Party Unity or Victor's Justice?

Cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama.

After Hillary Clinton conceded and endorsed Barack Obama last month, she held a conference call with her delegates and encouraged all of them to support Barack Obama.  All but two have pledged to cast their ballots for Senator Obama in Denver next month.

But for some Obama supporters, that's not enough.

It was widely reported in the news media this spring that Hillary Clinton's prominent African-American supporters were under tremendous pressure to abandon the former First Lady and endorse Senator Obama.  From Politico.com:

African-American superdelegates said Thursday that they'll stand up against threats, intimidation and "Uncle Tom" smears rather than switch their support from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.

"African-American superdelegates are being targeted, harassed and threatened," said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), a superdelegate who has supported Clinton since August. Cleaver said black superdelegates are receiving "nasty letters, phone calls, threats they'll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.

"This is the politics of the 1950s," he complained. "A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They're not going to talk about it, but it's happening."

Although none of Hillary Clinton's African-American supporters believed that Senator Obama himself was behind the intimidation, one of his biggest supporters, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), hinted that there would be a price to pay for opposing Barack Obama:

He [Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-MO] said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

"I told him I'd think about it," Cleaver concluded.

Jackson, an Obama supporter, confirmed the conversation, and said the dilemma may pose a career risk for some black politicians. "Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position" in the future, he added.

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) switched his support to Senator Clinton after drawing a primary opponent in February.  His opponent, Rev. Markel Hutchins, claims that his refusal to get behind Obama showed that the civil rights hero was "out of touch."  In yesterday's New York Times, we learned that he is not the only congressman being punished for exercising his judgment and conscience in making his endorsement.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (NY-6) has drawn a primary challenger, Ruben Wills, who supported Barack Obama.  Rep. Edolphus Towns (NY-10) faces a primary challenge from Kevin Powell, a community organizer who supported Barack Obama.  Rep. John Barrow (GA-12), a conservative white Democrat representing a district with a large black population, is being challenged by African American State Senator Regina Thomas.  Because this is considered a swing district, Senator Obama stepped in and endorsed Rep. Barrow.  Apparently, Senator Obama was not offended that Rep. Barrow waited until after the Georgia primary to endorse his candidacy.

All of the challengers have sought to make an issue of the incumbent's delayed endorsement.  Markel Hutchins, the challenger to Rep. John Lewis (GA) even copied Obama's website:

Photobucket
Photobucket

This primary election battle was historic and unique for many reasons.  In the end, Senator Obama won the nomination.  But it bears repeating that Hillary Clinton continued to rack up victories long after the media declared her dead, including a victory in South Dakota on the final day of the campaign.  This party was divided down the middle and unity cannot mean one side making an unconditional surrender to the other.  Each side needs to reach across the aisle to the other.

In the interest of party unity and the best interests of our nation, the Clintonistas for Obama have embraced Senator Obama's candidacy.  We did this despite our own difficult feelings about the race and the nominee and the misgivings of many of our own friends.  We have not shied away from criticizing the PUMA movement and Senator McCain.  Indeed, atdleft and I collaborated on a series of articles to chip away at Senator McCain's image as a maverick and moderate.  

In the interest of party unity, I call upon the Obama supporters to rally behind these embattled members of Congress.  They should not be punished for exercising the independent judgment they are afforded under the rules of the Democratic Party, especially after they all pledged their support to Senator Obama.

So what will it be for the Hillary Clinton superdelegates?  Party unity or victor's justice?



Display:


Tips/flames?? (2.00 / 7)

I brought my flame retardant pantsuit.  I'm ready.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:29:29 AM EST

Well, the chronology doesn't bear you out. (none / 0)

Markel Hutchins filed to run against Lewis a week before Lewis dropped his support for Clinton.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022702354_ pf.html

Kevin Powell announced his run in April. Towns didn't endorse Obama until June.

Ruben Wills just recently announced, but your pattern is already shot, so it's as likely to be happenstance as any of the more sinister stuff you're suggesting.

So the idea that this is somehow "justice" or retribution seems kind of silly.


by Poor Yorick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, the chronology doesn't bear you out. (none / 0)

Incumbents rarely get challenged.

I'm all for it. These are safe seats.


by Lance Bryce on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:23:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wasn't Barrow (2.00 / 1)

a Clinton guy?  If so, then Obama may be getting ready to throw these scrub challengers under the bus.


by Blazers Edge on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:35:20 AM EST

Re: Wasn't Barrow (2.00 / 3)

Yes.  According to the Times, he endorsed Obama after the GA primary, but drew a primary opponent who worked for the Obama campaign.

This is the only district the party feels could be vulnerable to the GOP in the fall, hence the reason for Obama's endorsement.  According to the NY Times, he and other party leaders seem to be staying out of the other races.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:39:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wasn't Barrow (2.00 / 4)

That's disappointing; hopefully, he'll change his mind and endorse the incumbents who chose to support Clinton but then again, there's a movement against Kerry in Massachusetts.

If all these challengers are running on is either he or she endorsed Obama/Clinton, then they likely aren't serious candidates anyway.


by Blazers Edge on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:43:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wasn't Barrow (none / 0)

Kerry has a primary opponent?  I hadn't heard that. That's stupid.  The primary is over.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:55:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wasn't Barrow (none / 0)

Yes, he does, Edward O'Reilly, who actually supported Kerry in public in 2004 for president.


by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Everyone should be slapped around a bit (none / 0)

... a primary serves to keep people honest, folks!

Besides, they should be asked questions about what they were getting from Clinton to endorse her, and how much their endorsement will hurt the district when Obama is president (ymmv, I think not much, obama hasn't a history of holding grudges)


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:28:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Everyone should be slapped around a bit (2.00 / 2)

Lets break down your message.

Primary opponents are 'good'.

Funny, folks around the blogosphere didn't feel that way about Clinton's run.

And then you have to go and insinuate some underhanded scheme by asking "what they were getting from Clinton to endorse her?".

What are you 'getting' from Obama to endorse him?

Silly season hasn't ended at your place, I see.

This is the same thing that happens in politics all the time:  a group gains 'newfound' powers, and seeks to capitalize on them, and in this case it's by 'payback' attempting to eat their own.  It's destructive in the long run, but they can't see that now.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:20:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton's run was important (none / 0)

It's rather illuminating that her own strategist said that she lost after Super Tuesday ... (I've got more dish where that's from, folks).

I don't think before Super Tuesday we saw anything other than disinterest, certainly not outrage, about Clinton's campaign.

I don't call it underhanded, underhanded is when you do something that isn't to your district's benefit, so that you can get reelected. Not that you would, but a pol is a pol.

What am I getting from Obama? The same thing I'd be getting from Hillary -- our civil service back! That's the most important legacy either of them will have. Professionalizing our government again.

I honestly believe that anyone who endorsed Obama will also be getting kickbacks -- really, isn't it bloody obvious? And they call Obama supporters naive!


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:25:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (none / 0)

I don't understand, are you asking people to support the candidates themselves or to reject this particular campaign tactic?  If it's the former, I don't really feel comfortable saying that I support these candidates, when I really know nothing about them.  I'm sure that there are many other issues in each of these races.  On the other hand, I agree that this particular issue is a stupid one.


by rfahey22 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:43:15 AM EST

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (2.00 / 2)

I'm asking them to reject this tactic.  Why should the Clinton people pledge their support to Obama if they can't participate in the new government?  Why should the Clintonistas support a new government that will exclude them?

Party unity is about bringing people together.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:19:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (2.00 / 2)

WTF are you talking about?
The senator has been putting Clinton staffers on his team.  The only person keeping you from participating is you, dear.
by Mae Scott on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:26:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (none / 0)

I mean really, has the Diarist actually talked to the people running against the incumbent why they are running? I doubt it, because I don't think anyone runs for office based on a "he supported Clinton" strategy, if so, they are not even worthy of attention. But why not have primaries, may the best person with the most support win by the rules?


by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:32:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is no tactic (none / 0)

In two of the three cases you raise, the challenger entered the race before the incumbent switched their endorsement. Hutchins entered in February, one week before Lewis shifted to Obama (so you could make the case that Lewis was being politically expedient in reaction to Hutchins). In the case of Kevin Powell, he entered the race in April, nearly two full months before Towns shifted his endorsement to Obama. Ruben Wills is the only one of the three cases where the challenger entered the race after the incumbent Meeks endorsed Obama (Wills announced 6/12; Meeks shifted to Obama 6/6 with the remaining Clinton supporters from the NY delegation).

Your diary makes the case that the challengers are acting in a retributive fashion, and suggests that their entry into the race came about late in the primary season (thus "victor") as "justice" for the incumbents' failure to support the nominee earlier. In my estimation, this is not the case, and I can't say that you've provided any evidence to support your argument.


by Poor Yorick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:18:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is how the system works (none / 0)

If you don't want a primary challenger then don't piss off your constituents.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:44:54 AM EST

Yes, and in this system... (2.00 / 3)

Ralph Nader can run third party.
PUMA can organize against the nominee.
All these things can happen.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't back against them.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:01:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, and in this system... (2.00 / 3)

I support Ralph Nader's ability to run for Prez.  I don't like him but he has every right to run for Prez.  I support the PUMA's ability to act like morons.  I question their motives and I think they are bunch of liars but they have every right to organize against Obama.  Why do you think primary challengers are crossing the line?  If my Congressman voted against the Dem's universal healthcare plan in 2009 I would be chomping at the bit for a primary challenger for him.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:09:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, and in this system... (2.00 / 4)

They all pledged their support to the nominee.  What more do they need to do?


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:13:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, and in this system... (2.00 / 1)

You talk like their is some kind of ritual to follow to receive forgiveness from your constituents.  There isn't.  If they are pissed off enough at you to mount a primary challenge then their minds are already made up.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:25:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Forgiveness for what? (2.00 / 2)

They're all casting their SD votes for Obama this fall.

This is opportunism and victor's justice.  Nothing more.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:28:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgiveness for what? (none / 0)

That isn't good enough for the constituents apparently.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:33:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Forgiveness for what? (2.00 / 2)

That's petty and the people behind these primary challenges need to be called out for it.  We need to be unifying the party, not exacting revenge on Clintonistas who didn't jump on the bandwagon quickly enough.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:35:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Questions should be asked (none / 0)

not so much about people who didn't endorse until after their district voted (that's fair, look at casey), but the people who decided to go against district opinion.

What were they getting out of endorsing Clinton?

(honestly, I'm interested. this isn't implying skullduggery, or anything. Bribes and favors are an important part of politics, and this is at least on the veritable up and up)


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Questions should be asked (2.00 / 1)

ahhh, maybe they preferred Hillary over Obama?

my god, MA went overwhelmingly for Hillary, and yet our governor and 2 senators VOTED against the state's opinion.

oh wow - lets kick 'em out!


by colebiancardi on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:54:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

color me unconvinced (2.00 / 1)

but I'm an obama supporter, so feel free to disregard that.

I guess if they didn't get any such deal, they should be asked exactly how they felt that Hillary could help their district more than Obama (which questions I'm sure they've already answered, and in great detail, to be sure).

But I think they all got a deal, and I figure that a good deal of the Obama people got a deal (even if Kennedy's was probably just "you'll help start a new legacy" -- i mean, really, what else could you give the guy??).


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:59:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

continued bitching... (none / 0)

if they only had personality to choose between, that in of itself is illuminating. If they let their personal biases get between their district's welfare and themselves, this is a good reason to kick them out. Not that I'm saying that is what they've done, but what they've done definitely puts the foot a bit closer to the slicer.


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please explain what you mean (none / 0)

what you mean by "victor's justice." All the cases you site sound like the actions of individuals who were unhappy with a decision their congressperson made. And what are you saying about the similarities between Hutchins' website and Obama's?  

It seems you're trying to make some rhetorical leaps to suggest that Obama is behind the primary challenges-so much so, in fact, that he has something to do with designing the challengers' websites.

This is borderline trollery. If you have something other than circumstantial/speculative evidence to offer, I'll be willing to listen, but this has all the makings of grist for a rumor mill.  


by Poor Yorick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:40:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please explain what you mean (none / 0)

A primary challenge based on the issues is fine. But challenging them based on their support for Clinton is not only petty, it will also damage party unity. If Obama supporters start working against Clinton supporters in a CD, do you think the Clinton would be disposed to support Obama in the fall?


by devil on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:56:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What clinton supporters? (2.00 / 1)

... if we have blacks going at 90% Obama and 10% Clinton, and you're in a majority black district, what clinton supporters??


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What clinton supporters? (none / 0)

It's not just the 10% that are seeing this. Clinton supporters around the country hear the news. Is it worth risking party unity based on who supported who in the primary?


by devil on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

is it wrong to ask for some accountability? (none / 0)

all I want is to know what they were promised in return for their endorsement (so that I can decide whether or not it was worth bucking their district).

I don't think that most Clinton supporters truly care about some random congressman in Georgia. Hell, I dont' think that most Obama supporters, edwards supporters or even kucinich supporters care! (I may have to go back on the kucinich, though, those people are ... )


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:50:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is it wrong to ask for some accountability? (2.00 / 1)

Maybe they just thought that Clinton would be a better president, we will never know that. Looks like this diarist is one Clinton supporter who cares (although they probably will vote for Obama). There might be more. I ask again is it worth risking party unity based on who supported which democrat in the primary? After both Clinton and Obama are democrats.


by devil on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:59:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I doubt that. (none / 0)

if 33% of the congresscritters are blackmailed, surely they mostly do things for better reasons than personality!

I want to ask them that, to look them in the eye and ask them that.

If they've got a good answer, i'll take that into consideration. if it's just about personality, then... well, I've got a new calculation!


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't put words in my mouth! (none / 0)

It seems you're trying to make some rhetorical leaps to suggest that Obama is behind the primary challenges-so much so, in fact, that he has something to do with designing the challengers' websites.

Oh puhlease.

I don't even come close to accusing Obama of being involved in this.

In one case, AS I POINTED OUT ABOVE, he endorsed the incumbent.  As far as I know he is neutral in the other races.

As for the website, I said that it was COPIED.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't put words in my mouth! (none / 0)

If you're not accusing (or at least implying that) Obama is involved in some way, why "victor's justice"? Obama was the victor, right?

Regarding "copied," what is your implication or even point about the similarities? I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just suggesting that that was the perception I had for your comparison, so if I misperceived, please clarify. I don't think you spent the time putting those up just to show us how similar they were, but I truly don't understand what the point is, then.


by Poor Yorick on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:52:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if the roles were reversed, (none / 0)

and Hillary had won, and Hillary supporters revolted against obama backing representatives, they'd be getting called white racists. The activity going on today is more race card playing. I'm all for civil rights, but this is blatant jonnie cochran race card playing.


by Lakrosse on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:28:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

By black people (none / 0)

Against other black people.

Are you racist, stupid, a troll or all of the above? I honestly cannot tell.


Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?
by BrighidG on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:55:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (2.00 / 1)

everyone knew going in that you are answerable to your district, when your district goes 75% for one person, but you support the other, you are going to face questions of "well does so and so really represent our interests?"

I don't live there so I can't vote but I had said any of my reps, who went against us voters in the district would lose my vote.

we elected you to serve our interests if you know 75% of us want 1 thing and you say you know better and want the other, thats fine but then don't also expect to keep our votes.

but either way I don't care who wins in GA, let the voters choose who they believe best will represent them.


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:49:38 AM EST

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (2.00 / 3)

John Kerry
Ted Kennedy
Bill Richardson
Janet Napelitano

Just off the top off my head.  Should Democrats in Arizona, Massachussetts, and New Mexico toss them out?


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:56:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (none / 0)

Hillary didn't win those states by 75%.  You are comparing oranges to honeydew melons.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:01:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How much is enough? (2.00 / 4)

He won Georgia 66-31.
She won Massachusetts 56-41.

Rep. Meeks (NY) faces a primary opponent.  Obama won 56% in his district in NY.  Hillary carried the entire state 57-40.

The race is over.  Punishing her supporters is not party unity.  It's victor's justice.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:09:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (none / 0)

if those voters are mad at them for supporting a candidate YES.

I would have done it. they knew it was a possibility I just said this, you serve at the pleasure of the voters, you piss them off, you have no one to blame but yourself, Keith Ellison is my congressman, I voted him into office, had this district gone crazily to Obama (which we did) and he went with Hillary, Hell I would start filing papers to run for his congress seat.

if you go against the voters why would any one be surprised if the voters turn around and go against you?

isn't this basic common sense? do what your voters want you to do or stop asking them to vote for you


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:19:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (2.00 / 3)

Then why should any of us lift a finger for Obama?  If supporting him now is not enough to avoid being punished for not having jumped on board in the beginning?  What's the point?

It's a campaign.  It's over.  He won. She lost.  Why can't these Obama supporters just get over it?


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:24:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and yet... (2.00 / 1)

this is the main thrust of the argument against PUMA's....


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:25:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and yet... (2.00 / 2)

I've never heard of anybody being angry and bitter over WINNING an election.

It seems to me that the PUMAs are a little more rational than these people.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:30:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

bingo! (none / 0)

It's a campaign.  It's over.  He won. She lost.  

but i guess in the 'new' politics - to the loser go the spoils?


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:32:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (2.00 / 1)

I am sorry you are being punished? are you up for reelection and your district is mad at how you voted?

please the issue here is these people went against their districts, what did you think would happen when 75% of your district supports one person and you go the other way and when your district calls for you to switch you say no?

first and foremost they are answerable to the voters NOT the party, I don't think its about winning or losing

how does any of his voters now know the NEXT time they are all 75% in agreement on something he wont go the other way?

thats what this was about they showed they weren't in touch with the wishes of their districts and they opened themselves up for the "does so and so really represent your interests?"

and whats he gonna say hey when Hillary lost THEN I did what you wanted me to do? well gee, I can't wait to vote for someone who only listens to the people who voted for him only when he has NO OTHER OPTION.

this goes to the very basic idea of representaional democracy, when you stop representing your voters they will want to stop voting for you.


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:36:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

then i guess.... (2.00 / 1)

you would support and/or donate to challengers to kerry, richardson, etc?  since they went against their constituencies?


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:40:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: then i guess.... (none / 0)

That is a ridiculous question.  Anyone who supports our system of government would support the idea that any elected official can be challenged in a primary.  You don't have to vote for or donate to a primary challenger to support that basic principle.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:44:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yep. ridiculous question. (2.00 / 1)

in your black and white assessment above - yes - anyone has the RIGHT to challenge an incumbent.  however - we all know that opportunism is what is going on here.  and when party unity is such a big contentious issue now after a heated primary - the last thing BO should support is vengeful posturing.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:47:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yep. ridiculous question. (none / 0)

The party is unified.  These primary challenges won't affect that.  

Also, BO (as you call him) is not supporting these challengers.  One less thing for you to worry about.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:00:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yep. ridiculous question. (2.00 / 1)

What's wrong with BO?

JFK
FDR

I've seen HRC used a lot.

Who cares?


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:16:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yep. ridiculous question. (2.00 / 1)

BHO is fine with me.  

BO isn't.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:25:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oh.... (2.00 / 2)

someone months back told me not to say BHO....  jeeze, i cant win - can i?


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh.... (2.00 / 1)

BO or BHO.

We're going to let them turn his initials into a dirty word?

Makes no sense.

BO it is (or BHO).


Obama/Clark (still dreaming)
by spacemanspiff on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:09:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh.... (2.00 / 1)

I noticed the silliness of that months ago. Some people hate BO because they associate it with body odor, others hate BHO because they think it's highlighting the name Hussein in some sinister attempt to push the secret muslim line. I doubt any of us would refer to him by his initials in a face to face conversation. As a shorthand on the web, I've got no problem with either. I'd avoid the initials thing unless communicating with a fellow politics geek, and I'd expect a fellow politics geek to understand the initials convention (WJC, HRC, JRE, etc.). Bottom line - Yes You Can Win! Not everyone is oversensitive to initials.


by Mobar on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:32:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thank you. (none / 0)

i just write BO and HRC because i cant be bothered to type the whole thing out.  chalk it up to laziness rather than anything else.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:31:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Accountability (none / 0)

Some elected officials made political decisions. Some of their constituents are angry about this.  When the elected officials change their mind, they may not get complete absolution for their previous actions (especially as they had little choice but to change their support).  Whats so hard to understand?


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's easy to understand. (2.00 / 1)

But its not accountability.  They're casting their votes for Obama in Denver.  

Punishing Clinton SD's is bad for party unity and it sets a bad precedent.

Will African-American Congressman always be required to always support AA politicians no matter what?  If these incumbents are ousted, it sets a very bad precedent.  Very bad.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's easy to understand. (2.00 / 1)

But its not accountability.  They're casting their votes for Obama in Denver.  

Punishing Clinton SD's is bad for party unity and it sets a bad precedent.

Will African-American Congressman always be required to always support AA politicians no matter what?  If these incumbents are ousted, it sets a very bad precedent.  Very bad.


There seems to be a disconnect.  I'm not sure if its intentional or not.

The constituents (theoretically) would be holding them accountable for their words and actions that have already occurred.  Changing their support to Obama when mathematically he could not be defeated by declared support doesn't magically make it so those words were unsaid and those actions undone.  

Those words and actions could be telling for some constituents.  Whether its because they are "out of touch" or unwilling to change the ways of politics or too tied to the power structures of the party and/or DLC or a front runner etc etc there are plenty of conclusions that could reasonably be inferred from the officials early declaration of support.  Declaring any such information is inherently illegitimate is wrong.  


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:35:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not ridiculous. (2.00 / 1)

I'm not calling for the government to pass a law against primary challenges.  I'm calling on Obama supporters to speak out against punishing Clinton SD's for not endorsing Obama earlier.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:54:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Punishing" (2.00 / 1)

Perhaps those constituents feel the judgment to support HRC reveals something about the character of their representative?  

I don't think I'd push a primary challenge, but if given the choice between two similar Dems who that Dem supported (before it was officially clinched) for President would be a small point of consideration.


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: then i guess.... (none / 0)

did I say I am supporting/and or donating to hutchinson? so then why are you asking me this vice versa?

what part of when you go against your constituencies you open youself up to challenges is so hard to grasp?

if a MN Senator went against my interst and did something I didn't like then guess what I would be less inclined to vote for them.

and i already answered above, if people in MA are really upset that Kerry went with Obama, then vote him out thats why we have elections thats the only power voters have.

if your politician does something you don't like you either run against them or vote gainst them. thats what is happening here

its called democracy. if Lewis doesn't want to lose he has to convince his constituents that though he went against them here he still serves them, and if he can't convince them he loses thats how American Politics work, you serve your voters or they don't vote.

I don't understand why this concept is so hard to accept.


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:47:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

black and white. (2.00 / 1)

rarely works in politics.  but okay - i agree incumbents have a RIGHT to be challenged.  just as i have a RIGHT to call them what they are:  OPPORTUNISTIC BASTARDS.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:52:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (2.00 / 2)

This system was set up so that SD's could exercise independent judgment.

And again, they're casting their votes for Obama in Denver!  They're not going against their districts.

There may be other local issues involved.  It's possible some of these people have been pissing off their districts for decades.  But if what's happening here is political opportunism, then they need to be called out for it.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:43:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (none / 0)

it doesn't matter how the system was set up.

the voters put him there they said

"we don't care how the system works, you work for us, we voted for you, we want you to use your SD vote for Obama"

he said no.

so now he has a challenger asking voters "does he really represent your interests? the next time you want him to do something your way can you trust that he will do it? or does he only represent you when he has no other options?"

the voters will look at it and decide do they still think he is best for them, if they say yes he will win, if he says no he will lose. thats how elections work.

I don't doubt its political opportunism, hell alot of people pointed this out when it was first happening, if thats the case what is Lewis' repsonse to it, I don't even think lewis will win, but i think it was obvious to everyone when you your district goes so heavily one way and you go the other, you open yourself up to questions of who do you really serve. incumbents get challenged all the time when its percived they voted the wrong way.

Lewis will just have to prove to voters that he is still best for them. it politics ANYONE ever running against an incumbent will use political opportunism whenever they can.

the democrats are doing it now to try and defeat the GOP for the White house, should we decry them too for using the poor economy to their advantage?

if you dont want to lose elections keep your voters happy, when you get them pissed you can face problems

its politics 101


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:53:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (none / 0)

correction I meant I don't think Lewis will lose, I don't think enough voters are actually mad at him for this.

I think he will win easily.


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:55:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (none / 0)

He is casting his vote for Obama.  All the SD's are doing it.

This is classic political opportunism, politics 101, but is this good for the party?  Is this party unity?

People are calling out PUMAs left and right for not lining up behind Obama.  How about calling out the people trying to punish the Clinton superdelegates?  They are casting their votes for Obama and they are supporting the nominee.  They are being punished because they exercised their right to free speech.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:57:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (2.00 / 1)

then all you have to do is convince the actual voters for it.

but there is NO limtus test for a reason to challenge someone, if you don't like the way they look challenge them if you want, but if you can't convince enough voters to agree with you then you are sunk.

this whole they shouldn't be running because they are mad at the incumbents or want to punish them is hogwash, thats usually the reason incumbents GET challengers in their party because some of their voters want to punish them for something.

I am not going to call out people who want to punish Clinton superdelegates, if they think its a winning issue more power to them. you REALLY want to help Clinton SDs then there would bea grassroots movesments to DEFEND them, not attack the challenger, go give the people of GA reasons to support Lewis.

but by your logic NO democrat should have had a challenger this year because we need party unity thats hogwash, I live in MN, I don't care what voters in GA are doing to their congressman, he serves them not me.

Clinton SDs dont think they should be punished for supporting Clinton then they need to go convince their voters of this.


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:05:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (none / 0)

If supporting him now is not enough to avoid being punished
This is why you will support him and not because you agree more with his stances on the issues than McCain's? Sad.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:07:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So you're not blaming Obama (none / 0)

But you are by implying that you would theoretically withhold support from Obama because of the actions of some supporters who chose to primary Clinton supporters.

O-K! Clear as mud.


Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?
by BrighidG on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (none / 0)

Yes, they should. PUMA sites are now making a list of who should go.


by DaleA on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

to serve interests (none / 0)

... what were they getting out of endorsing clinton???

It is possible to vote against your district favorite while still serving the district's NEEDS.


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can someone post links to the Clinton (2.00 / 4)

supporters' web pages so that those so inclined can donate and show their support?


by activatedbybush on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:01:51 AM EST

Re: Can someone post links to the Clinton (none / 0)


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:15:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can someone post links to the Clinton (2.00 / 2)

http://www.johnlewisforcongress.com/

http://congressmangregorymeeks.com/

http://www.barrowforcongress.com/

http://www.townsforcongress.com/index.ph p?link=about_ed


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:16:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

this issue is beyond.... (2.00 / 6)

disgusting.  

its people like this who will ensure a repub WH.  BO needs to step in - NOW.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM EST

YES! (2.00 / 5)

Obama should condemn this.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:15:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

whyfor? (2.00 / 1)

I found the sane people on the thread! go me!

Why do you think this needs to be condemned?

Didn't Hillary herself have a primary challenger last race?

I don't think any of these are in truly shaky districts, nor do I think that any of the non-incumbents are likely to win.


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:35:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: whyfor? (2.00 / 1)

Yeah. If this is true it's lame but I don't see the outrage. If Obama steps in it will only give attention to these tools. Opportunists see an opening and they go for it. It's politics and we live in a democracy. I'm sure Obama objects and will continue his practice of siding with the incumbents. These challenges are as much a threat as the one to Kerry.


Obama/Clark (still dreaming)
by spacemanspiff on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:12:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why is it up to him to protect (2.00 / 1)

incumbents from challengers?

I didn't like it when he did it for Barrow in Georgia.


by Geekesque on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:45:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How is this disgusting (none / 0)

This is something Obama needs to get on - the inevitable fact that some people will be primaried if their constituents are unhappy with them>


Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?
by BrighidG on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shorter drew (none / 0)

"I am outraged that someone would dare challenge an incumbent."

Um, yeah.


by username on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:21:36 AM EST

Re: Shorter drew (2.00 / 2)

If you're not going to read the diary, why comment?


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:26:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shorter drew (none / 0)

I read as much as I could stand, and figured I'd spare others the suffering.


by username on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:47:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Victor's Justice (none / 0)

Victor's Justice is Harry Truman not sitting in the dock for dropping the bomb on Nagasaki. To use the notion of victor's justice in this context is extremely hyperbolic and cheapens the very serious and complicated issues surrounding leaders being held responsible for the use of force. I find the usage particularly loathsome considering the likelihood that the leaders who have waged an aggressive war in our names will never be held accountable for their actions.

I don't think we should assume that the only reason these people are facing primary challengers is because they endorsed Clinton. Emanuel Cleaver is my rep. If he's got a primary challenger, I'm unaware of it. I wasn't surprised by his endorsement of Clinton because he's been close to them for years, going back to the days when he was Mayor of Kansas City. He votes more in line with my expectations than McCaskill does. I'm not holding his Clinton endorsement against him, and I don't know anyone else who is. Maybe that's because we like the way he votes in Congress. Maybe the people facing strong challenges in primaries have constituents who are considering the candidates' votes in Congress.

By the way, I'm pretty damn sure that if the whole nominating process came down to how Cleaver was going to vote, he'd vote for Obama. The man isn't stupid.


by Mobar on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:37:45 AM EST

Re: Victor's Justice (none / 0)

I don't know if Rep. Cleaver has an opponent or not.  He wasn't mentioned in the NY Times article.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:46:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

check out skepticalbrotha's blog (none / 0)

he had a whole list running.


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:37:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But Drew (none / 0)

are these challengers actually going to be competitive?  My understanding is that these guys are fringe players in the same way that Kerry's challenger in Massachusetts is a joke.


by Blazers Edge on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:42:34 AM EST

Re: But Drew (none / 0)

I have no idea.  I looked for polling data, but I couldn't find it.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:44:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0)

these tools will get their day of the sun, they can wave their hands, but I have enough faith in the electorate that making someone's superdelegate support the sole focus of your campaign will fail.  These clowns are no different than the PUMA folks, and even worse in my opinion.

African-Americans still love Senator Clinton (the last Rasmussen poll had her favorability rating at 80% in the community), so these fools are probably going to get laughed out of their respective districts.


by Blazers Edge on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:59:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh please, this is Dems vs. other Dems (2.00 / 5)

Members of Congress don't own their seats.  Since we're talking about primary elections between Dems the national party should stay out of this altogether.  It'll be a whole different deal if any of these challengers lose the primary, refile as an idie or Republican, and carry the battle into the general (then the national party should work to defeat them).  We don't have a litmus test for who can enter a primary, though, or what issues which constituents might find important shouldn't be on the table.  A member of Congress who supported Obama in a district which went overwhelmingly for Clinton should have to answer for that (c'mon, why the heck not?).  

What national Dems should do, I agree, is make the case that support for a particular candidate during the primary shouldn't be construed as any sort of disloyalty to the party.  Using phrases such as "victor's justice", though, just poisons the well (you're a voter, do you think people outside of your district should be giving you lectures about which candidate you should support in the primaries?  or are you smart enough to make your own decisions about how much this stuff matters?).  


by IncognitoErgoSum on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:19:37 PM EST

Re: Oh please, this is Dems vs. other Dems (2.00 / 2)

They have the right to run for whatever.  It's a free country.

However, if the only issue is not endorsing Obama early enough, it's bullshit.  I'm calling it.  And others should, as well.

Again, if the Clintonistas are going to get punished because we didn't jump on the Hopemobile early enough, why should any of us lift a finger now?

Punishing Clinton SDs--and that's what this is--is bad for party unity.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:29:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

politicians are opportunists (none / 0)

... the I endorse obama and your rep didn't makes an excellent soundbyte.

do you remember the cbc dustup over accountability and chairmenships? i bet the voters there do!


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:40:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The issue is being in touch with your (2.00 / 2)

constituents.  The Clinton/Obama thing is a symptom, a crystallization of that dynamic.

For the challengers, it's a way of saying "look, this guy didn't ask anybody here when he decided to endorse Clinton instead of Barack. He's been in Washington too long.  Time for someone who's in touch with the community."

It's a natural angle of attack for a challenger to use.  If the incumbent has been doing his job right, it won't be very effective.


by Geekesque on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:43:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (none / 0)

This actually doesn't bother me as much either way (Clinton challenger vs. Obama incumbent or vice versa).  If there is a market for a challenge so much the better.  If Rep. Herseth-Sandlin gets primaried, fine.  If Rep. Wasserman Schultz gets primaried, fine.  As long as we have Superdelegates, presidential primary preference should be a voting issue.

Also, parties try to clear the field at certain points and it isn't always successful.  You can control access to external funds and consultants but if someone wants to run s/he will.


Visiting the hopium dens proudly since 2007.
by AZphilosopher on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:41:58 PM EST

It's up to the people in those districts (none / 0)

to determine whether those Congresscritters should keep their jobs or not.

As a general rule, if they're in touch with their constituents, this kind of issue won't make or break them.


by Geekesque on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:39:09 PM EST

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (2.00 / 1)

It's a Democracy. If people want to challenge them, let them!

Kerry is in the same position.

They will get their ass handed on a plate most likely.


Obama/Clark (still dreaming)
by spacemanspiff on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:08:51 PM EST

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (none / 0)

Drew, I understand your point, but I think you're assuming a lot from the article that just isn't there.
If these incumbents are being challenged only because their constituents are upset over them not supporting Obama, then it is kind of silly.
But to not challenge incumbents at all?
That's ridiculous- look at the Blue Dog Dems that keep screwing us over setting a timetable for withdrawl.
 Shouldn't we try to replace them with more progressive candidates like Russ Feingold?
Voters have a right to try and replace politicians that they feel aren't doing their job, don't they?
by skohayes on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:40:49 PM EST

Re: Party Unity or Victor's Justice? (none / 0)

I am confused..
You are comparing activity that took place during the Primaries...
..your  politico link

"By: Josephine Hearn
Feb 28, 2008 06:38 PM EST
Updated: February 29, 2008 05:56 PM EST "......

With what took Place after Clinton conceded.

If you can demonstrate a comparison AFTER the Primaries your point would have some support...


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:49:04 PM EST