Streams

DNC Delegate Decision

Monday, June 02, 2008

The Democrats have met to discuss the fate of the Florida and Michigan delegates. Here to analyze the situation is Liz Halloran, senior writer with U.S. News and World Report, Lesley Clark, national correspondent for the Miami Herald, and Gordon Trowbridge, Washington reporter for the Detroit News.

Guests:

Lesley Clark, Liz Halloran and Gordon Trowbridge
News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [242]

eva

Tony, #244
Okay, okay, I believe you.
I'm pretty sure I heard "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" while reading your post. That was better than the ending of "The Grapes of Wrath."

Jun. 02 2008 11:37 PM
Tony from Brooklyn

Lily Ledbetter didn't deserve equal pay because she was married to someone who had the same job. She didn't deserve equal pay because she was the first legitimate woman candidate with a shot at her job. She didn't deserve equal pay because she bowled or drank shots of whiskey or because the men who made more money than her were brown or black or blue and therefore couldn't expect to be treated equally by the less enlightened in the world. She deserved equal pay because she did the same job and to not give her equal pay is immoral, illegal, and wrong. It goes beyond reproductive rights. This campaign is about human rights. It's about how women are discriminated against in the workplace. It's about extraordinary rendition and Valerie Plame(do you think a male CIA agent could have been so easily dismissed as "not really undercover?"), and voting machines that don't work where poor and dark people live. To a large extent this election is about "not that I know of" and "Jesse Jackson won SC too," and how that cynical sort of pandering to the worst in people failed. Give women some credit. They'll get over their visceral disappointment and do what's right. Obama is exactly the kind of communicator to lay out that very simple argument of right vs. wrong.

Jun. 02 2008 10:54 PM
eva

Nah, but what I would say is that the HRC phenom tapped into a large group of older women who VERY LEGITIMATELY felt aggrieved about how they'd been treated in the workplace. They connected this legitimate experience to HRC's largely illegitimate claims of sexism.
And I don't think most of them are getting over it. And I don't think they're getting over their feelings about how HRC has been "discriminated against" by the media.
Yes, I believe women's views on abortion do change as they grow older. It's a less urgent priority, for obvious reasons.
And I think it's way overly optimistic to say
that all these women, many of them have said they'll never vote for anyone but HRC, will vote for Obama.

Jun. 02 2008 07:23 PM
hjs from 11211

eva 238
wow that's a broad statement. so old women don't care about their daughters sons or granddaughters, just themselves. there is no hope then.

Jun. 02 2008 07:15 PM
eva

Seth,
David McCullough said that we've seen worse. I want to believe him.
By the end of the Vietnam War, we'd lost 58,000 soldiers. The economy was a mess. The country was in turmoil, divided, lost. Disco was about to rear its ugly head. We ended up with Jimmy Carter as a president. (Love the man, not so impressed by the administration.) Of course, China and Japan were still somewhat contained and didn't own our asses...
You can't say it's boring standing on the edge of a cliff in a windstorm.

Jun. 02 2008 06:52 PM
seth from Long Island

hjs #196,

I'm a cautious optimist. I think McCain won the nomination by default because his opponents were more inept campaigners than he is. I believe McCain is a lousy campaigner and that will be his downfall. I'm not predicting aan Obama landslide. I don't believe the racist vote is big enough to help McCain win. Long-term, I'm not optimistic about Obama saving the country because too much damage has already been done.

Jun. 02 2008 06:43 PM
eva

chris o,
EVERYONE's memory of the two years after 9/11 is flawed. Not just because memory is so flawed in general, but because it was such a crazy, sad, infuriating and ultimately emotional time for everyone, but esp. in New York. MC has a point about how difficult it as to speak up. Acid? I don't think so. But it was difficult, to be sure.

Jun. 02 2008 06:39 PM
eva

Tony,
Older women supporting Hillary don't care so much about the supreme court; they can't get pregnant anymore, they don't care about Roe v. Wade as much as they used to. For them, the personal is political, bigtime. And they do have an incredibly personal investment in HRC.
Hell hath no fury like a woman spurned, unless it's a preferred first-ever-female candidate scorned.
But I agree. The race is over. Or should be.

Jun. 02 2008 06:37 PM
seth from Long Island

mc #200,

While Obama is close to locking up the nomination, I think his supporters are concerned that Hillary has raised the hopes of her supporters to such a degree, that when she loses they'll be too angry to vote for Obama. I also think some Obama supporters believe she gave too many talking points to McCain.

Jun. 02 2008 06:34 PM
Tony from Brooklyn

MC,
My analysis had nothing to do with who is currently the front runner. It has nothing to do a narrative arc. What I was trying to say is that we are seeing a race end. Both candidates understood the rules and the distance of said race and neither participated under protest. Tomorrow that race will be over. Barack Obama will cross the finish line the winner. HRC may have been closing fast at the end. Obama may be out of breath. Perhaps on another track on another day BO would have lost. But in this race he won. No rational person can dispute that.
HRC supporters can stay home if they wish. They have no obligation to vote for Obama. But they have to understand that 2-4 Supreme Court positions(let's call that a third of the court) could conceivably be open in the next term. I think that women should read the Lily Ledbetter decision and the Roberts opinion in the last late term abortion rights case before they stay home. Perhaps I'm the only one who sees Obama as the surest path to averting some Margaret Atwood meets Kafka disaster going forward. We get the politicians we deserve. And if we don't elect Barack Obama(like the Democrats didn't elect HRC), then we deserve John McCain and all the policies that come with that presidency. I think even the older uneducated women who polling seems to indicate would most likely stay home or vote GOP in November are smart enough to vote in their best interests.

Jun. 02 2008 06:27 PM
Chris O from New York City

I am very impressed by this long thread and was surprised to see it. It is time for me to go now but will check on the follow-up tomorrow. Good day, good listeners of the good Brian Lehrer show.

Jun. 02 2008 06:20 PM
Chris O from New York City

In 232, as is obvious, I meant to say that every nation on the face of the planet including the ones attacked and invaded by Saddam OPPOSED this war.

Jun. 02 2008 06:19 PM
eva

mc,
I said venality, not veniality. Look it up, it's a useful, and specific word.

Jun. 02 2008 06:16 PM
Chris O from New York City

mc,
over half the democrats in the House voted against the war; almost half in the Senate did; going to war against Iraq was very controversial, Brent Scowcroft, the "President"'s father's right hand man, wrote an editorial in the Wall St. Journal pleading with the younger not to attack Iraq. Oh yeah and almost every nation on the face of the planet, including the 2 Saddam attacked and invaded (Kuwait and Iran) wanted this war.

So I believe your memory of that time is way off, you may be thinking of opposing an invasion of Afghanistan after September 11, but not the plans for Iraq in late 2002.

Jun. 02 2008 06:16 PM
eva

hjs,
I have voted Dem my entire life. So yes, I voted for Kerry, who acknowledged his vote for the war was a mistake. I also admire his Vietnam war service, and his later protests of the that war. But Kerry was the dem nominee, and Nader was never an option. This time out, Obama will be the dem nominee, by my vote and the votes of many others. And HRC, hopefully, will not be an option.

Jun. 02 2008 06:13 PM
mc from Brooklyn

Well, life comes back to claim me. Signing off now.

Happy unity everyone.

Jun. 02 2008 06:10 PM
Chris O from New York City

#215 - agreed 100%, but i don't see hate directed at hillary, just the normal campaign fight stuff; i guess romney supporters felt a ton of hate at their candidate etc.

#216 - i don't accept that; the only way to stop the war was for Congress to vote it down; "the policy is fixed" wrote British intelligence in summer of 2002, regarding the Bush plan to invade Iraq; i was very alert and aware and clearly remember the "march to war"; there was no way in the world we were not going to attack iraq after that congressional vote OK'd it

Jun. 02 2008 06:10 PM
mc from Brooklyn

eva,
We might have a different idea of veniality, but OK. I think there is a difference between being skeptical and accusing someone of veniality. Whatever.

My defense of HRC is not as deeply rooted as you may think. What I am sick of is not "Barack love," that just cracks me up. What I am sick of is the really nasty stuff that has been leveled at HRC for many years now that I don't think is quite deserved. And now the left has taken it over, doing the half the right's work for them. Really dumb.

They are both flawed. I voted for the one that on balance I thought offered the best solutions. I am comfortable with BHO if he is the one most Dems want. I just wish the Obama folks could give the venom a rest.

Jun. 02 2008 06:09 PM
hjs from 11211

eva
did u vote for kerry. just wondering, hope i'm not being to personal.

Jun. 02 2008 06:03 PM
mc from Brooklyn

eva,
Yes, acid. And I was not in a particularly conservative environment.

As far as supporting her campaign, there are other issues besides that one. Since he was neutralized on it for me, it was not the deciding factor.

Jun. 02 2008 06:02 PM
eva

mc,
I have several times mentioned BHO's venality, go back and read the posts from today, and going back to his distancing of Wright, and before... No offense taken, I don't expect you to remember everything, and I am consistently critical of Hillary, which she deserves, after her behavior and my prior support. to an extent, I can understand if you live in a neighborhood that's all Barack all the time, you would tend to defend HIllary more. My friend lives in a pro-Barack neighborhood, and he is SICK of what he describes as "the barack love." But I'm personally very skeptical about Obama, and have always said so here, even if you read my posts through from today. BTW, where are the upstate jobs HRC promised as senator?

Jun. 02 2008 06:02 PM
mc from Brooklyn

Tony,
I agree with your analysis about HRC being a front runner. I have thought all along that this was just the media's mega-narrative. They build her up (there were polls but no votes yet) and then have a grand old time tearing her down. It's a great grand story arc.

What worries me about BHO's candidacy going forward is that some of the leadership of the Dem party along with the media orbit on the left have made many of HRC's supporters feeling marginalized. I don't worry about them voting for McCain - I worry about them staying home. I worry that they are being told that their grievances are either imaginary, not important or deserved. BHO has a steep climb. Like it or not, we need everyone, and the kind of nastiness I've seen here, elsewhere on the web, on cable news and in print editorials, in my view is not going to get us there.

Jun. 02 2008 06:00 PM
hjs from 11211

Tony
well put

Jun. 02 2008 05:57 PM
eva

mc,
"Do you remember what it was like back then? I had to be careful who I told about my feelings about the war lest I get acid thrown on me."
Really? Acid? Thrown? You really thought so? I was in New York then. I spoke up, no acid, even in a very conservative work environment. It wasn't a walk in the park, but...
You're right to abhor Hillary's vote. I'm sorry you can't follow it up by refusing to support her campaign.

Jun. 02 2008 05:55 PM
Tony from Brooklyn

Let's review, shall we? Last year before the first debate, before the first primary or caucus Hillary Clinton was the odds on favorite to win the Democratic election. Even as the favorite, the ever generous HRC magnanimously vowed to campaign all the way through Super Tuesday! Her coronation was such a sure thing she appointed her loyal aid(glorified admin/assist.) to lead her campaign. HRC had more money, more name recognition, and more "experience." Never mind that if sleeping next to the president sans security clearance qualifies you to be president then Monica Lewinsky is at least qualified to be Secretary to the UN.
And then something began to happen. People voted. They voted in caucuses. They voted in elections. In TX they voted in both. Prior to said votes there was a set of rules set up by the DNC. The rules weren't perfect but they were the only set of rules for this process.
Through that process, and against the overwhelming odds against him, Barack Obama now stands on the doorstep of the Democratic nomination.
Vote for whom you will. But it's cynical to think that BO won't overcome similar odds to beat George Bush's older, more out of touch twin(remember GWB ran as a populist in 2000-JMcC is running as what GWB became).
Obama is our last best hope. We can fail to support him for a host of reasons...but that reason isn't because he didn't win the contest set before him at the outset.

Jun. 02 2008 05:53 PM
mc from Brooklyn

eva, #209
I think what this comes down to is what is important to each of us. I don't care about "bitter" comments, I don't care about whiskey swilling. I care about health care and education and a lot of other things and I still see her as the stronger candidate on those issues. I hear that you voted for Bill (not the same as voting for her) but it sounds like you held your nose when you voted for her. I did too, I was not impressed by the idea of her being a senator from New York. But she served on the whole, IMHO very well.

What I don;t understand and what I am suspicious of is the heat and venom. It is reasonable to me to disagree, I just don't get the heat.

When did you mention BHO's venality?

Jun. 02 2008 05:53 PM
hjs from 11211

well, we'll get what we deserve

Jun. 02 2008 05:52 PM
Bill from New York

Have a lovely evening, everyone.

Jun. 02 2008 05:49 PM
Bill from New York

hjs: those are two separate questions. We all know the answer to the second; let's augment the first to Bad for American politics. She's not lifting us above what we've had to sit through for the last 8 years. Again [scratching my head]: how is that hard to see? You've read the complaints here. You didn't need to read about them here to know about them. I'm sincerely as baffled by Clinton apologists as I am by Bush apologists.

Jun. 02 2008 05:49 PM
hjs from 11211

NO one voted for the war. it was tool that bush misused

Jun. 02 2008 05:49 PM
hjs from 11211

chris o
but it is VERY rational to hate the bush regime

Jun. 02 2008 05:48 PM
eva

#208, Chris O, thank you.
mc, MANY of us used to support the Clintons. And part of our disgust with her has to do with the fact that we helped support her - and whether you see it or not, she's behaved abominably in return. And we gave her the power. Bitter? You betcha. Trust betrayed generates disgust and contempt.
hjs,
Clinton didn't kill my child, but she voted for a war that killed more children than I can count.

Jun. 02 2008 05:45 PM
hjs from 11211

maybe some us don't understand how a modern government works. it's lucky for obama that he has no record for u to judge him on. i hope u can be more forgiving of him when he "breaks your heart" (to paraphrase eva from earlier)

Jun. 02 2008 05:45 PM
mc from Brooklyn

Chris,
I really appreciate you point of view on this and let me say I abhorred that vote from both her and Schumer. All of the senators who ran for president this year voted for the war. This is why she was no where near my first choice. When it came down to a choice between her and Obama I gave him some credit for his stance on the war but not full credit. He was not in the Senate and not in New York. Do you remember what it was like back then? I had to be careful who I told about my feelings about the war lest I get acid thrown on me. (Kind of how I feel about telling people I voted for Hillary). Obama was very cagey abut that speech in '02 and was very careful to say he was only against that war. He carefully weighed what he would say because he was also afraid of losing support. It was not that wholehearted. Some of the supporters at the speech were puzzled by it. This neutralized him for me as the peace candidate. But I respect anyone who holds a grudge against her for that vote and wants to give him full credit. I'm just not there.

Jun. 02 2008 05:45 PM
Chris O from New York City

hjs - #207,
your comment sounds very familiar coming from a different group; it is a refrain that has been coming out of 1600 pennsylvania ave for many years and can also be constantly heard by tuning to Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly; they speak of dems and liberals as irrational Bush haters

maybe you are right but i don't see the hate or feel it the way you do

Jun. 02 2008 05:43 PM
hjs from 11211

Bill
bad for the party? does obama have the delegates to win the nomination?

Jun. 02 2008 05:39 PM
eva

mc, I appreciate your criticism of Hillary on those issues. But you've never conceded that people who left the Clinton camp might have reason. Personally? I criticized Obama quite harshly for his "bitter" comments, which I still think he hasn't atoned for or addressed adequately. I've also repeatedly (even in this series of posts) raised concerns about 1) his electability 2) his venality and in previous posts I've made clear my concerns about handing someone such a large prize when they are still quite young and haven't yet experienced real disappointment or failure.
As for my support for the Clintons, I voted for Bill twice; I voted for Hillary once, even though I didn't think she deserved to have the senate seat. For eight years I defended the Clinton administration in a very conservative work environment with a series of Republican bosses. If that isn't support, I don't know what is. I bet my multiple pro-Clinton voting record echoes most Obama supporters who lived in New York. To put it mildly, we're sick of HRC, and to be fair, we're sick of being told, as former Clinton supporters, that we haven't been fair to her.
Voting for them three times is MORE than fair.

Jun. 02 2008 05:39 PM
Chris O from New York City

mc,
i know you asked eva but i will tell you when I turned on Hillary; in october of 2002, when Clinton supported a war against Iraq despite the obvious reality that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11 and Iraq in no way threatened the US. I turned on many Democrats on that day, but more than half in Congress and almost half in the Senate said NO.

time heals all wounds so despite my vow to never forgive all those who voted for this outrageous, illegal war, there are many who i sort of forgive, for instance Joe Biden and others, but Hillary has not learned, she voted to declare a part of the Iran military as terrorist (sounds like a cause for war to me) and she speaks of obliterating them so after that vote, she just kept digging...

Jun. 02 2008 05:36 PM
hjs from 11211

speaking for myself i just don't understand why some people take this so personally, as if the clintons killed your child. i don't see balance. i don't think i could work around such hate. I just don't get it, such an irrational hate makes me wonder if there isn't more going on there...

Jun. 02 2008 05:33 PM
mc from Brooklyn

eva,
that is probably because I find it hard to swallow you ever having been a supporter. When did the change happen?

Some of the comments can certainly be seen as divisive, however, I do not read the "as far as I know" the way you do, having seen the video. So it comes down to perception. I cannot see the reason for the intensity of the venom directed her, especially in light of the fact that he has done some sleazy things too, and he gets a pass.

I did criticize her for the gas tax and flag burning amendment and other issues. I have NEVER seen you criticize him for anything, only her. Still waiting for that other POV.

Jun. 02 2008 05:30 PM
Bill from New York

And my point is so what if Obama has things in the bag? That's like saying there's no point in criticizing Bush because he's a lame duck. What Clinton is doing bad for her party, for Obama, and definitely for her legacy, and arguably bad too for issues she should have more respect for: feminism and race-relations. That's worth commenting on, and it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that these issues bring character judgment to the fore. It should also come as no surprise that her supporters and defenders should be an object of scrutiny and criticism as well.

Jun. 02 2008 05:27 PM
eva

mc,
I appreciate your imagining how Obama supporters feel as regards Obama, but what I have never read from you is an imagining or the feelings of former Clinton supporters/voters about Clinton, who are now so disgusted with Clinton that they have fled for the Obama campaign. It's as if you fail to understand that we used to be on her side, and she totally alienated us. What I have never read from you is an acknowledgment that a lot of her behavior - whether you see it or not - could rightly be SEEN as divisive, unbalanced or deceitful, whether it be sniper fire, or "as far as I know" or anything else.
I often take issue with Obama, and don't see him as a silver bullet. But I don't see that sort of balance in your view of HRC. To be fair, it may be because HRC is so polarizing, that her supporters constantly feel obliged to defend her.

Jun. 02 2008 05:22 PM
eva

mc,
I think the other point is that he has this in the bag, but she can't concede, and is doing incredible damage to the party by dragging this out... when as you say, he essentially has it in the bag. It's stubborness on her part, and it's not without damage.
Maybe Clinton supporters should, instead of focusing on former Clinton supporters who now have to support Obama, should investigate the ways in which she squandered an early and substantial lead. James, you might find this article interesting, given your previous experience.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/opinion/26cohen.html

Jun. 02 2008 05:17 PM
James from New York

Seth # 195 above - no 'sarcasm' nor offense intended in my post (# 190 above) - though I must plead guilty to a shady & obviously failed attempt at low humour in making a genuine point that there are nearly always many, many more possibilities to consider in such hypothetical imaginings.
I do agree, that if the Democratic Party comes out of this agreeing to always select delegates to future conventions by primary rather than caucus, then another blow for genuine 'people's party' democracy will have been struck.

Jun. 02 2008 05:15 PM
hjs from 11211

bill
i would say where's the healing?
is there one dem party or 2?
what's the point of continuing the bashing at this point, unless you are an animal who just enjoys the taste of blood.
just wait for the fall that's when the real battle will come.

Jun. 02 2008 05:13 PM
Chris O from New York City

As a sort of Obama supporter (as a Green who finds Obama an ever so slightly different or new Democrat), I mentioned about 190 posts ago a certain Hillary Clinton interview with Brian Lamb of C-SPAN in 1996. She impressed me greatly, she was like a professor, she was so right on, so smart, so clear, effusing knowledge and decency. This is the woman I would like to see President. I voted for her in 2000 (not in '06). She still is very smart and clear but... the way she plays politics, the traditional way, the way McCain is doing it now, the way they almost all do it, is very distressing. Her manipulative math, her whiskey swilling, her obliteration comment: it is all the worst of the worst.

Jun. 02 2008 05:12 PM
mc from Brooklyn

Hi Bill,
My point is that I think that it is interesting that there is all this bitterness coming from Obama supporters when he has this thing all but in the bag. Justification is not my area. I don't presume to know what other people are thinking, just pointing it out.

It is still 30-2, so I guess we have lifted the conversation up somewhat.

Jun. 02 2008 05:10 PM
Bill from New York

mc

I think I've nailed your position pretty well. Want to set me straight? More nasty posts against Hilary than against Obama? So what? Give us some context. All justified? None? What's your point?

Jun. 02 2008 05:07 PM
eva

Interesting that in all the years the Clintons have held elective office, they have never complained about the primary/caucus system until... it fails to favor HRC.

Jun. 02 2008 05:06 PM
mc from Brooklyn

eva,
Actually I have posted repeatedly on this site imagining the point of view of Obama supporters. I have repeatedly said that I think that his candidacy makes a great number of beaten down people feel empowered and that I think that is really cool. That was only one example. Too bad you only remember the things I said that you disagree with. Sigh! Great unity we have huh? Let's hope he can be smarter than that.

BTW, I have also said that at this point if Obama loses the nomination it would be a disaster. Guess you missed that too, huh?

How 'bout you weighing in on someone else's POV instead of trying to make out that it is deficient? (Rev. Wright's word, I like it.)

Jun. 02 2008 05:05 PM
hjs from 11211

seth
what is your optimist based on?

Jun. 02 2008 05:04 PM
seth from Long Island

James #190,
Your sarcasm aside, I'm more of an optimist than you regarding Obama's chances against McCain. I look forward to the time when all states adopt primaries so that your hypothetical argument on this point becomes irrelevant.

Jun. 02 2008 05:01 PM
James from New York

Seth # 188 above - No Obama is certainly NOT obliged to offer Clinton the VP (nor vice versa). They both ran good races, fair & honorable. They each have their significant strengths & weaknesses. But neither 'owes' the other anything (other than the continued civility & mutual respect which they each have hereto shown towards the other - 'supporters' notwithstanding).
For each of them, I would guess that the disadvantages of selecting their opponent for VP would at least marginally, and maybe significantly outweigh the advantages.

Jun. 02 2008 04:59 PM
hjs from 11211

seth 188
he owes it to the party to help the healing. he owes to the nation to pick a winner and a fighter. obama and HRC are irrelevant in the big picture.

Jun. 02 2008 04:56 PM
eva

mc,
I guess that inability? refusal? to imagine the other side's P.O.V. (even when we are former Clinton supporters) might explain how HRC's campaign team and her supporters saw her start out with a huge advantage... but can't understand why they are now losing. Sigh.

Jun. 02 2008 04:52 PM
mc from Brooklyn

eva,
I have not changed my opinion of how the media etc., have treated this whole process, I'm just not arguing with you about it today- not interested- neither of us is going to change the other's view.

I think that they are guilty of sleaze, but as expected, you will probably give him a pass on it but slam her for all her shortcomings. That is your right.

I disagree on a fundamental level that she has behaved like GWB or RMN and view that as hyperbole, which is also unsurprising here.

The score remains at HRC-30 Obama-2

Jun. 02 2008 04:49 PM
James from New York

Seth # 183 above - "Your point fails to factor in the likelihood that Obama's staff would have employed a different campaign strategy if all states had voted by primary."
You are correct .... my argument in favor of primaries does indeed fail to 'factor in' not just the point you mention, but indeed perhaps an infinity of others that might be equally relevant. But I'm funny like that, just not really good with infinite possibilities ;) And the truth is, Obama faired rather poorly in spite of rather significant overall money, resource & 'momentum' advantages in most of the primaries after the February caucus-blitz, so I'm not sure he would have done much better had the caucuses been held as primaries (tho I admit, I do not KNOW).
I have never bought the idea that he triumphed in the caucuses because of better 'organization'. The caucuses favor certain demographics over others & neither campaign had sufficient resources to 'organize' outcomes to alter that basic fact. And November will be more like primary voting than caucus voting - so his supposed money-raising, youth-inspiring organizational prowess may be of no more use than they were in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, West Va. As a long-time political ground operations organizer myself, I recognize the limitations of such an advantages when the electorate is not already lined up for you.

Jun. 02 2008 04:48 PM
eva

hjs,
And with fair praise by William Jefferson Clinton, who wrote: "America's consumers, our communities, and the economy will reap the benefits of this Act."
Whoops. And which administration enacted the biggest-ever percentage tax cut for the rich?
I'm not saying the Clintons weren't right for the time. But the times have changed, in part because of things that took place during that administration.

Jun. 02 2008 04:46 PM
seth from Long Island

hjs and james and any other Hillary suppoter,
Do you believe Obama owes it to Hillary to offer her the VP slot?

Jun. 02 2008 04:44 PM
hjs from 11211

eve
fyi Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed veto proof 90 senate votes and 362 votes in the house.

Jun. 02 2008 04:40 PM
seth from Long Island

hjs 179

Hopefully, Obama wins in Nov and renders my point moot. I'd like to put my fears of another Hillary presidential run in the rear-view mirror.

Jun. 02 2008 04:33 PM
eva

mc,
with all due respect, your previous posts claiming that the media have treated HRC misogynistically are so many that it seems unreasonable not to note it.
In your count of attacks on Hillary, do you take into consideration the fact that she's alternately behaved like George Wallace, George W. Bush, and Richard Nixon during this campaign? Maybe people aren't attacking Obama because he's not prolonging this miserable process by trying to change the rules after the race began.
This was to be decided through primaries, caucuses, and superdelegates, and the Obama campaign strategically planned for that. Now that Hillary's losing (heaven forfend!) she wants to change the rules. Does it occur to you that the longer she draws this out, the more former Clinton voters such as myself will be disgusted?

Jun. 02 2008 04:31 PM
hjs from 11211

eva
clearly BO ran a better campaign. but to talk of her "serious vulnerabilities and incompetence throughout the campaign," can not be taken seriously. she won around 49% of the vote will less money. can we back off of the old lady?

if she had "serious vulnerabilities and incompetence throughout the campaign." than he's done a bad job because he should have won by bigger margins.
by the way what % of his delegates were from in red states?

Jun. 02 2008 04:28 PM
seth from Long Island

James #172,

I agree with you that voting by primary is more democratic and is preferable to voting by caucus. Your point fails to factor in the likehihood that Obama's staff would have employed a different campaign strategy if all states had voted by primary. Given the post-mortem stories already written about Hillary's campaign, I think her staff were too clueless and incompetent to devise a winning strategy even if all states voted by primary. I'd be happy to see caucuses abolished today.

Jun. 02 2008 04:25 PM
eva

hjs,
I think you could make a serious argument that by looking so inept, HRC has done Obama a world of good. On top of that, she's inoculated him against what McCain will probably throw his way.
But of course, she's thoroughly trashed her own reputation in the process.
Such a smart person, that Hillary.

Jun. 02 2008 04:25 PM
mc from Brooklyn

eva, #137
Thank you for your respect but I did not say anything about sexism today. Everything that you are saying is a matter of perception and I'm not into that argument today.
Bill #139
With all due respect, you don't know what I am thinking. I did not say I was coming from any postion.
seth, I agree with you abut the media and internet which is why I am doing this.
James #162 LOL

The score stands at HRC-30 BHO-2 as of 3170

Jun. 02 2008 04:24 PM
eva

hjs,
"in fairness, they are politicians, as such, they're not really used to making decision by themselves."
i love it

Jun. 02 2008 04:21 PM
hjs from 11211

seth 176

i don't find that helpful. if BHO loses he loses on his own.

Jun. 02 2008 04:18 PM
eva

James, #172, I appreciate your opinion.
But by writing that "we'll just have to agree to disagree" are you saying that it is IMpossible for you to concede that there are many Obama supporters who once worked very hard for the Clintons? Or is it possible for you to concede that we might have real reason to have become disgusted with her, regardless of your personal opinion of her behavior during the campaign?
If there is a reason that she's losing, is it just because Obama supporters indulge in "over-the-top rhetoric"? Or because she mishandled her campaign and thus exposed herself as weak? (And to the chagrin of many of us women, made it appear that the first woman candidate for the Presidency was a manipulative, rogue operator?) There are many things to criticize Obama for, but what I find interesting is the inability of some of the more die-hard Clinton supporters to acknowledge her serious vulnerabilities and incompetence throughout the campaign.

Jun. 02 2008 04:17 PM
hjs from 11211

eva 174
in fairness, they are politicians, as such, they're not really used to making decision by themselves.

seth 173
nothing less would be acceptable.

Jun. 02 2008 04:16 PM
seth from Long Island

Eva,
Since Hillary said she and McCain had a lifetime of experience..., I'm convinced that she actually wants McCain to beat Obama so she can say I told you so and start her 2012 campaign.

Jun. 02 2008 04:14 PM
hjs from 11211

James 172
good luck with that post here

Jun. 02 2008 04:09 PM
eva

hjs,
if i could get my clammy little hands on those superdelegates' necks, i'd give them a serious and well-deserved massage...

Jun. 02 2008 04:07 PM
seth from Long Island

hjs 165

It would be a nice gesture for Hillary to concede the day after Obama hits the magic number but I'm not holding my breath.
I apologize for incorrectly spelling your name in #164.

Jun. 02 2008 04:06 PM
James from New York

eva # 168 above - well, 'Presidential' seems hardly the highest of bars, given recent history. But I guess, we'll just have to agree to disagree - I just don't feel that Sen. Clinton has done ANYTHING to warrant withdrawal of MY support for her to be President. I have NEVER hated, nor even disliked Obama - I just believe that of the two, 1. she is closer to my views, 2. comes with a husband who presided over a successful Democratic administration during which the country made modest but REAL progress on a number of issues of concern to me, 3. is probably more electable in November (in my humble, warped, distorted opinion), 4. has won more votes of rank & file Democrats during the primary season (& would have won even more had ALL 50 states had primaries rather than vote-suppression caucuses) & 5. has more experience & is better prepared to be President.

Jun. 02 2008 04:05 PM
hjs from 11211

eva
we should write to the super delegates. ask them to put us out of our misery.

Jun. 02 2008 04:04 PM
eva

Seth,
Tsongas, like Marley, or the ghost of Christmas past... God, let this be over on Wednesday.

Jun. 02 2008 04:00 PM
seth from Long Island

Eva #163,

Reading your post reminds me of listening to Barney Frank and Jack Newfield on the radio debating over whether or not to nominate Bill Clinton at the Democratic convention in 1992.

Jun. 02 2008 03:57 PM
eva

162, James, please, that wasn't what I asked.
I asked if you could concede the possibility that most of us Obama supporters once supported the Clintons, and that she gave us real reason during the course of this campaign to oppose her.
Because that's where a lot of this conflict comes from. And denying the reality that most of the Obama supporters were once Clinton voters is how she ended up losing, and is now faced with desperately trying to change the rules at the last minute.
I'm not a big "change" person. I just want a person of decent character in the White House. Is it possible for you to acknowledge that Hillary has not acted very "presidential" during the campaign, unless you count Nixon as "presidential?"

Jun. 02 2008 03:54 PM
hjs from 11211

James 162
i repeat thank goodness obama is not as nasty as some of the posters on this board

Jun. 02 2008 03:52 PM
James from New York

And BTW, my use of the term 'laughable' seems to have really stirred up animosity & angst. Please be advised I hereby withdraw 'laughable'....I am no longer laughing (nor even giggling) - I am somber now (which admittedly is NOT the same as sober). ;) oops I meant :(

Jun. 02 2008 03:51 PM
hjs from 11211

seth 158
when it's over. when one of them gets to 50% plus 1 delegates

Jun. 02 2008 03:50 PM
seth from Long Island

hgs,

To be blunt, I think we're past the point where the country can be saved. Assuming Obama is nominated, I regard my vote for him as playing out the string.

Jun. 02 2008 03:50 PM
eva

Seth,
"Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic says Hillary's speech tomorrow isn't a concession. Does anyone have a guess as to when Hillary has a come to Jesus moment and officially endorses Obama?"
Yes. After she thoroughly trashes Obama's chances for a November victory. We should never have elected these people. We should have voted for the saintly Paul Tsongas. Oh well.

Jun. 02 2008 03:48 PM
James from New York

eva # 157 above (& all the Hillary HATERS)....ok, ok, yes, yes, I concede she is EVIL.....VILE ... the VERY incarnation of all that is FOUL, CORRUPT & DEMONIC....

Sorry, just kidding ;) ....the Obama-supporter over-the-top rhetoric is yet another indicator to me of what his 'change' may be about & it gives me pause.

Jun. 02 2008 03:47 PM
hjs from 11211

talk of popular vote is a waste of time. because the process was so bad, different people could up with different numbers, none of which matter. it's about delegates, now it's about super delegates.

eva
but why should anyone concede until someone gets to 50% plus 1 delegates?

Jun. 02 2008 03:46 PM
eva

#149,
Leon,
whether or not I agree with you, nice rhyming "conceding prematurely sucks" with "Al Gore redux"

Jun. 02 2008 03:45 PM
seth from Long Island

Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic says Hillary's speech tomorrow isn't a concession. Does anyone have a guess as to when Hillary has a come to Jesus moment and officially endorses Obama?
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/clinton_aides_tomorrow_nights.php

Jun. 02 2008 03:43 PM
hjs from 11211

seth
if you're on the left you HRC BO and i have a lot in common, saving the country

Jun. 02 2008 03:39 PM
eva

#155, James,
Again, she's not ahead in the popular vote. And on almost every issue, HRC and Obama are so close in terms of liberalism, that it is, as you say, "laughable" to parse the tiny difference. The big difference is character. The big difference is polarization. Is it possible for you to acknowledge that former Clinton supporters like myself are "bitter" about how she abused her power? That we're disgusted with how Hillary ran her campaign? That if she'd conceded a month ago, she'd have a chance at a VP spot? That now she's childishly blown a lot of her chances?

Jun. 02 2008 03:38 PM
seth from Long Island

hjs 146,
At least we agree on something. Excluding Hillary, we might have other areas of agreement as well

mc 134,
I think prolonged exposure to the MSM has, to a certain degree, conditioned us to interract in this way. The MSM thrives on conflict. They rarely offer insight or analysis on candidate positions or on the shortcomings of our "democratic" system.

Jun. 02 2008 03:34 PM
James from New York

eva # 148 above - Well - I am not a Hillary supporter asserting that she should be the nominee based on any polling. You'll have to take that up with others.
My arguments on her behalf are based on the states she actually won during the primary season as most likely Democratic states in November, the fact that she prevailed in the over-all popular vote & would have done even more-so had the caucus states held primaries & the fact that she is less left-lieral in her politics, hence more electable nationally than Obama & closer to my own politics.

Jun. 02 2008 03:31 PM
hjs from 11211

eva, 153
agreed

Jun. 02 2008 03:31 PM
eva

#143,
The weird thing is the inability of the Clinton campaign or her supporters to acknowledge that their old friends and supporters and defenders have left them FOR A REASON.
That is, most Obama supporters are people who voted for Bill Clinton, and those in New York most likely have supported (and donated to) HRC's senate campaigns.
But the Clintons don't get it. They don't want to hear us. That's the problem with having power for too long. You become dissociated from the people who support you. Honestly? I don't believe Obama is incorruptible. It's human nature. I just pray that it takes longer for him to be corrupted than it took Bill, and that it's less extreme.

Jun. 02 2008 03:26 PM
hjs from 11211

eva 151
he does have good manners. too good!

Jun. 02 2008 03:22 PM
eva

#145, hjs,
No, I'm suggesting Obama has impeccable manners when dealing with someone who does not.

Jun. 02 2008 03:17 PM
seth from Long Island

Maybe this will put to rest the idea that Obama was given a free ride
"Character and the Primaries of 2008"
http://journalism.org/node/11266

Jun. 02 2008 03:17 PM
Leon Freilich from Park Slope

BERRA'S SIGNAL

Yes, Hillary may be behind

And far from being in clover

But think of Yogi's good sense--

"It ain't over till it's over."

HOLD ON, HILLARY

Conceding prematurely sucks.

No need to be Al Gore redux.

Jun. 02 2008 03:16 PM
eva

#144, James:
"And as to taking into account 'polls' about how voters might feel now in this or another state, that just seems on it's face too laughable to even warrant a response."
Okay, but when the polls are in HRC's favor, there's no end to the citations from HRC supporters. About this issue specifically, is it possible that you're in denial about how badly she's behaved on the campaign trail - to the extent where people who voted for her previously (ME?), and would have supported her previously, have become totally disgusted with her? Is that "laughable" to you? I wouldn't be laughing - I'd be asking HRC why she behaved so badly, planned so badly.

Jun. 02 2008 03:14 PM
Bill from New York

James: what's laughable? You nominate whom you think will be the most electable. If polls show waning support then you take that into account.

As for Michigan: so what about the DNC's missed opportunities or motives there: should the will of the voters be admitted or not? To insist that it is being as things stand is the hight of hypocrisy. Overturning the exclusion of the Michigan primaries overturns the cause for the removal of Obama's and Edwards' names from the ballot. Talk about delegate theft. Nothing short of a re-vote is the honest decision there.

Jun. 02 2008 03:13 PM
hjs from 11211

seth 125
agreed

Jun. 02 2008 03:10 PM
hjs from 11211

eva 120
so are you saying obama is lying?

Jun. 02 2008 03:08 PM
James from New York

Bill # 136 above: The reason why I think it is fair to include the votes in Michigan is because there was ample opportunity for the Democrats to arrange for re-votes after it was decided that the January primaries in Florida & Michigan would not count. It seems to me that re-votes were not scheduled becuase it was feared that they would result in an outcome that the DNC powers-that-be didn't want to risk. (in my calculations I allocate 75% of the uncommited in Michigan to Obama, which seems a fair number given how things stood AT THE TIME of voting in January).
And as to taking into account 'polls' about how voters might feel now in this or another state, that just seems on it's face too laughable to even warrant a response.

Jun. 02 2008 03:07 PM
Bill from New York

eva #137: I think the point you make kind of hoists Clinton by her own petard. Talk about unelectability: the distaste Obama supporters have for her would be a cakewalk next to what she would face once the red states marshaled around McCain.

McCain's nomination and Obama's near nomination mark the writing on the wall for the Bush/Clinton era. I don't buy the "Clinton's running for 2012 argument anymore." With more young voters aging into the franchise in the next four years she stands even less of a chance in 2012. This is her last and only chance. She's going for broke.

Jun. 02 2008 03:06 PM
eva

James,
As a non-baby boomer, I can tell you that the 1960's NEVER seemed "cool". I grew up with the detritus of the '60's and '70's, and the havoc those decades wrought in my home state are still visible. The 1990's weren't exactly halcyon days, either.
But let's be frank: Ted Kennedy is hardly a radical to be lumped in with SDS.
Here's to moving forward. Obama is a much better representation of the better part of the future of this country (global family and bi-racial but not mired in identity politics; elite credentials, but still committed to grass-roots organizing; still uncorrupted by, well, Clintonisms.)
But I promise you if the guy starts getting you-know-whats in the Oval Office and pontificating on the definition of "is" or invoking the RFK assassination, I will be the first to call for his ouster.

Jun. 02 2008 03:05 PM
hjs from 11211

eva
u misunderstood my question. i asked "did this pass veto proof?" i know what it is. but you bring it up often as one of clinton's 5 evils i thought i might be an expert on it.

Jun. 02 2008 03:04 PM
seth from Long Island

mc #134,

Too many of us find it easier to vent our spleens against candidates than at the DNC and RNC for providing us with a rotten nominating process and the Congress for maintaining a rotten general election process.

Jun. 02 2008 03:00 PM
Bill from New York

mc: you're coming from the position that Hillary isn't deserving of those attacks. Attacks on her candidacy (her positions) from her person (i.e., ad hominem) or on her person from her actions (i.e., well deserved)? Maybe the attacks are of a piece with the reasoned posts.

Jun. 02 2008 02:59 PM
James from New York

Kevin # 131 above - having lived through BOTH decades as an adult, I'd gladly re-run the divisions of the 1990s over the turmoil of the 1960s (which is how I see Obama & his close associates - Ted Kennedy, Rev. Wright, Pflage, SDSers etc). I'm sure to many of the 'young' (bless them), the 60s seem so "cool" & they'd prefer a return to them rather than to the 90s, but they were a time of more heat than light. However, I'd be happy to chuck all of this "back-to-the..." stuff & try going going forward for a 'real change'. Any takers?

Jun. 02 2008 02:57 PM
eva

mc, with all due respect, if you think your fellow Democrats, who voted for the Clintons on multiple occasions, and defended them almost to the death for over eight years, get too riled up about HRC, then just imagine what it would be like if she were the nominee and the Republicans could have at her again.
That's the reality. People dislike your candidate of choice, in this case it is in large part the fault of your candidate of choice. Not a sexist media, not a slippery opponent.
The other reality is that she started as the front-runner, and blew it. Repeatedly, thus alienating a large number of former supporters.
Again, I voted for the Clinton brand three times. HRC earned my opposition fair and square.

Jun. 02 2008 02:56 PM
Bill from New York

James #128:

Except that counting those votes in Michigan would be bogus, since undoing the ruling to exclude the results also means putting Obama's (and Edwards, who would have taken union votes from Clinton) names back on the ballot. There, Clinton's appeal to have voter's rights restored in Michigan does so at the expense of those candidates who, honoring the party's decision in the first place, removed their names from the ballot. There's no ethical way to spin this whatsoever. You don't think they would take this into account in the convention? What about the caucus states with no popular vote estimates? What about polls that show, as stated above, that were the California primary to be held again she would lose that state?

Jun. 02 2008 02:55 PM
seth from Long Island

Eva #129,

Speaking of the Marc Rich pardon:
"Fixers Indicated That Hillary Was a Key Player in the Marc Rich Pardon Deal"
http://www.counterpunch.com/stclair05292008.html

Jun. 02 2008 02:53 PM
mc from Brooklyn

Well, I step out the door for a little while and it goes nuts. I decided to do a thoroughly unscientific survey of nastiness on this forum. I counted only posts that looked to me like an attack rather than ones that looked like a disagreement on substance. It is highly subjective. There were some posts in favor of Obama (more were just anti-Hillary) and there were some anti-Obama. As of post #128 I counted 27 attacks on Hillary as opposed to 2 on Obama. Even though he's winning the nomination. Looks good for unity, folks.

Who's bitter now?

Jun. 02 2008 02:50 PM
seth from Long Island

Claire #130

Thanks for reminding everyone of Hillary's numerous cheap shot attacks.

Jun. 02 2008 02:49 PM
eva

#128,
If it goes to the convention and they suddenly choose Hillary it will be 1) highly unlikely (but never say never) and 2) a very stupid move.
Having said that, I don't think Obama is a slam dunk, either as the nominee or in November. But I can't vote for sleaze just because some people insist a black man can't win. People in my mixed-race family were VERY skeptical about Obama's chances, and we wanted to go with a sure shot - a white Southern male, because this election is so important. When Edwards dropped out, the next logical choice wasn't the ultra-polarizing Hillary. Sorry.

Jun. 02 2008 02:48 PM
kevin from new york

look, i the 90s were great for many of us financially. however, but this is 2008 and we have to look forward not backward.

the divisions of the 90s would honestly keep us from dealing w/ the massive issues of NOW and TOMORROW. that's why HRC & Bill were not the right choice this year.

Jun. 02 2008 02:46 PM
claire from new york

james #100

that's not trashing. that's the truth as many see it.

trashing is saying the mccain meets the commander in chief threshold but democrat doesn't. trashing is talking about "hard working americans, white americans" who will not vote for the black candidate. trashing is referencing RFK's assassination MULTIPLE times when there are better historical moments to make her argument. trashing is spinning the party as undemocratic and claiming voter disenfranchisement when the rules at the start of the contest were clear and you agreed to them. trashing is not saying that obama is not a muslim, but a devout christian, but instead saying "as far as i know".

Jun. 02 2008 02:45 PM
eva

hjs,
"eva we should change the pardon law. cause eveyone pardon on the way out. and who even hear of rich before the pardon? no one voted FOR the war, silly."
Uh, sorry, gotta disagree with you on both points. Rich's notoriety pre-pardon doesn't excuse the pardon. And a vote to authorize Bush to go to war was in this case very clearly a vote for the war.
Beside the points, but I seriously don't mind your name-calling. But it's kind of... silly? to claim that Obama supporters have hurt your feelings as a Clinton supporter? If you can dish it out, you're obliged to take it?

Jun. 02 2008 02:45 PM
James from New York

kevikevs # 124 above - "if it goes to the convention wont it be a bunch of delegates then overturning actual votes cast in party sanctioned primaries & caucuses"
If it goes to the convention & the 4,000+ delgates there choose the person who won the most popular votes then how does that 'overturn' actual votes cast. More than 37,000,000 people have voted in all of the primaries & caucuses since January. 2,300,000 people voted in Florida & Michigan (combined) alone. That is more than the 1,500,000 (estimated) who participated in ALL 14 of the caucus states combined! So if the delegates pick the person who won the most popular votes (which is Hillary Clinton by about 118,000 votes as of today), I don't see how the votes of the people have been overturned. And as to the complaints that some of the votes for Obama in the caucus states are not included in these totals because some of those states didn't count how many voted or for whom - well then isn't THAT good reason NOT to include such votes? Since when do we start guessing how many votes our candidate got & insist on including those guesses as votes?

Jun. 02 2008 02:42 PM
eva

hjs, in response to your question (you could have looked it up yourself, but I'm happy to assist in this case:
STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, Nov 12, 1999: Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry. America's consumers, our communities, and the economy will reap the benefits of this Act.

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/111299-presidential-statement-during-bill-signing.htm

Jun. 02 2008 02:34 PM
kevikevs from new york

did anyone else notice that harold ickes in the rant mentioned "affirmative action" a couple of times. wonder what that was about? hmmmmm...

and wasnt harold on the RBC when all FL & MI voters were disenfranchised initially? shameless.

Jun. 02 2008 02:31 PM
seth from Long Island

I wish the passion voiced by all of us today was matched by an equal passion to reform the idiotic presidential nominating process and gen election system. Whoever wins in Nov, we're still left with a nomination and gen election system that is a pseudo-democratic travesty and an insult to logic and common sense.

Jun. 02 2008 02:29 PM
kevikevs from new york

somthing i find amusing, HRC supportes go on about democracy and counting every vote, yet they seem to want to take it to the convention.

now, maybe i get this wrong, but if it goes to the convention wont it be a bunch of delegates then overturning actual votes cast in party sanctioned primaries & caucuses? wont we get a nominee chosen by 4000 or so delegates after close to 35 million cast votes? doesn't sound very democratic.

Jun. 02 2008 02:27 PM
eva

James, #121,
I agree with you on that left-right relativism, and I think that perspective is really important.
I actually think Hillary has done a commendable job of selling herself as a booze-swilling populist. I mean that as a high compliment, because it wasn't easy to pull off. But it was made easier by the fiasco of the last seven years. And if a Yale-educated WASP from New England can sell himself as a Texas wildcatter, well, anything is possible.

Jun. 02 2008 02:24 PM
hjs from 11211

eva
you always bring up repeal of Glass-Steagal. did this pass veto proof?

Jun. 02 2008 02:22 PM
James from New York

Seth # 114 above "If you think Hillary is left, you have a great imagination or a great sense of humor. I'm 39."
Most of red-state America thinks Hillary is far left. Left-right perception is "relative". When I'm in San Francisco or on the UWS in Manhattan many there think I'm fascist, when I'm in Dallas, I'm considered an obvious Bolshevik. Understandibly, to many of NPR's listeners who are indeed of a far or at least, distinctly left orientation, Hillary is not left. However, only a modest portion of the electorate in November will be NPR listeners, so choosing a nominee must involve trying to see their prospects in light of the national electorate's orientation.

Jun. 02 2008 02:20 PM
eva

#112, hjs, "obama did say clinton had "run an outstanding race"

Once, when a guy pulled a knife on me, I told him I knew he was probably a decent guy who didn't want to hurt me, and he could have my wallet, including my atm card, and whatever cash I had, just please let me go. That doesn't mean he was a decent guy, it just means I was obliged to say it because he was a thug.

Jun. 02 2008 02:19 PM
hjs from 11211

james
"too draconian" for me

Jun. 02 2008 02:17 PM
seth from Long Island

hgs,

I know Obama has an uphill battle, but Hillary has too much baggage and is far too dishonest to be President.

Jun. 02 2008 02:16 PM
hjs from 11211

seth 114
oh yes, but it's silly to focus on these missteps. i don't never rant about rev wright either, it's all a silly distraction.
the clintons sure aren't not on the right

Jun. 02 2008 02:15 PM
eva

#115,
Right, the war on crime was important. But I associate that with Giuliani, not Clinton.
And the Clinton Admin-approved repeal of Glass-Steagal was one of the biggest white-collar crime boons in history.
No repeal of Glass-Steagal, no subprime mess.
We'll be digging out of the mess of the last 7, 15, 19, and 27 years for a while now.
Gotta love the speculative bubbles while they last, and that was a BIG ONE.

Jun. 02 2008 02:14 PM
James from New York

MG # 107 above - "some would argue that Bill Clinton might have been the best REPUBLICAN president we've ever had. Please don't forget welfare reform which punished single mothers and let the fathers off the hook." Those of us more centrist-moderate Democrats supported Clinton PRECISELY bacause of some of the stands which you cited with apparent disapproval. Welfare reform was long-overdue & the reforms pushed through were a great improvement on the system that existed before - life-time welfare is indefensible for many of us who work for a living. (Though I surely agree that men who father illegitimate children & then take no responsibility for them get off too easy - in my book, forced sterilization for such men is not too draconian a measure - IF u care about the children they spawn.) And the war on crime & it's great success was also a Clinton achievement, which made all of us safer - particularly millions of poor people who were the main victims of the horrendous crime wave of the years before 1993 - when the declines began to accelerate.

Jun. 02 2008 02:08 PM
seth from Long Island

hjs,

Can you name anything Hillary did in this campaign that you dispprove of? I think Obama should have fought for a re-vote in FL and MI and I think his "bitter" comments were dumb and he should have apologized more quickly and forcefully. I disaagree with his position on nuclear power. Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, and Bernie Sanders are left. If you think Hillary is left, you have a great imagination or a great sense of humor. I'm 39.

Jun. 02 2008 02:08 PM
eva

James: True, Clinton, through a combination of tears, race-baiting, and dirty tricks managed to win some major primary states. But face the facts: here in California, she would not win again. He is ahead of her in the latest polls. And that is not Obama's fault, but Hillary's own incompetence. Every dirty trick she has played has hurt Obama, but has ultimately backfired on her. Wiley Coyote, she. And her decreasing popularity, and his rising popularity in states she won back in March, before she made a complete sniper-fire buffoon of herself, is an important reality that you're not facing.
With a bewildering number of small donors, Obama's fundraising is well ahead not just of HRC, but of McCain, who is having real problems in this area. Having suffered her as my senator for a few years, I know how polarizing she is, and I well remember the Clinton years. So, although I have no crystal ball, I thought Edwards, and then Obama, stood a more solid chance than HRC ever would.

Jun. 02 2008 02:07 PM
hjs from 11211

James
obama did say clinton had "run an outstanding race"

Jun. 02 2008 02:07 PM
James from New York

Eva # 104 above - are you wondering yet why this "grass-roots driven organization" with all the money it was able to muster on Obama's behalf faired so miserably in nearly all of the Democratic primaries held after the February 'caucus-blitzkrieg'? Clinton racked up 223,000 more votes than Obama did in March, winning Texas, Ohio & Rhode Island by comfortable margins, and then about 410,000 more votes in April & May, winning Pennsylvania, Kentucky & West Va. by equally comfortable margins - all in the face of being outspent by nearly 3 or 4 to 1!!! Does it make you wonder what's in store for November? Are you really thinking Obama is going to sweep all those red states, when he can't even get the majority of Democrats to vote for him in the major Democratic base states like California, NY, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania & Michigan despite all the money raised & spent on his behalf by these 'grass-roots'? Is he going to have the resources to battle on red-state turf (a la Howard Dean's 50 state crusade) when he's going to have to struggle so hard to muster enthusiasm in so many of the traditionally blue states? Is this plausible?

Jun. 02 2008 01:56 PM
hjs from 11211

with all your HRC bashing accepted, obama will have an uphill fight to say the least. sorry to say the number one issue is his race. this country is not ready to elect biracial obama.

Jun. 02 2008 01:51 PM
seth from Long Island

hjs,

Regarding your comment 101
Repub Bush criticized Repub Reagan.
Bush 41 never said Carter would be a better president than Reagan. This is different from Hillary saying McCain is better qualified than Obama to be president. Nice try.

Jun. 02 2008 01:46 PM
MG from Park Slope

#99 & #100

All criticism is not created equal. It is absolutely fair to campaign on the issues. To point out voting records and question a candidate's position on certain policies. However, suggesting that the candidate from the other party is better than the one you are running against is pretty sick.

I was a Clinton supporter too, but some would argue that Bill Clinton might have been the best REPUBLICAN president we've ever had. Please don't forget welfare reform which punished single mothers and let the fathers off the hook. NAFTA - the Republicans tried to get that through for 12 years before Clinton came along and pushed that through. Many working families suffered at the hands of the Clinton administration.

And if anyone is suggesting that we can't find any other suitable candidates after 20 years of Bush - Clinton - Bush, then maybe it's time to just give up all together....

Jun. 02 2008 01:44 PM
seth from Long Island

hjs

Hillary didn't fight hard, she fought dirty and dishonestly. She embraced the vast rt wing conspiracy and used race-baiting and fear-mongering to win votes. Hillary campaigned using the tactics of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater. Hillary has earned the animosity of Democratic party voters.

Jun. 02 2008 01:36 PM
eva

And let's not forget the big enchilada:
Vote for the war, and never admit it was a mistake?
NO PROBLEM!!!

Jun. 02 2008 01:34 PM
eva

No, hjs, the Clintons are not hated for their success, but because they famously play furiously fast and loose with the truth.
Because it's not a "third way"; it's their way. It never had anything to do with you. Repeal of Glass-Steagal during the Clinton administration? No problem! Pardoning of Marc Rich? No problem! Using the Oval Office as your personal love shack, then lying about it? Carpetbagging New York, then failing to provide any of the upstate jobs you promised? If you're a die-hard Clinton supporter, as I once was, no problem! But at a certain point, enough is enough.
James #100, Obama's campaign was never "predicated on the idea that Hillary Clinton was unable to "bring real change" because she was beholden to special interests & their lobbyists." It was about what a grass-roots driven organization could achieve. It was never ABOUT Hillary. Hillary just tried, in the usual Clinton style (she learned from the, uh, best) to make it about her campaign because she lives in a furiously self-referential world. For those of us who spent 8 years of the Clinton administration defending them, we say enough!

Jun. 02 2008 01:32 PM
seth from Long Island

hjs,

How old are you? Thx for snarky butter queen reference. Hillary gave McCain talking points by declaring Obama unready. She could have made the case for herself w/o using McCain. Hillary should have kept the debate between herself & Obama. Hillary ran a trashy campaign and her upcoming defeat is well deserved. If Hillary prefers McCain she should endorse him and show her true colors.

Jun. 02 2008 01:31 PM
hjs from 11211

james
right on the money
kennedy & obama represent the unelectable ultra liberal wing of the party. USA is not ready for a progressive modern left of center government. but after 4 or 8 years of mccain, if we survive, we will be. rock bottom folks. bill clintion's 3rd way has won. is that why the clintons are so hated?

Jun. 02 2008 01:26 PM
hjs from 11211

seth
ps bush 41 famously called Mr Reagan's ideas "voodoo economics" before he became vice-president of the United States.

just one example

Jun. 02 2008 01:18 PM
James from New York

Barack Obama's entire campaign has been predicated on the idea that Hillary Clinton was unable to "bring real change" because she was beholden to special interests & their lobbyists. If that isn't "trashing" then I'm not sure I know what is. The idea that Hillary or Bill Clinton have not served the interests of millions of ordinary Americans in the course of their lifetimes of commitment to progressive causes is DEEPLY offensive to many of us who support them. The Clinton administration was a Democratic Party success story - one of the only one's for nearly 40 years!!! The Party seems intent on walking away from that legacy, which is stupefying & nearly beyond belief. In any event, Obama is surely NOT blameless when it comes to "trashing" (& thereby weakening or undermining) a fellow Democrat. In this, he has been very much a good student of his colleague Sen. Ted Kennedy, who showed us all how it's done in 1980 with his 'brilliant' campaign against Carter in the face of the Reagan challenge!!!

Jun. 02 2008 01:14 PM
hjs from 11211

seth
how old are u?
primaries are about vetting the nominee, voters will ask about obamas experience in the fall. we weren't voting for butter queen, i was glad to see a good debate. if experience is going to be an issue in the fall obama than is finished. if the general election is going to be a left-right battle obama needs the support of HRC so why the bashing, by some, of her. because she fought hard? because she did not get a divorce when her husband cheated? because she didn't bow out when some wanted her to?

Jun. 02 2008 01:14 PM
seth from Long Island

hjs,

I'm glad BO can count on your vote. As the likely losing candidate, it's imperative that HC make a passionate, heartfelt appeal to her supporters to vote for BO. Of course, BO has to reach out to her supporters as well. I think 1 reason for strong negative views toward HC by BO supporters is when HC said she & McCain have a lifetime of experience and BO has 1 speech. Name me another case where 1 DEM candidate said the REPUB nominee was better qualified to be President than the likely DEM nominee. HC has nothing but contempt BH and considers him unworthy of being President. How can you expect his supporters to like her when she trashes him in this way?

Jun. 02 2008 01:02 PM
hjs from 11211

no open primaries but no independents should democratic primaries. if they want to vote in the democratic primaries they should be democrats

Jun. 02 2008 12:49 PM
James from New York

The idea that many of the caucus states didn't record the number of people who participated & for whom they voted makes it doubly undemocratic that delegates are selected by caucus. In future ALL delegates should be selected by popular vote in primaries open to Democrats & Independents ONLY - (allowing Registered Republicans to vote simply allows them to cause mischief). And to those who say that all of the states choose their own methods of delegate selection, the DNC can lay down the law by denying states which don't adhere to these basic rules any right to be at the convention. Let's finally stop the game playing & make the Democratic Party the Party of the People by making the popular vote the ultimate arbiter of power. Then we can address the electoral college issue & bring our voting systems into the 21st century. COUNT EVERY VOTE!!!

Jun. 02 2008 12:44 PM
hjs from 11211

seth
i've said many times i'm vote of the dem nominee. that's doesn't mean i think he'll win.
but i'm looking at the big picture i have a real fear of mccain and the same GOP faces around him that are selling this country to the highest bidder and moving us closer to right wing fundamentalism.
it's SAD that too many HRC/BHO supporters aren't willing to stand up for either candidate for the good of our country.

Jun. 02 2008 12:37 PM
hjs from 11211

seth
good that he did not as they are mostly irrelevant.

Jun. 02 2008 12:19 PM
seth from Long Island

hjs,

If Obama loses in Nov, he certainly deserves most of the blame but you can't deny that Hillary used every cheap shot against Obama. Obama never mentioned Clinton's pardon of Puerto Rican terrorists, Hillary's employment by a SF law firm where several partners were Communists, he never mentioned renting out of the Lincoln bedroom, or any other Clinton scandal.

Tom Hayden Details Clinton's 60s Past
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/27/former-radical-tom-hayden_n_98848.html

Jun. 02 2008 12:04 PM
eva

Bill, #87
Feminists DO have higher standards. That's why most of us are voting for Obama. You know, the guy who got there on his own, not by some Empress-Dowager-got-my-senate-seat-through-my-important-husband-former-president.
Sadly, Hillary was never a feminist choice. She was the entitlement choice, and as a single working woman, I felt completely insulted by being told HRC was a "feminist choice" and that her race was failing due to media sexism.
This race was supposed to be decided through caucuses AND primaries, and Obama strategized for that. Hillary sleepwalked through the campaign, and still has not woken up to reality. HJS, I'm sorry if that sounds mean, but the fact it, HRC has earned everyone's disgust.

Jun. 02 2008 11:49 AM
hjs from 11211

and i'm sure if BHO doesn't win for any reason HRC will be blamed for the loss...

Jun. 02 2008 11:47 AM
seth from Long Island

To Susan #81 and Maria #82,
I agree with both of you that Hillary is simply the flip side of George Bush. I'm glad to see i'm not the only one on this board who feels that way.

To Kevin #86
You're right on about Hillary. I'm convinced she wants Obama to lose in Nov so she can boast I told you so.

Jun. 02 2008 11:42 AM
Ms. Singer Epstein from Astoria Queens NYC

Voters should look at the "Four State Pledge" agreed to by the Dem primary candidates (posted at politico in August 2007). If politico or anyone else can post the SIGNED pledges, perhaps that would put an end to all this wiggling re Florida and Michigan. The last paragraph reads:

"THEREFORE, I ______, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC."

Here is the link to the complete text of the 2008 Campaign Four State Pledge.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0807/Dear_candidates_early_state_edition.html

Jun. 02 2008 11:32 AM
Bill from New York

"Well, i guess he can now, just a few weeks later, since his pastor and his church is now proven to be more than a nusance and an inconvenience. That's character for you."

It is character. His speech was wholly consistent with his foreign policy statements on Cuba and Iran: you don't predicate your relationship with any group, domestically or internationally, on alienating them; you don't make your enemies your enemies by naming them your enemies. But that doesn't mean that at some point enough's enough. Wright was coat-tailing on Obama to get media attention he didn't deserve and unfairly to Obama's detriment. Time to cut him loose.

And that's all you've got? Clinton supporters have no business talking about character. There's no ethical grounds for what she's pulling in Florida and especially in Michigan; her reference to the lateness of her husband's and Kennedy's primary campaigns was blatant distortion of the facts; she's a blatant race-baiter; she and many of her blindly vociferous supporters are gender-baiters (because people dislike her not for her sex but for the above); and if Obama had been caught in a lie on the level of sniper gate his run would be over, but like Bush's stupidity, Clinton's dishonesty has become such a given that it gets a pass. Ridiculous. Feminists should have higher standards. The soft bigotry of low expectations applied by women to women is a horrible perversion of ideals.

Jun. 02 2008 11:21 AM
kevin from new york

i think we all know HRC is making it more difficult for Obama to win the general election so she can run in 4 years.

how do you make yourself indispensable? create in your supporters the sense that you were cheated because of discrimination. (discrimination touches a raw nerve in everyone) do that while pushing the idea that your loss is a loss for all women. ... and then, offer yourself up as the only person who can placate your angry discriminated against voters. simple really, bring people down so that they lift you up as the saviour.

time for a person w/ character and dignity in the white house. enough smoke and mirrors on weapons of mass destruction, war, and who got the popular vote.

Jun. 02 2008 11:18 AM
Chris O from New York City

The people who decry how negative and nasty Clinton detractors (Obama supporters) are sound a lot like the right wing people who decry the Bush haters. First off, they are wrong. Secondly, they really miss the point: the actions, the rhetoric of these "leaders" that prompts such a negative reaction.

Jun. 02 2008 11:11 AM
MG from Park Slope

#80

The actions of Wright after the Race speech weren't just mere nuisance - he was showing nasty, narcissistic and truly insulting behavior that had nothing to do with pointing out America's horrendous history of suppression and brutality. Instead, his behavior was an expression of frustration and anger at the way he personally had been treated. He lost sight of betterment of the whole and became self-focused and bitter - divisive and hateful.

I am sure that Obama still has compassion for his former pastor, but no one should be expected or required to maintain a relationship with a person if the nature of their character changes so drastically.

Jun. 02 2008 11:08 AM
Claude Coleman Jr. from Ringoes, NJ

Regardless of which candidate you support, the attitudes and motives as displayed by Mr. & Mrs. Clintons have now exposed them as arrogant (I wonder how it must feel to lose to a “fairytale” Ouch.) self-interested, and opportunistic with an ignorant socio-political recklessness.

Shamefully, the propaganda forces pushing behind both campaign agendas has overshadowed the real problem – the dysfunctions of state and federal government. For the umpteenth time in modern American history, both parties come to fail together and screw up thousands of citizens’ rights.

It’s my hope that the Clintons figure out how to respectfully carry on their political futures, as well as help to repair the divisions resulting from a polarizing campaign – people hissing at the name of the first black candidate in our history, is the agenda of one person taken to the wrong extreme, and as it’s been said, is beneath the self-respect of Mr. & Mrs. Clinton both. It’s a shame

Jun. 02 2008 11:07 AM
Maria Weisbin from Manhattan, NYC

Hillary's "popular vote = Bush's WMD, that is, not there.
MTW in NYC

Jun. 02 2008 11:04 AM
susan from new york

HRC's constant distortion of the truth through propaganda and surrogates is akin to the Bush administrations distortion of the truth about the necessity of the war in Iraq.

The more i hear HRC in the primary campaign the more i can see her using the same crude and dishonest tactics to mislead the country into actions she deems "necessary".

and.. no one is pushing Hillary out. we're asking her not to destroy the party while she says in the race.

Jun. 02 2008 10:59 AM
jw from NYC

I distinctly remember that Mr. Obama said on his famous "race" speech that he can no more disown Rev. Wright than one can disown his/her mother, father, etc. because (the man is like family to him).
Well, i guess he can now, just a few weeks later, since his pastor and his church is now proven to be more than a nusance and an inconvenience. That's character for you.

Jun. 02 2008 10:56 AM
Chicago Listener

Posted by: Jesse CalifanoJune 02, 2008 - 10:42AM At the end of the 2008 Presidential election cycle- America's 'silent majority' will not elect a ½-term, liberal senator who has been a subscriber to 'liberation theology (whatever THAT is!!)

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

as to your larger point, the silent majority will hopefully act in their own best interests on issues like the war, the economy, choice for women, universal health care, and etc.

it will be interesting to see if obama's people can switch out the liberal tag for a progressive tag and then define "progressive" on their own terms.

fact is, mccain opposes universal health care as a "big government" program but he supports this senseless war which is being financed by bonds held by the chinese government.

i resent a guy who has government health care telling a single mom that she's not entitled to government health care and that should fight the insurance companies on her own, or the implication that she should have made better choices in life.

so we'll see whether or not the silent majority can be roused to vote in its own best interests.

Jun. 02 2008 10:56 AM
hjs from 11211

Clinton is fighting for the almost 49% of dem primary voters who still support her.

Jun. 02 2008 10:51 AM
Jesse Califano from NYC/Tampa

With the way the Clinton Campaign 'machine' feels- if I were Senator O-Ba-Ma... I would hire a 'food-taster'!!

An if by some nutty reasoning-
he allow Ms. Hillary to become his running mate for VP- remembering that 'politics ain't bean-bag'... I would hire TWO food-tasters!

Jun. 02 2008 10:50 AM
jw from NYC

I know there are a LOT of Obabma supporters out there, but why???? I fail to see his accomplishments, oh I forgot, he hasn't even finished his first job in the Senate yet but has spent most of time trying to get his second job (while on the clock). In every other job in the world, it is customary to expect the candidate to have proven him/herself with a litany of accomplishments, except to be the President of the United States, it would seem. I fully realize that he is an excellent orator but being accomplished at giving impressive speeches does not translate into being a good president! Just because one can give good speeches does not mean that he can take those words can put them into action. That is why it is important to see the actual accomplishments of the candidate.

Jun. 02 2008 10:49 AM
ab

#33

LOL, I totally agree. Clinton is a whiney little baby who thought she was entitled to this and now that she ran a lousy campaign and got her butt kicked she is basically blackmailing the democratic party by essentially saying that she will keep going and dividing the dems until she gets what she wants. How undignified, how selfish!

She's like the jealous psycho byfriend "If I can't have her(in this case the democratic nomination) then noone will. It's disgusting and if she were a republican carrying on like this then every one of her democrat supporters would be critisizing her actions. What a joke this is!

Welcome to at least 4 more years of a republican presidency!

Jun. 02 2008 10:44 AM
MG from Park Slope

#37

Your math is as bad as the Clinton's. Get over it. She ran a crappy campaign and should not be the democratic nominee. Why is everyone acting like such sore losers? Please, enough with the lunacy!! If the tables had been turned and Hilary had removed her name from MI ballot, the Clinton campaign would be screaming bloody murder if Obama wanted to seat delegates from that 'primary' - and rightly so. Any other argument is absolutely ridiculous.

I used to be a Clinton supporter but her actions as of late have been beyond the pale.

Jun. 02 2008 10:43 AM
Jesse Califano from NYC/Tampa

At the end of the 2008 Presidential election cycle- America's 'silent majority' will not elect a ½-term, liberal senator- who has been a subscriber to 'liberation theology (whatever THAT is!!) and in the bargain... -get his terminally irascible loudmouth wife at the First Lady!!

Again- what a joke! But unfortunately, this horrible 'joke' is on America!!

Jun. 02 2008 10:42 AM
BORED

@ Alex so you are saying you should count every vote for Hillary but not count the votes against her. Also Alice huffman made it clear what this whole thing is about. When asked by Wexler why did she vote to strip the two states of their superdelegates last year she responded by saying that there was no way of foreseeing what has happened. This is not about voting rights.

Jun. 02 2008 10:40 AM
Chicago Listener

...angry, tearful women? thanks, but no thanks.

i have to join in piling on hillary by pointing out that she has run an awful campaign and that that puts the lie to her claims of capability and leadership.

it's funny to see so many people on tv with their professionally made signs and their talking points.

also, mr. ickes on the sunday chat shows was a representation of politics at its worst. you couldn't get a straight answer out of the guy. news flash! that stonewalling, evasive, dishonest performance reflects back on the candidate.

Jun. 02 2008 10:38 AM
Eric from B'klyn

My problem w HC is I don't like the way she has run her campaign... I do not find her arguments persuasive. Her attempt to conflate the FL primary w the 2000 fiasco is incredibly and blatantly self serving. I though her expression emotional was genuine and sincere. As for her supporters' charges of sexism in the campaign, I agree it has been ugly and mean, but I wish she had taken the opportunity to address it head-on as Obama did with his 'racism-in-America' speech after the Wright comments, but that would have been risky politically. Her 'lets wait until June because you never know' and then mentioning the RFK sassassination in the next sentense was shocking. These actions and others convey the impression she feels entitled to the nomination for some reason.

Jun. 02 2008 10:36 AM
Maria Weisbin from Manhattan, NYC

RE: Clinton's primary logic: I was finally exasperated enough to send an email directly to Senator Clinton this morning. For what it's worth, here is the text of my letter:
Dear Senator Clinton,
I am a registered voter in the state of New York and have voted for you in the past. In this difficult and contentious primary season I have made the reluctant move from supporting you to supporting Senator Obama. Now your persistent claim to have won the Michigan primary -so cravenly unfair, bizarre, even - moves me to vow that I will not vote for you in any future election. I advise you not to let the very loud shouts of supporters standing nearby deafen you to the judgment of history. Our country has lost sons and daughters, and suffered immeasurable loss of prestige in the world because its current leader deafens himself to those who do not support his policies. In the later stages of this primary you are behaving the same way, with the same self-serving arrogance and frighteningly willful denial of facts on the ground. America cannot afford another leader like this. Please allow us, Democrats and independents, to move forward, united, now. This is clearly in your power to do, and it is your duty to your country to do it.

Jun. 02 2008 10:35 AM
Robbie

What do voters deserve? Voters, this nation, the world deserves the bes and this year that means a presidential leader like Obama.

Vote for whom you like. I'm voting Obama.

Like many, I was not originally an Obama supporter. (He was not know and everybody knew the Clintons) But I have come to see very clearly the caliber of Obama verses his political opponents. All politicians "tailor the truth" but as show in this campaign up to this very day the Clintons spit in your face and would have you believe it's rain.

Jun. 02 2008 10:34 AM
Barb from Shark River from Shark River Hills, NJ

If numbers of caucus voters were not counted, did the winner get all the delegates from that state? Thats not what happened in other states, where they were divided proportionally. If they were not counted, how could the proportion be determined???

Jun. 02 2008 10:34 AM
Alex from Brooklyn

RealClearPolitics.com has done an outrageous thing!

Suddenly, they are assigning all of the uncommitted votes from MI to Obama, as though the DNC decisions to give him the delegates means that they actually voted for him.

The delegates are supposed to be reflective of the votes. But now, the votes are being assigned as reflective of the delegates, even when those assignments ignore the existence of other candidates who were in the race (e.g Edwards).

Impute some of the those uncommitted voters to him. Impute most of them to him. Impute 3/4 to him. If you really think that he would have gotten 9 times as many votes as Edwards, impute 90% of them to Obama.

But unless you actually believe that Edwards and the others would not have gotten even 5% of those votes, you cannot impute all of those voters to Obama.

Jun. 02 2008 10:32 AM
Bobby G from east village

It seems to me that the Rules Committee made bad rules that could not be followed at least in FL where the Republicans controlled the process. Why should FL voters be penalized because of an impossible process created by the Rules Committee?

Jun. 02 2008 10:32 AM
Ayanna from Brooklyn, NY

Democrats all know what it feels like to be disappointed - even incredulous - that our candidate has lost. It does not feel good. Therefore, even though I am an Obama supporter, I do feel for Hillary's fans. However, Hillary has lost. We need to admit it, deal with it, and move on. I hope her supporters can manage to quickly get through the stages of grief, then turn their thoughts and energies to what is best for this country. I don't think McCain qualifies.

Jun. 02 2008 10:32 AM
hjs from 11211

gabby
or ask why do elites vote for obama?

Jun. 02 2008 10:32 AM
Jesse Califano from NYC/Tampa

This entire episode (FL/MI) reveals the duplicitous nature of the DNP- and their 'candidates'! These people are, (generally speaking) all self-absorbed with their own political self-importance!

In point of fact, these DNP people don't care a 'whit' for America vis-á-vis 'public service'!

What a joke the Democrat National Party has revealed itself to be! But again, it's unfortunate that the 'joke' is on America!

Remembering Senator McGovern's failed Presidential candidacy, Senator McCain is going to win in November and he is going to win big!!

Jun. 02 2008 10:31 AM
Tony from Brooklyn

I have an amazing idea. In an effort at objective fairness, let's try this: Let's make some rules BEFORE the election. For example, we'll allocated delegates based on votes in primaries and/or caucuses. The candidate with the most delegates will be declared the winner. This may sound overly simplistic, but it's worked before.
Let's also agree that changing the rules in the middle of the contest is disingenuous, undemocratic, and damaging to the party. Do the Patriots petition the league to be Super Bowl champions because they had more regular season wins?
Hillary went into this campaign and lost. She can stay in if she likes. She ran an atrocious campaign. Her attempts to redefine the results of the election are at best cynical. More likely it's an indication that her shameless narcissism and sense of entitlement is more important to her than the Democratic party.

Jun. 02 2008 10:31 AM
burtnor from upper west side

I'm disappointed that Brian is repeating the Clinton spin that has been percolating ad nauseum about "stolen delegates" when they were never hers. MI knowingly conducted an illegal "beauty contest" primary, which all candidates publicly acknowledged as meaningless PRIOR to the voting. Obama was not on the ballot. To say that Clinton "won" MI delegates is simply not true. Nor does she lead in the popular vote, which her campaign claimed at the start was not even important -- only the delegate count mattered.

Further, Obama had the votes on Saturday for splitting the MI delegates 50-50, but the Clinton camp refused to agree. He was gracious enough to go ANOTHER extra mile to solve the problem. Yet, Clinton is STILL aggrieved and complaining instead of applauding the more than fair, unity decision.

The entire fight is a divisive distracting spectacle manufactured by Clinton when what we should be focusing on is McCain and the serious issues the campaign faces. As a Democrat, I deeply resent being blackmailed by members of my own party so Clinton can feed her ego.

The primary season is over. Clinton lost. She should GET OFF THE STAGE.

Finally, it was not Dean who made the decision about FL and MI but the Rules Committee. Dean should be commended for waging a "50 state strategy" that has installed Democratic organizational infrastructure in every state. It will be extremely valuable to Democrats in November and for the future.

Jun. 02 2008 10:30 AM
Steven from Manhattan

Bye Bye Clinton staffers.

Jun. 02 2008 10:30 AM
Dan Kaplan from Chelsea

I haven't heard anyone mention that Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, and most of the others on the Michigan and Florida ballots, have endorsed Obama. Why wouldn't their votes then count for him? And I thought that they can give him their delegates as well?

Jun. 02 2008 10:30 AM
hjs from 11211

ch 50
it was actually the GOP lead state legislatures that caused this little issue in MI FL.

Jun. 02 2008 10:30 AM
a woman from manhattan

We want Clinton out because she's making this race ugly, that's why. We don't want a president with that kind of attitude, that's why. It's no longer a matter of her competence. She's embarrassing people she once could have counted as supporters. Like me. I cannot support someone who goes around saying, "I'm the winner, I'm the winner" when she's obviously not the winner, who wants to change the rules to suit her needs (and what if the show were on the other foot and she were in Obama's place? how would she feel about the rules then? eh?)

Clinton OUT. Goodbye Hillary. Nice try, but you made a mess of it and nobody likes you anymore except very stubborn, blinded people.

Jun. 02 2008 10:30 AM
susan from new york

Question - isnt not counting the 30,000 write-in's in MI "disenfranchising" those voters? doest 30,000 represent 5% of the total votes cast?

Comment - STOP TALKING ABOUT POPULAR VOTE! IT"S A CONTEST OF DELEGATES!

Jun. 02 2008 10:29 AM
anon from Queens

Imagine if all the candidates had know that MI would count (even at 1/2 strength) and stayed on the ballot. Chances are that John Edwards would have done well in a state with lots of union workers. Would we have ended up with 3 candidates still in the race in June?!?

Jun. 02 2008 10:29 AM
gabby from new york

To quote Jon Stewart: You are right - Causes should not count because only the people who care the most and are most informed go to causes. Or as Chris Mattews said - Why won't educated people vote for Clinton?

Jun. 02 2008 10:29 AM
vera from NY, NY

I think it’s totally not right to include Florida at all. Yes-- the argument can be made that those that voted should get their voices heard, but what about those that stayed home, because they were told their vote would not count?? What if they would have voted for Obama?? The math then would have been in his favor there…what about those voters’ right to be heard??

Jun. 02 2008 10:29 AM
ch from New York, NY

When will the Michigan and Florida DNCs acknowledge that they caused this whole debacle and take responsibility?

Jun. 02 2008 10:27 AM
Ted from NYC

Please do the math based on Cinton's contention that she has won the swing states and states that will normally vote for the democrat, like ours. Please leave out states that will not vote for any democrat.

Jun. 02 2008 10:27 AM
Kevin K.

The media hasn't been properly analyzing how small the "protest" outside of the meeting actually was. Organizers were promising 10,000 people and most news accounts said there were 500 people maximum in attendance. This is a very small (but loud) echo chamber. Do the reporters from Michigan or Florida see or here the outrage that was exhibited by the people at the poorly-attended "Count Every Vote" rally, many of whom didn't live in either state.

Jun. 02 2008 10:26 AM
Chris O from New York City

This caller is trying to add the math to get the popular vote: it is a joke. The Michigan vote did not count, the Florida vote did not count. More than a million people did not vote because they were told it would not count. Now you will turn around and play some fuzzy math.

The "leadership" from Hillary which leads to this kind of misunderstanding, this kind of manipulation of people is the last thing we need.

Jun. 02 2008 10:26 AM
hjs from 11211

Marna
what about which one would win in November?
who can win in the swing states?

Jun. 02 2008 10:26 AM
Vince from NJ

Why is there a P.R. primary when they cannot vote in a presidential election?

Jun. 02 2008 10:26 AM
Alex from Brooklyn


I understand that Obama ran a better, smarter campaign. If this was a matter of who deserves it, between Clinton and Obama, he deserves it.

But what about if look at what the VOTERS deserve? Isn't what the voters deserve more important than what the candidates deserve? And don't the voters deserve the the candidate that most of them supported, regardless of the machinations or complications of delegate calculations?

What do the VOTERS deserve? Why does anything else matter?

Jun. 02 2008 10:25 AM
Vivienne Lenk from Little Neck, NY

Why is everyone so quick to PUSH Clinton out of the race? It's clear that the country is divided (as it has been for years now) pretty evenly, so why not let it play out at the convention? That's fair and democratic.
Moreover, as a Hillary supporter, I am appalled at the favorable and encouraging press given always to Obama (even by public radio in many cases) and the drumbeat to push
Clinton out. Here's an idea: why not go through their ISSUES and see what the MAJOR
differences are, and THEN let the people decide who will get the better health care, or
vets' benefits, etc. etc.?

Jun. 02 2008 10:25 AM
RMCT from Westchester

Why the Obama campaign didn't give Hillary the delegates, and thereby deprive her of the right to go to credentials committee:

Psychological advantage; she'd have "won" a victory, even if on the basis of his gracious concession. He needed to look right and like a realistic, but tough politician; the campaign is looking ahead to November.

Jun. 02 2008 10:25 AM
hjs from 11211

Steven,
no one has lost until someone gets to 50% of the delegates, which BO has not yet reached

Jun. 02 2008 10:24 AM
Marna Garwood from Brooklyn

Even if you cnsider Clinton & Obama to be tied, the choice of a candidate should be made on who will be the better president (not the better candidate - after all Bush was the better candidate but an appalling president) Clearly based on the campaign, Obama will be the better president. Clinton has made bad strategy decisions and didn't correct them; she chose staff based on loyalty not competence; she's willing to run a scorched earth campaign regardless of the consequences.

Jun. 02 2008 10:23 AM
a woman from manhattan

Why should Hillary get "everything she wanted"? Obama is playing the game by the rules. If the rules were to be changed in the middle of the game now, we'd all look like fools, and Hillary would look like a petulant child who is being appeased. And she IS being petulant and ridiculous. She is such an embarrassment to me as a woman and a feminist right now, I cannot even begin to express how much. I really just wish she'd go away now.

Jun. 02 2008 10:23 AM
Alex from Brooklyn


Regular "pledged" delegates are not required to stick with their pledges. Is that also the case for the MI delegates?

Jun. 02 2008 10:23 AM
Alex from Brooklyn

I saw count every vote, and count every vote equally.

When you can't be sure, approximate as best you can.

So, when it comes to FL, count every vote.

When it comes to IA, NV, ME and WA, approximate it as best you can.

And when it comes to MI, count Clinton's votes. And assign most of the uncommitted to Obama. But imputing ALL of them to Obama is ridiculous. Some of those people wanted Edwards, who also took his name off the ballot. And not all Edwards supports have Obama as their second choice, even though Edwards has endorsed Obama. So, what's a fair number? 75% Let's say 75%. I think that that is high, but I'm willing to work with that number.

That would mean that Clinton is about 15,000.

The race is that tied. More than 35,000,000 votes cast, and she is ahead by 15,000 votes, as of today.

So, given a tie among the direct voters, the rules give the superdelegates enough clout to break a tie. The rules allow the superdelegates to correct any number of problems, including if the delegate count does not match the popular vote count. That's not breaking the rules, that's part of the rules.

Jun. 02 2008 10:22 AM
Judith from New York/London

Much as I would like to see a woman as President, Hillary's fuzzy math ( in her own interest) only underlines her 'politics as usual- it's all about her election' stance.

If PR can't vote in November why include their popular vote in the total?

As a resident alien I shudder at this idea of the USA model of democracy worthy of being exported to the rest of the world, as the superior to anyone other society.

Jun. 02 2008 10:21 AM
RMCT from Westchester

Correction re Michigan:

The Obama "votes" in MI have been reconstructed from votes for uncommitted delegates. Clinton claims that those votes don't count. She is disingenous in asserting that the votes were not for Obama.

Jun. 02 2008 10:20 AM
hjs from 11211

well, they should have had a 2nd primary but no one wanted to pay for that. if they would have they would have saved this headache

Jun. 02 2008 10:20 AM
Steven from Manhattan

Blame Dean, Blame the rules, Blame the DNC, Blame anyone except the petulant, sore loser who ran a lousy campaign.

Jun. 02 2008 10:20 AM
Chris O from New York City

#21 Albert makes the key and overlooked point: every voter in MI and FL was under the impression that the primaries did not count. Hundreds of thousands of people at minimum DID NOT VOTE because the elections were not going to be counted. Then you turn around and count them? Or try to without acknowledging this huge issue?!

Jun. 02 2008 10:20 AM
EGB from Brooklyn, New York

That Puerto Rico speech is just astounding. With that ridiculous representation about the popular vote Clinton really makes clear that she doesn't respect the people that voted for Obama.

Jun. 02 2008 10:19 AM
Michael from Brooklyn

Election rules do not serve guarantee the ideal candidate gets elected, they provide a set of rules, understood and accepted by all candidates, that clarify what the candidates need to do in order to win.

Even if Sen. Clinton's dubious claim to have 'won the popular vote' or 'have momentum' is taken uncritically, for the party or superdelegates to invalidate the existing delegate selection process at this point is absurd. I voted for her in the New York primary, and would be happy to have her as President. But she has lost the primary contest. Maybe the Democratic Party primary process is flawed, but the time to fix it is after the convention, not when the contest is reaching its conclusion with a clear winner under the existing rules.

Jun. 02 2008 10:19 AM
John from Brooklyn

The Democratic nomination race is a race for delegates. Period.

Also: There is no such thing as "the popular vote" in a nominating season that includes primaries, caucus, open contests, closed contests -- i.e., there is no way to line up all of these ways of casting votes in such a way as to make a fair metric.

Moreover -- unlike the general election, which is held on one day -- nominating contests are conducted over time.

In this case, 5 months of time -- enough time for the popular will itself to shift.

Clearly, Clinton's institutional backing and name recognition was an enormous benefit to her in the early contests.

But recent polls in New Jersey and California show that Obama -- who lost those states to Clinton by 10 and 8 points, respectively -- now is preferred to Clinton by 7 and 6 points, respectively.

This suggests that, if the contests in New Jersey and California -- and, presumably, elsewhere -- were run again today, Obama would receive more votes and, very likely, more delegates.

This dynamic of shifting voter preferences -- i.e., the fact that the popular vote is a moving target -- would have applied, even if every single contest had been run as a primary of the same kind (closed or open).

Jun. 02 2008 10:19 AM
Robbie

Amazing! How perfectly deceitful that delegates were STOLEN? By rights, without both names on the ballot, MI cannot even being considered a contest. In fact, Obama had the DNC votes to have had the MI delegate count split 50-50 - but graciously did not. Just amazing that Clinton would even make such an argument votes were taken from her. Obama was nowhere a few years ago and has run a perfectly masterful campaign indicative of his leadership. Compare that against the Clinton campaign.

Jun. 02 2008 10:18 AM
RMCT from Westchester

Brian is right. According to CNN, if the Obama votes in MI are counted and approximations are made for the caucus states, Obama leads in the popular votes. That's without S.D. and Montana, the states that vote tomorrow.

Jun. 02 2008 10:18 AM
Erin from Manhattan

It was an important strategic move not to concede the 4 Michigan delegates to Clinton. This makes the next argument about the 4 delegates, not the full 73-0. Give them a hand and they'll take an arm, as we've seen.

Jun. 02 2008 10:18 AM
susan from new york

why dont we call a spade a spade...

- hillary has lost because she ran an awful campaign, and was inconsistent w/ her message. NOT because she is a woman. she is exploiting the REAL sexism many women experience so that she can gain the nomination through the back door.

- hillary making this a 'civil rights issue' is shocking and trivializes the various civil rights fought for by women, and minorities.

Jun. 02 2008 10:18 AM
Bill from New York

I can't believe what's going on in Michigan: what Hilary is doing is asking that the decision to exclude the Michigan primary be retroactively overturned in order to undo its effects--namely, the exclusion of the Michigan primary votes. But the other candidates' taking their names off of the ballot (and Obama wasn't the only one to do this out of deference to the decision) is among those effects and should also be undone. She can't have it both ways. And she certainly can't claim to be the champion of otherwise silenced voters. The only legitimate solution in Michigan is to hold a new primary. Who's going to pay for that?

Jun. 02 2008 10:17 AM
Chris O from New York City

This has nothing to do with Dean, he is not the Commissar, just the head of the DNC, a referee, really.

Clinton's approach to the FL and MI primaries if very revolting, it is very much spin, it is very manipulative, it is driven by arguments devised by never-resting $500/hour attorneys. It is devoid of fairness and common sense. It has turned me off completely from her as I've tried to be nice.

Another note, I saw a C-SPAN interview of Hillary from 1996 and she was awesome. That is who I would not mind being President, not the crass politician who filled her later shoes.

Jun. 02 2008 10:17 AM
Marco from Manhattan

Ickes' vulgar and petulant behavior was embarassing. He typifies what many people find so distasteful about the Clintons and their acolytes.

Jun. 02 2008 10:16 AM
Tony from San Jose, CA

Let's just imagine that every vote but in MI and FL had been the same. Would senator Clinton be petitionning the DNC to count them all and not
"disenfranchise the voters."

Jun. 02 2008 10:16 AM
Albert from Greenwich, CT

If New York had moved up the primary to be threatened with the same predicament as MI & FL, I would not have bothered to go vote. I am sure many people in MI & FL felt the same way, so how valid are those primary results anyway. How can Sen. Clinton honestly say that no one in MI would have voted for Obama, had his name been on the ballot? As far as I know, it is not illegal to take your name off a ballot, so why does he need to be punished. Obviously, the Rules & Bylaws Committee exits to clean up these types of messes (even though they are partially to blame). I am glad that these two states were not completely disenfranchised, but rules are rules, they had to be punished in some way.

Jun. 02 2008 10:16 AM
RMCT from Westchester

It's Clinton, not Obama, whose behavior is reminiscent of Florida in 2000. The DNC attempted to correct the effects of an undercount caused by its own defective edict, which resulted in a ballot that did not list all candidates and a suppressed voter turnout, with many voters, particularly Obama supporters whose candidate was not on the ballot, not turning out.

Clinton has tried every trick she, Wolfson and Ickes could contrive to prevent that retabulation. It's she who does not want to count the votes.

Jun. 02 2008 10:14 AM
hjs from 11211

11
votes could change on both sides

Jun. 02 2008 10:13 AM
Jackie from Brooklyn

What about all the delegates for Edwards? Now that Edwards supports Obama, will Obama get some of those delegates?

Jun. 02 2008 10:12 AM
steve miller from staten island

plz also mention that voters in PR don't vote in the actual election. Her mandate there is equivalent to a mandate from, say, the French or even penguins.

And where does Lani Guinier get off saying Clinton is the better national candidate? She's incredibly divisive among Democrats, more so nationally.

Jun. 02 2008 10:12 AM
Alex from Brooklyn

Brian, I think that you got the popular vote count wrong. Clinton leads in the popular vote with FL,MI and 4 caucus state estimates plus all uncommitted in MI going to Obama.

She leads by over 65,000 votes. The other caucus states do not have popular vote estimates.

Jun. 02 2008 10:12 AM
BORED

Why is Clinton allowed to just make up things. I find it funny that no one challenges these comments and that her supporters actually repeat this stuff.

Jun. 02 2008 10:11 AM
Steve from NYC

Clinton uses her own math for the popular vote. She's lying...as usual.

Here is the popluar vote - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Jun. 02 2008 10:10 AM
a woman from manhattan

I think what Hillary is not taking into account is all the people who have changed their minds since she began! She'd have had my vote if she hadn't made a fool of herself and shown herself to be so ungracious and mean. I was disgusted with her long ago.

Maybe a lot of people who originally voted for her have changed their minds, too!

Obama has my vote now.

Jun. 02 2008 10:09 AM
hjs from 11211

there was never a doubt that MI/FL would be seated makes me think no one should have taken their name off the ballot, though.

we should have regional or national primaries. no more caucuses.

the super delegates should do their job now and support one of the candidates.

Jun. 02 2008 10:07 AM
mc from Brooklyn

How about Donna Brazile for DNC leader?

This is the wrong gig for Dean. He has strenths in other areas. This isn't one of them.

Jun. 02 2008 09:55 AM
Leon Freilich from Park Slope

DEM. MATES

Women demand

And will not stop--

Hillary has

To be on top.

Jun. 02 2008 09:55 AM
Mike from Bellport

It's true. The big mistake was trying to "punish" voters in these two states because their leaders moved the primary dates. Who cares when they vote? And why punish voters? What did they do? It was a huge, dumb thing to do.

The second mistake was then going back on their word. If you say you're not going to seat the delegates, then don't seat them! They laid out the rules back then. You can't change them now. Now they've opened the door for controversy.

Jun. 02 2008 09:45 AM
seth from Long Island

I 2nd hjs: Dean's leadership was zero. I wouldn't hire Dean to run a lemonade stand. To me, #1 culprit in FL/MI fiasco are Iowa and NH. Their fanatical insistence on voting before the other 48 states, forces those states to play musical chairs by changing their voting dates every 4 years. Do Iowa and NH have nuclear weapons with which to threaten the DNC and RNC? The DNC and RNC need to give a WWE smackdown to Iowa and NH and smash their strangehold over the primary calendar.

Jun. 02 2008 09:34 AM
mc from Brooklyn

Questions for the Obama campaign:

It looks as though the Clinton campaign is considering taking this to the credentials committee, thus putting off a resolution while she continues to use the popular vote argument with superdelegates. They think they have a case for the committee.

It looks as though if the decision had gone totally her way on Saturday that Obama still would have been closer to clinching than she. She would still have made the popular vote argument but would have been robbed of the issue to take to the credentials committee and he would have been able to go to the superdelegates and brag about how magnanimous he was. Why didn't they do that? It seems to me that it could have been the ultimate jujisu move.

Jun. 02 2008 09:25 AM
mc from Brooklyn

seth,

I agree wholeheartedly. This seems needlessly divisive and complicated.

Jun. 02 2008 09:20 AM
hjs from 11211

i have to blame dean for bad leadership. this should have been handled better from the start. dean used the same solution as the GOP, EXCEPT he waited until the 11th hour

Jun. 02 2008 09:01 AM
seth from Long Island

The DNC needs to overhaul the presidential nominating process to avoid another FL/MI mess. The delegate system should be completely abolished. The party nominee should be the candidate receiving the most popular votes. To make vote counting easier, all states and territories should vote by primary. Voting by caucuses should be abolished. A handful of NH and IA politicians can’t be allowed to hijack and screw-up the voting calendar for 48 states every 4 years until the end of time. To end the IA/NH reign of terror, a rotating regional primary calendar should be devised. For the general election, the electoral college should be abolished and the presidency should be given to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

Jun. 02 2008 08:51 AM
mc from Brooklyn

Questions for your guests:
1) There was a large bloc of delegates in MI that were officially "uncommitted." Are those same individuals now compelled to vote for Obama at the convention or have they been replaced by Obama delegates? What happens to the delegates won by the other two Democrats on the MI ballot?

2) All of the Democrats were on the FL ballot. What happens to the delegates that were pledged to candidates other than Clinton or Obama? Are they free to vote as they please? Might this change the eventual delegate count from FL, however minimally?

Jun. 02 2008 08:47 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.