An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes, Finally)

(Note:  This was originally posted at DailyKos earlier today.  The responses were overwhelming, and overwhelmingly positive.  And thoughtful, in unexpected ways.  I've been asked to share it with the MyDD community, so here it is.)

Okay.

I'm ready.

I'm not taking the Hillary sticker off my car.  Not until she's officially out (and even then, you know, fuck it, I just might leave it there.  'Cause I'm still damned proud of the day I went to my caucus and voted for Hillary Clinton for president.)

But I'm ready to say it.  I'm ready to go there.  

I'm ready to vote for Obama.

Yesterday started like any regular day.  Democracy Now! in the morning.  (I found that show very shortly after 9/11, and it was the relief I needed from the drumbeats for war.  I have not stopped listening since.)

Then I shuffled down the hall to my office, since I work at home, and in between working, and playing with my cats (typical blogger, of course), I read the news, the blogs, more news, more blogs, blogs, blogs...

And then I read this great diary by Deoliver47.

I highly recommend it.

Deoliver47 wanted to know Does the D in MyDD stand for Dixiecrat?

And this simple question -- which was not even really the subject of the diary, as the diary addressed, very eloquently, matters of race and the history of the Dixiecrats -- was the moment things started to change for me.

Because it was the first time that I saw myself, an HRC supporter, through the eyes of the Obama supporters.

In the comments there followed a discussion of MyDD and other seemingly pro-Hillary sites.  And the "civil war" between the different 'bots.  (And no, I do not condone name-calling from either side.)

There was a lot of blustering.  But there were a lot of questions, real questions.  You really didn't understand us.  But a lot of you wanted to try to understand.  And better yet, to try to reach out.  

And so I saw comments like this:

Here at DKos, it seems to me that I see a renewed effort to keep the discourse on point.

And this:

I started to delete it before i posted it but i had the whole righteous indignation thing going ... sometimes we get emotional and can't let go... even if it would be for our own good.

And this:

I find myself heading over every day or so to see what's being said. I'll often substitute the word "Obama" for "Hillary" in a diary as a way to hold up a mirror to my own thoughts. Could that be me saying those things if my candidate was losing? ...if I felt backed into a corner?...if I thought the dream was slipping away and I had no power to stop it from happening?

And this:

Have I been guilty of doing what I deplore in the other side?  I've been angry enough...

And this:

I won't excuse the behavior and statements made on MyDD, but the hardcore Obama supporters on DKos can be just as bad.  I used to wonder how Republicans could be so blinded by party loyalty that they could still support Bush after all he's done, but the Obama hero worship around here has convinced me that it could easily happen for Democrats as well.  

And this:

I have been stunned with what I have read over there.

And so I tried to explain myself.  I do not dare to speak for other HRC supporters; I certainly do not want to be lumped in with the worst ones.  But I responded:

This HRC supporter isn't hiding.

First, thank you for your diary.

Second, let me try to answer the question posed about what is going on with MyDD (et al.)

The vitriol against HRC on this site -- and others -- has steadily increased for quite some time.  It's been difficult to have reasonable conversations about the candidates without it rapidly turning into flame wars.

Then there was Alegre's "strike", and a lot of Obama supporters took delight in that.  A comment in defense of HRC was often met with snide remarks like "Aren't you supposed to be striking?" and "Scab!"

Tempers are high all around.  I think a lot of the anti-Obama attitude is more about responding to Obama supporters than to Obama himself.  

It's the meta about the meta about the meta...and it's all pretty stupid.

There are some non-strikers.  I am among them.  But then, I've also come to accept that Obama will be the nominee.  I may not be happy about it, but I'm not going to reject reality just because it's not my first choice.

But I also understand the frustration of my fellow HRC supporters.  They are ridiculed, teased, insulted, chased away...And what might have started as genuine admiration for their preferred candidate has now turned into pure stubborness.  

They don't want to concede to you, the pro-Obama blogosphere.  That's sad, but I think that's what happening here.

I have conceded, in as much as I have accepted that HRC is not going to be the nominee.  That doesn't mean I'll stop defending her when I think it is justified, or that I will stop asking questions about Obama that I think are warranted.

But we are not all as bad as the worst of us.

We are not all as bad as the worst of us.

That is the point, isn't it?  We -- the activisits, the bloggers, the ones who spent hours upon hours at caucuses, who donated money we couldn't afford -- we've become so personally invested in the outcome of this race.  And it is personal.  I'm a woman who, for the first time, could actually see a woman in the White House.  You're damn right it's personal.

But I also know that when I went to my caucus in February, and I watched two very old black men sitting together, smiling, beaming, I choked up because I imagined -- and could appreciate -- they probably felt the way I did.

Of course it's more than that.  It's not just because either candidate is or isn't anything.  Black, female, old, new.  

Let's face it:  If we're here, in this virtual community where we sit around like a bunch of geeks talking about minute details because that's what gets us off, so to speak, then we're probably better read and more informed than the general public.  

We would not otherwise be here every day, fighting over every single word, digging up links, quoting laws and speeches, would we?

Now, two weeks ago I wrote a diary in which I conceded that Hillary would not get the nomination.  I called it A Moment of Silence for the Clinton Campaign.  

I acknowledged that Obama would be the nominee.  And I asked:

Please celebrate your victory with graciousness.  Please understand that for some of us, for many of us, there is a great sadness in realizing that Hillary Clinton will not be our nominee.  She will not be our president.

And I explained that I, at least, and probably other Hillary supporters, do need a moment (or a week or a month) of mourning our loss.  It is a loss for us.  As I'm sure many of you would feel if Obama did not win the nomination.

But I also tried to end on a high note:


I believe the party will come together again.  This country is amazingly resillient, and if we can unite after a long, deadly, bloody Civil War, we can certainly unite after a contentious primary battle.  

But as you celebrate, as you dance on her grave, as you post your diaries of triumph, try to have a little respect for those of us who consider this a loss and a disappointment.

No matter how much hatred you have of Hillary, her campaign, her supporters, and yes, even her husband, it is important to try to be gracious winners.  

I think even Obama himself would agree with that.

Since then, I have seen a change.  It is starting to happen.  Sure, there is vitriol still out there.  There always will be.  But I think, as Hillary supporters start to come to terms with reality, Obama supporters also are coming to terms with reality:

We need each other.

In past weeks, when anyone dares to express a "concern" about Obama, they were typically labeled as "concern trolls."  Or directed to Obama's website.  

But something different happened last night in this conversation.  A commenter actually invited me to explain my concerns:  

If you don't feel that posting your concerns here will be constructive or might result in you getting unnecessarily attacked, maybe you can ask someone like barath, or myself, if you can send us an email with your concerns and we can have a spirited, and hopefully enlightening discussion that way...We're not all vicious. :)

No "fuck off, troll."  An actual invitation to discuss differences.

And so I did (and fully welcome additional responses in the comments here):

My main concern about Obama has nothing to do with domestic or foreign policy differences, or any of the dumb little "gaffes" of the primary season.

What I'm uncomfortable with is, strangely, the very thing that I understand holds so much appeal for so many people.  

Simply, it is his talk of moving beyond partisanship, reaching out across the aisle, working together, compromising, finding common ground, et cetera.

I can appreciate that sentiment.  I think it's noble.  It's idealistic.  It's very Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (which is a movie I love, by the way).

But...

I don't want to compromise.  I don't want to find common ground with the same people who think intelligent design is as legitimate a theory as evolution.

I don't want to come together with the people who think it's okay for pharmacists to refuse to do their jobs because contraception violates their "morals."

It's contentious of me, I know, but I don't want to get along with those people.  I don't want to compromise with them.

They are wrong.  Plain and simple.

And I haven't heard Obama explain how it is possible.

Politics is partisan business.  It's been ugly for most of my lifetime.  The persecution of the Clintons was wretched, and the Republican rule during the Bush years has been no better.

But that doesn't mean I don't want a president in the White House who will say, "On science, there is no compromise.  Take your Intelligent Design bullshit and shove it."

So I don't see how this unifying, post-partisanship thing works.  And I'm not sure it's even what I want.  Would I hate Karl Rove if he were fighting on my side?  I don't know.

Do you know what happened?

There was no hate.  There was no vitriol.  Instead, I received real, thoughtful, kind responses, especially from Bandaloo, Chumley, GMFORD, Dapremonster, and fumie, who even said my concerns were "legitimate."

They acknowledged my concerns.  Validated them, even.  And tried to help me understand them.  (Again, I invite more contributions on this subject in the comments below.)

What a difference.

What a relief.

We are coming together.

The final step, for me, was this morning.  I read kid oakland's diary on the rec list about his experience at the California Democratic Convention.

And kid oakland knows it too.

We are not all as bad as the worst of us.

And we are going to come together.

And we will put the animosity, the anger, and divisiveness behind us.  

We're not Republicans, for crying out loud.  We don't carry 30-year grudges.

We MoveOn.

So here I am, finally, finally able to express my concerns about Obama, have my peace and quiet to mourn the loss of possibility that I saw in Hillary, and have intelligent conversations with people with whom I do not agree without it getting ugly.  (And we've all seen how ugly it can get around here.)

So.

I'm voting for Obama in November.  I'm not drinking Kool Aid just yet, but if you'll keep being patient with me, I just might help myself to a cup before too long.

Note:  In the comments at DailyKos, eclecticbrotha recognized that having an anti-Hillary sig line (or anti-Obama sig line) was not conducive to the Great Make Up of 2008.  And he/she changed it on the spot.  Others have followed suit.  I thank eclecticbrotha for leading the way.  And if you agree with what I've said, I ask that you to do the same.  If your sig line is an anti-Democratic candidate sig, change it.  Make it about McCain.  Make it something positive about your preferred candidate.  Time to stop bickering, start healing, and get ready to win in November.



Display:


Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 26)

I know I'm talking to a different audience here, but the conversation at DailyKos was pretty great and respectful, so let's at least try to be as civil as they were.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:03:37 PM EST

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 5)

I read it over there first....and was impressed by the comments/discussion it prompted.

I voted for Edwards....but, will be proud to vote for Obama or Hillary come November. Both are WORLDS better than McCain.

Good On Ya!


by Kysen on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:10:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 1)

Really agree.  One thing that has really gotten lost in all this is how radical McCain is, how in so many ways he's much crazier than Bush.  He makes soothing noises on campaign finance, but doesn't even follow the laws he wrote.  And then on the big issues, war and the economy, he wants to go further in the Bushian direction than Bush did.  

So let Sen. Clinton campaign as long as she would like, but I like the new trend of both campaigns focusing on who can hit John McCain harder.  And don't say "I will be a better candidate against McCain" SHOW US that's the case by going after him.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:30:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 3)

I don't know if I will be able to vote for Obama if he's the nominee.  But I do know that I don't have to make that decision now or even soon.  Primaries are for falling in love.  Falling in line comes later.  There's plenty of time to find unity after Denver, for either side.  The loser will be working for that too, remember, and I hear he's really inspirational.
***A

by adrienne4dean on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:16:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 3)

Primaries are for falling in love.  Falling in line comes later.

I really like that way of putting it. That's certainly how I felt in '04 when Dean went down.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:05:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (1.75 / 4)

but the conversation at DailyKos was pretty great and respectful

- Really ?


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 6)

Really.

In fact, a lot of ardent Obama supporters even went so far as to apologize for some of their own over-the-top comments and tone.

If you're not one of the strikers, I highly suggest checking it out, just to read the comments.

It reminded me of why I started reading DKos in the first place.  


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 3)

That's good to hear.

You wrote an outstanding diary. Thank you.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Come to Obama (1.42 / 7)

I was wondering, do you people baptize by immersion, or is pouring water over the forehead sufficient?


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can't beat a "Come to Obama" (2.00 / 6)

moment to make the wreck list at the place that connot be named.  Reminds me of old time revival meetings where the sinners are celebrated once they've seen the light.  


by Tolstoy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:13:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I totally understand your sentiment. (2.00 / 1)

But the conversation that took place today was really not about Obama as messiah.  People were actually addressing the concerns I described about Obama, and even admitting to their own concerns about him.

(And no one was called a concern troll.)

And a lot of people apologized for their own bad behavior.

And a lot of people acknowledged that it is time to step back from the hate and reach out to the other half -- whoever that is.

It was the kind of conversation I think anyone -- even the most strident HRC supporter -- would be proud of.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:32:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Speaking of apologies (2.00 / 2)

I'm inclined to agree with Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft:

Kid Oakland does not care about voters or disenfranchising them, unless of course they give him an excuse to make up a story in order to criticize Hillary Clinton.

Now he wants to self appoint himself the conciliator. When he apologizes for his dishonest blogging, I might start listening to him.

As of now, he is the LAST blogger who should be involved in any reconciliation discussions. --Big Tent Democrat

http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2008/3/ 23/124058/229/188#188


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Speaking of apologies (none / 0)

Have you ever read Kid Oakland?  I think not.


by Tunk on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:14:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have read Kid Oakland (2.00 / 1)

and I'd better leave it at that.


by OtherLisa on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:26:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have read Kid Oakland (none / 0)

Have you ever been to Oakland? CA that is?


by Tunk on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:20:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you know Armando (2.00 / 1)

(Big Tent Democrat)'s reputation?  Self-avowed online asshole.  Likes to snipe at everyone.  Though he does know his legal stuff.


by corph on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:55:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I totally understand your sentiment. (2.00 / 4)

I think the comments above have a lot to do with your choice of title -- the "Comes to Obama" phrase.  It sort of plays into the messianic thing, no?

One other thing, while I appreciate your diary and I did read it at dkos, was heartened by many of the comments, etc. it might be useful to try the visualization/substitution technique again with this diary while asking this community (in your first comment) to

the conversation at DailyKos was pretty great and respectful, so let's at least try to be as civil as they were.

I appreciate what you're saying and while I don't think you intended to come across as condescending, I did find it to be such.  Imagine if you were writing a "An Obama Supporter (Finally) Comes to Hillary (Yes Finally)" diary on dkos.  What kind of reception do you think you would have gotten?  Now, when you come here with your "Comes to Obama" diary, take note of the responses you get here, and then tell me that you're getting a less civil reaction here.  Let's be fair and honest here.  "Let's at least try to be as civil as they were?"  Argh.


by joanneleon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:10:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes... (2.00 / 4)

The "Come to Obama" phrase personally really creeps me out, and these sorts of sentiments were one of the things that turned me off Obama way back when.

I'm still singing Dixie Chicks and Drive-By Truckers when it comes to the Orange Place, I'm afraid, and actually, when it comes to the Obama movement in general. My feeling is, some of these Obama supporters who went too far finally realize that they might actually need Clinton people to elect their candidate.


by OtherLisa on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:16:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are totally right. (none / 0)

Thank you for pointing it out.  I'm editing the diary right now.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:28:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are totally right. (none / 0)

Damn.  It was in the comment, not the diary.

My apologies that I cannot change it.

I expected that the reception of this diary on this site would not be as warm as on DKos (for what I think are obvious reasons), but you were right to call me out for such a presumption.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:31:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Come down to the banks (none / 0)

dunk yourself in the Kool Aid.


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:43:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 4)

With all due respect, unfortunately I cannot agree with you. At this moment looking at the DailyKos diaries on the homepage, the number of diaries resembling I_hate_Clintons or anti_Clinton rants far more exceed anti McCain ones. To say that Senator Obama's supporters at DailyKos have changed is incredulous and would require real stretch in imagination.


by louisprandtl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 3)

But here you are, posting amongst many, many more anti-Obama diaries than anti-McCain diaries.  Do you believe that MyDD performs to your standards?


by haystax calhoun on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Understood. (2.00 / 3)

Look, there is still plenty over there that I don't like.  I can't even read postings by Kos anymore.  He's starting to sound like Andrew Sullivan, in my opinion; he is far too gleeful about any bad new for Clinton.

But there were hundreds of comments -- and not just one-liners, but real comments -- that made me think the tide could start to turn.

It gave me hope (I know, I know, that dreaded word), and that's a start.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:07:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Now that was an honest reply (2.00 / 2)

which deserves rightfully all the praises. Yes Markos is a liberal blogging phenomena, however his postings recently are hard to read.

I'm glad you're "hopeful". I'll keep an open mind..


by louisprandtl on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:19:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Understood. (2.00 / 3)

You rock Mouse, but I don't think it's over...not by a longshot! PA, WV, KY, PR, IN, OR, all are in play :) Don't move over to Barack just yet!


by LDFan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:17:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 1)

Have you looked at the MyDD diary list lately? For a good part of the day yesterday, 3 of the 5 recommended diaries were by a single person -- alegre. No kidding. And you can guess what she was writing about.
by xtrarich on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:57:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If MI and FL are not seated in a meaningful way (2.00 / 3)

-- that is, so their votes are counted as is, or re-voted before June --I will consider withholding my vote in November, although it would surely cost me a lot of skin at home.

This is not about tactics and who's ahead; it's about who we are as Democrats; and I have voted D in every presidential election since McGovern.

I don't think I'm one the Democrats want to lose, but I could be wrong.


The fascist takeover of America has already occurred; but the people have not yet realized.
by magnetics on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:15:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent point. (2.00 / 2)

I don't blame you at all.  I think the issue of FL and MI is real and problematic.  I don't know what the solution should be -- but I think refusing to include FL and MI in a meaningful way is a huge mistake.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:26:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent point. (none / 0)

Even as a supporter of Senator Obama I agree that not counting FL and MI in a meaningful way would be a mistake.  The problem is that "meaningful" often gets interpreted through strictly partisan lenses.  At worst, this will be solved after the nominee has been chosen by the super delegates.  It still remains extremely unlikely that we will go to the convention in Denver with this issue outstanding.

The only thing I would ask Senator Clinton's supporters is that if the two states that were penalized in this fashion were instead Virginia and Colorado, would she be calling for re-votes?  Why would we or should we expect that Senator Clinton would behave any differently from how Senator Obama has?  Do any of us want a candidate for November who is going to do the arguably right thing if it gives McCain a significant political advantage?


by Fearing Blue on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:51:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent point. (2.00 / 2)

Did you realize that New Hampshire also disobeyed the rules and moved their date up- So the rules are rules mantra by DNC is pure hypocrisy- No matter how you cut it-FL & Michigan should be counted - If they aren't it will not be a legitimate nominee.  
Senator Obama won many caucus states-those of us who have traveled around the country know how unfair and undemocratic that process is.  There will be books written when this is over- the most unfair nominating process in my 60 years- The media has been obviously biased- As a Democrat I'm very angry-this is not my party any more.   Being deeply involved in the campaign as a volunteer for 14 months I have been in hotels with media and inside campaign people (all the campaigns) spent many late hours talking about what was going on.   It is simply shocking how little the average voter knows about the dirt and big boy egos involved- After this is over I will never again work on a political campaign- We've been hoodwinked and bamboozled.
by Menemshasunset on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:18:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent point. (none / 0)

All I'm asking is for you to take a step back and recognize that were the situation reversed, the candidate you support would be doing exactly the same thing.  I don't think either candidate is pariah, nor do I think either candidate is a saint.  Both are politicians, and as such, for the most part, I expect them to do what is in their best interests politically.

And, regarding caucus states, I agree that the system should be changed, but it wasn't this time around and both candidates knew how they worked prior to the pimary.  Historically, caucuses have favored candidates with the most institutional support, which leading up to the primary season was Senator Clinton, noting that she had a super delegate lead of almost 100 before any votes were cast.  The fact that she lost the caucuses, and that she lost them so badly, seems to points to poor management of her campaign resources.  Senator Clinton certainly didn't give up on caucus states because she thought they were undemocratic.  That argument only came into play after she started losing.


by Fearing Blue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:45:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 0)

I understand, and I re-post a diary for you.


Because I wont trade humanity for patriotism!
by Drewid on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:27:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 0)

Congratulations.
Great diary, you made me cross post and old ass diary of mine.
I hope you read it, thank you for your diary.

Because I wont trade humanity for patriotism!
by Drewid on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:42:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 1)

I love this post.

I read it over at DKos first.  It's so warm-hearted and plain and even-handed (which is probably hard for you; I know it's hard for me as an Obama supporter).  There's no trace of sanctimony and you're not reserving the right to take back your sentiments or accusing one side more than the other and it's just so... nice.

Anyway, great diary, and it's especially great for Obama supporters to read, because if nothing else, we'll think twice before provoking people or responding to provocations or being snarky or mean-spirited no matter who started what.  At least I will.


by Mostly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:28:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tips? Recs? Hugs? - OH YEAH! (none / 0)

Awesome diary, Mouse!

Never forget - McCain is the enemy - lets concentrate our energy on defeating him.


by jwolf on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:54:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 2)

A warm hello to you AngryMouse.

recs and tips and mojo

"Neci" Deoliver Velez


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:40:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you see what you started? (none / 0)

I'm assuming you're the same one...

Thanks for everything.  I tip my hat to YOU.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:35:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you see what you started? (2.00 / 1)

Yup, it's me. And I changed my sig too - thanks to you.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:48:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you see what you started? (2.00 / 1)

Love the new sig.

Reconciliation is the new black.  Pass it on.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sigs (none / 0)

love your's too!


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:25:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (none / 0)

Thanks for a GREAT diary! I would tip and rec you, but I got "tased" and lost some capabilities here... :-(

This is a diary worthy of the Rec list (and not because it's pro-Obama) with excellent, thoughtful analysis and heartfelt writing. (I don't think a few rambling sentences and a Lou Dobbs video meets the grade.)

I understand your concerns about Obama's "reaching across the aisle" at a time when we just want to kick the Rethugs in the crotch. We do need to heal the country though. Many families are so divided now because of politics. We all need to unite and it starts here with the Democratic party.

by power of truth on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good stuff. (2.00 / 3)

Rec'd.


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:05:14 PM EST

Hmmmm.... (none / 0)

No Rec. option in the sidebar when I pull up the diary? Sorry.


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:06:52 PM EST

Re: Hmmmm.... (none / 0)

Try changing your password. That resets the system.


John McCain: Four More Years of Failure.
by dannybauder on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmmm.... (none / 0)

Many folks lost their ability to recommend diaries. Sounds like a casualty.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:26:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes. (2.00 / 7)

We Edwards people have already taken this step. I'm here to tell you it can be done :-)


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:16:01 PM EST

Re: Yes. (2.00 / 5)

Ditto!!
(though, in private...I still pout)

;)


by Kysen on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:19:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So do I :-) (2.00 / 6)

And despite some initial huffiness, the thought of voting for McCain never crossed my mind, either.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes. (2.00 / 2)

Some Edwards folks landed in the Clinton camp, and may not be ready to do this again. =)


by bobbank on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:23:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They may have no choice. (2.00 / 2)

That's just the way it goes: one person is going to win, and it looks like it's going to be Obama. That's just the nature of it.

Sorry.

But if it's any consolation, I was depressed for two days or so when Edwards dropped out, and then I pulled myself together, and moved on. I was never one of the hardcore devotees, but hey, the point is that at the end, the differences between the various Democrats are as nothing to the differences between all Democrats and McCain.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:33:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Understood (2.00 / 3)

Half the Democratic party will have to one day give up on their candidate.  The only thing I was taking issue with was the implication that all Edwards folks went for Obama.


by bobbank on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was an Edwards person, for Clinton now (none / 0)

Because of her health care plan. That is a deal breaker for me.

I guess most of the Obama supporters HAVE health care already, that's why they don't seem to care about it.


by splashy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They may have no choice. (2.00 / 0)

I think the stakes may be a little higher for some.

I started out as an Edwards supporter.  It was'nt that hard for me to cross over to Obama and I'm glad I did.  At this point I have so much time and effort and passion and hope and worry invested in his candidacy, but all 43 presidents look like I do.  I can't know what it's like to have that extra part of myself bound up in it.


by Mostly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:36:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We? (2.00 / 2)

We Edwards people have taken what step? For Obama? Not me, not unless he is in the GE.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:59:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We? (2.00 / 0)

See ya' there.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:15:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The step in question (2.00 / 0)

is realizing that the person you passionately believe in isn't going to be the standard-bearer. I feel safe in predicting that half the Democratic Party, give or take a few, will have to make that step pretty soon.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:16:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The step in question (2.00 / 2)

Many feel safe in predicting that nominee will be Hillary.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:28:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Awesome. (2.00 / 1)

In which case, she has my vote. But many more feel safe in predicting that we're looking at Obama.

(cue hysterical he-can't-win tripe)


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hysterical tripe? (2.00 / 1)

Try some cold, hard facts:

Obama is Weaker General Election Candidate

* Florida: Clinton 44 percent - McCain 42 percent; McCain beats Obama 46 - 37 percent;

* Ohio: Clinton beats McCain 48 - 39 percent; Obama gets 43 percent to McCain's 42 percent;

* Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 48 - 40 percent; Obama leads McCain 43 - 39 percent.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?Rele aseID=1164&What=&strArea=;&s trTime=0


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:10:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And other polls (2.00 / 1)

show the inverse. We can keep this up all night.

Are you even going to vote for the Democrat yourself? Or is it all about getting your way in the primary?


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:14:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Facts are facts (2.00 / 1)

Be my guest to post your "hysterical tripe" and next "loyality test."


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:46:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I've been through this (2.00 / 0)

with you folks. Before Iowa, back when Hillary was inevitable and this whole primary thing was just a beauty contest with a foregone conclusion, the "loyalty oath" was a mantra of the Hillary-ists.

I seem to recall that you were one of the practitioners of that art, Vox, though  I could just be misremembering that. I'll confine myself to saying that there are some life lessons to be learned here for you folks.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:40:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The step in question (2.00 / 2)

Do you want the support of Obama's supporters then?  That's the point.  There is still a chance that Hillary could win and we are getting close to the time when it will be decided one way or the other.

Whichever way it goes, do you think we should all agree that we are Dems?  Or do you think Hillary could win in November without Obama supporters?  That's a rhetorical question as we both know that whoever wins needs the entire party.

So let's all get on the same side, the Dem side.  That way, however it sorts out we'll all move on to beating McSame.


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:25:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And bravo (2.00 / 0)

for that.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:06:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just wondering (2.00 / 5)

Why was it important for you to reject Hillary's candidacy entirely?  As I read your diary, it struck me that one could have had much the conversation, but along the lines of acknowledgement that your candidate might not win.  For you, though, it seemed important to declare your candidate impossible, and make some sort of formally announced switch.

This has coincided with a carefully orchestrated media/surrogate bombardment which I admit has been draining even for me.  And while I have certainly considered the nomination of Barack Obama likely, and asked myself what I will do, and why, I see no need to abandon all of the reasons I support Hillary.

So, I was wondering if you could elaborate on why you chose this route?


by bobbank on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:17:57 PM EST

Oh, no no no. Let me explain. (2.00 / 3)

I am not rejecting HRC.

She is still my first choice.  And as I explained in the comments section over there, I'd certainly do my happy dance if she won the nomination.

But short of complete blow-outs in the remaining states, I don't see how she does that.

This is not about abandoning Hillary.  This is about coming to terms with Obama.  That doesn't mean I prefer him; it simply means I am learning to accept him.

But, as I also said many times throughout the comments, I fully support HRC remaining in the race until the polls close in Puerto Rico.  And I fully support those who continue to work for her campaign.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for clarifying (2.00 / 6)

For myself, I went through this thought process shortly after TX/OH.  We knew the road would be uphill from there, and, contrary to everything the media has told us, since then, not much has substantively changed.

I recognized that there would come a time when one candidate would have to step down.  And I tried to ask myself honestly what principles should guide that decision.

So, here's what I came up with.  Others may adopt or reject this, but this is my own framework.

(1) I expect my candidate to make a popular vote argument.  In a democracy, the voice of the people should be paramount.

(2) I expect my candidate to make a compelling case for why she would fair better in the general election than my opponent would.

And I had two pre-conditions in my mind:

(a) I expect a fair contest to procede to the last vote, on the issues.

(b) I expect a solution to MI and FL that both campaigns feel is fair.

That was my thinking then, and it remains my thinking now.  I feel this is fair.  I feel that if Obama supporters apply this framework to their own candidate, it is fair for them as well.  Since then, nothing has happened that either guarantees or precludes (1) and (2), for either candidate.

In fact, by promising that FL will be seated, but that no re-vote will occur, Howard Dean may have just cut Obama's popular vote lead in half.  The trouble is with MI.. I cannot conceive of any way in which the outcome of MI is considered legitimate by both sides unless there is a revote (one which I think Barack is likely to win, I might add).  This is why I have consistently said that, given the nature of this contest, what is in the best interest of both parties is to ensure the results are considered fair by both sides.

So these principles will guide my decision, as to whether Hillary should step down, or not.  But they do not help me addressing a harder question - which is whether or not I can give my vote to Barack Obama at this point, given all that I have learned and felt and worked through.  But that will be a personal decision for me to wrestle with, and not something I seek to impose on others.

What I do, unabashedly seek to impose on others is the notion that a fair contest is in everyone's best interest.  By echoing the message that Obama is already our de-facto nominee, it felt to me like you were giving up on that premise, which would be a shame (in my opinion).  I'm happy to admit that I got the wrong impression, though, if that is what you're telling me.


by bobbank on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We are in agreement. (2.00 / 0)

On pretty much all points.

I have come to accept Obama as the eventual nominee, but that doesn't mean I have stopped caring about FL and MI.  That doesn't mean I have suddenly accepted any arguments about what superdelegates should or shouldn't do.

However, when it became clear there would be no revotes in FL and MI, it became clear (to me) that it would be all but impossible for HRC to win the nomination in a way that I would consider fair.  That is, she would need to be tied or ahead in pledged delegates and/or popular vote.  That seems an impossibility without FL and MI.

And that's when I started this process of trying to accept Obama as the eventual nominee.  

But, as I've said before, we all have to come to it in our own way, on our own time.  And I certainly don't expect everyone else in the blogosphere to get there today just because I did.

So keep fighting for HRC, please.  But also prepare yourself for the moment when the fight will be over.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:59:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (none / 0)

I guess the part I'm still not quite following is why the popular vote is all but impossible for HRC, especially if Obama's lead is cut in half by the acceptance of the FL primary results (which not only seems likely according to Dean's statement, but honestly seems fair, unlike MI where a revote is required imo).


by bobbank on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 2)

The race for the nomination is measured in delegates.  That''s always been the case ever since we stopped doing back room deals.  The popular vote thing would be like a football team claiming to deserve the win based on total yards of offense rather than points.

Changing the rules in the middle is not "fair to both sides".

If the popular vote had been agreed upon as the goal ahead of time then different strategies would have been pursued throughout the contest.  That's why I have very little sympathy for the 'caucuses are undemocratic' complaint.  Nobody changed the rules by having caucuses.  Obama's team was more effective in its strategy based on how the competition was to proceed in each state.  No surprises were unleashed.  They competed by the same rules as they were understood ahead of time by all involved.  

Hilary touts her experience.  If, in the face of that experience advantage, Obama's campaign was able to better strategize and perform based on the differing realities of competing in each state (primary, caucus, weird ass primacaucus); doesn't that count for something with regard to his worthiness as a candidate?  

I think that taking that away from him by suddenly switching to some other metric after the race is almost complete is not fair and would be seen as illegitimate by the voters if it was used to justify giving the nomination to someone other than the delegate winner; possibly more illegitimate than not seating Florida or Michigan.

Ok, so there is not such thing as more or less illegitimate.  Change that to seen as illegitimate by more people.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:11:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 1)

The race for the nomination is measured in delegates.

That's correct.  It is not measured in pledged delegates.  Those are two different things.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:38:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 0)

Agreed, they are 2 different things, pledged delegates and superdelegates.  Popular vote is metric entirely unrelated and should remain that way.  To try and impose some popular vote metric on the superdelegates would be wrong for the reasons listed in my previous comment.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:00:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 3)

That is not what I said.

Let us be crystal clear on this.

This is a delegate contest.  The person who is able to hit the "magic number" of delegates wins.

I am not pointing out that pledged delegates and super delegates are different.  I am pointing out that pledged delegates can only determine the outcome if one candidate is able get more than 2,0XX of them.  Neither candidate can do that.

There is no precident, rule, or even guideline that says, in a race this close, superdelegates ought to go on auto-pilot.  Now, more than ever, they need to be thoughtful about their approach.

You happen to favor the notion that superdelegates should obey the pledged delegate count because your candidate adopted that strategy.  My candidate adopted a strategy that is more relevant to the general election, in that she secured big states with heavy electoral votes to offer.  For that reason, a popular vote argument is the one I favor.

What I'm asking you to understand is that neither one of us is more "right" in the techincal sense than the other.  And there is no way you could accuse superdelegates of "stealing an election" if they nominated the person who had gotten the most votes.  Putting it another way, popular vote is no more or less "related" than pledged delegate count is.

I will take issue, however, with your implication that popular vote should be dismissed.  A core progressive principle is to maximize direct democracy to whatever extent possible.  So this is an example in which your amibition for your candidate has caused you to compromise on one of these bedrock principles.

I would suggest that, if we start allowing particular politicians to come before principles, we are not going to find ourselves in a good place.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:15:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 1)

I disagree with your characterization.  It would be a progressive value to count the popular vote in an election where that was the metric used to measure victory.  To claim that it applies in a nomination race (which is what we are currently engage in) is to change the rules in the middle of the game.  I don't let my kids do it at 'Chutes and Ladders' and I won't respect it under a banner of "Progressivism" either.  Its an honor thing.   It's the same reason I oppose the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates. It is not about Obama or Clinton for me as you say it is.  If you didn't win by the rules then you didn't win.

For SDs to incorporate popular vote as part of an SD's decision is one thing. To claim it as a metric to which they should be beholden is to try and take the nomination by an illegitimate means.  To say that Hilary should get extra GE credit for winning only the big states that every democrat wins in the GE anyway is... misleading.  Do you honestly believe that New York and California go republican if Hilary doesn't get the nomination?  Honestly man...


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:44:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 1)

Either way, it appears that we are not going to agree.  I don't really care to screw up the vibe on this thread.

As I have said several times around here, my main concern is getting a democrat, any democrat, into the Oval Office so that our democratic legislative majorities don't have to fight a veto pen in their attempts to reinstate the constitution, end the war, address global warming, appoint judges to SCOTUS, etc.

I have been laughed at before for saying that I believe the president's job is to essentially look and sound good in front of a camera and to be familiar with how to sign their name.  I know that it's hard to remember back before the horror that is unitary executive but, back when the constitution was being obeyed, the power to define policy through law was in the legislative branch.

I will vote for the democratic nominee.  


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:55:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 2)

Please link for me the DNC rule that says the candidate with the most pledged delegates should win.

Of course, you cannot find such a rule, because no such rule exists.  So who is guilty of trying to "change the rules" here?  You are playing a game of make-believe in which "rules" that don't really exist, but just happen to conveniently suit your candidate, must be enforced, even at the expense of what's morally right.  That's shameful, frankly.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:17:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (none / 0)

Your candidate is seeking to introduce a new metric that supposedly the SDs should use as the deciding factor, not mine.  Try and be a little honest here.

Before you  get all worked up about your self-serving morals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTY_bp1dT A4

Where was this moral imperative when Hil's team helped craft the agreement that they find so reprehensible only now?  At least Obama can claim that he's had the honor to live up to the agreement.  And you want to accuse the candidate who has honored his word (and signature) of morals of convenience?!  Hilary is the ONLY candidate out of the 10 to decide now, midway through the game, that the agreement shouldn't stand.  You couldn't have this more backwards if you tried.

By June it'll be a nonissue anyway.  Perhaps not being as good as her word is a reason why.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:23:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 1)

seems to be a moot point now that superdelegates are swinging Obama's way. Obama is closing on the SD gap and adding to his overall lead. The SD's are starting to decide and it's not going Hillary's way. (Look at SD decisions since Feb 5th, or March 5th.)

The fundraising numbers were just released. Obama essentially "doubled her up", $40 million to $20 million. (Plus she has debt and he has $$$ in the bank.) Obama's been spending this money on ad's in PA, and the polls show the race in PA tightening.

by power of truth on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:10:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 0)

There are a lot of "ifs" there.  And even if Obama's lead is cut in half, he's still in the lead.

Look, I'd be thrilled if there were a way for HRC to win.  

But I need something more than the judgment of the superdelegates.  I need her to have the lead in something -- pledged delegates, popular votes -- something.  

Otherwise, if the superdelegates select her, while it is within the rules and within their rights, I don't think the damage it would cause would be worth it.

The superdelegates would essentially be saying, "We know she's the one who will beat McCain.  You're going to have to trust us."

And even if, in my gut, I agree with that sentiment, I don't think that's a good move for the party.  I think it would be a lot harder for Obama supporters to get behind HRC in that circumstance than it will be for HRC supporters to get behind Obama if he maintains his lead in votes and delegates.

And what if HRC loses in November?  I can't begin to imagine the size of the exodus from the Democratic party -- all the voters who were promised that the SDs knew what they were doing and were thus justified in choosing HRC.

Even with FL and MI, it's a hard case to make.  Without, I think it's impossible.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:15:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But... (2.00 / 3)

But now you've changed the subject.

What I asked you was why you concluded that Hillary Clinton cannot possibly win.  You said this was your belief:

I have accepted that HRC is not going to be the nominee

This does not say "if HRC is not the nominee, I can accept it".  It says in stark terms that she is not going to be the nominee.  I asked you why you thought so.

Your response is:

But I need something more than the judgment of the superdelegates.  I need her to have the lead in something -- pledged delegates, popular votes -- something.

Well that is a redirection of my question.  We don't disagree that superdelegates need a legitimate reason to choose her.  And we seem to agree that popular vote is one such legitimate reason.  That is why I told you that including FL cuts Obama's popular lead in half; that actually makes it conceivable that she could bring him to a tie on April 22.

You say this is too many IF's.

But politics is the art of the possible.  If you believe she is the best qualified candidate, then might I suggest that you owe it to her not to pronounce her prematurely dead?  If there comes a time when her nomination is possible only through brute political force, I will join you in believing that she should step down.  But we aren't there yet.

So I've asked why you think we are there.  What convinced you of it?


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:53:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A few things... (2.00 / 2)

First, I do not want her to step down.  I want the voting to continue until all the states and territories have had their say.  

Second, there is a big difference between possiblility and probability.  Is it possible that Hillary will beat Obama in all of the remaining states by 20 points or more?  Yes, it is possible.

But it is not probable.

And as we've seen again and again, in states where HRC has a huge lead, Obama has been able to shrink that lead.  Every time.  Obama is very effective at closing those gaps, even if he can't overcome them.

And she needs those gaps.  She needs really big gaps.  It is the only way she can overcome his lead.

Possible?  Yes.

Probable?  No.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:30:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Again, you're changing the subject (2.00 / 3)

There is a difference between possible and probable.  I agree.  Here's what you said:

HRC is not going to be the nominee

Now if you were thinking about probabilty, you could have said anything from "HRC may not be the nominee" (pro-Hillary version) to "HRC is probably not going to be the nominee" (pro-Obama version).  But that isn't what you said.

Look, it's quite clear to me that you're a smart and thoughtful writer.  So I presume you choose your words carefully.  That is why I pressed you on this point.  I think I have my answer now anyway, so I can stop asking if you like.

Cheers.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 1)

Only in regards to the Florida and Michigan aspects and popular vote totals (FYI - Im an Obama supporter - though originally Richardson).  I'll save the rest for later if I can get around to it.

I can not agree more on Florida and Michigan.

Id love to see some equitable solution, especially for Florida (Michigan grandstanded themselves and should pay the price).  But I honestly struggle with 'what is fair'.

I put more emphasis on pledged delegates than popular vote - mainly because Im a rules kind of guy (my job is actually making sure people follow rules so I get a bit worked up about it) and the rules of the game are delegates, not popular vote.  That said, the supers can choose however they want and Im sure some will use popular vote as part of their decision matrix.

I do not see counting the Florida popular vote or pledged delegates as 'fair' from the original contest (maybe as a fraction, 33%?, but not in whole or even half).  I have a lot of miniscule techincal issues with the Florida 'results' that make using those vote totals inappropriate, in my most humble opinion.

1) Florida, in view of its original election time slot, would have only had two candidates left on the ballot who hadnt conceded - Obama and Clinton as Edwards was out by then.  The 'invalid' (for lack of a better term) election had everyone still in.  How do you allocate the votes for the others?  So the vote should have been Clinton versus Obama, not all versus all.  I believe this would have changed the dynamic of the vote.

2) The vote was advertised as 'invalid' and voter turn out/participation as compared to other democratic contests was significantly less, statistically relevant so, implying that it was an incomplete election based on expectations and other turnouts.  So there is an impact on the 'invalid' results that it was a not a completely participated in primary.

3) No campaigning by any candidate.  No matter what we each saintly believe about our candidate and hatefully believe about the 'other' candidate, none of the candidates campaigned in Florida.  I believe this also had an impact on the results.  I do not believe it is 'fair' to count a vote where no campaigning was done.

I could go on, but I have real concerns with trying to use the 'invalid' contest results in any fashion.  That said, I believe Hillary would still win Florida.  I also believe that if it had been a head to head contest with time for campaigning, Obama would have closed the gap a bit.

So I really, really struggle trying in any way to use the 'invalid' elections results, especially from a popular vote aspect in any valid count.  It just isnt right.  But, I do believe the supers will be able to factor in a popular vote win for Clinton in Florida and if Clinton crushes Obama from here on out and closes (or overtakes) the pledged delegate and popular vote totals she will have a very strong argument for the supers and one that would be very hard to dismiss.

But I honestly dont think there is a 'fair' result left, short of a re-vote (with delegate punishment) which looks highly unlikely.

So thats my take on Florida and popular vote (in a rambling, incoherent nutshell).


by pattonbt on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:19:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 0)

Thanks for your well-reasoned post.

Just to add one more point about why the popular vote is not a metric we should consider - remember the reason for this mess in the first place: each state is fighting to be "more important" than other states.

If caucus states knew that the popular vote was going to be the deciding metric, don't you think they would have run primaries instead of caucuses, because that way their voters have the largest possible impact on the outcome?

Delegate count was the agreed upon metric by all parties, so some states chose to do caucuses.


by barath on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:50:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 2)

Delegate count is certainly the metric that will determine the winner.

Pledged delegate count is not.  It is only a subjective factor, in the same way that popular vote is, or in the same way that "electability" or "momentum" could be.

I'm going to stick with this point because I notice that Obama supporters are very eager to confuse the fact that this is a delegate contest (we all agree) with the premise that pledged delegates should be what determines the winner (we do not agree, and now apparently Dean and Pelosi do not agree with that either).  It's a subtle word-trick, but I'm not going to go along with it.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:06:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 1)

I actually didn't make any distinction in my post between pledged delegates and superdelegates.  It's just tiring to type pledged delegates every time.  Anyway, I really don't care what the superdelegates do, because I think they'll probably break down 50/50 or so and won't end up mattering; I agree that they do, within the rules, have the right to vote for whomever they want.

Even Obama said this today, when Chris Matthews asked him about it; he said something like "once all the primaries are over, I'll leave it to the poo-bahs of the party make their decision, and then we'll unite and move on."


by barath on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:22:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 1)

Bob,

I don't think it's necessarily a 'trick.'

Above, when describing the arguments you want to see made, you wrote:

(1) I expect my candidate to make a popular vote argument.  In a democracy, the voice of the people should be paramount.

Well, in making the 'popular vote argument,' it seems likely that your candidate will be countering the 'pledged delegate argument,' which is part of the argument my candidate will be making. While I agree that the 'voice of the people should be paramount,' it isn't in US federal elections, and hasn't been. So we have rules.

You're absolutely correct that every delegate vote is equal, and as the SDs are free to vote as they choose, a delegate victory can come without a lead in PDs. BUT, my candidate and his supporters are as free to make the PD argument as your candidate and you are free to make the PV argument.

There's nothing tricky about it, in my book.


by vadasz on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:37:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 2)

While I agree that the 'voice of the people should be paramount,' it isn't in US federal elections, and hasn't been. So we have rules.

And these rules allow the SD's to use whatever criteria they like.  So, since we agree that the voice of the people should be paramount, and since these rules allow SD's to use that criteria, then let us urge them to use it.

Makes sense?

BUT, my candida