Comments on: Why candidates’ supporters hold out

By: Lynda ONeal

Lynda ONeal — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:45:40 +0000

Well, Chuck, thanks again for showing me the error of my ways. Now I’d like for you to show me where I addressed what I wanted, who runs the primary, and/or the Democratic parties of MI and OR. What I asked was for the rule that applies to the reallocation of delegates. From your response, I assume that the answer is “there isn’t one”. What I would like to have seen was for Clinton’s delegates to go to Clinton and the uncommitted stay uncommitted. After all, it was Obama’s choice to remove his name from the ballot. I actually could have lived with the uncommitted going to Obama as I think everyone else’s name was on the ballot. I am, however, having one hell of a time picture how a committee of the DNC has a behind closed door meeting and decides what voters probably meant and removes delegates from one candidates and takes them to another.

By: Chuck Butcher

Chuck Butcher — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:16:16 +0000

The MI vote was so screwed up that the other alternative was to 100% sanction. The Clinton faction at the State Party level blocked caucuses which were the only altrernative in that state.

The blame for this mess lays directly on the State Party of Michigan who was responsible for the Primary in its State.

You keep igoring the fact that the State Legislature does not run the Primary. That is not an opinion, it is fact of Federal Law. Take your complaint to the State Party of MI, not DNC or Democrats in general. All DNC RBC did was to recoginize the decision the State Party of MI worked out with their best tools.

You want what you wanted, not what was right or proper or respects the States who stayed in line. OR wanted to move to Feb 5, DNC refused because our Vote by Mail ballots go out a couple weeks ahead. Our Primary was 5/20.

By: Lynda ONeal

Lynda ONeal — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:16:01 +0000

I don’t know about a good lesson, Chuck, but I’m beginning to wonder if the Democratic Party isn’t working overtime to defeat itself. I;m still trying to find the rule that says that you reallocate delegates based on supposition. I wish the Party luck with the New Coalition.

By: Chuck Butcher

Chuck Butcher — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:36:05 +0000

so, you think the defeat of the Democratic Party would be a good lesson? Here you are.

By: joe

joe — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:57:11 +0000

how about the fact that in his book he speaks very highly of his father and during the rev. wright fiasco he threw his white grandmother (who help raise him) under the bus. his father was nothing more than a baby-daddy and this is the parent for whom he shows love? the one that bailed out on him at the age of two? he’s a freaking racist. read between the lines. black liberation theology? wtf is that? maybe it will be good if he wins – you can’t blame the man for keeping you down if you are the man. ninety two percent of the blacks are voting for him? they’re RACISTS. that means they discriminate against WHITE PEOPLE!! the super delagates are wussies. this is the very reason they exist – to overrule dumb a$$es who vote for a racist candidate.

By: Jill Miller Zimon

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:54:03 +0000

Hey Dawn – thanks for reading and commenting.

I don’t know if you read my post that featured Ellen Bravo’s ten reasons why women should vote for Obama, but what specifically do you think of when you think of how he won you over?

By: Jill Miller Zimon

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:51:06 +0000

Hi Dorothy!!

I couldn’t say what you said any better. In particular, you wrote, “While we ponder there is no clear answer and we dam well don’t know who to vote for to better our country. If the party could unify maybe our choices would seem clearer.”

EXACTLY. That’s been exactly how I’ve felt between Clinton and Obama – we don’t know who to for for to better our country – they have different styles, not really so much difference in substance. And it’s very hard to know which style is what we need – if we could even ever agree on what THAT is!

Have a great week and thanks for commenting.

By: Jill Miller Zimon

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:47:56 +0000

Chuck, you wrote, “Cults of personality are not addressable. Messianic thinking takes over and the opponent is simply evil for existing and any nonsense reflecting that becomes truth by definition of the messianic standing. Removal of the messiah is martyrdom and thus intolerable.”

Yes – I can see how some followers are in this category of thinkers. I’m also seeing people say stuff that reminds me of 2004 – when Bush would say stuff about having a mandate and other words trying to characterize the win as representing so many more Americans than it did.

Likewise I see that in this primary and it drives me nuts. They are separated by barely 200,000 votes out of 17 million!!! That’s statistically not even significant. Now of course every vote is significant by itself, but you know what I am saying – it gives NO ONE a right to suggest that there’s “overwhelming” anything. That kind of talk makes me crazy.

By: Jill Miller Zimon

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:44:04 +0000

Kevin – I agree with you, definitely. It shouldn’t be seen as zero-sum and they are both acceptable candidates. I think Kane was trying to draw some folks back to a middle ground, that’s how I read it.

By: Lynda ONeal

Lynda ONeal — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:38:27 +0000

My pleasure. Thanks for the opportunity to flaunt my knowledge base.