For your consideration:

The DNC rules committee has decided; Barack Obama will be the nominee. Hillary Clinton is as likely to win her party's nomination as is Ron Paul. This is a fact, and it is a waste of time to debate it any further.

MORE IMPORTANTLY: John McCain is a xenophobic, temperamental, cranky old man. He approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and has made it painfully clear that he both misunderstands and misrepresents US foreign policy in regards to Iran. His ethics are questionable; McCain has already violated the campaign finance laws that he himself pushed for.

It is time for a truce. I won't say another bad word about Hillary Clinton on this board. I won't make fun of her, or post immature YouTube clips. In exchange for this level of restraint, I ask Norm, and the rest of you, to let Hillary retire her campaign with grace. Clips such as this one are so riddled with half-truths and outright delusions of grandeur that I find myself biting my tongue. But- anything I might say has already been said, and said again, and then analyzed thrice. It is time to move on.

Obama is hardly a perfect candidate. Compared to Ron Paul, I find his promise of change laughable. Even so, given the choices available to us this November, and the very flawed electoral system we must participate in, my choice is obvious- I'm a Florida voter for Obama come November.

Yes, all logic says that McCain will win this state in a landslide. Even so, I will do my duty and vote, regardless of the wrinkled masses who surround me.

Let me close with this: I am a conservative at heart. The ideas of Barry Goldwater strike me as true. If I were the President, I would do things very differently than Mr. Obama. That said, I am NOT the President, nor is there ANY chance I will be (at least anytime soon). The question before us now is not: what do I think is best, but rather, what is best for America?

I hope the answer to this question is self-evident. I also hope that our common ground can make us allies in the cause. America, define, is the art of compromise.

Is Clinton fixing the facts around the policy? :)

The popular vote argument is bull. Between Caucuses and sanctioned states, and Guam etc, it is not as nearly as consistent a metric as it is in the general and if Clinton's campaign team has been trying to win popular vote rather then delegates, its a real argument that her team is incompetent.

Not sure why they are making the argument, saving face, angling for VP or some genuinely frightening try for the nomination after the race is over.

I hope yesterday's events can finally put to rest the talk of Obama's supporters being the emotionally irrational ones in the race.

Noone seemed aware of the context by which sanctions were levied. If Florida and Michigan's delegates had not been stripped and candidates not pledged to not campaign and remove names, all states were going to move their primaries up. Voting would have started in November.

Caucuses and primaries would have been rushed in on short notice, problems would have been many, campaigns would have been unfairly forced into ever changing timelines. The result would have meant the disenfranchising of many more voters. and candidates like Richardson Edwards and Biden and dodd would have been wiped out early by the financial strain of competing in states like Florida and Michigan so quickly.

Obama's removing his name from the Michigan ballot was not a "flawed strategy" to pander to IA and NH, it was an act needed to stop an avalanche of primaries that would have caused chaos.

Some video taken by an audience member during the RBC meeting. It's cute stuff. And Howard's comments aren't helping.

Part 1

Part 2

Thank the non-existent supreme being that I will not have to go cast an anti-McCain vote by casting a vote for Clinton, because I would throw up all the way home.

I no longer believe that Hillary Clinton has the personal qualities of honesty and integrity that are so essential for a president to have, as have been amply demonstrated in the last 8 years. This is a sickening and disgusting video. Thank you for posting it so we can futher confirm that we made the right choice in selecting Obama.

This situation really bothers me. I guess i understand presenting arguments in favour of winning for your side, but Clinton did not "win" the popular vote, she might have won it by some calculations, but by many other calculations (that estimate caucus states, don't include the contested primaries) she did not. But who care, the rules are the rules, delegates count, and the superdelegates can still decide.

She believes she is more electable, that is a valid and maybe a correct argument she should be taking to the superdelegates not the press and the public.

Clinton campaign supported the sanctions on these two states, and is now using it in a way to as far as I see, to divide the party. They did not object to this until they realized it was going to hurt her chances.

Anyway, I am really not impressed by this, it will rabble rouse people to be mad at the party, not help her campaign, (actually possibly piss off some superdelegates). It just seems to be making a narrative that the nomination was stolen from her.

I think she still has an electability argument, and her team should be making that argument.

This is a sickening and disgusting video.

If that made you mad, you should see the absurd cri de coeur he made in front of the rules committee, when Russert wasn't there to call him on at least some of his outright lies.

“Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee,”

oh!!! Not that! Stop, I'm getting all emotional! I might just go vote for McCain!

I propose from now on we treat all these half-truths, distortions, outright lies, and attempts to undermine the democratic process and the democratic party as self-parody, as also the empty threat we've heard so much recently that we ought not critize Clinton even when she does egregious and outlandish things such as this, because, putatively, that would make Obama a graceless victor (even though, somehow, whatever Obama does doesn't really matter, only his supporters trying to defend him against smear, which is offensive to some).

I think it fair to say that any person running for national office long ago compromised both their honesty and integrity.

I think it's fair to say that some politician acknowledge boundaries in how far they will go. And others do not. While we have heard smear galore about such tantalizing non-issues as Rezko, Wright, Ayers, etc., we have heard nothing, for instance, not a murmur, from the Obama campaign about all the Clinton baggage, including Bill's post-presidential "business" schemes in Kazahkstan and elsewhere. That politicians will 'do anything' is not a justification for this behavior.

Obama's removing his name from the Michigan ballot was not a "flawed strategy" to pander to IA and NH, it was an act needed to stop an avalanche of primaries that would have caused chaos.

Indeed, every candidate on the ticket except Hillary removed their name. It wasn't just Obama. And you are exactly right: if the full delegations would have been seated, it would have undermined the whole primary process in the future and made it that much harder for non-mainstream candidates to have a fighting chance. But maybe if we keep on repeating falsehoods, they will, magically, somehow, come true?

Sigh. Ickes's thesis just further highlights a campaign on the ropes. This interview makes me sad. I'm sorry for those in Michigan and Florida for not getting full votes counted. I'm also saddened that any delegates were distributed to the candidates. Both states knew the rules and defied them. We need a shortened primary season, not one that lasts more than forever.

Caucuses and primaries would have been rushed in on short notice, problems would have been many, campaigns would have been unfairly forced into ever changing timelines. The result would have meant the disenfranchising of many more voters. and candidates like Richardson Edwards and Biden and dodd would have been wiped out early by the financial strain of competing in states like Florida and Michigan so quickly.

I agree. As I've alluded to before, just check the price of hotels in Iowa, New Hampshire vs. Florida, Michigan, California. Then consider how many delegates the latter 3 states have compared to the former 2. If the residents of Florida, California, Michigan, and even Texas don't think they get enough say in the election, I can disagree on the delegate count alone.

I did like this op ed in the NYT today. Different take on the whole situation, more realistic, and more of a truce.

Poo. I seem to have missed something in the above link syntax. Here's the url: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01holmes.html?th&emc=th

The question of popular voter vs delegates will rip apart the Democratic party.

Get used to saying, as this is where we will be this time next hear.

President John McCain.

Dontcha love it?

Poplular vote.. this concept.. if you buy it has to do with counting Michigan votes, which means that Barack Obama nets zero popular votes as concerns Michigan because his name was not on the ballot. This concept also leaves out those states who had a caucus. I guess that those states don't count.

"We don't accept the premise of your question."

Then you're in complete denial!

gypsy sister and adam thanks for both links.

I have thought for sometime that Hillary should do something inspiring like the Obama speech on race, either on the challenges of being a women in power, (leave out the word sexism, which minimizes a much more complicated issue) or on poverty or the duties of a good government, or even issues with media coverage in campaigns. This would have to not be just about her, but something transending. I really wish she would do this now, before the race is over.

I really was impressed with Hillary at the beginning of the campaign, really impressed at how well she did at the debates and how much she seemed to have changed in a good way from the Clinton era, where I felt she was not effective with speeches and the public.

I wonder if this is all due to bad choices of campaign staff. Ickes, just comes off as an ass. Not just here, but in general. I mean he fully supported this absolutely stupid plan with the primaries. Penn seems to be an ineffective campaign guy. One of the reasons I can't buy her argument she is more electable is that her campaign is doing a bad job. The campaign staff is thought to have alienated the press, had a bad strategy, and now are alienating the superdelegates. Do you think that Ickes is mad at Dean that he was beat out for Chair of the Party? Is there something personal going on that we don't know about?

Prior to this, I knew Ickes by name only as being one of Hillary's top advisors who was quoted a lot in the media arguing for the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates.

So it was quite a surprise to switch on C-Span Saturday morning and find him sitting at the table as one of the people who had voted FOR stripping Florida and Michigan of their delegates.

Can not some sort of charge be made for conflict of interest here?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/01/dncs-brazile-says-clinton_n_104553.html

Here is Donna Brazil discussing what went on behind the scenes.

Her team was instructed to take no offers and make compromise. If ever there was a time to reunite the party it was this weekend.

Obama sent an olive branch and Clinton refused it.

Norm

If you believe that Barack's honesty and integrity meets your standards you have a decidedly low standard.

Better low then none at all.

I have thought for sometime that Hillary should do something inspiring like the Obama speech on race, either on the challenges of being a women in power, (leave out the word sexism, which minimizes a much more complicated issue) or on poverty or the duties of a good government, or even issues with media coverage in campaigns. This would have to not be just about her, but something transending. I really wish she would do this now, before the race is over.

I'm inclined to agree, especially after reading the tremendously thoughtful article Joann posted the other day by a Clinton supporter, Hilary Rosen. Without ever wanting to deny the extent to which both racism and sexism have been operative in this primary season, I have bristled at the notion that Clinton lost because of sexism. Most of the polling data I've seen just doesn't support that view, but exactly the reverse, namely, gender has helped her with a lot of voters (indeed, more strongly with men than women).

For all that, the sexism isn't any less real. And why not call a spade a spade, and talk about sexism?

At any rate, in a fantasy world, that would be an ideal way for her depart from the race, I think.

The Kos dissected and rebuffed this argument. A good read. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/1/16747/37393/979/526838

I'm about halfway between Norma and RedSeven on the integrity issue:

Obama is no saint, not by a long shot, and it's hard to say how that campaign would look if the situation were reversed. I don't think they would go into complete fantasyland like Ickes here, but their relative magnanimity is something they could afford because they're ahead. To paraphrase Vonnegut, anyone wanting to be president is by definition and default insane.

But this is what it's come to, Norm: the way in which the Clinton campaign's made their arguments has galvanized a significant base of Clintonistas who aren't merely utilizing the arguments, they BELIEVE THEM. To this end, the Clinton campaign has I fear created a monster they cannot control, fanning the flames of a personality cult who will fight for Hillary at ANY COST (go over to hillaryis44.com and witness the crazy).

Part of me is glad that the long primaries have helped significantly vet Obama, have helped the Dems build organizations in every state, has given them free air time and lots of scrutiny. But the disingenuousness of the Clinton campaign has created a lot of fallout, and I'm betting there are tens of thousands of voters who would otherwise have been working to get Obama elected who now will be aiding McCain out of stupid spite.

Lastly: yeah, Obama's choice of churches is a significant liability now. It will continue to be, even though he's cut ties. Just when I was beginning to think the GOP couldn't find a bullshit wedge issue, one drops right into their laps.

Fucking Democrats.

I'm about halfway between Norm and RedSeven on the integrity issue:

I missed where we differ.

Clinton doesn't lead in the popular vote under any metric other than her own. Is this a surprise to anyone who has observed her shifting the goal post every other week? Not really. Stay classy, Clinton.

Can someone tell me if this site is going to just become an anti-Obama dumphole or what? I need to know if I need to do some bookmark cleaning.

Clinton doesn't lead in the popular vote under any metric other than her own. Is this a surprise to anyone who has observed her shifting the goal post every other week? Not really. Stay classy, Clinton.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Can someone tell me if this site is going to just become an anti-Obama dumphole or what? I need to know if I need to do some bookmark cleaning.

I think you have already survived the worst of it, Brad.

After tomorrow we won't have Hillary Clinton to kick around except as a suspended campaign specter. And there will be little reason to Debate Obama's flaws when faced with the enormity of John McCain's.

Although Norm will no doubt bring up when religion bites either candidate in the butt.

But that should be pretty painless.

I'm not so sure, RedSeven:

I'm unconvinced from Ickes' remarks that Hillary will go quietly away into that good night. Regardless, her diehards definitely won't. Here's the pathway to unity:

1. Obama's gotta make major outreach to Clintonistas in his speech after his presumed wins in MT and SD, starting with addressing the sexism charges (focusing it on how some supporters and some in the media are the culprits).

2. Clinton must tell her supporters, "So long, and thanks for all the fish," then ask them to get behind Obama to beat McCain.

3. As soon as possible, they've got to put to bed the VP rumors, once and for all. I'm hoping it goes down as Obama offers, Hillary declines, but we'll see. At any rate we have to nip that narrative in the bud (or make Hillary the VP, as much as I think that would be a mistake) right away.

BTW, Norm: Hillary has a slight lead only by chucking out four caucus states and/or not counting any of the "uncommitted" in MI for Obama. It's an absurd metric, and it at any rate isn't worthy of consideration beyond influencing the supers. So...I'm not sure what your link was supposed to accomplish.

Their are many ways to count the popular vote. in fact their are 972 ways. I think realistically they are pretty close to tied.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/popular-vote-scenario-tester.html

The above site is pretty interesting (well or extremely dull, depends on your facination with polls and data)....

The electoral college estimates are interesting and tend to swing towards Hillary's argument, (and supposedly from an Obama supporter) but are reasonably good news either way (have some hope Joann)...

Thanks for posting, this, Norm. Ickes' performance on Meet the Press says a lot about the argument that's keeping the HRC campaign alive. It's completely fitting that it will probably be the final straw which convinces all neutral superdelegates that the Clinton campaign hasn't a moral or logical leg to stand on.

Harold Ickes must really believe in his candidate, because no one that I know of would act like such an asshole on national television because they were getting paid to do it.

"He voluntarily took his name off the ballot"--as if Obama didn't want any delegates from Michigan, but he was content to let any other candidate have them. The argument is indescribably moronic. Obama took his name off the ballot under the same assumption that Hillary was under--that the votes wouldn't count for anything. Obama took his name off the ballot precisely under the fair assumption that the votes wouldn't count for anything. Now that Hillary has forced the party to make them count retroactively, he's perfectly right to refuse to accept any result which disadvantages his campaign.

I don't think that Ickes' crazed argument does much to discredit Hillary, so much as it shows what cards they have left. Not many good ones, it appears.

"I'm unconvinced from Ickes' remarks that Hillary will go quietly away into that good night. Regardless, her diehards definitely won't."

I think Ickes' statements say little about Clinton's intentions. At any rate, how are her supporters going to hold a grudge on behalf of a candidate who's campaigning for Obama? It's possible for people like Ickes to continue down this absurd path, but only if Hillary does so. And she's not going to do it. It's simply not conceivable.

I think Ickes' statements say little about Clinton's intentions.

Ickes is a well known thug, his job includes intimidation of super delegates and party officials. This incident wasn't about Hillary's intention in this primary, but her intentions after the primary.

My interpretations of his rather Hypocritical rant was not about the issue at hand. He was saying, "Fine, but if Obama loses in November, watch your heads, because we will becoming for you disloyal bastards soon after."