Obama, Clinton, the Internet, and Not Accepting Reality

(N.B., I am DCDemocrat in most of the blogosphere, but when I registered here at MyDD, the registration wouldn't let me have my usual moniker.  I am really Mike Meyer, but I go here by the name of Beltway Dem.)

The Internet is a place where people can find like-minded persons and share one's thoughts.  There are many things about it that recommend it as a way to organize and commiserate, but I have discovered it also has a downside in a closely contested nomination battle.  In the final analysis, this diary is about that, but let me make a few points about who I am.

My credentials as a Hillary supporter are elegant.  It's possible that I was the only recognizable blogger on the World Wide Web who stood with Hillary for the first three months of her campaign.  You cannot imagine what that was like.  It was pretty awful.  I went from being DCDemocrat of the golden Democratic credentials to being troll-rated on a regular basis. There was so much enmity towards Hillary in the early months of the campaign that the bloggers who now continue to fight to make Hillary the nominee (even after Hillary has endorsed Obama) were no where to be found, and the people who didn't stand up in those months included the names of all the bloggers who became Hillary's most ardent defenders and now are being sung in diaries in the progressive blogosphere.  

I truly was alone.

On Super Tuesday, I had the honor to meet at Hillary's National Headquarters a certain famous blogger.  This blogger and I were making calls on behalf of Hillary.  I told this blogger that I would never support Obama, and this blogger argued that electing a Democrat was the most important thing I could do.  

Strangely, I am now working for Obama as this and other bloggers continue to try to make Hillary the nominee even after Hillary has joined Barack Obama's cause.  I understand that various of my fellow Clintonistas now style me an Obama plant who worked by stealth in their midst all these months.  Such is the power of our new medium to invent surreal narratives.  If it's any reassurance to my friends, I was not an Obama plant, but I am realist.  Either Barack Obama or John McCain is going to president next January 20, and I prefer Barack Obama to John McCain.

What is disturbing about the World Wide Web, I think, is the ability of otherwise fair-minded, intelligent, and decent human beings who feel wounded to find each other and feed on each other's grief in a way that should be a therapist's worst nightmare, a process that prevents them from accepting what is real and getting on with finding new meaning for their lives.

In 2004, I observed (with hindsight) that we at Daily Kos became unrealistic in our analysis of data as we dismissed every shred of evidence that Kerry was going to lose.  I determined afterward that I would never let that happen to me again.  My embrace of our nominee, Barack Obama, partly reflects that experience.

Facts are facts.  Hillary has lost.  She is not going to be the nominee, and all the conversations going on among my fellow Clintonistas about how to change that outcome are going to be no more effective before Denver than they were before South Dakota and Montana.  If we couldn't make Hillary the nominee while she was fighting to be the nominee, how can we do it now that she is not helping the cause?

Hillary is working for Obama, and so am I.  Bill Clinton is voting for Obama, and so am I.

If we did not have the Internet to feed our dismay, people quietly would be adjusting to the new reality, licking their wounds, and developing a new narrative, but instead, many are jousting at windmills, feeding on each other's disappointment, and planning assaults on the process that have no chance of succeeding.

Any psychologist, any psychiatrist, any therapist, would advise people to find a new narrative to account for the new data.  It's time for people to move on.  It's the healthy thing to do.  

There are five things people now can do:

1.  Stay home and not vote in November.

2.  Go to the polls, skip the presidential ballot, and vote down ticket.

3.  Vote for a third party candidate.

4.  Vote for John McCain.

5.  Vote for Barack Obama.

My own narrative demands this of me: If the results were different, if Hillary had gotten the delegates for the nomination, I would have been rallying Obama supporters to let go of their grief and work for Hillary.  I would have begged them to find a narrative that accounted for the new data.  I would have pleaded for the unity of the party.  For my own narrative, I can do no less for Obama than I would have done for Hillary.  

Barack Obama for president.



Display:


I had the great honor (2.00 / 21)

to write a diary that was the first diary listed at Hillary Hub.


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:46:09 AM EST

Two diaries on the rec list. (2.00 / 2)

 I nominate BeltwayDem as the new and much improved Alegre!


by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:02:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Come on, Reilly... (2.00 / 5)

Let's not speak ill of good people like Alegre. She's a good Democrat just like Hillary, and I'm sure she'll join us of we just give her some time and stop beating her up. Primary season is over now, and that should mean that all the nasty attacks we've been throwing at each other (yes, I know I'm guilty too) should end.

Let's just welcome everyone back with open arms and open hearts as we reunite to elect Obama and defeat McBush! :-)


We shall overcome!
by atdleft on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:23:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, Reilly... (2.00 / 1)

I went easy on Alegre until the "stay tuned" part re the phantom Whitey tape.  A lot of her stuff was over the line, but it's primary season. Fun for all!  If she doesn't feel able to support Obama, as Hillary will be, then good riddance.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:37:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That "stay tuned" comment had (none / 0)

her No Quarter influence written all over it. I can't imagine why she's writing diaries over there unless her Obama "dislike" is much deeper than she's letting on


by 79blondini on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That "stay tuned" comment had (none / 0)

Here is some fine talk' by the presumptive nominee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3t O8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzl rc

Both he and McCain are weak candidates; Obama is over his head on substance and McCain is getting senile.

I do not understand why Obama supporters cannot understand that many people simply view Obama as inexperienced, or under the sway of bad influences, or whatever . . .

There's nothing wrong with staying home when you think both candidates are poor.  Why MUST one vote Democratic?  

Indeed, if you're not a ticket splitter, you probably are not a thinker.


by katmandu1 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:18:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That "stay tuned" comment had (2.00 / 1)

If you are voting for a Republican ever you are not a thinker.

I never ever vote GOP I've been known to vote green or libertarian (sure they're crazy but at least they aren't evil) and even voted for Perot (once again batshit crazy but not evil)

I leave any race where there is only a GOP candidate blank. As far as I am concerned the only good GOP politician is a retired GOP politician.


by Skex on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:31:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Uhhh,,,, (2.00 / 1)

Don't you think that maybe...just maybe...Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Richardson, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, and the other Democratic Party notables that have enthusiastically endorsed Obama may have a more informed opinion as to just how substantive and qualified Obama is than either you or I do?

Your post suggests that you don't perceive the last 8 years under Bush as the horrifying national nightmare that I and many other Democrats do.  If sitting by and allowing John McSame to get elected and continue the neanderthal policies of BushCo for another 4 years is an acceptable option, I consider you neither a good Democrat nor a concerned citizen.

Your post suggest an inflated sense of your own inerrancy, and reads like a petty exercise in sour grapes.  But since all us Obama supporters are just to stupid to get it, and you have no desire to take the leap of faith necessary to support your fellow Democrats (not even Hillary, evidently) in this time of crisis, then by all means take your ball and go home.  


by paul minot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:44:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I had the great honor (2.00 / 4)

the only advice I would give is for everyone to freaking stop beating up on those who do not acceot it right away, fer gawd's sake nothing is going on till August so give them some time. stop being scolds and nudges and pissing them off so they keep retreating. poking bruises does not let them heal.


by zerosumgame on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:17:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I had the great honor (none / 0)

Ah yes, the most difficult thing a parent or medical professional can do is teach a child not to pick at a scab so it can truly complete the healing process.

Some folks forget that simple fact.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks, Beltway! (2.00 / 8)

I agree wholeheartedly. I cried all the way through Hillary's speech yesterday. But as she spoke about her support for Barack Obama, it only strengthened my resolve to go with Hillary and become a true-blue "Obamaniac". So here I am, a Clintonista for Obama. Thanks for echoing my sentiments so well, Beltway! :-)


We shall overcome!
by atdleft on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:18:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rec'd (2.00 / 5)

Thank you for this excellent diary Beltway Dem! And thank you for your support of our Hillary.


Re-elect the President in 2012
by DemAC on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:41:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I had the great honor (2.00 / 1)

I had West Virginia Blue posts listed by Hillary Hub and the Obama site. How's that for balance!


by Carnacki on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:45:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is part of why... (2.00 / 4)

What is disturbing about the World Wide Web, I think, is the ability of otherwise fair-minded, intelligent, and decent human beings who feel wounded to find each other and feed on each other's grief in a way that should be a therapist's worst nightmare, a process that prevents them from accepting what is real and getting on with finding new meaning for their lives.

... I blog at Political Fleshfeast.

There's pretty much no banning so there's always someone to drop a turd in the punchbowl there.


by kraant on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:03:42 AM EST

ps. (2.00 / 1)

Virtual recs for the Diary...


by kraant on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:04:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

More Phantom recs for the comment and the diary (2.00 / 1)


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:17:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (1.50 / 2)

A clear, strong majority of Democrats want him to choose Hillary as his running mate, and virtually all Hillary supporters do.

With the need for unity so vital, to me this is his pre-November test. Obama talks alot about and stresses giving people a voice again, and having their interests represented in Washington.

If he acquiesces to the will of Democrats regarding this, he's got my full support. If he neglects this before he's even elected, I have no reason to believe anything he says.


by phoenixdreamz on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:17:53 AM EST

I have the need for (2.00 / 5)

my personal integrity in the process.  I have been on the losing side too many time in my life, which is now half a century long, to believe that my endorsement of a candidate makes a bit of difference.  

I was a yellow dog when this started, and I will be a yellow dog when this is done.  It has cred with a certain small group of people.  That cred and $4.02 will get you a Venti Skim Latte at Starbucks, but that cred means something to me when I look myself in the eye while shaving in the morning.


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:21:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Meh.. (2.00 / 4)

I think he should be allowed to pick whoever he thinks will help him best in November and whoever he feels would be a best fit to be President in his stead in case he is unable to be the President for whatever reason.

If that happens to be Hillary, then so be it. I have no qualms about putting her on the ticket, but it really should be his decision. He shouldn't be blackmailed (for a lack of a better term) into losing 18 million votes if he doesn't pick her. What if she doesn't want it? Hell, what if he asks and she refuses? What then?

Regardless, I know that some people will defect, and that's their perrogative, but I find it hard to believe that 18 million people would be willing to throw away their ideals and beliefs that made them Democrats in the first place by voting Republican as a means of "revenge" for her not winning the nomination, or his refusal to put her on the ticket.


Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.
by Massadonious on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:32:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Very, very few Democrats will vote for McCain (2.00 / 2)

out of revenge, imho. If Hillary is offered a spot on the ticket and turns it down, I will be equally disappointed in her, for the record.


by phoenixdreamz on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:38:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very, very few Democrats will vote for McCain (none / 0)

But they're not going to support Obama either.


by handsomegent on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:28:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very, very few Democrats will vote for McCain (none / 0)

There are Democratic defections to the Republican candidate and vice-versa in every election.  Furthermore, there are always more Democrats defecting than vice-versa.  The Republicans have the lock-step unity thing down better than Democrats do...see also, voting as a bloc in Congress.  That's okay, I'm glad that we're not a herd of sheep.

The main question is, but how many Democrats defect?   A subordinate but non-trivial question is, how many in certain states?  Much has been made in the past few days that Kerry lost 8 percent of Democrats to Bush.  That was actually a low number compared to the Dukakis, Mondale, Carter II, and McGovern campaigns.


by InigoMontoya on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:57:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very, very few Democrats will vote for McCain (2.00 / 1)

Polling shows Obama wins at least 80% of Democrats. Could be better, but not catastrophic. And not all of the remaining 20% require Hillary on the ticket -  many simple see Obama as an "unknown", which will diminish as they have more opportunities to get to know him.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:35:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of (2.00 / 5)

Hillary supporters would agree with you, phoenixdreamz. I have been trying to go a step further (in my own mind) and project how I would feel if Hillary had prevailed and secured the nomination. How would I be reacting to Obama's supporters demanding that Hillary choose him as VP. Honestly, I think in that case I would be defending her right to reach her own conclusions. That being said, we Hillary supporters should continue to point out that there are 18 million reasons why he should choose her but, ultimately, I have every confidence that he will choose the person that most effectively helps him to win in November. His vetting process may reveal that person to be Hillary. If not, I will accept that, as I'm sure Hillary will. However, one thing I refuse to accept, and find utterly offensive, is Zbigniew Brzezinski's characterization of a Hillary VicePresidency as "a government in exile, a government in waiting." I'm so sick of people trying to portray her as driven only by the blind pursuit of power, damn the torpedoes. She would make an excellent VP, and the country and Obama would be fortunate to have her as VP. But it is his decision, and I respect that.  


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:33:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She would make an excellent VP but ... (2.00 / 1)

Bill would make an awful co-VP.  He would self-destruct and pull Hillary down with him if left to his own devices.


by edg1 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:19:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She has asked (none / 0)

and been politely but firmly refused.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:05:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She has asked (none / 0)

This is rumor, nothing else.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:02:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She has asked (none / 0)

You're really just not processing the situation correctly.  Why am I not surprised?


by ReillyDiefenbach on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:21:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meh.. (2.00 / 1)

I'd rather have her on the Supreme Court.


by Carnacki on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:48:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meh.. (2.00 / 1)

I'd rather have her as Senate Majority Leader.

Reid is just not doing it for me.


Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?
by BrighidG on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:15:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meh.. (2.00 / 1)

Hell I'd rather have her as Senate Majority Leader screw Reid spineless little worm that he is.

This loss could be good for Clinton if she takes the right lessons from it. Maybe she'll finally jettison the DLC crew that thought a woman had to vote for a war to be elected president.

Wouldn't that drive the wingnuts crazy? Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Clinton and President Obama!
Could he appoint Bill to the Supreme court just to really drive them over the edge?


by Skex on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:42:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

Why do you feel the need to post a threat like this?

There are many many reasons not to pick Hillary Clinton and they have nothing to do with you.  Your thinking on this subject seems irrational.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:59:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't threaten anything (2.00 / 2)

nor is my thinking irrational. Twisting the words of people you disagree with and dismissing them as crackpots does not a rational argument make.


by phoenixdreamz on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:13:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I didn't threaten anything (none / 0)

I guess you normally vote for a candidate for which you "have no reason to believe anything he says".  

Is that true?   If not, it is a threat not to vote for Obama.   A veiled threat is still a threat.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:38:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (2.00 / 3)

I didn't read it as a threat. It's not like Obama won a landslide in the primaries. He squeaked by and is going off to the GE missing most of the base. Of course, 18 million people aren't going to sit it out, but it only takes 3 million (or 1.5 million if, gasp, they vote Repub).

He can guarantee a victory in November with her on the ticket. People who say he shouldn't pick Clinton are handing the election to McCain as surely as those who are threatening to actually vote for McCain.

The question for Obama is: Does he want to be right or does he want to be President?


by SophieL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:02:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You do realize (none / 0)

that 36 million votes (18 mil plus 18 mil) doesn't "guarantee" anything, don't you?  See how many votes Kerry won in 2004.  

Obama needs to pick the VP who will give him the best shot in the GE.  That may be Hillary, or it may be someone else.  Just saying it's Hillary doesn't make it so.


by JJE on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:58:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You do realize (none / 0)

I was going with 3 million because that's how many votes Kerry lost to Bush in 2004. Perhaps you're right and my argument should have gone the other way. Without Clinton, his loss is guaranteed. With her, he has a chance.


by SophieL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:35:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You do realize (2.00 / 1)

He's ahead by 8 in the Rasmussen tracking today.

Stop saying "without her his loss is guaranteed".

It makes you look like a fool.


by Deadalus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:10:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You do realize (none / 0)

Are you "concerned" for how I might look?


by SophieL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:03:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You do realize (none / 0)

I guess I could care less, but I'm tired of the intellectual dishonesty regarding our chances in November.


by Deadalus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You do realize (2.00 / 1)

I do not want Hillary on the ticket as VP, and I am a die hard Hillary supporter.

She doesn't need a trophy 'also ran' consolation prize, she doens't need to be 'Miss Congeniality'.

However, your stance that we somehow have a lock on the GE is wrong.  The GOP has given them their only shot at this election by refusing to nominate the crazies of their party: they picked the only safe choice they had this cycle, and he's older, with some credibility, whether you like it or accept it or not, back in 2000 before GWB and his minions scapegoated him in SC (my how SC can label the opposition with rumor and scandal!) he would have been acceptable to many who were uninspired by Gore at the time (Gore of today is much more inspiration than Gore of 2000).  Some folks remember that, so don't go off and think that just 'cause we need a change in the White House  some folks who have been continually insulted by Obama supporters or talking heads this primary cycle will simply  shrug their shoulders and say 'whatever' and vote for him. It's not a given.  Obama and Hillary both understand that.  It's time Obama's supporters understand that as well.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:12:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You do realize (none / 0)

Did I say we have a LOCK on the GE?

Stop the intellectual dishonesty.


by Deadalus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:21:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You do realize (2.00 / 1)

What I mean is, I said, "It is not the case that Obama will certainly lose the General Election."  This does NOT imply that Obama will certainly WIN the election.

You've committed the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.  http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignor ance.html


by Deadalus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You do realize (none / 0)

One of the things I simply adore about folks who seem to always think they are so much more knowledgeable or well educated or have a higher IQ than others is their constant ability to show off just for the sake of showing off.

I bet you're really a hoot at parties.

Intellectual dishonesty  comes in two forms: those who engage in it willingly, and those who do so because they are so enamored of their own ability that they can't see any other point of view.

I don't fit either category:  you seem to logically fall into the latter.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:52:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You do realize (none / 0)

Right.  Not sure how much an IQ is required for you to be so good at describing people you've never met, and based on a few posts on the internet.  Must be pretty fucking high, though.

The reason I spelled it out (and I rarely do) is because on the internet (and this website in particular) when someone gets caught, they usually just switch the topic of the argument.

Since you did that anyway, maybe I've learned a lesson.  I'll just let stupidity go without rebuttal next time.  

Happy?


by Deadalus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You do realize (none / 0)

Oh, and reading over your comments, you don't sound like such a cupcake yourself.

Bite me.


by Deadalus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:53:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You do realize (none / 0)

No thanks, I'm rather picky about what I place in my mouth, I've never been one to like a bitter taste.

Sorry that you feel so offended because I didn't take kindly to your insulting commentary to me and I slung some insult back your way.

That's how that works, ya know?


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:12:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You do realize (none / 0)

I don't believe anything I said was offending above.  You were the one starting ad hominem attacks when you were schooled.


by Deadalus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:24:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You don't seem to understand the question (none / 0)

Does Clinton bring him more votes than she would cost him?  You assume the answer is yes but don't give any reason.


by JJE on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:44:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't seem to understand the question (none / 0)

I think she would bring him more votes than she would cost. My reason for thinking so is that I believe that Obama's votes were people voting FOR him and not AGAINST Clinton. If that belief is wrong, then you're right and I'm wrong on this opinion. So, were Obama's votes FOR him or AGAINST her?


by SophieL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:11:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She would cost him the election. (2.00 / 1)

Clinton would bring 20 million Republicans to the polls who would otherwise have stayed home because they dislike McCain and are neutral toward Obama.


by edg1 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:23:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She would cost him the election. (none / 0)

And your data is where? Or is this your opinion as well? It's fine if it's your opinion, but then you should say so and you should say 20 milion plus or minus 19.999 million.


by SophieL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:57:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Got it from the same factbook you got this gem: (2.00 / 1)

Without Clinton, his loss is guaranteed.


by edg1 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:31:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Snarky (none / 0)

You asked for my reason and I gave it. I did not present it as anything other than opinion. You cited a number as if it were some statistic. I asked you to back it up or say it was an opinion. I don't think that was out of line nor did it deserve that snarky response.


by SophieL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:06:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok. Sorry. n/t (none / 0)


by edg1 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:55:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

It's not quite that simple. Obama has to figure out if Clinton's a net gain for the ticket: are the Clinton supporters gained balanced by independent voters lost?  There's a big geographic factor as well: Clinton will be useful in some states, like PA, OH, and FL (how much is anyone's guess), but harmful in states where Clinton underperformed (CO, WI, MN, arguably NM & NV).  There are definitely "safer" VP candidates.

All this emphasis on the electoral value of a VP candidate doesn't speak well for the job itself.  I'm hoping Sen. Clinton is offered a real job -- Sec. of State perhaps.  (I don't think the Supreme Court is the best fit. There are plenty of wonderfully qualified women jurists with more experience than Sen. Clinton.  Hillary's strength is her political savvy and fortitude -- it would be lost on the Court.)


by Twin Planets on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:07:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Indies (2.00 / 1)

Obama has to figure out if Clinton's a net gain for the ticket: are the Clinton supporters gained balanced by independent voters lost

So what's with the unity appeal for all Democrats to come together to elect a Democrat if you're willing to toss us for the Indies?

One of the toughest points in my journey towards reconciliation (and yes, I really am trying to get there) are these have-it-both-ways arguments.

In politics you have to compromise to achieve your objectives. I understand Obama was trying to do something new with this election. I want to do something new too: I want a Democrat to win. I think there's strength in the Clinton camp and I think the Obama camp should want it and do everything they can to get it. If he doesn't, I don't want to participate in a suicide pact.


by SophieL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:22:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indies (none / 0)

Toss who?  This is about votes, not whose feelings might get hurt. If Obama figures that Clinton adds the most to the ticket in terms of electoral strength, he'll probably pick her, otherwise not.  Sure, you can issue an ultimatum about who he should pick, but seriously, over the VP slot?

FWIW, I'd much rather have Clinton where it matters -- in the State Dept., where she can use her overseas experience to great effect.  


by Twin Planets on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:57:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indies (none / 0)

I hope that she could be where SHE would like to be.

It just seems like someone who stayed in the primary until the very end of the primary want's to be president more than she wants and other position.

If she wanted to give up on a presidential bid she could have stopped running saved her campaign money and surprise  stayed in the Senate.

She didn't.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:45:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

He can guarantee a victory in November with her on the ticket.

You can't know if that's true.  If Clinton were the nominee, there's a lot that wasn't vetted that will become very public.  In fact, it may be that they don't want her on the ticket because Bill would have to open up more of his presidential records and all of his financial records.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:08:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

OH come on back to reality buddy.

There's more gist for the smear machine in Clinton's pardon's than in all of Obama's life.

Why do you think everything has been guilt by association against him? They isn't any baggage. Even Novak scumbag that he is has told the GOP that he's squeaky and will have to look elsewhere to take him on.

All that time and experience Clinton's people are always going on about.. That's where baggage comes from. 40 years of cutting deals and schmoozing asshats.


by Skex on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:50:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

True, but then again, that's usually the norm with presidental candidates, it still mostly guilt by association. What was the main point of the latest hit piece on bill Clinton? That he hangs out with a guy that dates young women! That some of his business partners have dubious business partners! etc. It's the Clinton rules, everything that is considered mundane if a normal politican does it becomes the latest outrage if the Clintons did it.

If you look at the clintons and compare them to the republican presidental candidates McCain, Bush jr, Dole, Bush sr and Reagan the Clintons are actually a lot cleaner on average.

The whole skeletons in the closet argument thing is actually bull. Most bagage isn't carried around, it's created on the spot.

It's not that the Obama has more guilt by association then normal, it's that it's still more clear that it is guilt by association because they just started creating it, and the cases they're using aren't blurred by history yet.

The Clintons are not perfect, but they're nowhere near the worst. If you want to make sure that Obama doesn't end up the same as the Clintons always pushback against smear tactics against the Clintons.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:48:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

I've never supported the idea that smears against the Clinton's based on Association have merrit however as often as Obama's detractors like to bring up his "baggage" I consider what's good for the goose good for the gander as it were. So one can't make an agument that Obama has a lot of questionable associations when arguing in favor for Clinton while ignoring her questionable associations.

And it's frankly laughable to contend that there is more dirt for the right to fling at Obama than at Hillary. Understand I'm not saying such attacks are right or justified only that ignoring them  while looking at every imagined flaw of Obama's was simply disengenious.


by Skex on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:28:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

I think I didn't get my point across. I believe that guilt by association is false, manipulative and created. And that it says nothing of the person it is directed too.

If I'm saying that Obama has more guilt by association, I mean that he not actually guilty, only that people are trying to make him look bad using false tactics.

My point was that with the Clintons a lot of people have internalized that false guilt of association. Some people no longer look at the Clinton as if they're guilty by association (what all those manufactured scandals in the '90 was about, making them guilty by association) but guilty themselves. As if the Clintons themselves are especially shadowy dubious figures, while they're just average politicians, neither especially good or especially bad.

I'm saying that they've started to do to Obama, what they already did to the Clinton's in 1992 with the current reputations of the Clintons as a result. And that if we want to make sure that their false narrative about Obama doesn't take hold that we keep firmly in our had that the "baggage" the Clintons currently have, was manufactured out of thin air by the republicans and that they're trying it again with Obama

Most baggage gets created. It's not what's hidden in the closet that matters. It's how much damage they can do by making people believe that there is something hidden. And the best way to minimize that damage is to keep hammering the bullshit down.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:44:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

Much of the smears against the Clinton's are baseless this is true. But they do have some real political baggage that was of their own making. Relationships with certain power brokers, a huge swaft of presidential pardons as Bill was leaving office.

I personally opposed Clinton for two fundamental reasons.

1 Her vote for the war and there by alienated the left of the party who are less than enthusiastic about her.

2 is related to 1 she'll motivate the extreme right to come out to vote against her. this in and of itself is not a reason in my mind to oppose her nomination save for point 1 which means that the left will not come out in force to counter the right. Obama will probably fire up the extreme right pretty well just based on his Skin color but the extreme left will most likely have his back to counteract them.


by Skex on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:37:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

So we shouldn't hold a competition how one democrat has more has more "baggage" then the other Democrats. That way we reward the republican party for their smearing and fake controversies of the '90.

If they're rewarded for what they did back then with the Democratic president, they're going to try to do the same to Obama. If you arguing how bad Clinton is you've bought in the same narrative they're using now on Obama.

That's why the Baggage question is bull. If we use it, it hurts both persons involved and our party.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:54:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong comparison. (none / 0)

More on point, how do Clinton 'skeletons' compare with other potential VP choices.




Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
by benmasel on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:02:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

People who say he shouldn't pick Clinton are handing the election to McCain as surely as those who are threatening to actually vote for McCain.

Not even close.  Picking Clinton for VP isn't a zero sum scenario.  People who think so lack imagination, and their opinions should be discounted.  

There are many reasons why Clinton might make a good VP choice and there are many reasons why Clinton might not make a good VP choice.  To say that she has to be on the ticket is not only simplistic it is stupid.  If you want to make a case for her VP candidacy you need to do better than a Chicken Little argument about losing in November.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:33:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

Blue Neponset
What are the current official delegate totals as well as popular vote totals for this particular primary? I hear percentages tossed around.
by 12 dogs and a blog on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:52:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

Your google fu sucks my friend.  That information is readily available.  If you need me to get it for you it is because you are either setting me up for a gotcha question or you are lazy.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:00:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

No I was really asking what data you are basing your opinion. Not an attack or a gotcha.

Just asking.

Not asking you to debate, defend or to change your mind.

Just wanted to know what data you were using.

If you don't know know the answer? No problem.
If you do know the answer and want to share? Thanks.

My other question was where you found good reliable data on the  primary results.

That's it.
Have been on the receiving end of this type of question and got a heck of alot more than a "google fu". They were mean. Traveled "internet packs" and resented I should have an opinion.

I don't resent.

You know I could have been respecting the knowledge you have in this area.

LOL Google fu? LOL
Roflmbo.
No.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:34:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nonsense (none / 0)

He squeaked by and is going off to the GE missing most of the base

Utter and complete nonsense. Your own estimate is three million, which may be accurate. It's nowhere near "most of the base".


by BlueinColorado on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If a presidential nominee starts by Acquiescing (none / 0)

to pressure, s/he should start getting used to the term "former presidential nominee".

There is much more pressure for a US President to face than vocal minorities inside his or her own party.  Any candidate that isn't enough of a fighter to put up with that pressure will never ever become president.

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:15:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: vocal minorities (1.50 / 2)

More people voted for Hillary in this primary than did for Obama. Additionally, poll after poll shows that a solid majority of Democrats want an Obama/Clinton unity ticket.


by phoenixdreamz on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:20:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Whatever works, works (none / 0)

If she is the best running mate, so be it.  I have serious reservations, but just because my side won the primary does not mean that my own judgement is not still seriously clouded by bias, so if I'm wrong I'm wrong.

One way or another, though, it has to be a decision the nominee believes in, not something he is forced into.  All effort to make it look forced will run counter to any desire to have Sen. Clinton on the ticket.

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:24:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's math is fuzzy (2.00 / 1)

She claims she won the popular vote because she doesn't like to count the caucuses. I and many others in this country voted too.

Popular Vote Total:

Obama: 17,535,458

Clinton: 17,493,836


by Bee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:39:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's math is fuzzy (2.00 / 2)

your math is fuzzy.  Count the caucuses, and count MI as voted, and she won by 176,000.  Count the caucuses and give Obama the uncommitted in MI, and he won by 62,000.  The "truth" is somewhere in between.

The statement that more people voted for Clinton is, technically, true, as per the 176,000 number.


by slynch on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:27:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Right (none / 0)

Nothing fuzzy about zeroing out Obama in MI, nothing at all.


by Bee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:34:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right (none / 0)

Depends if you use the vote tally to purely count the vote. But then it's like the pledged delegates count, interesting but without moral or official status.

If you are using the vote count to claim the moral legitimazation of popular support, then you also have to count the support of people that wanted, but couldn't vote for Obama. After all, if it's about popular support then the actions of any candidate regarding taking their name of the rolls or not does not influence who the person actually supports.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:08:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the "truth" is somewhere (2.00 / 2)

Clinton won 55 percent of the vote. Fantastic. Tell me;

How many Obama supporters selected Clinton because she was their favorite of the candidates left on the ballot.

How many Edwards supporters selected Clinton because she was their favorite of the candidates left on the ballot.

How many Biden supporters selected Clinton because she was their favorite of the candidates left on the ballot.

How many Richardson supporters selected Clinton because she was their favorite of the candidates left on the ballot.

But hey, even though she was the ONLY major candidate with her name on the ballot.. it's fair to count all 55 percent for Clinton.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:52:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the "truth" is somewhere (none / 0)

I think slynch was making the distinction between counting the popular vote and popular support. Obama lost the vote tally, but as you also noted the vote undercounted his popular support. If you account for that then the Obama nomination gathered indeed more popular support in the primeries.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:25:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the "truth" is somewhere (none / 0)

wikipedia answers this question.  At least according to exit polls, had everyone been on the ballot, she would have gotten 46%; he would have gotten 35%.  Had that been the case, he would have beaten her in the p.v.  However, it wasn't the case.  He took his name off the ballot.  So, as it stands, if you count the votes as voted, she won the p.v.


by slynch on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:53:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the "truth" is somewhere (none / 0)

It wasn't a sanctioned event therefor those votes out of Michigan and Fl have no more validity than if I held a primary in my back yard.


by Skex on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:44:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Michigan (none / 0)

The whole "she wins when unopposed" argument is no more credible or persuasive now  than it was a month ago.

Let it go.


by BlueinColorado on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:22:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Michigan (none / 0)

the whole 'he gets votes when he wasn't on the ballot' position is equally unpersuasive.  let it go.


by slynch on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:21:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (2.00 / 2)

If he acquiesces to the will of Democrats regarding this, he's got my full support. If he neglects this before he's even elected, I have no reason to believe anything he says.

Following the diarist's model, I think you should ask yourself this:

If the tables were reversed, would you think it was wise for an Obama supporter to make the same argument you are making here?  Because, honestly, they could make the same argument. This was a very close race. If your metric is the popular vote, any way you count it, it is still very close - about half the votes went to each candidate.  So if an Obama fan said, with regard to Sen. Clinton:

If she neglects this before she's even elected, I have no reason to believe anything she says.

...would you honestly think that was a rational opinion to have toward Sen. Clinton, a thoughtful reason not to fully support her candidacy against John McCain?


Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:56:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (2.00 / 2)

If the tables were reversed, would you think it was wise for an Obama supporter to make the same argument you are making here?

Absolutely! She repeatedly expressed a willingness and a desire to have him as her running mate. Early on in the debates, it was obvious that people wanted the Dream Ticket and that the two of them had a real chemistry.

Face it-- the Democratic Party is and always has been a house divided. Obama has a chance to show some real leadership here by bringing the party together.


by SophieL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:09:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

I'm not arguing it wouldn't be a good ticket.

I'm saying ultimately, candidate Obama (or President Obama) will be making final decisions about important matters based on his best judgment.  And ultimately, he will make some decisions that are better than others.  

I never expect to fully agree with any candidate, or any president, all the time. I'm sure my favorite candidate (John Edwards) would have made decisions, if he were the nominee, or if he became president, that I would have strongly disagreed with.

The point is, would I still strongly support the Dem nominee even if I strongly disagreed with a particular decision they made?

Yes, I would.


Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:21:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I beleive Obama needs to accept reality too (none / 0)

I simply do not think that an Obama/Clinton ticket would be a good thing for either of them.
by french imp on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:04:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Two words: (none / 0)

Clinton library.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:20:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, I agree on the unity ticket... (2.00 / 1)

It would do so much good for all of us to see Barack and Hillary on the same ticket. I LOVE the idea.

But even if that doesn't happen, I still intend to support the Democratic nominee. There's just too much at stake, and I want to see Barack Obama in the White House in January to do what's best for this nation. :-)


We shall overcome!
by atdleft on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:14:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Were the situation reversed (2.00 / 1)

I think that Hillary would have offered the nomination to Obama, he would have been browbeaten by everyone into accepting it, and would have spent a miserable term or two as her Veep before running in 2016.

But I think the situation is different here.  The Vice-Presidency is a subservient office, Dick Cheney notwithstanding.  Hillary is not a subservient woman, and her husband is not one to keep quiet over any feelings that she is being disrespected and poorly used.  I think it would be a recipe for disaster.

Here's what I want from Hillary: universal health care.

She is in a position to demand, and I think she would receive, the right to play the leading Congressional role, working in tandem with Obama's HHS Secretary, is designing a plan and getting it passed.  She is supremely qualified for that, hopefully having learned from the mistakes of 1994.  We Obama supporters would be standing on our chairs applauding if she did that, and would happily cede her the lion's share of credit if she earned it, as I think she would.  The plan will be named after Ted Kennedy, of course, who will be taken from us before long, and this will be the chance for Hillary to step into Ted's shoes.

That sort of legacy is nothing to sneer at.  That is what I hope happens, rather than a tension-filled eight years of her feeling underutilized as his VP.


"All I'm doing is trying to look at things objectively and arrive at a solution to a very difficult situation." Major Danby in Catch-22 ch. 42
by Major Danby on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:53:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Were the situation reversed (none / 0)

See I keep reading this and thinking,"That's what you want but do you really think that's what she wants?" If she agreed with you, I would have thought she'd have pulled out of the primary before this. To save money for her Senate campaign.

She wouldn't stay til the end of the campaign without a pretty good reason. It's too expensive. She's not Senator from Florida and Michigan so it's not like she's in to fight for her constiuents.

All that time, money, effort, and political pounding the woman took. Do you really think she's gonna be all happy back in the Senate? LOLNot without a continued eye on the prize. The presidency. Or waiting for an opening on the Supreme Court? Naw. If that was the case she'd a quit.

As for the reason for the Unity ticket. Look at the vote totals. Sen. Obama gets the ultra left. Sen Clinton brings in more moderate Dems and independents.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:10:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Did Obama SAY he was going to pick Hillary? (none / 0)

As far as I know he hasn't.  So why would this issue be one upon which to judge his credibility?

To me a VP choice seems to be a rather personal choice, reflecting the nominee's personal style, and the chemistry of the people involved.  Since neither you or I are privy as to how Obama and Hillary "fit" on a personal basis, I think it's really up to him to make the decision.  I mean, if it's a lousy fit, it's not going to be good for Obama, Hillary, or the Democratic Party in the long run, is it?


by paul minot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:54:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama, Clinton, the Internet, and Not Acceptin (2.00 / 3)

I have to agree, the whole not accepting reality thing is a problem, but I still think they just need time as a whole I am pretty impressed and surprised at how fast the party is starting to unite

and we still have 5 months!

I feel really good about this year for democrats and for this country


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:34:25 AM EST

Re: Obama, Clinton, the Internet, and Not Acceptin (none / 0)

A lot of people don't realize the head of law review at Hahvud is an elected position  -- he was slick enough to get a group of disaffected conservatives to elect him

Oh, and please add Dohrn to the list; she's the worst of all.  Google "lay, Elrod, lay" and her name, for example.

My late, great mother-in-law told us three years ago that Obama was just another pol out of the Daley/Jesse Jackson corrupt Chicago scene.  We had been fascinated by his 2004 speech.  Now we know she was right.  

Anne, you should be here giving him hell!

I have a copy of Ayers' book Fugitive Days on my side table.  He thinks Kathy Boudin was a great fighter for justice.  (p. 295)

Highlights of Kathy Boudin's resume:

+Boudin, along with Cathy Wilkerson, was a survivor of the 1970 Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, the premature detonation of a bomb that had been intended for a soldiers' dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey.

+In 1981, when Kathy Boudin was 38 years old, she and several members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army robbed a Brinks armored car at the Nanuet Mall, in Nanuet, New York. After Boudin dropped her infant son, Chesa, at a baby sitter's she took the wheel of the getaway vehicle, a U-Haul truck. She waited in a nearby parking lot as her heavily armed accomplices took another vehicle to a local mall where a Brinks truck was making a delivery. They confronted the guards and firing immediately broke out, severely wounding guard Joe Trombino and killing his co-worker, Peter Paige. The four then took $1.6 million in cash and rendezvoused with Boudin.

An alert high-school student called the police after spotting the heavily armed gang abandoning the getaway vehicle and entering the U-Haul. A police officer spotted and pulled over the U-Haul, but they could only see Boudin in the drivers seat. Boudin then got out of the cab, and raised her hands.

The police officers who caught them testified that Boudin, feigning innocence, pleaded with them to put down their guns and got them to drop their guard; Boudin said she remained silent, that the officers relaxed spontaneously. After the police did lower their weapons six of the men in the back of the truck armed with automatic weapons came out of the back of the truck, surprising the four police officers. A police officer, Waverly Brown, was killed instantly. Boudin and David Gilbert, a Weatherman radical and the father of Boudin's infant son, allegedly acted as decoys as well as getaway drivers: The Brinks robbers the police were searching for were all from the Black Liberation Army and drove a red car. Officer Edward O'Grady lived long enough to empty his revolver, but as he reloaded, he was shot several times with an M16. Ninety minutes later, he died on a hospital operating table. The other two officers escaped with only minor injuries. The occupants of the U-Haul scattered, some climbing into another getaway car, others carjacking a nearby motorist while Boudin attempted to flee on foot. An off-duty corrections officer apprehended her shortly after the shoot out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Boudi n


by katmandu1 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:31:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama, Clinton, the Internet, and Not Acceptin (none / 0)

Uh oh! It's DC insider "katmandu1" coming through! According to DC insider katmandu1, Obama worked for a neighborhood charity with Bill Ayers, and Bill Ayers once was a domestic terrorist with Kathy Boudin, therefore according to the Transitive Property of Obama, Barack Obama = Kathy Boudin!

I still think you should get a refund for those "top-tier" degrees.


by authority song on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:03:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama, Clinton, the Internet, and Not Acceptin (2.00 / 3)

I applaud your efforts but I don't think they will have much success.  There is no rational reason for a self-described Democrat not to vote for Barack Obama in November.  His positions and policies are smack dab in the middle of the Democratic mainstream and he won the nomination. The vast majority of Democrats will vote for Obama because they know it is the right thing to do for the country.  

The only reason to withhold a vote for Obama is because of irrational reasons.   The ones who chose not to vote for Obama are too self absorbed to reach with a rational argument.  They are acting out their feelings.  As a result, it is best if we just ignore or better yet, acknowledge and dismiss, this small group of immature Democrats.  

There are many more important things to worry about besides the fragile feelings of a few hundred people on the internet.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:53:08 AM EST

Re: Obama, Clinton, the Internet, and Not Acceptin (2.00 / 1)

I'm afraid it's more than "a few hundred people on the internet" (or are you just saying that this diary itself will only reach a few hundred such people?)

I saw the same sort of sentiments expressed by some people interviewed for a story in my local newspaper today.  Real disdain towa