« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Screening out Unity
I am an Obama supporter, but I wanted to see the Clinton press release regarding the RBC decision,
so I went off to HillaryClinton.com. After reading the comments that
supporters had made (which almost all talk about going to the
convention and/or voting for McCain), I decided to make a post calling
for party unity. I didn't proclaim the race over or take sides, I just
suggested that we all take the passion and resilience from the primary
and move it into the general election regardless of the nominee, since
we can't have 4 more years of the Bush agenda via McCain.
My comment never showed up... They apparently screened out my call for
unity in favor of some of the other comments on the site. I could
sort-of understand if they were picky about their comments that they
showed, but if you take a look, there is some crazy stuff (and just
about only crazy stuff) being said. You all should take a look here (but please be respectful).
I don't know what to make of this. I would assume that there are many other people looking for unity, it just appears that they are making it a policy to screen out anything that doesn't mention either Denver, write-in votes, or voting for McCain. If they are screening these out, hopefully it is the work of a campaign worker and not the tone that the campaign will take in the coming days.
I may be making something out of nothing, but I was much more optimistic about the Clinton campaign doing the right thing until I saw this. I urge Hillary and Obama supporters who hope to have a united Democratic Party, to be sure they have their voices heard and not to let the Ickes of the world speak for them.
Comments (23)
I'll say again: If Hillary tries to take this to the convention, she's going to find life in the Senate very unrewarding.
I think a lot of the saber-rattling is about psyching up supporters for the last two primaries. If I'm wrong, I guess we'll find out in a couple of days.
May 31, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And short.
May 31, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully you are right. I'm just worried what she might try to do if the primary feedback she gets filtered back to her are comments like those on her site.
May 31, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just found this blog post and it's making me nervous. Could it be that this was pretty much planned all along and she always had every intention of losing at this meeting so she had the justification (arguably) to take her beef to the credentials committee and then the convention?
May 31, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The number of delegates seems too small for her to think that something like that would work, but you never know. Hopefully, there will be enough supers ready to unify after Tuesday that any seating of the FL/MI delegates wouldn't make a difference.
June 1, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you fear Hillary cleverly plotted her own defeat at today's meeting to give her an excuse to carry on to the convention?
Hey, Occam, can I borrow that when you're through?
No, the defections were real. Her cause is collapsing.
And today's coverage was an object lesson in democratic procedure for millions of would-be voters who otherwise would remain in the dark.
Overall, a great day.
A credentials cttee appeal will fail, and if she pursues the fight to Denver she simply renders herself more of an irrelevant pariah.
I can see why she's pissed, though.
She just blew a quarter-BILLION dollars betting on what she thought was a sure thing.
Hubris, thy name is Hillary.
June 1, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
In passing, Maggie Williams's post on that Hillary blog was quite muted.
Note that both she and Ickes state that the campaign "reserves the right" to appeal the Michigan ruling (not Florida) to the credentials cttee.
In my past role as a union rep, I've written plenty of "reserve the right" letters.
They usually mean you know you don't have a really good case, and the recipient usually interprets them in that precise sense too.
It will all be over in under a week.
June 1, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Maggie Williams post wasn't bad, but Ickes' statement at the end of the meeting was terribly divisive. It should be over within a few days, but I'm still a little worried about the tone that the campaign has been using.
June 1, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lanny Davis edited your post and will be up all nigfht editing posts becuase he is an insane nerd.
May 31, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS - Every one of those posts on the Hillary Blog are CLEARLY planted and scripted and edited. Holy cow, it was like Hillary4U&Me but in blog form.......
May 31, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
One person donated $100.44 and 4 posts later, someone just happned to coincidentally donate $10.44. Hmmmmmmmm.....
May 31, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screened- yes, but I doubt scripted by the campaign. I doubt that a script would read "DENVER DENVER DENVER...[repeat 50 times until saying your voting for McCain]"
May 31, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trailerville: The first 10 or so seem very strange to me. Very, "point-1, point-2, point-3, Love!!, Averge Voter" to me... Some examples of strange, non-average people language:
---"Rise, Hillary, Rise, You can Rise above all of this as well! God is preparing you for what is to come in the Presidency and you will be able to withstand it all!"
---"This is a hijacking of an election and an attempt to destroy our democratic tradition."
---"Don't give up Hillary--America needs you. I need you."
I don't see this kinda stuff on youtube... Something's fishy about her website.......
May 31, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
They seemed very planted to me; as if the same person -same voice and style- wrote all of them.
All the donations have a .44 amount too!
May 31, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lookingin: AtswhatImtalkinabout!!
May 31, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could be. I still think that sounds like a strange move (even for this campaign) to write a bunch of angry rants trying to tear apart the party, especially when I'm sure they are getting messages that they wouldn't have to fabricate that would do the trick. Also, I think the 44 is because they say she will be the 44th president and it's just something her supporters sometimes do.
May 31, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trailerville: I hear you on the "44". Still, a little weird, cuz I've never heard it here or on other free-flowing blogs/youtube graffiti. [[Although, I DO donate to Barack with .34 cents becuase it's my lucky number (thanks to the great David Ortiz).]]
Anyway, overall I don;t get the same feel of regular posts. No one says: "Oh shoot, we're in a bind now, and Obama's people are strong, and likely to win, but maybe we have a shot..." [[I get the same feel from the schlubs on "Deal or No Deal"]]
And I've NEVER heard anybody say someone's out "to destroy our democratic tradition." Just doesn't ring true to me...
Oh well......
GO BARACK 2008! BRING BACK OUR DEMOCRACY! GO DONATE @ BARACKOBAMA.COM! I WILL STANBD BEHIND YOU IN WHATEVER WAY YOU NEED BARACK OBAMA! AMERICA NEEDS YOU! I NEED YOU!! :)
May 31, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That last part gave me a good laugh. Well done.
But anyway... We just heard Ickes talking about hijacking democracy and things of that sort earlier. I do think there are die-hard supporters who would make the same claims.
May 31, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably right. I get the same out-of-body experience reading the posts over at redstate.com.
June 1, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary personally edited your post. True story.
May 31, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your post doesn't count.
June 1, 2008 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do any posters there wear hats? Just askin'.
June 1, 2008 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
To poster[s] writing off concerns apparently voiced in a blog from someone called "sodahead" [have not yet read it] - I suggest that nothing be taken for granted.
Another blog poster on Huffington's "off the bus" page has a post entitled [nominally - cannot remember exact] "briar patch" - suggests that the Hillary campaign had been long planning a 'take it to the convention' strategy relative to any DNC vote that failed to give her 100% nof what she came asking for.
There is merit to that claim, since the Congressional Quarterly May 30 edition quotes Clinton from one week ago saying she would speak with the officials of MI/FlA and would support the 'elected officials and voters' who might want to challenge the process.
Now one week later, Hillary OPPOSED the allocation plan put forward by the MI delegation; as her DNC statement via Ickes is not in line with her own statement of a week ago, one may well believe that she is looking for a means to stretch out the race and put off as long as possible the moment of reckoning.
I do not see any more rationality to such a positino than do others on this thread, but notice that some other online columnists have suggested that drawing out the race has long been the goal - such that HAD she been given everything she wanted, Hillary would have cited a 'smaller than 150-delate-margin' as her reason to continue to argue her case.
Since none other than Rachel Maddow have cautioned that a convention scenario could happen, these concerns should perhaps not be written off.
Just saying.
But I LOVED the demeanor of nearly everyone on that RBC committee - even the highly honorable Alice Hoffman had the courage to excoriate Hillary Supporters to "act like men and women" when the audience was so disrespectful - there IS hope.
June 1, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment