'cause he's backing a winner, plus he's on TV and has a Newsweek column--everyone wants to hear what he has to say!--and a popular blog. He's one of the Kool Kidz now.

... the deterioration has been.

Or not.

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

the moment people's opinions gain "legitimacy" is the same moment that people stop listening to others, and acting as if they are fonts of wisdom?

I mean, its not just Kos. Olberman has been at it for a long time (even though I agreed with him, I found him unwatchable because he was always pushing his own agenda), and Marshall is at it now as well.

(this also looks like a male phenomenon -- I haven't seen this sort of attitude from the big female bloggers, but that may just be because they are still not taken as seriously as the boys club.)

He's addicted. If you read that diary it borders on pontification:

when our majorities in Congress and all around the country were decimated and the party's base left to wither and die, Hillary will put her own interests above those of their party. And to me, there's no greater sin in Democratic politics than that.

So sayeth the Infallible Kos.

What does that remind me of? Oh yes....

Watch what you say, watch what you do.

Oh well. Gardening blog, here I come. Or maybe a cat blog. Something safe.

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

I guess when Obama got highly respected incumbent Alice Palmer thrown off the ballot by challenging her nominating petition, he wasn't putting his own interests above the party...

Oh, and here's a tidbit I just found out. Guess who beat Alice Palmer in the special election for the 2nd Congressional District that made it possible for Obama to successfully challenge Palmer's petition. None other than Obama's national co-chair, Jesse Jackson Jr. (you know, the guy who is now going around threatening black office-holders with "young" competition if they don't support Obama, and asking other black superdelegates if they want to be the person who denies the nomination to a black candidate....)

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

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

He is the gatekeeper. Let's hope he finds a seat at the table next to Rove the ring-master.

(Now who is Slimer in my 80s analogy???)

to that warning is very "pithy"

She's definitely slipped, uh, a bit since officially joining MSNBC (Seriously, I had to stop watching after I realized Pat Buchanan to be the most sane). Power seems to corrupt either gender blindly.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020108.shtml
Somberby nails her "motive" journalism (Maddow went off the rails by claiming Clinton race baited during the LA debate).

What the hell is going on? Every so-called (major) progressive in media has seemingly gone haywire.

I realize she's not a blogger, but since Olbermann was included and I don't know many major female progressive bloggers she was the first major name I thought of.*

*Does Arianna count as "progressive?" If so, she's definitely gone batshit at her site.

but she's not really a blogger, just a blog entreprenuer ;-)

he's always been very close to the real deal. chicago is a city of sin, no politician can exist and thrive there and not be dirty. i'm not excusing him if he's done some great wrongdoing, but i don't know of any, and further, you have to love a guy for telling people that his famous dad is "too conservative," and that they don't agree politically on a lot of stuff. he's been a good voice for the poor and more. at least, imho.

JJ has hitched his wagon to the obvious choice for him, but i'm not going to do 'guilt by association' here. show me some proof that he did something wrong. of his own accord, and not because he was told to or he'd lose his job. (still a bad choice if wrongdoing was involved, natch)

to a formerly closeted republican makes one a "progressive." i like arianna. i like her work, i like some of what is on her site, some of it is crap but usually she's not the one writing it. sometimes she's too "celebrity gossip" about the political process for my tastes. it's more than just a cocktail party, yo?

but i have to be a wet blanket, and say how tired i am that rich, white, people who have it easy and who already have fame and power, are touted as "leading progressives." you know what makes one "progressive?" getting truly fucked by this world, despite working hard, being honest, and doing the right thing, while watching murderers and liars get rich fucking over the weak and helpless, and then billing you for it.

now, that's an increasing number of americans, these days. how about we pick Our Heroes from that list, instead from just those who seem to have some savvy at the media game of 'getting on board before the rest of the Village herd realizes the tides have changed.' again, not dissing arianna or her fans, just wishing things could be a lil more diverse.

What exactly about JJjr's statements were anything other than honest and forthright? Does anyone seriously think that every single superdelegate, black or white and every shade in between, hasn't already asked themselves that same question? But to say it aloud shows poor judgment, because - why?

More honesty and openness, less pearl-clutching please.

when we're changing the rules on the superdelegates in mid-stream -- and that has to be, because the system's been in place for 25 years, and nobody said boo before the primary season started, and we're dealing with the mess that is FL and MI, and there's some kind of voting Clusterfuck in OH, where by all accounts the system is in trouble.

I am so looking forward to this.

All "unsupported claims" of course.

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

Jeralyn has a strong post here:

I don't believe that Obama suffered because of the lack of campaigning allowed in Florida. And, if he did, so did Hillary. They had television. Floridians could watch the debates and the nightly news and read the newspapers. They weren't living in a cave.

It's evident from the high turnout in the Florida primary -- 1.7 million Democrats voted in a primary that was not open to Independents-- that Floridian Democrats came out in record numbers. They voted early, voted absentee and voted on their primary day. In all, 4 million voters voted on Jan. 29, 41% of all registered voters. That's a huge percentage for a primary.

Florida Dems didn't willingly hold their primary early, the Republican legislature forced the early date on them.

The DNC was wrong to penalize them -- and the state party repeatedly told voters they would try to get the decision overturned and it was important for them to vote. So did elected officials. People listened. Again, they turned out in record numbers.

Florida held a primary, not caucuses. It would be wrong to hold caucuses now in lieu of a primary. Nor do they need a new primary. The voters spoke. Hillary and Obama were both on the ballot. The DNC just needs to count the votes that were cast.

Personally, I thought and said that the DNC was right to slap the FL political establishment -- if somebody hadn't gotten slapped, the leapfrogging to be the first primary would have gone all the way back to Thanksgiving.

That said, the establishment's been slapped. But the voters turned out. Their voices should be heard. Or do the Clinton Rules apply to Clinton voters too, and whatever they do is wrong?

NOTE Oh, and caucuses suck. They disenfranchise those who have to work, the poor, the sick, the elderly, the infirm, and those who have no cars. That doesn't delegitimize Obama's caucus wins, but does imply that the system should be abolished, or changed to include those who it currently excludes.

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

What exactly about JJjr’s statements were anything other than honest and forthright? Does anyone seriously think that every single superdelegate, black or white and every shade in between, hasn’t already asked themselves that same question? But to say it aloud shows poor judgment, because - why?

Okay, in that case, lets just get every black male to support Obama, every non-black female to pressure Clinton, and make the black women (because they have a foot in both camps) and non-black males (because they have a foot in neither camp) vote in accordance with the will of the people of their district.

As a Clinton supporter, I'd be all for the racial and gender identity politics that you advocate, because there are more non-black women than black males among the superdelegates.

Plus, because of the way that districts are drawn to ensure that there are "majority black" districts, while Obama will doubtless get most of the black women, Clinton would get most of the non-black men.

If you want to play racial and gender politics, and talk about "voting like the people in your district", I'm down with it -- as long as EVERYONE has to play by the same rules.

JJ said something that like it or not, a lot of other people, voting people, are saying. we try so hard to be fair and rational and polite here (ok, the first two, anyway) but the meme of 'go with your gut' is really being hammered into me right now. that is, lots of people are and will, and that nightmare scenario is 'real' for black pols who pledged to hillary but have districts going for obama. if obama loses b/c of pre-pledged superdelates, the anger some black folk will have will be volcanic.

let's just agree that the entire process is crap and undemocratic, and that no matter who 'wins,' the next dem prez needs to get serious about leading the change on primary reform. not that i expect either of them will.

The superdelegate process is not democratic by design. (If the superdelegates are to be allocated in proportion to the popular vote, if that is the argument that is being made, why have them at all?)

And for 25 years nobody said Boo about this, including both campaigns.

So now, the argument is being made that the process is flawed and needs to be changed.

Which is all very well, except that pointing out the clearly unrepresentative nature of the caucus process leads to cries of pain and outrage by the very same folks who are insisting on democracy with the superdelegates. Even golfers get this.

Meanwhile, about those FL voters....

I suppose if it's all strategic posturing, the only thing to do is consider it a wash and move on.

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

I don't have a problem with political hardball... what I have a problem with is that Obama pretends to not be playing it -- and the media lets him get away with it. Meanwhile, Hillary is criticized unless she "throws like a girl" -- even if she lobs a ball overhand, its "dirty politics".

(What I'd really like to see is someone like Maxine Waters call out Obama -- and tell him that she's black, but she's also a woman, and as a black woman she's tire of this kind of shit from Black men -- and she's supporting Hillary because NO man, black OR white, tells her what to do.)

What I so clearly said, what JJjr so clearly said, is that the superdelegates may well have a momentous decision to make, it will be a tough decision, they will need to consider it from several standpoints, and those points of view will naturally and in this case of necessity include weighing the relative value of the first woman versus the first black as a major party candidate for president. That's just the truth, Paul, and you get your wish because it certainly is the same truth for every single one of them.

It is naive, ludicrous, to expect that matters of racial and gender affiliation, local politics, or personal aspiration will not be involved; of course they will. One hopes a clear perception of the national good would dominate, but it is far from my place, or yours, to tell these people what their feeling on that must be or how they must arrive at it.

The system was installed precisely to deal with this kind of situation, on the perfectly reasonable assumption that people who had devoted significant portions of their lives to the political process and had been at least modestly successful at it would be the best option for deciding a close contest, in a way that was best for the prospects of the party to win the election – that is the whole point, yes?

JJjr stated publically exactly what any thinking person would already be considering now as a superdelegate, in this very unique and unexpected circumstance; if I raise up the one, by necessity I put down the other. For him to say it openly apparently breaks some taboo in your mind and others, but he is only speaking the truth and we can all use a lot more of that sort of plainspokenness in this process as well as in others.

Not an easy decision, either way there are myriad potential consequences, and I see no reason for condemning anyone for pointing that out.

Here.

In five or ten years, of course, the shoe will be on the other foot, and everybody who wants to abolish the superdelegate system today will be on the inside and have come to see the merits of exercising their "judgment."

I suppose, when you think of it, because of our Federal system, we've ended up with a very diverse system of picking delegates -- primaries, caucuses, several flavors of them, and that's only the beginning of it all .... Absent a landslide of some sort, it's entirely possibly that "the will of the people" might not be easy to discern, since it's expressed through so many different systems, and the supporters of each candidate won't be able to agree on a metric, except "mine is the best!" (and isn't that what we want from them anyhow?)

So somebody has to decide... Unless, of course, Gore is nominated from the floor, and the crowd goes wild!

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

... to elect two other people, and you end up with Gore?

A bargain.

The candidate who hired Bob Shrum, chose Joe Lieberman for his VP, and thought it was a brilliant idea to run as a voice for the powerless against the powerful as the sitting Vice President of the United States?

I think Gore is a brilliant man, would've made a fantastic president, and got royally screwed by the media in 2000. But that doesn't mean he was a great presidential candidate. He was not. And he's a much more effective, less cautious, activist than he ever was a politician, IMO.

I hope as JJ, Jr. is calling all those Super Delegates, he doesn't stop with African Americans. There were several hispanics SDs out here in California who have endorsed Obama and he positively got stomped in their district. If it's dangerous for John Lewis to support Hillary, don't you think it's probably also dangerous for Linda Sanchez and Xavier Bacerra to support Obama? Surely Obama wouldn't want one of his supporters to risk their congressional seat for him would he?

aren't voting heavily for obama everywhere. no numbers, i'm in drive by mode, but i have read not a few posts breaking down the numbers in various states showing HRC doing better with the latin vote than BHO.

there's a long, complicated post there, now is not the time, i'll try to get back to it.

Has beaten him handily in most states among latin@ voters. There is an exception in the Potomac primaries, but if you've lived in DC that's not surprising, a very different latin@ community there than out West - very few Mexican Americans in and around D.C. as evidenced by some of the most mediocre Mexican food on the planet.

Here in California, latin@s went 2-1 for HRC, including in Linda Sanchez's and Xavier Bacerra's districts even though both are Obama Super Delegates.

i am 100% positive there is a cuban song that would go really good here. all i can think of is "...and thus get 1/2 the poor to hate/kill/jail the other half.'