I find it interesting that there's so much more venom between supporters for the two Democratic candidates than there is against any of the GOP noms, save perhaps for Cosmo's "f--- McCain" post from the other week.
I know it's cliche to say this but it is so typically "left" to be at each other's throats. Not that the right doesn't have to deal with this (see McCain's attempt to rally the hardcore conservatives to his cause) but still.
I don't recall the 2004 primary race to be this venomous. Not that Kerry really gets the blood pumping though...
I don't think it's "so left" - people are animated about their candidates and that's a great thing. Nothing at all in the Dem discourse is approaching the language being employed by the far right against McCain.
Clinton is waging an increasingly aggressive - and, unfortunately, alarmist - campaign, so I think Obama supporters are responding in kind. Circulating rumors that Obama should concede and shoot for VP, that Latinos will never vote for a Black candidate... It's strange that the statistics show Obama supporters as being equally happy with a Clinton presidency - most folks I talk to think that a Clinton nomination would be fundamentally wrong.
And on that note I think we are all about to see exactly how much venom can be spewed, as Clinton's campaign is now asking for the Florida and Michigan votes to be counted - she had agreed previously that they would be moot - and is courting the superdelegates very aggressively. Even if she does not win Texas or Pennsylvania she will still not go quietly... and we may be in for an UGLY convention in August.
Most of the speeches we see from Obama are for-supporters speeches, which aren't meant to be informative speeches, anyhow.
please! not meant to be informative? he is speaking to crowds of hundreds but television is broadcasting him to millions and his words are being printed in thousands of newspapers. he is grandiose and vague on purpose. does america want to be informed or just waive pom-poms and shout "ready to go"? how would we be reacting if republicans had this candidate who was a great motivator and an unbelievable speaker that even democrats were crossing over for, but when you checked him out - he had the same positions as the other leading GOP guy we all hate. we'd be yelling don't drink the kool aid!
obama as a candidate - obama and his supporters preaching change and acting like hillary won't do the same -
This does not bode well for the Democratic party in the general election ... I am far from convinced that enough people who voted for Bush in 2004 will just vote democrat because they are pissed at the GOP. The Dems need to be organized and united going into the general election, or that map is going to look the same on election night, all over again.
And on that note I think we are all about to see exactly how much venom can be spewed, as Clinton's campaign is now asking for the Florida and Michigan votes to be counted - she had agreed previously that they would be moot - and is courting the superdelegates very aggressively. Even if she does not win Texas or Pennsylvania she will still not go quietly... and we may be in for an UGLY convention in August.
iowa and new hampshire get tons of political attention and millions of dollars in tourism from being the first states to vote. its tradition that they go first, but both of those states voted for bush in '04 so f*ck them and there is no reason why they should be getting all the money and attention anyway. florida and michigan moved up and the dnc didn't want to see an avalanche of states following suit so they agreed to not count the delegates even though there is no valid reason for iowa and NH to be up front.
hillary hedged her bets by visiting florida and staying on the ballot in michigan. it wasn't slimy, it was smart. if the candidacy is undecided at the convention there will be a vote as to whether to seat the delegates from mich and florida. if she has the majority of the support from all the delegates in a vote, they'll get seated. at least that is how i understand it.
hillary hedged her bets by visiting florida and staying on the ballot in michigan. it wasn't slimy, it was smart. if the candidacy is undecided at the convention there will be a vote as to whether to seat the delegates from mich and florida. if she has the majority of the support from all the delegates in a vote, they'll get seated. at least that is how i understand it.
No, what's slimy is saying at the time that she supported the decision to strip those states of delegates and now that her victory is not assured she is petitioning to get them seated. THAT is slimy.
And, the reason why her victory is no longer assured is because for most voters, "that's not slimy, it's smart" is the exact opposite of what we want in our politicians.
hillary hedged her bets by visiting florida and staying on the ballot in michigan. it wasn't slimy, it was smart. if the candidacy is undecided at the convention there will be a vote as to whether to seat the delegates from mich and florida. if she has the majority of the support from all the delegates in a vote, they'll get seated. at least that is how i understand it.
No, what's slimy is saying at the time that she supported the decision to strip those states of delegates and now that her victory is not assured she is petitioning to get them seated. THAT is slimy.
And, the reason why her victory is no longer assured is because for most voters, "that's not slimy, it's smart" is the exact opposite of what we want in our politicians.
Business as usual
you act like the voters of michigan and florida, or even the states themselves, did something wrong. in either michigan or florida (or maybe both), it was the gop that made the decision to move up and the dems thought they wouldn't get a significant turnout if all primaries weren't on the same day.
what if obama had overwhelming support in a state where the delegates were in jeopardy? he wouldn't make an effort to try to get them counted??? puhleease dude.
by the way, obama and edwards took their names off the michigan ballot. she kept hers on. those guys were playing their cards - betting that it was a good move to support the dnc. she bet the other way and took some flak from the party for staying on. but what is fair here? that the people who will vote in the general election don't get to vote in the primaries - cause of some traditional bullshit over 2 red states?!?
Most of the speeches we see from Obama are for-supporters speeches, which aren't meant to be informative speeches, anyhow.
please! not meant to be informative? he is speaking to crowds of hundreds but television is broadcasting him to millions and his words are being printed in thousands of newspapers.
It's not his fault that his speeches are being disseminated to millions of people.
When was the last time you heard a victory speech in which the purpose was to inform?
Most of the speeches we see from Obama are for-supporters speeches, which aren't meant to be informative speeches, anyhow.
please! not meant to be informative? he is speaking to crowds of hundreds but television is broadcasting him to millions and his words are being printed in thousands of newspapers.
It's not his fault that his speeches are being disseminated to millions of people.
When was the last time you heard a victory speech in which the purpose was to inform?
ha, you must be watching the grammy awards! if he got up and said i'd like to thank.... you might have a point. whatever he is doing is helping him get votes, that is obvious.
I love the Clinton talking points and marching orders on Florida and Michigan.
"It's not fair -- to the voters."
This might be true. But it wasn't fair to them when their local leadership moved up the election knowing well what the consequences would be.
Hillary wanting Michigan to count is comical -- she was the only one on the ballot. If she didn't win, it'd be pretty bad.
Florida is different. No one was supposed to campaign down there, and it appeared no one did -- although here Hillary was with a huge rally on election night, the only Democratic candidate down there. Seems odd to me. I bet there was quite of hush-hush dealings on her part on that.
Also, whenever anyone talks about it, slimy is the word that comes up. I think we're onto something.
hillary hedged her bets by visiting florida and staying on the ballot in michigan. it wasn't slimy, it was smart. if the candidacy is undecided at the convention there will be a vote as to whether to seat the delegates from mich and florida. if she has the majority of the support from all the delegates in a vote, they'll get seated. at least that is how i understand it.
No, what's slimy is saying at the time that she supported the decision to strip those states of delegates and now that her victory is not assured she is petitioning to get them seated. THAT is slimy.
And, the reason why her victory is no longer assured is because for most voters, "that's not slimy, it's smart" is the exact opposite of what we want in our politicians.
Business as usual
you act like the voters of michigan and florida, or even the states themselves, did something wrong. in either michigan or florida (or maybe both), it was the gop that made the decision to move up and the dems thought they wouldn't get a significant turnout if all primaries weren't on the same day.
what if obama had overwhelming support in a state where the delegates were in jeopardy? he wouldn't make an effort to try to get them counted??? puhleease dude.
by the way, obama and edwards took their names off the michigan ballot. she kept hers on. those guys were playing their cards - betting that it was a good move to support the dnc. she bet the other way and took some flak from the party for staying on. but what is fair here? that the people who will vote in the general election don't get to vote in the primaries - cause of some traditional bullshit over 2 red states?!?
Michigan and Florida aren't red states - they both have substantial Democratic voter bases and are by no means ever a shoe-in for Republicans.
To be honest I thought it was bullshit for the states to move up, bullshit for the Party to take their delegates... but what the candidates did at that time was bound. It's certainly ridiculous to seat a Michigan delegation where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot.
I think Florida and Michigan should get to vote - I think the DNC screwed that up good. But Clinton can't just about face because all of a sudden she's losing in states where she was supposed to win.
I wish you had a better defense of your candidate than "puhleease".
To be honest I thought it was bullshit for the states to move up, bullshit for the Party to take their delegates... but what the candidates did at that time was bound. It's certainly ridiculous to seat a Michigan delegation where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot.
I think Florida and Michigan should get to vote - I think the DNC screwed that up good. But Clinton can't just about face because all of a sudden she's losing in states where she was supposed to win.
nobody has said that if they are seated, the delgates will be based on how the candidates did in the primaries. obama was on the ballot in florida and got served. if we were talking about a big obama state, would you feel the same way? would obama not be pressing to get those votes counted?
I wish you had a better defense of your candidate than "puhleease".
agreed, and i dont think i've ever used that pronunciation in my life. its painful to even read it.
but what is fair here? that the people who will vote in the general election don't get to vote in the primaries - cause of some traditional bullshit over 2 red states?!?
If it was a big Obama win I would feel the same way.
but what is fair here? that the people who will vote in the general election don't get to vote in the primaries - cause of some traditional bullshit over 2 red states?!?
the traditional bullshit over 2 red states refers to iowa and new hampshire. florida and michigan voters don't get to vote because those states actually had the balls to say - what is so special about iowa?
but what is fair here? that the people who will vote in the general election don't get to vote in the primaries - cause of some traditional bullshit over 2 red states?!?
the traditional bullshit over 2 red states refers to iowa and new hampshire. florida and michigan voters don't get to vote because those states actually had the balls to say - what is so special about iowa?
Oh, OK. I misunderstood that one.
I think the state party machines are at fault for this though - the DNC made it clear what the consequences were and the states went ahead anyway... and nobody cared. They could've fell back and the spotlight would be on THEM right now along with of Maine, Pennsylvania, Texas, etc
but what is fair here? that the people who will vote in the general election don't get to vote in the primaries - cause of some traditional bullshit over 2 red states?!?
the traditional bullshit over 2 red states refers to iowa and new hampshire. florida and michigan voters don't get to vote because those states actually had the balls to say - what is so special about iowa?
Oh, OK. I misunderstood that one.
I think the state party machines are at fault for this though - the DNC made it clear what the consequences were and the states went ahead anyway... and nobody cared. They could've fell back and the spotlight would be on THEM right now along with of Maine, Pennsylvania, Texas, etc
but what is fair here? that the people who will vote in the general election don't get to vote in the primaries - cause of some traditional bullshit over 2 red states?!?
the traditional bullshit over 2 red states refers to iowa and new hampshire. florida and michigan voters don't get to vote because those states actually had the balls to say - what is so special about iowa?
Oh, OK. I misunderstood that one.
I think the state party machines are at fault for this though - the DNC made it clear what the consequences were and the states went ahead anyway... and nobody cared. They could've fell back and the spotlight would be on THEM right now along with of Maine, Pennsylvania, Texas, etc
Comments
I know it's cliche to say this but it is so typically "left" to be at each other's throats. Not that the right doesn't have to deal with this (see McCain's attempt to rally the hardcore conservatives to his cause) but still.
I don't recall the 2004 primary race to be this venomous. Not that Kerry really gets the blood pumping though...
Clinton is waging an increasingly aggressive - and, unfortunately, alarmist - campaign, so I think Obama supporters are responding in kind. Circulating rumors that Obama should concede and shoot for VP, that Latinos will never vote for a Black candidate... It's strange that the statistics show Obama supporters as being equally happy with a Clinton presidency - most folks I talk to think that a Clinton nomination would be fundamentally wrong.
And on that note I think we are all about to see exactly how much venom can be spewed, as Clinton's campaign is now asking for the Florida and Michigan votes to be counted - she had agreed previously that they would be moot - and is courting the superdelegates very aggressively. Even if she does not win Texas or Pennsylvania she will still not go quietly... and we may be in for an UGLY convention in August.
please! not meant to be informative? he is speaking to crowds of hundreds but television is broadcasting him to millions and his words are being printed in thousands of newspapers. he is grandiose and vague on purpose. does america want to be informed or just waive pom-poms and shout "ready to go"? how would we be reacting if republicans had this candidate who was a great motivator and an unbelievable speaker that even democrats were crossing over for, but when you checked him out - he had the same positions as the other leading GOP guy we all hate. we'd be yelling don't drink the kool aid!
obama as a candidate -
This does not bode well for the Democratic party in the general
election ... I am far from convinced that enough people who voted
for Bush in 2004 will just vote democrat because they are pissed
at the GOP. The Dems need to be organized and united going into
the general election, or that map is going to look the same on
election night, all over again.
iowa and new hampshire get tons of political attention and millions of dollars in tourism from being the first states to vote. its tradition that they go first, but both of those states voted for bush in '04 so f*ck them and there is no reason why they should be getting all the money and attention anyway. florida and michigan moved up and the dnc didn't want to see an avalanche of states following suit so they agreed to not count the delegates even though there is no valid reason for iowa and NH to be up front.
hillary hedged her bets by visiting florida and staying on the ballot in michigan. it wasn't slimy, it was smart. if the candidacy is undecided at the convention there will be a vote as to whether to seat the delegates from mich and florida. if she has the majority of the support from all the delegates in a vote, they'll get seated. at least that is how i understand it.
DOGGIE,
that shit is so next level,
fuck hilly and her boyfriend,
and the discourse is elevated immeasurably.
No, what's slimy is saying at the time that she supported the decision to strip those states of delegates and now that her victory is not assured she is petitioning to get them seated. THAT is slimy.
And, the reason why her victory is no longer assured is because for most voters, "that's not slimy, it's smart" is the exact opposite of what we want in our politicians.
Business as usual
you act like the voters of michigan and florida, or even the states themselves, did something wrong. in either michigan or florida (or maybe both), it was the gop that made the decision to move up and the dems thought they wouldn't get a significant turnout if all primaries weren't on the same day.
what if obama had overwhelming support in a state where the delegates were in jeopardy? he wouldn't make an effort to try to get them counted??? puhleease dude.
by the way, obama and edwards took their names off the michigan ballot. she kept hers on. those guys were playing their cards - betting that it was a good move to support the dnc. she bet the other way and took some flak from the party for staying on. but what is fair here? that the people who will vote in the general election don't get to vote in the primaries - cause of some traditional bullshit over 2 red states?!?
It's not his fault that his speeches are being disseminated to millions of people.
When was the last time you heard a victory speech in which the purpose was to inform?
ha, you must be watching the grammy awards! if he got up and said i'd like to thank.... you might have a point. whatever he is doing is helping him get votes, that is obvious.
"It's not fair -- to the voters."
This might be true. But it wasn't fair to them when their local leadership moved up the election knowing well what the consequences would be.
Hillary wanting Michigan to count is comical -- she was the only one on the ballot. If she didn't win, it'd be pretty bad.
Florida is different. No one was supposed to campaign down there, and it appeared no one did -- although here Hillary was with a huge rally on election night, the only Democratic candidate down there. Seems odd to me. I bet there was quite of hush-hush dealings on her part on that.
Also, whenever anyone talks about it, slimy is the word that comes up. I think we're onto something.
Just caught both candidates on "60 Minutes."
Michigan and Florida aren't red states - they both have substantial Democratic voter bases and are by no means ever a shoe-in for Republicans.
To be honest I thought it was bullshit for the states to move up, bullshit for the Party to take their delegates... but what the candidates did at that time was bound. It's certainly ridiculous to seat a Michigan delegation where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot.
I think Florida and Michigan should get to vote - I think the DNC screwed that up good. But Clinton can't just about face because all of a sudden she's losing in states where she was supposed to win.
I wish you had a better defense of your candidate than "puhleease".
This tells us exactly how things are going.
she
when did i say they were?
nobody has said that if they are seated, the delgates will be based on how the candidates did in the primaries. obama was on the ballot in florida and got served. if we were talking about a big obama state, would you feel the same way? would obama not be pressing to get those votes counted?
agreed, and i dont think i've ever used that pronunciation in my life. its painful to even read it.
If it was a big Obama win I would feel the same way.
the traditional bullshit over 2 red states refers to iowa and new hampshire. florida and michigan voters don't get to vote because those states actually had the balls to say - what is so special about iowa?
Oh, OK. I misunderstood that one.
I think the state party machines are at fault for this though - the DNC made it clear what the consequences were and the states went ahead anyway... and nobody cared. They could've fell back and the spotlight would be on THEM right now along with of Maine, Pennsylvania, Texas, etc
i'm counting on PA to do right
philly stand up
We tried in Jersey...