home

Self Interest

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:13:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

What do pols care about the most? My consistent answer has been that they care about winning their own elections above all else. Of course, they won't say it that way. They will argue, and maybe even believe, that there is nothing more important to the commonweal than their election to office.

Steve Benen cites Jon Chait:

An easier question to answer is, How much does Clinton value her own interests versus those of the Democratic Party? And here the answer is very clear: Clinton is acting as if she doesn’t care about the Democratic Party’s interests at all, except insofar as they coincide with her own.

Benen's response gets it right:

[A]t Clinton HQ right now, a team of advisors are likely thinking, “If Obama’s the nominee, Democrats lose. We may be the only ones who realize it, and we may only have a 10% shot, but we need to keep fighting . . . in order to save the party and protect the party’s interests.”

As I say, pols ALWAYS think their election is critical to the interests of the party and the Nation. What I find ironic is when faced with, at the least, similar action by Obama, the same handwringers have not a word to say. And yes, I am talking about Obama blocking the revotes in Florida and Michigan - which undoubtedly were in the best interests of the Democratic Party. Not one of these pundits has ever stated the obvious - Obama put his own interests before those of the Democratic Party. They have no credibility in their handwringing about Clinton in my mind.

Related - The latest low from a once proud Democratic online community here. What an embarrassment that community has become.

[Update (TL): Comments now closed.]
< Obama's Potential Path To The Nomination | Does Anyone Care About The Rules?! Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Self Interest | 216 comments (216 topical)
    But, surely you know Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:18:40 PM EST
    name wasn't even on the ballot in MI and nary a soul knew who he was in FL.  I am sooo sick of this.  Which is why Carville is so refreshing, albeit abrasive.

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:28:17 PM EST
    that's why only 500,000+ people voted for him in FL.  Please, that's more people than many caucus totals!  

    Other than BTD--why hasn't anyone pointed out that BO's road to the nomination by blocking FL and MI is the exact reason he may loose the GE?  I just don't get it, aren't there any Dems who want a fighter and someone who will, you know, win?  

    I used to defend the argument that seating MI as is wasn't fair to BO b/c he took his name off.  But after he agreed to whatever the DNC said and then still refused the re-vote, I say, too bad.  He had two chances in MI, now we need to do what is best for the general.  

    Can anyone really see going into August without FL and MI?  I just can't.  Maybe I have too much faith that eventually they'll do the right thing...    

    Seriously (none / 0) (#20)
    by AmyinSC on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:41:16 PM EST
    Who knew there were do-overs for failed campaign strategies??  I have to say, THAT is certainly "new Politics!"

    Didn't Obama have ads run in MI telling his supporters to vote Uncommitted??  So, give him the Uncommitted votes - he's still making out better since SOME Of those votes must belong to Edwards!

    [ Parent ]

    I think Florida is like (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:51:21 PM EST
    the Republicans and New Jersey: tantalizingly close but really out of reach.  In 2000, Florida was close most likely because Lieberman was on the ticket.....

    Michigan should come around in the Fall for the Democrats.

    [ Parent ]

    Except it's not (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:58:55 PM EST
    Clinton win in 1996 and AHEM Gore won in 2000. SUSA says Hillary has a very good chance to win there.

    Here's a fun game for you: find me a reasonable scenario where a Republican or a Democrat can win the election when the other candidate has won FL, OH, and PA.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you really believe Obama could lose (none / 0) (#53)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:01:40 PM EST
    PA in November? If so, why? The Wright stuff?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes and yes (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:05:01 PM EST
    Though race WAS a problem before. My Governor may often stick his foot in his mouth, but he frequently tells the truth.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama would lose anyway in PA. (none / 0) (#162)
    by sas on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:20:40 PM EST
    was going to lose PA, regardless of the Wright stuff.

    PA is the second or third oldest state in the nation, and older voters don't like him much. They do not find him inspiring. They've heard the change/hope argument so many times before from other politicians.  They want specifics.

    There are alot of working class whites here who do not identify with Obama.  The college educated group is split basically down the middle, and young people are about even for the candidates.

    PA is Ohio squared.

    He would have lost here by 10 before the Wright thing, but now he'll probably lose by fifteen.

    [ Parent ]

    I want a fighter and a winner, too! (none / 0) (#40)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:56:57 PM EST
    "I just don't get it, aren't there any Dems who want a fighter and someone who will, you know, win?"

    It seems to me that Obama supporters have a candidate who is fighting and winning ... against an "inevitable" candidate no less. More delegates is winning.  

    I'm happy to support a campaign that DOES NOT believe it has only a 10% chance to win the nomination.  

    The Mark Penn strategic blunders that included ignoring the word "caucus," failing to jump in earlier in Iowa, not implementing solid ground organizations until it was too late, failing to use the internet wisely, also included the failure to request re-votes in Florida and Michigan in a timely fashion.

    Are the strategic blunders noted in the paragraph above those of a "winning" campaign?    

    [ Parent ]

    However ... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:21:44 PM EST
    ... until Obama reaches the 2,024 delegate threshold necessary to secure the nomination, he hasn't "won" anything. And if he can't count to 2,024 on the convention floor in Denver next August, he's not going to win.

    It's like baseball, when the pitcher has to record the last out in the bottom of the ninth. Absent that last out, the game will continue. Only difference is that you don't short-circuit the election process and call the election on account of rain.


    [ Parent ]

    What about the mercy rule? ; ) (none / 0) (#122)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:41:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    this... (none / 0) (#137)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:53:12 PM EST
    isn't little league where the mercy rule applies.

    This is the big leagues and only she decides when to call it, or not call it.

    What are Obama supporters so worried about? Getting their clocks cleaned the rest of the way? If so, some candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, please stop it. This is so dumb. (none / 0) (#199)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:27:31 PM EST
    I'm happy to support a campaign that DOES NOT believe it has only a 10% chance to win the nomination.  

    I am too. In fact, I'm happy that I'm smarter than to mistake a paraphrased, unattributed quote in a RW online rag for what the campaign of my candidate is really thinking.

    Do you realize what you do to your credibility when you repeat this as though it were established fact?

    [ Parent ]

    As a Florida voter I do blame Obama (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:36:36 PM EST
    2000 Election I voted for Gore.  As a Florida democratic voter, I resent any politician that is in favor of disenfranching voters, and with Florida's track record it amounts to not only a slap by Obama but a double slap by the DNC.  With the DNC and Obama as the nominee, you might as well color Florida red in the GE.  No need to g d America, but g d the DNC by handing McCaine the election.  And by the way, since Florida is a purple state, many crossover voters do not have a big problem voting for McCaine.  Iraq is not the only issue on the minds of Florida voters. BTW, many us feel that our state sanction election in January was legitimate.  

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by RickTaylor on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:39:39 PM EST
    Both candidates have been advocating what is clearly in their best interest. Hillary Clinton has called for the delegates to all be seated, even though she signed a pledge not to participate, neither candidate could campaign, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. While Obama argues the delegates should be split fifty fifty. By amazing coincidence, after careful deliberation, both candidates have decided the objectively right solution just happens to be the plausible solution that benefits them the most.

    What I don't understand is why Hillary Clinton didn't protest the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan before the candidates agreed not to participate. Why did she sign that agreement at all? It was clearly not in her interest. If she'd protested early, she'd be in much better shape now, her opponents would have a much harder time painting her actions as a naked grab to fix the game in her favor, and there would have been a better chance of her actually succeeding in having Michigan and Florida delegates counted.

    I can only think of two possibilities. On the one hand, maybe she just thought she had the election in the bag. Maybe she though she could win the nomination without those two states, and there was no point in raising a stink. Pride goeth before a fall.

    The other possibility is she didn't believe the DNC penalty would stick. She assumed she'd get the delegates, even with Obama not on the ballot in one state, and was happy with the advantage of reaping the delegates without to campaign.

    Neither of those explanations is flattering, but I can't honestly think of another. Either way, it was a bad miscalculation on her part.

    I ciriticized Clinton for that (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:43:42 PM EST
    Do you read this web site with any frequency?

    [ Parent ]
    Re: I criticized Clinton for that (none / 0) (#218)
    by RickTaylor on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:51:36 AM EST
    I'm fairly new here, and regardless I didn't mean my post to be a criticism of yours, or to imply you hadn't. I think I basically agree with you; shockingly, neither candidate is an angel. Maybe that's more important to point out in Obama's case as more people pretend otherwise with him.

    My final question was sincerely meant; I honestly don't understand why the Clinton campaign didn't challenge the DNC decision earlier. Maybe it would have had a political downside in some way I don't understand.

    [ Parent ]

    She didn't campaign in Michigan. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:33:00 PM EST
    However, I didn't see that pledge impeding the operatives from both the Obama and Edwards campaigns, who urged Democratic voters to cast their ballots for uncommitted. I also didn't see Clinton running TV ads in Florida

    And no, this wasn't a bad decision on the DNC's part. It was the DNC that royally screwed this up. If they wanted to punish both Michigan and Florida for moving those primaries forward, they should have stripped those states of their superdelegates, since they as elected officials were the individuals who actually acquiesced to move the primaries in the first place. Instead, they get to keep their status, while the voters of both states are disenfranchised for decisions not of their own making. Go figure.

    [ Parent ]

    Correction. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:34:17 PM EST
    This wasn't a bad decision on Hillary Clinton's part.

    [ Parent ]
    Have You (none / 0) (#28)
    by AmyinSC on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:46:51 PM EST
    Read the Pledge?  It was posted at this site not too long ago.  

    [ Parent ]
    This (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by tek on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:40:51 PM EST
    whole thing is the fault of the DNC.  From the beginning they have tried to skew the process to give the nomination to Obama even though the majority of traditional Democrats favored Clinton.  So, you could say, it's not so much the candidates who are guilty of thinking their election is essential to the country as it is the Dem insiders thinking that it's essential they get the candidate of their choice.  I find this every bit as elitist and undemocratic as the antics of the neoCons.  Disgusting.

    It's the fault of the state parties in FL & MI (none / 0) (#189)
    by Skex on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:53:02 PM EST
    Get it straight it isn't Dean's fault it isn't the national party's fault it isn't my fault and unless you are in either of their legislatures it isn't your fault.

    Obama did not stick a gun to the FL legislatures heads and say "you must jump ahead and break the party rules" Obama did not say "you can't change your primary date to come into compliance" no he didn't he doesn't have that power and would have had no reason too.

    Voters in both those states should hold the responsible party's responsible. That means their state legislatures of whom most of the democrats are Clinton supporters.

    Further more those states had 3 months to come up with a solution and just because they wait until the last minute to come up with a solution it suddenly becomes Obama's fault?

    Whatever
     

    [ Parent ]

    I've stayed out (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:45:56 PM EST
    of this particular blame game theme, mainly because it will solve nothing.

    But it seems so obvious that if politicians want to prove to the American public that they can solve the larger problems that we face, why is it that they can't solve one of the smaller and more pertinent problems that we face...disenfranchised voters?

    I have poked Obama for saying that the plan in MI was too 'complicated' primarily because no matter how you slice and dice it, if you can't solve a complicated matter such as reaching across the aisle and finding a way to work out a solution to this with your opponent, how can you sell the idea that you can work the 'other' party to get solutions?

    Forget the blame game...the challenge is here...now.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, do you know the facts about (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:46:26 PM EST
    Obama's TV advertising in FL?
    I read that he ran several ads per day for one month prior to the FL primary. He did this via regional or national ad buys, where he had the option of blacking out FL, but chose not to.
    Well, that is my understanding of what happened. Is this correct? Also, it would be interesting to see what national ad buys he made after 1/29, for comparison.

    I do (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:50:54 PM EST
    He ran national ads. I think it is irrelevant to the question.

    [ Parent ]
    How is it irrelevant? If he made national (none / 0) (#34)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:52:31 PM EST
    purchase solely to be able to run ads in FL, I think this gives a very good reason to seat the FL delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    You can win a blog argument with that (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:53:45 PM EST
    which is worth exactly nothing.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh really? How many ads did he run in FL? (none / 0) (#38)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:55:32 PM EST
    I think the answer to that question is both relevant and politically significant, if it is a large number. If there were only a few, then no.

    [ Parent ]
    As a Floridian from Broward County I felt like I (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:00:54 PM EST
    saw more than I should have on CNN especially since no other candidate ran ads. Oh, I forgot, I did have a Hillary bumpersticker on my car, does that count?

    [ Parent ]
    He ran a national ad that ran (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:24:52 PM EST
    in a very small portion of the NW corner of the state.  Flame on but Democracy will prevail and Obama will win.  Imgagine that.

    [ Parent ]
    Democracy? Count the votes! (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:28:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Broward county is in the NW corner? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:37:04 PM EST
    Wow.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:37:46 PM EST
    Then why did I see his ads on Orlando and Tampa television while I was there in mid-January?

    [ Parent ]
    There you go again!!! You're just making (none / 0) (#124)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:41:18 PM EST
    it hard for me to trust Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Not true (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:05:32 PM EST
    It was statewide on CNN.  I saw it in Orlando.

    [ Parent ]
    Misinformation Spreader? (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Jon on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:03:00 PM EST
    Either you are here to spread misinformation or you comment without bothering to verify the information you post.

    Either way, whenever I see your comments I immediately discount them. I'm sure I'm not alone in doing this.

    It's your reputation. Perhaps you don't care about it.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:57:52 PM EST
    You go with that and see if you can convince Donna Brazile with that argument.

    [ Parent ]
    I think the SD's will be interested in it. (none / 0) (#50)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:01:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    There is a troubling (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:46:40 PM EST
    pattern with Senator Obama taking credit for things other people have done.  First it was back in Illinois when he was getting ready to run for Senator and was given credit for all legislation whether he was the one who came up with the idea and the one who worked on it or not. (link) Then we find out that he has been doing something similar in DC. (link)

    Self-interest makes him want to take credit for things he didn't do.

    And yes I know people are accusing Hillary of padding her resume, but most of this is after the fact.  Ted Kennedy used to give her credit on SCHIP but now says she did next to nothing.  Last December the NYT panned her but at least gave her credit for going into Bosnia when it was considered unsafe for Bill. (link) Now people are saying all she did was have tea parties and sing with Sinbad.  She will win this argument in the end because she really has done a lot of things.  But Senator Obama has almost no foreign policy experience and even the legislative experience he claims belongs mostly to other people.

    This comment seems off topic to me (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:50:31 PM EST
    Explain the relevance to my post please Mike. We are strict on that.

    [ Parent ]
    Honestly I misread the (none / 0) (#62)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:09:59 PM EST
    topic at first.  Now that I look at it again, I see it had more to do with FL and MI than self-interest in general.  So let me expand in a way that is more related to that.  I think the change in popularity of Senator Obama, as more stories come out each day, contributes to the fear of revotes in both cases and that it is even more in his self-interest to avoid revotes than it was previously.  

    [ Parent ]
    sorry btd i just opined on it too. (none / 0) (#182)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:38:39 PM EST
    i will watch it. thanks

    [ Parent ]
    As an Obama supporter... (none / 0) (#47)
    by ItsGreg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:00:12 PM EST
    ...I have to admit that on pure policy wonkery, Hillary clearly outweighs Obama. She knows all the power players in Washington, and she'd be effective in developing policy. One of my concerns about her, though, is that she knows all the power players in Washington. And while I would expect her to be dependable in moving policy, I just don't think she'd do anything terribly original.

    As to "padding her resume" I think we expect all politicians to do that to some degree. She surely hurt herself with the snipers in Bosnia tall tale, but it wasn't a mortal wound.

    [ Parent ]

    I think she honestly (none / 0) (#70)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:13:11 PM EST
    confused two events.  Though I am not sure what the other event was.

    [ Parent ]
    She took two helicopter trips to army (none / 0) (#77)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:16:29 PM EST
    bases that day. Either one could have matched the details of her recollection more closely.

    [ Parent ]
    Possibly. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:25:02 PM EST
    Last December even when it was busy denying that she had any real Foreign Policy experience, the NYT at least gave her credit for going into Bosnia and Kosovo before it was considered safe for Bill.  It seems entirely possible that she is remembering a real trip but not this particular trip.  I am waiting to see what others who were there say.  I expect Togo West in particular to have more to say on this.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually I think that picture of her greeting (none / 0) (#96)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:26:45 PM EST
    the girl is lovely. It shows her in a very positive light.

    [ Parent ]
    Has someone come forward and said that (none / 0) (#90)
    by RLMcCauley on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:24:16 PM EST
    there was sniper fire at one of her events?

    [ Parent ]
    Not that I know of. n/t (none / 0) (#98)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:27:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I saw Morton Kondracke on C-Span (none / 0) (#83)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:20:36 PM EST
    interviewing several Dems and GOP on what the new administration will face in November. The first question by the GOP was about Hillary's experience, and Leon Panetta (stellar guy) gave her a boatload of credit for her 8 years as well as Mickey Kantor. Panetta is such a class act.

    [ Parent ]
    yes, that worries me even more than (none / 0) (#179)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:36:59 PM EST
    the obama campaign stragedy and actions. it speaks to lack of experience and reyling on others to make it right. i have a question and perhaps some better informed in this area can help. just what leglistation or action has obama ever undertaken for the welfare of aa voters? ok they are proud and rightly so of having him run. but so did jesse jackson. i don't count shapton though i enjoyed watching him in debates. personally with his flaws i like jackson better and actually trust him more. i believe he does care about the welfare of the aa community and the welfare of the democratic party.

    [ Parent ]
    This is so obvious! (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jen on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:03:56 PM EST
    (The linked orange place diary, I mean.) I think enough O supporters know he can't/won't win the GE, so they're setting it up so that if he's the nominee, when he loses, which he will, they have the excuse already in place. It's all Hillary's fault! They are so transparent it's almost laughable.

    Don't need excuses your (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:27:26 PM EST
    candidate was throwing dirt from DAY ONE!

    [ Parent ]
    That argument works both (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:09:45 PM EST
    ways....

    Tweety today made the argument that Hillary would prefer that McCain win against Obama (assuming she could not get the nomination herself), rather than wanting a Democrat to win, in order to set herself up for a run against a very old McCain in 2012.  Others on the panel tended to agree with Tweety....

    [ Parent ]

    Precisely the reason (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by jen on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:14:29 PM EST
    I turned off the teevee over a year ago and have never looked back.

    [ Parent ]
    Does anybody watch that (none / 0) (#88)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:23:17 PM EST
    windbag anymore?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama supporters (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:39:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    C-SPAN Radio played today's (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:06:13 PM EST
    Obama conference call, and if you wanted to listen to some self-interest, there were boatloads available from Mr. Plouffe.  After 10 minutes of Plouffe barely pausing for breath while he made sure to get in every single talking point and attack on Clinton that he could, I finally had to change the station; people look at you funny when you are alone in your car and screaming at the radio.  I'm sure the Clinton calls are much the same, and Obama supporters who listen to them probably feel the way I did - but, honest to Pete, I don't know how anyone can listen to that stuff day in and day out and not feel like they have worms eating through their brains.

    To listen to Plouffe, Hillary is killing the party, she has no chance to win, she's changing the rules every day, Bill Clinton has no business questioning anyone's patriotism, she's got to be hiding something in those tax returns, Obama is The One.  There was more, but you get the idea.

    I did have one chuckle - when someone from one of the Pittsburgh papers asked if a superdelegate "coup" was the only way Hillary could win, and if that happened, could the party survive...guess someone was reading kos today, huh?

    I Don't Get It (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Richjo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:14:48 PM EST
    If the race is essentially over as the Obama campaign claims it is, then why would it matter who gets to vote in Michigan and who doesn't? According to the logic of the Obama campaign the vote in Michigan or Florida for that matter won't really count anyway because there is no way Hillary can win the nomination. It seems therefore that not counting the delegates from the original vote or having a revote serves only to needlessly disenfranchise two very important states. It wouldn't seem to be in Obama the eventual nominee's self interest to do that. That would seem to be proof that the race is in reality far from over. As such I don't see how any arguments about Clinton damaging the party can be taken seriously until the party goes ahead and counts the orginal votes or allows revotes in Florida and Michigan. Only then would anyone have any really credibility to suggest that the race is over and therefore ciriticize Clinton.

    Disenfranchisement (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:18:23 PM EST
    is in the best interest of Obama, but I have a hard time seeing how that can be spun as in the best interest of the party.

    Oh, Man, that *is* embarrassing (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by goldberry on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:21:56 PM EST
    I hope I never wrote anything that stupid when I was there.  
    As for it being sickening that the Clintons are in my party, I have to agree.  They must be absolutely nauseous to see what a mess Howard Dean and David Axelrod have made of it.  I barely recognize it myself.  Sickening indeed

    See, why must (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by rooge04 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:43:39 PM EST
    some of you go over the edge??  Can you not talk strategy and electability without dropping ridiculous statements like the one you just did? Talk Left is NOT Daily Kos. Be ready with arguments and facts, not insults and ridiculous statements.  You might have missed the turn to Daily Kos on the internet.

    I just deleted the comment (none / 0) (#212)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:02:06 AM EST
    you are replying to. It was by stopcomplaining and act. He is warned.

    [ Parent ]
    Not only is she not mathematically eliminated (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:49:10 PM EST
    it's obvious that she won't be mathematically eliminated prior to the convention.

    The simple fact is that she has earned the right to stay in and hope that she wins on first ballot (super delegates) or subsequent ballots.

    So if we take on the notion of withdrawing 'for the good of the party' - the issue clearly is who is it that clarifies 'the good of the party'?

    Perhaps Bill Clinton since he is the only living 2 term Democratic president.

    Jimmy Carter?
    Al Gore?
    John Edwards?
    MSNBC?

    In the end, it has to make sense to her to withdraw.

    For others to demand that she withdraw is partisan and insulting to her own personal judgment.

    The events of the past few weeks have demonstrated that the process is fickle and can turn on a dime.

    The prospects that she will win the next primary, Pennsylvania by a substantial margin look great.

    As Mark Twain commented..."The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."

    It also insults women -- the Dem base -- (none / 0) (#207)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:24:43 PM EST
    but all we hear about is it will hurt feelings of others who are pressuring for the first woman ever to make it this far to give it up for the guy.

    We don't do that anymore.  The guy can tough it out against an opponent for the first time ever in his career.  The Chicago Way won't work this time.

    [ Parent ]

    Right idea but overly pessimistic (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by dwmorris on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:47:54 PM EST
    I agree that Clinton's team puts Obama's chances in the GE at 0% (which is probably spot on).  However, this idea that they are internally putting their odds at winning the nomination at 10% doesn't pass the smell test.  Bottom line - from an ethical perspective, the Clinton camp is absolutely operating in the best interests of the party (as well as the country and the world, for that matter).  The effort by Obamas partisans to bully her into dropping out is extraordinarily divisive, dangerous, and ill-considered.  If Obama is so fragile that we need to prop him up until the GE, he doesn't deserve the nomination.

    smell test (none / 0) (#196)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:07:24 PM EST
    I agree that 10% chance stuff just does not ring true.  More anonymously sourced dreck.

    [ Parent ]
    What do you mean I didn't imply (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:46:54 PM EST
    anything the Clinton campaign hasn't implied of Obama.  I'm not a supporter or directly linked to Obama don't start a new thread!

    Carville's comments (none / 0) (#2)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:23:44 PM EST
    put a pretty fine point on the what's-good-for-Hillary-is-good-for-the-country line of argument.

    It would seem that Hillary has fairly successfully scored points on the re-vote issue in spite of blocking a re-vote in Florida and saying months ago that the vote in Michigan wouldn't count....

    And, Obama didn't create this mess...At most, it can be said he didn't try to fix it....

    Seems to me he actively opposed fixing it. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:26:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Some certainly view it that way (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:32:01 PM EST
    The problem is that the re-vote issue in Michigan was floated with little time on the clock....The issue about letting Democrats who voted in the original Michigan Primary on the Republican side participate in the re-vote, was a legitimate one.   Markos, as I recall, asked for all Michigan Dems to vote on the Republican side to muck things up.....

    If Hillary really wanted a re-vote in Michigan she should have raised the issue earlier, and should have been consistent in seeking a re-vote in Florida too.

    Obama's forces in the Michigan may have slow-walked the proposal....but it did have problems....

    [ Parent ]

    I'm blaming MI on Kos. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:33:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm of the opinion... (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:40:28 PM EST
    ... that of all the groups whose interests needed protecting in the Michigan situation, "Democrats who went out of their way to vote for John McCain" ought to be pretty far to the back of the line.

    [ Parent ]
    AMAZING (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by ghost2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:10:40 PM EST
    His supporters don't have a problem with disenfrachising two big states, or not counting 1.7 million votes in Florida alone.

    But the right of a few nuts who want to vote in both R and D primaries in Michigan gives them 'concern', to the ultimate result of disenfrachising the whole state to prevent that from happening.  

    Reminds me of the definition of chutzpah!

    [ Parent ]

    California ran a recall in less time (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:57:26 PM EST
    It took about 3 months to organize a recall election in California. There was and is plenty of time to re-vote Michigan and Florida. The only reason this is dead in the water is that Obama has opposed it at every step.

    [ Parent ]
    Gray Davis was a turkey (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:13:41 PM EST
    The petitions were circulating for awhile....

    [ Parent ]
    There are no petitions here (none / 0) (#211)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:26:55 AM EST
    The date the recall was certified was when money was allocated for the recall. They had 76 days. There is no reason that a re-vote could not be completed in that amount of time.

    [ Parent ]
    At the risk you are already aware of this (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:26:34 PM EST
    fact, Obama did say quite recently he'd go along with whatever the DNC decided.

    [ Parent ]
    that's hardly a call (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by sancho on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:28:24 PM EST
    to enfranchise voters. especially since the DNC first disenfranchised them.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, no... (none / 0) (#23)
    by ItsGreg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:43:24 PM EST
    ...the DNC didn't disenfranchise the voters in Florida and Michigan; it was the state Democratic parties who did that by voting with the local Republicans to move their primaries after they'd been told it would result in the primaries not counting.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, yes (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:25:26 PM EST
    by inceasing the normal "penalty" from a 50% delegate ban to a "special" 100% delegate ban, the DNC did disenfranchise FL and MI.

    The DNC also added injury to the disenfranchisement by allowing 4-State Party Chairs to demand the candidates sign a "Pledge".

    [ Parent ]

    FL and MI (none / 0) (#193)
    by Skex on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:00:04 PM EST
    Tried to game the system and got smacked down. The DNC simply enforced party discipline which is their job. If Florida and Michigan voters want to be pissed off they need look no further than their own state legislatures.

    [ Parent ]
    So Hillary said back in November... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:02:17 PM EST
    that the votes won/t count, and we've heard that over and over.  But Obama also said he would finish his first term as senator before seeking higher office.  How come we don't hear that over and over?

    [ Parent ]
    What Hillary said ... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by plf1953 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:13:29 PM EST
    Please provide a link and the quote that you and many other Obama supporters keep trotting out as if its fact.

    You even seem to know exaclty when she said it.

    So, please find this and post it.


    [ Parent ]

    "This election they're (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:21:05 PM EST
    having [in Michigan] isn't going to count for anything."

    Here is the YouTube audio.

    [ Parent ]

    Is that approval? Sounds like she (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:23:05 PM EST
    is acknowledging a fact. So what?
    In FACT, the rules allow the MI delegates to be seated.

    [ Parent ]
    Not an Obama fan here! (none / 0) (#167)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:22:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by plf1953 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:25:42 PM EST
    I just get exasperated whenever anyone talks about "what Hillary said," becuase usually its a lie that has become conventional wisdom.

    [ Parent ]
    Time honored (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:05:32 PM EST
    tradition about breaking pledges not to run and to finish terms.....Bill did the same thing...

    The Michigan comment by Hillary goes right to the point....

    [ Parent ]

    In some ways (none / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:27:02 PM EST
    Hillary repeated Gore's mistake in 2000 of seeking a recount in only select counties instead of state-wide......Hillary wanted a re-vote in Michigan but not Florida?

    [ Parent ]
    And Obama made the mistake of being against (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:31:11 PM EST
    all recounts, just like Bush.

    That was too easy.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary could have made (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:34:31 PM EST
    a better case for a re-vote had she been more consistent and timely with her requests....

    Now, the situation is murky and she is not free from blame....

    [ Parent ]

    You just blamed Gore (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:58:04 PM EST
    For Bushco stealing the 2000 election.

    [ Parent ]
    Not really (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:03:41 PM EST
    Gore could have done things differently....That doesn't mean Bush is without blame....Lieberman shooting his mouth off that invalid military ballots should be counted didn't help much.....

    [ Parent ]
    uh uh uh (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:05:41 PM EST
    I know what you said.


    [ Parent ]
    Blame assignment for FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:11:40 PM EST
    DNC 70%    
    Obama 20%
    Clinton 10%

    Clinton and Obama have the excuse that they are looking out for their interest as they see it.  What's the DNC's excuse?


    [ Parent ]

    BS (none / 0) (#195)
    by Skex on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:05:17 PM EST
    State Legislatures 100%

    [ Parent ]
    How come the Republicans (none / 0) (#206)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:10:52 PM EST
    don't have this problem?

    [ Parent ]
    Unity (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:19:44 PM EST
    In an effort to unify the party, Obama should have taken the lead on this and been more consistent and timely with his responses to the state's request.

    Now the situation is unclear and he is not free from blame.

    [ Parent ]

    Ha Ha, back to the topic of this thread... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:21:11 PM EST
    ...Obama's interest in party unity revolves around unifying the party around him.

    [ Parent ]
    Plenty of blame (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:29:20 PM EST
    for all....

    [ Parent ]
    But he is not souly to blame (none / 0) (#103)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:30:32 PM EST
    either, although some on this blog will definitily tell you otherwise.

    [ Parent ]
    Who (none / 0) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:43:36 PM EST
    I think the majority here are equal opportunity blamers.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is an accessory after the fact (none / 0) (#9)
    by badger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:31:42 PM EST

        (a) Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal.
        (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.


    [ Parent ]
    I don't believe (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:32:25 PM EST
    Clinton blocked a revote in CA.


    [ Parent ]
    Candidates responsible for supporters ? (none / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:42:22 PM EST
    Hillary's supporters in the Florida Congressional Delegation vehemently opposed a re-vote in Florida.....

    In Michigan, Obama's supporters are viewed by some as having dragged their feet on a re-vote by making so many objections to it....

    Both Obama and Clinton can claim that they personally are not responsible....but their supporters did take certain positions....If we are to blame Obama for what his supporters did in Michigan, then the same should apply for Clinton in Florida...

    You meant, Florida, not California?....If you did mean California, I have certainly missed on this....

    [ Parent ]

    Yes. FL (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:46:38 PM EST
    And some of her other supporters put up the money for it.

    [ Parent ]
    You seem to miss the majority republican (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:53:53 PM EST
    legislature in Florida.  When the bill moving the primary date was submitted by the FL legislature it was tied to a paper trail to our electronic voting machines made by dietech.  Further Crist our repub gov stated that he would veto the legislation if the primary was not moved.  Dems (which do not amount to much in numbers) added an amendment changing the primary date to Feb 5, but of course it failed due to the numbers in the legislature.  To those of us in FL we know that a revote would be blocked as much as possible by the repubs in FL (some state cooperation would be required).  Add to this that we had record turn outs in the January vote and only Obama ran national ads and held a press conference in FL(Tampa in Sept), I say the playing field was level.  Clinton is realistic by saying just count the votes.

    [ Parent ]
    Benen's response gets it wrong (none / 0) (#12)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:32:35 PM EST
    Inventing a benign pretext for highly partisan advisers is complete silliness.


    [tagline censored]
    If they think that they're silly (none / 0) (#17)
    by RLMcCauley on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:40:27 PM EST
    Clinton is polling 55% with the AA community right now. She'll pull less than that if she goes into the convention with less pledged delegates and trailing in the popular vote but somehow convince enough supers to vote her way that she gets the nomination.

    That means, of course, that she loses to John McCain in the  GE and will be reviled.

    Not a good argument (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:42:51 PM EST
    Obma is doing 35% with Whites.

    Let me give you a piece of advice - Obama supporters should NEVER argue demographics. EVER.

    [ Parent ]

    Plus... (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:01:39 PM EST
    ...the unknown wild card that Clinton has in her favor is that in a general election the current dynamic of a white women running against a black man will change to a women running against an old white man. The subset of people that that feel they are choosing between being a racist and a sexist, will pick sexist everytime, but when Hillary is the only "historic underdog" in the race, she will pick up alot of support from women. Remember, for all the lamenting about losing black support, this country's registered voters are somehting like 9% black and 56% women.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree. It will be the woman who (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:10:13 PM EST
    will bring the soldiers home vs the old guy who will want to be there forever and "win". Women disapprove of Iraq by a much greater margin than do men.  And that is what will win in November.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree. It will be the woman who (none / 0) (#66)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:10:57 PM EST
    will bring the soldiers home vs the old guy who will want to be there forever and "win". Women disapprove of Iraq by a much greater margin than do men.  And that is what will win in November.

    [ Parent ]
    But the party is near 20% African-American (none / 0) (#69)
    by RLMcCauley on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:12:54 PM EST
    so if they stay home no Democrat can win.

    [ Parent ]
    if boomers stay home no Dem will win (none / 0) (#111)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:35:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't see hy they would but if you think they (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by RLMcCauley on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:40:36 PM EST