Nebraska Democratic Party: Congratulations to Our Nominees

Congratulations to Our Nominees

May 14, 08:47 AM CST

US Senate: Scott Kleeb

Congress, District 1: Max Yashirin

Congress, District 2: Jim Esch

Congress, District 3: Jay Stoddard

Consider this an open thread to discuss last night’s results.

(Updated at 11:03 with a better picture of Jay – evh)

– by Eric Van Horn | Send this to a friend

Yes, congratulations to the primary winners. I hope this bodes well for November.

Now, lets talk about our presidential primary outcome. No, Hillary didn’t win but she came darn close. Obama is currently the holder of 22/30 delegates including 6 Super Delegate votes.

Nebraska’s Democrats saw things a bit differently yesterday … giving Obama a narrow 49 to 47% victory. I want to know if the SD’s are still satisfied that they did the right thing by jumping on the Obama band wagon? In a fair process, Hillary and Obama would be splitting the delegates quite evenly … let’s say 14-16 or 15-15. Since the pledged delegates are locked into their votes, only the SD’s can make this right. If all 6 of you change your votes, the representation will be for the will of the people instead of the opinions of the heirarchy. Anyone?
— Marian Ingwersen May 14, 09:15 AM CST #
There is still one delegate position to be decided. Anyone that wishes to be elected for that position must run for it at the upcoming NDP State Convention in Fremont.
— Brian T. Osborn May 14, 09:59 AM CST #
This also illustrates the need for Nebraska to do away with caucuses and return to primaries. 2 ½ times as many Nebraskans were able to participate in the democratic process yesterday than in the February caucuses.
— Blu May 14, 10:54 AM CST #
Yeah, but in any year other than this one, by the time we got around to our normal primary time everything would be locked up, just as it has been every time since the 60s. Obviously they couldn’t have predicted when they were setting up the caucuses that we still would have been relevant even in May. While it may not have worked out quite the way it should have this year, I think for future cycles the caucuses are still the best way to go.
— Justin May 14, 11:19 AM CST #
As it reads to me, a “narrow victory” is still a victory. Why does Ms. Ingwersen think that this narrow victory necessitates any shift in the SD commitments? I also disagree that caucuses were unfair and should be discarded. I believe they should be improved and made more accessible. Many people experienced a great community event in the caucus that got people, real people involved in speaking about their ideas. We are taught not to discuss politics because it’s considered impolite but we desperately need discussions. We need a forum to discuss ideas. Getting people directly involved in this way will possibly reduce the damaging votes by people who have not seriously thought about their choices, the people who merely vote what their preachers or family tell them to vote or who choose based on the incorrect claims sent around in email and perpetuated in office and coffee shop gossip. When you go into a room where people you know of all ages and experience are debating and discussing the important issues of the day, knowing that you will be expected to vote PUBLICLY for your candidate, now that is a political process. The caucus provides something lacking in our current political process and indeed in our modern lives; interaction, intelligent engagement, respect for the ideas of others, meaningful discussion, critical thinking. We are so used to discussing these issues only with those who agree with us. We read articles that promote our own slant on things. The caucus forces everyone to hear the other side, then make informed decisions. The problems we experienced in the caucuses were a result of it being the first ever caucus held; therefore an unknown. We can do much better next time. We can and should make efforts to improve something before chucking it out the door and returning to the tired, old, soulless political process of the past.
— Lisa Betz May 14, 11:25 AM CST #
So you think it’s better to have caucuses that do not reflect the preference of Nebraska voters so the NDP elite will feel more relevant?

Caucuses are difficult for:
the elderly to attend
shift-workers
Blue-Collar workers
Mothers with children
the Disabled
the poor
those who are shy
those who dislike the bullying
those who fear the intimidation
— Blu May 14, 11:27 AM CST #
I’m with Blu. The caucuses are not a true measure of the whole population. Lisa needs to get a clue. At the caucus I attended the Obama supportes were rude and bullying others. So a primary is the best bet.
— Rick May 14, 11:38 AM CST #
It’s Dr. Ingwersen but, please … just call me Marian. The reason I think the delegates should re-proportion themselves is because the democratic party awards delegates on a proportional basis … ours are not proportioned to the will of the people. A correction is called for.

The fate of the caucus system in Nebraska is something for the heirarchy to consider as they approach this primary vote. If people see the caucus as not representing them, they will demand it be scrapped. I was quite excited about the caucus until the Obama “supporters” spent all their time trashing Hillary. Then, I just became disgusted with the way it all worked. In another year, with less obnoxious people supporting the candidate I oppose I might feel less anti-caucus. But, if the caucus system were to continue to misrepresent the voters of Nebraska … I would have to be on a mission to get rid of it.

Going through the caucus and seeing what happened as far as Obama’s support and then the flocking of the SD’s to him because of a system that misrepresented the voters … brought the Iowa caucuses and the way they have been allowed to shape our presidencial field … under a lot of scrutiny on my part. How can one small state have so much sway … especially with a system that isn’t, potentially, representative of the majority of voters?

I think we need to do away with the current system of voting and divide the country into a reasonable number of units … have a primary election scheduled in a relatively big state and a relatively small state in each region on a given day. A week or two later do the same thing and continue until all states/territories have voted. The states chosen to vote in round 1 could be selected in a lottery each cycle so no one state had an early advantage. I find it very hard to believe we’ve put up with Iowa and NH having so much influence all these years. It’s time for a change in that system. I think the balking of FL and MI has broght that topic to the forefront. It’s good to change rules that don’t make sense.
— Marian Ingwersen May 14, 11:50 AM CST #
Superdeligates could take a big leadership role in NE if they decide to respresent the voters and not just what is in their best interest. If they all continue to support Obama unanimously, it is blatent that the superdeligates of NE are going against the will of the people. They need to listen to the people and decide how to best represent the will of NE. NE democrats are not going to take this easly if all superdeligates go with Obama. I encourage all superdeligates to reconsider their vote and decide how best to listen to each and every voter of NE. We took our time and energy to vote, now it’s your turn. We spoke. Please listen!
— Jacquie May 14, 11:51 AM CST #
I don’t know who the NE superdelegates are, so I don’t know if they are also the party leaders who made the decision to switch from primary to caucus. But, my suspicion is that they are one and the same. I also suspect that their support for Obama influenced their unilateral decision to deprive thousands of Nebraska Democrats of having delegates chosen by primary. Now that the voters have spoken, the delegates should be divided according to the more democratic primary results. After all the most cherished right of democracy is the secret ballot, which is not a part of the caucus process and obviously (as well as blisteringly cold weather) contributed to many choosing not to attend caucuses. Delegates are delegates, so whether they are chosen in a March primary or a May primary is irrelevant compared to a majority of NE Democrats being heard. Imagine what the voter turnout might have been if the process had not been usurped by Party elite for unknown reasons of gratification.
I think the caucus process was a travesty of democracy and the popular vote proves that opinion correct. If superdelegates do have independent judgment, then splitting NE’s delegates according to the popular vote is the least they should do to rectify a troubling situation. It could also go a long way to resolving the feelings of maligned Clinton supporters IF Obama is the nominee.
— Carol Cornsilk May 14, 12:13 PM CST #
The decision to switch from a primary to caucuses was made by the governing body of the NDP one month after Obama announced his candidacy. At that time Eric Van Horn issued the following statement, “Now, more than ever, the voice of minorities must be heard. And now, more than ever, our Party is ready and eager to amplify your voices.”

Anytime one voice is amplified another voice is drowned out.

Eric also encouraged Nebraskans to, “Be part of a movement for change in our nation.”

Right out of the Obama play book!
— Blu May 14, 12:33 PM CST #
The methodology of how the Nebraska Democratic Party would allocate its delegates was no big secret. We followed the rules, as established by the DNC and the NDP State Central Committee. The caucuses were decided upon as the way we would select our delegates from across our state. The super-delegates were decided upon by the DNC, we had no say in that.

Now is not the time to be changing the rules, things are as they are. I will admit that I don’t believe the way we go about electing our presidential candidates is in the least bit efficient, but for now we must abide with the results. An attempt was made during our last SCC meeting to have the super-delegates abide by the results of the primary. That motion failed and would not have been binding had it succeeded.

The NDP will hold its State Convention the weekend of June 20-22. To be a delegate to that you must be elected by your county party during their convention that will be held between June 1 and June 10. For anyone that feels very strongly that our system needs fixing, that is the time for you to do something about it. Run to win one of the State Convention delegate positions, run to win one of the State Central Committee positions during the State Convention, run to win one of your county officer positions. Only then does your vote really count insofar as changing the way things are run.

I will ask you to please not run for those positions if you plan to do so as a one trick pony. The governance of our party involves far more than this one issue. Those elected to represent us within the NDP should do so with the idea that they will be attending a lot of meetings and arguing a lot of sometimes hotly contested issues. If you aren’t up for that, then please help elect someone who is. At any rate, please get personally involved in our party in some capacity. Serve on a committee, serve as an officer, serve cookies at the county fair booth, but please, serve!
— Brian T. Osborn May 14, 12:36 PM CST #
Carol Cornsilk, here are the NE superdelegates:
Steven Achelpohl NEBRASKA DNC MEMBER
Kathleen Fahey NEBRASKA DNC MEMBER
Audra Ostergard NEBRASKA DNC MEMBER
Vince Powers NEBRASKA DNC MEMBER
Ben Nelson U.S. Senate
Frank LaMere member-at-large

The State Convention will elect an add-on superdelegate. We can be sure that they will elect another Obama supporter since the majority at the convention will be Obama supporters!
— Blu May 14, 12:50 PM CST #
Blu:

I feel the need to correct you on one issue and point out something else.

I did a search for the “statement” to which you refer. It was in fact an article written by former Communications Director Eric Fought, not Eric Van Horn… read the byline. It appears to be an attempt to increase minority participation in our party, which I hope everyone agrees should be a goal of the NDP.

Also, from before the release of this article in question through the Iowa caucus, national opinion polls consistently showed overwhelming minority support for Senator Clinton over Senator Obama. So perhaps this was intended to help Hillary and it backfired?

Or maybe – just maybe – it wasn’t intended to help anyone at all.
— Jim E May 14, 12:59 PM CST #
I wholeheartedly agree with you Brian that the way to change a system that you do not agree with is to get one’s butt up and go to work. In fact, my family and I recently uprooted ourselves and came to the SE part of the state, in part, because my husband and I saw no way to have any significant impact on anything happening in Nebraska living where we were.

That said, I entered my first democratic caucus (actually a mock caucus but the real caucus was similar) excited about being part of a process that could shape our state and our country. That is what made the events that unfolded so disappointing. I now feel very much like the leadership of my county is pro-Obama and anti-the rest of us and that is being bolstered by the leadership at the state level. But I am fully capable of “getting over it” and will.

Let’s face it. As is evident on this post (although I understand this is a very small sampling), the Clinton supporters in Nebraska feel like we were disenfranchised by the democratic leadership of this state. Can we do anything about it that will change the situation for this election? Probably not.

Can we affect the make-up of the democratic leadership down the road … I don’t know. Will Clinton supporters get a fair shake at the state convention since we are “anti-the established leadership”? I guess we’ll see how that all plays out.

There are lots of other issues to deal with but this one has divided us more than I think some people are acknowledging. It will be interesting to see how we grapple with the situation.
— Marian Ingwersen May 14, 01:07 PM CST #
The rules are the rules, and once the rules are set, you have to live with the results. Complaining after-the-fact about which formats favor which candidates after the rules have been set is one of the things that has bothered me the most during this never-ending primary race. If you have a problem with the fact that Nebraska had a caucus, then the thing to do is to lobby the State Central Committee not to do so in 2012. Not whine endlessly about the results now.

Similarly, the superdelegate system which allows the superdelegates to support whomever they want regardless of their state’s results was set in place before the primaries started. The only way to change that system is to change the DNC rules. But complaining about it now and harassing the superdelegates is not the way to change the system.

Both the primary system and the caucus system have flaws, and there is a time and place where discussion of these flaws is valid and helpful. But that time was when determining which system to use for the selection of delegates in 2008. Once the decision is made, it’s counter-productive to continually rehash the decision. If you didn’t like the decision, then you should lobby (or become a member of) the State Central Committee prior to 2012.
— Trevor Fitzgerald May 14, 01:12 PM CST #
Jim E, thanks for pointing out my mistake. It was Eric Fought, not Eric Van Horn that made the statements in question. Beyond that, I do stand by my assessment.
— Blu May 14, 01:28 PM CST #
I am not “harrassing” the superdeligates, as you put it. I am distinctly pointing out the fact that, based on the rules outlined by the NE party, they are the ones at this point who have the most responsibility to take a leadership role and follow the will of the people. By the rules laid out by the National Committee, they can use their best judgement, asses the situation, and determine if their superdeligate vote represents the NE voters voice, and will of the people. It’s not up for any of us to decide. It’s up to them! They need to decide how NE needs to be represented to the National convention by their superdeligate vote. We have voted, twice, now it’s their turn to show us they have been listening!
— Jacquie May 14, 02:05 PM CST #
I don’t think anyone here is whining endlessly Trevor. We are having a discussion for the purpose of informing others. It would be nice if the SD’s were here with us but I’m not sure any of them read this stuff. The question to me is not so much what led to the discrepency between the caucus and the primary but what to do with these results for the benefit of Nebraska democrats and the USA.

The SD’s have every right to stick to their votes and probably will but … since they are the only ones who can change now … I think it is justified to suggest they might consider changing relative to yesterday’s vote.
— Marian Ingwersen May 14, 02:17 PM CST #
Marian, I apologize if my remarks seemed condescending. But it seems as if the same conversation condemning the caucuses pops up once a week on the NDP blog (which consequently, has caused me to frequent it less often).

I will, however, strongly disagree with the suggestion that the closer results of the primary should be given much weight. I would further argue that it should be given no weight whatsoever. Once the SCC made the decision to hold a caucus, the primary became completely irrelevant for the selection of Presidential delegates. I know for a fact that Democratic voters in Omaha were actively being told that if they wanted their vote to count, they had to participate in the primary. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I’m willing to bet the farm that turnout in places like North Omaha was higher in the caucus than in the primary. If nothing else, had the primary mattered for the purpose of delegate selection, then active Obama supporters would have turned out just as veraciously as active Clinton supporters appear to have, and the primary results would have more closely mirrored the caucus results.
— Trevor Fitzgerald May 14, 02:35 PM CST #
Marian,

It has been my personal experience that, of the super-delegates, only Vince Powers frequents this blog and others. I have to give credit where it is due and Vince certainly deserves a slap on the back for being one of the few that really listens to what we Nebraska Democrats have to say.

Although Vince and I haven’t always seen eye-to-eye on many topics, he has always listened to my rants, offered his replies to them, usually offers me better advice than I am willing to receive, and is fair in his comments. I can’t say that for any of the others. If they do read what we put on here, it is extremely infrequent that our comments receive replies, in any form, from them.

Vince was the person who proposed, during our last SCC meeting, to recommend that the SDs follow the lead of Nebraska’s primary voters. He was also the champion of the caucuses, a thing that I believe was instrumental in reviving the Democratic Party in this state. Sure, the caucuses weren’t perfect, but they sure turned out the Democrats in the state that want to make a difference.

Brian T. Osborn
Phelps County Chair
SCC Delegate – LD38
Secretary – 3rd CD Organization
— Brian T. Osborn May 14, 02:37 PM CST #
Edit that:

“I know for a fact that Democratic voters in Omaha were actively being told that if they wanted their vote to count, they had to participate in the CAUCUS.”
— Trevor Fitzgerald May 14, 02:39 PM CST #
Why was Vince Powers encouraging us to “get out the vote” for Hillary if the primary didn’t matter at all. They wanted us to prove something, so we did. This should have some effect on the superdeligates. A change in the superdeligates votes would be a definate step in the right direction to unite the party. I would be very discouraged and disappointed if the superdeligates do not acknowledge this and react to the fact that many Hillary supporters stood up for her in the primary. If anyone here has the ability to awaken the superdeligates to this blog, please do so.
— Jacquie May 14, 03:11 PM CST #
I need to step in and say something. The plans to move towards a caucus system started well before Obama announced his candidacy. The idea was put out there as early as the state convention in 2006 (and quite possibly earlier but my memory is only clear about it being put out there at the convention.)
— Brenda May 14, 03:48 PM CST #
I am not bothered by the caucus versus the primary. I think it’s time for the superdeligates to move us forward. I am only suggesting that this would be a way for them to lead us toward a resolution. A comprimise if you will. If the superdeligates all stay with Obama, we will forever be divided by the caucus versus primary discussions and will be divided by our votes in the fall. Superdeligates can utilize their votes as a way to represent both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama supporters, i.e., primary versus caucus results. It may not change everyones votes, everyone may not be satisfied, but it’s a step in the right direction. If they all stay with Obama it definately sends a message that they really don’t care what a good portion of voters think in NE.
— Jacquie May 14, 04:10 PM CST #
Brenda, in February of ‘07 the Nebraska Democratic State Central Committee voted to hold caucuses in 2008.
— Blu May 14, 04:45 PM CST #
I have a question (PLEASE someone answer me)

What is going on with the delegates? (regular not super – oh god! That sounds like fast food doesn’t it? LOL)
But seriously…
I’m reading some posts that are suggesting that the delegates we voted for at the caucus are no longer delegates.
Am I misreading the posts?
Thanks!
the Ghost
— the Ghost May 14, 05:17 PM CST #
For me it is the timing of the selection process not whether it is a primary or a caucus.I proposed a caucus after the republicans said they would not support a law in the Unicameral moving the primary up to february.

The NDP could pick any date after feb 4th to have a caucus without getting a law passed.

The bill I had introduced to take the Presidential candidate off the ballot did not get out of committee due to repub opposition.

I encouraged Hillary supporters to get out to vote the same as I encouraged Barack supporters to get out and vote.

And when I proposed the caucus I planned on supporting Sen Edwards, assuming he would run, he did, and I then supported him, even raised money for him.

I am still solidly in favor of Sen Obama. I would support eliminating the super delegate system but it is in place now.

I would strongly encourage any democrat who thinks she or he could improve the NDP to attend their county convention and state convention.

Am I the only person who thinks Mike Johanns getting only 78 percent of the vote signals a serious weakness?
— vince powers May 14, 05:59 PM CST #
I have and will continue to have a discussion with anyone.

I have no problem with other dems telling me I am wrong on this or that. I make my living in the adversary system which means every day the best lawyers Insurance Companies can hire are telling me I am wrong.

The bottom line is that moving up the primary was my first plan, I went to plan B when the repubs said ‘no’.

A very active repub told me prophetically 18 months ago:
“VInce, we will not ever agree to move up the primary because it would work out too well for you guys.”

One great thing about the caucus is that the NDP was able to break free of the control of the GOP dominated Legislature. In other words, they said “no way” and we found a great way.
— vince powers May 14, 06:32 PM CST #
Does this mean that the NE superdeligates have no desire to unite the NE democratic party? Does this mean no one will take a leadership role and change their super deligate vote to Hillary? If so, I can only conclude that NE super deligates, the leaders of the NE party, are not concerned at all about what a good portion of the NE democrats are thinking. This is why, it seems to me, that Obama supporters, including the super deligates, continue to divide the party instead of trying to unite the party. This is why the NE democratic party no longer appears to represent the deep values I hold regarding equality of voting and voter representation. It appears to me that the democratic values are changing, fast!
— Jacquie May 14, 07:04 PM CST #
I’ll try again…
Question:
In reading the forum it looks like the delegates that were elected at the caucas are now passe’ (outmoded) ...
Is that so or am I misreading the post?
I’m only inquiring because I was elected to be a delegate and if that is no longer so, I really don’t wish to show up at the convention just to find out ..
I’m passe’.
Thanks in advance for any and all replies.
Ghost
— the Ghost May 14, 07:13 PM CST #
Ghost:
You are mistaken.
Jackuie:
The NDP is united. It has been untied all of 08. We all agree that a democrat must be elected President in November.

My first choice, Edwards and your first choice, Clinton have been defeated by Sen Obama who will be the next President.
— vince powers May 14, 08:24 PM CST #
Ghost:
You are mistaken.
Jacquie:
The NDP is united. It has been united all of 08. We all agree that a democrat must be elected President in November.

My first choice, Edwards and your first choice, Clinton have been defeated by Sen Obama who will be the next President.
— vince powers May 14, 08:26 PM CST #
Vince, thanks as always for your comments and all the effort you have put into making the NDP stronger.

Jacquie, The NDP super-delegates get to support whomever they chose; that is their prerogative and the purpose for which the super-delegate system was established. I’m none to crazy about that either and I will work to change the system, but I will do so within the rules that we have established.

Uniting the NDP is not dependent upon the support of super-delegates for this or that candidate. Uniting the NDP is dependent upon people like you and I becoming involved in the governance of our party and becoming influential voices amongst our friends, families, neighbors and communities.

I believe there is a new wind blowing throughout the Nebraska Democratic Party. New leadership is coming that will transform our party into a solid grassroots organization. That leadership will, I hope, have open ears and open minds that will take its guidance from the people and know that its purpose is to serve them.

Ghost, I’m not sure I’m following what you are saying, but I believe you are under the mistaken impression that the delegates from the caucus were elected to the State Convention. My understanding was that the delegates elected at the caucus were elected as delegates to their county conventions. The State Convention delegates are elected during the county conventions between June 1 and 10.
— Brian T. Osborn May 14, 08:40 PM CST #
Vince, I am not convinced that the NDP is united. Vince and Brian, you can blog all you want about the party being united. The appearence can come accross so when everyone supports Obama; but, when a good portion of people make a concerted effort to go out and vote for Hillary, (in an unbinding election) when everyone is “saying” that the NDP is behind Obama, expresses someing other than a “united party.” Brian, leadership can take on many shapes and forms. We have such a large and diverse party, the super deligates can make a choice to take on this leadership role to unite the party. My understanding is that they are super deligates, in part, because they were determined to be the leaders of the NE Dem. Party. Super Deligates get to make their own independent choice. I can always suggest that they consider changing their vote for Hillary to reflect the primary results. This would show that they are listening to everyones voices in the hills and valleys of every part of Nebraska. We voted, now they can show they were listening.
— Jacquie May 15, 07:00 AM CST #
Vince,
I thought you might change you mind and support Hillary since she did so well in the primary. I guess you backed out on your word. Instead you will continue to support the hypocrite Obama. Yesterday he was laughing as supporters were booing Hillary. That’s the kind of leader I want in the White House. If he is such a great leader he could have stopped that. He is secretive and demeaning which are qualities he stated he didn’t like but he continues to do those things. He’s not running for the Presidency for the people, it’s for himself. He’s too arrogant and selfish for me. God help us all if he is elected. I just hope you can live with your decision. I will vote for McCain in the fall.
— Rick May 15, 11:45 AM CST #
Rick, I am leaning one step further. I am definately considering becoming an independent ASAP.
— Jacquie May 15, 11:52 AM CST #
Jacquie,
I’m with you there. The way the DNC and other politicians have treated Hillary is disgusting. Obama should stand up to these people but hasn’t. He likes the lime light too much. He thinks he a contestant on American Idol. Gee, I hope he doesn’t sing.
— Rick May 15, 12:01 PM CST #
I was watching Obama walk with all the “suits” in Washington last week. They might as well just put on those old wigs that George Washington wore and verify that they are the “big wigs!” They are definately giving him the royal treatment. Democrats are changing, but I don’t know if I want to hop onto that bus. It looks like it will take me right down memory lane. Back to Washington to be side by side with all the “old boys.” Obama needs them and they know it. It’s back to the same ol’ Washington.
— Jacquie May 15, 12:26 PM CST #
I’m worried about the democrats in Nebraska but I’m also worried about the democrats on a national scale. As I read through various sources of commentary, I think there is a general feeling that once Hillary backs out, we will all join hands and sing Kumbaya (or however you spell that) around Obama. I know the democratic leadership at the national and state level are depending on that, if not actually taking it for granted. I think it is a mistake to make such assumptions.

Here’s the problem as I see it. Those of us who supported Hillary Clinton as the best qualified candidate believe strongly, that if she had not been repeatedly undermined by the press, slammed by Obama supporters and stabbed in the back by the leadership of the national democratic party … if she had competed on a level playing field in those three venues, she would be the nominee at this point. [I know you can argue with all of that but … it’s the way some of us see this]. We therefore, see her has being bashed out of the presidency … not because of her qualifications but more because our own party members used warmed-up, left-over insults from the republican party to denounce her. Some of those democrats did it with such zeal that we started to wonder if we could actually be part of the same political party as they are. It makes people feel sick to their stomachs to think of joining them in anything they seek to accomplish.

Now, you who have the zeal for hating Hillary may shrug that off and stand in your defiance of our ways of thinking … and you may also continue to disrespect our opinions. (I’m not seeing as much as that here as elsewhere but I’m sure most of you are aware of what I mean.)

The problem with having that attitude is that it could cost Obama the election. Before someone says I’m threatening people – please know I do not have such intentions. I just want you to take a sincere look at the possibility that you may have screwed up.

Jacquie is making a basic statement as I see it … make some of this up to Hillary’s supporters now and you might keep us in the Nebraska Democratic party. From what I can glean from the responses is those of you who support Obama don’t think it will matter much because you have this whole new group of democrats that you are going to grow into a new following. Perhaps you are right but what happens if Obama loses in November … will they have the resilience needed to carry on? I’m not predicting, just asking the question. You might actually need some of the rest of us around.

It’s all an interesting discussion and only time will tell us who was right on this one … in the meantime, McCain doesn’t look so bad at times to some people and that is too bad considering the hope we all had a few months ago.
— Marian Ingwersen May 15, 12:32 PM CST #
Rick:
I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said that if Sen Clinton comes in second in the primary I would switch my support.

I support Obama, he won the caucus and he won the primary.

I, along with other DNC members have been getting bombarded with emails from Clinton supporters saying in essence that if she is not the nominee they will all vote for McCain.

Hardly the argument that will persuade any democrat.

The “Rule or Ruin” philosophy is foolish.
— Vince Powers May 15, 01:13 PM CST #
Voting for John McCain is voting for 4-8 more years of Bush/Cheney.
— james May 15, 01:14 PM CST #
Hillary Clinton on Wednesday reiterated her vow to stay in the Democratic presidential race, but she said it would be a “terrible mistake” for her supporters to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama.
— Vince Powers May 15, 01:32 PM CST #
Why are Obama supporters turning to the “same old politics” of Washington. I have heard the “four more years” rhetoric before. I am an independent thinker. I cannot, for the sake of my children, put an inexperienced candidate in Washington who has only shown that his rhetoric is just promises that he will not be able to fulfull. Besides, the last thing America needs right now is change. America has suffered multiple trauma’s. During this time of post trauma, we need experience, leadership, and solutions. That is why Hillary is the candidate best for the job. During this time of post trauma we need leadership who can show experience and independence, which I believe McCaine will be able to do. This is why we lean toward McCaine.
— Jacquie May 15, 01:58 PM CST #
I don’t think a lot of democrats in Nebraska agree with the statement that John McCain means 4 more years of BushChenny. I know I don’t see them as the same. I have said if the Republicans had put John McCain on the ticket instead of Bush in 2000 … we’d be in a very different situation. I don’t think we’d be worse off. I don’t agree with John McCain on some important issues but he is not a Bush clone. Again, making those assumptions and expecting the rest of democrats to fall in line … is unwise in my opinion.
— Marian Ingwersen May 15, 02:27 PM CST #
Hey, we got talked about on the national scene … check out the comments to this post.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/14/0759/30877

Of course, how national “talk left” gets is beyond me … but still. Sorry I can’t make it a link … cut and paste I guess. m
— Marian Ingwersen May 15, 02:44 PM CST #
Until very recently . . . very . . . recently . . . I was actually sitting on the fence insofar as my choice between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama was concerned. Actually, I, like Vince, preferred John Edwards. I see very good qualities in each of them, but for reasons I will not share here for fear of further inflaming the rhetoric, I will only say that I did vote for Obama in last Tuesday’s primary. I have no beef with those whose scales tipped in the other direction.

That said, I can only state that anyone who would vote for John McCain because the Democratic candidate of their choice doesn’t become our party’s nominee is, quite simply, a fool. Such a decision fits perfectly into the old “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face” adage. John McCain most certainly will never lead our country in the direction it must go to return to its past greatness. His leadership would only continue the downward spiral in our fortunes. Voting for him, out of spite, because of some perceived slight from your fellow Democrats, is akin to fratricide.
— Brian T. Osborn May 15, 02:52 PM CST #
Why is it that whenever Obama supporters disagree with a comment they always have to shred that person to pieces includng name calling, i.e., “a fool.” Cutting someone down for what they say just undermines anything you have to say.
— Jacquie May 15, 03:10 PM CST #
Jacquie,

You have just demonstrated exactly my point.

I just finished explaining that, for me, Obama and Clinton are very, very close in the balance of their good points vs. any negatives they might have. But for you, I am now a foaming at the mouth Obama supporter and therefore I must want to see Hillary Clinton eaten alive by a pack of rabid dogs.

The question of a Democrat making a decision to vote for McCain, whether that Democrat be a Clinton supporter, or an Obama supporter, is altogether another argument. Any Democrat worth their salt that would rather vote for McCain out of spite, in my book, is a fool. That determination is separate from whatever I might think of them for supporting Barack or Hillary, and that is what I stated. If that is shredding a person to pieces, then at least I am leaving a trail of mangled bodies in both camps.

Seriously, this internecine warfare within our party has gotten out of hand. Both Clinton and Obama will be so damaged, so wounded by “friendly fire,” that McCain, and the Republican Party, will have to offer only token resistance to obtain their victory in November. Do you seriously want to assume your share of responsibility for having done that? And by that I mean you voting for McCain, certainly not you supporting Hillary.
— Brian T. Osborn May 15, 03:39 PM CST #
I think many democrats will consider voting for McCain, not to be anti-Obama … but because they believe him to be a proven leader. What is best for the country at this point in time is my focus. Taking a leap of faith with Obama is where I have trouble … it’s just the way it is. The old saying “the devil you know … ” can prevail for some. We know McCain, we know his accomplishments, his mistakes, his problems. Not so much for Obama.
— Marian Ingwersen May 15, 03:45 PM CST #
There’s been a lot of talk on the web about the caucus vs. primary results here in Nebraska. The following quote is from andrewalker08’s site
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/14/2320/48687

“The short summary of these rules is that the Democratic Party of the United States A.) wants the delegate selection process to be open to all persons who wish to be known as Democrats; and B.) expressly prohibits the scheduling of delegate selection meetings that would “significantly reduce participation in the delegate selection process.”

Now you tell me…with 38,571 Democrats participating in the Nebraska presidential caucuses and 93,757 Democrats participating in the Nebraska presidential preference primary, which method A.) opens the process to all persons wishing to be known as Democrats; B.) encourages the participation of all Democrats; and C.) does not significantly reduce participation in the delegate selection process.”
— Blu May 15, 05:31 PM CST #
Jacquie, I’ve noticed quite a few of the Obama supporters resort to name calling when talking to Clinton supporters (we’re racist, old, uneducated, irrelevant, bitter…) And if you refuse to fall in line behind their candidate you hear the threats and fear mongering with Roe vs. Wade being over turned. If that doesn’t work they’ll throw a little tantrum, “FINE! WE DON”T NEED YOU! WE ALREADY REPLACED YOU WITH MILLIONS OF NEW DEMS!” Then they’ll realize they really do need us and you’ll hear sweet talk, “come on, we’re all Democrats, we need to stick together.” Then the over confidence mode will kick in, “I’m not worried, the Hillarites will come along and vote for Obama in November, after all, where else can they go? Like a battered wife they’ll come crawling back, no matter how much we bash them. So let’s just keep have fun beating them up!”

http://www.lavenderliberal.com/images/bloggy/obot-behavior.jpg
— Blu May 15, 05:48 PM CST #
Here’s is one great democrat’s opinion of the caucus held feb 9th. From the world herald:
Ceresco woman feels like she gets her say

CERESCO — Marian Ingwersen, who attended the caucus in Ceresco, said she was excited when she heard that the party was moving to caucuses. She was even more excited Saturday morning, knowing that the Democratic presidential nomination remained up in the air.

“For the first time in my adult life, I feel I have some say really in the selecting of our president,” Ingwersen said.
— vince powers May 15, 06:29 PM CST #
Blu, I really wish you wouldn’t put words into the mouths of others. That kind of rhetoric serves only to exacerbate the schisms that are forming between two groups of Democrats that ordinarily would be joining forces to advance our party.

When I hear that kind of talk (and to be honest with you, I haven’t heard a lot of it) it causes me to think that perhaps it is being spread by those who don’t have the best interests of our party at heart. I begin to wonder if the Clinton/Obama conflagration hasn’t been promulgated by Republican Molotovs.

Now, before you attack me as one of those horrible Obama people, let me tell you that for most of this year a Hillary for President sign stood in my front yard. My decision to eventually vote for Obama was based on a lot of factors, none of which include a visceral aversion to Mrs. Clinton.

Oh, and by the way, why is it that most Molotov tossers usually hide behind false names?
— Brian T. Osborn May 15, 06:42 PM CST #
What I seriously want is a candidate that is best for the job. That includes experience. I do not want what is just best, only for the democratic party. I want what is best for America. I want what is best for the elderly who have worked so hard for the country they believed in. I want what is best for average Americans who go to work every day and give it their all. I want what is best for each and every child that will bare the responsibilities we leave behind. I cannot vote, in good faith, only to make sure Republicans do not win again. Hillary has the experience, tact, and diplomacy to lead this country and represent our country to the world. Pres. Clinton is an asset to her abroad and would expedite our relations internationally. Our country deserves more than just “change” in Washington. They deserve experience from someone like Hillary Clinton. Just change, is not what is best for America right now. Obama does not have enough experience for me to vote for him. He does not appear to be what is best for America.
— Jacquie May 15, 06:44 PM CST #
Brian, why are you so concerned about my name? Other Democrats on this board go by just one name, is that a problem? I’ve explained twice on this site why I don’t use my full name and once in a private email to you. I am gay, I live in a small town in central Nebraska, sometimes gay issues come up on Democratic blogs and I would like to be able to voice my views without worrying about repercussions. Now, if this is still an issue with you or any of the other NDP leaders just let me know and I’ll leave.

BTW, are you suggesting I’m a Republican because I don’t and won’t support Obama?
— Blu May 15, 07:10 PM CST #
Sorry Blu, that’s an old personal habit of mine that I am trying to kick, picking on anonymous posters. Looks like I have some more work to do on it. Now that you mention it, I do recall your email.

Please don’t get so defensive! I think that is one of the things that is making this rift between the Clinton and Obama camps so heated – oversensitivity. Geez, it seems if anyone says something about one candidate or the other it gets blown way out of proportion.

I do think that there are Republican operatives out on the blogs that are fanning the flames on this. I don’t think you are one of them.
— Brian T. Osborn May 15, 07:59 PM CST #
Jacque, John McCain definitely is not the man to solve America’s problems. Please give this some more consideration.
— Brian T. Osborn May 15, 08:01 PM CST #
McCaine’s experience over Obama’s lack of years of experience is what draws me to McCaine. Experience trumps everything for me. After that, their promises are just that, promises. All politicians make promises. It’s up to us to decide which president is best for America.
— Jacquie May 16, 06:43 AM CST #
It comes down to fundamental questions:

1. Are you a Democrat, or are you not?
2. Do you support Democratic values, or not?

If a Democrat votes for John McCain, he may as well vote for Lee Terry, Mike Johanns and the rest of the slate.

Your vote will support the way the war is being waged in Iraq, the way Washington is being run, tax breaks for the wealthy, an atrocious environmental policy, politicizing of Dept of Justice, water-boarding, you name it.

You are free to vote the way you see fit, but, please, please do not call yourself a Democrat.
— james May 16, 08:29 AM CST #
Jacque, ‘I’ have experience, but trust me, you wouldn’t want ‘me’ to be the President of the United States either. I’m too partisan, too opinionated and too volatile . . . kinda like John McCain.
— Brian T. Osborn May 16, 08:31 AM CST #
This decision does not come easy for me. The biggest mistake the republicans made eight years ago was giving America a president who did not have enough experience to make the right decisions when he needed to. I believe that came from his inexperience in Washington. Pres. Bush gave America empty promises to “change Washington,” and “restore it’s morality.” America cannot afford one more year of a president with inexperience. I wish the democratic party would realize it’s a vote for America, not a vote against the democratic party.
— Jacquie May 16, 09:11 AM CST #
It’s now time to get behind Scott Kleeb, Jim Esch, Max Yashirin, Jay Stoddard, the rest of our current slate of candidates, and, yes, the presumptive nominee for President.

Onward to victory in November. Let’s get to work.
— james May 16, 09:26 AM CST #
Vince … the quote you mentioned up-thread a bit was taken just before the caucus started. When I was still naive enough to think that the crap pulled by the Obama spokesperson at the mock caucus wouldn’t take place at the real caucus. I was wrong and I left the caucus, that same day I said I was very excited … with a bad taste in my mouth for the process. Just
FYI. I know being such a wimp about someone trashing my condidate is pathetic but … it left me feeling like Rush Limbaugh did in the 90’s and it made me wonder what the hell just happened? Where was our unity and our respect for the issues we as democrats share – which I believe should have been the talk of the caucus.

Sigh.
Marian
— Marian Ingwersen May 16, 11:57 AM CST #
I am still convinced that if the super deligates have any desire to unite the party they will switch their vote towards supporting Hillary. This will show they were listening to all the voters who didn’t make it to the caucus but still made the effort to vote in the non binding primary.
— Jacquie May 16, 12:58 PM CST #
Marian, I am genuinely sorry that a few people caused you so much grief, but they were not the entire party. They were just a few people.

I know that, especially during the past year or so, a lot of folks were convinced that I was working to tear apart the “unity” of our party. I believe I have said and done what was necessary to preserve the health and growth of the NDP. I believe progress toward that goal has been made and I am hoping that the new leadership that we will elect in June will continue on that path.

I assure you there is nothing more important to me now than getting our Democratic candidates elected to every office that we possibly can. It is imperative for the well being of our communities, our state, and our nation.

It is time for us to transcend our disagreements and work toward the greater good. I, for one, am burying the hatchet. I can’t guarantee that after November I won’t revert to my snarky old self, but until the general election is over, there isn’t a Democrat that I don’t love.

Tony Raimondo has said that he will remain a Democrat and help us to elect our candidates at all levels. If he can do that, I surely can get over the disagreements I have had with him, Jim Esch, and others. I encourage us all to now let bygones be bygones and get to work electing our Democratic candidates to office.
— Brian T. Osborn May 16, 01:32 PM CST #
Jacquie,

It isn’t the Super-D’s responsibility to unite the party. It is yours and mine.
— Brian T. Osborn May 16, 01:34 PM CST #
That’s a matter of opinion.
— Jacquie May 16, 04:51 PM CST #
The decision to replace the primary with caucuses was not made by the rank and file democrats of Nebraska. This mess started at the top with the NDP leaders. Most the super delegates are also the leaders of NDP. If they want to unite the party they have the power.
— Blu May 16, 09:10 PM CST #
Blu,

Sorry, but you are wrong on that point. The decision to replace the primary with caucuses was made by the State Central Committee. That is a body comprised of two delegates from each of the Legislative Districts (with two alternates for each) from across the state. It is the governing body of the NDP and it is made up of people like you and me. I happen to be a county chair and an SCC delegate because, initially, I volunteered to saddle myself with the responsibilities of those positions. I later was elected to them.

Unless you intend for all 370,000+ registered Democrats in the state of Nebraska to meet every three months, you will never have anything decided by the “rank and file.” Ours, just like the government of the United States and the State of Nebraska is a representative democracy. We elect people to represent us in our governing body.

My two years of experience within this party has proven to me that even getting things done within the SCC is kind of like herding cats. Unless all 370,000+ of those Democrats show up for the meetings, know what their duties and responsibilities are, and meticulously and scrupulously exercise their votes, you will never have things decided by “the rank and file.”

It is my expectation that, following the upcoming State Convention, there will be a lot of turnover in the NDP hierarchy this year. If you are so adamant that things be done the way you think they should, now is the time for you to act. Between June 1 and June 10 your county will be holding its county convention. You can run for office at that time, I suggest that you also show up for the State Convention on Sunday, June 22, in Fremont. That is when the CD Caucuses will be electing delegates to the State Central Committee. You can present yourself as a candidate at that time.

If you live in the 3rd CD you can also present yourself for election as an officer of the 3rd CDO. If you live in CD1 or CD2 you can work to get your CD’s CDO up and running. You can also work to help establish a network of Democrats across this state that initiates the power structure at the grassroots level by helping to organize your own precinct. We’re always looking for volunteers to staff committees and having a very difficult time filling those.

As Vince Powers has tried (and tried) to pound into my dear little head, you only get things done when you have 50+1. That is 50% +1 vote. That my good friend is how Democracy works. In a representative democracy, the 50 +1 is decided by those who represent us. Failing getting elected to a position of representation (I will use that term rather than the term ‘leader,’ as I believe it to be more descriptive of the function) you always have the right, and duty, to contact your representative with your concerns before they vote on issues near and dear to you. Did you do that before the SCC voted to go forward with the caucus?

I’m sorry if this sounds very blunt, but so be it. If you haven’t done, or don’t intend to do any of those things I have suggested, then you are just making noise.
— Brian T. Osborn May 16, 10:47 PM CST #
By the way, Blu, if yours is one of the counties without a county chair, you can volunteer to fill that position. Just contact the NDP office by emailing them at the address at the bottom of this window and offer your services. I doubt that, if you are a registered Democrat and resident of your county, that you will be turned down. Then it will be up to you to get things organized, you will be a member of the “party hierarchy” and people will start accusing you of ignoring their will. Have fun!
— Brian T. Osborn May 16, 10:56 PM CST #
Brian,
I’m not an expert on the subject but I always assumed the party leadership was in place to promote the party and handle the financial matters. This was a decision to change the way Nebraska Democrats select their preference for the next President of the United States! The decision to switch from a primary to caucuses effected every single Democrat in this state and should not have been made by the 2% Democratic elite.
As for becoming a member of the “party hierarchy”, the same argument you’ve been hearing against caucuses also applies here, not all democrats are financially, physically nor emotionally capable of participating in such activities.
Caucus results do not represent the will of the voters BUT perhaps if the NDP would have made sure absentee ballots were sent out to all registered democrats well before the caucuses this wouldn’t be such a big issue. Perhaps if the date, time and place of the caucus was made public more than two days before the actual event this wouldn’t be such a big deal. Perhaps if there was more planning and organization of the caucuses this wouldn’t be such a big deal. As it is, I do not consider the results of the February 9th caucuses valid.
— Blu May 17, 08:56 AM CST #
I think part of the reason that the caucus results were astronomically higher in Obama’s advantage (68% to 32%) is because since the caucus Obama has been campaigning against the coalition of the strongest political machine of the last 30 years, the Clintons, and also taking on the full blunt-force trauma of the Republican smear machine. Anyone who claims he’s untested after enduring that sort of fierce competition and is STILL WINNING primaries is flat wrong.

Hillary Clinton is a great lady and her legacy needs to be safeguarded by people with much more class than some of the bloggers I’ve ran into on different websites.
— Phil Montag May 17, 10:12 AM CST #
Blu,

I was certainly no expert on the subject of how the NDP hierarchy was structured, who within the party had the authority to do what, nor what, essentially, the stated goals, other than electing Democrats to office, of the party were. I made it a point to find out once I made the decision to become involved.

You have made an assumption about why the party leadership exists, but have you ever taken the time to actually read the Constitution and Bylaws or the Platform of the party? Everything is delineated in those documents. That is how I learned. I believe that is the duty of anyone who accepts a position of representation within any organization they belong to.

The State Central Committee had the duty, and only it had the authority, to determine how our party would select their preferences for the candidates for the President of the United States. You say that it shouldn’t have been made by the 2% Democratic elite. You are flat wrong. The SCC is exactly who had the authority to do that. If you have a problem with that, then get involved and do something about it, don’t just sit on the sidelines and snipe.

There are people who are delegates to the SCC that are physically handicapped, no doubt there are those who have dealt with emotional issues, and I will speak from personal experience – some of us are not financially as well off as you assume we are. I have made incredible financial sacrifices in order to be involved with the NDP, but I do it because my sense of duty overrides my commons sense . . . evidently.

The caucus results DO represent the will of those voters that took the time to participate in them. The primary results DO represent the will of those voters that took the time to go to the ballot box. The rules for both of these events were drawn up long before the controversy that you, and others, continually bring to the fore. Had the votes gone in favor of the candidate of YOUR choice, would you still be making as much noise? Now I am the kind of person who would complain, regardless of which candidate was favored, if I firmly believed an injustice was done. There was not, and I am not.

You bring forth accusations against ‘the NDP’ as though we were some mythical, secret, unattainable, and ultimately irresponsible group chosen by divine intervention or birthright. How wrong you would be. We are people, just like you. We are Democrats that care enough about SERVING that we have decided that the benefits to becoming involved outweigh the drawbacks. We give up our time, our money, and our energy to SERVE you. Now that hardly makes us supermen or superwomen that are as infallible as you expect us to be, just like YOU we are mere mortals. But WE have been elected to represent you.

I have given you a challenge Blu – become more involved in the party and accept the responsibilities that go with serving others, make the sacrifices that others have, then you can speak to me with the moral authority that you so obviously would like to claim for yourself. Otherwise . . . you are just making noise.

The rules that the NDP made for the caucus and the rules created by the Nebraska Legislature were at odds this go-round. Hopefully the rough edges will be knocked off the next time, if there is a next time, that we do this. But the facts remain, despite all your assertions to the contrary, that according to the laws of the State of Nebraska, the rules adopted (legally) by the NDP State Central Committee, and the rules adopted (legally) by the DNC, the number of delegates have been decided. It is too late for you to do anything about it now. You don’t have to like it, you just have to live with it. You CAN change the way it will be done in the future, but to do so means you have to GET INVOLVED, and you have to convince 50% + 1 to agree with you.

You can consider the results of the February 9th caucuses invalid, but more than 50% + 1 of us disagree with you. Therefore, you are wrong.
— Brian T. Osborn May 17, 02:27 PM CST #
Blu, I was just out mowing my lawn and (you know how thoughts stream through your head when doing such tasks) I thought about how you said, “The decision to switch from a primary to caucuses effected every single Democrat in this state and should not have been made by the 2% Democratic elite.”

Let me ask you this – how do you feel about 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and only ONE President getting to make the rules for all 301,000,000+ million of us in the United States? That works out to less than .0002% of the “elite” that get to tell us how to live our lives. That “elite” even has the right to tax you, imprison you and kill you if you don’t follow the rules they make up.

How do you feel about 49 State Senators and 1 Governor getting to make rules that all 1,780,000+ of us Nebraskans must live by? That works out to around .0028% for an “elite” that governs us.

How do you feel about your Legislative District being represented by only one person in the Unicameral?

Lastly, why is the methodology of how the delegates are selected in order to elect ONE person to be the President of the United States so important to you? That one person is going to be a SUPER-DUPER-ELITE. Why should that one person get to tell us what to do? Shouldn’t each and every single American get to decide not only who our candidates are going to be, but then decide who the winner is?

Good luck on herding THOSE cats!
— Brian T. Osborn May 17, 04:27 PM CST #
Phil, the reason Sen. Clinton is winning many of swing voters is because Sen. Obama is considered too elite by many voters. Comments such as “people with much more class than some of the bloggers I’ve ran into on different websites,” alienates many people who are not not looking for “class,” but looking for someone who can do the job.
— Jacquie May 19, 07:59 AM CST #
I have to ask, isn’t labeling someone as an “elite” just as bad as questioning another’s level of “class?”

John McCain would get the job done alright, the day after his swearing in he’d “Bomb, bomb, bomb – bomb, bomb Iran” (if Baby Bush hasn’t already started that third front by then) and we’d begin the long road to fulfilling his promise of a 100 year war. Do you really want that kind of leadership in the White House? Do you really want to waste our country’s defensive capabilities further than they already have been? Do you want YOUR kids to be drafted to fight McBush’s wars?
— Brian T. Osborn May 19, 09:23 AM CST #
Brian, if anyone sees me as lacking class, I would appreciate them saying it directly versus indirectly in the way Phil presented his point. Perhaps, if he sees me as “lacking class,” I could see this as a comment from someone who thinks he is better than me. Tell me, does someonee with class think they are better than someone else because they have a different style of class than another person? I cannot let someone say I lack class and not call it elite!
— Jacquie May 19, 12:50 PM CST #
Jacquie,

Is being perturbed with Sol enough of a reason to vote for John McCain? Is having your feelings hurt by a few Obama supporters enough of a reason to help George Bush continue, through his surrogate, John McCain, to subjugate this country to his perverse will?

As for me, until someone proves to me that they deserve to be treated as my better or as my inferior, I consider them to all be the same. That’s one, just one, of the reasons why I am a Democrat and why I’ll fight just as hard for the rights of the poorest and weakest of us as I would for the richest and mightiest.
— Brian T. Osborn May 19, 01:10 PM CST #
Are your feelings hurt? Mine aren’t. I’m quite tough skinned as I’ve learned to separate feelings from the process a long time ago. I’ve also learned that you must keep your dignity and respect at all costs. That is what I intend to do.
— Jacquie May 19, 02:50 PM CST #
You obviously aren’t aware of my reputation for thick skin. Dignity and respect will serve you little if John McCain becomes our president. An AK-47, plenty of ammo, a well stocked bunker, and some good survivalist militia friends might.
— Brian T. Osborn May 19, 08:24 PM CST #
I thought the whole idea behind liking Barak Obama was that they were not going to resort to the “same ol’ Washington political tactics.” I think I see one here. I think we could call this fear mongering.
— Jacquie May 20, 07:18 AM CST #
Jacquie,
We are all doomed, dooooomed! Do you hear me? DOOOOOMED! And it’s all YOUR fault!

LMAO!
— Blu May 20, 09:02 AM CST #
This thread was supposed to be celebrating our House and Senate chances in November.

If you’re going to live with hate and negativity, the GOP would love to have you.
— james May 20, 10:23 AM CST #
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. You may be the last one standing, but you will be standing all alone. The democrats are trying to increase their members, not send them over to the republicans. Being a member of the party includes conversing with all party members, not sending them away just because you disagree.
— Jacquie May 20, 10:57 AM CST #
Whew! I’ve been gone for a while. What I think happened this year is one group of democrats decided to recycle the very words and tactics of republicans from the Bill Clinton era and use them against Hillary Clinton. That disheartened many people who feel that Hillary Clinton is not a Bill clone but a very smart, very well-prepared potential president. The fact that she is behind in delegates at this point because of a new machine that is putting an inexperienced, naive, somewhat arrogant “guy that everyone likes” into the presidencial race doesn’t make those people feel confident that democrats are being smart.

The zeal for Hillary bashing by our own party has left many of us wondering if we are capable of being in the same party.

Basically, the party is divided … almost exactly in half. That is significant … it’s not an 80/20 split in the voting, its a 50/50 split. The leaders need to think carfully about what is best for the COUNTRY even more than thinking what is best for democrats. If Hillary is not on the ticket, there will be a lot of democrats defecting in the voting booth. There have been threats for the other alternative – that the African Americans will revolt for example, if Obama is not on the ticket. It seems the heirarchy is more worried about that scenario then they are about Hillary supporters voting for McCain or not voting due to being so disheartened by what has happened. I personally think the reality of the latter is more likely than the first. I guess we’ll see.
— Marian Ingwersen May 20, 02:44 PM CST #
Well said Marian. Sen. Clinton is a great person in her own right and would make a great president. When we count all the votes in MI and FL I think we will be having an entirely different conversation. The DNC needs to think real hard about their actions and how it will effect the party.
— Jacquie May 20, 03:40 PM CST #
Yes Marian, well said.
Same to you Jacquie. The DNC needs to think long and hard about what they are doing to this party.
— Blu May 20, 04:27 PM CST #
Wow, did Sen. Clinton ever do great last night in KY. I can’t believe overwhelming victory she had. KY sure knows a great American when they see one.
— Jacquie May 21, 06:41 AM CST #