Posted on

Follow the Uppity Logic

Uppity Wisconsin
Voters in US Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s 2nd congressional district in Wisconsin on Feb. 19 delivered a resounding victory to Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton—65 to 34 percent.As a superdelegate, Rep. Baldwin has pledged her support behind Hillary Clinton.

Now wasn’t Mal some time back, in regards to Florida and Michigan, who took Hillary for wanting to change the rules in the middle of the game. Lets just forget, for a moment, that Hillary got 40% of the votes in Wisconsin and the majority of super delegates went to Nobama. Lets just agree with Mal that 100% of Wisconsin’s super delegates should go to the popular vote winner even though that is totally contrary to how the primary itself allocated delegates.

O.K, now that we are all nice and cozy in Mal’s fantasy land, how about what’s good for the is also good for the gander. If all the super delegates, by some unwritten law hiding somewhere in Mal’s head, in Wisconsin should go to Nobama because he was the popular vote winner, the same should hold in other states. Here are the super delegates that belong to Hillary by Mal’s Law if electoral politics.

  1. Gov. Janet Napolitano (AZ)

  2. Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ)

  3. Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA)

  4. Rep. Xavier Becerra (CA)

  5. Rep. Barbara Lee (CA)

  6. Rep. Adam Schiff (CA)

  7. Rep. George Miller (CA)

  8. Rep Zoe Lofgren (CA)

  9. Rep. Linda Sanchez (CA)

  10. DNC Hon. Eric Garcetti (CA)

  11. DNC Norma Torres (CA)

  12. DNC Jeremy Bernard (CA)

  13. DNC Mary Ellen Early (CA)

  14. Rep. Robert Wexler (FL)

  15. DNC Allan Katz (FL)

  16. DNC Joyce Cusack (FL)

  17. Rep. Kathy Castor (FL)

  18. Gov. Deval Patrick (MA)

  19. Sen. John Kerry (MA)

  20. Sen. Ted Kennedy (MA)

  21. Rep. William Delahunt (MA)

  22. Rep. Michael Capuano (MA)

  23. DNC John Walsh (MA)

  24. DNC Paul Kirk (MA)

  25. DNC Margaret Xifaras (MA)

  26. DNC Raymond Jordan (MA)

  27. DNC David O’Brien (MA)

  28. DNC Alan Solomont (MA)

  29. Rep. John Conyers (MI)

  30. Rep. Steve Rothman (NJ)

  31. DNC Christine “Roz” Samuels (NJ)

  32. DNC Donald Norcross (NJ)

  33. DNC Dana Redd (NJ)

  34. DNC Steven Horsford (NV)

  35. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (NH)

  36. Rep. Paul Hodes (NH)

  37. DNC Hon. Martha Fuller Clark (NH)

  38. Fmr DNC Chair Fred Harris (NM)

  39. DNC David Wilhelm (OH)

  40. DNC Sonni Nardi (OH)

  41. DNC Mark Mallory (OH)

  42. DNC Rhine McLin (OH)

  43. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (RI)

  44. DNC Patrick Lynch (RI)

  45. Bernice Johnson (TX)

  46. Rep. Chet Edwards (TX)

  47. Rep. Al Green (TX)

  48. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX)

  49. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (TX)

  50. DNC Rep. Hon. Yvonne Davis (TX)

  51. DNC Moses Mercado (TX)

  52. DNC Senfronia Thompson (TX)

  53. DNC Roy LaVerne Brooks (TX)

That is a gain of 53 super delegates for Hillary for 1 Tammy Baldwin for Nobama. To be honest that is not the worst of Mal’s faulty logic.

Next to the Constitution, Baldwin’s first obligation is to the will of her constituents, and she should remember this by voting for Obama in what may be the most important presidential election in generations.

Looks like Mal, like many Wisconsin Democrats, are a little confused about the difference between country and party, and constituents and party membership. Political parties choose their leaders in all sorts of ways, look at Texas. They may have a primary, a caucus, and a mail in vote limited to dues paying party members. The Democratic Party is a private organization that Tammy Baldwin belongs to. She may have a consitutional obligation to her constituents, but that is not the same as members of the Democratic Party.

It seems Mal and other Democrats have forgotten they are not voting for a president, but a candidate for president. The Democracy, the one Baldwin has an obligation to, does not happen until November. Right now all the Democrats are doing is choosing who will represent them in that Democracy.

Advertisements

7 responses to “Follow the Uppity Logic

  1. jody

    Nice job of critical thinking Nate.
    When I scan the blog headlines I think it is pretty obvious that the WI blogs have a little “thing” going to look uniformly Obama-ish.
    Pressure on Baldwin seems to be part of that Thing.

    Quite some time ago, over a year -and I’m sure this was a mistake because no one who knows anything about me (flaming bitch) would send me something like this –
    I was “Invited” by an associate of Uppity Blogmaster-Group-Thinker-from-Hell Steve Hanson to join a behind the scenes Echo-Chamber, orchestrating and coordinating WI blog content.
    Yes, the term Echo Chamber was used in the e-mail invitation. Groups would be formed to address specific areas and “needs” and to brainstorm other possible areas and topics of attack, so that these bloggermemebrs could move WI in the agreed-upon direction. Somewhere in cyberspace there was a passwoed-protected forum where, after responding to the Mission Impossible style email and getting further directions, you would be directed and be able to participate with other (corrupt) bloggers and party activists. Funky, ain’t it?
    I tired to tell T and R about this but they didn’t give a rat’s ass so now I don’t give a rat’s ass.

    The ugliest part of it is when Real Journalists and members of the public, when happening upon blog after blog would (hopefully) interpret these unified-message blog posts as “overwhelming public outcry”, and “grassroots” movements, when in fact they would be something quite the opposite.

    Nate, I don’t have to tell you what bullshit something like that is. Apparently too many other people don’t get it. I see the Uppity WI group spreading, see the lack of challenge among the blogs, the lack of divdersity and hard-question-asking – it is unfortunate. Of course I cannot pretend to know what commnications are taking place behind the scenes now and obviously bloggers can (and will) say that it never happened, it was called off, or thatI am making this up. I could give a rat’s ass about that.
    Yep, lots ‘o rats around these days, and they all have asses.

    Readers of WI blogs should make up their own minds about whether or not there is any kind of diversity of message and viewpoint among the blogs or if there seems to ba a canned feel to them, a manufactured harmony. Bloggers should follow their own consciences, your karma folks – not mine.

    Nate, I felt pretty sure this would interest you, I could not find an email for you at that time. Long ago as I said. Only your work one and I didn’t want to trespass there. Now I don’t care anymore about “being public”.

    Oh, the guy’s name on the invite was Joe Plouff, some old Dem who thinks this echo chamber will help his party. So Nate, anybody who gets near Steve and Joe’s operation there – best to look under the rock. Or as you did, see it for the BS it is.

    I’ll be off on a project for awhile Nate. No response required for this anyway.
    I’ve said it before but still true – you do good work here. So I guess that was a bonus gift from me to you. ;)
    Nice of me, eh?

  2. For future reference a good email address to use is, henrydotdubbatgmaildotcom

    Thanks for the comment.

  3. Wow, I don’t even know where to start here.

    First of all, Uppity Wisconsin is really an open forum – if someone has a different point of view from the other people posting there, please for God’s Sake sign up and start blogging. Really. I’m likely to be unhappy with you if you start down a strongly non-liberal, non-progressive path, but other than that, there’s really absolutely NO attempt on my part to herd anyone. I do occasionally edit spelling errors, grammatical messes, etc. But I have no idea why anyone thinks there’s an attempt at “Group-Thinker-From Hell” here. It happens that I think that Michael’s analysis of this is deeply flawed as well. It’s his opinion, it’s not mine. If you really disagree with it, come on over and comment on the site, or write your own piece. I’d welcome that.

    Now as to Joe Plouff and Progressive Messengers — I’m friends with Joe, and I participated in his site. I personally thought that there were issues with the plan there, and that Joe’s ways of referring to it gave the wrong impression. But it was his project (and is now gone, by the way). But other than the fact that I had a login on his site (and he on mine, though I don’t believe he’s ever posted there), that’s about all the connection that there was between the two projects. So, Jody, I’m really no more an “associate” of Joe’s than I am of yours. I don’t know why you seem to think that my casual friendship with a former state legislator makes me a bad person, and why you criticize me on that point.

    So basically I don’t understand the argument here – logins and blogs at Uppity Wisconsin are free and you just need to sign up. My viewpoint on issues is OFTEN different than that of the bloggers there. I don’t post a lot these days because I’m very busy trying to build a web consultancy here, which takes up most of my time. And I’m a lot more prone to just say what I think on a topic than to confront my own bloggers when I disagree with them. We’re not exactly a lock-step cabal of bloggers. I welcome anyone who is capable of being civil and who isn’t flaming loony. Please don’t confuse the viewpoints of people who blog on the site with my own (except when it’s my own blog) and please don’t assume that there’s some sort of selection at work here other than self-selection. I’ve never disusered anyone on the site. I don’t run all of the bloggers on the front page, but there’s really nothing at all unusual about that.

  4. Steve,

    It seems most of your comment is directed at Jody, so I’ll leave that to her.

    I would agree with you that you tend to be rather “open” about who posts at uppity. A case in point some time back there was a left of center post on Obama’s wife and Wal-Mart. I believe xoff cried about it and you defended the piece being there.

    As far as comments I would tend to see”uppity” as one of more closed sites. I find it an irritant to have to register to simply comment on a site. I go to many sites and that is a big turn off. There are better technological solutions out there to catch spam.

    I think for some reason beyond me,liberals and Democrats have overdosed on Obama kool-aid. There is only one Democratic leaning blog that is not goo goo for Obama. I am thinking of Rock Netroots, maybe one other.

    Now, if this guy was a Feingold I could understand. But Obama is no progressive. He is against universal healthcare no matter how you want to spin it, he is for that educational disaster NCLB, he is for merit pay for teachers, he is against a 30% cap on interest rates, he loves nuclear power and cozy with the coal industry, he voted for the Cheney energy bill, where is the progressive in that. Now, while I am no fan of Hillary, putting Obama next to her makes her seem awfully left of center.

    I will acknowledge you personally have been more even handed. But, the site, and the Wisconsin blogosphere in general, has been an Obama propaganda machine.

  5. We’ve gone back and forth on requiring registration to comment. It’s not a spam concern – it’s more an issue of totally random off-topic comments coming in from people who seem to write the same post over and over again and who do not want to identify themselves. We actually have quite good spam control.

    I do like to have some idea who is actually posting on the site, and if readers are going to hold me personally responsible for what people post or comment on, I think you can see why.

    The current policy is that you do not need to register to comment – but you do need to register to not go through moderation on your comment. That HAS changed fairly recently, though actually this is the first complaint I’ve seen about the old policy.

    I primarily wanted to make the point that the bloggers on the site actually DO have differing points of view – Obama would actually not be my first choice as a Democratic candidate (and actually I think that Michael has been the only person who has been directly supporting Obama, so I don’t really think that my site is a propaganda machine – If you want to make the argument that the cheddarsphere in general looks that way, I probably wouldn’t argue with it (and I realize that that actually IS the point you were making – I’m not really offended, and you’re right, I’m mostly taking exception to Jody’s comment, not the original post.)

    I think it needs to be clear that if someone on the site were supporting a different candidate (or even a Republican for that matter if they were willing to make a cogent argument) those posts would be carried as well.

    Personally I have chosen not to publicly endorse anyone because I think it’s much more important that a non-Republican is elected to the office than that a lot of petty fighting occurs over a number of different qualified candidates. Also, I don’t really believe that anyone cares who Steve Hanson supports. Why should they, unless I had an interesting argument to make?

    I also happen to personally support Tammy Baldwin’s stance. One can certainly argue that the party’s rules on delegates may look like a mistake at the moment, and they’re certainly confusing to a lot of people – but they’re the rules, and I don’t see that Tammy is doing anything she should be attacked for. God knows there are plenty more serious issues to argue about.

    I don’t expect everyone to agree with that viewpoint. And I don’t expect all the bloggers on Uppity Wisconsin to agree with me either.

  6. borges

    Hi there Steve,
    I found this after your post on Uppity. I have to agree with you that no one cares who you would endorse for president. Your knowing that is what makes you such a great blogger.

    cheers,
    -b

  7. xoff

    What Steve said. I always follow his lead.

Comments are closed.