Super-Delegates

[Anonymous]

I remember JoB stating that, this is politics and it’s going to get ugly and everyone should toughen up. Don’t be so offended by everything. So, what I don’t understand is, why everyone came down so hard on beachdrivegirl for posting a list that has circulated many a times before? It’s not like she compiled the list herself. That’s my two cents regarding the reaction of the list.

Share This

[JoB]

ladies, you restore my soul this morning.. and i mean that in the best possible way…

charlabob.. i hope you know that i meant the little ditty as a huge compliment and a tribute to the graciousness i think you don’t always know you have.

i to appreciate the opportunity to examine not only the thoughts of others but my own.

Share This

[charlabob]

JoB, I loved the ditty — I never misunderstand attention.

Everyone else — thank you! More tonight — can’t wait to read the day’s wisdom.

c

Share This

[Kayleigh]

I don’t find anything funny in pretending someone is a murderer. I also didn’t find the media’s relentless coverage of Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, and all the other pretend scandals very funny. Especially in light of how they have given the neo-cons essentially a free pass on behavior that is 100 times worse.

I can’t stand Hillary but I also resent the right wing’s lies about her.

(I realize the above sounds uptight; sorry. I am home with the flu, which I was so proud of myself for avoiding for so long. What is it with the headache…I can’t even sleep thru it.)

Share This

[JoB]

Kayleigh.. i am so sorry you are home sick. do you have someone to bring you soup and tuck you in?

i wouldn’t tuck you in.. because i am afraid of the flu myself… but i could bring you soup.

My house has the nasty head cold thing going… hubby is miserable.. but of course he went to work.

there is one thing i can thank Chronic Fatigue Syndrome for… i may feel crappy.. but my upregulated immune system kicks colds pretty fast.

I am not so sure about flu tho since it feels the same as always only sometimes worse. when hubby gets the flu i know i have been fighting one:) that’s why i try to avoid them.. he doesn’t do sick well:)

enough about me.. do you need soup?

Share This

[charlabob]

GOOD NEWS — we don’t have to worry about super delegates anymore. They’re not going to be an issue…the last battle will be over MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA. Both governors (one Rep and one Dem) have demanded that the party seat the delegates. If they want different delegates, they’ll just have to have a do-over. Who knows which candidate will win in either place (Hillary won, but the opposition wasn’t really running but she wasn’t really running but, so …)

The super delegate fight isn’t really very interesting, but a fight over a do-over, seating, etc? Priceless (No, actually, around $50 million.)

I really am at the point where I don’t care who wins and I’ll vote for either Dem.) I want my Edwards back!

Democracy is sooooooo messy!

Share This

[Kayleigh]

Aw, Jo, that’s so sweet of you to offer. :-)

I think I have some in the cupboard somewhere,and my mom will stop by later…I’d be embarrassed to meet WSBers with greasy hair and sweats…I really do practice regular hygiene!;-)

Sorry about your chronic fatigue, too…how frustrating…

My bosses recently asked me what precisely stressed me or set me off. I realized I have two big triggers: BS/lies and lack of respect. I agree that Hillary has had to deal with both. And increasingly so is Obama. It’s a shame, because there are important real issues that we are facing right now, that don’t get real analysis.

Lord I hate being sick—and bored and cooped up as well. What is with daytime TV? Do they deliberately program it to be so boring that sick people feel compelled to go back to work? :-)

Share This

[JoB]

Kayleigh.. i am glad to hear your mom will be coming by…

and who would care what you wore and how you looked. you are supposed to look like crap when you are sick. if i stopped by with soup and found you glammed out i would feel conned:)

and no they don’t program daytime tv to be boring.. i think they program it so you won’t lose much if you do housework during commercials :)

they are trying to reach all those stay at home moms.. how pathetic is that… and because those stay at home moms are often deprived for human interaction.. soaps and talk shows work. Or maybe they work because there are no other choices.

charlabob.. what do you know that i don’t.. i mean about the superdelegates?

Share This

[charlabob]

I don’t know nothin’ about the superdelegates. I know that Florida and Michigan have a huge number of unsuperdelegates “in play” (duh) and when they get added up/in someone will win and the superdelegates will go back to their normal role of “Celebrities who get invited to all the good parties.”

Share This

[JoB]

good for the DNC… it’s time to lay that one to rest and there are still enough uncommitted superdelegates to make a difference…

Share This

[JoB]

oh.. the DNC apparantly just announced that superdelegates will be allowed to vote their consciences.. whatever those are:)

Share This

[JoB]

maybe they could do a phone in vote like for America’s super models or something for Florida and Michigan delegates:)

JUST KIDDING!

Share This

[Ken]

Here is the link to the web site for a movie with the details of the Clinton witch-hunt.

http://www.thehuntingofthepresident.com/

It is available on netflix, and the book from amazon in paperback.

Anyone who is interested and yet too poor to rent it I can loan a copy.

Super-delegates:

I know several super-delegates and I suspect a couple of them have staff that read this blog.

This is the single area where as representatives of we the people, they are not only allowed, but expected to vote their personal choice. The rules under which their votes are counted, while not set in stone, are rooted in tradition as part of the original agreements which created primaries and caucuses as an alternative to machine politics and smoke filled backrooms you hear referred to in literature. Most state parties define the mix of elected officials and party leaders (also democratically elected within the party structure)who are designated super delegates.

The time for either campaign to whine about super-delegates or caucuses or primary leapfrog attempts was 2006-7. Every campaign, current and former, expected to use the same system to it’s own advantage.

Those who whine about it now are just lying to try and shape public opinion to squeeze out fractions of points in an unexpectedly close race.

Clinton has had to reach down into the decaying mess of character assassins at the bottom of the bag of tricks. I have mentioned them in another thread. If Obama can keep to the high road, I suspect many of the SD’s will not allow a Joementum Lieberman strategy to fester all the way to the convention.

I suspect (if the major blogs are any indicator)that the Obama campaign is under tremendous pressure to return fire with the same type of well timed smears and innuendo and we will see some supporters take matters into their own hands as this drags on. I hope he can resist since it undermines his previous message and we all end up in the gutter.

Super delegates are not magical beings.

They are the ballast of the party.

Much like the Senate, their primary purpose is to put the breaks on too much change too fast.

We did indeed vote for them though perhaps in a manner so indirect as to be confusing to most people.

Party leadership is voted on by representatives elected by PCO’s and party members. If you don’t want to get into the nitty gritty of the party process, then you have to deal with the results of the decisions of those who do.

If the campaigns continues to slide into the Rove/Atwater territory at the pace of the last few days, we will once again disgust those new to the world of political sausage making and the favorite republican stealth tool of voter apathy will send us down that destructive path that Bush/Cheney created and greased with deception and fear.

Share This

[charlabob]

G-d, I can only say, “What he said!” Amazing, Ken–Thank you!

In news from the battleground, the lead headline on AP news was that an Obama Staffer called Hillary a monster. I’m not interested in the fact that she did, indeed, call her a monster.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23519392/

I’m interested in the fact that it was the lead story on a major newsfeed. Let the games begin.

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

She was not a staffer. She was a non-paid advisor that has resigned since the comment on Monday.

Share This

[charlabob]

BDG, *Exactly* — the truth doesn’t matter and everyone can twist it to suit their own needs. (The link I found pointing to the “truth” was halfway down the page in my google search.

BTW, I still don’t have a dog in this race — and I’m only happy I don’t have to do anything locally until one of ’em gets nominated. Ask the bob half — when I rage against the television or radio machines, I sometimes say, “we” about Hill and sometimes say, “we”, about Barack. And sometimes say “Throw ’em both under the bus.”

I agree with Rachel Maddow (Air America) — we (the Democratic party) should be running against McCain *already*. If we say it, the press will follow — it’s not like they are leaders or enterprising (sorry, WSB). The Man Barely Got The Nomination! A huge minority or majority of his party can’t stand him. There should be something slightly negative we can think of to say. (Up until the past few weeks, the Democrats had a whole bunch of candidates that almost everyone liked, or could live with…not anymore.)

Historical note: Walter Mondale ran the same campaign with scare ads and a battle over supers (right Ken?) And we all remember President Mondale.

Share This

[JoB]

Ken.. I am with charlabob ….what you said!

I tend to emotionally pontificate.. you supply resources. Thanks for the balance.

tho i disagree about this high road thing… i still think there is a truly valuable use for airing our own dirty linen in the primaries before the republicans get to start pointing fingers… it washes out those who can’t stand up to it.

beachdrivegirl… you are splitting hairs. She was an advisor… and as such her “gaffe” is far more important than that of a paid or unpaid staffer.

You count on Obama finding great advisers in the White House… if she went off on her own… does this bode well for his choices? … because one chooses advisers.

Of course she resigned. Again.. a well worn political gambit… plant the seed.. then resign so the candidate keeps his high road.

i don’t mean to sound so dismissive of Obama, but his campaign really isn’t new to a lot of us who have seen this before… to his credit.. not done as well for a long time.

That said.. she was merely reflecting the trend among Obama supporters that i have been trying to combat here… villianizing Hillary.

I am with Charlabob.. i don’t see why that should be news unless the press is getting fed up with Obama’s “high road” and is going to start poking holes in it… which could get interesting.

Obama has some great qualities as a possible president but i am afraid they are overshadowed by the pedestal so many of his supporters have placed him on.

Will they still support him when they figure out he is just a politician like all the rest? i don’t know. disillusionment is an ugly thing.

If he wins the nomination, his campaign could leave some legacies that will be difficult to deal with come November.

Share This

[charlabob]

Actually, JoB — I think the Obama Unpaid Whatever She Was should be news. It’s called Fair and Balanced — Fox does it all the time. I also think it’s really odd that Saturday Night Live essentially did Hillary promos two weeks in a row. See? I really am firmly planted on the fence, with my tongue in my cheek.

Or, as an old (Tom Lehrer?) song says, “I don’t like anybody very much.” :-)LOLHEHEHEHEHE

My prediction/belief/hope a year ago was that Hill and Obama would destroy each other and Edwards would be there to pick up the pieces and be our next president. (Remember, those damnable polls always showed he was the only Dem who could beat every Republican.) I was half right — about the destruction. Unfortunately, John ran out of money.

Share This

[JoB]

LOL.. glad you made me smile before i go down the hill to talk to the BPP folks… it will make me so much more approachable:)

Share This

[WSMom]

From the website FactCheck.org

“Obama supporters on the Internet are agitated over the apparent darkening of Obama’s image in a Clinton attack ad.

Our video team took a look. Our conclusions:

The Obama frames from the ad do appear darker than other video of Obama from the same event.

However, the YouTube copy of the ad, on which the bloggers base their conclusions, is darker overall than other copies of the ad. We obtained a digital recording of the ad as it actually appeared on a Texas TV station, and it is lighter.

Furthermore, our analysis of the Obama frames, using Photoshop, shows a fairly uniform darkening of the entire image including the backdrop. It is not just Obama’s skin color that’s affected.

Also, nearly all the images in the ad are dark, including those of Hillary Clinton. And dark images are a common technique used in attack ads.

Others will speculate about the Clinton campaign’s intentions and motives, as they already have. But without further evidence to the contrary, we see no reason to conclude that this is anything more than a standard attempt to make an attack ad appear sinister, rather than a special effort to exploit racial bias as some Obama supporters are saying.”

Just FYI :)

Share This

[JoB]

thanks WsMom.. i wouldn’t have gone to the trouble to find that.. though i did go look at the ad…

the is too much jumping to conclusions and not enough quiet reflection…

Share This

[villagegreen]

Did they mention anything about the horizontal stretching of the video? It’s quite obvious if you look at the original video vs. the Clinton ad. Was that simply to make him look sinister as well?

Of course there’s no way to tell if Clinton’s intentions were to make Obama look blacker, Muslim, or simply sinister. But nothing included in attack ads is unintentional and it seems fairly obvious that she’s glad to let the viewing public choose between the three options (whichever one they find the most frightening). Crass anyway you look at it.

Share This

[JoB]

villagegreen..

ok… fact check says the image wasn’t photoshopped.. the entire video was simply slightly darker (including Clinton’s images) because that is the way they put the ad together.

it’s how those ads are put together.. Clinton’s, obamas.. anybodies… because they are more effective that way.

why is that not enough for you? let it go.

You are clearly looking for what you want to see… but it could be that while you are so busy looking for things that don’t exist, you will miss what does.

look at the real issues.. not those that are manufactured to distract you.

And i am not saying that because i support Hillary.. I am saying that because it’s important.. no matter who your candidate is.

They are all, after all, politicians.. and if they aren’t before they run.. they certainly are by the time they hit Washington and try to broker their first deal.

Share This

[Ken]

ok then…

the video first.

I know filmmakers and digital artists. The conversion to you tube or flash formats can darken and stretch video without any conscious decision at all. You tube is also experimenting with its own conversion to higher resolution video format conversion for some of their older content.

That said, attack ads and tv ads for major campaigns are not usually put together by amateurs. Every angle and frame is designed to include all the unconscious cues (tint, hue, music (including sub sonics) viewers are known to respond to.

The data is therefore inconclusive as to if the intent of the ad was either more or less sinister than the subjective interpretation of viewers in either camp. Of course, objective analysis that supports either side is going to be rejected out of hand by the other. This is the joys of primary season and I hope you all remember how ugly it is by the time it comes round again.

The “unpaid staffer” for Obama was not just any pr flack. She is one of the most respected writers and journalists and professors on the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

Her Pulitzer prize winning book is unique, powerful and disturbing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Problem_from_Hell:_America_and_the_Age_of_Genocide

She also supported and endorsed General Clark in 04.

I have read and followed her writings, speeches, debates and interviews for many years.

While the ” off the record” request was technically “too late”, most reputable journalists would have honored it.

I happen to agree with the remark in context, but perhaps I don’t view it in the same frame as some.

All politicians are monsters in some ways. No normal person can get through life with the bullet proof ever expanding ego required to run for president, without several hundred or thousand others getting stepped on. Even local politicians have to be pretty well immune to criticism to survive re-election rhetoric around here.

An objective observer who viewed the primary as a contest with fungible rules, would not see anything wrong with the hardball tactics used, and whether it worked or not would be the only criteria used to evaluate it.

However, most of us Dems are not the objective Machiavelli’s who think “The Prince” and “1984” are instruction manuals for world domination.

Our current objective is to throw those bums out and intall our own :)

Share This

[JoB]

i would love to throw those bums out and install our own Ken.. but given the system.. who would that be?

as for the quote in context.. please show us the link. i am curious. and tired.. and.. well we just won’t go there:)

Share This

[Author]

Posts