Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The Probama Petition

1

You Suck ECB...

Please stop a pointless pule. You are losing, quit acting like a jackass please.


You are embarrassing yourself and lessening you chances to get a man.

Posted by ecce homo | February 13, 2008 1:10 PM
2

These are similar to the pro-Obama arguments I heard at my precinct's caucus.

Posted by boxofbirds | February 13, 2008 1:10 PM
3

ugh.

Posted by infrequent | February 13, 2008 1:10 PM
4

Oh wow...look at the Obamatons go!

Posted by Smegmalicious | February 13, 2008 1:13 PM
5

Erica: how old are you? I'm serious. I also have a job where I see how poor at spelling most Americans are. It's not a newsflash. Most people are dumb, we all know it without having to point it out. Any message board should also show you the same thing. Why are you doing this? Do you think a petition of Hillary supporters wouldn't have grammar and spelling errors? I have a Masters degree and no doubt I might have one or two (spelling errors, typos) in this post as well.

Erica, you really are like a petulant child. Who did you blow to get your job? You're really, REALLY making the Stranger and people who write for it look small-town and collegiate with your meaningless, silly posts.

Posted by Jason | February 13, 2008 1:15 PM
6

asking a super-delegate to consider who they represent when casting their ballot is not saying party rules MUST be throw out.

how is it?

forcing a super-delegate to vote a certain way would be throwing the rules out. THEREFORE signing a petition is NOT like saying the rules MUST be enforced in florida and michigan.

WITH NO RULE CHANGES florida and michigan don't count, and super-delegates can change their vote or not.

this post is certainly mean-spirited, and possibly a bit racist.

Posted by infrequent | February 13, 2008 1:15 PM
7

Sic througout indeed. And I kick myself in the ass for the odd typo here and there. Sheesh.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 13, 2008 1:17 PM
8

i see nothing wrong with asking them to change their mind. i see nothing wrong with people asking kennedy to change his mind. they can legally change them right? and clinton, by all means....do the same.

i really don't see any double standards (but i am, afterall, an obama activist.)

are people really trying to FORCE them to change their vote?

Posted by cochise. | February 13, 2008 1:18 PM
9

If cherrypicking some random idiots on the Internet is fair game in trashing Obama supporters, then you all should take a look at the comments section on Hillaryis44.org

Posted by Greg | February 13, 2008 1:19 PM
10

I can argue whatever the fuck I want to.

Posted by Andrew | February 13, 2008 1:20 PM
11

Nice, real nice. Go team. Anyway, what petitions seek to change any rules? That's a factual question isn't it? You can back that up? The first petition I found, like I guess the vast majority if not all of them, asks our senators to change their vote. There's no question of rules. They can vote for whomever they want but obviously we'd like them to vote for Obama.

In fact, within the superdelegate system I can petition my reps to vote for Obama while not doing jack squat to help MA residents get their reps to switch to Clinton.

AGAIN: would you agree that it's a factual issue whether there are petitions arguing for a party rule change?

Posted by daniel | February 13, 2008 1:20 PM
12

this post is certainly mean-spirited, and possibly a bit racist.

That was my first thought too. Yes, Erica, we get it. It's all those silly small-staters and negroes who blindly follow the empty dream of Obama....

You better watch yourself, I know you're just engaging in harmless collegiate sneering. You know, the sneering we all grew out of about the time we were a 3rd year undergraduate, but it's increasingly coming across as patronizing and a tad racist. Your Kenyan woman-beating story juxtaposed after the Clinton story was riding that line too. Just as some of the Clinton-bashing flirts with misogyny.....pot meet kettle.

Posted by JJ | February 13, 2008 1:21 PM
13

Wow. You're using the same technique that O'Reilly did when he wanted to prove that Daily Kos was a hotbed of hate speech. Is there anything from the GOP dirty tricks handbook that HRC supporters won't co-opt?

Posted by Gitai | February 13, 2008 1:24 PM
14

I don't think anyone is trying to mandate or force the superdelegates in Washington or anywhere else to change their vote. The petition is asking OUR senators to follow the will of the people in THEIR state-- not asking the party to change its rules. The people in Mass or elsewhere are welcome to do the same.

Posted by SDizzle | February 13, 2008 1:24 PM
15

there is no double-standard. the double-standard idea is manufactured. asking a super-delegate to support a candidate is NOTHING like changing the rules to allow florida and michigan delegates decided by a questionable vote to count.

Posted by infrequent | February 13, 2008 1:25 PM
16

Thanks Erica I always knew those darn jigaboos durn spell right.

Posted by icanhazcheezeburger | February 13, 2008 1:27 PM
17

@5

At least ECB can get some action. You, on the other hand, cannot. Master's degree?! Whhhhhoooooaaaaa!! Give us your ass so we can suck it.

Nobody cares about your stupid degree. Moron.

Posted by Mr. Poe | February 13, 2008 1:27 PM
18

Erica -- grow the fuck up. Yay, you found a bunch of idiots supporting Obama. Would you like me to dig up a bunch of idiots supporting Clinton? I'll wager that list will be as long, as stupid, and as meaningless as yours.

Posted by growthefuckup | February 13, 2008 1:27 PM
19

The double standard is that Obama supporters are arguing that Cantwell and Murray have a moral obligation to follow the will of their states' voters. If that's true, it applies to all superdelegates. In which case, Clinton would still lead.

And racist? That's just... bizarre. Most of the petition signatories are from Seattle, and I assume the majority (like the majority of Seattle) are white.

Posted by ECB | February 13, 2008 1:29 PM
20

Erica, I haven't seen anyone claim "obligation" only encouraging them (and shaming them) to switch since they are NOT obligated to stick with Clinton. What's wrong with that?

Posted by Jason | February 13, 2008 1:31 PM
21

Be it resolved--yes, ECB, in the passion of this heady Get-Bush-the-Fuck-Out-of-Office period, where the smell of Democratic Victory so permeates the air, people get overwhelmed, and this new Anybody-Can-Say-Anything-Worldwide tool empowers any fool with a keyboard...

Yes, there are Obamaton crazies and there are Hell-on-wheels Hillarians, not to mention the Paultards and McCainiacs and Hucksters.

There are also a whole lot of rational people with very strong arguments for and against both Obama and Clinton.

Pretending the lunacy is confined to a single candidate's pool of supporters, well, that's a bit ingenuous, dontcha think? That would be a bit like, when considering the veracity of the 9-11 Commission report, rather than giving voice to those with rational criticisms of the report, you simply held up a megaphone to the most extreme example of the "9-11 Truthers" and then pulled the megaphone away and crossed your arms and said, "see! see!"

Posted by Andy Niable | February 13, 2008 1:31 PM
22

Erica, I wish you would reconsider your support of Senator Clinton, if only to stop these childish posts.

You know I've got nothing but respect for you but, frankly, you're acting like a Republican. Hillary is getting her ass whupped. The tides are turning.

No one likes a sore loser, especially in the same party.

Posted by kerri harrop | February 13, 2008 1:32 PM
23

Stupid people? On the internets? OMGWTF!

Seriously, if you want to keep up this anti-Obama petulant whining, pretty soon you'll have to endorse McCain.

Looking forward to it!

Posted by Ziggity | February 13, 2008 1:34 PM
24

Jason @ 20: Well, the petition says it is "imperative that you stand up for the wishes of your constituents." But more to the point, the people who signed it--and wrote comments--overwhelmingly argue that the senators are obligated (in many cases, "morally obligated") to vote for Obama.

Posted by ECB | February 13, 2008 1:37 PM
25

Obamatons are sweeping the petulence primary today.

No doubt.

Now if you even raise any point that does not favor Obama you are a sore loser, a republithug troll, etc. etc.

Just like Joe McCarthy's attacks.

Yawn.....I think this time I'll not even read the rather predictable and boring Obamaton taunts that are to follow.

PS: "Obamaton" and "Obamatron" were used on MSNBC this morning. Slog is having an impact on the national debate!!!

Posted by unPC | February 13, 2008 1:40 PM
26

OK, fine I'm not going to belabor my point. I think even us Obama supporters have enough reading comprehension to decide for ourselves whether the language "[it is] imperative that you stand up for the wishes of your constituents" calls for any sort of rule change. Or whether "morally obligated" calls for any sort of rule change.

Where by rule change I'm talking about the sort of thing required to seat Florida delegates.

Go team!

FWIW, I dislike Iowa and New Hampshire's position of privilege and I think Florida got screwed but what sticks in my craw is how Clinton didn't just permit the disenfranchisement of Florida but actively promoted it when it was necessary to kiss up to the early states.

Posted by daniel | February 13, 2008 1:41 PM
27

Can anyone show the "rule" that states that MI and FL can't have delegates?

Why should the Republican legislature in FL take away the Dem delegates by moving the election day up.

Besides the "rules" is there a decent logic for why FL should lose their delegates for holding a vote after IA, NH, and SC? Would there be a decent logic if they had held the vote before those other states?

Shouldn't Obama be trying to find a way to get them seated for general election reasons?

I think Obama will win the Dem nomination and hopefully the general.

Posted by ouch | February 13, 2008 1:41 PM
28

I can haz cheezburgurs? Mino gorilla. Go oBama. Woof!

Posted by Sim | February 13, 2008 1:42 PM
29

Would still lead? Isn't Obama the frontrunner now?

Posted by keshmeshi | February 13, 2008 1:44 PM
30

For what it's worth (nothing), I'm an alternate Obama delegate and I don't support compelling superdelegates to vote in any particular way. This is a representative democracy and we're talking about a political party primary, anyway.

On the other hand, like most sane people I don't see an internet petition having any effect whatsoever on anyone, so it makes sense that some illiterate comments are being left on that site.

Your "thus it was written" reposting of cherry-picked comments from that petition is snarkily amusing I guess, in the same way that Matt Drudge's pairing of a picture of Hillary gripping a phallic mic next to a headline about her campaign remaining rigid or something childishly amuses a partisan viewer. Hope you enjoyed your own cleverness, at least.

Posted by Peter F | February 13, 2008 1:49 PM
31

Erica, are you daft?

Unless these people are simultaneously arguing that WA senators are morally obligated to vote for Obama, and MA senators are not, then there is no double standard.

Posted by A Non Imus | February 13, 2008 1:51 PM
32

I was going to post here, but someone with the same first name as I have has already said all I wanted to say.

Posted by Jason Petersen | February 13, 2008 1:52 PM
33

oops. should be "MA senators are not obligated to vote for Kerry"...

Posted by A Non Imus | February 13, 2008 1:53 PM
34

gah! dammit!

"MA senators are not obligated to vote for Billary."

Posted by A Non Imus | February 13, 2008 1:54 PM
35

ECB...I know for a fact that there are Obama supporters who you respect.

So, perhaps, why not try to focus your arguments toward what you consider to be the best reasons we Obama supporters have and why, on that basis, we'd be better off supporting Hillary?

By focusing on the chaff the way you've done, and by turning your tone negative, you really do your cause no real service, and stand no chance at all of convincing those of us in Obama's camp that our best arguments for him are poorly conceived.

Posted by Timothy | February 13, 2008 1:57 PM
36

is anything stopping massachusetts residents from petitioning kerry and kennedy to change their votes?

i don't see what the problem is with people petitioning their representatives to, you know, represent them. and not by changing the rules mid-stream, not by "force" [as you phrase it in your 2nd paragraph], but by persuasion [or to "compel" them to switch their votes, as you phrase it in your 1st paragraph]. this is democracy, dammit!

you're right though, it all evens out in the end so it's kind of a moot point.

Posted by brandon | February 13, 2008 1:58 PM
37

I guess I don't see what the problem is. These people are trying to make a difference in a probably-not-effective way. But they're not arguing for selectively changing the rules or anything; they are asking their quasi-representatives to reconsider a position.

Are they just disqualified from doing so because many of them are terrible writers, not very smart, or both? And Isn't it a little unfair to also tar them with speculation about their opinions about what other superdelegates in other states should do?

And would ECB be so gleeful in mocking the less intelligent if they were campaigning for Hillary? I think that's the more likely double standard.

Posted by also | February 13, 2008 2:02 PM
38

ECB gets paid per comment. You are all suckers

Posted by Jason | February 13, 2008 2:07 PM
39

yeah, I don't get why the weird obamatons are saying this is racist. i think some of you are getting a bit too reactionary whenever you see an ECB by-line. I think this was a pretty funny, and I don't think it was really intended as mean-spirited. She is just showing how stupid the online petition thing is and not really as an anti-Obama thing. If you really cared about the Democratic party, you would be signing a petition to get Florida and Michigan there delegates back. Not because it helps any candidate, but because it's the right thing to do. Fuck NH and Iowa! How about the Democrats worry about having a fucking democracy instead of nit picking identical candidates.

Posted by huh? | February 13, 2008 2:08 PM
40

christ--ECB's posts are the longest (& longest-winded) of any on slog. she needs to take an editing class. seriously, ECB--you won't persuade anyone to your side by such posts. if a reader agrees w/ you, it's b/c they're already on your side. if they neither disagree or agree w/ you, they will be put off by your posts. or are you in fact TRYING to get people to support obama?

Posted by glen | February 13, 2008 2:10 PM
41

I'd be annoyed at this post if I didn't recognize this as the sour grapes that it is.

Bwahaha.

Posted by tsm | February 13, 2008 2:12 PM
42

I think I should point out, even if I hope most people are asking them to vote for Obama, that people who are pro-Clinton can also ask superdelegates to stay with their indicated choice for Clinton, or lobby Obama or uncommitted superdelegates to go for Clinton.

But, as ECB shows us, you really need to:

a. spellcheck
b. be polite
c. use reasonable arguments
d. thank them for their time.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 13, 2008 2:16 PM
43

if you cannot see why it's racist to cast obama supporters as uneducated, ignorant, inarticulate people who cannot spell, i'm afraid there is no hope for you.

would it be clearer if an obama supporter said everyone who supports clinton is uppity? too ambitious? emotional? calculating?

i can read between the lines in both cases.

Posted by infrequent | February 13, 2008 2:17 PM
44

“I WANT OBAMA TO SCRAMBLE UP MY LAST NIGHTS DINNER AND MAKE ME BARK”

What's wrong with this comment? It sounds kind of hot.

Posted by jon c | February 13, 2008 2:18 PM
45

ECB has convinced me! Obama supporters are clearly dumb. I will vote for McCain in November instead. I don't give a fuck about Roe v. Wade.

Posted by I have seen the light. | February 13, 2008 2:18 PM
46

How weird! The caliber of online petition comments reminds me of certain other online comments.

Posted by poltroon | February 13, 2008 2:20 PM
47

Will wrote:

But, as ECB shows us, you really need to:

a. spellcheck
b. be polite
c. use reasonable arguments
d. thank them for their time.

Too bad Erica's only figured out the spellcheck portion of the exam.

Posted by Jeff | February 13, 2008 2:21 PM
48

poor ECB...she's still clinging to the hope that her pro-Hillary stance will nab her an ambassadorship to a postage stamp principality if Hillary wins...

she's praying for Liechtenstein...or Andorra...perhaps, the Land of Ev.

Posted by michael strangeways | February 13, 2008 2:22 PM
49

Perhaps at Seattle's Only Newspaper, petulance is a virtue.

"You can’t argue that Cantwell and Murray should be forced to switch to reflect their constituents’ votes without arguing that Kennedy and Kerry should also."

Sure I can, and it isn't a double standard. Cantwell and Murray are my senators. I am their constituent. Kennedy and Kerry are *not* my senators and I am *not* their constituent. Therefore, I really don't give a flying fuck who they vote for, nor should I. That's *their* constituents' problem. I'm sure you noticed this, because it's in your post, but the petition is for Washington only.

This is not a petition to change any rules, either. I don't know where you get this "Obama supporters are trying to change the rules" stuff, because you certainly haven't cited it. If I remember correctly, Hillary was the one trying to change rules with her Nevada shenanegans.

This is about urging *your* elected officials to represent you. No one is trying to "force" anything. As members of the Democratic party, these people already implicitly agreed that these officials can vote for whoever they want. That doesn't mean they can't try to convince them to get in line with voters.

Complaining to someone *else's* Senator, now that's just stupid.

Disclaimer: I am not for or against the vote switching thing, I'm merely responding to your argument. Any use of "I" above is purely hypothetical as I am not likely to lobby these people either way.

In an ideal political system, these elected officials probably would go with the voters. Representative democracy is an approximation of direct democracy, though, and I can't expect my Senator to always vote exactly in line with how voters would. Now, if they had good public polling on every vote they took, then sure, they could and perhaps should do that. At that point, though, it's direct democracy and there is no need for the Senator anyway.

In light of the fact that we can't efficiently poll everyone on every stupid issue, we trust our Senators to be our representatives.

What's interesting is that here they *do* have a poll to follow and it *is* official. So what's wrong with trying to get them to at least consider that poll?

Posted by w7ngman | February 13, 2008 2:24 PM
50

All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

Posted by Andy Niable | February 13, 2008 2:27 PM
51

the whole notion of the superdelegate, in my opinion, is ridiculous to begin with. that being said...of course the people who represent the people of WA state should take into consideration what their constituents want.
i also believe that it completely unfair to the people of michigan and florida that their votes do not count. however, there needs to be a proper primary/caucus in order for that to happen. it's hardly a fair act of democracy to put only one person's name on a ballot when (especially at the time) there are other viable candidates...

Posted by superdeledon't | February 13, 2008 2:28 PM
52

@40: Saying that Erica's posts are consistently longer than other people's is simply false.

This post isn't racist, and it's no more petulant or mean-spirited than MANY things posted on Slog.

Maybe no one is understanding this little tidbit about the superdelegates, but the point is that they get to vote based on their personal preference as party insiders, and they were created to have their own votes, NOT to vote in accordance with the populus. If you don't like the superdelegate system, fine, but petitioning people to change their superdelegate votes is frankly idiotic.

And keshmeshi @29: She leads in superdelegate votes. And, if they were to apportion those votes based on how the people voted, rather than the superdelegate's decision, she would still lead in superdelegate votes. At least for now.

Posted by Aislinn | February 13, 2008 2:28 PM
53
If you don't like the superdelegate system, fine, but petitioning people to change their superdelegate votes is frankly idiotic.

Believing that you have the legal right to make someone change their superdelegate vote would be idiotic. Presenting a petition urging them to change it is not. It's a perfectly legitimate means of political expression.

Posted by tsm | February 13, 2008 2:32 PM
54

Erica, get used to the calls of racism. I can only imagine how they will intensify if Obama wins the election in November, anytime that anyone criticizes his policies. Economists come out against his magical universal healthcare plan? Probably racists. France and Russia still don't want to help us build our empire? Probably racists.

Posted by Chris | February 13, 2008 2:36 PM
55

Thanks for posting this -- I was just lamenting this morning that we needed one of these petitions! It's imperative that Patty and Maria know that if their SD votes don't reflect the views of their constituency then they will have to answer to it come annual-peer-review time.

Posted by imaginary liz | February 13, 2008 2:38 PM
56

I forgot to mention a few things:

I agree that portraying this post as racist is truly wierd. Isn't doing so also implying that all Obama supporters aren't white? I disagree with ECB often, but I'm really not getting that one.

One thing to point out is that not all the superdelegates are elected officials. What should they do?

Another interesting facet to the representative/direct democracy discussion is that in representative democracy, it is just the representative that gets a vote, not *both* the representative and the constituents. Why double up? Why not let the reps have their say? Of course, there's nothing stopping them from caucusing *and* voting as a superdelegate (or is there? this is a truly bizarre system).

For this reason I don't think I would have a problem with them defying the voters. The voters already had their say. The superdelegates have all worked tirelessly to advance the Democratic party (especially the underappreciated, unelected party officials), so why not give them more say in the direction their party takes? I think this was the original idea behind the superdelegate concept.

Posted by w7ngman | February 13, 2008 2:41 PM
57

I just wish people banded together a couple of weeks ago and petitioned a pledge from Washington State superdelegates to honor the choice of the primary. That way our primary wouldn't be a pointless joke.

Posted by me | February 13, 2008 2:43 PM
58

Everyone who supports Barack Obama is stupid and everyone who supports Hillary Clinton is very intelligent. Florida and Michigan should be seated because it shows that Clinton can win without an opposing campaign and even when running against "uncommitted." Superdelegates should be independent of the vote and are designed to decide close races for the people. Barack Obama only has support of African Americans and the Democratic party is at risk of losing Latinos to McCain.

I love these talking points.

I bet wish Clinton wishes she had better talking points: having the most pledged delegates, receiving most of the popular vote, and winning the most states. Instead her supporters are forced to mock the intelligence of Obama supporters.

Who cares? I care that Obama represents something different in American politics and he has the policy positions to back it up. Millions of Americans have realized that and he is now in a good position to win the most pledged delegates and the popular vote. At that point, superdelegates would not tear the party in half by moving toward Hillary.

Oh, but sic, sic, sic away ECB. We have a winner to root for.

Posted by bellevue & belmont | February 13, 2008 2:47 PM
59

Yeah, I thought this post was offensive, too. It's not even about Clinton or Obama. You're singling out and mocking people who are less educated or for whom English is a second language. Gross.

How many do you speak, ECB?

Posted by KC | February 13, 2008 2:54 PM
60

ECB: SCOOOOOOOOOOOOREDBOARD

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 13, 2008 3:00 PM
61

It's basically been the attacks on ECB here that have made me very wary of Obama supporters. They have been far worse than anything ECB has said herself.

I have a feeling I'll be attacked for saying that.

Posted by Abby | February 13, 2008 3:00 PM
62

She thinks she speaks jive, but really, she just liked MC Hammer a little too much, if you know what I mean.

Posted by ecce homo | February 13, 2008 3:01 PM
63

abby, all the assholes here are obama supporters, not all supporters of obama are assholes here.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 13, 2008 3:02 PM
64

@61 do you consider it an attack for me to point out that is it ECB attacking and mocking obama supporters in her post? mocking them for being inarticulate or undereducated?

Posted by infrequent | February 13, 2008 3:03 PM
65

@60 i almost missed what you were saying because of, um, well, your typo. which, unfortunately, kind of proves erica's point in this post.

Posted by infrequent | February 13, 2008 3:05 PM
66

i'm still appreciating the nickname "obamaton." that totally rocks and is so amazingly apt. who can we credit?

Posted by Madeline | February 13, 2008 3:05 PM
67

iambic pentameter infrequent,

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 13, 2008 3:11 PM
68

@56
"The superdelegates have all worked tirelessly to advance the Democratic party (especially the underappreciated, unelected party officials), so why not give them more say in the direction their party takes?"

Because this country is allegedly a democratic republic, that's why.

Posted by AMB | February 13, 2008 3:13 PM
69

People really ned to stop cherrypicking funny things from the internet that might make you laugh at someone else's expense. Especially when those things culd end up on the slog. Poor taste.

But "Obama makes me leak clear liquid?" That's just funny. Not as funny as the one above it however.

Posted by johnnie | February 13, 2008 3:16 PM
70

I know they're not all assholes, but sheesh. It's frankly ridiculous. It reminds me why I don't like dealing with zealots, even if I agree with them.

@64: No. But the vitriol on this post's comments (and every other post's comments) outweighs whatever mean-spirtedness was in the original post.

Posted by Abby | February 13, 2008 3:16 PM
71

@67 i don't think you mean to say that "scoredboard" is iambic pentameter...

Posted by infrequent | February 13, 2008 3:21 PM
72

A lot of times on Slog bad spelling is pointed out by closet neocons to discredit an argument that cannot countered effectively. I remember Dan Savage stated awhile ago another staff member at the Stranger supported the invasion of Iraq, and “She” did not want to go public with “her” support. I always thought it was “let’s have a draft” Annie Wagner, but maybe it was you Erica. Why else would you support Cluster Bomb Clinton?

Posted by Obamatron | February 13, 2008 3:21 PM
73

until ecb gets off her electoral god complex I will put at least one typo in every post that reminds her of who is a better candidate by inspiring the masses. ecb doesn't understand the principle of bees are attracted to honey, not vinegar.

patronizing undereducated or lazy typist obama fans may sooth her ego but doesn't win her elections.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 13, 2008 3:22 PM
74

it was going to be part of a poem infrequent. I just hadn't worked it out yet

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 13, 2008 3:25 PM
75

it was going to be part of a poem infrequent. I just hadn't worked it out yet

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 13, 2008 3:29 PM
76

@68

Yes, this country is a democratic republic. And?

This isn't a federal government issue. It's a party issue. If you don't like it you don't have to be in their party. It's simple. Nothing is going to take away your vote in the general election, and no one get's more sway in the general election. *That's* when the democratic republic part comes in.

That said, I'm not hating on anyone trying to get their reps to vote with the people. I laid out reasons why above.

Posted by w7ngman | February 13, 2008 3:33 PM
77

gets

Posted by w7ngman | February 13, 2008 3:33 PM
78

michigan's delegates aren't representative of the will of the people on that state when hillary was the only candidate on the ballot. saying that denying that state's delegates is antidemocratic while arguing that a super delegate who is an elected official should vote the way their constituents did is entirely consistent.

your argument is that the two issues are the same. they are not.

Posted by some dude | February 13, 2008 3:36 PM
79

Some feminists make dumb arguments, therefore feminism is dumb. QED.

Posted by Greg | February 13, 2008 3:56 PM
80

Yup, the only people in this country who deserve to vote are the ones with college degrees. And perfect spelling.

That's the point of democracy!

Posted by singingcynic | February 13, 2008 3:56 PM
81

"You can’t argue that Cantwell and Murray should be forced to switch to reflect their constituents’ votes without arguing that Kennedy and Kerry should also."

Sure I can.. I voted Cantwell and Murray in to represent my interests. I expect them to do so. I didn't vote for Kennedy or Kerry, so I'm not asking them to represent my interests (It just so happens they do).

If Cantwell and Murray don't want to do what I put them into office to do, then I will vote and campaign against them at the next opportunity. Whether they want to piss off voters is their own individual choices, the same way it will be Kerry and Kennedy's choices.

The decisions that Kerry and Kennedy make should have no bearing on the decisions that Murry and Cantwell make. I didn't put them into office to be political pawns. I put them into office to represent my interests. If they can't get that right, then what are they doing there?

Posted by Clint | February 13, 2008 4:08 PM
82

Choice..

I hate that I can't edit comments..

Obama also makes me leak fluid from my body.

Posted by Clint | February 13, 2008 4:11 PM
83

#9 is not the real Greg. Apparently he is not Greg P. either (notice the use of capital letters).

Dude, get your own tag.

Posted by Greg | February 13, 2008 4:11 PM
84

I didn't see anyone mention that those comments look a lot like ECB slog posts...

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 4:53 PM
85

This seems about par for the course. I didn't hear much in the way of substantive arguments on behalf of Senator Obama at my caucus, I don't see them on this post, and the comments are largely personal attacks directed at ECB rather than substantive arguments on the subject. Everything Obama does is right and everything HRC does is wrong. This is getting unbearable.

And the idea that one should switch their support because we are currently losing momentum is preposterous -- much like high school, how has this somehow become a popularity contest?

Posted by Hillary Fan | February 13, 2008 4:54 PM
86

Garbage in, garbage out.

Posted by Greg | February 13, 2008 5:26 PM
87

So when I was at my caucus on Saturday (which went overwhelmingly for Obama) one of the Clinton supporters bought up the "fact" that Obama was going to have difficulty winning because he was a Muslim and had took his oath on the Qu'ran. From this, the comments of Bill Clinton about Jesse Jackson winning South Carolina, the comments of Andrew Cuomo about Obama shucking and jiving, and Ed Rendell and Susan Estrich's condescending comments about Obama not being able to win white votes it is obviously fair to conclude that all Clinton supporters, including unPC and Erica C. Barnett, are uninformed, pig-ignorant, bigoted, lying racists.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | February 13, 2008 6:36 PM
88

@87 Are you providing an ironic commentary on the ridiculous generalizations that have been apearing (ie, if you're against Hillary, you're a misogynist, if you mention that LBJ passed that CRA you're a racist) or are you sincere? I'm confused.

Posted by johnnie | February 13, 2008 7:33 PM
89

@88... i think the point he's making is the very question you are asking, which was kind of a point i had tried to make but failed. it's either one way or the other, but they way erica writes, she wants the double-standard:

she only wants to look at potentially sexist comment, not potentially racist ones. she wants to vilify obama and all obama supporters based on a few comments, but not clinton or her supporters.

Posted by infrequent | February 14, 2008 9:18 AM
90

I've got to second the "Don't add me to any mailing lists" sentiment.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 14, 2008 10:19 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).