You are currently browsing the daily archive for August 14, 2008.
Was Mondale really a Hillary supporter at any point? If so, good riddance!
According to Politico, he’s carrying the race card torch (that Obama declared buried so many times)
At his first public appearance for Barack Obama, former Vice President Walter Mondale today told a group of campaign volunteers they will confront “trash ads” and subtle racism aimed at the Democratic presidential candidate.
And if the standard campaign race card wasn’t enough, he ads his own idiotic brand:
Mondale later told reporters he doesn’t know how big a factor race is in the campaign. Although some racism persists, he said he assumes “most Americans are fair-minded and don’t think that way.
“We’re not asking people to vote for Obama because he’s black. We’re asking them to vote for him because he’s the best AND happens to be black.”
So, it’s settled – being black is supposed to be a reason to vote Obama.
And for the Obots playing W.O.R.M here – Mondale gave us 2 reasons to vote for Obama. One questionable and one irrelevant.
Since I wrote this, it is Dean now calling the GOP “the White party”. I guess he feels he got the “street creds that he is not racist (Obotspeak) so now he can talk like M0 & Wright. Does this mean all whites are excused from the Democratic party now?
Is this really a good idea?
Nancy 9 percent Pelosi is outraged at us
“I think Hillary Clinton has been very gracious,” Pelosi said on KGO radio. “I think some of her supporters have been less than gracious.”
Only a few days away US News was noting how crazy we were:
Clinton backers are planning a demonstration in Denver on the second night of the gathering, when she is expected to speak. That’s also the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage. But the Clinton movement doesn’t stop there. Some of her backers want a roll-call vote to demonstrate her support;
I remember hearing Andrea Mitchell (I had a TV in my hotel in DC) saying how Hillary supporters who were men said a roll call would prove embarrassing while women were insisting on it - irrational as we women are
I thought it needed reminding as everyone now says “we were always at war with Eurasia” Ambinder:
the Obama campaign had always been open to having her name placed in nomination alongside his.
(if only Clinton hadn’t resisted)
According to several people who have spoken with her, Clinton originally believed that if her name were included in the roll call on Wednesday, August 27, she would inevitably wind up with fewer delegates than the 1896.5 she earned from the primaries. That would look bad and could demoralize her supporters.
See, boys and girls? It was always Hillary holding back the Unity Pony! Thank god B0 prevailed and convinced her!
Pay no attention to his statement on CBS that a nomination for Hillary would be bad for Unity – that was …just because Hillary resisted so much!
Well, it’s a good thing US News told us what’s still crazy today
So now we need to work on that other half of our crazy agenda
Hillary loyalists, including those at PUMA (Party Unity My Ass), hope they can persuade a few hundred Obama delegates to switch and turn the tide.
Who knows. in a few weeks we may read that…it had been always the plan. And while safeguarding the truth, let’s not allow Sacha Millstone go in the memory hole.
. But Democrats familiar with the discussions say the former rivals made a joint decision to place Clinton’s name in nomination and do a traditional role call of the state delegations.
Details and mechanics of how that will happen still are being worked out.
That explains the “not your key note”. Also, the details are probably essential especyally since the outcome seems to be predetermined:
The party will officially nominate Obama at the convention
It’s how the article starts. reminiscent of the Queen of heart’s trian that starts with the verdict.
Anyway, here’s the joint statement
Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are looking forward to a convention unified behind Barack Obama as the Party’s nominee and to victory this fall for America.
I notice Dean is conspicuously absent from this one.
All righty then. celebration time!
One other thing comes to mind. In the joint statement it says
Senator Obama’s campaign encouraged Senator Clinton’s name to be placed in nomination as a show of unity and in recognition of the historic race she ran and the fact that she was the first woman to compete in all of our nation’s primary contests.
That means that certain wild creatures caused a change. I am not saying we arrived, but what we accomplished today seemed impossible this morning. And so did when I first posted it – in not so many words
- last night – I felt the earth shake with the power of our statement. We’ll see the ripples in the coming month.
Let Obama pretend it was his doing – all his life he’s taken credit for other people’s work. We’ll just have to move to the next goal: a meaningful vote
But for more fun, make sure you check what Nancy off the table Pelosi has been saying recently
Mark Ambinder lays it on the thickest: the was always there, you fools!
At no point, according to advisers to both candidates, did Clinton use her leverage over her delegates as a bargaining chip, especially because the Obama campaign, aware of DNC rules, had anticipated the inclusion of Clinton in the formal roll call in some way.(“if she wanted” sou rumor mongers”)
and the taking away of the keynote wasn’t the payback – so stop saying that:
Clinton aides also confirmed, and Obama aides did not dispute, that it was Clinton who informed the Obama campaign that she did not to give the keynote address to the convention. It is not clear whether the Obama camp would have offered the honorific, but they did not, sources said, deliberately deny it to Clinton.
It would all lack just the little birds chirping of this Braziilian word had’s popped up it’s rear end:
The exact choreography has not been worked out.
Flashback music to the “rumor”
Under party rules, Sen. Clinton’s huge delegate count gives her the right to put her name into nomination. “But do you do it?” asked Ms. Brazile. “Politically, does it heighten tensions?”
There is a “choreographing” problem here:
Dropping the roll call would require a vote by the delegates, and would need choreographing to prevent any protests by disappointed Clinton delegates. But an unanimous nomination of Sen. Obama would send the message that he had unified the party, while allowing Sen. Clinton to ingratiate herself with his campaign.”…
When it occurs, Clinton — herself a superdelegate who gets a vote — is expected to release her delegates to Obama, announce her support for him and ask her backers to do the same.
I knew I had to distrust the word “choreography”: it means “kabuki theater”
- not democracy.
It was a very fruitful exchange proving KO to be the hypocritical lightweight we knew:
i don’t hate her, i hate her policies and tactics
her policies? Obama is to the right of her!
he’s moving to the middle because he’s trying to win!
the middle?! he agrees with alito and scalia on the death penalty, he actually wants *more* death penalties, what kind of policy is that? Now he’s against affirmative action…
well he’s trying to win
well not only did he vote yay on fisa, but now at&t is sponsoring the convention. that’s ok with you?
well, i was very mad about his vote on fisa.
Really Keith? You said Bo was “brave” for doing it
Senator Obama also refusing to cower even to the left on the subject of warrantless wiretapping.
Our PUMA really had Ko on the ropes with lame excuses – this being my favorte:
what about late may axelrod faxing YOUR worst person in the world report on her RFK comments to all the media, really? hillary is the worst person in the world?!
well…that wasn’t a worst person in the world report, it was only 10 minutes, and that’s Axelrod, it’s not him…
Well, then as long as it wasn’t 11 minutes of hate, it’s all right then, right?
Update August 20
After conclusing they they were still “rolling the dice for Obama” Boston Herald changes their tune
Smart money shouldn’t be on Obama
Such is the title of the Boston Herald article based on Murphy’s interview. A bit confused termonology-wise
I spoke to Darragh Murphy. She heads the pro-Hillary, anti-Obama organization called PUMA, or People United Means Action (though most everybody calls them Party Unity My Ass). They organized in June. They can’t stomach “Nobama,” as they call him. Or “The Precious” or “The Unity Pony,” among other choice names. Pumas believe the sun rises and sets on Hillary’s forehead.
The article mercifully quotes our mission only to call us useful idiots
I know. You can write these women off as post-menopausal fanatical spoil-sports and sore losers who’ve never figured out: somebody wins, somebody loses. (Ask Al Gore.) But I like the chutzpah.
Interesting comparison with Gore in terms of who wins, who loses….
Clearly the reporter couldn’t move past personalities on this – we’re about Hillary, it’s not proven Hillary “is in cahoots” with us…somehow voting rights never register with people who think Gore lost.
After quoting Murphy some more and listing some of our Denver actions, the reporter concludes that it’s possible we are having an effect on the polls while reflecting the general media attitude
I’m still rolling the dice for Obama. But now McCain’s begun to do what Hillary reportedly refused to: make voters uneasy about Obama, suggesting he’s not “at his center fundamentally American.” That’s how Hillary’s ex-aide Mark Penn put it, urging that strategy.
Obama should be way ahead. He’s not.
Updating this with EJ Dionne’s “Can Clinton and Obama’s Forces Unite”? which makes the case for Unity through assimilation/exclusion
If bad blood between the Clinton and Obama camps persists, it’s highly unlikely that an Obama defeat this fall would lead inexorably to a Clinton nomination the next time. Obama’s shrewd announcement Wednesday of former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner as the convention keynote speaker has a bearing on this. It not only gives a central role to a moderate Democrat from a swing state, it also points to a future that transcends the Clinton-Obama feud.
Now echoed in Poliiico’s KeyNote speaker today, nominee tomorrow?
The more I read these speculations, the more I understand this was meant as a slap in Hillary’s face because she wouldn’t “negotiate” away her right to be in nomination
It’s all very grandiouse, but will the voters not remember in November?