She is not delusional. She is wrecking the Democratic Party on purpose. That is her job now. She is an agent of reaction.

This scenario is so very sad. In a time of global crisis on every frontier, Arctic and Antarctic included, we have this bravado of ego occurring in the US. It's a shame, the Clinton's are shameful to be dividing up the Left/Progressive/MOR into camps for their ambitions. Regardless of who (global capitalists) stand behind Hillary, they should have conceded a long time ago and thrown their support to Obama. We have to keep out Bush III. Or would Billary become Bush III and that's why she's staying in the race.

In any case, so sad to see such ego projection in a time of severe Earth crisis. CO2 is coming . . .  

Share. Share resources, share delight, share burdens, share the healing. Sharing will bring us back from mass suicide. www.share-international.org

Rep. Joe Courtney just pledged to Obama. He's from CT, and represents the only district that went for Clinton. But he's choosing Obama. That's a big blinking sign.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGCGJM


"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

Even notorious web-cartoonist David Willis recognizes that Hillary has clearly lost not just the election, but her marbles.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

Joe 'Landslide' Courtney has endorsed Obama.  I hope they don't do the trickle thing today.  We need a bloc.

The three Clintons need to be grilled about their stance on Florida and Michigan. No where have I seen their answers to such simple questions as:

1. Why didn't you complain about the people of Florida and Michigan losing their vote for the Democratic nominee when the DNC announced the exclusion of the states' convention delegates for the defiantly early scheduling of the primaries?

2. Why did you agree to punish Florida and Michigan for their defiance and to sanction the exclusion of their delegates which, according to your present standards, disenfranchises the Democratic primary voters of those states?

3. How do you now justify your refusal to live up to your previous agreement? Do you explicately repudiate the decision of the DNC and chose to operate outside the Democratic party. Recourse to your compassion for the so-called disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters is not acceptable because you previously showed absolutely no concern for the matter until you began obviously to lose the contest to Obama. If they are disenfranchised, you bear a substantial burden of responsibility.

4. Do any of these words apply to you: treachery, dishonesty, chicanery, hypocrisy, opportunism. If not, which of the following apply to you: honesty, loyalty,   adherent to principle, political and moral consistency.  

Last I checked, Appalachia did not extend into the Carribean Ocean.

A strong showing in the last 3 contests could shut up Clinton once and for all.

John McCain hates children

I'm sticking with June 6 as the day it will be over.  

I predict that not enough superdelegates will commit until after the last primary.  They won't want it to look like the superdelegates put him over before the last state voted.

If they are smart, they will get enough superdelegates to commit so that the last primary puts him over the top and makes it look like pledged delegates gave him the nomination. He can stand in SD and thank them.  Then a couple of days later Clinton can graciously concede.

Although I'm not sure how they manouever that, not knowing how many they'll need counting FL and MI.  

Sigh.  Still waiting for the "Pledged Delegates can switch at the convention" line to emerge.

Hillary has no way of gracefully bowing out anymore, in my mind.  Her sense of entitlement is staggering.  To push this fictional "popular vote" nonsense, while openly playing the race card all year, and now playing the "It's all because of sexism" card, it's pretty clear that her move is to rob Obama of the legitimacy of his win.

Look, she's a nut case.  A lot of her supporters are nut cases, too.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to you country.

Hillary's willingness to cherrypick the math here hits this old broad's memory cells like a baseball bat as I'm reminded of GW & Co's willingness to cherrypick intelligence that gave us his goal, not ours. I'm just a little sensitive about leaders who so brazenly manipulate reality to the public.

Your Option 4 seems most likely as it is a compromise that avoids "disenfranchising" voters will keeping the deterrent and outcome in place. the 1/2 and 69-59 split is a little random, but any partial number is as well.

Hopefully this ends 31 May with a DNC ruling and the rest of the Supers going to Obama.

If it is option 5, I actually see this going to Denver. I also don't see Obama wanting to offer her much to stand down and I don't think she wants anything less than the nomination anyway.

You know what?  F*K FLORIDA.  Everyone knew the deal going in regardless of whether it was the GrOPer legislator's fault or whatever.  We wouldn't have been subjected to EIGHT GDN YEARS OF W in the first place if it weren't for Florida.  And if it wouldn't have been for Bill's inability to keep it in his pants the GrOPers wouldn't have gotten the stranglehold on our government they have had for far too long.  So, FK THE CLINTONS, too.  And fk this f*king country that is inhabited by so many addle-pated morons that care about stupid sh*t like flag pins and whether or not god is in the pledge and on our money and think a man getting grilled over his christian pastor is a muslim.  The majority of citizens in the US don't deserve their constitution or their country any more.

There is a story in the ozone that Clinton is doing this in order to become the VP on the ticket. How illogical is that? "I'm gonna keep beating you up so you pick me for your team." And like others have said, Obama would need to have a food taster to have Clinton next in line for the big seat.

No, this is the end of the line for Clinton and the Presidency. While she may still have some friends, and there are certainly enough big pocketbooks for other Senate races, I think her campaign has made way more enemies within the party than impressed anyone to embrace her for her broken bottle style of campaigning. She should have won the primaries early and lost ugly. Lost long and ugly.

One of these days I'll write an alternative history of Bill and Hillary Clinton. From a corporatist standpoint (I think it's Lisa who's got that great quote from George Seldes) Bill Clinton did as much or more for the powerful and the wealthy as many of the Repubs precisely because he worked from within the Democratic Party. Considering the kind of game that Hillary played I would expect the same from her. And I don't think it's crazy or irrational. It's intentional. That's why Bill and Hill have 109 million in their bank account and you don't.

Where are the Democratic leaders? Do the Democrats actually have leaders? Watching the foot get blown off (again) BEFORE the race even starts is almost too much to endure. Can't someone reason with this woman?

We need to push for Progressive change, now more than ever.

The "popular vote" (PV) lead, as cited by the Clinton campaign, also conspicuously ignores four caucus states; Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, three of which were won by Obama. So this is a blatantly disingenuous attempt to account for the popular vote.

Being that I come from a caucus state, I usually come to the defense of the caucus system, which has many merits, although those merits are generally neither understood nor appreciated by those unfamiliar with this type of electoral system.

One unusual advantage to the caucus system that wouldn't occur to many people is the fact that they don't rely on easily hacked computers, which are currently is use in many areas -- hardly a trivial consideration.

The obvious flaw with lumping caucuses and primaries together is that it diminishes the importance of those contests, and they're already somewhat overlooked as is. Caucuses always draw far fewer participants, so there would be a disincentive to holding caucuses if it were to result in a disadvantage for using this system. Moreover, it's clearly self-serving for the Clinton campaign to cite a fictional metric that diminishes the importance of states where the Clinton campaign was weak. It's also quite self-serving to use a metric that rewards the campaign for its poor strategy choices.  

Another problem with using the PV is some states use open primary systems. The logic behind their use isn't in question, but the resulting inflated turnout numbers  under a PV metric would provide leverage to voters from outside the party thus further adding to the party raiding effect. A similar effect also occurs when states have unusual turnout in the primary, which is the result when an unusual amount of state & federal races are contested (or not) or when referendums & initiatives are part of the primary process.

One of the disturbing aspects of naively using raw PV totals is that it further accentuates the importance of early contests, which is the reason Florida and Michigan moved their primaries to before the allowed window, and that's also why they were then sanctioned. When turnout is further inflated by the presence of an important referendum, as occurred in Florida this year, there is a combined effect.

Even more offensive is the amount of disinformation being employed to obscure the reasons for the sanctions on Florida and Michigan. Both states blatantly ignored the calender restrictions and refused to come back into compliance even after they were sanctioned. The state Democratic Party of Florida remained defiant and played chicken with the national party rather than obey the rules. During the month of March, there were attempts to spin the reason for Florida's sanctioned move. Curiously, I see that they've now dropped some of that pretense and gone back to defending Florida's 'right' to violate the national party's rules.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/25/AR2007082500275.html?hpid=topnews

Florida's state party chair, Karen L. Thurman, showed no signs of backing down yesterday. The former congresswoman said she will consult with state Democrats but added that she expects all the presidential candidates to ignore the national party's edict and campaign vigorously in advance of the Sunshine State's primary.

"Whether you get a delegate or don't get a delegate, a vote is a vote," a defiant Thurman said. "That is what Floridians are going to say is important." - WaPo 8/26/07

Here are the Democratic Party's delegate allocation rules.

NATIONAL CONVENTION DELEGATE APPORTIONMENT

A. Apportionment of district-level delegates within states shall be based on one of the following:

1. A formula giving equal weight to total population and to the average of the vote for the Democratic candidates in the two most recent presidential elections;

2. A formula giving equal weight to the vote for the Democratic candidates in the most recent presidential and gubernatorial elections;

3. A formula giving equal weight to the average of the vote for the Democratic candidates in the two most recent presidential elections and to Democratic Party registration or enrollment as of January 1, 2008; or

4. A formula giving one-third (1/3) weight to each of the formulas in items (1), (2), and (3).

"..the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. .. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked.." - Goering