 |
|
Add to My Group
|
April 10, 2008 at 07:40:02
Obama Delegate Purge "" Slash and Burn in California by Marcy Winograd Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
|
By dusk on Wednesday, the California Obama campaign had purged almost all progressive activists from its delegate candidate lists. Names of candidates, people who had filed to run to represent Obama at the August Democratic Party National Convention, disappeared, not one by one, but hundreds at a time, from the Party web site listing the eligibles. The list of Obama delegate hopefuls in one northern California congressional district went from a robust 100 to an anemic 23, while in southern California, the list in Congressman Waxman’s district almost slipped out of sight, plunging from a high of 91 candidates to 17. Gone were strong women with independent political bases. Who was left standing, still in the running for the Sunday delegate caucuses? The bundlers, the men and women who skirt campaign finance laws by bundling cash, a bundle of $2,000 here and a bundle of $2,000 there -- and some, though certainly not all, of the Obama volunteers, loyalists from day one. Who was kicked to the curb? Brian Leubitz, a Calitics blogger with a mighty pen, Tad Daley, former policy advisor to Cranston and Kucinich and a career fellow with the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Alan Toy, a disabled rights activist and Chair of the American Civil Liberties Union chapter in Santa Monica, and a nameless, yet tireless grassroots volunteer who toiled nights making precinct maps …. and me. Marcy Winograd. I campaigned for Obama -- went on Pacifica’s KPFK twice, once on election day, to promote his candidacy, to tell the world he really was our hope, the candidate who could galvanize the young and the man who could strengthen an ever-expanding progressive base in the Democratic Party. I urged our Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles chapter to endorse him and we did. Obama for President. But the Obama campaign was worried their delegates would switch at a brokered convention. After the first round of voting, if no clear winner emerges, there is no such thing as a pledged delegate – according to Hillary Caesar Clinton. Did I take an Obama loyalty oath? Even better. Two years ago I picketed a Hillary Clinton fundraiser in Hancock Park and was quoted telling the Los Angeles Times. “Hillary Clinton led us to war. She is not the kind of leader we need.” I sit on the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party and will vote in
1 | 2
pdla.org
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 44 comments |
|
the corpocracy
Comment from Ratings: is installed by Jay Farrington (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 236 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:52:45 PM  (0+)
|
|
america is screwed
if the liberal purging is true this confirms most liberal suspicions that Obama is no more liberal then Clinton and we will have conservative big business politics as usual to the detriment of the middle class no matter who gets in democrat or republican.Truly it is time for someone to start a progressive third party movement because the democrats have shown time and again they just need liberals for votes not new progressive ideas. by liberalsrock (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 257 comments [53 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:52:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: About that "Winnowing" charge
About that "Winnowing" charge by akogun Thu Apr 10, 2008 ... However, if this is accurate, then Marcy Winograd's very public and irate hissy fit is absolutely incomprehensible. I had thought that the Campaign just cut people from the roster and the people so cut had to find out on their own. If you got this courtesy email from the Campaign, apologizing for the understandably difficult exercise, and you proceed to call on the PA Progressives Community to help you derail the candidacy you aspired to represent, well ..... I rest my case with regard to your reliability as a delegate. Thanks so much for your excitement and interest in supporting Senator Obama in California. There is extraordinary grassroots enthusiasm for Senator Obama in California. As a result, an overwhelming amount of Californians have applied to be a delegate but there are a limited amount of delegates who will be elected at the California District Conventions to attend the DNC Convention. The list of delegates has been narrowed in order to ensure an orderly delegate election process at each California convention. The campaign continues to appreciate the contributions from all our supporters . End of UPDATE: I will let the oddity of a "Trusted Progressive" getting so angry that she is willing to call on others to help derail the candidacy of the person she is supposed to be supporting speak for itself. I will not comment on the incongruity of a candidate for a delegate selection process (which REQUIRES that you select your MOST TRUSTED and LOYAL supporters to represent you in a potentially contentious delegate poaching fight) asking to be trusted and be chosen to represent a Campaign, lashing out so viscerally at the Campaign he/she seeks to represent once it became clear that the Campaign has other preferences. It would be laughable if it were not so sad. Marcy Winograd is said to be a "Trusted Progressive" and an activist who has done a lot for the Democratic Party. I will confess that I have not known Marcy personally and cannot comment one way or another as to her credentials. However, reading Marcy's "winnowing" diary, and having read what has been happening on Calitics and elsewhere in California today has re-solidified my trust in the judgement of the people who run the Obama Campaign. more at the link by Laura Roslin (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 35 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:56:54 PM (0+)
|
|
How?
Exactly how did the "campaign" do this? by Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 318 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:17:47 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: That's a good question Robert!
We certainly could use a bit more information. If this is true (as it seems to be), it is very disturbing. As a progressive, I think it is the job of our politicians to take on the big shots, the corporate entities that are behind most of our problems. You would think in these terms that the more progressive delegates the better, especially from someone who is supposed to be a progressive candidate. However, from any candidate's perspective, it always seems whomever gives him or her the most money becomes the most important on their agenda. I have read that both democrat candidates have been purging potential progressive delegates. Coincidence or political strategy in a close race? Perhaps, but I see it as a potentially damning situation for the entire democratic party and a possible progressive revolt on the horizon, the last thing we need now that the end to the neocon agenda is in sight. by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:47:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Strange Logic
Don't you realize that it doesn't make one bit of difference how "progressive" a delegate is? Delegates are not voting on legislation, and they aren't running for political office. They have only one purpose: to vote for the candidate who sent them. Their relative "liberal meter" plays no part whatsoever in the task they have been assigned. They are not going to be advocating issues or debating abortion at the convention. This whole post is ridiculous. by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 11, 2008 at 6:35:48 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: 2,000 Clinton donor outraged he was purged from Obama list
The California Obama campaign was flooded with people running for the delegate slots. Also, some were purged for reason, such as having made large donations to Clinton. Mercuri News: "We've got an unwieldy amount of delegate candidates," said Don Morrison, spokesman for the Obama campaign in the 17th Congressional District. "There's just no way you're going to get through the lists on a Sunday afternoon." In some districts, more than 90 people had signed up to run for as few as three delegate positions. In the 17th District, which includes most of Santa Cruz County as well as Monterey and San Benito counties, 26 people had signed up for two posts. The San Jose Mercury News also quotes a $2,000 Clinton donor as outraged that he was purged from the Obama list. Link to donations by Nicholas Lefevre See here by Laura Roslin (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 35 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 6:14:21 PM (0+)
|
|
One must continue to examine "truths"
All too often we are caught up in the moment and what we wish so hard to believe we make fact. Everything we do from that point on is corrupted by being built upon an unfirm foundation. Obama seems to me to be the "fad of the moment", precisely because he craftily preaches instead of plans, appeals to emotionalism instead of intellectualism. In an era so fraught with lies and corruption, in an era when our greatest strength, the free press, has been diminished and sold for a full page ad, we are so very easily led by hope instead of ruled by our own intelligence. The greatest harm that will be done by this ,basically dishonest, campaign, is to those for whom this is the first exposure to politics. Hope and emotionalism bring the young, the politically naieve to the fray, and, just as easily, will cause them to reject the entire political spectrum when Senator Obama's feet of clay are exposed. Just when this nation needs its committed the most, they will be turned off and disenfranchise themselves. Nice work Obama, yoiu should be so proud that naked ambition trumps love of country. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:26:30 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Very insulting, and without any basis whatsoever
"what we wish so hard to believe we make fact"...isn't that in fact what you are doing? Wasn't it Hillary, not Obama, that preached instead of planned? Wasn't it Hillary, not Obama that failed to plan for a campaign that lasted beyond supertuesday? Wasn't it Hillary, not Obama, that failed to consider the problems with a post Saddam Iraq? by Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 318 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:31:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No Robert, since you asked
it was not . You are exactly the type of voter to whom my post referred. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 6:15:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Now Entering the Twilight Zone
What world do you live in? Don't you think there is a reason Obama has drawn so many new voters, and Hillary hasn't? After all of her "mis-speakings" I must say she has proven herself to be as big a liar as George W. Bush. by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 11, 2008 at 6:48:48 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yup , she certainly is that
as is her rival for office as well. Senator Obama is as much a fraud as is Senator Clinton, from a progressive perspective. A pity you allow your bias to hide the truth from your intellect. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 9:36:35 AM (0+)
|
|
I feel your pain and offer you a solution
There is still an opportunity for progressives in the Ron Paul rEVOLution. I started supporting Nader three elections ago because after working for the LA County registrar's office as a precinct inspector for five years, the corruption was well enough to drive one to beg Nader to help fix it. I'll never forget the moment I heard Bill Clinton announced president..I had 10K uncounted locked ballots in my car...and I know I wasn't alone in that thousands of precinct inspectors were waiting to drop off their precinct ballots just like me. I am so sorry the corporate parties take our money and time and give us exactly what we don't want. So please .. a door closes a window opens... As a three electioon Nader supporter, volunteer, what am I doing in the GOP camp? Well...Bush destroyed the GOP. Allot of republicans who supported Bush were not teflon and they were appauled by what the Bush administration was doing they are supporting Obama over Hillary. The GOP in CA is three million in debt. They closed their primary ballot to independents. So Ron Paul says...look...here's an opportunity to take a major party. I'm open! I've been trying to CHANGE government by third party and independent campaigns with Nader for 12 years now. Here now we have an opportunity to take over a major party. WHY NOT? Now some get into mincing meat over Ron Paul and his personal issues, like abortion...but the thing is, Ron Paul is saying I DON'T WANT TO BE YOUR DICTATOR...what that means is HERE is your opportunity to make CHANGE. And if you are an honest person you will admit that the Ron Paul campaugn has done exceptionally well on the grassroots, IMO better than Obama's (you have never matched us or beat us in one day campaign contributions..so lets unite..screw the Democrats! STOP letting them take YOUR vote for granted. We are facing the GOP down face to face in our communities...the GOP is changing and Ron Paul rEVOLution is doing very well getting delegates...become one..the GOP has plenty of seats open...i swear. MSM won't tell anyone. by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:27:44 AM (0+)
|
|
WHO made the cuts?
As one of those on the cut list, I want to say that I WAS on their delegate list well ahead of the CA primary and I DID work on the Obama campaign walking many of the hills in Woodland Hills. My question is WHO made the purges and HOW were the progressives singled out for this cut? And, is this purging done at the DIRECTION of Barack Obama himself? by Linda Sutton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 10 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:36:39 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I asked a similar question..
...got no response. Makes me curious. I hate it when people make accusations against Obama, or, by extention, his "campaign", then fail to back it up with any evidence or supporting links. by Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 318 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:42:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Really? Obama is NOT progressive?
Some of us already knew that because we followed the corporate money trail ANd actually looked at his ACTIONS (read that war funding and accepting corporate bundled money) rather than just his WORDS. Ron Paul will go nowhere, once the Republican show is over. Cynthia McKinney OR Ralph Nader on the other hand have proven records for courage and conviction. Cynthia McKinney specifically has a proven record of integrity and courage in regards to Impeachment, 9-11 Truth, Election Fraud and a whole host of other critical issues. Cynthia McKinney, time to join up and work with a campaign of truth and courage. by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:33:07 AM (0+)
|
|
CNN reports
that the many hundreds of delegate candidates were purged because they were deemed less likely to remain loyal to Obama at the national convention. by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:15:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ok, ok, I consider myself to be fairly well informed
But I really don't understand how delegates can be 'purged' from some list that does what again? I had several years of civics class (back when they used to make it a requirment) and I'm fairly well read in modern politics but for the life of me I don't understand why our 'democracy' (which is actually a republic if you want to percise) needs to be this complex. by erik mouse (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:26:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I heard that both camps
have been purging potential progressive delegates. But perhaps this section out of the Huffington Post might serve a further explanation. It's an article from David Sirota..."What's the difference between a liberal and a progressive?" ....."Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class." by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:25:16 PM (0+)
|
|
pledged delegates
In a climate like this, where Obama has 2 opponents -- Hillary and McCain, and where Russ Limbaugh is urging anarchy, it's understandable delegates will get purged at a high rate. What people need to understand is, pledged delegates have to get scrutinized to ensure they are in it for the right reasons. I'm sure most of the purged delegates are, however, if there are party loyalists who've been fully vetted and are sure bets for the senator, clearly, those identifiable candidates will and should get first dibs. No one should take this personally. It's a part of the process. And when a member of your own party who has very little chance of winning, is attacking you and aligning herself with Republicans, paranoia and self - preservation are good qualities to have, unfortunately. by Wanakee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 1:34:12 PM (0+)
|
|
You were right to oppose Obama
Marcy, I like you very much. You opposed Obama because he is not a progressive. PDA's leadership backed Edwards. PDA members who backed Kucinich was ignored. Obama and Clinton were constantly attacked by PDA and PDLA. If the progressives wanted to be delegates, they should have gotten a progressive nominated. Groups like PDA were self-defeating. They didn't agree with Edwards. They backed him and attacked others, including Kucinich, because they believed he would win. They should have known that his campaign was only aimed at wiping out Kucinich. If PDA had lined up behind Kucinich, Kucinich would be the nominee. Brad Parker, Jo Olson and Ahjamu Makalani also opposed Obama, Kucinich, and Clinton. They believed that electing Edwards was the way to defeat Obama and Clinton and they really hated Obama and Clinton. They pushed Edwards to the exclusion of everyone else. Makalani has turned on his own, again. I understand that Makalani has promised to deliver the Black vote for a right-wing White Democrat over a popular Black candidate in a Congressional district where the Black candidate is very popular among progressives. Makalani is not a progressive. by Zan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 3:38:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Marcy
Marcy didn't oppose Obama. She said she campaigned for him. She should have known better than to waste her time supporting an establishment candidate. If Marcy is smart she will leave the Democratic party. by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 3:53:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Right of Refusal
Campaigns have the right to remove anyone from their delegate lists that they want. http://www.cfr.org/publication/15414/ The final list of delegates and their campaign affiliations is public, as is a record of their votes at the conventions. In the end, says Democratic strategist Tad Devine, "individual campaigns have a candidate right of refusal," meaning they can reject a particular delegate for their campaign. Campaigns try to ensure that delegates "are, in fact, true partisans who support a particular candidate," says Devine. by Carissa Snedeker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:33:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Are they really purged?
Given the all out campaign, by the Clintons, to try to steal delegates, my best guess would be one of two things: (1) The Obama campaign found out that these folks had made secret deals to support Clinton instead of honoring their commitment to him, or (2) the Obama campaign is trying to hide these names from the Clintons for a while, in an effort to protect the Obama delegates from the stealing rampage of the Clintons. Either would be a good enough reason, in my opinion. Let's face it, the Obama group just doesn't have a record of rash decisions like the Clinton group does. "Try this; try that, then try the other." A different sign on her podium every week. She's desperate to see what might work. Yeh, that's Clinton operating principles. Don't you folks understand how critical it is for the Clintons, that they win. Their financial power group wants to have two candidates, in the general election, that they can depend on to help keep the status quo. And that would be: McCain and Clinton. Either win is okay with the powers. But then, if Obama should happen to win it.....OH NO.....that would mean another assasination would be necessary. :>( Just watch and see!!! by im4unity (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 54 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:48:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You are mistaken
It was the Obama Handlers that were filming the sign in sheets at the delegate sign in. It was the Obama camp calling the Hillary supporters informing them the call they were receiving was due to their signing their support to Obama at the delegate sign in. The Obama camp had assigned so many delegates only to discover they were only entitled to 2, not 28. It is also the Obama groups tactic to employ psychological gimmicks to give the effect of a win, similar to the 6 flags in the background. The reason we have heard for these cuts is that there are delegates who are signed up for the Obama camp who are not true supporters and are going to vacate the position when it is too late for Obama to recover. by Blackcat Soda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:34:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Hillary stealing delegates???
Each time that half of Obama supporters that display delusions and lunatic fantasies, beliveing that Hillary is stealing delegates, this simply causes Hillary's chances to improve another notch. These people are truly out of their minds. You can't stand the reality that Obama is just another politician; just as dishonest, just as corrupt, just as purchasable, as all the others. The difference is, that he built a campaign out of lies about himself. You're stuck with your fake Messiah, and don't have the guts to own up. by johncp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 6:11:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Harsh, perhaps. True, unfortunately
When ones support for a candidate transcends the limits of reality and delves into emotionalism then the system suffers most. The candidacy of Barack Obama has been, and from the first, the result of the abysmal leadership of George Walker Bush, the dismal lack of opposition to that leadership from the so-called opposition party and the increasing desperation of voters, centrists and progressives alike seeking a savior. The simple fact folks is that that Senator Obama, like his opponents, Senators Clinton and McCain, is a centrist , but one with a tiny resume. It is precisely that lack of a public record that caused him to catch lightning in a bottle, so to speak, and capture the imagination of the aforementioned desperate voter. He is not what he has been portrayed as, and there are darn few out there who could fill that image, none within the Duopoly Party. Until the American voter, especially the progressives, learn to think a bit harder, resist the temptation to hurl oneself at the first politician who makes an inspiring speech lacking substantive planning or platform, until that same voter understands, by doing the necesary homework, that the Democratic Party gives no hope whatsoever to you, we remain trapped in a system that works for the betterment of the minority, the wealthiest among us. All the demagogues in the world will nto save you, only you can do that. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 6:28:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Your condescension...
Is really quite ugly. "Tiny Resume"...I looked to see what you've accomplished by mid-40's Ardee...oops, nothing there. No name, no resume, just an anonymous person that makes ad-hominem attacks. by Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 318 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:56:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Robert, sad to say
but you seem to be devolving into a moron. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:31:30 AM (0+)
|
|
Same ole, same ole crap-o-la
I worked for a grassroots campaign and as soon as we got passed the caucuses... they promised more training etc.... then three days before the convention they have their meeting and nothing is said about how to progress to the next level... IT is all a bunch of crapola... It's time to have our own progressive party or expand the Green Party. by MysticGem (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:43:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Trying to follow the post
Hi, I'm afraid I can't follow the accusations made against Obama here without understanding the process first. I may be speaking for many "casual" political observers here, but what is going on here? I know delegates attend the convention, but can someone explain the process where delegates "apply" for a candidate? How do campaigns "deny" them? What has been precedent for strategic cuts by political ideology? Basically, the author assumes we know as much as she about the nuts and bolts of the process and honestly, it sounds at least a little bit complicated. by Gustav Wynn (77 articles, 65 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 421 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:52:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Herding Cats
The problem with grassroots campaigns is that, eventually, they have to turn, "pro." Hillary has been spooking everyone with threats of fighting a brokered convention. This is a fact. I think the fact that the Obama campaign hasn't published an extensive explanation is because they weren't directly in charge of the delegate-vetting process, the party loyals in California were. I'm sure that once the dust settles that Obama will own what needs to be owned and let the guilty twist in the breeze. I do find myself sympathizing with Akogun at Kos on this matter: if you're such an Obama loyalist and have such "juice" that Obama would be foolish to send you packing, then WHY are you running to the nearest bullhorn and crying foul? Is this the behavior of a politically savvy campaigner or the whining of a novice loudmouth with hurt feelings? Or something in between? I know it sounds fascist to be this concerned about the loyalty of one's delegates. There was a time when delegations were just a slam dunk for the popular candidate. Not so this time. Sometimes you just have to trust your gut, and your candidate, to make the best move under the circumstances. I'm still an Obamican. I'd still take a bullet for him. Chill out, boys n berries. Billary wants to play hardball and this IS hardball. School's in session. Pay attention in class if you want to graduate. by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 151 diaries, 478 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:23:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well said...
Obama is often accused of not being willing to do what it takes, like Hillary, or, as with Ardee's charge "no planning". He's preparing for every scenario, just like a good president should. Bush had no plan B for Iraq, and Hillary had no plan B for after supertuesday. by Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 318 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:47:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The truth is far from malleable,
and you are living in a world of your own design apparently. Both Clinton and Obama have stated plans for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Where have you been and why is your hearing so dependant upon your loyalties? by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 9:40:01 AM (0+)
|
|
"Obama Campaign Reinstates Delegate Slates"
by Idealistic Progressive (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:41:44 PM (0+)
|
Reversing one of the most boneheaded moves of the campaign season, the Obama campaign is reinstating the delegates it struck from its campaign slates. The |
Obama Delegate Purge
All of you out there forget that we have a slick idiot in the White House. He is ready for anything. with him in charge of this country anything is possible. FORGET ABOUT A ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. this dictator will still be sitting in his position as KING GEORGE after November. ( BUSH AND CHENEY HAVE OTHER PLANS. ATTACK IRAN. world war III. we dont have a democracy. there never was one. sit tight we are on a ride and their is no way out. by vincent passiatore (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 185 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:03:55 AM (0+)
|
|
"never mind" (this time for sure)
from the CA Dem web site Listed below is the final list of people who will be on the ballot to run as a District-Level delegate in the April 13 caucuses. Per the National Delegate Selection Rules each campaign reviewed and returned to the CDP the approved list of District-Level delegate applicants. "The Obama Campaign submitted a list of approved district delegate candidates to your office on April 7, 2008 pursuant to Section III.A.5 of the California Democratic Party Delegate Selection Plan. By this letter, we would like to withdraw that list such that all district delegate candidates be deemed approved by the Obama Campaign and eligible to run for district delegate in their congressional district." by Idealistic Progressive (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:06:33 AM (0+)
|
|
Progressives? In California, They're Hard-Core Socialists
I lived in California for 12 years before I moved back east to Vermont in the sumer of 1994. In that 12-year span, I learned the hard way that the terms, "Liberal," "Progressive," and "Conservative" are gross misnomers. The truth is, California is a microcosm of the nation as a whole -- and thus its politics are American politics hyped up on steroids. California's "Liberals" and "Progressives" -- especially in Northern California -- would be more at home in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. The Golden State's "Conservatives" -- especially in Southern California -- would be more at home in Mussolini's Italy. In other words, the left-right divide in California is the political equivalent of the Grand Canyon -- more extreme there than in any other state. Progressives in California are out-and-out socialists. California conservatives are out-and-out fascists. So I'm not surprised that there's a "purge" of "progressives" from the Obama campaign in California, for many of those so-called "progressives" don't try to hide their true socialist colors -- and Obama is no socialist. by Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Friday, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:55:14 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sometimes a post gives us a glimpse
into the underbelly of the poster. This post reveals far too much about the poster for me to be comfortable with this obvious nut job. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:33:47 AM (0+)
|
|
Some Nerve!
What kind of self-pitying hogwash is this? Candidates choose the delegates. If you weren't chosen, it doesn't mean you were sleighted. You say that he weeded down a group of about 100 to 17 people. Don't you realize what those kind of statistics mean? It means you never stood more than a 17% chance to begin with, and an 83% chance of not being chosen. And you say a "purge"? What is he supposed to do, keep all 100 delegates until the day before the convention? Whittling down the number of delegates is exactly what he is supposed to do. Then you say that Obama was "worried that his delegates would switch at a brokered convention." That's the whole point of the candidate choosing delegates - you choose the ones that you trust most to vote for you. Is he supposed to NOT care whether someone would switch? Besides that, you make it sound like you think you are more qualified to be a delegate that the ones Obama picked. Sorry, but it doesn't take much experience to mark a ballot for the person who sent you. This sounds like sour grapes to me. It's more about your ego than anything else. What can you do at the convention that any other person couldn't do? And by the way, by posting this whiney, negative piece just because you weren't chosen to fill a position that you somehow believe you are entitled to, you've proven that Obama exercised excellent judgement in passing you up. Get over yourself. by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 11, 2008 at 6:21:36 AM (0+)
|
|
I'm not really surprised
Obama has "taker" written all over him. He wants you as long as you're useful to him, then it's out the door with you. For Obama, this race is not about progressive politics, it's about him and his ego. Stay tuned; I think we will learn more about this guy in months to come. And we will not like what we see. by Richard Wise (35 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 11, 2008 at 7:20:40 AM (0+)
|
|
Not too surprising
Will progressives finally wake up? Obama is no progressive. He is a militarist, imperialist, capitalist candidate. His record is thoroughly establishment. It makes good sense for him to exclude all those people. What they stand for is definitely not what he stands for. The establishment parties are not going to give us anything meaningful. We must reject them. by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:34:02 AM (0+)
|
|
Bill Samuels
Yup, That is why I support the REAl progressive, Cynthia McKinney. I also fully support Ralph Nader and his right to run and get his message out. May the best progressive win. Even though that joke, Air America has never mentioned Cynthia McKinney. Or that other joke The Nation magazine. In my honest opinion, neither has any credibility to call themselves progressive. by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:51:54 AM (0+)
|
|
Marcy did oppose Obama
It was only after the primary that she supported Obama. by Zan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Friday, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:35:42 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
