zed?

Richardson is right. Caucuses Suck. We need to go further than that, tho. We need direct elections, quit screwing around with delegates

Jane, do you have a position on who Richardson should vote for?

Super delegates should weigh a number of factors, including who their state or region voted for, who won the most pledged delegates nationally and who they personally believe will be the best President.

So what you’re arguing for is the Clinton camp’s position, which is that superdelegates should not be bound to vote for who their constituents voted for.

That’s the opposite of what Richardson said on CNN.

I’ll repeat what I wrote downstairs:

Super delegates should caucus and vote to not have their votes counted in the process. This would disenfranchise them en mass and lower the number that the winner of the primaries would have to get to a majority of the primaries and the caucuses.

The dumb ass FL and MI delegates cannot be seated because they broke the rules and chose to disenfranchise their voters.

We need a new primary system with 4 national primary dates which spread the vote across the country, big and small states, north and south, east and west, industrial and rural blah blah. 4 dates leaves time for some campaigning. Drop the super delegates. Compress the process and make it cheaper and let’s get private donations above $200 out of ALL political campaigns(primaries) and public finance 100% for elections.

There is no way to know get your knickers in a twist on this one.

DROP ALL SUPER DELEGATES

All people are equal, but some are more equal.

I think Richardson realizes that if Clinton somehow becomes the nominee that the fracturing of the Democratic Party would be severe.

The African American turnout in November would the lowest ever, dragging down many other Dems running for office, and putting McCain in the WH. Smart move by Richardson.

“I think Richardson realizes that if Clinton somehow becomes the nominee that the fracturing of the Democratic Party would be severe.”
_______

And, my unhappy prediction is that that is exactly what is gonna happen.

Last night, Rachel Maddow had Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen on, outlining his proposal to have a convention of superdelegates in June. The idea behind this is to provide the required number of committed delegates prior to the end of August nominating convention, so that Dems don’t spend the summer months campaigning against each other, instead of John McCain.

This would provide a nominating convention process to legitimize any decision made, release superdelegates from merely amplifying direct popular vote, and get the issues you raise in this post behind the Party.

What think you?

You’re right, Jane. There’s been a whole lot of embracing of rule changes, and/or rule creation, that serves one side or the other.

I don’t see how superdelegates are good for the party in the first place. However, there are no rules that constrain their voting, so I believe they can vote on any criteria they choose. If we want to change that, we should do it in the next cycle. The calls for changing rules in mid-election drive me up the wall.

All the maneuvering over Michigan and Florida can be fairly blamed on poor leadership and leadership failure in those states. I think the rules should be followed in those cases, or we will buy rule breaking in the next ten elections. In the alternative, if we waive the rules for them, let’s agree that there are no rules, states can do whatever they want, and Iowa can hold the caucuses a year in advance. I especially hope that the superdelegates from those states are not seated, because people like Carl Levin caused this problem and they should be allowed to experience the consequences.

One consequence of what Michigan and Florida did is the early January caucus in Iowa. It was not good for the candidates to lay out a campaign strategy and then find out they were losing two weeks and would have to spend Christmas in Des Moines. I do not think it was fair to do that to the candidates, and to have uncertainty right into December.

If that’s what he thinks then he should say he’s changed his mind regarding the fact that superdelegates should vote for whom their constituents voted for. Quite simple, really.

I have mixed feelings about the superdelegates, and frankly think our whole system of elections needs to be revamped. But you are absolutely right, Jane, Richardson is saying one thing, and doing another. I don’t like it.

Good morning, Jane…
IMO, the superdelegates were put in place simply to stop another George McGovern from getting the nomination, and by extension to stop the people from choosing any candidate not “acceptable” to the party bosses. In my mind, this is fundamentally un-American and un-democratic and I would thus like to see the whole superdelegate system cashiered. The Democratic Party is supposed to be the people’s party. Let the people rule.

As happens with “activist judges” (definition: a judge that hands down a decision I don’t agree with), the issue of how super-delegates should vote seems to be always tainted by whether we agree with them or not. By definition, a super-delegate is completely free to pick a candidate for any reason and change their mind any time. It does seem logical that super-delegates should generally reflect their constituents, but even that is fraught with peril (CD constituency, state constituents, national constituents, lobby constituents, etc.). In short, any super-delegate and always find a way to justify why their decision is in keeping with the constituents. It amazes me that Clinton supporters are so outraged when a super-delegate in a state that Clinton (barely) won goes for Obama, yet they never suggest that super-delegates that are supporting Clinton in states Obama won handily (e.g. Michael Thurmond, Carole Dabbs, and Lonnie Plott all of GA). The same holds true of Obama supporters (I haven’t heard any clamoring for Obama to give Clinton all those super-delegates from MA).

In short, we are all at least a little bit fanatical (if not hypocritical) when it comes to deciding how super-delegates should make a decision.

great post jane.

are the delegates’ votes public record after the convention?

OT
and this news just came from cnn email-”– Hillary Clinton’s passport file was breached in 2007, Secretary of State Rice told Clinton, according to the senator’s office.”

yadda yadda yadda
Super-Duper Delegates to the rescue…

bah, humbug.

Here’s to Governor Richardson for finally giving his endorsement.

He endores Obama. Get over it. Move on. Let’s get a Democratic President Elected and Inaugurated.

Do you have a position on who Richardson should vote for?

So what you’re arguing for is the Clinton camp’s position, which is that superdelegates should not be bound to vote for who their constituents voted for.

That’s the opposite of what Richardson said on CNN.

Technically I agree with that view, but not practically. I believe super delegates should weigh very heavily the “who won the most pledged delegates nationally” factor. They strongly disagree with that.

But I don’t mind if they weigh a number of factors, some of which I listed.

Jane Hamsher:

Maybe Richardson was suggesting something else in that Blitzer interview: the possibility (which many of us entertain, out of pessimism or paranoia) that the superdelegates would somehow subvert the primary process…in favor of Clinton. Your are right that he contradicts himself here — or, as you put it, that he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth. I think where he’s stating his real view, however, is here: “No, I know that. But I’m going to decide in the next few days. I just think superdelegates have too much influence. It should be voters in states. It should be delegates according to the proportion of the vote or the candidate”. In retrospect, given his endorsement of Obama, he was worried about Clinton’s inevitable superdelegate strategy.

Is there any grounds for such worry, on my part or Richardson’s? Well, yes — it was immediately obvious that Obama’s race speech was as much as anything meant to counter Clinton’s campaign — that she would try to use the Wright affiliation to claim to the superdelegates that they had to intervene because Obama is unelectable. For what it’s worth, the Times has seconded that take.

You’re quibbling with Richardson’s stated contradictions in this interview. Why?

I don’t think there is one easy set of rules that should be adhered to by super delegates.
For instance, lets say in 2016 a successful Governor Spitzer had a large lead in delegates approaching the Democratic convention, but not quite enough to put him ovet the top, without the votes of a majority of the super delegates. Then, one week before the convention, the story of his involvement with prostitues hits the media. Well….then what?

Or, a candidate does extremely well early in the process, but their campaign starts to take on a lot water late and their rival catches fire and convincingly wins 10 primaries in a row, but falls just short of having a majority of the delegates. Well….then what?

Sounds like Obama offered a sweeter deal to Richardson than Clinton did. Possibly VP????

It’s really odd to see yet another Friend of Bill endorsing someone other than Hillary. Joe Lieberman, who if anything is closer to the Clintons than Richardson, went and endorsed McCain — this despite the Clintons’ pissing off the Democratic base and shivving Lamont on Lieberman’s behalf. (Then again, Lieberman has shivved the Clintons before, as those of us who remember his September 1998 backstab know. He singlehandedly revived the Republicans’ faltering impeachment drive by giving it a fake “bipartisan” veneer.)

and this news just came from cnn email-”– Hillary Clinton’s passport file was breached in 2007, Secretary of State Rice told Clinton, according to the senator’s office.”

Wow! That blows this thing sky high.

something that bothers me about this—

it was on february 25th Richardson said he was going to decide ’very shortly’ on an endorsement……..

it’s March 21st

was he just waiting till sen obama needed a ’boost’?

a month isn’t ’very shortly’

my antennae are twitching.

The dumb ass FL and MI delegates cannot be seated because they broke the rules and chose to disenfranchise their voters.

Can we drop this meme? Again, the bill that moved the FL primary was a Republican bill, passed by a Republican state legislature, and signed by a Republican governor. The dems had very little to say about it.

That’s my guess.

Expect all the old Richardson dirt to come out again.

You are right, Jane. Richardson is saying this one day, and a month later, he does that.

It would be refreshing to see a politician just level with the public and voters.

How about some good old basic truth???

Anyways, the MSM will infotainmentspin this into more idiocy…

Super delegates are only one part of the problem. If you get rid of them you’ve still got a situation where every state party pretty much decides for itself what it’s going to do. Are primaries fairer than caucuses? Are open primaries fairer than closed primaries? How do you deal with a MSM that ignores everyone but the frontrunner’s? Early voting a good thing or not? The primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire valuable as a winnowing process or unacceptably undemocratic? I don’t have the answers but I hope that this primary season serves as a wake up call to the Democratic Party that it’s past time to do something about this.

Uh huh– breaking on msnbc– so is St. John’s!

I wanna know if mine was breached.

yeppers.

Jane, you’re looking a gift horse in the mouth. What a waste.

I have two things to say on this. One is that you would need to count how many superdelegates come from the state of NM, and then give apx. half plus one to Clinton and the remainder to Obama, and then it would be exactly as Richardson said. He did, after all, indicate that Hillary only won by 1% in his state. It was the interviewer, Wolf Blitzer, that declared that a win was a win.

OTOH, and number two, as far as I can tell, the Superdelegates are meant to be leaders. So a leader should have the perogative of changing his mind or letting events (like Obama’s speech and the predicament of the party) change his mind. So I think Richardson is doing what a leader should do. I try not to criticize folks for providing leadership.

passport, that is.

That’s exactly it, they remained silent. They should have made a big stink, but chose to let the bill pass quietly.

At what point with the DEMOCRATIC Party become truly democratic? All this crap about electing delegates and super delegates to represent us- That’s Republican! So is the Electoral College. Direct Elections are the only Democratic way to go. One man (woman), one vote! How hard is that? The Super Delegates get two votes!
And yeah, it’s too late to change for this election, we have to find a way to cope with the current situation. But all of you who think this is wrong have to get involved with your local party, and elect new Party officials so that we can begin making some of these pernicious party rules go away.

Um, no. That’s separate from the DNC’s own rules, which Hillary’s top advisor Harold Ickes agreed to before it became clear that Hillary could benefit by staying on the MI and FL ballots.

“I think Richardson realizes that if Clinton somehow becomes the nominee that the fracturing of the Democratic Party would be severe.”

My two cents: this has been an extremely divisive primary, and this is not all on Clinton. Neither Clinton nor Obama are my candidate of choice, but I’ll support whoever gets the nomination. What I do see is serious nastiness on both sides, and Obama supporters are doing (or ready to do) as much potential harm to the party as Clinton supporters – if their guy doesn’t get the nomination.

And I’ll stick my foot in it to say this: there has been some serious Clinton bashing going on on the nets – mysogeny in high gear, that has been a complete turn off. As much as race has been made an issue in this campaign, so has mysogeny. And there is a load of bile directed at anyone who dares to offer criticism of anyone’s pet candidate. FDL has been better than most, thank you Jane and Christy and mods for making it that way. But there does seem to be a kind of rabid energy around- my candidate or fuck you, that hardly encourages open dialogue.

Jane, you wrote in part:

“Richardson seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth on this one. New Mexico went for Clinton, and Hispanics in the New Mexico caucuses went 2-1 for Clinton. If Richardson thinks superdelegates should “vote according to who they represent,” who does he think he’s representing?”

I would guess he thinks he represents all democrats not just the Hispanics. Don’t racially categorize him when not necessary please.

Also, h just said Clinton won NM by 1%. That is hardly NM “went for Clinton”

If Nancy Pelosi wasn’t so busy not impeaching Bush and Cheney, she should now be calling for the resignation of Condi Rice. In a similar situation, the Republics would be apoplectic.

Yea, your right as far as BR should say he’s changed his mind on super delegates.

One thing about Richardson, I live in NM and he is the proverbial Big Dog here, he runs New Mexico like an old time pol, so sometimes he forgets that what goes over in New Mexico will not quite past muster elsewhere.

It’s “misogyny”. That argument was so February.

oregon dave at 9

i don’t think you change the rules in the middle of a race/competition…….if they did that in basketball, what do you think would happen? people would go apeshit. and this is the race for the president of the united states.

you change the rules after, not during, after-before the next race/competition.

Jane, are you saying that Richardson said he was selected as an Hispanic superdelegate (Hispanics went 2-1 for Clinton in NM)? He said

If somebody’s appointed as a superdelegate because they’re Hispanic or a governor, they should pay attention to what their voters and their constituencies are saying.

If he was appointed as being a former governor, then representing the whole state would seem to ask for a near-even divide of NM superdelegates (1% margin of victory).

Which would seem to require that the superdelegates caucus among themselves.

I’ll go so far and say

Screw the states “rights” issues and let the dems decide on a nationwide popular vote. You can add the vote state by state if you like.

That’s democracy ain’t it?

If superdelegates are unpledged delegates which differentiates them from the pledged delegates (result of caucus and primaries), a superdelegate who pledges to a particular candidate becomes one and the same as a pledged delegate. So, what’s the point of a superdelegate?

Since all the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination, it seems their only objective in announcing their choice before the convention is for some specific political reason.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter how his state voted, Richardson can vote for any candidate of his choice so why is he making noise about the narrow win between Hillary and Obama, and the win counts except for when it doesn’t. Maybe Richardson needs to do some straight talking.

It’s “misogyny”. That argument was so February.

Well, that puts me in my place. Thanks for your thoughts.

Re my post at #42: what Ann in AZ and joelmael posted while I was typing.

Yes, New Mexico went for Clinton. She won both the delegate count and the popular vote. That’s a fact, it’s not in dispute.

And the article linked goes on at length to say that Richardson’s endorsement is important because he represents Hispanics (Richardson mentioned it himself on CNN), so it’s not something I interjected into the conversation.

Excellent point.

Being Hispanic, or even being just seen as potentially popular among Hispanics, is not the same as “representing” them.

Richardson is trying to have his cake and eat it here, claiming to represent all Democrats as well as just New Mexico, but it’s pretty clear he’s really thinking of the welfare of the Democratic Party as a whole.

No rules changes involved. It’s getting together and voting. We’ve already got superdelegates. To discard or discount them at this point would be changing the rules.

This is cute:

That private prayer group will only benefit Clinton – the deeply Christian Religious Right-wing Republicans who don’t like McCain, will feel comfortable voting for Hillary now, because she’s in a prayer group. My Mom and Grandmother are in this category – they didn’t know how deeply religious Clinton is. And having a prayer group in the white house?! It’s Heaven for them!
Noelle | 03.21.2008 – 11:53 am

brendanx at 40 says-”It’s “misogyny”. That argument was so February.”

that would be true, if it weren’t still going on.

so is this:

it astonishes me that with all evidence to the contrary, Gov. Richardson can repeat the stepford superdelegate line, that Obama is “once -in – a lifetime” leader who will unite the country–while at this very moment the country is torn apart by him. We could call George Bush a ‘once-in-a lifetime leader”. At least we hope so. What is going on in this world–its as if someone has taken over the bodies of the superdelegates and implanted stepford brains! Can’t these people think for themselves? Can’t they assess the realities? Sorry, it is just so crazymaking.

I don’t have strong opinions one way or another on the superdelegate situation, or whether they should even exist. Neither do I have a fear that they’re going to go renegade and override a clear popular winner (and I don’t see any way that’s not going to be Obama).
———-
Hmmm. I have some VERY strong opinions on this. This whole nominating process has me wondering how we got into this damn mess to begin with. For starters, there shouldn’t be any “superdelegates”. Any system that offers Joe Lieberman a bigger say than the people in who becomes the Democratic nominee is just plain asinine. (Thank God he opened his mouth and lost his vote.) Second, I have some real problems with pledged delegates switching their support. I’m a solid Obama supporter, but I don’t see why he should get Edwards’ delegates. Third, any system in which you count all the votes, and you STILL can’t figure out who won, is seriously flawed. The Texas caucus is the prime offender here. After the 2000 election, the Dems should have realized that they need a system in which they just count all the votes and declare whoever got the most as the winner.

oregon dave at 48

so, it’s in the rules to have a meeting of the superdelegates in june?

OT: Unfiltered State dept. briefing on C-SPAN now.

OT – sorry if it’s been reported, but CNN.com is saying Hillary’s passport file was snooped in 2007.

Hear, Hear, and let’s not burst the bubble of the youth vote while we’re at it! So much energy and enthusiasm for a change should be rewarded, not thwarted. I’m sick of all of it; let’s get on with it, already!

Late coming to the thread—

hiya Jane!

“We could call George Bush a ‘once-in-a lifetime leader”. At least we hope so.”
___________

Ain’t that the truth! Worst president of my 62 years, by far.

My wife is watching the tube and CNN also reported that McCain’s was also accessed. Good cover story doncha think, and it only took them 3 months to come up with this or 17 hours depending on how you look at Condi’s involvement.
I think a Special Prosecutor (independent) is called for and if Bush doesn’t do it (Duh) Congress should call for one immediately. Oh, thats right, they are on vacation.

i would like that ticket

cspan 1
briefing on peek-see

oh yeah? The hubby’s was peaked at in 1992–by Bush the father…

McBu’ush’s as well.

He said Hispanic or governor. You may say he’s being dodgy, but he did not claim he was a superdelegate appointed to represent Hispanics.

So if Richardson had stayed in the race and lost in New Mexicio, and Clinton won by one percentage point, should he have said that he would cast his vote for her. Richardson may not like the present system but he is part of it. Is he then prohibited from criticizing it? I, in fact, agree with Richardson. Superdelegates are basically a bad idea. The very word should raise questions in what is supposed to be a democratic Democratic process.

…was peeked at…*g*

No. Nor is in the rules that they shall not meet.

sander0 and others.

i posted these in the last post—

hey- about the hillary being involved with right-wing christian groups-

i went to a bible study at the baptist church here……..because i wanted to learn what they think, what they believe, etc…….was one of the most informative things i’ve ever done.

i learned a lot.

so, i wouldn’t take that information about hillary the same way you all have.

=====================

and forgot to add—

just because i was at this baptist bible study, doesn’t mean i agreed with them, just meant i was there to learn about/with them……..

but it could have been taken differently if i was running for office.

just sayin’.

all spying,all the time,anybodies info up for grabs…. 1984

oregondave at 67

i don’t see how this isn’t ’gaming’ the game, sorry.

Ha. It just occurred to me that 08 will be the death knell of the shibboleth that no U.S. senator can get elected to U.S. prez.

When you create a one-size-fits-all solution, superdelegates, to address one problem at some point in history, you end up with multiple greater problems that distort the outcome of future problems. It doesn’t fit other elections. DNC needs to remove superdelegates from the process. It’s time came and went. Now it’s a millstone tied around the neck of voters and superdelegates, alike.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards were all on the FL ballot, unlike Michigan…my point is simply that FL democrats, like myself, had very little to say about moving the FL primary. The bill that moved the primary did give us paper-trail voting, which is why it had broad support…a local poll here two days ago showed 13% of FL Democrats planing to protest-vote for McCain if no accommodation is reached…that CAN’T be considered the optimal solution.

hahahahahahaha…yup and the Senate has been abysmal for years imo

Senator John Kennedy.

that is just plain dumb…sorry

Similarly, just like she voted for the war doesn’t mean she agreed with it.

Actually, that’s snark. You are right. It’s virtually meaningless. This is the kind of mire ordinarily rational people step into when they try to prove religious bona fides. As we know all too well, alas, from this week’s events.

you got my attachment…

The long time lapse since Kennedy, and all the failed bids by sentaors in the interim, is usually used as the evidence.

Wow! Another “me, too!” What a surprise!

NOT! I guess I would be surprised if this wasn’t in today’s news.

You don’t have to attend regularly to get some intel on a group. Do you?

Fine. I’m outta here.

Which Richardson is it that you agree with? The one who said that superdelegates should vote as their constituents vote, or the one that’s voting for Obama?

this do or die fighting is so self destructive

Wish I would have paid more attention when I had to read that book in grad school. That professor must have been onto something we did not know about. *g*

McBu’ush’s as well.

Which means re: the passport situation we have reached that wonderful and blissful state of Tribuki!

Raise your hand if you are the slightest bit surprised that this administration has allowed such craziness to go on.

sorry to chime in here,but if the vote was razor close,mebbe its the will of half the voters

apple at 59

yes, i hope that happens.

I’ll second the motion.

I simply assume that the Bu’ushies peruse our personal data at will, in large measure using their private sector collaborators, regarding whom the 4th Amendment does not apply.

Re intra-party loyalties and in-fighting:

“The Titanic sails at dawn
Everybody shoutin’
‘Which side are you on’?”

-Bob Dylan

Who are Richardson’s constituents… only his state, or his nation?

Even when they are not on vacation, there’s little hope of the Democrats actually doing something like that.

Which problem with his statements do you have? That he contradicts himself or that he’s endorsed Obama?

i reread it…the torture sequence VERY eeeery(Abu Garib)…ya know we never really learn the lessons of history except that the evil power brokers USE the same tactics over and over…oy

If Clinton won NM by 1%, then I guess I object to “went for” (her) in the same sense I object to poeple saying voters “went for” Bush in ‘04. It obscures the nearly even divide, An obscurantism foisted upon us by the horseracer media.

that’s a good point. i hate the idea of superdelegates, but if they are going to try to represent their state, isn’t it important the the over all number match up? if so, then ideally shouldn’t in NM a slim majority of them go to clinton?

how many other NM superdelegates are there and who have they committed to voting for?

disclaimer: this comment has nothing to do with what richardson is saying vs. doing – it’s about what i think he ought to do (and i’m not sure).

that is what i feel also…too close to call the poular will of the people

Which Richardson is it that you agree with? The one who said that superdelegates should vote as their constituents vote, or the one that’s voting for Obama?

Well according to the quote you cite, his constituents split their vote so the first part is irrelevant. They didn’t vote for Clinton. Blitzer is full of sh*t. A win is not a win in politics. It’s just the dimwitted horse race driven narrative that Blitzer and the media want to impose on this campaign. Nor am I persuaded that just because Richardson finds himself a part of this process that he has to walk in lockstep with it. That seems a very strange argument especially from a progressive.

You just shattered all my hopes and dreams *g* You are so right. Sad but true.

sander0 at 81

i did, and i definitely didn’t become baptist, but it was worthwhile. i feel they benefitted from my views, too. at least that’s what they said. and my views were night and day apart from theirs. but the strange thing is, in many ways, we agreed on many things, too. that is how we were able to listen to each other on the areas where we differed.

like i said, i learned A LOT. about all kinds of things……was an eye-opening experience.

Except for Richardson’s baggage it would be very good.

see 98 “g”

I want everyone’s vote to count and I’m disappointed that re-votes won’t happen. However, I live in Pennsylvania. In 2004, John Kerry mathematically sewed up the nomination almost two months before I voted.

My vote was counted, but it didn’t count. My vote didn’t matter. Lots of Americans in the later primary states do not have their votes count. Politicians don’t visit, and no one pays attention to us. IMHO, this issue is just as important as FL and MI not counting this year.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards were all on the FL ballot, unlike Michigan…my point is simply that FL democrats, like myself, had very little to say about moving the FL primary. The bill that moved the primary did give us paper-trail voting, which is why it had broad support…a local poll here two days ago showed 13% of FL Democrats planing to protest-vote for McCain if no accommodation is reached…that CAN’T be considered the optimal solution.

Florida’s Democratic leaders could have made a much bigger stink at the time, and they didn’t. They could have set up a second primary, and they didn’t. They could have had a caucus, and they didn’t. Now they’re bitching because Howard Dean is going to follow the rules and hold them (and the people who voted for them) responsible for their actions. I’m sympathetic to a point, but we all have to pay a price for electing dumb-ass leaders. Our current President is probably one of the best examples of this principle. Frankly, I still don’t understand why Florida can’t run another primary, or barring that, hold a caucus. I have zero sympathy for the politicians there who have just thrown up their hands and said, “It can’t be done.” Yes, it can. It just can’t be done by the idiot politicians who are in charge.

Ding!

Leslie Blitzer is an Aipac toady who was employed for years by Pat Robertson…few know this

Another “me,too!” What a joke! And only some underlings in the Bush Administration knew of the alleged breaches of security and privacy of all of the candidates for President of the US. And this with the National Inquirer and Star Mag willing to pay big bucks for dirt. Interesting, to say the least! Now I can’t stop laughing. It’s like we have the keystone cops for security. Guess the joke’s on us.

used to be
IOKIYAR

now
IOKIYAO

This quibbling with whether Richardson has violated some previously enunciated principle is at odds with the very (undemocratic) notion of a “super”delegate. There are no rules for how he has to vote. He can vote his conscience. He clearly has a problem voting for Clinton despite the votes of New Mexicans. Let’s explore that.

Wow.

A politician says one thing in February and does the opposite in March?

Color me surprised.

Hey, I live in NYS. My vote never counts.

I simply assume that the Bu’ushies peruse our personal data at will, in large measure using their private sector collaborators, regarding whom the 4th Amendment does not apply.

Since about 70% plus of US intelligence pass through private contractors the odds are better that someone outside of government is keeping track of everything you do and are.

If Clinton won NM by 1%, then I guess I object to “went for” (her) in the same sense I object to poeple saying voters “went for” Bush in ‘04. It obscures the nearly even divide, An obscurantism foisted upon us by the horseracer media.

There’s a huge difference here, unless there was a great deal of substantiated election fraud in NM that I’m not aware of.

Interestinger and interestinger; worser and worser. :-(

I agree with Hugh @99. Blitzer introduced a red herring with his “a win is a win” comment. The Democratic primaries and caucuses are not winner-take-all. Delegates are split according to (roughly) the vote splits. Why shouldn’t superdelegates split accordingly?

1,788 DAYZAND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Hamsher:

I think one of the pointz Richardson was tryin’ ta make (and it got lost in a lotta rhetorical goo) was that the super delegates should be elected officials that represent the DEMOCRATS (implied) in a district or state and would be held accountable by the voting constituency of that district or state as opposed to super delegates chosen by their ability to leverage contributions.

Actually, I think this is a good check on the system much like caucuses in primary states…a primary process should reflect the activist base of the party in a state or district and not be a beauty contest dependant on early money or open to inter-party crossovers. Let’s not get confused about who best represents the committed base of the Democratic Party. A balanced combination of caucuses, primary elections and elected officials as super delegates insures that the broadest base will represented.

Let’s keep the process as open as possible while makin’ sure that organization and good local politics is rewarded over money, media and access.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THE BEST CURE FOR WHAT AILES DEMOCRACY IS MORE DEMOCRACY!!

brendan at 77

glad to see you say that

: )

There should be a loud call for Rice’s resignation. She is clearly incompetent. Where is the opposition party when it is needed?

Yep. I agree. There is no 4th Amendment constraint on any of this, and if the Bu’ushies succeed in fully stepping on the tort airhose, well, panoptic dataviellance will be the norm. The Deputy Director of National Intelligence has already stated that Americans have to re-think their notion of “privacy,” that the days of anonymity are over.

her campaigning for McVains foreign policy creds,i think mitigates Richardsons decision to vote for and support Obama and the Dem party

“…Rice’s resignation. She is clearly incompetent.”
____________

That’s a prime job requirement under Bu’ush.

We need a new primary system with 4 national primary dates which spread the vote across the country, big and small states, north and south, east and west, industrial and rural blah blah. 4 dates leaves time for some campaigning. Drop the super delegates. Compress the process

I’ve been thinking the same thing, differing in details, but make the campaign easier for both the candidates and the voters.

But w.r.t. Richardson and his vote as a super delegate, Richardson has just told us how he intends to vote. He happens to be in a position where his decision is of interest to the public at large. He’s said that superdelegates should have less influence than they’re likely to have in this campaign, he hasn’t said that superdelegates have no role. Even with his status as a superdelegate, shouldn’t he get to decide who he’ll support, weighing his role as a superdelegate? Everything that goes into making the decision on who you think is the best candidate, he’s had to do that.

the Bushes inspector in Iraq(worked for) big Repulican contractor …called her …get this ..The WORST SECRETARY OF STATE ever

Apologies for going o/t again:

Ew’s educated guess was 1:?? p.m. today. Mr. Henry runnin’ on high test today:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/…..038;page=1

Hey, I agree with a Republic! It’s not suprising she is the worst since Bush is the worst ever President as well.

later ..time for lunch

rond at 82–i can’t speak for someone else, but i read the ’dumb’ part as being directed at the part of the info where you said 13% of dems who were going to vote for mccain, not at you being dumb/

Worse than warcrimes Henry Kissinger? Do you have a link I need a laugh:)

I agree with your take on Florida. I don’t mean to be slamming Clinton as much as I appear to be, but her trying to have it both ways in Michigan and Florida has been very disruptive. If she had held together with the other candidates, Michigan and Florida would still have been a problem for the Democratic party but essentially a wash for the candidates, which is what they will likely be anyway just with much more rancor.

Waxman should be Speaker of the House!

Richardson seems quite consistent in his dislike of the whole superdelegate concept. We can parse every sentence of every politician and find all kinds of inconsistencies, and frankly I’ve been frustrated with the incredible amounts of inconsistencies the Clintons have demonstrated for years and are doing this very moment, yet so many fellow Liberals give them a pass since they’re “better than a Republican!”

But on the superdelegate issue, it doesn’t really matter since there are rules. Those rules state they can do anything they want. End of story, right? Anything else are only opinions, which we know is something everyone has plenty of.

Lanny Davis (and Geraldine Ferraro) was one of the people responsible creating superdelegates. Lanny recently explained why they created superdelegates, and his reasons clearly lay out the beginnings of the DLC, since us Dirty Liberals were gaining too much influence:

That data raised a real concern as to how truly representative a convention elected by such a narrow band of base activists truly was.

Are we the activist base now?

It did not seem entirely coincidental that the nominees since the Democratic Party reforms — Senator George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter for reelection in 1980 — suffered landslide defeats.

We were also reminded that before these reforms, the “smoke-filled rooms” of Democratic Party leaders had led to the nomination and election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. Not bad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..86567.html

Oh I see. Lanny and his DLC brethren feel “smoke-filled rooms” of DeeCee Insiders isn’t so bad in order to counteract us Dirty Liberals.

Lanny Davis is a very vocal supporter of Joe Lieberman, and Hillary. I’ve seen people explain their support of Hillary very well, but at the same time no one can argue that she’s not part of the DeeCee power structures. Hillary still now is arguing that most of the 50 States are a waste of time. We, as voters, have another option of someone who believes and is proving that he can win over voters in every nook and cranny of America. Picking the Dem nominee revolves around this issue for me, and it’s about the sole of the DemocratIC Party.

I agree with Richardson’s main and consistent point that superdelegates are not needed.

Does this post constitute a “circular firing squad?”

Oh, and Lanny, didn’t Jimmy Carter get elected?

Government spokesperson tap dancing on C-SPAN.

Private contractors hired to do data entry probably work at minimum wage. This is the person who has access to sensitive person information on citizens. What a security joke the contract system is!

Since data entry is at the lowest level in the security office, senior management has no clue what they are doing and doesn’t care to know. The Obama, Clinton, and McCain (but who really knows on this one) passport files breach is only the tip of the iceberg. How long has this been going on?

Beware of contractors. They come. They go. A government employee wants to stay until retirement and not get fired. They have more to lose. Not to mention, it cost less because there are no middle people you have to pay with taxpayer money.

I didn’t want to remind everyone of that; that’s “pie throwing”.

Of course that’s what Richardson was thinking! I mean, how many lines does Clinton have to cross? She campaigns for McCain, thereby reaffirming her support for her war, then tries to leverage Obamas affiliation with Wright, i.e., his race, or at least his background in black Chicago, into an appeal to superdelegates to end his candidacy.

It’s pretty much off topic, but Obama’s speech the other day showed again why he is more qualified than the dismal, unimaginative, amoral Clinton. He took a speech dictated by political necessity and made it a moving appeal for all Americans to question their prejudices and examine their patriotism.

When confronted with similar political necessity what has Clinton ever done, has she ever advanced a cause? She started dressing like Barbara Bush because rednecks think she’s a bitch. Or she showed herself the wronged and loyal wife on Sixty Minutes.

And then there’s the war.

But the issue is Bill Richardson being a mealy mouthed politician?

Where is the opposition party when it is needed?

There is an opposition party? I missed that one ;}

Does this post constitute a “circular firing squad?”

No, listen we can disagree but as long as we respect each other and focus on the ideas I see no problem with these kinds of discussions at all.

Thanks for the heads up. Is that a stonewall I see coming up in the near future?

Yeah, he says contractors are cheaper and they are good stewards of the taxpayer money. No one asked him: Is that just a roundabout way of paying minimum wage and avoiding benefits?

OT: EP has new podcast today with Peter Dale Scott.

I thought the most relevant part Scott touches upon is the grassroots, 50 states, caucus building.

Oh man…”soul of the DemocratIC Party…”

On Huffington Post, “Fox News’ very own anchors are speaking out — and walking off — over what they perceive to be “Obama-bashing” on their network”.

The end of days must be near.

BR & BO are at a campaign rally, let’s see if he addresses your question, Jane …

Hm, since when do minimum wage contract employees have security clearances? If they’re data input clerks, they have no business having access to sensitive material.

BREAKING NEWS–

From AP:

Filed at 12:26 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department says the passport files of the three presidential candidates — Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain — have been breached.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack says the individual who accessed Obama’s files also reviewed McCain’s file. This contract employee has been reprimanded, but not fired.

McCormack says the department is still reviewing options for dealing with that person.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

The rally is telecast live on cnn.com ..

Richardson speaking to endorse now …

Bill Richardson is having another “Whizzer White” moment.

Richardson knew at the time he appeared on CNN he wanted to endorse Obama. The fact that he threw his delegates in Iowa behind Obama was a pretty good indication of that. Knowing what he wanted to do on down the line, he should have parsed his words much more carefully on CNN. Instead, he was following the line regarding superdelegates that the Obama campaign had staked out, without really seeming to be conscious that following it would keep him from doing what he fully intended to do. I saw the CNN interview — you could see it slowly dawn on him when Blitzer said that about New Mexico going for Clinton. That’s when he started to backpeddle.

I agree completely. As long as respect and constructive criticism are front and center, it’s all good. The “circular firing squad” accusation has been thrown around much too much IMO, and people probably throw that out when they feel their opinions are threatened by counter viewpoints.

1,788 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen MrWhy:

As to 4 super primary dates or regional primaries, I think we need to have more’n 4 and we need to insure the integrity of all primaries with correspondin’ caucuses like Texas had. I know this will sound heretical but let’s remember that the primary process is supposed to engage as broad a segment of the votin’ base of the Democratic Party as possible while mitigating the power of money over votes. I for one am not concerned about the length of a good old fashioned political fight for the heart of the Democratic Party…I AM,however, concerned about the openness of the process and the assurance that the will of the party base is reflected in the outcome as opposed to the ambitions of well funded celebrity candidates.

As long as the primary process is completed by the first week in June, I don’t think a protracted fight hurts the party, on the contrary keepin the party activists engaged right up to the convention only makes the party stronger unless one of the candidates pulls a Lieberman.

The longer this thing goes on, the more the character and leadership abilities (or lack of ‘em) of the candidates are exposed…that’s why Mrs. Clinton-McCain will not be the nominee.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION…THERE’S NO PLACE FOR FEAR IN A DEMOCRACY!!

There’s no referee for superdelegate voting, so trying to catch Richardson up on contradictions is pedantic, and smacks of sour grapes. Better ask why he’s given his endorsement: maybe the reasons are selfish and narrowly political, maybe not. The context of the endorsement suggests the latter to me.

Well, this has been about as unproductive a thread as I’ve seen here, and I’m sure I can find more productive things to do, so I’ll see you all around when there is something more determinate to talk about. I don’t see any point in debating this subject for even as long as we already have, much less taking it any further. Especially since there is nothing at all to be done about it. Besides, it still goes against my grain to criticize a man for attempting to provide a little leadership.

That is so! It’s the worker who gets the shaft but the contract firm (middle man) gets a handsome fee. In the end it cost more to have contractors not to mention the government becomes more and more reliable on outside companies to do simple tasks. I say drop the middle guy, hire good workers, give them the benefits and you save money.

One glitch with government, they fail miserably in oversight. That attitude comes from the top and filters down through the organization.

Heavy duty building began yesterday; construction completed today. :-(

It is starting to look like KO, once again, made something of an ass out of himself last night.

I’m probably in your camp on this exact issue, but I have found out some interesting things about the genesis of superdelegates.

Go all the way back to my stuff on Total Information Awareness, and the proposals for “public-private partnerships” in data surveillance., e.g.,

“…It gets worse. HSA (Homeland Security Act) is also peppered with language mandating two-way coordination of activities, communications, and data-sharing with “the private sector.” HSA officials are charged with “…creating and fostering strategic communications with the private sector to enhance the primary mission of the Department to protect the American homeland” (page 17), “…creating and managing private sector advisory councils composed of representatives of industries and associations designated by the Secretary” (page 18), “…promoting existing public-private partnerships and developing new public-private partnerships to provide for collaboration and mutual support to address homeland security challenges” (pp 18-19), and so forth.

In addition to the warrantless law enforcement implications of HSA’s envisioned data repositories, we must also recognize that a TIA database will also constitute a commercial data-miner’s wet dream of scope heretofore unimagined. Vigilance with respect to HSA collaborative “public-private partnerships” had better be tireless…

Couple this shit with the Bu’ushies’ argument that there cannot be any independent oversight and review of data surveillance (’cuz it might hip the Bad Guys to Sources and Methods), you got a recipe for a panoptic US Stazi, one that won’t do shit against “terrah,” but will be useful for neutralizing politically troublesome citizens.

One would think.

it’s always good to see the “demonization of immigrants” called out on msm …

Does this post constitute a “circular firing squad?”

ummmm…

Yes.

Quit your squabblin’ and get to work overthrowing the shrub dynasty.

I would point out that the State Dept revelation of personal data has been signicantly lower order of magnitude than private organizations revealing personal data. The latter have been breached in the millions.

bonkers at 132–
lanny davis is a financial supporter of hillary, but only contributed to joe lieberman once in ’93……..contributed to richardson, too.

is on my new favorite website taht has itemized lists of political contributions ddating bacck to ’78.

http://www.newsmeat.com

have to click on washington to get his FEC file

bonkers—

i meant enter his name on the search, then click on washington.

You’re correct. So what? 152.

Very soon none of this will matter. It is time for the Clintons to face the reality.

private organizations revealing personal data

Oh well that’s because of the unfortunately stolen laptops containing people’s social security numbers. Ever wonder why there are so many stolen laptops with SS #’s on them? Just one of those funny things I guess.

I’ve never been a big fan of Richardson. Always seemed to be kissing ass to make sure he was in the “in-crowd,” and that may be happening here.

It’s just that I think this “what should superdelegates do” debate has been a waste of time, since they can do whatever they want under the rules. It sure has been taking up a lot of Newz time recently, which is disappointing, and perhaps by design.

Folks, I’ve said this before and will probably say it again. The Democratic Party is a quasi-private organization with unique, sometimes arcane, rules for operating. Same for the Republican Party.

If you do not like the rules that the Democratic Party uses to pick the candidate who represents the Democratic Party in the Presidential (or any other) elections, then your choices are fairly limited. Mainly to becoming active in your local Democratic Party organization. If you don’t like the rules as written, become active and work within the current system to change them.

If you don’t want to work within the system to change the rules, meet with like minded individuals to form your own party and set your own rules.

Otherwise, deal with it.

That’s two more reasons to demand Rice’s resignation.

You make some good points however, there are those of us who didn’t pick either of these two candidates as our first choice. That being said we aren’t going around talking about how fucked candidate A or B is because our choice is out of the race. It’s great to like one over the other but the circular firing squad is not helpful even to someone like me who will vote for the nominee whomever it turns out to be. We can’t have the republics putting one more whackjob on SCOTUS.

What the fuck are you talkin’ about??!!!

Thanks for the reminder, particularly the “activist base” quote.

That is the original of my and others’ fear that superdelegates would side with the establishment (and war) candidate, Clinton.

That superdelegates seem to be breaking even (or even trending Obama?) is a great relief to me, and that hardly makes it hypocritical. The system is undemocratic, has no rules and I’m just glad that this time it’s not helping its designers’ intended beneficiary.

I will say this again, at this point, I don’t care about the timing or motivation beind endorsements because this dragged out primary between two excellent candidates has fractured the party. Given that neither candidate will have the needed 2025 pledged delegates to obtain the nomination, it will be the supers that will decide this nomination. Maybe the purpose of his endorsement is to signal to other undecided supers to make known their selection so as to end this primary sooner rather than later and maybe it is completely self serving. Is it fair? I can’t say that it is or isn’t. I just think that the sooner this is wrapped up, the sooner we can unify the party and get to work on winning the presidency.

I have a proposal that I think we can all agree on. Superdelegates should be required to attend the convention in tights and a red cape. Phone booths will be provided for them so they can change on their out of the convention hall.

“We can’t have the republics putting one more whackjob on SCOTUS.”
______

I give you the next Repu’ublicist Presdent of the United States.

Trying to deal with politicians and contradictions is kind of what we do around here. But if you feel that it’s an inappropriate line of pursuit, I assume you’re going to personally refrain from doing so in the future.

I’m amazed at the current huge interest in Governor Richardson. Wow. Examining what he said, who are his supporters, what he’s running for…

Wait… he’s not running for President anymore. There’s more passionate interest in him now than when he was running. Where was the interest then? Oh yeah… you had other candidates to support.

Well, there will be only one that will be running against McCain. The sooner we get to the one, the more we can all be passionate about winning the White House.

In the meantime… who has the votes? who has the delegates? Who will win the Electoral College?

btw… why does FDL really and truly dislike Governor Richardson?

Saying that the Democratic party is quasi-private also implies that it is quasi-public which means they should use principles of good governance.

If I had time I’d go back and look up all the comments on the “superdelegates are going to take over the party and ruin it and must be made to vote as their constituents voted” threads.

I’d spend the rest of the day comparing and contrasting and laughing my ass off, I’m sure.

Lanny was perhaps the most vocal proponent of Traitor Joe, even after TJ had to create his political party to keep running against Lamont. Who could forget this opinion piece Lanny excreted:

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008763

Is there a way we can prevent him and other DLCers not in office calling themselves Democrats?

It’s time to realize that the nominee is already chosen.

Who is it?

And, that would be?

HRC?

Did I tell you I sent that to everyone in my address book a week ago when you first posted it.

Obama. Sorry that it was not clear to you. It is self-evident to many.

I was going back and forth between Obama/Richardson and the passport briefing so I missed the whole thing but some reporter at the briefing mentioned the Watergate scandal. The State Dept. guy called it ‘outrageous’ and immediately revoked his privileges. LOL…No soup for you.

Oh, by all means, Pay It Forward.

I have this terrible cynical feeling that McBu’ush will be the next Preznit.

Trying to deal with politicians and contradictions is kind of what we do around here. But if you feel that it’s an inappropriate line of pursuit, I assume you’re going to personally refrain from doing so in the future.

This is a great strawman argument. I would think that what we do is analysis, and part of that analysis is to understand what kinds of argument are being used, assess the issues and evaluate their relative importance.

With all due respect, it’s not really what you do here. Tim Russert catches people in contradictions. You unveil motives, conflicts of interest and crimes. When you, however, catch politician, heaven forfend, contradicting himself, or saying anything for that matter, you examine the reasons, impure or not. I’ve annoyed you by asking if there’s some speculation about Richardson’s motives, but, honestly that’s my question.

That is not obvious to me. And, I have come marginally over to his side. But, too much stuff could still happen.

You’re knocking down a straw man here. 173.

Everything is going to be OK. Irresistible forces are at work.

It’s time to realize that the nominee is already chosen.

Who is it?

LOL.

Why, it’s “The Chosen One” or just “THE ONE” for short.

I was very impressed by both Gov Richardson and his team when we worked together on the ad raising the issue of residual troops. The Governor was willing to personally engage the issue with a bunch of DFH and then take action – a model we can only wish others would follow.

Jane, it’s like playing a game with my nine year old granddaughter. The rule is good if she is winning. She changes the rule if it doesn’t work in her favor. We fight. She does not get her way. We stick to the rule.

When I checked on superdelegates and their purpose, it is clear they are unpledged regardless of who got the popular vote. I keep that little fact in mine to keep me from falling into “yeah, but, the popular vote says….” It works. Of course I’d like the rule in my favor midway through the game. Or would I?

Let’s find some kryptonite for the next election.

I am not a worshipper. I just appreciate a candidate that can get lots of votes without being a complete asshole.

siun, if you’re still here, there was a report on day to day on npr today about the mistreatment by ins agents of immigrants trying to get green cards. was pretty disgusting.

Obama. Sorry that it was not clear to you. It is self-evident to many.

I have to disagree here. Hillary can still win by getting a bunch of the superdelegates to vote for her. It would be a politically-stupid thing for them to do, but we’re talking about the Democratic party here, so I think it’s well within the realm of possibility.

Why, it’s “The Chosen One” or just “THE ONE” for short.

Perhaps CNN is correct and it is the “messiah”.

The acrimony which has reared its head here (via poo flinging) is exactly why this needs to end and the common good fight has to begin.

oh man, spector on rush, talking about how he spoke with the president about the timing to get roberts confirmed……i can’t believe he said that.

said, no pres, you don’t want to do it then , congress will be cranky, told him the best timing to do it.

what a weasel.

What motive good or bad would Richardson have for changing his mind. The rules say he can vote anyway he wants. However he is on record saying they shouldn’t why did he change his mind?

The acrimony which has reared its head here (via poo flinging) is exactly why this needs to end and the common good fight has to begin.

I think we’ve been having a heated argument here, but I haven’t seen much poo flinging.

Obama “The name of my cousin Dick Cheney wil not be on the ballot”

I agree.

What effect good or bad does Richardson’s choice mean for the Democratic party?

Sure. Especially if he/she is a democrat. I’m with you there.

My sentiment exactly. Surely Ted Kennedy should be voting for the candidate the majority of Irish-American voters did! That’s offensive.

He could defend his decision by saying he’s backing the national popular vote, not just his state… which is how most people are planning on voting anyway, I think.

Dick Cheney is Obama’s cousin? I thought that was just a rightwing smear. “When the news came out it hurt me in the polls” LOL

Can’t Richardson endorse Obama, but vote for Clinton? His endorsement can be personal and as governor of New Mexico: his vote for Clinton would be in his role as superdelegate and representative of his constituency.

But the fact is that there has been and while it’s not bad here, it is worse on other blogs. My point being that the longer this plays out, the more division sets in and that is only going to lead to a McCain victory come November

Maybe this consanguinity could help him, maybe somewhere like Latrobe County. He should work it into an ad.

People were bithcin at each other here 3 years ago. This isn’t a buddhist blog (although there are some buddhists here)

I swear I’m being unbiased while stating that that will not happen.

I wrote this a month ago on the superdelegate question. The short version is that I agree with your conclusion, Jane. I’m not that worked up about them going with the majority if it’s a slim majority anyway. Supposedly, they work for us. Good bosses give their employees a say in what work they assign their employees to do.

I’m think that is what John Lewis is doing. He is casting his super vote for Obama but has endorsed or been a supporter of Hillary

I’m just about finished reading Carl Bernstein’s bio of HRC. Hillary has been a regular at prayer groups since at least high school. She’s religious – Wesleyan iirc.

I am not a worshipper. I just appreciate a candidate that can get lots of votes without being a complete asshole.

I think that’s what is lost on many people here.

This guy is so good they can’t accept or appreciate it without making sarcastic references to our support.

I really, really must get my act together so I am somewhat presentable when My guests arrive (some time soon). See everyone later. Tootle-loo!

Don’t worry 100 years of war McCain will unite us more than petty insults can divide us.

I will swear to unbias again in stating that I don’t think Hillary appreciates the distinction.

I don’t think it works that way. Having announced he will vote for Obama kind of makes any past support for Clinton meaningless.

1,788 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen wobblybits:

“…this dragged out primary between two excellent candidates has fractured the party.”

No, I don’t think the party is fractured by a good, hard, clean political fight. The only way the party gets fractured is if one of the candidates pulls a Lieberman and then I’m not sure that even then that won’t be healthy. No, I think that the longer this process goes on the more the leadership and organizing talents of the candidates are exposed…the only way the party gets “fractured” is if the nomination appears to be “stolen” by manipulation of the process or buyin’ unaccountable delegate votes. That ain’t happenin’…if Mrs. Clinton-McCain really is more’n a clever hack politician, if she really has some leadership chops and political values beyond her own ambition then the party will not be fractured. For me, I’m happy to see more and more of her responding to tough situations…her real character (or lack of it) is bein’ brought into very sharp focus.

KEEP THE FAITH, FEAR IS JEST A WORD, DEMOCRACY IS A WAY OF LIFE!!

Oh, I know that Raven and I wouldn’t stay here if it was *g* I just am tired of the in fighting while McCain gets a pass and I worry that this could lead to a McCain victory

spector on rush—-

said the thing he is pushing now is pushing through judicial nominees–sent ’firm’ letters to leahy and reid…….said he is following through on it…….quoted phil graham-”never take the puck unless you’re willing to shoot”

so, maybe some phone calls and emails might be in order?

The dumb ass FL and MI delegates cannot be seated because they broke the rules and chose to disenfranchise their voters.

Can we drop this meme? Again, the bill that moved the FL primary was a Republican bill, passed by a Republican state legislature, and signed by a Republican governor. The dems had very little to say about it.
reply

RonD, thank you for this comment. I’ve been disgusted by watching candidate partisans (in general, I’m not suggesting that was the case with the comment you responded to) spew fancy legal rhetoric to justify disenfranchising FL and MI voters. Amazingly enough ,their learned appeals to “resepcting the rules” just happens to end up creating a tortuous justification that gives their chosen cnadidate more delegates.

Jeebus – less than half a century sinnce African Americans were enfranchised in the US, and a bunch of Dem partisans/camapaign attorneys trip over their Guccis in the rush to convince us that Detroit and FLorida don’t deserve to vote.

All “justified” by some incoherent appeal to “consequences” for choices the voters never had the power to made.

Don’t the fucking partisans know that a big hunk of FL voters have indicated they’ll sit out the general if their priamry votes are dissed? Or are the dumbfucks just too enamored of their flippin very flawed favrites to care about handing FL to the Rethugs? What – are they channeling Harris?

And as long as I’m on a rant – the fuckwads who support disenfranchisement to “punish” voters are too goddamn dumb to understand behavioral reinforcement only works on the critter that has the behavioral choice.

Disenfranchising the voters caue of pols’ choices makes as much sense as spanking the driveway to stop your toddler from running into traffic.

How bout an “incomplete asshole”?

But the fact is that there has been and while it’s not bad here, it is worse on other blogs. My point being that the longer this plays out, the more division sets in and that is only going to lead to a McCain victory come November

I don’t think so. I agree that there should be less poo flinging, but I don’t think a spirited debate now is going to hurt us in November. We can hash through all of this now and still have plenty of time in September and October to discuss whether McCain is batshit crazy or just plain senile.

But it may come to late to win the presidency (late August is a shitty time to begin campaigning for an election to take place less than 3 months later)

I think Richardson is saying that while he thinks that Obama is the better candidate, he doesn’t feel that superdelegates should be selected as a privilege of insider status, nor should they ignore the popular vote. Now, since they are Superdelegates, and maybe they should vote the way that the popular vote went in the nation, rather than the state. Maybe that’s a fie hair to split, but I think the superdelegates are now sitting on a finely pointed picket fence.

What the fuck are you talkin’ about??!!!

The Daily Kos TV show Countdown last night where KO [AKA Rdward R Murrow Jr.] simultaneoulsy under and over reported the passport story in a manner that was less than one would expect from a freshman anchor on a campus television station.

I respectfully disagree *g* but will fight on nevertheless

Maybe he just prefers voting for Obama.

Interesting that you say this or rather include him in the anchor category as you have many a time stated the he is not a newsman rather an opinion peddler of sorts

tee hee.

Yea, it seems like forever but take the long view. A lifetime with a beautiful woman is like a second and a second with your hand on a hot stove is like a lifetime!

The math is against Clinton. She knows this. The ways that she can win are narrowing down to those that do a lot of damage to the Democratic party and its chances in November. This reflects something that I have said about Clinton for a long time now. When she makes a mistake she has a tendency to persist in it. What we are seeing now drawing out the primary campaign is an illustration of this and why she probably wouldn’t be a good Chief Executive.

As a frame of reference, many people here have avowed that they will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is (duh).

Do you really believe Floridians will “sit out” this election? And if they do, what kind of Democrats are they?

There are plenty of good arguments for how and why to seat these delegations, but this particular one doesn’t cut it.

bonkers at 181–

yeah, i know * g *

i just wnated you to see that ’joe’s buddy’ lanny didn’t give him any money since ’93.

kept his checkbook in his pocket in re to joe in ’06.

i found that interesting.

But the fact is that there has been and while it’s not bad here, it is worse on other blogs. My point being that the longer this plays out, the more division sets in and that is only going to lead to a McCain victory come November

I agree. With both points. There is still conversation going on here, but it is impossible to even delve into many other blogs. The wall of angry supporters – on both sides – is difficult to get past. It shuts debate down.

oldgold at 234–” in a manner that was less than one would expect from a freshman anchor on a campus television station.”

hey! i just got to go to our local campus pbs station to watch the newscast in the control room the other night!

most of them are pretty good here, really.

they do a good job covering things.

was fun.

Try to look at both sides of this argument. Clinton has asked that the Michigan results stand when Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot. She is not pure as the driven snow in her concern for enfranchisment. Obama has stated he’ll accept a DNC resolution but he’s not pure, either, as he can hardly wish to hasten a compromise. This fuckwad humbly asks for a little evenhandedness on this issue.

1,788 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

I think maybe somebody musta slipped some ’shrooms into those Old Golds you were smokin’ last night…KO framed the entire issue and got it out there first through legitimate journalists and analysts before it could be fogged out by fascist talkin’ points.

KEEP THE FAITH, FASCISTS DON’T LIKE IT WHEN THEY GET CAUGHT!!

Do you know what Lotto number to play? ;)

Do you really believe Floridians will “sit out” this election? And if they do, what kind of Democrats are they?

my statement:

Don’t the fucking partisans know that a big hunk of FL voters have indicated they’ll sit out the general if their priamry votes are dissed?

I believe a big hunk of FL voters will sit out the vote because that’s what they’ve stated to media; note I did not extend that to ALL FL voters.

I don’t give a shit about ideological purity – I care about the frakkin’ outcome.

So I don’t give a rat’s ass “what kind” of Dems they are. I don’t care if they are zombies who start the day with pus milkshakes and end the day feasting on poisonous toads. I only care that there are enough Dem votes in November to give FL’s electoral votes to a Dem.

Both Democratic campaigns have loud mouthed people who are doing a lot of damage with their off the cuff remarks and so-called hardball politcs. Too often, supporters allow their strong dislike (even hatred) to blind them to seeing issues from several sides. The knee jerk reactions are simply self defeating. Either candidate is going to face an core of very angry Democrats who may stay away and the Great Warlord will be sworn in.

I think Dr Dean should take some blame too for the mess in Michigan and Florida. His stubbornness is not some new flaw in his persona. He has always taken a “rules is rules” approach and shown little flexibility and pragmatism. My guess is that the Dems will lose the election in Florida (again!).

The Democratic Party is awful fragile if it can’t support debate between the partisans of the two candidates, one of whom supports the war and one doesn’t.

McCain, the slavering kook, doesn’t have a snowball’s chance. Let’s stop the hand-wringing. What Democrat isn’t voting for the Democrat? Maybe a Clinton candidacy will depress black turnout, but that will be offset by bigots willing to vote for her.

I agree but there is a difference in having a spirited debate (disagreeing on issues) and making immflamorty statements and personal attacks on candidates ..therein lies the animosity. unlike you, I don’t think less then 3 months is enough to get our message out when McCain has already started and will have a 4-5 month headstart on our nominee

Can you tell my husband that? *g*

I read it right the first time. If they’ve “stated it to the media” it’s because they’re Clinton partisans trying to sway the decision on whether to seat the delegation. You’re awfuly credulous if you think they’d really sit it out. Alternately, Clinton supporters are worse than I thought. I still think its a transparent bluff, though.

You mean of course the ones that weren’t stolen, right?

Blitzer is wrong when it comes to the Democratic primaries, because he’s too used to reporting on November presidential elections, where (other than for Maine and Nebraska), “a win is a win”. Because we have proportional allocation of delegates, New Mexico was essentially a tie.

But Jane, if you want to impose the rule that all superdelegates must vote for the winners of their states or congressional districts, I’m sure Gov. Richardson would go along. He could then endorse Obama, but vote for Clinton, in exchange for all other superdelegates agreeing to play by the same rules. Of course, Hillary Clinton loses under those rules.

When you ask who Richardson thinks he’s representing, I’m sure that he’d reply that he’s acting in the best interest of the Democratic Party. I respect Hillary Clinton (less so because of the way she’s been conducting her campaign lately, but I still respect her intelligence), but recent polling says that large numbers of Democrats and Independents would consider coup-by-superdelegate to be a reason to stay home in November.

Obama currently leads by 171 pledged delegates (based on CNN’s count).

Even if the Florida result counted (C 105, O 67, E 13), and Pennsylvania (158 pledged delegates) goes 60% – 40% for Hillary, by my math Obama will still lead by 101 pledged delegates! The largest remaining state will be North Carolina, with a large African-American vote that will go 80% or more for Obama. But let’s assume that Hillary still squeaks out with a bare win: 58 of the 115 delegates, so she’s 100 delegates behond. That leaves only 293 pledged delegates left, and Hillary will have to win 197 of them. She needs 67%!

Ah, but the largest of those states is Oregon, with 55 pledged delegates, where the Democratic party is filled with those latte-sipping Portland people who love Obama. But let’s suppose she manages to barely win in Oregon, getting 28 delegates. She now has to make up 99 delegates, with only 238 remaining, so she has to win 169. 71%!

These hopeless numbers are with Florida counting. I didn’t mention Michigan, but even if a settlement led to Michigan counting with the uncommitted delegates going for Obama, the math only slightly improves for Hillary. And if neither FL or MI count, or if their effect is reduced (by halving their votes, or splitting 50/50),
it gets even worse.

The Rev. Wright flap is Hillary’s last gasp, and the real damage from the Richardson endorsement is that at least some superdelegates see the Wright flap plus the speech as a reason to move toward Obama. This dooms Hillary’s candidacy.

Now Sen. Clinton has a choice: would she rather see an Obama victory, or a McCain victory? Her enemies will accuse her of preferring McCain, so she can have another shot in 2012. She should prove them wrong.

That was some Full Moon last night huh ? *g*

Chris Wallace slammed Fox ‘n’ Friends earlier today … whodathunkit ? Link

If they’ve “stated it to the media” it’s because they’re Clinton partisans trying to sway the decision on whether to seat the delegation.

Dayam – didn’t know you’re a telepath.

What am I having for lunch? No – more important – what does that cute teacher with the sparkle in her eye really think of me?

(lunch is a leek tart, if I don’t bungle the recipe)

Thank you for going there and reporting back; blood pressure on this end of the toobz just won’t hack it.

margot at 247

ROFL

((( kirk )))

Excellent point about behavioral reinforcement V behavioral choice @ 229 !

I do know people in this area who hadn’t voted since JFK (they voted in 2004) and if they don’t like the candidate, will sit out another election. People who vote in every election are not the majority of citizens.
We need to make a huge effort to get out the vote.

I agree with your analysis except for one point:

“but recent polling says that large numbers of Democrats and Independents would consider coup-by-superdelegate to be a reason to stay home in November”

My point to kirk murphy goes for your argument, as well: I don’t think matters of procedure will keep Democrats home eight months from now. And it’s probably a prejudice informing this opinion, but I assume Obama losing will depress black turnout but be offset by others unwilling to cross the race line in voting. So I think there’s no basis for these concerns.

Otherwise, I thought that was a great comment, and in particular I like you bringing up Wright in this context.

Well I’ll be…
things are betting curiouser and curiouser (I keep waiting for the white rabbit to show up)

waccamaw at 258

you’re welcome : )

i cruise the am dial….we have a small market here, media-wise, and i don’t have cable…sometimes he doesn’t come in…..today he did, and right when the ’spector came on.

serindipity.

((dmac!))

Are they the kind of citizens who vote in party primaries, much less pay attention to matters of procedure?

more important – what does that cute teacher with the sparkle in her eye really think of me?

She is thinking that you look like the kind of man who can make a mean leek tart, that is if you don’t bungle the recipe

*g* couldn’t help it, the question was too cute

kirk at 257–

she wants some of your leek tart, she’s hungry! invite her over!

and ground celery seed, just a pinch, will bring out the sweetness of the leeks.

bon appetit

crap – that probably means I look like the sort of guy who eats a lot of tarts.

I’ve gotta make more healthy dishes. *g*

(and lose 20 lbs)

Kirk @ 257 said: “What does that cute teacher with the sparkle in her eye really think of me?”

She’s fantazing about “Captain Kirk guided his Starship into her Nebula !!! *g*

thanks dmac – jsut in time for my last market run before cooking!

Mr. Spock, Shields Up !!!

Aye, aye Captain …

and kirk-

with leeks, i use cardamom sometimes, too, does the same kind of thing.

get the pods, i like the green, and mortar and pestle the seeds yourself.

when i make a batch of bath salts, a drop of cardomom combined with other oils will turn the batch into something totally different and delicious, does the same thing in foods.

use sparingly.

She’s fantasizing about being your sleek tart.

You’re confirming the worst stereotypes about us Democrats — that we’re effete or, worse, women. Me, I only eat beef, genuine FDA downer beef.

There is something about that celery taste. I make a celery root, leek and apple salad.

What’s wrong with that? I mean no woman wants a man that looks like he only eats salads with a little lemon and drinks Diet Coke.

Careful with that, no woman likes to be regarded as a ‘tart’

“…the final frontier, where no man has gone before…”

ewwwwww brendan, that sounds really good! i;ve never tried that combination………

one of my friends experiments with celery root all of the time, delicious stuff.

recipe?

or just wing it?

=========

i have a couple only-meat-on-my-plate friends…….i gave up.

i used to be a veggie, then raw foods, now i eat a variety–moderation in all things……..

but very rarely beef or pork or chicken. i do, but not very often. never did like meat much, even as a kid.

the ’what’s in it’ part came much later, after i had already formed eating habits.

if it’s served at a friend’s house, i’ll eat it, but at home, not so much.

Agree with all you say, Joe.

My member of the House has endorsed Clinton, but the congressional district voted for Obama.

I think many representatives see a distinction between endorsing and voting as Super Delegates.

I can’t imagine that the S.D.s would vote for anyone but the person who is ahead in the pledged delegate count.

It is with some sadness that, after having been a regular reader and sometime commenter on FDL almost since its inception, this posting so offended my sensibility, I am immediately erasing my bookmarks. Hardly a single syllable here about the disgusting underhanded hateful Clinton campaign. Its eerie and haunting flashback to what I thought everyone here hated about Joe Lieberman. Well, enough is enough. You guys and Joe Wilson bet on whichever horse you like. Good bye and good luck.

GBCW!

Other than mayo and apple cider vinegar, wing it. It’s Central European. Another I make in the same vein is a vinaigrette with roast beets, caraway and horseradish, the kind of thing that goes nice with vodka as a little palate cleanser.

Hmmm. I have some VERY strong opinions on this. This whole nominating process has me wondering how we got into this damn mess to begin with. For starters, there shouldn’t be any “superdelegates”. Any system that offers Joe Lieberman a bigger say than the people in who becomes the Democratic nominee is just plain asinine. (Thank God he opened his mouth and lost his vote.) Second, I have some real problems with pledged delegates switching their support. I’m a solid Obama supporter, but I don’t see why he should get Edwards’ delegates. Third, any system in which you count all the votes, and you STILL can’t figure out who won, is seriously flawed. The Texas caucus is the prime offender here. After the 2000 election, the Dems should have realized that they need a system in which they just count all the votes and declare whoever got the most as the winner.

I agree with you 100% here, but we are kind of stuck at this point with the fucked-up rules as they are. Hopefully this disaster of a primary season will prod the party poo-bahs into some serious, much-needed reform.

Clinton has ONE more delegate to the convention than Obama does, from NM. The vote was VERY close in NM. Obama is leading the total U.S. votes and has been for some time.

Richardson is taking the larger view. . .and greasing his own wheels. There were thousands of provisional votes thrown out in the election, who knows what the people said, but we count only those who could fairly vote on Feb. 5. I don’t think he is really selling out the voters in NM by endorsing Obama.

brendan at 284–yum, i have a gallon of homemade apple cider vinegar in my fridge, love that stuff. just a dollop into all kinds of things does wonderful things.

i experiment with roasted beets-used to not like them, until ten years ago my mom put a dollop of blue cheese dressing on top of mini-beets, wow, taste explosion, have liked them ever since …thanks.

hmmmm, i’m hungry.

and margot i missed the hug! darn this dial-up, i always miss stuff when i comment!

((((margot)))

“The dumb ass FL and MI delegates cannot be seated because they broke the rules and chose to disenfranchise their voters.”

Yes, voters who would have preferred one of the Democratic candidates were disenfranchised. It is therefore arguable that political parties have the right to disenfranchise voters. What kind of democracy is this?

As an aside, many Americans are disenfranchised in every presidential primary cycle as the states who go first often determine who the ones who go later will have to choose between. That’s pretty undemocratic, too.

Conclusion: these are only two of the stinking piles of undemocratic stuff that litter America’s politicla landscape.

Jane~

Could it be that Richardson is espousing a position about the rules he thinks that Superdelegates should “collectively” be committed to, but will vote in the manner they are allowed to vote for the present?

This is analogous to Obama (or any candidate) espousing that they support changes in the campaign financing rules or support that candidates be required to use public financing in their campaigns to level the playing field. They would support COMPULSORY and BINDING rules. But at the same time they may forgo the VOLUNTARY system simply because if they don’t they might actually lose to a better funded candidate who doesn’t voluntarily commit.

One can only get the rules changed if one wins.

In this case Richardson sounds ambivalent about his Superdelegate status at all. He knows other Superdelegates who are not voting the wishes of their constituencies (and defining such can be difficult).

The way that you are arguing here is that New Mexico delegates should be allocated in a sort of “winner take all” manner (like Electoral College delegations). Have you considered that perhaps half of New Mexicos superdelegates might be supportive of Hillary, and thus Richardson’s vote might be reflective of the other half of NM’s electorate?

But if the Superdelegates are awarded in an Electoral College manner I suspect that Hillary may already have enough since she has “won” all the larger states. But why should this be the criteria, rather than splitting the delegations up proportionately?

Not to be contrary, but you should be aware that Hillary supporters feel the same way. i.e. don’t expect a large turnout of women if Obama wins the nomination by eeking out a win in the popular vote without FL and MI included in that count.

Why wast our time arguing about unpledged (Super) delegates. They are entitled to vote any way they want to, and no one can take the vote away from them. The rules cannot be chaged until the convention, after the nominatinions are completed. Repeat, they can vote any way they want to, for any or no reason. No caucus or meeting of super delegates can bind them in any way.

It appears that Obama rules are the political variant of Calvinball rules. Superdelegates must vote according to who won their state, unless, of course, the state went for Hillary. Thus no one expects Kennedy or Kerry to cast their superdelegate vote for Hillary, or California’s superdelegates to all end up in Hillary’s tally. But if you come from a state that Obama won, you had better be in his pocket or else… John Lewis was posed the question how it would be if his vote prevented Obama from becoming the first Black president and he capitulated; and no one in the progressive world saw anything wrong about this kind of argument being made. Bill Richardson shows that he is just another run-of-the-mill conviction-less politician, expediently speaking from both sides of his mouth.

Oh rock on! We hardly ever get GBCW.

I think that may need to be elevated to front page status.

Yeah, really. And your response is a riot.

As far as Richardson is concerned, I think he heard The Speech and found it very special, like, once-in-a-hundred-years special. Looks like he had an epiphany to me. But what do I know?

For all of those who are making the point that Hillary won New Mexico by “only” one percent, I might point out that Obama’s lead in delegates right now is one-half of one percent. So I guess they’re tied, right?

This may have been said already, but, um, guys, if superdelegates are expected to vote according to whoever wins the primaries, or whoever wins their state or congressional district, you can assume that some of them, at least, are going to have to vote for their less-favored candidate. Some prominent superdelegates (like Ted Kennedy) may find themselves expected not to vote for a candidate they actually endorsed.

But until Richardson actually votes for someone other than the person who won his state, I’m not sure his endorsement means that he’s being inconsistent. And Richardson may feel that endorsing Obama will help ensure that Hillary withdraws from the race before the convention – in which case I’m assuming everyone here will be fine with him voting for the presumptive nominee.

Jane,

I have been reading your site for a long time, and have learned so much. This is my first post. I have never strongly disagreed with anything I have read here, but I had to take issue with what you’ve written. I believe that Bill Richardson has been completely consistent.

That view takes some analysis. Rather than do that here in a comment, I put it in a dailykos diary entry.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..007/473950

PatrickBradish

Obama/Edwards ’08

Clinton is done. Richardson signaled it.