Comments on: Democratic Trainwreck Scenario

By: StockBoySF

StockBoySF — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 03:42:58 +0000

Personally I'd love to take a week and go to Denver for the convention. I doubt that there are any events for us “non-delegates” but it would be great to mingle on the streets with the conventioneers (what little time they have). If nothing else the convention would be a historic event- nominate either the first woman or first African-American, so the energy in Denver (even outside the convention hall) will be phenomenal.

By: DLS

DLS — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:46:12 +0000

Keep it up, Dem leaders, and McCain and the Republicans will be a successful Jesse James gang this year.

By: DLS

DLS — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:45:03 +0000

"Some kind of arrangement" by the DNC means "Satisfying Clinton."

"Some kind of arrangement" would be what most Americans suspect (cynically) would be the reason for an eventual Clinton-Obama ticket, or allowing the Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated without holding new, valid elections, complete with pre-pledged votes for Clinton at 67% and Obama at 33%.

What's wrong with a brokered convention? The leadership wants to lead, but not to work. The party machine, so active behind the scenes (ahem) in local elections with manipulation, can't face its most important and publically noticed tasks.

Lazy cowards.

I hope there's a brawl at the convention, when everyone else tries to eject the "outlaw" Michigan and Florida Clinton-managed delegates, who arrive without permission and attempt to be seated by Clinton.

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:13:26 +0000

In keeping with the trainwreck metaphor, did you guys hear the Chief Engineer of Derailment………the inimitable Howard Dean……has just weighed in with this gem of convoluted wisdom……..

the party is “gonna have to get the candidates together and make some kind of arrangement, because I don't think we can afford to have a brokered convention”

Clearly, the meds have not helped.

By: DLS

DLS — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:37:24 +0000

Real Americans [tm] volunteer to put dynamite or merely a brick on the tracks!

heh

By: DLS

DLS — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:36:46 +0000

SD: Yes, McCain is weak, though he has surprisingly more support (much of it begrudging and reluctant, obviously) than one might normally expect. (Could be anti-Dem stance and admission McCain looks like the guy this year on the GOP)

What's funny is not the criticism directed at McCain but the weird reaction of the Left toward that criticism, which is the truly remarkable (negatively so) behavior this year insofar as McCain is concerned. (These weird types will call McCain an evil warmonger, arch-conservative, “far right,” etc., as the campaign progresses.)

By: DLS

DLS — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:33:21 +0000

J. Spencer: Clinton already destroyed her credibility, as your book reads, because while Obama and Edwards refrained, Clinton put her name on the ballot in your state's too-early election. She probably did this knowing that it was unlikely all the others would necessarily also do so, giving her a psychological advantage and vote-total boost (”She Cares About Michigan” — aren't you happy already?).

She'll probably not only demand the seating but insist on at least 56% of the delegates be pledged to her before they are seated.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008...

By: DLS

DLS — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:29:22 +0000

Michigan and Florida's delegates should not be seated unless there are new elections held in both states, and caucuses are preferred, though Clinton is against such a thing. Clinton is simply cheating as usual if she tries to force their seating at the convention; I would not be surprised if she misused the courts to try to accomplish this. She even put her name on the ballot on one of those invalid elections, which is an example of how low she's always willing to go.

The super-delegates are expected at this time to be party elite-establishment voters, who will choose Clinton even if Obama has an overwhelming lead or even more than enough regular delegates by the convention's start to win the nomination. In addition to the slimy threat this year that these super-delegates present, readers should learn a lesson from this whenever liberals (who are the advocates) argue that some seats in Congress, for example, should be “at-large” or nation-wide (”national”) seats, “to counteract the over-emphasis on local politics and self-serving locality-oriented behavior” or whatever other argument is presented in favor of at-large seats. That is the position these super-delegates hold; they are simply party, not government, at-large positions.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:26:09 +0000

The delegates from Michigan had better NOT be seated. Hillary's desire to see that take place was the final straw for me. I've lived in MIchigan for over 50 years, and I can't tell you how angry I am with our having been screwed out of getting a legitimate democrat primary. Any attempt to mess with those delegates, short of a new primary, would be further trashing of the democratic process, and anyone who attempts to do so has destroyed their credibility in my book. By the way, I fully appreciate the sentiments expressed by Donna Brazile.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:03:39 +0000

I do not believe there is any level of incompetence in the Democratic Party that will give a win to McCain. McCain is a miserable campaigners, is visionless, has no leadership skills, has a miserable staff, and is inept. Given that Republicans have no credibility on any issue along with McCain's problem and the Democratic party will have to work very hard not to win 60 seats in the Senate and make the Republican party irrelevant to the political system.