Hello! Jack and Jill Politics is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- I guess it depends on how one defines 'whim'. I don't think anyone is supposed to be discarded on a whim, in theory, though the practice is obviously the opposite. If a woman is not...
- Why get married? There's more to marriage than love. How many women back in the day got married, not because of a man himself, but because of the promise of having a baby of their own? Or...
- My opinion only, flamesuit on: There's infidelity, and there's open marriages. A spouse, male or female, who looks the other way while their significant other is getting some on the side is...
- I believe there are lots of people who want to be married but do not want to be without sex or romance- which is the case for MANY marriages (kids, stress, money, unresolved relationship baggage.)...
- If you know the answer dont ask the question.
Jack and Jill Politics
A black bourgeois perspective on U.S. politics
Hillary Clinton LIES - SHE IS NOT AHEAD IN THE POPULAR VOTE
Started by baratunde aka jack turner · 10 months ago
Ok,
I come home, check my computer, and my last Black nerve has been snapped.
Hillary Clinton and her merry band of lying snakes continue to perpetrate THE LIE that she is ahead in the Popular Vote count.
SHE IS NOT.
The ONLY way that this is possible is if they count Florida and Mich ... Continue reading »
I come home, check my computer, and my last Black nerve has been snapped.
Hillary Clinton and her merry band of lying snakes continue to perpetrate THE LIE that she is ahead in the Popular Vote count.
SHE IS NOT.
The ONLY way that this is possible is if they count Florida and Mich ... Continue reading »
1 year ago
Hello, I was off today, my last black nerve snapped when I heard her sorry speech in Boca Raton, FL comparing the disenfranchisement of MI and FL voters to women's suffrage and the right for civil rights. She acted as if she cared about black voters when her campaign help to disenfranchise them throughouth this primary season.
1 year ago
1 year ago
Classic!
And no other statement is more apropos . . .
1 year ago
I was where you are a month ago hence my reactions to Clyburn and the other prominent superdelegates who haven't bothered to end this.
I saw from her previous actions that she is out for blood. She won't stop on her own she has to be stopped.
It has come to the point where her tricks and lies and will to forge on have tainted and soiled this race.
1 year ago
to be honest, I was at this point at least a month ago, but I thought I'd lay back and just watch it play out, because the level of utter despisal I have towards this woman leaps off the charts.
1 year ago
-As far as I'm concerned, you don't need the disclaimer.
There is a special place in HELL for Bill and Hillary Clinton.
1 year ago
1 year ago
It was just anticipated (as was her inevitable nomination) that she would somehow, someway catch up and surpass - now that she hasn't they've moved on to working-class white voters, MI/FL, popular vote, sexism and any fucking thing they can find to stall this.
This IMO should all be attributed to and blamed on the DNC- they've known since February that she couldn't win barring a scandle - enter Wright. That didn't work and the real super indication of that is that they couldn't defeat a Democrat in a Republican stronghold using Wright.
Keep in mind that all while the Wright scandal was blowing over, he won NC and in all likelihood won IN.
Still no mass movement. Meanwhile, Hillary continues on with these assinine,baseless, made up arguments and continues to blow whistles to racists.
Where is the DNC - these mofos want to lose.
1 year ago
Obama needs about 90 supers to be at a point where MI and FL will not matter. And this needs to happen NOW. He can then give Clinton what she wants regarding the two states. Then her claim will be bunked.
Rachel said that Clinton doesn't really care about counting the votes for MI and Fl. She is trying to buy it until the convention. There has been possible solutions for Mi and FL and they have all been shot down by Clinton. Again, it if gets to the convention the Dems loses their chance. Because anything goes and all bets are off once it hits the convention.
I don't know folks....I just don't know...this really needs to end.
Maybe I'm just too involved with this and it's making my head hurt and I can't think straight.
1 year ago
1 year ago
You aren't confused, we are at the most crucial point in this process and if they don't do something now and I mean like tomorrow, this thing is over.
1 year ago
I know she looks like a fool. I know she is lying. I know she is desperate. I am afraid that other people don't see it and actually believe her shit. Otherwise intelligent people are appearing on show after show reciting the same soundbites as Clinton about popular vote, MI and FL and when anyone asks them a question they recite the script. A lot look a little dead inside like Clinton has something on them and they are forced to spew the bull (except for Tubbs-Jones she looks like she actually believes what she is saying and is happy to say it). If you say things over and over people are likely to believe it. My biggest fear is that they actually go into the May 31st meeting and they actually seat the damn delegates. I know Dean and Co. are smarter then that, or should be smarter then that but my God 10 more days of of people reciting the same speech and they might just give in. Hopefully I'm wrong.
1 year ago
Hillary goes over the top when she's under pressure. She did it with Bosnia. I won't take up unnecessary space giving other examples but this woman loses it every time when the going gets rough. Sometimes she says things that make you truly question her psychology and temperament. This was one of them.
I couldn't believe it when I saw that she was trying to equate a rules kerfuffle that SHE initially agreed to when she didn't think it would penalise her with the historic abject disgrace of slavery, the even more historic triumph of decency in abolition and the civil rights legislation proves to EVERY normal non-racist human being that this person does not have, never has had, the temperament and judgment needed to lead any country, let alone the most powerful in the world. Please take heart from this. She, I am, very sure, just buried herself with any previously remaining uncommitted superdelegate.
1 year ago
As John Brown led the raid on Harpers Ferry... As Elizabeth Cady Stanton read the Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls... As Martin Luther King led marchers to the County Courthouse in Selma... So, too... in our fifth story on the Countdown... did Hillary Rodham Clinton today rally to the cause of the 10,000 elderly residents of Century Village in Boca Raton, Florida. Hey! All that is Senator Clinton's analogy -- not mine.
1 year ago
Justice58 you are from Texas, so you know how we are about the shots. (not saying that you do shots...but...I'm sure by the end of the year..well...)
1 year ago
1 year ago
Which makes it even more reprehensible that she thinks she can go to Florida and talk up disenfranchisement and civil rights and slavery and women's lib and Zimbabwe and whatever other kitchen-sink BS she came up with to justify her 2012 strategy. Ugh. This "latte-sipping elitist" will never, ever vote for her!
Also, thanks so much for this blog & community, I'm a big fan!
1 year ago
Breathe...and Believe!
I'm exhausted, also. My head and my heart hurt. But, I keep going back to "Whatever doesn't kill me, makes me stronger." ... I could beat Superman's a** after all of this drama!
That said, this is all practice for the real showdown in November. An article in the Huffington Post breaks it down nicely.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/why-the-long-primary-batt_b_102848.html
Hang in There!
1 year ago
Hillary accepted & signed the DNC rules barring MI & FL!
Watch Tim Russert read exact quotes from the Clinton campaign on the rules in 2007 and then in 2008.
If the shoe were on the other foot, we would not even be having this discussion because Obama would have been long gone by now...
1 year ago
PREACH IT, GIRLFRIEND! She's been lying ever since she opened her mouth in South Carolina.
What popular vote - most folk hate her, except for the Mountain folk she scared to death with the Boogey Man becoming President.
1 year ago
Hillary is going to have a damn breakdown.
1 year ago
1 year ago
The capper was hearing KO's crew snickering in the background. SNL and MadTV should give up parodying Miss Hillary because she's really doing a bang up job of it herself.
Not much more to add to all your comments but to say if the poobahs continue to stay on the sidelines, then they absolutely deserve to have Hillary destroy the Democratic Party.
1 year ago
Chris Matthews compared Hillary's new found fight for the disinfranchised voters to that of a celebrity taking on a pet cuse (like rabies). He was interviewing the mayor of Tampa who basically said, sure it sucks that the votes won't count but we knew that going in so it's to late to make changes to the rules in this election cycle but we can fix it for next time. A Clinton talking head said blah, blah, blah, blah disinfranchisecakes and complained that Obama gave a speech in Florida and didn't even address how to seat the delegates of the and how disrespectful that was to the voters. To which the Mayor of Tampa said she was there with 20,000 people that were excited about Obama's vision for the future as he heads toward the general election. The people she saw people really weren't thinking about the past and weren't really worried about seating the delegates. Clinton talking head glared at the camera.
What I do find funny is that while Obama was speaking to 20,000 enthusiastic people in Tampa, Clinton was speaking to 10,000 in a retirement community in Boca, and if you saw the speech the guy on the back right is not long for the world.
Hillary really, has it come to this?
1 year ago
"Justice58 you are from Texas, so you know how we are about the shots. (not saying that you do shots...but...I'm sure by the end of the year..well...)
-----------------------------------
I don't do the shots but I know exactly what you mean! But I need something to keep calm & relax my nerves because they've already snapped!
I keep writing letters to DNC and everyday Hillary comes out with even more wild BS!
Imagine how the pundits would be talking about Barack if the roles were reversed! This is maddening!
1 year ago
1 year ago
There is only one response to this, and those of you who are veterans of the civil rights struggle know what that is-- first, we try to act respectful and reasonable with our opponents. Second, if this fails, we fight intensely but with restraint in hopes of convincing our opponents, through reason and sound arguments, that our rights should be respected. Failing this, and especially when facing hateful racists like the Clintons, willing to employ the most specious arguments and chicanery to persist in their narcissistic campaign (despite Obama leading in pledged delegates, votes and states), there is only the third option, our "nuclear" option-- you fight viciously, bare your talons and fight tooth and nail, until you utterly destroy hour hateful, racist opponents and break their will to continue in their campaign.
Those of us around in the 1960's, along with the abolitionists of the previous century who worked to free our people, knew clear and well that a subset of white racists, many of them powerful, would stop at nothing in their hate campaign against the African-American population-- lynching, mass murder, disenfranchisement through subterfuge, all were permitted. The only way to beat these people, frankly, was to destroy them. These racists declared war against us, and our only recourse was to fight back viciously.
The Clintons are the modern version of such racists. We have attempted to be reasonable and fair to them. However, they have shown that they will stop at nothing to suppress and ruin us as a people, use any duplicity and chicanery to sate their personal ambitions. So the only recourse is our nuclear option-- we must make a concerted effort to utterly and absolutely DESTROY HILLARY CLINTON AND BILL CLINTON, destroy their political career, destroy their lives and make them miserable. They have declared war against us, and our survival depends on this, because if we waver here and allow ourselves to meekly capitulate to their chicanery, then in the future, there will never, ever be a deterrent against whites in power using every tool in their disposal to damage our people and keep Blacks out of power-- they'd see the example of the Clintons, and rightfully sense that they could get away with anything. THIS MEANS MILITANT ACTION AGAINST THE CLINTONS.
What specifically? Here are the things we need to do:
1. When the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee meets on May 31, assemble yourselves, peacefully but firmly, and make it abundantly clear that any duplicity on these two states, on the basis of rules that were agreed to by all candidates, would result in a mass boycott of the election by African-Americans and the permanent loss to the Democratic Party of their most vital, most loyal constituency-- and the utter destruction of the Democratic Party as a viable political organization. Obama, Edwards and all the other candidates were not allowed to campaign in either Florida or Michigan owing to the rules that all (including Hillary) agreed to, and the most basic element of an election is the act of campaigning itself-- obviously in Obama's case, as seen on Super Tuesday, it was his intelligent campaign that enabled him to perform so well throughout the nation. Moreover, Obama did not even have his name on the ballot in Michigan, so giving him zero votes or delegates in Michigan-- a state which he would easily win, as Jesse Jackson himself did, with its high African-American, student and progressive population-- would essentially be akin to the same tactics that totalitarian governments, including the Nazis, have used to falsely claim legitimacy.
The fairest solution in Florida (a likely Hillary state though by a close margin) and Michigan (a certain Obama state) would be to merely halve the total delegates as a penalty and deterrent for queue-jumping the future, and to seat them 50/50 for each candidate. This would be the most sensible action. The most that we would accept-- and only barely-- would be first halving the total Michigan and Florida delegates, then seating the Obama + Edwards delegates in Florida for Obama, and in Michigan, giving the uncommitted delegates to Obama. This would have little effect on the total results, and would still leave Obama with an advantage of more than 140 pledged delegates than Hillary, a critical threshold that would deter attempts by Hillary to harangue superdelegates to overturn their commitments. But even this should be a "last resort"-- it should be halving the delegates, and splitting them 50/50.
Again, DO NOT fall into the idiot trap of trying to be conciliatory to the Clintons and conceding anything-- they have shown themselves not to be trusted and they would not in any way "bury the hatchet" with any Obama concessions, but consider the Obama team and African-Americans as chumps, while continuing their scorched-earth campaign, and again, the only way to beat them is to destroy them if they refuse to negotiate, to break their will to fight.
We have tried to be kind to the Clintons, tried to allow them to save face, and yet every time, they just take our peace overtures and use them against us, to prolong their ruinous path. The only remaining recourse is to be extremely rough with the Clintons, to be harsh to them, to destroy them and to do so in the most painful way feasible. And we need to stop worrying so damn much about this horsecrap about "HRC's supporters not supporting Barack if she feels offended"-- Hillary is doing this ANYWAY, she has NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER and will never, ever go peacefully. The only way to stop this is to destroy the Clintons now, the sooner the better so that by November, this idiocy will be a distant memory.
As others have pointed out, the problem with appeasement is that it doesn't work with enemies who are unreasonable and/or filled with hatred against you-- they merely take your kindness and use it against you. We must give up the fantasy that we can make concessions to Hillary, be kind to her and give her something, and make her unify. She won't do it-- she and Bill Clinton are stuck in their own delusional fantasy world, and will not stop until they are shut down. We should be as respectful as we can be, and try to allow them to save face, but make no tangible concessions, and continue to stand firm against them. So pour all your determination, toughness, ruthlessness and malice into destroying the Clintons for good, so that they can never recover. I wish it hadn't come to this, as I was one of the people before urging a conciliatory attitude toward the Clintons, but have shown themselves to be so wrapped up in their pathological narcissism that no such overtures will ever be effective.
Now, in terms of practical action, please contact members of the Rules and Bylaws committee POLITELY and RESPECTFULLY, tell them that as an American-- not just as an African-American but as an American, period, joined by Americans of all stripes-- that the most basic element of the American nation is fair play and the rule of law rather than the rule of favorites, and that Obama was simply following the rules to which all parties agreed in Michigan and Florida, and that the delegates should be apportioned equally between the candidates.
There are 30 members on the committee, and while 13 of them are said to be "Clinton backers," in fact they are more just former officials in the Clinton Administration who do not necessarily back Hillary now (as shown by the Clinton Administration officials now backing Obama). By and large, they are fair-minded, reasonable people who just want to do their jobs, and they know that, to prevent chaos in future elections, they need to levy some penalty on the queue-jumping states in any case (stripping them of half their delegates, most likely) and give Obama at least a large fraction, likely 45%, of the delegates-- especially in Michigan, which he would win easily, and where the history of racial tensions would indicate a furious and combustible reaction if an African-American candidate, in particular, were to be denied votes and delegates. They are largely fair-minded and rational people, so be sure to treat them as such.
Here is the Website to which you should write:
http://tinyurl.com/54ykl5
Here is the Huffington Post page with the full names and descriptions of the Rules and Bylaws Committee Members:
http://tinyurl.com/4kxv6r
Once again-- BE FIRM YET POLITE AND RESPECTFUL IN YOUR CALLS, LETTERS AND EMAILS TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. No threats, no rage, no badgering. It is fair to note that the Democratic Party would effectively be destroyed as a viable organization if the delegations from Florida and Michigan were to be seated based on the totalitarian-style primaries with Obama not even on the ballot, just following the rules, and if Obama were to be denied delegates especially in Michigan. Tens of millions of Democrats would leave the party and just stay home. Yet this fact is obvious to just about anyone, and should be noted in a non-threatening, matter-of-fact manner that is respectful to the people on the committee.
Along similar lines, here are some superdelegate petitions (for the remaining uncommitted superdelegates) to present:
http://www.eyesonobama.com/superdelegates/
Once again-- kind, nonthreatening, polite, positive and respectful.
Finally, once again, write to the DNC and superdelegates who represent you, and make it clear that the DNC will not get a dime until this charade is ended and Obama is accorded the support and respect he deserves. The DNC is suffering severe financial pain and paying a steep price for letting this stupidity drag on, and it will only get worse for them if it continues like this.
2. Now for the other aspects of our tactics to hurt the Clintons:
REINFORCE THE HILLARY = MARIE ANTOINETTE "LET THEM EAT CAKE" MEME at every opportunity, in letters to the editor, and in other mainstream fora. Hillary's claim to be the champion of struggling Americans, blue-collar, the "lunch-pail crowd" or any other description, is just truly ludicrous by any standard. She and Bill have made well more than $100,000,000 while most Americans are struggling to get by-- much of that money from foreign donors who don't have the best interests of the American people in mind-- and now, Hillary is over $31 million in debt as of the beginning of May, and HILLARY HAS NOT PAID THE VENDORS AND OTHER SMALL BUSINESSPEOPLE whose services she has used. These are mostly local, mom-and-pop people-- hoteliers, equipment rental companies, local suppliers and other people just getting by during these difficult times, and Hillary is arrogantly screwing all of them over, refusing to pay her bills and debts. Would any of us, trying to scrape by, be allowed such latitude?
Drive this point home, again, not just on the Blogs-- use letters to the editor, op-eds, calls to radio shows and other mainstream avenues to point out how Hillary is indeed stiffing working-class people directly with her "let them eat cake" attitude. Never miss an opportunity to note this in the harshest light feasible!
Remember too that, as shown in the most recent polls, Obama is now by far the most popular candidate among Whites and Latinos as well-- among all groups. Those of you with any connections to Puerto Rico, who can speak Spanish and so forth, bring attention to Hillary Clinton's racism, which as anti-Latino as much as it is anti-Black-- her "hard-working Americans are White Americans" comment was just as insulting to Latinos as well as Blacks. Point this out in the Puerto Rican newspapers and humiliate Hillary for it.
3. Clinton Corruption in the ugly spotlight-- once again, the Obama campaign has been too nice and treating the Hillary campaign with kid gloves on this, not pointing out examples of their obvious corruption and allowing them to "save face" in hopes that they would be reasonable and line up behind Obama. The Clintons have no intention of doing this, so the only recourse is to get brutal against them, bombard newspapers and radio shows with examples to humiliate the Clintons at every turn. As always, get your white working-class and Latino friends, as much as possible, to write in and hit the Clintons hard. Some things to bring up:
a. The Clinton Foundation and the Clintons' dirty dealings with e.g. Kazakh uranium magnates (the whole Giustra affair), Arab oil sheikhs and others at the expense of America. The Clintons still refuse to release their donor list, so use this to point out that the Clintons, contrary to claims, are not "vetted and tested."
b. The incredible Clinton Corruption in their last year-- the pardon of the criminal Marc Rich, the theft of items from the Lincoln Bedroom, and other acts that show their criminal pathologies in a very harsh light.
c. Hillary's truly pathological lying to the point of repeated fabrications, on the Bosnia sniper incident, Chelsea being at Ground Zero on 9/11 (she saw it on TV), being prominent in the Northern Ireland peace process and other blatant BS-- make particular reference to this, and hit Hillary Clinton hard on it.
As far as the VP running mate pick-- I have to weigh on this-- choosing Hillary as VP would be monumentally stupid. She could be promised a Supreme Court appointment, a Cabinet Post, even a high-ranking Senate position, but running mate? She'd bring all her negatives to the ticket and bring Republicans out to vote in droves against us, she'd give no geographical advantage, she'd cut down Obama's change argument, probably subtly undermine Obama (I'd watch my back if Obama were elected), plus there'd be Bill Clinton doing his idiocy in the background.
The best VP choice by far IMHO would be Sam Nunn of Georgia. He is the closest we have in the USA today to a statesman, a political figure who is universally respected by Democrats and Republicans. He's an elder figure even more than McCain is, a respected fighter, with national security experience, from Georgia and popular among Appalachian voters as well as everyone else, and just plain smart! Otherwise, I'd say someone like Hagel, or Jim Webb. I like Kathleen Sibelius overall and I think she'll be a star in the future, it's just with her on the ticket-- might be too much change for voters to stomach at this point (though she should definitely get a high-ranking post to help accelerate her own political career). Ted Strickland in Ohio-- doubtful, seems he might try to undermine Obama and he has corruption, unless he's had a change of heart.
But the upshot of my post, is that we need to stop treating the Clintons with kid gloves. This only works with reasonable people, not with pathological narcissists like the Clintons. The only way to stop them is to hurt them, make them feel tremendous pain so they lose their will to fight, if necessary to utterly destroy them.
Because if we don't destroy the Clintons, then the country will be destroyed.
What I'm about to say will sound scary but please hear me out:
I've been in touch with friends and relatives on the ground throughout the country, from places like Oakland and LA in the West through Houston, Baton Rouge, Detroit, Chicago, Montgomery, Atlanta, Columbus, New York, Boston, Washington, D.C., Raleigh and Baltimore in the East.
What has become clear, is that if the Michigan and Florida delegates were seated as Hillary wants-- basically not giving Obama any pledged delegates from Michigan, when he was simply following rules and took his name off the ballots-- it would be ugly and horrible, with mass rioting, violence and unimaginable horrors that will destroy the country as we know it.
First of all, I don't encourage this and I've pushed for peaceful protests as much as I can, and second there's not a whiff of exaggeration.
But third, this isn't a "Black Thing" vs. a "White Thing"-- whites and other groups have also historically had violent reactions to stolen elections.
The simple fact is, democracy was invented essentially to provide a common set of agreed-upon ground rules so that succession of power could be agreed upon peacefully, without violence. Remember, throughout history, succession of power has been largely decided through violence and military might-- democracy gives an alternative to that, but it only works if all candidates to power agree to the same rules and follow them. If one party becomes so narcissistic as the Clintons have become and tries to change the rules after they've been decided, then democracy breaks down, and violence is the inevitable result. It's almost a natural law, like opposite charges attract or oxygen is a gas at room temperature-- when the basic rules of democracy are violated, violence is the result. Thus if democracy were to be so blatantly flouted anyway, as the Clintons are trying to do with their backroom BS with Florida and Michigan, then things would get ugly.
We African-Americans have been fighting for centuries for respect, and if we were to see a backroom deal at this point blatantly attack the very foundations of our democracy-- and be used against an African-American candidate who had prevailed by following the rules and working his heart out toward success-- then it would be the final straw to show that Blacks in the USA could never receive justice by following the rules, there would always be some excuse, some other demand to "wait our turn" or "go to the back of the bus," some other form of White favoritism and patronage used against our people.
The USA, today an Anglo superpower, has become such a superpower on the backs of African-Americans-- it was our labor as slaves, and then virtual slaves after 1865 under the Jim Crow system, that built the USA as a superpower in the first place. Now, after all these years, we are approaching a point when one of our own becomes a leader for this nation, and in the fairest, most respectful way possible. If after all this, the same kind of white privilege were used against us, then the only recourse is to tear down the USA as an Anglo superpower.
Think of it as the kind of divine justice that Abraham Lincoln himself would invoke-- if the USA were to insist on remaining a superpower at the expense of African-Americans, a mortal sin of our nation, in the form of a white candidate like Hillary Clinton bending rules to hurt one of our own who had won fair and square, then divine retribution will result, in the form of widespread rage that will destroy the United States not only as a superpower, but as a nation.
As I've said, I fear this and I don't encourage it-- it's just that it would be as inevitable as the destruction caused by a massive tsunami if Hillary's Florida and Michigan chicanery were to be allowed. And while I've had my objections about US policy before, I still care about this country, and I don't want it to be destroyed in violent rage, which is what would occur if Hillary were to have her way. So rather than standing by and allowing the USA to be destroyed, the only alternative is to utterly destroy the Clintons.
Do whatever in your power to make this happen. Take off the kid gloves and hit the Clintons hard. Train your rage and your attacks on the Clintons, once again, don't threaten or intimidate people like superdelegates, but make it clear and firm that we will only accept the validation of Obama as the nominee, and that there would be hellish consequences and the utter destruction of the Democratic Party, and the nation as a whole, if Clintonian backroom dealing were to be allowed. Do not be sweet and conciliatory here, since that's exactly what the Clintons are hoping for, for us to be chumps. Fight tooth and nail here. Those of you into voodoo, hoodoo, witch doctors, whatever-- place a curse on Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and condemn them to Hell for damaging the nation like this.
As others have been noting, the Clintons consider African-Americans and other minorities to be merely ants, unworthy of being taken seriously.
The Clintons have forgotten, however, that African ants are carnivorous, and we have a special taste for the flesh of humans who attempt to torment us. We ants will cover Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton from head to toe, sink our claws and fangs into them, and utterly devour them, to the bone, for their shameful behavior. It is now that we must demonstrate our profound ferocity.
1 year ago
She took it even further. Her math on MI, FL numbers would assume that Obama receives 0 as in ZERO votes.
Someone better pull this woman away from the edge. She has lost it.
How about that.
1 year ago
RAOTFLMAO at what you said! That group of seniors told the story.
A republican pundit said that the look of befudlement (sp) on the seniors faces when she mentioned Zimbabwe told the whole story.
1 year ago
If the Clintons don't get back into the White House, too many people with too much power stand to lose too much money. And power.
::
Barack needs to win outright win Puerto Rico.
1 year ago
1 year ago
it was long, but worth it, and ICAM.
Fuck trying to make her feel good.
Shove her ass out.
You are right - no mercy whatsoever.
1 year ago
I'll do a virtual shot with you.
1 year ago
WOW!!
Thank you for all of the suggestions. I'm getting on it right now!
Our venting sessions are a much needed release and critical information is shared. But, the real power in this blog using that fire (rage) and info to take positive action.
1 year ago
More importantly, the democratic party has shown...and very clearly IMO that they don't give a damn about HARD WORKING BLACK AMERICANS! And for this they have lost not only my respect, but my support.
1 year ago
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Hillary and Bill have only done what the Democrats let them do.
If I was Barack, I would take my supporters and leave too.
1 year ago
Not counting vote and gerrymandering is a Republican practice, Democrats fight against that sort of thing. At least we use to fight against that sort of thing.
1 year ago
You mofos should have been fighting when it was ruled that there delegates wouldn't count, not when you figured out you couldn't win the nomination without them.
1 year ago
The decision to change the date of the primary was made by the Republican run state legislature. I suppose lawsuit could have been filed then but they would have be a waste of time, since the changing the primary date wasn't illegal.
I don't care who is leading in what. As a Democrat, I don't think we can talk about the first election of W and how he didn't win and turn around and do the same damn thing.
Not to count those votes disenfranchises a sizable portion of the Democrat electorate.
You really sound crazy saying that your won't vote for Hillary if she takes the nom., but wouldn't expect others to take the same action if they feel they are being treated unfairly.
1 year ago
It's not just the Dems that wanted this process to play out until the end, it's the Obama campaign. And if you don't think Team Obama has a well laid out plan to counter anything Clinton does then you haven't been paying attention.
Part of the problem is that we have give Sen. Clinton some sort of super powers where her diabolical threats to steal the nomination actually amount to something substantial.
They don't and plenty of people from both the Obama and Clinton camps have privately confirmed this.
Why is Obama taking such a laid back approach to this, praising Clinton even today. Is it because he's such a sweet guy?
Nope, it's because he knows he can.
There is zero chance that those MI/FL delegates are going to be seated in anyway not agreed too by the Obama camp.
She knows that the popular vote argument is garbage and the delegates are not falling for it.
The evil thing that Sen. Clinton is doing is that she is manipulating her shrinking base and making them rapid by playing to their fears, prejudices and saying things SHE KNOWS aren't true.
Think about it, 15 months ago Sen. Clinton had the backing of every major Dem donor and hundreds of delegates
And now she's in debt and earning three enemies for every friend she makes.
It's sad. And it's not worth our time.
1 year ago
My biggest fear is that they actually go into the May 31st meeting and they actually seat the damn delegates
Well im here to tell you, given the fact that Dean has pretty much turned into a turtle and hid into a shell on this issue, trust its gonna happen...
Theres something bigger happening I wander if were all catching. The Clintons are literally prepared to tear this party apart, and our elected officals are to SCARED to stop them. I mean she's pretty much convnced 2 BASES of the party to hate each other to no end..If Baracks denied, I dont care what they come out with for an excuse, I think its more then safe to say, that the Black vote is gone...
If Hillary is denied, she's taking a large chunk of women who say there not only not voting for Barack, but there writing the party off as well.
This is nightmarish, and the SD's are who I place the blame on. As long as they sit comfortably on the fence and hide behind the party lines of how "this is good that we let everybody get a say," then this goes on, the Clintons fight, and the media (whos about as fickle as the next hot story) will continue to root for them.
Im of the personal belief that the DNC wasnt ready for a post super tuesday Obama. Like the Clintons I think they thought they'ed be priming her up for the "person who out bushed the other.
1 year ago
1 year ago
What would be crazy is if I would vote for someone who totally disrespected my race.
You vote for whomever you so choose, but don't tell me who to vote for.
1 year ago
I'm sure it was made clear to anyone paying enough attention to politics prior to casting their vote for the democratic nominee that the vote wouldn't count in the primary. At the time I don't recall much complaining. Since elections rarely cover one issue there may have been other iniatives on the ballot that brought those 1.7 mil out to vote that day and in the process seeing an option of voting for the dem nominee they chose to fill in the blank with the name they knew. An equal or sizable amount of people may have stayed home because their only motivation to vote in the first place was the dem nomination. So now someone wants to change the rules to count people who voted knowing there vote wouldn't count toward the primary and, to barrow a word from Ms. Clinton, disinfranchise those who stayed home because they were told their vote wouldn't count? Sounds fishy to me. Sounds like Clinton may have planned this from the beginning. Maybe she was purposely trying to keep people from the polls and then later, if the results turned out in her favor fight to get the delegates seated.
Sound like a stupid theory? It's about as stupid a theory as Clinton and her supporters actually gave a crap about Florida until she was losing.
1 year ago
If this isn't about who's winning, why would you bother mentioning Bush and whether or not he won? Which by the way, isn't not even in the least bit comparable. We are talking about a Democrat who agreed to the DNC rules and then later wants to have unfair elections stand as they were. This is a Democrat trying to steal the nomination for a Democrat. Far worse than what Bush did.
1 year ago
Right Sen. Clinton is like a rebel child, she's kicking, screaming and doing anything she can to get attention.
But when you step away from the noise and look at the situation you see Obama executing his "slow squeeze" strategy.
Every day, every single day, Sen. Clinton's position gets a little worse. She kicks, she screams, she threatens and nothing changes.
I know it's difficult to do (it's difficult for me sometimes) but we got to put a little faith in the Team Obama, I think they know how to close this thing out.
1 year ago
I will not vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. She is a lying, manipulative psycho. I'm a registered Republican, if I wanted that I could stick to my own party. Anyway I am inspired by Obama and will cross party lines in this election only to vote for him.
1 year ago
You're right on Florida -- it was the Republicans who were responsible.
But you're wrong on Michigan.
Partial truths are good enough for you folks, though, right?
Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. And it wasn't "his choice" -- as Her Royal Craziness put it today. He was following THE RULES.
You know, those rules Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe vociferously defended when Michigan threatened to hold its primary early in 2004.
1 year ago
Read their quotes: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/chrnothp08/pled...>
1 year ago
Since Obama has the most delegates anyway,why not count those votes in MI and FL?
That wouldn't be for Hillary but for the good of the party. Too many people voted in those primaries not to be counted.
My biggest fear is a another Republican term. We don't know who McCain is going to pick as veep. It's unlikely to be another moderate. If I had to put money on his running mate, it would be a far right winger. That would unify the Republican party. Dems would need every vote they can muster.
Think about how few votes changed the 2000 election and you see we can't kick anyone from under the big tent.
Not counting voters who voted democrat despite the rules just isn't right.
1 year ago
We need to ignore that one.
1 year ago
As good as Obama is doing, if he had not had Hillary Clinton to contend with, but were fighting any other Democrat who never would have gone so low, he would be sailing to victory in the general election and taking with him a Democratic supermajority.
As it is Hillary is just trying to sabotage Obama in the general. First, play to racial fears and see if he can be marginalized as the black candidate. Second, cast doubts on the legitimacy of his nomination. Third, play the gender card and accuse the Obama campaign of being sexist.
I agree that the Democratic party needs to shut her down as soon as possible. While things seem good for the Democratic party now, you can never take anything for granted, esp. when it comes to Hillary's evil and propensity to destroy and divide.
Mark my words...if Hillary is not stopped soon, she can ruin the party's chances in November.
1 year ago
Obama has the nomination. That's not even in question. The war isn't over. He has to pull as many Dem vote as he can.
Counting MI and FL would be a good faith measure on his part.
1 year ago
However, just like the Kossacks over on DailyKos and the caucasian corporate media, y'all work my last nerve when you allow Her Highness to get you all worked up and worried over her wicked, sore loser craziness.
So, as with my fellow Kossacks, I am giving y'all some sanity medicine courtesy of Al Giordano over at The Field (http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/), to wit:
The Field’s “No Chicken Little Left Behind” program has detected various expressions of disappointment from some Obama supporters that “only” two superdelegates declared for Senator Obama today (also with an Ohio add-on delegate going to Clinton, as expected). Such worrying takes “instant gratification” needs to an unhealthy extreme. An indigenous elder once told a writer that the four attributes of a warrior are “ruthlessness, cunning, patience and sweetness.” Bend over, Chicken Littles: I’ve got a hypodermic needle full of that cocktail to cure this particular Avian Flu. Har, har: This won’t hurt a bit!
Much of the unease has to do with a completely unknown factor: What will the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee decide on May 31 about possible Florida and Michigan delegates? And how might that move the goal posts?
People really hate unknown factors. They want everything all tidy and wrapped in plastic and perfumed in floral essences. But that would be soooo boring and make life itself uninteresting.
I am now going to demonstrate to you what would happen if - either at the urging of the Obama campaign (since Axelrod telegraphed an olive branch today), or simply to pull the rug out from under a loose cannon (formerly known as Senator Clinton) that’s been rolling around the Sunshine State deck all day - suddenly the Florida and Michigan delegations were fully seated, gasp, including their superdelegates!
That scenario, however unlikely, seems to be something that gives some Obama supporters the willies. Yet, if they would only do the math, they would cease to worry about that.
Follow the link above to read the rest; after reading it whatever antics she pulls should roll right off your backs, or to use the Obama/Jay Z analogy, you'll be able to just brush her off just like I do.
Because she ain't getting the nomination, she won't be the VP nominee, and since the Dems are as tired of her, the DLC and Billy Jeff as most of us, by June 4th, she won't even be an unfond memory.
Obama's got this - He's. got. this.
1 year ago
Hillary didn't say a word then so why the change of heart?
Hillary's camp thought she'd have the nomination wrapped up by Feb. 5, Super Tuesday.
So that means that Hillary didn't give a damn about any state after Feb. 5 when she thought she was the inevitable candidate.
All of this, "let every vote count," spin is insincere. If Hillary won Super Tuesday she wouldn't being saying a damn thing about any of these late states.
1 year ago
To do that, she has to destroy Obama.
She's known since Feb. 5 that it was over. She knows the superdelegates aren't going to overturn the will of the people.
It's not about the nomination anymore. It's about destroying Obama to hold on to power within the Democratic party.
She is going to demand ALL of the FL and MI delegates by claiming she was the only one on the ballot and thus deserves ALL of the delegates. If FL and MI are seated as is, she's still behind.
She knows the Rules Committee ain't going for that, and so this will be her excuse to take it to the Credentials Committee ---at the convention.
It doesn't matter if all the remaining superdelegates announce for Obama tomorrow --- she and Geraldine Ferraro and Lisa Caputo and Stephanie Tubbs Jones will cry "foul" and that she's being forced out of the race and she'll go to the convention anyway and/or file a lawsuit to get FL and MI seated 100% in her favor.
Ever notice how the Clinton camp goes after the non-whites with much more ferociousness than the whites? Ya know, how they savagely attacked Bill Richardson for days, but not a peep was heard from them when Robert Reich or John Edwards went Obama's way?
Ya notice how this campaign is nothing but race, as introduced by the Clintons?
That's to scare the Democratic party from running anymore minority candidates up against Clinton approved candidates. If Billary succeeds, you will see no more minority candidates running without the Clinton approval.
The time for the Democrats to have shut this down was back in February when she lost 11 straight. If John Edwards or somebody had lost 11 straight to Hillary he would have been told to sit down.
It doesn't matter what Obama does, what the rules committee says, or FL and MI being seated. It doesn't matter what Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi or Al Gore says. Hillary's intention is to completely destroy Obama, and if McCain wins in November, so be it.
Her endgame is to show the Democratic party The Clinton Machine is not to be f*cked with.
As far as enraging the black vote, Hillary couldn't care less. Black folks denied Hillary HER dream, so she'll just deny black people's dream.
1 year ago
I have not weighed in because I don't know much about the choices - I am fairly new to this political thing.
That being said, it seems to me that the pundits and Clinton supporters not being able to secure the nomination for her and unable to keep him from a chance at the presidency, now want to DEMAND that he include her on the ticket or one of her supporters.
To this I say he should not allow them to dictate one thing about his run for the presidency.
He has fought a long, hard and honorable fight against long odds, vicious campaining and I believe he has earned the right to pick his veep. I don't feel he should negotiate with a tyrant to procced to his rightful place as the nominee.
1 year ago
I heard tonight that her intention was to take it to the Credentials Committee during the convention.
However, it is my understanding that Obama wins even if the MI/Fl delegates are seated so if they are she no longer has an argument. I believe this is why she started this sexism diatribe to ensure that she can sway the vote in the general.
1 year ago
-------------
The FL/MI delegates are an excuse, IMO. She's going to demand all/vast majority of the delegates or she's taking it to the convention, with the excuse that Obama chose to take his name off the ballot in MI, too bad for him, and those uncommitted delegates should not be assigned to him and they are free to come with her as the winner of MI (and FL). The Rules Committee ain't having that, and they are going to rule in a way that favors Obama, and she will appeal to the Credentials Committee in Denver.
If Pelosi and 'em try to sit her ass down, she will cry "sexism" and "illegitimacy." She may even threaten to file lawsuits.
That's why she's bringing up civil rights and Zimbabwe, she needs to people to see Obama as some kind of evil African dictator taking democracy away from "the people."
I fully expect more references to Zimbabwe and other African countries b/c it must be reinforced that Obama is like some kind of African warlord suppressing the will of the people, and All American Hillary is fighting for your rights to be heard because that's your basic American right that Obama is trying to take away.
1 year ago
1 year ago
Is it arrogance or desperation?
Her latest sexism accusation is fooey. Lets me serious! When her surrogates are asked for examples, they stutter, blink and then point to some nonsense. They have no case. If it was such an issue, they should have brought it up before. She is on her last straw. She is trying to rile up her women base against Obama. There would be no reason to do that unless she was trying to sabotage him in the general. She is too good at her "Scarlett O' Hara Act". However for some reason, I do not think that a lot of people are buying it except her most ardent supporters.
Obama's campaign is remaining cool and collected. I like the fact that they are giving little to no room with the FL/MI thing. If you give her the inch, she will take the mile.
If she was so passionate about all the disenfranchised voters then she should have been on it long before. Her intentions are transparent! Her speeches are pathetic. Many thought it wasn't going to count and did not show up, his name wasn't on the ballot in MI and they could not campaign there. Back on January 15 and 29, Obama was still the underdog ans was unable to contact the voters directly. If he campaigned in FL it would have been a closer race. I am sure that he could have won Michigan. He is from the neighboring Illinois and he won Wisconsin and other neighboring states.
If they seat FL, I would not scream. They should take half the delegates.
If they seat MI, I will be protesting. She is talking about foreign countries yet she is a dictator with an election where she was the only name on the ballot!!
Anon 10:58:
I'm sure that that has something to do with her Zimbabwe reference. I will put nothing past her.
What's Right Is Right do the Right thing and bounce!
1 year ago
I hadn't thought about the Zimbabwe reference, but it is in keeping with her practice of race-baiting and fear peddling.
If this isn't the worst thing that just happened for McCain/Bush:
From the NYTimes
By HELENE COOPER
Published: May 22, 2008
WASHINGTON — Israel, America’s staunchest ally in the Middle East, just became the latest example of a country that has decided it is better to deal with its foes than to ignore them.
Can't wait to hear what D and S have to say about this!
1 year ago
From Counterterrorism Blog:
"Many analysts believe that the relationship between Iran and Syria is a purely tactical and transactional one. Implicit in this belief is the idea that if only the United States would make Syria an offer of sufficient size and sweetness, the axis from Tehran to Damascus could be shattered and the Middle East transformed. Syria, in this view, might even join our team."
A McClatchy analysis reports:
"Assistant Secretary of State David Welch told reporters on Wednesday that the Bush administration remains skeptical of Syria because it continues to back Hezbollah , allows top Hamas leaders to operate openly in Damascus and retains close ties to Iran.
"That said, Israel lives in a difficult neighborhood," said Welch. "It's in its national interest to find ways to expand the circle of peace if other people are serious about doing it, and I see that they're undertaking that experiment now."
The news was met with deep skepticism in Israel , where Olmert's political future is in jeopardy because of a deepening political corruption investigation that could bring down his fragile coalition government before he can ever approve direct talks with Syria."
So, is today's news of talks between Israel and Syria, the result of Israel's realization that it must try and do all it can to defend its northern border from a Hezbollah-led invasion or sustained guerilla warfare?
These are dangerous times and I pray for Israel.
Just last week, Ahmadinejad predicted that Israel would "be soon swept away" by the Palestinians.
Now Hezbollah and Hamas are surrounding Israel. They do not want peace, they want the destruction of Israel.
Will Syria, in exchange for the Golan Heights, agree to sign a peace treaty with Israel, end its support for Hamas political leaders based in Damascus and sever ties to Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon who receive critical Iranian money and weapons via Syria?
Many believe, myself included, the relationship between Iran and Syria is longstanding, durable, and is based on a bedrock of shared interests. This relationship is meant to fulfill each party’s deepest strategic aspirations and regional ambitions. Neither state wishes to live as a second class citizen in a Middle East ordered, organized and run by Washington, Cairo, and Riyadh. They have bigger dreams.
I hope I am mistaken.
1 year ago
Seems to me that the Clintons have decided that they'd rather burn down the entire Democratic Party, rather than turn over the reigns of power to someone who had the audacity to step out of his his "place" without invitation. The Clintons would rather destroy the Democratic Party whose most loyal constituency have finally discovered the evidence that proves the Clintons are not, and never were, who they held themselves out to be.
They are planning to destroy the Democratic Party in order to remake it in their image.
How truly Confederate of them.
1 year ago
Not voting Democrat for ANY reason is at this point in history, practically treason.
To really fix this country we need a Dem President and Congess.
Anything short of that is failure because people refuse to think beyond themselves.
1 year ago
1 year ago
How do we know that Hillary will take black concerns seriously, since she lost 90+% of the black vote?
She's not. The moment she gets in power, she's going down her hit list for revenge, and black people and their concerns are part of that hit list.
If the Democratic Party doesn't shut Hillary and her nefarious aims down now and allows her to destroy the best chance to reclaim the WH in 8 years, they deserve not to be in power.
Do you think Jews would keep on voting Democratic if Hillary had been dissing them from January on?
You don't reward people who kick you in the face. If you do, it lets people know they can keep on doing it.
It's a matter of self respect.
1 year ago
They voted for Obama and he has dissed them.
1 year ago
She needs to pay debt and negotiate the best deal before she exits, some say VP(no way), others say future SCOTUS appointment.
It will be all over in two weeks
1 year ago
To really fix this country we need a Dem President and Congess."
And Hillary thinks she can hold this over our heads to excuse her actions?
Sorry, I can't go for that.
We do need change. . .Hillary is the person standing in the way of change.
If she really cared about these issues; if she really cared about the supreme court and healthcare, the war and the economy. . . she would have dropped out of the race a long time ago. She would have realized that the math just wasn't in her favor and done everything in her power to make the Democratic Party and its nominee as strong as possible. That's how you ensure a Democratic Presidency and Congress.
John Edwards and every other Democrat no longer in the race (well. . . except fro Gravel) stepped aside for the good of the party. Heck, even Republicans like Romney and Giuliani had enough sense to step aside for the good of their party.
But Hillary thinks this is beneath her. No. . . she thinks she's special. Math doesn't apply to her. States aren't important if she doesn't win them and her word is as useless as her contention that she's doing all of this for some noble or historic reasons.
She's doing this for herself. She doesn't care about the Party and it's hopes to take back power in 2008. On the contrary, her actions are weakening the party, smearing it's probable nominee and destroying the chances that a Democrat can change America for the better.
Her continued presence has forced all parties involved to waste time, energy and money on her. . . and for what? For her ego, that's all this is about.
During the Tuesday's primary coverage on CNN, the panel reported that a Clinton advisor told them: "It's Hillary first, party second."
That's all you need to know right there.
I don't have to reward bad behavior. I don't have to reward divisive behavior. I don't have to reward race-baiting. . . or triangulation. . . or the adoption of Republican talkingpoints. . . the embracing of rightwing pundits (her new love affair with people like Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchannan, Fox News, Karl Rove. . . the list goes on and on).
But I can and am standing for honest matters of principle and integrity. Hillary has none. She will not get my vote.
Hillary can't make it any more clear. . . she does not care about the Democratic Party or its principles. If she doesn't care now, why on earth should I believe she'll care if she gets in office?
1 year ago
Not voting Democrat for ANY reason is at this point in history, practically treason.
Excuse me?!?
You mean the same Democrats that say "how high?" when Bush says "jump?" The same Democrats that took impeachment off the table even though Bush and Cheney have done and sanctioned heinous actions both here and abroad? The same Democrats that for the most part have left BO hanging to fight his own battles because they're so scared of Bil and Hil's revenge?
I'll remain an Independent, thank you, and if that means I'm treasonous than so f****** be it!
1 year ago
They voted for Obama and he has dissed them.
How has Obama dissed Jews?
1 year ago
1 year ago
What is it that you hope you are mistaken about you haven't stated a position?
1 year ago
1 year ago
----------------
That's what I'm trying to figure out. I don't see Obama or his surrogates talking about the Holocaust ("It took the Allied Forces to end the Holocaust"). I don't see Obama and his surrogates saying "Well, the Jews are only where they are because of X..Y..Z.""
I don't see Obama saying "Well, Hillary only won New York because of that big Jewish population."
I don't see Obama saying "I'm for hard working Americans, Gentile Americans."
Come on, now. And no self-respecting Jewish person would vote for someone or a pary who continuously dissed them with no repercussions. That's not going to happen, and you shouldn't expect blacks to sit back and let it happen either.
1 year ago
Not voting Democrat for ANY reason is at this point in history, practically treason.
That's not only crazy, it's sickeningly servile.
That woman would have been given the hook months ago by a Democratic Party that valued its loyalest constituents. Her deceiptful, divisive, and race-baiting behavior has gotten this far because a spineless, cowardly Democratic Party didn't have the courage to take a stand and establish some boundaries.
So hell no; I'm not about to be nationally humiliated, belittled, and mocked ...
and then turn right around and reward a party for standing by while I'm humiliated, belittled and mocked.
What kind of person does that?
1 year ago
Has Syrian dictator Hafez Assad sincerely abandoned his anti-Israel hostility? Or is Assad's willingness to negotiate with Israel simply a tactical move, designed to obtain the strategically crucial Golan Heights in order to weaken Israel's ability to defend itself in any future confrontation? Most Israelis have serious doubts as to Syria's trustworthiness.
I also doubt Syria's trustworthiness, but I hope I am wrong to doubt that Syria really wants a permanent, peaceful coexistence with Israel.
1 year ago
Against Race Politics
Sorry I had to write this b/f I had a chance to log in!!
1 year ago
Oops. I meant Bashar, not his father.
Although the same doubts existed in 2000 when negotiations failed.
1 year ago
Thats my mother too. While she has a college diploma, she lacks access to various media. She is then susceptible to Clinton's distortion.
Many as you said, lack certain analytical skills due to their lack of education and I am not being condescending. She is effectively manipulating them with her lies, smear tactics etc... She cannot do it with those who either have access to more diverse media and can analyze the situation....boy oh boy.
They are being Bamboozled
1 year ago
Source: ABC News
URL Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04... Apr 26, 2008
Author: Jake Tapper
Post Date: 2008-04-27 14:44:22 by nolu_chan
Keywords: None
Views: 25
Comments: 2
blogs.abcnews.com/politic...8/04/clinton-campa-1.html
Clinton Campaign Chair Threatened to Strip Michigan of Delegates in 2004
Jake Tapper
ABC News Senior National Correspondent
April 26, 2008 5:33 PM
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has staked her path to the Democratic nomination on the officially illegitimate contests held in Michigan and Florida somehow being recognized, in opposition to Democratic National Committee rules.
What's so remarkable about this is that two of the Clinton campaign's most important strategists have in the past taken the stand that these states should abide by the DNC's instructions -- even if that meant stripping them of their delegates.
In direct contrast to the positions they hold now.
Senior strategist Harold Ickes as a DNC Rules Committee member in 2007 voted -- along with the other 11 Clinton supporters on the 30-member committee -- to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates as punishment for disobeying the DNC primary calendar schedule.
Ickes now is a leader of the "count Michigan and Florida" rhetoric coming from the Clinton campaign, despite his previous position.
Now comes this curious find, on Daily Kos.
It turns out that irrepressible Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe once -- when he was DNC chairman -- threatened to strip Michigan of delegates if that state's Democrats carried out their long-time goal of disobeying the DNC calendar.
In his lively book, "What A Party!: My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals," McAuliffe tells the tale. If you're an Amazon.com member, you can read the passage for yourself on pages 324 and 325.
McAuliffe at the time had been pushing for early contests for South Carolina and a Western state with a large Latino population, perhaps Arizona or New Mexico.
"Our plan became very controversial," McAuliffe writes. "Some people thought any change was bad. Others thought we were not shaking things up enough. Leading the charge for more radical alterations in the primary calendar was Michigan Senator Carl Levin, who thought Iowa and New Hampshire should not have exclusive rights on voting first and that it was time for other states to have a turn. He had pushed unsuccessfully for change before the 2000 elections and was back in full force this election cycle. He made it very clear on the telephone that if I allowed Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, then Michigan was going to act on its own and put its primary first."
McAuliffe invited Levin to make his argument before the full DNC meeting on Jan. 19, 2002. Levin did, and his motion was defeated by a unanimous vote.
"After the vote, the issue was settled in my mind -- however, not in Carl's," McAuliffe writes.
On Feb. 1, 2003, Levin, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Dingell's wife Debbie (a DNC member and power broker unto herself) called McAuliffe.
"They told me they were going to hold the Michigan primary before New Hampshire's," McAuliffe writes, "which would have led to complete chaos since New Hampshire has a law stating that it must hold the first primary and the DNC had already voted on this issue and settled it.
"'If you do that, I will take away 50 percent of your delegates,' I told him.
"They thought I was bluffing. But it was my responsibility as chairman to take action for the good of the party, and taking away half their delegates was well within my authority...The whole primary calendar was in danger of spinning out of control. The candidates kept calling me and asking what was happening with the schedule, and I made it clear that I was not going to let Michigan throw the entire process out of whack. Finally I'd had enough and scheduled a meeting in Carl's Senate office for April 2 to settle this once and for all...
"Soon Carl and I were going at it.
"'I'm going outside the primary window,' he told me definitively.
"'If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses,' I said. 'We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost.'
"He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.
"'You won't deny us seats at the convention,' he said.
"'Carl, take it to the bank,' I said. 'They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it.'
"We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it."
Clinton herself said, in October 2007, "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything." She said she was keeping her name on the ballot (unlike her competitors) just so when it came time for the general election she could argue she had not ignored the state.
It wasn't until Clinton lost the Iowa caucuses in January that she acted as if the Florida and Michigan contests had any meaning at all. As Tallahassee political journalist S.V. Dáte recently wrote in Slate, "Last summer and fall, when the DNC made these decisions, she had a lot more clout. She exercised none of it."
As for Ickes and McAuliffe -- they have exercised a great deal of clout. But it has been in the name of preserving order, even if that meant stripping recalcitrant state Democrats of their delegates.
As McAuliffe said then -- "the rules are the rules."
Why? "For the good of the party," he wrote (then).
- jpt
1 year ago
Look it from outside yourself: The Less You Vote, The Less Power you have. In Politics, If You Arent An Asset, You Will Be Ignored. Think it Thru.
"Taking your ball and going home" cause your feelings are hurt does nothing to solve the problems this country has.
Its the exact opposite in this case.
If Black People didnt vote because Obama didnt win and we lost cause black people dont vote--thats the deinition of stupidity.
McCain will pummel this country and if you allow him to do that because your feelings are hurt:
Youll sound like a maniac over the next 4 years, it will be your fault for not looking at the greater good than quitting.
Politics doesnt need you, you need politics and a money voice with politicians to change things.
1 year ago
Youll sound like a maniac over the next 4 years, it will be your fault for not looking at the greater good than quitting."
Unfortunately, to me this comes off as getting the trusty and "useless except for voting the way told blacks" back in line.
Maybe you should release the stupidity alerts at Hillary's website, Tailor Marsh's blog, etc because that is where it belongs. Blacks and Obama have been above board this entire process. It would be stupid to acquiesce and solidify their votes as a guarantee even when essentially being told that they don't mean shit to the party because brown is the new black. Gosh, if their is no ounce of racial pride, then you are right and we (well not me because I'm smarter than most) will do as master commands as usual.
1 year ago
------------
You sound silly. Black people are voting and we're still being ignored.
"Think it thru?"
The Democratic Party better "think it thru" before even thinking about listening to Hillary and snatching the rug from underneath Obama.
A vote for Hillary is a vote to be ignored. Only a dumb ass continues voting for somebody who openly mocks and disses them.
Blacks sitting at home on Election Day if Barack Obama is not the Democratic Nominee?
In the words of Barack Obama:
YES WE CAN!
1 year ago
1 year ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080522/pl_bloomberg/abkil5tbuujk&printer;=1;_ylt=Ak5vDRDfe9i9r8L.1dq6x_Kpg9IF
1 year ago
I really strongly question this. I question it on two bases:
1. Large chunk
2. Women
Second one first: IMO the "women" thing is largely an illusion fueled by a particular kind of white feminism that is (ok, I'm going to say it now) white race loyalty naming itself feminism. Most -- not all unfortunately but most -- of the "women" who are into this feminism-white-race-loyalty are white. These are people who probably don't think of themselves as white supremacists or white race loyalists. They often cloak it for themselves and for others, though I myself believe that even those who don't know it upfront know it deep down anyway.
So it is not about women as a group. It is not. It is about white people enacting white race loyalty. The women ones in this group are saying it's about feminism and sexism -- that's actually not true, that's cover. The men ones in this group are among the people Ms. Hillary pandered to in the W Va and KY primaries. Same thing different twist.
Then -- about "large chunk" of women. I highly doubt this. They are loud as hell, that's for sure. White supremacy in this society sure amplifies what they have to say. The lie that this is "women" (51% of the population) instead of a group of mostly white race loyalists is bolstered by a long history of a particular kind of white feminism that falsely says that white women represent ALL women.
In addition to the many many Black women and other women of color who aren't in this "'women' who will defect" group, there , there are plenty of white women, including white feminist women, who support Senator Obama. Now, I know that the white feminists who support Senator Obama are not immune from more subtle forms of racism/white supremacy -- it is there for sure among other wings of white feminism and white progressives in general. I know this from long experience.
But this overt white-race-loyalty-feminism -- it is not as big as "women" for SURE and is not even as big as white feminists for sure. It IS as big as hardcore white race loyalists, men and women.
That is who and what we're talking about, primarily: White-race-loyalists.
Some of them will call themselves feminists and say they speak for all women because it makes them look way bigger and more important than they are.
It's possible this group (including men and women) will prevail, but the more I watch Senator Obama and his team in action, the more I feel like he is capable of not letting it happen. But that's another issue.
The question for me is, how crucial to a Democratic Party win is the white race loyalist vote? Are white race loyalists part of the necessary base of the Democratic party? I would like to believe not.
But if so, of the "white race loyalist" vote is required for a Dem. Party win, then something is very wrong with the Democratic Party and obviously re-making the map (as Senator Obama is already doing, I think) is crucial and necessary change if the Democratic Party is going to be viable.
1 year ago
How Hillary's latest math hurts the party.
Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:31 PM ET May 21, 2008
Give credit where it's due: Hillary Clinton has shown grit and determination in finishing out the race. She has proved herself a strong campaigner. And in the week since West Virginia, she has stopped the cheap shots that had marred her campaign this year.
But Clinton has continued with one claim that could have a pernicious effect on the Democrats' chances in November. While she knows that the nomination is determined by delegates, Hillary insists on saying at every opportunity that she is winning the popular vote. And she has now taken to touting the new HBO movie "Recount," which chronicles the Florida fiasco of eight years ago. Everyone can agree that the primary calendar needs reform. But popular-vote pandering is poison for Democrats. For a party scarred by the experience of 2000, when Al Gore received 500,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush but lost the presidency, this argument is sure to make it harder to unite and put bitter feelings aside.
Oh, and it's not true.
Let me go through the numbers without making your head spin.
After Kentucky and Oregon, Obama has an official popular vote lead of 449,486.
This does not include Iowa (where Obama first broke from the pack), Nevada (where Hillary won the popular vote narrowly), Maine (where Obama won easily) or Washington state (another strong Obama state). Why? Because these caucus states don't officially report their popular votes. But if we're going to truly count all the votes, official and nonofficial, as Hillary advocates, you can't very well not include caucus states.
Adding in the unofficial tally from caucus states, as estimated by realclearpolitics.com based on official caucus turnout and the number of local delegates selected at the precinct level, that gives Obama a lead of 559,708.
Now we come to Florida and Michigan, whose popular votes Hillary says should be counted. The argument for counting them is no better than for counting the caucus states (and maybe worse, considering that these states violated party rules by moving their primaries up on the calendar, and no one campaigned there). But for the sake of argument let's count 'em. That gives Hillary a lead of 63,373.
HILLARY WINS POPULAR VOTE!
Not so fast. If the Democratic National Committee completes its expected settlement on May 31, Florida and Michigan will each get half of their votes counted. Translated to popular votes, that would subtract about 325,000 votes from Hillary, putting Obama back into the lead.
Beyond not being official numbers, there's another problem with counting Michigan in these totals. Obama wasn't on the ballot there. You can say this was his own choice, but that doesn't change the fact that had he been on the Michigan ballot he would have received a lot of popular votes. How many?
Try 238,168. That's the number of Michiganders who voted for "uncommitted." Were they possibly genuinely abstaining? Maybe a few hundred of them at most. The rest were clearly Obama supporters who launched a grass-roots campaign. Everyone in Michigan knew on January 15 that a vote for "uncommitted" was a vote for Obama.
That means that by a generous definition of popular votes (and remember, Clinton wants to enfranchise as many people as possible in her count), Obama leads by about 166,000 votes.
With a big win in Puerto Rico, Clinton could possibly erase that margin (plus several thousand more that Obama is expected to net in Montana and South Dakota). She could then proclaim that with the help of Puerto Rican voters who cannot vote in a general election, she is the popular vote winner.
The shorthand many Clinton supporters are already taking into the summer is that she won the popular vote but had the nomination "taken away" (as Joy Behar said on "The View") by a man.
What a helpful message for uniting the Democratic Party.
If the Obama people have any sense, they will demand in their negotiations with the Clintonites that Hillary cease and desist in her specious claim to have won the most popular votes.
Given that more than 35 million voters took part in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, the math games on both sides look awfully silly. Everyone should agree to call it a tie.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/138109</br>
1 year ago
1 year ago