Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
DKos - That's what I'm talking about...
…the only path to victory for Clinton is via coup by super delegate.
She knows this. That’s why there’s all the talk about poaching pledged delegates and spinning uncertainty around Michigan and Florida, and laying the case for super delegates to discard the popular will and stage a coup.
Yet a coup by super delegate would sunder the party in civil war.
Clinton knows this, it’s her only path to victory, and she doesn’t care. She is willing — nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power.
If the situations were reversed, and Obama was lagging in the delegates, popular vote, states won, money raised, and every other reasonable measure, then I’d feel the same way about Obama. (I pulled the plug early on Dean in 2004.) But that’s not the case.
It is Clinton, with no reasonable chance of victory, who is fomenting civil war in order to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate. As such, as far as I’m concerned, she doesn’t deserve “fairness” on this site. All sexist attacks will be dealt with — those will never be acceptable. But otherwise, Clinton has set an inevitably divisive course and must be dealt with appropriately.
To reiterate, she cannot win without overturning the will of the national Democratic electorate and fomenting civil war, and she doesn’t care.
That’s why she has earned my enmity and that of so many others. That’s why she is bleeding super delegates. That’s why she’s even bleeding her own caucus delegates (remember, she lost a delegate in Iowa on Saturday). That’s why Keith Olbermann finally broke his neutrality. That’s why Nancy Pelosi essentially cast her lot with Obama. That’s why Democrats outside of the Beltway are hoping for the unifying Obama at the top of the ticket, and not a Clinton so divisive, she is actually working to split her own party.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/17/12417/1285/527/478498
Comments (9)
You could also try to put this into context of Kos, the heir to Howard Dean "anti-DLC" and "Hillary Clinton + Bill Clinton + DLC". Kos in fact mentions this in his post, which is about the ideological battle inside the party over DLC and the policies that implies.
So if you take that into account, it would be impossible for Kos to write anything differently in the quote you selected.
March 17, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not entirely true. It would be impossible at this point. However, Kos witheld endorsing Obama until recently and has only very recently started railing against Clinton.
March 17, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but let's ask ourselve why.
March 17, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the Math is true, Lalo.
Hillary cannot overtake Obama in Pledged Delegates.
The fact that Kos is a Obama supporter with an axe to grind doesn't take away that fact. And it's a fact that does not sit well with the majority of Democrats.
March 17, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with the math at all.
I'm suggesting that Kos has a much bigger ideological stake in this then an "average supporter" preference. Obama represents a non-DLC candidate for him.
DLC gave us the only two-term Democratic president (Bill Clinton) since I don't know when. DLC is based on a centrist and "middle way".
It's impossible for Kos to support Clinton because he's anti-DLC. That colors everything.
March 17, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
so how do we resolve this?
It would seem to me that the Clintons are delaying-- waiting for some issue, some association, something in his past to take down Obama, I couldn't help but notice Sean Hannity licking his lips about the Reverend Wright issue, as he exclaimed"He's finished!! He's through!!"
March 17, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
...the Clintons are delaying...
Because Obama does not have the required number of delegates? Why is that a problem?
March 17, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons aren't going anywhere before the nomination in Denver. Either she gets the DEM nomination or McCain gets the POTUS. There will be noting other than the Obamamaincs for Obama. Welcome to the 1972 McGovern rerun. Obama is not electable.
March 17, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
she cannot win without overturning the will of the national Democratic electorate...
This is an erroneous conceit I hear voiced by Obama supporters all too often and I don't believe it to be true. "One-person one-vote" produces the will of the people. We haven't really had that. We have had a series of primaries and caucuses that have allocated delegates according to the rules and the process is continuing to play out. Obama leads thus far and I believe he will ultimately win. But the process also includes several more primaries as well as getting the SD vote to determine the winner. Some of the Obama supporters are trying to move the goalposts by claiming that the SDs 'have to vote the will of the people' (as they define it) so Obama has won, even though he doesn't have a sufficient number of delegates to confirm it. That's attempting to add rules late in the process.
Then the KOS piece follows the all too familiar script attaching...
...and fomenting civil war...
...to the goalpost-moving claim of having 'the will of the people' - which seemingly says;
"If Hillary wins, then our side of the civil war can't support her."
It won't be civil war if Obama wins. Why should it be civil war if Clinton wins?
March 17, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment