Last night, I attended the monthly meeting of the Stonewall Democratic Club of New York City, of which I have been a member for several years. SDNYC is one of the three leading LGBT Democratic Clubs in the city, and its endorsement is sought by Democratic candidates for elective office throughout the five boroughs.
The big draw at last night’s Stonewall meeting was U.S. Rep. Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY), who represents the 9th district in the House, which includes parts of Brooklyn and Queens. Weiner ran for mayor of New York City in 2001 and acknowledged at the meeting last night that he may run for mayor again in 2009; most observers think another mayoral run is a certainty and that Weiner will be one of the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination.
Weiner is also a superdelegate and — like most elected officials who are superdelegates from New York — has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Not surprisingly, Weiner ardently argued for his candidate with members of the club, which also has endorsed Clinton. But when the Congressman from New York was asked if he would vote for the senator from New York even if she fell short of the senator from Illinois in pledged delegates and in the popular vote, Weiner stopped short of making a firm commitment. Instead, the Brooklynite took the opportunity to lambast caucuses as being fundamentally undemocratic — a popular theme with Clinton supporters since she lost the Iowa caucuses in January — and said that he believed that the voters in the remaining primaries (Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Puerto Rico, etc.) should be allowed to cast their votes before superdelegates resolved the nomination contest with theirs.
I found Weiner’s equivocation on this issue to be interesting, especially because it came in the course of a meeting with members of a political club that has endorsed the same candidate he supports, and I can’t help but wonder if it is indicative of a reluctance among superdelegates in general to hand the nomination to the candidate who lost the popular vote and won fewer elected delegates in the primaries and caucuses — something that Democratic superdelegates have never done before.
Digg This
First, Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the WTC, despite Bush administration propaganda put out to establish a link between the two in the public's mind.
Second, true leadership is demonstrated precisely by the willingness to go against public opinion when one knows what is right, and Barack Obama showed true leadership in his willingness to speak out against the Iraq war when it was most politically risky. And Obama was prescient in predicting that the war would be a disaster, thus demonstrating good judgment as well as political courage.
Hillary Clinton went with the herd when even Democrats were for the war -- a good demonstration that the 'experience that she touts (which, as we've seen this week, has been greatly exaggerated) is useless without good judgment.
Despite the spin the Obama camp is feeding it supports. Here’s the most important thing you need to know about this race: it’s neck-and-neck.
Only 130 delegates separate Hillary from Senator Obama — and that’s not counting Florida and Michigan. The difference in popular vote is less than 1 percent, and millions of voters have yet to make their voices heard, in 10 States. Again, not including Flordia or Michigan. This election should be about their choice.
But now we’re hearing people - Obama's elected officials, Obama's party members, and Obama's campaign surrogates - call for Hillary to pull out. Why is that? Because, Obama is a little ahead at this time. He's afraid she will catch up.
Remember Steve, the DNC voting process is a three part election to name a nonimee. 1. Popular vote (which if Florida alone was counted, Hillary would be ahead.). 2. Pledge delegate vote. 3. Super delegate vote. That's the DNC rules to elect a nonimee. The Obama camp knows Sen. Clinton has the lead in superdelegates. They are trying to get her out of the race, in pro Obama media, before the convention.
With the race this close, it sure doesn’t make sense to me that she’d leave now. Besides, as democrats, do we really need to be disenfranchising any MORE voters?
As for the war part, I lost my father in the WTC. 65% of all American was in favor of the invasion in Iraq when it first started. I was one of them. As a NY'er, I called and email Sen. Clinton's office to inform her of my thoughts on how to vote. 70% of NY'er registered voter polled were in favor of the invasion. Today, we all forget the mind set and public opinion of that time. So, it's easy for people like you to judge someone else.
If Hillary Clinton had not cynically voted to send 4,000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis to their deaths solely in an ill-fated triangulation to preserve her own electability, she would be the presumptive nominee today.
And if she hadn't turned into a complete swiftboating, race-baiting, baldface-lying asshole, some of us who didn't support might regard her as acceptable in some office or position today. Now, however, I'll never support her for any office ever.
It's time to cut the Clinton cancer out of the party. And that includes banishing the likes of James Carville, Lanny Davis, Paul Begala, and anyone else who is incapable of making a candid, spin-free statement about anything.
I disagree with you on one point. It's not criticism visitors are offended by, it's the hostility! Myself as well, will join the others in seeking a "innumerable sources of news & opinion," found on more objective sites. Therefore, please do no waste your value responding to this comment. As I will no longer be patronizing your blog.
You state: "Ironically, Fox is more fair to Clinton than the coverage I have seen on CNN."
Why do you find Fox's pro-Clinton coverage ironic? Hillary is a Democrat by name only, and her underlying policies actually are Republican: (1) she was a cheerleader for the anti-union NAFTA; (2) she propped up Bill's anti-gay DOMA and DADT; (3) she voted to invade Iraq; (4) she believes that mentally retarded people should be executed; (5) nothing excites her more than dirty money; and (6) Hillary does not believe in the democratic process but rule by the divine right of queens.
Why shouldn't FOX love Hillary Clinton?
But I agree with you on one point: the Internet offers innumerable sources of news & opinion (including more blog sites than anyone can count); so anyone who for whatever reason (legitimate or not) doesn't like this site can find another one more to his/her liking.
And of course, if you want a site with absolutely no criticism of Bill or Hillary, you can go to HillaryClinton.com.
Best of luck to you and sorry you've decided to move on. You should stay.
Sincerely,
James
As every gay or lesbian person should be offended, by the bios reporting and underline hatred this site generates. No matter who you are supporting in 2008. I think every gay person can agree, fairness is what we fight for in our community.
As with everything in life, the power is in the vote! Vote for your candidate of choose! Vote to eradicate hatred! Vote for equality for all!
Final note: I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. But, I believe in Barack Obama message. I cannot believe this is the kind of change that Barack Obama supporters wants. You should not be bashing the other candidates to make your candidate shine brighter. He should shine on his or her own.
I hope the site will allow this to be pointed. As this will be my last time visiting here. I wish everyone the very best of luck with whatever candidate you support. Thank you!