home

Obama to DNC: Restore Fl and MI in Full

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:55:08 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008, Florida '08, Michigan '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Sen. Barack Obama has sent a letter to the DNC asking that the Florida and Michigan delegations be seated in full. As much as we knew this would happen, it still strikes a sore spot.

< Why John Kerry Lost | Victims and the Cycle of Violence >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama to DNC: Restore Fl and MI in Full | 185 comments (185 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    With all due respect to you, Jeralyn (5.00 / 17) (#1)
    by Shainzona on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:57:41 PM EST
    I don't give a flying fig for anything Obama says or does at this time.   That's because of what he said and did during the past 9 months.

    Words did matter, Mr. Obama.  Your words no longer matter to this former lifelong Dem.

    I have to respect Jeralyn more for this (5.00 / 10) (#56)
    by blogtopus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:00:11 PM EST
    J, you've made it very clear that you have chosen to support the D in this race, and the fact that you continue to have posts like this, and allow comments, means you still have it in you to respect the opinions of those who might not agree with you.

    You knew this would turn into a serious fest, and you posted it anyway. Major Kudos, J.

    Parent

    I agree, (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by pie on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:08:12 PM EST
    but if this blog became another Obamafest, many of us wouldn't bother coming here.

    I wish that I thought our criticisms were being taken seriously by his campaign.  I'm not seeing any evidence of that.

    But I do appreciate Jeralyn and BTD's posts.  Fair is fair here.

    Parent

    What realistic (none / 0) (#129)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:43:37 PM EST
    criticisms do you offer?  Expecting Obama to apologize for every perceived slight by every Hillary supporter is a bit far fetched.

    Parent
    Hillary has, again, nothing to (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:05:52 PM EST
    do with whether some are voting for Obama or not. Most everything Sen. Obama told us in his own words he stood for, he seems to have changed positions on. He says "we'll all come home" and so it doesn't matter what he says or does. Words do mean something, and actions speak louder than words.

    Parent
    What? (1.00 / 0) (#181)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:02:37 AM EST
    Where did I mention Hillary?

    The flip-flop accusation is always useful for rationalizing your actions.

    Parent

    Don't be ridiculous (5.00 / 6) (#141)
    by IzikLA on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:06:26 PM EST
    No one has admitted how influential the MI & FL situation was in deciding the race.  Not Obama, not the Obama campaign, not the DNC.  To hear this now is beyond disheartening, it is an insult and a slap in the face to every intelligent Clinton supporter and every intelligent supporter of voting rights in the democratic party.

    Please stop with your petty accusations.  No one hear has asked for Obama to apologize for every perceived slight and I do believe you are intelligent enough to understand that.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#180)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:01:41 AM EST
    yes some Hillary supporters want Obama to apologize for every sexist attack that was levied at Hillary for the past 6 months.  

    You seem to want him to apologize for Florida and Michigan.  

    And of the obligatory "slap in the face of every Clinton supporter" canard comes out.  If you want to feel insulted, go for it. H

    Parent

    I actually think this gives Hillary supporters (3.00 / 1) (#145)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:12:18 PM EST
    more strength at the convention. VP is not out of the question.

    I'm not sure why they chose to do this.

    Parent

    No reason he couldn't have done it in May (5.00 / 23) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:58:06 PM EST


    Sure there was (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by cmugirl on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    Momentum and perception.

    Parent
    I'd say (5.00 / 16) (#8)
    by pie on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    momentum has slowed and perception has changed.

    Parent
    Exactly (4.66 / 3) (#133)
    by Amiss on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:52:24 PM EST
    He knows now how badly he was hurt by his and the RBC decision to take away the votes. Now my question is how many full votes will Obama get from the stolen ones in Michigan? You know, those that were taken away from Hillary and awarded to him?

    Parent
    Those counted for just about nothing (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:05:49 PM EST
    If they mattered, Pennsylvania would actually have been a turning point.

    Parent
    Hmmmm (5.00 / 16) (#10)
    by cmugirl on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:08:45 PM EST
    Perception - that Obama actually cared about the voters in Michigan and Florida as opposed to being dragged across the finish line in the primary. That would have been completely different.

    I think this is interesting coming now - when polls are starting to not go in his favor.  This is a complete kiss-up to the voters in those states.

    I hope those voters give him a nice big raspberry.


    Parent

    You Can Book It - raspberry/no vote (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Boo Radly on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:49:18 PM EST
    It did not have to be this way - he has no one to blame but the blatant machinations and meagerness of the campaign. Even the media, well, especially the media, cannot help him now. The American voters have been through too much. They are wary of media hype - to the point, if the media is for him, they are not.

    Parent
    no point in bring the milk bucket when the cows (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:07:59 PM EST
    have left the barn.

    Parent
    One Florida Raspberry coming up! (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Amiss on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:53:18 PM EST
    LOL

    Parent
    And many reasons (5.00 / 13) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:11:06 PM EST
    he should have, as I recall boring you all with at the time.

    I suspect he got an earful this weekend in Florida.

    Parent

    From Robert Wexler's constituents, no doubt (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:12:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh - hope so. (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:34:55 PM EST


    Parent
    He (none / 0) (#135)
    by Amiss on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:56:24 PM EST
    is not even a resident of Florida, I understand it has been uncovered.
    BILL O'REILLY, HOST: The top story tonight: one of the most liberal members of Congress, Robert Wexler of Florida, may not be a Floridian. Wexler represents the Palm Beach area, but has lived in Maryland since the late 1990s. He says his Florida address is a senior residence in Delray Beach. But that residence says kids can't live there for more than two months each year. Wexler has three teenagers. Producer Griff Jenkins caught up with Wexler at his Maryland home.

    Parent
    And... (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by CoralGables on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:46:03 PM EST
    his constituents don't care in the slightest. It's a total non-issue. The Palm Beach Post did an excellent story on it. There are plenty of Senators and members of the House that live in DC. Liddy Dole for one. It's become an accepted practice. It's a bending of the rules that many do for financial reasons.

    Parent
    He still had competition back in May (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by rjarnold on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:24:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Superdelegates would have flooded to him in May (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:28:44 PM EST
    if he had done this and taken that whole mess off their hands.  The competition would have been over a month before it finally was. IMHO.

    Parent
    how (5.00 / 21) (#4)
    by Turkana on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    gracious of him.

    INDEED (none / 0) (#171)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:54:39 AM EST
    I would like to see him deign to admit FL & MI and then sit there on the podium as the super dels -- sick of his BS -- turn it all around for HRC and she wins the nomination.

    Parent
    How Is This Even Fair? (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    I read that article and I didn't seem to catch a valid explanation to why he wants them reinstated now.

    Why didn't he request this on May 30? And would a reinstatement affect Hillary's delegate tally?

    Also, did Obama himself ever comment on the outcome of the shameful RBC meeting?

    And Also (5.00 / 17) (#25)
    by The Maven on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:19:57 PM EST
    this would seem to be an outright admission that "the Rulez are the rulez, except when I decide otherwise, and I'm the decider."  The man doesn't have a firm commitment to anything, ever, aside from a belief in his own superior judgment.

    Parent
    And how about (5.00 / 9) (#50)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:20:51 PM EST
    all those MI delegates that that the RBC stole from
    HRC rightful allocation of votes and gave to Obama?
    Will Obama return them to Hillary now?

    Parent
    He should get ZERO Michigan delegates (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by catfish on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:45:04 PM EST
    He pandered to Iowa by removing his name from the ballot. Hillary took some risk and absorbed criticism for keeping her name on the ballot. Obama won Iowa, but had no consequences for his MI move.

    Parent
    the consequence (5.00 / 6) (#168)
    by ghost2 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:24:24 AM EST
    was that he took all the uncommitted plus 4 of Hillary's delegates, which he could have not achieved in any shape or form in the MI primary.  Also, Michigan didn't count as far as momentum and the delegate tally was concerned in January or February or March or April...

    Now he wants to be the only one on the ballot, after the sweetheart deal he got for taking his own name off the ballot, and then having the gull to equate Hillary with an Eastern bloc dictator...

    It's heads he wins, tails you lose.

    Where do you start?? Obama's mode of operation is corrupt backroom deals.  

    Parent

    It's the Rulz! (5.00 / 14) (#66)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:47:17 PM EST
    Except the reallocation of delegates in MI wasn't by the rules which is where the DNC lost me.  I could swallowed almost anything by the rules.  All, half, zero delegates seated according the votes cast - including Undecided.  The minute they allocated votes not cast for Obama to Obama, the deal was off.

    The bit about the voters who didn't vote was the topper though.  Next primary, I'm think of going to ask the UN to monitor the proceedings.

    Parent

    THe Roolz say (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:14:37 PM EST
    I would defer to BTD on this, but a credible argument was made that you cannot assign delegates to someone whose name was voluntarily taken off the ballot.

    Parent
    allocating unearned delegates (5.00 / 12) (#115)
    by kelsweet on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:30:12 PM EST
    to Obama was, for me totally jaw dropping! That was the Oh, Hail, No moment for me as well. It was so blatently obvious that democracy doesn't mean a damn thing (at least to the RBC) Just makes me feel like the American public needs to stand in unison against all things gov't and wipe the slate clean. WE THE PEOPLE......  are pretty frickin sick of ya'll, so go home, get a real job and join the rest of us ignert hicks down here in ya know, the REAL US of A and.. Get. A. Clue.
    and now this?  laughable!

    Parent
    Yep, that was what did it for me too (5.00 / 5) (#170)
    by splashy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:48:36 AM EST
    Not only did they give all the uncommitted delegates to Obama, when obviously some were voting for other candidates, they also took from Clinton to give to him.

    That was it for me. Can't abide that kind of unfairness.

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 15) (#7)
    by pie on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    These threads are a real rollercoaster today.

    Too late, Obama.

    The audacity (5.00 / 27) (#11)
    by stillife on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:09:13 PM EST
    of audacity.

    And yes, it does sting, even though it was thoroughly predictable.  Obama seems to have a genius for rekindling resentments of voters like me.

    I have a little magnetic calendar on a file cabinet in my office, counting down the days and minutes till 1/20/09.  I really should throw it away b/c I really don't care anymore.  The new boss, be he D or R, will most assuredly be the same as the old boss.

    Saddest comment (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by pie on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:14:46 PM EST
    I've read in a long time.

    Parent
    It's odd, isn't it? (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:22:24 PM EST
    Watching from the sidelines, I mean...

    Feels so strange to actually say it out loud and hear yourself saying it to 'another Democrat'...really, I no longer care.

    It's not entirely true, of course.  I'd have to reconsider if he named Hillary his VP choice.

    I'd like to think it could somehow, someday, some way, be my Democratic Party again.

    Doesn't look likely...

    Parent

    I suppose this has the same impact as (5.00 / 25) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:10:16 PM EST
    Bush speaking out against butterfly ballots, long lines, and electronic voting machines.

    nailed it n/t (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:19:44 PM EST


    Parent
    How are they going to count (5.00 / 15) (#13)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:10:54 PM EST
    Michigan? Or perhaps I should say how CAN they? They "gave" him Clinton and uncommitted delegates so he could "win", so wouldn't they essentially need to "take" them away now?

    And yes, it still strikes a sore spot even though we were expecting it. He's 3 for 3 since Friday.

    Friday= flip on drilling
    Sat = flip on debates
    Cund = flip (reverse really?) on counting MI and FLA

    Also a flip on NASA funding (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:39:31 PM EST
    for more make-nice to Florida voters. The Orlando Sentinal calls it "a dramatic reversal of policy".

    It is what Hillary supported all along.  I think Obama has been talking to her and Bill Nelson about how to get more popular in FL. Maybe the words 'say and do anything to win' were used.

    Parent

    When it comes (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by pie on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:42:02 PM EST
    to flip flops, he makes Kerry look like a rookie.

    The Orlando Sentinal calls it "a dramatic reversal of policy".

    Throw it all out there and see what works or doesn't work, I guess.

    Parent

    i can assure you that all this talking about (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:12:02 PM EST
    nasa doesn't play well in houston. and though texas will probably go red, why make sure of that by yapping about nasa that way. i noticed that pelosi wants a veep from texas. i had to wonder what he did for her.

    Parent
    This is a fantastic way (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by cmugirl on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    to NOT get voters to like you.  I hope (although I doubt) the MSM picks up the story and actually reports what really happened with Michigan and Florida.

    Seat them in full? Look out (5.00 / 12) (#17)
    by Saul on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:14:36 PM EST
    To me this just antagonizes many of the Hialry supporters.  Where was this seat them in full philosophy during the primaries?   I wouldn't do this if I were Obama.

    He said that he wanted this (5.00 / 12) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:14:40 PM EST
    all along...he said that the delegates should be seated so long as it doesn't affect the outcome.

    (Note:  LOL)

    I don't have the quote, but someone else might.

    LOL, is right!! (5.00 / 10) (#38)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:41:33 PM EST
    "as long as it doesn't effect the outcome." That's pretty much the definition of a democratic vote, isn't it?

    Got my absentee ballot for the WA State primary. To my delight, our D Governor has a D challenger and her primary R candidate is the same guy who it took 3 recounts and a couple of months to get to the some 133 vote difference that gave her the job.

    As a SuperDelegate, my Governor let me down, and now I get to tell her that I'll still vote D on this ballot, but it will be for her D challenger.

    Parent

    I won't vote for Gregoire either (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:04:20 PM EST
    and it isn't only because of her hopey-changey mantra.  It's more because of her idiocy such as the HIGH toll proposal for the 520 bridge. $6.85/day to cross the bridge? Can you say regressive?

    According to SUSA, she's within the MOE against Rossi.  Yes, I'm (probably) voting for the other D in the primary, although I think she and Rossi will win the top two.

    In the general?  Will leave the top spot blank.

    Wouldn't that be great if the Top Two were both Democrats and she didn't win?

    Parent

    Yes, it would be great!! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:12:53 PM EST
    I, too, expect Gregoire-Rossi as the final match-up, but I want her to see a large falling off of Democratic voter support. The results will come in prior to the Convention, so she could be one of the fortunate SDs who get to see the results of her choices.

    $6.85 a day toll?! I only travel the I-90 bridge because 520 is a catastrophe waiting to happen. People will either start swapping homes or jobs in order to live on the side of the lake they work, maybe.


    Parent

    Except for those who (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:19:50 PM EST
    have no choice.  Not everyone can afford to live where they work, especially around here.

    They're also talking about a similar toll on I-90, to keep people from using alternate routes.  You didn't hear about all of this?

    Link

    Link too

    Parent

    Will it come as a surprise wake up call... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:46:47 PM EST
    ...to a lot of WA dems if the outcome of the primary is 1st) Rossi, 2nd) Gregoire, ...and then everyone else?

    Parent
    It would be an outrage. (none / 0) (#127)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:36:13 PM EST
    Rossi is a snake.

    Chris has been a superior governor.

    Parent

    Wow--she won by all of, what, 200 votes (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:36:06 PM EST
    last time.

    Parent
    Don't agree re (none / 0) (#125)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:33:49 PM EST
    Gregoire as superdelegate letting us down as Hillary supporters.

    Politically, I don't think she had a choice.  If you remember the primary she had with Ron Sims and the disgusting race card played against HER to help him (she belonged to a sorority at college which evidently didn't admit AAs) and how that AA vote played out in the general election, no wonder the race with Rossi was so close.  It shouldn't have been.  She had a wonderful record as Atty General and as head of Ecology but ran a lousy campaign.

    Her endorsement of Obama was absolutely necessary as innoculation.  The irony is that Sims (along with Gary Locke) had endorsed Hillary!

    Oh, well.  It's politics.

    Chris deserves your support.  She's been an outstanding governor for our state.  Outstanding.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#163)
    by Manuel on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:21:57 AM EST
    Transportation, education, and healt care are the most important issues for governors and Grregoire hasn't led on any of them.  With Nickel's help,
    planning for the viaduct was botched.  Washington continues to underfund education.  In health care, I have not seen any leadership or creativity.  Rossi isn't the answer bit Gregoire has been a disappointment.

    Parent
    I disagree on all 3 counts! (none / 0) (#166)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:08:19 AM EST
    Transportation.  First, it was run by the commission until the legislature finally changed that and gave the responsibility to the governor.  After a performance audit, she fired the administrator and hired a new one...and a new head of the ferries division as well...just in time.  Thank gawd.  

    Transportation was, and is, a mess...too little money and too many decisionmakers muddying the waters.  She got the gas tax passed, amazingly, and the funds were put to construction use at once.  Jobs, jobs, jobs.  A huge problem is the viaduct (the legislature will only pay for replacement and no more...want more?  Raise the funds differential she told Nickels.  No other way.  Bridges are a mess (there are 1000 in the state...Hood Canal first up and years behind but she has it on track now).

    Education?  She funded the initiative (527?) and emphasized and funded pre-school and salary increases for education across the board K-20.  Set a task force to work re new revenue for full(er) funding of education.

    Healthcare?  Put 20,000 kids back on the rolls of the state's Basic Health Plan.

    Last year she was on the cover of Governing Magazine as governor of the best-managed state in the nation.

    Not perfect, of course, but good grief.  She has been exceptional in getting things done in Olympia with little waste of time or money and outstanding relationships with House & Senate leadership...unusual all by itself.

    Parent

    He Was Against It Before He Was For It (5.00 / 12) (#20)
    by The Maven on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:14:52 PM EST
    Another example of political cowardice, since Obama has realized how precarious his electoral position is vis-à-vis Michigan and Florida.  Now he gets to pander to those voters by claiming that by the time of the convention, he was against disenfranchisement of their delegations.  Will the voters buy it?  Doubtful, but the long-time skeptics aren't the ones he's worries about, but rather the folks who haven't been paying especially close attention to the inner workings of the nomination process -- and there are a lot more of those voters than us political junkies generally think.

    Please speculate. Why send the letter (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:15:25 PM EST
    now?  

    They will not reach an (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:41:15 PM EST
    agreement with Clinton and her name won't be on the ballot in Denver?

    He's on his way to Michigan to pander and learned in Fla he needs more ammo?

    Whatever it is, it's to his benefit, nothing to do with the actual voters.

    Parent

    the average voter isn't that stupid. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:14:43 PM EST
    they will stick with the initial perception they have of obama. you know most people trying to get a job or lose it in the first 60 seconds.

    Parent
    Is this a fact (none / 0) (#76)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:22:07 PM EST
    that no agreement has yet been reached with Clinton on whether her name will be placed in nomination at the Convention?

    Parent
    It doesn't seem so from the video of (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:32:24 PM EST
    Hillary speaking to a group of supporters Thurs night (I think it was Thurs). She said allowing her delegates to vote would be unifying. There is a you tube video of it on one of these threads.

    Parent
    As of last Thursday (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:32:52 PM EST
    she was still in "negotiations".

    Parent
    HRC Petition w/100,000 Signatures? (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:59:22 PM EST
    I just peaked at kos & huffpo to see reaction to this story. Found nada at kos, and at huffpo, only a link to NY Times story (not an exhaustive search); at Huffpo I saw link to a story dated today that HRC has petition with 100,000+ signatures calling for full seating of the MI & FL delegations.  

    So which came first - HRC petition or BO's letter to DNC?

    Parent

    petition (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Amiss on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:01:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Neither (none / 0) (#159)
    by CoralGables on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:51:46 PM EST
    Neither. In Florida back in January it was said by both Obama and Clinton that the eventual nominee would seat the Florida delegation at the convention.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#87)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:39:39 PM EST
    does anyone know what the July fundraising numbers look like?

    Parent
    Filings aren't due to the FEC until Aug 20 (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:40:29 PM EST
    or so, and I haven't heard of any of the campaigns reporting numbers on their own.

    Parent
    I was just wondering if the letter re FL & MI (none / 0) (#190)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:49:21 PM EST
    isn't related both to falling poll numbers and less than expected funds raised by the Obama campaign?

    Parent
    Gosh, Obama is endorsing (5.00 / 11) (#22)
    by MarkL on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:16:31 PM EST
    rule-breaking!
    What a horrible precedent!

    Well, bless his heart... (5.00 / 22) (#23)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:17:37 PM EST
    From the letter:

    "I believe party unity calls for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be able to participate fully alongside the delegates from the other states and territories."

    Translation: "I believe I may be in trouble in Florida and Michigan."

    I can't wait for someone to ask why he didn't make this point before the RBC in May, and why he stonewalled every effort to resolve these matters prior to that meeting.

    It's all so confusing (5.00 / 14) (#41)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:45:05 PM EST
    The RBC held the decision firmly in its grasp.

    Obama hasn't won anything. He doesn't have the pledged delegate count to truly claim he is the nominee, the SDs have not voted yet, and, still, he is somehow awarded the power to over-ride the DNC committee vote just by saying he wants it to be so.

    And, there are big voices who can't figure out why so many people don't want to be democrats anymore.


    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 9) (#92)
    by chrisvee on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:52:43 PM EST
    Just my unsupported opinion here but if he had done this months ago when it might have cost him something, it would have helped him in the GE.  Doing it now (when his motives are transparent and he has nothing to lose) is obvious political opportunism and I doubt it will work to effect any change in MI or FL.

    Parent
    I support your opinion. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Burned on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:31:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Worse than a worthless gesture. (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by davnee on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:23:26 PM EST
    This one's a sharp stick in the eye.

    And the knife in the back (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by stxabuela on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:31:50 PM EST
    May well be if Hillary's name is not legitimately placed in nomination at the convention.  I haven't left the Democratic Party yet, but that is one of my two personal deal-breakers. The other would be if Obama chooses a non-Democrat as his running mate.

    Parent
    no one supports the MI & FL voters (5.00 / 11) (#28)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    more than me I guess it the message. Pretty funny.

    So this begs the question, will Hillary be on a the ballot for these delegates to even be able to vote for her? And can they vote for whoever they want (assuming their state allows)? And can SD's vote for whoever they want? Which all boils down to: does the dem party allow for democracy anymore? Enquiring minds would like to know.

    So this is the "noone has done more for (5.00 / 9) (#43)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:00:59 PM EST
    MI and FLA voters than obama" moment?

    Parent
    You forgot Iowa! (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:35:14 PM EST
    "No one has done more for the voters of Michigan, Florida and Iowa than Barack Obama!"

    Parent
    personally i think there is no way the obama (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:16:32 PM EST
    campaign gives hillary or her supporters any chance at all at the convention. his ego would never allow it.

    Parent
    Audacity, Change & Hope (5.00 / 13) (#30)
    by OxyCon on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:29:51 PM EST
    Obama has the AUDACITY to CHANGE his positions whenever he feels like it, and he HOPES no one cares.
    Obama sent his campaign bleeps to the RBC in Florida to make sure that Florida and Michigan wouldn't count towards the final election results of the Primary. Now, as predicted here and a few other places, he wants them to count after the deed was done?
    Whatever happened to "rules are rules"? If Florida and Michigan are restored, then in effect the only thing the Democrat party did was disenfranchise the will of the voters in those two states, while installing the will of Democrat party leaders.
    This is Florida 2000 and then some.
    Aren't Obama supporters vehemently against politicians who are cold and calculating? Who will do and say anything to win? Triangulators?
    Hoo< baby, the numbers must be bad... (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by goldberry on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:53:09 PM EST
    ...if he is stupid enough to toss this out there and think no one will come to the same conclusion that you came to.  
    What would possess him to remind FL and MI voters of their disenfranchisement and half-status reenfranchisment?  And what about all of the other Hillary States that were robbed because FL and MI got the shaft?  What kind of disaster looms where he thinks this might actually help him?  


    Parent
    What's Hillary Clinton's Response To This? (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:32:50 PM EST
    And if she hasn't responded, I can't wait!

    (In all likelihood, now that she's "a part of the Obama campaign," they've got her hands tied behind her back on this issue.)

    Here it is in all its glory (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Burned on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:47:44 PM EST
    Clinton on Sunday called Obama's request "the right position" for their party.

    "During the campaign, I strongly advocated for the Democratic Party to seat the Florida and Michigan delegation with their full votes. The Democratic Party has always stood up for the principle of counting every person's vote. Today, Sen. Obama has requested that the Credentials Committee give Florida and Michigan delegates their full votes. This is the right position for the Democratic Party and for the country and I urge the Credentials Committee to restore full votes to Florida and Michigan delegates," she said in a statement.



    Parent
    Hi (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Burned on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:52:09 PM EST
    Forgot this part
    Link

    Parent
    Thanks For Sharing; Predictable Response (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:46:25 PM EST
    I sort of expected that she would do the dutiful thing and play along and not attempt to rock the boat.

    I cannot imagine how the DNC can go ahead with reinstating the delegates full votes now, and not address the outcome of the RBC debacle.

    And hopefully those delegates in the 2 states will call for an explanation of how this can be fair now, when it apparently wasn't prior to the May 30 meeting.

    To xerox Obama's words, "I'm dissapointed; this isn't the workings of the DNC party that I once knew."

    Parent

    I like this part (5.00 / 8) (#93)
    by Burned on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:52:47 PM EST
    "During the campaign, I strongly advocated for the Democratic Party to seat the Florida and Michigan delegation with their full votes.

    Just in case anyone forgot.

    Then she goes dutiful as she must.

    Parent

    Yeah, but how about this part (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:46:52 PM EST
    In a statement issued Sunday, the DNC and the Credentials Committee said they "deeply appreciate and value Sen. Obama's perspective."

    "This matter will be the top priority for the Credentials Committee when we meet on August 24. As always our goal is to ensure a fair process and a unified Democratic Party so that we can win in November."

    Oh cow.

    Parent

    A unified Democratic Party? (none / 0) (#128)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:41:17 PM EST
    Too late for that!

    Unless Hillary is on the ticket, of course...

    Parent

    Only if she's at the top of the ticket (none / 0) (#143)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:08:48 PM EST
    There will be no unity if she's asked to take the #2 spot. There might have been had that been decided and announced early in June, but there's no chance of it now.


    Parent
    That cannot happen now. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:29:56 PM EST
    The Democratic Party has put itself in the position of being unable to change (!) nominees in midstream, having promised a huge segment of the base their very own historical nominee, the AA community would be outraged to have the nomination 'stolen' from him, once awarded.  

    Impossible.

    Not unlike the way the Rossi partisans screamed about our gubernatorial election in'04.  The courts endorsed the Gregoire count but the Rs will have none of it.  

    The truth does not matter.  This is politics.

    Parent

    Alrighty then: (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:37:49 PM EST
    The three co-chairs of the credentials committee issued a statement Sunday saying the issue of Florida and Michigan would be a "top priority" at their meeting.

    "As always our goal is to ensure a fair process and a unified Democratic Party so that we can win in November," wrote Alexis Herman, James Roosevelt Jr. and Eliseo Roques-Arroyo.

     [Excerpt from AP]
    As any group ever (5.00 / 10) (#37)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:41:16 PM EST
    done such a poor job of meeting their stated goal?  I mean, in the whole history of human existence?

    Parent
    Well Napoleon didn't do such a great job (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:42:30 PM EST
    conquering Moscow.

    But he was an individual, not a group.  Maybe he doesn't count.

    Parent

    The Third Reich? (none / 0) (#130)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:44:58 PM EST
    Pretty short 1000 years....and didn't win the war, either, much less take over the world or eliminate the Jews, blacks, others....

    In recent history, I'd say they were the champs of falling far short of their stated goals.

    Parent

    Two good answers (none / 0) (#175)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:25:23 AM EST
    I'd say, in order of worst failure to meet a stated goal in history:

    1. Third Reich
    2. DNC Party Unification Effort, 2008
    3. Napoleon

    LOL

    Parent
    Ought to include (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:42:03 PM EST
    link and the date so people can fully appreciate the quote.

    If that was their goal, I think they failed on the "unified Democratic Party" portion.

    Parent

    Here: (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:03:45 PM EST
    Link

    Parent
    To be fair.... (5.00 / 16) (#42)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:58:51 PM EST
    Obama always wanted Michigan's delegates to be seated with full votes -- he just demanded that the delegates be split 50-50 regardless of how people voted -- he wanted the state fully represented, but not its voters.

    It was only Florida's women, Latinos, Jewish voters, and older voters that he wanted to treat as half-people.  

    I'm curious (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Faust on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:14:08 PM EST
    What if he didn't suggest that this be done. Would that be better?

    Yes. FL and MI (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:27:40 PM EST
    could make the request to the credentials comm.  

    Parent
    Let me explain it this way... (5.00 / 11) (#64)
    by tree on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:40:41 PM EST
     The only moral or rational leg that the Obama campaign had to stand on, wobbly as it was, on MI and FL was that both states had broken the rules so in order to prevent other states from breaking the rules in the future, blah, blah, they had to be at least punished with a half cut in delegates. Of course we all know that 3 other states broke the rules and got no punishment, and there were valid extenuating circumstances for both states. But even though it was a swiss cheese argument being made for the selective cut, at least there was a pretense that could be held up about "following the rules" and not rewarding misbehavior, yada yada.

     Now Obama has totally and revealingly shown the whole moral argument was mere political posturing. No ethical center, just hardball politics. I don't find it at all surprising and I doubt that many here will, but it shows again that Obama duped all those supporters who may have really bought the bull about "the rules" being sacrosanct. The rules are sacrosanct only until the "new" Democratic Party says they aren't. The RBC said the rules don't matter on May 31st, and Obama just reiterated it.

    Parent

    It would have been honest (none / 0) (#153)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:33:24 PM EST
    So, at that level, yes, it would have been better. He doesn't seem to know the wounds reopen if you take the bandaid off at the wrong time.

    Parent
    Every time I think (5.00 / 11) (#48)
    by echinopsia on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:15:26 PM EST
    I could not possibly have more contempt for this man, he forces me to plumb new depths.

    And I thought Obama (5.00 / 10) (#51)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:26:33 PM EST
    didn't have a sense of humor.

    That's a good one!  I'll be laughing all the way to the polls.  

    I said I would never vote for him but now I say (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:32:02 PM EST
    WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER.

    Why not? (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by herb the verb on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:39:16 PM EST
    As long as Hillary's name isn't up for a roll call vote it just means even more Democrats are unanimous for Obama!

    Am I the Only One (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:34:08 PM EST
    who thinks this is a sign that the Obama campaign does not know what to do to restore its falling poll numbers?  If you look at the Kerry electoral map, all the 2008 Dem candidate has to do is win the Kerry states and get over the finish line in Ohio; all things being equal, this should not be hard to do.  But the Kerry map includes Michigan, not Florida.  So I suspect the letter to the DNC means Obama campaign may not be sure of Michigan (nor, of course, Florida), and for all the talk about the new map, I believe MO left this past week and other states with enough electoral votes to replace Michigan and Ohio are not assured.  

    Parent
    Which is why Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:43:28 PM EST
    says it is going to win Alaska.

    Parent
    Alaska? (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by pie on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:51:12 PM EST
    Looks like Alaska last voted dem in 1964.

    Yes?

    Parent

    Interestingly enough (none / 0) (#161)
    by CoralGables on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:58:31 PM EST
    The Dems have opened four campaign offices in Alaska to benefit Obama for President and Begich for Senator.

    Parent
    He always intended to do this (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:29:17 PM EST
    But it does seem timed to make someone, anyone, happy to boost poll numbers this week.

    The Unity Pony needed some food, and it is sure not going to get the really good oats - a Hillary VP selection. This alfalfa will have to do.

    Parent

    Apparently, Rove only consulted (none / 0) (#111)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:13:50 PM EST
    through the primary, then moved his team to McCain.


    Parent
    I never believed he was going to win (none / 0) (#142)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:07:43 PM EST
    MO. or OH.

    Michigan also has really tightened

    Parent

    I think he's risks (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:13:23 PM EST
    not winning in 50 states. Though, he might pick up the remaining 7-8.

    When he doesn't get 270 Electoral votes, it doesn't matter what states came in for him.


    Parent

    very insightful (none / 0) (#155)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:39:41 PM EST


    Parent
    But, what if the Clinton-original delegates (none / 0) (#149)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:19:36 PM EST
    abstain from voting first ballot? He still wouldn't get the nomination without a second vote, and the second vote wouldn't hold his delegates to their pledge for him.

    Parent
    Not surprised, not angered (5.00 / 12) (#57)
    by blogtopus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:07:04 PM EST
    I reached my overflow limit many days ago. Whenever I see an Obama sticker, I just shrug or laugh to myself. If I see video of him, I chuckle to myself in much the same way I would watching Robocop, where the most popular tv show was a small bespectacled man with a handlebar mustache would repeat, ad nauseum, his trademark line "I'll buy THAT for a dollar!"

    It's a complete joke now, this process. I've almost - almost - left the human race to its own fate, as it is fairly obvious that the direction of the U.S. is going opposite to what is needed. I'm observing the situation as I would watch a playground full of three year olds.

    Silly, silly children playing Caesar.

    Delegates (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Miri on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:23:15 PM EST
    Too little, too late.

    Hillary risked: kept her name on MI ballot (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by catfish on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:24:29 PM EST
    she risked pissing off Iowa.

    Obama panedered to Iowa by taking his name OFF the MI ballot.

    Obama needs to reject all MI delegates. If you want delegates, get your name on the ballot AND KEEP IT THERE.

    No! Obama must be consistent. (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:33:35 PM EST
    Refining his positions is what he does!  He's going to be so refined by November that he'll be one hundred percent...er, something?

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#78)
    by tek on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:27:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Seated Fl and MI (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Heartlyss1 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:52:49 PM EST
    How dare Obama pretend that he wanted FL and MI seated all along - He only now gives a rats Patuttie because McCain is so close to him he is tickling his short hairs. This type of Politics represents the festered BOILS on americans behinds.I thought he stood for change - there is no change when you pull shenanigans like this - When it is only in his favor - Floridians and Michigans should spit on his request and boycott the Convention OR if they do get fully seated demand that Hillary is elected. With OBAMA on the ticket,The Democrates are going to loose this election because they sent Barack Obama to do a womans job - Demand that Hillary be seated in Denver - Loose Obama before it is too late.

    I AGREE (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Heartlyss1 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:08:22 PM EST
    You know I was fervently not going to vote at all once Obama was chosen but then I reconsidered because after all we must get the Republicans out of office. So I started trying my best to warm up to him, but after he started this kiss and lets make up campaign to Florida and Michigan I say hell no. Let the chips fall were they must. This man will say and do anything to get elected. It is shameful. People bought into his game now we will all have to pay for it.

    What is (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by tek on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:26:21 PM EST
    the point of this now?  I assume he's not suggesting we should turn back the clock before the Rules Meeting and give Hillary all of her delegates.  The more I see of this man, the more he strikes me as a flim flam man.  All he cares about is appearance and winning at any cost.  Some costs are too great.

    Obama is a Hero (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:31:42 PM EST
    because he is instrumental in giving back those delegates that those mean ol' DNC bureaucrats took away from MI and FL!

    Yeah, that's the story that we are supposed to believe.  Ready to stand up for voters...only after it is safe for him to do so.

    Parent

    obama wants to play hero, but he is no hero. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:19:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by pie on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:32:59 PM EST
    All he cares about is appearance and winning at any cost.  

    in any campaign, no one usually knows what the costs are.  But I can tell you that it's not the case in this election.

    I like exciting.  I like the electorate to pay attention.

    But pay attention to Obama/McCain?

    Oh, Obama.  What dost thou stand for?

    :(


    Parent

    The appearance (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:37:37 PM EST
    is that the campaign is adopting a politically-motivated change of position. This will not endear the presumption nominee to anyone.

    Parent
    dang, obama's internal polling must not be (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:20:12 PM EST
    very good.

    Parent
    Just took a look (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:33:46 PM EST
    I read a post (very quickly) at Huffpo indicating that Rasmussen's latest poll shows 19% of Dems plan to vote for McCain.  So I took a look at Rasmussen poll - got there thru realclearpolitics site.  Lots of bad news for Dems -- those polled identifying as Dems at its lowest point since January 08 & down 2% this month.  Obama went from 5 points ahead in Montana to 1 point behind. So my suspicion, mentioned above, that the letter to the DNC may reflect some concern by the Obama campaign about the November prospects may be more valid than I'd realized.

    So hasn't a significant part of the advantage of the "unity push" for getting behind a single candidate early been erased?  

    Parent

    He was given his chance (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by blogtopus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:46:30 PM EST
    to let the Politics of Hope (TM) work out. If this slide continues into the Convention of Hope (TM) then what will the SD's think?

    It would severely catch the GOP off guard if our candidate suddenly changed two months before the Election of Hope (TM).

    Parent

    it isn't like we haven't been telling the dnc (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:47:32 PM EST
    that very thing but they wouldn't listen. once a train starts, it is hard to get it to stop. personally i think it's too late for a number of reasons. many in the obama campaign has their own agendas and some just plain dislike the clintons. some will lose big time if the clintons were involved. i include brazile and dean in that group. if obama were to lose, i'd expect dean and brazile both would be out sooner or later. they have committed to this whole thing publicly and also don't want to lose face. of course, again in they lose, they will anyway.

    Parent
    So, when Chuck Todd said (none / 0) (#112)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:18:03 PM EST
    78% of Hillary supporters are now supporting Obama this morning, it probably wasn't accurate?

    If 19% of democrats aren't voting Obama, and Hillary had 50% of the popular vote, could it mean that the number hasn't moved, and 40% of Hillary supporters are still not moving over to the BO camp?

    And, if today's polls are as accurate as the ones during the primary, is the real picture more like Obama down by double digits?


    Parent

    I know this is probably a stupid (none / 0) (#119)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:49:20 PM EST
    question, but did Todd say where those numbers were coming from?

    Parent
    Nope, but from (none / 0) (#131)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:46:14 PM EST
    the number he gave, I guessed he just pulled it out of his ...

    Parent
    Tood's comments was (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:52:14 PM EST
    leading to his conclusion that, oh...it's "just the usual 10% of Democrats who don't vote for the Dem nominee."

    Baloney.

    Parent

    I'm trying to find the link, (none / 0) (#177)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:38:59 AM EST
    but iirc, it's 78% of Democrats who say they will vote for Obama, not 78% of Hillary supporters. The Hillary holdouts are in the 40-45% range.  I'll keep looking.

    Parent
    Let's Remember As Well (none / 0) (#189)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:46:23 PM EST
    that the Hillary voters in the primaries were probably more than 50% of the registered Dem votes, as Obama drew support in states with cross-over voting.

    Parent
    I'm looking forward (5.00 / 8) (#80)
    by Makarov on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:29:47 PM EST
    to Obama's next visit to my home state of Pennsylvania. In one weekend, Florida got NASA funding, a semi-reversal of his offshore drilling compromise (he's apparently going to think about extending the limit to 125 miles in FL), and delegates with full votes.

    I'm not sure what he's going to offer to Pennsylvania. Maybe he'll bring the steel jobs back. Hopefully it's more than a pony, because I don't have room for that.

    It's Too Late (5.00 / 6) (#97)
    by Heartlyss1 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:08:13 PM EST
    Top 5 Quotes for the Pre-Convention

    #5- "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything" --Alexander Hamilton

    #4 -"In America, anybody may become president, and I suppose it's just one of the risks you take:
    == Adlai Stevenson

    #3 - "In politics, stupidity is not a handicap" -- Napoleon

    #2 - "I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians" --    Charles DeGaulle

    #1 Politicians are like diapers. They should both be changed frequently and for the same reason. --Anonymous

    #1 Rocks My Socks (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:16:23 PM EST
    Politicians are like diapers. They should both be changed frequently and for the same reason. --Anonymous
    ROFL; Love it.

    Parent
    W-H-A-T-E-V-E-R (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by nell on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:08:28 PM EST
    The Obama campaign has no shame, whatsoever.

    FL Dem Chairman thanks Obama (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:25:28 PM EST
    Here is the email I got today from Karen Thurman, FL Dem chairwoman. You may recall her from the infamous RBC hearing last August, where FL was originally stripped of all its delegates despite her very moving entreaty.

    Presented FYI. I think she also sent a similar letter thanking Hillary at some point last spring, lest anyone think she has been slighting Hillary's contribution.

    Dear Florida Democrats,

    Today is a proud day for all of us who fought so hard to ensure Floridians votes are fully counted.

    Just minutes ago, Sen. Barack Obama sent a letter to the DNC credentials committee urging them to restore the full vote of the Michigan and Florida Delegations, proving his commitment to uniting the party and ending the uncertainty surrounding the process.

    With Florida's economy in recession for the first time in 16 years, our state leading the nation in job loss, and we are number two in foreclosures, Floridians in every corner of our state are excited to elect Barack Obama and other Democrats this fall to bring change to Washington and Florida. The people of Florida know Barack Obama and other Democrats will rebuild our economy, create good jobs, and lower gas prices and homeowners insurance rates.

    I want to thank Barack Obama, the Florida Congressional Delegation, the Democrats in our Legislature, and voters across Florida for fighting to have our votes count. This is a proud day for all of us.

    Sincerely,

    Karen Thurman
    Incredible. (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by pie on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:43:05 PM EST
    Today is a proud day for all of us who fought so hard to ensure Floridians votes are fully counted.

    Wiki:
    The 2008 Democratic presidential primary in Florida took place on January 29, 2008. Sen. Hillary Clinton won with over 50 percent of the vote. The Democratic National Committee initially stripped Florida of all its delegates for holding the primary prior to February 5. However, on May 31 the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to seat all of Florida's delegates, with each delegate having only half a vote.

    I doubt most dem voters in Florida were born yesterday.

    Parent

    In the dictionary under (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:31:59 PM EST
    wishful thinking, you'll see her picture.

    Parent
    this is the candidate of hope and change? (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by thereyougo on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:49:12 PM EST
    what hope do we have things will change?

    I don't have ANY !

    Thank you Jeralyn for posting this despite your support for Obama because he is the presumptive nominee. I still can't do it.

    I might go to the big Orange to see what they're saying now.

    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by IzikLA on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 10:59:23 PM EST
    Although I am currently planning on voting for Obama, I am disgusted, saddened and repulsed by this headline tonight.

    That is literally all I can say.

    LOL Obama IS the DNC (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by environmentally blue on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:00:50 PM EST
    Camp Obama took over the DNC and moved the HQ to Chicago.  They are calling the shots and operations.  

    Obama chooses this half measure in hopes he can stop there.  lol  Yeah, right.  Still fighting to keep Hillary off the nominating ballot, even though he was the one keeping the votes from counting until now, when he is now the presumtuous presumptive Prom Queen, I mean Democratic candidate.  

    Oh yes, this makes the past 7 months just go away.

    I will never vote for Obama. (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by chopper on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:02:52 PM EST
    This is meaningless now.

    He already showed how corrupt he can be to a fellow Democrat.

    He will get it all back when the GOP loads their guns after the convention.

    I hope he realizes he can't win without Hillary and chooses her to be VP because the GOP may prove him to be ineligible based on his "birth certificate", birth place, real name, and Indonesian citizenship.

    We will need someone like Hillary to step in and take over.  She is the only one with the experience, knowledge, and judgement to do so, besides the fact that she won the popular vote and deserves it.

    McCain was born overseas (none / 0) (#144)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:09:32 PM EST
    What about him

    Parent
    This has already been vetted (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:15:33 PM EST
    McCain has never held citizenship in any country other than the USA.

    Parent
    Vetted does not equal resolved (3.00 / 1) (#151)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:29:25 PM EST
    If by vetted you mean talked about in the media, then, yes, it's been vetted.

    As far as I know, the courts have never given an opinion, and no amendment has been offered to declare what a natural born citizen is, except the Hatch Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment.

    The canal zone law does not replace the Constitutional requirements IMO.


    Parent

    McCain has been vetted (none / 0) (#150)
    by chopper on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:22:25 PM EST
    A while back the subject of McCain being born in Panama came up.  He produced a legitimate birth certificate, proved he was born to military parents at a military location, and his parents are both US citizens.

    The only people to address Obama's situation are the people at Texas Darlin, www.noquarterusa.net, and a few others like the computer fraud experts and researchers.

    I'm sure the GOP is holding back on this one.


    Parent

    The senate passed a special resolution (none / 0) (#156)
    by wurman on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:43:14 PM EST
    on Sen. John S. McCain, III, born in the Panama Canal Zone to a US Navy officer & wife.  The vote was to ensure that no possible question could be raised about his citizenship.

    You can read it here (link):
    Senate Resolution 511.

    Parent

    The Constitution, not resolutions (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:48:44 PM EST
    sets the standards.

    But I'm not arguing over it any more.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#160)
    by Steve M on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:57:21 PM EST
    The courts are not going to touch this particular question, so Congress' opinion is pretty much the final word.

    Parent
    Obama's problem is very different (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by chopper on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:17:01 AM EST
    1. Obama has posted a presumably forged birth certificate on his website.  Two experts declared it to be a forgery.

    2. He had his birth father who is Kenyan and a stepfather who is Indonesian.

    3. Since his BC is a fake no one knows for sure where he was born.  He claims he was born in 2 different hospitals in Hawaii.

    4. He may have been born in Canada or Kenya.

    5. He may also have dual Indonesian citizenship because of his stepfather.  He went to school as a Muslim because of his Muslim stepfather. He had his named changed to Barry Soetoro, his stepfather's name.

    6. He may be ineligible to be president based on Article II of the Constitution.

    7. He refuses to come forward with any information or documentation so people are bringing it forward for him.

    Here is a link for part of the ongoing story.  There is more at this same website.

    http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/31/breaking-obama-hides-indonesian-identity-fake-birth-certific ate-explained/

    For more info here's a link to part of the ongoing story.

    Parent

    Could it be? (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:21:42 AM EST
    I didn't know Bill O'Reilly had time to comment on blogs.

    Parent
    He took a look at the polls... (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by kredwyn on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:14:34 PM EST
    and realized that he need MI's electoral votes.

    Option 3 (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by sleepingdogs on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:34:21 AM EST
    Adisa-

    There is an option 3 that we can also choose.

    I feel that Obama is not a legitmate nominee because of MI and FL.  Had he made a plea for them to count back in Feb., or agreed to a revote, I would not feel this way.  As it stands, his asking for full seating now does not change my feelings about this.  

    Before you call me a bitter Clinton supporter, understand this---I am over the fact the she will not be the nominee.  I also understand that the presidency was/is not her only path to doing good for the people of the country.  I simply cannot vote for a non-legitmate nominee.

    If you do not like the opinions expressed in blogs, please feel free to take a break yourself.  

    As a matter of fact (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 09:05:58 AM EST
    Obama is most certainly the legitimate candidate of the Democratic Party.  If you wish to accuse the Democratic Party of having a illegitimate nomination process, that's fine.  

    But your condemnation of Obama because he wasn't willing to give Hillary delegates early in the process, and thus help change the minds of the Superdelegates, is kinda ridiculous.  

    Why are you not angry at Hillary for not demanding those states be seated BEFORE the elections?  Oh right, because that isn't part of the post-nomination sour grapes narrative.

    Parent

    Flyerhawk (none / 0) (#185)
    by sleepingdogs on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:47:45 PM EST
    With all due respect, I was arguing for Michigan and Florida to have revotes l-o-n-g before the matter was brought before the RBC.  Even if it meant Hillary lost by a huge margin on a revote, I wanted a legitmate nominee.  

    This is no case of sour grapes.  

     

    Parent

    I suppose obama could be more shallow, (4.73 / 15) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    but I don't know how.  It is my hope the comeuppance he so richly deserves is bestowed upon him quickly and severely.  His nickname should be 'slick willie'.  Seems obama just can't stop pandering...

    Please (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by tek on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:28:46 PM EST
    don't insult Bill Clinton that way.  At least Bill actually had acumen, that's what the Repubs hated.

    Parent
    well I meant obama = slick willie in a (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:05:30 PM EST
    very bad way!! :)

    Parent
    By 2008, the corporate take over of the (none / 0) (#58)
    by Aqua Blue on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:17:53 PM EST
    country may be complete.   (H@ll, it may be complete already.)

    I just finished John Grisham's book, The Appeal.  Just made my blood boil.

    Opps, meant by 2012. above (none / 0) (#59)
    by Aqua Blue on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:19:16 PM EST
    2012

    Parent
    It's just (none / 0) (#75)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:17:31 PM EST
    a little too late

    I am (none / 0) (#98)
    by curryorama on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:08:17 PM EST
    spitting mails as we speak.

    I mean (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by curryorama on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:10:58 PM EST
    nails.  Too angry to type.

    Parent
    Mails works too, lol n/t (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:51:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Delegate seating full old news (none / 0) (#154)
    by Rashomon66 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:38:34 PM EST
    Way back in early June Obama said he wanted MI and FL fully seated. He is not doing it now because of 'falling poll numbers.'

    You are not understanding the assertion (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:01:36 AM EST
    It's the timing of this particular letter that's suspiciously concurrent with his falling polls.

    He could have sent it any time since the beginning of June, up until the RBC mtg starts right before the convention.

    But he's in a tie with one of the worst campaigns ever, his standard political palooza rally strategy is giving him nothing, and one of his strategy mainstays, accusing other campaigns of being racist has backfired.

    Maybe, just maybe the timing of this letter of support for seating the delegations in full is accidental, but it's a stretch to think so.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by chrisvee on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:29:56 AM EST
    clearly it's all Clinton's fault. Her mere presence forces people to do the wrong thing.

    Parent
    resistance is futile (none / 0) (#188)
    by sj on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 06:18:37 PM EST
    Doncha know?

    Parent
    Clinton said just the opposite, in fact (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:38:32 AM EST
    That has been widely discussed here at TL.  But I see you get all your news from the Daily News.  Classy!

    There's video of her discussing the question.

    Your February comment -- well, Jeralyn discourages commenters from using the words 'lie' or 'liar', so I'll limit myself to saying: you are misrepresenting the truth at the extreme.

    I just don't get why such low-info commenters come here and think that TL, of all sites, is peopled with users who can be hoodwinked as easily they are.  

    Repetition is not truth.  Learn it, love it.

    Parent

    Why let her show her larger support in Dem states? (none / 0) (#187)
    by andrys on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:31:42 PM EST
    The sheer arrogance of Obama-think is picked up and lived-in by his supporters who would blame her for not dropping out in February when NEITHER of them got the required number of elected delegates even by June.

     If I ever found myself wanting to vote for Obama rather than sit out that top slot, it's notes like this that convince me he would be bringing with him a tremendously undemocratic and disdainful crowd who didn't care he had lost 4 states by 30 points and over in the last 15 races and had lost 9 of those last 15 too, all AFTER he was proclaimed the nominee by the media - Russert and TIME Mag.

     For many of those states he lost, polls had shown him leading in (including the final one of South Dakota which he lost by double digits after polling showed him 8 points ahead), so it would be prudent to watch his polling with that in mind now, and we may all likely suffer from this situation in November.

     Clinton made it possible/imperative that he has organizations in most states.  He would not have if able to run unopposed as is his preference.

     

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#164)
    by IzikLA on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 12:53:19 AM EST
    Seriously?

    Oy.

    Parent

    I can't believe (none / 0) (#165)
    by IzikLA on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:02:13 AM EST
    You pulled that ridiculous article out.  As if it wasn't insulting enough at the time.  

    Thanks and good job Obama, his campaign and all of his supporters.  

    Keep on doing what your doing and those of us who are committed to voting for him despite our initial reservations may have to abstain.

    Parent

    The Gall (none / 0) (#167)
    by jjflowgoer on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:17:11 AM EST
    His campaign initially positioned itself against giving FL/MI full voting rights. The reversal now is apparently motivated by nothing more than political expediency. I am an HRC supporter who has struggled with supporting him anyway. This may do it for me. He deserves to lose the votes of Democratic voters in those states.

    suck what up? (none / 0) (#178)
    by Nike on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:12:07 AM EST
    what's prgressive about obama? he's a registered democrat, that's about it.

    Obama to DNC: Restore Fl and MI in Full | 185 comments (185 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment