Disputed delegates from Florida, Michigan will get half-votes

Members of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee met privately for more than three hours, and apparently hammered out a compromise deal. As expected, it fell short of the Clinton campaign’s more recent demands.

Democratic party officials said a committee agreed Saturday on a compromise to seat Michigan and Florida delegates with half-votes after Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to get enough support to force their positions through.

Clinton’s chief delegate hunter Harold Ickes angrily informed the committee that Clinton had instructed him to reserve her right to appeal the matter to the Democrats’ credentials committee, which could potentially drag the matter to the party’s convention in August.

“There’s been a lot of talk about party unity — let’s all come together, and put our arms around each other,” said Ickes, who is also a member of the Rules Committee that approved the deal. “I submit to you ladies and gentlemen, hijacking four delegates … is not a good way to start down the path of party unity.”

The Clinton proposal to reverse last year’s DNC decision and honor the results of Florida’s non-binding primary failed on a 15-12 vote. Clinton supporters began yelling, “Denver! Denver!” apparently indicating their support to push the controversy to the Credentials Committee, which meets at the start of the national convention in late August. (Under the Clinton campaign’s proposal, Florida would not be punished at all for having violated party rules, and the results from its non-binding primary would accepted in full — the opposite of what the Clinton campaign agreed to before it won the state’s vote in late January.)

Instead, the committee unanimously approved a measure to halve the state’s delegates. By one count, Clinton would get 52.5 delegates, Obama would get 33.5, and Edwards gets 6.5.

Resolving the question over Michigan, where Obama was not on the ballot and whose primary Clinton specifically said shouldn’t count, proved to be trickier.

The conclusion was not quite what was expected.

The Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws
Committee on Saturday voted to seat all Michigan delegates to its convention, giving each a half-vote and dividing them to give Hillary Clinton a slight edge over Barack Obama.

The 19-8 vote gives 69 pledged delegates to Clinton and 59 to frontrunner Obama — each with half a vote because Michigan was penalized, like Florida, for moving its primary ahead in the campaign season.

Where does that leave the candidates? The AP concluded:

The resolution increased the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination to 2,118, leaving Obama 66 delegates short but still within striking distance after the three final primaries are held in the next three days. […]

Obama picked up a total of 32 delegates in Michigan, including superdelegates who have already committed, and 36 in Florida. Clinton picked up 38 in Michigan, including superdelegates, and 56.5 in Florida.

Obama’s total increased to 2,052, and Clinton had 1,877.5.

The key quote, of course, came from Clinton adviser and RBC member Harold Ickes, who helped pull Florida’s and Michigan’s delegates in the first place, but who has since become a fierce opponent of his own decision. He announced, “Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the Credentials Committee.”

“Reserve the right,” however, is not necessarily indicative of what the Clinton campaign will do, only what it might do.

Stay tuned.

What I saw today had little to do with the candidates and everything to do with the party. Think about it… the committee followed the recommendations of the states in terms of delegate number and apportionment, but did not penalize the other 48 states by granting FL and MI full votes per delegate. And at 27-0 and 19-8, the did so convincingly.

The committee did it’s job and the party is better for it. If Clinton goes scorched earth on us, she’ll be doing so alone and the party is not going to respond favorably. As far as the party is concerned, I think this business is settled.

  • hijacking four delegates … is not a good way to start down the path of party unity.

    By my count, Clinton hijacked 24 pledged delegates plus however many supers. I am disgusted by the committee’s decision to even address this issue. It is an obvious observation that only Clinton supporters pushed for higher numbers, while all Obama supporters pushed for lower numbers. Although a few Clinton supporters did cross the aisle, what is most obvious was that the issue was expediency, not fairness. Had Obama gotten more votes in either state, you can be absolutely certain that Clinton’s supporters would have all pushed for not counting these two states. Despite political considerations, I wish Obama had done just that!

  • Beep, I hope so.

    Hillary has to do something to start the healing. As much as some want to say Screw her voters, we can’t. We need them…we WANT them! She is going to have to deliver them and that is going to be a tough pill to swallow. So much scotching has gone on thus far.

    It can’t continue on. It just can’t.

  • The “Denver! Denver!” crowd embarrassed themselves. I don’t know what they’re fighting for, but I know what they’re not fighting for.

    They’re not fighting for the will of the people or “fair reflection”, as they claim. They’re not fighting for Florida voters and Michigan voters, as they claim. They’re not fighting for choice, Iraq, deficits, fair trade, the courts, and other issues that progressives feel so strongly about. They’re not fighting for the Party, and tnot fighting for the country. This much, I know.

  • After Clinton went all Disenfranchising MI and FL, there was no way they could not address it. They had to.

    Funny thing, almost everyone from MI and FL had accepted it as rules (and politics) and moved on, until Clinton started her disenfranchisement campaign.

  • One question I have. Although I heard one of the committee members discuss Superdelegates in the morning session, I heard no motion to include them. Yet CNN certainly agrees with Steve’s conclusion that they were reinstated. Did I miss something?

  • I voted for Clinton in the NJ primary. I continue to beleive that she would be a better president than Obama and (if she had been able to win the nomination without tearing the party apart) a stronger candidate against McCain. Indeed, despite what I consider the widely unexamined sunny optimism of the liberal blogosphere, I think Obama is almost certain to lose, possibly in an electoral landslide (do not underestimate the pernicious skill of the Republicans at character assassination, the tilted wheel run by the MSM, racism, and a truly poor candidate with limited appeal beyond his primary constituency). BUT–Clinton cannot now win in a way that will not destroy the party and doom her chances for 2008. By extending the campaign, and exacerbating party divisions inthe process, she is just poisoningthe well for Obama. She could not be furthering McCain’s cause better than if she were a paid campaign worker. As pessimistic as I am about the Obama candidacy, our only hope to prevent the march of the USA into a Randian police state is to strongly support him. The Clinton campaign disgusts me at this point. Is personal pique, vainglory, vengeance )or possible 2012 posisitoning) really worth furthering the chances of four more years of Consyitution shredding Republicans? For Clinton, the answer sadly appears to be yes.

  • Well, if they accepted the Fl. compromise and are going to bicker about 4 delegates from Mi., then they have effectively given up. She needs 240.5 delegates, not….4.

  • Yes, Dan. They were reinstated – for their pledged candidates. The others are still open. And there was something about the candidates having to approve something. That I didn’t get. Anyone?

  • Dear Hillary.
    If you truly care to advance the role of women in public life, please be smart enough to know when you’ve lost.
    We’ve survived 8 years of an ideologue who banks on miracle to achieve his results. Enough with the banking on miracle – you lost.

  • MsJoanne – What the candidates have to approve was the choice of delegates. In other words, after the phony primaries in FL and MI, delegates were chosen, even though in MI many of them were chosen as “Uncommitted” with no input from any candidates. Now they will have to reselect the actual people who go to Denver with Clinton and Obama approving their alloted portions to ensure loyalty.

  • Dear CJ: I’ll tell you what we’re fighting for. We’re fighting for the numbers to reflect what actually happened, not for what you wished would have happened. Hillary crushed Obama in Florida and in Michigan. She has the popular vote by more than 52,000 people.

    We’re fighting for substance. Obama is a dynamic and youthful speaker, whose rhetoric has captured the imaginations of less than half of the Democratic Party.

    We’re fighting because Obama has alienated half his own party and arrogantly assumed that the rest of us are just going to over look his vapid catch phrases.

    We are fighting for the candidate in whom we believe.

    Does that clear up your confusion?

  • Everett, she won a state with the other two key candidates not on the ballot? Some win?

    As for catch phrases, can you read? This is just ONE issue on http://www.barackobama.com . God, try to learn something before saying it’s all fluff and no substance.

    The Problem

    Wages are Stagnant as Prices Rise: While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it’s been since the Great Depression.

    Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class.
    Barack Obama’s Plan
    Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief

    Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.

    * Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The “Making Work Pay” tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
    * Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.

    Trade

    Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.

    * Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.
    * Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.
    * Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.

    Technology, Innovation and Creating Jobs

    Obama will encourage the deployment of the most modern communications infrastructure to reduce the costs of health care, help solve our energy crisis, create new jobs, and fuel our economic growth.

    * Support Job Creation: Barack Obama believes we need to double federal funding for basic research and make the research and development tax credit permanent to help create high-paying, secure jobs. Obama will also make long-term investments in education, training, and workforce development so that Americans can leverage our strengths – our ingenuity and entrepreneurialism – to create new high-wage jobs and prosper in a world economy.
    * Invest in U.S. Manufacturing: The Obama comprehensive energy independence and climate change plan will invest in America’s highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world. Obama will also provide assistance to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient vehicles are built by American workers.
    * Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies: The Obama plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training, such as advanced manufacturing and weatherization training, into their efforts to help Americans find and retain stable, high-paying jobs. Obama will also create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth.
    * Boost the Renewable Energy Sector and Create New Jobs: The Obama plan will create new federal policies, and expand existing ones, that have been proven to create new American jobs. Obama will create a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025, which has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs on its own. Obama will also extend the Production Tax Credit, a credit used successfully by American farmers and investors to increase renewable energy production and create new local jobs.
    * Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Obama believes we can get broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives.
    * Protect the Openness of the Internet: Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or nonprofit speakers, have the same opportunity as big companies to innovate and reach large audiences.
    * Invest in Rural Areas: Obama will invest in rural small businesses and fight to expand high-speed Internet access. He will improve rural schools and attract more doctors to rural areas.

    Labor

    Obama will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama will ensure that his labor appointees support workers’ rights and will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama will also increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation to ensure it rises every year.

    * Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA’s passage and sign it into law.
    * Fight Attacks on Workers’ Right to Organize: Obama has fought the Bush National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) efforts to strip workers of their right to organize. He is a cosponsor of legislation to overturn the NLRB’s “Kentucky River” decisions classifying hundreds of thousands of nurses, construction, and professional workers as “supervisors” who are not protected by federal labor laws.
    * Protect Striking Workers: Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.
    * Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.

    Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud

    Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders. He will also make sure homebuyers have honest and complete information about their mortgage options, and he will give a tax credit to all middle-class homeowners.

    * Create a Universal Mortgage Credit: Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.
    * Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama’s STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.
    * Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure: Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric (similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.
    * Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures: Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners. The fund will be partially paid for by Obama’s increased penalties on lenders who act irresponsibly and commit fraud.
    * Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies: Obama will work to eliminate the provision that prevents bankruptcy courts from modifying an individual’s mortgage payments. Obama believes that the subprime mortgage industry, which has engaged in dangerous and sometimes unscrupulous business practices, should not be shielded by outdated federal law.

    Address Predatory Credit Card Practices

    Obama will establish a five-star rating system so that every consumer knows the risk involved in every credit card. He also will establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to stop credit card companies from exploiting consumers with unfair practices.

    * Create a Credit Card Rating System to Improve Disclosure: Obama will create a credit card rating system, modeled on five-star systems used for other consumer products, to provide consumers an easily identifiable ranking of credit cards, based on the card’s features. Credit card companies will be required to display the rating on all application and contract materials, enabling consumers to quickly understand all of the major provisions of a credit card without having to rely exclusively on fine print in lengthy documents.
    * Establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to Protect Consumers: Obama will create a Credit Card Bill of Rights to protect consumers. The Obama plan will:
    o Ban Unilateral Changes
    o Apply Interest Rate Increases Only to Future Debt
    o Prohibit Interest on Fees
    o Prohibit “Universal Defaults”
    o Require Prompt and Fair Crediting of Cardholder Payments

    Reform Bankruptcy Laws

    Obama will reform our bankruptcy laws to protect working people, ban executive bonuses for bankrupt companies, and require disclosure of all pension investments.

    * Cap Outlandish Interest Rates on Payday Loans and Improve Disclosure: Obama supports extending a 36 percent interest cap to all Americans. Obama will require lenders to provide clear and simplified information about loan fees, payments and penalties, which is why he’ll require lenders to provide this information during the application process.
    * Encourage Responsible Lending Institutions to Make Small Consumer Loans: Obama will encourage banks, credit unions and Community Development Financial Institutions to provide affordable short-term and small-dollar loans and to drive unscrupulous lenders out of business.
    * Reform Bankruptcy Laws to Protect Families Facing a Medical Crisis: Obama will create an exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses. This exemption will create a process that forgives the debt and lets the individuals get back on their feet.

    Work/Family Balance

    Obama will double funding for after-school programs, expand the Family Medical Leave Act, provide low-income families with a refundable tax credit to help with their child-care expenses, and encourage flexible work schedules.

    * Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act: The FMLA covers only certain employees of employers with 50 or more employees. Obama will expand it to cover businesses with 25 or more employees. He will expand the FMLA to cover more purposes as well, including allowing workers to take leave for elder care needs; allowing parents up to 24 hours of leave each year to participate in their children’s academic activities; and expanding FMLA to cover leave for employees to address domestic violence.
    * Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave: As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers.
    * Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities: Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve a million more children. Obama will include measures to maximize performance and effectiveness across grantees nationwide.
    * Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit: The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Obama will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses.
    * Protect Against Caregiver Discrimination: Workers with family obligations often are discriminated against in the workplace. Obama will enforce the recently-enacted Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines on caregiver discrimination.
    * Expand Flexible Work Arrangements: Obama will create a program to inform businesses about the benefits of flexible work schedules; help businesses create flexible work opportunities; and increase federal incentives for telecommuting. Obama will also make the federal government a model employer in terms of adopting flexible work schedules and permitting employees to request flexible arrangements.

    Barack Obama’s Record

    * Housing: In the U.S. Senate, Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to increase penalties for mortgage fraud and provide more protections for low-income homebuyers, well before the current subprime crisis began.
    * Predatory Lending: In the Illinois State Senate, Obama called attention to predatory lending issues. Obama sponsored legislation to combat predatory payday loans, and he also was credited with lobbying the state to more closely regulate some of the most egregious predatory lending practices.
    * American Jobs: Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.

    That’s ONE issue!

  • The other issues on his page: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

    The Blueprint for Change

    Civil Rights

    Disabilities

    Education

    Energy & Environment

    Ethics

    Faith

    Family

    Fiscal

    Foreign Policy

    Healthcare

    Homeland Security

    Immigration

    Iraq

    Poverty

    Rural

    Service

    Seniors & Social Security

    Technology

    Urban Policy

    Veterans

    I will spare everyone details on each. READ IT!

  • And my sincerest apologies for taking up so much real estate.

    Please accept this apology. I get bent when people say Obama is all fluff and no substance without even trying to learn anything.

  • Yes we can say “screw the racist voters that would not support a progressive candidate.”

    We can say “screw rush limbaugh’s ‘operation chaos’ voters.”

    We can say “screw the karl rove talking points – he actually works for mccain.”

    The party cannot win as long as it is trying to pander to the most ignorant voters that don’t actually give a damn about progressive issues. This is what allows the repug party to “divide and conquor”.

    This year is unique – the neocon/conservatives have had their way for 7 years. The public does not approve. The public wants change. The scandals that have hit them all over the nation has made even their “safe” districts go democratic in all special elections this year.

    It all votes are counted and Obama continues to indicate that we will see change, he cannot lose.

    All the crap that gets thrown around here about “clinton blah blah blah” and “but her voters blah blah blah blah” would be better spent advocating for progressive change and honest elections.

  • Ok, I lied (sigh). Don’t hate me, please!!! I promise no more! Honest! I swear!

    A list of Obama’s accomplishments in the US Senate.

    Most of his legislative effort has been in the area of:

    – Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills),
    – Health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills),
    – Consumer protection/labor (14 bills),
    – The needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills),
    – Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills),
    – Foreign Policy (10 bills),
    – Voting and Elections (9 bills),
    – Education (7 bills),
    – Hurricane Katrina Relief (6),
    – Environment (5 bills),
    – Homeland Security (4 bills),
    – Discrimination (4 bills).

    Of the 15 bills Senator Obama sponsored or co-sponsored in 2005 – SEVEN became law:

    Two (2) addressed foreign policy:
    Promote relief, security and democracy in the Congo (2125)
    Develop democratic institutions in areas under Palestinian control (2370).

    Three (3) addressed public health:
    Improve mine safety (2803)
    Increased breast cancer funding (597)
    Reduce preterm delivery and complications, reduce infant mortality (707).

    Two (2) addressed openness and accountability in government:
    Strengthening the Freedom of Information Act (2488)
    Full disclosure of all entities receiving federal funds (2590)

    Two (2) addressed national security:
    Extend Terrorist Risk Insurance (467)
    Amend the Patriot Act (2167)

    One (1) addressed the needs of the Armed Forces:
    Wave passport fees to visit graves, attend memorials/funerals of veterans abroad (1184).

    Of the 570 bills Senator Obama introduced into the Senate during the 109th and 110th Congress (Senate Bill numbers are in parentheses), they can be summarized as follows:

    Twenty-Five (25) addressed Energy Efficiency and Climate Change
    Suspend royalty relief for oil and gas (115)
    Reduce dependence on oil; use of alternative energy sources (133)
    Increase fuel economy standards for cars (767, 768)
    Auto industry incentives for fuel efficient vehicles (1151)
    Reduce green house gas emissions (1324)
    Establish at NSF a climate change education program (1389)
    Increase renewable content of gasoline (2202)
    Energy emergency relief for small businesses and farms (269)
    Strategic gasoline and fuel reserves (1794)
    Alternative diesel standards (3554)
    Coal to liquid fuel promotion (3623)
    Renewable diesel standards (1920)
    Reducing global warming pollution from vehicles (2555)
    Fuel security and consumer choice (1994, 2025)
    Alternative energy refueling system (2614)
    Climate change education (1389)
    Low income energy assistance (2405)
    Oil savings targets (339)
    Fuel economy reform (3694)
    Plug-in electric drive vehicles (1617)
    Nuclear release notice (2348)
    Passenger rail investment (294)
    Energy relief for low income families (2405)

    Twenty-One (21) addressed Health Care
    Drug re-importation (334)
    Health information technology (1262, 1418)
    Discount drug prices (2347)
    Health care associated infections (2278)
    Hospital quality report cards (692, 1824)
    Medical error disclosure and compensation (1784)
    Emergency medical care and response (1873)
    Stem cell research (5)
    Medical Malpractice insurance (1525)
    Health centers renewal (901, 3771)
    Children’s health insurance (401)
    Home health care (2061)
    Medicare independent living (2103)
    Microbicides for HIV/AIDS (823)
    Ovarian cancer biomarker research (2569)
    Gynological cancers (1172)
    Access to personalized medicine through use of human genome (976)
    Paralysis research and care (1183)

    Twenty (20) addressed Public Health:
    Violence against women (1197)
    Biodefense and pandemic preparedness and response (1821, 1880)
    Viral influenza control (969)
    End homelessness (1518)
    Reduce STDs/unintended pregnancy (1790)
    Smoking prevention and tobacco control (625)
    Minority health improvement and disparity elimination (4024)
    Nutrition and physical education in schools (2066)
    Health impact assessments (1067, 2506)
    Healthy communities (1068)
    Combat methamphetamines (2071)
    Paid sick leave (910)
    Prohibit mercury sales (833, 1818)
    Prohibit sale of lead products (1306, 2132)
    Lead exposure in children (1811, 2132)

    Fourteen (14) address Consumer Protection/Labor
    Stop unfair labor practices (842)
    Fair minimum wage (2, 1062, 2725, 3829)
    Internet freedom (2917)
    Credit card safety (2411)
    Media ownership (2332)
    Protecting taxpayer privacy (2484)
    Working family child assistance (218)
    Habeus Corpus Restoration (185)
    Bankruptcy protection for employees and retirees (2092)
    FAA fair labor management dispute resolution (2201)
    Working families flexibility (2419).

    Thirteen (13) addressed the Needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces:
    Improve Benefits (117)
    Suicide prevention (479)
    Needs of homeless veterans (1180)
    Homes for veterans (1084)
    GI Bill enhancement (43)
    Military job protection
    Dignity in care for wounded vets (713)
    Housing assistance for low income veterans (1084)
    Military children in public schools (2151)
    Military eye injury research and care (1999)
    Research physical/mental health needs from Iraq War (1271)
    Proper administration of discharge for personality disorder (1817, 1885)
    Security of personal data of veterans (3592)

    Twelve (12) addressed Congressional Ethics and Accountability
    Lobbying and ethics reform (230)
    Stop fraud (2280)
    Legislative transparency and accountability (525)
    Open government (2180, 2488)
    Restoring fiscal discipline (10)
    Transparency and integrity in earmarks (2261)
    Accountability of conference committee deliberations and reports (2179)
    Federal funding accountability and transparency (2590)
    Accountability and oversight for private security functions under Federal
    contract (674)
    Accountability for contractors and personnel under federal contracts
    (2147) Restrictions awarding government contracts (2519)

    Ten (10) addressed Foreign Policy:
    Iraq war de-escalation (313)
    US policy for Iraq (433),
    Divestiture from Iran (1430)
    Sudan divestment authorization (831)
    Millennium Development Goals (2433)
    Multilateral debt relief (1320)
    Development bank reform (1129)
    Nuclear nonproliferation (3131,977,2224).

    Nine (9) address Voting/Elections
    Prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections (453)
    Voter access to polls and services in Federal elections (737)
    Voter intimidation and deceptive practices (1975)
    Senate campaign disclosure parity (185)
    Require reporting for bundled campaign contributions (2030)
    Election jamming prevention (4102)
    Campaign disclosure parity (223)
    Presidential funding (2412)
    Integrity of electronic voting systems (1487)

    Eleven (11) addressed Education
    Increase access of low income African Americans to higher education (1513)
    Establish teaching residency programs (1574)
    Increase early intervention services (2111)
    Middle school curriculum improvements (2227)
    Public database of scholarships, fellowships and financial aid (2428)
    Summer learning programs (116)
    TANF financial education promotion (924)
    Higher education (1642)
    Build capacity at community colleges (379)
    Campus law enforcement in emergencies (1228)
    Support for teachers (2060).

    Six (6) addressed Hurricane Katrina
    Hurricane Katrina recovery (2319)
    Emergency relief (1637)
    Bankruptcy relief and community protection (1647)
    Working family tax relief (2257)
    Fair wages for recovery workers (1749)
    Gulf coast infrastructure redevelopment (1836)

    Five (5) addressed the Environment
    Drinking water security (218, 1426)
    Water resources development (728)
    Waste water treatment (1995)
    Combat illegal logging (1930)
    Spent nuclear fuel tracking and Acountability (1194)
    Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act (Introduced in Senate)[S.726.IS ]

    Four (4) addressed Discrimination
    Claims for civil class action based on discrimination (1989)
    Domestic partnership benefits (2521)
    Unresolved civil rights crimes (535)
    Equality or two parent families (2286)

    Four (4) addressed Homeland Security
    Judicial review of FISA orders (2369)
    National emergency family locator (1630)
    Amend US Patriot Act (2167)
    Chemical security and safety (2486)

  • Harold and his merry Clinton band sound a lot like some of the people I work with – in my public setting everyone should be equally represented by our collective bargaining unit, and everyone should know we all do important work. It just seems, though, certain ones of us are always expecting a bit more representation, and certain ones of us know who is really doing more important work than others.

    In such a dynamic, whim and caprice, many times, are offered up as rational options in light of the moving goal posts or size of the hollow man. The race for the Democratic nomination is a squeeker, but one of the candidates has said it more than one time – she knows she can be better at representing because she has been doing the most important work.

    Well, whether it is Hilary Clinton or my co-workers, no one is entitled to anything – especially if she or they do not have the votes to justify their whim and caprice! -Kevo

  • “Reserve the right,” however, is not necessarily indicative of what the Clinton campaign will do, only what it might do.

    I doubt they will take it to the convention at this point because they will not have the support of the state parties in that endeavor. But I think the real issue with Icke’s response here is that they could have taken this chance to move the party toward some sort of reconciliation and they consciously chose not to .

    They have lost. They know it and, in truth, have known it for some time. They have fought their quixotic fight in every possible venue, made their often surreal arguments and they were all found wanting. For months now it has been pretty clear that there really was no avenue left for her to win this thing in a way that kept the party intact and now even that meager possibility of some sort of a Phyrric victory is gone. What plausible reason is there to pretend that is not the case if you are not deliberately trying to harm the party and its presumptive nominee?

    But that is precisely what Ickes did. He chose the opportunity to take a jab at the party rather than accept the long established reality with some grace and dignity. That is the story here. The whole “take it to the convention” meme is a highly unlikely possibility and just one more hook on which they can hang their poor sportmanship.

  • If he wasn’t on the ballot, then why does he get any delegates?

    Next:
    “Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes.” How?

    “Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.” How? And why would CA and MX just give up the economic advantages they have been enjoying? Because Barak is hip?

    “Obama will also make long-term investments in education, training, and workforce development so that Americans can leverage our strengths.” How? By supporting NCLB?

    “Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage,” Last time I checked, Congress does this.

    “Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief.” If your a homeowner, you itemize.

    “Obama will require lenders to provide clear and simplified information about loan fees, payments and penalties, which is why he’ll require lenders to provide this information during the application process.” You can’t change contract law and just make teh big words go away.

    “Obama will create an exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses.” Alright. That’s cool. I’ll give you that one.

    “Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve a million more children.” But he supports NCLB which is the most destructive piece of Educational Legislation in the last 50 years.

    “In the Illinois State Senate, Obama called attention to predatory lending issues.” He also beat Alan Keyes, after the Republican who was crushing him dropped out over a nasty divorce. He also voted “Present” over 100 times.

    “In the U.S. Senate, Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to increase penalties for mortgage fraud and provide more protections for low-income homebuyers, well before the current subprime crisis began.” Wow, that certainly helped. He also amended his nuclear safety legislation to give power plants an”option” to report leaks, and then got a hefty campaign contribution from an Illinois nuclear energy company.

    My personal favorite –
    “Obama will encourage the deployment of the most modern communications infrastructure to reduce the costs of health care, help solve our energy crisis, create new jobs, and fuel our economic growth.” Wow. That’s awesome. Can’t wait!

  • Say, Everett. It’s time to put aside the partisanship. We’d love to have you on the team.

    Obama ’08

  • But if you must, Everett, karl rove’s man is still in this – if you can’t support rove and limbaugh via clinton, you can vote for mccain.

    Obama does not need the crowd that works with rush or karl anyhow.

  • karl used to have 2 candidates, clinton and mccain, and I am sure rush isn’t going to move his support from clinton to Obama.

  • Dear Jim:

    What’s partisan about fighting for the candidate with more votes?

  • @Everret #12

    Dear CJ: I’ll tell you what we’re fighting for. We’re fighting for the numbers to reflect what actually happened, not for what you wished would have happened. Hillary crushed Obama in Florida and in Michigan. She has the popular vote by more than 52,000 people.

    The only way that vote total is arrived at is by not counting the individuals who showed up in Iowa, Washington, Nevada, and Maine. So if we are going to count every vote, then by all means count every vote. Not just the ones which support your claims.

  • Cuz you are lying – but we all know that here, so you aren’t scoring any points.

  • Marlowe: We clearly disagree on the candidates, but I applaud your willingness to take a clear-eyed look at reality.

    On the other hand, Everett, please step out of the bubble. In Michigan Hillary crushed, literally, nobody. You couldn’t vote for Obama, so she didn’t beat him. It was a complete sham.

    And of course, if you happen to be at all interested in reality rather than fantasy, then you should know that Hillary is only ahead in popular vote if you credit Hillary with ALL the votes she got in Michigan and NONE for Obama (which sounds more like the Soviet Union than the US) and don’t count the results of four caucus states. Count all the votes, indeed.

    So the reality is that Obama has the clear (but small) majority of support in the Democratic party and is rightfully the nominee. And let’s all gear up to help him crush McSame 😀

  • Gigabytes of good stuff—MsJoanne.

    Yep—we’re leaving the primaries in the dust, and moving into general-election mode.

    Throw another shrimp on the hillary….

  • If he wasn’t on the ballot, then why does he get any delegates?

    Everett:

    Obama wasn’t on the ballot because the Democratic Party ASKED HIM TO TAKE HIS NAME OFF.

    They asked EVERY OTHER candidate to take their name off too.

    Biden obliged.
    Edwards obliged.
    Dodd obliged.
    Richardson obliged.
    Kucinich obliged.
    Obama obliged.
    Clinton refused. When asked why she said “well, they’re not going to count anyway”.

    Explain to me why the Democratic Party is now supposed to punish Obama for FOLLOWING THEIR INSTRUCTIONS and reward Hillary for first opposing them, and then lying about why. Explain to me why the hell they would do that?

  • Here’s why we don’t need to pander to the most ignorant, dishonest voters that don’t support progressive ideals anyhow – dur chimpfurher no longer even has the support of his own party!

    President Bush’s name gets no applause at South Carolina GOP convention.

    At the South Carolina state GOP convention today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) “used his remarks to embrace President Bush, just hours before he was to meet Bush at Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport.” But when Graham first mentioned Bush’s name, the GOP crowd stayed silent, refusing to applaud the President:

    At his first mention of Bush’s visit, Graham paused, waiting for applause. When it didn’t come, it took a slight nod from Graham to prompt a round of applause.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Yet the repugs/neocons are running on 4 more years. Support change or be irrelevant.

  • Ms. Joanne:
    Already did. Thanks, though.

    Little Bear:
    This is exactly the attitude that has disenfranchised more than half of the Democratic Party. Why is it that if someone challenges Obama, they must be in support of Rove and McCain? The impression I get is that Obama et al. are taking for granted half of the party.

    Don’t misread reality and assume that the millions of people who have not been enticed by slickness are automatically going to hop on board.

  • you are lying again – it isn’t more than half….

    But keep it up, I am sure you will soon be proclaiming that you have all kinds of impressive degrees.

    That’s what the other folks that constantly post karl roves talking points here are always reduced to.

    Like somehow stating you have college degrees now makes the lies true.

    You are the hostile one, here posting lies – you will be irrelevant in the fall.

  • It’s always been about delegates, not the popular vote, and you know that. Rather than wasting time and energy for the benefit of the one, why not invest your time and energy for the benefit of the many? Time to take back America, Everett. Peace.

    Jim

  • Hey everett – FOUR MORE YEARS like they were changing at the South Carolina state GOP convention today, right?

    When even the diehard repugs know that won’t fly, your threats of nonsupport here cannot be taken seriously.

    But please tell us about your impressive degrees…

  • Setting aside the incredible speciousness of the popular vote argument, the bottom line is that it was always only useful an argument to the party and the superdelegates. It is meaningful is if the party and the superdelegates decide to take it into account and to accept the Clinton camp’s assessment of the numbers. Once again, they have made their argument to those parties and it has been found wanting. Getting into the weeds of how to count the votes of caucus goers or whether a ballot with only one name can even be considered legitimate in such a count is pointless. The party’s rules establish a method by which this argument can be made and judged. Clinton lost that argument.

  • Hmmm . . . whatever degrees Everett may have or not is well beside the point, Little Bear. This is not about class, race or gender, or level of education, as much as each camp seems to want it to be for their own purposes. Everett has a serious, legitimate point of view that insults cannot address, no matter how wrong one may think or feel he is. I disagree with him, and yet will point out this is not about HRC or BO, but is about us, about taking back this nation from those who have run us into the ground for the past eight to ten years (or more). That is, dear folks, it’s time to grow up and get serious. Bag the name calling, the insinuations, and the charges of treason, kids. Welcome to the big world. It’s time to get along.

  • That is, dear folks, it’s time to grow up and get serious. Bag the name calling, the insinuations, and the charges of treason, kids. Welcome to the big world.

    LOL. If you are waiting for little bear to stop the name calling, you have a long wait ahead of you.

  • No, jim – he is lying and links to sources to disprove that are posted here each and every day.

    People don’t come here an post kal rove’s lies and flame this because they are “here to get along”.

    It is about building a party that will support Obama and progressive ideals and that means letting the malcontents go.

    I am more than happy to do my share because I have been watching the crap get dumped in these thread all campaign and it is obvious what the intentions of some are.

  • Actually, stating anything about anyone as if you have a point of authority is kind of name calling – people, get real.

    This is not where the election is going to be won or lost – get a grip please. No one here speaks on behalf of any candidate. Please don’t insult us by pretending to be doing some great outreach work…

  • Votes don’t count? Shouldn’t the delegates base their votes on our votes???

  • Good stuff, Ms. Joanne!

    Everett’s circular logic marks him out to be a cheat and a fool – he doesn’t really deserve such nice treatment.

    But, hey, we’re good people.

  • “What’s partisan about fighting for the candidate with more votes?” — Everett @ 26

    In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees outscored the Pirates 55-27, and outhit them .338-.256, but Pittsburgh won the Series, because the Series goes to the team that wins four games. The Yankees’ dominance of the stats is an interesting footnote, but they lost. So too, has Clinton despite claims of being the stronger candidate based on this or that statistic — many of which are highly questionable and none of which approach NY’s margins. The measure of victory in the primary is delegates.

    Furthermore, her claims to being the stronger candidate because she outdrew Obama in this or that state are unfounded — unless she continues to salt the fields. With a unified Democratic party behind him, there is nothing to suggest Obama will lose those states to a Republican. Current polling in California and NY an NJ already make that clear, and before long, other states will also fall in line behind the nominee Obama.

    But I’m sure you knew all this already.

  • Perhaps, Little Bear. I sincerely appreciate the insight. I have read many of your posts here, with much admiration. I will only add that I agree we who support Obama do indeed need to be ready to fight, and hard, and yet, as time and energy are limited resources, be sure to pick your battles wisely. Do not become them to defeat them.

    Jim

  • Jim – thanks for the kind words. We can agree to disagree and still maintain our dignity. Also, thanks Ms. Joanne for the Platform. I’ve read it and it’s a heck of a lot like Hillary’s. Let’s remember that promises at this phase of a campaign are easily made.

    I guess my points could all be boiled down to this –

    1) Obama has been framed as a “unifier.” In fact, the last time the Democrats we’re this bifurcated, we lost the entire South over LBJ’s Civil Rights Legislation.
    2) An “Obama-Clinton” Ticket has been portrayed by some as “out of the question.” Why?
    3) His campaign has taken the Hillary voters for granted and assume that we will just hop on over to his side. As of yet, I am unimpressed.

  • “With a unified Democratic party behind him, there is nothing to suggest Obama will lose those states to a Republican.”

    And that’s real big IF right now.

  • Votes don’t count? Shouldn’t the delegates base their votes on our votes???

    I have no idea who or what you are addressing but I will answer your question. Pledged delegates do base their votes on our votes. They are apportioned based upon those votes. Superdelegates can decide to vote for whomever they would like and “our votes” are certainly one of the factors they take into account. It is, of course, a moot point because Obama has won the most pledged delegates based upon the actual voting. If you take the supers out of the picture, he would still win. if you wish to remove the delegate system altogether, we would of course need to go to a National primary. What we have certainly does not resemble such a system in any way so I am not sure what the point of discussing what “our votes” should mean in this imaginary context would be.

  • Everett — Let it go.

    Both candidates started out with a set of rules they both agreed to, and Clinton lost. Period.

    Going back after the fact and saying she would’ve won if they’d run according to another wholly different set of rules — popular vote, biggest states, most states starting with “new,” whatever — is not only childish but insulting to our intelligence.

    Has it ever occurred to you that if the true metric were popular votes, then Obama might have run a different campaign on that basis? That he wouldn’t have spent so much time campaigning in smaller states and would’ve instead worked to drive up margins in major metropolitan areas where their are large numbers of college-educated whites and African-Americans, his top constituencies? And that a race run by that metric would’ve meant the vaunted Hillary base of West Virginia rural voters would’ve meant nothing?

    We had a race on a clearly-defined set of rules, and one candidate won.

  • Everett

    “With a unified Democratic party behind him, there is nothing to suggest Obama will lose those states to a Republican.”

    Do your part then.

  • Alissa, I suggest you listen to Obama and not us.

    I don’t see how Obama disregarded Clinton people…it’s still the primary. If you support one candidate, it is unlikely you will change that thought unless your candidate does something you don’t like. You’re suggesting he “steal” Clinton supporters. One has to be open to the message to hear it.

    As for an Obama/Clinton ticket, I personally think she has run an awful campaign, showing a side of her I have come to loathe. I wouldn’t support it (I’d vote dem no matter what, but I wouldn’t be supportive of it). That decision remains to be seen.

  • One question, if I may—Why do you suppose the Clinton people were so much more adamant about Michigan than Florida? Was there some substantive distinction between the two primaries or the process by which the Committee voted on the two, or was it a matter of sequence—the second pretty much putting a nail in the coffin of Clinton’s candidacy?

  • There is a place for statesmanship – to those that want to bring it here, welcome. It is appreciated.

    This is not really a forum that is going to change people’s opinions – let me assure you that most of us that make our points with a little snark also know how to temper it when having a reasonable dialog others.

    That isn’t what these comment boards really are, but we all know that.

    I am reminded of the story of a prospector and his stubborn mule. The old man picks up a 2 by 4 and starts wackin’ the mule. A kind, well-meaning passerby walks by and sees this.

    “You cannot punish a beast of burden by hitting it with a piece of lumber,” says the passer-by.

    “What are you talking about,” said the prospector, “I am not punishing the mule, I am trying to get its attention.”

    DON’T TRY THIS AT HOME, KIDDIES! I do not believe in spanking anything or anyone. Getting people’s attention, however, can be hard.

    George Carlin claims his humor now has more profanity and “shock value.” He doesn’t consider himself more vulgar or anything – he says it is the only way he can be heard over the “noise” – we have become such a “loud” culture.

  • #57, I think it comes down to popular vote. Clinton only won the popular vote if she counted FL and MI. FL had all the names on it so it was easier to claim a win, even though many didn’t vote because it wasn’t suppose to count. Claiming MI as a win would be huge towards the false claim of winning popular vote.

  • Could the Clinton diehards please explain to the rest of us what it is that is so off-putting about Obama? I mean that seriously — I am absolutely, 100% bewildered at why it’s so hard for some of you to get behind the candidate who will almost certainly be our party’s nominee.

    As Alissa admits, the platforms between these two Democrats are virtually indistinguishable, and yet many of the Clinton diehards are saying they’ll vote for McCain (directly by pulling the lever, or indirectly by sitting the race out) when his platform is across the board diametrically opposed to the Democrats’ platforms. How does it honor the Clinton campaign to vote for a man who stands for everything she opposes?

    I’ve heard some say they’re disgusted at how Obama has “played the race card,” but I can’t think of a single instance in which he — not his more rabid online supporters, not the media, but the man himself and his campaign — have done this. If anything, his speeches and comments on race have been efforts to downplay the idea that he’s “the black candidate.” If you think that’s it, please point me to some specific examples, because I’m just not seeing it. If it’s not that, then what?

    Seriously, help me out. Because these Clinton people saying they’ll vote for McCain — they sound like a vegan at a restaurant saying, “Oh, you’re out of the tofu and sprouts? Then just give me a bloody steak and a side of veal cheeks.”

  • TR, that is a brilliant post. You should cross post it at C&L and TPM. Like you, I would love to see responses to it.

    Give me permission and I’ll cross post it. 🙂

  • Alissa:

    (For the record, Obama is not my choice. In my dreams, Russ Feingold takes the convention and chooses Barbara Boxer as VP.)

    (1) I don’t think Dems are as bifurcated as you believe on this question; if they are, it seems not to matter. Polls suggest either candidate can win over McCain in November. That will become increasingly clear once the party does unite. A lot of Clinton followers understand the difference between McCain and Obama, but those who voted for Nader in 2000 apparently plan to do so again, and for the same reason, a completely wrong-headed belief that the two are the same.

    (2) There are many reasons, including the particular ways in which she’s attacked Obama during the campaign, but the biggest one is that Clinton’s political philosophy actually differs in important — and incompatible — ways from Obama’s, and she won’t be able to either simply be a vessel or to reinforce his strengths. Policywise, they’re not much different. What I mean by “political philosophy” is the way in which they achieve policy. You can argue that Obama’s philosophy is wrong/misguided/misogynist/racist/whatever, but you can’t realistically argue that it’s not vastly different from Hillary’s.

    (3) Her campaign has taken the Obama voters for granted and assume that they will just hop on over to her side. As of yet, I am unimpressed.

    Seriously, what do you want him to do to win you over? He’s got a 100% rating from NARAL. What, short of a sex change, or putting HRC on the ticket, could he do to sway over-60 female voters? I’m not convinced it’s possible. Give us a concrete idea here.

  • 1) Obama has been framed as a “unifier.” In fact, the last time the Democrats we’re this bifurcated, we lost the entire South over LBJ’s Civil Rights Legislation.

    This seems a rather extreme statement that would require extraordinary evidence. The exit polling data and the current polling suggest problems and rifts that need to be healed but nothing even close to the split during the Civil Rights era that realigned the entire party. Indeed it seems that in many states, the party is already starting to coalesce.

    2) An “Obama-Clinton” Ticket has been portrayed by some as “out of the question.” Why?

    I have never considered it out of the question but I will certainly say its not my favorite ticket. There are a number of reasons for that which I am sure you have read in many places but the question I always have is why on Earth Clinton would want to be on the ticket. How does it help her in any way?

    3) His campaign has taken the Hillary voters for granted and assume that we will just hop on over to his side. As of yet, I am unimpressed.

    I am not even sure what it means to take Clinton voters for granted in this context. How, for instance, would he be acting differently if he did not take you for granted?

    As for whether or not you are impressed, other than putting forward a policy agenda that you agree with and running an effective political operation, what is any politician supposed to do to impress you? I realize you can only speak for yourself, but as a Clinton supporter, what exactly is it that you want from Obama?

  • Obama/Clinton ticket?

    LOL

    After the assassination remarks? Coming 1 week after the outcry over hucklebee?

    Yeah, I am sure, he wants her on the ticket. And I am sure, like LBJ, clinton would be happy to be “one step closer:”

  • she won’t be able to either simply be a vessel

    Lest this be mistaken for sexism, by the way, I was thinking here of George H. W. Bush’s complete reversal of positions to align entirely with Reagan in 1980, not stereotypical female submissive behavior. It’s not the gender, it’s the role — VP’s can either reinforce or be a submissive vessel, they can’t do their own thing. You can have a very strong VP like Cheney or a very weak one like George H. W. (what did the guy do for eight years?), but you cannot do your own thing without undermining the presidency.

  • If you were in a presidential contest, wouldn’t you pull every wild card to prove candidacy?

    Thats what she did, and IM damn glad she did, because endurance shows a whole lot of character.
    Thanks

  • Here’s an example of the Clinton diehards I’m talking about:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

    Again, I was a passionate Edwards backer from the get-go. But the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire didn’t get behind him, and he dropped out of the race before I even had a chance to vote for him. I thought it sucked, but I recognized that in a democracy, we don’t all get exactly what we want.

    My guy didn’t win, so I moved on to support another candidate — not my first choice, but good enough for what I wanted — and that was that. And so it went for all the other Edwards backers, as well as the backers of Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, etc. etc. (Gravel’s lone supporter, I believe, chose institutionalization.)

    Why is Clinton supposed to be different? She never once led in the delegate race in the entire primary season, and in the end, she finished in second place. Close, but not quite close enough. We have rules to determine a winner, and it’s not her.

    I’m sorry you didn’t get what you wanted, Clinton folks, but neither did I or many other Democrats. Too bad. We have a nominee now and we need to do all we can to make sure the party — and the principles and platforms on which all of our candidates have run — succeeds in the fall.

  • Any honest analysis of the election takes into account that the candidates act and react as the situation changes. Primary elections are fluid and dynamic. As a Californian, I am certain that Senator Obama would have done much better if our primary was not held on Super Tuesday, or if John Edwards had dropped out a week earlier. He chose to limit his campaign in this state and fight for delegates elsewhere, presumably in less expensive media markets.

    Hillary Clinton won California with a large popular vote total and a moderate advantage in delegates. Barack Obama, however, won the most delegates on Super Tuesday. The rules and schedule dictated the strategy. IMHO, Obama waged a wiser campaign under the agreed-upon rules.

    Current polling shows Obama has significantly more support in California than Hillary Clinton. All this retrospective MI and FL hogwash ignores the simple fact: the candidates waged their campaigns according to the rules and the schedule that were set before them. Different rules or different schedules would have meant different strategies.

    For the past month, with the knowledge that his lead in delegates is virtually insurmountable, Barack Obama has brushed off most of the Clinton campaign’s attacks and focused his attention on John McCain. Undoubtedly, he could have spent more time in WV and KY and kept her popular vote numbers down. He chose to concentrate on building a general election campaign and has started visiting battleground states such as NV, MI and FL. If the popular vote were all-important, he would be waging a different campaign.

    I feel this is obvious, but I get so angry at the goalpost moving that sometimes I need to restate the obvious.

  • Who’s bud? And what exactly do you think is going to happen that would change what has been the highly likely outcome for months now?

  • I want to second what TR said.

    In ’92 I originally supported Tsongas, but he lost. In 2000, I originally supported Bradely, but he lost. In ’04 I originally supported Dean and then Edwards, but they lost. In each case, I supported our nominee in the end.

    I’m having difficulty comprehending the mindset of those people who are threatening to take their ball and, not go home but, join the opposing team.

  • Tamalak: actually Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel were all on the MI ballot with Clinton. Clinton got 55%, Kucinich 4%, Dodd 1%, Gravel 0% and Uncommitted got 40%. But her three biggest challengers, Obama, Edwards and Richardson, did take their names off.

    Everett: re why Obama was awarded delegates in MI even though he wasn’t on the ballot, I did a write up on a thread “downstream” and will copy it here.

    As explained by the MI representative (sorry can’t remember his name) at today’s meeting:

    1) The MI Democratic party took the position, after Obama, Edwards and Richardson took their names off the ballot, that their supporters could vote “Uncommitted” and then work to get delegates for their candidate elected to the convention. The party publicized this position and the Obama and Edwards campaigns also worked to educate people in order to get Uncommitted votes. Uncommitted received 40% of the votes. So it’s clear that folks that voted Uncommitted WANTED to vote for one of the three, not for no one in particular.

    2) Exit polls showed 46% for Clinton, 35% for Obama (Mary calls this “creamed” (see other thread)) and the remaining 19% was for all others. Clinton’s 55% of the vote was therefore overstated and that’s why they deducted delegates from her column in their recommended final 69 Clinton to 59 Obama delegate figures.

    3) Write ins were not allowed in MI. There were 30,000 ballots with write ins. Details of these votes are not available. The 30K represents 5% of the total vote. Probably most of those were for Obama, and fewer for Edwards.

    Now back to me: As to the extra 9% (55%-46%) of Clinton votes, I read that some voters said they wanted to vote for one of the three not on the ballot, but voted for Clinton since she was. They apparently didn’t know about voting uncommitted or who knows?

    It’s clear that many, many voters were disenfranchised by not being able to vote for their preferred candidate because he wasn’t on the ballot, not knowing to vote uncommitted, writing in and therefore having their vote not count, or staying home because they were told their votes wouldn’t count.

    I’m glad this got resolved today, outbursts by the audience notwithstanding*, and hope that after Tuesday Obama will get enough support from the supers that Clinton will have no reason to “take it to the convention”.

    *It really was pretty good political theater. Clinton supporters hissed whenever Obama’s name was said. They chanted “Denver, Denver”. There were various shoutouts, and even a shut up, no you shut up. Very mature. :-p And committee member/Clinton campaign head Harold Ickes got smacked down by Rep. Robert Wexler during Wexler’s testimony.

  • If Clinton says she won the popular vote by not counting the Caucuses then how many folks are getting disenfanchised?

  • Tamalak: actually Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel were all on the MI ballot with Clinton. Clinton got 55%, Kucinich 4%, Dodd 1%, Gravel 0% and Uncommitted got 40%. But her three biggest challengers, Obama, Edwards and Richardson, did take their names off.

    I stand corrected, thanks Hannah 🙂

  • Anything for you, dear. 😀 Actually, I have been wondering exactly the same thing so I am excited about seeing what people have to say.

    Thank YOU for putting it together so wonderfully.

  • Good work, both of you, TR and MsJ, and also Hannah. And beep52, I always admire your posts. I keep meaning to spend some time really digging through MsJ’s blog. I love the kind of meaty stuff she writes but have been quite distracted by multiple stimuli lately. 🙂

  • I’m an involved Michigan Dem and have been talking to, and hearing from, the people who started the move against the ridiculous primary process. When they started this, Carl Levin, Debbie Dingell and Mark Brewer all knew there would be (as they put it) “blood on the floor.”

    I understood this, along with a lot of other Michigan Dems and we were willing to fight about what state goes first – and that we might end up with no delegates at the convention. We were all willing to take that risk.

    However, I was also there when, after all the major candidates took their names off the ballot, Hillary basically said “Well, I would have too, I just never got around to it.” Here in the Midwest, we’re pretty good at recognizing BS and there’s no doubt that’s what we were getting – even then.

    Now I don’t think that she gives a d*** about the voter’s in Michigan. After all, she signed off on the “punish the jumpers” rules. And I sure don’t believe the Harold Ickes gives a d*** about us either. So listening to them get all over sanctimonious about how THEY are the only ones who care about democracy and all they want is justice for Michigan, makes me want to puke.

    But I will tell everyone that if the national party doesn’t get this primary thing fixed, there will be more blood in the future, and it will be worse next time. The National Party told our delegates back in 2004 that they would change the process before 2008 – then they reneged what they said. That’s what started this. So if they don’t get it fixed, it’ll get worse. Not because of Hillary, or because we’re stiff necked, but because the process is broken. Michigan doesn’t want to go first all the time – that’s not what this is about – we want a fair process where all parts of this country have a real chance to have their issues addressed, whether you live in the Midwest, the Southwest or the Northwest. Not just two dinky states that are almost comical in how oddball they are.

    In the meantime, we need to end this thing so we can get down to business. Obama has won. End of story. Let’s get to work on McCain. That’s the real fight.

    So help me, if the Party shoots itself in the foot again, I’m getting a clown suit to wear when I go to Party functions because I believe in truth in advertising!

  • Re: #77 The MI Democratic party took the position, after Obama, Edwards and Richardson took their names off the ballot, that their supporters could vote “Uncommitted” and then work to get delegates for their candidate elected to the convention.

    This isn’t quite right Hannah – we couldn’t write in Obama because the rules had been changed to disallow write-ins when the Republicans owned both legislative bodies and the governship.

    We were clearly informed (by Mark Brewer) that voting for Obama would not count!.

    Therefore, Obama voters were disenfranchised because: a) the National Party f***ed it up and insisted that MI wouldn’t count – and encouraged the candidates to take their names off the ballot; b) the Repugs made it impossible to vote a write-in.

  • little bear, i think your post at 58 is interesting, and i think it goes to the heart of why you and so many of the regulars here have problems. Hear me out on this one.

    58. On May 31st, 2008 at 9:37 pm, little bear said:
    There is a place for statesmanship – to those that want to bring it here, welcome. It is appreciated.

    This is not really a forum that is going to change people’s opinions – let me assure you that most of us that make our points with a little snark also know how to temper it when having a reasonable dialog others.

    That isn’t what these comment boards really are, but we all know that.

    I’m not sure how you found Carpetbagger, or what other political blogs you had been on or what they were like. But I suspect almost every long-timer here would disagree with the italicized quote above. Many of us spend more time here than other political Boards precisely because the tone here is different, because we really do listen to each other with an open mind and change each others’ opinions, and because we do come here for a “reasonable dialogue.”

    Which is why most commenters here show that we know how to “temper it.” I really think if you would look around you’d see most people here are not posting like you are. If you really take the approach you do because you believe this is somehow different than a real world face-to-face “reasonable dialogue,” I would urge you to do two things:

    1) Re-read the thread from this past Monday regarding the death of Ed Stephan. You’ll see that many of the regulars have come to communicate privately as well as publicly, many “know” each other in that way, some have even met in person. This is not just a place for partisans to come and vent, this is a community, and its warmth shone through brightly in that thread of remembrances.

    2) Once you’ve done that, decide if it is a community you want to be a part of. If so, respect the community enough to assume we want “reasonable dialogue” and that we do come here to listen to opinions and even to change, not just to see who can snark the loudest. You’ve really posted some much better posts the last few days, I don’t see why you can’t “temper it” like the rest of us do. Or, if after reflection you really don’t care about this as a community, why stay? There are many, many other models around, why stay somewhere that you appear to have no desire to be a true part of?

    Before you react with all of the “who made you god of Carpetbagger” nonsense, I am not pushing you out, nor do I claim to have that ability. But I am asking that you revisit what appear to be your assumptions about this blog that seem to have given you license to not “temper” the constant attitude. It may be cliche, but this blog really isn’t like all the other guys (so to speak. no sexism intended.)

  • Perhaps now is a good time for the media to end its breathless fascination with all things clinton and turn its attention where it belongs. If Hillary clinton drags this out further it will be by the good graces of a fawning media.

  • I’m having difficulty comprehending the mindset of those people who are threatening to take their ball and, not go home but, join the opposing team. — Chris, @74

    I think the “philosophy” of those people (such as the screaming harpy in the YouTube clip that TR @70 and Koreyel @76 linked to) is encapsulated in this amended version of a childhood prayer, which popped up in the comments section at TPM Election Central:

    “Now I lay me down to sleep
    I pray the Lord my soul to keep
    If I should die before I wake
    I pray the Lord my toys to break
    SO OTHER KIDS CAN’T USE ‘EM!!!

  • mark crayon – I don’t have any problem. You shillary fools do.

    Your candidate has discredited herself and the legacy of her husband, whom once enjoyed widespread respect and support from diverse communities.

    The rest of the democratic party understands that kkkarl and rush are not our friends. They carry no weight – but fools like you proclaim they do.

    I have no problems at all – in fact, I am grateful that the likes of you won’t have much more to say.

    And if you think you are some bloggin’ god – give me your worst – you don’t actually speak for anyone else and you are just a little stubby crayon in a large box of better coloring sticks.

    It is funny how the clinton folks that post the same lies and crap here always get their arguments shot down, sway no one, and then puff out their chests like they are so important anyhow.

  • I guess shillary shouldn’t just go away though – right? There is always the chance that she can win the nomination by assassination, right?

  • hey mark – wouldn’t it be great if you were the director and all of the actors on the stage would just do what you said and just play their part?

    What a fine penny opera we would have here, if only people would do as you say.

    Oh wait – then we would have kkkarl rove and rush limbaughs candidate for the democratic nomination – shillary.

    NO BUSH-CLINTON-BUSH-CLINTON MONARCHY!!!!!!!!!!!

    Enough of the dishonest elites that feel entitled to rule the world!

    YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • *sigh*
    clearly my enduring faith that there is redeemable good in everyone is misplaced.

    to the rest of the community, i apologize that my well-intended efforts amount to troll feeding. i’ll try and resist further such efforts.

    And Ed, wherever you are, your counterbalancing impact on the signal:noise ratio is surely, sadly missed.

  • MsJoanne, @91

    I don’t know that this particular “warp” in thinking is limited either to our time or our (US) society. I remember a joke circulating some 45 yrs ago in Poland about how the Polish section of hell would need no guards; should anyone try to escape from that kettle, his compatriots were sure to pull him back in. It’s also the same “principle” which turns a rejected suitor into a killer: “if I can’t have her, nobody will” — another example which stretches across the time and space.

    That “prayer”, BTW, had been posted as being “Hillary’s prayer”; people were talking about Ickes’ threat of taking their unspent grudge all the way to Convention.

    I have been thinking about those of Clinton’s supporters who are saying that we’re taking them for granted and that, unless we totally roll over and Clinton gets *everything* she wants, including the (unearned) nomination, they’ll “show us” by voting for McCain. It occurs to me that, in so doing, they not only take the (rather infantile, IMO) attitude of “will cut off my nose to spite my face”. Not only do they, too, take us and our support for granted.

    But, in a way, they cede to us moral superiority as well; the only way their candidate can get the nomination at this point is by skulduggery but they count on us caring enough about the issues facing the country not to risk voting for McCain out of the same frustration which propels them. They count on us being more decent human beings than they are themselves. I find their “math” as unpersuasive as I do Little Beria’s calls for political castor oil (purges).

  • to the rest of the community, i apologize that my well-intended efforts amount to troll feeding. i’ll try and resist further such efforts.

    LOL. No need to apologize. I thought your attempt was a helpful example of what ought to have been effective communication. We are all going to need to learn to start expressing things that way going forward as the various factions in this battle start to coalesce. That being said, I was pretty sure of how it was going to end and I suspect you knew as well. Doesn’t make it any less of a nice try.

  • MsJ, @89,

    This is the screaming harpy I was referring to @89. It’s the same clip, just a different source.

  • re:99. MsJ at 98, me at 89. Thank goodness no sixes and nines were involved…

  • The Clinton proposal to reverse last year’s DNC decision and honor the results of Florida’s non-binding primary failed on a 15-12 vote. Clinton supporters began yelling, “Denver! Denver!” apparently indicating their support to push the controversy to the Credentials Committee, which meets at the start of the national convention in late August.

    What the Clinton campaign has yet to realize is that Clinton is now irrelevant. She can protest 4 Michigan delegates to Denver and beyond if she wants to. But Obama will be our nominee in a matter of days. If her campaign and her supporters insist on appealing the RBC’s decision, however, it will make Clinton look pathetic. It may even cost her in the Senate among her peers and in the next Senate election.

  • After Howard Dean and the crooked DNC stabbed Hillary in the back Id sure like for her to take her 18 million votes to Denver and run on a I ticket slittig the DNC in half.Dean who hates Hillary would have a baby.Once again we have screwed the good people on Florida and now the people of Michigan.Obama wasn’t even on the ticket in Michigan and yet he got votes.Obama really knows how to fix elections.He fixed his election in Chicago for the Senate.Thats a real good story.

  • While I am a Hillary admirer, I also know that she lost the election via poor long term planning post super-Tuesday (11 straight losses), severe credibility problems created by her behavior, etc. and not b/c she is a women or b/c the election was somehow stolen from her. It was about delegates, note votes– that was made clear at the outset. In addition, the right to vote is reserved for the general election, not the primaries, this is why the lawsuits were tossed out by the courts. For all of our anger and finger-pointing, it is what it is.

  • This is probably the most dissappointing day to date in the election. I was hoping that there would be some sense of fairness and gesture of reconciliation demonstrated by the Obama campaign, after all, even with all of the FL and MI delegates counted per original vote in full, he would still be ahead by a healthy margin. The assumption that the DNC can just arbitrary decisions about letting states such as IA, NH, NV, and SC to go early while leaving most states in the cold, without other states attempting to speak up and attempt to get in on the play is just entirely without a sense of justice or reason. Especially after the knowning the history of FL counting votes, and the years of the Democratic party champaioning the right of every vote to be counted in full despite technical reasons that might otherwise exclude them (think minorities and voter IDs).

    There is no way that I’m going to vote for Sen Obama now, knowing that he and his campaign are just as underhanded and sordid in their dealings as the worst of the Republicans. And his campaign promises of a “new way of politics” and “no red states or blues states, but united states of America” sound more and more like Bush’s 2000 campaign lines of “bringing integrity back to Washington” and “being a Uniter not a Divider”. Sadly to say, I will be doing everything that I can, what ever little that I can, to make sure that Obama is defeated in the fall. This will be the first time in my life that I will be voting for a Republican in presidential elections, as much as I disagree about most major issues with McCain, at least he’s honest about his positions and doesn’t wrest votes away from rivals through questionable means. I will be actively campaigning against a democrat, something I never thought I’d do; but it will be for a justified reason.

  • After Howard Dean and the crooked DNC stabbed Hillary in the back

    I’m sorry but .. what are you talking about? They went by the rules that Harold Ickes, her staunchest supporter, helped create. They applied a half-measure penalty that Terry McAullife, her campaign chairman, rigidly applied when he was the previous DNC chairman.

    I was hoping that there would be some sense of fairness and gesture of reconciliation demonstrated by the Obama campaign

    By several accounts, Obama had the votes to push through a straight 50-50 split in Michigan, but went instead with the 69-59 plan because it had broader (19-8) support. seems like a gesture of reconciliation to me. What more did you want?

    The Clinton diehards keep complaining about “stab in the back” measures (a phrase which, in and of itself, should set off major alarm bells) but it seems they (a) don’t understand how the primary system works and (b) assume everyone is in the wrong but themselves. Sorry, but it just looks like an uninformed tantrum.

  • This is probably the most dissappointing day to date in the election. I was hoping that there would be some sense of fairness and gesture of reconciliation demonstrated by the Obama campaign

    She got half of the delegates she was never supposed to get. Not good enough for you?

  • What more did you want?

    Why, he just wants all votes cast for any candidate in all primaries to go to Hillary. Is that too much to ask for?

  • Oh, so now I’m only 1/2 a citizen?!!!…Only in Florida and in a party that could care less about the people and more about its leaders. I had nothing to do with that decision to move the primary. The bosses did. They should be the ones to pay. And they will, come the right time. As for me, I’ll be leaving the party to become an independent. I care not for a party that looks down on the voter and treats women so poorly. Serves them right if they loose the election with that deceiver (Obama). Yes, I think that he is a deceiver. Has hidden his true self from the public. Plays the dirtiest type of politics (Chicago) and secretly hates white people. Angry, you bet I am!

  • One thing Obama supporters have to understand, some which may never going to be able to, is that it was a POLIITCAL decision that Obama pulled his hame from the MI ballot. Obama supporters keeps referring to Michigan as breaking party rules (arbitrarily made rules designed to perpetually favor certain states at best), accuse Clinton of making a political move to keep her name on the ballot when “she’s not supposed to”; while they ignore the fact that Obama made the move also for an ostensibly political reason — pleasing the voters other early states by taking part in meting out punishments to those that “violated the sacred party rules”. It is pretty clear that the Obama campaign may not have done as well in IA, NH, if had not been for is stiff the MI voters. So let’s be clear, Obama did this for political reasons to further his chances in the primaries, as was the other candidates (Clinton or Edwards, or others), whatever their decision was.

    The words “never supposed to got” has meaning only in context of an arbitrarily constructed system, in which certain parts of the democratic party are favored, with the appearnce of trying to be more inclusive (may have been well intended”, but is nontheless has no good reason to perpetually give certain states special priviledges over others. You should listen to Sen Levin yesterday at the hearing. And yet, the same Obama supporters who so championed the “sacred rules of the DNC” would also dismiss those same rules in which also specify that the PLEO delegates would excercise their independent judgement to whoever the better candidate is (including the question of electability). What hypocracy, just as a campaign that has evidently turn out to be so.

  • Oh, so now I’m only 1/2 a citizen?!!!…

    Republicans shouldn’t have right of vote in democratic primaries.

  • Hey Jamie, how come your candidate didn’t argue against this before she started losing?

  • Yes, I think that he is a deceiver. Has hidden his true self from the public. Plays the dirtiest type of politics (Chicago) and secretly hates white people. Angry Delusional and insane, you bet I am!

    Fixed.

    He secretly hates white people? Does that mean he hates half of himself? His white grandparents and his white mother who raised him? Does he hate a quarter of his daughters? Does he hate his all-white campaign leadership staff? Are they secretly anti-white as well, or are they unwitting dupes in his scary black anti-white scary black scheme?

    He plays the dirtiest kind of politics? Any evidence please? Just because he comes from Chicago doesn’t mean he’s the original Mayor Daley. The Rezko nonsense was shown to be smoke and mirrors, the kind of gossipy stuff that you’d think a Clinton backer of all people would be able to recognize as b.s.

    Well, I guess I’ve gotten an answer to my question. I wanted to know why the Clinton diehards refused to get behind a candidate with nearly the same platform, and it seems the answer is that the Clinton diehards are insane and/or idiots. Thanks for clearing that up.

  • “By several accounts, Obama had the votes to push through a straight 50-50 split in Michigan, but went instead with the 69-59 plan because it had broader (19-8) support. seems like a gesture of reconciliation to me. What more did you want?”

    I assume you maen accoring to MSNBC and Alan Katz (an Obama supporter on the RBC), how neutral point of view and unbiased source!
    Wow

  • Jesus Christ, that Harriet Christian woman in the clip sounds drunk to me. The slurred speech, the cursing, the hostility, the racism, the threat to vote for McCain.

    They did have a 3-hour break in the meeting, so maybe she spent her time in the hotel bar.

  • “Hey Jamie, how come your candidate didn’t argue against this before she started losing?”

    Hmm, (I’m speaking out of character, and out of my mind) how come your candidate did not decided to leave his church until the controversies generated over there got too hot for him??

    Seriously, these types of discussions have no place. They are both running for national office, and have to do things as circumstances dictate; many times so that they can get their message across, and get themselves in the best position that they possibly can. I don’t think we can fault them simply because of that.

  • I assume you maen accoring to MSNBC and Alan Katz (an Obama supporter on the RBC), how neutral point of view and unbiased source!
    Wow

    What source would you deem acceptable? Fox News?

  • So, Jaime, what do you make of this?

    “It’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything,” Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio’s call-in program, “The Exchange.” “But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859.html

    Sure, Obama and the others took their names off to appeal to the first four states. But Hillary was even more duplicitous. She kept her name on the ballot in Michigan, but made a point of telling New Hampshire voters that it wouldn’t count for anything. She tried to have it both ways.

  • I didn’t know there was a rule in democratic party saying you must lose some of your delegates if you attend a church with outspoken black pastor.

  • I assume you maen accoring to MSNBC and Alan Katz (an Obama supporter on the RBC), how neutral point of view and unbiased source!

    Sorry, I don’t have a Fox News or Karl Rove reference for you. I understand those are now the gold standard for the Clinton campaign.

  • “What source would you deem acceptable? Fox News?”

    Only sources that I can verify that this came from a truly unbiased source on the RBC, from neither Obama nor Clinton camp. And certainly not from the pretentious and misogynous network such as MSNBC. Well, as bad as Fox Noise really is, and how much Cheney has done to fix his own echo chamber, Obama and his campaign staff pretty much has done the same with MSNBC, just ask any informed Clinton supporter about how they feel about the gang of Olbermann and Russert.

  • I’m sorry we don’t have a source you’d trust, Jaime. Maybe Richard Mellon Scaife or the American Spectator will report on this, now that they’ve been forgiven by Hillary for peddling the Vince Foster-was-murdered stories and the Clinton-was-a-coke-smuggler bull. Surely, they’re more trustworthy than that evil NBC.

    Seriously, what did you people want? What is this sign of reconciliation you’ve been waiting for? Does he need to kiss her ring? What? From where I sit – an Edwards backer who never threw a tantrum like this – Obama has been quite gracious and the Hillary camp has been acting like spoiled brats.

  • Hillary camp has been acting like spoiled brats.

    This. There’s nothing that gets me more then this. When someone gets something they shoudn’t get just because they whined and whined and whined and lied and twisted and threatened and stomped their feet and held their breath… Until reasonable adult people just couldn’t stand it anymore and given into demands coming from stupid spoiled brat.

  • From NBC’s Chuck Todd
    Per multiple sources inside the closed Rules and Bylaws Committee lunch, Obama actually had the votes to get a 50-50 delegate split out of Michigan — but by just a vote or two.

    However, it was decided to go with the 69-59 split to win a larger majority. That measure passed 19-8.

    This isn’t Olbermann or Russert, it’s Chuck Todd the bloodless number-cruncher, and he says it comes from numerous sources on the RBC.

  • “I’m sorry we don’t have a source you’d trust, Jaime. Maybe Richard Mellon Scaife or the American Spectator will report on this, now that they’ve been forgiven by Hillary for peddling the Vince Foster-was-murdered stories and the Clinton-was-a-coke-smuggler bull. Surely, they’re more trustworthy than that evil NBC.”

    This part of the comment is not worth the 20 seconds to read through, even less to respond to.

    Seriously, what did you people want? What is this sign of reconciliation you’ve been waiting for? Does he need to kiss her ring? What? From where I sit – an Edwards backer who never threw a tantrum like this – Obama has been quite gracious and the Hillary camp has been acting like spoiled brats.

    If that is an actual inviation to honest discussion, how about the fact that an Edwards endorsement could well have been a VP play in progress. I supported Edwards in 2004, for goodness sakes; but I have known politicians an politics long enough to realize that they did not get to where they are simply by being the nicest fellow on the block. But for the Obama campaign to not only seat the “uncommited” delegates that is largely a producte of urges of John Conyers over the radio waves, but also stripped her of 4 delegates won according to the number of ; and then turn around and say that this is somehow a “magnanimous” and “gracious” gesture by the Obama campaign??

  • In Jamie’s parallel universe “honest discussion” means that people who play by the rules get punished, and people who break them get rewarded.

  • Jamie,

    I usually content myself as an observer in these forums but after watching the proceedings for 10 hours today brooding on it since I feel compelled to address you in brief. Or perhaps at length. I guess the logical place to start is your presumption that Barack Obama is somehow responsible for the scheduling of the initial primary/caucus states. You and I and many others are in complete agreement that the current system utilized by the DNC to schedule certain states into permanent privileged positions is untenable. That argument though is not germane to our current situation. The fact is though, that like it or not, the DNC can arbitrarily assign early and late restrictions on when their constituents may participate in the process. Lets be clear, the constitution does not make provisions for political parties and hence, they are private organizations and subject to their own internal rules, excepting the case that they should violate guaranteed civil rights. Barack Obama is not, nor has he ever been in control of the process. As we saw in the RBC, the accommodations reached were as proposed by the individual state Democratic parties, and in particular the case of Michigan, were not in accord with the wishes of the Obama camp.

    I too am disturbed by the prospect of ‘disenfranchising’ of any subset of the American populous regardless of arbitrary rules. However, how do you propose that we function as a society or party without rules? Were Michigan and Florida to unilaterally attempt to move their general election dates to preempt the established order of things, would you similarly expect that we should accept them as equal and valid? Of course not.
    Certainly the individual voters were not in either case responsible for the situation they found themselves in, however the decisions that led to their illegitimate status were made by elected officials. clearly, democracy allows for those officials directly responsible for those decisions to be subject to the disapproval or approval of their constituents in their next election cycle. If that lag should happen to negatively affect the Democratic party in the interim, then so be it. Regrettably we live in a nation where there are many who are punished as a result of rules that some of of may find unfair. the fact exists that both the individual state Democratic parties and the RBC have reached a compromise. For Hilary to continue on her course to do battle for those who’s immediate representatives have claimed satisfaction is disingenuous. I would be sincerely curious to here an argument for continuing her fight in the face of otherwise mutual settlement.

    Regrettably, I don’t believe it is settlement she is looking for. I think that at this point her campaign has come down to three potentialities.

    1.) The Clinton campaign is staying in until the convention in the hopes that Obama is hit by the 11th hour character assassination or implosion.

    2.) The Clinton campaign coalesces around the Obama campaign at or before the convention. As promised she campaigns hard for the Obama campaign. If they win, she can claim that she served as king maker, elevating an otherwise unelectable canditate (in her supporters minds) to victory. She gains power and prestige within the party for her efforts.

    3.) Again, she closes ranks behind Obama, but if he should lose the general election, she is able to claim “see I told ya so” status and becomes the prohibitive favorite in 2012 with the Democratic establishment renewing their subscription to the Clinton brand.

    While I am sickened by my own cynicism, I am without other explanation/interpretation. If any Clinton supporters wish to correct or elaborate on my interpretation in a constructive manner, I would be genuinely interested. Conversely, I have no desire to read or respond to another vituperative posting from either side. FYI calling Clinton supporters “shillary” is entirely unproductive and wholly inappropriate. If you consider yourself an Obama supporter I urge you to conduct yourself in a manner consistent with your candidate. Barack Obama wants this nomination settled more than any of his supporters on this or other boards, yet I believe that he understands the (un)productivity offending and belittling people who in large part share policy goals and only differ on tha
    A final word to supporters of Mrs. Clinton. I know that many of us possess contrary views on the merits of our respective candidates. I myself have been shocked by the bitterness that some hold told Mr. Obama. I don’t rightly know how to square that. Let me just say that as you, we cannot abide another term of belligerence and ignorance. I understand your dissatisfaction with the outcome to this point. However, please ask yourselves the degree to which you will allow those feelings to punish ‘our’ presumptive nominee by throwing your support to ‘our’ rival. Clearly you would vote for Mrs. Clinton in the face of the inanity of a McCain administraion for good reason. Namely, putting an end to the war in Iraq, preempting a future war in Iran/Syria et al., the economy, the environment, as well as equal protection under the law for everyone regardless of gender, ethnicity, age, sexual identification or preference. John McCain as currently comprised is not an alternative for either Democratic candidate. Please be clear, that he would be their antithesis.

  • “In Jamie’s parallel universe “honest discussion” means that people who play by the rules get punished, and people who break them get rewarded.”

    Well, I can say that in yours, and sadly, do not realize that stripping 1/2 of the delegates, and arbitrarily seating delegates in MI, which is purported based on an EXIT POLL instead of the ACTUAL VOTES, for goodness sakes.

    Remember this is also a part of the rules:
    ” The Credentials Committee shall determine and resolve questions concerning the seating of delegates and alternates to the Convention pursuant to the resolution entitled the “Relationship Between the 2008 Rules of Procedure of the Credentials Committee and the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules,” which includes the “Rules of Procedure of the Credentials Committee of the 2008 Democratic National Convention” hereby approved and adopted by the Democratic National Committee, and set forth in full in the Appendix to this Call. The committee shall report to the Convention for final determination and resolution of all such questions.

    Challenges to the seating of any delegate or alternate shall be in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Credentials Committee. Any challenge to the seating of a delegate or alternate that is not made in conformity with these rules shall be deemed waived.

    Upon the request of members representing twenty percent (20%) of the total votes of the Credentials Committee, a minority report shall be prepared for distribution to the Convention delegates and alternates as part of the committee’s report.”

    I think Obama campaign really missed a golden opportunity to bringing a myriad of disaffected people on board yesterday, by pushing for this type of ridiculous solution. I had hope on Friday that Obama would actually be fair, and be seen by us as at least trying to bend over backwards to give us a reason to support him wholeheartedly. This type of dismissive and patronizing attitude from the Obama people during the hearing, and adding to it, the very same by amplified vibe from the Obama supporters on webboards such as this, just made it nearly impossible.

    sighs…..

  • This part of the comment is not worth the 20 seconds to read through, even less to respond to.

    I can sympathize with your not wanting to address this. If John Edwards had embraced these right-wing sociopaths, I’d have been deeply embarrassed myself.

    But for the Obama campaign to not only seat the “uncommited” delegates that is largely a producte of urges of John Conyers over the radio waves, but also stripped her of 4 delegates won according to the number of ; and then turn around and say that this is somehow a “magnanimous” and “gracious” gesture by the Obama campaign??

    See there’s the problem, Jaime.

    It wasn’t “the Obama campaign” making the decision on who’d be seated – it was the Rules and Bylaws Committee for the entire Democratic Party. I know the Clinton people have transformed a sense of victimhood into an art form, but these are the rules that everyone agreed to – and Ickes even helped write! – and these are the rules we all live by.

    Clinton agreed to those rules. Clinton signed a pledge agreeing to follow those rules. Clinton said in media interviews that the Michigan primary vote wouldn’t count at all. But she whips her followers into a public demonstration reminisicent of the Brooks Broothers riot the Republicans threw in Florida 2000, and winds up getting a net gain in delegates as a result of her tantrum. And that’s still not good enough for you, is it?

    Tell me – if Hillary had gotten those whopping four delegates that she and you are screaming about today, then … so what? Instead of needing to get 240 delegates out of the remaining 291, she’d only need 236? Instead of needing to get 82% of the remaining delegates, she’d only need to get 81%?

    Are you serious? This is worth tearing the party apart in your eyes?

  • how about the fact that an Edwards endorsement could well have been a VP play in progress.

    I’ll call that “fact” WITH AN ACTUAL FACT—Edwards does not want the VP slot, and he said he didn’t want it BEFORE he made the endorsement.

    And let’s get down to the nuts-n-bolts of this entire sordid mess, and put the blame where the blame is due—shall we?

    (1) The Democratic Party has the right to establish the rules and regulations by which its sanctioned primaries operate.

    (2) For whatever reason, the states of Michigan and Florida chose to violate those rules.

    (3) Once the decisions to violate those rules were made, the Democratic Party notified both states of the consequences those violations would bring—again, fully within the rights of the Democratic Party to do so.

    (4) The states of Florida and Michigan ignored this, and continued apace.

    (5) Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly endorsed and supported these sanctions when they were issued—as did all other candidates.

    Technically, the only way these two states even get half-votes is because of all the Clinton supporters on the RBC. Personally, I’d have seen both Michigan and Florida left “twisting in the wind”—but the primal issue here isn’t my personal opinion on the matter. It’s why you, and so many others, don’t have the courage and fortitude to put the blame where it belongs: on the individuals in Florida and Michigan who made this mess in the beginning.

    This has been the Clinton campaign from Day One—to expect the Democratic Party to fix everybody else’s messes. It was the same thing during Billy-J’s two terms.

    Telling Big Labor to “sweep their concerns under the rug” concerning NAFTA.

    Telling Progressives and Big Left to “sweep their concerns under the rug” concerning Contract with America, Newtism, Neoconservatism, and the WH cozying up to the GOP.

    And as for “sweeping under the rug,” Jamie—when are you and all the other Clinton supporters going to come out and be honest about those “uncommitted” Michigan delegates? You know—the “uncommitted slots” that were being filled by Clinton supporters—until Obama was given the opportunity to do some out-in-the-open “vetting?”

    It seems to me that all you—and others—are arguing for here is that Clinton be allowed to continue her “under-the-rug vetting” of those so-called “uncommitted” delegates—yes?

    And about those “four stripped delegates,” I’d only point out again that she originally denounced and rejected all of those delegates—those four, and all others combined—when she originally gave her support to the so-seat sanctions levied by the Democratic Party. But then again, she’s a Clinton—why should any of us “terrible, irrelevant people” expect her to play by the rules?

    She’s been allowed to get away with far too many of her “let them eat cake” moments.

    It is time for the guillotine….

  • This type of dismissive and patronizing attitude from the Obama people during the hearing, and adding to it, the very same by amplified vibe from the Obama supporters on webboards such as this, just made it nearly impossible.

    What universe do you live in? Can you find me any evidence of an Obama supporter at the hearing that is even one-percent as offensive as this Clinton supporter?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

    Watching the RBC, I heard a lot of Clinton people booing, shouting, and being rude. Clinton begged her supporters to come and raise a fuss – Obama told his people to stay home.

  • Well, I can say that in yours, and sadly, do not realize that stripping 1/2 of the delegates, and arbitrarily seating delegates in MI, which is purported based on an EXIT POLL instead of the ACTUAL VOTES, for goodness sakes.

    Yes, I agree that it was ridiculous solution. No delegates should have been seated, not even 1/2. But Hillary’s face was turning blue and they just had to buy her a candy.

  • Brent asked: [I’ll paraphrase] why do Clinton supporters feel alienated?

    I present –

    On June 1st, 2008 at 3:14 am, Leslie said: “What the Clinton campaign has yet to realize is that Clinton is now irrelevant.”

    Yet, counting all votes, there have been more of “us” than “you.” This is not irrelevant.

    This race has been closer than Obama supporters want to admit, and if can’t handle being challenged now, wait until McCain starts challenging Obama’s record (or lack thereof) in earnest.

    To Obama supporters – I’m curious…

    What about an Obama/Clinton Ticket? Wouldn’t this be a noble gesture to party unity? If not, why?

  • Prospero nailed it. Listening to the Clinton camp makes me feel like I’m in the candy aisle with my three-year-old. Tantrum is a polite term for this.

  • Brent asked: [I’ll paraphrase] why do Clinton supporters feel alienated?

    I present –

    On June 1st, 2008 at 8:28 am, Brian said:

    Listening to the Clinton camp makes me feel like I’m in the candy aisle with my three-year-old.

  • Jamie: You have not addressed the central problem because you can’t. Clinton agreed, in advance, that the Florida and Michigan elections would not count. The people of those states were told those elections would not count. That means that those two states never had a legitimate contest. There is thus no way to actually measure the real intent of the voters there. Clinton said that Michigan wouldn’t count when it was convenient for her to do so, and she then demanded the Michigan delegates when that was convenient. She has no ground to stand on; her position is ridiculous and convinces absolutely no one outside of her true believers. Obama *did* make a good faith effort to reach out and he *did* agree to rules that gave Clinton delegates that she was not entitled to.

    The campaigns knew in advance that this was a delegate race, and designed their campaigns around it. Clinton did badly in caucases – the opposite of expections prior to this year. And she has therefore pushed measures – like popular votes – which truly do disenfranchise caucus states (lower turnout on average) as well as states with Democrat-only primaries. This, again, convinces absolutely no one.

    Obama won, it is over, and it’s time to move on to the general.

  • Yet, counting all votes, there have been more of “us” than “you.”

    No there haven’t. The Clinton campaign gets its talking point about having the most popular votes by counting Florida and Michigan (where they assert with a straight face that Obama would not have won a single vote, not even from Detroit!), and not counting the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington. That’s not counting all votes, that’s counting only the votes you want.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

    This race has been closer than Obama supporters want to admit, and if can’t handle being challenged now, wait until McCain starts challenging Obama’s record (or lack thereof) in earnest.

    I’ll admit it’s been very close, and Obama has said so repeatedly from the stump. I’m not sure why this matters – close doesn’t count. We had rules to determine a winner, and my guy Edwards didn’t make it, and your gal Hillary didn’t either. It’s Obama.

    And if you think Obama can’t push back against McCain, you haven’t been paying attention. He’s been beating the ever-loving crap out of him these past few weeks, showing that he was holding his fire against Hillary and will bring a full-on attack against mcCain now that there are so many clear differences between what they want to do.

    What about an Obama/Clinton Ticket? Wouldn’t this be a noble gesture to party unity? If not, why?

    It would be a noble gesture, perhaps, but a counter-productive one. Obama has premised his appeal on being a break with the past, and adding Hillary to his ticket would be as smart as McCain adding Jeb Bush to his and still trying to claim he’s not the third Bush term. She represents the old politics he’s trying to supplant, and she alienates many of the independent and even moderate Republican voters he can draw on. Those votes go to McCain with her on the ticket, purely out of their spite.

    And frankly, I don’t think Hillary deserves the noble gesture, as she’s done a lot of gutter stuff in this campaign to suggest a noble gesture would be wasted on her. I thought a unity ticket was a real possibility in March, but once she started throwing the kitchen sink at him – he’s not fit to be CINC (unlike McCain), he’s an elitist, he’s a racist, he’s a misogynist, etc. – it was clear that well had been poisoned.

    And finally, given how unhinged some of her loonier supporters are, Obama has to be worried that one of the nuttier crackpots would try to find a way to elevate her to president by any means after the election.

  • This is what Obama supporters are getting wrong on this issue:
    1) Emphasizing the delegates, minimizing the popular vote.
    2) Assuming that the other 50+% is just going to hop on board with Obama.
    3) Dismissing any concerns re. Obama as unimportant, irrelevant etc…

    Obama supporters are acting like anyone who looks at Obama and doesn’t simply fall head over heels in line must have unscrupulous motives.

    We all want to win in November, but we obviously have different visions on how to get there.

  • Nice Mobius strip logic, Everett. You people whine and scream, and we shake our heads, and you claim that’s why you’re whining and screaming.

    I gave you too much credit. My toddler is smarter than that.

  • On June 1st, 2008 at 8:39 am, TR said:

    Yet, counting all votes, there have been more of “us” than “you.”

    No there haven’t. The Clinton campaign gets its talking point about having the most popular votes by counting Florida and Michigan (where they assert with a straight face that Obama would not have won a single vote, not even from Detroit!), and not counting the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington. That’s not counting all votes, that’s counting only the votes you want.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

    Using your exact link shows that counting all those states puts Hillary up by 52K.

  • “I’ll call that “fact” WITH AN ACTUAL FACT—Edwards does not want the VP slot, and he said he didn’t want it BEFORE he made the endorsement.”

    Edwards said that in 2004 as well, on numerous occassions, on national television. I certainly never held these against him, simply what someone on the campaign trail would say before the primary is decided with certainty.

    And let’s get down to the nuts-n-bolts of this entire sordid mess, and put the blame where the blame is due—shall we?

    (1) The Democratic Party has the right to establish the rules and regulations by which its sanctioned primaries operate.

    (2) For whatever reason, the states of Michigan and Florida chose to violate those rules.

    (3) Once the decisions to violate those rules were made, the Democratic Party notified both states of the consequences those violations would bring—again, fully within the rights of the Democratic Party to do so.

    (4) The states of Florida and Michigan ignored this, and continued apace.

    (5) Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly endorsed and supported these sanctions when they were issued—as did all other candidates.

    I urge you again, to listen to Carl Levin’s speech to see whether there is real justification for such; with all of the details that are involved with the entire process that brought MI and FL to finally push their dates forward, dating all the way back into the previous election cycle; that are often lost in public discourse.

    Clinton did not endorse these sanctions, however she did supporte it by agreeing with all candidates to not campaign in those states. She or her campaign did not call for the delegates apportioned to these elections not to be seated at the convention. This is an embellishment from those that are trying to characterize her position inaccurately.

    Technically, the only way these two states even get half-votes is because of all the Clinton supporters on the RBC. Personally, I’d have seen both Michigan and Florida left “twisting in the wind”—but the primal issue here isn’t my personal opinion on the matter. It’s why you, and so many others, don’t have the courage and fortitude to put the blame where it belongs: on the individuals in Florida and Michigan who made this mess in the beginning.

    This has been the Clinton campaign from Day One—to expect the Democratic Party to fix everybody else’s messes. It was the same thing during Billy-J’s two terms.

    Well, there have been many attempts by these states to redo these votes during the “proper” timeframe designated by the DNC, and the Clinton campaign vigorously champaioned for some form of revotes in both of these locations. We are in the mess as of yesterday, because of the original parties that move up the dates, yes; but also because some in those states resisted ideas of redoing those elections in a fair way, and some of those certainly include Obama supporters.

    Telling Big Labor to “sweep their concerns under the rug” concerning NAFTA.

    Telling Progressives and Big Left to “sweep their concerns under the rug” concerning Contract with America, Newtism, Neoconservatism, and the WH cozying up to the GOP.

    And as for “sweeping under the rug,” Jamie—when are you and all the other Clinton supporters going to come out and be honest about those “uncommitted” Michigan delegates? You know—the “uncommitted slots” that were being filled by Clinton supporters—until Obama was given the opportunity to do some out-in-the-open “vetting?”

    I assume that you know who you are talking about. Everyone that I know was willing compromise, even upto the point of giving every single delegate allotted in the “uncommitted pool” to Obama, even though it is not really fully reasonable to assume that non of these voters was actually intending to vote for another candidate other than Obamam or Clinton.

    It seems to me that all you—and others—are arguing for here is that Clinton be allowed to continue her “under-the-rug vetting” of those so-called “uncommitted” delegates—yes?

    And about those “four stripped delegates,” I’d only point out again that she originally denounced and rejected all of those delegates—those four, and all others combined—when she originally gave her support to the so-seat sanctions levied by the Democratic Party. But then again, she’s a Clinton—why should any of us “terrible, irrelevant people” expect her to play by the rules?

    She’s been allowed to get away with far too many of her “let them eat cake” moments.

    It is time for the guillotine….

    I gues you can continue to call names, and make up clever pejorative metaphores; not much more can be said by me.

    sighs……….

    I shall sign off today.

  • Brian –
    You are obviously one of the great minds of the blogosphere. And a politically savvy statesmen too. And a unifier with vast amounts of experience. And you know big words, too.

    Now do you see why our party is split down the middle?

  • Brent asked: [I’ll paraphrase] why do Clinton supporters feel alienated?

    Not sure what you mean to paraphrase but that was not a question I asked or one that particularly interests me. What I did ask and others have asked is what exactly is it that people like Alissa want Obama to do for them. They say they are being taken for granted. What exactly would he be doing differently if he was not taking them for granted?

    Yet, counting all votes, there have been more of “us” than “you.” This is not irrelevant.

    Once again setting aside the fact that the result of any attempts to “count all the votes” is highly disputable, its relevance has been applied and failed to make the case. The argument about popular vote was an argument to be made to the party and to the superdelegates. They have heard this argument, considered it and found it wanting. Outside of that context, it most certainly is irrelevant besides being a pretty weak argument made upon shifting and questionable criteria.

    What about an Obama/Clinton Ticket? Wouldn’t this be a noble gesture to party unity? If not, why?

    Perhaps it would be a “noble gesture” but that doesn’t mean that it is the best idea politically or the only way to achieve party unity.

    But I will ask my question again directly since you brought it up. Why on Earth would Clinton want to be a VP? For all intents and purposes it would be a demotion for her. What is it that being in that slot supposed to do for her career or her policy agenda?

  • You’re just being flatly dishonest with the popular vote hogwash Everett, and you keep repeating it even though you have been repeatedly reminded that what you’re saying just isn’t so.

    We’re empahsizing the delegates because that is the coin of the realm for the contest. Obama designed his strategy around campaigning in all 50 states. He spent time on party-building, he understood what was needed to win, and he did it. Clinton comes around when she is behind and tries to invent new rules. We’ve explained to you, over and over, that the candidates would have run a completely different campaign if it was for popular votes. And it doesn’t appear to even register enough for folks to stop repeating it like some sort of mantra.

    Your favorite candidate lost; so did mine (Edwards.) Move on.

  • This is what Obama supporters are getting wrong on this issue:
    1) Emphasizing the delegates, minimizing the popular vote.

    You sound like a Yankees fan arguing that who gets the most runs doesn’t matter, we should really be paying attention to batting averages.

    2) Assuming that the other 50+% is just going to hop on board with Obama.

    I assume most people in the Democratic Party are going to vote for the Democrat. I assume that just as I got over the fact that my favorite candidate Edwards didn’t get the nomination, other grown ups in the party will get over their candidate’s loss as well.

    I assume that most Clinton supporters, who have cited issues like universal health care, environmental protection, job creation, and fixing the mess of the Bush economy, will vote for the Democratic candidate who shares those same values, rather than vote for the Republican candidate whose positions are 180-degrees in the other direction.

    3) Dismissing any concerns re. Obama as unimportant, irrelevant etc…

    I’ll dismiss racist comments like the ones above here – he’s secretly anti-white! etc. – as the rantings of the lunatic fringe. If you have any actual concerns, please feel free to voice them.

    But the issue remains that this has been an unprecedented primary campaign, one that’s about to go the distance for all fifty states plus the other regions. All the voters gave these candidates a close look in a process that’s taken more than a year, and they’ve heard all the concerns and listened to all the complaints, and a majority has sided with Barack Obama.

    That’s how it works. That’s the game all the campaigns and candidates agreed to, and now that it’s ending, that’s the process that has given us a clear nominee in Obama.

  • RE

    (1) The Democratic Party has the right to establish the rules and regulations by which its sanctioned primaries operate.

    (2) For whatever reason, the states of Michigan and Florida chose to violate those rules.

    * * *

    First, the Republican Governor, House and Senate in FL voted to move up the primary.
    Next, the FL Constitution states that we choose the Primary date, not the DNC.
    Third,, DNC rules don’t trump State Law.
    Lastly, we have obviously played right into the hands of Republican strategists.

  • Using your exact link shows that counting all those states puts Hillary up by 52K.

    Do you understand what the word “estimate” means? Those are caucus states, and it’s apples-and-oranges to try and cobble together a meaningful popular vote from those. There’s no accurate way to get caucus votes to reflect the popular will. None.

    And what about crossover votes? How do you balance the states where independents and Republicans were allowed to vote in our primary, with the states where they were not? Do we need to go through all these and count only registered Democrats? Or can we include same-day registrations? Absentee ballots?

    Do Democrats Abroad count as full votes? Why not? Is Clinton going to tout the votes of people who can’t vote in the general election, like residents of Puerto Rico and Guam?

    If you look at this with an impartial eye, you can see that this is a meaningless metric. Trying to get an aggregate total of the “popular vote count” from 50+ varied states is beyond guesswork.

    Each state had its own rules, and the candidates played by them. One won, the others lost. It’s really not that complicated.

  • Using your exact link shows that counting all those states puts Hillary up by 52K.

    I am not sure why it is necessary to keep pointing this out to you but that argument is based upon the specific assumption that Obama deserves to get 0 votes in Michigan. You cannot on the one hand make a moral argument that all votes should be counted, as if that even makes sense when a number of states don’t even have primaries, and then turn around and base your calculation on a procedural argument that discounts the preferences of hundreds of thousands of voters. The whole argument is extraordinarily weak to begin with because it tries to apply a criteria to judging a contest that is expressly not a part of the rules in that contest. But it is made even weaker by the fact that it then arbitrarily decides how and when even that criteria ought to be applied.

    Its like deciding that your team ought to have won the football game because they gained more yards on the ground but only if you decide that yards that the other team gained by penalty shouldn’t count.

  • Brent -Hey, glad you’re back. I’ll reply directly

    “What I did ask and others have asked is what exactly is it that people like Alissa want Obama to do for them.”

    Come up with something other than a boiler plated version of the DNC platform and a clever hook phrase. We want someone with experience worthy of the highest position in the government. We want to hear something that gives me reason to believe he can do the job. As of yet, I have not seen it.

    “They say they are being taken for granted. What exactly would he be doing differently if he was not taking them for granted?”

    I would look for gestures from his campaign and supporters other than – you lost we won deal with it and vote for barak now because he’s hip.

    “Why on Earth would Clinton want to be a VP?”

    I can’t speak for her, but I can say that for me, it would be a ticket for which I could vote. I would agree to disagree with your assessment about the political wisdom, but the idea should be out there and we shouldn’t immediately slam it.

    And using the same mobius logic for which Brian castigated me, this takes us back to your original question – by not entertaining a joint ticket and assuming that Clinton supporters will jump on board without question, Obama supporters, I would argue, are jumping to conclusions.

  • Its like deciding that your team ought to have won the football game because they gained more yards on the ground but only if you decide that yards that the other team gained by penalty shouldn’t count.

    No, it’s more like arguing that the Cowboys should’ve won the Super Bowl because they had more fans than the Giants.

  • TR said

    “If you have any actual concerns, please feel free to voice them.”

    Can’t speak for the lunatic fringe, and that kind of stuff makes me sad too, but I could summarize my concerns:

    Lack of substance, lack of experience.

  • First, the Republican Governor, House and Senate in FL voted to move up the primary.

    A vote that all but 1 or 2 Democrats in the Senate agreed to.

    Next, the FL Constitution states that we choose the Primary date, not the DNC.

    LOL. Yes, Florida can choose to have the primary date any time they wish. They can have it in 2007 if that is what they wish. They can decide that their primary is worth 5000 delegates if they wish. None of that means it has to be honored by the National party.

    Third,, DNC rules don’t trump State Law.

    This literally makes no sense. State Law is entirely irrelevant to how a private organization that is in no way an entity of that state decides to establish its rules. I honestly don’t even know what you are trying to argue here.

    Lastly, we have obviously played right into the hands of Republican strategists.

    Well that will certainly be true if people decide that this issue is what should decide the election as opposed to the actual policy issues that are on the table. I sincerely doubt that most people supporting either candidate will decide that but so far it mostly Clinton supporters who seem to feel that is an appropriate decision.

  • Just read all 123 previous posts. Ouch. I need several drinks to relieve the psychic pain.

    TR and MsJoanne, thanks for trying to get to the bottom of an interesting question. I think the answer is most succinctly summed up by the video clip of the Clinton supporter being tossed out of the DNC meeting (post #76).

    Here’s my take on it. There isn’t a rational argument for switching support to McCain if Clinton doesn’t get the nomination. At the risk of being called sexist, it’s an entirely emotional response. A small number (and I believe it is small) of Clinton’s supporters have affiliated themselves with her through a type of identity politics that is so strong that they can no longer be rational. I would also point out that could well apply to certain white men from Appalachia.

    Obama isn’t likely to win over this small die-hard contingent. He has a funny name, he’ll never be white enough, and he’ll never have two X chromosomes. It seems to be a natural tendency of people to divide themselves into smaller homogeneous groups based on superficial physical characteristics. The attitude is that if you don’t look like me then your are one of “Them”.

    In the end, I firmly believe that the vast majority of Clinton’s supporters will come over to Obama.

    Everybody on this blog should realize that anyone who posts here or any other blog is not a typical voter. We’re the political freaks.

    A few posts ranting here and else where about supporting McCain don’t mean a thing. These people are no way representative of the electorate. In a close election, could they make a difference. Maybe, but it seems like a stretch to me. Anyway, I don’t think it will be very close.

  • Good morning. TR, you have more patience than I. That’s a mind welded shut you’re talking to (I particularly love the bit about Clinton’s and Edwards’ early support for the rules being meaningless political promises that no one should hold them to, but the party’s and Obama’s continuous respect for the rules being horribly unjust). However, I do realize that you’re writing more for lurkers who still are listening to facts. Nice job.

    Regrettably, I don’t believe it is settlement she is looking for.

    It isn’t. Craig Crawford nailed it:

    “No decision would have best served Clinton today. Her nomination hopes are dependent on a chaos theory, which would have been best supported by keeping the status of Florida and Michigan in limbo.”

    And so that’s gone now. Onward and upward.

  • This from brent is, like most of him posts, succinctly great–let’s hear it again:

    I am not sure why it is necessary to keep pointing this out to you but that argument is based upon the specific assumption that Obama deserves to get 0 votes in Michigan. You cannot on the one hand make a moral argument that all votes should be counted, as if that even makes sense when a number of states don’t even have primaries, and then turn around and base your calculation on a procedural argument that discounts the preferences of hundreds of thousands of voters. The whole argument is extraordinarily weak to begin with because it tries to apply a criteria to judging a contest that is expressly not a part of the rules in that contest. But it is made even weaker by the fact that it then arbitrarily decides how and when even that criteria ought to be applied.

  • Come up with something other than a boiler plated version of the DNC platform and a clever hook phrase. We want someone with experience worthy of the highest position in the government. We want to hear something that gives me reason to believe he can do the job. As of yet, I have not seen it.

    This is the sort of vague complaint that I find so unpersuasive. There are actually two vague complaints here:
    1. A lack of policy specifics
    2. A lack of experience

    On the first, Obama has offered extremely detailed policy prescriptions on any number of issues.Ms.Joanne posted a amall portion of that earlier. If you are looking for more detail than that then you are not likely to get it, not from Hillary Clinton and absolutely not from John McCain.

    On the lack of experience, his experience is what it is. I happen to think its perfectly acceptable to the extent that I think its important at all. But either way, its not something he can change. He has the experience he has. I find the notion that Clinton can claim so much more experience pretty questionable but whatever. She is not the nominee.

    I would look for gestures from his campaign and supporters other than – you lost we won deal with it and vote for barak now because he’s hip.

    I don’t know how “he’s hip” fairly characterizes any Obama supporters response to this contest but this is yet another vague complaint. What “gesture”s are you looking for and why is it necessary to have any “gestures” at all? You’er an adult making a decision that will effect the quality of your own life. Either you agree with his policies and his politics in that respect or you don’t. Either you think McCain would make a better President or you don’t. Why is it necessary for any candidate to “gesture” anything to you?

    And using the same mobius logic for which Brian castigated me, this takes us back to your original question – by not entertaining a joint ticket and assuming that Clinton supporters will jump on board without question, Obama supporters, I would argue, are jumping to conclusions.

    I would say that assuming that the only way to get Clinton supporters on board will be with her on the ticket, or even assuming that this is whatClinton herself and most of here supporters want is pretty questionable. I know that if the situation were reversed, the last thing I would ever want is for Obama to effectively give up what is a pretty promising political career for 8 years to sit around the White House hoping to break a tie in the Senate every now and then. What in the world is supposed to be the value of a VP position to politicians that are already as powerful and prominent as Clinton and Obama? I just don’t get it.

  • brent said:
    “A vote that all but 1 or 2 Democrats in the Senate agreed to.” Good point, can you cite this?

    “None of that means it has to be honored by the National party.” Why would the DNC want to discount votes? What is so sacred about Iowa?

    “I honestly don’t even know what you are trying to argue here.” I grant you the two decisions in court (11th Cir./Appeals). Consider it an issue of optics. FL is a very close state, and actually Dem voter reg. is outpacing Rep’s. It is bad consensus building to say that what a state did well within its rights was abrogated by a political party. In my humble opinion the DNC set a horrible precedent.

    “Well that will certainly be true if people decide that this issue is what should decide the election as opposed to the actual policy issues that are on the table.”

    This is an example of where Obama’s camp is not connecting the dots to the donkey. It’s not just about the delegates. It’s about the candidates’ ability to implement the policies which he/she has proposed. I can’t speak for the millions of voters who didn’t vote for Obama, but I could summarize the sentiment. Some people just didn’t buy the hype. I think the Obama camp either just doesn’t get it or they don’t want to admit it. He didn’t close the deal with much of the party.

    I fully admit, neither did Clinton.

    So we have to look at how we move ahead. This is my point –

    As we move towards Denver, don’t be so quick to do the “Just Deal With It” approach with folks. Talk to us. Listen to what we see as shortcomings in Obama. Then figure out how to fix it. Things like, “I would also point out that could well apply to certain white men from Appalachia.” will not promote party unity.

    Putting together a ticket that will unite the 50/50 fissure will.

    We all want to win in November. It’s just a matter of figuring out how to get there.

  • Brent: If “Lack of substance and experience” are vague, I will specify.
    Yes, Ms Joane cut and pasted some of Obama’s platform. Thank you Ms.Joanne. I appreciate that. It’s a lot like Clinton’s. And like Edwards’. And Richardson’s. As a matter of fact, it’s an a whole lot like the 2004 DNC platform. It’s almost like he took the existing party platform and polished it up a bit, and lowered the reading level a tad, and said, “Let’s change!”

    Let me specify the experience part. We have seen what 8 years of a president with no foreign policy experience is like. Beating Alan Keyes and spending 2 years in the Senate just doesn’t do it for me. Let me be less vague. Nothing that Obama has said during the campaign has convinced me that he understands the magnitude of diplomatic calculus requisite for the Presidency.

    But let’s remember, we’re on the same side, trying to get to the same place (a Dem in the WH). I hope we can agree to disagree on how to get there. Ultimately, there is nothing more American than a good debate, and these conversations will make us stronger for November.

  • Everett, I think I asked Greg this the other day, but let me try with you:

    1) Does the party, by a consensus of the representatives of various states to the National Committee, have the ability and need to make rules for orderly conduct?

    2) Are you arguing that the decision of that committee to establish a timeline for conduct of primaries was not valid?

    3) If the party can make rules and the rules they made are valid are you suggesting that there should be no benefit to the states that followed them (or, conversely, no detriment to those that did not follow the rules)?

    4) If there is no enforcement, why would we expect any states to follow rules in the next cycle and how would that not devolve into anarchy?

    You complaint about Iowa, but that misses two points. One, unless we adopt a one-day national primary (an argument for a whole different post), the process has to start somewhere. All other states will have an interest in that publicity and will want to leap-frog: had Florida managed to move to first in line, other states would have promptly tried to leap over it. Two, the date rules this year were actually an effort to water down Iowa — the dates were really meant to protect Nevada and South Carolina, states added to the “early eligibles” in an effort to provide additional diversity to the traditional Iowa-New Hampshire start. Florida and Michigan tried to upset this compromise plan that was carefully crafted by the official (and representative) national committee. How is it ok for Florida and Michigan to decide that they can simply ignore the national party? What would be left of the “national” party if any state can ignore it at any time?

    I understand the frustration of voters in Florida and Michigan, but at some point rules have to be rules. I don’t like the speed limit; it doesn’t mean my dislike of it renders police powerless to ticket me. (And I do find it odd that there is almost no outcry about the Republican delegations from those two states being cut in half.)

  • TR: Yes, I know. I was there. We were trying to get a a discussion about a catastrophic hurricane fund on the table. But thanks for the link. I appreciate it.

    Brent: sorry but I can’t resist
    Re. Experience –
    “I happen to think its perfectly acceptable to the extent that I think its important at all.”

    This has been one of the weaknesses of the Obama Campaign that we better reconcile quickly. Obama’s campaign has downplayed the relative importance of “experience” in a President. Most likely because he has none.

    The avuncular McCain et al. are going to clobber Obama on this issue.

    Y’all better come up with a better answer than “it just doesn’t matter.”

  • Mark: I grant you the argument that the DNC had rules in place. Yet, policy is the dynamic balance twixt can and should. DNC can abrogate democracy, but should it?

    Thank you for the input.

  • Everett, rules and democracy are not at odds; rules are a key part of a democracy – what differentiates democracy from tyranny by the biggest mob.

    Failing to abide by the rules is not democracy. If I haven’t timely registered, but show up to vote, and am told “no,” can I really scream that my democratic rights were taken away (so long as the time for registration was publicized and there were no undue barriers preventing my registration)? My vote doesn’t count. So where would you draw the line?

    You have never answered (a) what penalty FL and MI should suffer and (b) if you think the answer is “none” how that (i) is fair to rule-following states and (ii) wont lead to every state breaking the rules of the party in 2012. That is the crux of the problem; it seems FL and MI folks just want to ignore those practical problems of non-enforcement.

    FYI, I voted for Clinton in my state – this is not a “protect Obama” argument from me. This is a “there has to be rules, and for there to be rules, there has to be consequences” argument.

  • This has been one of the weaknesses of the Obama Campaign that we better reconcile quickly. Obama’s campaign has downplayed the relative importance of “experience” in a President. Most likely because he has none.

    Perhaps this was too important a point to be left as an aside. The Presidency is not like any other job. There is only one person who has the experience to be President and thats the President. Being a Senator isn’t really experience at all whether its for four years, eight years or twenty years. Legislative experience is not really relatable to Executive experience. Being the wife of an executive is also not relatable to Executive experience. You have either been the Chief executive of the country with all of the duties and responsibilities that entails or you have not. Everything else is just a political argument that you are trying to sell to anyone who is willing to buy it.

    But for me the question is: What exactly is the argument about experience here? What is experience supposed to do for me as a citizen? What does experience tell me about the candidates intention and ability with respect to governance? In the case of McCain, what exactly is relevant about his “experience” with respect to the questions of governance that actually effect my life? His “experience” tells him that the important thing to do is cut taxes and rattle sabers at Iran. His experience tells him that one of the things he needs to do to solve the problems in the Middle East is sit them down and tell them to “cut the crap.” His “experience” tells him that the Sunnis in Al Quaeda are teaming the the Shia in Iran to destabilize a Shia Government in Iraq. His “experience” in other words is a meaningless signifier that provides exactly zero information about the quality of his potential presidency.

    If I want to think about experience, it is with respect to cabinet members, the people who are responsible for the day to day operations and whose experience can potentially determine whether an agency is run smoothly or not. From a President I want judgment and while experience can certainly provide that, there is no reason to believe that it has with respect to any of the candidates.

  • Congrats Obama! In the end, Hillary lost because of two things – arrogance and poor financial planning.

    Obama will end the race with a pledged-delegate lead of about 124 – which is what he netted out of the combination of running away with caucuses and his 11-state winning spree in February.

    Hillary lost because:

    (1)She wasted her money – She wasted so much money lining the pockets of her “consultants” (i.e. friends) with donor money raised through her campaign, that she didn’t have enough to invest in the smaller Feb 5th states or the rest of the Feb races and got clobbered.

    (2)Poor planning – But then, wasting money is only part of it, because she never planned to compete in caucus states, and she bet everything on her assumption that the race would be over on Feb 5th. She thought she’d get such an insurmountable lead from her “big state” wins that she wouldn’t have to focus on the smaller ones – big mistake.

    Yes, her message sucked and changed every 5 minutes. Yes, she ran on “experience” during a “change” election, but if she hadn’t made the above mistakes, it would have been a closer race.

    Don’t feel sorry for her. She had every advantage – her husband is a former president; her name is Clinton; she had a stranglehold on most big donors and raised more money than anyone else (in 2007); she had a front-loaded primary schedule crammed into a 4-week period between Jan 3rd and Feb 5th that was designed to help her win on name recognition and ensure that her competitors wouldn’t have enough money to compete in so many big states in a short period of time, and snatch an insurmountable pledged-delegate lead early; she started with a lead of over 100 superdelegates before a single vote was cast; her supporters in MI and FL hijacked those elections so she could snatch more delegates in uncontested primaries in those states; yada yada. Yes, the MI/FL fiasco was PLANNED to help Hillary grab uncontested pledged-delegates in primaries her competitors DID NOT compete in.

    It’s a joke that people can’t see that Hillary IS NOT our strongest nominee. When you have to go to so many lengths to create an unfair advantage for yourself against the other candidates (to the point of front-loading the calendar and trying to grab uncontested pledged delegates), it’s clear that Hillary and her team were AFRAID that in a crowed field of accomplished candidates, she WOULD NOT have done as well on her own without so much “help”.

    Despite all the crap she and her supporters have pulled in their attempt to STEAL this nomination, Obama still beat her. Barack Obama has absolutely EARNED this nomination! I have had enough of Hillary Clinton. She tried to steal the nomination and it didn’t work. She now needs to GO HOME.

  • I think it was a disgrace that the committee even heard this nonsense The DNC SAID NO to seating these delegates and should have stuck to their rules.

    What are we teaching our children? That we can change rules for our convenience? I am stunned that we have the gaul and the Hootzpah that we have disenfranchised the voters who heard that their votes wouldn’t count and DID NOT VOTE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I am very disappointed that the committee didn’t stick to it’s rules and uphold the original agreement. Taking this to the finance committee is only hurting the party more. Who are these people who are protesting in Hillary’s favor? Where is their morality and sense of justice of upholding rules? I will no longer be voting for Hillary as she is seriously hurting the party.

  • If experience is the real issue here, Everett, then why weren’t you pulling for Biden or Dodd?

  • Jamie from Maryland: I think Obama campaign really missed a golden opportunity to bringing a myriad of disaffected people on board yesterday, by pushing for this type of ridiculous solution. I had hope on Friday that Obama would actually be fair, and be seen by us as at least trying to bend over backwards to give us a reason to support him wholeheartedly. This type of dismissive and patronizing attitude from the Obama people during the hearing, and adding to it, the very same by amplified vibe from the Obama supporters on webboards such as this, just made it nearly impossible.

    You display a profound misunderstanding of what just occurred. Michigan and Florida proposed seating their delegations with half votes. The Obama campaign and the RBC agreed with their proposals. If you have a problem with that decision then you ought to take it up with the Michigan and Florida legislatures who proposed this solution.

  • TR said:

    If experience is the real issue here, Everett, then why weren’t you pulling for Biden or Dodd?

    Short answer: Because they’ dropped out of the race.

    Also, Mark – Good points, and I agree there must be rules. Figuring out where the line is requires process, which has been exacted. We’ll see where the chips fall.

    And, re. Brent’s “Experience” argument, “From a President I want judgment and while experience can certainly provide that, there is no reason to believe that it has with respect to any of the candidates.” All I can say is that we should agree to disagree on this point. I will point out, for the sake of improving the Obama Campaign, this is a major point of exposure, and needs to be addressed with something other than the “it just doesn’t matter” line.

  • I just want to say ditto to Sue at 165. I think you make an excellent argument that goes to the heart of this whole controversy.

  • Regarding the “issue” that Obama’s platform is a generic rehash of the DNC platform: Duh.

    The man’s a Democrat and will implement Democratic priorities when elected. In a year in which “generic Democrat” beats the living tar out of “generic Republican,” the politics of running as a generic Democrat is simply too obvious for words.

    He was anti-war before it was cool to be anti-war. And for reasons that resonated. To me, that spoke volumes.

  • I am stewing over the question about what’s wrong with an Obama / Clinton unity ticket and claims by Clinton supporters that she is a stronger candidate because her supporters will support her while hers won’t support him. I know that these are points that we’ll all manage to get over when emotions cool off a bit, however things work out, but nonetheless, they irk me.

    I started out quite liking Hillary, while preferring other candidates and not wanting to prolong a dynasty, and I expected to end up supporting her enthusiastically in the general election. If she does manage to steal the nomination from Obama or if he decides that she needs to be VP on his ‘unity ticket’, I’ll grudgingly support her against McCain because of 1) Supreme Court nominees, 2) executive orders, 3) Rowe v. Wade, 4) she’s clearly a tough politician, and 5) she’s more “on my side” than not, unlike McCain.

    That being said, I’m now thoroughly upset with her for so many reasons I having trouble remembering them all. Her everchanging personas and her shifting and bad rationalizations and justifications are disgusting. She was against Michigan and Florida counting when that position helped her with Iowa and New Hampshire, and then for them once her advantage shifted to the opposite position: I can tolerate a fair degree of opportunism in politicians, but she is claiming principle on both sides of opposing positions, while vilifying anyone who happens to disagree. She has exaggerated every possible misstep by Obama and has tried to make him responsible for transgressions by his acquaintances and supporters, but she plays up to and across the foul lines, and when she’s called on it her response is all faked outrage that anyone could be so unreasonable as to have misunderstood her. She has (quite fairly) complained about a lot of misogynistic attacks on her during the campaign, but instead of elevating the dialog (the way Obama has been trying to do), she simply turns around and attacks him in equivalent fashion or worse with racially coded crap. She had the option of saying, hey, we’re democrats, we want a stronger society by unifying diverse groups rather than setting them against each other, by standing up for each other rather than tearing each other down. That’s what republicans do, and that’s why we’ll beat them. But no, she had to go for the low road and the politics of division, which she has done far too often in this campaign. Her Tuzla delusions / fibs were extremely disheartening. The list goes on. I’d love to say that I wouldn’t support her in the general election, but the issues are too important. However, I will never vote for her again if I don’t have to, and any time she has a credible and worthy Democratic opponent, I’ll be contributing against her.

    Also, Jim at 40 and Mark Pencil at 87, thanks for trying.

  • All I can say is that we should agree to disagree on this point. I will point out, for the sake of improving the Obama Campaign, this is a major point of exposure, and needs to be addressed with something other than the “it just doesn’t matter” line.

    My argument is not that “it doesn’t matter.” My argument is that its a false argument and criteria. Experience in this context doesn’t describe any relevant attribute to be successful at a particular job because none of these people ever done anything lie the job they would be taking on. It is just another way to say, “hey I have been around politics for awhile,” but there is no real logical way to draw a line from how long someone has been a Senator and how good President they can or will be. McCain’s “experience” is not the experience of being a President. Moreover, whatever his level of “experience” it clearly hasn’t improved his judgement. But hey, being a crappy senator for 20 years also does not qualify him to be the head chef at a fine dining establishment.

    Like I said, “experience” is just a political argument that a candidate can sell to whomever is buying it. When I say that I simply don’t care about that issue, I’m saying I am not going to be one of the buyers. Its really just another type of political boilerplate b.s.

    Nonetheless, I recognize that this is an argument that Obama is going to have to deal with. His “experience” is what it is. He cannot change that. But he has made and will continue to make the argument pretty effectively that experience only means you are a Washington insider beholden to interests that a relative newcomer himself is not beholden to. That inexperience is better understood as a positive element of a fresh outlook and that, along with good judgement, is what the country needs if it really wants change. This has been central to his argument all along and Clinton is finally starting to realize that its a winning one. McCain will also be finding that out soon enough.

  • Brent writes: Nonetheless, I recognize that this is an argument that Obama is going to have to deal with. His “experience” is what it is. He cannot change that. But he has made and will continue to make the argument pretty effectively that experience only means you are a Washington insider beholden to interests that a relative newcomer himself is not beholden to. That inexperience is better understood as a positive element of a fresh outlook and that, along with good judgement, is what the country needs if it really wants change. This has been central to his argument all along and Clinton is finally starting to realize that its a winning one. McCain will also be finding that out soon enough.

    I would add to your eloquent comments, that Obama has also stated that “experience” got us Bush and Cheney’s decision to attack and invade a country that hadn’t attacked us and lacked the means to do so even they’d intended to, which Iraq didn’t. So-called experience has also gotten us torture, illegal domestic spying, economic meltdown, a gutted Constitution, and an out-of-control Executive that believes it’s above the law. And “experience” may also start yet another unnecessary war on Iran.

    Plus, as Brent has already pointed out, Clinton’s executive experience as First Lady is nil. Plus, despite what she’s claimed, she doesn’t have 35 years of experience. In fact, Clinton’s and Obama’s experience is not so far apart and Clinton’s claims to far more experience is a specious argument at best. But it doesn’t matter anyway…because Clinton has lost the nomination.

    As for McSame’s experience: He’s running on four years of Bush. Need anyone say more?

  • little bear says:

    “This is not really a forum that is going to change people’s opinions – let me assure you that most of us that make our points with a little snark also know how to temper it when having a reasonable dialog others. That isn’t what these comment boards really are, but we all know that”

    I beg to differ. I am a Clinton supporter. I have voted Democrat for my entire life. I think it’s pathetic that the votes in Florida and Michigan are going to be counted differently based on Democratic internal political squabbling.

    Thanks to folks like you, who have led a scorched earth character assasination campaign against Hillary from day one (really, the women is a left of center candidate and frankly Obama’s and Hillary’s positions have NEVER been much different), I will be voting for McCain this year.

    The mullahs of the “progressive” left have pushed me to the middle.

  • I beg to differ. I am a Clinton supporter. I have voted Democrat for my entire life. I think it’s pathetic that the votes in Florida and Michigan are going to be counted differently based on Democratic internal political squabbling.

    Actually they are only going to be counted at all because of “Democratic internal political squabbling.” Without that squabbling, the penalties would have stood as they were imposed within the rules and neither State would have received any delegates as rule breakers.

    Moreover, “squabbling” is what defines a democracy. People disagree on things and they have representatives who they elect to settle those disagreements in public settings. If you are looking for a situation where people don’t disagree or where disagreements are settled without debate, you aren’t advocating for democracy I’m afraid. They didn’t squabble much in the old Soviet Union for instance.

    Thanks to folks like you, who have led a scorched earth character assasination campaign against Hillary from day one (really, the women is a left of center candidate and frankly Obama’s and Hillary’s positions have NEVER been much different), I will be voting for McCain this year.

    So because of intemperate remarks from someone on a blog you realized you really agree with Republican policies as opposed to Democratic ones? I am not sure that makes sense in any kind of way but good luck to you.

  • Sasha #178 writes: I think it’s pathetic that the votes in Florida and Michigan are going to be counted differently based on Democratic internal political squabbling.

    Actually, the Florida and Michigan delegates are being counted differently because Florida and Michigan proposed that as a solution. The RCB and Obama campaign agreed to Florida and Michigan’s proposals. The primary squabbling has come from Clinton’s campaign, which initially pushed for their own Florida proposal, lost, and then agreed to Florida’s proposal. Finally, Clinton’s campaign was upset about the apportionment of four of Michigan’s delegates, which Ickes swore he would fight all the way to the convention.

    Thanks to folks like you, who have led a scorched earth character assasination campaign against Hillary from day one (really, the women is a left of center candidate and frankly Obama’s and Hillary’s positions have NEVER been much different), I will be voting for McCain this year.

    The mullahs of the “progressive” left have pushed me to the middle.
    If Obama and Clinton’s positions are similar, then why would you vote for McCain? Unless you’ve decided you prefer four to eight more years of Bush? Four to eight more years of unnecessary war and hundreds more US troops coming home in boxes, four to eight more years of torture, four to eight more years of gutting our Constitution, four to eight more years of illegal domestic spying, four to eight more years of economic meltdown, four to eight more years of shifting wealth to the wealthiest, four to eight more years of a lawless Executive…I could go on.

    You do what you think is best.

  • Sasha (#178), is clearly disappointed that Hillary will not be the nominee. Many of these folks are also angry with the treatment that Hillary has occasionally received from the media and few of Obama’s supporters who have crossed the lines of civility (think Ursa Minor). You should know that these few don’t represent Obama and they are a very tiny minority.

    In the end though, it makes no sense to turn away from the very principles and positions that your own candidate has espoused to vote for McCain.

    Many (polls seem to indicate at least half) of Hillary’s supporters will immediately switch to Obama. I think the polling is incomplete and it will be more like 60 – 70%. Another portion will take some time and some courting from the Obama camp, but eventually, when things cool down, they will come to support the nominee as well.

    A small percentage probably less than 5% will either stay home or vote against their own interests by voting for McCain.

  • DK said: “Obama’s supporters who have crossed the lines of civility (think Ursa Minor). You should know that these few don’t represent Obama and they are a very tiny minority.”

    I will grant you this. I think Brent has done a great job presenting his argument.

    DK said: “Many (polls seem to indicate at least half) of Hillary’s supporters will immediately switch to Obama. I think the polling is incomplete and it will be more like 60 – 70%.”

    Please cite a source on this.

    DK also said: “they will come to support the nominee as well.”

    I would posit that this is the big flub the Obama camp is making. If I didn’t like the guy today, I’m not all of a sudden think he’s worthy of my vote come Denver – unless he can show me something that has yet to be presented. Just because I dislike McCain does not automatically mean Obama has my vote. I think the Obama camp is in complete denial on this point. I’m telling you, you’re jumping to assumptions that may not bear fruit.

    Also: RE. Brent, again, although I respect almost everything I read from you, I will respectively point out that many voters do consider experience important. I agree the Cab. is important, but the bottom line is the President calls the shots. We obviously place different value on this, and as mutual Dems, that’s ok. My point, however, is that November comes down to Independents. they’re not going to buy the “Don’t worry about it” argument.

    But, of course, we can agree to disagree. I enjoy your input.

  • Everett:

    Here’s the Gallup poll suggesting 59% of Clinton supporters would support Obama.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx

    I think after tempers have cooled and people get a clear look at their choices that this number will go significantly higher.

    Under the two party system, there is always a sizable chunk of the electorate that is not entirely happy with the final two choices. Until we change the system, and approve instant runoff voting, this is what you get. If you find yourself in this situation, then you either hold your nose and vote, stay home, or vote for Ralph Nader.

  • The vote is binary act, a binary action, a binary decision: vote express the decision of voter for 1 alternative from 2 or more. In the case Obama and Hillary, there is not place to 1/2, in Florida and Michigan.

    If someone did a mistake about the election, it can not invalid the action of the other voters. Each vote is independent. The value of the can not change after was issued.

    Any rule interpretation can change the value of each vote. The vote are used to selected delegades and that is.

    If the election was invalid, then make a new one with the same options for all candidates.

  • “On June 1st, 2008 at 9:29 am, Maria said:

    “This from brent is, like most of him posts, succinctly great–let’s hear it again:

    “I am not sure why it is necessary to keep pointing this out to you but that argument is based upon the specific assumption that Obama deserves to get 0 votes in Michigan. You cannot on the one hand make a moral argument that all votes should be counted, as if that even makes sense when a number of states don’t even have primaries, and then turn around and base your calculation on a procedural argument that discounts the preferences of hundreds of thousands of voters. The whole argument is extraordinarily weak to begin with because it tries to apply a criteria to judging a contest that is expressly not a part of the rules in that contest. But it is made even weaker by the fact that it then arbitrarily decides how and when even that criteria ought to be applied.”

    Let’s take this faulty logic one step at a time:

    1) Obama does not deserve 0 votes in Michigan, and that’s been my position and that of many Hillary supporters for a long time (I can’t say about this board, since I posted here for the first time two days ago). But nor does he deserve every vote that was counted as “uncommitted”, since from most of the polls at that time, about 70% percent of the people that voted such went out and did so for Obama, which we may justly give to him. About the fact that should the vote had counted in MI, more people would have voted for Obama, or that he did not campaign in the state prior to the vote, that argument can apply for both of these candidates, and others as well in boosting their totals.

    2) In the argument that Obama did not get as many voters as he could have, had his name been on the ballot there; there is really not that much justification, since Conyers explicitly campaigned for Obama voters to cast their vote for “uncommitted” in radio ads, addording to e.g. Washington Post:
    In an effort to signal that Clinton cannot stroll away with the state’s delegates, even in a largely uncontested race, Michigan Rep. John Conyers and his wife, Detroit city council member Monica Conyers, taped a radio advertisement Wednesday afternoon. In it, they called on Obama backers not to surrender their vote.

    They say on the radio spot that they intend to vote “uncommitted” and give Obama a chance to compete for those delegates in Denver.

    An “uncommitted” vote would take the place of a write-in, which is not permitted.
    This was arguably the only public campaigning in the state of Michigan, since neither Obama nor Clinton made personal appearances or ran ads on their own behalf before the primary. And Obama also ostensibly said that there are “grass-roots efforts” made among his supporters to such an end. So while Clinton’s name on the ballot arguably helped her cause, others made efforts to campaign on Obama’s behalf while no such existed for the Clinton camp in MI.

    3) In almost all of the states where there were caucuses in stead of primaries, Obama did better in those. And in all of the few states that had both (if my memory serves) Obama did better in the caucus than he performed in the primaries. So there is little guarantee that Obama would even win all of the hypothetical primaries in those states that held caucuses, it is even less likely that he would have kept the same margins as before.

    4) Caucuses inherently filters out voters that happened to not have that block of time during which it is being held, moonlighters, double-shifters, single mothers that had to stay home, and a myriad of other economically disadvantaged people, who are natural constituencies for Clinton, as evidenced in the demographics of this primary season. This is especially true in the mountain west states where the black population is small (in southern states, there are some of the African American voters who suffer from the same issues as voters of other ethnic groups). And Caucus voters are likely those who have a higher level of political insiders who have more involvement. There are at a minimum some arguments that come into play about wether Caucus results are entirely reflective of democratic parties in those states. If you want to bring “arbitrary criteria” into the discussion, it is at least fair to bring those up as well.

    5) When Obama folks accuse others of inconsistency in applying the rules of the primary process, they are certainly guilty of this themselves. If they consider, many Obama surrogates in media and supporters in these forums continually argue that “rules should be rules” when it comes to the question of MI and FL for the past several months. On the other hand, many of them expressly deny another fact about the rules, that the PLEO delegates should excercise their independent judgement based on a variety of factors, which includes the popular vote count as well as electability of the respective candidates, and are not bound by the pledged delegate totals at the end of the primary season.

    I think that each side has people that have biased views compared to what a neutral party would likely to think. But it is unproductive, and assume a “holier than thou” attitude as Brent, flush with an elistist tone, in this whole discussion to merely score some points in the forums. It is only useful to consider all sides of the quations, and to be willing to be persuaded by the other candidates followings with regard to reason, and not to be mired in the pit of dogmatic thinking. Isn’t adherence to dogma and a refusal to reason openly the most important factor that got us into the disastrous 8 years that we are in?

  • Comments are closed.