Obama Pitches Independents and Repubs to Register as Dems in PA

Remember Dems for a Day? Here's the new ad that went up on Barack Obama's website yesterday, telling voters if they are Indpendents or Republicans they must register as Dems by March 24.

Salon has more on the Obama's very orchestrated and intentional campaign to have Republicans and Indpendents register as Dems so he can be our party's nominee. [More...]

According to the L.A. Times, the Obama campaign is seeking to register an additional 100,000 voters as Democrats in the next two weeks. Currently, there are 3.89 million registered Democratic voters in the state.

....But both the Politico and the Los Angeles Times have published stories recently about the Obama campaign's efforts to register thousands of independent and Republican voters as Democrats before the March 24 voter registration deadline. The vote itself will be held on April 22; as it's what's called a "closed" primary, only registered Democrats will be allowed to participate in the Democratic half of the primary.

If the Obama campaign is to pull off an upset, the new registrants will be vitally important. As the Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown observes, "The final tabulations [of the voter rolls] from the Department of State could offer the first tangible indications of whether Obama can catch Clinton in a state where she holds the advantage."

More at Politico, the Philadelphia Enquirer and the LA Times.

Independents and Republicans can easily switch back for November. At least if real Dems, not Dems for a Day, were picking the nominee, we'd know we'd have their vote for the general election. And real dems prefer Hillary. She's got more of their votes than Obama, I posted the numbers in this post a few days ago, as calculated by a TalkLeft reader. No one disputed them.

When you re-tally the votes of only self identified Dems (from CNN exit polling), and using Rear Clear Politicís reported votes by state, the following is the breakdown of votes by Democrats for Obama and Hillary.

Popular Vote Total:
* Total Dems 19,067,662
* Clinton Dems 9,508,926
* Obama Dems 9,027,622
* Hillary Over Obama 481,307

Popular Vote Total (w/FL)
* Total Dems 20,210,950
* Clinton Dems 10,103,436
* Obama Dems 9,427,773
* Hillary Over Obama 713,010

Total Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)
* Total Dems 20,680,081
* Clinton Dems 10,384,915
* Obama Dems 9,596,660
* Hillary Over Obama 825,601

< The Will Of The Voters | Iowa Caucuses vs. Iowa County Assembly Totals >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    this is just awful (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:13:24 PM EST
    who is it who's desperate and will do anything to win?

    My first reaction: but that's not fair. But (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:14:24 PM EST
    I guess it is.  

    No, you were right the first time (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:29:59 PM EST
    I had to watch it twice. It makes it sound like all people have to sign up as Democrats in order to vote. Republicans can vote in the primary for their candidate. It is a slight of the hand, but it is not truthful and I think Pennsylvanian will not like this ad as it is a slap against their intelligence.

    Can't see the video on this computer so (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:42:17 PM EST
    I'll take your word for its effect.  Since Hillary voters are already Dems. but "low information," I guess they won't be fooled.

    Nah (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:45:46 PM EST
    Nothing misleading about it.  "Change" is the theme of the commercial. It's a dogwhistle for Republicans who can no longer tolerate being associated with the party of torture and permanent wars; a heads up to register for "Change" before the deadline .

    I noticed that (none / 0) (#60)
    by Nasarius on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:46:08 PM EST
    It's subtle, since the clear implication of the ad is "if you want to vote for me", but it's a strange choice nonetheless.

    ps: (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:15:02 PM EST
    is it just me, or does that clip remind anyone else of a used car ad?  "Come on down today and fill out the form...and you could drive away in a new car!"

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by americanincanada on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:18:08 PM EST
    Except instead of a car you get...



    and a pony! (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:57:51 PM EST
    Is that (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Fredster on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:41:02 AM EST
    change for a $50 or a $20?

    It's the new Party the RepuIndeCrat Party. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:17:09 PM EST

    I like it (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:55:50 PM EST
    Sounds like RePunditCrat - pretty much the same people!

    That is actually the core (none / 0) (#132)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:50:27 AM EST
    constituency Obama is going after with many of his comments!  He's basically inventing his own party.  This is just another example of his "party-building"

    the democratic death wish (none / 0) (#154)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:54:45 PM EST
    Obama, unlike Hillary, seems to be able to persuade Independents and Repubs to vote for him in a primary.  Instead of assuming that this is a strength in the general election, it is assumed that it is somehow neferious.  Why can't Clinton do the same?
    Also, McCain has blasted Obama but not Hillary lately.  Does that say something about who he would rather run against?

    Is The Spelled (none / 0) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:00:00 AM EST

    I don't see how this can work (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:18:15 PM EST
    to make up the apparent 10 point deficit he is willing to believe he'll lose by.  But is this really his idea, in a closed primary, to dilute the vote by encouraging the participation of Is and Rs?  Instead of say, campaigning for actual Dem votes?  

    I'm so glad Dems for a Day are going to help us pick our nominee.  This video sure as heck isn't about weaving coattails and getting them to stay around and vote for other Dems.

    It won't make a significant difference (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:19:15 PM EST
    The numbers are just too big in PA.

    where's the Dem Party logo? (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:58:22 PM EST
    - its all about * him* - the person.

    I wouldn't mind so much, if it was pitched at the Party - as in "If you wish to participate in the Democratic Party primary, you need to register by 24 March.." etc


    I don't have a problem with this, frankly (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:18:37 PM EST
    If people actually become Democrats, as they'll have to, I don't care if they do it to support a candidate.

    Ed Rendell did this to good effect in the Philly burbs.

    I have a feeling (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by americanincanada on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:26:18 PM EST
    this might backfire on him. Repubs voted for Hillary in Miss and I can see them doing the same in PA.

    I think it might backfire too (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:50:17 PM EST
    but I was thinking more along the lines of really pissing off Democratic voters. It might give them an even stronger reason to vote for Hillary, it would certainly give the Clinton campaign (or at least her surrogates) ammunition for gaming the Democratic primary. And, oh yeah, trying to win over the Super Delegates? Other people have already mentioned it, but somehow I think giving the SDs very reasonable doubt that you can't win without Republicans should make them very worried about the GE when Republicans will have an actual Republican on the ballot. If you can't get enough Democrats to come out and pull the lever for you know, why on earth do you think they're going to do so in November?

    Well, I really hate it (5.00 / 9) (#47)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:23:02 PM EST
    And I hate it because I haven't seen any indication that this is about anything other than "vote for MEEEEEEEEEE!!!"  I'm not hearing about all the down-ticket Democrats that are worthy of changing one's registration for, I'm not hearing about becoming a Democrat because we are the party that will be fighting for your economic life, and for health care and ending the war.  No - all I'm hearing is "do it because I want you to vote for me and I have to, have to, have to, beat that Clinton woman."

    I just hate it because it's ALL about him.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by ineedalife on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:21:27 AM EST
    About 9% of Obama voters in TX did not vote on rest of the Democratic primary. Coincidentally about 9% of the vote was crossover. Hmmm.

    what if they don't show up (3.66 / 3) (#9)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:21:16 PM EST
    in November?  I'm all for a good mailing list, but what does this accomplish if it's not real dems who will stay dems who are voting?

    And I'm just going to say it: Independents are like bisexuals in my book.  You either lean one way or the other.  Calling yourself independent is just making yourself feel good about it.


    was it Robin Williams who said? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:27:08 PM EST
    Being bi-sexual doubles your chances of getting a date on Saturday night.

    I think that this is the kind of thing that should worry super delegates.


    Superdelagates (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by hellskitchen on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:20:14 PM EST
    I wonder if this approach will really get the backs up of the Superdelegates and cause them to back Clinton?

    Obama's taken chances that have offended women and caused a voting backlash.  The "Dem for a Day" promotion could really turn off people who have spent their lives working for the Democratic Party, namely Superdelagates.


    that has to be calculated in... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:58:07 PM EST
    are the votes just people gaming the system whose votes won't be there in November?

    Dems for a day just isn't a winning strategy for the general election


    Obama's playing it backwards (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:27:06 AM EST
    It's always been standard for candidates to run to their base in the primary (for Dems, running to the left) and then to run to the center in the GE. He's running to the center now, and trying to appeal to Repubs now. But since those Dems for a Day aren't voting down ticket in the primaries, what's Obama's strategy for the GE? Run to the left? Run even harder to the right?

    It really doesn't make sense to me.


    Obama has been promoting Dem for a Day (none / 0) (#128)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:13:27 AM EST
    since last summer - especially in Iowa.

    btw - IIRC an Obama state staffer (CA?) was forced to resign recently because he was distributing "Dem for a Day" fliers.
    Anyone have an info on that?


    It was NV (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:34:14 AM EST
    some organizer for Obama in northern Nevada.

    It was suggesting that NV Republicans register for the moment as a Democrat and caucus for Obama as an anti-Hillary action.

    Many of the caucus states have allowed simultaneous registration/caucus, the impact of which is left for others to assess.


    but the staffer is no different from Obama (none / 0) (#151)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:25:42 PM EST
    on this issue - so why was he dismissed from the campaign?

    That's a pretty ugly comment (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:22:12 PM EST
    I'm sorry if I offended you (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:26:09 PM EST
    not my intention at all.  

    I'm touchy about that stuff (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:27:32 PM EST
    it's ok.

    Actually It's Not OK (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by cdalygo on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:46:51 PM EST
    Some of my best friends - not making a paraphrase here - are bisexuals.

    It's wrong to imply that they are not or worse cannot be committed to their partners.


    I think (none / 0) (#62)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:47:40 PM EST
    a lot of people are independents b/c of local politics in their states.

    Oh Kathy, (none / 0) (#126)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:58:47 AM EST
    And I'm just going to say it: Independents are like bisexuals in my book.  You either lean one way or the other.  Calling yourself independent is just making yourself feel good about it.

    Wish you just hadn't said it because it is really offensive. I usually agree with you but I assure you that this Life-long Democrat did not become an Independent just to "feel good about myself". I became an Independent as the only way I had to register my outrage at the Democratic Party for letting it's members down time after time. It not only didn't make me feel good about myself, it hurt like hell. It was like leaving my family.

    And I do lean only one way, moderately liberal. Maybe the person most liberal and good for working class people like myself is NOT a Democrat.

    Here in Wisconsin the person I felt best for Senator was NOT Herb Kohl (Republican Lite in my eyes) but a great liberal Green Candidate Rae Volger. I voted for her and would do so again in a heartbeat.  

     Perhaps some do become Independents to feel good about themselves. I can only speak for myself.


    Obviously (none / 0) (#131)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:45:47 AM EST
    I did not mean to offend--I was making a joke.  

    I should say:: it has been my experience that many independents lean one way or another.  For instance, my best friend the independent would never vote for an anti-choice candidate.  More often than not, that means that she votes for the dem.  She would never vote for McCain because of this, but she will stay home in November if Obama gets the nom.  She says she won't even bother to vote.  


    Kathy, (none / 0) (#150)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:17:50 PM EST
    Sorry I didn't understand. In which case I apologize for going off half cocked. Maybe I need to shut off the computer and take a break from all this stuff. I get so angry and outraged that I'm seriously humor challenged lately.

    I've said it a million times, but Hillary has the (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Angel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:22:05 PM EST
    base of the Democratic party.  If the SDs give the nomination to BO then it's President McCain in November.  The truth is that BO can't win with just Democrats; he has to "reach" out to independents and repubs to get his numbers.  Disgusting.

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:27:14 PM EST
    The only one of these I really had a problem with was the flier in Nevada that encouraged people to become Dems for a Day "if you don't want Hillary."  That was just ridiculous.

    Looking at this strictly from a partisan Dem perspective, there's really nothing wrong with the strategy of encouraging people to change their registration.  It's like getting people to try on a new pair of shoes.  Maybe they'll decide they're comfortable.

    What gets me is the candidate supporters who act like crossover votes for Obama are people genuinely attracted to his message of change, while crossover votes for Clinton are Limbaugh disciples seeking to monkey with our election.  They honestly cannot fathom how any Republican on the planet might actually find Hillary okay.

    My dad, the monkey (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by MaryGM on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:34:19 PM EST
    I roll my eyes at that narrative as well as my father is a life-long Republican who switched to Democrat this week to vote for Hillary because he (gasp!) actually prefers Hillary.

    Lots of (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:40:03 PM EST
    women republicans for Hillary out there.  If the press was interested in giving her any positive coverage, they would be showing the conversion stories.

    I saw a poll about this last year--said Clinton got 20% of republican women?  I can't recall the poll or anything else, but hte number stuck with me, and I'm sure it's grown as the media has attacked.


    So its okay for Republicans to vote for HIllary (none / 0) (#50)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:25:20 PM EST
    but not for Obama?

    Try checking out Hillary in today Scranton Times (none / 0) (#72)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:35:34 PM EST
    www.thetimes-tribune.com You asked the other day how popular Hillary is in Penna. She was very popular today in the St. Pat's Parade.

    And that's a GOOD THING (none / 0) (#75)
    by Korha on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:41:53 PM EST
    I simply don't understand how attracting more democrats to the democratic party became a bad thing all of a sudden.

    We need all the damn support we can get.


    Uh, this is not "attracting more Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:21:17 AM EST
    to the Democratic Party."  Don't know how in heck to make it more clear than is stated here, but Obama is NOT aiming at Democrats here.  He is aiming at Republicans to cross over -- for the primary.

    Then they can reregister and cross back to the Republicans in fall.  


    [Psst. The Dems. for a Day seem to (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:22:41 AM EST
    have stuck around for Iowa county conventions Saturday.]

    Really? Reports are those were Edwards voters (none / 0) (#110)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:49:03 AM EST
    switching to Obama.  Edwards voters were Dems for many a day, month, and more before this primary season.

    Can you link to a source that these were Republicans and Independents participating again in the Iowa caucus?  Is it saying that Edwards actually attracted those crossover voters to the Dems, not Obama?


    No, just the link in BTD's post (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:51:18 AM EST
    about the huge no. of people who attended the county conventions in IA Sat. compared to past years.

    Um (none / 0) (#125)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:29:47 AM EST
    County conventions consist of delegates.  These are party activists who were elected in precinct conventions; by definition not "Dems for a day."

    Yes (none / 0) (#112)
    by Korha on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:10:25 AM EST
    Many Republicans will cross back. But not all of them will (and a lot of independents/young people/new voters will not). So it must be a net gain of some sort and can't possibly be a net loss, since we're not losing existing democrats.

    At the end of the day (whether it is after the PA primary or in November) there will be hundreds/thousands of new democrats and new voters in PA because of this registration drive. It simply can't be a bad thing from the perspective of party building.

    It's like, okay, caucuses are bad, I agree. Open primaries, I could see the argument against that. But a closed primary that forces you to change your registration a month before voting? Is that still not good enough for you? Basically you're saying that if I am an independent who supports a democrat and I want to vote for him/her in the primary and am willing to change my registration a month before voting starts to do so, I am still somehow a nefarious person unfairly manipulating the primary process. I suppose you could argue that my vote somehow matters less than the vote of a committed democratic activist (even though it really counts the same)--but wait, that argument quickly becomes an argument for caucus-like elections, which we have all agreed are bad because they suppress voter turnout. So frankly I think your argument here is hogwash.  


    and (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:01:36 AM EST
    if you gain Independents, young voters and new voters and lose the base?

    I am talking about party building (none / 0) (#148)
    by Korha on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:28:31 PM EST
    You continue to see it from the Clinton partisan point of view.

    It is simply impossible for a registration drive for new democrats to somehow backfire on the democratic party.


    So your contention (none / 0) (#136)
    by independent voter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:23:15 AM EST
    is that Obama doesn't want them to vote for him in November? Well, that is just ridiculous. He will need them in November as well, and he will be marketing to them and campaigning to them from here on out.

    Not Sticking with Candidate (none / 0) (#79)
    by cdalygo on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:48:00 PM EST
    It's made clear they can switch back.

    Give that man a T-shirt. Bravo. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:41:51 PM EST
    Buttttttt (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:14:54 PM EST
    I was told everyone in America except centrist lesbians over the age of 65 absolutely h8s Hillary with a capital 8.  Was I misled?

    4 of my Republican friends (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:21:30 PM EST
    are switching over to Dems. BUT, they are doing that to vote for Hillary in the primary because they want her to win and they will vote for her in the GE. So no Obama vote for them.

    My (R) dad is just head over heels nuts about her (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Ellie on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:17:02 PM EST
    I've never seen anything like it. Mind you, he's just a Brand-R Pug the way people like to say they're old fashioned in a fickle changing world, or they like to drive a Buick.

    The wingnut stuff, er, no.


    Well, what happened in MS (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:28:58 PM EST
    probably wasn't about Hillary. And that's pretty depressing.

    agree somewhat about MS (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:33:27 PM EST
    but not about getting dems for a day.

    The message isn't "be a dem for a day," but "be a dem for ME."

    It begs the question: What happens if O doesn't get the nom?  It's okay to switch back to being an independent or a republican.

    That's not building the party, that's building Obama.


    The funny thing (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:05:07 PM EST
    is this is what I saw happening in the Draft Gore movement.  Rs and Is and Ds were all getting behind Brand Gore.  I knew then that part of Gore's attraction was that he wasn't so much a Democrat with a capital "D" as a nonpartisan, humanitarian public figure.

    Gore has been out of active politics for seven years.  It's natural that some of his partisan identity has faded away.  Obama doesn't have that.  He's been IN politics for those years and then some.   Is he a Democrat?  Was he a Democrat?  Or is he just using the party to get where he wants to go?

    This whole bipostpartisan schtick doesn't sit well with me.  The message seems to be "I'll be whatever you want me to be!".


    Gore...what ever happened to that guy? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:11:00 PM EST
    I am going to stand outside a Justin Timberlake concert and sign them up to my list so I can call them when Bette Middler comes to town and get them to come out.

    I think (none / 0) (#22)
    by americanincanada on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:33:23 PM EST
    it was more about Hillary than any repub would care to admit.

    holy cow! (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:40:24 PM EST
    by god, that hillary will do anything, just anything to win! would you look at that? she's got herself all dressed up in an obama costume, and pretending to be him in this skeezy ad, just to make him look bad! why, the nerve of that woman!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    kathy, you're right. not sure i'd have used quite the same analogy, but the essence of your comment, with respect to so called "independents" is spot on; they always lean consistently one way or the other. calling themselves "independents" makes them feel good, like they're true revolutionaries or something. they aren't.

    ok, so where are the obamaistas, pouncing on this thread, and explaining to us poor, uninformed ones why this is ok, and sen. obama didn't really mean what he actually says? oh, let's not forget sen. clinton's billing files, from 20 odd years ago.....................

    If it is building the party.... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by sef on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:46:41 PM EST
    Obama is doing registration sign-ups in bars, coffee shops, sidewalks, and just about any place you can stick a table in PA.  This isn't dem for a day stuff, this is party building.  This will help the dems in the fall no matter who is the nominee and will leave the state party better off than before.  The reality is Hillary has the state locked up, all Obama is doing is trying to prevent her winning by more than 20 delegates.

    The one really great thing about this race is the new organizations & new skill sets these campaigns are leaving behind when they move on to the next state.  Call me greedy, but I want 60 in the Senate & 25 more in the House.

    If Obama does not get the nom (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:49:46 PM EST
    do you think those new converts will stick around and vote for Clinton?

    Why can't democrats choose the democratic nominee?


    The difference is (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:12:40 PM EST
    these registration sign-ups he's talking about are not strictly aimed at getting R's and I's to re-register.  A lot of the people they sign up will simply be new Democratic voters.

    Here in NY our closed primaries work a little different.  If you haven't registered before, you can sign up 30 days in advance and choose a party.  But if you already have a registration, any switch in party doesn't take effect for a full year.  While that might be a tad excessive, it certainly prevents any crossover gaming of primary elections.


    You forgot you moved to NJ already? :) (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:34:03 PM EST
    Oh, Teresa (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:19:27 PM EST
    You're killin' me!

    Would it help to say I was in NY when I wrote that comment? :)

    I actually do not know how voter registration works in NJ.  I suppose I should try to find out before November.


    You are equally fickle as the Obama girl! (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:42:48 PM EST
    you would think dems would support (none / 0) (#38)
    by Heather on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:07:00 PM EST

    Where else are new dems going to come from? Mars?


    well, yeah, i would, except....................... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:31:35 AM EST
    my suspicion is that's not what this is primarily about. if some of those newbies stick with the party in nov., hey, that's great. i'm sure a few will.

    sen. obama's concern is right now, right here in river city! he's not doing this out of the goodness of his heart, to help build the party, he's doing it in the hopes those newbies will vote for him in the primary.

    let's say (and why not?) that building the party was his primary purpose with this ad. let's also say (and again, why not?) this was the plan all along, and it wasn't just a one shot deal for PA, a state he absolutely needs to win, or at least keep sen. clinton's margin of victory to low double-digits or a single-digit. let's just say all that is true.

    if the aforementioned is true, why is this the first we've heard of sen. obama's party building ad crusade? shouldn't he have started this wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy back? say, oh, i don't know, perhaps before the Iowa caucus?

    so, while the idealist in me wants ever so desperately to agree with you, that nasty realist in me just won't STFU! that freakin' realist says it's a transparantly cheesy effort to get people to vote for sen. obama in the primary, knowing full well most won't vote for a dem. in nov.

    but hey, what does the realist in me know anyway?


    and i am supposed to hold my nose and (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:55:24 PM EST
    vote for this in november and take it on faith that he will fight for me. i don't think so. take a good look, a real good look!

    Hallelujah, and pass the biscuits. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Angel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:03:17 PM EST
    when I think of the current economic crisis (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:28:03 AM EST
    I prefer Pres. Hillary.

    Voting for Obama in November (none / 0) (#147)
    by sleepingdogs on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    I am not being facetious with this question but would like an honest answer.

    If Obama ends up being the nominee, can I simply write in "Democratic ticket" on the November ballot as a way to vote Democratic while registering my disapproval of the specific candidate?  Would it matter?  Would my vote be valid?  It would make it easier for me to stomach it, especially when the wheels start to fall off the change train...


    i plan to write hillary's name in. (none / 0) (#152)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:44:32 PM EST
    Thanks for responding, hellothere (none / 0) (#153)
    by sleepingdogs on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:01:26 PM EST
    I appreciate it.  

    Now..what happens if Hillary is forced to be the VP candidate?  Do we still write in Hillary?


    i might be very wrong, but i just don't see (none / 0) (#155)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:22:52 AM EST
    it. i have don't know what i'd do then. a lot can happen in that time.

    With all the "Dems for a Day"... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Universal on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:55:54 PM EST
    ...the only popular vote that matters to me is that among Democrats.

    Hillary is leading, and will win, that vote.

    Speaker Pelosi -- this is what matters, not pledged delegates won in 9,000 people caucuses in states we will get hammered in come November.

    Who do these people think they're fooling?

    Hillary is the clear choice among Dem. voters. The Party leadership needs to get that message loud and clear.

    And Obama is the clear choice (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:03:27 PM EST
    among the Democratic establishment...so much for the will of the voters ...

    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Korha on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:38:48 PM EST
    If Clinton and Obama's positions were reversed, I think it's very likely that all the superdelegates and the rest of the democratic apparatus would have endorsed Clinton and Obama would have dropped out of the race. Clinton started out with an unquestionable advantage among the establishment; she lost it (or rather is losing it) over the course of the race by losing elections.

    The Democratic establishment, and everyone else for that matter, are just reacting to events.


    Let's see how events in the last few days (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:24:03 AM EST
    affect them. . . .

    Well (none / 0) (#113)
    by Korha on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:14:22 AM EST
    I think Obama will survive the current firestorm. If he does not, which is a possibility, then he should drop out (and I have previously called for him to drop out if the nomination fight gets nastier and he does not win PA).



    That's a really bad criterion (none / 0) (#73)
    by Korha on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:35:45 PM EST
    Even the Clinton campaign isn't going to use that argument. "Yes, we're actually losing the overall popular vote, BUT if you slice and dice it in a certain way by excluding literally millions of voters (because they shouldn't count for some reason, even though they really do count), then we are actually ahead." Pretty weak stuff.

    My son lives in PA (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by stillife on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:12:59 PM EST
    and was registered as an Independent, although he voted Democratic in 2004 and 2006 (he didn't vote in the 2004 primary, obviously).  Being an interfering mother, I downloaded an application for him to change his registration to Democratic so he can vote for Hillary.

    I was worried about the application going through in time for the primary, and when I saw this post, I was thinking of telling him to get the Obama campaign to help him register.  But I just talked to him and he got his new voter's registration card.  

    It's a drop in the bucket, but one more vote for Hillary in PA (actually, two votes, b/c his girlfriend is also voting for HRC).  

    My point (I do have one) is that I think the Clinton campaign should be making similarly aggressive efforts to register Independents in PA. Some kids, like my son, who had their first voting experience in 2004 and were not particularly inspired by Kerry (heaven knows I wasn't, either) will be supporting Dems in this election.

    Democrats for a Democratic Candidate (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Dancing Bear on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:14:42 PM EST
    I can't understand why a Democratic Primary shouldn't be closed in every state.  Why do people get to vote for our party candidate when they have nothing to do with the process.

    He clearly should be running as an Indie and not a Dem. I am one of those crazy people who want no part of uniting with the other side.  It will just get them in the back door and they will slime their way back into power.  We are either Democrats or Independants.

    I registered Green many years ago and was floored when I went to the Primary and couldn't vote for anybody but Garbage Truck Driver,lol. I had no idea.  But now I do.  I either stand for something or I stand for nothing. So he wants people to vote to get him nominated and then go about their business?

    His other motive is that all the people who do register will then show up as Dems crossing over party lines to vote for McCain? That sure strengthens our party doesn't it. Dems for a day my backside. Do we want people that are that uncommited being associated with us? I don't. If Repubs want to actually cross over they should.  I mean they "should". Look what they got for their last efforts. Come into the light .  All are welcome.  Just don't be turncoats and help a dirty guy steal the election. UnAmerican.

    OT (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:24:25 PM EST
    but don't forget March 17th - the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta will hear arguments about the DNC's rejection of the FL primary

    Gracias (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:34:10 PM EST
    I was wondering when that was happening. Thanks for the reminder.

    i hope they ding them. hehe, pun there! (none / 0) (#69)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:17:27 PM EST
    Philly independent here (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Dax on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:40:17 PM EST
    I'm a reliably democratic PA voter, but registered as Independent.  There are lots of us in PA, and especially in Philadelphia.  Our primary votes have historically not mattered.  If we need to formally register as democrats to participate in this primary, there's nothing nefarious about that.

    then why not just remind everyone (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:49:56 AM EST
    to register? Why focus on independents and Republicans and say those of them who want to vote for him have to register as Dems? He should be pitching them in the general election, not now.

    For me, a triple ironic moment w/ a cherry on top (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Ellie on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:01:52 PM EST
    I de-reg'd myself as a Dem in '04 when Bonny Prince Kerry conceded the election while black voters were still lined up voting in the freezing Ohio night.

    I had toothpicks in my eyes watching the returns. Suddenly, as if by magic, they all flicked over the way those clacking old arrival/departure boards used to do at airports and train stations and it was declared that Bush had been "re" "elected".

    Andy Card and Karen Hughes came out riding their triumphant 1% mandate and demanded that Kerry concede. He folded like a cheap 2.99 Wal-Mart Chinese made lawnchair, but the next day at Comity Central -- I mean, the Senate -- bragged about having a huge database (incl. the recount / election watch names and funds) that self-important lying sack never intended to use.

    Ever since, I've been supportive of individual Dems, esp. the authentically Liberal ones, and Dems actively in '06 with the condition that the onus was on them to stand up to the Pugs and earn back my trust. (Hint: uphold the Constitution, rule of law, basic human rights, be a good global citizen, stop pickin' America's nose already &c.)

    Now for being undecided on HRC vs. BO apparently I'm (fill in the bigotry but Obama nuts attribute racism to me for liking both candidates.) Or, depending on the Obama-ade, just not ACTIVELY hating HRC enough was call enough for me or some other poor schlub to get swarmed at one of the other blogs.

    So it's swell to be noticed for my potential use as a pointless statistic. Thanks, Big-O, for showing me I too can be the spare change I want to see in the world!

    (And I wish he'd lay off Gandhi already.)

    All those Indi & Repubs (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:14:56 PM EST
    are switching over to the Dem Party because of the issues!! /snark

    They looked into the pro-life, health care for all and energy independence that Dems stand for .... And they all said... hey that looks good this time around. So I'll just change my way of thinking and become a Dem....

    What is going to happen when reallity sets in?

    I can see people looking into the stance on ISSUEs and then changing to Dem.... but not just to vote for one candidate.

    And as for party building in PA... well, the Dems sure are into party buildong... just ask FL and MI.

    Could you remind me what terrible sin (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:02:52 AM EST
    Hillary and Bill committed?

    She hasn't been as harsh on Obama as Bradley was to Gore. She never pulled a Dean/Bin Laden advertisement.

    silly boy! (5.00 / 6) (#119)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:28:33 AM EST
    their mere existence is a sin! all of their accomplishments are sins! the fact that bill clinton left the country in far better shape than he got it in is a sin! the fact that they, unlike every other elected official in the land, are politicians (ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!), is a huge, huge sin!

    let's see, what else? oh, they killed everyone in arkansas, before they left for the white house. while in private practice, sen. clinton had 5 billable hours for legal work done for pontias pilate, in the case of rome v jesus. her excuse for not immediately producing these records was that they had to be translated from the original latin first. i believe they both had a hand in the napoleanic wars too.

    they are both complete fakes. everything about them (including their daughter's conception & birth) is scripted, sometimes years in advance. they are ambitious. they like to win. they work very hard for their constituents.

    that should be enough to get you started. meantime, i'll keep researching.


    the way her and her husband treated her opponent? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:03:31 AM EST
    I was under the impression that Obama's campaign played the media into that narrative and reasonable people who actually followed what was going on didn't get sucked in.

    I guess that my take on what happened just doesn't comport with yours.

    What if Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:19:40 AM EST
    had published the same video?  What would the orange etc be saying about her?

    evil, monstrous, desperate, desperate, (none / 0) (#133)
    by MMW on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    desperate, will do anything to win, she's selling dems up the river, she can't be trusted, why doesn't she just concede, that b*tch!!!!!!!

    Squawk! Hillary is destroying the Party! Squawk. (none / 0) (#137)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:26:58 AM EST
    Thread cleaned (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:45:47 AM EST
    of race-based and race-baiting comments. Stay on topic and don't even bother. Your comments along those lines will be deleted. I won't host a hate-fest.

    Hi This is Barack Obama (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by facta non verba on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:25:30 AM EST
    Time is running out if you want to vote in the Pennsylvania primary. The voter registration is March 24th. If you have registered as Independent or a Republican you must re-register as a Democrat by March 24th.

    So no appeals to Democrats? Whose nominee is this?

    Its also misleading (none / 0) (#140)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:38:23 AM EST
    since registered Republicans can vote in the Pennsylvania primary without re-registering as a Democrat - (I know, I know, they just can't vote for the Democratic slate without re-registering as a Democrat, but that's not what he said).

    I hope (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by sas on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:21:39 AM EST
    Obama keeps doing this.

    I know 3 registered Republicans, who changed their registration to Democrat so they could vote for Hillary.

    One other thing.... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by sas on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:32:52 AM EST
    I have not heard Barack say anything like "we will be a united party in November regardless of the outcome", as Hillary has said.

    This makes me think he is using the party as a means to an end, rather than being a true Democrat.

    I think he should be running as an independent, really.

    and I'm expected (4.80 / 5) (#20)
    by Coldblue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:27:37 PM EST
    to fight for him?


    "What the F*** is wrong with him?" (4.50 / 2) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:23:04 PM EST
    My wife wants me off the damn computer but I wanted to show her what some of this is all about.

    as they said in the movie... (3.00 / 1) (#13)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:25:37 PM EST
    White Men Can't Jump - listen to the woman.

    I can't tell for sure ... (1.00 / 2) (#96)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:47:07 AM EST
    ... but this looks like a complaint against Obama asking Republicans and independents to become Democrats.

    They have said for a long time that Hillary Clinton was a polarizer, and I guess the way she does it is by pointedly discouraging Republicans and independents from becoming Democrats, even in the wake of that great Democrat-maker, George W. Bush. No, she says, Go back to your McCain or even that guy Nader, unless you are planning to vote for me!

    It's like this isn't about the Democratic Party at all, but some kind of cult of personality or something, a sort of "Hillarimania".

    "They" are the ones who? (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Avoca on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:12:34 AM EST
    Is this this the same "they" that hailed W. as a uniter and labeled Gore a bore and a liar? When exactly have "they" been correct?

    This bothered me before but. . . (1.00 / 6) (#101)
    by RickTaylor on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:16:18 AM EST
    This bothered me when Obama did it before, and still does. But since Bill Clinton appeared on Rush Limbaugh's show, it seem to me both candidates are guilty of this to some degree.

    That is a lie (5.00 / 6) (#108)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:31:41 AM EST
    as has been shown here repeatedly, so don't try it again.

    Bur just in case you missed the antidote to the kool-aid:

    You clearly did not see this yourself but are passing on rumors as if you know what you're talking about.  Bill Clinton did not appear on Limbaugh's show.  Bill Clinton was on another show.  The tape of that show was shown on Limbaugh's show.  Got it?  If so, then retract your comment in a new comments, and with an apology.

    If you don't, then it will say more about you than about any of the candidates.


    Favor (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:57:56 PM EST
    Isn't Obama doing HRC a favor as well. More voters fed up with the GOP and horrified about another 4 years of McBush (torture and war party) who will vote the dem platform no matter what.

    HRC would be smart to campaign for Independents and Republicans as well.


    what makes you think she isn't? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:09:58 PM EST
    Good For Her (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:24:10 PM EST
    And the dem party. The people who have belonged to the Republican party are not beholden to the same rules on those on the   'plantation'

    Bring em on.... I mean in.


    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:38:40 PM EST
    a very important story from Jan. 18, 2006, wherein Clinton rails against the republicans and Bush.

    Thank you for linking to that.


    2006 - you (none / 0) (#64)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:52:35 PM EST
    had to dig hard for that one.

    Now back to 2008!!


    WTF? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:15:35 AM EST
    had to dig hard for that one.
    If you are referring to the Plantation comment, it was right on the nose. A slam dunk for HRC. The House of Representatives under Delay's rule was run exactly like a plantation, lockstep or you are dead.

    It was fIghting Hillary at her best, taking on the GOP.


    So speeches made in 2002 are also irrelevant ... (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by cymro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:41:37 AM EST
    ... right?

    "No one disputed them" (none / 0) (#52)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:31:46 PM EST
    Actually I disputed them then and I'll do it again.  These numbers are based on exit polls.  Many of the exit polls were way off compared to the actual results.  What you are suggesting is that the nomination should be decided not based on actual votes cast but on entirely fallible polls.  If you do that why have an election at all, we can just let SurveyUSA or Zogby decide who the nominee is.

    Obama is playing by the rules and he is playing to win.  He has consistently been more organized and run a better campaign than Hillary.  If he out campaigns her there is no reason to think he can't do the same to McCain.   And lets say only 25% of those he signs up stick with the party, why would that be bad?

    Some of us Democrats (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:48:12 AM EST
    believe it should be Democrats choosing the nominee. Everyone else can vote in the general election. You want to pick a party nominee, be a real member of the party.

    That is an argument against open primaries (none / 0) (#114)
    by Korha on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:18:19 AM EST
    This is a closed primary. Is the deadline for changing registration one month before the voting starts not an adequate cut-off? Then what is? Two months? Six months? One year? At what point in time would someone be considered a real member of the party? Honest question.

    this doesn't sit well with me (none / 0) (#117)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:07:51 AM EST
    and has a dishonesty smell.

    I'd like to see this  change for future primaries.
    It should not be a tool to weed out a candidate to game the process
    Thats wrong Obama is asking for a vote instead of an investment in the future.


    I totally agree, but your numbers are still bad (none / 0) (#143)
    by fuzzyone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:11:35 AM EST
    My main point was you can't choose a nominee based on exit polls.  If you wan to fight for closed primaries next time around I will be with you all the way.  In the meantime the rules we have are the rules we have and there is nothing wrong with trying to win by the rules.

    But you can't pick a nominee based on lousy exit polls because you don't like the current rules.


    I'm an I now , for indiv. Dems but not the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:36:16 AM EST
    After '04 it became a matter of conscience and it remains one now because I strenuously object to how the braintrust have abandoned Dem values and wa(i)ved bye bye at vanishing inalienable Constitutional rights that President Stompy disappeared with his magic crayon.

    In '06 I supported individual Dems apart from my (very liberal) representation plus got out the vote.

    If I genuinely wanted to participate in picking the Dem choice for POTUS & VP, beforehand I'd re-reg as a Dem, even in an open primary. That's just me.

    In the GE if I didn't like my choices, I'd write in my own ticket. Why?

    I'm sick of the Dems record of not affirmatively protecting women's constitutional rights. We get blamed first for the party's woes, taken for granted and even abandoned as top Dems actively sign up jackwads who use the seats to disenfranchise women.

    Across all distinctions (age, race, economic group, religion &c) women get slammed first and hardest for the RW "cultural" agenda. They're literally making us die for their cause, and the entirety of my voting life, Dem Old Boys Network has actively courted activist misogynists rather than give women our due.

    When I got the call to support Big D, I said I'd send a fertilized egg in my stead.

    Sorry for this one-note rant. I'm not a one issue voter and never have been. I'm all for rebuilding the Dems. It's becoming clearer that what Obama's about so far isn't the issues I support nor even, minimally, a viable opposition to the scorched earth RW.

    The plan is to unite with them -- once he takes down that "divisive" monster lady they hate -- cause he's more magically delicious than her or the other Dems ever. Oh yes he is! You know he is!

    So that's why I'm still Indy, undecided, and sleeping with a clean conscience till the GE ... even though I did throw a little something over to the campaigns I liked. :-)


    I applaud this move (none / 0) (#71)
    by Korha on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:29:52 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton should be doing it too. I frankly don't understand what's bad about registering new democrats?

    No, he is not making it about new Dem voters (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:47:34 PM EST
    He is telling the Republicans and Indys that in order to vote they have to register as a Democrat. He is not saying, In Order to vote for me. It is wrong. He is not saying support the Democratic Party and make your vote count. This is worded very crafty.

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:51:06 AM EST
    thank you.

    However it is being done (none / 0) (#102)
    by Korha on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:16:35 AM EST
    The fact of the matter remains is that when the primary is over there will now be thousands of new people in PA registered as democrats (and by the way it is not just independents and republicans, it's a general registration drive, including for youth/people who don't vote, etc).

    Of course it's true that the Obama campaign is more interested in selling himself than in selling the democratic party--duh, it's an election. So the registration drive is not as effective as it could be in building up the democratic brand. However, arguing that it could be done more effectively is different from saying what he's doing is actually somehow bad for the party. How could be it be bad? Again, let's imagine if Clinton and Obama were both conducting extensive registration drives in PA with the very simple slogan, "register to be a democrat so you can vote for me in the primary." Yes, this is not the most effective message from the perspective of party building. Okay, maybe some/most of those people will switch back or not vote in the general election. But many will not (and especially not if the one they voted for is the general election nominee), and will remain democrats until somebody convinces them to switch back again. Presumably they will also be on some mailing lists. So there must be some sort of net gain involved here and no possible net loss.

    You could also make the argument that this registration drive is bad from the perspective of the Clinton campaign, since young people/independents/republicans/new voters lean towards Obama. That is true, and it is probably a new loss for the Clinton campaign (especially if they themselves aren't trying to register new voters). However from the perspective of party building I simply don't see how it could be bad--it could be ineffective, but not bad.


    This is not about new voters (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:47:03 AM EST
    It is about telling someone who might not be as knowledgeable about politics that in order to vote, they must register Democrat before March 24th. This is a lie. Yes, I would like more registered Democrats. And you will notice he is saying to sign up with him and they will send you a registration form. Then he will have you on his donor call list. This ad is pure trickery.
    It has nothing to do with the Democratic Party and I know after seeing it, I was annoyed enough to send Gov Rendell a e-mail to check it out. I believe this ad is in the same order as False Advertising as it is misleading.

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:02:26 AM EST
    The people, who you suggest are going to be tricked, would have to belong to a class of people too stupid to be able to even turn on their own teevee, no less have the wits to either register or vote.

    This is sheer nonsense (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:01:04 AM EST
    You could also make the argument that this registration drive is bad from the perspective of the Clinton campaign, since young people/ independents/ republicans/ new voters lean towards Obama.

    Yes, you could make that argument but why would you, based on nothing more than transitory and untrustworthy foundations?

    You could also argue, ex rectum, that Macs are way-cool creativer than PCs because the pro-Mac guy in the Mac commercial is hipper and hotter than pathetic PC geek John Hodgeman.

    But why would you swallow that or other hooey based on nothing more than self-flattering megaphoned faux facts?

    That is true, and it is probably a new loss for the Clinton campaign (especially if they themselves aren't trying to register new voters).

    I'm sorry, but what you're suggesting simply isn't right. New voters aren't bound by loyalty oath to one candidate or even the party that reg'd them. It's in every candidate's intereswt to do so but to suggest that BO's doing more to build the Dems incidentally with this Dem For a Day / ME ME ME ME pitch but not Team-HRC makes no sense to me.

    Sorry if I've misunderstood your point in the last paragraph.


    If the campaign registers the voters (none / 0) (#149)
    by Korha on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:39:16 PM EST
    They'll get access to their email and demographic information, which is an advantage (especially since the message here is explicit "register so you can vote for me"). Obama is certainly going to be gaining at least some net voters through this drive, though who knows how much.

    I'm not saying Obama is necessarily building the party with this drive. His efforts could end up just being ineffective or irrelevant. However what I am saying is that he can't possibly be reducing the party, so it can't be a bad thing. A number of people in this thread are attempting to call a new democrat registration drive a bad thing, and that's what I am arguing against.


    Because he is not .. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Rainsong on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:16:50 AM EST
    .. not trying to register new democrats , he wants them to vote for him, the person, not the Party.

    If it was about registering new Democrats, then  at least the Democratic Party logo or 'brand' should have been mentioned, not his personal campaign pitch.


    Bad judgement (none / 0) (#91)
    by Avoca on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:27:28 AM EST
    Independents genuinely making the right choice this time: fine with me. Except I wonder what they will down ticket.
    But the thing that bugs the hell out of me about Obama courting republicans is simply this: clearly these voters have NOT demonstrated any good judgement the past 8 years and more!
    I don't want anyone who ever for a moment thought Bush was a good idea to have anything whatsoever to do with picking the nominee of my party.
    And again: what's going to happen down ticket if these idiots do for some strange reason vote for Obama in the general? Even if he wins, he loses. The whole strategy stinks.

    What, precisely, is wrong with (none / 0) (#93)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:29:21 AM EST
    Obama or Clinton making appeals to republicans? The conventional DLC wisdom for years has been that elections are won in the middle. Surely there must be some centrist republicans who are disenchanted with McBush. Obama didn't ask them to vote for him. He said register so you could vote in the democratic primary. Sheesh, people. Get a grip.

    What's wrong with this? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Avoca on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:38:26 AM EST
    See above. IMHO, anyway.

    Asking folks to register as Democrats? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Chino Blanco on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:03:13 AM EST
    Sounds scary.  What's next?  Registration drives?  Seriously, this is getting out of hand.  If this keeps up, we just might win the White House, and we all know what a disaster that would be.

    More selective use of the rules (none / 0) (#123)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:52:03 AM EST
    This is "democratic" Caucuses are "democratic" Superdelegates are "undemocratic"- unless they start voting heavily for Obama.

    Unless I'm way off, (none / 0) (#130)
    by WillBFair on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:38:47 AM EST
    this looks to me like he's trying to steal the primary. His voting record, they say, is more liberal than Hillary's. Surely republicans know that. So they might vote for him now, because of their nutbar hatred for Hillary, then cross back over to Mccain in the GE. Democrats for a day. What does Obama care? What a sleaze.

    Not that it matters one bit (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:18:56 AM EST
    But I'm super sick of Obama trying to be the nominee of a party that the actual representative voters of that party don't even want.  It's sort of pathetic.

    Gary Hart strikes again? (none / 0) (#145)
    by esmense on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    Or, at least, his mindset. In 1972 Hart (as reported by Hunter Thompson), manager of McGovern's campaign, was convinced of two totally erroneous notions; 1.) that it was a year in which ANY Democrat would win, 2.) that Democrats alienated by his candidate's "change" message aimed at young people, Independents and Republicans -- that lumped "Big Labor" and much of his own party's traditional base together with "Big Business" and Humphrey with Nixon as equal evils -- would put aside their anger and get behind the candidate in November.

    That message, aided heavily by an energized, youthful anti-war vote, did help McGovern win the nomination, especially with wins in traditionally Republican Western states (just about every state West of the Mississipi was solidly Republican then, and won almost all of them) and in states elsewhere that allowed crossover voting.

    But, when November rolled around none of those voters -- not the young, not the independents, not the Republicans, and, worse of all, not the traditional Democrats he had trashed in his effort to appeal to those anti-war young people, independents and Republicans, showed up for him at the polls.

    Obama's campaign has been very similar. His win will be very similar. I fear, having run against his own party and many of its established leaders,  as racist and/or  divisive, "hoodwinkers" no better than Bush and not as good as Reagan, and in the process shown great disdain and disrespect for large numbers of the party's loyal female supporters, will be very similar. Which is too bad -- because he is a good candidate who had a good chance of winning without using this divisive strategy.

    Obama has a "down ticket" problem (none / 0) (#146)
    by bmc on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    In Texas, Clinton voters voted for Dems downticket; Obama voters didn't vote downticket at all. It's all about the Obama vote for them. They aren't involved in "party" identification whatsoever. They're only engaged on the "cult of Obama" level. Clinton voters were self-identified Democrats, and voted accordingly.

    It's great to have Republicans switch, if they self-identify as Democrats; vote Democratic Party down-ticket; and continue to support the Democratic Party platform.

    Full-disclosure: (In 2000, pre-political-awakening, after I voted for Gore as a registered Republican in the general, I switched and have stayed a Democrat, worked for the party, and voted Democrat in every race and campaign downticket. I will never change parties again; I am where I belong, and can't imagine now, why I was ever a Republican.).

    There may be some Republicans who are ready to reject Republican identity and platforms in this country--war, health care, the economy and overt religious fundamentalism, are powerful arguments to do so.

    But, most of those Obama is pitching to in this "Democrat for a Day" tactic will vote Republican in November. That is NOT good for the Democratic Party.

    In the video, Obama's "Democrat for a Day," dog-whistle seems clear to me. Why else would he be pitching Republicans to switch parties to vote for him in the Democratic Party Primary.