home

Obama Blog "Shocked" That Politics Is Being Practiced

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:01:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Can people get more silly than this?

The evidence is simply overwhelming that Sen. Clinton didn't think [Florida and Michigan] was a problem at all -- until it became a vehicle to provide a rationale for her continued campaign. [This is obviously false by the way. she was using this politically since the beginning of January. Ask Markos.]

Now, that's politics. One day you're on one side of an issue, the next you're on the other, all depending on the tactical necessities of the moment. But that's not what Clinton is doing. She's elevating it to a level of principle . . .

More...

Oh for crissakes, did Josh Marshall just fall of the political turnip truck? That is politics. No one ever says "yeah I am doing this for political advantage." They ALWAYS say it is about principle. Remember Obama's important principle about decrying outside expenditures, until they were for him? Could Josh Marshall possibly be sillier than he is in this post? My gawd. Oh, one last thing. Josh writes:

What she's doing is not securing her the nomination. Rather, she's gunning up a lot of her supporters to believe that the nomination was stolen from her -- a belief many won't soon abandon. And that on the basis of rationales and arguments there's every reason to think she doesn't even believe in.

Oh really? Now here's a question for the ingenue Josh Marshall, why doesn't Obama just agree to seat the delegates and remove this problem?

There is nothing I detest more than people like Josh Marshall pretending to be shocked that politicians are practicing politics. Frankly, it is he who is engaged in false outrage. It is he who is being disingenuous. But he is not a politician and has no excuse for this nonsense.

Shame on you Josh Marshall. Your integrity is long gone.

Speaking for me only

< Electability VA Style | The Rules Are the Rules, Except When They Are Not >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Blog "Shocked" That Politics Is Being Practiced | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Broder has to go sometime (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:04:35 PM EST
    And Josh will be happy, nay proud, to slip behind his desk. 'Twas ever thus.

    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:11:19 PM EST


    Parent
    He replaced integrity with faux whining (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    and whimpering and bawling and brawling.  If he wants me to take him solidly at his word for the past six months I have to conclude that he has an emtional intelligence quotient of 70.

    HAHA (none / 0) (#24)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:14:43 PM EST
    I was really shocked when I took an online EQ test and it showed i'm nearly a "genius" in that category---that is certainly not how I would evaluate myself. Who knows, maybe JMM is one too!

    Parent
    JMM is not one (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:19:00 PM EST
    Your score on the other hand makes complete sense.

    Parent
    not to be mean (none / 0) (#119)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:36:14 PM EST
    But I have a suspicious that online EQ and IQ tests are designed intentionally to rate high.

    Of course, I am sure your EQ is very high, and surely will approach 'genius' level if blogsphere was the population pool.  

    Parent

    A consistent pattern of behavior for most (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:07:10 PM EST
    all successful politicians.  Then there was Wellstone and we can't even find a replacement for him.

    "Seat the delegates" (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by jcsf on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:08:02 PM EST
    requires two people to agree on a plan.  

    Basically, on May 31st, the delegates will be seated.  So your "answer" so to speak, is happening.

    But this doesn't address the Marshall post, and doesn't address my upset from yesterday - but really only papers over it.

    As far as "this is politics", even in politics, there are acceptable and unacceptable lines of cynicism/political opportunism.  Marshall's suggestion, and I agree with it, to compare her "principle" here, with the Florida 2000 debacle, or suffragists, or the other comparisons, is simply ludicrous on it's face, and disrespectful.

    Obama Was Being An Opportunist When He (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:46:07 PM EST
    took his name off the MI ballot and persuaded others to join him. Obama was being an opportunist when he refused to get behind a revote that could have settled the matter. Obama was an opportunist when he has indicated that seating FL and MI based on the primary results would be the equivalent of "stealing the election."

    Had the situation been reversed, Obama would be doing exactly what Clinton is doing now and Clinton would be taking Obama's position. Anyone who believes otherwise is at best politically naive.

     

    Parent

    Dates don't favor "opportunism." (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by wurman on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:12:24 PM EST
    If Sen. Clinton held a position in Oct 2007 that she "champions" today concerning primaries that had not yet occurred, then how is that any form of opportunism at all?  It may look like actual "principles."

    Washington Post (link): The Associated Press
    Thursday, October 11, 2007; 4:21 PM

    CONCORD, N.H. -- Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said it would be foolish to take her name off Michigan's primary ballot and sacrifice her chances against the Republican nominee.

    As the only top tier Democrat remaining on Michigan ballot, Clinton is all but guaranteed to win the state's primary. Michigan is tentatively slated to send 156 delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, but national party officials have threatened to take away those delegates if the state persists in holding its primary on Jan. 15.

    Clinton was prompted by a caller who said, "It strikes me that this is politics as usual, where politicians say one thing and do something else."

    Clinton brushed aside the comment.

    "I did not believe it was fair to just say, 'Goodbye Michigan' and not take into account the fact we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009," she said.

    Cynicism by pundits & observors is OK, but it should at least be based on whether the acts of political opportunism took place.  Oh well, if you can compare elections in Zimbabwe with FL & MI, then it's easy to attribute some form of prescient, crystal-ball, futuristic political opportunism on the part of Sen. Clinton by foreseeing a May 31, 2008 problem back in October 2007. Hates 'em some Clinton, they does, gollum!

    C'mon.  Subscribe to a paper, acquire some facts, be a "high information" blogger.

    Say, didn't Marshall work at a paper?

    Parent

    Pffft (3.40 / 5) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:09:52 PM EST
    You are full of it. Utterly full of it.

    Parent
    That is why everything I've been saying happens? (none / 0) (#25)
    by jcsf on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:14:47 PM EST
    Like -

    "the math will hold".
    "superdelegates will choose Obama".
    "the dual ticket seems like a good idea".
    "counting votes won't translate to giving Obama zero delegates for Michigan".

    While the third of those is yet to be decided - and I still view favorably - for some reason you can't engage on fact, or perhaps, really, you can't see what I'm saying.

    so - "full of it".  What do you disagree with?

    a. That some things for politicians ARE out of bounds?
    b. That Clinton's comparison of the current situation, to those past situations is out of bounds?

    I'm VERY comfortable with my reality-based comments - they seem to keep coming true.

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:16:06 PM EST
    I was referring to your  comment.

    but do tell us. will Obama win Florida?

    Parent

    If you would, stay on topic (4.66 / 3) (#46)
    by jcsf on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    In this case, it seems:

    a. You grant that Clinton is being opportunistic.  So in that sense, you AGREE with Josh Marshall.  Your only objection is that "all politicians do it".

    My retort is that, no, there are limits to political cynicism.  And I observe that, for me, this crossed a limit, for very "reality-based" reasons.  This from the Great Orange Satan explains why the boundary was crossed.

    So - do you agree/disagree, that there should be limits to political cynicism, in politicians?  For example, politicians should not be free to lie to get America into foreign wars, as a start.

    Parent

    There are limits to credulity (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:23:07 PM EST
    Expressing shock that a candidate would want to win an election by having the votes counted crosses that barrier.

    Parent
    This isn't the question though (none / 0) (#65)
    by jcsf on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:29:05 PM EST
    It's not "the votes count" - the votes do count - it's how those votes counting - and the way they were counted - translate into delegates.  

    Votes were counted - if badly, for FL and MI (and much worse for MI).  

    But we aren't worried about those votes - I can say right now, those votes are counted.  

    Are you happy?

    It's what those votes mean, in regards to the rules of the nomination process, in terms of the delegate count.  

    Parent

    Excuse me, but that's a silly argument (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by tree on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:47:39 PM EST
    The votes were "counted" to a fair-thee-well in Florida in 2000. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that the correct tally of those votes didn't mean anything(i.e., "count") in regards to who became President of the United States. The situation is the same with the FL and MI primaries today.

    What is important is not just that the votes be enumerated, but that they have merit, value or worth to the process. You are confusing the two separate meanings of "count" to make a sophist's point.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#96)
    by jcsf on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:58:05 PM EST
    How shoudl they have merit, in this case?  

    They only have merit, when they are translated to delegates.

    So the translation to DELEGATES is the key.  And the awarding of delegates, is something decided by the rules of the process, if you want to get down to brass tacks.

    However, the moral argument is that we want the translation of votes into delegates to be FAIR.  

    Parent

    So you are moving the goalposts then. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by tree on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:37:55 PM EST
    It ISN'T crossing some moral line to advocate for counting the votes(i.e. giving them value in the nomination process.) You are conceding this point. You are now making a different point that the value they are given must be "fair".  Why didn't you say this in the first place instead of leading us through your silly sophist's argument about the meaning of "count"? Are you now going to lead us through a specious and tedious argument about what "fair" means? Mild weather, light skin, an agricultural exhibition?

       Aren't you just into chattering for chattering's sake?

    Parent

    FWIW, my objection (none / 0) (#108)
    by jcsf on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:55:54 PM EST
    is not to counting votes.  This is a misreading of why I (and others such as Josh Marshall and Kos) were upset.  

    It's the comparison to suffrage.  The comparison to Florida 2000.  It's the presentation, without CONTEXT, of what the FL and MI options are.  

    For the most part, it seems that Clinton wants the votes seated "as is", for the delegates of MI and FL.  And she conflates that option - and ONLY that option - as the "right" way.  And if another way to choose those delegates is done, then the other way is SIMILAR to suffrage, Florida 2000.

    And that is simply not true.  Obviously not true.

    Parent

    One of the diumbest posts Kos has (3.66 / 3) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    ever written.

    you do not believe it is good either. you really do not.

    If Obama were in that position you would be praising his principles. Neither you, nor Marshall nor any of you fool me.

    A bunch of schmoes you must think us.

    Parent

    Is that right? (none / 0) (#88)
    by jcsf on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    I'm actually really interested in your thinking here.  

    It seems to me that Kos there, is taking Hilary to task, for her political opportunism, and for making the "fight" to seat FL and MI, analogous to deep injustices of the past.  

    When, in the "reality-based" world, I, he, Josh Marshall, etc - view that comparison as too ludicrous for words.

    Here's the thing - you get in condemnation mode dudgeon about Josh Marshall, Kos, being condemning of this particular tack about Clinton, because (I assume) "all politicians are cynical/opportunistic".  

    But it is clear that there are some baseline values that a politician should follow - and shouldn't be violating.  Now - where is the line between the "ordinary" opportunism, and the "extra" that deposits that into obvious dishonesty, and a cynicism that we, ideally want to avoid?

    I don't know.  I can only say what seems obvious to me.  Clearly, some on this board see things differently.  

    At any rate, back to the question - what is "too much" political opportunism?  Is condemning McCain then, for some of his obvious political pandering, off the board for you, because "all politicals are opportunists?"

    Parent

    So you're objecting to her rhetoric? (none / 0) (#117)
    by kempis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:12:51 PM EST
    She made over-the-top comparisons? Fine. Speaking only for myself, I'll concede that.

    However, let's not pretend that your preferred candidate is too pure to overreach rhetorically himself. After, he himself repeated an old Rove line of attack on Hillary back in the late fall: "she'll do anything to win." He was a downright "concern troll" in January, wondering aloud if his voters would support Hillary while feeling sure hers would support him. And his equating Edwards' union support in Iowa with "special interests" was pretty extraordinary; I never thought I'd see a Democrat attack another for having union support--or trump up accusations of racism.

    Hillary supporters, who, according to you, do not dwell in reality, seem far better able to cope with the reality that our candidate will play politics--and do a fine job of it--than you folks in the "reality-based community" do. If Obama pretended to pull a quarter from behind your ears, you guys' mouths would be hanging open for weeks....

    And we can nyah-nyah at one another about who is more susceptible to delusions about our candidates, and the problem of what to do about FL and MI is still no closer to resolution.

    It should have been resolved much earlier. The efforts to organize re-votes should have been allowed to proceed, but the Obama camp and the DNC didn't want that. Why, I'm not sure, but I don't think it had anything to do with principles, do you? If so, hey look! A quarter!

    Because FL and MI were not resolved earlier, because Dean and the DNC punted until it's closer to the finish line and they know how much room they have to work with to benefit Obama (on principle, of course), hell yeah Hillary supporters are unhappy. And I tell you what's worse: the voters of Michigan and Florida are unhappy. Two key swing states are being alienated because the Democratic party wants to preserve Obama's lead by the damnable party's rules. When the DNC's byzantine and manipulated rules become more important that the voices (and goodwill) of voters in two key states, something is wrong.

    So now FL and MI are bones over which some very nasty skirmishing is taking place. All of this could have been and should have been resolved earlier. It could have been done with more civility and less uncertainty about fairness and intent.

    Dean and the DNC have gamed the whole thing so they can keep their wagon hitched to their cash cow, Obama. They don't care about winning in November. They know the electoral polls favor Hillary. They just want to boost the democratic brand with young voters--and unfortunately alienate the working-class and older voters. But they'll look smart--until November.

    Parent

    You mean like FDR (none / 0) (#66)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:29:10 PM EST
    in WW II?

    If he hadn't lied, we'd all be speaking German now.

    Or Japanese.

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#69)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    FDR lied?  Was Pearl Harbor an inside job?  I appear to be late to this story.

    Parent
    Wrong ocean. (none / 0) (#100)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:32:52 PM EST
    Not Pearl...although that's how we officially 'got in.'

    Parent
    Kos post doesn't explain anything. (none / 0) (#84)
    by lyzurgyk on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:42:58 PM EST

    The U.S. Presidential process matters just as much as any of those events - maybe more.   Presidents change history.  

    Instead of worrying about protecting your candidate you should be worried about getting the process done right.

    Kos is the cynic.   At best.

    Parent

    Yes, (none / 0) (#114)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    the real problem with Marshall and Kos' argument is precisely that they themselves refuse to go back to basic principles to settle the issue of what should be done, and instead insist on only looking a politician's motives.

    First and foremost, this question has to be asked: should these votes count? Do they rightly reflect the best estimate of the people's will? Should the people's will be the ultimate arbiter in this case?

    But they simply refuse to entertain those principled questions, and give them adequate answer, at the very same time they are decrying the supposed abuse of principles by Hillary. Why do they not even want to entertain those questions? Because the answer to the principled question would imply that Obama, who obviously has been working to deny FL and MI their full and legitimate voice, is on the wrong side of those principles.

    Now this is all just incredibly rich coming from these two, since they themselves simply could not stop themselves from denouncing Hillary over the Nevada caucuses on the very same principles.

    In other words, back at the Nevada caucuses, Marshall and Kos couldn't stop decrying that Hillary was engaged in "voter suppression" and going against the principle of "count every vote", etc., etc. The Obama Blogs in general were all engaged in comparisons to the 2000 election. But now, these same bloggers find the invocation of the same principles in the context of FL and MI simply unforgivable, and the comparison to the 2000 election outrageous.

    Really, the hypocrisy of these Obama bloggers on these principles and how they get applied is so tremendous that it's almost impossible to keep track of all the ways they engage in it. It's actually just pretty disgusting to see what they will do and say to promote their man, and how much integrity and honesty they will throw under the bus.

    Parent

    In other words (none / 0) (#115)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:35:19 PM EST
    what Marshall and Kos and the Obama bloggers are complaining about -- the invocation of the principles of "let all the people vote" one day, while having had a different position another day -- is EXACTLY what they themselves have done, and which Obama has done.

    Obama's campaign ratched up an enormous outcry over the Nevada caucuses, and the "voter suppression" supposedly taking place there. Yet today they do the exact opposite with FL and MI, doing everything they can to make sure that FL and MI are not heard from in a way that reflects the will of the people in those states.

    The hypocrisy is inescapable. But you'd have to be Josh Marshall or Kos to be so blinded by your sense of self-righteousness that it wouldn't even occur to you.

    Parent

    As to whether Obama would win Florida (none / 0) (#52)
    by jcsf on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:24:46 PM EST
    Current polling would indicate no.

    But then again, when talking which candidate does better for the general election, you get into a much bigger discussion about what states are brought into play, with which candidate, you have to have an HONEST discussion about the general decrepit state of the Republicans, AS WELL as a discussion about our favorite bugaboo, the demographics.

    And that's a much broader discussion.

    Parent

    I think I know who kidnapped Josh-- (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:08:36 PM EST
    TINS.

    Nah (4.20 / 5) (#30)
    by standingup on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    Josh lost his integrity, not his mind.  

    Parent
    Same here (none / 0) (#97)
    by standingup on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    This primary has been eye opening and disappointing.  So much for holding politicians and the media accountable.  

    Parent
    Because the noble thing (I guess) (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by katiebird on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    Would be to continue punishing the states beyond all reason?

    Pontificator, don't you think the voters of Florida and Michigan have been punished enough?

    And your candidate (I assume Obama is your candidate)?  He's ready to sacrifice his election to the great cause of Iowa and New Hampshire go first above all others?

    Well, that's cool.  You can believe what you want.  'Cause it doesn't make any sense to me.

    We must punish Florida and Michigan. (4.00 / 4) (#21)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:13:34 PM EST
    They must understand the consequences of defying the Democratic Party even if it means we never again win a presidential election.  Principle is principle.

    Parent
    You want silly? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    The supporters of Barack Obama are now arguing that the popular vote is not the best metric to determine the winner.  If in the Fall, we have a repeat of the 2000 debacle and Obama has more popular votes but fewer electoral votes, I shall be amused to watch the supporters of Barack Obama spin on their heals and demand that they count every vote.  Wouldn't that just be the height of irony!

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:16:36 PM EST
    Let me try to be real here and see who agrees with me.

    MI and FL were always going to be good Clinton states, with FL being one of her best states for demographic reasons.

    At the start of this primary, Clinton knew she would have a tough time in Iowa but would probably wrap it up by Super Tuesday anyway, thanks to a stronger national campaign.

    Accordingly, she had two choices:

    1. Softpedal the MI and FL issue so as not to offend the early states, figuring that once she wrapped up the nomination, the delegates would be seated anyway so no harm, no foul; or

    2. Make a big deal out of MI and FL, which probably wouldn't work, and would simply make it look like she wanted to break the rules for political advantage.

    Accordingly, they chose the path of least resistance.  Obviously things didn't work out quite like they planned.

    Now, personally, I think the decision to refrain from alienating the early states was perfectly reasonable, since that's how every politician acts, and I don't agree with the game of "gotcha" that says "you didn't commit political suicide by complaining earlier, so it's too late now!"  But this is my realistic take on what the Clinton campaign must have been thinking at the time.

    I agree with your assessment (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:07:10 PM EST
    And it does not make her 'cheating' to adjust her strategy based on the changed facts on the ground - that she could not wrap it up on Super Tuesday.  In fact, good for her for thinking ahead. She came out for seating these delegates right after SC, when it was obvious she would need every delegate she could get.

    Parent
    Of course (4.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:18:56 PM EST
    I do not know if I agree with your assessment of the decision but ALL pols act like POLs and it is simply an embarrassment for Josh Marshall to act as if this is something he has never seen.

    Here's an admission, you know Al Gore in the 2000 recount, probably made decision based on trying to wion, not always based on his principles.

    I think I detest Josh Marshall as much as any blogger right now because he is so freaking dishonest.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:25:47 PM EST
    I just know that it's always an ironclad estoppel argument on one side and W.O.R.M. on the other.

    The notion that Obama has the nomination still wrapped up, but it's critical to win the MI/FL argument for the sake of "principle" no matter what it means in the GE, is just incredible to behold.

    Parent

    I don't detest him (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Coral on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:27:02 PM EST
    but his credibility on other stories has been damaged. His work on the attorney generals scandals was superb. But I would be slower to accept similar reporting/opinion in the future because of the disingenuous way he has been spinning the primary process.

    Parent
    Exactly. His fall is particularly unfortunate (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:31:55 PM EST
    because he has far and away been the best REPORTER who blogs.

    Parent
    Stealing the nomination? (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:16:44 PM EST
    Isn't that what Obama and his supporters have been screaming for months? I guess when the tables are turned on you and you get a dose of your own medicine the answer is to whine.

    Amen. BTD. Amen. (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by bslev22 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:18:14 PM EST
    I am still dealing with the fact that I have had a posting home at TPM for a very long time now. It really is disheartening to see what has happened to Josh, his constant ridicule, or concern trolling about what happened to the Clintons, or his disingenuous faux tears about a politician being political.  I need some kind of treatment center that will wean me of my habit of posting there already.

    Umm, isn't whining about politics... (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by sarissa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:22:42 PM EST
    ...politics as well?

    And the whining about the whining about politics too?

    Not to mention my own whining about the whining about the whining about politics, lol.

    They key is perfecting the whine that creates the (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:25:16 PM EST
    win.  And when the race goes on there must be lots of whining to get to all that winning.

    Parent
    Meta-whining n/t (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by dianem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:25:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Sometimes politics and principle overlap (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by dianem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:25:02 PM EST
    It simply makes sense to seat FL and MI. We stand to lose one and possibly two of the larger states in the general if we don't. Any way you look at it, Clinton is on the side of the angels here.

    Where politics and principle overlap (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:26:07 PM EST
    that is where I want to find myself standing!

    Parent
    What Are They Afraid Of? (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by HenryFTP on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:25:25 PM EST
    Maybe I am fuzzy on the math, but even if the Obama camp "capitulated" on seating the Florida and Michigan delegations in full, Clinton would still have to persuade a fairly daunting number of superdelegates to get her over the top.

    Sure it made tactical sense to hold back on this issue until North Carolina and Oregon came through. But he got that done, and he's got the Party Establishment leaning his way.

    If I am correct, it makes absolutely no sense for the Obama camp to be doing anything other than arguing for full seating of the delegations, with some sort of clipping of the superdelegates as a sop to all the people yelling about the "Rules". It seems to me it sure would take a lot of the wind out of the sails of Hillary's popular vote arguments with the superdelegates.

    Can someone please explain how this would hurt Obama's candidacy?

    It Wouldn't And It Is Counterproductive (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:54:20 PM EST
    for Obama to do anything else at this point. That is why BTD has been screaming about this issue. He believes that Obama has a rap on the nomination and he is hurting his GE chances by not seating FL and MI according to the original primary giving Obama the uncommitted delegates.

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:03:00 PM EST
    I've been asking this for months, albiet not as well as you just did.  He has nothing to lose and everything to gain, so just do it and get it over with.

    Parent
    Polititions being politicians??? Nooo way... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:27:34 PM EST
    This stuff is rediculous.  OF COURSE they are doing it for political reasons.  That doesn't mean they are wrong.  Frankly, that's how I feel about a lot of stuff people hate Obama for.  Voting against Roberts, political, speech against the war, political.  WHO CARES.  Sometimes being politically correct is also being correct, and that's a good thing.  Only call them out when they are doing the political thing for a bad cause.  Like trying to block seating Florida...

    Sunday May 25th on HBO (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:39:56 PM EST
    ReCount - The Story of the 2000 Presidential Election
    Will anyone keep tabs of how many Bush talking points the Obama supporters will be echoing on May 31?

    and I suppose... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by rise hillary rise on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:03:29 PM EST
    the the person who kidnapped Josh doesn't think it's "playing politics" when his candidate games the primary/caucus system to get a delegate advantage that does not accurately reflect the corresponding population numbers? hmmmm.

    as the saying goes politics is all about whose ox is being gored. Count me as one of the Hillary supporters who is skeptical of Obama's claim to the nomination outright. He has proven that he is a master politician. however, the quality I want in the next President is someone who can govern. and that deal hasn't been closed-not by a mile.

    Like I said in the other thread (4.20 / 5) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:04:41 PM EST
    Ph.D. from Princeton and this is what he's able to come up with.

    Invasion of the tapioca brains.

    Another educational value of this campaign (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:10:40 PM EST
    It crystalized how over-rated the degrees from ivy league institutions are.

    Parent
    It's simply that politics is absurdly (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:11:47 PM EST
    arbitrary. Being smart doesn't help a great deal---you have to have the right instincts, IMO.

    Parent
    Absurdly Arbitrary! (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:17:47 PM EST
    I have struggled to define about half of my current American experience of late.  It has vexed my soul to be unable to sum it up into words.  I'm sleeping like a baby tonight.  Thanks!

    Parent
    Politics is an art form... (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:19:12 PM EST
    not a science...hence the issue with 'who's smart and who isn't.'  Just as silly as talking about Jesuits who 'believe in...you know...'

    Which brings up the creative class, I suppose.

    Hmmm.....

    Parent

    and (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:25:51 PM EST
    his education seems elitist.

    Parent
    I can't stand talking with the (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:31:03 PM EST
    educated people I meet who exhibit sneering disdain for the less educated, less fortunate people in this country, as if their opinions should count for nothing in charting the course for this country.
    I do not think people are not smart because they are not educated, although I think they are disadvantaged. They are certainly smart enough to decide for themselves where their interests lie.


    Parent
    Right on, MarkL. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:36:10 PM EST
    They can't afford to take big risks with candidates who want them to 'hope' or ...dream...or...believe.

    They need to know somebody gives a damn about where their next meal might be coming from.

    Parent

    Or a candidate who is honest about the (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:37:03 PM EST
    risks entailed in his big vision.

    Parent
    An extremely fine art I'm beginning to understand (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:23:19 PM EST
    I'm glad I'm getting this at 42, I don't want to have to "get it" when I'm older.  I probably wouldn't survive it :)

    Parent
    Not only that... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:21:17 PM EST
    but being smart doesn't mean you have intellectual integrity nor does it mean you value logic.

    Parent
    That's the thing, Dr. Molly, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:38:56 PM EST
    about politics "you can believe in!"

    Belief is the antithesis of logic.  That's why they call it 'a leap of faith.'

    Parent

    Ph. D from Brown in early (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:10:44 PM EST
    Americal (colonial) history.
    He knows that stuff very well.
    If he were a Ph.d in math he would have more credibility with me.


    Parent
    I stand corrected (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:14:00 PM EST
    Just as bad.

    And BTW, his error is not in math, it's in logic.

    Parent

    Are you saying "map not math"? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:15:55 PM EST
    heh.
    No, I only say math because he would be part of MY crowd if he had one in math, and therefore I would consider him brilliant!

    Parent
    No, I'm saying (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:20:08 PM EST
    Explain why what Hillary's team believed last year is relevant to whether or not the votes should be honored.

    Parent
    me, too, Mark (none / 0) (#95)
    by Lisa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:57:39 PM EST
    and as we math folks know, math is much more than numbers (and math is logical)

    btw, don't you hate the expression "do the math" - as if we put in all those years learning how to count. :-)

    Parent

    Personally, (none / 0) (#106)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:44:18 PM EST
    I think this is a calculus problem that is beyond its limits.

    Parent
    Perhaps if we put him in a time machine and sent (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:14:36 PM EST
    him back, something worthwhile could come of all that money spent in the college book store :)

    Parent
    Josh Marshall (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:00:26 PM EST
    living proof that our intellectual elite is neither.

    Parent
    At Princeton maybe they taught him (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:00:57 PM EST
    that politicians really believe Iowans and New Hampshirites are the very earthly incarnation of the most discerning and astute democratic ideal.  

    Of course they don't, but they sure act that like they do every 4th December. Because they are politicans.

    Obviously if this race were a runaway in either direction, Hillary might not care about FL and MI.  And, by the way, Obama would never have set foot in Oregon.

    This is how the game is played.  The pricipled position happens to benefit Hillary this time around. Get over it, Josh.

    Parent

    Ph.D. in what? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:07:51 PM EST


    Parent
    American History IIRC (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:09:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Interesting, thanks (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:10:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh, the worlds smallest violin (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:10:53 PM EST
    Oops......that was what my family wanted me to do only a larger violin.

    Parent
    PHD In Revisionist History (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:56:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Josh got his undergrad from Princeton (none / 0) (#67)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:29:34 PM EST
    but his Ph.D. in American history is from Brown University

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:31:27 PM EST
    Others have pointed that out as well.

    My point stands.

    Parent

    As a historian, I'd be embarassed (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:38:14 PM EST
    but that his area was American history when it still was British and under a monarchy could explain it.  He must like coronations by divine rule.

    Wonder if he ever got as far as reading the Constitution?

    Parent

    Take it to the convention, Hillary. (4.00 / 1) (#74)
    by lyzurgyk on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:35:45 PM EST

    Do the roll call there - with Michigan and Florida and all the superdelegates.  

    Winner gets my vote in November.

    ahem... (none / 0) (#82)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:41:10 PM EST
    Rise Hillary! Arise!!!

    Link

    Parent

    Toot Toot (3.66 / 3) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:14:47 PM EST
    Some of us saw this coming.

    Who here is shocked, shocked I tell you to find out that Josh Marshall is an idiot?

    Not an idiot (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:15:16 PM EST
    Just disinegenuous.

    Parent
    Well, I am certain he and the other (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:17:33 PM EST
    big kids are really shocked at how tenacious Hillary has been. She's amazed everyone, IMO.
    They are understandably bitter, since they thought Obama had it wrapped up months ago.
    Heck, soon they may be bitter enough to be Hillary supporters.

    Parent
    Just say it (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    You are by far the superior, supporting Obama in a state of full reality, Democratic, political pundit ;)

    Parent
    That means (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:17:10 PM EST
    He thinks I'm an idiot.

    So I don't feel that bad.


    Parent

    He has an audience (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:19:48 PM EST
    that like s to pretend they are outraged at the politics going on.

    Parent
    You don't want to know (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:23:18 PM EST
    If you have to pretend to be something for the sake of an audience what does that say about the audience?

    Parent
    I am certain that Marshall is (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:36:15 PM EST
    going to be much more annoyed if people routinely call him an "Obama blogger" than "idiot".

    Parent
    Bingo! (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:44:48 PM EST


    Parent
    I suppose (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:46:14 PM EST
    It does give him the oppotunity to dismiss the accusation in totality.  I understand that.

    One can either attack someone's reputation or attack someone's smarts or lack thereof.

    Obama isn't a liar.  I don't distrust him.  I think he's incompetent and not ready.

    I think he CAN be ready one day.

    If you tear down Marshall as a hypocritical lying disingenuous bafoon then he'll always be that way.  You attack his reputation.  It's over, why should I EVER trust anything he says?

    I fully concede the possibility that Marshall will take the time one day to read up on some stuff and stop being such an idiot.

    I think I just choose, I TRY, in most cases to attack people differently.

    I mean if I didn't I would say that I think that Josh Marshall is motivated strictly by self-interest, that he doesn't even believe in Obama himself and is just trying to drive up hits on his site.

    He's Willy Loman or an idiot.  You decide.


    Parent

    The problem is that he is no idiot. (none / 0) (#39)
    by bslev22 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:18:59 PM EST
    eom

    Parent
    What I said above (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:22:29 PM EST
    The problem is he thinks his readers are or he's telling what he thinks is the truth.

    In the end, does it really matter to ask "Does he really mean it?"

    I feel entitled to believe he really believes what he's saying.


    Parent

    Idiot? (none / 0) (#43)
    by skinmachine2000 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:20:04 PM EST
    really, an idiot.  Rove must be proud.

    Parent
    If imitation is a form of flattery (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    Josh is an unwilling participant in the turdblossom's ego, yes.


    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:51:58 PM EST
    Like I said, the signs were there prior to this latest development.

    Every time I hung out there, it stunk of the DailyKos narrative with a poseur psuedo-journalist style.

    They have evolved into exactly what I knew they would evolve into.


    Parent

    perfect description! (none / 0) (#105)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    "it stunk of the DailyKos narrative with a poseur psuedo-journalist style"

    _____

    Yes, it reeks of very hipsterish.

    Also, there must be something irresistibly seductive  about going along with the rest of the media. Because, at first, there were some more objective holdouts amongst the Obama media blackout, but one by one, they capitulated and joined the mainstream.

    Parent

    I can barely stomach all the unity. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Marco21 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:15:20 PM EST
    More creative classiness from the creative class.

    Hillary has said time and time again she will support the nominee of the party.

    Now we're to believe the diabolical one will be selling the idea that the nomination was stolen from her. We, her stupid hilljack supporters, will believe it.

    Screw unity (none / 0) (#107)
    by jondee on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:44:31 PM EST
    The last 8 years have been arguably the worst methodically engineered train wreck perpetrated by one administration in American history, which, in classical "redoubling the effort" fanatical fashion is a course likely to be continued more-or-less by a McCain administration (if anyone has info to the contrary, lets see it), yet many here sound like they're more worried about Obama posssibly nominating Bloods and Crips to cabinet posts. Count me amomg the "anything but" folk willing to go with anything other than a facsimile
    of the dangerous lunatics that took over 8 years ago.

    McCain fear? You're effing right. And neocon fear;
    messianist fear; end-timer fear; neanderthal science fear; theiving military contractor fear and on and on.

    Parent

    Bad Taste (none / 0) (#60)
    by skinmachine2000 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:26:02 PM EST
    Yes, its just politics being played.  But the bad taste comes from DNC Committee member Ickes voting to sanction Fla and Mich in this way and Hillary publicly agreeing as well.  Now the tune is changed, and with over the top rhetoric to boot.  
    We need to focus on defeating McSame.  Penn lost the nomination of Hillary.  Let's get on the same team again and focus on November.

    Gasp.... (none / 0) (#62)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:26:19 PM EST


    Josh Marshall is an "Obama Blogger". (none / 0) (#120)
    by AX10 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:19:45 PM EST
    It is a fair implacation, by the way in which he acts.  Marshall cannot claim objectivity when he has constantly been harping on Clinton while speaking of Obama in such a high manner.

    I used to be a fan (none / 0) (#121)
    by dell on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:29:48 PM EST
    ..of yours, BTD, back in your days on the Clark blog.  Now, not so much; the quality of your advocacy has noticeably and sharply deteriorated.

    Throwing your elbows around and addressing others in a dismissive way, as you used to do, is one thing; but repeated ad hominem attacks--as you've been doing here all the way up, all day--are just cheap.

    Dell

    Obama Blog "Shocked" That Politics Is Being Practiced | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment