via Vbounnaire(hope I spelled that right), I though this was because the campaigns have decided this will go to a floor fight. And they want their “best and brightest”(read: most loyal) representing them on the floor.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it shows Obama’s worried. Still, it seems the opposite of that whole Unity for everybody idea, huh.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Except for those who believed that there was some sort of new politics on offer. (Actually, same deal with me on MI and FL. Silly me, getting pissed because votes aren’t being counted in a Democratic primary! What’s wrong with me? And just because people volunteered, and gave money…. Why wouldn’t they want a bundler at the convention? What’s wrong with them?)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Obama purged 900.

Clinton removed 50.

Seems as though someone doesn’t really believe he’s a shoo-in.

— from mydd—

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/10/1333… — And the Purge Begins: Progressives Stricken from Obama Delegate List

Yep. Purges, eh? Heh. The best part of the MyDD quote is:

Oh, by the way, it’s all Hillary’s fault - as usual. She MADE them do this.

Heh.

Of course, as Lord Kos said, Obama’s not that progressive.

Heh.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

When Stalin came to power in the Soviet Union in 1922, he first purged his closest supporters. he went on to murder 30 million Russians.

I mean, I’ll take a bundler over an NKVD operative any day, ya know….

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Big Donors Among Obama’s Grass Roots: ’Bundlers’ Have a Voice in Campaign — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

“… Small givers, he said at a fundraiser this week, “will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.” …”

(but not small givers who devote tons of time and energy too, i guess)

here. Not that there’s anything wrong this. It’s just politics as usual.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

When I saw that I couldn’t help but think, “I wonder if women were marginalized?” And whaddya know? From the MyDD link: “Gone were strong women with independent political bases.”

This doesn’t bode well for exploiting Roe to extort women’s votes during the GE (if he’s the nominee), at least, in terms of perception. Already many women feel he isn’t exactly committed to choosing solid, pro-choice nominees considering his near-approval of Roberts, moralist rhetoric on abortion, utter lack of fight for abortion rights when the chips were down, and fear of appearing “divisive”…to the GOP.

If he doesn’t trust activist progressives, including independent women, why should they trust him?

those crop failures? yep, you guessed it. my sex life is her fault, too.

see how this works? it’s better than hare krishna. everything is explained. no loose ends.

likely to give to many candidates and also to switch loyalties all the time—the WaPo article mentions a few who gave to Bush in 04 and now to Obama—they don’t have loyalty—they only want stuff.

ones with the most to gain. If these are the big money donors, they want something in return for an Obama presidency, which means an Obama presidency must happen.

Hence, preparing for the floor fight. Of course, Clinton’s delegates are more likely to be the better experienced in caucus, and better grassroots activists, but what does that matter when you are building a movement.

No, Obama is just, same old, same old.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

then again, if they did switch to her on the floor(I am ignorant about a floor fight, I’ve never seen one) I guess there would be a record of it, and she would know that she owes them the nom.

Are these new big money people, or old big money people?

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

doesn’t the proven Clinton track record of delivering to big money donors count and wouldn’t it sway them (they’re infamous for it, after all), as opposed to some local Obama activist/worker bees who have devoted endless time, and are in love w/him and can’t be swayed by hard-headed political “money talks” stuff— or by anything really?

I totally get your point, but those people are not as loyal as the stars-in-their-eyes people—and money people know they have pull and access anyway-or can get it from Congress, etc—and don’t have to spend a week in Denver on this stuff.

they’re not new, not necessarily Dems—and not part of Clinton’s money machine so haven’t bundled for Bill in the past (those people were rounded up and brought into her campaign ages ago).

read about them and seen old clips, but ….

like, for Clinton, a small group of people with big pull and who are nationally powerful/popular (like senators and governors and big DC players, etc) would repeatedly meet in private with influential ppl from important/needed states (like Governors or state legislators or those bundlers, etc), and make deals or whatever—then those state ppl would have to sell their state crowd on it, etc.

In old times, state delegations had clear leaders who kept their state in line—i don’t know if they still do.

Apparently all the bad press has caused His Awesomeness to reconsider and all 900 delegate candidates have been reinstated.

Don’t step in the Unity!

————————————————————————
“The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion.” - Molly Ivins (RIP)

watch and see.

maybe it will be like the floor fights in Taiwan’s legislature. You know, chairs being thrown, people leaping over tables to pile on their nemeses, scrums that would crush England’s best rugby players. Those fights don’t happen like they used to, I don’t think - funny thing that, once you began to have real transfers of power between parties and the opposition parties could actually influence and even make policies, the need for fisticuffs seemed to decline. Of course, perhaps they’re still fighting like they used to and I am just not paying attention.

Ah, democracy.

This is just priceless:

“In recognition of this tremendous enthusiasm, our campaign has asked the California Democratic Party to allow all persons who have filed to be a district delegate candidate for Senator Obama at the Democratic National Convention to participate in the caucuses this Sunday, April 13, 2008,”

So in the grand tradition of blaming someone else, this time it’s the California Democratic Party’s fault for not allowing everyone who filed to actually run.

What a clusterfuck. Obama is clearly concerned that the nomination will go all the way to the convention and that he could lose delegates at the convention, or he wouldn’t have cut so many candidates to begin with.

Mr. Unity is showing some cracks in his facade.

As you say, Obama’s walked it back. here also.

My Unity Pony’s on back order, but I guess I’m lucky. I didn’t have to go through the heartwrenching experience of having my Unity Pony recalled by the factory…

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

All you have to do is read his supporters’ rationalizations for why not only was this not Obama’s fault, but was actually a good sign about Obama and his campaign.

— Instead of showing incompetence or, worse, a desire to suck up to donors in California, what it really shows is that Obama is running a more “decentralized” campaign than folks are used to. So instead of showing a lack of respect for the grassroots supporters, it’s really because Obama gives too much power to his local campaigns. And any miscommunication is not a sign of incompetent management, but of local empowerment.

— It also shows that unlike some other campaigns, Obama listens to his supporters (puh-lease, name me a campaign that wouldn’t backtrack after the publicity it received in the last 24 hours).

And the revisionism and acceptance started for some supporters before Obama changed his position, look at the updates of this purged activist - here. The first update has him saying that “this is a function of the Obama campaign, and if they expect to get any more time or money from me, I need to hear some sort of reasonable answer from the campaign” and the last has him saying “Who am I kidding, I’ll still give Obama money and my time.”

Now the interesting thing to me is not whether the supporter was initially right in saying he wouldn’t give time or money, but how he essentially rationalized his way through it, changing his mind, without getting the one thing he said he wanted from the campaign - a reasonable answer. He tries to figure out one himself, but the accountability he initially demanded, faded away.

From the link BDB gave, here’s the quote in full:

Who am I kidding, I’ll still give Obama money and my time. And perhaps I was a bit out of line when I said otherwise. However, as Lucas points out, it’s a pretty top-down move from a campaign that is supposed to be bottom-up. I can forgive mistakes and move on, but I still think the campaign needs to send out a message to its grassroots supporters that it values and respects them.

Where to begin? “A bit out of line”? WTF? If Marcy Winograd hadn’t blown the whistle on this, the bundlers would be the only ones going… What’s wrong with these people?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

on more important issues like universal healthcare and Iraq.

Right? Right?

Bueller? Bueller?