complaints on this side of the aisle are you throw at me one of the worst insults that can be said about a life-long Democrat, that I'm racist. You insult my gender and say I'm just voting for Hillary because I'm female. And now I hear the problem is that we Hillary voters are older. The first isn't true, the second, even if true, is no more or less different than an AA voting for Obama, and as for the third, you'll get there sooner than you think, boyz. Trust me on that one.

Long story short: Obama's political strategy of running up his delegate count in small red states was a good move and probably would have worked had he not torpedoed himself with his arrogance towards the voters. His failure to revote Michigan for the convention will be a fatal mistake if he does face them again.

In the case of refusing to count two major swing states, sticking to the party rules is political suicide.

And that's reality.



Chinaberry Turtle said...

Sorry for all the "spoutin' off." Been tryin' to be a more chilled out Bubba. Guess it's not working.

Shainzona said...

"They are representative of larger numbers who do not share their fascination with spouting off in public forums (I'm looking at you, Turtle), but do partake of the emotions and opinions voiced here."

I am continually amazed at Obama supporters who tell me that when BO becomes the nominee, "I'll come around."

No. I. Won't.

But as you note (above) it's not just me in my small sphere. My husband, my sister-in-law; friends in Michigan and New York; other women I meet in casual conversation are all saying the same thing. So while I get called a traitor, an idiot, a Republican and every other name you can think of, behind me stand at least another 12 individuals. Multiply that by a lot of "me", and BO has a problem come November.

OT...kind of. Olbermann just suggested that Hillary should be taken into a room by a superdelegate and only "he should come out." I realize he was saying someone should force Hillary out of the race - but the words he spoke made my blood run cold.

He should apologize to every woman who has been threatened - real or intimated - by a man in her life. Olbermann is one sick puppy!

Shainzona said...'re cool. Not to worry!

Anglachel said...

I'm just teasing you, Turtle. ;-) You've been staying on topic and letting other people have their say, so it's fine.

Common Sense Gram said...

I am with Shainzona- no voting for Obama, nope. not. now. not. ever.
I am in line behind you and after me my husband, my Mom, my six sibings and thier spouses, our children and their children. My husband's relatives in Fl, our friends back home in MA (and from the buzz in my family e-mails teddy and johnny are going to be retired next cycle.)
Women I work with, folks in my church, at work, on my husbands' job, my daughter's campus. We are with you in saying
NO! We. Won't!

Chinaberry Turtle said...

OK, thanks. Just a quick request to the DJ. Anglachel, your analysis of political history and what it means regarding what's going on right now has been awesome. But do you have any prognostications? What do you think? Will this somehow end in June? Will it go to the convention? Does all your knowledge of political history provide any answers? I know tea-leaf reading isn't your bag, but I'm dying over here - I cannot wait! I feel like Hillary could actually pull it off now and I'm just DYING to know how all this is gonna turn out!!

p.s. I know sometimes you don't answer. that's ok. just had to ask.

Anglachel said...

Turtle, I haven't a clue as to who will take the nomination. The contest is extraordinarily close just on numbers, and the political situation is volatile. It all comes down to how Florida and Michigan are handled. I think Dean will cave on Florida, but try to force a 50/50 split on Michigan (50% count makes no sense with the strange vote). The handful of Edwards delegates and uncommitteds are growing in importance. The margins in the next few states will matter as well. Hillary is stronger in Oregon than people suspect, though not like she is in PA. I honestly don't know how it will shake out.

What I do know is what will happen in November.


Chinaberry Turtle said...

grrrr ... ok. that's what i thought. :-)

You know what's strange? I've now given about $700 to Hillary's campaign. But the $100 I gave last night was the first money I've donated where I actually thought she might win this thing.

Of course, this made me confront the other hard fact: I've donated about $600 over the course of the last couple months under the 100% sure belief that Hillary would eventually lose. What would make somebody do that?

I guess I just love what she stands for so much, and I deeply admire her tenacity and strength in the face overwhelming odds (and woman-hating jerks). I wanted her to keep on going, if just for a little longer. And you know, there must have been a lot of people like that - donating to Hillary's "just hanging on" campaign. That's gotta mean something when people will donate so vigorously (in time/effort/money) to such a long shot.

But now ... i think ... maybe ... she might actually pull this damn thing off! Like she actually has a real plan to pull this off. Freaking amazing! This is SOOOOO EXCITING!!!!!

Talk about the comeback lady. Go Hillary!!!

Anonymous said...

Turtle, I share your belief that Hillary can pull this off, no matter how much she seems the long shot, and not matter how Obamaman and the Boyz holler and bully. I think it really comes down to whether the SD's really want to win in November. Or if they would rather be politically correct. Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of what I thought were sensible people shoot themselves in the foot to be PC. So I'm very nervous about what will happen. If they choose to be PC, there will be hell to pay with what it does to the party. I really wonder if they know that. They quite often seem to be so insulated there in the beltway that they don't get how real people feel and think. And the Borg is a lot noisier. I guess if we were really rude and threatening riots, they might suddenly realize that many of us will not support Obama, no matter how we've acted in previous elections. Quite simply, I will never vote for a democrat that has falsely smeared their opponent as being a racist. To me, you can't get much lower.

Anonymous said...

Sent the following letter to Gov. Rendell tonight:

Dear Governor Rendell,

Hello! Just another quick missive from the other side of the continent from a former PA resident now living in California.

First off, I wanted to tell you how wonderful it was watching you work your heart out for the most qualified and best candidate for president this nation has seen in a long, long time – Hillary Clinton. She’s my girl, and I’m just waiting for another paycheck to shovel a bit more dosh at her campaign.

However, I wanted to contact you again about something that you said to Chris Matthews after the victory in PA about how both women and African-American voters will of course be wooed back into the Democratic fold, mostly because we always have in the past. I really need to take that opinion to the mat, and I hope that’s okay because I think you are making a strategic mistake of mythic proportions in assuming that women will behave as we always have in the past.

First off, there are the statistics from the 2004 election to be considered, and they are as follows, with the numbers being displayed as Bush/Kerry:

White Men: 62% / 37%
White Women: 55% / 44%

All White: 58% / 41%
All African-American: 11% / 88%

Ed, I adore you to tiny bits, but these statistics tell a very different story than the one you shared with Matthews. White women broke for Bush over Kerry! (Even after anyone with more than one brain cell to their name could tell that he was a total failure.) African-Americans however went nearly 90% for Democrats.

It’s vitally important that the Democratic party realize this, or else it risks making a strategic error that will be entirely avoidable not to mention catastrophic. Women, in the past election cycle mind you, have broken for the anti-choice Republican. You do not have us over a barrel on choice, Governor. The stats from 2004 (I got these from CNN, by the way) demonstrate that it would be far more difficult to pry the African-American voter up from the blue side of the fence, whereas women are a lot more in play than you may think. A far smaller percentage of ticked-off women than ticked-off African-Americans can throw this election, and will for the reason I will address next.

It’s extremely important that you understand that a game-changing event has occurred. We have never had a woman candidate before, and as a result, you dare not make predictions on our behavior this November based on how we’ve behaved in the past. Seriously, Governor. Don’t do it. As I stated in my earlier letter, you are assuming that we’ll come back because we often have. However, the only reason we often have is because we’ve always been stuck picking one pro-choice guy over another pro-choice guy. This is the first time that it’s one of our own up there.

And the media takes the lion’s share of the blame for this. Rightly or wrongly, they are seen as an arm of the Obama campaign by many Hillary supporters, especially women. Obama is seen as personally to blame when Hillary is called a “scolding, cackling mother” talking down to a child. (Somewhat rightly I think, as he has lowered the tone of this with his comments about claws coming out, periodically feeling down, and twisting the knife, etc.) Or when she is called by Jack Cafferty – and this quote alone is worth at least $500 from my bank account straight to the McCain campaign, and I’ve turned down four marriage proposals! – “everybody’s first wife waiting outside a probate court.” This arm of the Obama campaign is hating on a woman, which has never happened before in the history of American politics. Never in the history of politics has a pundit said that America was not prepared to see their president turn into an old woman before their eyes, Ed. Never.

And they’re going after her not as Hillary Clinton, but as a mother. As an older woman. As a divorced wife, presumably dumped for the cute little chippie. They are turning her into US in order to attack her all the better.

This has never happened before, Ed. The media has never before in the centuries of this nation’s existence turned a candidate into one of ME in order to utterly destroy her. And there are legions of women out there feeling the same thing.

I said it before to you: we’ve suffered through eight years of a man who appointed a veterinarian as an advisor to women’s health. And we chose him over Kerry, whether you agree with the wisdom of that choice or not. (I should point out that I chose no one.) When we plainly have been willing to turn our backs on the Democratic, pro-choice candidate not only recently, but in the last election cycle, it is grossly obvious that threats from us to throw the election to McCain must be taken very, very seriously.

Again, Hillary’s existence as a woman has changed things beyond what you can predict using past behaviors, Governor. I have never in my 42 years on this Earth heard a presidential candidate called a scolding old woman. I have never before seen men (viewed as part of the Obama campaign, I hasten to add) shredding a candidate for president by comparing her to every woman I know, and myself as well. None of us have.

You have really got to make this fact a part of your personal reality, and so does the rest of the party, or else it will go down in flames, and I for one will be toasting marshmallows over it. Not only are women much, much more likely to vote for McCain than African-American voters, but we’ve done it in the past, and we are much, much angrier given the treatment she’s taken at the hands of a media that are seen as part of Obama’s campaign.

I remind you again that you have been surprised once already this campaign cycle, by a woman with whom you shared a house for several decades. You really, really need to communicate how tenuous the Democratic party’s stance is with women, or else you risk getting the shock of a lifetime this November, along with the rest of the party.

Like I said, I’ve already earmarked $500 for McCain’s campaign. I have never been angrier in my life over anything having to do with an election, and I count the disenfranchisement of Florida in 2000 and the comments by the Diebold CEO in with that. You really, really do need to become aware of this, and try to make sure that the party members you come into contact with are also aware of it.

We’ve sent the Democratic party down in flames in the past. We did it in 2004. We’ll do it again. I’ll do it. I’ll enjoy every minute of it. I know you don’t want to hear that, but this is not a time for gentle language or anything other than complete honesty.

I also don’t want to conclude this letter with such dire language, so I want to express my delight again with the way you’re worked your heart out for my girl, my Hillary, and tell you that if you ever want to run for anything in the world, I’ll crawl over broken glass on my knees to vote for you.

Take care,
(my name)

Gary McGowan said...

"Dr. Dean Is Just What the Banker Ordered" is worth a look:

"Howard Brush Dean, III, is the ‘proud patrician product of Park Avenue and 85th Street, the son, grandson, and great- grandson of investment bankers,’ Meryl Gordon wrote in his New York magazine feature, ‘The Unlikely Rise of Howard Dean.’ The Dean family summered at the Hamptons and belonged to the exclusive Maidstone Club, while Dean attended private schools, and then Yale University. Dean was a freshman when George W. Bush was a senior at Yale. There is a family connection: Bush’s grandmother was a bridesmaid at the wedding of Dean’s grandmother. ..."

lost clown said...

(because caucus totals have not all been released and I am in favor of releasing them so that they can be tallied)

There's just one problem with that. The statewide caucus in WA hasn't happened yet and so the delegate numbers aren't final until after that caucus, since the belief is that some of the delegates can be swayed at the final caucus.

Hank Gillette said...

Anglachel said:

Yes, there is probably some [racism], but it is no where near as prevalent on the Left as the misogyny that gets thrown around without apology. Given voting habits, Hillary probably has greater defections due to her gender than Obama does due to his race.

That may be true, but the Pennsylvania exit poll data you were quoting previously doesn't support your assertion. 20% of the Democratic voters said that the gender of the candidate was important to them, and of those, 71% voted for Clinton.

It's probable that some voters wouldn't admit to not voting for her simply because she is a woman, but the same can be said about racial voting against Obama.

I disagree with you about Obama's electability, but anyone who says now that they know what will happen in an election seven months from now is simply incorrect.

Chinaberry Turtle said...

Janis - you're awesome! That was a wonderful letter. Although I'm not altogether with you (i'll be writing in HRC if I have to, not voting McCain), I understand exactly where you're coming from.

My Momma went through this kind of crap when I was a young boy (asshole men at her work leaving porno mags everywhere for her to see). I know exactly the rage you're feeling. It's not b/c I feel like I'm being attacked, but every time they attack Hillary with all their foul woman-hating, it's like I'm a kid again hearing about what those jerks did to my Momma at her work.

God, I just pray that women are as pissed off as you are. I want all those jerks who mistreated my Momma, and all those woman-hating men who mistreat Hillary to pay. The thought of Obama losing in November brings me almost as much pleasure as the thought of Hillary winning in November.

Gary McGowan said...

I'm unsure if elaborating on my comment above is a good idea or not, but all things considered, I think I should, a little.

The meat of it is not the grandmother's thing (although if you know the part Prescott Bush played in financing Hitler and making it possible for him to get in power, it's not exactly insignificant.)

Are we finally beginning to notice that there is a huge problem with our monetary financial system? (Answer: No not really, most people are in denial and still letting the so-called economists and CEOSs of investment banks who can write off hundreds of billions lie away without challenging them. Food shortages and food riots are still pretty much below the radar. We refuse to notice that millions of forclosures will soon leave good people--working people--homeless.)

Does the name Bear Stearns really mean anything to anyone? Is it O.K. to illegally bail that investment bank out with taxpayer's money? Is it O.K. to send our nation into hyperinflation to bail-out these gambling scams? Does anyone know the history of Central Banking or the BIS?

I'm using a lot of self-control to not scream in all caps: Does anyone know why we fought the God-damned Revolutionary War?

The corporatist-fascists are real. They didn't just go away after WWII. But then, we had by far the strongest economy and military in the world. What to do? Hey, I've got an idea, let's corrupt them from the inside.

[Big jump ... I'm not writing a book here.] Obama is being used to knock out Clinton. He sure as hell doesn't know it. Howard Dean probably doesn't know it. Look at the Democratic Party. Look at us!

My complaint here in a nutshell: If people don't start seeing the bigger picture, we are facing much worse than the great depression and WW I or WWII.

It can't happen here. It can't happen here... La la la la la... I can't hear you...

I'm sorry, but this is very frustrating. When things get worse maybe somebody will listen.

Anonymous said...

turtle: I feel the same way. My blood boils whenever I watch Keith Olbermann these days. His latest comments about going into a room with a superdelegate and only having him come out was subtle but shows how much hatred he has for Hillary Clinton as well as his lack of respect or consideration for women in general and the majority of women in this country who support Hillary. I just don't understand how anyone has that much hatred for a fellow Democrat, especially since she was courteous enough to appear on his show the day before. It doesn't surprise me that Keith has problems with women in his personal relationships (you can google it for yourself) and dates women my age (half his age). It's especially disappointing to see so many liberal men I used to love like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert join the MSM mob pressuring Clinton to get out of the race. Don't any of them realize that the more they do this the more money we donate and the less likely we will vote for Obama if he is the nominee?

Anonymous said...

What does this say about our party when Karl Rove makes more sense than any "liberal" in the MSM right now? Right. This explains why we don't win elections.

CMike said...

Anglachel writes:
And now I hear the problem is that we Hillary voters are older.

Oh, I can go you one better than that. Scott Lemieux blogs at Lawyers, Guns, and Money. Less frequently he posts at The American Prospect's blog Tapped.
Here's his bio:
About Me

I am an assistant professor of Political Science at Hunter College in New York City. My interests include public law/judicial politics, comparative constitutionalism, reproductive rights, and American Political Development.


Lemieux has plenty of brain power and the credentials to be a thoughtful Sen. Obama supporter. Here's a quote from one of his Lawyers, Guns, and Money posts that reveals his conception of the Clinton supporter demographic:
Penn Primary

...I would like to second what should be an obvious point from Isaac Chotiner: claims that Obama "has to" start winning or seriously cutting into Clinton's core constituencies in upcoming states are silly. He already has a majority coalition for the primary, and as far as the general election poor people and older women aren't going to suddenly turn into a Republican constituency.

jacilyn said...

I am another example of a person from a demographic that does not talk a lot on the internet. I am on the 'net despite some pretty extreme discomfort because I feel there are things what need saying, so to speak. We're just not represented on the internet. (And Turtle, tho I am from the north not the south, you are welcome to come to my blog and spout off about Bill Clinton's morality all you like. Because I get really tired of people treating that issue as if it were one way or the other - you either hate him because of it, or it doesn't matter at all.)

My family worked hard, really hard, to put itself into an affluent neighborhood we couldn't really afford for the sake of our kids' education. We totally bought into the upward mobility thing - it makes sense at the lower levels: what is wrong with inner cities IS a lack of skills/attitudes/behaviors. But what I see here is that class is very, very real. Their approach to problem-solving takes for granted that there is money to be thrown at problems. They rely on their cash and their networks. There is a real and very deep cultural difference between people who raise their kids the working class way vs. those who raise their kids by distributing or withholding expensive goodies (and if the kid is too far out, outsourcing the discipline problem via shrinks and expensive programs).

I am not convinced they are the better problem-solvers, or that their grasp of what is going on is better. I believe that what you might call theoretical vs. applied knowledge are complimentary, not hierarchical.

And btw the insults really, really sting.

jacilyn said...

Hank Gillette said:
That may be true, but the Pennsylvania exit poll data you were quoting previously doesn't support your assertion. 20% of the Democratic voters said that the gender of the candidate was important to them, and of those, 71% voted for Clinton.

And those who didn't vote for Clinton didn't vote against her because she's a woman. They're all for women - as long as those women are beautiful, with a pleasant voice, a tinkling laugh, and of course she must be willing to get out of the way if the race is close because an actual competition might hurt the man's chances.

And if there is a debate, she can't make the man look weak or effeminate. She can't come across as too smart, but she also can't be too dumb. She has to be smart while being dumb. She has to win, but at the same time she can't actually make her partner lose.


mystic4hill said...

“God, I just pray that women are as pissed off as you are.”

Believe me, Chinaberry Turtle, this woman IS! It reminds me of school, oh so many years ago, when we were told that boys didn’t like girls who were smarter than they were, and to make sure we made the boys feel better about themselves by pretending to be less intelligent.

Well, boys, it’s time to grow up. There’s a girl in class who’s a whole lot smarter than you, and she’s not going away just so you can feel better. Her name is Hillary Clinton. Get used to it.

Shainzona said...

What great comments on this post!

Thank you all - you make me feel so much smarter after reading what you have to say.

And janiscortese...I am copying your letter (with your permission??) and sending it to everyone in my address book. Terrific! (I won't vote for McCain - but I will write in Hillary - I'll send my $500 to my favorite charity in Hillary's name!)

slim said...

Gary McGowan - I'm listening...

Brownell said...

I caught a newsbit on BBC this morning about the FIRST REVERSE METAMORPHOSIS IN HISTORY - turning back from a butterfly to a slug. I was busy in the kitchen, so I did not get the particulars, but of course it was about Senator Obama. What else could it be?

As to the other subject, the one you wrote about, I feel fortunate that I live in a strongly Dem state. I have the luxury of voting for somebody else if I don't like the Democrat. If Obama somehow gets the nomination, by some means, I will write in the name of Hillary Clinton, and know that one time in my life I was able to vote for a woman President. Not my highest priority, but an opportunity not to be sneezed at. HOWEVER, if I lived in a swing state - if the margin between Obama and McCain was 10 points or less in the week before the election, I would have to buy a very large clothespin and do my duty. Sorry, but that's reality. If you are in that bind, well, think of England or something.

orionATL said...

this was very helpful for me to read. it gives me a foundation for thinking about resolving our senator v senator conflict.

what follows wouldn't seem to qualify as a "political" argument by anglachel's definition

but it seems to me that,

in addition to electibility,

the superdelegates must give great weight to the respective political and governing experience of the two democratic candidates -

with the point clearly in mind that a democratic president would need to "hit the ground running" in january 2009 with respect to the very serious economic, social, and international problems we are now facing (and will likely continue to face for the next several years.)

to me, this criterion for choosing between obama and clinton is especially important this time around because we have face a very dangerous (thru amplification)confluence of a long list of major problems which include"

growing joblessness, unstable financial markets, severe inflation of an essential raw material (oil), substantial food price inflation, a very expensive and pointless military occupation which has generated international distrust and disapproval, the dangerously excessive influence of american corporations on our political affairs, serious problems with availability of health care, failure to maximally involve american science and technology in a search to "solve" (ameliorate) some of these problems.

that's for starters.

oh, and my list didn't include global warming. i left it out because, however important it is for the long run, it is simply not exigent enough in the lives of ordinary folk to make it to the A-list of major problems the new president must tackle, post haste.

in short, the nation needs a president who understands with great clarity how political power is used in this nation and how to put that knowledge to maximal use as rapidly as possible in january 2009.

i do not see how any superdelegate could, years from now, justify having awarded the nomination to senator obama when senator clinton had such a large and manifest edge in knowing how to use the levers of power on american political machinery.

will this be a criterion for selection in denver? i don't know; i would surprised if it were.

but awarding the democratic nomination solely on the basis of pro forma rules and (proportionally) minuscule numerical margins

seems to this "conservative" older democrat like a historical abdication of responsibility

somewhat akin to the media's abdication of it duty in the 200 presidential contest between sen gore and gov bush.

this nation has had to to wait, actually to waste, eight years while george bush tried to learn how to be president.

i really fear facing another eight years while senator obama, brilliant though he may be, learns how to be president.

Pat Johnson said...

I read all of your postings and just allow me to add one more thought. I am in the demographic which has been totally dissed by the Obama campaign for being one of the older, white women supporters. This statement is almost delivered with derision as if we were one voting block and one last breath away from the nursing home. My reason for not voting Obama was because I felt, and still do, that the gigantic mess we are about to inherit in January 09 will need the stewardship of someone with experience. Yes, she is female but not the reason I am supporting her. Until his withdrawal I was supporting Edwards. But he got short shrift. The press hardly paid attention to him. You really only saw his message during the debates and at that time few were tuning in. Out he went.

Obama came out of the pack. The press had a horserace. Black against female. They chose the one with the thinnest resume to be the standard bearer at a time, and succeeding another thin resume in Bush, to clean up the mess. Astounding! Never traveled abroad. A mere three years in the Senate. Time in the Chicago legislature that only meets a few months a year. Community organizer although I have yet to see what his accomplishments were there. Yet he was the "transcendent" candidate. No other reason. Won the Senate against Alan Keyes of all people. Nothing of presidential meat here.

So I stand with Hillary. She may get pushed aside. But my principals tell me I have at least stood with a winner until the end. Unfortunately for us and the party I feel he will go down to defeat but if not I also believe that buyer's remorse will set in once again as it has for the last 8 years. Obama is just not ready.

Bud White said...

"Key in this is to declare anyone who fails to vote for him a racist, as if this were the only reason someone could fail to support him."

A lot of Obamacans don't understand how some of us could consider voting for McCain. They talk about Roe v Wade, etc. What they don't understand is that Obama's campaign goes against everything we believe (labeling the Clintons racists, selectively denying states, rampant sexism) that we (or at least I) want our Party to lose if Obama steals the nomination. And then we rebuild with a focus on economic justice and a repudiation of sexism and anti-white racism/classism.

Anonymous said...

You will be glad to know, that "the rules" do not say not to count the popular votes in MI and FL. Indeed, the DNC has not jurisdiction over those votes - only the delegates that we be allotted according to the vote.

Visit for more info.

And this is a particularly good post on the rules and what they do and do not allow:

Anonymous said...

Shainzona, feel free to copy it. :-)

Sherry said...

chinaberry turtle, I am late coming to this thread because I've been away from my computer, but I want to thank you first, for giving money to Hillary even when you thought the odds were against her. In this country we are way too apt to back a winner, whether the winner stands for the right things or not. And second, for the honor you give your mother. As the mother of sons, I can only hope that mine respect my struggles and efforts as much as you respect your mother's.

IamOnly1 (did I get that right), thanks for reminding us that, contrary to the Obama's noise machine, the rules do not discount Florida and Michigan.

And Anglachel, as always, thanks for a wonderful analysis and a wonderful forum.

Gary McGowan said...


The same "slim" that Pierre Salinger fired and locked out of the office?

... vaunted asset of an intelligence agency that is not American?

Tell me it isn't so.