California Obama campaign purged progressive anti-war activists from delegate lists [not anymore]

[darue]

By dusk on Wednesday, the California Obama campaign had purged almost all progressive anti-war activists from its delegate candidate lists

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/10/133326/191

Well, there we have it. The TOTAL sellout by Obama has begun!

Can't say I'm surprised.

---
well, he's changed his mind apparently.

[msongs]

1. obama has said he is in favor of war and economc sanctions when they suit him nt

[darue]

7. these delegates will be voting on the party 'platform' as well right?

anyone know what's likely to be going in that?

[DUyellow]

2. Clinton is doing the same thing... and it has nothing to do with "bundlers and their girlfriends"

chill out

[dflprincess]

5. I don't suppose either one of them really wants issue oriented delegates

Delegates who are more concerned with issues might be more apt to to a jump ship if the first ballot doesn't result in a nominee and they are no longer comfortable with the candidate they originally supported.

[GarbagemanLB]

9. DON'T BRING LOGIC into this thread!

[darue]

12. well, at least Senator Clinton pledges to begin withdrawing troops within 60 days of taking office

both candidates have access and have had more than enough time to know what they're going to do and tell us.

[NashVegas]

17. Clinton Cut 50, Obama Cut 900

[papau]

25. I saw that but OBAMA NEGATIVES - esp. if OBVIOUS about the con-job Obama -aren't accepted on DU

[DUyellow]

37. you must prove something. This OP proves nothing, not only that but if you read more, you will find

the real reason.

[DUyellow]

35. Clinton cut 40-50 of her approximately 950 delegates. Obama cut about 950 of about of about 1700..

How many are needed? come on people...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/10/15821/0469

[Cameron27]

3. K&R

I'm not surprised either.

[leftofcool]

4. When they suit him?

Sounds like GWB

[kitfalbo]

6. anti-war

Remember Bush ran as the anti-war anti-nation building president.

[nsd]

8. The Obama campaign reversed itself on this -- reinstating candidates.

link

[cornermouse]

11. That's nice.

But this is looking like the beginning of a real serious problem. The purge sends out a really bad message to us. It tells those of us who are listening that Obama is not a progressive in spite of what some truly believe. Reinstatement, which was the right thing to do, is going to degenerate into more flip-flop accusations from the GOP should Obama get that far.

[nsd]

14. No, it just means somebody in the campaign made a mistake.

The fact that they immediately responded to grassroots complaints by admitting the mistake and reversing course is a good sign. It shows they listen.

[cornermouse]

20. Either Obama is not on top of what his staff is doing or

he agreed with what they did till it looked like it was going to blow up in his face. Either way, it's not good.

[nsd]

27. Oh c'mon. The idea that one mistake -- quickly reversed -- should be a serious concern is silly.

[The Wielding Truth]

31. Yes, it seems like a mistake that was corrected.

[Cha]

16. hilary's the one who's in serious deepshit,

cornermouse, and your trying to pin something on Obama isn't going to bring him down to hilary's level.

Keep squeakin'.

[cornermouse]

22. You're wrong.

We, the people, are the ones who are in "deep----".

[Cha]

24. hilary's in deep shit and if she steals it..yeah

the People are gonna be right there with her.

[Abacus]

19. mydd is really misrepresenting this

I just read a story a couple days ago about how BOTH candidates were cutting from their roles anyone they were not absolutely sure would vote they way they indicated they would. I specifically recall someone from the Clinton campaign making a comment on it. I'll post the article if I can find it again, I never thought I'd need it.

[darue]

13. wow, let me see if I can get this to work twice: Bush refuses to immediately resign n/t

[darue]

10. maybe it would be best to elect our own choices of delegates, not too late for write-ins is it?

also the party nomination votes should be run by the parties and not by the state governments. There should be two to four rounds of voting as well. this way direct election of the nominee would be possible.

another short of that possibility for reform is to have delegate campaigns where we pick the people we most trust to be the delegates and let them work out who the nominee is going to be. this would force the candidates to run on where they stand on the issues and everyone would be in the picture right 'til the end.

fact is this system forced my candidates from the race way too early on.

No one should have withdrawn.

[emilyg]

15. k/r

[cooolandrew]

18. Let's be honest here he may well of done he isn't against all war just this wrong one.

The anti war folk do want an end to the iraq war instantly and not sure that is totally likely.

[Bigleaf]

21. You realize why he is doing this, right? Because Hillary is trying to get his delegates to switch..

Nice fucking try!

[DUyellow]

36. yup, i read about this last week.

[grantcart]

23. gee Marcy is upset she wasn't chosen.

Marcy is an advocate of the 'leave Iraq in 60 day' brigade, not the anti-war brigade.

All of the Obama delegates in my area strongly anti war.

[crispini]

26. I followed the links through to the HuffPo story

According to one poster over there:

Looks like we just made a U-Turn and The Delegate Caucus is back on to all that filed. This comes from David Plouffe a few minutes ago....
"In recognition of this tremendous enthusiasm, our campaign has asked the California Democratic Party to allow all persons who have filed to be a district delegate candidate for Senator Obama at the Democratic National Convention to participate in the caucuses this Sunday, April 13, 2008."

Having said that, I could really use your support in CA-33.

http://www.obamadelegate.com

Michael Maheras

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-bach/obamas-big-tent-campaign_b_95966.html

[GarbagemanLB]

29. Wait, so this is another non-story? I am shocked!

[crispini]

30. There's a SacBee link upthread too.

Actually, I think the reversal made a BETTER story.... Campaign makes a mistake, quickly realizes mistake, and reverses itself. Good job! I like to see error correction in action. Of course, the mistake should not have been made, but the fact that it was so quickly corrected speaks volumes, IMO.

[darue]

32. true, the ability to quickly self-correct is a good thing to see

maybe he'll be great, I just don't know, but I'll gladly vote for either over the admiral's son.

[Abacus]

28. Bah, this is bs, both campaigns are doing this

I'm still looking for the original AP story I read, but here is a blog quoting it:

The AP has this interesting story: "Locked in a race with an uncertain outcome, representatives for both camps this week directed the California Democratic Party to remove dozens of names from the lists of more than 2,000 potential delegates. Party caucuses scheduled for Sunday will elect a slate of delegates for each candidate. Driven by fears that some prospective delegates might be concealing their true allegiances, the campaigns are searching campaign finance data, scouring the Internet and making telephone calls to weed out dubious candidates."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/10/874003.aspx

I didn't see anything wrong with this when I originally read the story and I'm not sure how a non-issue that both campaigns are doing is suddenly an Obama issue.

[Lisa0825]

33. Now that sounds like a reasonable explanation.

Thanks for posting that.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Mydd is like National Review to me these days.

One of the few places left for Hillary supporters to start some shit and link it as though there is authority to it. Transparent!

[PetraPooh]

38. If anyone took the time to read the comments after the "article,"

you would've found out that everyone in CA knew that the 2000 potential delegates had to be slimmed down to 167 by the time of the Denver convention. Would it have been better to wait to do this? I don't think so. Many, 1833 to be exact, were not going to be going to the convention. What is all the fuss about? Get a grip, really!

[eridani]

39. That's your "democratic" primary system for you

This process for picking delegates in primary states is the rule, not the exception. Us "elitists" in caucus states have delegates elected by their fellow delegates. Even the rawest newbie has a chance at moving up the ladder. Campaigns can overrule final national selections, but I've never heard of it happening recently. Anybody can put his/her hat in the ring at any level--for instance if you didn't make the precinct caucuses you can still run as a delegate at the legislative district or county caucus (though you just can't vote for yourself in that case). Same thing for congressional district and national delegate.

Reading further postings on the subject, I think that the Obama campaign leaders made a brilliant move in reversing the policy. This might be a helpful lesson for other primary states.

[AtomicKitten]

40. Um, they are going for a concept at the Convention

called GUARANTEED LOYALTY. Do you know how they are making that determination? Didn't think so. Criteria include factors such as whether or not the person had donated to another candidate before ultimately chosing to support Barack. They're thinking that those that supported him vis a vis trackable donations from the get-go are a safe bet.

You may have noticed that the Clinton campaign has made no secret about doing "whatever it takes," a subsidiary of The Kitchen Sink, to secure the nomination including but not limited to poaching delegates. They haven't been spending so much time trying to the muddy the waters of the word delegate for entertainment purposes.

You may have also heard about Operation Chaos perpetrated by at least three wingnut radio blowhards who think it's terribly clever to throw a monkeywrench in the Democrats' nomination process by crossing over to vote for Hillary. They think she's doing a fine job effin up who they believe, who most Americans believe will be the Democratic nominee they will face in November. And the wingnuts are bragging on the series of tubes about trying to/becoming delegates to further monkey with the process.

So, Barack is being extra super awesome careful, hedging his bets by being sure, damn sure he knows who goes to Denver on his behalf.

This has nothing to do with political ideology. I can only assume that's a red herring offered up for nefarious purposes or a genuine misunderstanding; you be the judge.

That's the story. Carry on.

[hulka38]

41. This is about making absolutely certain that the potential delegates

you select will be loyal to you, as they should be, and have no chance of defecting to the other candidate due to pressure etc..

No matter how you spin it, Hillary fucked her political future up by supporting the invasion even though at the time she calculated that it would help her. Why not support the only candidate who understood the folly of going to war with Iraq?