home

Now That It Is "Over," About FL And MI

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:25:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

If the Obama campaign believes, very reasonably, that he is virtually assured of the nomination, the time is now to agree to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations.

It is time for Obama and his supporters to realize that NOT seating Florida and Michigan hurts him in terms of unifying the Party and in terms of the general election in Florida especially.

The time is right Senator Obama, agree to the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments now closed.

< Georgia Execution: The Death Penalty Resumes | Ignoring "The Problem" >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Now That It Is "Over," About FL And MI | 269 comments (269 topical)
    Scorched earth (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:27:43 PM EST
    politicking means they ignore FL and MI until the bitter end.

    I do not expect reason, or anything that will save the dem party, from these jokers.

    Which is fine, because I'm the demographic that they don't really need anymore.

    white blue collar and Hispanic Dems (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:02:36 PM EST
    no longer needed to win Dem presidential elections.
    Surely McCain got the memo.
    Brazile was on Nightline last night and never offered an apology.


    Parent
    Headline today (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:20 PM EST
    John McCain courts Blue Collar Democrats in Ohio, Penn, Kentucky.
    Well because they tend towards socially conservative positions he will no doubt pick up a lot.
    DNC and other leaders have made a serious error in judgment.
    I want Pelosi, Dean et al out of power.  Knowing I cannot vote for Obama because of the race-baiting and dishonesty (not to mention I think he's weak).  Do I just support my local dems and push for the others to get out?  

    Parent
    Obama should have his micro marketing trolls (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:23:09 PM EST
    swarm over Ohio and Penn and Missouri and start yelling about disloyal Dems and Roe V Wade being threatened by those disloyal Dems.

    yah that'll work.

    Oh wait, have those micro marketing trolls swarm over Ohio and Penn and Missouri and repeat that Obama is ambivalent about abortion rights.

    I hope noone noticed that slip.

    Parent

    Ain't too Proud (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by hlr on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    John McCain courts Blue Collar Democrats in Ohio, Penn, Kentucky

    to beg for Donna Brazile's leftovers. LOL.

    Parent

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by BernieO on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:16 PM EST
    The message coming from the Democratic party to the voters of Fla and Mich. .....We don't need your votes. Ditto for older Americans, women, etc.
    Smart policy considering African Americans make up only 13% of the country. There is a reliable hard core right wing base of about 30% (the amount that stays loyal to Bush). Even if a third of them dislike McCain enough to vote in the GE and every African American votes they are still outnumbered. Obama lost the white vote in NC by 20 points and he also lost independents, according to  NPR.

    Parent
    Kantor trick and AA vote (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:31:23 PM EST
    The Kantor dirty trick needs to be examined.  From radio etc, it played big in the AA vote.  This was as any Rove dirty trick.  

    Parent
    Why are you here? (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:29:17 PM EST
    What are you accomplishing with this?  Why are you goading?  Why are you being petty?  Who does this help?

    Well..you would not understand why (none / 0) (#249)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:51 PM EST
    they come here.  You see there is injustice to fight in the world.  There is corruption.  There is peace to make.  But, alas, these folks only fight us,  online.  When did they create or make any change?  Just like their leader, it's all about new age liberation theology--cause as we know, they even threw the old one under the bus, you know the ones that have the programs in the community.  

    Parent
    Aren't you running out of salt to rub in? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:29:28 PM EST


    I agree its time to agree to seat them (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by TruthMatters on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:29:33 PM EST
    but not as is, I doubt the DNC is ready to say yep we are completely irrelevant violate our rules and we won't do crap.

    probably strip FL of 1/2 their delegates, and MI that I dunno, thats harder

    Why not seat them as is? If Obama (none / 0) (#33)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:41:01 PM EST
    cannot earn the nomination without excluding FL and MI, then he has not won convincingly. Are you saying he can't get enough delegates---still?

    Parent
    Why not? How about Obama wasn't on the MI ballot. (3.00 / 2) (#45)
    by kindness on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:43:52 PM EST
    How is it that you can't understand that seating the Michigan delegates is wrong because the only Democrat on the ballot was Hillary.

    I think they shouldn't seat them at all, either FL or MI

    Parent

    please stop lying (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Nasarius on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:54:31 PM EST
    Hillary was absolutely not the only one on the ballot in Michigan.

    Parent
    Hillary WAS NOT the ONLY (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by vicsan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    Democrat on the ballot. Dodd and Kucinich were also on it. Stop lying.

    Parent
    Kucinich? (none / 0) (#188)
    by decih on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:29 PM EST
    I don't remember if Kucinich was on the ballot when I went into vote, but according to this link, he was planning to remove it:

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/10/five_democratic_hopefuls_pull_names_off_michig an_ballot/

    Perhaps you're thinking of Gravel instead?

    Parent

    Update (none / 0) (#199)
    by decih on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:16:51 PM EST
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Democratic_primary,_2008

    Okay, Kucinich wanted off, but wasn't able to remove his name.

    Parent

    Kucinich (none / 0) (#208)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    He missed the deadline to remove his name.

    Parent
    Why can't you understand that Obama (none / 0) (#49)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    chose to take himself off the MI ballot to avoid the humiliation of  a loss? No rule required him to do so. That aside, you didn't answer my question.


    Parent
    Gore was running an uncontested election (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM EST
    Bradley was that bad.

    Edwards was ensuring support in Iowa.

    Obama was avoiding a crushing Clinton win and ensuring support in Iowa.

    Parent

    Howd that work for Gore in the GE? (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by catfish on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    I can't remember.

    Parent
    I have better things to do than argue with you. (none / 0) (#114)
    by kindness on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:55:49 PM EST
    I just gave you my reason why I think Michigan's shouldn't be seated.

    But I won't try to stop you from making things up.

    Parent

    A downrating for continued untruths (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:56 PM EST
    so either provide evidence to support your claim or stop it.  Untruths just clutter up and even confuse and prevent progress in conversation here.

    Parent
    Facts are stubborn things. (none / 0) (#125)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:58:05 PM EST
    Obama's decision to remove his name from the MI primary was absolutely crucial in his stategy. Had he contested and lost Michigan, he would have been in a perilous situation.
    All this is beside the point---since Obama will apparently win the nomination even if MI is seated as is, there is no good reason not to do so.

    Parent
    Florida (none / 0) (#116)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:56:25 PM EST
    Then why not remove himself from the Florida ballot? He had plenty of time prior to the list being submitted to the Dept of State on Nov 7. He didn't even attempt it.

    And before you say anything about the affidavit, that is only required AFTER the Nov 7th submission. He could have asked the FDP not to submit it to the Sec of State or asked the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee to remove his name. Both actions would not have required him to state he wasn't going to be a candidate at the convention.

    Parent

    Your understanding is faulty (none / 0) (#241)
    by tree on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:31:46 PM EST
    There was a deadline after which they could not remove their names without being banned from ballot in November, but Obama and the others had plenty of time before that to remove their names if they so desired.

    Parent
    Florida ballot rules (none / 0) (#263)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:38:42 PM EST
    I feel a little guilty about that. Last October I misread or rather hastily read the rules and put forth that idea. I'm probably not the only one.

    I failed to take into account that the affidavit doesn't become required until the names are submitted to the Department of State on Nov 7th.

    Each party submits its list by the end of October. The FDP voted around October 28 or 29 (I can't remember exactly but it was around the end of the convention). At that point the FDP could have added or removed any candidate they wanted (they tried to get Gore to agree to be on it but his staff declined). Any candidate could have asked to be removed. No affidavit would have been required at that point. Then they submitted their list to the Secretary of State by Oct 31. After this point I see no means of adding any candidate names only deleting them.

    At that point the list goes to the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee, which the Secretary of State chairs. They then can remove anyone who doesn't want to be on the list or they don't want on the list as long as everyone in the same political party on the committee agrees (only Dems vote on Dems list and Repubs on Repub list). Again this would not require an affidavit. This occurs on Nov 6.

    Afterwords on Nov 7, they submit the list to the Department of State who mails each candidate to tell them they are on the ballot. Only way at this point to be removed from the ballot is to send an affidavit by Nov 12 saying you will not be a candidate at the convention.

    So prior to Nov 7, the candidates have 2 separate groups they could approach to have their names removed from the primary ballot without having to swear not to be a candidate at the convention.

    Parent

    And your name is Kindness...ironic, no? (none / 0) (#71)
    by leis on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:48:59 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm going to vote for which ever Democrat wins the (none / 0) (#123)
    by kindness on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:57:30 PM EST
    nomination.  Who are you going to vote for?

    Parent
    I'll Have To Think About That (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:11:34 PM EST
    I'll have to think about his policies, his approach and his tone.

    Parent
    I believe the point of the post (none / 0) (#160)
    by leis on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:07:43 PM EST
    is that neither are legitimate when you exclude
    Fl & MI.  

    Parent
    Would you vote for Barack if he wins? (none / 0) (#215)
    by kindness on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:21:22 PM EST
    I said I'd vote for Hillary if she wins.  What about you?

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#191)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:13 PM EST
    I'll focus on congressional candidates instead.

    Really, the president is pretty much a figure-head, anyway.

    Parent

    But unfortunately (none / 0) (#217)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:21:36 PM EST
    with the way things are going, there won't be a real Democrat running in the GE.  It seems that both parties want to nominate people who: 1) Like both Bush Sr. and Reagan, 2) Don't seem to care about LGBT issues ( not the right time to work on them ), 3) Care about anti-abortionist (feels their pain), 4) Admire Justice Roberts and his decisions.  Oh last, but not least: 5) Possesses an outie not an inie ( and I'm not talking navel.)

    Parent
    lol* (none / 0) (#224)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:24:41 PM EST
    I had to think about the last point.

    Seriously, I'm ready to plow back in on my own agenda.

    It's now all about the Congress.  

    I don't much care who wins the presidency at this point.

    My gal was the BEST!

    Dang, she would have made history sing.

    But......

    But......

    She lost.  So I'm onto looking at the Congress.

    This could be a new and fun interesting obsession.

    First order of the day.

    Boot out the idiots running the party.

    Parent

    You see and my focus is the Supreme Court nominees (none / 0) (#237)
    by kindness on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    In my mind, that's why I think the residency is still very important.

    McSame says he'll nominate more Alioto's & Roberts.  Last thing we need is that type of individual(s) judging anything or anyone.

    Parent

    And who would Obama nominate? (none / 0) (#239)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    Since he was so enamored of Roberts until someone told him it wasn't politically expedient to vote for him?

    Parent
    If you think Hillary or Obama nominees will be as (none / 0) (#265)
    by kindness on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:39:55 PM EST
    bad for the Nation as John McCain....I can't help you much.  I'm not sure anyone can.

    To suggest that the Democratic candidate isn't important is a fallacy.  Don't let your bruised ego wreck what is left of what is good about the US.

    Parent

    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#272)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:44:09 PM EST
    ...so which is it, is he a radical leftist or a closet conservative? A Muslim in hiding or a fundamentalist Christian?

     If you do not believe that Senator Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, will appoint more fit nominees than Senator McCain there is absolutely no other candidate for you but Senator Clinton.  And it appears that a large number of her supporters feel that way: Give me Clinton, or give me McCain.  Well, that is a sorry state of affairs, and you may be kicking yourselves come 2009.

    Parent

    It"s how I and (none / 0) (#247)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:29 PM EST
    my wife feel, we'll look at the down ticket fights in PA and work for them.  No money for the DNC from us for their screw-up.

    Parent
    not true (none / 0) (#164)
    by The Realist on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:08:57 PM EST
    Chris Dodd was also on the ballot

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#197)
    by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:52 PM EST
    lobbied four other nominees to remove themselves from the MI ballot to hurt front runner Clinton in other states.  Five different campaigns admitted to it.  Look it up.  More old time Obamatics.

    Parent
    Actually, he WAS (none / 0) (#216)
    by oldpro on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:21:22 PM EST
    on the ballot.

    But then he went to all the trouble of removing his name from the ballot...an 'affirmative' action, as it were.

    It was tactical...and now he's trying to make it pay off by crying 'not fair, not fair'...I wasn't even on the ballot.  This argument should not play well with experienced Dems.

    The truth is, he was afraid he'd lose without being able to explain it.  Worked so far....

    Parent

    Heaven knows (5.00 / 1) (#274)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:44:57 PM EST
    if he had been on the ballot, and Hillary had taken her name off, he sure wouldn't be screaming unfair to seat the delegates on the January votes.

    Parent
    But they did do "crap" as you put it (none / 0) (#81)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:50:29 PM EST
    They allowed the probable nomination of the candidates these states did not vote for. Not only did they nullify the voice of these states in the process they, in effect, gave them a negative vote.

    The DNC should be very satisfied with themselves. At this point they are just being sadistic.

    Parent

    These are my thoughts exactly (none / 0) (#143)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:03:40 PM EST
    I did email Ms. Brazile to tell her I thought her handling of this was "scorched earth" - she told me to stay positive.  

    Parent
    So tell her you're *positive* (none / 0) (#234)
    by tree on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:08 PM EST
    her tactics are scorched earth.

    Parent
    That ship has sailed (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:30:20 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan are either going to go for Obama or not, but I don't think that his endorsing seating their delegates when it doesn't matter is going to help him. If he had fought for their votes to count earlier, it might have mattered. Nobody likes to be written off (and I am speaking as someone who feels as if the entire leadership of the Democratic Party has written her off).

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    The damage is done at this point and cannot be fixed.  It would have been a bold gesture a month ago, but that ship is far out to sea.

    Seat them or don't seat them - even in FL I don't care anymore.  Obama is not going to win FL either way.

    Parent

    I agree with you. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by FLVoter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:55:09 PM EST
    The DNC and Sen. Obama tried very hard not to seat FL and MI.  I can't speak for MI, but for FL you are right.  That ship sailed a long time ago. I have said it before the DNC did not count me, then don't count me for the GE.  BTW, if I believed that Sen. Obama would actually do something about ending the war or appointing Supreme Court Justices to preserve abortion rights, then I may be able to hold my nose and vote for him.  But with the revelations of Samantha Power concerning Sen. Obama's plan to end the war only a best case scenario, his statement that he does not know when life begins and that both sides have to be taken into consideration, I have no faith that he will address these issues. When you add to the mix the advisors he has surrounded himself with, I do not see President Obama as helping our current situation (foriegn and domestic). My vote must be earned and so far he has not earned it.  If he is the nominee, I may sit this one out.

    Parent
    He's not at all safe on abortion (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:57:45 PM EST
    rights.  Look at his comments.

    Right now, other than court appts., I am not seeing a reason to vote for him.

    But then, I admit, I think McCain is talking tougher than he is.  I do think he's a lot more moderate than he's had to talk to soothe his own Republican base.

    We'll see.  As an independent, I'll be looking to both candidates in the Fall to convince me on the issues.

    Parent

    As a new Independent, I am seriously (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by FLVoter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    looking at Sen. John McCain.  Everybody can disagree with me, but my vote is my own.  Calling me names bringing up Supreme Court appointments, the war, the economy will not help since I do not believe either Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama will be good on any of these issues.  Frankly, in my income bracket, Sen. McCain would be better for me.  

    Parent
    You know (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:07:38 PM EST
    I'm starting to lean towards......work for Dems in Congress.

    Let McCain be the figurehead president.

    I sort of like this idea.

    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:01 PM EST
    I'm in the same spot.

    Obama is deadly to me financially.

    I've never voted on financial issues.  As my Gen-X son says, "You're totally about social issues and always have been."  

    I liked what someone said here today that I've figured if everyone's boat rose up, mine would, too.

    I believe in that wholeheartedly.

    I live in LA.  I'm no bleeding heart liberal.  Trust me.  We have huge problems here due to the flood over the border.  BUT.....we also are a state that has a huge LEGAL and highly productive Latino population.  Good golly, I simply can't imagine backing a party that talks like Donna did last night.

    So now, I've got financial motive to switch to Republican and not a great motivation to stay with the Democrats based on social justice principles.

    I'm grieving the loss of my Democratic Party as much or more than the loss of my candidate today.

    I trust Hillary will be just fine.  She's a toughie.

    I'm not so sure the party will be.

    I'm a new "Independent," so it will take awhile to adjust to not worrying.  

    Not my problem anymore.

    And to be honest?

    Neither is Dems in FL and MI.

    They will vote how they vote.

    Parent

    At long last, I now also understand (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:51 PM EST
    liberal fatigue.  And it has cost me a lot that could have made it possible to retire "on time."  I think that will be my focus now -- since self-interest is now the new order for Dems.    

    Parent
    LOL* (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:20:46 PM EST
    I like it.  Liberal Fatigue.

    I gotta admit......my staunch Dem dad turned Republican in later years and said to me,

    "You eventually just give up and vote for your pocketbook."  :)

    Parent

    When there are no real choices, I choose (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by FLVoter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:25:16 PM EST
    my own self interest. Other dems have done it and as an independent I have no more party loyalty to sway me on social issues. With the possiblity of President Obama or President McCain time to wake up and make sure you can take care of yourself in all aspects of retirement.  AARP is not that far away for me.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#276)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:00 PM EST
    and I think I've found a path to resolution today.

    The presidency is much ado about nothing, anyway.

    I can cut this both ways.

    I'm going to focus on congressional sea

    Parent

    "ideology-free" (none / 0) (#246)
    by hlr on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:14 PM EST
    since self-interest is now the new order for Dems.

    was your first hint.

    Parent

    Seating and voting (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:31:08 PM EST
    The current offer from Dean (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that the delegations will be seated but not actually get to cast any votes. To me that's like inviting someone to your party and then saying 'sit there, but you can't eat/drink/interact'. Unless their votes get counted and the will of the voters in both states is considered, it's still a slap in the face.

    And despite what I keep being told I mean, I would feel this way whether the vote favoured Clinton OR Obama. The DNC (esp Donna Brazille) seem to forget what democracy is in their rush to coronate a candidate.

    It's well known (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:31:36 PM EST
    exactly what went on.

    But I do agree, it won't matter.

    Because Florida Dems already know exactly what went down, and so does Mich.

    He doesn't need them.  Remember?

    Do you really think we're that stupid? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:32:35 PM EST
    Or are you a Republican who is trolling for votes for McCain? I can't think of another option. Heck, why not just skip the rest of the primaries and count half of the votes for Obama and half for Clinton. It's not like actual votes matter or anything, as long as Obama wins. Right?

    It won't happen until (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Faust on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:34:09 PM EST
    it's over as opposed to "over."

    It's Probably too late (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:40:13 PM EST
    People are gonna know how this was played.

    But the clock is still ticking.

    grrrr. IT IS NOT OVER. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by kangeroo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:41:46 PM EST
    i am so angry at the media, mcgovern, and all of the obama concern trolls out here today in full force.

    these are the same damn people who bring democrats down and make us lose.  these are the same people who quit when the chips are down.  these are the same people who won't fight when it matters.

    BTD, i love you, but i won't let even you demoralize me.  i refuse to fall for the same old repackaged WWTSBQ bullsh*t just because it's being said for the 1,000,001st time.  hard things are put in our way, not to stop us, but to call out our courage and strength.

    i just donated $50 to hillary's campaign.  somebody please match me.  this woman is fighting for all of us, for our country, and for the world.  obama is fighting for himself.  and you doubt which side you should be on??!!

    RISE, HILLARY, RISE

    My cat just matched you! (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:48:29 PM EST
    Come on, folks--rally 'round.

    Andgarden, get your hiney off your shoulders.  What has changed?  She was never expected to win IN.  Get the spreadsheet!

    Parent

    Contributed again this (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by zfran on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:45:39 PM EST
    morning. Some things are too important and so worth fighting for...I think "President of the United States" qualifies. GO HILLARY!!!

    I think it's too late (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by katiebird on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:45:43 PM EST
    Since the DNC made it clear that Obama had total control of the situation all winter and fall -- refusing revotes which would have settled the whole thing.

    The DNC created this situation.  Looked to Obama to solve it.  

    And Obama graciously allowing the 2 states to participate now is totally meaningless.  All it would signal is that he believes they don't matter now.

    Worse (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:48:21 PM EST
    It means he expects the people he doesn't care about to show up and cheer for him.


    Parent
    (nodding) (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by katiebird on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:53:42 PM EST
    My mind is made up on this issue.  And it's too late for the bullies to recover with dignity.  They went too far.

    Parent
    Did anyone catch Windbag Bill Bennett (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by DCDemocrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    on CNN last evening?  He was going on about all the ways that Obama has won.  He's won the most delegates.  He's won the most popular votes.  He's won (get this) all the big states.

    These people are not held to any standards.

    Consider the source and change the channel. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Buckeye on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:48:32 PM EST


    Parent
    exactly (none / 0) (#95)
    by CanadianDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:52:49 PM EST
    Fox seems to be the most legit outfit right now for us.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#120)
    by Buckeye on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:57:12 PM EST
    What is the temperature in hell right now????

    Parent
    Shocking republicans trying to make sure Obama... (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:51:26 PM EST
    is the nominee. Can't believe it.

    You think McCain is picking out the furniture he wants in the Oval office on his next visit to the WH?

    Parent

    PA and CA will be surprised (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:53:43 PM EST
    to find out that they aren't big states.

    Parent
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#154)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    New York, Massachussetts and Ohio. Who knew?!

    Parent
    What was (none / 0) (#261)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:38:07 PM EST
    he doing? Celebrating a McCain presidency? I would imagine the only reason Bennett would get excited about Obama is because they think they can beat him.

    Parent
    Too late to matter (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Buckeye on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:48:05 PM EST
    If Obama agrees to do this only because he beleives he does not need them, they were still disenfranchised.

    When the outcome is in doubt is when it matters, and the Obama campaign and Dean were just fine leaving them out.  That is what ultimately matters, not the perfunctory exercise of letting their delegates participate in the convention proceedings.

    Penalty Box vs Game Misconduct (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by HenryFTP on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:49:44 PM EST
    The "Party Elders" apparently remain maddeningly lacking in awareness of how self-destructive their behavior has been, and it is clearly time for the Standard Bearer Presumptive to take this out of the hands of the squabbling Elders and seek to make amends with Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan.

    I don't expect many Obama supporters to be magnanimous in victory, but the Standard Bearer sure needs to figure out how to do it and not just pay lip service to the idea.

    Rules were broken, but they do not merit the sort of "game misconduct" or "red card" that the DNC would like to administer. It's a "yellow card", and FL and MI have spent more than enough time in the penalty box. The delegations should be fully empowered to vote for the nominees, but "punished" on procedural matters, particularly those which would be of greatest interest to the FL and MI Party officials who bear the heaviest burden of responsibility for this fiasco.

    Sore loser (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by lentinel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:55:14 PM EST
    I supported Hillary Clinton in the contest between her and Obama.
    I would have preferred a true progressive, but the dems and the media prevented that from happening.

    What I don't, won't and can't identify with is the mantra that is beginning to be bellowed - that we who did not support Obama must rally to support him lest McCain be elected.

    I can't vote for Obama.
    I found his campaign, touted as something to be admired, to be despicable. I found it to be racist. I found it to be sexist. I found it to be elitist. I found it to be intolerant.

    If someone, somewhere, runs for President and expresses the things I believe in, I will vote for that person. But I will not vote for the democrat just because he or she is not the republican.
    Can anyone say that Johnson (50,000 dead Americans) was better than Goldwater would have been?

    Nuts.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    from the perspective of 2008, Goldwater looks down right liberal.  Did you catch the documentary his granddaughter did about him?  It was on HBO last fall.

    Parent
    I hear you (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:29 PM EST
    MI and FL are symbolic of the position that Obama's campaign put a lot of us into.

    We all know the back-door tactics used.  We all know why.

    But he took away our reason to rally behind him when he did that.

    Parent

    part of me wants them to keep resisting (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:59:05 PM EST
    its evil I know.

    Human (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    not evil.

    I'm highly competitive.  It takes practice to lose.  :)

    Parent

    Some of us (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:55 PM EST
    are like our preferred candidate -- we don't take it lying down and don't give up the good fight.

    Parent
    Too Late (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by GMN on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    for me.  I've left the party. I'm no longer a Dem.  I will not vote for Obama, and I will not give a single cent to the DNC.  Obama, Brazille, Dean, Clyburn, et. al., can build their racist, affirmative action new Democratic party without me.

    Obama won't do a thing (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    He'll let the rules committee do whatever it is they are going to do on May 20, or 31, or whenever it is they meet.  He is not a leader.  Leaders take sides and point the way, even if it is risky or sometimes rule-breaking.

    The ship sailed (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:07:39 PM EST
    and I don't think anyonew would see this as anymore than a political stunt and pretense at its worst.

    We might as well write Florida and Michigan off if Obama gets the nod.

    Who does BO need? (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:37 PM EST
    I'm trying to get a handle on just who BO thinks he needs.
    Not FL or MI.
    Not hispanics or the working-class.
    Not women. Not gays.
    Not the pro-choice, pro-environment people.
    Not the people who think America needs to move to single payer health care.

    He was happy to need Dems-for-a-Day until some started voting for Hillary.

    So who is his base?

    As Paul Begala said last night (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:31 PM EST
    African Americans and egg heads. And I would add the party elite who would rather tank the entire Democratic Party than contend with the Clintons again, esp when OMG, it might mean they have to do more than collect a paycheck and fight lukewarm battles.

    Parent
    honestly (none / 0) (#201)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    there was never a better argument for education NOT equaling intelligence.

    Parent
    seems to me its red state democrats (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    and the whine and cheeze crowd.  it will be interesting to see how that works out for him.


    Parent
    The people (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:52 PM EST
    under his bus?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#206)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:18:01 PM EST
    Maybe that WOULD be a large enough number to assure victory :)

    Parent
    I was thinking (none / 0) (#212)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:20:17 PM EST
    it would be a broad base.
    Like Captain Howdy says,
    I am evil and backslidin. ;)

    Parent
    College kids (none / 0) (#200)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:01 PM EST
    who don't traditionally turn out, AA's, and the people in Utah, North Dakota, and Mississippi.

    Parent
    Anti Clinton voters (none / 0) (#275)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:45:32 PM EST
    The depth of anti Clinton sentiment, particularly among the Republicans, the Democratic party elite and the so called "progressive" wing of the party, can not be underestimated.  If you can judge a person by the enemies they make, Hillary must be A-OK.

    Parent
    I've got a Newsweek from last week (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:19:21 PM EST
    "Losing ground"

    Obama's double-digit lead in IN dropped to 7 points, they said.

    What has changed?

    What changed (none / 0) (#257)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:36:40 PM EST
    It has been obvious for a while that the DNC and a big chunk of the Democratic party establishment are hellbent on giving the nomination to Obama.  Last night Hillary needed a bigger victory in IN and a closer finish in NC to cause the party honchos to have second thoughts.  It was her next to last chance and it did not happen.  She is quickly running out of time.  The last very, very slim hope is a huge upset in OR and that seems very unlikely.  In the meantime, enough SDs may declare for Obama to make even that remote possibility moot.  FL and MI will not be resolved until Obama has secured the nomination.

    Parent
    Wow - the party that (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Anne on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:19:47 PM EST
    feigns leadership (see: Dean, Howard and Brazile, Donna) - and even does that poorly - is engineering the nomination of the candidate who  deigns to grace us with his candidacy.

    Sorry, but this is not MY Democratic Party.

    Time for a harder line from Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:28:54 PM EST
    She needs to make an unequivical statement that:
    (1) she is staying in the race until one candidate secures 2209 delegates
    (2) if it goes to the convention that's fine with her.

    Under this scenario, the MI/FL issue will take care of itself in due course.

    BTD, you know that won't work (5.00 / 1) (#259)
    by daryl herbert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:37:34 PM EST
    If FL/MI are seated now, it will be enough of a boost to HRC that the race won't be "over"

    It will be back on, which is exactly what he wants to avoid.

    god forbid (none / 0) (#266)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:40:09 PM EST
    he should have a race on his hands.
    that would never do.

    Parent
    A couple of points... (5.00 / 1) (#270)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:42:19 PM EST
    First of all, it may be too late to assuage any anger in FL and MI. Letting them count only when they don't matter is the same as not letting them count at all.

    Second, the argument that you can punish the people for the actions of their elected officials is nonsense. I don't care if it was the Dems or Reps who did it. The people could vote to abolish the First Amendment (and often do, in fact) but it wouldn't have any effect.

    Voting is a right. It cannot be taken away for any reason. I'm frankly astonished that the party that lost Florida in 2000 would ever argue anything differently.

    do we deserve to win? (none / 0) (#273)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:44:28 PM EST
    it a fair question.

    Parent
    Here is a fair proposal to Obama (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by BigB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:37:26 PM EST
    a) Agree to a revote in FL and MI.

    b) Agree that the person who leads the popular vote after the revote should be the nominee.

    If Obama agrees to that then he has a way to demonstrate that he is a stronger nominee than Hillary. By winning FL and MI in a fair contest.
    He probabl will have more funds to spend in both states and will still have the MSM in the tank for him.

    Will he agree?

    He could seat both FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:45:38 PM EST
    now, as they voted and still lead by 100 delegates.  A revote would only increase that total.

    Parent
    Can't pull off a revote (none / 0) (#129)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    before June 6.  That is the deadline according to the Roooz.

    Another ship that has long since sailed.

    Parent

    They can change the rules (none / 0) (#187)
    by BigB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    Nothing sacrosanct about these deadlines.

    Parent
    Since the votes won't matter (none / 0) (#6)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    there's no reason not to agree to do the stupid 50/50 deal.

    No way (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:46:35 PM EST
    Its not about who is in or out, but people voted and it means something.

    Parent
    Well, Obama didn't think (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    anyone in Michigan wanted to vote for him, because he took his name off the ballot.

    That's on him, not on the rest of the voters.

    Parent

    The delegates from the "uncommitted" (none / 0) (#101)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:54:06 PM EST
    vote would be uncommitted.  If Obama wouldn't have gotten zero votes in MI, he also wouldn't have gotten every single one of the non-Hillary votes.  We can only guess how much of the uncommitted vote would have gone to him, to Edwards, and to the other candidates then still in the race.

    Let the uncommitted vote have uncommitted delegates.  Let Obama and Hillary fight for them. If Obama wins them, so be it.

    Parent

    Yes, there were Obama supporters (none / 0) (#152)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    But it was Obama who denied the voters the chance to vote for him.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:30:11 PM EST
    Seat them as is, he'll still win.

    I still don't see... (none / 0) (#11)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:31:56 PM EST
    How you seat an 'uncommitted' delegate.

    Other than that, I agree.

    Parent

    You seat them (none / 0) (#17)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:33:32 PM EST
    as "uncommitted", which means they get to vote for whomever they choose.

    Parent
    You seat them (none / 0) (#23)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:37:34 PM EST
    But how do you choose them? I mean, the abstract delegates may be labeled "uncommitted," but the abstract seats need to be filled by concrete, actual people, who have to be selected or elected. It would be impossible to find anyone in MI who is legitimately uncommitted at this stage, I think.

    Parent
    Yeah, but that doesn't work in practice. (none / 0) (#25)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:38:42 PM EST
    Because at this point, there's nobody in the Democratic Party left who doesn't have a preference one way or the other.

    Which means it all comes down to who is picking the uncommitteds....and I see no fair way to do that.

    Parent

    They will be committed to one (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    candidate or another at the state convention IIRC. Obama should get more than a few. Set them as they are chosen.

    Parent
    That's just it. (none / 0) (#32)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    They'll be positively packed with Obama supporters. No way the Hillary campaign will agree to that.

    Parent
    If MI is seated as is (none / 0) (#42)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:43:08 PM EST
    then uncommitteds are chosen at the state convention regardless of what Clinton might want - that's the state's procedure. And many of them are going to be for Obama.

    If MI receives no penalty at all, just by letting the rules of MI delegate selection play out, the final margin there will probably be something like 58-37 or so.

    Parent

    That seems like a fair delegation to me (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:46:27 PM EST
    I say go with it.

    Parent
    They've already been chosen. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    Obama got 36 of them and there are either 17 or 26 still uncommitted who were chosen, I forget the number.

    Parent
    Strangely enough it's not about whether he wins (none / 0) (#15)
    by Rigelian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    frankly the issue is related to the fact that in future primaries the party has to have some means of stopping states from ignoring a rational schedule in an effort to move to the front of the process.  If Florida and Michigan are seated as is, what will stop states in the future from ignoring the rules agreed to by the party?

    Parent
    The moral thing to do (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:35:19 PM EST
    is to find a way to control the process without punishing the voters, who have done nothing wrong.

    Parent
    The moral thing to do (none / 0) (#26)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:38:50 PM EST
    Leave the voters intact, and strip the superdelegates instead?

    Parent
    I'm ok with that (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:39:31 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm ok with that (none / 0) (#38)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:42:11 PM EST
    It's settled then! Who should we tell? :-)

    Parent
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#40)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:42:24 PM EST
    The superdelegates are not responsible (with 2 exceptions I believe). SDs are not the rank and file of the state legislature. One of them is even an ex-Governor of Maine who just happens to live in Florida now. How is he responsible?

    Disclaimer: I should say that this is not by any means an endorsement of SDs.

    Parent

    Sure they did (none / 0) (#29)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:39:54 PM EST
    They voted for the idiots who chose to move the primaries.

    That's called Democracy.

    Parent

    I'm sure they'll appreciate that fact (none / 0) (#44)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:43:49 PM EST
    And not vote for the Democrats who changed the date of the primary again. How is that supposed to help the party?

    Parent
    Suppose it had been decided (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:43:59 PM EST
    on a party-line vote in the state legislature, without any Democratic involvement. Would you then still argue that it's the fault of Democratic voters?

    What actually happened is effectively no different, because in Florida at least, the Democrats were in no position to keep the primary date in compliance.

    By your line of reasoning, the voters are always responsible for everything that their state legislature does, whether they voted for the members who did the wrong or not. It's an outrageous standard.

    Parent

    You could make this argument for Florida (none / 0) (#60)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:47:00 PM EST
    but not Michigan. In Michigan, the whole state Democratic machine was behind this; they tried it in 2004 even and, ironically, it was Terry McAuliffe who wrote them a nastrygram saying that they'd get all their delegates stripped if they tried.

    They're habitual offenders, and any Dem voting in 2004 or 2006 in MI knew what their intentions regarding the primary date was going to be.

    Parent

    Wayne Barrett hs the best article on the (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by JohnS on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:09:49 PM EST
    whole FL/MI fiasco I've seen. It's online & called "Could the Republicans Pick the Democratic Nominee: The Untold Story of How the GOP Rigged Florida and Michigan"

    According to Barrett, MI legislators did make a concerted effort  to backtrack from its primary push-up when it looked like the DNC was gonna hand it to 'em, but were thwarted at the very last minute by a by party line vote (4R-2D) in MI's Supreme Court.

    Furthermore, before any penalty can be levied against FL and MI, the DNC is required to launch an investigation into whether or not those Dem state legislators made a Good Faith effort to stop the primary-push up process. Barrett documents those very efforts in both states, and reports that the DNC NEVER launched the required investigations into those efforts.

    Who exactly here is playing fast and loose with the rules? I think the DNC will have to play by the rules in FL (pledged dels each get a half vote) but MI will be problematic. The DNC is political and the fact that MI is not so cut-and-dried means the right thing may not be done, the politically expedient thing may be.

    Parent

    For clarity I probably should (none / 0) (#198)
    by JohnS on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:16:22 PM EST
    have included in my above post that MI Dems would have been successful in their efforts to ultimately stop the primary push-up process they started (after rethinking its consequences), except that a MI court ruling (along party lines, 4R-3Dem) went against them the day before the pushed-up primary date. If not for that controversial ruling, the primary would have been held at its regular, later date.

    Parent
    I haven't read Barrett's piece (none / 0) (#207)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:18:05 PM EST
    but from the sources I've read MI has for years been trying to push themselves to the front of the pack, but has been continually thwarted by the DNC chairs (by, ironically, all Clinton picks or allies). They finally decided to test it against Dean and Dean did what all DNC chairs previous to him had threatened - strip them of their delegates. A last minute half-a**ed attempt to backtrack doesn't stand up against the years of effort they've put into trying an end-around the DNC.

    FL Is a lot more complicated, and so going back to the originally proposed penalty of 1/2 votes (or, at this point, just seating them) is fine with me.

    Parent

    You are partially correct (none / 0) (#214)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:21:01 PM EST
    They have been trying for years to get IA and NH knocked off as always the first ones. Carl Levin has been pushing for regional rotating primary dates - it's never been necessarily about Michigan going first.

    Parent
    Since you haven't bother to read the article (none / 0) (#243)
    by JohnS on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    here is Barrett's reporting on MI's half-a**ed attempts (your description, not mine, to halt the primary push-up:

    When it weaved its way through the divided Michigan legislature last August, only 29 of the state's 75 Democratic legislators (in the House and Senate) supported it. A week after the bill cleared the Senate over unified Democratic objections, these 29 Democrats in the House voted for it, precisely the same number that voted against it or abstained (22 and seven). It was 38 Republican yes votes in the House that made it law. While Democrats like the governor, U.S. Senator Carl Levin, and DNC committeewoman Debbie Dingell favored moving the primary date up, it was a Republican state senator, Cameron Brown, who proposed the January 15 date. Levin and Dingell only supported that date when they concluded that the DNC was allowing other states, like New Hampshire, to defy the party's prescribed schedule while threatening Michigan with sanctions if it shifted its date.

    And Levin and Dingell certainly weren't calling the shots for the Democrats in the legislature. Andy Dillon, the Democratic House speaker who'd voted for the move-up initially, walked away from the early primary in November, almost a month before the DNC voted to strip the state of its delegation. When two court rulings found the move-up bill unconstitutional for technical reasons, giving Democratic state legislators who initially voted for it a chance to reconsider, they took it. Dillon and his House Democrats refused to support a bill that would've protected the January 15 date from threatened judicial cancellation by correcting the technical deficiency. The Senate, again voting along party lines, quickly adjusted the bill to the court decisions, but Dillon refused to allow a vote in the House. All of this suggests a "good faith" effort to block an early primary - as required by DNC rules.



    Parent
    Here's more (none / 0) (#253)
    by JohnS on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:35:38 PM EST

        Had not the state's highest court overturned the earlier decisions by a 4-to-3 vote just days before absentee ballots had to be mailed out, the early primary would not have been held. Significantly, all four of the judges who voted to allow the election were Republicans, and two of the judges who voted against it were Democrats.

        In fact, it was a Democratic political consultant who brought the lawsuit that almost killed the primary. While the Republican state party filed an amicus brief in support of the bill, the Democrats took a barrage of editorial potshots in the Detroit Free Press, the Detroit News, the Flint Journal, and other papers for refusing to stand up for the state's interest. Salivating over all the attention and revenue that would come with an early primary, the papers accused Democrats of "withering," "carrying water for presidential candidates," and "blocking a bill to rescue the election." State GOP chair Saul Anuzis declared: "The Michigan Democrats and the House Democrats in particular appear willing to blow up the primary for petty, political, selfish, self-preservationist motives, to protect their hides."



    Parent
    Well the real solution (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:50:23 PM EST
    is to move away from a "pacify Iowa and New Hampshire first" schedule/mentality."

    I understand your objection to Michigan, but I still don't see the rationale for punishing the voters. At worst, it seems to me that Florida should get a full delegation, because their Democratic party made a convincing case that they tried to change the date, and Michigan should be docked by half, per the rules.

    If that isn't enough to stop states from jumping the calendar, then you need to adopt a better carrot for following the calendar. Any further sticks will simply serve to punish voters, which is never the right thing to do.

    Parent

    Ideally yes (none / 0) (#107)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:54:59 PM EST
    but the DNC has almost no authority over how and when states hold primaries other than withholding delegates.

    NH has it in their constitution that they get to have the first state primary, so what can Dean or anyone realistically do about that? Iowa would similarly be very protective of their current position if it came under threat.

    I'm sympathetic to your argument, I don't like it either. But the DNC doesn't have a lot of options here.

    Parent

    The option is to adopt BTD's plan (none / 0) (#130)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:00:00 PM EST
    Let there be chaos, let the states hold primaries and/or caucuses whenever they want, and at the end of the day count up all the votes. Forget delegates.

    You could also just bypass the states and do a national mail-in primary. I'd be cool with that.

    Parent

    Uh (none / 0) (#169)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:09:58 PM EST
    That serves no one's interests. There are so many problems with that strategy I don't even know where to begin.

    First, there's this thing called tragedy of the commons - everyone wants to be first. We'll be having nominating contests 2-3 years before the big race.

    Second, how you design the primaries says a lot about who will win. If you have a national mail-in primary, the candidate with the most name recognition, money, and party backing is always going to win. You might as well just go back to party bosses picking the candidate again.

    Picking a set of rules says a lot about what kinds of candidates the party hopes will come out of the system. Free for all basically guarantees terrible outcomes.

    So there's a lot to be said for a careful consideration of how to structure it. The problem is that the DNC only has blunt instruments to enforce it.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#163)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:08:53 PM EST
    The before the next election Michigan and Florida will adopt a clause in their state's constitution that they will always be first in the nation.  What does the DNC do then?

    Parent
    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#185)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. As I said, I'm not a big fan of IA + NH always going first either. The DNC just doesn't have a lot of tools in this area, but somehow order has to be enforced.

    Parent
    Enforcing order (none / 0) (#271)
    by JohnS on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    my breaking its own rules? Because that's what the DNC has done in the case of FL and MI.

    Parent
    Welcome to Democracy (none / 0) (#70)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:48:46 PM EST


    Parent
    In this Republic (none / 0) (#91)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:52:39 PM EST
    we have rules to protect the people--especially voters--from the  acts of their state governments.

    Democracy in America does not work like you say.

    Parent

    It seems it does (none / 0) (#132)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    They voted for idiots - who were warned not to take an action (By Clinton advisors as well as others) and they disregarded that warning.

    The responsibility lies with the voters for electing the idiots.  That is how democracy works.

    Parent

    You're just a troll (none / 0) (#141)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:03:17 PM EST
    forget it, I'm not wasting any more time on you.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#167)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:09:43 PM EST
    I made a valid point.

    Parent
    That will be cold comfort (none / 0) (#157)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:07:33 PM EST
    as you watch President McCain being sworn in after he has won MI and FL.

    Parent
    So goes a Democracy (1.00 / 1) (#175)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:12:10 PM EST
    I think the main reason McCain will win those states and the presidency is because Hillary blamed Obama repeatedly for what happened.  That was simply devious spin.  There were a lot of people responsible, including some of her own advisers.  

    So, Hillary made her choice and she threw the Democratic candidate out the window if it wasn't going to be her.

    That's how it goes sometimes.

    Parent

    Great logic (none / 0) (#85)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:51:13 PM EST
    Based on it, we can safely say the war in Iraq is not the fault of the Republicans. Instead, we can blame ourselves (the voters). But a general extrapolation that seems to universally work would be: all Bush's mistakes are our mistakes. And an even more generalized trope could be: any fault of the government is the fault of the voters.

    But that's absurd.

    Yeah, this is a democratic republic (not actually a democracy per se)--but that does not mean the voter is held accountable for the actions of the elected leader. If that were the case, we would not have processes like impeachment.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#115)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:56:20 PM EST
    Maybe not the war from 2003-2004, but we (the American people 'we') did reelect him, so I'd have to say that a fair amount of responsibility of the war from 2004-2008 lies at our feet...

    Parent
    True, but not universally so. (none / 0) (#162)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:07:57 PM EST
    The people are collectively responsible for the nature of the government. That is, its abstract framework and guiding principles. But, elected officials are responsible for their individual actions.

    George Bush won re-election, so you can claim that some of the American people do bear a bit of responsibility. Some questions, though. Are those who did not vote for Bush as responsible as those who did? If the people who voted for Bush did so while opposing the war, do they share an equal burden of guilt? In general, can voters be held responsible for future actions of politicians.

    I suspect those questions make it difficult to be able to dole out clear blame to specific groups. Indeed, the notion of talking about abstract concepts like "the American people" or "the voters" is really an impossibility.

    Parent

    Um, (none / 0) (#137)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    The vast majority of Dems voted for the war and they have continued funding, so, yeah, the war is also the responsibility of the Dems.

    Parent
    That's irrelevant, though. (none / 0) (#166)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:09:32 PM EST
    My point was that you can't blame the whole electorate for the mistakes of the officials.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#179)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:05 PM EST
    But they do have to suffer the consequences of said elected officials.

    Parent
    They do. And it's because this is a Republic. (none / 0) (#248)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:38 PM EST


    Parent
    I hate arguments where one talks about the (none / 0) (#113)
    by Rigelian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:55:47 PM EST
    "moral" thing to do.  If you have a practical, potentially effective solution to offer I'm willing to listen.  However, given the tendencies of politicians, absent being hit over the head with a 2 x 4, I doubt anything subtle will work.  Folks understood what the punishment would be, all of the candidates bought into the punishment...given that, I don't think this is really a question of morality.  It "was" however a poor political outcome in the short run.  In the long run?  I don't know, I think this tendency to spit in the eye of party rules may be lessened.

    Parent
    I don't care what solution is used (none / 0) (#136)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    as long as every voter counts. Any other "solution" is unfair.

    Parent
    A rational schedule? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:44:23 PM EST
    I don't consider a schedule rational if it allows a few states to move up their primary dates but punishes a few others for doing the same.

    Parent
    What stops them now? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:40:01 PM EST
    The ends don't justify the means. Mostly because they chose the worst means possible.

    Honestly, nothing will stop them now. The DNC either will shoot itself in the foot by continuing to disenfranchise the voters and thereby show every Repub controlled state that they should move out of compliance. Or they back off their punishment and show every Dem controlled state that they could move up as well since there is no punishment.

    The problem the DNC has failed to recognize is that those who support and vote for the DNC rules are not the same people who control the primary dates. Until they find a solution that takes that into account, they will not be effective imho.

    Parent

    Both States Already Lost Revenue By The Candidates (none / 0) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:47:41 PM EST
    not campaigning there. The Dems have a choice to continue to penalize voters for decisions made by politicians and risk losing their votes in November or seat them.

    Parent
    Your comment (none / 0) (#140)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:02:57 PM EST
    assumes that the DNC is capable of coming up with a rational schedule. It hasn't so far.

    Parent
    It's not implied. It's a FACT. (none / 0) (#12)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:32:21 PM EST


    So what are the solutions? (none / 0) (#13)
    by jcsf on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:32:23 PM EST
    Seat FL as is, strip the superdelegates of Florida?

    Split MI?  Again, strip superdelegates?

    MI does not - does NOT get seated in a Soviet Union style, where Hillary gets all the delegates, and all others get "uncommitted".  That certainly doesn't work.

    Why? (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:34:42 PM EST
    She played by the rules - he tried to game the system.  Why should HE benefit for doing that?

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#34)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:41:06 PM EST
    We live in a democracy.

    Parent
    And since 45% of the voters in Michigan (none / 0) (#106)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:54:44 PM EST
    voted uncommitted, 45% of the delegation should be uncommitted. It reflects the will of the people. Seems perfectly democratic to me.

    Parent
    Well, since they were (none / 0) (#144)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    barred from voting for Obama or Edwards on the ballot, I'd say you have a serious problem.  The ballot being the most important thing in a democracy and all.

    Parent
    They were not barred. (none / 0) (#172)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    They willingly removed their names from the ballot.

    Parent
    You're wrong (none / 0) (#189)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:35 PM EST
    The governor of Michigan, who is a Clinton supporter, didn't allow for write ins.  So anyone who wanted to write in the name of Edwards or Obama wasn't allowed to.

    Please explain how that is justifiable in a democracy and I will give you michigan.

    Parent

    Um, (none / 0) (#238)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:30:03 PM EST
    The governor had nothing to do with write ins. The Governor does not have the power to make state election law. That would be .....(wait for it)....

    National Democratic Party Rules which do not allow for write-ins.

    Parent

    I don't want Michigan (none / 0) (#245)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:32:55 PM EST
    First, this IS NOT a democracy.

    It's nice to pretend that the United States is, and it's good for speeches to extol democratic values, but officially the US is a republic. [Democratic in degree, sure. And it could be more democratic.] But the people don't have direct control over the federal (or even state) government; we invest that power in others, and we go about our days.

    Second, many states prevent write-ins. Until Congress or the Supreme Court says otherwise, it's a legally acceptable practice. Is it wise? Is it democratic? No. But, in the sanctioned and party-controlled processes of elections, the manner in which Michigan conducted its elections is not any better or worse than most of the other states that have held and will hold primaries. It didn't allow write-ins (many do not), but it did provide an option to account for people who are not happy or satisfied with the sanctioned names on the ballot.

    I see no reason why the delegation should not be seated as the people voted: 55% Hillary, 45% uncommitted. It reflects the results of the vote.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#173)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:11:15 PM EST
    Obama and Edwards' choice - why does Hillary have to pay for them making a campaign choice?  If that's the case, then as others have suggested, she should take her name off Oregon, and then when he wins big, claim the votes don't count.

    Parent
    That'd be pretty amusing (none / 0) (#221)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:23:36 PM EST
    in a sick and unproductive way, of course.

    Parent
    You don't get it, do you (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:47:54 PM EST
    Its about the general election now, who cares. Seat them exactly as they voted and at 100%. Then you can have Obama TRY to recover in those states if he can. You are fighting an old fight, keep up.

    Parent
    Um, what the DNC and Obama propose (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:50:49 PM EST
    IS Soviet Union style. Making Obama the winner when he wasn't even on the ballot is the most obscene perversion of democracy possible.

    Parent
    He's the winner anyway. (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Even with Florida and Michigan.  He's a hundred up.  It's over.

    Parent
    Are you getting paid by the McCain (none / 0) (#151)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    campaign? Fine, Obama wins even if the MI delegation is seated as is. That is all the more reason to do so.

    Parent
    And they will be seated (none / 0) (#194)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:36 PM EST
    When the nominee is decided.

    Parent
    I think the penalty for breaking (none / 0) (#37)
    by JohnS on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:42:00 PM EST
    the rule as FL and MI did was that pledged delegates get a half vote (superDs still get full votes - they get elected to be superDs by a separate  non-primary process.)

    So FL seems to be an easy call, MI not so easy.

    Parent

    There are enemies for democrats... (none / 0) (#16)
    by mcdtracy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:33:28 PM EST
    and they are called republicans. The clock is ticking and days are being wasted. "We" are here to
    see if we can our conversation around healing this party to fight that one.

    You may believe Barack Obama can't win. Fair enough. But it appears the party will give him the chance to test that assumption. I think either of the democratic candidates can bat John McCain... It' just too bad we can't start the work of focusing on getting a whole range of democrats into office to allow healthcare reform to be started and succeed.

    MI and FL (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:41:14 PM EST
    are a large part of this story.  What is this new Democratic party that disenfranched millions of voters?

    Why should we get "behind" such a party?

    What makes this type of party, with leadership that feigns neutrality and rules and really is just doing a backroom deal to bamboozle voters one bit better than Republicans?

    The campaign sounded Republican, dishing on a viable candidate like she was trash, for over a year.  The campaign used backroom tactics.  The campaign used "Willy Horten" tactics, embarassing her every bit as much as any Republican would do.

    So what is this "new" Dem. party really offering, anyway?

    They even boo, when she's there to raise money for Democrats.  The backers of this new party actually booed her.

    Why should anyone get behind this?

    I can't wait to hear.

    Parent

    Don't. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:43:33 PM EST
    Go vote for the Republicans.

    Or the Green Party.

    Or the Libertarians.

    Parent

    Unity pony has (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:50:08 PM EST
    pooped in aisle 6.

    Parent
    How I personally (none / 0) (#73)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:49:15 PM EST
    vote is my business.

    But explain why this new party is admirable or should be backed.

    Based on behavior, and the best indicator of the future is actions in the past, I'd say this party is dangerous.

    Now, other than a few court positions, tell me why I should back this bad behavior.

    Parent

    I'm not a member of the party (none / 0) (#88)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:51:33 PM EST
    And that's your job.

    Parent
    Neither am I (none / 0) (#92)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:52:44 PM EST
    Anymore.


    Parent
    Welcome to freedom. (none / 0) (#110)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:55:19 PM EST


    Parent
    You think Obama will start pandering to me (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:12:19 PM EST
    Now that I'm an independent?

    I won't hold my breath.


    Parent

    now (none / 0) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:04 PM EST
    if you were a republican you might have a chance for a pander or two.

    Parent
    Hey, we're in agreement (none / 0) (#105)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:54:36 PM EST
    I'm no longer a Democrat.  Resigned when Dean went on his "road trip" to bully her out of the race right before PA.

    Final straw.  30 years....straight Dem...and out the door.

    Parent

    The Democratic party's new motto (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:10:55 PM EST
    "building the Independant party one disenfranchised voter at a time"  it won out by a hair over "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."

    Parent
    Don't worry, a lot of people will. (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:49:53 PM EST
    or wait . . . just maybe you should worry . . .

    Parent
    Uh huh (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:52:12 PM EST
    Come November, you'll all be voting for Obama.  Miffed, but voting for him.

    Parent
    Oh, you're trolling, never mind n/t (none / 0) (#102)
    by rilkefan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:54:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Not really (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:56:34 PM EST
    The vast majority of you will vote for Obama.  It's a historical analysis.  This is what always happens.

    Parent
    **** Chatter, please delete *** (none / 0) (#133)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Troll?

    Parent
    Opposing opinion = Troll (none / 0) (#153)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    Got it.

    Parent
    Um, no. Inane needling=troll. (none / 0) (#156)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:07:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#225)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:24:58 PM EST
    I'll let you guys get back to your cult chatter

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#267)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:40:55 PM EST
    My husband thinks that Obama headquarters is in Waco, Tx because of folks like you. People in glass houses shouldn't call OTHERS cult members.

    Parent
    Yes, master, we will vote for him... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:54:26 PM EST
    ...I have drunk my cool-aid. Was I not supposed to add the cyanide before I drank?

    Parent
    Suppose you're right, and you probably are (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:55:46 PM EST
     Your real concern should be for the white indys in the swing states who don't give a fu*k about the party, and will just vote for McCain.

    Parent
    Independents voted for Obama (none / 0) (#121)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:57:17 PM EST
    last night, sorry.

    Parent
    Ding Ding Ding (none / 0) (#250)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:34:28 PM EST
    Yesterday, Brazile insinuated that white, southern working class males don't matter. Guess what? She just offended a large portion of a state where McCain already had an in with military retirees. I sure hope his electoral projections don't include Virginia.

    Parent
    No. I won't. n/t (none / 0) (#126)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:58:49 PM EST


    Parent
    at least there will be the (none / 0) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:03:55 PM EST
    small silver lining of seeing these people lose.
    small, and nose vs face, I know but its something.

    Parent
    I don't really know (none / 0) (#134)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    and have decided not to decide for now.

    McCain has some parts of his platform that definitely support my self-interests better than Obama.

    Obama has been wishy-washy on several key platform issues that appeal to my social conscience.

    I'm SURE I'm offended by the Democratic Party in general terms.  That's a given.

    So I'm not sure.

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#98)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:53:28 PM EST
    I think what you're doing is by definition, chattering, in violation of the TalkLeft rules.

    Parent
    Please go away. This kind of speech is (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    not helpful.
    It's not simply that we don't believe Obama can't win. We dont' like him; we don't think he's qualified; we have no confidence in his abilities.
    Saying we need to support the empty suit because he's a D is not helpful.

    Parent
    It's all they have (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:46:27 PM EST
    I've never met or head from a single Obama supporter who can come up with a reason to vote for Obama that I respect. Loyalty to the Democratic Party is their backup position when "hope" and "change" don't work.

    Parent
    The main reason at DK was (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:49:15 PM EST
    "he's going to win big".
    That was AdamB's big point.
    So, he's a good candidate because he will win big---nothing else matters, and the premise is just an unsupported belief.


    Parent
    Party loyalty (none / 0) (#97)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:53:27 PM EST
    is out the window.  This primary season made that exceedingly clear.

    I'll give Obama one thing.  He knew he had the AA backing in NC due to the Wright scandal, and he at least went out there are tried with the working class.

    Parent

    Why be loyal to a party (none / 0) (#223)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:24:31 PM EST
    that has shown such incompetence in running its nomination process and standing up to Bush?

    I am an independent now.  The Democratic party will have to win me back.  I can't vote for McCain but I don't think I can vote for Obama.  From now on all candidates have to earn my vote.

    Parent

    Actually, (4.20 / 5) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:38:04 PM EST
    there's another enemy of Democrats.  It's Democrats like Donna Brazille.

    Someone on the Republican side said something like:

    "You can refuse to vote for Obama because you don't like him, and you NOW can refuse to vote for Obama because he doesn't like you!"

    Brazille added to that "he doesn't like you" meme last night.

    Obama doesn't "like" people like me.  Why in the world would I vote for him?

    We really need a viable third party candidate.

    Parent

    You're going to need to make a better case (4.20 / 5) (#27)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:39:23 PM EST
    I've been insulted and dismissed by everybody from the head of the DNC to Obama's lowest supporter. Brazile just said that my vote doesn't matter. Obama has done an absolutely pitiful job of convincing me that he is worth voting for - he has been shilling snake oil instead of telling me that he's going to fight for what I care for. And don't even get me started on his health care proposal. I don't believe for one minute that he cares at all about health care, and even if he did his plan wouldn't work.

    This is about more than "healing". Obama has to make a case to me that he is the best man for the job. I'm no longer going to be blindly loyal to a party that has shown that it doesn't give a damn about me.

    Parent

    So, go vote for McCain (2.00 / 4) (#41)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:42:45 PM EST
    He certainly cares about you more.

    Parent
    You know what (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    He might.


    Parent
    Let's see: I know for a fact that (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:45:45 PM EST
    Obama doesn't care about me at all. Your point?

    Parent
    I think my point is (none / 0) (#61)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:47:25 PM EST
    Don't vote for him.

    Parent
    Wow you should run as Sen Obama campaign manager (none / 0) (#76)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:49:56 PM EST
    Its a winning strategy I tell you!

    Parent
    Better than a whining strategy (none / 0) (#83)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:50:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Much better than your insulting strategy (none / 0) (#204)
    by BigB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:34 PM EST


    Parent
    I take it you don't support the Dems n/t (none / 0) (#96)
    by rilkefan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:53:09 PM EST


    Parent
    I'll vote for Obama (none / 0) (#155)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:07:15 PM EST
    I wouldn't vote for the other two.  If it wasn't Obama, I was going to go with Jesse Jackson of the green party.  You should take a look at him if you don't like Obama.  He's a quality candidate.

    Parent
    I'm not buying that argument (none / 0) (#50)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    Obama isn't going to fight for what I believe in. McCain isn't going to fight for what I believe in. Why on earth should I vote for either of them?

    Parent
    So don't. (none / 0) (#59)
    by DA in LA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:46:49 PM EST
    There are plenty of other candidates on a ballot.

    Parent
    I'll probably sit it out (none / 0) (#146)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:04:11 PM EST
    I'm going to sit out the Presidential election, or write in eithere Edwards or Clinton. I'll support Charlie Brown, because I think he has a good shot (his opposition is likely to be a couple of Republican big-name carpetbaggers). We're going to need a stronger majority in Congress to stand up to McCain, if Congress decides to stand up to anybody. It's too bad all of those new voter's don't seem to care about downticket Dems.

    Parent
    what a waste (none / 0) (#251)
    by CanadianDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:35:35 PM EST
    of a vote and an insult to all those that sacrificed to give you that ability to vote.

    What a sad state of affairs, I darn well make sure I vote regardless of the situation, my grandfather didn't fight in WW2 for nothing.  Listen to yourselves, it's sickening and juvenile imho.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#269)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:41:56 PM EST
    for sharing!

    Parent
    Aw, don't worry everyone (none / 0) (#55)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:46:19 PM EST
    Guam, American Somoa and Idaho will carry Barack to victory.  WHO cares what those pesky Floridians, Michigonians, Ohioans and Pennsylvanians think anyway?

    Can you imagine... (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:12:43 PM EST
    ...what would happen to Senator Clinton's GE campaign if all of those pesky Floridians who voted for Obama, the Michiganders who voted uncommitted, the Ohioans and Pennsylvanians who supported him, said, screw it, we are so upset by the results, the audacity and negativity of the campaign, that we'll a) write in Obama, b) vote McCain or c) sit it out.  Then posters here would almost certainly accuse Senator Obama's supporters of promoting a cult of personality, selfishness, not caring about the country, etc.

     Suddenly, nearly half of the voters in all of those states wouldn't matter...except they would, in a big way.    

     Get a grip.  

    Parent

    Touché, except - (none / 0) (#279)
    by liminal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:01:54 PM EST
    - the threat of just that has been an important tactic he has deployed again and again.  He alleged that early in the contest himself; his wife implied virtually the same thing not with respect to his supporters but with respect to her own voice and voice, and for perhaps a month and a half, Obama's major surrogates, announced and unannounced, have done just the same thing.  

    These comments, complaints, and hurt feelings are the Obama campaign's chickens.  They are coming home to roost.

    I don't intend to vote for McCain; even though Obama has zero chance in hell of carrying my state come November (and could very well, IMO, cement it as a solidly red state in presidential politics for a generation.  I could be wrong.  He could figure out how to talk to the working class between now and November, but he hasn't done so yet.), I'll vote for him.  I bet I'll work for him.

    But I'm not forgiving him; nor am I forgiving his disingenuous and divisive supporters who have dismissed people like me in every way they can.  I won't give any money to him; and I won't give any money to the DNC.  My money will go to political organizations that promote causes I believe in in ways I can trust.  

    - but right now, what you are hearing from Clinton's more ardent supporters is more than sour grapes.  It's the natural consequence of the hypocritical campaign Obama chose to run, and his failure to break through his elite prism to speak to working class Democrats in a direct way that makes sense to them on a bread and butter basis.  

    Parent

    taking votes that the candidate didn't win (none / 0) (#80)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:50:27 PM EST
    is the new definition of genrous?

    I'm still not in either camp.

    But I do know that saying "we'll split it 50/50..." when the other person won the majority of the initial count isn't generous.

    As it stands (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    Alaska was the real tie breaker!

    Rotten Boroughs.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#119)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:56:45 PM EST
    I just found out from DCDemocrat's watching Bill Bennett that PA, OH and CA aren't big states.

    Parent
    That would mean that 4000 (none / 0) (#87)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:51:32 PM EST
    Alaskan or Idaho  Caucus goers have more net impact on the race than Florida and Michigan and Indiana and Pennsylvannia and Nevada put together!

    It's truly amazing really.  

    The Democratic primary system is a throw back the Days of Rotten Boroughs and Old Sarum.

    It already means that (none / 0) (#122)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:57:24 PM EST
    regardless of FL and MI. Throw in a few more sparsely populated dark red states on one side, and a few more heavily populated blue states on the other, and you have described exactly what has happened.

    This is our nominee. It really is amazing. It's so crazy, it just might work! Naaaaaaaa.....

    Parent

    The Caribou count for more (none / 0) (#228)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:25:37 PM EST
    than a Califonian.

    Parent
    Offering to seat delegates based on a (none / 0) (#89)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:51:36 PM EST
    50-50 split was not generous, it was deceptive and misleading. A 50-50 split made seating the delegates nugatory, and would have given Obama delegates he didn't earn. A compromise that continued the disenfranchisement while attempting to appear "fair."  Such a compromise would have infuriated me, and no doubt, infuriated voters in FLA and MI.

    Seating the delegates is not a simple matter of giving them passes to the convention hall.  It is a matter of making the votes of the people who elected them count.  The ONLY way that can happen is for the DNC to make clear that 2209 is the magic number, not 2025.  Period.

    If Obama and/or (none / 0) (#127)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:58:59 PM EST
    his supporters are so convinced "It's over"
    it's waaaay past time for the "reaching out" to begin.

    A fair solution for Florida and Michigan must be found and quickly, or kiss those states goodbye in the GE.

    Further, it would be ever so nice if Obama and his supporters at least tried to reach out to Clinton supporters.
    (Dalton Hoffine, I'm not looking at you. You are ever so civil.)

    I think that it already can be (none / 0) (#256)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    kissedoff. Everybody will see the timing of the seating as the political ploy that it is. If the DNC thinks otherwise it is fooling itself.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#258)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:37:11 PM EST
    people can reach out all they want - they'll never get me.

    Parent
    The DNC has to approve it officially. (none / 0) (#161)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    The rules committee meeting is May 31.  Barring and event that shakes up the delegate math, I think after Oregon we will see the Obama campaign urge that the delegations be seated as is, once he has secured the commitments of a sufficient number of additional super delegates.  Before yesterday, I estimated that number to be approx. 150, including the Florisa and Michigan supers.

    Maybe we should start thinking of 2012 (none / 0) (#170)
    by Buckeye on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    The next President will be 76 years old when his re-election campaign starts (if he runs for a 2nd term).  Hill can come out and say, "look guys, you passed on me the first time, how about giving a Clinton another shot at winning the Presidency.  Its not like we don't know how to win."  If BO wins, Hillary will not be able to run until 2016, which basically means she will never be President.

    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    You're assuming a BO administration would be a successful one.

    She could challenge him from the center (even though she's really more progressive than he is).

    Parent

    not be able to run until 2016 (none / 0) (#180)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:10 PM EST
    that would depend on how he governs I would say.

    Parent
    If he beats McCain (none / 0) (#190)
    by Buckeye on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:12 PM EST
    which he can't, it is almost impossible to unseat the encumbent President in a primary.  Of course, stranger things have happened.

    Parent
    That is silly (none / 0) (#202)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:17:21 PM EST
    Hillary was the second choice of a lot of people. That is why she didn't stay in the 30 percents when everybody else dropped out. Many MI voters that voted uncommitted would vote for Hillary today.

    But it is academic, as I'm pretty sure MI has already elected their delegates. Obama supporters did win a fair share of the uncommitted slots.

    The only question is if they get 0, 1/2, or a full vote at the convention, not their make-up.

     

    Surely you jest (none / 0) (#211)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:20:16 PM EST


    I don't think she jests (none / 0) (#218)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:22:16 PM EST
    ....and don't call her shirley!  ;)

    Parent
    how about an election in august (none / 0) (#219)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:22:18 PM EST
    no, thought not.

    take a look at the headline pic (none / 0) (#244)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:32:24 PM EST
    of Obama on HuffPo and tell me thats a face you can trust?

    Nope. (n/t) (none / 0) (#252)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:35:36 PM EST


    Parent
    lying Larry ODonnell (none / 0) (#254)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:35:55 PM EST
    says Hillary will drop out by June 15.

    HuffPo

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#260)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:38:03 PM EST
    ...he's wrong. She'll be out (by which I mean her campaign will be suspended) long before then.

    Parent
    That much is nearly certain. (none / 0) (#264)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:39:50 PM EST
    Once the Florida/MI issue is resolved and superdelegates commit, there will be no rationale for her to continue on.

    Parent
    maybe. he is still a putz. (none / 0) (#268)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:41:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Giving Obama half of the votes he (none / 0) (#262)
    by vicsan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:38:09 PM EST
    didn't earn is now fair in Obama world? Hillary's votes should go to her. The people who voted for her did so because they didn't want to vote for Obama, who was on the FL. ballot. He doesn't get half her votes. How ridiculous can you be? As for Michigan, Mr. Barack shouldn't have vetoed the revote. He dug his own grave there. He doesn't get her votes just because he wants them. It was his decision to remove his name from the MI. ballot. The DNC DID NOT require it. HE should be "punished" for doing that, not rewarded by giving him Hillary's votes.

    I disagree that now is the time (none / 0) (#277)
    by miriam on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:49 PM EST
    to seat Florida and Michigan.  The "right" time, which would have given Clinton much needed momentum, has passed.  Which is precisely what was intended.  Think how different the vaunted pledged delegate number would have looked when flashed endlessly by the media.

    I can't help but conclude that we Americans are in big, big trouble--and it may be a fatal dilemma.  I very much doubt Obama can win in November, especially if in the meantime there's a Bush strike on Iran...and that's looking all too probable.  Foreign policy and national defense becomes the #1 issue again and we know how well Obama (and Democrats historically) will be viewed in that particular arena.  The Republicans will up the fear factor debate.  We might have a sound chance with a Clinton/Clark ticket, but that's it.

    BUT...people, we can't allow McCain to become president...no matter what.  He is far more dangerous than Bush.  McCain has some brains and a very, very bad temper.  (Bush has neither.)  McCain is also vindictive. And he's one of the original neo-cons.  On economics he is an A+ moron.

    A vast two-wing conundrum is what we have on our hands now.

    The only time... (none / 0) (#278)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:52:50 PM EST
    ...would have been to not punish them for moving ahead in the first place.  Any momemntum apart from that gained by a real, contested primary, with all candidates then in the race on the ballot, is false momentum.  I don't even accept the idea that Iowa should be first.  

     In retrospect, I say do what the GOP did: halve the delegates and seat them.  You get some punishment, but not too much. Of course, that is what they should have done ahead of time, so people could plan accordingly.

    Hypocrites again (none / 0) (#280)
    by bowchikabowbow on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:58:10 PM EST
    Why arent you all mad at Hillary for agreeing to these rules or mad at the DNC for setting these rules? It just doesn't make sense that you're all mad at the guy who is following the rules.

    Not quite yet. (none / 0) (#281)
    by Radix on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:02:41 PM EST
    Not until we bend knee and acknowledge the wisdom of the Party leadership, will they deign to throw us a crumb. It boils down to who calls the shots, the vulgar/people or the nobles/leadership.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Now That It Is "Over," About FL And MI | 269 comments (269 topical)