Skip to main content

Earlier this week, Taylor Marsh highlighted the actions of an Obama precinct captain in Nevada encouraging Republicans to become Democrats for one day in order to defeat Hillary in Saturday's caucuses.

In a conference call, former Chair of the Nevada Democratic Party Adriana Martinez said, "Our caucus is for Democrats...not for Republicans trying to game the system and trying to become Democrats for a day."  [Source:  1/14/2008 ABC News/Political Punch article "Calling All Independents and Republicans Who "Don't Want Hillary"]

I think many Democrats who have put their blood, sweat, tears, and money into building the Democratic Party in their states, counties, and cities were put off at the notion of a volunteer encouraging Republicans to become Democrats for a day just so their candidate could win.

The Obama campaign immediately denounced the flyer with spokesman Bill Burton saying, "We've learned that one individual who volunteers for the campaign was making the flyer and we've instructed him to stop creating and distributing it."

Unfortunately, recent actions by the Obama camp have shown these comments by Bill Burton as being nothing but lip-service to ease the concerns of die-hard, yellow dog Democrats.

Barack Obama's campaign is currently running radio ads in Nevada encouraging independents and Republicans who want "real change" to switch registration this Saturday and vote for Obama.  Here's the ad; pay close attention to the 0:09 mark:

Now I know there are some who believe that by reaching out and encouraging Republicans to vote in the Democratic primaries and/or caucuses, Barack Obama is attempting to grow the Democratic Party.

I vehemently disagree with that assertion.

First, Barack Obama is not trying to grow the support of the Democratic Party.  He is trying to grow support for himself.

And lastly, the Democratic primaries and the Democratic caucuses are for Democrats.

If Republicans are voting in the Democratic primary and Democrats are voting in the Republican primary, then what exactly is the point of having a primary season.  We might as well just place everyone on the ballot, Democrat and Republican, let the people vote, and then have the top two vote-getters move on to the run-off.

Wait a minute...

... We do do that.  It's called the General Election.

However, primaries and caucuses are not the General Election.  They are elections within each respective political party to determine which candidate will represent their party on the General Election ballot.

Our caucus is for Democrats...not for Republicans trying to game the system and trying to become Democrats for a day.

Originally posted to Andre in Atlanta on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:23 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar for maintaining the integrity... (10+ / 0-)

    ...Of the Democratic nomination process at all levels; municipal, county, state, and federal.

  •  I prefer Bill Clinton's: (12+ / 0-)

    "You can be a Florida 2000 Republican if it will help Hillary win."

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:25:18 PM PST

    •  two wrongs (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oysterface, Zain

      make a right.

      •  Yeah, vote suppression and encouraging (7+ / 0-)

        Republicans and Independents to vote for you are just as bad.

        But, I'm just one of those Obamabots you decry, so my opinion really isn't entitled to respect.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:38:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  again (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Zain, Cream City

          your selective outrage is most honorable.

          •  You're the one who drew the (3+ / 0-)

            false equivalence between the radio ad and advocating vote suppression.

            I certainly didn't force Bill to start wagging his finger.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:42:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  i did? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oysterface, Zain

              funny, i don't remember that. this diary was about this diary, until you introduced something that had nothing to do with it. an honest response would have been to simply point out that this radio ad says nothing about registering for a day. but, as i said, you never miss a chance- appropriate or not- to take a cheap shot at the clintons.

              •  The diarist is a Clinton supporter (4+ / 0-)

                who routinely runs attack diaries on Obama.

                I believe in counterpunching moreso than defending against the obviously bogus.

                And, I disagree on that being a cheap shot on Bill.  He quite frankly deserved it.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:47:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  there you go (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LandOLincoln

                  you respond to the person, not to the diary. that says it all. your counterpunch doesn't even reveal what's wrong with the diary, it just escalates the tensions. which also says it all.

                  •  The diaries deficiencies are obvious enough (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    deres002, aaraujo

                    that I don't need to point them out.

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:51:27 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  nice rationalization (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Zain

                      mother of zeus gave a great response. read it. learn from it.

                      •  As I said, that was obvious. (0+ / 0-)

                        I don't dignify bad hit diaries by addressing their merits.

                        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                        by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:54:30 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  whatever (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Zain

                          you just add your own bad hit comments.

                          •  I noticed your outrage over Dinelli's (0+ / 0-)

                            racist smear job on Obama playing misogynistic gangsta rap at his Iowa victory party.

                            Oh wait, you had no objection to running with that smear based on a disproved Page Six item from the Murdoch Post.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  actually (0+ / 0-)

                            since you so assiduously follow tlc, you might have noticed my entry, that night- i was on the road that day. by the time i had time to post, he had updated. and however wrong the post and politico were (which is where it all started), to make that somehow racist again says everything about your style. i remember a time when you were rational.

                          •  Stereotyping the black candidate as playing (0+ / 0-)

                            misogynistic rap music talking about 'bitches' isn't racist?

                            Let me put it this way:  ANYONE who thinks that Obama would play that song at his victory party sets of the racism detector.

                            Anyhow, that's the kind of crap that gets published at that website you're so darned proud of.

                            When it's not running fluff pieces on Hillary playing flight attendant.

                            And, he did not retract the post and apologize.  He just put up a link to more of Taylor Marsh's lies and repulsiveness.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:08:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  he said that it couldn't be verified (0+ / 0-)

                            which was accurate. it was a mistake, and he admitted that it couldn't be verified. if i had editing capabilities, i might have added something, or done something, but i don't. but nothing in any of the coverage had anything racist in it. any song that calls women "bitches" is misogynistic, no matter who performs it. and had it actually been played at a political rally, when obama's chief opponent is a woman, yes- there would have been something ugly about it.

                          •  It was disproven and completely (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil

                            not credible to begin with.

                            The point is that you had a bunch of white bloggers eager to believe that a progressive candidate for President would play a rap song degrading women at his freaking Iowa victory party on national television.

                            Would anyone have believed it if people claimed John Edwards ran such a song?

                            Would people believe that Joe Biden or Chris Dodd played such a song?

                            But, Page Six's word was good enough for you folks.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:21:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  given the recent comments by jjjr (0+ / 0-)

                            i don't think misogyny was exactly a left field topic. and of course biden, dodd, and edwards are from different generations than obama. i think people might have believed it of anyone who's come of age in the last 25 years. rap isn't exactly a racially isolated phenomenon.

                            and it wasn't just the post- politico had it, and it spread from there to other blogs- not just tlc. i first saw it at politico, before hitting the road, and i assume that's where jeff saw it. and your guilt-by-association crap is not going to help your cause.

                          •  The Politico actually debunked it. (0+ / 0-)

                            http://www.politico.com/...

                            So I've now spent way too much of my morning trying to report out the New York Post's item that Obama had sexist entrance music:

                            As Obama and his wife, Michelle, strolled triumphantly into his victory party in Des Moines, Iowa, on Jan. 3, Jay-Z's "99 Problems" was blaring. In it, Jay raps, "I got 99 problems, but a bitch ain't one."

                            It's a provocative scene. But I can't find any evidence that it happened, though it does seem to have been the subject of chatter among staffers of both campaigns.

                            According both to the Obama campaign and my sources out there, Obama only attended one "victory party" in Des Moines that night -- at which he entered [link fixed] to a U2 song. He His supporters -- though not the candidate -- then then went to the Des Moines restaurant Centro, where nobody's ever heard hip-hop, and didn't that night. There was also a music-free victory conference call with Obama.

                            But if anybody actually heard this...let me know.

                            It was the NY Post and the excrable Taylor Marsh who ran it.

                            And your site, which reported this:

                            Truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction. After a couple of weeks of jokingly predicting Sen. Barack Obama's☼ new campaign theme ("No Woman No Cry" was the most popular with friends), it turns out Obama's camp in reality came up with a much nastier one for the Iowa victory party. While Barack and Michelle entered the Iowa hall, waving and thanking supporters, Jay-Z's "99 Problems (But A Bitch Ain't One)" was pumping out of the loudspeakers.

                            Now, I'm not suggesting Obama is the DJ for these events, I'm not even saying he gave the real DJ a list of songs he wanted played, like you do at your wedding reception. But his claims of running a "clean campaign" are ringing hollow at this point.

                            While he still hasn't apologized to the GBLT community for having crazed homophobe Rev. Donnie McClurkin on the payroll, his campaign has insinuated that Sen. Hillary Clinton's☼ campaign has a racist undercurrent. Hillary has personally taken swift action against anyone on her campaign making untoward comments, and indeed, accusing the Clintons of racism is a rather ridiculous idea, given everything the couple has done for minorities during President Clinton's administration and before or since.

                            "99 Problems (But A Bitch Ain't One)?" This is terrible. The level of discourse in this primary must rise, beginning with the two really quality candidates gaining more control of who works for their campaigns and what they say. Hillary seems to have a grasp of things. Sen. Obama needs to catch up.

                            And, you TR'd me for pointing out that some FP'ers at TLC have low standards.  So, you felt the need to defend Dinelli.

                            So, no, the egg is all over the irresponsible assholes and latent racists who ran with that story.

                            Just in case you wonder why your site's reputation is in the trash.  It's because you Swiftboat people.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:50:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  By the way, Congrats on joining such company (0+ / 0-)

                            as Fox News, the New York Post, and Taylor Marsh.

                            The Politico outclassed your site by a country mile.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:52:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  once again with the "my site" bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                            as i said, you once were rational. and honest. and you, as always, conveniently cut from your blockquote where jeff linked to taylor marsh saying she couldn't verify it. and, no, i didn't tr you for saying that about jeff- you made a very broad comment, and the way you continually call it "my site," i assumed you meant that broadly, even though everything i post there is valid and verifiable.

                          •  Funny how you misrepresent what Dinelli (0+ / 0-)

                            said:

                            Update: Taylor Marsh's attempt at clarification

                            What he did not say:

                            As it turns out, the story isn't true.  Or, at least there's no evidence whatsoever.  It was a mistake to rely on Page Six of the New York Post when criticizing another Democrat, and I personally apologize to Senator Obama.

                            Funny thing is, not a single person from TLC has even admitted that it was flat-out inexcusable to run that post.

                            But, TLC has no standards, apparently.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:05:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i'm not responsible for what others write there (0+ / 0-)

                            and 99% of what's written there is valid. jeff made a mistake, trusting politico, who trusted the post. and he did link to someone who admitted it was unverifiable, which was clear enough to people who aren't obsessed beyond reason. marsh also made clear that the obama camp not only never got back to the post on the story's veracity, but never even asked for a retraction. if they were as upset by it as you are, you'd think they might have. beyond that, next time you have a problem with jeff, maybe you should email him and tell him how to write his explanation.

                          •  The Politico debunked the story. (0+ / 0-)

                            Had he gotten his story from the Politico, he would have seen that it was plainly not true.

                            No, he got it from that liar Taylor Marsh, whose standard was "well, my own two eyes tell me it isn't true, but Page Six can't be wrong if they're dissing Obama."

                            In fact, it wasn't 'unverifiable.'

                            It was FALSE and proven thus.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:36:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  uh huh (0+ / 0-)

                            did politico write:

                            As it turns out, the story isn't true.  Or, at least there's no evidence whatsoever.  It was a mistake to rely on Page Six of the New York Post when criticizing another Democrat, and I personally apologize to Senator Obama.

                            no, according to your own quote:

                            It's a provocative scene. But I can't find any evidence that it happened, though it does seem to have been the subject of chatter among staffers of both campaigns.

                            According both to the Obama campaign and my sources out there, Obama only attended one "victory party" in Des Moines that night -- at which he entered [link fixed] to a U2 song. He His supporters -- though not the candidate -- then then went to the Des Moines restaurant Centro, where nobody's ever heard hip-hop, and didn't that night. There was also a music-free victory conference call with Obama.

                            But if anybody actually heard this...let me know.

                            not exactly the forceful "this was flat-out wrong" you're expecting from jeff, but i don't see you whining about politico. not that your outrage is selective or anything. and the circle closes.

                          •  Let's see here: (0+ / 0-)

                            According both to the Obama campaign and my sources out there, Obama only attended one "victory party" in Des Moines that night -- at which he entered [link fixed] to a U2 song.

                            Add to that the video links that show Obama entering the hall to . . . U2 music!

                            But, I guess if it's good enough for Page Six, it's good enough for the Left Coaster.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:43:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  as i said (0+ / 0-)

                            there was no apology and no full unequivocal retraction. keep trying.

                          •  As I said, if it's good enough for Page (0+ / 0-)

                            Six, it's good enough for the Left Coaster, the objective truth of the matter be damned.

                            So long as it's defaming Obama.

                            That you're still defending the indefensible speaks volumes.

                            Peace out.

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:23:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i'm not defending anything (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andgarden

                            i just haven't put things in the exact words that would satisfy your obsessive double-standards and selective outrage.

  •  Wow Taylor Marsh (9+ / 0-)

    AND another Hillary backer?

    An all-star line up of people whose opinions matter to me.

  •  Hence, Reagan talk :( n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    surferal
  •  what is wrong with this ad? (11+ / 0-)

    I think it's great! not a bad word about Hillary in it.

    "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered" -Hillary Clinton, the dream crusher.

    by nevadadem on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:31:10 PM PST

  •  Just for the record (12+ / 0-)

    Obama's campaign denounced the guy with the flyers because he was handing out flyers asking independents and republicans to be a democrat for a day to stop Hillary.  At the end of that statement they said that they still wanted independents and republicans to caucus for them.

    Obama spokesman Burton: "We’ve learned that one individual who volunteers for the campaign was making the flyer and we’ve instructed him to stop creating and distributing it. But make no mistake, we want as many independents and Republicans to become Democrats and help to build a new governing majority in this country."
    From The Page

    So this is nothing new here.

  •  Not going to get a lot of support here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, aaraujo

    Since KOS recommended Dem's vote red and Romney in Michigan.  

    i told you when i met you i was crazy (Joni Mitchell)

    by crazyshirley2100 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:34:44 PM PST

  •  Let's build a fence around the Republican border! (18+ / 0-)

    So there's someone who previously registered as a Republican -- and is now inspired to vote Democrat because of Barack Obama?

    Nope -- keep him out!  Once a Republican, always a Republican!  We have all the Democrats that we can handle over here!  No more room!  

    Barack Obama. Because we can do better.

    by poblano on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:35:35 PM PST

  •  Um, this ad doesn't encourage anyone (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JR, mcfly, Turkana, Albatross

    to become a Democrat for a Day.  I thought that was the nature of the complaint against the flyer that the loose cannon put out.  Now someone is complaining that the Obama campaign is encouraging people to become Democrats, period.

    Yes, we do want Independents and moderate/left-leaning Republicans to re-register as Democrats, and to stay that way.  The first thing to do is to get then to register as Democrats.  SOmething tells me Clinton and Edwards aren't going to get a whole lot of them crossing parties.

  •  You beef is with the state (5+ / 0-)

    not the candidate. The candidate is following the rules set up by the state. If Sen. Clinton would have spent a minute or two out of her last 35 years of experience into talking to middle America maybe she wouldn't hate the state's rules so much.

    Growing the Democratic Party is a good thing.

    by citizenx on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:36:41 PM PST

  •  I'll grant Obama and Co. one thing. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LandOLincoln, Zain

    The Nevada strategy, "denounced" by the Obama campaign (wink wink, nudge nudge), is fully consistent with Obama's message.  Whatever the case with these primary/caucus appeals (and it started in Iowa, of course), Obama's explicit promise is to win a strictly personal, non-party mandate in November based on Republicans being Democrats-for-a-day again.  They'll still be Republicans, but they will accept Obama's message of New Politics.  Maybe somewhere down the line they'll really cross over and become actual Democrats, or at least slightly progressive independents, but that's all in the future--the main thing is to get him elected.  For a genuinely self-effacing man, Obama's campaign to a remarkable extent is all about him.  

    "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

    by Rich in PA on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:36:43 PM PST

  •  Two very different things (10+ / 0-)

    The guy who put out the flyer was attacking Clinton in it, which is what the Obama campaign wanted to put an end to, which is why they denounced it.

    The ad invites Independents and Republicans to vote Democrat.

    I've written about this before, but this is something Howard Dean wants, and if I remember correctly, has said that if a voter votes Democrat 4 times, we have them for life.

    Isn't our goal to bring more people into the fold?

    •  So we want them to be Dems for 4 days (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zain

      As long as one of them is election day this November, okay.  (The problem with "Dem for a day" is that it's focused only on primaries.  Primaries don't win us the White House.)

      So then I want to know what the party is doing to get them to come back after the first time.

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:47:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's cross one bridge at a time (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dogheaven

        Long-term party strategy is something for the DNC gray hairs to figure out.

        The overall message here is that people will begin to associate with the Democratic party, or at least disassociate with the Republican party if you get them to switch over for one or a few elections.

        There really are a lot of folks who are apolitical but are registered in a particular party and vote party line for no particularly good reason.  (I know several people like that - people who were against the war, hated Bush, thought of themselves as centrists, but voted for Bush because they registered as Republicans at age 18 because of their family's party affiliation.

        •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LandOLincoln, skohayes

          Long-term party strategy is something for the DNC gray hairs to figure out.

          This is the only thing I disagree with in your comment.  Everything else is completely consistent with my experience.

          I am working hard to get everyone of those folks to switch over and get vote in the DEM primary.  I think I have switched a 54 year old woman to HRC and two 20 somethings to Obama and one 30 something to Edwards so far.

          •  Interesting (0+ / 0-)

            That's the first time I've heard someone trying to get folks to vote for many different Dems.

            The only reason I figure that long-term strategy is something for them to deal with is that at the end of the day, there's a lot of internal party politics in terms of who's the DNC chair, where money goes, who they want to support, etc. that most of us here will have no influence in.

            •  They choose their own candidate. (0+ / 0-)

              I just point out what Repub leadership has brought us and if we want to change it come on over!  I like all three very much and for different reasons.  The thing that worked on two of them was Romney's stance on gas mileage standards for cars.

              I truly believe that if you get some one off their butt for a primary you get a lot of rewards.

              Once they vote for a Dem the "taboo" of following their not-so-well-thought-out tradition, crumbles.

        •  This is my problem with that statement... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cream City

          Long-term party strategy is something for the DNC gray hairs to figure out.

          While I may not be on the Democratic National Committee, I'm one of those "gray hairs" constantly trying to figure out long-term party strategy.

          Technically, I'm not a gray hair, but I am a member of the state Democratic committee here in Georgia and my biggest concern is that Obama is focusing solely on bringing more people to his cause instead of focusing on bringing more people to the larger Democratic cause.

          If all these people that Obama is bringing into the process are only in it to support him, then where does that leave the Democratic Party.  If this campaign is only about Barack Obama, then what happens if he loses.    Better yet, what happens if he wins, serves for two terms as President, and then leaves the Democratic Party in the same mess the Republican Party is currently in; lost and without a message.

          These are things that I think about because I know the Democratic Party is not just about the candidates.  It's also about the Party and principles of the Party.  

          Having Republicans vote in our primary does nothing to advance the Party nor the principles.

          •  I hate to break it to you (0+ / 0-)

            Andre.  I know a lot about Atlanta.  I can't say that I have much respect at all for the State Democratic Committee.  See how well they have done?  First Republican Guvnor in 100 years?  And he is so patently corrupt (Outside perimeter realestate etc) and your purity crap gave us another round.  

            Anyways what might work (or not) in Georgia, certainly is different in Nevada.

            I rejected your first diary on this subject but I am glad you put up another.  The ad was fabulous.  Thanks

            •  FYI, my "purity crap" didn't do anything... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cream City

              ...It was the fact that Cathy Cox made her campaign more about herself instead of about the Georgia Democratic Party.

              In 2004, the Democratic Party tried to talk her into running for U.S. Senate.  She said no.  In 2005, the Democratic Party tried to talk her into running for Lt. Governor.  She said no.

              Cathy Cox's failed campaign for Governor bitterly divided the Georgia Democratic Party and left our nominee, Mark Taylor, scraping for money; money that he shouldn't have had to spend competing in the Democratic primary.

              In Georgia, our two candidates for Governor in 2006 raised more money combined than Sonny Perdue did.  Unfortunately, most of that money was spent in the primary.

              And then, on top of that, after Cathy Cox lost the primary, she refused to endorse the Democratic nominee.

              You see, I've seen this all before.  Cathy Cox had Republicans crossing over and voting for her in the primary, and after she lost, they crossed back over and voted for Perdue.

              •  So thats your perspective on (0+ / 0-)

                why folks should not cross over and vote for Obama?  Are you afraid somehow that if he does not get the eventual nomination that he won't endorse either Clinton or Edwards?  Ridiculous.  He will do so and will bring a lot of those new democrats to the polls again.

                In Georgia, our two candidates for Governor in 2006 raised more money combined than Sonny Perdue did.  Unfortunately, most of that money was spent in the primary.

                 And Cox split the party.  So you see this in the dynamics of the national candidates here?  No way.   They are all three bringing excitement to the race and not splitting anyone (cept maybe you and a few other hard purity partisans here.)

                You have been burned but your experience is Georgia is not applicable here.  Besides it was you grey hairs that failed to ward off the Cox debacle.

                •  See, that's where you're wrong... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Cream City

                  ...It was Cathy Cox who failed to ward off the Cox debacle.

                  The leadership of the Party tried to talk her into running for Zell Miller's Senate seat in 2004.  The leadership of the Party tried to talk her into running for Lt. Governor in 2006.

                  But Cathy Cox said no.  Cathy Cox had her heart set on running for Governor and she wouldn't let anyone talk her out of it.

                  There was nothing the Party could've done to prevent her from paying her qualifying fee and getting on the ballot.  Even though the Party persuaded her not to run, Cathy Cox wanted to run for Governor and she would not allow herself to be persuaded otherwise.

                  •  Ok on that. (0+ / 0-)

                    I see now in the context of your specific experience and if your are a HRC proponent, why you would have a problem with Obama's strategy to bring in independants.  I understand why you feel so strongly.  I will just say that maybe your perspective is not on point with this particular race.  Is it that you feel that Obama can not win a GE?

                    So I feel for you if you have come to that conclusion. But the previous diary you posted on this topic was without merit at all and was truly one of those hit diaries and so I have trouble taking your perspective seriously.  I am trying however.

          •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

            If all these people that Obama is bringing into the process are only in it to support him, then where does that leave the Democratic Party.

            It leaves the Democratic party with some new voters in the fold.  I'm not sure why all the Is and Rs that switch over would to immediately switch back.  For example, I know many voters in Iowa who were independent and never vote, but they came out to support Obama, and now they're involved in politics - Democratic party politics.

            •  Well, good luck to you (0+ / 0-)

              Next door in Wisconsin, our open primary often has allowed a lot of crossovers to screw up the Dem side, and then they don't stick around to vote Dem in the general.

              "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

              by Cream City on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:21:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  you are right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cream City

            and most posters--it seems--on this website could care less. It's a game. The goal of which is to smashmouth anyone who disagrees with you. Very few care about facts or arguments. The future of the democratic party is little cared about. Hell. They don't even care about winning the general election.

  •  I think every one who wants to vote in a primary (7+ / 0-)

    should take a liberal purity test.  No one scoring lower than 95% liberal positions should be allowed to vote in the primary.  That way we won't dilute the party...

    "Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

    by WellstoneDem on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:44:21 PM PST

  •  I think it's shocking (7+ / 0-)

    and appalling that anyone would switch away from the party they were born into.  We need to build a wall around the democratic party and refuse to admit new members.  These people are going to take power and jobs away from the democratic establishment!

    /snark

  •  My father-in-law is one of the people you (11+ / 0-)

    speak of. He is former US Air Force officer and a Vietnam veteran. A life-long Republican who changed his political affiliation to Independent in the '06 election because he hated what the Bush Administration did to his beloved country and he could no longer call himself a Republican. My father-in-law voted a straight Democratic ticket in the '06 election. On Saturday, for the first time in his life he will register as a Democrat and caucus for Senator Barack Obama a man who has inspired him to knock on his neighbors doors. My father-in-law truly believes that what this country needs is unity and the only person who can deliver it is Barack Obama.

    "The struggle of humanity against power, is the struggle of memory against forgetting." -- Milan Kundera

    by LV Pol Girl on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:51:11 PM PST

  •  Another diary. Another smear (3+ / 0-)

    And here I thought the camps called a truce.

    I guess that was one sided.

    In this ad, Obama invites EVERYONE to vote for him.

    Period.  Not for a day.  Just period.

    What in the hell is wrong with that?

    Isn't that Democratic?

    On 2/9, in WA state, I, as an Independent intend to vote with Democrats because Obama has asked me to.

    Hillary hasn't.  In fact, I think she'd rather I didn't.  She shows me disrespect.

    Edwards hasn't either but at least he has shown me respect.

    Obama asks for my vote and somehow some of you people act like that is an affront?

    Maybe I don't want to be a Democrat afterall.

    What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

    by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:07:12 PM PST

  •  If Obama Gets the Nomination - (0+ / 0-)

    Do you think all those Republicans will vote for him in November??

  •  If it beats Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    I want Indies and republicans to vote.
    I dont want the slimebag Clintons to win by surpressing the vote as they are trying to do.

  •  Why would you believe anything Marsh says? (0+ / 0-)

    All of the quasi-Clinton blogs (Marsh, MyDD, Left Coaster, FDL, etc) will publish any rumor, lie, or smear as long as it makes Obama look bad.  They are the left's version of Drudge and Fox News.

    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

    by clonecone on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:29:19 PM PST

    •  It's been verified by ABC News... (0+ / 0-)

      ...And I included the ABC News link in the diary.

      •  Your spin hasn't been verified. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zombie

        Obama is trying to grow the party.  Apparently some find that offensive.  They must like the warm glow of self-imposed minority party status.

        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

        by clonecone on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:32:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you really believe that... (0+ / 0-)

          ...Then ask an Obama if he or she is voting for Obama because he's a Democrat or if they're voting for Obama because he's Obama?

          •  Insert... (0+ / 0-)

            ...the word "supporter" between "an Obama" and "if he"

          •  I did ask people at my caucus in Iowa. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zombie

            They voted for him because they are tired of the war and they don't trust anyone who was dumb enough to vote for it.  Would you rather they vote for Ron Paul or become Democrats?  

            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

            by clonecone on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:36:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So just out of curiosity... (0+ / 0-)

              ...How many of those people in Iowa that caucused for Obama plan on staying active through the county convention, the district convention, and the state convention?

              Another question...

              ...The next time there's an open race for Governor on the Democratic side in Iowa, how many of those Obama caucus attendees will show up and participate in the precinct caucuses that year?

              •  Since those things haven't happened (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zombie

                your questions are impossible to answer.

                Even if we lose 90% of them we've still gained 10%.  Oh, the horror of party growth...

                We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

                by clonecone on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:43:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Alright, here's another question... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...How many of those new Obama caucus attendees in your precinct (and I'm talking about people who have never participated in a Democratic caucus before) signed up to be a delegate to the county convention?

                  How many of those new Obama caucus attendees brought platform planks to be discussed at your precinct caucus?

                  How of those new Obama caucus attendees stayed to learn more about how the Iowa Democratic Party works?

                  •  Zero became delegates. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    askew, Elise, zombie

                    We elected the precinct captains to be the delegates.  They did the hard work and deserved the honor.

                    And no one brought platform planks to my precinct.  I've been to many Iowa caucuses and I've rarely seen anyone offer a plank.

                    Your wasting your time on me because you can't convince me that growing the party is a bad thing.  You'll have to try it on someone who enjoys losing elections.

                    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

                    by clonecone on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:53:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're putting words in my mouth... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...I never argued against growing the Party.

                      I argued against allowing Republicans to switch parties for one day just to vote for one candidate.  Situations like that don't grow the Party.

                      You said it yourself...

                      ...None of the new Obama caucus attendees were elected delegates to the county convention.

                      So from this point forward, none of those new Obama caucus attendees will not be participating in the Democratic Party.  None of them will be attending county Democratic committee meetings.  None of them will be attending the state Democratic convention.  None of them will be taking their attendance at the caucus to the next step.

                      It was all about the candidate and not about the Party.

                      •  Every single person (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        askew, Elise, zombie

                        who participated in the Iowa Democratic Caucus is a Democrat.  Why does that bother you?  Is it because they rejected your pro-war candidate?

                        None of them were elected because we rewarded the precinct captains.  That's standard procedure.  I'm a lifelong democrat and I won't be participating in the county or state committee meetings either.  I wasn't a precinct captain this year so I didn't even throw my name in for consideration.  No one other than precinct captains were nominated.  If we had elected former Republicans, I guarantee you'd be complaining about former Repubs attending the convention.

                        You want to keep the party small.  Thank jeebus most people don't think like you.

                        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

                        by clonecone on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:08:56 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Every person that attended the Caucus... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Cream City

                          ...Signed a form saying that they were a Democrat, but signing a form saying you're a Democrat and demonstrating allegiance to the Democratic Party are two separate things.

                          For example, here in Georgia, Republicans pulled a Democratic ballot in the Democratic primary and helped to defeat Cynthia McKinney.  Yes, they signed a piece of paper saying that they were Democrats, and yes, only Democrats voted in the primary, but the real Democrats knew what was up.

                          The same thing goes with our caucuses to elect delegates to the national convention.  All a person has to do to vote is sign a piece of paper saying they're a "Democrat", and every four years, somebody who has done nothing for the Georgia Democratic Party gets to go to the national convention as a Georgia delegate based on the fact that they brought in a lot of people to caucus for them.

                          Then, once they've gone to the convention and had their fun, we never see them again.

                          Now how is that growing the Party?

                          •  In your previous comments (0+ / 0-)

                            you wanted these new Republicans to go to the conventions.  Now you don't.  Can you pick a position and stick to it?

                            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

                            by clonecone on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:30:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There you go again... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...I never said I wanted "these new Republicans" to go to the conventions.

                            I simply asked a series of questions including how many of these new Obama caucus attendees would remain active in the Democratic Party through participating in the county, district, and state conventions (even if they're just there to observe); how many of those new Obama caucus attendees would be at their next county Democratic committee meeting; etc.

                            My point and my position has always been that Obama has done nothing to grow the Party.  He brought all these new people in to vote for him, and that was it.

                            It wasn't about the Democratic Party.  It was all about Barack Obama.

                          •  Adding people to the Democratic rolls (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Elise

                            is growing the party.  Committee members are a very small percentage of the party population.  

                            What in the hell do you think voter reg drives are for?  What is GOTV for?  It's about getting more voters, increasing the size of the party and winning fucking elections.  Fighting against that is fighting for a loss.  I'm tired of losing elections.  Why aren't you?

                            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

                            by clonecone on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:41:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And what exactly is the point... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...Of adding all these people to the Democratic rolls if they don't vote Democrat?

                            What is the point of registering all these people to vote if they don't get out and vote?

                            Bragging rights?

                            Right here in Georgia, I've seen organizations such as the NAACP conduct voter registration drives and openly brag about registering 500 new people to vote in one day.  Then, when election day rolls around, voter turn-out is still the same as it was (or sometimes even worse) before those 500 new folks were registered.

                            Once again, I ask how many of those new Obama caucus attendees that are now on the rolls of the Iowa Democratic Party; how many of those new Obama caucus attendees that are now recorded on the Iowa Democratic Party's VAN voter file; how many of those new Obama caucus attendees will show up and vote for Chet Culver in 2010?  

                            How many of those new Obama caucus attendees will check off that box on the Iowa state income tax forms to give money to the Iowa Democratic Party?

                          •  They did vote Democratic! (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Elise, zombie

                            They came to the caucus and voted! Just because they didn't vote for your candidate doesn't mean they didn't vote Democratic.  That's what this all boils down to.  

                            Voting for Clinton = good.  
                            Voting for Obama = bad.

                            Once again, I ask how many of those new Obama caucus attendees that are now on the rolls of the Iowa Democratic Party;

                            100%

                            how many of those new Obama caucus attendees that are now recorded on the Iowa Democratic Party's VAN voter file;

                            100%

                            how many of those new Obama caucus attendees will show up and vote for Chet Culver in 2010?  

                            I don't have a fucking crystal ball so I don't know.  I'm guessing you don't either.  Even if we lose 99% of them we've still gained 1%.  Why is that such a terrible thing?

                            How many of those new Obama caucus attendees will check off that box on the Iowa state income tax forms to give money to the Iowa Democratic Party?

                            I don't have access to their tax returns and neither do you.  Again, even if 1% of them do, that's 1% that we didn't have before.  

                            I refuse to fight for a smaller party.  I'm completely bewildered by your logic.

                            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

                            by clonecone on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:56:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Now, let me get this straight... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...Just because, using your words:

                            They came to the caucus and voted!

                            , they signed a sheet of paper saying that they're Democrats in order to vote, you consider them bonafide Democrats.

                            Here's a new flash for you:

                            In order for anyone to vote in the Iowa Democratic caucus, Democratic, Republican, or Independent, they all had to sign a sheet of paper stating that they were a Democrat.  That was a requisite requirement for them to participate.

                            I'm sorry, but just because someone signs something saying they're a Democrat doesn't mean that they're a Democrat.  If that were the case, then all those Republicans that cross-over and voted against Cynthia McKinney in the 2002 and 2006 Democratic primaries would still be voting Democrat.  The reality is, however, that when you look them up in the voter file, all those Republicans are still listed as strong Republicans despite the fact that they signed a sheet of paper stating they were Democrats in order to vote in the Democratic Party.

                          •  Shift those goalposts. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Elise

                            Like you've been doing the entire thread.  My statement was in response to you claiming that they wouldn't vote.  I proved that they already have.

                            You're obviously not interested in genuine conversation.  You've convinced me.  Anyone who voted for Obama isn't a real Democrat. Only Clinton voters carry the true flame. How could I have been so blind?

                            Now I know why GA can't elect Democrats.  People like you hate growing the party. I'm done talking to people who want to shrink the party. Have a nice life.

                            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

                            by clonecone on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:15:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My position has remained constant... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...I've consistently said that Barack Obama was only in this for Barack Obama and not for the Democratic Party.

                            You've consistently put words in my mouth and misrepresented my positions.

                            Now, since you mentioned Georgia (and I doubt you're familiar with the work Georgia Democrats are engaging in towards growing the Democratic Party of Georgia), let me tell you that we're engaging in an aggressive small donor campaign; we're working on getting the county parties that were defunct back up and running; we've invited all of the presidential candidates to speak at our J.J. dinner and they've all signaled their tentative appearance (Hillary just confirmed today); John Edwards is making an appearance on Saturday; and Obama is coming Sunday.

                            We're growing the Democratic Party of Georgia, but we're doing it the right way by bringing new people into the Party who are committed to building the Party and electing Democrats versus people who have just signed a sheet a paper saying they're Democrats for one day just so they can vote for a single candidate.

                            Here in Georgia, we're focused on getting all Democrats elected, not just one single candidate.

                          •  I lived in Georgia for 4 years (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Elise, zombie

                            and was in charge of Harkin's campaign at Emory...but no, I couldn't possibly know anything about GA politics.

                            Once again, you've stated that these new Democrats in IA are not real Democrats and are just in it for one candidate.  You've offered no proof.  You're just making shit up in hopes that it fits your argument.  It's pathetic and sad.

                            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

                            by clonecone on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:33:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If those folks that signed those papers... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...Stating that they were Democrats become active in their county Democratic committee, then that's how I'll know that there were in it for more than just one candidate.  If they remain active in the Democratic Party long after the 2008 campaign is said and done, then I'll know that they were involved for something more than just supporting one particular candidate.

                            Until then, I reserve the right to question their motives.

                            And let me tell you something, I don't have to make "shit up" (your words not mine).  I got involved in politics when I was 16, working as an elections official for the 2000 election season.  I was the youngest chief poll manager in Fulton County when I managed a polling precinct at the age of 20 in 2004.  I was the third youngest delegate to represent Georgia at the 2004 Democratic National Convention; the youngest in the thirteenth Congressional district; and the youngest in Fulton County.  I'm 24 years old and I'm serving my second four year term as a member of Democratic Party of Georgia State Committee.

                            As I said before, I'm in it for the Party and not just the candidates.  I've seen what happens, first hand, when there is no Democratic Party apparatus in place to function when there's no candidate for people to rally around.  It happened here in Georgia in 2002 when Roy Barnes lost.  For 130 years, the Georgia Democratic Party was an extension of the Governor's office and once the Governor was no longer a Democrat, the Democratic Party of Georgia just about collapsed on itself simply because we focused too much on one person (the Governor) instead of focusing on building the Party.

                            I've seen it too many times.  People get excited about a candidate and when their candidate loses, they take their ball and go home.  The most recent example is the 2006 Georgia gubernatorial campaign where Secretary of State Cathy Cox had Republicans giving her money and vowing to cross-over and vote for her in the Democratic primary.  Once Cathy Cox lost the nomination, all those Republicans switched back over and voted for Sonny Perdue.  The ones who didn't simply stayed home and didn't vote at all or voted, but didn't cast a ballot for Governor.

                            That's what I'm concerned about; all these people that Barack Obama is bringing into the process may take their ball and go home if he loses because they're in it for him and not for the Democratic Party.

                            Now you can call it pathetic and sad if you want, but these are my experiences, and I would much rather have Democrats who are committed to electing Democrats to public office and building the Democratic Party choosing the Democratic nominee than a bunch of Republicans, Independents, and "fair-weather" Democrats who are in it for one candidate.

                          •  You stated earlier (0+ / 0-)

                            that you don't like it when former Republicans in GA are active at the committee level.  Jesus, you jump from one position to the other.  Read your own fucking comments and at least make an attempt to be consistent.

                            You have no proof that they are just in it for Obama.  The proof you want is exactly the thing you said you didn't want just a few comments ago.  Like I said, I'm done talking to you because you aren't being honest.

                            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

                            by clonecone on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:09:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I did not say that... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...And since you want to talk about proof, you have no proof that these so-called "former" Republicans are not in just for Obama.

                            All you have is a sheet of paper that says they're Democrats, but as I've said over and over again, in an open caucus; in an open primary, anybody can sign a piece of paper saying they're a Democrat and you could legitimately claim that they are Democrats because they signed a piece of paper saying as much.  However, the proof can easily be ascertained by looking at their voting record in the voter file.

                            If I look someone up and I see nothing but "R"s for the past four elections, one "D" for another election, and four more "R"s for the subsequent four elections, that tells me that person was never a bonafide Democrat.  That tells me that that person was only in it for one candidate.

                            Look at the voter file, keep track of all those "former Republicans" that caucused for Barack Obama.  If in 2010, they're back voting in the Republican primary and attending Republican precinct caucuses, then there's your proof that they were only in it for one candidate.

                        •  A relative of mine was one of them (0+ / 0-)

                          Whether the relative will remain a Democrat, who knows. But he isn't really even an Iowan.  There a couple of months for college, went home for break, came back for the caucus, and now is transferring to another state.

                          How is residence verified, how long a residency is required?  My state has same-day registration, but evidence of residency for six months is required -- and that's considered way too loose.  But compared to Iowa, apparently we're too tough!

                          "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

                          by Cream City on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:28:32 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Students in Iowa can vote. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Elise, zombie

                            I'm sorry that you have a problem with it.  I'm sorry that same day registration bothers you.  Democrats have only been fighting for it for decades, but some are ready to toss it away because it doesn't favor their particular candidate.  I think it's sad.

                            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

                            by clonecone on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:31:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Same-day registration with six months residency (0+ / 0-)

                            and evidence of it is fine with me, and I'm fighting to keep it in my state, thank you very much.  That's what my state does.  

                            I'm asking what Iowa asks for in terms of length of residency and evidence.  And I'm not getting the answer.  So I guess I know now.  And it's not helping us in our fight to keep it in our state.

                            "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

                            by Cream City on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:01:40 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site