Hope, Unity and Threats
Mar 7th, 2008 at 9:32 am by Susie
Rick Perlstein at the Huffington Post:
A young friend who lives in a small town in a rural state sent me the following observation today:
If the Clintons push for the win in Denver, they’re going to split the goddamn party down the middle. I read your chapter on 1968 Chicago, obviously. I’m of the generation who supports Obama. I know what we’re like. Shit, I know what I’m like.
Rick, if the Machine tries to give the Clintons the victory at the convention, I swear to God, Chicago’s going to look like a Sadie Hawkins dance. People my age are going to be throwing stones. We all have transportation — cell phones — disposable income — the Internet — free time — and Seattle as our example. Part of me is scared of a riot. Part of me isn’t. The nomination belongs to Obama. Do you think we’re going to let the Democratic Leadership Council take it? “God gave Noah the rainbow sign. No more water, fire next time.”
He’s referring to my forthcoming book Nixonland, about the American civil war that broke out between 1965 and 1972, specifically the chapter about the beatings by Chicago police against both anti-war protesters and anti-war delegates at the 1968 Democratic Convention. I thought it a bit too melodramatic, and didn’t take it particularly seriously, though I did pass it on for discussion (with my friend’s permission) at a couple of listservs I belong to.
One of them yielded up this response, from an Iraq War vet who works full time in Democratic politics (again, quoted with permission):
Not to mention that there’s going to be a significant Iraq veteran contingent at the convention, ready to rock ‘n’ roll. We’ve already had planning meetings about it — we’re going about it the same way that we would plan any decent military operation.
Put it this way: if she goes for the gold in Denver, she’ll have to claim the medal somewhere other than the Pepsi Center.
I began to take all this a little bit more seriously.
He then added this:
I can’t emphasize enough how potentially scary things could get — we’ve got folks working on the inside of the convention, and it’s all done on a cell basis, so that folks only know what they need to know.
I’m trying to keep everyone calm, as I just mentioned, but it’s getting harder and harder to do so. The mood’s getting ugly, and if we go to Denver without a nominee, the pressure’s going to be intense from without to nominate Obama. She can win the nomination, but it won’t be a prize worth having.
I took it more seriously still.
I pass this all on without comment, for superdelegates and my friends in the Hillary Clinton campaign to read, and in categorical abhorrence of anyone who’d contemplate introducing violence as a variable in American civic life.
You know, clearly this isn’t about Obama. This is about a generation of narcissists, threatening to throw a very dangerous tantrum if they don’t get their way.
I think the Obama campaign needs to nip this in the bud in no uncertain terms. If his followers are so unhinged that they’re planning riots, he needs to exercise whatever rhetorical power he has to put a stop to it.
Threatening the potential choice of other Democrats by violence proves that hope and unity are the farthest things from their minds.
It’s about power. It always is.
what the hell? are you seriously suggesting that only the obama side threatens to “throw a tantrum”?
the real danger to this campaign, the reason why i think it’s really bad news that clinton did not definitively lose on tuesday, is that we’re now facing a scenario in which whoever ends up losing, the other side is going to view the results as illegitimate. that’s the problem.
obama’s gonna end up with more states, more overall votes and more pledged delegates. that’s already clear and no matter what happens in the remaining states there’s no real possibility of that changing. the clinton people seem to be in total denial about this and dismiss all obama victories in one way or another, either calling them “cultists”, or stupid young people, or erroneously claiming that obama only wins red states, or caucus, or states with a lot of black people, or small states, etc. or they’ve claimed that clinton is actually ahead in the total number of democrats who voted, using a formula that happens to disregard the votes in a dozen or so states where obama got a lot more votes than clinton.
from where i sit a lot of clinton people are already questioning the legitimacy of the obama victories in a way that is very very dangerous if we want to ultimately pull together in the end.
it’s a serious problem. and frankly, you’re closing your eyes if you think that a lot of clintonistas are part of the problem too.
I’m saying that only the Obama side is threatening to cause an actual riot at the convention if they don’t get their way.
Hillary has already turned her back on the party by proclaiming McCain as a better candidate than Obama…she should be drummed out orlynched for that fact alone….and she has repeated it on more than 1 occassion. But I am sure she just ensured the Lieberman “party” vote!
what noz says. Clinton’s out there practically campaigning for McCain, and you’re callign the Obama people narcissists? gimme a break!
The other day I sold my kid’s toddler bed. The couple who showed up was a young black family, mom and dad about my age, and probably my socio-economic status as well. They had Obama stickers on their van so we sat on the porch and talked a little bit.
I thought I objected to Clinton’s rhetoric. This couple was angry and offended with her campaign. They were informed, the woman dropping facts dating back YEARS.
“A generation of narcissists.” Bullshit: it’s a generation of people who’ve experienced the damage that DLC democrats have done to the country, and by extension to their lives. If being angry about having the good jobs, blue and white collar, shipped overseas by a bunch of corporate whores (on both sides of the aisle) is narcissism, then I guess that makes everyone I know a narcissist. If being upset about a stupid endless war is narcissism, then I guess that makes everyone I know a narcissist. If wanting something better than just more same old DLC crap is narcissism, that makes everyone I know a narcissist.
yeah, Obama supporters are narcissists. That’s the ticket.
I’m saying that only the Obama side is threatening to cause an actual riot at the convention if they don’t get their way.
no they’re not. you’re quoting someone who’s quoting some random obama supporter as saying that if clinton wins he thinks there will be violence at the convention. that’s not “the obama side” any more than the loony who set off the bomb in front of that military recruitment center times square yesterday is “the anti-war side”. and just as malkin et. al. is demanding that anti-war groups disavow this random crazy, you’re demanding essentially the same thing of the obama campaign. it’s nuts!
neither campaign is responsible for the crazy individuals who may decide to latch themselves on to the campaign. and, at this point, it’s probably more dangerous for obama to disavow violence at the convention, not less, because then he would be treating violence at the convention as a real possibility and could rightly be criticized for threatening violence just by bringing it up
First of all, I wasn’t referring to Obama backers as narcissists. I was referring to Obama backers who think it’s so imperative they get their way (between two fairly similar candidates) that they’re going to cause a riot as narcissists. I don’t know what else you’d call people who think getting their way is that important, other people should die for it.
And second, I’m not going to list all the blogs that foster that kind of anti-Clinton hatred and anger. We all know they’re out there. Show me a so-called “reputable” Clinton blog that encourages hate in the author’s content.
“I don’t know what else you’d call people who think getting their way is that important, other people should die for it.”
so chicago 1968 was just a bunch of narcissists?
and seattle was just a bunch of narcissists?
Ok then.
Uggh. Just uggh.
Susie, you’re right on the money here; no matter what the outcome of the final primaries/caucuses, if Obama isn’t the nominee, there will be trouble. No matter what the superdelegates say or do, if they don’t vote overwhelmingly for Obama, they’ll be seen as party machine hacks who’ve no doubt been bought or bribed or threatened.
The only one who can stop this kind of talk is Obama himself, and I hope he does, because it could get really ugly.
Show me a so-called “reputable” Clinton blog that encourages hate in the author’s content.
that’s the problem, it’s all about perspective. you don’t like obama. and so you seem to see any overly pro-obama blog at hateful towards clinton. the pro-clinton blogs come across the same way to obama supporters. personally, i think calling obama supporters cultists is hateful, and there’s variations of that in a ton of blogs, including this one.
then again, this is a contentious campaign. people are going to say stuff that comes across as mean and hurtful to each other. and people will say stuff about what they will do if their candidate doesn’t win that, in fact, they will probably never follow through with. so if clinton wins, i expect that booman will, in the end vote for her in the general and write posts about how much suckier mccain is leading up to that. no matter what he says now, they’re probably just empty threats. and the people who claim that obama is a woman-hating rightwinger in disguise and that his followers are all members of a brain-eating borg will somehow decide that they like him after all and will manage to work with him and discover that it doesn’t actually require any kind of upload into a collective. and the person quoted in this article will probably not actually attack anyone at the convention if obama doesn’t get the nod.
i think that stuff is all pretty obvious. but for whatever reason, you’re inclined to believe the very worst of obama supporters and obama without subjecting anyone else to the same level of scrutiny.
Would a nominee who won via a riot be elected in the GE? No way. What a gift to the GOP if that happened.
Look, I don’t know how to say this without sounding like a condescending old fart: Young people are a lot more likely than old and middle-aged people to rationalize violence and take part in it.
A lot of the Obama supporters are college kids who seem to have discovered politics for the first time. Well and good, welcome to the fray - but no, you don’t get to threaten violence if your candidate doesn’t get the nomination.
The only thing the Chicago riots brought us was Richard Nixon - and more war.
And Brendan, if you think all those kids would have been out there protesting at Chicago if it wasn’t for the draft, you’re kidding yourself. The whole movement was driven by self-interest. That’s what humans do.
i thought this party was for people who don’t have free time and disposable income.
I always did feel an “or else” aspect to the Unity Schtick. Splendid.
Somebody seems to have forgotten that in Chicago, it was the police who rioted, not the demonstrators. This was the official conclusion of the commission formed to investigate the “riots”.
And, of course, the police riot wasn’t some spontaneous reaction to rude demonstrators, it was an attack on insurgent Democrats ordered by Mayor Daley. Recently I read an account by a Democratic delegate who described how the police had gone to their room on the thirteenth floor of their hotel to roust out and beat delegates who didn’t support Humphrey.
As for young people being more likely than old people to “riot”, ha ha, my mom was about 75, 25 years older than me, when the police attacked her and her fellow demonstrators in Seattle.
The fact is that a lot of young people think the Baby Boomers are self-absorbed people who have simply let the country drift for 35 years instead of making needed changes. And considering the Boomers as a whole, there’s a lot of truth in that.
I haven’t forgotten a thing. I watched it live on TV, I know it was the cops who started it. (After all, I grew up in a neighborhood where we were quite familiar with police brutality.) I just know how it was not only pointless, it was counter-productive - unless, of course, you’re of the “destroy the system to save it” school of thought. Some people support that. I don’t.
Cowards like susie here are responsible for GWB. Rather than go to Florida, protest, or riot, they sat on their hands while a monster stole an election and drove this country into the ground. I’ll be damned if my generations sits idly by and allows that to happen again. You all refused to protect Democracy. That is your shame. That you aren’t ashamed of that just makes you pathetic.
Tell me Susie, was George Washington young when he committed he decided to ‘rationalize violence?’. No. He was a patriot. Those of you who hid under your beds in 2000, and who rationalize election rigging now, aren’t doing so because you’re older. You’re doing so because you’re unpatriotic, treasonous cowards.
What, no one’s mentioned Hitler yet? C’mon, you wimps!
Cowards like susie here are responsible for GWB.
I hope you delete Soullite’s comment. If it wants to call you names, it should do so on its own blog. That anyone call call Susie, of all people, a coward, is disgusting.
Wake Up! America, I can assure you, if Hillbilly wins the Nomination it will be a very very very big mistake - The presidency will go to McInsane & Co. Don’t be surprise if African Americans do not show up at the polls - they have the ability to stand the test of time - history proves that - If they can survive slavery - what the hell makes you think they can’t survive McInsane & Co. P.S. The independant will vote for McInsane - The young voters will once again turn away - and you know that rest. Do be so stupid - again
No….don’t delete it. I don’t agree that Susie is a coward but this person is advocating that people do what the Republicans happily did in 2000 in Florida and we SHOULD have done. No, I don’t agree that it should be done at the convention but I also don’t want the nomination stolen. It has to be made based on logical and reasonable arguments. If Obama has more delegates and more popular votes, as Newsweek asserts is extraordinarily likely, he should get the nomination. End of story. It won’t be clear cut because Hillary will have beaten him in some critical states but it will be clear enough. In that event, she MUST drop out.
Gug
Gee, Soullite, didn’t I just see you over at Mithras’s place threatening to “burn Denver to the ground” if Obama didn’t win? Why so shy here? Spell out your intentions!
As to why I wasn’t in Florida - I’m working class, kid. Don’t have a credit card, couldn’t afford the airfare. Bet you could, though!
And how fucking dare you compare a fucking PROCEDURAL FIGHT in the party over superdelegates to having the presidency stolen in 2000?
I think it scurried away.
And how fucking dare you compare a fucking PROCEDURAL FIGHT in the party over superdelegates to having the presidency stolen in 2000?
technically, the 2000 election debacle was a procedural fight too. just because it’s procedural doesn’t mean it isn’t stolen. that’s what can happen when people abuse procedures.
and that’s basically the problem here. unless we can find a nice way out of this looming mess, there’s an increasing chance that the losing side will see the winners as illegitimate.
A lot of the Obama supporters are college kids who seem to have discovered politics for the first time. Well and good, welcome to the fray - but no, you don’t get to threaten violence if your candidate doesn’t get the nomination.
don’t you see what you’re doing here? you’re taking a single second hand story about what an obama supporter supposedly said, and then universalizing it to all young obama supporters. (and ignoring the fact that clinton has thousands of college kids among her supporters) it’s craziness. and look and lambert’s comment: he took it even further, somehow attributing threats of violence as a part of obama the candidate’s own rhetoric.
seriously, as i noted above, this is slipping into malkin territory. politicians are not responsible for crazy people who decide to follow them. i am against the war, but i have nothing to do with some loon who bombs a military recruitment office. and while young people might statistically be more likely to be violent in the overall population, it’s not right to disparage an entire group as “prone to violence” simply because they’re young. just like it’s not right to say arabs are “prone to terrorism” because there have been a lot of arab terrorists.
you wanted an example of a pro-clinton site being “hateful”, well, i don’t think you notice when it happens, even when it happens here. there are hateful things being said on both sides. maybe we should start considering why the other side likes their candidate rather than dismissing them as a bunch of childish cultists.
The 2000 election fight was not procedural. It was about thugs shutting down the vote-counting process in Dade County and a Supreme Court that disregarded procedures to hand Bush the election.
Threatening to start violence over anger that one candidate (again, within the party - we’re not talking about stealing the presidency here) was better at working the system WITHIN THE RULES to get the nomination is not the same thing.
And it’s not “a single story.” I’ve seem more comments like that than I can count. You prefer to see them as overblown rhetoric; I don’t. You’re a lawyer, you know what terroristic threats are.
As someone who participated with righteous abandon during late-60’s riots and no Obama supporter by a long shot, I’m just not buying it. Quite frankly folks, we’re reacting to comments that are ‘purported’ to be from Obama supporters. Can anyone prove that such incendiary language is actually from the Obama side of the net? I can easily go to a wingnut site and claim to be a huckleberry supporter threatening armaggedon at the Repuke convention just to see the fur fly. I’ve noticed that over the past year, since rethugs have lost any cache with the public, troll attention to every progressive blog has increased exponentially. Typical neocon, libertarian repugican strategy, if you can’t win a debate through intellectual discourse, then ratfuck the opposition. Perhaps we’re seeing some rethug dirty tricks at work, que no? Just as Limbaugh urged his brownshirts to do. If Hillary and Barak are going to show leadership, now’s their time to step up.
I was going to make a comment about how horrified I am by this post, but then I thought twice. I think reading a baby boomer decry the narcissism of another generation based anecdotal evidence and the contents of random comments left by anonymous posters on blogs is one of most awesome unintentionally hilarious things I’ve come across in a long time.
Yeah Chris boomers can be self-centered. And I am one too but I don’t consider myself typical.
My goal is to leave great things in the minds and hearts of those I leave behind. I emphasize that they try to be a leader, make an impact in any groups they join and always be the hero to your family and friends first and your country and religion second.
Remember this - no matter what happens in an election, we are frigging lucky to be in this country.
I hope so. I hope it’s all one big ratfuck, because there’s no better way to hand the White House to the Republicans than a riot in Denver.
well, SM, you were pining for more comments recently and here they are! i will vote for the dem candidate in november whoever it is. i have recently read many comments by people who claim to be Obama supports saying that they will sit out if HRC is nominated. this is not a good idea.
if you want to witness a SPIRITED “discussion” of the matter, check out recent posts at http://www.balloon-juice.com. i would urge folks to try to keep some perspective on the dem race and not expend all their outrage on the primary.
The 2000 election fight was not procedural. It was about thugs shutting down the vote-counting process in Dade County and a Supreme Court that disregarded procedures to hand Bush the election.
yes, thugs shut down the vote-counting process, but then they got the state authorities to bless the stopped vote counting. that was a procedural move. then in another procedural move, the gore campaign forced the recount to resume, but the bush campaign went to court and got an injunction forcing it to stop again, another procedural move. the supreme court upheld the stay in vote counting pending the outcome of the overall election challenge. then time passed while the electoral challenge progressed and then the supreme court issued its second ruling saying that because the recount hadn’t taken place by the statory deadline, it could not be completed. never mind that the only reason the recount missed the deadline was because the supreme court itself ordered the recount be stopped.
all of that was procedure. again, sure there was some republican thuggery, but that’s not what lost the case for the gore campaign and that’s not what ultimately lost the election. what lost the election was the supreme court ordering the recount to stop under one procedural rule, and then holding it against the gore campaign for missing the recount deadline under another one, even though the court forced them to miss the deadline.
And it’s not “a single story.” I’ve seem more comments like that than I can count.
really? are they all anonymous second and third hand tales, or are any of them instances of someone with an actual name on the record making some kind of violent threat? if there’s “more than you can count” then surely it can’t be hard to find one.
You prefer to see them as overblown rhetoric; I don’t. You’re a lawyer, you know what terroristic threats are.
yes. and as a lawyer i don’t see “terroristic threats” in this story. what i do see is triple hearsay.
“29Susie
I hope so. I hope it’s all one big ratfuck, because there’s no better way to hand the White House to the Republicans than a riot in Denver.”
So there you have it: A nihilist, not someone who cares about her country.
Boomers. Who needs ‘em?
PA Consolidated Statutes:
(a) Offense defined. A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:
1. commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;
2. cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation; or
3. otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.
Example:
http://mithras.blogs.com/blog/2008/03/philadelphia-de.html#comments
Make no mistake, those of us who support Obama will burn Denver to the ground before we let Clinton steal the nomination if she doesn’t have the lead among pledged delegates.
Posted by: Soullite | March 07, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Example No. 2
http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/03/if-hillary-gets-to-claim-michigan-and.html
Thursday, March 06, 2008
If Hillary Gets To Claim Michigan And Florida, Denver Will Burn
Update @ 9:39pm CT: i’ve posted a response here
I’m gonna say this much. If she gets to claim those delegates as-is, it’s over. If its thug politics you want, then that’s cool, just let me know, because I can bring out the thug. You want to destroy my candidate with dirty politics? Fine. You want to hide behind “35 years of experience,” go ahead.
Ingrid:
FYI- there is class warfare involved even in the Dem party. Sad but true.
I don’t foresee a riot but strong feelings — extremely strong feelings? Yes. When the dust settles, if a riot takes place, I hope intelligent people realize it would be 95% HRC to blame and 5% hooligans. For the simple fact that HRC can win ONLY by stealing the nomination and strongarming, scaring, bribing, and blackmailing the superD’s. 4 tactics all too common and aceptable to the clinton-machine…then when SpongeJohn McCrazypants wins in Nov the blame will lay entirely in her pantsuited lap. Of course she won’t accept the blame and will likely somehow blame Gore…like they always do…
You’re dreaming if you don’t think Obama’s team is also out there strong-arming, wheeling, dealing and doing whatever they have to do to get to the magic number. I simply don’t understand this massive blind spot among his supporters: He’a a POLITICIAN. He’s not only a politician, he’s a product of the Chicago machine. Hel-lo?
And he’s not only going after the superdelegates, they’re each trying to steal each other’s PLEDGED delegates. Wake up, this is politics.
What he is or may be doing IS politics…if he fails to turn any HRC duperD’s than it still will not harm his chances…he is doing it in an effort to gather more support - not soley to win. HRC publicy and arrogantly announcing the tactic to try to win when knowing full well it is THE ONLY way to win (can’t reach his delegate total; popular vote toal/number of state victories) is STEALING the nomination out from under him. This is not politics…at least the politics we should want. Would you be protecting OB is the shoe was on the other foot? Would you say “go ahead and destroy the party - go ahead and try to win by stealing my superD’s - and while you’re at it, talk up the GOP nominee”? “it’s only politics - fuck the rules”?
If you would then you are really no better then the crooks in the republican party and what they did in 2000 and have been doing for 8 years. I truly believe the clinton’s are jealous of the power (and fortune) W and Cheney have carved for themselves - and they want back in the game. Her own campaign mission statement (clearly on her webpage) is “I’m in it to win it”. No one can doubt that! It is all about her…and rules, integrity, party alligence, …hell even common sense BE DAMNED! Everything is now going out the window - she is making it very clear to anyone actually paying attention that she believes if she doesn’t win then the democratic party deserves to lose.
Politics? yeah…GOP politics. Which is what she is…Bushlite.
Assume for the sake of argument that Hillary wins the popular vote and Obama has more delegates (of the regular kind). Doesn’t the moral argument then change? Who says that can’t happen–with re-votes in big states like Florida and Michigan. And what about all the Republicans (and perhaps independents) who voted for Obama simply to finally kill the bitch? Doesn’t that matter?
I can’t fathom why people think Obama has somehow run a cleaner campaign - for gawd’s sake calling the Clintons racist over nothing (her tears were proof of it) was about as low as you can go. I think it’s fair to also speculate (channeling Peggy Noonan) that the “monster” comment was put out there deliberately. There are lists of other examples (like the Obama ad in Nevada) that are not speculation and add up to an approach that’s as repitilian as any other politician.
And I can’t understand why people are calling Susie names while reading her blog. Isn’t it sort of like being a guest in somebody else’s house–not to mention that she doesn’t deserve it, she seems to have a really good heart, and she’s a good writer as well.
Ameila:
Hello- if non-Dems voted for Obama, they did it because the Dem rules allowed non-Dems to vote. It was not illegal nor immoral.
And you are only offering anectdotal evidence of that - no one can possibly quantify the impact of these “crossover” voters on the outcome.
As to violence, if the candidate with the greatest number of votes did not get the nod, I don’t blame people for getting violent. Whatever side that may be - because libs fight like girls anyway.
The candidate with the greatest number of votes…
That would be Hillary in Nevada, and Hillary in Texas.
But it’s the delegates that count, right?
Look, this is going to be a photo finish. The party is split right down the middle on this. What Susie is saying is that we do NOT, DO NOT need to resort to violence to resolve this conflict. That’s what this post is about. We pride ourselves on being the grownups, and so we will act like grownups.
Several more primaries happen, until June. Then we figure out where we are. We go from there. Deep breaths, everybody.
Joe,
You are the definition of projection. How hilarious it is to think that a Chicago backed politician is the victim here. And do you honesty think the DNC is behind Clinton? Please. They punished MI and FL–and not IA, NH, NV, SC–to significantly hurt her chances.
My God, the Obama fans are clinically psycho. Part of me hopes Obama gets the nomination just to see them devastated when he gets completely killed in the GE against McCain. Obama can’t even handle some lame SNL skit and you think he’ll be able to deal with scrutiny? The GOP will eat him for breakfast.
Then I realize how silly that would be and I hope against hope (no pun intended) that she’ll get the nomination (assuming the voters in the upcoming primaries choose her, of course) because she’s our best chance in the election, but even then she has already been crippled by the polarizing tactics of the Obama campaign and the media smear campaign. If we lose the GE, we’ll have Obama and his fanboys to blame.
Go ahead and flame, Joe. Oh, and please incorporate some misogynistic bigotry and GOP talking points (More “Bush lite” please) to make it the rantings of an utter lunatic complete. You’re a disgrace.
Nathan,
you are asking me to flame? Really? No, I’ll leave that to you…
Your arguments border on disgraceful and lunacy. Along with the classic psycho HRC paranoia of thinking the DNC ruled against MI and FL to affect her election chances. First the vast right-wing conspiracy and now a vast DNC conspiracy? Is there nothing or no one the clintons will not blame for their own failures? She barely won MI and OB was not even on the ballot!! Yep, another DNC trick I suppose…
GOP talking points? She need look no further than her own talking points to see actual GOP talking points…Hell, her own campaign is being run by someone (Penn) with deep connections to the management of McCain’s! And the classic talking point of Chicago-backed…please explain. Where is the legitimate data to back up McCain “kills” OB in the GE? There is no data to support it! In fact, most data refutes it! It is merely the flaming of rabid and desparate HRC supporter who sees any criticism of her as pure mysogyny and/or seeded in some conspiracy of democrats and republicans alike. The fact you can not argue against the facts of HRC needing to basically steal the nomination (less she somehow can claim popular vote lead) speaks for itself. No, instead deflect the arguement to SNL skits, GOP talking points, claims of polarizing OB tactics and media smears. True clinton fallback pose. Change the argument and play victim. Garner some tears and then maybe a “shame on you” moment and hope everyone forgets about it. And never pretend or even attempt to answer a “shoe on the other foot” question of reflection. All of america knows if the sides were switched and OB was doing what HRC is currently doing that the clintons and their supporters would be losing their collective minds and screams of conspiracy and misogyny (victim) would be drowning out the laughter from the rest of us!
The OB “fanboys”, DNC and vast right-wing conspiracies…they are to blame. Now that is classic! What a riot!
Sad actually. The Clinton’s once had the world on a string - now they resort to parlor-games of conspiracy theories and 3 AM phone calls where the safety of children is decided…
So Joe, I guess you don’t think people should be allowed to steal bases in the World Series, either? Even though, you know, the rules allow it…
Now I understand. “If he fails to turn any HRC duperD’s than it still will not harm his chances…he is doing it in an effort to gather more support - not solely to win.” It’s all out of the goodness of his heart, while her attempts are the movement of Dark Forces. Gotcha.
Amelia, it isn’t “sort of” like being a guest in someone’s home and attacking the host - it’s EXACTLY like that. Thanks for trying to be reasonable in these most unreasonable times.
Rules matter…regardless of clintons’ longtime history of only following the ones that benefit themselves…now you are comparing the election to a baseball game? It is this over-riding sense to assign sports “fan” behavior and “what would a coach do?” questioning to this election process that is scarring it beyond repair…
Her attempts are not akin to merely stealing bases upon getting a runner on base. It is closer to playing a game and while losing, publicly and arrogantly lobbying and pleading with the league commissioner to let her opponents runs count as hers at the end of the game. Soley because she realizes she can not win according to the rules…
Goodness of his heart. maybe, maybe not…but there’s that classic clinton paranoia of “dark side” influences against her….and at the end of the day OB can say he is doing it to gather support for a successful administration. Not doing it because it is his only way to win. You know? Ethics and class…again admirable characteristics (and vital political characteristics) the clintons continue to show the world they lack. Don’t bother to throw out the “chicago politician” missile to counter ethics and class. The “chicago politician” is a gone analogy and just a dog-whistle for others to think corruption. It no longer applies. At least to the point of Chicago politiciians having the corner on the “corruption” market. Selling the Lincoln bedroom ring any bells for you corruption-wise??
Again, HRC supporters can only use ridiculous sport team analogies and arguments centered on “do you think OB isn’t ruthless?” questions to deflect away from the critical questions. Why does HRC feel that if she can’t win then no democrat will win? Why is she allowed to and in fact condoned in her efforts to win this by stealing (assuming she doesn’t end up with a lead in popular vote totals, which is the only way I see her remotely justifying this action)? If OB was doing this HRC and “team and fans” would be in vapor-lock over the audacity of OB to put himself over the party…
putting aside the jurisdictional issue (the PA statute obviously wouldn’t apply to someone talking in denver), i still don’t think the comments meet are terroristic threats. claiming that “denver will burn” if the primary is “stolen” from obama doesn’t fit under the statute because the statute requires criminal intent. (it’s unconstitutional if its applied in a way that it isn’t). you know as well as i do that in a political campaign people get excited and predict dire consequences if their guy isn’t elected. in the 2004 election the bush campaign told the american people that they would be personally in danger from a bombing unless they elected bush. likewise clinton’s 3 a.m. phone call commercial is doing essentially the same thing. both could be viewed as threats, but they’re protected speech. a political campaign is where the first amendment has its broadest reach. predicting dire consequences if your candidate loses is not making a terroristic threat. it’s political speech.
oh and i asked: “are any of them instances of someone with an actual name on the record making some kind of violent threat?” quoting anonymous commentators from blogs isn’t what i asked for. once again i am reminded of rightwingers who go comment surfing, picking out the nutjob comments from the dailykos or other high profile liberal blogs and hold those comments against liberalism in general. if you’re holding comments by random pro-obama nutjobs against obama and all of his supporters, how is that any different?
Where do you get this crap? I’m not holding this against Obama and his SANE supporters - I’m holding this against the nutjobs who think they’re entitled to “go nuclear” (as a prominent blogger we both know put it) if Clinton wins by soliciting superdelegate support.
typical clinton tactic is to assign an opponents campaign philosphy to comments of unidentified “supporters”…I’m not suprised to see it here. HRC’s unabashedly easy fall-back to the meme of FEAR shows she is learning from Rove and Atwater. Pure and clear evidence she is envious of the power and control the GOP have carved for themselves in the last 8 years. BE AFRAID! ONLY I CAN PROTECT YOU! (but if not me than McCain is qualified too). Cheney’s last employer’s stock has risen over 3000% since the war started. 3 trillion dollars of influence to peddle around. The clintons’ want that gig!
She acts as if the next president needs to be selected rather than elected. But keep stealing the bases and laying down those sacrifice bunts! Keep the spikes high sliding into second and swing for the fences! Pitch high and tight and protect the plate! Throw at the hitters head to let them know you command flow! All those wonderful sports team metaphors.
Ob only needs to reply by telling her to “look at the scoreboard rookie”.
Where do you get this crap?
i get it from where you say that the obama campaign is responsible for taking action against people like that to “nip this in the bud”.
When he’s the only person they’ll listen to, yes, he has a moral responsibility to exercise leadership. Is that even a question?
Has anyone considered that the well-oiled RNC machine could be “the man behind the curtain”? Republican power-brokers always put loyalty to the party above anything else. To further their own interests and consolidate Republican control of federal & state government, they methodically work to undermine the DNC and democratic voters. Fla. dems have been out-played since the election of Gov. Jeb Bush in 1998, “hanging chads” in 2000, voting irregularities in 2004 and 2006. BTW-our Gov., Charlie Crist is on the short list for McCain VP.
Susie, which generation isn’t a generation of narcissists? Certainly Clinton and her more fervent supporters seem to believe they are owed the nomination, and she’s getting into delusional territory on the “experience threshhold” question. On the flip side, Samantha Power’s little slip is nothing if not narcissistic: how dare that monstrous Clinton person try to steal what rightly belongs to Samantha and her candidate?
As for the threats Perlstein reported, I have difficulty reconciling seriousness of purpose with the act of passing along, for publication, the news that the correspondent is part of a secret plot to disrupt the convention. “… it’s all done on a cell basis, so that folks only know what they need to know …” Yeah, them and a few million blog readers. Shhhh.
Even if the latter-day yuppie and the military guy are absolutely serious, though, so what? I can’t imagine going to the mat for Obama because I don’t like or trust him and the change he represents seems to me cosmetic, but if for whatever (inexplicable to me) reason one buys into the program and genuinely believes that he is the anti-Clinton, which is to say progressive and anti-imperialist, why not offer up your blood if you think the nomination is being undemocratically hoisted? I suspect your objection isn’t so much to the idea but to the prospect of seeing it implemented in circumstances where you think neither candidate is worth fighting for, especially if doing so might diminish the prospects of keeping McCain away from the red button.