Fuckity Fuck - McCain's Going to Win

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Suse

They aren’t trying to tell anyone else how to vote

Yes they are. They have a whole website devoted to it.
What they are doing is providing a place for those who do not feel that Obama is the best candidate to express their views without death threats and other harrassment from Obama supporters.
[/quote]

Death threats, my ass, and who IS the best candidate to express their views? In what way does Obama not express their views?

They are also working to pay down Hillary’s debt and to have her delegates recognized at the convention. There are many who, while they support Hillary, don’t believe it has anything to do with her now; they are concerned with the future of the party that they believe has been hijacked by party leadership.

Hijacked how? Obama won more delegates than she did. He also won more of the popular vote, regardless of their own bullshit, phony math system.

[quote]
Some despise Obama[.quote]
Without ever offering a coherent explanation as to why.

others merely see him as too inexperienced at the moment for the role of President.

He’s just as experienced as Hillary, so they’re lying when they say that’s a concern.

Some do believe that Hillary can be nominated at the convention and win the nomination. Most believe that allowing her name to be put into nomination and allowing the normal process of voting would at least make it clear that the process is and not the product of backroom deals; for some it might even reconcile them enough to the party that they could vote for Obama.

This is hi;arious considering the fact that the Hillary camp is the one who wanted to put together a backroom deal to take the nomination away from Obama. Obama did not win through any deal. He beat her the way he was supposed to. – by winning more elected delegates.

The DNC has screwed the primary season up badly, in my opinion. Pressure for Hillary to end her candidacy started as early as February and continued throughout the spring with Dean, Brazile, and Pelosi pressuring the superdelegates to endorse a candidate (after Brazile had declared that she would resign if the superdelegates decided the nomination), when other candidates in previous primaries have been allowed to take the fight to the convention.

There hasn’t been a fight in previous Primaries and Hillary started out with more than 150 superdelegates before a single Primary or caucus had been voted on. How come it’s ok for supers to declared for Hillary without hearing all the votes, but not for Obama?

Donna Brazile indicated, as paraphrased by Paul Begala on their joint CNN appearance, that the DNC didn’t need to worry about the votes of the party regulars; that it was more important to attract the shiny new voters and the undecided voters. PUMAs and those who share their views felt that not only their candidate was being disrespected, so were they. And on the internet, in personal encounters, and in caucuses, they often were.

This is where they’re completely on the moon. They were not disrespected in the slightest. They just LOST, that’s all.

When the issue of dropping caucuses came before the party while the platform was being discussed, the DNC leadership refused to discuss it.

This is just snivelling. Obama had to deal with the same problems getting people out to them as hillary did. Wah, he’s more organized than she is. How unfair. What a jerk.

They feel that they didn’t leave the party but the party left them.

Complete hogwash. Obama represents every issue they say they care about. McCain opposes them all.

Some may even vote for Obama if the DNC can demonstrate to them that the nominating process is fair and that their concerns about the primaries are being listened to and addressed.

I have yet to hear them articulate a single way in which the sytem was unfair to them. They just lost. They didn’t have any probvlems with it when they thought they were going to win.

What shouldn’t happen is for them to be ignored and derided as being only unhappy that their candidate lost, and to have the party leadership and Obama supporters tell them they have no choice - they have to vote for Obama.

No one’s telling them that they have no choice, but they don’t actually have any coherent grievances that I can see. The fact that the leadership asked the supers to hurry up and endorse before June is the best they can do? Do they think the leadership and Hillary herself would not have done the same thing if she was in the lead?

I don’t expect to convince any fervent Obama supporter of anything but I get tired of not having the viewpoint of nearly half the party voters represented as accurately as I possibly can. Anyone who is willing to read with an open mind can find these sites; look them up for yourselves.

I’m not a fervent supporter of anybody. I’m a fervent opponent of a 3rd Bush term. I would have voted just as easily for hillary and I wouldn’t have cried about it either. It’s also not close to “half the party” (of which I’m not even a member, by the way) and I still, for the life of me, can’t see how they think they’ve been wronged. What "concerns’ have been ignored?

[Frank]

@Suse

And as for it not being nearly half the voters, it might not behalf , but many have the same concerns and intend to vote for Obama. Are their concerns more entitled to be heard because they’re doing as they’re told? I thought protest when you believe a wrong is being committed was the patriotic thing to do?

Where was the concern about the caucuses this time last year? Where was the concern about the superdelegates this time last year? Where was the concern about anything this time last year when they assumed Hillary was the annointed one?

I’ll give you one point: I agree that Hillary’s name should be placed in nomination and her supporters should be allowed to vote for her, then after that someone can move that the nomination of Obama be by acclamation, and everyone can go home happy.

But I’m not going to (and I don’t think the party should) kiss a bunch of ass to get people to do something that is so blatantly in their own self-interest to do! And it’s a risky game they’re playing - if Obama wins anyway, they’re locked out; if he loses, they go down in history as the Naderites of 2008. There’s a lot of downside potential, and NO upside at all: Hillary Clinton will NOT be the Democratic nominee for president.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

As for your first paragraph, it’s full of the same thing you’ve been saying all along. If I were remotely on the fence, you’d be the sort of person driving me to the other side. “Pure, stupid spite or racism”, “these bitches”, “Hillary was entitled to the nomination because she’s a woman” - those sorts of quotes just show me that you don’t get it. I’ve given you examples and you believe what you choose to believe instead of reading what these people have to say. Don’t worry, you’re not alone. Most of the board will be with you. Have fun with your election.

I’ve been trying to get it for months. I’ve given it every chance and read the websites. there’s a lot of yammer about “being ignored,” and “not having our concerns addressed,” but they never actually getting around to saying what those concerns actually are or precisely how they’ve been wrongs. It’s just vague whining about leadership wanting Obama. The leadership wanted a nominee. I don’t think they cared either way who it was.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I have no problem with putting Hillary’s name up at the Convention. As far as I know, Obama hasn’t ruled it out either. I have a feeling it won’t be enough, though. Some people just can’t lose gracefully.

[Suse]

@Frank

Where was the concern about the caucuses this time last year? Where was the concern about the superdelegates this time last year? Where was the concern about anything this time last year when they assumed Hillary was the annointed one?

I’ll give you one point: I agree that Hillary’s name should be placed in nomination and her supporters should be allowed to vote for her, then after that someone can move that the nomination of Obama be by acclamation, and everyone can go home happy.

But I’m not going to (and I don’t think the party should) kiss a bunch of ass to get people to do something that is so blatantly in their own self-interest to do! And it’s a risky game they’re playing - if Obama wins anyway, they’re locked out; if he loses, they go down in history as the Naderites of 2008. There’s a lot of downside potential, and NO upside at all: Hillary Clinton will NOT be the Democratic nominee for president.

Actually I agree with you; Obama will be the nominee, and what’s more, I think he will win. I don’t see McCain being able to take the election this year; I think Bush has hurt the Republicans too badly.

I can’t speak to where the concerns were last year; I can’t think of a time in the last decade at least where both sets of voters were so passionate. But even so, if flaws are identified by both sides, why can’t the party at least discuss the problems that occurred during the caucuses and either reform them or discontinue them? Isn’t the Democratic party supposed to represent precisely the voter that has difficulty participating in caucuses - the old, the infirm, the poor, the rural and working class voters? 'Cause if it’s not, I’ve been voting for the wrong people all of these years and I’d better run get a McCain sign (that I will have to pay for) for my yard.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Sure, they should discuss it. But the Convention isn’t the place, and it’s not a rational reason to vote against the party that best represents their ideals.

And it’s not like the caususes were set up just to screw Hillary. They’re taking it way too personally. I don’t remember them complaining when it was Bill winning the caucuses.

[jayjay]

The thing is, nobody had a problem with caucuses before Hillary started losing them. I had heard word zero about any access complaints for caucuses in 1992, 2000 or 2004. They may have had their very small complainants, but it wasn’t a major issue. At least until this primary season when Hillary realized her campaign team were a bunch of idiots who didn’t know what the hell they were doing.

I didn’t want Hillary. And it had nothing to do with her being a woman. It had to do with her connections to the DLC (Republican lite) and the people she surrounded herself with at first, then her campaign’s behavior throughout the primary season.

If Hillary had done well in the caucuses, these same people would be cheering for caucuses. There would be no word of dissent because their candidate would have been the nominee. It’s sour grapes, from start to finish. It’s one thing to oppose a candidate during the primary season. Nobody faults a party member for that…that’s the time you’re allowed to oppose someone who isn’t your candidate. But after the primaries are over, unless the party has somehow elected a Hitler or a Stalin, it’s time to support the nominee. These are not Democrats.

[Suse]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I’ve been trying to get it for months. I’ve given it every chance and read the websites. there’s a lot of yammer about “being ignored,” and “not having our concerns addressed,” but they never actually getting around to saying what those concerns actually are or precisely how they’ve been wrongs. It’s just vague whining about leadership wanting Obama. The leadership wanted a nominee. I don’t think they cared either way who it was.

Try reading Heidi Li. She tends to avoid emotion-based language; perhaps her words will be clearer to you.

[Suse]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Sure, they should discuss it. But the Convention isn’t the place, and it’s not a rational reason to vote against the party that best represents their ideals.

And it’s not like the caususes were set up just to screw Hillary. They’re taking it way too personally. I don’t remember them complaining when it was Bill winning the caucuses.

Okay, fight my ignorance. If the convention isn’t the place to discuss it - where the membership is assembled - then where is the place?

I’ve seen Democrats on this board who support Obama who also agree that the caucuses are problematic and should be abolished, so it’s not just the PUMAs and not just Hillary supporters (and those are not always the same people).

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The conventions are for choosing a nominee, not for hashing out petty rules concerns. I don’t know or care when they do it as long as they don’t disrupt the conventions with it.

it’s a phony concern anyway.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Suse

Try reading Heidi Li. She tends to avoid emotion-based language; perhaps her words will be clearer to you.

I don’t feel like slogging through another blog. Can you give me the Cliff’s notes? How have the Hillary voters been wronged?

[Suse]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The conventions are for choosing a nominee, not for hashing out petty rules concerns. I don’t know or care when they do it as long as they don’t disrupt the conventions with it.

it’s a phony concern anyway.

It may be phony to you but since delegates are awarded as a result of a caucus, irregularities in the process should be corrected promptly by the leadership, at a minimum. And since Obama has the majority of the delegates and there are currently no plans to allow a roll call with Clinton’s name entered as a candidate, why are we spending four (five?)days on a nomination?

[Frank]

@Suse

But even so, if flaws are identified by both sides, why can’t the party at least discuss the problems that occurred during the caucuses and either reform them or discontinue them?

Why do it at the convention? That’s not its purpose.

After the election, we can work on that. There’s more to than just the party abolishing them, though. I’m sure the states that have them would have to make new election law. Regardless, let’s deal with it after tempers have cooled.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Suse

It may be phony to you but since delegates are awarded as a result of a caucus, irregularities in the process should be corrected promptly by the leadership, at a minimum. And since Obama has the majority of the delegates and there are currently no plans to allow a roll call with Clinton’s name entered as a candidate, why are we spending four (five?)days on a nomination?

Why do we ever? I agree the Conventions are a jerk-off, and I’m fine with putting Hillary’s name into the roll call (I actually agree with her that it could be cathartic and I think she’s speaking from concern for the party, not egoism or from any delusion she might win).

But discussing rule changes – I don’t know, can’t the leaders meet and screw that stuff down sometime after the election? I don’t think it’s pertinent to bring up ath the Convention, and I don’t believe for a second the PUMA types would care about it if their candidate had won.

[Suse]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I don’t feel like slogging through another blog. Can you give me the Cliff’s notes? How have the Hillary voters been wronged?

Actually, the stuff I was hoping you would read is Heidi Li talking about the convention and her hope that the party would follow its own rules (also the part where she recognizes Obama’s achievement as the first black man to be a serious contender for the nomination). I imagine there’s copyright restrictions so I will post a couple of snippets:

Senator Obama has achieved a comparably historic position to Senator Clinton’s in the sort of way I noted above. Just as Senator Clinton is the first woman with a real shot at the Democratic nomination; Senator Obama is the first black man with a genuine opportunity to achieve this goal. Because racism and more extreme forms of racial animosity, like sexism and misogyny, have played and still play an enormous role in our society, it is essential for the Democratic Party not to deny either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton their respectively earned chances to be elected at the Democratic National Convention come August. Neither candidate’s campaign succeeded in making either of them the automatic nominee - neither won enough pledged delegates to qualify for that. That issue is water under the bridge: whether you think either candidate could have run a better campaign and managed to prevail in this manner or whether you wish one of them had, that is not what happened. Now delegates - pledged and unpledged - should have the opportunity to do the job envisioned by the Democratic Party’s own rules and Procedures: elect the Democratic candidate at the Democratic Convention

Characterizing Clinton delegates as “aggrieved loyalists” misses the point. Delegates are people who go to great effort to secure a place at the convention. This year delegates followed the rules in the Call to the Convention in order to serve their Party. Wanting the Democratic Party to abide by the rules in that same document has nothing to with loyalties to one candidate or another, or with being aggrieved, angry or disappointed. It has to do with a demand for integrity from the Party’s leadership, which has done so much already to damage the integrity of the Party they purport to advance

[Frank]

@Suse

It may be phony to you but since delegates are awarded as a result of a caucus, irregularities in the process should be corrected promptly by the leadership, at a minimum.

Unless the “corrections” result in a change in pledged delegates, there is no reason to discuss this at the convention. A case cannot be made that delegate counts would change. Sounds like a good way to start a credentials fight to me. Then we have some joy, oh yes.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Suse

Actually, the stuff I was hoping you would read is Heidi Li talking about the convention and her hope that the party would follow its own rules (also the part where she recognizes Obama’s achievement as the first black man to be a serious contender for the nomination). I imagine there’s copyright restrictions so I will post a couple of snippets:

Well, like I said. I agree that they should at least be able to cast their votes, and I think it would be a mistake not to provide that vent. I think Obama is probably smart enough to realize that, and I expect that he’ll probably let it happen.

[Suse]

@Frank

Unless the “corrections” result in a change in pledged delegates, there is no reason to discuss this at the convention. A case cannot be made that delegate counts would change. Sounds like a good way to start a credentials fight to me. Then we have some joy, oh yes.

So what you really want in a convention is that everyone shows up, goes “HOO RAH OBAMA!” and leaves. Because so far you’re saying we can’t have rules discussions, and we can’t have arguing, because those would be Bad. I would prefer that my party air their disagreements and at least allow the objections to be addressed rather than to have people who feel they are not allowed to speak up go out and vote for another party’s candidate to register their protests.

[elucidator]

The “party leadership” did not, repeat, did not support Obama at the expense of Hillary. The DNC party leadership are deep dish Clintonistas, Republican Lite. They lost because a)they got lazy and b) Iraq. The DNC is so totally chickenshit they stand for nothing more than “Me, too, but not quite so much”. Giving us a choice between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber.

The Dem leadership has made its case dependent upon getting almost as much corporate fat cat support as the Pubbies, and that support has a price. * Tres duh, mais non?* So they warped themselves into being “business friendly” while at the same time offering lip service to environmental concerns etc. They triangulated themselves into a meaningless, bland custard of “centrism”, but a centrism defined by not aggravating the right, a centrism that is so beholden to the notion of not upsetting the right that it takes no stands at all.

No, the leadership didn’t shove Obama down the throat of the people, the people shoved Obama down the throat of the leadership. Time for them to spend more time with their families.

When the people lead, the leaders will follow.

[cosmosdan]

@Suse

I understand their concerns and have spent a lot of time reading their sites, even though I was an Obama voter in the primary. What resonates with me is the DNC’s willingness to take their base for granted in order to win over the newly registered voter, the independent voter, or the Republican voter. When the next shiny new candidate with another message of change comes along and those voters all run the other way, who will the Democratic party turn to then?

I don’t expect to convince any fervent Obama supporter of anything but I get tired of not having the viewpoint of nearly half the party voters represented as accurately as I possibly can. Anyone who is willing to read with an open mind can find these sites; look them up for yourselves.

What , specifically should I read to understand and respect their POV? I’ll be glad to do it. It seems after two close defeats in the last two elections and a horrible presidency as a result, the DNC should be courting new voters and independents and might reasonably expect their base to respect and support the democratic process agreed upon by the party. It seems that Hillary was the front runner and Barack came from behind and beat her fair and square. I’m more interested in reconciliation than name calling but I honestly don’t understand the thought process behind throwing their parties nominee and the overall welfare of the country {which includes them} under the bus out of misplaced indignation.
Both Hilary and Barack did something amazing in this historic primary. One of them had to win and one had to lose. Can’t they celebrate the historical significance of what happened and continue to support the historical significance of what is happening now, without letting disappointment and bitterness motivate them? I’d like to be sympathetic but it isn’t easy when the attitude seems to be “My candidate didn’t win so fuck all of you” The issues we face seem far to serious for that kind of childishness. If that’s not what’s happening please tell me what to read to get a different perspective.