God, I was hoping someone would say this word in light of the MI/FL debacle.

Count on Jeralyn to make a difficult argument easier by being positively silly. I mean, okay, let me marvel for a moment that this is an accomplished woman; a lawyer no less, who makes scads more money than I do, and is significantly more successful at blogging than me.

And she still provides substandard insight.


But at this point, I’m showing tough love. I want TalkLeft back in the fold, but it may take a little teaching from the school of Hard Knocks to get there.

I’m sorry Jeralyn; this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you.

So, in the wake of Tuesday’s primaries, Jake Tapper produced a list of ten things that were vital to any kind of strategy if Hillary Clinton still wanted the slightest glimmer of hope at winning the nomination.

The one that seems to have picked up the most momentum, though, is the following:

8. MICHIGAN and FLORIDA …The number 2,025 no longer exists. 2,209…2,209…2,209… Make it a civil rights issue

Long after I thought the FL/MI issue was dead, it turned out to be undead, and now the Clinton campaign, along with surrogates and followers have taken up the torch anew to seat Florida and Michigan in the most advantageous way possible.

That’s fine. They can try.

But Jeralyn saying the new Michigan compromise is “Unfair to Hillary” is just funny.

Now, I have resisted blatantly using the actual words “fair” and “unfair” in regards to the many calls to have them reseated because, well, it sounds a little much like a schoolyard argument. Everytime the word got too close to my finger tips I imagined all the Hill-bloggers screaming, “Life’s not fair,” like my parents used to when I tried explaining to them that doing my homework or doing my chores before getting to go to the movies with friends was unfair.

But Jeralyn happily broke the seal for me.



Ahem… How is seating a delegation in which Obama was not on the ballot fair? How is seating the delegation when he AND Hillary had pledged not to campaign there fair? How is rewarding Michigan for bucking the DNC’s rules fair? How is changing the finish line after the race has been mostly run fair?


Are you kidding me?

At the time Michigan and Florida both voted, Clinton had a significant name recognition advantage over Obama. The only way he could have overcome that was with intense campaigning that was expressly forbidden. Assuming that Clinton and the DNC would hold true to the pledge they all agreed to, Obama didn’t break the rules and campaign there because he believed the delegates wouldn’t be seated.

And now you’re trying to seat them when he never had a chance to appeal to those voters?

Fair my dying ass.

Jeralyn, you’re a fucking joke.





14 Responses to “Fair”

  1. I’m just going to go ahead and preemptively apologize for losing my cool on this one.

  2. DrGail says:

    Do you feel better at least?

  3. Yeah, a little.

    I don’t write like this anymore. Used to a lot, but this is kind of rare, and whenever I do write like this, I get this weird buzzing feeling just as I click the publish button.

  4. Maggie says:

    Thanks for writing this post! The MI argument drives me absolutely crazy. You’ve hit on most of the reasons why it is unfair to Obama to apportion the MI delegates based on that vote. It’s also unfair to democracy — since last I heard Stalinist-style one-person ballots weren’t considered a good exercise of democracy. Nor is it fair to democracy to pretend that banning campaigning would lead to a meaningful exercise of the democratic process. And it’s not fair to the voters in MI (and FL) who believed it when they were told that the votes in question weren’t going to matter. How many of them decided not to bother in that case?

    Indeed, it was clear to me in early February that Clinton was more than willing to try to play these absurd anti-democratic arguments if she ever thought it would be expedient for her to do so. That’s when I decided I could never, ever support her.

  5. Well Maggie, at the time of Michigan, I thought Clinton was working only for a symbolic victory in Michigan. You know, I thought, okay, the DNC laid down the law, she kept her name on the ballot, that was kind of cheap, but really she’s probably just trying to build momentum, right?

    But I guess I was way the hell out of the ballpark on that one. Granted, at the time I also didn’t think that Obama was going to survive Super Tuesday, so it was all moot point.

    Thanks for stopping by, come again, and I really don’t usually go off the rails quite like this.

  6. tas says:

    Why apologize? Jeralyn is a fucking joke. She’s foolishly burned all the credibility she built over the years not by backing Hillary, but letting her bias get in the way of honesty. And that’s before she even let Big Tent Democrat touch her blog. Throw her, Taylor Marsh, Larry Johnson, Lambert at Corrente, Tennessee Guerilla Women, and the rest of the Clintonistas we once thought were our friends right in the trash bin. These people have marginalized themselves with their blatant dishonesty, so fuck’em. And when they finally realize their errors and come crawling back into the fold, they will first be judged by their apologies.

  7. Actually, I wasn’t really apologizing to Jeralyn so much. I’m with you a hundred percent on all of what you have said. I’m actually surprised that of the group you have mentioned, Taylor Marsh of all people appears to be the one coming closest to reconciliation at this point. But I digress.

    I wasn’t apologizing to Jeralyn, I was apologizing for a slip in tone that I have worked hard to maintain for a while now. I still stand by my words, but they are harsher than what I usually drop.

  8. Mark says:

    “I mean, okay, let me marvel for a moment that this is an accomplished woman; a lawyer no less, who makes scads more money than I do, and is significantly more successful at blogging than me.”

    As a lawyer, I just want to point out that there are A LOT of stupid lawyers who make a lot more money than they should. (The reason has to do with the fact that legal licensing requirements are more about restricting the supply of lawyers than they are about making that supply good). There are also a LOT of successful bloggers whose success is predicated less on their actual ability to provide competent analysis than it is on their willingness to throw around invective and ad hominems while essentially ignoring any and all relevant facts. Oddly, these “skills” are also often the hallmark of a crappy, stupid lawyer- hence the legal axiom: if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; and if you have neither, pound the table – a good lawyer can almost always make the facts or the law come out in their favor; a bad lawyer winds up with sore fists from pounding the table so much.

    So there’s you explanation for Jeralyn’s success: she’s a crappy lawyer who attained success thanks to her participation in an organization that artificially restricts competition by limiting membership to those people lucky enough to be able to afford law school, bar exam fees, and bar dues (none of which have a thing to do with the actual practice of law). Because she’s a crappy lawyer, she makes an excellent “fever swamp” blogger.

    And yeah, I’ve looked at her resume. A lot of her “honors” appear to be a result of her regular appearances as a talking head, which in turn appear to be the result of her ability to schmooze through her local bar association. I’ve known a couple of talking head lawyers over the years, and let’s just say they’re no more or less likely to be competent advocates for their clients as any other set of attorneys.

    Call me a self-hating lawyer if you will, but those are the real facts about the legal profession. I’m just one of the few willing to admit it.

  9. Kyle, Kyle. You do not need to apologize, preemptively or otherwise. I had just read Jeralyn’s post before reading your response, and I was seething. Your reaction was perfect. Not one word needed to be changed or taken back.

  10. LOL. I guess I cannot figure out this new invisible word system for filling in Name and Email Address, because I see I somehow got my name down there three times, which I did not intend.

  11. Pug says:

    But you don’t understand. You see, Obama chose to take his name off the ballot in Michigan. His bad.

    Of course, so did John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden. I guess they’re just a bunch of fools. Actually, they were fools if they ever thought Hillary Clinton would abide by the rules to which she agreed.

  12. Mark: Stop reminding me you’re a lawyer! It screws me up. I kid. No, I get it. I think you get that in all professions. You THINK someone in a certain profession would have a certain level of intelligence or what have you, and then it turns out maybe not. In any case, the template you lay out for Jeralyn sounds like it woulf well fit other certain lawyer blowhards… you know… like those such as she who must not be named.

    Kathy, you’re part of the club now. You don’t have to fill in your stuff, it’s already filled in. In any case, the point to the apology was not out of concern for Jeralyn’s feelings. It was because I have worked to build up a certain tone, and that I hope that tone is expected out of me. I haven’t blogged like this post in a very long time. I am not sorry for the sentiment, so much as sorry for the lack of inconsistency, I guess.

    Pug: lulz

  13. Steve M. says:

    Look, it’s simple: There are people who want a Democrat to win in November and there are people who just want Hillary Clinton to win, period. Jeralyn Merritt is in the latter category, as are Paul Krugman andTaylor Marsh.

  14. tas says:

    Krugman issued somewhat of a recant to his pro-Hillary rhetoric today, actually.. Admitting that Obama is pretty much the nominee at this point. Once Hillary loses Krugman, who’s next?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook