Who Fought Hillary Clinton?

Today's Globe and Mail article Does no one remember Hillary? made a false comment about the president-elect:

...his one real accomplishment: outplaying the most determined and prepared politician he's ever faced [Hillary Clinton].
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/s tory/RTGAM.20081107.wcomurph08/BNStory/s pecialComment/home

I disagree with that. A better analogy is three against one. In one corner was Obama, the media and the DNC. In the other corner was HRC. She had to fight Obama and the others at the same time. And in the end she won the most votes, so I offer her my congratulations to Hillary Clinton for winning the nomination even though it was taken away from her.

The media were extremely in the tank for Obama. For example, Slate recently published a study that found that their journalists favored Obama to McCain 55-1 (http://www.slate.com/id/2203151/pagenum/ all/). I wonder what the odds were for HRC and Obama. Maybe they favored Obama to HRC 55-1. The men and women journalists overwhelmingly favored Obama and they often hid damaging information about him, especially during the crucial first primaries, and they emphasized anything they thought would make him more popular. Furthermore, they portrayed HRC in a sexist manner (http://www.allseasonsgallery.info/hrc/hr c.sexism.html). Voters are very influenced by the media and that made that media's attack a very difficult attack that HRC had to face.

And the DNC twisted the rules to minimize HRC's delegates and used rare or first-time procedures that increased Obama's delegates and decreased HRC's delegates. For example, when five states violated Rule11.A the states that seemed to favor HRC were punished twice as harshly as what the rulebook advices, but the states that seemed to favor Obama were given waivers therefore not punished at all. The two states where HRC was rated highest in the polls, Florida and Michigan, were punished, but I recall Obama polled high in the three states (Iowa, South Carolina, and up until the time near the election New Hampshire) that received a waiver. Thus, states that heavily favored Clinton were extremely punished while states that had favored her competitor were given waivers even though all five states broke Rule 11.A. and according to Rule 20.C.1.a. they should have been punished the same (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/11/1442 34/675).

And astonishing, and probably without precedent, the DNC gave Obama delegates for Michigan that he skipped during the primaries. It's common practice for candidates to skip a state but I've never heard of any candidate being given delegates for the states they didn't compete in. Furthermore, when it became increasingly likely that HRC would win the popular vote-which she did-the DNC pressured her to drop out of the contest. And HRC didn't actually compete during the convention role call because she made it clear she had dropped out, would support Obama for president, and gave up (released) her delegates before the role call. So Obama didn't compete against anyone at the convention. None of the candidates had enough pledged delegates to win when the primaries were over. HRC won by the best measurement: she got more votes. The state vote totals are certified and are now historical documents, so the history books will recount that the first time a woman presidential candidate won the most votes, her own party blocked her from getting the nomination and worked against her from the beginning. That's a national tragedy. Going forward, we should remember the sexism against a historic woman candidate to prevent it from happening so that ASAP we can get a woman president. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

*Please note: Many of my reply posts have been hidden. All my replies were polite and on topic so I presume I was censored because people wanted to hide information they didn't want readers to know about. When I wrote my Sep 27, 2008 diary about ten of my replies were hidden which ended the conversation I was having with people so I decided I will no longer reply to comments on my diaries until this web site is changed to allow people's posts to be viewed by everyone.

Tags: Hillary Clinton 2008 nomination sexism media New York Times (all tags)

Comments

68 Comments

The PUMA Trolls are back!
Hillary lost.
She lost be every imaginable measure. She lost the popular vote. She lost in pledged delegates. She lost in states won.
She ran a terrible campaign.
She lost fair and square.
by iohs2008 2008-11-08 07:32AM | 0 recs
This is a troll,

don't take the bait. Attack the troll, don't rehash the primary.

by sricki 2008-11-08 07:35AM | 0 recs
There is a good article in the Independent about

the paid bloggers...

British media go where US media fear to tread..

by architek 2008-11-08 07:56AM | 0 recs
WTF?

How is that relevant?? Are half the people on MyDD living on another plane? Where it's still March, or something?

by sricki 2008-11-08 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

Heh.

Paid bloggers.

That one never gets old.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-08 08:16AM | 0 recs
I wish I got paid

That would rock.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-10 05:14AM | 0 recs
actually sricki...

i think this person is referring to the diarist.  and hey architek - could you provide a link to the article?  id be interested in reading.  thanks!

by canadian gal 2008-11-08 09:01AM | 0 recs
Give it a rest.

It's over, it's done, and this Hillary supporter is just proud that we have a strong, intelligent Democratic president-elect.

"She had to fight Obama and the others at the same time. And in the end she won the most votes, so I offer her my congratulations for winning the nomination even though it was taken away from her."

That makes you sound like a nutter, do you know that?

And here is how you do links... set your diary or comment to HTML or Auto Format and use the code:

<a href=http://yourlinkhere&gt;text&lt;/a&gt;

I HATE reading diaries written by people who can't figure out how to link. ASK SOMEONE.

by sricki 2008-11-08 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Give it a rest.

by Kysen 2008-11-08 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought Against HRC

craziness

by wrb 2008-11-08 07:36AM | 0 recs
Such stamina!

You only have to write this post about 700 more times until the next election cycle starts.  Keep it up, Nancy!

by username 2008-11-08 07:46AM | 0 recs
hi nancy!

by canadian gal 2008-11-08 07:52AM | 0 recs
Ooohhhh...good one...

I'll raise you:

by Kysen 2008-11-08 08:19AM | 0 recs
Interesting vid, big K.

You think mullet-boy is HUNG? ; )

by sricki 2008-11-08 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting vid, big K.

errmmmm...had not given much thought to it sricki, I will defer to your expertise on the subject.

/laughing

by Kysen 2008-11-08 08:45AM | 0 recs
&quot;Expertise&quot;?

Is that a polite way of calling me a....

Nevermind, don't think I wanna know. ; )

by sricki 2008-11-08 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;Expertise&quot;?

Is that a polite way of calling me a....

an expert?

You know me...ever so polite.  ;)

by Kysen 2008-11-08 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Ooohhhh...good one...

That's kind of catchy.  Who is the singer?

by ProfessorReo 2008-11-09 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: hi nancy!

I'm blind.  Thanks, CG.

by Dreorg 2008-11-08 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought Against HRC

NANCY YOU ARE SO AWSOME!!!!! KEEP TELING THE TRUTH BECUZ PEOPLE NEED TO HERE WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!!!! HILARY SHOULD OF WON AND THE MEDIA HATES ALL WOMEN!!! JUST LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID TO SARA PALIN, MAKING HER LOOK ALL CRAZY AND STUPID!!!!! MAYBE THE MEDIA IS SCARED OF WOMEN BECUZ THEY NEVER DATED ANY!! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-11-08 07:52AM | 0 recs
HA! Haven't seen you drop this one in some time.

Never gets old.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-08 08:18AM | 0 recs
HA! Haven't seen you drop this one in some time.

Never gets old.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-08 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought Against HRC

I feel sad for people who don't face reality.

by Lolis 2008-11-08 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought Against HRC

The primary wars are over. End of story, move on.

by jsfox 2008-11-08 07:59AM | 0 recs
HOLY SHIT

I've NEVER heard this before.  Thanks to this I SEE THE LIGHT.  IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!

by JJE 2008-11-08 08:02AM | 0 recs
please stfu already

by citizendave 2008-11-08 08:08AM | 0 recs
Let's ignore

This poster. (and yes, I realize I am violating my own suggestion now). I was/am a big HRC supporter and still wish she had prevailed. But Obama will be our president now and it's (past) time to move beyond the primaries. Let's just leave this person's diaries alone and stop with the insults to her. Silence would be better treatment.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-08 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought Against HRC

Let's get all lynchy on Governor Dean, the DNC, and the Obama-in-the-bag media!

Hillary will rize again, yo!

Clinton/Palin 2012!!!11!!!

by lojasmo 2008-11-08 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought Against HRC

Nancy, why did you post this? Democrats won by a big margin, and continue to spread into more wins even as we speak (I think we could still take MN and AK).

Considering that Obama snowed John McCain in just about the same way he snowed Clinton (but with a stronger closing), don't you think it's time to consider that perhaps he just ran an exceptionally and surprisingly strong campaign? The media is a fiddle to be played. Clinton didn't pick up the bow until after Super Tuesday. By that point, it was too late.

by vcalzone 2008-11-08 08:31AM | 0 recs
Don't try to reason with it. n/t

by sricki 2008-11-08 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought Against HRC

Nancy, do not be discouraged by the many here who attack you.

I too am quite happy that Senator Obama defeated Senator McCain and Democrats for the most part have been swept back into power.

I pray that President-elect Obama lead us now out of the long national nightmare that was the Bush-Cheney period, and restore America to its progressive values.  He is a brilliant and able man, and I pray he follow in the footsteps of FDR--and of Bill Clinton.

However, what you have commented upon is quite true.  Every survey of voters concerning whom the MSM favored, and quite heavily, reveals that to have been Senator Obama.

He was fawned over from the day he decided to run; he was quickly anointed by everyone from Oprah Winfrey to the punditocracy and of course, by the bloggers, whose infusion of capital into his campaign was without precedent.

Hillary did receive--officially--the highest number of primary votes.  The Obama folk insist that those official figures somehow do not include caucuses, but the official figures cannot be discounted.

And it is a fact that she, like her husband before her--the best President of my fifty-five year lifetime--was treated shabbily by both the MSM and members of the DNC.  The Clintons were betrayed by virtually everyone they helped to bring to national prominence, from Bill Richardson to several women senators.  And they were betrayed by many of the Kennedys, whom they were there for when the political winds did not favor the Kennedys.

In the end, the DNC pre-empted the will of the people, and literally stopped the voting, much as the Supreme Court stopped the voting in Florida in 2000.

Remember, the MSM, the DNC, and the bulk of the bloggers had one shared objective--stopping the Clintons from returning to power.  In that, they succeeded eminently.

Hillary's eighteen million voters were given nothing by the DNC in return.  She was never even considered for the Vice-presidency.  And in the end, both she and Bill were expected to tirelessly campaign for Obama-Biden, and indeed they did so, quite relentlessly.

It is a fact that without receiving virtually all of those eighteen million HRC voters, Senator Obama could never have come to power, and certainly without a landslide win.

And it is a great irony now that so many of the bloggers with so much Clinton invective must now witness many on President-elect Obama's transition team having resumes with very heavy Clinton credentials.  These include, of course, Rahm Emmanuel and John Podesta.

As I believe that President-elect Obama is indeed, in the end, both a brilliant and pragmatic politician, he himself will now ignore all that Clinton invective, even among his core supporters.

The Clinton-Gore years were light years beyond the Bush-Cheney years.  They may well have been our last Golden Age.  Certainly they remain well-remembered by much of the electorate old enough to remember, as being largely years of peace and prosperity.

In 1994, the GOP, bitter at having lost to both Bill Clinton and Ross Perot in 1992, swept into congressional power with a "Contract for America."  Not long afterwards, it became known as a "Contract ON Amedrica," and Bill Clinton was riding high while Newt Gingrich's Congress was running very low.

In 1998, the GOP, having tried Bill Clinton foolishly on articles of impeachment--against the will of the electorate--thought that they would increase their numbers in the Congress.  Instead, the electorate actually incresed the number of pro-Clinton representatives.

By 2000, Bill Clinton had the longest reign of high approval ratings since JFK.

And so much so, that when Bush-Cheney surreptitiously came to power in 2000, they thought it best to ignore the popular vote majority.  For Bush-Cheney, the only allegiance that mattered was to their core supporters, who detested the Clintons.  The MSM initially adored the junior Bush.  He was "folksy," and "manly," and his machismo after 9/11 was ridiculously applauded--never mind the consequences of that blind following.

Today, George Walker Bush has the lowest approval ratings of any President in the Modern Era.  His own GOP ran away from him, from the very outset of the 2008 campaign.

So, while many bloggers here may just as foolishly believe that Barack Obama has never needed the Clintons, or that he could possibly have triumphed without their supporters, I suggest they study recent history.

Attempting to put down the Clintons or underestimate them or their supporters has only the severest of political consequences.

I believe that nobody more knows this than President-elect Barack Obama, which is why so many among his transition team come very much from the former team Clinton.

I would suggest that he offer Bill Clinton the Secretary of State job.  One need not go with also-rans like John Kerry and Bill Richardson, even if those two did kiss up to Barack.  Why not go with the Platinum Success of the Clinton years, and pick the man himself?  Nobody is better known or loved throughout the world than is Bill Clinton, and against The Big Dog, both Kerry and Richardson look like anemic choices indeed.  (Of course this assumes that Bill Clinton even wants a cabinet job; his Clinton Global Initiative guarantees that he is front and center on the world stage through his remaining cognizant years.)

And I would suggest that President-elect Barack Obama choose Hillary Clinton--and consider no one else--for the job of overhauling the nation's health care system.  He has as much as admitted on the campaign trail with her that nobody knows more about it than she.  The fact that she failed in her efforts the first time round in 1993 and 1994 only proves that she has learned herself how NOT to go about that overhauling.

My guess is that President elect Barack Obama has decided that it is best to go by the way of FDR.  In choosing the most outstanding among us to help lead us out of our worst crisis since the Great Depression, he will be viewed as a true visionary, and not a crass politician with old scores to settle.

Clinton haters be warned: use Bill and Hillary, and use them well, or suffer the perils which recent history has consistently shown inevitably happens when they are overlooked or outright ignored.

I believe that President-elect Obama ceased to be just an accomplished politician the day his transition team was launched.  I believe he is already thinking of his legacy.  And he'll go for the Platinum Bill and Hillary, in one way or another, regardless of any protests, to help secure him that great legacy.

by lambros 2008-11-08 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought Against HRC

And I would suggest that President-elect Barack Obama choose Hillary Clinton--and consider no one else--for the job of overhauling the nation's health care system.  Looks like there is already some controversy over this:


Democratic sources close to the health committee saw Clinton's entreaty to chair her own subcommittee as an attempt to hijack health care policy, an issue dear to Kennedy's heart and one he has championed for decades.

She won't get a subcommittee chairmanship as a consolation prize for losing the Democratic presidential race, they say.

"No one here gets preference because they ran for President," one senior Democratic aide tells the Sleuth, adding, "Sixteen current senators - six on the HELP Committee alone! - have run for President."

Mary Ann Akers - Hillary Denied Bid to Take Charge of Health Care? Washington Post 8 Nov 08

Seems there is some reluctance on the part of Senator Kennedy to let go of this signature issue, which is understandable as he is the committee chair.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-08 10:14AM | 0 recs
Obama is a petty and vengeful man - he'll never

give her anything of prominence to do, for staying in the primary contests until the end. He hates her!

by suzieg 2008-11-08 10:02PM | 0 recs
You don't have any proof of that

If you're still going back to the VP selection, I would say that either one of these candidates picking the other for VP would have been problematic.

by lombard 2008-11-09 04:12AM | 0 recs
Obama does not decide committee chairs
That's done by the Senate and House leadership.
If you're going to complain about how the government works, it might help to learn about how the government works.
by skohayes 2008-11-10 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought Against HRC

While I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of the primaries, I completely agree with all you say about the Clinton administration, the MSM, and the fact that Obama is much smarter about needing the Clintons than most Obama supporters are.

And I also think that Bill Clinton would make a great SoS.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought Against HRC

In 1994, the GOP, bitter at having lost to both Bill Clinton and Ross Perot in 1992
that Ross Perot part is wrong, he only helped take away Clinton's claim at a mandate. You're giving Clinton haters ammo when you cite the false Ross Perot myth.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-08 01:30PM | 0 recs
It was proven that Perot took way votes from

Bush Sr. which gave the victory to Clinton!

by suzieg 2008-11-08 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought HRC?

She lost because she voted in favor of the resolution giving Bush the authority to go to war.

Its really that plain and simple. Had she not made that mistake- compounded by spending the next few years as a hawk- there would have been no opening for Obama and he may not have even run. I also doubt he could have run if Gore had chosen to enter the ring.

Regardless, the still bitter Hillary supporters such as the diarist are pathetic. All their points during the primaries were proven to be wrong... Obama couldn't win.. he could never win Pennsylvania or Ohio.. Hillary people would never vote for him.. ALL PROVEN WRONG.

Sometimes I go to Hillaryis44 for shits and giggles... THE PEOPLE THERE ARE INSANE and live in a parallel universe much like the diarist.. Truly sad...

Sometimes I think of Alegre.. she started out so reasonable and then progressively got crazier and crazies.. or I think of Georgep astroturfer emeritus who was here blogging day and night and then one day- when the Hillary campaign stopped paying him- he dissapeared.. much like he dissapeared for a few days after the Iowa caucus only to come back a few days later one he was back in the payroll..

by obama4presidente 2008-11-08 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought HRC?

I appreciate you raising these issues.  I assume most people here, like myself, had never heard about any of this before.

by Steve M 2008-11-08 11:40AM | 0 recs
I'm happy to see that finally somebody

wrote the truth...everytime I read one of Nancy's new diary, I'm illuminated with new information. I wanted to fervently thank her for continuing to write such insightful diaries...

by louisprandtl 2008-11-08 06:27PM | 0 recs
Indeed, Nancy shines...

...almost like polished gold!

by username 2008-11-08 11:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought HRC?

We Clinton supporters were not proven wrong.  

There is a President-elect Obama BECAUSE the great majority of the eighteen million Hillary Clinton voters chose him over Senator John McCain.  

Hillary Clinton DID win the OFFICIAL popular vote in the primaries.  

Those eighteen million voters did not disappear in the fall; they ended up in the Obama column because Bill and Hillary Clinton--the greatest American President and First Lady since Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt--tirelessly and relentlessly campaigned for him, bringing their scores of followers over to the Obama column.

No one denies the superb campaign run by Barack Obama, and all progressives are hoping for an era that turns away from Bush-Cheney policies.

But whereas no one else denies the love that you core supporters of Barack Obama felt and continue to for him, neither should you deny the love we have felt and continue to feel for the Clintons.

Eighteen million votes cast for her more than proves that this Clinton love is quite real.

Deny that the Clintons are an integral part of the Democratic Party--I would argue every bit as an integral as the Obama part--at yours and the Party's own peril.

The Clintons have received nothing from the party they brought back from decades in the wilderness just eight years ago.  They have campaigned vigorously for Democratic candidates across the board, in spite of that fact.

It is time that the invective stop; it is time to have the maturity to realize that fact.

I believe that President-elect Barack Obama most certainly does realize that fact--even if some remaining, very politicaly immature followers, do not.

by lambros 2008-11-08 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought HRC?

In other words, hold still while we continue to attack you again and again.

Grow up.

by Jess81 2008-11-08 12:54PM | 0 recs
I ditto everything you say

as I would like Obama more, but some of his supporters are the most ignorant, hateful, and arrogant people, which makes me like Obama less. I hope they realize that the EC was only won by 800000 votes spread across a few states, which may not have happened if the Clintons had not sold for Obama despite the disgusting shit that was thrown at them in the primary.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-08 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I ditto everything you say

bitter bitter bitter.

by Jess81 2008-11-08 01:46PM | 0 recs
Agree with you about many of his supporters

Unfortunately, he attracted the lion's share of our own nasty "wingnut" base.  But, their failings cannot be attributed to him.

The Democrats had two great front runners, either one who could have won this election comfortably.  The biggest difference between Obama and Clinton is that his campaign and its strategies matched his abilities as a candidate.  Hers did not.  

by lombard 2008-11-09 04:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I ditto everything you say

You can't just make up facts.

The margin of victory was 8 Million votes, not 8 hundred thousand votes.  Obama could have lost OH, PA and FL and still won the EC.  While Hillary's support was most definitely appreciated and probably helped in a few states, it wasn't the only thing (or even the most important thing) to produced the victory.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-09 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought HRC?
Hillary Clinton DID win the OFFICIAL popular vote in the primaries.  

Here's the point where I stopped reading, because you demonstrated that you are not interested in discussing anything in good faith.
by username 2008-11-08 02:11PM | 0 recs
Like it or not, the truth is the did win!

by suzieg 2008-11-08 10:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Like it or not, the truth is the did win!

Depends whose numbers you use.  There's no single truth to the matter.

by username 2008-11-08 11:52PM | 0 recs
What is this,

fuckin May again?  Do we really have to go over this bullshit?  *There was no "official" popular vote for the primaries" -- as you well know, suzie.

Honestly.

by Koan 2008-11-09 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought HRC?

We have a great president-elect in Barack Obama.  Let's leave the primary wars behind. If you want to try to reform the primary process for next time to increase transparency and the rights of all to have their voices heard equally, more power to you, but let's not re-hash what has taken place.

by markjay 2008-11-08 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought HRC?

What we have here is a basic lack of respect- starting with the diarist and spreading through to a number of the comments - In the spirit of our new President-elect Obama, I would like to see "all you all" able to give and receive much deserved kudos to the Clintons and to Obama without having to throw in some negative crap about the "others".  Hillary was a formidable candidate and is an exceptional Senator. Bill was an exceptional President. Barack has touched something in so many people all over the world - he is amazing and I am so very excited at what his Presidency represents for us all. This is no time to be rehashing all of the crap that was spewed during the primaries.  Now we look forward....

by Mags 2008-11-08 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought HRC?

Fat chance.  This is never going to stop.  People who can't get over the primaries are going to keep swooping in here and scolding Democrats, while at the same time demanding complete deference in all things.

by Jess81 2008-11-08 12:56PM | 0 recs
It's called accountability. Let's see how fast he

runs from his primaries positions such as being against NAFTA. I'm willing to bet he'll sign the coming Columbia Trade bill he so maligned during the elections. As congressman Adler so rightly said, he lacks political courage!

by suzieg 2008-11-08 10:09PM | 0 recs
The same NAFTA that Bill Clinton signed into law?

by ProfessorReo 2008-11-09 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: It's called accountability.

Excuse me, Susie, where did he say that he was against NAFTA?

Obama says he believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."

by skohayes 2008-11-10 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought HRC?
Listen Nancy, unless you can prove that Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up to benefit Obama long before he was a serious candidate, you and all the other PUMAs' sour grapes about the DNC are nothing but hot air.
Furthermore, trying to claim that the media was in the tank for Obama is even more of a joke- we spent weeks on Rev Wright, Bill Ayers and Rezko, we spent months discussing his present votes in Illinois and his inexperience and blah, blah, blah, blah.
The primary turned out to be good for Obama and great for the Democratic party, as we are now blessed with an intelligent, thoughtful, and well educated president elect.
It's time for you and your PUMA friends to move on, because this is simply irrelevant now.
by skohayes 2008-11-08 12:57PM | 0 recs
Nancy, shut the f--- up.

HRC lost in the caucus states and didn't win by enough in the primary states.

She ran in the 2 rogue primaries (FL & MI).

The press did everything they could to help HRC (the overkill on Wright, the underperformance in the OH & PA primaries). But still Obama won the pledged delegate count.

I should really help my health and not read your diaries anymore.

by Hughsterg 2008-11-08 01:30PM | 0 recs
Hughsterg, shut the f--- up because you don't have

a clue unless you live in a caucus state. I was a witness to plenty of fraud in the Texas Caucuses. How do you explain that more people showed up to the caucuses in the evening than had voted earlier in the day and that orders were given no to contest any of Obama people?

He stole the nomination and bought the election making him an illegitimate president as was Bush!

by suzieg 2008-11-08 10:15PM | 0 recs
&quot;orders were given&quot;

This is the kind of passive voice construction that's used by people who are making shit up.  Given by whom?  To whom? And followed for what reason?  Just some darkly hinted-at force that was, what, in control of the caucus procedure? Maybe it was Soros.

The caucus fraud meme is fascinating because without it, the whole PUMA narrative disintegrates.  The "popular vote," "MI & FL," and "DNC chose the candidate" narratives always fall apart when you remember the process by which MI and FL were excluded, and the fact that the Party was always going to support whoever was ahead in pledged delegates.  So PUMAs, working backwards from their conclusion of course, have to come up with a narrative that undermines Obama's undeniable lead in the pledged delegates.  Hey presto: caucus fraud, unsupported by any serious evidence.

Now I'm smacking myself for even getting re-involved in primary drama.  So six months ago.  But still, it seems like with the return of "Texas"Darlin et al we're going to get a steady diet of this Orwellian re-writing of history.

Sigh.

by Koan 2008-11-09 11:53AM | 0 recs
You must focus on the future

I sympathise with you but you must know that dwelling on past wrongs is pretty unproductive.  

It was HIllary herself that said, don't go there.

Look we 18 million voters for her, we haven't disappeared.  Obama won and now he is going to be president.  But he knows he is presiding over a coalition.  There are the true believers that he won in the primary and there are an equal amount that voted for somebody else.

Plus he knows that without the economic meltdown, this race might have been much closer.  Millions of people voted for him, not out of love, but out of desperation.

He's smart and he knows.

He knows that he has to deliver or else.  So I think that he will temper his arrogance with an intense focus on the Democratic agenda and he will be added and supported in that endeavor by the Clintons and the Kennedys and Pelosi and Reid and by all the best and brightest on the DEM side and even some worthy leaders from the GOP.

It's the results, baby.  That's what we should all be focused on.

by spoot 2008-11-08 02:02PM | 0 recs
Oh please. Not another one.

This is becoming a real tin hat narrative.

by Travis Stark 2008-11-08 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought HRC?

This is a joke.

by charlie127 2008-11-08 05:51PM | 0 recs
Chauvinism Redux

Lt. Chauvin is living and well in the body of Nancy Kallitechnis (AKA Dr. Lynette Long @ NQUSA).

by amadon 2008-11-09 05:37AM | 0 recs
This diary brings back fond memories

during the primaries.  Good times, good times.

A diary like this probably would stoked some angry feelings a few months ago, but now, it's just funny.  Apparently, time stood still for some people.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-11-09 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Who Fought Hillary Clinton?

Listen, I'm as THERE as ANYONE. I could not have supported Hillary any MORE than I did. I hated the SHAM roll call, I hated the DNC, and I HATED OBAMA.

BUT

Now here we are......Now what?

I cannot go through 8 more years of HATING AND ANGER. I spent 8 angry years railing at W. That's why I LOVED HILLARY. She is the ANTI-W. But she was out-duped. Is that Fair? NO. Is it Real? YES.

It's like the game of "Survivor" - the one that Outwits, Outplays, and Outlasts - that is the one who wins Survivor. Does the winner do it fairly? NO. Do they do it by using people? YES.

That is what Obama did. He first and foremost got the $$$$$ once that happened, it all fell into place including the media's "love affair" with him.

But here we are and I, for one, CAN-NOT and WILL-NOT spend another 8 years HATING the President especially when he has MY agenda at heart.

There's too much at stake: Gay rights, Women's rights, Global Warming, Jobs, the Economy, Stem cell research, Healthcare....

Hillary will always have a special place in my heart. While her options to become President appear to have dwindled, I will never say "NEVER". Because ANYTHING can happen. The country elected an inexperienced, brilliant, well-spoken 47 year old black man with the middle name Hussein. I would be the first to say "NEVER" and I was wrong.

Hillary is okay with things. She is enlightened. She is aware, secure and fine with things - you can SEE IT  in her face, you can HEAR IT in her voice. For a "Loser", Hillary Clinton was a "Winner" coming out of the Convention. She is the ultimate team player and she came out a much stronger person then she would have been had she quit when the pundits and Obama's surrogates wanted her to.

I'm not concerned about a position for her in Obama's administration. If she wants a spot - she has earned it and I am sure she will get it. If she prefers to stay in the Senate, then that is what she will do. I personally would love to see her at SENATE MAJORITY LEADER - I want to see her as much as possible, on TV, on the weekends and I want her to get as MANY BILLS AS POSSIBLE PUSHED thru in the next 2 years. From Women's rights to Gay rights to Healthcare to Global Warming.

For the First time in many many many years - WE - the Democrats have been given an opportunity and we cannot squander it and spend the next years pissed off because our candidate did not win.

Let bygones be bygones and at the very least give Barack Obama a chance. He won't be able to do everything, but he'll do alot and if he doesn't - vote him out - but at least give him a chance.

by nikkid 2008-11-09 05:33PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------