home

Obama Will Not Count FL And MI

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:41:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I believe this is a political mistake by the Obama camp:

Barack Obama will reach a significant milestone Tuesday as he marches toward the Democratic nomination for president — a majority of pledged delegates at stake in all the primaries and caucuses. . . . "A clear majority of elected delegates will send an unmistakable message — the people have spoken, and they are ready for change," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in a memo to supporters Monday.

The Obama campaign will ignore Florida and Michigan tomorrow night. There simply is no getting around that. and for what? To declare victory on May 20 as opposed to June 3? This is simply stupid. The Associate Press of course is on Obama's side on this, but actually harms him:

Her campaign is also trying to change the math by getting the delegates seated from the Michigan and Florida primaries. . . . The Democratic National Committee's rules panel is scheduled to address the issue May 31. If any of the delegates are reinstated, it would increase the number needed to clinch the nomination.

By implication, the AP is saying Barack Obama is fighting AGAINST Florida and Michigan. That simply is not the headline Barack Obama should want.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Former Gitmo Detainee To Testify Before Congress | Justice Dept. Blunders With Drew Prosecution >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Will Not Count FL And MI | 179 comments (179 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Are you (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:44:43 PM EST
    surprised? I'm not. They have no general election strategy.

    Sure they have a strategy (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:50:18 PM EST
    Call McCain old and say that he's just like Bush. The main problem with their strategy is that people in American don't mind old. Heck - a lot of the voter's ARE pretty old. And McCain is not Bush. He is a pariah in the far right and has a reputation for honesty and moderation. I know, I know.. it's not entirely deserved. But it's hard to overcome 20 years of public perception in a few months.

    Parent
    McCain has gotten (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:52:26 PM EST
    miniscule airtime over the past two-three months, yet he is tight in many of the polls against Obama.  Why is that exactly?  Because people don't "know Obama well enough"?

    Parent
    don't "know Obama well enough"? (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:54:32 PM EST
    lets hope so.
    the alternative is that they do.

    Parent
    This country is pretty divided (none / 0) (#38)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:14:47 PM EST
    and there is a huge percentage of the population that simply votes party.

    Parent
    Not this year. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:28:18 PM EST


    Parent
    ...or they know obama too well !! (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:17:06 PM EST


    Parent
    No, it's because no one has been paying any (none / 0) (#17)
    by independent voter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:54:54 PM EST
    attention to McCain. If the best he can do is tied, right now, at the absolute peak for him GE wise, he should be very worried.

    Parent
    you forgot to take off (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:55:58 PM EST
    those rose colored glasses again.

    Parent
    Well... at this point in the 2004 election, John (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by tigercourse on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:02:37 PM EST
    Kerry was performing better in head to head polls then Obama is now. He started to drop when the Republicans campaigned against him in earnest. What will happen to Obama when the Republicans target him?

    Parent
    You think now is the peak for him GE wise? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:21:52 PM EST
    I've gotta say, I completely disagree!  He gets stealth moments of airtime (SNL this weekend) and keeps out of what he wants to portray as a juvenile fight.  He hasn't aired any ads, he hasn't begun branding Obama, there have been no debates, etc.  (Actually I'm curious to see what their debates on Iraq will be like).  So I don't know where his support is coming from, and what demographics he is drawing from exactly.  But I find the polls to be interesting.  I am not confident that once Obama goes up against McCain the polls will jump in Obama's directon.  I think it will be an interesting battle.  This is in no way McCain's peak IMO.

    Parent
    Has Obama even been on the ground in Iraq? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:23:44 PM EST
    I know Clinton and McCain have.

    Parent
    I Know He Was In Indonesia When He Was (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:26:53 PM EST
    six or so... :)

    Parent
    dang! (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:30:20 PM EST
    beat me to it :)

    Parent
    And look at the shape Indonesia's in! (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:35:06 PM EST
    By Obama's own claims of magicality, you'd think that's the one place that would be peaceably prosperous and worry-free.

    The evidence points to only one conclusion: Indonesia is LYING!!!

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:38:46 PM EST
    They are just a bunch of racists.......

    Parent
    He grew up in Indonesia (none / 0) (#58)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:28:11 PM EST
    so no, he doesn't have to, obvi.  :P

    Parent
    Indonesia...Iraq.... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:30:12 PM EST
    what's the difference?  They both begin with "I"?

    Parent
    Of course not-They will not jump his way (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by BarnBabe on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:54:47 PM EST
    Because, all those Republicans who voted for Obama were not really for Obama. Now they will vote Republican and Obama will lose another bloc he thought he had.

    Parent
    And that's (none / 0) (#173)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:03:49 AM EST
    another hole in the Obama equation.  In the earlier primaries he got over the top with Republicans, independents and kids who were what, 12 when Bush took office.

    Independents are leaning to McCain over Obama, the Republicans will 'line up' and some of the kids will lose interest.

    A recent poll of rural voters (23% of total electorate) had Hillary tied with McCain and Obama 7 points south. Bush beat Kerry with his strong margin in rural areas.

    If a Democrat can stay even with a Republican in rural areas then it's over, game, set and match.

    Parent

    Maybe Obama will refuse (none / 0) (#158)
    by DJ on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:13:02 PM EST
    to debate McCain.  His only hope I think.

    Parent
    After the GOP convention (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:38:35 AM EST
    watch McCain moderate, move closer to the center.  The media will NOT call him on his various shifts unless to indicate that he is a 'straight shooter' willing to change in the face of new information.

    McCain was virtually finished in the last quarter of last year, his campaign broke and going nowhere and the GOP establishment was backing Romney.  Now McCain's the GOP nominee.

    Rudy 9/11 led in GOP polls, McCain was on his last legs.  But the media looooooves John McCain and hates Rudy 9/11 and strongly disliked Romney.

    Look who got the nomination.

    Parent

    Not sure (none / 0) (#182)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:26:12 AM EST
    watch McCain moderate, move closer to the center.

    McCain 2008 is not McCain 2000.  He has welded himself inextricably to Bush's tax cuts and Bush's war.  The medieval wing of the GOP already distrusts him for his occasional dabbling with centrism, if he strays too far from the right they won't turn out for him.

    I don't dismiss him, but I have trouble seeing how he gets away from Bush.

    Parent

    Peak?? Surely you jest!! (none / 0) (#163)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:46:04 PM EST
    The primaries aren't over yet and you think McCain has peaked?? When he gets done with Obama, for instance highlighting in an ad the statement from his book that he came to hate his mother's race, ie. whites, and add to that the purported tape of Michelle saying the same thing, that's all she wrote. Election over, McCain wins. Why?? Because nobody wants someone in the White House who hates them for the color of their skin. Even white people.

    And for the person who has the gall to call for a "national conversation" on race to have said that is just beyond the pale. Does Obama have short-term memory problems?? He can't remember who he hates and doesn't hate?? Why is this jerk a candidate for President??

    Parent

    Is that true? (none / 0) (#174)
    by MMW on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:42:03 AM EST
    Because if it is, democrats are dumber than I've ever thought.

    Parent
    Well, to be honest (none / 0) (#27)
    by Benjamin3 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:01:50 PM EST
    those McCain-Clinton and McCain-Obama polls don't mean much at this point.  If you're a Hillary supporter and you get the McCain-Obama polling question, you're probably gonna hit the button for McCain - to make Hillary look better.  And this works both ways.  So, while the Democratic primary is still going on, McCain's numbers are going to be inflated.

    Parent
    You may be underestimating (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:19:14 PM EST
    the surge of McCain's number if Obama walks out of the convention as the nominee.

    Parent
    it sure does seem like thats the plan (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:53:10 PM EST
    scary isnt it?

    Parent
    The plan is to win everything West of (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:55:13 PM EST
    the Mississippi.  You know, Utah, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho etc.

    Don't you worry.  /s

    Parent

    Terrible (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:56:58 PM EST
    campaign. Insult the voters because they aren't "kewl".

    Parent
    Let's See How "kewl" It Is If obama Is (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:16:20 PM EST
    the nominee and he loses FLA and MI in a landslide, along with losing the WH for the dems.

    Parent
    And how many Representative SD's find (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:26:48 PM EST
    out the people won't be forgetting their vote 2 years later. They will understand, I'm sure.

    After all, they punished everyone for Hillary's vote on Iraq.

    Parent

    You forgot the scary,scary Supreme Court (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:24:13 PM EST
    Roe v. Wade. boogeyman.

    Parent
    I already fought that battle (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:31:54 PM EST
    if our young women want to keep what we gave them, they are the ones who need to fight for it. If they choose to ignore that Obama is a sure loss in November, they will have to get themselves organized to bring back their rights (if they lose them, of course).

    Parent
    I fully sympathize with (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:02:54 PM EST
    the sentiment, but the problem is that the young women (and middle-aged, too) who will suffer are the very working-class and rural women who are voting for Hillary now.  The more affluent "creative class" babes supporting Obama will always have alternatives.  The same thing is true for civil liberties and policing issues, sexual harassment, death penalty appeals, product liability and a whole host of other things the SC will be deciding.  It's always the folks on the bottom who bear the brunt of these things, and those are Hillary's voters.

    I'm frankly hoping that by election day, it will be clear there will be a blow-out victory in one direction ot the other so that my vote won't count for anything and I can write in Hillary without compunction.

    Parent

    Which is exactly why Obama must be stopped (none / 0) (#177)
    by esmense on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:31:27 AM EST
    "The more affluent "creative class" babes supporting Obama will always have alternatives."

    The people who Obama represents do not have the same interests, economic or otherwise, as those who are supporting Hillary -- they haven't worked very hard in the past to support working class and poor women's best interest and there is no reason to expect that, once the "creative class" has control of the party, they will do so in the future in terms of either economic or social policy.

    Working class and poor women want an economic and social environment that supports family formation. Not just the right to abort their babies, but the economic and social resources required to have and raise them. This is a very different perspective from that of the affluent liberal who tends to think that poverty provides women with an obligation to abort  babies "they can't afford." When economic and social conditions limit your ability to have children, abortion is not a "choice," it is a tragedy. The fact that most affluent liberals don't understand that explains in large measure why the abortion debate has been stalled for the last 30 years and points up how absurd it is to think that affluent liberals can in anyway speak or represent the best interest of the working class they so disdain.

    Parent

    This one's for you: (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:31:58 PM EST
    LA TIMES

    David Savage, legal analyst for L.A.Times, compares the type of judicial appointments we might anticipate from McCain (we already knew this) and Obama (rather vague).  

    Parent

    I am so over the politics of FEAR (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:42:35 PM EST
    There is no way my vote is going to b a default vote. I also refuse to be held accountable if the Obama campaign fails to earn my vote. If he loses it won't be because of me but because of his own inept campaign.

    Parent
    But that was the stock response. (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:47:12 PM EST
    The article gives your premise some meat on the bones.

    Parent
    The Obama campaign (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:52:05 PM EST
    is predictable/Translation the "creative class" just ain't that creative. It's another one of the reasons we're gonna lose. It's going to be like shooting fish in the barrel for the GOP.

    The "I'm not the other guy" strategy didn't work last time why they think it will work now baffles the mind.

    Parent

    Why vote out of fear... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:32:46 AM EST
    ...when you can vote out of spite instead?

    "I will never vote for Obama, because he's just not electable, because I would never vote for him."  Got it.

    Parent

    Comments On Previous Thread Closed (none / 0) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:42:38 AM EST
    before I could post my concerns on what type of appointments Obama would make to SCOTUS. Cass Sunstein was mentioned as  Obama's choice. Here is some information about him that I find troubling.

    Sunstein:

    Roe vs. Wade, decided in 1973, was founded on the right of privacy in the medical domain, but the court's argument was exceedingly weak. The Constitution does not use the word "privacy" anywhere, and, in any case, the idea of privacy seems to describe a right of seclusion, not a right of patients and doctors to decide as they see fit.

    Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects. He is generally thought to be liberal, although he has publicly supported various of George W. Bush judicial nominees, including Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts. Much of his work also brings behavioral economics to bear on law, suggesting that the "rational actor" model will sometimes produce an inadequate understanding of how people will respond to legal intervention.
    Wikepedia

    Judicial Minimalism
    Their anti-conservative, yet also anti-liberal stance is well-expressed in the concurrent belief of many minimalists that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided by its overly liberal court, but also that modern conservatives who either sit on or influence the Supreme Court of the United States are wrong to try and overrule that case at one fell stroke, its effect on the law having become a stable precedent. Depending on the minimalist's particular preferences, a minimalist on the court would be likely to either very slowly bolster or chip away at abortion precedents rather than proclaim a lasting ban or legalization on abortion via Constitutional rulings.
    Wikepedia


    Parent
    Congress can stop that (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:40:45 PM EST
    If they want to, anyway. Dems are probably not going to lose Congress this fall. If they have even the slightest amount of spine, it doesn't matter who is President - he won't be able to put another wingnut on the SC.

    Parent
    "There Are No (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by talex on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:03:05 PM EST
    Red States or Blue States - but there are States that don't count" - Barack Obama

    Parent
    I am not. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by 0 politico on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:03:31 PM EST
    It is control the headlines and deflate any positive headlines for his opponent after the Kentucky fiasco.

    Then hope folks won't notice his campaign trying to preemptively snag the nomination, with the help of the DNC and party elite.  Bring in more money through the campaign, handing out money to keep the Dem leaders happy.

    Worry about the GE in the Fall.  Everyone will love him by then (not!).

    Parent

    I hope there is some secret plan (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:46:13 PM EST
    we dont know about.
    cause this just sounds nuts.

    The Same Kind Of Secret Plan That Reid (5.00 / 13) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:49:54 PM EST
    always had when dealing with the Republicans since 2006?

    Parent
    um, no (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:50:49 PM EST
    a different plan hopefully.

    Parent
    Hey. don't diss Harry. Huff Post review (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:19:46 PM EST
    says he pulled no punches, spared no one, in his new book.  

    Parent
    including himself? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:22:46 PM EST


    Parent
    "A clear majority"? (5.00 / 11) (#4)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:48:09 PM EST
    Wow. That's audacious all right. If he was really honest, he would have said "A scant majority of delegates based on a rigged system and the discounting of votes in two swing states has sent an unmistakable message that the Democratic Party is divided beyond repair".  But I suppose that isn't very "hopeful". Let's hope that either Florida and Michigan are more forgiving/forgetful than they have so far appeared to be, or he can win without them, because he now has a 48 state strategy all the way to the white house - and McCain is going for 50.

    He has a "mandate" don't ya know. (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:56:07 PM EST
    Now where have I heard that one before?

    Parent
    Obama wouldn't be saying this (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:23:39 PM EST
    without Dean's approval.
    imho

    Parent
    that is what I was thinking too (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:28:00 PM EST
    it makes me sad

    Parent
    I don't think (none / 0) (#126)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:05:20 PM EST
    he takes orders from Dean anymore, if he ever did. After all, He Knows What's Best.

    Parent
    He may seal the media narrative (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:48:47 PM EST
    tomorrow night? But he'll also seal his fate.

    The only thing yet to see is how he'll blame the backlash from this on Clinton.

    I wonder how Montana and South Dakota (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:26:10 PM EST
    will feel knowing that King Obama has crowned himself the nominee. I'd be insulted.

    Parent
    This is an election campaign manager's dream (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by blogtopus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:36:10 PM EST
    If you're the opponent, that is.

    Imagine how Hillary could take advantage of this in her ads playing in the remaining primary states. If she wasn't slated to win big in them before, she will now.

    Thank you, Barack Obama!

    Parent

    No kidding (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:41:29 PM EST
    this really goes beyond judgment.

    Parent
    speaking for Montana only (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by athyrio on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:40:16 PM EST
    in this state, when people vote, you receive both the democratic and republican ballots, and you decide which to fill out so it is pretty easy to screw around with the primary...So I fully expect many republicans to vote for Obama simply because he is the weaker of the two....

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:53:31 PM EST
    We really need to fix the system to weed stuff like this out.

    Parent
    Or they might vote Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by cosbo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:49:03 PM EST
    to humiliate him. Even more effective.

    Parent
    Myopic. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:50:56 PM EST
    Who cares about Florida and Michigan when you have "a clear majority of pledged delegates" to party about?  I love a sham victory.

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CanadianDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:55:33 PM EST
    lol!

    Parent
    Politically tonedeaf (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by myiq2xu on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:50:59 PM EST
    But the Obama campaign has been that way since March 4th.

    too (1.00 / 2) (#24)
    by CanadianDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:58:25 PM EST
    funny...Clinton rejected a state approved plan to seat the Michigan delegates, she has no credibility on Michigan now.  At minimum she should have outlined the problems with it (no, not Clinton supporters problems, hers) while dismissing a democratically approved motion. If she didn't like it, she should abdicate any connection to the party and run as an indie since she didn't agree with the states majority opinion.

    Parent
    A plan that would give Obama delegates (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:04:59 PM EST
    he had not earned and take away delegates from Clinton which she had won.  Wow your idea of a

     

    a democratically approved motion
    sure is great.


    Parent
    Don't count the votes and manipulate the refs-- (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by jawbone on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:26:26 PM EST
    Isn't that a plan we saw in the FL recount in 2000?

    Along with a relatively unknown candidate, fluffed by the MCM, devoid of real proposals (well, tax cuts were there) but trying to be all things to all people, but given a great script?

    Parent

    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:42:35 PM EST
    You realize it's the actual votes that are democratic and indicative of the state's majority opinion, as opposed to the compromise plan that a few politicians came up with, right?

    In case you need it spelled out more clearly: even if George Bush was democratically elected, that does not make everything he proposes "democratically approved" or "the nation's majority opinion."

    Parent

    Winning (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:51:16 PM EST
    I'm with you on this issue and the Unity Ticket. I wish the people in the Obama camp actually cared about winning. I've been taking people to task on this over at DailyKos.

    All they seem to care about is punishing (early-voting states) and purging (the Clinton DLC contingent).

    Making any headway there? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:01:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Depends what you mean by headway (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:26:53 PM EST
    I get a few recs on some of my comments.

    I frame the argument solely in regards to winning strategies. Most of the replies seem oblivious to the actual arguments I am making. Some launch into attacks on Clinton. Or they patronize me about my candidate (which she's not). The other line is prattling about the sanctity of the rules.

    It's like, so what? My support for Obama is very mild, but I absolutely want him to win the GE and can't imagine not voting for him.

    What really surprises me is how few people will even engage the topic of trying to win, which seems to me the only topic worth discussing.

    Parent

    Demi Moaned (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by creeper on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:27:42 PM EST
    If you're taking people to task on dKos about this you're a stronger woman than I.

    My hat's off to you.

    Parent

    If your links are to DKos (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:43:52 PM EST
    please put a warning so those of us who refuse to hit their site aren't tricked into it.

    Parent
    And did I not? (none / 0) (#148)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:30:36 PM EST
    I think it's pretty clear from context.

    In any case, you should learn how to use mouse-over to see the destination for your links in the lower corner of your browser (or left-click/Properties). It's helpful in lots of cases besides this one.

    Parent

    David K_? (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Fabian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:35:44 PM EST
    Oy.  Waste 'O Time talking to him.  But exposure is always good, I guess.

    I'd go but the two worst days to visit Cheetoland are the day before, the day of and the day after an election.  Make that the three worst days.  The hyperbole just runs rampant and going against the Official Narratives is forbidden.

    Prediction:  The little r- word will begin to be supplanted by the big R- word.  The new dirty word to call voters is "Republican".

    Parent

    Not his call: He's not KING, King or even king (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:57:53 PM EST
    He's an arrogant self-annointing fraud and has no business crowning himself.

    Even were this Premature Emperor wearing clothes, they'd suck.

    Shame on anyone who's going along with this fraud for fear of being called racist, for greed to get at his big database / magic moneybags, or even for belief in his spiel.

    IT'S NOT DEMOCRACY IF IT'S NOT TRANSPARENT.

    Claiming it's The Roolz but not allowing a transparent, peer-reviewed examination of the Roolz and the Math is NOT DEMOCRACY IF IT'S NOT TRANSPARENT.

    (Creative) Class dismissed.

    it will be interesting to watch (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    them when the nomination process really is over and they are no longer in "if you say it often enough and loud enough it will be true" land.

    Parent
    He must think he's Napoleon n/t (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:02:32 PM EST


    Parent
    It's a big mistake (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by barryluda on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:01:25 PM EST
    Call it a milestone if you want, but don't call it the election!  I'm trying to figure out why in the world he would want to do this???

    The only way this makes sense is if he thinks this would somehow make the Super Delegates make some increased push toward him.  I bet it'll backfire. In fact, he probably has done Clinton a favor since if everything plays out as expected, the nomination is his.  Any change from expectations at this point puts him at risk of the Supers changing their minds.

    The more I think about it the more it seems absolutely crazy.

    It's Hard To Escape (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by creeper on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    the conclusion that the Obama campaign is running scared.

    Parent
    He wants to do this for a variety of reasons (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:48:56 PM EST
    He's bored and doesn't like hearing the media ask, "why can't he close the deal?"

    He is tired and wants to stop campaigning in states he can't find on the map.

    Oprah has him studying The Secret and he's using the Law of Attraction.

    He's scared Michelle will start screaming at the crowds the way she is screaming at him to get this over with.


    Parent

    thank you for making (none / 0) (#105)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:49:48 PM EST
    me laugh!!!

    Parent
    I can't think of a single upside (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:27:09 PM EST
    to it.  It is insane, IMHO.  Especially when he is heading to FL this week.  Is he going to try to make some big 'magnanimous' gesture while he is here?

    Everyone is pretty convinced he is going to be the nominee, even with FL and MI seated as is.  Maybe he knows something we don't, and all of the remaining SDs are for Hillary.  

    Parent

    I've Read That There Will Be Protesters Outside (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:02:48 PM EST
    of all Obama's events in Florida. Not sure where I read it or if they are planning to protest at Clinton's events as well since only Obama's name was mentioned. Probably won't be picked up by the MSM but if it is, not counting votes is not a good image.

    I received an email today about (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by FLVoter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:06:33 PM EST
    protesting Sen. Obama's event at the Diplomat Hotel in Hollywood, Florida on May 22, 2008 because he will not support counting our votes.  My understanding is that because Sen. Clinton wants to count our votes, there are no protests planned.

    Parent
    He will be the illegitimate nominee if he does. (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Saul on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:08:12 PM EST
    I hope he jumps the gun tommorrow and say he is the nominee even though he might not have all the delegates.  That would continue to show his arrogance and elitism.

    Pretender. (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:39:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama would not be the frontrunner today (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Saul on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:09:39 PM EST
    knowing the facts we know now about him.  If all the controversies on Obma, Wright, Typical White Person, Bitter, Ayers, Michelle comments, Sweetie, had all shown themselves in Dec 07 Obama would not be the front runner today.   This would also include his objection in having a re vote in MI and FL making those voters even angrier. Also the egregious in the tank by the media for Obama and the constant sexist attitude toward Hilary by the media and many of the sexist remarks made by some of the Supers who endorsed Obama has to be considered.  

    So to make the front runner legitimate you would have to consider how Obama would have faired today if all these controversies and anti Hilary issued  had been know by the voters  before they voted.  Otherwise you can just say he got lucky.  

    That is why if I my suggestion for next time would be followed no one would have an edge to be lucky.
    My suggestion were as follows.

       

    My answer to all this is the following.

            Everyone goes to a primary method. No Caucuses

            No Super Delegates

            All the primaries will be held on one day.  That day should be in late May.  That way all the candidates will have from Dec to May to campaign where ever they want to.

            This way no one has an advantage and every candidates gets an even playing field. Then it's over.  If no one gets the number of delegates required  then whoever gets the most popular vote is the winner.



    Take back your vote (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:51:39 PM EST
    I agree. I would love it if someone were to put up a poll on the internet to see how many people would change their vote from Obama to Clinton if they could.


    Parent
    This is dumb, but I hope it does not (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:10:50 PM EST
    mean that Obama already knows the DNC isn't going to count MI and FL either!  Dumb, dumb, dumb...and it will be even dumber if the DNC plays along on May 31st.

    Oh yeah, that would pile dumb on dumb (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:28:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Wow... (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:23:35 PM EST
    That's...umm...not the brightest move on the planet, now is it?

    Why not? (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:25:53 PM EST
    You think the MSM are going to challenge him on it? They've already started referring to him as the "all but certain presumptive nominee".

    My heart is hardening.  I hope this blows up in both Obama's and the MSM's collective faces.

    Parent

    Msnbc, David Schuster,said tonight (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by zfran on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:30:26 PM EST
    that they never said Hillary should leave the race. They did a whole story on it as maybe they are all being accused after that post of people who said Obama should not be "crowned" tomorrow.

    Parent
    The ladies who are organizing (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:55:43 PM EST
    against Obama because they are so infuriated about the biased reporting that's been going on are organizing a big blackout for MSNBC, NBC, and CNN for tomorrow because of the Obama plan to declare his Victory to the "more than half milestone".  

    They are asking everyone to watch FOX all day tomorrow because they've been the most balanced.

    I'm really surprised there isn't more gathering and protesting on this.


    Parent

    The NBC family... (none / 0) (#169)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:50:48 PM EST
    has gone all out for Mr. Obama.  McCain is being treated not much better than Hillary over there.
    The bias for Obama, especially among the pundit class is sickening, but NBC/MSNBC has gone further than Fox did for Bush in 2000.

    NBC=Nothing But Cr*p!
    MSNBC=Most Surely Nothing But Cr*p!

    Parent

    ther MSM is irrelevant in Florida on this (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:35:25 PM EST
    I can not speak for Michigan but Florida does not give a sh*t what Keith Olbermann thinks about it.

    Parent
    Maybe Hillary should arrange (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:38:22 PM EST
    an old people riot in West Palm Beach tomorrow. They can chant "count the votes!"

    Parent
    She does not have to arrange it (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:39:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, we can have a (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:40:35 PM EST
    "rallies are only good when Obama does them" moment too. Add that to the roolz.

    Parent
    Actually if it was just the old people (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:43:27 PM EST
    in Fl it would be bad enough but a lot of young people (my daughter is 23) are also Pi**ed at the whole not counting situation.

    Parent
    You have that right (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by IzikLA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:39:04 PM EST
    The problem, unfortunately, is way bigger than just FL & MI.  I live in California and this has affected my whole outlook on the entire primary.  I think the issue is much more all encompassing than they think.

    Parent
    Sooooo true (none / 0) (#147)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:29:13 PM EST


    Parent
    You'll get half your wish I'm sure (none / 0) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:28:38 PM EST
    It's going to blow up on Obama. The media, not so much. Tyhey werent interestd in an Obama presidency from the get go. Oh sure they'll take his money, right before they place a shiv in his back.

    Parent
    Well, half of that wish could.. (none / 0) (#170)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:51:40 PM EST
    save us from another potential disaster.

    Parent
    Lou Dobbs (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Manuel on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:27:06 PM EST
    I was just watching Lou and he had a segment with Bill Schneider on the popular vote.  They rehashed all the issues that have been covered here these past few months down to the FL/MI revote.  Unfortunately it is too little too late.  It is sad to know that some of the self inflicted wounds could have been fixed.

    It is hardly over. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:31:23 PM EST
    Unfortunately it is too little too late.

    She's going to the convention.  Should be interesting.

    Parent

    I wish I could be as hopeful (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Manuel on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:39:26 PM EST
    but the leadership in the Democratic Party, as represented by the superdelegates, appears ready to hand Obama the nomination.  They won't let this go to the convention and Hillary Clinton, unlike Kennedy in 1980, is too loyal a Democrat to challenge them

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:44:55 PM EST
    this will go to the convention.

    Neither one will have the delegates to declare victory until then.

    Going to be a fun summer.  :)  

    Parent

    :) Obama needs to spend (none / 0) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:58:02 PM EST
    his campaign war chest, he might as well waste it fighting McCain before Hillary wins the nomination in August.

    Parent
    Clinton is the one with GE (none / 0) (#162)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:45:21 PM EST
    money.  I'm not sure how much GE money Obama has.  

    Does Clinton have control over the official end of the primary?  Does she have to suspend before Obama can legally begin spending his GE funds?  I know they are separate, I just don't know the criteria for shifting.

    If Obama spent GE money, implodes over the summer, Clinton gets the nom, what would happen?
    So...... if Clinton doesn't suspend, can he use those funds if he isn't an official presumptive nominee?  

    Parent

    If she does... (none / 0) (#150)
    by NWHiker on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:35:18 PM EST
    It'll be interesting to see what Obama does: he's obviously tired of campaigning and if she keeps on going, he's going to have to as well. I'm sure that is going to ruin his vacation plans.

    Parent
    Reminds me of Bush (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by hitchhiker on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:29:37 PM EST
    insisting on turning the keys to Baghdad over to the "sovereign" Iraqi government in July of 2004, even though there was no functioning government to recognize, there was no government with authority over the militias, and there was no reason (except the obvious political one) to make it happen on July 1st.

    Obama shouldn't be emulating the Worst President Ever.

    It's a dumb political move because it's such an OBVIOUS political move.  If this is a new politics, I'm a can of tuna.

    Reminds me (none / 0) (#155)
    by denise on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:52:13 PM EST
    of how Bush declared himself the winner in FL in 2000 while the outcome was in question. Worked for him. And since the media have already pretty much declared Obama the winner, they'll probably just go right along with it.

    Parent
    Yes!! (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:30:07 PM EST
    That's our man, Obama!!!!

    Belichick, Bonds, Obama.

    Premature Election (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Chimster on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:33:54 PM EST
    I don't know how Barry did it, but he got the MSM to declare him the nominee after Indiana and North Carolina. Although he was  completely thrashed in West Virginia, the MSM with help from Attorney General-wannabee John Edwards once again placed Barry convincingly on the throne.

    Now comes Kentucky about to dump all over him again, but this time  he'll personally let voters know--the one we've been waiting for has finally been chosen.

    If we let the media decide the nominee, then our party and the political system has failed. If Obama decides the nominee, then our party and his political campaign will fail. I've never wanted a Democratic nominee to fail more than I do Barrack Obama at this very moment.

    I can't wait for him to do this (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:36:58 PM EST
    when KY comes in with a landslide against him and OR is "too close to call."

    But KY is just because they don't know him... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by rghojai on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:44:17 PM EST
    ...or so he said. I mean, he's had about zero media coverage, right? I guess speaking engagements there would change things dramatically? So why not appear and/or have a debate?

    For anyone in his position to say that, it strikes me as silly. For someone alleging a new approach to politics, partaking of thin spin is, uh, inconsistent.

    Parent

    It's FOX News to blame (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:17:42 PM EST
    Obama has said that he will lose KY because FOX News has questioned his religion and his patriotism.

    It's NOT HIS FAULT.

    Parent

    It NEVER IS (none / 0) (#180)
    by vigkat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:18:52 AM EST
    His fault.  Never.

    Parent
    Oh yeah, forgot that one. (none / 0) (#181)
    by rghojai on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:23:49 PM EST
    Interesting that anyone would say they can't overcome (alleged) media bias. I guess that'd make Fox real happy, as it relates to the general election and otherwise.

    Parent
    Part of this (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:50:50 PM EST
    Is to give the media something else to talk about besides the actual results of the primaries in KY and OR.

    Parent
    OMG I bet you're right (none / 0) (#121)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:01:24 PM EST
    The rally in Iowa will probably be about the time Hillary would be accepting her KY win!!

    Of course that's why he's doing it without waiting until the OR numbers are in.

    This is a pattern of behavior for him.


    Parent

    WTF? The bigger BO loses the harder he's throned (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:48:36 PM EST
    His past non-wins (Sen Clinton's "unimportant" blowouts) have only spurred his supporters to declare his One-ness louder.

    I'm worried that he's one embarrassing loss away from being declared the national deity, to whom I can neither kneel nor bow due chronic skeletal problems (ie, I have a spine that runs up to a pretty hard brain pan with brains still in it.)

    And Clinton woudn't have done the same? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Seth90212 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:51:07 PM EST
    Honest responses please.

    I don't deal in hypotheticals (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:56:27 PM EST
    I like living in reality too much.

    Parent
    MI and FL wouldn't even exist in Hillary's mind (none / 0) (#119)
    by Seth90212 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:58:44 PM EST
    if the situations were reversed. No one can credibly claim that Obama broke any rules in winning the nomination. Some of the rules were favorable to him and he took advantage. Every other politician would do the same.

    Parent
    You may be right (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:07:12 PM EST
    However, it doesn't matter.  Ask yourself this:  whose argument is on the side of right and democracy?  

    Hillary's.  Obama has no leg to stand on - politics be dam**ed.

    Parent

    At least you are honest (none / 0) (#137)
    by Seth90212 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:13:59 PM EST
    Yes, Hillary would've declared victory long ago if she had been in Obama's shoes. As far as right or wrong, who knows really? It's a cutthroat business. No politician is going to voluntarily relinquish an advantage in order to appear sporting. Even if they could organize legitimate revotes, which they could not.

    Parent
    I would say it's very easy (none / 0) (#140)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:18:07 PM EST
    You either believe everyone gets a vote and it is counted or you don't. In which case, the elction results are no more valid than if they were held in the USSR circa 1962.

    Parent
    "Honest responses please" (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by lambert on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:59:59 PM EST
    Classic troll line.

    Seriously, though, I support Hillary so I'm a racist. Why would you expect honest responses from me?

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#122)
    by Step Beyond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:01:25 PM EST
    saying that someone else would or wouldn't do the same if the positions were reversed is no justification for anything. And if that is the best you've got, you're better off not showing your cards.


    Parent
    who knows? (none / 0) (#132)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:09:19 PM EST


    Parent
    McCain (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Step Beyond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:53:58 PM EST
    McCain is going to be here Tuesday (tomorrow). Not sure if he's coming before that or when he leaves, but there's something scheduled Tuesday I believe.

    Everything I've read when they mention Obama and Clinton coming mentions their previous boycott of the state. What great advertising for the Dems. Well done DNC. Well done. /sarcasm

    ok and ... (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Monda on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:07:28 PM EST
    I think Hillary should "suspend" her campaign June 3rd, and wait it out until August.  She should relax, go to an island somewhere on vacation and rest.  Meanwhile the repugs will have their fun with Obama in the summer and come Denver ... who knows?

    ;)

    This Fla. voter will not forget (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Terry M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:36:25 PM EST
    Obama's total disregard for us.  Florida will be very difficult for Obama to win in the GE.  The real culprits, though, are Dean and company at the DNC.  Never forget.

    what (none / 0) (#16)
    by CanadianDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:54:41 PM EST
    happened to the headline Clinton rejects Michigan Democratic sponsored resolution to seat delegates?

    69-59? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:14:10 PM EST
    A plan that gives Obama delegates he without question did not earn?  What exactly is so great about this plan that is only the most vague approximation of voter representation?

    Parent
    That commenter brings the same comment twice (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:23:00 PM EST
    to the table methinks he did not go beyond the bold letters on the TPM

    Parent
    Obama is right (none / 0) (#61)
    by ibextati on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:28:50 PM EST
    Untile the rules committee reconsiders FL and MI on their May 31, Obama is right to claim the majority of pledged delegates based on the existing rules.

    Yes yes (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:31:07 PM EST
    Obama is right of course.

    Good for Obama for taking a stand on this!

    Parent

    He won before he didn't? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:31:58 PM EST
    That's what he wants to create a hullabaloo about?

    Parent
    Stolen nomination. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:32:32 PM EST
    Is that what you want?

    Parent
    Obama is a political fool on this (5.00 / 9) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:32:39 PM EST
    I love how everyone is a lawyer about politics.

    My point is not to argue whether he is right or wrong, it is irrelevant if it is right or wrong, the question is is it politically SMART.

    Please note, I do not accept that he is right. I can make a very reasonable argument that he is wrong. But that would be as stupidly irrelevant as your comment.
     

    Parent

    Why isn't it politically smart of Obama? (none / 0) (#130)
    by fctchekr on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:07:16 PM EST
    The way I see this it doesn't matter, because the rules committee will vote in his favor, regardless. Yes, it makes him look like he's not counting votes, but only half of the electorate cares, the other half, us, hold no sway, other than our votes in Nov. Even counting the votes, she would ONLY get the popular vote, that's not going to dissuade them from nominating him. Yes, it will make Hillary supporters mad as hell, but the party has already shown us the door. So, let them lose in Nov, because there will be millions of unhappy Hill-Campers. The only way he can recoup is to put Hill on the ticket, if he doesn't than he'll have a tough time winning FL/MI and swing states...bye bye White House...
    The distinction he that you will vote for him despite this? I won't vote for him unless Hillary is on the ticket. If she chooses not to be, than someone else will get my vote.

    Parent
    Correction (none / 0) (#134)
    by fctchekr on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:10:43 PM EST
    Only half of the electorate does not care, than there's us, etc..

    Parent
    Tomorrow Night (none / 0) (#68)
    by kaleidescope on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:30:28 PM EST
    What is Obama going to do tomorrow night?  I heard Noron on MSGOP tell Terry McAuliffe that none of her sources were saying that Obama was going to "declare victory" tomorrow night. Noron was puzzled where McAuliffe had heard that.  His answer wasn't particularly enlightening.

    As far as ignoring Michigan and Florida goes.  Wasn't Edwards with Obama at an Obama event in Grand Rapids when Edwards announced his endorsement?

    How many campaign events has the Clinton campaign scheduled lately in Michigan?  I haven't seen too much news of her campaigning in Florida either.  Given how concerned she is about the feelings of the voters in those two states, you'd think Senator Clinton would be out there shaking hands and kissing babies from Sault St. Marie to Miami.

    Huh? (5.00 / 8) (#80)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:36:16 PM EST
    How many campaign events has the Clinton campaign scheduled lately in Michigan?

    Why should she do that?  She won Michigan.

    Parent

    Perhaps she's busy (5.00 / 6) (#83)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:37:10 PM EST
    campaigning in the states that haven't voted yet? You know, Kentucky, Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana. Perhaps she figures THEY deserve the opportunity to know who she is and where she sees this country going before they have to vote.

    Parent
    Her sources apparently do not include Plouffe (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:37:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Plouffe Is That the Name of a Marshmellow Salesman (none / 0) (#118)
    by kaleidescope on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:58:18 PM EST
    I got Plouffe's e-mail too.  He just says they'll win an absolute majority of elected delegates tomorrow.  Under the current rules, that's correct.  There's no claim that the nomination is now Obama's.

    Even if you accept their -- and the DNC's -- current math (which I know you don't), they still need 2025 delegates total, which Obama certainly won't get by tomorrow (though he'll probably be within 60).  Even Plouffe understands this.  That's why Obama won't "claim victory" tomorrow.

    He'll just keep campaigning in states that matter -- states like Michigan, Florida and Iowa.

    Parent

    The rest of your comment (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:38:38 PM EST
    is unbelievably funny.

    There are primaries in Kentucky and Oregon ans you wanted her in Michigan and Florida?

    Ha! What a goof.

    Parent

    She'll be in Flordia the same day Obama is. (none / 0) (#95)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:42:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Shouldn't have called him (none / 0) (#82)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:37:06 PM EST
    lunch?

    You're forgiven.

    He was fighting against MI and Fl (none / 0) (#110)
    by WillBFair on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:53:20 PM EST
    when he signed the agreement not to campaign in them. He knew he'd loose in those States and didn't want them to be counted. So what's new? He and his people have been using every low tactic from the start. Where have you been?
    I'm sorry. I didn't mean that the way it sounded. Please forgiveth. I'm just grouchy, knowing I'll have to listen to his shallow rhetoric for the next four years, while his worshippers provide libraries full of supporting fiction.
    Please see my new entry, Low Culture In High Places, on:
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

    Questionable he would lose in MI when (none / 0) (#123)
    by Seth90212 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:02:38 PM EST
    Hillary struggled to defeat Uncommitted. He may have lost but it would have been close. He may also have won had he run a campaign there. FL, yes that he would have lost, but by a smaller margin than in the unauthorized election.

    Parent
    Struggle, without campaigning at all? (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:11:40 PM EST
    You really are just trolling here today.  I expected better.


    Parent
    Go back to the news coverage of that event (none / 0) (#153)
    by Seth90212 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:48:22 PM EST
    Consensus was that she struggled to defeat Uncommitted. Shall I provide links?

    Parent
    Since you are accusing me of trolling (none / 0) (#156)
    by Seth90212 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:53:07 PM EST
    let me just say that a 15% margin against no one is unimpressive. That's why the MSM jokingly referred to it as a struggle. Had it been against Obama it would have been an impressive victory, not so against Uncommitted.

    Parent
    Right so the MSM who has and is in the tank (none / 0) (#157)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:02:12 PM EST
    with Obama called it a struggle and you say that it is the Holly Truth written in stone.  Pleeeaaasse get a life.

    Parent
    You want to be taken seriously and (none / 0) (#166)
    by Seth90212 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:22:51 PM EST
    you come here and say that MSM is in the tank for Obama? Listen, this is the opinion of delusional Hillary dead enders. You're not dealing in the real world.

    Parent
    If the MSM is not in the tank for Obama (none / 0) (#178)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:32:08 AM EST
    they sure as hell have made a good act of it.  Look you are the one who is living in some other world if you have not been listening and watching and reading the MSM this primary please go with your fantasies about struggle to someone else 15% win is not a struggle even if the MSM said it was and specially since both Edwards and Obama's campaign did campaign for undecided and against Hillary.  So don't bull***t me with your non sensical spew about the MSM not being in the tank for Obama.

    Parent
    so a 15% victory without campaigning (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:27:03 PM EST
    more than can be said for uncommitted is now considered struggling?

    Parent
    I'm struggling to (none / 0) (#112)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:53:56 PM EST
    stay interested in this political fight. I have lost all faith in the Dem Part (yes I'll vote Dem).

    Not counting FL and MI is just another blunder. (I believe Sen Obam is afraid of the popular vote outcome if they count these states)

    In the beginning of the primaries, I thought this is the year for the Dems..... man,have they blown it.

    I'm focusing down ticket... because up ticket is a "hold your nose".

    Think about this. (none / 0) (#133)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:09:30 PM EST
    Warren Buffet, a guy who knows a thing or two about economics, is quoted in today's NYT as saying this:
    =========

    "I think the U.S. will do well over time whether the president becomes Barack or John McCain.''

    He said the presidency was not unlike running a business.

    ''They say in the stock market, 'Buy into a business that's doing so well an idiot could run it, because sooner or later, one will,''' Buffett said. ''The U.S. is sort of like that. I think the country will do fine whether it's the Democratic or Republican candidate, but I strongly prefer the Democrats.''

    In other words, Buffet is saying (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by miriam on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:31:59 PM EST
    That the presidency is irrelevant.  That big business/corporations are the ones running the country.  This is news?  

    Parent
    An idiot has done it for 7 years now (none / 0) (#136)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:13:50 PM EST
    and we're not doing so hot.  Buffet might want to modify his prediction a bit.  Though he will be just fine no matter who is elected.

    Parent
    Let me add that McCain is no Bush (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:15:27 PM EST
    and who knows about Obama?  He might be the second coming of Bush II for all I know.


    Parent
    That's my fear (none / 0) (#141)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:19:27 PM EST
    Another one in the WH who requires OJT.

    Parent
    Obama is going to be the Democrats version of Bush (none / 0) (#160)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:26:57 PM EST
    He could be bad for the long term health of the party.  Perhaps we could draft Gore as our nominee at the convention?

    Parent
    Obama is the Democratic Bush (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:40:45 PM EST
    His team figured out the Rove formula.  Picked a candidate that fit it. And that is how they go to where they are.  Sad part is the country needs someone competent.  But the angry white boys who kept losing, Dean, Kerry, Kennedy now Edwards..the whole lot of them, wanted to win in the Bush fashion.  They think they got themselves a winner.  Problem is if he wins, we lose.  If he loses we lose.  OY!!!

    Rise Hillary Rise

    Parent

    Obama will count FL and MI (none / 0) (#149)
    by Saul on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:30:46 PM EST
    even at the original full primary counts but only when he know that counting them makes no difference in his nomination.

    We're at that point now. (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimotto on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:23:17 PM EST
    His campaign has a pretty good sense of the options the states are proposing to the DNC 5/31.  They know that they have the nomination locked up regardless of how the delegations will be seated.  At worst, they only need 45% of the remaining pledged delegates and 30% of the supers to hit 2210.  And I suspect they know they easily have 30% of the supers lined up.

    Parent
    illegitimate candidate (none / 0) (#164)
    by DandyTIger on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:53:50 PM EST
    should be the headline if this continues without MI and FL. And that will not help Obama in the GE if he wins more votes in August. It's a sad day indeed when only one party in the US stands for democracy, and that party is the Republican Party. All Democrats should be embarrassed.

    Seating MI/FL (none / 0) (#165)
    by formerhoosier on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:05:58 PM EST
    Thought this blog entry by Mark pretty much sums up my feeling on the subject:

    "Because the DNC has delayed the solution of the MI/FL problem in a way that clearly negatively impacted any benefit the Clinton campaign would have accrued if the solution was made in a timely manner, any validation of those primaries at this point provides only a poor approximation of democracy.   At this point, it doesn't matter to me if eventually the DNC fixes the MI/FL problem in some manner, IT IS TOO LATE, BABY DEAN, WAY TOO LATE.  

    Obama is playing this hand for sheer (none / 0) (#168)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:42:55 PM EST
    bluster. He's playing it up for the media hoping for media splash that he's won,just to syke her and her supporters. Its the image is everything game.

    But to those of us  paying attention it seems crazy. While he's declaring himself the winner Hillary will be winning BIG in the contests left.

    Everyone will be left to wonder what the hell he is talking about that he's a winner while Hillary keeps winning? It'll cause confusion and make him look like a tired on mare who wants really bad to win but hasn't been declared and ready for the glue factory.

    sorry thats not leader I want to lead this nation.

    so much for political change and (none / 0) (#176)
    by kimsaw on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:53:14 AM EST
    the 50 state strategy. Obama's fighting against counting MI and FL. is symbolic of what kind of president Obama would be. He's selling out for his own interests. How is that change? He's not showing he's a new kind of politician by fermenting ill-conceived rules that were not equally imposed. Obama is showing he's an old politician repackaged for an American Idol generation.  

    There may be a surge in Dem voters in this primary season compared to Rep voters, but make no mistake we will be a divided country in Nov.. That's why McCain is staying close in the polls. We are a nation divided evenly and if Obama keeps making mistakes even trivial ones, his unpreparedness will show against McCain. Obama needs the votes in Florida and MI to aid the Dem nominee who ever it is. Fighting against it is like biting the hand that feeds you.

    Disenfranchising voters based on the timing of their vote, is as senseless as disenfranchising folks based on their race or gender. It's foolishness especially for a party with a new age mantra of change.

    The higher calling for true leaders is to recognize the popular vote, own their mistakes* and follow the rules of half delegates and let the convention battle begin or super delegates call the winner. But don't forget to wave to Ms. Brazile as she exits she still needs to know you care!

    *MI was Obama's political mistake, he doesn't get votes he didn't earn. He can fight for the uncommitted votes at the convention. The DNC did not follow their own rules by tossing out all delegates.


    From (none / 0) (#179)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:00:28 AM EST
    Chuck Todd:

    "By the way, if Obama picks up approximately 50 delegates tonight, then he'll clinch a majority of the pledged delegates even if you add in Michigan and Florida as they originally voted."

    Obama Will Not Count FL And MI | 179 comments (179 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment