home
The Florida Revote Plan | 267 comments (267 topical)
Either option will be opposed (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by myiq2xu on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:24:45 AM EST
by the Obama campaign.

I've said from the start that they will try to block seating the delegates or revoting while trying to look like they are trying to resolve the issue fairly.

Good thing Obama has "transcended" politics.

Obama has 'transcended' politics (none / 0) (#7)
by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:30:08 AM EST
And declared himself King.

He's not, though, in any sense of the word.


[ Parent ]

I knew Elvis (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:34:42 AM EST
Elvis was a friend of mine.
Senator, you are no Elvis.


[ Parent ]
Do you have a quote where he did so? (none / 0) (#14)
by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:39:48 AM EST
Or are you just blinded by Obama-hate?

[ Parent ]
If Obama quoted me, I'd be thrilled (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:52:11 AM EST
But if you can find a quote of him quoting me be my guest!

Or are we not, as individuals, allowed to have opinions under Obama rules now?

I was undecided and either HRC or BO were excellent Dem candidates. Then Team Obama started this scorched earth policy of blowing up Dem chances unless he was annointed.

It's made it clearer to me why HRC is a better choice to win in November and, more importantly, to govern.

Oh, and do your own homework. I've done mine and don't have to explain my vote.

[ Parent ]

You made a statement (none / 0) (#82)
by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:17:30 AM EST
that was inflammatory, and now you can't back it up.  telling.

[ Parent ]
Why do I need to 'back up' my vote or opinion? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:29:18 AM EST
It's not inflammatory to have an opinion / position that either the FL and MI votes should count as is, or have a revote.

I didn't like TeamO's threats that they wouldn't back HRC if she was chosen, during the fair primary process, to be the Dem candidate (as publicly stated by Michelle Obama and other TeamO spokespeople.)

It tells me he's not the second coming of Dr. King, who was about REAL change. Obama is revealing himself to be a bad choice to beat McCain (and the Republicans Obama wants to unite with, which is the centerpiece of his campaign) -- after taking down the "Monster" Hillary, of course.

I think he'll lose the Dems the election because he's too divisive, in the active-verb sense that he's intentionally dividing people unless he wins.

(I'm still allowed an opinion under Obama rules, right?)

[ Parent ]

You're certainly allowed to have an opinion (none / 0) (#184)
by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:55:51 AM EST
but if you can't provide any substantive support for it, you shouldn't expect anyone to take it seriously.

[ Parent ]
Obama's speeches are peppered with MLK bites (none / 0) (#215)
by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:13:42 PM EST
His position on ONLY counting FL and MI votes as benefits him is abundantly on the public record. (You can catch up and do your own homework and read the past threads here.)

His spokespersons' message, such as Michelle Obama saying during her appearance on Larry King Live, that Obama supporters would not back HRC in a general election, will deeply damage the Dems in the election, which is becoming harder to win with or without Obama's blessing as the media turn more to John McCain.

Obama's candidacy and flighty public positions are damaging now and will be even more so down the road as he plays Nu Skool Politics with those swell Repugs who can't WAIT for him to come on over and unite with them!

[ Parent ]

And I'm allowed a vote too, which I want to count (none / 0) (#243)
by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:28:30 PM EST
Team Obama only wants to count the votes that benefit him and brush aside the ones that don't.

"Agreeing" to just take those HRC ones because BO made a strategic campaign error isn't my idea of democracy, old, new, or whatever nouvelle bizarro version TeamObama is trying to push on people.

[ Parent ]

Falsehoods don't help either (none / 0) (#196)
by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:00:37 PM EST
Michelle Obama never said she wouldn't back Hillary.  She said she was unsure.  Lies don't help your credibility, especially when they're so easily disproven.

[ Parent ]
Obama's falsehood about counting MI and FL votes (5.00 / 1) (#225)
by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:21:11 PM EST
Casting aside the votes and declaring he'll take half isn't respecting the process is what a FALSEHOOD is.

I didn't misrepresent the ugly nature of his campaign to unite with Repugs once Monster Lady was taken out.

I didn't misrepresent Michelle Obama's statement about not supporting HRC and other appalling things Ms. Obama said on Larry King Live.

Calling me a liar -- or whatever juvenile charge Team Obama's slinging this week -- doesn't alter facts.

Do the Monster Mash to your hearts content, Team Obama's lost it.

[ Parent ]

Calling a vote FAIR is a FALSEHOOD, too (none / 0) (#234)
by Deadalus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST
When Sen. Clinton said the Michigan and Florida primaries were "fair" and "should be respected", she took a position that is so implausible any court would direct a verdict against her on that one.

So, it's a falsehood, as "fair" is determined by our legal system and by our sense of conscience.

[ Parent ]

These emotional ravings (none / 0) (#246)
by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:29:27 PM EST
Don't make any substantive points.  I've tried to engage you with logic and facts to no avail, so I'm done arguing with you.

[ Parent ]
The 'ravings' are TeamO's OWN POSITIONS (none / 0) (#253)
by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:38:51 PM EST
This ludicrous stance that citing well-known public stances are my irrational imaginings or emotional ravings is ridiculous.

Flail away ... TeamO is not ready for prime time and the more I see, the more evident it is to me that Obama and his team aren't capable of winning the election or, after that, governing.

[ Parent ]

Right she was unsure and that (none / 0) (#199)
by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:02:14 PM EST
such an improvement coming from the wife of a candidate.

[ Parent ]
it is not the same thing, but i refer you (none / 0) (#52)
by hellothere on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:06:13 AM EST
to obama's promise that he will play by chicago political rules. that is not anything to brag about considering the history of chicago politics.

and as to whether someone thinks of himself as royalty, well that is inferred by their attitude and manner don't you think? isn't that the position that michelle took about hillary? she won't support her if her attiutde isn't just right? right?

[ Parent ]

Well, the Chicago rules worked well for him when (5.00 / 2) (#159)
by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:48:00 AM EST
he first ran for office against Alice Palmer, who was a community activist and who held the office and who had supported him in his run for a different job.  When he couldn't win that  office (for a reason I no longer remember), he decided to run against her, even though she had been his staunch advocate.  Then, instead of actually running against her, he challenged the signatures that she had given the voting office to allow her to run, along with the signatures of three or four other people running.  He knocked them all off the ballot, so he could run unopposed.  Those are the "Chicago Rules."

It seems to me that Obama has been using the Chicago Rules all along, accusing the Clintons of racism in order to inflame racial hostility in Blacks to demonize the Clintons just so he could win, his use of the Harry and Louise ads to attack her Health Care Plan so that the Republicans can now use that to attack his own Health Care Plan, which will not work without mandates anyway (which he has now made it impossible for him to propose).  

He seems like a really nice guy, until you look under the surface. I gave him money until I realized that I couldn't actually support him.  He lets his surrogates do his dirty work, but he's been doing dirty work since he started running for office back in his Rezko days.  

 If people would just do a little homework on the man, instead of reacting emotionally, it would be better for the country and for progressive values, which supposedly we in the "Reality-based Communitiy" espouse.   We have a lot of serious problems in this country, starting with the fact that the economy may be in meltdown, we have dire environmental problems, not to mention the war (which in spite of Obama's speech of 2002, he has voted for every time he's had the chance -that is, he's voted for  Bush's position every time since he's been in the Senate except when he's ducked the vote).

So, I can hardly wait to see what else the Chicago Rules will bring us. We all know how honest Chicago politics are.

[ Parent ]

i see (none / 0) (#88)
by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:19:36 AM EST
so now we're inferring that he thinks he's king, not because he said anything of the sort, but because of our subjective views on his "attitude."  Not much rationality in that.

[ Parent ]
really? (none / 0) (#93)
by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:23:33 AM EST
Someone can't feel like a candidate's attitude reflects an air of superiority and royalty?  It can't possibly be a surprise to you that politics is personal, subjective, and emotional.

[ Parent ]
People who don't understand simple declarations (none / 0) (#140)
by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:41:16 AM EST
... that hold true both literally and figuratively should take a breather.

Otherwise, they're just papering the thread with clutter to make a meaningful discussion frustrating if impossible.

Demanding that I "quote" where Obama said, um, my opinion SLASH play on words is cluttering.

In case it wasn't, though, KING = Dr. King, whom Obama frequently cites, without attribution, in speeches and small-k king, a self-appointed ruler who's allergic to counting votes. (THAT was clutter, but minimally useful!)

Astro-turfing minions are particularly thick today.

[ Parent ]

Not to mention that he takes on King's religious (none / 0) (#167)
by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:50:58 AM EST
cadence when he speaks. He is a good mimic and he is a great copier of the words and ideas of other people. But I'd like to know that there is something genuine in the rhetoric.  I don't believe there is. I think it's all about him.

[ Parent ]
People who can't back up their claims (none / 0) (#177)
by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:53:52 AM EST
should take a breather.  They certainly shouldn't imply people who disagree with their emotive rants are just astroturfing.

[ Parent ]
Obama probably believes (none / 0) (#45)
by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:04:06 AM EST
and probably correctly, in my view, that he would have done far better in Florida and in Michigan had he engaged in those states with the same grassroots tenacity he's engaged in the others, and campaigned hard in order to overcome what was, at that time, Clinton's superior name recognition.

Holding a primary by the rules would have been much better for Obama's campaign. Florida broke the rules and the DNC disenfranchised it. Now the Clinton campaign is doing everything it can to get the delegates in through the back door. If Clinton was in a commanding delegate lead, do you think she'd be pursuing this with the same ardor? Ha!

Nobody wants to see Florida or Michigan voters disenfranchises. But let's face facts here. Clinton went into the primary season heavily favored as the presumptive candidate. The Florida and Michigan results certainly reflect that. But the landscape has now drastically changed. Obama's substantial delegate lead now makes him the presumptive candidate. Seating the Florida and Michigan delegates, as is, is extremely unfair not only to Obama but to those across the nation who've thrown their support toward him. Florida voters did not have the benefit of a hard fought campaign in the state to help them make their choice. Seating them as is would be more unfair to Obama and his nationwide supporters than not seating them at all. It gives Clinton a boon she did not earn by campaigning but possessed as the presumptive candidate at the time.

McCain
[ Parent ]

3 days before the FL primary (5.00 / 1) (#113)
by Josey on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:31:42 AM EST
Obama had received much positive media attention by winning the SC primary.
And yet - voters in Florida deciding on Primary day - voted for Hillary.

[ Parent ]
That's correct (none / 0) (#163)
by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:49:31 AM EST
without any in-state campaigning or in-state GOTV efforts. Because of that, Clinton's presumptive nominee status and name recognition probably counted for much more.

McCain
[ Parent ]
Obama ran ads in Florida and Clinton didn't. (5.00 / 2) (#181)
by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:54:40 AM EST


[ Parent ]
It's about disenfranchisement (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by SandyS on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:32:26 AM EST
Honestly, no, Clinton would not be pushing to resolve Florida and Michigan.  But, neither would she be in favor of disenfranchising voters in the fall and would accept a plan to address this issue.  Because she is truly a democrat, unlike Obama, who only cares about his own campaign - otherwise, why try to block a revote?  It is clear to me that Obama would not expect to do well in either state, otherwise why would he be in favor of disenfranchising the state most damaged by the election in 2000?  This is disgraceful on his campaign's part.

[ Parent ]
Your faith in Senator Clinton's willingness to do (none / 0) (#170)
by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:51:35 AM EST
the right thing is, in my view, misplaced, judging from her argument on NPR today why the Michigan delegates should be seated. Anybody who makes the argument she made this morning can't be trusted.

McCain
[ Parent ]
Honestly, I am much less concerned (5.00 / 1) (#124)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:36:36 AM EST
about anything being "fair" for either of these candidates than I am about making sure that all of the states get fair representation in this primary process.

Running for President is a rough and tumble process which is rarely "fair" - the candidates knew that when they got into it and they'll deal with many more "unfair" situations on a given day in the White House than this primary could ever produce.  So they need to cope and adjust.

But the people of Florida and Michigan got clipped in a battle they had no control over which is something we need to address with their best interests in mind first - the candidates need to adjust to their needs and their will - not the other way around.

Remember that the candidates are vying for the honor of becoming public servants.  We in the Democratic Party need to demonstrate that we understand the relationship between elected officials and electorate as it was meant to be.  If we fail to deal with Michigan or Florida our position on that front will be much, much weaker and Obama's in particular could suffer significantly.

The goal in this primary is to nominate a candidate to win the general election in November.  We have to look beyond these two candidates and their needs and start examining what we will need in November - I don't care what anyone says about the electoral map - giving up Florida and Michigan from the outset is just nuts.

[ Parent ]

Rarely fair? (none / 0) (#174)
by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:53:22 AM EST
I disagree. It's rarely nice, and sometimes very dirty. But as far as fair goes, if people follow the rules that everybody agrees upon then the process itself is fair.

McCain
[ Parent ]
Rules & Process (none / 0) (#203)
by corn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:05:04 PM EST
When the process puts an innocent man to death, the process is flawed (Herrera).  When voters' votes don't count, the process is flawed.  Rules and process shouldn't be placed above fairness.

[ Parent ]
Different issues (none / 0) (#214)
by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:11:52 PM EST
An innocent man who is executed didn't agree, beforehand, to a process whereby he could be executed for a crime he did not commit.

A candidate, on the other hand, who agrees to abide DNC rules about the process of primaries and caucuses cannot hardly complain that those rules aren't fair, later. So far as the voters themselves are concerned, no, it's not fair to them, but there are competing national interests involved that cannot be ignored, either. One obvious solution for the disenfranchised voters is to replace their state democratic leadership.

McCain
[ Parent ]

The voters concerns are paramount. (none / 0) (#235)
by corn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:25:21 PM EST
And they didn't agree to the rules either.  The DNC's needs don't compare.

Everyone knows the DNC screwed up.  They should walk this back.

[ Parent ]

It's also about the voters (none / 0) (#240)
by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:28:01 PM EST
in every other state. In a representational democracy, the voters agreed to the rules via their elected representatives. They may not be happy with the choices their elected representatives made. But that is the fiction of consent upon which our system of government rests. There's no reason to disavow that fiction in this case only.

McCain
[ Parent ]
That makes no sense. (none / 0) (#249)
by corn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:34:50 PM EST
I get your point about the 'fiction of consent' but when we follow a trail down to a point where rational minds realize we're doing something unfair, you walk it back.  You can make all your same arguments about Herrera, but in the end an innocent man was killed.  That makes no sense.

Your argument is opportunistic.  An objective observer would no doubt agree to make the votes count.

[ Parent ]

what is fair about (none / 0) (#222)
by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:18:45 PM EST
the disproportional representation of small states in the nominating process?

[ Parent ]
That is why I wouldn't even (none / 0) (#242)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:28:22 PM EST
call another primary in MI and FL a "re-vote" - while they each state held an election - opening polling stations and handing out ballots etc. - neither election met the criteria of the rules originally set forth by all of the states - therefore they didn't really do anything but hold glorified straw polls.

Seems to me that if either candidate perceives new elections that are conducted within the rules as they were set up in 2006 as "unfair", then they really aren't talking about rules at all.

Writing off FL and MI as it stands now makes no sense.  I think the only choice we have is to hold elections in whatever fashion that meet the criteria set forth by the bylaws.  It is not like either camaign is hurting for money or that they have spent money of any significant amount in either state - why not run real contests now?  Both will benefit in November if they do and both will suffer in November if they don't.  It is a worthwhile investment imo.

[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#247)
by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:30:11 PM EST
Thanks for your comment.

McCain
[ Parent ]
Rarely fair? (none / 0) (#176)
by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:53:41 AM EST
I disagree. It's rarely nice, and sometimes very dirty. But as far as fair goes, if people follow the rules that everybody agrees upon then the process itself is fair.

McCain
[ Parent ]
Okay. Let's just say that fairness is in the (5.00 / 1) (#208)
by derridog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:07:46 PM EST
eye of the observer. Is it fair that Obama gets more delegates in Caucus states where a tiny fraction of the population actually gets to vote and it disenfranchises Clinton's base because poor people, rural people, young mothers, old people, people who work on Saturdays or can't afford four or five hours on the weekend to go to a caucus, or who might even be intimidated by the idea -can't vote?  Is it fair that Wyoming's 5000 people voting count while Florida's 1.7 million voters don't? Is it fair that Obama wants the Superdelegates to vote for him if he has the most pledged delegates even though he might end up with less than the popular vote? Is it fair that he wants them to vote for him even though the RULES say that they can vote their conscience or for what they think is the good of the party? Is it fair that he intends to make a big deal out of this by further inflaming his followers who are already acting like thugs, threatening everyone who doesn't agree with them?

Just look at Howard Dean and how he behaved when he was accused in an ad paid for by his fellow candidates of being like Osama bin Laden and then had his candidacy killed by the Dean scream nonsense.  He turned around and told his supporters not to be angry but to give Kerry everything they had to try to win against Bush because that was more important than his winning. He took a much lesser joh as the DNC chair to try to install a 50 state strategy and did that in spite of getting grief from his own party about it.  There's a man I can respect, unlike Senator Obama who will stop at nothing to get elected, including killing off the Democratic Party's chances in November.

[ Parent ]

But fair to who? (5.00 / 1) (#209)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:07:50 PM EST
You seem to think that fair to Obama is the ultimate test. I would submit that fair to the voters, then fair to the party, then fair to the candidates, is the preferred fairness hierarchy.

The 'rules are rules' argument doesn't address fairness to the voters at all.

[ Parent ]

Stop putting words in my mouth, please (none / 0) (#224)
by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:19:56 PM EST
There are a lot of competing interests involved in setting up a process as complicated as a party nomination process. Florida's state democratic leadership broke the rules. Florida voters' gripes should mainly be with them.

I said in a different comment that what I favor is the right of each candidate to campaign and organize in Florida as they would have done so had Florida not jumped the gun. If, after that effort, Clinton's victory in Florida is every bit as substantial as it was in January, I'm satisfied that the process was fair, not just for the candidates, but for voters throughout the nation as well as Florida.

McCain
[ Parent ]

Clinton is ahead in Florida polls (5.00 / 1) (#125)
by tree on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:36:37 AM EST
RIGHT NOW, with a 17% point lead. The "landscape" has not changed in the minds of the Florida voters despite the fact that Obama is the national frontrunner now, and Floridians have had a chance to see him for six additional weeks.

As for the rest of your argument, it really amounts to little more than claiming that seating them rather than not seating them is more unfair TO OBAMA
because he lost. If that's your argument,then why bother to seat any state's delegates, if its going to be "unfair" to the loser to seat them?

[ Parent ]

That's not my argument (none / 0) (#185)
by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:57:27 AM EST
My argument is that all candidates should have the chance to campaign and compete in every state in accordance with the rules set up by the DNC. Yes, I believe Obama would have done better than the current polls suggest if he had been given the chance to organize and campaign, but that's just informed speculation. If the vote were to come out identical with the current polls, I'm fine with that, so long as Obama and Clinton have a fair opportunity to ask Florida voters for support, just as they were able to do so in ever other state (save Michigan).

McCain
[ Parent ]
The Florida state party may have (5.00 / 1) (#131)
by litigatormom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:37:24 AM EST
"broken" the rules, but the voters of Florida certainly did not.  The DNC rules have always included a provision for FLA to submit an "alternative plan" for choosing and seating delegates, and therefore it is perfectly permissible under the "rules" for the FLA state party to conduct another vote that would permit FLA voters' voices not only to be heard, but to count.

The FLA and MI delegate issues are not a question of fairness to one candidate or another. They are a matter of fairness to the voters. I think Obama will pay a price if he is seen by the Democratic voters in those states as having been unwilling to agree to a procedure that would permit them to have a say in which candidate is the nominee -- and whoever the nominee is in the fall will also pay a price for his reluctance. Which means the whole country will pay a price.

[ Parent ]

No, it's not just about fairness to Obama and (none / 0) (#192)
by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:59:38 AM EST
Clinton. It's about fairness to voters, but not just those voters in Florida and Michigan, but also to the voters in every other state who have pledged their time and money to one candidate or the other. What Obama, Clinton, and the DNC owe to them is a fair process that guarantees a secure vote and opportunity to compaign.

McCain
[ Parent ]
Nothing is fair to Obama (5.00 / 3) (#145)
by ineedalife on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:43:58 AM EST
You are moaning that Obama did not get the chance to outspend Hillary 4:1 in FL. Oh, the unfairness of it all!!

[ Parent ]
How can we have a president (5.00 / 1) (#269)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:57:29 PM EST
who is against having all votes count?

I want a president who is a candidate who is working -- working hard, and speaking for it NOW, when it matters -- to have all votes count.  Somehow.

That's because I believe in democracy.  How 'bout you?

[ Parent ]

I disagree (none / 0) (#99)
by cmugirl on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:26:54 AM EST
Obama was coming off a big win in South Carolina and had just won 1 caucus and 1 primary to HRC's win in New Hampshire.  Are you saying the record number of people who voted in Florida and Michigan don't watch the news, or read the newspapers, or have internet access, or listen to the radio?  

Since Obama wants to benefit for a tactical decision he made in Michigan by removing his name from the ballot, do you then think HRC should get a do-over in, say, Colorado?  And since Obama actually held a press conference and aired a national ad (that could have been blocked in the Florida markets), against the rules, does HRC get a do-over in Georgia?

[ Parent ]

No, I'm not saying that (none / 0) (#158)
by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:47:47 AM EST
I'm saying this. Obama is a great campaigner and his campaign has left the Clinton campaign far behind in its organizational and GOTV efforts. Obama's position in this campaign is due in large part to those facts. Holding a vote in Florida that deprives the Obama campaign of the opportunity to work for voter support in the same way it worked for voter support in other states, coupled with Senator Clinton's frontrunner status at the time of the Florida primary, makes it difficult to credit the Florida vote as a reflection of the support each candidate might achieve by campaigning in Florida.

Your argument about Michigan and Colorado doesn't make much sense. The DNC did not disqualify Colorado from the primary season. It disqualified Michigan, and each candidate signed a pledge acknowledging that. Senator Clinton, despite signing that pledge, is now trying to sneak the delegates in. That's outrageous, frankly.

McCain
[ Parent ]

Not sure this is dispositive (none / 0) (#172)
by lambert on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:52:49 AM EST
digdugboy writes:

Clinton went into the primary season heavily favored as the presumptive candidate. The Florida and Michigan results certainly reflect that. But the landscape has now drastically changed. Obama's substantial delegate lead now makes him the presumptive candidate.

  1. When Clinton was heavily favored, that was because she had been annointed as the front runner, just like somebody always is. And now IMNSHO they're in the tank for Obama. Who cares? I'm not sure why the desire of our famously free press to manipulate the Presidential nomination process  should trump the right of Florida voters to have their votes counted.

  2. Obama's "substantial lead" is all of a 100 delegates, and both candidates are approximately equal in the popular vote, with many races yet to run. I understand why Obama supporters would want to bootstrap any lead at all into a victory, but I have a hard time seeing how the numbers support this -- and in any case, I don't see why such game-playing should trump the rights of Florida voters.

Finally, how does it make sense, at the end of the day, to disenfranchise FL and MI when it comes to the general? It doesn't. Check the polling:

Another finding, which pollster Jim Kitchens called "stunning," was that a quarter of the respondents - all Democrats who voted in the Jan. 29 primary - said they were upset enough over the issue to consider not voting or voting Republican in November's presidential race.

These voters think they're being treated unfairly, and they're right.

So, with the Carville offer of $15 million still on the table, why is Obama not only lawyering up, but appealing to the Bush Justice [cough] Department, instead of looking for a solution that's best for the voters? I don't have a problem with Obama looking worse and worse on this issue -- unless he ekes out the victory and becomes the nominee, in which case a perceived lack of legitimacy from a broken primary voting system could cause him, and the party, real problems.

The whole episode looks a lot how Obama knocked off Alice Palmer in Chicago by challenging signatures. Yes, politics ain't beanbag, but what it takes to gain legitimacy in a national election isn't the same as what it takes at the state level in Illinois, either.

So, it seems to me -- with legitimacy the #1 priority, whoever wins -- that the revote is the best solution (which isn't the same as saying it's good...)

[ Parent ]

I support a revote too (none / 0) (#206)
by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:07:26 PM EST
so long as the revote is secure and allows each candidate to campaign in Florida as he or she wishes and can afford. I agree that disenfranchising Florida and MIchigan voters is not good for our nation's process. I also agree with you on your point about our famously free press.

Our opinions of the candidate's character obviously differs. I cannot credit Senator Clinton with any good faith whatsoever, especially after her transparently disingenuous comments about Michigan today. I'm willing to give Obama a little leeway, still, to demonstrate that his objection in Florida are about fairness and not merely about tactical advantage.

I suppose that's as good a reason why people choose one candidate over another.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

McCain
[ Parent ]

Incorrect (none / 0) (#221)
by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:18:44 PM EST
He's preparing for a vote.


[ Parent ]

The Florida Revote Plan | 267 comments (267 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft