Victory in Denver, Defeat in November

Cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama.

Some of my friends and former allies are working on a movement to convince superdelegates to support Hillary Clinton at the convention in November. Earlier this week, a front page diary at a well-known blog celebrated a rumor that eight Obama superdelegates indicated that they would vote for Hillary if a roll-call vote were held in Denver.

Now, they are technically correct that, under the rules of the party, Senator Obama does not officially become the nominee until the delegates cast their votes at the convention. It is possible that something could happen that would force him off the ticket. However, if they are correct, and Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee in Denver, she will be doomed in November.

The first problem is getting Barack Obama out of the way. An email campaign organized by a group of bloggers, not matter how dedicated, will not be enough. Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee. The superdelegates decided this race. They provided Senator Obama with his margin of victory. They have already decided that he is sufficiently experienced and electable. A flood of emails will not convince the superdelegates that they have made a mistake. A trickle of superdelegates that narrowly puts Hillary over the top is not a realistic scenario. It's going to require a large event outside the control of this dedicated group of Clinton supporters.

To that end, a lot of these Clinton supporters have been pointing to what they perceive as weak polling numbers. But a drop in poll numbers will not be enough. An extramarital affair or even an illegitimate child would not be enough. He would have to be caught engaging in (or having had engaged in) activity that borders on criminal and something for which a subordinate cannot take the fall. Although some in the PUMA movement claim to have highly damaging information against Michelle Obama, nothing has surfaced. In this day and age of information technology, if information of such a damaging nature existed, it would already have surfaced.

In the unlikely event that such information was uncovered, would the superdelegates hand the nomination to Hillary? The superdelegates are professional politicians and party loyalists. Replacing Senator Obama at the convention would come at a steep political price. His most die-hard supporters would certainly resist and his two core constituencies, the African-American community and his young voters, would be demoralized. The party would be ripped apart as some supporters cried fowl and others walked away crushed. African-American elected officials would be torn between the party and their constituents. It would open up a rift so huge that no politician could heal the wounds before the general election.

If Hillary were to suddenly emerge the victor in Denver, is it logistically possible for her to win the race? Even if Senator Obama walked away gracefully and his supporters lined up behind Hillary, she would find herself, on August 28, 2008, only 68 days away from the general election with no staff and no plans. She would have to build an organization, find a running mate (or settle for the running mate vetted by Obama), and create a strategy with almost no preparation. Remember, much of her primary campaign staff has already gone in different directions, some signing contracts that will employ them through the rest of the campaign. Even if everything else goes her way and she is able to integrate Obama's coalition into hers with no losses, mounting a nation-wide general election campaign in such a short period of time would be impossible.

If this great looming scandal did come to light, I would expect that the superdelegates would stand by Barack Obama, even if it does mean losing the general election. Because Hillary Clinton would certainly be defeated in November, Democrats would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by replacing Obama. The sudden demise of Obama's candidacy would likely cost Democrats the African-American vote and possibly even an entire generation of new, young voters, perhaps permanently.

The effects of this rift would not be limited to the top of the ticket. All of the projections for gains in the House and the Senate are based on the assumption that Obama would drive up turnout among African-Americans and young voters. If African-Americans and younger voters stay home, some of the tougher Senate races (North Carolina, Mississippi) will be put out of reach and many of the seats we have long expected to pick up (Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico) would likely be unwinnable. Mary Landrieu (LA) would certainly be defeated with a depressed African-American vote. With a Republican president and vice-president, that would hand control of the Senate back to the GOP. A similar scenario would certainly emerge in the House of Representatives.

Finally, the leaders of the "It's Not Over Yet" movement have forgotten one more essential detail. Under such a scenario, would Hillary even accept the nomination? I suspect that she would not. First, as outlined above, she would have no chance at winning. Second, she would forever be tainted in the African-American community for having replaced their historic nominee and Hillary values her relationship with the African-American community.

So my friends in the blogosphere are incorrect when they belittle this movement as "praying for a miracle." In reality, they aren't praying for a miracle. They are praying for a disaster of the highest order, one that would cost Democrats not only the White House, but possibly even the House and the Senate. It would be a setback to every single progressive cause that Hillary Clinton has dedicated her life to advancing.

This time, there will be no comeback for Hillary Clinton. The people have spoken. The party has spoken. For better or worse, Barack Obama is the nominee. The only alternative is defeat.

My friends, it's over.



Display:


Tips/flames?? (2.00 / 23)

My flame retardant pantsuit is packed away for the big move next week.  Go easy on me, huh?


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:20:10 PM EST

Re: Tips/flames?? (2.00 / 14)

I think you're certainly correct in your analysis, but the entire idea that anyone other than Senator Obama will be the nominee strikes me as well beyond the pale.  Senator Clinton has endorsed him.  She's asked her supporters to do everything they can to get him elected.  Given that, it actually strikes me as insulting for these folks to continue to disregard Senator Clinton's wishes.  The clear implication of the movement seems to be that Senator Clinton doesn't really mean what she's said about the importance of getting Obama elected.  


by HSTruman on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:23:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips/flames?? (2.00 / 4)

Most of these PUMAs probably go to bed every night saying a prayer that something bad happens to Obama.


by Lance Bryce on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Check out the header (none / 0)

at this web site:  

We're not finished, folks.  Not by a long shot.

These people are great Democrats.  I know them well.  I don't believe any of them would be where they are now except for the social influences of online communication.  


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check out the header (2.00 / 3)

I give a few of them credit for hanging around here and engaging.  I'm always going to be big fans of grlpatriot and catfish.

But I agree.  I think that the internet has given many the ability to create virtual echo chambers and filter out bad information.  That's actually why I visit the PUMA websites and some GOP blogs from time to time just to get the other point of view.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:52:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check out the header (2.00 / 4)

I am not a fan of people who are intellectually dishonest.

And when you have repeated e-mails repeating information shown to be false (not just poor interpretations), that is intellectual dishonesty.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:17:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check out the header (2.00 / 2)

That's actually why I visit the PUMA websites and some GOP blogs from time to time

They are one and the same!


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:32:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check out the header (none / 0)

I respectfully disagree.  I don't see how the internet can be blamed for the disaster that they are advocating.  If they are truly older, seasoned, life-long Democrats (as many of them claim to be) I don't see how they can be so easily influenced by their associations.

And if they are truly good Democrats, I don't see how they could be so oblivious to the people who are desperately in need at the moment.  They feel they can survive a McCain presidency, but what about all the people who can't?


by Tenafly Viper on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 05:16:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips/flames?? (2.00 / 2)

Hehehe.  "flame retardant pantsuit"; isn't that phrase a culmination of your and my efforts?  Shoud we copyright?
Agree whole heartedly with the sentiments of this diary.  I posted along similar lines to this diary:  
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/7/13214 /81026#readmore
Do great minds think alike?   ;)
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:56:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips/flames?? (2.00 / 2)

Great diary!  How'd I miss that?

I thought Hillary used the phrase "flame retardant pantsuit" once.  I can't remember.  I got it from somebody.  Maybe you.  All I know is that I'm not that creative.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips/flames?? (2.00 / 1)

She may have.  Or, we can copyright:
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/7/4/12 476/28088/5#5
;)
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:33:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Short memories? (none / 0)

She did:


The New York senator appeared to relish the challenge when she kicked off the battle with a wry observation. "This pantsuit, it's asbestos tonight," she told questioner Campbell Brown of CNN in her first comment.

Carla Marinucci - Clinton shows she can take a punch in Vegas debate San Francisco Chronicle 16 Nov 07


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips/flames?? (none / 0)

It was Goldberry (now Riverdaughter) on Kos who coined the Asbestos Pantsuit.


by Tolstoy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips/flames?? (2.00 / 2)

Thank you for the dose of sanity.  The PUMA goal of getting SD's to switch reminds me of the business plan of the underwear gnomes in South Park:

1)  Gather underwear
  1.  ???
  2.  Profit!!!

PUMAS:

1)  Get SD's to change their support.
  1.  ???
  2.  Victory in November!!!

Were the SDs to shift their support to Clinton and give her the nomination it would be a monumental, colossal disaster for the democrats in November.  McCain would win by a landslide and we would be out in the wilderness again.  This is difficult for them to see by virtue of their cult-like commitment to her that prevents them from reasoning clearly, but is a no brainer for anyone who thinks it through.


by Philoguy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:16:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I simply (2.00 / 2)

do not believe the assertion that there are 8 superdelegates who are about to switch from Obama to Clinton.

I think the PUMA are just plain flat lying about this.

Not that this would be the first lie they have told...


by fladem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:40:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think a scandal (2.00 / 8)

bordering on criminal activity would entice enough superdelegates to support Hillary, but at that point, the party brand would be so badly damaged that it's unlikely any Democrat has a shot.

There's one thing these people trying to get a Hillary nomination at the convention have forgotten. She's not putting her name in for the nomination. Perhaps before blackmailing the party, you should check with your candidate to make sure she's still interested.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:23:41 PM EST

I heard she's putting her name for the... (2.00 / 1)

nomination. It's also her right as the first woman candidate to win a primary.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:28:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I heard she's putting her name for the... (2.00 / 2)

according to the rules she has to be on the ballot. But, and it is a big butt, at this point it would be political suicide for any of the automatic delegates to switch to her IMO.


by zerosumgame on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:48:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutely right! (2.00 / 4)

They're not going to change their minds because they suddenly realized that he isn't experienced or something.  There's not going to be some slow trickle of SD's from Obama to Hillary.  It would take a suddent tsunami of SDs and that would only happen if some crazy outside event occurred to make it happen.

It's over.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely right! (2.00 / 1)

I think that that is pretty much what I said. it would behoove you to not take the example of the trolls here in your replies.


by zerosumgame on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? n/t (2.00 / 1)


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:05:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely right! (2.00 / 1)

Did you look at his Subject line?  He was agreeing with you.


by bottl4 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:26:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What rule are you talking about (2.00 / 1)

as anyone who has been to a convention knows, you have to be nominated to be included in the roll call from the floor.

Here is what is going to happen: She will be nominated for the roll call, and then she will appear before the convention and she will decline it, and ask her supporters to support Obama.

It will be a dramatic moment.

The Clinton people can vote for anyone they want - but they will do so over her wishes.


by fladem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What rule are you talking about (none / 0)

I like your scenario except that you have a factual error -- You don't need to be nominated to get votes in the roll call. There are folks who have nominated a beloved relative or their Senator -- folks who never ran for president and don't intend to.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:55:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What rule are you talking about (none / 0)

I believe 300 delegates have to back your nomination to get on the ballot.

Just memory, could be wrong


John McCain: Cheney with a temper
by wrb on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 06:59:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What rule are you talking about (none / 0)

and then you are on the ballot, regardless of what those wicked DNC folks want


John McCain: Cheney with a temper
by wrb on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:01:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I heard she's putting her name for the... (2.00 / 1)

You HEARD?  

Who said it?
How would they know?
Is this like "you heard" Obama doesn't salute the flag?

Really - You have to provide something more predible.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I heard she's putting her name for the... (none / 0)

Howard Dean said it in an interview.  There was a diary up about it.  Something about "tinfoil hats" or something.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:56:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I heard she's putting her name for the... (2.00 / 1)

Howard Dean said there would be a roll call.

That's different from Clinton putting herself forward as the potential nominee.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nobody said (none / 0)

It wasn't her right, just that she probably isn't going to do it.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 06:11:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When will these racist nutjobs give it up? (1.60 / 5)

Seriously. You can be non-racist and oppose Obama. But racism is a qualification for being a PUMA. Delusions of grandeur + serious mental illness also help. Lack of intelligence/maturity is another plus.


by Lance Bryce on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:24:09 PM EST

Re: When will these racist nutjobs give it up? (2.00 / 4)

I know a number of PUMAs and there is not a racist bone in their bodies.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:34:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When will these racist nutjobs give it up? (2.00 / 1)

you probably know better than I but to be honest, if you can put up with the outright innuendo that are on all these 'PUMA" sites without hurling and asking yourself why you're associating with those people, I may find your above statement difficult to reconcile


by Dog Chains on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:49:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When will these racist nutjobs give it up? (none / 0)

There's only one website that I know of that has an overtly racist following.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:02:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When will these racist nutjobs give it up? (none / 0)

But it's on the blogroll of every PUMA site.  


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:04:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

drew - as always - your diary rocks! (1.94 / 18)

i am sad that HRC is not the nominee, but everything you say is 100% accurate.

PUMA and purity trolls alike clearly do not understand politics - well done!


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:25:27 PM EST

2 DIARIES ON THE REC LIST!!!!! (2.00 / 3)

as i have said before many times - drew, you're a rockstar!


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2 DIARIES ON THE REC LIST!!!!! (2.00 / 6)

I had two on the Rec List yesterday.  Where's my gold star?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:34:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2 DIARIES ON THE REC LIST!!!!! (2.00 / 1)

I just stuck a gold star on my monitor for you.  ;)  Actually, I really liked your recent diaries on bicycling, and I've noticed you getting a lot more well deserved traction on the rec list.  Congrats.

One of these days I'm going to do another diary comparing candidates voting records (my one time on the rec list).  I've also got one in the works regarding an electric car test drive I recently took.  That might even get some traction on DKos (there is a pretty strong environmental group there).

Peace.


by protothad on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How 'bout that? (2.00 / 3)

I'm taking a "moving back to America and hanging out a Florida condo with old people and no internet" hiatus, so I threw both of up tonight (well morning in NA).


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:40:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're duking it out (none / 0)

with yourself.  One part of you is desperate to overcome the other, while the other is fighting tooth and mail to continue to dominate the first.


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:44:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Psycho vs. Drew (2.00 / 1)

I'll probably wake up with bruises in the morning, which will leave my boyfriend REALLY confused.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As long as it (none / 0)

doesn't leave him excited, you're safe.


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:50:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're duking it out (2.00 / 2)

So which one has the goatee?  Psycho, or Drew?


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:09:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: drew - as always - your diary rocks! (2.00 / 1)

Why the TR, Draco?


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Worrying about this is like.... (2.00 / 1)

....worrying about Canada invading Vermont.  It is a theoretical possibility, but there are much more pressing matters on which to focus our attention.  


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 Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:34:59 PM EST

Who's worrying? n/t (2.00 / 2)


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:37:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's worrying? n/t (2.00 / 2)

Truth be told, as I have said elsewhere, the PUMA movement is irrelevant to the outcome of the election. In fact, it's irrelevant to everyone except the PUMAS. If Obama gets elected, I believe it is unambiguously clear that he will put his stamp on the party, and the party will reflect his stamp for at least a decade and perhaps a generation. This means that to be relevant as a person interested in liberal politics, one eventually will have to get with the program. Either that, or stand outside and howl at the moon. PUMAs seem to be nocturnal animals as far as I can tell.


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:41:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's worrying? n/t (none / 0)

If you aren't worried about this then why did you write a diary about it?    


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 Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's worrying? n/t (2.00 / 2)

Because I fucking felt like it.

Why are you such an asshole?


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:06:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL (none / 0)

Angry!


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 Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:19:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

its not a theoretical possibility. (none / 0)

right now.  our whole military is in afghanistan.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:43:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its not a theoretical possibility. (2.00 / 1)

Really?  Both tanks are in Afghanistan?

;)


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yes. ;) (none / 0)

but sadly we have now strayed from peacekeeping.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes. ;) (2.00 / 1)

My favorite line:

Opposition politicians say the Canadian mission does not have the proper mix of diplomacy, development and defense. "This mission is very, very, very unbalanced," said Claude Bachand, a lawmaker from the Bloc Quebecois who has visited Afghanistan. "Most of it is all defense. What we don't like, I would say quite frankly, is the American approach."


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:15:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SDs have chosen Obama (2.00 / 2)

Didn't Donna Brazile once say if the SDs chose the nominee, then she would resign from the DNC?  (Maybe she meant ONLY if the SDs chose Clinton, she'd resign?)


by moevaughn on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:36:15 PM EST

not a fan of donna's... (2.00 / 1)

but did she say that?  i find it strange since it was clear after super tuesday that the nomination was going to be decided by supers.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:39:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not a fan of donna's... (2.00 / 1)

Yes -- she said it. Here are links to the quotes:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/d em.delegates/

and

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/net roots/17674/superdelegate-issue-produces -threats-of-quitting-democratic-party/


by cuppajoe on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah. (none / 0)

kinda further evidence of why i am not a big fan.  what's funny to me (although now irrelevant) is that the whole PURPOSE of superdelegates was to overturn the primary results.

anyway - i think good old donna kinda jumped the shark this cycle.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:19:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah. (2.00 / 1)

Its important to note that the SD's did not overturn anything. Neither candidate won enough delegates through the Primary process to win; HOWEVER Obama did win more delegates.

Not that I care about any of this anymore, but I felt like including the facts might be useful.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:38:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah. (none / 0)

I'm sure she meant party leaders overturning the pledged delegates (since it's the closest thing we have to a popular vote in the primaries).  That's the only way it makes any sense at all.

I think she's really awesome. Mostly I'm completely intrigued by her performances on the cable news shows.  She's delightfully crazy and is always creating bizarre metaphors about cooking "real" food for the hosts and fellow guests.


by Tenafly Viper on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 05:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah. (none / 0)

She later (like later that day) amended it to mean that if they chose a nominee before people had voted, she would resign her position as a superdelegate.

Poor Donna Brazile - the most misquoted and hatemailed person in the party.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:08:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SDs have chosen Obama (2.00 / 1)

Well, since neither had the required number of pledged delegates, they would inevitably have to choose sides.  I mean, I'm sure you're not arguing this in good faith, but your scenario doesn't comport with reality.


by rfahey22 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SDs have chosen Obama (2.00 / 2)

Um she said, and meant, that if they overturned the elected delegates she'd bolt.

Fool.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:43:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SDs have chosen Obama (2.00 / 1)

there you go tossing more of your poo at the site. You could have actually corrected the quote without being an ass about it. And in fact you did not correct anything, you simply put up your own unattributed and unsourced interpretation of what Donna may have said. So really that makes you the "fool".


by zerosumgame on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You don't "source" interpretations (2.00 / 1)

The source is implicit.

And the Brazile quote from the CNN reference reads as: "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party".

The word decide implies a scenario where the SDs were decisive over the will of the people. Both interpretations provided above were opinions, but only one was reasonable.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SDs have chosen Obama (2.00 / 1)

well, not quite this is the quote;

Said Super-delegate Donna Brazile to CNN, "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/02/the-super-deleg.html

of course that was in Feb so at the time it was not quite as clear that nobody weould get the required number of pledged delegates to put them over the top. She may have modified her stance since then. People are allowed to do that normally.


by zerosumgame on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:55:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SDs have chosen Obama (none / 0)

She was saying that the supers should follow the pledged delegates and not overrule them -- and that's what they did.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:27:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SDs have chosen Obama (none / 0)

simple answers - yes Donna only meant if the supers chose Hillary


by Bornagaindem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:56:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SDs have chosen Obama (none / 0)

Why do you lie?


by upstate girl on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SDs have chosen Obama (2.00 / 2)

She was actually referring to the situation that if the SDs chose the nominee counter to how the sanctioned primaries/caucuses voted. The SDs DO chose the nominee, no matter what. That is the process. In the contests where they are not elected directly by the people (the caucuses) the SDs overwhelmingly take how their state/district voted as a guide to how they will cast their SD vote.

They (most of them) also have the legal option to disregard the voters and vote however they want. This is what Brazile was referring to, if enough SDs disregarded the voters in the sanctioned contests to nominate the candidate who lost the pop vote, or more accurately the total state wide contests as pop vote was not accurately accounted for in caucuses states then she would resign.

It was a pretty close thing, and if FL and MI hadn't screwed the pooch it may have been different... or may not have, impossible to say at this point. But, in the end the SDs backed the sanctioned pop vote/most contests won winner as they should have. No crisis, except for a small minority who over invested emotionally.

Like a bunch of over-sugared kids refusing to accept it is time to go home and take a nap.

And a small point... I personally don't think there is anyone who doesn't "have a racist bone in their body". It is all in how you mitigate it, and work against it.

The primary saw all manner of "-isms" on both sides. I don't think they where meant personally, politics is nasty, and the candidates seem to have moved on and reconciled sufficiently.


by notedgeways on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:00:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SDs have chosen Obama (2.00 / 1)

Bull crappy - if that were the case then the supers from Massachusetts (for instance) should be required to vote the way their state did. Are you listening Teddy and Kerry? And if that were the case, though I admit that I haven't done the math, Hillary may be the nominee. Given bigger states etc.

So are ya willing to chance it?


by Bornagaindem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:55:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SDs have chosen Obama (none / 0)

People have already done the math: it makes no difference.

For example, check out the number of supers from Virginia who endorsed Hillary Clinton.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:11:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Superdelegates did not decide the (none / 0)

nominee.

Obama won the pledged delegate count.  So, if there were no superdelegates, he would have wrapped up the nomination on May 20.


by Geekesque on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SDs have chosen Obama (none / 0)

What Donna said is that she's resign if the supers overturned the pledged delegates. Having the supers endorsing pledged delegates was what she wanted -- and what happened.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:57:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's nice. (2.00 / 1)

and it was really super fantastic hearing her PERSONAL opinion as a pundit.  what wasn't super great was hearing her say it from her objective mantle as a superdelegate represented on CNN as if it was party line.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:04:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's nice. (none / 0)

If someone is threatening to resign, it's pretty strongly implied that it is not party line.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:12:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Victory in Denver, Defeat in November (2.00 / 5)

Also, what people routinely ignore are the realities on the ground.  It would be virtually impossible to assemble a staff, open field offices, air commercials, etc. in any sort of coherent manner in the short span of two and a half months.  Switching nominees at the convention would be a logistical disaster and would guarantee a McCain victory, regardless of the relative merits of Clinton and Obama as politicians.


by rfahey22 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:38:31 PM EST

Re: Victory in Denver, Defeat in November (none / 0)

Which is exactly what those people want. i know we bicker about Democrats hee occasionally, but these sites tear down anyone associated with the party, pretty odd.


by Dog Chains on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:51:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly, pschodrew. "It is over." It (2.00 / 6)

has been over for sometime now. There is nothing that would convince the superdelegates to hand this to Hillary, therefore, imho, the PUMA movement should just be ignored. I can remember Alegre counseling us to "not feed the trolls" during the primary flame wars and pie fights. I think the same advice is in order here -  just let them piss and moan to each other - because there's  not a snowball's chance in Hell that anything will come of their misguided efforts. My question then becomes, "If a PUMA roars in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, did it really roar?"


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:40:39 PM EST

OT joke (2.00 / 2)

Way back in the day, I was a waiter and there was only one other guy on a staff of forty servers.  He always used to ask the girls, "If a man is walking alone in a forest talking to himself, and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?"


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:44:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

lol! (none / 0)

Can't wait to run that past my wife.


by Neef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:04:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Victory in Denver, Defeat in November (1.50 / 4)

Having Hillary's name put in for the nomination is common courtesy and allows her delegates do in the first round what they wanted to do in the first place, cast their ballot for their candidate. The problem for Obama is that it re-emphasizes that he limped across the finish line. It re-emphasizes that  he needs the undemocratic and unelected super delegates to put him over the line. And that would make his holiness look bad.

The sudden demise of Obama's candidacy would likely cost Democrats the African-American vote and possibly even an entire generation of new, young voters, perhaps permanently

Please substitute Clinton for Obama and women, hispanics, and working class vote for African -American in the above quote and you have what is going on now.

As cosbo says the writing is on the wall -we already lose in November- the only question is by how many states.


by Bornagaindem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:53:44 PM EST

Re: Victory in Denver, Defeat in November (2.00 / 4)

Great.  Glad to read your wonderful analysis.

Now kindly go crawl back under your rock while we go and win the election.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:56:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Victory in Denver, Defeat in November (none / 0)

funny, can you actually point to the data that backs up what you say? Because, I just haven't seen it. I suspect you WANT Obama to lose because your gal lost. "If she can't have it no Democrat can!" eh?


by notedgeways on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:05:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then how do you explain (none / 0)

the fact that he is performing well with those groups in the polls? Don't you think he should be significantly behind in polling?


by Neef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Victory in Denver, Defeat in November (2.00 / 2)

First, I believe that her name should be on the ballot and I expect that it will.

Second, Obama, NOT Hillary, is the presumptive nominee.  If he loses the nomination in Denver for any reason, it will appear stolen.  It will devastate his base.  The AA community would never forgive the party for not standing beside Obama--and I couldn't blame them.

The situation with Hillary is completely different.  The process was screwed up, but under the rules of the party, Obama won and she lost.

Third, Obama is going to mop the floor with McCain this fall.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Victory in Denver, Defeat in November (2.00 / 1)

". It re-emphasizes that  he needs the undemocratic and unelected super delegates to put him over the line."

That's only because they exist and form such a large block of delegates (about 20%).  If there were no superdelegates, Obama would have had the nomination wrapped up around Wisconsin.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Victory in Denver, Defeat in November (none / 0)

and how many of you are suggesting that we eliminate this unfair practice?  Obama could ask for that tomorrow.


by Bornagaindem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:58:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Me for one (none / 0)

I was insulting caucuses and SDs back in 2003-2004, for exactly the reasons the PUMAs now whine about,.

Funny thing, many of the biggeest PUMA blow hards, like Ron "Angus McSneery" K were on the other side of this back then. They thought they owned the party apparatus and loved themselves some undemocratic caucuses and SDs, because it would allow them to use them to their advantage.

I remember on Kos in 2004 telling McSneery to watch out, because it may just be the Dean crowd answering the phones in 2007-2008, so they want to make things more democratic.

Funny thing...look at what happened.


by ElitistJohn on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 05:31:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Victory in Denver, Defeat in November (none / 0)

Drew, like your diary, and I am Rec'ing it.

But, it's a little heavy on the "Some scandal is going to derail" Obama meme for my taste.

NO ONE except the PUMA's believes there is a Whitey Tape, or a audio tape of Obama backstage with Rev Wright reading him the "God-Damn America" speech.

These ex-democrats have morphed into some cross between Sean Hannity and your average red-neck from Free Republic.

Also, what are the chances Obama is sitting on some amazing scandal, (and I hate to suggest it, because I actually have a better imagination then the morons at NoQuarter, and hate to give them fuel) like Obama has an illegitamite WHITE child some place. It would have to be something like that to derail him.

Do you think he would hide that kind of bombshell or COULD hide it from AxelRod or the rest of his insiders?

Secondly, yes, at that point, in some plot straight out of movie, Obama WOULD withdraw, and would almost DEMAND his supporters back the logical stand in choice, which would be Senator Clinton.

So, your scenario of dissafected Blacks and the young'uns misses the mark a little too.

If they would decide on their own NOT to vote for Senator Clinton, yes, but I think Obama would be, at that point, so drilling them to step up rather then let McCain win?

I think, that scenario, with Obama demanding they support Senator Clinton would NOT cause her bridges to be forever burned with the black voter.

Now, if she would WIN or not, that is another story.

Though, in that scenario, I think its a crap shoot.

Sure, the press would go into nutzy overdrive, but, in the end, does that make McCain suddenly the solution?

We are back to the fact that on 95% of the issues, Senators Obama and Clinton agree.

It would be a miracle, but I'm not sure I write off the Democrats EVEN in that scenario?

Especially if Obama was demanding his supporters understand the greater good.

Well, at any rate, as I said, I do agree with 90% of your diary.

Rec'ed.


"Well the danger on the rocks is surely past... Still I remain tied to the mast"...Don Fagen, Poet and Piano Player
by WashStateBlue on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:56:12 PM EST

I don't think there is a scandal out there. (none / 0)

Not at all.

The point I was trying to make was that the only way anything changes is if there is a scandal.  If that scandal existed, it would have already surfaced.  I don't believe that at all.

I wrote in another comment that I would be suprised if the GOP hasn't been doing oppo on Obama going back to '04.  After that speech at the convention, it was clear that he was going to be a rising star for Democrats.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Whitey Tape will not disrail (none / 0)

his candidacy. My Obama-supporting ex believes the Whitey Tape exists and when/if it comes out nobody will care or be that surprised.


by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:50:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Whitey Tape will not disrail (none / 0)

If it existed, I think it would have turned up by now.  I have a hard time believing that the ONLY people with copies of this public speech are Republicans.

And besides, it really seems inconsistent with her message.  I've actually grown fond of Michelle Obama, though I am skeptical of her husband.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:01:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Michelle is smarter than him (none / 0)

I hate seeing her do the Stepford Wife routine, she is an assertive, bright woman and seems to absorb what's going on more quickly than her husband does.

I expect her to evolve a lot over the next four years, she's already evolved quite a bit during the campaign. And I expect she'll repent for her sexist statements against Hillary before long.


by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:04:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Michelle is smarter than him (2.00 / 1)

Here you go again with that old chestnut. Michelle Obama didn't come out with a damn single "sexist statement" against Hillary Clinton. Knock it off.


by upstate girl on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh yes she did - girl (none / 0)

I assume that you being upstate girl not upstate woman that you are on the younger end of the scale.


by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Michelle is smarter than him (none / 0)

So both Hillary and Bill have the max to the Obama campaign. And Obama gave the max to the Hillary campaign. But no where did I see that Michelle gave the max to Hillary. Has anyone else?

It would be interesting if she has not.


by Bornagaindem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 05:02:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I read that she did (none / 0)

sorry.


by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:11:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If someone said there was a tape (2.00 / 2)

with her railing against the "white man", I might be concerned.

A "Whitey" tape is just ridiculous, especially given who Michelle Obama is. Imagine someone yelling "Golly" and/or "Swell". There you go. It's...you might as well assume she said "Dyn-o-mite!" or "Honky!!". Even Jeremiah Wright never used the term "Whitey".

Angela Davis would have used the term. Thirty years ago.


by Neef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If someone said there was a tape (none / 0)

Haha exactly.  Which is why it was such a failure on Larry Johnson's part - the second he started pushing it I made a vow that I would vote for McCain if it was ever produced, if they would vote for Obama if it was not.

I had no takers.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:20:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They will not turn over the nomination (none / 0)

unless it's led by the AA superdelegates, which will not happen.

Hillary's name should be on the ballot so the roll call vote can be counted and noted in the history books.

And technically, Obama should pick a veep that not only works for him, but that works for the party and unites the party. Obama worshippers will not like this because they think the evil Hillary will mar their messiahs aura, but the responsible thing for Obama to do would be to pick Hillary as veep. I have no expectations that he will do the responsible thing.


by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:19:30 PM EST

Re: They will not turn over the (none / 0)

Life must suck for you.

So few, so very few people are as ardently right as you are.

Could you be our Prometheus?  Could you steal truth from the gods?  Bring us this truth!  Share it with mankind!

Light the way!


by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:24:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dude, I recced your bicycle diaries (none / 0)

and complemented you on your sweet new ride. We agree on some things, disagree on others. We are both human beings.


by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I must rent The Matrix (none / 0)

To get your references. Many scifi fans in this election.

But first I need to watch all Battlestar Galactica eps as I heard they're quite political and timely.


by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:34:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I must rent The Matrix (none / 0)

Pardon me?  That was Greek mythology.

Stop being childish.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you think she wants it? (none / 0)

I don't want her to do it.  The idea of her doing his bidding for eight years makes me sick.  


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:26:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you think she wants it? (2.00 / 1)

He's not Palpatine and she ain't Vader.

That post was a little over the top, I'm afraid.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Vader was dark - are you being racist now? (none / 0)

Disappointed in you.


by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:33:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What else does a VP do? (2.00 / 1)

The VP supports the president's policies whether he/she agrees or not.  The VP is not an independent actor.  How is that "over the top"?


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:34:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did Al do Bill's bidding? (none / 0)

The idea that she'd be either subservient to him as a Veep is really unfair to both. You assume a sharp contrast in policies between the two - there's no evidence for that at all. Don't you believe that she'd have any voice in the causes she championed? Isn't it most likely that she'd be spearheading those initiatives she is best qualified for, those closest to her heart, like healthcare - just as Gore did with the environment?


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:43:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

<
Re: What else does a VP do? (none / 0)

The "doing his bidding" line sounded a little nefarious and, while, harsh.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:47:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]