Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Campaign Updates and Media Headlines 8/16/08

Caro's picture
Tags: 

Stolen Nomination? You bet. (MakeThemAccountable)
The 2008 Democratic Party nomination for the presidency was stolen from Hillary Clinton and given to Barack Obama by certain members of the party leadership.
Click through to read the deep, dark secret that the party leaders want to keep the public from knowing.—Caro

Barack Obama Has Learned: The Clintons Will Never Go Away (by Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report)
They have to let Hillary have her say [at the convention], given how many delegates she has. And they can hardly ignore the only politically successful Democratic president of the last 40 years. That means there’s a risk that the convention will not be an ideal television extravaganza for the Obama campaign. But that’s the price they pay for not sweeping the primaries. Hillary Clinton won more popular votes and more delegates in the primaries than Barack Obama. Obama won the nomination because of the big delegate margins he won in caucuses and because superdelegates went along with him. [Emphasis added.]

Gallup Daily: McCain, Obama Tied at 44%
John McCain and Barack Obama are tied at 44% in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking report of registered voters’ presidential preferences. These numbers reflect a slight drop in Obama’s support compared with what it has been thus far in August.

But he’s a great fundraiser, right?

$52 million in June

$51 million in July

Bumps from Clinton donors in June and July, and he’s starting downhill again. How about that $300 million by mid-October, Barack?

How Super Are the SuperDelegates? (by madamab at The Confluence)
If you look at Obama’s performance against McCain objectively, the Senator from Illinois is tanking in the polls. In states where he had a double-digit lead, he’s hemorrhaging support. In swing states, McCain is starting to edge him out. In a Democratic year, this lack of enthusiasm is unheard of. And yet, it’s happening… If the SuperDelegates really ARE super, they will pick the person most likely to beat McCain in November, and that person, according to the best information we have, is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now that Hillary will be on the roll call vote, will the superdelegates insist on doing their jobs?

Click here for more political and media news headlines.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

0
No votes yet

Comments

Caro's picture
Submitted by Caro on

... the 2000 theft of the White House, I'll get over the 2008 theft of the Democratic nomination.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Submitted by lambert on

This quote:

Hillary Clinton won more popular votes and more delegates in the primaries than Barack Obama. Obama won the nomination because of the big delegate margins he won in caucuses and because superdelegates went along with him.

Doesn't prove what you claim: Election theft. In fact, all the quote does is show that the SDs were doing their jobs -- although we don't like the outcome of their decision, to say that we don't like the outcome doesn't equate to theft.

Ditto the caucus states. Yes, they're undemocratic. But that was the ground on which the game was played, and all accepted that. Again, this doesn't equate to theft.

Now, if you want to make the case that the RBC stole votes when it took MI votes from Hillary and gave them to Obama, or that the entire process is illegitimate because the RBC violated its own rules and sunshine provisions when it made the decision, that might go some way to proving your case -- but you don't make that argument.

Ditto, if you want to argue that gross irregularities in the TX caucuses make that state's results (which I imagine is a big chunk of Obama's margin) illegitimate, that might, again, go some way to proving your case -- but you don't make that argument.

UPDATE Oh, got it. We've got the inflammatory headline here, and the evidence and reasoning in the click-through. So the post isn't so much wrong as radically incomplete.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

carolyn has been posting various links under the same headline for some time now. The fact that you didn't click through doesn't make it Carolyn's fault.

Submitted by lambert on

It was the inflammatory teaser in the post, and the actual evidence elsewhere that threw me. I read it as a cross-post, when in fact it was just blogwhoring (to use the term of art). Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Obviously, I have no problem with inflammatory headlines as such. Sorry I was unclear.

UPDATE The headline referred to is "Stolen Nomination? You bet" which is the headline over at MTA. I imagine that's why it was bolded.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

Response to Paul. Caro.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Comrade Rutherford's picture
Submitted by Comrade Rutherford on

Both Clinton and Obama are moderate Republicans pretending to be Democrats.

There is NO difference between the two, other than superficial things like gender and skin color.

This bickering is pointless.

If all you GOP-lovers had supported a real Democrat over the last year, this upcoming election might mean something.

But no, you had to fanatically follow a Republican instead. I am sick and tired of the right-wing Clinton dynasty, and I am sick and tired of Obama's hope-lessness.

We needed an actual Democrat and thanks to you all, we didn't get one. So our country is doomed now. We will get four more years of Republican rule now matter who gets installed by Diebold this November.

Submitted by lambert on

I gave my allegiance to Edwards. And that wouldn't have worked out so well, would it? Looking back.

And as I kept saying, and will now say again, I view and viewed the differences on policy between our two centrist candidates as marginal -- which does not mean insignificant.

The differences between the two of them on process seem to be increasing over time, and that's the predominant them of this post.

Anyhow, say what you will about Hillary being a Republican, she didn't throw me under the bus. Or vote Yea on FISA.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Hillary is a "real" Democrat, registered and everything. So is Obama.

Neither party has a monopoly on ideology or even immorality, the current administration notwithstanding.

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Clearly some people don't know what the definition of dynasty is. Kinda makes the entire post not worth paying attention to. Of course, the dynasty argument was often used to mask underlying sexist sentiments. Not always, but kinda like the Real Racist (Tm) or homophobe who *has* to say they know a person of color or gay person.

Comrade Rutherford's picture
Submitted by Comrade Rutherford on

Smart-ass, I do know what a dynasty is. What 'sexism'? I don't care if Hillary happens to be female, she's still a moderate Republican. Being a feminist myself, I am somewhat insulted at your deliberate mis-reading of my post.

The Bush family certainly qualifies as a dynasty:

Prescott Bush - Nazi financier, sat on the board of several companies that continued to support the Hitler regime even after America started fighting against them.

GHWBush, Prescott's son - worked his way up through the CIA, engineered his rise to President in 1980, using Acting-President Reagan as a front-man, held office for 12 years.

Bush, jr - Clearly not actually President, he plays the Reagan role this time around, while the power behind the throne manipulates the US into a Nazi-esque police-state.

The Clinton family is attempting to become a dynasty. Under Bill Clinton, more pro-GOP legislation was passed than the previous several years, because the Democrats had been fooled into thinking that Clinton was looking out for the Democratic Party's interests. But since the Clinton Family are moderate Republicans, he sold us all out.

Now Senator Clinton wants to do the same thing again: sell out the Democratic values and at the same time, attempt to match the Bush family's multiple presidencies (which WOULD be a dynasty).

The Clintons sold us all out back in 1992, and it hasn't changed since.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

Let me help you with one of those sentences to more accurately reflect history:

"Under Bill Clinton, more pro-GOP legislation was passed than the previous several years, because"... the GOP which had already been building in numbers over the previous decade as Democrats retired and the ground work Reagan laid took fruit in swing districts - thanks to widespread, pernicious corruption on the part of congressional Dems - and they swept the Democrats out of power in the House of Representatives (for the first time in several decades) and the Senate for the remainder of his terms, while remaining Dems were so shell-shocked they and Clinton could hardly do anything except stall until the tidal wave passed, and yet they still fairly effectively coopted the Republicans by balancing budgets and reducing Republican deficits, and skillfully managing the economy in order to be re-elected in a walk 2 years later in 1994.

There, I know it runs on a bit but it's better by being more accurate and less misleading.

You're welcome.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

Every time we hear criticisms of the Clinton presidency (some justified, some not), it looks like there is a form of collective amnesia and no one remembers what the Gingrich Congress was like... geez, go back and read the Contract with America and you'll remember (or discover if you were too young) the atrocities the Republicans had in store.

peter's picture
Submitted by peter on

How about this from Democrat Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner in Ohio...

Ohio's Election Stolen Again? State May Face 600K Voter Purge in Coming Weeks

Advancement Project and Project Vote. Posted August 13, 2008.

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/94977/

This is a Democrat doing the purging, with a Democrat as governor...any problems with this????

Caro's picture
Submitted by Caro on

I have serious problems with the entire "Democratic" party and the direction it has been taking for the last 20 years--trying to outdo the Republicans.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Comrade Rutherford's picture
Submitted by Comrade Rutherford on

I clearly remember Gingrich and his Contract On America. And I remember Clinton refusing to veto bills that needed to be vetoed.

I never understood why he didn't veto the GOP's inhumane and anti-American legislation. Sure they may have been over-ridden by the Legislature, but why make it so easy for them?

This was after the Democrats publicly stated that they would never prosecute Reagan for his obviously impeachable offenses, talk about corrupt Democrats...

I do applaud President Clinton's budget surplus proving to the world that the GOP are fiscally irresponsible and the Dems are the only ones that improve the economy.

And here we are again today, with the House Speaker declaring that there will never be an impeachment of any GOP president, no matter how lawless and no matter what unConstitutional acts he commits.

The Dems today are just as corrupt as the Dems of the 1980s and 1990s. Senator Clinton is just as corrupt as the rest.

There are only about 5 actual Democrats in Congress today. The rest are GOP operatives intentionally undermining everything the Democratic Party stands for. Caving in to a lame duck 'president' with a 28% approval rating.

How obvious can it get?

I don't want Senator Alzheimer or Senator False Hope (or Senator WalMart), but these are our choices.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I never understood why he didn’t veto the GOP’s inhumane and anti-American legislation. Sure they may have been over-ridden by the Legislature, but why make it so easy for them?

Its called politics. You should read up on it.

Those with CDS forget stuff like Clinton's support of DOMA was a means of preventing a constitutional amendment defining marriage -- something that, at the time, would have passed with ease. Had that amendment been ratified, none of the current progress toward gay marriage in the state courts and legislatures would have been possible.

They also forget how popular "welfare reform" was, and with good reason. Welfare was a mess -- and a huge political issue. Congressional Democrats had failed to deal with the welfare problem constructively while Reagan and Bush I were president, and when the GOP took over congress in 1994, the issue was at the top of the list of GOP priorities. Clinton did TWICE veto welfare reform legislation before finally signing a bill that was acceptable to him in August 1996 -- in the middle of a tough re-election campaign.

Sure, Clinton could have vetoed that bill AGAIN, and lost the election, and a far worse version of welfare reform would have been put into law by Dole and the GOP Congress in early 1997.

Submitted by lambert on

Senator Alzheimer's...

First misogyny, then age-ism. I am feeling so progressive.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.