I'm sure you've heard (as Catherine mentioned below), that ActBlue, MoveOn and DFA have all teamed up to (ostensibly), "Let the Voters Decide" via this online petition/fundraising scheme. They are even running a full page ad in USA Today to show just how much they care.
Not to be outdone, The Huffington Post is now calling for people to "research and interview a Superdelegate"
The information you learn about today's Democratic superdelegates can help us answer many questions, such as -- Who does the Democratic Party entrust its superdelegate status to? Who are the most powerful Democrats? Who's been contacted by what campaigns? Will the superdelegates' votes be influenced by the popular vote?
In other words, they would like you to stalk and intimidate these people on their behalf, because the only sort of activism they are capable of inspiring is the kind where you further their agenda. Since none of them can be bothered to actually participate in the Democratic Party, it's now your job to remediate and (oh if you wouldn't mind), finance them.
This is real big brother territory. If the District Caucuses had already been held, I guess they would be compiling lists of those names as well. Since Pledged Delegates are only committed on the first ballot, they might need to be publicly intimidated, humiliated or otherwise kept in line too.
Here's the thing, if Clinton and Obama go into the convention virtually tied in delegates and/or the popular vote, these opportunistic groups don't want you to decide and they don't want the party to decide. They want to decide, and they've made it very clear they want Obama.
Even if I weren't a Clinton supporter, I'd call bullshit on these groups for exploiting the situation and on Howard Dean himself for not stepping up and encouraging people (like his brother), to allow the process to work. If he doesn't take action soon, his tenure as DNC Chair will end with the same humiliation and disappointment as his presidential campaign. Enough already.
31 Responses to “Be careful what you wish for”
Thinking along the same lines! I posted this earlier on my FB profile: http://www.facebook.com/...te_id=21271235586&ref=nf
That's too funny. We may be hanging out too much.
"they would like you to stalk and intimidate these people on their behalf, because the only sort of activism they are capable of inspiring is the kind where you further their agenda."
Melanie, I call bullshit. What you are now calling "stalking and intimidation," i.e. (calling your representative, finding out their position, and making sure that your representative is aware of your position) is what you used to call "grassroots activism" back when it supported your candidates or your policies.
A quick review of the archives reveals numerous occasions where you have advised readers to call or write their representatives at all levels of government, and in several cases purely Democratic politics...but I guess "the people" were on your side back then?
"they would like you to stalk and intimidate these people on their behalf, because the only sort of activism they are capable of inspiring is the kind where you further their agenda."
Melanie, I call bullshit. What you are now calling "stalking and intimidation," i.e. (calling your representative, finding out their position, and making sure that your representative is aware of your position) is what you used to call "grassroots activism" back when it supported your candidates or your policies.
A quick review of the archives reveals numerous occasions where you have advised readers to call or write their representatives at all levels of government, and in several cases purely Democratic politics...but I guess "the people" were on your side back then?
This primary thing makes us all look like retards in a variety of ways. I'm tired of a lot of this crap now.
Progressive organizations are all our friends ... let's not circular firing squad here. Personally, I thought the MoveOn censure was the most spineless and callow action of Democratic Senate "Leadership" I have seen in quite some time.
It's no secret that DFA is pro-Obama by process of elimination. I gave them $$ when they endorsed Obama, Edwards and Kucinich early in the race.
I second Richard's "bullshit." If Obama and Clinton can both buy themselves supers (out and out via campaign contributions), then it is totally appropriate for their constituents (for the electeds) to also voice their opinion.
"If he doesn't take action soon, his tenure as DNC Chair will end with the same humiliation and disappointment as his presidential campaign."
Further bullshit. If not for Dean, the Mark Penn/McAuliffe "Kerry states plus one" strategy would still be in effect, and Georgia would be relegated to even more of a conservative backwater than it already is.
There are rational, principled reasons in the activist base for going after the Clintons (although I question any tactics that go after the ground rules mid-contest - they are only effective insofar as the softheadedness of their targets). And if we get an Obama presidency, I'm sure he'll piss off some element of the progressive base as well.
But, all in all ... GET OVER IT. It's a dirty scrap because we have two excellent candidates with their own strengths and weaknesses.
And we'll need the full strength of the party to beat the crap out of the senile McCain and kick as many Republicans (and possibly curb-kick a couple of the way out?) to the curb as possible.
I'm pretty well all-in-all pissed off on this particular kind of infighting after I just got back yesterday from arguing with people that don't even believe in basic science, e.g. the knuckle-walkers of Georgians for Life (gag).
I can't think of anything more democratic than telling the people of this country exactly what individuals have the power to decide their election. And frankly if those people want perfect privacy, they should not be running for such public and potentially powerful positions.
I'm not saying true harassment, if it goes that far, is appropriate. But I see nothing harassing about the public contacting people elected to positions of power either in government or in the party and seeking to persuade them to vote a certain way. It is part and parcel of what they signed up for when they took on such a serious responsibility.
I can't think of anything more democratic than telling the people of this country exactly what individuals have the power to decide their election. And frankly if those people want perfect privacy, they should not be running for such public and potentially powerful positions.
I'm not saying true harassment, if it goes that far, is appropriate. But I see nothing harassing about the public contacting people elected to positions of power either in government or in the party and seeking to persuade them to vote a certain way. It is part and parcel of what they signed up for when they took on such a serious responsibility.
Yesterday I happened to be the recipient of a e-mail blast to folks on the state committee, again confirming my worst nightmare, that we can't get our shit together, but have ample time to point fingers and bicker.
I'm over it, I've been unsubscribing to lots and lots of groups in the past month, the first to go NARAL who wanted me to give them money ( yeah no, since you closed the GA office) because Huckabee won Iowa..ok huh?
DFA who instead of just saying why you support Obama couched it all as a "progressive thing".
MoveOn, well just cause they are constantly pimping something.
I do agree with Mel about this:
"Since none of them can be bothered to actually participate in the Democratic Party, it's now your job to remediate and (oh if you wouldn't mind), finance them."
Oh and we wonder why folks don't get involved, the politics of politics is a nasty game. No two ways around that.
Yesterday I happened to be the recipient of a e-mail blast to folks on the state committee, again confirming my worst nightmare, that we can't get our shit together, but have ample time to point fingers and bicker.
I'm over it, I've been unsubscribing to lots and lots of groups in the past month, the first to go NARAL who wanted me to give them money ( yeah no, since you closed the GA office) because Huckabee won Iowa..ok huh?
DFA who instead of just saying why you support Obama couched it all as a "progressive thing".
MoveOn, well just cause they are constantly pimping something.
I do agree with Mel about this:
"Since none of them can be bothered to actually participate in the Democratic Party, it's now your job to remediate and (oh if you wouldn't mind), finance them."
Oh and we wonder why folks don't get involved, the politics of politics is a nasty game. No two ways around that.
While I have no idea (or care) what somebody at Huffington Post said, I have received the Moveon and DFA emails. I also heard Jim Dean discuss this on a conference call for an unrelated event last week. I have not seen anything about intimidation; they seem to have the same concern that I do.
If you believe the current predictions, it looks like neither Hillary or Obama will have enough delegates to clinch the nomination after the primaries are over, and the superdelegates will probably decide it. It would be a horrible thing for all Dems if despite getting the most pledged delegates and most votes, the other candidate wins because they made better backroom deals with superdelegates.
Moveon and DFA are just trying to stop this before it starts, which is a good idea, in my opinion.
http://dailykos.com/...ly/2008/2/19/102044/454/78/459624
Am sure Melanie can defend herself but I thought I'd chime in with what I think she was meaning-- I know her well, and she is not opposed to grassroots activism and having voters exercise their freedom to call or write folks to express their wishes, etc. I think what she was trying to relate was a frustration with these HUGE organizations with HUGE sway and HUGE mailing lists using this power to sway the election to their candidate of choice and breaking the rules mid-game while they're at it. Whether or not their call to action will work or backfire is still to be seen (will their followers follow lock-step or balk?). I know I unsubscribed to MoveOn over a year ago due to their inability to move-on with anything but their own agenda. DFA had grown irrelevant to me as well long before this race and had not unsubscribed due to lazyness but am staying subscribed now so I can keep tabs on what they're up to....
Am sure Melanie can defend herself but I thought I'd chime in with what I think she was meaning-- I know her well, and she is not opposed to grassroots activism and having voters exercise their freedom to call or write folks to express their wishes, etc. I think what she was trying to relate was a frustration with these HUGE organizations with HUGE sway and HUGE mailing lists using this power to sway the election to their candidate of choice and breaking the rules mid-game while they're at it. Whether or not their call to action will work or backfire is still to be seen (will their followers follow lock-step or balk?). I know I unsubscribed to MoveOn over a year ago due to their inability to move-on with anything but their own agenda. DFA had grown irrelevant to me as well long before this race and had not unsubscribed due to lazyness but am staying subscribed now so I can keep tabs on what they're up to....
where is the outrage? My predictions for the next two weeks: Obama takes all but OH.
IRE, if you mean with your link to DKos, you posted that while I was typing mine, hence why there was no reference to it (as I hadn't seen it).
This is precisely why we need to have Howard Dean do what he promised, which is to sit down with the 2 before the convention and work it out before we ever get to convention. No one wants a floor fight, and technically what that link is saying isn't breaking the rules. Do I want them to do it? no. Has it happened in the past? yes. That's why we're all shuddering at the idea of a brokered convention. We have to avoid it or the Republicans will have another 4 years, it's that simple folks.
IRE, if you mean with your link to DKos, you posted that while I was typing mine, hence why there was no reference to it (as I hadn't seen it).
This is precisely why we need to have Howard Dean do what he promised, which is to sit down with the 2 before the convention and work it out before we ever get to convention. No one wants a floor fight, and technically what that link is saying isn't breaking the rules. Do I want them to do it? no. Has it happened in the past? yes. That's why we're all shuddering at the idea of a brokered convention. We have to avoid it or the Republicans will have another 4 years, it's that simple folks.
I would have no objection to these emails, online petitions, and other activities IF these organizations were not actively and aggressively supporting a specific candidate.
And again, this is NOT democracy at work, even if we want it to be. It is party politics. That said, I do have confidence that all Democrats will be satisfied with the outcome.
I would have no objection to these emails, online petitions, and other activities IF these organizations were not actively and aggressively supporting a specific candidate.
And again, this is NOT democracy at work, even if we want it to be. It is party politics. That said, I do have confidence that all Democrats will be satisfied with the outcome.
Richard, I support grassroots activism, not mercenary guerilla tactics. And I suspect if not for 2 votes, your family would have a very different perspective on this.
Richard, I support grassroots activism, not mercenary guerilla tactics. And I suspect if not for 2 votes, your family would have a very different perspective on this.
By OH i mean PA.
That said, I do have confidence that all Democrats will be satisfied with the outcome.
I can envision many scenarios that would cause me to vote Mcain.
"I suspect if not for 2 votes, your family would have a very different perspective on this."
1) While I vaguely appreciate the quaint patriarchial notion that whenever I speak I speak for "my family," I do not.
2) I am confused as to what exactly you are referring to. Please send email.
3) Sending petitions, calling, writing letters, etc. is not "mercenary guerrilla tactics." Or was it a "mercenary guerrilla tactic" to call in to representatives and senators regarding the state water plan?
"I suspect if not for 2 votes, your family would have a very different perspective on this."
1) While I vaguely appreciate the quaint patriarchial notion that whenever I speak I speak for "my family," I do not.
2) I am confused as to what exactly you are referring to. Please send email.
3) Sending petitions, calling, writing letters, etc. is not "mercenary guerrilla tactics." Or was it a "mercenary guerrilla tactic" to call in to representatives and senators regarding the state water plan?
IRE, it appears that the whole thing on politico claiming Hillary was going after pledged delegates was based on this quote:
It does not say that Clinton had such a plan...
IRE, it appears that the whole thing on politico claiming Hillary was going after pledged delegates was based on this quote:
It does not say that Clinton had such a plan...
Richard, took me a sec to figure out what she meant too, but am assuming Mel meant that Page was only 2 (actually 3 I recall) votes away from being a super delegate this past fall....
Richard, took me a sec to figure out what she meant too, but am assuming Mel meant that Page was only 2 (actually 3 I recall) votes away from being a super delegate this past fall....
*shrug* I don't answer my home phone now anyway.
*shrug* I don't answer my home phone now anyway.
You forgot Hitler. This insistence that the winner of the Democratic Primary be the one with the most votes is like stalking, intimidation, humiliation, big brother - and Hitler.
I mean, if you're gonna accuse someone of cartoonish villiany, why not go with cartoonish super-villiany?
Whatever MoveOn *really* wants - and having left my psychic powers in my other pants, I don't know what that is - what they *say* they want is a nominee who wins the most votes, which at this point, could be either Clinton or Obama.
That seems uncontroversial to me.
I'll save my outrage for when someone outrageous happens.
You forgot Hitler. This insistence that the winner of the Democratic Primary be the one with the most votes is like stalking, intimidation, humiliation, big brother - and Hitler.
I mean, if you're gonna accuse someone of cartoonish villiany, why not go with cartoonish super-villiany?
Whatever MoveOn *really* wants - and having left my psychic powers in my other pants, I don't know what that is - what they *say* they want is a nominee who wins the most votes, which at this point, could be either Clinton or Obama.
That seems uncontroversial to me.
I'll save my outrage for when someone outrageous happens.