Bullying? I think that's sort of a loaded term. At a caucus, people will debate but in no way is it hostile or hectoring (it's not like a blog comments section). It's very much focused on the issues and people make very passionate (and moving) cases for their candidate.

It doesn't get personal because at a caucus, you're literally sitting with your neighbors around a couple of small tables. In Seattle for instance, our precinct consists of about four square blocks of houses. It's people you know and/or see all the time.

Now, I don't think caucuses should be the most dominant type of contest but a small mix is good. ESPECIALLY in places like Idaho where it provides the chance for Democrats to get together and organize. It may not pay immediate dividends in the Presidential election but it will pay dividends in local races. Which can eventually turn into success at the general election level.

Posted at June 7, 2008 12:32 PM in response to Ideas for Reforming Democratic Nomination Process

Shocking...Hillary caught in another blatant lie/about face/change of heart.

Stop already.

Posted at April 25, 2008 2:14 PM in response to Dear Hillary: It's the Delegates Stupid

Clinton on Video:

"Obviously this is about delegates"

Posted at April 24, 2008 7:13 PM in response to The tides have "turned"

Here's a little reminder:

The Democrats in San Francisco... are on our freakin' team! What is wrong with you people?

Obama's remarks were unintentionally offensive (if you choose to read them with the worst possible meaning) and you can criticize Him for them. But these blogs, the cable news shows and Hillary's campaign are attacking their fellow Democrats on purpose. With malice.

I realize most of this is tribal side-taking and will be long forgotten in a few weeks - kinda like how Obama was a closet Reaganite in the lead-up to Nevada. But for the love of FDR, can you please stick to insulting your candidate of choice and not rope in the good, dedicated Democrats of San Francisco?

Posted at April 15, 2008 12:29 AM in response to PA Small Town and Rural Leaders Reject Clinton and McCain Attacks

Your background doesn't necessarily make you an elitist, your attitudes do. At this point, there's no bigger elitist in the nation than Hillary Clinton.

Why?

At this point her entire campaign point is premised on pure, unadulterated elitism. The idea that the party elites (super delegates) should overrule the votes of the people and nominate her. You know, to save the people from themselves.

Posted at April 15, 2008 12:06 AM in response to NAME THAT ELITIST!! come an play!

I'm not sure why Obama supporters are so against having all the states have a voice. If it's already over...what are they worried about?

Because the Clinton campaign has said their voice doesn't matter. According to them, the voice of the people only matters until the end of the primary, then the Super Delegates are welcome to contradict them.

Herein lies a huge contradiction and the most incendiary rational for her candidacy. She has set-up a situation where if the SDs come in now in favor of Obama, then they're undercutting the will of the people. However if they come in for Obama after the primaries they're undercutting the Democratic Party because he can't win. Either way Hillary's supporters feel like the legitimate nominee - Hillary - has been usurped. Despite the fact that Obama will have won more votes, more delegates and more states.

The irony is that there is little doubt in the outcome at this point but Hillary's dependence on the super delegates leaves her with two paths to the nomination. Both would take a cataclysmic event to undermine Obama's candidacy. It's only a matter of whether Hillary is viewed as the person who hastened his demise, or not.

Here are the two scenarios for Hillary:

1) Continue her take-no-prisoners approach and hope that Obama is damaged enough for SDs to choose her. Leaving the Democratic Party bitter, divided and weak.

2) 'Suspend' her campaign. Then if something comes out on Obama that severely damages his candidacy, she has enough delegates that the Super Delegates could legitimately swing the nomination to her. In this case, she puts the party above personal interest, and becomes the savior of the Democratic Party.

Posted at March 22, 2008 11:31 AM in response to Endgame Signals?

My goodness, thank you ovcatto!

I've read through all of the posts waiting for someone - anyone - to mention "Democratic values" as the basis of their decision. You're the first.

What’s most striking about the entire thread is the totally subjective and vacuous nature of people’s explanations. I don’t mean to say people’s support of their favored candidate isn’t rational or rooted in values, it’s just that no one seems to explain it that way. It’s to the great detriment of our party that people aren’t able to do it. The Republican Party has tried for years to paint the Democratic Party as lacking principles and that it only cares about power. And the discussion in this thread reinforces that.

Take the Super Delegates. Many in the Democratic Party seem to think that the SDs should vote for “who they think can win.” No one ever says they should vote for the candidate who best represents the Democratic Party’s values - the candidate who can make the best case for progressive principles. Then let the chips fall where they may. I’m not saying we should purposely lose, as much as I’m saying the better we can evolve the discussion towards our values and the more we stand up for them – the better chance our candidates will have getting elected.

When McCain took the lead in the nominating process for the GOP, you didn’t here his critics say he couldn’t get elected. You heard that he wasn’t “conservative” enough or that he undermined core principles of small government (McCain-Feingold) or fiscal responsibility (anti-tax cut). However, he was always lauded for being a proponent of a “strong national defense” based on his stance on Iraq. Now, I don’t agree with any of these principles, but it is the criticism that came his way. And one that reinforces the (I believe incorrect) notion that the GOP is a principled party.

So, I guess I’m wondering why no one here is saying they won’t vote for Obama because he doesn’t believe in the “common good.” Or that Hillary doesn’t believe that “America is the greatest among equals” in foreign policy. We’re in an election and passions are running high but could we all please stand up for Democratic Values instead of denouncing silly campaign tactics.

Posted at March 21, 2008 4:47 PM in response to Attention Hillary Clinton Supporters! A Question.

And all this time we were told Obama couldn't play hard ball politics...well, looks like strike three Hillary.

Posted at March 20, 2008 7:12 PM in response to Granholm: "I'm Deeply Disappointed" Michigan Revote Is Dead

Friday, March 15th, 2008

Lanny Davis on The Situation with Tucker Carlson:

"First of all Barack Obama is not this man, doesn’t stand for the hate, and the extreme rhetoric that he utters and he ought to make that clear and that’s it. This guilt by association, back and forth, where one of our supporters says something terrible and the Senator Clinton is blamed and now Senator Obama. I give Senator Obama completely - completely - the benefit of the doubt that he has nothing to do with this bigotry and this hatred that I heard spewed forth by this man. That for me is all he has to say. And I think we should stop this guilt-by-association that’s been going on a long-time because some of our supporters say stupid things."

Posted at March 20, 2008 1:10 PM in response to Two Questions for Lanny Davis

This is great. On a side note, I belong to the UCC in Seattle (albeit not a predominantly African-American parish). I've never belonged to a less dogmatic, more inclusive, more philosophically enlightened church. And this is part of their national mission, not just a local one.

For everyone who thinks there's something wrong with Obama's church I would ask them to attend it. To look at their web site. To subscribe to their newsletter. I promise, even if you're not a person of faith, it is thought provoking and enlightening. Two things not commonly associated with churches.

Posted at March 15, 2008 4:24 PM in response to The Fierce Urgency of Hate