The TREASON of the SuperDs - (what Pelosi, et. al, is up to.) --

[smalll]

So we've got these SuperDs -- the "House of Lords" part of this hopelessly baroque, caucus-ridden, madddeningly proportional, pro-disenfranchisement (screw you Florida! Your party leaders MOVED THE DATE BACK TOO FAR! (Oh noes!) It's Old Testament Justice for you!) excuse for a nomination process (thanks a lot, Howard Dean!)

But the idea of the SuperDs is not a bad thing, in fact: SuperDs generally will have the Party's interests at heart: they want to pick someone who's electable, because they're running for office too -- for the SuperDs, normally, it's all about COAT-TAILS.

But this has been an unusual year. In part, it was destined by Dr. Dean's frankenstein-style proportionality: we have ended up with two candidates, virtually neck-and-neck.

And the one who is leading is Barack Obama. The man with the latte liberals behind him (the rank-and-file contributors to the Democratic Party.) The man with the African-Americans behind him (and God help us if they stay home). And the man with the hype, and the hip, and the Almighty Yoof on his side.

LET ME MAKE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR: The SuperDs realize, at this point, that Barack Obama has electability issues. But they're willing to write (to wright?) the White House off: the Democrats succeeded so well Congressionally in '06, and the demographics are in our favor: it really doesn't matter what happens at the top of the ticket: one way or another, Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House again (as long as she wants to keep the job.)

So the SuperDs are getting lazy. Sure, most blue-state, blue-district Congressmen and Congresswomen will re-capture their seats again: but they don't want to have the hassle of trying to raise money when the latte liberals are pissed off. They don't want to have to worry about trying to motivate the black folks to vote. They don't want to have to deal with their own little precious kids in college (majoring in film studies, or something equally latte-worthy) hating their parents even more than usual. So the SuperDs are leaning Obama.

This was supposed to be the Democrats' year. At this point though, for a Congressional SuperD, the path to the quiet life is clear: screw the White House. Us Dems are used to not having it. They don't have to get off their butts to re-capture Congress, after all. And we can live with McCain. We've lived with two terms of Dubya, right? As long as they get their earmarks, well, they're all right, Jack. The general electorate can shift for themselves.

Right??? (Wright?)

[Jersey Devil]

1. Great rant! Here are the rules of my administration

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9xWMPp0VMt0

[smalll]

2. Hail, fellow Hillarite!

But I'm so "beer track" I'm on dial-up. Can't watch it, sorry! :shrug:

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. Lady: If it's not asking too much, (Rules of my Administration Lyrics)

Lady: If it's not asking too much,

Sung:

For our information
Just for illustration
Tell us how you intend to run the nation

Hillary T. Clinton:

These are the laws of my administration:

No one's allowed to smoke
Or tell a dirty joke
And whistling is forbidden!

Chorus:

We're not allowed to tell a dirty joke

Hail, hail Freedonia

Hillary:

If chewing gum is chewed
The chewer is pursued
And in the hoosegow hidden!

Chorus:

If we choose to chew we'll be pursued

Hillary:

If any form of pleasure is exibited,
Report to me and it will be prohibited.

I'll put my foot down, so shall it be
This is the land of the free.

The last man nearly ruined this place.
He didn't know what to do with it.

If you think this country's bad off now,
Just wait 'til I get through with it!

The country's taxes must be fixed.
And I know what to do with it.

If you think you're paying too much now
Just wait 'til I get through with it!

*whistle*

I will not stand for anything that's crooked or unfair.
I'm strictly on the up-and-up, so everyone beware.

If any man's caught taking graft, and I don't get my share
We stand'im up against the wall and pop! Goes the weasel

Chorus:

So everyone beware, you're crooked or unfair
-------unless she gets her share

Hillary:

If any man should come between a husband and his bride,
We'll find out which one she prefers by letting her decide.

If she prefers the other man, the husband steps outside
We stand him up against the wall and pop! Goes the weasel

Chorus:

The husband steps outside, relinquishes his bride
They stand him up against the wall and take him for a ride...

[cliffordu]

3. Great Rant!!

Wrong, but GREAT!!!

[MarjorieG]

4. The Super D's are npot going to reward the kitch sink, race baiting, campaign against BO

Also temperamentally, Obama is very suited to the job he's seeking. There is no way Hillary's unfavorability will be chosen. Once past most of the endless Wright, angry black man take down attempt, some of it will remain, but a focused Obama on McCain will encourage turnout.

We don't want a continuing stranglehold of the party by the Clintons.

[smalll]

6. There's only one way Obama can beat McCain --

if the Dems can exploit contemporary American ageism as far as it can possibly be exploited, he can win. If we can ridicule McCain as a senile old man, day after day, week after week -- if we can score points off his POW years, because hell, that was 40 years ago, and no-one worthwhile was even alive back then (certainly no-one with an iPod) -- if we can exploit the American-Idol/Next-Top-Model/Paradise-Island mentality of the general populace to the extreme; if we can frame the fall campaign as the simple question of "hot or not?" ---- then maybe Obama can win.

That's an awfully huge bet to place on shallow ageism however. Shallow ageism is a pretty good bet these days, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it, not when I could instead nominate a candidate like, oh I don't know, Hillary - who can actually, you know, at least semi-connect with America's NON-MINORITY LOWER-TO-LOWER-MIDDLE-CLASSES? In other words, with the MAJORITY?

[OHdem10]

17. Since some are pushing Sam Nunn as VP, it would not exactly

work to be talking age.

[cali]

30. codswallop. and that goes for your OP as well.

SDs realize that both candidates have electability problems. They also likely realize that both are electable, and that the factors that will determine electability are largely unknown at this time. If the economy continues to fail, if Iraq continues going downhill, either dem has an excellent chance.

[Why Syzygy]

33. You do a fine job of exploiting ageism.

I guess it's "contemporary" because you write off all the Baby Boomers and beyond. The last of the BBs turned 40 two years ago. But none of them are "worthwhile".

The only people HilLIARy seems to connect with are the delusional, immature, gutless and amoral.

[smalll]

36. I won't be happy with a campaign of rampant ageism, I'm just saying it's the only way -

Obama would be able to beat McCain.

[Why Syzygy]

52. That's an extremely narrow view, which I do not share. nt

[Overseas]

34. Too silly-- there's lots more bad material to use against McCainy

(I'm trying to use "McCainy" because I hope it will remind folks of Cheney.) He has flip flopped against a lot of what he declared to be his main principles. Yes, the consolidation of media ownership has made it harder to cut through the biased TV news reporters who still promote the false "maverick" image, but we can do it. While McCainy's age will be a factor -- is that why he can't remember which is Suni vs. Shiite? -- The flip side of "same old same old" is a bright new future. We can't hang on to the old ways-- we need immediate creative solutions to very pressing international problems. The chameleon candidate who denies he made statements we have on tape and admits he doesn't understand the economy is the same guy who belonged to the notorious Keating Five. So we have ample material about a lot more than McCainy's age that will make him an unappealing candidate.

[Yukari Yakumo]

71. Just go with McCheney. {nt}

uguu

[PassingFair]

51. Laughable.

NO ONE has more "electability" problems than
Hillary R. Clinton.

No. One.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. You're naive if you don't think Hillary will be attacking McCain for being senile as well

Frankly I do have questions about whether or not McCain is senile. It's not that someone who is 70 automatically is senile. It's that I've watched him speak and he shows signs of it. He didn't even realize that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iran until Lieberman whispered it in his ear.

And you can bet that the McCain camp will be making subtle hints at sexism like "she'll do something crazy every time she gets her period" and even though anybody with a brain knows that she's 60 and gone through menopause already, it will still resonate. You can bet that Clinton will fire back with the senile card.

BTW, ageism goes both ways. Your posts wreak of it.

[PoliticalAmazon]

64. Hillary won't attack McCain because she would be crucified if she did....

He's a war hero, and evokes the "grandpa reaction" that Ronald Reagan did.

If she tries her Bush/Rove politics on McCain, the voters would come after her with pitchforks and torches.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. It's not Bush/Rove politics, it's fighting back

In '92 when the Republicans were attacking Clinton for Gennifer Flowers, Clinton fired back by demanding that he answer questions about his alleged affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald. Dukakis, on the other hand, fired Donna Brazille for mentioning Fitzgerald. As you may recall Clinton won, Dukakis lost.

And the possibility that Reagan was senile brought him closer to losing re-election than anything Mondale did. His horrid performance in the first debate and his "off camera" moment about nuking the Soviet Union brought the race to basically a tie. Reagan was ultimately able to recover but that was largely due to incumbency advantage that allowed him to stage all of his events and media appearances. McCain isn't an incumbent and can't stage everything.

[PoliticalAmazon]

74. Big Difference: McCain can afford to not go negtive. Hillary can't....

...We've seen from the primary that she cannot compete unless she uses Rove/Bush political tactics. She is not strong enough to run a campaign that isn't using strongly negative tactics.

The instance you mention, Clinton/Flowers, the Republicans were attacking Clinton FIRST. The public reacts differently to someone who is simply defending themselves. Hillary will be the one sliming Grandpa, and politically it will be an ugly end for her if she does.

The second example you cited, Reagan running for reelection after four years of an administration in which he progressively showed his dementia (or his dementia progressed), also cannot be used to evaluate possible impacts from Hillary going negative first and attacking Grandpa because McCain will not have been under the microscope as closely in the campaign as he would be through 4 years in the White House

You've seen the press refuse to challenge McCain on his horrendous baggage. Part of that is that the press has a bright-shiny object dangling in front of their eyes (a very acrimonious Dem primary). But part of it is also the press's reluctance to challenge a war hero and Grandpa. Given the choice between holding McCain's feet to the fire and holding Hillary's feet to the fire, who do you think they will choose? If you chose Hillary, you'd be correct.

Obama, on the other hand, has proven that he can conduct a winning campaign with minimal negative response to the Kitchen Sink candidate, Hillary, who went negative early, when Obama was not negtive.

Obama can deal with McCain without having to use the slime Hillary/Bush/Rove politics.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. Look I'm for Obama, but that's not really the point...

I'm talking about the hypothetical if Hillary is the nominee. She will be attacked by McCain first because he will say that a woman isn't up to the job of being commander-in-chief. He won't say it directly but it will be subtly hinted through several Republican channels.

Hillary will then subtly hint back that McCain is senile and it will be somewhat effective. The OP was somehow under the impression that Hillary won't capitalize on McCain's age if she's given the opportunity. That's just naive.

[PoliticalAmazon]

77. Disagree. McCain won't go negative first because he has the option notto...

He will wait until Hillary really ratchets up the pig-slop attacks.

He would know that he simply has to wait her out. Hillary doesn't have what it takes to go the distance, not unless she uses Rove/Bush politics.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. McCain HAS TO GO NEGATIVE FIRST

McCain is on the wrong side of the issues and in bed with an incumbent president who has the highest disapproval rating in history. Either Hillary or Obama will walk out of the Democratic National Convention with a significant lead because the focus will be back on the economy and the failed war.

McCain will be the first to attack because his only hope of winning is convincing America that the terrorists will come kill their children if Hillary or Obama is elected.

[PoliticalAmazon]

81. At this point Hillary is as tained by Bush Jr as is McCain.....

I guess we'll never know because Hillary won't win, but I feel solidly about this: a negative campaign against McCain will backfire, unless he goes nuclear first.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. No she's really not as tainted by Bush as McCain is

Outside of DU there's nobody that actually believes she's a closest Republican. Your assumptions are absurd.

[PoliticalAmazon]

10. INDEED. Hillary is losing her grip on the California SDs! CHECK IT OUT:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5833618

[Two Americas]

12. they don't care about any of that

All of the melodrama among the supporters is of no interest to the delegates. They don't care about "rewarding" anyone nor about kitchen sinks or all of the rest of the silly things the supporters are obsessing over.

The Clintons don't and have never had a "stranglehold over the party." That is just more melodrama. Corporations have a stranglehold on the party, and there are no politicians who are about to break that.

I think that either candidate could hurt turnout at this point - for us. Either will help Republican turnout.

[Texas Hill Country]

50. haha, just buy into the talking points...

[mac2]

5. No...you keep saying this but it is not good for democracy.

"But the idea of the SuperDs is not a bad thing, in fact: SuperDs generally will have the Party's interests at heart: they want to pick someone who's electable, because they're running for office too -- for the SuperDs, normally, it's all about COAT-TAILS."

No it's about them (SuperDs) not wanting to give up power. They are no longer elected officials or not officials who occupy the office we are voting on.

It is not democracy to give certain people a more powerful vote and say than the party members who have one in the primary.

Party's interest in mind my foot!! They are mostly wanting the unending wars and the DLC agenda. We put many of them out of office. We told them we didn't want their war and corporate agenda (amnesty, open borders for union, WTO, etc.) back in 2006 elections.

For whose best interest I may ask? Theirs isn't it?

[Umbram]

7. Does anyone know if excessive use of parens a sign of mental illness? (nt)

[TLM]

8. So you must have been ranting about these problems with the system before Hill was losing... right?

You can no doubt link to dozens of your posts from back when hillrodd was sure to win, complaining about FLA and MI and ranting about this subject.


Care to link to your post ranting about the SDs who were backing hillary early in the process to try to generate momentum?

Or perhaps your post ranting about how unfair and non-representative the delegate system is, when hillary wasn't losing?


Or like all the noise machines for Hill, did you only develop problems with the process and MI and FLA once Hillary started losing?

[RainDog]

9. bitter

just as Obama noted. people are bitter because they feel they have been left behind, because the republicans act as if this nation is a corporation to buy and strip of its assets and sell off as cheaply as possible.

Those are the folks who deserve your bitterness.

Not a fellow democrat who honestly thinks that Obama will serve this nation's interests at a time when we desperately need to break with what has come before. I'm sorry you do not think he's the person who will win.

I think you will be surprised.

Your fellow democrats are not your enemy. The class issues you bring up are traditional concerns of the democratic party and what you see now is the result of republican rape of the American economy by failing to provide ANY sort of oversight for crucial industries. Funny how the republicans can try to claim god on their side and all the "sinner" talk that goes along with it, but you suddenly give someone enormous power and money and think they're all going to be angels?

I hope things improve for you soon. You're wrong to assume Obama supporters all fit the latte liberal or Af-Am stereotype, however. A lot have more in common with you than you may know.

[Lilith Velkor]

11. They really are trying to throw it

I've suspected this for over a year.

No wonder they didn't impeach.

[Two Americas]

13. good analysis

I think you may be right, that the Dem politicians don't think we have much of a shot at the White House now and are not all that worried about it. Giving the nomination to Obama will keep the "progressives" pacified and pre-occupied. The "progressives" are probably the easiest constituency to fool and mislead, because they go with their feelings almost completely.

The contrast between how power really works and the fantasy melodramas and Hollywood screenplays that people here keep dreaming up is truly stunning.

[smalll]

21. Thanks!

:hi:

[OzarkDem]

43. Agree, VERY good analysis

Our current Dem leadership in Congress appears ready to concede the WH to the GOP in exchange for lots of money to run for re-election.

We're plagued by low quality Dem leaders who just want job security.

Keep in mind, this doesn't apply to every Dem in Congress. The battles between Pelosi & Reid vs. Hillary show a huge conflict between Congressional Dems who focus on issues and want to move the country forward and those who want to maintain the status quo.

Obama's candidacy isn't about change, its about maintaining the status quo for Dems in Congress, though I don't think he realizes it.

[Arugula Latte]

14. Hah hah hah! Now that the Super Ds are jumping Hillary's sinking ship, suddenly they don't count...

So typical. So typical.

:rofl:

[scheming daemons]

15. A month ago, the Hillbots were supporting the idea of Superdelegates....

...to "save us" from an Obama candidacy.


Now...when they are working to save us from a CLINTON candidacy, they're evil.



That's rich.

[datopbanana]

16. Wright is literally these peoples only argument

[DemVet]

60. Yeah, that and he...

...sucks on the issues. Healthcare for instance.

[Gore1FL]

19. Wow!!

either a good parody or really deranged.

[scheming daemons]

20. Hey smalll... you still pissed that Wright hasn't resurfaced after Obama smacked him down?

...your last best hope for the nomination?


It's got to be eating at you. Maybe if you gave him enough money, he'd come out and talk.

[WA98070]

22. No one planned for a self-centered candidate unwilling to accept defeat. Thanks Hillary.

[Neshanic]

23. God. The truth. I thought I would never see it.

[smalll]

24. Thanks. /nt

[WeDidIt]

25. Right, blame Dean for the system he inherited

1) Dean never set the rules. Dean merely enforces the rules.

2) Why weren't you ranting about this in 2006 when the rules for 2008 were set?

[PoliticalAmazon]

26. Many SDs aren't going to support Hilllary's pig-slop politics. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

27. Wow. You Extreme Hillary Supporters have Truly Gone Insane.

[democrattotheend]

28. Democratic Primaries have been proportional since 1972

I believe the DNC charter made winner take all primaries illegal in 1972.

It's true that while experts are split on who has a better shot of winning the White House, most Democratic strategists believe Obama will be better for down-ballot candidates because he can boost African American turnout and bring out young voters, two of the Democrats' best demographics. So that may be a consideration for superdelegates, and it should be. Superdelegates have the obligation to weigh what's best for the party, and that includes down-ballot races.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. I can't tell if this is satire or not.

This place gets weirder every day.

[lojasmo]

31. McAwfull set up proportional representation

Call and cry to the Clinton campaign.

[Skidmore]

32. You can file your right wing "latte liberal" label in some dark place.

I have had it with this Republican jargon being used by Clinton supporters.

[NYCGirl]

35. You Hillarites sure throw the word "Treason" around pretty easily. NT

[anigbrowl]

39. I feel sure some of these people are actually Republicans in disguise.

[RichardRay]

37. Nice rant, but you need to do a little fact checking.

You're wrong on the face of it on two or three of those points. If you really don't know which places you cut the corners let me know and I'll be glad to explain it to you.

[anigbrowl]

38. What about all those SDs who endorsed Clinton before a single voter expressed their preference?

This is one o the most entitled, self-absorbed posts I've ever seen here. Obviously you hate minorities, artists, people who go to college to study anything you don't approve of, and people who like their coffee made with milk. Well, I'm white, didn't go to college, get my coffee at 7-11 (but I'm elitist enough to put a shot of hazelnut syrup in it), and I say you're full of it.

[K Gardner]

40. Dear god, you're deluded. Did you forget your "gal" has NO CHANCE AT ALL without the Supers? She is

losing on all fronts. They're her only hope, and you're bashing them. How typical.

[Jed Dilligan]

41. Gee, spreading hatred of Democratic politicians....

How partisan of you.

[OzarkDem]

44. Pelosi, Reid, Emmanuel, Hoyer, et al have not been good leaders

Keeping them in power by supporting Obama doesn't bode well for Democrats or the US. They're nothing more than puppets for corporations and lobbyists.

[Jed Dilligan]

47. You attack all blue-state blue-district Democrats in Congress

Accusing them of being latte liberals with film student children. You sound like Ann Coulter.

[OzarkDem]

54. They're not liberals, they're more like Republicans

Their record on legislative action since they won the majority in Congress has to be one of the worst in Dem party history.

I don't care what color their home state is, they're obstructionists and puppets who will do anything for corporate campaign money.

Its not about political ideology. They'll sell their political soul to the highest bidder.

[Jed Dilligan]

57. Nothing you can say or do will change what you wrote above. nt

[OzarkDem]

59. I have no intention of changing it

I don't like or trust the current Dem leadership in Congress, regardless of what color state they come from.

[Jed Dilligan]

83. And you attacked them with GOP memes. You must feel really good now.

It's more the memes than the target of your smear that I find worse than objectionable.

[dionysus]

42. um, shillbot? she's losing because she has less votes and delegates...

due to the fact;
1) she is a shitty and divisive candidate
2) she failed to plan past super teusday
3) she adopted GOP campaign tactics
4) she race-baited
5) she is acting like a 60 year old spoiled baby bound to hurt the party in november because she can't get away.

AND YOU HAVE THE FUCKING BALLS TO CRY TREASON?!?!?!?!?!?

:rofl:

[Gore1FL]

45. Wow...

The parts that were not error prone were unsubstantiated speculation.

[meow mix]

46. wwaaaAAAHHH

:nopity:

[Freedom Train]

48. And it's worth noting

that without this "madddeningly proportional" system, Hillary would already be our nominee.

[smalll]

49. Yes she would. I also heard from someone on Charlie Rose a few days ago,

that if the Republicans had our system, McCain and Huckabee would STILL be battling it out!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Well, Hillary should protest by not accepting their votes.

Oh, wait, she's courting them.

[OzarkDem]

56. They're not voting in a bloc

Its more likely Pelosi/Reid/Hoyer/Emmanuel are using threats of losing corporate campaign funding on Congressional Dems who want to support Clinton.

Those they can't bribe with promises of corporate campaign cash are being threatened with the loss of it. GOP style arm twisting. Wish Pelosi/Reid/Hoyer/Emmanuel would use the same tactics to get legislation through Congress.

Forgot to add one to the list. That Obama supporter who is supposed to be Majority Whip who sits on his ass all the time and does nothing to help get bills passed.

[demwing]

55. Waaaa Waa Waaa

It is foolish to tear one's hair in grief, as though sorrow would be made less by baldness. -Cicero

[Erin Elizabeth]

58. ...

[Hippo_Tron]

61. Could you possibly be any more condescending?

"Precious little kids in college (majoring in film studies, or something equally latte-worthy)"

Give me a fucking break...

[zulchzulu]

62. HIllary has a LOT of electibility issues...that's why she LOST

I know she's doing her best to be a RePIG. She's good at that.

[Buzz Clik]

65. Fucking great. The Ignore lists have been temporarily purged.

This is going to be a very long evening.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

67. How did you get one of your harebrained posts past Ignore?

[burythehatchet]

73. DefCon 2. I'm doing shots of Jack and snorting PCP prepping for GDP.

[beachmom]

68. You have no data to back up this BS electability argument. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

69. I'm sorry, but if you think Hillary is the more electable candidate you are a fucking idiot.

You are also a fucking idiot if you think Hillary has coattails. Almost 60% of Americans think she's a liar; her favorability tops out somewhere around 45-50%, a significant number of people within her own party can't stand her, and the right-wing nutjobs loathe her (they don't like McCain much, but they'll turn out to vote AGAINST Hillary anyway). Helpful hint: the candidate whose campaign went broke has more serious electability issues than the one who's fifty million in the black and has set records for fundraising and new voter registration.

[skyounkin]

84. LMAO-

great post!

[Thickasabrick]

70. Please just shut the fuck up about Wright - thanks in advance.

[ElboRuum]

72. This kind of DLC thinking is what LOSES ELECTIONS.

Electability... Ho-leee shibbit. :crazy: If the DLC understood anything about electability, then 5 of our last 7 Presidential administrations would not have been Republican. And I love it when people say Obama has electability issues when Republicans are CHOMPING AT THE BIT TO SEE HER RUN. Quick hint, if you opponents like your choice of candidate it's the one they'd prefer to run against...

[Lucky 13]

75. You have lost your muthafuckin mind.

I got nothing else to say.

[dchill]

79. They like Obama...

More delegates, more states, more money. It's not an electability issue.

[barack the house]

80. Barack is liked by independents Hillary has never been. That will factor in, plus

Obama will drive out some ore new voters. Super delegates in all wisdom will not vote against the loyal base no base no party.

[EFerrari]

85. God, I miss ignore. n/t

[Mojambo]

86. One of the most cynical pieces of garbage I've read all night.

And that's saying something.

[ExPatLeftist]

87. "TREASON"???

Since when did Hillary Clinton = The USA?

You may well be against the system as it stands, that is understandable. But you do not change the rules in the MIDDLE OF THE GAME in order to support a specific candidate. I did not see you railing about the SDs before the election began...

If you want to change the system, you wait until this ongoing election is OVER and then push for that change.

Anything else is reminiscent of a child throwing a tempur tantrum when losing a game because "the rules aren't fair".