My wife was accepted in the Organizing Fellows program so it is definitely a real deal.
1. The campaign leaders in my community were all local activists and not people brought in from other places. Granted, I live in Ithaca, NY.
2. The critique fails to adequately address the fact that this is a presidential campaign with requirements and narratives which are essentially impossible to mesh with more traditional grassroots organizing that you refer to.
You write, "the camera inside the hall panned over Brazile who was rolling her eyes-- classy woman there." As an admirer of Brazile, I find your characterization and sarcasm mean-spirited.
She's been a warrior for the party. Show some respect.
Comparing the 2000 election with today is a false analogy that is painfully ahistorical. You can continue to spread spin or actually further the dialogue by clarifying what the parallels are.
In 2000, the votes were not counted accurately.
In 2008, the states violated the rules, the party stripped them of their delegates, and the votes, such as they are, were tallied. The Democratic Primary does not hinge on these two states (unlike the 2000 election). The amount of voters who actually listened to the DNC and did not vote may surpass the amount of people who did vote (especially in MI). Hence, claiming that not seating the full delegations is a violation of civil rights is, at best, misinformed, and at worst, voter fraud. If the states are not punished in someway than we set OUR party up for disaster in 2012 and beyond. If states are not held accountable to the broader interests of the party than the primary season will be even more chaotic. So, not only is HRC advocating for a solution which disenfranchisizes voters under the cloak of supposed civil rights (a Rovian strategy if you ask me), but she's pushing for even more primary complications in the future. Her position not only threatens the Obama campaign but party unity and party success. That is why so many in the leadership are frustrated (see Reid and Pelosi). They recognize that HRC is no longer about the Democratic party, but her own presidency. And you have the audacity to accuse Obama of arrogance?
It just doesn't jive with the facts as we know them!
Once again, you decide to bate and incite rather than move on and make a positive argument. You ignore the positive message of hundreds of pro-Obama comments and focus on one comment from Monkeyga, thereby playing into the divisiveness game.
Yet you cover up your vitriol by pretending to call out the hypocrisy of the Obama campaign. Please, don't equate the posters on this blog with Obama and his beliefs or his message. This is an anonymous blog!
This is also quite ironic given how you quickly slip into comparing Obama to Bush and call him out for arrogance. Give me three examples of substantive arrogance that go beyond your general impression of the man.
Also, answer the following questions: 1. It is estimated that more people did NOT vote in MI and FL than voted because they listened to the DNC. Hence, seating the delegates is a form of disenfranchisement. Given this, how do you justify Clinton's comparison of the MI and FL vote to Zimbabwe? 2. How do you account for Clinton's changed position regarding the punishment of MI and FL?
Answering those substance based questions will further the dialogue rather than simply egging on the anger of individual commenters. Frankly, you're becoming what you so righteously denounce.
I also wish that you held Clinton to the same standard as you hold Obama.
For me, the most disappointing aspect of HRC's campaign was the way she encouraged the Wright controversy. She should have stepped up and made a statement regarding the media's manipulation of that story. She didn't.
I think Obama should do more to heal and reach out. However, it is hard to hear that from you and other HRC supporters when you show no self-reflection. I'm particularly troubled when placing your post in the context of your complete excusing of HRC regarding the "hard working, white people" comments. Whether that was a slip of the tongue, it certainly did not heal the divisions and her lack of apology was much more pronounced than Obama's especially given the fact that she made the statement, whereas Obama is once again apologizing for something someone else said!
That's just an angry comment that only increases the bitterness! Equating those that took the party at its word with a non-voter is a false conflation.
I think that the voters of FL and MI have been disenfranchised and I wish that Obama had shown more leadership in finding a just solution. However, HRC's pursuit to seat the delegates is in violation of DNC rules, contradicts her own positions, and does not actually solve the enfranchisement problem.
I think the only solution is a re-vote.
It's a shame that it won't happen, but that's what we should be clamoring for!
You write, "Chuck Todd's theory is that because McCain and Obama have been trading barbs lately, their negatives are driving up, allowing Clinton to skate unscathed. That's a pretty difficult theory to stick to, it seems to me, after the last several days, but it might have some merit."
Why is that a difficult theory? I think we forget that most Americans are not reading left-leaning media which continues to critique HRC. The majority of Americans receive their news via local news, cable news, and newspaper headlines. In this venue, the story has been Obama v McCain, Obama not being able to win the last few primaries, and HRC occupying the brazenly false and itismydd's responsibility to debunk position as civil rights crusader in FL and MI. Most importantly, both HRC and JM have painted Obama as liberal and this has cost him the centrist electorate.
Unless we had a meaningful way to test the flip side- i.e. HRC is the presumed nominee, but Obama was still making his case, the g.e. speculations are specious. They are not based in any historical precedent and following the speculation once again emphasizes a cynical political calculation rather than a positive vote for the most worthy, not the most electable, president.
I think it's strange that a candidates platform for election is, I'm electable. Vote for her because you think she'd be the best president, but put aside the false promise of g.e. predictions.
In my mind, the media has been harder on Clinton on a day to day level. However, Clinton never faced the scrutiny and criticism that Obama faced from Pastorgate to Bittergate. Both of those attacks, which Hillary personally joined, were, in my mind, extremely unfair. In fact, as a life long Clinton supporter (my first presidential vote was for Bill), the most disappointed I've ever been is when Clinton not only didn't step up and destroy the absurdity of Pastorgate, but actually augmented it. That was utterly distressing.
One of the reasons that I think HRC supporters feel attacked is that a number of leading bloggers and online media sites support Obama (Huffingtonpost has clearly drunk the koolaid). However, that is not most people's msm. In fact, most Americans believe that Obama has been more unfairly attacked than HRC AND they think HRC has played a role in those attacks. So, you can dismiss this as more pro-Obama spin, but my only point is that to state that one candidate has been unequivocally treated more negatively than another does not actually jive with any data. In fact, the NY Times did a self-analysis in the wake of such criticism and found it unmerited (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinio
I guess I think we all need to do a better job of self-reflection before accusing others of smoking pot.