Buckeye State Blog - Well Said - Comments

A total waste

BuckeyeNation — Mon, 19 May 2008 16:59:37 -0700

You don't like Obama, but please stop making up crap to prove your "point."

"Mush" to who? Obama was against the war from Day One. Hillary blindly followed Bush in order to prove her toughness, and didn't even bother reading the intelligence report before casting her biggest mistake in her career. The left has strongly embraced Barack and NOT Hillary because of their consistent stances with regard to the Iraq War.

Take out your earplugs and listen to him sometime, it may be enlightening. Better yet, read his books. He lays it all out how he thinks, where he came from, everything.

Any lawyer, which Hillary is, will tell you that MI and FL don't count; never did; never will. I know people in MI who blew off voting because it wouldn't count. Hillary was against counting the votes in both states until she needed them to pretend she's ahead in something. She would have been "the elected officals candidate, when she courted the Spers, but now that they aren't flocking to her, they don't count.

Guess what. Millions of us support Barack Obama.

Maybe that's why Hillary lost: she had thousands of people, Obama has millions.

No Right In Primaries

Nick D — Mon, 19 May 2008 16:15:36 -0700

Denise, you're forgetting that there is no right to vote in primaries. It was only recently that primary votes were even held, prior to that they were decided in the proverbial "smoke filled back room."

FL & MI can indeed be stripped of their delegates because THEY BROKE THE RULES. And both Hillary and Obama signed a pledge not to campaign in those states because THEY BROKE THE RULES. The rules are the rules. You break them, you pay the price.

I'd also like to point out that this isn't just the DNC. The RNC is also penalizing FL & MI for breaking the rules. However, since McCain has the nomination well in hand, it isn't really an issue on that side. But don't blame this on the DNC. The RNC is doing the same thing. The two parties agreed to penalize states that moved their primaries before Feb 5th.

Oh, and if you think McCain is closer to the middle, you haven't been paying very much attention to him recently.

Thats right they decided

denise — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:44:23 -0700

Thats right they decided that they would not seat THEIR DELEGATES. We WANT OUR VOTES COUNTED. It is our Constitutional right to vote and have our votes counted. I'll bet even the Supreme Court would agree with me. The DNC CAN NOT take away our right to vote.

Response

denise — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:41:43 -0700

You overlook one thing. Some of these people are swing voters. Obama is very mush to the left in his own party. Have you not noticed how he talks down everything about our country? He even looks his nose down on the way we raise our own children. He stands at the dias and tells us everything wrong with the United States and how hes going to change everything. What is he going to do? All he does istalk about things in generalities, never really saying anything. I am not going to vote for John McCain, I will write in Hillary's name on the ballot. Thousands of us are doing the same. Hillary has the most votes EVER cast for a candidate in history. These figure includes the votes cast for her in Fl and MI. She is the popular vote candidate. She is the peoples candidate. Not the elected officals candidate. We will deal with them at the next election. Thats why they are in a rush on the hill, finally trying to do something for their money.

Response

denise — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:29:23 -0700

I will not be voting for McCain. I will be writing in Hillary Clinton on my ballot again. Obama supporters overlook the fact that they (DNC) are trying to deny ALL of the people their voice. Two States in this Union are being denied their Constitutional right to vote. If they do not count the votes of Fl and Mi this will be a stolen election. I do not care about the DNC rules of Delegates. I care about EACH INDIVIDUAL VOTE. Hillary will be ahead if she isn't already.

Don't try and use the Roe V. Wade and Supreme Court justices argument on me, it will not work. As far as I am concerned the young voters have no idea what they are voting for. Ask them. McCain is moving closer to the middle were the majority of the American public live.

I normally don't agree with modernesquire....

cadfile — Mon, 19 May 2008 01:28:18 -0700

However modernesquire's comments, while rough, express my feelings on the long death march primary season. I will say up front that I plan on voting for whomever gets the Dem nomination. Not voting is voting for McCain and is as bad as actually voting for him. Not voting because one is pissed off that their favored candidate didn't make the cut is immature to say to the least - like those who said they would move to Canada if Bush was re-elected in 2004. You know things are off kilter when Democrats rehash President Clinton era GOP talking points about Hillary. A friend of mine who would write long posts in defense of Bill during his GOP witch hunt now seems to forget all that in his trashy tone about Hillary. I'm tired of reading about her and the mock outrage about her. The GOP want her to be the nominee and she thinks she deserves it. I've been down this road before. I supported Howard Dean but was forced to hold my nose to vote for Kerry (he also thought he deserved it). And he almost won (and some say he did) The winds of change are a lot stronger now than in 2004. People need to calm down let the processes work and vote for the nominee even if he/she wasn't the one.

If you would be so kind...

Evan Tribley — Sat, 17 May 2008 02:07:13 -0700

...to point out to me where I said people say sexism was the reason Hillary lost. I put it in a list of things, all of them pointing to the absurdity of using any one of them as an excuse for OBAMA or CLINTON. Quite frankly my post really had nothing to do with sexism, it had to do with the results of the nomination process.

Nor did I demand lock-step support, but there is this old saying, "shooting yourself in the foot." Voting for McCain over Obama, as a Democrat, would be more like shooting yourself in the foot and everyone else's foot.

There is also nothing ridiculous with leaving a party that is OK with overturning the results of how people voted. Luckily, it appears the majority of superdelegates see how bad of an idea that would be. Are you truly ok with doing that?

Did you read anything I wrote?

Evan Tribley — Sat, 17 May 2008 01:47:30 -0700

First off, I used the words sexism and racism because they are in previous comments in this post and because the blog entry is cross-posted to another site that mentioned that. I wish I hadn't because what you did was see the word sexism and frame my entire post around that. My post is about the results to this nomination process, not sexism. The basis of a 'sexism' argument for voting against Obama is ridiculous, and I would hope you could agree with that... but that wasn't even what I was saying.

Everyone needs to throw away all of this nonsense (whatever it may be) and look at reality. I am shocked and amazed that so many of us do not want to deal with the results!

Obama will go into the convention with the most pledged delegates (not talking about superdelegates). There is no way to refute this. Hillary would have blow Obama out of the water in every remaining contest to pull even. Something to the tune of 69-31% the last time I ran the CNN election tool, and its not going to happen.

The bottom line is that I have said that I would not vote, and quite frankly would be ashamed to identify myself as a Democrat, if superdelegates overturn the pledged delegates. It has been abundantly clear for some time that Obama was going to head to the convention with the most pledged delegates. It would be a rerun of 2000, and it would be our own party further disenfranchising our own voters. (Which has already reared its ugly head in MI and FL, but as I said earlier Clinton wholly agreed to it)

Do you not see how that is different from a Clinton supporter who says they won't vote for Obama because their candidate, who has been losing this entire race, won't win the nomination? Maybe you think he isn't qualified, or maybe he can't win, but 800 superdelegates should not be the ones to decide, voters should.

Look you may have excuses for Hillary losing, you may not, all I am saying is look at the results. They are clear: Obama is going to win this. I am not saying that Obama deserves lock-step support, but it would be a shame for Clinton supporters to vote against someone with the same policy to elect someone who shares nearly none of the policy. That is shocking. It is also amazing(ly hard) to believe that Democrat vs. Democrat (within just Democratic voters) results somehow magically equal what Democrat vs. Republican results (with all registered voters) would be.

More blind rage FROM you...

modernesquire — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:38:07 -0700

Listen to yourself, if you can even hear yourself with all the dodging. You didn't address any of the points I raised. I asked you to back up your claims and your best defense is that you can't answer for Jerid and Russo (yet, earlier, you claim that everyone here said they would have supported Clinton had she won.)

You're just spinning, now. Obama's surrogates (including DailyKos) didn't mention the "Bradley Effect" to answer a question, but to present the answer. He was freaking introduced by Chris Matthews as saying was race a factor to Obama's surprise loss. His whole purpose of being on MSNBC after N.H. was to push the Bradley effect theory. It was WHY he was booked in the first place.

Maybe, as Keith Olbermann pointed out, the polls weren't wrong but the results were incorrectly analyzed.

I didn't say anything about racism being dead or any such nonsense. Now, your trying to avoid the questions you can't answer and trying to counter attack for things I've never said.

Why does everything have to be an absolute with you? My point is that after hearing Obama supporters screech about how anytime he doesn't do well it's because racism (Ohio, SEO) it tends to breed resentment in Clinton supporters to the point that some aren't going to support Obama.

Who cares what channel they were on? The fact is that Obama supporters EVERYWHERE on TV, in the papers, on the blogs EVERYWHERE were threatening a massive boycott in November if Clinton won the nomination.

For you to sit there and pretend it didn't happen is delusional.

The truth is that this very blog had Obama supporters who pushed the boycott threat story in a quest to get people to support Obama in Ohio, and when that didn't work, then we had to listen to how the only way Clinton could have possibly won is because of racism. And some of us who supported Clinton were insulted by that and found it disgusting.

Thank you

Jill — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:29:44 -0700

For this: "No one said (that I can see) that sexism is the reason Clinton is behind Obama in votes. Not to mention that you sound pretty ridiculous saying you "will leave the party if the pledged votes are overturned" yet you demand that every superdelegate (and Democrat) line up in lock-step behind your preferred candidate." Agree 100%. Talk about what people don't read, see or hear due to blind rage.

You presume too much

modernesquire — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:25:21 -0700

I did read your ranting forum post, and that's not the point. The point is that while you and other Obama supporters have spent tremendous energy lying about Hillary Clinton and saying she's no better than McCain and then acting shocked and disgusted when her supporters say then they might as well support McCain is ironic.

I'm not talking about what Robert Scheer said. I'm talking about what you and other Obama supporters have said. And how I can understand such overcharged rhetoric makes it very difficult for some Clinton supporters to let bygones be bygones and now support Obama.

What is "Amazing" and "Shocking" Evan Tribley

DelCo Dem — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:11:04 -0700

Is that your long-winded response was a complete non sequitur. No one said (that I can see) that sexism is the reason Clinton is behind Obama in votes. Not to mention that you sound pretty ridiculous saying you "will leave the party if the pledged votes are overturned" yet you demand that every superdelegate (and Democrat) line up in lock-step behind your preferred candidate.

I ain't saying I won't vote for Obama. I may find another non-McCain candidate or just_not_vote that race and move to the down-ticket races. I do know that a lot of the old faithful democratic female volunteers in my area won't be going door to door to drop literature or make phone calls to get people to the polls to vote for Obama. He just does not excite them. That is their choice, as is their vote. I really hope people like you and other Obama supporters put up or shut up and get out there in the neighborhoods and participate in GOTV efforts to pick up the slack.

Frankly, with the exception of Bill Clinton, every presidential election that I have voted in I have had to hold my nose to vote for the Democratic candidate. The best "man" does not always win the primary. And the winner of the Dem primary very often is not the best person to pull the electoral votes in the general. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I suspect that is what we will see this fall with Obama. And don't think that there is not concern in the minds of some of the superdelgates or Howard Dean on that very point as Obama continues to fail to win primaries in the must-have states in the general.

"Is Clinton any better than McCain?"

JeanLR — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:05:51 -0700

Why not actually read the article and check the author Robert Scheer's credentials, I think he's an apt critic.

BLLSHT.

JeanLR — Fri, 16 May 2008 12:22:40 -0700

Disgusting.

Where was this uberfeminist when her serial-sexual-harrasser husband was preying on subordinates?

This 40 something woman is sick and tired of women crying about being victimized because someone called them "sweetie" or crying because someone gave them a Hillary nutcracker. For God's sake!

Hillary is a professional, intelligent, accomplished woman who has surrounded herself with the most comtemptable assholes ever. She is being defeated because she is part of something bigger in the party and in our government and that thing she has been a part of has brought us this WAR and this ECONOMY and if one more person carries on about the wonderful Clinton years I'm going to BARF.

Largely due to Hillary's utter and total FUCK UP with healthcare, we not only have been unable to even discuss the deteriorating situation without her failure coming up and the situation is now absolutely critical.

Her failed effort, coupled with the fact that her husband was elected without a mandate- he won because Ross Perot took 20% of the vote away from Bill Clinton's best friend, George HW Bush- these things resulted in the LOSS OF THE CONGRESS TO REPUBLICAN CONTROL FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 40 FREAKIN YEARS.

Woman crying about being victimized by sexism really should get out more and see what victimization is really about, ask any of Bill's victims!

Hillary Clinton is being dragged down by the stone, to paraphrase the great Pink Floyd song, "Dogs". She is weighted down by HER OWN ACTIONS AND HER OWN INACTIONS. She chose the company she's keeping and that's what being a feminist is about. it's about ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR.

It's not about crying in New Hampsire and then claiming to be tough in Texas and then claiming to be a working class hero while your 100million dollar husband does your dirty work and then try to claim it's not your fault what he says then claiming that you should be credited with all the great stuff that happened during his Presidency and then trying to say anything bad was the work of a right-wing conspiracy.

Hillary Clinton was tough enough to vote for George Bush's war and to threaten the people of Iran with "obliteration". I think she can defend herself without crying that it's all about sexism. Her supporters should be as brave as she is.

Hillary Clinton is being beaten by a better candidate. Period.

Is this really happening?

Evan Tribley — Fri, 16 May 2008 12:06:25 -0700

I am absolutely amazed, shocked, blown away, etc. by the comments made 'explaining' how a candidate is losing. Without considering race or sexism or anything else the facts are undeniable:

1.) Barack Obama will lead in pledged delegates going into the convention, and this has been OBVIOUS for quite some time.

2.) Hillary Clinton, along with Barack Obama, signed a pledge not to campaign in Michigan and Florida for their primary dates. Both campaigns agreed to award either state ZERO delegates. Hillary Clinton's name should have been removed from the Michigan ballot.

3.) Hillary Clinton has attempted to court superdelegates as a way to overturn the pledged delegate count.

These reasons are why so many Obama supporters have said (including myself) that we will leave the party if the pledged votes are overturned. You can try to veil those things with excuses like media, sexism, racism, Michigan, Florida, whatever, but those facts will not change, period. When you hear an Obama supporter say they will leave the party it is because it is clear that Obama is ahead, and there is no way to defeat him without overturning the voters and the pledged delegates. They might see different reasons for why that could happen (i.e. racism, etc.), but the bottom line remains the same.

More people have voted for Obama. You can't fiddle with the math to change that. More pledged delegates are with Obama. You can't change that. It is clear that Obama is the nominee, and none of you can change that. It is time to move on and support your party.

I can't believe that so many in our own party try to paint Obama as some fraud, his policy is nearly carbon copy to Clinton's. Hillary Clinton was only the front runner BEFORE people started voting. Hillary supporters have had months to move on, or at least get some perspective, but its amazing how many of you have not. Nothing has been stolen from your candidate, and she has been in second place for virtually the entire race.

McCain does not represent anything that Democrats truly believe in. Maybe eight years ago he would have had more appeal, before he pandered to the Bushites to get the opportunity he has now. This would be a monumental mistake to go against your party's democratically elected nominee because your candidate lost.

I'm mad as hell to read about movements to stop Obama within our own party. You really want to stop someone who fundamentally believes in the same things as you do to help someone who doesn't?

Grow up. I don't care if hundreds of Hillary supporter's try to flame me for this post; its reality and we need to rationalize here. Obama is the nominee, please use the better judgment that brought you all to the Democratic Party in the first place and support the eventual nominee.

Well Said

Nick D — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:06:07 -0700

Cross-posted this comment from BI. I couldn't have said it better myself:

Unbelievable. You can’t blame sexism for the terrible campaign that HRC ran, the questions of integrity that have followed the Clintons for over a decade, or the fact that Obama’s campaign has appealed to a majority of those who have voted in Democratic contests this year.
It’s outrageous that any candidate’s supporters would attempt to blackmail their party over a losing campaign. Just as Obama and his supporters ought to be magnanimous in victory, HRC and her supporters should be graceful in defeat.