Don Fowler, the former DNC Chair recently issued a letter to Democrats complaining that Clinton supporters weren't sufficiently falling in line behind the presumptuous nominee who, Fowler explains, "won" the nomination even though it's clear that by the DNC's own rules Obama has won nothing as of yet. Now we learn that Fowler explained the entire super delegate function in a video back in February, a video which shows the level of hypocrisy currently reached by the leadership of the Democratic Party.The video is long ( almost 9 minutes) but what is most telling, and flies in the face of his letter and public pronouncements begins approximately 5:50 seconds into the video, where he makes clear that if super delegates voted in a way that was contrary to the popular vote winner, i.e., the will of the people, he would consider it a big problem.
It's become clear that one of the big problems facing Democrats this year has become the leadership of the Democratic Party who seem to have become as corrupt as the candidate they have been trying to force feed down the throats of more than half the party.
Fowler, Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, have shown the worst kind of dishonesty and hypocrisy through the primary, Brazile going so far as to state she would resign if super delegates decided the nomination and, and like the candidate she supports, has shown her word means nothing and has reneged on that promise.
It's time to use this video and Fowler's own words, not only to influence super delegates but Dean and the rest of the party leadership making it clear that if there is not an open convention with Senator Clinton's name in nomination so there is an honest opportunity for either candidate to be voted on by super delegates, they are going to face an even bigger problem-- an electoral disaster in the fall both in the Presidential election and for Democratic members of Congress and they can expect contributions to the DNC to dry up from more than half the party. It's time to make it clear that just because they have endorsed a candidate who can't live up to his own words, it doesn't mean that they won't be held accountable for theirs.
Watch the video HERE.
NOTE: As many of you know ( but some might not) I've been busy with my work for the Denver Group which I co-founded with Heidi Li Feldman which includes doing the work on the ads that have been running and potentially some TV spots. That work has resulted in my time to write pieces for my blog which tends to be lengthy, being greatly curtailed but I have future posts in the works and will continue to post as often as I can and as time permits.
Posts
13 comments:
Even scarier than Obama as the next President is having the triple crown (a democratic White House, senate and House of representatives). Without any oversight of the democrats, they will be WORSE than the Republicans in terms of corruption (well on their way after the fraudulent primary). That is NOT what the "founding fathers" wanted when setting up our government. Seeing the Bush fiasco presidency without any possibility of oversight, Americans should think very carefully before they award the 3 branches of government to Barack Obama & Company.
can any of the clinton supporters here give a logical response to this?
http://socio-politics.today.com
Anonymous asked if any Clinton supporters could "give a logical response" to an article on socio-politics.
I certainly am a Clinton supporter and don't believe that anyone could or should give a logical response to a vitriolic diatribe. The person that wrote this admits to "hating Clinton". No amount of logic will work to explain hatred. The hatred that the writer feels for Clinton is probably matched closely by the hatred that many PUMA's feel for Obama.
Perhaps it's a break even, except that we know that one candidate has been allowed to circumvent the rules while the other has been held firmly to following them.
I think that "anonymous" is the writer of the blog and is looking for hits.
The blog post is full of grammar errors and lacks that which is necessary in any good argument: evidence in support of claims.
The writer subtitled his drivel "an unjustifiably angry post".
Given that the writer admits that his anger is unjustified, perhaps a better title for this vanity blog would be "socio(pathic)-politics. I guess he didn't take Psych 101 yet.
I'll also hazard a guess that he didn't do very well in Freshman Composition, ;)
It was posted here to get some responses to the arguments at hand, but you proved my point - like Clinton, you ignore any actual arguments, and just go on fabricated attacks about things that don't even matter. And you all respond in the same exact way to everything, like you find one idea and think that it's hilarious.
And this blog is not good. You say that there is no evidence in the claims on the other blog, but this blog creates its own evidence to support itself. Have fun living in your blissful cave.
"And this blog is not good. You say that there is no evidence in the claims on the other blog, but this blog creates its own evidence to support itself. Have fun living in your blissful cave."
My my my, another Obama supporter suffering from disassociative cognitive disorder and projection. When an Obama supporter wants to submit any evidence of his qualifications to be President, what he has accomplished and one thing he hasnt lied about, feel free to post them and then we can have some real fun.
"My my my, another Obama supporter suffering from disassociative cognitive disorder and projection. When an Obama supporter wants to submit any evidence of his qualifications to be President, what he has accomplished and one thing he hasnt lied about, feel free to post them and then we can have some real fun."
I've tried it before and i couldn't get a single person to respond to the issues, and the issues were supported. This blog is just a haven for closet conservatives - instead of questioning what you're told, you're just sheep that follow one mindset.
"... instead of questioning what you're told, you're just sheep that follow one mindset."
this is the obvious definition of an Obama supporter and fits the sheep mentality of Obama supporters to a T. Believe what he says because he says it and dont question that he lies,deceives and that nothing he says has any basis in reality.
If you use keywords like "pyschological projection" and google them you'll start to see why you are describing Obama supporters and why they, and obviously you, are so nervous and worried around Clinton supporters who wont buy the nonsense youve already swallowed.
I can play these pretentious games also - look up socio-demographic characteristics and the word gullible and see what comes up and apply it to Clinton supporters. And again, you can't focus on any issues that were presented by the blog so you just go on the offensive.
Anonymous is angry that nobody reads his vanity blog.
When we're done batting the little mouse back and forth with our massive PUMA paws, chewing him up, and spitting him out, let's get back to the topic at hand: strategies to hold those who hijacked the Democratic party responsible for the damage they've caused.
P.S. Something tells me that you-know-who took a class this year with a professor who used the prefix "socio" alot.
Now, how do we get Brazile to make good on her promise?
Tom in Payne, thanks for yet another insightful post....
But I don't understand the meaning of a "symbolic vote". Am I right to infer that Obama's perception of Democracy itself is..."symbolic"?
Now I understand why Donna Brazile had said with reverence and awe on-air @ CNN back in March that Obamarama is..."metaphysical".
In other words, for the DNC and His Hopeness Democracy is only "symbolic" and can be dispensed with. No big deal. And we know BHO--periodically, he feels down and starts launching attacks against Democracy and Hillary!
Come November, when Sweetie's DNC ceiling will be exploding from the millions of cracks on it, he'll see the Puma symbolism very clearly.
Tom in Payne, thanks for yet another insightful post....
But I don't understand the meaning of a "symbolic vote". Am I right to infer that Obama's perception of Democracy itself is..."symbolic"? How convenient. Something symbolic can be dispensed with quickly--like his presidential seal!
Now I understand why Donna Brazile had said with reverence and awe on-air @ CNN back in March that Obamarama is..."metaphysical".
In other words, for the DNC (and His Hopeness) Democracy is merely and conveniently "symbolic" and can be dispensed with. No big deal. And we know BHO--periodically, he feels down and starts launching attacks against Democracy and Hillary!
Come November, when Sweetie's DNC ceiling will be exploding from the millions of cracks on it, he'll see the Puma symbolism very clearly.
Post a Comment