home

If The Dem Race Goes To The Convention, It Will Be Obama's Doing

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:29:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

With every Obama blog whining that Hillary Clinton should drop out*, it is worth remembering this key point - the reason the Democratic contest will not be decided by the Convention is because Barack Obama did everything in his power to remove certainty from the contest by acting to block revotes in Florida and Michigan.

More . . .

Chris Bowers wrote:

Finding some sort of solution in Michigan, like a part-run "firehouse" caucus, is paramount in order to avoid a brokered convention. Without a Michigan solution, even the undecided superdelegates might not be able to end the nomination campaign before the convention.

Previously, Bowers wrote:

We are now virtually guaranteed to have a floor fight at the convention, since no Michigan revote will take place . . .

Barring a miraculous deal on Michigan that both the Clinton and Obama campaigns agree to, the failure to secure a revote in Michigan all but guarantees that the nomination campaign will head straight through to the convention.

Previously, Bowers wrote:

{W]ithout a Michigan revote, we are guaranteed to head to a brokered convention, since no one will be able to reach 2,208 without Michigan. . . .

[I]nstead of just signing on to a revote agreement that will both give Obama a better chance to win and give us a nominee in June instead of late August, we instead have to deal with the "concerns" of the genius chair of Obama's Michigan campaign. I'm not sure what "concerns" those are, since they don't include improving Obama's chances to win the nomination, or in ending the nomination campaign in June. The Clinton campaign is basically handing OBama the nomination through this Michigan re-vote, and Obama's Michigan co-chair refuses to accept it.

As Bowers writes, Obama's opposition to revotes is why we are headed to a contested convention.

*I have stated in comments that I believe that, in the interest of the Democratic Party, Clinton should negotiate with Obama to gain what she might want and then drop out of the race. If that means continuing through Pennsylvania or continuing through Puerto Rico, it should not mean continuing through to the Convention.

NOTE - Comments closed.

< 5th Anniversary of Iraq War Decision: Who Will Get Us Out? | Endorsing The Tweety Solution For MI/FL >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    If The Dem Race Goes To The Convention, It Will Be Obama's Doing | 201 comments (201 topical)
    I think this could only help her (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:34:52 PM EST
    She can use it as an issue with the remaining states.  63% of the voters in national polls say they should seat Michigan and Florida somehow.  And do you think the Supers are going to be so blind to the political reality of not seating them.

    She's had the high road on this one.  

    She's had the high road on this one. (none / 0) (#192)
    by Friday on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:43:56 PM EST
    There is just no way to backtrack on her refusal to campaign in either state and keep the high road.

    That road is a low road. Just sayin'.

    [ Parent ]

    There is no way that Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by athyrio on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:43:17 PM EST
    should drop out of the race at this point as Obama is sinking in the polls

    And nowhere faster than in Missouri (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:46:20 PM EST
    according to SUSA, which has Obama now at below 40% -- the worst ever.  This is the home of the Assembly of God.  And this is a crucial swing state for us.

    Not even McCaskill can help Obama now.  And she has been quiet for days. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    I don't see any (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by standingup on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:51:42 PM EST
    possibility of Obama taking Missouri after the Wright debacle. I thought his chances before that were slim at best but I can almost guarantee that Wright's comments blew an opportunity for him here.

    [ Parent ]
    It is interesting (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by tandem5 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:52:10 PM EST
    She has had essentially no press lately and usually when there's a lull in the election cycle her tracking numbers drift downward... so there are some new dynamics at work, at least, for right now.

    [ Parent ]
    She's getting press now (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:18:01 PM EST
    The media can't seem to decide if the story is "Clinton as first lady spent all her time at tea parties" or "Clinton as first lady was actively involved promoting all the things you hate", but the media are giving a lot of attention to the release of her schedules.

    [ Parent ]
    They'll probably steer clear of the latter (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by tandem5 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:39:59 PM EST
    even "negative" experience is experience.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:55:34 PM EST
    Right now. Yahoo: Politics. Title:First lady records show Clinton promoted NAFTA

    The article is actually quite positive. The title is ridiculous, given the content, which merely says that Clinton led a NAFTA briefing. It would be really nice if the media could just write a positive article about Clinton without spinning it in a negative way.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL and about an hour ago (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:18:12 PM EST
    the same yahoo homepage said that the records showed she had "little effect on policy." Make up your mind about how to hate on her media. C'mon!

    [ Parent ]
    MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:00:05 PM EST
    all day made the point over and over that Clinton was FORCED to disclose the records, and that they were "redacted" -- even though she didn't do the redacting -- in order to be "fair."

    [ Parent ]
    Her "people" (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:07:26 PM EST
    actually asked that some items be "unredacted."  They did not ask for any redaction whatsoever.

    [ Parent ]
    "redacted" (none / 0) (#170)
    by diogenes on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:41:36 PM EST
    Yeah-the photo with Johnny Chang had his name redacted to "protect his privacy" although he has often talked about being photographed with her.
    Or "no public events" when she was being questioned about why subpoened Rose law firm records which were missing for two years "suddenly" appeared at the white house.
    The more that people talk about what's MISSING the more that people will see a "coverup" of stuff that had been laid to rest and will remember it all.  What happened is in the past, but the audacity of releasing this whitewash is new news.  She would have been better off not releasing the records.


    [ Parent ]
    I am seeing (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:09:40 PM EST
    the same language pop up elsewhere. Mentioning the redaction without mentioning that it's the archives that do the redacting and it's to protect 3rd parties. Yes, because I'm sure high-level officials that met with the first lady wants the media and blogs to get ahold of their personal information like their address and social security numbers.  

    [ Parent ]
    actually, it doesn't even say that. (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:15:58 PM EST
    what it said was that she gave some brief, concluding remarks, to a meeting about NAFTA, not that she "led" the meeting. not even any indication of what she might have said.

    the headline is completely contradicted by the actual content. who makes up those headlines?

    [ Parent ]

    On Fox too (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:21:10 PM EST
    Discussion by a Rep and a Dem talking about the shift in the polls.  Both feel she is going to do better in the states because of Obama's issues and Clinton hitting strong on issues.

    [ Parent ]
    McCaskill Has Been Quiet For Days (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:03:05 PM EST
    She may have been quiet but I bet her phones have not been. Her staff has probably been getting an earful since the videos were played in the MSM.

    Prior to Clinton being "branded as a racist" she had a chance to win the state. Even she might now not be able to win here. Obama IMO has no chance of winning here.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:05:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Clinton/Obama could still make it (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:19:46 PM EST
    I swear, if we don't end up with a Clinton/Obama team I'm going to turn off my internet connection and play Zoo Tycoon until McCain is inaugerated.

    [ Parent ]
    Dianem, I'm already doing that ... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:47:25 PM EST
    in the last couple of days I've spent much of the time I usually devote to blogs to playing CAESAR IV.

    I may not be able to fix the problems in America.  But the virtual people in my simulated Roman cities are happy.

    [ Parent ]

    Nell (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by nell on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:36:00 PM EST
    McCaskill had this to say:

    http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/10551

    McCaskill: "There is no excuse" for controversial pastor's statements
    Sen. Claire McCaskill said Wednesday she could not defend some statements from controversial minister Jeremiah Wright -- Sen. Barack Obama's pastor.

    "I'm not trying to give him an excuse," McCaskill told reporters. "There is no excuse" for the statements, which included suggestions that America was responsible for 9-11 and that the country should be "damned" for its actions in the past.

    But McCaskill did not completely back away from a comment made earlier this week that Wright's statements were taken out of context.

    "There are good works obviously this man (Wright) has done," McCaskill said; his comments, she said, should be compared in context with those efforts.

    She also praised Obama's speech.

    "He, for the first time, I think, as a black leader in America, has come to the American people not as a victim, but rather as a leader."

    I personally found the last statement very odd, and perhaps offensive.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:42:54 PM EST
    that is along the lines of......    Beyer said Obama's "warmth" and his early opposition to the war in Iraq are big selling points with female voters. "In many ways, he really will be the first woman president," she said.

    With friends like that, who needs enemies.  What did she mean?????

    [ Parent ]

    According to the MO crosstabs, she's wrong (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:05:41 PM EST
    The SurveyUSA MO poll shows that while the male vote stays fairly static whether McCain runs against Hillary or Obama (57-38 vs. 54-37, respectively), the female vote swings from 40-52 in favor of Hillary but 51-40 in favor of McCain if Obama is the Dem candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    I have (none / 0) (#181)
    by sas on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:00:02 PM EST
    seen similar data here in PA.

    If Hillary is the nominee, the state titls Democratic.  If Obama is the nominee, the state turns to McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't Think That Will Work (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:46:19 PM EST
    I doubt the moderate and conservative Dems and the Republicans in the state will take the same view as McCaskill is taking. What Obama needed to do was lead his way out of that church when he first heard those types of sermons.

    [ Parent ]
    Holy Cow. (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:48:14 PM EST
    That is one of the most offensive things I've ever read regarding this whole thing. And from a backer of Obama??? Just WOW.

    [ Parent ]
    No longer an AG (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:57:48 PM EST
    position available to her any longer after that one I would imagine.

    [ Parent ]
    Imagine if Ferraro had said that (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:16:44 PM EST
    Obama was finally not a victim!!!
    My god, McCaskill must be SUCH a racist!


    [ Parent ]
    Huh (3.66 / 3) (#152)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:58:33 PM EST
    "He, for the first time, I think, as a black leader in America, has come to the American people not as a victim, but rather as a leader."

    Jesse Jackson when to the country as a victim? And people thought Bill Clinton dissed Jesse Jackson?  Jeez Louise.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: Huh (none / 0) (#161)
    by claudius on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:18:17 PM EST
    McCaskill is talking about Obama as a black leader here.  Has nothing to do with Jackson or any other black leaders.  Please try to read the quotations carefully.

    [ Parent ]
    So, was he a victim before? (none / 0) (#164)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:20:47 PM EST
    or did she just insult Jesse Jackson?

    [ Parent ]
    No kidding (none / 0) (#162)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:19:17 PM EST
    That's bad enough.  It's never been about dissing anyone, except Obama his own self.

    [ Parent ]
    If I were a lower level Clinton supporter (none / 0) (#167)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:31:57 PM EST
    with some public profile, I would use M's words to play a trick: I would say them in an interview or on TV---verbatim---wait for the predictable screeching, and then pull out the McCaskill quote.

    [ Parent ]
    Go to a pro-Obama (none / 0) (#189)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:24:32 PM EST
    site and do the same thing.

    [ Parent ]
    And ... the Kennedys? Where oh (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:18:13 PM EST
    where is Caroline now?

    [ Parent ]
    hair appointment? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:08:10 PM EST
    where is Caroline now?

    I think after not winning Super Tuesday for Obama, they found other things to keep them busy.

    [ Parent ]

    I was wondering (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:10:30 PM EST
    that before this Wright stuff. Were they embarrassed that their campaigning didn't work in CA and MA and that those voters basically told them No thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    She is probably reaquainting herself (none / 0) (#183)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:05:17 PM EST
    with that privacy book she wrote.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree, and if Obama would become the nominee (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:59:10 PM EST
    he would be viewed as a Pretender and the race as fixed. And trouble across the board for so many sins comes Nov. unfortunately.  Disenfranchising voters who would have ever thought the Dem Party of all groups would do that.

    [ Parent ]
    Great (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by tek on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:10:29 PM EST
    isn't it?  The first black prez candidate trying to disenfranchise voters.  Yep, that's the agent of hope and change right there.

    [ Parent ]
    the new york times, the same new (none / 0) (#201)
    by cy street on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:45:37 PM EST
    york times that endorsed hillary disagrees.

    [ Parent ]
    Shameful (5.00 / 18) (#8)
    by Grey on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:47:15 PM EST
    I've been following the latest on MI and FL today and getting more livid by the minute.

    According to this post, after Govs. Rendell and Corzine wrote to Gov. Granholm that they had secured funding for a whole new primary in MI, Sen. Obama responded by saying this:

    "This letter from some of Clinton's biggest campaign contributors eliminates any pretense that Clinton's efforts in Michigan are about anything other than an attempt to bankroll an election..."

    This is shameful.  First, Obama says he'll follow DNC rules.  The DNC writes a letter and says that MI's plans for a new primary are perfectly fine, but Obama insists there are "legal problems" and, besides, who'll raise the money?  The money is raised, and Obama comes back with Clinton is trying to "bankroll" the election.  Are you kidding me?  Enough!

    Clinton should absolutely not drop out and Obama, if he can manage it, should attempt to care about all 50 states.

    Wow! (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:48:29 PM EST
    What a joke. Obama has been disgraceful on this.

    Is there even ONE honest Obama supporter, besides me, who can criticize him for this?

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary can (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:08:56 PM EST
    win this prior to the convention without Michigan and Florida.   She needs to win out--and big.  If Obama is truly imploding and the polls continue in downward trajectory, she could rackup a series of 20+ wins, and if she wins Indiana and North Carolina, she could then make her case to the Super Delegates......

    The SDs were designed as a safety valve--not as a mechanism to make up for a deficient campaign....Maybe she could convince Democrats that there is a true emergency at hand.

    As to a re-vote, if Obama is not imploding, he should do relatively well in Michigan.....and have a greater claim to the nomination....In some ways, his refusal to do a re-vote plays into Hillary's hands--it strengthens her claims that the SDs can step in because it has not been a democratic process......

    Wright + no re-vote=SDs stepping in for Hillary?  A terrible way to nominate someone--but that appears to be where this is headed (at least today.)

    [ Parent ]

    I wonder (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by tek on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:11:51 PM EST
    about NC though.  Aren't the bulk of Dems AAS?  I doubt they will desert BO.

    [ Parent ]
    30%, I believe (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:15:57 PM EST
    apathy might keep them away.  We must remember that not all aa's approve of what Wright said, and that not all aa churches promote the hateful rhetoric coming from Wright.

    [ Parent ]
    That hateful rhetoric (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:18:40 PM EST
    has a cause....It is too easy to just dismiss it ....I'm not sure that the African American community would see it that way.

    [ Parent ]
    Not a chance (4.00 / 2) (#86)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:23:00 PM EST
    They have a chance to vote for a black President, and they won't pass it up. I don't think anybody holds that against them, and I don't think anybody begreudges them the experience. If Obama were totally unqualified or didn't have a shot at winning, they might stay home. As it is, they will show up in droves.

    [ Parent ]
    "They"? (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:13:21 PM EST
    them.....

    [ Parent ]
    What's your point? (none / 0) (#187)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:21:17 PM EST
    I'm not black and I don't support Obama, "we" would be inappropriate.  I've never understood why it is "unmentionable" that black people would be proud to vote for a black candidate. I voted for Clinton for reasons having nothing to do with gender, but I was extremely proud to be voting for a woman, and would have gone out of my way to vote for her even if I knew that she didn't have a chance. I was responding to a comment about black people choosing to stay home because of apathy. I don't think that's likely.

    "They" is not always an insult, although it can be. The world is composed of a lot of different "us" and "them"'s. It's okay, in fact it's good, as long as we remember our similarities as well as our differences.

    [ Parent ]

    Current poll (4.33 / 3) (#72)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:16:07 PM EST
    out today shows only one point Obama lead in NC....

    The premise is that Obama is crashing.....and Hillary can pick up the pieces....If he isn't, then her road to the nomination doesn't really exist....

    [ Parent ]

    I was surprised (4.00 / 2) (#113)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:41:55 PM EST
    at that poll given the demographics.  Who did the poll?  I'd be interested to see how many were polled and the dates covered.

    [ Parent ]
    Here is (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:10:23 PM EST
    the  Post at Huff

    Key observation: "The rules for voting in the North Carolina primary probably work to Clinton's advantage. Obama has done very well in states with open primaries because of his strong support from Republican and independent voters. But North Carolina has a closed primary with the exception of unaffiliated voters, who may choose which party's ballot they want to cast. Right now they're only making up 12% of the Democratic primary electorate."


    [ Parent ]
    I'm confused: WHO does better among (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:45:27 PM EST
    Republicans and Independents?   To hear the Obama supporters tell it, he does because they are powerfully drawn to his inclusive message but when the actual outcome shows that Hillary won that demographic, they say it's because of Rush Limbaugh and a tactic to get an easy mark in the GE.  

    I mean, folks, which is it?

    [ Parent ]

    3/17 (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:11:20 PM EST
    one day poll by PPD of 521 likely voters.  I'm having trouble accessing the demographics....

    But that same poll only showed a 4 point Obama lead on 3/3/08.

    [ Parent ]

    One point Obama lead in NC (4.00 / 1) (#133)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:14:58 PM EST
    Do you have the link ? Yesterdday I saw a seven point Obama lead.

    [ Parent ]
    RCP (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:18:32 PM EST
    Poll

    [ Parent ]
    No. (4.00 / 1) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:14:29 PM EST
    Simple answers to....

    [ Parent ]
    I can! (4.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ROK on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:29:13 PM EST
    I don't understand his reasoning on this issue and with each day that passes it seems to get a little foggier.

    Still, I think he will still win even with MI and FL being seated as is...

    Primary Totals:  

    Clinton   13244023

    Obama   13334829

    Caucus Totals:

    Clinton  188054

    Obama  390238

    Overall Totals:

    Clinton  13432077

    Obama  13725067

    Obama should have allowed them to be seated without a fuss and he (and the Dems) could have avoided this mess.

    Again, I think that he will maintain his lead regardless.


    [ Parent ]

    Those numbers are from CNN... (4.00 / 1) (#99)
    by ROK on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:32:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Didn't (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:48:41 PM EST
    Corzine and Rendell say that Obama should put up the other half?  Then it wouldn't be "Bankrolled" by one candidate' supporters, but also wouldn't be as good a soundbite.

    [ Parent ]
    it's been suggested on more than on (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:54:25 PM EST
    occasion that each campaign raise half the funds to run the 2 re-votes. the Obama campaign has been less than receptive from what i have seen.

    we need to run re-votes, imo. not liking our chances without in Nov

    [ Parent ]

    That (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by tek on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:13:08 PM EST
    suggestion was actually made before the two governors came out with their money.  James Carville  said he had $15 mil and then the govs have $15 mil, so that covers the entire cost of the primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    Burton vs. Penn (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by standingup on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:55:19 PM EST
    It is turning into a race to the bottom.  

    [ Parent ]
    Not a good day for that attitude (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:07:30 PM EST
    It was on both CNN and Fox today that the money was not an issue.  That it was perfectly appropriate to use soft money to support the states in paying for expensive elections.  I am willing to donate and I don't appreciate my piddly little donation being disparaged in this fashion.  It's garbage.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama Treats This Like a Law School Game (none / 0) (#196)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:24:01 PM EST
    In addition to going back on his word to follow DNC wishes, there's this revealing bit:

    (From a Perry Bacon story in the Wapost in August 2007)

    "It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. ...
    And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.
    "Pete's very good at looking around the corners of decisions and playing out the implications of them," Obama said an interview when asked about that discussion. "He's been around long enough that he can recognize problems and pitfalls a lot quicker than others can."

    IMO there are several troubling things about this. Obama doesn't seem to grasp the impact of his positions on the nation.  The only argument that appeals to him is the impact a decision might have on HIS political future. Although all politicians make political calculations most have some regard for the public interest as they perceive that interest.  

    In the re-vote debate Obama slithers out of a commitment by aluding to some unspecified 'legal problems.'

    If he wins the nomination having prevented participation by Michigan and Florida, people in other states will see this as a win using 'legal tricks' and they ain't gonna like it.

    [ Parent ]

    what if what she wants (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:47:25 PM EST
    is the chance to prove she can win?

    Exactly. (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:52:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ever since the first round (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:56:08 PM EST
    of SUSA 50-state polls, I've felt that Hillary has a stronger map to start with.

    Does anyone thing Obama will be ahead in the next SUSA Virginia poll? I don't.

    [ Parent ]

    it's still unclear to me (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:57:43 PM EST
    how wright and the speech play out.

    [ Parent ]
    The media lapped it up (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:59:01 PM EST
    but it won't be enough for November.

    If Obama is our nominee, I believe he will lose.

    [ Parent ]

    i'm not even sure (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:01:54 PM EST
    how it plays in the remaining primaries. if she wins huge in pa, and then also wins indiana and nc...

    [ Parent ]
    If she wins PA HUGE (15 pt margin or more) (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:03:48 PM EST
    and then goes on to win NC by 5-10 pts and IN by the same, she'll be the nominee IMO.

    That's a tall order.

    [ Parent ]

    She wouldn't need (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:13:03 PM EST
    a re-vote in Michigan or Florida, and a lot of time and money would have been saved, assuming she wins as you describe......

    [ Parent ]
    she can't win nc by 5-10 (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:33:18 PM EST
    3-5 would be max. but even that, with a huge win in pa and a solid win in indiana would be very telling.

    [ Parent ]
    The Republican 527s Will Be Airing Snippets (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:06:59 PM EST
    of those videos full time if Obama is the nominee. Speeches will not save Obama when that happens. I agree we will lose the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by nell on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:42:27 PM EST
    Even if you think Wright's anger is justified, the anger in the videos is shocking to most people and they are not going to be digging deep into Wright's state of mind and looking for ways to excuse his anger and his words. Very few will see those 527 advertisements and then go back to watch a 40 minute speech Obama made on race...

    The connections run deep enough in this case that it will be very easy for the 527s to run with this.

    That is not to say they won't attack Clinton if she is the nominee, but she is more defined, and most people take what is said about her by the right wing with a big grain of salt.

    [ Parent ]

    Been there, done that (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:46:38 PM EST
    With Clinton it is the same old, same old.  Clinton's a pol through and through.  Everyone already knows it.  How many times can you trot out the old stories before you just annoy everyone.

    [ Parent ]
    I think even the MSM is starting to slowly ... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:44:09 PM EST
    realize the speech was a dud.  In one day, they've gone from perfect performance to a "speech for adults" which was unconvincing to key swing groups.

    [ Parent ]
    Just Love All The Ways That The MSM (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:03:02 PM EST
    and some of Obama's supporters who appear on the media have found to insult people who do not buy into Obama.

    We are racists, undereducated, and now childish. I'm sure all these labels are a sure fire way to get people to vote for him in the GE.


    [ Parent ]

    It's certainly the norm in the (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Joelarama on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:21:18 PM EST
    left blogosphere (I can no longer bring myself to call it "prgressive").

    This Wright thing puts it all in perspective for me.  I understand what Wright is saying.  But many, many progressives and liberals I know are deeply offended by him.  They question Obama's judgment in staying with Wright for 20-odd years, and are suspicious of Obama's various statements about whether he heard any of these sermons.  

    These people who consider "God Damn America" hate speech do not hold that view because they are racists.  Frankly, I think it's largely a generational thing.  

    Obama's attempt to explain those sermons in terms of race will not convince these people.  In fact, I think it may backfire and reflect negatively on his judgment.

    Of course, if I posted the above comment at Daily Kos, I would be labeled a concern troll, at the very least, or even a racist as things have devolved over there.

     

    [ Parent ]

    I actually agree (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:01:34 AM EST
    with most of what Wright said in those clips (except, of course, the appalling crap about AIDS having been invented by the government to commit genocide against black people).

    But what's troubling to me is the terrible political judgment on Obama's part, right up to the present.  There's an other-worldly quality to the guy that seems to appeal to a lot of people, but it makes me shudder in a politician, and particularly a president.

    [ Parent ]

    the short answer is "hell no!" (none / 0) (#197)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:33:17 PM EST
    Does anyone thing Obama will be ahead in the next SUSA Virginia poll?

    sen. obama, not surprisingly, will probably maintain his grip on the AA vote, everywhere. can you blame them? if it was ok for irish-catholics to vote reflexively for john kennedy, i have no problem with the AA community doing the same for sen. obama.

    however, and this is still a HUGE however, that community is only 12-13% of the total electorate, probably 85% of which is concentrated in the former confederate states. those states will, more likely than not, vote republican come nov., regardless of who the dem. nominee is.

    unless that other 15% of the 12-13% AA vote can swing states outside the south, sen. obama is inherently unelectable in the GE. his demos in the open primaries prove it.

    the wright situation, rezko, and who knows what all else pops up between now and nov. will make him completely untenable as the dem. nominee.

    the best thing sen. obama could do, for the party and the country, is declare moral victory, and concede the nomination to the more electable candidate, sen. clinton.

    prove me wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    re final paragraph: whose words are (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:53:22 PM EST
    these and where does the quotation end?  Thanks.

    Got it--footnote. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:10:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    On those pragmatic grounds (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:55:28 PM EST
    that Bowers puts it on, it's hard to disagree. But it will still be a non-legitimate result if the re-do plan goes forward. It will disenfranchise all those voters who didn't vote in the initial primary or who would have been voting Dem but voted R instead because they were told the Dem one wouldn't count.

    They might as well just negotiate seating half of FL as is and some proportion of MI and save everyone a lot of trouble, because a re-do - at least as it's currently envisioned - will fix nothing that that won't as well.

    Live by non-partisan registration (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:57:43 PM EST
    die by non-partisan registration.

    What's to stop all or most of the Republicans showing up again this time to vote for the person they perceive to be weaker that week?

    [ Parent ]

    There are records from the first run (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:06:06 PM EST
    showing who voted.  And I read that Michiganders ask for one party ballot or the other, and that voters this time would sign a pledge saying they had not voted in the Democratic primary before and know that it would be breaking the law to do so again.  So if it's close, and one candidate wants to challenge votes, they start checking against the record. . . .

    Of course, this may have changed or still could change.  And/or in my precinct, records of who voted previously are right in front of pollworkers.  But I bet those records aren't updated from the previous primary yet.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, make that -- (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:30:26 PM EST
    . . . a pledge saying they had not voted in the Republican primary before, i.e., the most recent one.

    [ Parent ]
    They've talked about using them (4.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:35:56 PM EST
    or maybe even records from 2004. Now which candidate do you think that would heavily favor, hmmm, let me think...

    [ Parent ]
    No 2004 records (none / 0) (#202)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:51:29 PM EST
    Michigan has no partisan registration.  

    During the Jan. 15 primary people had to request a Democratic or Republican ballot.  That information was recorded at the precinct level.

    The proposed primary law stipulates that people who voted in the January 15 Republican primary are NOT allowed to vote in the new Democratic primary.

    Voters in the new Democratic primary, if it comes off, must sign an affidavit declaring that they did not vote in the January 15 Republican primary.

    [ Parent ]

    A good argument for (4.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:04:07 PM EST
    closed primaries. They all should be. But that was not the case here, and changing the rules in midstream to benefit one candidate over the other is not gonna get you to anything more legit than where we are now, which is a gd mess.

    [ Parent ]
    Keeping the rules (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:07:00 PM EST
    would give us a primary with almost no Republicans.

    YOU want to change to rules by allowing people to vote in a second primary for a different party.

    [ Parent ]

    No (4.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:15:37 PM EST
    I don't want that. I'm just pointing out why any new result will also be illegitimate. I don't think a re-do will solve anything that a negotiated settlement won't.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:01:50 PM EST
    Better to disenfranchise them all. Kid Oakland logic at work.

    [ Parent ]
    They never were enfranchised (2.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    The party stated in very clear terms that the MI primary didn't count.

    As you've said elsewhere, there's no absolute right to vote in a primary.

    The voters of MI will be enfranchised when they go to the polls in the GE. By your own logic, it doesn't matter who they vote for in a do-over, Obama will be the Dem nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    Even betterr (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:21:44 PM EST
    Do NOT even enfranchise them.

    Even better Kid Oakland logic.

    [ Parent ]

    And yours is magical thinking (2.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:32:18 PM EST
    that you can wave the "revote" wand and make all the very real structural problems re disenfranchisement, illegitimacy, and privileging one candidate over the other just go away.

    Added bonus for you - you get to incessantly bash "your" candidate as being to blame for all of it!!!

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:34:53 PM EST
    I am the one expecting elections to be perfect. Sheesh.

    You are absurd tonight.

    [ Parent ]

    Less absurd than you (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:48:04 PM EST
    The sky is falling and it's all Obama's fault!

    At least I'm realistic enough to recognize the real problems that are still inherent here and that a negotiated solution will be the one closest to dealing with them. There is no perfect solution, only less-bad ones.

    But then I'm not interested in taking advantage of whatever opportunity presents itself to endlessly bash my non-preferred candidate and try to drive up negatives. You will certainly have done your part in that regard come November.

    [ Parent ]

    It's everyone else's fault (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:53:30 PM EST
    that Obama crashed as quickly as he rose!

    pfffft

    [ Parent ]

    BTD can be proud of his handiwork (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    in that regard when November comes.

    You? Well, pfft just about covers your impact.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank, you Antonin Scalia! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:24:41 PM EST
    We're honored by your presence.

    [ Parent ]
    The Huff Obama (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by facta non verba on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:56:48 PM EST
    If you were to look at the Huff Obama right now, you would perhaps think that the race now was the general election because it's Obama versus McCain with nary a mention of Clinton on the front page. Ignorance is bliss or some such. I checked out the Thomas Edsall blog "Did Obama win over white-swing voters?" Apparently not I am shocked to report, it took me a while to find a pro-Obama comment.

    The pro-Obama blogs are trying to make the best of a bad situation. As they are slightly ahead, they simply want the clock to expire so they can play again. It doesn't quite work that way. He's damaged goods. There is buyer's remorse and yes people feel that they have been had. Deception is a bitter pill to swallow.

    HuffPo (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by tek on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:15:14 PM EST
    always acts like Obama's the nominee, no, the President.  So disgraceful, Arianna Huffington bashing a woman candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    she is in it for herself. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:56:03 PM EST
    She made her money the old fashioned way: she married it.  She is nothing except a high price air head.

    [ Parent ]
    ouch (none / 0) (#198)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:42:02 PM EST
    this just plain reads ugly, insulting, dismissive and probably not the type of comment for TalkLeft.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh (4.50 / 2) (#73)
    by tek on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:17:38 PM EST
    and I meant to say:  only go to HuffPo to see what the opposition's up to.  John Stuart Mill:  Know Your Opposition.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:52:24 PM EST
    that would be better attributed to Sun Tzu... I would consider McCain to be the enemy.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: your comment footnote (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Coldblue on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:58:16 PM EST
    At this point Hillary should continue to 'soldier on' as the media was fond of saying a month ago. The party leadership has caused the problem, imho.

    If that means a brokered convention, so be it. I have doubts that Sen Obama would prevail in the general election should he be the Democratic nominee as of today, or after a contested convention.

    Not to mention all that advertising revenue. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:03:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Brokered convention (none / 0) (#176)
    by diogenes on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:51:13 PM EST
    If this were a brokered convention then they would pick a Gore-Obama ticket; none of Hillary's negatives and less anger from Blacks since Obama wasn't supplanted by Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Less anger (none / 0) (#180)
    by Coldblue on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:58:04 PM EST
    from blacks, more anger from women maybe?

    Pick your suppression, but do count the potential.

    [ Parent ]

    Definitely (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by sas on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:14:13 PM EST
     more anger from women.

    Women  - about 60% of the party

    Blacks - anyone have that figure - is it 30%

    [ Parent ]

    Do You Think Wright Goes Away (none / 0) (#184)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:06:14 PM EST
    if Obama is the VP?

    [ Parent ]
    of course not (none / 0) (#199)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:43:32 PM EST
    If it's a problem, it's a problem whether he is on top or bottom of ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    TN Gov wants SDs to meet (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:01:33 PM EST
    The Tenn Gov was on Fox today.  They are looking at getting the superdelegates together in June.  He says the supers have all the data they need and they need to fish or cut bait.  He wants them to get together and make their decisions in June so the candidate has the summer to pull the party back together.  They are looking at their individual schedules.

    The governor states that the supers have all the info they need now, but when asked, stated he was undecided.

    That seems a reasonable plan to me (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:02:46 PM EST
    so long as all of the voters have voted.

    Better that MI and FL get a say, though.

    [ Parent ]