If you are on so many people's mind you must be something right.
As far as I am concerned she is one of best writers out there and Hillary Rodham Clinton couldn't have asked for a better advocate than her.
She is a jewel for the clinton camp.
Do ya thing girl.
She can do her thing all she wants. When it comes to Clinton advocacy, she's a soldier. But I do have to label the taking-it-to-the-convention-floor talk childish and irresponsible.
so what exactly do you think conventions are for anyway ?
"so what exactly do you think conventions are for anyway ?"
Lots of balloons?
you know it won't be so scary or funny if it wasn't the case that a lot of folks seem to believe thats largely what conventions are for.
I have ALWAYS believed that.
"you know it won't be so scary or funny if it wasn't the case that a lot of folks seem to believe thats largely what conventions are for."
I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that, but for the record I was going for "funny."
The ones I go to are mostly about wireless technology.
Seriously though. I'm not saying Senator Clinton drops out. I just believe that any indication of militancy in handling this nomination process hurts the party. Particularly from the campaign that pleaded with the superdelegates to use their better judgment, now that they're breaking to Obama, that should be respected.
Another point, it is fact that no vote will be cast by a pledged or unpledged delegate until the convention. We all know that. But as the pledged delegates' affiliation goes without saying, and if the majority of supers are to throw their weight behind Obama, giving him the majority needed to secure the nomination in August, then we have to proceed with the assumption that he is the nominee.
All the talk of electability and the ever so talked about "October surprise" must take a back seat to what only a few weeks ago was cemented by the Clinton campaign as the key to the nomination: the superdelegates.
With all the delegates she has amassed and the millions of voters she has , it would be expected she would be at the convention anyway . Infact it would be a travesty if she doesn't take up issues at the convention floor.
Either pushing her agenda if she is not the nominee or fighting for a resolve to issues she thinks are unresolved.
Ted Kennedy was a 1000 delegates short and he was still at the convention , she is just a mere 150 delegates in the hole and somehow she is not supposed to take it to the convention.
Actually she is about 200 delegates behind now, FYI.
157 pledged delegates according to realclear.
177 including supers if we want to be exact.
She's behind by 166 pledged, and 20 super.
That's 186.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/
In all fairness...You are a leaner...You have strong passions about the GOP and their Military/National Security agenda. I am fully behind ANY Democratic candidate, and a convention floor flight would all but do us, Democrats, in for our goal of capturing the POTUS.
Conventions are for the party to make their case to the American people that they should be elevated into majority status. That's why disorder and chaos are no longer acceptable at conventions.
Would you have liked it if Barack Obama, trailing by 150 delegates, took his case to the convention, and asked the party platform to include something like, "We firmly believe that the Iraq War should never have been waged, and we admonish all elected officials who voted for its authorization in 2002?"
Quit being a sore loser. Barack Obama has spent his entire political career fighting for the core idea that brought Hillary Clinton into politics in the first place -- the idea that we are interdependent of one another, and government should embody the idea of family -- while John McCain has spent his entire political career opposing this grand idea at the top of his lungs. This is what should be shown at the convention -- not poor Hillary, who likes to advocate winner-take-all, now wanting something when she lost.
Your rantings don't make much sense.
...if the tables were turned and Obama was the one behind, would you stll be arguing that Obama has every right to "take it to the convention?"
Somehow I doubt it.
I wouldn't use the phrase "His entire political career", to try to prove a point. It was so short, and not that impressive.
Neither was that ex-one-term representative named Abraham Lincoln particularly distinguished in 1860. Particularly when compared to his predecessor, James Buchanan, who had 10 years of experience as a House member, 10 years as a U.S. Senator, was a minister to Russia and a minister to Britian, and was Secretary of State for four years before becoming President. Now which person made a better President?
Well then, we shouldn't even consider experience in voting for president. What were we thinking? I vote for Joe Schmoe the next time around, he works in a factory, and has never voted,even. But he seems like the best pick to me because he has no experience which is even better than we could ever dream of in a president.
Also, voting to authorize one of the nation's greatest foreign policy failures, and refusing to own up to that vote is so distinguished?
The Convention "floor fight" is a mythological sort of deal for Democrats. There have been some special Conventions, where no candidate arrives with any sort of even a close majority and it takes several votes to figure out who it will be.
1968 was the anti-Vietnam War protest elevated to an art form and McCarthy first getting 42% to Johnsons' 49% in New Hampshire primary. Johnson announced he was going to not run for a second term. Robert Kennedy got into the race, Hubert Humphrey the VP got into the race, and when RFK got shot the night of the California primary (winning it), it threw the Convention into turmoil. MLK had been shot on April 4th. One hundred cities rioted and looted. Another war supporter, Humphrey managed to get the insiders to pass by a discouraged RFK contingent and a Eugene McCarthy in Chicago to get the nomination.
The police were sent around the delegates hotels to keep order. Senator Abraham Ribicoff in giving a speech placing McCarthy's name in nomination scolded and told of Daley for his tactics. The NY and California delegations, after Humphrey succeeded in getting the nomination, lit candles and swayed singing protest songs right on the floor of the Convention. Dump the Hump!
It was a unpopular choice. Nixon won by a small margin. HHH was linked too closely to Johnson , and no enthusiasm for him was seen in most areas. TV coverage of the controversies to people who didn't get what was going on proved a bigger help to the Republicans. Their convention was very orderly.
Convention excitement is overrated. Unfortunately a troubling picture will create negatives among low-info voters.
No party has won the Presidency in modern history after taking the campaign all the way to the convention?
I agree with you, in principal, that the convention is technically there to "choose our nominee;" that being said, it is not very pragmatic to take the campaign that far when all evidence suggests that to do so will help McCain lock up the presidency...
that is, no reason to do so unless you would rather McCain be President than a Democrat other than Hillary.
You know, I was at the 92 Democratic convention (and NOT for Clinton). Jerry Brown had a lot fewer votes and there was no huge scream-fest for him to drop out before the convention. Teddy Kennedy stayed in till the end as well, and he wasn't close either.
You have a race that is very close to tied. Why shouldn't HRC stay in it?
It's a bizarre and disturbing double-standard.
Because we, Democrats, will lose the General Election...geez..
If we lose the general election, with Obama as the nominee, it will not be HRC's fault. It will be because Obama did not make the case to the voters that they should support him.
I really do not understand how you can't see that. But this sort of attitude will be why Obama loses. He and his supporters are seriously miscalculating the extent of his appeal and what he needs to do to win.
When did I say anything about it being Hillary's fault...Quit with the victim playing already. I said if it goes to a convention floor flight WE will lose the General Election...The party will be divided, whoever is chosen as the nominee. After the convention we will have two month until the General, do you think harsh feelings will be resolved in that time frame, not to mention what the GOP will do with that spectacle of Dems fighting Dems...
See, this is a problem - where in my statement above was I "victim playing"?
What you are saying is illogical. Basically you want HRC to drop out before the convention. If she does not, "we are divided." By your own logic that would be blaming HRC for the loss.
Unless there is some other way that we can "unify" before then - Obama dropping out, maybe?
I have a feeling that is not what you are saying.
Jesus..I said whoever is the nominee, would lose the GE...Your the one with your head up in the clouds thinking a floor fight at the Democratic Convention would be good thng...
Good day, and good bye
I asked, "Why shouldn't HRC stay in it?"
Your reply was, "Because we will lose the election."
If that's not what you meant, try rephrasing. I can only go by what you say, not by what you mean that isn't clear.
... of all that are is that Clinton is in a no-win situation.
Though I prefer Clinton as the nominee, there are all kinds of very good reasons why she should keep running and get as many delegates as she can. Stuff like the Platform committee, for example.
I'd like to see a real commitment to universal healthcare, and to protecting social security, not privatizing it, just to name a few issues. Even though stuff like the platform committee is generally as pro forma as the conventions, it's still an opportunity to stake out positions and change the language to reflect what we'd like to see the Democratic Party be about.
I hit post too soon.
It's about having a voice, and representing the people who voted for her. That would be at least half of the Democratic electorate, if not more (depending on your criteria). It is not trivial that these voices be heard and their interests have representation.
OK...one more time...As far as staying in throughout the remainder of the primaries and some time for her to state her case with the SD's, I have no problem. Once a consensus is picked, after the primaries, after resolving MI and FL, and after most SD's have endorsed...Whoever has the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination should be accepted by the other nominee. Whoever doesn't have the majority of needed delegates should drop out and begin to unify our party for the General Election. If Senator Clinton sweeps the remaining states and persuades SD's that she is the most electable and she receives the majority needed I would expect Obama to drop out for the good of the party.
Any type of Convention floor fight would lead to a Democratic loss in the GE...just look at the history. Fortunately, I believe Obama and Clinton respect their party and understand the importance of getting a Democrat into the WH in 2009, and therefore would not risk taking it all the way to the convention.
Seriously. I appreciate your clarification.
That's an opinion but one mainly designed to close the race down and give it to Barack. That's a smart tactic for him to secure the nomination, if it's about him needing to close the deal by declaring a winner rather than waiting to see who wins. There are many who disagree with you and see the continued contest as the only way to unite in the end. If there is a fair winner, the one who comes out at the convention, we'll all back the winner, all Democrats anyway.
Election Day: November 4, 2008
Do you honestly think that a brokered convention, with hard feelings on both sides, can repair itself in a measly 9 weeks?!
If he has the delegates needed to win BEFORE the convention, then you can bet he and "most everyone" else will recognize it.
And why wait till the convention anyway if there is already a fair winner before? Are you thinking that some of those delegates will all of a sudden flip to Hillary?
A presumptive nominee is a presumtive nominee, and if he earns that title (like Kerry and the many others that did before him) then it makes no sense to WAIT till the convention to get this show on the road against McSame.
I have such hard feelings now, not towards Barack but towards the rhetoric against her and towards Howard Dean (I was one of his first 10,000 donors, who knew he was a one issue hack) that the only way i can reconcile with my party is if they stop Barack from declaring his own victory and if it goes to the convention. If he wins at the convention, I'll live with it, but if he's bully the girl out of the race, I'm not the only one who's hard feelings won't be going anywhere.
supporters and it's getting a bit tired. Hillary has every right to go to the convention to present her case and her message on behalf of her millions and millions of supporters. When we voice our concerns that McCain will defeat Obama, we're told not to fear the Republicans, or not to let the Republicans dictate our choice. Your paranoia re the convention smacks of the same sort of fear. Or is simply fear of Hillary? Obama, Hillary, and others have shown in the past few days that McCain can be easily swept to the side as we continue our contest to determine our nominee. And there will be plenty of outside groups slamming him (McCain) hard as we go forward. We are going to the convention whether you like it or not. Hillary has earned that right. So suck it up and stop crying wolf. Every Obama supporter, bar none, at this site has told us many times over how easily Obama will defeat McCain. So stop worrying. It only gets better from here.
...and that is part of the problem when you are fighting others, they do have a tendancy to fight back.
Alegre knows that as well as anyone else.
Yes she is. This is my first diary here,and I am taken aback at how few of the responses deal with the gist of the diary. No "agree" or "disagree" just chatter about other topics mainly around the convention and are there enough delegates to declare a win or not...
We have heard that a thousand times already.
I am trying to make some unity happen, encourage the "Popular Front" to defend our democracy and save our country. Defending and inviting Alegre back to post again among many of her old friends was my intention. Some are hostile at Dkos, but many applauded the diary. 46 tips, 26 recommends for a person that was "run off." That's good.
the problem Pete is that you guys don't police your own trolls. If you don't like fellow Obama supporters smearing us and our candidate, tr them for us, there were always far more of you at kos, and we did fine when you were ignoring us and fighting with Edward's supporters. I skipped every pro-Obama diary, and I rarely went into hit pieces on her, if I did it was to register disagreement, but they made it to the rec list, and I saw no sign that any of his supporters, or even him, though to think ahead. I got smeared and grossed out posting pro-Hillary diaries. We used to make a point of saying that we'd support the nominee but here's why she's our first choice, I stopped that some time back. If you want any of us back, clean up the site first. TR and get rid of bloggers who can't behave, who have to personally smear us. Had there been a majority of his supporters who understood that if you can't play nice, in the end no one will want to play with you, and had cleaned up your own tank, rather than blaming Hillary and us for those nasty remarks we and she were told we'd brought on ourselves, we could still be having a robust discussion on issues. This ought to have been fun, and instead it's been ugly and depressing. Seems predictable to me, but hey, I'm just a nobody like other bloggers, leadership was in order, and it's now too late, meaning his supporters aren't through enjoying their revenge. He couldn't stop them were he inclined. It's been hurting him for months, he has not won one new Hillary hater in some time I'd expect. That can't be worth the damage.
In the spirit of that question:
"Do you think your pastor loves America as much as you do?"
"Have you not ceased to stop not beating your children?"
Are you from the Colbert Report?
-chris
I admire her stamina, determination, and ability to be inspired.
I do not admire her absence of critical thinking skills: She parrots Clinton talking points and never, and I mean never, engages thoughtful rebuttals. If the Clinton campaign says the magic number is 2240, then it's 2240. Always was. We were never at war with Eastasia. Point out that, for months, Clinton and her senior spokespeople defined this as a race to 2025 delegates, and you will get -- crickets. She simply will not respond.
For years, I valued MyDD for its intelligent front-pagers and thoughtful diarists and commenters. I derive no joy from "bashing" any Democratic candidate's supporters, but the fact is that, by parroting the Clinton campaign's talking points, Alegre does everyone here a disservice by intermingling half-truths, hypocrisies, and outright lies in her exhortations.
At our best, we diarists and posters should not be like opposing camps of attorneys, making the best case for our side and the worst for the other. We should honestly engage the facts. Sadly--to take a recent example--Alegre echoes the blatantly false anti-feminist talking points about Obama, and her diary skyrockets to the top of recommended list.
I take your description of Alegre as a "girl" to be sexist and offensive.
/snark
