Another Day, More Bullshit

Another bucket of bullshit from Camp Clinton:

In an interview with the St. Petersburg Times, Obama, D-Ill., called the idea of cutting Florida’s delegation in half “a very reasonable solution” to the party’s stand-off over how to treat a primary contest that was not sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee.

Sen. Clinton dismissed the suggestion, saying she would insist on 100 percent representation for Florida.

“I think that is disingenuous but it’s also insulting to the 1.7-million Floridians who actually turned out to vote,” Clinton, D-N.Y., said of Obama’s proposal, according to the newspaper.

But just last week, Bill Clinton called giving Florida half its delegates — similar to how the Republican National Committee penalized the state for holding an earlier-than-allowed contest — an “appropriate penalty.”

Read the whole piece to see how truly shameless the Ickes 180 is turning out to be.






106 replies
  1. 1
    Adam says:

    It’s difficult for me to see why people can’t seem to admit that Obama is a really talented politician when he does things like this. He agrees — unofficially — with a plan that Bill agreed with, but Hillary responds by shooting it down as “disingenuous” and “insulting.”

    Similarly, he owned McCain over the veteran’s-benefits issue today — baited McCain into weighing in on the vote he’d tried to skip and made him look like a fool in the process. He’s never obvious about it, but Obama’s been doing stuff like this way too consistently since November for me to pass it off as accidental any more. It’s kind of entertaining to watch.

  2. 2
    John Cole says:

    I wouldn’t be supporting him if I didn’t think he was a talented politician. Being a good guy and having good intentions won’t get you shit in the general election.

  3. 3
    John S. says:

    What I find insulting is how full of shit she is, how unwilling to compromise she is and how nakedly ambitious she is while pretending to give a shit about my vote.

    This Floridian says “Fuck you, Hillary.”

  4. 4
    Jake says:

    Giordano’s take on this sounds spot-on to me:

    The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.

    And that is all that anybody needs to know to understand the childish and wounded behavior of Senator Clinton yesterday, grandstanding hypocritically to senior citizens in Florida, telling them they should consider themselves under sniper fire in Bosnia, er, Zimbabwe, aggrandizing herself as some kind of civil rights leader (MLK? or LBJ? She didn’t say this time) and attempting to corner 30 members of the DNC’s Rules & Bylaws Committee that will meet on May 31 to resolve the disputes over whether, and, if so, how, delegates from Michigan and Florida might be seated at the convention in August.

    Nobody puts Barry in a corner.

  5. 5
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Like I said before, there was no Plan B in Camp Clinton. That is why we are in the mess we are now. She can’t believe that she lost, and her and her campaign are grasping at straws trying to come up with something to feed her base and delegates and keep them on board with her.

    Ickes is representative of Hillary and her campaign. His 180 is nothing compared to the endless brodies Hillary, her campaign and supporters are burning in the parking lot of Democracy. The smoke is getting so thick that it is getting hard to see anything.

  6. 6
    Adam says:

    …Reminds me of the, “Well Hillary, I’m looking forward to you advising me as well” remark. He really got under her skin throughout the primary, and McCain’s already proving an even easier mark.

  7. 7
    John Cole says:

    What I find insulting is how full of shit she is, how unwilling to compromise she is and how nakedly ambitious she is while pretending to give a shit about my vote.

    I think Rachel Maddow is right- at this point she does not want a compromise. She wants to keep the FL/MI delegate issue unresolved long enough to whip up her voters into a froth and then win an ugly convention fight.

    And we need to face facts- Rachel is the ONLY one who has been right about everything regarding the Clinton campaign so far.

  8. 8
    Dreggas says:

    As I posted over at Giordano’s place:

    The reality here is that both Clinton’s have written checks with their mouths that their rear ends can’t cash. The VP spot is the last desperate gambit to get close enough to the top to potentially pay off some of those checks. Her inevitableness was caught up in her own inevitability and didn’t plan for any of this. Now they may have to go hat in hand saying they can’t fill all those promises they made…

  9. 9
    Wilfred says:

    But just last week, Bill Clinton called giving Florida half its delegates—similar to how the Republican National Committee penalized the state for holding an earlier-than-allowed contest—an “appropriate penalty.”

    Well, there you go. That proves she is her own hypocrite and doesn’t need to hide behind Bill’s gas cloud. Impressive!

  10. 10
    vwcat says:

    Sullivan links to a post by Al Giordano in the Field regarding several reliable sources who said that Hillary told Obama very recently she wants the vp spot and he politely but, forcefully told her ‘no’
    Suddenly we have her out on her tantrum tour about Fla and Mi. and Bubba making it known he really, really wants her to be vp.
    This is what this is all about. She was turned down and so, both Clintons last shot at the power is done and so, they go nuclear.

  11. 11
    Jack H. says:

    Over at the Hillary blogs they actually are self righteous about Hillary deserving ALL of the Michigan delegates. Somehow they completely ignore Hillary’s complicity in the whole Michigan/Florida mess as if she were always fighting for full representation from the start. It’s truly bizarre.

  12. 12
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    And we need to face facts- Rachel is the ONLY one who has been right about everything regarding the Clinton campaign so far.

    That she has, and she has stood her ground while her fellow media pundits have disagreed with her. If MSNBC is smart, they will give her a time slot to work. Give her the re-run hour of HardBall for her show, ditch the after hours prison flicks (please!) and re-run the days shows in that time slot.

    Maddow has her fingers on the pulse of the campaign, and she has made the other pundits look foolish with her accuracy.

  13. 13
    myiq2xu says:

    I wouldn’t be supporting him if I didn’t think he was a talented politician.

    You’d support the Antichrist if he was running against Hillary.

  14. 14
    John Cole says:

    Sullivan links to a post by Al Giordano in the Field regarding several reliable sources who said that Hillary told Obama very recently she wants the vp spot and he politely but, forcefully told her ‘no’
    Suddenly we have her out on her tantrum tour about Fla and Mi. and Bubba making it known he really, really wants her to be vp.
    This is what this is all about. She was turned down and so, both Clintons last shot at the power is done and so, they go nuclear.

    That is, for now, all speculation in my mind.

  15. 15
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    You’d support the Antichrist if he was running against Hillary.

    Three and half good years!!!

  16. 16

    At least the Antichrist would legalize gay marriage and medical marijuana!

  17. 17
    Ted says:

    You’d support the Antichrist if he was running against Hillary.

    And you only read this blog to troll its comments. Pretty pathetic, actually.

  18. 18
    Mary says:

    And we need to face facts- Rachel is the ONLY one who has been right about everything regarding the Clinton campaign so far.

    I’ve been trying to scale back on my cable lineup, but I just may have to add MSNBC back in.

  19. 19
    Warren Terra says:

    John, you and Obama both misunderstand. Bill and Hillary Clinton are in complete agreement here: both feel that it would be an entirely appropriate solution to seat half the Florida delegates.

    Now guess which half.

  20. 20
    Rick Taylor says:

    I put this in another thread, but the theme of hypocrisy is relevant to this one. From the rude pundit:

    On January 21 of this year, the Clinton campaign held one of its many “you’ve offended our delicate sensibilities” press conferences (like the “look at this fuckin’ flyer” one). The candidate was not there, but speaking for her were former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Kathy Sullivan, former Democratic chair of New Hampshire. They were in high dudgeon at what the Obama campaign had done, which, in our current context of bullshit hyperbole, was akin to genocide.
    Obama’s crime? Some of his national ads were playing in Florida, and, holy fuckin’ shit, this was violating the pledge taken by the remaining candidates to give mad props to Iowa and New Hampshire (and Nevada and South Carolina) by ignoring the upstart states’ primaries. But, really, truly, it’s just best at this point to let others speak.

    Said Vilsack: “In the heartland, words matter, promises matter, and pledges matter. That’s why it was important to the people of Iowa that the candidates running for president sign a pledge that indicated that they would not campaign vigorously in states that violated the DNC rules. Clearly, the Obama campaign has decided not to fulfill that pledge by having advertising in Florida. I think this calls into question whether or not Senator Obama meant the pledge when he signed it or if losing three primaries and caucuses in a row compelled him and his campaign to sacrifice a part of their integrity. That’s hardly the politics of a different kind that he’s promised, and it raises the issue of what other pledges or promises he’s making to Democrats across the country that he won’t keep. You know, your word ought to be your bond, whether it’s politically convenient or not, and it shouldn’t just be your bond when it is politically convenient.”

    Said Sullivan: “This was all about honoring the rules that were adopted by the Democratic National Committee. And these were tough rules for some of the candidates to abide by, because, you know, it’s always difficult just to say that, you know, we’re agreeing not to campaign in other states. But all the candidates agreed that honoring the rules of the DNC were important and that they were going to do this. And so I’m disappointed that, now that Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada are behind us, that the Obama campaign now feels that it can blithely just disregard the pledge and disregard the DNC rules…And so I’m very disappointed that this pledge is not being taken seriously. I’m disappointed that he’s decided that there’s nothing wrong with violating the rules of our party, you know, rules that were adopted after a lengthy process and adopted by the entire Democratic National Committee, and just feels that it is OK to ignore the wishes of the Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee. And so I’m disappointed, again, at the lack of seriousness with which the pledge apparently was made by Senator Obama and his campaign. And I would call upon him to honor the pledge and do what he said he was going to do.”

    Said Wasserman Schultz: “We have scrupulously abided by these rules because we respect them. We respect them even though in Florida we don’t like them. And at the end of the day, when you’re running for president of the United States, rules matter. Because you have to be the one that sets the example for the whole country. You can’t just disregard or cast aside rules when they’re no longer convenient for you.”

    Also, I think I remember Clinton criticizing the DNC’s decision regarding Florida, because it was was more extreme than the Republicans?

  21. 21
    dr. bloor says:

    You’d support the Antichrist if he was running against Hillary.

    Depends. Where does he stand on kids selling their bikes to pay off K street greedheads?

  22. 22
    El Doh says:

    Over at the Hillary blogs they actually are self righteous about Hillary deserving ALL of the Michigan delegates. Somehow they completely ignore Hillary’s complicity in the whole Michigan/Florida mess as if she were always fighting for full representation from the start. It’s truly bizarre.

    Yeah. “It’s the DNCs fault, and Obama chose to take his name off the ballot. Nobody made him. Actions have consequences” has been the mantra for months now.

    In usual fashion, if challenged over the actual people at the DNC who made the call… crickets. If challenged over the fact that Hillary pledged not to participate… crickets.

  23. 23
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Now guess which half.

    Half each?

  24. 24
    Warren Terra says:

    Just Some Fuckhead Says:

    Now guess which half.

    Half each?

    Well, no, because Bill Clinton can’t actually collect delegates in his own name. But you’re halfway there …

  25. 25
    Seitz says:

    You’d support the Antichrist if he was running against Hillary.

    Impossible. Hillary can’t run against herself.

  26. 26
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Well, no, because Bill Clinton can’t actually collect delegates in his own name. But you’re halfway there

    See, I was thinking Bill was lobbying to have half of the delegates seated and Hillary was lobbying to have the other half seated.

  27. 27
    Jake says:

    You’d support the Antichrist if he was running against Hillary.

    Two professional liars duking it out? Sounds about right.

  28. 28
    Larv says:

    At this point Hillary can’t accept a solution. She needs a club, not a compromise. Whether she’s trying to force him to take her as VP by dividing the party, or out for revenge, or damaging him in preparation for 2012, or just fighting to the end to establish her never-say-die credentials; whatever her reasons, a equitable conclusion to the mess does her no good. She needs the messiness to distract attention from the fact that it’s over and done. It’s just political chaff for them to throw around when asked about the numbers, simply to have a response, however silly. Anybody who looks at the Clinton camp claims about the popular vote (if you count FL and MI, but don’t count caucus states, and exclude states beginning with V…) can see that they’re bullshit, but that’s the point. It’s Frankfurtian bullshit, just something to say without any real regard for the truth value or believability of the claim. It’s just a means to an end: the continuation of her candidacy.

  29. 29
    Warren Terra says:

    See, I was thinking Bill was lobbying to have half of the delegates seated and Hillary was lobbying to have the other half seated.

    Not an unreasonable proposition, but I think my interpretation is more effective at achieving Justice. And by Justice, I of course mean Destiny, i.e. the nomination of Saint Senator Hillary Clinton.

  30. 30
    Ted says:

    I’m reminded of that lovely little music video the Clinton campaign put out after the will.i.am video hit YouTube.

    Hill-er-y for you-and-me!
    Bring back our democracy!
    Hill-er-y for you-and-me!…

    …and so on.

    Myiq.4xu probably wrote that song. It’s fucking awesome!

  31. 31
    Wilfred says:

    Whether she’s trying to force him to take her as VP by dividing the party, or out for revenge, or damaging him in preparation for 2012, or just fighting to the end to establish her never-say-die credentials; whatever her reasons, a equitable conclusion to the mess does her no good. She needs the messiness to distract attention from the fact that it’s over and done.

    I don’t doubt she’s trying to weaken Obama for 2012 but is she so far gone to think that nobody will remember how she conducts herself? She really is delusional if she thinks she can fuck Obama and his supporters and count on help later.

    She needs to distract attention from one of the biggest fuck-ups in American political history.

  32. 32

    My God, Edwards and Obama did what has been the standard effing practice for major candidates whenever a state holds an illegal primary. It’s what Gore and Bradley did in 2000 when Michigan tried to hold a primary in January — they pulled their names, and Michigan Democrats went and held a caucus in March so they’d be seated. Why do the Clintonites insist on pretending that her position is the “normal” one?

    Though I am pleased to see that some of the media people are finally starting to eschew the Clinton spin. The passage John quotes above shows this. Look at it again:

    In an interview with the St. Petersburg Times, Obama, D-Ill., called the idea of cutting Florida’s delegation in half “a very reasonable solution” to the party’s stand-off over how to treat a primary contest that was not sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee.

    Sen. Clinton dismissed the suggestion, saying she would insist on 100 percent representation for Florida.

    “I think that is disingenuous but it’s also insulting to the 1.7-million Floridians who actually turned out to vote,” Clinton, D-N.Y., said of Obama’s proposal, according to the newspaper.

    But just last week, Bill Clinton called giving Florida half its delegates—similar to how the Republican National Committee penalized the state for holding an earlier-than-allowed contest—an “appropriate penalty.”

    That’s not Rachel Maddow saying this. That’s not that evil biased black journalist Bob Herbert saying this.

    That’s ABC News’ Rick Klein and Sarah Amos reporting this. And it’s not buried at the bottom of the story, but forms the frickin’ LEDE.

    Another week or two of coverage like this, and even Harold Ickes will be begging Hillary and Bill to pack it in.

  33. 33
    NR says:

    I think Rachel Maddow is right- at this point she does not want a compromise. She wants to keep the FL/MI delegate issue unresolved long enough to whip up her voters into a froth and then win an ugly convention fight.

    I agree with that except for one detail – Hillary does not want to win the convention fight. She has to know that it’d be impossible for her to win the GE after that. She just wants to make Obama’s primary victory as ugly as she possibly can in order to make him lose to McCain so she can run again in 2012.

    That’s her strategy now. It’s all she has left.

  34. 34
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    achieving Justice. And by Justice, I of course mean Destiny, i.e. the nomination of Saint Senator Hillary Clinton.

    I weep a little when you say that and I don’t care if it makes me look like a sissy.

  35. 35

    Wilfred: The thing about Hillary is that it was all about her aura of inevitability. She was going to win, dammit, and no one else had a chance against her, and that allegedly self-evident fact was allowed to smother every other consideration, and paper over all the gaping weaknesses in her candidacy.

    But then, like Daniel Dravot in The Man Who Would Be King, some uppity brown person bites her and draws blood — and suddenly, her biggest selling point no longer exists. It’s been four months of progressively ugly flailing about since then, occasioned by the fact that she and her people had no Plan B in case she wasn’t invulnerable, but once she showed she was beatable, the end was predictable.

  36. 36
    Wilfred says:

    But then, like Daniel Dravot in The Man Who Would Be King, some uppity brown person bites her and draws blood—and suddenly, her biggest selling point no longer exists.

    What a great analogy, well put.

  37. 37
    El Doh says:

    The thing about Hillary is that it was all about her aura of inevitability.

    That aura lasted right up ’til she lost Iowa. Then she suddenly became the underdog, the fighter who would bounce back.

    Even now, she’s still the underdog who will win through against all odds, despite starting this primary season with every advantage.

  38. 38

    I obtained this supasecret Memo in March.

    Hillary’s following it to a T so far.

    7 Steps for Successful Close to the Campaign, March 5th edition:

    (1) Run out the Clock. No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed until it is ripe for execution. Do not discuss the end game but merely state that things are either going as planned or better than expected. Hillary can’t catch up in the pledged delegates so the race is all about momentum now. Reduce his while creating it for her. Winning states is preferable to losing but losing is still OK. Remember the Clinton campaign is the underdog and Obama is a magic media darling. So if Obama can’t knock Hillary out, he’s a loser for failing to close the deal. Play to the end and dismiss any talk of the delegates because the delegate count is irrelevant. And never let them see you sweat (I’m talking to you Wolfson).

    (2) Attack. A new ruler must determine all the injuries that she will need to inflict. She must inflict them once and for all. The only path to the nomination is to win ugly. To that end you must do whatever is necessary to bring Obama’s positives down and drive negatives up. The Obama is a Muslim rumor plays well. So does the Obama as lightweight meme. Create a negative narrative about Obama (preferably about a perceived strength) and push it.

    (3) Work the refs. You must propel the propaganda. Aggressively push the media to present your narratives. Criticize the media as biased when they fail to play along. Chris Matthews is your friend if you feed him right. He’s also a fool you can bash and claim victim status if he fails to play along. This is a win-win.

    (4) Win the message of the day. Political chaos is connected with the decay of language. There is a story of the day every day – write it, control it, spin it, and push it relentlessly. If an Obama campaign worker gets a parking ticket, imply that Obama is a scofflaw, if that’s your narrative. If the narrative is that Obama is a lightweight empty suit, say if he can’t even control his staff, how’s he gonna be the leader of the free world. It does not matter how trivial the issue is, fit it into your narrative and push it relentlessly.

    (4) Get Inside. It is better to appear virtuous than it is to be virtuous. Ensure that loyalists and double agents are placed on the key committees that set the rules at the convention. Delegates can be challenged, denied the vote, and the game can be rigged. It has been done before, notably at the 1912 republican convention when party insiders denied the nomination to the popular vote winner, Teddy Roosevelt.

    (5) Change the rules. The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present. Hilary won the vote in two states (MI – FL) that are prohibited from allocating delegates to the nomination convention. It does not matter that the candidates did not campaign there or if Obama’s name was even on the ballot. Since Hillary won these states, the Voters cannot be disenfranchised by their party, especially the Florida voters who were disenfranchised in 2000. Obviously, the rules must be changed (see step 4, above) and these delegates must be seated.

    (6) Embrace the Smoke Filled Room. The Automatic Delegates (formerly known as Super Delegates) need to understand the consequence of their support or lack thereof. Appeals to virtue should be embraced and appeals to vice should be tacitly extended. There are always deals to be made and arms to be twisted whether they involve the carrot, the stick or both. And remember …..there is something on everybody. Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption. He passes from the stink of the dydie to the stench of the shroud… There’s ALWAYS something. There should be no doubt in the mind any Automatic Delegate on the consequences of their conduct.

    (7) Burn the Damn House Down. Politics have no relation to morals. Winning isn’t everything, it is the only thing. If the steps above have failed to secure the nomination you must be prepared to sacrifice the Party for the greater good. Great accomplishments require great risk. Here, division will be our ally. We are prepared to divide the party, shatter it along racial, sectarian, and demographic lines. Then we claim the bigger half. And from the resulting chaos, we will conquer and claim HER rightful place. In the end, Hillary is running against John McCain one way or another whether it is in 2008 or 2012, after McCain has beaten a fatally damaged candidate…….so leave no stone left un-cast. Al Gore is not our role model; there will be no Al Gore Style Concession Speeches.

  39. 39
    John S. says:

    That’s her strategy now. It’s all she has left.

    I really don’t think this is true.

    Hillary’s only shot at the White House is NOW – which is why she is fighting so hard. Once she went scorched earth she knew that she was obliterating any hope to run in the future, but that didn’t factor into her calculation because she thought it would work. It was just one of many gambles that she made that cost her dearly.

    For all the analogies about Hillary, that is the one that most often comes to mind – Hillary the Gambler. But she’s not a very good gambler. She doesn’t know when to hold ’em, or know when to fold’em. She doesn’t know when to walk away or know when to run. Worst of all, she counted her money while she was sitting at the table.

    Obama on the other hand knew there would be time enough for counting when the dealing was done.

    h/t Kenny Rogers

  40. 40
    JL says:

    Living in GA, I can safely sit home instead of voting for Hillary; but, I’m not so sure what I would do if I lived in Ohio. Unfortunately, Hillary has showed her Republican side the last day and do we really know that she’d be better than John at this point?

  41. 41
    jake says:

    “I think that is disingenuous but it’s also insulting to the 1.7-million Floridians who actually turned out to vote,” Clinton, D-N.Y., said of Obama’s proposal, according to the newspaper.

    So Plan B is: Roll around on the fainting couch until you get your way.

    Yeah. T’riffic. This country needs is another four years with a shifty sack of crap at the helm.

  42. 42
    Genine says:

    JL Says:

    Living in GA, I can safely sit home instead of voting for Hillary; but, I’m not so sure what I would do if I lived in Ohio. Unfortunately, Hillary has showed her Republican side the last day and do we really know that she’d be better than John at this point?

    Its the same thing for me living in Colorado. If necessary, I will vote for Hillary because McCain would be a disaster for all the things I hold dear.

  43. 43
    Dan says:

    Genine Says: If necessary, I will vote for Hillary because McCain would be a disaster for all the things I hold dear.

    How’s that going to feel, though?

  44. 44
    ghost poet says:

    El Doh Says:

    Over at the Hillary blogs they actually are self righteous about Hillary deserving ALL of the Michigan delegates. Somehow they completely ignore Hillary’s complicity in the whole Michigan/Florida mess as if she were always fighting for full representation from the start. It’s truly bizarre.

    Yeah. “It’s the DNCs fault, and Obama chose to take his name off the ballot. Nobody made him. Actions have consequences” has been the mantra for months now.

    In usual fashion, if challenged over the actual people at the DNC who made the call… crickets. If challenged over the fact that Hillary pledged not to participate… crickets.

    I wouldn’t say crickets, more like “Comments closed”.

    In all honesty … Why is it that the “Creative Class Blogs” are open to debate and discussion, but the “Hard Working Americans Blogs” immediately shut down comments the moment the discussion gets out of their control or someone presents hard facts to dispute whatever the claim du jour is?

  45. 45
    NR says:

    Hillary’s only shot at the White House is NOW – which is why she is fighting so hard.

    No. She has a shot in 2012, too. If Obama wins in November, he becomes the leader of the Democratic party, but if he loses, that mantle returns to the Clintons by default. Pelosi and Reid aren’t strong enough to challenge them, and there’s nobody particularly compelling waiting in the wings.

    Also, Dean will be disgraced by an Obama loss in November, and the Clintons will move to oust him and replace him with Harold Ford or someone else in their camp. They’ll have a good shot at succeeding, and if they do, Hillary will have even more institutional support in 2012 than she did this time around.

    If Obama loses in November, Hillary is the favorite for the Democratic nomination in 2012. There’s no one else.

  46. 46
    El Cid says:

    I am doing my part by trying not to buy any products made by enslaved Florida Democratic Primary Voters.

    Until the Florida Democratic Primary Voter is free, no one is free.

  47. 47
    KRK says:

    What baffles me about the little lawsuit gambit they’re trying now is that there were two separate lawsuits last fall in Florida against the DNC and both were basically tossed out as soon as each judge opened the briefs.

    At some point you’re in frivilous litigation territory and risk Rule 11 sanctions against the lawyer who files the case. It’s been decided — there’s no claim.

    October 6, 2007
    The first legal challenge to the Democratic National Committee’s refusal to seat Florida’s delegates to the party’s national convention next year was thrown out of federal court Friday.

    Calling the matter “an intra-party dispute,” U.S. District Judge Richard Lazzara concluded the arguments made by Tampa-based Democratic voter and political consultant Victor DiMaio contained no legal basis for challenging the national party.

    Lazzara wrote, “The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that national political parties have a constitutionally protected right to manage and conduct their own internal affairs, including the enforcement of delegate-selection rules and the decision as to which state delegates it will recognize … .”

    This is a case in which “the party’s national convention, and not a court, is the proper forum for determining this intra-party dispute with regard to the seating of the State of Florida’s delegates,” Lazzara wrote.

    December 6, 2007:
    Florida Democrats lost another effort on Wednesday to make Florida’s Democratic primary more meaningful on Jan. 29.

    U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle threw out a lawsuit that aimed to force the national party to seat Florida delegates at the national convention and command presidential candidates to campaign in Florida.

    ***

    The lawsuit was filed by Sen. Bill Nelson, Rep. Alcee Hastings and Rep. Corrine Brown, among other Democrats, against the Democratic National Committee and its chairman, Howard Dean.

    ***

    [Nelson’s attorney, Kendall] Coffey argued during the court hearing that the national party has disenfranchised Florida Democrats, violating the “rights of voters and having every vote count.”

    “Democratic voters of Florida will not have an opportunity to participate in one of the most important elections in many years,” Coffey said.

    Judge Hinkle was not convinced. He ruled that forcing the national party to break its own primary schedule rules by seating Florida delegates would violate the party’s First Amendment right to assemble.

    “There can be a schedule, there need not be a free-for-all and the entity that can set the schedule is the national party,” said Hinkle while pronouncing his ruling. “Florida has to comply with the same rules and procedures as everybody else and does not get to have its own way.

    Hinkle did leave the door open for Nelson to file a lawsuit against the secretary of state to challenge the constitutionality of moving up Florida’s primary. Coffey said Nelson was more likely to “take this battle to the halls of Congress.”

  48. 48
    Ted says:

    Its the same thing for me living in Colorado. If necessary, I will vote for Hillary because McCain would be a disaster for all the things I hold dear.

    Roe v Wade would be reason enough for me to vote for Hillary should she steal the nomination somehow. I don’t care how awful she is, the people appointed to SCOTUS are too critical a concern to do a protest at the polls. That isn’t the only reason to put the menthol gel on your upper lip, hold your nose, put on latex gloves and a prophylactic mask, and vote for Hillary. But it’s a pretty damn big one.

  49. 49
    Nate says:

    As much as I hate this woman, and every despicable and brain-numbingly stupid utterance she makes, I have to keep in mind how unbelievably pissed off she’s going to be when Barry is being sworn in as president. It’s going to be the most painful moment of her life. That thought alone warms the heart.

  50. 50
    Dan says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

    Give me what I want and I’ll go away!

  51. 51
    Dan says:

    NR Says: If Obama loses in November, Hillary is the favorite for the Democratic nomination in 2012. There’s no one else.

    Yoda says: There is another.

  52. 52
    El Doh says:

    Not just Roe Vs Wade, but the entire direction of the SCOTUS and thus the country.

    Not to mention all the other judicial appointments.

    Elections have consequences.

  53. 53
    Just Some Fuckead says:

    She has a shot in 2012, too. If Obama wins in November, he becomes the leader of the Democratic party, but if he loses, that mantle returns to the Clintons by default.

    No, John S. is right. *big sigh* What we’ve been keeping from you kids is that Hillary is dying. She only has four years left. We want it to be the most fulfilling four years possible, so we’re going to award her the Presidency.

    *bites lower lip*

    You all rightly feel a little ashamed now because you thought she was doing all this for own future. But now you know she has no future. All this was for you.

    *whispers* You.

    Obama can be President when Hillary.. is.. gone. Now you know everything. Get over here and lets hug it all out.

  54. 54
    JL says:

    Do we trust Hillary to follow through on her promises? For example she was for the rules for FL and MI before she was against them? She has always been more hawkish than I like and continues to attack Barack about his willingnesss to talk to foreign leaders. Do we really trust her on Roe v Wade? I don’t……

  55. 55
    Rick Taylor says:

    If challenged over the fact that Hillary pledged not to participate… crickets.

    Well no; when challenged on this they just argue that pledging not to participate in a primary does not exclude fighting tog to get the resulting delegates. Hillary herself made that same argument. In retrospect, her pledge not to participate was certainly to her advantage as with her name recognition of course she came in first with her name recognition, and her opponents were prevented from campaigning.

  56. 56
    SamFromUtah says:

    The reality here is that both Clinton’s have written checks with their mouths that their rear ends can’t cash.

    I’ve thought that too, though of course I don’t have any proof. If it’s so, I’d be very very curious to know just who those checks went to and what was written in the little “memo” blank on them.

  57. 57
    Liberal Masochist says:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI.....index.html

    this is probably worth a whole separate thread, but hee hee ha ha…

    Apologies if I am repeating the post of this here…

  58. 58
    KRK says:

    Nate Says:

    As much as I hate this woman, and every despicable and brain-numbingly stupid utterance she makes, I have to keep in mind how unbelievably pissed off she’s going to be when Barry is being sworn in as president. It’s going to be the most painful moment of her life. That thought alone warms the heart.

    I’ve actually wondered if Obama might get some votes out of this. It’s so evident how much it would infuriate both Bill and Hillary for Obama to win it. I can’t help thinking there are some people who are apathetic about McCain and politics in general, but who would enjoy voting for Obama just to stick it to the Clintons one more time.

  59. 59
    El Doh says:

    Well no; when challenged on this they just argue that pledging not to participate in a primary does not exclude fighting tog to get the resulting delegates. Hillary herself made that same argument. In retrospect, her pledge not to participate was certainly to her advantage as with her name recognition of course she came in first with her name recognition, and her opponents were prevented from campaigning.

    Well, I’ve always put forward that by appearing on the ballot she broke her pledge not to participate. No-one has ever attempted to explain that, unless you count parsing that appearing on the ballot was not participating in the election, and that participation meant campaigning.

    Given the pledge also mentioned campaigning, this is disingenuous at best.

    At that point, crickets.

  60. 60
    Ted says:

    Do we really trust her on Roe v Wade? I don’t……

    Hmm.. Hillary would probably appoint a Roe v Wade defender to the court. McCain, would most likely not appoint a defender of Roe v Wade to the court. You’ll likely never get a president you can completely “trust” to do what you want them to do. But by not voting for Hillary (again, you won’t have to, luckily) if she were the nominee, you would be de facto voting for McCain. I guess you trust him more on that issue?

  61. 61
    KRK says:

    If Obama loses in November, Hillary is the favorite for the Democratic nomination in 2012. There’s no one else.

    I disagree. I think she has burned too many bridges.

    Let’s hope we never have to find out.

  62. 62
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    No. She has a shot in 2012, too. If Obama wins in November, he becomes the leader of the Democratic party, but if he loses, that mantle returns to the Clintons by default. Pelosi and Reid aren’t strong enough to challenge them, and there’s nobody particularly compelling waiting in the wings.

    Also, Dean will be disgraced by an Obama loss in November, and the Clintons will move to oust him and replace him with Harold Ford or someone else in their camp. They’ll have a good shot at succeeding, and if they do, Hillary will have even more institutional support in 2012 than she did this time around.

    If Obama loses in November, Hillary is the favorite for the Democratic nomination in 2012. There’s no one else.

    I disagree about Hillary being the only option in 2012. If she is perceived as having cost the Democratic party the general this year, her and the Clinton name will be politically be ‘mud’.

    The netroots will stock up on ammo, and the press will have a field day as she goes state to state in 2012 to gain votes. The press (and the netroots) will remind everyone about how their vote did not matter in 2008, and they will play her own words against her in an endless loop until it drives it home.

    The Dean people have pretty much taken over the DNC, and if she costs the party the general, they are going to fight tooth and nail to prevent her and Bill from coming back to take over the party with the DLC.

    If Obama loses the general, we haven’t seen anything like the war that will erupt afterward. It will be messy and there will be casualties on both sides (DNC/DLC). She really is threatening to drive the party off a cliff, and I would not put it past her to do so.

  63. 63

    I’ll keep saying it. It looks crazy, but it’s not. She’s representing her real constituency, the corporatists. If she can’t get it, she’ll do everything she can for McCain to get it.

    As much as people think she’s greedy she’s actually a team player. She’s just bloodying up Obama. It’s amazing how the people at The Left Coaster and TalkLeft are incapable of understanding this.

  64. 64
    Just Some Fuckead says:

    I think she has burned too many bridges.

    I agree with that. Everyone just projects her into 2012 with the 48% she has now plus whatever she can add to that in four years but the truth is that she doesn’t have that 48% any more now. If the primary were re-run she’d do the same in Appalachia and lose everywhere else.

  65. 65
    JL says:

    Ted, Hillary lost my trust.. The election is also about more than SCOTUS. Hillary would be better on the economy but I feel she would be the same as McCain on Foreign Policy. TBogg on his blog called her Lieberman lite and the last few days, she actually might be Lieberman heavy. As I said I live in GA and Hillary has zero chance here so I’d write in Obama’s name. Hillary has about as much chance as winning GA as she does Kentucky or West Virginia IMO.

  66. 66
    Dan says:

    Bob In Pacifica Says: I’ll keep saying it. It looks crazy, but it’s not. She’s representing her real constituency, the corporatists.

    109 million is a lot of favors to repay. Colombia Free Trade is just the tip of the very nasty iceberg.

  67. 67
    Just Some Fuckead says:

    Damn you to hell, Kos!

  68. 68
    Kevin says:

    Yep, front page link from the GOS

  69. 69
    Just Some Fuckead says:

    He’s just fucking with us now.

  70. 70
    John S. says:

    If she is perceived as having cost the Democratic party the general this year, her and the Clinton name will be politically be ‘mud’.

    Bingo. She is doubling down now because by 2012 the casinos will have all blacklisted her.

  71. 71
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    I figured that the GOS had struck us down yet again…lol

  72. 72
    Cain says:

    I figured that the GOS had struck us down yet again…lol

    We need to stop being so popular with the GOS. Good grief. At least we didn’t get slashdotted.

    cain

  73. 73
    Warren Terra says:

    We need to stop being so popular with the GOS. Good grief.

    Hey, you may be naturally cool, but I discovered Balloon Juice through a GOS frontpaging. Granted, that was a long time ago, so all the people killing the server these days should get off my lawn, but still …

  74. 74
    Cain says:

    Actually, we need to get kos to start calling Obama the MUP. That would rock.

    cain

  75. 75
    John Cole says:

    Yeah, we need a new site. Period.

    Now let me throw it back at you- these commenters are a LOT funnier than you.

  76. 76
    Just Some Fuckead says:

    Yeah, we need a new site. Period.

    Now let me throw it back at you- these commenters are a LOT funnier than you.

    I was about to volunteer my services as a software developer and fundraising guru but now I’m just going to sit here and sulk.

  77. 77
    Just Some Fuckead says:

    .. while I read these deliciously funny comments on Wonkette.

  78. 78
    Cain says:

    Actually, we need to get kos to start calling Obama the MUP. That would rock.

    Luckily, this has become a liberal blog now, John gets free IT services from all of us. But I only do GNU/Linux, not htat crappy windows stuff. Hail the penguin.

    BTW what the fuck was that lame Hillary joke about Gandhi? I didn’t get it. There seems to be no set up for that joke. I do think that people seem to be overly offended by it blah blah stereotypes. Nobody makes more fun of indian stereotypes than other indians and they are mostly right about the stereotypes.

    cain

  79. 79
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    I don’t doubt she’s trying to weaken Obama for 2012 but is she so far gone to think that nobody will remember how she conducts herself? She really is delusional if she thinks she can fuck Obama and his supporters and count on help later.

    Regarding the 2012 “bridge burning” question, it is important to remember that it does not matter what you think, or what I think, or what anybody thinks except Hillary and her inner circle. If in their estimation, she will still have a good shot in 2012 after burning bridges this year, that is the opinion they will steer by. That is point #1.

    Point #2:

    Bill Clinton’s early political career began in the 1972 campaign (as one of the leaders of the McGovern effort in Texas). 1972 shares some characteristics with today (war as an issue, for example) and was even more dramatic. Memories from that campaign and its aftermath have to have been burned into the political DNA of both Clintons because it was their political baptism by fire during their formative early-adult years.

    What happened in 1972 that is relevant to 2008?

    – The nomination was decided at the convention as a consequence of bitterly contested decisions regarding how to seat the crucial IL and CA delegate slates, featuring arguments of shocking cynicism and hard-nosed arm-twisting by both sides.

    – The stop-McGovern movement was led by multiple prominent Democrats, including a fellow named Jimmy Carter.

    – The winner (by a landslide) was the candidate (Nixon) who appealled to white backlash and resentment against minorities, liberals, and cultural elites.

    Do any of these themes sound vaguely familiar?

    What conclusions do you think somebody would draw, who’d had that 1972 contest (and the consequences which followed in 1976) burned into their brain, with respect to today’s contest?

  80. 80
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    We know the gambit:

    O: Okay, as a gesture of conciliation, let’s seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. It doesn’t change the delegate math.
    C: Well, it means I won the popular vote!!!1!ONE!
    O: You’re counting the caucuses that didn’t record vote counts?
    C: Popular vote! Popular vote! Florida 2000!

    If the Clinton camp is intent upon the murder-suicide option of going all the way to the convention, then someone really does need to get her off the stage. Fast.

    It had been a case of Clinton’s candidacy resting upon the destruction of Obama’s political career before the convention — she could concede relatively gracefully. he couldn’t bow out from the front. The window on that is closing. If it reaches the point where she only loses at the cost of her career — and it’s getting that way, regardless of the Veep talk — then Chelsea’s grandchildren will be cursed at in the street for it.

  81. 81
    Sawgrass says:

    Overlooked was Hillary’s comment on 4/15/2008 to the same St. Petersburg Times reporter:

    So why didn’t she speak up sooner about the need to count the votes of Florida Democrats, rather than wait until her campaign was in trouble after losses in Iowa and South Carolina?

    “I was a little preoccupied,” she said, laughing. “I was trying to stay alive, frankly.”

    Such a self-incriminating statement on many different levels.

    There is an overwhelming amount of evidence–including her own words–that she ignored Florida until she needed it. As Dowd quoted a friend of Jimmy Carter, “The Clintons will be there when they need you.”

  82. 82
    Incertus says:

    Well, I’ve always put forward that by appearing on the ballot she broke her pledge not to participate. No-one has ever attempted to explain that, unless you count parsing that appearing on the ballot was not participating in the election, and that participation meant campaigning.

    No, the really precious argument is that in the DNC rulebook, there’s no definition of participation. There’s a definition for campaigning, but not for participation, so therefore there was no reason for Clinton or anyone else to pull their names off the ballot. Seriously–that’s the argument.

  83. 83
    Bey says:

    these commenters are a LOT funnier than you.

    Damn.

    You’re right. They are funny.

    Since she’s determined to become a megalomaniacal super-villain in the Lex Luthor mold, she should at least shave her head.

  84. 84
    Cain says:

    Hey! We’re funny.. dissed by our host.. we need to try harder. :P

    cain

  85. 85
    Just Some Fuckead says:

    I liked that line too.

    OTOH, our trolls are alot better. Hopey? Is that some sort of Hope-Gumby thing?

  86. 86
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    If it reaches the point where she only loses at the cost of her career—and it’s getting that way, regardless of the Veep talk—then Chelsea’s grandchildren will be cursed at in the street for it.

    I agree with you about her gambit, but I think the Clintons may have a dramatically lower estimate of the price to be paid – see my comment just above.

    Who today is cursing out the descendants of the 1972 Stop-McGovern movement? Let’s see:

    Mayor Daley – his son was never able to pursue a career in politics because.. [oops, never mind].

    Jimmy Carter, his bid to become President was doomed because… [oops, never mind].

    I agree with you that IMHO Hillary will pay a steep price in 2012 for her behavior today, but the historical parallels are there to suggest the opposite.

  87. 87
    Soylent Green says:

    If Obama loses in November, Hillary is the favorite for the Democratic nomination in 2012. There’s no one else.

    Bullshit. He can’t lose unless she prevents the party from unifying. She will get and deserve the blame if the Dems lose in a year when everything is going their way. How will so egregious a sin ever be forgotten or forgiven?

    And there is always someone else.

  88. 88
    mr. whipple says:

    “If the Clinton camp is intent upon the murder-suicide option of going all the way to the convention, then someone really does need to get her off the stage. Fast.”

    don’t worry, they will. really.

    all will be well.

  89. 89
    Cain says:

    Is enjoying http://hillaryis44.blogspot.com/

    although she seems more angry today.
    cain

  90. 90
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Now let me throw it back at you- these commenters are a LOT funnier than you.

    Oooooh, John issues a challenge?

    ;)

  91. 91
    KRK says:

    Clinton didn’t just sign the “no campaigning/no participating” pledge. Her then-campaign manager Solis Doyle issued a statement about the pledge-signing which said:

    We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And 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 is, we (Clinton) are on board with the DNC calendar and recognize that the rules include sanctions to ensure that all states “respect and honor” the schedule.

    This statement was issued after the DNC had voted to strip all of Florida’s delegates based on its violation of the rules.

  92. 92
    Johnny Pez says:

    Yoda says: There is another.

    Carrie Fisher?

  93. 93
    Brachiator says:

    NR Says:

    Hillary’s only shot at the White House is NOW – which is why she is fighting so hard.

    No. She has a shot in 2012, too. If Obama wins in November, he becomes the leader of the Democratic party, but if he loses, that mantle returns to the Clintons by default. Pelosi and Reid aren’t strong enough to challenge them, and there’s nobody particularly compelling waiting in the wings.

    Also, Dean will be disgraced by an Obama loss in November, and the Clintons will move to oust him and replace him with Harold Ford or someone else in their camp. They’ll have a good shot at succeeding, and if they do, Hillary will have even more institutional support in 2012 than she did this time around.

    If Obama loses in November, Hillary is the favorite for the Democratic nomination in 2012. There’s no one else.

    I don’t think so. Senator Clinton’s tragic flaw is that she is not really a seasoned politician, nor is she a real leader. She believes that political hardball is just a game in which the only goal is to win. She does not understand in her bones that at some level, even a superficial one, she has to acknowledge the people.

    If the economy continues to tank, if it falls from mild recession to outright depression, and if an Obama defeat and subsequent McCain presidency is marked by the loss of thousands more lives in Iraq and possibly Iran, then both Clintons will go down in history as selfish obstructionists whose personal ambition damaged America.

    And to blunt in 2012, a good number of Hillary’s older, most cautious and fearful voters will either be dead or more concerned about their personal affairs than Hillary’s ambition. And Bill, who will likely have quietly moved his NY office out of Harlem, will be less a lovable rogue, and more a dirty old man.

    Meanwhile, many of the young voters whose hopes were dismissed as naive, and whose support of Obama was fiercely resisted will be in the prime of life and not bitter, but mad as hell.

    Most important of all, no one can count on the past to be an accurate predictor of the future. Even if Senator Clinton somehow manages to become a major Democratic player, she cannot count on there being no one else to challenge her in 2012.

    After all, she didn’t see Obama coming in 2008.

  94. 94
    Adam says:

    No, the really precious argument is that in the DNC rulebook, there’s no definition of participation. There’s a definition for campaigning, but not for participation, so therefore there was no reason for Clinton or anyone else to pull their names off the ballot. Seriously—that’s the argument.

    That’s whose argument? The pledge was not to campaign or participate. Is that what you’re talking about?

    (I assume you mean the pledge, in which case the DNC Rules aren’t relevant, but in any event the definition of “campaigns” in the DNC rules (Rule 20.C.1.b) is inclusive, not exclusive, so it really means whatever the Rules Committee says it means.)

    I think that the Clinton campaign is technically correct in that they weren’t required to take their names off the Michigan ballot. However, it doesn’t follow that they should be permitted to benefit by essentially lying, first in that they were going to get off the ballot, and then in saying that since they lied about that now they should reap the rewards because their opponents played by the rules. That’s nonsense.

    The main technical reason that doesn’t get them anywhere is that the Rules say in a few places (e.g. Rule 20.C.5) that any remedy requires “a process which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state’s division of presidential preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable under the circumstances.”

    It’s pretty clear that if the Michigan delegates are to be seated then there’s no credible way to claim that their election reflects the division of preference and uncommitted status, nor as broad participation as is practicable, if Obama gets no delegates at all.

    There might be some leeway for Clinton there, but there’s simply no way to seat the delegates in the way she’s suggesting (i.e., as-is) consistent with the Rules. It’s flatly not possible. And there’s no way to seat them at all without going through the remedial process outlined in 20.C.5 and 20.C.6, which has to comply with the three requirements above.

    Now…

    There’s other problems with the argument, too, for example:

    1. Rule 13.A requires that the delegate selection in general has to “fairly” reflect expressed presidential and uncommitted preference. Rule 12.A requires that “All candidates for delegate and alternate in caucuses, conventions, committees and on primary ballots shall be identified as to presidential preference or uncommitted status at all levels of a process which determines presidential preference.” Note the prescriptive language. It’s a per se requirement that the process used determines preference — not uncommitted or expressed preference, which is notable since that language is used elsewhere and might support an as-is delegation, but actual preference. The current Michigan primary results don’t meet that requirement.

    2. Rule 12.J requires that “Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” Again, wouldn’t be the case for the delegates that the Clinton campaign says should be “uncommitted.”

    3. Rule 12.K.1 requires that “all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall… have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate in the Convention in good faith.” I won’t say any more about that one.

    4. Rule 8.E requires that for all delegates “affirmative action and fair reflection guidelines must be met”. Rule 4.B.5 defines one of those guidelines, saying that “The Democratic Party in each state should publicize fully and in such a manner as to assure notice to all interested parties a full description of the legal and practical procedures for selection of Democratic Party officers and representatives on all levels. Publication of these procedures should be done in such fashion that all prospective and current members of each state Democratic Party will be fully and adequately informed of the pertinent procedures in time to participate in each selection procedure at all levels of the Democratic Party organization.” The Clinton campaign’s violation of their pledge violated the affirmative action requirements in that it prevented the Party (and in particular Obama supporters in Michigan) from knowing what the selection procedures would be — in fact, it’s still unclear exactly how to allocate the delegates.

    There are other problems, mostly technical, but those I think are the important ones. The bottom line is that the Rules clearly require fair notice and representation in all aspects of the delegate selection process, and head-faking your opponents off the ballot and then preventing them from getting any representation at all after words violates both requirements.

  95. 95
    Kevin says:

    That’s some good stuff, nice research, Adam.

    Clinton: Pwned

  96. 96
    El Doh says:

    No, the really precious argument is that in the DNC rulebook, there’s no definition of participation. There’s a definition for campaigning, but not for participation, so therefore there was no reason for Clinton or anyone else to pull their names off the ballot. Seriously—that’s the argument.

    Typical Clintonian bullshit, in other words.

    Cuts no ice with me.

    My dictionary says it means “take part”, and I believe that’s what it’s commonly understood to mean. I also believe that by being on the ballot, she took part.

    Of course, that could depend upon what the definition if “is” is.

  97. 97

    Regarding 2012
    Hillary has to go back to a Senate with an ( R ) President and every progressive bill vetoed and probably with a meltdown from 08 not over-ridable. Some pissed off Senators for company and the damage they can do to a political career is huge, if they put any effort in it.

    DNC was Terry McAuliff’s under as Clinton’s present, it has been Dean’s since and those two cultures are incompatible and the State Parties put Dean in place. The Clintons have to have pissed off DNC badly by now, cripes they’re scapegoating DNC for political advantage that threatens the DNC???? The DNC will be done with the Clintons other than some die hard idjits.

    The netroots & grassroots??? The Taylor Marsh types don’t last and have no weight with any but their narrow clique of pissants. But there are plenty of others that do, MoveOn.org will do what?

    Up until this brinksmanship she might have had a prayer at 2012, it’s gone. Nobody will try to force the VP on Obama now and he’d be crazy to let her in. I’ve mentioned how short term gain oriented Hillary is, she is now seeing that she can hold a detonator in her hand and scare people. She does not see past that to what do I do when somebody calls me? There are powerful people with no desire to go down with SS Hillary and there are plenty who can make clear just how torpedoed she’s going to get if she persists. Everybody is holding fire until 5/31, they’ll give her something face saving if she’s a good girl, if she tries to play bad ass they’ll hand her her head. Hillary’s had 8yrs as Jr Senator in a minority party with daddy Bill over her shoulder, she has no idea how this gets played with bad actors with a busted power base. If the Senate won’t work with her, what is she going to do? That would all be very quiet, she would just disappear and get nothing, a seat? a seat on what committee? Political revenge can be very quiet and deadly.

    A couple powerful D Senators need to have a quiet conversation with her.

  98. 98
    El Doh says:

    I don’t think they’re looking at 2012, I think it’s all about 2008 — Democrats have a good shot at the Whitehouse this year and you gotta believe she and Bill have made a lot of agreements that doesn’t work unless Hillary’s Preznit.

    I mean hell, she got Rupert Murdoch on side. What did she promise him? That was the start of when I knew I couldn’t support Hillary in the primaries, btw.

    Not that she was a Clinton, not that she was a woman. That she would work with Murdoch.

  99. 99
    Phoebe says:

    1. The antichrist is president now.

    2. I so hope that rumor is true because it means she’s not going to be vp at least.

    3. I have a question:
    Why did they have to sign a pledge not to campaign if the delegates weren’t going to be counted? It would just be a waste of money, right? Where would be the incentive to campaign, and where would be the harm?

  100. 100

    @KRK…

    Clinton didn’t just sign the “no campaigning/no participating” pledge. Her then-campaign manager Solis Doyle issued a statement about the pledge-signing which said:

    We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process….

    OMG!!! Signing statements!!!!

  101. 101
    Bedlam UK says:

    I really wish there was a Hillary Follower who honestly and with intelligence agreed with her current stance posting here, that could at least explain her position clearly.

    ( sorry, but noIQ who trolls here doesnt count, merely as he/she doesnt actually make points merely makes stupid comments ‘hur hur, you’d vote for the anti-christ hur hur – i said a funny’ )

    I know her position as I understand it and as Obama supporters / anti-Hillary / anyone with IQ understands it, and its impossible to make sense of Hillary44 & so forth, as those sites just foam at the mouth and ban any comment that doesnt start with a love poem to Hillary.

    I would just like to read one person state clearly how this is like Zimbabwe, how Hillary isn’t being two faced after signing the pledge, how she is disagreeing with the proposal that Obama and her Husband agreed with, and many other HOWs.
    Oh well.

  102. 102

    Oh well

    Hillary

    Oh well

  103. 103
    slippytoad says:

    Also, Dean will be disgraced by an Obama loss in November, and the Clintons will move to oust him and replace him with Harold Ford or someone else in their camp. They’ll have a good shot at succeeding, and if they do, Hillary will have even more institutional support in 2012 than she did this time around.

    If Obama loses in November, Hillary is the favorite for the Democratic nomination in 2012. There’s no one else

    Dude, if Obama loses in November, Hillary is SATAN to the emerging base of the Democratic Party for her act of wilful sabotage. By 2012 there won’t BE a Democratic Party and our nation will be in a shambles. She will be unable to show her face at the grocery store, let alone run for elective office.

  104. 104
    nightjar says:

    My dictionary says it means “take part”

    Yes, but what is the meaning of Take Part as is in what Take Part really is is. You have to look at these things thru the eyes of the Clinton’s to find the difference in true lies and true facts.

  105. 105
    TR says:

    Yes, but what is the meaning of Take Part as is in what Take Part really is is. You have to look at these things thru the eyes of the Clinton’s to find the difference in true lies and true facts.

    Take Part is an anagram for Kept A Rat, so it’s obviously a reference to that evil Judas, Bill Richardson.

  106. 106
    Adam says:

    That’s some good stuff, nice research, Adam.

    Thanks. I didn’t know if people actually, you know, read it. I figured everyone’s eyes just glazed over.

Comments are closed.