home

Situational Ethics

Markos writes today:

Clinton's (and her supporters') situational ethics

. . . . Remember, Clinton supported the Michigan and Florida sanctions when she thought she'd coast to the nomination. . . . [T]he most infuriating part of this campaign is Clinton's lack of intellectual honesty. The shifting rationales. The constantly moving goal posts. The disrespect for rules and the intelligence of the public. It's rank dishonesty and purposefully flawed readings of history.

Here is some history. Kos on Clinton and Michigan in January 2008 [More...]

Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

Speaking for me only.

comments closed

< Hillary's 11 Page Memo To Superdelegates | The Famous DNC "Waivers" For the 4 Early States >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Someone who supports a guy with Obama's (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:03:05 PM EST
    history on ... let's say Lobyists... shouldn't be talking about situational ethics.

    I was personally insulted by that post (5.00 / 13) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:04:21 PM EST
    There are reasons that I do not comment at Daily Kos anymore, and this encapsulates many of them.

    Why Be Insulted? (5.00 / 15) (#36)
    by talex on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:22:20 PM EST
    A person has to have stature in order for them to be insulting. Markos is a political flyweight. He has very few original ideas and most of what he posts can be found elsewhere on earlier postings at other blogs. In other words he is a good copy machine not to mention a hypocrite and self-professed Libertarian.

    Why people even spend time with him is a mystery. He is basically a computer wonk who knows very little about politics. I'll give him credit for using his wonkishness to create an good interactive site infrastructure but that does on no way make him a competent political observer or commentator.

    Parent

    Because he's using his high traffic (for now) (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:28:58 PM EST
    blog to attack lots of people with a broad brush. In my own case, the attack is false, so I am insulted.

    Parent
    disagree about Kos (none / 0) (#195)
    by clbrune on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:30:09 PM EST
    Much as I find DailyKos to be toxic when it comes to anything about Clinton or Obama, I gotta give credit to Kos for his site and his dedication to "people powered politics."

    He infuriates me when he whines about Clinton, but I otherwise take his opinions with respect.  I think he's earned it.

    Parent

    The people powered politics schtick fooled (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by bridget on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:40:01 PM EST
    a lot of  people
    esp. those who are newbies on the net and don't know that every site has it's own agenda
    some more than others

    Parent
    Intellectual honesty in politics?! (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:04:21 PM EST
    I think Gandhi would agree that, like Western Civilization, that is a good idea.
    I see no content to the excerpt you provide---it's just whining.

    Heh (5.00 / 26) (#15)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:06:34 PM EST
    The idea that Hillary ever supported the sanctions against MI and FL is just a flat-out lie.

    There was a time when she didn't vociferously object to those sanctions, sure, because she was trying to appease the early states like everyone else.  But that's hardly the same as "support."  I'm so tired of the estoppel argument that goes "unless you were willing to commit political suicide by lodging an objection sooner, you can't complain now."

    Everyone knew all along that Florida was a Clinton state.  In terms of demographics, it rates to be one of her very best.  The idea that Hillary would have ever said "hey, if I can figure out a way to keep Florida from counting, it will really help me" is not only factually false, it's just stupid to suggest in the first place.

    Political reality is that if Hillary had made a big stink about counting MI and FL - or if the DNC members who supported her had demanded a lesser penalty for those states - it would have been widely perceived as an attempt by Hillary to game the nomination process by forcing two of her best states to count out of turn.  No one would have said "oh look at how principled Hillary is, objecting like this."

    Everyone knew (5.00 / 15) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:08:24 PM EST
    that the delegates would be seated. Until, you know, they mattered.

    Now the roolz reign.

    Parent

    Again. (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST
    Everyone knew all along that Florida was a Clinton state.  In terms of demographics, it rates to be one of her very best.  The idea that Hillary would have ever said "hey, if I can figure out a way to keep Florida from counting, it will really help me" is not only factually false, it's just stupid to suggest in the first place.

    Obviously, she felt her chances in MI were pretty favorable too.  She did win the state with 55% of the vote.  I remember being surprised it was that high.

    She has impressed me more and more as the campaign has progressed.


    Parent

    exit polls.... (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:23:24 PM EST
    the michigan exit polls say that if every name had been on the ballot, it would have been Clinton 46%, Obama 35%, Edwards 12%.

    The key fact here is that Obama benefitted by taking his name off the Michigan ballot -- and leaving her name on the ballot Clinton alienated a lot of the ridiculously self-important Iowa caucus goers, to the extent that it could have cost Clinton a win in Iowa.  

    So, IMHO, Obama is acting like a spoiled brat -- putting his own interests above that of the party after reaping the benefits of the decision to take his name off the ballot.

    Parent

    except (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Ovah on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:12:43 PM EST

    all the people who didn't go to the polls because they didn't think the votes would count. Guess those people don't count in the exit polls.

    Parent
    except they had record turnout in those states, (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by derridog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:20:00 PM EST
    not to mention that Obama voters were being urged to vote "uncommitted" in Michigan and Obama's name and all the other candidates' names were on the ballot in Florida.

    Parent
    guessing (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by Ovah on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:35:54 PM EST
    that by record turnout you mean the third highest turnout for a primary in Michigan.

    1972   there were 1.9million voters who turned out to vote and 1976  1.7million voters

    but there were record turnouts in 15 other states.

    Parent

    Edwards name was (none / 0) (#198)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:32:49 PM EST
    NOT on the ballot as well.

    Parent
    of course they do not count (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:49:24 AM EST
    they didn't vote.  Every election there are people who do not vote for a variety of reasons and we do not try and guess how they would have voted.  It doesn't matter.
    Now I DO NOT believe there were a lot of people who would have voted had they not "been told their votes wouldn't count".  That is a BS Obamafan argument.  The reason it is BS is because Obama surrogates were campaigning on the idea that their people should go a vote uncommitted and there was record turn out, just like in all the other primary states.  They were on the radio and sending out mailers.  It was headed up by the Conyers.  So please do not pee on my leg and tell me it is raining.  Obama campaigned there just like in FL and it was to get his people to vote uncommitted while hoping other turn out was suppressed just to embarrass Hillary.  
    It was petty and childish.

    Parent
    Tell that to NPR (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by catfish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:31:48 PM EST
    At the top of the hour news they covered her letter and played clips of her in Michigan in January and today.

    Said the clips illustrated "shifted" stance on this.  I must have heard different clips than they did.

    Parent

    Prior to FL & MI primaries (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:55:37 PM EST
    Hillary said she would fight to have their votes counted and delegates seated - while Obama did the opposite - discouraging his supporters from exercising their right to vote because "the delegates from those states will not be seated at the Convention."

    Parent
    May I weigh in (5.00 / 14) (#142)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:20:26 PM EST
    for the benefit of our Obama supporting friends?

    ...Obama spokesman Bill Burton offered a reminder that the primaries in Michigan and Florida will "have no bearing on the Democratic nomination contest" because the states won't have any delegates at the national convention.

    Not so fast, says the Clinton campaign. In a memo just circulated in response, the Clinton campaign denies the charge that it's planning to campaign in Florida; says the Obama campaign is pushing the Michigan-doesn't-matter line only because its efforts to get Democrats to vote "uncommitted" isn't working; and seems to be hinting that it may fight to have delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention after all.

    "While Sen. Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans," the campaign says. "The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren't important ... Sen. Clinton intends to be president for all fifty states. And while she will honor the pledge she signed and not campaign in either state, she intends to continue to give every American a voice during this election and when she gets to the White House."

    I just love that. 1/15/08.

    Parent

    excellent! (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:21:50 PM EST
    in order to appear consistent (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:33:53 PM EST
    with his fight against counting the votes and seating the delegates before he's crowned, Obama has even discouraged his supporters from joining the crowd on Sat. to urge the Rules committee to count FL & MI.
    Obamacrats being taught to oppose counting the votes unless it benefits Obama. WOW
    Obama's parallels to Bush are as scary as Obamamites emulating Bushies.


    Parent
    Rules are rules (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:06:39 PM EST
    only when they are not, as is intellectually dishonesty.

    Recount (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:59:26 PM EST
    in the beginning, Spacey is saying "popular vote doesn't matter; it's all about the electoral college" because they think they lost the popular vote.  In the end, they are talking about how Gore won the popular vote.

    Pols is pols.  Bloggers--at least some--are gigantic hypocrites.

    Parent

    Like the kids say: (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:07:42 PM EST
    Busted!!

    LOL (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:09:40 PM EST
    at the lack of rationality of the founder of that
    orange site...

    Situational ethics... (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:16:26 PM EST
    I'm reminded of a Russian joke I heard when I was in Moscow the spring after the Soviet Union died.  It's a long joke with many details, but here's the gist.

    After Leonid Brezhnev becomes premier, he invites his elderly peasant mother to visit him in the Kremlin.  He shows here around to his lavish rooms, gives her a ride in his personal helicopter to his enormous new dacha, treats her to a fantastic dinner with every possible delicacy served by a battalion of white-gloved waiters, excellent champagne, the works.

    To his dismay, though, she shows no joy, she just looks more and more worried.  Finally, he can't stand it anymore and asks, "So Mother, what do you think of all these wonderful things your boy, the leader of the Soviet Union, has at his fingertips?  Aren't you proud of me?"

    His mother looks at him and asks, "But Leonid, what if the Reds come back?"

    Priceless (none / 0) (#126)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:11:50 PM EST
    gyrfalcon, hop you don't mind.  I copied and added it to my collection of keepers.

    Parent
    Be my guest! (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:45:18 PM EST
    The Russians have long had a tradition of particularly pithy ironic humor like this.  Of course, they're best told at a table filled with friends and acquaintances half-way into the vodka...Wish I could remember more I heard, but it was a long time ago and this is the one that stuck with me most strongly.

    Fantastic people, the Russians.  If their stamina and resourcefulness ever get fully liberated, they will truly be a powerhouse economically.

    Parent

    I was looking for this... (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by citizen53 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:17:07 PM EST
    to post there.  It is a disconnect.

    Overall, there is too much situational ethics in the campaign from all sides.

    We have become a country of situational ethics, and it is connected to the overall corruption of the system.

    Today, the media is looking at McClellan's book in amazement, and pretending that they did not play right along in failing to report the news to a public in which 70% came to believe that Saddam caused 9-11.

    How can we trust their coverage of the campaign and ignore that they merely tow the corporate line.

    Amen to that.... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:52:34 PM EST
    ...the MSM are the worst offenders. But Marcos is now one of them, isn't he? So........

    Parent
    Bingo! (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:04:15 PM EST
    both Bush and Obama are media creations and wouldn't be where they are without the media promoting them and concealing their lies and deceptions.

    Did you see NBC tonight?  Brian Williams interviewed Tom Brokaw who basically walked back all their hyped war coverage. I suppose it was safe and GE still has a government contract for the next 100 years.
    But now they have another "corporate cause" - promoting Obama.


    Parent

    I'm sure Scottie's (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:13:00 PM EST
    tell-all is going to be a thorn in their sides.

    I'd say that we should throw the whole bunch into the deep blue sea, but there's enough pollution.

    Parent

    They could (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:44:21 PM EST
    be sentenced to community service. Cleaning up (former) superfund sites.

    Parent
    No, they would drown, and that (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:52:34 PM EST
    is too good a death for them. Make them spend the rest of their lives with Bush, on his ranch. I am sure they can find lots of brush to cut. And after that, they can sit around and listen to Bush reminisce. Sounds like the version of hell they deserve. Heh.

    Parent
    now, THAT is chilling. (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:55:28 PM EST
    NBC/MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by themomcat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:39:05 PM EST
    Will most likely switch their allegiance to McCain for the General Election. GE is pushing Obama for the moment because if Obama wins, Obama supports nuclear energy. And besides their war contracts, GE builds nuclear reactors. McCain or Obama it is a win/win situation for GE.

    Parent
    Hee hee hee hee... (5.00 / 12) (#31)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:18:30 PM EST
    so, SO richly deserved.

    Bravo, BTD!

    OMG. (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:19:42 PM EST
    So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

    But then he drank the kool-aid.

    Unbelievable.

    Okay let's see if this (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:21:07 PM EST
    doesn't get deleted:

    If the author of this post was sincere in his wishes for FL and MI to be in the win column for the Democratic party, why can't he make this point known to those who frequent his blog now?

    I think it would show political courage.  I feel though that the author of this post knows that would be deftly frowned upon by his audience.

    I wonder if some of the pro-Obama bloggers, once you remove the negativity, are somewhere white-knuckling their decisions on their choice of their primary candidate.  Surely they know that counting the votes is a much stronger message than following rules.

    Kos (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:36:31 PM EST
    is whom I am referring to.

    Parent
    de nada (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:51:17 PM EST
    señor

    Parent
    Kos does this on purpose (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Jim J on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:29:08 PM EST
    His mission is to disrupt and split the left. He has succeeded. Therefore he is not as dumb as people here are saying he is.

    I don't know who (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:32:23 PM EST
    you consider the left to be.

    I have a feeling it's not the majority of voters in November though.

    Parent

    Well, I am a leftie (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:44:56 PM EST
    and I used to go to Kos, AmericaBlog, and TPM with great regularity.

    Now I can't go to those places anymore.

    So yes, I do think the left is divided because of what the blogs have become.

    Parent

    I'm Part Of The Left Also (5.00 / 10) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:00:51 PM EST
    It kind of ticks me off when people make the accusation that Obama's supporters are all lefties. Many lefties don't support Obama and neither Kos nor Obama are what I would consider the left of the party.

    Parent
    Amen to your statement, MO Blue (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:01:59 PM EST
    They're lefty (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:03:24 PM EST
    Hypocrites.


    Parent
    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:01:08 PM EST
    All of the above.

    I do not see Obama as a leftie, not by a long shot.  A leftie would not consider putting Chuck Hagel on his ticket for even one nanosecond.  If you want a quick and easy leftie litmus test, there you have it.

    Parent

    No, he does it (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:34:19 PM EST
    to feed red meat to his audience and drive traffic.

    Parent
    Ouch. (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:40:22 PM EST
    Orange Kool-Aide Is A Powerful Drug (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:31:28 PM EST
    and known to cause memory lapses.

    I am so enjoying (5.00 / 10) (#59)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:33:54 PM EST
    the pretzelification of the Kos supporters trying to defend the indefensible.

    Thanks for the entertainment, folks! LOL!

    It makes me sad...I read the first 70 comments (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by Teresa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:57:05 PM EST
    over there and there are several posters that I had so much respect for making the most awful comments. One wished a physical beat down on Hillary. These were people who said prayers for my nephew in Iraq.

    Is the need to be accepted there so great that they can change that much? How sad. I will never go back.

    Parent

    Really depressing, isn't it? (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:58:49 PM EST
    It's like the end of a bad relationship.

    Parent
    Sorry guys. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:04:38 PM EST
    I didn't know the folks over there at all.

    Parent
    Apparently, neither do we (anymore) (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:06:35 PM EST
    [[virtual hugs to you both]] (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:12:17 PM EST
    BTD..... you and I (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Mrwirez on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:33:56 PM EST
    were not well received at DK today. I posted your Saturday rules committee talking points... They treated me like a baby treats a diaper. I do remember most as Clinton supporters before NEO came along.

     DKers? They suck. I let them know what turncoats I thought they were though.

    I gave up months ago (5.00 / 9) (#63)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:35:02 PM EST
    and I'm not sorry.

    Parent
    I told you so (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:38:04 PM EST
    who or what is NEO? (none / 0) (#130)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:12:40 PM EST
    Remember the Matrix? (none / 0) (#138)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:16:59 PM EST
    Main character was Neo...(considered to be "the One")

    Parent
    thank-you, but no, I don't (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:30:55 PM EST
    remember the Matrix (I'm a real low-information movie buff).

    Heck, I had to google to find out what a "thetan" was...

    Parent

    Neo ="The one" (none / 0) (#168)
    by Mrwirez on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:43:07 PM EST
    Neo from the movie "The Matrix"

    Wikipedia:  The character Neo lives in the world of the Matrix, an illusory construct in which humans are neurally connected to a gigantic computer system which simulates the world of the late 20th century. This system has been developed by intelligent machines to keep the human population as tools for the machines' survival - the machines use a form of fusion in addition to the bioelectrical energy of human beings as their primary energy source.

    Parent

    "Situational ethics," (5.00 / 13) (#66)
    by Pacific John on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:35:22 PM EST
    has rung in my ears for months now.

    Although I haven't seen anyone take a good look at this aspect of the story, a central element of Markos' movement is situational ethics. The whole concept of Crashing the Gates is based on copying  questionable anything-to-win tactics of movement conservatism, and turning the machine on any Dem who does not quite agree with the Netroots.

    Markos rejects that CtG is about values, but about winning - this is practically the definition of situational ethics.

    It's no accident, I think, that there has been a rigid, non-introspective party line inside of Obama's people powered politics, as if the movement is terrified it will all fall apart at the slightest admitted inconsistency, as if the slightest glance at principles will mean failure.

    We old Dems* know better. We know that any campaign is about pragmatism, about getting the best possible flawed outcome with the most effective flawed candidate possible. We aren't likely to be very disappointed. The new guys and the idealists, though, they are going to have their hearts broken when they realize just how cynical and situational  really their movement actually is.

    * - I'm "young", Obama's age.

    Consistent? (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by rghojai on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:36:46 PM EST
    I don't have the time or inclination to wade through it, but some recollection of (justified) serious DK displeasure of media coverage as it related to perceived imbalances which were detrimental to Kerry, Dean, war coverage etc. Now, if that point is raised relative to the Clinton-Obama race--in terms of media coverage or what's on DK, it goes over like a lead balloon.

    It's a little on the old-news side, but I finally caught up with the most recent Vanity Fair, in which James Wolcott writes about the DK blow up, reminds me of the Kos comment in response. The comment includes referring to people fed up with things at the site as "shrieking band of paranoid holdouts" who "wail and scream," before relating that Clinton is planning a "far more drastic, destructive and debilitating civil war."

    What was clear, though, is that Clinton was fair game for shredding on DK--with at least the tacit approval of those in charge--long before Super Tuesday, long before it looked like Obama would win.

    Someone once commented that a blog post is like a photo and a collection of them is like a photo album. I can more than live with anyone writing a post that strikes me as questionable, is factually incorrect, etc. Nobody's perfect. In the broader sense, though, what I saw at DK, as it related to integrity, balance, honesty, consistency, etc., independent of the candidate(s) involved, was enough that I left.

    My impression of Kos (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:09:32 PM EST
    during the 10-12 months before the primary season was that he fancied himself a kingmaker.

    The line: " ... paranoid holdouts"
    in IMO verifies that impression.  It's an expression of anger that not everyone is willing to follow his lead, that his right to determine the king isn't recognized by everyone and therefore there must be something wrong with them.

    Parent

    I think Markos... (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:50:56 PM EST
    ... has come to see himself as part of the political scene, rather than as an observer of it. Not wrongly so, since his site certainly is influential. But almost no one in that position really retains objectivity, and he certainly has not.

    Interesting... (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:23:54 PM EST
    When Kos starts writing Front Page exclusives, quoting a "senior adminstration offical", then he'll be influential.  

    Until then, DailyKos and other high traffic blogs have the ability to echo each other and to quickly raise money for a short-term project

    Parent

    Markos is an activist, which is fine (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:25:03 PM EST
    But there's a difference between being an activist and an advocate and agitprop.

    Parent
    Not that I care about Kos, but the (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by dk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:02:04 PM EST
    juxtaposition of the two statements really is interesting.  Here's my crack at explaining it:

    What links the posts is the overriding desire to win.  In the earlier post, his main criticism of Obama and Edwards wasn't that they were capitulating to the crybabies in Iowa and New Hampshire, but that they were kneecapping their chances to win.

    As for the later post, the key phrase, in my opinion, is that Clinton's behavior "infuriates" him.  Infuriates?  Why?  Not, in my opinion, because Hillary has situational ethics (which I think is at least an arguable, if probably over-the-top claim), but rather because, in Markos' opinion, Hillary's expression of those ethics is hurting Obama's chances to win.  It's all about (Obama) winning.

    Now, Markos seems to discount two arguments.  One, put forward by Hillary, her supporters, and BTD again and again, is that not counting the votes actually hurts Obama, if he is the nominee.  I'm assuming Markos has a rejoinder to that.  I don't know what it is, though, since I don't go to his site anymore, but if someone can enlighten me I'd be interested to hear it.

    The other argument, of course, is that counting the votes is the right thing to do, no matter who is advocating it.  I suppose this one Markos would more easily discount given that he is more concerned with winning than doing the right thing.  I know politics is rough, and if this is how he feels, he certainly isn't alone in this view.  I, for one, just don't know if I can go along with it this time, which is why at this point I can't vote for Obama if he's the nominee.

    I'll disagree with one thing. . . (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:07:54 PM EST
    you said.  While for many supporters it may be all about Obama's winning, for Markos I think it's considerably more about Clinton's losing.

    And while folks in the supporter-sphere might, ultimately, agree that disenfranchising Florida and Michigan would hurt Obama if he's the nominee it's clear that what they're worried about is his not having a solid enough position with Florida and Michigan counted to ensure him the nomination.  And since the primary comes well before the general, and since you have to win the primary to even get to the general, that's what they're concerned about now.

    Parent

    There's also a little matter (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:29:02 PM EST
    of a rumored "June surprise," and I honestly can't figure out any explanation for Obama resisting FL/MI at this point in the process except for his camp's fear that they will lose at least some SDs over it and therefore need as large a margin as possible before whatever it is hits.

    Parent
    A blue majority? (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:18:10 PM EST
    Candidates that he and some of the other bloggers deem worthy?

    Remember Stephanie Herseth?

    Yeah, right.

    Sure she (5.00 / 5) (#144)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:21:22 PM EST
    personally advocated stripping a state that she was expected to win, that would have provided a lot of delegates, a win that would have been celebrated on teebee and given her momentum.  Off with their heads.  Makes perfect sense.

    So much for Democracy (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:26:43 PM EST
    I remember when Markos was asked about some of the things commenters say on his site, and he said "That's democracy!"  I suppose that includes of the things one might be likely to find said about BTD and/or Jeralyn themselves.

    For the irony fans out there, I wonder if Markos thinks that when TL deletes comments that attack Markos, I wonder if he thinks that's undemocratic?

    The Democratic Party is The Lord of the Flies.

    Who's got the conch????!!!!!

    I could never see what all the fuss was about (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by Anne on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:31:19 PM EST
    at DK - it always seemed too much like the cool kids' table in the cafeteria, and too often I would see overweaning comments and posts that were just screaming for approval - it would strike me that there were an awful lot of people who  never got past junior high/middle school and were playing out all their unresolved insecurities there.

    Markos is certainly entitled to his opinions, however ridiculous I think they are, but what is the real shame in all of this is the loss of credibility and the morphing of blogs like his, and TPM and others, into the very thing they created their blogs to push back against.

    For those who haven't been able to see that yet, I think it will become all too apparent along about the first week in November, and all I can say is:

    Oh, well.  

    C'est la vie.  

    Too bad, so sad.

    This is absurd (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Richjo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:40:29 PM EST
    The only way to avoid charges of situational ethics would be for the Florida and Michigan delegations to NEVER be seated. That is the only way that no one will be going back on what was supposedly agreed to. The Obama camp is more than willing to go back on what was agreed to as long as it does not hurt his chances, but in fact helps them come November. The same could be said of the Clinton camp, the only difference being they are standing for counting the votes as opposed to not counting them. Motives have no place in this discussion because both sides are obviously self motivated. What has to be judged is the basic moral content of what each side is standing for. Clinton stands for counting votes and giving all people a say, Obama stands for disenfranchsing people and valuing technical rules over basic fairness to all voters. Obama tells us that this election is not about him, but rather about us- the voters. Yet where the voters of Michigan and Florida are concerned we can see that regard for their ability to have a say in this process is totally contingent on whether that hurts or helps Obama. You would think the people this election was about would at least get a vote in it.

    Or present them (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:51:23 PM EST
    with the same waivers that were handed to all of the other states who jumped the dates including NH and SC.

    Parent
    In an honest discussion about this issue (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by MaxUS on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:40:56 PM EST
    I think that "intellectual dishonesty" is not a credible description of what is going on.  

    Markos quoted above: Remember, Clinton supported the Michigan and Florida sanctions when she thought she'd coast to the nomination.

    Accepting this as true, which I will do for the purpose of discussion, mostly because I don't think that the premise is indefensible. If others are interested in researching the semantics, I'll let them do the research.

    So if we accept the premise of the quote above, we need to ask ourselves: why would a candidate do this? Markos' answer, of course, is intellectual dishonesty.

    My answer is that Clinton was confident that a nominee would be selected by Super Tuesday. Some would accuse her campaign of overconfidence, but that's not really what I'm saying. I'm saying that she most likely believed that the contest would be won or lost in time for the presumptive nominee to seat the delegations with no difficulty. Obama, himself was also talking about seating the delegations if he was the nominee so it wasn't a stretch to conclude that supporting the DNC in their efforts to maintain control over the schedule would not lead to chaos.

    The unexpected thing that happened in all this is that neither candidate was able to deliver a knockout punch. Unlike many who like to find fault with the Clinton campaign, I don't think it was hubris to assume that a resolution one way or the other was a miscalculation. Quite the opposite, I think that it is the epitome of humility that she didn't anticipate the game changing support that she has recieved post-February.

    As a consequence of there not being a clear presumptive nominee, Clinton had to re-assess the situation so she did. No more, no less; it happens all the time that different circumstances require a different solution.

    It is fortunate for Clinton that the good of the party and the country coincide with her own interests. Her interests are on the right side of the issue. It's really not anybody's fault that Obama's interests are at odds with the good of the party and the country. Too bad for him.

    The bottom line is a question: Can he win the nomination if full FL/MI delegations are participating? If he can, great...if he can't, well, he needs to cut his losses or he'll bring down the Party and the country.

    I can't envision an electorial map that favors him if he can't take at least one (at this point, both?) of these states and I'm not convinced that Obama has shown the people of these states that he wants their voices to be heard, even if they are calling someone else's name. I think he needed to do that in order to take his case to the superDs who will be deciding this thing, regardless.

    This notion that ... (4.66 / 9) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:24:23 PM EST
    Edwards and Obama were "caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire" by removing their name for the MI ballot is a demonstrable fact.

    Markos, as BTD notes, said it in January.

    But it was virtually impossible to get any Obama supporter to agree to this in February.

    The meme that "Obama was following the rules" took hold, and there was no turning back.

    For Edwards and Obama (5.00 / 8) (#136)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:15:31 PM EST
    it was a twofer.  Pander to Iowa/New Hampshire and taint a certain Clinton victory.

    Parent
    I don't have a problem with kos' statement (3.00 / 2) (#29)
    by smg77 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:18:11 PM EST
    At the time I was also a Clinton supporter. I thought she was running a smart campaign and I've always been uneasy with the Iowa/NH monopoly on the early primary season.

    After seeing that Clinton hadn't planned to campaign beyond Super Tuesday and that she wasn't going to focus on anything other than the traditional swing states I was no longer impressed. After I saw that Obama was going with a 50 state strategy and reaching out to people that "traditional" democrats were happy to leave behind I, like Markos, changed my mind.

    Do those 50 states... (5.00 / 12) (#33)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:20:23 PM EST
    ... include Michigan, Florida, West Virginia, and Kentucky?

    Parent
    After seeing that Obama didn't (5.00 / 15) (#35)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:22:09 PM EST
    have a plan after Super Tuesday, and has lost major primaries since then, refused to debate, and allows few unscripted interviews with the media, I, too, am no longer impressed.

    He's hiding.

    She's fighting.  We want a fighting dem, don't we?

    Parent

    what group has Hillary left behind (5.00 / 10) (#41)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:24:45 PM EST
    50 state strategy? That's a joke right? Is he going to campaign in Utah, Nebraska, Kansas and Idaho this Fall? Hillary has reached out to every electoral group. I think it's the other way around. Think West Virginia and Kentucky

    Parent
    Not quite (1.00 / 1) (#180)
    by smg77 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:57:57 PM EST
    She has reached out to "hard working whites". She took support from African Americans and other minorities for granted and lost the primary because it.

    Parent
    Please correct your post to read (5.00 / 9) (#55)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:32:19 PM EST
    After I saw that Obama as going with a "48" state
    strategy..He obviously doesn't care about MI/FL.
    Oh, and those "traditional" democrats you referred to leaving behind, without us, you cannot win.

    Parent
    45 or less (5.00 / 14) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:35:22 PM EST
    No WV, KY, AR and any other state that touches Appalachia.

    Parent
    You know, someone should (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:37:21 PM EST
    really take what kos says at face value about Appalachia. If he's right, and Obama can't win there, then Pennsylvania and Ohio are lost.

    But he doesn't mean THAT part of Appalachia, does he?

    Parent

    I've tried (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:49:12 PM EST
    that tact with Obama supporters. When they start to say things like Hillary's supporters are all racists then I say "Well, if there are that many racists in the democratic primary, which has voters that are likely to be more liberal on that issue, then what does that say about his general election chances?"  No answer and screams to "shut up" or "I'm not going to talk to you about this."

    Parent
    I tried it and had the same experience. (none / 0) (#101)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:59:05 PM EST
    My father was basically saying, "Everyone hates Republicans. We'll be fine."

    Poor Dad.

    Parent

    He's right (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:20:16 PM EST
    about everybody hating Republicans. However, it doesn't seem to translate to John McCain. Everybody hates Pelosi and the Dems but that doesn't seem to be transferring to Obama either. Obama's problem is simply Obama.

    Parent
    But if we spot him the extra 7 states... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:57:27 PM EST
    he gets up to 52!!!1111!!!!

    Parent
    I'm trying to find something in this comment. . . (5.00 / 11) (#68)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:36:20 PM EST
    that's accurate.

    Since Super Tuesday Clinton's been doing considerably better than she did on Super Tuesday.  And her strength is in both traditional swing states and some states that are not traditional swing states (Kentucky, Texas).  Her campaign since Super Tuesday has been considerably more impressive than before Super Tuesday.

    And how can you call Obama's strategy a 50 state strategy when 1) he's trying to prevent the votes in the Florida and Michigan from counting and 2) it's clear he's going to have to abandon any hope in a number of states Clinton might very likely carry in November?

    But the most important part of Markos' statement has nothing whatsoever to do with who you, he, or I support.  It's

    The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

    Nothing has happened since January (certainly not your change in choice of candidate) to change the fundamental truth of the that statement.  If it was true then, it's true now.  If you supported it then, or Markos did, and now feel it's not true or not important, that's a case of the same kind of "situational ethics" that Markos is claiming to decry and that BTD is implying Markos is guilty of.

    Parent

    LarryinNYC... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:55:52 PM EST
    please don't work so hard to find truth in these comments. :-)

    These people are either delusional or trying to stir up trouble.

    They don't deserve your time.

    They do, however, deserve to be laughed at and mocked. ;-)

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#182)
    by smg77 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:00:53 PM EST
    This is how you're going to achieve party unity to defeat McCain in the fall? No matter who your chosen candidate is no democrat should talk about another one like this.

    Parent
    This from the newbie here (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:18:36 PM EST
    who says Dems in MI and FL are "howling" for votes.  Is that any way to talk about them?

    After the requisite "I used to be a Clinton supporter" opening, your really fell down on the job.  Better go back to more Obamamemos on how to infiltrate blogs.

    Parent

    Backwards (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:18:32 PM EST
    " "traditional" democrats were happy to leave behind ..."

    All the while Obama's campaign and many of his supporters were leaving behind traditional Democrats.

    Parent

    Count votes (2.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:56:17 PM EST
    Yes, we should count every vote. However what about the 'uncommitted' votes in MI? Do you throw those out? Split them in a fair way between Obama and Edwards and other candidates?
    Seriously. If we count every vote we have to count every vote.
    You really cannot make a serious argument by saying Clinton gets 328,000 votes and Obama gets zero. I mean, you can, but the Super Delegates wouldn't buy it and the voters in MI who wanted to vote for Obama wouldn't like it. We can't disenfranchise some for the benefit of others - if we are honest.

    The fairest way (imo) to find out (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:57:55 PM EST
    who voted for who, was to re-do the election in that state. Obama said no.

    Parent
    What would u do (none / 0) (#118)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:06:49 PM EST
    You're just punting on this.
    If someone put you in charge of the MI issue and you were objective [supporting neither candidate] what would you do that would be fair to both parties?

    Parent
    I would let them re-vote. There is no (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:10:55 PM EST
    logical and fair way to determine who the uncommitted voted for. He was not the only candidate to take his name off of the ballot in MI. To understand voter intent, ya gotta count each and every vote, not estimate!!

    Parent
    I'll go along with a re-vote, only so long (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:16:00 PM EST
    as those who voted in the republican primary are NOT allowed to revote. I don't mind apportionment, as stated in a lower post.

    I truly believe that all of the uncommitteds should be uncommitted at the convention, though. LEt them wheel and deal with the campaigns.

    Parent

    How do you apportion what you (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:21:55 PM EST
    don't know? What count other than votes for a named candidate do you use. He "chose" to have his name come off the ballot and like I tell my children, you have to live with your choices.

    Parent
    I have been making the same statement (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:36:45 PM EST
    as you, zfran. I'm offering a concession to the Obama supporters here.

    I know he took his name off.

    I think that a solution that doesn't thrill anyone would still go a long way toward a democratic Michigan in November.

    We don't know the caucus numbers for what-- four states?  Should those states count?

    Parent

    I just re-read your above post. (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:04:15 PM EST
    I do agree with most of your post, however, reading about all the inequities that happened in the primaries, including FL/MI further make me believe, that to be as equitable as possible is fair. To artibitrarily pull a number out of the air and call that fair, is nonsense. This is America, not a third world country. Don't get me started on caucuses. I voted in one.

    Parent
    thanks for putting the time into re-reading it. (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:14:15 PM EST
    I look at this as a way to get past a serious issue, but not precedent, and far from the only possible solution. Heck, I'll admit it isn't what I want or even what I think is just.

    I DO think there's time for a re-vote in Michigan, still.

    But I am angered at the hubris of pulling one's name off of the ballot, then complaining because one wasn't represented. I might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.

    Parent

    There were delegates voted for (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:10:59 PM EST
    who were 'uncommitted.'  Let them go to the convention and caucus there to see how many prefer Obama and how many, if any, would go to Hillary.  Give Hillary what she won and let the uncommitted stay that way till roll call.  Amazingly simple!

    Parent
    Revote (none / 0) (#139)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:17:30 PM EST
    I wish there could be a revote too. We're past that stage. And to be honest I think the MI lawmakers are as much to blame as anyone.

    Parent
    What about being fair (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Evie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:32:53 PM EST
    to the voters?

    Fair elections are about being fair to the VOTERS. Not any particular candidate.

    And it is not the voters' job to make sure a candidate stays on the ballot.

    Parent

    The SD's (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:03:30 PM EST
    should be considering electibility.

    Obama's not looking all that good right now, and he's doing nothing to help his cause.

    They're to believe he'll somehow get better before he steps up to the plate?

    What is this, faith-based politics once again?

    Please.

    Parent

    That's exactly what they're doing (none / 0) (#209)
    by Valhalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:06:26 PM EST
    I think they truly believe that if Clinton would just get 'out of the way', there will be a new groundswell for Obama and they'd have gotten away with their entire new coalition baloney.

    They're dreaming, of course, because Obama maxed out his popularity in March.  Now they have to count on the Clinton voters who are not totally ticked off at them to save Obama's bacon.

    One thing we saw in PA, OH and WV is that just spending a ton of money won't get the votes.  But what I haven't heard talked about (very much) is, even if a large chunk of people who voted for Clinton are willing to vote for Obama if he gets the nomination, where's he going to get the volunteers for the ground game?  Is the current crop of Kooladers enough for that?  Will the folks willing to vote for him to avoid a McCain win also be willing to work their butts off for him?

    Parent

    Easy (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:06:03 PM EST
    let the number of delegates represented by those votes stay uncommitted and not award them to anyone in particular, like a superdelegate.  They can commit to whomever they want whenever they want.

    Parent
    could work (none / 0) (#119)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:07:47 PM EST
    That might be fair.

    Parent
    We pretty much reached (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:26:20 PM EST
    consensus on that approach here at TL a while ago.

    Parent
    I might even suggest apportionment based on (none / 0) (#131)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:12:51 PM EST
    percentages of those who were in the field at the time. Even if all went to Obama in the end, it would be an attempt to create the situation that existed.

    But I don't think all should, by default, go directly to Obama.

    Parent

    Uncommitted (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:22:40 PM EST
    means uncommitted.  Delegates not pledged to anyone.

    How can you say it's by any means "fair" to arbitrarily divy up delegates when in fact they were elected as UNCOMMITTED.

    Parent

    I never used the term 'fair.' (none / 0) (#196)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:30:57 PM EST
    It's called compromise. And no, I'm not coming to Obama's defense by saying he wasn't on the ballot, either. He made a terrificly stupid blunder.

    I want votes counted one way or another.

    Parent

    Some context (1.66 / 6) (#28)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:17:58 PM EST
    While I know most here will still reject Kos' reasoning, here is the rest of his argument:

    Last August, when the DNC Rules Committee voted to strip Florida (and Michigan, if it persisted in clinging to its date) of its delegates, the Clinton delegates on the committee backed those sanctions. All 12 Clinton supporters on the committee supported the penalties. (The only member of the committee to vote against them was an Obama supporter from Florida.) Harold Ickes, a committee member, leading Clinton strategist and acknowledged master of the political game, said, "This committee feels very strongly that the rules ought to be enforced." Patty Solis Doyle, then Clinton's campaign manager, further affirmed the decision. "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," she said, referring to the four states that the committee authorized to hold the first contests. "And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC-approved nominating calendar."

    Not a single Clinton campaign official or DNC Rules Committee member, much less the candidate herself, said at the time that the sanctions imposed on Florida or Michigan were in any way a patriarchal plot or an affront to democratic values. The threat that these rules posed to our fundamental beliefs was discovered only ex post facto -- the facto in question being Clinton's current need to seat the delegations whose seatings she had opposed when she thought she'd cruise to the nomination.

    Lets at least be honest.  Many are turning this fiasco into some kind of voting civil rights case and using that as the justification to take this nomination to the convention.  Unfortunately, it just doesn't resonate with most people.  If this is truly a "civil rights" issue as many are trying to make this out to be, then it is reprehensible that both campaigns were essentially silent when the DNC originally ruled.  If you believe in the principle that every vote should be counted, then every person affiliated with both the Clinton and Obama camps ought to have been objecting to the DNC penalty.  Apparently no one had a problem with it at the time, save one lone Obama supporter.  So it reeks of rank hypocrisy to use that as a rallying cry now.  If it is wrong now, it was wrong then.  I think that was the point Kos was making.

    Flame on....

    That has no relation, none (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:24:32 PM EST
    with my point.

    If he had written what you wrote and NOT the part I quote, I would not have written this post.

    Your red herring fails.

    Parent

    If you're comfortable arguing against (5.00 / 11) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:25:05 PM EST
    counting people's votes, go right ahead.  I belong to the democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 11) (#43)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:25:23 PM EST
    If Hillary really cared, she would have committed political suicide by making a big issue out of FL and MI while everyone else was busy pandering to the early states.

    At least everyone would have saluted her political courage, fighting for two of the most pro-Hillary states to have an early voice in the process.  Surely no one could have accused her of situational ethics if she had taken that step.

    Parent

    Delicious. (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:29:31 PM EST
    At least everyone would have saluted her political courage, fighting for two of the most pro-Hillary states to have an early voice in the process.

    Parent
    Delicious? (1.00 / 3) (#99)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:58:34 PM EST
    You realize he made Kos' point?  That is you believe something is wrong, than you need to be speaking out against it from the first moment -- not when it is politically expedient.  Do you realize what it looks like when someone during the civil rights movement allowed their staff to take positions adverse to black Americans and then when they realize that they need those individuals, they suddenly become a champion of their cause?  Situational ethics is a much more charitable word than I would use.  Either you believe in a principle or you do not.  If the former, than you should have been raising bloody hell from the moment you believed ANY voter was being disenfranchised.

    Parent
    It's not as if she dreamed this up yesterday.

    I agree Sen. Obama has been more consistent in his position. I guess we know where he stands: he thinks it's ok to disenfranchise voters.

    I will grant you his consistency. But I am appalled that what he is consistent in is his desire to ignore the voters.

    Parent

    Oh my. (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:06:31 PM EST
    You realize he made Kos' point?

    It was snark, my dear.

    You know it's bad when you've lost your sense of humor.

    Parent

    Situational Ethics? (none / 0) (#179)
    by santarita on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:56:44 PM EST
    Is every change of position a manifestation of situational ethics or intellectual dishonesty?  Sometimes positions evolve when the consequence become clearer.

       The long campaign for the nomination has shown that the Democratic nominating process needs serious reform.  The memo from the staff released today highlights some of the problems just on the issue of dealing with states that don't adhere to the rules, including a potential conflict between the National Charter and the Rules.    No one back in August seemed to focus on the issue of voter disenfranchisement.   Party discipline seemed a rational priority at the time.  And yes, they all should have thought about voter disenfranchisement at that point.  But they didn't.  But they have an opportunity to rectify that failure now.  

    Parent

    Heh! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:29:44 PM EST
    You just made Kos' point (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:54:16 PM EST
    If Hillary really cared, she would have committed political suicide by making a big issue out of FL and MI while everyone else was busy pandering to the early states.

    That is a perfect example of why Kos characterized it as situational ethics.  Thank you.

    Parent

    Wrong (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:55:31 PM EST
    kos was talking about Hillary's supporters.

    Parent
    First... (5.00 / 10) (#75)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:39:19 PM EST
    Had you been around dkos during the pie fight, you'd know that kos has a distinct opinion re: "the women's studies set." As such, I'm not particularly surprised that he'd bring up "patriarchal plot or an affront to democratic values" as a way to disparage or denigrate calls to count the 2M+ votes in Fla and MI a la "the women's studies set."

    Second...

    Regardless of whether the either Clinton or Obama supporters, one of whom was Donna "I'm going to send a message to everybody in Florida that we're going to follow the rules" Brazile, the larger point is that the RBC was incorrect and haphazard in its approach to rules enforcement. The RBC can fix that...but it's gonna be interesting.

    Third...

    As the daughter of two recently registered and, may I say, highly disgruntled Democrats who've voted since JFK, that haphazard approach has had a  delitirious effect re: trust and the DNC. Several members of my family (parents and others) have been told that their votes don't count. To me, that sounds like voter disenfranchisement.


    Parent

    the point.... (5.00 / 11) (#83)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:48:18 PM EST
    first off, not everyone is venal as you project them to be.

    The purpose of the sanctions was to maintain the importance of the designated "early window" states, and prevent a mad rush by other states to go early as well.  And the sanctions served their purpose -- for all intents and purposes, no campaigning was done in Florida or Michigan, the media ignored the results from those states, and no candidate was given a boost (or left the race) because of what happened in those two states.

    As Kos noted NO ONE ever intended to keep the Florida and Michigan delegations out of the convention.  Everyone assumed that -- as has been the case for decades -- one candidate would emerge from the pack as the consensus choice of the party.  

    So right now, there is a problem -- a decision was made based on false assumptions, and no one considered the consequences for the party if the assumptions turned out to be false.   THe Rules Committee screwed up --- they should have stuck with the 50% penalty, AND imposed a rule on the campaign themselves that no campaigning was to be done in the states that violated the Timing rule.

    And the Rules Committee could have fixed the situation after Super-Tuesday by eliminating the 100% sanctions, and going with 50% -- but the Obots on the committee didn't want to mess with Obama's 'inevitability' and resisted resolving the problem when they had the chance to do so in an appropriate time-frame.

    Its time for the DNC and members of the rules committee to act in the best interests of the party and seat both Florida and Michigan in full.  Nothing less, at this point, will be satisfactory.  They have to stop worrying about which candidate it benefits, and deal with the fact that they screwed up and that its their job to fix it in the way that is best for the party

    Parent

    Rank hypocrisy (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by Evie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:52:06 PM EST
    is claiming to be "Democratic" and supporting the disenfranchisement of voters.

    Parent
    Rank hyprocisy (1.80 / 5) (#184)
    by smg77 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:05:29 PM EST
    Is also howling for votes to be counted in a vote where one of the candidates wasn't even on the ballot in one state and didn't campaign in the other. Actions that both Clinton and Obama agreed to but which only he honored.

    Parent
    Actually. . . (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:31:37 PM EST
    the candidates committed to not campaigning and Clinton arguably did a better job of living up to that commitment than Obama who both appeared and ran ads in Florida (although his infractions were pretty trivial).

    Florida was pretty close to my ideal view of an election -- no influence from advertising, exposure to the candidates based on news coverage (not withstanding how disappointing the media generally is).

    And nothing in the candidate pledges required them to remove their names from the Michigan ballot.  Several candidates did, several didn't.

    Parent

    And when (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:40:45 PM EST
    Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson removed themselves from the ballot they, among other things, forfeited.

    If you forfeit, you get nothing and are entitled to NOTHING.

    Parent

    What is this (none / 0) (#186)
    by Evie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:10:50 PM EST
    "hyprocisy" of which you speak?

    It seems like a horrible condition in which Democratic voters are responsible and punished for the actions of candidates and Republicans, respectively.

    Parent

    confused in your thinking, young padawan. (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:18:27 PM EST
    If you remove yourself from the ballot, you have made an active, conscious choice to NOT court the voters of that state.

    If NOBODY campaigns in a state, then it's even.

    Believe it or not, people in Florida get the internets, and cable television. Even mail delivered by the post office and newspapers! Heck, they even have telephones! There's more going on in the south than hookworms, pellagra, and vote buying with whiskey these days.

    Parent

    That's it, Kos just lost my vote! (1.00 / 3) (#57)
    by s5 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:32:32 PM EST
    Whether Kos was right or wrong in January, I expect far more consistency from a candidate running for president of the country. Especially when that candidate actively supported the sanctions in the first place.

    Weak snark (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:37:01 PM EST
    Why? clinton did not support the dsanctions. The sanctions were IMPOSED by the DNc. No candidate had any say in the sanctions actually.

    Indeed, Obama has made that point repeatedly. Or did you miss where Obama said "he is not in the way" when it comes to seating FL and MI.

    Parent

    Um yes? (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:51:22 PM EST
    Or do I get to blame Brazile on Obama?

    Parent
    No Markos insults in comments (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:00:33 PM EST
    discuss the topic of BTD's post  but don't insult him personally or trash Daily Kos.

    I put his statments up (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:01:55 PM EST
    I find then irreconcilable.

    I cast no aspersions. If he believes they are, then he should have no problem with this post.

    Parent

    I have no problem with the post (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:02:24 PM EST
    I'm anticipating the comments and warning commenters.

    Parent
    All I can say to kos ... same back at you (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by TalkRight on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:13:22 PM EST
    [T]he most infuriating part of kos post is his lack of intellectual honesty. The shifting rationales. ... The disrespect for rules and the intelligence of the public. It's rank dishonesty and purposefully flawed readings of history.


    Parent
    The statements don't need to be reconciled (1.14 / 7) (#23)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:14:02 PM EST
    because they aren't contradictory. Markos believed, properly at the time I might add, that Clinton was smarter than Obama or Edwards when she decided to leave her name on the ballot in Michigan. There is no suggestion that he has changed his mind about that.

    The point he commented on today has to do with Clinton's plain acknowledgment that neither MI nor FL would count, compared with her demand, today, that they be seated, and in the way most favorable to her. From the sound of her campaign, the very existence of democracy depends upon this.

    The Clinton campaign hasn't suggested that this is a referendum on feminism, but several of Clinton's supporters are treating it as such. And thus, the question becomes, if it is a referendum on feminism now, why wasn't it a referendum on feminism at the end of 2007?

    Parent

    Um ok (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:15:54 PM EST
    They are not contradictory.

    that is a view.

    Parent

    I Agree (none / 0) (#208)
    by squeaky on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:00:03 PM EST
    Not such a big contradiction to me either. Both statements seem true, depending on your perspective. Markos does seem to have changed his mind, though.

    Parent
    So Clinton bravely stayed on the MI (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:16:39 PM EST
    and Fl ballots.... for no reason at all?
    That doesn't make sense.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:18:13 PM EST
    A referendum on feminism?  Why didn't anybody tell me!

    Parent
    Because you weren't out in left field? (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:24:05 PM EST
    Oh, I'm way, way out in left field (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:27:35 PM EST
    which is why I won't/can't support someone as far out in right field on the Dem. Party line as Obama.

    Please, Obama and his supporters aren't even remotely on the left.

    Parent

    I meant the comment you responded to (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:32:18 PM EST
    was from left field, not his campaign. I didn't see that one flying in  ;)

    Parent
    Nonsense. (5.00 / 11) (#44)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:26:16 PM EST
    The part of Markos' comment that can't possibly be reconciled but must be if his argument is to be seen as anything more than a "situational" argument in support of his candidate is:

    The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

    If he believed that then and nothing has changed (and it hasn't) then he himself should be arguing in support of seating the delegations regardless of what particular argument the candidates are making and whether he believes those arguments derive from self interest or not (as should be expected from candidates competing for such high office).

    Parent

    Somehow That Point Keeps Getting Lost (5.00 / 8) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:35:16 PM EST
    Why any Obama supporter would want to give McCain a handicap in winning two important states is more than I can comprehend.

    Parent
    I think that's clear. . . (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:46:38 PM EST
    They believe that if the delegates from Florida and Michigan are counted it will endanger Obama's nomination.  If they weren't worried about that they wouldn't care.

    That applies to the Obama campaign stategists, really -- by now I think a lot of the people in the supporter-sphere have internalized the issue so much that they imagine they're on the side of principle in holding an election but not counting Florida's votes.

    And let's be frank -- the reason no one thought that much about these sanctions way back when is that no one envisioned an outcome in which the states would make a difference.

    If things somehow work out so that Obama's nomination is assured, he'll suddenly be okay with counting Florida and Michigan.  I'm not familiar enough with the math to know whether that's possible, but I doubt it.  Since either candidate needs solid super delegate support then even if Obama's over the magic number including Florida and Michigan, he could still lose if supers get cold feet (or twisted arms) at the convention.

    Parent

    It's not Markos's statements that need (1.00 / 4) (#78)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:44:07 PM EST
    to be reconciled in order to support his argument that the Clinton campaign is guilty of situational ethics.

    Twelve Clinton supporters on the RBC voted to strip FL and MI of all their delegates. If Hillary had any objection to that at the time, it certainly wasn't a matter of public knowledge. Now that MI and FL are essential to her nearly impossible anyway narrative to winning the nomination, Sen. Clinton and every one of her staff, including those who voted for the sanctions, are completely changing their ethical stance.

    Before they were convinced that the DNC's power to schedule needed to be enforced. Now that doesn't matter, and they are "convinced" that exacting any punishment on MI or FL would be "disenfranchising."

    The only thing that changed between then, and now, is that then, Sen. Clinton was the presumptive nominee. Now, Sen. Obama is. If there is some other way to explain the radical change in position, I haven't heard it.

    That is the essence of situational ethics.

    Parent

    Oh please. (5.00 / 12) (#85)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:50:02 PM EST
    then, Sen. Clinton was the presumptive nominee. Now, Sen. Obama is

    Of course, Obama has stated that if he is the presumptive nominee he would seat Florida and Michigan.

    So? Situational ethics, meet situation ethics.

    When Markos is prepared to argue as he did in January that the Democrats cannot afford to fail to seat Florida and Michigan, then he's entitled to throw around terms like "situation ethics".  Until then he ought to content himself as the poster boy for the American Society for Situation Ethics.

    Parent

    Your response is mere ad hominem (1.00 / 5) (#132)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:12:52 PM EST
    You are diverting from the issue Markos raises, and the one I set out, by attacking Markos. You are completely ignoring the points both he and I raise. That may be effective here, on some readers, but it's transparently lame to me.

    Parent
    Oh please. (5.00 / 7) (#154)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:27:59 PM EST
    Here you have someone who previously made a strong argument in favor of seating both Florida and Michigan and who now completely negates, or ignores, that argument.

    And you have a candidate (Obama) who promised to seat the delegations if he became the presumptive nominee.

    Every party in this argument is arguing from self interest -- the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign, and no less clearly than either of the campaigns, Markos himself.

    You wish to limit the discussion to only one person -- Clinton.  Why is that?  BTD's post isn't  a discussion of whether or not Clinton is acting out of self-interest in this case (as he's pointed out many times before, a politician who doesn't take political advantage is not a very good politician).  His point is to display Markos's hypocricy on this issue.


    Parent

    His "points" (4.80 / 5) (#135)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:15:09 PM EST
    You mean his broad brush attack on Hillary supporters? Get real. To the extent he has a point, it is irrelevant to the question of whether MI and FL should be seated. Larry IS actually addressing that question.


    Parent
    No, the issue Markos raised (none / 0) (#173)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:50:52 PM EST
    is why Hillary's position on MI and FL is 180 degrees different from what it was at the beginning of the nomination contests.

    Parent
    For the sake of argument (5.00 / 11) (#90)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:53:15 PM EST
    Let's suppose Clinton's supporters motives are impure. Whatever they said then, they are now in favor of counting the votes. They are now on the right side of this.

    Let's suppose that Obama's motives are pure. He believes in the roolz, or at least the ones that the RBC has decided it will enforce. He is against counting the votes. He is on the wrong side of this.

    There is no argument that I can stomach that says roolz are more important than voters. For example, it is now a rool that states can require government-issued photo id before voting. Rool or not, it will disenfranchise voters in Novermber. We should be for counting all the votes.

    And, you fail to recognize that while the committee did vote to strip the delegates, there were always ways for MI and FL to regain their votes. Obama blocked some of those efforts. The initial committee vote did not permanently strip the delegates; the Clinton supporters who voted for this did not vote for permanently stripping the delegates.

    Parent

    I'll be happy to reply (1.00 / 5) (#134)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:13:41 PM EST
    if you cease using your silly misspelling of "rules." That's not conducive to a serious discussion.

    Parent
    Seating FL or MI (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:03:37 PM EST
    only after a nominee is determined (without FL/MI delegates voting) might be alienating FL/MI  

    Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates


    Parent
    Feminism (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:13:06 PM EST
    You actually think that supporting Hillary Clinton is an act of feminism.  You are way out to lunch.

    This WASP male supports Hillary Clinton because she is the vastly superior candidate, because she is Presidential timber.  Her opponent is neither qualified nor suited to be President.

    From where I sit gender, ethnicity, religion have no standing.

    Hillary Clinton is also a fighter. Bread and butter Democrats, of both genders, love fighters and won't tolerate anyone who won't do battle with Republicans.


    Parent

    Are... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Cal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:02:32 PM EST
    ...smug grins allowed?  :)

    Parent
    sure (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:03:29 PM EST
    you can also share BTD's views -- just keep it civil, no name-calling or personal attacks.

    Parent
    So, to recap: (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Jim J on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:32:51 PM EST
    BTD can say bad stuff about Kos and his website, we can't. However, we are allowed to "share BTD's views," if we like. As long as nothing bad about Kos or his website is said.

    So why do you guys constantly post stuff about Kos if our responses are so circumscribed as to be basically useless? Enlighten me. I'm all ears.

    Parent

    You can say stuff, just keep it (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:35:49 PM EST
    civil and respectful, that's for all sides.

    Parent
    I quoted his words (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:42:35 PM EST
    That's all.

    Parent
    And in doing so. . . (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:00:42 PM EST
    managed to slam him pretty strongly!

    Parent
    Maybe that (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:02:17 PM EST
    Wasn't the intent?

    Parent
    Most Effective Way To Slam Someone Is (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:10:41 PM EST
    to use their own words.

    Parent
    It's Jeralyn's blog (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:50:25 PM EST
    with BTD contributing.

    It isn't our blog.  If we don't like it, we find another blog.

    They have the right to make the rules here, even if you don't think the rules are fair.

    Parent

    Um... (none / 0) (#74)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:38:14 PM EST

    BTD can say bad stuff about Kos

    What bad stuff?  Or is it that Kos's words own hurt his present position?

    I loved that site before he changed the format, and we emailed each other once or twice at the beginning.  He's got potential.  He's just picked the wrong side this time.  Disappointing.

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:22:54 PM EST
    What BTD's views are about the irroncilability of Kos's statements.


    Parent
    Oh Kos, we hardly knew ye....I guess this could (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:04:33 PM EST
    be called flippity-flop-flop...doing what you need to plead your case at the risk of being called an untruth teller.

    Parent
    is... (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by Turkana on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:04:05 PM EST
    "heh" okay?

    Parent
    I'll join (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:05:49 PM EST
    ummm...likewise (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:11:55 PM EST
    I think it is a pretty good site (none / 0) (#129)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:12:32 PM EST
    Any place that gets people discussing the issues is good.  

    Sam- there is no real discussion (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by kenosharick on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:39:19 PM EST
    there and at americablog, ect. If you do not cheerlead their guy and attack Clinton you are viciously attacked and called names- this is certainly not "discusson"

    Parent
    mirror (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Ovah on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:19:44 PM EST

    you can't say that this site is any different.

    Parent
    Must disagree (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by citizen53 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:48:59 PM EST
    I find it a place filled with people who demonize others and completely intolerant of dissent.


    Parent
    Discussion, yes but... (4.00 / 4) (#143)
    by santarita on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:20:42 PM EST
    that site has been long on cheering for their candidate and short on discussion (if by discussion you mean people with different points of view interacting in a civilized manner).

    Parent