home

Florida 2000 Redux: The Media Against The Voters

Watching the NBC pundits, Russert, Tweety, Olbermann et. al, rail against Hillary Clinton's fight to count the votes in Florida and Michigan, it is important to remember that the Media has always been against counting the votes. Here is Eric Alterman on the Media's reaction to Al Gore's desire to count the votes in 2000:

. . . Listen to Tim Russert, among the most influential journalists in the entire country, advising Al Gore to be “magnanimous and statesmanlike,” by suggesting he tell the nation, “I won the popular vote. I gave up the presidency, in effect, because of the Electoral College and the Constitution.” . . . Chris Matthews is reported by Salon.com to have offered up a similar observation that Gore concede for ‘the good of the nation.’ . . .

The Media has always had contempt for the voters. Always. Their contempt for Hillary Clinton's fight to count the votes in Florida and Michigan is nothing new.

Our fun is over. Comments closed,

< Why Obama Needs To Fight To Seat Florida | Homeland Security Protects USA From UT Golfers >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This is not going to go away (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:41:15 PM EST
    meanwhile, kos and John Aravosis are cheer leading a Creative Class riot.

    I like this fiight (5.00 / 20) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:43:03 PM EST
    I get to cite Al Gore 2000, they get to cite Jame s Baker and have Russert and Tweety as their allies.

    I like where I sit on this one.

    Parent

    The Raison d'ętre of the Netroots, as least (5.00 / 11) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:45:03 PM EST
    as sparked by Alterman, was Florida 2000.

    We are on the right side of history. And those guys betray their roots out of candidate cultism.

    Parent

    Oh (5.00 / 20) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:47:47 PM EST
    this is going to be fun. I will be putting Kos and and Company;s statments side by side with James Baker and John Bolton.

    I am telling you, you never want to be a Dem fighting against counting the votes.

    We will have a good old time on this one.

    this is a fight I relish.

    they will despise me like they never have before by May 31.

    10 Days of Hell for them.

    Parent

    Not everyone gets the chance both to disenfranchis (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:05:38 PM EST
    e a lot of people, and then to pontificate on how someone else is doing it. You probably will enjoy that.

    Parent
    this is great (none / 0) (#240)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:13:14 PM EST
    I am going to enjoy you taking them down BTD.  

    Parent
    I am relishing the thought. (none / 0) (#252)
    by jere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:24:29 PM EST
    Pass the popcorn.

    Parent
    And wait until May 25 (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:48:38 PM EST
    RECOUNT debuts on HBO.

    This is going to be soooo much fun.

    Parent

    You, sir... (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:49:32 PM EST
    are having too much fun.

    Have you no shame?!?! [/s]

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:58:20 PM EST
    No shame.

    Especially when I have all the cards in the argument.

    You know how much material I have for this?

    10 Days That Shook the Blogs!!

    Parent

    I'm looking forward to it... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:59:53 PM EST
    I can't wait. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by vicsan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:05:04 PM EST
    There's nothing better than having a hypocrite's words thrown back in their face.

    Popcorn's ready!

    Parent

    Don't forget the ballots of the voters in MI (1.00 / 1) (#230)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:07:11 PM EST
    who tried to write in Obama and had their ballots discarded in front of their faces because the only votes allowed were for clinton and uncommitted.

    Parent
    I guess I know (none / 0) (#69)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:10:52 PM EST
    where I'm spending my Mem Day w/e.

    Snacks:  Check
    Treats for the animals:  Check
    Buffy, Sex & the City boxsets:  Check
    Big Tent Democrat Diaries:  WOO HOO!

    Parent

    Yay! (none / 0) (#150)
    by befuddled on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:36:19 PM EST
    Being on the side of right and reason both, what a concept!

    Parent
    the great thing about the writer's strike (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Kathy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:57:16 PM EST
    is that a lot of writers, directors, editors, etc were stuck at home watching all this crap unfold.  And everyone knows tv folk are lazy cusses.

    Expect a lot of real-life parallels.

    Parent

    RECOUNT (none / 0) (#103)
    by bridget on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:24:36 PM EST
    I have been looking forward to it for quite a while now

    and now it's here

    just at the right time ...funfunfun ;-)

    Parent

    There's so much irony (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:45:26 PM EST
    dripping in this, I'm finding it fascinating.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 14) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:46:20 PM EST
    you're sitting pretty on this one and so is Hillary. The creative class can riot but the voters are the ones that matter. The "creative class" seems to have turned itself into a joke, the mirror image of what the Bushies are or were. It's really kind of embarrassing.

    Parent
    watch those (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:11:39 PM EST
    coconuts!

    Parent
    looky here Donald (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:23:18 PM EST
    don't tempt me to do some hard time in Hawaii.  Summer's upon us here in TX.  I will gladly pick pineapples than suffer the jungle heat of a TX summer.

    ok, ok, so I took the easy way out.  maybe i should have been a little more clever. but being low info and all that jazz...........

    Parent

    Coconut cream + Pineapple juice + Rum (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:30:39 PM EST
    Pour in blender add ice puree= Pina Colada

    Parent
    Is that diary a good illustration of (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:46:34 PM EST
    "jumping the shark"?

    Parent
    Guess what I found... (4.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:50:58 PM EST
    take a guess...linky

    Parent
    Blocked. Summary? (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:52:06 PM EST
    YouTube... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:52:42 PM EST
    Fonzie jumping the shark

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#33)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:54:11 PM EST
    The sitcoms of the Carter years.

    Shark jumping?  President Carter?

    Parent

    Kos, John Aravosis, Josh, OpenLeft, et al (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by talex on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:56:44 PM EST
    Isn't it ironic that the very people they have made a living railing on (Russert, Tweety, Olbermann et. al,) they now join hands with in subverting votes?

    And this from the self-proclaimed online leaders of democracy and progressivenism?

    Some people do sell their souls - or do they?

    You see the irony of ironies is that they support a guy who wants to hold hands with republicans which can only dilute any progressive ideals and proposals.

    Were these self-proclaimed online leaders of democracy and progressivenism ever really progressives at all - or just opportunists profiting by playing to an audience?

    Parent

    Exactly How Would That Work? (none / 0) (#6)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:43:49 PM EST
    Good (none / 0) (#7)
    by Monda on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:44:50 PM EST
    They riot, we stay home, and the Republicans will dance to the unity tune all the way to November, and then some ... in January.  

    Parent
    What is Aravosis saying now? (none / 0) (#26)
    by MarkL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:51:48 PM EST
    I don't link to his shrillness (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:56:52 PM EST
    How About Tweety, Timmeh, KO, Gregory (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:42:39 PM EST
    and Shuster go away for the good of the nation?

    Enough people stop tuning in and (none / 0) (#229)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:07:06 PM EST
    they will be gone.


    Parent
    I've been trying to remind people (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:43:19 PM EST
    of this very thing -- to no avail it seems because here we are all listening to Tim Russert & Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews again -- not just about the votes, but how Clinton can't win and Obama is the one true way.

    This is (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:43:43 PM EST
    why I have been against the pundits. The "media darling" theory is something I see that leads to nothing more than disaster. The media backed W. all the way and look what we got? The media trashed an honorable Gore who would have been 10x the president W. ever hoped to be. The media repeated the lies that got us into Iraq. It's also why I believe that Obama would be a horrible President. Look at the track record of these idiots.

    It's The American Idol-ization (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:56:58 PM EST
    of the Presidential race.

    You see, on American Idol the winner is the worst/loser and the lesser, rather, PERCEIVED lesser talents are the winners.

    See Jennifer Hudson, Academy Award Winner and Golden Globe winner for details. She didn't even make it to the top 5.

    Only in America:  Ya win, ya lose.  Ya lose, ya WIN!

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#14)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:46:59 PM EST
    the media loathes the Clintons and Gore -- we will either get a terrible President Obama or, alternatively, once they don't have Hillary to bash around anymore, the media darling status will disappear faster than lightening and we get a just as bad* President McCain. *please note, I don't say worse -- just as bad.

    Parent
    The media loathes (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:13:22 PM EST
    Democrats. You think Obama (great big IF he gets the nomination) will be the media darling during the GE?

    The 180 degree turn is showing up all over. Jeralyn gave us links to several written criticisms today, FOX news has upped its criticism of him, and the rest will follow.

    Fortunately, they wanted to name him so bad just because they were sick of the same old story day after day that they've jumped the gun on how they will turn him into confetti. Maybe the SD's will pick up on it before convention.


    Parent

    True... (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by oldpro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:45:42 PM EST
    ...it's nothing new.

    But this is the first time I have been this angry about this many election/campaign-related issues.

    My blood pressure won't let me watch much media, up front and personal.  Ssomewhat easier to read about it secondhand.

    Somewhat.

    Gore's silence (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by themomcat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:45:56 PM EST
    is now deafening. He doesn't need to support either candidate but he must speak about acknowledging the voters of FL & MI. The Republicans will make this an issue in the GE. We need Al Gore to address this.

    If he (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:48:18 PM EST
    supported counting the votes then he would be seen a supporting Hillary. It's sad that everything has devolved into this. Counting the votes should be what matters. Nothing else.

    Parent
    Gore has been a disappointment on this. (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:49:01 PM EST
    He doesn't need to endorse but the man who had the Presidency stolen from him should maybe mention at least once the importance of voters in the state where it was taken from him. Methinks Al is afraid to pi** off his Hollywood friends.

    Parent
    Why should Gore (none / 0) (#90)
    by themomcat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:21:18 PM EST
    be afraid to say, "Count the votes"?

    Parent
    Hollywood friends (none / 0) (#165)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:40:21 PM EST
    have lots of money and they garner lots of wealth and media attention to his climate issues.  He and his issue wouldn't be where he/it is without them.

    Parent
    I don't see (none / 0) (#196)
    by themomcat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:50:10 PM EST
    a lot of Hollywood folks coming out for Obama. But then I may not be paying that much attention to them. And if Hillary were the nominee, I do not see the Hollywood crowd supporting McCain. They were very supportive of Bill, I expect they would be the same for Hillary.

    Parent
    The media doesn't want to ask him (none / 0) (#244)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:17:33 PM EST
    about that. They played a part in it.

    Wonder if McCain is considering Gov Crist as a running mate. That would cinch where the FL electoral votes go. Maybe MI, too.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:59:36 PM EST
    we need the American PEOPLE to address this.  In the words of the late, great Molly Ivins, who said we should go outside and march with pots and pans and make noise about the illegal Iraqi war, we should march for voter rights.

    Get out those pots and pans and put those pundits in THEIR place.  There are more of us than there are of them.

    Parent

    I agree with you whoe heartedly (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by themomcat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:26:41 PM EST
    but Gore just saying to the DNC that they should count the votes would carry so much weight that Dean & Co. would have to do something fair. We will not have any impact on the "pundits" because they are puppets for their corporate masters.

    Parent
    Especially if McCain picks Christ (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:47:51 PM EST
    as his VP.  

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:49:33 PM EST
    You mean Crist?

    Maybe Christ would help Obama in Florida!

    Parent

    Gulp. Let's leave religion out (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:50:59 PM EST
    of politics.

    Parent
    Tee hee! (none / 0) (#41)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:56:07 PM EST
    Crist (none / 0) (#55)
    by themomcat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:01:49 PM EST
    is a very acceptable VP to many Regan Dems and Independents. The Democrats will absolutely lose FL if Obama is the nominee.

    Parent
    Crist (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:14:26 PM EST
    will lock up the Reverend Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Senator Craig and all other self-loathing closeted gay votes.

    Parent
    He is an excellent politician. (none / 0) (#59)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:04:04 PM EST
    They call him the "people's" Governor.  I figure him for if nothing else the 2012 Repub nominee.  I'm not endorsing, mind, just observing.

    Parent
    So I've heard (none / 0) (#63)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:07:19 PM EST
    but he's a bit light in the loafers. He wouldn't win the Republican nomination.

    Parent
    Doesn't the fact that the Netroots (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:47:03 PM EST
    now agrees with the same media they've railed against for a decade tell them something?!? NO. Apparently not.  

    You know you're on the wrong side of the issue when you're fighting the BUSH side of the 2000 debacle during the primary. Yeah, you know what the Bushies cited?  The RULZ.

    The netroots has gone crazy... (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:51:06 PM EST
    This is Bowers today:

    One of the best developments for Democratic Party this nomination campaign has been the dramatic decline of "electability" as a factor in the party's nomination process.

    [...]

    Electability died in this primary season. Good. As long we win in November, it should be a long time before the party is dominated by that unproductive concept once again.

    Parent

    That settles it. [Some] bloggers don't (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:54:11 PM EST
    read what they write!  

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:54:15 PM EST
    As long as we win in November.

    Parent
    I would agree that one of the best (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:55:26 PM EST
    developments for Obama is that electability went out the window when Axelrod figured out how to game the caucus systems. Yeah, who cares about millions of Floridians and their delegates. They got the delegates from Idaho!

    Parent
    That's just bizarre. (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by MarkL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:55:30 PM EST
    Electability was the paramount reason for choosing Obama, earlier this year. The supposed fact he would win by a landslide was THE reason to choose him.
    Once he started tanking, the will of the pledged delegates became "it".

    Parent
    And pardon me but isn't electability (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:58:37 PM EST
    kinda the whole key to you know...WINNING and election??

    Parent
    Yep, Obama Was Going To Win 65% to 35% (none / 0) (#262)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:31:52 PM EST
    and bring in a 60+ Senate on his coattails. Those were the days when electability was the topic du jour.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:53:11 PM EST
    electability is gone until Obama loses and then what happens? All of a sudden we should start thinking about people who have the best demographic mix.

    Parent
    This has got to be a joke (none / 0) (#47)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:57:24 PM EST
    I know I'm just a low-information idjut, but how in the world can "we win in November" with a candidate who is unelectable?

    Parent
    Hope. (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Kathy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:00:41 PM EST
    Kathy (none / 0) (#58)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:02:23 PM EST
    LOL. Perfect timing.

    Parent
    Here Angie (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:01:55 PM EST
    I just poured you a cup of tropical punch flavored Kool Aid.

    Now sit there like a good Obama supporter.  Let US worry about those nasty Clinton supporters.

    Parent

    Obama Meet Box (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:52:43 PM EST
    the one you put yourself in?  along with all of your surrogates and supporters?

    Clinton:  "Count every vote!"
    Obama: "THE RULES THE RULES"
    DNC nominee:  Barack Obama
    GE Winner:  John McCain

    Stupid is as stupid does.

    I think you forgot QED at the end, (none / 0) (#163)
    by mulletov cocktails on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:39:41 PM EST
    but stupid is as stupid does may suffice.

    Parent
    All I can say is... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:53:34 PM EST
    I look forward with relish to the next pronouncement of who is, and isn't a Democrat by the all-knowing Creative Class OFB. ;-)

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:53:37 PM EST
    We've been reliving the Bradley campaign and the media's hatred of Gore all along.  So why should the parallels to 2000 stop there?

    Ding, Ding, Ding! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:54:41 PM EST
    If Al keeps his mouth shut (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by oldpro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:55:40 PM EST
    until after the 31st, we may have another surprize in store...depending on the outcome of the DNC decision re Fla and MI delegates.

    It's hard to believe there is no voice of authority at the DNC.

    I guess we're just lucky Dean DIDN'T get elected to the presidency, given his lack of skill at a much smaller - though not less contentious - venue.

    Yayzu.  Democrats.

    are you saying? nah! can't be? (none / 0) (#122)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:29:21 PM EST
    that al gore just might be the victor after the blood and gore(pun) have been cleaned up off the convention floor?

    Parent
    Maybe. (none / 0) (#142)
    by oldpro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:33:54 PM EST
    It depends on the relationship between the Gores and the Clintons is my guess.

    If Hillary can't get the numbers and it looks like Obama will, how in Hell do you put this stupid party back together after splitting it down the middle and awarding the nomination to a sure loser?

    Only one way.

    Hillary withdraws from the race, nominates Al and asks her delegates to vote for him.

    Gore/Clinton.

    Win/win.

    Write that down.

    Parent

    i am sribbling away ink on hands and all. (none / 0) (#157)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:37:45 PM EST
    now that would be interesting. heck, i might even vote this year.

    Parent
    And cross your fingers. (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by oldpro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:56:59 PM EST
    That's my take too, (none / 0) (#235)
    by oldpro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:09:03 PM EST
    Seymour.

    Al has been to Bill's Foundation's Energy Summits and they've worked together, spoken together at forums.

    Parent

    You're right about the last part, and the (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by MarkL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:56:25 PM EST
    polls back you up. Why this isn't considered a major problem, I don't know.

    I agreee to nothing you say (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:00:07 PM EST
    Nothing.

    Count the Votes!!

    BTD, any input on why Webb sd. (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:10:58 PM EST
    what he sd. when he sd. it?  

    Parent
    What did Webb say (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:18:25 PM EST
    and when did he say it?

    Parent
    Here you go: (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:23:19 PM EST
    I guess cuz he wants off (none / 0) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:31:17 PM EST
    the VP short list.

    I thnk he got it done there.

    Parent

    I've been waiting for a (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:33:04 PM EST
    suggestion Obama is the affirm. action candidate, but I thought that wouldn't come up until the GE.

    Parent
    some matters (none / 0) (#234)
    by facta non verba on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:07:56 PM EST
    should be private. Their college transcripts? They are irrelevant. Obama's lack of foreign policy knowledge speaks for itself. I don't need to know what grade he got at Occidental or Columbia to know that when it comes to foreign policy he hasn't a clue.

    I am more interested in Michelle's Princeton thesis because that reflects what she thought but even that should be private if she so deems it.

    I don't like Obama but he is entitled to some privacy.

    Parent

    he knows when it's time to close the (none / 0) (#178)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:44:17 PM EST
    bar when too much koolaid has been served.

    Parent
    Smells (none / 0) (#135)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:32:39 PM EST
    like Obama's VP pick.

    Parent
    Yeeesh (none / 0) (#246)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:18:40 PM EST
    Webb was wrong on women in the military and he's wrong on this.

    This is less about affirmative action and more about a) the pereption that Obama is a neophyte b) the Obama campaign and how it has run things so far kind of reminds me of that outsider and comes in and tells you how you are doing everything all wrong and tries to tell you how you feel. No one likes that person.

    The one area that I do agree with Webb on is that there IS common ground between poor AAs and poor whites. Instead of tapping into on demographics insecurities, he'd do better if he focused on those commonalities. Thn he could claim himself a bridge builder. That said he better dig deeper than turning off the TV and reading a book to Junior. It sounds trite.

    Parent

    The talking heads and the Obama (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by vicsan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:01:16 PM EST
    supporters have let their hatred of the Clintons cloud their thinking. If the tables were turned, would we even be having this discussion? NO. This Fl and MI thing would have been settled months ago if it was Obama who wanted them seated and it was Hillary who had removed her name from the ballot. They want to destroy the Clintons and run them out of DC for good and it looks like Hill and Bill aren't cooperating! LOL!

    I LOVE THEM FOR THIS! THEY are on the side of the voters and the Obama people (and I use that word "people" LOOSLEY) are so far off the mark they should all hang their heads in shame.

    GO, Hillary! Defend the VOTERS. You can never be wrong by doing so.

    I can't take you seriously (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:02:03 PM EST
    when you say something like this:
    but we should at least agree that the Primaries in MI and FLA were not sanctioned by the actual Democratic Party that existed in January of 2008.
    those "renegade primaries" as you call them were sanctioned by state law -- you know, the usual authority that sanctions all elections.

    Like the renegade primaries in SC and NH? (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:04:18 PM EST
    Maybe we should throw those out too. Let's ask Obama tomorrow if we should throw out SC because they broke the rules too and held a "renegade" primary.  Bet you he won't though.

    The Blitzer Suggestion (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Chimster on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:05:03 PM EST
    Why can't the Dems do revotes in Michigan and Florida via the Wolf Blitzer-approved method:

    Michigan already has a statewide primary scheduled for August 5 for local and state elections. Florida has a similar statewide primary scheduled for August 26, the second day of the Democratic convention in Denver. Why not let the two states add a Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama election to the ballots for those two primaries?

    Adding that election to the already scheduled primaries for those two dates wouldn't add any additional cost to the states.

    They would simply have to print a new ballot.

    Why isn't this a consideration?!?

    Because Obama might lose (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:09:55 PM EST
    and we can't have that. Much better to do a 50/50 split of the delegates. /s

    Parent
    can't have obama lose? my eyes (none / 0) (#184)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:45:41 PM EST
    are tired tonight. did i just read that?

    Parent
    Speaking as a Floridian (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by jazz on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:26:52 PM EST
    I already voted.  I don't need or want a re-vote.  I knew exactly what I was doing.  All the candidates were on equal ground here.  Who hadn't heard of Obama after Iowa?  Just count the vote I already made.  I will not continue to be a Democrat if this does not occur.  I am appalled that my vote can even be in play as perhaps counting for 50% or after a winner has been decided.  Don't want to count my vote now, don't expect to get it in Nov.

    Parent
    Consider it a double vote then? (none / 0) (#203)
    by Chimster on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:52:53 PM EST
    I'm sure many people were told not to vote in FL because their votes wouldn't matter, and according to our party's rules (which the top three candidates agreed to-sort of) those votes wouldn't be considered.

    Hillary wisely used that vote to show her electability to the Superdelegates, and perhaps they didn't count (yet), but she was setting up a strategy in case she needed them further down the road.

    Well, the road has gotten further along and it looks like her strategy might pay off after all. With a revote, we'll have a chance to attract more voters and it will show the true will of the people. If more Floridian's and Michigan voters want Obama, then so be it. That's why I hope you'd revote if it came down to it. A lot is at stake.

    Parent

    You want to wait until the end of August (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:08:26 PM EST
    for a nominee? Heh, the Superdelegates are going to crown Obama long before that.

    Parent
    It should be (none / 0) (#67)
    by oldpro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:09:58 PM EST
    considered but I doubt it will be.

    Not if Obama doesn't support it.

    And the DNC does NOT want to reward those two states with clout of any kind in deciding this year's nominee.  Period.  They...must....be...punished!

    Parent

    DNC Punishment (none / 0) (#94)
    by Chimster on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:22:47 PM EST
    Why doesn't the DNC punish FL and MI by making them hold their 2012 presidential primaries on the last possible date in the 2012? They'll be punished, but their votes will still count.

    Parent
    Michigan would be totally do-able this way (none / 0) (#257)
    by abfabdem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:28:22 PM EST
    Florida as another poster suggested did have everyone's name on the ballot so maybe each one should be settled a unique way to account for the varying circumstances of each one.  But ideally I am all for re-votes for both as the only truly neutral way to settle this.  And if Obama wins both fair and square I will shut up.

    Parent
    An example of media vs. voters? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:07:47 PM EST
    Can somebody explain this Chris Bowers screed: The End of Electability.

    "Across the board, every state that had an exit poll in both 2004 and 2008 shows massive drop off in the focus on electability. Electability died in this primary season. Good. As long we win in November, it should be a long time before the party is dominated by that unproductive concept once again."

    At what point does some elder member of the blogosphere take Chris Bowers into a room and...


    Take hm into a room (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by themomcat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:14:40 PM EST
    and deny him Kool Aid until it is out of his system. It's called "Detox".

    Parent
    Sorry my comment was repetition of #25 (none / 0) (#83)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:19:04 PM EST
    The thing that gets me going about this (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by bjorn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:12:54 PM EST
    issue is the argument that all the Obama talking heads use "we cannot reward FL and MI by letting their votes count more than the other states."  What???  Does that mean that votes count only in the order in which they are taken?  In other words, PA, OH, TX, KY, WV, OR, etc  should count more than Iowa, NH, SC, NV???  HELLLLOOOO using that argument Clinton wins hands down.  She has wiped the floor with Obama during the tail end of the primaries.  So god forbid, FL and MI should count more than IA and NH...a vote is a vote regardless of when it was cast during the primary season.

    From the standpoint of those who are not (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ricky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:14:24 PM EST
    passionate Clinton supporters, can I offer this thought? Hopefully without my head being bitten off?

    Many folks are doubtful about whether the Clinton campaign would be working so hard to seat these disputed delegates if they wouldn't aid her cause. This doubt might not be present had she fought for the delegates to be seated prior to when she felt that she needed them (just around the South Carolina election), if she hadn't issued statements upholding the DNC's ruling back in 2007, and if some of the same people who made the rules weren't part of her campaign.

    Of course, Obama's campaign seemed to actively block revotes because they didn't suit his needs. The point is that this whole battle seems more political than anything else.

    Let me get this straight (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:17:25 PM EST
    Your "argument" is that, because Hillary is fighting to count the Florida votes out of her own self-interest, the cause is therefor not worthy?

    My logic professor would be the one to bite your head off.

    Parent

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ricky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:21:00 PM EST
    My point is that this whole battle is not about democracy, because it's quite likely that if seating these delegates would put her candidacy at risk, she wouldn't be fighting for them.

    I think it's important to acknowledge this.

    Parent

    That's nonsense. Y ou could apply the (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by MarkL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:30:19 PM EST
    same argument to any disputed election.
    The PRINCIPLE is that the candidate with the most votes should win. We call it cheating when any other outcome is sanctioned.

    Parent
    it is not about Clinton, it is way (4.66 / 3) (#99)
    by bjorn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:23:28 PM EST
    bigger than her, it is about the voters and that is why it is about democracy.

    Parent
    I understand if that is the case for you, (4.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ricky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:27:24 PM EST
    but people weren't making a big stink about this months ago. If this was all about principle, that's when the arguments should have taken place. This is now about politics- that's fine, but I don't think it should be dressed up as some moral issue.

    Parent
    Actually even Hillary Clinton was making a big stink about this months ago.

    You are completely clueless.

    Parent

    If this is true (none / 0) (#131)
    by ricky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:32:00 PM EST
    then I'm happy to be educated. I don't think I'm being rude, so please stop insulting me. Would you mind giving me some information about when she started disputing the DNC ruling? I would be happy to reconsider my position with new info.

    Parent
    Link (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:50:52 PM EST
    I guess that meme about Hillary is only (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:00:39 PM EST
    doing it because she is loosing is not true after all.

    Parent
    In case you haven't noticed, (none / 0) (#158)
    by chancellor on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:38:30 PM EST
    she's been pretty busy running a campaign--like actually going all around W. Va., Ore., S. Dak., and Ky to meet voters, talk with them--all the things politicians are supposed to do if they want somebody's vote.

    Parent
    that's it for me. shows just what i've been (none / 0) (#192)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:48:28 PM EST
    saying. she isn't a new democrat. you mean she actually gets out there and meets those bitter people? dang, what is happening in this campaign. next she'll be demanding that their votes count. i swear these boomers and their quaint ideas.

    Parent
    I made a big stink (none / 0) (#183)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:45:37 PM EST
    last summer. If you need proof you can look up my MyDD and dKos posts with this same user name.

    Don't judge what is moral or not by the actions of others. You should instead find the worth in the actual issue. If the right to vote is the right stand then it is the right stand in spite of anything else.

    Parent

    It's about Democracy FOR ME (none / 0) (#96)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:22:58 PM EST
    It's about democracy for the Florida voters. What it's about for Hillary Clinton is a big fat red herring.

    Parent
    And then (none / 0) (#104)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:24:42 PM EST
    She would be on the wrong side of the issue.

    But I think she would have agreed to revotes.

    Parent

    You just rpeeated yourself (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:28:05 PM EST
    Did you NOT understand andgarden's point?

    Man, some of you are really dense.

    Parent

    Why would a Gore supporter (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:19:51 PM EST
    Not care as much about a butterfly ballot issue in California?

    Parent
    Amazing (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:20:04 PM EST
    The last line of your comment answered ALL your own questions. IT'S POLITICAL??!! Get outta here.

    Clinton and Obama are self-serving.  Of course.  But counting every vote looks better for the candidate advocating it.  When Obama negated a re-vote, he blinked first/showed fear.

    Now, we are this far down the road and Donna Brazile and company are beating their chests about the rules.

    Gonna be funny when the GOP is beating Obama.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:24:20 PM EST
    Everybody understands that it is politics.

    Why didn't Hillary commit political suicide by making a big stink about counting FL and MI while the early-state primaries were still going on?  Gee, I have no idea!

    Giving the voters of MI and FL a say nevertheless remains the moral high ground in this debate.

    Parent

    Counting votes is political? (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by jazz on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:41:10 PM EST
    I always thought the right to have one's vote counted was the foundation of democracy.  IMHO, those who would take that away are enemies of democracy every bit as much as any terrorist.  

    Parent
    Since January, Clinton has held firm. (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by wurman on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:03:58 PM EST
    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."

    Parent

    Why do you hate the voters? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:17:38 PM EST
    Why don't you want to count the votes?

    Seriously, that is all nice and civil and relevant to nothing.

    Count the votes!

    Parent

    I was trying to type a big long (none / 0) (#85)
    by bjorn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:19:44 PM EST
    answer but you and Andgarden said it very well and much more succintly.

    Parent
    Are you serious? (none / 0) (#95)
    by ricky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:22:52 PM EST
    Why in the world is the choice between completely agreeing with your position or "hating the voters"? I hope that was a joke.

    Parent
    I was snarking you (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:27:21 PM EST
    but you do not even understand the issue at all.

    you are not worth my time.

    Parent

    Of course it's Political (none / 0) (#80)
    by themomcat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:18:11 PM EST
    what else would it be and if the shoe were on the other foot Obama would be fighting just as hard to seat the FL & MI delegates.

    Parent
    I actually don't think so. (none / 0) (#102)
    by ricky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:24:34 PM EST
    And I think he would have been railroaded out if he tried. If he wasn't winning, he wouldn't have the clout to pull it off.

    Parent
    then you are a fool (none / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:26:40 PM EST
    So much for (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ricky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:29:17 PM EST
    respectful discourse.

    Parent
    BTD has a trait that I admire (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:33:19 PM EST
    He does not pretend to respect willful ignorance.

    Parent
    I don't think that's an accurate (none / 0) (#152)
    by ricky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:36:55 PM EST
    description of me. I'm actually fairly well informed, and I think I'm making a reasoned argument.

    Parent
    This should be your first clue (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by echinopsia on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:40:23 PM EST
    I think I'm making a reasoned argument.

    You're not.

    Parent

    That's your problem (none / 0) (#167)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:40:43 PM EST
    You think you're making a good argument, but you're really not making one at all.

    Mush, pure mush, is all that you have to offer.

    Parent

    Understatement of the year. (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:39:49 PM EST
    Indeed (none / 0) (#155)
    by Mavs4527 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:37:21 PM EST
    Most of us can see that this fight is little more than a shallow attempt by Hillary to get close in the delegate count by seating the full delegations of two elections that weren't supposed to count, neither campaigned in, and one of which, Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Yes, a compromise can and likely will be struck that can get some of delegations seated, but it seems unless it's the deal most beneficial to Hillary, her diehard supporters here have no interest in it. So much for being in it for the voters and not about their preferred candidate.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#175)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:43:30 PM EST
    Obama would NEVER stoop to dirty politics or pander.

    You too are a fool.

    Fools are called fools by me.

    Parent

    I'm not even as concerned about whether (none / 0) (#181)
    by ricky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:45:05 PM EST
    folks will accept a compromise or not. I'd just like folks to not pretend that this is all about democracy, and not mostly about Hillary's candidacy.

    I would absolutely say the same thing to Obama supporters, were the roles reversed.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#193)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:48:47 PM EST
    Why is it more important to you that people have the right motives than that they have the right stand on an issue?


    Parent
    He doesn't really (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:51:31 PM EST
    want to talk about how to make Florida and Michgan voters whole, so he's reduced to raising irrelevancies about Hillary Clinton's motives.

    Parent
    You're probably right. (none / 0) (#220)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:01:12 PM EST
    It's so telling that by making it about her motives, they show their motives. They don't want the votes to count because it'll benefit Clinton. Gotta wonder what else they'd be so quick to sell out with that criteria.

    Parent
    By the way (none / 0) (#239)
    by ricky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:12:30 PM EST
    I don't even think this is the right stand (I think a penalty is in order), but that's a separate issue. People are calling dissenters here fools, which I think is inappropriate, but the arguments are all over the place.

    One person says of course this is all politics. Another says that this is all about democracy and votes counting, and they put up Clinton press releases from January, when this became a poltically convenient battle. And no one acknowledges her statements clearly agreeing that the votes wouldn't count.

    And, at the end of the day, I know several people who didn't vote in these states because they didn't think the votes counted. I agree that a revote would have addressed this, but aren't they disenfranchised by not being counted in the vote as is?

    Parent

    When (5.00 / 1) (#261)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:31:46 PM EST
    people chose not to vote, they are not disenfranchised. It was their choice. I live in Florida, there were plenty of voters - a record number. And prior to the election, plenty of people talked about it counting. Who are these people who chose not to vote, that we should disenfranchise the 1.7 million voters who bothered to vote by not counting their actual votes? Because I guarantee you there isn't 1.7 million of them.

    I don't like the idea of revotes as I think they set up for more unfairness than they solve. But at least I can see the point of those who advocate for them. And they did have some valid points even if I disagree.

    But you have no point. What you argue, is that because it benefits Clinton we shouldn't count the votes. Or because different people have differing views over what is important that we shouldn't count the votes. Or that because Clinton wasn't always about counting the votes we shouldn't count the votes. You personally are all over the place, and yet you avoid that disenfranchising voters is wrong irregardless of Clinton, her motivations or the reasoning of anonymous people on a blog.

    Parent

    No foools are called fools (none / 0) (#243)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:17:01 PM EST
    You are not a fool because you are wrong. You are a fool because you are a fool.

    Parent
    I agree with BTD (none / 0) (#215)
    by themomcat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:58:54 PM EST
    You are a fool. Have a good evening.

    Parent
    I assume you think (none / 0) (#247)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:20:03 PM EST
    that it was the right thing to stop counting votes in Florida -- because that's how Bush wanted it?

    Parent
    Since the state makes the rules (none / 0) (#255)
    by denise on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:27:05 PM EST
    why punish the party?

    Since the voters had nothing to do with it, why punish them?

    But most importantly, why select a candidate without the input of two of the most important states? That punishes ALL OF US.

    This shouldn't be up to the candidates at all. It shouldn't be used by anyone for political advantage. There should be revotes. And the DNC leadership should resign over it. They've shown unbelievably poor judgment.

    Parent

    BTD is fighting FOR Obama (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:17:58 PM EST
    The pundits and the Obama blogs are fighting against Obama.

    Just the FYI.

    Only everyone is too stupid to understand it.

    I wonder that this point is lost (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:25:37 PM EST
    on everyone.

    all Obama needs to do is say COUNT THE VOTES!

    He becomes EVERYONE's hero. He unties the Party.

    Hell, he can avoid picking Hilary as VP. But Obama supporters are too stupid to see it.

    Parent

    The Creative Class (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:28:15 PM EST
    secretly enjoys playing James Baker.

    Parent
    the talking head Jamal tried to (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by bjorn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:29:23 PM EST
    explain why Obama won't say this "He doesn't want to open up a back door for Clinton to slip through."  Uh?  Counting votes does not open any back door, it will still be the SDs who decide. And I don't hear any of them saying they will vote for Clinton if Fl and MI count their votes.  

    Parent
    And see, (none / 0) (#207)
    by janarchy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:54:25 PM EST
    this is where he is wrong, wrong, wrong. If Obama was so sure of his win, so sure of his nomination, then wouldn't it be magnanamous of him to let the poor little Clinton voters have their moment and let their votes count? Just think, we'd have nothing to complain about and nothing to rail about because he actually was respecting the voters and the people in two states who voted for HRC (or any other candidate or uncommitted) as well as himself.

    It really just blows my mind that the Obama campaign as well as the dunderheads involved with the Roolz are so hung up on Being In Charge that they can't see the forest for the trees.

    Parent

    But he won't say it (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by themomcat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:34:05 PM EST
    because he may be the hero but he will lose the nomination to Hillary. It is all about ego for Obama. As for him being the "media darling", that will end the moment he clinches the nomination. The love affair for Obama will end in August if Obama is the nominee. And you can stay in my home in Paris, Fr for a week if I am wrong.

    Parent
    Speaking of Hillary as VP (none / 0) (#146)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:34:41 PM EST
    I noticed Chris Bowers has a post endorsing, or considering,  an Obama/Clinton ticket.  Thought you would be all over that.  

    Sorry if OT.  

    Parent

    One of Bowers's better posts IMO (none / 0) (#148)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:35:37 PM EST
    Yep. (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:42:00 PM EST
    It makes me feel good when someone else comes around.  And the comments themselves are highly entertaining or sad, depending on your mood.

    On the dark side though, Pelosi has again spoken out against the unity ticket.  Just don't understand her reasoning.

    Parent

    Pelosi (none / 0) (#190)
    by oldpro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:48:20 PM EST
    was having a hard time getting the words out in the interview I saw earlier tonight.

    Parent
    At least she got the first sentence right (none / 0) (#214)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:58:39 PM EST
    "If it is the ticket that happens it will be the winning ticket. But I don't see it happening."


    Parent
    And she tried it three times (none / 0) (#225)
    by oldpro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:04:47 PM EST
    three different ways!

    Parent
    So busy being control freaks (none / 0) (#185)
    by oldpro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:45:58 PM EST
    they forget to be political.

    It's hilarious, really.

    Not nimble.

    Parent

    yup (none / 0) (#84)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:19:25 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#88)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:20:51 PM EST
    Not everyone then.  But Obama himself??

    Parent
    Count the Votes! (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by koolaidisntmysavior on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:21:48 PM EST
    It really couldn't get any better than giving Hillary the opportunity to say COUNT THE VOTES!

    This is especially true given that HBO rolls out Recount--the story of the debacle in Florida in 2000 on Sunday.

    Here is a link to Clinton Supporters Count Too:

    http://www.clintonsupporterscounttoo.org/join.html

    I thought the DNC rules... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Chimster on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:28:18 PM EST
    were that states should be punished by having half of their delegates taken away, not all of them. Also, if some states were not punished for moving their primary date up early, why should FL and MI be punished for the same crime? And weren't the FL State Dems forced to move it up due to Republican shennanigans?

    I thought that was the punishment (none / 0) (#260)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:30:43 PM EST
    the Republicans issued to their delegates. Democrats took a harsher line.


    Parent
    Macro # 2. *yawn* (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MarkL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:31:03 PM EST


    what does macro #2 mean? (none / 0) (#137)
    by mffarrow on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:32:50 PM EST
    For Macro #1, IACF (none / 0) (#228)
    by janarchy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:05:55 PM EST
    press 1

    For Macro #2: press 2

    For Macro #3: Hope and Change, press 3

    (ad nauseum)

    Parent

    Against the voters? (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:32:20 PM EST
    I like my position better than yours.

    You sound like Katherine Harris.

    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:34:52 PM EST
    This is going to be tremendously fun.

    Parent
    Is Laura Dern playing K. Harris (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:43:06 PM EST
    in RECOUNT?  

    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:45:07 PM EST
    dunno.

    Parent
    You betcha (none / 0) (#188)
    by Regency on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:47:33 PM EST
    I have never seen so much makeup on one human being. That should be a crime, and very well may be--are there any bunny rabbits left alive in Florida after all the testing that had to be done to make that safe for her?

    Parent
    They didn't test those bunny rabbits (none / 0) (#204)
    by MarkL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:53:19 PM EST
    for looks, I tell you.

    Parent
    For me (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:32:41 PM EST
    I do not believe any rule, law or ruling (as in this case) should ever be used to deny people their right to vote.

    Do you think that people who had no voice in the rules nor in the violation of the rules are the ones who should be punished? And do you believe that the DNC's actions this election will deter anyone?

    A Fine Mess... (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by santarita on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:33:05 PM EST
    that the DNC has gotten us into.  I can't believe that the penalty for not toeing the line regarding primary schedules is to disenfranchise voters in those states.  In law, there is the concept of least drastic alternative to accomplish one's goals.  Couldn't the DNC have come up with something less drastic than disenfranchisement?

    As far as the media is concerned, they have a narrative going and they won't let inconvenient truths stand in the way of a good narrative.  

    And the "progressive" blogs have been changing positions at least monthly in order to validate their too early support for Obama.  I am not interested in their tortured logic.  They have lost credibility.  In that regard they have joined their brothers in the main stream media.

    There is more to this story somewhere (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by bjorn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:37:04 PM EST
    I would not be surprised if one day we find out Donna Brazile went nuclear on FL because she knew Obama could not win there.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#161)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:38:54 PM EST
    D'uh!!!!

    Parent
    and then we have s carolina with a (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:36:09 PM EST
    very high aa turnout. they violated the rules also but horrors the rules don't apply. hmmm, inquiring minds are curious.

    Obama's May 20 Bash: A Cynical Replay of Election (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by SunnyLC on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:38:39 PM EST
    Posted May 12

    ...Obama's May 20 Bash: A Cynical Replay of Election Night 2000 (with update)

    ...So, now in 2008 we have Axelrod shooing away voters and starting his blitz to convince everyone that Obama is the winner with the full co-operation of the media, just like the events of Election Night 2000 which were started on FOX and then picked up by the rest of the crowd. The above video shows the first salvo in the ensuing bandwagon that has become the main message for our consumption since May 8, the night of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries....

    Much more...

    http://tinyurl.com/3j2r23

    I want Vice President Al Gore (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:44:16 PM EST
    to show up at the Rules Committee meeting on May 31st. He wouldn't have to say a word, just sit there and watch. I'd like to see anyone argue that counting all the votes doesn't matter, especially in Florida, with him watching.

    I don't care who he likes or dislikes or supports or if he doesn't care anymore, he needs to stand up for the Democratic Party and for learning from history.

    Ridiculous. (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by befuddled on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:47:46 PM EST
    That is, early primaries or having all the primaries at once should have been shown clearly through this process to be a bad idea. It is true that money and name recognition would unduly influence early primaries. Yet what is influencing the primaries now is information. The one whose image had been tarnished for years is rehabilitating herself by getting out and being seen in person, not through the camera lens. And the one whose image was totally through the lens, is starting to look Photoshopped in person. Ironic, in the end this whole screwup is turning out to be an argument for staggered primaries.

    Hey BTD (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:55:26 PM EST
    Hit Obama where it hurts.  Really deliver the blow.

    Do this:  Write something about any Super Delegate who endorses Obama going forward.

    Aren't those SDs now taking a stand on this issue?

    Can't we now say that any SD endorsing Obama going forward has decided those votes don't count?

    Aren't SDs leverage here?

    Because VOTES are sacred. (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:59:03 PM EST
    How did the voters break the rules? They didn't. You do NOT ever take away someone's right to vote. Throughout history it is always justified by some noble goal and done by law/rule. It is never right. Never. Not when it benefits you. Not when it benefits your opponent.

    BTW, I didn't vote for Clinton. Never planned to. But you've assigned me a motivation because it fits your predetermined narrative. You need to stop seeing who benefits and who doesn't and look at voting rights as an independent issue.

    I retract my earlier criticism. (5.00 / 2) (#237)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:10:17 PM EST
    This is anything but boring.

    Go BTD!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#249)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:22:51 PM EST
    It's kinda petty of me but I'm looking forward to watching you take the boyz to task and providing them with the shellacking they so soundly deserve.

    They've been behaving quite badly. I'm glad someone is holding an intervention.

    You are missing the point (5.00 / 2) (#259)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:29:57 PM EST
    You don't punish the voters you might need in a GE for the lack of judgement that a few knuckleheaded Dem leaders and Republicans. It ain't smart.

    Contempt for voters (5.00 / 3) (#263)
    by jere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:33:11 PM EST
    is contempt for democracy.  What has happened to this country?  It is not hyperbole to say that the very soul of this nation is at stake here.  

    WAY OFF TOPIC BUT.... (4.50 / 2) (#111)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:26:51 PM EST
    I went to the darkside (Huffington Post) and on their front page they feature a parrot that yells Obama slogans.

    Oh. My. Gosh.  How appropriate!

    Irony, thy name is HuffPo.  ROFLMAO!!!

    Ah. Conservative talking points... (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:22:09 PM EST
    ..the Democrats claim to be about counting every vote, but look at FL and MI.

     And zealous Senator Clinton supporters agree, which hardens the hearts of liberals who question Senator Clinton's liberal credentials.  Looking back to President Clinton, they remember his about face to win reelection.  And they were told they didn't have any other choice.  Throw your vote away, they were told, by voting for a third party candidate.  Sensibly, they didn't vacate the party en masse, only to be bullied by so-called "centrists" eight years later.  

     Then, in fantasy land, Senator Clinton wins the nomination.  Suddenly Senator Clinton is the one who overcomes the will of pledged delegates, the will of the voters according to the GOP meme.  She wins when unopposed in Michigan.  And Michigan, a relatively reliable Democratic state, goes for Senator McCain by the narrowest of margins.  

     You can bash your fellow bloggers all you like, you can paint yourself into a narrow cult-like corner that plenty of Senator Obama's supporters paint themselves into, but if you are purporting to be standing up for principle it comes across a little hollow.  The Republican candidate won the nomination by winning states that Republicans usually lose in the general election.  They did it with a winner-take-all strategy.  

      Even worse, if Senator Clinton wins the primary her general election campaign will be plagued by the "states that don't matter, voters that don't matter" meme.  A good short term strategy for the nomination, but disastrous in the general election.

     Like I said, I will support Senator Clinton if she pulls it off, despite my hesitations about her Iraq war vote (and no need to go on a tangent criticizing my position, I know and understand the alternative view).  But posters on this site are playing the same sort of "let the noise machine politics" win that is endorsed by advocates they strongly despise in other settings.    

     BTD's comments only emphasize the problem:

    We will have a good old time on this one.

    this is a fight I relish.

    they will despise me like they never have before by May 31.

    10 Days of Hell for them.

     I am reminded of Senator Clinton's comments in NH: Some people think this is a game, but it isn't.  


    Fool (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:24:17 PM EST
    All that needs to happen is for Obama to fight for the vote too and you too can be for voters rights.

    James Baker would be proud of you.

    Parent

    Now I know... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:29:10 PM EST
    ...that enough time didn't pass for you to actually read and thoughtfully respond to that comment.  So compare me to James Baker if you must.  I'm from Michigan, I have friends and family there.  I stand by what I wrote.  Self-serving politicians can whine and cry about rules, about suffrage, etc.  I don't believe for one minute that it will matter in the GE in the end.  The talking points here will be used no matter what, you could see it coming back when they made the foolish decision to strip the delegates, and when names were removed, etc.    

    Parent
    Politics (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:37:31 PM EST
    Obama will be the nominee no matter what. Do you GET THAT yet?

    He needs to get on the RIGHT SIDE of the politics on this.

    You are just writing gibberish. Seriously, it is all gibberish.

    I have argued the merits of the "legal" positions on this and frankly you do a very poor job of presenting the case anyway.

    I am past that.

    COUNT THE VOTES!

    Argue against that in an effective political way.

    I think your "reasoned argument" specious and I have made the learned argument for why that is so for months. I will not do it again for you here.

    Believe it or not, this issue has been on MY FRONT BURNER for 3 months now. You just found out about it. Catch up and then get back to me.

    Parent

    Insulting me... (none / 0) (#224)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:04:20 PM EST
    ...won't make your comments any more noble, my "learned" friend.  You know as well as I do that Michigan, particularly, was a tangled mess.  You're the one on conference calls with a political candidate.  I may advertise my support, but I am certainly not on their paid team.  Nor am I being instructed on how to respond by anyone.

     Your "legal" (or is it political?) arguments would be strengthened if you acknowledged that you were discussing a political party.  You're not doing so.  Your invocation of Democratic Party norms is similar to what I would expect from hyperleftists.  

     I await the two-minute response, but seriously, why do you think that I, of all people, am your enemy? Because of Kos? Hell I registered on this site before wandering into that hyperparitsan sphere.  

     And three months isn't very long, "my friend."  Indeed, maybe a month too late to express concern without it being deemed cynical.

     A noise machine is not discourse.

    Parent

    you had better belive it will matter in the ge. (none / 0) (#202)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:52:32 PM EST
    those bitter disenfranchised voters are american idol voters. they have long memories and don't take kindly to people saying "lateda you are so not important."

    Parent
    You're comparing... (none / 0) (#251)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:23:19 PM EST
    ...participation in a political process to texting the next winner of American Idol?

     And you're not an Obama supporter?

     Okay, the last line was sarcasm. But seriously, I hope your comment was as well.  

    Parent

    You make the argument for Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:25:38 PM EST
    "States that don't matter" is a blog meme for the infinitesimal  and irrelevant Creative Class. If Obama has to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan to be nominated, he will have been the one who allowed states not to matter.

    The rest of what you write is fluffy nothingness.

    Parent

    you are not listening (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by bjorn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:26:26 PM EST
    this is not about Clinton or Obama, it is about us, the voters.  I don't care who wins, just count the votes.

    Parent
    Alec (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by themomcat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:28:39 PM EST
    what don't you get? COUNT THE VOTES.

    Parent
    You mean like (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by echinopsia on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:32:18 PM EST
    her general election campaign will be plagued by the "states that don't matter, voters that don't matter" meme.

    You mean like Florida and Michigan? Non-black working class voters? Appalachia? WV and KY?

    The states and voters that don't matter to Obama?

    (And there are a hell of a lot more of them than "don't matter" to Clinton, BTW)

    How will this not plague his GE campaign?

    Parent

    You are against the voters (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:29:46 PM EST
    of Florida and Michigan.

    Nice play to be politically . . . NOt.

    I'm curious (none / 0) (#130)
    by phat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:31:22 PM EST
    I don't know, but what were the reactions from the press when Nixon was pardoned "for the good of the nation"?

    I suspect they were similar reactions.

    Why don't they want anybody to fight for something?

    oh if you want to fight for them by giving them (none / 0) (#145)
    by hellothere on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:34:39 PM EST
    your money, that's ok. also don't give any money to anything or anyone else unless the obama campaign approves. your mortgage and car note  are very iffy!

    Parent
    I hope Obama musters the courage (none / 0) (#132)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:32:14 PM EST
    To say that in such forceful language.

    It's only the truth, afterall.  And the man speaks the truth!

    Heh (none / 0) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:32:50 PM EST
    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:36:39 PM EST
    While what's going on here is at least somewhat apparent, I'm probably not being as sarcastic as one would hope.

    Probably my bad.

    I actually do hope he says that.

    I know he wont.  He'll vote "present" on this too!


    Parent

    The voters should matter more to you (none / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:38:52 PM EST
    but of course the rules were violated by the DNc but I will NOt rehash the nonsensical BS that you folks bring. You see we have discussed this issue for MONTHS. You do not know what you are talking about. At all.

    Big Tent Democrat, (none / 0) (#169)
    by ricky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:41:19 PM EST
    Could you help educate me (I'm apparently willfully ignorant, and a fool) about when Senator Clinton started disputing the DNC ruling? My impression was that she started in January, when her candidacy began to look uncertain.

    Google "red herring." (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:42:45 PM EST
    You are in top form tonight. (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:44:52 PM EST
    Now about the "a little light in the loafers" comment.  Is that an old Southern colloquialism?

    Parent
    Yes, It's true (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:44:15 PM EST
    The votes became more important when it became more apparent that they might represent a margin of victory.

    Now.  About butterfly ballots in California?

    Parent

    Practically speaking (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:51:35 PM EST
    When she kept her name on the Michigan ballot in October 2007. Obama tried to game the system and organized an "additional commitment" to the 4 State pledge to not campaign in FL and MI. You see, Obama tried to get Clinton and others to agree to not have MI and FL count. they refused to  agree to his Iowa pander. And he used it against Clinton in Iowa. Yes, St. Barack Obama pandered.

    Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel refused to play Obama's Iowa pander game and kept their names on the ballot. Indeed, on January 2, 2008, one Markos Moulitsas highly praised Clinton for this stance, stating that "of course MI and FL would count."

    Then again on January 15, she stated that MI would count after she won the MI primary. On January 25, she sent out a release saying so. On January 29, she went to FL and stated in clear terms FL and MI would count.

    BTW, Barack Obama went to Florida and said "of course the FL delegates would be seated."

    But you do not know any of this do you? Because St. Barack Obama would NEVER EVER pander.

    Do you see why I now call you foolish, ignorant and full of gibberish? I hope that helps you understand why I have no patience for you.

    Parent

    But she promised (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by Prabhata on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:17:56 PM EST
    Oh, that's what she promised.  She promised the votes would count.  Darn it.

    Parent
    That's very helpful, (none / 0) (#209)
    by ricky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:55:28 PM EST
    but I don't see why you call me those adjectives, even if you have more information on the subject. First of all, I don't think Obama is a saint, and I'm more than happy to talk about his flaws. Secondly, why did Clinton issue a statement saying that of course Michigan wouldn't count - I saw this on Meet the Press. Is that inaccurate?

    Parent
    She said it in a NH radio show (none / 0) (#232)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:07:43 PM EST
    in a blatant pander.

    Just as Obama pandered in Florida.

    Are you shocked that pols pander? You see, nowhere in my argument do you see me say Obama AGREED Florida would count.

    Cuz his pander was not an argument.

    Parent

    Again, (none / 0) (#250)
    by ricky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:23:17 PM EST
    I am aware of many instances in which Senator Obama has pandered and has been inconsistent. You can try to paint me as naive, but I don't know that this serves your argument.

    Perhaps you understand that this is all politics, but many of the posters here and elsewhere feel like Clinton is fighting some kind of a moral battle for the voters. This situation would not be getting this kind of widespread attention presently, if it wasn't a politically convenient argument for her to make.

    I do agree that the easiest thing for Obama to do at this point is to seat the delegates. However, to seat them as is would also undercut the DNC's authority, as Terry McAuliffe himself pointed out during his tenure as DNC chairman.

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#236)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:09:46 PM EST
    ...Kucinich didn't try to remove his name from the ballot.  They were all above it all.  Right.

     Plenty of people were pandering.

    Parent

    Legitimacy (none / 0) (#186)
    by zebedee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:46:38 PM EST
    Did the elections take place or were they canceled because they were pointless? Did people vote? 2.3m did, presumably people don't waste their time if it was illegitimate.

    "Everyone knew that MI and FL primaries did not count". Who siad they didn't count? Because of the delegates? It's now clear they have counted otherwise we wouldn't be having these discussions. Seems like a lot of people have been swallowing the Obama campaign's position of the pledged delegates as the determining factor. The superdelegates are equally part of the process and of course the popular vote was always going to be relevant if no candidate could clinch it just from pledged delegate superiority. So the FL/MI voters have always had a way of influencing the outcome through their vote.

    Of course, if some voters did not feel strongly enough to make their voices heard in these circumstances, that's not a reason to suppress the votes of those that did.

    So there's nothing illegitimate about the election and they will definitely be featured in popular vote calculations. The issue is about treating the FL/MI voters as second-class citizens by not allowing them to also count in delegate calculations

    even if they seat the entire delegation, it won't (none / 0) (#201)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:52:24 PM EST
    change the result.  Read Al Giordano on that: http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1246

    It looks like no matter what, Obama's numbers are safe.

    Exactly why Obama shouldbe fighting for it (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:54:09 PM EST
    It costs him NOTHING.

    I have been making this point forever.

    Be politically smart for once people of Obama.

    Parent

    I think what Axelrod telegraphed (none / 0) (#221)
    by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:01:42 PM EST
    today is at least an olive branch....I kind of doubt, just from what I've been reading, that they'll seat the entire delegation, but they need to be seated in some way and I don't think Obama supporters should be afraid of it.

    Parent
    Nightmare scenario (none / 0) (#211)
    by zebedee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:55:52 PM EST
    What I haven't seen discussed enough is this. If FL/MI are not fully counted and Obama wins the nomination but Hillary would have won with FL/MI then we have a nightmare. No way Hillary's supporters (or most of FL and MI) would go along with this and dutifully vote for Obama in GE.

    It could be argued that if FL/MI stand and Hillary only wins because of them that Obama's supporters (voters and the media) would be equally aggrieved. However, I don't think it's the same if someone loses because all votes are counted versus losing because votes are excluded.

    We'll (5.00 / 2) (#265)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:35:24 PM EST
    never know what truly would have happened if Dean and the DNC hadn't blown the whole MI/FL thing in the first place.

    If they'd ruled that half the delegates should be seated -- in the first place -- then Hillary might have gotten the momentum and won the whole thing handily.

    Because we'll never know one way or another about that, this election will always be tainted.  There will always be the feeling from Hillary supporters that the scale was tilted toward Obama from the start.

    It really is too late to change that narrative, as far as I'm concerned.  A revote may have helped if it had happened when it was discussed, but Obama said h*ll no.

    Counting the votes is an honorable thing, but if you can't dial the clock back to the primaries themselves with half delegates  and all votes counted -- or at least to a new primary in February -- then the count is meaningless.

    I still agree the votes should be counted.  Regardless, Florida and possibly Michigan will have an Obama problem (see DailyKOS Appalachia) this election.

    Parent

    When (none / 0) (#222)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:03:26 PM EST
    Will Obama stand up for the truth??!????!!!

    perfect, but many others are debating whether she is really the lesser of two evils against McCain.