June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

In the not too distant future, all the primary elections will be concluded.  

In the not too distant future, all the results will be known.  

By then, the May meeting of the rules committee will have taken place, and we are likely to have a sufficient number of superdelegates (even counting Michigan and Florida) to have pledged their support to an established nominee who must then focus on defeating McCain.

So this is my pledge:

I will support the nominee and oppose McCain, no matter who it is.  

Though I may post suggestions and ideas as to who would make the best running mate, I will not base my support for the nominee on which running mate is chosen.

I will support the nominee and let go of whatever anger and frustration I had that that nominee was not my first (or, in my case, even my second) choice.

I will post no diaries attacking the nominee, though I may, as I've done all along, post diaries criticizing certain stances or positions.

I will post no diaries attacking one not nominated, though I may, as I've done all along, post diaries criticizing certain stances or positions.

I will not mock the supporters of the losing side (though I reserve the right to mock those whom I perceive as right-wing trolls, or anyone who will sit this election out or vote for McCain).

If I think that the nominee has a weakness among certain demographics, I will try to find ways to bridge the gap with those demographics instead of moan about how badly we're going to do among them.

I will not recommend any diaries which violate the above pledge.

Who's with me?



Display:


Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 7)

I am. The 4th's my birthday, too!


John McCain
by Mandoliniment on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:55:47 PM EST

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)


Sorry if this is off topic but I'm not sure that I will be able to post on the fourth so an early Happy Birthday Mandoliniment!
(Hope you see this.)

12 dogs.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:13:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

Oh and Mandoliniment.

Thank you for your kind words on my diary earlier in the primary. Everytime another fuss starts in a comment section of a diary advocating folks get along, you are one of the people I think of who have been kind. We are getting rain by the way. Hopefully we will avoid the terrible drought conditions that we had last year. 12dogs


by 12 dogs and a blog on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:24:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whomever wins, won. (2.00 / 9)

That goes both ways. If Clinton gets Michigan and Florida seated as is, there's a superdelegate swing, and the nomination is hers, that's a win. Its not stealing the election; its a win as provided for in the rules.

Likewise, if Obama keeps the delegate lead and crosses the 50% threshold, wherever that may be after the two states in question are worked out, that's a win fair and square as provided for in the rules.

So whoever wins, I'm with you. I may be unhappy, I may be critical of policies, I may even despair, but my dialogue and my actions will be for the positive, to elect the democratic nominee.


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:59:28 PM EST

Re: Whomever wins, won. (2.00 / 3)

Yes, that would be the point.  Julie didn't say "Obama"; she said "nominee".


by doktarr on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whomever wins, won. (2.00 / 6)

Exactly. I'm agreeing with Julie, not arguing. Thanks for the diary, Julie, it's spot on.


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:06:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whomever wins, won. (1.00 / 2)

I like your comment

but hillary can still win if she gets her delegates in Michigan and Florida.  Obama didn't get a single vote in Michigan so he can he win the state in November if he couldn't get any votes in January?

The supers can choose whoever they want and they are holding out for hillary.  She's the more electable.


by HillsMyGirl on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whomever wins, won. (2.00 / 2)

you do remember, that by the rules of the MI primary, if people had voted for Obama, their votes wouldn't have counted, right?


by 2501 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:31:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whomever wins, won. (2.00 / 1)

Highly hypocritical statement.  Wow.  

This place is beyond nuts.  


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whomever wins, won. (none / 0)

He wasn't on the ballot, therefore making it difficult for people to pull the lever/ press the touch-screen button/ punch the chad for him.


by blinkingidiot on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whomever wins, won. (2.00 / 1)

If Florida and Michigan are seated without a penalty, that is a huge loss for the Democratic Party.

It will be clear then that the white people can still change the rules to suit themselves at the end of the game, if the black guy by some miracle or mistake is winning.  

I have lots of Republican friends who actually support Obama this year.  They're really pissed off at the weakness of the Democratic Party.  Would they be changing the rules for Obama if the candidates' positions were reversed?  Hardly.

No, if the FL and MI delegates are seated as is, this will be a travesty for the party.


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She can not win without supers. Period. (none / 0)

In fact, neither can.

After Friday's serious statement, I don't expect supers to be swinging her way, any time soon.  It is what it is.

Obama will prevail in the end.


by tracey webb on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:22:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 5)

Agreed.  And I think the party as a whole will begin doing the same at that point.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:59:58 PM EST

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (1.62 / 8)

Don't worry, after the nomination is settled, the HillaryIs44 trolls will be banned if they continue to spew their filth on here.


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:07:16 PM EST

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 1)


Don't worry about them... they are actual a very small group of people that just happens to stir up a lot of hate.  Some of them will come to their senses, while others never were democrats to begin with.

by neonplaque on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Looking through your comments,... (none / 0)

I notice that you've been banging this "banning" drum for a while now.

Are you an official member of the banning police?


by Ed J on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:59:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looking through your comments,... (2.00 / 1)

Do you have a problem with this idea?

That anyone who attacks the Dem nominee on a DEMOCRATIC site could get banned?

Read the guidelines for the site. It is pretty clear on this.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:11:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looking through your comments,... (none / 0)

No, I am not, but the kind of vile filth that the Clinton Smear Machine has been spewing on here for months will be clearly against the guidelines of this site as soon as the nomination is settled.  We just have to run out the clock on the alegrebots.  They'll be gone soon enough.


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:33:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looking through your comments,... (1.00 / 0)

And then what will we have? Self patting kumbhaya?

You talk like Obama is another Bush.


by Sandeep on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:41:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 8)

Agreed.


by interestedbystander on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:13:52 PM EST

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (1.83 / 6)

Let's see.

You realize that Obama's chances of winning the nomination are exceedingly good.

You assert that you will support the nominee "whoever it may be", and obviously expect that Hillary supporters will be obliged to do so, no matter how Obama, his campaign, and his supporters might slime her and them from now until June.

That all sounds really, really sincere of you, doesn't it?


by frankly0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:18:45 PM EST

Have you seen the diary list today? (2.00 / 1)

Full of Obama/Assination hit pieces, and a couple of unity threads.

Thats about it.

I think they can go without there "OBAMA SAID DIS TO HILLARY ZOMG!" nonsense for a while.


Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.
by Massadonious on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 19)

Assign whatever motivations you want to the poster. If you got your feelings hurt because someone was mean on the internet and now you don't want to hold hands and make kissy-face, that's your call. You don't have to act like it's ok; you don't need to pretend everyone here is your buddy.

But when it comes to your vote, that's something different. Failure to support the nominee is support for McCain, whether that nominee is Clinton 'stealing' the win with MI/FL and two-faced racial politics or Obama 'stealing' the win with undemocratic caucuses and two-faces sexist politics. Support for McCain is putting the blood of thousands of US soldiers on your hands over the next four years. Its withdrawing America from the Geneva convention. It's surrendering privacy rights. It's continuing top-down economics. It's an unbalanced budget. It's no healthcare reform of any kind. It's a neocon supreme court.

But hey, you'll send a message to the Democratic party. And what message is that? The message is: don't ever allow anyone besides a white male to make any ground in the nominating process, because if you do and that person fails to win, you've lost their demographic and the general election.

If we don't win this year, you won't see any more female candidates or black candidates for decades. You'll have simultaneously doomed the nation for four years (with ripples for 50 more) and scared the Democratic party into relegating gender politics back into its safe "pro-choice good, anti-abortion bad" box.

I don't care if you like Obama. I don't care if you like the original poster. I don't care if you like DKos, and I don't care if you like me. You can believe me when I tell you my motivations are good or you can reject them outright, but if you don't grit your teeth until they hurt, bite your tongue until it bleeds, scream bloody murder and then vote for the nominee, you're throwing a hissy fit to the detriment of your party, your country, feminism itself, and everything Hillary has ever stood for.


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:46:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

Wow, great points. And way to go on the message.


by telfishbackagain on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:35:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

I'd rate this a 30 if I could.


by auronrenouille on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 10)

You realize that Obama's chances of winning the nomination are exceedingly good.
Yes.
You assert that you will support the nominee "whoever it may be", and obviously expect that Hillary supporters will be obliged to do so, no matter how Obama, his campaign, and his supporters might slime her and them from now until June.
And vice versa.  I fully expect Obama supporters to to promote a candidacy even if she were to maneuver herself into obtaining the nomination.
That all sounds really, really sincere of you, doesn't it?
I don't care how it sounds.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Clinton becomes the nominee, I will donate money to her campaign.  I won't like it, but I'll do it.

Clinton wasn't my first choice.  Obama wasn't my first choice.  My first choice is out of play.  I'm still disappointed by that.  But I'm willing to let it go because I care more about my country than my ego.

How about you?


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:17:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama didn't care more for his country... (1.00 / 2)

than his ego.  If he had, he would have done his time in the Senate and gotten some experience before deciding that he is now entitled to a promotion...when he clearly is not experienced enough to handle the job.


by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:14:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama didn't care more for his country... (1.66 / 3)

Obama has not decided that he's "entitled" to anything. He has fought hard for the nomination and earned it by beating Hillary in the primary.

It's funny to hear you complain about entitlement, since what you wrote above basically amounts to "It's not his turn."


by Angry White Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:54:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BO did not earn the presidency because (1.00 / 5)

of this campaign.  You need qualifications for the job before you declare yourself a candidate.

He has/had no qualificaitons.  In order to win this nomination he and his campaign have gamed the system - with the help of a wing of the Democratic Party that has hated everything Clinton since 1992.

Wow - great "winner".  Great candidate for the most important job in the world.

I.  Don't.  Think.  So.


by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BO did not earn the presidency because (2.00 / 2)

Obama did not "game the system." He beat Hillary fair and square.

As for qualifications, he's been in the Senate four years. Hillary has for eight. Not a big difference.

And finally, stop with the TR abuse.


by Angry White Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:12:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What TR abuse? (1.00 / 0)

Obama started campaigning for POTUS actually before he won his "tough" senate campaign - he sent people up to Iowa a month or so before the 2004 election.

Although, of course, he was wooing his fan base with hopeful and change laden comments like "it would be foolish for anyone to think they could be POTUS when they first enter the senate...I feel the same way."

I guess that makes him...a liar?


by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What TR abuse? (none / 0)

Obama started campaigning for POTUS actually before he won his "tough" senate campaign - he sent people up to Iowa a month or so before the 2004 election.

Source?


by Angry White Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll try and find it and post it. (none / 0)

That was news about 1 1/2 months ago.


by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:41:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK - here's your cite: (none / 0)

From Salon, April, 2008:

"When did Obama start running for president?

Kudos to the Politico's Ben Smith for apparently piecing together an interesting puzzle and reporting that Barack Obama may have begun to make early moves toward a presidential campaign as early as 2004, before he was elected to the Senate.

Smith noticed this sentence from a story that ran in the Wall Street Journal last week: "By the end of the [2004] campaign, his aides were sending workers into Iowa, the first Presidential caucus state, to begin developing contacts among Democrats there, according to Al Kindle, an Obama campaign aide at the time."

From there, Smith fleshed out the story, talking to Kindle, who "said there had been outreach to Iowa and, he said, Wisconsin, with a possible presidential campaign among the aims." Smith also quotes Kindle as saying, "As he was planning his prominence in the Senate, there was a need to begin to extend those coattails, so neighborhing states were critical -- and if in the future [the presidency] was ever going to be a possibility, those states were going to be critical."


by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:04:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK - here's your cite: (none / 0)

You do realize that that's a far cry from campaigning for POTUS like you said he did, right?


by Angry White Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:41:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here it is! March 24, 2008 (none / 0)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706_ pf.html

"After weeks of arduous negotiations, on April 6, 2006, a bipartisan group of senators burst out of the "President's Room," just off the Senate chamber, with a deal on new immigration policy.

As the half-dozen senators -- including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- headed to announce their plan, they met Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who made a request common when Capitol Hill news conferences are in the offing: "Hey, guys, can I come along?" And when Obama went before the microphones, he was generous with his list of senators to congratulate -- a list that included himself.

"I want to cite Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar, myself, Dick Durbin, Joe Lieberman . . . who've actually had to wake up early to try to hammer this stuff out," he said.

To Senate staff members, who had been arriving for 7 a.m. negotiating sessions for weeks, it was a galling moment. Those morning sessions had attracted just three to four senators a side, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) recalled, each deeply involved in the issue. Obama was not one of them..."


by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:57:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry - wrong post with your comment. (none / 0)

I'll find yours.


by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:58:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What TR abuse? (2.00 / 0)

Oh come on.  Hillary has been campaigning for President for 35 years.


by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:45:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So since Hillary has royal blood ... (none / 0)

... she's next in the line of succession, while Obama is a half-breed pretender to the throne?

Is that what you're getting at?


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:58:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're a very sick person. (none / 0)

I made no such statement or suggestion.


by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama didn't care more for his country... (none / 0)

You are so right.  


by trixta on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:50:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

When the call for unity comes from Hillary... (2.00 / 0)

... is that sincere enough for you?

Just wondering.


by protothad on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:21:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 13)

I will swear to give my vote my time and my energies to defeat the Republicans up and down the ticket regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination.


by xdem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:35:00 PM EST

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

I fully agree. I won't vote but I think this is the right way to approach the question.
by french imp on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:40:41 PM EST

very reasonable proposal (2.00 / 1)

and thank you for this.  I am glad to see that some people will understand that a win for either Obama or Clinton will be a "clean" win--neither one is going to steal the election.  

With MI and FL worked out, and the remaining contests, this should be a clear matter for the supers to decide what is best for the party and the country, and not what is best for themselves or their fundraising efforts.


by 4justice on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:46:41 PM EST

nobody will have 2210 until August (2.00 / 2)


Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties
by engels on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:47:21 PM EST

Re: Just like the Republicans (2.00 / 5)

Nobody will have 1,191 until September.  Mike and Mitt, why did you drop out?


by Brad G on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:53:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just like the Republicans (1.66 / 3)

They have more respect for their party than Hillary has for hers.


by Joe Beese on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:04:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Definition of support (none / 0)

I think if support solely means vote for and excludes persuade friends, relatives to vote for, volunteer for, donate money to, etc., and only pertains to the presidential nominee and not the DNC and other downticket candidates, I would be down with that.


by Brad G on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:51:58 PM EST

Re: Definition of support (2.00 / 3)

I think if support solely means vote for and excludes persuade friends, relatives to vote for, volunteer for, donate money to, etc., and only pertains to the presidential nominee and not the DNC and other downticket candidates, I would be down with that.
I'll donate money for the general election to whichever candidate is the Democratic nominee.  


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:06:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

I will only support Barack Obama, because he's the only one who is going to be the nominee.


by Deadalus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:10:03 PM EST

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

And supposing Hillary somehow gets it? Then what. You owe it to the ideals BO says he stands for to oppose McCain, and that means supporting her if she gets the nod.


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 4)

I wont be too happy about it, but I would absolutely support her if she managed to wrangle the nomination.

My Democratic ideals and principals are 10000x more important than candidate loyalty.

It's a shame so many others don't feel the same way.


Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.
by Massadonious on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:14:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 2)

Two words:  Supreme Court.

We cannot let John McCain near the White House.


by Deadalus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

So you agree? If Hillary gets the nod you'll fight your heart out for her? Good. Very very good. I don't care if the convention ends up brokered and our nominee is Mark Penn, McCain has to be opposed!

(Actually, that would really suck, but if he was anti-war, and would appoint progressive justices, I'd grit my teeth and work to see him win)


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

Of course I agree, but it's silly at this point.  Barack will be the nominee.

Now you did manage to come up with someone who I wouldn't support--Mark Penn.

Then I'd see no material difference between him and McCain and would just vote down ballot.


by Deadalus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:36:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

Nope Mark Penn would not get my vote... then again he probably isn't a Democrat.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

As long as Mark Penn isn't his own strategist. What a terrible campaign that would be!


Stop the racism. Fight the smears.
by CrazyDrumGuy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:46:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (1.66 / 3)

Hey CC..
"So if there's any blood on anyone's hands"

Every yea vote has bloody hands
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro ll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?con gress=107&vote=00237&session=2


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:49:39 PM EST

After the convention... (2.00 / 3)

...we'll have a nominee. If Obama wants to move forward until then as the presumptive nominee that's fine by me, too.

But, he won't be the official nominee of the Party until the Convention.

This is just fact. Again, Obama will NOT be the nominee of this Party on June 4th, July 4th or even August 4th, 2008. He'll be the presumptive nominee until the Convention. He'll be the likely nominee until the Convention. But, he won't be the nominee until the Convention.

Why do so many people have a problem with this basic reality?

Oh, and one more thing, Hillary Clinton won't be the loser in this race until the Convention, either...in all likelihood.


by bobswern on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:02:52 PM EST

Re: After the convention... (2.00 / 6)

Even though i am an Obama supporter, I wouldn't refer to Senator Clinton as the loser. The word loser diminishes what she has accomplished and how hard she and her supporters have worked.


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:38:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: After the convention... (none / 0)

Why do presumptive nominees announce their VPs before the convention....because they are THE nominee.


A vote for John McCain is a vote against Hillary Clinton
by realistdem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (1.33 / 6)

Not I.

I will not vote for Obama UNLESS he is Hillary's VP or unless Hillary is his VP.


by nikkid on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:10:32 PM EST

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 1)

So what are your issues? Not with Obama, I mean. What are your political issues? What do you care about and how would you like to see it handled?


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 1)

I am not about issues - I am about the candidate.

My issue this year is all about Hillary.  I have been working as a volunteer on her campaign since Feb 2007 - so losing is not an option.

I will forgo all issues this year in an effort to get her nominated.

Should that not happen, then I will support McCain in hopes that Hillary will run again in 2012 (successfully).

At first this seemed quite appalling to me (to support McCain) and I thought I would simply write her name in on the ballot (and I still may do this). BUT - I have started to delve into WHAT McCain stands for and I actually don't HATE him as much as I thought I would - I HATE Obama more.

McCain's stand on immigration, campaign finance reform, global warming are all sort of in-sync with the dems. He believes that gay's should have some sort of legal rights.

I started to look at this entirely different than where I initially came from.

Because I feel as if the democratic party has ousted ME - as a woman, as a clinton supporter - from the party.  I'm now actually starting to think that those of us Hillary-supporters that move to McCain could actually FORCE the Republican party further to the middle.  Especially with Barr being a conservative and moving out of the party.

imo, obama and his group of dnc elite supporters will bring the party to the far-left. That's fine, but I don't think they will win.

My goal in life is to have Hillary Clinton as my President. I have wanted that for about 10 years now. I won't rest until she is.


by nikkid on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:45:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 3)

I am not about issues - I am about the candidate ... My goal in life is to have Hillary Clinton as my President.

So it's a cult of personality then? You're saying that you want Hillary to be President and you wouldn't care if she (like McCain, and unlike Obama) was going to:

  • appointed a SCOTUS that would overturn Roe vs. Wade?
  • nuke Iran?
  • privatize everything that's not already privatized?
  • represent lobbyists and billion dollar corporations rather than hard-working Americans?
  • continue the ridiculous embargo against Cuba?
  • continue the policy of torture, illegal spying on American citizens, undermining of checks and balances, and undermining the separation of church and state?
  • oppose net neutrality?

Or to put it another way, you'd be willing to sacrifice every one of those issues in order to give Hillary a chance to be elected in 2012 rather than 2016?


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:55:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

Let's be clear. If McCain wins he will got the WH with a FULL Democratic congress that will have enough to overturn any veteo.

He will not be able to appoint judges that overturn roevwade because they will not get through the dem congress.

If roe v wade was not overturned in the past 8years under the MOST CONSERVATIVE pres and congress in our history - then it surely won't be overturned with a more mainstream republican and full democratic congress. Everyone likes to threaten this - but if it was overturned than we would have to spend billions on new prisons to house all the women and doctors we will throw in jail....

Maybe you haven't heard - McCain is AGAINST torture (since he was tortured).

I'm not about to stick up FOR McCain on this website because there is no doubt I disagree with him on MANY issues. The war is ONE of those issues.

However, my disagreements with him on many issues do not override my disgust of Obama and my preference to see Hillary Clinton as President.

If you want to call it a "cult" personality - I'm okay with that...I don't really care.


by nikkid on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:06:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 2)

The status of Roe v Wade is not up to the Congress and President. It's up to the Supreme Court. He will be able to appoint the Judges he likes because thus far the Democratic congress has not been particularly good about standing up to the Republican Executive branch.

Further, we're looking at another rotation in 2 years.

--

As for torture, McCain's stance has been slipping ever since his comeback. At this point he's down to "We must not torture US Citizens" and he's waffling on waterboarding. Very different from the old hardline "No torture under any circumstances."

--

Then there's the continuing war. Again, I'll ask you: why do you love Hillary so much? Not a criticism, just a question. If you're not an issue voter, what is it about her that you feel so passionately about?


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

You and I both know what it is...but neither of us will say it.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:23:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

Does it rhyme with Smagina?  Or Zuterus?  Or Bovaries?

Whatever, if she's voting HRC solely because she's a female, then so be it.  If she's going to vote McCain instead, or abstain altogether, so be that too.  Everyone has the right to be narrow minded.  God bless America.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 1)

It's a tricky troll task isn't it Nikki (or is it Nick?) You have to play on feminism in order to create enough anger for a protest vote while whitewashing the anti-feminist qualities of John McCain, who:

  • cheats on his wife
  • calls her a c#$%
  • lives off of her money

... and is chomping at the bit to appoint the lynch pin Supreme Court Justice who will form the rock-solid majority (with Roberts, the Itos and sexist extraordinaire Clarence Thomas) that sets women's rights back more than 50 years ... and I'm not talking only about reproductive rights.


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:51:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Pretty much all wrong. (2.00 / 1)

Aside from your misplaced faith in a strong Democratic opposition to McCain's picks, remember that they can only confirm nominees, not select them.  The President holds most of the cards on the SCOTUS.

And vetoes are overriden, not overturned.  We might possibly get 60 seats in the Senate, but they'res no way in hell we're getting 67 Senate seats and 282 House Seats.  Not to mention the President is the CinC.  The easiest threshold for making Republicans irrevant is the Presidency, a bare majority in the House and 60 Senate seats.  Then they couldn't stop anything.

I don't even mind your voting out of spite.  I'm sure there are many more Indies and even Repubs who like Democratic positions but are more disgusted with Clinton than you are with Obama.


by corph on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:27:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 4)

BUT - I have started to delve into WHAT McCain stands for and I actually don't HATE him as much as I thought I would - I HATE Obama more.

Well, thank you for being honest, at least.

If you are voting based on hate, you will be right at home in the Republican party.


by Angry White Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 0)

Fascinating. So why does Hillary have this much loyalty from you if not for her stance on issues?


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:04:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

it is for her life work as a democrat. Issues? Yes. But she is much, much more than an Issue.

She is my sHero.


by nikkid on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:12:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 1)

Which work though? That's my question. It's perfectly cool to love Hillary, but I want to know why. If her long-term work is important to you, it has to be because you care about some of the things that work was applied to. I'm just wondering which things in particular.


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 1)

Women's Rights are Human Rights.

Standing up ALWAYS for Women's rights.

Children's Defense Fund.

Judiciary Board to impeach Nixon.

Board of Education/Arkansas.

Universal Healthcare.

First First Lady to take an active, public role in her husbands Presidency.

First First Lady to testify.

Constant attacks - I use to think by only Republicans, now I see it's by elite dems as well.

The Fighter: for the poor, for the working class and YES for African-Americans (even though they don't appreciate it).


by nikkid on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:24:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

One think I don't understand though. You said you would vote for the nominee if the ticket is Obama/Clinton. So you're ready to vote for Obama as president. But you say you hate him and you prefer McCain. Are you aware that the powers of the VP are very limited? I don't really get you.
by french imp on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:41:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

I love Hillary Clinton, so I will vote for her. If she is the VP then I am voting for HER - in my mind she will be MY president...the fact that BO will have the name Pres will be meaningless to me....my vote will be cast for HER.


by nikkid on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:18:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

And if she's not on the ticket but asks you to vote for him?


by french imp on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:41:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

Universal Health care - Obama shares your candidates' positions, McCain opposes.

Women's rights - Obama shares your candidates' positions, McCain opposes.

"The fighter.. for African-Americans (even though they don't appreciate it)."

Nice one there.  I'm getting an idea what your position is.


by reenactor on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:12:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

WOW...

Don't get me wrong; I admire your loyalty to your hero and she is a fine hero to have and a wonderful Democrat to boot... I just wonder if you've ever accused an Obama supporter of "drinking the kool aid."


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:24:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

Wow... sounds like a cult of personality


by CaptainMorgan on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:06:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

Nikkid, you make me pine for the days when public advocacy for a candidate was limited to the wearing of buttons and funny hats, and the only way you would be subjected to more of what the devoted actually thought was if you were stuck behind behind them in commute traffic in full display of the bumper stickers festooning their trunks and hatchbacks.


by redwoodsummer on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:35:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 2)

No, it's not all about Hillary.  For you, judging from what you wrote, it's all about you and your personal feelings.

Your choice.  Just don't pretend that it's not about your personal feelings.


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 3)

So I was with Howard Dean back when people thought that Howard Dean was a type of sausage.  After his infamous scream I went and had a beer and some ice cream and then donated innumerable hours to the Kerry campaign.  I still wish Dean would've won, and maybe he could've won the '04 election.  But he didn't, and I put the country before any kind of North Korean cult of personality.

"McCain's stand on immigration, campaign finance reform, global warming are all sort of in-sync with the dems. He believes that gay's should have some sort of legal rights."

Are you on drugs?  Seriously.  McCain from 2000 maybe, but McCain Version 2008 is way far afield on all of those positions.  His own campaign is trying to skirt his own law now!  Have you been watching the meltdown over there about lobbyists running his campaign?  He's compromised his principles for his last chance to run for president, which given the fact that he's a Republican, is what got him onto their ticket.


by auronrenouille on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:13:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

nikkid--I agree. Hillary is the one.

Besides, McCain is not as scary as Dems are making him out to be.  Since he will be a one-term president, and since he has proven to work with the Dems, his presidency might be quite interesting-- especially if there is some payback for Bush and his ilk for any number of sins.  Given that both houses will hold clear Dem majorities, I think McCain will govern more to the center than expected.
 


by trixta on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:09:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

are you a man? (none / 0)

i'm just wondering, because as a woman with working ovaries, mcsame scares the hell outta me.

but hey, who cares about my ovaries, right?  i mean, according to the republican party i'm just a baby making machine who should be at home baking cookies.

now if you'll excuse me, i have to go stock up on coathangers.


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:10:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: are you a man? (none / 0)

I prefer chocolate chip. :)


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:17:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 1)


You wrote:
"Should that not happen, then I will support McCain in hopes that Hillary will run again in 2012 (successfully)".

But this seems to run completely counter to what Hillary has said. Are you going to directly contradict Hillary's words and incurr the "grave error" (her words) of not voting for Senator Obama if he is the nominee?  


"Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room."

"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."

Will you "work your heart out" alongside Hillary?


by gustavoNYC on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:47:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

Will you hold your breath until August too?


by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:49:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 6)

Here here.  It's time to fight McCain instead of ourselves.


by rfahey22 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:16:23 PM EST

"Who's with me?" (2.00 / 4)

Estoy contigo! Rec'd.


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:35:27 PM EST

With you all the way, Juliewolf (2.00 / 3)

All fired up and ready to go!

Or, if you want...

Yes, we will.

Je suis avec toi.


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:37:24 PM EST

Re: With you all the way, Juliewolf (2.00 / 1)

Je suis avec Julie-la-Louve également. Mais, hélas, je ne vote point. Ce qui ne m'empêche pas de mettre mon grain de sel dans la conversation! Oui, nous pouvons. Possumus!
by french imp on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: With you all the way, Juliewolf (none / 0)

Absolutment. Je ne peux pas voter aussi, parceque je suis Anglais. Mais ces elections sont tres importants pour tout le monde je crois, especialement les Europeans.

Pardonnez moi mon Francais affreux, mais c'est drole de parler avec un autre copain de la 'Vielle Europe' ici.


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:49:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: With you all the way, Juliewolf (none / 0)

Votre français est excellent. Oui, c'est drôle.
Et c'est sympathique!
by french imp on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:17:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

After all the passions of the primaries... (2.00 / 5)

I can't wait until the General.  When we're united, we will be focusing all that energy on the Republicans.  I almost will feel sorry for the Republicans (if they hadn't done everything possible to destroy this country for the past eight years).  We will rip them a new asshole with the greatest of ease.  I just can't wait.

I have always and I will always pledge my support for the Democratic nominee.  Either Hillary or Barack will be miles ahead of McCain and Bush.  I will support the nominee, b/c I cannot stand this war.  We need to end it, b/c every minute we stay in that country is a tragedy.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:56:25 PM EST

Re: After all the passions of the primaries... (none / 0)

Good luck with that. There will be some unity, but there will be a lot of anger and resentment too.

And frankly, I don't want to see the tactics used in the primary used against anyone ever again, Republicans or not. This whole season has been disturbing and disgusting.


by OrangeFur on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:49:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 2)

I can't wait until the General.  When we're united, we will be focusing all that energy on the Republicans.  I almost will feel sorry for the Republicans (if they hadn't done everything possible to destroy this country for the past eight years).  We will rip them a new asshole with the greatest of ease.  I just can't wait.

I really need to see these people taken down and I'm tired of the infighting about the nomination (I know I've contributed to it some, too, so this isn't an accusation towards anyone).

I used to really enjoy MyDD.  I look forward to the site getting back to being about electing a democrat, rather than taking one down.


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:18:26 PM EST

To whom are you refering... (none / 0)

when you say "these people"?  I'm pretty sure you meant the Republicans, but I wasn't sure.  Could you please clarify for me?


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To whom are you refering... (none / 0)

Since the original comment referenced Republicans, I think it's fairly obvious what I meant.  


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:22:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I thought so...this is the problem with pronouns.. (none / 0)

sometimes.  I thought you might have been talking about me and other people on this blog.  Sorry for the confusion.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:43:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

agreed (2.00 / 2)


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:03:34 PM EST

I'm with you! (2.00 / 3)

I'm pulling the lever for the big D this fall!


by activatedbybush on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:22:14 PM EST

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

Julie, as it turns out it looks like your simple proposal is not so simple after all.

AS a Hillary supporter, for all the reasons Nikki has and more, I will not make any pledges or agreements until

a.  Every primary and caucus is over, and every last vote is counted

and

b.  Florida and Michigan are properly seated, and all their votes properly counted, too.


by dembluestates on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:27:28 PM EST

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

There's nothing "proper" about seating two states whose parties deliberately broke the rules.  The rules have been the same for 30 years.

No other state in previous years has been allowed to get away with it.  Why should they now?  

Oh, I forgot.  Because Hillary's changed her mind.  Now that it would help her to let them break the rules, she's for it.  She was only against it when she didn't know she was going to lose.


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

Tsk, tsk.

Why should we let the Florida GOP get away with messing up a Democratic Party process that could end up disenfranchising millions of Florida voters?

Because it would benefit Obama.

See what I mean, Julie?  It ain't gonna be simple.


by dembluestates on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:09:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (none / 0)

LOL!  You obviously haven't seen the videos.


"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.
by tibbs on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal (2.00 / 1)

demblue, it's a bad situation, but Hillary's solution ends up disenfranchising voters, too.  All those people in Florida who didn't vote because they were told that the primary wouldn't count would be disenfranchised.  

If Hillary argues that Obama should get zero delegates, she's disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of black voters in Michigan who would have voted for Obama if they had the chance.  And you can't say, sorry, it was Obama's fault for not putting himself on the ballot.  We're talking about the voting rights of African American citizens in Michigan, and they had no choice in the matter.

Also, Hillary's proposal is unfair and violates the due process rights of the 48 states who abided by the rules set by the DNC and didn't move up their primaries.  All the states had fair notice of the consequences of moving up their primaries.  48 states, D.C., and the U.S. territories all obeyed the rules.  Florida and Michigan did not.  To then reward Florida and Michigan for violating the rules is to punish all the other states who could have moved up their primaries but did not.  It would undermine the integrity of the political process and therefore deny voters in the other states due process of law.  


by ProfessorReo on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:02:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, the votes are already counted... (none / 0)

... and certified.  The only issue now is in what proportion the delegates will be seated.  On one hand you have the argument that the people who voted must be respected, on the other you have the argument that the rules must be enforced.

It seems to me the best solution is somewhere in the middle.  Seat the delegates based on the actual vote, but give them half votes (per the recommended penalty in the DNC bylaws).  Enough of the 'uncommited' MI delegates have already stated their intention to vote for Obama, so even that sticking point is nearly a non-issue.

I expect something close to this is what will happen.  It respects both the voters and the rules.


by protothad on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OMG...this is unreal (2.00 / 1)

You Clinton folks are so off-base on MI/FL it's nto even funny.

2004 - Terry McAuliffe tells Carl Levin that if he moves up MI primary, he'll strip them of all their delegates.  He seems to have changed his tune.

Fall 2007 - The DNC strips FL/MI of their delegates, with the support of Clinton supports at the DNC.  Hillary also publicly acknowledges that she'll abide by the parties rules, as all the other candidates did, and also declares that she understands those primaries will not count.

Dec. 2007 - Hillary predicts the race will be over on 2/5.  But it wasn't...and then she starts to lose, fails to compete in a number of states that are dismissed by the Clinton camp and changes her position on MI/FL.

You're missing a big factor on MI/FL and that is that no one's rights were infringed.  Party nominations are the province of the political parties; they don't even have to have a selection process for a nominee if they don't want to.  The party was well within its rights to do what it did.

We all knew for months that FL/MI weren't going to count.  And the Clinton camp didn't take up that fight until after 2/5, because before then, fra