Fork Hillary 3: The Final Forking

Great Debates
261

And this is why it’s important to make the distinction between the Democratic Party organization and voters who consider themselves Democrats.

Sorry if it bugs you, but I see no reason to stop saying it. I’ve given money repeatedly to the Democratic Party in the past couple of election cycles, so I’m even more identifiably a Democrat than most Dem voters, but they haven’t asked me my opinion of superdelegates, or even bothered to let me know they exist, until I found out about them in the news like everyone else.

IOW, I’m not going back on some previously-held position by saying the superdelegates have no business, aside from genuinely exceptional circumstances, in overriding the combined outcome of the primaries and caucuses.

How?

The only choices I have in the matter are to be, or not be, a Democrat; to vote, or not vote, Democratic in November: to tell the Dems to take their screwy system and stuff it, and leave the party to its fate in November, if they decide that the will of the superdelegates is more important than the outcome as determined by the voters.

And we’ve pretty much been told how childish and infantile (and other, even more prejudicial adjectives) we’d be if we did such a thing. Don’t we remember Nader and 2000 and all that? Yes, we do.

So what’s the way out of this box you and those of a similar mind are putting us in, where we’re not free agents, but seemingly under a morally binding contract to the Dems for the rest of the cycle, where we must both respect its rules that we had no say in and no knowledge of, yet vote for its nominee in the fall?

ISTM that the most responsible way out is to call bullshit on the notion that we’ve got to respect the right of superdelegates to overrule the voters.

Speaking as a small-d democrat, that’s actually the purest, best argument there is. If the Democratic Party doesn’t want to be a democratic party, then maybe they should change their name to the ‘Run By Elites, But Not Quite So Much As the Republicans Are’ Party.

But the main thing is, we Dem voters are not slaves or serfs; we’re not the property of those elites. They toy with overruling the popular outcome at their own risk.

262

The real problem in my mind is the fence-sitting Superdelegates who won’t commit at this point. I can’t beleive they need to learn more about either candidate. They have campaigned for months, debated over 20 times, so what are these wavering Superdelegates waiting for? Why aren’t they getting as much stick as HRC for dragging this thing out?

263

Because they don’t want to make what they see as the risky decision, in this case, a decision to discourage a very powerful Democrat from continuing her race when it seems that she very much wants to continue.

The very day that Hillary drops out, or the day that there are no more contests left, and as long as Obama has not been videotaped punching a baby panda, I think we’ll see a significant shift.

The supers still holding out (and the ones who have already declared) are not any less craven and political than the ones who voted along with the AUMF because they were afraid they might be on the wrong side of a success. In many cases, they are the exact same people. Politicians making decisions based largely in avoiding risk is not really news, though it very much should be.

264

Oh, please. The same old tired rhetoric doesn’t make it any more palatable.

There are PLENTY of ways to make yourself heard by the Democratic Party. One, of course, would be to get involved in the Democratic Party organization. I’m assuming you are much more likely (from your statements here) to identify with that party than with the Republican Party (especially given current Republican Party philosophies). So get involved with the Democratic Party at your local level. This is one way to be heard on this issue.

Another way is to make your concerns known to the Democratic Party directly. Send letters to the Party. Email, hard copy, etc. Organize a very large campaign of such correspondence from the people who feel like you do (probably a fairly large number of people if the whole thing were explained to them). Let the Party know that your willingness to contribute time, money and votes to the Party’s candidates will decrease if it turns out that popular votes can be trumped by politicoes in back rooms making deals. Don’t reference Sen. Obama or any other specific candidate except as an example of what you mean. Make yourself heard on the issue.

As for Sen. Obama, there are a number of very good reasons that the “superdelegates” should consider voting for him irrespective of the outcome in the primaries/caucuses. Point to the type of appeal he has: a very liberal voting record who nevertheless energizes moderates, especially young moderates. Point to the fact he is much more easily distinguished from Sen. McCain than Sen. Clinton is (those two are simply peas in a pod). Point to the fact that his ethnicity would provide a strong charge to those who are members of ethnic minorities in this country, by showing them that it is possible to be a member of a minority grouping in America and reach the “top.” These are just a few of the reasons that can be used to support the idea that the Party’s politicoes should support Sen. Obama and not Sen. Clinton.

But whining about the “theft” of the nomination is going to get you not much of anywhere. I note that you are perfectly happy to accept the advantage that the rules change in 1988 added, without which your candidate would be behind Sen. Clinton by about 200 pledged delegates (well, assuming that the same states would have been “won” by the same candidates, which probably would be true for most of them).

The whining by Sen. Obama supporters really galls primarily because Sen. Obama himself rarely whines. Part of his attraction is that he’s been fairly true to the concept of campaigning without acting spoiled, petulant or bitter (a marked contrast to some of what comes out of the Clinton campaign). He seems generous in defeat, he doesn’t come off as over-the-top in victory, and he attempts to keep the focus of his campaign on the issues he perceives separate him from his opponent. When people who support him behave like spoiled children about things like the superdelegates, it really stands out as quite counter-productive in comparison.

265

At this point it’s cowardice really.

I think we all know the stakes and have for quite a while now. Hillary’s camp has admitted that she has a 10 percent chance of winning this thing. Why even wait?

266

This is the exact reason I am campaigning so hard for Obama to win. Writing superdelegates, hosting campaign parties, running phone banks, pounding the pavement is all worth it to get Obama to the presidency.

I feel for Clinton, as I said in the long post back a couple pages to Elvis1Lives, Clinton’s decline is directly correlated to how she ran her campaign, and perhaps more importantly, voters were often frustrated by their inability to discover the real person behind the notably buttoned-up candidate. This has ultimately lead to her decline in numbers across the board.

Will it ultimatley harm the party - I hope not. Will she stand behgind Obama? I would certainly hope so. I don’t wish any ill will on the woman, I just do not think she would be a very good president.

267

Folks, Obama’s on vacation, Hillary’s getting hammered. He’s going to be rested and ready when he gets back.

Starting March 31st, watch what happens, I say. Starting monday, he’s going to rock.

Hm. Might be friday, just to let it cycle all weekend, too.

268

I concur - he’s going to come out full throttle next week! :smiley:

269

HRC has a better chance of winning key states that Dems can and need to win- Obama does better in states that Dems have no chance of winning or are going to win regardless. Any superdelegate that doesn’t switch to HRC will be enjoying a pyrrhic victory. Any people pissed off when HRC gets the nom will get over it. And any Obama supporters who don’t fall in line and join HRC are hypocrites in that he preaches unity, not division, so if they buy into it when he’s the nom but abandon it when he isn’t, they are frauds. It’s about the party and the country, not about Obama.

270

Oh dear lord. I support Obama. I do not support the Democratic Party, or any other political party. I have absolutely no obligation, requirement, or duty to vote for someone just because they have a D after their name.

271

Right. Hillary is going to carry Texas, Arkansas,and Oklahoma in the general election, and Obama has no chance to carry New York, Massachusetts, and California. Care to make a bid on my swamp land?

272

Well, what you’re saying is that it’s about “key states”.

If you mean that getting a democrat elected will be important for the entire country, well then I agree. Also important will be a ton of downticket elections in very many of those non-key states. It sould be nice to get some of those folks out to vote, too.

Further, it’s hard to say for sure that Hillary “does better” in Ohio, Penn, etc. She does better among Ohio, Penn Democrats, a certain flavor of voter. In the general in such split states, all bets are off, hence the rabid focus on them.

In the very long term, focusing on Ohio and Pennsylvania and swing states alone will become an albatross for the dems. Those states are getting less blue, not more. We’ll also need to focus more on more, other, smaller, traditionally red states that are becoming more more progressive- Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Missouri, Arizona, etc. Texas being the big dog. There’s no reason states like these could not be got, but you have to campaign and advertise there.

As long as the party does not collapse, it will reap the benefit of the 2008 primary for years to come in these extensive organizations and interest in states that rarely get a Democratic focus.

273

You know, I find this really offensive and I’m sick and tired of these thinly veiled insults here. There’s nothing “whiny” about expressing opinions that differ from yours, speaking out strongly or debating fiercely. You can’t hear our tones of voice, so knock it off with the disparaging characterizations, mkay?

274

If I may interject something: I’m one of the most level headed Obama supporters you are going to find. I briefly lost my head this morning in the PIT but that was damn near a first for me.

This has everything to do with Obama. Obama reprents the kind of candidate that does not come around every four years, but once every few decades. I’ve been following Obama for a long time, years, and I knew this time would come. Clinton have been forced to follow if I want to watch anything going on in Washington for any part of the 90’s and beyond.
Clinton would be the second coming of the same old calvary - and the democratic party and the people on this nation have spoken to this by in large by voting Obama through more states, pop vote, delegates, you name it. On pure trustworthyness, Obama beats Clinton 63 to 42. And when asked who you would be most proud to have as your president, Obama is on top above both. Cite

If people do not like Obama that’s Ok, but one must look behind the votes to see why people vote the way they do. People won’t get the opportunity to say Obama supporters are hypocrites if they don’t vote Clinton, it is so close to a non-issue it’s not even worth talking about. Her campaign gives her 10% chance of beating Obama. Infer whatyou want from that.

275

Obama got very lucky in that the skeletons in his closet didn’t surface until after he won a bunch of primaries. If the primaries started today I think you’d see a different result, and the closeness of the reamining ones will be telling. Obama’s denouncement is insincere to boot- its like someone being a friend of Hitler and saying “when I was around him, he never said any of that Nazi stuff”. :rolleyes:

276

Deity + victory = thread over.

277

Oh, sorry. I don’t give a flying fuck whether you find it ‘palatable.’ Your palate is your problem.

Most local organizations of any sort aren’t keen on people who show up primarily to grind an ax. And given the timeframe of this issue, that’s exactly what it would come across as.

Sometimes life gets in the way. I’ve got other things I’m already trying to organize right now, and I’m not an organizing sort.

Too late. I’ve already fired that bullet over FISA and telecom immunity.

You don’t get it: I’m a democrat. If Clinton were to essentially pull even in delegates by winning a majority of votes in contested primaries and caucuses, and the supers tipped it her way, I wouldn’t be crazy about the outcome, but I’d consider it legitimate. I’m pro-Obama, but I’m even more pro-democracy.

Dude: *none *of the arguments we have on this board are going to get us anywhere. Meantime, if whining bothers you so much, quit whining about your distaste for my whining. :smiley:

Because it is whining, combined with a bit of looking-down-the-nose. Most distasteful. :wink:

In the sense that ignorance is bliss, I suppose. But is “you don’t know about X, and it benefits your candidate, so I’m presuming you favor it” the best you can do?

All this amounts to is a claim that advocacy for non-DSY-approved causes is petulant, childish behavior. Get over yourself, please.

278

How does HC implying that her and McCain are the only qualified candidates sit with then? She was clearly going against the party when she said that as it was saying if I don’t get it then McCain is your man.

279

If the primaries had started earlier before Obama was well-known, there would have been a different result as well. And the “skeletons” that were out there in public and acknowledged by Obama over a year ago and began rattling again when the Clinton campaign felt desperate, it appears those came too late to help her.

It’s a low down dirty shame for Hillary that the primaries were held during the only period of time in which she could possibly lose.

280

I agree that was not one of her better comments.