home

If Clinton Wants Uncertainty, Why Does She Support FL/MI Revotes And Why Does Obama Oppose Them?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:44:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Last week, I exchanged views with Mark Schmitt on my view that Clinton needs MI/FL revotes to win the nomination.

Today, we discover that Obama is blocking the MI revote plan and Clinton has embraced revotes in FL and MI. Perhaps Mark Schmitt is right that revotes end the uncertainty and thus Clinton's chances for the nomination. But it seems clear that neither Clinton or Obama seem to believe that.

Don't get me wrong. Pols are pols, and if their situations were reversed, I feel confident their positions would be reversed on revotes for Michigan and Florida. But there is no doubt that revotes favor the Democratic Party and its chances in November. And that is what I care about. Not to mention the principle of enfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan. Not a small thing either.

< Wright's Church Comes to His Defense | Insider Trading Conviction of Qwest's Joe Nacchio Reversed >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    If Clinton Wants Uncertainty, Why Does She Support FL/MI Revotes And Why Does Obama Oppose Them? | 150 comments (150 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Re-votes (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by AnnL on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:50:36 PM EST
    I must be mistaken but I was told Obama wasn't like a regular "pol", that he was above this kind of phoniness.  Have we been "bamboozled" or "hoodwinked"?

    were you really told that? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:57:49 PM EST
    or did you just make up a man of stray so you could burn it down?

    Parent
    What part of Hope and Change don't you understand? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:08:29 PM EST
    Of course he is held out to be beyond politics. It's a basis of his campaign.

    Parent
    Good use of the passive voice (3.00 / 2) (#16)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:17:38 PM EST
    but I'm not buying.  Hope and Change don't mean "I'm not a politician."  Clinton talks about change.  She did it incessantly after Iowa.  Bill Clinton dubbed himself "the man from hope".  Were they held out as being above politics?

    Parent
    you are entitled to your opinion (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:32:02 PM EST
    not your own history.
    I know Obama and his campaign have gotten used to being able to say anything but we all experienced the last few months.

    Parent
    WJC (none / 0) (#33)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:29:27 PM EST
    ran as an outsider - a leader bringing post-partisan solutions to a divided Washington.  So yeah, you've got nothing here.

    Parent
    Actually you just bolstered my point (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:34:57 PM EST
    Thanks!

    Parent
    Your point was that you can't read? (none / 0) (#48)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:44:31 PM EST
    Ok, whatever.  I won't bother to reply to you in future.

    Parent
    My point was that neither hope nor change (3.00 / 2) (#51)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:47:15 PM EST
    mean "i'm not a politician", unless you think that HRC and BC also claim/claimed not to be a politician.  No need to get all snippy because your snark misfired.

    Parent
    Ok, one more reply (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:58:58 PM EST
    You've moved the goalposts or you don't understand what "regular" means.  You don't understand the difference between WJC being a politician and claiming to be post-partisan.

    Well, I suspect you do, and just don't want to admit that Obama has been running on the slightly hypocritical claim that HRC is a pol and he's not.  It's even true to some degree - she's for the most part a real Democrat while he's a bit less of one; she's a politician and he's a blend of politician and charismatic figure.  If more of his supporters in the sphere would admit to the above the discourse might not be so broken.

    Parent

    maybe you can provide a clear delineation (3.00 / 2) (#68)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:03:31 PM EST
    between post-partisan and "not a politician" and whatever the difference is between what the Clintons claim to be and what Obama claims to be.  The above comment certainly doesn't do the trick.

    The discourse might be less broken if Obama detractors would stop burning straw men left and right.

    Parent

    you like the google, right? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    1 - 10 of about 52,000 for Obama "not a politician".

    Parent
    Obama "not a politician" (none / 0) (#59)
    by cymro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:56:29 PM EST
    Google LINK

    Parent
    And yet they don't appear to go to words (2.33 / 3) (#65)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:00:07 PM EST
    of Obama himself.  Is your argument that we can treat things people say about him on the internet to the candidate himself?  To state that argument is to refute it.

    Parent
    Words of Obama himself (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:21:01 PM EST
    Obama launches campaign, vows 'new kind of politics' source

    It's time to put an end to the say-anything-to-win politics of the past. Together we can face the challenges of the future with a new kind of politics and a new kind of leadership.source

    Barack Obama stands for a new kind of politics -- a politics without partisan bickering and smear tactics. source

    "I've been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics." source

    Or, you could look at his website.

    Parent

    "new kind of politics" (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:30:12 PM EST
    Not the same as "not politics".

    Parent
    Excellent! (none / 0) (#96)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:35:57 PM EST
    Obama's just another politician!

    I wanted to believe that, but I'd been taught to be cynical. Snicker

    Parent

    The straw genocide (3.00 / 2) (#98)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:37:12 PM EST
    continues apace.  Where is Clinton to urge intervention?

    Parent
    You don't read well. Look up (none / 0) (#97)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:36:05 PM EST
    I was told Obama wasn't like a regular "pol",

    This is what you're responding to. Or what every one  else is - but you keep changing it.

    Parent

    I can read quite fine (3.00 / 2) (#103)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    but you're having trouble understanding what "new politics" is supposed to mean when Obama describes it, as you appear to share the original poster's erroneous notion that it has something to do with the Michigan primary.

    Parent
    Oh, I get it! (none / 0) (#105)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:48:25 PM EST
    We're playing What Obama Really Meant!

    Why didn't you just say so?

    Parent

    No, you're playing (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:00:10 PM EST
    "Put words in Obama's mouth."  See the difference?

    Parent
    I gave you direct quotes! (none / 0) (#142)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:05:42 PM EST


    Parent
    "As The WORM Turns"- going thru my mind (none / 0) (#128)
    by jawbone on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:06:19 PM EST
    as I was reading the exercise in--what?--deliberate refusal to understand rather simple words?

    WORM is such a wonderful acronym.

    Parent

    Obama is the ultimate DC insider (none / 0) (#58)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:54:27 PM EST
    proven by his declaration that Bush and Cheney did NOT commit impeachable offenses.


    Parent
    that is a novel definition (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    of "DC insider"

    Parent
    No one bolstered. You're a clutter troll (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:15:28 PM EST
    You're posting irrelevant substance-free fake challenges just to clutter threads with nonsense, fill them, and close them too quickly for people to read and legitimately participate.

    You've left behind a big trail of unmet challenges to back up your crap. All you do is shift widely known Obama positions stated his own words.

    Declaring victory in one line is more of a freeper thing. It's not progressive. It's certainly not change. If this boneheaded parsing is the kind of change TeamO and his supporters have decided to bring to the world, it stinks.

    Parent

    "The Man From Hope" (none / 0) (#85)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    Was actually a reference to Clinton's birthplace, Hope, Arkansas. It was mostly about how he was born in a small town in the south, although I'm sure that the ad people loved the fact that his birthplace was named "Hope". If Bill Clinton had a recurring theme in his election, it wasn't "hope", it was "It's the economy, stupid".

    Parent
    Yes I know (none / 0) (#94)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:35:12 PM EST
    where he was born.  It was clearly a double entendre.  Campaigns can have several themes.  Hope was one of his.

    Parent
    I wish Obama supporters ... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:54:13 PM EST
    would just defend what Obama did, does or says.  Rather than play semantics every time these things become inconvenient.

    Will they continue to play this game if he becomes president?  If he doesn't withdraw from Iraq will they somehow claim that he's still living up to some arcane reading of his campaign promises?

    Parent

    I wish Clinton supporters (1.00 / 1) (#126)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:58:46 PM EST
    would stop making claims about Obama that they can't back up.  Then I wouldn't have to frustrate you by pointing out what they are doing and everyone could be happy.

    Parent
    Please ... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:04:02 PM EST
    you know you aren't doing that.  You're just avoiding the argument by playing word games.

    Man up and defend your candidate.

    Parent

    I am defending him (1.00 / 0) (#134)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:18:34 PM EST
    The rhetorical strategy, common around here, is to pretend that Obama has claimed to be some kind of flawless person who never acts self-interestedly.  Then, whenever he does anything self-serving or cynical, everyone says "So much for hope" or "I guess he's just a politician" like little Pavlovian dogs.  I'm just pointing out what a shabby form of argument that is.

    Parent
    He insists on purity when it suits him (none / 0) (#139)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:27:22 PM EST
    He insists that one vote of Clinton's (a very important vote) is a disqualifying factor. It is not surprising that people react against that by looking for the same purity in him, and find it lacking.

    Parent
    I found this article (none / 0) (#146)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:24:42 PM EST
    interesting. The writer addesses some of the issues in this dicussion. Sometimes Sen Obama can come across as arrogant....

    The freshman senator told reporters in July that he would overcome Hillary Rodham Clinton's lead in the polls because "to know me is to love me."

    A few months later, he said, "Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama's been there."

    He also addresses the vote...

    If arrogance is a display of self-importance and superiority, Obama earns the pejorative every time he calls his pre-invasion opposition to the war in Iraq an act of courage.

    While he deserves credit for forecasting the complications of war in 2002, Obama's opposition carried scant political risk because he was a little-known state lawmaker courting liberal voters in Illinois. In 2004, when denouncing the war and war-enabling Democrats would have jeopardized his prized speaking role at the Democratic National Convention, Obama ducked the issue.

    And final statement.....

    The power of his message lies in its humility. As he told 7,000 supporters at a rally last month, "I am an imperfect vessel for your hopes and dreams."

    Nobody expects Obama to be perfect. But he better never forget that he isn't.



    Parent
    Your title doesn't fit ... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:30:19 PM EST
    the content of your post.

    Throwing you "language argument" back at you.  You aren't defending him, you're attacking his opponents.

    And even your labored use of the English language cannot claim they're the same thing.

    I ask, with respect, could you occasionally actually defend what your candidate does and says.  Rather than continually resorting to this tired High School debating strategy.

    Parent

    JJE is a clutter troll here to clog discussions (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:26:12 PM EST
    He has posted a bunch of irrelevant crap designed to make people people restate and keep restating Obama's widely known positions and phrases.

    Trying to speed towards a total that will clog and shut down a discussion before others can meaningfully participate says a lot about Team Obama's commitment to a "new" style of politics right there.

    Parent

    As I recall, he was warned about it, too (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:43:01 PM EST
    several days ago.  Give Jeralyn time.  She's had a busy day, based on the thread about being on tv.:-)

    Parent
    Clutter trolling is the Change they want? Really?! (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:28:30 PM EST
    Somehow I doubt it's what Gandhi had in mind when he said, "We must be the change we wish to see in the world."

    I doubt that hectoring people with deliberate or feigned obtuseness was what he had in mind when he said that.

    Parent

    You are aware (none / 0) (#119)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:25:23 PM EST
    that Hope is a town in Arkansas, right?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#121)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:29:55 PM EST
    You are aware that the word has more than one meaning, right?  And you're aware that sometimes campaign slogans use puns, right?

    Parent
    I think you're being purposely obtuse (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:16:05 PM EST
    The commenter said "I was told Obama wasn't like a regular "pol". You're demanding to know when he said he wasn't a politician, but that's not responsive to the comment. You were given several examples of Obama portrayting himslef as not a "regular" pol. I think it's silly to argue that he hasn't portrayed himself as practing politics in a different manner than his opponents, which is akin to saying he's not a regular politician.

    Parent
    In what different manner? (1.00 / 0) (#138)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:26:46 PM EST
    That's the point.  There are many ways of practicing politics.  The assertion was made that Hunter refusing to sign off in Michigan until he sees the legislation belies Obama's claim to practice different politics.  I asked for a description of "new politics", as described by Obama, that would support this claim.  Nobody delivered.  Echinopsia found some quotes but they didn't bear on the issue, and everyone else repeated the same "he's just a regular politician" cant you can find on millions of  Obama-hating threads.  All conclusion, no argument.

    Parent
    You did not use the capitalized version (none / 0) (#136)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:23:24 PM EST
    which is why I asked. Hope and change are wonderful things. Sen. Obama uses those themes to hold himself out as being beyond "divisive politics." I am shocked that a sentient being could dispute that.

    Parent
    I don't understand why Obama opposes (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:53:35 PM EST
    He isn't going to lose the delegate count, regardless of what happens in Florida and Michigan. It seems that his position would be stronger if he encouraged the re-vote and then won with more delegates, anyway. Yes, there is that nasty "majority of voter's" thing, but Clinton has that anyway, since she can effectively argue that the voter's chose her even though the delegates went to Obama - and she can use Florida and Michigan to back that up, since it has nothing to do with the DNC issues related to seating delegates. And when you throw in the general election issue, it's a no-brainer. The last thing the Democrats need is to turn off a bunch of voter's in states that might make the difference between a McCain inaugeration or ... not.

    He very much wants to avoid... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:17:00 PM EST
    ... the narrative that his campaign has negative momentum, and that Democrats are developing buyer's remorse before they are even done with the buying. But I still think he's hurting himself by opposing this. Allow revotes, squeak by Hillary in Michigan, and I'm pretty sure the Powers That Be in the party would get behind him and try to end this. I think that's worth running the risk of not winning there.

    Parent
    like penalties in sports (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:19:19 PM EST
    Sometimes sports teams will purposely make fouls (e.g., in basketball) when a point is about to be made since the foul thrower only has a chance of making points.

    I think if the revote happens (along with PA and others) Hillary will end up with a win in the popular vote. Obama can't let that happen, no matter what the risk. He has no choice.

    Parent

    On the other hand (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:17:02 PM EST
    you don't let your star player commit the foul when he's already had 4 (as in he'd be fouled out).

    Obama might be "fouled out" of the general election with this position.

    Parent

    can we use football analogies (none / 0) (#143)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:06:59 PM EST
    instead of basketball ones?  You know--something from a real sport?

    Parent
    Numbers (none / 0) (#34)
    by mg7505 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:31:00 PM EST
    to back this up please:

    if the revote happens (along with PA and others) Hillary will end up with a win in the popular vote

    I'd like to believe it, but just need some proof.

    Parent

    One thing... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by sweetthings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:55:29 PM EST
    You seem to operating on the assumption that candidates have direct control over local politicians who have endorsed them. Thus, Debbie blocking revotes in Florida is the fault of Senator Clinton, and Hunter blocking revotes in Michigan is the fault of Senator Obama.

    But is that necessarily true? As I read it, Hunter is saying that he wants to make sure Michigan taxpayers don't get stuck with the bill. He knows that political campaigns are notorious for running away from their obligations, (ask anyone who lent money to Giuliani!) and he doesn't want his constituents to end up being suckers. Is this just a cover for making sure revotes don't happen? Possibly, but it's a pretty darn good one. Michigan coffers aren't exactly overflowing at the moment.

    At any rate, I think the assumption that Hillary and Obama both rule their entire organization with an iron fist is suspect, to say the least. Debbie knows that Hillary needs her more than she needs Hillary, and I suspect the same is true of Hunter. What's the old saying? Something about all politics being local?

    momentum politics (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jr on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:55:30 PM EST
    From a process perspective, I think the issue for Obama is that Clinton will likely win Michigan and Florida (Florida more comfortably than MI), which feeds her "big-state" narrative and gives her late momentum, even while it eliminates any shot she might have at closing Obama's pledged delegate lead.

    On the math, Obama likely comes out the winner from a revote, since he will win enough delegates in Michigan to cement his lead.  On the media narrative, though, it will play out as a strong Clinton win and a sign that the party (which is, of course, always perfectly represented by whichever state happens to be voting in any given week, according to the cable news punditocracy) is having second thoughts.

    His concern is over the narrative.  I think he's hoping that he can get his lead big enough, and get Hillary to concede early enough (read: endorse him and release her pledged delegates), that he can magnanimously agree to seat the delegations from MI and FL "as-is" without worrying that it will cause him to lose the nomination.  From a media perspective, that's probably his optimal scenario.

    That's just another way of saying (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:51:27 PM EST
    that MI and FLA won't have an impact on the nomination.  "We'll count them as long as they don't affect the outcome." See also, 50%-50% split.

    Parent
    "Heads-I-win, tails-you-lose" strategy (none / 0) (#117)
    by Coral on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:22:42 PM EST
    Nothing "new politics" about that.

    Parent
    This dovetails with TX (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Pacific John on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:59:10 PM EST
    and the HRC push that all caucus votes be counted. In these three cases, a transparent democratic process happens to favor Hillary.

    There is little excuse to lock out MI and FL votes, or to overlook any voters currently lost in incorrect TX delegate tabulations.

    At this point, an open, orderly process might favor Clinton. But that does not give anyone the excuse to keep it from happening.

    Ditto, Pacific John (none / 0) (#130)
    by felizarte on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:07:23 PM EST
    and if Hillary's push for transparency in the Texas caucus votes, it would be interesting to wonder how many suspicious signatures are uncovered and should be disqualified.  It would be most unfortunate if these discoveries happen right before the Pennsylvania primary.l

    Parent
    Why isn't the (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by talkingpoint on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    media talking about this? He can try to block th votes as much as he wants, but in the end those votes will be counted. For the first time in several weeks Obama is trailing in the gallup daily. I believe that many are starting to find out more about who Obama really is. He may be good with his mouth, but I don't know how he is going to talk himself out of this one.

    why (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:26:50 PM EST
    isnt the media talking about this?

    that was rhetorical? right?

    Parent

    they are (none / 0) (#42)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:38:45 PM EST
    the MI/FL situation was story number 2 after the Wright stuff this weekend.

    Parent
    thats odd (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:41:52 PM EST
    I had cable news on a lot this weekend trying to keep up with the Wright firestorm and I dont remember hearing about it at all.


    Parent
    Tweety (none / 0) (#114)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:13:14 PM EST
    Chris Matthews had more on Lewinsky this week than Wright.

    Parent
    I wonder what that Lewinsky footage was about (1.00 / 0) (#122)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:33:49 PM EST
    and if it related to another big story from last week.  Nah, I'm sure it was just a blatant attempt to attack Clinton with no relevance at all to anything that happened last week.  If it was related to another story, I'm sure Bob Somerby would have noted that.  He would never dissemble and clown so abjectly.

    Parent
    You're being disingenuous... (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:24:38 PM EST
    ...it's obviously the plan to throw the bathroom bidet at Clinton that Obama's campaign announced last week, come to fruition via Tweety.

    Parent
    Honestly (4.00 / 0) (#147)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:37:52 PM EST
    is anything more boring than dredging up Lewinsky?  All these kids who were, like, eight when this happened find it so titillating and scandalous and the rest of us just find it soooo yesterday.

    Parent
    The local media (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:12:46 PM EST
    in both Florida and Michigan are talking about it. I am sure it will have an impact. I would also expect to see Clinton make a large mention of it.

    Was just in FL (none / 0) (#118)
    by Coral on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:24:33 PM EST
    and it is on the news constantly.

    Parent
    What is the talk exactly? Thanks for your (none / 0) (#123)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:39:09 PM EST
    insight...

    Parent
    He should allow revotes (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by mikecan1978 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:18:51 PM EST
    Thats the only fair solution especially for Michigan

    Why does it matter (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by badger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:28:35 PM EST
    what Obama and Clinton (or their supporters) think?

    MI and FL voters are entitled to the same privileges as voters in any other state in choosing the party's candidate. And the Democratic Party needs MI and FL votes, regardless of who the nominee is.

    Most years the late (none / 0) (#49)
    by learningcurve on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:46:21 PM EST
    states don't have a say. Primaries aren't fair, or democratic.

    Parent
    Which means what? (none / 0) (#69)
    by badger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:05:06 PM EST
    In the first place, it doesn't address disenfranchisement of MI and FL voters.

    Rhode Island rarely has a "say" in any Presidential election. Does that mean we don't have to count the votes in Providence?

    And none of that gives any indication as to why the candidates get to approve or veto the process for resolving this. Does Gravel get the same privilege? Edwards (he hasn't dropped out - only suspended his campaign)?

    Parent

    putting words in mouths (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by VicAjax on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:58:02 PM EST

    you extrapolate motive, and say Obama "opposes" the revote, yet he has never said that.  you allow commenters to declare that he's said he's "beyond politics," when he's never said that.

    you set up so many straw-men to thwack down, yet you tolerate none of that against your candidate of choice.

    tsk tsk, the double-standard rears its fugly head.

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like duck (none / 0) (#90)
    by badger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    has feathers and goes well with orange sauce, a DNA test probably isn't necessary to a reasonable assumption that it's a duck.

    Parent
    double standard (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by VicAjax on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:33:00 PM EST

    but the bar is set far higher for any such statements aimed at Clinton.  there must be three pieces of cross-referenced evidence in order to say anything remotely critical of her.

    on the other hand, innuendo and implication against Obama are standard of practice at TL.  and that's a duck.

    Parent

    Where were you (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:35:25 PM EST
    when the Clinton supporters were criticizing me for saying Clinton was not fighting for revotes?

    You are lying.

    Parent

    lying? (none / 0) (#100)
    by VicAjax on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:39:24 PM EST

    saying Clinton "is not fighting" for revotes is a statement of opinion.  Obama "opposes" revotes is an insinuation of fact.


    Parent
    fascinating (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:43:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:47:28 PM EST
    Facts and opinions are slippery with you. Like you, the Clinton supporters drew up statements from Clinton that said she was for revotes. Like you, they ignored my point - that she was not fighting for them in a way that mattered.

    Obama's opposition is of the same rhetorical sleight of hand - he will "Accept" them but "they are not realistic." He conditions his "acceptance" in ways that prove he opposes them.

    But let me warn you one last time, do not attack this site again in comments here.

    That is against our rules. Do it again and you will be banned.

    Do it again and you will be suspended.

    Parent

    It's what bloggers do (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:48:48 PM EST
    It's how people have been able to convince themselves that Clinton was "for the war" when what they really mean is, in their opinion, she didn't oppose it strongly enough.

    Parent
    "For the war" (none / 0) (#111)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    I don't know how many of them are even aware that she said in casting her AUMF vote that she said invading would be a bad idea - that she said post-invasion it had set a bad precedent.  I went around and around with Yglesias & commentariat on this - I think I made about five substantive comments about it at ObWi and got cricketed.

    Probably it was short-hand at first, then ceased to be through repetition.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    You definitely lied.

    And repeatedly.

    Parent

    More of the Obama (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:51:40 PM EST
    passive-aggressive strategy: "I'll go along with whatever the DNC decides (but I'll work very hard to make sure they don't actually decide anything)".

    No doubt? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:53:47 PM EST

    But there is no doubt that revotes favor the Democratic Party and its chances in November.

    Maybe.  Although a willingness to throw out the results of two perfectly legal elections might create a certain amount of doubt.

    I took an informal poll (none / 0) (#6)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:55:51 PM EST
    of my friends.  It was legal!  It should count!

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:10:14 PM EST

    Is there any doubt these elections were anything but legal under Michigan and Florida law?

    Parent
    Those aren't the relevant authority (none / 0) (#18)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    for counting delegates.

    Parent
    Rules (none / 0) (#27)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:23:27 PM EST
    don't say the results are illegal, either - they could be accepted as is.

    But, ok, fine, you don't like those primaries - what's the democratic alternative except revotes?

    Parent

    The options are, in order of decreasing legitimacy (none / 0) (#40)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:37:28 PM EST
    (1) Revotes.  (2) No seating of any delegates (3) 50% penalty (4) Seating delegates based on Jan. 29.

    Parent
    They are the relevant authority (none / 0) (#108)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:52:02 PM EST

    The state of Michigan is the authority for determining the legality of Michigan elections.  Likewise for Florida.

    Parent
    Not for delegates (none / 0) (#115)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:18:45 PM EST
    Just as my informal poll didn't break any laws, nor did the Jan. 29 primaries.  But neither poll counts for seating delegates.

    Parent
    This is the relevant authority (none / 0) (#47)
    by DaleA on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:44:22 PM EST
    for being on the ballot. Which we should keep in mind. Just waiting for one state to say: seat our delegates with full voting rights or be decertified in the fall.

    Parent
    FYI (none / 0) (#112)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:03:21 PM EST
    There is a Florida legislature who already had staffers looking into the legality of passing such a law. Not sure if that would ever go anywhere.

    Parent
    The issue isn't legality (none / 0) (#99)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:37:48 PM EST
    The issues are legitimacy -- and perceived legitimacy.

    Parent
    I erred (none / 0) (#7)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:56:41 PM EST
    and read the comments.  Believe it or not, the TCR and TOR apply.  Clinton has negative motives and Obama is completely rational about this.

    What are the TCR and the TOR? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:56:37 PM EST
    How are Clinton's motives negative?  Because she's hoping it will boost her candidacy?  What's negative about that, other than that it might improve her position vis a vis Obama?

    Both candidates have rational motives. Obama wants to freeze the current state of play, and Clinton wants to change it. Perfectly rational on both their parts. But the consequences of Clinton's position are positive -- FLA and MI voters are enfranchised, and aren't punished for the actions of their state party officials -- while the consequences of Obama's are negative. The DNC never said that FLA and MI couldn't send delegates to the convention under any circumstances; it simply said they couldn't send delegates based on the January 29 primary results. For Obama to resist a re-vote means that he wants to make the sanctions imposed as a result of the January 29 election irrevocable. That's not positive, no matter how you look at it.

    Parent

    Wasn't referencing the candidates (none / 0) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:11:14 PM EST
    I wasn't clear.  I was not commenting on the candidates positions, just the comments regarding their positions.  When I linked to the articles and read the comments the Clinton Rules and Obama Rules were in effect.  The majority seemed to be attaching negative motives to Clinton's position and positive motives to Clinton's motives.

    Parent
    This hurts Obama (none / 0) (#10)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    If he ends up getting the nomination without Florida and Michigan being able to revote, it's gonna be BAAADDDDD for the Dems in November.

    Bad? Destructive! (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jawbone on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:31:25 PM EST
    Can you imagine his campaigning in MI--vote for me bcz I blocked your chance to make a difference in the primary? Oh, my. And FL? Vote for me bcz I kept you from being seated at the Dem Convention? Oh, yeah, big selling point. He'll come up some bamboozle, but will it work?

    Based on how Obama's campaigns have been run, they do best by clearing the field so there's very little competition.

    Now I know there couldn't be any political manipulation in getting sealed divorce papers opened to the public....right? And only one of the judges was in IL....right?

    But, how often are sealed divorce papers opened to the public?

    Any of our legal types here know?

    Parent

    And not once but twice -- Blair Hull and Jack Ryan (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:07:58 PM EST
    divorce papers unsealed, in two different races.

    Hmmmm.  Yes, how often does lightning strike twice?  And both times, to favor the guy just standing nearby who happens to be running for the seats held by two different guys both struck by lightning?

    Parent

    That leaves some room for hope (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by badger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:23:51 PM EST
    McCain is divorced. Maybe the GOP will end up having to nominate Alan Keyes again.

    Parent
    Question still is--how usual to unseal divorce (none / 0) (#135)
    by jawbone on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:23:02 PM EST
    papers? Could someone demand that anyone's divorce papers, previously sealed, be unsealed? Or does this apply only to public politicians? Public figures? What kind of privacy rights do ordinary people have in this kind of thing? And do pols have those same rights?

    But, iirc, the first divorce papers unsealed were for the primary opponent in the US Senate seat primary--and when the unsavory details emerge, Obama was the last one standing.

    The second divorce papers unsealed were Ryan's and that sure got juicy coverage. And cleared the actual race of the strongest Repub candidate.

    Pretty interesting.

    And, badger, thanks for the LOL.

    Parent

    Full disclosure (none / 0) (#17)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    Is the pro-Obama spin on this.  It might be right, by the way.  Who agrees to something, without seeing the actual contract?  Certainly you wouldn't.

    Given my pro-Obama disposition, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Once I see documentation that proves me wrong, I'll reconsider.

    For the November election though, I do think it is good to have Michigan re-vote.  Obama is far enough ahead that, barring a massive meltdown (for which reason, it's good that Clinton stays in the race, as long as both candidates run a "clean campaign").  I would probably want this wound up after May 6th, especially if Obama wins both Indiana and North Carolina.

    With Florida, it looks like there are legal issues in doing a revote - so I'm not sure what to do, in that case.

    So Obama lied (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:19:34 PM EST
    when he said he would accept anything developed by MI and FL and accepted by the DNC?

    That is what you are saying.

    Parent

    No, not what I'm saying (none / 0) (#22)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:21:01 PM EST
    Because anything developed by MI and FL, accepted by the DNC, would be:

    1. Legal
    2. Have the terms spelled out, for transparency.


    Parent
    Precisely (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:23:07 PM EST
    So why is he opposing the MI revote? You contradict yourself.

    Here is a way to say it "I'll accept a revote in MI that is legal and transparent."

    Since the Michigan plan would be both, why not just say that?

    Parent

    Very simple (none / 0) (#45)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:42:48 PM EST
    Even according to the article you cite:

    "Hunter said he won't sign off on a repeat election unless he sees detailed legislation answering his concerns..."

    Basically, this plan isn't fully baked yet.  As soon as it is, I do hope Obama and compatriots endorse it.

    Parent

    Actually it is (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:50:43 PM EST
    It will be run just like the first primary.

    The legislation is quite simple imo. I think Obama's bluff needs to be called.

    The more interesting point is Hunter ridiculously demands the money must be raised before he will agree to a revote.

    He knows and you know it will not happen that way.

    Someone who wants a revote knows what to say and write - condition the revote on raising the money.

    Parent

    So, is it the money (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:22:41 PM EST
    or is it the "legislation?"

    I'm thinking it is neither - he just does not really want to re-vote.  

    It's getting harder to get Obama to commit than it is to pin jello to the wall.

    Parent

    Once the legislation is written - yes! (none / 0) (#66)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:02:32 PM EST
    Let's get it done. My only point is not to agree before you see the legislation. BTW, Chris Bowers agrees with you - as do I, once transparency requirements are seen.

    Parent
    You disagree with us (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:11:38 PM EST
    There are no transparency issues.

    Stop pretending there are.

    Parent

    No more voting and agree to things halfway written (none / 0) (#76)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:16:34 PM EST
    We've had enough of that with the various "last minute" Rethug bills thrust upon democrats, with no chance even to read what they are voting on.

    Again, I do agree that there is a revote needed in Michigan:

    a. It would encourage party-building in Michigan
    b. It would reduce uncertainty, as you point out.
    c. It would, paradoxically, as Bowers points out, solidify the nom for Obama.

    Parent

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:24:49 PM EST
    The only issues unclear are the financing and the timing.

    The plan proposes both. The mechanics of the actual primary will be exactly the same as before.

    If you want to make the agreement contingent on financing - then SAY THAT. The timing can no be considered a legitimate objection imo.

    You are spinning, and badly, imo.

    Parent

    I'm fooling myself then (none / 0) (#149)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:53:42 PM EST
    I must be pretty good, as I've spun myself into believing it.

    Alternatively, I might just believe what I'm typing.  Radical, I know...

    It might be more useful for you to type something like "your perspective is incorrect", rather than cast aspersions on my motives and integrity - but to each his own.

    At any rate, I still believe it.  And you still may be too quick on the draw, casting aspersions.  

    From TPM:

    We received a very complex proposal for Michigan re-vote legislation today and are reviewing it to make sure that any solution for Michigan is fair and practical. We continue to believe a fair seating of the delegation deserves strong consideration."

    But I'm willing to be wrong, it may well be the fact that Obama and team will come up with picayune objections.  But let's see, ok?

    Parent

    One of those picayune objections perhaps? (none / 0) (#150)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:04:33 PM EST
    Marc Ambinder

    But about 32% of the those who vote in the GOP primary, according to the exit polls, were Democrats or independents.

    It's a fair bet that many of them were Obama supporters, as he was not on the original Michigan ballot.

    This could be a dealbreaker for the Obama campaign in Michigan.

    Michigan Democrats have said that they won't move the bill the forward unless the Obama campaign gives its assent.

    I'm told the Obama campaign is reviewing this part of the legislation....



    Parent
    Why don't Hunter -- and Obama -- (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    trust the Michigan Democratic party to do this legally?  It will be the same as before -- so are Hunter and Obama saying there was illegality in the first Michigan primary?

    (And before this thread spins off incorrectly, the question of legality does not at all affect the DNC decision.  The DNC does not set election laws.)

    Parent

    Michigan hasn't agreed to anything yet. (none / 0) (#26)
    by sweetthings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:23:14 PM EST
    As I understand it, people like Tucker are vital to any agreement happening in Michigan, just as people like Debbie are vital to anything happening in Florida. Tucker wants to see the money first. Does he want that because Obama is telling him to deep-six this thing, or because he's worried that neither candidate is going to be interested in actually paying the bill once the primary is over?

    Either way, Michigan hasn't agreed to anything yet. So Obama's wasn't lying. Yet.

    Parent

    So if there is the money (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:25:13 PM EST
    he is for it? Why doesn't he say that? Clearly that is not what he said and your pretending otherwise will not make it so.

    He said he wants to see the process BEFORE he agrees to a revote.

    He will not even agree in principle to a revote plan.

    Your spin is weak.

    Parent

    Who's he? (none / 0) (#38)
    by sweetthings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    Obama or Turner? Or do you consider them one and the same?

    Turner has said that he's not absolutely opposed to a revote, (though he sounds like he's not thrilled about it either) but he's not going to do it without seeing the money first.

    I have no idea why Turner is doing such a thing, just as I have no idea why Debbie is adamant against a recount in Florida. Maybe he's worried about being stuck with a bill no one wants to pay. Maybe this boosts his standing with some local crowd. Maybe Obama has fixed his mind-control satellite on him and is feeding instructions directly into his brain.

    But no matter what the motivation, the effect is the same: Michigan has not agreed on any plan. Personally, I would like to see a revote in Michigan, so I hope someone is able to convince Turner to change his mind. But I'm not going to roast Obama over this any more than I roasted Clinton over the Florida mess, which, if you recall, wasn't very much. (I don't think there's much Clinton can do about Debbie, just as I don't think there's much Obama can do about Turner) However, I'm aware that felt differently about Clinton in regards to Florida, so you are at least being consistent. ;)

    Parent

    And indeed (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:38:36 PM EST
    I think it is fair to ask why Alcee Hastings and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are blocking revotes in Florida.

    Parent
    Probably the same reason Hunter is... (none / 0) (#53)
    by sweetthings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:49:37 PM EST
    Local political demands/concerns. Obama or Hillary might one day be President, and might one day remember you. Your local political landscape, with all of it's problems, will be there tomorrow and the day after, and will never forget anything.

    One takes clear precedence over the other.

    Parent

    Hunter, not Turner (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:37:05 PM EST
    Hunter is the Co-Chairman of the Obama Michigan Campaign. He speaks for Obama in Michigan.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:21:27 PM EST
    There are no legal issues in Florida.

    Obama has a better excuse there - the main obstacles are the House FL Dem delegation.

    Parent

    I don't believe (none / 0) (#46)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:43:29 PM EST
    ...there are legal issues in Michigan either.  A legal election was held and certified by the Republican Secretary of State.  The party has allocated delegates.

    Now we could argue about DNC "rules", but the election was legal and valid.  :)

    Parent

    Attitudes (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    My suggestion to those advocating revotes.

    Revotes under threat of disenfranchisement is different than revotes because the DNC screwed up and wants to make things right.

    I wonder how many people would get that.

    Revotes alone may not be sufficient if one is really claiming to care about the feelings of the voters in both those states.

    Sorry? (none / 0) (#30)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:27:32 PM EST
    Is your point that the MI/FL voters would still feel alienated if this process is about not disenfranchising them vs "we screwed up, sorry, please revote"?  That seems like rather a fine distinction.

    Parent
    Such Fine Distinctions (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:53:07 PM EST
    Are the building blocks of conflict resolution.


    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#67)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:03:06 PM EST
    MI is moving forward either way, and post-primary bygones will I expect be bygones.  I take it you mean that the FL cong. del. would be more amenable to a revote if not threatened.  I have no idea what they're thinking so I can't comment on that.

    Parent
    It's just been my experience (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:07:26 PM EST
    That people will resist resolution under those terms because it sends a message that threats work.


    Parent
    Clinton's hands aren't clean (none / 0) (#32)
    by learningcurve on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:28:46 PM EST
    Aside from her early announcement about the primaries not counting, she has taken different positons on whether to revote.

    For example on March 6th:

    On a "do-over" in Florida and Michigan, which held nominating contests that broke Democratic Party rules
    I would not accept a caucus.

    I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

    More recently:

    Clinton says she would favor do-over primaries in 2 states

    "In my view there are two options: Honor the results, or hold new primary elections," Clinton said. She said she hoped rival Barack Obama's campaign would join her "in working to make that happen."
    caucus in Fla (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by wasabi on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:42:40 PM EST
    A caucus is out of the question in Florida.  In Texas, we've been having caucuses for decades and it was still a nightmare because of turnout.  Attempting to have a caucus in a battleground state without any history of caucuses would be fertile grounds for lawsuits up the ying-yang.

    Parent
    She opposed any kind of revote (none / 0) (#50)
    by learningcurve on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:47:13 PM EST
    and has changed her mind. The delay isn't entirely Obama's fault.

    Parent
    by my count she's had at least four positions (3.00 / 2) (#52)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    on the MI primary.

    Parent
    You Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:59:02 PM EST
    Always confuse a list of priorities with different positions.

    If I said my priorities today are:

    1.  Yardwork.
    2.  Groceries.
    3.  Clean bathroom.

    And then at 3pm today I say well if this yardwork takes much longer I can do the bathroom tomorrow, I'd expect to be called a flip flopper on the issue of cleaning the bathroom by an Obama supporter.

    Serious.  No joke.


    Parent

    keeping all those balls in the air (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:09:16 PM EST
    must get exhausting for Obama supporters.
    dont you think?

    Parent
    It was Hillary's own words. (none / 0) (#79)
    by learningcurve on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:20:08 PM EST
    Without an insult, please explain what you mean.

    Parent
    My own words in the morning were (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:23:18 PM EST
    "I will get the bathroom clean today."

    I really don't think what I said requires much of an explanation.

    Parent

    Without an insult (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    hmmmm
    Im thinking

    Parent
    "They won't count" (none / 0) (#81)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:22:40 PM EST
    is diamentrically opposed to "They should count".  It's not an arrangement of priorities.

    I didn't call her a flip-flopper.  The evolution of her position is understandable, except for the initial switch from "Everyone knows Michigan won't count" to "Michigan should count" the day after.  

    Parent

    I'm not gonna go back and forth on this (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:24:42 PM EST
    We can do that over at Dkos if we ever meet there one day.


    Parent
    Your quotes say exactly the same thing (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:18:42 PM EST
    if you think about them.  It's really a difference in prioritizing.  The difference is that in the first one, she says best would be for the original results to count and those FL delegates to be seated, so a do-over would not achieve that.  In the second quote, after more discussion, she says either is still an option but doesn't state which one would be best.  (Elsewhere, she still states the same priorities as in the first quote.)

    You really have to do more research to find far better evidence for your argument.  Btw, you won't find it.  Your argument lacks the nuances that make this a complicated question without such a simple smackdown answer as you wish.

    Parent

    Huh. (none / 0) (#89)
    by learningcurve on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:28:42 PM EST
    And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida.

    Is the same as

    "In my view there are two options: Honor the results, or hold new primary elections,"

    When I read directly contridictory language, I see contradiction. Other's don't. Interesting.

    Parent

    it wasn't her... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by VicAjax on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:34:24 PM EST

    Obama made her say that.  He hynotized her.

    Parent
    That jerk (none / 0) (#101)
    by learningcurve on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:41:15 PM EST
    No wonder everyone hates him.

    Parent
    We should do A, not B (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:56:35 PM EST
    But if we don't do A, we should do B.

    This is just plain consistent.

    Parent

    Where in the (none / 0) (#113)
    by learningcurve on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:12:23 PM EST
    statement,
    "And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated."
    does Clinton advocate a revote?

    Please answer specifically, I'm starting to think you aren't serious, mostly because no one could argue your position and be serious. Are you kidding?


    Parent

    Just discussing simple logic (none / 0) (#116)
    by rilkefan on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    You claim x->!y.  I show that x&y in context, so you can't make any claims about y based on x.  Now you want to say that absence of evidence for y is evidence of its absence.  Someone gives it to you at t1, and you claim that this is a change from t0.  Until you come up with some reason why !(x&y) at t0, or evidence for !y at t0, y at t1 gives me the presumption.

    Parent
    You were kidding! (none / 0) (#120)
    by learningcurve on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:27:53 PM EST
    Thanks for clearing that up. You had me going for a while. I actually believed you thought she supported a revote when she said she opposed one.

    Parent
    A caucus does not equal 'do-over' (none / 0) (#124)
    by felizarte on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:48:32 PM EST
    Michigan had a primary.  A do-over would mean a primary.
    The same with Florida.  

    How can you 'do-over' something that was not done the first time?

    Re-vote is to vote again same way as before.

    Hillary has been consistent.

    Parent

    Chuck Todd this morning ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:07:08 PM EST
    on MSNBC declared the fight for revotes in FL over.

    So I guess we don't need to argue about it anymore.

    MSNBC, as we all know, is the final authority on this.

    ;)

    CNN says that FL will not have a revote! (none / 0) (#144)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:18:59 PM EST


    If Clinton Wants Uncertainty, Why Does She Support FL/MI Revotes And Why Does Obama Oppose Them? | 150 comments (150 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment