home

The Last Thing Obama Wants Is . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:37:28 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

. . . Al Sharpton threatening lawsuits if the Florida delegates are seated:

Laying the groundwork for a court battle that could divide the Democratic Party, the Reverend Al Sharpton is threatening to sue the Democratic National Committee if it counts Florida's primary results in the official presidential delegates tally.

Rev. Sharpton is traveling to Florida today to compile lists of residents who skipped the January contest because they thought their votes would not count. He plans to have those residents sign affidavits saying they would be disenfranchised by the seating of the Florida delegation, in the event the Democratic Party allowed that to happen.

Unless Sharpton, who I like a lot, is doing this is as a devious plan to force Obama to accept a ReDo Primary in Florida, I can not imagine what he is thinking, other than making sure Al Sharpton is being covered in the Media. Oh wait . . .

< The Trouble With A Personality Based Movement | Rules Are Rules, Except When They Are Not, Part 1 Zillion >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Last Thing Obama Wants Is . . . | 73 comments (73 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Warning (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:38:43 AM EST
    BE very careful in your comments in this thread. I have a quick delete trigger finger.

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:40:10 AM EST
    Sharpton, who I like a lot

    I wonder if you'll get flack about that from other quarters.

    I really do (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:42:15 AM EST
    He is smart and funny.

    Parent
    He was always fun in the debates (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:42:37 AM EST


    Parent
    ....and on SNL - hilarious (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:45:41 AM EST


    Parent
    smart and funny and great in debates (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:57:42 AM EST
    but those of us with long memories know he can be rather selective in his outrage

    Parent
    I like him too. nt (none / 0) (#20)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:00:23 AM EST


    Parent
    His 40 acres and a mule speech (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:55:06 AM EST
    in 2004 was outstanding, but there's no question his presence has to be used judiciously.

    Parent
    Will the real Al Sharpton please sit down ;) (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:42:30 AM EST


    Oh man (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    Obama needs to pack him off to Lower Zamboota, double-quick.

    Lower Zamboota? (none / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:47:26 AM EST
    What is that supposed to mean?

    I hesitate to say what I think your implication is because I don't want to get my own comment deleted.  

    Parent

    reference to recent Bob Smigel cartoon on SNL (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jim J on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:56:03 AM EST
    Obama sends Jesse and Al off to faraway locations to keep them busy so they won't get in the U.S. media and hurt his campaign.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#55)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:01:11 AM EST
    it's a reference to last week's SNL cartoon.  That's all.

    Parent
    OK, gotcha (none / 0) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:15:42 AM EST
    I saw a little bit of that, now that you mention it, and I thought it was pretty funny, but man, right on the edge.

    Best be careful of that kind of reference because it sure does sound pretty bad.


    Parent

    Tactic (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:46:50 AM EST
    Could this be another delaying tactic?  A talking head was on teevee last week discussing this.  He said a lot of people voted.  Then he said a lot of people didn't vote. ?? If the debate continues, there is no resolution.

    The train has left the station (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:48:07 AM EST
    The question now is HOW to do the redos, not whether they will be done.

    Parent
    Fairly specious (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:33:50 AM EST
    They had a very high turnout and there was a highly contested property tax measure on the ballot.  Whining that you didn't do your civic duty under those circumstances is pretty weak to me.

    It seems to me that anybody who thought their vote wouldn't count in an early election, but in hind sight  change their minds, can make the same arguement.

    Parent

    In fact: (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ghost2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:09:36 PM EST
    That brings an idea to my mind.  To prove that voters didn't vote b/c they thought their votes wouldn't count, he has to find a significant number of voters who VOTED on the property tax measure, but DIDN'T vote on the presidential primary (republican/democrat). In fact, that number is easily verified by the results of the election itself.  

    I don't think there is anyway that there would be a significant percentage with that criteria.

    Parent

    re-enfranchised (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by eric on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:48:36 AM EST
    He plans to have those residents sign affidavits saying they would be disenfranchised by the seating of the Florida delegation,

    He has this backwards.  If they were disenfranchised, it was because the party revoked their delegates in the first place.  If the Party were to seat Florida's delegates, it would be sort of a re-enfranchisement.  Of course, only enfranchising those that voted, which doesn't seem fair if you didn't vote because you thought it wouldn't count.  It's more of a equal protection thing, really.  I think we have some case law on that coming out of Florida, don't we?  ;)

    Seriously, I don't even know if any of this really matters because this is a nomination process and it seems to me the Party can do whatever it wants.  For example, if the Silly Party had a policy of choosing delegates by pulling names out of a hat, they could do that, couldn't they?

    But 1.7 M voted anyway (none / 0) (#36)
    by goldberry on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:25:58 AM EST
    Presumably, they too thought their votes wouldn't count but they got their butts down to the polls on primary day on the slim chance that someone would seat the delegates.  I guess they never expected private investors to foot the bill for a redo and so the January primary was their best shot.  Sharpton's excuse making is ridiculous.  
    You know, If I were Obama, I REALLY wouldn't want Sharpton down there in Florida making a scene.  Obama's supposed to be post-racial and all that and it just doesn't look good to the Dual Income No Children pinot swillers who are in a noblesse oblige  state of mind.  
    OTOH, no one provides comic relief better than Sharpton.  

    Parent
    It is testament to the extraordinary nature (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by Jim J on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:57:33 AM EST
    of the Obama pathology that a leading Democratic activist is openly and actively campaigning to disenfranchise Democratic voters in Florida.

    Florida, of all states.

    I remain nearly speechless at the futility, absurdity and mendacity of this whole fiasco.

    I hope they run with this (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:59:14 AM EST
    it is becoming clear that there will be some kind of do over.  if they keep this up his losses will be legendary.

    Parent
    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:34:02 AM EST
    can anyone miss the irony of the first African American candidate working had to disenfranchise voters in his own party?

    Parent
    I don't read his actions that way (none / 0) (#22)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:03:21 AM EST
    I thought his point was that some voters were disenfranchised, and so to let the results stand as is would be wrong.  The logical conclusion of his argument is not that all Florida voters should be disenfranchised, but that there should be a second, more fair election.

    I think a person could believe there was disenfrancisement in Florida even if they did not support Obama.

    Parent

    Uh, did you read that they "skipped" (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:58:53 AM EST
    the primary?  It was held.  That means they disenfranchised themselves.  "Yer honor, I wuz robbed!  I stayed home from the polls, so they didn't count my vote."  Not what would be considered a compelling argument.  

    But heck, if it works, we can look forward to hundreds of millions of such suits from nonvoters in every state.  Maybe next, we will be seeing students who skip school suing the district for not just giving them their degrees?  

    Or next, we will be seeing a "nonvoters for Obama" movement?  Will they hold massive nonrallies?  Where they will massively nonchant "Yes, we can't!"  Or would it be "yes, we didn't! So we're suing!"

    Parent

    Disenfranchise? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by 0 politico on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:57:55 AM EST
    But, weren't the voters well aware that the primary was a "go" anyway.  I mean 1.7 million voted in the Democratic Primary.  Was that not a record?  That tells me that an awful lot of people felt the need to state their preference.  And, even though the candidates were not allowed to campaign in the state, did not one candidate (accidently) advertise?

    So, is the good reverend going to be fair and unbiased is seeking and recording who these "disenfranchised" voters are, regardless of who they support?  Are we going to find that they either come from counties that a certain candidate won, or will they somehow unanimously support that certain candidate?  Are we going to find an ethnic skewing in the list?

    I did not see that the reverend was supporting a re-vote in these states.

    I guess not counting the votes, either way, does not strike him as being undemocratic.  I guess bullying the super delegates into following the results, sans FL and MI, is also his idea of fair play.  How vociferous would he be against seating FL and MI delegates if the primary results in those states had been different?

    Please, tell us reverend.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:06:20 AM EST
    the logical conclusion is a revote. Obama does not want that.

    See my post above.

    Parent

    I Can Only Think That This Will Hurt Obama (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:58:44 AM EST
    in the GE.

    He has already written off FL in the general (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:29:56 AM EST
    He figures he doesn't need it, so eff them.

    Parent
    My Comment Wasn't Just FL Related (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:39:58 AM EST
    The more media coverage that Obama's supporters are trying to disenfranchise voters the more it will harm him in all states in the GE. Also, has the potential to establish more racial tensions that will not be beneficial to either candidate if they are the nominee.

    Parent
    so-- (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:00:25 AM EST
    Is there an official answer from the Obama camp on the revote?  I understand that Sharpton's position is not to seat the delegates.  What is his position on the revote?

    I mean, could somebody please ask Obama what his solution to this mess is?  It's a really simple question: revote--yes or no?

    His (none / 0) (#42)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:35:22 AM EST
    solution is that he should be awarded 50% of all the delegates in MI and FL which will place him significantly ahead of Clinton.  He is opposed to any sort of do-over and he opposes seating the delegates as is.

    Parent
    tek (none / 0) (#46)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    do you have a link?  Is there an official statement?  Or is this just what you got from Brazile?

    Parent
    yeah, really (none / 0) (#65)
    by ghost2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:57:11 AM EST
    So in states that Hillary wins, they share the delegates evenly.  Gee, what is wrong with this picture?

    That's exactly the same as not counting the Florida and Michigan delegates.  Their influence in the outcome will be a fat zero.

    Parent

    The problem when Al shows up is (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:10:15 AM EST
    First of all, I like and admire Al Sharpton and enjoy his sense of humor. I do not like when he gets so furious he is almost sputtering. And, the problem that Al brings to the table is that he usually shows up on racial equality issues. Thus, if he is involved in not seating the delegation as is and doing a do-over, it takes away from the legitmacy of having a new vote. It brings attention to the fact that if Obama suddenly carries the state, it is because he pulled the race card and got all the black voters who did not vote the first time to vote. He points out that he is taking names of all those who didn't vote before. Wouldn't that be similar to all those who voted for Nader who if they knew Bush was going to be crowned would have changed their vote for Gore. Fla wanted to vote early. They voted early and enough of them showed up to have a decision. Maybe they should just allow Democrats who have not voted to get a chance to vote.

    Turnout in the first FL primary (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:15:52 AM EST
    was not skewed against A-As.

    Parent
    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:21:14 AM EST
    When folks discuss Florida AND Michigan, they forget that Edwards was still in the race the first time.

    Most of those votes, imo, will go to Clinton.

    So in Florida, where the initial result was

    Clinton 857k, Obama 569k, Edwards 249k, I think a revote would go, more or less proportionally

    Clinton 60, Obama 40, and Clinton winning by 450k votes, helping her in the all important popular vote count.  

    Parent

    In Michigan (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    the exit poll question was asked: who would you vore for if all the candidates were on the ballot?  Results: Clinton 46%, Obama 35%, Edwards 12%.  Lord only knows where those Edwards supporters would go, but it probably wouldn't affect the 11-point margin too wildly.

    I continue to believe that Clinton will win a MI re-vote by Ohio-like margins.  Those who are hanging their hats on the one Rasmussen poll showing a tie don't understand Michigan very well.

    Parent

    Things have changed (none / 0) (#51)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:49:23 AM EST
    since that exit poll. I don't have trouble believing that Michican has tightened like everywhere else.

    Parent
    Like Ohio? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:02:39 AM EST
    If you believe Michigan will be significantly different from Ohio, explain to me the reasons why you think so.

    Parent
    I think we both know where Edwards voters are goin (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:04:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:29:00 AM EST
    To be honest, Edwards attracted a very strange coalition of voters in this primary.  A lot of conservatives who were drawn to his culturally conservative signifiers (and who may have remembered his centrist campaign from 2004), coupled with a lot of lefties who were drawn to his unapologetically progressive message.

    The assumption seems to be that since Edwards' voters were almost all white this time around, they'll go with the candidate who wins most of the white votes.  But I don't think they're a randomly chosen cross-section of the white population.

    I haven't seen any conclusive analysis one way or the other as to where Edwards' voters ended up.  You'd think Chris Bowers would have nailed this one down long ago.

    Parent

    Actually, two of my friends would change their vot (none / 0) (#69)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:57:37 PM EST
    One would change from Edwards to Obama and her husband would change from Hillary to Obama. They made that decision after mailing in their votes and then hearing Bill make 'all those racist comments' in South Carolina. Which is funny, because they moved from Margate up the coast because the 'Haitians were taking over the neighborhood'. Ironic.

    Parent
    But he didn't (none / 0) (#74)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:38:33 PM EST
    Make racial comments, this is not accurate. Please do not propagate a rumor.

    Parent
    I want a revote (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:18:58 AM EST
    and I think you are right about Sharpton.  For many Americans, he is the face of racial anger.  I don't think Sharpton would disagree that fighting racial discrimination has been the cause of his life; however, to associate that with the Obama campaign, especially when Obama is back on his "transcending race" train, is not good.

    What I have seen this weekend is a clear message from the Clinton campaign: we support a revote and here is how we will get it paid for.  What I have seen from Obama's people is...well, Sharpton doing his thing here, Kerry saying rules are rules, Brazile saying seat FL but not MI and tough patooey...I'm sure there are some more that I missed, but the point is that his message is scattershot.  The more time that passes without Obama defining his role, the more votes he loses.

    Amateur hour, take 9 trazillion.

    Parent

    Wouldn't Sharton need to find (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM EST
    people who didn't in this primary but did vote in last primary?

    How could a habitual non-voter declare himself disenfranchided?

    Even with record turnouts, (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:40:51 AM EST
    there are always way too many registered voters who do not bother to vote - and untold numbers of eligible voters who never bother to register so that they can vote.  Have they been disenfranchised somehow?  And how would Sharpton know whether someone did not vote because they thought it wouldn't count - because someone said so?

    My personal theory on the conundrum-that-is-Florida (bolstered a bit by the comments of people I know who love there), is that even though Floridians may have been told that their delegation would not be seated at the convention, they believed there was a possibility that decision could be overturned, and there's nothing like 1.75 million people coming out to vote to make the case for that; had Democratic turnout been the lowest in history, then I think you have a case for people feeling disenfranchised.

    I like Al Sharpton, too, but I don't think this is helping Obama.


    Parent

    Looks (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:31:36 AM EST
    like a typical Al Sharpton move.  He is a very ELOQUENT speaker, but doesn't always do as he says.  I still maintain that if Barack Obama gets the nomination by disenfranchising voters or by falling back on the fact that he's AA, he'll only regret it.

    Americans are tired of these power plays by the pols.  This starts to look very much like the worst sort of old fashioned political garbage.  Why can't Obama agree to new primaries since Carville has crafted a means of paying for them?  Instead, it looks like Obama is trying to manipulate MI and FL to make sure he ends up with those delegates.

    I read that Obama took his name off the MI ballot because he feared he couldn't win it and he didn't want Clinton to get those delegates.  Then people say she's a player.  Please.

    Here is the bigger problem (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:39:41 AM EST
    if Sharpton actually follows through with his plans: which doors is he going to knock on?  The fact that anyone with an ounce of sense can look at a map and guess where the Obama supporters are and where the Clinton supporters are should tell us that there is a problem.  Also, the fact that in Florida, like a great deal of the country, those Obama pockets are mighty small, is an issue.

    But if Sharpton collects his signature and goes to court with a bunch of aa neighborhoods claiming they didn't get to vote for Obama, it would be just as easy to ride a Little Rascal through some nursing homes and get as many, if not more, signatures from people saying they would have voted Clinton.

    Useless grandstanding, and for the majority of Americans, Obama being associated with an arguably reactionary figure is not good.

    It goes back to this: Obama needs to speak out immediately on which solution he favors.  Sitting on your hands and saying "let's let the DNC work it out" is really, really bad form.

    That is because Obama is trying to be perfect (none / 0) (#71)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:13:20 PM EST
    Look how he waited for Hillary to vote before voting. And when he announced on talk show that the Dems would give George his way while they were still negotiating, I thought, Important Want a Be. There were a few other rookie mistakes but I think after On the Job training as VP, he will be ready for the top job in 2012. I am not against Obama, I just don't want him being the lamb going to the slaughter which is DC.

    Parent
    Obama being content to send out surrogates (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:12:18 AM EST
    who deliver mixed messages - a lot of which seem to be little more than excuses for slamming Clinton and ways to deliver false information vis-à-vis "the rules" - on such an important issue feels to me like a significant lack of leadership from the candidate himself, which I think is part of a pattern.  For all the charges about Clinton triangulating everything to death, I feel like Obama may be taking it to a new level.  

    Someone can set me straight, but I have a sense that he is so intent on being as close to "all things to all people" that he ends up paralyzed when it comes to having to take a definite position on something.  He's piggy-backed endlessly on Clinton's answers in debates, for example, which has left me thinking of him as the "me, too" candidate.

    When does (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by DaleA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:33:36 AM EST
    Hillary start running ads in FL and MI stating that she is fighting for the voters in those states? This would seem to be the most effective move for her at this point. Go direct to the voters. Promise to fight for their right to vote. And ask for support.

    Record numbers (4.66 / 3) (#32)
    by themomcat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:17:05 AM EST
    Floridians came out in record numbers to vote in the  primary. What is Sharpton thinking!? He will further divide the Democratic party. The Democrats are trying to convince the country that they are ready to lead this country out of Iraq, deal with North Korea, the economy, the environment and numerous other issues when they can't agree to seat delegates of the states of FL and MI because they held their primaries TOO EARLY? The Republicans will eat us alive in the GE. Big deal in Florida, no one campaigned. They weren't in media isolation. They made a decision without the BS from the candidates. Good for them.
     As for MI, Edwards and Obama weren't coerced to remove their names from the ballot They did so VOLUNTARILY. Get over it. Seat the delegates that Clinton won, the remaining should go to Obama or uncommitted, convince them.
    Dean and the DNC need to end this bickering or we will have another four years of Republican Destruction of our Constitution and the economy. Sorry for the rant bur I am short on time. I have to be back at work at 3 pm and won't be available for comment until 8 am tomorrow.

    For me (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:39:04 AM EST
    you have hit the most upsetting aspect of this entire campaign.  I cannot understand why the old dinosaurs in the DNC decided to inject race into this presidential campaign at such a crucial juncture in nation's history.  Obama would not have run this time if Daschle, Kennedy, Kerry and Durbin had not talked him into it.  They were only thinking of their power and not thinking about the good of the country at all.  The frightening thing is that their behavior demonstrates they are not competent to run the country.  So, what does that leave us with?  A very sad state of affairs.

    Parent
    exactly, color me disgusted! (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:07:15 AM EST


    Parent
    Good rant (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Daryl24 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    I can never get past the part about punishing two powerful swing states because they moved their primary dates up. Going into a convention and GE with this issue is political suicide.    

    Parent
    I like Al Sharpton too (none / 0) (#6)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:44:52 AM EST
    and I understand why he and others view the FL primary as not legitimate. I think it would be fine to seat FL as is, but it's also important to have a unified party and have everyone buy in to the eventual nominee. So let's have a do-over.

    heh! nail on head there. (none / 0) (#10)
    by HadIt on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:46:51 AM EST


    Maybe the verdict (none / 0) (#11)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:47:15 AM EST
    in the Sean Bell shooting trial will distract him.

    Why did they think their votes wouldn't count? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:59:19 AM EST
    Prior to Florida primary -

    >>>Obama says the primary is meaningless because of the lack of delegates and because the pledge kept the candidates from campaigning.

    http://tinyurl.com/24dfwl

    Obama himself (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:49:55 AM EST
    went down to FL before the election and told reporters he would see to it the delegates were seated.  After having said that, to sue on this basis is absurd.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#48)
    by tek on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:40:55 AM EST
    did campaign in FL.  He was the first candidate to start campaigning in FL.

    Parent
    Both sides (none / 0) (#24)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:03:58 AM EST
    seem to file more suits than I realized in campaigns. It doesn't ever seem to hit the mainstream media very much, which makes them seem unimportant. If this one does get a lot of play, I don't think we can underplay the racism aspect. Sharpton would get vilified as he usually does.

    I love Al Sharpton ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:04:49 AM EST
    I was in NYC through the Tawana Brawley nonsense, and I even forgive him for that.  I preferred his speech at the '04 convention to Obama's.  He's sharp and funny.

    But this is just typical grandstanding from Sharpton.  Don't pay it no never mind.  

    I expect a FL and MI solution before this becomes more than a blip on the radar.

    i saw this coming sad to say. (none / 0) (#28)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    supporters for any group can get carried away. i personally think often it is more about them wanting attention. there is no way sharpton is helping obama. and frankly, obama needs to take a stand and put a stop to it. if he doesn't, please take note of that.

    Keep comments on topic (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:09:28 AM EST
    I deleted 2 off topic comments.

    I love Sharpton (none / 0) (#39)
    by Salt on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:31:47 AM EST
    he is smart honest and talented and his comments are not new back a bit he was with Tweety and KO and said there that if the Party attempted to seat Mich Fla he believed it was an issue of a Civil Rights, I would of course argue it is but for differing reason and demographics then he might.  My view he is fighting for his candidate with his strengths his passion, I hope that's what's fueling him, and its wonderful.  I recall thinking when all this women hating came out and the many on the left keep spewing this monster thrash where is our girl Al Sharpton, how could anyone believe we women will roll over and play victim to these attacks.  I for one believe Al bringing this activism out in the open instead of below the surface is a good thing and that it will bring an honest good debate and yes it will draw lines too but it won't be a marketed manipulation of group grievance and exploitation, but my guess a frank discussion. And lets face it the press has turned many are writing Obamas obit like Brooks NYT,  while splashing the male mantra of the men of who appear to view their mothers disapproval as a knife attack on their gentle pure souls slime on Senator Clinton, so if he is to make a difference now is the time.  

    I believe keeping Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton out of the limelight has been a mistake in general an insult and when John Kerry gave his Obama endorsement speech on the old guard and demanded and pandered that these lions lay down with no rights or say in future I thought you people are crazy, the SNL spoof was painful to watch.


    what can they be thinking? (none / 0) (#61)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:13:51 AM EST
    i can only conclude that there are a large amount of people very much out of touch with the feeling or will of the american people. we don't want to see these games played by supposed adults. remember 2000 and florida. we want leaders to lead america out of the mess it is in. these so called leaders play games for power and leave our future to go down the tubes. here you have obama(silent) and brazile, dean, sharpton with their put your head in the sand type attitude toward us the american people. joe six pack will get it i assure you. the end result, hellp prez mccain sorry to say.

    Parent
    Hm (none / 0) (#62)
    by chrisvee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:18:19 AM EST
    If he entirely forces the possibility of seating the current delegation out of the realm of possibility, does he put Clinton in a weaker bargaining position? In other words, does he force her to come to the table to negotiate the terms of what will happen in FL when she might just sit back secure in the knowledge that if nothing else comes to pass that delegation will have to be seated?  In other words, he takes the 'nuclear' option off the table.

    Although since I do think a revote only helps Clinton win by a larger margin, that doesn't make much sense unless Sharpton thinks otherwise.

    Perhaps Sharpton is just trying to be a catalyst to get something moving and isn't buying into the conventional wisdom about which option will help/hurt Obama.

    It makes sense if the re-vote is mail-in (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:12:20 PM EST
    and if one candidate or supporters have a plan to take advantage of the potential for huge problems
    (see, for one, the book Deliver the Vote), and especially in a state that will have insufficient time to try to put such a different system in place.

    Parent
    For those who love Al Sharpton (none / 0) (#68)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:47:43 PM EST
    have you forgotten Tawana Brawley and Sharpton's personal attacks on prosecutor, Steven Pagones?

    Sharpton was successfully sued for slander for accusing Pagones of racism and of being one of the perpetrators of the alleged abduction and rape.

    I recognize Sharpton as a political force but I certainly don't love or hate him.

    Although Sharpton has a grandstanding history ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by chemoelectric on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:23:44 PM EST
    ... in this case I think he is probably tuned in to the valid concerns of numerous Floridian Democrats who are getting awfully used to not having an effective vote.

    Another alternative is that Sharpton favors Clinton. Has he endorsed either candidate? Personally I think it is more the former motivation--combined with a fondness for attention, sure, why not.

    This is only tangentially related (none / 0) (#75)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:32:37 PM EST
    From CNN:

    "Ballot initiatives have been proposed in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma that would give voters the chance to decide whether they want to do away with affirmative action in government-funded projects and public schools"

    Various Obama supporters have posited that one or more of these states could go in the win column for D's if Obama is the nominee (I'm an HRC supporter, so my position is that I doubt it).

    Anyway - do you think this would help or hurt him if he ends up being the nominee? Does this add on to the Al Sharpton fiasco that may be about to hit>

    The Last Thing Obama Wants Is . . . | 73 comments (73 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment