Clinton Backers Rangel, Schumer Don't Want Superdelegate Fight

Moot Point (0.00 / 0)

Mark my words:  This will all be moot after March 4.  Obama is killing Hillary on the airwaves, her campaign is in chaos, and her aura of inevitability has long since been shattered.  She has already pulled out of Wisconsin early.  No way she sweeps Texas and Ohio.

Unlike many Obama supporters, I like -- and respect -- Hillary Clinton.  She is an excellent public servant.  But presidential elections are about connecting with voters on a personal level, and she has proven unable to do that.  

Half of all eligible general election voters will not vote for Hillary under any circumstance.  You don't win the White House that way -- especially against a tough opponent like John McCain.

The superdelegate issue is this week's flavor.  By March 4, it will all be irrelevant.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:00:06 AM CST

Unless Hillary wins both Texas and Ohio. (0.00 / 0)

Obama has the momentum, the funding, and the lead, but the polling in Texas and Ohio points to Hillary.  Feeling the way I do about polling, I'm going to self-destruct after posting that.

Meanwhile, though everyone says Hillary has to win Texas AND Ohio AND Pennsylvania by big margins to stay in the race, none of that matters if she decides not to drop out after failing to do so.  That is, unless the Supers decide en masse to ratify the decision of the pledged delegates.

I do agree very strongly with Schumer on this, though: we can't wait until Denver to have a nominee.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:09:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Watching the MTP netcast now, actually. Spooky. (0.00 / 0)

Netcast http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30...
From the transcript

Emphasis mine
MR. RUSSERT: Besides superdelegates, another important issue is Florida and Michigan, and this is what happened. Back in August of '07, Howard Dean wrote this letter to all the candidates:

"As leader of the Democratic Party, I strongly urge you to adhere to the 2008 delegate selection rules. The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules. ... The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules adopted by the full DNC at its August 2006 meeting clearly provide that only four states - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire," "South Carolina - may hold their respective contests prior to February 5, '08. The [Rules and Bylaws Committee's] finding of noncompliance included a 100 percent loss of pledged and unpledged delegates."

If you tried to move your primary up, you've lost all your delegates. Florida and Michigan did it, they lost all their delegates. The Clinton campaign put out this statement: "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the" nomination "process." "We believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

That was the Clinton campaign in September. Here's the Clinton campaign in February. "With regard to Michigan and Florida, our position is clear. We're going to ask our delegates to vote to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan. We do not think that" "many Americans should have" had "their votes and their voices and their preferences denied.
"We had an enormous turnout, particular in Florida, the largest turnout in the history of the Democratic primary in Florida. And we believe that it is critically important that those delegates have an opportunity to express their preferences at the convention.
"I don't believe that anyone seriously thinks we're going to have a national convention in which the delegations of Florida and Michigan are not going to have a say. So that is our position."

Senator Durbin, your reaction.

SEN. DURBIN: Well, Michigan and Florida are critical for victory in November. There's no doubt about it. And Barack has said at the end of the day there's going to be an aggressive campaign to win the votes for the presidency for the Democratic candidate in those two states. But just like the superdelegate issue, we have to look carefully at what's happening here. The superdelegates should not be in a position to trump the elected delegates in Denver, and I hope that the Clinton campaign is not arguing that we should abandon an agreement that was reached by all of the presidential candidates to abide by the Democratic National Committee rules. Neither Chuck nor I nor any elected official would want our fate determined in an election where a name isn't on the ballot and where we weren't allowed to campaign. That's Michigan. And, of course, in Florida, none of the candidates campaigned. So to say that the outcome of those elections, which Senator Clinton agreed would not be counted, will somehow be counted in Denver is to change the rules after the election. That isn't fair. We've got to find a fair way to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida that really keeps to the basic agreement that Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and all the Democratic candidates entered into.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, Senator Clinton said in October, "You know it's clear this election they're having in Michigan is not going to count for anything." Is that your position?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, no. Here's the bottom line once again, Tim. Each candidate, of course, takes the position that benefits them at the moment. Now on this one, popular vote, particularly in Florida where no one violated the rules, but Florida went ahead on its own and had an election and Hillary won. Now, Senator Obama naturally says don't seat Florida. Senator Clinton says...

MR. RUSSERT: Well...
SEN. SCHUMER: ...do seat Florida. Let me just...
MR. RUSSERT: Wait a minute--wait a minute. Senator...
SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: ...the Clinton campaign put out a statement saying they accepted the DNC rules. But...
SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: So you're no longer accepting them?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, let me say this, Tim. The bottom line is, for Florida and Michigan, I believe it's much like the superdelegates. There's a great dispute here and it's not just Hillary Clinton. The senators from Michigan, Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, one of whom's endorsed, one of whom hasn't, says you must seat Michigan. The senator, the Democratic senator from Florida, says "You must seat Florida. Those are my voters, they should be paid attention to." Here's what we have to do. Same thing as the superdelegates. Should Florida and Michigan be--the hang--you know, hanging in the balance. And we get to June 7 and I don't think that'll happen, by the way. I think there's going to be a clear winner. I think it's going to be Hillary, but that's how these things work. Al Gore said it Sunday. But let's say we're not there. Then Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have to sit down and come up with a process that both sides buy into and both sides will abide by. You cannot--you cannot let these internecine battles create a war.

If they were to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, the Barack Obama campaign would feel aggrieved and who knows what would happen in the general election. If they were not to seat them, the senators from Michigan and Florida would feel aggrieved, Hilary Clinton would feel aggrieved, again, we'd have a fight. We're going to have to--it's premature now to say we must do this. We have four months of an election, tens of millions of voters, and twists and turns in a campaign we don't know. But the overall rule, Tim, that has to govern here--and I think Dick would agree with this--my guess is in their heart of hearts Hillary and Barack both agree even though we're in the heat of a campaign, is to come up with a general way to solve this problem. It's unique, we haven't had this since I don't remember, I think 1956, where you haven't had a majority govern before the convention. But come up with a plan that each side can buy into and each side will abide by no matter who the ultimate winner is.

Wondering, if the Clintons can't be trusted to abide by the rules set by the DNC over the early primary states, why should they be negotiated with in June.


Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:14:57 AM CST

"Wondering, if the Clintons can't be trusted to abide by the rules set by the DNC over the early primary states, why should they be negotiated with in June." (0.00 / 0)

For the same reason you negotiate with anybody.  Do you have a better idea?

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:10:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The rules (0.00 / 0)

Some Obama supporters don't like the rules regarding the superdelegates and are demanding that they not vote independently. Why are some rules "good" and some rules "bad"?



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:34:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

For the same reason some states matter and some states don't, according to Clinton supporters. (4.00 / 1)

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:52:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Cards up her sleeve (0.00 / 1)

With the lawyers "lawyering" and the operatives "operating" one should note Nancy Pelosi's position. (emphasis mine)

From MTP transcript cited above:

MR. HUNT: It is. And I think superdelegates are very good idea and I think they should be free to vote. Ted Kennedy should vote for Barack Obama if he wants to. John Lewis can decide which one he wants to vote for. I think Kate's right. If one candidate has clearly won, there's no way in the world these superdelegates are going to try to thwart the will of the majority. The only way they will matter if it's an absolute deadlock on June the 10th.

Florida and Michigan, it's a different story, Tim. That goes back to the questions you asked Senators Schumer and Durbin, what are the rules, what did everyone agree to? I did interview Nancy Pelosi, who is the chair of the convention, a far more important figure in this whole thing than Howard Dean, and she said it would just be wrong for those delegations to be dispositive, that that is--that would blow up the party if anyone tried to do that.

As far as "Obama supporters", I repeat myself:
Shouldn't we finish somewhere near where we started to go

-snip
As we begin to flail under the crush of an annointed McCain, before we become reactive to the GOP, I would suggest that we stick, as best we can, to the primary process that we began with.

If for any other reason then to appear LESS unhinged to those "independents" that will give our nominee the time of day. If our nominee is contested, the Democratic Party needs to portray competence in solving the problems before America, by solving the pickle of our primary.

Kathy,
You, like the candidate that you diligently advocate for, are stuck in a logic trap. You can point at Obama, using cherry picked quotes, trying desperately to paint him as Clinton-lite. It won't work.

What I see, as an outsider, is an advocate that has foresaken her local community in a blind zeal to be an uber-operative. I see a flame thrower deployed in a scorched earth policy.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:00:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why, oh why, must this be a personal attack on Kathy? (2.00 / 2)

Come on, Jack, you're better than that and you have a good point to make.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:08:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They can't help themselves Douglas. (0.00 / 0)

And it is becoming so predictable. What they don't grasp is how badly it hurts their case when they do it.

2012 starts today.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:29:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My point exactly n/t (0.00 / 0)

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 14:05:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

who is the 'they'' they' 'they''' their'? Those are all plurals. (0.00 / 0)

this isnt helpful either.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 19:32:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We few, we unhappy few, we band of evildoers. (0.00 / 0)

We have met the enemy, and we is they.

---

by: Tim C. @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 21:04:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"we band of brothers" (0.00 / 0)

Ed Guthman is dying. He wrote a great RFK book, "We Band of Brothers" He is the subject of the last chapter in Tom Brokaw's book...he worked with RFK in CA Primary, and was editor of the LA Times.

By CL Newton (Marietta, GA, USA) - See all my reviews
Edwin Guthman met Bob Kennedy during RFK's labor- management corruption investigations. Guthman was a skeptical newsman who had to decide whether RFK, an unknown, was worth trusting with sensitive source information.

He later worked closely with Bob Kennedy in the Justice Department, and his memoir gives fascinating insights into this most capable and best-motivated of the WWII Kennedy brothers. Note: the title does not refer to those brothers; and note further: the "Band of Brothers" initials form "Bob." (In Arthur Schlesinger's "Robert Kennedy and His Times," near the end of chapter 11 on staffing the DoJ, Schlesinger mentioned Guthman's book with that terrific title. Soon after I'd read that, much publicity emerged about the 2001 TV series of almost the same name, which coincidence was intriguing enough to move me to locate the Guthman book.)

Guthman provides a unique and warm, respectful but not worshipful, set of insights into RFK's strengths and struggles as a survivor of the Joe Kennedy household, Senate investigator, and officeholder. He was present with Bob Kennedy for many meetings, plans, and conversations which directly determined the course of powerful events for the US, especially during the almost- unbelievable 1960s. It's high- energy material.

I have a close friend who was a protege of Guthman. As a recent VietNam vet Ira was hired as a reporter for the LA Times in 1967 and ended up working on the Primary campaign.
Guthman and John Sigenthaler were Bobby's closest advisers.

Guthman began his career at the Seattle Star, and was later drafted into the U.S. Army to serve in WWII. He was awarded the Purple Heart and Silver Star for his leadership of a platoon in North Africa and Italy. After his service, he returned and worked as a court reporter for the Seattle Times.

While working at the Seattle Times, Guthman received a Pulitzer Prize in 1950 for his investigative reporting on the Washington State Legislature Un-American Activities Committee. He proved a professor innocent at the University of Washington who was accused of being a communist supporter.

Sen. Robert F. Kennedy later hired Guthman as his press secretary. Karl Fleming, a reporter who worked with him when Guthman was a press secretary, describes him as, "courageous, independent and relentless in the pursuit of truth. ... They don't come any better than him."

for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 17:35:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

we are whom we've been waiting for ;-) (0.00 / 0)

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 21:14:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Paul, your lengthy post below is what I said in shorthand. (0.00 / 0)

2012 starts today.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 23:13:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ok (0.00 / 0)

 Everyone is on edge and sometimes a little imprecision in words can be misunderstood. This election is an example of the adage that you should be careful what you wish for--- all of us political junkies have waited a lifetime for a long drawn out primary season, with all states getting a chance to weigh in.
    Who would have think it would be so nerve wracking that everyone would go a little bit crazy?
    Which is why I need a cyber vacation. (not to mention a respite from cable news).

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:08:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Stay here; shut off the cable TV. (0.00 / 0)

I listen to large quantities of NHPR and virtually never see cable; when I do, it's like going from a consistently good buffet restaurant to digging damp wasp-covered clumps of fried things out of the bottoms of rain-soaked barrels after the carnival's moved on.

Sure, you think, "Well, I am kinda hungry, maybe just a bit," willfully ignoring the inevitable consequences, the nausea and the self-loathing.

Stay away from that garbage -- it'll rot your guts out.  You're better off going hungry.

---

by: Tim C. @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:24:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

He can't help himself (4.00 / 1)

Douglas, this is a guy who thought it was funny to put up a picture of Hillary with the word "bitch" on it - he is a Hillhater.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:39:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your Cosby to my Chappelle n/t (0.00 / 0)

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 14:05:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's a downward spiral. (4.00 / 1)

And the responses to my lament have been personal attacks back at Jack.  I can't blame anybody for defending themselves and their close friends, but I hate to see this start, because it never ends.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 14:39:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The eternal return. (4.00 / 2)

Obaman: HRC said something annoying today.

Kathy: You are totally wrong, and Obama has been saying horrible things since he was in madrasa kindergarten, so there: (lists five cherry-picked quotes)

Obaman: Why do you always pull lame crap like that?

Kathy: What, I can't talk now?  You don't like it when strong women talk? Only Obamatards have the right to speak?  The little woman should just go sit in a corner and darn your socks?

Obaman: No, that's a crock, and you know it.  Shame on you.

Kathy: No, shame on you, hater!

Ray: I, who am totally neutral in primary matters, urge you not to make these personal attacks on Kathy, whose holy and ascetic life has caused God himself to bestow upon her the power to heal the sick with a touch.

Obaman: Whatevs, Captain Lieberman.  She's still being an ass.

Antgray Ossebay: Let's not fight about this.  I want to talk about how sad it is that Paul Hodes has been such a disappointment, and whether his total failure in Congress leaves us loyal Democrats any choice but to pour all our efforts into defeating whoever runs against Lynch and totally ignore the congressional races.  Especially CD 2.  Yup, that one's a goner for sure.

JohnnyBBad: The Special Olympics Ballroom Dancing Quarterfinals

                          

---

by: Tim C. @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 17:12:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, that's not what I meant, but that is what I'm talking about. (0.00 / 0)

Giving the other side all the blame is feeding the problem.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 20:25:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think (4.00 / 1)

Kathy wants to be an uber-operative. She just wants her candidate to win. She's passionate about having the first woman president, and she thinks Hillary Clinton is the best for the job.

I like the policy wonk side of Hillary, but I had Clinton fatigue in 1996 and it hasn't abated. (I think it's actually coming from Bill. Sorry, I can't separate them.)

We have to agree to disagree, sometimes vehemently, but personal attacks on fellow posters or attributing motives to  them isn't helping the debate.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 13:07:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Calling Paul Twomey (0.00 / 0)

The suggestion that Kathy Sullivan "has foresaken her local community in a blind zeal to be an uber-operative" is as ridiculous as it is offensive.

I don't know what an "uber-operative" is, but given that Kathy was the longest-serving chair of the NH Democratic State Committee in history, she hardly needs to burnish her operative credentials.

I won't repeat verbatim what I posted a couple of weeks ago in response to one of Mr. Mitchell's other personal attacks on Kathy, but in a nutshell: 1) Kathy gave up tens of thousands of dollars during the 8 years she served as party chair; 2) she has an excellent track record of supporting party nominees who defeat her primary candidate of choice; and 3) she's motivated by her belief that children and working men and women are always better off when we have a Democratic President, not by personal glory or financial rewards.  

---

by: Judy Reardon @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 14:13:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Political Cliques (0.00 / 0)

I don't belong to them.

I would suggest you all re-visit the Lessig thread.

The part that talks about where the past tries desperately to sustain itself.

Double standards and hypocrisy, Frodo?

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 15:16:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, just common decency. (0.00 / 0)

2012 starts today.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 15:21:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The new "town square." (0.00 / 0)

Can we stop with the pretense?

I have watched as decorum has muted dissent. No more.

I am an easy target, the rude awayniac.

The lurkers have seen. They have watched every byte.

Its a beautiful thing, blogging.

A Rant

3) Best of all: Ms. Edwards is utterly at home in the blogosphere.  As she said, she was tinkering online from way back in the Prodigy and Compuserve days.  

* The internet? "The most democratic media that could be devised."

* Blogging? The new "town square."

* Bloggers' credibility? "These people are fact checking one another all the time."

* Net Neutrality? "Incredibly important."

* Wikipedia? She corrects her entry frequently.

* The Edwards' campaign attitude on blogger supporters? "Our job is to provide you with the positions, where we're going to be", etc.. "It's not to manage you... Plants don't work."

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 17:04:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is a reply to the conversation, not just to Jack. (4.00 / 2)

You want to attack politicians?  Fine.  But attacking other bloggers makes it hard for observers to agree with the point you're trying to make.

This all started with an exchange between Kathy and myself.  As that part ended, she said:

The Rules

Some Obama supporters don't like the rules regarding the superdelegates and are demanding that they not vote independently. Why are some rules "good" and some rules "bad"?

And I had my snarky response:

For the same reason some states matter and some states don't, according to Clinton supporters.

I thought that was pretty contentious, but then Jack said something about Kathy and it became one side saying someone was blinded by support for their candidate and the other side coming to aggressively defend that someone, we lost the argument that mattered, and frankly, it became impossible for me to defend either side.  Personally, I felt one side was right on the issues but wrong on the argument.

In light of all that, I just want to point out a simple fact: what's going on right here, the bickering and the attacking the person you're talking to and the losing sight of the issue at hand, this is why Americans hate politicians; this is why people hate Congress; this is why we don't solve problems anymore in this country.  It's not just because it's bitter.  It's not just because it's spiteful.  It's because that it's bullshit**, and nothing more.  It's divisive, it's provocative, but it doesn't matter.  Sure, people are being attacked and have a right to defend themselves, but let's not lose sight of what we're here to talk about.  Honestly, this kind of thing pollutes the public discourse.

Attacking the person you're talking to is a great way to avoid having to explain your point of view.  What's going on here is no better than basing an election on flag burning.  The most important thing there is that it's not important, and we should be focusing on things that are.

I think everybody involved in this conversation is an upstanding activist and an asset to our collective cause; I'm glad to have the chance to converse with all of you, but please, I beg of you, limit the personal attacks, at the very least, to people who aren't "in the room."  We must stick to our principles and stand up to people who use the politics of distraction and destruction.

The distraction of homophobia and the destruction of swiftboating gave the worst leader in our nation's history four more years.  NEVER AGAIN.

**Yes, I said bullshit; there's no other word in our language that means what I'm saying, and I won't limit my vocabulary to less accurate adjectives based on...well, bullshit.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 20:57:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"It's because that it's" (0.00 / 0)

Nice grammar, Doug; you obviously did that because you hate America and want to kill the English language.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 21:01:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thicker then Granite (0.00 / 0)

Doug,
Lecture me if you must, along with the others.

You need to remember that Rove makes your strength your weakness. A tactic actually mastered by the Viet-Cong.

This has a few gems:
Campaign Staff Tries to Limit Attendance to Supporters! Film at Five!  

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill the Buddha.

Oh BTW, I don't hate the people, just the tactics. The whole "personal" meme is a form of herding rhetoric designed to create stark division, forcing one to choose sides, us or them.

Read between the lines. This isn't bean bag, as they say. You are watching professionals and amaturers entangle over real world shit.

If you see me on the road, kill me.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 21:58:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, Jack, I'm watching professionals and amateurs lose sight of what's important. (4.00 / 2)

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 22:05:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Better put: (4.00 / 1)

You needn't kill the Buddha to think for yourself.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 22:13:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My understanding of what's happening. (4.00 / 1)

You want to attack politicians?  Fine.  But attacking other bloggers makes it hard for observers to agree with the point you're trying to make.

You might have hit on something here.

A blogger is presumed to be someone with strong opinions, motivated by an overwhelming urge to bestow his or her wisdom on the world, often without regard to the common usages of etiquette.

And I think we're all pretty much okay with that.

A politician is generally presumed to be someone motivated by an overwhelming urge to be seen in the best possible light, regardless of the hedges, dodges, diversions, distractions, fallacious arguments and shadings or distortions or denials or inversions of the truth it might entail.  (No replies in defense of politicians needed here; we all know and love plenty of good ones.  For this post, though, the word "politician" is used solely to mean the type described above.)

Bloggers tend to have a high tolerance level for honest disagreement and debate, and a low tolerance level for BS, which is seen as an affront to the frank and honest nature of the blogosphere.  For bloggers, politicians' truth-agnostic verbiage of pure self-promotion falls into the category of BS.

The Blue Hampshire ecosystem was created to be, and works best as, a community of bloggers.  And, generally speaking, bloggers with a pretty high regard for the common usages of etiquette.

This ecosystem is disturbed by the intrusion of politicians.  And as I see it, Kathy has been welcomed here as a blogger, and has often acted as such, but in all presidential primary-related matters has acted as a politician (albeit on behalf of another).

And I, and apparently others, am not okay with that.

We are happy, indeed eager, to respectfully hear, consider and contest honest arguments, honestly posed, from those who disagree with us vigorously.

But the arguments of politicians, which to our eyes are plainly contrary to the ethos of both this community and democracy itself, we cannot abide and cannot by silence condone.

Respectfully submitted,

Tim C.

---

by: Tim C. @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:43:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Kathy is not the only one here presenting her candidate's case the way her candidate's campaign would. (0.00 / 0)

She just happens to be the only professional doing so.  I don't think it's justifiable to attack her for that.  Nobody ever attacked me for posting that way about Richardson or Obama.  Is that because I'm an activist and not a former NHDP Chair?  It really shouldn't matter; she's not a paid staffer.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:13:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

In other words... (0.00 / 0)

"This is OUR tree house and no other kids are allowed. If you try to play with us, we will throw rocks at you until you go home."

But the behavior of some here is even worse than that, but most certainly a behavior that I am familiar with.

As a gay youth I was taunted, beaten and bullied every day in Junior High School. I will always remember being stomped on by five boys on the school lawn, the vice principal yelled out "take it off school property boys!" so they dragged me into the neighbor's yard and continued to stomp on me.

When I was a kid, I promised myself that when I was an adult that I would step in when I witnessed anyone being  bullied.

One of my proudest achievements as a legislator was to make it illegal for a school employee to not report signs of bullying to authorities. It passed in 2000, it was only the second state in the country to have such a law on the books.

It appears that bullying is to be celebrated by some members of the blogosphere. How sad.

2012 starts today.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 14:35:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Adult bullying (0.00 / 0)

is pervasive. I think it happened at the Nashua polling place with the poll watchers, according to what I read.

It happens when people are threatened with losing position or a job or with physical violence, etc. Bullying can be overt or covert.

It's great that school officials must report children bullying other children. Every school has a policy on this. But adults continue to bully other adults.  I see it all the time and I've experienced it as well. The problem is, children  also  see this, so all the school policies fade in the face of what adults actually do to each other. It's sad.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 15:03:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

False analogies to say the least. (0.00 / 0)

To equate the criticisms of someone's viewpoints to gay-bashing is extremely low and unjustified.
Throwing rocks at people is not as bad as challenging the logic in someone's arguement? WTF?
Are we 12? Are we on MySpace? NO. This is a forum of educated adults who are capable of defending their own viewpoints against others who may take issue.

For some of you, defending Kathy has become too personal. You've chosen to defend Kathy the person, instead of her arguements, which are what are really being challenged. It's not always about who she is and what she has accomplished when she posts here. When she uses logical fallacies in her arguements that consequently ellicit feedback, that is her fault for using them, and it is my desire to point them out. Such is my privilidge on this site.

Sorry to talk about you like your not in the room Kathy.
Your public service is held in high regard, but I disagree with your allegience with the Hillary campaign. I trust you know the difference between me criticizing your viewpoints and dragging you to the neighbor's yard for a beating.

 

Obsessed is just a word the lazy use to describe the dedicated.

---

by: Justin Credible @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 15:17:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What? (0.00 / 0)

You say "defending Kathy has become too personal. You've chosen to defend Kathy the person, instead of her arguements, which are what are really being challenged." What?

Claiming Kathy "has foresaken her local community in a blind zeal to be an uber-operative" is a personal attack on Kathy, not a challenge to her arguments.

Calling Kathy "a flame thrower deployed in a scorched earth policy" is a personal attack, not a challenge to her arguments.

 

---

by: Judy Reardon @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 15:50:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

OK. Those were personal. (0.00 / 0)

I never said those things, nor would I.
I am defending myself and others who may have been lumped into the rediculous generalization that was made.
My apologies if I made another (albeit less ludicrus) generalization, I was a bit shocked and acted quickly.
I may just be a little biased because although I have never made it personal in my arguements with Kathy, she managed to try and insult me on one occasion.

In the future, if you have a problem with someone's line of reasoning or criticisms of another; say something to them. If they don't listen, say it again.

Obsessed is just a word the lazy use to describe the dedicated.

---

by: Justin Credible @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 16:19:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, nothing of the sort. (4.00 / 1)

Did you make any attempt whatsoever to understand what I wrote, Ray?  Or did you simply place your template of what you were sure I was all about over my actual words?

Your likening of those here to violent homophobic bullies is insulting and ridiculous.

Do you simply close your eyes to reality and assume that there is something full of hate, and therefore worthy of hate, in your chosen objects of displeasure?

It is admirable to be determined to step in whenever you see bullying, and even more admirable to do it.  It is not admirable to discern bullying where it does not exist.

You are -- and I'm sure you'll love this analogy -- acting just the same way the way far religious right does.  They look at the world and see a tiny band of faithful Christians on the brink of extinction in an unholy world, with a massive amoral secular atheist juggernaut gleefully set on their oppression and destruction.  And a fair number of paranoid atheists see themselves as a tiny band of clear-thinking rational beings on the brink of extinction in an irrational world, with a zombified priest-ridden hydra-headed sky-god-cultist juggernaut of superstition bent on their utter extermination.

It is difficult to believe that you read -- or skimmed -- what I wrote and came away with this:

"This is OUR tree house and no other kids are allowed. If you try to play with us, we will throw rocks at you until you go home."

Hardly.  More like "This playground is all of ours and everyone's allowed. If you want to go sledding or build a snow castle with us, you can, and if you want to join in a snowball fight you can do that too.  We have a lot of snowball fights.  But no packing rocks in snow and throwing them."

Guess what?  There isn't a crucify-Kathy cult.  There are just a bunch of individuals who are happy to build snow castles with her and happy to have snowball fights with her but have lost patience with her coating jagged rocks with snow and calling them snowballs.

---

by: Tim C. @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 16:28:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

OH Hell!! (4.00 / 1)

Just yesterday, I swore that I was going to take a one week cyber vacation. (ironically I did so to Kathy Sullivan).

1. Personal attacks on Kathy Sullivan for supporting her candidate are getting maddening. I am absolutely, totally committed to Barack Obama. One of the reasons that I admire him so much is because he stands for a new kind of politics in which you dont engage in personal attacks on people because you disagree with them.

2. If we proclaim a commitment to changing the way politics are done, we have to start with ourselves. Even when  we feel righteously mistreated, we can respond with the truth about the issues and not start attacking people.

3. One half of one half of the electorate is not a basis for the type of mandate that the next president will need to confront the powerful entrenched interests that threaten the country and the world. If we demonize people we disagree with whom we disagree within the Democratic Party, we can forget about bringing in independents and republicans, we can forget about creating a mandate sufficiently broad to bring change.

4. I spent most of the last four years as a stranger in a strange land--- a Dean/Obama person in a state party apparatus dominated by Kerry/Clinton people. There is no one in the state party more open to other points of view than Kathy Sullivan. There is no one who has worked half as hard as her to bring all points of view into the party. There is no one who has made half as  many personal sacrifices as Kathy has made to bring about real change in New Hampshire.
The Democratic victories over the last four years in New Hampshire have made real changes for the better in the lives of children, gays, veterans, teachers, police, women. the environment, ethics, electoral reform etc. The person most responsible for this sea change is the person being attacked for supporting a candidate.

5. The real reason Jack attacks Kathy is because she is a smart articulate spokesperson for her point of view. At times, it drives me crazy to watch her so artfully propound arguments that I disagree with ( ie, while it is changing the rules to try to seat the fla/mich delegates; no one on the Obama side is arguing for a change in the rules on superdelgates-- this is a false, but effective , psuedo-equivalency).  but the answer to this is to present the counter argument, not start calling names.

6. This kind of things hurts Barack Obama the most of all. If he wins the nomination, he will certainly seek the support of Kathy Sullivan and the other talented people in NH that support her. I dont think it helps him a single bit to give Kathy and others reasons to sit it out. This is mindless, self-destructive behavior and needs to stop.

I will now return to my cyber vacation.


"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 18:07:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

TR-ed for this: (4.00 / 2)

What I see, as an outsider, is an advocate that has foresaken her local community in a blind zeal to be an uber-operative. I see a flame thrower deployed in a scorched earth policy.

I gather some might not think it ad hominem, but I do. The fact that you all can use the rating system means you are free to agree or disagree with me.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 17:47:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Duly noted. No free passes. Bet that n/t (0.00 / 0)

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 20:05:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jack, do you really think Kathy is taking cues directly from the Clinton campaign in her BH postings? (0.00 / 0)

Because unless you think she's actively collaborating with them on her posts here, it's really irrelevant that she's a professional.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 20:11:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Really (0.00 / 0)

Doug would you play pick up football with the Patriots second string?

Would you get into the Octagon with a mixed martial artist that has never been the headliner?

I would.


Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 21:44:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Literally? No, I wouldn't. Metaphorically? Sure. But that's a false analogy. (0.00 / 0)

And let the record show that if I were given the chance to ask George W. Bush a question, it would be, with ample prologue, "How do you sleep at night?"

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 22:13:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What "some Obama supporters" think about the superdelegates (0.00 / 0)

doesn't have much bearing on the status of Florida and Michigan.

Florida and Michigan made their decision knowing what the consequences would be, and the campaigns made an agreement.

Perhaps you've stated it (and I've missed it), but I would be interested to hear what has changed since January that necessitates a revisiting of the Florida and Michigan decisions.

I realize that in the past states (including NH) have had their sanctions forgiven, but the fact that something has happened in the past is hardly a justification for doing so now.


Where do we go from here?

---

by: Gavin @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 13:40:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hmmm (0.00 / 0)

I'm trying to figure out how it became assumed that I think both Michigan and Florida should be seated?  

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 19:11:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If I made an incorrect assumption, (0.00 / 0)

please say so, and I'll withdraw the question.

I suppose you could think only one of the two should be seated, neither should be seated, both should be seated, or perhaps you would prefer not to give an opinion at all.

I'm simply asking you to express an opinion on one of the issues raised in the blog post and comments, in an attempt to return the discussion to the actual issues, rather than ad hominem attacks and speculation on motives and sincerity.

If we agree on this issue, I'd like to know that.  If not, as I've stated, I would be interested to hear your reasoning.

Where do we go from here?

---

by: Gavin @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 21:05:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Attention to detail (0.00 / 0)

Reality check (0.00 / 0)

I don't think this four state pledge would have happened if most of the candidates didn't support it, as well as Dr. Dean and the DNC.  You don't ask for a pledge unless you are pretty darn sure that the candidates are going to sign it, and four small states don't band together against two big states unless they think they've got support from the other powers that be.  Also, there is a lot of context here which is not being discussed.
Michigan has a bad case of sour grapes, because the state asked for a change in the rule in 2004 so that they could go first, and they lost in a vote by the whole DNCD. Michigan then applied to go in January 2008, and lost in a vote by the DNC Rules Committee which was then approved by the full DNC. At the most recent Rules Committee meeting, the Michigan chair, Mark Brewer, attacked NH's 2008 delelgate selection plan because it has an aggressive goal for diversity, saying NH only cared about this because we wanted to look like something we aren't for pr purposes.  He was quite rightfully taken to task by other members of the committee who congratulated NH for its efforts to have racial, ethnic, age,  gender and preference diversity.
As for Florida, that state had the chance to apply to be an early state. It didn't.  And, Chairman Dane has been orking double time to try to get the Florida Democrats to do a caucus, including offering to help out financially. The Florida Democrats went into this thing knowing they could lose their delegates,  
Good for NH and the three other states for trying to put some sanity back into the process! And good for them standing up to Michigan. If there is any doubt that we are on the side of the angels here, look at what happened to Michigan in football this weekend!  

Energy and persistence conquer all things.
Benjamin Franklin

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 17:23:20 PM EDT

"real election" (0.00 / 0)

Jim, I hope this idea isn't based on the theory that NH should no longer come after the Iowa caucus. That milk was spilt a long time ago, and you can't put it back.  We should be trying to work with Iowa and the states other than Michigan and Florida that are trying to honor the traditional roles of Iowa and NH, not picking stupid fights that will come back and destroy our primary in the future.
Even if you don't worry about other states, you should worry abvout the candidates and the press. They will continue to come here in large numbers if we have our primary in January; they won't if we have our primary in December.  We will not be as irrelavant as the Wyoming caucus, but not much more.  
Listen, I've been on the phone and e mailing people ever since I saw your diary, and not one person, in the press or either party, thinks it is a good idea.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt  

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 09:53:49 AM EDT

How about a reality check?(4.00 / 5)

These are just a few reasons a December primary is a very bad idea:
1.  It will be the end of the primary going forward into the future.  While we'll still schedule one, the candidates won't come. Why? Because we will have proven what we have denied all these years: that we are arrogant people who only care about New Hampshire, and that we want to go first just because we want to go first, not because of grass roots politics, not because of our dedication to democracy. Say goodbye to the primay, and turn the lights off behind you!  
2.  There are about 48 states very unhappy with Michigan and Florida right now, for ignoring the party rules and moving their primaries up, exacerbating frontloading and putting chaos into the calendar.  New Hampshire needs allies to keep our position, If we go before Christmas, we will lose whatevere good will we have left.
3.  A December 11 primary will not enhance a candidate's chances nomination chances. It will make the results irrelevant.  Why? Because the results will be lost in the shuffle of the Thanksgiving, Christmas and other holidays, college football playoffs, and the three weeks before the Iowa caucus.  We will not matter - and frankly, if we move the primary into December, nearly a year before the general election, we don't deserve to matter.
 3 (a)  If I am wrong, and we do matter with a December primary, it is bad for the process.  The general election campaign is too long as it is, and if moving NH into December makes NH martter as much as Jim says, then shame on NH for making this an 11 month long general election process. How selfish of us, to put our interests ahead of what is right for the country as a whole.
 3 (b)  If I am right, there will not be an enhanced, intensive campaign before December 11.  It will be Iowa, between December 11 and January 3, that will be the beneficiary of about 22 days of intensive campaigning.  This idea makes Iowa even more important than ever, and renders NH a quirky, eccentric footnote in political history.  
 4. This idea is unfair to the people who are running for president. They have been running, in good faith, under the assumption that they will have the month of December to continue to continue to make their case to the people of New Hampshire, Iowa, and the other states.  Why would we  want to break faith with the candidates?  As you have often said, Jim, one of the things that could kill the primary is if the candidates stop coming here.
While I am not crazy about the idea of only five days between NH and Iowa (assuming a Jan. 3/ Jan. 8 schedule), it is a hell of a lot better than NH moving into December. Going into December is a bad idea - bad for NH, bad for the nomination process, bad for the general election.
Jim, you and Bill Gardner have worked tirelessly over the decades to protect the New Hampshire primary. Putting NH into December will be the death knell.  If you want to keep a week between Iowa and NH, schedule the primary for Jan. 10 - its a Thursday, but your amendment permits that.  
There are probably 25 other reasons, but it is only 8:15 a.m.; I'll post more later.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt  

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 08:25:53 AM EDT

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 22:09:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Jack. (0.00 / 0)

Guess I should have looked back a little further!


Where do we go from here?

---

by: Gavin @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 00:17:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I like Penguins. They're silly. I don't want their homeland to melt. (0.00 / 0)

I like New York too.  It's not so silly, but I don't want it to flood.

Most of all, I like the idea that a century from now, when our children's children's children look back at our generation, they won't call us the "What the hell were they doing?" Generation.

We have, assembled in this online community, some of our state's foremost Democratic activists.  We can't afford for these bridges to be burned.  This is more important than each of us; more important than all of us.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 18:10:22 PM CST