Hide in plain sight

Posted on August 7, 2011 by myiq2xu (D)

In the middle of a post about whiny-ass progressives complaining about Mr. One-derful, Alexander Bolton tells a little-known truth:

It’s hard to see how we avoid a Tea-Party recession if the president who has the biggest megaphone in the country is not willing to speak clearly on the issue,” Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org, told The Hill in a Saturday afternoon interview.

[...]

Liberal activists were instrumental to Obama beating Hillary Clinton in the caucus states — which require more opportunities for face-to-face persuasion than larger states — during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.

MoveOn.org endorsed Obama on Feb. 1, 2008, shortly before Super Tuesday, a crucial round of balloting.

Obama won the nomination by racking up wins — often by large margins — in smaller states with caucus systems, such as Iowa, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota and Nebraska. Clinton captured large states with primaries such as California, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Obama “won” the small caucus states, while Hillary won the large primary states. I say Obama “won” the small caucus states because that is the official result, but those liberal activists did more than a little face-to-face persuasion.

But leaving caucus fraud aside, Obama won the small states and Hillary won the big states. In addition to California, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas, Hillary won New Hampshire, Michigan, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Indiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia, Kentucky and Arizona. Many of them she won by large margins. Most of the primaries Obama won were in red states like South Carolina and Georgia. Lots of those caucus states are red states too.

So why wasn’t Hillary the nominee?

{{crickets}}

This part here is funny:

MoveOn.org endorsed Obama on Feb. 1, 2008, shortly before Super Tuesday

The leadership of MoveOn decided to back an empty suit, and now they are whining because he isn’t the messiah they convinced themselves he was? Boo-fucking-hoo.

BTW – Ace of Spades is predicting that “Tea-Party recession” will be the hot new Democratic meme of the week. (Cause you know everything was going just peachy-keen until those damn Hobbits showed up.)

About these ads

Filed under: Uncategorized

« »

76 Responses

  1. votermom, on August 7, 2011 at 7:52 am said:

    I didn’t realize the Tea Party controlled the White House & both Chambers. Wow.

    • myiq2xu, on August 7, 2011 at 7:59 am said:

      Damn Hobbits are everywhere!

      • votermom, on August 7, 2011 at 9:55 am said:

        Maybe it’s the Tea Party’s fault for not forcing Boehner to ram the the Cut Cap Balance budget up Reid’s backside.
        I bet S&P would have liked that deal better.

    • Mary, on August 7, 2011 at 9:03 am said:

      I heard John Kerry on the Sunday shows using all the “new and improved” talking points for shifting blame away from Obama, Reid, or Pelosi: “tea party recession” was front and center in the new meme.

      Disgustingly deceitful people. Can’t believe I ever voted for Kerry. Ugh.

      • DeniseVB, on August 7, 2011 at 9:09 am said:

        I noticed a lot of Kerry facetime lately and wondering if he isn’t going after the Secretary of State gig when Hillary steps down?

        • Mary, on August 7, 2011 at 9:26 am said:

          I got news for John Kerry—-he can’t be Sec. of State for the Republican president who gets swept into office in a landslide because Americans are sick to death of Democratic doublespeak.

          But yeah…..he’s paying his dues now for what he thinks is coming in 2012.

          Yep

      • ralphb, on August 7, 2011 at 9:29 am said:

        Ugh, how can you watch that junk? :-)

      • Mary, on August 7, 2011 at 11:14 am said:

        Update re talking points:

        Just watch a clip of Axelrod on CBS Face the Nation. He’s using the same phrase Kerry did: It’s a Tea Party downgrade.
        Even said those icky Tea Partiers WANTED to see the country default.

        Well, ok. This is the new meme for the week.

        If that’s all Axelrod and Kerry have, Obama’s in a world of hurt. Desperate measures for desperate people.

        Ugh.

        • 1539days, on August 7, 2011 at 3:14 pm said:

          Okay. Now the Tea Party can make S&P downgrade US debt. Must be like how Trump can make Obama show his birth certificate or Bush can make Congress authorize every single dollar he wanted in Iraq.

          They’re witches, I tells ya.

        • Mary, on August 7, 2011 at 6:07 pm said:

          :)

  2. myiq2xu, on August 7, 2011 at 7:57 am said:

    What Happened to Obama?

    When Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he stepped into a cycle of American history, best exemplified by F.D.R. and his distant cousin, Teddy. After a great technological revolution or a major economic transition, as when America changed from a nation of farmers to an urban industrial one, there is often a period of great concentration of wealth, and with it, a concentration of power in the wealthy. That’s what we saw in 1928, and that’s what we see today. At some point that power is exercised so injudiciously, and the lives of so many become so unbearable, that a period of reform ensues — and a charismatic reformer emerges to lead that renewal. In that sense, Teddy Roosevelt started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation’s food supply, and protect America’s land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement.

    Those were the shoes — that was the historic role — that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill. The president is fond of referring to “the arc of history,” paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous statement that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics — in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness and just punch harder the next time — he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for at least a generation.

    When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public.

    IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public — a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn’t bend that far.

    The truly decisive move that broke the arc of history was his handling of the stimulus. The public was desperate for a leader who would speak with confidence, and they were ready to follow wherever the president led. Yet instead of indicting the economic policies and principles that had just eliminated eight million jobs, in the most damaging of the tic-like gestures of compromise that have become the hallmark of his presidency — and against the advice of multiple Nobel-Prize-winning economists — he backed away from his advisers who proposed a big stimulus, and then diluted it with tax cuts that had already been shown to be inert. The result, as predicted in advance, was a half-stimulus that half-stimulated the economy. That, in turn, led the White House to feel rightly unappreciated for having saved the country from another Great Depression but in the unenviable position of having to argue a counterfactual — that something terrible might have happened had it not half-acted.

    To the average American, who was still staring into the abyss, the half-stimulus did nothing but prove that Ronald Reagan was right, that government is the problem. In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, “stick.” Nor did anyone explain what health care reform was supposed to accomplish (other than the unbelievable and even more uninspiring claim that it would “bend the cost curve”), or why “credit card reform” had led to an increase in the interest rates they were already struggling to pay. Nor did anyone explain why saving the banks was such a priority, when saving the homes the banks were foreclosing didn’t seem to be. All Americans knew, and all they know today, is that they’re still unemployed, they’re still worried about how they’re going to pay their bills at the end of the month and their kids still can’t get a job. And now the Republicans are chipping away at unemployment insurance, and the president is making his usual impotent verbal exhortations after bargaining it away.

    Nothing happened to Obama.

    He wasn’t “The One.”

    Some of us saw that way back when.

    • myiq2xu, on August 7, 2011 at 8:28 am said:

      Connecting the dots:

      But Barack Obama’s problem has less to do with left, right and center than with his psychological resistance to taking on that role of warrior against political and economic madness. A close study of what FDR and even Harry Truman did under similar circumstances might rouse him out of his mediating trance.

      If you want to know “what happened to Obama” all you need to do is look at who financed his campaign.

      Follow the money . . .

      • ralphb, on August 7, 2011 at 8:40 am said:

        Sometimes the simplest things elude us. 2 + 2 = 4 and Follow the Money.

      • Valhalla, on August 7, 2011 at 3:54 pm said:

        The NYT is still getting it wrong. Nothing happened to Obama. He didn’t change his mind or lose his nerve. He was always on the side of the people who wrecked the economy. And he shows plenty of nerve when it comes to defending their interests.

        It’s fascinating to watch some of the Obots detox. The gateway meme is usually “he wants to be Mr. Progressive but those meanie Republicans won’t let him.” Next is a bewildered, reluctant acknowledgement that “he’s not a good negotiator.” Then it’s on to noticing that the only Americans he’s helped are the criminals who tanked the economy while filling his campaign war chest. But pretty few take the next step– getting rid of him.

        Honestly, I’d rather watch real junkies or alcoholics detox. At least they’re not responsible for ruining MY future as well as their own.

        • Mary, on August 7, 2011 at 5:50 pm said:

          Go read the comments at the Maureen Dowd column in NYT today. Whole lot more people who previously supported Obama completely off the bandwagon than there are supporters in different stages of withdrawal.

          It’s amazing. Most of them are DONE with Obama.

        • Valhalla, on August 7, 2011 at 7:38 pm said:

          That’s sort of an interesting question. I’m seeing a lot of Obama-critical comments on both the big media sites and allegedly progressive blogs (like Digby’s).

          And what I have to wonder is whether these are REALLY people who have woken up, or are they just the people who resurfaced after being bullied, harrassed, attacked and chased off those same sites during Obamamania? The Obama blogswarmers went into abeyance after mid-2009, seems like. Some of them probably because OFA was no longer paying them. But others because the half-life of the witless Obama “trend” was arriving.

          There are a number who admit to formerly supporting Obama

    • Mr. Mike, on August 7, 2011 at 9:05 am said:

      I got half way through then stopped. The NYT is one of the reasons we had two terms of George Bush and hopefully one term of Barack Obama. They foisted two empty suits on us then pretend bewilderment of the state America is in today. Their corporate masters must be pleased.

    • Mary, on August 7, 2011 at 9:19 am said:

      Ya know, this is not T-Ball, where every player gets a hug and a trophy, even if they never hit the ball.

      The nation gave Barak Obama an opportunity; he failed.

      That’s really the bottom line, and the nation must move on from this “Historic first Black president” dream of justice, to the reality of experience and competence, whatever form that comes in.

      Enough, already. This is not about redeeming or rescuing Barak Obama. This is about the American people, in all shapes and colors and sizes.

      It’s too important to play stupid games.

      • Mr. Mike, on August 7, 2011 at 9:29 am said:

        The games started when we were told by the print and broadcast media Al Gore was unfit to be president because he had the wrong number of buttons on his suit jacket sleeves. They continued when Maureen Dowd put phony NASCAR quotes in John Kerry’s mouth in an attempt to make him look the fool.

        • ralphb, on August 7, 2011 at 9:52 am said:

          That was the darndest thing I’ve ever seen. I left the party because people wouldn’t stand up and fight for Gore. Lost all respect for them then.

        • angienc, on August 7, 2011 at 12:38 pm said:

          You’re right, but as far as Kerry goes & what I’ve seen from him since then, I’m glad he lost & he deserved every lie and half-truth thrown at him because the TRUTH about him is much worse. Fuck him.

        • 1539days, on August 7, 2011 at 3:22 pm said:

          You know, Gore wouldn’t fight for Gore. He hired Naomi Wolf to turn him into an alpha male.

        • bemused_leftist, on August 7, 2011 at 10:45 pm said:

          Gore wouldn’t fight for Gore, but the Naomi Wolf story is fictitious. She may have done some consulting for him but not what the GOP claimed.

    • Mary, on August 7, 2011 at 9:31 am said:

      You’re right, myiq.

      The article assumes Obama WAS what he assumed he was to begin with, moving on to explain why The One moved away from that assumption.

      The original assumption is the true mistake: Obama never was who/what the author thought he was.

      “Obama” was an illusion all along.

    • Not Your Sweetie, on August 7, 2011 at 1:31 pm said:

      We only saw it because we were ray*cists, ignorant poor and old. And most of us were of the embarrassing gender too.

    • Not Your Sweetie, on August 7, 2011 at 1:45 pm said:

      Even Krugman knows the answer
      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/stuck-in-the-muddle/

      The one thing I might say is that we shouldn’t really wonder what happened to Obama — he is who he always was. If you paid attention to what he actually said during the primary and the election, he was always a very conventional centrist. Progressives who flocked to his campaign basically deluded themselves, mistaking style for substance. I got huge flack for saying that at the time, but it was true, and events have borne it out.

  3. myiq2xu, on August 7, 2011 at 8:15 am said:

    Seeking Alpha:

    At last weekend’s banking conference at Jekyll Island, Alan Greenspan made some astonishing remarks. In short, he said the banking sector has been guilty of rampant fraud and needs much higher levels of oversight. After a 30 year crusade of deregulating markets and being an advocate of efficient markets Greenspan appears to have come around to the (obvious) realization that markets are made up of human beings and human beings are not all necessarily good and rational.

    He said:

    We need…to get far higher levels of enforcement of fraud statutes. Existing ones. I’m not even talking about new ones…Things were being done which were certainly illegal and clearly criminal in certain cases.

    Naturally, Ben Bernanke practically covers his face half way through the commentary:

    • ralphb, on August 7, 2011 at 8:43 am said:

      I’ve always been amazed that people spent so much time on new laws when the ones we had covered accounting control fraud very well. If anything we have too many laws now. We don’t need new laws, we need adequate enforcement of existing laws.

      • Mary, on August 7, 2011 at 9:21 am said:

        Honk!

      • Mr. Mike, on August 7, 2011 at 9:21 am said:

        Then the decline of enforcement just happed to coincide with the repealing of the financial regulations?

        • ralphb, on August 7, 2011 at 9:32 am said:

          Oh please, Glass-Stegall wasn’t the only financial regulation. The banks and financial houses committed fraud for fuck’s sake! That’s still illegal everywhere.

      • 1539days, on August 7, 2011 at 3:25 pm said:

        Remember Sarbanes–Oxley from 2002? Did that do anything? All I know is that it’s the reason I have to change my password every 3 months at work. Apparently, that will solve all our financial problems.

        • ralphb, on August 7, 2011 at 6:48 pm said:

          Very well. All Sarbanes-Oxley did was create a lot of reporting requirements and silly shit like those password security rules out of them. I don’t think it did anything worthwhile.

    • ecoast, on August 7, 2011 at 9:05 am said:

      Why does Greenspan speak truth now? He realized he is getting close to his judgment day and is trying to settle his account.

    • djmm, on August 7, 2011 at 12:07 pm said:

      Greenspan helped get us into this mess. Perhaps some people will listen to him now that he is talking sense, but he missed his historic opportunity.

      djmm

    • Karma, on August 7, 2011 at 2:53 pm said:

      Said the man who essentially negated Glass-Steagall before Congress made it official with their veto-proof, quid pro quo bill. And didn’t he write his thesis on sub-prime loans which essentially negates his statements about the unseen real estate bubble?

      Great timeline of Glass Steagall at link –

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

      1996-1997
      Fed renders Glass-Steagall effectively obsolete

      In December 1996, with the support of Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board issues a precedent-shattering decision permitting bank holding companies to own investment bank affiliates with up to 25 percent of their business in securities underwriting (up from 10 percent).

      This expansion of the loophole created by the Fed’s 1987 reinterpretation of Section 20 of Glass-Steagall effectively renders Glass-Steagall obsolete. Virtually any bank holding company wanting to engage in securities business would be able to stay under the 25 percent limit on revenue. However, the law remains on the books, and along with the Bank Holding Company Act, does impose other restrictions on banks, such as prohibiting them from owning insurance-underwriting companies.

      In August 1997, the Fed eliminates many restrictions imposed on “Section 20 subsidiaries” by the 1987 and 1989 orders. The Board states that the risks of underwriting had proven to be “manageable,” and says banks would have the right to acquire securities firms outright.

      In 1997, Bankers Trust (now owned by Deutsche Bank) buys the investment bank Alex. Brown & Co., becoming the first U.S. bank to acquire a securities firm.

      Greenspan knew exactly what would happen….both then….and now. Their friends would make tons of money and the taxpayers would end up holding the bill. Again.

      Though it is a bit amusing that he would pick Jekyll Island to say such a thing. Is he trying to pick a fight with the conspiracy crowd so the retiree can Google trend his name with confidence?

      • Mary, on August 7, 2011 at 5:53 pm said:

        Yes, but he was not alone.

        Included Democrats Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, too.

        And, sadly, Bill Clinton.

        There, I said it out loud. Shame on me.

      • Karma, on August 7, 2011 at 8:23 pm said:

        To be fair, quid pro quo pretty much implies there are others involved in getting those ducks in a row.

        But, there would be no cheap, sub-prime loans to help ruin the market without him lowering the interest rates.

        The head duck at the Fed, gave a wink and a nod to the upcoming fraud. With Greenspan’s deity-like/insider status, he let it be known that the Fed/taxpayers would be covering the bill for what the banksters bought in Congress.

        Where is the risk in offering bad loans if the banks get such signals from the Fed? Where is the risk in selling derivatives off of these bad loans if they are guaranteed by the govt? Where is the risk in anything under those rules? Banks all over the world signed up, and as you probably heard, were bailed out to the tune of 16 Trillion. Isn’t that amount the Fed paid?

  4. foxyladi14, on August 7, 2011 at 8:28 am said:

    I voted for the hero.not the zero! :)

  5. DeniseVB, on August 7, 2011 at 8:33 am said:

    MoveOn lost a lot of supporters/members after their Obama endorsement. As did N.O.W. when they stabbed Hillary in the back.

  6. Lola-at-Large, on August 7, 2011 at 8:59 am said:

    The hobbits are the heroes of the story. They were fighting for the shire.

    • Mary, on August 7, 2011 at 9:23 am said:

      Well said.

      And while S&P did mention new revenues, they focused almost entirely on reducing long term systemic spending cuts.

      Which means, not withstanding all the bullshit misinterpretations you’ll read from the desperate, screeching Obots, that they agreed with, and reinforced, the HOBBITS.

  7. ralphb, on August 7, 2011 at 9:02 am said:

    Lying commercials…

    • ralphb, on August 7, 2011 at 9:03 am said:

      Not a single cent of taxpayer dollars, huh? Then how do you explain this?

      The US Postal Service warned on Friday that it could default on payments it owes the federal government, just days after the US government itself narrowly averted a default.

      The government’s mail service said it lost $3.1 billion in the period from April to June, blaming “the anemic state of the economy” and the growing popularity of electronic communications over old-fashioned letters.

      As a result of its mounting losses, the US Postal Service said it would not be able to make a legally required $5.5 billion payment in September to a health-benefits trust fund.

      The federal government just fronts the USPS workers’ (read APWU members’) health benefits with taxpayer dollars that the USPS can’t reimburse. This could be a fine example of why we’re up against it.

  8. ralphb, on August 7, 2011 at 9:50 am said:

    Perry isn’t the only one with an increased credit rating. Palin’s Alaska went up to AAA.

  9. ralphb, on August 7, 2011 at 10:10 am said:

    From David Mamet…

    The problems facing us, faced by all mankind engaged in Democracy, may seem complex, or indeed insolvable, and we, in despair, may revert to a state of wish fulfillment-a state of “belief” in the power of the various experts presenting themselves as a cure for our indecision. But this is a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. Here, the captives, unable to bear the anxiety occasioned by their powerlessness, suppress it by identifying with their captors.

  10. ralphb, on August 7, 2011 at 10:25 am said:

    great illustrations…

    http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/

  11. bemused_leftist, on August 7, 2011 at 10:33 am said:

    I disagree with a commentator elsewhere who said:

    So [ S&P director] doubles down, after admitting that the Treasury is right that his figures are in error by $2 trillion, but then starts saying the whole thing is about the debt ceiling “debacle” continuing “until almost the midnight hour” and David Beers talking about how fiscal policy is “fundamentally a political process”.

    All of which is fine and true if that’s the reason for the downgrade because that would make sense: The risk, now that default has become fair game as a political blackmail tool, changes, and perhaps the credit rating should reflect that.

    LOL! And I thought I was joking with that theory!

    But if that’s the case, then the $2 trillion calculation didn’t matter in the first place so why was it calculated? And why is there a warning of future downgrades if serious cuts are not made?

    Now that’s a silly argument! Because BOTH factors matter, of course. Ability to pay — AND a responsible attitude and enough good sense not to shout “Default!” in political theatre.

  12. Mary, on August 7, 2011 at 11:38 am said:

    Ruh roh. Dibgy’s beginning to suspect that those Democratic people are actually going to support the Grand Bargain, rather than not touching SS/Medicare. And that maybe, just maybe, S&P gave Obama et al an excuse to say they had no choice but to do what they wanted to do all along.

    Dear God. No shit. THESE are the A-listers?

    Stunning.

    • Dario, on August 7, 2011 at 11:49 am said:

      I said it on another thread. S&P downgrade is part of the concerted effort to give cover to congress to fock the old people. Congress want to say that there was no choice. Obama will sign the bill and say he’s faultless in the whole affair. I don’t need tin foil hat to figure out what the bastards are up to.

    • Three Wickets, on August 7, 2011 at 1:07 pm said:

      Yup. And these are the people who brought us the One in the first place.

  13. myiq2xu, on August 7, 2011 at 1:01 pm said:

    Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters responding to a Clarence Page op-ed entitled “Is the Tea Party Over?”

    The Tea Party nine months ago scored a huge victory assisting Republicans to the biggest midterm election landslide in decades.

    The following month, before any of these Tea Partiers had even been sworn into Congress, the President and his Party caved into their wishes by extending the Bush tax cuts.

    Last week, the President and his Party caved into Tea Party demands to not have tax increases as part of the debt ceiling agreement.

    And it is the Tea Party that is in danger of “ultimate defeat?”

    • Three Wickets, on August 7, 2011 at 1:09 pm said:

      Liberal media has never sounded so foolish. Grasping at whatever they can at this point.

      • Mary, on August 7, 2011 at 6:03 pm said:

        It’s really embarassing. They sound like some of those Cub Scouts I took to day camp 20 years ago.

        Neener neener.

  14. Not Your Sweetie, on August 7, 2011 at 1:06 pm said:

    I remember during the primaries, Hillary’s campaign lodged some complaints against MoveOn’s tactics at the caucases.
    I was still a member when they had a 2 hour poll – during the CNN primary debate on whom to endorse. One tenth of the membership was sent that poll, yet they presented as the whole membership’s decision. I resigned in protest the next day.

    • myiq2xu, on August 7, 2011 at 1:30 pm said:

      10 percent of MoveOn’s membership voted, 7 percent voted for Obama. The endorsement was timed to give Obama a big SuperDuper Tuesday boost.

      He still lost California, NY, NJ, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Tennessee. The only one that was close was New Mexico.

      • Not Your Sweetie, on August 7, 2011 at 1:35 pm said:

        0.7% voted for him. Don’t use the same trick MoveOn used.
        And yes, that was a Super tuesday plot – but they were more effective scaring little ladies in the caucases.

      • 1539days, on August 7, 2011 at 3:40 pm said:

        The whole primary system under the Democratic Party was written to allow a vote override. Superdelegates were created after the contested primary of Kennedy challenging Carter. By design, a close race could be decided by superdelegates to avoid a floor fight. In 2008, the DNC tried to have both. They were willing to use the superdelegates, but they wanted to make it look like a first ballot decision of pledged delegates.

        • Mary, on August 7, 2011 at 5:57 pm said:

          In other words, they f’ing CHEATED.

        • bemused_leftist, on August 7, 2011 at 10:55 pm said:

          Well, the Superdelegates are allowed to vote on the first ballot. The main problem was that they didn’t do their job, which was to choose the best candidate instead of just rubberstamping the caucus/primary delegate bare majority. Anyone could see where Obama’s delegates had come from (red state caucuses) and where Hillary’s had come from (big state primaries). The purpose of the SD’s was to use some human judgement when someone tried to game the system on technicalities.

        • myiq2xu, on August 7, 2011 at 11:04 pm said:

          The SD’s were introduced after 1972 – the Democratic party leaders wanted to make sure the voters didn’t pick the “wrong” candidate again.

    • Mary, on August 7, 2011 at 2:26 pm said:

      Me too. Screw em.

    • myiq2xu, on August 7, 2011 at 1:34 pm said:

      The company that makes the Disappointmints should send Joe Armstrong a thank-you card.

    • Pips, on August 7, 2011 at 2:56 pm said:

      Heheheh … love that story. Humour at its very best. :D

      “It’s been stressful,” said Stern. “It’s kind of like that episode of ‘I Love Lucy’ were she’s got the conveyor belt and it’s going too fast. Every five minutes we do a Web import and we have 30 new orders.”

      As of Wednesday at 9 a.m., the company had enough mints to last through Christmas, Stern said. Now, they are back-ordered two to three weeks. The company has also upped the price from $3 to $5 …

      … and on eBay they sell for more than $30, lol.

  16. votermom, on August 7, 2011 at 4:12 pm said:

    via LI, check out the new hashtag #ObamaDownGradeExcuse

    http://twitter.com/#!/search/%23ObamaDownGradeExcuse

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 273 other followers

%d bloggers like this: