« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Whining Crybaby Clintonite Losers
Damn it. A bunch of whining crybaby losers are trying to tear the party apart because their candidate of choice lost.
They are trying to make the convention into the nominating contest it used to be. That is a losing strategy. I hope they are told to take their damn ball and go home.
Hillary Needs to make a shermanesque statement and shut these people down. If she will not she is just another Lieberman Independent Democrat Buddy-F*cker. The primaries are over. She lost and she should tell this bunch of spoiled kids to grow up and get with the program.
The Working Cllass Heretic
Advertisement
Comments (104)
Just to be clear I do not think these peoplea re acting upon Sen Clinton's orders or in accordance with her wishes. She has behaved in an exemplary fashion since her concession speach. But since these people are advocating disrupting the convention in her name she should let them know that she will not co-operate in their efforts.
The Working Class Heretic
July 13, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. These people aren't going to rest until Hillary tells them too.
(AlSo, CaPiTaLiZaTiOn)
July 13, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not even then. We don't take our orders from Hillary Clinton. But there are so few of us, it's hard for me to see how we could possibly tear the Party apart. We may be an aggravation around here, but in the big picture we're less than zero. Ignore us and we'll probably go away.
July 13, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So glad to hear that Obama filibustered the FISA bill because it contained retro-active immunity for the telecoms.
Oh, right -- plus I am now expected to believe all Obama's promises.
Does it ever occur to you that there may be many delegates who made a commitment to a politician who does not actually exist?
Obama does not have the nomination yet -- he claimed it not because he got the required number from pledged delegates chosen by the people but because the super-delegates judged him the best candidate.
I wonder how many still do? Anybody talked to Chris Dodd recentlY?
July 13, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The super delegates went with the people's chioce as they do every time and will continue to do. The Idea of the super delegates voting against the winner of the nominating contest was a feverd dream of people who do not have a good grip on reality. The best that they can achieve is weakening Obama because the Supers are not going to give it to the runner up.
July 13, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
AJM, if you think Obama didn't have enough pledged delegates, than for certain HRC, doesNOT. She tried to crown herself the nominee before the primaries were even started by racking up superD's.
If you think that superD's are suspect in selecting the nominee, then they will be no more credibility simply because they back HRC..which makes you a hypocrite.
Obama wouldn't be the nominee, if Hillary could have closed the deal. She couldn't, despite all the advantages she had at the beginning of the race she lost and she lost badly with 11 consecutive primaries.
Nothing you say can disguise the fact that the Democratic VOTERS chose the nominee according to the rules of the primary process.
And guess what? Based on those rules the superD's have historically backed the candidate with the most pledged delegates...end of story.
Go whine and cry about the injustice of playing by the rules somewhere else.
I do not tolerate those who want to cheat to win.
July 13, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey does anybody remember the part where Obama said he would Filibuster Fisa over the telecom immunity? Oh that right, because he never said that. He said he would SUPPORT a filibuster for it and vote to strip it off. Both of which he did. Where's the Flip Flop?
Hey here's a thought, there are 100 senators, 68 of them voted for FISA including John McCain. Let's yell at John McCain for voting for FISA.
July 13, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until it is proven otherwise, Larry..I have no reason to beleive that other than Hillary is behind this whole mess. Bill Clintons behavior is suspect and Hillary is still stunned that she is not the nominee. I do not think for one moment that she is not planning a coup in Denver. She did not one to concede until Denver, if you recall and she has not relinquished her delegates. Hillary beleives it isn't over until the fat lady sings and her and Bill are still sowing seeds of discontent within the party.
The Clintons will have to be pushed off the stage as they will not go voluntarily with dignity and grace...there will be plenty of Clinton drama around the process of them no longer being the head of the DNC or the Democratic party.
July 13, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just yesterday, a good friend and very intelligent woman said the same thing. I cannot imagine how 'bloody and destructive' this would be if it came to pass.
And am astounded that the DNC and other politicos with influence have not spoken with HRC about this issue - in other words, telling her she better shut it down NOW!
July 13, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is gross oversimplification.
Not all of us who have problems with Sen. Obama are supporters of Sen. Clinton.
You could look it up.
July 13, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you are working for McCain then you really have no place at the Democratic convention. And that is the real effect of these efforts. They do not help Sen Clinton or any other Democrat. They are just burning down the stadium because you lost the game.
July 13, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this. Do you know if DenverGroup is PAC or non-profit or just a gathering if Anti Obama - Pro HRC fanatics?
July 13, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a 527 I believe.
July 13, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm. It seems to me that dissenters have always been welcome at the Democratic Convention. I guess I am even more out of touch with the Dems than I realized, after all these years.
July 13, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disenters on the issues are welcome. People trying to overturn the primaries are just spoilers who have never achieved anything except weakening a nominee.
July 13, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You thing the tankard is working for McCain? Have you lost all touch with reality? I'm the one thinking of working for McCain, just to make it a fair fight in Michigan or Ohio. Try to relax. McCain cannot win this election. Have some fun for Chrissakes.
July 13, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
A McCain win is unlikely but I intend to work like it is not. over confidence has lost us two in a row. I do not wish to see it be three.
July 13, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also I did not accuse tankard of working for McCain. I said if you are... But since there are only two viable candidates in the race you are working for one or the other if you are engaged in politics.
If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
July 13, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's crazy. If you don't decide, which choice have you made? Seems to me, since Obama is the overwhelming favorite, choosing to sit the election out is choosing Obama. Even when tankard was most obnoxiously anti-Hillary, I never imagined he would support McCain.
July 13, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/whining-crybaby-clintonite-los.php#comment-2963394
Forgot the damn check box. Why would replying be a two step process?
July 13, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
tankard was most obnoxiously anti-Hillary
Thank the Great Bwahooha that we can depend on you to raise the level of discourse, Young William of the Silly Hat.
Obnoxiousness is in the gullet of the beholder. In my gullet, I was never obnoxiously anti-Hillary. I was quite reasonably, logically, and correctly anti-Hillary.
But I will plead guilty to being obnoxiously anti-Obnoxious Billy from time to time. It's a failing I am working on.
July 14, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have an idea. Maybe the Dems can establish some fenced in areas, say a block or two away from the convention. Here, people who are not ready to fall in line could protest without disrupting the coronation. This way, the wouldn't embarrass the nominee, and they wouldn't get as much TV coverage.
What could we call these areas?
Any ideas?
July 13, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This thread"
July 13, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is an excelent suggestion.
July 13, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exaggerated? Should the Dems permit free speech or not?
Before you answer, keep in mind that political free speech means the ability to say whatever the speaker wants to say, not the ability to say whatever the speaker wants to say as long as it conforms to the party's guidelines.
July 14, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a free speach issue. It is entirely cosistent with living in a nation that has free speach to have an organization that excludes from its procedings those advocating against the organization. Since Sen Obama is the Democratic nominee then anyone advocating against him is working towards the goals of the GOP by helping to get Sen McCain elected.
There is free speach but if call the umpire MF you get ejecteed from the game.
July 14, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct, of course, that an organization has the right to enforce guidelines about what can be presented in their own programs.
But the Dems have no right whatsoever to exclude elected delegates. When you said, "If you are working for McCain then you really have no place at the Democratic convention," it sure sounded like that's what you were advocating.
July 14, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I am advocating for is for Sen Clinton to be a democrat and tell these people tha she will not be a part of disrupting the convention. Long past are the days when the convention was where the nominee was selected. They are now a media event to sell the candidate selected in the primary process. The process has become more democratic and the selection has been made. Anyone trying to overturn the primaries is arguing with the ref after the final buzzer.
July 14, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post is hilarious. See? Hillary Clinton is more interesting to talk about than Barack Obama or John McCain.
July 13, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting in the "termite infestation" sense, something that needs to be addressed before it ravages your house.
July 13, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It helps to be able to distinguish a termite from a gnat.
July 13, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you be sure to get back to us after you have mastered that task.
July 13, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like you picked up a gnat, gasket. This one has been buzzing around me lately. Please don't swat it. I want to add it to my collection of anonymous little personal trolls. If you don't mind, that is.
Did you catch Face the Nation today? Bob Schieffer talked about a suggestion a friend of his made that both candidates and all surrogates STFU until after the convention. Personally, I think the echo chamber should STFU until after the election. They do little good and a lot of harm.
July 13, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the gnat got in my face and flew up my nose. Hope she doesn't mind it in there.
No, I missed Schieffer! I was too busy futilely arguing with Jason and insulting libgirl in another thread. But it sounds pretty funny coming from Schieffer. I'll have to check the website. I could use a chuckle.
July 13, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. Never mind, gasket. It's just the liam troll posting under another nick. The pomposity gave it away. Damn. I thought I had a new troll. Disappointing. Going theory is it's a 70's something Southern guy. I disagree. I like my Irish theory better. Or maybe they just show a lot of John Ford movies at the home. Either theory explains the insensitivity and rants. Especially if you throw a bottle in.
July 13, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really Wee Willie. That's the best you got?!?
You're regressing.
July 13, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I give it two thumbs up.
July 13, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Humanity_Critic
I always thought of it as more akin to the kind of interest one takes in a train wreck. You want to look away but cannot. It is compelling but not in a good way.
July 13, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
the convention, oh, that is what you guys want to change, not the politics, just the scenery and backdrop?
since when did having a womans name on the roll call with more than a tokening of votes, when did that become so passe?
did i miss a social movement here or something?
July 13, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
blackflag (interesting post identity tag, is there a subliminal message in this choice?)
Just thought I'd ask - Are you aware your posts in both message and style are exactly like Micheles? Hmmmm.
July 13, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting observation Aunt Sam. I was wondering what seemed so familiar -- I forget that some people have more than one ID. If it is Michelle, he/she must be from South Carolina, as he/she claims Mark Sanford as his/her governor in another post....
But on the subject at hand --
It's simple. If Hillary is being straightforward in accepting her defeat, which she has signaled by acknowledging Obama's win, and by pledging her support, then isn't an obvious part of that support for her to make every effort -- on TV, on her website, through whatever other channels -- to urge her dissidents to get on the bandwagon?
To do so would be the logical thing, to prove her party loyalty; to ignore the disruption, and the potential damage that might result -- to our party, not to mention our country -- is to make herself vulnerable to accusations of being a spoiler...unless she thinks that she can, after all, wrest the nomination away.
I realize that expressing this opinion is to make myself vulnerable to accusation of being a "Hillary hater." It's not true, but never mind.
What concerns me is that I believe both Clintons love the rush of upping the ante, going for broke, and winning with impossible odds. They've managed it before, haven't they? So why not give it another go?
I hope I'm wrong. And I'll be the first to cry Mea Culpa and apologize for my cynicism. But not just yet.
July 13, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the hell after all these years should Hillary Clinton have to prove anything to you or anyone else? Power. Money. Glamour. She's got it all, mama. If you rode in an elevator with her, your knees would shake.
July 13, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didja ever hear the one about the Amish boy and his father?
July 13, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a bozo. I thought I was the oldest person around here, but I think he has me faded.
July 13, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you ever hear the one about the PUMAs at the Democratic Convention?
July 13, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now Billy, we all know you are in awe of HRC and salivate at the slight chance you would or could ever be considered as a person of interest by her or any other intelligent being, but you shouldn't transfer your insecure weaknesses (whether knees or, ahem, other parts of your anatomy)onto others. Pathetic.
Still trying to chum the blog waters, 'eh, Billy!?!
Gotcha
July 13, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see. She has money, power, glamour and my admirations. And you have? Sorry. That was shooting a gnat with an elephant gun. But, if you speak when you're not spoken to, what can you expect. Gotcha. Duh.
July 13, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah Wee Willie Billy -
Resorting to childish put downs only proves the point. Immature, insecure and invalid - hopefully, the right therapist can help.
July 13, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's OK. I'll wait for the next one. This one's too full of conservatives.
July 13, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
An update on the following:
Jun 27, 2008
MILWAUKEE (AP) — A Democratic National Convention delegate pledged to Hillary Rodham Clinton says she hopes to fight off an attempt by Wisconsin Democrats to take away her credentials because of her past statement that she would vote for John McCain if Clinton wasn't the nominee.
"Keeping national delegate status is very important to me," Debra Bartoshevich said Thursday. "I believe that Hillary is the better candidate of all of them."
She declined to comment on her previous comment, quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, that she would vote for the Republican McCain in November if the Democratic Party nominated Barack Obama for president.
-------------------------------------------------------
This person was interviewed on Milwaukee ABC channel 12, today.
She openly admitted that she is going to vote for John McCain. Still wants to go to the convention as a Hillary delegate.
She admitted that she signed the form that states that she was agreeing to support the party nominee, but she claims she only did so, because she was sure that Hillary was going to be the nominee. She signed that form at the beginning of May.
She revealed that the McCain camp was in touch within minutes after Hillary conceded.
She claims thats it is undemocratic for the party to take away her delegates status just because she signed a pledge to support the Democratic nominee, and is instead supporting the Republican nominee.
Now here is the most amazing thing of all to come out of her mouth.
The reporter: Mike Gousha, asked her would she vote for Senator Obama if he picked Hillary to be his VP candidate.
Her answer was: No, I would not. The only way I would vote for the Democrats is if Hillary is the Presidential nominee, but she still wants to be able to keep her delegate status and attend the Democratic convention.
Is this person for real, or was she always just a part of operation chaos?
July 13, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Operation Chaos, definitely. I don't think she'll be able to hang on to delegate status - she's violated much of the 'set in cement' criteria for delegates and DNC has right to 'reject and renounce'. But then, so does HRC.
July 13, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I went to Vegas and put my money down at the roulette table, sure that my number would come up. When it didn't, I wanted my money back. I made a big fuss and then they threw me out of the casino. How unfair of them!
July 13, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The primary is over. These people are getting a vastly disproportionate amount of attention, including right here in this blog entry. Why is this sitting on the recommended list?
July 13, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because people are disappointed in Barack and want to blame Hillary?
July 13, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. Because to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
July 13, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, this is a non-issue. Rather, you guys are practicing blaming Hillary just in case Obama loses in November.
July 13, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
They have the same problem Obama has. Not ready for it. A couple of us fanatics have them turned inside out. Obama is just so boring when you take Hillary out of the picture. He'll have to ask her to run as his VP just to sustain interest in his campaign after the convention. Be really exciting. Is Hillary taking orders from Barack or flipping him off? Does she make him look weak compared to her? What is Bill up to this week? And, of course, we fanatics will be saying you got the wrong candidate at the top of the ticket.
July 13, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still just instigating with the inane blather. Never anything of substance, just same ol' crap trying to stir things up and get some riled up. tsk tsk. So pathetic. Gotcha!
July 13, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are going to join my personal trolls, we'll have to establish some rules. First, you speak when spoken to. Otherwise you just get ignored. Second, I expect you to crap as soon as I come in the room. If you wait, you get ignored. Most importantly, you have to say something relevant to the post. Otherwise, you get ignored. Oh. I forgot. You have to become a real person instead of an anonymous avatar, otherwise you get ignored. Best you can hope for is to be mentioned by me when I chat with a real person. Entrolldom to Billy Glad is hard. Not for everyone. You might want to pick someone easier. A fellow gnat, for example. See ya. Wouldn't want to be ya.
July 13, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such intelligent responses! Again, substantiates the fact that you are way out of your league here. Thus, all you are able to contribute is childish and churlish comments in an attempt to disrupt the adults.
If you are able (?) try posting factual data instead of immature diatribe in your quest for attention. (Ask your mommy to help - that's a good boy!) Gotcha.
July 13, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a rare thread where someone steals the low ground from under Billy, but I think you just did. That is an amazing example of how to use content free invective to accuse someone of content free invective.
July 13, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, thanks. I take no pleasure in having to pummel the ill-bred lout.
Truth is, I find Wee Willie sad. He seldom does put forth any salient facts. But in vain attempts to make up for his lack of intellect (on just about any given subject) he persists in resorting to personal attacks and this is unacceptable.
July 13, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm embarrassed to admit it, but you're right. I'm am going to have to rent some earth moving equipment and burrow to new depths just to compete.
July 13, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
rofl!
July 14, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're definitely on the right track, Aunt Sam, when you say "Good Boy." As the TPM family, maybe we could all pitch in to encourage this intelligent, but willful dog I'll call -- oh, I don't know, maybe Billy -- to break his bad habit which, as I have observed it, is his singular and obsessive devotion to one woman, which is expressed by growling and snarling unpleasantly at anyone he sees as even a remote threat to her, even when that person is no threat at all.
I had a difficult Great Dane like that once, who settled down nicely once he understood that treats were to be had on a regular basis, but only as rewards for good behavior. It took months of patience, I'm afraid, but ultimately he got it and eventually won best in family show. So rewards for good behavior with our Billy may be just the right answer, Aunt Sam, as obviously nothing else anyone has tried is working. And if he cannot be civilized, and therefore become a beloved member of the family, he will have to go to the pound.
July 13, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tried that route but was rejected by the Animal Humane Society who advised even they 'have standards'. (Makes ya wonder how he got 'fixed'!)
Seriously, we can't do this even as a fun 'comparison'. I love dogs and most are very smart. It's disrespectful and wrong for the doggies to be put in same 'kennel' with Wee Wee Willie.
Love your writing tho' - always good.
July 13, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go, mama. I like the way you slip a high-toned dog into the discussion. Besides the dog, what you got to compare to Hillary Clinton? Nada. But you think she has to prove something? What a joke.
July 13, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry I made you think about how you measure up to Hillary, as in, you don't. Don't blame you for feeling angry. Toss and turn over it.
July 13, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez Wee Wee Willie - you're comin' across as a little desperate.
"I like the way you slip a high-toned dog into the discussion. Besides the dog, what you got to compare to Hillary Clinton?"
Are you inferring that HRC is a bitch? Not nice.
July 13, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is losing ground to McCain not because of Clinton, but because of his "move to the center," and his flip-flops, which are now numerous.
Clinton is supporting Obama, and most of her supporters are supporting Obama as well.
July 13, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a fact that most of Hillary's supporters have moved on and are supporting Obama. That does not change the fact that a small but vocal group of her supporters could creat some political theater that would harm the party. She should do what she can to shut them down.
You are also correct that this has nothing to do with how Sen Obama is doing Now.
July 13, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heidi Li Feldman, one of the Denver Pac founders has enough clout to be included in a recent conference call w/McCauliff and Clinton National Finance Director Jonathan Mantz and "top donors" from the midatlantic region. Astute readers will note that the campaign is encouraging that any GE efforts be funneled through specific Hillary events in order to "empower" her. Lots more here:
"Now to the rest of the call's substance: Rest assured, neither Terry nor Jonathan nor any of the people who spoke on the call (including me) are happy with the D.N.C.'s treatment of Senator Clinton. However as always on calls like this, Jonathan started by thanking us for our help and for being on the call today; he and Terry noted major goals achieved during the past eighteen months. And then they opened the call to questions.
This is when things got as intense as I have heard on almost any phone call I have participated on in my life, professional or personal.
Many commented that Senator Obama had not said a word to stop the abusive treatment she received during this campaign season. Much bigger fish than I who were on the call explained that neither they nor their "networks" would contribute a dime to the D.N.C. any time soon and nobody I heard was stepping up to raise money for Senator Obama. Speaker after speaker made it crystal clear that they and their contacts simply will not accept the current state of affairs regarding the D.N.C. and Senator Obama's treatment of Senator Clinton.
As always, Terry and Jonathan really listened. Terry McAuliffe himself said that he has never seen a major candidate treated so disgracefully - "like dirt" - by the media, and he is well aware that Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Obama did not raise a finger to object.
Terry encouraged those of us still willing to work to put a Democrat in the White House to work "with and through" Senator Clinton, to stick with her. He and Jonathan put no pressure on people not to work with PACs or even with McCain, but they made it clear that if one's priority is to empower Senator Clinton than anything one does for the general election should be done via events she will sponsor."
snip]..........
"As for what may come, it is clear that much is up in the air. Senator Clinton is NOT releasing her delegates. She and Senator Obama have not broached the topic of the vice-presidency; indeed, the two campaigns have just begun trying to find a time to schedule a joint appearance by Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. There will be such a joint appearance.
Senator Clinton does remain firm in her conviction that it is best for the country and best for her politically to have a Democrat in the White House. She will act on that conviction. Furthermore, she will campaign for downstream Democrats who supported her during the primary season. Of these measures, all I can say is that I would expect nothing less from a person of Senator Clinton's integrity, grace, and loyalty."
http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/06/possibly-most-intense-phone-call-i-have.html
Interesting side note, one of the commenters on Heidi's thread said Hillaryclinton.com was censoring them.
July 13, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lally:
Thanks for posting this because it clarifies things on a subject that I continue to believe is being overplayed. Two points. First, the telephone conference call occurred on June 10th, which I think was was within days of Hillary's concession. I would expect that the substance and tone of the call would be quite a bit different if it were held with the same folks today, more than a month after the concession, and after there have been all kinds of joint appearances and fundraisers, etc. Of course, no doubt folks are still licking wounds all over the place. Second, I don't think it is at all surprising or significant that this Feldman, one of the Denver PAC organizers, was on a phone call as one of many folks who raised large sums of money for Clinton during the campaign (the blogposts you quote from doesn't say how many "top donors" were on the call I don't think). And, of course, nobody should be surprised that the organizers of the Denver Pac are Hillary supporters. Indeed, by definition they are. I submit they are a fringe group that is being overplayed for sport or otherwise, and certainly to the extent folks believe it is cause for a public rebuke by Clinton. Hell, one thing we can all stipulate to is that there have been a helluva lot rich folks who have lurked in the fringes of our society and in our politics.
Bruce
July 13, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been an observer of the American political scene in earnest since 1972 -- and I simply cannot recall ever before seeing the losing candidates in the primary react with such whiny petulance, and demands that the winning candidate genuflect before the losers as we are witnessing this year.
It's politics, folks; elbows are thrown and feelings bruised -- but at the end of the day, you get up, brush yourself off, and unite behind your party's standard bearer. As my initial preference always loses to the more centrist candidate, I've gotten quite adept at this process. It's not exactly rocket science.
July 13, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which 'losing candidates' of the primary are you saying are reacting with 'whiny petulance' besides Rudy?
July 13, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair Sen Clinton has refrained from whiney petulence in public since she conceded. It is her supporters (and/or GOP trolls who are claiming to be) who are acting like cry-babies.
July 13, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to omit her husband as one of these supporters. Perhaps the biggest 'crybaby' of them all.
July 13, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing 90% are GOP trolls, Larry. And I know they don't really get under your skin. You just like to kick them around a little. But I think they get McCain points for that, too.
July 13, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not mind if the get McCain points as long as they do not earn McCain votes.
July 13, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find hard to get my head around is how it is considered Obama's fault that there were all those sexist remarks on the MSM. I have even read that some of Senator Clinton's supporters think that Obama should give a speech about sexism like he did on race. I have one 50+ years old white woman friend that supported Senator Clinton and now she is talking about voting for McCain. She claims that Obama has no experience and he is a flip flopper. When I pointed out 3 or 4 Supreme Court appointments would be coming up and she might not want a republican filling them, she just said "well, I'll have to think about that. It may not be important." She is really angry that Senator Clinton did not win the primary, really really angry, and she blames Obama for Senator Clinton losing. I don't understand how she gets that.
July 13, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you considered that your friend may just not be that bright? Anyone who doesn't recognize the importance of Supreme Court appointments, well - perhaps she is truly lost forever to intelligent discourse.
July 13, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Jan, your friend might be on to something. There are a lot of reasons not to vote for McCain, but I doubt fear of his Supreme Court appointments is one of them. She might be looking at the impact the Supreme Court has had on her own life over the last 50 years and decided they haven't been that important. For some reason, I just don't see McCain as part of the Reagan/Bush crowd, i.e., people I believe are profoundly evil. I don't think McCain is evil. He's just a run of the mill Republican.
July 13, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to attempt to have a productive debate here, I will ask you Billy -
Do you honestly believe that there is any individual American whose personal life has not been somehow impacted by Supreme Court decisions?
July 13, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you really wanted to talk to me you would comment under your real identity and not follow me from thread to thread, looking for an argument. Going to ignore you now, but stick around. Maybe a real person will ask me the same question.
July 13, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Help! Billy's fallen and he can't get up!
July 13, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 13, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's try that again and see if I can get the tags right.
She hit the nail on the head with that one.
The winner is responsible for winning. What should he have done, thrown the race?
There is no doubt in my mind that Sen Obama is one of the top two people who are responsible for Sen Clinton's loss. She would be the other.
July 13, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
But probably she has in mind fairness. Did he win fairly, or did he somehow "steal" the nomination, assisted by the MSM and Progressive blogosphere? Or put it another way. Since he barely won, why not let the people who helped him eke out a victory help him run against McCain? If Hillary Clinton had won the nomination, she would have immediately embraced Barack Obama and asked him to run as her VP. He's "vetting" her? Bill Clinton may be a problem? Obama's hesitation and coyness have ruined it for Clinton, and, possibly, though not likely for himself. Hesitation kills desire. As you know, I've never been enthusiastic about Obama. Now I'm not very enthusiastic about Obama/Clinton. Nobody seems to be having fun anymore.
July 13, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think you know who she would have picked fo VP had she won? All of her hints that she would put him on the ticket were said to try to convince those having a hard time deciding that they could have two for the price of one.
She would not have felt compelled to choose him if her gambit had worked.
And Bill is a concern. He seriously hurt her campaign and could do the same for an Obama/Clinton ticket. He has lost whatever political acumen he possessed. After watching him stick his foot in her mouth how could anyone hold it against someone for being concerned that he might do the same to Obama.
July 13, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply |