Please, Sue, Sit Down!
As private citizens, we all have the right to vote for whomever we choose. If we are Democratic Party officials, we have the obligation not to openly oppose our Party. The singular purpose of the Democratic National Convention is to nominate our national ticket. The single obligation of those elected by their peers to this convention is to support the nominee, regardless of whether that nominee was his or her first choice.
When a delegate to our national convention indicates that they are not yet sold on the idea of voting Democratic in November, as Portland’s Sue Castner has done, they breach their obligation to those who elected them. I understand that Sue, a Clinton delegate, has strong feelings about Hillary. But to say, as she did in this morning’s Oregonian, that Sen. Obama has something tog prove to her and “if I had to base my vote on how his supporters have been treating us, I’d be voting for McCain,” goes too far. Granted, Castner hedges. She doesn’t say she will vote for McCain. But for a delegate even to hint that they may cross to McCain because their first choice didn’t win is destructive.
This is not 1860, 1924 or 1968, when slavery, alcohol, or war split our party. The differences between Clinton and Obama on substance can be measured with a micro caliper on most issues. There should be no principled basis for leaving Denver with anything but full commitment to a ticket wedded to progressive Democratic ideals and easily distinguishable from the GOP.
So, Sue, I respect your right to support whoever you want. But when you took that seat on the floor in Denver that so many others would have cherished, you should have recognized that the responsibility of a delegate is “first do no harm.” Vote for Hillary on the floor. Do whatever you want in November. But if you can’t come out of Denver Thursday in support of Obama, at least keep it to yourself.
|
August 26, 2008 |
Marc Abrams | Comments (98 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Aug 26, 2008 8:34:16 AM
Clinton supporters..... please get over it! Your slavish devotion is starting to creep me out.
John Sidney McCain III is no friend of women's rights or women's issues. Do you really want him nominating several new Supreme Court Justice's in the next four years just so you can have your hissy fit. Should we send you to your room for a 'time out' Clinton supporters?
If the shoe was on the other foot...... if Senator Clinton has won the nomination, Senator Obama and his supporters would be 100% behind her. Please extend the same courtesy to him that we would of to her.
It's time to look at the big picture which is electing a Democratic President for the next four years.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Aug 26, 2008 8:46:48 AM
Marc,
Thank you for this. I understand the disappointment of people who worked hard for a candidate that lost. I would understand if they decided not to work for him. What I can not understand is why someone would go to the expense and trouble of becoming a delegate to the convention and then work at harming the party's nominee by telling the press that the candidate is not up to par.
What is it that people who supported Hillary see in McCain? McCain today stands for everything that is opposed to the Clinton record and that the Clinton's value.
Posted by: Karol | Aug 26, 2008 8:49:06 AM
There was a woman this morning who was a Clinton delegate from Colorado who said she would cast her ballot for Hillary. Fine, do what you have to. But when asked if she would vote for Obama in the general, her answer was, "I don't know." What the hell is there left not to know? Obama is not different that Hillary in ideology and he is a Democrat after all. What exactly is the problem? I would love a Hillary supporter to tell me what the deal is with the resistance to Obama. What's scary about a young, handsome, smart, energetic half black, half white candidate?
Posted by: Chuck Roppa | Aug 26, 2008 8:57:29 AM
The problem with not choosing Hillary is: Obama can't win. Especially with his agent of change VP, career politician, political hack, and plagiarist: Biden.
This guy looks like death warmed over and will bring the ticket down - plain and simple.
Posted by: Barbara H | Aug 26, 2008 9:01:14 AM
Katy, Marc wasn't talking about Sue's vote during the convention; he was talking her vote in November.
Posted by: Murphy | Aug 26, 2008 9:03:39 AM
Well Said, U.L. -- This may have the potential to blow a huge hole in the Democratic party. Imagine the scenario if just enough of these Clintonists do in fact follow through with their petulant threats and stay home, or even worse, vote for McCain in a vital state like Ohio or Virginia and throw the election to McCain. I shudder to think of the blowback on the Clintons, particularly if Hillary’s support for Obama during the fall is luke warm. They will be done as players in the Democratic party.
If Clinton had won this nomination, I’d have a Hillary sign planted in my front yard now instead of Obama’s because I recognize that we just can’t risk the damage another for years of a Republican cabal, if for no other reason than John Paul Stevens’ age.
I can’t fathom why some Clinton supports would consider doing this, and I hope it’s just noise from the Republican lackeys at Faux News.
Posted by: Irishspacemonk | Aug 26, 2008 9:13:53 AM
I'm an Obama supporter since January 2007. I've given close to the max despite being a middle class American. But the primary would have long been over had Clinton not defrauded her supporters by convincing them she had a chance after losing 11 straight contests. Now she's trying to pay off her debt. Sue...what do you mean "how Obama's supporters treat you?" I'm not going to pat you on the back and say, thanks for making the Primary more expensive then it needed. Go vote for McCain and when you lose your right to choice, no one will feel sorry.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Aug 26, 2008 9:24:52 AM
Maybe some of these clinton supporters who are not backing Obama are looking forward to the future....2012.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 26, 2008 9:44:42 AM
I just spoke with Susan about five minutes ago. The facts are as follows:
Ms. Kastner, having been awake for the past 36 hours and having been separated from her luggage earlier in the day, was walking to the train alone at about 11:00 pm, wearing perforce the only clothing available to her at the time, the Clinton T in question.
She was heckled by some guy who shouted out to her "She lost". A little further up the road, two more stalwarts offered this intellectual support for the heir apparent, "Take the shirt off Bitchface".
Very classy.
Then some AP writer gets a mike in her face and offers this (accurate) quote, "It's not Hillary's job to unite the party. It's his."
Which they then follow with some Associated Press mind reading.
"In other words, She plans to wait and see whether Obama can win over her and other staunch Clinton backers who she feels have often been disrespected by the Obama forces."
The AP goes on to quote other disgruntled Hillary fans, not named Susan Castner, which all gets mashed sloppily together to keep the story from being totally incomprehensible.
Finally the Great mind that is Marc Abrams adds his own assumptions et voila, a smear is born.
*************
As an Obama supporter whose wife supported Clinton during the primaries, I've had a chance to break bread with Ms. Castner and I can attest to the fact that she's been disappointed in the misogyny that she's encountered form many quarters surrounding this race. I can also tell you that despite her (appropriate) anger, she has been in the forefront of Oregon Clinton supporters who have touted unity.
Marc Abrams, the AP, and the Oregonian all owe Susan an apology.
Posted by: LT | Aug 26, 2008 9:53:41 AM
But to say, as she did in this morning’s Oregonian, that Sen. Obama has something tog prove to her and “if I had to base my vote on how his supporters have been treating us, I’d be voting for McCain,”
As a 1984 Hart delegate to the 1984 San Francisco convention, I can understand the frustration.
However, those like Sue are not helping the reputation of the candidate they were elected to represent.
And they should know that on the Charlie Rose discusssion last night, a strategist who apparently has more than 2 kids was making a comparison last night to "eventually, the one child baits the sister until the sister overreacts, and then the parents have to step in" (or something to that effect).
Those like Sue should understand that politics is like a small town (esp. in small states like Oregon). Behavior at a convention can either enhance reputations or be the subject of jokes for years afterwards. There will be campaigns after this year, and if those like Sue plan to be involved in any of those campaigns, they should realize that stimulating the OH! GROW UP! response in August 2008 will not help them either sell a candidate or run for office in the future.
I am really impressed with the way Hillary Clinton has been handling herself (having been close friends with some folks who lost closely contested primaries, I know how it feels). But some of the Hillary supporters remind me of a year when 2 primary candidates were friends before the primary, during the primary, and after the primary----but some of their supporters were really nasty to each other. Is that the impression HRC delegates want to give of their candidate?
Posted by: Sue Castner | Aug 26, 2008 9:54:54 AM
Wow. My own personal attack from Marc Abrams. Should I feel honored?
First - you MAY not be aware but the media doesn't always quote you accurately so you may want to keep that in mind.
Second - with everyone crucifying Senator Clinton for not being able to hand Senator Obama her supporters on a silver platter, why is in NOT appropriate to do so in kind? I was verbally asaulted on the streets of Denver by Obama goons. You call us Clintonistas, I'll stoop to your level and call you goons. Hillary can control us as well as Barack can control you.
I grew up in NJ. I played rugby for 15 years. I have a rhino thick hide. I worked at a gas station to pay for college so I am no shrinking violet. I proudly wore my Wes Clark shirts to Boston and was cheered and welcomed by the Kerry/Edwards National Women's Steering Committee. I have absolutely no desire nor do I feel entitled to any special treatment by Senator Obama OR his campaign. But to be verbally abused on the street at 11 oclock on a Saturday night for wearing a shirt? What up?
Finally - does freedom of speech only apply to the Dixie Chicks? I'll sit down when they shut up and sing. Or when you shut up which doesn't seem likely.
Now off to the convention. - sbc
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 26, 2008 9:59:57 AM
Not having the perspective of watching this Convention from Denver, I'm sitting here in the home court listening to the talking heads babble on endlessly, practically willing a hair-pulling, skin-scratching cat fight between Hillary and Obama delegates. It sure seems like there's a major media push to have it happen..or pretend it up, at least.
And of course the McCain campaign is doing everything they can to drive it, too.
Last evening I listened to President Carter on PBS talking about how convention splits (both real and perceived) mend fairly quickly and people move on to support the nominee in pretty short order.
I don't know if Ms Castner's devotion to Hillary is as the AP story made it out--but if it is, I suspect she'll be on board with Obama soon.
I would hope that folks will stop focusing on the media-hype on divisions and really pay attention to the candidates and speeches. What I saw on TV last night was wonderful--and I suspect there's a lot more of it to come.
Posted by: Gregor | Aug 26, 2008 10:01:49 AM
Yes, someone from the Clinton Camp, please tell us what Obama did to earn the bitter, bitter wrath seething out of you anytime someone asks for whom you're voting! Today, there are only two viable candidates. Hillary is not one of them. Hillary is pledging to vote for Obama because that is the only choice remaining for anyone who wishes women to hold positions in this country.
2012!?!? What guarantee is there McCain would even survive his full term? He's a powder keg whose body went through years of torture in Vietnam. He's not someone who will set any records for longevity.
Watch who is VP and see 12 years of Republican rule coming, with more wars and the transformation of this country into a Sino-Soviet style, one party system. Remember the first four years of Bush? It will be a lot like that. History suggests as much, but it will probably be much worse.
There is really only one reason I see that Clintonistas are not suporting Obama ... for spite. I see these people as extremist dead-enders willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Let's get one thing straight, though. The people who are surprised at your attitudes are not blind to what was accomplished by HRC. It was a very tight race. Maybe if Hillary had taken all comers more seriously when the race began she could have won. Fact is, she did not. Obama came ready to play all four quarters. HRC and her Camp thought it would be over in the first half. What we see happening is what happens anytime one assumes.
Posted by: Marc Abrams | Aug 26, 2008 10:04:16 AM
Pat and Sue --
I don't see where anything I said was the least inaccurate. I did not, as Pat implies, base anything on the "AP mindreading." I used only Sue's quote, which I note in Sue's post she does not deny. It's unfortunate that some jerk treated Sue as described. I don't condone that. But, Sue, you said what you said and, thereby, fueled the continuing "the party is divided" storyline. You did not have to speak to the press. By doing so, you open yourself up to this (and other) comments. The Dixie Chicks are not delegates to a convention dedicated to electing a Democrat but hinting the GOP might yet have their vote. Sue, you seem to miss my point that you absolutely do have freedom of speech as an individual, but when you accept a party office -- and a delegate to the convention is just that -- you volunteer to accept some parameters.
If there's anything in my post that's "an assumption," please point it out. BTW, so much for legitimate debate, Pat, when you take a non-substantive shot at me while decrying the behavior of others. And for Sue to tell me to "shut up." I guess you are allowed to have opinions but I'm not?
Posted by: Not Really Jacoby Ellsbury | Aug 26, 2008 10:12:32 AM
Katy said, "I think the media has everyone in a frenzy over this, they're looking for drama and they're getting it."
I think you are right about this, but they are getting the drama from those who supported Senator Clinton, not from those who supported Senator Obama.
Just in the past several days:
(1) Howard Wolfson commented on how Bill Clinton hasn't reconciled to Obama in The New Republic;
(2) Paul Begala fanned the flames of grievance with several remarks on CNN, including this one: "I think there are a lot of Hillary voters who are going to say, 'Hey, wait a minute, man You said you were going to put her on the short list. You know, you didn't even vet her. You didn't call her. You didn't seek her advice,'" Begala said. "By the way, he didn't seek President Clinton's advice either. He's actually the guy who I think picked the best vice president in American history. You would think maybe you would sort of check in with him.";
(3) James Carville is crapping publicly on the convention to anyone who will listen, e.g., "If this party has a message, it's done a hell of a job hiding it tonight, I promise you that";
(4) It was reported in the Washington Post this morning that several of Hillary Clinton's advisors, including Terry McAuliffe, are not staying for Senator Obama's speech, but instead are leaving town after the Clintons speak today and tomorrow.
There comes a time in politics after a losing campaign when it is time to STFU and to support the nominee. Steve Novick is a good recent example here in Oregon of how you do that. People like Paul Begala, James Carville, Howard Wolfson, and Terry McAuliffe didn't just fall off the turnip truck. They know anyone not coming off as fully supportive of Senator Obama or his campaign efforts, including this convention, will be used by the media to further the narrative of lack of unity in the Democratic Party. They know it, and they don't care.
Posted by: LT | Aug 26, 2008 10:19:03 AM
Sue, is this your first convention? I only went to one convention, in 1984 as a Hart delegate. Have you talked with Judy Sugnet? Isn't this her 10th convention?
In 1984, I got grief from Mondale supporters after returning home because they didn't like a quote I made in to a newspaper reporter. It was a one-liner which, I thought, very mildly worded about where Hart people differed from Mondale people on a specific issue.
Goons will be goons--they should not always be blamed on candidates who don't know they exist. (I once had an experience with a goon berating me, "ha ha, we won," and when I told the nominee (a friend of mine) he was just furious that someone who had very little connection to the campaign would do such a thing.)
To this day I recall the philosophical differences between Hart people and Mondale people, but that didn't prevent me from supporting Mondale once he had the nomination--incl. co-hosting a debate night party in the fall.
I suspect the people who accosted you were just goons, not connected to any campaign as much as just being goons. A bunch of us traveled together to the 1984 convention and I can only imagine what it was like to be alone at 11pm in a big city.
But don't take your anger out on people who liked Obama because he ran a grass roots campaign, or because they found him inspiring, or because they didn't like being told Hillary was inevitable from the day she announced.
Mondale was the establishment candidate in 1984 and we Hart people (and for that matter the Jackson supporters) were often treated like subversives for challenging him. We supported the nominee because Reagan was so much worse--and the conversation about whether he had a chance was only among ourselves, never within earshot of reporters.
Spend all your time with Hillary supporters, make a lot of friends, vote for Hillary on the floor. But please be aware that to many women, McCain looks worse than Reagan.
And for those of us women old enough to have supported Barbara Roberts when she ran for office, but also Jim over Betty, Mike or Larry over Ruth, Peter of Margie, etc. only to be told we were "not supporting women"; please be aware that many of us think "womens rights" means the right to choose our candidate, not be told we had to support any woman running. This is a battle which goes back decades. Do you like Cong. DeFazio? He defeated a woman legislator in 1986 before his first election to Congress.
Say anything you want to a reporter, just be aware that it might be misquoted.
Chill out and enjoy the convention!
Posted by: Dave Native | Aug 26, 2008 10:49:40 AM
Where there's smoke, there's fire...anyone from Oregon knows that!
http://kohd.com/news/local/39155
But uniting the party is going to take some work and not every Democrat here has decided on Obama. Sue Castner out of Portland worked to get Hillary Clinton included in the role call for Wednesday's nomination. "To get 18 million votes and then not have your name placed in the nomination is just not going to be cool for a lot of people," said Castner.
For her, Obama has a lot to prove. "There's still a sizable percentage of us that he's got to convince between now and November that he deserves our vote," said Castner.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/conventions/co_20080825_2834.php
You don't snap your fingers and get on the unity bus," added Sue Castner, another Clinton delegate from Oregon. "I like Joe Biden. I think he's a great guy. It doesn't make me any more confident in Barack Obama. He has to show that he deserves our vote."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/09/2329806.htm
But many Hillary Clinton supporters, such as Oregon delegate Susan Castner, are insisting the former first lady is symbolically nominated from the convention floor. "I think that there are a lot of delegates, a lot of Clinton delegates who feel that they haven't been treated fairly, that they don't have a voice," she said.
http://wokv.com/common/ap/2008/08/26/D92PN69G0.html
The animosity in Denver is not just on the Clinton side. Susan Castner, a Clinton delegate from Portland, Ore., said six people insulted her as she walked alone down the street Saturday night wearing a Clinton T-shirt, telling her to take it off and calling her a profanity.
"I know this is not coming from Barack Obama, but his supporters are helping us decide who to vote for" in November, Castner said. "I hate the feeling that you shouldn't wear your Hillary gear unless there are two or three of you together."
Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Aug 26, 2008 10:54:07 AM
Sue, I'm truly sorry you were treated so badly by fellow Democrats. Totally undeserved for just wearing a t-shirt of course. But would you of answered the question the same or differently if you hadn't ran into those lunkheads?
Did their treatment of you affect your answer? If you would of answered, "The same," then I don't think you have the 'rhino thick hide' you profess to possess.
Can't we all just get along?
The Media is insisting on pushing this Clinton vs Obama drama. By answering the way you did you simply help push the republican narrative. They don't want to report peace and unity. They want to report the anger/conflict/dissent/disharmony. There is a bit of that present, no doubt, but they want to blow it up way beyond reality so it becomes 'The Story of the Convention." Don't help them. It's not to your advantage.
Freedom of speech by all means, but think carefully of the words you use.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 26, 2008 10:55:03 AM
No Marc. It's not the case that there's one set of rules for you and different set of rules for others.
You titled your piece: "Please Sue, Sit down!"
Not exactly an opening move toward the legitimate debate for which you express such tender regard. Actually your tone is more reminiscent of the losing partisans in the Senate primary, who alternately denigrated the winning candidate and his supporters and then spent countless keystrokes trying to pin their vituperation on their opponents.
Different dynamic here but your rhetoric and tactics are eerily similar. Reading your mind, I'd guess taht you believe that this screed somehow promotes unity, which you do avow to be your goal.
You assert:
The single obligation of those elected by their peers to this convention is to support the nominee, regardless of whether that nominee was his or her first choice.
and you and I both know that right this moment Obama is not yet "the nominee", so this is another bit of negative misdirection on which to construct you little house of cards. Historically, nominees have been, and currently are pledged to different candidates until the vote occurs.
You may recall that we've recently held nominating conventions here in Oregon in which delegates were elected based on their support of two different candidates. Each delegate's duty is to first support their own candidate and then on Thursday, after a vote and an official release, to get behind the winner.
Do you disagree? If so, provide some links.
*************
You then use this quote:
"If I had to base my vote on how his supporters have treated us, I'd be voting for McCain."
You comment:
"But for a delegate even to hint that they may cross to McCain because their first choice didn’t win is destructive."
Like Susan, you're entitled to your own interpretation of her comment, but a neutral observer from, say, Alpha Centauri, might well read the sentence at face value.
I did. What with being a big fan of Occam's Razor and all.
***********
Susan may well vote for the Tooth Fairy in November, and that's none of my business, however the facts remain the facts, and your assumptions, and those of the AP wire service remain just that:
Assumptions
Posted by: paulie | Aug 26, 2008 11:01:02 AM
As a member of the Oregon delegation and a pledged Obama delegate I can honestly say Sue Castner's quote in the Oregonian this morning took me by surprise. I'll give Sue the benefit of the doubt mainly because I trust Pat Ryan. It's hard for some women and yes, a few men, to take responsibility for the crappy campaign the Clinton campaign ran. Had her campaign been managed differently, the end results would speak for themselves. But then again, I can name friends who are still ticked off that Bobby Kennedy lost to Eugene McCarthy here in Oregon. That makes me officially old.
Sue, if you do indeed have tough rhino skin why in the world would you take seriously any comment from a stanger on the street in Denver in the dark of night? Having lived on the East Coast for many years it is no different than a construction worker making a sexual reference to parts of our anatomy when we stroll by. Gosh, it's been so long since that happened I'd almost welcome having some guy holler, "great legs."
The comments weren't personal to you, it was just a jerk.
I'm looking forward to seeing unity in our delegation, as we say in the East, walk the walk.
Posted by: Miles | Aug 26, 2008 11:04:22 AM
Fix bold?
Wow, I was going to give Sue the benefit of the doubt on this one, but those quotes from Dave Native kind of tell a more complex story. Are those quotes accurate, Sue?
I reject the notion that Obama -- or any candidate -- has to prove anything to you or "earn" your support. That view is narcissistic. Obama needs to make his views clear and run the campaign he wants to run. It's your job to look at the candidate and the campaign and decide if you will support him. If you've done that and you still have doubts, then raise those specific doubts. Talk about which policies you think McCain is better than Obama on, talk about where you think Obama falls down, make it clear what your reservations are. Don't just run around to various media outlets proclaiming that Obama has to show that he "deserves" your vote.
Posted by: caj | Aug 26, 2008 11:09:31 AM
Sorry Marc, I'm with Sue, as are a huge percentage of democrats, and republicans who would vote for Clinton but not Obama. Obama is a loser in November, and as far as I'm concerned, Sue's choice to support a winner is more Democratic in principle than supporting a loser. Just because Mr. Rock Star has 50% of democrats fainting in the convention aisles over him does not mean that the majority of this country in reality appreciates his brand of music.
Keep to your principles, Sue. If we're really lucky, the delegates will get smart and vote in Hillary tomorrow. If not, we'll have 4 years of McCain, followed hopefully by another run by Hillary, this time with an intelligent Democratic leadership supporting her.
Posted by: Katy | Aug 26, 2008 11:19:39 AM
Heck, even Gary Hart got a floor vote in '84 and Senator Clinton got 50% of the vote - so I don't see what the big deal is?
Posted by: karen | Aug 26, 2008 11:32:50 AM
Grow up Sue. This isn't about you. This is about your country. Go ahead and vote for McCain and enjoy 4 more years of Bush.
Was it one heckler like you told your buddy up stream in the comments or 6 like it was reported by the press?
You like dividing the Oregon delegation? Shameful.
Posted by: LT | Aug 26, 2008 11:34:47 AM
"Even Gary Hart"? Who won the Oregon primary and brought new people into the political process the way Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy did?
" But then again, I can name friends who are still ticked off that Bobby Kennedy lost to Eugene McCarthy here in Oregon. That makes me officially old."
Paulie, I was a Eugene McCarthy supporter in 1968 and a friend born in Mass. couldn't believe his eyes when a Kennedy was on TV giving a concession speech! We actually got to see McCarthy come to our small California college town right after that. So I am officially old, too.
I have no problem with a roll call vote if it is done with the normal amount of dignity ("Maryland, the home of crab cakes, casts....." or "Oregon, the land of clean air, clean water, and clean politics..." said by Barbara Roberts in 1984 when she was running for Sec. of State in 1984).
But as a Hart delegate, I won't accept snide remarks. None of our people in 1984 were making the kind of snide comments like Begala saying Obama was supposed to ask Bill Clinton's advice. Seems like we had a better convention with more adults if that is the sort of thing that is going on. From what I am hearing, Oregonians got along with each other better in 1984 than they are this year.
With the above quotes from Wolfson, Carville, Begala, we are supposed to take it on faith that there will be no stunts attempted? A former DNC chair is leaving as soon as the Clinton speeches are over?? The woman who was going to be ready on Day One can't prevent her own campaign staffers/supporters from making her look bad?
I'm willing to believe Hillary herself supports the nominee in the same classy fashion Novick supports Merkley. But Bill and those who helped him get elected are another story. Bill Clinton's behavior is Bill's responsibility, not the responsibility of the Obama folks.
Posted by: Marshall Collins | Aug 26, 2008 11:39:06 AM
This is just the MSM blowing things way out of proportion so the talking heads have something to debate about during the slow moments of the convention and the McCain campaign is loving it.
From everything I have read from people on the ground the "grand schism" doesn't really exist and that there are still a few holdouts but they are really in the minority.
I think that Sue is perfectly entitled to her opinion and should share it but realize that the media will twist it around to fit their agenda and not hers and that sometimes "not feeding the beast" is more important than getting some face time with a reporter.
Posted by: Sargent | Aug 26, 2008 11:44:00 AM
First - you MAY not be aware but the media doesn't always quote you accurately so you may want to keep that in mind.
Sue, if you feel you were misquoted, you can remedy the situation by writing a positive letter to the editor.
Also -- I've noticed that the GOP is generally more disciplined at messaging (Daily Show, anyone?), and it helps them when we get caught up in needing to vent our feelings. This is a case where Sue may have a valid point, but let's air our laundry at home.
The spokesperson role isn't for everyone, and that's OK -- But if you aren't willing or prepared to say something to help your cause, it's best to decompress over drinks with friends, talk it through with the people who offended you, and give the media opportunity to someone who can stay on message. Just my 2 cents.
Posted by: Katy | Aug 26, 2008 11:45:48 AM
My point wasn't to belittle Gary Hart in the least, I was simply trying to illustrate that it's historical, even for candidates who did not get 50% of the vote. Geez, everybody needs to calm down!
Sue and her fellow Clinton delegates were elected by Clinton supporters to go to the convention and vote for Clinton. It's just the way our democracy works, and it's a good thing!
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 26, 2008 12:00:13 PM
Katy, your point is well taken, but my question is why Abrams chose this slender (non-existent?) reed from which to fashion his story.
The Innertubes are choked with bile from the PUMAs and the Denver Project crowd. Members of these two groups are happy to provide all sorts of slanderous insults, dark threats, and blackmail demands.
I personally know members of the Oregon Clinton contingent who have revelled in this sort of extremist rhetoric, and have asserted their interest in perpetuating a "coup" at the convention. Fortunately for all of us, the vast majority of the Oregon Clinton delgation, including Susan, have done an admirable job of quashing these vocal few and have participated in joint efforts with the DPO to promote an ultimate "coming together" in Denver.
To use Susan as the whipping girl is lazy and misinformed at best, especailly for a site like Blue Oregon that thrives on nuanced discussion and attention to what is factually occuring in the wide world.
Look at all of the Castner quotes provided by "Dave Native". All are carefully worded in such a way that they cannot be legitimately construed as direct rejections of Obama's candidacy or support for the Republican.
Marc's arguments would have been better served by quoting one of the several thousand overtly insane Obama Hatas out there.
Marc's apparent goal of unifying the party would have been better served if he had refrained from sitting down in front of his computer.
So, Please, Marc, Step way From the Keyboard !
Posted by: Pedro | Aug 26, 2008 12:01:56 PM
WOW
I hope Sue is clear on the consequences of a John W. McBush win in November.
Bye bye Roe v. Wade...
Bye bye health care for all...
Bye bye middle class...
Bye bye USA...
Please, please, please reason this out. Obama won by a whisker in one of the greatest contests in history. Clinton conceded defeat. In order to recover from the last 8 years we simply must put a Democrat in the White House.
Any vote for someone other than Barack Obama is suicide.
- Pedro -
Posted by: Nick C. | Aug 26, 2008 12:08:23 PM
This is ridiculous. The Democratic Party is like high school.
I don't think that Hillary supporters really have a grievance here, but assuming they do, what is the remedy? To run the Democratic Party into the ground and lose an election that should be a sure victory? Rachel Maddow says it best with her comment that Hillary supporters for McCain are "post-rational".
Think through the consequences of fueling this drama so that independents see the Democratic party and think "wow, do I really want these children running the country?"
Adults don't always get to be ideologues. This is one of those times where you (reluctantly for some) put on your game face and toe the party line. We are late in the process, folks. This isn't the primary anymore. THINK THROUGH WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF A MCCAIN PRESIDENCY WILL BE.
Just a few if you need help: (1) oil-run executive branch for 4 more years (at least 4 because incumbents rarely lose - especially Republican incumbants with voter caging and Diebold voting machines); (2) Extreme right wing Supreme Court with no qualms about actually overturning Roe v. Wade (Planned Parenthood v. Casey); (3) no environmental reform; (4) our infrastructure continues to rot and we all drink poison for water; (5) we go to war with whoever McCain is grumpy at; (6) Wall Street remains unregulated as the gap between the extremely rich and the poor widens; (7) education for our children continues to get worse; etc., etc....
Even if you despise the man and his supporters (is this seriously a reason?), realize that Obama has a fabulous energy plan in place (get off oil in 10 Al-Gore-like freaking years!) and is a staunch supporter of women's rights. Plus, he will make choices based on rational and reasoned inquiry and a left-leaning ideology.
Please remember how bad the last 8 years were and rethink your position... because if you think that Hillary being slighted is worth further suffering, you are just a glutton for punishment and most certainly post-rational.
And if you are just playing a game right now and really plan to vote for Obama, please, sit down.
Posted by: Rick York | Aug 26, 2008 12:09:10 PM
Wow,
I just don't get this idea that someone who is in favor of Hillary Clinton would vote for John McCain. In spite of what his "Clintonista" supporters think, McCain has:
1) Stated clearly for the last 8 years that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
2) Until this year has opposed virtually every measure to increase funding for Veteran's Health or Welfare.
3) Supported Bush in 2004.
4) Consistently vote with Bush on anything to do with Iraq....
Need I go on?
The only rational skepticism regarding Obama that a reasonable Democrat could hold is his lack of administrative/executive experience. But, does Sen. Clinton have any? Sen. McCain has a little running a CAG (Carrier Air Group), but that doesn't really hold up.
What did Obama, or those reporting directly to him, ever do to incur such wrath that life long Democrats would think about voting against him? I would really like chapter and verse as a response to this question.
Forget about the nut job/jackasses. There are too many of them on every side. One cannot blame either Sen.Clinton or Sen. Obama for the behavior of these numbnuts.
Look, I wanted to see a woman run with her party's nomination. It's just bad timing that Obama and Clinton faced each other. But, it happened.
Someone from the Clinton camp, please explain this bitterness.
Rick York
Posted by: LT | Aug 26, 2008 12:09:16 PM
I agree that people should chill out. Politicker has something about a Mandate Media party today!
However, there is a difference between the actions of individual delegates and organized efforts. When we arrived at the 1984 convention on Sunday, we got settled into the hotel. Then there was a Nuclear Freeze reception within walking distance of the hotel--in a church basement, and saw some famous people. Later, the Mayor's party in SF City Hall and I think the indiv. state welcome parties were on the same night. I think Willie Brown's amazing party (took over and decorated a warehouse on the wharf, as I recall) was on Monday.
Just got the mail and looked at the front page story in the Christian Science Monitor. Headline about Clinton, sub-headline "If she signals ambivalence, some supporters could stay home this fall'.
But that is not why I am writing this comment. The picture with the story is captioned "STILL FAITHFUL: Clinton supporters came together Sunday at a Denver eatery to screen a documentary critical of Obama".
THAT is not a tradition I have ever heard of before. Neither is the teeshirt shown in the picture "Only Hillary gets my vote".
We had nothing like that in 1984. We had disagreements on rules and platform, but not anything like that.
So please, let's everyone chill out. Don't blame that party, that documentary, or that teeshirt (when were the teeshirt and documentary made?) on the Obama people not catering to the Clinton supporters enough. Seems to me the Obama campaign has been a lot more gracious to the Clinton people than they deserve if there are such organized efforts to undercut Obama.
Posted by: mc | Aug 26, 2008 12:12:19 PM
Caj said, “Keep to your principles, Sue. If we're really lucky, the delegates will get smart and vote in Hillary tomorrow. If not, we'll have 4 years of McCain, followed hopefully by another run by Hillary, this time with an intelligent Democratic leadership supporting her.”
Well, caj said it all…what many have been thinking and no one has said openly. Hillary, her lying cheating low down piece of sh.. husband Bill and many of her supporters want McCain to win so Hillary can run again in four years. That’s probably when I vote republican. With any luck maybe it will be black woman republican, how would you Hillary supporters vote then?
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 26, 2008 12:12:28 PM
Posted by: Marshall Collins | Aug 26, 2008 11:39:06 AM
What Marshall said.
DITTO!!
Posted by: peter c | Aug 26, 2008 12:13:36 PM
"'I know this is not coming from Barack Obama, but his supporters are helping us decide who to vote for' in November"
seriously? you would decide who to vote for based on whose supporters are the most annoying and/or offensive? does anyone really do this? and if people really do this, aren't mccain's supporters at least slightly more offensive for, you know, condoning torture, wanting 100 years in iraq and to bomb iran?
Posted by: Robert Harris | Aug 26, 2008 12:25:38 PM
If someone truly believe that the best thing for this country is 4 years, or more, of McCain, then they should vote for him.
But, If you're voting for him because; your candidate didn't win the nomination, or you personally felt disrespected, or you believe your candidate was disrespected by the media or the other candidates supporters, or you believe that if Obama loses, then your candidate has a chance to win in 2012, or you want Obama to lose to prove your point that you were right about his chances, or whatever non-policy reason...then I don't see how you can look at yourself in the mirror every morning knowing that your personal feelings were more important than this country and the future of our children.
When McCain starts the next war, with Iran, or Russia, or Syria; when women and their doctors are treated as criminals, when unions are a thing of the past, will you be able to say...."yeah, President McCain is a p*ick, but after all, someone did call me bitch face, and I was infuriated at the way Chris Matthews talked about Ms. Clinton"
Again, no disrespect to those voters who truly believe that McCain is the better candidate. But the next time I hear a democrat say that they haven't decided who they're voting for, I'd like to know..why, based on policy, is McCain better than Obama? ....... Ms. Castner?
I fully expect that after the convention, the vast majority of Clinton supporters will support Obama. And those that don't will be mainly made up of Republicans and independents who supported Clinton (nothing wrong with that), and McCain supporters attempting to stir up a controversy.
Posted by: Marc Abrams | Aug 26, 2008 12:29:16 PM
Pat--
I do believe that the goal of a convention is to unify the party so that we can win. While it is convenient to blame the "media" for this, the media has nothing if we don't give it anything. While you are technically correct that Sen. Obama is not, yet, the nominee, there is no doubt that status will change tomorrow night.
Please read what I say and not try to, as you say, "read my mind" so that you can then attribute to me views I don't hold. Here is what I believe: (1) Sue has, apparently, made not one, but several such comments, as Dave Native has documented and as Sue has not denied; (2) she has an absolute right to do so as a citizen, BUT (3) she has a duty as an elected official of this party to support the ultimate goal of this party, which is to elect whoever comes out of this convention, and to consider the nature of the environment she volunteered to be part of. It is filled with press who will (and did) jump on her statements.
I would be equally concerned were Hillary and not Barack the nominee (in fact, I initially backed netiher, but was an Edwards supporter). Sue made not one, but several comments, apparently knew she was talking to the press, and they are what I read and reacted to. If others hold these beliefs, they are not telling them (repeatedly) to the media.
As to telling me to stay away from my typewriter, sorry, but I'm not pointing out anything that wasn't already on the front page of the Oregonian. It is sad that your response, not once, but three times, has been to name call and suggest a fellow B.O. writer has no right to comment. In your self-description on B.O., you say you believe in "critical thinking and fact based reasoning," but that's not what you've done. I respect folks like "caj" who can disagree civilly (though I disagree with caj that Obama is a loser in November). I'd ask you at least to try to do the same.
Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Aug 26, 2008 12:31:30 PM
Question: How many PUMA's are Democrats and how many are republican operatives instructed to sew disharmony and disunity in the hope that this will be picked up by the Mainstream Media (It already has) amplified and turned into "The Story of the Convention?"
I think few of them are actual Democrats. The rest...............
Calling Chuck Colson and G. Gordon Liddy...............
Posted by: Miles | Aug 26, 2008 12:34:15 PM
Look at all of the Castner quotes provided by "Dave Native". All are carefully worded in such a way that they cannot be legitimately construed as direct rejections of Obama's candidacy or support for the Republican.
Bullshit. They're carefully worded all right. . .to send a clear message that Sue doesn't currently support Obama, that Obama has treated her unfairly, and that she's threatening to vote for McCain.
"It doesn't make me any more confident in Barack Obama."
"I think that there are a lot of delegates, a lot of Clinton delegates who feel that they haven't been treated fairly, that they don't have a voice"
"I know this is not coming from Barack Obama, but his supporters are helping us decide who to vote for"
This last is a direct threat to vote for McCain because of Obama supporters. Again, why does Obama owe Sue anything? She knows his views, she knows his qualifications, and she knows what kind of campaign he is running. Does she want a personal invitation to coffee? A promise of a job in his administration? Does she want him to apologize to Clinton for taking away her dream of being president?
Clinton supporters are currently damaging the Democratic party and Obama's chances in November. If that's their goal, more power to them, but don't expect me to feel charitable when they regret their actions in a few months. No one owes them anything.
Posted by: Sam Philburn | Aug 26, 2008 12:40:43 PM
What % of the country is going to vote for a [Black] for President? This guy won't even help his half-brother who lives on less than $1 a month in Africa, and you think he's going to deliver to you?
That's why I support Hillary, otherwise the numbers aren't there. The Clintons are going to deliver a big "I told you so", when Obama/Biden loses.
[Note: word in brackets changed from original post. M.A.]
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 26, 2008 12:42:36 PM
This is ridiculous. The Democratic Party is like high school.
LOL--the progressive movement in general is kinda like that, sometimes.
I also think that this alleged "divide" is way more blown up than what really exists. According to what I've read, there are very few PUMA's (Party Unity My Ass-ers) at the Convention relative to the reporting. In fact, the GOP held a cocktail party for them last night and barely a handful showed up--most of the attendees were Republicans trying to prop up support for McCain.
It is interesting to watch this thread unravel on it...nonetheless. Annoying...but interesting.
Posted by: LT | Aug 26, 2008 12:47:03 PM
How much of this comes from PUMA?
The aforementioned article has this quote from the founder of PUMA
"A Democratic loss in November, she says, is the only way to prod party leaders to reform what some Clinton supporters call a broken nomination system".
EXCUSE ME??? Hillary ignored caucus states because her big state, consultant-driven campaign was going to wrap up the nomination in February, and since she didn't the system is broken? What are Hillary's proposals to change the system? Or is this all about PUMA?
The article also says that Hillary's staff has sent a 40 person whip team to Denver to keep her delegates from turning a floor vote on the nomination into a fight.
So here is my question: Is PUMA really part of Hillary's campaign, or are they some kind of rabble rousers who don't care what Hillary thinks, they are just angry their side lost?? Do they have any specific proposals, or is this just a temper tantrum?
As far as changing the nomination process, that is why I am glad I was a 1984 delegate. Hart and Jackson had some specific concerns (esp. what the Mondale folks did to the process in Wisconsin--the process today is a result of the changes made after the 1984 convention) which they negotiated with Mondale before the convention began. That was their price for a peaceful convention: the package containing a Fairness Comm. which among other things held hearings on specific complaints and redid the delegate selection rules.
That negotiating was done by Gary and Jesse themselves, not by some pressure group.
How do we know PUMA really cares about the Democratic Party? And if they cause a loss, do they think anyone will trust them with anything political for the rest of their lives??
PUMA sounds like rabble rousers who are upset they didn't get their way. Were they even involved before this year? Do they know what a change Howard Dean is--or are they upset McAuliffe is no longer chair? What is their position on superdelegates? Do they want to outlaw caucuses because Obama won Iowa?
I've been saying for awhile that now the primary is over it is an open question whether I would stay DEM or re-register NAV.
IF Oregon Democratic delegates can't send a message to PUMA that they are not helping their own cause, that there are those of us who have labored in the Democratic vinyards for years (st. central. comm., rules debates, national convention delegates, etc.) and don't like being bullied by such rabble rousers who don't seem to understand the political process, why should I remain a Dem?
PUMA needs to grow up! Have they even talked to Hillary about what she wants? Do they know if Obama loses, Hillary can forget about ever running again because so many people would be so angry about this?
Posted by: Not Really Jacoby Ellsbury | Aug 26, 2008 12:57:16 PM
So here is my question: Is PUMA really part of Hillary's campaign, or are they some kind of rabble rousers who don't care what Hillary thinks, they are just angry their side lost?? Do they have any specific proposals, or is this just a temper tantrum?
What does James Carville's choice of shoes tell you?
Posted by: Dave Native | Aug 26, 2008 1:08:47 PM
Gee...makes you wonder if PUMA isn't covertly funded by the GOP...
Posted by: Nick C. | Aug 26, 2008 1:14:04 PM
Will an administrator please remove Sam Philburn's troll post?
Posted by: Karol | Aug 26, 2008 1:42:12 PM
Nick C,
I was thinking of attempting to remove the offensive post, but is his overarching point an issue? Are some people still afraid to vote for Obama because of his color? It doesn't make sense that in this political climate that a democrat wouldn't be outpacing a Republican. I don't think we can continue to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that race isn't at least a piece of this issue. Not all, people, just a piece.
Posted by: Marc Abrams | Aug 26, 2008 1:49:29 PM
Karol--
Contributors have the ability to remove a post (I did remove one that was simply swearing and one of my prior posts got spammed by gibberish adn I took that off), but I otherwise let the string run, even when folks are getting testy. Sam's post is within the bounds of the discussion, and so I let it stay.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Aug 26, 2008 1:57:03 PM
• Obama is only a loser in November if we all don't stick behind him. If we all work together behind our Party's nominee, we win. We fight amongst ourselves, we lose.
• It's not just Obama's job to bring the Party together - it's my job, and your job, and every other active Demnocrat's job. We (Obama supporters) have to stop sniping at Clinton supporters. Clinton supporters need to take a deep breath and take a fresh look at the situation.
• I know what it's like to have a candidate you really, really like lose. But because Steve Novick lost, am I going to go against Jeff Merkley and vote for Gordon Smith? Hell no. Merkley's a great Democrat and progressive, would be a million times better in D.C. than Smith, etc. The same is true in the race for the White House.
• I want a woman in the White House too. It didn't happen this time, but something else historic did - we're looking at having our first African American president. That's something to be proud of.
• Do you really think McCain gives a damn about women's rights? Don't you think he will turn the Supreme Court more conservative and carry on the Bush Administration's plans to further and further restrict access to birth control? McCain is no friend to women.
• The policy issues of Clinton and Obama are not that different. Their biggest difference, health care, is something the two of them have been working on.
We absolutely have to stop this "them" versus "us" mentality. The primary is over - the "them" is now the Republicans and the "us" Democrats. If we keep re-fighting the primary, we are going to lose.
I beg Obama supporters to please, please, please stop acting like sore winners. It makes it even harder to heal the wounds of the primary if you keep picking at them. A big reason why I wanted to go to this year's convention was to work as someone to bring our two sides together. I certainly hope there are some people there doing exactly that.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Katy | Aug 26, 2008 8:29:48 AM
She was elected as a delegate for Hillary though, so I'm not sure why you're saying her obligation is to Obama?After the vote on the floor, sure - but before they even vote? The Clinton delegates were elected by fellow Clinton supporters to go to the convention and vote for her. It is my understanding that Senator Clinton will release her delegates to vote for Obama as a show of support, but these people were elected to vote for Clinton.
I think the media has everyone in a frenzy over this, they're looking for drama and they're getting it. Let the Clinton delegates vote for the first female candidate to almost win the nomination, it's symbolically important to them and to those who voted for her. I'm sure most will fall in line after Wednesday night and will come home supporting Obama/Biden.
I really think this could have been handled by the Party in a way to showcase the diversity of the Democratic Party. First viable African American and first viable femaile candidate and such a close race. Why are we allowing the media to turn this into an ugly thing? It should be celebrated.