Obama And Edwards Are On The FL Ballot Too

After railing against Hillary Clinton for her UNENFORCEABLE call to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations (Josh Marshall calls it an attempt to "muscle" the Party, what muscle is not at all clear) and lambasting Clinton for not taking her name off the ballot in Michigan and Florida, Marshall asks:
Perhaps there's some detail of this question that I'm not aware of. And if there is I'll revise my opinion accordingly. But based on what I know now this is pretty clear-cut.
What Josh knows is pretty clearly wrong. First thing Josh seems NOT to know is that taking their name off the ballots was NOT required of the candidates by the Democratic Party. If it was, then Clinton AND Obama AND Edwards are violating the rules as they ALL have their names on the ballot. But of course the rules can not require this for to take their names off the Florida ballot they have to drop out of the race entirely under Florida law. So much for that "rule." More . . .

Second thing Josh does not know is that the decision to remove their names from the ballot in Michigan was initiated by Obama, the Party had nothing to do with it, and Obama's request was adhered to by Edwards and some of the other candidates but NOT Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel (the dirty cheaters). See, HALF of the candidates did not remove their names from the ballot. There was NO RULE requiring it.

What TPM does not realize is that the removal was an attempted power play by Obama because he knew he could not run well in Michigan and thought that the pressure of Iowa (protect the whole first thing) would allow him to shut down the possibility of a Michigan beauty contest being deemed meaningful. And indeed Obama's hardball ploy worked. Michigan was not covered.

However, when Obama saw that Hillary was not going to play his game, he did not remove his name from the Florida ballot, nor could he under Florida law without dropping out of the race entirely. And neither did Edwards. Hence they are all dirty scoundrels breaking the rules in Florida.

BTW, if TPM, as it seems to want to a lot these days, wanted to criticize the Clinton campaign on this, he missed the real line of attack - Clinton made her statement today in order to roll up a big win in Florida on January 29 and try to get the Media to give it attention. BECAUSE Obama and Edwards kept their names on the ballot, Florida is much more susceptible to being treated as a real contest than was Michigan.

But that is the fault of Obama and Edwards, they are the ones who decided to join Clinton in "violating" the rules. Or more properly, the fault of Florida law, otherwise known as "the rules."

< News Corp Settles Judith Regan Lawsuit | Bill Clinton Promises A Hillary-McCain Lovefest GE >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You're not the only ones... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:50:47 PM EST
    What Obama Really Meant--the quiz sensation that's sweeping the nation!

    That's hilarious (none / 0) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:08:37 PM EST
    I'll post about it tomorrow.

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#120)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:17:56 PM EST
    It summarizes some hard-won experience, believe me!

    Talk Left (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Eva on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:44:32 PM EST
    I found TalkLeft during the Scooter Libby trial and loved its intelligent commentary. Now whenever I come there's a post up trashing TPM. It seems BTD is very invested in the TPM-Loves-Obama storyline--which if you read the site doesn't really hold up--but I, personally, read these blogs for real political analysis. It's why I used to read Talk Left, and I guess I have no desire to come here to read this kind of thing. I hope the site gets back to what it does best soon, and I'll be back then.

    Heh (3.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:55:16 PM EST
    Oh, REAL political analysis.

    Oh well, Joe Klein is what you must be looking for.

    You gotta be kidding me.

    I can assure you on this issue Josh Marshall had no idea what he was talking about.

    But you like REAL political analaysis so his ignorance is what you want.

    What a comment.


    sorry Eva (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:49:54 PM EST
    I like TPM, too - but the TPM loves Obama bit is true.  I am hoping Josh goes back to balance.

    And as someone who has read a lot here in the past 2 weeks - I have not seen many post re TPM so maybe you just happened to come here on the 2 days there were.


    hey Aaron (none / 0) (#134)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:59:13 AM EST
    if you are going to give my post a "1" dont bother to rate it at all you little toad/ :-P

    Seating the Delegates (4.50 / 4) (#8)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:02:09 PM EST
    I think Obama does have an argument about keeping the rules the same and Josh is right to mention that and he may even be persuaded by it.  But his post is a mess in terms of facts and logic.  

    Obama played hardball politics with Michigan ballots.

    Hillary is playing hardball in the run up to Florida.  

    That's what politicians do.

    And of course she did it to help on Tuesday.  It puts Obama in a terrible position of either coming out against seating Florida delegates or agreeing to seat what is likely to be a large Hillary contingent.  According to Ambinder, he's taking the former position and claiming that it's another sign that Clinton will do anything to win.  

    Of course, I expect Clinton to come back and say the only reason Obama doesn't want to seat them is because he lost Michigan and fears losiing in Florida.  Can Josh Marshall not see that that's probably true.  If Obama expected a landslide win in Florida on Tuesday, does he seriously think Obama would be all "Rules Must Be Obeyed."  Of course not.  Obama's motive in denying the delegates seating is no purer than Hillary's in wanting them seated.  

    Where the candidates stand on this issue is based entirely on where they sit.  Seating the delegates helps Hillary, so she's going to be for it.  Not seating them helps Obama so he's going to be against it.  

    I don't have a problem with either one of them taking these positions.  It's the rational thing for each of them to do.

    Josh (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:07:05 PM EST
    is not objective anymore.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:30:46 PM EST
    Whenever I read Josh go off on one of his Hillary Clinton is awful and will do anything to win, I cannot help but think of Bob Somerby and hope that he isn't reading Josh.  His head might explode.

    Consider it done. Somerby's head went kerplow! (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by trishb on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:45:34 PM EST
    Today's Howler on Josh and TPM: Josh shows up 10 years later

    Filing this for future use: (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:18:21 PM EST
    Where the candidates stand on this issue is based entirely on where they sit.

    Good points but (none / 0) (#42)
    by rilkefan on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:41:20 PM EST
    there's a bit of mind-reading about Obama if the situation were reversed.  Not about his supporters - but I think Obama might accede to the party wishes given the balance of interests and his post-partisan rhetoric.

    Seating delegates (none / 0) (#111)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:19:41 PM EST
    Pardon me, I'm new here, although I've been reading every day for months.

    I did some research today about the MI unseated delegates and delegates in general.

    But Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said before the vote that he didn't think the delegates would be lost for good. He expects the Democratic presidential nominee will insist the state's delegates be seated at the convention." Source

    "So how many state party delegates will go to the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer with an uncommitted tag -- and what will become of them once they get there?

    "Michiganians familiar with the mess that was the Democratic primary won't be surprised to learn the answer: Nobody is quite sure. "This is by far our largest uncommitted vote," said Mark Brewer, chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party. "I can't remember the last time we sent uncommitted delegates to a national convention based on a primary. We're in uncharted territory.

    "We have party rules on this but it'll take a few weeks to figure it all out."Want to be an Uncommitted Michigan delegate?

    If "uncommitted" receives at least 15 percent in a congressional district or statewide, Brewer said, delegates will be sent to Denver where any candidate -- including Clinton -- can compete for them.

    Despite the brouhaha and the DNC's vow not to seat delegates chosen next week, Brewer feels confident. Historical precedent and the high stakes in the November election convince him that primary votes in Michigan and Florida will count.

    "I think we'll get seated. I'm not concerned about that penalty at all," Brewer said. "Politically, the Democratic nominee needs to win Michigan and Florida, and they are not going to start the general election campaign by antagonizing the parties in those two states."Voters Face Confusion in Michigan Dem Race

    (Me again): The MI "uncommitted" national delegates are not bound. That is, if they get seated at the national convention, they can vote for whomever they like.

    So Hillary, even though she "won" in MI, could lose on this at the convention if the uncommitted delegates vote against her, but the Democratic party as a whole will win by not entirely disenfranching MI primary voters.

    Someone (whose authority and knowledge I doubt) has informed me that sure, the delegates will be seated at the convention, but only AFTER the Dem candidate is decided. I think it would be kind of silly to make a point about their being "unbound" at the convention of that is true.

    Can you clarify any of this?


    I'm thoroughly confused on the FL (3.66 / 3) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:00:07 PM EST
    primary situation.  FL Legislature, Republican majority, moves primary date for both parties, against the will of the DNC.  So Democratic delegates stemming from FL primary may not be seated at Dem. national convention.  But no penalty to Republican delegates.  This doesn't make any sense.  

    Didn't the republican party (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by spit on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:06:21 PM EST
    cut the delegates in half as the penalty?

    I think the whole thing is stupid, particularly in the case of FL, and thought so long before FL looked like it was going to any candidate. It's well and good for the party to try to do something to keep the states in line, but this winds up being a smack to the FL voters, most of whom really have no say in these decisions. I'd be pissed if I were a FL democrat, or if CA had moved up farther and been similarly smacked (I was opposed to us moving our primary).

    Seems to me that the party should have done something about the primary scheduling problems well before this stuff became an issue -- it's not like this is a new problem. In any case, if they wanted to penalize the state parties, I'm okay with that, but they should've found some way to do so that still gave the voters some say in the primary process.

    If FL and MI wind up being the difference between Obama or Clinton winning, the convention is probably going to be the nastiest of my lifetime. I'm desperately hoping that isn't how this plays out.


    Totally (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:12:10 PM EST
    The DNC brought this entire mess on itself by not dealing with its primary schedule for decades and its solution is to disenfranchise democrats in two states the Dems need to carry in the fall.  Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Not that I'm surprised, the only folks Democrats ever smack around is other Democrats.  They'd never have treated Republicans like this.


    So is HRC really the canidate of the DNC? (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:16:39 PM EST
    If so, wha?????

    No (none / 0) (#38)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:33:02 PM EST
    If anything the DNC's position on Florida and Michigan is hurting her.

    As far as I'm concerned the DNC's decision is a separate issue from the candidates in that while there are reasons to want to control the primary schedule, there are also reasons to be concerned about forcing Democrats out of two key states.  That will have happened whether or not the delegates get seated.  And if Dems lose Florida or Michigan in 2008, you can bet folks are going to be mighty angry at Howard Dean.


    Another fallacy from DK I guess. (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:37:51 PM EST
    I think you are thinking of the DLC, (none / 0) (#48)
    by Teresa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:55:14 PM EST
    not the DNC.

    Probably right. Confusing, no? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:22:08 PM EST
    Whose pocket is she in, anyway?

    Mine. And pretty deep, too. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:40:14 PM EST
    Pretty severe. . . (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:24:38 PM EST
    Didn't the republican party cut the delegates in half as the penalty?

    . . . if true.  And bloody.  But that's the Republicans for you.


    Drawing and quartering (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by rilkefan on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:58:33 PM EST
    would be too royalist I guess...

    Yep. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:07:27 PM EST
    At first I thought it was terribly unfair only the (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:15:57 PM EST
    Republican candidates were debating in FL.  All that pre-GE publicity for free.  But, after watching last night's debate, I think the overall benefit was to the Dem. primary winner.

    moreover, the Rs control the Legislature (none / 0) (#35)
    by Klio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:20:00 PM EST
    from what I understand.  The Dems couldn't have stopped this date change anyway, which makes it an even more capricious and unjustifiable decision by the DNC.

    Any Why Progressives (none / 0) (#18)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:07:30 PM EST
    Aren't more upset about that is confounding to me.  I get Michigan - the move of its primary was decided by Democrats.  But Florida is much more complicated and, unless I'm missing something, it looks like the DNC totally got played there.  And if I am missing something, I'd love to know it because I'm getting kind of tired of thinking of the Democrats as weak-willed surrender monkeys.

    Now this is quite a comment (3.66 / 3) (#46)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:53:13 PM EST
    from South Carolina newspaper....Makes ya think....

    That's an interesting article. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by OrangeFur on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:02:10 PM EST
    Thanks for linking to it.

    One small note: I think the Columbia in the name refers to the university, which is based in New York, and not the capital of South Carolina.

    What I get from the article is not so much new appreciation for Clinton's policy command, but renewed exasperation with the press. They apparently were bored and inattentive at both Obama's event and Clinton's event. No wonder we keep hearing about trivialities and minutiae that have nothing to do with anything important.


    Benedict College, in Columbia, SC. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:11:29 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by spit on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:19:15 PM EST
    that's where the Clinton event was, but the Columbia Journalism Review is the publication for which the article was written, and it's out of Columbia University, more or less. A very well respected magazine focused on issues of the press.

    It's confusing because of the names. But the publication is not from SC.


    True. The link reminds me to start (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:24:11 PM EST
    reading CJR again.  I thought it was defunct.

    Heh (none / 0) (#65)
    by spit on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:30:59 PM EST
    I couldn't tell whether you were still confused or no. Apologies if you weren't.

    But lord, I'm glad we got that cleared up. Wait, where the hell am I? :P


    I should have kept my fingers off (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:35:04 PM EST
    the keyboard entirely on that exchange.

    Fyi, CJR not an SC newspaper (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:14:54 PM EST
    It's a leading media review, by media for media, from Columbia University.

    Yes (none / 0) (#56)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:17:06 PM EST
    Yes another comment told me that but thanks for the clarification...My mistake with the name of Columbia...My bad...

    No prob, understandable error (none / 0) (#135)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:21:22 PM EST
    with so much named for that Italian guy who "discovered" this continent after the Irish, the Norse. . . . :-)

    Interesting opinion piece. I think (none / 0) (#49)
    by Teresa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:00:47 PM EST
    Jeralyn could have written that. It sums up the candidates and how the media perceives them very well. Especially the ending.

    NPR's Morning Edition had a piece on this (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:09:50 PM EST
    morning about the South Carolina Dem. primary and the dilemma of black women.  One woman sd. that when she heard Obama speak, she was transported, as if she were listening to MLK, Jr.  

    Fascinating (none / 0) (#81)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:48:58 PM EST
    Last week Der Spiegel had a correspondent follow both campaigns.  And he said exactly the same thing.  I don't know if it's in English translation.   I think that was my impression from watching the Reno Gazette interviews by both of them.  

    It has been widely reported (none / 0) (#99)
    by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:20:10 PM EST
    that Obama has the support of the more educated voters, but I think many of them, like the writer of that article, will raise the same questions in their mind as voting time draws nearer.  If this happens, the shift will be sudden and unexpected, like people under the influence of fairy dust suddenly blinking awake.  Might just result in another New Hampshire type primary returns.

    Sort of like when you find Santa did not exist (none / 0) (#101)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:25:58 PM EST
    Maybe we can start a therapy fund.  

    Right! (none / 0) (#105)
    by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:55:21 PM EST
    and listening to some really dynamic preacher and hanging on every glorious quote from the 'good book' not really indicating from the quote ends and his interpretation begins; and with everyone around you saying alleluiah! Amen!

    Then you get back home and check out the source of the quotes only to find out that it is not quite like what you heard.

    I think the reason that Hillary gets more votes from the older generation is because we are in a position to say, 'yeah, yeah! I've heard that before and we ask "What are you gonna do about it?  And how?  You've not shown me any signs at all that you can do what you say you will do."

    That's pretty much my attitude about Obama.

    But soon, people will just click on the refresht button and the default page will be Hillary.


    With more newspapers coming out (none / 0) (#127)
    by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:47:36 PM EST
    with opinions similar to what the DeMoine Reg. and NYT rationale, it seems that more institutions and leading personalities are coming out with the equivalent of "BUT THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES" as in that famous Moazart operetta.

    I like Josh (3.50 / 2) (#10)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:03:47 PM EST
    and would rather see Talklefters engage with him rather than call him names.  He is a smart guy - and he backs down when he is wrong.

    So BTD - thank you for the corrective post and maybe Josh will see it.

    A number of thoughts on this... (3.50 / 2) (#106)
    by OrangeFur on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:59:44 PM EST
    It strikes me as a clever tactical move by the Clinton campaign. It gains support among Florida voters, without doing harm to her support anywhere else. I can't imagine anybody in any other state cares a whit about this.

    Whether or not this actually works at the convention is unclear to me, but my guess is that most everyday people would think it's only fair to seat those delegates. After all, the people voted, didn't they? The argument against seating them involves arcane rules about the primary calendar that most people probably think are stupid anyway.

    And you know what? The rules are stupid. Why should the DNC give IA, NH, NV, and SC so much priority over everyone else? Michigan and Florida are two big states, each with populations as large as the other four combined. It's ridiculous beyond reason to exclude them entirely from the nominating process.

    Maybe this would go down easier if the rest of the process was smoothly run. But you have things like the Iowa and Nevada caucuses, where we're overjoyed to get about 10% of the population to show up to participate in some convoluted process that somehow doesn't even award the most delegates to the candidate who got the most votes.

    Whoever wins the nomination and control of the DNC should immediately put an end to this nonsense, starting with primaries for everyone.

    oh, please (3.50 / 2) (#109)
    by call me Ishmael on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:12:45 PM EST
    oh, please BTD.  Marshall's point was a simple one--there is a set of rules in play and the Clinton campaign only wants to change them because it benefits them. You can hardly insist you want to change politics when you are simply gaming the rules.  Perhaps Obama would do the same--but we will never know.  We do know that the Clinton campaign is.

    Please, indeed. (3.00 / 2) (#114)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:48:16 PM EST
    If Obama would not do the same thing, he wouldn't be a strategically fit candidate for a national election.

    I'd say the whole setup by Clinton was brilliant.  Staying on both ballots and then waiting to see how things turned out in Michigan before deciding to raise the issue just before Florida votes with all 3 on the ballot.

    It's not as if the issue wouldn't have been raised later by others from both states.  By raising the issue now, Hillary gains the edge before the Florida vote and also with the average voter/caucusgoer/delegate who will likely see it as a fairness issue...a form of voter suppression.  Longtime party members with votes at the convention and  their credentials committee will not see it that way.  Could be a nasty power struggle...sigh...Democrats.

    Last time this happened ('68) it was the Party Humphrey delegations who were favored and seated in every case.  It didn't lead to unity.  Although there were lots of other reasons for Humphrey's loss --including his failing to separate himself from LBJ's war in Vietnam -- there was great bitterness for years and Nixon was elected twice.  It was worse than '64 and who would have predicted that?

    I'm worried.


    Me too old pro (none / 0) (#116)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:56:23 PM EST
    I think this nomination will call for a "hero", to combine the forces that be to get a good general election...and if Hillary is way ahead in delegates, which polls show right now she will probably be, I cannot see Obama being a hero...He is too stubborn....and that will be the death of any hope we have, to a fair general election....

    Stubborn, yes... (none / 0) (#123)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:30:42 PM EST
    and I think the people he is listening to are Clinton haters who may infect him with the "never compromise with Democrats...only with Republicans disease."

    Reminds me of my years at the legislature in the House where the slogan was "The Republicans are the opposition...the Senate is the enemy."  They weren't kidding...even, and perhaps especially, when the Ds had majorities in both houses.


    My point is Obama DID do the same thing (3.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:06:15 PM EST
    with his little game with the Michigan ballot.

    Remarkable how facts are nonexistent for some candidate supporters.


    He knew (none / 0) (#121)
    by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:25:29 PM EST
    clinton would do this - so he acted accordingly.  Not at all the same as what Clinton is doing.  I really can't believe you are supporting the placement of delegates from states where campaigns agreed not to campaign.

    Dude (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:29:12 PM EST
    I am not supporitng anything.

    I am pointing out facts.

    That Obama's decision to remove homself from the Michigan ballot was an entirely politcally calculating move. He did not give a fig about the rules. He cared about getting an advantage in Iowa.

    I don't mind that he did it. That's politics.

    If you believe for one minute if the shoe was on the other foot Obama would not have done the same thing, you are living in the clouds.

    Hell, if he would not do it, then he is not fit to run in the GE.


    This is an example of what is just (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Teresa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:40:12 PM EST
    maddening to me...some Obama supporters act like they don't know how politics work. Maybe they don't? When Obama acts above politics, I don't much care for him. When he gets political, I love him.

    I know how (none / 0) (#131)
    by andreww on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:05:20 AM EST
    politics works.  By your logic it's okay that W stole the 2000 election simply because he was able to do so.  And according to others, this makes him all the more qualified since he was able to do so.

    The notion that believing there can be and should be a better way is ignorance is ridiculous.  Those are the same lines of arguments that have been used every time progress has threatened any kind of establishment.  


    If you had logic (none / 0) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:08:22 AM EST
    You would not equate this with Bush stealing Florida.

    The freaking rules demonstrated that this was a possibility.

    Anyone who thought wbout it knew.

    Now, if their is not a clear frontrunner by convention time, the onloy person who can do this will be the person with the most delegates.

    Riddle me this, who the hell SHOULD get the nomination but the person with the most freaking delegates?


    I thought about it (none / 0) (#133)
    by andreww on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:19:04 AM EST
    and was worried about it at the time and also commented about it on this site a while back.  You're right on the riddle - and that's exactly the problem.  It was impossible for ANYONE to benefit from this but Hillary.  This line of thought continued on your most recent thread....

    And there was an Obama campaign in MI (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:45:50 PM EST
    with John Conyers calling for ballots to be cast for "uncommitted," so those delegates would be free to go to Obama, if MI delegates are to be allowed.

    see... (none / 0) (#130)
    by andreww on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:00:53 AM EST
    I am disagreeing with WHY he made the calculating move.  You posit that he did so to gain advantage in Iowa - which may have some merit.  But I believe the greater reason is that he understood that without campaigning there he likely wouldn't have a chance.  But knowing that Clinton would eventually do what she is now doing - I believe he probably figured his best defense was to remove himself from the ballot entirely.  There is no way he could compete in that state - in the beginning of the race - without campaigning there.  So now, at least he can point out he wasn't on the ballot instead of Hillary saying she beat Obama there.  

    We both agree it was a politically calculating move - we just seem to disagree on why the move was made.  It still doesn't justify Hillary doing it.


    It was with great sadness and regret... (3.33 / 3) (#5)
    by OrangeFur on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:56:49 PM EST
    ... that I removed TPM from my list of RSS feeds. That used to be my first stop of the day, and I appreciated how they stayed neutral for so long in the primary. But now they're making up for lost time.

    I hope they come back to their senses after the nominating process is over.

    Singing Obama (4.66 / 3) (#12)
    by koshembos on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:04:12 PM EST
    TPM has been singing Obama and attacking Clinton before the primaries started. It turns out that mainstream is not only WaPo and NYT, but also Kos, TPM, Ezra and others.

    Congrats on the twins: MSM.


    Orange (none / 0) (#7)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:00:32 PM EST
    I just did it too a few days ago, I am shocked at how far downhill they have gone...and you are right to say saddened too as I am .....

    Check out this endorment of Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:10:57 PM EST

    It is unequivocal.


    TPM is awesome (none / 0) (#44)
    by magster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:47:56 PM EST
    Ignore the pro-Obama posts and remember everything that that blog has done to keep scandals alive and save Social Security.

    The whole Gonzalez AG scandal started snowballing because of TPM.  Cut them some slack.


    I know... (none / 0) (#47)
    by OrangeFur on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:54:51 PM EST
    That's why I loved that site. Their work on Social Security and the US Attorney scandal was excellent.

    That's exactly why I hope to be able to go back there once the primary season is over. And I don't even mind the pro-Obama posts. It's the rabidly anti-Clinton ones that get to me.

    Maybe I'll keep visiting TPM Muckraker in the meantime.


    Josh should (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:51:31 PM EST
    change name of his web site from TPM to Shills are Us.....:-)

    Josh Marshall seems to have (3.00 / 2) (#2)
    by RalphB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:53:41 PM EST
    swallowed a full dose of the Obama Kool-Aid.  I read  his post and it was patently absurd, as well as, factually wrong.

    no difference (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:56:02 PM EST
    between him and Fox Noise that deliberately slants news their way....he needs to look in the mirror

    Partisan != Faux (none / 0) (#27)
    by rilkefan on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:14:40 PM EST
    I thought it was a predictably one-sided op-ed (and found the "I haven't heard the counterargument but I'll pontificate anyway" aspect unfortunate) but the Obama side of the argument isn't utter nonsense.  
    In particular the "participate" part of the pledge gives me pause.  So "Fox News" above is way exaggerated.

    The Ballot Part is Crap (none / 0) (#34)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:19:36 PM EST
    But the point about not changing the rules is a valid position, even if I'm not sure I agree with it.

    What I think is also crap, however, is the idea that if the positions were reversed, Obama would still be arguing not to seat the delegates.  Josh treats this as if it's some moral dilemma with Obama coming down on the side of good and right while Hillary is being all sneaky and changing the rules.  This isn't some sort of opportunity to peer into Obama's and Hillary's souls.  It's a straight up political fight with each candidate arguing out of self interest.


    role reversal (none / 0) (#43)
    by rilkefan on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:43:26 PM EST
    see my previous reply to you re the Obama side.

    Obama advertising in Florida (3.00 / 2) (#9)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:02:58 PM EST
    Not to mention the fact that Obama's national ad buy violates the electronic communication rule in the pledge.

    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:06:14 PM EST
    A national buy.

    That dog won;t hunt for Clinton.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#26)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:13:21 PM EST
    I don't have any problem with Obama's buy.

    I think Clinton would have been blasted - probably by Josh Marshall - if she'd done it.  But it's still a bogus complaint, IMO.


    Ha. But, is it possible to buy national (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:50:03 PM EST
    coverage excluding FL?  

    Cable advertising can exclude (none / 0) (#64)
    by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:27:35 PM EST
    even a particular city within a county. Which makes for effective focusing of ad budgets.  That is how local business are able to advertise on TV because cable can target specific areas.

    remarks read on taylor marsh blog (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:31:09 PM EST
    Is Dana Milbank serious? He's on KO right now, saying that, if she were to come in third in South Carolina, it would be an "earthquake" and it would change the race completely. I see. So, if Edwards were to get a second place, that would somehow surpass Clinton's 2 wins? U-huh.

    He also said she was "embarrassed" this morning on NBC when Laurer showed that picture with Rezko. Because a picture is the same as a 17-year history of bundled campaign cash and real estate deals and all the rest. Yes, of course: there is no Clinton Derangement Syndrome at work here.


    pay no attention to Milbank (none / 0) (#85)
    by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:55:00 PM EST
    He is becoming a comedian (a bad one)

    On his Washington Post blog before NH primary he had a video mocking one of Hillary's rallies for being boring.  It looked like he was auditioning for a spot on the 1/2 hour News Show that was cancelled by FOX.


    Big Correction!! (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:41:17 PM EST
    Apparently that dog will hunt!!!

    Dana Millbank (none / 0) (#82)
    by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:50:11 PM EST
    has been critical of Hillary from the beginning.  I guess, about this time approaching 2/5 the intensity increases.  But I have confidence in Team Clinton's ability to handle this.  Bill Clinton can grab the headlines any time he chooses.  Then Millbank will have to write something else.  

    Of course. Think of the sports event blackouts (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:48:14 PM EST
    of one city in an ad market but not another city almost next door.  Happens all the time in my area.

    Is this blog now funded by the Clinton campaign? (3.00 / 2) (#19)
    by AdrianLesher on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:09:02 PM EST
    The partisan slant towards Clinton is very vigorous.

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by spit on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:19:33 PM EST
    when you're on the fast-moving train with the rest of the blogosphere, it's the ground that's moving past you.

    Don't think so! (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:58:19 PM EST
    But in my particular case, I don't mind saying that I support Hillary's candidacy because of her demonstrated abilities, her stand on most issues and I think she'll make a good president compared to all who are aspiring for the office.

    And, I do like this site because of the physical appearance, the types of posts I see in it and the fact that people use excellent language and could disagree agreeably.

    I think it is a well-moderated site. I like the fact that nobody gets 'ganged-up on and the moderator gives fair warning when one is on the verge of crossing established boundaries of posting.


    The facts are biased are they? (4.42 / 7) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:09:34 PM EST
    I think (3.00 / 2) (#31)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:17:23 PM EST
    that one reason that offends me so very much, is because we have been "spoon fed" the republican slant for so many years by other media outlets and I have tried so hard to get away from that and now to have a person from our side doing the exact same thing is very offensive to me....We are grownup adults and can make up our own minds, unless Josh or others think that the facts arent enough to make us vote for Obama or Edwards....

    Collective Shrillness of Obama supporters (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:35:10 PM EST
    is so palpable in recent days.  Is it a sense of panic that perhaps their guy is losing it with the voters?  They are practically throwing everything at Hillary Clinton and she's still standing.  I would not be surprised if the Clinton camp decide to buy the same kind of national ad as Obama which will be aired in Florida just to see what Obama has to say then.

    I don't understand... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:53:39 PM EST
    I don't understand my reaction to them.  I have been trying to figure out why are the inflaming me so.   I should not care, I should just live and let live, but I can't.  I have been trying to see which reactions that I have are reasonable and which ones are not normal.  A bit of therapy here.  

    for me at least (none / 0) (#89)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:58:34 PM EST
    it has the same effect that Fox News does on me...I never could stand someone telling me what to think or what to do....If anything they have pushed me more toward Hillary...

    Exactly (none / 0) (#100)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:24:02 PM EST
    So, when I paid attention, I realized I found her to be really qualified, smart and actually not that far off from the others.  I was one of those who was angry that all that time was wasted on the Monica thing.  I love Edwards and how he brought up the issue of the two Americas and taking democratic populism out of the closet.  Then I was ok with any of the three, now I have reached a point where I am terrified of the fanatics.  Yikes.

    It's like the Republicans Obama wants to attract.. (none / 0) (#117)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:03:04 PM EST
    .. turned out to be Hillary Haters. Ick.

    Yeoman service, BTD (none / 0) (#3)
    by Klio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:54:59 PM EST
    in the brave and sturdy sense ... also, the much appreciated one

    There's still no way they can seat those delegates (none / 0) (#11)
    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:04:09 PM EST
    At best, a cheap pander on Clinton's part to gin up support in FL (Nelson endorsement) for a cosmetic win on Tuesday.

    However, pretty telling of how she's getting along with Howard Dean.

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:05:31 PM EST
    Howard Dean is what hillary is thinking about.

    Nice diary though. A tip of the hat to you for that spin. Well done. Seriously.


    Heh. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:10:53 PM EST
    More to the point, Howard Dean was NOT what Hillary was thinking about.

    Yep (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:25:14 PM EST
    One`way or another.

    Why cosmetic? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Klio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:09:34 PM EST
    As BTD notes, the front runners are on the ballot in Florida.  Whoever wins will do so in a 'competitive' environment.  What's cosmetic about that?

    No campaigning (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:10:17 PM EST
    I think cosmetic, or beauty contest, is a fiar wya to describe it.

    More or Less (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:15:14 PM EST
    It's not as though Florida has no information about the candidates.  There's been roughly a gazillion debates and a lot of horrific news coverage.  And I think because of the primary schedule, the efforts in Florida would not have been as great by any of the candidates as they have been in the earlier states.

    So I do think it's more than a beauty contest.  But I agree it's also less than an all-out contested primary.


    they are fundraising in the state (none / 0) (#36)
    by Klio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:27:30 PM EST
    which makes for a weird kind of retail.  The idea that it's not a campaign without adverts amuses me -- I live in a small, always overlooked, blood-red state that's actually getting some attention this time around {we're on the 2/5 slate}.  It's so refreshing!  I wouldn't have said that our previous primary winners were enjoying only a cosmetic victory, but I do see what you mean.

    The DNC (none / 0) (#24)
    by standingup on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:12:02 PM EST
    could use the assistance of a good attorney.  Why would they draft the petition as this:

    THEREFORE, I _____, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

    They noted how campaigning was to be defined but what is participation?  

    Florida law (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:08:29 PM EST
    trumps it.

    Waiting for Talk Left to post this: (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:33:09 PM EST
    From AP story today:

    He went on to tout her work with Senate Republicans such as South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and Arizona's John McCain, who won this state's GOP primary.

    ''She and John McCain are very close. They always laugh that if they wind up being the nominees of their parties, it would be the most civilized election in American history and probably put the voters to sleep,'' Bill Clinton said.

    I will do so now (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:33:47 PM EST
    Link please (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:37:41 PM EST
    Here you go: (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:47:27 PM EST
    I went and got one (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:52:06 PM EST
    No hat tip, I guess. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:13:43 PM EST
    I need the link to do the post (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:45:03 PM EST
    Bill must be out of touch... (none / 0) (#86)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:56:54 PM EST
    I distinctly heard John McCain refer to Hillary (was it in the debate or in an interview??) as a person who would surrender...yes, that's right, surrender...to our enemies at war, presumably.

    mccain is the man who will say anything (none / 0) (#96)
    by hellothere on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:12:47 PM EST
    to anyone just to get another conservative vote. sad to say i used to think he had more in him.

    he has made so many goofy comments since he drank bush koolaid.


    I think (none / 0) (#71)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:39:42 PM EST
    that there should be a new classification catagory for mental illness called "clinton derangement syndrome"....

    Yeah (none / 0) (#107)
    by Tano on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:07:57 PM EST
    and I am getting it.

    You got a problem with that?
    I've never had a derangement syndrome against anyone who didn't deserve it.


    Anyone else remember (none / 0) (#90)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:00:30 PM EST
    the last time the Democratic Party got in a brawl over seating delegates?  It wasn't pretty and raises some ugly memories.

    I remember that and it was terrible (none / 0) (#94)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:09:02 PM EST
    if that happens again, we might as well hand the keys over to McCain and save election costs...

    I don't remember... (none / 0) (#95)
    by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:11:58 PM EST
    but i can imagine that it would look the way things always look when one tries to take power away from those who have it - and want to hold on to it.  Bloody.

    Re Michigan ballot removal (none / 0) (#92)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:03:41 PM EST
    "This is an extension of the pledge we made, based on the rules that the DNC laid out," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement.

    I emailed this quote to Josh to show him Obama was expanding the scope of the pledge.

    Missing the Point Entirely (none / 0) (#93)
    by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:07:28 PM EST
    The issue has nothing to do with whether the candidates names are on the ballots.  It's not that Obama knew he couldn't win Michigan; he knew he couldn't win Michigan WITHOUT CAMPAIGNING THERE. Obviously Hillary wins anywhere before campaigning begins because of her name and national presence.  How long was she winning in Iowa for?  How many tens of percentages was she up in Nevada and New Hampshire?  

    A primary held where campaigning is prohibited is not at all "competitive" as some suggest, as it clearly gives Hillary the upper hand.

    andreww, nobody campaigns in (none / 0) (#97)
    by Teresa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:19:18 PM EST
    every state and the people still make informed votes. They hardly ever come to Tennessee but I do read and make informed decisions.

    Are you saying the results in Florida or Michigan (if they were all on the ballot) don't reflect the choice of the voters? Would every state get to see the candidates up close the way they do in Iowa and New Hampshire?


    using your logic (none / 0) (#104)
    by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:40:14 PM EST
    then it would be an even playing field if no campaigning were allowed anywhere - which of course isn't the case.

    Of course it matters but it's not as if the (none / 0) (#113)
    by Teresa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:31:53 PM EST
    voters in Florida are completely uninformed. You said Obama is at a disadvantage if he can't campaign in a state but most states don't get the type of campaign that Iowa and NH do.

    I don't think at this point you can claim that Obama is an unknown.


    The DNC Treasurer, Andrew Tobias (none / 0) (#98)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:19:27 PM EST
    explains in unofficial layman's term the reasoning of Michigan and Florida (scroll 1/3  of the page).

    What's so wrong about asking (none / 0) (#102)
    by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:28:57 PM EST
    for the reconsideration of a decision.  It is not as if Hillary can unilaterally change it.  Motions for reconsideration are filed in court all the time.  It would be different if she were holding secret negotiations with Howard Dean to get it changed. If that were the case, she'll deserve all the criticisms she gets.

    DNC doesn't decide (none / 0) (#103)
    by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:38:41 PM EST
    The delegates of other states decide.  So hillary is asking here delegates to allow the delegates from the other states to be seated.

    Hillary may already have benefited (none / 0) (#112)
    by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:22:30 PM EST
    from this ploy.  Senator Nelson of Florida has already decided to endorse her (Huffington Post) having said earlier that he would wait to see "how the candidates treat Florida. "

    Nobody is allowed to remove their names (none / 0) (#108)
    by cheeto on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:12:05 PM EST
    Can a presidential candidate remove their name from the ballot in Florida?

    Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Thurman, Senator Geller and Representative Gelber submitted to Florida's Secretary of State the names of our Party's presidential candidates for placement on the January 29, 2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot. State law allows candidates who wish to withdraw from the Florida primary to do so by filing an affidavit stating that he or she is not a candidate for President of the United States of America. In other words: to get off the ballot in Florida, a candidate has to swear that he or she isn't running for President.


    Geez (none / 0) (#136)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:33:35 PM EST
    Quite an impartial place.

    I will state unequivocally that I am an Obama supporter.  I don't post here normally but I do in several other sites.

    I must give BTD credit for discovering a way to criticize Obama because Hillary is being criticized for pandering in Florida.

    If the convention doesn't matter both Fl and MI's delegates will be allowed in.  

    If the convention does matter then their votes will NOT count.  

    This was not smart campaigning by Clinton.  Florida will not give her anything that she needs.  But she will be rightly criticize for trying to game the system via the media, even if she can't really change things.

    BigTentDemocrat you should do us all a favor and just put a HillaryApproved Icon in each one of your posts.  It would make it easier for new posters to understand who you support.

    Are there any democrats in here? (none / 0) (#137)
    by JBrownRBD on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:36:19 AM EST
    I hope i don't hear certain people in here trash talking about Karl Rove. Some of you seem to like his tactics. Then you have the old people talking about how Hillary is going to do more for the country than Barack Obama. How can she be the better  candidate? She can't even run her own campaign! Isn't she 20 MILLION DOLLARS in debt? Isn't she looking for OBAMA to bail her out of said debt? Wake up people!! If you want more runaway spending and more Debt vote Hillary Clinton.