WV was trumped, WV is watching

The Democratic Party insiders and mainstream media just screwed up...big time! The two entities joined together and decided the Democratic primary election.

Ignoring the American people and then adding insult to injury, the Democratic party chose to trump the will of the people. Day by day, little by little, the Obama campaign rolled out party insiders/superdelegates to offset any win/votes of the oppositon. The huge win in WV was the final straw for impatient insiders; The endorsement of John Edwards was presented in order to offset the WV win. It's apparent that the Democratic Party is willing to ignore important information from the WV primary; they're also willing to insult the WV people by trumping their votes through important endorsements/superdelegates. The media is more than happy to accommodate the Obama campaign by going along with the program. It looks as if the media is ready to close up shop and declare the race over. It's a sad day in America when The Democratic party brokers an election in the United States of America.

In reference to the media's involvement, this article sums it up pretty well.

Media Said To Have Already Written Off Contest In The Politico, Roger Simon writes, "If a tree falls in the forest when everybody expects it to fall, does it make a sound? Yes, says Hillary Clinton. It makes a deafening roar, says Hillary Clinton. SHE WON THE WEST VIRGINIA PRIMARY BY A KAZILLION PERCENTAGE POINTS TUESDAY NIGHT, AND THAT, SHE SAYS, HAS TO MEAN SOMETHING! Except the press doesn't think so. The press is unimpressed. This may be the first time in election history in which the press has withdrawn from a race before the candidate."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bu lletin/bulletin_080514.htm



Display:


This is as important as Mississippi (2.00 / 4)

This primary was the mirror image of Mississippi, which was covered one night and then forgotten.  Wyoming, too.  Both high-percentage Obama victories, if I recall.

Why should a small state like West Virginia merit more than one night of coverage?  28 delegates was not going to change the race perceptibly.

They had a day and a half of coverage, which was already more than some Obama wins got... and then there was bigger news.

Don't cry about West Virginia when you didn't cry about Mississippi getting horribly shafted.  Neither got shafted, they got their day in the sun.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:26:24 PM EST

Re: This is as important as Mississippi (none / 0)

West Virginia is a huge win for Clinton. Obama should take notice to say the least; the general election isn't a broker election.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:29:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its the healthcare, stupid.. (2.00 / 1)

West Virginians see that healthcare costs are stripping people of everythng they have and they DON'T TRUST OBAMA OR THE SO CALLED ELITE TO DO ANYTHING THEY CAN LIVE WITH, THEY ARE RIGHT, AND THEY ARE ANGRY.

If someone is drowning twenty feet from shore and you throw them a ten foot rope, THEY STILL DROWN.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is as important as Mississippi (none / 0)

Nice post Dracomicron.

Every state counts, and WV has had its say.  

Now, onward.


You haven't seen impatient until you've seen a monkey waiting for a donut.
by bjones on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:33:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0)

It's like somehow it's more important because it's a Clinton win near the end of the season.

Every state is getting their say.  If the Edwards endorsement was calculated, then it was a subtle hint to the news media to stay on task and not dwell on things longer than they should.

If anything, the endorsement was a jab at the media, not West Virginia.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:08:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks (none / 0)

News media to stay on task and not dwell on things longer than they should

"to stay on task" and continue to support the Obama campaign? :D


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:16:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well sure (none / 0)

I like it when the media plays Obama's tune.  Not gonna lie to you.

Don't we want a candidate that can control his or her media narrative?  Especially against McCain?


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:20:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well sure (none / 0)

uhmm....didn't we have that with Bush for a long time?

I don't want ANYONE to control the media.  They should do real news and not be controlled by one party or the other.


by colebiancardi on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:05:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is as important as Mississippi (2.00 / 3)

In fact Mississipi and west virginia have some thing more in common. Sen. Obama got about 26% of white vote in both states.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:39:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've noted that previously (none / 0)

From what I can tell, it's an educational thing.  Both states rank very low on the education meter.

It is, in fact, safe to say that low-education whites do not generally vote for Obama.  This is a challenge that he'll have to face.

I think the Clintons can help him with that after the primary.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:06:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

because those states are solid red states? (none / 0)

you think Obama is going to win Wyoming in the general?  lol.

stop discounting and start learning.


by 4justice on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:25:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

Well this is an ironic perspective given that Hillary's strategy was to run a media campaign that she hoped would convince the superdelegates to overturn the will of the people.


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:28:26 PM EST

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

Heh, I don't think Clinton was counting on media support.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

The media have been more than kind to her the past few months.


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

um, KO anyone? (none / 0)


by 4justice on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:26:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um, KO anyone? (none / 0)

Ummm... Fox News, CNN (who tried AGAIN to revive the race yesterday) anyone?


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:27:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey, they do it all the time.... (2.00 / 2)

NC deserves days of coverage...but Indiana, not a minute.

WV...well, mumble mumble, mumble.


by CoyoteCreek on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:29:17 PM EST

Re: Hey, they do it all the time.... (none / 0)

NC margin 200k+
Indiana margin 11k
McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:31:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, they do it all the time.... (1.75 / 4)

NC African American electorate 37%.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:41:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, they do it all the time.... (1.66 / 3)

What was the percentage of African Americans in Iowa when Hillary wasn't quite ready on day one?


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:04:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, they do it all the time.... (none / 0)

Troll rating me for pointing out the foolishness in your bigoted statement is juvenile.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:03:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 3)

don't sweat it - really. Obama is trying to lose Kentucky by 30 rather than 40 - or whatever the numbers are.

This will have virtually no impact on the race. Edwards can't assign his delegates to Obama. His delegates go where they want to go.

Literally - don't sweat it. This endorsement, like all endorsements, will have virtually no impact on the race.


by Little Otter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:30:30 PM EST

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

I agree that Edwards endorsement won't matter much by itself.

That being said, this nomination will come down to the superdelegates deciding this nomination. In fact, I believe they've already decided. It's a major screw up in my opinion. It will bite them in the ass come Nov.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You just keep thinking that. (2.00 / 0)

1. The Edwards endorsement gave the green light to many supers on the fence.

2. Hillary's cash inflow, however small, just dried up. The narrative for her winning is much less convincing.

3. You're right that I think Edwards in Kentucky only buys Obama about 10 points, but it is 10 points.

4. It also increases his margin in Oregon.

5. Edwards will call each of his 18 delegates and 1 superdelegate personally and request they endorse Obama. Most probably will.

6. Hillary's momentum after WV was destroyed.

7. The media narrative is now almost entirely that the race is over, except for right wing pundits who are arguing many of the same arguments expressed here.

So I'd hardly say it was unimportant. It's no Al Gore, but it's nice.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:37:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You just keep thinking that. (2.00 / 0)

Edwards can also replace his delegates at will.. so, if they don't comply, he can find someone who can.

With this endorsement, Obama wiped out any gains Hillary made and shut up the press from bloviating about her mostly symbolic victory.

Axelrod is a genius!


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You just keep thinking that. (none / 0)

Moreover, it facilitates the seating of MI and FL. With Obama now more likely to pick up Edwards' delegates in those states it becomes less likely that those results would have an dispositive impact.


by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:43:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

Read from Travis Stark's reply, which hits the nail on the head,  on down in this thread.  As usual, you have found what statement you can make that is furthest from sensible and made it proving once again that you have no clue what you are talking about.  

You're consistent.  I'll give you that.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:11:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If... (none / 0)

...Edwards would have endorsed HRC and the media put it out as the main story and ignored WV would you be just as angry??


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:33:12 PM EST

Re: If... (2.00 / 2)

I'm angry that a bunch of insiders are deciding the election. Superdelegates have decided right? Well, what's the point of voting?

Obama will not win. He can seat MI and FL once he becomes the nominee, but it's too late, they already know that Obama didn't want their votes to count.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If... (2.00 / 0)

Just stop it already. Howdy Doody would win this year as a Democrat. The GOP is in full implosion mode right now and even St. John McCain can't save them. Every poll shows both Obama and Clinton beating McCain easily. Bob Barr will only make it easier.

As for insiders deciding the election, were you complaining when Hillary racked up a 100 superdelegate lead by February 5? Of course not. What bothers you is that the primary process has played out to Obama's benefit and the superdelegates have ratified that process. Some states were never going to go to Clinton, like MS, and some never to Obama, like WV. But when you have Obama winning WI, and blowing Clinton out in caucus states and western states, and building a sizable popular vote margin (not counting the Soviet Michigan election, there is a clear winner.


by elrod on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:27:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If... (2.00 / 1)

What you're saying insults the intelligence of Michigan and Florida voters. They understand that their votes may not count because their state parties violated DNC rules. If they take out anger on elected officials, it will be the ones that cost them their say in the nomination process in the first place.


by chicagovigilante on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:31:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If... (1.00 / 1)

Give me a break.  HRC is relying on the SDs to save her shitty campaign and you're bitching about Washington insiders, elitists and all sorts of mumbo jumbo...The freakin' hypocrisy and irony of it all.


I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com
by LtWorf on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:56:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Have you no concept of irony? (2.00 / 0)

Since Hillary did not get enough pledged delegates (decided by voters), the ONLY way she can win is if insiders decide the election.

How do Hillary supporters reconcile that fact?  I await the answer...


by Seeking Cincinnatus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:04:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you no concept of irony? (2.00 / 1)

You really want an answer to that?  We reconcile that the same way you apparently reconcile the fact that your candidate did NOT get enough pledged delegates (decided by voters)--the ONLY way he can win is also IF insiders decide the election in his favor.  

Please note that IF he had been able to close this primary out the many times he was predicted to end the election, we wouldn't be having any of these discussions.  But he DIDN'T do it...and so BOTH are now dependent on the superdelegates to fill in the gap. All your candidate has managed is to be slightly ahead in the number of delegates as determined to be assigned by the Democratic party based on the primaries--but perhaps more telling is the fact that Hillary actually now has more actual votes placed in primary races this season.  Everybody has their own opinions as to what matters, and to what the superdelegates should be basing their decisions on--but please note that your candidate is just as dependent on superdelegates to win this election as Hillary is.        


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:22:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you no concept of irony? (none / 0)

He's not as dependent...


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:00:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you no concept of irony? (none / 0)

True, very true (but also somewhat dependent on the delegates from FL and MI; although regardless of how the delegates are seated, we all do know what the actual votes were)...but that's not what this poster had stated under the title of: "Have you no concept of irony?" in trying to make it appear as if ONLY Hillary was dependent on the superdelegates to get to the needed number and asking how we reconciled that.  So just like so many, it seemed Seeking Cincinnatus was trying to ignore the fact that Barack hadn't gotten to the magic number and was not able to on his own or the votes of the people either and instead present it as if Barack had achieved that goal.

So I was just trying to address that--but you're right that regardless of how many voters might support Hillary going forward, even with the huge WV win, she is more dependent on being able to obtain a higher number of superdelegate support going forward to reach the number.  I'm not denying that.  


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:24:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you no concept of irony? (none / 0)

We also all know that the farcical contests in Florida and Michigan were impacted by the voters in each state being to it would not count.  Neither state matches the trends in the rest of the states for turnout percentage.  Pretend all you want.  Everyone else saw it.  We're not blind.  Even with them counted as is, which will never happen, the McCain surrogate still loses.  

Wakey Wakey!  Have some coffee and look around at the real world.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:28:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you no concept of irony? (none / 0)

having another sip of coffee and looking around at the real world

Granted, I do not know what the voter numbers were in MI, so I can't speak to that--however, I do know that FL supposedly had a 33% higher turnout than ever before (and 21% more voters than ALL states combined prior to it), which definitely "matches the trends in the rest of the states for turnout percentage." Keep in mind that they also had a tax matter on their ballots, so there would have been interest whether they thought their Presidential candidate votes would count or not, the combination of which makes FL's primary a viable primary for all intents and purposes.  So, I don't think I'm the one pretending.  

And just for the record, I do not blame the voters in either state, or Barack or Hillary for the rules having been made what they were--I blame the DNC for coming up with such a ridiculous punishment that stripped the voters of their voices vs. punishing the leaders at the state level which is really where the punishment should be applied.  The voters had nothing to do with the change of date--they simply went and made their voices heard.  But if we want to further try to apply rules, the rules would would have Barack being stripped of any votes received in Florida because he had campaign commercials running in FL when there was not to be any such campaigning.  

Ideally, Michigan would have had a new primary so true votes could have actually been placed.  But in lieu of that (prevented in large part by Barack's camp), we're left to find some compromise for that state since his political and strategic maneuvering of removing his name from the ballot prevented a true vote from being known.  I know the argument that some people purportedly switched and voted Republican since they didn't think their votes would count in the Democratic primary--but there is no logical argument to be made for allowing any one voter to vote in two separate primaries, so all these actions taken by various people have led us to where we are now.  

Granted, I doubt anybody could have anticipated we'd be to this point in such a historic election--but it doesn't change the fact that the DNC Rules Committee was very short-sighted and I believe unjust in trying to take the people's voice/vote away--the actions of the powers to be at the national and state levels have resulted in all those voters not counting, and that is just wrong! We are supposed to be a democracy--we are the United States of America after all, not the United States MINUS two.  And Florida and Michigan are too critical to the general election.  This goes beyond Barack vs. Hillary--this speaks to the basic principles of our democracy and our rights as Americans.

P.S.  I like your user name--looks like Locke was right after all, and can't wait to see the finale eps!


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:38:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you no concept of irony? (none / 0)

The Michigan Supreme Court put the kaibash on a revote.  Barack isn't responsible for that.

Do you know how many times we've had nomination processes truncated because a nominee had already been selected before anywhere near 50 states had voted?  It is more common than all 50 states actually having a say is.  To go off about 50 states, not 48 is just not consistent with history.  That's the hole reason for all of the jockeying for position on the calendar.  Most states wind up without a say in the nomination most of the time as a matter of historical fact.  This disenfranchising argument amounts to manufactured outrage among the experienced and a hoodwinking of the inexperienced.

That Obama ad was a national buy that the vender screwed up and ran in Florida.  Barack rectified it immediately.  None of it was intentional.  Hillary agreed to the consequences for Florida and Michigan (in fact her campaign helped to decide what the punishment should be, so don't blame the DNC; Dean didn't pull the idea out of his butt and then consult nobody else).  Later she tried (and continues to try) to reneg on the agreement at a time when it would fundamentally change the landscape and strategy of the contest and she only decided to do so when she needed it.  Remember, her campaign had a hand in "disenfranchising" them in the first place.  She raised no objection at the time.  Her sudden interest in "enfranchisement" rings false as she only came by it once she needed it and, as we've covered, it's just not consistent with history to insist that all 50 states have a say or it's not legitimate.

There is a major difference between accidentally running a commercial and then taking immediate steps to correct it like Barack and on the other hand trying ti reneg on an agreement that she helped to craft, failing to honor it from the start by leaving her name on the Michigan ballot even though almost all of the others took their names off of the ballot since the agreement was to not participate (having your name of the ballot is, by definition, participating), and then having the chutzpah to try and then say that the Sadam style, no other names on the ballot, contest in Michigan should count as is.  

Let's review:  Accident immediately rectified.  Intentional betrayal of an agreement in an attempt to skew the results (a.k.a. cheating).  Not Barack's doing or Dr. Dean's doing.  Historically the disenfranchisement argument doesn't pass the sniff test.  Moving the primaries was the fault of the elected officials that were put in place BY THE VOTERS OF THOSE STATES.  Directly, the blame lies with state legislators.  Indirectly, it lies with the voters who put them there.

Lastly:  A contest with a finger on the scales is not valid.  Some people stayed home because they were told that it wouldn't count.  I know some of them personally.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you no concept of irony? (none / 0)

Did you type this tripe with a straight face?  All the SDs have to do for Obama is NOT overturn the results of the voting.  They have been more than gracious in waiting this long (as has the media) to acknowledge the obvious.  They have humored your hysterical candidate and her remaining supporters longer than it made sense to.  Get over it.  They're not deciding the race.  They waited for the voters to do that and are now just reenforcing the VOTERS' decision.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:24:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you no concept of irony? (none / 0)

(whoops, I hadn't realized typing * * around text resulted in it being bolded, I was trying to indicate action in that last comment) So I'll just say I did type my reply with a straight face!

And had I realized this condescending comment had also been from you, I probably wouldn't have added the friendlier P.S. I did to my last reply.  

IF the voting was absolutely clear, I'd agree with you--but I don't think it's clear YET.  IF the delegates tied to the elections themselves don't determine the winner--which they won't--then I believe it's perfectly reasonable to look at the popular vote for back-up...and that as opposed to the delegate numbers (which keep in mind are assigned based on formulas that are not necessarily proportional to the popular vote), is where Hillary is still very much in this battle as a truer representation of the will of the people.  

But you also state "All the SDs have to do for Obama is NOT overturn the results of the voting."  Obviously all the SDs do not agree with that sentiment, as evidenced by John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and other Mass. "elite"--who obviously didn't "reinforce their voters' decisions."  But I guess that hypocrisy is acceptable to many Obama supporters.  The thing is, there are so many gray areas in defining these various terms that it's nearly impossible to make any straightforward black-and-white (as in factual, not skin tones) statement about any aspect of this election.  

Regardless, your very biased use of adjectives such as "gracious" and "hysterical" and "humoring our candidate and ourselves" is not appreciated.  You'll note that I've not made any personally derogatory remarks regarding Obama in my comments--I was simply trying to address various aspects of this election cycle.  The fact that so many Obama supporters are so quick to personally diss such a viable candidate as Hillary and/or her supporters is one of the biggest problems to achieving the unity we'll all need if we're to win the WH.


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:58:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you no concept of irony? (none / 0)

As a whole, the voting and elected delegates won have been in Obama's favor so all the SDs need to do is, in fact, to not overturn the results of the voting.  No hypocrisy there.  I am looking at it form a national standpoint and you're saying the hypocrisy is at the state level and while I get it and don't think that is without merit, however, even if we were to apply that standard, as it stands now Barack has won 32 states to her 16.  The breakout would be even less favorable to her, so it is kind of pointless to use that argument against my original statement because no matter which standard we apply all the SDs have to do is to not undo the results of the voting.

As for popular vote, it is absolutely not a valid metric to use. To do so would be to disenfranchise all of the caucus states, which broke no rules in choosing the more cost effective and deeply intrenched in american history caucus method, in order to accommodate 2 states that did break the rules.  

Additionally, just like rules had been established for the Florida and Michigan things before Iowa even got started the same is true for the understanding that the nomination process is a contest measured in delegates; not popular vote, but delegates. It's always been the case.  For that reason Barack chose to create many small campaign offices spread across each state.  He focused on winning at a district level in order to compete for as many delegates as possible, not as many voters as possible.  Had it been about popular votes, he'd have scrapped those efforts and instead focused all of his efforts on big cities where there is high population density and history shows the demographics favor him.  

To validate popular vote now would be the same as looking at a football team that's up 21 - 10 with 3 minutes left in the game and say: "Ok we're scrapping the points earned metric in favor of a first down earned metric.  As such, that 43 yard touchdown run and that 72 yard touchdown pass won't be so helpful.  In fact, you'd have been better off not scoring the touchdowns and instead getting the 4 and 7 first downs that the yardage represents."

I know that you disagree, but as far as I am concerned Hillary has been a dishonest cheat and a McCain surrogate.  She has  cannibalized her fellow democrat which a betrayal of the party so she deserves the comments.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:03:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutely I do.... (none / 0)

and you seem to have missed the point, which was it is HILARIOUS for a Hillary supporter to whine about insiders "stealing" the election when that is what absolutely MUST happen for her to win.  It shows either a complete lack of knowledge about the process or an intentional naivety.  And not only that, but in addition to the insiders needing to "steal" the election for Clinton to win, that would also require the SD's to flip a 100+ pledged delegate deficit for it to happen.  How exactly would that fact reconcile with the logic used by the poster above?  

Notice, I mentioned nothing about the fact that Obama needs insiders to win it (He does, though they don't have to reverse the will of the pledged delegates to do it.  And as Hillary and Howard said in January, this is a delegate battle.)  

Project much?


by Seeking Cincinnatus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:12:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If... (2.00 / 0)

I know voters from either state.

They ain't mad.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If... (2.00 / 0)

Obama wins Michigan. Clinton loses it.

I think they're smarter than you're giving them credit for.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:33:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If... (2.00 / 0)

I'm angry that a bunch of insiders are deciding the election.

WAIT A MINUTE!!!!  Wasn't the ENTIRE rationale of the hillary campaign continuing past WI was too woo the superdelegates into overriding the pledged delegates (to which the would be hard pressed to catch up to?)

Wow, Hillary supporters changing their story again!  What a surprise!


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If... (none / 0)

My god you're delusional.  The voters have selected Obama and your dishonest candidate is trying to get insiders to undo it.  It's YOUR candidate who has been going on for months about SD should hand her the nomination despite her losing in every metric out there.

You are just plain dishonest soyousay.  Did you learn that from your candidate by chance?


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:14:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

The election is being decided by party insiders, not the American people.

Here's just one example of many: John Edwards was rolled out in order to offset the win in WV.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:36:06 PM EST

Wait... (2.00 / 2)

Isn't the Clinton argument that the nomination will be decided by insiders and not the will of the electorate? And now you're complaining the insiders don't agree with you?


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:39:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait... (2.00 / 0)

That's exactly what Lou Dobbs said on CNN today.

Hmmmmmmm


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:52:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

I do agree that the Obama campaign did a masterful job of using its superdelegates to best advantage. Obama has run a brilliant campaign from top to bottom.  


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:48:17 PM EST

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

Who's deciding the election?

Superdelegate: An elected official or political party leader who attends a presidential nominating convention and who may or may not have made a commitment to vote for a candidate.

NOT the people


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So take heart! (2.00 / 1)

If you want to discount the SDs, then you can look at just the pledged delegates, allocated according to proportional representation.

Obama will win a majority of the pledged delegates, and he'll be the nominee, so, in fact, the people will have decided the Democratic primary.


by Slim Tyranny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:55:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So take heart! (none / 0)

That is exactly what we Obama supporters have been saying for months now, that insiders should not counteract the will of the people as reflected in the pledged delegates while the NAFTA lady's supporters including soyousay have been arguing that the SD party insiders should hand the election to the McCain surrogate.  It is remarkably disingenuous of soyousay to whimper now about the SDs committing now.  Hell, they're not even changing anything the voters didn't already decide.  

The claim that insiders are deciding this thing is false on the face of it as they are coming out with the same decision as the voters made.  It is also unbelievably hypocritical as soyousay and the rest of the irrational ones have been arguing that it would be perfectly fine for SDs to do whatever they want even if it is overturning the will of the people.

And now souyousay goes on my list of commenters not honest enough to be worthy of giving their words any weight.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

Actually, Obama is winning by every metric: pledged delegates, superdelegates, states won, popular vote, ... have I missed any?


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:11:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

Yes, you forgot the metric where the only states that count are the ones Hillary wins. Then she's winning.


by elrod on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:28:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ha (none / 0)

That metric IS tough for Obama to overcome.


by Slim Tyranny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:03:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

Actually, both.  Just as the system, however flawed, was designed to work.  There are two races . . . the pledged delegate race and the super delegate race.  Obama is winning both.  

It is virtually impossible to win a majority of pledged delegates unless the challenges drop out early.  Super delagates will always be required in a fully contested primary under the current system.


by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:49:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 2)

Yes, when one candidate rolls out 100+ superdelegates beforee the first contest, it's clear that that candidate is perfectly fine relying on insiders.


by rfahey22 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:49:00 PM EST

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

What's the point of voting?


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:53:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

Isn't that a question you should have raised in January?  It indirectly helps to determine the nominee, via delegates based on those results.


by rfahey22 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

I did. I'm one person.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

"Yes, when one candidate rolls out 100+ superdelegates beforee the first contest, it's clear that that candidate is perfectly fine relying on insiders."

But that was Hillary's strategy: to convince the supers to overturn Obama's lead. Why then is it bad if the supers decide to go the other way?


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:13:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)


by brathor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:49:27 PM EST

WV is not Iowa (none / 0)

WV is not a swing state.

4 years ago:

Bush won nationally by 2.46%.  He won WV by 12.86%.  He won WV by a large margin, even though, John Edwards (the son of a Mill worker) was on the ticket.

Bush won WV in 2000 by 6.33%.  He beat Gore in WV, even though Gore won the popular vote.  Even though Gore was the sitting vice president, even though Gore was a southerner, and even though Gore had a right-wing, holly-roller for a running mate.

The disproportional results prove WV is out of the mainstream.  It isn't Iowa (bush +0.67% in 2004 Gore +0.32 2000).

Congratulations on a BIG victory.  Enjoy it.

But claims that WV is a swing state, like Iowa, are not supported by GE numbers.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:50:18 PM EST

EXCEPT.. (2.00 / 1)

Obama is only ahead of Hillary by 100,000 votes - thats in the whole country..

Now, lets face it, there is something AWFULLY fishy going on when the MSM and many "Democratic elites" try to call an election that is still SO close.

I think this has a lot to do with universal healthcare. The right wing establishment EMPHATICALLY doesn't want universal healthcare, nomatter how much people NEED it, they don't want to allow any, especially a new, POPULAR entitlement.

They are afraid it will cut into the HUGE Pentagon budget. they are afraid it will increse job mobility which could increase salaries, making business less profitable. (or less competitive, some would say- I think thats a mistake, because the stress is killing people)

In that respect, increasingly, the US is perhaps not a democracy anymore. Money increasingly buys outcomes. Thats a big part of Obama's success.

He's a finely crafted missile against universal healthcare.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:43:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: EXCEPT.. (none / 0)

Awwww...there goes that Hillary logic again by which Florida and Michigan count.  PA-THE-TIC.


I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com
by LtWorf on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 2)

Like the media is going to start being honest and fair?  lol  naaahhh.  They need their puppets and are doing all they possibly can to make it happen.

They, INCLUDING Poltico can try to spin as much as they want, the reality is still there and THAT THEY CANNOT CHANGE.

As West Virginians clearly told and showed them.

next stop Kentucky.


by LindaSFNM on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:52:51 PM EST

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

next stop Kentucky.

Don't forget about Oregon!


by chicagovigilante on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:20:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ha! (none / 0)

That gave me a great "Don't forget Poland!" flashback.

Bush, wow, what a fuckin' tool.


by Slim Tyranny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:04:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

I daresay the Clinton campaign is far more pissed off than West Virginians.  And tomorrow, something else will push the Edwards endorsement off page 1.  Political life goes on.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:57:01 PM EST

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 2)

Life may go on but the Democratic Party is in disarray and the primary system they created is a mess.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

You must be looking at a different Democratic party.  Mine's doing pretty damned well lately.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:13:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

It is yours, I don't disagree with that. I'm now an independent due to Democratic incompetence. Not that I would vote republican...I'm a valued independent. You know, the ones that both parties try to sway their way.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:42:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

Total disarray. That's why we picked up three blood red districts in special elections. Yeah, we're in disarray.


by elrod on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:30:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Does is piss off the WVA voters who voted Obama? (none / 0)

I bet they were pretty excited about it and not upset at all.  


by KLRinLA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:07:49 PM EST

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

This will of the people meme is getting stale.

You guys need to come up with better stuff than this.

Made up, faux outrage.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:11:46 PM EST

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

So you're saying you don't believe in Democracy?


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

"So you're saying you don't believe in Democracy?"

What's good for the goose ... Hillary has long known that she cannot possibly catch Obama in pledged delegates. Her only hope was to convince the superdelegates to overrule the popular vote and hand her the nomination. So to object when the supers break for Obama seems a bit of a ... double standard.


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:18:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

Your "argument" does not exist. Talking about the "will of the
people" is lame when used in the context used in this diary.

That's why I say it's stale. You make things up and use the same recycled memes. Will of the people, disenfrachised, ect. ect.

Faux outrage to suit your candidates talking points.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:56:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

Hold on. Barack Obama is the candidate running a 50 state campaign here. Don't talk to me about ignoring states when Hillary Clinton has found a way to marginalize just about every one of Obama's small state wins in the media.


by chicagovigilante on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:16:19 PM EST

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 2)

You mean a "57 state" campaign.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:18:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

Correct. He has campaigned/is campaigning in non-state territories. But that just further reinforces my point.


by chicagovigilante on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:22:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 2)

Heh...That's what you call making lemonade out of a lemon.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

I think you're confusing lemons with sour grapes.


by chicagovigilante on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:34:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 2)

I think you're confusing sour grapes with Obama's West Virginia raspberry.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:38:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

Whatever will you do when this is settled and done? Go cower in the fetal position and suck your thumb in protest?


I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com
by LtWorf on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:01:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

I've already have done it. I'm a valued voter...thank you very much.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:13:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 2)

I think you're confusing sour grapes with Obama's West Virginia raspberry.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:37:39 PM EST

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 2)

How many superdelegates have pledged to Obama when their states/districts have gone to Clinton?  It seems that it has happened a lot.  There's this whole spiel about not letting the superdelegates overturn the will of the people, but Obama's supporters have been doing it constantly since the beginning.  I hope that SD from WV who announced he was supporting Obama, while the WV votes were being counted gets what he deserves when he is next up for reelection.  Ditto the others who have disregarded their state and districts wishes.  I'm not convinced even the pledged delegates are actually being awarded proportionally.  When I voted, there were only 3 delegates on the ballot and they were already pledged to Obama...and Hillary won my state and my district.  The whole thing is a farce.  We get what we deserve in November, and it won't be the presidency.


by not buying it on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:42:29 PM EST

"Farce" <---- You get it! (2.00 / 1)

Holier than thou Bill Richardson is another example of going against his state.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, (2.00 / 1)

I assume that you condemn all of Clinton's SDs that come from Obama-won districts?

Of course, most of her SDs are the unelected party officials who aren't even democratically accountable, so there is that.


by Slim Tyranny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:06:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, (2.00 / 1)

Only Bill Richardson and that's for being a slim-bucket.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:49:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, (2.00 / 1)

Heh, typo, I met slime, not slim. :D


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:51:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so, (2.00 / 1)

I await your outrage over Clinton superdelegates that come from Obama-won districts/states.

Or how about for all of Clinton's SDs that aren't even democratically accountable for their choice, but instead are DNC members accountable to no one?

Seriously, one-way outrage is just like Bush's duck-of-a-presidency: lame.  


by Slim Tyranny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:08:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so, (2.00 / 1)

You mustn't have read my diary.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:11:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so, (none / 0)

You mustn't have realized my comment was in response to someone other than you.


by Slim Tyranny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so, (2.00 / 1)

Great!


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:31:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

or, how about Clinton's first 100? (none / 0)

Clinton had 100 super delegates before a single primary was held.  How did those 100 in any way reflect "the will of the people"?

Tough for you to complain about Obama's SDs "doing it constantly since the beginning" given that Clinton started the race with 100 SDs on her side, at the literal beginning.

C'mon, let's at least be honest in our outrage.


by Slim Tyranny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:28:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 2)

I condemn the whole process; I blame the Democratic party for the asinine system.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:10:23 PM EST

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

It is asinine, I agree.  We should fix it.

Don't blame Obama for flaws he didn't create.  Somebody would benefit from it.  Not that person's fault.

He's also gotten more votes.  There is no metric he's behind in.

You're certainly allowed to react to this however you like, but stop blaming Obama for things he did not do, nor things he created.  It's intellectually dishonest.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:31:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

I don't blame Obama for the process itself. I do blame Obama for not wanting to count the votes in FL and MI. I also blame Obama for not being initially upfront about his 20 year relationship to Rev. Wright. Ignoring the Rev. Wright problem is being intellectually dishonest IMO.


by soyousay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

Why should he count votes that were fundamentally flawed?

I know people in both Michigan and Florida, people who I know to be Democrats, who did not vote because they did not want to participate in a meaningful contest.

These people normally vote.  They would have otherwise.  They honored the rules.  Why should they suffer for that?

The only complaint you could make, and not one that I concede btw, is that Obama didn't get on board with a revote in Michigan.  The problem with such a revote was that those who voted in the Republican primary could not vote in the revote.  I also know Democrats who voted in the Republican primary because they knew that the Democratic primary would not count.

Why are we to punish these people?  I do not dismiss your point.  I'm not happy about the situation, and I don't like the message that it sends, but frankly if we have to piss somebody off, I'll piss off the states that broke the rules for personal gain.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

You can argue that the votes shouldn't count but it will come back on Obama during the GE...so be it. In reference to getting on board with a revote; exactly, he wasn't on board. The American people aren't stupid, they understand why Obama doesn't want the votes to count.


by soyousay on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:14:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

I, uh, think he wanted the people who supported him to have a chance to have their votes count.

That wouldn't have happened in any of the proposals for a revote.

Will you acknowledge this?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:26:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

If so, why did Obama not support the revote when he had the chance?


by soyousay on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:31:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

I JUST ANSWERED THAT.

People who had voted in the Michigan Republican primary could not vote in any revote due to DNC rules.  This would exclude two groups of people who would have voted for Obama:

1) Democrats who voted in the Republican primary for Mitt Romney.  There were literally THOUSANDS of these people.

2) Republicans and independents, groups Obama had been doing very well with at the time of the first vote, who voted in the Republican primary.

Why would Obama support a revote that castrated him?  How is that fair?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:38:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

Fair enough, but I heard that republicans were voting for Clinton due to Rush Limbaugh. You can't have it both ways.


by soyousay on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:40:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (none / 0)

Yes, I can.

I know Republicans who voted for Obama in the primary because they want him to be President.  

I know Republicans who voted for Clinton in the primary because they want her to lose (the general).

I don't know a single Republican who voted in our primaries for reasons opposite of those I posted.

Yes, I can have it both ways, because both ways means I accurately describe the motivation of these voters!


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:42:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV was trumped, WV is watching (2.00 / 1)

You can have it both ways because you're God and "you know"....Heh :D


by