Corrente

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

The Scary Smart One on the RFK Fauxrage

myiq2xu's picture

This is why she's scary smart:

What is my point here? Namely, that the Left Blogosphere has always behaved like this, they have always swarmed and spewed at their favorite target of hate, the Clintons, and that their embrace of Obama is purely instrumental. They don't give a damn if he can win the general. They are obsessed with preventing the Clintons from returning to power. If he can do that, then they'll be back to bashing him since he will have served his useful purpose.

There is always hope, and we are never defeated, as long as truth survives.

0
No votes yet

Comments

koshembos's picture
Submitted by koshembos on

There are often dark times in history. You don't have to go far. Ask the Rwandans, Jews, Burmese. The 20th century has seen the death, many through murder, of about 150 million women, men, young and old.

If we want to defeat the dark forces inside us, we have to sit on our hands next November. Obama is clearly a destructive force in the American political life. We cannot risk him winning and abandon women, men, young and old.

becca's picture
Submitted by becca on

has been locked up at an undisclosed location since 1980.

becca's picture
Submitted by becca on

at war with the "undesirable" populist element. The neos have found a gullible base to exploit- AA's, tweeners and teenagers, not to mention the cachet of power they offer the likes of Kos and JMM, along with the rest of the mainstream media.

It's a war between socially liberal Reaganomics supporters (see Chicago School) and the working class in the Party Formerly Known as the Democrats.

Submitted by cg.eye on

steps up and stops pretending that the main class sought in elections since the Southern Strategy -- middle class whites -- isn't going to be guilted into voting for him as much as black people were, but will actually need policy initiatives that will help them survive this recession (a point that will also help everyone except rich people and corporations), then he can beat McCain.

The only reason he's so tight with black people (and the groups who desperately want a new type of politics, without that icky coalition building work involved) is because of fear. The way we have given power to a permanent GOP-corrupted legislature, judiciary and civil service might mean this is the last chance to elect a person who might care if American becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary of its creditors, and might want to stop the process.

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

I think it's nonsense. As another tepid Obama supporter I care very much about winning in November and think that a substantial portion of the venom now being directed at Clinton is because her dragging this thing out hurts those chances.

As for the Clinton's returning to power, it's not my favored outcome but geez, anything would be better than four more years of Bushism. Or have we forgotten that?

The way this site and most of its denizens have lapped up every bit of Clinton spin-doctoring, no matter how ludicrous (gas tax Holiday, obviously self-serving "moral" outrage over Florida and Michigan, "obliteration" of Iran), over these past few months is something to behold. Tell me, how does "obliterating Iran" fit in with the former idea of "moving the 'Overton Window' left?"

I've never viewed Barack Obama as a candidate for sainthood, or thought he deserved no criticism. But you guys need to look at Obama more and his more outrageous supporters less.

Very soon you're likely going to have to make that choice you've been dreading. Time to dial it down.

But no, just flame away.

Submitted by lambert on

... I've been too busy fondling my KKK literature and hoping for the death of my political opponents to notice that Donna Brazile wants to throw me out of the party. Sheesh, give me a chance to catch up, wouldja?

Er, I notice you have no response to what Anglachel actually wrote. I presume you agree, then?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Then why are you ratcheting it up with inflammatory distortion (e.g., describing deterrence solely as "obliteration" of Iran*, disenfranchisement of MI/FL, justifying anti-Clinton venom as defending Obama's chances**)?

*She clearly said that in case Iran decided to launch a damn nuclear attack on Israel we have the capability of obliterating it. Again, this was referred to as an "umbrella of deterrence."
**Disenfranchising two states and not combating anti-Clinton venom greatly hurts Obama's already slim chances in November.

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

"Obliteration" was the word she used. I ratcheted nothing. Of course I know she meant after a putative nuclear attack on Israel, when presumably any President would take such measures. Duh. The point, however, is that this sort of hypothetical feeds into Bush/neocon fantasies instead of trying to dampen them down. She has the right to play that card, but again, what happened to the Overton Window?

"disenfranchisement of MI/FL" is pure chutzpah when she took the opposite position until it was clear it would hurt her interests. Why do you consistently expect Obama to go against his self-interest for the "good of the party" when Clinton has refused any such move?

I don't like anti-Clinton venom and misogyny any better than you do, and don't believe I've contributed any, Unless the mere of cricitism of her constitutes such. I chose not to mention, for example, her remarks about the Bobby Kennedy assassination, which is an anthill that people are somewhat ridiculously trying to make into a mountain.

I readily admit my candidate has flaws. But I've been lurking here for several weeks now since I last posted. My point is simply that I haven't seen a single drop of pro-Clinton KoolAid that you guys haven't lapped up with gusto, even the most extreme examples. You've lost all objectivity, and I don't think I have. (And I don't like the Daily Kos any better than you do).

And what about all this constant talk about Obama having no chance in November. It doesn't get much play now because her odds are so long at the nomination, but I don't see Hillary being a shoo-in either. Either candidate will need the other's supporters.

And no, Lambert I haven't called you a KKK-fan. I haven't tried to "read you out of the party" as if I could -- or would. As usual there is middle ground between shouting "racist" at anyone who opposes Obama and refusing to engage in any thoughtful discussion about what role race might REALLY be playing here.

It takes two sides to play the game of inflammatory distortion, and I continue to have enough regard for the folks here to trust that you won't completely overlook your own role in it.

But the fact is, this site has become utterly predictable. On any issue that has come up recently, I knew exactly what would be said here, and I haven't been wrong once.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

We drink shots of Crown Royal with beer chasers.

That's because we're old enough to drink alcohol.

Do you perhaps have a blog where people could go to bask in your wisdom? If not, you should start one, instead of stalking lurking around here.

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

.... why don't you go somewhere and stop it?

There's this insane story going around right now that Clinton is waiting around until her opponent gets shot. Started with Drudge, IIRC -- just like the last ginned up story on the "War Room" video.

I really have to question your priorities if you're hanging around a C list blog brightening the corner where you are by sharing your concerns with our few readers, instead of doing your own small bit to clean up a pollution of our discourse that is orders of magnitude greater than any snark you might find here, and is virtually everywhere to be found right about now. Eh?

Sorry you find all this predictable. I, for one, would never have predicted that where under Bush we had Drudge -> Freeper -> FOX, now we have Drudge -> Blogosphere -> K.O., and the level of truthiness is exactly the same. Only the faces have changed. People complain about The Howler's predictability for the same reason.

Good luck finding the unpredictable site that you seek!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Obama suppoters think he is the best candidate, would make a better candidate and more likely to win in Nov. Mebbe they are right, mebbe they are wrong, but that is what they think.

I think it is time to dial it down. MI and FL are huge issues, and I am real sorry that Obama's supporters don't understand that.

Obama is going to be the nominee. Those who cannot endure that thought need to turn their attention to down ballot races or issues they care about.

Submitted by lambert on

Don't be an asshole, gq. There's a stickied post on single payer by this same poster. I get to be the asshole, not you. If you want to expand the comment to make a real point, then by all means do so.

FlipYrWhig's picture
Submitted by FlipYrWhig on

The point, however, is that this sort of hypothetical feeds into Bush/neocon fantasies instead of trying to dampen them down

How about the hypothetical of bombing Pakistan? Did that give rise to similar anxieties about catering to Bush/neocon fantasies?

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

It makes Clinton appear strong and Odrama look like a weakling.

Denouncing the idea of US retaliation for a nuke strike on Israel is going to cost the Precious lots of votes, especially in NY and Florida

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

disenfranchisement of MI/FL” is pure chutzpah when she took the opposite position until it was clear it would hurt her interests. Why do you consistently expect Obama to go against his self-interest for the “good of the party” when Clinton has refused any such move?

this isn't about Clinton or Obama, it is about the voters of FL and MI.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

do you really want to chase away all the Obama lurkers? 'cause we are going to need them with single payer.

I, for one, would like to see Xenophon and xan return to posting.

but that is just me.

Submitted by lambert on

... there are lurkers, and there are trolls. Hard to distinguish, sometimes. I deal with them all the time, though sometimes I make mistakes.

I was thinking of a thought experiment while I was priming, and it goes like this. Isn't the independent variable the date that the nomination is secured, either by a vote, or by the concession of one of the two candidates? (I leave the whole "inevitability" argument aside, first because the press is completely untrustworthy, second because the popular vote metric is contested, and third because the "pledged delegate" metric relies on a false, though much propagated, version of the rules. Let's do a thought experiment:

1. Suppose the Nomination Date is 5/31, after the DNC meets (though before Puerto Rico). Does 10 days worth more blogging on this by me make any difference? If it does, I've got a lot more power than I thought.

2. Suppose the Nomination Date is actually the Convention, as some say it should be. Would I regret quitting blogging on this at that point? Surely, since I stopped advocating forcefully for my candidate while I still could have made a difference!

3. Suppose the Nomination is some time between the Convention and today. The argument, as I understand it, is that there's a trade to be made between stopping blogging on this and other achieving other, more desirable policies. Is Obama stronger on single payer? I don't think so. Am I not shoving the Overton Window left by forcefully advocating for a candidate whose views are closer to my own?

Finally, there are justice and legitimacy issues involved both in seating FL and MI and in the media critique. They are fundamental to the kind of political system we are to have -- which is the foundation of policies like single payer. One could wish that these justice and legitimacy issues were to be fought on some other, more pleasant ground, but this is where we are.

I would close by saying that I can't ever recall asking anyone else not to post something. (If there is a an exception, the alchohol fumes from the primer have driven it out of my mind.) That isn't something that friends ask of friends. Eh?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

OK, suppose Obama takes the nomination. There are some people, I'm sure, who will say: "That asshole lambert. We're not going to invite him to our parties!" Those people are stupid. The smarter people will say: "That asshole lambert. Look at what he almost did to us with no resources. That's the kind of bastard we want on our side." Now, at this point I have no confidence that the smart people have any influence over anything at all. But a man can dream, and I have no interest in going to parties with stupid people anyhow. So....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

She's doing the right thing, even if (as you assume) she is doing it for the wrong reasons.

But it's good to see you agree that disenfranchising FL/MI is wrong.

48 + 2 = Legitimacy

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

myiq has the answer. Politicians are politicians -- clutches pearls! But if you want to govern, you need soft power as well as hard power. The legitimacy of this election depends on justice appearing to be done. That Hillary is advocating for justice because it's going to get her elected is surely the essence of a democratic process?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

That was good snark, almost as good as Stephen Colbert.

You play the kool-aid impaired Obot troll to perfection.

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

And what about all this constant talk about Obama having no chance in November. It doesn’t get much play now because her odds are so long at the nomination, but I don’t see Hillary being a shoo-in either. Either candidate will need the other’s supporters.

http://hominidviews.com/

McCain over Obama, 2/3 (2 chances in 3)
Clinton over McCain, 1 (virtual certainty)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Obama 266 McCain 248 Ties 24 (6 short of victory)
Clinton 314 McCain 207 Ties 17 (victory by 42)

It's not that Obama has "no chance." It's that he has a much slimmer chance than Clinton.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

you are on to something. I don't want to suggest that anyone should stop blogging on this, it is just that my preference be that Obama supporters continue to be welcomed at Corrente.

Submitted by lambert on

... the more welcome. I'm pretty driven to react to content. If you were a veteran of the legendary Michael Vick permathread, you'd know that I actually can be argued into things, and admit I'm wrong.

But tiresome talking points that I've heard a million times get the treatment they deserve. Think of me as a terribly clogged filter for Obama talking points, mkay? (And if you study the Hillary campaign points fairly, you'll see that I don't use them uncritically, and many of them I alter, and other things I write have nothing to do with the campaign. The "mindlessly repeating" talking point is a sure sign of someone who hasn't bothered to do the homework.) And then again, sometimes the campaigns read what we do. I am convinced that TalkLeft framed FL/MI for, really, the entire country, and good for them, because it really is a justice issue. I bet people are tired of hearing Jeralyn at parties, too.

Nice to talk, instead of yell, but tit for tat, ya know... Valid strategy...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

They a preprogammed with a list of responses when you push a button. No originality, no variety, totally predictable.

You can cruise the blogosphere and they're all saying the same things at every site.

After "engaging" with a few thousand of them, it gets really old.

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

I ignored your last "obot troll" comment. But hats off to you, you have provoked me against my better judgment. My decision to support Obama was made after much soul-searching and was a 51-49 kind of thing. If that's what you want to call a troll, good luck to you.

Anyway, what kind of dipshit prances around the internets with a handle that proclaims "I'm twice as smart as you are"? Maybe that's why you've found a home at what Lambert, not me, calls a C-list blog.

Lambert, I'm not asking you to stop posting. But this was once one of my favorite sites and it isn't any more.

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

I'm willing.

Sure there's injustice in depriving the citizens of these two states of their voice. But that injustice cannot be laid solely at the door of Barack Obama. Surely Hillary Clinton also bears some of the blame for this, having gone along with this scheme before she realized it would matter. Howard Dean may bear some of the blame - but then, who the fuck cared about this before they realized it could make a difference. The whole Democratic party national candidate selection process is broken and needs to be fixed, but you're not going to fix it by changing the rules in the sixth inning of the ballgame.

There's injustice inherent in the entire practice of our imperfect democracy. There's injustice in the electoral college. There's injustice in Iowa and New Hampshire every year getting to "go first". There's also injustice inherent in agreeing to follow a set of rules, however imperfect they might be, and then reneging on that for reasons that are OBVIOUSLY motiviated first and foremost by self-interest and then ginning up a "justice" case to justify your stance.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

that the rules weren't followed in the first place, and that the penalties were grossly excessive and disenfranchising for millions of innocent voters who had no other way to vote except in their state primaries, and that any and all possible remedies/revotes/etc for the very real injustices were refused by the Obama campaign alone, etc--and that pissing off millions of voters in key states is something that never should have happened at all and must be rectified asap.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

but they never had any say or binding force or power over how or when individual states and their elected officials would set their primary dates at all.

Rules are not laws--primary dates are not set by the DNC and never have been--states themselves have to run primaries and are legally responsible for when and how they conduct them--not the DNC. Making rules that privilege and/or punish some states and all their Democratic voters (voters you need for the party to exist and to succeed) over others -- when it's not even in your purview or responsibility and there's no way to enforce it -- is just insane.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Obama is not to blame for DNC rules committee's decision, and no one here has tried to say he is.

But he has failed to lead on correcting the problem, and has even obstructed resolution.

The meme about "changing the rules" has been an Obot troll talking point since January. But neither Hillary or her supporters are suggesting the rules be changed. That is a complete falsehood perpetuated by the Obama campaign.

Hillary kept her promises regarding MI/FL, suggesting she didn't is another Obot troll meme.

The rules allow for appeals to the committee decision, which is exactly what is taking place. We believe the appeals are valid, and we have explained why and expressed opinions on what the resolution should be.

Yes, the Democratic nominating system is FUBAR, but no one here is suggesting it be changed for this campaign, only for the future.

That fact that injustice exists does not mean we have to accept it as immutable law. Anytime we see injustice we should cooperate to eliminate it. "Progress" is the root word for "progressive."

Yes, sometimes the "right thing" is also the politically convenient thing as well. So what?

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

It's a joke, but people with self-esteem issues get twisted about it.

I even had personalized plates with it on my car.

I think it's amusing when people attack my handle, it means they have nothing else.

I can just imagine these humorless lames attacking some big guy with the nickname "Tiny":

"What, you really think you're small?"

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

don't make me laugh.

She CAN'T lead on it (and neither can Obama), because her motives are automatically subject to question and neither you nor she can get around that fact.

This whole thing would not even be an issue if it wasn't Hillary's last faint hope for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.

Anytime your position demands that your opponent commit unilateral disarmament you're going to have a problem. (And yes, I realize this applies to Obama too).

Let's leave out the Hillary-hatred for a moment. I DON'T hate Hillary. I believe that she sincerely believes she can somehow pull this out and if she does that she can patch the whole thing back up and win in November and that is she does, she is best qualified to lead the nation. I don't happen to agree but I do trust that that's what she believes.

But at some point you have to weigh the damage you can cause in a losing effort vs. the benefits you perceive in your unlikely victory. I wish Teddy Kennedy had thought about this in 1980. I wish Ralph Nader had thought about it in '00. '68 was too fucked up for rational calculation.

But I would like to know that Hillary is thinking about this. She gives no sign of it. Of course the minute she does, her game is over.

So I can understand why Hillary is thinking the way she is. I can't understand why otherwise sensible people can't get themselves off this roller-coaster.

But soon enough, we'll all have to be pulling in the same direction.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

time.

YOU question her motives, WE don't.

Her original position wasn't unilateral disarmament, it was revotes that Obama opposed.

"But at some point you have to weigh the damage you can cause in a losing effort vs. the benefits you perceive in your unlikely victory."

Maybe Obama should have thought of that before his campaign falsely accused the Clintons of racism.

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

Yep, when Hillary wins. Heh.

Meanwhile, we've gone over FL and MI a million times here, and unfortunately for all of us, Stivo, you were absent -- Possibly because we're too predictable? So I have less then zero interest in going over the ground again. Others may practice their technique!

myiq2xu, gq: DCblogger does the work and creates regular valuable content. She makes the blog look good. Stivo shows up on this one thread in order to, er, express his concerns. He's a sweetie!

So, calibrate the tone of your discourse appropriately!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Want more detail, scroll back and look for my posts. If you haven't actually read the rules, all of them, STFU for a change and go read them before you spread more useless bullshit.

1) So far, Rules and Bylaws have followed all the rules. Maybe not the way that some people wanted them to be followed, but every ruling has been within the rules.

2) Nothing Obama or Clinton has said or done has had any effect on the rules, or the way they have been enforced. They have no power at all. Their supporters on the Rules & Bylaws Committee might have had some, but way back last fall nobody could have possibly known how this primary was going to play out. (For example: Harold Ickes and Donna Brazille made the same arguments and voted the same way on every issue regarding primary contest scheduling and on penalties for FL and MI.) Everything from the mouths of Obama and Clinton is political posturing - big shock there.

3) The state Democratic Party leadership in FL and MI all made big stupid mistakes. The voters in MI and FL who put their trust in and gave authority to those leaders fucked up big time. When you fuck up big time and make big mistakes, the consequences are often unpleasant. Sucks to be them.

4) Howard Dean had nothing to do with the decisions by FL and MI, or the rulings by Rules & Bylaws. Read the rules for yourself, and then stop writing such inanities. He's spent all damn winter trying to politic this along to get it fixed. Dean's a hero here, not someone to blame. Want to keep big stupid mistakes from happening again in FL and MI? Voters there need to quit blaming everyone else and clean up their own messes - by electing new state Democratic leadership. How hard is that to figure out?

5) FL and MI will be seated at the convention; that's a done deal. There will be some nominal penalty, because FL and MI broke the rules. When you break the rules, often there is a penalty. Everyone who does not understand this must repeat kindergarten before making any more comments on the subject.

6) The nomination is a private political process. It has nothing to do with justice or fairness - they are non-operative concepts within this construct. There are no requirements to follow the US Constitution - that the Party can set its own rules is, in fact, constitutional. All of the power rests with the national Party leadership - period. The states have to comply with Party rules or risk refusal of their delegates - period. Always has been that way, always will be that way; stop whining about it and fix the process from within if you care at all.

7) Go read the rules. Reviewing the above comments, it is clear that none of you have. Spreading incorrect information, and conjuring falacious arguments based on ignorant assumptions, benefits no one. Stop.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and the voters of FL and MI had absolutely no choice or voice in when or how their primaries would happen. Whether they had trust in their elected state officials or not is irrelevant.

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

Thank you for proving my point.

That's what I call drinking the KoolAid. It is impossible for anyone who hasn't put blinders on to believe that Hillary's sole motivation here is the disinterested pursuit of justice.

We're all supposed to just accept everything she says, the whole warped logic that counts every Hillary vote and discounts every Obama vote. That only the blue states are important - until she wins Kentucky.

I'm in 100% agreement with what Atrios says here. Is he an Obot too?

We've had little but dumb arguments like this from the Clinton campaign for some time. I'm not entirely sure if they're stupid enough to believe them, or if they just assume we're stupid enough to believe them. Either way I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted.

Submitted by lambert on

What a straw man. Please, steve-zero, do the reading or go back under your bridge. This is ridiculous.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

I don't assume her motives are pure, nor do I assume they are corrupt. I don't expect her to be perfect either. I look at her actions, when they are commendable, I will support her.

I can't read her mind, but during the last sixteen years I have seen enough of her actions to trust her until I am given a reason to stop trusting her. IOW - She has earned my trust.

Senator Obama on the other hand, has very little record to examine and has been inconsistent with his words and deeds. He not only has failed to earn my trust, he has done things to warrant my distrust.

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

I believe you know, Lambert, that I came reluctantly to my support of Obama. There was a time, not that long ago when you were all out for Edwards, and I was leaning to Hillary. Look it up in your archives.

You don't want to argue, fine. You think I'm an Obot troll? Good God yourself. Nobody sent me here.

Have fun playing with yourselves. I'm going back under my bridge now.

Submitted by lambert on

...on account of darkness. Sorry.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Elect bums and this is what you get - whose fault is that? Elected representatives - whose voice is that? Casting ballots for bozos - whose choice was that?

Democratic Party rules don't control the state processes. What they do is provide a set of preconditions; meet them and get seated, violate them and risk rejection. FL and MI elections violated the rules. Their delegates got rejected. Whose fault is that?

Once it was clear that the FL and MI elections were in violation, and especially after Rules and Bylaws made the ruling that all FL and MI delegates were rejected unless another primary was held that met Party rules, the voters had a choice; wait around and hope that Somebody would fix things, or get together and hold their own delegate selection process. Nothing in the Party rules says the process has to be run by the state, or even by the state Democratic Party - see Fanny Lou Hamer.

The voters did diddley-squat; nothing much but complain and piss and moan about how unfair it all was. One big pity party, boo hoo hoo. How very adult.

Why not a recall? Start up a serious petition drive to recall the whole of the state legislature and damn straight those fools would have figured out something. Too much trouble for the voters, I suppose.

The voters had plenty choice, plenty of opportunity to express their voice; what they lacked was gumption. Which you would know if you had read the rules, amber. Go. Read. The. Rules.

In the end, apparently the lazy voters made the right decision; Somebody in the person of Dean, Pelosi and Reid brokered a deal to get the FL and MI delegations seated. No credit, mind you, to the voters; sloth and procrastination are never virtues.

[no offense intended towards those FL/MI voters who actually did try and do something besides whine; unfortunately, there weren't very many of you.]

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

with what money? with who to certify the votes? how?

you can't put that on voters--it's not right. voters were told when and where their primary was--they went and voted--and the state certified the votes.

they don't have to run primaries themselves too--it's absurd. and there's no way in hell the DNC would have accepted or allowed any voter-run primary w/o state input.

Submitted by hipparchia on

[and if you wanted one]

thanks for that defense. that's truly the kind of unity-building we the disenfranchised would like to hear from our nominee.

bio is right that we could have done all those things, but they require enormous effort, lots of money, etc. especially money. arranging an alternate way for 4 miilion to vote? in a state as spread out as florida?

our leaders followed all the appeals procedures, we the voters educated ourselves, and our neighbors, about the candidates, since they didn't come here to campaign themselves.

and we turned and voted, in spite of all the republicans' maneuverings to try to keep us at home.

the superdelegates are supposed to take several things into account when they decide who to nominate at the convention, and one of those is electability when pitted against the republican opponent. even if they don't officially count our primary votes, they'd be stupid to completely ignore the preferences of florida and michigan.

and anybody who wants more and better democrats next year would be smart to pay attention to the republicans and their dirty tricks in general, not just in those 2 primaries. voter id laws. defense-of-marriage amendments. voter challenges. purging voter rolls. etc.

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

FL/MI, they are not relevant to the discussion. FL/MI votes need to be counted, it's a simple as that. It doesn't matter who said what, when. They must be counted. These are simple issues.

I'm fascinated and heartened by Obama supporters who are crying foul at the RFK assassination reference. Fascinated at how they can take anything and turn it into a racist, anti Obama comment. Heartened to know that they still care. The more they cry, the better we're doing.

Spoke today with a smart, insightful friend who happens to be an Obama supporter and their first comment was amazement at how Hillary could make such an outrageous comment re RFK assassination. I was amazed. It is almost like living in the movie The Invasion, I better watch my drink.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Amber? Have you read the rules? Clearly not, or you would know it's all in there. All the requirements, everything. It really isn't all that hard, but it does take some gumption.

This has been chewed over here at Corrente already. I just went and took a look, no comments there from either amber or elixir. Maybe you haven't read that post and discussion thread yet. You should.

I'm happy to discuss anything new, or unclear, but rehashing the same stuff over and over, not so much. I get testy, and brusque. I start to be blunt; end up saying truthful things like "too much trouble" and "don't know what to do" and "voters have no voice" is all a bunch of lazy-butt whiny-ass bullshit.

Lazy people. Same reason we went into Iraq. Same reason we're still in Iraq. Same reason everything is all screwed up. Lazy people. That's how democracy dies.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

actually impossible in reality--by intention.

there's no way individual voters could band together, raise the funding, establish legal and fair voting mechanisms, and rent polling places and workers all over a state, and run a primary that would be accepted by the DNC--or the Secys of State.

It's not lazy people--it's that there are already apparatuses and systems in place, and you're blaming individual voters for things they couldn't accomplish and which wouldn't be accepted even if they could--private primaries could never be legal.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I think that's the right thing to do. The only way a democracy can operate is for the citizens to be responsible; take responsibility; behave responsibly; demand that all other citizens be responsible.

Because counting on Somebody to do the right thing is how we got where we are today.

In 1964 in Mississippi a group of poor people, blacks and whites together, managed to hold district caucuses and a state convention and elect delegates and get to the convention, all legal, all within the rules. Managed to do it while being shot at and arrested and beaten and killed. But I see what you mean by it being too difficult to do now. So much harder now.