Hillary Supporters unite....no bashing please! only smiles

[DISUNC]

Could you expand on this? I'm a fan of his and I can't quite figure out why he's been so quiet. I thought that maybe he's hoping for spots in someone's Cabinet but I wonder...

Just a gut feeling!

Edwards being quiet along with Hillary's statement saying that 'she & McCain have experience, and Obama wrote a Essay'
Pelosi making statements about superdelagates will do damage!
Also, the former DNC chairman & now PA governer Ed Rendell is ACTIVELY by Clintons side (even before the PA race became so important).
Which party official is ACTIVELY standing next to Obama?????

There seems to be either very conflicting statements coming out by Party officials or (even more telling) just silence!

As far as Edwards 'hoping' for a cabinet position.....I dont believe for one second any candidate has not decided who & who will not be in their cabinets, or who is the VP pick...already. I also think that the future vp & candidates already know where they stand with each candidate.

This stuff is just way too important and needed to leave at the last minute.

 

[robinb]

Sure but hindsight is 20/20 ... When FL and MI were posturing and threats were being made no one atually thought this would be such a dogfight. In retrospect he (Dean) certainly should have taken it more seriously but that, again, is hindsight.

Dean has done much for the dems and I'm saddened by the proliferation of so much 'us or them' infighting. From my perspective both sides have too many supporters who want 'my way or the highway' and that attitude has precluded an open mind and it's bitten both camps in the behind to the point that we now we need to be scared of McCain, which was nothing but a joke just a few short months ago.

I agree with everything that you have said. I'm PO'd at Dean for dropping the ball on this one, but I THINK he was trying to stop a mass revolt of all the states which usually have no say in an election and Iowa/New Hampshire's promised response to make sure they stayed first. I applaud Dean's work on his 50-state strategy which has worked so well in bringing Democrats into office and I hope that we can return MI & FL to the fold soon.

 

[Hound 109]

I posted this in the liberal thread, but would prefer the input of those here. (heck, i'm probably on ignore with many of the BO supporters anyway.)

Obama is the nominee.

Pelosi has said so on Stephanopolis (she tried to stay oh so coy)...but....the Facts:

- She states that who ever gets the most delegates gets the nomination.
- She says the popular vote is irrelevent. (Like the National Election)
- She says not getting the minimum amount of delegates is irrelevent. (Unlike the Naitonal Election).
- She has stated for a week that both candidates wouldn't be on the ticket (she had decided on this before Texas/Ohio...which is why EVERYONE was demanding HC to quit.)
- She has no problem with disenfranchising FL & MI. (putting those states in play for the Republicans).
- She says that whatever happens during the next 3 weeks of vetting on Obama is irrelevent. Rezco, Uncle Racist, Moral Compass of Hate, Hypocrocy of not wanting the FL & MI voters to vote....none of it matters nor WILL it matter.

I apologize to those of you who indicated that this nominating process would cause McCain to win. You were right & I was wrong. I had no idea that Dean & Pelosi had already decided the nomination was over. I had no idea that they would knowingly decide to disenfranchise the voters of FL & MI. I had no idea that with their nominating rules stating that the SuperDs would decide in the event of neither candidate getting the required number of delegates that they would IGNORE THEIR OWN RULES. & with 3 freaking months before the convention & prior to 40% of Democrats getting to vote, Pelosi & Dean (& others) have decided to FIX the nomination.

I'm beyond disgusted.....& I will watch the vetting of Obama with laser focus as the Hypocritical statements & actions continue.

The BO supporters are suggesting (& i guess BO himself) that they just "split" the FL & MI delegates. (as if the delegates are the "issue" at this point). I swear we've gone thru the looking glass.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Did any of you Clinton supporters catch the Chris Mathews Show this morning? On the "Tell Me Something I Don't Know" segment, Rick Stengel from Time magazine said that his sources say that John Edwards is close to endorsing a candidate, probably before PA but definitely before NC, and that he will endorse Hillary...

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

The BO supporters are suggesting (& i guess BO himself) that they just "split" the FL & MI delegates. (as if the delegates are the "issue" at this point). I swear we've gone thru the looking glass.

I posted that, as a Florida Democrat, and FTR, it's not an Obama idea, or an Obama supporter idea. It's what the Florida State Democratic Party is suggesting, as a cost cutting way to make try and get something done and hopefully make the majority of Floridians happy. The pledged delegates would be split 50/50 and Florida superdelegates would still be able to vote for the candidate that they see fit.

 

[robinb]

Did any of you Clintonistas catch the Chris Mathews Show this morning?

Please don't call us "Clintonistas". It's rude and childish.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Please don't call us "Clintonistas". It's rude and childish.

I honestly didn't mean anything by it. I've even called myself a Clintonista on occasion, back when President Clinton was in office. I apologize and in no way meant to offend anyone here.

 

[robinb]

I honestly didn't mean anything by it. I've even called myself a Clintonista on occasion, back when President Clinton was in office. I apologize and in no way meant to offend anyone here.

OK ... apology accepted. I see that you meant no insult. However, it is used as a derogatory term by many which was why I reacted the way I did.

 

[JARNJ3]

I agree with everything that you have said. I'm PO'd at Dean for dropping the ball on this one, but I THINK he was trying to stop a mass revolt of all the states which usually have no say in an election and Iowa/New Hampshire's promised response to make sure they stayed first. I applaud Dean's work on his 50-state strategy which has worked so well in bringing Democrats into office and I hope that we can return MI & FL to the fold soon.

They need to take this as a major lessons learned - and finally - come up with a schedule of which states can go first - on a rotating basis.

Its about time they change the monopoly that states like Iowa and NH have with choosing candidates ........

They should hold a lottery of which states can go first - and then change them every 4 years.

So maybe other states can get a say in weeding out all of the nominees.....

Iowa & NH are basically popularity contests of who spends the most money there.... And they are not "democratic" states! Shouldn't a traditionally blue state get to vet and vote on all the candidates first?

And to make it truly fair - states where the candidates are from - should not be allowed to be "first" - thereby avoiding an unfair advantage to those candidates.........

 

[JARNJ3]

I posted that, as a Florida Democrat, and FTR, it's not an Obama idea, or an Obama supporter idea. It's what the Florida State Democratic Party is suggesting, as a cost cutting way to make try and get something done and hopefully make the majority of Floridians happy. The pledged delegates would be split 50/50 and Florida superdelegates would still be able to vote for the candidate that they see fit.

That is really not a solution. Hillary's already won there - albeit with no campaigning - and that's probably what would happen with a "do-over."

Its not a practical solution. Obama would be in essence "stealing" delegates that he wouldn't have earned.

Its going to lead to bad blood. McCain is already leading FL in the polls (yes, its early and things can change - but GWB won there the past two elections.....)

 

[JARNJ3]

Good for the Clinton campaign:

Clinton campaign wants Texas to postpone party conventions

03/15/2008

By PAUL J. WEBER / Associated Press

As final results from the Texas Democratic caucus remain unknown, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign wants signatures from the March 4 contest verified before party conventions are held around the state later this month.

In a letter sent to the state Democratic Party late Friday, the Clinton campaign requests the March 29 count and state Senate district conventions be postponed until the eligibility of an estimated 1 million caucus-goers are double checked.

The Clinton campaign wrote they received more than 2,000 complaints of violations following the historic Texas turnout, which was perhaps the nation's largest caucus ever.

With about 41 percent of precinct caucuses reported, rival Barack Obama was ahead with 56 percent to Clinton's 44 percent.

"It is the Party's responsibility to ensure the integrity of the precinct convention process by making sure that the Rules were followed," the letter states.

The letter came after the Clinton campaign said party officials told them this week it would not verify the eligibility of all caucus-goers before March 29. The county and district caucuses will whittle down the delegates before the state convention in June, when the final delegate count for the Texas caucus will be known.

Texas Democratic Party spokesman Hector Nieto said Saturday the party has not yet had the opportunity to make any decisions on the Clinton campaign's request.

"We're not surprised Senator Clinton's campaign has engaged with their attorney, but right now the TDP remains extremely pleased by the record-breaking turnout," Nieto said.

Nieto said state party officials had not received a similar request from Obama's campaign. A message left to the Obama campaign Saturday was not immediately returned.

Clinton campaign spokeswoman Adrienne Elrod, when asked if a lawsuit would be filed or considered if state party officials did not postpone their conventions, said Saturday that, "We believe that we can work with the party to find a resolution that protects the wishes of every Texas voter and ensures that no one was disenfranchised."

In the letter, the Clinton campaign lists 10 instances in which party rules were violated during precinct caucusing. They include caucuses starting before precinct polling closed, and results being taken from head or hand counts instead of a written roll.

So far, precinct caucuses report electing 23,918 delegates for Obama and 18,620 for Clinton. In the Texas primary also held March 4, Clinton won the popular vote with 51 percent to Obama's 47 percent. That earned her 65 delegates to his 61.

The turnout for the Texas caucuses was more than four times the estimated 220,000 who attended Iowa's first-in-the nation presidential contest.

The turnout stymied a state Democratic party that has had a shadow of its once mighty influence since a Republican takeover of state politics in the 1990s.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

That is really not a solution. Hillary's already won there - albeit with no campaigning - and that's probably what would happen with a "do-over."

Its not a practical solution. Obama would be in essence "stealing" delegates that he wouldn't have earned.

Its going to lead to bad blood. McCain is already leading FL in the polls (yes, its early and things can change - but GWB won there the past two elections.....)

It's certainly a sticky situation. The feeling (at least in northern Palm Beach County) I get from the local news/man in the street interviews is that no matter how it turns out, there are going to be people who are disappointed. Then you have a contingency of Florida Dems who think that the cost of doing a revote of any kind is a waste of money that could be put to better use. The 50/50 split seems like a somewhat decent way to end the stalemate...with the supers holding the deciding votes. That way, Florida can still be considered penalized and isn't given a chance to play kingmaker after breaking the rules of the Democratic primaries. I don't think the DNC can be blamed for the way this panned out. Other than the Obama campaign, everyone and their uncle thought that Hillary would have had the nomination wrapped up by now. The Obama thing came out of nowhere. Before things turned out the way they did, aside from Michiganders and Floridians, noone else much cared that the two states were stripped of their delegates...and I think the voters of MI and FL came to accept the reality and dealt with it as well. Now that both campaigns are fighting for every last delegate, we've suddenly become more relevant than ever before, and the DNC doesn't much like it after both states both moved their primaries up after being warned repeatedly not to.

 

[JARNJ3]

It's certainly a sticky situation. The feeling (at least in northern Palm Beach County) I get from the local news/man in the street interviews is that no matter how it turns out, there are going to be people who are disappointed. Then you have a contingency of Florida Dems who think that the cost of doing a revote of any kind is a waste of money that could be put to better use. The 50/50 split seems like a somewhat decent way to end the stalemate...with the supers holding the deciding votes. That way, Florida can still be considered penalized and isn't given a chance to play kingmaker after breaking the rules of the Democratic primaries. I don't think the DNC can be blamed for the way this panned out. Other than the Obama campaign, everyone and their uncle thought that Hillary would have had the nomination wrapped up by now. The Obama thing came out of nowhere. Before things turned out the way they did, aside from Michiganders and Floridians, noone else much cared that the two states were stripped of their delegates...and I think the voters of MI and FL came to accept the reality and dealt with it as well. Now that both campaigns are fighting for every last delegate, we've suddenly become more relevant than ever before, and the DNC doesn't much like it after both states both moved their primaries up after being warned repeatedly not to.

I agree with your premise - but I don't think a good majority of the country knew that MI and FL were being disenfranchised - other than maybe those state's residents!!! I think we all need to pay attention next time!

I've seen it written that the delegates from those states would have been seated any way - had there been a clear winner.

But since there isn't - and t least there won't be an official winner - since neither candidate will get to 2,025 - the DNC, both candidates, and the state parties should hold legitimate elections there! Especially, in light of the fact that the states had elections anyway - so it is sort of known which way the electorates there were leaning........

My two cents!! And probably worth much less than that to the DNC.

I mean - I cannot believe that for the second time in my lifetime (my very first vote was for John Anderson and I contend that I cannot be held accountable for it ) I am considering NOT voting for a democrat! In part because I don't believe Obama has enough experience to do the job without learning on the job - and because of the way the party has conducted itself with this problem!

 

[JARNJ3]

A recent letter I sent to Speaker Pelosi. Thought some of you would find it interesting:

Dear Ms. Pelosi

I have listened to and read your recent comments stated today on the This Week.

I don't see how you can state unequivocally that "“I do think that before we go to the convention, we will have a nominee,” Pelosi said. “We will go into the convention unified. And we will come out of that convention unified.”

Speaking as a Hillary supporter, I am very unhappy with your suggesting that not only will she lose this race, but that if that does happen - all her supporters will stand by as she is passed over during the VP selection process.

I don't see how your comments help this race at all.

What I do see is Hillary's Senior and White supporters voting for McCain in enough numbers to hand him the election (FL, OH and PA come to mind).

I find that I am shocking myself (a lifelong democrat) in considering the same.

Please think twice before trying to sway the rest of the electorate into voting for a candidate with so little National experience. Mrs. Clinton deserves a fair shake in the rest of the elections. And I find it hard to believe that if the DNC didn't think she had a shot at the nomination, all of you would have taken her aside, and asked her to concede. As that has not happened, I continue to support her, both monetarily and in spirit.

Also - please use whatever influence you have in obtaining Michigan and Florida re-votes. The Democratic party I know, does not disenfranchise voters.

Thank you.

 

[punkin]

Doesn't matter anymore. Whoever gets elected this year will only last for 4 years because he/she will preside over the worst economic downturn since the great depression.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I agree with your premise - but I don't think a good majority of the country knew that MI and FL were being disenfranchised - other than maybe those state's residents!!! I think we all need to pay attention next time!

I've seen it written that the delegates from those states would have been seated any way - had there been a clear winner.

But since there isn't - and t least there won't be an official winner - since neither candidate will get to 2,025 - the DNC, both candidates, and the state parties should hold legitimate elections there! Especially, in light of the fact that the states had elections anyway - so it is sort of known which way the electorates there were leaning........

My two cents!! And probably worth much less than that to the DNC.

I mean - I cannot believe that for the second time in my lifetime (my very first vote was for John Anderson and I contend that I cannot be held accountable for it ) I am considering NOT voting for a democrat! In part because I don't believe Obama has enough experience to do the job without learning on the job - and because of the way the party has conducted itself with this problem!

I've guess we'll just have to see how it pans out and hope for the best. I've heard the party is concerned about upsetting all the new registered Dems who have been turning out mostly to vote for Obama and that's why the party elders are leaning his way. I guess their thinking is that the core Dems will come and vote for the party's standard bearer, be it Obama or Clinton, but the new kids could be lost forever if they felt the election was somehow "stolen" by going against the majority pledged delegate vote, even though neither candidate got enough delegates to clinch the nomination.

To tell you the truth, I kind of see that core Dem thinking at work in the Republican primary. There were many Cons here in the DIS who hated McCain, called him a traitor and said that they would never vote for him. Now slowly, they're all beginning to fall in line behind him. I think the same would happen on our side for either Obama or Clinton. The thought of the new registered Dems holding the party hostage for Barack makes me a bit uneasy, but obviously not as much as it would were I a Clinton supporter.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Doesn't matter anymore. Whoever gets elected this year will only last for 4 years because he/she will preside over the worst economic downturn since the great depression.

A true testament to George Bush's CEO style-deregulate it and let the market sort it out presidential policies...

 

[JARNJ3]

I've guess we'll just have to see how it pans out and hope for the best. I've heard the party is concerned about upsetting all the new registered Dems who have been turning out mostly to vote for Obama and that's why the party elders are leaning his way. I guess their thinking is that the core Dems will come and vote for the party's standard bearer, be it Obama or Clinton, but the new kids could be lost forever if they felt the election was somehow "stolen" by going against the majority pledged delegate vote, even though neither candidate got enough delegates to clinch the nomination.

To tell you the truth, I kind of see that core Dem thinking at work in the Republican primary. There were many Cons here in the DIS who hated McCain, called him a traitor and said that they would never vote for him. Now slowly, they're all beginning to fall in line behind him. I think the same would happen on our side for either Obama or Clinton. The thought of the new registered Dems holding the party hostage for Barack makes me a bit uneasy, but obviously not as much as it would were I a Clinton supporter.

Yes, I hear you there - some republicans coming back to the fold - I can also picture some staying home too.

As to which constituency holds the party hostage? That wouldn't happen if both of these candidates agreed to pick the other as VP.

I know this isn't always how its done - but this election is definitely historically different! I don't think in my lifetime its ever been this close, down to two candidates.

If both were on the ticket - I can see each candidate's core supporters along for the ride.

I know - I've been told it will never happen - but I am not giving up hope!

Clinton as VP - historical - first women to ever do so.

Obama - as VP = historical - first African American to do so - and sets himself up as the next incumbent Democratic nominee (I think if Hillary were to be VP, she'd not run again for Pres).

I know - I'm living in a dream world......

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

I posted this in the liberal thread, but would prefer the input of those here. (heck, i'm probably on ignore with many of the BO supporters anyway.)

Obama is the nominee.

Pelosi has said so on Stephanopolis (she tried to stay oh so coy)...but....the Facts:

- She states that who ever gets the most delegates gets the nomination.
- She says the popular vote is irrelevent. (Like the National Election)
- She says not getting the minimum amount of delegates is irrelevent. (Unlike the Naitonal Election).
- She has stated for a week that both candidates wouldn't be on the ticket (she had decided on this before Texas/Ohio...which is why EVERYONE was demanding HC to quit.)
- She has no problem with disenfranchising FL & MI. (putting those states in play for the Republicans).
- She says that whatever happens during the next 3 weeks of vetting on Obama is irrelevent. Rezco, Uncle Racist, Moral Compass of Hate, Hypocrocy of not wanting the FL & MI voters to vote....none of it matters nor WILL it matter.

I apologize to those of you who indicated that this nominating process would cause McCain to win. You were right & I was wrong. I had no idea that Dean & Pelosi had already decided the nomination was over. I had no idea that they would knowingly decide to disenfranchise the voters of FL & MI. I had no idea that with their nominating rules stating that the SuperDs would decide in the event of neither candidate getting the required number of delegates that they would IGNORE THEIR OWN RULES. & with 3 freaking months before the convention & prior to 40% of Democrats getting to vote, Pelosi & Dean (& others) have decided to FIX the nomination.

I'm beyond disgusted.....& I will watch the vetting of Obama with laser focus as the Hypocritical statements & actions continue.

The BO supporters are suggesting (& i guess BO himself) that they just "split" the FL & MI delegates. (as if the delegates are the "issue" at this point). I swear we've gone thru the looking glass.

Pelosi has no control over the House. I highly doubt she has much control over the Supers. There have been a few that have come out already saying as much.

She has an obvious bias. But I won't say who it's for, just like she won't.

 

[JARNJ3]

One last post, before I retire for the evening..... (gosh that sounded old!)

Found this on a liberal blog.

http://mydd.com/

Pelosi for Process

by Jerome Armstrong, Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:46:09 AM EST

On Pelosi saying the popular vote doesn't matter, only who winds up with the most delegates can be nominated:

It is a delegate race. Neither candidate will have won enough selected delegates to secure the nomination. The super delegates will decide this nomination. Pelosi argues that considering the will of the people is illegitimate. In my opinion, Nancy Pelosi has declared herself illegitimate as an honest broker in this race. She clearly is an Obama supporter. Everyone knows this. And her arguments go beyond anything I have heard from Obama or any of his surrogates...

It is rather bizarre. You can go back through the history books, and find many examples of political candidates that have come into a Democratic convention with a plurality lead in delegates, but have not gotten the nomination. This moving of the goal posts, from needing to achieve a majority of the delegates, to just a plurality, is particularly deceptive when you take into consideration the popular vote, the ratio of delegates to individual votes... you know, the actual will of the people. Superdelegates should take these things, and the best interests of the party, in their decision. Pelosi is just irresponsibly making it up.

I hope that if this goes all the way to the floor, Pelosi is not in a leadership position for the convention. Is it Howard Dean that would most likely chair the convention, or is Pelosi automatically the chair, or can someone else be put there?

Pelosi has ruled herself out as an honest broker.

Update [2008-3-16 16:50:48 by Jerome Armstrong]: History lesson provided by jlk7e, who doesn't see it as relevant, but if the rules are going to be re-written to state that a plurality of pledged delegates is all that is needed to win over the super-delegates, I'm not sure what is (or isn't) relevant:
So yeah, Martin Van Buren in 1844, Lewis Cass in 1852, George Pendleton in 1868, Richard Bland in 1896, Champ Clark in 1912, and William G. McAdoo in 1920 and 1924 all came in with pluralities (or, in the cases of Van Buren and Clark, majorities) on the first ballot, and yet lost the nomination.

I actually view 1928 as the better of a match for the GE ("Prejudice and the Old Politics" is a good reference), but there's already been articles out comparing the '08 Democratic nomination to the brokered convention of '24 that are quite good.

An observation of mine - can you believe we could have have a President McAdoo? That name sounds silly when I say it out loud!