The Elephant In the Room

Obama supporters, I've got three words for you: GET OVER YOURSELVES.

Some basic facts:

1.) Obama is not the Party's nominee. The Party won't select their nominee until the Convention at the end of August.

2.) Until the Convention, the superdelegates' votes mean nothing. In fact, until the Convention, even the pledged delegates' votes mean little. It's how they vote at the Convention that counts.

3.) Superdelegates' votes are not on-record until the Convention. Until then, anything goes! What the superdelegates do at the Convention is subject to the ever-shifting political landscape--which could turn at a moment's notice on a dime.

4.) Do you really want the Rethug 527 machines to start letting loose sooner rather than later? Keep shifting the conversation to the revisionist concept that, unbeknownst to myself and tens of millions of Clinton supporters, somehow, Obama's already won the Party's nod.

Obama is not the Democratic Party's nominee; and he won't be the nominee until the Convention.

He will not be the Democratic Party's nominee unless and until he attains the necessary votes to close the nomination come Convention time. Until then, at best he's:

a.) Someone with not enough pledged votes to guarantee he's the Party's nominee;

b.) Involved in the most closely contested Democratic Party nomination fight since at least 1964;

c.) Someone whom--maybe in a few weeks--might be referred to as the likely nominee, or the frontrunner for the nomination, but he's not the Democratic Party's nominee.

So, all you folks taking up the Obama and MSM meme that somehow, Obama has enough votes to win this thing now, come to your senses. The guy doesn't have enough votes to close the deal! And, for all intents and purposes, superdelegates can hem and haw all they want about "support," but as we've all seen--even in recent days--that is subject to the political weather forecast, too!

So, stop acting like this thing is over. It's not over. It won't be over, until it's over. And, that's not until the end of  August.

Because every time an Obama supporters postures in this manner, they're simply disaffecting us Hillary supporters with a bunch of make-believe drivel, that has nothing to do with reality.

Reality: There's a good chance Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But, that is it. Period. End of story. To posture in any other manner is both fictitious and disaffecting.



Display:


I agree with you. He's no the nominee (none / 0)

But once he gets the majority of pledged and unpledged delegates, he will be considered presumptive nominee.


_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents
by lizardbox on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:18:27 PM EST

Re: I agree with you. He's no the nominee (2.00 / 1)

Here's a "presumption"...

How much money will the Rethug 527's spend on increasing Obama's negative recognition factor between now and Labor Day? $50 million? $100 million?

Assume....ASS-U-ME.


by bobswern on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:26:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you. He's no the nominee (2.00 / 2)

They're going to spend that money regardless of whether you admit that Obama is the presumptive nominee or not.  Republicans have known for months that Obama was going to be the nominee, and have already been running ads against him in several states.

If you think the Republicans are going to wait until August to start attacking Obama, you are sorely mistaken.

Obama obviously isn't the nominee yet, but he certainly is the presumptive nominee.


by KevinT on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No way (2.00 / 1)

He ACTS like the presumptive nominee, and all it does is feed into the meme that he's an elitst snob.

He doesn't have enough delegates, period.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:02:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you. He's no the nominee (2.00 / 1)

If we were to hold off naming someone the presumptive nominee and right leaning 527s spent less, it would only be because we were doing their work for them. No need for them to dip into their coffers if we're happy to tear ourselves apart.

The republicans can read the political realities as well as anyone else and they won't hold off on their attacks just because no one is officially the nominee yet. If anything they'll welcome the opportunity the work uninterrupted.


by werehippy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The exact same they would spend (2.00 / 1)

on Sen. Clinton.

I'll be kind and say that there is at least an equal amount of fodder for them to work with for either candidate.

But to give you an example of possible scenarios:

The thought of Republican ads comparing Sen.s Clinton and McCain on military experience is something to shudder over.  McCain - survived POW treatment in Vietnam, battle over hostile territory and a burning aircraft carrier.  Clinton - endless loop of Tuzla and her laying a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier...

That could be the single best hope of the Republicans in overcoming their incredibly challenged position...

-chris


"A ship in port is safe, but that is not what ships are for. Sail out to sea and do new things." Admiral Grace Hopper, computer pioneer
by chrisblask on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:32:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The exact same they would spend (none / 0)

and Obama's military experience?


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:58:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The exact same they would spend (none / 0)

Barack is not running on experience.


by hebi on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:57:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Some Friendly Advice? (2.00 / 0)

Although I understand what you are saying, and appreciate seeing a post from someone other than that person who thinks manipulated photos communicate information or lend credibility to anyone's campaign or personal statements, I think your characterization of McCain's ordeal of surviving POW treatment is as nuanced as Darryl Issa's statement that 9/11 was just a fire.

The guy refused several times to be released until other men held with him were released. They were released before him, and he was held for a very long time. He was repeatedly tirtured, and refused to give it up despite pretty brutal torture. McCain's got a Nelson Mandela level of fortitude and character narrative going, although a good case could be made that his subsequent actions in the Senate squandered a bit of that history, but are we really talking about getting voters to jump on an aging war hero because the torture may have left him a litlle off? That's not really a position of strength for any campaign. So chill on that one as a golden arrow. Please.

Clinton has stated several times that the whole Tuzla incident was a mis-recollection. It's more on the line of a there are 57 states or I voted the wrong way 8 times while in the Illinois State Senate kind of comment. Voters would see right through it - or not?

At least with regards to the point of this diary and some of the responses to it, the reason why the MSM is so eager to get into general election mode is that both parties are going to spend at least a billion dollars a piece, much of it in advertising to define, redefine, orient or misorient people with regards to one or more candidates. It money and ratings time in the industry! They have very sharp pointed sticks for hot button issues they will press regardless of what campaign does what. If you're offering the Tuzla loop as one of the effective things that will be thrown at Clinton, I fear that your judgment might be clouded by an anti-Hillary filter as opposed to a what point of strength could Obama start from. Time to reframe and rethink. I'm not trying to personally diminish your support of any candidate, just encouraging you to move to a higher grade of weapon if you;re discussing military or political battles. If Obama is the nominee, I do want to see him succeed.

Outside of Kennedy's unfortunately stupid and truly addled comment about Hillary as VP today, Democrats have ben doing well at reaching the point of at least addressing the areas where internecine raging must end

I'm not giving Republicans a list of issues and events that I expect them to use against any Democrat, but I all but guarantee that Donna Brazile's comment about Democrats not needing white men or Hispanics to win the Presidency will be on their play list. Considering that both the Obama and McCain campaigns have stated that those two groups are their targets in any general election efforts, and the Clinton campaign has ben doing very well with those two groups, you really do need to reboot, and hope nothing on the primary hard drive is recoverable.

If we're discussing Clinton and military creds, I think it's much more forward thinking to mention that McCain is actually consenting to a Republican led Senators denial of a package of resources and benefits for members of the military. I'm sure both Clinton and Obama are much more focused on that aspect of any military focused retort. Is it not bad enough they were sent into a war unequipped and understaffed. Sure, America hasn't called for a draft, which is good, but I'm just saying that a simple anti-war statement is not going to be anywhere nearly as effective as an anti-Iraq war mismanagement and waste of money and loss of American lives for what approach - also something both Clinton and Obama are addressing.

by Jeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:04:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Friendly Advice? (2.00 / 1)

...is always welcome.

I am sensitive to providing McCain ammunition, but what I wrote is already long since out there.

I grew up with a Christian Comics detailing McCain's captivity, so I have a long-standing understanding of the emotional impact of that experience.  My only purpose in posting that comment was to answer the "they'll attack him" idea.

Of course they will.  And her as well, given the chance.  I think the whole argument is a net-zero at best.

Fortunately, the Republican party is in a level of disarray that makes the current Democrat "troubles" look like a warm sunny day.

IMHO, the entire thread of their ability to attack us is nothing compared with our own ability to attack ourselves.  The only way for McCain to win is if we give him the election.

-cheers!

-chris


"A ship in port is safe, but that is not what ships are for. Sail out to sea and do new things." Admiral Grace Hopper, computer pioneer
by chrisblask on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:46:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Friendly Advice? (2.00 / 0)

Interestingly, Senator Obama was in West Virginia today wearing aflag pin and talking about his patriotism, despite his never having served in the military. As I expected, he countered the charge by the McCain campaign that he was somehow unpatriotic by directly discussing his approach to wearing flag pins, and the fact that McCain is opposing the Senate bill that would really help men and women who have served or are going to serve in the military. I guess he took our advice. I also see that the Week in Review of the NYTimes has an article about how useful it has been to Obama that Clinton has stayed in the race. Tood has a front pager here about how much this is benefitting the Democratic Party. The expression that Obama has won or is presumed to have won or will definitely win is still a statement that causes negative feelings, especially since it is not technically a true statement that he has won, and since Clinton being in the remaining primaries saying she will win benefits all of us greatly.

Thanks for responding to my response to your post. May we all pay close attention to the fierce campaigns of all those running for office, and wish them the best until the last vote is counted. I don't really care about the media or any campaign's wish to declare victory, I care about voters feeling they are part of the Democratic process that will put an end to the very undemocratic, selfish and elitist governing abuses by a huge majority of Republicans currently in office. We have the terrible responsibility of fixing the serious damage that has been done to this country while responding to the veery real and acute needs of our people. Peace, my friend!


by Jeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dude (2.00 / 3)

what the f**k. Let's just stop running for elected office because of the Republican boogie man. I don't give a shit about how much money the Republicans will spend trying to knock down our candidate.

And tell you what, if you decide to sit this one out, you don't have to worry about a thing, I got you covered. I'll campaign twice as hard this year


_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents
by lizardbox on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:37:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (none / 0)

but you can only vote once in the general.  it ain't a caucus.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:59:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (none / 0)

Bitter?


_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents
by lizardbox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:02:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (none / 0)

not as long as I can cling to my guns and God.

/snark

actually, I'm not a Hillary supporter.  I'm indifferent but don't like Obama much.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:13:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That number is 2209 because Dean says (none / 0)

Dean says that all fifty states will be seated at the convention.  The number to nominate is set by:

all of the delegates seated at the convention
divided by 2
plus 1

Since Obama cannot know how many delegates will be seated at the convention, he cannot declare himself the victor unless he gets to 2209.  2209 is based on the full delegation being seated when the convention finally comes to a vote.

By the way - the vote is secret.  Nobody will actually know how the individual delegates vote, no matter what promises were made or prizes delivered to "secure" the vote.

The best chance we have for a safe Congressional Majority if for superdelegates to vote for the most electable candidate and please the down ticket voters.  If they side with the alienators and help Obama crown himself without doing their homework, we will all be sorry.

He will be saying next that he didn't campaign in WV and KY so Hillary's wins there won't count, just like her win in Michigan where he and Edwards saw they couldn't win and removed their names.  Discredit the Michigan voters and curry favor with Iowa and New Hampshire voters for dissing Michigan.  Don't let the press get away with going along with his ploy.  We need the next 6 million voters to know that they count to all Democrats or we will find out how much they count to Republicans in November.


by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:46:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Elephant In the Room (2.00 / 4)

can i get a hell yeah!


"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." Plato
by canadian gal on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:20:20 PM EST

Re: The Elephant In the Room (2.00 / 2)

Hell Yeah!!


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:04:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Elephant In the Room (2.00 / 1)

Well, technically McCain's not the Republican nominee. What's your point?

A detailed rebuttal of your diary to follow shortly. Thank you.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:23:41 PM EST

LOL! You leave out "minor" details.... (2.00 / 1)

1.) McCain had waaaay more than enough PLEDGED votes to guarantee the nomination was his. He trounced his opposition.

2.) Obama will, in all likelihood, not have enough pledged delegate votes to say--beyond any doubt--that it's a lock...at least not until the Convention.

3.) This is the closest Democratic Primary in my lifetime. (I'm 50.)

4.) We are going into the Convention with no clearcut winner. The superdelegates will hold the key until they vote in Denver. (And, I'm sure they're not going to let anyone forget that, either! LOL!) Plain and simple. Remember that the next time you're thinking about this delegate or that delegate shifting their support. That's the thing...it's very much the double-edged sword...this "shifting" thing. Bites ya' in the ass every time.


by bobswern on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:31:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do you think the supers will wait that long? (none / 0)

Why wouldn't they decide within a month after the last primary in June?


by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:41:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Elephant In the Room (2.00 / 3)

Respectfully, you're making a semantic argument, not  substantive one. It is true that Obama will not formally become the nominee of the Democratic party until the convention in August. It's also true that we're rapidly approaching the point where any objective look at the lay of the land makes Obama the presumptive nominee of the party.

And while I can absolutely respect your frustration at having the race called early, especially given the feeling in the Clinton camp this has repeatedly been done to them, the fact is within the next month to month and a half all the primaries will be finished (and unless something unexpected happens will be a wash between Clinton and Obama), Florida and Michigan will be seated in some reduced but face saving capacity, and the bulk of the super delegates will have made their preference known.

I know you want to keep this going as long as you see a chance, but the party simply can not afford to live in a state of civil war for three needless months after everything has run its course and then try and heal all the hurt feelings and run a general campaign in the remaining three months.


by werehippy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:24:19 PM EST

Another Obama-camp comment... (none / 0)

...devoid of historical context.

I'm talking reality. You're talking pure conjecture.

These superdelegates...if they sense a shitstorm...they'll run for cover quicker than you can say: "I'm changing my vote!"

Then there's the "minor detail" of the massive Rethug propaganda machine.

Oh, and yes...the minor detail that Obama's about to have his butt handed to him in KY and WV.

Yes...the devil's in the details.


by bobswern on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:34:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Obama-camp comment... (2.00 / 3)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

The super delegates certainly can change their vote, but they've been moving to Obama slowly since Super Tuesday, and rapidly since last week. If there's a huge scandal we may see a switch, but until there's any sign of that I would say (and you don't have to agree) that it's fair to call Obama the likely nominee.

And as to the Republican attacks, as I've already said they'll be coming just as strong whether or not we call the front runner the likely nominee. If Obama bears the brunt of that it'll be because the republicans have made the same judgment we have in calling Obama the likely nominee.

Again, an unexpected scandal can change the landscape quickly, but I don't agree fear of that shoudl keep us from assess things as they stand.


by werehippy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Obama-camp comment... (2.00 / 1)

Oh, and yes...the minor detail that Obama's about to have his butt handed to him in KY and WV.

Amen! Now there's a "Reality Check!"


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:29:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Elephant In the Room (2.00 / 2)

Heck, under your reasoning, Mike Gravel has as much of a chance as Obama or Clinton in securing the nomination...


by ckd5555 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:27:42 PM EST

Re: The Elephant In the Room (1.66 / 3)

Heck, under YOUR reasoning, McCain should concede now.

Why count every vote when you can just annoint a messiah? LOL


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:39:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good reminder, again (2.00 / 5)

Whether 'presumptive', 'likely' nominee, that's fine as long as we can agree right now that although likely, he is not the party's nominee until the August convention.

If his supporters are confident in him, and if the candidate is confident himself, then people might want to shift focus from beating up HRC for finishing the primary season,or suggesting she is doing this to "damage" Obama.  He can't be truly damaged by her if he is the "presumptive" nominee, or by the primary season finishing out and letting all of America vote.

Start working for the candidate, not against HRC, again, especially if you truly believe Obama is the nominee. Start working FOR, not AGAINST.


by 4justice on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:28:15 PM EST

Mojo for you (2.00 / 5)

for a good comment, primary season is like temporary madness it makes people crazy.


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 Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good reminder, again (2.00 / 2)

I may be biased, but from what I've seen the only time Obama or any close surrogate has mentioned Sen. Clinton since the NC and IN primaries has been to praise her.

And Obama certainly can be damaged by Clinton, now when he's just the likely nominee and even if or when he becomes the official nominee. As mydd shows pretty clearly, Sen. Clinton has an extremely loyal base and if she paints Obama as unacceptable, or even holds back her support, that will hurt Obama's chances in the general. Look at McCain and Huckabee, they had a much less contentious primary, Huckabee isn't even campaigning anymore, and McCain still isn't breaking 80%.


by werehippy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:35:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good reminder, again (2.00 / 1)

Yes, you're bias is showing AND you haven't been listening to your candidate and his surrogates.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:08:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good reminder, again (2.00 / 1)

Well, leaving aside the fact Ted Kennedy decided today was apparently a good day to jam his foot into his mouth the Obama camp has almost completely drawn back from any confrontational language with Sen. Clinton.

I still can't believe Teddy pulled that crap. Even if he was angry enough to think it, he's a consummate enough politician he should have been able to bite his tongue.  


by werehippy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:16:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good reminder, again (2.00 / 1)

Kennedy is a "consummate politican?" Don't make me laugh. Perhaps Ol' Uncle Ted should pull together his squadron of supporters (ie, Kerry, Richardson, Carter, Dodd) to form a "LOSERS FOR OBAMA" 527.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:25:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good reminder, again (none / 0)

Perhaps the word I was looking for in this case was career as opposed to consummate. No need for connotations of competence when he decides to go off message and do the one thing we don't need and antagonize the other half of the party.


by werehippy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:45:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good reminder, again (none / 0)

Actually, I think Kennedy was directly ON message, consistent with the parameters set by the Obama campaign.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good reminder, again (2.00 / 2)

Obama already has shifted to the general.  He doesn't even mention Clinton in his stump speech anymore.  

And Obama supporters are mostly ready to move on as well, but when diaries keep on popping up that deny reality and rational thought, Obama supporters (and most Democrats now) are going to respond.


by KevinT on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:35:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good reminder, again (2.00 / 1)

In the words of the diarist, "Get over yourself!"


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:21:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I fully agree with most of it (2.00 / 5)

I do think that the party will need some time to unify and get everyone behind the nominee (be it Obama or Clinton).

I think likely nominee is a good term as it fits reality and still accounts for the fact that something (meteor from outer space other game changers) could still occur.


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 Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:28:30 PM EST

Re: I fully agree with most of it (2.00 / 1)

I think self annointed nominee is a "good term as it fits reality and still accounts for the fact that" Obama thinks all he can be anointed before all the votes are counted.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:42:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But actually it is (2.00 / 1)

more of the media/common preception that is moving that way.  After all in 1992 Bill Clinton was the likely nominee in May, not everyone had voted but unless something would have changed he was likely to bee the nominee.  If Bill is right about WV being 80-20 and 600k votes, that would be a game changer.

However unless the game changes, Obama is likely to be the nominee, hence likely nominee not democratic nominee for president


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 Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:10:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But actually it is (2.00 / 1)

However, unless ALL VOTES ARE COUNTED, Obama is NOT likely to be the nominee; hence, self annointed nominee is the appropriate term.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:26:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Elephant In the Room (2.00 / 3)

I decided to eschew the detailed rebuttal in favor of this:

How many convention fights have delivered a win for either Republicans or Democrats? If you want to argue Obama won't be the "nominee" until the convention, fine. As I mentioned before, it's true. If you think something might come up in the intervening time, fine. As long as we can focus on McCain in the intervening time, I'm good.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:35:35 PM EST

No concessions, ragekage (2.00 / 2)

Get out your history books, rage. Numerous convention fights have delivered wins in the course of American history. (Most recent: Reagan, et al). In fact, convention fights have arguably made them BETTER candidates.

I'm planning to focus on why Democrats need to WIN the White House, and why Obama should NOT be our nominee.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:13:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No concessions, ragekage (2.00 / 1)

Reagan? What convention fight was there with him? And name a couple other that turned out just a-okay for the party involved.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:18:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No concessions, ragekage (2.00 / 1)

Educate yourself.

I'm not your tutor, but because it's embarassing that there are people who claim to be members of our party who don't have a clue about the history of politics, you can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Republ ican_National_Convention


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:35:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No concessions, ragekage (2.00 / 2)

Heh. Well, thanks for the dig- but this is my point exactly. I figured this is what you were talking about. But check out how easily the Republicans won in '76 after their convention fight.

Unless you're suggesting it'd be great because Reagan won in 1980, then... and equating that with Senator Clinton in 2012. Which wouldn't surprise me. And I notice you can't come up with any examples of beneficial convention battles, even though you allude to it in your original post. Classy.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:39:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1964 Convention. n/t (none / 0)


by bobswern on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:43:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Error...meant to say 1960! n/t (none / 0)


by bobswern on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:44:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1964 Convention. n/t (2.00 / 2)

I got what you meant. However, the parallels between '60 and now aren't the same, by a long shot, and I think you understand that, too. And we came reaaaal close to losing that one in any case. Hell, if it wasn't for Mayor Daley, I think we'd have had a President Nixon a few years earlier.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:45:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No concessions, ragekage (1.25 / 4)

American History 101 is a GREAT course. You should enroll, instead of expecting everyone else to spoonfeed you. Politics in this country didn't suddenly begin the day you cast your first vote.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:51:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No concessions, ragekage (2.00 / 1)

No, see, the rules are, you make a point, you better provide the evidence. I don't do your research for you. And the only proof you've provided so far was easily rebuffed. But keep up the ad hominem, if you think anyone will take it seriously.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:53:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No concessions, ragekage (1.50 / 2)

No, see, the rules are that you understand political fundamentals FIRST, before you whine and ask folks to do your homework. And when it comes to ad hominem, you frankly have great difficulty expressing ANY opinion without them.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:16:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you have any clue what you're talking about? (2.00 / 1)

You get all huffy with somebody for "not knowing history" but do you know anything about American political history yourself? You're making me believe that you don't.
You make all these sweeping claims and then you won't or can't back them up.
Which convention fights, specifically, helped the party that had them in that election? You haven't named any but 1976 for the Republicans, and they lost that year, so it's hard for me to see how that backs up your claims.
I have given you many examples of fights that HURT the party that had them: 1920, 1924, 1928, 1968 (D); 1964, 1976 (R).
I've even given you 2 examples to work with, 1912 and 1960 (D), but as I said, those years, we were lucky.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:23:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hrrrr...umphrey (1.50 / 2)

Sorry, I don't do homework questions. But before you get all huffy, ponder your thesis that convention fights have absolutely NO redeeming value whatsoever. Heck, why even have a convention when you can bully your oppoonents into conceding in the name of "party unity?" LOL

"Saint Obama -- the annointed one. No convention necessary."


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:33:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hrrrr...umphrey (2.00 / 1)

It isn't my job to do your job.
If you want to make a claim, then back it up.
This may not be the most enlightening debate ever, not if you're one of the debaters, but it's still a debate.
I never said convention fights are without redeeming value. They may well have redeeming value. 1976 may have helped the Republicans, but it didn't help them until 4 years later.
If you want to argue that we should have a nasty floor fight this summer and then lose in the fall so we can win in 2012, then by all means argue your point. I think that's nuts as a strategy, but you can say otherwise.
But asking ME to prove YOUR point is not a way to win the argument. If you're asking me to argue your point for you, then it becomes pretty plain to me that you can't argue it yourself, and thus, it's a bad, weak argument.
You lose.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:41:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hrrrr...umphrey (none / 0)

I never said "we should have a nasty floor fight this summer and then lose in the fall so we can win in 2012."

And I still won't do your homework.

0-3.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:00:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, since (2.00 / 1)

The only example you gave was 1976, that's the only conclusion I can draw.
And arguing YOUR point is not doing MY homework.
It's clear by now that you CAN'T back up your claim that floor fights help parties win presidential elections, so you're only trying to weasel out of admitting you're wrong. I mean, Lord, I gave something like 6 or 8 examples of floor fights that HURT the party, and you can't even come up with ONE example that helped? Just admit you're wrong here, and we can both get on with our lives. I mean this is funny in a way, but I'm actually embarassed for you, or at least I would be if I weren't so irked by your dishonesty.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:06:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You know what? (2.00 / 1)

Maybe I should try another tack:
The Democratic Party WON in 1920, 1924, 1928 and 1968. The Republicans had two of their best showings ever in 1964 and 1976. President Carter? Never heard of him. President Hoover? Huh? Who could that be?
You're right, I'm wrong, let's have a bloody floor fight and wipe the floor with the Republicans.
There, I've done your work for you, won the debate for you, and I've done it intellectually dishonestly, too, so that should make you feel right at home.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:10:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey, out there... (2.00 / 1)

Anything? Anything at all? Helpful floor fights? Just give me one and we can argue it.
Jeez, you're sad.
Just admit you're wrong about this and slink away with at least a little dignity...
ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:56:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, out there... (2.00 / 1)

Gotta hand it to ya, Mumph. You certainly enjoy talking to yourself.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:09:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, you're right. (none / 0)

There's no point in debating you, since you don't want to debate.
I've already conceded that you're right and I was way off, so now we can give up this sorry waste of time. Congratulations, you sure know your American history; you must have a doctorate at least.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:12:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, you're right. (none / 0)

Actually, I do.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:55:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, you're right. (none / 0)

Not in American history, I'm guessing, or if it is, it must be from one of those mail-order colleges or from a cut-rate school on some island in the Caribbean...


ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:08:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Come on, (2.00 / 1)

What's the deal here?
Can you back up your argument or not?
You accused the other poster of not knowing what he's talking about. He gave counterexamples to rebut your claim. I gave counterexasmples to rebut your claim. When he called you on not backing up your claim, you seemed to argue that it was his job to argue your case. But as he said, the way this works is: you make a claim. Someone who disagrees with you makes a counter claim. You back up your claim. The other debater backs up his claim. This goes on, back and forth, until somebody concedes or the judges (if there are judges) call the debate one way or the other.
It is not my job, or the other poster's, to argue YOUR case for YOU. That's YOUR job. If you don't like how this works, then don't wade into it. But don't get pissy because poeple won't see the world your way just on your say so. I think your claims are shit, and until you can show me you're right and I'm wrong, then I'll keep thinking they're shit. If you won't even defend your claims, then it's pretty plain that they're shit.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:36:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, (1.00 / 1)

I don't do homework questions, but if you want to believe that contested conventions have utterly ruined this country, have at it. The fact that our political system has somehow managed to survive pretty much proves your argument is "shit" (using YOUR term, not mine.)


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:16:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you insane? (2.00 / 1)

Really, are you?
I never said floor fights hurt the country; I said they are more likely than not to hurt the party that goes through them. You never said floor fights didn't hurt the country; you said they were helpful to the party that had them. Helpful or harmful to party and helpful or harmful to country are two different debates altogether, and until you brought it up just now, the latter hadn't shown up here at all. And you're only bringing it in now to muddy t he waters.
And I know the answer to my question above: you aren't nuts; you just like stirring things up and fucking with people you don't agree with. I'm sorry I wasted all this time with you. It really wasn't worth it. Ragekage left you a while back; he's wiser than I am, or at least he's better at managing his time.
Believe whatever the fuck you want, say whatever the fuck you want; I'm not wasting any more time on you.
Adiós.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:28:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you insane? (none / 0)

Thanks, but I don't engage in "debate" with those who accuse folks they disagree with of being "insane."

Go back and do your homework.

C-ya.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:58:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you insane? (none / 0)

No, you aren't insane. What you are is intellectually dishonest. When you first wrote about how floor fights often helped the party that had them, I thought maybe I might try to argue the point with you. You were wrong, I knew that, but I thought it might be fun to argue the point; maybe you'd learn something and maybe I might learn something as well.
But that isn't what you had in mind. All you wanted was for us to all agree with you and shut up about it. When we tried to debate tha claim you gave, you called us ignorant and lazy, demanding that WE come up with the proof that backed up your position.
When I called you on that, you willfully misrepresented my argument, once claiming it was that floor fights have no redeeming value--which I never said--and once claiming that it was that floor fights ruin the country, which, again, I never said or even implied.
I'm perfectly willing to debate this with you if you want a real debate and are willing to debate fairly: back up your claims with at least some evidence and stick to the issue and not willfully twist what I say into something I didn't say.
But, as I said, you don't want that. I don't even know why I'm still talking to you; I guess it's that I hope that, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, you might be a reasonable person after all. It bothers me when people aren't reasonable or honest, so I keep trying to appeal to your better side. Maybe it's a waste of time. I guess if I were smarter I'd have given up long ago.
Anyway, that's all I really had to say. I wish I could say it's been fun, but it hasn't, so I can't.
Again,
Adiós.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:20:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you insane? (none / 0)

Instead of wasting your time on this incoherent diatribe, why not invest the time in doing your homework? Infinitely more productive.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:03:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you insane? (none / 0)

Fuck off.


ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:42:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you insane? (none / 0)

Sorry about that; I shouldn't have said it.


ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you insane? (none / 0)

And by the way, asshole, I have now "done my homework" and have looked for examples of floor fights that helped the party that had them.
I have found 2: 1912 (D), 1948 (D) and 1960 (D). In each of these cases there was a floor fight, and in each case the Democrats went on to win the election. I think the Democrats won despite the fights, rather than because of them, but I could be wrong about that.
Now, maybe I missed something and maybe I'm just stupid, but I can't find too many others. Maybe you can enlighen me. If so, then please do. I'm willing to learn. If you can show me something to back up your claim, and it's persuasive, then I might actually change my opinion on this. I'm sincerely asking for your help. If you're sincere about your claims, then help me out here. If you just tell me to "do my own homework" then I'll know you don't take this seriously. I'm really trying to be reasonable here, because I think we might learn something from each other if we can treat each other respectfully. (I suspect you're just laughing at the gullible fool who keeps trying to deal with you on the merits, but by all means, prove me wrong.)
ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you insane? (none / 0)

And forgive the "asshole" in the above post. I got pissed off and let it get the better of me. Sorry.


ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:54:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't understand. (2.00 / 1)

I really don't. I don't want to be snide, but you do know, I assume, that Gerald Ford won the 1976 Republican nomination after an ugly fight, and Jimmy  Carter won the election?
1976 might have been great to Reagan, but it wasn't for 4 more years. Now, you might be making the point that convention fights can help 4 years down the road, but that seems like a fairly weak strategy for us to be running on this year: Convention Fight 2008: Setting Us Up To Win In 2012!
I could list all kinds of convention fights that turned out badly: the 1924 Democratic Convention, which went 103 ballots. The Democrats, as you might know, did badly that year. The 1920 one went 44 ballots, and again, we didn't do too well. It went 46 ballots in 1912, and we won, but we well might not have if Roosevelt and the Progressive Party hadn't split the Republican vote.
The 1964 Republican Convention is well known for helping to bring about the worst Republican loss in years.
Now it is true that the Democrats won in 1960 after a long fight, but I don't think it makes sense to argue that bloody convention fights are good for prospects in that election.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:02:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The closest parallel will be '72... (none / 0)

...if Obama is the nominee. IMHO.

I would've voted for McGovern if I was old enough, at the time. And, I'll vote for Obama if he's the nominee now.

But, I would have to say that--in my lifetime at least--the closest I can come to drawing a parallel right now would be the '72 convention.

The country's farther right than it was in '72, as well (of course).

As far as the candidates are concerned and as far as what's better for Democrats, 1960 is a much better analogy. We ended up with a winning ticket, comprised of two people that really disliked one another (at the end of the day). But, pragmatism ruled, and we won.

Now there's a concept I could live with!


by bobswern on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:14:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right. (2.00 / 2)

He's not the nominee. He will be within 3 weeks. At the moment we just know that he will be the nominee and that she won't. We'll probably play out the table for the next 3 weeks unless Hillary gets too negative, in which case we won't get to the end.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:35:51 PM EST

I've got to laugh at this last comment! (2.00 / 1)


He's not the nominee. He will be within 3 weeks...

Where'd you get that one from? Howard Dean? Donna Brazile? These are the folks that told us it would be over by Easter. Then...by April. Then the first week of June.

So, let's say the Superdelegates shift to where Obama's got just enough votes to say he's reached the threshold. Say this happens around...perhaps the middle of June.

Let me ask you one question: When was the last time you saw ANY superdelegate not act like a cockroach when the kitchen light's turned on?

Puhleez!

If there's any major issue or concern between mid-June and the Convention at the end of August, the Superdelegate's "stated support" will be worth about as much as a Starbuck's latte...as long as you have $3.00 to pay for it!

I mean, come on!?!?!?

A SuperDelegate's statement of support isn't worth a damn thing...it's subject to inclement weather. And, virtually every freakin' person here reading this knows: I SPEAK TRUTH!


by bobswern on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:46:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's how it plays out. (2.00 / 2)

Between now and June 3rd, if Hillary doesn't get too negative, we run the remaining contests.

On May 30, we settle MI and FL. The probably outcome of that will be 50% delegate reduction at least for the two states, and some compromise on the popular vote.

At that point, after June 3rd, Obama will be ahead on pledged delegates, super delegates, states won, and popular vote. Most of the rest of the supers will follow suit at that time and Obama will be the presumptive nominee, just as McCain is.

When that happens, the general election begins in earnest. The Obama camp is planning strategy on this right now I believe - how to go after McCain.

There will be Obama-McCain debates. A running mate will be announced. Excitement will build. And then 8 weeks before election day we'll have the convention. You want to argue that the party is going to do anything but hold one heck of a Obama rah-rah party at that point?


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:54:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One quibble, Travis... (2.00 / 3)

Between now and June 3rd, no matter what or whom, we run the remaining contests.

So that I'm on record, it will take me about 30 seconds to switch my support from Hillary to Barack upon hearing her announcement she concedes or his selection at the convention.

I'm not a flip-flopper. I'm a Democrat. My party's chosen nominee gets my vote.


by RickWn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:17:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually that's true and not (none / 0)

We may run the remaining contest, but if Hillary goes negative, as with her "white" comments of a few days ago, the supers will end it before those contests happen. You can see how nervous she made them last week and we simply can't afford to have her doing McCain's job for him.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:01:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Elephant In the Room (2.00 / 2)

What's stopping the Republican 527s from firing away now? Or hell, way back in January even?

They were never going to wait for a nominee to emerge. Holding off calling Obama the presumptive/likely/(insert adjective here) nominee ain't going to stop them.

Otherwise, yeah, the argument here is mostly technicalities. Sure, the superdelegates don't technically vote until the convention, but we all know that they're going to make public who they're supporting long before August.


by Jaffee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:41:21 PM EST

It's tooo close to call !! (2.00 / 2)

You guys are toooo funny!


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:49:08 PM EST

Re: The Elephant In the Room (2.00 / 2)

The only elephant in the room is the mystifying logic of how you expect your candidate to win the election. If what you apparently want comes to pass she will spend the entire summer attacking the likely nominee and preventing the unity that is so needed at this point. She will then have to stage a contentious floor fight at the convention which would destroy whatever bits of the party remain. Should that happen I honestly hope she prevails in becoming the nominee because the party would be irrevocably shattered with a scant two months to go before election day against a Republican nominee that has spent the entire summer in the background defining himself to voters, uniting his base, and husbanding his resources. She'll preside over the worst defeat for the party in the history of the country.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:57:26 PM EST

Re: The Elephant In the Room (2.00 / 3)

Is this your FIRST election? That's still not an excuse. Any student of history knows that "contentious floor fights" result in stronger nominees, not weaker. Obama wants his opponents to roll over and play dead. Clinton's not about to do that, and neither is McCain. Get used to it.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:18:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Elephant In the Room (2.00 / 2)

Are you a troll or an idiot? Seriously, it has to be one or the other. Any "student of history" knows that a party as divided as this one is that remains divided through the convention looses the general election, especially a general election campaign that will last a grand total of 68 days.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:39:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you know what you're talking about? (2.00 / 2)

I really have to ask at this point.
Let's run down:
1920 D: bad year
1924 D: bad year
1928 D: bad year
1964 R: good year (for Democrats)
1968 D: bad year
1976 R: good year (for Democrats)
Now on the other side, we have:
1912 D: good year, but we were lucky
1960 D: good year, but again, I'd say we were lucky
How does that list back up your belief that convention fights are good for the parties that go through them? It doesn't make sense. Now I took American history in college, so I know a little about it. If you're going to tar others as being weak on history, you really ought to know something about it yourself. It makes you look dumb otherwise. (I want to point out that I didn't say you WERE dumb; I don't know that one way or another. I said you make yourself LOOK dumn.)
ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:13:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you know what you're talking about? (none / 0)

I said you make yourself LOOK dumn.

I think you meant to say you're making yourself look "dumb."


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:36:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you know what you're talking about? (none / 0)

All right, you caught me: I hit the "n" key rather than the "b" key. And in spelling the word "dumb" no less. Ironic indeed. But you're still making yourself look dumB by refusing to back up your claims. I'm sorry, but no number of typos on my part can win your argument for you. You have to do that yourself, but I don't think you really WANT to win the argument, yu just want us to see things your way without your bothering to do any work. Maybe it isn't dumb, but it sure is lazy, and it bespeaks a pretty weak set of facts on your part.


ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:46:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you know what you're talking about? (none / 0)

The fact are on my side, Mumph. Go do your homework.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:03:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ahh, go (none / 0)

Piss off...


ооо
by Mumphrey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:14:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Elephant In the Room (2.00 / 1)

Didn't Hillary's campaign recently announce that by June 15 the nominee will be clearly identified?

Let's not get all Doomsday here.


by RickWn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:28:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Now I'm confused. (2.00 / 2)

Who is the elephant?


I trust Senator Obama.
by GFORD on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:59:19 PM EST

Who's the elephant in the room? Mark Penn (2.00 / 2)

why it's mark penn, of course


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:17:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now I'm confused. (2.00 / 1)

George Harrison, I think. The Walrus was Paul.


by Ray Radlein on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:34:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Elephant In the Room (2.00 / 1)

Bravo. It's the truth.


Fight for Democrats in Congress.
by owl06 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:36:04 AM EST

Re: The Elephant In the Room (2.00 / 2)

Good point!

Similarly, John McCain isn't the GOP nominee, and we can't simply assume he'll be elected by their convention.

So, I propose that we create general election strategies for ALL of the Republican candidates.  Can we really risk creating a McCain strategy, when the nominee could just as easily be Romney or Thompson (Fred OR Tommy!).  It could be Ron Paul or, if the convention is deadlocked, they might just turn to Jeb!  

We can't risk it.  We must strategize to beat them all, until the moment they choose their nominee.


Donate to Obama, Today!
by freedom78 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:00:42 AM EST

Re: The Elephant In the Room (2.00 / 1)

Thank You for the Diary. I'm following the Minnesota Senate race and the Democrats are still rallying to get the most delegates for their candidacies. Franken says he's got the delegates in the bag, his opponent - in my opinion much more progressive and liberal - is still netting delegates despite the claims of the basic I've already got it covered message coming from the Franken campaign. I see any complaints about the primary race for President going on as too long for the good of the Party as ridiculous. Today, Rahm Emanuel made my day.

It's the impatience of supporters, and the relentless media attempt to run the Democratic Presidential primary and other races on behalf of the Democrats that gives me the most distress.

The relentless (I should say never ending) assault on Hillary Clinton by both left and right leaning MSM and blogosphere ratings, attention and revenue sentinels, and their incredibly over the line of decency attacks have disgusted me. MyDD has been one of the only places that one can come to discuss things in a civil manner.

I got an Obama fundraising letter today with a "Special Note" from Ted Kennedy today. In recognition of the fact that much of the repulsive media and internecine hating has occurred because Hillary Clinton is a woman, and in light of the fact that her so called non-proponents (whether Obama supporters or not) has both allowed and encouraged the MSM and them to rale in the most unseemly and outright hateful and bitter manner, I will decline to make any donation to Obama at this time.

Maybe my donation will give the opportunity for a first time participant in the process an opportunity to phone bank or register voters. Maybe it will give them an opportunity to get their legs, so to speak, and discuss with other voters what is going on in their Democracy. There is too much assumption that people are already heavily entrenched in this hard core political brawl for some to have the opportunity to actually not feel guilty or ashamed or confused after speaking out for the first time. Can we be just a bit more conscious of the fact that communications technology doesn't allow for gradual exposure of the seedier elements and just plain old harsh realities of politics anymore?

There may be an MSM agreed upon presumptive nominee, but that does not mean that I have not stopped believing in any of the causes or issues I have been involved with for many years, nor do I want it to allow any young or first time Democrats to be shouted out, or manipulated by it.


by Jeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:04:11 AM EST

i don't understand... (none / 0)

barack has turned his attention to running against john mccain instead of hillary clinton.  if he is not the presumptive nominee, then the fact that he's not longer actively campaigning against hillary gives her the best possible political environment in which to campaign.

hillary's supporters should love that!  no real competition!  just like her senate campaigns!  that should be good for her!!!

so the real question is, have you maxxed out to hillary yet?  if not, why not?  doesn't she deserve all your money???


"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell
by bored now on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:08:42 PM EST

Most ironic quote in this entire... (none / 0)

...set of comments...


Hell, if it wasn't for Mayor Daley, I think we'd have had a President Nixon a few years earlier.

TRUTH: If it wasn't for the Cook County Democratic political machine and the Daley political legacy in Chicago there would no Obama presidential campaign now.

I lie not.


by bobswern on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:35:01 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.