Stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party

SuzeQuze · #1 03-27-2008, 03:17 PM

Millionare dem supporters threaten to stop donating to DCCC if progressive dems don't drop the issue of letting the people, not the superdelegates, decide the election.

Quote:

Stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party

A group of millionaire Democratic donors are threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination.
They're Clinton supporters and they're trying to use their high-roller status to strong arm the Democratic leaders.
So let's tell Nancy Pelosi that if she keeps standing up for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back.
A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leadership.

http://pol.moveon.org/democracy/?r_b...htYVl&rc=paste

strandinthewind · #2 03-27-2008, 08:30 PM

Interesting - but the D laid the rules for this years ago. Now some want to change them. IMO - this is typical pf the D party. If they were smart, they would reach a deal and put Hillary as the nominee and Obama as the VP and, therefore, heir apparant - with Hillary serving one term perhaps as the sell out for her.

Moreover, if Clinton were in the slight lead that Obama has, La Pelosi would IMO be singing a different tune. She apparently hates Hillary.

vermicious knid · #3 03-27-2008, 08:50 PM

It is not strong arming the Democratic leaders to want them to vote however they feel like. Nancy Pelosi is the one trying to dictate how the superdelegates vote: to vote for Obama.

Given that Obama is trying to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan, it is funny that MoveOn.org paints the OTHER side as being against "the people". Florida and Michigan make up almost 10% of the population of the entire country. Will they begin a petition in support of the "regular people" in those two states?

darklinensuit · #4 03-27-2008, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vermicious knid

It is not strong arming the Democratic leaders to want them to vote however they feel like. Nancy Pelosi is the one trying to dictate how the superdelegates vote: to vote for Obama.

Given that Obama is trying to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan, it is funny that MoveOn.org paints the OTHER side as being against "the people". Florida and Michigan make up almost 10% of the population of the entire country. Will they begin a petition in support of the "regular people" in those two states?

Thank you for saying it.

- Jake

darklinensuit · #5 03-27-2008, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Moreover, if Clinton were in the slight lead that Obama has, La Pelosi would IMO be singing a different tune. She apparently hates Hillary.

That's my impression as well.

- Jake

BombaySapphire3 · #6 03-28-2008, 12:48 AM

Better yet why doesn't Hillary just step down ..she is behind in delegates and her negatives are skyrocketing ..she is coming off as a shrew...

BombaySapphire3 · #7 03-28-2008, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Moreover, if Clinton were in the slight lead that Obama has, La Pelosi would IMO be singing a different tune. She apparently hates Hillary.

Or perhaps Speaker Pelosi is just representing her constituents ..San Francisco did go for Obama in the California primary.

strandinthewind · #8 03-28-2008, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Better yet why doesn't Hillary just step down ..she is behind in delegates and her negatives are skyrocketing ..she is coming off as a shrew...

Who more than likely will be the next President. I love how Obama fans automatically assume his 100 point lead is something like a staggering shoe in. It is not. Moreover, he won it without winning Florida and/or Michigan, which Hillary won, albeit in a straw poll. Put it this way, if the table were turned and Obama was down by this tiny amount, would you, as a clear Obama fan, be singing the same song or would you be saying something like Hillary's lead hardly places her automatically in the winner's circle and the super delegates are a great thing?

In the end, the D's better hope and pray that:

1. If Obama wins, that idiot of a preacher that he blindly sticks by because he has to to get the black vote will keep his mouth shut and not alienate anymore voters.

2. The Hillary D's will vote for him instead of not voting or voting for McCain or some other candidate.

Again, I am not a fan of Hillary's, but her record in the Senate demonstrates she can work on both sides of the aisle and can get things done. Obama does not have any history of any groundbreaking legislation and he surrounds himself with lobbyists working or free and allegedly will never ask for payment to the piper - and people believe that, which to me is unbelievable. But, I voted for him in the GA primary and would vote for him for Pres., even though I think he is a liar with a cult of personality - a dangerous combination in my book.

strandinthewind · #9 03-28-2008, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Or perhaps Speaker Pelosi is just representing her constituents ..San Francisco did go for Obama in the California primary.

You actually believe that

I am way too jaded to believe it. And, I actually do not mind La Pelosi. I just think in this regard she would would be screaming the opposite if Obama was down by 100 or so delegates and two states were blocked by Hillary from having a re vote.

Don't these idiots realize how important Florida and Michigan are to the general election and how pissed off even 1% of the D's are about it, an amount I suggest that could keep the D out in an electoral system in electoral rich states in a close election. Doesn't that strike everyone else as assinine even though Florida and Michigan were idiots for bucking the system and have noone to blame but themselves. Americans are loathe to accept blame ya know.

SuzeQuze · #10 03-28-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Who more than likely will be the next President. I love how Obama fans automatically assume his 100 point lead is something like a staggering shoe in. It is not. Moreover, he won it without winning Florida and/or Michigan, which Hillary won, albeit in a straw poll. Put it this way, if the table were turned and Obama was down by this tiny amount, would you, as a clear Obama fan, be singing the same song or would you be saying something like Hillary's lead hardly places her automatically in the winner's circle and the super delegates are a great thing?

In the end, the D's better hope and pray that:

1. If Obama wins, that idiot of a preacher that he blindly sticks by because he has to to get the black vote will keep his mouth shut and not alienate anymore voters.

2. The Hillary D's will vote for him instead of not voting or voting for McCain or some other candidate.

Again, I am not a fan of Hillary's, but her record in the Senate demonstrates she can work on both sides of the aisle and can get things done. Obama does not have any history of any groundbreaking legislation and he surrounds himself with lobbyists working or free and allegedly will never ask for payment to the piper - and people believe that, which to me is unbelievable. But, I voted for him in the GA primary and would vote for him for Pres., even though I think he is a liar with a cult of personality - a dangerous combination in my book.

Why do you think that? If that is true it is a dangerous combination. And I was not aware he has lobbyists around him that do not get paid. That makes no sense, what is in it for them? That is a concern if it is true. Have you read any of Obama's books? I have not yet and would like to. Although I am aware I will get the skewed version it wll also be the most detailed regarding who he is. I really liked Hilary's book and I think she is an amazing person. I just don't see the warm woman reflected on the pages in her political career. I know you have to be thick skinned but you can still have heart and integrity while being strong and committed.

Pelosi probably does have her own agenda. But the specific issue here is those donors threatening not to support the Democratic Committee which is supposed to be for all dems if NP doesn't shut up about not using superdelegates. She can't really step down for her position because of that type of pressure. She's too ballsy for that. Is she supporting her own interests or the peoples'? I think a bit of both.

strandinthewind · #11 03-28-2008, 08:58 AM

He has lobbyists working on his staff and not getting paid. I posted an article on this awhile back. I think it was something like they have allegedly left the highly paid world of lobbyists to work on his campaign for free. He has other history that negates his currently convenient altruistic position. If you google "obama lobbyist" a bunch of articles will come up. In the end, I do not fault him for working with lobbyists and that type because that is how you get things done and I can think of no better way to get bills attention and get then passed, though I think it sucks that it apparently has to be that way.

As for the millionaires and their money, it is their money. And, like everyone else, they donate money to achieve a goal, though their donations are more significant in size. So, I do not fault them for doing the same thing that everyone else does only on a smaller scale.

Here is one of the articles:

PACs and lobbyists aided Obama's rise
Data contrast with his theme
By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | August 9, 2007

Using campaign appearances, e-mails to supporters, and Iowa TV ads, Illinois Senator Barack Obama has repeatedly reminded voters that his presidential campaign does not accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees, casting his decision as a noble departure from the ways of Washington.

He hit the theme hard again in Tuesday's Democratic debate in Chicago as he sought to capitalize on rival Hillary Clinton's remark last weekend that taking lobbyists' cash is acceptable because they "represent real Americans."

"The people in this stadium need to know who we're going to fight for," Obama said at Soldier Field. "The reason that I'm running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate."

But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that after seeing the influence of lobbyists firsthand during his two years in Washington, Obama decided before he entered the presidential race that he would take a different approach to fund-raising than he had in the past.

"He's leading by example and taking steps that he feels need to be taken on the national stage to clean up the undue influence of Washington lobbyists on the policies and priorities of Washington," Psaki said. "His leadership on this issue is an evolving process."

Psaki said Obama believes that healthcare lobbyists have blocked progress toward universal health coverage, and that oil company lobbyists have blocked badly needed changes to America's energy policies.

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

This activity, along with Obama's past contributions from lobbyists and PACs, has drawn fire from opposing campaigns. Some political analysts say Obama, by casting himself as an uncorrupted good-government crusader, has set himself up for charges of hypocrisy.

"If you're running a campaign about credibility, that credibility and persona are so important you better be squeaky clean," said Richard Semiatin, a political scientist at American University. "While he's getting good traction out of this, I think in the long term he's really got to be careful."

From the day he entered the presidential race, Obama has projected an outside-the-Beltway persona, positioning himself as the Washington change agent that Americans are pining for. Last week, his campaign began running a new TV spot in Iowa, in which the narrator says, "He's leading by example, refusing contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists who have too much power today."

In the Democrats' previous debate, on July 23, Obama was unequivocal when challenged by former Alaska senator Mike Gravel about who his donors were.

"Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money," Obama said, touting his work on an ethics reform bill that just passed Congress. "That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. That's the kind of leadership that I showed when I was a state legislator. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States."

And on June 25, right before the second quarter ended, Obama sent an e-mail to supporters asking them to contribute to his campaign to make up for the lack of special-interest money.

"Candidates typically spend a week like this -- right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline -- on the phone day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks," the e-mail said. "Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees."

Obama's main Democratic target on the issue of lobbyist and PAC contributions has been Clinton, whom Obama has been working to paint as a figurehead for the broken politics of Washington. Through June, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton had collected $413,000 from lobbyists and $533,000 from PACs -- leading all 2008 presidential contenders in both categories. Clinton has also raised about $3 million from PACs and $400,000 from lobbyists for her Senate campaigns, according to the group.

Clinton's campaign declined to comment.

Peverill Squire, a political scientist at the University of Iowa, said Obama, given his record of raising special-interest money throughout his political career, was taking a "gamble" in holding himself up as a beacon of purity.

"He probably will be hurt if he's put in a position where he's trying to draw very fine distinctions between his present campaign and his past behavior," Squire said.

Obama's campaign is relying almost exclusively on an unprecedented network of grass-roots donors and activists -- nearly 260,000 of them had given him money through June alone.

And some good-government activists say that, past fund-raising practices aside, Obama has genuinely been a champion for ethics and campaign reform, both in the Illinois Legislature and in Congress.

"On the one hand, sure, he rose to power as many people do in this town, which is to raise money from the people who have the money," said Gary Kalman, of the advocacy group US PIRG.

At the same time, he added, Obama has championed public financing for elections and he fought hard to pass the federal ethics reform bill.

Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...s_rise?mode=PF

HejiraNYC · #12 03-28-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Who more than likely will be the next President. I love how Obama fans automatically assume his 100 point lead is something like a staggering shoe in. It is not. Moreover, he won it without winning Florida and/or Michigan, which Hillary won, albeit in a straw poll. Put it this way, if the table were turned and Obama was down by this tiny amount, would you, as a clear Obama fan, be singing the same song or would you be saying something like Hillary's lead hardly places her automatically in the winner's circle and the super delegates are a great thing?

In the end, the D's better hope and pray that:

1. If Obama wins, that idiot of a preacher that he blindly sticks by because he has to to get the black vote will keep his mouth shut and not alienate anymore voters.

2. The Hillary D's will vote for him instead of not voting or voting for McCain or some other candidate.

Again, I am not a fan of Hillary's, but her record in the Senate demonstrates she can work on both sides of the aisle and can get things done. Obama does not have any history of any groundbreaking legislation and he surrounds himself with lobbyists working or free and allegedly will never ask for payment to the piper - and people believe that, which to me is unbelievable. But, I voted for him in the GA primary and would vote for him for Pres., even though I think he is a liar with a cult of personality - a dangerous combination in my book.

I have to admit that I have been conflicted about the Obama vs. Clinton issue as of late. Although Hillary talks a good game politically, I think she really misses the boat when it comes to economics. And her healthcare proposal is a joke. And, like Obama, she cannot admit to any wrongdoing, such as the Iraq war, NAFTA, etc., and she has waffled on these issues. However, she has represented NY well in the senate, and she seemed to have a good record on the Armed Forces Committee. At least she was doing something!

I like what Obama has said on a number of issues, especially on healthcare and the environment. He's a great orator, but like Hillary has said repeatedly, he really has a track record of doing nothing substantial. And his bluster and gravitas seem so irreconcilable with his lack of accomplishments; this comes across as being extremely pretentious. And even though he is clearly looking to disenfranchise the voters in FL and MI, he does the whole political song and dance to weasel his way out of it. He's a shape-shifter and he has floated by unscathed because he has no track record, good or bad, to take aim at.

But at the end of the day, for me it's not a question of Hillary vs. Obama. It's about (insert Dem nominee here) vs. McCain. Which Dem is electable? My feeling is that Obama is already unelectable. Even though he has come out as being 100% Christian, you know that the GOP machine will always call him by his full name: Barak Hussein Obama. Reasonable people will take that with a grain of salt, but the religious wack jobs aren't going to stand for having a Muslim president, or one that even sounds remotely Muslim. And you know that those Reverent Wright tapes will be played in a continuous loop in every TV commercial. And you know that Michelle Obama's "For the first time I am proud to be an American" speech will be played continuously. And it's one thing for BO to have disenfranchised the Dem voters in solidly red states like Kansas or Oklahoma... but MI and FL are crucial battleground states. But most importantly, BO still has not captured a good percentage of the white male vote, which is critical for winning. And when you have someone of McCain's stature as a long-serving politician/war hero who has taken right and left stances on the issues in the past, the odds are stacked even higher.

Sure, Hillary is no saint, but she has proven herself on this campaign to be an unflagging, tenacious candidate with a can-do spirit despite all the naysayers. Although she was wildly unpopular in the traditionally red states, the hard truth is that it really doesn't matter since their electoral votes are going Republican anyway. She has the white blue collar vote, a majority of the white female vote, and a majority of the Hispanic vote. And I would imagine that she would have the majority of the black vote too since I can't imagine many would vote for McCain.

If the Dems truly want to win this election vs. getting revenge on Billary, they'd better pull their heads out of Obama's rear end and get a dose of reality.

strandinthewind · #13 03-28-2008, 10:06 AM

^^^^

I think Hillary's position on the war in Iraq is correct. It is as if everyone thinks W was the forst to say WMD or there is a problem in Iraq, a country that invaded a US ally and a dictator who was a terrorist to his own people and other countries :shrug : Though Iraq had no significant involvement in 9/11 (though SH did aid some Al-Q terrorists - a minor point I admit) - how could the world, much less the US put up with another terroristic regime, esp. one that balked at the UN's repeated unanimous resolutions for him to disclose them, though in the very end, he appeared to be complying - so W could not have that and jumped the gun.

I think that the US had no choice but to hold SH's feet to the fire on the issue of WMD. That the intelligence was incorrect is horrible, but the world unanimously agreed with it for a decade or so prior to then. So, she was correct to vote to give W the authority to press Iraq on that issue. She has said the end results were disasterous for a myriad of reasons which all come down to the inept and deceiving current administration. I agree with her here too. Again, would anyone be saying squat if the US had toppled the SH regime and effectively installed a new and better govt. in a year or so - as opposed to the quagmire W caused.

If people want her to withdraw all troops from Iraq the day she is elected, she will never do that. Nor should she or any other President. If all troops are withdrawn, Iraq will become what history has taught us such things become - take Afganistan and N. korea for example. The smarter and more human thing to do is to have a staggered withdrawl over, say a year, and during that year, smack the Iraqi govt. in its a$$ to get with the program.

But, the far left cannot admit that and instead will support a candidate that never supported doing anything in Iraq and wants immediate withdrawal of all troops. I suggest this position is very dangerous, pathetically short sighted, and woefully ignorant of history.

On edit -- when I say this, which is all factual - people call me a warmongering Bush apologist. I despise W and wish he was never the Pres. Go figure.