Misinformation.  Obama leads in popular votes cast by anywhere from 300,000 to 900,000 (including MI and FL)

Thank you for this very cogent and simply spoken post. I couldn't have expressed my own feelings about this 'race' better.

Wow, delegate Hub that's a real non-biased source, Kos has less bias than they do.

When you address ego's do recognize the inherent projection of doing so without talking about the Clinton's, or is that something that never crosses your mind.

You've done your homework.

Why is Clinton against the Florida re-vote? (After all if we're playing by the standards of the surrogates, wouldn't the fact that the Florida delegation-- 2/3s or more HRC backers-- doesn't support a re-vote mean something)

you and Obama are locked in a bitter media battle for the nomination!

oh wait, no one gives a fuck.

want to be my running mate?

42

I have the sneaking suspicion that those dice you're rolling look a little like this:

You say the Democrats need "Thorough primary reform, including the removal of undemocratic caucuses, open primaries and the like."

Does that include removal of the superdelegates?

Also, didn't Clinton consent not to campaign in Florida and Michigan, agreeing with the party line? How come you're upset only at Obama over this, when Clinton also agreed to the same thing, that the Florida and Michigan votes will not be valid?

The antipathy of the lily wilting loser wing of the party has long been palpable. By surviving, the both of them, the sustained Republican assaults AND the tepidity of heart of the loser wing of it's own party, they've too long been an embarrassment of strength to the cowed and cowardly in the party.

If they wanted to stage a party coup, they really should've found a better puppet, at least one prepared to be a President. Being the loser wing they couldn't find one, probably wouldn't have the courage to back one if they had.

They've embraced a candidate who has no problem going nuclear on the party itself in the primary. Watching this confederacy of dunces blunder along betraying voting and participation of the electorate is up to par for them.

That's certainly unsupportable.

Um, I feel your pain?

Great post I agree with you.  The O support is going to find a problem with the base of our party.  Without the support of the base, O cannot win in the fall.  He may well win the battle and lose the war.  So sad.

Great post!  

Universal

Great post. As a Florida voter, the tragedy of this situation is compounded for me as I moved here in 2000...voted against Bush in 2004 (not FOR Kerry) and here I am, eight years later in exactly the same boat.

I agree with your "failed leaders" analysis...adding that Donna Brazile was as instrumental in this fiasco as anyone. And to that fact, let me remind everyone here of Ms. Brazile's words as Chair Person of the DNC Voting Rights Institute On Protecting the Right to Vote from Intimidation:

"The practice of disenfranchising Americans has become more sophisticated including phone jamming operations, misleading mailers, outright intimidation by using poll watchers and lack of resources to process voter registration forms thereby forcing Americans to cast provisional ballots." "The rise in voter harassment and voter intimidation is a direct result of some political operatives - often with the blessing of their political leaders trying to gain an electoral advantage at the ballot box. This practice of discouraging people from voting, from schemes that misinform or challenge the electoral status of eligible citizens to participate, should be outlawed in this nation."

Brazile called on the United States to lead the way, saying that, "The United States of America must lead by example. While the US encourages other nations to adopt broad democratic principles and reform, we need to make a basic policy decision that it is in the best interest of our democratic form of government to encourage all eligible citizens to register and vote."

Finally, Brazile called on Congress, with bipartisan support from Republicans and the Bush Administration, to pass critical legislation that would work to remove impediments to the ballot box.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/03/dnc_v oting_righ_2.php

JUST WORDS.

While I am a HRC supporter, I think that whether or not Obama's coalition is structurally sustainable belies the bigger issue.  Namely, whether or not he can draw in the blue collar votes on a consistent basis.  The failure, IMO, to attract and maintain blue collar votes consistently has been a thorn to the side of Democrats for awhile.

That said, the mess that this economy is in right now, while unfortunate, is a help to any Democratic candidate.  Short of it is, I'm not sure I buy the idea that Obama's coalition is unsustainable because it suggests that, if sustainable, the coalition would be enough to carry them to victory.  I also, to an extent, feel that way about HRC's coalition.  Short of it is, I'm not sure both coalitions alone are enough to guarantee anything.  (basically drawing a fine line here i guess)

Terrible comment. I disagree.

... will be the death of the party.

We absolutely need Independents. It's not even a question. There are not enough blue states, if you follow a red-blue model, to elect a democratic President. A primary system which freezes out Independents, keeps them from getting involved with a candidate, will destroy the party at the Presidential level, and the lack of a viable Presidential candidate will lead to a collapse in many downticket races.

Go ahead, take your ball and go away. Marginalize the party. Stick your head in the sand and insist that it's better to nominate a candidate who's competitive for maybe 300 EV, best case, instead of a candidate that's competitive for 400 EV or more, even though their policies are really pretty similar in a lot of respects and they're both much better than the Republican, simply because one is more popular among hardcore card carrying Democrats. Never mind that the election is won and lost in swing states where you need Independents. Screw 'em. Who needs 'em?

And your comments about disenfranchisement just make me sigh. If you're going to boycott Obama over it, I assume you've already sent Clinton your notice, since she was fighting to seat the delegates from the horribly disenfranchising Michigan and Florida primaries. She's fought hard to disenfranchise millions of voters. I'm also sure you were shocked and horrified at the repugnant tactics used in Nevada, where Clinton supporters locked voters out of caucuses, and have withdrawn your support from her campaign until she renounces her own positions of disenfranchisement.

To quote a very important Democratic figure: "I feel your pain". I'd love to find a way out of this that doesn't destroy the party. I'd love to get real revotes in Michigan and Florida. I actually think the foot-dragging has nothing to do with Obama, since the national campaign made it clear that the remarks yesterday from the Michigan campaign chair are not their position, but if it does, I'm with you -- it's bad. But I'm just as offended that anyone ever thought for a minute that the solution to Michigan and Florida were to seat delegations that disenfranchised millions of voters. That's just as upsetting; sorry, but it's true.

The solution is not to pull back into our shell and shout out "we're Democrats and the rest of the world be damned!" The solution is to open things up even more. Welcome in the Independents... hell, drag them in. Drag in some of the Republicans too. Be the party of America, not the party of 33% of America. Make it clear that we believe what we believe, but everyone's welcome at the table who has an opinion.

Or go into the shell and die, let the whole thing blow away, so something better can grow in its place.

and you are so right on the sour grapes of people like Kerry, Kennedy, Bradley, and Dean. I think the support for Obama amongst such big names is merely them trying to be powerful, and say "I AM not controlled by the CLINTONS", altho they are doing it at a big cost. Kerry can't accept the fact that Bill Clinton had heart surgery in 04, thats why he couldn't campaign for him much. Kennedy just wants to stop the Clinton family from achieving what his never could: TWO presidents, and Bradley was just angry Gore beat him.

If Obama could have picked up blue collar voters, then he'd be a good candidate. If he didn't call a racist pastor his "moral compass", the same pastor who called Louis Farrakhan "the epitome of greatness", and if his pastor didn't call Jesus a black man, then I'd support him. As much as these activists, blacks, and young people are important, they have been voting for us for years. But the only times we have won(decisively) have been with Bill Clinton, who could actually make a showing amongst working class white voters, bush did well enough to steal 2000, and Kerry lost. Obama never talks about middle American issues, just hope and change, which are all well and good, but never meat and potatoes of middle class white america, whom we need to win. I'm sorry if thats politically incorrect to some, but this is also politically correct.

WHO CAMPAIGNED FOR NADER!

FUNNY

BUT

NOT

SO

BRIGHT!

I'll never vote for him either, you are not alone. There's only one thing worse than having one's vote denied and that's having it taken for granted. BO is doing both -- disenfranchising FL and MI and falsely taking for granted base democrats. It's hard because he's so naieve and stupid about the electoral contest -- the real one, the one in November -- that he doesn't realize his tactics to game the nomination will also cost him the general.

Hillary didn't take her name off the MI ballot even though it hurt her in Iowa and NH because she knew there would be consequences for it in November. She apologizes and continues to work for the African American vote even though she won't get it now because she knows they are an important voting block of the democratic party. BO is willing to piss off MI and FL and what he calls "Archie Bunker" democrats so that he can get the nomination even though it means he'll never ever win in November and  the democratic party may take several election cycles to win these states back again.

He's an idiot.

that it comes from such practice as forceing the Death Penalty into the Democratic Platform in 1996?

assuming that you are not already there.  yes, even though more supporters of hillary's will vote for mccain than obama's -- after all, barack is talking about how to build a bigger, better democratic party, not how to return to some past version of it -- obama remains the democrat who can beat mccain.

enjoy your new home.  you can, and will be, replaced...