Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 01, 2008

All The Way down

In a huge blow to Hillary's hopes, such as they are, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee has now voted in favor of a compromise measure for Michigan, giving 69 pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton and 59 to Barack Obama at a half-vote each.

Why this mess? Why not simply stick to the Rules?

Some people would be outraged, but the game would be over.

Now Clinton will go all the way to the convention. The party will split even more and probably even lose the presidential election. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Via Atrios today's talk show "bobbleheads:

ABC's "This Week" — Terry McAuliffe, campaign chairman for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

CBS' "Face the Nation" — Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.; Gov. Ed Rendell, D-Pa.; Mandy Grunwald, Clinton campaign adviser.

NBC's "Meet the Press" — Scott McClellan, former White House press secretary; former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.; Harold Ickes, Clinton campaign adviser.

CNN's "Late Edition" — Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Bill Nelson, D-Fla.; Gov. Mark Sanford, R-S.C.; former Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich.; Harold Ickes, Clinton campaign adviser; Democratic strategists Jamal Simmons and Hilary Rosen; Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez.

"Fox News Sunday" — Howard Wolfson, Clinton campaign adviser; former Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich.; Brendan Sullivan, director of the children's sports program Headfirst.

Where are the Obama surrogats?

Posted by b on June 1, 2008 at 13:44 UTC | Permalink


Here in MA Hillary won big time, however all of our Super, Super Delegates, i.e. Kerry, Kennedy, Patrick all went for Obama.

If the Super delegates and rules committee are going to decide the election, why did we bother to vote?

Posted by: mlhm5 | Jun 1 2008 14:36 utc | 1

It's all about ratings. We must have a contest every minute. Better than American idol for now, I suppose.

I can't find a link but last night on TPM there was a "Field Poll" that suggested that if California was to vote again the split would be 51% Obama to 38% Clinton. fwiw.

We've gotten to know her anyway.

Posted by: beq | Jun 1 2008 14:42 utc | 2

this is probably one of the best ever examples of how rules & sensibilities change when a Black comes into the picture. Its a truly disgusting sight to watch. No claim or demand by Hilary is too illegitimate, sexist, racist, indecent, ridiculous or hypocritical to be given less than full consideration, and re-framed accordingly.

and its likely Obama's people (White & Black) are too disgusted to go on the Sunday talk shows where they will inevitably be used as props to legitimize this farce. And why would they want to participate in a contest to determine who can most effectively divide the party.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 1 2008 15:22 utc | 3

At the risk of sounding really stupid, when was the FL/MI primaries supposed to be? Was it in that terrible 6 weeks of nothing before the PA primary? If so, what did FL/MI gain by moving up their primaries? They would have had vastly more influence if they had left well enough alone.

Posted by: Ombibilous | Jun 1 2008 15:40 utc | 4

The whole super delegate idea was non sense from the beginning. It should have been simply pledged delegates. Period. Of course, that would have still left Obama in the lead.

As for Dems losing in November, that would require either a devastatingly embarrassing revelation about Obama's past (like the Wright "scandal" to the 10th power) or a last minute coup where Obama is tossed aside for Hillary.

And even then McCain's chances are 50/50. The repubs are in trouble and they all know it.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 1 2008 15:40 utc | 5

@ mlhm5

those are the party rules. if you don't like the party vote for someone else. from what I know the republican party primaries are even more of a farce than the democratic ones. apparently in some states, whoever wins gets all the delegates.

perhaps it is time, finally to start a third party. at this point in time it really doesn't make that much difference who wins the general, very little if anything will change.

enough people have to lose their fear of republicans (or democrats) and start a grass roots campaign. we could still do it and probably should before they take the internets away.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 1 2008 15:49 utc | 6

mlhm5: Indeed. As, when all those superdelegates declared for Hillary at the beginning of the campaign. Indeed, by getting rid of them and by ruling out the whole of MI and FL, Obama's lead would've been bigger all along, and the thing would be truly over by now.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Jun 1 2008 16:20 utc | 7

The whole super delegate idea was non sense from the beginning. It should have been simply pledged delegates. Period.

I can't find the link but Josh Marshall wrote a bit about the history of the superdelegates.

Up to 1968 the convention delegates were selected in smoke-filled back rooms. That convention was a hard fought anti-war pro-war fight and the pro-war site won with VP Humphrey winning through fudged delgates despite not having taklen part in any primary.

After that debacle a comission changed the primary system to openness and committed delegates.

That again led to Carters (second) win in the 1980 convention. After he lost the party apparatus put the blame on the dirty fucking primary voters and decided to change the system to give the less weight. They invented "superdelegates" - party officials that could change things when voters simply "got it wrong". ...

Posted by: b | Jun 1 2008 16:23 utc | 8

dos@6: there ARE other parties. Cynthia McKinney, a black woman, is the green party candidate. the reason we hear nothing about her is the media, media, media. as for stupid, stupid, stupid hillary destroying the dem chance, it's not stupid, stupid, stupid if that is what hillary is trying to do. she's got her orders, and if she can't get the nomination, then she'll bring down the house on the black man's know, "pull it" like WT7.

there is absolutely no difference between Hillary and John McPain. the same company Mark Penn worked for (who had to quit the campaign after his work on a Columbia trade deal came to light) is also involved with McCain, and don't forget the ridiculous gas tax summer suspension, which Hillary picked up directly from McCain's campaign.

I am somewhat intrigued by the media blitz of Hill's minions...maybe the increasing desperation indicates there is some palpable fear that the Obomb is an unpredictable ordinance that might explode the corporate hold of the white house.

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 1 2008 16:26 utc | 9

jony_b_cool answers the question 'Where are the Obama surrogates?' in 3. The Obama campaign knows that they'll end up with enough delegates to win, and doesn't want to take part in a divisive brawl. It'll be easier to get the base of HRC voters back for the fall if they don't get down in the trenches now.

I'm frankly surprised to see this kind of post here.

Posted by: Nell | Jun 1 2008 16:41 utc | 10

mlhm5, the super delegates do not 'decide' the election. the state of mass is awarding more delegate votes to clinton as a reflection of the votes in that state. the job of superdelegates is to vote for the will of the people at the convention, all the people, not just the ones in their state (that is why they are super delegates, they represent the party, not the state).

the idea that clinton won more 'votes' is a farce considering she has to completely ignore the will of the people in all the caucus states who voted w/there presence at the caucuses. besides, back in the clinton had no problem relying on superdelegates.

Clinton advisers rejected the notion that the candidate -- and the party -- would be badly wounded in the general election if the nominee were essentially selected by a group of party insiders.

you sound like a whining loser, grow up.

b, Why this mess? Why not simply stick to the Rules?

because this is kiss and make up time. as i see it is better for the party if michigan and florida delegates can be seated at the convention, the problem is how to seat them in a way that doesn't influence the outcome. clinton knows she is not going to win, therefore whatever position she can be in to best influence her supporters to unite behind obama is what's best for the party. this will not go on til the convention imho.

it would be grossly unfair to all the voters in michigan and florida who DID NOT vote, believing their votes would not be counted, for the delegates to reflect the voter outcome of the neutered primary. the half vote is a way to present them with the appearance obama is being more than fair. the results of yesterday would not have come down in this way had it not already been a done deal.

i caught a little cspan yesterday. the vote on the proposition to give florida delegates 1/2 votes passed unanimously w/many cheers, it was a unifying image.

Posted by: annie | Jun 1 2008 16:45 utc | 11

Clinton has known that she can't win the nomination for some time. I believe she is setting herself up for a third party run in 2012. She will keep the party divided until the convention. After the convention she will remain "neutral" while her surrogates snipe at Obama. A large part of the party will never forgive her for the loss to McCain. When she realizes this she will pull a Lieberman and declare the party dominated by a small group of dirty fucking hippies and form her own party


Posted by: Sgt Dan | Jun 1 2008 17:13 utc | 12

Once again, Hillbilary owes a ton of money to herself, probably, likely, overstated, but definitely way in the red, and New York is not a community property state. unless she makes the first vote on the convention floor, and knowing the Clintons, it's going to go far beyond a first vote, (i'll even still take odds she'll win), she won't be able to con Congress into grifting her a campaign debt reprieve, bailout, whathaveyou, even though if she'd had a surplus of $Ms, campaign rules allow her to keep it, ala Gore, ala Kerry who made $10Ms.

If she didn't make that first vote, then, in all likelihood, Billbilary will divorce her to contain and isolate her debt, leaving her a bankrupt, lame duck senator on an alimony dole, and Hillary is too arrogant and privileged to survive public disgrace.
So get ready to rumble, then get ready to bend over, while Congress doles out more of your hard-earned life savings to another in a long line of government elite grifters.
It's all about the bailout! Follow the money!! These are vampire!!!

Meanwhile, HRH McCain is polishing his image, and will likely win in November. This is America, remember, land of the set-free homeless slaves. Hillary gets her bailout, Obama gets his comeuppance, (and walks away with $130M consolation prize) and we'll get a 1984-in-Spades, the way it was meant to be when HRH Ronnie nuked our Woodstock after-party.

You don't have to be a weatherman to know there's a 1000-year Reich blowing.

Posted by: Pari Milit | Jun 1 2008 17:28 utc | 13

Lizard, I know there are other parties, that is not the point. they have no chance until enough people decide to not fear the other side winning.

once you can get a few Green congressmen and a couple Libertarians and maybe even a socialist into an elected position and people see that the major parties have to work with these freaks, you can then convince others to join you. now, the common thought is that you are simply throwing your vote away.

that mindset has to be modified. you will get no help from corporate media and very little in the progressive blogosphere. the liberals have everything pinned on the black knight.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 1 2008 17:36 utc | 14

@Nell @10 - I'm frankly surprised to see this kind of post here.

Huh - why?

I have no vote in this game. What little I argue above is party unity, not taking sides, and my question jony_b_cool gave one possible answer for is one of campaign tactics.

You want my position? Here is my look from outside the U.S.

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, (Jeb Bush?) would be something that would make genuine democracy even more a joke all over the world than it is already. No way I can support that.

I agree with Krugman - Clinton is better on health care and some other domestic/economic issues. But NOTHING would ever justify to "obliterate" 70 million Iranians!

I have critizised Obama's pure neocon foreign policy speech in Chicago on this blog. He even had that disgusting "kill 'em all for humanitarian reasons" Slaughter professor on his team. I doubt that Clinton would be any better in that regard though. Domestically Obama's history shows more progressiveness than Clintons, but his election programs do not show this.

So to me it's a draw.

The first reason I gave above would have probably put me to vote for Obama - if I had a vote. But it has nothing to do with Clinton's personality or politics.

Now things are different. Obama has won several month ago. What Clinton is doing now lowers the chances of a democratic win in the presidential elections. That is inexcuseable. There will not be many Foreign Policy difference between Dems and Repubs. But those gradual differences that are there are important to the people of the world.

If Clinton goes this all the way she'll be unelectable for any public office.

Posted by: b | Jun 1 2008 18:37 utc | 15

@DoS - once you can get a few Green congressmen and a couple Libertarians and maybe even a socialist into an elected position

Bernie Sanders

Posted by: b | Jun 1 2008 18:54 utc | 16

dos: good points, and if there was time to modify mindsets so people could move past the whole "Nader put Bush in the White House" whining third party debates always raises, i would be all for it, but at this point i think i'm going to vote for McPain to hasten the domestic implosion amerika apparently needs in order to wake the fuck up.

it's like what my friend said about his drug addiction: for years and years his drinking got gradually worse, and would have slowly killed him, but then one day he smoked crack, and within months his new crack addiction got so bad friends and family intervened and forced him in treatment. now, looking back, he's glad he smoked crack because it made him hit bottom faster.

so, as a nation that mirrors the behavior of an addict, it won't be until we hit bottom that mindsets will finally be open for the paradigm shift that IS coming.

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 1 2008 19:04 utc | 17

Lizard, move away from Uncle $cam. he has said the same thing as you before and I find it really scary. What on earth makes you think that once the country hits bottom it will rebound immediately?

once entrenched, fascists, monarchists, and other unsavory types tend to stay around for awhile and it usually takes armed rebellion to chase the bastards out. even if you have a couple of firearms in your crib, you are no match for the man with his helicopters, armored personnel carriers, satellite surveillance, wiretapping, and superior weapons.

if you don't want to vote for obama, then vote for McKinney or someone from the Constitution Party as they seem to be doing well in your state.

If you wanted to vote for McCain because you thought he was the best qualified to lead us out the mess we are in I could not argue, but to vote for him because he will fvck us faster is not a very good idea in mho.


Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 1 2008 21:04 utc | 18

Well I watched the whole debacle yesterday. It was like watching a trainwreck in slow motion. The only fun was listening to Hillary's flying monkeys screaming and yelling their cat calls in the gallery. I'd say we need a Democrat in 2008 and a real independent candidate (not a repackaged Hillary)in 2012 if Barak doesn't fulfill his promises.

Now Lizard I remember way back when I was 15 or so I visited the philosophy department of the University of New Hampshire. Now that current batch of grad students were as long haired radicals as I am today but they were all wearing "George Wallace for President" buttons. When I asked why that told me "to bring on the revolution sooner!" So vote for McPain if you want to. But how do you differ from those hymn singing fundamentalists that pray everyday for the fire of hell and the apocalypse? As I frequently tell my dog, "find something constructive to do!"

But don't take me too seriously. Three years ago I started the "Pirate Party." You wore an eye patch, said "argh!" and had to memorize our campaign slogan: GRAB FOR ALL THE BOOTY YOU CAN! Initially, though our slogan sounded very Republican, we were very successful. The three waitresses in the Indian Restuarant that served us the 20 oz big ounce dark beers that inspired our venture joined immediately. This was quickly followed by the conversion of three other patrons, an off duty cop, and an unemployed beggar named Carl. But we didn't get a single delegate!

Now I half heartedly advise the College Democrats in a small New England School. But the Pirate Party got a lot more done.

And now for my completely false quote of the day: John Hagee to John McCain: "100 years of war is worth a mass!"

Posted by: Diogenes | Jun 1 2008 21:20 utc | 19

As the German communists said in very early 1930s, "First Hitler, then we come to power".

What people don't seem to realise is that USA as the monstrous superpower we knre will soon be gone. The main issue with this election is rather: Who will be in command when the fall will begin in earnest. And who do we want to lead the country and have the finger on the nuclear button when it'll become obvious not only to a few, but to the masses, that the glorious days of old will soon be over?
So, McCain will surely precipitate the end, but it won't be the prelude to a new rebirth and a magnificent future; once it's over, the US will be, at best, like another Eastern European country trying to survive the fall of communism.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Jun 1 2008 22:59 utc | 20

Did someone say: Pirate Party?

Calling askod! You've new recruits.

Seriously, two parties sux.

Posted by: beq | Jun 2 2008 0:15 utc | 21

...and for us.

Posted by: beq | Jun 2 2008 0:24 utc | 22

you got me, DoS, Uncle seeded that line of thinking here earlier, and when it comes down to marking that ballot, i doubt i'd be able to vote for a more speedy demise anyway. then, as i'm writing this, i get a phone call from an Obomb supporter telling me to vote. Is he going to bring home the troops? i ask her. You bet, she replies, the second he takes office. i asked her if she thought Israel would let him bring home the troops. He hasn't taken one cent from special interests, she replied. then she told me to read THE AUDACITY OF HOPE. i said, have a nice night, then hung up the phone.

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 2 2008 1:05 utc | 23

The Pirate Party sounds like a fine idea. But you could also start up a Rhinoceros Party -- surely a more formidable creature than the elephant or the donkey -- see
Link to ACLU

In its first incarnation, this party was quite successful, and attracted quite a few votes -- beat out the New Democratic candidate in Quebec Province, IIRC.

It has been quite successful in areas where there are large universities, like downtown Toronto. A US branch of the Canadian Rhinoceros could be quite successful.

Posted by: | Jun 2 2008 1:33 utc | 24

Above about the Rhinoceros by me, Owl.

Posted by: Owl | Jun 2 2008 1:33 utc | 25

here is a story about how silicon valley helped launch the Democrats new brand with big bucks

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 2 2008 6:01 utc | 26

let's try that one more time

[link corrected - b.]

Posted by: | Jun 2 2008 6:05 utc | 27

okay, don't know what i'm doing wrong, but the article is at Atlantic Monthly

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 2 2008 6:07 utc | 28

I saw the people screaming for "every vote to be counted" even on the boob tube here in the Happy Little Kingdom. My first thought was, where were these azzholes in 2000?.

My next thought was, what about all the people who didn't vote because they knew the votes wouldn't be counted? (a guess is -- about a million...)

Finally, why was the Dem primary held early? They had no friggin' choice! It was the Repugnants who are in charge of the state and they made the decision. The Dems could have moved their date, but they would have had to pay for it and they couldn't foot the bill...

In accordance with common decency, both the Edwards and Obama campaigns neither campaigned or were on the ballot -- count all the votes? Male bovine turds!!!

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Jun 2 2008 9:53 utc | 29

Is it over?

Is Hillary Clinton preparing for the end? Signs say yes

Well, three fresh factoids have caught our eye. First, Hillary Clinton announced this morning that she'll spend Tuesday evening in New York, the city that never sleeps and that she represents in the U.S. Senate. Not in Montana or South Dakota, where people are voting, but New York City.

The people at Larry Johnson's blog have proven they are nuts.

The current top post is Thread #3 : Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan Take On Whitey »

There is nothing, despite Johnson's promise of some damaging video that never seams to appear. Who pays this guy?

But the post linked above, which has no factual content, links at the end:

Tune in to Hannity.
Tune to Hannity to learn about the democrat's candidates? Why not directly to Karl Rove or George Bush?

Not only the comments (which you should read) but also the main postings are truely weird. Why do they try to burn themselves with such conviction? Nuts!

Posted by: b | Jun 2 2008 20:15 utc | 30

thank you for the correction, b.

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 2 2008 20:50 utc | 31

Oh, you haven't begun to see ugly, b. We're about to find out just how little we've evolved.

Posted by: beq | Jun 3 2008 1:06 utc | 32

The comments to this entry are closed.