Harold, we will start calling you "Baghdad Bob." That sound 'bout right?

Sounds a mite silly, but whatever. I wonder if the Clinton campaign will be pushing this same terminology when Obama takes the lead in superdelegates?

Like what the definition of "is" is, I guess.

Pathetic.

Ugh.
I hate this kind of semantic game. This is the Clinton team equivalent of calling the estate tax the death tax. Put a different name on it and perhaps it won't stink so bad? The party calls them super delegates so that is what they are. Calling them automatic does not make the process democratic. What do you think the Clinton campaign would try and call them if the positions were reversed and Obama had more super delegates and fewer pledged delegates.

I think we all need to take a breath and think about things clearly here. Those Democrats who oppose the electoral college should oppose it regardless of the outcome of elections. The winner of the popular vote should become the President. Period. If it is a Republican, Democrats need to work on their message so as to win the popular vote. If it is Democrat, Republicans will have to retool their message. The argument against the electoral college is that it is not democratic. I think the same argument can and should be made about the super delegates. How can we tell people their votes matter when the system is set up to protect against the popular vote?

Now mind you, I am an Obama supporter so you may think this is just the flip side of the Clinton argument. But I actually believe that once the momentum shifts, the super delegates will shift to Obama as well. However, even given that result I am DEEPLY disturbed by this process whereby the super delegates get more power than the average voter. If the popular vote is Hillary's she should win the nomination. If it is Obama's- he should. If as Democrats we do not stand up for the idea of one person one vote in the primaries- how can we stand up to the dirty tricks of the Republican machine in the general?

The only problem is that there is nothing "automatic" about those delegates. They can change their mind at any time and switch.

Word to the Clinton Camp: Spend more time making you candidate more personable and less time trying to "spin" words, facts, news, events, position, responsibility, ect.

Automatic by virtue of their position? Like Chris Rae, 21 year old head of the Marquette University College Democrats, who by virtue of that illustrious position is "automatically" entitled to have his vote matter about 100,000 more than mine will?

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=716581

Can we call HRC "New Coke"?

HRC now wants us all to learn Newspeak. How about we call them "Senior Party Affiliates"? At least it's more accurate.

I mourn for our country. The Clintons, should they lose, will not go gracefully into the night, that much is clear.

I realize this is a little off-topic but can someone explain to me the percents on the intrade democratic nomination graph on the right? At the moment is says:

Obama 72.3%
Clinton 29.9%
Gore 1.2%
Edwards 0.2%

Which gives a total of 103.6%

Seems like a pretty straightforward calculation to me.

This from Wikipedia's entry on "Orwellianism".

"The political manipulation of language, by obfuscation, e.g. WAR IS PEACE. Using language to obfuscate meaning or to reduce and eliminate ideas and their meanings that are deemed dangerous to its authority."

Having said that, Dave Thornton is right. If one candidate gets a good lead in pledged delegates the superdelegates will fall in line behind them.

...the phrase "super-delegates" implies that "they have super-powers or super influence when they don't,"

For an encore, Harold Ickes then went on to prove that black was white and gets himself killed at the next crosswalk.

(my apologies to the late Douglas Adams)

I agree with the above. This is stupid! stupid! stuped!

It reminds me of the "Clean Air" Initiative tripe the Bushes alwaus usedi

VOTER SUPPRESSION ENFORCERS

Oh please.

You know what enforces voter suppression?

CAUCUSES enforce voter suppression. Why do you think that Obama always wins big in caucuses and fails to do so in actual elections, unless he has a far disproportionate number of his core African-American support in the given state?

It's simple: caucuses serve as a means of keeping the average voter who would feel able and comfortable with a secret vote in a familiar polling booth out of the voting process. If you're young and have free time on your hands and aren't disabled in anyway -- if you're one of Obama's privileged latte sippers who so desperately needs his message of hope and comfort -- then you're infinitely more likely to show up than if you have two jobs, are elderly, disabled, or just aren't comfortable with the bizarre and intimidating process called a caucus.

Holy crap. Is this 1984?! I have to admit, this is entertaining.

I would bet that if you capture Harold Ickes like they did in the old Scooby Doo cartoons and take his mask off, he would be none other than Frank Luntz.

This is good old-fashion GOP wordsmithing.

http://americancrackpot.blogspot.com/2005/02/propaganda-playbook.html

Dear Hillary,

So. The Democrats buckle again. They just passed telecom immunity. It's just the lastest capitulation by a party that was specifically elected in '06 to stand up to Bush. Kissing Bush's ass has proved so popular that Congress' approval rating now stands at 11%.

You, Hillary, are closely identified with this craven wing of the Democratic party. In fact, you were the only Senator who failed to show up for the immunity vote.

But the vast majority of Democrats want to see the Bush administration held responsible for its crimes. Ironically, we seem to be in the middle of a presidential primary where niceness is at a premium. Barack Obama has successfully branded himself as the "positive" candidate - and you and your campaign have been left to mimic his wide smile and vague rhetoric. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it is not often a successful strategy.

Why not chnage the dynamics of this campaign and come out aggressively in favor of prosecuting the crimes of the Bush administration?

I, personally, as a voting Democrat, want to see this administration held accountable for its crimes. I do not want to see them all swept under the rug in the hoopla surrounding the election of our first black president. A president whose skin-tone alone is supposed to rectify all that has gone before him.

George Bush lied us into a devastating war. He spies on us illegally. He tortures prisoners. He condoned the sexual humiliation of prisoners. He funnelled billions of dollars to his friends in the oil industry. The list of his crimes goes on and on. The American people - and most especially members of the Democratic Party - want to see this criminality punished. Since Mr. Obama seems to have chosen the path of concilliation, this seems to be the perfect moment for you to become the champion of holding the Bush administration accountable.

This is your chance to turn the smiley-face campaign into a real discussion of what we stand for as Democrats. The perception is that you represent the interests of lobbyists and the powerful more than you represent the interests of regular Americans. You could change that, even at this late date, by showing that you would be a president who would prosecute the crimes of the previous administration. Mr. Obama is not well-positioned to take on the mantle of Prosecutor-In-Chief. He has staked his political reputation on getting along...with everybody.

I do not want a president who gets along with everybody. I do not want a president who gets along with criminals. I want a president who will defend the Constitution with everything she or he has got.

In the coming weeks, with their dearth of primaries, Mr. Obama's nice guy routine may start to wear thin with voters. There is also bound to be considerable disgust at the Democratic Senate's capitulation on the illegal spying bill. This is the perfect opportunity for you to capitalize on Obama's lack of specific policy proposals by spelling out exactly which crimes of the Bush administration you would investigate and prosecute.

I am an Obama supporter - but I would be willing to change my vote (my primary is not til May) if you showed courage on this issue. The idea that Democrats are just going to play nice with the most criminal administration in the history of this country galls me. I want the murders and the lies and the torture and the pay-offs at the very least investigated.

I announce here and now that I, Cheesemoose, will vote for the Democratic candidate who promises me that he or she will prosecute the Bush administration crimes to the fullest extent of the law, and encourage the legislative branch to embrace its duties to investigate the wrong-doing of the previous administration.

The choice is yours, Ms. Clinton: Accept the Cheesemoose Challenge - and possibly turn around what now seems to be a losing campaign. Or choose the triangulating path of Pelosi/Reid and of your husband during his administration (when he chose to look the other way at Bush Sr.'s criminality) and go meekly down to a well-deserved defeat.

Party rules sounds good then, BobJ.

TheGolux:

"I don't believe Obama supporters are saying the superdelegates don't have the right to go against the popular vote- they are saying it is undemocratic- which it is."

I don't believe Hillary supporters are saying that the DNC doesn't have the right to ban FL and MI's delegates--they are saying it is undemocratic--which it is.

Dear frankly0

I guess I should change my name to Pod for Obama.

Seriously this cult stuff has got to stop.
First, we're "hillary haters." Now we're "cultists." Even Krugman has got into the act. I think this -- like the "blacks vote for blacks" -- really is a sign of something scary in Clintonism -- the use of epitaphs to somehow
de-humanize your enemies. It's a political trick that has had tragic consequences in the past 100
years whenever it has been applied.

To dehumanize suporters like me -- in my case a middle-age life long democrat who has been around more than a few blocks -- is out of line.
Let's talk about this bizarre tack in Clintonism.
Do you really believe that not to sign up for Clintonism means someone is mentally unbalanced?

another reader.

Hmm. It may well be the case in the general election that "some people vote against her because of what her husband did". That's why many Obama supporters think he's the best man to beat McCain. A lot of non-Democratic voters do not like Hillary or her husband.

In the Democratic primaries though the voters tend to be people who liked Bill Clinton. I don't think too many potential Hillary votes were lost because of Bill (although to be fair - must I...? - there probably are some who didn't like his behavior).

People are buying the whole 35 years experience nonsense which is kind of annoying. Tim Noah wrote about it in Slate - " Let's be clear. If you're a Democrat, experience isn't on this year's menu. The most experienced among the major candidates seeking the Democratic nomination were Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. They have now dropped out. The remaining major candidates—Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, and former Sen. John Edwards.—all lack lengthy records in government.

..Oh, please. Thirty-five years takes you back to 1973, half of which Hillary spent in law school, for crying out loud."

Now, judgement... That's a different story!

scotty59

"It may well be the case in the general election that "some people vote against her because of what her husband did". That's why many Obama supporters think he's the best man to beat McCain."

I think you've proven my point. In some Obama supporters' twisted logic, they vote against Hillary because in the general election some people might vote against Hillary because of what her husband did. I'm voting on my principles, not on the fickle issue of electability. I think plenty of Obama supporters are voting on principles, just not the ones who argue this point.

As far as the experience issue, I've looked at her 35 years and while I don't count all of them in my assessment, I still think her experience far outweighs Obama's. Why do you assume that Hillary supporters take every word she says at face value? She is a politician, just like Barack, picking and choosing words to her advantage. Most Hillary supporters are well aware of this. Not so sure about Obama supporters...

another reader

I thought my rapier-like analysis was going to bring you to your knees...

Not sure I've proven your point. The question of electability I'm sure comes second to the main positive arguments that both "sides" hold. I brought it up in response to your argument that Bill takes away as much as he brings to Hillary. I still think a lot of people give her credit for what the "Clinton's" did back in the 90s. This is the first time that this scenario has ever happened and I don't think some people have thought it through.

I think Noah's right. It's a wash as far as experience goes. He's been an elected politician longer than she has; she's older and been around a little longer.

Now, as an Arlington, Virginia, effete middle aged guy who's 20 pounds overweight, it's time for my mid-afternoon skinny latte... (And yes, I've already voted..)

By the way, did anyone see Chuck Todd a little earlier? He's "nervous" that the polls in VA might be over-polling Obama because of the Bradley/Wilder effect. Wilder was governor 18 years ago! This is a different state now, with different demographics and a different candidate. I really hope his 'fears" are unfounded.

Harold Ickes as the new Baghdad Bob - I am still laughing.

Clinton ought to focus on winning in Texas and Ohio, rather than allowing her staff to dream up new Orwellian phrases for campaigning. We've had enough of Bush Orwellianism, and this certainly doesn't help her make the case that she is the agent of change. It sounds like more of the same to me.

More textbook tinkering from the textbook campaign.

Despite all the caterwauling about Orwellian language, "superdelegate" is the fiction and "automatic" is the fact, per the rules of the convention.

Contra Greg, "the fact that these folks are super-delegates automatically" is not a fact. They become delegates automatically, with no more powers than other delegates.

In fact, their seats are worth somewhat less, as they are not subject to replacement by alternates in event of their absence.

"Superdelegate" is a handy colloquialism that has grown up around the decades-old nominating process controversy. It's not going away, but "automatic" at least has basis in rule (as short for the functionally equivalent "unpledged party leaders and elected official" clause of rule 9.A.

Despite all the caterwauling about Orwellian language, "superdelegate" is the fiction and "automatic" is the fact, per the rules of the convention.

Contra Greg, "the fact that these folks are super-delegates automatically" is not a fact. They become delegates automatically, with no more powers than other delegates.

In fact, their seats are worth somewhat less, as they are not subject to replacement by alternates in event of their absence.

"Superdelegate" is a handy colloquialism that has grown up around the decades-old nominating process controversy. It's not going away, but "automatic" at least has basis in rule (as short for the functionally equivalent "unpledged party leaders and elected official" clause of rule 9.A.

How about just, "Automatons?"

"War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength." George Orwell, 1984

2008:
Race bating is Truth
Super delegates are Democracy
Hillary Clinton is Victory

Petey2 -- I've seen that plane before. Where was it ... in a Twilight Zone rerun?

I've seen George Bush step off that plane and into the White House.

I know what that plane means.

Calling them Automatic Delegates suggests that they should automatically vote for Hillary, doesn't it? In fact, they should be called "Spoils Candidates" because they will be working hard to extract favors in exchange for their votes. Institutionalized vote-buying, no more, no less, and absent some big changes as good an argument as any for a third party no matter who wins the nomination..

Speaking of superdelegate strategies, and of course the John Lewis endorsement of Obama, is anyone here the least bit concerned about what I think the real story is here; the fact that Jesse Jackson Jr., Obama's campaign cochairman, is targeting Hillary CBC supporters and warning them of the pitfalls of opposing the "first black"? Is publicly threatening Black Caucus members who support Hillary with primaries if they don't fall in line consistent with a candidate who espouses his desire to transcend race? AND would Senator Obama, given his strong desire to change politics, and of course Washington, condemn these classic LBJ style armtwisting actions as the politics of fear and division?

From the NYT Article:
One black supporter of Clinton, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, said he remains committed to her. "There's nothing going on right now that would cause me to" change, he said.

He said any suggestion that elected leaders should follow their voters "raises the age old political question. Are we elected to monitor where our constituents are ... or are we to use our best judgment to do what's in the best interests of our constituents."

In an interview, Cleaver offered a glimpse of private conversations.

He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate. ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

"I told him I'd think about it," Cleaver concluded.

Jackson, an Obama supporter, confirmed the conversation, and said the dilemma may pose a career risk for some black politicians. "Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position" in the future, he added.