home

Endorsing Richardson's Statement On Ending The Dem Contest

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Like my previous endorsement of Tweety's Matthews FL/MI proposal (Obama and Clinton agree to revote them and bot agree that the winner of the total popular vote is the nominee), this endorsement of Bill Richardson's statement on ending the Dem contest is founded on the need for our nominee to be the choice of the people:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, fresh off his endorsement of Barack Obama this week, suggested Sunday that Hillary Rodham Clinton should consider dropping out of the race if she trails in the delegate count and popular vote at the end of the primary process.

(Emphasis supplied.) If Hillary Clinton trails in the delegate count AND the popular vote at the END OF THE PRIMARY PROCESS, the people will have spoken. The problem here is Michigan and Florida of course. How to count their votes. Barack Obama has made his path to legitimacy as the nominee very difficult by blocking Florida and Michigan revotes. If Obama does not hold a 500,000 vote lead in the popular vote (excluding Florida and Michigan) at the end of the process, his claim to a popular vote win will be severely tainted.

More . . .

Unfortunately, Richardson's respect for the popular vote is not seen in all Obama supporters. Consider Josh Marshall's blithe unconcern for the votes of the people, a new position BTW for TPM. Josh's feigned bafflement at the difficult task of counting the votes is thoroughly amusing, indeed, to coin a phrase, almost parody:

I don't know where it was. It think it may have been a reader blog at TPMCafe. Wherever it was it was a post that ran down something like ten different ways of counting the popular vote, all to the end of showing that Barack's popular vote lead wasn't nearly so great and may not exist at all. There was the count with and without Michigan and Florida, with one but not the other, including caucuses and not including caucuses. There were other options that seemed to go even further down the rabbit hole.

The rabbit hole? Having done these exercises, let me assure you that they are quite straightforward and simple. They entail getting a vote count from all the states. The controversy surrounds Florida and Michigan. OF course Josh WANTS this all to be some arcane nonsense, but he must know better. There seems to be a purpose to his feigned bafflement:

But it did lead me to have a kind of epiphany about just where the Clinton side is at this point -- gaming out different retroactive rule changes to see who would have won the popular vote if the nomination process were operating under a different set of rules.

Here is Josh again making stuff up. The question is not who will win the popular vote under a different set of rules. That would be the Obama campaign's exercise (projecting out caucus votes to primary sized turnouts) and I bet you right now Josh Marshall will be one of those playing that game in a month or so. Mark my words.

After some more incomprehensible blather from Josh, he lets loose with this jabberwocky gem:

But fundamentally, who cares? The system is based on pledged delegates and super-delegates. Period. There's a set of rules everyone agreed on. The wisdom of those rules is irrelevant at this point. The Clinton campaign is entitled to do whatever it wants to get superdelegates to come over to her side to even out the pledged delegate deficit. My take is that whatever the arguments, the superdelegates aren't going to go against a clear pledged delegate leader. And I think they'd be extremely ill-advised to do so. But the superdelegates do have this power under the rules. But these constant efforts to say the rules aren't fair are just silly, and truth be told I think they're more undermining of the Clinton campaign than they realize.

(Emphasis supplied.) Um, what I have seen is nothing but Obama supporters spending all their time whining about the Clinton's efforts to convince the superdelegates to support Hillary Clinton. One of the arguments the Clinton camp is legitimately making is about the popular vote. And Obama supporters are whining about it.

Indeed, prefacing his complaint about Clinton whining Josh Marshall writes a long whine about those efforts. Josh basically just whined about how unfair the Clintons are being and then wraps up his piece accusing the Clinton forces of whining about "unfairness."

The irony is stark and the "undermining" of TPM as a reliable source of information and opinions about this campaign continues apace. A remarkable post from Josh Marshall.

< Electability Again | Pundits Bloviate, Voters Decide >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Obama camp getting desperate... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:14:33 AM EST
    And who is getting negative:

    Obama campaign invokes Monika:

    ABC NEWS: Leading Obama Iowa supporter invokes "Monica's blue dress"

    Obama Camp:

    Americans are rejecting that kind of negativity, ...  "Desperate" Clinton not interested in a politics that tears people down--they're interested in a politics that lifts the country up.


    Woah (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:16:26 AM EST
    That's a very large font.


    Parent
    Looks like they are apologizing now (none / 0) (#4)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:19:04 AM EST
    yes the site does have large fonts (to carry out their message .. my guess)!!

    Parent
    Drop the bomb (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:40:02 AM EST
    and then apologize. Done all the time.

    Parent
    Well isn't (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:24:25 AM EST
    it Hillary's argument that we need to test every line that republicans may use on Obama.  so he can be "vetted," shouldn't the same be true of her?  Ohh and this comment has nothing to do with this topic.  

    Parent
    Sure Obama camp can do it (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:27:13 AM EST
    but then lets not let them kid us that Sen Obama is a Once in a lifetime Candidate..

    Parent
    This might become the talk of the day... (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:34:27 AM EST
     Will Olberman gives his special comments to call on Obama camp to not indulge in personal attacks?? Or will he justify that by some idiotic manner that he always manages to do (of course to the dismay of the viewers) !!

    Parent
    Lets see five minutes (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:48:57 AM EST
    after person makes comment, person backs off.  Olbermann's special comments related to GF.  GF to this day calls Obama racist against white people, and many Clinton supporters still defend her comments, which are not only offensive, but i think proven, once and for all, absolutely untrue by the Wright flare up.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#154)
    by sas on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:09:21 PM EST
    no longer watch Olberman.

    I don't care what he says, what he does, or what  he is.

    Parent

    He is a once in a lifetime candidate.. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:41:34 AM EST
    his own lifetime. He has said that if he doesn't get the nomination he won't run again. Something about being different people later on, and losing touch with "ordinary people" along the way. In other words, if he doesn't get the nod, he is going to take his ball and go home. His wife has said she would "have to think about" supporting Hillary. That does not sound like the actions of committed Democrats. It is not what someone who wants to unite the party does. It is what an opportunist who is serving his own ambition does.

    Parent
    She said she (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:51:10 AM EST
    would have to think about campaigning for her.  What do you care if after he looses he decides not to run again.  I know vicious campaigns are the "fun part" for Hillary, but, if he looses and decides he doesn't want to go through it again, why does that give you the right to attack him.

    Parent
    It shows a lack of commitment (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    to the party he is using to further his ambitions. If he were really the change candidate, he would not give up until he had affected that change. And he would be running until that change was implemented. And he would work his butt off in the Senate to see that the change was legislated. So far, he hasn't shown any signs of doing any of that. I think Obama is about Obama and the rest of it is just hot air designed to get votes. I think he is an empty suit with a good speech writer and a good delivery. And I am entitled to my opinion, even if you don't agree with it.

    Parent
    Well one (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:32:30 AM EST
    the guy apologized and deleted it.  But i don't see how HRC supporters can get all worked up about this stuff.  Republicans will use it, there will be no dogma in the GE.  She says she is vetted, so why would there be any problem with this?

    Obama said he will not do this kind of stuff and this guy took it back, but Clinton seems to be fine with this stuff, so why the offense?


    Parent

    Please (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by nell on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:49:47 AM EST
    There is so much stuff on Obama that Hillary has not dared to touch, including the Wright stuff. Could you imagine if that had been aired pre-Iowa?

    But if you are talking about issues with his record, issues with his experience, and issues with Rezko, then yes, these need to be out in the open. Remember, it was Obama's campaign that pushed Hsu to the media...he doesn't get the nomination handed to him just because he wants it.

    But, please, let his campaign invoke Monica and watch women run from him.

    Parent

    Her Campaign (1.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    has pushed the wright stuff, which I btw don't have a problem with, its politics.  The only reason she hasn't personally touched it, is because it is politically risky to do it.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:09:14 PM EST
    Can you please show us links, proof, evidence on how they pushed the Wright story?

    Parent
    default logic (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:26:06 PM EST
    Rev Wright gives mutiple inflammatory sermons

    Trinity sells these inflammatory sermons to the public

    Fox bought and aired the inflammatory sermons

    therefore Hillary pushed the Wright story!

    Parent

    Obama has gaffed (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    Obama is the one that kept discussing the issue on the radio and referred to his grandmother as a 'typical white person' and sent a photo of Wright to the newspaper.  The only thing the Clinton campaign has done is raise the issue that this will be a serious issue in the GE.  I happen to be one of those that think it will be.

    Parent
    Because IOKIYAW? (none / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:19:04 PM EST
    And that is White, not Wright.

    Parent
    excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:20:32 AM EST
    Barack Obama has made his path to legitimacy as the nominee very difficult by blocking Florida and Michigan revotes.

    I have read many different accounts of the failure of revotes.  For Michigan for instance many people think that, it was Clinton's wealthy donors offer to fund it that sunk it.  Also Obama would probably would have supported caucuses, which would have also been cheaper.  Hillary blocked that idea.  So I think it is unfair to suggest that since he didn't agree to the most favorable Clinton scenario it is his fault.  If all she cared about was MI and Fl having a voice it could have been taken care of, but according to you she is allowed to try and cherry pick solutions that most benefit her, if Obama does it he is disenfranchising poeple.

    Yes (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:24:48 AM EST
    The offer to fund it was the clincher. Definitely that was what killed it. Almost parody.

    Parent
    So you would be (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:26:49 AM EST
    ok with GOP funded GE's?  

    Parent
    If the problem was funding (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    then the wealthy donors in Sen. Obama's camp should have ponied up half. This is a red herring.

    Parent
    If Clinton had (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:40:32 AM EST
    agreed to caucuses i'm sure they would have.  but if Clinton is pushing her most favorable scenario and nothing else, I Don't see how it is Obama's fault that it didn't go through.

    Parent
    Because he sd. he would agree to (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:46:18 AM EST
    whatever the DNC approved?

    Parent
    Favorable Scenario (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:46:34 AM EST
    What was the favorable scenario that Clinton was pushing?

    Parent
    How is Obama (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    going to win the general election if he is afraid a doing a primary?  There won't be a caucus on November 4, 2008.  Why should the Dems nominate a candidate who is unwilling to go the distance to win the nomination?

    Parent
    Clinton pushed the scenario (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:11:01 PM EST
    most favorable to voters. That it was also favorable to her is happenstance.  Obama pushing a scenario not favorable to voters may help him win the nomination but at the cost of the general.

    Parent
    Caucuses are not democratic (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by splashy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:24:33 PM EST
    They cut out a large group of voters: the disabled, the elderly, the people with families and jobs they have to tend to, and others that can't just manage to spend several hours in the evening and/or on Saturdays.

    That's not to mention the lack of privacy in voting, and having to mingle with all kinds of other people that many would rather not have to have contact with for many reasons.

    I would find a caucus very intimidating, and a real time waster compared to going to a primary that lasts several days, all day long, so I could pick a day that works for me.

    Parent

    If they were approved (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:31:10 AM EST
    By the DNC and overseen by the state lawmakers who are responsible for the integrity of any election of their state, yes.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:37:03 AM EST
    You have those already in sense - taxes you know.

    Parent
    Right taxes (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:38:51 AM EST
    that would be exactly like the Haliburton sponsored, 2008 presidential election.

    Parent
    Ok (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:50:59 AM EST
    I see you have skidded into that strange place you sometimes choose to go to.

    Carry on without me.

    Parent

    Paul Allen has funded elections in (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:44:01 AM EST
    Seattle and King County. Is that undemocratic?

    Parent
    What does that have to do with anything (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:10:48 PM EST
    If the process is clear, open, honest, what does it matter WHO pays for it?

    Parent
    According to the rules (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:27:54 AM EST
    and MI and FL are Primary votes.

    Line up the talking points about whose fault it is, you'll never be able to get that asterisk off Obama's victory if MI and FL's popular votes aren't counted into the process.

    Obama can still win of course.  

    Although I do believe this is Obama's and Dean's fault, Obama's cause it's obvious he had the most to gain from disenfranchising MI and FL from the get go, and Dean because he doesn't like the Clintons.  And no, that's not a conspiracy theory, that's just two people seeing an advantage and exploiting it.

    But in the end, even if if was Clinton's fault (to block the votes in states that are advantageous to her!!??), the bottom line is Obama is winning cause states weren't counted.

    Not because he's the best candidate.
     

    Parent

    asterisk (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by bodhcatha on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:46:26 PM EST
    Obama - the Barry Bonds of politics.  Now if we could get the msm to cover him the way they cover Bonds (that is, with well-deserved skepticism).

    Parent
    Thats a difficult point to (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:37:06 AM EST
    make i don't think we have had  nominee in recent history that has had to go through a more rigorous primary.  Clinton has had 2nd 3rd and fourth chances to take it back, no other candidate would ever have gotten that.  So I'm sure die hard Clinton supporters, will always wonder what could have been, but it is hard to argue that he had an easy path to the nomination.

    Parent
    If MI and FL aren't counted (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    It will be very easy to say things like "He would not have won if MI and FL weren't counted."

    Parent
    I'm not sure what your point is. Clinton has (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    had several chances because Obama has not closed the sale. So?

    Parent
    If you go by what you're reading on the blogs, (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:53:38 AM EST
    then you probably think Obama has been to hell and back, but the truth is that he has had a very easy time of it in the media - and continues to benefit from the unbelievable bias there.

    As for Clinton having 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances, I think the flip side of that is that he has had the same number of chances and has been unable to put her away.  He's got that "great salesman" reputation, but he still hasn't closed the deal.

    And further to a comment you made, above, about why Obama donors should pony up so Clinton can get another chance at winning - the answer is simple: holding a re-vote is not about giving the candidate another chance, it's about respecting the right of the voters to be heard.

    In my opinion, you - and people like Josh MArshall - are allowing your fear about how those re-votes will turn out to trump the overriding principles that are at stake.  And if Obama is the nominee, he will pay dearly for his short-sighted decision to put self-interest over the interests of the people.  A decision, I should add, that does not give me great comfort when I consider how many decisions like that he would have to make as president.

    Parent

    Actually.... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by smott on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:01:25 PM EST
    BO has had about three clear chances to put her away and he has whiffed every time.

    Parent
    I really don't get (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by popsnorkle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:34:57 AM EST
    the complaint about Clinton donors fundiing it.  How does that help her in the election?  Unless they're implying that in exchange for funding it the donors will get a fraudulent election, but how's that possible when all they're providing is the money and they're not running it.

    Seems to me that by funding it they're not using that money to support her campaign in some other way.  Obviously they're judgement is that a revote is good for Clinton, but so what?  Its not guaranted.

    Parent

    Some fo the responses (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    were practically hysterical, claiming that Clinton was literally attempting to "buy" the election.  Lesser claims were that funds used to for a revote should be considered campaign donations.

    I have to admit that fully funding a revote would have been serious PR coup for Hillary, but a 50/50 funding by both candidates would have removed that.

    Parent

    Carville (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:43:25 AM EST
    and crew challenged the Obama campaign to do this several times.  They then said they had their half and for Obama to get his half.  I forget who, but some with money went to the Obama camp with offers and they weren't accepted.

    Parent
    Why should (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:41:30 AM EST
    Obama donors pay for her 15th second chance at this?

    Parent
    Oh, integrity, honesty, transparency. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:50:53 AM EST
    All of those "just words" that mean more to me than Unity! Hope! and Change!.

    Content of his character and all that.

    Parent

    Oh my (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:53:50 AM EST
    Here, let me ask:  Was New Hampshire a chance that Clinton should not have gotten?

    What "second chances" do you suggest she's been given?

    Parent

    She already won MI. It's Obama (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:00:36 PM EST
    who needs the revote to be considered the legitimate winner of the nomination. He blew his second chance.

    Parent
    So to sum up (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by bodhcatha on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:25:00 PM EST
    if her donors pay for a re-do, she's trying to buy the election.  But if he's asked to pay half, he's doing her a favor which she doesn't deserve?  Just trying to keep up with the pretzel logic...

    Parent
    The key word here is CLEAR pledged delegate leader (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:21:39 AM EST
    superdelegates aren't going to go against a clear pledged delegate leader

    I don't see that happening if the difference is just less than 1%

    and btw Richardson himself made that point (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:24:45 AM EST
    Anchor: You said your vote will go for someone who won your state.. Hillary Clinton won your state.
    Richardson: Well, she won by just less than 1% .. I don't think that is significant... I feel Obama is .. a "once.."


    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:25:51 AM EST
    I love that Richardson endorsed Obama.

    He is such an idiot that I will be able to run 3 posts a day using his own words.

    Parent

    Well, since you support Obama, that is only (none / 0) (#37)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:42:09 AM EST
    natural.. but we Hillary supporters will not mind.

    Parent
    Oh this does not hurt Obama (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:44:10 AM EST
    This HELPS Dems. We need a legitimate nominee.

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#48)
    by nell on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:47:24 AM EST
    Without Michigan and Florida being included, I know I will not see him as a legitimate nominee...

    Parent
    If he leads by 500,000? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:50:11 AM EST
    Then you will never accept him.

    Parent
    If (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by nell on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:58:09 PM EST
    If he leads by 500,000 then it is more legitimate, yes, but I do resent that he disenfranchised two states by preventing a revote. That is not what Democrats do...

    Parent
    apparently it is (none / 0) (#148)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:32:50 PM EST
    what democrats do, or haven't you been paying attention. I think I now understand what the "new politics" is all about. Snark.

    Parent
    BTD, (none / 0) (#88)
    by dk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:11:18 PM EST
    What's your current count on the popular vote?  You might have said it in the past, but I can't remember.

    Parent
    According to this source (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:16:23 PM EST
    Popular vote totals:

    Obama 12,838,762
    Hillary 13,084,646

    Includes MI and Florida votes
    Excludes caucuses (as do all popular vote totals)

    Parent

    Hrmmm (none / 0) (#152)
    by thinkingfella on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:51:06 PM EST
    Kind of messy counting on that site, Jeralyn. It actually does include MI giving HC an additional 328,151 and gave Obama zip for same, and doesn't count Washington at all, which did indeed have a primary, albeit one that didn't result in any delegates being awarded.
    Furthermore, I'm a little confused by the thought process here: if the stated goal and/or principal is to not disnefranchise voters, then what is the logic of not counting caucus states? Surely the voters in those states deserve to be counted as much as the voters in FL/MI?


    Parent
    Your bias is showing (none / 0) (#155)
    by jtaylorr on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:22:10 PM EST
    Looks like yet again you fail to mention that those numbers give Obama ZERO votes for Michigan.
    And you're always going on about disenfranchisement, well don't you think not including caucus states in the popular vote total is disenfranchising all those Democrats who took the time to go out and caucus?

    Parent
    Richardson has a 1% rule (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:09:26 PM EST
    What do Kerry and Kennedy have - a 15% rule?

    Parent
    Risharson (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Kahli on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:54:25 PM EST
    Well as a voter in New Mexico, I don't appreciate his deciding that he should make and exception for himself and Obama.

    Parent
    The Clinton campaign (none / 0) (#131)
    by independent voter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:24:19 PM EST
    has been pushing that the super delegates should vote however they feel best, regardless of how their state votes.
    You can't have it both ways.

    Parent
    I'm speaking for myself (none / 0) (#137)
    by Kahli on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:09:06 PM EST
    Not the Clinton campaign.  

    I resent his putting his choice above that of his constituents.

    It is not as bad as Cheney's "So", but it is a lesser example of the same kind of arrogance.

    Parent

    Excellent (none / 0) (#54)
    by nell on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:50:08 AM EST
    Excellent point.

    Parent
    how about Richardson going on teevee (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:23:15 AM EST
    and telling every talking head that would listen about how "upset" Hillary was and how "heated" the conversation about his betrayal was.
    that seemed the perfect window into the mans character.


    The only good thing Richardson has (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:31:23 AM EST
    sd. post-endorsement is that McPeak's McCarthy comment was poor.  But Obama campaign isn't backing away much from that comment.

    Parent
    Which, btw, (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:18:39 PM EST
    if we use the logic applied to Bob Johnson's comments early on in January, couldn't have been an accident or an opinion exclusive to McPeak, because supporters of a candidate are prepped and prompted before they speak, and thus EVERYTHING they say is directly and totally the fault of the person they are supporting.

    Parent
    you forgot the caveat (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by bodhcatha on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:36:16 PM EST
    unless it's Obama.

    Parent
    Count all the votes (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:33:46 AM EST
    It's not if Obama holds a 500,000 lead not counting the popular vote in Fl and MI. He needs to have the popular vote lead counting FL and MI. The DNC can take away delegates but you can't nullify the people's vote. If he leads in delegate count and popular vote counting both these states after the primary season, then it's time for Clinton to step aside. If not, she has every right to take her case to the convention.

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#83)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:08:01 PM EST

    The DNC can prevent the elected delegates from being seated, but the votes are the votes.

    Parent
    If the popular vote is close (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andrys on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:35:30 AM EST
    If the popular vote is close and Clinton has won almost all the big states, getting an electoral vote edge (while Obama is weak in Rasmussen's March 22 electoral poll but Clinton beats McCain that day), I'll also consider what you already know, that the caucuses are not very representative for reasons we've all given.  Seniors, labor-groups (not many can leave work), families with very young children, people without transportation to the far fewer caucusing areas, the intense gathering of activists, and young people from colleges.

    Obama's win (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:44:20 AM EST
    without FL & MI will never be seen as a legitimate win.

    True... (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by AmyinSC on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:47:50 AM EST
    And the whole CAUCUS thing has been a debacle.  The Obama campaign's strong-arming and intimidation have been well documented, so I have a hard time with the whole "pledged delegate" thing he has going on.  Just look at the difference between the caucuses in Washington State, and the popular vote!  The latter was VERY close; the former, not so much.  It has proven to be a problem repeatedly, and has certainly benefitted Obama.

    I know, I know - nothing can be done abt it this time, but just bear in mind that the SD exist to overcome some of these isues.

    Still, if FL and MI are counted - AND THEY SHOULD BE - it will be a very clsoe contest, indeed.

    Parent

    I read Josh (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Lahdee on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    daily and despite this post I'll continue to do it. Gotta be honest, I couldn't get by "Player A has a Straight Flush; Player B has four of a kind. Then B says well, sure, if you're counting straights, but if we were adding up the numbers rather than going by straights winning, I'd have won."

    Okay, so I read your post and then go back and read the whole thing. My comment, WTF.

    Is the drumbeat from obamasphere that deafening?

    Rules (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:58:51 AM EST
    Ah but if the rules state you need a royal straight flush to win and no one gets it out right then other rules come into play.

    Since superdelegates are not bound by any rules, including delegate leads or popular vote leads, people are free to speculate on what they should do. Of course, what they eventually do is up to them. For people to suggest that only the delegate lead matters are only stating an opinion that has no more basis in the rules than someone who suggest that only the popular vote lead matters.

    Parent

    Sorry, I don't play backgammon (none / 0) (#104)
    by bodhcatha on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:33:54 PM EST
    Bill Richardson or John Murtha? (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:54:15 AM EST
    In my opinion Hillary Clinton received a much stronger endorsement from John Murtha - the leading critic in the anti-war movement - then Barack Obama did from Bill Richardson. Can anyone tell me why then Barack is getting more air time with his endorsement then Hillary did? As a matter of fact Hillary has not received any main stream media airplay with her endorsement of not one but two super delicates. John Murtha plays a key role in PA for Hillary and the timing is perfect as apposed to Bill Richardson's timing which does not make any since at this time for Obama. As a matter of fact Obama shoud have won the endorsement from John Murtha since Obama is "the Anti war candidate" . it just goes to show you "the Mustard is off the hotdog" My favorite quote from Chick Hern

    You (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by tek on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:01:37 PM EST
    are so right.  I didn't know until I read an article on Yahoo! that she has 13 Senate endorsements to Obama's 11.

    Parent
    um, that would be media bias. (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:03:21 PM EST
    I noticed that, too. But not surprised. (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:12:29 PM EST
    She only gets negative airtime anymore. He makes a speech-covered in total. She makes a speech-20 second cut. And 24/7 negative from talking heads. Love that "mustard off the hot dog". lol

    Parent
    Considering (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by tek on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:00:47 PM EST
    everything we now know about the caucuses, I'm not sure how Obama supporters think he would be a "legitimate" nominee.  I think the Democrats should fight to the bitter end to keep Obama off the top of the ticket because he looks more unelectable everyday.  I will never understand why any liberal person would believe that Obama will steer this country in the direction of an authentic democracy.  Maybe the Obama people have a different vision of what the country should be.

    yup (none / 0) (#78)
    by smott on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:04:05 PM EST
    ...I think in Denver we're going to have one candidate ahead in delagets and (perhaps narrowly) ahead in popular vote, and one candidate with the mo, all the swings, and no asterisk.

    Who wants to be a Super?

    Parent

    People (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by tek on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:05:42 PM EST
    should remember that Bill Clinton did not sew up the nomination until June.

    TPM (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by wintermute on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:10:53 PM EST
    One of the more depressing things for me about this primary campaign has been seeing sites like TPM really going off the rails, in the sense of repeatedly trotting our arguments that can't withstand even minimal scrutiny, in giving instant credence to sources like the Drudge Report and The Politico, in holding up to ridicule only the advisors of one campaign even where advisors from both campaigns make gaffes and missteps of similar magnitude, in giving the "screaming headline" treatment to negative stories afflicting one campaign while ignoring or burying negative stories affecting the other - and in every instance, the slant is towards Obama, even as the site continues this affectation of being neutral.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by eric on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:51:30 PM EST
    And even stranger I noticed today that Atrios linked favorably to this TPM post.  I think he indicated that it was proof that the Clinton campaign was saying "stupid stuff".

    As BTD points out, this certainly isn't stupid stuff.  I am most disturbed by the recitation of the theme that Obama is pushing,
    Atrios writes:

    "But for several weeks now there's just been this steady stream of downright insulting stuff coming out of the Clinton campaign.

    Several weeks?  WTF is he talking about?  Both campaigns have done some stupid stuff here and there and lately as well.  This sounds like one of those narratives that Obama's people is pushing.  Along with the "The Clinton's [plural] are dirty", "The Clinton's will say anyting," "There is a disturbing pattern of racism in the Clinton campaign", etc.

    Parent

    It's too close to call. (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by WillBFair on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:13:09 PM EST
    And I can't give up if there's a chance of getting our greatest policy experts back in office. Of course we don't want it by letting go of democratic values like fairness, integrity, and respect for others, as Obama's supporters did long ago, and he is doing by trying to register democrats for a day. If they win by remaking the the party, so be it. At least we will have kept our center of balance.
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

    How Clinton Wins Popular Vote... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    I actually don't accept the conventional wisdom that it is not feasible for Clinton to win the popular vote without Michigan and Florida.

    According to Real Clear Politics, her popular vote deficit without Florida and Michigan is 821K.  

    Here is my projection of the results, turnout, and margin of victory in the final primaries:

    Pennsylvania: If Clinton wins 57-43, projected total turnout 2.2 million, margin would be approximately 350k votes.

    Indiana: If Clinton wins 57-43, with total turnout of 728K, margin would be approximately 100K votes.

    West Virginia: If Clinton wins 65-35, with projected turnout of 245K, margin would be approximately 75K votes.

    Kentucky: If Clinton wins 65-35, with projected turn out of 535k, margin would be approximately 150K votes.

    North Carolina: If Clinton wins 52-48, 1.2 million projected turnout, margin would be approximately 50K votes.

    Oregon: If Clinton wins by a 52-48 margin, projected turnout 707K, margin would be approximatley 25K votes.

    Puerto Rico: If Clinton wins 55-45, projected Turnout 1.5 million, margin would be approximately 150K votes.

    Montana: If Obama wins 60-40, projected turnout of 131K, margin would be approximately 25K margin.

    South Dakota: If Obama wins 60-40, projected turnout of 112K, margin is approximately by 25K.

    End result?  Between now and the final state election, I project that Clinton picks up approximately 900K votes in her wins, loses approximately 50k in her defeats, and after the last state ends up with a popular vote margin of victory of 25K votes.  

    I believe my numbers are not only feasible, but actually probable based on polling, the trends of this race, and the momentum swing she will achieve after a strong victory in Pennsylvania.

    After she wins the popular vote, she will be able to argue that she won the popular vote even without two of her biggest states being included and counting all of Obama's undemocratic caucus state victories.

    Superdelegates would be very hard-pressed to deny Clinton the nomination if she is able to lay these cards on the table.

    thank you for that (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:05:14 PM EST
    That's the reason Obama and his supporters have (none / 0) (#150)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:40:23 PM EST
    up their ante asking Hillary to quit now.. before it is too late for him

    I am feeling confident now than I was at anytime in this race

    Parent

    I agree... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:53:23 PM EST
    For a campaign that is "simply annoyed" that Clinton has not dropped out, they sure are having alot of conniption fits over the slighest provocation.

    And on the, flipside, what does Clinton have to gain by staying in if she didn't genuinely believe she had a decent chance of winning?  She's not dumb -- she get let Obama get fried and run again in four years, but she knows the math and she knows she can with the popular vote.

    Parent

    yes thanks from me too, Excellent analysis (none / 0) (#151)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:42:57 PM EST
    That would be truly amazing if Hillary could win or be within 100K votes in the popular vote without MI or FL. The SD's and DNC leadership would nominate Obama with those stats and their own peril. It would be FL 2000 all over again.

    Let the primary play out. Count the votes.

    Parent

    Clinton wins (none / 0) (#156)
    by jtaylorr on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:27:38 PM EST
    Indiana, North Carolina and, of all places, Oregon?!

    What planet are you on?

    Parent

    Obama campaign (none / 0) (#158)
    by Exeter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:42:39 PM EST
    thinks Oregon will be 53-47, in Obama's favor. I think it will go slightly in Clinton's favor. Either way, it will be close.

    Parent
    PhDs in history (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:00:16 PM EST
    specialize in arcane nonsense.  For Josh Marshall to pretend that counting votes is arcane nonsense is one thing.  For him to pretend he doesn't know how, or that he is not fascinated by details, goes against everything of his I have ever read, including his 2004 support of Hillary's AUMF vote.

    1 for anti-intellectualism (none / 0) (#134)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:26:42 PM EST
    and a slur that, if about other attributes of commenters here, would not be condoned at all.

    Parent
    Are you doing that (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:21:30 PM EST
    because I used the word nonsense?  It wasn't meant to be anti-intellectual at all but rather a comment on the fact that PhDs in history are usually detail people.  And have you seen how deep into the weeds you have to get in a PhD dissertation?  I used the words nonsense only because for most people outside one's field a dissertation would bore them to tears.  I didn't mean that perjoratively but as a matter of general observation.  Speaking as someone who has over 160 graduate hours, I don't think I could be anti-intellectual even if I wanted to.

    Parent
    Yes, I personally have seen (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:31:05 PM EST
    how deep a dissertation in Historygoes, but what you see as weeds, I found a garden of opportunity for growth that trained my mind to envision and grasp larger questions than ever I had before.

    The "detail" you despise as "arcane" is the evidence that supports an argument -- or not.  Those who know how to read history are generally observing many more of those dissertations than you realize.  They became books that are widely read, as History is one of the most popular areas of public readership.

    I was fortunate to have as an advisor the teacher of one of my first courses, one who taught me one of the best lessons.  To our class that had come in, as usual, to tear apart the works assigned that week, he finally said:  Just wait until you have written a book.  Until then, at least attempt humilitas.  Or at least attempt to not trumpet how much you do not yet know.

    Parent

    Arcane is not (none / 0) (#149)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:36:11 PM EST
    a perjorative word to me.  You mistook my meaning I think.  Here is the first dictionary definition (language is my area of specialty by the way):

    known or understood by very few; mysterious; secret; obscure; esoteric:

    What meaning are you assigning to the word?

    Parent

    And by the way, (none / 0) (#147)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:31:18 PM EST
    if anything I hold Josh to higher standards than some other people precisely because he has a PhD.  He has played dumb with me in e-mails from time to time (BTD can witness to this) but I respect his intelligence, particularly when he is chasing down the details of a story like the background of the Niger yellowcake story.

    Parent
    Do you think (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:14:58 AM EST
    ..  That some aspiring pundit/"journalists" may also be experiencing some sort of dissociateive disorder.

    Not that it matters.  Wether Josh knows he's wrong or not doesn't really matter.


    More Than Anything Else (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by The Maven on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:31:52 AM EST
    it's the appalling unacknowledged hypocrisy among so many in the blogosphere and elsewhere, both in terms of assessing behavior by each of the campaigns and their spokespeople, as well as in flippantly ignoring their own past pronouncements on issue after issue.

    This kind of rewriting of what they ostensibly stand for might be acceptable if they at least said that current circumstances had led them to "refine" their position, but too many of them appear to have been blinded by staring into the sun to realize the inconsistencies in what they write.  This is the danger in taking absolutist positions and then fixing the facts around them.  And we've seen what follows from that.

    Parent

    When you speak in such strong terms (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:52:01 AM EST
    I feel confident I have not gone too far.

    Welcome to TalkLeft Maven.

    Parent

    I'm Not Naming Names (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by The Maven on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:49:57 PM EST
    so I'll leave it open as to whom I'm referring.

    What makes this all so galling to me is that unlike election cycles in the past, posts were done by people who were little more than names or pseudonyms on a screen, whereas now I know (or at least have met) many of these people personally, so it's much harder to take.  I've kept up a very tenuous relationship with the orange place lately, but pretty much only go to selected diaries on "non-political" issues when their authors have sent me direct links.

    I consider myself a longstanding member of the reality-based community and a hard-headed rationalist, so to see other folks perceive skepticism as a threat is distressing to me.  I'd like to hope that this all will pass, but I started saying that last fall, and the stridency and tone has only gotten worse and worse.  Sigh . . .

    Parent

    Popular vote (none / 0) (#19)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:32:07 AM EST
    I think if HRC gets close enough (or surpasses Obama) on popular vote then the SDs will indeed have a choice to make... but that's supposedly why they are SDs.

    But I don's see how we get an accurate read of popular vote:

    MI is tainted by the fact that only HRC was on the ballot.

    Then there's Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine - since these are only popular vote estimates - what happens in a razor thin popular vote final tally?

    Exactly my point (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:35:52 AM EST
    Obama's stopping the revotes in FL and MI mean that he needs to have a non-FL/MI popular vote lead of 500k to have a clean untainted PV win.

    Parent
    SO HRC gets her 300K in FL (none / 0) (#40)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:43:43 AM EST
    and a 200K vote lead in MI?

    Based on what do you come up with that figure

    HRC got 328K in MI (which was 60% of 600K total votes).  Obama was polling at about 25% with Edwards in the race), so Obama would get 150K. Or a 175K vote leads in MI.  

    That comes to 375K to HRC for FL and MI.  Where's the other 125K come from in your 500K scenario?

    Parent

    As far as MI is concerned (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:50:44 AM EST
    The Best Case Scenario was a revote because your point on this is valid.

    How do you divy up the "uncommitted" votes?

    I don't have an answer to that.

    All I know is that if you take away the votes Clinton received you're undermining Obama's legitimacy.


    Parent

    But... (none / 0) (#67)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:56:54 AM EST
    If we agree to float the option that HRC gets her votes in MI (and I'm okay with that), then we have to concurrently float that Obama gets "his votes" in MI... but this cannot be done.  This is TOO BIG to only be half figured out.

    This has to be addressed before I (and others I would imagine) can sign on to the popular vote arguement.  

    Parent

    I am NOT ok with that (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    The MI result is simply not a credible result.

    the point is the UNCERTAINTY of Michigan undermines Obama's legitmacy.

    Parent

    I have a question about FL: (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:17:59 PM EST
    It is my understanding that Obama ran extensive TV ads in FL for a month before the primary there. Yes, I know that there were legit because they were part of  larger ad buys.
    I also have read that Obama had the option of excluding FL from these buys anyway.
    Is that true?
    Also, what other national (regional?) ad buys has the Obama campaign made? Can you make a case that the Obama campaign was flouting the rules?

    Parent
    Ive read that Obama campaign (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:19:36 PM EST
    could have excluded FL market from national ad buy, just as sports events are blacked out in the area where the game is being played.

    Parent
    If this is correct, then the FL delegation (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:22:49 PM EST
    should be seated as is. There's no excuse left.

    Parent
    Wrong. (none / 0) (#157)
    by jtaylorr on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:39:56 PM EST
    There was no option to opt-out of Florida

    "Both national cable networks told us it would be impossible for us to run advertising nationally that excluded only Florida." (Burton)

    also

    "For that reason we consulted with ... South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of pledge made to the early states." (Burton)


    Parent

    This seems contradictory to your previous (none / 0) (#101)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:24:05 PM EST
    statement.

    If Obama has a 500K cushion, then his victory is legit.  I thought that's what you are putting forth.

    So it's not the UNCERTAINTY... it's the MARGIN. An Obama lead of 500K or 600K or 750K means an MI revote was unneeded.  And Obama popular vote lead of 450K or 400K, blurs the line.

    An Obama delegate lead and 500K popular vote lead seals the deal... and the "uncertainty" of MI no longer becomes an issue. In other words, if Obama has a 500K vote lead in the popular, does the "uncertainy" of MI still undermine his legitimacy?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    A 500k vote lead REMOVES the uncertainty imo.

    I do not accept that Clinton would necessarily even win MI. But the potential of a flip based on MI is removed by a 500k vote lead.

    Parent

    It's funny (none / 0) (#91)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:12:42 PM EST
    This isn't a negotiation, a situation by which one side convinces the other to sign on to a "popular vote agreement".

    Parent
    It most certainly is a negotiation. n/t (none / 0) (#95)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:17:20 PM EST
    No it's not (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:34:37 PM EST
    Voting isn't something you negotiate.  Or rather if you find yourself doing that, negotiating what votes count and what votes don't, you've already lost the PR battle.

    It's hard for me to explain this.  It's human nature.

    You can explain to a Floridian voter that it was their own legislature that is to blame, and they'll understand that on some a sort of cognitive level.  But human nature and the underlying notion that a vote was taken away from them will linger.

    Think of the seventh game of the World Series being called in the 5th inning due to rain.  That's a logical thing to do if it came about.  It's in the rules to do that if an umpire decided it was unsafe to play on.  And the winning team could certainly point to the empirical fact that it was not their fault that the skies opened up and dropped 10 inches of rain on the field for the rest of the day.

    But nobody wants that outcome.  In sports even the winning team would prefer not to have that outcome simply because they know that their victory will always have an incompleteness about it.

    Or another sports analogy.  It's often pointed out by Bonds fans that much of the stuff he took, it wasn't actually "against the rules" for a long time in the MLB.  So what?  The damage is done to his integrity.

    The best way I can put it.  The perception issue with respect to Obama's victory is non-negotiable.  It will be what ever it is prone more to the vagaries of an innate sense of right and wrong, not the letter of the law.

    This situation is not negotiable.  The second one believes that it is, the've mis-understood what's at stake.

    Parent

    We will have to agree to disagree (none / 0) (#107)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:39:23 PM EST
    Because the 2008 Dem Primary is based on getting delegates and not popular vote. Anything that deviates from this is a negotiation.

    Parent
    Perception Will deviate from that (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    wether you like it or not.

    wether I like it or not.


    Parent

    not so as to superdelegates (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:23:07 PM EST
    whose can and should consider much more than delegates, including their personal assessment of who is more likely to win against Republicans in November. Delegates are a factor, popular vote's a factor, big states, swing states, non-important republican states and electability are all appropriate considerations.

    Parent
    I'm willing to accept that (none / 0) (#143)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:25:39 PM EST
    but based on the SD numbers since Super Tuesday, I'm not sure that's the strongest pro-HRC argument.

    Parent
    I come up with a POTENTIAL figure (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:09:15 PM EST
    That seems tied to the tainted Michigan result.

    A revote would have made this all clear. One way or the other. Obama blocked that revote.

    Parent

    Fuzzy math (none / 0) (#51)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:48:20 AM EST
    300K lead in FL

    175K lead in MI

    Close enough to 500K - gotchya.

    Parent

    Hillary's votes in FL and MI (none / 0) (#139)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:21:09 PM EST
    871k in FL, according to the secretary of state

    328k in Michigan, according to CNN

    328k + 871k = 1,199,000 votes.

    Parent

    And Obama had 576K in FL (none / 0) (#144)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:28:49 PM EST
    and followed the Party rules in not running in MI.

    Parent
    As I say... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:12:31 PM EST
    ...downstream Clinton has the math to catch up and pass Obama in the popular vote in the remaining contests even without including Michigan and Florida.

    I agree that the expectations game should be that he has to win by 500k and the very least, she will do that, no problem.

    Parent

    Clinton Was NOT (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by AmyinSC on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:19:09 PM EST
    The only Dem on the ballot in MI - that is an Obama talking point.  There were 4 Dems on that ballot.  Obama made a STRATEGIC decision to take his name off to appease NH and IA.  His camp urged his supporters to vote Uncommitted.  They did.  Tough luck.  Those delegates should be seated as is, IMHO.  Just because he made a stupid decision does not mean he should get a do-over.  And if he DOES, which state does Clinton get to pick for HER do-over??

    Parent
    That's irrelevent to the points made. (1.00 / 0) (#103)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:26:02 PM EST
    Kucinich and Gravel were on the ballot, I know. The others took their names off the ballot. Kucinich tried to and missed a deadline or some such bureacratic snafu.

    Parent
    This Was... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by AmyinSC on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    Supposed to be up top where you had written she was the only Demo on the ticket.  And it is certainly NOT irrelevant, or else it would not be a repetitive talking point By the Obama camp that she was the only one on there - it is meant to discredit her, and to diminish her win.  She won it - Obama didn't.  In addition to NOT winning it, he made a horrible strategic manuever, and now wants to punish Michiganders for it.

    However you want to spin this, to disenfranchise over 2.2 million Dems is unacceptable in MY book...

    Parent

    I never suggested she did not win MI (none / 0) (#125)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:34:03 PM EST
    The issue is how do you designate the rest of the popular vote to the other candidates.  You fail to address that.

    Parent
    Question about MI (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:33:48 AM EST
    Was the result a wild deviation from anything we knew about MI at the time?

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#29)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:38:22 AM EST
    But how many MI votes do you give to Obama?

    Parent
    That's my point (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:40:42 AM EST
    You know if the existing MI vote gave Clinton and 80% victory, then fine.

    The results I've seen are in line with what I knew about the state at the time.

    Parent

    And how many votes then does Obama get? (none / 0) (#45)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:45:07 AM EST
    150K?  One-quarter of the total?

    Parent
    Suppose Obama trails 20 pts in the polls against (none / 0) (#50)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:48:09 AM EST
    McCain when the convention rolls around, while Clinton beats him. Should the SD's still be required to vote for Obama? Obviously no, right?

    This criteria seems (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:14:16 PM EST
    to be getting pushed by the wayside.  Richardson wants this ended in June as soon as the last vote occurs ignoring what may happen over the summer.  Clinton is looking at electibility with regards to the shift in polls and the Obama campaign is looking at the delegates and popular vote, whatever that is, and polling is supposed to be ignored as primary polls aren't relative to GE results.  I don't agree with the opinion that Obama has had a tough primary.  The issues he faces now will be rehashed and more issues will come up.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#64)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:53:39 AM EST
    with this if there is a clear winner in both. I like the 500k margin if there is no MI and FL count. That's in the ballpark.

    I have a feeling Hillary will indeed concede if we have those kinds of numbers after all the states have spoken. I think she has hinted at that with her line about we won't go to the convention and we'll be united.

    If on the other hand, she's ahead in the popular vote, or Obama has continued to thwart the MI and FL revote and he's not ahead by more than 500K in popular vote, then I think it's fair and reasonable to have it decided at the convention. At that point I would consider it a tie.

    Having said that, I think it's actually quite likely that Hillary will concede even if the popular vote without MI and FL is less than 500K. I think if she does that, she probably won't be quite as friendly about uniting and not so friendly about campaigning for Obama. I don't think she'll be as horrible as Ted Kennedy was in '79/'80, I think she's better than that, but I don't think she'll put her heart into it. I think if that's the case, there is nearly zero chance for an Obama win, and Hillary will be working towards 2012.

    and if that last scenario comes to pass (none / 0) (#73)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    I wonder what blank slate, empty vessel, no experience person who is a good actor will be picked by kerry and kennedy that time around. And I wonder if the same crowds will do this all again. Probably. Perhaps the DNC should think through that and clean pu the process if Obama is the candidate and there is a big blow out loss in the GE.

    Here are a few ideas. No caucuses. Le'ts instead have, oh, I don't know, democracy. And let's do things so that a republican state government can't mess things up for the dems in a state. And for the calendar, let's either have it dictated from above, all at the same time, or leave it wide open with the only rules being a bracket of earliest and latest. And most importantly, no favorites, no states get to be first. Just some ideas.

    Parent

    More incisive obamanaylis from TPM: (none / 0) (#68)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:57:29 AM EST

    Memo from a disinterested Obama fanatic


    Perhaps this is obvious. But it seems to me that the real reason the Democratic primary race has gone from heated to vicious (at least among the candidates' supporters, if not the candidates themselves) is precisely because we're in this awkward seven week hiatus in which there are no actual elections being held
    ......

    That doesn't mean that both side's arguments have equal merit. For my part, I think the Obama campaign has far the better part of it. But I think it does explain why we're now in this self-escalating spiral.

    Hmm.. so does Josh approve of the Monica comment? The McCarthy comment?
    Did you notice that he wrote not ONE WORD about Kerry or McCaskill's racist gaffe's?


    Look (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM EST
    I think it is clear to any honest observer that Josh Marshall is in the tank Obama hack. There is little reason to belabor that point.

    I wrote about the popular vote post he wrote because THE ISSUE is important.

    Josh Marshall's hackdom is nolonger important. Only those who do not want to see it do not see it. HE is a Keith Olbermann acolyte.

    Parent

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#94)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:14:43 PM EST
    He is  probably the most influential blogger, though, and I know he has a lot of  pride in his journalism. I believe he could be shamed into providing more balanced coverage.
    I think the Kerry and McCaskill quotes, taken together with Obama's TWW gaffe, are very important: they show that EVERYONE offends when talking about race, if they talk long enough.
    The widely accepted narrative of the Clinton camp's racial tactics is upended with the addition of these facts.
    With the possible exception of Shaheen's remarks, I don't believe ANY of the highlighted comments by Clinton supporters were racist at all.
    It sure would be nice if Josh could write a post clearing the air on this subject---I know he is capable of it.

    Parent
    BTD, are you aware that the Obama supporters (none / 0) (#77)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    cite the "rules" for Texas, which do not require signature validation, to allow the count to remain 40% finished (at my last read)?
    Hillary is CHEATING by seeking that votes be validated. I can't imagine supporting a candidate who would use ballot challenges.. can you?


    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by tek on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:06:36 PM EST
    challenged the first three states that Hillary won or did you forget that?  Guess you can't support him!

    Parent
    Forked tongue. (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:05:35 PM EST
    Obama challenged signatures (none / 0) (#119)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    in the first race he ever ran.

    Parent
    Josh biggest diasppointment of this campaign (none / 0) (#115)
    by BigB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:54:07 PM EST
    As someone who supported TPM financially when it was started and as a long time reader (not anymore), Josh Marshall has been one of my biggest disappointments this season.

    He has turned into a partisan hack and totally in tank for Obama. His posts have become illogical, whiny, and intellectually dishonest.

    If he could have stepped back, recognized that his was a progressive blog, and taken an impartial stance during this primary campaign, he could have come out with his reputation enhanced.

    As it stands now, his reputation is in teeters. He has become a laughing stock just like Markos.

    Good to know, anyway, what these guys are made of.

    Successful campaign for O (none / 0) (#116)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:56:04 PM EST
    Richardson is a donkey's posterior. I never knew what he was doing running anyway. And, he is trying to have it both ways just in case. The deal with the O campaign is that they have been successful in containing Bill. Everything he says makes him look a racist or angry, etc. I believe his strong point, the economy and how hard it was to fix it and how good it was when he left office should be his focus. He did it, but she knows what to do just by being there. Just stay on the economy message.

    Richardson will have no effect on Penna. My neighbors called this morning to tell me they went to the court house and changed from GOP to Dem just to vote for Hillary. They know she will win in PA anyway, but they want to make sure their popular vote counts. They were excited and said there were 25 people after them waiting to do the same thing. They were talking Hillary. These people will not vote for Obama. The Richardsons, Kennedy's, and Kerry's have smoke screened the public, but Obama is a shill for them. They could not do it themselves, and so they think they have a surogate winner. IMHO.

    If you can't stand the heat (none / 0) (#136)
    by Donna Darko on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:04:33 PM EST
    get out of the kitchen/race.

    Clinton supporters have weathered criticism for 16 years. We're used to it.

    I just took myself off of MOVE ON because I'm (none / 0) (#145)
    by polyblog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:29:13 PM EST
    tired of all the Obama love over there.  I should have done it sooner because I was fairly ticked off that they supported any candidate so early in the process. I find myself being more productive since I've eliminated many "partisan" blogs from my favorites list.  This is one of the few that I come to these days. Thanks for staying sane here, BTD!

    It's easy to blame... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Rudyleah on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:29:59 AM EST
    ...the DNC or the Obama Campaign for the voter problem in MI and FLA but the truth is, this whole issue began when the elected officials in Florida and Michigan arrogantly decided to break Democratic party rules and move the dates of the primaries to an earlier time without any good reason.

    They knew what the consequences would be for that move and they didn't care about whether they would lose their delegates or that the voters would be disenfrancised, they just didn't want to wait their turn like the other states did.

    When the DNC made their decision to punish MI and FLA they notified all of the candidates and everyone, including, Hillary agreed to abide by that decision. If Hillary didn't agree with it, I believe that she would've said something, but she didn't care either... that was before the Super Tuesday and when she thought that she was going to win the nomination.

    If the good voters want to blame anyone, blame their elected officals and fire them when the time comes to reelect them.