I was also present at yesterdays SDC elections in the IBEW hall as a newly elected SDC member. [ballot – 4th Middlesex].
I was the only SDC member there wearing a John Edwards 08 button. Certainly, I was perhaps the most relaxed participant as a result.
In my opinion, the main reason Arthur Powell won was in large part that he is co-chariman of the Communications Committee to the 400 member SDC and pretty much EVERYONE hears from Arthur more then once a week, over a period of years. I am not intending to detract from Arthur’s hard work as a volunteer, his unfailingly courteous and adult demeanor, and the fact that he had written and called all 400 delegates more than once in the last couple of weeks – all true.
As it happened, I voted for Cahill because I believed then and now he was “truly unpledged” and when I vote for an unpledged delegate, I want that delegate to actually be unpledged. I personally had read Cahill’s letter to delegates and really liked the mature, diplomatic tone of his speech to us. For a one minute speech, I thought it was quite “meaty”.
Nothing against Arthur, who is definitely a work horse volunteer, and class act.
But the reality is that most SDC members really did know Arthur personally because of his role in the Communications Committee. They also were not looking for a “truly neutral and unpledged” superdelegate – though I WAS.
Further, my desire that the “superdelegate ad-on” actually BE unpledged was probably a minority desire.
For the two “camps” the unpledged delegate was probably viewed as a prize to be won.
That all being said, I hope to see the Obama camp courteously courting the Clinton camp – and the Clinton camp courteously courting the Obama camp because EITHER we all work together like grown ups or we will have president McSame McSaber and more years of the United States sliding into fascism. Do you REALLY want a President McCain?
As it is – there is a terrible mess and muddle to clean up in this United States on the national level and it WILL take all of us – not just one hobbled camp or the other.
If some of the best and brightest and hardest working sit out the national election nursing grudges – we and the world will all suffer because those grudges will help elect McCain.
I respect much of what you say, Amber, but there is a place where I’d like to disagree:
<
p>
<
p>Of course, there’s more than one election going on here. There’s the drive to gut as close to 60 Democratic Senators (like Jeanne Shaheen’s) as possible — that will need a lot of wo/manpower. There’s the effort to keep our marginal Congressional districts (like Carol Shea-Porter’s), and expand into others’ (Chris Shays).
<
p>Those of us who passionately supported Clinton and are being told in no uncertain terms that we are unneeded by Obama for President, have many ways to work toward the protection of the Constitution and the expansion peace and prosperity. The legions of new people Obama brought into the process could pick up the slack.
<
p>This is your perception. You are not alone and there are a few “Obama supporters” that do feel as you have stated. However, on the whole your statement is false to most democrats.
<
p>At this point in the race the outcome is 99.68% clear. Many Obama supporters in the blogscape are playing whack-a-mole with Clinton bloggers in order to maintian the edge. Faux indignation and crying VICTIM may make for good drama, but it is hardly relevant to any but a vocal minority. Don’t look for my shoulder, but I’m sure you can find some touchy feely party healers out there to help you cope, Sabby.
<
p>McCain and his party have their eye on SCOTUS and amending the Constitution. We will be waiting for you to find a sense of closure, but we will be moving forward while you mend.
I’m just going from what I’m seeing here, on Kos, on MyDD, on TPM. I’m just going from Ted Kennedy’s name-calling, and Congressman Rudin’s misogyny. I’m just taking people’s words at face value (something which regularly gets me attacked on Axelrod-related issues, but hey…). You can try to dismiss that reality as “perception”, but the only person you’re helping with that is John McCain.
<
p>Quick question: if the nomination is 99.68% decided (how did you come up with a precise figure?), why this need to attack every Clinton “mole”? Why the ongoing ad hominem attacks on anybody not utterly devoted to the Obama cause?
<
p>How is it still that so many folks think that there are a few isolated head cases reluctant to kowtow before the Obama campaign — and refusing to accept how widely spread these feelings are among the 45-49% of the party that did/does not support Obama?
<
p>I’m not looking for your shoulder, John — you showed up with Obama and I wouldn’t be surprised to see you leave with Obama. Me, I’m a Democrat who believes in his party, not just his candidate. I’m in it for the long haul.
After the primary you can just use the word DID, as in “did not support Obama.”
<
p>I love your phrasing: utterly devoted to , kowtow before .
<
p>So you can’t be called a Hilbot, but you can paint Obama supporters as “cult followers?” This seems a teeny unfair. Or did you not realize that you blog with such blatant double standards?
<
p>This is precious:
<
p>Why not just jump up and down, yelling “Hillary, Obama and his “John’s” took our party and won’t give it back!”
<
p>You see the mess this country is in? How did we get hear? Cue Bush/Cheney scapegoating.
Still not sure where 99.68% came from. Not sure why you didn’t answer my questions.
<
p>Call me a Hillbot if you want — even though she was my fourth or fifth choice in January.
<
p>Where did “cult follower” come from? I didn’t use those words, and it’s clear I didn’t use anything of the sort to refer to all Obama supporters — just a tiny sliver that is unfortunately the most vocal and aggressive…and doing the most to damage the Party. I welcome other supporters of Obama to try to balance those voices.
<
p>Nobody took the Democratic Party from anybody. The party is bigger and better than any candidate or campaign. I’m not sure why saying that enrages you so much. I just hope that Obama’s legions of followers are interested in the party’s long-term health, and not just electing one man to solve everything. I have an idea of how we got in this mess, and I have an idea that it’s going to take more than one man to get us out.
I used Hillary math. I has little basis in reality, but it makes for good drama.
Freudian slip there?
AmberPaw sez:
<
p>
<
p>Amen, sister!
<
p>sabutai sez:
<
p>
<
p>Um, no you are not. The most vocal folks on the blogs for the last few months seem to be those who just cannot deal with the idea that their candidate might not get the nomination. Those of us who will work for either candidate just don’t feel like jumping into the cesspool much right now. Relax, you are wanted and needed.
<
p>Absent in all the recent talk about Obama’s problems in getting votes from certain groups is that if Clinton is the nominee, we have the same problem (Clinton talks about her “vetting” over the last 18 years as a good thing, but it’s done real damage, as indicated in her negatives). Personally, a few Democrats I know have told me they will sit home in November if Clinton is the nominee. I’m not just saying “boo-hoo, we don’t get those votes.” My plan is to work HARD to get them to change their minds. This is just like any other election – if we don’t do that hard work, we don’t win.
I seem to remember JRE saying he represented the “grown up wing” of the Democratic party. I think it is “the grown up wing” – no matter who the nominee is [and frankly, I am still “no pref” between Clinton & Obama] – it is the “grown up wing” that is needed to win this election.
<
p>This will be a real battle for the Presidency – and for the Senate – and for Congress itself – and for whether we continue as a small “d” democratic society, or move further towards a fascistic plutocracy.
<
p>To me, THAT matters.
I really don’t want to believe that some of the most vocal Obama-ites I see on the Web represent his campaign, but until very recently they’ve been the dominant voice. The silent majority rarely persuades well. Now that people such as myself are reacting to their words at face value, it’s heartening to see other Obama supporters begin to make clear that no, it is not an insular campaign hostile to outsiders. This exclusionary cliquishness is only legitimated by others’ silence, and I hope those who probably are the backbone and heart of his campaign are starting to take the online face of Obama for President back from his extremists.
Will you be voting for Obahma if he is the nominee and Hillary is not on the ticket?
<
p>Just curious. I’m trying to gage this thing.
I can’t in good conscience ask that the people of Ohio hold their noses and vote for Obama, if I’m not willing to do the same. I don’t expect to like it, I don’t expect them to like it, but it’s a far, far better option that McCain. Were I living in Ohio, Michigan, or other swing states, it would be a guaranteed yes.
<
p>But I live in a state that will vote Obama over McCain almost guaranteed, so I have the luxury of a little wiggle room. My life has been constricted in some ways becaue I am an unapologetic atheist, and one of my values is the free expression of religion or non-religion in the public sphere. I have ocncerns Obama does not agree with me on this, but rather joins Republicans in seeking to “tip the scales” in favor of Christians trying to colonize the American public sphere. If he goes further in that direction during the general, that is the thing most likely to turn me off.
you raised a more interesting question.
<
p>I understand being agnostoc but doesn’t being an atheist commit to something nobody knows. Religion requires faith. But ndoesn’t atheism require faith too?
…given the amount of loss, difficulty, and work each day se3ems to require…and how few the wins are for justice, families, honor, integrity, and conscience.
<
p>But the alternative is no good…so rise and shine, Ernie.