Did Hillary Lose? Not So Fast: Taking Stock

End of An Era?

The bullet train that was the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign has come to a sudden stop, and many of us are still reeling from the impact. I began this post ten days ago, but had to “suspend” it until now, due to an acceleration of flying information to either disseminate or set straight — similar to the last three months, but faster. I was fortunate to attend the last of Hillary’s campaign events, and finally here we are.

Some of my friends and family, both Obama and Hillary voters, don’t seem to understand why I can’t readily jump on board the Obama train or would consider casting a protest vote. They are horrified, as am I, at the thought of the results of four more years of Republican rule. Like Gloria Steinem, one of my ardent feminist friends is now throwing her support to Sen. Obama. After all, they say, he won. Albeit things were a bit scuzzy, it’s time to move on — Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, The War, and won’t it be great to have a black President? Other supporters say, please, we must listen to Hillary, it will look bad for her otherwise, and could hinder her ability to accomplish her programs. If we claim to support her, we’ll take the wisdom of her request and respect it. Some say yes VP, others say, no way, it’s beneath her; let him find his way out. Others buzz: You never know; perhaps he’ll self-destruct before the Convention, and the Party will beg Hillary to come save it.

Many Clinton supporters, men and women, of all races and ages, insist that they will never, ever, ever vote for Obama due to his disrespectful, misogynistic, race-baiting treatment of Hillary and Bill — and by extension all of us — his lightweight resume, questionable associates and tactics, his wavering, shallow policies, reported caucus state irregularities by surrogates, his stand against full Florida and Michigan voting rights, his hijacking MI delegates, plus taking those that weren’t actually his; last but not least, his potentially dangerous position toward Israel, and associations with anti-Semitic, racist preachers and factions. That’s just the short list.

Jubilant In Puerto Rico

Ten days ago, on Sunday, June 1, 2008, Hillary had just won the Puerto Rico primary by a landslide. The Puerto Ricans were jubilant, and honored her with the respect that they clearly understood she deserved. The previous day, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee had their much anticipated vote in which they decided to: restore Florida to one-half vote per delegate; award 55 Michigan delegates to Obama, who had tactically removed his name from the ballot before the primary; and give four Clinton delegates to him as well, rather than reflect the 73 percent of that state’s vote, which Clinton had actually won.

It’s not easy to abandon a candidate who is clearly the strongest to win for the Democrats in November, but more than that, to abandon the one who won. People I met in person at campaign events or online, had become activated and motivated beyond their wildest intentions. As Hillary has acknowledged with gratitude, they gave months and years of their time, volunteering, serving internships, overworking as underpaid staffers. They traveled on buses to multiple states, blogged, emailed, created websites, made phone calls, raised and donated money, registered voters, stood on street corners waving signs, attended caucuses, and protested. People cast their votes for Hillary Clinton because her strength, courage, compassion, competence, and policies resonated with them.

DNC RBC Meeting and Aftermath

They say a day is like a year in politics. Surely, it feels that way these days. After returning from the DNC RBC Rally late Saturday, May 31, I watched the replay and aftermath commentary on CPAN’s Washington Journal the following morning, happily avoiding the Sunday “political” shows.

Mitchell Caesar, of Florida, Superdelegate and DNC Executive Board Member, felt bad that Florida didn’t get 100% of their vote. He asked that people have patience and likened the ruling to “a family fight, and we’ll come together in the end” — to which a caller responded sardonically,

“You had eight years.”

Martha Fuller Clark, Obama for President, NH co-chair, declared stunningly that voters should be grateful, because after all:

“We could have elected to not count 100 percent of the vote.”

Soooo? You’re saying then, it WAS arbitrary, and not about the rulz?

Karl Rove’s no nonsense assessment was:

“They took their finger and shoved it in her eye. On Saturday, he took 55 delegates not his and four of hers. He’s not a confident individual.”

By Monday, June 2, I was still wondering: What was Hillary going to do about the rights she’d reserved during the RBC Meeting via Harold Ickes to take her vote challenge to the DNC Credentials Committee? We were waiting to hear, but nothing emerged — only the perceptible, expectant drum beat of delegates marching in tandem over to Obama’s side. Were they being pressured? How? By whom? Their constituents? The Party?

Delegates and Supers

Then after an unexpectedly juicy South Dakota 10-point win on final Dem primary day — a day when a Trojan horse AP story declared that Hillary was dropping out, and Superdelegates pushed Obama’s lead to the new magic number of 2118 — he was declared the winner. Then the big shocker: Hillary did not make the speech she was expected to make. She, like me, wasn’t ready and made the speech she needed to make. I thought it was great, considering she’d just been cheated out of becoming POTUS, and nearly yanked off the stage by the salivating DNC.

Riverdaughter commented at The Confluence:

Hmmm, now we know why the RBC did what they did. She had over 100 delegates from Florida and 73 from Michigan. If he got zero from Michigan and both states had been able to seat with full strength, she could have added over 86 delegates and he would have lost 59. Hmm, that brings her total to 1725 and Obama’s to 1707. Day-um! I wouldn’t concede either.

I still thought about the vote challenge, but on Wednesday, June 4, the day after Hillary was criticized for her remarks at Baruch College, with the world, including Barack’s native Kenyan village, proclaiming him the winner, what could she do? Unseat him? Ummm, excuse me, but we have this challenge. There would have been riots in the streets. Sure, they had to let 18 million of us down, but heck, how could the snowball have been rolled back uphill? I specifically blame the DNC for this. That day, Charles Rangel and the NY Congressional delegation came out for Obama, after chastising Clinton for not honoring the theft nominee and for taking too long to concede. Like many of their colleagues, in the end, they couldn’t stand the pressure. It’s as if none of the 18 million voters even existed or had weight.

Campaign manager, Terry McAuliffe announced that Hillary would have an event for her supporters at the end of the week and make her speech then. So people calmed down a little bit, but he’d been saying the same thing all week.

Who cares. At least there finally was a winner.

So, how did the votes actually add up?

Obama won. The MSM, DNC, and Obama campaign reported it.

Did he?

Who Really Won?

Who really won the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primaries? Are caucuses fair? Do you understand what happened with all these numbers?

Texas Darlin’ at No Quarter says, “It’s a Tie! (Popular v. Pledged Delegates)” — The final tally:

Congratulations to both Democratic frontrunners!

Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote by over 300,000 votes. Barack Obama has won 130 more pledged delegates.

Here are the final totals:

POPULAR VOTE (all primaries and caucuses)
Hillary Clinton: 17,785,009
Barack Obama: 17,479,990

Barack Obama: 1766.5
Hillary Clinton: 1639.5

Hillary won the most popular votes in presidential primary history. She won them for the Democrats, and instead of celebrating her, they tossed her out on her fanny. Striking, no?

Hillary’s supporters understand what their candidate has asked of them in suspending her campaign and requesting that 18 million of us join to elect Barack Obama POTUS. Hillary is a politician. She’s cut out for the battle, and can turn around and schmooze with adversaries like it’s old times. Me, not so much. I’m troubled, like many people, by the apparent DNC internal decision to crown Barack Obama the nominee, passing over the more substantial, qualified candidate, who’s BTW a woman.

So? Now, I’m supposed to roll over, kiss, and makeup like a good girl? Sorry, not so fast, I’m not that easy.

Are Caucuses Fair?

On June 3, 2008, Huffington Post political editor Thomas Edsall posted, “Obama’s Debt To Harold Ickes,” in which he explains:

If the caucus states were eliminated, Obama would not be the one on the verge of declaring victory.

As of June 2, according to RealClearPolitics, Obama had a 157 delegate vote lead over Clinton, 2072 to 1915.

In the 14 states that picked some or all of their delegates through caucus systems this year, Obama won 400 delegates to Clinton’s 193, a 207 delegate advantage that more than accounts for his overall delegate lead.

An analysis (pdf) published on TalkLeft found that total Democratic voter participation in the caucus states amounted to 1.1 million people, compared to the 32.4 million voters in Democratic primaries, a ratio of 30 to one. Caucus participants made up 3.2 percent of the total of 33.5 million primary voters and caucus goers combined.

In contrast to the relatively close results in most primary states, Obama won many of the caucus states by huge margins, often substantially exceeding 60 percent. As a consequence, he piled up large numbers of delegates in the relatively low turnout contests.

The TalkLeft analysis noted that Clinton won 11 more delegates than Obama in the New Jersey primary, which she won by 112,128 votes, while Obama won 12 more delegates than Clinton in the Idaho caucuses which he won by 13,225 votes. Similarly, Clinton netted 12 delegates by winning the Pennsylvania primary by 214,115 votes, while Obama came out ahead by 14 delegates by winning the Kansas caucuses by 17,710 votes.

Wow. Gives you pause, no?

Were Deals Made?

Plukasiak discusses The RBC Violation of DNC “Sunshine Rules” in a guest post at The Confluence. Here’s an excerpt:

Barack Obama and his supporters on the committee engineered a deal in secret to disenfranchise constituency groups that have consistently supported Democrats – and who have consistently supported Hillary Clinton during this primary season. These key constituencies were treated as “half citizens” in Florida and Michigan solely to benefit Obama.


And there can be no question that it was the intent of Barack Obama to provide different treatment to different voters. In Michigan, Obama had his representative demand that the delegates in Michigan be provided with full voting power, (while completely ignoring their votes, and demanding a 50-50 split) while demanding that Floridians – a state with large number of Jewish voters, Latino/Hispanic voters, and older voters –– were to be given only half-representation. Obama’s position was so internally inconsistent that it can only be seen as an effort to disenfranchise those constituencies that have consistently supported Hillary Clinton, and provided her with a considerable margin in Florida among both delegates and the popular vote.


And “the rules” is no excuse. If “the rules” compel you to treat some Americans as being unequal to all other Americans, then there is something wrong with the rules. Anyone with an ounce of human dignity would recognize this, and take the easy and appropriate step of resigning from the RBC rather than enforce a provision of the rules that is an insult to human dignity.

Who Made Them?

Tom In Paine wrote yesterday, June 10, in his post After Math that this was the first time in history the Democratic contender with the most votes lost the nomination. This is due to the failed Democratic apportionment system which gives nearly equal delegates to primary losers as winners, and which in the end produced no clearcut winner.

So super delegates are asked to do something you hate to see a Democratic elected official do — exercise their political judgment and pick the candidate they think has the best chance to win in the fall.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Howard Dean insisted it had to be done now even though the convention was 2 months away. And why? Because Pelosi, Reid, Dean and the Obama wing of the party are trying to sell a candidate with a resume and a list of accomplishments that you can read faster than a value meal menu and they didn’t think Obama could stand up to 2 more months of Hillary Clinton. Given the way Clinton finished and Obama limped to the finish line they might have been right.

But what did super delegates do when they exercised their political judgment? They looked at the popular vote and decided to choose the candidate the majority of voters in the Democratic Party voted against. They looked at the delegate count and saw that, not counting the 55 disputed Michigan delegates, Obama ended with a delegate lead of 77 out of over 4000 even though the democratic apportionment system awarded Obama over 700 delegates in states where he lost by landslide margins. They saw that Clinton was the winner of the 13 biggest and most populous states in the country, won every big state in the northeast, took the industrial midwest, the entire southwest from Oklahoma to Nevada, Kentucky, W.Va, Tennessee, Florida, Michigan, and California by landslide margins and decided they wanted the loser. And now they’ve got him and half the Democratic Party is ready to defect.

Women’s Dilemma

Finally, commenter anne, sums it up:

  1. . . . how difficult many women find it to face sexism head on. If Obama had been defeated by a similar kind of rancid form of racism and cheating from the Clinton campaign, you can be pretty sure that none of his supporters would be ignoring the racism that made him lose – it would be front and center of any push back against his loss. A lot of women on the other hand seem to be searching for ways to rationalize what was done to Hillary, when in fact the only way we can get through this and ensure it doesn’t happen again is by not voting for Obama. If the stinking misogyny of his campaign and his media supporters is rewarded with a win, the misogynists will take it as a green light to carry on. The sexist triumphalism we’ve seen from some of Obama’s supporters trolling Clinton supporting blogs will only be the start of it.

    On the other hand a loss will mean that perhaps finally women will be taken seriously as a constituency to be courted and not just the by-rote “we”ll protect Roe vs Wade” when they plan to do no such thing.

Me, right now, I’m just watching, seeing what goes down. Like I said. Slow down, I’m not so easy.

37 thoughts on “Did Hillary Lose? Not So Fast: Taking Stock

  1. Hi: Great post. Will be linking to it soon. Covers just about everything. Just in case you are wondering, for me, this is a trial separation. You can read more about my trial separation at my new blog http://www.DemocratInExile.com, formerly MenforHillary.org, HillaryNowObamaLater. org

    Which reminds me, just think of what it could have been if they had the guts to make it a 16-year strategy — Hillary Now, Obama Later… as if….

  2. Terrific post. Female Hillary supporters do not determine who they will vote for in November solely on the abortion rights issue. We will vote based on what gives us the best chance of ensuring that our votes and voices are respected. The real “choice” issue women face this general election is the choice to abort the non-viable DNC leadership by choosing to vote for John McCain. The truest “pro-choice” vote this fall will not be focused on Roe-vs.-Wade anxieties — rather on the “pro-choice” vote to ensure that our voices are respected. Choose to abort the DNC leadership.

  3. Wow! What an incredible post. Thanks for putting it all together.

    In the end, it was the SDs choice. There was talk of riots at the convention if the SDs had chosen the other way. I guess “a bunch of old ladies” just doesn’t evoke fear.

    I don’t know that I’m up for a riot, but getting organized and doing something certainly is the order of the day.

    I did make a contribution to Hillary from her site. I am encouraging others to do the same. I want us to pay off her debt.

  4. You are right that the caucuses do not reflect the popular vote as well as prinmaries do. However Clinton and her campaign agreed with the rules set last year as they did with the punishment of Florida and Michigan. So, what do you think about this?

  5. i knew that the repubvlic party could do anything to get bush elected but he really didn’t get it honest just like oboma so the democrates are following their example oboma didn’t earn a lot of the delegates he took them from sen. hillary clinton so i’m not voting for oboma he is a lier and he has the wrong friends if sen. hillary had friends like ayers and dohrn and a church leader like rev. wright i wouldn’t have vote for her in the primeries but my vote didn’t count like millions didn’t so i’m thinking about not voting and if i do i’m voting MCcain oboma doesn’t deserve to be president just like bush didn’t they both stoled it and oboma doesn’t deserve my vote and i have ask my friends who voted for sen. hillary were they going to vote for oboma they said know and neither is my family

  6. It is clear with the facts Hillary won the people! I thought that was what democracy was about…the people and their voice! Many say how can you not support BO and be a democrate…easy. I’m an Independent now after 30 years being a dem.! I will vote McCain mainly because it’s like “better the devil I know than the devil I don’t”!!!!

  7. Great post. I’ve seen your name around some of the blogs I visit daily, but this is my first visit here. Glad I found this post.

    I agree with the ending commenter that whatever we do, we must protect our leverage by not voting for Obama. If that means voting for McCain, so be it, though I plan to not vote in that particular race at all, or vote third party. I think if a huge chunk of women just sat this one out that both parties would develop strategies to appeal to us. Unfortunately, I think too many of us aren’t paying enough attention, or are too busy sleeping with the enemy to realize they even HAVE leverage now.

  8. Mark, sarah, Elizabeth, SophieL, kathleen t, clara, Sherri: Thank you for visiting and commenting.

    annabellep: Glad you found my blog. I agree that people, many Hillary supporters, who don’t follow things closely just think Obama won and that’s that. Absolutely, we need to keep the momentum going, and it’s helpful to have various groups coming together now, and rapidly so!

    kathleen t: Hillary agreed not to campaign in Florida, as did Obama, but he did two events or ads, truthfully, I forget. I have always heard Hillary advocate to have all the votes counted in both states, while Obama blocked and refused attempts to have re-votes in both states, states he would reportedly have lost. The DNC RBC rulz, as they’re called were applied unevenly, and not at all to the four other states that also voted early without penalty. The committee could obviously do what it wished, because they could have also voted to restore none of the delegates, 1/2 delegate, or 100%. Many arbitrary actions now seem part of a predetermined strategy in retrospect.

  9. I may be an “old lady” in FL, but I really do want a
    Democrat in the White House for next 8 years.
    Soooo, …The alternative of McCain could only be
    opted for by a Democrat, if that Dem has not yet studied McCain’s issues, policies, past votes, and campaign emphasis. He is NOT an alternative to Hillary; he is the opposite of Hillary. AND….he must smile every time his campaign reads a website like this. This site (and others similar) are giving McCain lots of good stuff to use. I still can’t fugure out why we Democrats want to help him create his anti -Democratic (Obama) campaign.
    Please, please, please, fellow Dems!!!!!! look at the
    whole picture! Put a band-aid on your wounds and help defeat John McCain, Republican.
    Besides, it will make Hillary look bad if you don’t.

    a Fla senior citizen…..staunchly Democratic!

  10. Thanks for the great summary! When it’s all put together this way, it seems unbelievable that this has happened in the USA.

    I’ve been blogging relentlessly about:


    It goes like this.

    In order to defeat Obama (unless we’re lucky and he implodes before the convention), we have to organize and channel ALL our votes to McCain.

    I do not care for McCain. I deploy his attitude toward women’s needs/rights, his war mongering obsession, his economic Bush policies – I could go on.

    BUT, he is the only path to a Hillary Clinton presidency!

    All polititical prognosticators, pundit and erstwhile analysts agree that there will be large Democratic Majority in both the House and Senate for 2009.

    This means a McCain presidency will be deadlocked. This means President McCain will be a lame-duck going into office, given his age and his inability to get much of anything done.

    McCain will not be able to put conservative judges on the bench (be it federal judges or the Supreme Court) without a 2/3 majority approval of the Senate. Some say the Senate could have as much as a 60/40 Democratic make-up. If McCain does not nominate a moderate who passes the litmus test of not touching Roe vs Wade, then the Court can operate with a 4/4 deadlock and a vacancy until 2012.

    The future of Roe vs Wade will rest entirely in the hands of the Democratic Majority, which will have no reason whatsoever to appease a lame-duck president.

    McCain will not be able to continue his war mongering without the blessing – and funding of his wars – by Congress. The Democratic Majority will be in complete control of the war machine by refusing to fund more than what it takes to bring our troops home in a safe, expeditious manner.

    And so it goes for the rest of the McCain presidential story.

    Anything McCain does by Executive Order can be undone by a new president in 2012 by simply rescinding the orders.

    Yes, there is some damage McCain can do. But we have to compare that damage to what the ultra liberal, radical thug Obama can do with the DNC, the fawning media and a rubber-stamping Democratic Majority at his back. I shudder!

    Further, there is the principle of allowing this scurrilous crowd to get away with the sexism, race-baiting, disenfranchisement and disrespect of voters and the downright theft and thuggery they have indulged in this election cycle.

    And that doesn’t even include what they have done to Hillary Clinton – the winner of the Democratic Primaries.

    The DNC and Obama are having wet dreams about the way the Hillary supporters are split right now which guarantees Obama’s Presidency. Some are voting for Obama because “Hillary said so,” some are not voting at all, some are writing Hillary in, some are voting for the Green Party/Libertarian Party.

    Every single one of these votes is a vote for Obama!!! Remember how Nadar siphoned off just enough votes from Gore to give the election to Bush (with a little help from the Supremes)?


    Who knows? If we move in a loud voting block for McCain and the GOP does its job in defining Obama for what he really is, it may be possible that Obama will be unelectable by August 25 and Hillary can step in.

    Or McCain wins and spends four impotent years in the White House while Hillary builds her base for 2012.

  11. There is definitely some bad math here.

    OK, I have Obama at 1766.5 delegates. OK, so let’s take away the delegates he was awarded from Michigan, which would of course take away 29.5 delegates, not 59. That puts Obama at 1737.

    Next, let’s double Florida and Michigan and give them 100%. Well, you have to add 38.5 to Obama now to take into consideration his Florida delegates. That puts him back up to 1775.5 delegates.

    As for Clinton, I have her currently at 1638.5. Add her doubled Florida delegates (52.5) and she’s up to 1691. Add her doubled Michigan delegates (34.5) and she’s up to 1725.5. Add the 4 delegates taken from her, and that makes it 1729.5.

    So, after we award Michigan and Florida as won in the primaries and at 100%, we have:

    Obama – 1775.5
    Clinton – 1729.5

    Obama still leads by 46 delegates.

    As for caucuses and delegates…whether using delegates is fair and whether caucuses are fair or not is really besides the point. We used them this time. If you want to change it for next time, fine, but the nomination process in 2008 was what it was.

  12. fleetadmiralJ:

    I think the argument is that the “will of the people” has been usurped by the DNC with their ridiculous rules – and brazenly against their ridiculous rules.

    Funny how the “rules” apply when Obama and the DNC want them to but don’t apply when they are inconvenient to the crowning of the chosen one.

    1) Other (I believe three) states moved up their primaries against DNC rules but were not penalized – at all.

    2) The rules do not allow the DNC to take delegates from one candidate – delegates won by actual voters voting for Hillary – and award them to another candidate – but they did.

    3) The rules are that the primary is not over until the official vote at the convention in August, but Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and former presidential losers FORCED Hillary Clinton out of the race.

    4) The rules did not allow a candidate to run ads in Florida, but Barack Obama did run ads in Florida (national ads) but that was overlooked by the DNC. An ad run is an ad run. He broke the “rules” by any measure – but hey, he’s Barack.

    5) Reports of fraud and other foul play abounded surrounding the caucuses – Barack’s playground. Foul play and fraud are STRICTLY AGAINST THE RULES of the DNC…I think…well…surely they are…but the DNC did not investigate these incidents.

    6) The rules did not force Barack Obama to take his name off the ballot in Michigan, but he did (because he knew Hillary was going to beat him badly) and he got absolutely not one MI vote – unless his name is really “uncommitted.” Hillary did not violate any rule when she left her name on the ballot and got a bunch of votes. The DNC violated its own rules by apportioning delegates (uncommitted) to a candidate who – by the rules – did not win a single one.

    That’s how the game is played if you want the rules to apply no matter what!!!

    The rules say superdelegates can vote their own minds with no strings attached and do not have to vote until the convention, but the DNC strong-armed every vulnerable superdelegate to declare BEFORE THE PRIMARY ENDED for “their” chosen one Barack Obama.

    God only knows how many other rules the DNC broke out of our sight and hearing. If they have the audacity to do what they did in public, I daresay there is a single rule on their books that is sacred to them.

    The Democratic Primary allocation of delegates is one of the
    most stupid, ill-conceived plans ever devised. It points up what total incompetents are running the party.

    So, if you want to abide by the “rules,” in the strictest sense – which is what you propose – then

    1) Hillary gets 100% of her votes in Florida – Barack gets 0.
    2) Hillary gets 100% of her votes in Michigan – Barack get 0.

    Refigure that – according to your STRICT RULES – and then watch the wimpy superdelegates race to Hillary’s side and


    You folks who quote the RULES better rethink your position.

  13. Hello again,

    first of all I am glad that in this blog people do not insult each other but discuss their different opinions.

    Secondly, I want to thank ladyboomer for her quick response.

    However, I still think that Hillary and her campaign agreed earlier on not to seat the FL and MI delegations. In my opinion her interest is rather politcally motivated than having to do with democracy.

    I gathered some links for you to check the position of Hillary, Harold Ickes and her campaign on this issue:

    Hillary in her own words on New Hampshire Public Radio when a caller asked Clinton the following question:

    “Now, just this week most of your Democratic competitors removed their names from the Michigan primary ballot. But you didn’t, and my question is why?” It strikes me as this is politics as usual, where the politicians say one thing and they end up doing something else.”

    Hillary’s answer to this question:

    “It’s clear this election they’re having is not going to count for anything,” Clinton said. “But I personally didn’t want to set up a situation where the Republicans were going to be campaigning between now and whenever. Then, after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in November 2008.”

    Here Hillary’s answer as audio on youtube:

    An article on the Clinton campaign’s standpoint on Michigan and Florida:


    And a short report by Tim Russert (may God bless him):

    All the best to all Clinton and Obama supporters!


  14. Hi Kathleen,

    You quote Hillary on the MI primary: “It’s clear this election they’re having is not going to count for anything…”

    First, I don’t see how that statement is a clear waiver on Hillary’s part to her claiming the votes of that state. It seems more like her being resigned to the DNC’s decision on the matter at that time.

    She was perfectly within her rights to change her mind on fighting for those states when she saw (with the rest of us) the consequences of that really dumb DNC action.

    Sure she was motivated by winning those states, but why not? It was her good luck to be in a position to come down on the righteous side of the argument in the end.


    It’s not about what Hillary did or did not say or do. It’s about us voters and our belief that the DEMOCRATIC Party stood for some sense of honesty and fair play.

    What we know is that three other states jumped their start date on their primaries and were not penalized. So how does the DNC excuse their actions on FL and MI?

    And how stupid of Howard Dean et al to set up such a short-sighted penalty situation. Did they really not think about how it would come back to bite them in the rear during the general election?

    And how can anybody excuse what the DNC/RBC did by GIVING Obama votes in Michigan that he did not win?

    In other words, if we have to follow the letter of the DNC law, then the letter of the DNC rules should be imposed in each and every case all the way all the time.

    If the DNC gets to cherry pick the rules they like and ignore the rules that are inconvenient for them, then anarchy prevails in the Democratic Party.

    In that case, the only way for the grown-ups in the party to get the situation under control is to toss all the silly rules out the window and use good common sense.

    Common sense says we should be nominating the strongest candidate, the candidate that most voters cast votes for, the candidate most likely to win the election, the candidate most fit to govern.


    Thank you for your best wishes. We need all the help we can get!

  15. About: Lady Boomer NYC:
    Your post is the best analysis of the FEW political compre-hensive THINKING reports on the Internet I’ve read. YES!, WE all know Senator Hillary Clinton won this primary against all odds and despite all insults from her own Party. SHE is the winner but we created our own “Supreme Court” to undo our Democracy. What a SHAME. But,….We are not staying on the sidelines. We have the numbers, LETS WIN this time since we know who the ENEMY is. NOW here is the NEW MATH!!!. The DNC has a rubber stamp 30% of registered voters. The GOP has 30% rubber stamp regist-ered constituency. The rest of us OWN are VOTE totaling 40% of committed citizens who thrive on Democratic elections. Forthwith, we will REFUSE to take the “least of all evils,” because we do not have to.
    Therefore, Senator Clinton, since you did not Loose the election we must go forward with your campaign, take it out of the “suspend,” and, forgive me for asking you NOT to STOP at this moment, this is just a little STOP sign, YOU MUST GO the way Senator Liberman went in Connecticut. JUST GO Independent, you will win this time. WE will beat our lunatic, traitorous, back stabbing Party: Disregard their deceitful ways on behalf of all “the counted out,” count us in. LEAD us so we can WRITE-IN YOUR NAME in our precious ballots. My congratulations and gratitude for the incredible accomplishment and successful WINNING campaign you waged on behalf of all the American people. My contribution is for you, not for the DNC.

  16. Hi Linda,

    let me ask you a question:

    Imagine at the end of the primary season Hillary has accumulated a few more delegates than Barack. Not many but enough to have won the majority of pledged delegates.

    Now, let’s assume earlierer this year Barack had won handily in FL and MI (where Hillary was not on the ballot), but the candidates and the DNC had agreed last year that these results wouldn’t count as these states moved up their primaries.

    Then, at the end of the primary season the Democratic Rules Committee meets, as Barack has continouedly during the last months demanded that the voices of the people in Fl and MI must be heard for the sake of democracy and in order for the democratic presidential nominee to have a chance of winning these states in November.

    When the committee meets they agree with Obama and decide to restore the delegations 100%. As Hillary was not on the ballot in MI (which she had done to avoid disenfranchising the people in Iowa and New Hampshire) she gets no delegates at all from there and much less than Barack from FL.

    In the end this decision of the rules committee gives Barack enough delegates to gain the majority of pledged delegates and also gives him an advantage with the popular vote. The super delegates then decide to follow the majority of pledged delegates and Barack gets enough delegates to secure the nomination.

    First question:

    In this case would Hillary and her campaign be happy that all voices have been heard and enthusiastically support Barack?

    And second question:

    Would you be satisfied with this solution?



  17. Hi Kathleen,

    Fair questions, but let me preface my answers with the following:

    What most people don’t get, and certainly Obama and the DNC are missing, is that there are multiple problems we Hillary Democrats have with this election so far:

    1) DNC rules have been applied and/or broken selectively to advantage one Democratic candidate over the other. The candidate not favored by the DNC has been forced out of the race prematurely even though she is the stronger candidate and received more votes. We believe that even Obama’s small advantage in delegates is the result of a series of subtle / hidden / sometimes blatantly illicit manipulations by the Obama Campaign and the DNC with media support.

    2) Cries of racism abounded from one candidate’s campaign. The DNC and press corps echoed those cries loudly. Sexism was rampant but when that disparaged candidate spoke out, she was ridiculed or dismissed. The DNC kept their collective mouths shut on the sexism issue until they needed the 18 million votes of that candidate. Then they spoke out loudly. The press still arrogantly ignores their bias and sexism.

    3) The “Media chosen” candidate received unprecedented positive press coverage. So-called journalists brazenly became enthusiastic surrogates and campaign operatives in a frightening move to elect the candidate of their choice – depriving the public forever of a free press. From now forward, we know ANY news we get is tainted by a news corps that cannot be trusted in any way but which actively propagandizes for its own advantage. Even those pundits we considered even-handed in the past showed their true colors.


    Everyone – Obama supporters, Independents, and Republicans – should be alarmed by this massive collapse of the independent free press and the outlaw tactics rampant within the parties of our political system.


    I say “almost” because my candidate lost and it would be disingenuous of me to pretend that the loss doesn’t heighten my outrage – but it is by no means the major reason for my outrage.


    You ask “In this case would Hillary and her campaign be happy that all voices have been heard and enthusiastically support Barack?” and “Would you be satisfied with this solution?”

    I can’t speak for other Hillary supporters, but I would not be happy because I treasure democracy and deplore anything that dismantles that system. I would be dismayed at the illicit behavior of the DNC and other Democratic leadership and the horrific press bias.

    I would never support Barack Obama (or anyone else like him) because I think he is untruthful, vengeful, immature, radical, far-left, arrogant, and the slickest politician this country has seen in my (long) lifetime.

    I would never support a candidate like Barack Obama no matter whether he won fair or not. And I will fight to keep him out of the presidency.


  18. Linda A1 — Thank you for throwing it down! I appreciate your holding down the fort and laying things out so well.

    To all who posted and made comments in this thread — Thank you, even to the doubters.

    Dear doubters: It’s good that you’re keeping it civil, although please do your homework and read up. Although I’m sure we all like healthy discussion, do we have to keep going over the same territory? We’re trying to join forces and move our energy forward or at least cover new territory. Speaking for myself, I’d like to use my energy for that.

  19. Hi Prodigal,

    As you probably know, the Democratic Party is made up of a multitude of political positions – only one is far-left and it is by no means the majority of the party.

    I am a centrist Democrat like Hillary Clinton, which is why I support her.

    The old Democratic Party I knew and loved was a big umbrella with everybody tolerating, even respecting each other – or at least expecting fairness for those who held differing beliefs.

    Well, apparently, to hell with that!

    During this 2008 campaign, this new Democratic Party has been hijacked by the radical far-left wing in cahoots with less radical left-wingers who – for whatever reason – are turning a blind eye to the thuggery of the Obama Campaign and the fascist behavior of the DNC.

    The disrespectful, often hateful, sometimes illicit behavior of the far-left leadership and their supporters has left conservative and moderate Democrats practically in shock.

    For a few days, we lay in the ditch peering in disbelief after the Democratic Party Bus (now known as the Obama Bus from which we had just been thrown) speeding gleefully off into the distance.

    But now we have gotten our butts up, gotten our backs up, gotten our chins up and put our websites up. Now there is a growing dust up and we can expect a major come-uppance to follow.

    The behavior of Obama and his supporters and the DNC has blown right past the line of what we Hillary supporters thought was the worst we could have ever expected from the GOP machine.


    “Since when has “far-left” been something a Democrat used as a negative descriptor?”

    Oh…about….hmmm, let’s see…when did this corrupt 2008 Democratic Presidential Campaign begin?

    That’s when.

    It’s sad. I like far-left liberals. I was a far-left liberal once. Most of my friends are far-left liberals.

    Now I feel like I’ve been pistol whipped by my sister. And I ain’t gonna take it lying down.

  20. Linda, up until I saw you use “far left” as a slur, I’d only ever seen Republicans use it in any kind of significantly negative manner. So seeing a Democrat using a GOP talking point was just a mite confusing.

  21. Prodigal,

    I totally agree that hearing Democrats speak about other Democrats in language previously used only by Republicans talking about Democrats is disconcerting.

    So imagine how disconcerting it is to experience yourself and your chosen candidate become the object of intense political scorn, ridicule and abuse – not by the opposition Republicans but by your own Democratic Party.

    It’s a topsy turvy mind-blowing political season.

    Obama supporters often accuse Hillary supporters of using GOP talking points. Whether intended or not, the comments have a “traitor” implication attached to them.

    If my own Democratic Party is going to treat me like Republicans typically treat me, it only follows that typically Republican language rightfully and credibly becomes my own – not a GOP talking point.

    Words are words – Republicans have no special ownership when it comes to using “far left” in a negative sense.

    If it’s a Democrat the shoe fits…

  22. If my own Democratic Party is going to treat me like Republicans typically treat me, it only follows that typically Republican language rightfully and credibly becomes my own – not a GOP talking point.

    If so, then you’ve just excused Obama supporters for doing the same thing that you’ve been doing in this discussion.

  23. Prodigal,

    You’re an exception as a supporter (or devil’s advocate) for Obama in that you put forth credible questions and make your points without the typical name-calling and vile hysteria.


    I believe there’s a distinction between disgusting self-indulgent gutter-talk and pointing out negatives with a little self-indulgent angst.

    I can’t draw a clear line where discourse crosses from acceptable to unacceptable, but like pornography – I know it when I read it.

    You say…”you’ve just excused Obama supporters for doing the same thing that you’ve been doing in this discussion.”

    If Obama supporters would comport themselves in the same way I have during this discussion, I would be thrilled.

    The particular comment you quote, however, refers to how I have been treated by the Democratic Party, not Obama supporters.

    Being subjected to Obama supporter trash-talk is no more than irritating and disgusting. Being disenfranchised in a so-called democratic republic by my own (now corrupt) national political party is devastating.

    I don’t believe the Democratic Party treated Obama supporters in any way that would cause anything other than boundless exuberance.

    I do acknowledge what I think your point was meant to be:

    If a Hillary supporter gets in an Obama supporter’s face with gratuitous gutter-speak, then the Obama supporter can certainly chose to return fire and become the south end of a north-bound mule too.

  24. No, Linda, that was not my point. My point was that if you’re going to use Republican talking points to demonise those with whom you disagree, then either you can’t say that others are bad for doing so, or you have to admit that you’re being just as bad as you say they are. You can’t claim the high ground while you’re in the gutters, neh?

    Perhaps I was simply frequenting the wrong mailing lists, discussion groups and blogs in the early parts of the primary season, but in the fora I frequented it was the Clinton supporters who first resorted to the gutter talk you complain about, tossing the phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid” around without ever stopping to consider that anybody could have a reason for supporting Obama other than blind sexism.

    I know when I saw the discourse cross from acceptible to unacceptible – it was the day after the Texas primary, when a number of fellow Democrats whom I’d considered good friends began what has, to date, been three and a half months of personal attacks against me for supporting Obama rather than Clinton.

  25. Prodigal,

    YOU SAY “You can’t claim the high ground while you’re in the gutters, neh?”

    Oh, I can claim the high ground from anywhere these days – check your 2008 Political Campaign User Guide.

    We seem to be having a disconnect, or maybe I’m not making my point well:

    I don’t believe gutter talk qualifies as a political talking point in anybody’s book. A political talking point usually expresses a fact or a point of view – sometimes genuine, sometimes disingenuous – for the purpose of persuasion.

    Gutter talk is just empty nasty words. It’s what people spew when they don’t have the mental ability (or they’re just too intellectually lazy) to form a logical, reasonable thought worth hearing.

    YOU SAY: “…if you’re going to use Republican talking points to demonise those with whom you disagree, then either you can’t say that others are bad for doing so, or you have to admit that you’re being just as bad as you say they are.”

    First, let me clarify that I do not use “Republican talking points.” I just call it as I see it. If my opinion coincides with a Republican opinion these days, so be it.

    Second, I can’t think of an example of when an Obama supporter would have need of using a Republican talking point. Obama supporters OWN the DNC now including the Democratic Talking Point Library.

    You know what confounds me? Why is it that Obama supporters sound more like the losers than the winners?

    (That’s genuine question – not an insult. I really wonder.)

    As for your NObama friends, I’m painfully familiar with that territory from the Obama-yes camp. I think it’s that way for most political junkies these days. I’ve quarantined myself from personal acquaintances who cannot be reasonably civil about this whole thing.

  26. The use of “far-left” to attack the Democratic party’s been a Republican talking point for more years than I can easily recall, so I’m calling your use of it as I see it.

  27. far – 1: at or to a great distance; a long way off; or to a remote point:

    left – 1 a:of, relating to, situated on, or bing the side of the body in which the heart is mostly located;

    Prodigal, try as I may, I can’t find the word Republican attached to either word in any dictionary nor is there any ownership of those words implied anywhere.

    I believe yours is what constitutes entrenched thinking and it’s my cue to blog on elsewhere.

  28. LindaA1 — Please don’t leave. I thought you were staying in the conversation because you wanted to be in it. Your patience and intelligence went beyond the call, and I didn’t say anything to Prodigal, because you seemed okay.

    However, this blog is a Hillary supporter and beyond safe-place. YOU don’t need to leave if you’re uncomfortable. Prodigal does. He has continued to challenge in condescendingly mind-fuck way. It’s just an exercise in futility and he’s baiting you, and a waste of time. The only reason he engaged you was because he could and you kept in the conversation. I hope you will reconsider. Ignore him.

    I apologize for not coming to your defense sooner, and letting some things go by — time constraints — too many to name of his, all above.

    Prodigal, please take your condescending tone and challenges elsewhere.

  29. Lady Boomer NYC,

    Not to worry. I meant “blog on elsewhere” from this particular conversation.

    So long as I can make or expand on a point, I rather enjoy folks who serve up fat lazy softballs right over the center of the plate.

    It’s when the conversation reaches repetition or stalemate like this one that I’m done with the back and forth.

    You gotta hand it to Prodigal, he stayed civil and that’s rare from an Obama supporter in my experience.

    I’m delighted with your website. I’ll be hanging around.

  30. LindaA1 — Oh good! I guess you like it! I prefer to just write and leave the duking out to others. (big exhale) Yes, he stayed civil, but his slams were rather underhanded. Glad you’re still in.

  31. silvia, Thank you! Let’s turn our discontent into action to make sure this never happens again. Let’s create a more educated electorate who won’t fall in line or stand for this again! I’m afraid, with Hillary’s calls for unity now, that it will stand for now. But still not giving up.

  32. Remember when John McCain railed against the Evangelical influence on the Republican Party in 2000 against George Bush. The evangelicals are still not supporting McCain because of it. Their endorsement is not coming or lukewarm. At the same time, guess who is courting them.Thats right, its Barack Obama. With Obama’s start to his campaign, he began the “Gospel Tour”. That tour included alot of gay-bashing. As long as Obama is reaching out to them and the evangelicals are not having influence with John McCain, I can easily support him. I don’t want anybody’s religion, especially Obama’s anywhere near my country’s politics. Thats what we got with Bush. What did that do for us? Obama is a fraud. Please head over tot the Boston Globe (Boston.com) and read about Obama’s history with developers using tax-payer dollars to screw the poor in his district. Oama claims he was not aware of these people’s plight. I ask again, just what is a “community organizer”?http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s