I reject the notion that my political preferences should in any way be dictated by arcane rules put into place by a handful of white men working behind closed doors for reasons of their own that have nothing to do with good government or democracy.

I reject the notion that I have to support a specific party. Ours is not a parliamentary system.

Bottom line for me is, I can't deal with the tactics HRC has used. I simply can't vote for her. It's a reverse of what you're speaking to, but the issue is the same. I simply will not prioritize DNC rules over my ethics.

Posted at March 22, 2008 3:02 PM in response to Democratic Deserters

That's what McCain did when the NYT piece came out. The very next morning he took questions. And then he did it again, for an even longer period, for all followups. That's what BO should have done from the very start.

Fire the fool who advised him to sit on it for months and months, because now it's starting to merge with the Wright story. Whether this sit down buries the Rezko story or not, BO has now got a "is he being fully candid this time?" issue. Because of the way he handled Rezko.

Just stinks to all heck, own goals like this.

Posted at March 16, 2008 11:35 AM in response to That Rezko Thing. Done. The End.

Ask for revote in Mich, and for FLA to be seated as is.

He loses a few pledged votes in FLA, gets it all back and more from superdelegates. Ratchets up his leadership quotient a fair bit also. Reinforces the "he's not a run of the mill pol" meme.

FLA is looking terrible for a re-vote, there's too much potential for crap there. MICH legislature seems much more mature about this.

State all the reasons why you're doing this, make sure folks don't miss the fact that you're handing HRC a huge win for the sake of the party's chances in Nov. BO is good enough that he can make the case without being hamfisted.

It's high stakes and could backfire badly, but it has bigger upside than the conventional route imho.

Posted at March 14, 2008 12:43 PM in response to Obama should push hard for re-votes

Absolutely agree.

But the problem is, Obama will get the same treatment. You do understand, they don't hate the Democrats because they hate Hillary, they turned Hillary into an effigy because they hate Democrats.

This notion that Hillary will invite hyperpartisanship, while Obama won't, is just insupportable given the record. See Max Cleland.

Any chance Obama might have had of working with Repubs died when the DP machine used antiwar grassroots money to kill Lincoln Chaffee. Go track Collins' and Snowe's voting patterns after that insane episode; moderate Republicans do not trust the Democrats anymore.

Posted at March 13, 2008 12:37 PM in response to Don't like the divisive tone being instigated now? Ready for another 16 years of it?

Someone please remind me why the Democratic Party has nominating rules at all.

Am I the only person thinking that there might be more than a few Americans who think a party that can't even nominate a candidate without all this nonsense is non functional and should not be handed power?

Because on the other side they're seeing that a whole lot of folks who hate McCain are willing to work with him to accomplish things. On this side, well it turns out everyone on this side is a racist or a misogynyst.

Posted at March 13, 2008 12:32 PM in response to Rendell: Isn't Popular Vote As Important As Pledged Del Count?

Olbermann is right to call her out.

But he's wrong in not calling BO out also.

Personally I find BO's covert support of cognitive bias against women ("getting dramatic...") far more insidious and dangerous than the Clinton camp's almost shtick over the top racism.

HRC camp tactics = KKK, but BO camp's tactics = whit bosses giving black workers bad performance reviews without any conscious awareness that they're being biased.

Posted at March 13, 2008 12:18 PM in response to Olbermann Special Comment on Ferraro (Ouch!)

Driving me freakin crazy. This was supposed to be the election where it's good feelings from beginning to end, an election all about purpose and determination and unity. Instead I'm seeing more venom and BS than I've ever seen before.

Shame on those who are amplifying the Scarborough et al nonsense. Have you forgotten that stuff like this is the reason Joe and his ilk are to be despised, rejected, and driven out of power?

But, this might make things easy for me. I'm torn between McCain and Obama. I'll give Cindy a mulligan on her cheapshot. But if McCain tries to use this quote, he's lost my vote as well as my respect.

Posted at February 19, 2008 10:41 PM in response to Joe Scarborough picking on Michelle Obama

There are no direct quotes from McCain about troops and Rumsfeld pre-2006.

But it was reported in inside-the-beltway media in late 2004 that McCain was starting to mutter about not enough troops and a failing strategy, and that fellow Repubs were not amused.

McCain went public only in mid 2006. By then, Fred Kagan had proposed more troops, and labeled it the "Surge." This term was picked up in Baker Hamilton or ISG, one of those.

So it's a hard argument for McCain to make, even though it would appear that he did in fact call for more troops in 2004. Also, Republicans hate McCain so much there's a ton of stuff out there arguing McCain had nothing to do with the Surge, and that it's all Fred Kagan and other Bushbot wingnuts who should get credit. All the usual outlets have hammered this point in already, Limbaugh/Fox viewers do not link McCain to the Surge.

I was also for Mac in 2000.

Posted at February 19, 2008 10:07 PM in response to McCain Wins Wisconsin; Immediately Trains Fire On Obama's "Empty Call For Change"

I agree, McCain is not attacking rhetoric, he's setting up for a declaration that the rhetoric is false.

Step 1, demand specifics under the assumption that Obama's specific tilt left since he's still in the primary stage.

Step 2, highlight the specifics produced to argue this isn't change, it's a return to pure Dem party politics.

I really don't think McCain's advisors are stupid enough to attack someone for empty slogans when McCain is all about the "I will not wave the white flag of surrender". I mean hope is at least still popular, the war that's behind McCain's slogan rather less so.

Posted at February 19, 2008 9:56 PM in response to McCain Wins Wisconsin; Immediately Trains Fire On Obama's "Empty Call For Change"

As I recall, Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." And that's all he did. Talk is pretty much all Reagan did. That's what leaders do. They talk, and when they're inspirational and visionary, others follow and do the manual work.

I mean we don't remember how many French knights Henry V personally killed on St Crispin's Day, we remember the speech he gave that inspired 300 starving, diarrhetic Welshmen to stand their ground.

Anyway I just wanted to say idiots like this guy are giving conservatism a bad name. I'm a TRUE conservative. Bush does not represent me. Tom Coburn does not represent me. Or Limbaugh. These guys are rightwing reactionaries.

It's because I'm a conservative that I am drawn to Obama. Someone needs to rescue conservatism from the wingnuts and Obama is the only person proposing to do it. And I just want to tell HRC, Matthews, the rest, that it's Obama's rhetoric, by which he expresses his ideas and vision, that's drawing me to him. Not his resume. Not bills with his name on them.

Posted at February 19, 2008 9:34 PM in response to Conservative Visitors at TPM -- Welcome!