home

While OlbermannThrows A Sorrow and Pity Party . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:46:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

. . . Hillary Clinton says:

Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that she would favor restaging the Florida and Michigan primaries, if the Democratic national Committee continues to insist that primaries' original results won't be counted.

. . .[S]he added that if the Democratic National Committee continues to insist that the delegates from those states not be seated at the party's convention this summer, then the primaries should be held again. "In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections,'' Clinton said. She said she hoped rival Barack Obama's campaign would join her "in working to make that happen.''

While Barack Obama, his NBC network and his MSNBC news anchor are more concerned with holding a Sorrow and Pity Party, some of us are thinking about the voters in Florida and Michigan.

Please note that the votes of the people of Florida and Michigan is a big joke for Obama's newscaster. Remember this when he intones serious and sorrowful in his Special Comment. Obama's own Bill O'Reilly.

I'm watching Olbermann, and I have to say, he is rather incoherent. Not even offensive, sexist or insulting. Just sort of rambling and incoherent. My honest take. Maybe it got blue pencilled or something. I have a hard time following what he is trying to say.

Update (TL): Comments now closed, over 200.

< Poll: FL Dem Voters Favor Mail In Revote | Weds. Night Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    While OlbermannThrows A Sorrow and Pity Party . . . | 208 comments (208 topical)
    Once again Hillary is acting like the mature adult (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:51:08 PM EST
    and suggesting something reasonable.  

    Just Wait Till Mom Gets Home (none / 0) (#185)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:35:20 PM EST
    I'd love to see that in a T-shirt, with Hillary standing in front of the White House.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD, do not let up one little bit (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:52:57 PM EST
    Heck, there's still time for more MI/FL diaries tonight -- what was asked of you in an earlier thread, 10 a day? :-) And more tomorrow. Every so-called liberal blog ought to be hammering and hammering on this issue. I appreciate that one is doing so.

    "By Mail" threaten Popular Vote Leader? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:56:31 PM EST
    Technically a new vote in Florida is not really a revote at all. It was stated in advance that the Jan 29th primary would not count. In fact, Dean referred to it as a beauty contest.

    Put in perspective, it was a game before the regular season started, an exhibition game per se. An exhibition game that can be argued before committee at the convention to make it count, but for all intents and purposes...a pre season practice vote.

    A new "By Mail" primary has to scare Obama a little. The Jan 29th Primary had a record 41% turnout. Comparing by using Oregon's voter turnout figures, the number of voters in a new By Mail Primary could obliterate that previous Florida record. In Florida the number of voters participating in a new meaningful election could go up by half a million.

    The best advice I can give the Obama campaign is speak up quickly on how great it is that Florida votes will count this time...or be caught looking like George Bush trying to suppress the vote in a swing state.

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#51)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:49:58 PM EST
    I made much the same comment somewhere here yesterday--Obama and his camp should publicly and enthusiastically embrace a re-vote and get the most mileage possible out of what's obviously going to happen anyway.

    If he drags his feet on this one, it will hand Clinton a huge weapon for for some very pointed ads in PA, plus it will trigger a press reaction, like an Olbermann Special Comment saying...

    What?  Why are you all looking at me like that?  Is my fly open?

    What is The Cost of Energy?
    [ Parent ]

    thought I read Obama lawyered up (none / 0) (#119)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:26:02 PM EST
    about this mail in ballot plan. Where did I read it?
    TPM or DU.

    I think it will stall the process or run out the clock strategy.

    and the other blogs are calling on Hillary to quit as they know the longer it goes Obama is looked at closer. His surrogates are crying, the party is going to be destroyed, blah blah.....Actually it will make the party stronger by making sure everyone is counted. The more I see Obama the more I see someone who is indicisive and doesn't say much to sway me into his direction.

    To watch Kos do some kind of weird graph, that doesn't amount to anything really because its not the election.

    Unless St.McSame  re-invents itself, he's rich to exploit as a warmonger destroying the country with a perpetual unpopular war.

    [ Parent ]

    i'm sure he is on record somewhere... (none / 0) (#150)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:59:52 PM EST
    ...standing behind Al Gore's demand that every vote in FL should be (re)counted...

    [ Parent ]
    What irony (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by hitchhiker on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:01:17 PM EST
    Her only real path to the nomination involves the popular vote from Florida . . . his way is clear if he can keep that vote from ever being counted (and may be clear anyway).

    If I'm her, there's no choice but to call for the re-vote.

    If I'm him, it's a dangerous calculus between looking like he doesn't want Florida to vote and keeping his popular vote lead.

    For a Democrat to say that Florida voters must pay for the dumb mistakes of their own leaders -- that's breathtaking.  

    I wonder if he's man enough to do the right thing?

    His choice (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:03:31 PM EST
    will  speak  volumes  about his   real character  and judgement, won't  it?

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah he is every bit the pol Hillary and Bill are (none / 0) (#14)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:06:19 PM EST
    I think BTD has mentioned this before...

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:18:06 PM EST
    he's  certainly    NOT    something  "new."  

    He's   a  Chicago  pol.    Nuff  said.

    [ Parent ]

    He's a transformational politician (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:48:56 PM EST
    Not sure, at this point, exactly what he is transforming himself, or us, into.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't ever mention (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by OldCoastie on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:57:53 PM EST
    on any site with bots that Obama is a politician and uses stratgies and tactics...

    it will earn you much fury...

    [ Parent ]

    it already does. (none / 0) (#84)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:48:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This is the test of whether a candidate (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:05:25 PM EST
    ought to be the president, the leader of the free world.  Starting with democracy in Michigan and Florida, not their disenfranchisement.

    This is it, Obama.  This is the big one.

    [ Parent ]

    If he makes it a point that he's risking it all (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:43:15 PM EST
    for the good of the democracy, that might turn some heads. I really think the only way he can do this is if he shows people that he knows the stakes, he knows this could end his run, but he will do it anyway. Embrace it.

    [ Parent ]
    You're right (none / 0) (#136)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:45:57 PM EST
    This is the big Q for Obama...

    What boggles my mind is why HRC has not completely dropped the hammer on him on this issue...he is 100% exposed here, is she scared of the neg. spin?

    [ Parent ]

    Have to be mindful of the news cycle (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:04:51 PM EST
    Spitzer resigned today, that must have dominated the news. Hopefully tomorrow she will come out strong on this.

    [ Parent ]
    any assumptions about florida (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by cy street on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:05:45 PM EST
    moving forward are fools gold.  it could break either way.  miz clinton might build upon her beauty contest numbers.  mister obama might win outright.

    there will be a huge influx of dem voters if the contest might determine the presidency.  my throat curdles just thinking about it.

    i would be cautious making any projections based on january.  that was a century ago, politically speaking.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly my point throughout (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:08:10 PM EST
    Changing the timing of an election is just as unthinkable as changing the location.

    [ Parent ]
    Why? (none / 0) (#73)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:40:48 PM EST
    Elections are postponed all the time.  I'll whip my dead horse again - an election where the stakes change after the results are known is not a fair election.

    [ Parent ]
    For better reasons (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:24:25 PM EST
    If the World Series is postponed cause of an earthquake, OK then.

    If it's postponed cause the umpires and the commisioner couldn't get it together, and then it turns out that postponement favors one team more than the other, then there's a problem.

    [ Parent ]

    Let's not forget... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:22:03 PM EST
    ...the reason for this entire flap as that enough people think the timing of elections DOES matter.  Else, the DNC in infinite wisdom wouldn't have nullifed the FL and MI primaries...

    [ Parent ]
    That's fine (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:14:57 PM EST
    This is about more than Obama or Clinton winning the nomination. It's about Dems winning the state in November. If FL has record turnout in a re-vote and Obama wins, more power to him.

    But he is a Democrat. He must be for voting and for the voters before he is for his own candidacy.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (3.25 / 4) (#26)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:21:04 PM EST
    We'll   see  if   lil  Obama  can put  what's  right for  the  party  ahead  of his own  personal  gain.    

    Or   if  he  can  bamboozle  the  voters  with   Edgar's   description  of  the   game  Obama's playing.    

    May  backfire  completely on  lil  Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    lil Obama? (3.00 / 2) (#67)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:37:30 PM EST
    That's kind of uncalled for.  But I agree with you a revote is the only sensible option.

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama wins a re-vote in (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:50:39 PM EST
    either or both states, so be it. If he is what the majority of Democratic voters want, when all have had their say, so be it. But don't whinge about superdelegates and then say that the Democratic voters of two major states should be completely disenfranchised behind the facade of an arbitrary 50/50 split of the delegations.

    [ Parent ]
    excuse me, we are talking about (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:50:24 PM EST
    two states' votes here and disenfranchising them. they have a right to have their votes counted or recounted. and please explain why south carolina broke the rules and hasn't had the same response. i say redo the vote there or apply the same penality to them.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:26:04 PM EST
    I agree there is no way to know what will happen seven weeks from now in a Florida revote. But I do know how it will be perceived if one candidate continues to come across as if he is against every vote counting.

    I still think back to a post of mine here the night of Texas and Ohio suggesting the best move for Obama right then would be to publicly support a revote in Florida and Michigan. Eight days later they still haven't figured it out and he is risking a backlash.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not sure (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by jen on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:54:01 PM EST
    where the backlash would come from. To many (most?) O supporters, from what I've seen, he can do/say anything and they will defend him. They are in so deep that it's beyond logic, really.


    [ Parent ]
    She won FL by 17 points (none / 0) (#152)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:02:12 PM EST
    ...in a 3 candidate race.  That's a margin of some 300,000 votes.  If Obama even thought he had a shot at flipping the state, he'd be all over.  Even a close outcome wouldn't given Clinton much of a delegate advantage.

    [ Parent ]
    First they hint at 'taking their ball home,' (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by felizarte on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:43:30 PM EST
    now he is actually holding the entire democratic party hostage by proposing such an unfair option.

    [ Parent ]
    And if Obama's successful ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:32:23 PM EST
    his metamorphosis into Bush is complete.

    All stand back in wonder at the gleaming glory that is .. Bush 2.00.

    New and Improved!  Now with MI-FL-NO a stronger voter suppression agent!

    [ Parent ]

    I saw the Bushian strategy (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:37:56 PM EST
    in the wierd speeches, in the wierd holy light eminating from his web site.

    The man has literally scared me for a long time.

    He's really, really not a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm telling you (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:10:02 PM EST
    KO is demonstrating the Unity Schtick 2.0.

    They want to unite the whole country in opposition to the evil that is Hillary Clinton.

    It might work!

    The truth comes out (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:11:00 PM EST
    BTD is actually Wolcott!

    BTD, (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by nemo52 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:36:26 PM EST
    I know you're a (conflicted) Obama supporter because you think he has the better chance of winning in the GE.  I respectfully disagree.  I think all the race-baiting and game-playing the Obama campaign is doing will come back to bite him, big-time, in the generals.  Hillary is a known quantitiy, and she simply does not back down.  I don't think the "if you don't support me, you're a racist" tack will fly in the general election at all -- Obama will fold like a pup tent in the face of the Republican onslaught, and we'll have a Republican president once again.

    I'd agree... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:51:30 PM EST
    The Obama campaign has been lulled by its own hype and the media's complicity.  OF COURSE every pundit and reporter in the nation will feign outrage over any ridiculous comment the campaign elevates as "racist."  I'll give props to Ferraro for actually saying what a lot of people are thinking but too conditioned to keep to themselves.

    In the voting booth there is no explanation needed.  There's no fear of being publicly shamed or browbeaten.  And, quite honestly, it does offend many white Americans when any discussion of race gets shouted down as inappropriate.

    When one candidate gets 91% of the black vote and the other gets over 70% of the white vote - who are we fooling by claiming that we're running a colorblind campaign?  Were Obama not black, he's NOT getting 91% of Mississippi's African-American voters and - likewise - Clinton's not getting 70% of white voters.

    [ Parent ]

    the editor of Time (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:53:09 PM EST
    just said as much--that Obama had reached a plateau with white voters.

    Of course, he said it on BBC America, so I would hardly call that speaking truth to power.  Me and the six other people watching it really were relieved to hear an honest discussion, though.

    [ Parent ]

    He'll be lucky to plateau... (none / 0) (#145)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:55:26 PM EST
    ...as the thin-skinned responses his campaign has to any discussion of race can do nothing but offend white voters...

    [ Parent ]
    Feh (none / 0) (#149)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:58:02 PM EST
    I don't think they're really offended--not after listening to Ferraro on NBC.  Apparently, she is friends with Axelrod.  The way she talks about how this story was spun made my head spin--how quickly they had a press memo, how quickly they got folks booked on "news" shows to refute her horrible statement (which, honestly, was the same thing Gloria Steinam said but with a stupid tag at the end)

    This is all just a gang, and nothing works better than being outraged by how low your opponent will stoop or how desperate they seem.  At least it used to work.  You can only play that game so many times before the chips get called.

    [ Parent ]

    Backlash... (none / 0) (#159)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:08:12 PM EST
    ...I can't help but recall watching Bill Clinton's favorable numbers continue to rise the more Republicans pushed impeachment proceedings.  Obama runs the same risk by escalating his attacks on Clinton's character for what is - in essence - a fairly minor transgression from a corollary figure in the campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Quit the stallling! ! ! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Sunshine on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:37:11 PM EST
    If Obama is willing to accept any solution, he should say what it is...  Hillary has said she would accept the results as is or a new vote, either one...  Whatever, it should be the will of the people and not the will of the candidates....

    i had an interesting experience. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:36:10 PM EST
    i watched two interviews with geraldine ferraro. one done at faux. it was the fairest and the other one done at cnn just irritated me. the person doing the interivew kept trying to put comments into the interview that weren't there.

    the point being about the media and ko. they have lost perspective. i don't watch them anymore and ko in particular. i used to watch him almost every night. i dreaded the fact he would on tonight and making a "special comment". It would appear that it didn't work out so well.

    I am very frightened (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:00:19 PM EST
    I listen to CNN, FOX and ABC on sat radio. I keep finding that Fox seems to have the most balanced take on what is going on in the democratic race. I keep looking around, looking for the horsemen of the apocalypse, for hell freezing over.

    Or maybe I have gone insane and have become a Republican.

    [ Parent ]

    Pat Buchannan is making sense (none / 0) (#168)
    by DaleA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:46:32 PM EST
    which suggest we have fallen into an alternative reality. Or that the left leaning press has gone bonkers.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's because of things like this (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:50:36 PM EST
    that make Obama supporters all the more unlikely to take us seriously. Truth comes from strange places, and that's hard to accept, but if you put everything out on the table, Faux has been one of the most fair and balanced in this election.

    Just me saying that has enraged several DKos readers somewhere, I'm sure of it.

    [ Parent ]

    last night on MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:45:38 PM EST
    (yeah I know...I couldn't sleep and I couldn't watch Anderson Cooper a 3rd time)

    Chuck Todd floated the notion (of course grabbed onto by Tweety) that the whole drive behind FL and MI revotes is the Clinton campaign wanting some big victories to close it out and thereby claim momentum.

    As for Olbermann...I can't watch him anymore since he drank the kool-aid. Too bad, MSNBC has for all purposes lost me.

    Damn... (none / 0) (#147)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:57:23 PM EST
    ...but the media is insightful.  Clinton's got some nerve wanting to count states she won...

    [ Parent ]
    I was (none / 0) (#172)
    by sas on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:15:22 PM EST
    at a Clinton rally yesterday in Phila - someone had a home made sign I could relate to....

    "MSNBC sux".  

    That said it all.

    [ Parent ]

    It's as if they decided (none / 0) (#175)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:18:20 PM EST
    that journalism no longer matters...only their point of view.

    I'm not enthralled with CNN however, but there are 3 cable news channels and at this stage, it's the least evil.

    [ Parent ]

    He has a habit (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:56:58 PM EST
    of broadcasting the worst that can be found at dkos. And these days, everything there sucks.

    I didn't get his point (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by facta non verba on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:06:47 PM EST
    I mean those were words he was using and he strung them in sentences but were there thoughts there? Rather incoherent and rambling.

    Exactly what Murrow, KO's here (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:09:39 AM EST
    showed about McCarthy, exposing him for what KO was doing tonight.

    KO was so McCarthyesque that it really is frightening now, for those of us who know what that era was like and the lasting damage done.

    As of this week, I no longer can convince myself that this is just campaign politics as usual.  This is back to one of the worst eras in modern times.

    And KO is the ANTI-Murrow in this one, and he doesn't even know it.

    [ Parent ]

    A little mending is order (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by pluege on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:13:41 PM EST
    one thing is clear, the split among lefties over Obama and Clinton has ratcheted up beyond irritating into something more serious as we continue to march toward Carter - Kennedy Fallout Part Deux. And the ONLY winners in that scenario are the cult of republicanism.
    .

    I've Wanted To Get This Off My Chest (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:24:01 PM EST
    Words cannot adequately describe my disappointment and despair with Keith Olberman.  I've been a fan from almost the very first Countdown episode.  Keith was always susceptible to going off the rails from time to time.  But, the subjects of his rants were people who deserved to be publicly flogged.  When he turned his considerable hostility on Hillary Clinton, however, he cross the line from left-leaning commentator to unapologetic political hack, with no apparent purpose other than to smear and slander a presidential candidate with whom he has some personal vendetta.  How is it that this blowhard remains on the air?  Is it really the goal of the network to host a daily 60-minute smear campaign?  

    I admit that I can't comment on anything from his show lately, as I've stopped watching for some time now.  What I find surprising is that anyone is still watching.  Certainly, many of his viewers have been sickened by his constant spinning and distortions of every minute utterance from Clinton's campaign into some kind of nefarious, sinister scheme that exists only in his cynical mind.  All the while, he exculpates Obama from every issue and criticism.

    I don't mind people picking sides; that's their right.  But when an anchor calls himself a news man, he betrays his audience when he turns his show into an advocacy commercial for his candidate, especially when done as dishonestly as Countdown.  I see so much of this going on in the media; even Bill Mares is getting in on the act.  But none has so insidiously whored himself out to a candidate as KO has.  What a total hack.

    I am equally sad (none / 0) (#184)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:34:27 PM EST
    I wrote the second letter in 3 days to KO and to MSNBC expressing my profound disappointment -- and my changed viewing habits.

    [ Parent ]
    No Hack, Just a character Assassin (none / 0) (#203)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:31:41 AM EST
    When Olbermann started going after bush and o'lielly, most assumed (apparently incorrectly) that Olbermann was a lefty railing against the lies,  hypocrisy, violence, and illegality right. However, with him applying his same approach to Hilliary Clinton, it becomes apparent that Olbermann is not a lefty, but merely someone who gets off on railing against personalities he doesn't like. By going after Hillary Clinton he has made suspect the basis of his comments against wingnuts, i.e., does he believe what he says or is he just infotaining.
    .

    [ Parent ]
    That "good night and good luck" (none / 0) (#211)
    by Daryl24 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:39:27 PM EST
    sign off sure makes you wonder.

    [ Parent ]
    should we give any creedence to Olberman? (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by tarheel74 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:15:55 AM EST
    when he uses such hyperbolic terms and equates Hillary's campaign with apartheid South Africa, when he equates her ads to race-baiting akin to Birth of the Nation and the celebration of the Klan just because it had the temerity to criticize the anointed "messiah" of the democratic party, when he criticizes her for darkening Obama's skin without a shred of proof or releasing pictures of him to Drudge without any evidence and fails to retract or apologize when both stories have been thoroughly debunked he shows that unlike his much vaunted "I am not endorsing anyone" he is actually tacitly endorsing someone. Moreover by extension he implies that anyone who supports Hillary's "racist" and "divisive" campaign must be racist. Either that or he is very cynically saying and doing these outrageous things to up his ratings. It is not a secret that Obama's campaign website has a group called "Countdown with Keith Olberman fans of Obama" so it goes to reason that he would say these outrageous things to increase his ratings. In either case he is no Edward R. Murrow ("goodluck and goodnight" aside) if anything he has bloated into the a gasbag like Bill O'Reilly and maybe he can start his show by saying "welcome to the O-spin zone".

    If the shoe were on the other foot (1.00 / 2) (#28)
    by obscure on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:24:44 PM EST
    and Obama would have won FL and MI, all of the people crying and wailing about FL and MI voters being "disenfranchised" would be arguing viciously about how "rules are rules."  

    Nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:26:49 PM EST
    We   Democrats   are  AGAINST  disenfranchising   voters.    THAT  is  the principle in  question here.    

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:28:25 PM EST
    Thank you.

    [ Parent ]
    So what? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:35:19 PM EST
    I was against disenfranchising myself last summer. I tend to think that people have a right to vote, even when I disagree with their choice of candidate (I'm not a Clinton supporter).

    You don't justify doing the wrong thing, because other people would have done the wrong thing also if the situation was different. It is right or wrong on its own merits not because of or in spite of what others think.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd oppose any candidate (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by badger on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:41:19 PM EST
    who wants to disenfranchise voters or fails to lead on the issue of enfranchising voters. I've felt that way since the 1960s at least. There is some history on this issue.

    You'd feel that way too if you were supporting progressive Democratic principles and not just "your candidate".

    The fact that you can only see it in "us vs. them" terms is, honestly, frightening.

    [ Parent ]

    If it was the other way around (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by mm on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:00:33 PM EST
    If it was the other way around and Obama needed FL and MI we wouldn't be having this conversation because the pressure put on Clinton from MSNBC and Donna Brazille and Al Sharpton ect. ect. would be so overwhelming that Clinton would have already have been forced to agree to anything they proposed.  This crisis would already have been resolved.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks making it clear (none / 0) (#37)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:32:33 PM EST
    to us all that the only principle Obama and his supporters are upholding here is the principle of getting him nominated at any cost. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    You are wrong (none / 0) (#39)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:34:34 PM EST
    Not everyone is an unprincipled as you think.

    And for the 11,000th time, a re-vote is not against the rules.

    [ Parent ]

    On The Contrary (none / 0) (#40)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:34:35 PM EST
    I'd say I have no dog in the fight but I actually have two. I go back and forth between them today just as I did last Jan 29 in the voting booth. I like them both, and what sets them apart at any given moment is something they do to move themselves back down into second place on my mental notes list.

    The rules support submitting a revote for both Florida and Michigan. Both candidates should support it 100%.


    [ Parent ]

    Wrong (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:07:20 PM EST
    This is about Democratic voters having a say in who they want as their nominee. My position would be the same regardless. Count the votes as cast by the voters and let the chips fall as they may.  

    [ Parent ]
    So now (1.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Jgarza on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:45:19 PM EST
    if Obama says he wants a vote to be fair,  he is against democracy?

    Ohh and racism isn't a big deal, Hillary Clinton getting every second chance possible to some how con her way to the nomination, Thats what is important, who cares how insulting anyone in her campaign is.

    I'll tell you why this is offensive (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:51:41 PM EST
    The presupposition that what HRC's campaign is about 'con'-ning people into victory but BHO's campaign is about fine efforts.

    They have the same mechanics in each of the campaign's and I simply don't believe that either has been more dirty or more honorable.

    The simple truth is that the main stream media has been far more receptive to carrying the messages from BHO's campaign...for whatever their reasons.

    If (/when) HRC is eliminated from the campaign, the true impact of media playing their hand in tearing apart BHO's campaign will be substantial. In this scenario, BHO will get my vote (there is no practical alternative) but I can see that it won't matter as he will be creamed by the main stream media and McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, jgarza. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:52:43 PM EST
    America  did not  see  Obama   cry  after  Katrina.  

    Ergo,   he  is not  worthy  of  our  presidential   votes.    

    Goes  around,  comes  around.  

    Own  petard.

    [ Parent ]

    That's Why I Love Ya Auntmo (none / 0) (#129)
    by OxyCon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:40:47 PM EST
    You always know how to say so much with so few words - your pal Cognito

    [ Parent ]
    the vote in FL WAS fair. (none / 0) (#101)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:02:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    "Fair" is code word here (none / 0) (#132)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:42:41 PM EST
    What is really being said is that counting FL and MI at all, in any form, is beneficial to HRC only and thus unfair...

    Obama & Co. is conceding both of those states, but they do not want them to count for delegates...and so long as the delegates do not count Obama is able to tell the SD's that the USA only has 48 states (that matter)...he's given up both states, but doesn't want it to hurt him...thus it is unfair to count them.

    [ Parent ]

    Whatever happened to Big Tent? (1.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Chango on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:03:25 PM EST
    He was such a rational thinker on Dkos, but now the more Clinton falls behind, the more bitter and irrational he becomes.

    It's over.  Get over it and join the party.

    Sorry (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Chango on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:05:58 PM EST
    In hindsight, I didn't mean for that to seem so personal.  It's just my observation about all the Clinton supporters that have not yet recognized that the race is over.  

    [ Parent ]
    If the race is over (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:12:17 PM EST
    Why do the Obama-ites like Olbermann feel they need to attack the Clintons...

    [ Parent ]
    Its not that (none / 0) (#126)
    by Rainsong on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:39:56 PM EST
    They know its over, perhaps they just want to rub Clinton's nose, and her supporters noses, in it, for as long as possible?

    [ Parent ]
    You haven't recognized (none / 0) (#110)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:11:47 PM EST
    You are going to lose a good chunk of the Clinton vote and will be wiped out in a landslide in Nov.

    Happy Party

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (none / 0) (#114)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:13:19 PM EST
    the shortsightedness of the Obama campaign is their own downfall.

    [ Parent ]
    On BBC America (none / 0) (#124)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:39:04 PM EST
    the editor of TIME (Abbott?) just said (from my memory) "What MS, OH and other recent states have shown is that Obama has a real problem getting white voters.  He seems to have reached a plateau and that is not  changing.  If anything, it's getting worse."

    So, as BTD said (yet again)

    Oh, but also he said that Clinton and Obama seem to have a gun to each other's heads, and that each needed the other voting bloc, and that the blocs themselves were becoming more concrete as more time passed and basically they were going to shoot themselves in the head at the same time.

    Joint ticket is the only way out of this.

    [ Parent ]

    Joint ticket is getting harder (none / 0) (#134)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:43:25 PM EST
    and harder to put together all the time.  It may even be too late for that now.

    [ Parent ]
    nothing is ever too late (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:49:49 PM EST
    in politics.

    A hug and a handshake and they move on.

    [ Parent ]

    Kerry -Edwards (none / 0) (#214)
    by Daryl24 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:09:42 PM EST
    2004 comes to mind.  

    [ Parent ]
    If Kennedy And Hatch (none / 0) (#216)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:32:17 PM EST
    Who share little in policy can get along, so can Obama and Clinton who are almost identical as far as policy goes.  The sometimes acrimonious back and forth is just political posturing. In the end they will both do what is best for the party and the country.  
    But there's another Hatch, too. No one dismisses him any longer as just a scorched-earth ideologue like Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.). He helped push through a generous child-care bill in 1989, leading fellow conservatives to equate him with Karl Marx and Benedict Arnold. In 1990, he single-handedly saved a law forbidding discrimination against AIDS patients. An unusually considerate man, Hatch has forged a friendship with his political opposite, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), that has become legendary; Kennedy scrawled on a painting he gave Hatch in 1991, "We'll leave the light at the [Kennedy] compound on for you anytime."

    When they join forces, they rarely lose. Hatch brings along so many conservatives, and Kennedy so many liberals, that a Hatch-Kennedy bill is almost assured passage.

    link

    IMO, Pelosi is also posturing for Obama, when she says that a joint ticket is impossible.

    [ Parent ]

    I thinks it's like (none / 0) (#212)
    by Daryl24 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    25% percent according to Pew Research that said they wouldn't vote for him. 14% of those said they would support McCain.

    That is a huge deficit to overcome.

    Obama supporters? Not so much. 10% said they wouldn't vote for Hillary and 8% said they would support McCain.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you (none / 0) (#155)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:04:05 PM EST
    Its nice to be reminded of this by various Obama supporters. I keep finding myself confused, thinking there are still state that have to vote, other have to revote, there are SDs that have to weight in.

    But thanks to the Obama Supporter Public Service Announcements (OSPSA) I am brought back to reality and can stop worrying.

    Phew! Thanks OSPSA!

    [ Parent ]

    That's (none / 0) (#177)
    by sas on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:20:46 PM EST
    because the race isn't over.

    BHO does not have the delegate count he needs, and neither does she.  And neither can get to the total before the convention.

    i believe he will havew the delegate lead, but she will have the popular vote lead.

    Either way , about 50% of the party will be pissed off.

    [ Parent ]

    personal attacks are so not needed. (none / 0) (#120)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:29:48 PM EST
    please refrain from doing that.

    [ Parent ]
    I think the eventual solution will involve (none / 0) (#3)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:53:32 PM EST
    seating Florida as is(or with a 50% penalty),  and a revote in Michigan.  Obama would rather hand Hillary the "tainted" delegates from Florida, even though he would be likely to run her much closer in a revote.  This way he would avoid Clinton getting late 'mo from a win, and he would still be likely to have over a 100 pledged delegate lead.

    If he's smart he'll accept the FL vote as is, but (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:58:00 PM EST
    I think it's too late for that now. The momentum is against him as far as revotes goes.

    (We need an Open Thread BTD. Tweety's Obama guest just spent several minutes reminiscing about Monica and Bill.)

    [ Parent ]

    that will give Obama another opportunity (none / 0) (#54)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:53:54 PM EST
    to play the outsider and Victim - outmaneuvered by that big ol mean Clinton Machine.
    That "underdog" tactic has been part of his success.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama as victim (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:44:36 PM EST
    is not a picture he is going to want to paint.  He's already getting "taking a nerf bat to a knife fight" headlines.  I agree with a poster on the open thread that Obama is trying to intimidate superdelegates with his latest tactics.  Not sure if it'll work, but if it does and he gets the nom, I predict a huge landslide for McCain.

    If Obama can't stand up to the pulled punches from the Clinton camp (and let's be honest here; she has not been hitting him hard) then he sure as heck can't stand up to the repubs.  They aren't going to care about being labelled racist.  Well, McCain might, but he's not going to be the one running the ads and spreading the rumors.

    People need to keep asking: if Obama is a leader, if he is a uniter, why can't he solve the MI and FL problem?  How is he going to run the United States of America if he can't give direction to two of the fifty states?

    [ Parent ]

    He is getting that "weak" glow about him (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:00:02 PM EST
    Whining and carrying on, etc.  Frankly, that's the worst thing you can do in an American election.  Nobody will vote for a victim for President.  That would be insane in today's world.


    [ Parent ]
    And the pubs (none / 0) (#116)
    by vigkat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:14:19 PM EST
    Will leap on any sign of weakness or uncertainty or indecisiveness.

    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't underestimate (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jen on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:15:32 PM EST
    the guy. He got to where he is through the well-known game of "Chicago Style" politics. It's hard to pinpoint where the smears and distortions of every word uttered by Clinton or anyone remotely connected to her or her campaign originate, but I don't think we can discount that the majority of it is coming straight out of O Team headquarters.

    As for your last paragraph -- you pretty much nail it.

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:26:45 PM EST
    ...he sued to push Alice Palmer and every other opposing Democrat off the ballot in his IL state senate election.  Axelrod pushed the Chicago Tribune to publish the sleazy details of Blair Hull's divorce when he was running against Obama in the US Senate primary.  And his general election opponent, Ryan, went down in a sexual scandal leaving Obama a 'tough' race against mega-candidate, Alan Keyes.

    The guy has undoubtedly been a huge benficiary of being on the other side of a sleazy story.  His campaigns are known to have pushed sleaze so there's no reason to wonder whether or not his campaign is behind the sleaze against Clinton.  N'est-ce pas?

    [ Parent ]

    That's his fatal flaw (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:56:56 PM EST
    The Clintons are teflon SQUARED. Obama can't dig up any bones that haven't been gnawed to dust by the GOP.

    This may be the first time he has to run on his own merits, not on the ugliness of his opponents.

    [ Parent ]

    Eh? The Clintons are Teflon? (none / 0) (#199)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:49:12 AM EST
    They might be teflon amongst the Democratic party and Democratic electorate as far as "sleaze goes,  but not necessarily amongst the wider public.

    Hillary has effectively been immunised against Obama bringing anything up in the primary,  whereas with Clinton its Rezko Rezko Rezko ... etc.

    The problem for Obama seems to be that he, and his campaign have allowed Hillary's to get inside their heads and are allowing her to dictate the ground on which the campaign is being fought.

    [ Parent ]

    Why do you think (none / 0) (#75)
    by ChrisO on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:43:09 PM EST
    Obama would narrow the gap in Florida? I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know (none / 0) (#96)
    by tek on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:58:01 PM EST
    about him running closer.  Our Democrats Club in FL invited Obama to send a spokesman to speak at a meeting and explain his platform, etc. Obama declined.  Hillary sent people to talk to the group and there is great enthusiasm for her.

    [ Parent ]
    When? Was this before the primary? (none / 0) (#200)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:50:07 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    it stretches the imagination (none / 0) (#6)
    by cy street on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:58:57 PM EST
    to believe either clinton or obama would pursue a course of disenfranchisement.  the hyperbolic approach to this does not assist one single voter in either state.

    i believe both candidates want to win.

    i believe both candidates wish to seat florida and michigan.

    there is no upper hand here.  

    Huh???? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:02:33 PM EST
    Clinton  is  FOR  a  revote.    Dean  is  FOR  a  revote.  

    Obama  is  lawyering  up  to block  anything  except   a   50/50   split.    

    There is  a  difference,  if  you  take off your blinders.

    [ Parent ]

    no blinders here (1.00 / 2) (#17)
    by cy street on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:09:46 PM EST
    you must really hate the man to believe he would keep voters from participating.  i hope there are primaries in both states.  i am fine with caucuses.  i am fine with mail in.  i am fine with convention allocation.

    no one will convince me either candidate of the dem party is going to stop the voice of the people.

    nice try.

    [ Parent ]

    I hope you are right (none / 0) (#22)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:17:20 PM EST
    I don't like what I see so far on this issue. But he will have plenty of opportunity to act for the voters over the next several days.

    [ Parent ]
    We'll see what he stands for, eh? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:33:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    aunt mo (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by cy street on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:49:29 PM EST
    this is obama's call.  it is not clinton's call.  this is between the party and the states.  neither asked for this.  i can completely understand why the clinton camp is reeling.  if the florida election was held when it was scheduled by the refuglican govenor, then she most likely would have prevailed.  i feel for her campaign.  

    however, life is not fair as we all know.

    whatever the outcome, i doubt either side will be pleased with the result.

    if you ask me, howard dean is the one who should be taking incoming.  all he had to do is what the rnc did, accept the results, diminish the delegates and move on.

    regretfully, neither happened.

    debate obama and clinton all you like.  please do not suggest a dem would disenfranchise voters.  it goes against all principles the party is founded on.

    cheers.

    [ Parent ]

    i meant to write (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by cy street on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:51:40 PM EST
    this is not mister obama's or miz clinton's call.  forgive the edit.

    [ Parent ]
    cy street (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:45:24 PM EST
    Due   respect, cy,   but   Obama  needs  to   grow  some.    

    Clear  enough  for  ya?

    [ Parent ]

    Life is not fair... (none / 0) (#162)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:18:27 PM EST
    ...so neither are elections?

    [ Parent ]
    Let Me Get This Straight... (none / 0) (#197)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:03:21 AM EST
    cy street, you said;

    this isn't obama's call.  it is not clinton's call.  this is between the party and the states.  neither asked for this.  i can completely understand why the clinton camp is reeling.  if the florida election was held when it was scheduled by the refuglican govenor, then she most likely would hav