home
How Do You Pretend 2 Million People Did Not Vote? | 212 comments (212 topical)
oh they'll count - but WHEN is key (5.00 / 5) (#8)
by Josey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:41:02 PM EST
and it appears WHEN will be WHEN Obama declares himself the nominee.
what scenario to you see (none / 0) (#16)
by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:45:25 PM EST
that would help Clinton's numbers? Seating both FL and MI at the current vote and in their full number?

My take on that is that the Obama campaign would have a legitimate complaint, particularly with Michigan.

Is there a compromise you like vis a vis timing and size.  I think Digby had an interesting compromise, but I just remember my reaction to it and don't remember it exactly or have a link.....I'll have to look around.

[ Parent ]

Obama has no legitimate complaint (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:49:44 PM EST
vis-a-vis MI -- he took his name of the ballot so he deprived the people who wanted to vote for him the opportunity to do so. There was no RULE requiring him to take his name off of the ballot. There was no reason for him to remove his name from the ballot other then a political gamble -- he bet heads, and tails came up. Tough luck to Obama.

[ Parent ]
Actually heads came up, over and over (5.00 / 4) (#43)
by ineedalife on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:58:35 PM EST
That gamble has paid off tremendously for Obama. He won Iowa and the rest is history. Now he isn't man enough to do the right thing and admit he has no rightful claim to MI's delegates other than to convince some uncommitteds. And he will get a good share of the uncommitteds, but he wants all of those plus some of the delegates Clinton earned.

[ Parent ]
Correct me if I'm wrong (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:02 PM EST
Didn't she recently reject a plan that gave her the lead in both states? I think it was in April, but I'm a little lazy and don't want to research it.

But why is he not "man enough"?

It would be really great if folks who support seating and counting delegation votes would come up with a plan that's fair, that recognizes the original agreement by the states, the subsequent agreement by the candidates, and the votes of the electorate.

What I'm hearing from Clinton supporters is that they want them seated and counted so that Clinton somehow comes out ahead.  And attacks on Obama for opposing this.

I'm not hearing any compromise.

[ Parent ]

Bless your hear, you are wrong (5.00 / 6) (#72)
by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:09:25 PM EST
Clinton rejected a plan that would give Obama some of the delegates that she earned via the actual votes! I understand that in Obamaland it is perfectly ok for Obama to receive delegates he didn't earn, but in the real world that is called vote stealing.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the correction (none / 0) (#102)
by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:18:00 PM EST
but I think the point is the 'actual vote' when Obama wasn't on the ballot, isn't an actual vote.  I'm not sure where Obamaland is or why you think it would be stealing to come to a compromise that the two candidates can agree to when she agreed the votes wouldn't count to begin with.

[ Parent ]
Yes, it is an actual vote (5.00 / 2) (#138)
by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:37:55 PM EST
one that he chose not to participate in.

[ Parent ]
One that not just Obama's, but all campaigns - (none / 0) (#172)
by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:55:16 PM EST
- including Clinton's - chose not to participate in.

[ Parent ]
If you don't understand (5.00 / 2) (#143)
by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:40:05 PM EST
that no one actually voted for Obama (due to his own choice of taking his name off of the ballot) and that, therefore, giving him credit for any votes as if he actually did get them is immoral, unethical, unfair and "vote stealing," then I can't help you. But bless your heart, I just know you are doing the best you can.

[ Parent ]
MHO (5.00 / 2) (#157)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:45:26 PM EST
Because the votes aren't theirs to compromise. Votes cast by actual voters are non-negotiable. They are only owned by the voters, not the DNC nor the candidates. And the DNC and the candidates are not free to dole out them out like prizes. It is insulting that anyone would think that basing any allotment of delegates on a formula rather than the actual results enfranchises the voters.

The reality of a vote isn't if the candidate you want is on or off the ballot. If someone doesn't want to appear on that ballot, it is their choice and in no way invalidates the vote.

[ Parent ]

Why in hell (5.00 / 1) (#212)
by cal1942 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:31:16 PM EST
isn't it an actual vote?

As another commenter said:

You don't get votes if you forfeit.  That's exactly what Obama did. Tough break.  A cynical calculation backfired. That's justice.

The only FAIR distribution is what voters determined on Jan. 15.

Get this straight: Only votes matter.

[ Parent ]

a little supporting reasoning..... (none / 0) (#173)
by vicndabx on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:57:44 PM EST
if one looks at all the events surrounding the early primaries with an objective eye; or if so inclined, an eye w/a speck of politics in it, he or she will surely realize why Obama was not on the Michigan ballot.  Following the rules?  As the Architect in The Matrix Reloaded says when asked about the Oracle, "please...."  Was it not true that Obama didn't have "name recognition?"  Weren't we hearing things to the effect of "Hillary's got the nomination locked up?  It's her time?"  I don't dis Obama for what he did (see the eye w/the speck,) but you gotta call it what it is - politics.  I've seen a lot of sports analogies, this was a strategy and it's been countered.  Can we be honest with ourselves so we can at the very least begin to deal with the current situation at that level?

[ Parent ]
oh and btw, (none / 0) (#183)
by vicndabx on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:03:57 PM EST
if you consider the politics aspect, and consider the strategies involved, big, normally dem states w/associated demographics vs. small, normally red states w/some "new" constituencies thrown in, and....the implied goal to discredit all things Clinton, what other motives can one ascribe to Obama's return to Iowa for the "victory" speech?  A little crow maybe?  Call me paranoid, but I too was once a high-minded idealist.

[ Parent ]
He was on the ballot...initially (none / 0) (#185)
by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:04:21 PM EST
Then he chose...opted...decided...to take his name off the ballot.

He could do that...only...he'd have to live with the consequences--no votes for him in MI.

[ Parent ]

Why should it matter (1.00 / 1) (#86)
by Sawyer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:12:52 PM EST
that Clinton pledged not to "participate" in these two states?  If you take a look at the definition of "participate" -- "to take or have a part or share, as with others" -- it's clear that it doesn't include Clinton's taking a part or share in the delegates.  Technically, with Obama's name off the ballot, she deserves all of them.  So Clinton should not be bound to her pledge in this case.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 0) (#115)
by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:24:33 PM EST
It's clear that "not participating in the election" doesn't include Clinton "taking a part or share in the delegates"...?

How do you split that hair, specifically?

[ Parent ]

Someone help me out here... (1.00 / 2) (#210)
by Sawyer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:29:34 PM EST
Just because Clinton wants to "take a part or share" in the Michigan and Florida elections doesn't mean she's "participating" -- which she pledged not to do -- ... even though the definition of "participate" is to "take a part or share" ... because any such pledge or established party rule should be necessarily overruled as a result of the widespread sexism employed by the mainstream media (with the noble exception of Fox News) against Hillary Clinton, the candidate clearly most deserving of the nomination.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I don't think that flies (none / 0) (#32)
by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:53:32 PM EST
Most of the candidates did that and I would be shocked if the Rules Committee allowed an advantage to Clinton (such that she could take the nomination) via Michigan.  It's just not going to happen.

[ Parent ]
Heh (5.00 / 8) (#52)
by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:02:27 PM EST
"Most of the candidates did that" because the Obama campaign put them up to it!

Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.


[ Parent ]
the author of your link (none / 0) (#75)
by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:10:27 PM EST
makes no sense and uses five anonymous sources.  Why couldn't Clinton yank her name from the ballot if author is right?

[ Parent ]
Heh (5.00 / 3) (#124)
by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:28:46 PM EST
(1) because she cared about not alienating MI voters for the GE; and

(2) because Obama and the other candidates waited until the very last moment before the deadline to pull this stunt.  In fact, it was so last-minute that Kucinich screwed up his paperwork and ended up staying on the ballot after all.

The reporting at that link has never been refuted or even called into question in all the months that have passed.

[ Parent ]

And by most you mean 3 (5.00 / 4) (#57)
by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:12 PM EST
Obama, Edwards & Richardson. The rest were on the ballot, so it not only flies it soars. This is not giving an advantage to Clinton who had enough respect for the voters to leave her name on the ballot, it is counting the votes of the people who actually voted for her. Every vote counts -- ever heard of it? This is a direct consequence of Obama's disingenuous actions in taking his name of the ballot as a political gamble and, thus, depriving those who wanted to vote for him the opportunity to do so. Now, of course the DNC is not going to do the right thing here -- which, make no mistake, is exactly what I propose -- because the DNC has moved heaven and earth to ensure that Obama gets the nomination even though he cannot do it on his own. They certainly are not going to change tacks now.

[ Parent ]
She signed a pledge and agreed (none / 0) (#111)
by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:23:10 PM EST
that the votes in Michigan and Florida wouldn't count and changed her mind when she realized she couldn't make an argument for the nomination without them.  My Clinton supporting friends actually told me they had a problem with her position on this. I mean, either she's got an integrity problem or she made a whopping strategic error.  Which is it?

[ Parent ]
She signed a pledge not to campaign. She had (5.00 / 3) (#131)
by leis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:34:03 PM EST
absolutely no power to stop the DNC from stripping MI * Fl. And she said at the time it was a mistake that could be a problem in the GE.

[ Parent ]
Obama's got integrity problems... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
by tree on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:39:53 PM EST
Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.
-September 30, 2007

[ Parent ]
But the rules! Now what is going to stop all (none / 0) (#154)
by leis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:44:35 PM EST
the states from moving their primaries up if MI & Fl aren't severely punished?  

Isn't that what we have been hearing from the Obama camp? Now he is going to save the day and abandon the ever important rules?  Rulebreaker.

[ Parent ]

Why in the world (5.00 / 2) (#149)
by americanincanada on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:42:39 PM EST
do people insist on coming to this site and talking about a pledge when they obviously have no idea what it said?

[ Parent ]
Because facts don't matter to them (5.00 / 2) (#159)
by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:46:32 PM EST
ensuring their guy "wins" -- no matter that they have to trample on the most sacrosanct principle of democracy that every vote counts to do it --is all that counts under their ROOLZ.

[ Parent ]
And, by the way, why would it matter if (none / 0) (#36)
by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:56:30 PM EST
all the candidates agreed, as did Clinton (don't make me go get that Clinton quote, heh), that Florida and Michigan wasn't going to count?

She agreed, she's quoted saying that.

Is your position that she was crossing her fingers?  I'm not saying don't seat them or don't count their votes in some manner, but Clinton shouldn't get an unfair advantage because she kept her name on the ballot when she agreed and acknowledged the votes wouldn't count.

[ Parent ]

It gets very quiet on here... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by EddieInCA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:06 PM EST
...whenever a poster asks about Clinton's agreement that the Michigan results would not count.

In fact, many posters here act as though Clinton never made such a statement - even though there audiotape of it from the NPR interview.

[ Parent ]

We don't answer (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:07:00 PM EST
because this has been discussed several times & some people just don't seem to understand that a comment Clinton made way back when is not some sort of legally binding contract, as you seem to be implying. She thought that was the case; now she realizes it is not. Deal with it.

[ Parent ]
So the pledge she signed (none / 0) (#94)
by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:14:06 PM EST
and her subsequent quotes and her word were just mistakes?  

It's an interesting position. It certainly looks like she changed her mind when she realized she needed the votes. The way you respond makes her look like she has an integrity issue.

[ Parent ]

The "pledge" she signed (none / 0) (#188)
by vicsan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:07:29 PM EST
stated the candidates were not to campaign in the states. She didn't campaign in the states. What do you want? Her blood too? sheesh. Obama screwed up. Not Hillary. She shouldn't be punished for his stupid decision.

[ Parent ]
In addition, (none / 0) (#125)
by vicndabx on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:30:03 PM EST
if one looks at all the events surrounding those early primaries with an objective eye; or if so inclined, an eye with a speck of politics in it, he/she will surely come to the conclusion Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot to appeal to Iowa.  Why else do it?  Respect for the rules?  As the Architect in The Matrix Reloaded says when asked about the Oracle, "Please...."  As so many like to point out, at the time, Obama didn't have "name recognition," he wasn't the one who was supposedly being "handed" the nomination.  Proof-positive being his return to Iowa for the "victory" speech.  The what-I-said-earlier-doesn't apply now bug infects all of us.  Folks need to look a little deeper to really get a true understanding of what happened here.  This was Republican tactics 101 - use the current system to your advantage.  The Dems started really learning this after who?  could it be Clinton and the impeachment.  Followed up by Gore & FL?  

[ Parent ]
Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:07:48 PM EST
The comment you're responding to said Clinton agreed "that Florida and Michigan wasn't going to count."

But your comment refers only to "Clinton's agreement that the Michigan results would not count."

Interesting discrepancy from people who want to pass themselves off as the truth-tellers in this debate.  We'll set aside for the moment the attempt to make a response to a random caller on a talk radio show into some sort of binding agreement among the candidates.

[ Parent ]

you find that deceptive? (none / 0) (#80)
by ksh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:11:46 PM EST
She did say they wouldn't count, so I'm not sure I get your point.

[ Parent ]
Really? (5.00 / 2) (#107)
by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:20:35 PM EST
If you want to pretend Florida was part of that quote, I can't stop you from lying, I guess.  Even the Obama supporter who agreed with you knows that isn't the case.

The larger point is that you guys think something Hillary told a random caller on a talk show in New Hampshire is the mother of all gotchas, and we just don't agree.  Believe what you like, but don't lie and claim it was an agreement between the candidates, and don't lie and say she mentioned Florida when she didn't.

[ Parent ]

Far as I know - (none / 0) (#110)
by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:23:01 PM EST
"We'll set aside for the moment the attempt to make a response to a random caller on a talk radio show into some sort of binding agreement among the candidates."

- the agreement not to participate in the MI and FL elections was put in writing between the campaigns (including Clinton's) and the DNC.

[ Parent ]

Heh (5.00 / 2) (#128)
by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:30:58 PM EST
First of all, you're wrong when you say the DNC was a party to the pledge.  It was only the four early states that demanded a pledge.

More importantly, nothing in the pledge said that the elections in MI and FL wouldn't count.

[ Parent ]

Far as I know - (none / 0) (#190)
by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:08:31 PM EST
- Dean and the DNC were involved. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg&feature=related

[ Parent ]
Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#198)
by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:17:00 PM EST
Dean had nothing to do with the pledge.  Your link does not establish otherwise.

[ Parent ]
Do you mean the audiotape (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:10:49 PM EST
Where she said that we can't alienate MI and FL?

That one?

[ Parent ]

remember? (none / 0) (#118)
by Ovah on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:25:15 PM EST
no, the one where she said that she left her name on the Michigan ballot because "what does it matter, it won't count anyway"

[ Parent ]
Because (5.00 / 1) (#169)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:52:03 PM EST
it wasn't her choice to make. It doesn't matter who agrees or who doesn't agree. It doesn't matter who benefits and who doesn't benefit. It only matters that voters should NEVER be disenfranchised. That disenfranchising voters is always wrong. It's not a hard principle to understand but it certainly seems like it has become an easy principle to sell out this election.

[ Parent ]
Here's the official Clinton Press Release (5.00 / 1) (#179)
by wurman on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:02:57 PM EST
Note the date.

1/25/2008

Statement by Senator Hillary Clinton on the Seating of Delegates at the Democratic National Convention

"I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.

"I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.

"I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

"I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well."

[My emphasis]

I seem to post this constantly for the low information voters who try to be a TL-poster for a day.

Furthermore, there is an all too common reference to a USA Today statement that someone in the Clinton campaign stated or restated or approved or authorized the 2025 winning number.  The nation's (toilet)paper references a website named "Political Base" (link) in which Mark Nickolas presents transcriptions of several conference calls, and in one of which Clinton's field director Guy Cecil uses the term 2025--but not in anyway that indicates the Clinton campaign views that as the winning number.

This is all manure of the greenest, rankest odor.

For myself, personally, this is becoming one of the most tiresome, boring, constantly reiterated & re-hashed lies of the entire campaign.

The Press Release is & has been the official Clinton position since January.  End of non-story.

-30-

[ Parent ]

THANK YOU! (none / 0) (#207)
by vicsan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:26:10 PM EST
It really is getting old.

[ Parent ]
I don't know... (5.00 / 1) (#203)
by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:21:11 PM EST
Maybe she changed her mind. I have read somewhere  that she was one of the last to sign the pledge not to campaign.

Obama is reported to have mentioned at a Florida fundraiser that he'd "do what's right by Florida voters" only to announce later on that Florida and Michigan would not count.

Why do you suppose he did that?

[ Parent ]

So, why did Obama (none / 0) (#151)
by tree on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:43:07 PM EST
tell Florida voters, months before they voted, that he would seat the Florida delegation. Was he crossing his fingers? Or was he simply lying to the Florida voters? If he already agreed to seat them, why hasn't he, now that he's declared himself the presumptive nominee?

[ Parent ]
What is Obama's legitimate argument? (5.00 / 5) (#39)
by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:57:39 PM EST
Does he say to the committee:

"Look, you publicly said at the time the delegates weren't going to count, and I knew I was going to lose anyway, so I got together with a few of the other candidates and we made a deal to remove our names from the ballot.  We knew this would make us look better to the voters in Iowa (and in my case, it worked - I squeaked out a win), but we also knew that Hillary was leaving her name on. I know I had my supporters working tirelessly doing radio and TV ads, and buying space in the local media across the state, where they specifically mentioned my name, and told my supporters to vote for "uncommitted" so that when the delegates were seated, I would get those.  Besides, we all thought it would be fun to stick it to Hillary, because, theoretically, "Uncommitted" (being the total of 4 candidates' votes) should have blown her out of the water.

I made a campaign decision that at the time, and for a while now, looked like a good decision.  But now that it could backfire on me, I think you should just ignore the fact that I made a campaign decision, and you should take away from Hillary that which she has earned and give it to me."

Is THAT the argument?

[ Parent ]

He'll argue: I am not a cherry picker. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:03:10 PM EST


[ Parent ]
I bet he will be (none / 0) (#79)
by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:11:36 PM EST
if the DNC decides to enforce ALL the rules and strip him of FL for campaigning and holding a press conference!

[ Parent ]
Obama even left his name on the ballot (1.00 / 2) (#103)
by Sawyer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:18:22 PM EST
in clear violation of his pledge not to "participate" -- which means "to take or have a part or share, as with others".  In other words, Obama himself pledged not to take or have a part or share in the pledged delegates from these states!  Nevermind that Hillary made the same pledge, she should not be bound to honor her word because of the latent sexism and anti-democratic tactics employed the mainstream media which is biased towards Obama (with the noble exception of Fox News)!

[ Parent ]
Re-vote in both states in June!! (5.00 / 1) (#186)
by abfabdem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:04:43 PM EST
Let's see once and for all who can take this thing in the GE.  Without it, everything else is just estimates, compromises and will upset huge groups no matter what the decision.  It's too King Solomon otherwise and you can't cut the baby in half.

[ Parent ]
FL should be counted as is! (none / 0) (#166)
by Josey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:51:18 PM EST
Dem voters and delegates shouldn't be held accountable for tricks played by the GOP legislature.
Florida didn't break the purpose of the rule that no primaries would be held before the 4 early states.


[ Parent ]

How Do You Pretend 2 Million People Did Not Vote? | 212 comments (212 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft