Clinton Campaign On MI And FL

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:53:26 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

From the Clinton Campaign, Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams' letter to the Obama campaign manager David Plouffe on Michigan and Florida:

Clinton Campaign Calls for Michigan and Florida Voices to Be Heard
David Plouffe
P.O. Box 8102
Obama for America
Chicago, Illinois 60680

Dear David:

The 2008 primary campaign has been a spirited contest that has resulted in record voter turnout. Both of our candidates can proudly boast of bringing new people into the process and energizing our Democratic Party.

With the campaign now entering the final phase of the nominating contest, it is vital that both of our campaigns come together to ensure that the delegations from Florida and Michigan be seated to reflect the will of the voters.

More...

In Florida and Michigan, nearly 2.5 million Americans made their voices heard and participated in primary elections. We think the results of those primaries were fair and should be honored.

Over the last few weeks, there has been much discussion about how to ensure that the Florida and Michigan delegations are seated. We think there are two options: Either honor the results or hold new primary elections.

To that end, we are in active consultation with all of our supporters in Florida, including Members of Congress. In Michigan, we are in active consultation with the committee appointed by Governor Granholm.

We hope that your campaign will join us in our efforts to ensure that these votes are counted.

Sincerely,

Maggie Williams
Campaign Manager

(Emphasis supplied.) Since the existing results will NOT be honored, then a revote it is. Clinton says yes to a revote. And since that revote must be a mail in revote in Florida, Clinton says yes to a mail in revote in Florida. The ball is in Obama's court now.

< "Anything Is Preferable To Our Votes Not Being Counted" | Spitzer Resigns Effective Monday >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Clinton Campaign On MI And FL | 153 comments (153 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obama hass already passed "the ball" (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:56:34 AM EST

to the DNC and has said they will respect the decision.

Then a mail in primary it is (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:57:21 AM EST

Good to know.

thanks!

[ Parent ]

Florida democrats (none / 0) (#3)
by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:00:08 AM EST

seem to be blocking that.

[ Parent ]

If only (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:05:22 AM EST

the proposal came from Bush. Then they'd stop blocking it and bend over backwards to get it implemented. Sigh.

[ Parent ]

They can't block this (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:06:37 AM EST

They actually have no official role at all in this.

They do provide Obama excuses however.

[ Parent ]

excuses (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:07:31 AM EST

bingo
and cover

[ Parent ]

I'm glad (none / 0) (#22)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:12:59 AM EST

they have no official role. Thanks for spelling that out.

But as we've already seen from the comments of some Obama supporters here, their resistance will be used by Obama as a defence of his own resistance to a re-vote.

[ Parent ]

the question might be (none / 0) (#25)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:14:54 AM EST

do THEY know they have no official role.

[ Parent ]

: That (none / 0) (#86)
by 0 politico on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:49:38 AM EST

might be asking a lot.

[ Parent ]

Florida Democratic Party (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:02:23 AM EST

is submitting that proposal on Thursday.

The Florida Congressional Dems have no veto power over this.

[ Parent ]

democrats (none / 0) (#8)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:02:57 AM EST

have really perfected the circular firing squad havent they?

[ Parent ]

What BTD says below (none / 0) (#152)
by cal1942 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:51:59 PM EST

about excuses for Obama.

The Florida Congressional delegation consists of one Senator and all of Florida's House members. Nelson is a Clinton backer so is not involved.

Does anyone know who Florida's Reps support.

My bet is that they're Obama people and they're acting as stalking horses.

[ Parent ]

Just read.... (none / 0) (#29)
by magster on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:16:36 AM EST

this diary at Kos. A mail-in primary might be the best way to keep out the gamers, despite its other flaws.

[ Parent ]

For months, right wingers have been ... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:28:49 AM EST

...crossing party lines to vote against Clinton. Obama's campaign spun the crossover's as Republicans who chose to vote for Obama because they liked his message (and would, presumably, support him in the fall) and Clinton's campaign didn't want to highlight the fact that some Republicans hated her so much they'd choose to vote against her rather than for their own candidate. Now, rather late in the game, the right has switched game plans, probably just to poke at the Democratic Party to make it squeal. The Obama campaign is now spinning that these Republicans, unlike the Republicans who voted for him in order to oppose Clinton, will not support the Democratic Party in the fall. And the big orange echo chamber is repeating the spin.

Don't take it too seriously. We can't outgame the Republican Party. It's like trying to con a con artist. All you end up doing it lowering yourself to their level. All we can do is to run our campaign as openly and honestly as possible, and recognize that no matter what we do the right will find a way to game the system. Then, when they do, we expose their lies and keep going.

[ Parent ]

I agree to a point (none / 0) (#53)
by magster on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:31:34 AM EST

but the numbers of Republican crossovers have swelled dramatically since McCain sealed the deal, and Clinton's Republican crossover support has correspondingly swelled.

[ Parent ]

We don't really know the numbers (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:41:11 AM EST

In the states that had open primaries and report vote by party affiliation, there were fairly large "crossover" votes for Obama earlier in the game. In states without open primaries, the voters actually switched party temporarily in order to vote against Clinton, so the effect was not obvious. What is obvious is that 1) There weren't nearly as many right-wingers voting for Obama because they like his politics as he claimed and 2) right-wingers like to mess with Democrat's minds. It's not possible to know what is going on in Limbaugh or Rove's minds. It's only possible to know what they want you to know. I'm not going to buy spin from them either way - pro or anti Clinton or Obama. That way lies madness.

[ Parent ]

: at any rate (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:45:36 AM EST

it begs the question: why do we care what republicans think about our elections? Why are we giving them any influence?
Jeralyn had an excellent thread on the fallacy in the theory of republican crossover voter. Look for it-it should assuage any fears you have.

[ Parent ]

Oh really? I have read nothing to (none / 0) (#127)
by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:11:47 AM EST

support your claim that there is MORE Republican crossover recently.

[ Parent ]

I put a link in my first comment (none / 0) (#144)
by magster on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:51:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]

: Percentages can be deceptive. (none / 0) (#145)
by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:09:54 PM EST

The total number of voters in MI was small. Also, what about Independents? I do not want them voting in Dem. primaries either.
Thanks for the link, though. I think it's hilarious that Republic crossover has not become something to frown upon, since Hillary benefits from it.

[ Parent ]

He needs to step up (none / 0) (#4)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:01:13 AM EST

and say he SUPPORTS a specific workable solution. At this point that seems to mean a mail-in primary.

Saying that he'll agree with whatever the DNC decides, while at the same time criticizing every proposal that's been made (except for the ridiculous 50/50 proposal) is a stalling tactic and nothing more.

Obama and his supporters need to stop nitpicking their 'concerns' over every proposal offered and get actively involved in a solution. Whatever happened to the audacity of hope? Can we hold a workable primary in FL and MI and end this crisis? YES WE CAN!

[ Parent ]

bingo (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:03:43 AM EST

Reminds me of me of a familiar discussion every night in the Kathy home:

I'm hungry.
Me, too.
Do you want Chinese?
Nah, I don't feel like Chinese.
What about Mexican?
Nah, I don't feel like Mexican.
How about Italian?
Nah, I don't feel like Italian.
Okay, well, what DO you want?
I don't know. Whatever you decide.

[ Parent ]

: Aha. Reminds me of the unspoken (none / 0) (#20)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:11:32 AM EST

but inevitable comment that comes later: Well, you were the one that wanted <fill in the blank>.

[ Parent ]
: that would be my mother (none / 0) (#100)
by zyx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:56:46 AM EST

Passive-aggressive.

[ Parent ]

It's myopia (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:44:59 AM EST

I can't believe how short-sighted the Obama camp and their supporters are being.

First of all, they clearly don't want a FL primary, as Clinton would likely win, giving her not only delegates but the ability to say she'd won the popular vote in all four of the largest states.

Second, saying anything but, "We demand that the people of FL and MI be given a full role in this primary process via a re-vote" looks astoundingly weak. In fact, they should be fighting for this even harder than Clinton is, simply because it could hurt them, which then gives him the chance to look very statesmanlike by saying, "This isn't about who gets nominated, but preserving democracy in a country that's had far too many votes taken away from far too many citizens in recent years."

[ Parent ]

Lou-very good points (none / 0) (#82)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:47:52 AM EST

Also, this is Obama's chance to show that he is a leader, that he can unite people and bring them together for a common cause.

What is he doing? Sitting on his hands, waiting for other folks to make the decision so he can disagree with it.

Reminds me of his push the wrong button votes, where he gets to vote yes for an unpopular bill, but then goes on record saying he accidentally pressed it and doesn't really support it. Yet, the vote goes in the yes column.

[ Parent ]

It's just more of the "Me, Too!" (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by Anne on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:59:14 AM EST

we have been seeing and hearing for some time, and reinforces my feeling that he is not capable - at least not yet - of the kind of leadership this country needs.

Now, the point could be made that when you're in a debate and your opponent keeps getting all the questions first, and your positions are not radically different, it might be hard to change up a response enough that it doesn't sound like "me, too," but there are other ways to show leadership.

I think Obama has had numerous opportunities to do so and failed - and this re-voting business is just another example.

[ Parent ]

Exactly right (none / 0) (#103)
by ruffian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:57:23 AM EST

His main strength is suppsoed to be his ability to bring people together. This is his won party. This is his first test. He can't manage this, even though it would be to his strong advantage to do so, and I'm supposed to believe he can get the Republicans to vote for a health care plan?

[ Parent ]

: Own party, not Won party yet (none / 0) (#104)
by ruffian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:58:00 AM EST

Dang - Freudian slip there.

[ Parent ]

ball is in Obama's court (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:01:53 AM EST

why does that not make me feel better?

There is purpose to this letter (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by ajain on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:03:49 AM EST

I think the Obama camp will have to stop acting like it has no power or role in deciding what to do about Michigan and Florida. I think this letter is basically telling them to get publically involved in the process or deciding what to do about the votes.

Sure (none / 0) (#23)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:14:05 AM EST

the Obama campaign can simply respond "The most effective method for getting a revote done is a caucus. This would allow the DNC to complete the revote without the need of state officials. This is what we advocate."

[ Parent ]

nonstarter (none / 0) (#31)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:17:18 AM EST

Why? (none / 0) (#34)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:19:32 AM EST

Because you don't like them? Because they benefit Obama?

Please explain the legal reasons why it is a non-starter.

[ Parent ]

they are undemocratic. (none / 0) (#36)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:21:01 AM EST

we have had quite enough of that from states with experience with caucuses.

[ Parent ]

Whatever your opinions (none / 0) (#40)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:23:29 AM EST

they are a common method of voting on a nominee. The DNC has a mechanism to hold them. They are the easiest to implement, of the available options.

Will Hillary step up to a mic and say "caucuses are undemocratic"?

[ Parent ]

I hope she will (none / 0) (#43)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:24:43 AM EST

: Done it. (none / 0) (#59)
by ajain on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:35:53 AM EST

Ed Rendell already said that on Meet the Press. He was speaking as a Clinton surrogate.

[ Parent ]
: I do not think (none / 0) (#62)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:36:58 AM EST

you want the national media talking about caucuses and investigating the delegate to voter ratio as well as the low turn-out rates.
Not good for your candidate.
Of course, neither is denying people the right to vote. We'll just have to see how this plays out. Great move by Clinton. Someone else said it better than me a long while back: She is playing chess, he is playing checkers.

[ Parent ]

Maybe States with small populations (none / 0) (#72)
by ding7777 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:42:29 AM EST

which rules out Florida

[ Parent ]

Because they are impractical (none / 0) (#71)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:41:31 AM EST

indeed IMPOSSIBLE for Florida.

In Michigan, the firehouse primary has been rejected by Obama.

So a mail in primary is probably in the works there too.

[ Parent ]

: When did Obama reject firehouse primaries... (none / 0) (#120)
by tbetz on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:06:24 AM EST

... (aka Michigan Caucuses) in Michigan? I'd like to read it.
I saw some reference to the time restrictions in Granholm's specific proposal disenfranchising nine-to-five workers, but I saw no outright rejection.

[ Parent ]

Because Hillary has flat-out rejected caucuses. (none / 0) (#113)
by tbetz on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:02:44 AM EST

She won't permit them.

[ Parent ]

NO (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:10:59 AM EST

The state of Florida has rejected a caucus because they've never done it before. Forcing Florida to do something that accomodates Obama's style rather than their own historical pattern is absurd.

[ Parent ]

: How many (none / 0) (#129)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:13:31 AM EST

mail-in primaries have they done before?

[ Parent ]

Except it is not (none / 0) (#69)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:40:41 AM EST

even being proposed by anyone in Florida as they have never had them.

The statement is a lie. Are you suggesting Obama is planning to lie?

[ Parent ]

I am starting to like (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:03:49 AM EST

Maggie Williams a lot.

: I was already there (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:15:06 AM EST

for Williams when I saw the difference between the Wisconsin (non)campaign, only a couple of days after the upheaval so still a Solis Doyle campaign of chaos . . . vs. the Williams campaign in Ohio and Texas. The key is the difference in Clinton, letting the fighter in her come out again.
I like a fighter for the Dems. We need a fighter for the Dems.

[ Parent ]

I don't see any way (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by frankly0 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:05:12 AM EST

Obama can resist the power of this argument.

It's going to be very, very easy for the Clinton campaign to tar Obama with the charge of disenfranchising voters if he raises problems with a revote, or even simply stalls.

The Clinton campaign clearly knows how to press the argument so that Obama has no room to wiggle here -- this letter is just the first step in that fight.

I hope you are right (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:06:59 AM EST

but I am less confident every day

[ Parent ]

I know how (none / 0) (#21)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:12:18 AM EST

Media darlingship, and DNC darlingship. I've come to the conclusion that the DNC would rather lose the election than get the candidate whom they don't want.

[ Parent ]

I was thinking the same thing (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by ruffian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:26:27 AM EST

this morning. I really do think the DNC would rahter go down in flames with Obama than nominate Clinton.

I was listening to the Young Turks podcast from yesterday (yes, I torture myself that way to learn the latest anti-Clinton line) and Cenk was commenting, accurately, that if Bush invades Iran this year then Obama will have his hands ties as president.

The fallacy in that is that if Bush invades Iran, McCain will be the next president, not Obama. The thought of Obama being elected during a still hot, fighting war really is a fairy tale.

[ Parent ]

Some people think (none / 0) (#56)
by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:32:59 AM EST

the party will go down in flames if they nominate Clinton. People don't like dreamkillers.

[ Parent ]

dreaming is fine (none / 0) (#57)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:35:26 AM EST

I prefer winning.

[ Parent ]

: I prefer to have both (none / 0) (#97)
by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:55:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I should have written more clearly (none / 0) (#90)
by ruffian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:52:54 AM EST

You're probably right. I should have distinguished between the DNC going down in flames with Obama - by which I mean Obama losing in November to McCain, and the party imploding by nominating Hillary in a way many would see as unfair. (Because they have been told for the least 3 months that it is unfair to win with Superdelegates).

I guess I am not very optimistic about a Dem win in November, am I?

[ Parent ]

And throw (none / 0) (#149)
by Daryl24 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:13:54 PM EST

his line about bringing people together right back in his face. Stalling doesn't help but the powers that be in dem circles maybe willing to give him until PA votes.

If he loses big in Pennsylvania then its a forgone conclusion.

[ Parent ]

furiouser and furiouser (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:31:00 AM EST

I am really getting furious about this. This issue is NOT ABOUT Obama's campaign, nor about Clinton's campaign, nor about which of them is advantaged or disadavantaged.

This is about voter's rights! I don't care if Obama or Clinton wins FL or MI, or whether they tie, or anything else. This is the U.S. and people get to vote and have their votes counted! Period.

I believe it is unfair to seat the delegates under the previous vote - and not because it is unfair to Obama, but because it would be unfair to those voters who may have supported him. I believe it is also unfair to split the delegates 50-50 - again, because it subverts the will of the voters.

The only democratic thing to do at this point is a primary re-vote.

I swear, what in the world is happening to this party? I am calling Dean's office today to give them an earful (like they'll listen to me!)

A mail-in primary (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:01:32 AM EST

should help Hillary in FL. IIRC, seniors are more likely to to regularly use absentee ballots.

One of my concerns is that this mail ballot look like an official absentee ballot, and not like a statement from AT&T.

: Presumably it will (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:03:29 AM EST

I would hope they would use the same vendors who prepare their regular mail in ballots, of which over a million are submitted in a regular Presidential election.

[ Parent ]

Partisan maneuvering (none / 0) (#18)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:08:12 AM EST

The Clinton campaign wants the revote and is pushing for it.

The Obama campaign has no interest in a revote and remains ambivalent.

The DNC will need to resolve the matter when it is all said and done.

Howard Dean has preapproved this mail in primary (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:10:56 AM EST

in Florida.

The decision has been made.

What will Obama do is the question, whether you like it or not.

[ Parent ]

What has to happen now (none / 0) (#24)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:14:11 AM EST

to make it official?

[ Parent ]

Formal proposal (none / 0) (#45)
by Step Beyond on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:26:03 AM EST

Thursday (according to what I've read) the FDP will submit the plan to the DNC. Then they must wait 30 days for discussion. If approved after the 30 days they will be able to begin mailing ballots. They hope to mail ballots in April.

I would expect that after the plan is submitted that the fundraising would begin in order to pay for the vote.

[ Parent ]

: If both candidates (none / 0) (#116)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:04:51 AM EST

supported a particular proposal, it would have a greater chance of being approved.
Obama's strategy is clear: appear to be accomodating by saying he'll go along with whatever the DNC decides, but don't actually support any plausible solution but instead nitpick and have concerns about anything proposed. This will give the DNC an excuse, if they want it, to reject proposals, because they will be seen as coming from Clinton only, allowing Obama to say 'oh well, the DNC has decided and we have to go along with it'.
The good news is Dean seems to support a mail-in re-vote and the momentum is against Obama on this, so it will likely pass, in spite of the lukewarm support of Obama.
Why should I trust a candidate who is so eager to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans, but can't reach across the divide and work with the Democratic Party to come up with a feasible solution?

[ Parent ]

does it really matter (none / 0) (#27)
by Lil on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:16:08 AM EST

what Obama will do? A revote is coming no matter what. There is nothing he can do.

[ Parent ]

And so far (none / 0) (#28)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:16:09 AM EST

you guys here have assigned a lot of actions to Obama that haven't occurred yet.

Obama has stated that he is fine with whatever the DNC chooses to do. If the DNC has approved the mail-in revote then Obama is on record as saying he is ok with it.

[ Parent ]

We'll see (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:38:53 AM EST

I like to pressure before the capitulation, not after.

[ Parent ]

so (none / 0) (#33)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:19:04 AM EST

why are we not doing it?

[ Parent ]

Because (none / 0) (#37)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:21:18 AM EST

you can't just snap your fingers and make it so.

From what I read Florida needs to submit a proposal which then will require a 30 day review. That hasn't happened yet.

FTR, neither Obama or Clinton can make or prevent a re-vote from happening. They can appeal for one or oppose one. But this is between the DNC, the state Democratic Parties, and the governments of Florida and Michigan.

[ Parent ]

this is from a post here last night (none / 0) (#39)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:23:05 AM EST

Facing tight deadlines for a do-over election, Florida Democrats are rushing to deliver to the national party as soon as Thursday a plan to vote again in the presidential primary -- this time, by mail. If approved, ballots could start going out to voters in April.
. . . Under the emerging plan, estimated to cost as much as $10 million, the state's four million registered Democrats would be mailed self-addressed, stamped ballots that would be tabulated by an independent party, such as an accounting firm or a company that runs corporate shareholder voting.
Ballots would be due back in Tallahassee on a specific day in late May or early June, and regional sites would likely be employed for last-minute voters, party officials said.

[ Parent ]

That is a general guideline (none / 0) (#42)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:24:33 AM EST

A lot more needs to be hashed out and something formal has to be proposed. So far nothing has been proposed.

[ Parent ]

We can not speak in principles now? (none / 0) (#68)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:39:34 AM EST

You are too much.

[ Parent ]

: Of course you can (none / 0) (#75)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:44:48 AM EST

I'm fine with principles.
But you are suggesting that Obama needs to do something yet there is nothing for him to do.
Maggie Williams sent out the letter to make it appear like they are leading the way on the issue when, in truth, Florida democrats must do that.

[ Parent ]

But Dean said (none / 0) (#52)
by ruffian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:30:45 AM EST

the DNC will consult with the candidates before approving any proposal. Dean and Obama have set up a circular stall operation here. Even though Dean has said he approves the mail-in idea in general, you can bet the Obama people will bring up enough "worrisome" aspects of it for the DNC to not approve it in the end.

[ Parent ]

Actually the Clinton campaign would (none / 0) (#131)
by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:14:08 AM EST

prefer to have the Jan. results honored, but they are advocating the RIGHT thing anyway.

[ Parent ]

Enough with the okiedoke, let's vote!! (none / 0) (#30)
by ineedalife on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:16:45 AM EST

I can't wait for someone in the Clinton campaign to tell Obama to stop trying to hoodwink and bamboozle the people of Florida and Michigan.

Enough with the okiedoke, let's vote!!

Enough with the race baiting (none / 0) (#32)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:18:01 AM EST

This comment is OT.

[ Parent ]

Nuh-uh (5.00 / 3) (#51)
by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:30:42 AM EST

Unless you think Obama is running a race-baiting campaign by including those phrases in his stump speeches, then there is no higher ground for you to stand on.

As for being off topic, it clearly is referring to Obama's ambivalent attitude to the voters of Florida and Michigan. The fact that they used that verbiage to act as a two-fer commentary on Obama's campaign is more a testament to their wit than to any racism.

[ Parent ]

Perhaps you should (none / 0) (#66)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:38:50 AM EST

tell this person or this one or this comment or this comment or this comment

They seem to disagree with you.

[ Parent ]

Fly, if YOU don't think its race baiting (none / 0) (#76)
by tree on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:44:51 AM EST

when Obama says it, then you have no leg to stand on when you claim that someone here is race baiting for using the same word.

[ Parent ]

Actually no (none / 0) (#83)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:48:25 AM EST

If I thought it was race-baiting then I think it would be appropriate to call him out on it.

I DON'T think it is race-baiting because it is a common quote not only among AAs but among younger people in general, although more common among AAs.

But the protest over the use of that comment is clearly racially tinged because people are claiming that he is using it in a racially divisive way which there is no evidence to support.

[ Parent ]

So then why did you accuse someone (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by tree on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:51:34 AM EST

else of race-baiting when they used the word. You've got a double standard. Not race-baiting when Obama uses it, race-baiting when some one else uses it.

[ Parent ]

Because (none / 0) (#102)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:57:07 AM EST

the suggestion is that Obama is being racially divisive when he is not.

[ Parent ]

Stop it now (none / 0) (#111)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:01:50 AM EST

You have not a leg to stand on in this argument. And you have nothing to me on being PC.

Obama said it and that is why the commenter said it.

Period. Stop this now or you will be suspended.

[ Parent ]

If that's what you think (none / 0) (#115)
by tree on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:04:10 AM EST

then why did you think a poster was being racially divisive for using the same words?

[ Parent ]

Flyerhawk (none / 0) (#117)
by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:05:06 AM EST

How do you explain that Obama only uses those words in front of Black audiences, Fly?

Used in South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi.

NOT used in Ohio, Illinois, Utah, Idaho, Wisconsin, Texas.

Why do you think he does that?

[ Parent ]

I am being told (none / 0) (#124)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:10:19 AM EST

to stop this discussion. So I will.

[ Parent ]

I think you already know the answer. (1.00 / 0) (#128)
by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:13:05 AM EST

We ALL do.

[ Parent ]

typical (none / 0) (#138)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:30:03 AM EST

Must be fun to take shots at someone who can't respond.

[ Parent ]

: But you DID respond, didn't you? (none / 0) (#141)
by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:37:51 AM EST

Typical.

[ Parent ]

okiedoke (none / 0) (#35)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:20:06 AM EST

that is southern not racist.

[ Parent ]

Please (none / 0) (#38)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:21:55 AM EST

It is very clear what the poster was referring to.

[ Parent ]

The poster (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by tree on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:32:18 AM EST

was referring to the words that Obama used two days ago. If the words are race baiting, then why did Obama use them?

[ Parent ]

It is indeed (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:36:49 AM EST

He is referring to words uttered by Barack Obama.

[ Parent ]

clear to you maybe (none / 0) (#41)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:24:11 AM EST

live north of the mason dixon?

[ Parent ]

common expressions (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Lil on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:26:09 AM EST

that I use all the time and did not know there were racist implications. In fact, I still don't get how they are racist.

[ Parent ]

You would need to ask (none / 0) (#49)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST

the various Clinton supporters here who claim that Obama's use of that term is a AA dog whistle.

[ Parent ]

use of what terms (none / 0) (#54)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:32:04 AM EST

bamboozle? hoodwinked?
they are idiots. you are aware that there have been major movies with these names recently, right.

[ Parent ]

Stop it flyerhawk (none / 0) (#64)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:37:36 AM EST

Immediately. Those were words from Obama.

You wrongly accused some one of race baiting. You them an apology.

[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0) (#73)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:43:27 AM EST

I am CONSTANTLY told here that those words are dog whistle phrases for AAs because Denzel Washington said them while portraying Malcolm X.

If you all agree that Obama is NOT using some sort of dog whistle when he uses that comment, I will gladly apologize for my statement.

[ Parent ]

: agree (none / 0) (#79)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:45:46 AM EST

Im in
I have said he uses dog whistle tactics to, among other things, gay bait but never included that.

[ Parent ]
: The point is what YOU think (none / 0) (#81)
by tree on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:47:36 AM EST

If YOU don't think it is race baiting when Obama uses the words, then you can't come back and claim that its race baiting whe someone else uses them. It's highly hypocritical, don't you see?

[ Parent ]
: I have no idea what you are talking about (none / 0) (#112)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:02:38 AM EST

But I see this thread and you need to stop it. NOW.

[ Parent ]

Long and Playful Form Of OK (none / 0) (#58)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:35:44 AM EST

There are no other connotations.

[ Parent ]

Is hoodwink and bamboozle (none / 0) (#44)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:24:58 AM EST

a common southern phrase as well?

[ Parent ]

OBAMA USED THEM!!! (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:38:25 AM EST

Stop accusing people of race baiting when they have done no such thing.

You owe us all an apology for your behavior in this subthread.

[ Parent ]

me thinks (none / 0) (#50)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:30:37 AM EST

you are grasping

[ Parent ]

THESE are racist comments????????? (none / 0) (#80)
by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:46:28 AM EST

Please, let's not start this. There are racist words and there are anti-female words but these 3 are not. In fact, I was thinking of how my parents always said Okidokie as a fond and cute way of saying OK when I was growing up. As for bamboozle and hoodwink, these are everyday expressions and apparently I do not know the history of these words. No one told me I was being a racist when using them. Woe de me.

Looked up the words. Bambooz-cheat & a Favorite English game.
Hoodwink, which is what Obama says Hillary is doing, means trick.

[ Parent ]

To be clear (none / 0) (#84)
by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:49:10 AM EST

race baiting does not equal racism.

[ Parent ]

interesting distinction (none / 0) (#87)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:50:50 AM EST

: if you are in a hole, stop digging. (none / 0) (#94)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:53:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]

race baiting (none / 0) (#92)
by Lil on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:53:05 AM EST

is a technique born of racism.

[ Parent ]

links (none / 0) (#93)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:53:37 AM EST

Linked text

btw
bamboozled was a Spike Lee film

[ Parent ]

And terms used in the West (none / 0) (#74)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:44:45 AM EST

apparently, since Obama is not a Southerner, nor from a Southern heritage. He's a Westerner.

[ Parent ]

Um (none / 0) (#60)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:36:23 AM EST

Obama said those words.

[ Parent ]

Flyerhawk (none / 0) (#96)
by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:54:38 AM EST

Look, FLy, you continually make excuses for Obama's wishy-washy lack of leadership.

If Obama wants to LEAD the Democratic Party as the presidential nominee, he needs to step up and frikkin LEAD.

** or get off the pot, Barak.

[ Parent ]

inductive reasoning (none / 0) (#63)
by corn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:37:30 AM EST

Clinton says yes to a revote. And since that revote must be a mail in revote in Florida, Clinton says yes to a mail in revote in Florida.

Might be what happens, but not what they sai

DE-ductive reasoning (none / 0) (#99)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:56:45 AM EST

The proposed revote in Florida is a mail primary.

Clinton knows this.

Makes statement accepting revotes, knowing the only way is mail in.

I deduce logically she is accepting mail in primary.

I understand that deductive and inductive reasoning are described as follows:

Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific . . .

My deduction went from the general statement, aplied other facts I know, and deduced the specific conclusion that Clinton was accepting a mail revote.

[ Parent ]

Let me add (none / 0) (#106)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:59:13 AM EST

That the facts I add exclude other possibilities regarding whether or not Clinton will accept a mail in revote.

Clinton KNOWS that is the proposal that is being made. She knows no other will be made. Thus she knows the only revote will be a mail in revote.

Hence. by accepting a revote, she has accepted the only possible one.

[ Parent ]

Again (none / 0) (#125)
by corn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:10:53 AM EST

Just because it's the leading proposal doesn't mean it's the only way. Unlikely as it may be, other options are still plausible.

[ Parent ]

No, no time for alternatives now (none / 0) (#135)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:21:24 AM EST

as Florida faces deadlines -- laws re getting ballots to military, etc. -- that mean it must come up with something to submit Thursday. In the next 24 hours, nothing else is "plausible," because nothing else is feasible by the deadline.

[ Parent ]

What deadline? (none / 0) (#137)
by corn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:24:58 AM EST

As I said, there are several including (none / 0) (#147)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:51:01 PM EST

for example, federal law that military must receive ballots overseas 45 days before an election. Counting back, including time for designing a ballot, getting it approved, printing it, addressing it, etc., -- there is no wiggle time left.

[ Parent ]

: Well I agree that time is of the essence (none / 0) (#148)
by corn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:11:06 PM EST

but it's still kind of vague. Not that this inductive point is all that big a deal, but there's no proof that