Hillary is a Democrat

UPDATE 2: Look at the comments again. These people are insane. These people don't represent you. Hillary Clinton and the Clintons in general have done countless things I detest, but Dailykos has been hijacked by lunatics who are just virtual gangs. You know, I know, we know that this is just politics, just juvenile affiliations, that this is just a competition. Some people have lost their minds and by shouting louder than the rest they've taken over this site. Hillary is a Democrat. How fucking hard is that to comprehend or agree with? Think about it.

UPDATE: People, look at the comments. The Hillary-hate has gone too far. You know it. I know it. We know it. We've been hijacked. Obama for president. Hillary for Democrat. How is that controversial?

Jesus. Should I have to write a diary about this? Is this necessary? Am I really on DailyKos.com right now writing the only pro-Hillary diary? As an Obama supporter? This is ridiculous. Who among you would not want your candidate to fight for the nomination? If Obama was in Hillary's place (well, he'd have dropped out, yes, but...) you would be cheering him on. Hillary, despite her DLC-inspired missteps, is a Democrat. She is what we are. We are her posse. We are her campaign. We, fellow Obama supporters, are so close to her, so nearly invested in her, it's unbelievable.

Stop the bullshit.

Stop the frantic nonsense.

Obama is the nominee.

Clinton is fighting for what she believes in.

Clinton is a Democrat.

This isn't cognitive dissonance. This is the truth. Get over it.

Get. The. Fuck. Over. It.

(Oh, please fucking recommend this. If you're sane.)

(Seriously. Look at the blowback. Just LOOK at it. Recommend this diary. Dailykos isn't just a nonsensical campaign for Obama. You may disagree with me. We may disagree with a lot of the Democrats nonsense. But you know if your candidate -- Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, Clark, etc. -- had been in Hillary's position you wouldn't accept this bullshit. Fight, fight, fight, unite. It's what we want, it's what the Dailykos of old has ALWAYS been for, it's what we should celebrate.)

•  ...as far as we know.

  yep.

  by Cardinal Tiger on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:48:10 PM PDT

•  I agree with your sentiment

  but not your method of delivering it.

  by jem286 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:48:18 PM PDT

  •  Are you fucking kidding?

    Fucking condescending dictatorial fucking polemics always convince. The. Living. Fuck. out of me that my own opinion is fucking bullshit and invalid as all fuck.

    by DemCurious on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:21:55 AM PDT

•  but Karl Rove said...

  by AHiddenSaint on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:48:47 PM PDT

  •  if we nominated the way the GOP does...

    ugh!  

    by brettjay on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:10:00 PM PDT

•  Dixiecrat..?

  by The Dead Man on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:49:43 PM PDT

  •  Lol

    Funny because incredibly enough it's pretty accurate right now.  Unfortunately, her behavior is also destructive since a minority persist in taking her seriously and the corporate media loves her helping them denigrate the values of the democratic party.

    by blueoasis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:56:19 AM PDT

•  I don't even feel like I can engage in this

  I have such Clinton-defense fatigue.
  Don't have the strength to go on doing it.
  Sigh.

  by AussieJo on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:50:09 PM PDT

  •  Sometimes I think

    that HRC is trying to annoy us to death.
    Feel something gnawing on my left ankle.

    by barnowl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:52:20 AM PDT

•  Tips for non-capitulation...

  ...and honor, even when it's not your side. Tips for seeing the other side as noble. Tips for realizing that you're not that only focal point of political reality on Earth. Tips for Obama. Tips for Clinton. Tips for the Democratic Party.

  by Addison on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:50:35 PM PDT

  •  tip?

    I would if you can point me to one noble thing about the the past 4 months of the Clinton campaign?  Seriously, please explain to me why you find her conduct, specifically in the past 4 months, to be noble.  Because all I've seen is selfish pride, lying, race-baiting, and collecting money from people who don't have it in order to do more of the same.  My view may well be tarnished as I didn't like Clinton from the beginning, but please enlighten me, what am I missing?

    by jlynne on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:59:52 PM PDT

    •  Yea...

      I'd like to see that too...I don't understand the blinders when it comes tot the Clintons after they have thrown around so much trash and have shown repeatedly that all they care about is crowning her the quess...

      by bruddaone on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:02:33 PM PDT

    •  I drop back in occassionally

      I despair now....if obama supporters are like you...such venom...such anger...so mean spirited....toward someone 1/2 of the Democratic party admires....

      With friends like you obama doesn't need enemies.

      you will drive clinton voters away from him....you undermine the ability of your candidate to win in November.

      by debcoop on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:28:02 PM PDT

      •  Quit playing the victim.

        People are sick and tired of the DLC policies that she championed, and they spoke loud and clear. Obama won. The DLC lost.

        by Eternal Hope on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:29:35 PM PDT

        •  I've spent the last 8 weeks making sure Obama

          would win a big victory in Oregon and I don't see how debcoop is playing the victim. I haven't been happy with the Clinton campaign for much of this primary season, but she is a Democrat and she has done positive things and vilifying her is really counter-productive if your goal is electing Barack in November.

          Our candidate, the brilliant young senator form Illinois, is handling the Clinton campaign just fine. It's a shame that more of his supporters on this site don't follow his example.

          by MikePhoenix on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:55:45 AM PDT

          •  She's still campaigning.

            And it's not a matter of vilifying her; I'm simply stating fact. A lot of good the DLC's appeasement of Republicans did for their cause between 2000 and 2004. And debcoop is one of Alegre's strikers.

            by Eternal Hope on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:00:04 AM PDT

            •  Yeah, I see your point.

              And do have to admit, I don't know debcoop. But I have met a lot of good Democrats who support HRC while canvassing for Obama and most have made a point in telling me that if he wins the nom, they are with us in November. I just don't see the purpose in alienating any Democrats if we can help it.

              by MikePhoenix on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:17:39 AM PDT

              •  Well, I agree with that.

                If a Hillary supporter is interested in burying the hatchet and helping us out in November and works with us in good faith, then I have no problem with making them feel welcome here. All I'm saying is that if one of Alegre's followers wants to alienate themselves from this site and this movement, then there is nothing we can do.

                by Eternal Hope on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:32:16 AM PDT

      •  I sorry you perceive it as mean-spirited

        it's not meant to be.  I genuinely want to know what the diarist, or any Clinton supporter, sees as noble in her conduct over the past four months.  I don't see it.  What do you see that I don't?

        by jlynne on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:34:08 PM PDT

  •  Honor?

    You mean, such as standing by the statements you made in the past (about, say, um, Michigan delegates), rather than abandoning them when they clearly are not in your personal interest?

    I was about to make a long further list of HRC's utterly dishonorable behavior over the past 3 months, but what the hell's the point? We all know that she has exhibited neither honor nor nobility.

    In mid-January, I was largely indifferent to which of the three front-runners would eventually get the nomination.

    By mid-February, I was firmly in the For-The-Love-Of-God-Make-Her-Stop camp.

    It had nothing to do with anything either of her opponents had said. No, it was all her, loathsome odious beast-thing that she had become.

    by UntimelyRippd on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:07:58 PM PDT

    •  She has earned the scorn.

      When KY & WVA elect a Democrat for POTUS, I'll eat my shorts.

      She has been pandering to bigots since OH.

      If hispanics think she speaks for them,  they need to check out her other constituents.  How that coalition hangs together will be a miracle akin to her math.

      She lost. She's  a sore loser.  She's a loser.

      I can't wait till I never see her again as long as I live.

      She blew 150 million dollars before 2/5/08! f'chrissake.  What more proof do you need that she's a lousy manager & piss poor budgeter?

      She sucks in so many ways. She has no class. No sportsmanship.  Zero grace.  A lousy personality, & a shitty speaking style.

      She just plain sucks.

      If she quits tomorrow, my opinion will soften.  If she takes this crap to the convention, I will vow to defeat her every endeavor.

      HRC is poison.  She fought for it, she earned it, & she deserves it.

      by x on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:26:51 AM PDT

  •  You really don't have to link anywhere other than

    the comments to this very diary to prove your point.   Amazing.

    by Lauren S on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:12:09 PM PDT

  •  Let me elaborate:

    If this were about Clinton not capitulating, she could have done that in a noble and honorable way. She could have continued to campaign, hard, by attacking -- with clear and useful truth -- the Republicans who are "our" political and ideological opponents.

    Had she done so, she might even have succeeded in her quest for the nomination, by persuading the party faithful that she was willing and able to take McCain down.

    Instead, she opted for an endless series of deviant and deceptive political maneuvers that insulted the intelligence of anyone with the necessary wit and self-respect to still be insulted by a politician, while lashing out, not at the ultimate opponent, but at the guy who will, starting now, have to spend the next 5 months working against the lies and illusions that she worked so hard to plant in the consciousness of Dem voters.

    by UntimelyRippd on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:16:09 PM PDT

  •  She isn't a real Democrat

    "Obama for president. Hillary for Democrat. How is that controversial?"

    Chief, you need to chill out. HRC is building her bad karma all by herself through her own actions.

    As if she hasn't done enough damage to Obama with race-baiting (and that's probably reflected in the Appalachian results we have seen), now they've started slamming Obama with specious "sexism" bullcrap charges over the last few days.

    Why doesn't that tell you that she's wrecking Obama and thus Democratic party's prospects to for her own selfish ends? It does to me.

    As for whether she's a Democrat, anyone that voted for the Iraq war and followed it up with the Kyl-Lieberman vote is not a real Democrat.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:36:51 PM PDT

    •  spot on. +i still say roves runnin her campaign+mc

      by concerned on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:29:51 AM PDT

  •  Tipped and recced for Courage!

    You have guts, I'll give you that - also brains and a heart.

    But you should know by now: The Narrative Will Not Be Denied!

    I've read too much Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett.  They know that people always gravitate towards cultural narratives of Good Versus Evil, David Versus Goliath, and especially, Maidens In Distress Rescued By Big Strong Men.  Even if they have to use a twenty pound sledgehammer to jam those round realities in the square narratives.

    This is more like John the Baptist crying in the wilderness.

    by Fabian on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:43:10 AM PDT

•  She may be a democrat

  but she isn't a progressive.. She is a corporatists that manipulates the fears, ignorance and bigotry of others for political advantages.  

  I don't want to participate in a political party that supports those values..

  by audiored on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:52:09 PM PDT

  •  There's no such thing as a progressive...

    ...you're being fooled. It's not a term that has meaning.

    by Addison on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:57:21 PM PDT

    •  Look up the fucking

      definition you fucking moron..

      There is a long tradition of progressive politics in this country and it is well known in general terms what 'progressive means'.

      This is not about personalities.  This is about what someone does not about what they say or how they say it.  The Clintons are symbolic of everything that I am in opposition to.  So, the Clintons are my opponent.

      This is a fight for democracy in the US.  This is not a fight for which corporate masters will pull the strings for the next 4 years..

      by audiored on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:04:49 PM PDT

      •  TR'd,

        for the personal attack.

        by limpidglass on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:07:46 PM PDT

        •  Ah...

          I can understand why though.

          by Lava20 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:14:33 PM PDT

        •  And...here come the 'upraters' /nt

          by hhex65 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:33:49 PM PDT

          •  Everytime I see a hr...

            I die a little inside...

            Unless it's Barry in MIA.

            by Lava20 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:50:39 PM PDT

            •  Geez

              No offense but you'll probably be dead by November.

              by Lauren S on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:08:18 AM PDT

        •  Thanks

          That was so over the line imo and I can't stand to see Obama supporters being so vicious towards fellow Democrats.  It's completely counterproductive now that we've made it to the general campaign.  

          by Lauren S on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:48:16 PM PDT

          •  Obama can be gracious,

            but I'm sick to death of HRC apologists.

            She fucking lost way back in March.

            If she's a Democrat, dedicated to to a Democratic win in November, then she would have conceded in April.  She is a DLC Queen.  And I hate the DLC.

            She won't succeed in stealing the nomination, but the damage she is inflicting on the Democratic Party is unforgivable.

            The Clintons must let go.  They are no longer the bosses of the party.  They have to pass the torch.  They had their shot.  Bill did good.  Hillary has the Senate.  Ted Kennedy had the grace to pass the torch.  If HRC/WJC had a fraction of Teds' class, which they apparently don't, they would pass the torch & be big about it.

            But no.  HRC has to go out in a blaze of ignominy. She has to besmirch the Clinton name in smallness.

            HRC gets smaller every day.

            by x on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:51:02 AM PDT

            •  Sick of Clinton Apologists

              Especially if they come on to make such statements as "there's no such thing as a progressive".

              If that weren't an attempt to get a rise out of people then I don't know what would be.

              by sesquioxide on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:29:04 AM PDT

            •  You're so right

              I hadn't thought about how awesome the "Hillary, Go Down in Flames" argument is for Obama's chances in November.

              Good show.

              by Lauren S on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:33:39 AM PDT

        •  Save your TR's

          for trolls.  Not for Democrats.

          by x on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:32:38 AM PDT

      •  I'm not going to troll rate it

        but I am going to suggest apologizing for the attack part of the comment.

        by Kyle the Mainer on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:17:58 PM PDT

      •  Your first two lines are a disgrace

        You're an Obama supporter and you scream at people calling for Democratic unity like that?  You need to step back and think about what you're doing by posting attacks like this if you actually do support Obama.

        That was disgusting, regardless of your point.

        by Lauren S on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:46:35 PM PDT

      •  I don't agree with the tone of this diary at all

        But disagreement isn't a reason to start cursing a fellow Democrat out, unless they're being absolutely, dangerously nuts.

        Addison's just being provocative, IMHO.

        by wader on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:03:20 AM PDT

        •  Addison's being the complete opposite imo

          by Lauren S on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:08:55 AM PDT

          •  Maybe in the attempt, but not in

            execution, I'm afraid.

            Throwing accusations in people's faces in a somewhat unrelenting and uncompromising manner might evoke stronger reactions than calming them down, depending on the situation.

            Indeed, for this case, he has needlessly stoked embers by his chosen style of communicating the point.  IMHO.

            by wader on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:22:44 AM PDT

            •  I thought Addison was a woman

              Regardless....

              I don't really see where the diary does what you say it does.   There's not much I have disagreeance with really in the diary.

              Obama is able to bring people together and bridge divides, that's the reason he's able to excite me to the point that I fully support him and am excited by his candidacy.

              Where does it benefit a campaign like that to continue such vicious attacks against Hillary?

              That time has passed, some people just stayed behind in the mud.

              That's how I read the diary and that's what I think myself.

              by Lauren S on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:28:12 AM PDT

              •  She's still in the race.

                Supporters like Wufacta are still slinging mud. The race isn't over until she throws in the towel.

                by Eternal Hope on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:35:42 AM PDT

                •  No

                  The race is over regardless of any comment on a blog.

                  Done.

                  by Lauren S on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:41:53 AM PDT

              •  Oops, you're right - I was sloppy with the gender

                assumption.  My poor judgement.

                As far as the diary's tone, it begin with expressing extreme disbelief in the community, then progressed to cursing while making the points it sought to promote.  Cursing implicitly at other Obama supporters here, essentially.

                That's a challenge to everyone reading.  To accept a slap in the face with a wet, electrified trout, or to resent such an action.

                I agree with most of the message in the diary, not entirely all, but find the general purpose to be good.

                However, I found the presentation potentially insulting in the other direction for no good reason.  And - lo and behold - it seems that fellow Obama supporters are, indeed, not enjoying the force-this-down-your-throat style of taking this message.

                Yet, I've read plenty of diaries in the past couple of weeks where Obama supporters were hoping to be quite conciliatory about Clinton, primarily with respect to her bowing out of this all-but-over nomination run

                Obama's campaign isn't attacking Sen. Clinton, though she's directly fomenting distrust, frustration and disgust in people who have felt her words as seemingly maligning facts about Obama and herself (as reportedly widely in the blogosphere and tradmed) for short-term gains, while her campaign's sometimes desperate actions and truly odd alliances have unfortunately painted her as a junkyard dog more than as a principled fighter.  And, in that vein, she has appeared completely unleashed upon a fellow Democratic nominee.

                It would be naive to ignore the partial validity of reactions to her campaign, in how it has helped incite these extreme feelings of marked disbelief and fundamental horror in people both on Obama's side and even from some Edwards and Clinton supporters.  Well, and Super Delegates, as well.  Best to accept these responses and try to work through misconceptions, etc. to begin bridging gaps of understanding.  Not yelling down to them.

                In a year when no self-respecting Democrat would imagine letting a third, disastrous term of GWB get a free pass, we are all anxious to make this Presidential run be the strongest it can be against the garbage sure to be thrown out of every Republican stronghold and more.  There is hope, but there is the fear of failure being equal to doom for this country.  It's that serious of an impression, IMHO.

                So, essentially pointing the middle finger at folks here and telling them to calm the fuck down (not my tone, just going with what I read in the diary) on the same, emotional day when Obama won the pledged delegate count, is just not a presentation choice that will be conducive to fomenting a feeling of reconciliation with Sen. Clinton or her campaign.

                Sure, Sen. Clinton's a Democrat.  And, a DLC leader.  And, a former First Lady.  And, many other things.  I've never liked her much as a representative, for many of the reasons she's exemplified during this nomination run, actually.  Still, I voted for her twice in the GEs for NY-Sen, because she was much better than the Republican nominees.  That doesn't mean I think she's swell, overall, though.

                But, see - I've lived with her representing my state for a bit, so maybe that's why nothing thus far has been much of a surprise to me.  Nothing she's done is out of her character, I feel.  It's just part of her overall package.

                Apparently, some folks out of the 150K+ registered at DKos weren't used to how Sen. Clinton operates politically, though.  They need to calm down, and have been for weeks, actually.

                Suddenly, this diary is a new fuel for their frustration and resentment, rather than offering a lozenge or cup of tea to get them in a thoughtful, soothing mood.

                Frankly, my worst arguments all year have been with fellow Obama supporters, challenging them to calm down with respect to demonization of Sen.,Clinton beyond reason.  But, given this diary's presentation, the reaction is truly what I expected to see.  It's not helping.

                by wader on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:00:37 AM PDT

                •  I definitely disagree with some of your words

                  but I appreciate the reply. We agree on most of what you said and I see where you're coming from.

                  by Lauren S on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:47:31 AM PDT

      •  This is an insult post. Any recs should be tr'd.

        by Dcoronata on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:47:28 AM PDT

  •  I'm an Obama supporter

    If you think that he's that much more "progressive" than Hillary then you're fooling yourself.

    by Lauren S on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:04:41 PM PDT

    •  Obama voted to ban land mines.

      Hillary voted against banning land mines.

      He's more progressive than she.

      by Rex Manning on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:53:31 PM PDT

      •  Yes, one vote defines a career.

        That's very sensible.  

        by Lauren S on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:44:45 AM PDT

        •  It defines a person.

          Are we talking about careers or people?

          We're talking about people and any person who would vote against banning land mines cannot be progressive.   Voting that way is monstrous.

          Someone who voted for banning land mines was voting for positive change to improve the condition of humanity.

          Get it?

          by Rex Manning on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:56:32 AM PDT

          •  Where is the text of the legislation as passed

            along with the amendments that passed?  I'm not commenting on legislation that I haven't even read the text of.

            The differences between Obama and Hillary on policy is very minor.  Sure there are some differences that are very worth noting but if you think that makes Obama a hardcore progressive then wow.

            by Lauren S on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:14:32 PM PDT

    •  Not so much on domestic issues,

      but a LOT more progressive on foreign policy.

      by MikePhoenix on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:09:51 AM PDT

      •  Not really.

        by Lauren S on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:41:21 AM PDT

        •  OH PUH-LEEZE!

          Who voted for the Iraq War and who opposed it?
          Who voted for Kyl-Lieberman?
          Who talks carelessly about "obliterating" Iran?
          Who wants to negotiate with adversaries and who opposes dialog and indicates eagerness to use military force at the slightest provocation?
          Also, see the land mines comment on this thread.

          CASE FUCKING CLOSED!!

          by MikePhoenix on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:48:44 AM PDT

•  I would love to agree with you…

  In Senator Clinton's Kentucky speech I saw a strategy that was false and shallow. Her numbers for the popular vote, excluding caucuses, including Florida and Michigan (where Sen. Obama got 0 votes becuse he was not on the ballot and write-ins were dumped).

  Her strategy is to delegitimize Senator Obama's victory. It's cynical, petty and justifiably angers many people on the site.

  by Culebrito Blanco on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:52:42 PM PDT

  •  Obama was not on the ballot

    because he took his own name of the ballot. Why is Clinton to blame for that? In any case, each campaign uses the metrics most favorable to itself. Nothing new there.

    by Wufacta on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:55:11 PM PDT

    •  The party asked the candidates to take their

      names off the ballot, and in the interest of party unity Senator Obama did. Senator Clinton, interested only in The Clintons, did not.

      by Blogvirgin on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:59:58 PM PDT

      •  Source?

        The party made no such request.

        The DNC played no role in the individual candidates' decisions about Michigan and had no further comment on those moves, said spokeswoman Stacie Paxton.

        by Wufacta on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:02:22 PM PDT

        •  Clinton gives the DNC the bird, basically

          true blue clinton!

          by brettjay on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:12:24 PM PDT

        •  I stand corrected. It was not a verbal

          request from the party, it was a written pledge signed by Senator Clinton.

          Full article here

          It states, "I, (name), Democratic candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential primary election or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina."

          I suppose it depends upon the meaning of the word "participate".  

          by Blogvirgin on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:15:35 PM PDT

          •  Or perhaps, the meaning of the word "Democratic".

            by UntimelyRippd on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:20:55 PM PDT

          •  Certainly, you can interpret it that way

            But what is more clearly to "campaign or participate", keeping one's name or the ballot, or actually spending money on ads?

            "Although the Democrats weren't able to earn delegates in Michigan or Florida, because the states scheduled early primaries without the national party's blessing, the hopefuls still spent nearly $3.4 million in those states. Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida—more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state."

            Link

            by Wufacta on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:03:18 AM PDT

            •  There is an excellent diary up now

              on this subject, aptly entitled Hillary's Pledge Not to Particpate.  It is excellent, with definitions, the fact that Hillary is a lawyer etc.  You may want to review it Wufacta.

              by Blogvirgin on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:25:22 AM PDT

            •  claiming victory and votes IS PARTICIPATING

              by JLFinch on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:52:07 AM PDT

            •  Linking to that is disingenuous at best.

              I'd suppose you know that the money "spent in Florida" was a nationwide ad buy, and that the stations involved said they couldn't remove Florida from the package when his campaign requested that they do so. Regardless of possible effects in Florida, such ad buys were necessary for Obama in the runup to Super Tuesday, because he couldn't be everywhere at once and he trailed Clinton in name recognition.

              This is regardless of my feelings on whether the results of the contests should be included in the final tally or not.

              by Osaka on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:15:48 AM PDT

          •  It depends what the meaning of "is" is

            As in she IS not participating because she is not reaping the benefits of the illicit primaries, she's only employing the debating point to demonstrate that she's an opportunistic two-faced politician who just as soon would see her party lose.

            by Ohiobama on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:18:37 AM PDT

        •  DNC asked candidates to remove

          their names from Michigan's ballot according to Garry Shay, superdelegate from California and member of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee.

          "There’s the fact that Hillary Clinton’s name and the uncommitted slate was the only thing that was on the ballot in Michigan because the Democratic National Committee asked the ... candidates to withdraw their names from the ballot. So, here you have the institution itself asking people to pull their names off the ballot."

          Source:

          All the Democratic candidates signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. Since they pledged not ‘to participate’, Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot in Michigan and tried to take their names off the ballot in Florida, but it was too late to do so in Florida.

          Clinton didn’t comply with the pledge and kept her name on the ballot. She insists that it was Obama’s and Edward’s ‘choice’ to take their names off, but in reality, they did so in keeping with the pledge. She conveniently does not talk about her pledge violation.

          by Jezreel on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:26:14 PM PDT

          •  This is a quote

            from a person on the Rules & Bylaws committee this month. Do you have an original source in the form of a signed letter, a statement from the DNC or Senator Clinton, or a news report from last year that indicates how they asked the candidates to withdraw their names from the ballot? None of the news reports mention it at the time.

            Also, Mr. Shay gets his facts wrong, since Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel were on the ballot as well.

            Regarding the Four State Pledge, Dodd signed it as well (he was the first to sign it) and didn't seem to think it required removing his name from the ballot in Michigan. In fact, it seems like he was the only one taking a principled stand.

            Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.

            Link

            Candidates who remain on the Michigan ballot are Clinton, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and (not by his own choosing) Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. A person close to the Dodd campaign said the push to make Clinton look bad in Iowa and the feeling of being played "like a political pawn" were items discussed by the campaign. But, standing on principle isn't always a comfortable position.

            "The campaign did what it thought was right," the source said. "The hope is, of course, that since we were the first to sign the pledge letter and that because we have been so adamant in support of the first states -- especially Iowa -- that those who caucus and vote in the early states will know we support them and their place in the process."

            To further drive home their support of Iowa being first, the Dodd campaign is planning several multi-day trips by the senator to the state. Another campaign staff person has estimated that Dodd will be on the ground in Iowa more than 20 days each month between now and caucus night.

            Link

            by Wufacta on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:55:39 PM PDT

            •  It doesn't matter.

              That is not the issue at hand. The issue is that Hillary Clinton is now wanting a do-over and wanting the Michigan and Florida delegates seated after her own people were the ones who disenfranchised them by moving their primaries up.

              by Eternal Hope on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:59:23 PM PDT

              •  it doesn't matter why his name was not on the

                ballot.

                What matters is - his name was not on the ballot, and you can't claim "victory" in an election when your opponent's name is not even on the ballot - unless you are Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro.

                by JLFinch on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:43:20 AM PDT

                •  So

                  If John Kerry had taken his name off the ballot in Ohio in October 2004, could he have said the entire election was invalid because his name wasn't on the ballot?

                  by Wufacta on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:58:58 AM PDT

                  •  Big difference:

                    Michigan and Florida chose to break the rules. They have to suffer the consequence of not getting their delegates seated. If John Kerry had pulled his name off the ballot, it's not like the votes would not have counted, because it was not like Ohio had committed an offense that warranted that sort of punishment.

                    by Eternal Hope on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:05:01 AM PDT

                  •  If the election was held without his name on

                    the ballot, yes. But that makes no sense. You're comparing a primary where all races are held according to a calendar and every state has different rules to a general election where everything happens on the same day according to one standard.

                    It's a patently absurd analogy.

                    For Kerry to have done such a thing would not have been sanctioned by the DNC or by anyone.

                    by Last Years Man on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:09:00 AM PDT

                  •  you are finally understanding the concept

                    by JLFinch on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:53:41 AM PDT

                    •  So what's to stop any candidate

                      who is going to lose from withdrawing from the ballot and continually invalidating elections until he or she wins?

                      by Wufacta on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:25:16 AM PDT

                      •  nothing

                        except the law in Florida which says that you cannot remove your name from the ballot unless you can certify that you cannot legally be on the ballot in any other state

                        by JLFinch on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:12:31 PM PDT

                      •  and because Hillary is losing now

                        she could withdraw from the remaining ballots

                        by JLFinch on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:13:09 PM PDT

            •  Mr. Shay

              is a member of the Rules Committee. His committee established the rules that sanctioned  Michigan and Florida. If he says that his committee asked the candidates to withdraw their names, I, for one, will take his word for it. I certainly would give more credence to what he says than to a news article since he participated in debate leading to the decision.

              There are some news reports stating that Dodd and others tried to remove their names from the Michigan ballot but it was too late.

              I think you may want to consider that the better question is why other members of the DNC leadership have not been more assertive in clarifying the facts or for that matter correcting Mrs. Clinton when she arbitrarily moves the goalposts.

              by Jezreel on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:26:11 AM PDT

            •  I'll take a named source from the Rules Committee

              over your unnamed sources any day.

              by D Wreck on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:28:18 PM PDT

          •  One small correction about FL

            They did not take their names off the ballot here because to do so under FL election laws, they would then have to drop out of the presidential race altogether.

            by evora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:32:41 AM PDT

    •  Because

      she should have taken her name off too.

      by NoisyWithdrawal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:00:26 PM PDT

      •  Why?

        by Wufacta on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:02:42 PM PDT

        •  Because

          she said the vote wouldn't count. The only reason why she left her name on was to pull this kind of shit.

          by NoisyWithdrawal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:03:51 PM PDT

          •  The only reason

            she said the vote wouldn't count is cause if she had said anything else it would have pissed off Iowa and New Hampshire and screwed her campaign in those states.

            There was no requirement to take the name off the ballot. All the candidates should have left their names on the ballot so the people of Michigan could vote. Either that, or they should have taken their names off the ballot in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina as well.

            by Wufacta on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:05:46 PM PDT

            •  She said the vote wouldn't count

              because that was the ruling by the DNC.

              by NoisyWithdrawal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:07:40 PM PDT

              •  Nope

                It was because if she'd defended Michigan, Bill Gardner & the New Hampshire machine would have been all over her.

                by Wufacta on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:08:39 PM PDT

                •  She can't have it both ways

                  If she wanted Michigan to count, she should have said so earlier and taken her loss in New Hampshire.

                  by NoisyWithdrawal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:10:37 PM PDT

                  •  Haha

                    That's a good one! Yes, I suppose a "principled" politican would have done that. Then again, Obama did not do that either, did he?

                    by Wufacta on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:16:40 PM PDT

                    •  He followed the rules

                      That's principled enough for me.

                      by NoisyWithdrawal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:20:07 PM PDT

                      •  The rules weren't principled to begin with

                        and no, he didn't follow the rules:

                        Because Michigan’s Jan. 15 primary violates Democratic National Committee rules, Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards withdrew from the state’s race, leaving Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the party’s only major candidate on the ballot. (Mrs. Clinton has pledged not to campaign here.) But a last-minute campaign by supporters of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama urges voters to vote "uncommitted" to help them gain momentum and to deal a setback to Mrs. Clinton.

                        Representative John Conyers Jr. and his wife, Monica Conyers, a Detroit city councilwoman, Democrats who support Mr. Obama, began running radio commercials on Wednesday telling people to vote uncommitted. Several groups, Michiganders for Obama, Michigan for Edwards and the newly formed Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters, have been campaigning door-to-door, on the phone and at rallies, spreading the uncommitted message.

                        Link

                        by Wufacta on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:24:43 PM PDT

                        •  It wasn't the campaign that did that.

                          It was supporters acting on their own.

                          by Eternal Hope on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:27:12 PM PDT

                          •  riiight...

                            How did they get the signs at their rallies then? How did they get the right to represent the campaign by going door-to-door?

                            What's the definition of campaigning then?

                            by Wufacta on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:33:19 PM PDT

                            •  Anybody can get signs from Hillary or Obama.

                              That does not prove jack shit.

                              by Eternal Hope on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:34:18 PM PDT

                              •  How did they get the right to represent

                                the campaign by going door-to-door? And what happened to the $130,000 the Obama campaign spent in the state?

                                by Wufacta on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:07:57 AM PDT

                                •  Look:

                                  I can go door to door for Obama as soon as the morning breaks. I can organize others to do so as well. I don't need their special permission to do so.

                                  And what happened to the $130,000 the Obama campaign spent in the state?

                                  You tell me. You're the one making that claim.

                                  by Eternal Hope on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:09:44 AM PDT

                                  •  See discussion above. There is a link.

                                    by Wufacta on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:12:48 AM PDT

                                    •  Well, when did Obama spend that money?

                                      Assuming he spent it before the pledge was signed, he did nothing wrong as far as I'm concerned.

                                      by Eternal Hope on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:15:06 AM PDT

                                    •  She went there and put up a charade

                                      when BO was campaigning elsewhere. What the heck are you talking about??
                                      A few campaign signs and spending by some outside PAC working to create a balance once they knew Hillary would pull her shenanigans....some deluded idiot would swallow your crap without batting an eye and thinking for a minute.

                                      by soms on Wed May