home

How Do You Pretend 2 Million People Did Not Vote?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:35:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Today on MSNBC, Kevin Spacey, a star of HBO's film depiction of the 2000 Florida Presidential vote travesty, Recount, said about the current Florida Democratic delegate fiasco:

I do not see how you can pretend two million people did not vote.

Indeed. The Huffington Post has a headline that reads HBO's Recount Opens 2000 Wounds. I think it does more than that. It rubs salt in the current wound in the Democratic Party on the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations.

On May 31, the DNC better do the right thing. The DNC better do the smart thing. Seat the Florida and Michigan delegations.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed

< U.S. Allowed Chinese to Interrogate and Abuse Gitmo Prisoners | Popular Vote Totals: Hillary's Still Ahead >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    How Do You Pretend 2 Million People Did Not Vote? | 212 comments (212 topical)
    Hear, hear! (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:37:14 PM EST


    I plan on being there to demonstrate (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by honora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:38:59 PM EST
    for democracy.  I hope lots of you can make it as well.

    right on (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by proudliberaldem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:39:27 PM EST
    Go Kevin Spacey.  So true. Ignoring voters anywhere should be an anathema to dems but, but Fla has a special significance.

    Indeed. (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:44:27 PM EST
    You do not, in fact, pretend 2.5 million people did not vote. If you intend to use that to game the primaries, expect and accept that you are going to piss off quite a few lifelong D's.

    Disenfranchisement is not a Democratic - or democratic - value. The DNC - and Barack Obama -had better realize that before it's too late.

    Parent

    It's deeply ironic. (none / 0) (#162)
    by ghost2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:48:42 PM EST
    Not only because of Florida 2000.  

    Also in the 100th anniversay of women earning the right to vote, in the year a black man and a woman are serious candidates for Presidency, in the year, when the democratic party wants to make history by either of its nominee,... the party decides to disenfranchise 2.5 million voters.

    It's breathtaking.  

    Hillary made that point today in Florida. "To do so, will undermine the very essence of the nominating process."

    It's a fantastic speech. Watch.

    Parent

    And with Kevin Spacey's declaration (none / 0) (#100)
    by zfran on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:17:02 PM EST
    Andrea Mitchell said thanks for being here and good luck with your HBO movie. I'm sure she was squirming.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:40:31 PM EST
    for staying on this BTD. It is important to seat their delegations and I'm sure that the Dems in both parties in those states are letting the DNC get an earful.

    I am not so sure (none / 0) (#35)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:56:09 PM EST
    The only reason I say this is that when I talk to family and friends in Florida, they are not doing anything because they have 'heard' that the votes WILL count. So if you believe they will, you do not protest. They hear this stuff on local stations, etc.

    Parent
    oh they'll count - but WHEN is key (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Josey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:41:02 PM EST
    and it appears WHEN will be WHEN Obama declares himself the nominee.
    what scenario to you see (none / 0) (#16)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:45:25 PM EST
    that would help Clinton's numbers? Seating both FL and MI at the current vote and in their full number?

    My take on that is that the Obama campaign would have a legitimate complaint, particularly with Michigan.

    Is there a compromise you like vis a vis timing and size.  I think Digby had an interesting compromise, but I just remember my reaction to it and don't remember it exactly or have a link.....I'll have to look around.

    Parent

    Obama has no legitimate complaint (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:49:44 PM EST
    vis-a-vis MI -- he took his name of the ballot so he deprived the people who wanted to vote for him the opportunity to do so. There was no RULE requiring him to take his name off of the ballot. There was no reason for him to remove his name from the ballot other then a political gamble -- he bet heads, and tails came up. Tough luck to Obama.

    Parent
    Actually heads came up, over and over (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:58:35 PM EST
    That gamble has paid off tremendously for Obama. He won Iowa and the rest is history. Now he isn't man enough to do the right thing and admit he has no rightful claim to MI's delegates other than to convince some uncommitteds. And he will get a good share of the uncommitteds, but he wants all of those plus some of the delegates Clinton earned.

    Parent
    Correct me if I'm wrong (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:02 PM EST
    Didn't she recently reject a plan that gave her the lead in both states? I think it was in April, but I'm a little lazy and don't want to research it.

    But why is he not "man enough"?

    It would be really great if folks who support seating and counting delegation votes would come up with a plan that's fair, that recognizes the original agreement by the states, the subsequent agreement by the candidates, and the votes of the electorate.

    What I'm hearing from Clinton supporters is that they want them seated and counted so that Clinton somehow comes out ahead.  And attacks on Obama for opposing this.

    I'm not hearing any compromise.

    Parent

    Bless your hear, you are wrong (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:09:25 PM EST
    Clinton rejected a plan that would give Obama some of the delegates that she earned via the actual votes! I understand that in Obamaland it is perfectly ok for Obama to receive delegates he didn't earn, but in the real world that is called vote stealing.

    Parent
    Thanks for the correction (none / 0) (#102)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:18:00 PM EST
    but I think the point is the 'actual vote' when Obama wasn't on the ballot, isn't an actual vote.  I'm not sure where Obamaland is or why you think it would be stealing to come to a compromise that the two candidates can agree to when she agreed the votes wouldn't count to begin with.

    Parent
    Yes, it is an actual vote (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:37:55 PM EST
    one that he chose not to participate in.

    Parent
    One that not just Obama's, but all campaigns - (none / 0) (#172)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:55:16 PM EST
    - including Clinton's - chose not to participate in.

    Parent
    If you don't understand (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:40:05 PM EST
    that no one actually voted for Obama (due to his own choice of taking his name off of the ballot) and that, therefore, giving him credit for any votes as if he actually did get them is immoral, unethical, unfair and "vote stealing," then I can't help you. But bless your heart, I just know you are doing the best you can.

    Parent
    MHO (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:45:26 PM EST
    Because the votes aren't theirs to compromise. Votes cast by actual voters are non-negotiable. They are only owned by the voters, not the DNC nor the candidates. And the DNC and the candidates are not free to dole out them out like prizes. It is insulting that anyone would think that basing any allotment of delegates on a formula rather than the actual results enfranchises the voters.

    The reality of a vote isn't if the candidate you want is on or off the ballot. If someone doesn't want to appear on that ballot, it is their choice and in no way invalidates the vote.

    Parent

    Why in hell (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:31:16 PM EST
    isn't it an actual vote?

    As another commenter said:

    You don't get votes if you forfeit.  That's exactly what Obama did. Tough break.  A cynical calculation backfired. That's justice.

    The only FAIR distribution is what voters determined on Jan. 15.

    Get this straight: Only votes matter.

    Parent

    a little supporting reasoning..... (none / 0) (#173)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:57:44 PM EST
    if one looks at all the events surrounding the early primaries with an objective eye; or if so inclined, an eye w/a speck of politics in it, he or she will surely realize why Obama was not on the Michigan ballot.  Following the rules?  As the Architect in The Matrix Reloaded says when asked about the Oracle, "please...."  Was it not true that Obama didn't have "name recognition?"  Weren't we hearing things to the effect of "Hillary's got the nomination locked up?  It's her time?"  I don't dis Obama for what he did (see the eye w/the speck,) but you gotta call it what it is - politics.  I've seen a lot of sports analogies, this was a strategy and it's been countered.  Can we be honest with ourselves so we can at the very least begin to deal with the current situation at that level?

    Parent
    oh and btw, (none / 0) (#183)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:03:57 PM EST
    if you consider the politics aspect, and consider the strategies involved, big, normally dem states w/associated demographics vs. small, normally red states w/some "new" constituencies thrown in, and....the implied goal to discredit all things Clinton, what other motives can one ascribe to Obama's return to Iowa for the "victory" speech?  A little crow maybe?  Call me paranoid, but I too was once a high-minded idealist.

    Parent
    He was on the ballot...initially (none / 0) (#185)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:04:21 PM EST
    Then he chose...opted...decided...to take his name off the ballot.

    He could do that...only...he'd have to live with the consequences--no votes for him in MI.

    Parent

    Why should it matter (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Sawyer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:12:52 PM EST
    that Clinton pledged not to "participate" in these two states?  If you take a look at the definition of "participate" -- "to take or have a part or share, as with others" -- it's clear that it doesn't include Clinton's taking a part or share in the delegates.  Technically, with Obama's name off the ballot, she deserves all of them.  So Clinton should not be bound to her pledge in this case.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#115)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:24:33 PM EST
    It's clear that "not participating in the election" doesn't include Clinton "taking a part or share in the delegates"...?

    How do you split that hair, specifically?

    Parent

    Someone help me out here... (1.00 / 2) (#210)
    by Sawyer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:29:34 PM EST
    Just because Clinton wants to "take a part or share" in the Michigan and Florida elections doesn't mean she's "participating" -- which she pledged not to do -- ... even though the definition of "participate" is to "take a part or share" ... because any such pledge or established party rule should be necessarily overruled as a result of the widespread sexism employed by the mainstream media (with the noble exception of Fox News) against Hillary Clinton, the candidate clearly most deserving of the nomination.

    Parent
    Yeah, I don't think that flies (none / 0) (#32)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:53:32 PM EST
    Most of the candidates did that and I would be shocked if the Rules Committee allowed an advantage to Clinton (such that she could take the nomination) via Michigan.  It's just not going to happen.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:02:27 PM EST
    "Most of the candidates did that" because the Obama campaign put them up to it!

    Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.


    Parent
    the author of your link (none / 0) (#75)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:10:27 PM EST
    makes no sense and uses five anonymous sources.  Why couldn't Clinton yank her name from the ballot if author is right?

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:28:46 PM EST
    (1) because she cared about not alienating MI voters for the GE; and

    (2) because Obama and the other candidates waited until the very last moment before the deadline to pull this stunt.  In fact, it was so last-minute that Kucinich screwed up his paperwork and ended up staying on the ballot after all.

    The reporting at that link has never been refuted or even called into question in all the months that have passed.

    Parent

    And by most you mean 3 (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:12 PM EST
    Obama, Edwards & Richardson. The rest were on the ballot, so it not only flies it soars. This is not giving an advantage to Clinton who had enough respect for the voters to leave her name on the ballot, it is counting the votes of the people who actually voted for her. Every vote counts -- ever heard of it? This is a direct consequence of Obama's disingenuous actions in taking his name of the ballot as a political gamble and, thus, depriving those who wanted to vote for him the opportunity to do so. Now, of course the DNC is not going to do the right thing here -- which, make no mistake, is exactly what I propose -- because the DNC has moved heaven and earth to ensure that Obama gets the nomination even though he cannot do it on his own. They certainly are not going to change tacks now.

    Parent
    She signed a pledge and agreed (none / 0) (#111)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    that the votes in Michigan and Florida wouldn't count and changed her mind when she realized she couldn't make an argument for the nomination without them.  My Clinton supporting friends actually told me they had a problem with her position on this. I mean, either she's got an integrity problem or she made a whopping strategic error.  Which is it?

    Parent
    She signed a pledge not to campaign. She had (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by leis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:34:03 PM EST
    absolutely no power to stop the DNC from stripping MI * Fl. And she said at the time it was a mistake that could be a problem in the GE.

    Parent
    Obama's got integrity problems... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by tree on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:39:53 PM EST
    Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.
    -September 30, 2007

    Parent
    But the rules! Now what is going to stop all (none / 0) (#154)
    by leis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:44:35 PM EST
    the states from moving their primaries up if MI & Fl aren't severely punished?  

    Isn't that what we have been hearing from the Obama camp? Now he is going to save the day and abandon the ever important rules?  Rulebreaker.

    Parent

    Why in the world (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:42:39 PM EST
    do people insist on coming to this site and talking about a pledge when they obviously have no idea what it said?

    Parent
    Because facts don't matter to them (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:46:32 PM EST
    ensuring their guy "wins" -- no matter that they have to trample on the most sacrosanct principle of democracy that every vote counts to do it --is all that counts under their ROOLZ.

    Parent
    And, by the way, why would it matter if (none / 0) (#36)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    all the candidates agreed, as did Clinton (don't make me go get that Clinton quote, heh), that Florida and Michigan wasn't going to count?

    She agreed, she's quoted saying that.

    Is your position that she was crossing her fingers?  I'm not saying don't seat them or don't count their votes in some manner, but Clinton shouldn't get an unfair advantage because she kept her name on the ballot when she agreed and acknowledged the votes wouldn't count.

    Parent

    It gets very quiet on here... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by EddieInCA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    ...whenever a poster asks about Clinton's agreement that the Michigan results would not count.

    In fact, many posters here act as though Clinton never made such a statement - even though there audiotape of it from the NPR interview.

    Parent

    We don't answer (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    because this has been discussed several times & some people just don't seem to understand that a comment Clinton made way back when is not some sort of legally binding contract, as you seem to be implying. She thought that was the case; now she realizes it is not. Deal with it.

    Parent
    So the pledge she signed (none / 0) (#94)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:14:06 PM EST
    and her subsequent quotes and her word were just mistakes?  

    It's an interesting position. It certainly looks like she changed her mind when she realized she needed the votes. The way you respond makes her look like she has an integrity issue.

    Parent

    The "pledge" she signed (none / 0) (#188)
    by vicsan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:07:29 PM EST
    stated the candidates were not to campaign in the states. She didn't campaign in the states. What do you want? Her blood too? sheesh. Obama screwed up. Not Hillary. She shouldn't be punished for his stupid decision.

    Parent
    In addition, (none / 0) (#125)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    if one looks at all the events surrounding those early primaries with an objective eye; or if so inclined, an eye with a speck of politics in it, he/she will surely come to the conclusion Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot to appeal to Iowa.  Why else do it?  Respect for the rules?  As the Architect in The Matrix Reloaded says when asked about the Oracle, "Please...."  As so many like to point out, at the time, Obama didn't have "name recognition," he wasn't the one who was supposedly being "handed" the nomination.  Proof-positive being his return to Iowa for the "victory" speech.  The what-I-said-earlier-doesn't apply now bug infects all of us.  Folks need to look a little deeper to really get a true understanding of what happened here.  This was Republican tactics 101 - use the current system to your advantage.  The Dems started really learning this after who?  could it be Clinton and the impeachment.  Followed up by Gore & FL?  

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:07:48 PM EST
    The comment you're responding to said Clinton agreed "that Florida and Michigan wasn't going to count."

    But your comment refers only to "Clinton's agreement that the Michigan results would not count."

    Interesting discrepancy from people who want to pass themselves off as the truth-tellers in this debate.  We'll set aside for the moment the attempt to make a response to a random caller on a talk radio show into some sort of binding agreement among the candidates.

    Parent

    you find that deceptive? (none / 0) (#80)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:11:46 PM EST
    She did say they wouldn't count, so I'm not sure I get your point.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:20:35 PM EST
    If you want to pretend Florida was part of that quote, I can't stop you from lying, I guess.  Even the Obama supporter who agreed with you knows that isn't the case.

    The larger point is that you guys think something Hillary told a random caller on a talk show in New Hampshire is the mother of all gotchas, and we just don't agree.  Believe what you like, but don't lie and claim it was an agreement between the candidates, and don't lie and say she mentioned Florida when she didn't.

    Parent

    Far as I know - (none / 0) (#110)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:23:01 PM EST
    "We'll set aside for the moment the attempt to make a response to a random caller on a talk radio show into some sort of binding agreement among the candidates."

    - the agreement not to participate in the MI and FL elections was put in writing between the campaigns (including Clinton's) and the DNC.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:30:58 PM EST
    First of all, you're wrong when you say the DNC was a party to the pledge.  It was only the four early states that demanded a pledge.

    More importantly, nothing in the pledge said that the elections in MI and FL wouldn't count.

    Parent

    Far as I know - (none / 0) (#190)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:08:31 PM EST
    - Dean and the DNC were involved. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg&feature=related

    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:17:00 PM EST
    Dean had nothing to do with the pledge.  Your link does not establish otherwise.

    Parent
    Do you mean the audiotape (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:10:49 PM EST
    Where she said that we can't alienate MI and FL?

    That one?

    Parent

    remember? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ovah on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:25:15 PM EST
    no, the one where she said that she left her name on the Michigan ballot because "what does it matter, it won't count anyway"

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    it wasn't her choice to make. It doesn't matter who agrees or who doesn't agree. It doesn't matter who benefits and who doesn't benefit. It only matters that voters should NEVER be disenfranchised. That disenfranchising voters is always wrong. It's not a hard principle to understand but it certainly seems like it has become an easy principle to sell out this election.

    Parent
    Here's the official Clinton Press Release (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by wurman on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:02:57 PM EST
    Note the date.

    1/25/2008

    Statement by Senator Hillary Clinton on the Seating of Delegates at the Democratic National Convention

    "I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.

    "I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.

    "I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

    "I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well."

    [My emphasis]

    I seem to post this constantly for the low information voters who try to be a TL-poster for a day.

    Furthermore, there is an all too common reference to a USA Today statement that someone in the Clinton campaign stated or restated or approved or authorized the 2025 winning number.  The nation's (toilet)paper references a website named "Political Base" (link) in which Mark Nickolas presents transcriptions of several conference calls, and in one of which Clinton's field director Guy Cecil uses the term 2025--but not in anyway that indicates the Clinton campaign views that as the winning number.

    This is all manure of the greenest, rankest odor.

    For myself, personally, this is becoming one of the most tiresome, boring, constantly reiterated & re-hashed lies of the entire campaign.

    The Press Release is & has been the official Clinton position since January.  End of non-story.

    -30-

    Parent

    THANK YOU! (none / 0) (#207)
    by vicsan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:26:10 PM EST
    It really is getting old.

    Parent
    I don't know... (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:21:11 PM EST
    Maybe she changed her mind. I have read somewhere  that she was one of the last to sign the pledge not to campaign.

    Obama is reported to have mentioned at a Florida fundraiser that he'd "do what's right by Florida voters" only to announce later on that Florida and Michigan would not count.

    Why do you suppose he did that?

    Parent

    So, why did Obama (none / 0) (#151)
    by tree on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    tell Florida voters, months before they voted, that he would seat the Florida delegation. Was he crossing his fingers? Or was he simply lying to the Florida voters? If he already agreed to seat them, why hasn't he, now that he's declared himself the presumptive nominee?

    Parent
    What is Obama's legitimate argument? (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:57:39 PM EST
    Does he say to the committee:

    "Look, you publicly said at the time the delegates weren't going to count, and I knew I was going to lose anyway, so I got together with a few of the other candidates and we made a deal to remove our names from the ballot.  We knew this would make us look better to the voters in Iowa (and in my case, it worked - I squeaked out a win), but we also knew that Hillary was leaving her name on. I know I had my supporters working tirelessly doing radio and TV ads, and buying space in the local media across the state, where they specifically mentioned my name, and told my supporters to vote for "uncommitted" so that when the delegates were seated, I would get those.  Besides, we all thought it would be fun to stick it to Hillary, because, theoretically, "Uncommitted" (being the total of 4 candidates' votes) should have blown her out of the water.

    I made a campaign decision that at the time, and for a while now, looked like a good decision.  But now that it could backfire on me, I think you should just ignore the fact that I made a campaign decision, and you should take away from Hillary that which she has earned and give it to me."

    Is THAT the argument?

    Parent

    He'll argue: I am not a cherry picker. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:03:10 PM EST


    Parent
    I bet he will be (none / 0) (#79)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    if the DNC decides to enforce ALL the rules and strip him of FL for campaigning and holding a press conference!

    Parent
    Obama even left his name on the ballot (1.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Sawyer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:18:22 PM EST
    in clear violation of his pledge not to "participate" -- which means "to take or have a part or share, as with others".  In other words, Obama himself pledged not to take or have a part or share in the pledged delegates from these states!  Nevermind that Hillary made the same pledge, she should not be bound to honor her word because of the latent sexism and anti-democratic tactics employed the mainstream media which is biased towards Obama (with the noble exception of Fox News)!

    Parent
    Re-vote in both states in June!! (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by abfabdem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    Let's see once and for all who can take this thing in the GE.  Without it, everything else is just estimates, compromises and will upset huge groups no matter what the decision.  It's too King Solomon otherwise and you can't cut the baby in half.

    Parent
    FL should be counted as is! (none / 0) (#166)
    by Josey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:51:18 PM EST
    Dem voters and delegates shouldn't be held accountable for tricks played by the GOP legislature.
    Florida didn't break the purpose of the rule that no primaries would be held before the 4 early states.


    Parent
    but (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Turkana on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:43:34 PM EST
    the roooooooooooooooolz!

    The roolz in place when primary dates (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    were set in MI and FL may be the best compromise.

    Those rules were for the states to lose half of their delegates.  I am not at all in favor of the current rules, the result of the late-date amendment by the Obama delegates on the committee who stripped the states of all of their delegates.

    That amendment to the roolz, that blatant power grab, is the problem.  A solution is to revert to the original roolz.  I.e., roolz are roolz -- not amendments to roolz are the new roolz. :-)

    Parent

    Inconsequential. On NPR's (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    Morning Ed. today a political commenter sd. Bush won FL in 2000 because of his cred. with the Cuban ex pat. community.  Huh?  Dissing SCOTUS.

    Parent
    heh. How about (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:57:17 PM EST
    her agreeeeeeeement?

    Parent
    You need to look up the word (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MarkL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:01:20 PM EST
    "agreement".
    By the way, someone posts the exact, fallacious argument you are making several times a day.
    It's quite boring.

    Parent
    well, here's some material (none / 0) (#134)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:35:42 PM EST
        Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge

        The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.

        "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

        And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

        Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

    On September 2, 2007 the New York Times reported:

        Three of the major Democratic presidential candidates on Saturday pledged not to campaign in Florida, Michigan and other states trying to leapfrog the 2008 primary calendar, a move that solidified the importance of the opening contests of Iowa and New Hampshire.

        Hours after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina agreed to sign a loyalty pledge put forward by party officials in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed suit. The decision seemed to dash any hopes of Mrs. Clinton relying on a strong showing in Florida as a springboard to the nomination.

        "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement.

        The pledge sought to preserve the status of traditional early-voting states and bring order to an unwieldy series of primaries that threatened to accelerate the selection process. It was devised to keep candidates from campaigning in Florida, where the primary is set for Jan. 29, and Michigan, which is trying to move its contest to Jan. 15.

        The Democratic National Committee has vowed to take away Florida's 210 delegates -- and those of any other state that moved its nominating contest before Feb. 5 -- if it does not come up with an alternative plan.

    So my position is that she agreed to the pledge and later stated her agreement that the votes would not count.  

    Parent

    How about that? (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:58:56 PM EST
    A pledge NOT TO CAMPAIGN now magically becomes a pledge to do what? Not count the votes? Not seat the delegates?

    Hell, clinton did not even have the power to agree to either.

    This is just plain ridiculous and shameful now.

    Buhdy, your friend is lying again.

    Parent

    Obama was the only one to break the pledge (none / 0) (#181)
    by Josey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:03:18 PM EST
    and campaign at a small rally in FL - and air TV ads.
    Just prior to the Jan. 29 primary, Hillary's press release said everything would be done to see that all the votes were counted.
    Obama sent press release saying FL votes would not count. And yet, Obamites, Al Sharpton, etc were screaming about FL voters unaware of the primary date.

    Parent
    Floridian (none / 0) (#204)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:21:35 PM EST
    I don't remember Obama campaigning at a small rally during the shunning. He attended fundraisers, as they were allowed, but I don't remember any candidate having any rallies during the shunning. Do you have a link/source for that?

    Parent
    Where does it say (none / 0) (#209)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:28:07 PM EST
    in there that the votes weren't going to count?

    She just stated that she'd not campaign in the state.

    Parent

    What agreement? (3.66 / 3) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:01:02 PM EST
    You know, lies do not go over well here.

    If you are not familiar with the subject then either ask questions or be quiet.

    Parent

    Gosh (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:36 PM EST
    Don't you think what she told some random caller on a New Hampshire talk show constitutes a binding agreement between all the candidates?  Really now.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#165)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:51:11 PM EST
    The so called lawyering in this thread is laughable.

    I may just write a post on estoppel and contract to make fools of some of these people who seem to know not a damn thing they are talking about on this legally.

    Parent

    It seems to me (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    the element of reliance is most certainly missing, unless someone wants to suggest the Obama campaign based its strategic decisions on whatever Hillary said on that call-in radio show.

    The reality that NO ONE will talk about is that everyone on the inside of this process has always known that those elections could very well end up counting.  Each campaign had to decide how to deal with that difficult situation.

    The Obama campaign made a strategic decision to pull their name off the Michigan ballot, and to induce other candidates to do the same, in order to pander to the early states and minimize the chance that the election would end up being counted.  Indeed, if they were 100% sure the election would never count for anything, there would be no point in expending the effort to remove his name.  They most likely figured "once we get our name off, it's going to be really hard for anyone to try and count this election after the fact."

    But the reality that the election COULD be counted was the reason for the whole strategy decision in the first place!  Only the clueless supporters act like everyone has always known, with 100% certainty, that those elections would not count right up until the moment Hillary decided to change the rules.  Heck, every major newspaper in Florida urged people to get out and vote because of the likelihood that the votes would end up counting for something.  I'm so tired of living in this world of legalistic arguments that bears so little resemblance to the real world.

    Parent

    Please do (none / 0) (#202)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:20:46 PM EST
    It'll be funny to watch you miss the point again and again.

    Parent
    Wow! You are calling ksh a liar??? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by buhdydharma on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:30:57 PM EST
    Can you please back that up?

    And telling her to be quiet?

    What the hell?


    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:42:49 PM EST
    I ask that she stop lying and if you lie, my dear friend, I will call you a liar too.

    I do not pull my punches.

    Agreement is a word with a soecifici meaning ans it has been discussed at this site for many months now.

    ksh knows this and decided to lie. I told her to stop lying.

    If you lie, I will tell you to stop lying.

    Parent

    Since you are besmirching her reputation (none / 0) (#182)
    by buhdydharma on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    to this extent, please provide a link proving that ksh KOWINGLY lied.

    I don't think that is too much to ask, since reputation is all we have on the net.

    You are both friends of mine, I can not give you the benefit of the doubt. This is very distressing.

    Thank you in advance for your proof that this strong, insulting accusation is the indisputable truth, and not some sort of bias brought on by the heat of the candidate war.  

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#191)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:09:06 PM EST
    He repeated false statements after being told and proven she is wrong. Her deliberate misstatement of the 4 State pledge is all the proof an HONEST person would need.

    I think she has proven it herself in this very thread. Please review it carefully. She has besmirched herself.

    this is not uncommon in the blogs this campoaign season as Clinton Derangement Syndrome and Obama Cultism has taken normally honest and intelligent people and made idiots of them.

    Obviously ksh is a friend of your. Please take her back to DD with you. we have actually hashed out these issues long ago and she is rehashing the same tired moronic arguments that have been utterly refuted here for months.

    We do not want it here anymore. We are meanies.

    Parent

    I see...no link then? (none / 0) (#213)
    by buhdydharma on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:32:34 PM EST
    And since all I see on this site is Clinton Derangement Syndrome on the part of her supporters, and these are the people who have allegedly "utterly refuted" her argument....

    ....you want me to just take your word over hers that not only has the argument been refuted, but that ksh is somehow a knowing party to that refutation and is choosing to lie about it.

    Your word is good, she is a liar, no proof.

    Check.

    Parent

    How about (none / 0) (#95)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:14:26 PM EST
    implied consent? Waiver? Estoppel?

    She acknowledged the DNC's ruling. She didn't protest it at the time. One of her surrogates, Harold Ickes, voted for it. If she didn't impliedly consent to it, she certainly waived her right to complain about it by not complaining until the ruling went contrary to her personal interests.

    Likewise, Obama changed his position based upon the DNC ruling that she did not complain about. He changed his position in reliance on the ruling and her implied consent to it by removing his name from the MI ballot.

    That's enough for any fair minded person to be the equivalent of her agreement to abide the DNC's ruling.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#119)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    Estoppel is typically the word I use for that argument when I'm looking to ridicule it.

    This is politics, not law, and the fact that none of the candidates made a big stink about MI and FL before the early states were decided is solely a function of the fact that they didn't want to alienate the early states.

    Your test, that if Hillary is serious she must commit political suicide in IA and NH by loudly demanding that MI and FL be allowed to move their elections up, is just ludicrous.  I'm glad you find it a compelling argument but I wonder how many months will go by before you realize there are no takers.

    Parent

    but this position doesn't help Clinton (none / 0) (#137)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:37:48 PM EST
    it makes her look like she was being politically expedient when she made her pledge and then the same when she makes the argument that these votes should count as they are.  It feeds the integrity negative.

    Parent
    Fine (none / 0) (#146)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    I will stipulate that Hillary Clinton is a politician.  Whatever.

    I hope you are not foolish enough to believe that Obama and all the other candidates have been guided by nothing but high-minded principle with regard to this issue.

    Parent

    did the candidates pledge (none / 0) (#192)
    by Josey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:09:10 PM EST
    to not allow their names on a ballot from a state that voted prior to Feb. 5?
    They pledged not to campaign.

    Parent
    estoppel is a concept based (none / 0) (#147)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:41:53 PM EST
    in equity and common law and is especially poignant and pertinent here, I think....the argument being that the candidate's actions in the past estop her from reaping benefits now.

    Parent
    I really wish you would estop. (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by leis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:00:33 PM EST
    Go ahead delete me BTD, but I couldn't resist that one.

    Parent
    I hope he doesn't (none / 0) (#195)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:14:43 PM EST
    that was funny.

    Parent
    It is especially NOT applicable here (none / 0) (#163)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:49:38 PM EST
    The estoppel argument would go to the argument to NOT campaign in FL and MI. There simply was NO AGREEMENT whatsover, no RELIANCE whatsover on anything said or done by clinton regaridng counting the vote and seating the delegates.

    Let's do play lawyer here. Please cite your best LEGAL case that would support your estoppel argument against Hillary Clinton (not the voters of FL or MI BTW, also parties in interest).

    Make the legal argument as you would to a Court. You will find how weak and ridiculous your argument is if you actually tried to apply it in legal fashion.

    Please do. I want to demolish it.

    Parent

    ahem (none / 0) (#194)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:13:52 PM EST
    She agreed. That's what I meant by her agreement.  No, she didn't sign a contract.  She signed a pledge not to campaign and later stated the votes didn't count.  That's her agreement with the DNC's position on the primary jumping.  

    I'm not interested in playing into legal machismo Armando. It's clear: she pledged, she agreed in her statements that the votes wouldn't count, she later changed her mind.

    All well and good, except she shouldn't be able to reap an extraordinary benefit after her pledged and her agreement with the DNC (by saying so) that the votes wouldn't count. Is "assent" a better word for you?  I could live with that as it's her word (which, in my mind should be as good as paper).

    My solution is a compromise: cut it down to 50 % by all metrics and seat them.  

    As for demolishing any legal argument, the person who yells loudest doesn't win.  You know that. Rather than pound the table, why don't you look at the facts and weigh the equity of a popular vote count (since you seem to think popular vote matters -- I don't) that disallows any Obama vote in Michigan and counts PR but not caucus states.  Then think of the equity of giving her delegates in a race where others didn't compete.

    My take is that if, through some set of circumstances, Clinton became the nominee, her claim to it would be tainted by an unfair resolution to Michigan and Florida.  I don't see why some of her supporters would want that, especially since she would lose the youth vote, the Black vote, and the votes of disaffected Obama supporters on top of the unfortunate ability to bring out Clinton haters to vote for the anemic John McCain.  In other words, she is passed the point where obtaining the nomination through this path would help her win the general.  

    Parent

    None of these arguments apply (none / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    on the question of whether the votes would count or the delegates be seated.

    The PLEDGE was not to campaign in Florida and Michigan. that was it.

    Period.

    If you REALLY want to play lawyer on this, I suggest you look up the requirements of the estoppel argument.

    For example, one of the requirements is that it have a basis in EQUITY.

    Parent

    Try again (none / 0) (#200)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:18:38 PM EST
    Did I say anything about the pledge? No. See if you can figure out why your response completely misses the mark.

    Parent
    How is that a lie? (none / 0) (#116)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:24:53 PM EST
    You can ban me I guess, if you want BTD, but why am I a liar? Did she not agree that the votes wouldn't count?

    Parent
    How about... (none / 0) (#148)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:42:34 PM EST
    Assuming everyone takes your argument and runs with it.

    When it all comes down to it - WHO CARES what pledges were made? (especially when all the players knew they were bogus - hence the telling people to still go out and vote,and in the case of Michigan, to vote uncommitted)

    This is a case of:  do you want to be the party that stands for letting all the votes count and treating everyone equally, or do you want to be the Republicans of 2000?

    If Obama keeps fighting this, he is no better than Bush.

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#156)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:45:01 PM EST
    No PLEDGES were made about the votes counting or the delegates being seated.

    whoever said there was is a liar.

    Parent

    what's the value of a pledge then? (none / 0) (#161)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:48:13 PM EST
    What's the value of someone's word?  I say take them down to 50% size, give Obama the uncommitteds, assign the rest as voted and only cut the popular vote in half (giving Obama the uncommitted vote) if Clinton insists on counting territories' popular vote and disregarding caucus states.

    Sounds like a good compromise to me.

    Parent

    You have no right to do anything (none / 0) (#197)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    with the popular vote and neither does the DNC. the popular vote was not subject to the DNC sanctions. They only applied to the delegates. PERIOD.

    Parent
    you lied when you said there was an agreement (none / 0) (#153)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:44:11 PM EST
    among the candidates that the votes would not count and the delegates would not be seated.

    There is no such agreement and there never was such an agreement.

    You know this and you chose to lie about it.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#168)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:51:31 PM EST
    she pledged and is quoted as agreeing that the votes would not count. Those are her words, A. That's agreement with how to deal with the problem of those states jumping the calendar.  Don't campaign there and the votes do not count.  She pledged the former and stated the latter.  Sounds like agreement to me.

    And which would you have, that I'm a liar or I don't know what I'm talking about? I'll let you pick whichever you prefer, but in this instance, they're slightly contradicting.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#184)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:04:02 PM EST
    You lied again. did you see that Buhdy? your friend is persisting in her lies. The pledge states in express terms what the candidates could actually pledge about - not campaigning. None of the candidate couldd, did or would pledge about whether the votes would count or whether the delegates would be seated.

    You know why? They have no power to make those determinations. They could not so "agree."

    So yes, you ar elying. He rstatement "those votes will not count" about Michigan is merely a statement, it sinmply could not be an agreement period.

    So I ask again. please stop lying.

    Parent

    She agreed to nothing (none / 0) (#199)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:18:31 PM EST
    except to not campaign and that the delegates probably would not be counted as it stood then.

    She made it very clear that the votes counted, mattered, and that was the big reason she stayed on the ballot in MI. She knew it was important for the voters voices to be heard. She said as much in many interviews at the time.

    Look it up.

    Parent

    how about a link (none / 0) (#208)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:27:28 PM EST
    for that one?  I could not find any link in which Clinton said at the time was leaving her name on because those votes should count.

    Parent
    She agreed not to campaign. She did not agree the (none / 0) (#193)
    by leis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:10:30 PM EST
    votes wouldn't count. She had no power over DNC decisions regarding the stripping of MI & Fl.

    If she did wield that kind of power, do you think she would have said "Yes, let's strip all their delegates?" Or do you think she would have said follow the set guidelines.

    Parent

    How about (none / 0) (#45)
    by sumac on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:58:46 PM EST
    the PEOPLE who VOTED???

    This is beyond Obama and Hillary.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#139)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:38:52 PM EST
    I'm just saying some compromise needs to be worked out that counts these voters and doesn't unfairly advantage either candidate.

    Parent
    This is on the DNC (none / 0) (#90)
    by indiependy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:13:46 PM EST
    The members of the Rules and Bylaws committee created this problem, not either of the candidates. Harold Ickes, Donna Braile, etc. this is on them. The 13 Clinton supporters, the 8 Obama supporters, and the 9 others involved on the committee were only thinking about themselves and flexing the DNC muscle regardless of who it hurt. They're the ones that got us into this mess and they're the ones who need to be held accountable and explain how they're going to fix it.

    Parent
    agree that they over reacted (none / 0) (#152)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    they should have cut the delegations in half, like McAuliffe threatened to do when he was chair of the DNC and like the GOP did.  If they had done that, there would be no issue now.

    Parent
    the DNC rules WERE 50-50 penalty!! (none / 0) (#196)
    by Josey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    until Obama supporters on the Committee urged 100% penalty!

    Parent
    got a link for that? (none / 0) (#206)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:23:28 PM EST
    I hadn't heard it before.

    Parent
    Good for Kevin Spacey (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by janarchy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:44:21 PM EST
    It's nice to know not everyone has swallowed the Kool-Aid and just thinks this problem will go away. If the HBO film wakes up a few more people, even better!

    I have been waiting for this movie (none / 0) (#60)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:05:17 PM EST
    A LOT of people watch HBO and it is on 2 nights in a row. Plus all the other HBO/Max stations. So I am sure it will be seen by a lot of people. And I hope it is the true story and not embellished or deminished.

    Parent
    Great timing for the movie to come out (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:45:46 PM EST
    Bet Obama and his team don't really want the comparisons all summer..... Obama = Bush more and more.

    Kevin Spacey: political pundit/marketer (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:48:25 PM EST


    Parent
    wow (none / 0) (#113)
    by buhdydharma on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:23:32 PM EST
    How exactly does Obama equal Bush?

    Please be specific.

    Parent

    How Do You Pretend That 2mm Did Not Vote? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    By shouting The Roolz non-stop so that is downs out the sound of people moving behind McCain and leaving the party.

    If Obama is such a strong candidate (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:47:01 PM EST
    then why can't he get to the finish line without gaming the system?

    Why can't he win fair and square?

    here's what I don't understand... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:58:16 PM EST
    why is Obama gaming the system when ALL the candidates agreed the votes wouldn't count?

    Parent
    gaming the system? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ovah on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM EST

    he abided by the rules and the pledge that all the candidates signed. McAuliffe himself made the same threat in 2004 to Carl Levin about seating only half of the delegates from MI if they moved their primary.

    Moving the date of the primary incurred the penalty. I don't think anyone believes that the voters of Michigan and Florida should be ignored but this penalty was agreed to by everyone including Clinton. The hatred for Obama is blinding all the HRC supporters to reason. Nobody complained about these voters' right to be heard until Clinton fell behind in delegates. Now that she has lost it's "these votes count...not the caucus votes..but the ones we agreed wouldn't count".

    The solution is now supposed to be Obama gets zero for Michigan and a result from Florida where he didn't campaign?  (please don't use the lame excuse "but he did campaign, his national cable buy ran in Florida for a weekend!!)

    Parent

    It's like that whole barry bonds thing (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:07:54 PM EST
    If you ask me.

    You know it's like how that whole steroids thing played out where the MLB looked the other way on steroids for a decade cause it was right after the strike and they wanted Home Run races to bring fans back to the game.

    So players like Bonds, McGwire, Canseco, and the rest of the league all juiced up to stay competitive and we had our Home Run races.

    They were very exciting.

    But now those races are totally discreditted.  Barry Bonds is a joke.  Now.  It's not really Bonds's fault cause the MLB front office looked the other way and Bonds just only did what he had to do to stay competitive, and etc. etc.  

    So if you were Barry Bonds, and you were looking back over your career and it occured to you: "wow, everyone despises me and I'm a joke.  But I don't see myself that way.  Who's fault is this?  Maybe it was Bud Selig's fault.  We could have testing from the get go way back in 1992 and then I wouldn't be a joke right now."

    10 years from now, do you really want people to look back on Obama and say "The first African American to win a nomination for President would not have won that nomination without removing two states from the process."???

    If I was a self-respectiing Obama supporter I would not want that.

    If I was Obama himself I would work to make sure that wasn't a possibility.

    But I'm not either one of those things.

    So have at it, Dems.

    Bed's made.  Lie in it.


    Parent

    Then let's strip the votes (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by sister of ye on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:12:16 PM EST
    from the other states that moved their primaries - IA, NH and SC. All or nothing, not letting three slide and two get draconian measures.

    Parent
    Hillary didn't campaign in Florida. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by vicsan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:25:12 PM EST
    I REALLY wish Obama supporters would stop whining about Florida! BOTH candidates were on the ballot and YES, Obama cheated and ran ads in the state when he wasn't suppose to. I know the facts bother Obama supporters, but you're just going to have to learn to deal with FACTS. Obama CHOSE to remove his name from the MI ballot. It was not a requirement. Hillary and the MI voters shouldn't be punished just he made that POLITICAL move. That's HIS fault, not Hillary's or the voters.

    Parent
    This argument must really scare (none / 0) (#49)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:01:02 PM EST
    Obamans. LOL

    Parent
    National Ad? (none / 0) (#68)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    What states? I did not see them on the East Coast anywhere. Aw come on. Do you think Axelrod is not as sneaky as the next guy? Pleeeeeeeeeease.

    Parent
    You don't pretend that they didn't vote (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by dianem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:51:34 PM EST
    You tell them, and the world, that their votes simply don't matter to you, that arbitrary, internal rules are more important than votes. The Republicans said that to Democrats in 2000, and the Democrats are saying that to Florida and Michigan Dems in 2008.

    Voting in America (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by judyo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:00:13 PM EST
    the myth that my vote counts went out the window in 2000.
    We do not have "free" elections, or to put it more precisely, our officials are not elected, they are appointed by party bosses (Rove & Co comes to mind).
    You all have heard of the "permanent Republican majority", haven't you?  Watch the executive consolidation that Bush is finishing up and then ask yourself, is he centralizing power for a Democratic administration?
    I think not.
    People are getting nervous (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    "Warring loyalties on the committee have made it nearly impossible to guess which way it might rule. However, many Democratic leaders have shown increasing anxiety about the potential for a divided party as a result of disaffected supporters of either candidate that might pave the way to the White House for presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)."

    LINK

    The Extent Of Obama's Commitment (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:11:50 PM EST
    Obama is also set to hold a big rally in Florida, and while he has said he is committed to seating both states' delegates, his campaign has made it clear that they would not accept the original tallies.

    From cmugirl's link above.

    Parent

    Michigan should count as it (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sister of ye on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:01 PM EST
    Not only did Obama voluntarily take his name off the ballot, but his supporters campaigned for him as "uncommitted." That meant word in the Detroit-area black community, and also PAID ADS. It was part of a deliberate strategy, and anyone who doesn't think it was coordinated with Obama's campaign, there's a big bridge near where I work I'd love to sell you.

    Had Obama been willing to resolve this 1-2 months ago, a compromise where the delegation is cut 50% or where he's assigned some of the uncommitted vote would have been accepted. But he's been the one throwing a spanner into the works, having his supporters sabotage a revote and offering plainly unacceptable "compromises." As far as this angry MI voter is concerned, he can live by his original strategy.

    How about if he gets (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:10:01 PM EST
    the "uncommitted" vote?

    Parent
    He can get a percentage (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:13:06 PM EST
    of uncommitted, but he gets no popular vote tally.

    Parent
    popular vote tally (none / 0) (#98)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    only matters as spin.

    Spin would not count IF the DNC would get their thumbs out and take a stong decision.

    If the DNC makes a strong decision and sticks to it, the spin will go away or else sound like whining.

    IMO.

    Parent

    As I said (none / 0) (#106)
    by sister of ye on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    Michigan people might have accepted that had he moved to resolve this quickly. But he dragged out the insult to the voters. So let his original strategy stand - go with the elected delegates that were put up by his local supporters and let them vote for him according to their private understanding. I know other MI voters who definitely had Edwards in mind when they voted, and Obama shouldn't automatically get those or Biden's votes.


    Parent
    And some of them (none / 0) (#120)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:25:36 PM EST
    probably stayed home.

    So NOW where are we?

    DNC...why oh why did you procrastinate this decision????

    Parent

    Michigan should not count... (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by EddieInCA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:12:48 PM EST
    ...because Clinton, during numerous PUBLIC appearances and INTERVIEWS, said...

    "MICHIGAN WILL NOT COUNT."

    Clinton said that.

    Hilary Clinton, not Bill.

    Hillary said it.

    Now suddenly Michigan must count?

    How does one reconcile Clinton's own comments then and now?

    Parent

    Nope. We don't decide based on Cllinton's words (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:14:54 PM EST
    be they pro, con or both (as the case seems to be).

    We decide based on the fact that we would like to not piss off all of MI voters.

    Parent

    So WHAT? Obama also said (none / 0) (#132)
    by vicsan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:34:35 PM EST
    he would talk to Ahmedinejad unconditionally and now he's backtracked on it. If we're going to hold everyone's feet to the fire for every word they utter.....Hillary supporters can do that too. Bring it on.

    Parent
    Oh the drama (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:39 PM EST
    Gawd I am so over this election

    How did you accomplish this? (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:08:31 PM EST
    Inquiring minds want and need to know.

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#77)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:11:14 PM EST
    it might because I feel that we have two fantastic candidates, and I am sick of all the bickering about how MUCH better one is over another. In fact, I would be ecstatic if either won.

    How's that?

    Parent

    LOLOLOLOL (none / 0) (#216)
    by kelsweet on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:37:48 PM EST
    Love this comment.  :-D     hahahahahahaha  because we DO want n need to know


    Parent
    Why May 31? (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by scottmcn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:08:35 PM EST
    What is the reasoning for waiting til May 31 to hash this out?

    ding ding ding ding (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    the question of the year.

    The answer is: lack of leadership, procrastination, hoping that one of the candidates would drop out or blow the other out of the water.

    Parent

    Donna and Howard were probably (none / 0) (#144)
    by vicsan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:40:50 PM EST
    banking on the MSM getting Hillary out of the race by the 31st and if that didn't work, SURELY Obama's (almost) declaration that HE was the winner last night would get her to slither away in fear.

    TOO BAD! NOT GOING TO HAPPEN I just heard a "Breaking News" report and Hillary has declared she is taking this all the way to the convention. YEAH! Take THAT Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews!

    Parent

    The 4 State Pledge (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:01:03 PM EST
    a pledge about what the candidates could actually PLEDGE about - not to campaign.

    The candidate did not not and could not pledge not to count the votes or seats the delegates.

    You see, it was not within their power to do either.

    I am sick of the stupidity. Absolutely sick of it.

    We have heard these moronic arguments for months now and I am left to say one thing - you people are just plain idiots and/or liars.

    HBO (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:05:55 PM EST
    seems to be in the right place.

    Several times this past week, leading up to Tuesday, HBO showed an HBO film from a couple of years ago, Iron Jawed Angels.

    Starring Hillary Swank and Frances o'Connor, the film told the story of Alice Paul (Swank) and Lucy Burns (O'Connor), radical Suffragists.

    Very good movie.

    Wonder if the timing was deliberate.

    Your references are essentially bogus. (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by wurman on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:31:15 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton does not state that she approves or agrees with the ruling, nor that she accepts the disenfranchisement in either of the print documents.  Your sources only establish that she promised not to campaign &, in fact, did not.

    The YouTube where she says "this election they're having is not going to count for anything" is from October 2007.  Subsequently, the Clinton campaign attempted many times to set up a re-vote & they still think MI could have one in August.

    Her position since then has been AGAINST a variety of foolish attempts to use the results which she had already described as "not going to count for anything."  Get it?  Can you follow?

    I know it's tough.  The argument goes like this: if you're now going to count what you told me you would not count, then I win.  You don't get to say that it counts & then come up with a new or different method that favors my opponent.  If you don't like that, then let's have a re-count.

    See, it's not all that difficult.

    Is there a link to Spacey's comments? (none / 0) (#2)
    by jerry on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:37:41 PM EST


    Your link is my ears (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:39:58 PM EST
    do you trust me or not?

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:43:41 PM EST
    ...

    Parent
    Depends on what you are blogging about (none / 0) (#108)
    by jerry on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    I think the problem is when I read "Today on MSNBC" I assumed as is often the case that this was something you found at their website, but I guess you were actually watching the cable itself.  Since at the time, your post's format was somewhat screwed up, I figured your link got lost in some bad html-fu.

    I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for links.

    Parent

    They will in some form (none / 0) (#3)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:37:52 PM EST
    but 50% is probably okay for Florida.  I don't see how this resolves Michigan. But they will seat them.

    It's not enough to just seat them (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:43:42 PM EST
    and you may mean the following -- as I presume, from Jeralyn's previous comments on this, that she does, even though her last sentence does not say so -- but the need is to seat them before the balloting for the nominee and with full voting power to participate in that balloting.

    I think that we have to be clear on this, as I suspect that the committee will come up with some half-a**ed compromise that looks good until we get to the fine print.  And then it may be too late.  For the next 10 days, we have to push -- and with precision and clarity -- for the committee to not just seat these states but to count the votes.  

    Or revote.  

    Parent

    Oops, sorry -- (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:47:40 PM EST
    I misread.  I mean BTD's previous comments on this.

    Parent
    I'm curious if some plan is in the making (none / 0) (#26)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:50:35 PM EST
    regarding re-vote, since Obama and Clinton have both been in Florida and I've wondered what's up with that. But failing some agreed upon plan I don't know about, I just can't see a re-vote happening at this late date.  But who knows?

    When I posted seat them, I meant with some recognition of the votes.  I think they should be penalized for trying to jump the schedule, but think it would have been better to cut their delegates (super and pledged) by half to begin with and move on.

    I still have a problem with the Michigan vote.  It will be interesting to see how they deal with that.

    Parent

    50% delegates (none / 0) (#73)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:09:49 PM EST
    or 50% popular vote? The DNC just needs to let this ride out as is and fix the 2012 election way in advance.

    Parent
    we use pledged delegates (none / 0) (#105)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:19:33 PM EST
    in our primary system, so I was talking about pledged delegates.

    Parent
    How? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:42:21 PM EST
    Call Donna and Howard and tell them "Dudes, I'm a non-starter without your help so it's either this or a Clinton is back in charge, and we know how crappy that was for the country!!!"

    That's how.  It's easy when you have the right people in charge!

    DNC and smart? (none / 0) (#10)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    Good luck.

    Was ist die Wunde, ihre Schmerzen Not ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:49:18 PM EST
    It's a wound that has not healed for me. I love Kevin Spacey, but I don't have what it takes to watch Recount.

    It is incredibly painful (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    to think that we could have had President Gore for these past almost eight years.

    Parent
    Or we could have had him for the next four (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:11:16 PM EST
    Look what he caused us. Heh

    Parent
    Sigh. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:23:55 PM EST
    I do so wish he had run this year.

    Parent
    If only (none / 0) (#135)
    by MonaL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:35:52 PM EST
    -Nader/Buchanan hadn't been on the ballot in FL
    -The MSM didn't fall for GWB's "aw shucks" sh*t
    -The MSM didn't go out of their way to demean and diminish Al
    -Al Gore hadn't tried so hard to distance himself from Bill Clinton
    -Al Gore had asked for a recount of the "entire" state of FL
    -Al Gore had been a more authentic candidate

    Things would be better, maybe, I think.

    Parent

    My big if only (none / 0) (#170)
    by tree on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:53:30 PM EST
    - He hadn't picked Lieberman for a running mate.

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Paladin on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:53:42 PM EST
    I have no intention of reliving this either. It would be like watching a rerun of one of my root canals.  Plus, we're already reliving it in real time.

    Parent
    saw the trailer for Recount this (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    morning before coming to work.
    it looks great.
    Spacey (none / 0) (#30)
    by Artoo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:52:08 PM EST
    I've always enjoyed his acting, but whenever I've seen him interviewed, he always acts like he's smarter than the interviewer and as though what he's participating in is a waste of his time.

    The NY critics dissed him in Moon for (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:54:08 PM EST
    the Misbegotten; however, I very much enjoyed his work there.  

    Parent
    I very much enjoy his work in anything. (none / 0) (#42)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:58:26 PM EST


    Parent
    LA Confidential (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:12:20 PM EST
    He was so Dean Martin relaxed

    Parent
    right thing? (none / 0) (#31)
    by TalkRight on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:52:57 PM EST
    The DNC better do the smart thing. Seat the Florida and Michigan delegations.

    What's the right thing?

    Penalize none, 50%, or 100% of the vote that is the question.

    If we had a time machine... (none / 0) (#40)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:58:04 PM EST
    I would say 50% delegate penalty, and NO removal of anyone's name.

    Now - I think a 50% penalty would be OK, but I also think no penalty would be OK. I mean, we've made MI and FL Dems incredibly angry, and it wasn't their fault that the Republicans decided to mess with their primary dates.

    Parent

    penality? (none / 0) (#67)
    by TalkRight on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:07:48 PM EST
    Why should the voters suffer because of the inapt leaders of DNC. The party rules are pathetic and outdated.

    First they should explain why some states were allowed to change their dates and while some where penalized.. yes it is their rule, but why did they discriminate the states? Why no penalty for SC? Just because AA leaders said so?

    Secondly, I just fail to understand the proportionality of the delegates after ever state primary.. they should be winers take all ..

    Thirdly, I fail to understand why the DNC still allows non democratic caucuses to elect delegates.

    Its DNC that needs overhauling and penalizing.. not the voters  .

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:13:38 PM EST
    If you are arguing that the whole Democratic nomination process needs a massive overhaul, you will get nothing but enthusiastic agreement from me. :-)

    Parent
    I bet they are not taking in as much money (none / 0) (#91)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:13:47 PM EST
    If everyone who was mad at them did not pledge or send those envelopes back with a check, I bet they are sweating right now.

    Parent
    Any recent polls of Floridians (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:56:50 PM EST
    including questions such as:  will you stay home for Nov. GE if FL delegation isn't seated and/or your vote isn't counted re Dem. primary?  Or, will you vote for McCain?

    MI and FL need to count (none / 0) (#44)
    by indiependy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:58:44 PM EST
    They have to be represented. It's an insult to say their voices will not be heard. Just like it's an insult to use a vote total that doesn't include IA, NV, ME, and WA. Every state needs to be counted.

    Why would people want to stay with a party (none / 0) (#97)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:15:39 PM EST
    that does not their vote to count? I wouldn't.

    Parent
    Totally disingenuous (none / 0) (#61)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    Nobody's pretending they didn't vote. They're acting like a bunch of whiny babies because they don't want their punishment for breaking the DNC rules (cue juvenile use of "roolz" here).

    Except the VOTERS didn't break the rules. (none / 0) (#215)
    by K Lynne on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:43:16 PM EST
    The FL legislature did.  A Republican-controlled legislature, at that.  

    I pointed out late in an earlier thread that this move worked out pretty well for the Republicans in Florida.  FL was one of the big turning points in the race, even though only half of the Repub delegates were awarded.  FL pretty much forced Giuliani out of the race, and provided some much-needed momentum (as well as a big boost in the NE when Giuliani endorsed) for McCain.

    Parent

    John King on CNN was ready last (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:06:12 PM EST
    night, should the committee vote to include delegates from MI and/or FL.  All King has to do is slide something on his blue map and the bar graph representing how many pledged delegates Obama and Clinton have "moves the goal posts."

    I want one of those toys. (none / 0) (#82)
    by coigue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:12:05 PM EST
    He has fun with them, clearly.

    Parent
    BTD, why 'punish' 2 of 6 early primary states? (none / 0) (#63)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:06:30 PM EST
    Six states moved their primaries up in defiance of the rulz: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, Florida, and Michigan.

    What reason has the DLC given for punishing only FL and MI?

    Hillary won (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:17:00 PM EST
    Snark of course, but truth to boot.

    Parent
    Weren't some of these states exempted? (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:07:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Why punish only MI and FL? (none / 0) (#164)
    by vicsan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:51:10 PM EST
    Because Hillary was expected to win them. Of course Donna and Howard would never admit that, but that's what went down. They needed to stop her from winning the nomination. I hope you don't still believe THE PEOPLE are in charge of our government and elections because we aren't. This election has opened MY eyes. That's for sure.

    Parent
    To be precise, (none / 0) (#167)
    by Makarov on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:51:19 PM EST
    Nevada didn't break any rule, as they didn't move their date at all.

    South Carolina moved its date up, but not in advance of any other primaries, which is a good rationale for not punishing them.

    Iowa and New Hampshire blatantly broke the rules.  NH was the worst offender, moving it's primary up in advance of the Nevada caucus.  The Republican Party penalized NH by 50%, the same penalty they exacted on MI and FL.

    The hypocrisy of the RBC and DNC in this regard is very telling. Somehow, they view of the voters of Iowa and NH as more important to the nominating process than any other.

    Parent

    My question is this: (none / 0) (#92)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:13:56 PM EST
    Six states held early primaries, why were some of them exempted from punishment?

    Why weren't FL and MI similarly exempted?

    Start over (none / 0) (#93)
    by nellre on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    The process was so convoluted I think they need to throw the rule book out. They need to announce that all delegates will be seated, and they may discard their pledge and vote for the candidate they think can beat McCain.
    Yes, but what was "the process" (none / 0) (#104)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:19:13 PM EST
    whereby 2 out of 6 early primary states were 'punished'?

    Why haven't we heard more about this?

    Parent

    give Obama 70% of the uncommitteds... (none / 0) (#101)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:17:20 PM EST
    ...and this thing can be resolved quickly and fairly.  That's the percentage of uncommitted voters who said they would have voted for him, had his name been on the ballot.

    1.Clinton gets to count all her delegates from both states, including superdelegate endorsers.
    Obama gets all his delegates, including those he would have gotten had his name been on the ballot in MI.
    2. She also gets to count FL and MI into the popular vote, while Obama gets credit for 70% of the uncommitted vote.

    It's an eminently fair arrangement.  Heck, this would involve NO penalty whatsoever to FL and MI, AND it would be based on the existing vote which was held(both of which are the main points Clinton supporters are insisting on.)  The only compromise on the part of Clinton supporters would be to cede some of the uncommitted vote and delegates to Obama, based on exit polling done the day of the vote in MI.  It's a reasonable concession, in my view, in exchange for nearly everything Team Clinton wants.

    I don't see how anyone negotiating a resolution in good faith could be opposed to it.  As BTD observed, most of them are likely to go to Obama anyway, this would just be formalizing it.

    Do you know why the other (none / 0) (#121)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:25:50 PM EST
    four early primary states weren't punished? I don't, so I'm just askin...

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#130)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:33:12 PM EST
    I think the other 4 were supposed to hold their primaries before February 5th, according to the plan, and indications are that part of the reason they moved them up was because of FL and MI.  So that might have had something to do with why they weren't penalized.  

    I suppose they could have been, in theory.

    My guess is that the thinking behind the 100% penalty was that big states were so big, delegate-wise, that they could incur the penalty and still have a decisive early effect on the race, so the only way to deter them was to impose a delegate "death penalty".  Obviously, it didn't work as well as hoped, since it's been quite controversial, but I hope the whole process can be reformed to discourage both line-jumping and the enshrinement of specific states as "first in line forever".

    Parent

    Here's the facts (none / 0) (#140)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    The states that are sick of IA and NH always dominating the process insisted on changing the system this year.  They got a little bit of a victory when the DNC and all the pertinent states agreed that NH would go third this year, not second.

    After agreeing to this, NH announced that it would move up its election, in clear violation of the dates established in the DNC rules, in order to go second after all.  And what did the DNC do?  Absolutely nothing.

    So then MI, outraged that NH was being allowed to run roughshod over the process, decided to move up its election as well.  And they got the death penalty for it.

    The DNC's refusal to penalize New Hampshire is absolutely indefensible and is at the root of this entire fiasco.  And if this issue somehow winds up in a floor fight at the convention, you can bet your bottom dollar that an awful lot of states that are sick and tired of NH getting to do whatever it likes, year in and year out, will be quite sympathetic to MI's argument.

    Parent

    Why does Obama get punished? (none / 0) (#178)
    by neglected blackman on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:01:33 PM EST
    What would you do differently from Obama? He is blamed for media sexism, lucky to be black (I wish that "luck" would rub off on my family), stealing the election by playing by the rules. Clinton should take Penn and co out behind the woodshed. I remember the 93' UNC vs Mich's Fab Five. Chris webber call a timeout at the end of the game. They were out of timeouts, it resulted in a technical foul. UNC won the game. Mich fans were mad because they think they should've won the game. The rules were decided before the game. Blame Penn not Obama. Penn is a dork.

    Parent
    Punished? (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:07:53 PM EST
    Gosh, he's going to be punished by getting nominated for President.  Some punishment that is.

    What frustrates BTD is that Obama quite clearly can do right by FL and MI and still win the nomination easily, but he insists on stonewalling the process and alienating the voters of those states for the GE.  It makes no rational sense.

    Parent

    What's the point of the nomination (none / 0) (#201)
    by neglected blackman on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:20:08 PM EST
    if everyone thinks you are the root of their problem. I don't see why everyone thinks it's so great to be a black politician at the national level. 2 governors and 3 senators since reconstruction??!!

    What the hell is trolling? Did I say something wrong?

    Parent

    That's interesting... (none / 0) (#145)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:40:56 PM EST
    Do you recall where you read/heard about this?

    Parent
    And represented (none / 0) (#109)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:21:24 PM EST
    in full with delegates proportioned exactly as they were determined by the two elections. For Michigan that means 40% are UNCOMMITTED and nearly 56% are pledged to Hillary Clinton.

    that's a "no go"... (none / 0) (#136)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:36:10 PM EST
    ...for Obama supporters.  He deserves some of those uncommitted delegates.  You can have everything else you want, but he gets at least 70% of those uncommitteds, based on exit polling.

    Parent
    I just watched the Recount Trailer (none / 0) (#112)
    by Regency on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    My blood ran cold and I got goosebumps.

    It feels like deja vu all over again and I hate it.

    There will be books and movies written about this primary cycle. Let's hope they have a happy ending.

    Go, Kevin Spacey!

    When is "Recount" airing? (none / 0) (#122)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:26:47 PM EST


    Parent
    May 25th (none / 0) (#126)
    by Regency on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    Reairing May 26th.

    Parent
    Ahhh (none / 0) (#171)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:54:15 PM EST
    Before the May 31 DNC RBC Florida appeal meeting. Oh boy.

    Parent
    Slightly OT (none / 0) (#123)
    by MonaL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:27:54 PM EST
    but related to last night's results. Chuck Todd was discussing the remaining SD's, there are 200+ undeclared and he describes that 112 or so are from states that went for BO. Then Chuck wonders, what will these SD's do? OMG, they better get behind BO or there will be hell to pay.

    He even mentions the difficulty Barbara Boxer is in, being the grandmother of HRC's niece, and an uncommitted SD, and an opponent of the Iraq war.  Yet, Boxer has already said she'd support whoever won her state, e.g., HRC.

    During all of this, I couldn't help but recall that Robert Byrd just endorsed BO right after WV gave HRC a 41 pt. win, and yet Chuck never mentioned that in all his expert bloviating.  And some say she's gets perfect fair treatment by the MSM.

    Let's not forget (none / 0) (#133)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:34:39 PM EST
    Kennedy and Kerry pre-emptively defied the will of the voters of Massachusetts when they endorsed BO before the primary. That tactic also offset the embarrassment of his subsequent loss; meaning the endorsements became more of a STORY than his loss to Clinton.

    Parent
    Exactly! (none / 0) (#141)
    by MonaL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:39:44 PM EST
    I don't have a problem with an SD endorsing a candidate no matter how their state voted.  It's the Obama folks (and Chuck Todd) who make a big deal of it, and then ignore the Byrd, Kennedy, Kerry, etc. endorsements.  Do they think we're stupid, or are they just not thinking?

    Parent
    Kevin Spacey (none / 0) (#129)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:31:42 PM EST
    has more ethics than Al Gore -- the guy I assume he's playing?

    This election is such a joke, and so are its players.

    Your references are essentially bogus. (none / 0) (#214)
    by wurman on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:40:40 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton does not state that she approves or agrees with the ruling, nor that she accepts the disenfranchisement in either of the print documents.  Your sources only establish that she promised not to campaign &, in fact, did not.

    The YouTube where she says "this election they're having is not going to count for anything" is from October 2007.  Subsequently, the Clinton campaign attempted many times to set up a re-vote & they still think MI could have one in August.

    Her position since then has been AGAINST a variety of foolish attempts to NOT use the results which she had already described as "not going to count for anything."  Get it?  Can you follow?  The DNC poobahs have said they want to seat MI (& FL) & Sen. Clinton as said OK, I agree, good idea, let's do it.

    Then the argument goes like this: if you're now going to count what you told me you would not count, then I win.  You don't get to say that it counts & then come up with a new or different method that favors my opponent.  If you don't like that, then let's have a re-count.

    See, it's not all that difficult.

    How Do You Pretend 2 Million People Did Not Vote? | 212 comments (212 topical)