BrendanLoy.com: Homepage | Photoblog | Weatherblog | Photos | Old blog archives

About me


I'm Brendan Loy, a 26-year-old graduate of USC and Notre Dame now living and working in Knoxville, Tennessee. My wife Becky and I are brand-new parents of a beautiful baby girl, born on New Year's Eve.

I'm a big-time sports fan, a politics, media & law junkie, an astronomy buff, a weather nerd, an Apple aficionado, a Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter fanatic, and an all-around dork. My blog is best-known for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina, but I blog about anything and everything that interests me.

You can contact me at irishtrojan [at] gmail.com, or donate to my "tip jar" by clicking the link below:

June 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member

« Quote of the day | Main | ND, Michigan battle in Frozen Four »

Quote of the day #2

"I really don’t understand why the Republican Party very clearly decided what they were going to do [about the Florida and Michigan delegations], and the Democratic Party can’t decide." --Hillary Clinton.

Actually, Senator Clinton, the Democratic Party did decide what to do. They decided to strip those states of all their delegates. This decision was made through the proper procedures, at the proper time, by the proper decision-makers -- including your own adviser Harold Ickes, who voted "yes" on the delegate-stripping plan. The decision was clear and straightforward: if Florida and Michigan didn't move their primary dates, they'd lose their delegations. Period. That was, and is, the decision.

You initially accepted this decision because it was politically necessary for you to do so -- after all, you couldn't be seen as the only candidate not currying favor with Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Now, you are refusing to accept that very same decision because it is, again, politically necessary for you to do so, as you can't "win" without those "delegates" who were "elected" in those states' illegitimate "primaries."

To make matters worse, you are dishonestly and absurdly cloaking this cynical Machiavellian maneuver under the guise of democratic idealism, arguing that there's some sort of moral imperative to count the votes of citizens who chose to participate in "elections" that everyone knew were non-binding beauty contests. Better yet, you're making this argument while simultaneously advocating the importance of a "popular vote" count that excludes all voters in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington (whose caucuses didn't report raw vote totals, only delegate counts), and all Obama and Edwards supporters in Michigan (whose candidates weren't on the ballot).

And now, on top of all that, you have the unmitigated gall to gripe that your party "can't decide" what to do, when in fact they decided long ago precisely what to do, and you acquiesced in that decision until you realized that you couldn't win without changing the rules in the middle of the game -- i.e., that you can't win without cheating.

You are truly a piece of work, Hillary Clinton.

UPDATE: Welcome, Andrew Sullivan readers! I could be wrong, but I think this is my first Sully-lanche. :)

You may be interested in some of my other posts about Hillary Clinton's serially dishonest spin, and related matters:

A response to "There is no such thing as a pledged delegate"

Why the popular vote doesn't matter

Other (fake) metrics showing that Hillary is ahead

Translating Hillary Clinton

Hillary: caucus delegates not "elected"

On Clinton spin and electoral math

Inching toward legitimate votes in FL, MI

Jerome Armstrong's fuzzy logic

Rebuttal to Hillary's "states that matter" (see also here)

A grand summary of Hillary's tortured "popular vote in primaries" argument

There's more, too. Really, you could just go to my Election 2008 category page and scroll, scroll, scroll. :)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38891/27993328

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Quote of the day #2:

Comments

I agree that Hillary will stoop to new lows but I have been curious, at least in Florida the GOP controlled legislature set the date for the primaries knowing full well what the democrats had said they would do correct? Did the democratic party in that state have the option of holding a separate primary later? I assume they could have done caucuses whenever they pleased of course so they aren't guilt free but it does seem like there was some sabotaging at least attempted here (I think if the Florida Dems had options and didn't exercise them, or went along with it believing the national party heads would blink, they deserve what happened) but just curious.

Well, I think it's just goofy. :)

David - from memory, and then from checking on the Web - "The only reason it is moved up in Florida is because there are other issues to be brought to the voters and it makes more sense to have them all voted upon at once then have people go to the ballot in late January for some things (like the new FL tax proposal(s)) and then again in March for the presidential primary. " ...

The Florida Dems wanted to have their primary at the end of January so that they could try to bring our more Dem voters for the tax proposals ... they could have kept the March date for their Primary and still had 100% of their delegates count at the Dem Convention ...

Apparently, they figured they would be able to be above the rules ... which fits with Senator Clinton keeping her name on the ballot ...

This isn't a new low for Hillary - just another one ...

so much for not slamming the candidates...

why does the media still cover hillary? ron paul is still running for president. hillary is about as relevant.

Josh, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, unintentionally obtuse, or just goofing around. But in any event, I didn't say I was going to stop "slamming the candidates." I said, "I promise to do my best not to play the 'gotcha' game about trivial, non-substantive matters. If I break this vow, feel free to slap me."

Hillary Clinton's ongoing effort to steal the Democratic nomination for President of the United States by gaming the system, changing the rules midstream, ignoring the will of the voters (except when it suits her), and disguising all of this with disingenuous spin, is NOT a "trivial, non-substantive matter."

Frankly, it's ludicrous to suggest that I promised broadly to stop "slamming the candidates." Why on earth would I do that? We're electing a president. It's important to compare and contrast the candidates, and to criticize them when they merit criticism. My whole point about the "gotcha" thing was that we need to stop this ridiculous game where we pretend to be outraged (or worse, work ourselves up into a frenzy of actual overwrought outrage) about Obama saying "typical white people," or Hillary "denigrating" Martin Luther King, or an Obama delegate saying "monkeys," or Geraldine Ferraro saying Obama is "lucky" to black, or an Obama advisor calling Hillary a "monster," or Elton John talking about misogyny at a Clinton fundraiser (I was sorely tempted to post about that one, but then I remembered my "gotcha" pledge), or Hillary's people supposedly darkening Obama's face in an ad (this is a trap I fell into myself), or the local Obama campaign office in some podunk town putting up a poster of Che Guevara, or the difference between "reject" and "denounce," etc. etc. etc. These are all things that DON'T MATTER, either because they are merely disputes over how people say things (not what they're saying or what they mean by it), or because they involve surrogates/supporters rather than the actual candidates (and guilt by association is dumb), or both. They have no substantive relevance to who should be president. And if the only justification for talking about them is, "Well, the other candidate's supporters would talk about it if our candidate said that," that's not good enough. Be the change you seek. Don't play the game, and criticize them when they play it. Otherwise it never ends.

But, clearly, nothing in this post falls into that category. This is substantive, and important, and I have no intention of backing down from this line of criticism.

Oh come now, Brendan, what's substantive about _trying to steal an election_?

I'm with you on this one. Sorry, but this is right up there with the "walking around money" story as an indication that there's something substantively wrong with the Dem party. Hopefully they'll shake it out prior to the national election because I'd like to see a substantive debate on ideas, not arcane rules.

an indication that there's something substantively wrong with the Dem party

There is plenty substantively wrong with both parties, but I think this particular story is more an indication that there's something substantively wrong with Hillary Clinton (and her cadre of advisers) than with the Dem party, per se.

Now, if they let her get away with it, and she actually becomes the nominee through these ridiculous shenanigans, then I'll agree with you. :)

Hillary's absurd revisionist history aside, the DNC screwed up the situation with Michigan and Florida not so much by what they did, but by the fact that they didn't reduce the total number of delegates needed to win the nomination by the total number of delegates being discounted in Michigan and Florida. If the DNC had done that, someone could have mathematically won the nomination without getting into the hemming and hawing over super delegates.

they didn't reduce the total number of delegates needed to win the nomination by the total number of delegates being discounted in Michigan and Florida

Why on earth do people keep saying this?? It's NOT TRUE.

I've been over this several times before, but, briefly, from The Green Papers:

* Without Michigan and Florida, there are 4,048 delegates total -- 3,253 pledged, 795 supers. 50% plus one of 4,048 is 2,025. Hence, 2,025 delegates are needed to win the nomination. (I think this number is actually 2,024 or 2,023 now due to a couple of superdelegates dying, moving, resigning, etc., but close enough.)

* If Michigan and Florida were added back in, there would be 4,416 delegates total, leadnig to a "needed to nominate" number of 2,209.

I have no idea where this "the Dems didn't reduce the number needed to nominate" meme is coming from, but I keep seeing it repeated as if it's a fact, and it's just not a fact at all.

The reason nobody can get an absolute majority without the superdelegates is because the supers make up roughly 20% of the overall delegate total, which means you'd need to get five-eighths of the pledge delegates -- roughly 63 percent -- in order to achieve a majority of the overall delegates from pledged dels alone. And under the Dems' mandatory proportional allocation system, there is no way anyone can get 63% in a close two-way race. The pledge delegate count is currently roughly 53-47 in Obama's favor.

That I say there is something wrong with the Dem Party is not intended to imply that there is nothing wrong with the GOP. It is merely to point out that, in probably one of the most important presidential elections in years, the DNC placed themselves in a position where one candidate has the ability to fatally wound the party's chances come November. I would say the GOP still punished Florida / Michigan sufficiently and, given their winner take all rules, with far less risk.

If the Dem Party "lets her get away with it," I seriously think there will be blood in the streets. That's why I hope that she either gets trounced so badly in NC and IN it becomes apparent which way the wind is blowing or somewhere in that mind of hers she realizes there are things more important than her.

if hillary somehow steals the nomination her only slim hope would be if obama was enthusiastically willing to accept a vp slot which i think we all realize would be highly unlikely. even if that happened i think mccain would be a 2/1 fav but you never know if bush might invade iran or something like that.

Brendan-

My mistake. I hadn't realized they had done that. I certainly haven't seen a discussion of it in the media.

That I say there is something wrong with the Dem Party is not intended to imply that there is nothing wrong with the GOP.

I realize that, and I didn't intend to imply that you were implying that. :)

I do agree that the DNC's initial decision re: Michigan and Florida was dumb, and the RNC handled it much better. It's incredible to read some of the quotes from back in December when the DNC's decision was being made, and people who voted to strip the delegates were saying things like, "Well, we all assume the delegates will ultimately be seated anyway, because the nominee will insist on it." WTF?? Did it never even OCCUR to these idiots that it's the delegates who choose the nominee, and while a floor fight at the convention was unlikely, it certainly wasn't impossible?? I mean, for chrissakes, political junkies have wet dreams about "brokered conventions" every four years, and we had a delegate fight as recently as 1980, so it's not like this is some sort of foreign concept. Moreover, and even more bafflingly, WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT of a "penalty" stripping delegates if you assume, even as you're "penalizing" these states, that the penalty will have NO EFFECT whatsoever -- and if the whole premise of your comments on the issue presupposes that delegates are meaningless anyway (since you're assuming the "nominee" will be chosen before the delegates are seated)? Why even bother with the "penalty" then?! What kind of a penalty is that: "We will penalize you by stripping you of your delegates, who we assume will have no power, and who we assume will be seated anyway." WTF?? Yeah, on second thought, maybe this is a sign of substantive problems with the Dems. ;)

Angrier, admittedly the media hasn't discussed it in any detail. But what baffles me is that people (and I don't mean to pick on you, several others have done the same thing) seem to just assume, without checking, that the 2,025 (or 2,024 or whatever) represents a majority including Florida and Michigan, rather than a majority excluding them, when the latter is the more logical assumption, and is, moreover, true.

On second thought, apropos of my above comment, maybe it isn't so ridiculous to assume that the DNC would choose the most ridiculous and nonsensical option available to them. :)

Yeah, it's years like this that make me curse Ross Perot. Why? Because he was the last viable 3rd party candidate this nation's ever had--and he's pretty much wrecked the thought of an independent run since. Oh, you've got guys like Bloomberg talking about it, but when rubber meets road I don't think they want to go through the drama.

I just find myself amazed that there's no one with enough pull in the Dem Party to bring this to a halt. As to Obama taking the VP spot--I gotta figure that he's too smart to have his name forever associated with a Clinton presidency. I mean, it worked out so well for Mr. Gore...

just goofing around, Brendan... Sorry. I wasn't trying to piss you off :-P, just trying to say that the Michigan/Florida primary issue "wasn't improtant" ...

Just forget it. It was a bad joke that (clearly) fell on its face. Sorry.

No need to apologize. I may have been a little cranky this morning, as my darling wife can attest. :)

"My mistake. I hadn't realized they had done that. I certainly haven't seen a discussion of it in the media."

Actually, I've seen the media--CNN, and MSNBC--make this point *repeatedly*. It may not have been headline news, but whenever they go over the delegate math and the Florida/Michigan issue they have made the point that the 50% needed to win would be different if MI & Fl were included. Pay attention!

Andrew Sullivan linked to this post today.

I have read your summary with satisfaction. It is not the fact that Hillary Clinton has ruthlessly employed the most devious political maneuvers since Iowa to gain the nomination that bothers me - it is, however despiccable, politically understandable. But that she clouds her twisting, manipulating and denying of mere facts as ethically necessary and morally superior, must be completely inacceptable to any voter who cannot wait to leave the Bush years behind.

The nominee may be determined before the convention, which would make moot the question about what constitutes a majority of delegates. In any event, I suspect that the Florida and Michigan delegates will be seated in some fashion. The rules committee will determine how, probably in consultation with the candidates. So, I suspect the actual number needed is still 2200+.

A partial list of Hillary's other "sins":

- Effectively endorsing McCain over Obama.

- Lying about her pledge to not "participate" in the Michigan primary. (Apparently leaving your name on the ballot isn't participating in her world.)

- Having Bill go on the Limbaugh show on the day of the TX primary.

- Getting photographed practically playing footsie with Richard Mellon Scaife, the man who literally accused her of the murder of Vince Foster.

- Having her biggest donors threaten Pelosi for her comments about super delegates.

- Send her minion, Gov. Ed Rendell, onto Faux News to tell them they had the most balanced coverage of the primaries.

I'm sure I've missed some. The point is that Hillary is not running as a Democrat. She's running as a Clintonican. And if she can't get the nomination this year (and she can't), she'll do all she can to hurt Obama so she can get another swing at it in 4 years.

She is "truly a piece of work."

The list of other "HRC-Oriented Articles" looked interesting -- But I can only stand to read one a day. Then the convulsive shivering gets too much to bear.

Maybe I'll try another one tomorrow!

"Clintonican" - love it!

I've NEVER heard a Clinton supporter answer this simple question:

Why the change of heart halfway through the election? Why did she start fighting for "the voices" of MI voters (directly contradicting what she told NPR a few months earlier) only after it became clear that she would need their delegates? Where was her "fight" when the original decision was made? Why did she tell voters of IA and NH not to worry about MI/FL reducing their influence?

I can only see this as trying to change the rules to recover her awfully managed, hubristic campaign, and she's using Americans to do it. The latter part is, to me, disgusting.

"Actually, I've seen the media--CNN, and MSNBC--make this point *repeatedly*. It may not have been headline news, but whenever they go over the delegate math and the Florida/Michigan issue they have made the point that the 50% needed to win would be different if MI & Fl were included. Pay attention!"

Excuse me, but it must not be THAT prevalent. I am a news junky who watches MSNBC and CNN pretty much nightly and who reads the newspaper and news sites daily. Unless I want to abandon my job and family, I can't see how much more I can "pay attention."

I respected Hillary as First Lady and I still respect her today. The decision that was made by the DNC will have adverse consequences if the proud voters of those two VERY LARGE states are told their participation doesn't count ! The Dems sure know how to snatch defeat out of the hands from victory. I am not one of the Dems who is impressed by the "walk on water" MSM portrayal of Barack Obama. Finally he is starting to get a bit more even handed scrutiny, probably thanks to the SNL debate parody. Nonetheless, if Hillary loses, Barack will have my vote.. For my country, and my loyalty to my party.

The Michigan/Florida issue can be settled quickly by asking ourselves this question:

If Barack Obama had come out ahead in those bogus primaries, would Hillary Clinton be advocating righteously for the seating of the delegates from those two states?

I think the answer is pretty clearly NO. Her contention that she is deeply and sincerely concerned about the 'disenfranchisement' of voters in MI and FL is rubbish.
I'm embarrassed to admit that she is my Senator.

Thomas, I agree that the DNC made a dumb decision, but it would be even dumber to "fix" it by deciding retroactively to count the votes cast in a "election" that was known at the time it was held to be null and void as a delegate selection mechanism. I would support a fair re-vote in FL and MI, but not simply counting the "delegates" that were "elected" in those non-primaries. At least not if their votes matter. If Hillary has conceded by August, then whatever, seat them, who cares. But if they're actually going to be play more than a pro forma role in deciding the nominee, no way can they be seated. If Hillary, or anyone else, wanted to object to the DNC's decision, the time to do it was BEFORE the Michigan and Florida primaries, not after.

Brendan: I came by as part of the Sully-lanche. I haven't read your blog since Katrina, and I must say that I like how you've changed the visual design since then.

I comment to ask if you are a Democrat, since I recall that you were planning to switch parties after Joe Lieberman's loss in the CT state senate race.

"Actually, Senator Clinton, the Democratic Party did decide what to do. They decided to strip those states of all their delegates."

The "Democratic Party" did it? No, actually it was just a few, entirely unelected people who presumed to speak for the entire party, but without any authority to do so. There's no way American Democrats would have voted to disenfranchise the people of two large states, at least for no good reason.

This was all about pandering to the idiots in Iowa and New Hampshire, who make big bucks (many, many millions) over having the first primaries. It had nothing to do with democracy or what was best for the party.

Don't get me wrong. I despise Hillary, and I'm glad she's losing. But she was in the right on this issue. A few unelected people had absolutely no right or authority to disenfranchise Democratic voters. They went way beyond their power, and they should be called on it. State primaries are managed by the state organizations, not by an unelected group of so-called national leaders.

No, actually it was just a few, entirely unelected people who presumed to speak for the entire party, but without any authority to do so.

Without authority? Um, no they have all the authority in the world. The Democratic Party (and the GOP) are private clubs, they can allow or not allow, make whatever rules, etc they want. This fantasy that the parties and their primaries are somehow akin to the general elections and rules that govern our elected officials is just that, a fantasy. If individual Democratic voters don't like the leadership they can leave the party or influence it by how they vote, but there is no illigitimacy about whose in charge of EITHER party. They don't PRESUME anything, they DO speak for the Party. They may not speak for the popular sentiment of party members, but the Dems and the GOP are not, in fact, democracries.

Mike, I disagree with you on the main point of your comment -- I think the national parties have every right to try and prevent the states' out-of-control "me first" primary scheduling -- but we may have to agree to disagree about that. However, I definitely take issue with this comment:

I despise Hillary, and I'm glad she's losing. But she was in the right on this issue.

I boldfaced the word "was" because, well, it's factually wrong. Hillary was NOT in any way an advocate for Michigan and Florida in this case until AFTER their primaries were held. Only after "winning" those states' "primaries," and only after it became clear that she needed their "delegates," did Hillary begin to raise hell about this issue.

If she had been raising hell about MI & FL from day one, then it would be fair to say (from your perspective) that she "was right" about it. But that's just not the case. In fact, her top-level staffer Harold Ickes voted for the delegate-stripping sanction. I can't imagine he would have done that if Hillary had been some sort of passionate advocate for Michigan and Florida back when it was still possible to prevent this from happening in the first place.

I believe your position on this issue is wrong, but it is an honestly held position. Hers is not, in any way, shape or form.

Hillary's position is entirely a creature of self-interest, and has NOTHING to do with "enfrancisement" or "democracy" -- particularly when she is simultaneously arguing for the use of a popular-vote metric that excludes tens of thousands of voters in Maine, Nevada, Iowa and Washington, not to mention every single Obama supporter in the state of Michigan. For that matter, Hillary has at times argued that we should look at the "popular vote in primaries," which excludes ALL voters in ALL caucus states. That she would then turn around and argue that she's some sort of champion of democracy is sickening.

Hillary Clinton is a champion of one thing and one thing only: the aggrandizement of Hillary Clinton. Whatever rules she has to break, whatever principles she has to trample, whatever lies she has to tell, it's all worth it for the end goal of obtaining power.


So just how did Karl Rove manage to get Hillary to agree to run for President, anyway ?

Dagnabbit, but that man is good at what he does !

(grin)

Wow... this is about as close as you could ever expect a supposed leader in a political party to outright endorse the other party. Hillary is saying the Repbublicans count their votes, Dems disenfranchise voters and Obama does not want votes to count. She is not only running down the Democratic party, but she is questioning the legitimacy of the Obama nomination.

I wonder if she'll against Obama in 12, as a Republican?

I'm sorry, but the seething hatred of Hillary Clinton here makes me extremely uncomfortable. Going back as far as 1960, including Nixon through Watergate, it is beyond my experience.

What will you do with all this animus after November?

You know, Mom, the anti-Hillary brigades used to make me really uncomfortable, too. I used to totally disagree with Becky's opinions of Hillary, and her parents', and many other people's. I used to feel they were completely uncalled for and unjustified. Heck, I was even tentatively supporting Hillary for president last fall.

Then I started paying attention to the things Hillary was saying, and doing, in this campaign. And I came swiftly to the conclusion that this is a completely and utterly unethical politician who should never, ever be allowed to become president. That has nothing to do with "seething hatred." It's a reasoned judgment based on the facts that I have observed.

I still don't think there's any need for the personal anti-Hillary stuff -- the speculation about whether her marriage is a sham, the notion that she's a "bitch," etc. -- but, just evaluating her on her merits as a candidate and a potential president, there are a LOT of legitimate reasons to dislike her and oppose her. Strongly.

In this thread, all I've seen have been legitimate anti-Hillary arguments -- none of the personal or misogynistic stuff. We're criticizing her on the merits of what she's saying and doing. And you accuse us of "seething hatred" ... why, exactly? I mean, really. Point me to the "seething hatred," please. Because I thought this was reasonably intelligent political commentary on the public statements and actions of a candidate for president, specifically her arguments for why she should be the nominee even after she loses the race for the nomination.

Please don't insult those of us who have deeply held, well-reasoned anti-Hillary sentiments by lumping us with the knee-jerk "she's a bitch" crowd... particularly when that crowd hasn't even made an appearance here.

P.S. Also, I really don't understand how you can say that the "seething hatred" toward Hillary is "beyond your experience." Isn't there an awful lot of "seething hatred" for George W. Bush in the country right now? And wasn't there plenty for Bill Clinton, too, back in the '90s? And I'd wager there was a pretty decent amount toward Nixon, too, though I wasn't alive then. There was also quite a bit of intense hatred for Reagan on the left -- some of it in our house growing up, as I recall.

Lots and lots of politicians are seethingly hated by lots and lots of people. That's hardly unprecedented. Don't you think it's possible that the hatred toward Hillary just bothers you more because she's a woman, and you see sexist overtones in it?

Right or wrong about the sexism, I just do not buy the notion that the level of hatred is somehow unprecedented in your lifetime. It's not even unprecedented in my lifetime.

Just to clarify something... it occurs to me that a portion of my above comments could potentially be read as suggesting that Becky and her parents' opinions of Hillary are misogynistic. That's not my intent at all, obviously. Even when their criticisms are personal in nature, they aren't misogynistic. Misogynistic attacks on Hillary do exist, of course, but I'm certainly not accusing Becky or her parents Zaks of purveying them. And in any event, as I said, there are plenty of legitimate gripes against Hillary that have nothing whatsoever to do with either her gender or her personality.

Brendan,
It didn't bother me at all that she's a woman when I read and responded to this, and that's the truth. What I saw, and what I responded to, even in the tone of much of what you wrote, was rhetoric ratcheted up beyond what I've seen here before. You differentiate between substantive and non-substantive behaviors. I call hatred a Pandora's box.
Mom
AKA Leanna


Leanna - many of us who do NOT respect Hillary have formed our opinion of her over the years - and we have just as little respect for any male who displays equivalent behaviour ...

It's not misogyny to dislike Hillary any more than it is misandry when one does not respect Harry Reid or Ted Kennedy ...

With that said, I know that I do not respect Hillary enough to hate her ... I am not willing to invest the emotion in hating someone like Hillary - she's just not worth (nor worthy of) the effort ...

I was discussing her recently with someone, and we concluded that that only thing which will resolve the Hillary/Obama problem is likely to be a stake through the heart ... absent something at that level of extremeness, either or both are likely to rise again and again, and zombie-like, drag their foot slowly and inexorably out of their mouth and even further away from the reasonable pathways of Life ...

Perhaps James Carville video-taped setting alight a Burning Cross in Obama's front yard ... or Michelle Obama showing up at a Hillary function dressed in a simple blue dress with a tastefully-positioned irregular white brooch set with droplet pearls ...

It's getting to where even *I* am starting to feel sorry for the Democratic Party - they just do not deserve their current leadership ...

Is it me, or has most of the major media outlets barely covered (or maybe even "hid" somewhere on their web sites) Harold Dean's comments on April 2 that: "we believe we'll absolutely seat a delegation from Florida at the convention."

See:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/02/dems.campaign/index.html

and

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/state/epaper/2008/04/02/dnc0402.html

The funniest thing to me though is the fact that the DNC is going to seat MI and FL delegates on Credentials Committee at the convention - the very group that "resolves disputes over whether to seat delegates at the convention." (See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/03/dnc-florida-michigan-dele_n_94830.html ) LOL! Gee, I wonder how MI and FL delegates on the Credentials Committee will vote about whether to seat their delegates?!

mike wrote:
"There's no way American Democrats would have voted to disenfranchise the people of two large states, at least for no good reason."

I have to take issue with the "disenfranchised" arguement. FL and MI were NOT disenfranchised. They were not deprived of their right to vote (the classic definition). The DNC did not take away their right to vote, however they very clearly told those two states what would happen if they moved up their primaries. The legislatures of FL and MI responded by effectively giving the DNC the finger - apparently because they believe that the DNC is full of it, and that they wouldn't stick to their threat.

If anyone "disenfranchised" the voters of MI and FL, it was their state legislatures - and the voters of those two states should vote to throw them all out in the next election.

However, if the DNC backs down on this, they will simply show the other 48 states that they ARE full of it and it'll be interesting to see what kind of chaos erupts in 2012. I'm personally thinking Tennessee should supplant Iowa and New Hampshire and get in the running for "first in the nation" voting. :-)

Florida Dems supported the move of the primary, contrary to their current claims. They voted for it virtually unanimously, and made no effort to fight it. they gambled that the DNC would blink and seat them anyway. Here's one of the primary Dem leaders admitting this before the Florida House:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fs-SAYaJKN4

Mom, calling this "rhetoric ratcheted up beyond what I've seen here before" is just false. Absolutely false.

P.S. I repeat my invitation for you to point to the specific language here that constitutes "seething hatred," as opposed to perfectly legitimate criticism of things Hillary has said and done.

There is none. NONE. I do not hate Hillary Clinton, seethingly or otherwise, and no reasonable reading of my rhetoric would indicate otherwise. I do strongly oppose her candidacy for President of the United States, for real, substantive, well-supported reasons. How is that "seething hatred"?

I'm sorry but your position on this is utterly unsupported and absolutely ridiculous. (And by saying that, I'm not demonstrating "seething hatred" for my own mother -- though by your standards in criticizing my statements about Hillary, it would seem that I am.)

P.P.S. Re: "rhetoric ratcheted up beyond what I've seen here before" ... did you miss my post-Katrina commentary about Ray Nagin, Michael Brown and Michael Chertoff? How about my posts about the Genarlow Wilson affair? And what about the comments that are routinely made about George W. Bush by commenters like Angrier & Angrier, Mad Max, Sandy Underpants, etc.? And those are just off the top of my head. If I really thought about it, I could come up with countless more examples.

This post is downright tame compared to any and all of that.Hell, my rhetoric gets more heated than this when I complain about LSU fans trying to de-legitimize USC's 2003 football championship! It's absolutely bizarre that you'd site this as an example of unprecedentedly harsh rhetoric on my blog.

How onesided and limited. But you got your bashes in against Clinton. But consider this cynical Machiavellian maneuver - agreeing to take your name off the ballot when you know that polling shows you are going to lose anyway. That is what Biden, Obama, Edwards,Gravel, and Richardson did. Believe me- if they thought they were going to win they would have also left their names on that ballot. It is far and away a cynical Machiavellian maneuver to deny a vote to those democrats in Michigan but demanding a split in delegates or nothing- as Obama has done.

The polls in 2007 showed Obama trailing everywhere. Today, however, Michigan would be a tossup, if not an Obama-friendly state. It's sort of like a mixture of Ohio and Wisconsin, with more of an urban black population than either of those states.

Anyway, all Obama is "demanding" is that the rules that were adopted be followed. Clinton is demanding to change the rules in mid-stream, i.e., to cheat. Obama is demanding to follow the rules. Sorry, you can't claim that Clinton has the moral high ground under those circumstances.

sorry, Brendan. Obama is not demanding that the rules be followed across the board. He's only demanding that those that favor him be followed or he would not have proposed a 50-50 split of the delegates.So- sorry- you cannot claim high ground for your guy either. At least Clinton was not stupid enough to want to alienate the voters of two important states needed to win the national election. And this whole controversy is the fault of Howard Dean who did not enforce the decided upon rules equally or he would have disqualified the state of New Hampshire for moving up their primary. Do you seriously believe that Obama, had he won in Michigan or Florida would not be fighting for those states now? If you believe he would not, I have a bridge for you to buy here in Philadelphia- You'll make a fortune on it. I promise.

" LOL! Gee, I wonder how MI and FL delegates on the Credentials Committee will vote about whether to seat their delegates?!"

KenW, when you get all done L'ingOL you might wanna go back and actually Read the Politico.com article to which you Linked (via the Huffing&puffington Post :), whereupon you'd learn that of course they Don't get to vote on the question of their own Credentialing & Enfranchisement. / CS / [Chortling Silently ;]

Nevertheless, Brendan, the jovial KenW's comment (not to Mention some of your own) ("Some of your own" :) does point up a significant (not to say fatal) ("Lethal" :) Flaw in your original argument here. To wit (boldface emphases mine):

Actually, Senator Clinton, the Democratic Party did decide what to do. They decided to strip those states of all their delegates...The decision was clear and straightforward: if Florida and Michigan didn't move their primary dates, they'd lose their delegations. Period. That was, and is, the decision...

...you have the unmitigated gall to gripe that your party "can't decide" what to do, when in fact they decided long ago precisely what to do, and you acquiesced in that decision until you realized that you couldn't win without changing the rules in the middle of the game -- i.e., that you can't win without cheating.

Well. She cheet, Meestah Jones! She cheet! :}.

(1) I am, and have been since you Influenced my Vote on Feb. 5 :}, for Barack Obama. (Granted, I haven't been Totally In The Tank for anybody since Barry Goldwater [I almost said Mike Dukakis but that was just Himself in the Tank so nevermind ;] but still, I'm For him.

(2) As you know, I Bow to No one in the depth of my dedication to Proceduralist Triumphalism ~ and especially not to One who received the original spark of his Own fanatical Legalisticality from: Me. ;> However,

(3) this is a rare instance in which your Survey of the relevant Weedlands is somewhat Wanting, old kiddoe. Because:

Notwithstanding the pungent vapor of Finality emanating from your above-excerpted analysis, the pertinent RULES provide, in effect, that the issues of Florida and Michigan have NOT yet been ultimately Decided.

If it were otherwise ~ i.e. if you were Correct ~ then obviously there would Not be any provisional seating of FL & MI delegates on the Credentials, and Other, convention Committees, nor on the Floor for that matter; nor could there be any talk by Dr. Dean and other Luminaries ;] of negotiated Compromises leading to the Arranged Enfranchisement of such delegations; nor, in fact, could there even BE such putative Delegates putting themselves forward as legitimate Pretenders to the nonexistent FL/MI Seats at all, at all.

Indeed, the "Call For The 2008 Democratic National Convention" sets forth very detailed rules regarding both Credentials Committee procedures and full Convention procedures, which (in conjunction with, and/or to some extent in contradistinction to, provisions of the separate "Delegate Selection Rules For the 2008 Democratic National Convention") are plainly now being utilized, by both the partyunity Compromisers and the hardline Hillaryites, to construct their competing Paths to the Two-State Solution.

Actually the minutiae of the Credentials Committee rules chiefly contemplate the adjudication of challenges To the seating of individual delegates or entire delegations. The authors probably did not Anticipate the problem of challenges to (or negotiated Reconsiderations re) the previously-proclaimed Banning of Any delegation from entire States. / However, there seems to be enough Wiggleroom in the language to enable the application of the procedures to the instant issue. (Again: if there weren't, why would Howard Dean, and for that matter Barack Obama, keep yammering about how this will all get Settled to everybody's satisfaction? / Well: perhaps almost Everybody's, hi Hillary :)

Here's the thing: under the Rules, ultimately the Convention is a Rule unto itself. :> Accordingly, I anticipate the following Endgame:

~ After much wrangling, posturing, yowling and related claptrap the Credentials Committee, in its Report to the Convention, recommends the seating, with Technical enfranchisement, of full MI & FL delegations whose Votes are Mandatorily divided equally between Clinton and Obama - no rollcall Deviation allowed. (I.e. the Chair of each such delegation shall So announce the votes; if s/he announces them Differently they shall be recorded in accordance with the committee Report anyway; and the Rules' provision for Polling of a delegation shall not apply to FL and MI.)

~ This Report is accompanied by the Minority Report recommending the seating of FL & MI delegates exactly as allocated by the respective Primary results. / Advocating it, the Clintonians argue that the Majority Report is a Sham because it still Disfranchises the voters by misrepresenting their expressed presidential preferences ~ and that since the Committee majority has already overthrown the notion that the Rules prohibit the Two States from being seated at all, the Convention should now seat them in a way that gives Effect to the 2-state voters' Votes. (The Hillarylanders also point out that in all fairness the Michigan Uncommitted delegates will surely vote for Barack, omitting any mention of the several Moles whom they have managed to Slip In during the Uncommitted Delegate-selection process. :)

~ In a rollcall vote whose margin-of-victory almost Exactly forecasts Obama's over Clinton for the nomination (though its Total vote is of course some 368 less, for want of the even-steven MI & FL votes to be cast by Rote** on the presidential rollcall), the Majority Report is adopted.

And THEN, you see, the Decision will have been Made. / And all according to the Rules. / But Until then, neither She who seeks to finagle such Minority report into adoption for partisan advantage, nor He who seeks to manipulate such Majority settlement to approval for the identical reason ~ both of them thus being Inconsistent with some of their respective past positions & statements ~ neither, as I say, Cheets, Meestah Jones.

(**And by the way, somebody better make damn sure this guy Rote is on deck & sober when the roll is called, lest the whole deal fall apart :)

* * * * * * * *

P.S.: now before you go all Huffington & Puffington at me, here, do remember that I've posted Much more Hateful comments in the past :}. Go ahead, ask Drudge. / Hell, you can even ask Ian Paisley ;].

Alasdair, I didn't say it was misogyny to go after Hillary. Brendan SUGGESTED I thought it. I don't.


Actually, given that the males in your household respect you, I didn't think *you* had felt it to be misogyny, either ...

(innocent grin)

I will point out, again, that I do not consider Hillary worthy of the effort of "going after her" ... all it takes to prevent her becoming the next POTUS is to repeat her own words and her own best and most notable "achievements" (like Hillarycare) ...

I continue to be amused how, each time Senator Clinton is accurately seen by portions of the electorate, her share of the vote goes down ...

Brendan,

Here:

... utterly

... absolutely

... ridiculous

... NONE *

... absolutely (again)

* My understanding is that caps constitute shouting in online parlance.

I don't know how much further you could take this language. This is the kind of thing I was referring to.

Mom
AKA Leanna

I'm going to save my detailed response for e-mail. Suffice it to say, for present purposes, that I completely and utterly deny that the language you've quoted in any way indicates that my motive for criticizing Hillary Clinton is "seething hatred," let alone that it's the most heated (or "hateful") my rhetoric on the blog has ever been, and still less that it is part and parcel of the most virulently and seethingly hateful political discourse in this country in your lifetime.

hillary and bill are the ones that have been showing their "real Colors" even though the spin is that it was Obama who "dropped his mask" in san francisco....
HE TOLD THE TRUTH about the sadness, bitterness, etc and of course people turn to what they know or "cling" TO as was said.what else do they have after being betrayed and abandoned by a government of Bush's and Clintons'.. BOY, TALK ABOUT ELITEISTS!!These guys have no understanding or care for the people.....let's face it, they are all about power..please please America, wake up, we have a chance to turn things around this time!!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Friends & family