Please, Sue, Sit Down!

Marc Abrams

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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Unrepentant Liberal (unverified)

    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.

  • (Show?)


    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.

  • (Show?)

    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?

  • Chuck Roppa (unverified)

    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.

  • Barbara H (unverified)

    Katy, Marc wasn't talking about Sue's vote during the convention; he was talking her vote in November.

  • Murphy (unverified)

    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.

  • Irishspacemonk (unverified)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    Maybe some of these clinton supporters who are not backing Obama are looking forward to the future....2012.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • LT (unverified)

    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?

  • Sue Castner (unverified)

    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

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Gregor (unverified)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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?

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • LT (unverified)

    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!

  • Dave Native (unverified)

    Where there's smoke, there's fire...anyone from Oregon knows that! 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. 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." 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. 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."

  • Unrepentant Liberal (unverified)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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:


  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Miles (unverified)

    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.

  • caj (unverified)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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?

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • LT (unverified)

    "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.

  • Marshall Collins (unverified)

    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.

  • Sargent (unverified)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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!

  • (Show?)

    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 !

  • Pedro (unverified)


    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 -
  • Nick C. (unverified)

    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.

  • Rick York (unverified)


    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

  • LT (unverified)

    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.

  • mc (unverified)

    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?

  • (Show?)

    Posted by: Marshall Collins | Aug 26, 2008 11:39:06 AM

    What Marshall said.


  • peter c (unverified)

    "'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?

  • Robert Harris (unverified)

    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.

  • (Show?)


    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.

  • Unrepentant Liberal (unverified)

    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...............

  • Miles (unverified)

    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.

  • Sam Philburn (unverified)

    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.]

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • LT (unverified)

    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?

  • (Show?)

    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?

    Carville's shoes

  • Dave Native (unverified)

    Gee...makes you wonder if PUMA isn't covertly funded by the GOP...

  • Nick C. (unverified)

    Will an administrator please remove Sam Philburn's troll post?

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)


    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.

  • (Show?)

    • 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.

  • Walpurgis (unverified)

    The Clintons are going to deliver a big "I told you so", when Obama/Biden loses.

    If Obama loses, each side of the Democratic Party will blame the other and each side will call the other side the "party insiders."

    The army of support that Obama managed to mobilize over the past year will evaporate, and the Democrats will go some years without managing to win the presidency.

    The Clinton legacy will be that at a possible turning point in our nation's history -- at a crossroads between progressivism and fascism -- the Clintons sat by and did nothing because they felt slighted.

    I hope that Hillary (and Bill) does all she can to prevent that from happening.

  • (Show?)

    I also have to say that I'm growing tired of this attitude that Obama won't win, I won't support him, and when he loses in November I am going to say "I told you so."

    It's called a self fulfilling prophesy. As long as a chunk of our population does that, the prophesy will be fulfilled.

    My husband, and former Republican, was watching last night as they showed "loyal Democrats" who are now actively supporting McCain. He couldn't believe it. He said that if all of us Dean supporters could turn around and support Kerry as strongly as we did, surely we can do the same with Clinton and Obama since the two are much closer in the issues, in electability, etc.

  • Gullyborg (unverified)


    OK, I admit right off the bat I am a Republican and I am only reading this for entertainment value. I have no interest in your intra-party squabbles and it doesn't matter to me whether your nominee is Obama, Hillary, or Dennis Kucinich, because I am voting for McCain. But I do want to make one, just one, observation:

    The title of this post is "Please, Sue, Sit Down!"

    I am a married man. Like most married men, I sometimes have arguments with my wife. Well, one thing I have learned is this -

    If my wife was very upset and saying things I thought were misguided to me, the LAST thing I would say is "Please, dear, sit down." You know why? Because she wouldn't sit down. She would remain standing up, and would come unglued at the incredibly patronizing statement. She would get far more upset than if I hadn't said anything at all. It is ALWAYS better for the husband to apologize first, ask the wife to air her grievances, show respect for her opinion, and THEN try to reach a calm settlement. Otherwise, the man ends up on the couch - or worse.

    I don't want to give y'all advice, because 1) I know that coming from me you'll ignore it and 2) I don't want your candidate to improve and threaten mine. But the human in me really thinks you need to hear this:

    Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Your party, your nominee, your activists, and your media should be kissing Hillary Clinton's ass, and bending over backwards to bring her and her followers on board. Show her the respect she and her 18 million voters deserve first, and THEN get down to settling the issues.

    That's all I have to say. Now I'll go back to worrying about my own Party.

  • Randy2 (unverified)

    I wonder if the PUMA whining and threats to vote McCain aren't just more palatable cover for not wanting to vote for a black candidate, in the same category of those who believe he is really a Manchurian Muslim.

    If I was a female considering voting for McCain, I'd spend a lot of time working on my future explanations to daughters who will lose their rights to choose how to control their own bodies.

    Finally, do any of you who speak to the press also tape your comments? So you can, you know, provide evidence of what you actually said and maybe post the audio clip.


  • (Show?)

    I was so looking forward to seeing Carville's shoes, but the link doesn't work.

  • (Show?)

    I know, Marc. I've deleted a few myself. "Negro" is a pretty nasty word though, I think you could go in and replace it.

  • (Show?)

    "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."

    What's the sniping to which you refer? I see some grumbling from Obama supporters, but that grumbling is usually in response to unhelpful comments coming from Clinton supporters (the comments are unhelpful because they keep alive this narrative of party disunity, which I don't really believe is true, but it is the dominant narrative of the traditional media covering this convention right now). I think Hillary Clinton could do a lot to put all this nonsense to an end if she would give an unequivocal statement in tonight's speech along the following lines:

    To those who supported me in the fight for the party's nomination, I ask that you devote your time and energy over the next two months to electing Barack Obama the next President of the United States. To anyone who supported me in the fight for the party's nomination who may be thinking of supporting Senator McCain, I am here to tell you that I believe you should support the candidate who will fight for all that I have fought for in my life, and that candidate is Barack Obama.

  • LT (unverified)

    Is Bill in a snit, or what?

    If he doesn't give whole hearted support to Obama in his speech Wed. night, and Obama loses, he can forget about his legacy in the Democratic Party.

    As was mentioned in commentary last night, there were years when convention organizers weren't sure what to do with Jimmy Carter.

    But Carter never advocated questioning whether to support the nominee.

  • (Show?)


    My apologies for the link that didn't work. You can check out Carville in PUMAs sitting with Wolf and his crew by cutting and pasting this link into your browser:

  • Unrepentant Liberal (unverified)

    The Clinton's better work their buns off this year for Obama because if they are seen as slacking off and causing an Obama loss in November, the nominee in 2012 will certainly be someone other than the person who see herself as the "Presumptive Nominee" Senator Clinton.

    She had her chance. She had all of the advantages. She ran a bad campaign. She lost. Is she really going to try and triangulate the Democratic Party? Enough! Enough! Enough!

  • (Show?)

    "Causing an Obama loss?" Oh good grief. Would you please take a deep breath and listen to yourself???

  • (Show?)

    In the interest of supporting the Clinton delegates and alternates, I gave up both my floor credential and my guest pass for tonight so that the Clinton supporters traveling with us can see Hillary's speech. I would love to be there, but I've had lots of opportunities to see her up close, and her supporters deserve the seat.

    I have always liked Hillary, and I think she would make a great president. She just didn't win the most delegates this time around.

    We will all come together. I wasn't very happy with Kerry in '04, but I worked my butt off for him....and we DID win in Oregon.

  • (Show?)

    Jenny Greenleaf is awesome.

  • ORDemocrat (unverified)

    All Obama had to do was select Hillary as VP and this election is a slam-dunk. No, instead the pompous arrogant Obama decides to pick an old white guy who is like McCain. Meanwhile, the Obamacrats continue their child-like name-calling campaign which only infuriates the Clinton supporters. When you lose this election Obama, it is all on you. Obama was the divider not the uniter. Not a good indication of his ability to make rational judgements. Then again, we were warned about his inexperience. Your bed, you lie in it now Obama.

  • Tom Soppe (unverified)

    The Oregonian proved they are in the tank for McCain by putting that non-story on the front page.

    Obama is under no obligation to pick any particular VP, ORDemocrat. He won the nomination fair and square and has every right, hell every obligation, to pick who he best thinks balances him out electorally and works with him best administrationally as president. If that's not Clinton, it's not Clinton, and the whining needs to stop.

  • Walpurgis (unverified)

    ORDemocrat, that's very ill-thought-out. How could Obama choose a running mate who has been very public about how she doesn't think he's the best person for the job?

    Can you imagine the eventual question asked of Obama: "Your own running mate doesn't think that you're the right person to be President. Why should the rest of us think so?"


    Having said that... Yes; Jenny Greenleaf is awesome. I hope that her example inspires scores of delegates to re-think their various entrenchments (on both sides) and work at an honest reconciliation.

    Democratic communications officials should be rushing Jenny's story to the MSM as fast as possible.

  • (Show?)

    Walpurgis, I just have to say, Biden has had some pretty harsh words for Obama during this campaign.

  • Tom Soppe (unverified)


    Very unfair of you to equate all Obama supporters with the people who heckled you. Do you really think the Obama campaign hired them to heckle people like you? That's almost what you are implying.

    Why are they mad about Hillary people? Probably because they believe the media story that the convention is all divided because of them. Like you said the media distorts. And obviously they are trying to distort to defeat the Dems yet again.

    INstead of slamming Obama supporters I wish you would fight the real enemy, the GOP/MSM coalition.

  • (Show?)

    Katy - all candidates had harsh words for each other, it's called a political race. You think if the situation was reversed we wouldn't be seeing McCain ads with Obama calling out Clinton? When Rasheed Wallace went to the Pistons, that team wasn't like, "No, man, you elbowed me under the basket when you were a Blazer!" Nope, they gave him a jersey, smacked his ass and asked him if he was ready to play. So everyone, smack someone's ass and let's F$%ing play.

  • (Show?)

    That's kind of my point! Walpurgis is trying to say there's no way Obama could have picked Clinton for VP because of what was said during the campaign; I'm simply trying to point out that so did Biden so I don't really understand the argument?

  • ORDem (unverified)

    Tom Soppe,

    Obama is free to choose his own VP but when he loses the election, don't whine about Hillary supporters costing him the election. He made the choice and ultimately will be held accountable and responsible for it... If you don't support your fellow Democrats, don't expect them to support you. Fair enough for me. And, BTW Biden supported McCain for the Democratic VP slot in the past election. So, according to Biden, McCain must be very Democratic in nature.

  • Walpurgis (unverified)

    Katy, Biden was a lot more careful than Hillary was. His words were always couched in terms of what he thought at the moment or, more frequently, in terms of how he would be different than Obama.

    Hillary, on the other hand, took a very direct approach, calling Obama's candidacy a "false hope," etc. I'm not saying that it was undeserved or even a bad move (I think it was a smart move... regardless of whether I agree with it). But the directness and extreme publicity certainly made it much more difficult for Obama to choose Hillary as a running mate.

    If I missed some particularly pointed Biden quotes, then please enlighten me. But so far the worst I've heard was:

    "Right now I don't beleive [Obama] is [ready]."

    And of course within that quote like so many others is Biden's sense of careful qualification...

    "Of course I said that ages ago, but over the past year I have come to know Senator Obama in the Senate and wtched him on the campaign trail and I do think he is ready to lead now." (Made-up quote)

    Conversely, what's Hillary supposed to say?

    "Yeah, I thought a few months ago that his message was bullshit, but now that I take another look... yeah, it's the genuine article. I was just bullshitting the country back then."

  • (Show?)

    I'm walking over to the convention now, folks. I'll see what I can learn about Oregon's delegation and their support of Hillary--and inquire about other Clintonistas' plans, too.

  • (Show?)

    I don't know, I heard some stuff on NPR the other night that didn't sound all that "careful" coming from Biden. I just think if you're going to argue that Obama couldn't have picked Clinton for VP you need to be careful with that argument. I really think by choosing Clinton he couldn't have lost in November. But what's done is done. I'm looking forward to a great speech from Senator Clinton tonight and I'm sure Biden will be a fine VP candidate. But don't try to tell me Obama could not have chosen Clinton. Not only could he have, in my opinion he should have.

  • backbeat (unverified)

    check out this insane PUMA


  • backbeat (unverified)

    But to be verbally abused on the street at 11 oclock on a Saturday night for wearing a shirt? What up?

    I don't think that's right. Neither was Clinton when she reminded us that "bobby kennedy was assassinated in June."

  • Jenny Greenleaf (unverified)

    Not so awesome. Mostly tired:-). And having gotten all the personal attention as a super-d, it's someone else's turn.

    I hope Jeff talks to Sara Gelser. She's the Clinton whip.

  • (Show?)

    Backbeat, Please give it a rest. You're not making me feel very unified!

  • backbeat (unverified)

    Katy, sorry. Personally, I think Senator Clinton will give a fabulous, kick ass speech tonight, much like she did for the NY delegation yesterday.

  • Grover Stanturf (unverified)

    As an Oregonian let me remind Sue Castner that she is at the convention as a Oregon delegate not a Sue Castner delegate. Obama won the Oregon primary and Sue Castner is there to represent our state. Yes it her right to vote for whomever she would like however, as an Oregon delegate she represents the people of this state who voted for Obama. If you threaten to vote for anyone else then you are not a Democrat. Lets face it if you support the working class, students, the Green movement, and people that are in the need of help you vote Democrat regardless of who is running. I dont know about anyone else, I have not forgotten the frustrations that I have felt the last eight years and I hope fellow Democrats have not forgotten either it is time to "Unite to fight!"

  • (Show?)


    Sue is here as a Clinton delegate. Hillary won a significant number of delegates in Oregon fair and square. By Oregon law, all Clinton delegates are required to vote for Hillary on the first ballot. We should all respect that.

    Hang in there, we'll all get past this. My strategy is just to keep my head down and find a project that moves the campaign forward. And if people just can't bring themselves to work for Obama, well, we have a lot of down-ticket candidates that need help. There's plenty of work to go around.

  • Miles (unverified)

    "Causing an Obama loss?" Oh good grief. Would you please take a deep breath and listen to yourself???

    Katy, why don't you think that the 18 million Clinton supporters have the power to change this election?

  • Grant Schott (unverified)

    I agree with Marc's premise that there are few policy differences between Obama and Clinton and the hard feelings that exist at the top need not trickle down to Dem activists. A friend of mine in the OR delegation told me that people are getting along fairly well and that Hillary delegates seem ready to switch to Obama. I personally was for Biden for pres. and was neutral after that, decided to vote for Hillary in the primary, and am fully supporting Barrack Obama.

  • Rick York (unverified)

    Coming back in, re: potential Obama loss.

    Does anyone think that if the Clintons don't go all out for Obama, and Obama loses, that the party will forgive them?

    We need them, and we need them to campaign for Obama the way the Clintons can. Hillary is just 61. She would be 69 if Obama wins two terms. Like many of my generation, she is a young 61. Her continued Senate, and potential cabinet, service will make her an even better candidate in 2016.

    Finally, to be realistic, whoever is elected President this November will likely be a one termer. No one will be able to clean up the Bush mess in four years (hell, it might take 40!). And, the public isn't patient. If Obama wins, I hope this doesn't happen. But, it's not unlikely.

    If Bill and Hillary don't support Obama strongly, I really believe they'll go down in flames if he does.

    We really have to get our act together and get it on the road.

    Rick York

  • Columbia (unverified)

    Not Really:

    You mean Hillary should say something like this, "take our energy, our passion and our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama ... I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me."???

    She has - many times. that quote is from her concession speech in June. But it is hardly the only example. Yet she is still expected to deliver a victory for Obama. She's asked her supporters to support him. Some are not sure they will. So rather than browbeat Hillary, why don't you make a respectful case and ask for their votes? (that doesn't translate as "why would you idiots consider McCain, btw") It's seriously the very least the Obama campaign and his supporters can do.

    As for what other candidates have done, I would suggest you read this:

  • (Show?)

    Sue I'm sorry you treated rudely on the street. I left Denver this morning, and what I saw yesterday was an awful lot of Clinton supporters wearing their colors and itching for a fight.

    There were lots and lots of street debates on 16th street mall, and not all of them, by far, were started by the Obama folks.

    So what I'd suggest to both sides is that it's time to unite, not to fight.

  • (Show?)

    Sue I'm sorry you treated rudely on the street. I left Denver this morning, and what I saw yesterday was an awful lot of Clinton supporters wearing their colors and itching for a fight.

    There were lots and lots of street debates on 16th street mall, and not all of them, by far, were started by the Obama folks.

    So what I'd suggest to both sides is that it's time to unite, not to fight.

  • Buckman Res (unverified)

    ”Are some people still afraid to vote for Obama because of his color? 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.”

    While I agree that race is indeed a factor in the election it will prove to be a positive for BHO rather than a negative. The small number of people who won’t vote for him due to his ethnicity will be vastly outnumbered by those whose white guilt or desire to cast a historical vote for the first black presidential candidate will have them voting for him.

    That he hasn’t broken the race wide open in a Dem year speaks to his failure to address legitimate questions regarding his thin resume and lack of experience. Until he does that the race will remain close and threaten his chances in November.

  • (Show?)

    What's the sniping to which you refer?

    I've seen it plenty of times, not just on blogs but at political events. Yes, some Clinton supporters may be sore losers, but I've seen plenty of sore winners on the Obama side. For instance, yelling at Sue when she was walking down the street minding her own business. Yes, there are going to be people there with Clinton shirts on - almost half the delegates are there as supporters of Clinton.

    We've got to stop the nastiness back and forth. When you hear it from someone, instead of sniping back, we've got to bite our tongue and instead talk to them in a way that unites us, not divides us.

    For instance, Jenny showed how much she rocks by giving up her passes so that Clinton supporters could be there. I only got to see the very end of the speech as I walked in the door, but the pieces I've seen thus far were great. I hope the remainder of the speech was as good. I hope to see her out there pushing hard for Obama/Biden the way that Howard Dean did for Kerry/Edwards.

    We're all on the same side here, and I think some of us have lost track of that. As Clinton said tonight, "we don't need four more years of the last eight years." And to beat everything the Republicans are going to throw at us, we need to be 100% together and send a resounding message that we want change and we want it now.

  • LT (unverified)

    Jenni, the entire speech was so good that had she campaigned like that I might have voted for Hillary instead of Obama.

    About the nastiness level, every Obama supporter should not be blamed for the actions of some jerk accosting a perfect stranger. Bringing that up does not help people get along.

    According to whatever station I was watching, the Hillary signs with the white background were printed and paid for by the Obama campaign. Seems to me the Obama folks have bent over backwards to be gracious to Hillary. (Obama is no more responsible for the jerk who accosted a Clinton delegate than Hillary is for the person KOIN interviewed at a Clinton house party who is still angry after the speech.) If Clinton supporters don't return that graciousness from the Obama folks, because by golly their candidate didn't win and should have won, it seems to me what they are really doing is not listening to their own candidate.

    I was really impressed by Hillary's speech. She was saying there is a time to come together and the time is now.

    Most/all of us have been on the losing side of primaries. There comes a time to move on--keep your beliefs but don't take them out on the nominee. Or else work on one of many other campaigns and ignore the nominee you don't like.

  • (Show?)

    I'm definitely not blaming all Obama supporters - I am one myself. However, I'm getting tired of my fellow supporters continuing the problem rather than working on the solution.

    And the problem is that it continues to be more than just one or two people - just look at some of the comments on the blogs towards Clinton supporters. We can't get past the problem by ignoring it, as the attitude will continue. Supporters of both sides have to say we're not going to participate in the nastiness, we're going to work together, and united we're going to take the White House and strengthen our majority in Congress. In doing that, we don't play into the Republicans' hands - they want us divided, which is why they continue to push for the Obama-Clinton division.

    I was treated like crap by Kerry supporters in '04, and had it not been for great staff (CM, Peter, etc.), I don't know that I would have been as active as I was. But I was lucky enough to meet the staff and know that those Kerry supporters weren't representative of the campaign. Not everyone is in that situation - their entire contact from the campaign may be through a volunteer who bashes Clinton and her supporters.

    I know the Obama campaign is being very gracious to Clinton, and now it is time for the rest of us to do the same.

  • LT (unverified)

    Jenny, about this:

    "My strategy is just to keep my head down and find a project that moves the campaign forward. "

    In 1984 the Dem. State Chair hosted all the delegates for a social event maybe a month or so after the convention. And all delegates were asked to host/co-host debate watching parties in the fall.

    Has there been any discussion of changing the Superdelegate situation?

  • Iyf (unverified)

    Hey Marc, as a Democrat who at least at this moment will vote for Obama because his political positions are barely the least of the worst, I want to hear what you have to say about Democrats like me.

    First, Sue is completely correct and you are laughably idiotic in your implicit assertion that it is not up to the candidate to earn the respect of each and every person whose vote he or she wants. Real Democrats don't check their values at the door in the name of Party unity. That's why I have no time for Clinton or Clinton supporters like Sue or Katy after Clinton played the race card. And that's why I have no time for pathetic jackasses like you and the rest of the BO dimwits who make ignorant arguments about Party unity.

    Second, you're right there is not much difference between Obama and Clinton on a lot of issues, except for Clinton's unforgivable tactics in the primary, because they are both corporate whores who in many ways represent the worst of what our Party has become. This is certainly worse than 1924 or 1968, and arguably on a par with 1860 because Democrats have been cowardly enablers of right-wing attacks on the very constitutional foundations of our country. We have right-wing courts because Democrats like Wyden in the Senate let it happen rather than fight; and I have no doubt a selfish careerist like Merkley, who criticized those who criticized Democrat enablers, will be just another scumbag enabler if McCain wins as the polling right now suggests is quite possible.

    So I want to hear your rationalizations in the name of Party unity about this kind of thing, because Obama was unapologetically one of the Blue Dogs on this vote:

    AT&T security suggest bloggers talk to police

    And don't give me the typical empty BS about what Obama will do after he's elected. Like Merkley, he's shown us he's quite happy to make political deals with the devil if that will get him elected. They will be in the company of enough morally bankrupt Democrats and Republicans and protected by disgusting, lame-brained apologists like you that that deal will never be tested. The reality is that it's up to us to get an equal political mortgage on his and their careers when they need our votes so there will a least be a chance they will do the right thing.

  • harry demarest (unverified)

    This is a political campaign, and the Obama Campaign has talking points for winning over Hillary delegates.

    Phrases like "sit down" or "please get over it" are not among these talking points. Rather, personal attacks which prevail on Blue Oregon, and phrases like these have the opposit effect of driving a wedge between Obama's supporters and Hillary's supporters .

    Like Sue, I am a delegate in Denver, and virtually all the delegates have the same experience of getting along very well and friendly interactions with delegates who support the other candidate.

    Personal attacks like we have seen here sabotage the efforts we are making in Denver to create party unity. Party unity is necessary to defeat John McCain in September.

    As a necessary step in achieving the support of Hillary supporters, the Obama campaign (actually, Obama's supporters) will have to stop attacking Hillary's supporters. And that's not so different than the point Sue was trying to make in the first place.

  • Organic Natural Gas (unverified)

    According to Speaker Pelosi (on Sunday's Meet the Press), Natural Gas is a clean alternative to fossil fuels.

    So why not encourage Oregonians to import more Liquified Natural Gas to reduce our dependence on dirty foreign oil?

    Or should we just tell the good lady to sit down and shut up?

  • (Show?)


    I have heard that there will be DNC discussions about the nominating process as well as the silly superdelegate status.

    My term on the DNC ends in December, but I will probably run again because I was not very happy with what played out this year and would like to be part of the reform. The process pointed out the incredible inconsistencies from state to state. Now, I'm all in favor of state's rights (especially Oregon's), but I'm in favor of rotating regional primaries to bring some consistency to the process.

    It ain't going to be easy...I've posted on this topic before. The state legislatures often control the process, the caucus states like their caucuses, and it will be a monumental task to forge an agreement. Especially since, in the end, the only penalty Michigan and Florida received was not having the candidates in their states before the primary.

  • LT (unverified)

    Jenni, this is the most intelligent thing I have heard in a long time:

    "My term on the DNC ends in December, but I will probably run again because I was not very happy with what played out this year and would like to be part of the reform. The process pointed out the incredible inconsistencies from state to state. Now, I'm all in favor of state's rights (especially Oregon's), but I'm in favor of rotating regional primaries to bring some consistency to the process."

    Is Gerry Cogan still around? He was appointed to the Fairness Comm. after the 1984 convention passed a "Democracy Package" and would be a wealth of information.

connect with blueoregon