New Clinton sponsored website: Delegate Hub... She will try and tear the party apart

[Windy]

Its all about Hillary and Bill winning. The hell with the people!

http://www.delegatehub.com/

[lurky]

1. Aw, Jeez...

That's really distressing. :(

[TheDonkey]

2. ugh, I've been saying she plans to keep this up until the DNC in Denver...

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hieronymus]

76. I'm afraid so .. they just won't admit defeat.

[TheWraith]

81. More and more Hillary is giving evidence that it's all about her and her ego.

Dammit, she DESERVES to be president, regardless of what the voters say!

Not a good argument to make to Democrats.

[rodeodance]

3. this is about the 3rd or 4th post on this in a few hours. nice use of your posts

[Debi]

6. When they're done I'll put them up

everyone should see how low the Clinton Campaign is willing to go.

[rodeodance]

8. I am sure you will.

[mckeown1128]

11. so you are not even going to "try" to defend this crap.

Hillary's supporters reduced to mocking people for using one of there three threads, instead of trying to spin anything anymore.

[rodeodance]

14. Why ASSume these will be attacks ads? -instead of stating her policies??

[Hieronymus]

78. Are you serious?

[saracat]

17. "Low"? This is actually a pretty factual website. "Super" or automatic

Delegates aren't supposed to go with popular vote. They ARE supposed to vote for the best interest of the Party and the nation. The fact that some "refuse" to understand the Delegate system doesn't make a candidate who does understand it"low".

[Debi]

19. Why did the campaign decide that Dean, Clyburn, Axelrod used the term 'automatic'

when talking about the super delegates? They didn't. The campaign is putting false words into their mouths hoping to draw in or confuse a few more folks. It's low to lie it's low to deceive. The website reminds me of Dick Gephardt's site explaining how Howard Dean was going to privatize Social Security or the 'Howard's House of Waffles' site a Kerry supporter put up. You are welcome to be comfortable with the behavior of your candidate and her campaign. Democrats should demand better.

[saracat]

32. Because it is a word defining 'what " they are and how they get to be selected.

This is parsing and ridiculous. It doesn't say that they "called" them that but in any event Super Delegates ARE "automatic".And I have heard them referred to as such at DNC Meetings.

[Debi]

37. The DNC meetings you attended? n/t

[saracat]

42. Yes.

[Debi]

46. And Howard Dean used the term 'automatic delegates'?

Since the DNC keeps minutes of all the meetings on their web site would you please tell me which meeting you attended where Howard Dean referred to the super delegates as automatic delegates? I'd like to get the transcript and then call him and ask him what the hell an automatic delegate is.

I'll wait here.

[saracat]

48. They do not formally refer to Super delegates as "automatic" Delegates in speeches and minutes.

It is a descriptive term used in conversation.And I suggest you do call. It may be educational for you.

[Debi]

59. Oh, so it was a secret conversation between you and Governor Dean

:eyes: riiiiiiiight

[saracat]

61. I never said that. Are you just dense or what?

[Debi]

62. Yes, I must be dense

You cannot provide to me any proof that Governor Dean or anyone other than those affiliated with the Hillary Clinton Campaign calls super delegates 'automatic' delegates.

Even though you can't provide me that proof you tell me that these super delegates are regularly called 'automatic' delegates at DNC meetings and in conversations of DNC members. Except that during any of the meetings and conversations where these comments are made there are no minutes taken or videos of the instances.

I guess only the super special DNC members know what you are talking about because other than you stating it - there is no record of it.

I'm just asking for validation of your claims - give me a link, tell me a date/time when Howard Dean called the super delegates 'automatic' delegates.

Why is it so hard for you - with all your DNC powers - to do that one simple task?

Could it be that you are the dense one?

[saracat]

65. There are no links to ordinary conversations.Why don't you ask your own super delegates

for the info? Don't you have your own DNC members at your state party? Ask them, since you do not believe me.They were elected by your state committee. This is their job.

[Debi]

69. So now I'm supposed to call people and ask them if they use a different term in private conversation

with fellow DNC members for super delegates than they do when at DNC meetings that are being recorded or have minutes to them? After just having a conversation about super delegates (yes, that's what we called them) one of my DNC members gave this interview:

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/02/17/news/metro/cbac07f9e9d4f5ce862573f2001ccb64.txt

<snip>

Sandy Opstvedt, an Iowa super delegate backing Clinton, supports the idea of super delegates because before they existed, party leaders were under-represented in the nominating process.

"They weren't delegates because they didn't want to run against people that voted for them and deprive someone the opportunity to be a delegate," she said.

Opstvedt, however, reserved her right to switch allegiance.

"There are all kinds of hypotheticals that could happen," she said. "Right now my mind is made up."

<snip>

++++++++

Should I call her back and ask her WHY she talks about super delegates when, as a DNC member and supporter of Hillary Clinton, she should know that she should be referring to them as 'automatic' delegates? Or did she not call them 'automatic' delegates because she knew she was being recorded?

Why don't you just admit that they're called super delegates by everyone BUT the Hillary Clinton campaign and drop it?

You really are just digging yourself further into a hole.

[saracat]

72. They ARE called Super delegates. Hillary calls them Super Delegates. Automatic is a term used to

describe the status of Super Delegates.Everyone calls them Super Delegates. "Automatic" is merely a term used to describe status. I am done. You are just trying to find something where there is nothing.

[Debi]

77. From the web site

DNC Chairman Dean: The role of automatic delegates "is to exercise their best judgment"

Rep. Clyburn (D-SC) says automatic delegate support should not be based on election results

Chief Obama Strategist David Axelrod: automatic delegates should "exercise their judgment"

+++++++++++++

In each of the ACTUAL quotes the person HAD used the term SUPER delegate. The Clinton campaign changed the term to AUTOMATIC delegate but let the quote stand as IF the person had used the new term. (making each of those quotes false)

ONLY the Clinton campaign uses the term automatic in reference to super delegates. And only YOU have tried to argue that anyone other than the Clinton campaign uses this term.

The Chair of the DNC calls them super delegates (unless the Clinton campaign changes his words and puts them into false quotations) DNC members call them super delegates (except you and I guess other DNC members during super secret unrecorded and undocumented conversations) super delegates call themselves super delegates (except, again, when the Clinton campaign changes their words and treats them as actual quotes).

All you had to to was show me one instance where someone other than the Clinton camp used the term and you can't.

So be done, I don't have a problem with it. You've talked yourself in a circle and you just can't stop.

[saracat]

50. Here is contact info for you.I'll make it easy for you to call

Democratic National Committee
Howard Dean, Chair
430 S. Capitol St SE
Washington, DC 20003
[phone]
Fax: [phone]

[Debi]

60. I don't need the public number, thanks.

I'm still waiting for your proof that Howard Dean refers to super delegates as automatic delegates. (other than your 'Oh it's just what he calls them when we talk' bullshit).

I'll wait here.

[blogslut]

74. Thanks

I just called the DNC. Called them yesterday before the site went live - so they didn't know what I was talking about

Oh, and I called the FEC too!

Their number is:

1 [phone]

:)

[lapfog_1]

23. The best interest as defined by who?

Will it be in the "best interest" for the Super Delegates to OVERTURN the elected results and nominate someone who has fewer pledged delegates and fewer total votes?

Then I guess you will be telling me next that Al Gore didn't really "win" 2000... The Supreme Super Duper Court was looking out for our "best interests". :sarcasm:

As the primary season continues, Hillary and her supporters show more and more of their true selves to the public.

It's all about Hillary. It is her turn. :puke:

[Debi]

28. And when we're done falling in love Clinton expects us to fall in line n/t

[saracat]

33. I am saying that this is how the Delegate system works. If you don't "trust '

your Super delegates , vote them out of office or run for your State DNC positions yourself. Become part of your own State Committee and run for a DNC position.

[lapfog_1]

39. Since you trust things so much

and this is how the delegate system works and all...

Are you in favor of the Clinton campaign making a case to Obama's pledged delegates to vote for Hillary on the first ballot??? because, you know, the rules say that this is legal and all.

I don't care that her campaign has stated that they won't do this, what I'm asking is "are you in favor of it?". It's perfectly "legal".

Because I just want to see how "say anything, do anything" YOU are in regards to having YOUR candidate win.

And I suppose you think the FL and MI delegates should be seated at the convention as well.

[saracat]

41. I didn't say I "trusted' anything. I said that was the way it works.

I am not aware of "pledged" delegates, unless they are Super delegates, who are never really "pledged",( in that they can always switch) being able to change their vote on the first ballot unless they are "released" by their candidate. I am unsure about how the FL and MI mess should be handled. I am, "slightly " inclined toward "seating" FL, as they had all candidates on the ballot and they did vote but I thinkMI should "revote" or not be seated. But I am not sure. That is a real mess.

[lapfog_1]

51. Yesterday there was a dust up over this story

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/19/clinton_plans_to_target_obamas_pledged_delegates.html

Some other DUers went researching things in the DNC rules... and, yup, after 1980 the rules where changed so that even PLEDGED delegates are not absolutely required to vote for their candidate on the FIRST ballot. This was done after the famous Ted Kennedy convention challenge to Jimmy Carter, Carter relied on the previous rule which stated that for the first ballot, pledged delegate must vote for their candidate... Carter won the nomination on the first ballot. After that, the rule was changed to allow pledged delegates to vote differently than who they are pledged to, even on the first ballot.

Hillary has denied that she is seeking pledged delegates to "flip" to her from Obama, but the story is still circulating. I hope that it's not true and in yesterday's posts about it, said that it was still just a rumor because it was single sourced and the sources were not "on record".

[Usrename]

31. For one thing, right now Obama could win w/o superdelegates.

He'd need to pull 85% of the vote, but he's at 75% now!

So he mathematically could reach the required count without the automatic delegates.

Hillary can't. (It's more likely that he hits 2025 w/o superdelegates than it is that she catches up with him in the delegate race.)

So it is not factually accurate at all. It's a lie.

And the whole spirit of the site is just plain wrong. It's like arguing that one candidate should have to spot the other one 800 delegates.

[JackORoses]

45. much better than your posts of piss poor propaganda

[blogslut]

68. Don't forget this one from day before yesterday

DUers caught this before the site even went live

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4646229

Gee, I wonder why the domain registration was hidden behind a privacy service? Also, why is it when I called the Clinton campaign both Monday and Tuesday, they had no idea this site existed?

Why do you think that is?

[Johnny__Motown]

4. At this point a vote for Hillary is a vote for a divided party, she needs to lose TX and OH

[Windy]

7. this website is pure propaganda. And it can't be posted enough. It speaks to her flawed character

Just like the upcoming use of 527s to try and "swiftboat" barack in Ohio....


Sad...very sad.

[bellasgrams]

47. What a stupid post.

[Debi]

5. I don't recall Dean, Clyburn or Axelrod using the words 'automatic delegates'

:banghead:

[blocker]

10. She's destroying the party

I could understand this desperation in a general electtion, but not in your own party, do the clinton supporters actually like this garbage, they actually approve that?

[bellasgrams]

54. No SHE is not destroying the party, it's BO and his hate filled

supporters that are trying to have everything investigated that doesn't go their way and are completely blind to the truth.

[BobbyVan]

71. Agreed

[krkaufman]

88. I think you meant The Truth(TM). n/t

[NightWatcher]

12. quick, go look at the bottom of the page

Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President
...
Hillary Clinton for President is not responsible for the content of any external websites

_________________________________________

so she sets up external websites to spread filth and then has the balls to say that she is not responsible for it????

[madrchsod]

15. and we are not supposed to notice?

i guess she thinks the geezers like me won`t notice

[NightWatcher]

16. THAT is why so many people do not like the way the Clintons play ball

[Debi]

25. Isn't THIS behavior what we want changed in Washington and in politics?

1/2-truths and deception.

[saracat]

63. By Obama, the Chicago "machine politician who admits to a 12 year "friendship "

the a man under federal investigation? The same criminal he went to for "real estate advice while "knowing" he was under federal investigation? The same criminal friend who lied to a judge about the money he had and tried to skip towm after haaving been "wired" 3.5 mil from Damascus? The same Obama, who "lied " to ABC about donations from Resko to his presidential campaign, and had to be pressured to return more than 100K after it was determined some of the money was directly from Resko's wife ? The same Obama who promises a "seat at the table to corporations and the healthcare industry" and speaks glowingly of corporations in his book? The same Obama who folded to the isurance and healthcare lobbyists in Illinois?He is going to "change" this behavior? Riiight.

[Debi]

73. Wow, lookie here, Clinton talking points 101

Aren't you a super-special campaign drone (or is the secret term 'automatic' campaign drone?)

[saracat]

75. Nope. I was an Edwards supporter, who intitially had Obama as my second choice. I was opposed to

Hillary. Anyone on DU can tell you that. Then I researched Obama. I read his book. I paid attention to what he represents. And I believe he is corrupt and I believe he does not represent me. He expresses contempt for baby Boomers , which I am and I see nothing that leads me to believe he will make women's rights and issue. He has gotten in bed with corporations and those who have an anti gay agenda. Hillary isn't perfect but at least she has a health plan similar to Edwards and a track record of caring about women.

[Debi]

79. Who you initially supported doesn't change your behavior (and where you get your information from)

now.

I walked into my caucus uncommitted and walked out of my caucus uncommitted. So technically I didn't support any or I supported all of the candidates. You won't find talking points (or mud points) that have been given out by campaigns in my posts.

But you go ahead and comfortably cut and paste.

[saracat]

82. I get my info from many sources, none of which are the HRC camoign. But hey believe what you want.

you surely will anyway.And as far as your uncommitted staus, it doesn't sau much of anything .

[Debi]

83. I have to

You can't give me much concrete sources to verify anything else.

As for my uncommitted status - it is documented with the Black Hawk County Democratic Party and the Iowa Democratic Party. But verification of facts doesn't seem like an important issue for you.

[krkaufman]

89. I believe that disclaimer would mean any other, external websites ...

... linked from the website in question.

[madrchsod]

13. they will do anything to get the obama delegates

we voted for to switch to hillary. try this and the party will never recover for another 40 years.

[oasis]

18. Crossover Republicans who pollute our primaries are a real threat to the Democratic Party.

:think:

[Exilednight]

20. Not True, republicans built their party by stealing Democrats now it's turn

America has a short term memory problem.

Republicans capitalized on a weak Democratic President and captured the White House with a charismatic personality in Reagan.

Roles are now reversed. Republicans have a weak President and we have a charismatic personality.

[leftynyc]

26. You're using the assumption they

will vote dem in the general. That's quite a leap.

[Exilednight]

36. We, as a party, do not have to capture every republican who crossed lines in the primary - we only .

need enough to swing a small handful of states.

The reason we have failed in the last thirty years is due to the inability of candidate to attempt to expand the party.

Allow me to illustrate. Bill Clinton won NV, NM, and AZ. Why didn't they stay Democratic states? That's 20 electoral votes in this election, and I see many so called strategist willing to forfeit those states without even campaigning. Hillary had a 14 state plan for the primary, but she couldn't see the forest through the trees.

Democrats look at a map and say 'we lost there last election, let's forget it'. Republicans look at a map and say 'well we lost by 20,000 votes - how do we get 20,001? The only states we fight for are a small handful with high delegate counts like Florida.

I'm not advocating that we neglect a state like Florida, but we need to stop neglecting states with small electoral counts.

Get NV, NM, and AZ firmly in the Democratic column and Florida is still important, but it's not a do or die state.

[leftynyc]

56. I understand what you're saying

and agree with you. Expanding the party should be the long term goal. All I'm saying is that just because some folks voted for Senator Obama in the primary (when their candidate is already picked) doesn't mean that vote will be dem in the general.

[krkaufman]

90. And... it's not like people who live in those states ...

... don't have friends and relatives in others. Ignoring whole states likely has an effect even on the states we've been targeting -- aside from allowing the Republicans to focus their money more.

By expanding to a 50 State Strategy, we start talking to ALL Americans, directly, rather than leaving millions to the wolves.

[yourguide]

55. did you actually look at the primary turn outs dem vs rethug?

Twice as many folks voted in the dem primaries as did the repub - I think that is NOT a leap.

[CatnHat]

21. Yep

that says it all.

[Cameron27]

24. That's how feel about it,

and I don't believe that most of those "crossovers" will vote for Obama over McCain, if it comes down to that choice.

[rateyes]

22. The author of that site needs to quit stating OPINION as FACT:

From the site:

"FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy."

Sorry, Senator Clinton, that is NOT a fact. That is an opinion, and in my opinion, it's a piss poor opinion. (How'd you like that sentence? :D )

[NightWatcher]

27. quick, scroll to the bottom of the page...Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President

more dirty tricks, lies, and deception from the Clinton crew. and they wonder why this shit blows up in their faces.

[rateyes]

29. I saw that.

I wonder if it's true. Sad, if it is.

[Medusa]

49. Surely you didn't expect the Clinton campaign to start being factual did you?

They've already amply demonstrated that is beyond their capabilities. This website is further proof of just how low they're willing to go. If it means, lying, stealing, cheating, or otherwise destroying the Democratic party so Lil' Hillary can have her prize (the presidency), so be it.

[BobbyVan]

67. ...

[dionysus]

30. yeah, the desperation is there...

[AlertLurker]

34. Very apt username.

Clue?
Vowel?
Cookie, maybe?
Sheesh.

[tinrobot]

35. Cripe. Superdelegates are now "automatic" delegates?

What's the deal with that?

The proper term is "superdelegate" -- that is how they are defined in writing by the Democratic party. Changing the terminology to something more generic is a classic GOP ploy. Wonder who she consulted on that?

Makes me wonder if she'll next start calling our party the "Democrat" party.

[Exilednight]

38. Didn't republicans try this by redefining creationism with intelligent design?

Where did I put that rove playbook?

[AtomicKitten]

40. Kinda like the inheritance tax being renamed the death tax.

Kenny Craig: "Look into my eyes, look into my eyes, the eyes, the eyes, not around the eyes, don't look around my eyes, look into my eyes, you're under."

[Jim Lane]

84. Party rules don't use "superdelegate" or "automatic delegate"

The term in the is "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates" (Rule 9.A).

You say that the term "superdelegate" is proper because "that is how they are defined in writing by the Democratic party." I think the term is a media creation. Party officials, from Dean on down, use it in informal contexts, because the official term is so clunky. Nevertheless, what's "defined in writing" is what's in the party rules.

As a quickie catch phrase, "automatic delegate" is reasonably accurate. These people do become delegates automatically. The Clinton campaign's reframing effort seems to be a political tactic but it's not misleading, nor does it do violence to the English language. I don't see any way in which it's objectionable. (I also don't see how it will help Clinton, but that's their call.)

[Debi]

85. Thank you for your post

You've done a better job explaining this than anyone else on this thread.

The term super delegate is the common term to describe the unpledged delegates and has been since super delegates came into being. Why the Clinton campaign has decided to change the term usage now, 20 some-odd years later, doesn't make sense except to confuse the average person and make the campaign seem more 'in on' the rules and process of Democratic delegate selection.

[Apollo11]

43. "The Obama campaign is trying to shut down the Democratic race before the rest of the country votes"

How do we know this? :eyes:

I read it in a list of "facts" on the homepage of a website paid for by Hillary Clinton for President.

It makes Democratic Underground look almost respectful by comparison.

[bellasgrams]

52. Apollo-Many, many posts say she should drop out now.

I even saw 1 a few posts above saying she needs to loose the next two states. Many of us haven't voted and it's disgusting to see all these posts say she should drop out, or how can we get her out, can she be thrown out. So if you read that statement on a webpage they must have seen all the posts to that effect right here. I really would like the BO supporters to let the rest of the country have their vote.

[wileedog]

57. No one would have a problem with that if

"I really would like the BO supporters to let the rest of the country have their vote."

And most Obama supporters would probably oblige if Hillary didn't decide to go negative and adopt the Karl Rove playbook, and there wasn't the over-hanging threat that despite having less delegates come convention time she will try and arm-twist the superdelagates into electing her anyway. That would be chaos that would all but ensure President McCain.

There is far, far more potential for damage to the party and the upcoming GE possible if Hillary stays in than there is any realistic chance that she captures the most delegates going into the Convention and wins legitmately.

[LadyVT]

44. Yes she's a witch who will "boil" Obama... get real

[tridim]

53. Mods, can you please PM me the DU rules I apparently broke.

[Major Hogwash]

58. Hillary is only going to help McCain by doing this.

This isn't what the super delegates were created for.

[billyoc]

64. Soon she'll be trying to tear the sleeves off her straightjacket. nt

[BobbyVan]

66. Good for her!

Obama is going to need to EARN the nomination. Not just go half way and expect everyone to fall in line.

Obama's campaign is starting to look like a cult of personality. I'm afraid we're going to end up with a half-baked candidate who will collapse under GOP pressure or surprise bombshell allegations.

Stay in the race Hillary!

[UndertheOcean]

70. How low of her n/t

[Mezzo]

80. Hasn't the Obama spent a ton of $$$ on superdelegates?

like campaigning in Florida, they both did it.

[Exilednight]

86. Can anyone tell me when this website went live http://www.attacktimeline.com/

[blogslut]

92. roughly december 2008

http://whois.domaintools.com/attacktimeline.com

[Exilednight]

94. Delegate hub is now down.

[WinkyDink]

87. I remember actual fracases in the nomination arenas! We've become timid!

[VotesForWomen]

91. don't worry, obama's love will hold it together. nt

[Laelth]

93. Gracious! The Republics really want to run against Hillary.

This is more proof, imho.

:puke:

-Laelth