- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 5, 2008 at 12:29 am #617567
walfredoMemberJoB- I posted those links, and stated that it was a great sign of what the superdelagates were thinking… It is increasingly obvious that there is no chance they are going to overturn the voters. None. That is what the articles show, as every day more undecideds declare for Obama, and the ones that haven’t suggest strongly, and clearly that they intend to follow the will of the delegates once the process concludes… Clinton’s only chance is to get going and actually win the next 10 contests with big margins. I would respect Clinton supporters if they would actaully acknowledge that.
Why they don’t is pretty obvious, it isn’t going to happen. Look at Obama’s big leads in NC, Wyoming, Oregon, Guam… Tied in Indiana, closing in Pennsylvania. The writing is more then on the wall…
Your comment of- “some arbitrary standard I’ve made up”. Come on? Are you serious? You mean the delegates won in the 50 something contests? It’s not a candidate issue, I absolutely would not support a candidate whose only path to nomination was to overturn the votes. It’s not some arbitrary thing I made up, that the person who wins the election should be the nominee…
Come on! You must have at least understood what logic was a few months ago before you entered into this loo-loo fantasy world of the Clinton supporters…
April 5, 2008 at 1:12 am #617568
JoBParticipantWalfedo…
there was never any chance of superdelegates “overturning the voters”.
No one was ever going to “steal” an election.
Framing the campaign that way doesn’t make it so.
It boils down to votes.
Obama is not our candidate at this point because he doesn’t have enough votes.
He doesn’t have a clear mandate from the voters…
unless you choose to simply disregard the still nearly half of us who support Hillary.
he doesn’t have enough delegates to secure the nomination.
and the “arbitrary standard” was in reference to your highly conditioned support of whoever the party nominated.
“I absolutely would not support a candidate whose only path to nomination was to overturn the votes.”
You can keep repeating that phrase as though it has some truth.. but it doesn’t.
If Obama wins the nomination.. he wins it.
If Clinton wins the nomination.. she wins it.
It’s that simple.
As for Clinton supporters not acknowledging that she has to win big to stay a viable candidate…
I believe i was pretty clear when i stated that Clinton will have to do very well in the next contests or she will not win.
I don’t think i can put it any plainer than that.
If political pundits and polls had been right about this election… John McCain would not be the republican candidate… John Edwards would be our candidate.. no Hillary would be our candidate.. no Obama would be our candidate… no maybe hillary would be our candidate after all… no, surely Obama will be our candidate…
They said it would be all over for Hillary on super Tuesday. that didn’t turn out to be true.
I have despaired for my candidate many times during this primary…
but obviously, it’s not over until it’s over..
no matter what the polls say..or the pundits say..
or the Obama campaign says.
“Come on! You must have at least understood what logic was a few months ago before you entered into this loo-loo fantasy world of the Clinton supporters…”
I would ask who has created a fantasy world?
I don’t talk about a world where the fantasy of the opposing candidates “only path to nomination is to overturn the votes” ….
when Obama wins a state, i don’t talk about him “stealing” the election.
I don’t think i am the one living in a fantasy…
that is assuming you actually believe all that rhetoric… which i don’t think you do.
but perhaps i give you more credit for logical thought than you give me?
April 5, 2008 at 10:56 pm #617569
JoBParticipantToday i participated in our local district caucus as a delegate for Hillary.
I have to say.. after today’s caucus.. i feel better about the possibility of working for Obama in the fall if he ends up being the candidate.
this is no april fools joke… i haven’t said i want him to be the candidate… i still think Hillary is the best candidate for all the right reasons…
but there were 1200 people present.. 2/3 of them Obama delegates… and not once was i confronted with anti-Hillary rhetoric.. and i spoke with a wide number of people.
They all spoke passinately about why they supported their candidate… and all were as willing to listen as to make their point.
If our local caucus is any indication… republicans had best begin looking for something they can believe in… because there is no lack of party unity on one subject…
the necessity of a democrat in the white house this fall and more democratic legislators in both houses of Congress.
it has been a good day.
April 6, 2008 at 5:21 am #617570
charlabobParticipantAre there any lurkers who can give us more information about the Clinton supporters who booed through the attempt of an Obama delegate to speak? A couple of friends (one from each side) who attended told me the same thing — but I haven’t seen details of the occurrence.
April 6, 2008 at 5:40 am #617571
JoBParticipantcharla..
anything that happened… must have been while i was out of the gym…
i spent a fair amount of time in the main hall because i wasn’t seated until 2 pM.. and wouldn’t have been had i not repeatedly gone back to the sign in table. Our precinct’s single Clinton delegate didn’t show up.. but the person working our table apparently missed highlighting me as the alternate…
WsMom was there and i think she spent most of the time in the gym…
i would also be curious…
Everything i saw was incredibly civil.. and because i was out where the party dignitaries tended to congregate.. i heard several comments on how civil and cooperative our district was…
so i am surprised.
April 6, 2008 at 6:40 am #617572
JanSParticipantwell, we are civil and cooperative, aren’t we? Especially those of us in the West Seattle portion of the 34th District :)
April 6, 2008 at 3:46 pm #617573
WSMomParticipantMy thoughts on the local district caucus:
I was forewarned and prepared for a day of sitting and waiting and then waiting some more, but I was impressed with how organized the process was and with the competence of the many volunteers. It helped too that Jim McDermott brought us all food. I found Dow Constantine to be surprisingly charming.
Perhaps it was where I was sitting, but I did not get the impression that the “booing” of the Obama speaker was very significant. I was impressed with the speech by the woman Clinton supporter. She was prepared and factual. She only spoke about Clinton’s strong points and did not denigrate Obama. The room was quiet and listened respectfully. Given that 75% of the room was for Obama, I would have been embarrassed if anyone had interrupted her (it would have felt bullyish). Now the Obama speaker was a nice young man, but my impression was that his speech was not very well prepared and he didn’t provide (to my recollection) many specifics. He seemed to speak more about emotions and what Obama will do than facts about what he has done. I did hear a person yell out “but how is he going to do that?” which was a question I thought the speaker should have been able to answer. He also said something negative about Sen. Clinton that made me cringe. Frankly, I thought that if the Obama speaker’s speech had been better prepared and if he’d stayed under the 5 minute rule, no one would have yelled anything out at him. Please note that these are my general impressions, I didn’t take notes and I actually wasn’t intending to write this post (but given Charla’s question above I thought I should.)
I was very impressed with the passion of the delegates who wanted to go on to Spokane and then Denver. One delegate, Robert Fuentes, spent five minutes with me explaining why he believes in Barak Obama. He brought tears to my eyes and reaffirmed, yet again, my decision to cast my vote for Sen. Obama. YES WE CAN!!
April 6, 2008 at 4:24 pm #617574
charlabobParticipantThanks WS Mom and JoB — for giving the flavor and the substance. And for understanding I truly did want the the information (and wasn’t trying to be confrontational.)
In 2004 I managed to get through the district as a Dean delegate. (Bob was my alternate and my shepherd, so we both got to go.) Sounds like the county was very similar to last — sitting around and waiting and making speeches.
There was the same undercurrent of potential hostility (Dean was the majority — the “regulars” supported Kerry). And the hostility was, for the most part, not there.
I’m glad you all had a great time and, frankly, I’m relieved it was somewhat boring.
(Did counting take forever this time? If yes, I think we should plan to stage a bicandidate laptop coup next time.)
April 6, 2008 at 10:57 pm #617575
walfredoMemberhttp://www.newsweek.com/id/130606
Great article about the current state of the race from Newsweek.
April 7, 2008 at 1:58 am #617576
JoBParticipantwalfredo…
you are selling the campaign again…
why don’t you go read something (besides me) that doesn’t agree with you for a change. It might stimulate those little grey cells…
your links have done wonders for mine.
April 7, 2008 at 2:14 am #617577
JoBParticipantWsMom…
thanks for the report. i was truly dismayed when i heard that Clinton supporters had been disrespectful. I am glad that was all it was.
and i am proud of the Obama crowd for listening respectfully.. makes me feel good to be a neighbor.
and confirms my overall impressions of the caucus.
charlabob…
counting always takes forever…
laptops would have helped.. but the real breakdown is in the organization… they opened the doors before the volunteers were trained… so volunteers didn’t have time to think before they started doing… and noone was telling people where to go next so they were all milling around.
the breakdown occurred between the first sign in.. and seating alternates… and in alternates not knowing that it would be good to go back to check in after they started the speeches in the gym…
and in my case, it not doing any good when i did repeatedly check.
I honestly don’t believe the Obama delegate volunteers at my check in table were trying to avoid seating a Clinton delegate… i think they just had too many sheets that they were responsible for and were overwhelmed by the process.
It took nearly a half hour from the time they found the mistake to actually fix the mistake…
“the light bulb just went off” Duh….
there was a real lack of communication… from the party to the volunteers.. who didn’t know answers when asked… from the volunteers to alternates…. from the organizers to the speakers….
they need communication specialists.. and they need some help with understanding their physical layout too.. and the americans with disabilities act…
i am NOT going to think about this because i am NOT going to become responsible for it.
April 7, 2008 at 2:27 am #617578
walfredoMemberRead this on a blog- these aren’t my words, but I think they are very insightful into the frustration many Obama supporters are feeling. To put it bluntly, where does this anger come from, you had every chance to win, were virtually handed this thing, and got beat, over and over again, like a red-headed stepchild… Now you’re the victim?
“HRC supporters need to realize that regardless of their rage and anger about what’s currently happening, their candidate lost 17 straight contests by incredibly large margins in February.
She had the Democratic establishment around her, the initial money advantage, the Superdelegates, an incredibly popular ex-President husband, and a dashing ex-First daughter, all stumping for her, all beating her drum, yet she lost race after race after race, neglected the caucuses and got trampled.
After the incompetence and idiocy of the HRC campaign, now she wants to play the victim and re-write the rules. HRC supporters, for all their anger, should at the very least agree that this campaign was their candidates’ to lose. She lost it. She lost it badly due to her own incompetence. And to be so angry, to be so resentful, shows that just like Republicans supporting Bush, you guys are not willing to be honest about the facts.
Obama, the so-called inexperienced politician, the so-called Green behind the ears candidate, the so-called unelectible candidate, is destroying your establishment candidate systematically. For all her advantage (4 homes states -NY, NJ, Arkansas, pennsylvania), she is still losing and at this point can’t catch up. You have to ask yourselves: Why is that?”
April 7, 2008 at 2:39 am #617579
walfredoMemberhttp://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/in-oregon-clint.html
For those who may have missed it over the weekend, Hillary Clinton is now the anti-war candidate, who spoke out first against the Iraq War. This speech was apparently given while negotiating a peace treaty, and dodging sniper fire.
How a candidate can position herself as by far, not a close second, of all the democratic candidates for president, as the most hawkish candidate, and strongest supporter of the Iraq war. In fact, she made a calculated decision in 2002 to support George Bush, she has made a calculated decision her entire senate term to continue to suppor the war, she made a calculated decision at the start of this race NOT TO SAY SHE MADE A MISTAKE IN AUTHORIZING THIS WAR. Every single other candidate running for the democratic nomination who made the same vote, at that time said it was a mistake. She made a calculated decision not to, then in the last debate, she FINALLY made a calculated decision to say that she had in fact made a mistake. Now, this weekend, she made a calculated decision to be the anti-war candidate who first spoke out against this immoral trainwreck of a war… She did this despite the obvious fact that 5 years worth of speeches, clips, soundbites, show a complete contradiction to this. She did this despite her opponent, having a complete 180- different position, that has been consistent for 5 years. In short, like in her stump speeches, she did this without the slightest hint of truth, reality, or common sense about how easy her lie is to fact check…
Another senior member of her campaign was forced to leave today in disgrace, in what has been and continues to be the absolute worst campaigns ever run…
April 7, 2008 at 2:56 am #617580
JoBParticipantWalfredo..
I am not a victim.
Hillary is not a victim.
Nobody has won or lost.
That can change. But it hasn’t yet.
Your desire to make it so doesn’t make it so.
and no amount of repeating it and finding one more source to repeat it for you is going to change that.
Obama has not won yet.
If he does i will support him.
But until that day…
I have a candidate who actually stands for what i think is best for my party and my nation..
a candidate who understands how to get things done and has a voting record in the Senate which proves she can do it… and who will make the business of the nation her priority.. she will stay up as late as it takes to get the work done.. (she won’t be going home weekends)… and then do the same tomorrow
check out the video at Factcheck.org to compare Clinton and Obama’s voting records.. not what you were led to believe…
a candidate who understands economic policy and is interested in legislation that provides the fastest and most effective relief and results… she isn’t offering me another tax rebate.. she wants to fix the tax system.
a candidate who has made some really big mistakes and has learned hard lessons … and became stronger and smarter because of them…
a candidate who understands that you have to deal with what is.. not what you wish was.. and that as situations change.. solutions have to change with them.
I could go on and on gushing about Hillary.. but i think i have said enough to make my point..
and that is that I have a strong candidate who stands for things that are important to me…
the only way i could be a victim is if she bought into the current hype and quit.
If she loses, she loses.
But let’s let her lose first before we mothball her candidacy.
April 7, 2008 at 3:12 am #617581
walfredoMemberThe equivalent to her statement on Friday would be if Barack came out and Monday and said that he had far more experience being the first lady then she did, and in fact he was the first lady before she was.
That is how accurate her statement is…
I think it is appalling how badly she insults voters intelligence, it is really starting to mirror Karl Rove and George W. Bush, and it is in no way suprising that her core base are those who are uneducated, and poor. The same dynamic that got W elected…
April 7, 2008 at 3:17 am #617582
JoBParticipantApril 7, 2008 at 4:18 am #617583
WSMomParticipantWalfredo:
I cannot imagine that Senator Obama would stand behind or in any way agree with your words
“and it is in no way suprising that her core base are those who are uneducated, and poor. The same dynamic that got W elected…”
You really should stop and reconsider what you are posting because your insults do not reflect well on your (and my) candidate. JanS has kindly asked you to focus on Obama’s strengths (of which there are many) and desist denigrating Senator Clinton. I concur.
April 7, 2008 at 5:46 am #617584
JanSParticipantactually, WSMom, I think what I said to “hir” is…we get it, and I think I requested “hir” to go away for a while. It now smacks of too much like “I have to have the last say no matter what”…it is no longer really about the candidates, but about “winning the argument” for this person. Remember , that’s just my opinion. There is another tactic…and I like where JoB’s going with this hug thing….I think it’s a wonderful response :)
I’m sending great, big hugs to Walfredo, too :)
April 7, 2008 at 6:16 am #617585
charlabobParticipantGo to a neutral corner and count to 10 — Montana appearances — ultimately, barack is sunnier — and so am I — this week :-)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/us/politics/07campaign.html?hp
April 7, 2008 at 1:22 pm #617586
KayleighMemberInteresting that some people don’t feel criticism of Hillary is appropriate, yet cheered the Maureen O’Dowd article. You know–the patronizing and ridiculous article that claimed that Hillary’s dirty campaigning toughened up Obama and helped make him what he is.
For the record, I will avert my eyes and vote for her if she is the nominee. (Hillary, not O’Dowd.) :-)
April 7, 2008 at 2:08 pm #617587
dinazinaMemberI’m Dina Johnson. I participated in Saturday’s caucus at West Seattle High School, running for Obama delegate to the next level. I love the smell of democracy at a well-attended caucus, imperfect as it may be.
We Obama candidates were asked repeatedly what we would do if pressured to switch our vote at the national convention. I affirmed my intention to stick with Obama no matter what. This is a concern Obama supporters have, because of the assertion by the Hillary campaign that superdelegates and even pledged delegates can vote for whoever they want, thus potentially reversing the election results.
I was asked what I would do if the electon results were reversed at the convention, due to the influence of superdelegates and party officials. I replied I’d be out in the street outside the convention, protesting the injustice witha million others, rather than obediently submitting inside.
For the record, I think the odds of that haappening are slim to none. No one wants a civil war within the Democratic Party.
I plan to continue – there another election in May I need to win.
http://citizen-artiste.org/vote4dinajohnson.htm
My support of Obama is based on his ability to connect with ordinary citizens and get them involved and working for their own deomocracy – something we are hardly encouraged to do in this society. I was skeptical at first, but at this point it’s undeniable. Obama is building a movement. It ISN’T all about him.
It isn’t all about him.
I oppose top-down auhoritarian political structures, powered by rich cabals. In my observation, the Clintons are an example of aa top-down, Big Daddy, Big Mommy model. “Vote for me [then get lost] – I will take care of everything.” That’s what I see and hear. Some people find that model acceptable, even desirable; I don’t.
The Clinton supporters I know are good people, but we differ considerably on that subject.
April 7, 2008 at 2:11 pm #617588
dinazinaMemberPlease forgive the typos – I type with two fingers. I have many talents, but typing isn’t among them.
April 7, 2008 at 2:40 pm #617589
beachdrivegirlParticipantDinaZina- I am glad to hear your thoughts on what you would do if you make it to the convention.
That has definitly been a concern of mine and I am glad you are addressing it!
April 7, 2008 at 2:42 pm #617590
charlabobParticipantDinazina — thank you for the report and the passion. I think a major difference is that Obama and his supporters represent a future that scares the mainstream democratic party. They’re used to being in charge.
Even though Deaniacs are long dispersed, we still represent the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, no matter where we are.
I’m sure there are a few of us hidden stealthily in the Clinton campaign — a definite silent minority…I suspect JoB may be one..thank the goddess she isn’t silent :-)
The fact is that there are very few differences in their policies and their voting records.
(I would challenge the idea that Clinton has gotten more done in the senate; having your name on legislation that gets passed doesn’t necessarily represent accomplishment. As far as I can tell NO democrat has gotten anything useful done in the senate or the house; we’ve been so busy triangulating and compromising and NOT OFFENDING REPUBLICANS OR JOE LIEBERMAN.
I support Obama because their records are similar, their pasts are not, and I want a future of hope and accomplishment — for myself–my kids–and, most of all, my grandkids. We may still all go down in flames — this may be the end of our empire — the Repugs have done their best to ensure that — but I’d rather go down with hope; and I firmly believe, with Obama, we will actually go up, higher than ever, together.
April 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm #617591
beachdrivegirlParticipantObama and Clinton our tied on the ticker in Penn. (Great News! Everyone is saying that Clinton must win by a minimum of a net 10 delegates in Penn. to continue on….)
Obama picked up an additional Superdelegate! :)
And, another reason why I perfer Obama over Clinton. Obamas gross income was just over a million according to reports. Of that million, he gave away nearly $240,000 to charity!! That is amazing and says alot about his character. Clinton on the other hadn gave just over 9% of her $100+ million income…nearly all of that 9% also went to the the the Clintons own charity’s ond of that money that did go to their own charity less than half of it has been given away….
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.