Primary Thread 3: Race to Denver

[Cyclotron]

What is this bizarre hair-splitting about whether a public figure is or is not a "politician?" Why does that have any bearing on whether a cult of personality exists or not?

I'd just like to paste a quote I read today on this issue: "[It is a] sad commentary on American politics when an idealistic and morally driven political campaign is regarded as some kind of dangerous cult."

[Ramo]

The argument, continued has gone like this:

Imran: The only non-politicians that get streets are cultists.
Me: That is clearly not true, and besides which social activists disproportionately tend to get streets for the exactly the same reason as pols, public power to effect public change.
Imran: You're saying that getting street names eternally silence activists.
Me: Whaaaa?

[Cyclotron]

Yeah, I'll be the first to admit I don't really know what's going on anymore.

Edit: So what if a community activist has a street named after him, is elected to public office, and then has another street named after him? Is one the expression of a cult of personality and the other not? I know we seem to disagree on the definition of a cult of personality, but I haven't seen a single definition that linked it to official political office.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran: You're saying that getting street names eternally silence activists.
Me: Whaaaa?

If your read your quote, you'll note it quite literally says that, aside from the "eternally" part, which is, once again, your attempt to put words into your opponents' mouths.

Again:

[q=Ramo]But the point is that they are able to use popular power to change public policy. You know, things like naming streets (which is a pretty effective way, incidentally for elected officials to mollify activists).[/q]

edit: Oh, and as for the first, that's a strawman too:

Imran: The only non-politicians that get streets are cultists.

[q=Imran Siddiqui]and all the stuff that has been
named after him seems to indicate at least some aspects of a CoP[/q]

[Ramo]

If your read your quote, you'll note it quite literally says that, aside from the "eternally" part, which is, once again, your attempt to put words into your opponents' mouths.

You might want to point out exactly what you were trying to imply by your last question. I took what I thought was the most reasonable interpretation (that naming streets is the only thing elected pols need to do to silence activists), but feel free to come up with another one...

As for the Chavez claim:

I would think naming major streets after a person is quite significant. It seems to indicate adulation of a public figure as dictionary.com defines the term CoP (cult promoting adulation of a ... public figure).

So you're going to try to get out of this by the "seems to?"

BTW, it seems to me that Clinton drains a puppy full of blood every day for breakfast...

Can you just admit that your original point is bull****, and get this argument over with?

[Imran Siddiqui]

that naming streets is the only thing elected pols need to do to silence activists

You were the one who said naming streets is an effective way to mollify activists, were you not?

So you're going to try to get out of this by the "seems to?"

You could keep reading the original statement... you know, the "some aspects" stuff as well. Naming multiple streets (or airports) is quite significant and appears to show adulation of a figure. Though it is just one aspect.

[Ramo]

You were the one who said naming streets is an effective way to mollify activists, were you not?

Again:

It's a question of degree. The least committed portion of the activist community (i.e. not Chavez) could be mollified into submission. And appropriating the symbolism of dissent is generally a pretty effective way for the status quo to maintain dominance.

And I'm still wondering what that has to do with the earlier argument...

You could keep reading the original statement... you know, the "some aspects" stuff as well. Naming multiple streets (or airports) is quite significant and appears to show adulation of a figure. Though it is just one aspect.

Ignoring that other quote, ok. So we're down to breathing oxygen is one aspect of being a Nazi. Glad we got that clear!

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Ramo

Nazi.

You Lose.

Unfortunately.

[Cyclotron]

Godwin's law is for jerks

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Godwin's law is for jerks

Well to be fair. The law doesn't say anything about who wins or looses only that the longer an online discussion goes on the probability Nazis will come up in an unrelated fashion approaches a statistical certainty.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Godwin's law is for jerks

Just a joke.

I agree with you an Ramo 100%

Where did that quote you posted come from? That post pretty much sums it up. I find it sad that a politician finally manages to ignite the youth vote, gets record turnouts for primaries, and this is conisdered a Bad Thing. I do feel bad for Hillary and her long term supporters. I think she's a smart lady. She and her supporters have paid their dues. She doesn't deserve the hatred she inspires. The fact is though, that Obama is the better candidate.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
Where did that quote you posted come from?

Right here. The quote in question is close to the end of the article.

[Dinner]

It's a question of who is the best candidate and Hillary is an also ran.

[Dinner]

This pretty much proves Hillary Clinton is willing to subvert democracy and over ride the will of the people if that's what it takes for her to get her wraith like hands on to power. She's no better then Bush in the end.

Clinton Superdelegates Coordinate "Screw Democracy" Message

Looks like Hillary Clinton's campaign machine is getting its superdelegates (aka. party insiders) to start softening up the public for a potential trampling of democracy that may mark the Democratic National Convention. This morning we have two superdelegates from different parts of the country landing headlines in their local papers saying they are fully prepared to ignore voters and trample democracy - as long as that lets them help Clinton potentially steal the Democratic nomination. In my upcoming book, The Uprising, I trace the ugly history of superdelegates - and how they were set up precisely to stop popoular uprisings like we are seeing in the Democratic nomination contest.

Here in Colorado, we get this dispatch from Mannie Rodriguez in the Rocky Mountain News:

Because regular delegates are allocated proportionally, some calculations show that even if Obama were to roll through the rest of the primary season, he would not be able to secure the nomination with pledged delegates alone. That could result in a floor fight during the convention - with superdelegates key to the outcome.

"I'm going to stick to her 100 percent," Rodriguez said. "I hope it doesn't go to superdelgates deciding, but if it does, I'm with her all the way."

Forget that Colorado voters overwhelmingly supported Obama, forget that Obama may win the total, democratically awarded regular delegates...

Then in a suburban Philadelphia newspaper, we get this from Clinton-backing superdelegate Marcel Groen:

"It's worked for the past 40 years, for the most part, and largely it's an honorary position," he said. "But if it's going to be real close, then I think it's wise to let the leaders of the party do the right thing."

This follows Clinton hack Lanny Davis's missive on Huffington Post saying almost exactly the same thing (after embarrassing himself by claiming Adlai Stevenson was elected president). It also comes as the Boston Globe today reports that Clinton is determined to "take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote" with a plan to "persuade enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention." Clinton "will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson."

So that's the coordinated message: If democracy has been allowed to be trampled in the past, then we should all sit back and be fine with democracy being trampled now...as long as it is trampled in defense of the Clintons.

Egomania knows no bounds and no loyalty - not even to the founding principles of democracy.

Clinton partisans will counter that we should count the Florida and Michigan delegates because they were supposedly "disenfranchised." What a joke. The candidates agreed not to campaign there, and agreed that the delegates would not be seated. Now, of course, the Clinton partisans want those delegates to count, even though they were banana republic-style elections - no campaigning, and in the case of Michigan, not even anyone other than Clinton on the ballot. Puh-leeze.

To sign a petition demanding superdelegates respect democracy, go here. And make sure to check out the Superdelegate Transparency Project here.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/14/10364/0925

[MarkG]

I think it's wise to let the leaders of the party do the right thing

wise. leaders. the right thing.

right......